text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There is considerable interest in understanding hadronic decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ in the final state. The phenomenological study of hadronic processes involving flavour singlet pseudoscalar mesons makes assumptions about their composition. Here I address the issue of the nature of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ from QCD directly, making use of lattice techniques.

Lattice QCD directly provides a bridge between the underlying quark description and the non-perturbative hadrons observed in experiment. The amplitudes to create a given meson from the vacuum with a particular operator made from quark fields are measurable, an example being the determination of $`f_\pi `$. It also allows a quantitative study of the disconnected quark contributions that arise in the flavour singlet sector. The lattice approach provides other information such as that obtained by varying the number of quark flavours and their masses.

In the case of pseudoscalar mesons, the chiral perturbation theory approach also provides links between a quark description and the hadronic states. Indeed since lattice studies are increasingly difficult as the quark mass is reduced, the objective is to find a region of quark mass which is accessible from the lattice and for which chiral perturbation theory is reasonably convergent. As an example, lattice studies  can be used to estimate the size of the higher order terms in a chiral lagrangian approach.

For the pion, lowest order chiral perturbation theory has the well known consequence that the decay constant $`f_\pi `$ describes quantitatively both the $`\mu \nu `$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ decays. For the flavour singlet states ($`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$), the situation is more complicated . The axial anomaly now involves a gluonic component and the definition of decay constants is not straightforward. From the chiral perturbation theory description, one expects the mixing of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ to be most simply described in a quark model basis. In the flavour singlet sector, for pseudoscalar mesons, one then has contributions to the mass squared matrix with quark model content $`(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ (which are labelled as $`n`$ and $`s`$ respectively):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{nn}^2+2x_{nn}& \sqrt{2}x_{ns}\\ \sqrt{2}x_{ns}& m_{ss}^2+x_{ss}\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
Here $`m`$ corresponds to the mass of the flavour non-singlet eigenstate and is the contribution to the mass coming from connected fermion diagrams while $`x`$ corresponds to the contribution from disconnected fermion diagrams. In the limit of no mixing (all $`x=0`$, the OZI suppressed case), then the quenched QCD result is that the $`\eta `$ is degenerate with the $`\pi `$ meson and the $`\eta ^{}`$ would correspond to the $`s\overline{s}`$ pseudoscalar meson. This is not the case, of course, and the mixing contributions $`x`$ are important.

Using as input $`m_{nn}`$, $`m_{ss}`$, $`m_\eta `$ and $`m_\eta ^{}`$, the three mixing parameters $`x`$ cannot be fully determined. It is usual to express the resulting one parameter freedom in terms of a mixing angle, as illustrated in fig. 1, here defined by

$$\eta =\eta _{nn}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \eta _{ss}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \eta ^{}=\eta _{nn}\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\eta _{ss}\mathrm{cos}\varphi $$
(2)
The resulting values of the mixing parameters $`x`$ are shown in fig. 2 (the input value for $`m_{ss}`$ will be discussed later).

The $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons are often described in an SU(3) motivated quark basis, namely $`\eta _8=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}2s\overline{s})/\sqrt{6}`$, $`\eta _1=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+s\overline{s})/\sqrt{3}`$. The mixing angle $`\theta `$ in this basis (see fig. 1) would be given by $`\varphi 54.7^0`$ in a lowest order chiral perturbation theory. In order to have $`f_Kf_\pi `$, one needs higher order terms in the chiral perturbation theory treatment and then the mixing scheme becomes more complicated  in this basis with more than one angle needed.

In the SU(3) symmetric limit, $`m_{nn}=m_{ss}=m`$ and $`x_{nn}=x_{ns}=x_{ss}=x`$, so that only one mixing parameter is relevant and the mixing matrix simplifies considerably to a diagonal form with elements $`m^2`$ (octet) and $`m^2+3x`$ (singlet). Previous lattice studies  have used degenerate quarks, so have explored this case and have found that the mixing parameter $`x`$ is of a magnitude which can explain qualitatively the observed splitting between the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons.

Here I describe a non-perturbative study in QCD from first principles which will be able to establish the values of the mixing parameters $`x`$, including the pattern of SU(3) breaking. This more comprehensive study would take into account the different masses of the light ($`u`$ and $`d`$) quarks and the heavier $`s`$ quark. Within the lattice approach, it is not at present feasible to evaluate using quarks as light as the nearly massless $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks and also it is more tractable to use an even number of degenerate quarks in the vacuum. As I shall show, despite these restrictions, a thorough study of the mixing between $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ is possible.

I focus here on the results of lattice evaluations and I address four topics where lattice input permits us to construct a firm foundation for the $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ mixing:

* From comparing pseudoscalar meson masses with valence quarks of two different masses (namely meson masses $`m_{11}`$, $`m_{12}`$ and $`m_{22}`$), one can estimate the mass $`m_{ss}`$ of the unmixed $`\overline{s}s`$ meson, given the observed $`m_{ns}`$ and $`m_{nn}`$ masses (ie $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ respectively).
* From measuring the mixing parameters $`x_{11}`$, $`x_{12}`$ and $`x_{22}`$ between initial and final flavour singlet states consisting of either quark 1 or 2 with different masses, one can establish consistently the pattern of SU(3) breaking in the mixing: obtaining a mixing angle close to $`45^0`$ in the quark model basis.
* For $`N_f=2`$ degenerate flavours of quark, one can determine the pseudoscalar decay constants for the flavour singlet and non-singlet meson. This input allows us to discuss the relation between the observed $`\gamma \gamma `$ decay modes of $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ and the underlying quark content.
* The topological susceptibility can be measured in both quenched and full QCD and shows the behaviour expected for it to be related to the flavour singlet pseudoscalar mass generation.

## 2 Connected and disconnected contributions

On a lattice one can create pseudoscalar mesons by using any operator that has the required quantum numbers. The simplest choice is $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ represents a quark field. A suitable sum over quark flavours yields the required state ($`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, etc). By summing over spatial positions, one can create a state with zero momentum. One then studies these pseudoscalar mesons by creating them at time $`t=0`$ and annihilating them at time $`t`$ and using the full quark propagators evaluated on the lattice to construct the correlator $`𝒞(t)`$. The basic strategy is then that at large $`t`$ where excited state contributions will be negligible, this correlator behaves as $`e^{mt}`$ where $`m`$ is the lightest mass state with the specified quantum numbers. Hence one can determine meson masses.

A feature that occurs exclusively for flavour singlet mesons, is that there are two independent ways to link up the quarks and antiquarks between the initial and final state - as illustrated in fig. 3. Moreover, these connected and disconnected contributions can be evaluated separately on a lattice, so giving additional insight. Indeed the connected contribution $`C(t)`$ is just the same for flavour singlet and non-singlet mesons. Thus the disconnected contribution $`D(t)`$ is responsible for the difference between them. So, at large $`t`$ one has for the flavour non-singlet correlator

$$𝒞(t)=C(t)ce^{mt}$$
(3)
and for the flavour singlet correlator

$$𝒞(t)=C(t)+D(t)de^{m^{}t}$$
(4)
where $`m`$ is the flavour non-singlet mass and $`m^{}`$ is the flavour singlet mass.

Note that this implies that at large $`t`$

$$\frac{D(t)}{C(t)}=\frac{d}{c}e^{(m^{}m)t}1\frac{d}{c}1\frac{d}{c}(m^{}m)t+O[(m^{}m)^2t^2]$$
(5)
Thus a study of $`D/C`$ gives information on the mass splitting between singlet and non-singlet. This has been explored on a lattice for mesons of all $`J^{PC}`$ values that can be made by local quark bilinears . This study finds that the only sizeable contributions to $`D`$ come for the scalar and pseudoscalar quantum numbers. This conclusion is in agreement with the experimental observation that the meson spectrum is approximately ideal (ie as in the naive quark model) except for those two quantum numbers.

For the pseudoscalar case the behaviour of $`D/C`$ is such that the flavour singlet meson is heavier than the flavour non-singlet, as indeed required by experiment. Also, for $`N_f`$ degenerate flavours of quark, the flavour singlet mass is given by $`m^{}=\sqrt{m^2+N_fx}`$, in terms of the mass matrix approach described above. This gives us access to values of $`x`$ from the lattice for different values of $`N_f`$.

As well as the simple case where all quarks have the same mass and are present as sea-quarks in the vacuum, one can consider on a lattice other cases. One relevant case is with 2 flavours of sea quark (thought of as $`n`$ quarks), but with mesons made out of $`n\overline{s}`$ or $`s\overline{s}`$ where the $`s`$ quark is heavier and so not included in the sea. Here we have a partially quenched scenario since the $`s`$ quarks are not present in the sea. In this case one can show that the disconnected diagram with $`nn`$ as a source and $`ss`$ as a sink can be expressed  as

$$\frac{D_{ns}(t)}{\sqrt{C_{nn}(t)C_{ss}(t)}}=\frac{\sqrt{2}x_{ns}t}{2\sqrt{m_{nn}m_{ss}}}+O(x^2t^2)$$
(6)
which allows $`x_{ns}`$ to be evaluated. Likewise $`x_{ss}`$ can be evaluated.

## 3 Lattice results

### 3.1  The $`s\overline{s}`$ pseudoscalar mass

A meson made from $`s\overline{s}`$ quarks is necessarily flavour singlet and so can mix with other flavour singlet operators via gluonic interactions. In order to understand the mixing between the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, it is important to ask a hypothetical question: what would be the mass of a pseudoscalar meson made of $`s\overline{s}`$ quarks but which is flavour non-singlet? This question can be addressed readily by lattice studies where the extra interactions (disconnected diagrams) associated with the flavour singlet case can be removed explicitly.

Chiral symmetry considerations lead to the expectation that the pseudoscalar meson composed of quarks of mass $`M_q`$ has mass squared $`m^2`$ which behaves linearly with $`M_q`$ at small quark mass. However, at large quark mass ($`c`$ and $`b`$ quarks for instance), one expects the meson mass to vary approximately linearly with the quark mass. Here we are not concerned with the region of very small quark mass where chiral logs are important , so one can summarise this behaviour by

$$m^2=bM_q+cM_q^2+O(M_q^3)$$
(7)
For a pseudoscalar meson made of two different quarks of mass $`M_n`$ and $`M_s`$, we shall assume its mass only depends on $`(M_n+M_s)/2`$ and not on $`(M_sM_n)/2`$ as found in lattice studies  and in lowest order chiral perturbation theory. If eq. 7 were valid with just the linear term in the quark mass(ie $`c=0`$), then one directly obtains the required mass of the pseudoscalar meson composed of $`s`$ quarks, $`m_{ss}^2=2m_{sn}^2m_{nn}^2`$, that is $`2K^2\pi ^2`$, leading to $`m_{ss}=0.687`$ GeV.

This can be explored on a lattice by measuring the pseudoscalar meson mass for valence quarks in combinations 11, 22 and 12. Then, for small $`c/b`$, one has

$$\frac{c}{4b^2}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}(m_{11}^2+m_{22}^2)m_{12}^2}{(m_{22}^2m_{11}^2)^2}$$
(8)
One can then to use dynamical configurations with sea quarks of type 1 and consider the propagation of mesons made of either quark 1 or quark 2, where quark 2 corresponds to a heavier quark.

From such lattice studies, a statistically significant curvature from the $`c`$ term is obtained. Applying this value of $`c`$ to the determination of the $`m_{ss}`$ mass from the $`\pi `$ and K masses, gives  a relative shift upwards due to the curvature term ($`c`$) of 1.1(3)%, corresponding to a value of $`m_{ss}=0.687+0.008`$ GeV.

### 3.2 Flavour-singlet mixing

The mass splitting between flavour non-singlet and singlet mesons can be measured, as discussed above, using lattice evaluation of disconnected quark propagators. This is not an easy task: the contamination from excited states is difficult to remove and the statistical errors turn out to be relatively large. Initial studies have been in the quenched approximation . Here, although there is no flavour splitting of the masses, the mass splitting matrix element $`x`$ can be evaluated. It is, however, preferable to be able to study the mass splitting directly and hence here I focus on results from full QCD simulations . Some technical details of lattice simulations of disconnected correlators can be found in ref. .

Already in the first quenched studies , it was found that $`x`$ increases as the quark mass is decreased. Moreover, it will be interesting to check to see if there is a factorisation of $`x`$ as expected in some chiral perturbation theory descriptions , namely $`x_{12}^2=x_{11}x_{22}`$. Consider now the more realistic (partially quenched) case: with heavier quarks of type 2 in a sea of two flavours of quarks of type 1.

Setting the sea quark mass to strange in both quenched and $`N_f=2`$ evaluations leads to a consistent lattice estimate  of $`x_{ss}`$ in the range 0.09 to 0.13 GeV2. This value is also consistent with that reported from a study of $`N_f=2`$ by the CP-PACS collaboration  with strange quarks which gives values of $`x_{ss}=0.10`$ GeV2 and 0.14 GeV2 (depending on using $`t_{\mathrm{min}}=2,3`$ in fits, respectively). These lattice values are obtained at quite coarse lattice spacings and there may be some additional systematic error arising from the extrapolation to the continuum limit. The authors  have, however, chosen to use a non-perturbatively improved fermion action  to minimise this extrapolation error.

They are unable to determine directly the mixing strengths $`x`$ for lighter quarks than strange. However, the $`x`$ values do show a decrease with increasing quark mass and also approximate factorisation. So they assume that the value of $`x`$ continues to increase as the quark mass is decreased below strange in a similar way to the decrease seen from twice strange (type 2) to strange (type 1) where approximate factorisation is found.

Consider now the consequence of this lattice determination of the mixing, using input masses $`m_{nn}=0.137`$ GeV, $`m_{ss}=0.695`$ GeV (as discussed above) and with $`x`$ values in line with the results above, namely $`x_{ss}0.12`$ GeV2, $`x_{ns}^2x_{nn}x_{ss}`$ and, though with big errors from the extrapolation, $`x_{nn}/x_{ss}2`$. Fig. 2 shows the $`x`$ values needed to reproduce the known $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses for each mixing angle $`\varphi `$. The lattice determination of $`x_{ss}`$ is shown by the dotted horizontal band. Keeping close to this band while satisfying the other lattice constraints is possible for the mixing illustrated by the vertical line. This has $`x_{nn}=0.292,x_{ns}=0.218,x_{ss}=0.13`$ GeV2 which gives a description of the observed $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses while being consistent with the QCD inspired evidence about the mixing strengths. This assignment corresponds to a mixing angle $`\varphi `$ in the $`\eta _{nn},\eta _{ss}`$ basis of 44.50. Note that this is almost maximal which implies that the quark content (apart from the relative sign) of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is the same. The corresponding mixing angle in the $`\eta _8`$, $`\eta _1`$ basis (modulo comments above) is a value of $`\theta `$ of $`10.2^0`$.

### 3.3 Flavour-singlet decay constants

One contribution to the decays of $`\pi ^0,\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ to $`\gamma \gamma `$ is via the quark triangle diagram. The quark model gives a decay proportional to $`Q_i^2`$ for the contribution from a quark of charge $`Q_i`$. Thus for the $`\pi ^0`$ meson and the flavour-singlet $`nn`$ and $`ss`$ mesons, the quark charge contributions to the decay amplitudes would be in the ratio $`1:5/3:\sqrt{2}/3`$. The experimental  reduced decay amplitudes for $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ are in the ratio $`1.0:1.00(10):1.27(7)`$. This information can be used to analyse the quark content of the pseudoscalar mesons subject to a quantitative understanding of the decay mechanisms. The traditional approach assumes that the decay constants for the decays of the three mesons are the same and then the relative decay amplitudes give information on the quark content. This suggests a mixing angle of $`\theta 20^0`$ is preferred .

For the flavour non-singlet mesons we have

$$0|A^\mu |\pi =f_\pi q^\mu $$
(9)
where the axial current is the local quark bilinear. From evaluating this expression on a lattice, the pion decay constant can be determined, after taking account of the differences between lattice and continuum regularisation schemes. Moreover $`f_K`$ can be evaluated too and one finds that $`f`$ increases with increasing quark mass, just as known from experiment. This increase is evidence for a contribution from beyond the lowest order in chiral perturbation theory.

For the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, however, the flavour singlet combination will have gluonic contributions from the anomaly since

$$^\mu A^\mu =2m_qP+2N_fQ$$
(10)
for $`N_f`$ quarks of mass $`m_q`$, where $`P`$ is the local bilinear representing the pseudoscalar current and $`Q`$ is known as the topological charge density and is given in terms of the gluonic field by $`Q=g^2ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma }/(32\pi ^2)`$. This identity underlines the inevitability of gluonic contributions to the flavour singlet meson interactions. Thus for the flavour singlet (here labelled $`\eta ^{}`$) defining a decay constant by

$$0|A^\mu |\eta ^{}=f_\eta ^{}q^\mu $$
(11)
is less satisfactory since $`f_\eta ^{}`$ will be scale dependent because of the gluonic contributions from the axial anomaly: namely there will be non-zero amplitudes

$$0|Q|\eta ^{}$$
(12)
I now address the issue of determining these decay constants directly from QCD using lattice methods. The study uses 2 flavours of degenerate quark and one defines the decay constants by eq. 9, 11. For the isospin 1 state ($`\pi `$ \- like), this is on a firm footing because of the axial ward identity hence $`f_\pi `$ will be scale invariant. For the flavour singlet pseudoscalar meson, here called $`\eta ^{}`$, the decay constant defined as in eq. 11 will not be scale invariant because of gluonic contributions arising from the anomaly  as discussed above. In an exploratory lattice study  the decay constants are obtained with lattice regularisation and one can compare the singlet and non-singlet values.

These decay constants can be thought of as giving the quark wave function at the origin of the pseudoscalar meson. In principle it would be possible to explore also the local gluonic contributions to the flavour-singlet mesons (eq. 12) but it will be difficult to relate lattice regulated results to the continuum and this has not been attempted.

Since the mass splitting between singlet and non-singlet is not reproduced directly in quenched QCD, it is essential to use lattice studies that do include sea quark effects in this study of decay matrix elements. Results have been obtained from lattices with $`N_f=2`$ flavours of degenerate sea quark. In this case there is no need for mixing angles to describe the spectrum (which will have one isoscalar and one isovector neutral particle). As a first crosscheck, one finds that lattice studies correctly give a flavour non-singlet decay constant that increases with quark mass in reasonable agreement with experiment  assuming a steady increase from $`f_{nn}=131`$ MeV and $`f_{ns}=160`$ MeV to $`f_{ss}`$.

For the flavour singlet case, the determinations of $`f`$ have relatively large statistical errors and the systematic error from changing the type of fit is also comparable. For the case with $`N_f=2`$ degenerate quarks, the comparison of the flavour singlet and non-singlet shows that the singlet decay constants appear to be somewhat larger, though the errors are too big to substantiate this.

Combining the mass dependence one finds in the flavour non-singlet sector with the near equality of singlet and non-singlet decay constants, we can deduce properties of the physical case with three light quarks. Thus, in terms of the traditional treatment , we would expect $`f_\eta /f_\pi >1`$ and $`f_\eta ^{}/f_\pi >1`$. One way to minimise the effects of mixing is to consider $`X=(a_\eta ^2+a_\eta ^{}^2)/a_\pi ^2`$ where $`a`$ refers to the reduced decay amplitude. Using the conventional formulae for the decay amplitudes would then give a value of $`X=3r^2`$ (where $`r`$ is a suitably weighted average of $`f_\eta /f_\pi `$ and $`f_\eta ^{}/f_\pi `$ which are both greater than 1). Thus the traditional treatment gives $`X>3`$ which is significantly larger than the experimental value  of 2.64(24). Thus it appears unlikely that the traditional treatment (with the decay to $`\gamma \gamma `$ being given by the analogue of the formula for pions) is correct for any mixing angle.

I conclude that there is no support for the traditional assumption that the singlet decays are given by a similar expression to the non-singlet. As has been pointed out by many authors , this is plausible for at least two reasons: (i) the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons are heavier and therefore less likely to dominate the axial current or, equivalently, higher order corrections to chiral perturbation theory will be more important (ii) the flavour-singlet axial anomaly has a gluonic component which will give additional contributions to any hadronic process.

### 3.4 Where does the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass come from?

The lattice studies show that the gluonic contributions that build up the disconnected correlators are such as to reproduce the experimental $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses. This is of course as it should be - QCD is expected to be accurate for these phenomena - and it is the lattice methodology that is being tested.

One can now ask why these OZI-rule violating gluonic interactions are substantial for pseudoscalar mesons but small for most other cases (scalar mesons excluded).

The culprit must be gluonic contributions with the required quantum numbers. One possibility is a glueball, but the pseudoscalar glueball is known  to be heavier than 2 GeV and would contribute weakly and with the wrong sign (making the flavour singlet $`q\overline{q}`$ state lighter than the non-singlet). This glueball option is indeed appropriate for a discussion of the OZI violating effects for scalar mesons.

For the pseudoscalar case, the presence of vacuum fluctuations with those quantum numbers is the candidate. These are commonly called topological charge density fluctuations and they are necessary since the anomaly implies that $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma }`$ is coupled to currents with pseudoscalar quantum numbers. It must be emphasised that these contributions do not need to have anything to do with isolated instantons.

This relationship between fluctuations in topological charge density and the singlet mass generation can be made semi-quantitative via the Witten-Veneziano formula:

$$m_\eta ^{}^2=\frac{2N_f}{f_\pi ^2}\chi $$
(13)
where $`\chi =d^4x<Q(x)Q(0)>`$ is the topological susceptibility in the pure gauge (Yang-Mills or quenched) theory (here $`\eta ^{}`$ is to be interpreted as the flavour singlet component in the chiral limit). The derivation of this relationship (see ref  for a recent discussion) involves studying correlations of topological charge density assuming that $`u=N_f/N_c`$ can be varied. Then the $`u=0`$ limit (where a massless contribution is present in the flavour-singlet channel in the quenched chiral limit) can be related to full QCD at $`u0`$ where there is no such massless flavour-singlet particle, hence the topological susceptibility is zero in the chiral limit. The relationship follows from assuming that the lightest flavour singlet pseudoscalar meson dominates the behaviour of topological charge correlations in this region of small $`u`$ and near the chiral limit.

Lattice techniques can be used to evaluate the quenched topological susceptibility and the value obtained is consistent  with this relationship. Evidence is also mounting  that $`\chi `$ does vanish in full QCD as the sea quark mass goes to zero, as implied in the above discussion.

On a lattice one can investigate whether these topological charge density fluctuations arise from instantons or not, the latter being the expectation at large $`N_c`$. The Witten-Veneziano formula is a large $`N_c`$ result and does seem to be qualitatively satisfied, which is some evidence to suggest that the physical case with $`N_c=3`$ may be qualitatively similar to the large $`N_c`$ world. The nature of the topological charge density on the lattice can be revealed by low lying eigenmodes of the fermion operator, see ref. , and this suggests that some elements of an instanton description are indeed present. Varying $`N_c`$ in this study does suggest that at larger $`N_c`$ (e.g. 4) the instanton features are less evident, as expected. This characterisation of the relationship between the topological charge density observed and classical tunnelling (instantons) is still not finally resolved.

## 4 Conclusion

Flavour singlet mesons can, in principle, be easily studied on a lattice. In practice, lattice studies have been hampered by two constraints. One is that the disconnected quark diagrams needed for a study of singlet mesons are intrinsically noisy. Much larger data sets (tens of thousands of gauge configurations) will be needed to increase precision. Another constraint is that one is unable to work with sea quarks substantially lighter than strange. Also it has not yet been possible to attempt a continuum limit extrapolation of the lattice results, although a lattice formalism that should improve this extrapolation was used.

A lattice study of the disconnected diagrams that cause flavour-singlet mesons to differ from non-singlet mesons shows that these OZI-rule violating effects are only large for pseudoscalar and scalar mesons. Here we discuss the structure of the mixing in the singlet pseudoscalar mesons.

From the careful non-perturbative study of mass formulae for flavour non-singlet pseudoscalar mesons made of different quarks, one deduces that the $`ss`$ state lies at 695 MeV. One then determines the pattern of mixing for the flavour singlet sector, obtaining $`x_{ss}0.12`$ GeV2, $`x_{nn}/x_{ss}2`$ and $`x_{ns}^2x_{nn}x_{ss}`$. These conditions are indeed consistent and point to a mixing close to maximal ($`\varphi =45\pm 2^0`$) in the $`nn`$, $`ss`$ basis (this corresponds to a conventional ($`\eta _8`$, $`\eta _1`$) mixing $`\theta `$ of $`10\pm 2^0`$).

It is now possible to explore the decay constants which give the coupling to a local quark antiquark pair for singlet pseudoscalar mesons from the lattice. The results show similar decay constants for singlet and non-singlet states of the same mass but with quite large errors. This, combined with experimental data, suggests that the traditional description of $`\gamma \gamma `$ decays is inadequate. There will indeed be gluonic contributions to singlet meson decays and these have not yet been explored in detail from the lattice.

Lattice studies confirm the qualitative relationship between the pseudoscalar singlet mass and the topological charge density fluctuations.

Since lattice techniques give a reasonable description of the flavour singlet pseudoscalar mesons, it will be feasible to use such techniques to study hadronic decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I thank Craig McNeile for many useful discussions and contributions.


format: text

text:
# Unconventional phonon-mediated superconductivity in MgB2

\[

## Abstract

We have evaluated the total carrier mass enhancement factor $`f_t`$ for MgB2 from two independent experiments (specific heat and upper critical field). These experiments consistently show that $`f_t`$ = 3.1$`\pm `$0.1. The unusually large $`f_t`$ is incompatible with the measured reduced gap (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1) and the total isotope-effect exponent ($`\alpha `$ = 0.28$`\pm `$0.04) within the conventional phonon-mediated model. We propose an unconventional phonon-mediated mechanism, which is able to quantitatively explain the values of $`T_c`$, $`f_t`$, $`\alpha `$, and the reduced energy gap in a consistent way.

\] The recent discovery of superconductivity near 40 K in MgB2  has led to a remarkable excitement in the solid-state physics community. Such a high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity in this simple intermetallic compound immediately raises a question of whether mechanisms other than the conventional electron-phonon interaction are responsible for the superconductivity. A significant boron isotope effect ($`\alpha _B=d\mathrm{ln}T_c/d\mathrm{ln}M_B`$ = 0.26$`\pm `$0.03, where $`M_B`$ is the mass of boron)  and nearly zero magnesium isotope effect ($`\alpha _{Mg}`$ = 0.02$`\pm `$0.01)  suggest that electron-phonon coupling plays an important role in the pairing mechanism. To explain the 40 K superconductivity, an electron-phonon coupling constant of about 1 is needed. First-principle calculations give the coupling constant of 0.7-0.9 (Refs. ), which appears to be sufficient to explain the observed high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity. On the other hand, recent specific heat data  indicate a very strong electron-phonon coupling with a total mass enhancement factor of about 3.2. This would suggest a coupling constant of 2.2 and 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ 5 within the conventional phonon-mediated mechanism , in contradiction with the bulk-sensitive Raman scattering experiments which show 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1 (Ref.).

Here we evaluate the carrier mass enhancement factor $`f_t`$ from the measured upper critical field. The deduced $`f_t`$ is 3.1$`\pm `$0.1, in remarkably good agreement with that deduced from the independent specific heat data . The large mass enhancement factor is not compatible with the measured gap amplitude and the reduced total isotope-effect exponent within the conventional phonon-mediated model. We thus propose an unconventional phonon-mediated mechanism where both the long-range Fröhlich-type and short-range electron-lattice interactions are considered and treated distinctively. Within this scenario, we are able to quantitatively explain the $`T_c`$ value, the mass enhancement factor, the total isotope-effect exponent, and the reduced energy gap.

For a clean superconductor, as it is the case for MgB2 , the zero-temperature coherence length $`\xi (0)`$ is equal to the BCS coherence length , that is,

$$\xi (0)=\frac{\mathrm{}v_F}{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }(0)}.$$
(1)
Here $`v_F`$ is the renormalized Fermi velocity, i.e., $`v_F`$ = $`v_F^b/f_t`$ ($`v_F^b`$ is the bare Fermi velocity). Then

$$\xi (0)=\frac{\mathrm{}v_F^b}{f_t\pi \mathrm{\Delta }(0)}.$$
(2)
Using $`H_{c2}(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}/2\pi [\xi (0)]^2`$ and $`H_{c2}(0)`$ = 15$`\pm `$2 T (Ref. ), we obtain $`\xi (0)`$ = 47$`\pm `$2 Å. With $`v_F^b`$ = 4.85$`\times `$105 m/s (Ref. ), $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ = 6.9 meV , and $`\xi (0)`$ = 47$`\pm `$2 Å, we find from Eq. 2 that $`f_t`$ = 3.1$`\pm `$0.1. Remarkably, the deduced mass enhancement factor $`f_t`$ here is in excellent agreement with that found from specific heat data .

It is clear that the large mass enhancement factor is not compatible with the measured energy gap (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1)  and the reduced isotope exponent ($`\alpha `$ = 0.28$`\pm `$0.04)  within the conventional phonon-mediated model. In order to resolve the above controversy, one needs to consider a long-range Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction that results from the Coulomb interactions of electronic charge carriers with the ions of ionic (polar) materials . This interaction is distinct from the short-range electron-lattice interaction (e.g., deformation-potential interaction, Holstein interaction) that has a carrier’s energy only depending on the positions of the atoms with which it overlaps. The Fröhlich electron-phonon interaction is particularly strong in an ionic solid or a perovskite oxide where its static dielectric constant $`ϵ_{}`$ is always much larger than its high-frequency dielectric constant $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$, whereas the short-range electron-lattice interaction (including the electron-lattice interaction with acoustic phonons) is present in all the materials . Recent Quantum Monto Carlo simulation  has shown that the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction is nonretarded and can always lead to a mass enhancement factor of $`f_p=\mathrm{exp}(g^2)`$ no matter how weak this interaction is. Here $`g^2=A/\omega _{}`$, $`A`$ is a constant, and $`\omega _{}`$ is the characteristic frequency of optical phonons. It is apparent that this mass enhancement factor $`f_p`$ will strongly depend on the isotope mass if $`g^2`$ is substantial, in contrast to the conventional retarded electron-phonon coupling model where the mass enhancement factor is essentially isotope-mass independent . On the other hand, the short-range component of the electron-lattice interaction is retarded and can be modeled within the conventional Eliashberg equations when the coupling constant is less than 1 and the phonon energies are much lower than the bare hopping integral . When only a short-range electron-lattice interaction is present and the coupling constant is far larger than 1, the interaction becomes nonretarded and small polarons can be formed . In this case, the Migdal adiabatic approximation breaks down  and one cannot use the Eliashberg equations to describe superconductivity .

Since the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction is nonretarded, we can assume that the role of this interaction is simply to enhance the density of states  and reduce the direct Coulomb interaction between two carriers . In other words, we can model the retarded short-range electron-phonon coupling within the conventional Eliashberg equations, but the effective density of states and the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ are enhanced by a factor of $`f_p`$ due to the presence of the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction. The effective Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$ in the Eliashberg equations will not change significantly when the Fröhlich electron-phonon interaction sets in. This is because this interaction enhances the density of states, which tends to increase $`\mu ^{}`$, while it produces an attractive potential that effectively reduces the direct Coulombic repulsion by a factor of about $`ϵ_{}/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$  and thus tends to decrease $`\mu ^{}`$ (see Eq. 4 below). Therefore, the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction can enhance superconductivity mainly through increasing the effective coupling constant for the retarded electron-phonon interaction. For ionic materials (e.g., MgB2), this type of electron-phonon coupling should be rather strong, so that the superconductivity can be enhanced substantially.

Within this simplified approach, the effective coupling constant for the retarded short-range electron-phonon interaction is $`\lambda =\lambda _bf_p`$, where $`\lambda _b`$ is the bare short-range retarded electron-phonon coupling constant in the absence of the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction. The value of $`\lambda _b`$ for MgB2 has been calculated to be 0.7-0.9 (Ref.). The total carrier mass enhancement factor is then given by

$$f_t=f_p(1+\lambda _bf_p).$$
(3)
The factor $`1+\lambda _bf_p`$ is the mass enhancement factor due to the retarded electron-phonon interaction with the enhanced coupling constant $`\lambda =\lambda _bf_p`$. The Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$ is

$$\mu ^{}=\frac{\mu }{1+\mu \mathrm{ln}(E_F/\mathrm{}\omega _{ln})},$$
(4)
Here $`\mu Uf_p`$ ($`U`$ is the effective Coulomb interaction between two carriers, which is renormalized by the Fröhlich interaction ); $`E_F=E_F^b/f_p`$ ($`E_F^b`$ is the bare Fermi energy); $`\omega _{ln}`$ is the logarithmically averaged frequency, which is normally lower than the Debye frequency $`\omega _D`$ by a factor of about 1.2. Indeed, the calculated $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ is 53.8 meV (Ref. ), which is a factor of 1.2 smaller than the measured $`\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ (64.3 meV) .

Since $`f_p=\mathrm{exp}(g^2)`$, which depends on the isotope mass , the quantities $`\lambda `$, $`\mu ^{}`$, and $`f_t`$ are all isotope-mass dependent. One can easily deduce that the total exponents of the isotope effects on $`\lambda `$ ($`\alpha _\lambda =d\mathrm{ln}\lambda /d\mathrm{ln}M_j`$, where $`M_j`$ is the mass of the $`j`$th atom in the unit cell) and on $`\mu ^{}`$ ($`\alpha _\lambda =d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^{}/d\mathrm{ln}M_j`$) are given by

$$\alpha _\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}f_p,$$
(5)
and

$$\alpha _\mu ^{}=\alpha _\lambda [1\mu ^{}\mathrm{ln}(E_F/\mathrm{}\omega _{ln})]+\mu ^{}(\alpha _\lambda +\frac{1}{2}).$$
(6)
Furthermore, from the McMillian formula ,

$$k_BT_c=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}}{1.2}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1.04(1+\lambda )}{\lambda \mu ^{}(1+0.62\lambda )}],$$
(7)
we can also determine the total exponent of the isotope effect on $`T_c`$ ($`\alpha =d\mathrm{ln}T_c/d\mathrm{ln}M_j`$),

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1.04(1+0.38\mu ^{})\lambda }{[\lambda \mu ^{}(1+0.62\lambda )]^2}}\alpha _\lambda `$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1.04(1+\lambda )(1+0.62\lambda )\mu ^{}}{[\lambda \mu ^{}(1+0.62\lambda )]^2}}\alpha _\mu ^{}.`$ (9)
From the above equations, we can calculate $`f_p`$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$, $`\alpha _\lambda `$, $`\alpha _\mu ^{}`$, and $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`\lambda _b`$ using fixed parameters $`f_t`$ = 3.2, $`T_c`$ = 40 K, $`E_F`$ = 0.57 eV (Ref. ), and $`\mu ^{}`$ = 0.1. In Fig. 1, we plot the calculated $`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$, and $`f_p`$ as a function of $`\lambda _b`$. One can see that the calculated $`\alpha `$ is 0.3 for $`\lambda _b`$ = 0.8, a value lying within the first-principle calculations ($`\lambda _b`$ = 0.7-0.9) . The calculated isotope exponent $`\alpha `$ is in quantitative agreement with the measured one (0.28$`\pm `$0.04) . The reduction in the isotope exponent is due to the fact that the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ has a negative isotope effect which partially cancels out the positive isotope effect on the prefactor of Eq. 7. As $`\lambda _b`$ increases, $`f_p`$ must decrease to keep $`f_t`$ a constant (see Eq. 3 and Fig. 1c). The decrease of $`f_p`$ reduces the magnitude of the negative isotope effect on the coupling constant, and thus increase the isotope effect on $`T_c`$, as seen clearly in Fig. 1a.

Meanwhile, the calculated $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ is about 40 meV for $`\lambda _b`$ = 0.8 (see Fig. 1b), which appears to be lower than the one (53.8 meV) determined from the phonon density of states . However, inelastic neutron scattering experiments  show that a low-energy phonon mode at about 17 meV is strongly coupled to conduction electrons; the intensity of the 17 meV peak increases with decreasing temperature for $`T>T_c`$ whereas below $`T_c`$ it starts decreasing. The strong coupling to the low energy mode is not expected from the theoretical calculations , and may be related to some kind of structural instability . If this is true, the calculated $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ in Ref.  should be substantially overestimated. Indeed, from the measured 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1, one can determine the magnitude of $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ using a formula

$$\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)}{k_BT_c}=3.53[1+12.5(\frac{k_BT_c}{\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}})^2\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}}{2k_BT_c})].$$
(10)
Substituting $`T_c`$ = 40 K and 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1 into Eq. 10, we get $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ = 40 meV, in quantitative agreement with the above independent calculation.

From Fig. 1c, one can see that $`f_p`$ is about 1.5 at $`\lambda _b`$ = 0.8, that is, the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction enhances the density of states and the coupling constant by a factor of 1.5. Without this interaction, the material would have a transition temperature of about 22 K. Therefore, the Fröhlich-type electron-phonon interaction in ionic materials can indeed enhance superconductivity.

Although the conventional phonon-mediated model could account for the observed $`T_c`$ value , it cannot consistently explain the $`T_c`$ value, the reduced isotope exponent ($``$0.3), the large carrier mass enhancement factor (3.1), and the reduced energy gap (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1). The accurate determination of 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$ = 4.1 places a strong constraint on $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$, that is, $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ $``$ 40 meV. With $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ln}`$ = 40 meV, and $`T_c`$ = 40 K, one cannot find any parameters that could lead to $`\alpha `$ $``$ 0.28. Further, one would never get a carrier mass enhancement factor larger than 3 within the conventional model. On the other hand, the proposed unconventional phonon-mediated mechanism naturally resolves these controversies and is able to quantitatively explain these experiments in a consistent way. In addition, an important prediction of this scenario is that both electronic specific heat $`\gamma `$ and London penetration depth $`\lambda _L(0)`$ depend on the isotope mass of boron. One can easily show that, upon replacing 10B with 11B, both $`\gamma `$ and $`\lambda _L^2(0)`$ will decrease by about 4$`\%`$. The isotope effect on $`\gamma `$ should be observable if one could measure the specific heat of the isotope samples down to a low temperature ($`<`$ 1 K) under a magnetic field higher than $`H_{c2}(0)`$. On the other hand, a special cation must be taken in determination of the intrinsic London penetration depth since the extrinsic contribution to the measured penetration depth due to defects  would mimic the isotope effect if two isotope samples have different densities of defects.

In summary, the carrier mass enhancement factor $`f_t`$ has been determined for MgB2 from the measured upper critical field and the calculated bare Fermi velocity. It is found that $`f_t`$ is 3.1$`\pm `$0.1, in remarkably good agreement with that deduced from the independent specific heat data. The unusually large $`f_t`$ is inconsistent with the measured reduced gap and the total isotope-effect exponent ($`\alpha `$ 0.3) within the conventional phonon-mediated model. We thus propose an unconventional phonon-mediated mechanism where long-range Fröhlich electron-phonon interaction and short-range retarded electron-phonon interaction are modeled separately. Within this scenario, we are able to quantitatively explain the values of $`T_c`$, $`f_t`$, $`\alpha `$ and 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$.
Acknowledgment: The work at Houston was supported in part by the US National Science Foundation, and work at Berkeley by the US Department of Energy.


text:
# EPR Type Nonlocality in Classical Electrodynamics!

## I Introduction

Ever since Bell  enunciated his famous theorem showing that all local-realistic theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics, it has been universally believed that the violation of Einstein-Bell locality resulting from entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon without any classical analog. Entanglement is a consequence of the Hilbert space structure of quantum mechanics for multi-particle systems. Any theory having a Hilbert space structure will necessarily imply entanglement and therefore violation of Einstein-Bell locality. It therefore follows from Bell’s theorem that no local-realistic theory can have a Hilbert space structure. The question is whether all classical theories are necessarily local-realistic. Surprisingly, the answer turns out to be negative. We will show in this paper that of all classical theories electrodynamics, the quintessence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the epitome of locality, has a Hilbert space structure that has so far been overlooked.

The classical Maxwell equations of electrodynamics can be written in the form

$$\beta _\mu ^\mu \psi (x)ił_0^1\gamma \psi (x)=0$$
(1)
where $`\psi ^T(x)=(1/\sqrt{2})(E_x,E_y,E_z,H_x,H_y,H_z,l_0^1A_x,l_0^1A_y,l_0^1A_z,l_0^1A_0)`$, $`x=(t,𝐱)`$, $`ł_0`$ is a fundamental length that drops out of all physical results, and the $`\beta `$’s are the irreducible $`10\times 10`$ representations of the Kemmer-Duffin-Petiau (KDP) algebra

$`\beta _\mu \beta _\nu \beta _\lambda +\beta _\lambda \beta _\nu \beta _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\beta _\mu g_{\nu \lambda }+\beta _\lambda g_{\nu \mu }`$ (2)
The matrix $`\gamma `$ is defined by the relations $`\gamma ^2=\gamma `$ and

$$\gamma \beta _\mu +\beta _\mu \gamma =\beta _\mu $$
(3)
It is diagonal with the first six diagonal elements unity and the last four diagonal elements zero. It projects out the four potentials from $`\psi `$. Equivalently, multiplying the Lorentz covariant equation (1) by $`\beta _0`$ and $`(1\beta _0^2)`$ respectively, one can replace it by the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma \psi )}{t}}=c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i_i(\gamma \psi )`$ (4)
and

$$\beta _i\beta _0^2_i\psi il_0^1(1\beta _0^2)\gamma \psi =0$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i=\beta _0\beta _i\beta _i\beta _0`$. Equation (5) is a first class equation of constraint. These equations imply the massless second-order equation

$$\mathrm{}(\gamma \psi )=0$$
(6)
Equation (1) is a combined form of the equations

$`\mathrm{curl}𝐇`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐄}{t}}`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{curl}𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐇}{t}}`$ (8)
$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`A_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐀}{t}}`$ (9)
$`^\mu A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
Equation (4) combines the first two Maxwell equations above while equation (5) combines the constraint equations

$`\mathrm{div}𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
$`𝐇`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{curl}𝐀`$ (12)
We will henceforth use $`\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma \psi `$ to denote the classical wavefunction in electrodynamics. Since it is possible to consider superpositions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with complex coefficients, let us define $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\eta `$ where $`\eta =2\beta _0^21`$, $`\eta ^2=1`$ and $`\eta \beta _0=\beta _0`$, $`\eta \beta _i+\beta _i\eta =0`$ . One can show that the symmetric energy-momentum tensor can be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\beta _\mu \beta _\nu +\beta _\nu \beta _\mu g_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(13)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\stackrel{}{E}.\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{H}.\stackrel{}{H}}{2}$$
(14)
This is the physical significance of the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$: its norm is the energy density of the field. One can also see that the local value of a physical observable $`O`$ can be defined by

$$O=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{O}\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(15)
where $`\widehat{O}`$ is the corresponding operator. For example, the operators $`c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i`$ represent the components of the Poynting vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$:

$$S_i=c\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\mathrm{\Psi }=c(\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{H})_i$$
(16)
It might appear so far that we have merely recast the familiar set of Maxwell equations into an equivalent form, and that this is devoid of any new physical implication. Surprisingly, this is not the case. This formulation which is physically equivalent to the standard Maxwell theory, helps reveal a hitherto unnoticed underlying structure of classical electrodynamics, namely its Hilbert space structure, and consequently the possibility of entanglement and the violation of Einstein-Bell locality in classical electrodynamics. This is what we will now demonstrate.

The first point to notice about this formalism is that it holds only for massless fields. If one replaces $`l_0^1`$ in (1) by $`(m_0c/\mathrm{})`$, it becomes intrinsically quantum mechanical. Nevertheless, like $`l_0^1`$ the fundamental mass parameter $`m_0`$ also drops out of all physical results because of the operator $`\gamma `$.

The second point is the similarity with the Dirac algebra. The KDP algebra has $`126`$ independent elements, and there are only three inequivalent irreducible representations : $`10^2+5^2+1^2=126`$. As we have seen, the $`10`$ dimensional irreducible representation of the KDP algebra is the relevant one for electrodynamics. It is quite straightforward to see that the operator

$$\sigma _{\mu \nu }=[\beta _\mu ,\beta _\nu ]$$
(17)
is the generator of transformations induced on $`\psi (t,𝐱)`$ by the Lorentz transformations . This result will be of importance in what follows.

Before proceeding further, it will be useful to remind the reader of certain definitions in differential geometry and topology. The space of all possible tangents at a point $`p`$ with local coordinates $`x^\mu (\mu =1,\mathrm{},n)`$ on a manifold $`M`$ is called the tangent space $`T_p(M)`$. It is spanned by the vectors $`_\mu /x^\mu `$, and is locally isomorphic to $`^n`$. The union of the tangent spaces over all points of $`M`$ is called the tangent bundle $`T(M)`$ over $`M`$. This bundle is non-trivial if it cannot be reduced to $`^n`$ globally. A vector $`D=a^\mu _\mu `$ is a called a field on the tangent bundle $`T(M)`$. The dual of $`T_p(M)`$, denoted by $`T_p^{}(M)`$, is spanned by the vectors $`dx^\mu `$. The union of all $`T_p^{}(M)`$ is called the cotangent bundle $`T^{}(M)`$. A prototype field on $`T^{}(M)`$ is $`\omega =b_\mu dx^\mu `$ and is called a one-form.

Now notice equation (1). It can be written in the form

$$D(t,𝐱)\psi (t,𝐱)=il_0^1\gamma \psi (t,𝐱)$$
(18)
where $`D(t,𝐱)\beta ^\mu _\mu `$ is clearly a KDP algebra valued vector field on the product bundle $`𝒫S()T()`$ over the orientable Lorentz manifold $``$. To identify $`S()`$, consider the group $`SPIN(1,3)`$ whose elements are $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu })`$ with $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ defined by eqn. (17). In general, $`SPIN(1,3)=SL(2,C)`$, the universal covering group of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$ . In this case, however, since no spinor is involved, there is no difference between $`SL(2,C)`$ and $`SO(1,3)`$, and $`S()`$ is simply the $`SO(1,3)`$ bundle over $``$. Note that although $`T()`$ is a trivial bundle because $``$ is a flat manifold, $`S()`$ is not because the group manifold of the little group $`SO(3)`$ of the Lorentz group is doubly connected, and hence $`𝒫`$ is a non-trivial bundle.

The ten-component vector $`\psi (x)`$ is an irreducible representation of the KDP algebra, but it is clearly a reducible representation of the spin group $`SO(1,3)`$. The projection $`(1\gamma )\psi `$ consists of the four-vector potential which belongs to the fundamental representation of $`SO(1,3)`$. The projection $`\gamma \psi =\mathrm{\Psi }`$ consists of the antisymmetric second rank tensor field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ which can be written as a complex three-vector $`(\stackrel{}{E}+i\stackrel{}{H})`$ belonging to the fundamental representation of the group $`SO(3,C)`$ which is homeomorphic to $`SO(1,3)`$ . Consider a unitary transformation $`U\mathrm{\Psi }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ such that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}=(1/2)(E_xiH_x,E_yiH_y,E_ziH_z,E_xiH_x,E_yiH_y,E_ziH_z,0,0,0,0)`$. $`SO(3,C)`$ acts on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. Therefore the associated bundle is $`=𝒫\times ^3\times ^4`$, and $`\psi (x)`$ is a section of this bundle.

With this background it is evident that the $`10`$-dimensional irreducible representation of the KDP algebra constitutes a Hilbert space, being a complete linear vector space with a norm. We will now show how this feature, hidden in the conventional formulation of classical electrodynamics, plays a key role in the violation of Einstein-Bell locality. Once a Hilbert space structure exists, one can consider tensor product spaces $`_{p1}_{p2}`$ and obtain nonfactorizable states in such a product space. An example is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(1,2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\mathrm{\Psi }(2)+\mathrm{\Psi }(2)\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\right]$$
(19)
where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(1)^T`$ $`=`$ $`(E_x,0,0,0,H_y,0,0,0,0,0)`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(2)^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,E_y,0,H_x,0,0,0,0,0,0)`$ (21)
represent two plane polarized electromagnetic waves whose polarization states along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes are entangled. For convenience of notation let us denote these states of linear polarization along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes cryptically by $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{y}`$ respectively. Then we can write (19) as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(1,2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\widehat{x}_1\widehat{x}_2+\widehat{y}_1\widehat{y}_2]$$
(22)
Such states will inevitably exhibit EPR-Bell type nonlocal correlations and violate Bell’s inequality maximally. The ‘element of reality’ of such a state is different from the ‘element of reality’ defined by EPR in terms of disturbance, prediction and probability which are taken as primary concepts in quantum mechanics. It is more akin to the ‘element of reality’ in the Bohmian sense in which these elements are defined by the properties of the wave function and the set of particles. In the present case the ‘elements of reality’ are defined by the properties of the classical wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ alone, treated as a primary concept.

Until recently there was no evidence that macroscopic or classical objects could be in entangled states. But recently a number of experiments have shown that entangled states of coherent states in optics and of macroscopic atomic objects do exist, though transitorily because of environment-induced decoherence . The prevalent wisdom is that only quantum theory is able to account for such states. Our analysis, on the contrary, shows that even classical electrodynamics is able to account for them in principle, though their production may be non-trivial.

Consider a classical state like (22) of two light beams travelling in opposite directions along the $`z`$ axis. Let crystal detectors be placed along their paths such that their polarization axes make arbitrary angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with the $`x`$ axis such that $`\alpha \beta =\theta `$. Define the projection operator

$$\sigma _\theta =(\widehat{x}\widehat{x}^{}\widehat{y}\widehat{y}^{})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta +(\widehat{\mathrm{x}}\widehat{\mathrm{y}}^{}+\widehat{\mathrm{y}}\widehat{\mathrm{x}}^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta $$
(23)
Then, according to (15) the polarization correlation is given by

$$<\sigma _0\sigma _\theta >=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta $$
(24)
exactly as in quantum mechanics. Thus, if one observer has the choice of angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ on one side and the other distant observer the choice between $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, Bell’s inequality takes the form

$$|\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\alpha \beta )\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\alpha \gamma )|+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\beta \gamma )1$$
(25)
which is violated by the correlation (24) for relative angles of $`30^0`$ exactly as in quantum mechanics.

Before concluding, we would like to emphasize a few important points.

1. An important difference between Hilbert spaces encountered in classical physics and those encountered in quantum mechanics is that the inner products in the former do not require a probabilistic interpretation whereas inner products in the latter do. This is because of wave-particle duality embodied in state reduction in quantum mechanics. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics is an unobservable position probability amplitude that collapses to a point when a particle is detected at that point in space at a certain time, whereas $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,𝐱)`$ describes an observable electromagnetic field spread over space-time. Therefore, EPR-Bell nonlocality will be inherent in every classical wave theory (both massive and massless) that can be cast in a linear form similar to the KDP equation.

2. Contrary to prevalent wisdom, we have shown that Einstein-Bell nonlocality is consistent with Lorentz invariance which guarantees signal locality (the absence of superluminal propagation).

3. Finally, let us consider the bundle $`_{12}=_1_2`$ corresponding to an entangled state. The bundle coordinates are $`(s,x,c_1,c_2,c_3,r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)`$ where $`sSO(3,C)`$, and there is no nonlocality in this bundle-theoretic description. However, the projections in $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are respectively $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x)=x_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(x)=x_2`$. This shows that EPR-Bell nonlocality defined in terms of separability on the base space (when $`x_1x_2`$ is space-like) arises only when the description is given in terms of the base space alone. This is the origin of this kind of nonlocality. A similar conclusion would hold in quantum mechanics also as is clear from the analogous mathematical structure of the Dirac equation for which the spin group $`S()`$ is $`SL(2,C)`$ and the bundle is $`S()E`$ where $`E`$ is the associated vector bundle of the principal bundle $`P(,G)`$ with group $`G`$ in an appropriate representation .

To summarize, we have shown that (a) classical electrodynamics has a Hilbert space structure embodied in eqn. (18) that leads to the possibility of entanglement and violation of Bell’s inequality, (b) this EPR-Bell nonlocality exists only at the level of Minkowski space but not in a bundle theoretic description, and (c) such nonlocality is consistent with Lorentz invariance. Although it might be difficult in practice to produce polarization-entangled states of classical light required for checking the violation of Bell’s inequality, our analysis shows that this should be possible in principle.

We are grateful to Partha Guha and Biswajit Chakraborty for helpful discussions on fibre bundles and the spin group. We also wish to thank the Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of India for a research grant that enabled this work to be undertaken.


text:
# Untitled Document

%auto-ignore

This paper is being withdrawn by the author due to an error in the proof


text:
# Commun.Math.Phys. 81,239-241(1981) Lax Representation for the Systems of S.Kowalevskaya Type

## Abstract

We describe a number of dynamical systems that are generalizations of the S. Kowalevskaya system and admit the Lax representation.

It is well known (see for example ) that the equations of motion of a three-dimensional heavy rigid body rotated about a fixed point is a completely integrable dynamical system only in the cases of Euler , Lagrange  and Kowalevskaya . In the present note we describe a number of systems that are of the Kowalevskaya type and admit the Lax representation111 Note that the Lax representation for equations of motion of a rigid body was discovered first by Manakov  for some particular cases..

1. Let $`𝒢`$ be the Lie algebra of a group $`G`$, $`𝒢^{}`$ be the space dual to $`𝒢`$ and $`\{x_\alpha \}`$ be the coordinates of a point in the space $`𝒢^{}`$. In the space $`(𝒢^{})`$ of smooth functions on $`𝒢^{}`$, let us define the Poisson bracket 222 In this note we use the tensor notations; in particular, everywhere repeated indices imply summation.

$$\{f,g\}=C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma x_\gamma ^\alpha f^\beta g,^\alpha =/x_\alpha .$$
(1)
Here $`C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are the structure constants of the Lie algebra. The space $`(𝒢^{})`$ is endowed by the above formula with the structure of the Lie algebra. A dynamical system in $`𝒢^{}`$ is determined by a Hamiltonian function $`H(x)`$, so that the equations of motion have the form

$$\dot{x}_\alpha =\{H,x_\alpha \}.$$
(2)
The coadjoint representation of the group $`G`$ acts on the space $`𝒢^{}`$. Orbits of this representation are invariant with respect to an arbitrary Hamiltonian $`H`$, and are the phase spaces of the considered systems.

2. Let $`G`$ be a compact simple Lie group, $`K`$ be its subgroup such that the factor space $`G/K`$ is a symmetric space . Then $`𝒢=𝒦𝒮,𝒦`$ is the Lie algebra of the group $`K`$, $`𝒮`$ is the orthogonal complement to $`𝒦`$ in $`𝒢`$ relative to the Killing-Cartan form.

It is well known that a certain irreducible representation $`T^0(k)`$ of the group $`K`$ acts on the space $`𝒮`$. Let us consider an irreducible representation $`T(g)`$ of the group $`G`$, such that under the restriction of this representation on the subgroup $`K`$, the irreducible representation $`T^0(k)`$ is contained in $`T(g)`$ with the unit multiplicity. Let $`V`$ be a vector space in which the representation $`T(g)`$ acts. Then it is possible to define the group $`\stackrel{~}{G}=GV`$ that is a semidirect product of the group $`G`$ and the abelian vector group $`V`$. Let us denote by $`V^0`$ the subspace of $`V`$ on which the representation $`T^0(k)`$ acts, and by $`A`$ the projection operator on the subspace $`V^0`$. Let $`V^1`$ be the orthogonal complement to $`V^0:V=V^0V^1`$. Note that the spaces $`V^0`$ and $`𝒮`$ are isomorphic because $`T(g)`$ contains $`T^0(k)`$ only once. Therefore we have the decomposition

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒢}=𝒦𝒮𝒱^0𝒱^1,$$

and the analogous decomposition for the space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{}=𝒩𝒫𝒯.$$
(3)
Here $`=𝒦^{}`$, $`𝒩=𝒮^{}`$, $`𝒫=𝒱^{(0)}`$, $`𝒯=𝒱^{(1)}`$. In addition, $`\text{dim}𝒩=\text{dim}𝒫=n`$, and $`𝒩`$ and $`𝒫`$ are isomorphic relative to the action of the group $`K`$.

Let $`\widehat{l}`$ be the matrix of the representation $`T`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, $`\widehat{l}=\{l_{jk}\}`$ corresponds to the matrix of the representation $`T^0`$ of the algebra $`𝒦`$ acting in the space $`𝒫`$. Let us introduce the matrix, which is important in the sequel,

$$L=A\left[\widehat{l}^2+(\gamma p+p\gamma )\right]A,$$
(4)
where $`p𝒫𝒯`$ and $`\gamma 𝒫`$ is the constant vector in $`𝒫`$. We identify $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒫^{}`$ by means of the $`K`$-invariant scalar product on $`𝒫`$.

The system of S. Kowalevskaya type is defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}L=\alpha I_2(l)+\beta 𝒥_2(n)+(\gamma p).$$
(5)
Here $`I_2(l)`$ and $`𝒥_2(n)`$ are the quadratic functions on $``$ and $`𝒩`$ respectively that are invariant relative to the coadjoint representation of the group $`K`$ and $`p𝒫`$.

3. Let us consider in detail the case: $`G=SO(n+1)`$, $`K=SO(n)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}=GV=E(n+1)`$ is the motion group of the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional Euclidean space $`V=^{n+1}`$, $`V^0=^n`$, $`V^1=^1`$. Let $`\widehat{l}_{jk}=\widehat{l}_{kj}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_m`$ $`(j,k=1,\mathrm{},(n+1))`$ be the standard basis in the space of linear functions on $`𝒢^{}`$ and $`𝒱^{}`$ respectively with the standard Poisson brackets.

The Hamiltonian (5) takes now the form

$$2H=2\underset{j<k}{\overset{n}{}}l_{jk}^2+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}n_j^2+2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma _jp_j.$$
(6)
Theorem. The equations of motion (2) of the system with Hamiltonian (6) are equivalent to the Lax equation

$$\dot{L}=[L,M],$$
(7)
where $`L`$ is given by the formula (4), and $`M=cl=cA\widehat{l}A`$, $`c`$ is a constant.

The theorem is verified by a direct calculation.

From the Lax representation (7), it follows immediately that the eigenvalues of the matrix $`L`$ or the quantities $`I_{2k}=k^1\text{tr}(L^k)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are integrals of motion for Eqs. (2). Notice $`I_2=2H`$.

There are also $`(n1)(n2)/2`$ linear integrals related to the invariance of $`H`$ with respect to the group $`G_0=SO(n1)`$ that leaves the vector $`\gamma `$ invariant, and also $`([n/2]+1)`$ independent polynomials that are invariant with respect to the coadjoint representation of the group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Using the theory of reduction of hamiltonian systems with symmetries  we may show that the above system is reduced to a system with $`2n`$-dimensional phase space. It can be verifies that integrals $`I_2,I_4,\mathrm{},I_{2n}`$ are functionally independent and in involution. Therefore, the systems under consideration are completely integrable.

Finally, we wish to note the following facts:

1. The system considered by S. Kowalevskaya corresponds to $`n=2`$.
2. Similar results are valid for other symmetric spaces. The simplest ones are the cases of the spaces of rank one: $`SU(n+1)/SU(n)\times U(1)`$, $`Sp(n+1)/Sp(n)\times Sp(1)`$ and $`F_4/SO(9)`$.
3. If $`p𝒯`$ in formula (5), then we deal with the generalization of the Lagrange case. In this case, the constants $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ may be arbitrary.
4. The results of this section are valid also for similar systems, related to group $`\stackrel{~}{G}=SO(n+2)`$.

The detailed presentation of results will be published elsewhere.

Acknowledgement. I am grateful to V.Golo for the improvement of the language of this note.


text:
# Supersonic propeller spindown of neutron stars in wind-fed mass-exchange close binaries

## 1 Introduction

According to the present views on the evolution of interacting close binary systems (e.g. Lipunov l92 (1992) and references therein), a newly formed neutron star is presumed to rotate rapidly, with a period of a fraction of a second. During the further system evolution, the rotational rate of the neutron star decreases, initially by the generation of the magneto-dipole waves and ejection of relativistic particles (pulsar-like spindown) and later by means of the interaction between the magnetosphere of the neutron star and the stellar wind of its companion (propeller spindown). When the spin period of the neutron star reaches the critical value (so called break period, $`P_{\mathrm{br}}`$) the accretion of material onto its surface begins and the star switches on as an X-ray pulsar.

This scenario can be applied to the interpretation of the observed periods of X-ray pulsars, provided the duration of the neutron star spindown epoch $`t_{\mathrm{sd}}`$, is smaller than the time, $`t_{\mathrm{ms}}`$, the companion star spends on the main sequence. In the particular case of massive X-ray close binaries which display pulses with long periods ($`P_\mathrm{s}100`$ s), this condition implies the spindown rate of neutron stars during the previous epoch

$$\dot{P}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}\left[\frac{P_\mathrm{s}}{100\mathrm{s}}\right]\left[\frac{t_{\mathrm{ms}}}{10^7\mathrm{yr}}\right]^1.$$

Since this value is essentially larger than the observed average spindown rate of neutron stars (see e.g. Taylor et al. tml93 (1993)), the question about the mechanism which can be responsible for the required spindown rate arises.

A detailed investigation of the spindown epoch of neutron stars in massive wind-fed close binaries has been presented by Davies et al. (dfp79 (1979)) and Davies & Pringle (dp81 (1981), hereafter DP81). In particular, they have shown that the star magnetosphere during the propeller spindown epoch is surrounded by a hot, spherical quasi-static envelope. The interaction between the magnetosphere and the envelope leads to the deceleration of the rotation rate of the neutron star: the rotational energy loss by the star is convected up through the envelope by the turbulent motions and lost through its outer boundary. The neutron star remains in the propeller state as long as the energy input to the envelope due to the propeller action by the star dominates the radiative losses from the envelope plasma. According to DP81, this condition is satisfied if (i) the spin period of the star is smaller than the break period (a subsonic propeller case), and (ii) the strength of the normal companion stellar wind, $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}`$, is smaller than the critical value $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (a supersonic propeller case).

The first item was discussed in my previous paper (Ikhsanov 2001a ). In this letter I address the second item. I show that the value of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is by a factor of $`10^3`$ larger than that estimated in DP81. After this correction, the duration of the spindown epoch proves to be essentially reduced. This fact significantly increases the number of long-period X-ray pulsars which can be interpreted within the canonical spindown scenario.

## 2 Evaluation of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$

I consider a close binary system consisting of a fast rotating, magnetized neutron star and an O or B type main sequence companion which underfills its Roche lobe and loses mass in the form of stellar wind. The neutron star, which moves through the wind of its companion, is assumed to be in the state of supersonic propeller. This means that the magnetospheric radius of the neutron star exceeds its corotation radius, but is smaller than both the radius of the light cylinder and the accretion radius. Under these conditions the magnetosphere of the neutron star is surrounded by a turbulent spherical plasma atmosphere, in which the plasma pressure $`pR^{3/2}`$ and the plasma density $`\rho R^{1/2}`$. The temperature throughout the atmosphere is of the order of the free-fall temperature,

$$T(R)T_{\mathrm{ff}}(R)=(GM_{\mathrm{ns}}m_\mathrm{p})/(kR),$$
(1)
and the sound speed, $`V_\mathrm{s}`$, as well as the velocity of turbulent motions, $`V_\mathrm{t}`$, are of the order of the free-fall velocity

$$V_\mathrm{s}V_\mathrm{t}V_{\mathrm{ff}}(R)=\sqrt{2GM_{\mathrm{ns}}/R}.$$
(2)
Here $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the proton mass, $`k`$ and $`G`$ are the Boltzmann and the gravitational constants, respectively, and $`M_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ is the mass of the neutron star. The Mach number throughout the envelope is $`M_{\mathrm{Mach}}V_\mathrm{t}/V_\mathrm{s}1`$ (see for discussion DP81, page 213).

The atmosphere is extended from the magnetospheric boundary up to the accretion radius of the neutron star

$$R_\alpha (2GM_{\mathrm{ns}})/V_{\mathrm{rel}}^2,$$
(3)
where $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is the relative velocity between the neutron star and the wind of the normal companion. The plasma pressure at the outer edge of the atmosphere is equal to the ram pressure of the surrounding gas, which overflows the atmosphere as the neutron star moves through the stellar wind of its normal companion. The mass overflow rate, which is usually called the strength of the stellar wind, is

$$\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}=\pi R_\alpha ^2\rho _{\mathrm{}}V_{\mathrm{rel}},$$

where $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the plasma density of the stellar wind just beyond the outer edge of the atmosphere.

As shown by Davies & Pringle, the supersonic propeller model remains self-consistent as long as the energy input to the atmosphere due to the propeller action by the neutron star dominates the radiative losses. This condition can be expressed in terms of the convective efficiency parameter (see DP81, page 221) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=M_{\mathrm{Mach}}^2\left[\frac{V_\mathrm{t}t_{\mathrm{br}}}{R}\right]=\frac{V_\mathrm{t}^3t_{\mathrm{br}}}{V_\mathrm{s}^2R}1.$$
(4)
Here $`t_{\mathrm{br}}`$ is the bremsstrahlung cooling time:

$$t_{\mathrm{br}}=6.3\times 10^4\left[\frac{T}{10^9\mathrm{K}}\right]^{1/2}\left[\frac{n}{10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3}\right]^1\mathrm{s},$$
(5)
and $`n`$ is the number density of the atmospheric plasma, which at the outer radius of the atmosphere can be evaluated as

$$n(R_\alpha )\frac{\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}}{\pi R_\alpha ^2V_{\mathrm{rel}}m_\mathrm{p}}.$$
(6)
Taking into account that in the supersonic propeller case $`V_\mathrm{s}V_\mathrm{t}R^{1/2}`$, $`\rho R^{1/2}`$, and $`TR^1`$, one finds $`\mathrm{\Gamma }R^{3/2}`$. This indicates that the cooling dominates first at the outer radius of the atmosphere and thus the model presented above is consistent if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R_\alpha )1`$.

Combining Eqs. (1 \- 6) I find this condition to be satisfied if the strength of the normal companion stellar wind is $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{2.2\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}mV_8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(7)
Comparing this result with Eq. (4.9) in DP81, one can conclude that the value of the upper limit to the strength of the stellar wind derived by Davies & Pringle is underestimated by a factor of 1000.

## 3 Discussion

The normal companions of more than half of the presently known long period X-ray pulsars are Be/Oe stars (see e.g. Liu et al. lph00 (2000)). The stellar wind of these stars is not homogeneous. It consists of a high velocity low density component at high latitudes, and a low velocity high density circumstellar disk at the equatorial plane. Since $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}\rho V_{\mathrm{rel}}^1`$ the strength of the stellar wind at the equatorial plane is essentially larger than that at high latitudes. This particular property plays the key role in the interpretation of Be/X-ray transients: the powerful ($`L_\mathrm{x}10^{36}÷10^{38}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) X-ray outbursts observed in these systems are associated with the interaction between the neutron star and the circumstellar disk surrounding its Be companion (see e.g. Negueruela n98 (1998) and references therein). In the frame of this model, the strength of the stellar wind in the disk is $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}10^{16}10^{18}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ that is almost three orders of magnitude larger than $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ derived by DP81. On this basis, Be/X-ray binaries were excluded from the list of systems in which the long periods of neutron stars can be interpreted within the spindown scenario presented by Davies & Pringle.

However the situation becomes completely different after applying the correction to the value of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ presented in this letter. Then the model of supersonic propeller constructed by Davies & Pringle proves to be valid even if the neutron star is situated in a strong stellar wind moving through the circumstellar disk of its Be/Oe companion. Furthermore, the spindown time scale of neutron stars situated in a strong stellar wind is significantly smaller than that of neutron stars in a weak stellar wind. That is why the number of long-period pulsars which can be analyzed within the canonical spindown scenario essentially increases.

As an illustration, I consider a particular example of one of the best studied Be/X-ray transients A0535+26. This system consists of a 15 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ Be star and the magnetized neutron star ($`\mu 10^{31}\mu _{31}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{cm}^3`$) rotating with the period $`P103P_{103}`$ s. The rotational axis of the normal companion is almost parallel to the orbital axis of the system, so the trajectory of the neutron star lies in the plane of the circumstellar disk surrounding the Be star. The average value of the relative velocity between the neutron star and the surrounding material is $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}10^7V_7\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the average strength of the stellar wind is $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}10^{17}\dot{M}_{17}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (see for discussion Ikhsanov 2001b  and references therein).

Under these conditions, $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^{17}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is larger than $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}`$ and hence the supersonic propeller model of DP81 can be used. Following this model, the duration of the spindown epoch of the neutron star in A0535+26 can be expressed as

$$\tau _{\mathrm{sd}}=\tau _\mathrm{a}+\tau _\mathrm{c}+\tau _\mathrm{d}\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}10}^6\mathrm{yr},$$
(8)
where $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$ is the time scale of the pulsar-like spindown, which I evaluate following DP81 (see Eqs. (3.3.5) and (3.3.6) in their paper) as

$$\tau _\mathrm{a}=\mathrm{4.8\hspace{0.17em}10}^6\mu _{31}^3\dot{M}_{17}^{1/2}I_{45}V_7^1\mathrm{s},$$
(9)
$`\tau _\mathrm{c}`$ is the time scale of the supersonic propeller spindown, which according to DP81 (see Eqs. (3.1.7) and (3.3.6) in their paper) is

$$\tau _\mathrm{c}10^6\mu _{31}^1\dot{M}_{17}^{1/2}I_{45}V_7^1\mathrm{s},$$
(10)
and $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$ is the time scale of the subsonic propeller spindown, which can be estimated according to Ikhsanov (2001a : Eq. 10) as

$$\tau _\mathrm{d}10^3\mu _{31}^2mI_{45}P_{103}\mathrm{yr}.$$
(11)
$`I_{45}`$ is the moment of inertia of the neutron star expressed in units $`10^{45}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

The break period, at which the neutron star in A0535+26 switches its state from subsonic propeller to accretor, can be evaluated using Eq. (8) in Ikhsanov (2001a ) as

$$P_{\mathrm{br}}100\mu _{31}^{16/21}\dot{M}_{17}^{5/7}m^{4/21}\mathrm{s}.$$
(12)
Thus, in the frame of the canonical spindown scenario, the neutron star in A0535+26 is expected to decelerate its rotation, on the time scale of the main-sequence lifetime of its companion, to the presently observed spin period.

## 4 Conclusion

Davies & Pringle (dp81 (1981)) has underestimated the upper limit to the strength of the stellar wind at which the supersonic propeller model is self-consistent by a factor of $`10^3`$. The incorporation of the re-estimated value into their spindown scenario shows that the propeller mechanism can be responsible for the origin of the long-period X-ray pulsars in Be/X-ray transients. Application of this scenario to particular objects will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Prof. J. Pringle for useful discussion. I acknowledge the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation within the Long-term Cooperation Program.


text:
# The simplest non-trivial model of chaotic causal dynamics

## I Introduction

In the de Broglie-Bohm approach to quantum phenomena (b1, ; b2, ; b3, ) particles possess highly non-classical but well-defined trajectories. They are derivable from the guidance equation:

$$𝐯=\dot{𝐫}=\frac{𝐣}{|\psi |^2}=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2m}\frac{\psi \psi ^{}\psi ^{}\psi }{|\psi |^2}=\frac{1}{m}S,$$
(1)
where $`\psi (𝐫,t)=R(𝐫,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[(i/\mathrm{})S(𝐫,t)\right]`$ is a generator of the velocity field.

Thus, so-called quantum chaos can be studied via Eq. (1) since trajectories naturally exist in the de Broglie-Bohm mechanics which was proved to be completely equivalent to the standard Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics. The velocity field (1) preserves its definition also within the hydrodynamical formulation of quantum theory.

Solutions of Eq. (1) can be very complicated as it was first believed by Bohm himself (b2, ). Since the equations can be nonlinear ones, Dürr et al (b4, ) concluded that…there is nothing in Bohmian mechanics which would preclude sensitive dependence on initial conditions of…Bohmian orbits…and hence positive Lyapunov exponents. The idea of looking for chaos in Bohmian trajectories, and thus in quantum theory, was also mentioned in (b5, ; b6, ) and some time later it was actually fulfilled (b7, ). Shortly after that a number of authors (b8, ; b9, ; b10, ; b11, ; b12, ; b13, ; b14, ) found chaotic orbits for various models and entailed wave functions.

A generic feature of Bohmian mechanics is that the phase space volumes are not conserved by the flow, i.e.$`𝐯`$ does not generally vanish. It is expected (b12, ), however, that the volumes are conserved on the average, which means vanishing of $`lim_T\mathrm{}(1/T)_0^T𝐯d\tau `$. Very recently we have been successful (b15, ) in constructing, within the Bohmian mechanics, a model of a Hamiltonian system ($`𝐯=0`$), perturbed by disturbance periodic in time, leading to chaotic solutions for some parameters.

Most studies on quantum chaology mentioned here (b8, ; b9, ; b10, ; b11, ; b12, ; b13, ; b14, ) were inspired by Parmenter and Valentine’s work (b7, ), where the system of two non-autonomous equations (or three autonomous), generated from the 2D anisotropic harmonic oscillator wave functions, was integrated. This work opened a number of interesting questions, among them: (i) what are the necessary conditions for the causal chaotic orbits to exist, especially, whether a model-system of equations playing the role of a limit case for other causal models can be identified, (ii) whether the known properties of volume-conserving systems with a time-dependent perturbation can be observed in the Bohmian dynamics as well.

The problems we have just distinguished, though subjectively chosen, are however important for the causal dynamics itself and for the theory of dynamical systems in general. So far, they have not been fully answered. The reason is that the systems based on Eq. (1) are much more difficult to deal with than any other conservative or dissipative system studied so far. In this paper we shall therefore try to identify a model being not only the simplest one in the causal dynamics but also revealing the way the chaotic Bohmian orbits are created. In what follows, the answer to the point (i) will be given and we shall also contribute to the point (ii) above.

## II Essential equations

A particularly interesting problem connected with the point (i) above is the following: what is the simplest form of the wave function $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ in Eq. (1) that still generates chaotic solutions. After having conducted numerical experiments authors of the work (b7, ) concluded that it is necessary for $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ to be a superposition of at least three stationary one-particle states and at least one pair of the states must have mutually incommensurate energy eigenstates. The wave function of the two-dimensional anisotropic harmonic oscillator used for the study generated a set of two non-autonomous equations with three control parameters.

Using the same eigenstates we have recently shown (b15, ) that a linear combination of only two stationary states is sufficient to obtain chaotic causal trajectories if one of the states is at least double degenerate. The dynamical system derived in such a way had two control parameters and when they were put equal to each other the system was proved to be completely integrable.

We are going to show that with two properly chosen stationary states dynamical systems can be generated with one or two or four control parameters leading in each case to chaotic behaviour. To this end let us assume ($`\mathrm{}=1,m=1,\omega =1`$)

$$\psi (x,y,t)=\psi _n(x)\psi _n(y)e^{iE_1t}+\left[a_0\psi _k(x)\psi _n(y)+ia_1\psi _n(x)\psi _k(y)\right]e^{iE_2t},$$
(2)
where $`\psi _j`$ are solutions of the stationary 1D Schrödinger equation and $`E_k`$ are eigenenergies of the 2D problems. The second stationary state is obviously double degenerate and $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ are arbitrary real constants. From the definition of the velocity field given in Eq. (1) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{x}& =\frac{a_0\phi ^{}(x)\left[\mathrm{sin}(\epsilon t)+a_1\phi (y)\right]}{\left(\mathrm{cos}(\epsilon t)+a_0\phi (x)\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{sin}(\epsilon t)+a_1\phi (y)\right)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{y}& =\frac{a_1\phi ^{}(y)\left[\mathrm{cos}(\epsilon t)+a_0\phi (x)\right]}{\left(\mathrm{cos}(\epsilon t)+a_0\phi (x)\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{sin}(\epsilon t)+a_1\phi (y)\right)^2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where

$$\phi (z)=\frac{\psi _k(z)}{\psi _n(z)},\epsilon =E_2E_1$$
(4)
and $`\phi ^{}`$ means the first derivative with respect to $`z`$.

From its construction the set (3) has two free parameters $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$. Nevertheless, their number can grow up to four or more, where $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are fixed, when some ideas of the so-called supersymmetric quantum mechanics are used. This method is based on using supersymmetry transformations to derive potentials $`\widehat{V}`$ isospectral to a given one, say $`V`$, i.e.with exactly the same eigenvalue spectrum. For details of the procedure we refer the reader to literature (see e.g.(b17, )). Here we are only going to present some formulae ready to use.

Let $`\{\psi _n(x)\}`$ and $`E_n`$ be respectively eigenstates and eigenenergies of a Hamiltonian with potential $`V(x)`$. Define a function $`I(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^x|\psi _0(z)|^2dz`$, where $`\psi _0(z)`$ is the ground (nodeless) state. Then, for properly chosen values of the real parameter $`\lambda `$, we can generate (b17, ) a new potential $`\widehat{V}(x;\lambda )=V(x)(\mathrm{d}^2/\mathrm{d}x^2)\mathrm{ln}[I(x)+\lambda ]`$ with $`q=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ less bound states than $`V(x)`$ has. Now the eigenfunctions $`\widehat{\psi }(x;\lambda )`$ corresponding to $`\widehat{V}(x;\lambda )`$ in the strictly isospectral case of $`q=0`$ with $`\widehat{E}_n=E_n`$ have the form

$$\widehat{\psi }_{n+1}(x;\lambda )=\psi _{n+1}(x)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{E_{n+1}E_0}\right)\frac{I^{}(x)}{I(x)+\lambda }\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\frac{\psi _0^{}(x)}{\psi _0(x)}\right)\psi _{n+1}(x),$$
(5)
where $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda >0`$ or $`\lambda <1`$ and the prim denotes the first order derivative. Now, the normalized wave function $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ of the ground state reads

$$\widehat{\psi }_0(x;\lambda )=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda (1+\lambda )}}{I(x)+\lambda }\psi _0(x).$$
(6)
In the limit of $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ the “new” functions $`\widehat{\psi }`$ and potentials $`\widehat{V}`$ reduce to the “old” ones.

The procedure sketched above can be further generalized and one can construct (b18, ) an infinite number of isospectral families $`\widehat{V}(x;\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})`$ having identical bound-state energies.

Since the velocity field in Eq. (1) is a functional of wave function we can modify properties of the dynamical system as in Eqs. (3), based on two stationary states, by increasing the number of control parameters. In the simplest case, instead of Eq. (2), we can now propose

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\psi }_{\lambda \mu }(x,y,t)=& \widehat{\psi }_n(x;\lambda )\widehat{\psi }_n(y;\mu )e^{iE_1t}+\hfill \\ & +\left[a_0\widehat{\psi }_k(x;\lambda )\widehat{\psi }_n(y;\mu )+ia_1\widehat{\psi }_n(x;\lambda )\widehat{\psi }_k(y;\mu )\right]e^{iE_2t},\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\mu >0`$ or $`\mu <1`$. With the replacement $`\psi \widehat{\psi }_{\lambda \mu }`$ we have from Eq. (1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{x}& =\frac{a_0\widehat{\phi }_\lambda ^{}(x)\left[\mathrm{sin}(\epsilon t)+a_1\widehat{\phi }_\mu (y)\right]}{\left(\mathrm{cos}(\epsilon t)+a_0\widehat{\phi }_\lambda (x)\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{sin}(\epsilon t)+a_1\widehat{\phi }_\mu (y)\right)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{y}& =\frac{a_1\widehat{\phi }_\mu ^{}(y)\left[\mathrm{cos}(\epsilon t)+a_0\widehat{\phi }_\lambda (x)\right]}{\left(\mathrm{cos}(\epsilon t)+a_0\widehat{\phi }_\lambda (x)\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{sin}(\epsilon t)+a_1\widehat{\phi }_\mu (y)\right)^2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where

$$\widehat{\phi }_\lambda (x)=\frac{\widehat{\psi }_k(x;\lambda )}{\widehat{\psi }_n(x;\lambda )},\widehat{\phi }_\mu (y)=\frac{\widehat{\psi }_k(y;\mu )}{\widehat{\psi }_n(y;\mu )}.$$
(9)
Of course as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ the set of Eqs. (8) reduces to that given in Eqs. (3).

Since for a single stationary state or for a linear combination of two non-degenerate stationary states dynamical systems resulting from Eq. (1) can be easily proved to be non-chaotic, we conclude that equations (8) or (3) are the simplest non-trivial systems within the Bohmian mechanics with possibly chaotic dynamics. At this point it should be mentioned that chaotic behaviour can be generated from Eq. (1) even for just one stationary state (b19, ), it is necessary, however, to deal with two particles.

## III The simplest model of chaotic causal dynamics

We are now ready to identify the model that could play the role of a limiting case of more complex models of Bohmian dynamics and still revealing their non-trivial properties.

To this end let us observe that Eqs. (3) and (8) have the same form and the latter were derived to show a possibility of introducing additional control parameters to the system under consideration. Thus, for the time being, we may restrict ourselves to Eqs. (3).

In the simplest non-trivial case we can choose

$$\phi (z)=Cz,\epsilon =1$$
(10)
in Eqs. (4), which follows from using two lowest states of 1D harmonic oscillator, i.e., $`n=0`$, $`k=1`$ and $`\psi _0(z)=A\mathrm{exp}((1/2)z^2)`$, $`\psi _1(z)=Bz\mathrm{exp}((1/2)z^2)`$. Due to the relation $`C=B/A`$, for normalized states $`C=\sqrt{2}`$. Since the constant can be absorbed by $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ we take for simplicity $`C=1`$. Now $`\psi (x,y,t)`$ in Eqs. (2) is the state representing 2D isotropic oscillator with eigenenergies $`E_1=1`$ and $`E_2=2`$.

In the case of $`a_0=a_1=a`$, since the integral of the motion $`C(x,y,t)=Ma^2\mathrm{ln}M2a(x\mathrm{cos}t+y\mathrm{sin}t)`$, where $`M=(\mathrm{cos}t+ax)^2+(\mathrm{sin}t+ay)^2`$ exists, Eqs. (3) do not generate chaotic solutions. Moreover, we also have $`\dot{x}/x+\dot{y}/y=0`$ which means conservation of the phase space “volume”. It can be also observed that a function $`H(x,y,t)`$ exists such that $`\dot{x}=H/y`$ and $`\dot{y}=H/x`$ with $`H`$ defined as $`H=(1/2)\mathrm{ln}M`$.

When $`a_0a_1`$ Eqs. (3) are no more integrable and the very detailed discussion in (b15, ) showed that the system of equations can be transformed into the form of a Hamiltonian autonomous system with a periodic non-Hamiltonian perturbation. Then, the method of Melnikov function can also be used to prove formally the existence of chaotic orbits.

The model discussed here is, as yet, the only known model of Bohmian dynamics with the above properties. Presumably no similar case with such unique features can be found. To show that it can serve as a reference model for other models we have prepared a sequence of stroboscopic maps in Fig. 1 for a few pairs of $`a_0a_1`$ such that $`a_0=1.015A`$ and $`a_1=0.985A`$ with $`A=\mathrm{},100,10,4,2,1`$.

The first plot in Fig. 1 represents a circle which is then deformed into a curve formed of two loops crossing a single point. When $`a_0=a_1`$ both the homoclinic orbit of that shape and the hyperbolic point can be found formally as shown with full particulars in (b15, ). Here we show instead for $`A=10`$ a thin stochastic layer appearing in the vicinity of the orbit spreading out in the area surrounding the point. The smaller the value of $`A`$ is, the faster the homoclinic orbit breaks up and the fully developed chaotic trajectory can be attributed to the picture for $`A=2`$. We have estimated the largest Lyapunow exponent for the trajectory with $`x(0)=1.98`$, $`y(0)=0`$ and $`0<t<200000`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.001`$, as $`\lambda _{max}=0.06`$.

## IV Comparison with more intricate models

We shall now deviate from the above model to show that other more complicated models reveal similar behaviour. Two completely different ways of doing such modifications are briefly sketched below.

### IV.1 An isospectral modification

We can destroy the rotational symmetry of the 2D harmonic oscillator potential of the model of Section 3 and simultaneously preserve the same eigenvalues spectrum of the new potential. To this end the functions $`\psi _0(z)`$ and $`\psi _1(z)`$, with $`z=x`$ or $`y`$, are used in Eqs. (5) and (6) and will get $`\widehat{\psi }_0(x;\lambda )`$, $`\widehat{\psi }_1(x;\lambda )`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_0(y;\mu )`$, $`\widehat{\psi }_1(y;\mu )`$. Finally, from Eqs. (9), we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \widehat{\phi }_\lambda (x)=\frac{I(x)+\lambda }{\sqrt{\lambda (1+\lambda )}}\left(x+\frac{e^{x^2}}{2\sqrt{\pi }(\lambda +I(x))}\right),\\ \hfill \widehat{\phi }_\mu (y)=\frac{I(y)+\mu }{\sqrt{\mu (1+\mu )}}\left(y+\frac{e^{y^2}}{2\sqrt{\pi }(\mu +I(y))}\right),\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`I(z)=\pi ^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^ze^{u^2}du`$. Once more the factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ is absorbed by the expansion coefficients in Eq. (7). The functions $`\widehat{\psi }_0(x;\lambda )\widehat{\psi }_0(y;\mu )`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_0(x;\lambda )\widehat{\psi }_1(y;\mu )`$ correspond to the same previous energies $`E_1=1`$ and $`E_2=2`$, and hence again $`\epsilon =1`$. The new potential has now the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{V}_{\lambda \mu }(x,y)=& \widehat{V}_\lambda (x)+\widehat{V}_\mu (y)=\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{1}{2}(x^2+y^2)+\frac{2\pi ^{1/2}xe^{x^2}\left(\lambda +I(x)\right)+\pi ^1e^{2x^2}}{\left(\lambda +I(x)\right)^2}+\hfill \\ & +\frac{2\pi ^{1/2}ye^{y^2}\left(\mu +I(y)\right)+\pi ^1e^{2y^2}}{\left(\mu +I(y)\right)^2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
and in the limit of $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ it reduces to the usual 2D oscillator potential. For the sake of comparison, its 1D image is presented in Fig. 2. The lower the value of $`\lambda `$ is, the more $`\widehat{V}_\lambda (x)`$ deviates from its partner potential $`V(x)=(1/2)x^2`$. Similarly, $`\widehat{\phi }_\lambda (x)`$ in Eqs. (11) deviates from $`\phi (z)`$ in Eq. (10). Thus, the model of Section 3 is a limiting case of the one introduced above for asymptotic values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. Only in this limit with $`a_0=a_1`$ the latter is obviously integrable. In other cases, for any combination of the four parameters $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$, a chaotic solution can always be found. The components of the velocity field $`𝐯(x,y,t)`$ are now determined by Eqs. (8) and (11). Formal calculations show that $`𝐯`$ is now changing with time and tends to zero only in the above limit. Nevertheless, the scenario of approaching a chaotic orbit seems to be very similar to that observed for the model given by Eqs. (10) and (3). This is clearly visible in Fig. 3.

The first two plots are about the same as in Fig. 1 and for smaller values of $`a`$ the stochastic layers appear to be a little more pronounced than those in the corresponding pictures in Fig. 1. We have expected this as a consequence of the lack of the rotational symmetry of the isospectral Hamiltonian (cf. Fig. 2).

### IV.2 Particle in a restricted space

The second modification of our Eqs. (10) and (3) uses the simplest model with a non-linear eigenvalue spectrum. It is a square well with $`x[0,\pi ]`$, $`y[0,\pi ]`$ and the normalized wave functions $`\psi _n=\sqrt{(2/\pi )}\mathrm{sin}(nz)`$ and energies $`E_n=(1/2)n^2`$, $`n=1,2\mathrm{}`$. Then, for $`n=1`$ and $`k=2`$ in Eq. (2) we use in Eqs. (3)

$$\phi (z)=2\mathrm{cos}z,\epsilon =\frac{3}{2}.$$
(13)
In our numerical calculations the factor of 2 is included in the constants $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ in Eqs. (3). Now, Eqs. (3) are integrated for a number of values of $`a_0=a_1=a`$ and the results are presented in Fig. 4. The first member ($`|a|>>1`$) of the family of pictures is not a circle but a closed curve perfectly approximated by the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{sin}x\mathrm{sin}y`$, where $`0\mathrm{\Delta }1`$. For smaller values of the parameter $`|a|`$ we can again observe the formation of a homoclinic orbit with the shape as in Fig. 4 for $`a=10`$. When decreasing $`|a|`$ the orbit breaks up and the stochastic layer becomes well pronounced.

The dynamics here is very similar to that in our model of Section 3 and this again suggests considering it as the simplest non-trivial model of chaotic Bohmian dynamics.

## V Conclusion

In this article we have discussed the set of equations that could serve as the reference one for chaotic causal trajectories and revealing the way in which the causal orbits become chaotic ones. This work is the first attempt to contribute to this difficult problem. The results presented here seem to suggest that the way from a regular to chaotic behaviour leads via the formation and break-up of a homoclinic orbit. Unfortunately, the formal derivation of the orbit and of the critical points is possible only for the model of Section 3 above and for the details we refer the reader to (b15, ). In other cases we are able to do that only numerically. To emphasize this, we have prepared sequences of pictures in Figs. 3 and 4 clearly showing their close similarity to those in Fig. 1. It is indeed common for the way the chaotic behaviour appears in Fig. 1 to be essentially independent of the model that is used to generate it. Results of our paper thus bridge the gap between the theory of dynamical systems and the causal quantum trajectories.

We can consider the sequence of pictures in Fig. 1 as a possible way leading to the appearance of chaotic orbits in the Bohmian, or equivalently, in the hydrodynamical formulation of quantum mechanics. Quite strong support of the conjecture is in our opinion convincingly manifested in the series of plots in the above figures. What we have discussed here has not been observed so far since the models under consideration were too complex and the properties of trajectories depicted here were masked in their very complicated dynamics.

The proof that some orbits in Fig. 1, and hence in Figs. 3 and 4 as well, are chaotic ones, follows directly from the results of our recent paper (b15, ). That is why we have calculated the largest Lyapunow exponent just for one orbit with $`A=2`$ to show what the typical order of magnitude for the quantity and models under consideration is.

Looking for the simplest yet non-trivial dynamics systems, both conservative and dissipative ones, has attracted much interest for a number of years. Representative studies on the subject together with the lists of such models can be found in (b20, ; b21, ). Our work is a contribution in this field for a special class of dynamical systems generated by the guidance equation (1) of the de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics. The model based on Eqs. (3) and (10) can be considered as the simplest non-trivial one for the reasons outlined throughout the paper. The name is additionally justified by the fact that the wave function we have used has only one moving node. Our numerical experiments with a number of other models lead to the conjecture that for the systems of two non-autonomous equations of the form of Eq. (1), existence of at least one moving node seems to be a necessary condition for chaotic orbits to exist. In our model the node moves along a circle in the integrable case and along an ellipse as the system is chaotic.

We should emphasize at this point that a huge number of dynamical systems can be generated with help of Eq. (1) since they are a functional of the used wave function. The resulting systems of two non-autonomous equations, necessary by the well-known Poincaré-Bendixson theorem for chaotic behaviour to appear, are not similar to any of systems studied so far. Our results show, however, that for the particular choice of the velocity field generator, i.e.the wave function, we can observe mechanism of obtaining chaotic orbits similar to the one known for the systems forced by the disturbance periodic in time. To find such a behaviour for “the quantum trajectories” of Eq. (1) we were constrained to a specific choice of functions without a particular physical significance. The similarity of Bohmian systems to the well-known dynamical ones is presumably still preserved for physically important wave functions. This statement is, for now, an open question.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by The Polish Government (KBN Grant No. 2 P03B 121 16).