text:
# Conventions in relativity theory and quantum mechanics

## 1 Know thyself

This inscription on the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, Greece, dates from 6th century B.C., and it is still of tremendous importance today. For we do not and never will see the world “as is,” but rather as we perceive it. And how we perceive the world is mediated by our senses which serve as interfaces to the world “out there” (if any); but not to a small extend also by what we project onto it. Conventions are projections which we have to adopt in order to be able to cope with the phenomena “streaming in” from the senses. Conventions are a necessary and indispensable part of operationalizable111 In what follows we shall adopt Bridgman’s concept of “operational” as one of quite simple-minded experimental testability, even in view of its difficulties which this author approached later on . phenomenology and tool-building. There is no perception and intervening without conventions. They lie at the very foundations of our world conceptions. Conventions serve as a sort of “scaffolding” from which we construct our scientific worldview. Yet, they are so simple and almost self-evident that they are hardly mentioned and go unreflected.

To the author, this unreflectedness and unawareness of conventionality appears to be the biggest problem related to conventions, especially if they are mistakenly considered as physical “facts” which are empirically testable. This confusion between assumption and observational, operational fact seems to be one of the biggest impediments for progressive research programs, in particular if they suggest postulates which are based on conventions different from the existing ones.

In what follows we shall mainly review and discuss conventions in the two dominating theories of the 20th century: quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

## 2 Conventionality of the constancy of the characteristic speed

Suppose two observers called Alice and Bob measure space and time in two coordinate frames. Operationally their activities amount to the following. They have constructed “identical” clocks and scales of “equal” length which they have compared in the distant past; when Bob lived together with Alice. Then they have separated. Alice has decided to depart from Bob and, since then, is moving with constant speed away from him. How do Bob’s and Alice’s scales and clocks compare now? Will they be identical, or will they dephase?

These are some of the questions which “relativity” theory deals with. It derives its name from Poicaré’s 1904 “priciple of relativity” stating that \[6, p. 74\] “the laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a stationary observer as for an observer carried along in a uniform translation; so that we have not and can not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion.” Formally, this amounts to the requirement of form invariance or covariance of the physical equations of motion.

One of the seemingly mindboggling features of the theory of relativity is the fact that simultaneity and even the time order of two events needs no longer be conserved. It may indeed happen that Alice perceives the first event before the second, while Bob perceives both events as happening at the same time; or even the second event ahead of the first. Simulaneity can only be defined “relativ” to a particular reference frame. If true there, it is false in any different frame.

The first part of Einstein’s seminal paper  is dedicated to a detailed study of the intrinsically operational procedures and methods which are necessary to conceptualize the comparison of Alice’s and Bob’s reference frames. This part contains certain “reasonable” conventions for defining clocks, scales, velocities and in particular simultaneity, without which no such comparison could ever be achieved. These conventions appear to be rather evident and natural, almost trivial, and yield a convenient formalization of space-time transformations, but they are nevertheless arbitrary. The simultaneity issue has been much debated in the contemporary discussions on conventionality .

There is another element of conventionality present in relativity theory which has gotten less attention . It is the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. Indeed, the International System of units assumes light to be constant. It was decided in 1983 by the General Conference on Weights and Measures that the accepted value for the speed of light would be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The meter is now thus defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second, independent of the inertial system.

Despite the obvious conventionality of the constancy of the speed of light, many introductions to relativity theory present this proposition not as a convention but rather as an important empirical finding. Indeed, it is historically correct to claim that experiments like the ones of Fizeau, Hoek and Michelson-Morley, which produced a null result by attempting to measuring the earth’s motion against some kind of “ether,” preceded Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

But this may be misleading. First of all, Einstein’s major reason for introducing the Lorentz transformation seems to have been the elimination of asymmetries which appeared in the electromagnetic formalism of the time but are not inherent in the phenomena, thereby unifying electromagnetism. Secondly, not too much consideration has been given to the possibility that experiments like the one of Michelson and Morley may be a kind of “self-fulfilling prophesy,” a circular, closed tautologic exercise. If the very instruments which should indicate a change in the velocity of light are themselves dilated, then any dilation effect will be effectively nullified. This possibility has already been imagined in the 18th century by Boskovich  and was later put forward by FitzGerald  (see also John Bell ), Lorentz, Poincaré and others in the context of the ether theory .222 In stressing the conventionality aspect of these effects, the author would like to state that he does not want to promote any ether-type theory, nor is he against any such attempts.

But what is the point in arguing that the constancy of the speed of light is a convention rather than an empirical finding? Is this not a vain question; devoid of any operational testability?

The answer to this concern is twofold. First, a misinterpretation might give rise to a doctrinaire and improper preconception of relativity theory by limiting the scope of its applicability. Indeed, as it turns out, for reasons mentioned below , the special theory of relativity is much more generally applicable as is nowadays appreciated. It applies also to situations in which the velocity of light needs not necessarily be the highest possible limit velocity for signaling and travel. Secondly, it is not totally unreasonable to ask the following question. What if one adopts a different convention by assuming a different velocity than that of light to be the basis for frame generation? Such a velocity may be anything, sub- but also superluminal. What will be the changes to Alice’s and Bob’s frames, and how do these new coordinates relate to the usual “luminal” frames?

These issues have been discussed by the author  on the basis of a geometrical theorem by Alexandrov  and Borchers and Hegerfeldt  reviewed in  (see also previous articles ). Alexandrov’s theorem requires the convention that some speed is the same in Bob’s and Alices’s frames. Furthermore, if two space-time points are different in Alice’s frame, then these points must also be mapped into different points in Bob’s frame and vice versa; i.e., the mapping must be one-to-one, a bijection. It can be proven that under these conditions, the mapping relating Alice’s and Bob’s frames must be an affine Lorentz transformation, with some fundamental speed playing the role of light in the usual Lorentz transformations of relativity theory. The nontrivial geometric part of a proof uses the theorem of affine geometry, which results in the linearity of the transformation equations. No Poicaré’s 1904 “priciple of relativity,” no relativistic form invariance or covariance is needed despite the postulate or convention of equality of a single speed in all reference frames. The derivation uses geometry, not physics. The Appendix contains a detailed derivation of Alexandrov’s theorem which should be conprehendible for a larger audience.

To repeat the gist: it is suggested that the signalling velocity occuring in the Lorentz transformation is purely conventional. This effectively turns the interpretation of relativity theory upside down and splits it into two parts, one geometric and one physical, as will be discussed next.

So where is the physics gone? The claim of conventionality arouses suspicions. The proper space-time transformations cannot be purely conventional or even a matter of epistemology! After all, the Michelson-Morley experiment and most of its various pre- and successors actual yielded null results, which are valid physical observations as can be. The experimenters never explicitly acknowledged the conventionality of the constancy of the speed of light and approved their instruments according to these specifications. Just on the contrary, they first assumed to measure the unequality and anisotropy of the speed of light. And what if Alice and Bob assume, say, the constancy of the speed of sound instead of light? Would the mere assumption change the reading of the instruments in a Michelson-Morley experiment using sound instead of light? This seems to be against all intuitions and interpretations and the huge accumulated body of evidence.

The answer to these issues can be sketched as follows. First of all, the physics is in the form invariance of the electromagnetic equations under a particular type of Lorentz transformations: those which contain the speed of electromagnetic signals; i.e., light, as the invariant speed. Thus, merely the convention of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames yields the desirable relativistic covariance of the theory of electromagnetism. This is a preference which cannot be motivated by geometry or epistemology; it is purely physical.

However, any such Lorentz transformation will result in a non-invariance of the theory of sound or any other phenomena which are not directly dominated by electromagnetism. There, an asymmetry will appear, singling out a particular frame of reference from all the other ones.

Thus, one may speculate that the most efficient “symmetric” representation of the physical laws is by transformations which assume the convention of the invariant signalling velocity which directly reflects the phenomena involved. For electromagnetic phenomena it is the speed of electromagnetic waves; i.e., light. For sound phenomena it is the speed of sound. For gravity it is the speed of gravitational waves. Thus the conventionality of the relativity theory not only relativizes simultaneity but must also reflect the particular class of phenomena; in particular their transmission speed(s). In that way, a general form invariance or covariance is achieved, satisfying Poicaré’s 1904 “priciple of relativity” mentioned above, which is not only limited to electromagnetism but is valid also for a wider class of systems.

Secondly, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the particular context of the Michelson-Morley and similar experiments, all relevant physical system parameters and instruments are governed by electromagnetic phenomena and not by sound, gravity or something else. Thus, although not explicitly intended, the experiments are implicitly implementing the conventionality of the constancy of light. Of course, the experimenter could decide to counteract the most natural way to gauge the instruments and measure space and time differently than as suggested by the intruments. For instance, one may adopt scales to measure space which are anisotropic and velocity dependent. But this would be a highly unreasonable, unconvenient and complicating thing to do.

So, from a system theoretic standpoint, the proper convention suggests itself by the dominating type of interaction, and only in this way corresponds to a physical proposition. The result is a generalized principle of relativity.

## 3 Conventionality of quantum measurements

In what follows the idea is put forward and reviewed that measurements in quantum mechanics are (at least in principle) purely conventional. More precisely, it is purely conventional and subjective what exactly an “observer” calls “measurement.” There is no distinction between “measurement” and ordinary (unitary) quantum evolution other that the particular interpretation some (conscious?) agent ascribes to a particular process . Indeed, the mere distinction between an “observer” and the “object” measured is purely conventional. Stated pointedly. measurement is a subjective illusion. We shall call this the “no measurement” interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The idea that measurements, when compared to other processes (involving entanglement), are nothing special, seems to be quite widespread among the quantum physics community; but it is seldomly spelled out publicly . Indeed, the possibility to “undo” a quantum measurement has been experimentally documented , while it is widely acknowledged that practical bounds to maintain quantum coherence pose an effective upper limit on the possibility to reconstruct a quantum state. We shall not be concerned with this upper bounds, which does not seem to reflect some deep physical truth but rather depends on technology, financial commitments and cleverness on the experimenter’s side.

Rather, we shall discuss the differences between the two types of time evolution which are usually postulated in quantum mechanics: (i) unitary, one-to-one, isometric time evolution inbetween two measurements and (ii) many-to-one state reduction at the measurement.

Inbetween two measurements, the quantum state undergoes a deterministic, unitary time evolution, which is reversible and one-to-one. This amounts to arbitrary generalized isometries—distance-preserving maps—in complex Hilbert space. A discrete analogue of this situation is the permutation of states. An “initial message” is constantly being re-encoded. As such an evolution is reversible, there is no principle reason why any such evolution cannot be undone. (There may be insurmountable practical obstacles, though.)

Any irreversible measurement is formally accompanied by a state reduction or “wave function collapse” which is many-to-one. Indeed, this many-to-oneness is the formal mathematical expression of irreversibility.

What is a measurement? Besides all else, it is associated with a some sort of “information” transfer through a fictious boundary between some “measurement apparatus” and the “object.” In the following we shall call this fictious boundary the “interface.” The interface has no absolute physical relevance but is purely conventional. It serves as a scaffolding to mediate and model the exchange. In principle, it can be everywhere. It is symmetric: the role of the observer and the observed system is interchangeable and a distinction is again purely conventional.

In more practical terms, it is mostly rather obvious what is the observer’s side. It is usually inhabited by a conscious experimenter and his measurement device. It should be also in most cases quite reasonable to define the interface as the location where some agent serving as the experimenter looses control of one-to-onenness. This is the point where “the quantum turns classical.” But from the previous discussion it should already be quite clear that any irreversibility in no way reflects a general physical principle but rather the experimenter’s ability to reconstruct previous states. Another “observer” equipped with another technology (or just more money) may draw very different interface lines.

Let me add one particular scenario for quantum information. Assume as an axiom that a physical system always consists of a natural number of $`n`$ quanta which are in a single pure state among $`q`$ others. Any single such particle is thus the carrier of exactly one $`q`$-it, henceforth called “quit.” (In the spin-one half case, this reduces to the bit.) That is, encoded in such a quantum system are always $`n`$ quits of information. The quit is an irreducible amount of classical and quantum information. The quits need not be located at any single particle (i.e., one quit per particle), but they may be spread over the $`n`$ particles . In this case one calls the state of the particles “entangled.” According to Schrödinger’s own interpretation , the quantum wave function (or quantum state) is a “catalogue of expectation values” about this state; and in particular about the quits. Since an experimenter’s knowledge about a quantum system may be very limited, the experimenter might not have operational access to the “true” pure state out there. (In particular, it need not be clear which questions have to be ask to sort out the valid pure state from other ones.) This ignorance on the experimenter’s side is characterized by a nonpure state. Thus one should differentiate between the “true” quantum state out there and the experimenter’s “poor man’s version” of it. Both type of states undergo a unitary time evolution, but their ontological status is different.

Why has the no-measurement interpretation of quantum mechanics been not wider accepted and has attracted so little attention so far? One can only speculate about the reasons.

For one thing, the interpretation seems to have no operational, testable consequences. Indeed, hardly any interpretation does. So, what is any kind of interpretation of some formalism good for if it cannot be operationalized?

Think of the Everett interpretation of quantum mechnics, which is nevertheless highly appreciated among some circles, mainly in the quantum computation community. It has to offer no operationalizable consequences, just mindboggling scenarios.

Or consider Bohr’s “Copenhagen” interpretation, whatever that means to its successors or to Bohr himself. It is the canonical interpretation of quantum mechanics, a formalism co-created by people, most notably Einstein, Schrödiner and De Broglie, who totally disagreed with that interpretation. This does not seem to be the case for Heisenberg and von Neumann. The latter genius even attempted to state an inapplicable theorem directed against hidden parameters to support some of Bohr’s tendencies. Nowadays, many eminent researchers in the foundations of quantum mechanics still stick with Bohm’s interpretation or whatever sense they have made out of it. But does Bohr’s “Copenhagen” interpretation have any operational consequences?

With the advent of quantum information theory, the notion of information seems to be the main interpretational concept. Consequently, information interpretations of quantum mechanics begin to be widespread. Yet, despite the heavy use of the term “information,” the community does not seem to have settled upon an unambiguous meaning of the term “information.” And also in this case, the interpretations do not seem to have operational consequences.

Many recent developments in quantum information theory are consistent with the no-measurement interpretation. Unitarity and the associated one-to-onenness even for one quantum events seems to be the guiding principle. Take, for example, the no-cloning theorem, quantum teleportation, entanglement swapping, purification and so on . Actually, the no-measurement interpretation seems to promote the search for new phenomena in this regime, and might thus contribute to a progressive research program.

Indeed, it is the author’s belief that being helpful in developing novel theories and testing phenomena is all one can ever hope for a good interpretation. Any “understanding” of or “giving meaning” to the formalism is desireable only to the effect that it yields new predictions, phenomena and technologies. And in this sense, the no-measurement interpretation claiming the conventionality of quantum measaurements should be perceived. It too cannot offer direct operationalizable consequences, yet may facilitate thoughts in new, prosperous directions.

## 4 Summary

We have reviewed conventions in two of the dominating theories of contemporary physics, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity theory we suggest to accept the constancy of one particular speed as a convention. Lorentz-type transformation laws can then be geometrically derived under mild side assumptions. In order for a generalied principle of relativity and thus generalized form invariance to hold, the particular signalling type entering the transformations should correspond to the dominating type of physical interactions.

The no-measurement interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that there is no such thing as an irreversible measurement. In fact, there is no measurement at all, never. This kind of irreversibility associated with the measurement process is just an idealistic, subjective construction on the experimenter’s side to express the for-all-practical-purposes impossibility to undo a measurement.

## Appendix. Proof of Alexandrov’s theorem

Alexandrov’s theorem states that, for $`^n`$, $`n3`$ with the metric $`\mathrm{diag}(+,+,+,\mathrm{},+,)`$ and a one-to-one map $`rr^{}`$ preserving light cones (i.e., zero distance) such that for all $`r,s^n`$,

$$(rs,rs)=0(r^{}s^{},r^{}s^{})=0,$$

$`rr^{}`$ is essentially a Lorentz transformation; i.e., it has the form $`rr^{}=\alpha Lr+a`$ for some nonzero $`\alpha `$. $`a^n`$, and a linear one-to-one map $`L:^n^n`$ satisfying $`(Lr,Ls)=(r,s)`$ for all $`r`$ and $`s`$ in $`^n`$.

In what follows we shall review a complete proof of Alexandrov’s theorem very similar to the one sketched by Lester . The proof consists of three stages:

* a proof that, given $`^n`$, $`n3`$ with the metric $`\mathrm{diag}(+,+,\mathrm{},+,)`$ and a one-to-one map preserving light cones (i.e., zero distance), all lines are mapped onto lines;
* a proof of the fundamental theorem of affine geometry stating that a one-to-one map from $`^n`$, $`n2`$ onto itself which maps all lines onto lines must be affine; i.e., must be a linear map and a translation;
* a proof that, given $`^n`$, $`n2`$ with the metric $`\mathrm{diag}(+,\mathrm{},+,)`$ and a linear one-to-one map preserving a single light cone (i.e., zero distance) must be essentially a Lorentz transformation (up to a translation and a dilatation); i.e., it has the form $`r\alpha Lr+a`$ for some nonzero $`\alpha `$. $`a^n`$, and a linear one-to-one map $`L:^n^n`$ satisfying $`(Lr,Ls)=(r,s)`$ for all $`r`$ and $`s`$ in $`^n`$.

In what follows, a constant translation is taken account of by addition of a vector $`a^n`$. The remaining transformation preserves the origin; i.e., $`00^{}`$. We shall often refer to this remaining transformation (after the constant parallel shift moving the map of the origin back into the origin) simply as (homogeneous) transformation. (Note that if $`f:r\alpha Lr+a`$, then the homogeneous part os obtained by subtracting $`a=f(0)`$.) This constant shift $`a`$ has to be added to the final mapping.

The geometric proof of (I) proceeds in five steps, covering the mapping of (i) lightlike (null) lines onto lightlike lines; (ii) lightlike (null) planes onto null planes; (iii) spacelike lines onto spacelike lines; (iv) timelike planes onto planes; and finally (v) timelike lines onto lines.

In what follows, the configurations are demonstrated for $`^3`$ with the metric $`(r,s)=r_1s_1+r_2s_2(1/c^2)r_3s_3`$. For arbitrary dimensions we refer to . In this section, the velocity of light $`c`$ will be set to unity; i.e., $`c=1`$. The terms “null” and “lightlike” will be used synonymously.

To show (i) let us first define a null cone with vertex $`a`$ by

$$𝒞(a)=\{r^3(ra,ra)=0\}.$$

By assumption, light cones are preserved, i.e., $`𝒞(a)𝒞(a^{})`$.

As illustrated in Fig. 1(a), any null (lightlike) line is the intersection of two tangent null cones. Since null cones are preserved, so are null (lightlike) lines. Thus, null lines are mapped into null lines. The same is true for the inverse map. Hence, null lines are mapped onto null lines. (The same is true for the other proof steps as well but will not be mentioned explicitly.)

To show (ii), notice that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), a null cone with vertex on some null plane is tangent to that plane along a null line. Points of $`^3`$ are on the null plane if and only if they either lie on this null line or on no null cone with vertex on this line. The latter sentence could be understood as follows. Imagine any point of $`^3`$ outside of the null plane (either “below” or “above”). Any such point is element of some null cone with vertex on the null line mentioned. On the contrary, any point on the null plane cannot be reached by such null cones (except the ones located on the null line mentioned), but by other null cones whose vertex is not on that null line. Null lines and cones are preserved; thus null planes are preseved as well.

To show (iii), notice that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(c), any spacelike line is the intersection of two null planes. Since null planes are preserved, spacelike lines are preserved.

To show (iv), notice that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(d), the points in a timelike plane are covered by infinitely many intersecting null and spacelike lines in that plane. By fixing, for instance, a triangle formed by the vertices $`a,b,c`$ of three such lines (e.g., two null and one spacelike line) “spans” the timelight plane. Because of the one-to-oneness of the mapping, the image of the triangle with the vertices $`a^{},b^{},c^{}`$ “spans” the transformed plane (different points are mapped onto different points). Therefore, the three lines forming the transformed triangle must be coplanar. In general, the images of all lines lying in the original timelight plane must be coplanar. Thus, timelike planes map into planes.

To show (v), notice that any timelight line is the intersection of two timelight planes. Since timelike planes are mapped onto planes, they intersect into a line. Thus, any timelike line is mapped into a line.

In summary, all three types of lines—lightlike (null), spacelike and timelike lines—are mapped onto lines. (Recall that the same arguments apply for the inverse transformation as well.)

The geometric proof of (II), in particular the linearity of the transformation proceeds from the preservation of lines essentially by utilizing the preservation of parallelism among lines. As will be demonstrated below, the preservation of parallelism implies that the transformation is additive. The associated transformation of the field $``$ is an automorphism. It then only remains to be proven that the only automorphism of $``$ is the identity function.

Let us first introduce some notation. For a much more comprehensive approach the reader is refered to the literature (e.g., the book by Gruenberg & Weir ). Let $`a`$ be a fixed “translation” vector of $`^n`$ and $`M`$ be a linear subspace of $`^n`$. \[Recall that a subset $`S^n`$ is called a (linear) subspace if $`S`$ is a vector space in its own right with respect to the same vector addition and scalar multiplication than $`^n`$.\] Then $`a+M`$ denotes the set of all vectors $`a+M=\{a+mmM\}`$. It is called translated subspace or coset or affine subspace of $`^n`$. The dimension of a translated subspace $`a+M`$ is the dimension of the linear subspace $`M`$; i.e., $`\mathrm{dim}(a+M)=\mathrm{dim}(M)`$. Translated subspaces of dimensions $`0,1,2`$ are called points, lines and planes, respectively. Let the join $`S_1S_2`$ of two translated subspaces $`S_1,S_2`$ be the intersection of all translated subspaces in $`^n`$ which contain both $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. (The join is again a translated subspace.) Furthermore, if $`S^n`$ is any set of vectors in $`^n`$, we denote by the (linear) span $`\mathrm{span}(S)`$ the intersection of all the subspaces of $`^n`$ which contain $`S`$.

We shall call an automorphism a one-to-one mapping of $`^n`$ onto itself preserving all translated subspaces. The fundamental theorem of affine geometry (e.g., ref. \[33, Theorem 5\]) states that, for $`^n`$, $`n2`$, any automorphism induces a linear transformation $`L`$ and a translation vector $`a`$ such that $`rr^{}=\alpha Lr+a`$.

In what follows, a proof of the fundamental theorem of affine geometry will be given for the case of the vector space $`^n`$, $`n2`$ with field $``$. First, a proof will be given that any such automorphism of $`^n`$ implies an automorphism on the field of reals $``$ (a definition will be given below). By invoking the preservation of parallelism one obtains both the uniqueness of the associated mapping of the field $``$ onto itself and furthermore the additivity of the transformation as a whole.

Note that the automorphism preserves parallellism. This can be seen by “fixing” appropriate four points $`a,b,c,d`$ on two lines which are originally parallel, drawing two nonparallel lines through them which meet in another point $`e`$. Since by assumption all lines are preserved, so are their meeting points $`a^{},b^{},c^{},d^{}`$. Furthermore, because of bijectivity, two parallel lines have no point in common. Thus, the two lines which are originally parallel are mapped onto colpanar lines which are disjoint; i.e., they are again parallel. Hence, parallelism is conserved. A concrete configuration illustrating this geometrical argument is drawn in Fig. 2.

Consider an arbitrary nonzero vector $`a^n`$. According to the assumptions, any line $`0a=\mathrm{span}(a)`$ is transformed into a line $`0^{}a^{}=\mathrm{span}(a^{})`$, thereby inducing a one-to-one mapping of all points of $`\mathrm{span}(a)`$ onto the points of $`\mathrm{span}(a^{})`$. That is, the transformation defines a one-to-one mapping

$$\zeta :xx^{}$$
(1)
of the field of real numbers onto itself by the definition

$$(xa)^{}=x^{}a^{}.$$
(2)
It immediately follows that $`\zeta :00^{}`$ as well as $`\zeta :11^{}`$. It will be shown that $`\zeta `$ is an automorphism; i.e., a one-to-one mapping of $``$ onto itself with the properties that $`\zeta (x+y)=\zeta (x)+\zeta (y)`$, as well as $`\zeta (xy)=\zeta (x)\zeta (y)`$.

First it is shown that $`\zeta `$ does not depend on the particular choice of $`a^n`$. (i) Case 1: Consider two linearly independent vectors $`a,b`$ of $`^n`$, $`(xa)^{}=x^{}a^{}`$ and $`(xb)^{}=x^{\prime \prime }b^{}`$, $`x^{}x^{\prime \prime }`$. Since $`0=0^{}=0^{\prime \prime }`$, one can assume that $`x0`$. The join $`xaxb`$ is the intersection of all the subspaces of $`^n`$ containing both $`xa`$ and $`xb`$. Since $`xa`$ and $`xb`$ are vectors, this is just the subspace spanned by the line joining them. $`xaxb`$ is parallel to $`ab`$. (Rescaling does not affect parallelism; cf. Fig. 3.)

The transformation preserves parallelism, and therefore $`a^{}b^{}`$ must also be parallel to $`x^{}ax^{}b^{}`$ and $`x^{}ax^{\prime \prime }b^{}`$, the lines connecting $`x^{}a`$ with $`x^{}b^{}`$ and $`x^{}a`$ with $`x^{\prime \prime }b^{}`$. This can only be satisfied for $`x^{}=x^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence, $`\zeta `$ is independent of the argument and only depends on the transformation.

(ii) Case 2: Consider two linearly dependent vectors $`a,b`$ of $`^n`$. In this case, choose a third vector $`c`$ which does not lie in the linear subspace $`\mathrm{span}(a)`$ spanned by $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then, by the argument used in case 1, $`\zeta `$ is the same for $`a,c`$ and $`b,c`$; thus $`\zeta `$ is also the same for $`a,b`$. Hence, to sum up the finding in the two cases, $`\zeta `$ is independent of the argument vector and only depends on the transformation.

We shall pursue the proof that, given the preservation of lines, the associated mapping is additive (up to translations). A geometric interpretation of this proof is drawn in Fig. 4. (i) Case 1: If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are linearly independent nonzero vectors (the zero vector case is trivial) of $`^n`$, then the parallelogram $`a,0,b,a+b`$ is mapped into the parallelogram $`a^{},0^{},b^{},a^{}+b^{}`$ and

$$(a+b)^{}=a^{}+b^{}.$$
(3)
This is also true if $`a`$ or $`b`$ is the zero vector.

(ii) Case 2: If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are linearly dependent and nonzero, choose a third vector $`c\mathrm{span}(a)`$ (so that $`c`$ is linearly independent of $`a`$ and $`b`$), and apply the above considerations for the pairs $`a+b`$ & $`c`$ rendering $`a+b+c(a+b)^{}+c^{}`$, $`a`$ & $`b+c`$ rendering $`a+b+ca^{}+(b+c)^{}`$, $`b`$ & $`c`$ rendering $`b+cb^{}+c^{}`$, such that $`(a+b)^{}+c^{}=a^{}+b^{}+c^{}`$, which is satisfied only if again $`(a+b)^{}=a^{}+b^{}`$.

Two further properties assuring that $`\zeta `$ is an automorphism can be deduced from the uniqueness of Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) and the usual axioms of linear vector spaces. (i) Automorphism property 1: Let $`a^{}0`$, then for all $`x,y`$,

$$(x+y)^{}a^{}=[(x+y)a]^{}=(xa+ya)^{}=(xa)^{}+(ya)^{}=x^{}a^{}+y^{}a^{}=(x^{}+y^{})a^{}$$
(4)
and thus

$$(x+y)^{}=x^{}+y^{}.$$
(5)
(ii) Automorphism property 2: By the assumption of vector spaces, $`(xy)a=x(ya)`$ for all $`x,y`$ and $`a^n`$. Therefore,

$$(xy)^{}a^{}=x^{}(ya)^{}=x^{}(y^{}a^{})=(x^{}y^{})a^{}$$
(6)
and thus

$$(xy)^{}=x^{}y^{}.$$
(7)
In order to complete the proof of linearity, it will be shown that the only automorphism of the field $``$ into itself is the identity function $`\mathrm{id}:xx`$. This can be demonstrated by realizing that the algebraic properties of neutral elements $`0,1`$ with regard to addition and multiplication have to be preserved; i.e., $`00`$ and $`11`$. Furthermore, since $`1`$ has to be preserved and any natural number $`n`$ is the sum of $`n`$ $`1`$’s, $``$ has only a single automorphism–the identity function $`\mathrm{id}`$. A very similar argument holds for $``$. Since any element of the positive rationals can be represented by the quotient $`n/m`$ with $`n,m`$, again $``$ has only a single automorphism–the identity function $`\mathrm{id}`$. In order to be able to obtain the same result for $``$, one has to make sure the Dedekind construction of the reals works; in particular the preservation of Dedekind sections. This requires the preservation of the order relation “$`<`$” in $``$, which is equivalent to the preservation of positivity, since $`x<y`$ can always be rewritten into $`0<yx`$. Notice that every positive $`0<x`$ can be written as $`x=y^2`$, $`y`$ $`y0`$. Since $`x=y^2`$ is mapped onto $`x^{}=(y^2)^{}=(y^{})^2`$ with $`y^{}0`$ (recall that $`00`$), $`x^{}>0`$. This allows the Dedekind construction of the reals using the rationals, which in turn yields the desired fact that $``$ has only a single automorphism–the identity function $`\mathrm{id}`$. (This is not true for example for $``$, since for example $`x+iyxiy`$ is an automorphism but not the identity.)

A way to get rid of the factor $`\alpha `$ is by considering the tangent hyperboloid $`x^2+y^2z^2=1`$ of the null cone $`x^2+y^2z^2=0`$, translating it once and then back to the original figure. The requirement that this should result in the same hyperboloid fixes $`\alpha `$ .

We shall now concentrate on a proof of (III). Let us first note that, in the case of a linear map, the preservation of a single light cone is a sufficient condition for the preservation of all of them. For, given the transformation $`x\alpha Lx+a`$, any shift of the null cone $`𝒞(p)`$ with vertex $`p`$ by a vector $`s=qp`$ results in a null cone $`𝒞(q)=𝒞(p)+s`$ with vertex $`q=p+s`$. The latter null cone $`𝒞(q)`$ is mapped onto the null cone

$`𝒞(q)\alpha L𝒞(q)+a`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha L(𝒞(p)+s)+a`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha L𝒞(p)+\alpha Ls+a`$
$`=`$ $`(\alpha L𝒞(p)+a)+\alpha Ls`$
$`=`$ $`𝒞(p^{})+\alpha Ls,`$
which again is a null cone.

Recall that in Einstein’s original work \[7, par 3\], linearity was never derived but was assumed for physical reasons. “In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.” \[\[“Zunächst ist klar, daß die Gleichungen linear sein müssen wegen der Homogenitätseigenschaften, welche wir Raum und Zeit beilegen.”\]\] In what follows we shall closely follow Einstein’s original argument rendering $`L`$ to be the Lorentz transformations.

Take the standard four dimensional space-time case $`^4`$, and consider, for the sake of simplicity, the quasi-twodimensional case (one space and the time coordinate) of the constant motion along the $`x`$-axis of $`K`$ with velocity $`v`$ of a coordinate frame $`K^{}`$ with the components $`(x^{},y^{},z^{},t^{})`$ against another coordinate frame “at rest” $`K`$ with the components $`(x,y,z,t)`$. (Otherwise, $`K`$ can be rotated such that the direction of motion is along the $`x`$ axis.) Again, $`c`$ stands for the velocity of light.

Now define a particular series (in time) of points $`\overline{x}=xvt`$. Notice that the “worldlines” $`(x=vt,0,0,t)`$ just mark the parametrization by the time parameter $`t`$ of all points at rest with respect to the moving frame $`K^{}`$. That is, any such point has constant $`\overline{x},y,z`$ throughout all times $`t`$. It is sometimes convenient (cf. below) to write the parameters of events in terms of $`(\overline{x},y,z,t)`$ instead of $`(x,y,z,t)`$.

Let us construct “radar coordinates” of $`K^{}`$ by utilizing a light clock starting at some arbitrary point $`\overline{x}=0`$ at $`t_0^{}`$, traveling some distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}`$ to a mirror, where it arrives and is instantly reflected at $`K^{}`$-time $`t_1^{}`$ towards the original source mirror and arrives there at $`K^{}`$-time $`t_2^{}`$ \[cf. Fig. 5(a)\].

If one adopts the usual conventions for synchronization, $`t_1^{}`$ is just the arithmetic mean of the two times $`t_0^{}`$ and $`t_2^{}`$; i.e.,

$$t_1=\frac{1}{2}(t_0^{}+t_2^{}).$$
(8)
In order to find the transformation mapping $`K`$ onto $`K^{}`$, rewrite the transformed coordinates as functions of the original system; e.g., $`t^{}=t^{}(\overline{x},y,z,t)`$. In this parametrization, the coordinates are given by

$`t_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t^{}(0,0,0,t),`$ (9)
$`t_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x},0,0,t+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2v^2}}),`$ (10)
$`t_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t^{}(0,0,0,t+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2v^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2+v^2}}),`$ (11)
where

$`t_0`$ $`=`$ $`t,`$
$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`t+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2v^2}},`$
$`t_2`$ $`=`$ $`t+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2v^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2+v^2}}`$
results from the following consideration. The $`K`$-time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1=t_1t_0`$ it takes for light to arrive at the first mirror is given by the total distance it takes for light to travel to it, divided by the velocity of light. Since the mirror travels with velocity $`v`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}+v\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}{c}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{cv}.$$
(12)
A similar argument yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_1=t_2t_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}v\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}{c}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c+v}.$$

Inserting Eqs. (9)–(11) into (8) yields

$$t^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x},0,0,t+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2v^2})=\frac{1}{2}\left[t^{}(0,0,0,t)+t^{}(0,0,0,t+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2v^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}{c^2+v^2})\right].$$
(13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}`$ can be arbitrarily small. A partial derivation of (13) by $`\frac{t^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}}`$ in the limit of infinitesimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}`$ yields

$$\frac{t^{}}{\overline{x}}+\frac{1}{cv}\frac{t^{}}{t}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{cv}+\frac{1}{c+v}\right)\frac{t^{}}{t},$$
(14)
and thus

$$\frac{t^{}}{\overline{x}}+\frac{1}{c^2v^2}\frac{t^{}}{t}=0.$$
(15)
Likewise, $`(t^{}/y)=(t^{}/z)=0.`$ As a result of this and Eq. (15), $`t^{}`$ must be a linear function of $`t`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ of the form

$$t^{}(\overline{x},y,z,t)=\alpha (v)\left(t\frac{v}{c^2v^2}\overline{x}\right).$$
(16)
$`\alpha (v)`$ is a yet arbitrary scale factor depending only on $`v`$. Note that, without loss of generality, the origins of $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ has been chosen such that $`t=t^{}=0`$. By substituting the explicit parameters for $`\overline{x}=xvt`$ one obtains

$$t^{}(\overline{x},y,z,t)=\alpha (v)\frac{1}{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\left(t\frac{v}{c^2}x\right).$$
(17)
The transformation rules of the $`x^{}`$ parameter can be obtained by considering the propagation of a light ray in $`K^{}`$ which starts at the origin of $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ (same origins) and moves along the $`x`$\- and $`x^{}`$-axes. The convention of the constancy of the speed of light requires

$$x^{}=ct^{}=\alpha (v)c\left(t\frac{v}{c^2v^2}\overline{x}\right).$$
(18)
Now recall that, in terms of the $`K`$-parameters, this propagation of this light ray is given by Eq. (12); i.e., by $`t=\overline{x}/(cv)`$ (the differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be omitted because of the ray starting at the coordinate origins). By substituting $`t`$ in (18) one obtains

$$x^{}=\alpha (v)\frac{c^2}{c^2v^2}\overline{x}=\alpha (v)\frac{1}{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\overline{x}=\alpha (v)\frac{1}{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\left(xvt\right).$$
(19)
Let us now turn to the transformation of coordinates $`y,z`$ perpendicular to the direction of motion $`x`$. Consider a light ray propagating along the $`y^{}`$-axis, and hence $`\overline{x}=0`$.

Inside the system $`K`$, the $`y`$-component of the light propagation follows from the Pythagorean theorem, which is illustrated in Fig. 6; i.e., $`v_y=\sqrt{c^2v^2}`$. Hence,

$$y^{}=ct^{}=\alpha (v)c\left(t\frac{v}{c^2v^2}\overline{x}\right),$$
(20)
for $`\overline{x}=0`$ and $`t=y/v_y=y/\sqrt{c^2v^2}`$

$$y^{}=\alpha (v)\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}y.$$
(21)
The same consideration applies to the transformation of the $`z`$\- and $`z^{}`$-axes. Summing up, we obtain a transformation of the coordinates $`xx^{}=Lx`$ given by

$$L(v)=\alpha (v)\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}& 0& 0& \frac{v}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \frac{v}{c^2\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}& 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
We now fix the factor $`\alpha (v)`$ by the conventional requirement that a back-transformation should recover the original coordinates. For this purpose we invent a third coordinate frame $`K^{\prime \prime }`$ which propagates with the reverse (relative to $`K^{}`$) velocity $`v`$ (measured in $`K`$) along the $`x`$-, $`x^{}`$-, and its $`x^{\prime \prime }`$-axes. The successive application of the transformation (22) with $`L(v)`$ and $`L(v)`$ should bring back the coordinates to their original form; i.e.,

$$L(v)L(v)=𝕀_4,$$
(23)
where $`𝕀_4=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ stands for the four-dimensional unit matrix. After evaluating the matrix product and comparing the coefficients, one obtains

$$\alpha (v)\alpha (v)=1\frac{v^2}{c^2}.$$
(24)
That $`\alpha (v)=\alpha (|v|)`$ only depends on the absolute value of the velocity can be seen by symmetry and isotropy arguments. For the length $`l^{}`$ of a rod $`\{p^{}^4x^{}=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}y^{}l,z^{}=0\}`$ which is at rest along the $`y^{}`$-axis with respect to the system $`K^{}`$ traveling along the $`x`$-axis should not depend on the direction of motion; i.e., should only depend on the absolute magnitude of the velocity. If this is granted, one obtains

$$\alpha (v)=\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}},$$
(25)
and finally the transformation laws $`xx^{}=Lx`$ with

$$L(v)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}& 0& 0& \frac{v}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \frac{v}{c^2\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}& 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
up to constant translations $`a^4`$. As can be easily checked, $`L`$ preserves the distance of any two points; i.e., $`(Lr,Ls)=(r,s)`$ for all $`r`$ and $`s`$ in $`^4`$.

It would be nice to have a more general result using a more general metric and/or relaxation of bijectivity.

## Acknowledgments

I have discussed the ideas exposed here with many researchers in numerous discussions in Viennese coffee-houses and elsewhere. I am particularly indebted to Hans Havlicek. Almost needless to say, I take the full responsibility for all errors or misconceptions (if any). I would like to make it quite clear that I have not attempted to “disprove” relativity theory in any way. Just on the contrary, these considerations attempt to extend the domain of validity of relativity theory even further rather than discredit it. The extensions deal with universes which are dominated by interactions which are mediated through velocities different (and maybe also higher than) the velocity of light.


format: text

text:
# A new calibration of the RGB Tip as a Standard Candle

## 1. Introduction

While the use of the luminosity of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) as a standard candle dates back to 1930 (see Madore & Freedman 1998 and references therein), the development of the method as a safe and viable technique is relatively recent (Lee, Freedman & Madore 1993, hereafter L93). In a few years it has become a widely adopted technique, finding fruitful application also within the HST Key project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. The underlying physical processes are clearly understood and well rooted in the theory of stellar evolution (Madore & Freedman 1998). The method is particularly useful to estimate distances to those stellar systems that do not contain Cepheids, such as early type galaxies, and it can be applied to galaxies as far as $`12`$ Mpc with the current instrumentation. The key observable quantity is the magnitude of the bright end (the tip) of the Red Giant Branch (RGB), that corresponds to a sharp cut-off in the RGB Luminosity Function (LF), measured in the Cousin’s $`I`$ passband.In this passband the magnitude of the tip shows a very weak (if any) dependence on metallicity (Da Costa & Armandroff 1990, hereafter DA90). The feature can be identified by applying the Sobel’s filter, an edge-detection algorithm, to the LF of the upper RGB (see Sakai, Madore & Freedman 1996, hereafter S96, for a standard application). The possible biases have been well characterized and quantified by means of numerical simulations by Madore & Freedman (1995; hereafter MF95).

In this context, we are performing an extensive study of the Red Giant population in Galactic Globular Clusters (GGC). In particular, we have derived an accurate calibration of the RGB photometric properties as a function of metallicity, both in the optical and in the IR (Ferraro et al. 1999, 2000). The final aim of this program is to use stellar populations in GGCs as calibrators for the TRGB method, taking advantage of the large samples that can be easily assembled with the new generation of array detectors and cameras. As a part of this general project, we present (i) a very robust empirical calibration of $`M_I^{TRGB}`$at $`[Fe/H]1.7`$, derived by applying the standard analysis to a very large sample of RGB stars in the globular cluster $`\omega `$ Centauri (NGC 5139), and based on a direct distance estimate recently obtained by Thompson et al. (2001, hereafter T01) for a detached eclipsing binary in this cluster, and (ii) a new empirical calibration of the $`M_I^{TRGB}`$$`[Fe/H]`$ relation based on a large, homogeneous IR database of RGB stars in Galactic Globular Clusters, recently published by Ferraro et al. (2000; hereafter F00).

The results of this analysis are reported in full detail in Bellazzini, Ferraro & Pancino (2001; hereafter BFP01).

## 2. The $`M_I^{TRGB}`$vs \[Fe/H\] relation

The most widely adopted calibration of the absolute I magnitude of the TRGB is based on small samples of RGB stars observed in a few templates globulars (in the range $`2.2[Fe/H]0.7`$), and relies on the RR Lyrae distance scale (L93, DA90). Such calibration suffer from two major sources of uncertainty:

* The evolution of stars along the RGB becomes faster as their luminosity increases along the path toward the TRGB. Thus, most of the cluster light has to be observed to correctly sample the fastest evolutionary phases. MF95 stated that acceptable detections of the TRGB can be obtained if more than 50 stars are sampled within 1 mag from the tip and that fine estimates can be obtained only sampling more than 100 stars in that range. The DA90 samples are much poorer than this, therefore their $`I^{TRGB}`$estimates may be affected by the systematics associated with small number statistics.
* The RR Lyrae distance scale is quite uncertain. While there is now some agreement on the slope of the $`M_V(RRLy)`$$`[Fe/H]`$ relation, the actual zero points is still hardly debated (see Cacciari 1999, for a recent review).

Ferraro et al (2000; hereafter F00) have recently presented a similar calibration based on NIR photometry of nine templates globular clusters. With respect to LF93 the calibration of F00 (1) is based on larger samples of RGB stars, (2) it is less affected by uncertainties in the reddening, because of the adopted NIR passbands, and (3) it extends the range of application to $`2.2[Fe/H]0.2`$. The final calibrating relation for $`M_I^{TRGB}`$is (see BFP01):

$$M_I^{TRGB}=0.14[Fe/H]^2+0.48[Fe/H]3.66$$
(1)
Eq. (1) represents a substantial improvement with respect to previous work, since it is based on the largest RGB samples in GGCs available in the literature. Note that the F00 survey sampled a significant fraction of the cluster light (up to $`80\%`$). However even in this large data-set the number of RGB stars in the upper 1 mag bin from the TRGB is $`<50`$ in all the cases, and the brightest star detection is possibly prone to low number statistics effects. This is due, in most cases, to intrinsic poorness of the cluster population, since the majority of GGCs simply do not contain a sufficient number of RGB stars to adequately sample the upper RGB. Thus extensive observations of the most massive GGCs are urged in order to properly calibrate the above relation.

## 3. A firm zero point for the TRGB calibration

$`\omega `$ Centauri is a nearby and well studied cluster. It is the most luminous globular cluster in the Milky Way system, therefore even the fastest evolutionary phases are well populated and it is possible to observe a quite large sample of RGB stars, fulfilling the prescriptions of MF95. Here we adopt the huge photometric ($`B`$,$`I`$) database presented by P00, consisting of more than 220,000 stars observed with the WFI camera at the 2.2 ESO-MPG telescope and extending over a $`34^{}\times 33^{}`$ field roughly centered on the cluster. The absolute photometric calibration is accurate to within $`\pm 0.02`$ mag. The observed field extends over $`24`$ core radii, i.e. an area enclosing $`90\%`$ of the cluster light. Thus, virtually all the bright stars of $`\omega `$ Centauri are included in the adopted database. Considering that $`\omega `$ Centauri is the most luminous globular cluster of the whole Galaxy, this photometric database is the largest sample that can be obtained in the Galactic globular cluster system.

Moreover, $`\omega `$ Centauri was the first globular in which a detached eclipsing binary system, OGLEGC17, was discovered (Kaluzny et al. 1996). This enabled T01 to obtain a direct distance estimate, independent of any other distance scale. This method is basically geometrical, since the distance is obtained by comparison between the linear and angular size of the binary members (see Kruszewski and Semeniuk 1999, for a recent review and references). The final distance obtained by T01 is $`d=5385\pm 300`$ pc, which corresponds to $`(mM)_0=13.65\pm 0.11`$, if we assume their adopted extinction value, $`E(BV)=0.13\pm 0.02`$. Their result is in good agreement with previous estimates. According to T01, the error bar on the distance modulus can be significantly reduced as soon as better light and velocity curves will be obtained for OGLEGC17. Thus, a significant improvement of the quoted measure of the distance modulus has to be expected in the near future.

The huge P00 sample allowed us to succesfully perform the first measure of the TRGB in a Globular Cluster using the Standard Technique, i.e. by detecting the cut-off of the RGB luminosity function with an edge-detector filter (see BFP01 and references therein). Coupling our optimal measure of the TRGB with the distance and reddening presented by T01 we obtained:

$$M_I^{TRGB}=4.04\pm 0.12$$
(2)
where all the sources of uncertainty have been taken into account. The main contributor to the error budget remains the estimate of the distance modulus. Even at the present level of accuracy, the $`M_I^{TRGB}`$measure derived here is the less uncertain calibrating point for the $`M_I^{TRGB}`$– \[Fe/H\] relation.

## 4. Comparisons with other calibrations

In Figure 2 our estimate of $`M_I^{TRGB}`$ in $`\omega `$ Centauri is reported as a big black dot in the $`M_I^{TRGB}`$vs. \[Fe/H\] plane. The horizontal error bar represents the range in metallicity covered by the dominant population of the cluster (see BFP01).

The heavy solid curve is the new calibration based on the large IR database by F00, while the L93 calibration is plotted as a dotted-dashed curve. The horizontal long dashed line represents the recent result by Ferrarese et al. (2000 hereafter Fe00a) who calibrated the TRGB as a secondary indicator by using Cepheid distances in a small set of nearby galaxies where both Cepheids and the TRGB have been detected. They found $`M_I^{TRGB}`$$`=4.06\pm 0.07`$ (random) $`\pm 0.13`$ (systematic), in very good agreement with our estimate, despite their larger uncertainty. We plotted also the region delimited by the two empirical calibrations as a shaded area, in order to point out the region of the plane where most of the empirical estimates lie.

Salaris & Cassisi (1998; hereafter SC98) provided a theoretical relation of $`M_I^{TRGB}`$ as a function of metallicity (see BFP01). Using two different bolometric corrections, SC98 derived two slightly different relations (their eq. 5 and 6), which are reported in Fig. 2 as a short dashed curve and as a dotted curve, respectively.

As can be seen from Fig. 2, the theoretical calibrations are systematically ($`0.2`$ mag) brighter than empirical ones, as already noted by SC98 and Fe00a. The strong constraint provided by the TRGB luminosity in $`\omega `$ Centauri seems to favor the empirical calibrations.

It is interesting to note that if the theoretical $`M_{bol}^{TRGB}`$ vs. \[Fe/H\] relation by SC98 is coupled with the empirical $`BC_I`$ by DA90 the difference with the purely empirical calibrations (shaded area) is reduced. This fact suggests that the uncertainties in the bolometric corrections may significantly contribute to the observed mismatch between the theoretical predictions and the $`\omega `$ Centauri observed point, which is fully independent from $`BC_I`$.

### Acknowledgments.

This research has been supported by the Italian Ministero della Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST), through the COFIN grant p. MM02241491\_004, assigned to the project Stellar Observables of Cosmological Relevance. The financial support of the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) is also kindly acknowledged.

## References

Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.R, & Pancino, E., 2001, ApJ, 556, 635 (BFP01)

Cacciari, C., 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 167, Harmonizing Cosmic Distance Scales in a Post-HIPPARCOS Era, ed. D. Egret and A. Heck, (S. Francisco: ASP), 140

Da Costa, G.S., & Armandroff, T.A., 1990, AJ, 100, 162 (DA90)

Ferrarese, L., et al., 2000, ApJS, 128, 431 (Fe00a)

Ferraro, F.R., Messineo, M., Fusi Pecci, F., De Palo, M.A., Straniero, O., Chieffi, A., & Limongi, M., 1999, AJ, 118, 1738

Ferraro, F.R., Montegriffo, P., Origlia, L., & Fusi Pecci, F., 2000, AJ, 119, 1282 (F00)

Kaluzny, J.K., Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M., Udalski, A., Krzeminski, A., & Mateo, M., 1996, A&AS, 120, 139

Kruszewski, A., & Semeniuk, I., 1999, Acta Astronomica, 49, 561

Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L, & Madore, B.F., 1993, ApJ, 417, 553 (L93)

Madore, B.F, & Freedman, W.L., 1995, AJ, 109, 1645 (MF95)

Madore, B.F, & Freedman, W.L., 1998, in Stellar Astrophysics for the Local Group, ed. A. Aparicio, A. Herrero & F. Sanchez, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 305

Pancino, E., Ferraro, F.R., Bellazzini, M., Piotto G., & Zoccali, M., 2000, ApJ, 534, L83 (P00)

Sakai, S., Madore, B.F, & Freedman W.L., 1996, ApJ, 461, 713 (S96)

Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero O., 1993, ApJ, 414, 580

Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 166 (SC98)

Thompson, I.B., Kaluzny, J., Pych, W., Burley G., Krzeminski, W., Paczynski, B., Persson, S.E., & Preston G.W., 2001, AJ, 121, 3089

Zinn, R., & West, M.J., 1984, ApJS, 55, 45


text:
# Non-resonant nonlinear coupling of magnetohydrodynamic waves in inhomogeneous media

## Abstract

A new mechanism for the enhanced generation of compressible fluctuations by Alfvén waves is presented. A strongly nonlinear regime of Alfvén wave phase-mixing is numerically simulated in a one-dimensionally inhomogeneous plasma of finite temperature. It is found that the inhomogeneity of the medium determines the efficiency of nonlinear excitation of magnetoacoustic waves. The level of the compressible fluctuations is found to be higher (up to the factor of two) in inhomogeneous regions. The amplitude of the generated magnetoacoustic wave can reach up to 30% of the source Alfvén wave amplitude, and this value is practically independent of the Alfvén wave amplitude and the steepness of Alfvén speed profile. The highest amplitudes of compressible disturbances are reached in plasmas with $`\beta `$ of about 0.5. The further growth of the amplitude of compressible fluctuations is depressed by saturation.

Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves play an important role in the dynamics of laboratory, space and astrophysical plasmas (e.g. mhdrev ). The simultaneous existence of several MHD wave modes, three, at least, in the simplest case, stimulates the interest to processes of mode coupling and interaction. In particular, the interaction of linearly incompressible Alfvén waves with compressible magnetoacoustic waves is essential in problems such as the heating of the open corona of the Sun and acceleration of the solar wind. Indeed, Alfvén waves are often named as the carriers of the energy from the lower layers of the solar atmosphere to the corona. Also, in the inner heliosphere, Alfvén waves represent the main component in MHD turbulence tu . However, compressible waves are subject to more efficient dissipation, as they decay on volume viscosity, not shear as to incompressible Alfvén waves, and the difference of these two viscosities can be several orders of magnitude. Moreover, this mechanism allows energy to be transported across field lines in contrast to Alfvén waves which can only transport energy along the field. Also, compressible waves perturb the plasma density and consequently can be detected, again in contrast to Alfvén waves, with imaging telescopes.

A classical example of such interaction is the decay instability of Alfvén waves, connected with the resonant three-wave interaction of Alfvén and magnetoacoustic waves 3wi . The efficiency of this phenomenon is determined by the amplitudes of the interacting waves. However, this mechanism works only for quasi-periodic (perhaps wide-spectrum, malara2000 ) waves, and is not so prominent for wave pulses that could be generated e.g. by some explosive events such as solar flares, coronal mass ejections, etc.

In contrast, non-resonant mechanisms for compressible fluctuation excitation are independent of the wave spectrum and can be efficient even for short wave pulses. An example of non-resonant MHD wave interaction is the nonlinear excitation of longitudinal magnetoacoustic perturbations by nonlinear elliptically polarized Alfvén waves through the ponderomotive force. This phenomenon is actually the generation of the second harmonic and, in contrast with three wave resonant interaction, and does not require the daughter wave to be present in the system from the very beginning. Also, the efficiency of this process is restricted by the source wave amplitude, but does not require the source wave to be harmonic. Another parameter affecting the efficiency is $`\beta `$, the thermal to magnetic pressure ratio. The generation of the compressible perturbations leads to self-interaction and consequent steepening of the Alfvén wave, whose evolution is described by the Cohen-Kulsrud equation cke .

Yet another non-resonant mechanism for the generation of compressible fluctuations arises when the Alfvén speed varies across the magnetic field. Initially plane, linearly polarized Alfvén waves become oblique and sharp gradients in the direction across the field are secularly generated. This phenomenon is known as Alfvén wave phase mixing, and it has been intensively studied in the context of the solar coronal heating problem awpm  and often seen in full MHD numerical simulations (e.g. malara , numpm ). In the compressible regime, phase mixing of Alfvén waves is accompanied by nonlinear generation of fast magnetoacoustic waves nrm . In this phenomenon, the efficiency of nonlinear coupling is dramatically affected by the inhomogeneity of the medium. To illustrate this, consider a low-$`\beta `$ plasma with the straight and uniform magnetic field $`𝐁_0=B_0𝐞_𝐳`$, where $`B_0`$ is the absolute value of the unperturbed field and $`𝐞_𝐳`$ is the unit vector in $`z`$-direction. The plasma mass density $`\rho _0(x)`$ varies across the field, in the $`x`$-direction. Thus, the Alfvén speed $`C_A(x)=B_0[4\pi \rho _0(x)]^{1/2}`$ also varies across the field. In this geometry, Alfvén waves (perturbing $`V_y`$ and $`B_y`$) and fast magnetoacoustic waves (perturb $`V_x`$, $`B_x`$, $`B_z`$ components of the bulk velocity, magnetic field and the mass density $`\rho `$) are linearly coupled if the Alfvén waves have a component of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in the $`y`$-direction ddy . However, when $`/y`$ tends to zero, the waves become linearly decoupled from each other and in this case, the effect of nonlinear coupling becomes pronounced. The initial stage of fast magnetoacoustic wave generation by transverse gradients in weakly nonlinear Alfvén waves is described by the equation

$$\frac{^2}{t^2}B_xC_A^2(x)\left(\frac{^2}{x^2}+\frac{^2}{z^2}\right)B_x=\frac{B_0}{8\pi \rho _0(x)}\frac{^2}{xz}B_y^2.$$
(1)
The right handside of Eq. (1) in the Fourier transform domain is proportional to $`k_zk_xA^2`$, where $`k_z`$ and $`k_x`$ are the components of the wave number in the longitudinal and transverse directions respectively and $`A`$ is the Alfvén wave amplitude. Consequently, even in the case of homogeneous Alfvén speed ($`C_A=const`$), a non-plane ($`k_x0`$) Alfvén wave generates compressible perturbations, which, according to the left hand side of Eq. (1), propagate isotropically.

In the weakly nonlinear regime the Alfvén wave steepening can be neglected and the linear solution can be used,

$$B_y=Af[zC_A(x)t],$$
(2)
where $`f`$ is an arbitrary smooth function prescribed by the initial conditions.

With an inhomogeneous Alfvén speed, the Alfvén wave is subject to phase mixing and $`k_x\mathrm{}`$ as time progresses. Consequently, the phase mixing amplifies the right hand side term of Eq. (1) and affect MHD wave coupling. Indeed, with the Alfvén wave given by Eq. (2), the right hand side of Eq. (1) becomes

$$\mathrm{RHS}(\text{1})A^2\frac{dC_A(x)}{dx}k_z^2t$$
(3)
and, consequently, it grows secularly in time, proportionally to the product of the Alfvén wave amplitude and the inverse characteristic spatial scale of the medium inhomogeneity (see nrm , gert  for details). The secularity in the nonlinear generation of the fast waves is entirely connected with the inhomogeneity of medium. Thus, even if the Alfvén wave amplitude is weak, the generation of fast wave can be dramatically amplified by the medium inhomogeneity. In the homogeneous case, the same ponderomotive force can also generate perpendicular compressible fluctuations if the Alfvén wave is initially non-plane. However, in this case, the perpendicular gradients in the Alfvén wave remain as prescribed by the initial conditions and the generation of compressible fluctuations is limited by the initial shape of the wavefront. The induced longitudinal motions, also generated by the Alfvén wave, and do not grow secularly either.

The secular generation of fast magnetoacoustic waves by phase-mixed Alfvén waves in initial stage of the wave interaction was observed in full-MHD numerical simulations nrm , malara . The adequate modelling of the developed stage of this phenomenon could be performed with very high numerical resolution that became possible only recently. Indeed, it was found gert  that in the weakly nonlinear regime, phase-mixing leads to quick saturation of the interaction. In the regime, the saturation does not allow the fast wave amplitude to grow to more than a few tenth of a percent of the initial Alfvén wave amplitude. However, the tendency of the saturation level to grow with the Alfvén wave amplitude was noticed, which indicated that in the case of higher amplitudes, the generation of compressible waves can be significant. In the strongly nonlinear regime, in addition to phase mixing, coupling of MHD waves is also affected by the steepening of the Alfvén wave cke , and by the back reaction of the generated fast wave on the Alfvén wave. Indeed, as it has been shown by numerical simulations malara , the nonlinear interaction of magnetoacoustic and Alfvén waves causes energy transfer to smaller and smaller spatial scales. This phenomenon may lead to the formation of shock waves and, therefore, to increased heating of plasma by viscosity and resistivity. In modelling of non-resonant interaction of MHD waves on a plasma inhomogeneity, we consider a plasma configuration similar to the one investigated in malara  and nrm , i.e. the plasma has one-dimensional inhomogeneities in the equilibrium density $`\rho _0(x)`$ and temperature $`T_0(x)`$, and is penetrated by a straight and homogeneous magnetic field directed along the $`z`$-axis. The unperturbed total pressure is taken to be constant everywhere. The density profile is a smooth interface,

$$\rho (x)=32\mathrm{tanh}(\lambda x),$$
(4)
where $`\lambda `$ is a parameter prescribing the steepness of the profile near $`x=0`$. The density is normalized to $`\rho _0(x=0)`$. The sharpest gradients are located near $`x=0`$. Both the Alfvén speed $`C_A(x)`$ and the sound speed $`C_s(x)`$ are inhomogeneous in the $`x`$-direction, however the parameter $`\beta `$ and the unperturbed total pressure are constant across the profile. Dynamics of the plasma is described by single-fluid MHD equations in Cartesian coordinates. The MHD equations are solved with Lare2d Arber .

An initially plane linearly polarized Alfvénic pulse of Gaussian shape and highly nonlinear amplitude $`V_y=0.5C_A(0)`$, propagates along the background magnetic field, in the $`z`$-direction. There are no compressible perturbations present in the system at the beginning. The pulse is subject to phase-mixing, which takes place in the vicinity of $`x=0`$. Fig. 1 shows the development of the transverse gradients in the Alfvén pulse. Longitudinal and transverse gradients generate compressible perturbations ($`V_x`$, $`V_z`$, $`\rho `$, $`B_z`$ and $`B_x`$), associated with slow and fast magnetoacoustic waves. Note, that initially plane Alfvén waves (perturbing $`V_y`$ and $`B_y`$) in the homogeneous medium do not generate the perturbations of $`V_x`$, $`B_x`$ and $`B_z`$. Thus, the generation of these perturbations in our simulations are caused by the effect of plasma inhomogeneity (see Fig. 3). It is clearly seen (Fig. 2) that the relative perturbations of the plasma density are enhanced by a factor of about two in the phase-mixing region (near $`x=0`$). As in the weakly-nonlinear regime (gert ), initially the compressible disturbances grow secularly, according to Eq. (3), and then a saturated state is approached (Fig. 3). The saturation time is proportional to the efficiency of the generation. However, the maximal relative amplitude of compressible perturbations is practically independent of the problem paramteres. The parametric study (Fig. 4, top and mid panel) demonstrates that the efficiency of the non-resonant generation of compressible disturbances by phase-mixed Alfvén waves depends weakly upon the initial Alfvén wave amplitude and the steepness of the inhomogeneity, represented by the parameter $`\lambda `$ (see Eq. (4)). The dependence on the plasma parameter $`\beta `$ is more pronounced (see Fig. 4, bottom panel), and the highest amplitude of compressible disturbances is reached for $`\beta 0.5`$. For all investigated parameters, the observed saturation level was about 30% of the initial Alfvén wave amplitude.

We conclude that in the presence of plasma inhomogeneity across the magnetic field, incompressible (Alfvén) and compressible (magnetoacoustic) MHD fluctuations are effectively coupled by non-resonant mechanisms. This coupling takes place even if the waves are linearly decoupled, e.g. the perturbations are plane in the ignorable direction perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the inhomogeneity gradient. These results demonstrate that the efficiency of the nonlinear interaction of the different type modes is strongly affected by the inhomogeneity of the medium. In particular, in the presence of a one-dimensional inhomogeneity, nonlinear generation of compressible disturbances by incompressible Alfvén waves is enhanced up to a factor of two (Fig. 3). The amplitude of the generated compressible disturbances experiences saturation at the level of about 30% of the initial amplitude of the source Alfvén wave. For example, it is 10-20% of the background density for the Alfvén wave amplitude of about 0.5. In particular, this result is relevant to the explanation of the absence of a significant compressible component in the solar wind MHD turbulence. Indeed, the density fluctuations of less than 30% of the background value, prescribed by the saturation, can hardly be detected in a high-$`\beta `$ plasma because of a high level of the thermal noise in the in situ data. These results are especially relevant to the interpretation of observational data obtained by CLUSTER-II mission. This issue will be discussed in more detail elsewhere.

Finally, we would like to point out that the proposed mode coupling mechanism could find applications in other branches such as propagation of elastic waves in a inhomogeneous, fluid-saturated porous medium, as mathematically, the equations describing this phenomenon are similar to the MHD equations j .

Numerical calculations of this work were done using the PPARC funded Compaq MHD Cluster in St Andrews.


text:
# Discrete non-Abelian groups and asymptotically free models

## Abstract:

We consider a two-dimensional $`\sigma `$-model with discrete icosahedral/dodecahedral symmetry. Using the perturbative renormalization group, we argue that this model has a different continuum limit with respect to the $`O(3)`$ $`\sigma `$ model. Such an argument is confirmed by a high-precision numerical simulation.

conference: International Europhysics Conference on HEP

Recently, there has been interest in the critical behavior of two-dimensional $`\sigma `$-models in which the spins take values in some discrete subset of the sphere. In particular, two groups  studied the nearest-neighbor $`\sigma `$-model

$$H=\beta \underset{<ij>}{}𝝈_i𝝈_j,$$
(1)
in which the spins have unit length and belong to the vertices of a Platonic solid, i.e. of a tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, icosahedron, or dodecahedron. Several quantities have been computed: the renormalized two-point function, the current-current correlation function, the finite-size scaling (FSS) curve for the second-moment correlation length, and the four-point renormalized coupling. Surprisingly enough, the results for the icosahedral and the dodecahedral model are very close to the $`O(3)`$ ones, suggesting that these three models might have the same continuum limit. Patrascioiu and Seiler  considered these results as evidence for the $`O(3)`$ $`\sigma `$-model not being asymptotically free, since the discrete-symmetry models have a finite $`\beta `$ phase transition, which cannot be described in perturbation theory. However, the overwhelming evidence we have collected in the years in favor of asymptotic freedom made Hasenfratz and Niedermayer  suggest that, may be, the icosahedral and the dodecahedral models have an asymptotically-free continuum limit, in spite of the fact that the critical point is at a finite value of $`\beta `$.

Here, we wish to show that, by using some standard assumptions, the perturbative renormalization-group (RG) approach predicts that the suggestion of Hasenfratz and Niedermayer cannot be true. If the continuum limit of the $`O(3)`$ $`\sigma `$-model is correctly described by the perturbative RG, then any discrete-symmetry model cannot belong to the same universality class of the $`O(3)`$ $`\sigma `$-model.

The argument goes as follows . Consider the Hamiltonian

$$H=\beta \underset{<i,j>}{}𝝈_i𝝈_jh\underset{i}{}I_n(𝝈_i),$$
(2)
where $`𝝈_i`$ is an $`O(3)`$ unit spin and $`I_n(𝝈_i)`$ is a polynomial in $`𝝈_i`$ with the following properties: it has $`O(3)`$ spin $`n`$; the maxima (or minima) of $`I_n(𝝈_x)`$ correspond to the set of vertices of a Platonic solid; it is invariant under the discrete-symmetry group of the solid. For all Platonic solids, it can be shown explicitly that such a polynomial exists. The model (2) interpolates between the $`O(3)`$ $`(h=0)`$ and the discrete-symmetry model $`(|h|=+\mathrm{})`$. Now, with quite standard assumptions, one can show that $`I_n(𝝈)`$ is a relevant perturbation of the $`O(3)`$ fixed point. In other words, any arbitrarily small perturbation with discrete symmetry of the $`O(3)`$ $`\sigma `$-model drives the system to a different fixed point.

The argument is fairly standard. Consider a $`p`$-point connected correlation function $`G^{(p)}(\beta ,h)`$ at zero external momenta in a finite box $`L^2`$. If $`hL^21`$ and $`\xi L`$, we can compute the correlation function in perturbation theory, obtaining

$$G^{(p)}(\beta ,h)=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^ih^ja_{ij}^{(p)}(L),$$
(3)
where $`t1/\beta `$. The coefficients of the expansion diverge as $`L\mathrm{}`$, since the infinite-volume correlation function cannot be computed directly in perturbation theory because of infrared divergences. However, by using the perturbative expansion (3), one can show that in the continuum limit $`G^{(p)}(\beta ,h)`$ satisfies the RG equation

$$\left[a\frac{}{a}+W(t)\frac{}{t}+\gamma ^{(n)}(t)h\frac{}{h}+\frac{p}{2}\gamma (t)\right]G^{(p)}(\beta ,h)=0,$$
(4)
where $`W(t)`$, $`\gamma ^{(n)}(t)`$, and $`\gamma (t)`$ are $`L`$-independent RG functions. Then, we make the following assumption:

* The RG equation (4)—but not the expansion (3) we started from—is valid for all values of $`L`$, including $`L=\mathrm{}`$.

Such an assumption is routinely made in the perturbative analysis of the $`\sigma `$-model and is used, for instance, to obtain the small-$`t`$ behavior of long-distance quantities, such as the susceptibility, correlation length, and so on. Solving Eq. (4), we obtain in the infinite-volume limit

$$G^{(p)}(\beta ,h)=G^{(p)}(\beta ,0)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(p)}(z),$$
(5)
where

$$zht^\rho \mathrm{exp}(4\pi /t)h\xi (t)^2[\mathrm{log}\xi (t)]^\sigma ,$$
(6)
$`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are universal exponents that can be easily computed by using the perturbative results of Ref. , $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(p)}(z)`$ is a nonperturbative crossover function, and $`\xi (t)`$ is the correlation length for $`h=0`$. Precisely, Eq. (5) is valid in the crossover limit $`t0`$, $`h0`$, keeping $`z`$ fixed. Equations (5) and (6) show that $`I_n(𝝈)`$ is a relevant perturbation with RG eigenvalue $`2`$, as expected on the basis of dimensional analysis. Different physical results (i.e. different results for universal quantities) are obtained by varying the variable $`z`$, as usual in the vicinity of a point perturbed by two relevant perturbations (more precisely the thermal direction is marginally relevant). Thus, within the standard perturbative approach, the discrete-symmetry model and the $`O(3)`$ model are expected to have different continuum limits.

The previous argument together with the numerical results of Refs.  puts asymptotic freedom on a dangerous ground since it shows that the conventional scenario is wrong if the icosahedral or the dodecahedral models have the some continuum limit of the $`O(3)`$ model. We have thus decided to extend the previous numerical work and indeed, we have found good evidence that the $`O(3)`$ model and the discrete-symmetry model belong to different universality classes: the conventional scenario is saved. However, the surprising fact is that these differences appear only very near to the critical point, i.e. for $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}10^5`$!

In the numerical simulation we have considered the Hamiltonian (2) with

$`I_6(𝝈)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _z^65\sigma _z^4\left(\sigma _x^2+\sigma _y^2\right)+5\sigma _z^2\left(\sigma _x^2+\sigma _y^2\right)^2`$ (7)
$`+2\sigma _x\sigma _z\left(\sigma _x^410\sigma _x^2\sigma _y^2+\sigma _y^4\right),`$
and $`h=0.1`$. Such a polynomial is invariant under the rotation group of the icosahedron and of the dodecahedron. We measured the second-moment correlation length as defined in Refs. , and the spin-$`n`$ susceptibilities

$$\chi _n=\underset{x}{}P_n\left(\sigma _0\sigma _x\right),$$
(8)
where $`P_n(x)`$ is a Legendre polynomial, for $`n=1,3,4`$. For each observable $`𝒪(L,\beta )`$, we considered the so-called step function, i.e. the ratio $`𝒪(2L,\beta )/𝒪(L,\beta )`$, which, in the continuum limit should become a universal function of $`\xi (L,\beta )/L`$, i.e.

$$\frac{𝒪(2L,\beta )}{𝒪(L,\beta )}=F_𝒪\left(\frac{\xi (L,\beta )}{L}\right)+O(L^\omega ,\xi ^\omega ).$$
(9)
We measured the step function of the above-mentioned observables in the discrete-symmetry theory (i.e. keeping $`h=0.1`$ fixed) and in the $`O(3)`$ model, thereby extending the results of Refs. . If the two models have the same continuum limit, the function computed for $`h=0.1`$ and $`h=0`$ should coincide.

In Figs. 2, 2 we report the numerical results for the correlation length. The continuous line is a fit to the $`O(3)`$ data, while the points refer to the model with $`h=0.1`$. As observed in previous work, there is indeed very good agreement between the numerical results for the two models, but such an agreement disappears for $`\xi (L)/L1`$, where small discrepancies are observed. As it can be seen from Fig. 2, the icosahedral points tend to be above the $`O(3)`$ curve and, more importantly, the discrepancy tends to increase with $`L`$: the points with $`L=10`$–20 are systematically below the points with $`L=50`$–100.

In Figs. 2, 2 the difference in behavior between the two models is quite small and not totally convincing. Better evidence is obtained from the results for the susceptibilities, since in this case the statistical errors are smaller. In Figs. 4 and 4 we report the spin-1 susceptibility and in Figs. 6 and 6 the spin-3 and spin-4 analogues. Again, the numerical results for the icosahedral and the $`O(3)`$ model agree very nicely up to $`\xi (L)/L0.8`$ – 1, but then they indicate that the icosahedral FSS curve is steeper than the $`O(3)`$ one. Again, notice that the discrepancy between the two models increases with $`L`$, indicating that the observed effect is not due to corrections to scaling, i.e. it is not a lattice artifact disappearing in the continuum limit.

In conclusion, the numerical results show that the icosahedral and the $`O(3)`$ model belong to different universality classes. Note however that discrepancies are observed only for $`\xi (L)/L1`$, which corresponds to very large values of the infinite-volume correlation length (see, e.g. Ref. ).

We thank Peter Hasenfratz and Ferenc Niedermayer for fruitful discussions.