text:
# Presheaves, Sheaves and their Topoi in Quantum Gravity and Quantum LogicShort paper version of the talk “Reflections on a Possible ‘Quantum Topos’ Structure Where Curved Quantum Causality Meets ‘Warped’ Quantum Logic” given at the 5th International Quantum Structures Association Conference in Cesena, Italy (31/3—5/4/2001).

## 1 Introduction: two questions motivating our quest

The following two questions, one physical the other more mathematical, motivate essentially our general research project of applying sheaf and topos-theoretic concepts, techniques and results to quantum gravity and quantum logic:

* Is there a fundamental connection between the quantum logical structure of the world and its dynamically variable microcausal or chronological structure at Planck scales as the latter is supposed to be determined by the until now persistently elusive quantum theory of gravity?

and related to it:

* How can one localize noncommutatively?

Concerning the first question, we intuit that a sound theoretical scheme for quantum gravity should be intimately related to the logical structure of the world at quantum scales: in a strong sense, quantum causality should be unified at the dynamical level with quantum logic in the light of quantum gravity. In turn, this conjecture essentially implies our main suspicion that in the quantum spacetime deep even quantum logic should be regarded as a quantum ‘observable’ entity that is subject to dynamical changes—a dynamical physical logic analogous to the dynamical physical spacetime geometry of the classical theory of gravity (ie, general relativity) . That logos is somehow related to chronos at a fundamental level111In fact, the opening quotation from  suggests that logic derives from dynamics! has become the central theme in our quantum gravity research program over the last few years.

Our subsequent decision to implement mathematically this theme by using sheaf and topos-theoretic concepts, techniques and results is based on the by now widely established fact, at least among categorists and related ‘toposophers’, that the theory of presheaves, sheaves and their topoi fuses geometry with logic at a basic level . It only appeared natural to us that if geometry could be somehow identified with ‘spacetime geometry’ in particular, while logic with ‘quantum logic’, then the long sought after unification of relativity with quantum mechanics could be possibly achieved by sheaf and topos-theoretic means. After all, the methods of sheaf and topos theory are of an essentially algebraic nature , and lately there has been a strong tendency among mathematical physicists to tackle the problem of quantum gravity entirely by categorico-algebraic means .

Concerning the second motivating question above which, as we will argue subsequently, is closely related to the first, our quest focuses on a possible formulation of a noncommutative topology and its associated noncommutative sheaf theory that can can be applied to the problem of the quantum structure and dynamics of spacetime. Our original motivation for looking into the possibility of a noncommutative or, ultimately, ‘quantum’ topology for quantum gravity rested heavily on our desire to abandon the geometric spacetime continuum on which the mathematics of general relativity (ie, the standard differential geometry) essentially rests for some structure of a more finitistic, algebraic and, hopefully, dynamical character . This is the subject of the next section and we will use it as the raison d’être of our endeavor to apply sheaf and topos-theoretic ideas to quantum gravity.

Thus, the short report below commences with various physical and mathematical evidence that we have collected in the past couple of years against the classical topological (ie, $`𝒞^0`$-continuous) and differential (ie, $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth) manifold model of spacetime by essentially basing ourselves on quantum theory’s principles of finiteness or discreteness, superposition and, as a result, algebraic noncommutativity, as well as on relativity’s central principle of local causality commonly known as ‘locality’. Thus, we will see how effectively sheaf and topos-theoretic ideas may be used to formulate a locally finite, causal and quantal version of (at least the kinematics of) discrete Lorentzian quantum gravity , for it has been convincingly argued that capturing the ‘proper’ kinematical structure constitutes the first decisive step towards arriving at the notoriously elusive quantum dynamics for spacetime and gravity .

## 2 The Past: manifold reasons against the spacetime manifold

A noncommutative geometry  has already been proposed, significantly worked out and diversely applied to the problem of the quantum structure and dynamics of spacetime (ie, quantum gravity). However, it seems theoretically rather ad hoc, lame and short sighted to think of a higher level structure such as the geometry of spacetime as being subject to some sort of quantization and as participating into, in principle measurable, dynamical variations222That is, in general relativity at least, the gravitational field, which is represented by the spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, is treated as an observable; in fact, the sole spacetime observable. thus be soundly modelled by noncommutative mathematics, while a more basic structure such as the spacetime topology to be treated essentially as a fixed classical entity, hence be modelled after a non-varying locally Euclidean manifold equipped with algebras of commutative coordinates labelling its point events . Related to this, and from a rather general and technical perspective, while a commutative sheaf theory has been rather quickly developed, well understood and widely applied to both mathematics and physics , a noncommutative one (and the topology related to it) has been rather slow in coming and certainly not unanimously agreed on how to be applied to quantum spacetime research 333That is to say, not all mathematicians and mathematical physicists agree on what ought to qualify as ‘noncommutative topology’ proper and its related noncommutative sheaf or scheme theory. At the same time, there is no collective agreement on how such a noncommutative or quantum  topology may be applied to the problem of the quantum structure and dynamics of spacetime..

At the same time, and from a physical point of view, the unreasonableness and unphysicality of the locally Euclidean topological ($`𝒞^0`$) and differential ($`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$) manifold model $`M`$ for spacetime is especially pronounced when one considers:

* (a) Pointedness of events: $`M`$’s pathological nature in the guise of singularities that plague general relativity—the classical theory of gravity—which are mainly due to the geometric point-like character of the events that constitute it, as well as due to the algebras of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth functions employed to coordinatize these point events  (and also due to (b) next).
* (b) Continuous infinity of events: $`M`$’s problematic nature due to the fact that one can in principle pack an uncountable infinity of the aforementioned point events in a finite spacetime volume resulting in the non-renormalizable infinities that impede any serious attempt at uniting quantum mechanics with general relativity (at least at the ‘calculational’ level)444The (a) and (b) pathological features of the manifold model above may be summarized in its character as a geometric point set differential continuum of events ..
* (c) Non-dynamical and non-quantal topology: Its non-variable and non-quantal nature when one expects that at Planck scales not only the spacetime metric, but also that the spacetime topology partakes into quantum phenomena , that is to say, it is a dynamically variable entity whose connections engage into coherent quantum superpositions. We may distill this by saying that the manifold topology is, quantally speaking, an unobservable entity not manifesting quantum dynamical fluctuations or interference between its defining connections —a rigid substance, once and forever fixed by the theorist, that is not part of the dynamical flux of Nature at microscopic scales. Furthermore, the (algebras of) commutative $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-determinations of the manifold’s point events indicate another non-quantal (classical) feature of the spacetime manifold .
* (d) Additional structures: $`M`$’s need of extra structures required to be introduced by hand by the theoretician and not being ‘naturally’ related to the topological manifold (ie, the $`𝒞^0`$-continuous) one. Such structures are the differential (ie, the $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth) and Lorentzian metric (ie, the smooth metric field $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ of absolute signature $`2`$) ones , and they are implicitly postulated by the general relativist on top of $`M`$’s fixed continuous topology in order to support the apparently necessary full differential geometric (ie, Calculus based!) panoply of general relativity. The $`4`$-dimensional, $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth Lorentzian manifold assumption for spacetime concisely summarizes the kinematics of general relativity .
* (e) Non-operationality: $`M`$’s gravely non-operational (ie, non-algebraic) character as a static, pre-existent background geometric structure—an inert stage on which fields propagate and interact—whose existence is postulated up-front by the theorist rather than being defined by some (algebraically modelled) physical operations of determination or localization of its point events. This seems to be in striking discord with the main tenet of the philosophy of quantum theory supporting an observer (and observation!) dependent reality . Furthermore, one would ultimately expect that it is the dynamical relations between quanta that define spacetime, that is to say, from which spacetime, with its topological, differential and Lorentzian metric properties, should be effectively derived somehow , so that the latter should not be regarded as an a priori absolute ether-like substance —an unjustifiably necessary passive receptacle fixed once and forever to host dynamical fields and their interactions, but, at the same time, an entity that does not actively participate in them555In the words of Einstein: “a substance that acts, but is not acted upon.. In any case, and in view of (b) above, we have no actual experience of a continuous infinity of events and their differential separation cannot be recorded in the laboratory; for evidently, realistic experiments are of finite duration and are carried out in laboratories of finite size. Moreover, as a matter of principle, one cannot determine the gravitational field, hence the metric separation, between infinitesimally separated events (ie, events whose space-time distance is smaller than Planck’s—$`l_p10^{35}m`$-$`t_P10^{44}s`$) without creating a black hole. This seems to point to a fundamental cut-off of continuous spacetime which strongly suggests that spacetime becomes reticular or granular above a certain Planck energy ($`E_P10^{19}GeV`$). The continuous commutatively coordinatized geometric manifold is experimentally (or experientially!) a non-pragmatic model of spacetime that should be replaced at a basic level by a physically more plausible, perhaps combinatorial and quantal (ie, noncommutative-algebraic), structure .
* (f) Spatiality and globalness of topology: $`M`$’s $`2`$-way undirected, locally Euclidean topological structure, will likely prove to be inadequate for modelling the irreversible small scale connections between events, for it has been seriously proposed that the ‘real’ quantum theory of gravity will turn out to be ‘innately’ a time-asymmetric theory . At the same time, the very conception of topology as a theory of reversible, spatial (or spacelike!) connections between points should be challenged, and justly so because of the prominent lack of experimental evidence for tachyons moving back and forth in spatial or spacelike directions. In any case, the general conception of topology as the study of the ‘global’ features of space may seem to be problematic in a fundamental theoresis of Physis where all significant dynamical variables are expected to respect some kind of locality principle (ie, where all observables are in effect local variables propagating in temporal or causal directions independently of whether this dynamics ultimately turns out to be time-asymmetric or not).

With these doubts about the physical soundness of the geometric spacetime continuum in the quantum deep, we are able to discuss next a finitary-algebraic model for (the kinematics of) discrete Lorentzian quantum gravity that we presently possess based on sheaf and topos-theoretic ideas, as it were, to alleviate or even evade the aforementioned (a)-(f) ‘pathologies’ of the classical spacetime manifold.

## 3 The Present: sheaves and their topoi in discrete Lorentzian quantum gravity

Pointlessness and Discreteness: Finitary substitutes for continuous spacetime topology, that is to say, when spacetime is modelled after a topological (ie, $`𝒞^0`$) manifold $`M`$, were derived in  from locally finite open covers of a bounded region $`X`$ of $`M`$ in a spirit akin to the combinatorial Čech-Alexandrov simplicial skeletonizations of continuous manifolds . These substitutes were seen to be locally finite $`T_0`$-posets and were interpreted as finitary approximations of the continuous locally Euclidean topology of $`M`$. At the heart of this approach to spacetime discretization lies the realistic or ‘pragmatic’ assumption  that at a fundamental level the singular spacetime point events should be replaced (or smeared out) by something coarser or ‘larger’, with immediately obvious candidates being open sets (or generally, ‘regions’) about them . Then, the resulting poset topological spaces that substitute $`M`$ are, in fact, complete distributive lattices otherwise known as locales . The pointlessness of these finitary locales (finlocales) should be contrasted against the pointedness of $`M`$ mentioned in (a) above, while their discreteness comes to relieve $`M`$’s pathology (b). Also, it should be emphasized that the continuous $`M`$, with the $`𝒞^0`$-manifold topology carried by its points, can be recovered at the ideal inverse limit of infinite refinement of an inverse system or net of these finlocales, so that one is able to establish a connection between these discrete topological poset substrata and the continuous manifold that they replace on the one hand, as well as to justify their qualification as sound approximations of $`M`$ on the other .

Algebra over geometry: In , sheaves of continuous functions on the finitary locales of the previous paragraph were studied. In the same way that the locally finite locales were interpreted as sound approximations of the continuous topology of (the bounded region $`X`$ of) the spacetime manifold $`M`$, so their corresponding finitary spacetime sheaves666We will call them ‘finsheaves’ for short à la . were viewed as reticular substitutes of the sheaf of (algebras of) $`𝒞^0`$-functions on $`X`$ which, in turn, represent the observables of the continuous topology of the spacetime region $`\mathrm{X}`$. The duality of the two approaches in  and  towards discretizing the spacetime topological continuum was particularly emphasized in , namely that, while in the former scheme finitary locales approximate the spacetime topology per se, in a more operational (ie, algebraic) spirit that suits sheaf theory , the latter approach discretizes (or ‘finitizes’) the sheaf structure of (the algebras of) our own observations of that continuous spacetime topology. The crucial change of emphasis in the physical semantics of the two approaches is from discretizations of a background point set geometric realm ‘out there’, to ones of our very own (algebraic) operations of perceiving that realm—which spacetime realm, for all we know, may not physically exist independently of these operations after all. Arguably, the finsheaf-theoretic approach comes to alleviate the shortcoming (e) of $`M`$ above; while sheaves, being by definition local homeomorphisms , certainly address $`M`$’s ‘globalness’ problem alluded to in (f), namely, local topological information is more important than the usual global information about, say, handles, holes etc that (the ‘classical’ conception of) topology is concerned with .

Temporality and causality over spatiality and topology: In a dramatic change of physical interpretation of the finitary topological posets (finlocales) involved in , Sorkin and coworkers insisted that the partial orders involved should not be interpreted as coarse topological or undirected $`2`$-way spatial relations between geometric points, but rather as directed $`1`$-way primordial causal ‘after’ relations between events inhabiting so-called causal set substrata777Hereafter to be abbreviated as ‘causets’ . that are supposed to fundamentally underlie the classical curved Lorentzian manifold of general relativity at Planck scales . In contradistinction to the purely topological character of the finitary locales in , causets are supposed to encode information about the microcausal relations between events in the quantum spacetime deep. Moreover, as Sorkin et al. stress in , the partial order causality relation of causets encodes almost complete information not only about the topological (ie, $`𝒞^0`$) structure of the classical spacetime manifold, but also about its differential (ie, the $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth) and conformal Lorentzian metric structures (ie, the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ of signature $`2`$ modulo its determinant which represents the elementary spacetime volume measure) that are usually externally prescribed by the theorist on top of its continuous topology. That causality in its order-theoretic guise is a deeper, more physical888Especially due to lack of experimental evidence for tachyons. Again, see section 2. (and perhaps more pertinent to the problem of quantum gravity) conception than topology per se has already been amply noted in . The upshot of the aforementioned ‘semantic reversal’ is that from the causet viewpoint, locally finite partial orders should not be viewed as effective topological approximations of the classical spacetime manifold, but, on the contrary, the latter should be regarded as being of a contingent (ie, non-fundamental) character, and as reflecting our own ignorance about (and related ‘grossness’ of our model of) the very fine structure of the world. All in all, the manifold is the poor relative, ultimately, the approximation of the causet, not the other way around.

To recapitulate then, partial orders as causal, not topological, relations: this is what is ‘going on’ between events in the quantum deep . All this certainly presents a sound alternative to the ‘additional structures’ and ‘spatiality’ problems of the spacetime manifold mentioned above in (d) and (f), respectively.

Finlocales and their corresponding causets quantized: In , an algebraic representation of Sorkin’s finlocales was given, namely, with every finitary poset substitute of a continuous spacetime manifold a finite dimensional, complex, associative and noncommutative Rota incidence algebra  was associated in such a way that the topological information encoded in the former was seen to be the same as that encoded in the latter . Furthermore, in the new environment of the Rota algebras there is a natural linear superposition operation between the arrows (ie, the partial order relations) in their corresponding posets that is characteristically absent from Sorkin’s formulation of discrete topological spaces as posets . In other words, and this is the main physical interpretation of the formal mathematical structures involved in , in the algebraic context one is able to form coherent quantum superpositions between the topological connections defining these reticular topological substrata of the classical spacetime manifold. Moreover, this interpretation of the incidence algebras associated with the finlocale replacements of the classical continuum as discrete quantum spacetime topologies enabled us to conceive of the aforementioned inverse limit procedure by which the continuum is recovered from finlocales in  as Bohr’s correspondence principle. That is, the topological spacetime manifold arises at the classical and experientially non-pragmatic limit of infinite energy of resolution , and concomitant ‘decoherence’, of an inverse system of reticular quantum topological Rota algebraic substrata . Thus, in the Rota finitary-algebraic context we are able to formulate a quantum sort of spacetime topology  hence evade the problematic non-quantal nature of the continuum mentioned in (c) above.

In connection with this continuum classical limit, it should also be mentioned that actually not only the $`𝒞^0`$-topological, but also the differential (ie, the $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth) structure of spacetime was anticipated in  to emerge at the classical limit from a ‘foam’ of such discrete quantum Rota topologies. This is so because the incidence algebras under focus in  were seen to be graded discrete differential manifolds in the sense of Dimakis and Müller-Hoissen 999In a nutshell, a reticular analogue of the nilpotent Kähler-Cartan differential d (and its dual homological boundary operator $`\delta `$) can be defined on these incidence algebras. See .. Moreover, since the differential structure of the limit manifold represents the notion of locality in classical spacetime physics101010That is, the local structure of classical spacetime is taken to be the point event and the space (graded module) of differential forms (co)tangent to it. , these algebraic discrete quantum topological substrata were coined ‘alocal structures’—as mentioned earlier, in a sense neither local (general relativity) nor non-local (quantum mechanics) structures .

A couple more things should be mentioned now that we are talking about the Rota algebraic quantization of Sorkin’s finitary locales. First, one should emphasize that the general method (and philosophy!), originally due to Gelfand, of extracting points from algebras as well as of assigning a fairly ‘natural’ topology to the latter, thus ‘geometrizing’, as it were, algebraic structures, was first used by Zapatrin in  for gathering useful geometrical information from finite dimensional incidence algebras and for establishing their topological equivalence to the finitary posets of Sorkin . At the heart of this so-called ‘spatialization procedure’ lies the recognition that points in these algebras are precisely the (kernels of equivalence classes of) irreducible (finite dimensional Hilbert space) representations of these algebras which, in turn, may be identified with the elements of their primitive spectra (ie, the primitive ideals in the algebras) .

The second thing that should be noted here is the categorical duality (ie, a contravariant functor) between the poset category of incidence Rota algebras associated with the finitary locales of Sorkin, and the poset category of the latter when viewed as simplicial complexes à la Čech-Alexandrov111111See  for this so-called ‘nerve construction of simplicial complexes’. . In  the latter category, consisting of finitary posets or simplicial complexes and ‘refinement arrows’ $``$121212That is, injective simplicial maps or injective poset morphisms, or even, ‘continuous injections’ between finitary locales., was called the Alexandrov-Sorkin category131313Symbolized by $`𝔓`$., while the former category, consisting of finite dimensional incidence algebras and ‘coarsening arrows’ $``$141414That is epi incidence algebra homomorphisms., was coined the Rota-Zapatrin category151515Symbolized by $``$.. For the time being we note that this contravariant functor between $`𝔓`$ and $``$ may be immediately recognized as defining a presheaf of finite dimensional incidence algebras over finitary locales.

We should also mention that in  an algebraic quantization procedure of the locally finite poset structures representing causets of Sorkin et al.  was suggested based on the analogous process of quantization of finlocales of Sorkin  proposed in . In little detail, with every causet its incidence Rota algebra was associated and interpreted as a quantum causal set161616Hereafter to be referred to as ‘qauset’. in such a way that the local causal-topological information encoded in the causet171717That is, the info in the so-called ‘covering relations’—the immediate causal arrows of the underlying poset Hasse graphs. corresponds to the one encoded in the generating relations of the algebraic Rota topology of the qauset181818This observation will be of crucial importance in the next paragraph where we will talk about finsheaves of qausets as local homeomorphisms between causets and qausets .. Another important thing to notice from  in the Rota algebraic environment that we have cast causets, and this is the main virtue of qausets that essentially qualifies them as the quantum analogues of causets, is that the model allows for coherent quantum superpositions between the causal arrows—a feature that was prominently absent from the purely poset categorical (arrow semigroup) structures modelling causets. Thus, we have in our hands a finitary-algebraic model for quantum causal topology .

Curving a noncommutative topology for qausality: In , curved finsheaves of qausets were defined as principal finsheaves of the non-abelian incidence Rota algebras modelling qausets having for structure group of local symmetries a finitary version of the continuous orthochronous Lorentz group and for base or localization space Sorkin et al.’s causets191919Technically speaking, finsheaves of qausets over causets are local homeomorphisms between the base causets and the qauset stalks . The aforementioned local topological equivalence between finlocales and their incidence algebras comes in handy for defining such finitary local homeomorphisms (finsheaves).. Non-trivial spin-Lorentzian (ie, $`sl(2,)`$-valued) connections on these finsheaves were defined à la Mallios , and the resulting structures were interpreted as finitary, causal and quantal substitutes of the kinematics of Lorentzian gravity since an inverse system of these finsheaves was seen to ‘converge’ in the limit of infinite energy of localization to the Lorentzian manifold—the kinematical structure of general relativity .

Then, it has been recently speculated  that as $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐡}(X)`$—the topos of sheaves of sets over a spacetime manifold $`X`$—may be viewed as a (mathematical) universe of variable sets varying continuously over $`X`$ , so a possible topos-organization of the curved finsheaves of qausets in  (call it $`{}_{}{}^{fcq}\mathrm{𝐒𝐡}(X)(\stackrel{}{P})`$202020The topos of sheaves of (f)initary, (c)ausal and (q)uantal sets (qausets) over Sorkin et al.’s causets $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ .) may be regarded as a (physical) universe of dynamically variable qausets varying under the influence of a locally finite, causal and quantal version of Lorentzian gravity. In such a possible model it would be rather natural to address the question opening the present paper since the internal intuitionistic-type of logic of $`{}_{}{}^{fcq}\mathrm{𝐒𝐡}(X)(\stackrel{}{P})`$ should be intimately related to the intuitionistic logic that underlies quantum logic proper in its topos-theoretic guise . This gives us significant hints for the deep connection between the quantum logical structure of the world and its dynamically variable reticular causal or chronological structure at Planck scales vis-à-vis quantum gravity.

The discussion above brings us to the use of presheaves and their topoi in quantum logic proper and, in extenso, to the logic of consistent-histories.

Presheaves and their topoi in quantum logic and consistent-histories: In , the Koch- en-Specker theorem of quantum logic was studied from a topos-theoretic perspective. In particular, it was shown that quantum logic is ‘warped’ or ‘curved’ relative to its Boolean sublogics . This was achieved by showing that certain presheaves of sets over the base poset category of Boolean subalgebras of a quantum projection lattice $``$ associated with the Hilbert space $``$ (of dimensionality greater than $`2`$) of a quantum system do not admit global sections, but they do so only locally. Since these sections were interpreted as valuations (on propositions represented by the projectors in $`()`$), and since the presheaves were organized into a topos (of so-called ‘varying sets’ ), the aforesaid warping phenomenon could be read as follows: unlike classical (Boolean) logic—which is the internal logic of the ‘classical’ topos $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$ of constant sets, quantum logic does not admit a global notion of truth; or equivalently: in quantum logic truth is localized on (or relativized with respect to) the Boolean logics embedded in it. Furthermore, as a result of this, and as befits the internal logic of the topos of presheaves of sets over a poset category , Butterfield et al. show that quantum logic is locally intuitionistic (‘neorealist’), not Boolean (‘realist’).

Very similar to the treatment of quantum logic by presheaf and topos-theoretic means above is Isham’s assumption of a topos-theoretic perspective on the logic of the consistent-histories approach to quantum theory . Briefly, Isham showed that the universal orthoalgebra $`𝒰𝒫`$ of history propositions admits non-trivial localizations or ‘contextualizations’ (of truth) over its classical Boolean subalgebras. More technically speaking, it was shown that one cannot meaningfully assign truth or semantic values to propositions about histories globally in $`𝒰𝒫`$, but that one can only do so locally, that is to say, when the propositions live in certain Boolean sublattices of $`𝒰𝒫`$—the classical sites, or ‘windows’ , or even ‘points’  within the ortholattice $`𝒰𝒫`$. Moreover, the simultaneous consideration of all such Boolean subalgebras and all consistent sets of history propositions led Isham to realize that the internal logic of the consistent-histories theory is neither classical (Boolean) nor quantum proper, but intuitionistic212121As alluded to above in the context of quantum logic proper, Isham in  uses the epithet ‘neorealist’ for the quantal logic of the consistent-histories theory in its topos-theoretic guise. Quite resonably, we feel, one could also coin this logic ‘neoclassical’ —this name referring to the departure of the Brouwerian logic of the topos of consistent-histories in  from the two-valued Boolean lattice calculus obeyed by the states of a classical mechanical system which are modelled after point subsets of its phase space. Arguably then, the logic of a classical mechanical system is Boolean like that of the topos $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$ of constant ‘classical’ sets.. This result befits the fact that the relevant mathematical structure involved in , namely, the collection of presheaves of sets varying over the poset category of Boolean sublattices of $`𝒰𝒫`$, is an example of a topos , for it is a general result in category theory that every topos has an internal logic that is strongly typed and intuitionistic . As in the case of quantum logic, the logic of consistent-histories is (locally) intuitionistic (Heyting) and ‘warped’ relative to its ‘local’ classical Boolean sublogics 222222This departure of quantum logic proper  and of the quantal logic underlying consistent-histories  from classical Boolean logic is certainly less striking than the famous ‘global’ difference between quantum and Boolean logic, namely that, while the latter is distributive, the former are non-distributive. Thus, properly speaking, quantum logic, although it is globally non-distributive, locally it is so; albeit, non-Boolean, but intuitionistic (Heyting)..

Furthermore, in , the base poset category of Boolean sublattices of $`𝒰𝒫`$ was endowed with a suitable Vietoris-type of topology so that the presheaves of varying sets over the Boolean subalgebras of $`𝒰𝒫`$ were appropriately converted to sheaves and, as a result, their respective topos was viewed as a mathematical universe of sets varying continuously over $`𝒰𝒫`$. Moreover, the stalks of these sheaves were given further algebraic structure—that of incidence Rota algebras—together with the latter’s physical interpretation as qausets , so that we arrived at sheaves of consistent-histories of qausets. As a result, the topos-like organization of these sheaves—the topos of quantum causal histories—was anticipated to be the natural physico-mathematical universe in which ‘curved quantum causality meets warped quantum logic’232323See title of the talk delivered at QS5 (read first footnote in this paper)., as it were, to answer to the first question opening the present paper.

Now, the discussion about the topos of quantum causal histories brings us to speculate briefly about the immediate future development of our general research project ‘presheaves, sheaves and their topoi in quantum gravity and quantum logic’.

## 4 The Future: envisaging ‘quantum sheaves’ and their ‘quantum topoi’

Of great interest to us for the future development of our research program, and keeping in mind the second question opening this paper, is the following project: since the incidence algebras modelling qausets are graded non-abelian Polynomial Identity (PI) rings, it would in principle be possible to develop a noncommutative sheaf or scheme type of theory  for such finitary non-abelian PI ring localizations. Rigorous mathematical results, cast in a general categorical setting, from the noncommutative algebraic geometry of similar non-abelian schematic algebras and their localizations  are expected to deepen our physical understanding of the dynamically variable noncommutative quantum causal Rota topologies defined on the primitive spectra of qausets 242424I wish to thank Professor Fred Van Oystaeyen (Antwerp University, Belgium) for motivating such a study in a crucial and timely private communication, and in two research seminars—see .. Ultimately, the deep connection for physics is anticipated to be one between such a noncommutative conception of the causal topology of spacetime and the fundamental quantum time-asymmetry expected of the “true quantum gravity. The deep connection for mathematics is, as we briefly mentioned in section 2, that such a general conception of a ‘noncommutative topology’ is supposed to be the precursor to Connes’ ‘noncommutative geometry’252525Freddy Van Oystaeyen in private correspondence. —a theory that in the last five years or so has become of great interest to theoretical physics, because it appears to shed more light on the persisting problem of quantum gravity. For we emphasize again: it seems unreasonable to have a full fledged noncommutative geometry and lack a noncommutative topology and its corresponding sheaf theory, especially to apply the latter to quantum gravity where even the spacetime topology is expected to be subject to quantum dynamical fluctuations and coherent superpositions .

This ‘noncommutative quantum causal topology’ project has revived this author’s doctoral interests and work in topoi, their possible quantization and the application of the resulting ‘quantum topoi’ to the problem of the quantum structure and dynamics of spacetime . In particular, but briefly, Finkelstein , as part of an ongoing effort to find a quantum replacement for the spacetime manifold of macroscopic physics, has developed a theory of quantum sets, which in a sense represents a quantization of ordinary ‘classical’ set theory. The basic idea is that spacetime at small scales should really be viewed as a ‘quantum’ set, not a classical one. This is supposed to be a step on the path to a ‘correct’ version of quantum gravity and quantum spacetime topology . A question which may occur to a modern logician or ‘toposopher’ is: what is so special about the category $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$ of classical constant sets, since there are other logical universes just as good, and possibly better, namely ‘topoi’? Perhaps it would be a better idea to try and quantize these more general categories, since the use of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$ may be prey to classical chauvinism.

The usual flat (ie, in the absence of gravity) classical and quantum field theories are conveniently formulated in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$, or more precisely, in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐡}(X)`$-the ‘classical’ topos of sheaves of sets varying continuously over the classical spacetime manifold $`X`$ . However, as we said in section 2, these theories suffer from non-renormalizable infinities coming from singularities that plague the smooth spacetime continuum. The manifold model, as an inert classical pointed geometric background continuum on which fields propagate and interact, must at least be revised in view of the pathological nature of quantum gravity when treated as another quantum field theory262626That is, ‘Quantum Gravity as Quantum General Relativity’. . Topoi and their topological relatives, locales, which are pointless topological spaces, are structures well-suited not to significantly commit themselves to the pathological geometric point-like character of a base spacetime manifold. As it has already been pointed out, perhaps one could arrive at the ‘true’ topos of Nature, on which a finite quantum theory of gravity can be founded, by considering the pointless topos of the curved finsheaves of qausets over Sorkin’s causets, or even the topos of sheaves of quantum causal histories, instead of their classical ancestor $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐡}(X)`$. This quest for the ‘right’ quantum topos of Nature is also expected to shed more light on the following analogy that has puzzled mathematicians for quite some time now:

$$\frac{\mathrm{locales}}{\mathrm{quantales}}=\frac{\mathrm{topoi}}{\mathrm{?}}$$

To dwell briefly on this analogy, topologically speaking any complete distributive lattice is called a locale282828Logically speaking, a complete Heyting algebra . and it corresponds to a generalized (ie, ‘pointless’) topological space . A quantale , the noncommutative (quantum) analogue of a locale, may be represented by the lattice of closed two-sided ideals of a nonabelian (von Neumann or $`C^{}`$) algebra. The primitive spectra of non-abelian qausets , when regarded as some sort of lattices292929That is, if on top of their partial order structure, $``$ and $``$-like operations are defined in them as in the case of the finitary topological spaces (finlocales) mentioned in the previous section., may also be viewed as some kind of quantales—albeit, of a finitary sort , hence our regarding the topos of finsheaves of qausets (or the sheaves of quantum causal histories) as a strong candidate for the elusive quantum topos.

In the same line of thought, and in connection with sheaves of qausets over consistent-histories and their possible topos-organization mentioned at the end of the previous section, we would like to mention another project that we are currently working on303030In collaboration with Chris Isham.. One may recall that in Isham’s version of the quantal logic of consistent-histories  central role is played by the tensor product ‘$``$’ structure. A sheaf $``$ of Hilbert spaces $``$ over a classical spacetime manifold $`X`$ was initially expected to be the appropriate mathematical structure to model Isham’s scenario. However, the tensor product $``$ and the ‘classical’ definition of a sheaf (of tensor product $``$-spaces313131Such sheaves may be coined ‘Fock sheaves’ for obvious reasons.) do not seem to go hand in hand for the following, at least from a physical point of view, reason: when one considers the tensor product of two distinct stalks in a vector sheaf like $``$, as when one combines two distinct quanta in the usual quantum theory323232In the sheaf $`(X)`$, local states of quanta are supposed to be represented by its local sections., the two stalks ‘collapse’ to a tensor product stalk over a single spacetime point event of the classical base spacetime manifold $`X`$. This phenomenon is characteristic in both classical and quantum field theories (in the absence of gravity) where, when we combine or entangle systems by tensor multiplication, their spacetime coordinates combine by identification. “This mathematical practice expresses a certain physical practice: to learn the time, we do not look at the system but at the sun (or nowdays) at the laboratory clock, both prominent parts of the episystem, and it should be emphasized that the episystem is always regarded as being classical333333Here, the classical base spacetime manifold $`X`$. in the sense of Bohr. Thus, we expect that the formulation of some sort of ‘quantum sheaf’ is required in order to be able to model non-trivially quantum entanglement; moreover, it is quite reasonable to assume that such a quantum notion of a sheaf will be accompanied by an appropriate quantum notion of spacetime topology on which such sheaves are soldered.

We conclude this paper by mentioning another potential application of sheaf and topos theory to quantum gravity that only lately we have envisaged and started to comprehend in full . It concerns the possible application of sheaf and topos theory towards formulating an abstract sort of differential geometry à la Mallios  on the aforementioned curved finsheaves of qausets or their related sheaves of quantum causal histories, as it were, to transcribe most of the differential geometric apparatus of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth manifolds343434Arguably, the mathematical apparatus on which general relativity relies. to a reticular-algebraic setting that is ab initio free from the former’s pathological infinities and incurable diseases. For instance, we have been able to perform a finitary version of the usual $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth Čech-de Rham cohomology, as well as initiate a finsheaf-cohomological classification of the non-trivial finitary spin-Lorentzian connections dwelling on the curved finsheaves of qausets in . In this context, what we would also like to work on in the immediate future is to try to relate Mallios’ Abstract Differential Geometry  and its finitary applications in  with the Kock-Lawvere Synthetic Differential Geometry  and its promising topos-theoretic applications to quantum gravity . In this respect however, the quest has just begun.

## Acknowledgments

Exchanges with Chris Isham (Imperial College) on topoi and their potential application to quantum gravity, with Tasos Mallios (University of Athens) on sheaves and their possible application to quantum gravity especially via his Abstract Differential Geometry theory , with Chris Mulvey (University of Sussex) on quantales and noncommutative topology, as well as a brief but timely exchange with Bob Coecke (Oxford) on a promising dynamical conception of quantum logic entirely by categorical means, are all greatly appreciated. The present work was supported by the European Union in the form of a generous Marie Curie Individual Postdoctoral Research Fellowship held at Imperial College, London (United Kingdom).


format: text

text:
# Dalitz plot slope parameters for 𝐾→𝜋𝜋𝜋 decays and two particle interference

## 1 Introduction

In most cases, strangeness changing hadronic decays obey the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule. Experimental information on the cases when the rule is violated may help in understanding its origin. K-decays provide an important laboratory where one could learn more about this important issue . In particular, by measuring the slope terms of the $`K3\pi `$ Dalitz plot, as suggested by Weinberg , one can probe the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule with good precision.

The slope parameters of the Dalitz plot distribution in non leptonic $`K_{3\pi }`$ decays were measured some time ago with limited precision . More accurate experimental results have been published recently , attracting renewed theoretical interest .

The Dalitz plot distribution for $`K3\pi `$ can be parametrized by a series expansion of the form

$$M^21+gX+hX^2+kY^2+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
with

$$X=\frac{(s_3s_0)}{m_\pi ^2}Y=\frac{(s_2s_1)}{m_\pi ^2}$$

and

$$s_0=\frac{(m_K^2+m_{\pi _1}^2+m_{\pi _2}^2+m_{\pi _3}^2)}{3}s_i=(p_Kp_i)^2$$

where $`p_i`$ are the four momenta of the pions ($`i=1,2,3`$) and the label 3 denotes the odd pion in a decay.
The coefficients $`g,h`$ and $`k`$ are not available from theory, but can be extracted from the experimental Dalitz distribution. In the literature there are other definitions of slope parameters. We choose a definition compatible with the Particle Data Group .

## 2 Bose-Einstein interference

Bose-Einstein Correlation (BEC) was observed for the first time by Goldhaber, Goldhaber, Lee and Pais  in $`p\overline{p}`$ interactions. They found that the angular distribution of like-sign pion pairs was different from that of unlike-sign pairs. In general terms, the effect can be understood as the tendency of identical bosons to occupy the same phase space. As a consequence, identical bosons are correlated in their momenta, opening angles distributions, etc.

The impact of BEC on the Dalitz plot distribution in hadronic decays of charm mesons has been studied before . It has also been demonstrated to play an important role in other phenomena  in high energy physics, and on the extraction of standard-model parameters . More recently, the effect of Bose-Einstein interference on measurement of collective flow has been considered .

In order for Bose-Einstein correlation to be present among identical particles in the final state of any reaction, two aspects must be fulfilled: i) the source of pions must be finite, ii) the emission must take place chaotically to a certain degree.
In the cases under study i.e., the decays:

$$K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}$$
(2)
$$K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+$$
(3)
$$K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\pi ^0$$
(4)
and

$$K^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0$$
(5)
condition i) is satisfied by the need of form factors to describe the decay, and the well known finite size of the K mesons .
In hadronic decays, such as those under study, particles are produced partially through hadronization in a not a entirely coherent process. The incoherence although small, we believe it to be sufficient to satisfy condition ii), requiered for the presence of correlation. Figure 1 illustrates the decay. The bubble represents the space-time region where particles are produced.

Correlations among the decay products of a particle and the pions produced in the main reaction, as described in Ref. , will not be considered here. We will rather regard the decay itself as a particle production process in which interference may arise.

The BEC are commonly described in terms of a two-particle correlation function:

$$R(p_1,p_2)=\frac{P(p_1,p_2)}{P(p_1)P(p_2)}$$
(6)
where $`P(p_1,p_2)`$ is the joint probability amplitude for the emission of two bosons with momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, and $`P(p_1)`$ and $`P(p_2)`$ are the single production probabilities.

The Bose-Einstein correlation among identical mesons has been used to probe the space-time structure of the intermediate state right before hadrons appear  in high energy elementary particle and nuclear collisions.

One parametrizes the effect assuming a set of point-like sources emmiting bosons. These point like sources are distributed according to a density $`\rho (r)`$. The correlation function can then be written as,

$$R(\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2})=\rho (\stackrel{}{r_1})\rho (\stackrel{}{r_2})\psi _{BE}(\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2})^2d^3r_1d^3r_2,$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2}`$ are the momenta of the two bosons, $`\psi _{BE}`$ represents the Bose-Einstein symmetrized wave function of the boson system, with $`_V\rho (\stackrel{}{r})d^3r=1`$.

Taking plane waves to describe the bosons, one obtains the correlation function for an incoherent source:

$$R(\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2})=1+(\rho (\stackrel{}{r}))^2,$$
(8)
where $`(\rho )`$ represents the Fourier transform of the density function $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$.

Phenomenological parametrizations of the effect have been proposed. to describe the quantum interference during the hadronization in high energy reactions. For a recent review see Ref. . Here, we use the GGLP  parametrization to gain an idea of the impact of particle interference on the slope parameter. In a more detailed study , we will address other possible parametrizations.

The GGLP parametrization is one of the most commonly used. It is given by:

$$R(\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2})=1+\lambda e^{\beta Q^2},$$
(9)
where $`Q^2`$ is the Lorentz invariant, $`Q^2=(p_1p_2)^2`$, which can be written also as, $`Q^2=m_{12}^24m_\pi ^2`$; here $`m_{12}`$ is the invariant mass of the two pions and $`m_\pi `$ the mass of the pion under consideration. The parameter $`\lambda `$ lies between 0 and 1, and reflects the degree of coherence in the production. The radius of the source is defined by $`r=\mathrm{}c\sqrt{\beta }[fm]`$. The presence of Bose-Einstein correlations will modify not only the invariant mass spectrum of like-charged but also that of unlike-charged pions. This reflection of BEC, known as residual correlation, has been studied so as to make sure that the reference sample of unlike-charged pions used to subtract the effect from the like-charged pions is free from any other correlations.
In particle production processes with much phase space high multiplicity, residual correlations tend to be minimal. Nevertheless, some studies  claim that this is not always the case, and that using unlike-charged pions as a reference may be questionable.
In a particle production process yielding where only three particles (e.g., $`K\pi \pi \pi `$) residual correlations are expected to be significant.

## 3 Simulation of Bose-Einstein correlations

In this letter we want to estimate the effects of BEC on the phase space of a three body decay. In particular, on the phase space of the decay $`K\pi \pi \pi `$. We will take the approach used in Ref. , where the BEC are simulated by simply weighting each event. The MC generator consists of a three-body decay, with appropiate masses for the decay products. Each event is weighted according to:

$$W=\underset{i,j}{}(1+\lambda e^{\beta Q_{ij}^2}),$$
(10)
where the product is taken over all pairs $`(i,j)`$ of like-charged pions.
For cases when only two like-charged pions are present in the final state, as in the reactions (2-4), the product reduces to

$$W=1+\lambda e^{\beta Q^2}.$$
(11)
However, for the decay (5) it becomes

$$W=(1+\lambda e^{\beta Q_{12}^2})(1+\lambda e^{\beta Q_{23}^2})(1+\lambda e^{\beta Q_{13}^2}).$$
(12)
where the $`Q_{ij}`$ of all possible pairs are taken into account. We performed simulations for different values of $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$. The coherence parameter $`\lambda `$ controls the strength of the effect, but does not modify the shape of the distortion. The decay is not necessarily a completely chaotic process, and $`\lambda `$ does not have to be 1. In fact, if hadronization did not take place during the decay, one would expect a completely coherent process in which $`\lambda =0`$, and Bose-Einstein interference would not be present. Hadronization in the decay introduces some degree of incoherence giving rise to $`\lambda `$ values between 0 and 1. The exact value would be obtained by fitting the correlation function, as in the case of the source radius. On the other hand, there may be production mechanisms other than hadronization that introduce some degree of incoherence. The study of BEC in particular decays may help to disentangle the production processes involved.

## 4 Effects on the Dalitz plot distribution

Figure 2 shows the Dalitz plot distribution and its projections on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, as defined in Eq. (1), for the decay $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. The histograms show the projections with (full line) and without (crosses) BEC. The scatter plot is the ratio of the distribution with and without BEC, Where we took $`\beta =25`$ GeV-2, which corresponds to $`r=1`$ fm. Increasing $`\beta `$ (Eq. (10)) would make the effect more marked. As mentioned above, the physical meaning of $`\beta =4,9,16,25`$ GeV-2 can be viewed in terms of the source radius of $`r0.4,0.6,0.8,1.0`$ fm, respectively. The true value, however, should be extracted from experimental data measuring BEC in these kind of decays.

In what follows, we will show the plots with $`\beta =7`$ GeV-2, i.e., $`r0.5`$ fm, which is motivated by the electromagnetic radius of the $`K^+`$.

Ignoring electromagnetic interactions in the final state, the distributions for the modes (2), (3) and (4) would be identical. The correction for this effect could be carried out dividing the phase space by the Gamow coefficients, as was, done in Ref. . Here, we try to focus on the effect of two-particle interference, and will not introduce this correction. In Ref. , we will present a complete anlysis, including the interplay of BEC and final-state electromagnetic interactions.

Figure 3-5 show the amplitudes $`M^2`$ vs. $`X`$, as obtained using PDG values  (Table 1) for the different decay processes. The band represents the uncertainty in the parameters. The lines are the amplitudes one should observe, after correction for BEC, for $`\beta =7`$ GeV-2 and $`\lambda =0.25,0.5,0.75`$.

The bands in Figures 3-5 show the errors according to Table 1 values. These curves are corrected and the corresponding errors are propagated. The corrected curves with errors are then fitted with the function of Eq. 1. In this way we mimic the procedure during data analysis and observe the change in the values of the parameters as they would be observed by the experimentalist.
As one can see, the interference of identical particles in the final state changes the values of $`g`$ and $`h`$.

In the decay $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, all the pion pairs are weigthed according to Eq. (12). To good extension, the effect cancels out, and the Dalitz plot remains almost unchanged. Figure 6 shows the the amplitude using the PDG values  (Table 1) for this decay. The scale in this plot has been expanded to make the effect visible. In this case the fit is done with a quadratic form without linear terms.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

The measured amplitud $`M^2`$ as a function of $`X`$ changes its shape once BEC among identical particles in the final state products is taken into account. The different curves shown in Fig. 4 represent the modified amplitude as a function of $`X`$ for a pion source-radius of $`r=0.5`$ fm, and a coherence factor of $`\lambda =0.25,0.5,0.75`$. The true values for $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$ must be extracted from data. It may be that $`\lambda `$ and/or $`\beta `$ are smaller than this, thereby reducing the impact on the amplitude.

The Particle Data Group  gives the average values for $`g`$, $`h`$ and $`k`$ (see Eq. (1)). These are shown in Table 1.

After correcting the $`g`$ and $`h`$ parameters for BEC, by fitting $`1+gX+hX^2`$ to the corrected X distribution - shown in Figs. 3,4 and 5, one obtains the values given in Table 2.

According to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule, one expects

$$\frac{g(K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\pi ^0)}{g(K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^{})}=\frac{g(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{g(K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^{})}=2$$
(13)
and

$$\frac{g(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{g(K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0)}=1.$$
(14)
Using the PDG values of Table 1, for $`g`$ one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\pi ^0)}{g(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.0046\pm 0.1726`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{g(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.1244\pm 0.1073`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{g(K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0399\pm 0.0509`$
Using the values of Table 2, these become:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\pi ^0)}{g(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.968\pm 0.069`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{g(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.887\pm 0.075`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{g(K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.980\pm 0.014`$
The ratios change by taking into account a phase space distortion due to the interference of identical particles in the final state. We have given only a general trend based on parameter values motivated by the electromagnetic structure of the kaon. A more precise statement would be possible once the experimentally extracted values of $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$ are used in the analysis. One can see that the ratios given by Eq. (13) are very sensitive to a distortion of phase space, while that of Eq. (14) is not. Nevertheless although the size of the effect may be small, is clear that the observed violation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule can be affected by BEC, and this should be taken into account in the anlaysis of data.

## 6 Acknowledgement

We thank CONACyT (México) for financial support.

## Figure Captions

* Diagram representing the Kaon decay process. The bubble represents the space time region where pions are produced.
* Dalitz plot distribution and its projections for the decay $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. The histograms represent the distribution with (full line) and without (crosses) a contribution from BEC. The distributions have been normalized to $`M^2=1`$ at $`X=0`$ and $`Y=0`$. The scatter plot shows the ratio of the distribution with and without BEC with parameters of the BEC simulation being $`\beta =25`$ GeV-2 and $`\lambda =0.5`$.
* Amplitude $`M^2`$ vs. $`X`$ for the decay $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, as obtained from experiment  (shaded band) and the central value of the amplitude that one would obtain (solid, shaded and dotted, lines) after correction for BEC effects with $`\lambda =0.25,0.5,0.75`$. The band represents the experimental uncertainties on the average values.
* Amplitude $`M^2`$ vs. $`X`$ for the decay $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, as obtained from experiment  (shaded band) and the central value of the amplitude that one would obtain (solid, shaded and dotted, lines) after correction for BEC effects with $`\lambda =0.25,0.5,0.75`$. The band represents the experimental uncertainties on the average values.
* Amplitude $`M^2`$ vs. $`X`$ for the decay $`K^+\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+`$, as obtained from experiment  (shaded band) and the central value of the amplitude one would obtain (solid, shaded and dotted, lines) after correction for BEC effects with $`\lambda =0.25,0.5,0.75`$. The band represents the experimental uncertainties on the average values.
* Amplitude $`M^2`$ vs. $`X`$ for the decay $`K^+\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, as obtained from experiment  (shaded band) and the central value of the amplitude one would obtain (solid, shaded and dotted, lines) after correction for BEC effects with $`\lambda =0.25,0.5,0.75`$. The band represents the experimental uncertainties on the average values.


text:
# On an alternate proof of Hamilton’s matrix Harnack inequality for the Ricci flow

(August 15, 2001)

In \[LY\] a differential Harnack inequality was proved for solutions to the heat equation on a Riemannian manifold. Inspired by this result, Hamilton first proved trace and matrix Harnack inequalities for the Ricci flow on compact surfaces \[H0\] and then vastly generalized his own result to all higher dimensions for complete solutions of the Ricci flow with nonnegative curvature operator \[H2\]. Soon afterwards, a matrix Harnack inequality for the Kähler-Ricci flow under the assumption of nonnegative bisectional curvature was proved by Huai-Dong Cao \[C\]. In this paper, following a suggestion of Richard Hamilton, we give an alternate proof of the matrix Harnack inequality for the Ricci flow originally proved by him.111Yet another proof is given in \[CC\]. Hamilton’s motivation for considering the alternate proof given in the present paper is that it may possibly falicitate extending his Harnack inequality to the variable signed curvature case, especially in dimension three. See the end of \[H3\] for some reasons for studying the problem of extending the Harnack inequality. In \[H2\], Hamilton proved that if $`(M^n,g\left(t\right))`$ is a complete solution to the Ricci flow with nonnegative curvature operator, then

$$\frac{R}{t}+\frac{R}{t}+2_iRV^i+2R_{ij}V^iV^j0$$
(1)
for any vector field $`V.`$ In particular, if in addition the Ricci curvature is positive, then

$$\frac{R}{t}+\frac{R}{t}\frac{1}{2}\left(Rc^1\right)^{ij}_iR_jR0.$$

This trace Harnack inequality is a corollary of Hamilton’s matrix Harnack inequality, which we now recall (we follow Hamilton’s sign convention for the curvature tensor so that $`R_{ijkl}=g_{kh}R_{ijl}^h`$). Define tensors $`P`$ and $`M`$ by

$`P_{abc}`$ $`D_aR_{bc}D_bR_{ac}`$
$`M_{ab}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_aD_bR+2R_{acbd}R_{cd}R_{ac}R_{bc}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{ab}`$
and consider the Harnack quadratic

$$Z(U,W)M_{ab}W_aW_b+2P_{abc}U_{ab}W_c+R_{abcd}U_{ab}U_{cd},$$

where $`U`$ is any $`2`$-form and $`W`$ is any $`1`$-form. Hamilton’s matrix Harnack estimate says that if $`(M^n,g\left(t\right))`$ is a complete solution to the Ricci flow with nonnegative curvature operator, then

$$Z(U,W)0$$

for all $`U`$ and $`W.`$ Taking $`U=VW`$ and summing over $`W`$ in an orthonormal frame, one obtains (1).

The idea of giving an alternate proof of it is as follows. Given any vector $`W,`$ consider the $`2`$-form $`U`$ minimizing the quadratic form. This leads to the consideration of a symmetric $`2`$-tensor $`Z_{ab}`$ which has a nice evolution equation. In particular, $`Z_{ab}`$ is essentially a supersolution to the heat equation so that the maximum principle implies that it is positive definite, which is *equivalent* to the matrix Harnack inequality. Tracing this $`2`$-tensor yields a trace Harnack inequality: $`ZZ_{aa}>0.`$

Now we proceed with the details of the proof. Assume that the curvature operator is positive and let $`S_{abcd}`$ denote the inverse of $`R_{abcd}`$ so that

$$\underset{e,f}{}S_{abef}R_{efcd}=I_{abcd},$$

where $`I:^2M^2M`$ is the identity. First we rewrite the matrix Harnack quadratic by completing the square:

$`Z(U,W)`$ $`=M_{ab}W_aW_bS_{ijkl}P_{ijp}W_pP_{klq}W_q`$
$`+R_{abcd}\left(U_{ab}+S_{abij}P_{ijp}W_p\right)\left(U_{cd}+S_{cdkl}P_{klq}W_q\right).`$
Since $`Rm>0,`$ the above expression is minimized when

$$U_{ab}+S_{abij}P_{ijp}W_p=0,$$

in which case

$$Z(U,W)=\left(M_{ab}S_{ijkl}P_{ija}P_{klb}\right)W_aW_b.$$

Let

$$Z_{ab}M_{ab}S_{ijkl}P_{ija}P_{klb},$$

which is a symmetric $`2`$-tensor.

The main computation is that in an orthonormal moving frame, the evolution of $`Z_{ab}`$ is given as follows. Following the idea in \[H2\], as long as it is nonnegative-definite, we may write the Harnack quadratic as a sum of squares:

$`R_{abcd}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}Y_{ab}^NY_{cd}^N`$
$`P_{abc}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}Y_{ab}^NX_c^N`$
$`M_{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}X_a^NX_b^N.`$
Here, given a point $`xM,`$ $`\left\{Y^NX^N\right\}_{N=1}^m`$ is some orthogonal set of vectors in $`^2M_x`$ $`^1M_x`$ and $`m=dim^2M_x+dim`$ $`^1M_x=\frac{n\left(n+1\right)}{2}.`$

Main Theorem. *If* $`Rm>0,`$ *then the Harnack quantity* $`Z_{ab}`$ *satisfies the evolution equation:*

$$\left(\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}=2S_{mntu}K_{avtu}K_{bvmn}+L_a^{NM}L_b^{NM}\frac{2}{t}Z_{ab},$$
(2)
*where*

$`K_{avtu}`$ $`S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rstu}_vP_{tua}+R_{tuaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{tuav}`$
$`L_a^{NM}`$ $`2Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^MS_{ijkl}P_{kla}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{ah}^MX_h^N.`$
Note that applying the maximum principle for symmetric 2-tensors in section 7 of \[H1\] yields $`Z_{ab}>0,`$ which is equivalent to Hamilton’s matrix Harnack inequality. Here we used the fact that if $`Rm>0,`$ then as long as $`Z_{ab}`$ is nonnegative definite, $`L_a^{NM}`$ is well-defined.

The bulk of the rest of this paper is devoted to proving the theorem. First recall Hamilton’s computations for the evolution equations of the Harnack quadratic \[H2\].

###### Lemma 1

In an evolving local orthonormal frame field, we have

1. $$(D_t\mathrm{})R_{abcd}=2(B_{abcd}B_{abdc}+B_{acbd}B_{adbc}),$$
(3)
where $`B_{abcd}=R_{aebf}R_{cedf}.`$
2. $$(D_t\mathrm{})P_{abc}=2R_{de}D_dR_{abce}+2R_{adbe}P_{dec}+2R_{adce}P_{dbe}+2R_{bdce}P_{ade}.$$
(4)
3. $`(D_t\mathrm{})M_{ab}`$ $`=2R_{cd}[D_cP_{dab}+D_cP_{dba}]+2R_{acbd}M_{cd}`$ (5)
$`+2P_{acd}P_{bcd}4P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{cd}R_{ce}R_{adbe}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}R_{ab}.`$

We use this lemma in the computations below. We start by computing:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)M_{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)S_{ijkl}P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`S_{ijkl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)P_{ija}P_{klb}S_{ijkl}P_{ija}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)P_{klb}`$
$`+2S_{ijkl}_pP_{ija}_pP_{klb}+2_pS_{ijkl}_pP_{ija}P_{klb}+2_pS_{ijkl}P_{ija}_pP_{klb}.`$
Thus, besides the evolution equations for $`M_{ab}`$ and $`P_{abc},`$ we need the evolution equation for $`S_{ijkl},`$ which is given by:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)S_{ijkl}`$ $`=S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)R_{mnpq}`$
$`\left(S_{ijrs}S_{mntu}S_{klpq}+S_{ijmn}S_{klrs}S_{pqtu}\right)_vR_{rstu}_vR_{mnpq}`$
$`=2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}+B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})`$
$`\left(S_{ijrs}S_{mntu}S_{klpq}+S_{ijmn}S_{klrs}S_{pqtu}\right)_vR_{rstu}_vR_{mnpq}.`$
Substituting in those evolution equations, we obtain:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$ $`=2R_{cd}[D_cP_{dab}+D_cP_{dba}]+2R_{acbd}M_{cd}`$
$`+2P_{acd}P_{bcd}4P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{cd}R_{ce}R_{adbe}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}R_{ab}`$
$`+\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(S_{ijrs}S_{mntu}S_{klpq}+S_{ijmn}S_{klrs}S_{pqtu}\right)_vR_{rstu}_vR_{mnpq}\\ +2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}+B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})\end{array}\right)P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`2S_{ijkl}P_{klb}\left(R_{de}D_dR_{ijae}+R_{idje}P_{dea}+R_{idae}P_{dje}+R_{jdae}P_{ide}\right)`$
$`2S_{ijkl}P_{ija}\left(R_{de}D_dR_{klbe}+R_{kdle}P_{deb}+R_{kdbe}P_{dle}+R_{ldbe}P_{kde}\right)`$
$`+2S_{ijkl}_pP_{ija}_pP_{klb}2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}_rR_{mnpq}\left(_rP_{ija}P_{klb}+P_{ija}_rP_{klb}\right)`$
where $`B_{abcd}=R_{aebf}R_{cedf}.`$ Taking into account symmetries and combining some like terms, we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$ $`=2R_{acbd}Z_{cd}`$
$`+2S_{ijkl}_pP_{ija}_pP_{klb}`$
$`2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}_rR_{mnpq}\left(_rP_{ija}P_{klb}+P_{ija}_rP_{klb}\right)`$
$`+\left(S_{ijrs}S_{mntu}S_{klpq}+S_{ijmn}S_{klrs}S_{pqtu}\right)P_{ija}P_{klb}_vR_{rstu}_vR_{mnpq}`$
$`+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}+2P_{acd}P_{bcd}4P_{acd}P_{bdc}`$
$`+2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}+B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`2\left(S_{dekl}R_{diej}+S_{ijde}R_{dkel}\right)P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`4S_{ijkl}R_{idae}P_{klb}P_{dje}4S_{ijkl}R_{kdbe}P_{ija}P_{dle}`$
$`+2R_{cd}[D_cP_{dab}+D_cP_{dba}]+2R_{cd}R_{ce}R_{adbe}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}R_{ab}`$
$`+2S_{ijkl}P_{klb}R_{de}D_dR_{ijae}+2S_{ijkl}P_{ija}R_{de}D_dR_{klbe}.`$
Separating the terms quadratic in $`P_{abc}`$ from the rest and noticing that most of the rest is a square, we obtain:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$
$`=2R_{acbd}Z_{cd}`$
$`+2S_{mntu}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rstu}_vP_{tua}+R_{tuaw}R_{vw}\right)`$
$`\times \left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}_vR_{pqmn}_vP_{mnb}+R_{mnbx}R_{vx}\right)`$
$`+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}+2P_{acd}P_{bcd}4P_{acd}P_{bdc}4S_{ijkl}R_{idae}P_{klb}P_{dje}`$
$`4S_{ijkl}R_{kdbe}P_{ija}P_{dle}+2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}+B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`2\left(S_{dekl}R_{diej}+S_{ijde}R_{dkel}\right)P_{ija}P_{klb}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}R_{ab}.`$
We simplify the terms that are quadratic in $`P_{abc}`$:

$`A`$ $`2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}+2P_{acd}P_{bcd}4P_{acd}P_{bdc}4S_{ijkl}R_{idae}P_{klb}P_{dje}`$
$`+2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}+B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`4S_{ijkl}R_{kdbe}P_{ija}P_{dle}2\left(S_{dekl}R_{diej}+S_{ijde}R_{dkel}\right)P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`=2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}+2P_{acd}P_{bcd}4P_{acd}P_{bdc}`$
$`4S_{ijkl}R_{idae}P_{klb}P_{dje}4S_{ijkl}R_{kdbe}P_{ija}P_{dle}+P_{cda}P_{cdb}`$
$`+2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})P_{ija}P_{klb}P_{kla}P_{klb}P_{ija}P_{ijb}`$
$`=2P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}4S_{ijkl}R_{idae}P_{klb}P_{dje}`$
$`4S_{ijkl}R_{idbe}P_{kla}P_{dje}+2R_{iepf}R_{jeqf}S_{ijkl}P_{kla}S_{pqmn}P_{mnb}`$
$`2R_{ieqf}R_{jepf}S_{ijkl}P_{kla}S_{pqmn}P_{mnb}`$
$`=2P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}4S_{ijkl}R_{idae}P_{klb}P_{dje}`$
$`4S_{ijkl}R_{idbe}P_{kla}P_{dje}+4R_{iepf}R_{jeqf}S_{ijkl}P_{kla}S_{pqmn}P_{mnb}.`$
In the above computation we used the following identities. First, the quadratic $`B`$ in curvature can be rewritten using

$`R_{mnpq}^2`$ $`=R_{mnef}R_{pqef}=\left(R_{menf}R_{nemf}\right)\left(R_{peqf}R_{qepf}\right)`$
$`=B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}B_{nmpq}+B_{nmqp}`$
$`=2\left(B_{mnpq}B_{mnqp}\right).`$
and

$`2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(B_{mpnq}B_{mqnp})P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`=2S_{ijmn}S_{klpq}(R_{mepf}R_{neqf}R_{meqf}R_{nepf})P_{ija}P_{klb}`$
$`=2S_{ijkl}S_{mnpq}R_{iepf}R_{jeqf}P_{kla}P_{mnb}2S_{ijkl}S_{mnpq}R_{ieqf}R_{jepf}P_{kla}P_{mnb}.`$
Second, we have the identities

$`2S_{dekl}R_{diej}P_{ija}`$ $`=P_{kla}`$
$`2S_{ijde}R_{dkel}P_{klb}`$ $`=P_{ijb},`$
where the first follows from

$$S_{dekl}\left(R_{diej}R_{djei}\right)P_{ija}=S_{dekl}R_{deij}P_{ija}=P_{kla}$$

which is obtained from

$$S_{dekl}R_{diej}P_{ija}=S_{dekl}\left(R_{deij}+R_{djei}\right)P_{ija}$$

and the second is proved similarly. Third, we have the identity

$`P_{cda}P_{cdb}`$ $`=\left(P_{adc}+P_{cad}\right)\left(P_{bdc}+P_{cbd}\right)`$
$`=2\left(P_{acd}P_{bcd}P_{acd}P_{bdc}\right).`$
Now define $`E_{ija}S_{ijkl}P_{kla}`$ to simplify notation further. Then

$`A`$ $`=2P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}4R_{idae}E_{ijb}P_{dje}`$
$`4R_{idbe}E_{ija}P_{dje}+4R_{iepf}R_{jeqf}E_{ija}E_{pqb}.`$
Recall that

$`R_{abcd}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}Y_{ab}^NY_{cd}^N`$
$`P_{abc}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}Y_{ab}^NX_c^N`$
$`M_{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}X_a^NX_b^N.`$
Thus

$`A`$ $`=2P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}+4Y_{pf}^NY_{ah}^NY_{qf}^MX_h^ME_{pqb}`$
$`+4Y_{id}^NY_{be}^NY_{jd}^MX_e^ME_{ija}+4Y_{id}^NY_{pf}^NY_{jd}^MY_{qf}^ME_{ija}E_{pqb}`$
$`=4\left(Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^M\right)\left(Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^M\right)4Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{be}^NX_e^M`$
$`2P_{acd}P_{bdc}+2R_{acbd}S_{ijkl}P_{ijc}P_{kld}`$
$`=4\left(Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^M\right)\left(Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^M\right)2R_{acbd}Z_{cd}`$
$`2R_{acbd}M_{cd}2P_{acd}P_{bdc}.`$
Note that the terms $`Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}`$ and $`Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}`$ are both antisymmetric in $`N`$ and $`M.`$

Now the terms on the last line may be rewritten as

$`2R_{acbd}M_{cd}2P_{acd}P_{bdc}`$
$`=2Y_{ac}^NY_{bd}^NX_c^MX_d^M2Y_{ac}^NX_d^NY_{bd}^MX_c^MP_{acd}P_{bdc}`$
$`=\left(Y_{ac}^NX_c^M+Y_{ac}^MX_c^N\right)\left(Y_{bd}^NX_d^M+Y_{bd}^MX_d^N\right)`$
so that

$`A`$ $`=4\left(Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^M\right)\left(Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^M\right)2R_{acbd}Z_{cd}`$
$`\left(Y_{ac}^NX_c^M+Y_{ac}^MX_c^N\right)\left(Y_{bd}^NX_d^M+Y_{bd}^MX_d^N\right)`$
$`=\left(2Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{ah}^MX_h^N\right)\left(2Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^MY_{be}^MX_e^N\right)`$
$`2R_{acbd}Z_{cd},`$
where we used

$$Y_{ah}^NX_h^M\left(Y_{be}^NX_e^M+Y_{be}^MX_e^N\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Y_{ah}^NX_h^M+Y_{ah}^MX_h^N\right)\left(Y_{be}^NX_e^M+Y_{be}^MX_e^N\right)$$

and

$$Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}\left(Y_{be}^NX_e^M+Y_{be}^MX_e^N\right)=0$$

(since $`Y_{be}^NX_e^M+Y_{be}^MX_e^N`$ is symmetric in $`N`$ and $`M`$).

Therefore the evolution equation for $`Z_{ab}`$ is:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$
$`=2S_{mntu}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rstu}_vP_{tua}+R_{tuaw}R_{vw}\right)`$
$`\times \left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}_vR_{pqmn}_vP_{mnb}+R_{mnbx}R_{vx}\right)`$
$`+\left(2Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{ah}^MX_h^N\right)\left(2Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^MY_{be}^MX_e^N\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}R_{ab},`$
where $`E_{ija}=S_{ijkl}P_{kla}.`$ We may rewrite this as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$
$`=2S_{mntu}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rstu}_vP_{tua}+R_{tuaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{tuav}\right)`$
$`\times \left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}_vR_{pqmn}_vP_{mnb}+R_{mnbx}R_{vx}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{mnbv}\right)`$
$`+\left(2Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{ah}^MX_h^N\right)\left(2Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^MY_{be}^MX_e^N\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rsbv}_vP_{bva}+R_{bvaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{bvav}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}_vR_{pqav}_vP_{avb}+R_{avbx}R_{vx}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{avbv}\right)`$
Now

$`_vP_{bva}+R_{bvaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{bvav}`$ $`=_v\left(_bR_{va}_vR_{ba}\right)+R_{bvaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{ba}`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }R_{ba}_b_vR_{va}R_{bw}R_{wa}+R_{bvaw}R_{vw}`$
$`+R_{bvaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{ba}`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }R_{ba}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_b_aR+2R_{bvaw}R_{vw}R_{ac}R_{bc}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{ab}`$
$`=M_{ab}`$
and

$$_vR_{rsbv}=_rR_{vsbv}+_sR_{rvbv}=_rR_{sb}+_sR_{rb}=P_{rsb}.$$

Hence

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}`$
$`=2S_{mntu}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rstu}_vP_{tua}+R_{tuaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{tuav}\right)`$
$`\times \left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}_vR_{pqmn}_vP_{mnb}+R_{mnbx}R_{vx}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{mnbv}\right)`$
$`+\left(2Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{ah}^MX_h^N\right)\left(2Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^MY_{be}^MX_e^N\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}P_{rsb}+M_{ab}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}P_{pqa}+M_{ab}\right).`$
That is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z_{ab}=2S_{mntu}\left(S_{ijrs}P_{ija}_vR_{rstu}_vP_{tua}+R_{tuaw}R_{vw}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{tuav}\right)`$
$`\times \left(S_{klpq}P_{klb}_vR_{pqmn}_vP_{mnb}+R_{mnbx}R_{vx}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}R_{mnbv}\right)`$
$`+\left(2Y_{id}^NY_{jd}^ME_{ija}+Y_{ah}^NX_h^MY_{ah}^MX_h^N\right)\left(2Y_{pf}^NY_{qf}^ME_{pqb}+Y_{be}^NX_e^MY_{be}^MX_e^N\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t}}Z_{ab}.`$
This completes the proof of the main theorem.

Now it is interesting to observe the form of the resulting evolution equation when we trace the above computation. Define

$$ZZ_{aa}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }R+2\left|Rc\right|^2+\frac{1}{t}R\right)S_{ijkl}P_{ija}P_{kla}.$$

This trace Harnack quantity is slightly different than (1); however its positivity is of course still a corollary of Hamilton’s matrix Harnack estimate. Tracing equation (2), we have

$$\left(\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)Z=2S_{ijkl}K_{mnij}K_{mnkl}+\left(L_a^{NM}\right)^2\frac{2}{t}Z\frac{2}{t}Z.$$

Note however that an application of the maximum principle does not yield a *direct* proof of the trace Harnack inequality. This is because in order for $`L_a^{NM},`$ which appears on the rhs, to be well-defined, we need the matrix Harnack quantity to be nonnegative!

Acknowledgment. We would like to express our gratitude to Richard Hamilton for suggesting to us the method of proof given in this paper.


text:
# Percolation model for nodal domains of chaotic wave functions

## Abstract

Nodal domains are regions where a function has definite sign. In  it is conjectured that the distribution of nodal domains for quantum eigenfunctions of chaotic systems is universal. We propose a percolation-like model for description of these nodal domains which permits to calculate all interesting quantities analytically, agrees well with numerical simulations, and due to the relation to percolation theory opens the way of deeper understanding of the structure of chaotic wave functions.

05.45.Mt, 05.45.Df, 61.43.Hv, 64.60.Ak

In a recent paper  Smilansky et al. consider the following problem. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ be a real eigenfunctions of a 2-dimensional quantum problem. The equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=0`$ determines a set of nodal lines which separate nodal domains where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ is of opposite signs. In  it is argued that the distribution of the number of these regions for high excited states is (i) universal for integrable as well as for chaotic models but (ii) it clearly distinguishes between these two types of models.

For chaotic (billiard) systems it is conjectured in  that this distribution coincides with the distribution of nodal domains for Gaussian random functions which are known to give a good description of wave functions of chaotic systems :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{(0)}(x,y),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{(0)}(x,y)=J_{|m|}(kr)e^{im\varphi }`$ form the standard basis for billiard problems, $`k`$ is the momentum, $`E=k^2`$, and $`C_m=C_m^{}`$ are independent random variables with Gaussian distribution. Only numerical calculations of this distribution have been performed in .

The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate that nodal domains of random functions (1) (and, consequently, wave functions of generic chaotic systems , ) can be described by a simple percolation-like model where all interesting quantities can be calculated analytically. The model permits also to apply ideas and methods developed within the percolation theory to the field of quantum chaos.

To understand how the nodal domains look like we give in Fig. 1 their picture for random function (1) with $`k=100`$. The figure corresponds to a square window of the size $`L=4`$ which contains 907 connected nodal domains. The largest of them and the largest of the domains which do not touch the boundary are highlighted.

Our first step is to calculate the mean number of zeros of random functions (1) along a straight line (say the vertical one). This can be achieved by noting that, if the size in $`y`$-direction is $`L_y`$, the approximate quantization condition reads $`\overline{k}_yL_y\pi m`$ where $`m`$ is an integer and $`\overline{k}_y`$ is the mean square momentum along the $`y`$-axis, $`\overline{k}_y^2=k^2/2`$. Therefore when $`x`$ is fixed

$$\overline{\rho }(y)=\frac{m}{L_y}=\frac{k}{\pi \sqrt{2}}.$$
(2)
The rigorous derivation of this relation using the method of will be given elsewhere . The same answer, of course, can be obtained for the mean density of nodal lines along any other straight lines .

These simple arguments show that the mean density of intersections of any straight line with nodal lines of random functions (1) is the same as in (2) and nodal lines of these random functions can in the mean be considered as forming an approximate rectangular lattice whose total number of sites is asymptotically

$$N_{tot}\frac{k^2A}{2\pi ^2}=\frac{2}{\pi }\overline{N}(E),$$
(3)
where $`A`$ is the area of the billiard and $`\overline{N}=AE/4\pi `$ is the mean number of levels (for billiards) with energy less than $`E`$.

But this simple picture can be valid only in the mean. When $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x,y)+\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ where function $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x,y)`$ has a crossing of nodal lines as in Fig. 2a, the addition of a small correction $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ will change, in general, the true crossing to one of two possible avoided crossings as in Figs. 2b and 2c.

Consequently, one can conjecture that the distribution of nodal domains for random functions is the same as for the following random percolation-like process. Let us consider a rectangular lattice with the total number of sites $`N_{tot}=2\overline{N}(E)/\pi `$ as in (3). Each line crossing with probability $`1/2`$ is changed either to the avoided crossing as in Fig. 2b or to the one as in Fig. 2c. These rules give a well defined random percolation-like process. One realization of such a process is presented in Fig. 3.

The original lattice gives rise to two dual lattices called below positive and negative whose vertices are in the centers of regions where our function is positive or negative (see Fig. 3) and whose size, $`a`$, coincides with de Broglie wave length (cf. (2)): $`a=2\pi /k`$. Any realization of the above mentioned random process uniquely defines two graphs on these lattices, (which we call also positive and negative) with the following properties (i) their vertices coincide with the vertices of the corresponding lattice, (ii) their edges join together the connected components of this lattice. (A point is also a component of the graph.)

One can choose arbitrarily a graph on one lattice (say negative) and any of such graphs will correspond to an allowed realization and vice versa. Therefore our random process is determines mostly by the bond percolation model on one of dual lattices (see e.g. ) where with probability $`1/2`$ one connects 2 nearby sites by a bond.

The number of connected nodal domains coincides with the sum of the numbers of different components of both positive and negative graphs. As in  we first are interested in the distribution of these numbers. To compute this quantity (unusual for the percolation) it is convenient to connect this model with the Potts model (see e.g. ) similarly as it was done in  for a slightly different problem.

Let $`n_\pm `$ be the numbers of connected components of positive and negative graphs. The generating function of their sum is

$$Z(x)=\underset{realizations}{}x^{n_{}+n_+},$$
(4)
where variable $`x`$ plays the role of the fugacity.

The negative and positive graphs, by construction, are dual to each other  and their properties are interrelated. In particular (see e.g.  p. 242) $`n_+=C_{}+1`$ where $`C_{}`$ is the number of independent circuits on the negative (dual to the positive) graph. According to the Euler relation this quantity can be expressed as follows $`C_{}=b_{}+n_{}N_{}`$ where $`b_{}`$ is the number of bonds, $`n_{}`$ is the number of connected components and $`N_{}`$ is the number of vertices of the negative graph.

These relations permit to express the generation function (4) through the properties of only negative graph, $`G_{}`$,

$$Z(x)=x^{1N_s}\underset{G_{}}{}x^b_{}(x^2)^n_{}$$
(5)
where we take into account that $`N_{}`$ equals the total number of sites of negative lattice, $`N_s=N_{tot}/2`$.

But this quantity is directly connected with the partition sum of the Potts model , . The later can be defined for an arbitrary graph by the formal sum

$$Z_{Potts}(v,q)=\underset{G}{}v^{b(G)}q^{n(G)},$$
(6)
where the summation is performed over all graphs, $`G`$, which cover the original graph. $`b(G)`$ is the number of bonds of this graph, $`n(G)`$ is its number of connected components. $`q`$ is the number of states of the Potts model, $`v=e^K1`$ is a parameter related with the inverse temperature $`K`$.

Comparing (5) and (6) one gets

$$Z(x)=x^{1N_s}Z_{Potts}(x,x^2).$$
(7)
The last sum corresponds to the Potts model in the critical point $`v^2=q`$; for large rectangular lattice and $`q<4`$ it was computed analytically

$$\underset{N_s\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N_s}\mathrm{ln}Z_{Potts}(x,x^2)=\mathrm{log}x+f(x),$$
(8)
where

$$f(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\mathrm{tanh}\mu t\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \mu )t}{\mathrm{sinh}\pi t},$$
(9)
and the parameter $`\mu `$ $`(0<\mu <\pi /2)`$ is related to the fugacity $`x`$ as follows: $`\mathrm{cos}\mu =x/2`$.

The expansion of this integral into the series on $`z`$ gives the number of nodal domains with a fixed number of components, $`N_n`$. With exponential accuracy

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_nz^n=z\mathrm{exp}(N_sf(z)).$$
(10)
We are interested in the behavior of $`N_n`$ for large $`n`$ near the maximum of $`N_n`$ with fixed number of sites. One has

$$N_n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz}{z^n}\mathrm{exp}N_sf(z),$$
(11)
where the integration is performed over a contour around zero. Assuming that $`n`$ is large and using the saddle point method one obtains $`N_n\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Phi }(n,z_c)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,z)=N_sf(z)n\mathrm{ln}z`$ and the saddle point $`z_c`$ is determined from the equation $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,z)/z|_{z=z_c}=0`$. The maximum of $`N_n`$ corresponds to $`n=\overline{n}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,z_c)`$ is maximal. Simple calculation shows that it appears when $`z_c=1`$ and

$$\frac{\overline{n}}{N_s}=z\frac{df(z)}{dz}|_{z=1}.$$
(12)
Expanding $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,z_c)`$ near $`n=\overline{n}`$ up to the second order and computing all necessary integrals (the details will be given elsewhere ) one finds that the total number nodal domains in the lattice with $`N_{tot}=2\overline{N}(E)/\pi `$ sites (cf. (3)) near the maximum has Gaussian distribution where the mean number of nodal domains, $`\overline{n}`$, and their variance, $`\sigma ^2`$, are related to the mean number of levels in the following way

$`\overline{n}=\overline{N}(E){\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}5}{\pi }},`$ (13)
$`\sigma ^2=\overline{N}(E)({\displaystyle \frac{18}{\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{3}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{2\pi }}).`$ (14)
These relations are the main analytical result of this note. They demonstrate that the distribution of nodal domains for random functions is universal (Gaussian) and depends only on the mean number of levels exactly as it is conjectured in  with explicitly calculable constants.

In Fig. 4 we present the comparison between the numerical calculation of the mean value and the variance for the random functions (1) for different values of $`k`$ plotted as functions of $`N=\overline{N}(E)`$. The dots and squares represent the ratios $`\overline{n}(N)/N`$ and $`\sigma ^2(N)/N`$ averaged over 100 realizations. Within statistical errors numerical results agree with the predictions (13) and (14). Small errors may also be related to finite size effect as the infinite sum in (1) has been cut at $`|m|2kL`$ where $`L=4`$ is the side of the chosen square window.

The close relation of our model with the bond percolation model at the critical point $`p=1/2`$ permits to apply all results of percolation theory (see e.g.  and references therein) for description of nodal domains of random functions.

In particular the percolation theory predicts that the distribution of the areas, $`s`$, of clusters (= connected nodal domains), $`n(s)`$, should have power behavior

$$n(s)s^\tau $$
(15)
where the Fisher exponent $`\tau =187/91`$  p.52.

In Fig 5 we present the results of numerical calculations of this quantity for random functions (1) with $`k=115`$ which are in a rather good agreement with the percolation theory prediction. In this figure the $`y`$-axis represents the number of nodal domains divided by $`\overline{N}(E)`$ and the area along the $`x`$-axis is measured in the unit of $`s_{min}=\pi (j_1/k)^2`$ where $`j_1`$ is the first zero of the Bessel function, $`J_0(j_1)=0`$, which according to the Rayleigh inequality  is the smallest possible (with fixed $`k`$) area. After such scaling the results for random functions with different $`k`$ are practically superimposed. The existence of discrete set of smallest possible areas leads to pronounced oscillations at small $`s`$ in Fig 5.

Another interesting quantity is the fractal dimension of the nodal domains. In our percolation model it coincides with the fractal dimension of critical percolation clusters which is known to be equal to $`D=91/48`$  p.52.

To find numerically fractal dimension of a domain it is convenient to put it on a grid of squares of side $`R`$ and count the number of crossing of the region with the grid. When $`aRl`$ where $`l`$ is the size of the domain and $`a`$ is the size of the mean lattice: $`a=2\pi /k`$, one expects

$$nR^D$$
(16)
and the exponent $`D`$ is the fractal dimension.

In Fig. 6 we present numerical verification of this relation for the two nodal domains with $`k=100`$ highlighted in Fig. 1 and for the largest cluster in the proposed percolation-like model with number of sites given by (3). It is clearly seen that both domains have close fractal dimensions which agree well with simulations in our percolation-like model and the percolation theory prediction.

To summarize, we developed a simple percolation-like model to describe the nodal domains for random functions. Its main advantage is that all relevant quantities can be computed analytically. By using the relations with the Potts model we demonstrated that nodal domains are distributed according to Gaussian distribution whose mean value and variance are proportional to the mean staircase function with explicitly calculated parameters (13) and (14). Our results clearly indicate that the distribution of nodal domains for random functions is in the same universality class as critical bond percolation which permits us to predict different critical exponents like the Fisher exponent for the distribution of the nodal domain areas (15) and its fractal dimension (16).

Many different generalization of the model considered are possible. We mention only the possibility to use non-critical percolation model for description of level domains of random functions, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=ϵ`$, with $`ϵ0`$.

The authors are greatly indebted to U. Smilansky for discussing the paper  prior the publication. It is a pleasure to thank O. Bohigas, J. Jacobsen, X. Campi, S. Nechaev, and B. Duplantier for fruitful discussions.