text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this talk I will discuss a recently proposed color superconducting phase of asymmetric quark matter where the up and down quark have different chemical potential, being in chemical equilibrium with electrons. Using Schwinger-Dyson equations derived from an effective theory of low-energy quasiparticles, we examine both the case of an effective four Fermi interaction (appropriate for intermediate densities, such as those found in a neutron star) and Landau-damped one gluon exchange (appropriate for asymptotic density) . We then briefly discuss patching together regions of plane-wave (LOFF) condensation.

One of the most intriguing problems in QCD is to understand how matter behaves at extreme densities, densities much higher than the nuclear density, $`\rho _0=0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$, as expected in the core of compact stars like neutron stars or in the relativistic heavy ion collision (RHIC). According to QCD, which is now firmly believed to be the theory of strong interaction, the interaction among quarks becomes weaker and weaker as they get closer and closer. Therefore, when nucleons are closely packed, the wavefunctions of quarks inside nucleons will overlap with each other at high nucleon density and hadronic matter will turn into quark matter. The physical properties of quark matter are questions we wish to answer.

In general, weakly interacting fermion matter will be a Fermi liquid, forming a Fermi surface. However, according the Cooper theorem, the IR fixed point of the system of weakly interacting fermions will be very different from the Fermi liquid, if there exists an attraction between fermions with opposite momentum, even for an arbitrarily weak attraction. For quark matter, quarks attract not only holes but also quarks themselves if scattering occurs in the color anti-triplet channel. This can be seen by calculating the Coulomb potential due to one-gluon exchange interaction, which is valid at high density;

$$V(r)=i\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\mathrm{q}}{(2\pi )^3}T^AD_{00}^{AB}(\stackrel{}{q},q_0=0)T^Be^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}},$$
(1)
where $`T^A`$’s are $`SU(3)_c`$ generators and $`D_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ is the gluon propagator. In perturbative QCD, $`D_{00}^{AB}=i\delta ^{AB}/\stackrel{}{q}^2`$ and we see that the sign of the Coulomb potential depends on the initial (or final) color states $`i,j`$ (or $`k,l`$) of quarks:

$`T_{ik}^AT_{jl}^A={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{[ij]}\delta _{[kl]}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\delta _{(ij)}\delta _{(kl)}.`$ (2)
Of course, the Coulomb potential by one-gluon exchange interaction would not apply at intermediate density where the strong coupling constant is no longer small. However, it is quite reasonable to assume that the color exchange interation is attractive even at the intermediate density for the color anti-triplet channel since it reduces the color Coulomb energy among quarks. Since attraction occurs in the color anti-triplet channel for the diquark scattering and in the color singlet channel for the quark-hole scattering, the candidates for the condensates are therefore either diquark condensates in color anti-triplet channel or quark-hole condensates in color singlet channel, given as

$`\psi _i(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _j(\stackrel{}{p})0\mathrm{or}\overline{\psi }_i(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _j(\stackrel{}{p})0.`$ (3)
Note that the quark-hole condensate (or density wave) carries a momentum $`2\stackrel{}{p}`$. If it were translationally invariant condensate, it would involve antiquarks and thus energetically not prefered to form such a condensate. Since the diquark condensate has zero total momentum, the whole Fermi surface can contribute to the diquark scattering amplitude, while the phase space of quark-hole scattering is only a small fraction of the Fermi surface due to the momentum conservation. Indeed, it is shown that the diquark condensate is energetically more preferred to density waves, though the color exchange attration is weaker, due to the big difference in the phase space .

Depending on the density, the diquark condensate in quark matter takes two different forms. At the intermediate density, where the strange quark is too heavy to participate in Cooper pairing, the condensate takes

$`\psi _{Li}^a(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _{Lj}^b(\stackrel{}{p})=\psi _{Ri}^a(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _{Rj}^b(\stackrel{}{p})=ϵ_{ab}ϵ^{ij3}\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (4)
where $`a,b`$ are the flavor indices, running from up and down quarks. In this phase, called the two-flavor superconducting (2SC) phase, the condensate is flavor singlet but color anti-triplet. The condensate does not break any flavor symmetry except the $`U(1)`$ baryon number, while breaking the $`SU(3)`$ color gauge group down to a $`SU(2)`$ subgroup. Since the Cooper-paring quarks should have equal and opposite momenta, the minimal energy needed to Cooper-pair a strange quark with up or down quarks is, if we neglect the interaction energy,

$$\delta E=\sqrt{p_F^2+m_s^2}p_F\frac{m_s^2}{2\mu },$$
(5)
where $`p_F\mu `$ is the Fermi momentum of light quarks, almost equal to the quark chemical potential. We therefore see that the energy we gain by pairing the strange quark with light quarks, which is called Cooper-pair gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, has to be bigger than the minimal energy $`\delta E`$ we have to provide for strange quarks to participate in Cooper-pairing.

On the other hand, at high density, where $`\mu >m_s^2/(2\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$, it is energetically prefered for the strange quarks to form Cooper pairs with light quarks. At such high density, it is shown that the condensate takes a so-called color-flavor locking (CFL) form

$`\psi _{Li}^a(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _{Lj}^b(\stackrel{}{p})=\psi _{Ri}^a(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _{Rj}^b(\stackrel{}{p})=k_1\delta _i^a\delta _j^b+k_2\delta _j^a\delta _i^b,`$
which breaks not only the color symmetry but also the chiral symmetry, leaving only the diagonal subgroup $`SU(3)_V`$ unbroken.

A natural place to look for the signature of color superconductivity is a dense object like compact stars. However, since the stars are electrically neutral, the chemical potentials of $`u,d,s`$ quarks are not equal if electrons are present. One therefore must take into account the effect of flavor asymmetry in Cooper pairing among different flavors. At weak interaction equilibrium, $`u+e^{}d(s)+\nu `$, the up and down quarks have different chemical potentials, $`\mu _d\mu _u(2\delta \mu )=\mu _e`$, if the electron chemical potential is nonzero, $`\mu _e0`$. When the Fermi surface mismatch becomes large enough, the input energy to make the momentum of pairing quarks equal and opposite exceeds the Cooper gap and the BCS pairing breaks down. The critical chemical potential, at which the BCS pairing breaks, is shown to be $`\delta \mu =\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\sqrt{2}`$ . However, as shown by Larkin and Ovchinnikov , and also by Fulde and Ferrell , even at $`\delta \mu >\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\sqrt{2}`$, diquark condensate is possible, if we allow the diquark pair to carry a momentum , $`2\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_u+\stackrel{}{p}_d`$, $`\psi _u^i(\stackrel{}{p}_u)\psi _d^j(\stackrel{}{p}_d)=ϵ^{ij3}\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})`$.

For such pairing, the (effective) four-Fermi interaction is not marginal and thus does not lead to Landau pole or dynamical mass unless the interaction is strong enough, which is a characteristic feature in dimensions higher than (1+1) . As we will see later, LOFF pairing indeed occurs in dense QCD with light flavors when the couplings are bigger than critical values for both high and intermediate density.

## 2 Intermediate Density

At intermediate densities, where the effective QCD coupling is large and long-range interactions are likely to be screened, we take the Lagrangian to be

$$=\overline{\psi }\left(i\partial ̸+\mu \gamma ^0\right)\psi +\frac{G}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\psi \right)^2.$$
(6)
Following the high density effective theory , we introduce the Fermi-velocity ($`\stackrel{}{v}_F`$) dependent field, defined as

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)e^{i\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{x}}\psi (x),$$
(7)
to rewrite the Lagrangian in terms of particles near the Fermi surface:

$$=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_F}{}\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)iV\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_F^u,\stackrel{}{v}_F^d}{}\frac{G}{2}\overline{\psi }\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F^u,x)\overline{\psi }\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F^d,x)+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
where $`V^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$, and the ellipse denotes other four-Fermi operators involving different Fermi velocities and higher order terms in $`1/\mu `$ expansion. Note that the velocity dependent field carries the residual momentum $`l^\mu `$, if the quark carries momentum $`p^\mu =(l_0,\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F+\stackrel{}{l})`$.

Introducing auxiliary fields, $`\sigma (x)`$, we rewrite the interaction Lagrangian as

$$_{4F}=\sigma (\stackrel{}{q},x)\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F^d,x)\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F^u,x)\frac{1}{2G}\sigma ^2,$$
(9)
where $`2\stackrel{}{q}=\mu _u\stackrel{}{v}_F^u+\mu _d\stackrel{}{v}_F^d`$ is a fixed vector. The vacuum is a stationary point of the effective action, obtained by integrating over the fermions only.

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2G}d^4x\sigma ^2i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\gamma _0\left(\begin{array}{cc}iV_d& \sigma (\stackrel{}{q},x)\\ \sigma ^{}(\stackrel{}{q},x)& iV_u\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
At the stationary points, the auxiliary field is given as $`\sigma _0(\stackrel{}{q},x)=\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F^u,x)\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F^d,x)\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})`$. Since we are looking for a plane-wave condensate with a wave vector $`2\stackrel{}{q}`$, $`\sigma _0`$ is translationally invariant. The free energy density for the LOFF phase is then given in the Euclidean space as

$$V(\mathrm{\Delta })=+\frac{1}{2G}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(l_0il_u)(l_0il_d)}\right],$$
(11)
where we introduced new variables $`l_u\stackrel{}{v}_F^u\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`l_d\stackrel{}{v}_F^d\stackrel{}{l}`$. Minimizing the free energy, we get the LOFF gap equation;

$$0=\frac{V}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})}{G}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})}{(l_0il_u)(l_0il_d)+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.$$
(12)
The characteristic feature of the gap equation (12) for the LOFF paring is that the quark propagator is a function of three independent momenta, $`l_0`$, $`\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{v}_F^u(l_u)`$, and $`\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{v}_F^d(l_d)`$, while in BCS pairing it is a function of two, $`l_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{v}_F`$. In general, we may decompose $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ as $`\stackrel{}{l}=\stackrel{}{l}_{}+l_u\stackrel{}{v}_u^{}+l_d\stackrel{}{v}_d^{}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}_{u,d}^{}`$ are dual to $`\stackrel{}{v}_F^{u,d}`$, satisfying $`\stackrel{}{v}_F^a\stackrel{}{v}_b^{}=\delta _b^a`$ with $`a,b=u,d`$. Though the magnitude of the Fermi velocity is $`\stackrel{}{v}_F^a=1`$ for massless quarks, its dual has a magnitude $`|\stackrel{}{v}_a^{}|=(\mathrm{sin}\beta )^1`$, where $`\beta `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{v}_F^d`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_F^u`$.

Since the quark propagator is independent of $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$, it just labels the degeneracy in the LOFF pairing. The perpendicular momentum $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$ forms a circle on the Fermi surface, whose radius is given as $`\mu _d\mathrm{sin}\alpha _d(=\mu _u\mathrm{sin}\alpha _u)`$, where $`\alpha _{d,u}`$ are the angles between $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_F^{d,u}`$, respectively. Upon integrating over $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$, the gap equation (12) becomes a (2+1) dimensional gap equation. This is in sharp contrast with the gap equation in the BCS pairing, which is (1+1) dimensional after integrating over the $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$, namely over the whole Fermi surface.

Integrating over $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$, we find the gap equation in Euclidean space to be

$`1={\displaystyle _{l_0,l_u,l_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{2G\mu _d\mathrm{sin}\alpha _d(3\mathrm{sin}\beta )^1}{(l_0il_d)(l_0il_u)+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2G\mu _d\mathrm{sin}\alpha _d}{3\mathrm{sin}\beta }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}l_0}{2\pi ^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{l_0^2}}\right)\right]^2,`$ (13)
where $`(\mathrm{sin}\beta )^1`$ arises from the Jacobian and we introduced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the cutoff for $`l_u,l_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ for $`l_0`$. In the high density effective theory, the expansion parameter is $`|l^\mu |/\mu `$. From the condition that $`|l^\mu |<l^2/\overline{\mu }`$, where $`2\overline{\mu }^2=\mu _u^2+\mu _d^2`$, we find the ultraviolet cutoff for $`l_{u,d}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\overline{\mu }\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$. We also take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, since the main contribution to the gap comes from nearly on-shell quarks. Finally, integrating over $`l_0`$, the gap equation becomes

$$1\frac{G_c}{G}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overline{\mu }\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overline{\mu }\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }\right)\right]^2,$$
(14)
where the critical coupling for the LOFF gap $`G_c=3\pi ^3\mathrm{sin}\beta /(4\mu _d\overline{\mu }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _d)`$. For a given $`\delta \mu `$ and $`G`$, the LOFF gap exists only when $`G>G_c`$.

The best $`q`$, or equivalently the critical coupling for the LOFF pairing, is determined by minimizing the Free energy, obtained by integrating the gap equation (14) after doing the momentum integration,

$`V(\mathrm{\Delta })={\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6G}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G}{G_c}}\right).`$ (15)
For $`\overline{\mu }=400\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\delta \mu =30\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=40\mathrm{MeV}`$, we have $`\mathrm{cos}\beta =0.82`$, from which we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.076\overline{\mu }`$ and $`V=1.9\times 10^5\overline{\mu }^2/G`$.

## 3 Asymptotic Density

For the one-gluon exchange case, the calculation goes in parallel. The Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equation for the quark two-point function is given in the leading order in the hard-dense loop (HDL) approximation as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},l)=\left(ig_s\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}V_u^\mu D_{\mu \nu }(lk)V_d^\nu \frac{T^a\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},k)T^a}{kV_dkV_u\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\stackrel{}{q},k)},$$
(16)
where $`T^a`$ is the color generator in the fundamental representation and $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon propagator in the HDL approximation. Since the Landau-damped magnetic gluons give the dominant contribution, the SD equation becomes in Euclidean space as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{2}{3}g_s^2\mathrm{cot}\beta \frac{\mathrm{d}l_0}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}l_{}}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}l_u\mathrm{d}l_d}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{l}^2+\frac{\pi }{4}M^2|l_0|/|\stackrel{}{l}|}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})}{lV_E^ulV_E^d+\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(17)
where the factor $`2/3`$ is due to the color factor and $`V_E^\mu (1,i\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$. Since the high energy region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0>|l_0|>2\mathrm{\Lambda }_u`$ does not contribute the integration in Eq. (17) much, the $`l_0`$ integration is regulated by the UV cutoff of $`l_u`$ or $`l_d`$ integration. We then note that when $`l_u^2/(\mathrm{sin}\beta )^2>\alpha _s\overline{\mu }^2|l_0|/|\stackrel{}{l}|`$ the $`l_u`$ integration converges rapidly. Hence for small coupling ($`\alpha _s<4\mathrm{sin}\beta `$) we have a new UV cut-off for $`l_u`$ that satisfies $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_u=\overline{\mu }\alpha _s\mathrm{sin}\beta `$. Integrating over $`\stackrel{}{l}_{},l_u`$ and $`l_d`$, we get

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{cot}\beta }{9\sqrt{3}\pi ^2}}\alpha _s^{2/3}\overline{\mu }^{2/3}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_u}}{\displaystyle \frac{dl_0}{l_0^{1/3}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_u^2}{l_0^2}}\right)\right]^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _c}}\right)^{4/3}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_u}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_u}}\right)^2\right]`$ (18)
where the critical coupling for the LOFF pairing by one-gluon exchange interaction is $`\alpha _c=\left(\pi ^2/2\sqrt{3}\right)^{3/4}\left(\mathrm{sin}\beta /\mathrm{cos}^3\beta \right)^{1/4}`$.

Now, let us calculate the vacuum energy to find the pair momentum $`2\stackrel{}{q}`$ or the angle $`\beta `$ for a given parameters $`\alpha _s`$, $`\overline{\mu }`$, and $`\delta \mu `$. We find the vacuum energy is given as in the HDL approximation $`V(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }^3/(6\pi ^3)\left(\mu _dq/\overline{\mu }\right)`$. The best $`q`$ or the angle $`\beta `$ is determined by minimizing the vacuum energy for a given $`\alpha _s`$. For $`\alpha _s=1`$, we find $`\mathrm{cos}\beta =0.915`$ and $`V=8.5\times 10^4\alpha _s\overline{\mu }^4`$. To find $`\delta \mu _2`$ for a given $`\alpha _s`$, we minimize the vacuum energy with respect to $`\beta `$ and $`\delta \mu `$. At the leading order the vacuum energy is minimized for large $`\delta \mu `$. Therefore, to determine the correct $`\delta \mu _2`$ we need to go beyond the current approximations and include the $`\delta \mu /\overline{\mu }`$ corrections in the gap equation. This result is consistent, at least qualitatively, with the observation in  that the LOFF window widens considerably in the one gluon exchange regime.

## 4 Patching

In the preceding analysis we assumed a simple plane wave condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q})e^{2iqx}`$. Kinematical constraints require that quarks which participate in this condensation lie on a ring-like region of volume $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu _i\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i`$, where i = u,d. However, due to the rotaional invariance of the system any direction of the pair momentum $`2\stackrel{}{q}`$ is possible. Thus, one needs to patch condensates carrying same momentum but different direction to increase the binding energy The up and down quarks which pair in a LOFF condensate lie in rings of radius $`\mu _i\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i`$, where $`i=u,d`$. These rings lie in a plane perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, and have thickness of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If we sum over patches associated with planar rotations of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ without overlap, we will recover a fraction Fermi surface which scales like $`\mu ^2`$ and thus LOFF phase can be compatible with BCS pairing.

## 5 Conclusions

We have used high density effective theory to study crystalline superconductivity, using a local four fermion interaction to model the interaction at intermediate density, and one gluon exchange for the asymptotic regime. We obtained analytic results for the condensate and vacuum energy, and conclude that the LOFF phase is quite plausibly favored $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\sqrt{2}<\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2`$. We also discussed how disjoint regions of condensate could be patched together to obtain a lower vacuum energy. The optimal patching configuration has yet to be determined for generic $`\beta `$, but it seems possible that the binding energy of crystalline superconductivity scales as the area of the Fermi surface ($`\mu ^2`$) rather than as $`\mu `$ in the case of a plane wave LOFF condensate.

I would like to thank F. Sannino and R. Ouyed for the wonderful workshop. I am grateful to M. alford, S. Hsu, K. Rajagopal, and Y. J. Sohn for discussions and collaboration, upon which this talk is based upon. This work is supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2000-015-DP0069).

Discussion

M. Mannarelli (INFN-Bari): You say that the LOFF phase appears for $`g>g_c`$ (in asymmetric quark matter). Is this the reason why in ordinary BCS it has not been observed a LOFF phase?

Hong: For a given coupling $`g`$, there is always a window for LOFF as $`\delta \mu `$ changes. However the window is larger for a stronger coupling. It is therefore much easier to find a LOFF phase in strongly coupled systems.

M. Alford (Glasgow University): Just to clarify, for any coupling strength there is a range of $`\delta \mu `$ in which LOFF pairing is favored. This means that since $`\delta \mu `$ is a function of $`r`$ in a neutron star, there is a reasonable chance of seeing a shell of LOFF matter somewhere inside it.

Hong: For a given $`\delta \mu `$, the coupling between fermions has to be larger than $`g_c`$ for a LOFF phase to exist. This is the point I was trying to emphasize during my talk. However, as the coupling becomes larger than $`g_{c1}(>g_c)`$, the BCS gap becomes large enough to win against a LOFF phase. A schematic phase diagram<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 I thank M. Alford for helping me to understand the diagram in Fig. 1. as a function of the coupling $`g`$ and $`\delta \mu `$ can be given as Fig. 1:


format: text

text:
# What is Bohmian Mechanics

## 1 What is quantum mechanics about?

The basic problem of quantum mechanics is that it is not clear what quantum mechanics is about—what quantum mechanics describes—as repeatedly stressed by John Bell , and, more recently, by Shelly Goldstein .

It might seem that quantum mechanics is basically about the behavior of wave functions. However, as Scrödinger has effectively shown with his famous cat paradox , it turns out that the complete state description cannot be given by the wave function—obeying Schrödinger’s equation—as this would lead to paradoxical conclusions like, for example, a superposition between a dead and an alive cat. Bell has rephrased this mental experiment in a less cruel way as follows: consider a cat in a perfectly isolated room. Together with the cat, the experimenter has put in the room a radioactive source and a complicated mechanics. If a radioactive nucleus decays, the mechanism opens a source of milk such that it fills a cup and the cat can drink. The room has no window so that what happens inside is completely hidden to the experimenter: she doesn’t know whether the cat is still hungry or if she enjoyed her meal. In this way the radioactive decay, a microscopic event, influences directly a macroscopic event, like the presence or not of some milk molecules in the stomach of the cat.

From the mathematical rules of quantum mechanics it follows that, given that the wave function of the radioactive nucleus is in a superposition of decayed–non decayed wave function, the cat is nor hungry nor filled up but it is a superposition of both states. However, from ordinary experience, we know that macroscopic object cannot be in such a superposition of states with macroscopically disjoint supports, so somewhere, somehow, quantum mechanics gives the wrong answer. Note that, if the experimenter opens the door of the room, finds out the cat always or in one or in the other state: as a consequence of observation (measurement), the wave function has collapsed in one of the two possibilities.

The Schrödinger’s cat paradox poses several questions: What is the role of the observer? Which observer is entitled to reduce the wave function? Where is the border between the microscopic world, in which superpositions can exist, and the macroscopic world, in which they cannot? Nobody has ever found satisfactory answers to these questions within the standard framework of quantum mechanics. Indeed, Bell has drawn the conclusion that there are only two ways out: or to add something to the wave function for the description of the state of the system, or to modify Schrödinger’s equation. While this latter path is that taken by the so called theories of spontaneous localization, or shortly GRW theories , Bohmian mechanics is a theory that follows the first direction.111Bohmian mechanics (also called “pilot-wave theory”or “causal interpretation”) was discovered in 1927 by De Broglie  and soon abandoned. It was rediscovered, extensively extended, and for the first time fully understood, in 1952 by David Bohm . During the sixties, seventies and eighties, John Bell was his principal proponent; his book  contains yet unsurpassable introductions to Bohmian mechanics. Other standard references are the books of Bohm and Hiley  and that of Holland . The approach we are following here is that of the “Rutgers-München-Genova” group (quite in line with the approach of Bell), see, e.g., , , , , .

## 2 Bohmian Mechanics

The first step in the construction of a physical theory is to establish what are the mathematical entities (particles, fields, strings, …) with which one intends to describe physical reality. These mathematical entities are what the theory is about and they are often called the ontology of the theory—a rather complicated way of expressing a simple, even though deep, physical notion.

In nonrelativistic Bohmian mechanics the world is described by point–like 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 $`N`$ point–like particle system is the couple $`(\mathrm{\Psi },Q)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$ and $`Q=(Q_1(t),\mathrm{},Q_N(t))`$ 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.

One might think of Bohmian mechanics as a dynamical system and from this point of view it can be compared with classical mechanics. While in Newtonian mechanics the dynamics of the point particles is determined by a second order differential equation

$$\frac{d^2Q_t}{dt^2}=\frac{1}{m}F(Q_t),$$
(1)
in which $`F(Q)`$ is a force field, e.g, derived from a potential field $`V`$ as $`F(Q)=V`$, in Bohmian mechanics the point particles dynamics is given by a first order differential equation

$$\frac{dQ_t}{dt}=v^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_t),$$
(2)
where $`v^\mathrm{\Psi }=(v_1^\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{},v_N^\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is a velocity field on the configuration space. This fields is generated by the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which itself evolves according to Schrödinger’s equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=H\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(3)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian, e.g., given, for non relativistic spinless particles, by

$$H=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_k}_k^2+V$$
(4)
The velocity field is determined by reasons of simplicity and symmetry ,

$$v_k^\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_k}\text{Im}\left[\frac{_k\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right]$$
(5)
(with the wave function playing somehow the role of “potential field” for the velocity field). The factor $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}`$ comes from the requirement of Galilei invariance, the imaginary part is a consequence of invariance for time reversal, the gradient is from rotational invariance and the fact that one has to divide for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ derives from the homogeneity of degree zero of the velocity field—the fact that a quantum state is a ray in Hilbert space. If there is a magnetic field $`B=\mathrm{rot}A`$, $`_k`$ should represent the covariant derivative associated with the vector potential $`A`$. If the wave function is a spinor, we should rewrite the velocity field as

$$v_k^\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_k}\text{Im}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_k\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }}\right],$$
(6)
where now in the numerator and denominator appears the scalar product in the spinor space.

The global existence of Bohmian dynamics has been proven with full mathematical rigor in  where it has been shown that for a large class of Schrödinger Hamiltonians (4), including Coulomb potential $`V`$ with arbitrary charges and masses, and sufficiently regular initial datum $`\psi _0`$ of (3) the solution of (2) exists uniquely and globally in time for $`|\psi _0|^2`$-almost all initial configurations $`Q_0`$.

Equations (2) and (3) (together with (4) and (5)) form a complete specification of the theory. Without any other axiom, all the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines and quantum interference experiments to scattering theory, superconductivity and quantum computation follow from the analysis of the dynamical system defined by (2) and (3).

## 3 Experimental Predictions

Bohmian mechanics makes the same predictions as does non relativistic ordinary quantum mechanics for the results of any experiment, provided that we assume a random distribution for the configuration of the system and the apparatus at the beginning of the experiment given by $`\rho (q,t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t)|^2`$. In fact, consider the quantum continuity equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\text{div}J^\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(7)
which is, by himself, a simple consequence of Schrödinger’s equation. Here $`J^\mathrm{\Psi }=(J_1^\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{},J_N^\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is the quantum probability current

$$J_k^\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_k}\text{Im}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_k\mathrm{\Psi }\right]=|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2v_k^\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(8)
Equation (7) becomes the classical continuity equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\text{div}\rho v^\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(9)
for the system $`dQ_t/dt=v^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and it governs the evolution of the probability density $`\rho `$ under the motion defined by the guiding equation (2) for the particular choice $`\rho =|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$. In other words, if the probability density for the configuration satisfies $`\rho (q,t_0)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t_0)|^2`$ at some time $`t_0`$, then the density to which this is carried by the motion (7) at any time $`t`$ is also given by $`\rho (q,t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t)|^2`$. This is an extremely important property of any Bohmian system. In fact it expresses a compatibility between the two equations of motion defining the dynamics, which we call equivariance of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$.

The above assumption, which guarantees agreement between Bohmian mechanics and quantum mechanics regarding the results of any experiment, is what has been called  the quantum equilibrium hypothesis: when a system has a wave function $`\psi `$, its configuration $`Q`$ is random with probability distribution given by

$$\rho (q)=|\psi (q)|^2.$$
(10)
While the meaning and justification of this hypothesis—which should be regarded as a local manifestation of a global quantum equilibrium state of our universe—is a delicate matter, which has been discussed at large elsewhere , it is important to recognize that, merely as a consequence of (9) and (10), Bohmian mechanics is a counterexample to all of the claims to the effect that a deterministic theory cannot account for quantum randomness in the familiar statistical mechanical way, as arising from averaging over ignorance: Bohmian mechanics is clearly a deterministic theory, and, as we have just explained, it does account for quantum randomness as arising from averaging over ignorance given by $`|\psi (q)|^2`$.

It is important to realize that non simply Bohmian mechanics makes the same predictions as does orthodox quantum theory for the results of any experiment, but that *the quantum formalism of operators as observables emerges naturally and simply from it as the very expression of the empirical import of Bohmian mechanics*. More precisely, it turns out that in Bohmian mechanics self-adjoint operators arise in association with *specific* experiments as a tool to compactly express and represent the relevant data—the results and their statistical distributions—of these experiments. The key ingredient to understand how this comes about is to recall  that a completely general experiment is described by:

* a unitary map $`U`$ transforming the initial state of system and apparatus $`\psi _0(x)\varphi _0(y)`$ into a final state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=U\left(\psi _0(x)\varphi _0(y)\right)`$ ($`x`$ refers to the configurations of the system and $`y`$ those of the apparatus);
* a pointer variable $`Z=F(Y)`$ representing the pointer orientation in terms of the microscopic configurations $`Y`$ of the apparatus.

It is a direct consequence of quantum equilibrium and linearity of Schrödinger’s equation , that the probability distribution of the pointer variable $`Z`$ is a measured–valued quadratic form on the Hilbert space of wave function, and, a such, mathematically equivalent to a positive–operator–valued measure (POVM). It turn out that self–adjoint operators (which are, by the spectral theorem, in one to one correspondence with projector–valued measures) represent quantum observables associated with the special class of repeatable experiments .

Note that as a byproduct of the foregoing considerations one obtains a very general notion of measurability:

A physical quantity is measurable only if its probability distribution is a measure-valued quadratic form on the Hilbert space of wave functions.   (11)
Sometimes it is claimed that it is possible to experimentally discriminate between Bohmian mechanics and quantum mechanics. This claim is however totally unfounded: there must be experimental agreement as a consequence of quantum equilibrium. The experimental equivalence of Bohmian mechanics with quantum mechanics might appear, somehow, a little frustrating fact: while, on one hand, all the experimental evidence confirms Bohmian mechanics as well as quantum mechanics, on the other hand it would be easier it the experimental prediction were different. In fact, if there were a crucial experiment able to discriminate between the two theories, there would be something objective to establish which is the correct theory. It must be made clear, however, that the experimental equivalence of Bohmian mechanics with quantum mechanics holds as long as the predictions of quantum mechanics are not ambiguous. There are in fact a variety of experimental issues that don’t fit comfortably within the standard operator quantum formalism, such as dwell and tunneling times , escape times and escape positions , scattering theory , but are easily handled by Bohmian mechanics.

Actually, after the discussion of the previous sections, it should be clear that the comparison shouldn’t be made only on the level of experimental prediction but, on the contrary, the decision of what is the right theory should be taken on the deeper level of the ontology of the theory—what the theory is about.

## 4 The Collapse of the wave function

The existence of configurations in Bohmian mechanics allows for a natural and clear notion of wave function of a subsystem. In fact, consider a composite system composed by a sub-system and by its environment. If $`Q_t=(X_t,Y_t)`$, where $`X_t`$ is the actual (i.e., what really is) configuration of the sub-system at time $`t`$, and $`Y_t`$ is that its environment at the same time, we can define the conditional wave function for the $`x`$-system at time $`t`$ as

$$\psi _t(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_t(x,Y_t),$$
(12)
that is, the wave function of the whole universe (the biggest system of all) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ calculated in the actual configuration of the environment. Under appropriate conditions $`\psi (x)`$, satisfies Schrödinger’s equation in $`x`$. In this case it is indeed the effective wave function for the $`x`$-system, that is, the collapsed wave function that the ordinary quantum formalism assigns to the subsystem after a quantum measurement. In fact, suppose $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the structure occurring in a measurement situation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_t(x,y)=\psi _t(x)\varphi _t(y)+\mathrm{\Psi }_t^{}(x,y),$$
(13)
where $`\varphi _t(y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t^{}(x,y)`$ (the part of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ which is not $`\psi _t(x)\varphi _t(y)`$) have macroscopically disjoint $`y`$-supports. If $`Y_t`$ belongs to the support of $`\varphi _t(y)`$, $`\psi _t(x)`$ is the effective wave function of the $`x`$-system at time $`t`$. (For a clear exposition of this, see  or .)

Thus, the collapse of the wave function can be deduced from Bohmian mechanics without introducing any active role to the observer. Consider, again, the cat paradox in the original version, were the two superposing states are dead and alive cat. In Bohmian mechanics at any time $`t`$ the cat is something real, she is or dead or alive, independently on who is looking at her. Note that she can be in a superposition state because the wave function evolves according to Schrödinger’s equation, but in Bohmian mechanics the state of the system is given by the couple $`(\mathrm{\Psi },Q)`$ of the wave function and the configurations $`Q=(Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_n)`$ of all the particles composing the system (the cat). Thus, according to which support $`Q`$ belongs to (to those of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{dead}`$ describing the dead cat or to those of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{alive}`$ describing the alive cat), the cat is actually dead or alive. Note that superpositions exist on all scales (from micro to macro) but don’t influence at all the fact that the cat is this or that. At this point a question could arise: due to the presence of a superposition wave function, could it be possible that the cat, who at some time is dead, returns alive? The cat has an actual configuration, belonging (in our example) to the support of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{dead}`$, and its evolution is guided by the wave function. There seems to be nothing to prevent to $`Q`$ to be guided in the support of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{alive}`$, making the dead–alive transition possible. Actually, this is very unlikely to happen, in fact the supports of the two wave functions are macroscopically distinguishable. By this we mean that the macroscopic variables, like, e.g., the temperature, assume different values in the two states, even if the microscopic quantities from which they have been derived might be similar. The temperature of an dead cat and of an alive cat are, in general, different. Thus, if $`Q`$ at some time belongs to the support of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{dead}`$, the effect of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{alive}`$ is completely negligible: we can forget of it for the dynamics of $`Q`$. The dead–alive transition could be possible if we would be able to bring the two wave functions close to each other again. But the probability of having success in this would be even less probable than the fact that all the molecules of perfume we have sprayed in a room would come back spontaneously in the neighborhood of the bottle!

## 5 Bohmian Mechanics and Newtonian Mechanics

To point out some interesting features of Bohmian mechanics, it can be useful to write the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the polar form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=R\text{e}^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S}$$
(14)
and then rewrite Schrödinger’s equation in terms of these new variables. This is indeed what Bohm originally did in his 1952 paper . In this way one obtains from (3) a pair of coupled equations: the continuity equation for $`R^2`$,

$$\frac{R^2}{t}+\mathrm{div}\left(\frac{_kS}{m}\right)R^2=0,$$
(15)
which suggests that $`\rho =R^2`$ can be interpreted as a probability density, and a modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation for $`S`$

$$\frac{S}{t}+\frac{(_kS)^2}{2m}+V\underset{k}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_k}\frac{_k^2R}{R}=0$$
(16)
Note that this equation differs from the usual classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$\frac{S}{t}+\frac{(_kS)^2}{2m}+V=0$$
(17)
only by the appearance of an extra term, the quantum potential

$$U\underset{k}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_k}\frac{_k^2R}{R}.$$
(18)
This modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation can be used, together with the continuity equation for $`R`$, to define particle trajectories identifying the velocity with $`v_k=\frac{_kS}{m}`$. In this way the resulting motion is precisely what would have been obtained classically if the particles were subjected by the force generated by the quantum potential in addition to the usual forces.

It should be noted, however, that the rewriting of Schrödinger’s equation through the polar variables $`(R,S)`$ is somehow misleading. In fact, first of all, there is an increase in complexity: Schrödinger’s equation is a linear equation while the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation is highly nonlinear and still requires the continuity equation for its closure. Note that, since in Bohmian mechanics the dynamics is completely defined by Schrödinger’s equation (3) and the guiding equation (2), there is no need of any further axioms involving the quantum potential and thus it should not be regarded as the most basic structure defining Bohmian mechanics.

Bohmian mechanics is not a rephrasing of quantum mechanics in classical terms. It is not simply classical mechanics with an additional force term. In Bohmian mechanics the velocities are not independent of positions, as they are classically, but are constrained by the guiding equation (2). The correct way of regarding to Bohmian mechanics is as a first-order theory, in which the fundamental quantity is the position of particles, whose dynamics is specified directly and simply by the velocity field (6). In Bohmian mechanics the second-order (Newtonian) concepts of acceleration and force, work and energy play no *fundamental* role. Rather, they are fundamental to the theory to which Bohmian mechanics converges in the classical limit, namely Newtonian mechanics. In fact, regardless of whether or not we think to the quantum potential as fundamental, it can be useful: equation (16), or, equivalently,

$$\frac{d^2Q_t}{dt^2}=[V(Q_t)+U(Q_t)],$$
(19)
show that all the deviations from classicality are embodied in the quantum force $`U`$, so that, whenever this force is negligible, there is classical motion , . This observation is the starting point for a complete derivation of the classical limit of quantum mechanics. And the crucial step for such a derivation is to characterize the physical conditions that guarantee smallness of the quantum force (see , , ).

## 6 Nonlocality and Hidden Variables

In the literature it is common to refer to Bohmian mechanics as a theory of hidden variables. This is a consequence of the famous EPR paper  in which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argued that quantum mechanics might be incomplete. Their proposal was to look for some non measurable variables (somehow hidden) to complete the theory.

It should be stressed that the problems faced by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in their paper was about the locality of quantum theory: they assumed that reality is local, i.e. action at distance is impossible, and proposed a mental experiment (that we shall not recall here). Their conclusions were that, if reality is local, quantum mechanics is incomplete and there is need of some extra variables to take this into account. From the violation of Bell’s inequality (see , ) it followed that their assumption was wrong: reality is non local and therefore from their reasoning we cannot conclude anything concerning the existence of hidden variables.

We should emphasize that the reason for introducing the configuration of the particles as an extra variable in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with nonlocality. This has created and indeed still creates a lot of confusion in understanding which are the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality—that reality is nonlocal and that any completion of quantum mechanics with local hidden variable is impossible. This is not the case of Bohmian mechanics, in which nonlocality follows directly from the fact that the wave function is a function in configuration space, not in ordinary space. This means that the velocity of each particle of a system composed by $`N`$ particles, independently on how far are they. The degree of action at distance depends on the degree of entanglement. It must be stressed that nonlocality is not—by any means—a peculiarity of Bohmian mechanics: *nonlocality has turned out to be a fact of nature: nonlocality must be a feature of any physical theory accounting for the observed violations of Bell’s inequality* .

The so called “no-go” theorems for hidden variables (von Neumann , Gleason , Kochen-Speker ) show that there is no “good” map from operators to random variables (on the space of “hidden variables”), where by “good” we mean in the sense that the joint distributions of the random variables are consistent with the corresponding quantum mechanical distributions whenever the latter are defined. As commonly understood, these theorems involve a certain irony: They conclude with the impossibility of a deterministic description, or more generally of any sort of realist description, only by in effect themselves assuming a “realism” of a most implausible variety, namely, naive realism about operators . There is in fact no reason to expect there to be such a map: the fact that the same operator plays a role in different experiments does not imply that these experiments have much else in common, and certainly not that they involve measurements of the same thing. It is thus with detailed experiments, and not with the associated operators, that random variables might reasonably be expected to be associated , , .

Finally, it is interesting to note, as a side remark, that the true “hidden” variable is actually the wave function. In fact, it is not stressed sufficiently that it is indeed the wave function that cannot be measured! If the wave function were measurable, it would exist an experimental device revealing the the actual wave function $`\psi _0`$ of the system prior to the measurement and the statistics of the pointer measuring the wave function would be formally given by $`\delta (\psi \psi _0)`$, which, however, is not a quadratic form of $`\psi _0`$, so that (11) is violated and and thus the wave function is not measurable!

## 7 What about Relativity?

Bohmian mechanics, the theory defined by eqs. (2) and (3) (together with (4) and (5)), is not Lorentz invariant, since (3) is a nonrelativistic equation, and, more importantly, since the right hand side of (5) involves the positions of the particles at a common (absolute) time. It is also frequently asserted that Bohmian mechanics cannot be made Lorentz invariant, by which it is presumably meant that no Bohmian theory—no theory that could be regarded somehow as a natural extension of Bohmian mechanics—can be found that is Lorentz invariant. In this regard, we wish to make some remarks.

1. The main reason for the belief that Bohmian mechanics cannot be made Lorentz is the manifest nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics, but nonlocality, as we have stressed in the previous section, is a fact of nature.
2. Concerning the other (somehow related) widespread belief, that standard quantum theories have no problems incorporating relativity while Bohmian mechanics does, we completely agree with the assessment of Jean Bricmont: “Indeed, whatever the Copenhagen interpretation really means, it must somewhere introduce a collapse or reduction of the state vector or an intervention of the observer or some—usually verbal—substitute for that. And, to my knowledge the Lorentz invariance of that part of the “theory” is never discussed. And, if it was, problems caused by EPR-type experiments, that are the source of the difficulty in obtaining a Lorentz invariant Bohmian theory, would soon become evident.
3. Indeed, the Bohmian state description $`(\mathrm{\Psi },Q)`$ has been extended to (bosonic) field theories with $`Q`$ representing the instantaneous configuration of the field (see, e.g., , , ). Though this might be the appropriate ontology for relativistic physics, it should be stressed that Bell (, 173–180) has proposed a Bohmian model for a quantum field theory involving both bosonic and fermionic quantum fields in which the primitive ontology is associated *only* with fermions.
4. While the above extensions agree with the predictions of quantum field theory—and thus they are relativistically invariant on the phenomenological level—they seem to lack “*serious*” Lorentz invariance (as Bell has put it ) on the level of the basic dynamical laws (for a discussion of this point see ).
5. Finally, we’d like to stress that it is indeed possible to construct “*serious*” Lorentz invariant Bohmian models, i.e., models for which Lorentz invariance holds, non only on the phenomenological level, but also on the microscopic level of the basic dynamical laws .

## 8 Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported in part by the INFN. Part of the work has grown and has been developed in the IHES, the Mathematisches Institut der Universität München and the Department of Mathematics of the University of Rutgers. The hospitality of these institutions is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, we thank Detlef Dürr and Shelly Goldstein for their teaching, support and friendship.


text:
# Are the electron spin and magnetic moment parallel or antiparallel vectors?

## 1 Introduction

The usual assumption concerning the magnetic dipole structure of the electron, states that if the electron is a spinning particle of negative charge which rotates along the spin direction then this motion will produce a magnetic moment opposite to the spin. In the case of the positron both magnitudes, spin and magnetic moment, will therefore have the same direction. But this interpretation is not supported by a classical analysis of spin, but rather by the guess that presumably spin and angular velocity are directly related.

Dirac’s analysis  of the relativistic electron shows that the spin and magnetic moment operators are related by

$$𝝁=\frac{q\mathrm{}}{2m}𝝈,$$
(1)
where $`q`$ is the electric charge and $`𝝈`$ the spin matrix operator. For the electron $`q=e`$, $`e>0`$, and therefore the spin and magnetic moment are antiparallel vectors while they are parallel for positrons since $`q=+e`$. However, if we make this discussion for the expectation values we obtain some indefiniteness in this relative orientation. Let us consider the particle analysed in the center of mass frame. Let

$$u_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),u_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),v_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),v_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),$$

the usual Dirac’s spinors in this frame. Spinors $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are positive energy solutions and $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ the negative energy ones. The $`\sigma _z`$ operator takes the form

$$\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

so that $`u_1`$ and $`v_1`$ are spin up states and $`u_2`$ and $`v_2`$ spin down. If we take the expectation value of $`\mu _z`$ in all these states we obtain that for positive and negative energy states the magnetic moment has the opposite orientation to the corresponding expectation value of the spin. But if the negative energy states are considered to describe the antiparticle states then particle and antiparticle have the same relative orientation of spin and magnetic moment.

Now, let $`C=i\gamma _2\gamma _0`$ the charge conjugate operator. In the Pauli-Dirac representation it takes the form

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

and the charge conjugate spinors $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i=Cu_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_i=Cv_i`$ are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{u}_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{v}_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{v}_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$

so that the $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ spinors represent positive energy states and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ negative energy states of a system which satisfies Dirac’s equation for a particle of opposite charge. Now $`\stackrel{~}{u}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_2`$ are spin up states and the others spin down. But for this system we have to take for the magnetic moment operator the corresponding expression (1) with $`q=+e`$ and therefore the expectation values show that for positive and negative energy states of the positron spin and magnetic moment are parallel vectors. Then, although the expression of the magnetic moment operator obtained in Dirac’s theory is unambiguous, the analysis of the expectation values leads to some contradiction and in any case it seems that particle and antiparticle may have the same relative orientation between both magnitudes. We shall see in section 2 that the analysis of a classical model of electron, which satisfies when quantised Dirac’s equation, leads to the same indefiniteness in this relative orientation.

No explicit direct measurement of the relative orientation between spin and magnetic moment of the free electron, known to the author, can be found in the literature although very high precision experiments are performed to measure the magnitude of the magnetic moment and the absolute value of $`g`$, the gyromagnetic ratio. In the review article by Rich and Wesley  the two main methods for measuring the anomaly factor of leptons $`a=|g|/21`$, are analysed: one kind involves precession methods which measure the difference between the spin precession frequency and its cyclotron frequency in a uniform magnetic field. The other are resonance experiments, like the ones developed by Dehmelt on a single electron in a Penning trap  where the cyclotron motion, magnetron motion and axial oscillation are monitored. All these measurements are in fact independent of whether spin and magnetic moment are indeed parallel or antiparallel, because they involve measurements of the spin precession frequencies in external magnetic fields.

All attempts of Stern-Gerlach type on unpolarised beams to separate electrons in inhomogeneous magnetic fields have failed and Bohr and Pauli claimed that this failure was a consequence of the Lorentz force on charged particles which blurred the splitting. Nevertheless Seattle experiments on a single electron  show a “continuous Stern-Gerlach type” of interaction producing an “axial” oscillation of the particle in the direction orthogonal to its cyclotron motion. But these experiments are not able to determine the relative orientation between these magnitudes. Batelaan et al. , propose an alternative device which according to Dehmelt’s suggestions minimize the Lorentz force by using an external magnetic field along the electron velocity but maximize the spin force by using large magnetic field gradients in that direction. They obtain numerically a polarization of the electron beam along the direction of motion. Perhaps an experimental setup in these terms will be able to clarify the relative orientation between these two vector magnitudes.

After giving in the next section a short review to the kinematical formalism of spinning particles developed by the author, in section 3 a direct experiment and in 4 an indirect experiment will be suggested to check the relative orientation of spin and magnetic moment.

## 2 Clasical spinning particles

The kinematical theory of elementary spinning particles  produces a classical description of spin and an elementary particle in this formalism is a pointlike object. In this point we locate the charge of the particle and its motion can be interpreted as a translational motion of its center of mass and a harmonic motion of the center of charge around the center of mass. Once the spin direction is fixed, the motion of the point charge is completely determined. If we consider as the particle the positive energy solution and of negative electric charge, then the spin and magnetic moment for both the electron and positron are described by parallel vectors. If we consider that the particle has positive charge we get the opposite orientation. We thus obtain the same indefiniteness as in the previous analysis of the expectation value of Dirac’s magnetic moment operator.

Let us review the main highlights of the mentioned approach:

* The classical variables that characterise the initial and final state of a classical elementary spinning particle in a Lagrangian approach are precisely the variables used as parameters of the kinematical group of space-time symmetries or of any of its homogeneous spaces. Any element of the Poincaré group can be parametrised in terms of the time and space translation and the relative velocity and orientation among inertial observers. Therefore, a relativistic spinning particle is described by the variables time $`t`$, position $`𝒓`$, velocity $`𝒗`$ and orientation $`𝜶`$. We shall call to these variables the kinematical variables and the manifold they span the kinematical space of the system.
* A classical spinning particle is thus described as a point with orientation. The particle moves and rotates in space. Point $`𝒓`$ describes its position in space while $`𝜶`$ describes its spatial orientation. But what point $`𝒓`$ describes is the position of the charge, which is in general a different point than its center of mass $`𝒒`$, and in general $`𝒓`$ describes a harmonic motion around $`𝒒`$, usually called this motion the zitterbewegung.
* When expressed the Lagrangian in terms of the kinematical variables it becomes a homogeneous function of first degree of the derivatives of the kinematical variables and consequently it also depends on $`\dot{𝒗}`$, the acceleration of point $`𝒓`$, and on $`\dot{𝜶}`$ or equivalently on the angular velocity $`𝝎`$. It turns out that it can be written as

$$L=T\dot{t}+𝑹\dot{𝒓}+𝑽\dot{𝒗}+𝑾𝝎,$$
(2)
where $`T=L/\dot{t}`$, $`𝑹=L/\dot{𝒓}`$, $`𝑽=L/\dot{𝒗}`$ and $`𝑾=L/𝝎`$.
* For a free relativistic particle, when analyzing the invariance under the different one-parameter subgroups of the Poincaré group, Noether’s theorem determines the usual constants of the motion which take the following form in terms of the above magnitudes: Energy,

$$H=T𝒗\frac{d𝑽}{dt},$$

linear momentum,

$$𝑷=𝑹\frac{d𝑽}{dt},$$
(3)
kinematical momentum

$$𝑲=\frac{H}{c^2}𝒓𝑷t\frac{1}{c^2}𝑺\times 𝒗,$$
(4)
and angular momentum

$$𝑱=𝒓\times 𝑷+𝑺,$$
(5)
where the observable $`𝑺`$, takes the form

$$𝑺=𝒗\times 𝑽+𝑾.$$
(6)
* The linear momentum (3) is not lying along the velocity $`𝒗`$ of point $`𝒓`$. Point $`𝒓`$ does not represent the center of mass position. If in terms of the last term in (4) we define the position vector

$$𝒌=\frac{1}{H}𝑺\times 𝒗,$$

then the center of mass position can be defined as $`𝒒=𝒓𝒌`$, such that the kinematical momentum can be written as

$$𝑲=\frac{H}{c^2}𝒒𝑷t.$$

Taking the time derivative of this expression leads for the linear momentum to

$$𝑷=\frac{H}{c^2}\frac{d𝒒}{dt},$$

which is the usual relativistic expression of the linear momentum in terms of the center of mass velocity. Observable $`𝒌`$ is the relative position of point $`𝒓`$ with respect to the center of mass $`𝒒`$.
* The observable $`𝑺`$ is the classical equivalent of Dirac’s spin operator, because it satisfies the free dynamical equation

$$\frac{d𝑺}{dt}=𝑷\times 𝒗,$$

which does not vanish because $`𝑷`$ and $`𝒗`$ are not parallel vectors and where the velocity operator in Dirac’s theory becomes $`𝒗=c𝜶`$ in terms of Dirac’s $`𝜶`$ matrices.
* The structure of the spin observable is twofold. One, $`𝒗\times 𝑽`$, is related to the zitterbewegung or charge motion around its center of mass and another $`𝑾`$ to the rotation of the particle.
* The magnetic moment is produced by the charge motion and is thus related only to the zitterbewegung part of the spin. It is because the spin has another contribution coming from the rotation that a pure kinematical interpretation of the gyromagnetic ratio  has been given.
* The classical system that when quantised satisfies Dirac’s equation  corresponds to a particle whose charge is moving at the speed of light, and therefore if $`v=c`$ is constant, the acceleration is always orthogonal to the velocity.
* If we take in (4) the time derivative of this expression and afterwards its scalar product with vector $`𝒗`$, since $`v=c`$ we get the relationship

$$H𝑷𝒗\frac{1}{c^2}\left(𝑺\times \frac{d𝒗}{dt}\right)𝒗=0$$

which is the classical equivalent of Dirac’s equation.
* The center of mass observer is defined by the conditions $`𝑷=0`$ and $`𝑲=0`$. For this observer we see from (5) that the spin $`𝑺`$ is a constant of the motion. If the system has positive energy $`H=+mc^2`$, from (4) we get

$$m𝒓=\frac{1}{c^2}𝑺\times 𝒗,$$

so that the charge of the particle is describing circles in a plane orthogonal to $`𝑺`$ as depicted in part a) of figure 1. Part b) is the time reversed motion of this particle which corresponds to its antiparticle or to a particle that in the center of mass frame has energy $`H=mc^2`$. If the particle is negatively charged then particle and antiparticle have their magnetic moment along the spin direction. If we consider as the particle the positively charged one we obtain the opposite orientation for the magnetic moment. In any case the magnetic moment of the particle and antiparticle have the same relative orientation with respect to the spin.

The radius of this motion is

$$R_o=\frac{S}{mc}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2mc}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda _C=3.8\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}.$$

The frequency of this motion is

$$\omega _o=\frac{mc^2}{S}=\frac{2mc^2}{\mathrm{}}=1.55\times 10^{21}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
* It turns out that although the particle is pointlike, because of the zitterbewegung the charge has a localized region of influence of size $`2R_o`$, which is Compton’s wave length. The latest LEP experiments at CERN establish an upper bound of $`10^{17}`$cm for the radius of the charge of the electron, which is consistent with this pointlike interpretation, while its quantum mechanical behaviour is produced for distances of its Compton wave length, six orders of magnitude larger.
* Properly speaking what this formalism shows is that the magnetic moment $`𝝁`$ of the electron is not an intrinsic property like the charge. It is produced by the motion of the charge and therefore is orthogonal to the zitterbewegung plane. But at the same time, in the center of mass frame, the electron has an oscillating electric dipole of magnitude $`eR_o`$ lying on the zitterbewegung plane. Its time average value vanishes and in low energy interactions the effect of this electric dipole is negligible but in high energy physics we have to take into account the detailed position of the charge and thus the electric dipole contribution is not negligible. This electric dipole is not related to a loss of spherical symmetry of some charge distribution. The charge distribution is spherically symmetric because it is just a point. This dipole is just the instantaneous electric dipole moment of the charge with respect to the center of mass.

As an approximation we can consider the classical electron as a point, its center of mass, where we also locate the charge. But at the same time we have to assign to this point two electromagnetic properties, a magnetic moment lying along or opposite to the spin direction and an oscillating electric dipole, of frequency $`\omega _o`$, on a plane orthogonal to the spin.

A more detailed analysis of the dynamics gives rise to the dynamical equations for the center of mass $`𝒒`$ and center of charge $`𝒓`$ in an external electromagnetic field as given by :

$`m\ddot{𝒒}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\gamma (\dot{q})}}\left[𝑬+\dot{𝒓}\times 𝑩\dot{𝒒}\left(\left[𝑬+\dot{𝒓}\times 𝑩\right]\dot{𝒒}\right)\right],`$ (7)
$`\ddot{𝒓}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\dot{𝒒}\dot{𝒓}}{(𝒒𝒓)^2}}\left(𝒒𝒓\right).`$ (8)
Here, an over dot means a time derivative and the external fields are defined at the charge position $`𝒓`$, and it is the velocity of the charge that produces the magnetic force term.

## 3 A direct measurement

Since the classical model depicted in figure 1 satisfies when quantised Dirac’s equation  it is legitimate to use it for analysing the interaction with an external electromagnetic field from a classical viewpoint. We can alternatively use the Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi equation for the spin evolution, but this approach assumes a minimal coupling for the charge and also an anomalous magnetic moment coupling. However in our approach since the spinning electron is a point charge such that the magnetic moment is a consequence of the zitterbewegung, we only have to consider a minimal coupling prescription which is closer to quantum electrodynamics in which no anomalous magnetic moment coupling for the electron is present.

The proposed experiment is to send a beam of transversally polarised electrons or positrons and check the interaction of their magnetic moment with an external magnetic field. As suggested by Batelaan et al.  we shall consider a region of low or negligible magnetic field but with a non-negligible field gradient such that the deflection of the beam is mainly due to the magnetic dipole structure.

We consider a beam moving along the positive direction of the $`OY`$ axis and with the transversal spin pointing along the positive $`OZ`$ axis. The external magnetic field will be produced by two conducting wires parallel to the $`OY`$ axis, separated by a distance $`2b`$ and contained in the $`YOZ`$ plane of a cartesian frame (see figure 2). If they carry a current in the same direction, then the magnetic field vanishes along the $`OY`$ axis and is very low in its neighborhood. The square depicted in the figure represents the region, using for computation, where the initial position of the center of mass of the electrons in the beam is contained. We have found no experimental evidence of one such a device which could be useful to analyse the magnetic moment of free charged particles as an alternative to the Stern-Gerlach magnets which do not work properly with charged particles.

The magnetic field produced by the current takes the form:

$`B_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k(z+b)}{x^2+(z+b)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k(zb)}{x^2+(zb)^2}},B_y=0,`$
$`B_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kx}{x^2+(z+b)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{kx}{x^2+(zb)^2}},`$
where $`k=I/2\pi ϵ_0c^2`$, $`I`$ is the intensity of the current and $`ϵ_0`$ the permittivity of the vacuum.

To compute numerically the motion of a polarised electron beam in an external magnetic field, we shall use the above dynamical equations (7) and (8) with initial conditions such that the zitterbewegung plane of each electron is the $`XOY`$ plane and the charge motion produces a magnetic moment pointing along the positive $`OZ`$ axis. For the center of mass position we shall consider the electrons uniformly distributed in the mentioned square region.

In figure 3 we depict the situation of the polarised electron beam after travelling some distance inside the magnetic field region. The dots represent the center of mass position of a sample of particles which in the incoming beam are distributed uniformly in the shown square region. With the magnetic moment of the electrons pointing upwards we see a deflection (and also a focusing effect) to the left. The deflection is of the same amount to the right for electrons with the magnetic moment pointing down. It is checked that the deflection is independent of the initial position of the electron charge compatible with the initial center of mass position. We also obtain an equivalent deflection for many other values of the separation between wires, current and initial beam velocity.

We thus expect from this experiment that if the beam is deflected to the left then spin and magnetic moment are parallel vectors, while they are antiparallel for right deflection. The interaction does not modify the spin orientation so that we can check the polarization of the beam at the exit by some direct method of electron absorption like the one devised for measuring the spin of the photon in circularly polarised light beams .

Although this device is considered for analysing charged particles the deflection is produced in the low magnetic field region so that it is mainly due to the interaction with the magnetic moment. This is one of the reasons to consider this device as an alternative to the Stern-Gerlach magnets to separate unpolarised beams.

## 4 An indirect measurement

As an indirect experiment we shall measure the relative orientation of spin and magnetic moment of electrons bounded in atoms.

Let us consider a material system formed by atoms of some specific substance. Let us send a beam of circularly polarised light of such an energy to produce electron transitions on these atoms from an S-state ($`l=0`$ orbital angular momentum) into another S-state. Let us assume that the photons of the circularly polarised beam have their spins pointing forward. In this case the transition only affects to the electrons with the spin pointing backwards such that after the transition the excited electrons have their spins in the forward direction. If we now introduce a magnetic field in the forward direction to observe the Zeeman splitting then the measurement of the additional interaction energy $`𝝁𝑩`$ will give us only one of the two expected transition lines of the emission spectrum from which we determine the relative orientation between $`𝝁`$ and $`𝑩`$ and therefore between $`𝝁`$ and $`𝑺`$.

## Acknowledgments

I like to acknowledge the use of the computer program Dynamics Solver developed by Aguirregabiria  with which all the numerical computations contained in this paper have been done. I am very much indebted to Aguirregabiria’s help.

I also acknowledge the suggestion by Prof. Dieter Trines of DESY, Hamburg, during the Prague SPIN-2001 congress, that leads to the proposed indirect measurement experiment.

This work has been partially supported by the Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea under contract UPV/EHU 172.310 EB150/98 and by General Research Grant UPV 172.310-G02/99.