text:
# Is there a real time ordering behind the nonlocal correlations?

(October 20, 2001)

*Abstract*: It is argued that recent experiments with moving beam-splitters demonstrate that there is no real time ordering behind the nonlocal correlations: In Bell’s world there is no “before” and “after”.

PACS numbers : 03.65.Bz, 03.30.+p, 03.67.Hk, 42.79.J

Quantum Mechanics predicts correlated outcomes in space-like separated regions for experiments using two-particle entangled states . But two events cannot be correlated if each of them takes place quite at random: “Correlations cry out for explanation” , either the events are pre-determined by some kind of hidden variables, or directly connected through some kind of influence at a distance.

If all influences in nature stick to time and never pace faster than light, the quantum correlations in space-like separated regions imply particles carrying hidden variables, which determine the particle’s behaviour. Apparently this was the way Einstein thought, and concluded that the quantum mechanical description of the physical reality cannot be considered complete . However Bell showed that if one only admits relativistic local causality (causal links with $`vc`$), the correlations occurring in two-particle experiments should fulfill clear locality conditions (“Bell’s inequalities”) . Bell experiments conducted in the past two decades, in spite of their loopholes, suggest a violation of local causality: statistical correlations are found in space-like separated detections; violation of Bell’s inequalities ensure that these correlations are not pre-determined by local hidden variables . Nature seems to behave nonlocally, and Quantum Mechanics predicts well the observed distributions.

If the correlations are not pre-determined, then there are influences connecting directly two space-like separated events, even though we cannot use such “Bell influences” for faster-than-light communication . Suppose one of the measurements produces the value $`\rho `$ ($`\rho \{+,\}`$), and the other the value $`\sigma `$ ($`\sigma \{+,\}`$). Quantum Mechanics predicts a probability $`Pr(\rho ,\sigma )`$ of getting the outcome $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$, which is independent of any ordering of the events. Nevertheless this does not mean that Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with the whole idea of ordering. Effectively, one can consider that the value $`\sigma `$ depends on the value $`\rho `$ (what is not the same as saying that $`\sigma `$ is caused by $`\rho `$), and the correlations are worked out using the conditional probability:

$`Pr\left(\sigma |\rho \right)={\displaystyle \frac{Pr(\rho ,\sigma )}{_\sigma Pr(\rho ,\sigma )}}`$ (1)
where $`Pr(\sigma |\rho )`$ is the probability that one of the particles produces the value $`\sigma `$ provided the other produces the value $`\rho `$, and $`Pr(\rho ,\sigma )`$ is the quantum mechanical joint probability of getting the outcome $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$.

But one can, alternatively, consider that $`\rho `$ depends on $`\sigma `$ and the correlations are worked out using the conditional probability:

$`Pr\left(\rho |\sigma \right)={\displaystyle \frac{Pr(\rho ,\sigma )}{_\rho Pr(\rho ,\sigma )}}`$ (2)
In spite of the different orderings the equations (1) and (2) bear the same joint probability of getting the outcome $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$, i.e., the quantity $`Pr(\rho ,\sigma )`$ predicted by Quantum Mechanics, which is ordering independent. To produce the correlations, nature can (arbitrarily) choose between the ordering assumed in (1) and that in (2) but its choice has no observable consequence at all, and it is not possible, even in principle, to distinguish which measurement is the independent and which the dependent one. So what Quantum Mechanics actually implies is that the order the nonlocal correlations reveal does not correspond to any real time ordering and, consequently, is not tied to any experimentally distinguishable frame. Suppose a physicist could act nonlocally and would like to bring about Bell-correlations: he should choose one event as first, assign it a value at random, and then assign a value to the other event depending on the value assigned to the first. Quantum Mechanics actually means that in nature this ordering activity comes about without flow of time.

Of course, in case of experiments with time-like separated measurements  one has to accept that the measurement occurring later in time takes account of that occurring before: indeed in this situation one could even arrange that the outcome in side 1 of the setup determines classically (through light signals) the phase in side 2 and, thereby, the outcome in side 2.

The time-independence of Quantum Mechanics is probably its most astonishing feature. Indeed we use to explain correlations in the physical world assuming that a “temporally” earlier event influences a “temporally” later event. As long as one believed (following Einstein) that there are no space-like influences, the fundamental temporal notion could not be other than proper time along a time-like trajectory. But since Bell experiments did reveal us a world consisting in nonlocal influences, the “reasonable” position in the very spirit of the relativity of time is to assume that these influences can be described using several simultaneity lines to distinguish between “before” and “after”. Therefore, also taking nonlocality for granted, the decisive question remains: is there an experimentally distinguishable time ordering behind the nonlocal correlations?

The first attempt to cast nonlocality into a temporal scheme has been Bohm’s theory . It uses a unique preferred frame or absolute time, in which one event is caused by some earlier event by means of instantaneous action at a distance. This description makes the same predictions as Quantum Mechanics, and the assumed instantaneous influences cannot be used for superluminal communication. The assumption of one preferred frame has been invoked recently as the most natural way to incorporate quantum nonlocality . Nevertheless, if one tries to cast nonlocal causality into only one preferred frame it is not more reasonable to connect a ”cause” event to an ”effect” event in that frame rather than in some other frame. Effectively a single preferred frame (“quantum ether”) is “experimentally indistinguishable” : The predictions would remain the same if one assumes that the preferred frame is a virtual entity changing from experiment to experiment. One is tempted to think that Bohm introduces absolute time just because he wishes to justify a causal description, but in the end, an untraceable “quantum ether” is essentially the same as deciding arbitrarily which event depends on which one. What is more, in the particular case, possible in principle, of both measurements taking place at exactly the same time in the preferred frame, the only way of establishing which event depends on which is by arbitrary decision. Actually Bohmian Mechanics and any theory using only one preferred frame, can be considered a causal description but not a real temporal one.

Work in recent years proposed to imbed nonlocality in a real relativistic time ordering by using several relevant frames. The main motivation of such a proposal is to create an experimental test allowing us to decide whether nonlocal influences can be measured by means of several real clocks. The result is a nonlocal description called Multisimultaneity or Relativistic Nonlocality . Aiming an explanation in terms of several real clocks, it is natural to assume that these clocks are somewhat related to the frames involved in the experimental setup. More specifically these frames are supposed to be those of the devices in which the choice of the outcome value occurs, and the monitored beam-splitters are supposed to be these “choice-devices” . The basic assumption of Multisimultaneity is that the decision about the output port by which a photon leaves a beam-splitter takes account of all the local and nonlocal information available within the inertial frame of this choice-device, at the instant the particle strikes it; we stress that this frame is unambiguously defined by the velocity corresponding to the Doppler-shift of the reflected photons . Within each choice-device’s frame the causal links always follow a well defined chronology, one event never depending on some future event.

In the conventional Bell experiments both beam-splitters are standing still in the laboratory frame. In this frame one of the choices (say $`\rho `$) takes place always before the other ($`\sigma `$), and the particle arriving later takes account of the decision of that arriving first, just as indicated in equation (1). Therefore, Multisimultaneity bears the same predictions as Quantum Mechanics. In this sense, Multisimultaneity and Bohm’s theory provide basically the same description for experiments with all choice-devices at rest, i.e. a causal explanation in which the ordering of the events fits with the time ordering in the laboratory frame.

Consider now experiments in which the choice-devices are in motion in such a way that each of them, in its own reference frame, is first to select the output of the photons (*before-before* timing). Then, each particle’s choice will become independent of the other’s, and according to Multisimultaneity the nonlocal correlations should disappear. By contrast Quantum Mechanics requires that the particles stay nonlocal correlated independently of any timing, even in such a *before-before* situation . This means that before-before experiments are capable of acting as standard of time-ordered nonlocality: if Quantum Mechanics prevails, nonlocality cannot be imbedded in a relativistic chronology; if Quantum Mechanics fails, there is a time ordering behind the nonlocal correlations, and proper time along a time-like trajectory is not the only temporal notion .

In summary, Multisimultaneity proposes feasible experiments using moving choice-devices, which are of interest in the general context of physical situations involving several observers in relative motion . Acousto-optic modulators have made it possible to perform such experiments . The results recently obtained with before-after, before-before, and after-before timings uphold the predictions of Quantum Mechanics . This means that in before-before experiments the correlations are caused regardless of any relativistic chronology: entangled photons run afoul of the relativity of time.

The influences allowing us to phone between two separated regions follow time-like trajectories (Fig. 1), and can consistently be described in terms of “before” and “after” by means of real clocks; Einstein’s world contains only such local causal links. The influences bringing about nonlocal correlations cannot be described in terms of “before” and “after” by means of any set of real clocks. Bell’s world consists in such nonlocal influences. The notion of time makes sense only in Einstein’s world, i.e. along time-like trajectories.

Taken for granted the impossibility of imbedding nonlocality in a relativistic chronology, we would like to finish our analysis by discussing the possibility of imbedding it in a non-relativistic temporal scheme that uses influences propagating at finite velocity $`V>c`$. Such a theory has been proposed by Eberhard . The value of the new constant $`V`$ is not given, but possible experiments are described, which would allow us to establish it providing they prove standard Quantum Mechanics wrong. Since the preferred frame is in principle experimentally distinguishable, it would define a real universal clock and, therefore, the assumed causality is a temporal one. However, the experiments proposed would not be capable of discarding the preferred-frame description: upholding of the quantum mechanical predictions would simply establish a lower bound for the speed $`V`$ of the superluminal influences causing the correlations. As Eberhard himself shows, the influences propagating at a finite speed $`V>c`$ could be used for superluminal communication . Although such signaling contradicts in every sense the convictions of what is feasible in physics after Michelson-Morley and related experiments, it doesn’t bear causal loops while only one single frame is assumed. Thus, the belief in a *real* preferred frame, if it is serious, should lead to *real* experiments aiming to demonstrate superluminal signaling . But more than signaling, we fear it is the fact that the theory cannot be falsified when tested against Quantum Mechanics that prevents physicists from performing the proposed experiments.

In conclusion, Multisimultaneity was the product of two things: the fact that nonlocal correlations evidence an ordering activity (they cannot just result by random choice), and the bias that such an ordering is always tied to a corresponding distinguishable temporal sequence . Experiments with moving beam-splitters indicate that the nonlocal correlations are brought about without relation to any real chronology: we have to give up the bias and accept time-independent Bell influences. Bell showed that Einstein’s reality is not the whole physical reality, and discovered us a world without distances. The experimental results we have discussed strong suggest that in Bell’s world things get along without any real time either.

I would like to thank Nicolas Gisin, Valerio Scarani, André Stefanov, and Hugo Zbinden for very stimulating discussions, and the Odier Foundation of Psycho-physics and the Léman Foundation for support.


format: text

text:
# Where do perturbative and non-perturbative QCD meet?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Perturbative results on physical quantities are useful in lattice simulations in several ways:
$``$ to qualitatively understand “improvement” and “lattice artefacts”,
$``$ to numerically validate that the continuum limit exists and is reached as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$,
$``$ for predicting the “$`\beta `$-shift”, resulting from massive sea quarks,
$``$ to estimate quantities that are hard to obtain otherwise, e.g. the static quark self energy,
$``$ to calculate $`\alpha _s`$ from low energy QCD phenomenology.

In view of this we calculated Wilson loops and the static potential with massive Wilson, Sheikholeslami-Wohlert (SW) and Kogut-Susskind (KS) fermions to $`O(\alpha ^2)`$ . We define the potential, $`aV_{\text{int}}(𝐑a)=v_{L,1}(𝐑)\alpha _L+v_{L,2}(𝐑)\alpha _L^2+\mathrm{},`$ where $`V_{\text{int}}(𝐑a)=V(𝐑a)V(\mathrm{})`$. The static quark self energy, $`V(\mathrm{})=2\delta m_{\text{stat}}\alpha a^1+\mathrm{}`$, vanishes in dimensional regularisation but diverges on the lattice as the continuum limit is approached. For $`SU(3)`$ we find, $`a\delta m_{\text{stat}}=2.1172743\alpha _L+[11.143(3)+n_fY_f]\alpha _L^2`$ with $`Y_f=0.36846(6)`$ for massless KS quarks and $`Y_f=0.42333(6)+0.0516(2)c_{SW}0.5870(2)c_{SW}^2`$ for Wilson-SW quarks. While our value of the Wilson-SW $`Y_f`$ agrees with Ref.  we find a $`4\sigma `$ discrepancy in the gluonic contribution.

## 2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1`$” AND THE “$`\beta `$-SHIFT”

The $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme is related to the lattice scheme via $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}(a^1)=\alpha _L+b_1\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}`$, with the conversion factor $`b_1=\pi /(2N)+k_1N+K_1(ma)n_f`$, where the numerical constant $`k_1`$ is known for a variety of gluonic actions and $`K_1(0)`$ is known for Wilson, SW and KS quarks with Wilson glue. Further couplings can be defined, e.g. from the potential in position space, $`\alpha _R(\mu )=rV_{\text{int}}(r)/C_F`$, $`\mu =r^1`$. While the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme is “mass-independent”, the $`\beta `$-function coefficients $`\beta _i`$ of the above “$`R`$” scheme depend on $`m/\mu `$ and hence on the quark mass; universality is lost and the $`\beta _i`$ are specific for each dimensionful observable that is studied. The same holds true for the conversion factor to the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme.

In contrast, the lattice scheme is mass-independent in the continuum limit. However, it is often worthwhile to study quantities that are not defined in this limit like small Wilson loops , and some effective field theory approaches require a finite lattice cut-off too. At fixed physical $`r=Ra`$ the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the continuum limit $`a0`$, in which rotational symmetry is restored and lattice and continuum perturbative predictions agree. One would also expect rotational symmetry to be restored at finite $`a`$ for distances $`ra`$. These two cases become distinguishable in perturbation theory once an external scale $`m`$ is introduced and hence the situation $`r<m`$ differs from $`r>m`$.

At finite $`a`$ and $`m>0`$ the lattice scheme becomes mass-dependent too, as indicated by the function $`K_1(ma)=K_1(0)+\mathrm{\Delta }K_1(ma)`$ within $`b_1`$ above. We denote the fermionic contribution to $`v_{L,2}`$ as $`n_fv_{L,2}^f`$ and $`V_{L,2}^f=v_{L,2}^f/(4\pi )^2`$. The latter, multiplied by $`R`$, is displayed in Fig. 1 for the example of Wilson fermions. In the massless case we find the expected logarithmic running, proportional to the fermionic contribution to $`\beta _0`$ (straight line). The offset at small $`R`$ is related to $`K_1(ma)`$, which we determine by matching the lattice potential at $`R1`$ to the known $`\overline{MS}`$ result. $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1`$ is only unique in the limit $`m=0`$ (where it vanishes). For massive quarks universality is lost and $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1`$ will depend on the observable that is matched. In the case of the position space potential (and force) we obtain the asymptotic behaviour, $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1(ma)=0.0011(3)K_1(0)\mathrm{ln}(ma)/(3\pi )`$ for $`ma\mathrm{}`$. The logarithmic term is universal and guarantees the massive fermions to decouple from the $`\beta `$ function.

We display the size of this correction, relative to $`K_1(0)<0`$ in Fig. 2. Note that in the limit $`ma\mathrm{}`$ the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1/K_1`$ diverges towards negative values. For the two $`O(a)`$ improved fermionic actions the mass dependence is minimal while this effect can be very significant for Wilson fermions and has to be taken into account in any calculation that uses the potential as an intermediate scheme.

As can be seen from Fig. 1, at $`rm^1`$, i.e. $`R(ma)^1`$, the effective Coulomb coupling is screened with the same logarithmic slope as in the massless case. At $`rm^1`$ the heavy quarks decouple and do not contribute to the running anymore but just to the overall normalisation. It is here that the un-quenched potential can be matched to the quenched one by adjusting the coupling constant $`\beta =3/(2\pi \alpha _L)`$: $`\beta ^{(n_f)}=\beta ^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =n_f\left[\mathrm{ln}(Dma)+3\pi \mathrm{\Delta }K_1(ma)\right]/(2\pi ^2)+O(\beta ^1)`$. We find the numerical values, $`D=0.448(2),0.0238(1)`$ and $`0.726(2)`$, for Wilson, SW and KS fermions, respectively. As $`ma\mathrm{}`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1`$ term guarantees that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta 0`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ diverges as $`ma0`$: in the light quark limit the quenched and un-quenched theories decouple.

In Fig. 3 we compare our perturbative prediction to numerical data with $`n_f=2`$ Wilson , SW  and KS  fermions, obtained at lattice spacings $`4<r_0/a<6.5`$ and quark masses $`0.1ma0.01`$. The Wilson and SW results fall onto a universal curve that differs by less than 10 % from the prediction while the KS results deviate much more and some $`\beta `$ dependence is evident. Whether this is due to a slower convergence of the perturbative series or due to $`n_f`$ not being a multiple of four is an open question. The qualitative agreement between prediction and simulation for Wilson-type quarks indicates that, at least at present masses, physics at hadronic scales is not strongly affected by quark loops, which is consistent with the phenomenological success of the quenched approximation.

## 3 THE QCD RUNNING COUPLING

We determine the running coupling $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}(3.401a^1)`$ from the average plaquette, following the method detailed in Ref. . The result is then converted into units of $`r_0`$  and numerically evolved to the scale $`\mu =10r_0^1`$ (Fig. 4) via the four-loop $`\beta `$ function. While the mass dependence of the plaquette is rather weak, the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_1(ma)`$ has a statistically significant impact on the Wilson results at masses $`ma>0.02`$.

The bottom-left $`n_f=0`$ pentagon corresponds to the ALPHA collaboration result, $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}(\mu )=0.157(4)`$, the other ones have been obtained from the average plaquette within a $`\beta `$-window that covers the range of lattice spacings, spanned by the dynamical simulations. We note that the $`n_f=0`$ values obtained by use of the two different methods agree. All dynamical results can be fitted to polynomials in $`mr_0`$ (solid curves). The SW results  have been obtained at fixed $`r_0`$ while the two Wilson  and three KS  data sets have been produced at fixed $`\beta `$. We observe a significant lattice spacing dependence, in contrast to the $`n_f=0`$ case. Extrapolating to the limits $`mr_00.01`$ and $`a/r_00`$, the latter linearly for Wilson and quadratically for KS fermions, we obtain the consistent estimate, $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{(2)}(\mu )\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{(0)}(\mu )=0.030(6)`$. Simulations at additional lattice spacings are mandatory to control the extrapolation to the continuum limit. Furthermore, numerical data at $`n_f0,2`$ are essential, before $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}(m_Z)`$ can be predicted with confidence. Once such results are available an error of $`2\%`$ appears to be realistic.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

G.B. is a Heisenberg Fellow (DFG grant Ba 1564/4-1). This work is supported by PPARC grants PPA/G/O/1998/00559 and PPA/J/S/1998/00756 and the EU networks HPRN-CT-2000-00145 and FMRX-CT97-0122.


text:
# On the Cross-Correlation between Dark Matter Distribution and Secondary CMB Anisotropies by Ionized Intergalactic Medium

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The absence of the hydrogen Gunn-Peterson trough in quasar absorption spectra (Gunn, & Peterson (1965)) strongly indicates that the smoothly distributed hydrogen in the intergalactic medium (IGM) is already highly ionized by $`z=6`$ (e.g., Lanzetta, Wolfe, & Turnashek (1995); Fan, et al. (2000)). Recently, Becker et al. (2001) reported the first detection of the Gunn-Peterson test through in a $`z=6.28`$ QSO spectrum. However, even a small fraction of neutral hydrogen in the IGM would result in an undetectable flux because of the large cross section to Ly$`\alpha `$ photons, and thus further careful investigations will be necessary. These results also imply the presence of very luminous ionizing sources such as QSOs and high mass stars at high redshifts to cause photoionizations of hydrogen by $`z\stackrel{>}{}6`$. On the other hand, it is known that earlier reionization would have brought the last scattering surface to lower redshift, smoothing the intrinsic anisotropies in cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation generated at the recombination epoch $`z1000`$ (Bond et al. (1991); Sugiyama, Silk, & Vittorio (1993)). The recent measurements of the CMB anisotropies on subdegree angular scales (de Bernardis, et al. (2000); Hanany et al. (2000); Netterfield, et al. (2001)) can be used to set an upper limit on reionization redshift such as $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}30`$ (Tegmark, & Zaldarriaga (2000)). Thus, under the currently favored adiabatic cold dark matter (CDM) scenario for the structure formation, reionization of the universe is expected to occur in the range of $`6\stackrel{<}{}z_{\mathrm{ion}}\stackrel{<}{}30`$. Revealing how reionization proceeds in the inhomogeneous universe stands out as one of the most important problems in the observational cosmology (e.g., see Barkana, & Loeb (2001) for a recent review).

Secondary CMB anisotropies should be induced by scattering of CMB photons off electrons in the ionized medium undergoing bulk motion in the large-scale structure. It is therefore expected that the secondary anisotropies can provide a laboratory for studying structure formation in the reionized epoch. Kaiser (1984) investigated the CMB distortion induced by the bulk velocity to pure linear order of $`O(v)`$ and found that the induced anisotropies are small at arcminite scales resulting from cancellations between positive and negative shifts along the line of sight, since the gravitationally induced bulk velocities are irrotational. Ostriker & Vishniac (1986) then pointed out that the coupling of the Doppler effect with spatial variations in the free electron density produces $`\mu K`$ anisotropies on arcminite scales at the order of $`O(\delta v)`$, which is the so-called Ostriker-Vishniac (OV) effect, because the effect is a second-order contribution of perturbations that does not suffer from the cancellation (see also Vishniac (1987); Efstathiou (1988); Hu, & White (1996); Jaffe, & Kamionkowski (1998)). For the same reason, spatial inhomogeneities of ionization fraction associated with a realistic patchy reionization scenario should lead to the secondary CMB anisotropies by the Doppler effect (Aghanim et al. (1996); Gruzinov & Hu (1998); Knox, Scoccimarro, & Dodelson (1998); Benson et al. (2001); Gnedin, & Jaffe (2001)). In particular, Benson et al. (2001) investigated the secondary CMB fluctuations under a realistic model of the reionization of IGM caused by starts in high-redshift galaxies, based on a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation and a high-resolution N-body simulation of the dark matter clustering. They showed that measurements of CMB anisotropies could actually put stringent constraints on the reionization processes. On the other hand, from theoretical aspects, it is not so evident to answer the problem which second-order effect of perturbations produces dominant contribution to the secondary CMB fluctuations. Hu, Scott, & Silk (1994 hereafter HSS; see also Dodelson & Jubas 1995) derived a complete Boltzmann equation including the quadratic Doppler effects $`O(v^2)`$ of bulk velocity that governs redshift evolution of the CMB temperature fluctuation field. Consequently, they found that, although the quadratic Doppler effect should induce spectral distortion of CMB like the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect (Zel’dovich, & Sunyaev (1969)) as a new qualitative feature, the magnitude is always smaller than that of the OV effect for the CDM models.

A great uncertainty in models for structure formation in the reionized epoch is the extent and nature of reionization, because this requires the understanding of various complicated astrophysical processes such as the nature of first ionizing sources, the fraction of ionizing photons that escape the sources to become available for photoionization of the hydrogen in IGM, and the radiative balance between the escaped emissivity and the recombination rate in the inhomogeneous IGM. For example, even a naive question which high-density or low-density region in the large-scale structure becomes first photoionized bas not still been answered definitely. Assuming ab initio that the distribution of the ionization fraction is given as a function of gas density, Miralde-Escudé, Hanehnelt, & Rees (2000; hereafter MHR) suggested that the UV radiation may escape into and ionize the low-density region, where the recombination rates are the lowest, even though it is expected that the ionizing sources could be associated with the peaks in the density field. This conclusion has also been confirmed by the recent numerical simulations taking into account the radiative transfer approximately (Gnedin (2000)).

While the relation between the dark matter and ionized medium distributions is thus a crucial clue to understanding the reionization history connected with the gravitational instability scenario of structure formation, the relation seems difficult to be directly observed by methods so far proposed. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the cross-correlation between the dark matter distribution and the secondary CMB temperature fluctuation field induced by the ionized medium in the mildly nonlinear structure. It is now recognized that the weak gravitational lensing effect due to the large-scale structure can be a unique tool to observationally reconstruct the dark matter distribution (e.g., see Bartelmann, & Schneider (2001) for a review). There are two feasible methods often considered in the literature; one is using the distortion effects on distant galaxy images that have been actually detected (e.g., Van Waerbeke et al. (2000)), and the other is using the weak lensing effects on the CMB map (Seljak & Zaldarriaga (1999); Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1999); Takada, Komatsu, & Futamase (1999); Takada, & Futamase (2001); Schmalzing, Takada, & Futamase (2000); Takada (2001); Hu 2001a ,b). In particular, it is expected that the method of using the distortion effects on the CMB map developed by Seljak & Zaldarriaga (1999; also Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1999)) allows us to reconstruct the projected dark matter distribution with high accuracy. Based on these considerations, in this paper we assume that the weak lensing field is a priori reconstructed by those methods, for example, using the future CMB data from the satellite mission Planck Surveyor. Then, taking a cross-correlation between the weak lensing field and the CMB map including the secondary fluctuations would be a challenging test. Furthermore, the cross-correlation method could improve the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of the Doppler effect compared with the original S/N in the CMB map itself if the secondary CMB field correlates with the weak lensing field, which is analogous to, for example, the cross-correlation between the CMB temperature fluctuation and polarization fields (Hu, & White (1996); see also Peiris, & Spergel (2000) and Van Waerbeke, Bernardeau, & Benabed (2000) for other examples). In this paper, based on the small angle approximation, we first develop a formalism for calculating the cross-correlation function and its angular power spectrum between the weak lensing field and the secondary CMB fluctuation field including the Doppler effects up to the second-order of the bulk velocity field. We then estimate the magnitude of the cross-correlation under the currently favored CDM models and the simplest assumption of homogeneous reionization history after some epoch $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}\stackrel{>}{}5`$.

The layout of this paper is as follows. In §2 we review the relevant properties and parameters of the adiabatic CDM scenario for structure formation. In §3 we briefly review the Boltzmann equation including the Doppler effect up to the second-order of bulk velocity and discuss the physical implications of the effect following HSS. In §4 we develop a formalism for calculating the cross-correlation function and its angular power spectrum between the weak lensing field and the secondary CMB temperature fluctuation field induced by the bulk motion of the ionized medium in the large-scale structure. Results for the currently favored CDM models are presented in §5. In §6 we present the discussions and conclusions. Throughout this paper, we employ unit of $`c=1`$ for light speed $`c`$.

## 2 PRELIMINARIES

### 2.1 FRW Model

The expansion rate of the universe can be described by the Friedmann equation:

$$H(t)\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt}=H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}a^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda 0}},$$
(1)
where $`a(t)`$ denotes the scale factor, $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is the Hubble constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda 0}`$ denote the density parameters of the present-day non-relativistic matter and the contribution of the cosmological constant relative to the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr0}}=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$, respectively. Here we have set $`a(t_0)=1`$ at present for convenience. Throughout this paper, we consider only a flat universe model as supported by the recent high precision CMB experiments (e.g., de Bernardis, et al. (2000); Netterfield, et al. (2001)) and then we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda 0}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}`$. The conformal time which we will often use in the following discussions is defined by $`d\eta =a^1dt`$. It is convenient to introduce the comoving angular diameter distance $`r(\eta )`$ with respect to $`\eta `$ or equivalently redshift $`z`$, and for a flat universe model it is given by

$$r(\eta )=\eta _0\eta =_0^z\frac{dz}{H(z)},$$
(2)
where $`\eta _0`$ is the present conformal time and $`z`$ is given by $`1+z=1/a`$.

It is currently believed that the reionization of the universe occurred at $`6\stackrel{<}{}z_{\mathrm{ion}}\stackrel{<}{}30`$ such that the reionized medium is optically thin to the Thomson scattering of CMB photons, which is characterized as $`\tau <1`$ in terms of the optical depth, $`\tau `$. Assuming homogeneous ionization after some reionization epoch $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$, $`\tau `$ can be analytically expressed as a function of $`z`$ for a flat universe model:

$$\tau _t^{t_0}𝑑t^{}\overline{n}_e\sigma _T=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\tau _\mathrm{H}\overline{X}_e}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}}\left[\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}(1+z)^3}1\right],$$
(3)
with

$$\tau _\mathrm{H}\overline{n}_{e0}\sigma _\mathrm{T}H_0^1=0.0692(1Y)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}h.$$
(4)
Here $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`\overline{n}_e`$ is the mean number density of free electron, $`\overline{X}_e`$ is the mean ionization fraction, which does not depend on time here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}`$ is the present-day density parameter of baryon in units of the critical density, $`\tau _H`$ is the optical depth to Thomson scattering to the Hubble distance today under the assumption of full hydrogen ionization and homogeneous distribution of baryon, and $`Y`$ is the primordial helium fraction. We fix $`Y=0.24`$ throughout this paper.

Again in the case of homogeneous and full hydrogen ionization, the visibility function that gives the probability of last scattering within $`d\eta `$ of $`\eta `$ is expressed as

$$g(\eta )=\dot{\tau }e^\tau =\overline{n}_e\sigma _\mathrm{T}ae^\tau =\tau _\mathrm{H}H_0a^2e^\tau ,$$
(5)
where overdot denotes derivative with respect to the conformal time $`\eta `$.

### 2.2 Perturbation Theory of the Large-Scale Structure Formation

The evolution of the large-scale structure after the decoupling epoch $`z_{}1000`$ is characterized by the time evolution and scale dependence of the density contrast field $`\delta (𝒙,t)`$ mainly caused by the dark matter distribution. The gravitational instability then leads to bulk motions of structure with the velocity field $`𝒗(𝒙)`$, and we expect that the ionized baryonic medium also follows the bulk motion on large scales, leading to the Doppler effects on CMB photons through the Compton scattering by electrons. Since we focus our investigations on the secondary CMB fluctuations up to the second-order of $`v`$, we need to consider the fields of $`\delta `$ and $`𝒗`$ up to the second-order that are valid in the mildly nonlinear regime such as $`\delta \stackrel{<}{}1`$:

$`\delta (𝒙)=\delta ^{(1)}(𝒙)+\delta ^{(2)}(𝒙)+\mathrm{},`$
$`𝒗(𝒙)=𝒗^{(1)}(𝒙)+𝒗^{(2)}(𝒙)+\mathrm{}.`$ (6)
The quantities with superscripts ‘(1)’ and ‘(2)’ denote the first- and second-order perturbation quantities, respectively. The time dependences of these fields can be expressed in terms of cosmological parameters based on the (Eulerian) perturbation theory (e.g., Peebles (1980)). In the linear regime, the time dependence of $`\delta ^{(1)}`$ is given by the growing factor as $`\delta ^{(1)}(𝒙,t)=D(t)\delta ^{(1)}(𝒙)`$ with

$$D(t)H(t)_{a(t)}^1\frac{da}{(Ha)^3},$$
(7)
where we have neglected the radiation energy contribution, and will normalize $`D(t_0)=1`$ at the present time $`t_0`$ for convenience in the followings.

The Fourier transformation of $`\delta ^{(1)}(𝒙)`$ is expressed as

$$\delta ^{(1)}(𝒙)=\frac{d^3𝒌}{(2\pi )^3}\delta _𝒌^{(1)}e^{i𝒌𝒙}.$$
(8)
If the linear density fluctuations are Gaussian, the statistical properties can be completely specified by the power spectrum $`P(k)`$ defined by

$$\delta _𝒌\delta _𝒌^{}^{}(2\pi )^3P(k)\delta ^3(𝒌𝒌^{}),$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an ensemble average over all realizations. Note that time evolution of the power spectrum is given by $`P(k,t)=D^2(t)P(k)`$. In this paper, assuming the adiabatic CDM scenario, we employ the Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum and the BBKS transfer function (Bardeen et al. (1986)) with the shape parameter given by Sugiyama (1995) as for the shape of $`P(k)`$. The free parameter is then the normalization of $`P(k)`$ only, which is conventionally expressed in terms of the rms mass fluctuations of a sphere of $`8h^1`$Mpc radius, i.e., $`\sigma _8`$. From the continuity equation, we can obtain the Fourier components of the bulk velocity filed $`𝒗_𝒌^{(1)}`$ at the first order as

$$𝒗_𝒌^{(1)}(t)=\frac{i𝒌}{k^2}\dot{D}\delta _𝒌^{(1)}.$$
(10)
Likewise, based on the perturbation theory, we can obtain the second-order Fourier components of density fluctuation and bulk velocity fields in terms of $`\delta _𝒌^{(1)}`$ and $`D`$ (e.g., see Peebles (1980)):

$`\delta _𝒌^{(2)}(t)=D^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒌^{}}{(2\pi )^3}F(𝒌^{},𝒌𝒌^{})\delta _𝒌^{}^{(1)}\delta _{𝒌𝒌^{}}^{(1)}},`$
$`𝒗_𝒌^{(2)}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{i𝒌}{k^2}}D\dot{D}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒌^{}}{(2\pi )^3}G(𝒌^{},𝒌𝒌^{})\delta _𝒌^{}^{(1)}\delta _{𝒌𝒌^{}}^{(1)}},`$ (11)
with

$`F(𝒌_1,𝒌_2){\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{k_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{k_1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_1𝒌_2}{k_1k_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_1𝒌_2}{k_1k_2}}\right)^2,`$
$`G(𝒌_1,𝒌_2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{k_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{k_1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_1𝒌_2}{k_1k_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_1𝒌_2}{k_1k_2}}\right)^2,`$ (12)
where we have neglected extremely weak dependences of the functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ on cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda 0}`$ for simplicity, and considered the scalar type perturbations only. It is worth noting that, even if perturbations start from Gaussian in the linear regime, the mildly nonlinear evolution leads to non-vanishing third-order moments such as $`\delta ^3`$ and $`\delta v^2`$, because those quantities are essentially the fourth-order moments of linear perturbation quantities like $`(\delta ^{(1)})^4`$.

## 3 BOLTZMANN EQUATION FOR SECOND-ORDER COMPTON SCATTERING

Here, following HSS, we briefly review the derivation of the secondary CMB temperature fluctuation field induced by the Doppler effect of ionized medium up to the second order $`O(v^2)`$ of the bulk velocity. Let us first write down the Boltzmann equation in terms of the CMB photon energy $`p`$ and direction $`\gamma ^i`$ in the presence of Compton scattering between the CMB photons and free electrons that could lead to energy changes;

$$\frac{f}{t}+\frac{f}{x^i}\frac{dx^i}{dt}+\frac{f}{p}\frac{dp}{dt}+\frac{f}{\gamma ^i}d\gamma ^idt=C(x,p),$$
(13)
where $`f`$ is the photon occupation number and $`C(x,p)`$ is the collision term by the Compton scattering. HSS derived the collision term that leads to the Doppler effect up to the second order $`O(v^2)`$ as

$$C_v(x,p)=n_\mathrm{e}\sigma _\mathrm{T}\left[𝜸𝒗p\frac{f}{p}+\left\{[(𝜸𝒗)^2+v^2]p\frac{f}{p}+\left(\frac{3}{20}v^2+\frac{11}{20}(𝜸𝒗)^2\right)p^2\frac{^2f}{p^2}\right\}\right],$$
(14)
where we have ignored the term by thermal electron scattering, leading to the thermal SZ effect. The first term in the large brackets on the r.h.s represents the Doppler effect of $`O(v)`$ that produces the OV effect from the coupling with the electron density fluctuation field $`\delta _e`$ at the order $`O(v\delta _e)`$. The other terms give the quadratic Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$. It is interesting that the effect leads to energy exchanges between CMB photons and electrons like the thermal SZ effect, and therefore causes the Compton $`y`$-distortion. As shown by HSS, we can get more physical insight into this effect by considering the limit of many scattering blobs or equivalently the multiple scattering limit. If we can average equation (14) over the direction of bulk velocity field $`𝒗`$, the $`O(v)`$ Doppler effect primarily cancels in this case and then we can obtain

$$C_v(x,p)=n_\mathrm{e}\sigma _\mathrm{T}\frac{v^2}{3}\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{}{p}\left[p^4\frac{f}{p}\right].$$
(15)
If introducing the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ defined by $`v^2=3T_{\mathrm{eff}}/m_\mathrm{e}`$ ($`m_e`$ is the electron mass), this collision term reduces to the same form of that in the Kompaneets equation with the thermal temperature $`T_e`$ of hot electron, which gives the thermal SZ effect. This implies that many ionized blobs distributed in the large-scale structure can be considered like hot electrons inside one cluster, and thus those blobs induce the energy exchange to the CMB photons characterized by the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Under the CDM scenario for the structure formation, the amplitude of Compton $`y`$-distortion induced by the quadratic Doppler effect is below that due to the thermal SZ effect mainly caused by intracluster hot plasma. This is because we can typically estimate $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}10^1\mathrm{eV}`$ for the gravitationally induced bulk flow and $`T_e\mathrm{keV}`$ for intracluster hot plasma, and the fact of $`T_eT_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ leads to the conclusion, even though clusters are rare objects in the universe.

In this paper, we do not employ the many scattering blobs limit for the purpose of generality as done by HSS. Namely, we shall no longer be concerned with frequency dependence of the temperature fluctuation field. Integration of equation (13) over photon energy $`p`$ leads to the Boltzmann equation up to the order $`O(v^2)`$ to govern the time evolution of temperature fluctuation field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta T/T_{\mathrm{CMB}})`$, along the line of sight with direction of $`𝜸`$:

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\gamma ^i_i\mathrm{\Delta }=n_\mathrm{e}\sigma _\mathrm{T}a\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }+𝜸𝒗v^2+7(𝜸𝒗)^2\right],$$
(16)
where we have neglected the gravitational effect and the correction due to the quadrupole temperature fluctuations. By solving the equation above formally, we can obtain the secondary fluctuation field induced by the Doppler effect of ionized medium during propagations of the CMB photons from the decoupling $`z_{}1000`$ to present:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\eta _0,𝜸)=_\eta _{}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta g(\eta )X_e(\eta )[1+\delta _e(𝒙,\eta )]\left[𝜸𝒗v^2+7(𝜸𝒗)^2\right],$$
(17)
where $`\eta _{}`$ is the conformal time at the decoupling epoch $`z_{}1000`$, $`g(\eta )`$ is the visibility function given by equation (5), and we have used the fact that the free electron density field can be expressed as

$`n_e(𝒙,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{n}_e(\eta )[1+\delta _e(𝒙,\eta )]`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\overline{n}_{\mathrm{H0}}a^3(\eta )X_e(\eta )(1+\delta _e).`$
The $`X_e(\eta )`$ is the ionization fraction as a function of $`\eta `$, $`\delta _e`$ is the density fluctuation field of electron along the line of sight, and $`\overline{n}_{\mathrm{H0}}`$ is the mean hydrogen number density at present given by $`\overline{n}_{\mathrm{H0}}=1.12\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}h^2(1Y)`$. Note that, as explicitly introduced by Gnedin & Jaffe (2001), $`n_e`$ can also be expressed as $`n_e=X_e(1+\delta _X)n_\mathrm{H}=X_e\overline{n}_\mathrm{H}[1+\delta _X(𝒙,\eta )][1+\delta _b(𝒙,\eta )]`$, where $`\delta _X`$ and $`\delta _b`$ are the fluctuation fields of the ionization fraction and the baryon density, respectively, as a function of the spatial position and time. It is thus clear that $`\delta _e`$ is different from $`\delta _b`$ in a general reionization history. Note that we will deal with $`\delta _e`$ throughout this paper.

## 4 FORMALISM: CROSS-CORRELATION BETWEEN DOPPLER EFFECTS ON CMB AND WEAK LENSING FIELD

In this section, we develop a formalism for calculating the cross-correlation function and its angular power spectrum between the weak lensing field and the secondary CMB anisotropies field induced by the Doppler effect of the ionized medium.

### 4.1 Weak Lensing Field

The weak gravitational lensing due to the large-scale structure is now recognized as a unique tool for directly measuring the dark matter distribution. Seljak & Zaldarriaga (1999) (also see Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1999)) developed a useful method for reconstructing the projected field of dark matter fluctuations between the last scattering surface and present from the lensing distortions to the product of gradients of the temperature filed. This method could be successfully performed by the satellite mission Planck. It has been also shown that a new power of temperature fluctuations generated by the weak lensing effect on arcminute scales below the Silk damping scale can be directly used to reconstruct the projected dark matter field, provided that we have data with arcminute-scale spatial resolution and sensitivity of $`10\mu \mathrm{K}\mathrm{arcmin}`$ (Seljak & Zaldarriaga (2000); Zaldarriaga (2000); Hu 2001a ) and we can remove other secondary signals such as the SZ effect by taking advantage of the specific spectral properties or by combining the CMB measurement with the $`X`$-ray or the SZ effect itself. Furthermore, if measurements of the CMB polarization become possible, combinations of the lensing effects on the temperature fluctuation and the $`E`$\- and $`B`$-type polarization fields can improve the reconstruction (Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1998); Hu 2001b ). This is because the lensing effect induces the $`B`$-type polarization on the observed sky from the non-linear coupling to the primary $`E`$-mode, evin if the primary CMB contains the $`E`$-mode only as suggested by starndard inflationary scenarios, and there is negligible cosmological contamination of the polarization field in the arcminute regime unlike the temperature fluctuations (Hu 2000a ).

The projected dark matter field is called the convergence field, $`\kappa `$, and can be expressed in the form of a weighted projection of the three-dimensional density fluctuation field along the line of sight;

$$\kappa _\eta _{}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta W(\eta _{},\eta )\delta (𝒙,\eta ),$$
(19)
where $`W(\eta _{},\eta )`$ is the lensing weight function defined by

$$W(\eta _{},\eta )\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}H_0^2\frac{r(\eta \eta _{})}{r(\eta _{})}r(\eta )a^1.$$
(20)
On the other hand, the lensing distortion effect on distant galaxy images can be similarly used to measure the relatively low redshift dark matter distribution such as $`z\stackrel{<}{}2`$, depending on typical redshift of source galaxies (Bartelmann, & Schneider (2001)). In this case, the lower limit in the integration (19) becomes the conformal time corresponding to the redshift of source galaxies $`z_s`$. However, we should bear in mind that the lensing effect on galaxies is relatively irrelevant for the purpose of this paper, because this method usually restricts the convergence field to low redshifts (e.g. see Van Waerbeke et al. (2000)), while the reionization signal in the CMB map is imprinted at moderate and high redshifts. The weak lensing effects on CMB thus has a great advantage of probing the dark matter distribution up to high redshift, which cannot be attained by any other means (see also Takada, Komatsu, & Futamase (1999); Takada, & Futamase (2001); Takada (2001)). In this paper, we assume that the convergence field $`\kappa (𝜸)`$ with respect to direction $`𝜸`$ is a prior reconstructed from measurements of the lensing effects on CMB.

### 4.2 Doppler Effect of $`O(v)`$ and $`O(v\delta _e)`$

From equation (17), the secondary temperature fluctuation field induced by the $`O(v)`$ Doppler effect can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝜸)=_{\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta g(\eta )X_e(1+\delta _e)𝜸𝒗.$$
(21)
The pure linear order Doppler effect, $`\mathrm{\Delta }O(v)`$, is suppressed on small scales because the gravitational instability generates irrotational flow, leading to cancellations between positive and negative Doppler shifts along the line of sight (Kaiser (1984)). For this reason, leading contribution to the secondary temperature fluctuations due to the Doppler effect comes from second order perturbations that do not suffer from the cancellation like the OV effect of $`O(v\delta _e)`$ (Ostriker, & Vishniac (1986); Vishniac (1987); Efstathiou (1988); Hu, & White (1996); Jaffe, & Kamionkowski (1998)) and the patchy ionization effect of $`O(v\delta _X)`$ (Aghanim et al. (1996); Knox, Scoccimarro, & Dodelson (1998); Gruzinov & Hu (1998); Benson et al. (2001)), where $`\delta _X`$ is the spatial inhomogeneities of ionization fraction $`X_e`$ as discussed below equation (18).

From equations (19) and (21), a cross-correlation between the convergence field and the secondary temperature fluctuation field due to the Doppler effects of $`O(v)`$ and $`O(v\delta _e)`$ depend on the moments $`\delta v`$ and $`\delta v\delta _e`$ of perturbations, respectively, where the latter moment seems to produce some contributions in the quasi nonlinear regime as discussed in §2.2. However, it is clear that, since those moments has linear dependence on the bulk velocity field $`𝒗`$, the cross-correlation is suppressed on relevant small angular scales because of the cancellations between positive and negative contributions from the bulk velocity field for the ensemble average. Note that the two-point correlation function of the OV effect or equivalently its angular power spectrum arises from the quadratic contribution of the velocity field as $`O(v^2\delta ^2)`$, whereas it does not suffer from the cancellation (Ostriker, & Vishniac (1986); Vishniac (1987); Efstathiou (1988)).

### 4.3 Quadratic Doppler Effect of $`O(v^2)`$

We next consider secondary temperature fluctuations induced by the quadratic Doppler effect of the bulk velocity. In the case of assuming the homogeneous ionization history, the secondary fluctuations are divided into two contributions; the Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$ and the density-modulated effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$. As will be shown later, the effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$ generally produces dominant contribution on small angular scales $`l\stackrel{>}{}1000`$, where the nonlinear structures with $`\delta \stackrel{>}{}1`$ are important. From equation (17), the secondary fluctuation field of $`O(v^2)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}(𝜸)=_{\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta g(\eta )X_e\left[v^2+7(𝜸𝒗)^2\right].$$
(22)
The bulk flow in adiabatic CDM models arises mainly from the linear regime. In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, half the contribution to $`v^2`$ comes from scales $`k\stackrel{<}{}0.07h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, and the density fluctuations go nonlinear at $`k\stackrel{>}{}0.15h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. This is the reason that the secondary CMB anisotropies by the Doppler effects of $`O(v^2)`$ and $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$ are the order of magnitude smaller than the anisotropies by the OV effect of $`O(v\delta _e)`$ on relevant angular scales. However, from the fact that there is no cross-correlation between the convergence field and the OV effect, the quadratic Doppler effects can provide primary contribution to the cross-correlation between the convergence field and the secondary CMB temperature fluctuations induced by the ionized medium.

Since we are interested in the cross-correlation on small angular scales such as $`l\stackrel{>}{}100`$, it is useful to employ the small angle approximation originally developed by Bond & Efstathiou (1987). In this case, the unit vector $`𝜸`$ in equation (22), which denotes the direction of line of sight, can be considered to have component as $`𝜸(\theta _x,\theta _y,\sqrt{1\theta ^2})`$ for $`|\theta _x|,|\theta _y|1`$ in the small region around the North Pole on the celestial sphere. It is then convenient to introduce the two-dimensional vector $`𝜽`$, which has $`𝜽=(\theta _x,\theta _y,0)`$. Within the context of the small angle approximation, the cross-correlation function between the convergence field $`\kappa `$ and the temperature fluctuation field $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}`$ separated by the angle of $`\theta `$ is defined by

$$C^{\kappa v^2}(\theta )\kappa (𝜸_a)\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}(𝜸_b)_{𝜸_a𝜸_b=\mathrm{cos}\theta }\kappa (𝜽_a)\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}(𝜽_b)_{|𝜽_a𝜽_b|\theta },$$
(23)
where $`𝜽_a`$ and $`𝜽_b`$ are the two-dimensional vectors corresponding to unit vectors $`𝜸_a`$ and $`𝜸_b`$ for $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}`$, respectively. Furthermore, if using the two-dimensional Fourier transformation as, for example, $`\kappa (𝜽)=d^2𝒍/(2\pi )^2\kappa _𝒍e^{i𝒍𝜽}`$, the cross-correlation function can be expressed in terms of its angular power spectrum by the Hankel transform of zeroth order as

$$C^{\kappa v^2}(\theta )=\frac{ldl}{2\pi }C_l^{\kappa v^2}J_0(l\theta ),$$
(24)
where $`J_0(x)`$ is the zeroth order Bessel function. The angular power spectrum $`C_l^{\kappa v^2}`$ can be also expressed in terms of the two-dimensional Fourier components of $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}`$ as

$$\kappa _𝒍\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒍^{}^{v^2}C_l^{\kappa v^2}(2\pi )^2\delta ^2(𝒍+𝒍^{}).$$
(25)
From equations (19) and (22), the cross-correlation function (23) can be further calculated as

$`C^{\kappa v^2}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\eta _{}^{\eta _0}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _{\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}}^{\eta _0}}𝑑\eta ^{}W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta ^{})\delta (\eta ,𝜽_a)X_eq_e(\eta ^{},𝜽_b)`$ (26)
$``$ $`X_e{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta ^{})\delta (\eta ,𝜽_a)q_e(\eta ^{},𝜽_b)},`$
where $`q_e(𝜽_b)v^2+7(𝜸_b𝒗)^2`$ with $`\gamma _b(\theta _{bx},\theta _{by},1)`$, and the functions $`g`$ and $`W`$ are given by equations (5) and (20), respectively. In the second line on the r.h.s we have replaced the ionization fraction of $`X_e`$, which generally depends on conformal time $`\eta `$, with the average fraction, $`X_e`$, between $`\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}\eta \eta _0`$ assuming that $`X_\mathrm{e}(\eta )`$ is a slowly varying function with respect to conformal time after a given reionized epoch $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$. From equation (6), the ensemble average $`\delta (𝜽_a,\eta )q_e`$ can be rewritten in terms of third order moments of perturbations as

$`\delta (𝜽_a)q_e(𝜽_b)`$ $``$ $`2\delta ^{(1)}(𝜽_a)[v_i^{(1)}v_i^{(2)}+7v_z^{(1)}v_z^{(2)}](𝜽_b)`$ (27)
$`+\delta ^{(2)}(𝜽_a)[v_i^{(1)}v_i^{(1)}+7v_z^{(1)}v_z^{(1)}](𝜽_b)+O((\delta ^{(1)})^6).`$
Here we have used $`\delta ^{(1)}v^{(1)}v^{(1)}=0`$ and, from the fact that the propagation direction of CMB photons is almost parallel to $`\widehat{z}`$-direction in our setting, we have used $`𝜸_b𝒗v_z`$, where $`v_z`$ denotes the $`z`$ component of bulk velocity field. Therefore, using equations (10) and (11), we can obtain

$`\delta (𝜽_a)q_e(𝜽_b)`$ $`=`$ $`D(\eta )[D\dot{D}^2](\eta ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒌}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝒌^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{7k_z^{}(k_z+k_z^{})k^2𝒌𝒌^{}}{k^2|𝒌+𝒌^{}|^2}}`$ (28)
$`\times \left[4G(𝒌,𝒌+𝒌^{})+F(𝒌^{},𝒌+𝒌^{})\right]P(k)P(|𝒌+𝒌^{}|)e^{i𝒌_{}(r𝜽_ar^{}𝜽_b)ik_z(\eta \eta ^{})},`$
where $`𝒌_{}`$ are $`(x,y)`$-components of $`𝒌`$ that are perpendicular to the line of sight, and $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ denote the comoving angular distances from the present time to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, respectively. One can readily see that the integration of the term $`e^{ik_z(\eta \eta ^{})}`$ over $`k_z`$ on the r.h.s of equation (28) leads to the Dirac delta function $`\delta (\eta \eta ^{})`$ as long as we are concerned with wavelength modes much smaller than the comoving Hubble distance characterized by $`\eta `$. This leads to the consequence that dominant contribution to the cross-correlation function arises from structures of dark matter and ionized medium that are distributed at the same redshift and are separated by $`\theta `$ on the observed sky. This is the so-called the Fourier-space analogue of Limber’s equation (Kaiser (1992); Jaffe, & Kamionkowski (1998)). It is known that this flat sky approximation causes errors no greater than $`O(0.1\%)`$ at $`l\stackrel{>}{}1000`$ (Hu 2000b ; Jaffe, & Kamionkowski (1998)). Under this approximation, the cross-correlation function $`C^{\kappa v^2}(\theta )`$ can be calculated as

$$C^{\kappa v^2}(\theta )X_e_{\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta g(\eta )W(\eta ,\eta _{})D^2\dot{D}^2\frac{k_{}dk_{}}{2\pi }S(k_{})J_0(k_{}r\theta ),$$
(29)
with

$`S(k)`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \frac{k^2(7\mu ^21)k^{}k\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{1\mu ^2}}{k^2+k^2+2kk^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{1\mu ^2}}}`$ (30)
$`\times \left[4G(k,k^{},\varphi ,\mu )+F(k,k^{},\varphi ,\mu )\right]P(k^{})P(\sqrt{k^2+k^2+2kk^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{1\mu ^2}}),`$
where we have assumed that $`𝒌_{}`$ is along the $`x`$-coordinate from the statistical isotropy and then $`𝒌_{}𝒌^{}=k_{}k^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

Hence, from equations (24) and (29) we can finally derive the angular power spectrum of the cross-correlation between the convergence field and the secondary temperature fluctuation field by the quadratic Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$:

$$C_l^{\kappa v^2}=X_e_\eta _{}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta g(\eta )W(\eta ,\eta _{})r^2(\eta )\dot{D}^2D^2S\left(k=\frac{l}{r}\right).$$
(31)
This is the first main result of this paper. It should be noted that the integrand quantity in $`C_l^{\kappa v^2}`$ depends on the cosmological parameters and on the dark matter power spectrum. Namely, it is not affected by the unknown biasing relation between the dark matter and ionized medium distributions. In this sense, we can accurately predict the magnitude of the integrand quantity once we fix the dark matter power spectrum such as the CDM model and the cosmological parameters, which will be well constrained in the near future by other observations such as measurements of the CMB anisotropies, the weak lensing survey and so on. We therefore expect that measurements of $`C_l^{\kappa v^2}`$ can set precise constraints on the average ionization fraction $`X_e`$ between the reionization epoch and present.

### 4.4 Density-Modulated Quadratic Doppler Effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$

Next, we consider the secondary temperature fluctuation field induced by the density-modulated quadratic Doppler effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }O(\delta _ev^2)`$. From equation (17) we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\delta v^2}(𝜽)=𝑑\eta g(\eta )X_e\delta _e\left[v^2+7(𝜸𝒗)^2\right].$$
(32)
In the following, to relate $`\delta _e`$ to the dark matter fluctuation field $`\delta `$, we introduce the linear biasing parameter $`b`$ expressed as $`\delta _e(𝒙,\eta )b\delta (𝒙,\eta )`$ for simplicity. Note that $`b`$ generally depends on time and spatial position.

It is relatively straightforward to calculate the cross-correlation function between the convergence field and the temperature fluctuations field $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\delta v^2}`$:

$`C^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}(\theta )`$ $``$ $`\kappa (𝜽_a)\mathrm{\Delta }^{\delta v^2}(𝜽_b)={\displaystyle 𝑑\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta ^{})X_eb\delta (\eta ,𝜽_a)[\delta \left\{v^2+7(𝜸_b𝒗)^2\right\}](\eta ^{},𝜽_b)}`$ (33)
$``$ $`X_eb{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta ^{})\delta (\eta ,𝜽_a)[\delta \left\{v^2+7(𝜸_b𝒗)^2\right\}](\eta ^{},𝜽_b)}`$
$`=`$ $`X_eb{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta ^{})\delta \delta v^2+7(𝜸_b𝒗)^2}`$
$`=`$ $`X_eb{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta ^{})\delta (\eta ,𝜽_a)\delta (\eta ^{},𝜽_b)\frac{4}{3}v^2},`$
where $`X_eb`$ is the average quantity of $`X_eb`$ between the reionization epoch and present. After the similar procedure as used in the derivation of equation (31), we can obtain the angular power spectrum

$$C_l^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}4X_eb_{\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta )r^2(\eta )D^2P\left(k=\frac{l}{r}\right)v_{\mathrm{rms}}^2(\eta ),$$
(34)
where $`v_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ is the rms of the present-day bulk velocity field and can be expressed in terms of the linear density power spectrum as

$$v_{\mathrm{rms}}^2(\eta )=\frac{\dot{D}^2(\eta )}{3}\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi ^2}P(k^{}).$$
(35)
Here the factor $`1/3`$ is due to the three-dimensional freedom of bulk velocity field such that $`v_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ represents the rms of one-dimensional motion. The most important result of equation (34) is that the angular power spectrum $`C_l^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}`$ is proportional to not quadratic but linear term of $`X_eb`$ for all $`l`$ and therefore could be both positive and negative, depending on the sign of $`X_eb`$ or more specifically on the sing of $`b`$, since the integrand quantity in equation (34) is always positive. The quantity $`X_eb`$ should be a crucial clue to understanding of how the ionized medium distribution is related to the dark matter distribution in the large-scale structure, which still remains large uncertainties both from theoretical and observational aspects. The measurements of $`C_l^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}`$ can thus be a new direct probe of revealing the projected biasing relation. It is worth noting that the angular power spectrum of the OV effect depends on the quadratic term $`O(X_e^2b^2)`$ and is always positive irrespective of the sing of $`X_eb`$.

The simple assumption that the ionized medium traces the dark matter distribution allows us to place the upper limit on $`C_l^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}`$ using the nonlinear dark matter power spectrum, which has been well studied with N-body simulations for the full range of adiabatic CDM models. Equation (34) can be then rewritten as

$$C_l^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}=4X_eb_{\eta _{\mathrm{ion}}}^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta W(\eta ,\eta _{})g(\eta )r^2P_{\mathrm{NL}}\left(k=\frac{l}{r},\eta \right)v_{\mathrm{rms}}^2(\eta ),$$
(36)
where $`P_{\mathrm{NL}}(k,\eta )`$ is the power spectrum of nonlinear density fluctuations for which we will employ the fitting formula developed by Peacock & Dodds (1996). Note that we here consider a possible case that electrons in reionized medium with non-linear density fluctuations are distributed along the line of sight moving according to a large-scale coherent bulk velocity field, as suggested by the CDM power spectrum. This is in fact an essential mechanism that the Ostriker-Vishniac effect can avoid cancellations between blue- and red shifts along the line of sight from the coupling of the density and velocity fields. Based on this consideration, in Figure 3 we use the non-linear power spectrum only for the calculation of $`C_l^{\kappa ,\delta v^2}`$ and use the second-order perturbation theory for that of $`C_l^{\kappa v^2}`$, because the latter arises from the ensemble average of the density fluctuation field and the bulk velocity filed on the mildly non-linear regime.

## 5 RESULTS

We present numerical results for the angular power spectra given by equations (31) and (34) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. We adopt a set of cosmological parameters of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda 0}=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}=0.05`$, $`h=0.7`$, and $`\sigma _8=1`$, which is consistent with the recent CMB experiments (Netterfield, et al. (2001)) and the cluster abundance (Eke, Cole, & Frenk (1996); Kitayama & Suto (1997)). We simply consider the homogeneous hydrogen ionization model after a given reionization epoch in the range of $`5<z_{\mathrm{ion}}<30`$. In this case we will consider $`X_e=\mathrm{const}.`$ with respect to time during $`0zz_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ and equations (3) and (5) can be used for calculations of the optical depth and visibility function, respectively. Although more realistic model is a patchy or inhomogeneous reionization (e.g., Benson et al. (2001)), our model allows us to compute the magnitude of effects in the simplest way.

We first estimate the order of magnitude of secondary temperature fluctuations by the quadratic Doppler effect. Using the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model above, the present-day rms of bulk velocity field can be estimated from equation (35) as $`v_{\mathrm{rms}}(t_0)1.19\times 10^3`$ in the unit of $`c=1`$. Equation (17) tells us that the magnitude of temperature fluctuations induced by the quadratic Doppler effect can be roughly estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}\tau v_{\mathrm{rms}}^210^910^8`$ for $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}=10`$, since we have $`\tau 10^310^2`$ for the model considered in this paper. Similarly, the magnitude of temperature fluctuations induced by the OV effect can be estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{OV}}\tau v_{\mathrm{rms}}\delta 10^6`$, which is consistent with the numerical results done by Hu & White (1996) (see also Efstathiou (1988) and Jaffe, & Kamionkowski (1998)). We thus conclude $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{OV}}`$ in the observed CMB map itself, and the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}`$ is much below sensitivities of the satellite missions MAP and Planck Surveyor.

Figure 1 shows the angular power spectra of the cross-correlations between the weak lensing field and the secondary temperature fluctuations induced by the quadratic Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$ (dashed lines) and the density-modulated effect of $`O(\delta _ev^2)`$ (solid), which are computed using equations (31) and (34), respectively. We here assumed $`b=1`$ for the unknown biasing parameter between the dark matter and electron distributions in the large-scale structure. Both the magnitudes of the Doppler effects of $`O(v^2)`$ and $`O(\delta _ev^2)`$ are comparable on $`l\stackrel{<}{}10^2`$ in the case of no biasing $`b=1`$. This is because leading contribution to the cross-correlation between the weak lensing field of $`O(\delta )`$ and the Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$ comes from the fourth-order moments of linear perturbations like $`O(\delta ^{(1)2}v^{(1)2})`$ resulting from the vanishing of the third-order moments $`\delta ^{(1)}v^{(1)2}=0`$, while the cross-correlation from the density-modulated Doppler effect of $`O(\delta _ev^2)`$ also arises from the moments of $`\delta ^{(1)}v^{(1)2}`$. It is clear that the contribution from the density-modulated effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$ dominates the effect of $`O(v^2)`$ on angular scales of $`l\stackrel{>}{}100`$. The total magnitudes of the angular power spectra peak $`C_l^{\kappa \mathrm{DP}}l^2/2\pi 10^{10}`$ around $`l1500`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and for the five cases of reionization epoch $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}=5,7,10,15,20`$. The peak location in $`l`$-space results from the shape of CDM power spectrum. On the other hand, Cooray (2000) investigated the angular power spectrum of the cross-correlation between the weak lensing field and the thermal SZ temperature fluctuation field based on the halo approach of dark matter clustering (Komatsu, & Kitayama (1999)) and the simple model of intracluster gas distribution. The magnitude of the angular power spectrum from the SZ effect amounts to $`C_l^{\kappa \mathrm{SZ}}l^210^8`$ at $`l2000`$ for the similar models as considered in this paper. The temperature fluctuation induced by the quadratic Doppler effect is over an order of magnitude smaller than that by the SZ effect because of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{v^2}10^910^8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{SZ}}10^6`$. From this fact, it seems unlikely that the magnitude of the cross-correlation between $`\kappa `$ and the quadratic Doppler effect is smaller only by $`10^2`$ than that from the SZ effect. This is because the cross-correlation with the Doppler effect comes from wide-range redshift structures such as $`0<z<z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$, while the SZ effect has dominant contributions from low redshift massive dark halos such as clusters of galaxies with $`M\stackrel{>}{}10^{14}M_{}`$ at $`z\stackrel{<}{}0.5`$ (Cooray (2000)). These results therefore imply that, if the weak lensing field is a priori reconstructed by measurements of lensing effects on the CMB, the cross-correlation could improve the S/N of the quadratic Doppler effect, even though the angular power spectrum itself of the Doppler effect has a small power of $`C_l^{\mathrm{DP}}l^2\stackrel{<}{}10^{17}`$ only. This is an analogous statement to the cross-correlation between the primary CMB temperature fluctuation and polarization fields (e.g., Hu, & White (1997)).

To explicitly illustrate how the cross-correlation considered could be useful to reveal the biasing relation between the dark matter and electron distributions, we here employ a toy model of the antibiasing relation, motivated by the reionization scenario of low-density region prior to the high-density region as suggested by MHR. The homogeneous full hydrogen ionization with $`X_e=1`$ seems to lead to $`\delta _e=\delta _b`$ from $`n_e=n_\mathrm{H}`$, which seems inconsistent with the antibiasing relation, and thus we here assume the partly homogeneous ionization fraction of $`X_e=0.5`$ after $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$. Although the antibiasing process depends on how reionization proceeds in the large-scale structure in detail, we consider the simplest model of linear and constant antibiasing relation given by $`\delta _e=b\delta `$ with $`b=0.8`$. It should be then noted that the condition of $`\delta _e1`$ leads to $`\delta <1/|b|`$. Accordingly, we have taken into account the range of $`\delta `$ for the calculation of the ensemble average of $`\delta _e\delta `$ used in equation (34). Figure 2 shows the result of this toy model, and one can readily see that we should observe the negative total angular power spectra (solid lines) of the cross-correlation between the weak lensing field and the secondary temperature fluctuation field induced by the Doppler effect on $`l\stackrel{>}{}2000`$. Note that this critical scale of $`l`$ depends on the value of the antibiasing parameter $`b`$, because the cancellation between the spectra from the quadratic Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$ and the density-modulated effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$ also depends on $`b`$. As expected, the cross-correlation function could thus be a direct probe of the antibiasing relation, which cannot be attained by measurements of the angular power spectrum of the $`O(V)`$ Doppler effect such as the OV effect because of the quadratic dependence on the biasing relation.

Figure 3 shows the maximal estimate of the angular power spectrum of the cross-correlation using the nonlinear dark matter power spectrum under the simplest assumption that the gas traces dark matter distribution in the large-scale structure. We here again considered the simplest model of $`X_e=1`$ and $`b=1`$ as in Figure 1. The nonlinear enhancement could be important on small angular scales of $`l\stackrel{>}{}10^3`$. However, it is not still clear if the electron distribution traces dark matter distribution in the nonlinear regime, because physical processes of the gas pressure and radiative dynamics should also play an important role in such nonlinear regions (e.g., Gnedin (2000)). For this reason, the curves in Figure 3 provide us with upper limits on a realistic angular power spectrum of the cross-correlation.

## 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have investigated the cross-correlation between the weak lensing field and the secondary CMB temperature fluctuations induced by the Doppler effect of the ionized medium in the reionized epoch of the universe. The main result of this paper is to develop a formalism for calculating the cross-correlation function and its angular power spectrum based on the small angle approximation. The leading order to the cross-correlation comes from the secondary CMB anisotropies due to the quadratic Doppler effects of the bulk motions, since the cross-correlation with the $`O(v)`$ Doppler effect such as the OV effect depends linearly on the bulk velocity field and thus suffers from cancellations between positive and negative contributions from the bulk velocity field for the ensemble average. There are two main contributions to the cross-correlation function: one is contribution from the pure quadratic Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$ and the other is that from the density-modulated effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$, where $`\delta _e`$ is the electron density fluctuation field. For the CDM models, the latter contribution dominates the former on angular scales of $`l\stackrel{>}{}100`$ if the ionized medium traces the dark matter distribution. We found that the cross-correlation of $`O(X_ev^2\delta )`$ from the Doppler effect of $`O(v^2)`$ is sensitive to the average ionization fraction $`X_e`$ between the reionization epoch and present in the sense that the bulk velocity and the weak lensing field depends only on the dark matter fluctuations, through the gravitational instability scenario, and on the cosmological parameters, which will be well constrained by the future precise data such as the primary CMB anisotropies and the weak lensing survey. On the other hand, we showed that the cross-correlation of $`O(X_ev^2\delta _e\delta )`$ between the weak lensing field and the density-modulated quadratic Doppler effect of $`O(v^2\delta _e)`$ depends linearly on the biasing relation between the dark matter and free electron distributions, and therefore its angular power spectrum could be both positive and negative, depending on the biasing and antibiasing, respectively. If the low density region of IGM is ionized prior to the high density region in the reionization history as suggested by MHR (see also Gnedin (2000)), we would measure the negative angular spectrum of the cross-correlation. Our results thus offer a new opportunity to understand the unknown problem how reionization proceeds in the inhomogeneous intergalactic medium connected to the dark matter clustering in principle, although the magnitude of the signal is very small.

Let us briefly comment on other sources of cross-correlation between the weak lensing field and the observed CMB map. One significant source is the thermal SZ effect, and it has been indeed shown that the cross-correlation could have the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{SZ}}\kappa 10^8`$ for the similar CDM model (Cooray (2000)) as investigated in this paper. The SZ effect thus produces much larger contribution than the cross-correlation with the Doppler effect estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{DP}}\kappa 10^{10}`$. However, since the thermal SZ signal arises mainly from hot plasma in clusters of galaxies at low redshift $`(z\stackrel{<}{}0.5)`$, it is expected that we can remove this signal from the cross-correlation maps, combined with the X-ray data or the SZ maps. The other possible sources are the CMB foregrounds such as synchrotron radiation from extragalactic dust that may correlate with the dark matter distribution in the large-scale structure. Isolating the signal shown in this paper observationally from the foregrounds will be a great challenge by using the different frequency-dependence (Tegmark, et al. (2000)), though this problem is beyond the scope of this paper.

## Acknowledgments

M. T. acknowledges financial support from the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowships. This research was supported by Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Science Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture Grant Nos. 06107 and 11640235, and Sumitomo Fundation.


text:
# Mechanical Systems with Poincaré Invariance

## 1 Introduction

In this letter we shall introduce new mechanical models obeying the Poincaré algebra

$$\{H,B\}=P,\{P,B\}=H,\{H,P\}=0.$$
(1)
Here $`H`$ will be the Hamiltonian of the system generating time-translations, $`P`$ is a space-translation generator and $`B`$ the generator of boosts. The investigation of such models was initiated by Ruijsenaars and Schneider . The models they discovered were found to posses other nice features: they were in fact integrable and a quantum version of them naturally existed. We shall discuss these further features of our models below.

Ruijsenaars and Schneider  began with the ansatz

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{cosh}p_j\underset{kj}{}f(x_jx_k),P=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sinh}p_j\underset{kj}{}f(x_jx_k)$$

and

$$B=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_j.$$

With this ansatz and the canonical Poisson bracket $`\{p_i,x_j\}=\delta _{ij}`$ the first two Poisson brackets of (1) involving the boost operator $`B`$ are automatically satisfied. The remaining Poisson bracket is then

$$\begin{array}{c}\{H,P\}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\underset{kj}{}f^2(x_jx_k)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\underset{jk}{}\mathrm{cosh}(p_jp_k)\underset{lj}{}f(x_jx_l)\underset{mk}{}f(x_kx_m)\left(_j\mathrm{ln}f(x_kx_j)+_k\mathrm{ln}f(x_jx_k)\right)\end{array}$$

and for the independent terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cosh}(p_jp_k)`$ to vanish we require that $`f^{}(x)/f(x)`$ be odd. This entails that $`f(x)`$ is either even or odd111Ruijsenaars and Schneider assume $`f(x)=f(x)`$. and in either case $`f^2(x)`$ is even. Supposing that $`f(x)`$ is so constrained, then the final Poisson bracket is equivalent to the functional equation

$$\{H,P\}=0\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\underset{kj}{}f^2(x_jx_k)=0.$$
(2)
For $`n=3`$ this equation may be written in the form

$$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ F(x)& F(y)& F(z)\\ F^{}(x)& F^{}(y)& F^{}(z)\end{array}\right|=0,x+y+z=0,$$
(3)
where $`F(x)=f^2(x)`$. Ruijsenaars and Schneider  showed that $`F(x)=\mathrm{}(x)+c`$ satisfies (3) and further satisfies (2) for all $`n`$. This same functional equation (without assumptions on the parity of the function $`F(x)`$) has arisen in several settings related to integrable systems. It arises when characterising quantum mechanical potentials whose ground state wavefunction (of a given form) is factorisable . More recently it has been shown  to characterise the Calogero-Moser system , which is a scaling limit of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system. The analytic solutions to (3) were characterised by Buchstaber and Perelomov  while more recently a somewhat stronger result with considerably simpler proof was obtained by the authors . One has

###### Theorem 1

Let F be a three-times differentiable function satisfying the functional equation (3). Then, up to the manifest invariance $`F(x)\alpha F(\delta x)+\beta `$, the solutions of (3) are one of $`F(x)=\mathrm{}(x+d)`$, $`F(x)=e^x`$ or $`F(x)=x`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$-function and $`3d`$ is a lattice point of the $`\mathrm{}`$-function.

Thus the even solutions of (3) are precisely those obtained by Ruijsenaars and Schneider. As an aside we remark that the delta function potential $`a\delta \left(x\right)`$ of many-body quantum mechanics on the line, which has a factorisable ground-state wavefunction, can be viewed as the $`\alpha 0`$ limit of $`b/\alpha \mathrm{sinh}^2\left(x/\alpha +\pi i/3\right)`$ with $`\pi a\alpha =6b`$. Thus all of the known quantum mechanical problems with factorisable ground-state wavefunction are included in (3). There appear deep connections between functional equations and integrable systems .

At this stage all we know is that the $`n=3`$ solution of Ruijsenaars and Schneider to (2) in fact yields a solution for all $`n`$. The general even solution of (2) has not been given. Our first new result is

###### Theorem 2

The general even solution of (2) amongst the class of meromorphic functions whose only singularities on the Real axis are either a double pole at the origin, or double poles at $`np`$ ($`p`$ real, $`n`$) is:
a) for all odd $`n`$ given by the solution of Ruijsenaars and Schneider while
b) for even $`n4`$ there are in addition to the Ruijsenaars-Schneider solutions the following:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_1(z)& =\sqrt{(\mathrm{}(z)e_2)(\mathrm{}(z)e_3)}=\frac{\sigma _2(z)\sigma _3(z)}{\sigma ^2(z)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\theta _3(v)\theta _4(v)}{\theta _1^2(v)}\frac{\theta _1^2(0)}{4\omega ^2\theta _3(0)\theta _4(0)}=b\frac{dn(u)}{sn^2(u)}\hfill \\ \hfill F_2(z)& =\sqrt{(\mathrm{}(z)e_1)(\mathrm{}(z)e_3)}=\frac{\sigma _1(z)\sigma _3(z)}{\sigma ^2(z)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\theta _2(v)\theta _4(v)}{\theta _1^2(v)}\frac{\theta _1^2(0)}{4\omega ^2\theta _2(0)\theta _4(0)}=b\frac{cn(u)}{sn^2(u)}\hfill \\ \hfill F_3(z)& =\sqrt{(\mathrm{}(z)e_1)(\mathrm{}(z)e_2)}=\frac{\sigma _1(z)\sigma _2(z)}{\sigma ^2(z)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\theta _2(v)\theta _3(v)}{\theta _1^2(v)}\frac{\theta _1^2(0)}{4\omega ^2\theta _2(0)\theta _3(0)}=b\frac{cn(u)dn(u)}{sn^2(u)}\hfill \end{array}$$

Here

$$\sigma _\alpha (z)=\frac{\sigma (z+\omega _\alpha )}{\sigma (\omega _\alpha )}e^{z\zeta (\omega _\alpha )},u=\sqrt{e_1e_3}z,v=\frac{z}{2\omega },b=e_1e_3$$

with $`\omega _1=\omega `$, $`\omega _2=\omega \omega ^{}`$ and $`\omega _3=\omega ^{}`$, and we have given representations in terms of the Weierstrass elliptic functions, theta functions and the Jacobi elliptic functions . The functions $`F_k(z)`$ are elliptic functions whose periodicities and (double) poles are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}F_1(u)=F_1(u+2K)=F_1(u+4iK^{})\hfill & u=0,2iK^{},\hfill \\ F_2(u)=F_2(u+4K)=F_u(u+2K+2iK^{})=F_2(u+4iK^{})\hfill & u=0,2K,\hfill \\ F_3(u)=F_3(u+2iK^{})=F_3(u+4K)\hfill & u=0,2K.\hfill \end{array}$$

These functions satisfy $`(d^2/dx^26/sn^2(x))F_i=\lambda _iF_i`$ ($`\lambda _i=4+k^2,1+4k^2,1+k^2`$ respectively) and $`F_i(u+iK^{})`$ are $`g=2`$ Lamé polynomials. (The remaining two $`g=2`$ Lamé polynomials are of Ruijsenaars-Schneider form with similarly shifted argument.) The functions $`F_k(z)`$ have the expansion $`F_k(z)=1/z^2+e_k/2+O(z^2)`$, and if $`P`$ denotes the other pole in the fundamental region determined by its periodicity we have

$$F_k(z+P)=F_k(z).$$
(4)
For appropriate ranges of $`z`$ the solutions are real. Their degenerations yield all the even solutions with only a double pole at $`x=0`$ on the real axis. These degenerations may in fact coincide with the degenerations of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider solution.

One can straightforwardly verify these new solutions do in fact satisfy (2) for even $`n`$ but new techniques needed to be developed to show we have exhausted the solutions. (These will be presented elsewhere .) One method of verifying these are solutions is as follows. Let $`F`$ be any one of $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ or $`F_3`$. Setting $`x_n=x_{n1}+ϵ+\alpha P`$, with $`\alpha =0,1`$ in (2) yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}F(x_jx_k)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_j\left(F(x_jx_{n1})F(x_jx_n)\underset{kj}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_jx_k)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +_{n1}\left(F(x_{n1}x_n)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_{n1}x_k)\right)+_n\left(F(x_nx_{n1})\underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_nx_k)\right)\\ \hfill =\underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_j\left((1)^\alpha F(x_jx_{n1})F(x_jx_{n1}ϵ)\underset{kj}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_jx_k)\right)\\ \hfill +(1)^\alpha \left[F^{}(ϵ)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_{n1}x_k)+F(ϵ)_{n1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_{n1}x_k)\right]+\\ \hfill (1)^{\alpha (n1)}\left[F^{}(ϵ)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_{n1}+ϵx_k)+F(ϵ)_{n1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}F(x_{n1}+ϵx_k)\right]\end{array}$$

For both $`\alpha =0,1`$ there are pole terms $`ϵ^3`$, $`ϵ^2`$, $`ϵ^1`$ as $`ϵ0`$. When $`\alpha =0`$ it is easy to see these poles vanish. For example the $`ϵ^3`$ term vanishes simply from the the oddness of $`F^{}(ϵ)`$. When $`\alpha =1`$ (corresponding to the pole $`P`$ of $`F(x)`$) we see we require an even number of particles. (There are other poles in this expression of the form $`ϵ=x_{n1}x_s+\alpha P`$, but these correspond to $`x_n=x_s+ϵ+\alpha P`$ and vanish by symmetry and the above arguments.) Viewed as a function of $`x_n`$ we have a doubly elliptic function with no poles, thus for $`n`$ even $`_{j=1}^n_j_{kj}F(x_jx_k)`$ is independent of $`x_n`$. By symmetry this is a constant. The value of this constant may be established as zero by the following argument. Set $`x_j=j\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is any number such that $`\pm s\mu `$ ($`s\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$) is not a pole of $`F(x)`$. Consider the pairing $`jnj`$. With our choice of $`x_j`$ then $`F(x_jx_k)=F([x_{nj}x_{nk}])=F(x_{nj}x_{nk})`$ while $`F^{}(x_jx_k)=F^{}(x_{nj}x_{nk})`$. Using this involution we may show the terms appearing in the constant sum cancel pairwise:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j& \underset{kj}{}F(x_jx_k)=\underset{jk}{}F^{}(x_jx_k)\underset{lj,k}{}F(x_jx_l)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\underset{jk}{}\left(F^{}(x_jx_k)+F^{}(x_{nj}x_{nk})\right)\underset{lj,k}{}F(x_jx_l)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus we obtain $`0=_{j=1}^n_j_{kj}F(x_jx_k)`$ and our functions satisfy the equation.

## 2 Integrability

The models discovered by Ruijsenaars and Schneider not only exhibited an action of the Poincaré algebra but were completely integrable as well and we will discuss this aspect of our models. Throughout we henceforth assume that $`f`$ is either even or odd as discussed earlier.

Following  we introduce the light-cone quantities

$$S_{\pm k}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}I\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\\ \\ |I|=k\end{array}}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm \underset{iI}{}p_i\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}iI\\ \\ jI\end{array}}{}f(x_ix_j).$$
(5)
Then $`H=(S_1+S_1)/2`$ and $`P=(S_1S_1)/2`$. We investigate the Poisson commutativity of these $`S_k`$’s.

Let $`I,J\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and define the sets

$$A=I\backslash J,B=J\backslash I,C=IJ,D=\overline{IJ}.$$

Then $`I=AC`$ and so on. Introduce the notation

$`(J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lJ\\ mJ\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_m)={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lJ\\ mA\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_m){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lJ\\ nD\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lC\\ mA\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_m){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lB\\ pA\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_p){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lB\\ rD\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_r){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lC\\ sD\end{array}}{}}f(x_lx_s)`$
and for disjoint sets $`A,B`$ set

$$(AB)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}aA\\ bB\end{array}}{}f(x_ax_b)=(\pm 1)^{|A||B|}(BA)$$

(using the evenness/oddness of $`f`$). Thus $`(I)=(AB)(AD)(CB)(CD)`$. Also set

$$e^{\pm \theta _J}=e^{\pm _{jJ}p_j}.$$

Then the light-cone quantity $`S_k`$ becomes

$$S_{\pm k}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}J\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\\ \\ |J|=k\end{array}}{}e^{\pm \theta _J}(J).$$

Now clearly $`\{S_k,S_{\pm n}\}=0`$ and $`S_{kn}=S_kS_n`$ for all $`k`$, thus we only need focus on $`k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. To calculate the Poisson bracket $`\{S_k,S_l\}`$ we must evaluate expressions of the form

$$\{e^{\theta _I}(I),e^{\theta _J}(J)\}=e^{\theta _I+\theta _J}\left[(I)_I(J)(J)_J(I)\right]$$

where $`_I=_{iI}_i`$. Now

$$_I(J)=(J)\left[\underset{\begin{array}{c}lB\\ pA\end{array}}{}\frac{f^{}\left(x_lx_p\right)}{f(x_lx_p)}+\underset{\begin{array}{c}lC\\ pD\end{array}}{}\frac{f^{}\left(x_lx_p\right)}{f(x_lx_p)}\right]$$

whence

$`\{e^{\theta _I}(I),e^{\theta _J}(J)\}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\theta _I+\theta _J}(I)(J){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}lB\\ pA\end{array}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}\left(x_lx_p\right)}{f(x_lx_p)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}\left(x_px_l\right)}{f(x_px_l)}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\theta _I+\theta _J}(I)(J){\displaystyle \frac{2}{(AB)}}_A(AB)`$
$`=`$ $`(\pm )^{(|A|+|B|)|C|+|A||B|}e^{\theta _I+\theta _J}(AB)(CD)^2_A\left(AB\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`(\pm )^{(|A|+|B|)|C|+|A||B|}e^{\theta _{AB}+2\theta _C}(AB)(CD)^2_A\left(AB\right)^2.`$
In going between the first and second line here we have assumed $`f`$ is either even or odd. If either $`A`$ or $`B`$ is empty the result is understood to be vanishing. Similarly

$`\{e^{\theta _I}(I),e^{\theta _J}(J)\}`$ $`=e^{\theta _I\theta _J}\left[(I)_I(J)+(J)_J(I)\right]`$
$`=(\pm )^{(|A|+|B|)|C|+|A||B|}e^{\theta _I\theta _J}\left(AB\right)^2_C(CD)^2.`$
Now $`\{S_k,S_l\}`$ will vanish if and only if the coefficients of the independent $`e^{\theta _I+\theta _J}=e^{\theta _{AB}+2\theta _C}`$ vanish. Such a term fixes the sets $`C`$, $`D`$ and $`AB`$, and the same momentum dependence appears for each subset $`LAB`$ with $`|L|=|A|`$. The coefficient of $`e^{\theta _{AB}+2\theta _C}`$ in $`\{S_k,S_l\}`$ then vanishes provided

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}LAB\\ |L|=|A|\end{array}}{}_L(LAB\backslash L)^2=0.$$

Therefore (with $`k,l\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$)

$$\{S_k,S_l\}=0\underset{\begin{array}{c}L\{1,2,\mathrm{},k+l2c\}\\ |L|=kc\end{array}}{}_L(L\{1,2,\mathrm{},k+l2c\}\backslash L)^2=0,$$
(6)
for all $`c`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{max}(k+ln,0)c\mathrm{min}(k,l)`$. In particular

$$\{S_1,S_l\}=0\underset{j=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}_j\underset{kj}{}f^2(x_jx_k)=0$$
(7)
and we recover (2) for $`l=n1`$.

If we take $`kln1`$ the term $`c=k1`$ is allowed in the sum leading to

$$\{S_k,S_l\}=0\underset{j=1}{\overset{lk+2}{}}_j\underset{sj}{\overset{lk+2}{}}f^2(x_jx_s)=0$$
(8)
We know our new functions do not satisfy this when $`lk`$ is odd. Thus the conserved quantities of Ruijsenaars will not Poisson commute for this new model. We cannot as yet rule out other Poisson commuting conserved quantities. In the case of $`n=4`$ we note that $`S_1`$, $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ Poisson commute.

## 3 Scaling Limits

We will now construct some classical Hamiltonian systems from our new solutions. We begin by recalling the scaling limit of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider model  that results in the Calogero-Moser model. Whereas the Calogero-Moser models are (completely integrable) natural Hamiltonian systems, the scaling limits we must consider have a different form. There are also analogous systems corresponding to the these scaling limits of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider models.

Let us write $`p_j=\overline{p}_j/c`$ and $`x_j=c\overline{x}_j`$, a scaling which preserves the Poisson brackets $`\{x_i,p_j\}=\delta _{ij}=\{\overline{x}_i,\overline{p}_j\}`$. Putting in dimensionful parameters we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{c\mathrm{}}{lim}(Hnmc^2)& =\underset{c\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(mc^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\overline{p}_j}{mc}\underset{kj}{}\sqrt{1+\frac{g^2}{c^2}\mathrm{}(\frac{\overline{x}_j\overline{x}_k}{\overline{A}})}nmc^2\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\overline{p}_j^2}{m}+\frac{mg^2}{2}\underset{jk}{}\mathrm{}(\frac{\overline{x}_j\overline{x}_k}{\overline{A}})\hfill \end{array}$$

Here the parameter $`A`$ has been introduced  to make the argument of the $`\mathrm{}`$ function dimensionless: $`\mathrm{}(x/A)=\mathrm{}(\overline{x}/\overline{A})`$, thus $`A`$ scales as $`c\overline{A}`$. This scaling limit is possible because of the (assumed) nonzero constant that can appear in the Ruijsenaars-Schneider solution (here scaled to one). Such a constant is not present in our new solutions, and the scaling does not work if the constant in the Ruijsenaars-Schneider solution is zero. We shall now consider a different scaling.

Both the Ruijsenaars systems and ours have a different type of scaling limit

$$\underset{c\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(mc^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\overline{p}_j}{mc}\underset{kj}{}f(\frac{\overline{x}_j\overline{x}_k}{\overline{A}})\lambda mc^2\right)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\overline{p}_j^2}{m}\underset{kj}{}f(\frac{\overline{x}_j\overline{x}_k}{\overline{A}})$$

Here we have introduced

$$\lambda =\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{kj}{}f(\frac{\overline{x}_j\overline{x}_k}{\overline{A}}),$$
(9)
which need not be constant. In some special cases however it is. We know for example that if $`\lambda `$ is a constant, $`f(x)`$ is an odd function, and

1. (9) is true for all $`n3`$ then $`f(x)=1/x`$ ($`\lambda =0`$), $`\mathrm{coth}(x)`$ ($`\lambda =1`$ for $`n`$ odd and $`\lambda =0`$ for $`n`$ even),
2. (9) is true for all even $`n4`$ then $`f(x)=\sqrt{\mathrm{}(x)e_\alpha }`$ ($`\lambda =0`$).

This type of degeneration of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider models does not appear to have been considered before. (The same will work with the addition of extra potentials not considered here.) The functional identities being used here also underly the various Hirzebruch genera . We find for example that

###### Theorem 3

The functions

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_j^2\underset{kj}{}f(x_jx_k),P=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_j\underset{kj}{}f(x_jx_k),B=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_j$$

obey the algebra

$$\{H,B\}=P,\{P,B\}=\lambda ,\{H,P\}=0.$$
(10)
if and only $`f(x)`$ is either an even or odd function satisfying

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{kj}{}f(x_jx_k)=\lambda ,$$

where $`\lambda `$ is a constant. In particular, the odd functions $`f(x)=1/x`$ ($`\lambda =0`$), $`\mathrm{coth}(x)`$ ($`\lambda =1`$ for $`n`$ odd and $`\lambda =0`$ for $`n`$ even), $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}(x)e_\alpha }`$ ($`\lambda =0`$) yield solutions.

When $`\lambda =0`$ this is the Galilean algebra, while $`\lambda 0`$ is a central extension of the Galilean algebra. Our new functions do not satisfy this unless we have a degeneration. Interestingly, in the case of an even number of particles, particular cases of the elliptic Ruijsenaars-Schneider model are in this list. Whatever, we can ask whether the metrics this scaling limit yield have any special significance. We are encountering models of the form $`H=\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^ng^{jj}p_j^2`$ and so dealing with diagonal metrics. We cannot as yet characterise these metrics, but towards this report

###### Theorem 4

The diagonal metric

$$ds^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\underset{ji}{}\mathrm{\Psi }(x^ix^j)\right)(dx^i)^2,$$
(11)
with potentially nonvanishing curvature components $`R_{jik}^i`$, $`R_{jjk}^i`$ ($`ki,j`$) and $`R_{jij}^i`$ has

1. $`R_{jik}^i=R_{jjk}^i=0`$ ($`ki,j`$) if and only if $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\alpha \left(e^{2bx}1\right)^a`$ or $`\alpha x^a`$. We may set $`\alpha =1`$ by rescaling $`x`$.
2. $`R_{jij}^i=(1)^nb^2`$ when $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\left(e^{2bx}1\right)`$,
3. $`R_{jij}^i=0`$ when $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=x`$.

Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=x`$ yields a solution of the Lamé equations.

These metrics are of Stäckel form. The rational degenerations of our models are given by this theorem. They may be understood as a parabolic limit of Jacobi elliptic coordinates222We thank E. Ferapontov for discussion on this matter.. Indeed, although we have investigated metrics of the form (11) because these arise from our systems, we have more generally

###### Corollary 1

The diagonal metric

$$ds^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\chi _i(x^i)\underset{ji}{}\mathrm{\Psi }(x^ix^j)\right)(dx^i)^2,$$
(12)
has $`R_{jik}^i=R_{jjk}^i=0`$ ($`ki,j`$) if and only if $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\alpha \left(e^{2bx}1\right)^a`$ or $`\alpha x^a`$.

## 4 Quantum Models

Ruijsenaars  also investigated the quantum version of the classical models he and Schneider introduced. From the outset he sought operator analogues of the light-cone quantities (5). He showed that (for $`k=1,\mathrm{}n`$)

$$\widehat{S}_k=\underset{\begin{array}{c}I\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |I|=k\end{array}}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}iI\\ jI\end{array}}{}h(x_jx_i)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{1}\beta \underset{iI}{}_i\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}iI\\ jI\end{array}}{}h(x_ix_j)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

pairwise commute if and only if (for all $`k`$ and $`n1`$)

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}I\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |I|=k\end{array}}{}\left(\underset{\begin{array}{c}iI\\ jI\end{array}}{}h(x_jx_i)h(x_ix_ji\beta )\underset{\begin{array}{c}iI\\ jI\end{array}}{}h(x_ix_j)h(x_jx_ii\beta )\right)=0.$$
(13)
Here $`\beta `$ is an arbitrary positive number. Upon dividing by $`\beta `$ and letting $`\beta 0`$ this yields (6) and in particular (2) with $`F(x)=h(x)h(x)`$. (Given $`F(x)`$ there is of course an an ambiguity in $`h(x)`$ under $`h(x)e^{bx}h(x)`$.) Ruijsenaars was able to show that $`h(x)=\sigma (x+\mu )/(\sigma (x)\sigma (\mu ))`$ led to a solution of (13), the solution being related to the earlier Ruijsenaars-Schneider solution via

$$\frac{\sigma (x+\mu )\sigma (x\mu )}{\sigma ^2(x)\sigma ^2(\mu )}=\mathrm{}(\mu )\mathrm{}(x).$$

Ruijsenaars  suggested that this solution was “most likely unique” but was unable to prove this. A consequence of our classical analysis are the possible functions $`F(x)=h(x)h(x)`$. A natural question to ask is whether there is a solution to (13) corresponding to our new solutions. If not, then the Ruijsenaars solution is indeed unique. At present we are able to show that the Ruijsenaars solution is the unique solution to (13) with $`k=1`$ for $`n=3,4`$ while for general $`n`$ and those $`h(x)`$ with infinite real period and tending to $`0`$ at infinity, the only solutions correspond to $`F(x)=1/\mathrm{sinh}^2x`$ and $`F(x)=1/x^2`$. In particular there is no $`h(x)`$ corresponding to our new solution $`F(x)=\mathrm{cosh}(x)/\mathrm{sinh}^2x`$. We anticipate being able to extend this to show that none of the new solutions can be written in the form $`F(x)=h(x)h(x)`$ with $`h(x)`$ satisfying (13).

## 5 Conclusion

In this letter we have investigated mechanical systems exhibiting an action of the Poincáre algebra. By adopting a given ansätz this reduces to a study of the functional equation (2) and we presented the general solution to this. Beyond the solution of Ruijsenaars and Schneider new solutions are obtained. The conserved quantities of Ruijsenaars and Schneider do not Poisson commute for these new models. Although we cannot as yet rule out other Poisson commuting conserved quantities, our models suggest that Poincáre invariance and integrability are distinct requirements. A new classical limit of our models (and the Ruijsenaars-Schneider model) was discussed. Here a diagonal metric of a particular type arises. The rational degenerations of these models satisfy the Lamé equations and indeed are the only ones within our class of metrics that do. Finally we have considered the quantum mechanical version of our new models. While not complete, we can show for $`n=3,4`$ that the only solutions to Ruijsenaars functional equations (13) are those given by Ruijsenaars and Schneider, and that for general $`n`$ the degenerations of our new models, where distinct from the Ruijsenaars solutions, fail to yield a solution. Our new techniques suggest a proof of the uniqueness of the Ruijsenaars solution is now within reach, and this will be pursued elsewhere.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank A. M. Davie for helpful discussion and S.N.M. Ruijsenaars for critically reading the manuscript. Aspects of this work have been described at the BAMC (Reading:April, 2001), the mini-workshop “The Calogero-Moser System Thirty Years Later” (Rome: May, 2001), NEEDS (Cambridge: July, 2001) and the EuroWorkshop “Discrete systems and integrability” (Cambridge: September, 2001). We are grateful to the organisers of these meetings and to the participants for their suggestions. One of the authors (H.W.B.) wishes to thank the Newton Institute for support during the completion of this work.