text:
# Continuous variable teleportation of single photon states

## I Introduction

Quantum teleportation is a method for Alice (sender) to transmit an unknown quantum input state to Bob (receiver) at a distant place by sending only classical information using a shared entangled state as a resource Ben93 . In continuous variable quantum teleportation Vai94 ; Brau98 ; Fur98 , the available entanglement is non-maximal, limited by the amount of squeezing achieved. Fig.1 shows the setup of a continuous variable quantum teleportation. Alice transmits an unknown quantum state $`\psi _A`$ to Bob. Alice and Bob share EPR beams in advance.

Alice mixes her input state with the reference EPR beam by a 50$`\%`$ beam-splitter and performs an entanglement measurement of the complex field value $`\beta `$. After Bob gets the information of the field measurement value $`\beta `$ from Alice, Bob applies a displacement to the output state by mixing the coherent field of a local oscillator with the output EPR beam $`B`$.

As has been shown previously Hof00 , the properties of this transfer process can be summarized by the transfer operator $`\widehat{T}_q(\beta )`$ which describes both the probability distribution $`P(\beta )`$ of measurement results $`\beta `$ and the normalized conditional output state
$`\psi _{\text{out}}(\beta )`$ for any input state $`\psi _{\text{in}}`$, such that

$$\sqrt{P(\beta )}\psi _{\text{out}}(\beta )=\widehat{T}_q(\beta )\psi _{\text{in}}.$$
(1)
In its diagonalized form, this transfer operator reads

$$\widehat{T}_q(\beta )=\sqrt{\frac{1q^2}{\pi }}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^n\widehat{D}(\beta )n_{BA}n\widehat{D}(\beta ).$$
(2)
The non-maximal entanglement is described by the parameter $`q`$, which is 0 for a non-entangled vacuum and 1 for maximal entanglement. In the following, this operator will be applied to characterize the teleportation of a single photon input state, with special consideration of the field coherence created in the output by the teleportation process.

## II Teleportation of a single photon state

The output of a one photon input state is characterized by

$`\widehat{T}_q(\beta )1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1q^2}{\pi }}}e^{(1q^2)\frac{|\beta |^2}{2}}\widehat{D}((1q)\beta )((1q^2)\beta ^{}0+q1).`$ (3)
The normalized output state is then given by

$`\psi _{\text{out}}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2+(1q^2)^2|\beta |^2}}}\widehat{D}((1q)\beta )((1q^2)\beta ^{}0+q1).`$ (4)
The output state can be described by a displaced coherent superposition of a zero photon and a one photon component. Both the displacement and the coherence depend on the complex measurement value $`\beta `$. They therefore represent a measurement induced coherence of the output state. We characterize this coherence by the expectation value of the complex field amplitude,

$`C_q(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{\text{out}}(\beta )\widehat{a}\psi _{\text{out}}(\beta )`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q(1q^2)}{q^2+(1q^2)^2|\beta |^2}}\beta +(1q)\beta .`$
Fig.2 illustrates this dependence of $`C_q`$ on $`\beta `$ for $`q=1/2`$. For low values of $`\beta `$, $`C_q`$ rises sharply, levelling off around $`|\beta |0.5`$. At higher values of $`|\beta |`$, $`C_q`$ slowly approaches $`(1q)\beta `$, as indicated by the dotted line. Since the input photon number state has a field expectation value of zero, the field coherence in the output is a consequence of the measurement $`\beta `$. As has been argued elsewere Hof00 , $`\beta `$ corresponds to the result of a field measurement performed on the input state. This measurement creates coherence by projection onto displaced photon number states as indicated by the diagonalized form of $`\widehat{T}_q(\beta )`$ in equation (2). Since the photon is the quantum mechanical equivalent of field intensity, each photon represents an addition of one quantum unit to the field fluctuations. The measurement then converts the field fluctuation into an actual field. This process is responsible for the rapid increase in coherence at low values of $`\beta `$.

## III Conclusions

We have investigated the effects of continous variable quantum teleportation on a single photon input state. Because of the non-maximal entanglement used in the teleportation, the measurement of $`\beta `$ introduces coherence into the output state. We have quantified this coherence, tracing its origin to the field fluctuations of the single photon input.


format: text

text:
# Comment on “The Quantum State of a Propagating Laser Field”

## Abstract

We comment on the theoretical quantum state of a propagating laser field proposed by van Enk and Fuchs \[quant-ph/0104036, quant-ph/0111157\] and clarify that the multimode description of the propagating laser field does not modify our analysis of continuous variable quantum teleportation \[quant-ph/0103147\]. Furthermore we point out that the “complete measurements” discussed by van Enk and Fuchs have not been achieved by existing technology and may not be possible even in principle.

In critiquing our assertion that continuous variable quantum teleportation (CVQT) cannot be demonstrated with a conventional laser in a linear optical system even with ideal photodetectors and perfect Fock state sources allowed Rud01 , van Enk and Fuchs (vEF) Enk01a  analyze a multimode propagating laser field (MPLF) and claim that a conventional laser suffices. They agree that the intracavity field is correctly described by a mixed state that is diagonal in the Fock state basis, and consequently the coupled–mode analysis they employ yields the MPLF outside the cavity to be a mixed state. However, they go on to demonstrate the attractiveness of expressing the MPLF as an ensemble of multimode coherent states in preference to the many other possible ensembles, with the quantum de Finetti theorem employed in support of their intuitive preference for this particular decomposition of the MPLF density matrix. Specifically, the quantum de Finetti theorem can be used to show that the coherent state ensemble is the only one which conforms with their particular intuition. Such reasoning is clearly open to question however. For example, the mixed state MPLF admits a decomposition that is diagonal in the multimode Fock basis, with each pure state in this ensemble exhibiting manifest photon number entanglement between the modes. This Fock basis ensemble is the only one which requires no violation of conservation of energy to prepare: it too is unique with respect to an intuition that many physicists share.

Although we acknowledge the attraction of the coherent state decomposition as a convenient tool for simplifying calculations, designing experiments, and as motivation to strive for vEF’s “complete measurement”, vEF’s approach does not establish a necessary condition for the coherent state decomposition being privileged. In effect they establish an argument which allows for a sufficient understanding of the experiment; however, we believe that claims to demonstrate CVQT must establish that the experiment is necessarily interpreted as such. Our view is that in quantum information processing the use of preferred ensembles can be justified only in scenarios involving retrodiction of preparation procedures, and this retrodictive rationale has no relevance to the topic of CVQT using lasers.

As a justification for favouring coherent states, vEF discuss “complete measurements” that purportedly could be employed to project the MPLF into a true coherent state with known phase; the claim is that inter-modal phase correlation allows such a “complete measurement” on one mode of the MPLF to reduce the mixed state to a pure multimode coherent state. Despite common misconceptions that phase or phase-sensitive measurements have been performed or are possible, no experiment has either been performed or even proposed *in principle* which would yield an observation that depends in any way upon the relative phase of a superposition of Fock number states within a given mode. The phase of the laser field is just such a phase (it affects the relative phase between superpositions of number states), and the so–called complete measurement would therefore have to be of a completely unconventional type. Measuring all orders of the standard photon correlation functions Gla63  cannot yield information about this phase.

We do not, however, accept vEF’s premise that some kind of unconventional measurement can in fact measure the phase in a way that necessitates updating the mixed–state description of the MPLF to a pure coherent state. Such a measurement would violate the energy conservation principle. As with any conserved quantity, the description of such a measurement may be constructed by invoking an “effective classical field” approximation, such as employing the classical field description of the local oscillator in homodyne detection, but a rigorous description of the measurement, which does not invoke the mean field approximation and does not yield a coherent superposition of energy states in a specific mode, is always possible and is certainly as valid. Moreover, unless some measurement can be devised, or some operational procedure developed, for which the vEF preferred ensemble may be subjected to empirical tests, we see no reason to prefer their ensemble.

On a separate point, a key criticism by vEF is our alleged claim that there was no entanglement in the experiment Fur98 , hence no CVQT. This was not our claim. Rather we demonstrated that the two–mode squeezed field is not entangled (about which vEF agreed) to demonstrate the danger of the preferred ensemble fallacy (PEF). In Fig. 1 we give yet another simple example of the danger inherent in analyzing CVQT using preferred ensembles.

In summary our objection to the claim that CVQT has been achieved Fur98  is that its apparent success requires a preferred ensemble. As the quantum teleportation protocol refers to initial states and their subsequent evolution, the multiplicity of differing descriptions for specific data are equally valid. A reconciliation between our objection and the claim of successful CVQT is presumably possible, however, if the CVQT protocol is reconstructed in terms of an initial mixed state. The challenge is then to agree upon a set of genuine operational criteria for “unconditional” CVQT.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been partially supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant. BCS appreciates valuable discussions with S. D. Bartlett. TR has enjoyed stimulating discussions with S. J. van Enk and Ch. Fuchs who have been kind enough to provide us with advance copies of their eprints.


text:
# The Puzzling Compact Objects in Supernova Remnants

## 1. Introduction

There are two types of isolated (non-binary) neutron stars (INSs) with quite different observational manifestations. Active, rotation-powered pulsars include, in addition to commonly known radio pulsars, some “radio-quiet” INSs whose radio pulsations are not seen because of unfavorably directed pulsar beams. Pulsar activity in these radio-quiet active pulsars can be seen at wavelengths other than radio (e.g., in $`\gamma `$-rays — the classical example is Geminga), and it can manifest itself, in young pulsars, through a compact pulsar-wind nebula (PWN). A distinctive feature of active pulsars is that these objects are powerful sources of nonthermal radiation from NS magnetospheres, in radio through $`\gamma `$-rays. The intensity of this nonthermal radiation usually exceeds that of the surface (thermal) radiation, at least in young pulsars.

Recent observations have established that there exist isolated compact objects, presumably INSs, which show no signs of pulsar activity — i.e., the usual pulsar processes, which result in beams of relativistic particles, PWNe, and strong nonthermal radiation, do not operate in these objects. They are often called radio-silent INSs (or INS candidates), failed pulsars, dead pulsars, etc — none of these terms describes their properties adequately (e.g., some of these objects do show X-ray pulsations, but their origin is apparently quite different from that observed from ‘ordinary’ pulsars). These objects can be further divided in at least four classes, based on their observational manifestations. First, six of them have been dubbed Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs; Mereghetti & Stella 1995; van Paradijs, Taam, & van den Heuvel 1995) because they resemble accreting binary pulsars, but their luminosities, $`L_\mathrm{x}10^{35}`$ erg s-1, are two-three orders of magnitude lower, their spectra are considerably softer than those of binary pulsars, and their periods cluster in a narrow range of 6–12 s (Israel, Mereghetti, & Stella 2001). The second class is comprised of three (perhaps, four) Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters (SGRs; Kouveliotou 1995) whose quiescent radiation shows many similarities with AXPs, but, contrary to AXPs, SGRs occasionally undergo strong outbursts, with peak luminosities up to $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1. Thompson & Duncan (1996) suggested that AXPs and SGRs are magnetars — INSs with superstrong magnetic fields, $`10^{14}`$$`10^{15}`$ G. Some of the AXPs and SGRs are apparently associated with supernova remnants (SNRs). Recent results on AXPs and SGRs are presented by S. Kulkarni (this volume). One more class of presumably older “truly isolated” (i.e., not associated with SNRs), radio-silent NSs has emerged recently (e.g., Treves et al. 2000). These objects show very soft, thermal-like X-ray radiation with temperatures $`kT50`$–150 eV and luminosities $`10^{32}`$$`10^{33}`$ erg s-1. Finally, Compact Central Objects (CCOs) have been found in several SNRs, which have not been identified as active pulsars, AXPs or SGRs. These objects are particularly puzzling. Below we will discuss recent results on five CCOs which have been observed with the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

## 2. Observational Results

### 2.1. General Overview

Observational properties of CCOs are summarized in Tables 1 through 5. First column of Table 1 gives the positions for the four objects observed with Chandra in an imaging mode (accurate to $`1^{\prime \prime }`$$`2^{\prime \prime }`$) and the most accurate ROSAT HRI position (uncertainty $`5^{\prime \prime }`$) for the fifth source. In the other columns, the host SNRs, with their ages and distances, are listed. The references here and in the other tables are given only to recent works, where the references to earlier results can be found.

Table 2 gives the periods $`P`$ (detected or suspected — the latters are marked with ‘\[?\]’), the observed X-ray fluxes $`F_\mathrm{x}`$ (in units of $`10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1) in energy bands $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and limiting optical/IR magnitudes for the same five CCOs (abbreviated positions in first column). We see that the CCOs are X-ray bright — in fact, three of them, the CCOs of RCW 103, Pup A and G296.5+10.0, were discovered with Einstein, and the Cas A CCO was found in the archival Einstein data. On the other hand, no optical, radio or $`\gamma `$-ray counterparts have been identified for these objects, except perhaps the RCW 103 CCO (see below). The fluxes of four CCOs have not shown long-term variabilities, but the RCW 103 CCO is clearly variable (Gotthelf, Petre, & Vasisht 1999) — we present the lowest and highest flux values observed with Chandra.

Table 3 gives the results of fits of the Chandra ACIS spectra with the ‘standard’ blackbody (BB) and power-law (PL) models. The bolometric luminosities $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ for the BB fits, and the luminosities $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ for the PL fits in the bands $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ from Table 2, are in units of $`10^{33}`$ erg s-1. The luminosities and the effective radii $`R`$ are for most plausible distances (see Table 1). The parameter $`\gamma `$ is the photon index. The hydrogen column densities are in units of $`10^{22}`$ cm-2.

In some cases, the ‘standard’ models do not fit the observed spectra well — e.g., the recently observed Chandra ACIS spectrum of the G266.1–1.2 CCO is too steep at higher energies to fit a PL model. The fits with the simple BB model are formally acceptable for most CCOs. They give temperatures in a narrow range of 0.3–0.6 keV, but the effective radii, 0.2–1.6 km, are much smaller than the expected NS radii, $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}10`$–15 km. On the other hand, the PL spectra (where they fit the data) are very steep (in comparison with typical $`\gamma 1.5`$–2 measured for active radio pulsars), and the PL fits yield too high values of $`n_\mathrm{H}`$. It is quite plausible that none of these simplistic fits provide true physical parameters of the sources. Therefore, we also present, in Table 4, the fits with the magnetic NS hydrogen atmosphere models (Pavlov et al. 1995) which generally give lower effective temperatures and larger emitting areas than the BB fits. In the case of two of the five CCOs (in Pup A and G296.5+10.0), the radii become close to the expected NS radii, but they are still too small for the other three CCOs.

For comparison with the AXP and SGR quiescent spectra, which are well described by a two-component BB+PL spectral model, we also present, in Table 5, the PL+BB fits for three CCOs (the PL component is unconstrained for the two other CCOs). As a rule, the additional PL component (20%–30% of the observed energy flux) only slightly improves the quality of the fits.

### 2.2. Individual Sources

#### Cas A CCO:

The central source of Cas A, the youngest Galactic SNR, was discovered in the first-light Chandra observation (Tananbaum 1999) and after that found in the archival ROSAT and Einstein images (Aschenbach 1999; Pavlov & Zavlin 1999). The Chandra observations of this source were analyzed by Pavlov et al. (2000), Chakrabarty et al. (2001), and Murray et al. (2001). The source is about $`7^{\prime \prime }`$ from the Cas A expansion center (Thorstensen et al. 2001), which corresponds to the transverse velocity of $`330`$ km/s, for the age of 320 yrs and distance of 3.4 kpc. Deep searches in the radio (McLaughlin et al. 2001) and optical/IR (Kaplan, Kulkarni, & Murray 2001; Fesen, Chevalier, & Holt, this volume) failed to find a counterpart. The very large X-ray-to-optical flux ratios (e.g., $`F_\mathrm{x}/F_\mathrm{R}>3000`$), together with the proximity to the SNR expansion center, prove that the point source is the compact remnant of the SN explosion. A lack of a PWN around the source, the steep X-ray spectrum, and low luminosity argue that it is not an active, rotation-powered pulsar. The very high BB temperature and the very small size hint that the radiation emerges from small heated regions on the NS surface. If even the NS surface were covered with a light-element (H or He) atmosphere, the effective temperature would still be too high for a cooling NS of this age, and the size would be smaller than the NS radius. The origin of the heated regions on the NS surface remains unclear. In principle, they could be explained by a very strong magnetic field localized in a small region close to the surface, which would locally increase the surface temperature due to enhanced thermal conduction along the magnetic field, or due to heat caused by field decay. This hypothesis, however, has not been supported by direct calculations. The temperature nonuniformity might be also associated with a nonuniform chemical composition of the crust/atmosphere — for instance, light-element polar caps, formed by accretion onto the magnetic poles of the nascent NS, would be hotter than the rest of the surface comprised of heavy elements (e.g., iron) because the low-Z envelopes are more efficient heat conductors. However, it is not clear whether such a gradient of chemical composition could survive for a long time, or what would be the mechanism supporting this gradient if there is no accretion at the present stage.

If the CCO radiation is emitted from small heated regions on the NS surface, then it would be natural to expect that the radiation is pulsed. The deepest search for pulsation, undertaken by Murray et al. (2001), resulted in a candidate period of about 12 ms, whose significance, however, is rather low. Such a period would not be easy to explain. On one hand, it strongly limits the magnetic field — a NS rotating with such a period should be an active pulsar at $`B\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}10^9`$ G, but we see no manifestations of pulsar activity. On the other hand, if the magnetic field is low enough to put the NS under the ‘pulsar death line’, it would be very difficult to explain the origin of the heated regions.

One could assume that the observed X-ray emission is caused by accretion onto a NS or a black hole (BH), with an accretion rate $`\dot{M}10^{12}`$ g s-1. Although this rate is very low compared to that in accreting compact objects in binaries, it is, nevertheless, too high to be explained by accretion from the circumstellar medium because a very high density of the ambient matter, $`n\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}10^5(v/300\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s})^3`$ cm-3, would be required. We cannot completely rule out the possibility of accretion from a very underluminous (e.g., $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{R}>11`$) secondary companion, but it would be much dimmer than secondaries in usual low-mass X-ray binaries. Somewhat more plausible source of accretion might be a ‘fossil disk’, left-over after the SN explosion (van Paradijs et al. 1995), but such a disk should be much less luminous in the optical than those detected in X-ray binaries. Generally, any accretion model seems to contradict to the lack of variability of the X-ray radiation.

To conclude, there is no full understanding of the real nature of the Cas A CCO. In our opinion, most likely it is an INS emitting thermal radiation from small heated surface areas. Critical observations would be a firm detection of X-ray pulsations and deep IR observations.

#### CCO in “Vela Junior”:

The shell-like SNR G266.1–1.2 (= RX J0852–4622) has been discovered quite recently with ROSAT at the south-east corner of the Vela SNR (Aschenbach 1998). Possible detection of the 1.156 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray line of the radioactive isotope 44Ti with the CGRO COMPTEL (Iyudin et al. 1998) may imply a very young age, $`700`$ yr, at a distance of $`200`$ pc, although further observations of the SNR have shown that it is likely older and more distant (Slane et al. 2001). There were a few reports about possible point-like X-ray sources close to the SNR center (Aschenbach 1998; Slane et al. 2001; Mereghetti 2001), but it had been hard to rule out the association of the CCO candidates with two bright stars in the field. A 3-ks observation with the Chandra ACIS allowed us (Pavlov et al. 2001; Kiziltan et al., this volume) to firmly detect the point source and measure its position with high accuracy (see Table 1). A follow-up optical observation showed a star (B=18.9, R=16.9) at $`2.^{\prime \prime }4`$ from the center of the Chandra error circle, but the association of this star with the CCO looks unlikely. The limiting magnitudes of an optical counterpart (Table 2) are not as deep as for the other CCOs, but the X-ray-to-optical flux ratio is high enough to conclude that this is indeed the compact remnant of the SN explosion, at $`4^{}`$ from the SNR center. A follow-up 30-ks Chandra ACIS observation allowed us to measure the source flux and the spectrum. Interestingly, the spectrum does not fit the PL model, but it fits the BB model and shows a temperature slightly below that of the Cas A CCO. The size of the emitting area and the luminosity cannot be accurately estimated because of the poorly known distance (the values in Table 3 are normalized to $`d=1`$ kpc); at a plausible distance of 2 kpc the size and the luminosity are close to those of the Cas A CCO. These similarities suggest that the Cas A and Vela Junior CCOs indeed belong to the same family.

The second Chandra ACIS observation was carried out in Continuous Clocking (CC) mode, which allowed us to search for pulsations. A candidate period, $`P=301`$ ms, was found at a $`2.8\sigma `$ level — too low significance to claim it is real until it is confirmed by another observation.

#### RCW 103 CCO:

Historically, it was the first radio-quiet, X-ray-bright NS candidate found in a young SNR (Tuohy & Garmire 1980). It has been studied with Einstein (Tuohy et al. 1983), ASCA (Gotthelf, Petre, & Hwang 1997) and Chandra (Garmire et al. 1999, 2000ab). Contrary to the other CCOs, strong (up to a factor of 70) long-term variations of its flux have been found. First 16-ks Chandra ACIS observation (1999 September 26) of this source showed a light curve which looked like a fraction of a sinusoid with a period of about 6 hr; a similar period was apparently found in the archival ASCA data (Garmire et al. 2000a). In second 23-ks Chandra ACIS observation of 2000 February 8 (Garmire et al. 2000b), the source was so bright that it was difficult to measure its properties because of strong pile-up (saturation) of the source image. The source was certainly variable, at a 20% level, during this observation, but the variability did not look periodic. Further long X-ray observations will show whether the 6-hr period is observable in the low state only. A series of six short, 3–4 ks, Chandra ACIS observations of the CCO in January–October 2001 showed that the source was in high state during this period (flux around $`1\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the 0.5–9 keV band). In most of the Chandra observations, the source spectrum resembled a blackbody; its temperature $`kT0.4`$–0.6 keV did not show correlations with the flux, while the effective emitting area was approximately proportional to the flux, with a maximal size of $`1.6`$ km in the high state. Fits with the hydrogen NS atmosphere models give, as usual, lower temperatures and larger sizes, but even the increased effective radius remains smaller than $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, at least in low state. Adding a PL component slightly improved the fits for some of the observations, but it was poorly constrained in most cases.

The last of the short Chandra ACIS observations (2001 October 7) was taken in CC mode, which allowed for the first search of fast pulsations. An upper limit on pulsed fraction in a 0.03–300 s period range is $`f_p<15\%`$.

A number of attempts to detect an optical/IR counterpart have been undertaken. The deepest observations (2001 May-July, with VLT, in the I,J,H,Ks bands) has shown a very red object at $`1.^{\prime \prime }6`$ from the center of the Chandra error circle. Its IR magnitudes (uncertainties of the values in Table 2 are $`\pm `$0.5 mag) correspond to MJ=8.4, MH=6.2, MKs=5.4 at $`d=3.3`$ kpc, $`A_\mathrm{V}=4.7`$. We do not exclude the possibility that this is a dwarf companion or the long-sought fossil disk (in the former case, the 6-hr period, apparently seen in the low state, could be a binary period), but a more accurate astrometric and photometric analysis is required to confirm the identification.

To summarize, the central source of RCW 103 is the only strongly variable CCO. The most natural explanation for the variability is accretion with a variable rate, $`\dot{M}10^{12}`$$`10^{14}`$ g s-1. The source of accretion, a low-luminosity companion in a binary system or a dim disk, can be established from further IR observations. If the IR counterpart is confirmed, this will be the first discovery of either a very young binary system with a compact companion in a SNR or a fossil disk which is still present after the SN explosion about 2 kyr ago.

#### Pup A CCO:

This object, at about $`6^{}`$ from the kinematical center of the SNR, was discovered with Einstein (Petre et al. 1982) and further studied with ROSAT and ASCA (Petre, Becker, & Winkler 1996; Zavlin, Trümper, & Pavlov 1999). Large values of $`F_\mathrm{x}/F_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ (see Table 2) suggest that this is a NS or a BH. The pre-Chandra X-ray observations have shown that, similar to other CCOs, the spectrum of this object is either a very steep power law or, more likely, thermal-like, with a BB radius substantially smaller than $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$. The radius becomes compatible with $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, and the effective temperature consistent with ‘standard’ NS cooling models (see Table 4), if one fits the spectra with a hydrogen atmosphere model with $`B>6\times 10^{12}`$ G (Zavlin et al. 1999). The source was observed with Chandra ACIS in 2000 January 1 (12 ks). The spectral parameters obtained from this observation are consistent with those obtained with ROSAT and ASCA.

Observations of this CCO with the Chandra HRC (1999 December 21 and 2001 January 25, 18 ks each) allowed us to obtain high-resolution images and search for pulsations. We found no signs of a PWN around the source — an additional confirmation that this is not an active pulsar. These observations did not confirm a 75-ms candidate period reported by Pavlov, Zavlin, & Trümper (1998) at a $`3\sigma `$ level. (This result is not surprising because, with the period and its derivative suggested by Pavlov et al. 1998, the source should be an active pulsar, in contradiction with its observed properties.) Moreover, no other periods are seen in the power spectra, with an upper limit on pulsed fraction $`f_p<10\%`$ in a 0.003–300 s period range.

#### CCO in PKS 1209–51/52:

The oldest CCO in our sample was discovered with Einstein (Helfand & Becker 1984) $`6^{}`$ off-center the $`81^{}`$ diameter shell SNR G296.5+10.0. EXOSAT, ROSAT and ASCA observations (Kellet et al. 1987; Mereghetti, Bignami, & Caraveo 1996; Vasisht et al. 1997; Zavlin, Pavlov, & Trümper 1998) have established its spectral characteristics similar to those of the Pup A CCO, albeit with lower temperatures inferred from thermal fits. Zavlin et al. (1998) have shown that fitting the CCO spectra with the magnetic hydrogen atmosphere model yields a radius close to the expected NS radius, an effective temperature consistent with the standard NS cooling models, and a hydrogen column density compatible with the values obtained from independent measurements.

This object was observed with Chandra ACIS on 2000 January 6 (30 ks) in CC mode. Timing analysis allowed us to find a strong ($`5\sigma `$) candidate for the period, $`P=0.42412924\mathrm{s}\pm 0.23\mu `$s (Zavlin et al. 2000). The pulsations are smooth, with one peak per period and pulsed fraction $`f_p=9\%\pm 2\%`$. We can speculate that the pulsations may be caused by temperature nonuniformity due to anisotropic heat conduction in a strong magnetic field. To estimate the magnetic field and elucidate the nature of this INS, the period derivative must be measured.

Fits of the Chandra spectra with continuum spectral models give fitting parameters very close to those obtained in the pre-Chandra observations, but the quality of the fits is worse now because of an apparent broad spectral feature, presumably caused by inaccuracy of CCD response. Thus, the Chandra ACIS spectrum of this source does not contradict to the suggestion of Zavlin et al. (1998) that this is a NS covered with a strongly magnetized hydrogen atmosphere.

## 3. Summary

Although some properties of CCOs (in particular, their spectra) are very similar to each other, this still does not guarantee that they represent a uniform class of objects. The most outstanding among these sources is the RCW 103 CCO, with its highly variable flux (time scales hours to months), putative 6-hr period, and a possible IR counterpart. We presume that this source is not a truly isolated NS (i.e., it is powered by accretion, at least in its high state), although it is not a rotation-powered active pulsar. The other four CCOs have shown neither long-term variabilities nor indications of binarity. If we adopt a plausible hypothesis that their radiation is thermal and assume that it is adequately described by the same spectral model (e.g., BB or H atmosphere) for each of the sources, then we have to conclude that the emitting area is growing with the CCO’s age. If we assume that the radiation emerges from a hydrogen atmosphere, than the size is consistent with a NS radius for the two oldest CCOs, being smaller for the two younger ones. One might suggest that the two younger and two older CCOs are objects of different types, but it does not answer the fundamental question: Why are the emitting regions of at least two young CCOs so small? If this is due to the above-discussed nonuniformities of magnetic field or chemical composition, one could speculate that these nonuformities are formed at very early stages of the NS life, and they weaken (spread over the NS surface) in a time of several thousand years. One could assume that the two younger CCOs are BHs, not NSs, but then we would have to invoke accretion as an energy source, which does not look consistent with a lack of variability.

The key property to understand the nature of CCOs is their periodicity. So far, the period has been found with high significance (albeit in only one observation) only for the oldest of the CCOs, and its value of 424 ms proves that at least this CCO is a NS. The suspected 12 ms period of the youngest CCO is very puzzling — we have to wait for its confirmation before making definitive conclusions on the nature of this source.

Another intriguing question is whether the CCOs are close relatives of AXPs and SGRs, as one could assume based on similarity of their spectra. Based on the above-mentioned CCO periods (which, however, require confirmation), the formal answer should be ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’. On the other hand, it is hard to explain why the apparent temperatures and sizes of emitting regions would be so similar in objects of different nature. Therefore, we do not rule out the possibility that at least some of the CCOs belong to the same family as AXPs and/or SGRs, perhaps at different stages of their evolution. In this respect, it would be particularly interesting not only to confirm/measure the CCO periods, but also to evaluate the period derivatives.

To conclude, with the aid of the Chandra observations two more CCOs have been discovered, data of much better quality were obtained, and the main problems were formulated more clearly. We expect these problems to be resolved by further observations — X-ray timing and spectroscopy, supplemented with deep NIR imaging.

##### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by NASA through grants NAG5-7017, NAG5-10865, NAS8-3852, and SAO GO0-1012X. We thank A. Garmire, O. Kargaltsev, and B. Kiziltan for their help with the data analysis.

## References

Aschenbach, B. 1998, Nature, 396, 141

Aschenbach, B. 1999, IAU Circ. 7249

Chakrabarty, D., Pivovaroff, M. J., Hernquist, L. E., Heyl, J. S., & Narayan, R. 2001, ApJ, 548, 800

Garmire, G. P., Garmire, A. B., Burrows, D. N., & Pavlov, G. G. 1999, AAS Meeting 195, #39.13

Garmire, G. P., Pavlov, G. G., Garmire, A. B., & Zavlin, V. E. 2000a, IAU Circ. 7350

Garmire, G. P., Garmire, A. B., Pavlov, G. G., & Burrows, D. N. 2000b, AAS HEAD Meeting 32, #32.11

Garmire, G. P., et al. 2002, ApJ, in preparation

Gotthelf, E. V., Petre, R., & Hwang, U. 1997, ApJ, 487, L175

Gotthelf, E. V., Petre, R., & Vasisht, G. 1999, ApJ, 514, L107

Helfand, D. J., & Becker, R. H. 1984, Nature, 307, 215

Israel, G., Mereghetti, S., & Stella, L. 2001, astro-ph/0111093

Iyudin, A. F., et al. 1998, Nature, 396, 142

Kaplan, D. L., Kulkarni, S. R., & Murray, S. 2001, astro-ph/010254

Kellet, B. J., et al. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 199

Kouveliotou, C. 1995, Ap&SS, 231, 49

Leibowitz, E. M., & Danziger, I. J. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 273

McLaughlin, M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 547, L41

Mereghetti, S. 2001, ApJ, 548, L213

Mereghetti, S., & Stella, L. 1995, ApJ, 442, L17

Mereghetti, S., Bignami, G. F., & Caraveo, P. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 842

Murray, S. S., Ransom, S. M., Juda, M., Hwang, U., & Holt, S. S. 2001, astro-ph/0106516

Pavlov, G. G., Zavlin, V. E. 1999, IAU Circ. 7270

Pavlov, G. G., Shibanov, Yu. A., Zavlin, V. E., & Meyer, R. D. 1995, in The Lives of the Neutron Stars, ed. M. A. Alpar, Ü. Kiziloglu, & J. van Paradijs (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 71

Pavlov, G. G., Zavlin, V. E., & Trümper, J. 1998, ApJ, 511, L45

Pavlov, G. G., Zavlin, V. E., Aschenbach, B., Trümper, J., & Sanwal, D. 2000, ApJ, 531, L53

Pavlov, G. G., Sanwal, D., Kiziltan, B., & Garmire, G. P. 2001, ApJ, 559, L131

Petre, R., Becker, C. M., & Winkler, P. F. 1996, ApJ, 465, L43

Petre, R., Kriss, G. A., Winkler, P. F., & Canizares, C. R. 1982, ApJ, 258, 22

Sanwal, D., Garmire, G. P., Mignani, R., Garmire, A. B., & Pavlov, G. G. 2002, ApJ, in preparation

Slane, P., Hughes, J. P., Edgar, R. J., Plucinsky, P. P., Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., & Aschenbach, B. 2001, ApJ, 548, 814

Tananbaum, H., et al. 1999, IAU Circ. 7246

Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322

Thorstensen, J. R., Fesen, R. A., & van den Bergh, S. 2001, AJ, 122, 297

Treves, A., Turolla, R., Zane, S., & Colpi, M. 2000, PASP, 112, 297

Tuohy, I., & Garmire, G. P. 1980, ApJ, 239, L107

Tuohy, I., Garmire, G. P., Manchester, R. N., & Dopita, M. A. 1983, 268, 778

van Paradijs, J., Taam, R. E., & van den Heuvel, E. P. G. 1995, A&A, 299, L41

Vasisht, G., Kulkarni, S. R., Anderson, S. B., Hamilton, T. T., & Kawai, N. 1997, ApJ, 476, L43

Zavlin, V. E., Pavlov, G. G., & Trümper, J. 1998, A&A, 331, 821

Zavlin, V. E., Trümper, J., & Pavlov, G. G. 1999, ApJ, 525, 959

Zavlin, V. E., Pavlov, G. G., Sanwal, D., & Trümper, J. 2000, ApJ, 540, L25


text:
# Chapter 1 How Can We Study the Local Universe with CMB Photons?

## Chapter 1 How Can We Study the Local Universe with CMB Photons?

### Abstract

We show how observations of temperature fluctuations in cosmic microwave background (CMB) can be used to extract information related to the large scale structure, including dark matter distribution, pressure and halo velocities involving the line of sight, transverse and rotational components. The frequency spectrum can be used to separate the SZ effect from thermal fluctuations. The measurement of higher order correlations in CMB can be used to extract effects involving lensing and kinetic SZ effects. A high signal-to-noise arcminute scale CMB experiment can be used to construct the weak lensing convergence, which is useful given that the background source, CMB anisotropies at the last scattering surface, is well understood.

### 1. Introduction

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is now well known as a probe of the early universe. The temperature fluctuations in the CMB, especially the acoustic peaks in the angular power spectrum of CMB anisotropies, capture the physics of primordial baryon-photon fluid undergoing oscillations in the potential wells of dark matter . In transit to us, CMB photons also encounter the large scale structure that defines the local universe; thus, several aspects of photon properties, such as the frequency or direction of propagation, are affected. In the reionized epoch, variations are imprinted when photons are Compton-scattered via electrons, moving with respect to the CMB.

These gravitational and scattering effects, though some times insignificant compared to primary fluctuations, leave certain imprints in the anisotropy structure while inducing higher order correlations. These signatures can then be used to extract the properties of large scale structure that led to changes in the CMB temperature. Here, we will summarize what these signatures are, and, how they can be used to study the local universe with CMB photons.

### 2. Local Universe Contributions to CMB

Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect: The differential redshift effect from photons climbing in and out of a time-varying gravitational potential along the line of sight is called the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW; ) effect. The ISW effect is important for low matter density universes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<1`$, where the gravitational potentials decay at low redshift, and contributes anisotropies on and above the scale of the horizon at the time of decay. The non-linear contribution to the ISW effect comes from large scale structure momentum density field. In , we presented a model for the non-linear contribution; one aspect of this non-linear effect is that it results from the transverse velocity of halos across the line of sight and results in a dipolar temperature change aligned with the direction of motion. This contribution, however, produces fluctuations which are of order 0.5 $`\mu `$K when transverse velocities are of order 100 km sec-1. The possibility to measure transverse velocities challenges improvements in the experimental front to reach such low temperatures.

Weak Gravitational Lensing: Gravitational lensing of the photons by the intervening large-scale structure both redistributes power in multipole space and enhances it due power in the density perturbations. The most effective structures for lensing lie half way between the surface of recombination and the observer in comoving angular diameter distance. In the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, this is at $`z3.3`$, but the growth of structure skews this to somewhat lower redshifts. In general, the efficiency of lensing is described by a broad bell shaped function between the source and the observer, and thus, correlates well with a large number of tracers of the large scale structure from low to high redshifts.

Since the lensing effect involves the angular gradient of CMB photons and leaves the surface brightness unaffected, its signatures are at the second order in temperature. A quadratic statistic can be devised to probe the gradient structure of CMB temperature and to extract the projected line of sight dark matter density field. This can be best achieved with the divergence of the temperature weighted gradient statistic of  and we show errors for a construction of convergence in figure 1. Since lensing has a distinct non-linear mode coupling behavior, it can produce a non-Gaussian signature in CMB data. The idea behind here is that the potentials which lensed CMB also contribute to first order temperature fluctuations from effects such as ISW. These correlations are discussed in detail in .

Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Thermal Effect: At small angular scales, probably, the best known effect is the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ; ) effect. The SZ effect arises from the inverse-Compton scattering of CMB photons by hot electrons along the line of sight. This effect has now been directly imaged toward massive galaxy clusters, where temperature of the scattering medium can reach as high as 10 keV producing temperature changes in the CMB of order 1 mK. Note that the effect is proportional to the temperature weighted electron density, or pressure in a cluster. Using a distribution of halos with gas in hydrostatic equilibrium, we can calculate the pressure clustering and project it along the line of sight to obtain the resulting angular power spectrum of temperature fluctuations .

Note that the SZ effect also bears a spectral signature that differs from the other effects. The upscattering of photons moves them from low to high frequencies, with no effect at a frequency of $``$ 217 GHz. This leads to decrements at low frequencies and increments at high frequencies. An experiment such as Planck with sensitivity beyond the peak of the spectrum can separate out the SZ contribution based on the spectral signature . This is important since statistics related to the SZ effect can be studied separately uncontaminated by primary anisotropies and confusing foregrounds. For example, in , we introduced the CMB2-SZ power spectrum as a probe of the lensing-SZ correlation which involves the CMB and frequency cleaned SZ maps. This statistic can be used to directly estimate how pressure correlates with dark matter; in figure 1., we show the expected errors for the Planck mission.

Linear Doppler Effect: The bulk flow of the electrons that scatter the CMB photons leads to a Doppler effect. Its effect on the power spectrum peaks around the horizon at the scattering event projected on the sky today (see Fig. 1.). On scales smaller than the horizon at scattering, the contributions are significantly canceled as photons scatter against the crests and troughs of the perturbation. As a result, the Doppler effect is moderately sensitive to how rapidly the universe reionizes since contributions from a sharp surface of reionization do not cancel.

Kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect: The Ostriker-Vishniac/kinetic SZ (kSZ) effect arises from the second-order modulation of the Doppler effect by density fluctuations . Due to the density weighting, kSZ effect peaks at small scales and avoids cancellations associated with the linear effect; the linear effect can also be modulated via the fraction of electrons ionized . Due to density modulation, the kSZ effect has a distinct non-Gaussian behavior . The bulk velocities can be extracted with higher order correlations such as the SZ2-kSZ2 statistic of . For a given cluster, the temperature fluctuation is proportional to the line of sight peculiar velocity and when the SZ thermal contribution is removed with frequency information, the kinetic SZ effect should dominate. In addition to the peculiar motion, any coherent rotation of the cluster will produce a dipole-like temperature distribution toward clusters, especially when the rotational axes is aligned perpendicular to the line of sight . This allows an extremely useful probe of the cluster rotations and the angular momentum of gas distribution within galaxy clusters.

> Acknowledgements: I thank Wayne Hu for collaborative work and organizers of RESCEU 2001 for their hospitality and opportunity to present this work. This study was supported by the Sherman Fairchild foundation and the DOE.


text:
# Anomalous dispersion of density waves in the early universe with positive cosmological constant

## 1 Introduction

The image the perturbations create on the last scattering surface depends on how they propagate in the radiational era. In the flat radiation dominated universe with vanishing cosmological constant the density perturbations form sound waves and propagate with the constant sound velocity $`v=1/\sqrt{3}`$. They obey linear dispersion relation $`\omega =k/\sqrt{3}`$, therefore, their phase and group velocities are identical. Their propagation does not depend on the wave number, therefore, no critical scale appear and no gravitationally bound structures form. The above is the subject of theorem proved by Sachs and Wolfe ( sec. II), confirmed independently by Lukash , Chibisov and Mukhanov  on the basis of Hamilton formalism in Field-Shepley variables . The result holds in the gauge-invariant descriptions  as well as in the original Lifshitz formalism .

The situation changes significantly in the universe with the negative space curvature ($`K=1`$), where the acoustic wave propagates as a scalar field with the mass $`m=K`$.111Gauge-invariant perturbation equation takes the form of eq. (5.4) of  with the minimal coupling ($`\xi =0`$). The same is also the form of eq. (21) of  and eq. (4.6) of . The dispersion relation is nonlinear and, in consequence, some critical frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ appear. Below $`\omega _c`$ the wave propagation is forbidden. The dispersion of the acoustic wave on the curvature affects the microwave background fluctuations and in principle can be used to measure the cosmological density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ .

In this letter we show that also the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a source of dispersive phenomena. The interest in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-cosmology grows, owing to speculations that cosmological constant may take substantial values in the present epoch . We investigate the flat ($`K=0`$) universe with radiation ($`p=\epsilon /3`$) and positive cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$). We find exact solutions for gauge-invariant perturbation equations  and discuss their properties to show, that in the presence of positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the dispersion of the acoustic field has an anomalous character.

## 2 Homogeneous background

In the flat radiation-dominated universe with a positive cosmological constant, Friedman equations are satisfied by the scale factor $`a(t)`$:

$$a(t)=\left(/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/4}\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}(2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}t)}=\left(/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/4}\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}\tau }$$
(1)
where $``$ is the constant of motion $`=ϵa^4`$, $`ϵ`$ means the energy density and the dimensionless time parameter $`\tau `$ is related to the metric time as $`\tau =2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}t`$. To simplify notation in the forthcoming formulae we also introduce the constant $`\beta `$ defined as $`\beta =\sqrt{3}/[16\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/4}`$. The conformal time $`\eta `$

$$\eta =F(\mathrm{arccos}\left[\frac{1\mathrm{sinh}\tau }{1+\mathrm{sinh}\tau }\right],\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\beta $$
(2)
is finite $`\eta [0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}K(2^{1/2})\beta ]=[0,\frac{1}{2}\pi ^{1/2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2\beta ]`$, where $`F(\phi ,m)`$ stands for the elliptic integral of the first kind and $`K(m)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind . The scale factor $`a(\eta )`$ expresses by the Jacobi elliptic functions $`sn(u,m)`$, $`cn(u,m)`$ of the ratio $`\eta /\beta `$.

$$a(\eta )=2\beta \sqrt{/3}\frac{sn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{1+cn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}.$$
(3)
The scale factor $`a(\eta )`$ grows monotonically from $`0`$ to infinity. In the neighborhood of the initial singularity the radiation is dynamically dominant and the effect of the cosmological constant can be omitted. The opposite boundary of the conformal time interval ($`\eta =\frac{1}{2}\pi ^{1/2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2\beta `$) correspond to the de Sitter epoch where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominates and the radiation plays a marginal role.

## 3 The perturbation equation

By variating Raychaudhuri and the continuity equations one obtains the propagation equation for the density contrast $`\delta ϵ/ϵ`$. While $`\delta ϵ/ϵ`$ is measured on the flow-orthogonal hypersurfaces  the equation reads

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}^2(\tau )X(\tau ,𝐱)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\tau )X^{}(\tau ,𝐱)+X^{\prime \prime }(\tau )=v^2\beta ^2csch(\tau )^2X(\tau ,𝐱).$$
(4)
$`^2`$ denotes the Laplace operator in the conformal space, consequently its eigenvalue $`k^2`$ is related to the time invariant “commoving” wave vector $`𝐤`$ with $`k=|𝐤|`$. The same equation can be obtained in other gauge-invariant theories ,  under necessary redefinition of the perturbation variables222Although we restrict ourselves to $`v=1/\sqrt{3}`$ we explicitly keep $`v`$ in perturbation equations to make clear their structure and correspondence to other formalisms. (see ). This is convenient to express the equation (4) in terms of the conformal time

$$\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\left(1\frac{2}{sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}\right)X(\eta ,𝐱)v^2^2X(\eta ,𝐱)+X^{\prime \prime }(\eta ,𝐱)=0$$
(5)
and search for its solutions in the form of the Fourier integral

$$X(\eta ,𝐱)=𝒜_𝐤𝗎_𝐤(\eta ,𝐱)d^3k+\text{c.c.}$$
(6)
Prime stands for the conformal time derivative, Fourier coefficients $`𝒜_𝐤`$ are arbitrary functions of the wave number $`k`$. Modes $`𝗎_𝐤(\eta ,𝐱)`$ satisfy both, the Helmholtz equation

$$^2𝗎_𝐤(\eta ,𝐱)=k^2𝗎_𝐤(\eta ,𝐱)$$
(7)
and the time equation (5), and divide into two classes distinguished by the critical value $`k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2/3}\beta }=(4\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/4}`$. Below, we employ the dimensionless wave vector $`|\kappa \kappa |=\kappa =\sqrt{2}v\beta k=\sqrt{2/3}\beta k`$. In this notation both classes of solutions are defined by inequalities $`\kappa >1`$ and $`\kappa 1`$. They will be discussed separately.

## 4 Subcritical perturbations: solutions for $`\kappa >1`$

The short-scale solutions ($`\kappa >1`$) propagate as waves of variable amplitude and variable frequency. Elementary solutions $`𝗎_{\kappa \kappa }(\eta ,𝐱)`$ take the form

$$𝗎_{\kappa \kappa }(\eta ,𝐱)=\frac{sn([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\sqrt{2+(\kappa ^21)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}{\sqrt{2+(\kappa ^21)sn^2([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,𝐱)]$$
(8)
where the phase $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,𝐱)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,𝐱)=\frac{\kappa \kappa 𝐱}{\sqrt{2}\beta \mathrm{v}}\frac{\kappa \sqrt{\kappa ^41}}{\sqrt{2}(\kappa ^21)}\left[\frac{\eta }{\beta }\Pi (am(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}),\frac{1}{2}(\kappa ^21),\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\right].$$
(9)
Function $`\Pi (\phi ,\alpha ^2,m)`$ is the elliptic integral of the third kind and $`am(u,m)`$ is the amplitude elliptic function . The solution is singular at both ends of the conformal time interval. In the vicinity of the initial singularity ($`\eta =0`$) the radiation plays the dominant role and the solutions $`𝗎_𝐤(\eta ,𝐱)`$ approach appropriate modes for the universe with vanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . In the late time regime $`\eta \frac{\beta }{2\sqrt{\pi }}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2`$ the universe realizes the exponential growth under the dominant effect of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Singularities in solutions $`𝗎_𝐤(\eta ,𝐱)`$ in the $`\eta \frac{\beta }{2\sqrt{\pi }}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2`$ limit is known as the instability of de Sitter universe .

The local frequency333see  $`\omega (\eta ,\kappa )`$, evaluated as the time derivative of the phase $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,𝐱)`$

$$\omega (\eta ,\kappa )=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,𝐱)}{\eta }=\frac{\kappa \sqrt{\kappa ^41}sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{\sqrt{2}\beta (2+(\kappa ^21)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}))}.$$
(10)
is a time-dependent quantity. The interval $`\eta [\eta _1,\eta _2]`$ contained between two extrema of the second derivative $`\frac{^2\omega (\eta ,\kappa )}{\eta ^2}`$

$$\eta _1=𝐹(\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\beta ,\eta _2=\frac{1}{2}\pi ^{1/2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2\beta 𝐹(\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\beta $$

form the oscillatory stage, where the perturbation propagates as the acoustic wave. $`\omega (\eta ,\kappa )`$ maintains an approximately constant value there. The quantity

$$\omega _\mathrm{b}(\kappa )=\frac{\kappa \sqrt{\kappa ^41}}{\sqrt{2}\beta (\kappa ^2+1)}.$$
(11)
may be understood as the basic frequency, while its the modulation $`\omega _{\mathrm{mod}}(\eta ,\kappa )`$ is given by

$$\omega _{\mathrm{mod}}(\eta ,\kappa )=\frac{\sqrt{2}\kappa \sqrt{\kappa ^41}(1+sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}))}{\beta (1+\kappa ^2)(2+(\kappa ^21)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}))}.$$
(12)
Beyond this interval $`[\eta _1,\eta _2]`$ the division into basic frequency and the modulation loses its physical meaning. While $`\eta 0`$ or $`\eta \frac{\beta }{2\sqrt{\pi }}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2`$ the frequency formally defined in (10) tends to zero and the amplitude grows indefinitely. In fact, the concept of oscillation, breaks down in these limits.

Formula (10) plays the role of time-dependent dispersion relation, and (11) is its analog for the basic frequency. Both relations are nonlinear. The number $`\kappa =1`$ ($`k=\sqrt{2/3}\beta =[4\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/4}`$) forms the critical value of the wave number, and naturally defines the critical wave-length $`\lambda _{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi }{[\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/4}}`$. Below this scale the wave propagation is forbidden. While $`\kappa 1`$, the frequency tends to zero, therefore, perturbations longer than the critical size do not form travelling waves. In contrast to dispersion on the space curvature, the dispersion on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ manifests its anomalous character: critical behaviour concerns the scale of the perturbation (the wave number $`k`$), not the frequency444The space curvature defines the minimal frequency like the plasma frequency. $`\omega `$. The anomaly is also clear from the phase and the group velocities behaviour

$$v_\mathrm{f}(\eta ,\kappa ,\beta )=\frac{\omega (\eta ,\kappa )}{k}=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa ^41}sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{\sqrt{3}[2+(\kappa ^21)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})]},$$
(13)
$$v_\mathrm{g}(\eta ,\kappa ,\beta )=\frac{\omega (\eta ,\kappa )}{k}=\frac{[6\kappa ^42+(\kappa ^21)(\kappa ^42\kappa ^21)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})]sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{\sqrt{3}\sqrt{\kappa ^41}[2+(\kappa ^21)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})]^2}.$$
(14)
The phase velocity $`v_\mathrm{f}(\eta ,\kappa ,\beta )`$ decreases with increasing wave-length  and, in consequence, the group velocity $`v_\mathrm{g}(\eta ,\kappa ,\beta )`$ is always greater than the phase velocity $`v_\mathrm{f}(\eta ,\kappa ,\beta )`$. In the $`\kappa 1`$ limit the phase velocity tends to zero, while the group velocity formally expressed as (14) grows indefinitely. In this regime the concept of the wave packet loses its sense.555Taylor series for $`\omega `$ cannot be cut at linear terms. Higher order terms are responsible for the diffusion of the wave packets .

## 5 Supercritical perturbations: solutions for $`\kappa 1`$

The large-scale solutions ($`\kappa 1`$) do not propagate as travelling waves. The space of solutions consists of the combinations of the two modes $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa \kappa 𝐱)`$ and $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa \kappa 𝐱)`$, where both $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}`$ and $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}`$

$`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sn([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\sqrt{2(1\kappa ^2)sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}{\sqrt{2(1\kappa ^2)sn^2([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}sn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \sqrt{1\kappa ^4}}{\sqrt{2}(1\kappa ^2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }}+\Pi (am({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\kappa ^2\right),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})\right)\right],`$
$`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}(\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\eta }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}(\eta ^{})]^2}}𝑑\eta ^{}.`$ (16)
are real functions. In the vicinity of the initial singularity $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}`$ behave as the decaying mode, while $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}`$ plays the role of the growing one. In this particular sense the behaviour of the large-scale perturbations mimics that of modes in the pressureless matter. Later on the solutions evolve differently. Both modes keep approximately constant amplitude in the epoch when the $`\kappa >1`$ modes oscillate. Finally, in the de Sitter regime both modes $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}`$ and $`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}`$ blow up exponentially.

The two limit cases $`\kappa =0`$ and $`\kappa =1`$ express in simple formulae

$`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sn([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{\sqrt{2sn^2([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}{sn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}},`$ (17)
$`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sn([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{\sqrt{2sn^2([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}}`$ (18)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2sn^2(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}{\sqrt{2}sn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}\left[2E(am({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }}\right]cn({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})\right]`$
for $`\kappa =0`$ and

$`𝗎_\kappa ^{(1)}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`sn([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{sn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}},`$ (19)
$`𝗎_\kappa ^{(2)}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`sn([2\sqrt{\pi }\beta ]^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{sn(\frac{\eta }{\beta },\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }}E(am({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\beta }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})\right]`$ (20)
for $`\kappa =1`$.

The dynamics of large-scale perturbations does not confirm their exceptional role in the structure formation process: their amplitudes are of the same range as those of oscillating modes. However, since these perturbations do not propagate, the density and expansion excesses are correlated to each other throughout the space for decaying modes, and anti- correlated for the growing ones. Present observations of the microwave background, which are limited to the single physical quantity (temperature), are not complete enough to distinguish between traveling waves and the perturbations of other types. Yet it is possible that we will get more complete data from the last scattering surface in future. Therefore, some estimations of linear diameters and appropriate angular scales on the sky are worth mentioning.

We assume that the universe after decoupling evolves as filled with presureless matter. Then the lapse of conformal time between the emission and the observation moments is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (z)=\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[\frac{ϵ_0}{m}\right]^{1/3}\left((1+z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2};\frac{4}{3};(1+z)^3\frac{ϵ_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2};\frac{4}{3};\frac{ϵ_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]\right)$$
(21)
where $`z`$ means the redshift of the last scattering surface, $`m=ϵa^3`$ is the constant of motion for the late universe, subscript 0 refers to the present time, and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b;c;x]`$ stands for the hypergeometric function . Sky equator covers $`n`$ regions of the critical length diameter where

$$n(\frac{ϵ_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},z)=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\eta }{\lambda _{\mathrm{cr}}}=\sqrt{6}\left[\frac{ϵ_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+z)}\right]^{1/4}\left((1+z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2};\frac{4}{3};(1+z)^3\frac{ϵ_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2};\frac{4}{3};\frac{ϵ_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]\right).$$
(22)
For $`ϵ_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2`$ and $`z=100`$ the number $`n`$ is about $`n=0.8`$, therefore, supercritical perturbations may contribute to the dipole anisotropy of the MBR. If the radiation plays its dynamical role after decoupling the number $`n`$ can be greater, but always less than $`n=2`$.

## 6 Conclusions

Like the space curvature, the cosmological constant causes dispersion of the acoustic field in the early universe. In both cases the dispersive phenomena are induced by the space-time geometry and depend neither on the initial conditions for acoustic field nor on the character of cosmological epochs prior to the radiational era. Dispersion on the cosmological constant is a measurable effect in the sense that appropriate critical length scale is comparable with the region of the last scattering surface we observe today. Nevertheless, to detect dispersion one needs more complete data from the last scattering epoch, in particular, the second dynamically independent quantity should be known (for instance the velocity field). In contrast to dispersion on the space curvature, the dispersion on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is anomalous. The two phenomena differ enough to uniquely distinguish their provenience. Both might be employed to measure values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ respectively.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by State Committee for Scientific Research, project No 2 P03D 014 17.


text:
# Abstract.

### Abstract.

Classical physics is about real objects, like apples falling from trees, whose motion is governed by Newtonian laws. In standard quantum mechanics only the wave function or the results of measurements exist, and to answer the question of how the classical world can be part of the quantum world is a rather formidable task. However, this is not the case for Bohmian mechanics, which, like classical mechanics, is a theory about real objects. In Bohmian terms, the problem of the classical limit becomes very simple: when do the Bohmian trajectories look Newtonian?

## 1 Introduction

The classical world, say the world of objects of familiar experience that obey Newtonian laws, seems far removed from the “wavy” world of quantum mechanics. In this paper we shall sketch what we believe are the basic steps to be taken in going from the quantum world to the classical world.

### 1.

The first step is the crucial one: As is well known, and as Bell has emphasized , standard quantum mechanics is not a precise microscopic theory because the division between the microscopic and the macroscopic world, which is essential to the very formulation of that theory, is not made precise by the theory . In fact, the following conclusion seems inevitable: quantum mechanics does not contain the means for describing the classical world in any approximate sense and one needs to go beyond quantum mechanics in order to do so. There are two natural possibilities for amending ordinary quantum mechanics: either the wave function is not all there is, or Schrödinger’s equation is wrong. In this paper we’ll formulate the problem of the classical limit within the framework of Bohmian mechanics, a theory which follows the first path and in which the observer doesn’t play any crucial role. It is a theory about reality, not about the result of measurements. A very short review of Bohmian mechanics is given in section 2 and the the relevant part of this theory, related to the classical limit, is discussed in section 4.

### 2.

To get a handle on a problem, one should first simplify it as much as possible. The complex motion of a macroscopic body can be drastically simplified by making some rather standard approximations and reducing the problem to that of a “particle” moving in an external potential. This is what we shall do in section 3.

### 3.

Good textbooks on quantum mechanics contain enlightening ideas. One of these ideas is the so called Ehrenfest theorem that we shall use in section 5 in order to obtain a necessary condition for the classicality for wave packets.

### 4.

The structure of Bohmian mechanics contains the means for extending the condition for classicality to more general wave functions, namely wave functions which locally look like plane waves, as we shall see in section 6. In section 7 we shall then show how the problem of classical limit for general wave functions can be reduced to that for local plane waves.

### 5.

Simplicity is good, but it has its limitations: the reduction of the motion of the center of mass to a one body problem doesn’t explain the robustness and stability of classical behavior. This however can be explained by making the model a little more realistic, say by including in an effective way the external as well as the internal environment. We shall briefly touch this point in section 8.

### 6.

This step is the crucial one from a mathematical point of view. In section 9 we shall put forward a mathematical conjecture on the emergence of classical behavior. Unfortunately we cannot provide any rigorous mathematical justification for it. Mathematical work on it would be valuable since this conjecture goes beyond the standard mathematical work of semiclassical analysis (see, e.g., , ) or, in more modern terms, microlocal analysis (see, e.g., ).

### 7.

This is the last step in what we believe is the main structure of the classical limit:

$$(\psi ,X)(P,X),$$

where on the two sides of the arrow are represented the complete state description of Bohmian mechanics, in terms of wave function and position, and of classical mechanics, in terms of momentum and position.

## 2 Bohmian Mechanics

In nonrelativistic Bohmian mechanics the world is described by particles which follow trajectories determined by a law of motion. The evolution of the positions of these particles is guided by the wave function which itself evolves according to Schrödinger’s equation. In other words, in Bohmian mechanics the complete description of the state of an $`N`$-particle system is the pair $`(\mathrm{\Psi },Q)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(q)=\mathrm{\Psi }(q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)`$ and $`Q=(Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N)`$ are respectively the wave function and the *actual* configuration of the system, with $`Q_k`$ denoting the position of the $`k`$-th particle in ordinary three-dimensional space.

For non relativistic spinless particles the state $`(\mathrm{\Psi },Q)`$ evolves according to the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_k}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_k}}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{_{q_k}\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)}}`$ (1)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_k}}_{q_k}^2\mathrm{\Psi }+U(q)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (2)
Equations (1) and (2) form a complete specification of the theory. Agreement between Bohmian mechanics and quantum mechanics regarding the results of any experiment is guaranteed by what has been called  the quantum equilibrium hypothesis: when a system has a wave function $`\psi `$, its configuration $`Q`$ is random with probability distribution

$$\rho (q)=|\psi (q)|^2.$$
(3)
While the meaning and justification of this hypothesis is a delicate matter, which has been discussed at length elsewhere  (see also  and ), we wish to underline here an important property of (3): if the probability density for the configuration satisfies $`\rho (q,t_0)=|\psi (q,t_0)|^2`$ at some time $`t_0`$, then the density at any time $`t`$ to which this is carried by the motion (1) is also given by $`\rho (q,t)=|\psi (q,t)|^2`$. This is an extremely important property of any Bohmian system, expressing a compatibility between the two equations of motion (1) and (2) defining the dynamics, which we call the equivariance of $`|\psi |^2`$.

## 3 Motion in an External Potential

Our goal is to study the classical behavior of a macroscopic body composed of $`N`$ particles with $`N1`$ (one may think of an apple falling from a tree or a planet moving around the sun). It is rather clear that one expects classical behavior only for appropriate macroscopic functions of the particle configuration $`(Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N)`$. The relevant macroscopic variable, whose classical behavior we wish to investigate here, is the center of mass of the body

$$X=\frac{_im_iQ_i}{m},$$

where $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ are the masses of the particles composing the body and $`m=_im_i`$ is the total mass of the body.

We shall assume that the particles interact through internal forces as well as being subjected to an external potential, so that the potential energy in (2) is of the form

$$U(q)=\underset{i<j}{}U(q_i,q_j)+\underset{i}{}V_i(q_i).$$

Let $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_{N1})`$ be a suitable set of coordinates111For sake of concreteness one may think, e.g., of the so called Jacobi coordinates. relative to the center of mass $`x=_im_iq_i/m`$. Then under the change of variables $`q=(x,y)`$ Schrödinger’s equation (2) assumes the form

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=\left(H^x+H^y+H^{(x,y)}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(4)
where

$$H^x=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V(x),V(x)\underset{i}{}V_i(x),$$

$`H^y`$ is the free Hamiltonian associated with the relative coordinates $`y`$ and the operator $`H^{(x,y)}`$ describes the interaction between the center of mass and the relative coordinates. If $`V_i`$ are slowly varying on the size of the body, $`H^{(x,y)}`$ can be treated as a small perturbation, and, in first approximation, neglected. Thus, if $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi (x)\varphi (y)`$ at some time, the time evolution of the center of mass decouples from that of the relative coordinates and we end up with a very simple one particle problem: the wave function $`\psi `$ of the center of mass evolves according to one-particle Schrödinger’s equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\psi +V(x)\psi $$
(5)
and its position $`X`$ evolves according to

$$\frac{dX}{dt}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}\mathrm{Im}\frac{_x\psi (X)}{\psi (X)}.$$
(6)
From now on, whenever no ambiguity will arise, we shall treat the center of mass as a “particle” and we shall refer to $`X`$ and $`\psi `$ as the position and the wave function of such a particle.

## 4 The Classical Limit in Bohmian Mechanics

In order to investigate the conditions under which $`X`$ evolves classically it is useful to write the wave function $`\psi =\psi (x)`$ in the polar form

$$\psi (x)=R(x)\text{e}^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(x)},$$
(7)
From Schrödinger’s equation (5) one obtains, following Bohm , the continuity equation for $`R^2`$,

$$\frac{R^2}{t}+\mathrm{div}\left[\left(\frac{_xS}{m}\right)R^2\right]=0,$$
(8)
and the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation for $`S`$

$$\frac{S}{t}+\frac{(_xS)^2}{2m}+V\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R}{R}=0.$$
(9)
Note that equation (9) is the usual classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation with an additional term

$$V_Q\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R}{R},$$
(10)
called the quantum potential. Since $`\frac{_xS}{m}`$ is the right hand side of (6), one then sees that the (size of the) quantum potential provides a rough measure of the deviation of Bohmian evolution from its classical approximation.

Analogously, consider the modified Newton equation associated with (9), and obtained by differentiating both sides of equation (6) with respect to time,

$$m\frac{d^2X}{dt^2}=F+F_Q,$$
(11)
where $`F=_xV(X)`$ and $`F_Q=_xV_Q(X)`$ are respectively the *classical* force and the “*quantum*” force. Equation (11) shows that all the deviations from classicality are embodied in the quantum force $`F_Q`$.

Thus, the *formulation* of the classical limit in Bohmian mechanics turns out to be rather simple: classical behavior emerges whenever the particle trajectory $`X=X(t)`$, satisfying (11), approximately satisfies the classical Newton equation, i.e.,

$$m\frac{d^2X}{dt^2}F.$$
(12)
The problem is to determine the physical conditions ensuring (12). Usually, physicists consider classical behavior as ensured by the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, meaning by this

$$\mathrm{}A_0,$$
(13)
where $`A_0`$ is some characteristic action of the corresponding classical motion (see, e.g., ,,)). Condition (13) is often regarded as equivalent to another standard condition of classicality which involves the length scales of the motion (see, e.g., ): if the de Broglie wave length $`\lambda `$ is small with respect to the characteristic dimension $`L`$ determined by the scale of variation of the potential $`V`$, the behavior of the system should be close to the classical behavior in the same potential $`V`$. This is very reminiscent of how geometrical optics can be deduced from wave optics. We regard this condition, i.e.,

$$\lambda L,$$
(14)
as the most natural condition of classicality since it relates in a completely transparent way a property of the state, namely its de Broglie wave length $`\lambda `$, and a property of the dynamics, namely the scale of variation of the potential $`L`$. In the remainder of this paper we shall argue that (14) is indeed a necessary and sufficient condition for (12).

## 5 Wave Packets

To explain the physical content of (14) and its implications we shall consider first the case for which the wave function has a well-defined de Broglie wave length: we shall assume that $`\psi `$ is a wave packet with diameter $`\sigma `$, with mean wave vector $`k`$ and associated wave length $`\lambda =2\pi /|k|`$.

As we shall see, the analysis of this situation will allow us to find a precise characterization of the scale $`L`$ of variation of the potential. Our analysis will be rather standard—it is basically the *Ehrenfest’s Theorem*—and can be found in good textbooks (see, e.g., ). We reproduce it here both for the sake of completeness and because we believe that it attains, within the Bohmian framework, a deeper and much more general significance than within standard formulations of quantum mechanics.

From the equivariance of (3) we have that the mean particle position at time $`t`$ is given by

$$X=x|\psi _t(x)|^2𝑑x.$$

From (5) it follows that

$$m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}X=_xV(x)|\psi _t(x)|^2𝑑x.$$

By expanding $`F(x)=_xV(x)`$ in Taylor series around $`X`$ one obtains

$$m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}X=F(X)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j,k}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,k}\frac{^2F}{x_jx_k}(X)+\mathrm{},$$
(15)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,k}=X_jX_kX_jX_k$$

is of order $`\sigma ^2`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the diameter of the packet. Therefore, the mean particle position should satisfy the classical Newton equation whenever

$$\sigma ^2\left|\frac{^3V}{x_ix_jx_k}\right|\left|\frac{V}{x_i}\right|,$$
(16)
i.e.,

$$\sigma \sqrt{\left|\frac{V^{}}{V^{\prime \prime \prime }}\right|}$$
(17)
where $`V^{}`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ denote respectively suitable estimates of the first and third derivatives (e.g., by taking a sup over the partial derivatives).

The minimum value of the diameter of the packet $`\sigma `$ is of order $`\lambda `$. Hence (17) becomes

$$\lambda \sqrt{\left|\frac{V^{}}{V^{\prime \prime \prime }}\right|}$$
(18)
This last equation gives a *necessary* condition for the classicality of the particle motion and, by comparing it with (14), a precise definition of the notion of scale of variation of the potential, namely,

$$L=L(V)=\sqrt{\left|\frac{V^{}}{V^{\prime \prime \prime }}\right|}.$$
(19)
In the following we shall argue that (14), with $`L`$ given by (19), is indeed also sufficient for classical behavior of Bohmian trajectories. For wave packets this follows easily from the equivariance of $`|\psi |^2`$: over the lapse of time for which the spreading of the packet can be neglected, the overwhelming majority222With respect to the equivariant measure $`|\psi |^2`$. of trajectories $`X=X(t)`$ will stick around their mean value $`X`$ and follow its classical time evolution. Thus we expect (12) to hold for the overwhelming majority of trajectories.

## 6 Local Plane Waves

Suppose now that $`\psi `$ is not a packet but a wave function that locally looks like a packet. By this we mean, referring to the polar representation (7), that the amplitude $`R(x)`$ and the local wave vector

$$k=k(x)_xS(x)/\mathrm{}$$
(20)
are slowly varying over distances of order $`\lambda (x)h/|_xS(x)|`$, the local de Broglie wave length. We may call such a $`\psi `$ a “local plane wave”.

At any given time the local plane wave can be thought as composed of a sum of wave packets: Consider a partition of physical space into a union of disjoint sets $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ chosen in such a way that the local wave vector $`k(x)`$ doesn’t vary appreciably inside of each of them and denote by $`k_i`$ the almost constant value $`k(x)`$ for $`x\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Let $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$ be the characteristic function of the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ ($`\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}(x)=1`$ if $`x\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`0`$ otherwise). Since $`_i\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}=1`$, we have

$$\psi (x)=\underset{i}{}\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}(x)\psi (x)=\underset{i}{}\psi _i(x).$$
(21)
Note that this decomposition is somewhat arbitrary: provided that $`k(x)`$ is almost constant in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the extent of these sets can be of the order of many wave lengths down to a minimal size $`\sigma _i|\mathrm{\Delta }_i|^{1/3}`$ of the same order of $`\lambda _i`$.333The use of the characteristic function may introduce an undesirable lack of smoothness, but this can be easily taken care by replacing the $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$ with functions $`\theta _i`$ forming a smooth partition of unity.

At any time, the position $`X`$ of the particle will be in the support of one of the packets forming the decomposition (21), say in the support of $`\psi _i`$. If the condition (17) holds for $`\sigma _i`$, we may then proceed as in the previous section: the minimal size of the packet $`\psi _i`$ can be taken of order $`\sigma _i=\lambda (x)`$ and the condition of classicality is again (18) for $`\lambda =\lambda (x)`$.

Note that this straightforward reduction of the classical limit for local plane waves to that for wave packets is possible only within Bohmian mechanics: since the particle has at any time a well-defined position $`X`$ and the different components of the local plane wave (21) don’t interfere, we may “collapse” $`\psi `$ to the wave packet $`\psi _i`$ relevant to the dynamics of $`X`$.

## 7 General Wave Functions

We wish now to investigate the physical content of (14) and its implications for a general wave function. The first issue to address is what notion of wave length should be appropriate for this case. A rough estimate of $`\lambda `$ could be given in terms of mean kinetic energy associated with $`\psi `$,

$$E_{\mathrm{kin}}(\psi )=\psi ,\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\psi ,$$
(22)
with associated wave length

$$\lambda =\lambda (\psi )=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2mE_{\mathrm{kin}}(\psi )}}.$$
(23)
Suppose now that (18), with $`\lambda `$ given by (23), is satisfied. We claim that in this case the Schrödinger evolution should “quickly” produce a local plane wave, that can be effectively regarded as built of pieces that are wave packets satisfying (18) for $`\lambda =\lambda (x)`$ and hence themselves evolving classically as we have seen in the previous section.

In fact, if $`\lambda L`$ the kinetic energy dominates the potential energy and the free Schrödinger evolution provides a rough approximation of the dynamics up to the time needed for the potential to affect the evolution significantly. During this time, the Schrödinger evolution produces a spatial separation of the different wave vectors contained in $`\psi `$, more or less as Newton’s prism separates white light into the different colors of the rainbow. In other words, the formation of a local plane wave originates in the “dispersive” character of free Schrödinger evolution.

So, in order to gain some appreciation of this phenomenon consider the free Schrödinger evolution

$$\psi _t(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\text{e}^{it\left[k\frac{x}{t}\frac{\mathrm{}k^2}{2m}\right]}\widehat{\psi }(k)𝑑k,$$
(24)
where $`\widehat{\psi }`$ is the Fourier transform of the initial wave function $`\psi `$. The stationary phase method yields straightforwardly the long time asymptotics of $`\psi _t`$,

$$\psi _t(x)\left(\frac{im}{\mathrm{}t}\right)^{3/2}\text{e}^{i\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{x^2}{t}}\widehat{\psi }(k),\mathrm{where}k=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}}\frac{x}{t},$$
(25)
which is indeed a local plane wave with local wave vector $`k=mx/(\mathrm{}t)`$.

We said above that the local plane wave is “quickly” produced. But how quickly? In order to estimate such a time, consider the simple example of an initial wave function $`\psi `$ composed of two overlapping wave packets with the same position spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and with opposite momenta $`p`$ and $`p`$. The time $`\tau `$ of formation of a local plane should be of the order of the time for separation of the packets, which is basically the time needed to cover a space equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. From $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }pp`$ we obtain

$$\tau \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{p/m}\frac{\mathrm{}}{p^2/m}\frac{\mathrm{}}{E},$$
(26)
where $`E`$ is the mean kinetic energy of the particle. It is reasonable to suggest that (26), with $`E`$ given by (22), could give a very rough estimate of the time of formation of a local plane wave for a general wave function $`\psi `$. Note that the time needed for the potential to produce significant effects on the evolution is of order

$$T=\frac{L}{v},\mathrm{where}v=\frac{h}{m\lambda }.$$
(27)
Thus, if $`\lambda L`$ we have that $`\tau T`$, which means that the local plane wave gets formed on a time scale much shorter than the time scale over which the potential affects the dynamics.

We arrive in this way at a sharp (or, at least, sharper than usually encountered) mathematical formulation of the classical limit for a general wave function $`\psi `$. First of all, consider the dimensionless parameter

$$ϵ=\frac{\lambda (\psi )}{L(V)}.$$
(28)
Secondly, consider the Bohm motion $`X`$ on the “macroscopic” length and time scales defined by $`\psi `$ and $`V`$. By this we mean $`X^{}=X^{}(t^{}),`$ where

$$X^{}=X/L\mathrm{and}t^{}=t/T$$
(29)
with $`T`$ given by (27). Finally, consider $`F_Q/m`$, the “quantum” contribution to the total acceleration in (11), on the macroscopic scales (29), namely

$$D=\frac{T^2}{L}F_Q(X^{}L,t^{}T)$$
(30)
Then the Bohm motion on the macroscopic length and time scales will be approximately classical, with deviation from classicality $`D`$ tending to $`0`$ as $`ϵ0`$.

We’d like to point out that the use of macroscopic coordinates (29) for the formulation of the classical limit is rather natural from a physical point of view. First of all, the scales $`L`$ and $`T`$ are the fundamental units of measure for the motion: $`L`$ is the scale on which the potential varies and $`T`$ provides an estimate of the time necessary for the particle to see its effects. More importantly, in the limit $`ϵ0`$ the nonclassical behavior—occurring during the time $`\tau `$ of formation of the local plane wave—disappears, since, as we have argued above, in this limit $`\tau T`$. In other words, on the macroscopic scales on which we expect classical behavior the local plane wave has been formed.

## 8 Limitations of the Model: Interference and the Role of the Environment

Before commenting on the mathematics of the limit $`ϵ0`$ we should stress a physical caveat. For motion in unbounded space, the expanding character of the Schrödinger evolution makes the set of local plane waves an “attractor” for the dynamics—so that the local plane wave form is in this sense “typical”. However, for motion in a bounded region (with wave functions which are superpositions of bound states) the “typical” wave function is composed by a sum of local plane waves, this being due to interference between the waves reflected by the “edges” of the confining potential. Consider for example an infinite potential well of size $`L`$ in one dimension and initial wave function $`\psi `$, well localized in the center of the well which is the superposition of two packets with opposite momenta $`p`$ and $`p`$. Suppose that $`\lambda (\psi )L`$. Then the two packets move classically and at a certain time, say $`t_r`$, are reflected from the walls of the potential. At the time $`t_c=2t_r`$, they interfere in the middle of the well. $`t_c`$ is the “first caustic time,” the time at which the classical action $`S_{\mathrm{cl}}(x,t)`$ becomes multivalued. In general, we should not expect classical behavior for times larger than the first caustic time $`t_c`$.

What is going on? The emergence of classical behavior should be robust and stable, which would not be the case if it were restricted to times smaller than $`t_c`$. However, if one remembers that the model we are investigating is a strong idealization, the problem evaporates. We are in fact dealing with the one-body problem defined by (5) and (6), an approximation to the complete dynamics defined by (4) in which the term $`H^{(x,y)}`$, describing the interaction between the center of mass and the relative coordinates, is neglected. Note than even (4) is an idealization since it does not include the unavoidable interaction of the body with its external environment: in a more realistic model $`H^{(x,y)}`$ would take into account both the internal and external environment of the center of mass (with $`y`$ now including both the relative coordinates and the degrees of freedom of the external environment). These interactions—even for very small interaction energy—should produce entanglement between the center of mass $`x`$ of the system and the other degrees of freedom $`y`$, so that their effective role is that of “measuring” the position $`X`$ and suppressing superpositions of spatially separated wave functions. (Taking these interactions into account is what people nowadays call decoherence, see, e.g.,  and the references therein). Referring to the above example, the effect of the environment should be to select (as relevant to the dynamics of $`X,`$ see  and ) one of the two packets on a time scale much shorter than the first caustic time $`t_c`$.

## 9 Towards a Mathematical Conjecture

The mathematical content of sections 7 and 8 is summarized by the following (not yet sharply formulated) conjecture:

Conjecture. Let $`ϵ`$ be the dimensionless parameter defined by (28) and $`D`$ be the quantity given by (30). Then there are environmental interactions such that $`D0`$ as $`ϵ0`$, uniformly in $`\psi `$ and $`V`$.

Concerning this conjecture, we’d like to make here just a few remarks.

### 1.

$`D0`$” means convergence to 0 in a “suitable” probabilistic sense since $`D`$ is a random variable. $`D`$ is a function of $`X`$, and $`X`$ is random with probability distribution given by $`|\psi |^2`$. To require almost sure convergence is probably too strong a demand. Convergence in probability, or $`L^2`$ convergence, would seem more appropriate. Moreover, $`\lambda `$ is defined in (23) in terms of the average kinetic energy. This average could be large even when there is a significant probability for a very small kinetic energy. Thus it is probably necessary to regard $`\lambda `$ as random (with randomness inherited from the kinetic energy) and to understand $`ϵ0`$ also in a probabilistic sense.

### 2.

Uniformity of the limit in $`\psi `$ and $`V`$ could be expressed as follows: let $`(V_n,\psi _n)`$ be any sequence for which $`ϵ_n=\frac{\lambda _n}{L_n}0`$, with $`\lambda _n=\lambda (\psi _n)`$ given by (23), and $`L_n=L(V_n)`$. Then $`D0`$ as $`n+\mathrm{}`$. Understanding $`D0`$ as convergence in probability, we could also express uniformity in the following way: for any $`\eta >0`$ and for any $`\delta >0`$, there exists an $`ϵ_0>0`$ such that $`𝐏(D>\delta )`$ is smaller than $`\eta `$ whenever $`ϵ<ϵ_0`$. Here P is the probability measure defined by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, i.e., $`\text{P}(dq)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(q)|^2dq`$, which includes randomness arising from the environment.

### 3.

For quadratic potentials (including free motion and motion in a uniform force field) $`L=\mathrm{}`$ so that $`ϵ=0`$. In this case the conjecture should be modified as follows: let $`L_o`$ be any length scale and $`T_o`$ the corresponding time scale $`T_o=\frac{L_o}{v}`$. Then for the Bohm motion on the scales given by $`L_o`$ and $`T_o`$, $`D0`$ uniformly in $`\psi `$ and $`L_o`$ whenever $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\frac{\lambda (\psi )}{L_o}0`$.

### 4.

There is an enormous amount of mathematical work, called semiclassical analysis or, in more modern terms, microlocal analysis, in which the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ of Schrödinger evolutions is rigorously studied. It should be stressed that the limit $`ϵ0`$ is much more general than the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. In fact $`ϵ=\lambda /L=h/mvL`$. So keeping $`L`$ and the momentum $`mv`$ fixed, the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ implies $`ϵ0`$. But there are many ways in which $`ϵ`$ could go to zero. The classical limit, as expressed by the above conjecture, is (at the very least) a two-parameters limit, involving $`\lambda `$ and $`L`$, and $`\mathrm{}0`$ is just a very special case. Moreover, these two parameters themselves live on infinite dimensional spaces since $`\lambda =\lambda (\psi )`$, with $`\psi `$ varying in the Hilbert space of the system’s wave functions, and $`L=L(V)`$, with $`V`$ varying in the class of admissible one particle potentials (that is, potentials leading to a self-adjoint Hamiltonian).

### 5.

Exactly for the reason expressed in the previous remark, the conjecture is really very hard to prove: it require a lot of uniformity both in the wave function $`\psi `$ and in the potential $`V`$. Just to have an idea of the difficulties, one may think of the analogous problem in statistical mechanics, namely the problem of studying the deviations from thermodynamic behavior of a large but finite system about which not so much is known.

### 6.

While the conjecture is difficult to prove, it is still not completely satisfactory from a physical point of view. The conjecture states only that $`D`$ depends on $`ϵ`$ in such a way that $`D0`$ as $`ϵ0`$, uniformly in $`\psi `$ and $`V`$. A physically more relevant result would be to estimate how rapidly $`D`$ is tending to 0 (e.g., like $`ϵ`$, or $`ϵ^2`$ or whatever). Note that only this last kind of result can be of practical value: given $`V`$ and $`\psi `$, it provides an estimate for the deviation from classicality, while any other results do not quite do this.

### 7.

With the conjecture, and even with the refinement proposed in the previous remark, there is a further difficulty to consider: even if $`H^{(x,y)}`$ is treated as a small perturbation in (4), the suggestion of section 8 might not be too realistic. In fact, the autonomous Schrödinger evolution, even of a very narrow wave function $`\psi =\psi (x)`$, could be destroyed in very short times. This is a serious difficulty; one resolution might be found in the notion of conditional wave function of the $`x`$-system, $`\psi (x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x,Y)`$, where $`Y`$ is the actual configuration of the environment (this notion has been introduced and analyzed in ). We regard the extension of the conjecture to this more realistic framework as the most interesting open problem on the classical limit, which we leave for future work.

## 10 The Classical Limit in a Nutshell

The key ingredient in our analysis of the emergence of the classical world, is that as soon as the local plane wave has formed, each configuration $`X`$ is attached to a guiding wave packet with a definite wave vector $`k(x,t)`$ that locally determines the particle dynamics according to the local de Broglie relation

$$p(x,t)=\mathrm{}k(x,t),$$

which, for $`\lambda L`$, evolves according to classical laws. This means that the classical limit can be symbolically expressed as

$$(\psi ,X)(P,X),$$

where $`(\psi ,X)`$ is the complete quantum state description in terms of wave function and position, while $`(P,X)`$ is the complete classical state description in terms of momentum and position. All the relevant macroscopic information contained in the pair $`(\psi ,X)`$ is, in the classical limit, embodied in the pair $`(P,X)`$—the only robust, stable quantity. In other words, as far as the macroscopic dynamics of $`X`$ is concerned, only the information carried by $`P`$ is relevant.

## Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported in part by the INFN and the DFG. Part of the work has grown and has been developed in the Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università di Genova, the IHES of Bures sur Yvette, the Mathematisches Institut der Universität München and the Department of Mathematics of Rutgers University. The hospitality of these institutions is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Herbert Spohn and Roderich Tumulka for helpful discussions. Finally, we thank Stefan Teufel and James Taylor for a continuous exchange of ideas and their involvement in a larger, common project on the derivation of the classical limit.


text:
# IRAS F02044+0957: radio source in interacting system of galaxies

### Acknowledgments.

This work was partially supported by CONACyT grants 28499-E, J32178-E, and 32106-E.

## References

Heckman, T.M. 1980, A&A, 87, 152

Ho, L.C., Filippenko, A.V., Sargent, W.L.W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315

Sanders, D.B., Soifer, B.T., Elias, J.H., et al., 1988, ApJ, 325, 74

Trushkin, S.A., Verkhodanov, O.V. 1995, Bulletin of SAO, 39, 150.

Zickgraf, F.J., Thiering, I., Krautter, J., et al., 1997, A&AS, 123, 103.