text:
# On the trapping reaction with mobile traps

## Abstract

We present Monte Carlo results for the two-species trapping reaction $`A+BB`$ with diffusing $`A`$ and $`B`$ on lattices in one, two and three dimension. We use a novel algorithm which permits to simulate survival probabilities of $`A`$ particles down to $`<10^{30}`$ with high accuracy. The results for the survival probability agree much better with the exact asymptotic predictions of Bramson and Lebowitz (Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2397 (1988)) than with the heuristics of Kang and Redner (J. Phys. A 17, L451 (1984)). But there are very large deviations from either which show that even these simulations are far from asymptotia. This is supported by the rms. displacement of $`A`$ particles which clearly show that the asymptotic regime has not been reached, at least for $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$.

Even the simplest reaction diffusion systems with only two-body reactions and without particle production show very rich and not yet fully understood phenomena. One prototype is the absorption of diffusing particles on randomly located static sinks. This model, studied first by Smoluchowski nearly hundred years ago smoluch , shows an exponential decrease of the particle density in mean field theory, but the exact asymptotic behaviour found by Donsker and Varadhan dv75  is a stretched exponential in any finite dimension $`d`$. Another classic example, the recombination $`A+AA`$, was studied by Feller feller . It leads to $`n_At^{1/2}`$ in $`d=1`$, as compared to the mean field solution $`n_At^1`$ which holds for $`d>2`$.

Particle annihilation with two mobile species $`A`$ and $`B`$, either of the type $`A+BB`$ or $`A+B0`$, were studied by Ovchinikov and Zeldovich oz78  and Toussaint and Wilczek tw83 . The motivation of tw83  stemmed from the fate of magnetic monopoles in the early universe, but applications to condensed matter physics and chemical kinetics are of course more numerous.

If one starts out with equal densities for $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`n_A(0)=n_B(0)`$, then the reaction $`A+B0`$ leads to $`nt^{1/4}`$ tw83 . This is different from the cases $`n_A(0)<n_B(0)`$ and $`A+BB`$. In both these cases $`n_An_B`$ for late times, and one expects identical asymptotics. This was indeed proven rigorously by Bramson and Lebowitz bl88  who obtained

$$n_A(t)\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _1\sqrt{t})\hfill & d=1\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}(\lambda _2t/\mathrm{ln}t)\hfill & d=2\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}(\lambda _dt)\hfill & d3\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
with unknown constants $`\lambda _d`$. In contrast to this, different asymptotics had been predicted for $`A+BB`$ and for $`A+B0`$ with $`n_A(0)<n_B(0)`$ by Kang and Redner kr84 ; rk84  by heuristic arguments.

Verifying Eq.(1) numerically has turned out to be about as difficult as verifying the Donsker-Varadhan stretched exponential. The first simulations by Kang and Redner kr84  agreed with their own (supposedly wrong) heuristic asymptotics. Subsequent simulations ssb90 ; ssb91  were judged even by the authors as inconclusive. The main problem seems to be that there are large finite time corrections to the asymptotic behaviour. Thus one would like to simulate up to very long times. But with the straightforward approaches used so far it is practically impossible to estimate survival probabilities smaller than $`10^8`$, even with the most powerful present day computers.

It is the purpose of this work to present simulations for the reaction $`A+BB`$ which go far beyond this. We shall not give any results for $`A+B0`$ since our special numerical methods cannot be applied to that case. More specifically we consider regular lattices on which the $`B`$ particles perform independent random walks. $`A`$ particles also perform random walks until they hit upon a $`B`$ particle in which case they are instantaneously absorbed. Initial conditions are such that all $`B`$s are uncorrelated with homogeneous concentration $`c`$. Since $`A`$ particles do not interact with each other, their concentration is irrelevant. In the actual simulations we shall use either one or two $`A`$s in the initial configuration. Notice that in this model the $`B`$ particles act as catalyzers, and their distribution is Poissonian at any time, if they start out independently at $`t=0`$.

Our algorithm is related to an algorithm used recently mg01  for the trapping (Donsker-Varadhan) problem. There we were able to clarify the cross-over from the mean field type to the stretched exponential behaviour. In the present case we shall see that – despite going to much longer times than in earlier simulations – we still do not yet fully understand the cross-over to the Bramson-Lebowitz asymptotics.

The algorithm has several essential ingredients. The first is that we use cloning (“enrichment”) of configurations with surviving $`A`$ particles and a bias for the diffusion of $`A`$ such that less of them are absorbed. This bias is compensated by suitably chosen weights, i.e. we always deal with nontrivially weighted ensembles. On the other hand, the simulation is stopped as soon as one of the $`A`$s is absorbed, or if the weight of the configuration is too small. Thus all our results are based on conditional probability distributions, conditioned on the survival of all $`A`$s. These features are implemented by PERM g97  which is a general growth method (using ‘sequential importance sampling with resampling’ in the sense of liu01 ) and has been very successful in a large number of problems mg01 ; gn01 .

Assume that we have a single $`A`$ (the case for $`k`$ $`A`$ particles with $`k>1`$ is straightforward) which has arrived at site $`i`$ at time $`t`$. The fact that we condition on those events where $`A`$ is not absorbed means that there cannot be a $`B`$ at this site. Thus the homogeneity of the unconditioned distribution is broken, and an effective hole in the $`B`$ distribution is introduced. For times $`>t`$ this hole makes a random walk. If it meets a hole produced at a time $`t`$, the two recombine.

In principle one could simulate these holes explicitly, i.e. one could simulate the $`A`$s in a background of $`B`$ where a $`B`$ particle (sic!) is removed each time it hits an $`A`$. We indeed did perform such simulations. They agreed with straightforward simulations not using PERM or any conditioning and were more accurate, but the accuracy of both type of simulations was rather poor in comparison with our final algorithm.

Our final ingredient is that we do an exact summation over the $`B`$ paths. This depends crucially on the fact that the $`B`$ distribution is Poissonian. The latter is still true for the conditioned distribution (it would not be true in the reaction $`A+B0`$, therefore our method cannot be used for it). A Poisson distribution is uniquely characterized by its mean. The evolution of this mean is described by a modified diffusion equation. More precisely, we describe the $`B`$ density by a homogeneous background $`c`$ minus a density $`\rho (i,t)`$ of holes. The latter is at every time step set equal to $`c`$ at the actual $`A`$ position, but otherwise evolves according to the simple diffusion equation $`\rho (i,t+1)=(2d)^1_{<j,i>}\rho (j,t)`$. Its initial condition is $`\rho (i,0)=0`$. At each time step the $`A`$ (which is assumed to be at site $`i`$) has a chance $`\mathrm{exp}(\rho (i,t)c)`$ to be absorbed, i.e. the weight of the event in the conditioned ensemble decreases by a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(c\rho (i,t))`$. The algorithm used in mg01  for the trapping problem is just a simplification where we omit the diffusion of the holes.

All our simulations were done on workstations, with a total of a few hundred hours of CPU time. All results were carefully checked for small $`t`$ against straightforward brute force simulations with the most simple algorithm. In addition we also made simulations with algorithms of intermediate complexity and efficiency.

We first discuss results for $`d=1`$. Here we can use lattices so large that none of the holes ever reaches the boundary, thus we have no finite size effects at all. In Fig.1a we show the survival chances $`P_A(t)`$ of a single $`A`$ particle and of a pair of particles which started at the same site. Although they become as small as $`10^{35}`$, the statistical errors are much smaller than the thickness of the lines. The fact that $`P_A`$ for a pair is larger that the square of $`P_A`$ for a single particle is easily understood: If already one $`A`$ particle has survived in some region, there are less than average $`B`$ particles in this region, and the second $`A`$ particle has a bigger survival chance. Theoretically bl88  we expect $`P_A(t)\mathrm{exp}(const\sqrt{t})`$, at least for a single particle. In Fig.1b we thus show $`\sqrt{t}\mathrm{ln}P_A(t)`$ on a semi-logarithmic scale. Error bars are here $`<0.001`$. Thus the decline for $`t>1000`$ is statistically highly significant for both curves. Unless we accept that there is an error in bl88 , we have to conclude that at least this decline of $`\sqrt{t}\mathrm{ln}P_A(t)`$ for a single $`A`$ particle is a finite $`t`$ effect, and that the true asymptotic behaviour sets in at $`t10^4`$. We also compared our data with the prediction $`\mathrm{ln}P_A(t)t^{1/4}`$ of kr84 , with even worse agreement. Although that latter prediction was for $`A+BB,n_A(0)<n_B(0)`$, we pointed out already that both models should show the same asymptotics. We thus conclude that the data are in rough agreement with bl88 , but the very big deviations are surprising (in particular since they are not monotonic!) and not understood.

The mean squared displacement $`R_A^2`$ of the $`A`$ particle is shown in Fig.2. In this figure we also show the squared distance between two $`A`$ particles which started off simultaneously at the same site. We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ increases less fast than $`R`$, indicating an effective attraction mediated by the $`B`$ particles: If already one $`A`$ particle has survivied in some region, there are less than average $`B`$ particles in this region, and the second $`A`$ particle will not only survive longer, but it will also survive preferentially in a region close to the first one. But this appears to be a weak effect. The most economic conclusion from Fig.2 is that both curves converge to the same scaling behaviour, $`R^2(\mathrm{\Delta }R)^2t^\nu `$ with $`\nu =0.5`$ to $`0.6`$. But any determination of a critical index should be taken with very big caution in view of Fig.1: we should not take any behaviour seen for $`t<10^5`$ as reflecting the asymptotic behaviour.

With increasing $`d`$, updating $`\rho (i,t)`$ becomes more and more time consuming. Thus we can simulate only for much shorter times, if we want to avoid excessive CPU times or large finite size corrections. For $`d=2`$, results for $`t^1\mathrm{ln}P_A(t)`$ with $`c=0.5`$ are shown in Fig.3, together with $`t^1\mathrm{ln}t\mathrm{ln}P_A(t).`$ For large values of $`t`$ the data agree much better with Eq.(1) than with the alternative prediction $`\mathrm{ln}P_A(t)atbt^{1/2}`$ of rk84 . The factor $`1/\mathrm{ln}t`$ in Eq.(1) seems to be correct asymptotically, although it makes agreement worse for small $`t`$. Anyhow, deviations from Eq.(1) are substantial, and even for the largest $`t`$ where the curve appears to be horizontal in the figure (and where, by the way, $`P_A(t)10^{98}`$) it still shows a definite curvature.

The fact that asymptotia cannot have been reached by these 2-d data is most clearly seen from $`R_A^2`$. It is shown in Fig.4, together with the analogous data from $`d=1`$ and $`d=3`$. To make the point particularly clear we show there $`R_A^2/\sqrt{t}`$ against $`t`$. If $`d=2`$ is the upper critical dimension for $`A+BB`$ as suggested by Eq.(1), then we should expect $`R_A^2t`$ up to logarithmic corrections in $`d=2`$. We also should expect that the data for $`d=2`$ should fall between those for $`d=3`$ (where we expect $`R_A^2t`$) and $`d=1`$ (where $`R_A^2t^\nu `$ with $`\nu <1`$). Figure 4 shows a completely different behaviour. On the one hand, $`R_A^2`$ is very far from being $`t`$, on the other hand the data are not monotonic with $`d`$.

One might expect that asymptotic behaviour is observed earlier for higher values of the concentration $`c`$. We performed therefore also 2-d simulations with $`c=0.7`$ and $`c=1.0`$. As expected, $`P_A`$ and $`R_A^2`$ both decreased with $`c`$, but the strange time dependence of $`R_A^2`$ persisted.

Finally, we show in Fig.5 the survival probability in $`d=3`$, again for $`c=0.5`$. More precisely, we show $`\mathrm{ln}P_A(t)/t`$. It depends quite strongly on $`t`$, but its curvature is consistent with convergence to Eq.(1) without further surprises.

In conclusion, we have performed simulations of a trapping model in which both traps and trapped particles are mobile with equal mobilities. The simulations, undertaken in the hope of understanding the precise cross-over to the exactly known asymptotic behaviour, are much more extensive than previous simulations of this model, in the sense of reaching much longer times and much lower survival probabilities. This was possible due to a novel algorithm. In spite of the vastly improved numerics we have not been able to understand all details of the model. Some of our results are indeed quite puzzling. On the other hand, our methods can be possibly applied also to other models where absorbers are free particles undisturbed by the particles which they absorb. One class of such models are e.g. gated reaction-diffusion systems of the type $`A+B0`$ with stochastically changing reaction rates bmo00 .

Acknowledgement: We thank Walter Nadler for discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Non-Locality and Theories of Causation Presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop Modality, Probability and Bell’s Theorems, Cracow, Poland, August 19-23, 2001.

## 1 Introduction

In the natural as well as in the social or psychological domain, puzzling phenomena call for an explanation, and there is little doubt that the connection among quantum events across spacetime - known as non-locality - is indeed puzzling. Events that we might reasonably consider mutually independent, according to our best theory of space and time, turn out to influence each other. But as soon as we try to understand what this ‘influence’ could amount to, we find ourselves in deep physical and philosophical troubles, and if we attempt to investigate the connection between non-locality and causation, the situation may become even more complicated. For if for the sake of the argument we assume we have a vague intuition of what non-locality might be, several are the questions worth asking. Is a causal view of non-locality itself possible? In particular, can the nature of quantum non-locality be somehow clarified by viewing it as grounded in some (perhaps unfamiliar) sort of causation? Which properties should this sort of causation satisfy?

There are two preliminary and general circumstances that need to be taken into account but that, at the same time, contribute to make the picture unclear. First, there seem to be different ways in which non-locality is manifested in quantum mechanics. Second, the notion of causation itself is far from being understood in an univocal and uncontroversial sense. The intuition according to which the occurrence of a physical event $`A`$ determines (produces, brings about, raises the probability of, …) the occurrence of a distinct physical event $`B`$ \- in which case $`A`$ is said to be the ‘cause’ of $`B`$ \- can be represented differently in different causal theories. Within the physicists’ community, for instance, it is assumed - tacitly or not - that events recognized to be causes must be temporally prior to their alleged effects, and the causal doctrine based on this assumption is sometimes referred to as ‘relativistic causality’. This terminology is itself biased, however, since it takes for granted that special relativity provides the strongest possible support for this assumption. In fact, a rich philosophical debate has shown that if, more generally, the only requirement to be satisfied is the impossibility of generating causal paradoxes, several causal theories may be developed without assuming any temporal priority of causes. Moreover, different causal theories may have a differing degree of adequacy when applied to the domain of microphysics. The evaluations that may be made of their basic causal principles according to different formulations and applications of the principles themselves may widely differ, so that when one claims to defend or counteract a causal view of non-locality, he should specify in advance what is the causal theory in terms of which that view is supposed to be ‘causal’. A clear demonstration of the interpretation-dependent character of causal notions is the debate on Reichenbach’s common cause principle, according to which when two events A and B are correlated, either there is a direct connection between A and B producing the correlation or there is a different event C which causes the correlation. On the basis of different intuitions and formal definitions, opposite conclusions have been drawn on whether explanations of nonlocal quantum correlations in terms of probabilistic common causes are an option or not. This circumstance strongly supports in my opinion the view expressed in , according to which what is usually called the common cause principle “is not really a principle but a schema of principles that calls for interpretation” (p. 53). 111For a recent and general assessment of this issue, in addition to , cf. the chapter 3 of . The pluralism of formulations that both the notion of (non-)locality and the notion of causation may assume in different theoretical frameworks can be considered primarily as a *logical* problem. In the assessment of the status and significance of a causal view of non-locality, however, we have first to take into account its *physical* background, namely we have to take into account the investigations on the physical meaning of non-locality in quantum mechanics. The standard framework is that of EPR-Bell correlation experiments, involving a two spin-1/2 particles’ system $`S_1+S_2`$ prepared in the singlet state, and such that the spin measurements are performed when the two subsystems $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ occupy two space-like separated spacetime regions $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, respectively, after leaving the source. The common feature of these investigations is basically an assumption of incompleteness for the purely quantum description of physical states; on the basis of such assumption a ‘finer’ state description is postulated via the introduction of extra (‘hidden’) variables that ‘add up’ to the quantum state. In this vein the first step was to introduce deterministic hidden variable models, in which the source state $`\lambda `$ is postulated to be complete and assumed to determine with certainty the outcome of any measurement that can be performed on the two distant subsystems. Later the condition of determinism for hidden variables has been relaxed. Stochastic hidden variable models were then introduced, in which the state description $`\lambda `$ allowed by the model enables one to determine not the measurement outcome but only its probability of occurrence.

Both in the deterministic and stochastic frameworks, a locality condition is usually motivated by a prescription of ‘lack of influence’ between the spacetime regions in which the measurement events are localized, although the specific condition of locality that was assumed in deterministic hidden variables models had to be reformulated in order to comply with the stochastic character of the more general model. The locality condition was then formulated as an independence constraint on the statistical predictions generated by the complete descriptions of the single particles’ states (when the particles themselves are spatially well separated). Namely, the assumption of the mutual independence between the relevant spin measurement events was formulated as the invariance of the probabilities prescribed by $`\lambda `$ for any outcome in one wing of the experiment under the change of some relevant parameter in the distant wing. Consequently, several discussions focused on what different locality conditions obtained when such parameter was taken to represent different things, typically parameters pertaining either to apparatus settings or to outcomes of the measurements. It is worth emphasizing that I refer here to hidden variables *models*, and not to hidden variables *theories*, for a simple reason. In the history of the hidden variables’ issue, the ‘theories’ in which more and more general locality conditions were assumed - and whose predictions have been shown to be inconsistent with those of quantum mechanics - were in fact theories only as a *façon de parler*; whereas the only full-fledged formal construction deserving the title of theory, namely Bohmian mechanics, is explicitly nonlocal. 222A recent detailed analysis of these and related issues is in .

The greater generality of these stochastic hidden variables models should make the conclusions drawn from them stronger. If locality is violated in these models, the existence of non-local influences is strongly supported, and thus their significance for the notion of causation can be investigated. However, even this more general framework provides no clear answer to the following central questions:

(a) How should the causal meaning of non-locality be assessed by the point of view of the spacetime structure in which non-local correlations display themselves?

(b) Provided we adopt the most natural interpretation of probability in physics, namely the relative frequency interpretation, and we do not turn to highly controversial notions such as chances, propensities or dispositions, what might non-local correlations tell us about single events confined in bounded spacetime regions? 333In  Dickson has questioned the adequacy of locality conditions based on probabilistic independence when Bohmian mechanics is taken into account, and he argued that Bohmian mechanics may be shown to satisfy or violate that kind of locality depending on how a specific model of the theory is constructed This indicates, according to Dickson, that probabilistic independence is not adequate to capture the meaning of locality. It is worth recalling that the Dickson argument concerning the status of locality as probabilistic independence in Bohmian mechanics has been challenged in . This is why in the sequel, when I will discuss the status and significance of causal relations within the issue of non-locality in quantum mechanics, I will assume as a working hypothesis that causal relations may be analyzed as holding among single events in spacetime, on the basis of processes that need not refer to any recurrence in order to be considered ‘causal’. As every philosopher of causation will immediately acknowledge, this assumption is somehow reminiscent of a *singularist* approach to causation, endorsed among others by such eminent philosophers as C.J. Ducasse and G.E.M. Anscombe. In the singularist view of causation

> the cause of a particular event \[is defined\] in terms of but a single occurrence of it, and thus in no way involves the supposition that it, or one like it, ever has occurred before or ever will again. The supposition of recurrence is thus wholly irrelevant to the meaning of cause; that supposition is relevant only to the meaning of law. And recurrence becomes related at all to causation only when a law is considered which happens to be a generalization of facts themselves individually causal to begin with. \[…\] The causal relation is essentially a relation between concrete individual events; and it is only so far as these events exhibit likeness to others, and can therefore be grouped with them into kinds, that it is possible to pass from individual causal facts to causal laws. (, pp. 129-30).

I wish to stress, however, that I am not embracing a preliminary philosophical position on causation, namely singularism, and then turning to argue that causation in quantum mechanics can only make sense if interpreted in singularist terms. As I will discuss more in detail later, non-locality in quantum mechanics involves a fundamental reference to counterfactual situations, and since non-trivial counterfactuals are usually supposed to be grounded in laws supporting them, an orthodox singularist might be already suspicious. The meaning I attach to singularism is rather general and so is the motivation for adopting such a viewpoint. If for the sake of my investigation I admit the *a priori* possibility of discovering a totally new form of causation, that might explain the ‘action at-a-distance’ allegedly entailed by non-locality (I briefly review the modalities of such ‘action’ in section 2), I still conceive it to involve physical processes connecting single events. That is, I incline to interpret this hypothetical causation as a sort of singular phenomenon, that is enhanced by the actualization of a property instantiated by a physical event and that affects the actualization of different properties pertaining distant events. The causal action displayed by this phenomenon should thus be understood as taking place in spacetime in some well-specified sense, although clearly not as a process propagating continuously in spacetime (). So the question is: how and to what extent can this unfamiliar causation be interpreted consistently with the more familiar spacetime structure in which - according to our well-established physical theories - single physical events live?

Within ordinary quantum mechanics - namely quantum mechanics with state reduction - a reasonable starting point for addressing the problem is in my opinion is to consider the implications of this singularist view on non-locality and causation when the state reduction is taken into due account. In the usual interpretation of quantum mechanics, state reduction is not only included among the basic postulates of the theory but is also assumed to be a real physical process. In this interpretation, it is state reduction that is supposed to actualize most properties of quantum systems, and this is a very general motivation for pursuing an analysis of the conceptual link between causation and state reduction. But there is also a more specific motivation for the study of such link. The events that might be causally connected are assumed to be located at space-like separated regions: thus if we take seriously - as we should - the spacetime geometry that underlies this assumption (something that Maudlin calls the *relativistic constraint*: see , pp. 290-2), then we also have to take into account at least some ways out of the problem of the non-covariance of the state reduction process in relativistic quantum mechanics. In particular, in view of this problem, section 3 is devoted to the exploration of some of the implications that different assumptions on where the state reduction occurs may have on the link causation-reduction. 444 For the sake of the present discussion, I assume such notions as property or emergence as uncontroversial. Of course they are not, but in my opinion it is anyway doubtful that a purely philosophical analysis of such notions could substantially contribute to a better understanding of the main issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics. In following this line of analysis I do not assume, however, that a causal view of non-locality cannot be evaluated in a quantum theory without state reduction. Although for obvious reasons I will not take into account all no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics, in section 4 I will consider what might be the place occupied by causation in standard Bohmian mechanics. Finally, some tentative conclusions on the prospects of a causal view of non-locality are summarised.

## 2 Non-Locality, Superluminal Dependence and Causation

Having reasons to believe that, given two events $`A`$ and $`B`$, their occurrences depend on (or influence or affect) one another, is not sufficient in general to claim that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are causally connected. On the other hand, a mutual dependence between $`A`$ and $`B`$ is a good reason for us to search whether such dependence is grounded in some underlying causal mechanism, so far unknown to us. In the context of the EPR-Bell correlations in quantum mechanics, the events under consideration are assumed to be space-like separated, so that the search for causation in this context is a search for a superluminal causation, pursued under the assumption that our quantum-mechanical events display at least a superluminal dependence.

In order then to investigate whether long distance correlations in EPR-Bell experiments deserve to be called causal, it is convenient to briefly review the reason why in ordinary quantum mechanics such correlations can be in fact regarded as an instance of superluminal dependence between events that in a purely relativistic perspective should be taken to be mutually independent. For the sake of simplicity, I will assume here that performing a measurement and detecting an outcome are not distinct events: the terms of the hypothetical causal connection that I wish to investigate are then to be meant as *measurement-and-outcome events*.

In a standard EPR-Bell correlation experiment involving a two spin-1/2 particles’ system $`S_1+S_2`$ prepared in the singlet state, we know that the spin measurements are supposed to be performed when $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ occupy two space-like separated spacetime regions $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, respectively. Under the hypothesis that quantum predictions are correct, $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ exhibit a perfect spin correlation, namely if the outcome of an actual measurement of the spin up along any direction $`x`$ for the particle $`S_1`$ is $`+1`$, the probability of obtaining $`1`$ as outcome of the measurement of the spin up along the direction $`x`$ for the particle $`S_2`$ equals $`1`$. Hence, we may say that had the measurement of the spin up along any direction $`x`$ for the particle $`S_1`$ come out $`1`$, we would have obtained with certainty $`+1`$ for $`S_2`$. However, in ordinary quantum mechanics the measurement process is stochastic, namely from identical preparations we may obtain different outcomes: the spin of $`S_1`$ can be either $`+1`$ or $`1`$ in different runs also when the whole set of events causally relevant to obtaining $`+1`$ or $`1`$, localized in the backward light cone of the that event, is exactly the same. But if $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are shown to be perfectly correlated in their outcomes, either there is a direct dependence between the two measurements, performed in the space-like separated regions $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, or there is an dependence between the measurement of $`S_1`$ $`[S_2]`$ and some event in the backward light cone of $`S_2`$ $`[S1]`$, and in both cases the dependence holds between space-like separated events, namely it is superluminal (cfr. , pp. 128-136, and , pp. 285-289). Moreover, due to the Bell theorem, any theory assuming the existence of events or factors that (i) are causally relevant to obtaining $`+1`$ or $`1`$ for $`S_1`$ $`[S_2]`$, (ii) are located in the backward light cone of $`S_1`$ $`[S_2]`$, and (iii) screen off the causal relevance which is in the backward light cone of $`S_1`$ $`[S_2]`$ (but not in the overlap of the backward light cones of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$), is bound to give predictions that disagree with those of quantum mechanics. 555As should be clear from the above account, the stochastic nature of the measurement process makes the instance of superluminal dependence even more perspicuous. On the difficulties of making sense of locality - and of the superluminal dependence that its violation would imply - in a strictly deterministic theory, see ,  and .

Before going on, a pair of remarks concerning possible objections to the above argument in favor of superluminal dependence. First, it is worth stressing that in the above argument counterfactuals are involved just to express the content of the spin strict correlation property, whereas the locality condition that is presupposed is expressed in terms of the invariance - across possible different runs of the experiment - of the light cone structure of the events that are causally relevant to obtaining a given outcome. The latter condition is independent in principle from any sort of counterfactual locality condition, such as ‘the outcome of a measurement on $`S_2`$ of the spin $`x`$-component would have been still $`+1`$, had the spin component been measured on $`S_1`$ in the $`z`$-direction instead of the $`x`$-direction’, a formulation which is exposed to the objection of having non-contextuality tacitly built in: in fact there is no reason why the measurement on $`S_2`$ of the spin component in a given direction should have the same outcome when in different runs of the experiment it is measured with observables of $`S_1`$ that are mutually incompatible. Second, the above argument does not rely on the assumption that, after a measurement has been performed and an outcome obtained, there is necessarily a value of the measured system that corresponds to the outcome (and hence that, after the completion of the measurement, the measured system satisfies the definite property of having that value). Namely, the argument holds also if we just assume that, after the completion of the measurement, the outcomes $`+1`$ and $`1`$ are definite properties *of the measuring apparatuses*.

The relation between outcomes of spin measurements in EPR-Bell correlation experiments is then an instance of superluminal dependence. Such terms as ‘dependence’ or ‘influence’ are admittedly vague, however, so that the attempt to elaborate arguments by which we could legitimately interpret superluminal dependence as a form of causation appear at first completely reasonable. In addition, there are already well-developed theories of causation at our disposal, and in principle we are able to analyze the viability of their main assumptions and conditions by the particular viewpoint of the nature of the dependence between distant quantum events.

According to Maudlin’s terminology, for instance, correlated events like the outcomes of EPR-Bell correlation experiments are *causally implicated with each other*, a formulation that is supposed to suggest that the causal implication need not distinguish causes from effects, and it may hold between events neither of which is a direct cause of the other (). The generality of the definition has a non trivial justification. If we decide to adopt or develop a more sophisticated theory of causation, in which more stringent conditions on the identification of causes and effects are required, we immediately run into difficulties: due to the space-like separation between the dependent events, the time ordering between them is non-invariant across different Lorentz frames. A first option is trying to dissolve the problem, rather than solving it, by arguing that the very distinction between cause and effect is hardly applicable to EPR-Bell frameworks. This position, albeit logically consistent, seems to imply that we do not need even to stipulate what are the terms of the allegedly causal relation that we are investigating. I will not discuss this option further since I doubt that anything relevant to a decent notion of causation is left in it. A second option is to retain the distinction between cause and effect, but to argue that it is the very time ordering associated to *any* Lorentz frame that *defines* which is the cause and which the effect. In this option the cause-effect distinction is thus not rejected but is remarkably weakened, since it acquires itself the status of a frame dependent distinction.

No matter which of the first two preceding options is adopted, however, the superluminal dependence between EPR-Bell outcomes appears to be ‘causal’ in such a weak sense as to prompt the question: having acknowledged that EPR-Bell outcomes are somehow connected across spacetime, do we really obtain any deep insight by calling ‘causation’ that connection? Or rather what we are doing when we say that the EPR-Bell outcomes are ‘causally implicated with each other’ is nothing but saying that ‘connected events are connected’? If the non-invariance of the time ordering between the connected events forces us to abandon such typical conditions on causal relations as the temporal priority of the cause, or less typical but still reasonable conditions such as simultaneity between cause and effect, the features of this link are themselves so vague that we should not be worried by the vagueness of the non-causal terms - namely ‘dependence, ‘influence’ and the like - that we might use to denote it: using causal concepts in this case appears then to be a mere labeling devoid of any real physical and philosophical significance.

## 3 Causation and State Reduction

The options considered so far appear to share an additional drawback, namely that they do not take into due account the role of the state reduction process. For in EPR-Bell frameworks, the mark of a relation that we might consider causal between the two outcomes is the emergence of actual properties of the system on one wing, as a consequence of obtaining a certain outcome after measuring an observable of the system on the other wing. But in ordinary quantum mechanics the process itself through which such properties emerge is exactly the state reduction, so that it is sensible to investigate this notion of causation at-a-distance yet to be characterized on the background of the reduction process. Under the assumption that the state reduction is a real physical process (that, as it stands, lacks Lorentz covariance), there are different options on where the state reduction might take place and, in view of the above mentioned causation-reduction link, we should take into account how a notion of causation - even very general - fares with respect with the different accounts on where the state reduction occurs.

In an early investigation on the non-covariance of the state reduction process, Bloch argued that the hypersurface on which the state reduction may be taken to occur can be chosen arbitrarily, since that choice will not affect the probability distribution of all (local) observables. This prescription is clearly non-covariant, but in a relativistic quantum theory of measurement “it appears that either causality or Lorentz covariance of wave functions must be sacrificed \[…\] Covariance seems the smaller sacrifice, since it is apparently not required for the calculation of invariant probabilities.” (, p. 1384). This argument might provide a motivation for one of the above mentioned options, according to which it is the very time ordering associated to any Lorentz frame that defines which is the cause and which the effect. If for instance one performs a measurement in an EPR-Bell correlation experiment, it can be assumed in the Bloch spirit that the state reduction occurs along a space-like hyperplane containing the measurement event in the frame of the observer who performed the measurement. In a later paper Hellwig and Kraus, although still emphasizing that what matters are just probability distributions since these are insensitive to the Lorentz frame adopted to order the events, have proposed a prescription according to which the reduction occurs along the backward light cone of the measurement event ().

In a series of papers Aharonov and Albert have shown that, although Lorentz-covariant, the Hellwig-Kraus prescription turns out to be inadequate when non-local observables are taken into account, namely observables of just such composite systems as those considered in EPR-Bell correlation experiments (-). But also without addressing the Aharonov and Albert criticisms (the debate is still alive: see for instance ,  and ), the very fact which the Bloch non-covariant prescription and the Hellwig-Kraus covariant one rely on is unsatisfactory by my specific point of view. Namely, the fact that the expectation values of the considered observables - be they local or non-local - are invariant across different Lorentz frames tells us nothing that might be relevant to explaining the superluminal dependence between single events and perhaps to interpreting it in causal terms. Moreover, as far as just expectations values are taken into account, quantum mechanics does satisfy statistical locality in the sense that in a typical EPR-Bell correlation experiment, for instance, the expectation value of a spin observable pertaining one subsystem is completely unaffected by any kind of operation performed on the distant subsystem (, ). Therefore, should we confine our attention to the level of expectation values, the very non-locality problem (and the correlated one of attempting a causal interpretation of it) would not even arise. But there is a further consequence of the Aharonov-Albert analysis that turns out to be relevant by our viewpoint, namely the revision of the usual meaning ascribed to the wave function in a relativistic context. According to their proposal, when a local measurement is performed at a spacetime point S, the state reduction should be taken to occur along every space-like hyperplane intersecting S. In addition to the Lorentz-covariance that this proposal allows one to achieve, it implies that the state of the system in a relativistic quantum-mechanical context must be represented as a functional defined on the set of space-like hyperplanes, so that in turn the ordinary wave function takes on different values at a given spacetime point according to which space-like hyperplane is considered (, pp. 231-2). By the point of view of causal relations between events, however, this implies that certain events - that might play the role of ‘causes’ and that are given by wave functions taking on definite values at spacetime points - are actual in certain hyperplanes and not in others. This leads us back to the starting point: also in a relativistic account of the state reduction process such as the Aharonov-Albert one, there seem to be no room for a characterization of causation that goes beyond a merely verbal elaboration of the circumstance that certain events manifest a mutual connection different in important respects from all other physical forces known in nature. 666The fact that the ordinary wave function takes on different values at a given spacetime point according to which space-like hyperplane is considered, following from the generalization of the state as represented by a functional on the set of space-like hyperplanes, has analogies with the Fleming hyperplane dependence approach to quantum states (, ). It seems to me that the status of causation in the Fleming approach would be similar to that in the Aharonov-Albert approach, but this point deserves further investigations. More generally, in the shift to relativistic quantum mechanics, there is a circumstance that Aharonov and Albert emphasize and that seems to be forced upon us by the attempt of finding a Lorentz-covariant formulation of the measurement process: the theory preserves the capacity of prescribing the correct probabilities for measurement outcomes, but not the capacity of attributing definite states to the physical systems whose outcome probabilities are evaluated. If this is the case, the prospects of a causal view of the relation holding between the correlated outcome events in EPR-Bell correlation experiments appear rather dim also in a relativistic quantum-mechanical context: it is problematic to think of EPR-Bell events as causally connected when these events should be represented as instances of properties satisfied by the suitable physical systems, but in fact no definite ordinary state can be attributed to the latter.

## 4 Spacetime Foliation, Bohmian Mechanics and Causation

In ordinary quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum mechanics with state reduction), there would be in principle a further option that we did not consider so far: a preferred foliation of spacetime might be explicitly assumed, with respect to which it would be perfectly determinate which events are causes and which effects. This would amount, however, to a violation de facto of the above mentioned relativistic constraint, since in this case the space-like separation between the causally connected events would be only a phenomenological relation. Moreover, the only reason for such a strong assumption would be just to make room for space-like causation. This move would also have the somewhat ironic consequence that, in order to explain a deeply non-classical feature like a fundamental physical relation between space-like separated events, deeply pre-relativistic features like the absoluteness of the time ordering between the events themselves are reintroduced.

The situation is different for Bohmian mechanics, whose overall structure may provide independent (and deeper) reasons for justifying the assumption of a preferred foliation of spacetime. As it stands, Bohmian mechanics is not a Lorentz-invariant theory. In the general case of a $`N`$-particles system, the guidance equation - the only dynamical law added by the theory to the Schrödinger equation - concerns the positions of the $`N`$ particles at a common and absolute time: this presupposes the assumption of a foliation of spacetime into space-like hyperplanes that, however, turns out to be impossible to determine. In this context, a causal interpretation of non-locality appears rather natural, since a causal relation between the EPR-Bell events might be then assumed to hold just with respect to the foliation. If one is willing to accept that the democracy reigning among Lorentz frames, prescribed by special relativity, is to be meant just as a phenomenological circumstance \- as David Albert put it, “taking Bohm’s theory seriously will entail being instrumentalist about special relativity” (, p. 161, emphasis in the original) - then a notion of space-like causation linking EPR-Bell events may very well be accomodated into Bohmian mechanics. Admittedly, it would be quite an unconventional sort of causation, since it would share with the foliation (and with all quantities defined with respect to it) an epistemic inaccessibility: in this picture, we know that causation is there, although we are bound to remain ignorant about its mechanisms and about which events are ‘causes’ and which ’effects’. It is also true, however, that a supporter of Bohmian mechanics need not being particularly worried by this circumstance, rather disturbing for others. In fact he should find it relatively easy to accomodate it within the framework of Bohmian mechanics, since fundamental beables of the theory - in Bell’s terminology - like the particles’ positions and trajectories are themselves out of reach. As aptly pointed out by Maudlin, “if the existence of empirically inaccessible physical facts is fatal, then Bohmian mechanics is a non-starter even before Relativity comes into play” (, p. 296).

It has been argued that in Bohmian mechanics the essential symmetry of the possibly causal relations between two typical EPR-Bell subsystems - when for instance the position of one particle causes the velocity of the other, which is space-like separated from the first - makes it difficult to speak of a serious ‘causal’ influence between the systems (, p. 325). This argument presupposes that in order for a notion of causal influence to be meaningful, a direction is to be selected along which the influence is supposed to act. Once we assume a preferred foliation of spacetime in the spirit of Bohmian mechanics, however, we need not hold on to a notion of causation in which an event $`A`$, in order to be causally related to a different event $`B`$, must temporally precede $`B`$ with respect to the preferred time ordering. We can envisage a sort of causal implication between events similar to that discussed by Maudlin for ordinary quantum mechanics, the only relevant difference being that in Bohmian mechanics we can correctly interpret it as a simultaneous and mutual causal influence, since we have assumed a privileged time ordering.

The logical possibility of admitting causal relations between space-like separated events, allowed by the foliation implicit in the equations of the theory, need not assume that ‘realistic’ theories such as Bohmian mechanics must be non Lorentz-invariant. The argument put forward by Hardy, aiming to show that this is the case (), was soon shown not to be as compelling as it was thought to be (for a concise review of this discussion, see ). Although it is argued that Lorentz invariance must be violated at the microlevel, albeit recovered at the statistical level (see e.g. ), there is no existing proof that this is a logical necessity; there are on the contrary some attempts to construct fully Lorentz invariant models of Bohmian mechanics by the introduction of additional dynamical structure, that would allow a Lorentz invariant notion of ‘evolving configuration’ along which superluminal dependences between EPR-Bell events would be transmitted (, ). It might be of some interest to investigate the role that a general notion of causation might play in such models.

## 5 Conclusions

In the previous sections, we have seen that the aim of characterizing an unambiguous notion of causation linking single space-like separated events in EPR-Bell frameworks is not an easy one to achieve. A possible reaction to this state of affairs might be to argue that just this kind of conceptual difficulties supports the thesis according to which a causal view of non-locality can be sensibly investigated only in a stochastic framework, although the application of probabilistic theories of causation to the non-locality issue is itself a controversial matter.

A general conclusion that may be drawn from the discussion above is that, as far as ordinary quantum mechanics is concerned, we are facing a dilemma: either the notion of causation is interpreted in such general terms so as to lose sight of the original underlying intuition \- so that we seem to do nothing but giving a different name to the puzzle under scrutiny - or we are led to ascribe to the special-relativistic spacetime structure a purely phenomenological status in order to make room for a preferred spacetime foliation, with respect to which causal relations can be univocally defined. The latter horn, moreover, is in deep tension with the attempt of constructing a Lorentz invariant account of state reduction, which is supposed to be exactly the process through which some of the causally relevant properties of physical systems are actualized. If we move to formulations of quantum theory without state reduction, standard Bohmian mechanics has at least more serious motivations by a foundational viewpoint for accepting a violation of Lorentz invariance, and in this case it is no surprise that in a standard Bohmian framework we can in principle make sense of the notion of a causation at a distance.

## Acknowledgments.

I wish to thank the audience of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop in Cracow, and Joseph Berkovitz in particular, for stimulating remarks. I am also grateful to Mauro Dorato for his comments on an earlier draft of the present paper.

## References

1. Aharonov, Y., Albert, D. (1980), “States and observables in relativistic quantum field theories”, *Physical Review* D, 3316-3324.
2. Aharonov, Y., Albert, D. (1981) “Can we make sense out of the measurement process in relativistic quantum mechanics?”, *Physical Review* D, 359-370.
3. Aharonov, Y., Albert, D. (1984) “Is the usual notion of time evolution adequate for quantum-mechanical systems?” II. Relativistic considerations”, *Physical Review* D, 228-234.
4. Albert, D. (1992) *Quantum Mechanics and Experience*, Harvard University Press.
5. Berkovitz, J. (1998a) “Aspects of quantum non-locality. I: Superluminal signalling, action-at-a-distance, non-separability and holism”, *Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics* 29, 183-222.
6. Berkovitz, J. (1998b) “Aspects of quantum non-locality. II: Superluminal causation and relativity”, *Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics* 29, 509-545.
7. Berkovitz, J. (2000a), “The nature of causality in quantum phenomena”, *Theoria* 15, 87-122.
8. Berkovitz, J. (2000b), “The many principles of the common cause”, *Reports on Philosophy* 20, 51-83.
9. Berndl, K., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Zanghì, N. (1995), “EPR-Bell nonlocality, Lorentz invariance and Bohmian quantum theory”, *Physical Review* A 53, 2062-2072.
10. Berndl, K., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Zanghì, N. (1999), “Hypersurfaces Bohm-Dirac models”, *Physical Review* A 60, 2729-2736.
11. Bloch, I. (1967) “Some relativistic oddities in the quantum theory of observation”, *Physical Review* 156, 1377-1384.
12. Cushing, J., Fine, A. and Goldstein, S. (eds.) (1996), *Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal*, Kluwer.
13. Dickson, M. (1996) “Is the Bohm theory local?”, in , 321-330.
14. Dickson, M. (1998), *Quantum Chance and Non-Locality*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Ducasse, C.J. (1926) “On the nature and observability of the causal relation”, *Journal of Philosophy* 23, 57-68 (reprinted in Sosa, E., Tooley, M. (eds.), *Causation*, Oxford University Press, 1993, 125-136, page references to the reprinted edition).
16. Eberhard, P. (1978) “Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality”, *Nuovo Cimento* 46B, 392-419.
17. Finkelstein, J. (2000), “Property attribution and the projection postulate in relativistic quantum theory”, preprint quant-ph/0007105.
18. Fleming, G.N. (1989) “Lorentz invariant state reduction and localization”, in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (eds.) *PSA1988* Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, 112-126.
19. Fleming, G.N. (1996) “Just how radical is hyperplane dependence?”, in R.K. Clifton (ed.), *Perspectives on Quantum Reality*, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 11-28.
20. Ghirardi, G.C. (2000) “Local measurements of nonlocal observables and the relativistic reduction process”, preprint quant-ph/0003149.
21. Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A. and Weber, T. (1980) “A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process”, *Lettere al Nuovo Cimento* 27, 293-298.
22. Hardy, L. (1992) “Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories and Lorentz-invariant realistic theories”, *Physical Review Letters* 68, 2981-2984.
23. Hellwig, K.E., Kraus, K. (1970) “Formal description of measurements in local quantum field theory”, *Physical Review* D1, 566-571.
24. Maudlin, T. (1994) Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Blackwell, Oxford.
25. Maudlin, T. (1996) “Space-time and the quantum world”, in , 285-307.
26. Maudlin, T. (2000) Review of , *British Journal for the Philosophy of Science* 51, 875-882.
27. Mould, R.A. (1999), “A defense of Hellwig-Kraus reductions”, preprint quant-ph/9912044.
28. Placek, T. (2000), *Is Nature Deterministic?*, Jagellonian University Press, Cracow.
29. Valentini, A. (forthcoming), *Pilot-Wave Theory of Physics and Cosmology*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


text:
# Quintessence Model With Double Exponential Potential

## Abstract

We have reinvestigated the quintessence model with minimally coupled scalar field in the context of recent Supernova observation at $`z=1.7`$. By assuming the form of the scale factor which gives both the early time deceleration and late time acceleration, consistent with the observations, we show that one needs a double exponential potential. We have also shown that the equation of state and the behaviour of dark energy density are reasonably consistent with earlier constraints obtained by different authors. This work shows again the importance of double exponential potential for a quintessence field.

Over the first few years we are experiencing some of the most interesting cosmological observations. Data from the luminosity distance-redshift observations of the type Ia Supernova (SNIa) collected by two survey teams ,The Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-z Supernova Search team,  predict that the universe is currently going through an accelerating expansion phase. Although there are two different interpretation of the Supernova observations —- intergalactic dust and SN luminosity evolution , the recent observations of SN 1997ff, at $`z1.7`$  put the accelerating Universe hypothesis on a firm footing. This also provides the first evidence for an early epoch of decelerating universe. On the the hand, the recent observations of the acoustic peaks of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature fluctuations favour a spatially flat universe, as predicted by the inflationary models.

If the results of these two observations are put together, one immediate conclusion is that the energy density of the universe is currently dominated by a form of matter having negative pressure, commonly referred as ”dark energy”. This component is qualitatively different from the standard dark matter in the sense that it has large negative pressure and it is approximately homogeneous, not clustering with matter on scales of clusters of galaxies. The first and obvious choice for this dark energy component is the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which represents the energy of a quantum vacuum. However the problem of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the dominant component of the total energy density stems from the fact that the energy scale involved is lower than the normal energy scale of most particle physics model by a factor $`10^{120}`$.

So to find some alternative candidate for this acceleration a dynamical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the form of a scalar field with some self interacting potential is considered whose slowly varying energy density mimics an effective cosmological constant. The idea of this candidate,called quintessence, is borrowed from the inflationary phase of the early universe, with the difference that it evolves at a much lower energy scale. The energy density of this field, though dominant at present epoch, must remain subdominant at very early stages and has to evolve in such a way that it becomes comparable with the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ now. This type of specific evolution, needs several constraints on the initial conditions and fine tuning of parameters for the potential. A new form of quintessence field called “tracker field has been proposed to solve this problem. It has an equation of motion with an attractor like solution in a sense that for a wide range of initial conditions the equation of motion converges to the same solution.

There are a number of quintessence models which have been put forward in recent years. They involve a scalar field rolling down its potential -, an axion field , scalar tensor theories of gravity -, dilaton in context of string theory , and also fields arising from compactifications of the multidimensional Einstein-Yang-Mills system . In a very recent work, Zimdahl and Pavon have shown that a suitable coupling between a minimally coupled quintessence field and the pressureless cold dark matter gives a constant ratio of the energy densities of both components which is compatible with the late time acceleration of the universe. They have termed it ”interacting quintessence”. In another recent work, Tocchini-Valentini and Amendola have investigated the cosmological models when this coupling between the quintessence field and the perfect fluid dark matter is linear .

Although all of these have their own merits in explaining the dark energy of the universe, there are number of difficulties with these models. One of them is to smoothly match the current accelerating universe with matter or radiation dominated decelerated universe. The current accelerated expansion is obviously a recent phenomena as one needs a sufficiently long matter dominated decelerated phase which should last until a recent past for the observed structure to develop from the density inhomogeneities. Further the success of big bang nucleosynthesis gives us a strong evidence of the radiation dominated decelerated phase when the universe is few seconds old. Although this required feature of the decelerated expansion is by far observationally untested, the recent observation of the SN1997ff at $`z=1.7`$  confirms this essential feature of the history of the universe. In a recent analysis, using a new technique which is independent of the content of the universe, Turner and Riess  have shown that supernova data favour past deceleration ($`z>0.5`$) and a recent acceleration ($`z<0.5`$).

Also there are a number of investigations in order to constrain the equation of state of the dark energy component taking both the supernova data and data for the cmb measurements into account . In one of the recent analysis, Corassaniti and Copeland  have shown that most of the potentials used so far, including the inverse power law one as well as the Supergravity inspired potential, are not satisfactory as far as these constraints on the equation of state are concerned.

In this work, we have investigated these issues of the dark energy in a different way. We have taken the dark energy to be a minimally coupled scalar field rolling down its potential. Instead of assuming the form of its potential, we have assumed the form of the scale factor ( which in turn gives the form of the Hubble parameter) keeping in mind that although the universe is presently accelerating but it was decelerating in recent past. In their work, Turner and Riess have emphasised  the importance of assumption about $`H(z)`$ in order to use the SNe data to probe the history of the universe. This method of finding exact solutions for scalar field cosmology was first used by Ellis and Madsen  for inflationary models. They showed that one can determine the potential which gives the best behaviour in terms of its implications for cosmology. Later Uggla et.al have discussed this method for a more generalised situation  Assuming some specific form of the scale factor which gives both the decelerating universe in the past as well as the accelerating one at present, we have tried to fit our model with the SNe data including the recent data at $`z=1.7`$. For particular value of the parameter in our model for which our model fits reasonably well with the observational data, we have found that the potential turns out to be a double exponential one. This sort of potential has been considered earlier by different authors for quintessence models . We have also shown that energy density for the scalar field remains sufficiently below that of the matter field for higher redshifts and starts dominating in the recent past.

Let us consider a spatially flat, homogeneous, isotropic universe, with a pressureless (dust) matter fluid and a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with potential $`V(\varphi )`$ minimally coupled with gravity. The equations of motion are given by

$`3H^2=8\pi G[\rho _m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi ^2}+V(\varphi )]`$ (1)
$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{^{}}(\varphi )=0`$ (2)
$`\dot{\rho _m}+3H\rho _m=0`$ (3)
where $`\rho _m`$ is the energy density for the matter fluid and $`H=\dot{R}(t)/R(t)`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`R(t)`$ is the scale factor. Here overdot and prime mean differentiations with respect to time and scalar field $`\varphi `$ respectively. In this system of equations, one has three independent equations and four unknowns, which demands one assumption about the unknowns to solve the system. In most of the previous works with minimally coupled scalar field, the form of the potential has been assumed in order to solve the system. Although the assumption of the form of the potential from the particle physics viewpoint is a reasonable way, many a times it leads to complicated equations for the scale factor to solve and also to study different observable quantities. In this work, we proceed in a different way. The Supernova observations, made by two teams (Perlmutter et.al and Riess et.al), favour a present day accelerating universe. Also the recent observation of SN 1997ff at $`z=1.7`$ provides the evidence of decelerating universe around that redshift. In a recent paper, Turner and Riess have shown that SN data favour a recent acceleration ($`z<0.5`$) and a past deceleration ($`z>0.5`$). Keeping this in mind, we assume scale factor $`R(t)`$ of the form

$$R(t)=\frac{R_0}{\alpha }\left[\mathrm{sinh}(t/t_0)\right]^\beta $$
(4)
where $`t_0`$ is the present time, $`R_0=R(t=t_0)`$ is the present day scale factor and $`\alpha =\left[\mathrm{sinh}(1)\right]^\beta `$, $`\beta `$ being a constant. The interesting feature of this scalar factor is that for $`\beta <1`$, the universe is decelerating for $`t<<t_0`$, and exponentially accelerating for $`t>>t_0`$. As an example, for $`\beta =2/3`$,

$`R(t)t^{2/3}\text{for}t<<t_0`$ (5)
$`R(t)\mathrm{exp}(t)\text{for}t>>t_0`$ (6)
In terms of redshift, the expression for the Hubble parameter is given by

$$H(z)=\frac{\beta }{t_0}\left[1+(y/\alpha )^{2/\beta }\right]^{1/2}$$
(7)
where $`y=1+z`$. One can also calculate the deceleration parameter $`q(z)`$ in our model which is given by

$$q(z)=\frac{1}{\beta }\left[\frac{(y/\alpha )^{2/\beta }}{(y/\alpha )^{2/\beta }+1}\right]1$$
(8)
In fig 1 we have plotted the deceleration parameter q(z) for different values of $`\beta `$. The figure shows that although the universe is accelerating at present, it was decelerating in recent past. For all the different values of $`\beta `$ we have used in the figure, the universe is decelerating at $`z=1.7`$ which is in agreement with the recent observation.

Astronomers measure luminosities in logarithmic units, called magnitudes defined by

$$m_B(z)=+5\mathrm{log}_{10}(D_l)$$
(9)
where $`=M5\mathrm{log}_{10}(H_0)`$ and $`D_l=H_0d_l`$ with $`M`$ is the absolute luminosity of the object and $`d_l`$ is the luminosity distance defined by

$$d_l=R(t_0)(1+z)r_1$$
(10)
for an event at $`r=r_1`$ and at time $`t=t_1`$. One can show that for nearby sources (in the low redshift limit) the equation (9) can be written as

$$m_B(z)=+5\mathrm{log}_{10}z$$
(11)
which can be used to measure the $``$ by using low-redshifts supernovae-measurements. In fig 2 we have plotted the $`m_B(z)`$ for different values of $`\beta `$.

We now obtain the best-fit value of $`\beta `$ by comparing our model predictions with the SN1a data. We use the high-z data of the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) by Permutter et al.  and the low-z data from Calan-Tolado survey  for our study. Of the 60 data point points, we use 54 data points for our analysis (Fit C–D of the SCP data; for details of the excluded data points see Perlmutter et al. 1998). In addition we use the $`z1.7`$ datum reported by Riess  in 2001. The best-fit value and 1$`\sigma `$ errors from the SN1a data are $`\beta =0.81_{0.16}^{+0.18}`$; the best-fit $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{𝑑𝑜𝑓}=1.08`$. In this analysis we marginalize over $`H_0`$.

In Fig 3, we show the $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{𝑑𝑜𝑓}`$ as a function of the parameter $`\beta `$. But as the parameter $`\beta `$ effectively determines the turnover point from acceleration to deceleration, given in equation (8) by $`q(z)=0`$, one can interpret this as a likelihood analysis of the turnover redshift. Fig 3 shows that the value of $`\chi ^2`$ is not very sensitive to the value of $`\beta `$ for $`0.5\beta 1`$. This can also be seen in Fig 2 where we have plotted the effective magnitude $`m_B`$ with respect to the redshift $`z`$ for different choice of $`\beta `$. There also, it is very difficult to distinguish models with different values of $`\beta `$ upto redshift $`z1`$. This means, from Fig 1, that the epoch at which the universe passes from the accelerating to the decelerating phase is not very well determined. We can compare our conclusions with the results of Turner and Riess  who claim that the universe is accelerating for $`z0.5`$ and is decelerating for higher redshifts. Though their result is consistent with our conclusions ($`\beta 0.65`$ implies (Fig 1) the results of Turner and Riess  and it is within 1$`\sigma `$ of our best fit value), we cannot conclude it. On the other hand, our results are in greater accord their assertion that the deceleration parameter is increasing as the redshift increases; it is evident from the range of allowed $`\beta `$ values in our analysis (Fig 1).

In this paper, we use only $`\beta =2/3`$; this value is within $`1\sigma `$ of the best fit value. It is important to use this value of $`\beta `$ in order to have a early time matter dominated decelerated universe. The age of the universe with this choice of parameter turns out to be approximately 14 GYrs with $`H_0=0.6\times 10^{10}`$ per yr.

Now using equations (1)-(4) one can write

$$2\dot{H}+3H^2=8\pi G[\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi ^2}+V(\varphi )]=\frac{4}{3t_0^2}$$
(12)
which gives

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{1}{6\pi Gt_0^2}$$
(13)
From the above equation, one can write

$$V^{^{}}(\varphi )=\ddot{\varphi }$$
(14)
Using this relation in the scalar field wave equation (2) one can solve $`\varphi `$ as

$$\varphi =At_0\mathrm{log}_e\left[\mathrm{tanh}(t/2t_0)\right]$$
(15)
where $`A`$ is a constant of integration. Using the expression $`\varphi `$ and equation (13) one can get the form of the potential which is given by

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{A^2}{8}\left(e^{2a\varphi }+e^{2a\varphi }\right)+V_0$$
(16)
where $`a=\frac{1}{At_0}`$ and $`V_0=\frac{1}{6\pi Gt_0^2}\frac{A^2}{4}`$. This type of potential has been earlier used by Barreiro et al. and Rubano et al.. In a recent paper , Corasaniti and Copeland have used the Supernova data (excluding the recent data at $`z=1.7`$) and measurements of the position of the acoustic peaks of the CMBR spectra to constrain a general class of potentials including the inverse power law models and the recently proposed Supergravity inspired potential. They have argued that in order to have the equation of state parameter $`\omega _\varphi 1`$, the quintessence field has to undergo damped oscillations around the minimum of the potential or has to evolve in a very flat region of the potential. And in this respect double exponential potential can be a good choice although they have not included it in their analysis.

The expression for the energy density $`\rho _\varphi `$ for the scalar field and the equation of state $`\omega _\varphi `$ for the scalar field are given by

$`\rho _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`A^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/t_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi Gt_0^2}}`$ (17)
$`\omega _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi Gt_0^2A^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/t_0)+1}}`$ (18)
Using the expression for $`\rho _\varphi `$, $`H`$ and $`\rho _m=\rho _{m0}(1+z)^3`$ in equation (1), one can get

$$A^2=\frac{1}{6\pi Gt_0^2}\rho _{m0}\alpha ^3$$
(19)
Also if one has to the link the potential given in (16) with that of Rubano et.al one has to set $`A^2t_0^2=\frac{1}{3\pi G}`$ which is not possible from equation (19).

Baccigalupi et.al  have shown in recent work that the position of the first doppler peak prefers a quintessence model with $`\omega _{\varphi 0}0.8`$ for the prior $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =0.7`$. If we use this value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ in our model the constraint on the constant $`A`$ turns out to be $`6\pi Gt_0^2A^2=0.286`$ and the equation of state for the scalar field at present $`\omega _\varphi (z=0)`$ comes out to be $`0.83`$ which is reasonably consistent with the earlier bound on $`\omega _\varphi (z=0)`$ obtained by different authors.

In fig 4 we have plotted the ratio of the two energy densities $`\rho _\varphi /\rho _m`$. One can look at this figure to see that the ratio is approximately constant and also much less than one for the higher redshift. It starts dominating in the recent time (around $`z=0.5`$). It shows that the scalar field scales below the matter energy density in the early universe. This is feature is quite similar to that of the tracker field discussed earlier.

In conclusion, we have re-investigated the role of double exponential potential for the quintessence field in the context of the recent observation of SN1997ff at $`z=1.7`$ but in a different manner. We have assumed the form of the scale factor for which the universe interpolates between the early time decelerated expansion and the late time accelerated expansion. We then tried to fit our model with the SN1a observation including the recent observation at $`z=1.7`$. There are two free parameters in our model: $`H_0`$ and $`\beta `$. We have marginalisd over $`H_0`$ in our analysis. We then have obtained that the best fit value of the parameter $`\beta `$ appearing in the form of the scale factor. Constancy of $`\chi ^2`$ over a wide values of $`\beta `$ does suggest that it is difficult to pinpoint the exact turn around from acceleration to deceleration. It is largely owing the quality of the data. It is not possible to say if the universe is decelerating or accelerating taking points up to z = 0.83 (Milne universe with $`a(t)t`$ is not such a bad fit to the data up to z = 0.83, as shown in the original paper of Perlmutter et al.). However inclusion of the new data point at z = 1.7 suggests that the deceleration parameter is increasing as the redshift increases (this also happens to be the strongest claim of Turner and Riess). Given the insensitivity of $`\chi ^2`$ on $`\beta `$, this is also one of our main conclusion of our analysis.

To have a early matter dominated decelerated universe we have chosen $`\beta =2/3`$ for which our model fits reasonably with observation. We have then showed that the potential one needs is a double exponential potential. We have also investigated the different relevant parameters, such as the equation of state and the ratio of the two energy densities and showed that they behave reasonably well as far as the consistency of the model is concerned. Although this method of solving the field equations is completely ad hoc as it does not result from a known particle physics model, however it does results potential which gives the right behaviour for the expanding universe. Also the potential, we obtain, has earlier been considered by different authors for quintessence fields.. In the context of recent SN1a observation we have shown in this paper that this may really be a good choice. It will be worthwhile to study the extrapolation of this model to radiation dominant era to check its consistency with the big bang nucleosynthesis. Also one should check the consistency of this model with recent CMB observation. These issues will be addressed later.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Claudio Rubano, Bob Jantzen and Diego Pavon for their valuable comments and suggestions and also for giving references of some important papers. We are also thankful to the anonymous referee for his comments which helped us to improve the clarity of the paper.


text:
# What have we learnt about the Sun from the measurement of the 8B neutrino flux?

## I Introduction

Electron neutrinos from 8B decay in the Sun have been detected at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) by means of the charged current (CC) reaction on deuterium . The result, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=(1.75\pm 0.14)`$ 106 cm-2 s-1 (here and in the following one sigma statistical errors are combined in quadrature with systematical errors), is a factor three smaller than the SSM prediction of Bahcall et al.:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{SSM}=5.05(1_{0.16}^{+0.20})10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(1)
The CC reaction is sensitive exclusively to $`\nu _e`$, while Electron Scattering (ES) also has a small sensitivity to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. Comparison of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e`$ to the Super-Kamiokande (SK) precision result on ES yields a 3.3$`\sigma `$ difference, providing evidence that there is a non-electron flavor active neutrino component in the solar flux.

Extraction of this flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu +\tau }`$, can be done in a model independent way by exploiting the similarities of the response functions of SNO and of SK, see . In this way, one determines from the two experiments the total active neutrino flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{EXP}=\mathrm{\Phi }_e+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu +\tau }`$, produced by 8B decay in the sun :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{EXP}=5.20(1_{0.16}^{+0.20})10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(2)
The close agreement with the theoretical prediction (1) is an important confirmation of the robustness of SSM calculations, see Table I.

Actually, one can go somehow in more detail and use this experimental information to provide an independent estimate of the accuracy of several input parameters that are used in solar model calculations. Among others, we shall consider the solar metal abundance, opacity and p-p fusion cross section.

We shall also consider the central solar temperature. As well known, this is not an independent parameter, rather it is the result of solar model calculations, mainly dependent on the assumed values for metals, opacity and luminosity. The boron flux measurement essentially provides a measurement of the central solar temperature.

So far we neglected the possibility of oscillations of $`\nu _e`$ into sterile neutrinos. In fact one can use the experimental result on active neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{EXP}`$ and the theoretical prediction on the total flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{SSM}`$ to provide an upper bound on the flux of sterile neutrinos on earth.

When connecting the 8B flux with quantities characterizing the solar interior, an important link is provided by nuclear physics, through the nuclear cross sections of the processes which lead to 8B production. We shall discuss the relevance of nuclear physics uncertainties in this respect.

## II Power laws

The neutrino flux from 8B decay in the Sun depends on several inputs $`Q_i`$, which can be grouped as nuclear and astrophysical parameters, see Table II.

The first group contains the zero energy astrophysical S-factors for the reactions which are involved in the production of 8B nuclei. $`S_{11}`$ refers to p+p$``$d+ e+ +$`\nu `$, $`S_{33}`$ and $`S_{34}`$ refer respectively to 3He+3He $`^4`$He+2p and to 3He+4He $``$ 7Be+$`\gamma `$. Once 7Be nuclei have been formed, the probability of forming a 8B nucleus is essentially given by the ratio of proton to electron capture on 7Be, i.e on $`S_{17}/S_{e7}`$.

The 8B neutrino flux depends on several astrophysical inputs. Concerning the dependence on the solar luminosity $`L_{}`$ and age $`t_{}`$, a more luminous Sun requires a higher internal temperature, which implies a higher Boron flux. An older Sun is also a more luminous sun.

The metal content Z/X determines opacity. If Z/X increases, opacity increases and the radiative transfer of the solar luminosity requires higher temperature gradients, which in turn implies higher temperature and a larger 8B flux.

Opacity calculation are complex, and also for fixed metal content different codes yield (slightly) different opacities. For this reason we introduce, by means of a scaling parameter $`\kappa `$, the possibility of a uniform scaling of opacity in the solar interior.

Another scaling factor, D, is allowed for varying the calculated diffusion coefficients.

If these inputs are changed with respect to the values used in the SSM calculations, $`Q_i^{SSM}`$, the 8B-neutrino flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ changes according to a power law:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{SSM}\mathrm{\Pi }(Q_i/Q_i^{SSM})^{\alpha _i}.$$
(3)
We have calculated these coefficients by using solar models which include helium and heavy elements diffusion, see Table II. They are in agreement with the values calculated (neglecting diffusion) in  (see Table II) and in .

Most of these values can be understood by using simple, semi-quantitative arguments, see e.g. . As an example, one can easily show that at equilibrium the production of 7Be nuclei scales as $`S_{34}/\sqrt{S_{33}}`$  and that the production of 8B nuclei, which is a minor perturbation of the pp-II chain, scales as $`S_{17}/S_{e7}`$.

Each input is affected by uncertainties. The values shown in Table II, 4-th row, correspond to one sigma percentage error. They have been obtained according to the following criteria:

i) For the nuclear cross sections, we generally consider the values and uncertainties recommended in ref.  which are quite similar to those quoted in ref. . Concerning $`S_{17}`$, we quote an uncertainty of 9%, taking into account recent measurements .

ii) Concerning solar luminosity, age and metals, we adopt the same uncertainties quoted in , which are derived by recent measurements of the solar constant, by a detailed comparison of meteorite radioactive datings and by analysis of meteoric and photospheric chemical compositions .

iii) Regarding the opacity and diffusion uncertainties, there is no experimental guidance and one has to resort to the comparison among different theoretical calculations. A factor 2.5% is the typical difference between the calculated values of the Livermore and Los Alamos opacities, see . Concerning diffusion, Bahcall and Loeb  quote and uncertainty of about 15% by comparing results of different theoretical calculations. (We have found that agreement with helioseismic information fixes diffusion to the level of 10% .)

We also show in Table II, fifth line, the contributed fractional error, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }Q/Q`$, i.e the contribution of each parameter to the error on the neutrino flux. Summing up in quadrature, the nuclear uncertainties yield an error on the flux $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi })_{nuc}`$=13.3%, which matches closely the error resulting from astrophysical uncertainties calculated according to the same prescription, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi })_{ast}`$=12.2%. All in all, the total calculated uncertainty, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi })=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi })_{nuc}^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi })_{ast}^2}`$ is about 18%, in agreement with ref. .

## III Results

The experimental result, Eq. (2), is in excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction, Eq. (1). The two determinations are affected by a similar error and, as we have just seen, the theoretical error gets comparable contributions form nuclear and astrophysical uncertainties.

One can expect that in the future, with increasing statistics and with better understanding of the systematical uncertainties, the experimental error will be reduced, possibly by a factor of two. In view of this, one should improve the theoretical calculation by a comparable factor, which requires a better understanding of the nuclear physics and astrophysics which are involved, see again Table II.

We remind that experiments are only sensitive to active neutrinos. The comparison with the SSM prediction can be used to derive an upper bound on the presence of sterile neutrinos, by requiring that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s=\mathrm{\Phi }^{SSM}\mathrm{\Phi }^{EXP}`$. This gives:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_s<2.510^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1(\mathrm{at}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma ).$$
(4)
Improvement of this bound will require that both theoretical and experimental determinations become more accurate.

Neglecting the possibility of sterile neutrinos, one can use the 8B-flux measurement as an independent way of estimating the accuracy of several nuclear and astrophysical parameters.

In fact, the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be interpreted as a way of determining each of the parameters listed in Table II, by means of:

$$Q_i=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{EXP}}{\mathrm{\Phi }^{SSM}}\right)^{1/\alpha _i}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ji}\left(\frac{Q_j}{Q_j^{SSM}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _j}{\alpha _i}}$$
(5)
In this way the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ together with the independent information on $`Q_j`$ ($`ji`$) can be translated into a mesurement of $`Q_i`$.

For each parameter in Table II, we have estimated the corresponding accuracy by taking into account the 8B result and the uncertainty on all other parameters, in turn. The resulting values,

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i/Q_i)_B=\frac{1}{\alpha _i}\sqrt{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}\left(\alpha _j\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q_j}{Q_j}\right)^2},$$
(6)
are listed in Table II, last row . We remark the following points:

* The opacity scaling factor $`\kappa `$ is determined to be unity with an accuracy of 9.3%. This is somehow worse than the estimated input accuracy of 2.6%. We remind however that this uncertainty was essentially estimated form the comparison between two different theoretical calculations.
* The metal content Z/X is confirmed within 18%. Again this is worse than the estimated input uncertainty (6.1%) from studies of solar photosphere, which however might not be representative of the metal content of the solar interior if it has been enriched in metals after the sun formation.
* The astrophysical $`S`$-factor for the pp fusion reaction, $`S_{11}`$, is determined wih accuracy of 9%. This quantity is not measured and it is the result of theoretical errors. The estimated uncertainty of these calculations (“input error”) is 1.7% Helioseismology allows a few per cent accuracy .
* The errors on $`S_{33}`$, $`S_{34}`$, $`S_{e7}`$, $`S_{17}`$ , $`L_{}`$ and $`t_{}`$ are not competitive with more direct measurements in the literature.

## IV The central solar temperature

A final remark concerns the accuracy of the central solar temperature $`T_c`$ (see Table I for theoretical predictions of $`T_c`$ ).

Solar model builders have been claiming for decades that $`T_c`$ is known with an accuracy of one per cent or better. Helioseismology has provided strong support to this finding. Although helioseismology measures sound speed and not temperature, consistency with helioseismic data has been found only for solar models which produce $`T_c`$ within one percent of the SSM prediction . The measurement of 8B provides an important test in this respect.

In fact, the temperature is not an independent variable. Its precise value is determined by some of the parameters which we have been discussing: the cross section for the pp-reaction, the metal content of the Sun, the adopted values for the radiative opacity, the solar age and luminosity and also the diffusion coefficients.

On the other hand, the central temperature is not affected by the other nuclear parameters listed in Table II. In full generality, the relationship between the boron flux and $`T_c`$ is (see ):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{SSM}\left(\frac{T_c}{T_c^{SSM}}\right)^\beta \frac{S_{nuc}}{S_{nuc}^{SSM}},$$
(7)
Where $`S_{nuc}`$ includes the dependence on the nuclear cross sections

$$S_{nuc}=S_{34}^{0.84}S_{33}^{0.43}S_{17}/S_{e7}$$
(8)
As discussed above, $`S_{nuc}`$ is determined with an accuracy of 13.3%.

Concerning the exponent $`\beta `$ in Eq. (7), it is weakly dependent on which parameter is being varied for obtaining a changement of $`T_c`$. We have calculated the exponent by using solar models which include helium and heavy elements diffusion, see Table III and Fig. 1. On these grounds we will take $`\beta =20`$. We remark that if one neglects diffusion, slightly higher values of $`\beta `$ are obtained, see Table III last column. In fact in ref.  by studying solar models without diffusion a somehow higher value was found, $`\beta =24`$. Anyhow the choice of a slightly different value dos not induce a significant difference in the conclusions.

The agreement between theory and experiment on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ thus implies that the central temperature of the Sun agrees with the SSM prediction to within one per cent:

$$T_c=15.7(1\pm 1\%)10^6K,$$
(9)
where the error gets comparable contributions from the uncertainty on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and from nuclear physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

G.F. is grateful to the CERN theory division for hospitality. We are grateful to John Bahcall for useful comments and suggestions.