text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is not uncommon to find the same physical system being described by two or more seemingly unrelated pictures. Nowhere is this ambiguity more apparent than in recent attempts at describing the universe itself. For instance, we have seen 11-dimensional membrane theory give rise to an abundance of dualities when its various manifestations are appropriately compactified . On the other hand, we have it, on pretty good authority, that the physical universe can be effectively described by merely four spacetime dimensions. Such duality between theories of distinct dimensionality may, in fact, be a consequence of a more fundamental concept; namely, the “holographic principle” .

The underlying premise of “holography” is that the maximal entropy within any given volume will be determined by the largest black hole that fits inside of that volume . Since the entropy of a black hole is (up to a constant factor) given by its horizon surface area , it follows that the relevant degrees of freedom of a black hole must, in some sense, “live” on the horizon. Moreover, given the holographic premise, it follows that the relevant degrees of any system must live on a surface that bounds the volume of that system.

The holographic principle has played its (perhaps) most prominent role in establishing a duality that seems to exist between any anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime111Note that anti-de Sitter denotes gravity with a negative cosmological constant and de Sitter, a positive cosmological constant. Typically, the gravity is described by Einstein theory, but not exclusively so. and a lower-dimensional conformal field theory (CFT) . More specifically, it has been convincingly argued that the horizon thermodynamics of an $`n`$+2-dimensional AdS black hole can be identified with a certain $`n`$+1-dimensional (strongly-coupled) CFT. Significantly to these arguments, the dual CFT is assumed to live on a timelike surface that can be identified as an asymptotic boundary of the AdS spacetime.

In analogy to this well-accepted AdS/CFT duality, a de Sitter(dS)/CFT correspondence has similarly been conjectured . (For earlier works in this regard, see Refs.-.) Although dS space is obtained from AdS with a seemingly trivial sign change in the cosmological constant, there turns out to be quite severe implications. As a consequence, one finds that establishing the dS/CFT duality is a much more difficult challenge than in the AdS case. For example, dS space lacks a globally timelike Killing vector and a spatial infinity (making it difficult to define conserved charges), while the black hole horizon (and its thermodynamic properties) have an ambiguous observer dependence.222For a comprehensive discussion on dS spacetimes, see Ref.. It is also problematic that dS solutions are conspicuously absent in string theories (and other quantum gravity theories); thus impeding any rigorous testing of the proposed duality.

In spite of these inherent complications, there has still been significant progress towards a holographic understanding of dS spacetimes -. With regard to the conjectured correspondence, the dS cosmological horizon is used in place of the (inner-lying) black hole horizon. Furthermore, the dual CFT is regarded as a Euclidean one that lives on a spacelike asymptotic boundary. Essential to these identifications is a renormalization group flow (between Euclidean CFTs at past and future infinity) that happens to be dual with time evolution in the dS bulk .

Let us return our attentions, for the moment, to the AdS/CFT correspondence. In a relevant paper , Verlinde directly applied this holographic duality to a radiation-dominated Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe (in $`n`$+1 dimensions).333For earlier studies on holography in a cosmological setting, see Refs.-. This paper had a wide scope, but two observations are of particular interest. (i) The AdS/CFT correspondence leads to a CFT entropy that can be expressed in terms of a generalized Cardy formula ; with the Cardy “central charge” being a direct manifestation of the Casimir energy.444In this context, the Casimir energy refers specifically to the sub-extensive portion of the thermal energy. Furthermore, we will refer to the corresponding entropy as the “Casimir entropy”. (ii) When the Casimir entropy saturates a certain bound (namely, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy  of a universal-size black hole), then the cosmological evolution or Friedmann equations coincide with the generalized Cardy formula. We can express this point more eloquently: the CFT and FRW equations merge at a holographic saturation point, which implies that both sets of equations arise from some fundamental, underlying theory.

In Ref., Savonije and Verlinde have extended the prior work to an intriguing scenario: a Randall-Sundrum brane world  in the background of an AdS-Schwarzschild (black hole) geometry. In this context, the $`n`$+1-dimensional CFT is regarded as living on the brane, which serves as a suitable boundary for the $`n`$+2-dimensional AdS bulk spacetime. With appropriately chosen boundary conditions, Savonije and Verlinde have shown that the brane world corresponds to a FRW universe and the brane dynamics are described by the Friedmann equations for radiative matter. Moreover, it was shown that the CFT thermodynamic relations coincide with the Friedmann equations at a special cosmological point: when the brane intersects the black hole horizon.

Here, we note that many aspects of the Verlinde-Savonije program have since been extended and generalized. The relevant studies (for an AdS scenario) can be found in Refs.-.

Most recently, the Verlinde-Savonije treatment  has been extended to a dS/CFT holographic picture -.555Such studies may be of particular importance, given recent empirical evidence of a positive cosmological constant for our universe . These studies were, for the most part, successful in generalizing the pertinent features of Refs. to dS scenarios. However, there were some bothersome issues that can be directly attributed to the inherent complexities of dS spacetimes. These issues include negative energy densities on the CFT boundary (also see Refs.), the total CFT entropy being bounded from above by the Casimir contribution (also see Ref.), the CFT-based universe being inaccessible to a strongly self-gravitating regime (especially see Ref.), and an inability to incorporate the thermodynamics of the relevant black hole horizons into the proposed duality.

A preliminary analysis by Cai  suggests that many (if not all) of these issues can be resolved by revising the duality to incorporate a certain brand of asymptotically dS geometries. These “topological de Sitter” (TdS) spacetimes were originally proposed in Ref.. However, there is a “cost” to be extracted if one is to proceed along these lines. Such TdS spacetimes have no black hole horizon, and so a naked singularity is an inevitable consequence.666In fact, the original motivation for considering TdS spacetimes  was to test an earlier conjecture on cosmological singularities . On the other hand, the existence of a well-defined CFT that can describe this singularity does not seem inconceivable. Given this possibility, it seems worth pursuing if the pertinent outcomes of Ref. hold up under a TdS-bulk scenario. Just such an investigation is the focus of the current paper.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we identify the thermodynamics properties of the TdS cosmological horizon. We also formulate the brane dynamics, which are shown to be described by Friedmann-like equations. In Section 3, we apply the dS/CFT correspondence and identify the brane (or CFT) thermodynamic properties. Also, the generalized Friedmann equations are re-expressed so that their connection with CFT thermodynamics is manifest. In Section 4, we demonstrate that the CFT thermodynamic and Friedmann equations coincide when the brane crosses the horizon. In addition, the CFT entropy is shown to be expressible in a Cardy-Verlinde-like form . Section 5 considers the holographic entropy bounds in the context of this model. Finally, Section 6 ends with a summary and brief discussion.

## 2 Bulk Thermodynamics and Brane Cosmology

We begin the analysis by formulating the scenario of interest. Namely, a $`n`$+1-dimensional brane of constant tension in an $`n`$+2-dimensional topological de Sitter (TdS) background. In a suitably static gauge, the bulk solution can be written as follows

$$ds_{n+2}^2=h(a)dt^2+\frac{1}{h(a)}da^2+a^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(1)
$$h(a)=k\frac{a^2}{L^2}+\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a^{n1}},$$
(2)
$$\omega _{n+1}=\frac{16\pi G_{n+2}}{nV_n}.$$
(3)
Here, $`L`$ is the curvature radius of the dS background, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ denotes the line element of an $`n`$-dimensional (constant-curvature) hypersurface with volume $`V_n`$, $`G_{n+2}`$ is the $`n`$+2-dimensional Newton constant, and $`M`$ and $`k`$ are constants of integration. $`M`$ is roughly associated with the mass of the solution777More precisely, $`M`$ measures an excitation in gravitational energy relative to the pure ($`M=0`$) dS spacetime. and will be regarded as non-negative. (Note the sign reversal in this term relative to the usual Schwarzschild-dS case.) Meanwhile, without loss of generality, $`k`$ can be set to +1, 0 or -1. These choices describe a (cosmological) horizon geometry that is respectively elliptic, flat or hyperbolic.

Clearly, the above solution is asymptotically dS. However, the $`M0`$ condition leads to some distinguishing features. For instance, there is no black hole horizon (although a cosmological one). Moreover, there exists a naked singularity at $`a=0`$ for any $`M>0`$. However, we will assume that this singularity can somehow be described (in a non-singular fashion) by the dual CFT of interest and proceed on this basis.

For any asymptotically dS space, there exists a well-defined cosmological horizon having similar thermodynamic properties to that of a black hole horizon . For the above solution, this cosmological horizon ($`a=a_H`$) corresponds to the positive root of $`h(a)=0`$. Thus, the following useful relation can be obtained:

$$k\frac{a_H^2}{L^2}+\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a_H^{n1}}=0.$$
(4)
In analogy with black hole thermodynamics , the cosmological horizon has an associated temperature and entropy that are respectively given as follows:888In particular, the inverse temperature can be identified with the periodicity of Euclidean time and the entropy, with one quarter of the horizon surface area .

$$T_{dS}=\frac{(n+1)a_H^2(n1)L^2k}{4\pi L^2a_H},$$
(5)
$$S_{dS}=\frac{a_H^nV_n}{4G_{n+2}}.$$
(6)
The premise of the dS/CFT correspondence is that the above thermodynamics can be identified, up to a conformal factor, with a Euclidean CFT that lives on a spacelike boundary (for the bulk) at temporal infinity. We will re-introduce and exploit this duality at an appropriate interval.

Let us now consider the brane, which can be regarded as a dynamical boundary of the TdS geometry. To describe these brane dynamics, we will presume a boundary action of the following form:

$$_b=\frac{1}{8\pi G_{n+2}}_{}\sqrt{\left|g^{ind}\right|}𝒦+\frac{\sigma }{8\pi G_{n+2}}_{}\sqrt{\left|g^{ind}\right|},$$
(7)
where $`g_{ij}^{ind}`$ is the induced metric on the boundary ($``$), $`𝒦𝒦_i^i`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature and $`\sigma `$ is a parameter measuring the brane tension. By varying this action with respect to the induced metric (and assuming a one-sided brane scenario), we obtain an equation of motion as follows:

$$𝒦_{ij}=\frac{\sigma }{n}g_{ij}^{ind}.$$
(8)
In analogy with Ref., we can clarify the brane dynamics by introducing a new (cosmological) time parameter, $`\tau `$; whereby $`a=a(\tau )`$, $`t=t(\tau )`$ and:

$$\frac{1}{h(a)}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)^2h(a)\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau }\right)^2=1.$$
(9)
Unlike in Ref., $`\tau `$ has been defined here so as to yield a spacelike line element. This choice naturally reflects the duality that (presumably) exists between an asymptotically dS spacetime and a Euclidean CFT .

Substituting the above condition into Eq.(1), we find that the induced brane metric adopts a Euclidean FRW form. More specifically:

$$ds_{n+1}^2=d\tau ^2+a^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2.$$
(10)
Keep in mind that the radial distance, $`a=a(\tau )`$, is really just the size of the $`n`$+1-dimensional brane universe.

Let us now return our attention to Eq.(8); that is, the boundary equation of motion. One can readily calculate the extrinsic curvature (see, for instance, Ref.) and then express this result in terms of the functions $`a(\tau )`$ and $`t(\tau )`$. For any of the “angular components” of the induced metric (i.e., components with respect to the constant-curvature hypersurface), the described process yields:

$$\frac{dt}{d\tau }=\frac{\sigma a}{nh(a)}.$$
(11)
Next, we define the Hubble parameter, $`H\dot{a}/a`$,999Dots will always denote differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$. in the usual way. With this definition, Eq.(9) can be re-expressed in the following form:

$$H^2=\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{1}{L^2}+\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a^{n+1}}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{n^2},$$
(12)
where we have also applied Eqs.(2,11).

In this model, the brane tension ($`\sigma `$) is a free parameter that can be conveniently fine tuned. Here, we choose $`\sigma ^2=n^2/L^2`$ and thus cancel off the $`a`$-independent terms in Eq.(12). This choice yields a (first) Friedmann-like equation:

$$H^2=\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a^{n+1}}.$$
(13)
Furthermore, we can take the $`\tau `$ derivative of the above equation, which leads to the associated second Friedmann equation:

$$\dot{H}=\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{(n+1)\omega _{n+1}M}{2a^{n+1}}.$$
(14)
Note that the TdS bulk effectively induces radiative matter ($`M/a^{n+1}`$) in the brane universe.

## 3 Euclidean CFT on the Brane

Before proceeding, let us clarify the underlying premise of the dS/CFT correspondence. It has been conjectured that the thermodynamics of a dS cosmological horizon can be directly associated with the thermodynamics of a dual CFT. Significantly, this CFT should be a Euclidean one and living on an asymptotic boundary (in this case, the brane). On the basis of such considerations, we will identify the brane (CFT) thermodynamics by suitably adapting the AdS analysis of Ref..

We begin here by noting the following observation: the metric for a boundary CFT can only be determined up to a conformal factor . Keeping this in mind, let us consider the asymptotic form of the TdS metric:

$$\underset{a\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\frac{L^2}{a^2}ds_{n+2}^2\right]=dt^2+L^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(15)
which can also be identified with the Euclidean metric for the relevant CFT. Evidently, if the radius of the spatial sphere is to be set equal to $`a`$, the Euclidean CFT time must be rescaled by a factor of $`a/L`$. It follows that the same factor ($`a/L`$) will turn up when the thermodynamic properties of the dual spacetimes are related. (With one notable exception: the relation between the entropies .)

In view of the above discussion, the thermodynamic properties of the CFT can be expressed as follows :

$$EE_{CFT}=\frac{LM}{a},$$
(16)
$`TT_{CFT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{a}}T_{dS}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)a_H}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)Lk}{a_H}}\right],`$
$`SS_{CFT}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{dS}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_H^nV_n}{4G_{n+2}}}.`$
In relevance to the above, let us note the following. The gravitational energy associated with this type of asymptotically dS geometry is always greater than that of the pure (i.e., $`M=0`$) dS spacetime . This is a reversal from the case of Schwarzschild (and Reissner-Nordstrom) dS geometries, where a positive-mass black hole leads to an excitation of negative gravitational energy . For this reason, the CFT energy (16) has been defined here as a positive quantity; in direct contrast to a previous study .101010It should be further noted that, in Eq.(16), we have omitted the energy associated with the pure ($`M=0`$) dS background. This is consistent with the convention initiated in Refs..

At this point, it is helpful to define an energy density ($`\rho E/V`$) and pressure ($`p\rho /n`$);111111Note that $`p=\rho /n`$ is the standard equation of state for radiative matter. where $`V=a^nV_n`$ is the volume of the brane universe.

With the above definitions, the first and second Friedmann-like equations (13,14) can be re-expressed in the following form:

$$H^2=\frac{16\pi G}{n(n1)}\rho +\frac{k}{a^2},$$
(19)
$$\dot{H}=\frac{8\pi G}{(n1)}\left[\rho +p\right]\frac{k}{a^2}.$$
(20)
Here, we have used:

$$G=\frac{(n1)}{L}G_{n+2},$$
(21)
where $`G`$ is the effective Newton constant on the brane.121212This relation between bulk and brane gravitational constants is the usual one for a Randall-Sundrum brane world (generalized to arbitrary dimensionality) . Significantly, the cosmological evolution can now be directly attributed to the energy density and pressure of radiative matter.

For later convenience, we point out that the Friedmann equations (19,20) can alternatively be expressed as follows:

$$S_H=\frac{2\pi a}{n}\sqrt{E_{BH}\left[2E+kE_{BH}\right]},$$
(22)
$$kE_{BH}=n\left[E+pVT_HS_H\right],$$
(23)
where we have defined:

$$S_H(n1)\frac{HV}{4G},$$
(24)
$$E_{BH}n(n1)\frac{V}{8\pi Ga^2},$$
(25)
$$T_H\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}.$$
(26)
The first Friedmann equation (Eq.(19) or (22)) can also be expressed in the following suggestive manner:

$$S_H^2=2S_BS_{BH}+kS_{BH}^2,$$
(27)
where:

$$S_B\frac{2\pi a}{n}E,$$
(28)
$$S_{BH}\frac{(n1)}{4Ga}V.$$
(29)
The parameters of Eqs.(24-26,28-29) are identical to those defined in Ref.. For an AdS bulk, each of these parameters plays a significant role with regard to holographic bounds. (See Refs. for a complete discussion.) At this point, we have introduced the parameters for illustrative convenience and remind the reader that their respective roles do not necessarily translate over to a dS holographic theory. We consider this issue further in Section 5.

## 4 Thermodynamics at the Horizon and the Cardy-Verlinde Entropy

One of the remarkable outcomes of Ref. was the coincidence of two distinct theories at a special moment in the evolution of the brane (in an AdS bulk). In particular, it was demonstrated that the CFT thermodynamic relations coincide with the cosmological (i.e., Friedmann) equations when the brane crosses the black hole horizon. Our current interest is to ascertain if the same behavior occurs at the cosmological horizon of a TdS bulk spacetime.

We begin here by comparing Eq.(13) for $`H^2`$ with the equation for the cosmological horizon (4). One can easily observe that the Hubble constant must obey:

$$H=\pm \frac{1}{L}ata=a_H.$$
(30)
The $`+`$ sign indicates an expanding brane universe, while the $``$ sign describes a brane universe that is contracting. For illustrative purposes, we will subsequently focus on the expanding case.

Next, let us reconsider Eq.(18) for the CFT entropy. As one might anticipate (given the second law of thermodynamics), this total entropy remains constant as the system temporally evolves. However, this is not true of the entropy density:

$$s\frac{S}{V}=\frac{(n1)a_H^n}{4GLa^n},$$
(31)
which certainly evolves along with the radial size of the brane.

When the brane crosses the horizon, this entropy density is given by:

$$s=\frac{(n1)H}{4G}ata=a_H.$$
(32)
It directly follows that (cf. Eq.(24)):

$$S=S_Hata=a_H.$$
(33)
It is of similar interest to consider the CFT temperature (17) when the brane and horizon meet up. By applying Eq.(20) for $`\dot{H}`$, along with Eqs.(4,26,30), we find that:

$$T=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}=T_Hata=a_H.$$
(34)
Hence, when the brane crosses the horizon, the CFT entropy and temperature can be simply expressed in terms of the Hubble parameter and its derivative. These expressions are universal insofar as they do not depend explicitly on $`M`$ or $`k`$ (i.e., the parameters describing the TdS geometry).

Let us now introduce a quantity that can be readily identified with the Casimir energy of the brane universe :

$$E_Cn\left[E+pVTS\right].$$
(35)
Given that $`T=T_H`$ and $`S=S_H`$ at $`a=a_H`$, we can further deduce that (cf. Eq.(23)):

$$E_C=n\left[E+pVT_HS_H\right]=kE_{BH}ata=a_H.$$
(36)
We will elaborate on the significance of the Casimir energy below.

Let us now reconsider the scenario of a generically positioned brane radius. As one might expect, the CFT thermodynamic properties can be shown to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics. That is:

$$TdS=dE+PdV.$$
(37)
It is indeed more revealing if the first law is reformulated in terms of densities. This expression takes on the following form:

$$Tds=d\rho +n\left[\rho +pTs\right]\frac{da}{a},$$
(38)
where we have applied the equation of state ($`p=\rho /n`$) and $`dV=nVda/a`$ (since $`Va^n`$).

As expressed above, the square-bracket combination represents the sub-extensive contribution to the thermodynamic system. Such a contribution should effectively describe the Casimir energy, which notably agrees with our prior definition (35). Next, we will obtain a more explicit form of this Casimir contribution.

As an initial step in this process, it is helpful if the CFT energy density is re-expressed (by way of Eqs.(4,16)) as follows:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ML}{a^{n+1}V_n}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{na_H^n}{16\pi G_{n+2}a^{n+1}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a_H}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{kL}{a_H}}\right].`$
Next, we incorporate $`p=\rho /n`$, Eq.(31) for $`s`$ and Eq.(17) for $`T`$ into the above expression. This procedure ultimately yields:

$$n\left[\rho +pTs\right]=\frac{2k\gamma }{a^2},$$
(40)
where we have defined:

$$\gamma \frac{n(n1)a_H^{n1}}{16\pi Ga^{n1}}.$$
(41)
Comparing with Eq.(35), which defines the Casimir energy, we have:

$$E_C=\frac{2kV\gamma }{a^2}=k\frac{n(n1)V_na_H^{n1}}{8\pi Ga}.$$
(42)
Notably, this expression does not depend explicitly on the mass parameter, $`M`$; although it does depend on the TdS geometrical parameter, $`k`$.

The above formalism can be used to relate the entropy density (31) and the “Casimir quantity” (i.e., $`\gamma `$). After some straightforward manipulations, we obtain:

$$s^2=\left(\frac{4\pi }{n}\right)^2\gamma \left[\rho +\frac{k\gamma }{a^2}\right].$$
(43)
Significantly, this entropy formula has a Cardy-like form . Moreover, the Casimir-related quantity ($`\gamma `$) assumes the role of the Cardy “central charge”.131313In Cardy’s formalism , the central charge describes the multiplicity of massless particle species. It is clear that such a quantity should be directly related to the Casimir energy density, as we have found.

Let us now reconsider the special cosmological moment; that is, when the brane passes through the cosmological horizon. At this coincidence point, Eq.(43) leads directly to the first Friedmann-like equation (19). Similarly, the second Friedmann-like equation (20) follows when $`a=a_H`$ is imposed on Eq.(40). Hence, we have extended the key results of Ref. for the case of a TdS bulk.

## 5 Cosmological Considerations

In this section, we examine some of the cosmological implications of the prior results. First, it is useful to re-express the generalized Cardy-Verlinde formula (43) in the following equivalent form:

$$S=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi a}{n}S_C\left[2EE_C\right]},$$
(44)
where we have suitably defined the following Casimir entropy (in analogy with Refs.):

$`S_C`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi a}{n}}E_{BH}|_{a=a_H}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_na_H^{n1}}{4G}}.`$
Note that $`S_C`$ is strictly non-negative and independent of $`k`$. This is in stark contrast to the Casimir energy. In fact, the two quantities are related as follows (cf. Eq.(42)):

$$E_C=k\frac{n}{2\pi a}S_C.$$
(46)
Given that $`S_C`$ has no explicit dependence on $`k`$ (which can be $`+1`$, $`0`$ or $`1`$), we prefer to think of the Casimir entropy as the “fundamental” quantity, from which $`E_C`$ can be obtained via the above “definition” (46). It just so happens that this definition for $`E_C`$ coincides precisely with the prior one (35).

With regard to the Casimir entropy, it is particularly significant that:

$$S_C=S_{BH}ata=a_H,$$
(47)
where $`S_{BH}`$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of Eq.(29). Recall that a similar (but not exact) coincidence was found between the Casimir energy and $`E_{BH}`$; cf. Eq.(36).

It can be readily shown that, when $`a=a_H`$, the total entropy ($`S`$) actually coincides with the “Hubble entropy” ($`S_H`$) of Eq.(24). To illustrate this occurrence, let us first consider the following equivalent form of Eq.(44):

$$S^2=2S_BS_C+kS_C^2,$$
(48)
where $`S_B`$ is the “Bekenstein entropy” of Eq.(28). Comparing Eq.(48) for $`S`$ with Eq.(27) for $`S_H`$, we clearly observe the equivalence of these two entropies when the brane crosses the horizon.

Given the outcomes of the seminal studies , one might wonder if such entropic coincidences (at $`a=a_H`$) actually represent the saturation points of holographic bounds. It turns out that this is indeed the case, provided that Verlinde’s conjectured upper bound on the Casimir entropy :

$$S_CS_{BH}$$
(49)
continues to hold. Verlinde originally proposed this universal bound on the premise of a holographic upper limit on the degrees of freedom of the CFT as measured by the Casimir entropy. There seems no reason that such a bound would fail to persist in our model given the following points. (i) $`S_C`$ and $`S_{BH}`$ are equivalent when the brane crosses the horizon. (ii) The Casimir entropy has no explicit dependence on $`k`$ or $`M`$ and, hence, is not sensitive to the details of the TdS geometry. It is interesting to note that this bound implies (cf. Eqs.(29,45)) that $`aa_H`$; that is, the brane must remain outside of (or at) the horizon.

Again taking our cue from Verlinde, let us now make the distinction between a strongly and weakly self-gravitating brane universe. In the prior work , a strongly (weakly) self-gravitating regime was defined by the condition: $`Ha1`$ ($`Ha1`$). With this definition, Verlinde was able to deduce the following :

$$S_BS_{BH}andEE_{BH}forHa1,$$
(50)
$$S_BS_{BH}andEE_{BH}forHa1.$$
(51)
As it so happens, virtually the same set of criteria are obtainable for the TdS-bulk model, with only a minor modification. Incorporating Eq.(19) for $`H^2`$ into the appropriate defining relations (25,28,29), we find:

$$S_BS_{BH}andEE_{BH}forHa\sqrt{2+k},$$
(52)
$$S_BS_{BH}andEE_{BH}forHa\sqrt{2+k}.$$
(53)
That is, the definition of a strongly (weakly) self-gravitating universe must now be revised to incorporate the value of $`k`$, but the general formalism otherwise persists. Note that it is the $`k=1`$ (hyperbolic) case that exactly reproduces the original Schwarzschild-AdS criteria.

Let us now investigate the possibility of holographic bounds on the CFT total entropy, $`S`$. First, we consider a strongly self-gravitating regime, for which it follows that (cf. Eqs.(49,52)):

$$S_BS_{BH}S_CforHa\sqrt{2+k}.$$
(54)
It is clear from Eq.(48), that $`S`$ is monotonically increasing in $`S_C`$ (for any allowed $`k`$) as long as $`S_CS_B`$. Also in evidence, $`S`$ will reach its maximum value (for this range) when $`S_C=S_B`$. This means that, for a strongly self-gravitating universe, $`S`$ will reach its maximum value when $`S_C=S_{BH}=S_B`$. Comparing Eq.(48) with Eq.(27) for the Hubble entropy ($`S_H`$), we now see that this maximum value of $`S`$ coincides precisely with $`S_H`$. So, for any of the prescribed values of $`k`$,141414In fact, hypothetically speaking, this bound would remain valid for any $`k2`$. For $`k<2`$, not only is the bound no longer valid, but the “litmus test” ($`Ha\sqrt{2+k}`$ versus $`Ha\sqrt{2+k}`$) clearly breaks down. we can establish the following bound:

$$SS_HforHa\sqrt{2+k}.$$
(55)
Hence, the $`a=a_H`$ coincidence of $`S`$ and $`S_H`$ can also be viewed as the saturation point of a holographic bound.

It is interesting to note that, by virtue of Eqs.(48,54), the condition $`S_CS`$ follows automatically for a strongly self-gravitating universe (for any allowed $`k`$). This bound is intuitively expected, given that a massive TdS solution induces a positive energy excitation on the brane. This is a pleasant reversal from an analogous study with regard to “conventional” black hole-dS solutions . In this prior work, it was found that the total entropy is always bounded from above by the Casimir contribution.

Next, let us see what can be deduced for a weakly self-gravitating universe. It is instructive to begin with the $`k=1`$ case, for which Eq.(48) takes on the form:

$$S^2+\left(S_BS_C\right)^2=S_B^2.$$
(56)
If we accept the intuitive bound of $`S_CS`$ to be universally valid (see above), then the above relation further implies that $`S_BS_C`$. It seems reasonable to assume that this bound continues to hold for any allowed value of $`k`$, and we will proceed on this basis. Using this assumption, we know from above that (for any allowed $`k`$) $`S`$ is monotonically increasing in $`S_C`$ and reaches its maximum value when $`S_C=S_B`$. Hence, Eq.(48) implies the following bound for a weakly self-gravitating universe:

$$S\sqrt{2+k}S_BforHa\sqrt{2+k}.$$
(57)
We again point out the necessity for an assumption in establishing this bound. Hence, it is on a somewhat weaker footing than the rigorously confirmed bound of Eq.(55).

## 6 Conclusion

In the preceding paper, we have considered a brane universe in a topological de Sitter background spacetime. To begin the analysis, we identified the thermodynamic properties of the TdS cosmological horizon. Brane dynamics were subsequently examined, and it was demonstrated that (with a suitable choice of brane tension) the evolution equations take on a Friedmann-like form.

After these initial considerations, we applied the dS/CFT correspondence and deduced the thermodynamics of a Euclidean CFT that lives on the brane. We were then able to demonstrate that the CFT thermodynamic properties coincide with the Friedmann-like equations when the brane crosses the cosmological horizon. Moreover, it was shown that the CFT entropy can be expressed in terms of a generalized Cardy-Verlinde formula . In this context, the Casimir energy (i.e., the sub-extensive energy contribution) adopts the role of the Cardy central charge.

Finally, some of the cosmological implications of our results were considered. For instance, we found that the Casimir entropy coincides with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy when the brane crosses the horizon. A similar coincidence was found between the total entropy and the so-called Hubble entropy. On the basis of these results (and other considerations), we have conjectured that an upper bound on the Casimir entropy persists even for the exotic topology of our model. (Such a bound was originally proposed by Verlinde , for an AdS spacetime, as a universal consequence of the holographic principle .) With this conjecture, it thus follows (either directly or indirectly) that the observed entropic coincidences actually represent the saturation points of their respective holographic bounds.

It is interesting to compare this TdS bulk scenario with the case of a Schwarzschild-dS background spacetime. In a recent study on the latter ,151515Ref. formally considered a Reissner-Nordstrom-dS background. However, it may be trivially extended to the Schwarzschild-dS case (i.e., vanishing electrostatic charge). we identified several troublesome issues: a negative energy density on the brane, the total brane entropy being bounded from above by the Casimir contribution, and the brane universe being constrained to a weakly self-gravitating regime. Furthermore, there remains the open question of how to incorporate the thermodynamics of the black hole horizon into the proposed dS/CFT duality (which, so far, only seems to probe the cosmological horizon). However, as we have now shown, all of these issues can be circumvented by reversing the sign of the mass term (while maintaing a non-negative mass).

Given the apparent resolution of the noted issues, the results of the current paper seem to strengthen the status of the dS/CFT correspondence. And yet, such TdS solutions have the unfortunate side-effect of a naked cosmological singularity. It remains a possibility, however, that there exists a well-defined CFT which contains some appropriate description of the TdS singularity. In this event, the singular behavior in the bulk would not be problematic from the perspective of a brane observer. Clearly, this point will require further investigation. Thus, for the time being, the outcomes of this paper should be regarded as speculative.

## 7 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank V.P. Frolov for helpful conversations.


format: text

text:
# A FULL BAYESIAN APPROACH FOR INVERSE PROBLEMS

## 1. Introduction

In a general Bayesian inference, we have the data $`𝒚`$, a known relation between the unknown parameters $`𝒙`$ and $`𝒚`$ and finally the hyperparameters $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜽`$. The Bayesian estimation technique is now well established  and has been used since many years to resolve the inverse problems in signal and image reconstruction and restoration .

The first step before applying the Bayes’ rule is to assign the prior probability laws $`p(𝒙|𝜽)`$, $`p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)`$, $`p(𝜽)`$ and $`p(𝜷)`$. The next step is to determine the posterior laws and then to infer the unknowns. In this paper we are focusing more on the second step than on the first step. So we assume that all the direct probability laws are known.

The main object of this paper is to show how can we infer simultaneously the unknown parameters $`𝒙`$ and the hyperparameters $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜽`$ from the data $`𝒚`$.

Before going more in details let us give one example. This will permit us to fix the situations. Consider the case where the unknown parameters $`𝒙`$ represent the pixel values of an unobserved image and the data $`𝒚`$ are the pixel values of an observed image which is assumed to be a degraded version of it. If we consider a linear degradation we have

$$𝒚=𝑨𝒙+𝒏,$$
(1)
where $`𝑨`$ is a $`(m\times n)`$ matrix representing the degradation process and $`𝒏`$ represents the measurement uncertainty (noise) which is assumed to be additive, centered, white, Gaussian and independent of $`𝒙`$. This hypothesis leads us to

$$p(𝒚|𝒙,\beta )=\frac{1}{Z_1(\beta )}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\beta (𝒚𝑨𝒙)^t(𝒚𝑨𝒙)\right\}.$$
(2)
In this case $`\beta `$ is a positive parameter which is related to the noise variance $`\sigma _b^2`$ by $`\beta =1/\sigma _b^2`$ and $`Z_1(\beta )=(2\beta /\pi )^{m/2}`$ is the normalizing factor.

Consider also, for this example, a Gaussian prior law for $`𝒙`$ :

$$p(𝒙|\theta )=\frac{1}{Z_2(\theta )}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\theta \varphi (𝒙)\right\}\text{with}\varphi (𝒙)=𝒙^t𝑷_0^1𝒙,$$
(3)
where $`\theta =1/\sigma _x^2`$ is a positive parameter, $`𝑷_0`$ is the a priori covariance matrix of $`𝒙`$ and $`Z_2(\theta )=(2\theta /\pi )^{n/2}|𝑷_0|^{1/2}`$.

A well known case is the situation where $`\theta `$, $`\beta `$ and $`𝑷_0`$ are known and we only want to estimate $`𝒙`$. In fact, in this special case, the joint law $`p(𝒚,𝒙|𝜽,𝜷)`$ and the posterior law $`p(𝒙|𝒚,𝜽,𝜷)`$ are both Gaussian and we have

$$p(𝒙|𝒚,𝜽,𝜷)\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\beta (𝒚𝑨𝒙)^t(𝒚𝑨𝒙)\frac{1}{2}\theta 𝒙^t𝑷_0^1𝒙\right\},$$
(4)
and, if we note by

$$\widehat{𝒙}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{J(𝒙)=(𝒚𝑨𝒙)^t(𝒚𝑨𝒙)\lambda 𝒙^t𝑷_0^1𝒙\right\}\text{ with }\lambda =\theta /\beta ,$$
(5)
then, it is easy to show that

$$𝒙|𝒚𝒩(\widehat{𝒙},\widehat{𝑷})\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{𝒙}\hfill & =& \beta \widehat{𝑷}𝑨^t𝒚\hfill \\ \widehat{𝑷}\hfill & =& \beta ^1\left(𝑨^t𝑨+\lambda 𝑷_0^1\right)^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
One can make a comparison with the classical regularization techniques for inverse problems with smoothness hypothesis, where $`𝑷_0^1=𝑫^t𝑫`$ with $`𝑫`$ a matrix approximating a differentiation operator and $`\lambda `$ is called the regularization parameter .

What we address here is the generalization of the problem of the determination of the regularization parameter $`\lambda `$ which has been studied for a long time  and is still an open problem.

What is proposed here is to consider the general case where $`𝜽`$ and $`𝜷`$ are considered to be unknown and we are facing to make inference as well about $`𝒙`$ as about them. What we propose is to consider the hyperparameters $`𝜽`$ and $`𝜷`$ in the same manner than $`𝒙`$, i.e; translate our prior knowledge about them by the probability laws $`p(𝜽)`$ and $`p(𝜷)`$, then determine the posterior laws and finally infer about them from these posterior laws.

## 2. General Bayesian inference approach

Assume now that we know the expressions of all the prior laws. We can then calculate the joint probability law:

$$p(𝒚,𝒙,𝜽,𝜷)=p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)p(𝒙|𝜽)p(𝜽)p(𝜷).$$
(7)
In an ideal case where we are given $`𝑨`$, $`𝒚`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜽`$, to infer $`𝒙`$ we can calculate the posterior law $`p(𝒙|𝒚,𝜽,𝜷)`$ and if we choose as the solution to our problem the Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimate, we have:

$$\widehat{𝒙}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒙|𝒚,𝜽,𝜷)\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)p(𝒙|𝜽)\right\}.$$
(8)
But, unfortunately, in practical situations we are not given $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜽`$ and the main problem is how to infer them. We consider the following situations:

1. The first is to estimate the three quantities simultaneously. We call this method Joint Maximum a posteriori (JMAP) and the estimates are defined as

$$(\widehat{𝒙},\widehat{𝜽},\widehat{𝜷})=\text{arg}\underset{(𝒙,𝜽,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)p(𝒙|𝜽)p(𝜷)p(𝜽)\right\}.$$
(9)
One practical way to do this joint optimization is to use the following algorithm

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{𝒙}^{k+1}\hfill & =& \text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|𝒙,\widehat{𝜷}^k)p(𝒙|\widehat{𝜽}^k)\right\}\hfill \\ \widehat{𝜽}^{k+1}\hfill & =& \text{arg}\underset{𝜽}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(\widehat{𝒙}^k|𝜽)p(𝜽)\right\}\hfill \\ \widehat{𝜷}^{k+1}\hfill & =& \text{arg}\underset{𝜷}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|\widehat{𝒙}^k,𝜷)p(𝜷)\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
2. In the second case $`𝜽`$ and $`𝜷`$ are considered as the nuisance parameters and are integrated out of the problem and $`𝒙`$ is estimated by

$`\widehat{𝒙}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒙|𝒚)\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{{\displaystyle p(𝒚,𝒙,𝜽,𝜷)\text{d}𝜽\text{d}𝜷}\right\}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{{\displaystyle p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)p(𝜷)\text{d}𝜷p(𝒙|𝜽)p(𝜽)\text{d}𝜽}\right\}.`$
We call this method Marginalized MAP type one (MMAP1).
3. In the third case only $`𝜽`$ is considered as the nuisance parameter and is integrated out of the problem and $`𝒙`$ and $`𝜷`$ are estimated by

$`(\widehat{𝒙},\widehat{𝜷})`$ $`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{(𝒙,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒙,𝜷|𝒚,𝜽)\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{(𝒙,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{{\displaystyle p(𝒚,𝒙,𝜽,𝜷)\text{d}𝜽}\right\}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{(𝒙,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)p(𝜷){\displaystyle p(𝒙|𝜽)p(𝜽)\text{d}𝜽}\right\}.`$
We call this method Marginalized MAP type two (MMAP2).
4. Finally, in the last case we may first estimate $`\widehat{𝜽}`$ and $`\widehat{𝜷}`$ by

$`(\widehat{𝜽},\widehat{𝜷})`$ $`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{(𝜽,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝜽,𝜷|𝒚)\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{(𝜽,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{{\displaystyle p(𝒚,𝒙,𝜽,𝜷)\text{d}𝒙}\right\}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{(𝜽,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝜷)p(𝜽){\displaystyle p(𝒚|𝒙,𝜷)p(𝒙|𝜽)\text{d}𝒙}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{(𝜽,𝜷)}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝜷)p(𝜽)l(𝜽,𝜷|𝒚)\right\}.`$
and then used them for the estimation of $`𝒙`$ by

$`\widehat{𝒙}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒙|𝒚,\widehat{𝜽},\widehat{𝜷})\right\}.`$ (14)
We call this method Marginalized MAP type three (MMAP3).

Note that if $`p(𝜽)`$ and $`p(𝜷)`$ are uniform functions of $`𝜽`$ and $`𝜷`$, then $`\widehat{𝜽}`$ and $`\widehat{𝜷}`$ correspond to the classical maximum likelihood (ML) estimates because $`l(𝜽,𝜷|𝒚)`$ is, for a given $`𝒚`$, the likelihood function of $`𝜽`$ and $`𝜷`$.

The calculus of $`l(𝜽,𝜷|𝒚)`$ is not easy and so is its optimization. Many works have been done on the subject. We distinguish three kind of methods:

– The first is to use the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm which has been developed exactly in the context of ML parameter estimation .

– The second is to estimate the integral using a Monte Carlo simulation method (Stochastic EM: SEM).

– The third is to make some approximations. For example, at each iteration during the optimization, one may obtain an analytical expression for that integral by approximating the expression inside it by a second order polynomial (Gaussian quadrature approximation).

We will consider this last method.

## 3. A case study

Let us consider the following simple linear inverse problem $`𝒚=𝑨𝒙+𝒏`$ and make the following hypothesis:

* The noise $`𝒏`$ is considered to be white, centered and Gaussian with precision $`\beta `$, so that we have

$$𝒚|𝒙,\beta 𝒩(𝑨𝒙,\beta ^1𝑰)p(𝒚|𝒙,\beta )=\frac{1}{Z_1(\beta )}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\beta 𝒚𝑨𝒙^2\right\}.$$
(15)
where $`Z_1(\beta )\beta ^{m/2}`$.
* Our prior prior knowledge about $`𝒙`$ can be translated by

$$p(𝒙|\theta )=\frac{1}{Z_2(\theta )}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\theta \varphi (𝒙)\right\}.$$
(16)
where we will consider the following special cases for $`\varphi (𝒙)`$:

+ Gaussian priors:

    $$\varphi _G(𝒙)=𝒙^t𝑷_0^1𝒙=𝑫𝒙^2𝒙|\theta 𝒩(\mathrm{𝟎},\theta ^1𝑷_0^1),$$

    which can also be written $`\varphi _G(𝒙)=_j_ip_{ij}x_ix_j`$ with some special cases:

    $$\varphi _G(𝒙)=\underset{j}{}x_j^2,\text{ or }\varphi _G(𝒙)=\underset{j}{}|x_jx_{j1}|^2.$$
    + Generalized Gaussian priors:

    $$\varphi _{GG}(𝒙)=\underset{j}{}|x_jx_{j1}|^p,1<p2.$$
    + Entropic priors:

    $$\varphi _E(𝒙)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}S(x_j)\text{ where }S(x_j)=\{x_j^2,x_j\mathrm{ln}x_jx_j,\mathrm{ln}x_jx_j\}.$$
    + Markovian priors:

    $$\varphi _M(𝒙)=\underset{j}{}\underset{iN_j}{}V(x_j,x_i),\text{where}V(x_j,x_i)\text{ is a potential function }$$

    and where $`N_j`$ is a set of sites considered to be neighbors of site $`j`$, for example $`N_j=\{j1,j+1\},\text{or}N_j=\{j2,j1,j+1,j+2\}`$.

Note that, in all cases $`\theta `$ is generally a positive parameter. Note also that in the first case we have $`Z_2(\theta )\theta ^{n/2}`$. Unfortunately we have not an analytic expression for $`Z_2(\theta )`$ in the other cases. However, in the situations we are concerned with, $`Z_2(\theta )`$ can either be calculated numerically or approximated by

$$Z_2(\theta )\theta ^{\alpha n/2}.$$
(17)
* $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$ are both positive parameters. We choose Gamma prior laws for them:

$$\theta 𝒢(a,\zeta )p(\theta )\theta ^{(a1)}\text{exp}\left\{\zeta \theta \right\}\text{E}\left\{\theta \right\}=a/\zeta ,\text{Var}\left\{\theta \right\}=a/\zeta ^2$$

$$\beta 𝒢(b,\zeta )p(\beta )\beta ^{(b1)}\text{exp}\left\{\zeta \beta \right\}\text{E}\left\{\beta \right\}=b/\zeta ,\text{Var}\left\{\beta \right\}=b/\zeta ^2$$

Now, using the following notations

$$Q(𝒙)=𝒚𝑨𝒙^2,J_0(𝒙)=\beta Q(𝒙)+\theta \varphi (𝒙),$$

$$Q(𝒙)=2𝑨^t(𝒚𝑨𝒙),\text{and}J_0(𝒙)=\beta Q(𝒙)+\theta \varphi (𝒙),$$

we can calculate the expression of the joint $`pdf`$ $`p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )=p(𝒚|𝒙,\beta )p(𝒙|\theta )p(\theta )p(\beta )`$, which can be written

$$p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )\theta ^{(\alpha n/2a+1)}\beta ^{(m/2b+1)}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}J_1(𝒙)\right\},$$
(18)
$$\text{with}J_1(𝒙)=\beta [Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]+\theta [\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]=J_0(𝒙)+2\zeta (\theta +\beta ).$$
(19)
This will let us to go further in details of some of the above mentioned cases. For example in the Gaussian case we have:

$$𝒙|𝒚,\theta ,\beta 𝒩(\widehat{𝒙},\widehat{𝑷})\text{ with }\widehat{𝒙}=\beta \left(\beta 𝑨^t𝑨+\theta 𝑷_0^1\right)^1𝑨^t𝒚\text{ and }\widehat{𝑷}=\left(\beta 𝑨^t𝑨+\theta 𝑷_0^1\right)^1$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta |𝒚,𝒙,\beta 𝒢(a\alpha n/2,\frac{1}{2}[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ])\text{E}\left\{\theta \right|𝒚,𝒙,\beta \}=\frac{2a\alpha n}{[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]},\hfill \\ \beta |𝒚,𝒙,\theta 𝒢(bm/2,\frac{1}{2}[Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ])\text{E}\left\{\beta \right|𝒚,𝒙,\theta \}=\frac{2bm}{[Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, let us consider the four aforementioned methods a little more in details.

### 3.1. Joint Maximum A Posteriori (JMAP)

Using the expressions and the notations of the last paragraph in (11) we have to deal with the following algorithm:

$`\widehat{𝒙}^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|𝒙,\widehat{\beta }^k)p(𝒙|\widehat{\theta }^k)\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{J_0(𝒙,\widehat{\beta }^k,\widehat{\theta }^k)\right\},`$
$`\widehat{\theta }^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{\theta }{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(\widehat{𝒙}^k|\theta )p(\theta )\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{\theta }{\mathrm{min}}\left\{[\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]\theta (2a\alpha n2)\mathrm{ln}\theta \right\},`$
$`\widehat{\beta }^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{arg}\underset{\beta }{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚|\widehat{𝒙}^k,\beta )p(\beta )\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{\beta }{\mathrm{min}}\left\{[Q(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]\beta (2bm2)\mathrm{ln}\beta \right\}.`$
The two last equations have explicit solutions. In the case of Gaussian priors, the first equation has also an explicit solution. However, in general, we propose the following gradient based algorithm:

$`\text{Algorithm 1:}\widehat{𝒙}^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mu )\widehat{𝒙}^k\mu J_0(\widehat{𝒙}^k,\widehat{\beta }^k,\widehat{\theta }^k)`$
$`=`$ $`(1\mu )\widehat{𝒙}^k\mu [\widehat{\beta }^kQ(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+\widehat{\theta }^k\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)],0<\mu <1,`$
$`\widehat{\theta }^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2a\alpha n2)}{[\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]}},a>(\alpha n+2)/2,`$
$`\widehat{\beta }^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2bm2)}{[Q(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]}},b>(m+2)/2.`$
The conditions $`a>(\alpha n+2)/2`$ and $`b>(m+2)/2`$ are added to satisfy, when necessary, the positivity constraint of $`\widehat{𝜽}`$ and $`\widehat{𝜷}`$.

### 3.2. Marginalized Maximum A Posteriori $`\text{MMAP}^1`$

Considering $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$ as the nuisance parameters and integrating out them from $`p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )`$ we obtain

$$p(𝒚,𝒙)=p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )\text{d}\beta \text{d}\theta [Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]^{(m2b)/2}[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]^{(\alpha n2a)/2}$$
(20)
Now, defining $`\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MMAP}}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒙|𝒚)\right\}=\text{arg}\underset{𝒙}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_2(𝒙)\right\},`$

$$\text{with}J_2(𝒙)=(2a\alpha n)\mathrm{ln}[Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]+(2bm)\mathrm{ln}[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ],$$
(21)
and trying to calculate this solution by an iterative gradient based algorithm, we have to calculate

$$J_2(𝒙)=\frac{(2a\alpha n)}{[Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]}Q(𝒙)+\frac{(2bm)}{[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]}\varphi (𝒙).$$

We propose then the following iterative algorithm:

$`\text{Algorithm 2:}\widehat{𝒙}^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mu )\widehat{𝒙}^k\mu J_2(\widehat{𝒙}^k)`$
$`=`$ $`(1\mu )\widehat{𝒙}^k\mu [\widehat{\beta }^kQ(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+\widehat{\theta }^k\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)],0<\mu <1,`$
$`\widehat{\theta }^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2a\alpha n)}{[\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]}},a>\alpha n/2,`$
$`\widehat{\beta }^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2bm)}{[Q(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]}},b>m/2.`$
### 3.3. Marginalized Maximum A Posteriori $`\text{MMAP}^2`$

In this case, $`\theta `$ only is considered as a nuisance parameter and is integrated out:

$`p(𝒚,𝒙,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )\text{d}\theta }`$ (22)
$``$ $`\beta ^{m/2+b1}[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]^{(\alpha n2a)/2}\text{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta [Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]\right\}.`$
Then, $`𝒙`$ and $`\beta `$ are estimated by

$$(\widehat{𝒙},\widehat{\beta })=\underset{𝒙,\beta }{\text{arg}\mathrm{max}}\left\{p(𝒚,𝒙,\beta )\right\}.$$
(23)
Noting

$$2\mathrm{ln}p(𝒚,𝒙,\beta )=(2bm2)\mathrm{ln}\beta +(2a\alpha n)\mathrm{ln}[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]+\beta [Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]$$

and differentiating it with respect to $`\beta `$ gives

$$\widehat{\beta }=\frac{2bm2}{[Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]}.$$

So, noting

$$J_3(𝒙,\beta )=(2a\alpha n)\mathrm{ln}[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]+\beta [Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]$$
(24)
$$\text{and}J_3(𝒙,\beta )=\frac{2a\alpha n}{[\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ]}\varphi (𝒙)+\beta Q(𝒙),$$

and using a gradient based algorithm for minimizing $`J_3`$ with respect to $`𝒙`$ we propose the following:

$`\text{Algorithm 3:}\widehat{𝒙}^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mu )\widehat{𝒙}^{k+1}\widehat{\beta }^kQ(𝒙)\widehat{\theta }^k\varphi (𝒙),0<\mu <1,`$
$`\widehat{\theta }^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a\alpha n}{[\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]}},a>(\alpha n+2)/2`$
$`\widehat{\beta }^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2bm2}{[Q(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]}},b>(m+2)/2.`$
### 3.4. Maximum Likelihood or $`\text{MMAP}^3`$

In this case first $`𝒙`$ integrated out $`𝒙`$ from $`p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )`$ to obtain:

$$p(𝒚,\theta ,\beta )=p(𝒚,𝒙,\theta ,\beta )\text{d}𝒙=\frac{\beta ^{(b1)}}{Z_2(\beta )}\frac{\theta ^{(a1)}}{Z_1(\theta )}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}J_1(𝒙,\beta ,\theta )\right\}\text{d}𝒙$$
(25)
$$\text{with}J_1(𝒙,\beta ,\theta )=\beta [Q(𝒙)+2\zeta ]+\theta [\varphi (𝒙)+2\zeta ].$$
(26)
Excepted the Gaussian case where $`J_1`$ is a quadratic function of $`𝒙`$, in general, it is not easy to obtain an analytical expression for this integral. One can then try to make a Gaussian approximation which means to develop $`J_1`$ around its minimum $`\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MAP}}=\text{arg}\mathrm{min}_𝒙\left\{J_1(𝒙,\beta ,\theta )\right\}`$ by

$$J_1(𝒙,\beta ,\theta )\frac{1}{2}(𝒙\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MAP}})^t𝑴(𝒙\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MAP}})+𝒈^t(𝒙\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MAP}})+c,$$
(27)
where $`𝒈=\beta Q(𝒙)+\theta \varphi (𝒙)`$ is the gradient of $`J_1`$ and $`𝑴`$ is its Hessian, both calculated for $`\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MAP}}`$. With this approximation we obtain

$$p(𝒚,\theta ,\beta )=\beta ^{m/2+b1}\theta ^{\alpha n/2+a1}|𝑴(\beta ,\theta )|^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}J_1(\widehat{𝒙}_{\text{MAP}},\beta ,\theta )\right\}.$$
(28)
Differentiating $`l(\theta ,\beta |𝒚)=\mathrm{ln}p(𝒚,\theta ,\beta )`$ with respect to $`\beta `$ and $`\theta `$ gives

$$\widehat{\beta }=\frac{2bm2}{[Q(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]+\text{trace}[𝑴^1𝑨^t𝑨]},\widehat{\theta }=\frac{2a\alpha n2}{[\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]+\text{trace}[𝑴^1𝑷_0^1]}.$$

where $`𝑷_0^1`$ is the Hessian of $`\varphi (𝒙)`$, $`𝑨^t𝑨`$ is the Hessian of $`Q(𝒙)`$ and $`𝑴`$ is the Hessian of $`J_1(𝒙)`$:

$$𝑴(\beta ,\theta )=\beta 𝑨^t𝑨+\theta 𝑷_0^1.$$

Using these expressions we propose the following algorithm:

$`\text{Algorithm 4:}\widehat{𝒙}^k`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{𝒙}{\text{arg}\mathrm{min}}\left\{J_1(𝒙,\widehat{\beta }^k,\widehat{\theta }^k)\right\}=𝑴(\widehat{\beta }^k,\widehat{\theta }^k)^1𝑨^t𝒚,`$
$`\widehat{\theta }^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a\alpha n2}{[\varphi (\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]+\text{trace}[𝑴^1𝑷_0^1]}},`$
$`\widehat{\beta }^{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2bm2}{[Q(\widehat{𝒙}^k)+2\zeta ]+\text{trace}[𝑴^1𝑨^t𝑨]}}.`$
This algorithm needs the inversion of the matrix $`𝑴`$ which is very costly in practice.

## 4. Comparison and the main structure of the proposed algorithmes

Comparing the Algorithms 1 to 4, one can see that they all have the same structure:

* for fixed $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$ optimize locally a criterion $`J(𝒙,\beta ,\theta )`$, and
* update $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$ using the solution $`\widehat{𝒙}`$ just obtained and iterate until convergence.

Note also that only in Algorithm 4, the updating step takes account of the measurement system operator $`𝑨`$ and the covariance structure $`𝑷_0`$ of the input $`𝒙`$.

## 5. Conclusions and perspectives

We considered the inverse problem of infering the unknowns $`𝒙`$ from the data $`𝒚`$ in a special case of linear inverse problems $`𝒚=𝑨𝒙+𝒏`$ using a full bayesian approach and presented four algorithms to estimate simultanously the hyperparameters $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$ and the unknowns $`𝒙`$. The main structure of all of these algorithms are the same even if the procedure to deduce them have been different. However, we have not yet really tested them to give any conclusion about their relative performances. Note however that one of them distinguishes itself from the others by taking account of the measurement system operator $`𝑨`$ and the covariance structure $`𝑷_0`$ of $`𝒙`$ in the hyperparameters updating step and, by the same way, by its calculation cost. We hope to be able to give some measure of their relative performances in simulation and in real applications in near future.


text:
# Driving Hamiltonian in a Quantum Searching Problem

## Abstract

We examine the driving Hamiltonian in the analog analogue of Grover’s algorithm by Farhi and Gutmann. For a quantum system with a given oracle Hamiltonian $`E|ww|`$, we explicitly show that while the driving Hamiltonian $`E|ss|`$ optimally produces the state $`|w`$ from an initial state $`|s`$, the driving Hamiltonian $`E^{}|ss|(E^{}E)`$ does not provide any speedup compared even with a classical computation.

PACS number(s):03.67.Lx

In the ordinary paradigm for quantum computation, a computation is a sequence of elementary unitary transformations. Recently, Farhi et.al. have advocated another type of quantum computation, which has been applied to the NP-complete problem 3-SAT. In their method an initial ground state adiabatically develops in continuos time obeying to a slowly varying Hamiltonian. Choosing a suitable driving Hamiltonian we can obtain a preferable state with high probability after a certain time. Proceeding to this @adiabatic method, Farhi and Gutmann have proposed an analog analogue of the Grover’s algorithm. The adiabatic approximation is not necessary for this rather simple problem. Since, it is important to design a driving Hamiltonian to shorten the time, in this brief report we examine the driving Hamiltonian in .

The problem we consider is to search an unknown state $`|w`$ in a unit sphere of $`N`$-dimensional complex vector space under a given Hamiltonian

$$H_w=E|ww|.$$
(1)
A restricted version of this problem is to find a state $`|w`$ from the set of $`N`$ orthonormal states $`|a(a=1N)`$. This Hamiltonian is an oracle in the sense $`H_w|a=\delta _{a,w}E|a`$. The procedure is first to choose an arbitrary initial state $`|s`$, or in the restricted version to start from the superposition state $`|s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}_{a=1}^N|a`$. Second we add the given Hamiltonian the following driving Hamiltonian

$$H_d=E^{}|ss|.$$
(2)
In  it has been shown by a rather indirect way that the case $`E^{}=E`$ is optimal, which means that at $`E^{}=E`$ the time the initial state $`|s`$ develops into $`|\omega `$ with the probability 1 almost attains the minimum value that is obtained by the general discussion. In this brief report we examine another possibility of the value of $`E^{}`$ to shorten the time to obtain the state $`|w`$. Even if the probability of obtaining the state $`|w`$ is less than 1 for a trial, we can obtain the state $`|w`$ with high probability by repeating trials. It may be possible to realize total speedup by shortening the time for each trial.

The initial state develops under the total Hamiltonian $`H=H_w+H_d`$ as $`|\psi (t)=e^{iHt}|s`$. The Hamiltonian causes transition between $`|s`$ and $`|w`$. After some tedious calculations we obtain the following transition amplitude

$$w|\psi (t)=x\mathrm{cos}\omega t+i\mathrm{cos}(2\theta \phi )\mathrm{sin}\omega t,$$
(3)
where $`x=w|s(0x1)`$ which we can set real and nonnegative by choosing the phase of $`|s`$ properly, $`\mathrm{tan}\phi =\frac{\sqrt{1x^2}}{x}(0\phi \frac{\pi }{2})`$ and

$$\omega =E\sqrt{\left(\frac{1ϵ}{2}\right)^2+ϵx^2},$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{tan}\theta =\frac{ϵx\sqrt{1x^2}}{\frac{1ϵ}{2}+ϵx^2\sqrt{(\frac{1ϵ}{2})^2+ϵx^2}}$$
(5)
with $`ϵ=\frac{E^{}}{E}`$. The angle $`\theta `$ increases from $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ to $`\frac{\pi }{2}+\phi `$ as $`ϵ`$ increases from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. Especially, when $`ϵ=1`$ we have $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}+\frac{\phi }{2}`$. For $`N`$ large enough, $`x`$ asymptotically obeys the distribution $`\sqrt{\frac{4N}{\pi }}e^{Nx^2}`$. Hence, $`x`$ is expected to be $`O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}})`$, and in the following we set $`x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(\phi \frac{\pi }{2})`$, which also is the value of $`x`$ in the restricted version.

For $`ϵ=1`$ we have $`\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta \phi )=1,\omega =\frac{E}{\sqrt{N}}`$, and at $`t=\frac{2\sqrt{N}}{\pi E}`$ the state $`|s`$ develops to $`|w`$, which is the case in . In contrast with this, for $`ϵ>1`$ we have $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =\frac{ϵ}{ϵ1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}},\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$ and for $`ϵ<1`$ we have $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =1,\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{ϵ}{ϵ1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$. Thus for $`ϵ1`$ we have

$$\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta \phi )=\left(\frac{ϵ+1}{ϵ1}\right)^2\frac{1}{N}.$$
(6)
This will mean that for $`E^{}E`$, even though the time $`t=\frac{2}{\pi \omega }`$ that the amplitude $`|w|\psi (t)|`$ reaches the maximum may become shorter, we need roughly $`N`$-times attempts to obtain the state $`|w`$. Especially, in the limit $`E^{}\mathrm{}`$, we need the same number of measurements as the classical case. Thus we cannot expect any speedup by the driving Hamiltonian with $`E^{}E`$. The optimal case $`E^{}=E`$ seems very special.


text:
# Localization and causality for a free particle

## 1 Introduction

According to Hegerfeldt’s theorem , “Positivity of the Hamiltonian alone \[means\] that particles, if initially localized in a finite region, immediately develop infinite tails.” Does this mean signals propagate faster than light ? Is causality in jeopardy of being overthrown, or is this theorem further evidence of cracks in the foundations of quantum mechanics? In our view, the Hegerfeldt theorem does not imply a failure of causality or relativity. Instead, it is a comment on the nature of quantum mechanics (but not a fatal flaw in quantum mechanics). Hegerfeldt’s theorem is an “if…then” statement, and since the “then” part (immediate infinite tails) is nonsensical physics, we conclude that the “if” part of the theorem (localized wave functions) should not be realizable for a sound quantum theory. Thus Hegerfeldt’s theorem really means that a logically consistent single-particle quantum theory should not allow localization. To back up this claim, we offer analyses of the free-particle Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations to show that for positive energy solutions, the traditional definitions of particle density (or energy density for the Klein-Gordon equation) do not allow the localization required by the Hegerfeldt theorem.

We will focus our attention on the strongest version of Hegerfeldt’s theorem, presented in Ref., and referred to as H1. The H1 theorem obtains superluminal speeds if the probability of finding a particle outside a bounded region decays with distance at a sufficiently large exponential rate. The results derived here apply to H1 as well as to weaker versions of the theorem (where more stringent localization is needed to prove superluminal speed) , . Our results are not directly related to localization theorems of field theory (see e.g. J.M. Knight).

The building blocks of Hegerfeldt’s theorem are a positive Hamiltonian, $`H`$, and a localization operator, $`N(V)`$, whose expectation value corresponds to the probability of finding a particle (or a particle’s energy) inside a volume $`V`$. To investigate applicability of the theorem, it is a natural to consider a Hamiltonian and localization operator based on the most familiar relativistic wave equations of quantum mechanics: the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations. We will consider both these cases.

For a free particle, one can construct a positive Dirac Hamiltonian by restricting the Hilbert space of wave functions to positive energy solutions. The simplest definition of $`N(V)`$ is then obtained by projecting the standard Dirac probability density onto this positive-energy Hilbert space.

For the Klein-Gordon equation, the positive energy Hamiltonian is obtained by taking the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation. The absence of a positive Klein-Gordon probability density forces us to consider an alternative interpretation of the Hegerfeldt theorem. If one associates $`N(V)`$ with the probability of finding the particle’s energy in the region $`V`$, then $`N(V)`$ is positive, normalizable and well-defined. Furthermore, the interpretation of $`N(V)`$ as the probability for finding the particle’s energy in the volume $`V`$ does not change the superluminal implication of the theorem.

Our basic conclusion is that H1 cannot be applied to the Dirac or Klein-Gordon equations using the $`N(V)`$ described above because one cannot form a sufficiently localized $`N(V)`$ to satisfy the postulates of the theorem. We view this as a positive result, because it gives one greater confidence in the internal consistency of these cornerstones of quantum mechanics. For both the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, our mathematics can be summarized and simplified in terms of the momentum space wave function, $`\psi (\stackrel{}{k})`$. Localization is inconsistent with the wave equations because

$`localization`$ $``$ $`analytic\psi (\stackrel{}{k})`$
$`waveequation`$ $``$ $`nonanalytic\psi (\stackrel{}{k})`$
The “analytic-nonanalytic” distinction will be made precise in Sections 2 and 3, where we will discuss the Dirac and Klein-Gordon examples.

One can consider alternative forms for $`N(V)`$ which allow the localization needed to apply Hegerfeldt’s theorem. One famous alternative is based on the Newton-Wigner position operator, which does satisfy the postulate of H1 (as well as weaker versions of the theorem). In our opinion, the fact that superluminal velocities would occur if the Newton-Wigner approach were valid is another argument against Newton-Wigner localization. The Newton-Wigner approach also encounters difficulty with Lorentz invariance, and particle conservation. (See Kalnay and Rosenstein and Usher  for additional discussion).

We need to be precise about the meaning of “localization.” In H1 superluminal speed was proved when a particle was exponentially localized so that the probability of finding the particle outside a sphere of radius $`R`$ was bounded by $`\overline{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2\gamma R),`$ with $`\overline{A}<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma >m`$. We use units where $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, so the particle’s mass $`m`$ corresponds to the inverse of its Compton wave length $`\lambda =\mathrm{}/(mc)`$. We take this bound as our definition of localization and apply it in Sections 2 and 3. The final section includes some comments and a brief discussion of other work. In particular, we acknowledge the importance of work by Thaller  in our derivations.

## 2 Dirac Equation

Hegerfeldt’s theorem applies to systems with a positive Hamiltonian, but the Dirac equation has both positive and negative eigenvalues. However, for free particles, the Hilbert space $``$ of solutions to the Dirac equation is the sum of positive energy and negative energy Hilbert spaces.

$$=h_++h_{}$$
(1)
The Dirac free-particle Hamiltonian is well-defined and positive on $`h_+`$.

The Dirac equation allows the construction of a particle current 4-vector, whose time-like component is a probability density

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\psi _i^{}(\stackrel{}{r},t)\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(2)
where the sum is over spinor components. (In the notation of QED, this is written as $`\rho =\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi `$.) Associated with this probability density is an operator $`N(V)`$ which gives the probability that a particle is within a volume $`V`$.

$$N(V)=I_4P(V)$$
(3)
where $`P(V)`$ is the projection onto the volume $`V`$

$$P(V)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1\hfill & & \stackrel{}{r}V\hfill \\ 0\hfill & & \stackrel{}{r}V\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
and $`I_4`$ is the unit $`4\times 4`$ matrix which operates on the $`4`$component spinors. In the full Hilbert space of 4-component solutions, particles can be localized. For example, one can pick wave functions which vanish outside a finite region of space. But these localized states do not lie in the positive energy space $`h_+`$, and projecting them into $`h_+`$ yields non-localized wave functions. It is this delocalization which makes the application of Hegerfeldt’s theorem impossible.

The natural generalization of $`N(V)`$ to $`h_+`$ is

$$N(V)_+=P_+N(V)P_+$$
(5)
where $`P_+`$ is the projection from $``$ onto $`h_+`$. Then for any wave function $`\psi h_+`$, $`P_+\psi =\psi `$ and

$$\psi ,N(V)_+\psi =\psi ,N(V)\psi $$
(6)
gives the probability that a positive energy particle is within the volume $`V`$. Thus when working with wave functions in $`h_+`$, one can use the definition of Eq. (2) and omit the subscript on $`N(V)`$.

To apply Hegerfeldt’s theorem as described in H1, one must first exhibit a normalized wave function in $`h_+`$ which is localized so that

$$\psi ,N(B_r)\psi >1\overline{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2\gamma r)$$
(7)
where $`B_r`$ is a sphere of radius $`r`$ and $`\gamma >m`$. This inequality can be satisfied only if there is a wave function in $`h_+`$, each of whose components satisfies the condition

$$\left|\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r},0)\right|<A\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma r\right)$$
(8)
for all $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and a finite $`A`$. This bound on $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r},0)`$ implies a range of analyticity of the Fourier transform of the wave function components given by

$$\psi _i(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r})\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r},0)d^3r$$
(9)
Localization means each $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is an analytic function of the vector components of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in the complex-plane strip characterized by

$$\left|\text{Im}(\stackrel{}{k})\right|m$$
(10)
Rather than presenting a proof of this analytic property, we illustrate the structure of $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{k})`$ with a simple example. Assume a $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r},0)`$ is minimally localized, so that it takes on the value of its upper bound in Eq. (8). Then the Fourier integral (obtained most simply in spherical coordinates where $`d^3r=2\pi r^2d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )dr`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}=kr\mathrm{cos}\theta `$) gives

$$\psi _i(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{A}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}\frac{8\pi \gamma }{\left(k^2+\gamma ^2\right)^2}$$
(11)
which is analytic for $`\left|\text{Im}(\stackrel{}{k})\right|<\gamma `$, and since $`\gamma >m`$ we obtain the condition of Eq. (10). If the wave function is more strongly localized, so the magnitude of $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r},0)`$ is decreased, the range of analyticity of $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{k})`$ can only increase. A formal analyticity proof is based on Theorem IX.13 of Reed and Simon .

The Dirac equations yields the opposite conclusion on the analyticity of wave functions. The requirement of positive frequency means the four components of the wave function are not all independent. For spin-polarization $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, the components of the momentum space wave function must satisfy the condition

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _3(\stackrel{}{k})\hfill \\ \psi _4(\stackrel{}{k})\hfill \end{array}\right)=\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{\sqrt{m^2+k^2}+m}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1(\stackrel{}{k})\hfill \\ \psi _2(\stackrel{}{k})\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(12)
The branch cut in $`\sqrt{m^2+k^2}`$ at $`k=im`$ means all four components $`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{k})`$ cannot be analytic when $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is imaginary with magnitude $`m`$, and this is inconsistent with Eq. (10).

This analysis of the wave function’s analytic structure shows that Hegerfeldt’s theorem does not apply to positive energy free particles described by the Dirac equation (with the traditional probability density) because these particles cannot be described by localized wave functions. The exponential tail required of positive energy solutions to the Dirac equation decays too slowly to allow application of the theorem of H1.

## 3 Klein-Gordon Equation

The interpretation of a single spin-zero particle described by the Klein-Gordon equation presents different problems. A positive probability density cannot be defined (even for a free particle). However, one can consider a modification of Hegerfeldt’s result which uses the particle’s energy density instead of its probability density as the basis for constructing an $`N(V)`$. Since relativity also limits the propagation speed of energy to be less than the speed of light, the potential contradiction of quantum mechanics and relativity is still an issue.

The Klein-Gordon equation is

$$\frac{^2\psi }{t^2}=^2\psi +m^2\psi $$
(13)
The positivity assumption means the only allowed solutions are linear combinations of positive frequency plane wave states of the form

$$\psi _k(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}i\omega (k)t\right)$$
(14)
with

$$\omega (k)=+\sqrt{k^2+m^2}$$
(15)
Thus the Klein-Gordon equation restricted to positive frequencies can be written as

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}=\sqrt{^2+m^2}\psi $$
(16)
where the meaning of the positive energy operator on the right is obtained from the Fourier transformed expression for $`\psi `$.

As is well know from the history of the Klein-Gordon equation, one cannot easily justify $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ as a probability density. (However, it is related to the Newton-Wigner approach to localization.) The standard Klein-Gordon density is the “charge density”

$$\rho _c=\frac{i}{2}\left(\psi ^{}\frac{\psi }{t}\psi \frac{\psi ^{}}{t}\right)$$
(17)
However, $`\rho _c`$ is not always positive, even for the positive frequency free-particle solutions to the free-particle Klein-Gordon equation.

Because we cannot identify a probability density with acceptable physical properties, we propose that the Klein-Gordon energy density is the appropriate way to characterize particle localization. This energy density is proportional to

$$T(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\left|\stackrel{}{}\psi \right|^2+\left|\frac{\psi }{t}\right|^2+m^2\left|\psi \right|^2$$
(18)
We can normalize $`\psi `$ so that the integral of $`T(\stackrel{}{r},t=0)`$ over all space is unity (in a fixed coordinate system). Furthermore application of the Klein-Gordon equation (for a free particle with positive frequencies) shows that this integral cannot vary in time, so a convenient normalization gives

$$T(\stackrel{}{r},t)d^3r=1$$
(19)
for any $`t`$. With this normalization, we define an operator $`N(V)`$ with $`0N(V)1`$ which can be interpreted as the probability that the particle’s energy is confined within the volume $`V`$, because

$$\psi ,N(V)\psi =_VT(\stackrel{}{r},t)d^3r$$
(20)
Since the momentum operator $`i\stackrel{}{}`$ and the operator $`\sqrt{^2+m}`$ of Eq. (16) are Hermitian, the $`N(V)`$ of Eq. (20) for positive energy states is

$$N(V)=\sqrt{^2+m^2}P(V)\sqrt{^2+m^2}\stackrel{}{}\left(P(V)\stackrel{}{}\right)+m^2P(V)$$
(21)
where $`P(V)`$ is the projection onto the volume $`V`$, as defined in Eq. (4).

If $`\psi ,N(V)\psi `$ could be exponentially localized, Hegerfeldt’s theorem would mean a Klein-Gordon particle’s energy density could propagate faster than light. We show that this is impossible following essentially the same reasoning as was used for the Dirac equation. Using Eqs. (18, 20) localization would mean both $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)`$ and $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)/t`$ should be constrained by the exponential bound of Eq. (8). However, as with the Dirac equation, the bounds impose an analytic structure on the Fourier transform of the wave functions. Using standard relativistic notation, we write

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})}{\omega (\stackrel{}{k})}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}i\omega (k)t\right)d^3k$$
(22)
where $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is the “momentum-space wave function.” The inverse Fourier transform of Eq. (22) gives

$$\frac{\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})}{\omega (\stackrel{}{k})}=\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}\right)d^3r$$
(23)
Differentiating Eq. (22) with respect to time and then taking the inverse Fourier transform gives

$$\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})=\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}i\frac{}{t}\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}\right)d^3r$$
(24)
If both $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)`$ and $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)/t`$ satisfy the localization condition of Eq.(8), then both $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})/\omega (k)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ must be analytic functions of the components of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in the strip of the complex plane described by Eq. (10). This is not consistent with the branch cuts in $`\omega (k)`$ at $`k=\pm im`$ which are displayed in Eq. (15).

The Klein-Gordon wave equation combined with our definition of $`N(V)`$ gives the momentum space wave function an analytic structure which prevents the localization required by H1. Thus Hegerfeldt’s theorem cannot prove superluminal energy propagation for free positive energy particles described by the Klein-Gordon equation.

## 4 Comments

An alternative way around the paradox suggested by Hegerfeldt’s theorem is based on physical arguments. Berestetskii, Lifshitz and Pitaevskii ,  point out that single-particle quantum mechanics becomes inadequate (e.g. pair creation) whenever an experiment is done to show that a particle is localized in a region smaller than its Compton wave length. This idea was pursued further by Kaloyerou . Yndurain  and other have used the problems associated with localization as one of the motivations for abandoning quantum mechanics for field theory. While we do not question the arguments for field theory, we do feel that the localization problem continues to deserve attention. Even if ordinary relativistic quantum mechanics is not a fundamental description of nature, the applicability and limitations of single-particle theories are of practical importance.

An early form of Hegerfeldt’s theorem has been known for many years, and many have considered its consequences , , , . We are not the first to suggest that particles cannot be localized. Perez and Wilde  suggested that particles could be only “essentially localized” , . Thaller  noticed that a Dirac particle could not be so strictly localized that its wave function vanished outside a finite region. Our results are an extension of Thaller’s.

The non-localization of Dirac electrons may appear to contradict the result of Bracken and Melloy, who in the paper “Localizing the relativistic electron” obtain a sequence of states whose position uncertainty can be made arbitrarily small . The results are not inconsistent. Since the Bracken-Melloy sequence is not a Cauchy sequence, the localized pointwise limit function cannot be treated as a solution to the Dirac equation.

The problem with the positivity of the Klein-Gordon charge density $`\rho _c`$ has been frequently discussed when an external potential is added to the Klein-Gordon equation. Sometimes a negative $`\rho _c`$ is (dubiously) attributed to strong-field effects (see for example Ref. ).

Our suggestion that the energy density is an appropriate alternative to the probability density is not new. This situation is commonly acknowledged for the photon. For example, Akhiezer and Berestetskii  comment that “.. the localization of a photon in a region smaller in order of magnitude than a wavelength has no meaning, and the concept of probability density for the localization of a photon does not exist. … In practice, it is often sufficient (instead of the equation of continuity for the probability density) to utilize the equation of continuity for the energy density.” We claim that these same comments should apply to a Klein-Gordon particle, except the size of the position uncertainty is the particle’s Compton wave length rather than the photon’s classical wave length. We admit to a prejudice here. Some argue (e.g. Ref. ) that a photon does have a position operator. If such an operator exists, it is certainly not simple.

We wish to thank K. Lee, D. Liguori and M. Sadiq for reading and improving our manuscript.


text:
# THE SEARCH FOR POSSIBLE MESOLENSING OF COSMIC GAMMA-RAY BURSTS. DOUBLE AND TRIPLE BURSTS IN BATSE CATALOGUE

## 1 Introduction

The gravitational lensing event predicted by the General Theory of Relativity were discovered in 1979  for the distant quasar, which image was duplicated by massive elliptical galaxy situated between quasar and observer. Since that time many lensed extragalactic objects (quasars, AGN) were found.

The last years of XX century the hypothesis of extragalactic origin of cosmic gamma-ray bursts  was confirmed (at least for sufficient part of gamma-ray bursts) by X-, optical and radio afterglows discovering (see  for example). But in this case we should observe the gravitational lensing effect for these objects too, as it was firstly reported in . But a number of papers dedicated to the search of lensed gamma-ray bursts  had a negative result.

In this work we shall consider the so-called mesolensing event, when the role of gravitational lens is played by the body like globular stellar cluster in far galaxy or other body with mass about $`10^6M_{}`$. The probability of observation of such type of lensing can be quite large due to the sufficient total mass of such objects in the Universe , especially at large values of $`z`$ . Mesolensing can be very often phenomenon for extragalactic sources, and possibility of very high amount of magnification of the image makes it one of possible explanation of observing correlation of quasars and nearby galaxies . The primary goal of this work is to find gamma-ray bursts having the mesolensed properties.

## 2 Observational Properties of Mesolensed
Gamma-Ray Bursts

The most simple case of gravitational lensing by a point mass, when the light deflecting angle is back proportional to the distance of light path from the lens, was considered many times . The scheme of this phenomenon is shown on Fig.1a. In this case an observer $`O`$ will see two images of the source $`S`$ at different sides from the lens $`L`$. Angular distances of images from the lens $`\theta _{1,2}`$ will be equal to

$$\theta _{1,2}=\frac{\alpha }{2}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)^2+\theta _0^2}\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between source and lens directions and $`\theta _0`$ is angular Enstein radius defined by the formula

$$\theta _0=\sqrt{\frac{4GML_{LS}}{c^2L_{OS}L_{OL}}}\text{,}$$
(2)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the lens. However in the case of gamma-ray bursts we cannot resolve two different lensed images with separation about 1′′, but we can detect another effect related with difference of time of light propagation along trajectories 1 and 2. This effect appears for two reasons: geometrical difference of path lengths and relativistic time delay near the mass $`L`$ (Shapiro effect). This effects are adding to each other and finally burst signals by path 1 will reach the observer earlier than by path 2 and total time delay between moments of registration will be equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{2GM\left(1+z_L\right)}{c^3}\left[\frac{\theta _1^2\theta _2^2}{\theta _0^2}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\theta _1^2}{\theta _2^2}\right]\text{,}$$
(3)
where $`z_L`$ is the lens redshift. In the case of gravitational lensing the gamma-ray burst will have two lightcurve components with similar profiles (differing only by a factor of constant) and similar spectra. Magnification of two images will be different and image 1 will be $`K`$ times brighter than image 2, and brightness ratio can be expressed by the formula

$$K=\frac{\theta _1^2}{\theta _2^2}\text{.}$$
(4)
Comparing the formulae (3) and (4) we obtain relation of two observational parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`K`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{2GM\left(1+z_L\right)}{c^3}\left[\frac{K1}{\sqrt{K}}+\mathrm{ln}K\right]\text{.}$$
(5)
Here we can see that for given $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`K`$ from observations one may obtain mass $`M`$ if we can assume small $`z_L`$ and small size of the lens. We can also see that for $`K>1`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>0`$ and in the case of point mass lens bright image will be registered earlier than faint one.

As we can see from (5) time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is proportional to the lens mass $`M`$ and type of lens will define type of lensing. In the case of macrolensing when the galaxy or galaxy cluster with mass about $`10^{11}10^{13}M_{}`$ plays the role of lens the time delay will be equal to several months or years and in the same case we should register two different gamma-ray bursts from the one region on the sky. The search for this type of lensing was conducted in , but the result was negative.

In the case of microlensing on a singular star the time delay, vice versa, will be very small, about $`10^5sec`$ and such duplication of burst lightcurve is very difficult to detect. Finally, in the case of mesolensing the amount of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ will be equal to several seconds what is comparable with the burst duration, and in this case we shall see one burst with duplication of its lightcurve on two similar (by a factor of constant) components with equal spectra.

But possible gravitational lens may be extended object with definite size and in this case formulae above will not be correct. To estimate the range of valiability of point mass assumption we compare the external radius of globular cluster $`r_t`$ and spatial Einstein radius $`\theta _0L_{OL}`$. This leads us to the limitation to the lens distance:

$$L_0\frac{r_t^2c^2L_{OS}}{4GML_{LS}}\frac{r_t^2c^2}{4GM}\text{.}$$
(6)
If we take values $`r_t=30pc`$ and $`M=510^5M_{}`$ that are typical for globular clusters , we shall obtain $`L_0`$ about $`10^{10}pc`$ which is comparable with the size of the Universe. This means that for all smaller distances of mesolenses we have to take into account their spatial mass disribution and light rays going inside of cluster. We shall call this case as “near mesolensing” and the case of point mass lens as “far mesolensing”.

The problem of mesolensing with account of inner structure of globular clusters was investigated in  and developed in . The scheme of near mesolensing is shown on Fig.1b. The density distribution for globular cluster is defined by a King law :

$`\rho \left(p\right)=\rho _0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{r_c^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},p<r_t`$
$`\rho \left(p\right)=0,pr_t\text{,}`$ (7)
where $`p`$ is the distance from the cluster center, $`\rho _0`$ is the central density of the cluster and $`r_c`$ is the core radius of the cluster. Following  and , we express the distances $`l`$ (from ray path to the lens center), $`l_s`$ (from lens center to the “source-observer” line), and $`r_t`$ in the units of $`r_c`$:

$$x=\frac{l}{r_c},y=\frac{l_s}{r_c},x_t=\frac{r_t}{r_c}\text{.}$$
(8)
In this unit system the deflecing angle $`\delta `$ will be expressed as

$$\delta \left(l\right)=\frac{r_c}{F_L}\alpha \left(x\right)\text{,}$$
(9)
where $`F_L`$ (lens focal distance) is determined as

$$F_L=\frac{c^2}{8\pi G\rho _0r_c}\text{,}$$
(10)
and function $`\alpha (x)`$ is following:

$`\alpha \left(x\right)={\displaystyle \frac{ln\left(1+x^2\right)}{x}}4{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+x^2}1}{x\sqrt{1+x_t^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+x_t^2}},xx_t`$
$`\alpha \left(x\right)=\alpha \left(x_t\right){\displaystyle \frac{x_t}{x}},x>x_t\text{.}`$ (11)
The condition of registration of the light ray by observer may be written as

$$\alpha \left(x\right)=\frac{xy}{g}\text{,}$$
(12)
where the spatial parameter $`g`$ is defined by the formula

$$g=\frac{L_{OL}L_{LS}}{L_{OS}F_L}\text{.}$$
(13)
Given parameters $`g`$, $`y`$ and $`x_t`$, formulae (2) and (12) are building an equation for $`x`$, each solution $`x_i`$ of this equation will correspond to one source image an observer notices. The magnification of this image can be expressed by the formula

$$I_i=\left|\frac{x_i}{y}\frac{dx_i}{dy}\right|\text{.}$$
(14)
The time of registration of the $`i`$-image $`t_i`$ relatively to the time of light propagation through the center of cluster $`t_0`$ will be equal to

$$t_it_0=\frac{8\pi G\rho _0r_c^3\left(1+z_L\right)}{c^3}T\left(x_i\right)=C_0T\left(x_i\right)\text{,}$$
(15)
where the function $`T(x)`$ is expressed by the formula

$$T\left(x\right)=2x\alpha \left(x\right)2_0^x\alpha \left(x^{}\right)𝑑x^{}\frac{x^2}{g}\text{.}$$
(16)
Analysis of last formulae shows that at $`g>1`$ there are two caustics. Axial caustic corresponds $`y=0`$ and this case is the analog to the ”Einstein Ring” for the point mass lensing, but now we shall have weak central image along with bright ring. There is also the conic caustic at $`|y|=y_c(g,x_t)`$, when two images merge to one and magnification of this image turns to infinity too. The conic caustic is clearly visible on Fig.2. Axial and conic caustics merge in the focal point of the lens.

The number of images is equal to one outside the conic caustic but rise up to three inside it ($`|y|<y_c(g,x_t)`$). Thus, in the case of near mesolensing of cosmic gamma-ray bursts we can see double or triple lightcurve, but all components should be similar (by the factor of constant) and have similar spectra again. Numerical analysis of formulae (14) and (15) shows that in most part of cases first (by the time of registration) component will be brightest as it took place in the point-mass lensing case, but now this rule can be broken, for example, near the conic caustic surface.

Far and near mesolensing properties discussed above shows that generally we should search for the double and triple gamma-ray bursts with any combinations of component brightness, but bursts with bright first lightcurve component will be more probable candidates to the mesolensed ones.

## 3 The search for possible mesolensed gamma-ray bursts

The search for possible mesolensed bursts were conducted amongst 1512 events registered by BATSE  during the whole CGRO work period from 1991 to 2000 and having MER format data with lightcurves with resolution 16 and 64 $`ms`$ and 16 channel spectra. At the first stage candidates with visually similar two or three lightcurve components were selected and approximate amounts of brightness ratio and time delay between them were estimated. At the second stage the similarity of these lightcurve components was tested by $`\chi ^2`$-method with 0.003 significance level (this test is analogical to the $`3\sigma `$-test) and the values of brightness ratio and time delay were precisely calculated by best $`\chi ^2`$-agreement method. Finally, third stage of the test was $`\chi ^2`$-comparison of the 15 channel spectra of the components with the same significance level (channel 16 data with highest energy with maximum error was ignored). The method is similar to that developed in .

### 3.1 Double gamma-ray bursts

As the result of the search we have found 11 double gamma-ray bursts which two lightcurve components had satisfied all the statistical tests discussed above. Fig.3 shows lightcurves of all 11 candidates and Table 1 contains their parameters: burst name $`NB`$, BATSE trigger number $`Tr`$, burst galactic coordinates $`l`$ and $`b`$, their uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$, brightness ratio of two components $`K`$ and time delay between their registration moments $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. 6 of these candidates from 4 BATSE Catalogue , from GRB 930430B to GRB 960617B were firstly described in paper .

First of all we should emphasize on the fact that the brightest component appeared to be first one for all 11 candidates although, unlike , it was not required at the search procedure! This situation is difficult to imagine in the case of occasional similarity of two burst components and it sufficiently increases the probability of real mesolensing for even though some of these bursts.

Assuming the possible lens to be point mass with not so large $`z_L`$ we can estimate its mass by formula (5) for our 11 far mesolensed candidates. These values of mass are given in the last column of Table 1. For 6 described in  candidates these values of mass differ from noted in  due to taking Shapiro effect into account here. We can see that these values are suitable for globular clusters or objects described in \[7–9\]. We should also note that gamma-ray burst GRB 960617B is situated at $`4^{}`$ (about $`2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$) from galaxy cluster AGC 1060 in Hydra.

### 3.2 Triple gamma-ray bursts

The procedure of statistic test for component similarity for triple bursts was the same as for double ones, best $`\chi ^2`$-agreement method considered all three components data at once. As the result of these tests we had not found new candidates to mesolensed gamma-ray bursts, but third weak component was found and satisfied all similar tests for two double gamma-ray bursts listed above: GRB 911006 and GRB 930430B. As it can be seen on Fig.3, third weak component follows two others for first of these bursts and followed by them for second one. The parameters of relative brightness $`j_i`$ and time delays $`t_it_{i1}`$ for these bursts are given in Table 2. Here parameters $`j_i`$ are normalized that brightness of the strongest component is equal to unity. These values for two brightest components slightly differ from that given in Table 1 for these two bursts due to third component taking into account in $`\chi ^2`$-tests.

Based on the values found we can try to calculate parameters of possible near mesolensing in equations (2) and (12), that is $`g`$, $`y`$ and $`x_t`$. Since we don’t know initial burst energy, brightness data for three components give us only two parameters for this task, for example, normalized brightness values for two weakest components $`j_i`$ given in table 2. Further, since we don’t know both $`t_0`$ and $`C_0`$ in equation (15), time arrival data give us just one parameter for lensing conditions calculation:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{t_2t_1}{t_3t_2}=\frac{T(x_2)T(x_1)}{T(x_3)T(x_2)}\text{.}$$
(17)
The value of this parameter for two triple gamma-ray bursts is shown in the last row of Table 2. Finally we have three independent parameters taken from the observations and may search three corresponding mesolensing parameters.

The search was conducted for values of $`x_t`$ from $`\sqrt{10}=3.16`$ (that is lower than for any known globular cluster in our Galaxy ) to infinity, $`g>1`$, $`0<|y|<y_c(g,x_t)`$, where three lensed images are possible. This procedure was made for both gamma-ray bursts GRB 911006 and GRB 930430B and in both cases no corresponding lensing parameters were found.

This fact itself does not deny the possibility of near mesolensing of two triple gamma-ray bursts, since the lens density distribution may differ from predicted one by King law. Moreover, brightness of one or more components could be increased by microlensing effect at one singular star in a globular cluster, possibility of this effect being noticed in . We may consider these two bursts to be the main candidates for near mesolensing, especially GRB 911006 with three components registered in decreasing order of intensity, which is most probable in the mesolensing case.

Here we should add that the same gamma-ray burst GRB 911006 was localized in thin annulus on the sky by triangulation measurements carried out by CGRO and “Ulysses” spacecraft  and bright ($`13^m`$) galaxy NGC 641 appeared to be situated in about $`10^{^{}}`$ from this annulus near its closest point to the BATSE error box center. Although annulus half-width by $`3\sigma `$-level is, as paper  reports it two times less, about $`5^{^{}}`$.

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

In this work the possible gravitational mesolensing of cosmic gamma-ray bursts was considered. The results of the search for this type of lensing were more successful than that for macrolensing where no candidates were found. All double gamma-ray bursts with similar lightcurve and spectra of components had strong first and weak second pick on the lightcurve. It is this situation that is expected to be seen in the case of far mesolensing. The same picture is observed for one of two triple bursts found, GRB 911006. Taking into account the presence of bright galaxy close to its needle-type error box, we may call it the most interesting candidate considered in this paper.

Surely each of found double or triple bursts could have such lightcurve and spectral features due to the other, not related with gravitational lensing reasons. In connection with that the question of mesolensing probability is actual. This value will be very small if we assume total mass of mesolenses in the Universe to be such as observed in our Galaxy (about $`10^3`$). But total mass of these objects may be sufficiently increased at large $`z`$ , the role of mesolenses can be played by the massive black holes, which number is expected to be very large . We should also note that black hole will be displayed as far (point mass) mesolens independently of its distance, and this can be possible explanation of large number of double bursts with far mesolensing properties.

As in the case of macrolensing, the effect of mesolensing may occur only at extragalactic masses and observation of such event for gamma-ray bursts can be considered as very essential confirmation of extragalactic nature of these objects.

This work was done with financial assistance of Russian Fund for Basic Research, grant 01-02-06247. Author would like to thank V.G. Kurt, B.V. Komberg, Yu.V. Baryshev, Yu.L. Bukhmastova and Ya.Yu. Tikhomirova for their help and remarks.