text:
# References

1. Introduction.

The basis problem of the many-worlds interpretation can be efficiently introduced by quoting a few exerpts from the entry ”Everett’s Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That entry is available online, and elaborates on the points summarized in the following passages:

> Everett’s relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to solve the measurement problem by dropping the collapse dynamics from the standard von Neumann-Dirac theory of quantum mechanics. The main problem with Everett’s theory is that it is not at all clear how it is supposed to work. In particular, while it is clear that he wanted to explain why we get determinate measurement results in the context of his theory, it is unclear how he intended to do this. There have been many attempts to reconstruct Everett’s no-collapse theory in order to account for the apparent determinateness of measurement outcomes. These attempts have led to such formulations of quantum mechanics as the many-worlds, many-minds, many-histories, and relative-fact theories. Each of these captures part of what Everett claimed for his theory, but each also encounters problems.
> …
> Everett’s no-collapse formulation of quantum mechanics was a reaction to problems that arise in the standard von Neumann-Dirac collapse theory. Everett’s proposal was to drop the collapse postulate from the standard theory, then deduce the empirical predictions of the standard theory as the subjective experiences of observers who are themselves treated as physical systems described by his theory. It is, however, unclear precisely how Everett intended for this to work. Consequently, there have been many, mutually incompatible, attempts at trying to explain what he in fact had in mind.
> …
> This is what Everett says: ”We shall be able to introduce into \[the relative-state theory\] systems which represent observers. Such systems can be conceived as automatically functioning machines (servomechanisms) possessing recording devices (memory) and which are capable of responding to their environment. The behavior of these observers shall always be treated within the framework of wave mechanics. Furthermore, we shall deduce the probabilistic assertions of Process 1 \[rule 4b\] as subjective appearances to such observers, thus placing the theory in correspondence with experience. We are then led to the novel situation in which the formal theory is objectively continuous and causal, while subjectively discontinuous and probabilistic. While this point of view thus shall ultimately justify our use of the statistical assertions of the orthodox view, it enables us to do so in a logically consistent manner, allowing for the existence of other observers.”
> …
> Everett’s goal then was to show that the memory records of an observer as described by his no-collapse theory would match those predicted by the standard theory with the collapse dynamics. The main problem in understanding what Everett had in mind is in figuring out how this correspondence between the predictions of the two theories was supposed to work.
> …
> Many Worlds
> DeWitt’s many-worlds interpretation is easily the most popular reading of Everett. On this theory there is one world corresponding to each term in the expansion of E when written in the preferred basis (there are always many ways one might write the quantum-mechanical state of a system as the sum of vectors in the Hilbert space; in choosing a preferred basis, one chooses a single set of vectors that can be used to represent a state and thus one chooses a single preferred way of representing a state as the sum of vectors in the Hilbert space). The theory’s preferred basis is chosen so that each term in the expansion of E describes a world where there is a determinate measurement record. Given the preferred basis (surreptitiously) chosen above, E describes two worlds: one where $`J`$ (or perhaps better $`J1`$) determinately records the measurement result ”spin up” and another where $`J`$ (or $`J2`$) determinately records ”spin down”.
>
> DeWitt and Graham describe their reading of Everett as follows: ”\[Everett’s interpretation of quantum mechanics\] denies the existence of a separate classical realm and asserts that it makes sense to talk about a state vector for the whole universe. This state vector never collapses and hence reality as a whole is rigorously deterministic. This reality, which is described jointly by the dynamical variables and the state vector, is not the reality we customarily think of, but is a reality composed of many worlds. By virtue of the temporal development of the dynamical variables the state vector decomposes naturally into orthogonal vectors, reflecting a continual splitting of the universe into a multitude of mutually unobservable but equally real worlds, in each of which every good measurement has yielded a definite result and in most of which the familiar statistical quantum laws hold.”
> …
> Perhaps more serious, in order to explain our determinate measurement records, the theory requires one to choose a preferred basis so that observers have determinate records (or better, determinate experiences) in each term of the quantum-mechanical state as expressed in this basis.

These quotes from Barrett’s 1998 article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy emphasize the central importance of specifying a basis, and it gives many references to fill in and back up the description it gives of the contemporary situation. However, that review does not mention David Deutsch’s ambitious and detailed 1985 attempt to solve the basis problem. That omission is justified by the fact that Deutsch’s approach was found by Sara Foster and Harvey Brown to be marred by many logical flaws. But in spite of these flaws, it will be useful to describe Deutsch’s 1985 attempt in order to get an idea of the problems involved in the construction of a many-worlds interpretation.

2. Deutsch’s 1985 Proposed Solution of the Many-Worlds Basis Problem.

Deutsch clearly recognized that a key problem in creating a many-worlds interpretation is the problem of defining the preferred basis. He calls it the ‘interpretation basis’, and his forty-page paper is devoted largely to task of defining it. The other main problem is to understand how a relative probabilility comes to be associated with each of the alternative possibilities, all of which occur jointly and concurrently in the evolving quantum state. Since the occurrence of any one of the possible outcomes is accompanied by the occurrence of each of the other possible outcomes it is a problem to understand, solely on the basis of the Schroedinger equation alone, how one of the possibilities can be, say, a billion times less likely to appear than some other one. I shall not delve here into this interesting problem, but will focus on the basis problem.

Solving the basis problem seems to demand mathematically detailed rules that specify (1), when the full reality splits into these distinct worlds, or branches, (2), what these separate parts are, and (3), which variables associated with these different worlds, or branches, acquire, or possess, definite values in each such world, or branch. Deutsch recognized the three aspects of the problem, and tried to provide well defined answers to each.

Of course, every interpretation of quantum theory that goes beyond the pragmatic Copenhagen approach of merely providing a set of rules the connect human experiences must provide analogous kinds of rules. But the mathematical requirements on the structure of these rules is far more stringent for a many-world theory because such a theory allows no collapse, and everything must be determined exclusively in terms of the one basic reality, which is the one quantum state of the universe that evolves in accordance with the Schroedinger equation: no other process is allowed. But as Foster and Brown emphasize, in collapse theories the specification of these rules ”need only be within the context of some theory, not necessarily quantum theory.” The encompassing theory could allow, for example, as von Neumann’s theory does, experiential realities to enter dynamically into the determination of the basis, instead of being mere consequences of some choice of basis that is itself wholly determined by the unitary evolution of the quantum state in accordance with the Schroedinger equation.

Deutsch recognized and stressed the critical importance of this basis problem, and made a determined effort to solved it:

”The remedy which I propose in section 7 is that an extra rule be appended to the quantum formalism, specifying how the interpretational basis depends at each instant of time on the physical state and dynamical evolution of a quantum system.”

The first problem that he tries to resolve is what he calls ”the notorious difficulty of specifying the preferred instants $`t`$ … when a measurement is completed.” These instants must be defined solely in terms of (1), the single evolving state of the universe, which evolves always via the Schroedinger equation, and (2), the law that governs this continuous unitary evolution.

The second problem is that at each of these distinct “instants of splitting” the unified actual universe must be decomposed in a specified way into two systems, the ‘observed system’ and ‘observing system’. Hence the rule that defines how the unified universe is to be split at that instant into these two special parts must be specified in terms solely of the state vector itself and its law of evolution.

The third problem is to define for each instant a set of evolving basis vectors so that the state of the universe can at every instant be decomposed in a unique way into a sum of component vectors that can be associated with different worlds, or branches of reality, that possess definite values for the quantities “measured” at each instant of splitting.

Deutsch solves the problem of dividing the unified physical world into the well defined physical parts that will ultimately acquire ‘possessed values’ by restricting his considerations to a model world that has only a finite set of states, and dividing this set of states in some way into subsystems each having a ‘prime number’ of states in each subsystem. One evident problem with that approach is the essential role played by this finiteness assumption and the ‘prime factor’ rule: Deutsch does not indicate how this ‘prime number rule’, which is purely kinematic (it does not involve the equations of motion) will carry over to real systems, in which every particle carries with it an infinite number of states, and in particular to the systems that carry the stored memories associated with our experiences. These systems are presumably made of many particles, and are strongly dependent on the dynamics.

Once the separation of the universe into the observed and observing systems is made, Deutsch specifies the instant at which the splitting occurs to be essentially the instant at which the interaction between observed and observing system vanishes. But the ubiquitous tails of real systems would make that condition difficult to satisfy in the physical universe.

Once the instants of splittings are fixed, and the separation of the universe at each of these instants into the observed and observing system is specified, one needs to define, for every instant of time, the preferred basis. This basis defines the decomposition of the quantum state of the universe into a unique sum of vectors each of which is parallel to one of the vectors in the preferred set of basis vectors. Each of these particular component vectors is supposed to correspond to a separate world, or branch of the universe. The decomposition must be such that if a probability is assigned to each such world in accordance with usual rule, which equates it to the square of the length of the corresponding vector, then the expectation values of certain special quantities, namely those represented by operators whose eigenvectors are these basis vectors, are required to agree with the general quantum mechanical rule for expectation values. This is how Deutsch proposed to endow the evolving non-collapsing quantum universe with some definite outcomes in a way concordant with the quantum probability rules: each individual branch would have ‘possessed values’ appropriate to that branch, and the branch would be given the appropriate statistical weight. But the entire construction depends crucially on the idea that a particular well-defined set of preferred basis states is specified by the evolving non-collapsing quantum state of the universe.

Deutsch tried to deduce the structure of this preferred basis set by imposing the requirement of no-faster-than-light-influence, but his argument is, as was correctly noted by Foster and Brown, logically flawed. The primary condition on a many-world interpretation is that there be no actual collapse: the values associated with the preferred basis vectors are supposed to be ”possessed” by the systems, or to exist within nature, without there being any collapse that actually eliminates the cross terms. However, the crucial equation (Eq. 50) that gives the structure of the preferred basis does not follow from Deutsch’s argument, insofar as the no collapse condition is maintained. The result would follow if the appropriate collapse were to occur. That is, Deutsch’s proof would be valid if he were trying to define the preferred basis in the context of a collapse-type theory, but it is not valid in the many-worlds context. This error is not just a small slip-up that can by fixed by a minor correction. Foster and Brown emphasize this problem, and also problems with the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the conditions that Deutsch proposes. Michael Lockwood reports in his 1989 book Mind, Brain, and the Quantum, (p. 236) that Deutsch ”has failed so far to find any plausible way to meet Foster and Brown’s objections.” Lockwood’s own solution brings in ”Mind” in an important way, and is thus not a ”Many-Worlds Interpretation” in the DeWitt-Deutsch sense of this term.

3. The Core Basis Problem

This section identifies the core basis problem.

The essential point is that if the universe has been evolving since the big bang in accordance with the Schroedinger equation, then it must by now be an amorphous structure in which every device is a smeared-out cloud of a continuum of different possibilities. Indeed, the planet earth would not have a well defined location, nor would the rivers and oceans, nor the cities built on their banks. Due to the uncertainty principle, each particle would have had a tendency to spread out. Thus various particles with various momenta would have been able to combine and condense in myriads of ways into bound structures, including measuring devices, whose centers, orientations, and fine details would necessarily be smeared out over continua of possibilities. The quantum state would be, to first order, a superposition of a continuum of slightly differing classical-type worlds with, in particular, each measuring device, and also each observing brain, smeared out over a continuum of locations, orientations, and detailed structures. But the normal rules for extracting well defined probabilities from a quantum state require the specification, or singling out, of a discrete set (i.e., a denumerable set) of orthogonal subspaces, one for each of a set of alternative possible experientially distinguishable observations. But how can a particular discrete set of orthogonal subspaces be picked out from an amorphous continuum by the action of the Schroedinger equation alone?

For example, if one has in the wave function of the universe, in addition to the contribution from some particular wave function of a Stern-Gerlach device, also contributions from all slight deviations of this wave functions from this original form, then this collection, if no one deviation is singled out from its immediate neighbors in some way, defines no proper subspace: any collection of vectors in a full neighborhood of a vector spans the entire vector space. This fact poses a problem in principle for any deduction of probabilities from the Schroedinger dynamics alone: how can a specific set discrete orthonormal subspaces be specified by the continuous action of the Schroedinger equation on a continuously smeared out amorphous state?

The essential role of the human participant/observer in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation is to pick out a particular discrete subspace (or a particular set of orthogonal subspaces) from a continuum of logically possible alternatives. He is able to do this by not being part of the universe that evolves via the Schroedinger equation. The fact that the participant/observer who chooses the experiment, and observes the outcome, stands, in this sense, outside the quantum universe, but acts upon it and observes it, is a key logical aspect of the orthodox interpretation. In the von Neumann version this choice is achieved by the notorious “process I”, which likewise is not determined by the unitary Schroedinger process, but specifies a particular way of dividing the full Hilbert space into a denumerable set of orthogonal subspaces.

Any theory that proposes that the entire universe be controlled by the Schroedinger equation alone must explain how that continuous unitary process can pick out a particular denumerable set of ‘observable’ orthogonal subspaces with nonzero probabilities, in such a way that these nonzero probabilities become associated with empirically experienced alternatives.

Most contemporary efforts to solve the “measurement” problem in quantum theory rest heavily upon “environmental decoherence effects.” One of the effects of this interaction of a system with its environment is to convert what would otherwise be a wave packet that can extend coherently over a large distance, in various dimensions, into what is essentially a mixture of narrow gaussian wave packets. The mixture is, essentially, a sum over a continuum of displaced narrow Gaussians in the variable associated with the wave function . These Gaussian states are dynamically robust under the effects of interactions with the environment, and have classical-type properties that make then good candidates for the states that correspond to definite experiences.

Specifically, the effect of environmental decoherence is to reduce a typical state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^{})`$ to a mixture of states of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_x(x^{})=N(x)\mathrm{exp}a^2(x^{}x)^2,$$
$`(3.1)`$
where $`N(x)`$ is a weight factor, and the subscript $`x`$, which labels the center-point, or peak, of the Gaussian wave packet, ranges over a continuum of values. None of these states is orthogonal to any other. (Here, to make the idea clear, I am exhibiting only one single continuum variable, $`x`$. But all position-type variables would be affected in a similar way.)

This decoherence mechanism eliminates certain interference effects, but it does not solve the basis problem. There will be a continuum of these Gaussians, (3.1), and they overlap: i.e., they are not orthogonal. As before, if one takes a set of these state consisting of one of them together with those displaced from it by a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ less than any epsilon greater than zero then this set will included a continuum of states that span a large part of the Hilbert space of functions of the variable $`x^{}`$ (See ). Since no one of this continuum of states is singled out from the rest by the Schroedinger dynamics, and they jointly span a large part of the Hilbert space in question, one does not immediately obtain from the Schroedinger dynamics plus decoherence the needed denumerable set {$`P_i`$} of orthogonal projection operators, or the denumerable set of orthogonal subspaces that they specify.

A natural candidate for the needed denumerable set of orthogonal subspaces associated with the continuum of states (3.1) is the set of subspaces defined by the different eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix associated with that mixture of states. That candidate is, in fact, the one chosen by Deutsch in his 1985 paper. However, that choice is not satifactory. One wants states that are highly localized, like a classical state. But the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix associated with the states (3.1), i.e., the eigenstates of a density matrix of the form

$$<x^{}|\rho _r|x^{\prime \prime }>=N(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{exp}a^2(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })^2/2,$$
$`(3.2)`$
with a slowly changing normalization function $`N(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$, are spread out over large distances, rather than being compressed into small regions, like the states (3.1) themselves are. Taking the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix goes in the wrong direction. Because this natural choice is unsatisfactory one is left with the core problem of how to specify, without appeal to any process except the continuous Schroedinger unitary evolution, the denumerable set of orthogonal subspaces that are to be associated with definite observed values and finite probabilities.

4. Deutsch’s Multiverse Proposal

Recently Deutsch has put forward a new many-worlds concept labelled the ”multiverse”. In the popular account given in his book The Fabric of Reality the multiverse would appear to be a collection of classical-type universes each one similar to the single quasi-classical world introduced by David Bohm in his famous pilot-wave model. But that cannot be Deutsch’s real meaning because Bohm’s classical-type universe is governed, in part, by nonlocal forces, and a key virtue of the many-worlds approach, often emphasized by Deutsch, is that it does not involve or entail any kind of faster-than-light transfer of information.

In his recent paper The Structure of the Multiverse  Deutsch gives a more detailed glimpse into his thinking, and he emphasizes at the outset the existence of the basis problem, and the demand for no faster-than-light transfer of information. Deutsch’s new proposal involves different quasi-classical aspects of the quantum universe that persist and evolve in parallel over finite temporal intervals but can eventually recombine to produce quantum interference effects. This idea is much closer to standard ideas than Bohm’s model, in which the quasi-classical world persists for all time, and quantum interference effects are explained by a special nonlocal force, rather than by the merging of previously distinct quasi-classical components.

In his new work Deutsch again emphasizes the basis problem, and I think it is fair to say that a many-worlds interpretation is not defined until it solves in principle the basis problem. Indeed, the basis problem is the problem that any interpretation of quantum theory must resolve in some way. Thus the central idea of the Copenhagen interpretation was to imbed the quantum system in a larger system that specifies the preferred basis by bringing in ”measuring devices” that are set in place by a classically conceived process. In von Neumann’s formulation there is the infamous “Process I”, which likewise lies outside the process governed by the Schroedinger equation. The key challenge that must be met by a satisfactory many-worlds interpretation is to solve this basis problem within quantum theory itself, without bringing in any outside dynamical process.

Deutsch’s program is to create a satisfactory many-worlds-type theory by considering nature to be a quantum computer. Deutsch cites Feynman’s paper on quantum mechanical computers. In this paper Feynman says:

> Of course, there are external things involved in making the measurements and determining all this \[setting up the computer\], which are not parts of our computer. Surely a computer has eventually to be in interaction with the external world, both for putting in data and for taking it out.

Here Feynman is following the orthodox idea that a computer is a quantum system, and as such must be considered imbedded in a larger world in which we prepare initial conditions, including the structures of all devices, and then extract outcomes. Deutsch’s problem is, accordingly, to show how by considering the whole universe to be a quantum computer one can solve this heretofore unresolved interpretational problem that has beset those trying to create a satisfactory many-worlds theory.

To emphasize the problems that others have encountered I quote some passsages from Zurek’s 1998 review of the status of attempts to use environmental decoherence (abetted, if helpful, by coherent histories) to solve the interpretational problem.

> It will be emphasized that while significant progress has been made … much remains to be done on several fronts which all have implications on the overarching question of interpretation. …
> Thus, while what follows is perhaps the most complete discussion of the interpretation implied by decoherence, it is still only a report of partial progress.
> …
> The advantages of Everett’s original vision was to reinstate quantum theory as a key tool in search of its own interpretation. The disadvantages (which were realized only some years later, after the original proposal became more widely known) include (i) the ambiguity in what constitutes the branches … (ii) re-emergence of the questions about the origin of probabilities … (iii) it was never clear how to reconcile unique experiences of observers with the multitude of alternatives present in the MWI wave function.
> …
> The interpretation based on ideas of decoherence and \[environmentally induced\] einselection has not really been spelled out to date in any detail. I have made a few half-hearted attempts in this direction, but, frankly, I was hoping to postpone this task, since the ultimate questions tend to involve such ‘anthropic’ attributes of the ‘observership’ as ‘perception’, ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’,
> …
> Einselection chooses a preferred basis …İt will often turn out that it is overcomplete. Its states may not be orthogonal, and, hence, they could never follow from the diagonalization of the density matrix.

These quotations show that Zurek recognizes the core continuum problem that I have been describing.

How then does Deutsch deal with this basic problem, which is that a quantum universe evolving via the Schroedinger equation does not seem to be able to pick out a discrete set of preferred directions (or subspaces) in Hilbert space that specify quasi-classical properties that can be assigned definite “possessed values” with well defined probabilities.

His approach is first to define, in terms of his quantum-computer formulation of quantum theory, certain mathematical requirements for a portion of the full quantum computer to be ‘behaving classically’. These requirements depend upon certain directions in Hilbert space being singled out as the ones that correspond to ‘possessed values’. Those special directions are not specified beforehand, but are defined by the dynamics, in the sense that if with some choice of these directions a certain system behaves classically then these special directions are picked out by that classicality condition itself. Thus the preferred basis is defined dynamically, by a classicality condition.

This is eminently reasonable, as far as it goes. By it does not address the basic continuum problem, which would be to show that the classicality conditions specify, at each moment at which “possessed values” are defined, a denumerable set of mutually orthogonal subspaces within the full amorphous many-worlds universe, in which there will be continua of neighboring environmentally robust configurations in which the detectors that define the preferred axes of his qubit-measuring devices are slightly re-oriented. The basic problem is to get out of the continua specified by the Schroedinger dynamics plus environmental decoherence the denumerable sets of orthogonal subspaces needed to make the probability formulas work. This core issue was not addressed.

5. Zurek’s Approach and Records

Deutsch’s multiverse theory is in general accord with Zurek’s approach, and in the end Deutsch appeals to Zurek’s arguments to support the idea that the ‘classically behaving’ aspects of the quantum universe will explain the ‘classical world’ in which we live and act.

Zurek’s treatment is wrapped up, as it should be, with his treatment of probabilities. In this connection he says:

> A true ‘frequency’ with a classical interpretation cannot be defined at a level which does not allow ‘events’—quantum evolution which leads to objectively existing states—to be associated with the individual members of that ensemble. … The reduced density matrix $`\rho `$, which emerges following the interaction with the environment, and a partial trace will always be diagonal in the same basis of einselected pointer states $`\{|i>\}`$. These states help define elementary ‘events’. Probabilities of such events can be inferred from their coefficients in $`\rho `$, which have the desired ‘Born rule’ form.

Zurek’s discussions of ‘existing’ values and probabilities rests on this model, in which the reduced density matrix is diagonal in the same states that specify the values that are supposed to ‘exist’. But that model must come to grips with the continuum problem, which is emphasized elsewhere in his paper by statements such as:

> In that case \[which in fact arises in the quantum field theoretic treatment of the measurement process\] the states which are most immune to decoherence in the long run turn out to be … Gaussians. … Hence coherent states \[which are Gaussians\] are favored by decoherence. … Einselection chooses a preferred basis in the Hilbert space in recognition of its predictability. That basis will be determined by the dynamics of the open system in the presence of environmental monitoring. It will often turn out that it is over complete. \[This is precisely the case for the Gaussian’s mentioned above.\] Its states may not be orthogonal, and, hence, they would never follow from diagonalization of the density matrix.

Thus Zurek stresses that the robust Gaussian-type states picked out by environmental decoherence belong to a continuum of non-orthogonal states, and hence do not generally define a denumerable set of orthogonal subspaces, and are not the basis states defined by diagonalization of the reduced density matrix. This leads to the question: Does the diagonalization of the reduced density matrix yield physically appropriate basis states?

A partial answer this question is obtained by noting that for constant $`\rho `$ the reduced density matrix is essentially

$$<x^{}|\rho _r|x^{\prime \prime }>=\sqrt{2/\pi }𝑑x\mathrm{exp}(x^{}x)^2<x^{}|\rho |x^{\prime \prime }>\mathrm{exp}(x^{\prime \prime }x)^2$$
$`(5.1)`$
$$=\mathrm{exp}(1/2)(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })^2<x^{}|\rho |x^{\prime \prime }>$$
$`(5.2)`$
The eigenfunctions of this $`\rho _r`$ are the functions $`\mathrm{exp}ipx`$, which are spread uniformly over all space. (To get normalized functions one can formulate the problem with periodicity over a large interval.) Thus in this simplest case the diagonalization effectively undoes the localization effect produced by the decoherence: it does not produce localized, robust, quasi-classical states.

Zurek emphasizes, as did Everett, the critical importance of records. A record is typically stored in the state of a relative coordinate in which the potential energy has two deep, well separated wells. It has been suggested, in this case, that if the energy gap between, on the one hand, the two almost degenerate states of lowest energy and, on the other hand, the higher-energy double-well energy eigenstates is large compared to the energy of the pertinent environmental states then those higher-energy states can be ignored. The problem then reduces to one in which only the two lowest energy states are considered, together with the states of the environment. The reduced density matrix would be a $`2\times 2`$ matrix that, apart from an overall normalization factor, has $`(1+b,1b)`$ on the diagonal and the value $`a`$ in the two off diagonal slots, with $`a`$ generally much smaller than $`b`$. The two eigenstates of this reduced density matrix will, up to corrections of order $`a/b`$, each be concentrated in one well or the other, which is the desired result.

This approximation is essentially equivalent to concentrating the coordinate space wave function at two points, and neglecting the connecting network of coordinate-space points. However, there is a qualitative difference between setting the other elements to zero and taking them to be very tiny.

To illustrate this point consider first the easily solvable case of the $`3\times 3`$ matrix with diagonal elements $`(1,c,1)`$, next-to-diagonal elements $`a>0`$, and zeros in the two corners. The eigenvalues are $`(1,(1+c+r)/2,(1+cr)/2)`$, with $`r=\sqrt{((1c)^2+8a^2)}`$, and the eigenvectors are $`(1,0,1)`$, $`(1,s+,1)`$ and $`(1,s,1)`$, with $`s\pm =4a/(1c\pm r)`$. For $`a`$ and $`c`$ very small, but nonzero, one has $`s+2a`$, and $`s1/a`$, and hence the triad of eigenstates is unlike the triad of localized states

$$(1,0,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1),$$
$`(5.4)`$
which are possible eigenstates for $`a=0`$.

This example illustrates the general fact that for almost any matrix that is symmetric along the diagonal \[i.e., with $`<i|M|j>=<i|M|j>`$, with the states labeled $`(n,n1,\mathrm{},n)`$\], and that has $`<i|M|j>0`$ for all pairs $`(i.j)`$, all of the eigenstatates will be either symmetrical or anti-symmetrical: this property of our $`3\times 3`$ example carries over to the general symmetric (along the diagonal direction) case. \[One can prove this result by making the anzatz that the eigenstates are either symmetric or antisymmetric \[i.e., $`<i|\varphi >=\pm <i|\varphi >`$\] and noting that the equations for the symmetric and antisymmetric eigenvectors have $`n+1`$ and $`n`$ solutions, respectively, and that equations for the symmetric and antisymmetric eigenfunctions are different.\]

This result for the exactly symmetrical case carries over to the nearby almost-symmetrical cases by analyticity. But the general rule for specifying the preferred basis must cover the special case of the nearly symmetrical potential wells. Since the diagonalization of the reduced density matrix does not lead to the correct (i.e., localized) eigenstates in the nearly symmetrical cases it cannot be the correct general rule. Thus although the diagonalization of the reduced density matrix does define a denumerable set of orthogonal subspaces, it cannot always do the job that the participant/observer does in orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory, and that “process I” does in von Neumann quantum theory, which is to pick out a discrete set of orthogonal subspaces that are associable with alternative possible experiences.

The example of the nearly symmetrical case shows that the diagonalization of a reduced density matrix does not define the needed discrete orthogonal states. Robustness is the essential quality. More specifically, it is the quality of a “record” not only to endure, but to be creatable, reproducible, and able to control essentially classical behaviors without being appreciably degraded. The effects of the environment are important in this connection, because they destroy the possibility that certain states could be records. Thus environmental decoherence does have powerful effects. But that does not solve the problem of extracting, by means of the Schroedinger equation alone — from the amorphous state that is created by the evolution of the big bang state via the Schroedinger equation — a discrete set of orthogonal basis record-type states. In this Schroedinger state every atom, and conglomeration of atoms, will be a smeared out continuum. The essential reason why the founders had to regard the quantum system as being imbedded in an enveloping process, and why von Neumann had to introduce his Process I, was to solve this problem of specifying a discrete basis for the probability computations associated with our apparently discrete (Yes or No) experiences, when the Schroedinger equation generates continuous evolution of an ever-amorphous state. Specifing a discrete set of basis states solely from the continuous structure generated by the Schroedinger equation would appear to be an impossible feat. In any case, no claim to having constructed a rationally coherent many worlds/minds formulation of quantum theory is justified unless this discrete basis problem is clearly recognized and adequately resolved.

Acknowedgements
Communications from Professors H. D. Zeh, E. Joos, and W. H. Zurek have contributed significantly to the form and content of this paper.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Information Processing with Microfabricated Optical Elements

## I Introduction

Following the spectacular theoretical results in the field of quantum information processing of recent years , there is now also a growing number of experimental groups working in this area. Among the many currently investigated approaches, which range from schemes in quantum optics to superconducting electronics , the field of atomic physics seems to be particularly promising due to the experimentally achieved remarkable control of single qubit systems and the understanding of the relevant coherent and incoherent processes. While there have been successful implementions of quantum logic with charged atomic particles in ion traps , quantum information schemes based on neutral atoms  are an attractive alternative due to the weak coupling of neutral atoms to their environment. A further attraction of neutral atoms lies in the fact that many of the requirements for the implementation of quantum computation  are potentially met by the newly emerging miniaturized and integrated atom optical setups.

These miniaturized setups can be obtained by using different types of microfabricated structures: The trapping and guiding of neutral atoms in microfabricated charged and current carrying structures has been pursued by a number of groups in recent years . A new approach to generate miniaturized and integrated atom optical systems has been recently introduced by our group : We proposed the application of microfabricated optical elements (microoptical elements) for the manipulation of atoms and atomic matter waves with laser light. This enables one to exploit the vast industrial and research interest in the field of applied optics directed towards the development of micro-optical elements, which has already lead to a wide range of state-of-the-art optical system applications  in this field. Applying these elements to the field of quantum information processing, however, constitutes a novel approach. Together with systems based on miniaturized and microfabricated mechanical as well as electrostatic and magnetic devices, the application of microoptical systems will launch a new field in atom optics which we call ATOMICS for ATom Optics with MICro-Structures. This field will combine the unique features of devices based on the quantum mechanical behavior of atomic matter waves with the tremendous potential of micro- and nanofabrication technology and will lead to setups that are also very attractive for quantum information processing.

## II Microoptical Elements for Quantum Information Processing

A special attraction of using microoptical elements lies in the fact, that most of the currently used techniques in atom manipulation are based on the optical interaction with the atoms. The use of microfabricated optical elements is therefore in many ways the canonical extension of the conventional optical methods into the micro-regime, so that much of the knowledge and experience that has been acquired in atom optics can be applied to this new regime in a very straightforward way. There are however, as we will show in the following, a number of additional inherent advantages in using microoptics which significantly enhance the applicability of atom optics and will lead to a range of new developments that were not achievable until now: The use of state-of-the-art lithographic manufacturing techniques adapted from semiconductor processing enables the optical engineer to fabricate structures with dimensions in the micrometer range and submicrometer features with a large amount of flexibility and in a large variety of materials (glass, quartz, semiconductor materials, plastics, etc.). The flexibility of the manufacturing process allows the realization of complex optical elements which create light fields not achievable with standard optical components. Another advantage lies in the fact, that microoptics is often produced with many identical elements fabricated in parallel on the same substrate, so that multiple realizations of a single conventional setup can be created in a straightforward way. A further attraction of the flexibility in the design and manufacturing process of microoptical components results from the huge potential for integration of different elements on a single substrate, or, by using bonding techniques, for the integration of differently manufactured parts into one system. No additional restrictions arise from the small size of microoptical components since for most applications in atom optics, the defining parameter of an optical system is its numerical aperture, which for microoptical components can easily be as high as NA=0.5, due to the small focal lengths achievable.

Among the plethora of microoptical elements that can be used for quantum information processing applications are refractive or diffractive microoptics, computer generated holograms, microprisms and micromirrors, integrated waveguide optics, near-field optics, and integrated techniques such as planar optics or micro-opto-electro-mechanical systems (MOEMS). Excellent overviews of microoptics can be found in . To our knowledge, of all these elements only computer generated holograms and phase gratings have been used in atom optics so far for guiding  and trapping  of atoms, while a new type of atom trap based on the near field of laser radiation has been proposed in .

In this paper we give an overview of the novel possibilities that arise for quantum information processing with neutral atoms if one employs microfabricated optical elements. We show how crucial components for miniaturized systems for quantum information processing with neutral atoms can be realized with microoptical elements.

## III Experimental Setup

The key elements in quantum information processing with neutral atoms are atom traps which act as storage devices for the logical qubits inscribed in the internal states of the atoms. The experimental setup that we employ for our studies of the applicability of microoptical elements to generate novel trapping structures is depicted in Fig. 1. The focal plane of a microoptical component illuminated by a red detuned laser beam is transferred into the vacuum chamber with the help of two achromats (f = 300 mm, D = 50 mm) so that we can load the atoms into the trapping structures by overlapping them with a magnetooptical trap (MOT). This setup has the advantage, that the performance of the MOT is not disturbed by the microoptical component and that we can experiment with a variety of microoptical elements without the need to open the vacuum chamber.

A particularly simple atom trap is based on the dipole potential of a single focused red detuned laser beam. This trap has been first realized by Chu et al.  and has remained an important element ever since . We have achieved this trapping structure by using a single lens as the microoptical component in Fig. 1 and have managed to trap approximately $`10^5`$ $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms with a lifetime of 166 ms (Fig. 2) in a dipole trap of potential depth $`U_0/k_B=1.9mK`$ (laser power P = 50 mW, detunig of 2 nm, Gaussian waist of focus $`w_0`$ = 15 $`\mu `$m).

## IV Multiple Atom Traps

A new approach arises from the application of one- or two-dimensional arrays of spherical microlenses for atom trapping (Fig. 3). Microlenses have typical diameters of ten to several hundreds of $`\mu `$m. Due to their short focal lengths of typically 100$`\mu `$m to 1mm, their numerical aperture can be easily as high as 0.5, resulting in foci whose focal size q (defined as the radius of the first minimum of the Bessel function which results from the illumination of an individual microlens with a plane wave) can be as low as q=1$`\mu `$m for visible laser light.

By focusing a single red-detuned laser beam extending over multiple microlenses with a spherical microlens array, we obtain one- or two-dimensional arrays of a large number of dipole traps (Fig. 4), in which we store multiple-atom samples .

For frequently used atomic species and commonly used laser sources one can easily obtain a large number of atom traps of considerable depth with rather moderate laser power. For typical laser parameters and 100 atom traps, the trap depth is significantly larger than the kinetic energy of the atoms achievable with Doppler cooling (0.141 mK $`\times k_B`$ for rubidium) . The low rates of spontaneous scattering that are achievable with sufficiently far-detuned trapping light ensure long storage and coherence times as required for successful quantum information processing, while a strong localization of the atoms strongly suppresses heating of the atoms and makes it possible to cool the atoms to the ground state of the dipole potential via sideband cooling in all dimensions. For the parameters given in  the size of the atomic wavefunction reaches values that are significantly smaller than 100 nm, even approaching 10 nm in many cases, thus making microlens arrays well suited for the generation of strongly confined and well localized atom samples.

The lateral distances between the individual traps (typically 100 $`\mu `$m) make it easy to selectively detect and address the atom samples in each dipole trap. While the natural way of addressing an individual trap consists in sending the addressing laser beams through the corresponding microlens, there are also more sophisticated methods possible, e.g. with a two-photon Raman-excitation technique as depicted in Fig. 4. This technique has been applied frequently to create superposition states in alkali atoms  and can be used to implement single qubit rotations for quantum information processing. It relies on the simultaneous interaction of the atoms with two mutually coherent laser fields. For a sufficiently large detuning from the single photon resonance, only the atoms in the trap that is addressed by both laser beams are affected by them.

These factors open the possibility to prepare and modify quantum states in a controlled way (”quantum engineering”) in each trap, which is a necessary ingredient for quantum computing. As a first and easily achievable implementation, single qubits associated with long-lived internal states can be prepared and rotated in each individual trap of a two-dimensional dipole trap array (Fig. 3), stored and later read out again. Thus, this device can serve as a quantum state register.

The manipulation of atoms with microlens arrays is extremely flexible: It is easily possible to temporarily modify the distances between individual traps if smaller or adjustable distances between traps are required. This can be accomplished either by using two independent microlens arrays which are laterally shifted with respect to each other or by illuminating a microlens array with two beams (possibly of different wavelength) under slightly different angles, thereby generating two distinct sets of dipole trap arrays. Their mutual distance can be controlled by changing the angle between the two beams. With a fast beam deflector, this can be done in real-time during the experiment.

Due to this flexibility, setups based on microlens arrays are also well suited for the implementation of two-qubit gates. Considering, for example, quantum phase gates based on dipole-dipole interactions between atoms  all requirements are fulfilled in the configuration depicted in Fig. 4. Atoms localized in neighboring traps can be first initialized and then be brought close to each other with a definable separation in the single-micron range and for a predefined duration, in order to inscribe the required phase shift. Especially well suited is this configuration also for quantum gates based on the dipole-dipole interaction of low-lying Rydberg states in constant electric fields, as proposed in .

## V Integration

The huge potential for integration of microoptical components can be used for a large variety of further atom optical purposes. Due to their large numerical aperture, microoptical components can also be used for efficient spatially resolved read-out of quantum information (Fig. 5). In most cases the state of a qubit is recorded by exciting the atom state-selectively with resonant light and collecting the fluorescence light. Microoptical components can be used for the collection optics. Furthermore, the optical detection of quantum states with microoptical components is not restricted to optical trapping structures (Fig. 5 (a)): Since the same techniques are applied for the fabrication of microoptical components and microstructured wires on surfaces, microoptical components can be easily combined with the magnetic and electric structures of  (Fig. 5 (b)). In addition, microfabricated atom-optical components can be integrated with optical fibres and waveguides so that quantum information after being read-out by detection of the scattered light can be further processed by optical means (Fig. 5 (c)).

Another canonical extension is given by the integration of microoptical components with optoelectronic devices such as semiconductor laser sources and photodiode detectors. In this case, the communication with the outside world can take place fully electronically, with the required laser light created in situ and the optical signals converted back to electrical signals on the same integrated structure. Fig. 6 illustrates a simple but powerful configuration based on this approach. The depicted setup utilizes vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs)  which are directly mounted onto a two-dimensional microlens array. VCSELs emit circular symmetrical non-astigmatic beams while their structure is optimized for the lithographic fabrication of densely packed 2D arrays. Since VCSELs generally emit a single longitudinal mode at a wavelength which can be tuned by changing the current, the light coming from a two-dimensional array of VCSELs can be directly focused by the mirolens array to create a two-dimensional array of stable dipole traps (Fig. 6). With VCSELs it becomes now possible to selectively switch on and off individual traps or to selectively change their potential depth resulting in further flexibility in the atom manipulation.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we have discussed the new research direction of using microfabricated optical elements for quantum information processing with neutral atoms. This application hugely benefits from the many inherent advantages of microoptical components. Specifically, an approach based on microoptical systems addresses two of the most important requirements for the technological implementation of quantum information processing: parallelization and scalability. In addition, the possibility to selectively address individual qubits is essential for most schemes proposed for quantum computing with neutral atoms.

Thus, all steps required for quantum information processing with neutral atoms - i.e. the preparation, manipulation and storage of qubits, entanglement and gate operations as well as the efficient read-out of quantum information - can be performed using microfabricated optical elements.

## VII Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the program ACQUIRE (IST-1999-11055) of the European Commission as well as the SFB 407 and the Schwerpunktprogramm Quanten-Informationsverarbeitung of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# Theorem 1

Cosmological anomalies and exotic smoothness structures

Torsten Aßelmeyer-Maluga 111e-mail: torsten@first.gmd.de Fraunhofer FIRST ,
Kekuléstraße 7,
12489 Berlin, Germany
Carl H. Brans 222e-mail: brans@loyno.edu Loyola University,
New Orleans, LA 70118, USA

## Abstract

It seems to be generally accepted that apparently anomalous cosmological observations, such as accelerating expansion, etc., necessarily are inconsistent with standard general relativity and standard matter sources. Following the suggestions of Sładkowski, we point out that in addition to exotic theories and exotic matter there is another possibility. We refer to exotic differential structures on $`^4`$ which could be the source of the observed anomalies without changing the Einstein equations or introducing strange forms of matter.

Recent cosmological observations have been interpreted as indicating an accelerating expansion of the universe , . This conclusion in turn has led to speculations that either or both of the following must be considered:

1. Einstein’s equations in their original, purely metric, form in four dimensions are incorrect, or,
2. the matter tensor contains “exotic” sources, such as dark energy, quintessence, etc.

The recent literature is replete with speculations along these lines. We cite just a few representatives: , , , , , , etc.

In this paper we want to revisit the suggestion of Sładkowski that there is another possibility based on recent mathematical discoveries in differential topology. Specifically,

1. the coordinates $`(t,r)`$ of observational cosmology may not be smoothly extendible indefinitely into the past.

If 3. is valid then the standard extrapolation of earth based observations to distant phenomena may not be justified.

The reason for raising the conjecture 3. lies in the discoveries in differential topology of the existence of non-standard, or exotic, global smoothness (differential) structures on topologically trivial spaces such as $`^4,`$ or $`^1\times S^3.`$ For reviews of the subject aimed at the physics audience see , , . Let us begin here by simply stating a strikingly counter intuitive fact as well established mathematically:

###### Theorem 1

There exist global smoothness structures on topological $`^4`$ which are not diffeomorphic to the standard one. We label such manifolds $`_\mathrm{\Theta }^4.`$

Thus, we can label points $`_\mathrm{\Theta }^4`$ with global topological coordinates, $`(t,x,y,z)`$. However, to do calculus we need a differential (smooth) structure defined by a family of coordinate patches with smooth coordinate transformations in their overlap. Such a family of coordinate patches defines a smooth structure. One obvious one on $`^4`$ is the “standard” one defined by one coordinate patch with smooth coordinates identical to the global topological ones. It has been known for some time that any smooth structure is diffeomorphic (equivalent) to the standard one for all $`^n,n4.`$ However, the conjecture that this would also be true for physically critical case of $`n=4`$ remained unsettled until the 1980’s when pioneering work by Donaldson, Freedman, Gompf, et al., established Theorem 1. Thus the statement of the theorem is that not all of $`(t,x,y,z)`$ can be global smooth functions in terms of this exotic structure.

For our purposes a remarkable feature of these exotic $`_\mathrm{\Theta }^4`$’s is that each of them contains a compact set that cannot be contained in the interior of any smoothly embedded $`S^3.`$ See, for example, the discussion in pages 366ff of Gompf and Stipsicz,

###### Theorem 2

For some $`_\mathrm{\Theta }^4,`$ there exist global topological coordinates $`(t,x,y,z)`$ and numbers $`R_1<R_2`$ such that the spheres, $`S_{R_0},`$ defined by $`t^2+x^2+y^2+z^2=R_0^2`$ are smooth for $`R_0<R_1,`$ but are not smooth333By “not smooth” we mean “not smoothly embedded.” for any $`R_0R_2.`$ Choose one such, say $`M,`$ for our spacetime model.

We can thus state that for $`M`$

###### Theorem 3

We can choose two sets, $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`M`$ such that both cannot be included in one smooth coordinate patch in any diffeomorphic presentation of $`M`$

Now look at null geodesics between points in these two sets (see figure) and attempts to interpret information received in $`a`$ from $`b`$ in terms of the a priori assumption that one coordinate patch including the pair exists.

In looking at the figure, we must point out that the light rays, null geodesics, are smooth locally. The reason they are represented as non-smooth in this drawing is to point out that an astronomer trying to draw such a figure based on his observations in $`a`$ alone would be forced to use non-smooth lines since the local smooth coordinates in $`a`$ can not be smoothly continued to $`b`$. In other words, no smooth image such as in this figure can be drawn for our $`M=_\mathrm{\Theta }^4.`$ The null geodesics from $`b`$ will still be smooth and well behaved throughout their length, and the Einstein equations satisfied with normal matter. However, it will be incorrect to assume that we can extrapolate from these incoming geodesics in $`a`$ information about $`b`$ because we do not know the non-trivial transition function between the smooth coordinate patches linking the two sets.

More specifically, in observational astronomy it is generally assumed that the metric can be written in the FRW form

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2d\sigma _3^2,$$
(1)
where the spatial three metric is usually expressed in spherical coordinates in a form depending on assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity. The associated topology is thus $`^1\times M^3`$ for some three-manifold, $`M^3.`$ In the standard models the three metric is one of the three constant curvature ones, each containing a “radial” coordinate444Of course in the spherical case the “radial” coordinate is not indefinitely continuable because it is essentially an angular one. However, this is not the sort of coordinate anomaly we are addressing here and can certainly be accommodated in standard models., $`r`$. Because of isotropy, the incoming geodesics are described globally (modulo the proviso in the footnote) by differential equations involving $`r,t`$ only. However, if $`M`$ is as described in Theorem 3 and the figure, these may not be globally smooth. Hence the actual metric would have to be expressed in terms of more than one $`r,t`$ coordinate region, and information extracted from the coordinate overlaps. Unfortunately, because the present mathematical technology does not provide us with an effective coordinate patch structure, more explicit statements than this cannot now be made. Nevertheless, the assumption that we can extrapolate information coming from incoming light rays back in time and out in space as if these geodesics would act as a radial type of coordinate system when indefinitely extended into their past is not valid if $`M`$ is used as a spacetime model. We should also note that although we have discussed only the $`_\mathrm{\Theta }^4`$ (which is actually $`^1\times _\mathrm{\Theta }^3`$) we could equally have chosen an exotic $`^1\times _\mathrm{\Theta }S^3`$.

A simple analogy is provided by gravitational lensing phenomena. Here we see two incoming null geodesics arriving at earth from different directions. However, the possibility that in some reasonable situations they cannot be extrapolated backward as “good” radial coordinates because they have been focused by the gravitational lens effect of an intervening massive object has been widely discussed and generally accepted as viable. Thus the extrapolation of the different angle data for the two incoming geodesics to different sources is incorrect.

###### Statement 1

(Gravitational lensing analogy) Null geodesics arriving from different angles may intersect in the past because of gravitational curvature caused by intervening mass and thus may not be extrapolated back as good radial coordinate lines.

What we are proposing here is more radical, of course, but just as viable in the sense that we know of no physical principles to exclude it, and it could lead to an understanding of apparent anomalous distant time behavior without introducing exotic theories or matter, just exotic smoothness of the spacetime manifold model.

###### Statement 2

(Exotic structures) Null geodesics arriving from distant sources may not be extrapolated back as good radial coordinate lines because of intervening coordinate patch transformations caused by global exotic smoothness.

In summary, what we want to emphasize is that without changing the Einstein equations or introducing exotic, yet undiscovered forms of matter, or even without changing topology, there is a vast resource of possible explanations for recently observed surprising astrophysical data at the cosmological scale provided by differential topology.

While it is true that at this stage of development of the mathematical technology it is not possible to give explicitly the coordinate patch overlap functions, research along these lines is being actively pursued. Furthermore, Sładkowski , has shown that it is possible to relate isometry groups (geometry) to differential structures in some cases.


text:
# Coupling Chemical Evolution with SPH

### Acknowledgments.

GC deeply thanks IAU for financial support. The authors acknowledge useful discussions with Jesper Sommer-Larsen and Claudio Dalla Vecchia.

## References

Arnaud M., Evrard A.E., 1999, MNRAS 305, 631

Carretta E., Gratton R.G., Sneden C., 2000, A&A 356, 238

Ishimaru Y., Arimoto N., 1997, PASJ 49, 1

Kroupa P., 1998, MNRAS 298, 231

Lia C., Carraro G., 2000, MNRAS 314, 145

Lia C., Portinari L., Carraro G., 2001, MNRAS, submitted

Matsumoto H. et al, 2000, PASJ 52, 153


text:
# Simulations of Galaxy Clusters observed by Chandra

## 1. Introduction

We present a software package that, starting from high resolution hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy clusters, reproduces observations of the ICM by the Chandra X–ray telescope. Syntetic data can then be processed and analysed using the same tools and procedures as real observations. This enables us to directly compare the results of the simulations with the observational data and furthermore to compare the intrinsic properties of clusters, as given by simulations, with the same quantities obtained at the end of the process of data reduction and analysis. In this way, we are able to check the reconstructed properties of clusters as well as to get indication on the quantity of information retained or lost in the observations. On the other hand it has to be remembered that the reliability of the comparison between a simulated quantity and the real counterpart depends on how well the relevant physics inside simulations is modelled.

## 2. Cluster Simulations

The package can be easily adapted to run on every kind on hydro-simulations. For our input we used a set of cluster simulations realized by G.Tormen via the resimulation technique of regions of interest inside a cosmological simulation (see e.g. Tormen, Bouchet, & White 1996).

This starting simulation reproduces a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model of Universe, with parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`H=70kms^1Mpc^1`$ and baryon fraction $`0.1`$. It describes a box of size equal to 479 $`Mpch^1`$ with $`512^3`$ particles of Dark Matter111 http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/Virgo/VLS.html.

Clusters are identified in its final output using a spherical overdensity algorithm and resimulated singularly from the beginning using the GADGET Tree-SPH code. Each resimulation makes use of $`10^6+10^6`$ particles of Dark Matter and gas to model the cluster and the surrounding region, while the external tidal field is reproduced by a smaller number of more massive particles. The mass of the Dark Matter particles ranges between 2 and $`510^9M_{}h^1`$ depending on the cluster, and the gas particle mass scales accordingly. The softening related to the cubic spline kernel is $`5kpch^1`$. At the end of the simulation the cluster is described by 2 to $`310^5`$ particles for each species inside the virial radius. A set of twelve clusters has been simulated and for each one 50 outputs were retained between $`z=10`$ and $`z=0`$.

## 3. Method : (1) general

In order to describe how the package works, it can be useful to distinguish between a first general part of the method and a second one related to Chandra. For a cluster at a given redshift $`z`$, the first part accounts for the construction of a map of the incoming flux (or of some other related quantity) that preserves the energy information.

We start by considering the position $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$, mass $`m_i`$, density $`\rho _i`$ and temperature $`T_i`$ for each gas particle $`i`$. We then assign to the particle a volume $`V_i=m_i/\rho _i`$ that is assumed cubic and centered on $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$.

We then assign to each particle the related spectral emissivity $`ϵ_i^\nu =ϵ_i^\nu (\rho _i,T_i)`$ computed by XSPEC using the MeKaL spectral model. The metallicity enters as a parameter; here we present results obtained assuming $`Z=0.3Z_{}`$, but any other value is possible. The luminosity of each particle becomes then $`L_i^\nu =ϵ_i^\nu V_i`$ and is assumed uniformly distibuted on $`V_i`$.

In general, we consider emissivity and derived quantities (luminosity, flux, surface brightness) in terms of incoming photons instead of energy because this quantity is more easily related to observations.

Given an observational direction, we get a bidimensional map of the cluster spectral luminosity projecting each $`L_i^\nu `$ on a pixellized perpendicular image and summing on particles. The information is then stored in a 3D array, where two dimensions are spatial and the third one contains the energy channels. The transformation from the cluster luminosity at redshift $`z`$ to the flux per pixel at $`z=0`$ is then direct: in term of incoming photons, it holds

$$F_\nu =\frac{(1+z)^2L_{\nu (1+z)}}{4\pi D_L^2},$$

being $`D_L`$ the luminosity distance. Note that the frequency $`\nu `$ in the flux is related to $`\nu (1+z)`$ in the cluster luminosity.

Typically, the number of pixels ranges from $`256^2`$ to $`1024^2`$, depending on the field of view, while the energy ranges from $`0.1`$ to $`10keV`$ in bins of $`20eV`$, even if $`100eV`$ should be sufficient according to the energy resolution of Chandra (Chandra Proposers’ Observatory Guide222http://asc.harvard.edu/udocs/docs/docs.html).

## 4. Method : (2) Chandra

It has to be remembered that a simulator of Chandra already exists: it is called MARX333http://space.mit.edu/ASC/MARX and performs the ray-tracing of incoming photons of a given source inside the telescope up to the possible final detection. It returns a list of binary data files describing the detection events that can be assembled to reproduce a CXC Level 1 FITS data file.

However, only some kind of sources of simple form and uniform spectral flux are implemented in MARX, while users are allowed to construct their specific source writing some C routines and linking it dynamically to the code. So did we, as described in the following.

For a given cluster, we generate a list of incoming photons by random extraction from the cumulative distribution of the spectral flux array described above. Each photon hence owns a position in a pixel and an energy in the energy band, with the given resolution. Other random extractions define the position of photon inside the pixel and its energy in the bin. The number of photons extracted is set to $`10^6`$.

We then enable MARX to accept as input this photon list and the total flux of the cluster (in $`photons^1cm^2`$): photons are randomly extracted from the list according to the total flux and the exposure time, and usually processed up to the possible detection.

No background is introduced by MARX. We add background events randomly extracting them from Chandra ACIS observations of empty fields available in the home page of M.Markevitch444http://hea-www.harvard.edu/$``$maxim. An example of a complete simulated observation is shown in the Fig. 1.

## 5. Data analysis and future developments

As written above, the detection events generated by MARX have the same caracteristics of the CXC Level 1 observational data file and can be analysed using the same procedures and CIAO tools. This analysis is currently in progress and will concern the reconstucted properties of clusters, the cluster morphology (maps and profiles) and its relation to the dynamical state of the object. Detectability of clusters at high redshift is another possible application.

We plan to extend this package to the XMM-Newton telescope, using the related simulator SCISIM, in the next future.

## 6. Acknowledgments

The author wish to thank L.Moscardini, G.Tormen and S.DeGrandi, that collaborate to this project.

## References

Tormen, G., Bouchet, F.R., & White, S.D.M., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 865


text:
# Larger physical volume with a noncompact lattice regularization of SU(N) theories

## 1 Introduction and summary

One of the major problems in lattice calculations is the need for a large physical volume . One possibility is to adopt an action for which the scaling is established at a larger lattice spacing. In this spirit we investigate a noncompact regularization  where exact gauge invariance is enforced by the use of auxiliary fields.

## 2 The noncompact regularization for U(N)

As it is well known, a simple discretization of the continuum covariant derivative breaks gauge invariance. Nevertheless the transformation

$$D_\mu ^{}(x)=g(x)D_\mu (x)g^{}(x+\mu )$$
(1)
of the lattice covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ can be exactly enforced by the use of auxiliary compensating fields.

Let us assume the following definitions:

$`D_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\sigma _\mu (x)+i\chi _\mu (x)\right]11`$ (2)
$`+\left[iA_\mu ^a\alpha _\mu ^a(x)\right]T_a,`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu (x)D_\nu (x+\mu )`$ (3)
$`D_\nu (x)D_\mu (x+\nu ),`$
$`_{YM}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\beta \text{Tr}F_{\mu \nu }^{}(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x),.`$ (4)
We emphasize that in such a formulation the measure in the partition function is flat.

In the formal continuum limit the field $`\sigma _\mu `$ becomes invariant and decouples together with $`\alpha _\mu ^a`$, hence these seem to be the auxiliary fields. To control the decoupling of these fields at the quantum level we introduce the invariant potential (without a continuum analog)

$$_1=\beta _1\underset{\mu }{}Tr\left[D_\mu ^{}(x)D_\mu (x)\frac{11}{a^2}\right]^2.$$
(5)
We obtain an U(N) invariant theory. In general we cannot restrict ourselves to the SU(N) symmetry by changing the covariant derivative, and at the same time the potential $`_1`$ does not generate a mass for the $`\chi `$-field. Indeed the Ward identities  show that no U(N) invariant potential can generate a mass for both abelian fields. We must therefore break explicitly the U(N) symmetry in order to give all the abelian fields a divergent mass. The case N=2 is exceptional because by omitting the fields $`\chi _\mu ,\alpha _\mu `$ we obtain a SU(2) invariant theory with only one abelian auxiliary field. This case has already been exhaustively studied .

## 3 The noncompact regularization for SU(N)

To break the U(N) invariance of the action we add the potential

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left[\text{det}D_\mu (x)+\text{det}D_\mu ^{}(x)\right]`$ (6)
which requires  the additional term

$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Tr\left[D_\mu ^{}(x)D_\mu (x){\displaystyle \frac{11}{a^2}}\right].`$ (7)
In conclusion the full classical lagrangian is

$$_G=_{YM}+_1+_2+_3.$$
(8)
By adopting a definition of the covariant derivative where the abelian fields are in a polar representation

$$D_\mu (x)=\widehat{D}_\mu (x)\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _\mu (x),$$
(9)
where

$$\widehat{D}_\mu =\rho _\mu 11+\left[i(A^{})_\mu ^a(\alpha ^{})_\mu ^a\right]T_a,$$
(10)
we find that the lagrangian density is stationary for $`\overline{\rho }_\mu ^{(0)}=0`$ and

$$\overline{\rho }_\mu ^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{4a\beta _1}\left[|\beta _2|\pm \sqrt{\beta _2^2+8\beta _1\left(2\beta _1\beta _3\right)}\right].$$
(11)
We have to choose the couplings so as to have one and only one minimum for $`\overline{\rho }_\mu =1/a`$; this requirement gives

$$|\beta _2|=\beta _3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}\beta _1>\beta _3.$$
(12)
In the tree approximation the masses of the auxiliary fields turn out to be

$`m_\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{a^2}}\left(4\beta _1\beta _3\right),m_\varphi ^2={\displaystyle \frac{18}{a^2}}\beta _3,`$
$`m_\alpha ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{a^2}}\left(2\beta _1+\beta _3\right).`$ (13)
## 4 Numerical study of the SU(2) noncompact regularization

In the SU(2) case the regularization can be defined with only two coupling constants, namely $`\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/\gamma `$. In the limit of vanishing $`1/\gamma `$ we obtain the Wilson regularization.

In perturbative calculations the continuum limit is reached with a scale parameter equal to Wilson one .

In numerical simulations the situation is different. On general grounds we expect that there will exist a scaling region in the plane $`\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/\gamma `$ where the properties of convergence to the continuum vary. To investigate this feature we adopted the following strategy . The ratio $`R(\beta ,1/\gamma )`$ of two particle masses was calculated on a regular grid in the $`(\beta ,1/\gamma )`$ plane. These values were fitted so as to obtain a continuously varying surface. The scaling region is that where the ratio is constant and takes the same value it has in the asymptotic scaling region. Actually in the scaling region the mass ratio must take the same value it has in the asymptotic scaling region for Wilson regularization (the $`1/\gamma =0`$ line). The comparison with Wilson results allows us to shorten our calculations, but in no case is mandatory.

It is a crucial condition for the above scheme to be valid, that the only dimensionful quantity of the theory be the renormalization group scaling parameter. This is true if we work in the chiral limit, therefore we evaluated the mass spectrum at four finite quark mass values and then we extrapolated it to the chiral limit. The same considerations led us to work in the quenched approximation, also to allow a comparison with the analytical calculations in .

The details of our numerical work are described in . Here we briefly discuss some of the results. In Fig. 1 we report the fitting surface $`R(\beta ,1/\gamma )`$. We see an (almost) flat region (valley) that originates from the $`1/\gamma =0`$ line (Wilson results), and propagates towards larger values of $`\beta `$ for increasing $`1/\gamma `$. The flat region in the Wilson limit coincides with the usual asymptotic scaling region for $`SU(2)`$ pure gauge lattice theory for the small lattices we considered.

Therefore we tentatively identify the valley as the scaling window (although not the asymptotic scaling region) for the non-compact regularization. In order to make this observation more precise we report in Fig. 2 the curves of constant $`R`$ in the plane $`\beta ,1/\gamma `$. We performed some additional check to confirm the identification of the scaling region, obtaining reassuring results .

Any point inside the scaling window is a good one for approximating the continuum theory, but actual results can be different. In particular the physical value of the lattice spacing, and then the physical volume of the lattice, varies from point to point.

We present in Fig. 3 the behaviour of the lattice spacing, as extracted from the $`\rho ^+`$ mass, along the center of the valley. We can clearly see that the lattice spacing becomes larger and larger the more we depart from the Wilson case, $`1/\gamma =0`$. This improvement can be increased if we move towards larger $`\beta `$ and $`1/\gamma `$, but with a narrower scaling valley.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Ly$`\alpha `$ transition of five-times ionized Oxygen is an important tracer of diffuse matter in the universe, both at high redshift where the transition falls in the optical and now — thanks to new high-resolution spaced-based UV-spectroscopy — at low and moderate redshift as well. Absorption lines due to intervening gas in high-redshift quasars are an indispensable way to detect low density material because the signal is proportional to the integrated column density of the element. In contrast, X-ray emission grows as the second power of the local density. This means that the low-density, hot filaments predicted in numerical simulations  are much more accessible to absorption line studies than to direct X-ray detection.

## 2 Predicting the number of O vi lines

In these proceedings, we use numerical simulations of a cosmological-constant dominated universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.04,h=0.67`$) to make predictions of O vi absorption line statistics. We use an adaptive mesh refinement code  to model a 20 $`h^1`$ Mpc box with up to 10 kpc resolution (in small regions). A drawback of this simulation is that while it includes hydrodynamic shock-heating, it does not model star formation and stellar feedback. Therefore, it does not self-consistently pollute the IGM with metals. In order to make predictions for the O vi distribution, we must assume a distribution of metals. We do this by parameterizing the results of , who found in their simulations a strong correlation between local density and metal abundance. We have also experimented with a spatially constant metal fraction of 10%, which does not substantially change the results described below.

In Figure 1, we plot the predicted number of O vi absorption lines as a function of equivalent width. In order to investigate the relative effects of collisional and photoionization, we plot the results with and without a uniform ionizing background (as predicted in ). The collisional ionization-only model marginally matches the observations, while the combined version provides excellent agreement with observations. In either case, lines with equivalent widths larger than about 70 m$`\AA `$ arise only in collisionally ionized gas.

## 3 The distribution of line widths

If the raw number of absorption lines agree with observations, what about the distribution of their widths? In Figure 2, we plot the prediction for this distribution, assuming minimum cutoffs of 30 m$`\AA `$ and 60 m$`\AA `$. Clearly these two distributions are quite different, with the higher cutoff curve coming mostly from collisionally ionized regions, while the lower cutoff includes contributions from both ionization mechanisms. This plot confirms previous speculation () indicating that collisionally ionized lines are hotter and hence have larger Doppler parameters than photo-ionized regions.

While it is difficult to compare this to observations due to the differing resolutions and analysis techniques, a recent compilation of low-redshift O vi lines provides a useful point of comparison . This sample, which includes a diverse set of systems, has a median $`b`$ parameter of 22 km/s. The two distributions in Figure 2 have medians of 13 km/s (for the 30 m$`\AA `$ cutoff) and 18 km/s (for 60 m$`\AA `$).

## 4 Discussion

There is a reasonably strong case that the O vi absorption lines are tracing the filaments of hot gas long predicted by numerical simulations of structure formation. Here we show — in agreement with a recent preprint  — that the predicted number of absorbers roughly agrees with the number observed.

Most of the absorbers are found in systems with densities typically 5-100 times the mean density (see  for a more complete discussion of this point). These are not primarily galactic systems, but are the web of filaments that link collapsed objects.

While the total numbers are in good agreement with observations, the line widths (as measured by the Doppler $`b`$ distribution) are somewhat low. Although it is not clear what the appropriate lower cutoff is for the observational sample discussed above, it seems likely that the simulations predict median $`b`$ parameters that are lower than that seen in FUSE and STIS samples.

If this disagreement persists, there are a number of possible explanations. The first is that the numerics are incorrect. Certainly the filaments are marginally resolved, and it is possible that improved simulations will refine the predicted value (as occurred for the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest results at high redshift). The second is that energy ejected from galactic systems increases the mean temperature of the IGM, which would boost the $`b`$ parameters in Figure 2.

A final possibility is that this is telling us something about the strength of either the ionizing background or the value of the mean baryon density (or the metallicity). Varying either of these could decrease the number of photo-ionized systems which make it above the 30 or 60 m$`\AA `$ cutoff and so increase the proportion of lines which are collisionally ionized. Since these hotter systems have higher $`b`$ values in general, this would boost the median $`b`$ value. In Figure 3, we have used various line-strength cutoffs and then fit the resulting $`b`$ distribution to a log-normal profile. For the model which includes photo-ionization, increasing the cutoff leads to an increase in $`b_{ln}`$ (which is nearly equal to the median). It is clear that the distribution of line widths (and absorption line studies in general) will tell us important information about the physical condition of the IGM.

Acknowledgements.  This work is supported in part by contracts NAS 8-38249 and SAO SV1-61010, and NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01104.01-98A from STScI. Simulations were carried out on the Origin2000 at NCSA.