text:
# Dynamical Fermions in Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theory

## 1 Introduction

Nearly all lattice studies with dynamical fermions rely on pseudofermion techniques. This includes the standard Hybrid Monte Carlo method for non-local boson actions  and more recently multiboson methods proposed by Lüscher  and extended to odd flavors by Boriçi and de Forcrand . While these methods are presently the most efficient available for dynamical fermion calculations, much improvement is still needed to combat algorithmic slowdown at light quark masses and large volumes. On the more theoretical side, one would also like to understand the microscopic dynamics of quarks in lattice simulations. Ideally one hopes to see the effects of confinement on quark-antiquark pair separation and the effects of chiral symmetry breaking on light quark mobility. These questions are most easily answered in a framework which does not integrate out the fermionic degrees of freedom. With these goals in mind we investigate the possibility of simulating dynamical fermions in a confining gauge theory with explicit fermion dynamics.

In this proceedings article we describe the beginning of a research program at NC State to understand dynamical fermions within a Hamiltonian framework. As a testing ground we study compact QED3, which exhibits confinement, glueballs, mesons, and chiral symmetry breaking. We discuss the methods that are being used and show preliminary data for the chiral condensate and compare with strong and weak coupling results.

## 2 Compact QED3

We follow the notation used in  and . The Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{2a\sqrt{x}}W\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing and $`x`$ the dimensionless strong coupling constant,

$$x=e^4a^2\text{.}$$
(2)
$`W`$ has three pieces,

$$W=W_0+\sqrt{x}W_1+xW_2\text{,}$$
(3)
where

$`W_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}E_l^2\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{r}}{}}(1)^{r_1+r_2}\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ (4)
$`W_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{r},j}{}}\eta _j(\stackrel{}{r})\left[\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})U_j(\stackrel{}{r})\chi (\stackrel{}{r}+\widehat{ȷ})+\text{h.c.}\right]`$
$`W_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\left(U_p+U_p^{}\right)`$
and $`\eta _1(\stackrel{}{r})=(1)^{r_2+1}`$, $`\eta _2(\stackrel{}{r})=1`$. We use four component staggered fermions, which in the three-dimensional Hamiltonian formalism gives one flavor of fermion. The dimensionless mass parameter $`\mu `$ is given by

$$\mu =2me^2\text{.}$$
(5)
## 3 Methods

We start with a set of trial states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ and evaulate the quantities

$`M_{ij}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[HT\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_j,`$ (6)
$`M_{ij}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[H(T+\mathrm{\Delta }T)\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_j.`$
Improved trial states are given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}HT]|\mathrm{\Psi }_j.$$
(7)
It is easy to see that

$`M_{ij}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{},`$ (8)
$`M_{ij}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[H\mathrm{\Delta }T\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}.`$ (9)
We now find a matrix $`T`$ and unitary matrix $`U`$ such that

$`T_{ij}^{}M_{jk}T_{kl}`$ $`=\delta _{il},`$ (10)
$`U_{ij}^{}T_{jk}^{}M_{kl}^\mathrm{\Delta }T_{lm}U_{mn}`$ $`=\lambda _i\delta _{in}.`$
From these we can read off approximate eigenvectors

$$|E_l=T_{lm}U_{mj}|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}$$
(11)
and eigenvalues

$$|E_l=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\mathrm{log}\lambda _l\text{.}$$
(12)
The matrices $`M`$ and $`M^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are evaluated by dividing into time slices,

$$M_{ij}=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{HT}{N}\right]\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{HT}{N}\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\text{.}$$
(13)
Between the time slices we insert a complete set of states, and the basis we choose is the tensor product basis of gauge and fermion states. For the gauge states we use coherent states of the link fields,

$`U_j(\stackrel{}{x})_{l,\stackrel{}{r}}|A_l(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=e^{iA_j(\stackrel{}{x})}_{l,\stackrel{}{r}}|A_l(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (14)
$`U_j^{}(\stackrel{}{x})_{l,\stackrel{}{r}}|A_l(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=e^{iA_j(\stackrel{}{x})}_{l,\stackrel{}{r}}|A_l(\stackrel{}{r}).`$
For the fermion states we use the usual position-space basis. For fixed coherent states of the gauge field between time slices, the fermion dynamics are generated a classical background field,

$$\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})U_j(\stackrel{}{r})\chi (\stackrel{}{r}+\widehat{ȷ})e^{iA_j(\stackrel{}{r})}\chi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi (\stackrel{}{r}+\widehat{ȷ}).$$
(15)
## 4 Simulations

In our calculations we keep the lowest few energy fermionic states in computer memory and calculate their dynamics exactly by matrix multiplication. We use a simple heat bath algorithm to propose new gauge updates. These updates are performed by sweeps through the spatial lattice, taking each time slice in succession. We use a Metropolis accept/reject decision based upon an estimator that includes the contribution of the low energy fermion states. In comparison with quenched simulations, the use of this estimator is slower by a constant factor proportional to the number of low energy fermion states. After each sweep through all time slices, the contribution of other fermionic states are calculated using diffusion Monte Carlo sampling.

In our initial studies of small to mid-sized lattices we store in memory the nine lowest energy fermion states in memory, the strong coupling ground state and the eight translationally invariant states connected to the ground state by a single hop. In Figure 1 we show results for $`\mu =2`$. The data is extrapolated from spatial lattice sizes $`4\times 4`$, $`8\times 8`$, and $`10\times 10`$, and number of time slices $`11`$, $`15`$, and $`19`$. The curves $`s_0,s_1,s_2,s_3`$ give the first few orders in the strong coupling expansion, and $`w`$ is the leading behavior in the weak coupling expansion. We find behavior consistent with strong coupling estimates at small $`x`$ and weak coupling estimate at large $`x`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have described a first attempt to treat dynamical fermions within a Hamiltonian framework. We considered compact QED3, which shares some important features of QCD4. At this time it is too early to say whether this approach would be viable for QCD4 with relatively light quarks. We are currently making accuracy and efficiency comparisons with pseudofermion methods in QED3  for exactly massless fermions.

On the theoretical side there is clearly much potential in this approach to better understand the microscopic dynamics of quarks in lattice simulations. In future work we plan to study the effects of confinement and chiral symmetry breaking on quark dynamics.

The author thanks Pieter Maris and Nathan Salwen for discussions.


format: text

text:
# Discovery of new embedded Herbig-Haro objects in the 𝜌 Ophiuchi dark cloudBased on observations carried out at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile, under project 67.C-0325(A).

## 1 Introduction

In the 1950’s, objective prism surveys of dark clouds revealed optical small nebulae, associated with young stars, showing emission line spectra with very weak continua. Today, these Herbig-Haro (HH) objects are interpreted as shocks produced by the interaction of outflows from Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) and the interstellar medium (see review by Reipurth & Raga (1999)).

The $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi dark cloud is one of the nearest (d$``$140 pc) active site of low-mass star formation, displaying a rich embedded cluster of $``$200 YSOs (see the updated census by the ISOCAM survey; Bontemps et al. (2001)). It is thus one of the most suitable locations for the search of HH objects. Optical emission-line surveys (H$`\alpha `$, \[S II\]) have led to the detection of only 10 bona fide HH objects (Reipurth & Graham (1988); Wilking et al. (1997); Gómez et al. (1998); Reipurth (1999)). As outlined by Wilking et al. and Gómez et al., most of these HH objects are located at the periphery of the cloud, in the lowest extinction area: optical surveys do not have access to embedded HH objects. Wilking et al. (1997) noted for all these nebulae a relatively high \[S II\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio, which is a tracer of low excitation conditions, and thus indicates that H2 is not destroyed after the bow shock; they suggested to use the shocked-H2 transition at $`\lambda `$=2.121 $`\mu `$m to probe deeply embedded HH objects. Up to now in the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi dark cloud, shocked-H2 imaging was only performed to study molecular shocks in the CO outflow of the Class 0 protostar prototype VLA1623 (e.g., Davis & Eisloeffel (1995)), which led to the detection of several H2-knots; one of them was later detected in \[S II\] (HH313; Gómez et al. (1998)).

We report here deep near-IR observations of the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi dark cloud unveiling bow-shape structures and knots, and complementary observation with narrow-band filter confirming their nature as H2 shocks. As these objects are not optically visible, we called them embedded HH objects, and discuss the possible exciting sources.

## 2 Observations and results

During the period April 4–7 2001, deep $`J,H,K_\mathrm{S}`$-band observations of the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi dark cloud were made by N.G. with NTT/SOFI, as follow-up of Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray observations. The complete report of this follow-up, consisting of 5 pointings, will be published in an upcoming paper (Grosso et al., in preparation). We will focus here only on the pointing related to the detection of new embedded HH objects, and located SE of the millimetric dense core Oph-B2 (Motte et al. (1998); see Fig. 1). This area was already surveyed by optical emission-line surveys, but no HH objects were found.

We used the auto jitter imaging mode to obtain a total integration time of 40 mn, with 6 s detector integration time (DIT) and 1 mn-exposure frames. The near-IR standard AS29-1 (Hunt et al. (1998)) was observed several times during the night. We took five 6 s-darks at the end of the night. The different stages of the usual IR data reduction, namely sky estimation and subtraction, frame recentering and stacking, including also dark substraction and flat-field division (we used the flat-field provided by the NTT team for our observational period), were performed using the jitter routine of the ESO’s eclipse package (version 3.8-1). Zero order astrometric correction was applied using the 2MASS field stars (Cutri et al. (2000)) as reference frame, reducing the offset residual to 0.7″. The magnitude zero-point was obtained from our calibration star.

Fig. 2a is an enlargement of the observation obtained with the $`K_\mathrm{S}`$ broad-band filter ($`\lambda `$=2.162 $`\mu `$m, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.275 $`\mu `$m), unveiling a complex object showing bow-shape structures and possible emission knots. To detect weak structures in the $`J`$ and $`H`$-band images, we filtered it with the wavelet transform (MR/1 package; Starck et al. (1998)) to a 5$`\sigma `$ significance threshold. In this manner, a few of knot candidates are also detected in the $`H`$-band, and only one is detected in the $`J`$-band. The shape of this complex object is reminiscent of the ones found in HH objects. If this HH object interpretation is correct, this $`K_\mathrm{S}`$-band detection must be mainly due to the 2.121 $`\mu `$m-line of the H2 shocked emission. To confirm it, J. A. made a 20 mn-exposure observation (DIT=30 s, 1 mn-exposure frames) with NTT/SOFI using the H2 v=1–0 S(1) narrow-band filter ($`\lambda `$=2.124 $`\mu `$m, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.028 $`\mu `$m) during the night of June 8 2001 (Fig. 2.b). The flat-field was computed from the median of the dark substracted frames. The good seeing conditions (FWHM$``$0.7″) of this shorter observation gives much more details than the $`K_\mathrm{S}`$-band image.

To differentiate between pure line emission knots and continuum emission from stars (including scattered light) we follow Davis & Eisloeffel (1995) who noted that the narrow-band filter reduces the intensity of the field stars by the ratio of the filter bandpasses ($``$10), whereas the intensity of the H2 knots is only reduced by $``$2 (indeed spectra of H2 molecular shocks have other emission lines in the $`K_\mathrm{S}`$-band; see Smith (1995)). We scale down the $`K_\mathrm{S}`$-band image by the ratio of the filter bandpasses and the ratio of the seeing to have continuum features appearing with the same brightness in Fig. 2a and 2b. On the other hand, H2-shocks appear $``$5 times brighter in Fig. 2b than in Fig. 2a and can thus be easily identified. The H2-knots detected are labelled on the H2 contour map (Fig. 2c). Table 1 gives the position of these knots with photometry for a 1″-aperture from the 5$`\sigma `$-filtered images. Before applying wavelet filtering the H2 image was convolved with a Gaussian filter to have the same seeing as in the $`K_\mathrm{S}`$-band image. To obtain the H2 magnitudes, we scaled up the H2 intensities by the filter-band width ratio and applied the magnitude zero-point of the KS image.

The knots A display a bow-shape structure, characteristic of low-speed bow-shocks which produce such arcs and limb-brightened structures of conical appearance (Smith (1991)). We also note in the H2 image some diffuse emission downstream of the bow-shock which may be related to the excitation of H2 in the pre-shock region of a J-shock. We thus propose the knots A as the leading part of a jet coming from the SW direction, and outlined by the upstream knots B. By contrast the knots C are displaced from the direction of this jet, and moreover the knots C1–C4 are clearly elongated, roughly along a NS direction. We propose to explain these features by shocks coming from the East and producing the arc C2-C1-C5, with the downstream knots C3 and C4. We will discuss in the following section the possible exciting sources of these two jets.

To obtain an estimate of the H2-shock velocity we compare the observed near-IR photometry with the predictions for planar molecular shocks (Smith (1995)). We update first these results for the NTT set of filters. We extract the filter transmission profiles from the plots provided on the SOFI web page, and convolve them to the unfiltered molecular shock line fluxes (Michael D. Smith, private communication). Zero points for $`JH`$ and $`HK_\mathrm{S}`$ colors are derived by requiring the colors of A0 spectrum template (Pickles (1998)) to be zero. We observe f($`K_\mathrm{S}`$)/f(H2)$``$1.4 and $``$2.0 for the leading part of the two jets, which must be compared to f($`K_\mathrm{S}`$)/f(H2)=2.0–3.3 (resp. 1.9–3.3) for J-shocks (resp. C-shocks) with velocity range 8–22 km s-1 (resp. 20–45 km s-1). This implies J-shock (resp. C-shock) velocity $``$10 km s-1 (resp. 20 km s-1), well below the H2 dissociation velocity in molecular cloud ($``$22, $``$47 km s-1 for resp. J, C-shock; see Smith (1995)). Hence, the H2-line emission is really mapping the bow-shock; we can exclude the scenario where this emission would come only from the low-velocity wing of a fast dissociative bow-shock located downstream, with strong iron lines in the $`J`$ and $`H`$ bands tracing the apex. These low-velocity embedded H2-shocks are reminiscent of the low excitation HH objects already observed in the optical in this dark cloud. From the intrinsic color of low-velocity H2-shocks, $`(JH)_0`$$``$0.8, and assuming the reddening law quoted by Cohen et al. (1981), we estimate the extinction for knot C1: $`A_\mathrm{V}`$=9.09$`\times `$\[($`JH`$)-($`JH`$)0\]$``$23. This large visual extinction explains the non-detection by previous optical surveys. It will be possible to measure directly $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ by $`J`$, $`H`$-band spectroscopy using \[Fe II\] lines at 1.25 $`\mu `$m, 1.64 $`\mu `$m, which arise from the same atomic upper level.

## 3 Discussion on the exciting sources

The optical survey of HH objects in Taurus has shown that their frequency decreases rapidly with the age of the YSO, from Class I sources to Class II sources (Gómez et al. (1997)), i.e. from evolved protostars to classical T Tauri stars. This result is consistent with the decrease of the CO outflows observed from the Class 0 sources to the Class I sources (Bontemps et al. (1996)). To find the exciting source candidates of the HH objects reported here, it is thus reasonable to look for YSOs with IR excesses. On the basis of the HH feature morphology, we proposed in the previous section shocks coming from the East (resp. SW) to explain the shape of knots C (resp. A–B). We checked by constructing a color-color diagram of the sources detected in our deep observation, that there is no new embebbed YSO with IR excess in these directions. Two known YSOs are Eastward (see Fig. 1): the Class II source GY350, and the Class I protostar IRS54. We propose to associate knots C with IRS54, the agreement with the knots C shape looking better (see Fig. 2.c). Strong H2 v=1–0 S(1) line emission was detected in the IRS54 spectrum (Greene & Lada (1996)), it is unresolved in our H2 image, which shows only scattered light Eastward. To our knowledge this source has never been included in a CO outflow survey.

Fig. 2.c shows that the Class I protostar YLW15, also called IRS43, is on-axis of the knots A–B, $``$10$`\mathrm{}`$ away (0.4 pc for d=140 pc). This evolved protostar is a radio source, and was recently announced to be a subarcsecond radio binary (Girart et al. (2000)). The main radio component, YLW15-VLA1, is spatially extended with a position angle of 25°$`\pm `$2°(one sigma error), and Girart et al. proposed it to be a thermal radio jet candidate. The position angle (PA) of the knot chain, 22.3°, is compatible with the PA of this jet candidate within errors (Fig. 3). As the probability for a coincidence by chance between these PAs is very low (2$`\times `$1.645$`\times `$2°/180°$``$0.037), the identification of YLW15 as the exciting source of knots A–B is likely. Fig. 3 displays the position of the HH objects of this dark cloud. The \[S II\] knot HH224NW1 (Gómez et al. (1998)) was associated with the complex HH object HH224. We note however that HH224NW1 is displaced from the axis of HH224, and that the PA of YLW15 is 23.4°, thus also compatible with the orientation of the thermal jet candidate. HH224NW1 may then be related to a counterjet of YLW15. This association between YLW15 and these HH objects strengthens the proposal of Girart et al. for a thermal jet in this object. Moreover the alignment with the HH objects moving at $`V`$10–20 km s-1 implies that this jet is not precessing at least on timescale $``$(2–4)$`\times `$104 yr.

These observations confirm that HH objects excited by Class I protostars may be hidden by large extinctions in the optical, but can be easily unveiled and studied by deep near-IR observations. Embedded HH objects are probably very common, and it is essential now to obtain a reliable census, for instance to quantify the role of outflows in maintaining a high level of turbulence in molecular clouds and regulating star formation (Matzner & McKee (2000)).

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank the referee P. T. P. Ho for his useful comments, M. D. Smith who provided us the shocked-H2 line fluxes partly published in Smith (1995), and the NTT-team for its efficient support during the observations. N. G. is supported by the European Union (HPMF-CT-1999-00228). R. N. acknowledges financial support from the BMBF through DLR grant 50 OR 0003.


text:
# Asymmetrically Warped Spacetimes11footnote 1This talk is based on work done in collaboration with Joshua Erlich and Christophe Grojean.

## 1 Introduction

There is a crucial difference between the behavior of 4D and 5D theories in the presence of non-vanishing energy densities . In a 4D theory, the presence of an ordinary 4D energy density will imply that the Universe is expanding according to the FRW equation

$$H^2=\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G_N}{3}\rho .$$
(1)
However, in a 5D theory, a 4D energy density (a brane tension type object) can be balanced by a 5D energy density (a bulk cosmological constant, since the expansion equation is of the form $`H^2\alpha \rho ^2+\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\rho `$ is the 4D energy density (brane tension), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk (5D) cosmological constant. Thus, the effective 4D energy density may vanish, if the 4D and 5D sources precisely cancel each other . But then space is necessarily curved, since the sources are not vanishing themselves. This simple observation  is the basis of much of the recent interest in theories with extra dimensions. A concrete realization of this idea is obtained by considering “warped spacetimes”, that is spaces for which the form of the metric is given by

$$ds^2=a^2(y)(dt^2d\stackrel{}{x}^2)dy^2,$$
(2)
where $`a(y)`$ is the warp factor, and due to the form of the metric 4D Lorentz invariance is always maintained, since the induced metric is proportional to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. The best-known example of metrics of this form is provided by the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model , where the only sources in the model are given by a brane tension $`V`$ and a bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, fine tuned such that the effective 4D cosmological constant vanishes. This model is extremely interesting, since it may localize gravity to the brane with a positive tension, and thus avoid the need for compactification of the extra dimension. A slightly modified version of the model where the fifth dimension ends on a second brane (with negative tension) may solve the hierarchy problem due to the exponential falloff in the strength of gravity. A second interesting example of a metric of the form (2) is provided by the “self-tuning” brane models of . In these models, there is an extra bulk scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ besides the sources of the RS model, which make it possible for a flat solution to exist for any values values of the brane tension (while no other maximally symmetric solutions exist). However, these solutions are nakedly singular at a finite distance from the brane, and the effective cosmological constant vanishes only after fine-tuning is reintroduced into the theory .

## 2 Asymmetric Warping

Here we will consider a slightly modified version of the metric, which takes the form

$$ds^2=a^2(y)dt^2b^2(y)d\stackrel{}{x}^2c^2(y)dy^2,$$
(3)
where the warp factor for the space and time components of the metric differ, $`ab`$. Some of the properties of such space-times were also investigated in .

The first thing that one learns from the metric in (3) is that the induced metric at any point $`y=y_0`$ is still flat, however one needs to use a different ($`y`$-dependent) rescaling of the time coordinate $`t`$ to obtain a flat induced metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Thus we expect that in these metrics 4D Lorentz invariance would be locally respected, but broken globally. Therefore, if the standard model particles were to be localized at a fix value of $`y`$, then particle physics would appear to be completely Lorentz invariant, still leaving open the possibility that gravitational effects violate Lorentz invariance. What these effects could be is most easily seen by considering the propagation of massless fields in such a space-time. The local speed of light is given by $`a(y)/b(y)`$, which by definition is varying along the extra dimension. This is analogous to propagation of light in a medium with a changing index of refraction, governed by Fermat’s principle. Thus if the local speed of light increases away from the brane, then it might be advantageous for the gravitational waves to bend into the extra dimension, and arrive earlier than electromagnetic waves which are forced to travel with the local speed of light (see Fig. 1). This also implies, that regions that one thought not to have been in causal contact with each other may have been in contact after all, leading to apparent violation of causality. We have to stress that this is only an apparent violation from the brane observer’s point of view, and the full 5D theory is completely causal (there is no propagation backwards in time, that is there are no closed time-like curves). It also implies that these theories may have an unconventional 4D effective theory, which may circumvent the no-go theorem of Weinberg for the adjustment of the cosmological constant.

## 3 Solutions with Asymmetric Warping

Here we find the solutions of the form (3) corresponding to the simplest possible physical sources in the bulk and on a brane, assumed to have a $`Z_2`$ symmetry (for details of this symmetry and more details of the solution see ). We assume that the metric is homogeneous and isotropic along the brane, thus taking the form

$$ds^2=n^2(t,r)dt^2+a^2(t,r)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+b^2(t,r)dr^2,$$
(4)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2=d\sigma ^2/(1kl^2\sigma ^2)+\sigma ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric of the spatial 3-sections, with curvature parameter $`k`$, $`l`$ being a parameter with dimension of length that will be set to the length scale given by the cosmological constant in the bulk. Using Birkhoff’s theorem, this solution can always be transformed into the following simple form:

$$ds^2=h(r)dt^2+l^2r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+h(r)^1dr^2,$$
(5)
which describes a black hole space-time. Depending on the sources in the problem this may be an ordinary black hole, an AdS black hole, a Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) black-hole, an AdS-RN black hole, etc. The most important cases for us are the AdS black hole solution for which

$$h(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{\mu }{r^2},l^2=\frac{1}{6}\kappa _5^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{bk},$$
(6)
and the AdS-RN solution in which case

$$h(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{\mu }{r^2}+\frac{Q^2}{r^4},$$
(7)
where $`\mu `$ is the mass and (for the RN case) $`Q`$ the charge of the black hole. Thus we know what the form of the solutions in the bulk can be, but in order to find a viable metric, a brane has to be introduced and the Israel junction conditions at the brane have to be satisfied. The details of the matching procedure are described in , here we summarize the most important features. For the case of an AdS BH solution, there is only one new parameter, the mass of the black hole $`\mu `$, and the junction conditions will still require a fine tuning between the energy density on the brane and the bulk cosmological constant. The black hole singularity is naked if in the equation of state on the brane $`p=\omega \rho `$ the parameter $`\omega 1`$. For the case of the AdS RN BH solution there are two new parameters $`\mu `$ and $`Q`$, and if the $`Z_2`$ parities are chosen appropriately no fine tuning will be needed to satisfy the junction conditions. The naked BH singularity is again only avoidable for $`\omega 1`$ . Once we obtain a solution with a horizon, one can show that the space-time can be cut at the horizon without reintroducing fine-tuning into the model. One can also show , that except for generic values of the parameters of the theory the only maximally symmetric solution on the brane is the flat solution, thus there is no AdS and dS solution on the brane for this setup.

## 4 Lorentz Violations and Experimental Signatures

Once the possible solutions with asymmetrically warped spaces are found, we can ask whether any of the phenomena involving violations of causality would occur in these solutions. For the general space-time of the form (5) the local speed of light is given by $`c^2(r)=h(r)l^2/r^2`$. One would need a growing $`c(r)`$ away from the brane. Examining the full solutions that also incorporate the junction conditions we find that this indeed may happen for a significant fraction of the parameter space. An example for such a case is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Finally we address the issue whether any of these effects could be experimentally observable. The simplest evidence for asymmetrically warped spaces would be to measure the speed of gravitational waves and find that it is larger than the speed of light in the vacuum. The LIGO experiment may be able to detect gravitational waves from type II supernovae up to a distance of about 20 Mpc ($`610^7`$ ly). For objects of such a distance even a tiny difference in the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves would cause a huge time difference, and thus the possible values of $`\mu `$ and $`Q`$ could be severly constrained. In fact, the limitations of such measurements are likely not to lie in the time resolution of the gravitational and the light signal, but rather the opposite problem: if there is an appreciable difference in the propagation speeds then due to the huge distance to the expected sources the arrival time differences could turn out to be way too big to be able to identify the fact that the source for the gravitational wave and the light was the same. For a supernova 20 Mpc away from us, and very conservatively assuming that the arrival time difference should be less than 5 years, in order to be able to actually detect the different arrival times one needs to have the difference in the speeds to be less than $`\frac{\delta c}{c}10^7`$. Otherwise the gravitational wave experiments will simply not be able to identify the source for the observed gravitational waves. Type I supernovae could likely be detected by LIGO only if they happen within our galaxy. These are very rare, however assuming the best possible scenario one could see a supernova a few hundred thousand light years from us. In this case (again assuming a very conservative time difference of 5 years) the maximum value of $`\frac{\delta c}{c}`$ that could be tested is of the order of $`10^3`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have considered space-times where the local speed of light varies along the extra dimensions. Such asymmetrically warped spaces could have interesting physical properties, since gravitational waves might propagate faster than electromagnetic waves. This could be verified experimentally by the upcoming gravitational wave experiments. We have found a large class of such solutions in forms of various black hole spacetimes characterized by the mass and the charge of the black hole, showed how the junction conditions can be satisfied, and analyzed the physical properties of these solutions.

## Acknowledgements

This talk was based on  which was done in collaboration with Joshua Erlich and Christophe Grojean. The author is an Oppenheimer Fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, supported by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36, and in part by a DOE OJI grant.


text:
# How fundamental is the character of thermal uncertainty relations?

## I Introduction

Thermodynamics “uncertainty” relations have been the subject of much interesting work over the years (see, for instance, ). An excellent, recent review is that of Uffink $`\&`$ van Lith . We will be interested here in these uncertainty relations insofar as they are derived by recourse to statistical inference , with emphasis upon Mandelbrot’s results .

Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations and Bohr’s complementarity principle constitute two pillars of $`20`$-$`th`$ century science. These two prominent authors have suggested that there is a classical analogue of the complementarity principle, specifically between temperature and energy . Although such ideas have not received general acceptation, several renowned authors have defended them, as exemplified by, among others, Refs. . These claims remain still controversial (see ).

We wish in this Communication to add a footnote to the controversy by focusing attention upon particular aspects of the thermal uncertainty derivation of Mandelbrot’s . This derivation contains as an essential ingredient the information measure introduced by Fisher in the twenties .

Mandelbrot  is one of the first authors that linked statistical physics with the theory of statistical inference, adopting the viewpoint that one can work in statistical mechanics directly with probability distributions over macroscopic variables, the microscopic substructure (e.g., phase space) being largely superfluous. Let $`U`$ denote the internal energy. Mandelbrot  established which is the form of the probability distribution $`p_\gamma (U)`$ that allows for an adequate description of the energy fluctuations of a system in contact with a heat bath at the (inverse) temperature $`\gamma =1/T`$. The ensuing distribution turns out to be the celebrated, text-book (Gibbs’) canonical one , an exponential probability density. A quite interesting uncertainty relation between mean energy and inverse temperature is then obtained (see below). A main protagonist in his treatment is Fisher’s information measure .

Now, power-law distributions are ubiquitous in physics, critical phenomena being a conspicuous example . In a statistical mechanics’ context they arise quite naturally if the information measure one maximizes (subject to appropriate constraints) in order to arrive at the equilibrium distribution is not Shannon’s one but a generalized one. A lot of work in this respect has been devoted to Tsallis’ measure (see  and references therein).

In view of the importance of these results it should seem appropriate to revisit the Fisher-Mandelbrot link by taking a closer look at non-exponential distributions of the power-law kind. The ensuing results will offer novel insights into the meaning of non-extensivity: Fisher’s measure involves all energy moments. Some new features of the thermal uncertainty subject will also be revealed. We proceed first to a brief reminder of Fisher-related concepts.

## II A brief Fisher primer

Estimation theory  provides one with a powerful result that needs to be quoted before embarking into the present discussion. Consider a system that is specified by a physical parameter $`\theta `$. Let x be a stochastic variable and $`p_\theta (𝐱)`$ the probability density for this variable, which depends on the parameter $`\theta `$. An observer makes a measurement of $`𝐱`$ and has to best infer $`\theta `$ from this measurement, calling the resulting estimate $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{\theta }(𝐱)`$. One wonders how well $`\theta `$ can be determined. Estimation theory asserts  that the best possible estimator $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }(𝐱)`$, after a very large number of $`𝐱`$-samples is examined, suffers a mean-square error $`e^2`$ from $`\theta `$ that obeys a relationship involving Fisher’s $`I`$, namely, $`Ie^2=1`$, where the Fisher information measure $`I`$ is of the form

$$I=𝑑𝐱p_\theta (𝐱)\left\{\frac{\frac{p_\theta }{\theta }}{p_\theta (𝐱)}\right\}^2=\left[\frac{1}{p_\theta (𝐱)}\frac{p_\theta }{\theta }\right]^2.$$
(1)
This “best” estimator is called the efficient estimator. Any other estimator must have a larger mean-square error. The only proviso to the above result is that all estimators be unbiased, i.e., satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }(𝐱)=\theta `$.

Thus, Fisher’s information measure has a lower bound, in the sense that, no matter what parameter of the system we choose to measure, $`I`$ has to be larger or equal than the inverse of the mean-square error associated with the concomitant experiment. This result, i.e.,

$$Ie^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(2)
is referred to as the Cramer-Rao (CR) bound, and constitutes a very powerful statistical result . Applications of Fisher’s information measure to different physical problems have proliferated in the last 12 years (see details and references in Frieden’s book ).

## III The thermal uncertainty relation

Mandelbrot  has established which is the form of the probability distribution $`p_\gamma (U)`$ that allows for an adequate description of the energy fluctuations of a system in contact with a heat bath at the (inverse) temperature $`\gamma =1/T`$. It is required that estimators for $`\gamma `$ should be functions of the energy $`U`$ only  (one demands sufficiency of the estimator ). We are led to the canonical distribution

$$p_\gamma (U)=g(U)\frac{e^{\gamma U}}{Z(\gamma )},$$
(3)
with $`Z(\gamma )=𝑑Ug(U)e^{\gamma U}`$ the partition function and $`g(U)`$ the structure function, which would be interpreted as a measure of the number of microscopic states compatible with energy $`U`$ .

Let us address the question of estimating the unknown parameter $`\gamma `$ of the system by measurements of the energy. In this case the Fisher information reads

$$I(\gamma )=(\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma U)^2=U^2_\gamma U_\gamma ^2.$$
(4)
The CR inequality for unbiased estimators $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ then yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma U\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }1,$$
(5)
which is Mandelbrot’s uncertainty relation between energy and temperature, expressing that the efficiency with which temperature can be estimated is bounded by the spread in energy. This does not entail that the temperature does really fluctuate. It is assumed throughout that the distribution function (3) with fixed $`\gamma `$ provides one with an adequate description. Instead, the estimators are fluctuating, random quantities. Their standard deviation is employed as a criterion to indicate the quality with which the inverse temperature is estimated .

We can translate the preceding considerations into a microscopic, statistical mechanics’ language as follows: i) you start with a system in contact with a heath bath at the temperature $`T`$, described by Gibbs’ canonical distribution (3), ii) role switch: regard the associated inverse temperature (originally a variational Lagrange multiplier in the entropy maximization process ) as an estimator, iii) consider the Fisher information for (3) together with its associated CR bound and then, iv) you get a thermal uncertainty relation from this CR bound.

## IV Motivation for revisiting the thermal uncertainty derivation

The point we wish to make here is that the above referred to heath bath, employed in Mandelbrot’s derivation, cannot be a finite one. It is shown in  that if one attempts to repeat Gibbs’ celebrated derivation  for the probability distribution (PD) that maximizes entropy for a system in contact with a finite heath bath at the inverse temperature $`\beta `$, the ensuing PD is not  Gibbs canonical distribution for the internal energy $`U`$. Instead, one is forced to deal with the power-law distribution

$$p(U)=\frac{1}{Z_q}\left[1\beta (1q)U\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}};q\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where $`Z_q`$ is a normalization constant (the partition function). For $`q=1`$ the above $`q`$-probability distribution becomes Gibbs’ canonical one. The distribution (6) maximizes the so-called Tsallis information measure $`S_q`$, whose main feature is that of being non-extensive if $`q1`$: for two independent systems $`A,B`$ the entropy composition rule is

$$S_q(A+B)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+(1q)S_q(A)S_q(B).$$
(7)
Remember that one of the fundamental tenets of information theory is that of assigning an information content (Shannon’s measure) to any normalized probability distribution. The whole of statistical mechanics can be elegantly re-formulated by extremization of this measure, subject to the constraints imposed by the a priori information one may possess concerning the system of interest . It has been shown in the last decade (see, for instance  and references therein) that a parallel process can be undertaken with reference to Tsallis’ measure, giving rise to what is called non-extensive Tsallis’ thermostatistics, responsible for the successful description of an ample variety of phenomena that cannot be explained by appeal to the conventional, extensive one (that of Boltzmann-Gibbs) .

It is shown in  that a system in contact with a finite bath is properly described by a distribution of the type (6). The canonical distribution obtains only in the limit in which the heath bath becomes infinite . In order to repeat the steps described in closing the preceding Section when the protagonist is a power-law PD, one needs to evaluate the associated Fisher measure. What happens then with the associated, putative thermal uncertainty? Will it remain operative? We show below that it will NOT. This entails that the thermal uncertainty cannot be a fundamental physical property. Our task is not a trivial one, as the content of the following section will show.

## V Fisher measure for a power-law distribution

We discuss here two different information measures of the Tsallis type, and their associated probability distributions, in order to repeat the steps outlined previously (last paragraph of Section III) that led to a thermal uncertainty relation for exponential distributions. We deal first with the original Tsallis measure and discuss afterwards the concept of escort distribution.

### A Original Tsallis measure

We start with

$$p_\beta \left(U(𝐱)\right)p_\beta (𝐱)=Z_q^1\left[1(1q)\beta U(𝐱)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}},$$
(8)
where $`\beta `$ is a variational Lagrange multiplier and $`Z_q`$ is the accompanying partition function (as we sum over microstates no structure constant is needed )

$$Z_q=𝑑𝐱\left[1(1q)\beta U(𝐱)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(9)
We effect now the just mentioned role-switch with regards to the meaning of the parameter $`\beta `$ by introduction of the probability distribution (8) into $`I`$: $`\beta `$ plays the same role as $`\gamma `$ above. It becomes an estimator:

$$I=𝑑𝐱p_\beta (𝐱)^1\left[\frac{p_\beta (𝐱)}{\beta }\right]^2,$$
(10)
According to Tsallis’ tenets  i) (Tsallis’ cut-off)

$$(1q)\beta U(𝐱)1,$$

guaranteeing non-negative probabilities and ii) one computes mean-values according to

$$U_q=𝑑𝐱p_\beta ^qU(𝐱).$$
(11)
For the sake of an easier notation we shall omit, herefrom, writing down explicitly the variable $`𝐱`$. We need to evaluate the integrand of Eq. (10). By using (8) one finds that

$$\frac{p_\beta }{\beta }=p_\beta ^qUZ_q^{q1}p_\beta Z_q^1\frac{Z_q}{\beta }$$
(12)
and by (9)

$$\frac{Z_q}{\beta }=Z_q^qU_q.$$
(13)
As a consequence, one has, for the integrand in (10)

$$p_\beta ^1\left(\frac{p_\beta }{\beta }\right)^2=Z_q^{2(q1)}\left[p_\beta ^{2q1}U^2+p_\beta U_q^22p_\beta ^qUU_q\right],$$
(14)
so that, when the above relation is replaced into (10), we arrive at

$$I=Z_q^{2(q1)}\left[p_\beta ^{q1}U^2_qU_q^2\right].$$
(15)
By suitably manipulating Eq. (8), it is now easy to see that

$$p_\beta ^{q1}Z_q^{q1}=[1(1q)\beta U]^1,$$
(16)
which allows one to write, for the product of the first two factors in the first term on the right hand side above,

$$Z_q^{2(q1)}p_\beta ^{2q1}=p_\beta \left[1(1q)\beta U\right]^2.$$
(17)
Limiting ourselves to $`q`$values such that $`|q|<1`$, one can expand the last expression into a power series in $`(1q)\beta `$ (the convergence of the series is assured because of Tsallis’ cut-off):

$$Z_q^{2(q1)}p_\beta ^{2q1}=p_\beta \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n+1)(1q)^n\beta ^nU^n.$$
(18)
Inserting this into the first term of the r.h.s of Eq. (15) one finally gets

$$I=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n+1)(1q)^n\beta ^n\nu _{n+2}Z_q^{2(q1)}U_q^2,$$
(19)
where $`\nu _{n+2}=U^{n+2}_{q=1}`$, is the $`n+2th`$ order momentum of the probability distribution .

It is time to give now to the last term of Eq. (19) the form of a momentum expansion. We note first that

$$U_q^2Z_q^{2(q1)}=[Z_q^{q1}U_q]^2$$
(20)
which, because of (16) can be cast as

$$Z_q^{q1}U_q=U[1(1q)\beta U]^1_{q=1}.$$
(21)
Thus, a power-series expansion in $`(1q)\beta `$ plus Cauchy’s series’ multiplication rule yield

$$U_q^2Z_q^{2(q1)}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q)^n\beta ^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\nu _{k+1}\nu _{nk+1},$$

and, finally

$$I=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q)^n\beta ^n\left[\nu _{n+2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\nu _{k+1}\nu _{nk+1}\right],$$
(22)
that involves cross-correlation terms. We would like to establish now an à la Mandelbrot uncertainty (5). This turns out to be impossible! We cannot define a generalized uncertainty that assimilates the second order $`U`$-momentum to $`I`$, because the quantity $`I`$ contains a sum of terms in powers of the estimator $`\beta `$. This negative result implies that thermal uncertainties are not operative for finite baths, only for (unphysical) infinite ones.

### B A Tsallis-like measure: the “escort” one

One may wonder whether the peculiar aspect of the mean values $`U_q=𝑑𝐱p_\beta ^qU(𝐱)`$ may not be responsible for the failure we have just detected. We will repeat now the above steps using ordinary, linear mean values. At this point we introduce the useful concept of escort probabilities (see  and references therein). One introduces the transformation

$$p_\beta ^q(𝐱)P_\beta (𝐱),$$
(23)
with

$$P_\beta (𝐱)=\frac{p_\beta ^q(𝐱)}{𝑑𝐱p_\beta ^q(𝐱)},$$
(24)
$`q`$ being any real parameter. Here, of course, $`p_\beta (𝐱)`$ is given by (8). For $`q=1`$ we have $`P_\beta p_\beta `$ and, obviously, $`P_\beta `$ is normalized to unity. Our main theme here is that any fundamental physical law must be invariant under the above transformation.

General global quantities formed with escort distributions of different order $`q`$, such as the different types of information or mean values, will give more revealing information than those formed with the original distribution only. Changing $`q`$ is indeed a tool for scanning the structure of the original distribution . However, basic relationships among expectation values, like, say, Ehrenfest theorem, are invariant under the escort transformation.

#### 1 Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations are invariant under (23)

We start with usual coordinate-momentum relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{x}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$
(25)
where

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{x})^2=\widehat{x}^2\widehat{x}^2$$
(26)
while a similar expression for the momentum fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}`$.

Expectation values of operators general $`\widehat{A}`$ are defined as customary

$$\widehat{A}=Tr(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{A})$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is, of course, the density (or statistical) operator.

Under the transformation (23) we have

$$\widehat{\rho }\frac{\widehat{\rho }^q}{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(28)
so that

$$Tr(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{A})Tr\left(\frac{\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{A}}{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)}\right)Tr(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\widehat{A}),$$
(29)
which entails

$$\widehat{A}\widehat{A}_{esc}Tr(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\widehat{A}),$$
(30)
i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{x}^{(esc)}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}^{(esc)}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$
(31)
with

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{x}^{(esc)}\right)^2=\widehat{x}_{esc}^2\widehat{x}^2_{esc},$$
(32)
and analogously for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}^{(esc)}`$.

The form of Heisenberg’s principle remains invariant under (23).

#### 2 Thermal uncertainty is not invariant under (23)

Di Sisto et al. have shown  that one can develop an alternative non-extensive thermostatistics that employs an information measure $`S_{PP}=S_{PP}[P_\beta ]`$ which is a functional of the escort distribution of order $`q`$. $`S_{PP}`$ depends upon the escort PD in the same manner as Tsallis’ measure depends on the original distribution. The associated mean values are linear in the probabilities. In our case

$$U_{esc}=𝑑𝐱P_\beta (𝐱)U(𝐱).$$
(33)
We face now an “escort” Fisher’s measure

$$I=𝑑𝐱P_\beta (𝐱)^1\left[\frac{P_\beta (𝐱)}{\beta }\right]^2.$$
(34)
For our purposes we need to evaluate the integrand in (34). Taking derivatives in (24) we find

$$\frac{P_\beta }{\beta }=qP_\beta \left\{p_\beta ^1\frac{p_\beta }{\beta }p_\beta ^1\frac{p_\beta }{\beta }_{esc}\right\},$$
(35)
so that, taking derivatives in (8) one is led to

$$\frac{p_\beta }{\beta }=Z_q^{q1}Up_\beta ^qp_\beta Z_q^1\frac{Z_q}{\beta },$$
(36)
and, using the result

$$\frac{Z_q}{\beta }=Z_q^qQU_{esc},$$

where we have defined $`Q=𝑑𝐱p_\beta ^q`$, we get

$$\frac{p_\beta }{\beta }=Z_q^{q1}\left[Up_\beta ^qp_\beta QU_{esc}\right].$$
(37)
Replacement of this relation into (35) leads to

$$\frac{P_\beta }{\beta }=qZ_q^{q1}P_\beta \left\{p_\beta ^{q1}Up_\beta ^{q1}U_{esc}\right\},$$
(38)
and then to

$$P_\beta ^1\left(\frac{P_\beta }{\beta }\right)^2=q^2Z_q^{2(q1)}P_\beta \left\{p_\beta ^{2(q1)}U^2+p^{q1}U_{esc}^22p_\beta ^{q1}Up_\beta ^{q1}U_{esc}\right\}.$$
(39)
Finally, replacing this into (34), Fisher’s information measure acquires the appearance

$`I=q^2Z_q^{2(q1)}\left\{p_\beta ^{2(q1)}U^2_{esc}p_\beta ^{q1}U_{esc}^2\right\}.`$ (40)
Recourse to (17) seems to yield now a $`2nd`$ order moment. However, it is not a $`U`$-moment but one of the “effective” energy

$$E=U/[1(1q)\beta U],$$

i.e.,

$$q^2I=\mu _EE^2_{esc}E_{esc}^2,$$
(41)
so that the Cramer-Rao bound gives

$$\mu _E\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta q^2.$$
(42)
Appearances are deceptive, though. The above is not an uncertainty relation, because $`\beta `$ enters the two factors in the l.h.s. Indeed, expansion into a $`(1q)\beta `$-powers series and Cauchy’s rule, where $`\nu _k=U^\nu _{esc}`$ is now a generalized momentum of order $`\nu `$, with $`\nu _{k,kn}=\nu _k\nu _{nk}`$, gives

$$I=q^2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q)^{n1}\beta ^{n1}\left[(n+1)\nu _n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\nu _{k,kn}\right],$$
(43)
which shows again that it is not possible to get a thermal uncertainty relation between $`U`$ and $`\beta `$.

## VI Conclusions

As the main result of this Communication we find that it is impossible to find a thermal uncertainty of the type (5) if the underlying probability distribution is not of the exponential form. While for such exponential PDs $`I`$ can be assimilated to the second moment of the energy, for non-exponential PDs (for instance, of the Tsallis form) the Fisher information measure becomes a sum over all energy moments that involves all powers of the estimator $`\beta `$ as well. This prevents us from re-obtaining the thermal uncertainty relation of Mandelbrot’s for non-exponential PDs.

A physical interpretation of the above circumstance is connected with the type of heath bath that helps our system to attain thermal equilibrium. The thermal uncertainty relation only holds for systems in contact with an infinite bath, since only in such a case the Gibbs canonical distribution strictly applies. For finite baths one needs a Tsallis-canonical distribution, as shown in detailed fashion in .

Clearly, the status of the thermal uncertainty relation is thereby affected. It can not be regarded as a fundamental property. These facts could constitute a hopefully interesting footnote to the ongoing controversy concerning uncertainty relations in thermodynamics.

## VII Acknowledgement

F. Pennini thanks financial support from UNLP.