format: text

text:
# Contextual viewpoint to quantum stochastics

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the classical rule for the addition of probabilistic alternatives:

$$P=P_1+P_2$$
(1)
does not work in experiments with elementary particles. Instead of this rule, we have to use quantum rule:

$$P=P_1+P_2+2\sqrt{P_1P_2}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(2)
The classical rule for the addition of probabilistic alternatives is perturbed by so called interference term. The difference between ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ rules was (and is) the source of permanent discussions as well as various misunderstandings and mystifications, see e.g. - for general references. We just note that the appearance of the interference term was the source of the wave-viewpoint to the theory of elementary particles. At least the notion of superposition of quantum states was proposed as an attempt to explain the appearance of a new probabilistic calculus in the two slit experiment, see, for example, Dirac’s book  on historical analysis of the origin of quantum formalism. We also mention that Feynman interpreted (2) as the evidence of the violation of the additivity postulate for ‘quantum probabilities’, .

In particular, this induced the viewpoint that there are some special ‘quantum’ probabilities that differ essentially from ordinary ‘classical’ probabilities. We also remark that the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum formalism is just an attempt to explain (2) without to apply to mysterious ‘quantum probabilities’. To escape the use of a new probabilistic calculus, we could suppose that, e.g. electron participating in the two slit experiment is in the superposition of passing through both slits.

The role of an experimental context \- a complex of physical conditions - in a quantum measurement was discussed in the details already at the first stage of development of quantum theory. N. Bohr  pointed out that the experimental arrangement plays the crucial role in quantum theory. W. Heisenberg also paid the large attention to the role of an experimental context (including the derivation of the uncertainty principle), see . For Heisenberg, an experimental context was merely a source of perturbations - different contexts produced different kinds of perturbations. Dirac’s approach to contextualism was similar to Heisenberg’s viewpoint, see . It is important to note that Bohr and Heisenberg-Dirac contextual views differed essentially. Heisenberg and Dirac had classical-like viewpoint to the role of context as a source of perturbations induced by force-like interactions. This was a kind of Newtonian scenarios. Bohr presented essentially more general viewpoint to context. Bohr’s contextualism was not based on the interpretation of context as a source of force-like perturbations. In principle, there may be no force-like interaction at all. Bohr’s context is a kind of geometry, experimental geometry. The only difference between ordinary geometry and contextual geometry is that the first one is an individual, point , model of physical reality and the second one is a statistical model of physical reality.

At the first stage of the development of quantum formalism contextualism was discussed merely in the general philosophic framework. Of course, such a discussion played the great role in creation of foundations of quantum mechanics. In particular, Bohr’s complementarity principle was created on the basis of contextual discussions. Unfortunately, contextualism did not provided a mathematical model that could explain exotic features of quantum experimental statistics. In particular, there was not found contextual purely classical probabilistic derivation of quantum probabilistic rule (2). This inability to obtain interference for quantum particles considered as classical-realistic objects - but moving in varying contextual geometries - induced a ”romantic viewpoint” to quantum systems: wave features, absence of trajectories,… Moreover, it was one of the roots of so called Orthodox Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (not mix with Bohr’s interpretation!): a wave function provides the complete description of an individual quantum system. By this interpretation a wave function was associated not with the complex of physical conditions, context, (as it should be according to N. Bohr), but with an individual physical quantum system.

There are many reasons why contextualism was not successive in deriving of quantum statistics. One of problems was of purely mathematical character. The standard probabilistic formalism based on Kolmogorov’s axiomatics , 1933, was a fixed context formalism. This conventional probabilistic formalism does not provide rules of operating with probabilities calculated for different contexts. However, in quantum theory we have to operate with statistical data obtained for different complexes of physical conditions, contexts. In fact, this context dependence of probabilities as the origin of the superposition principle was already discussed by W. Heisenberg ; unfortunately, only in quite general and rather philosophic framework. Later contextual dependence of quantum probabilities was intensively investigated from various viewpoints -. We also mention that the powerful contextual machinery was developed in the operational framework, see ,; in particular, by using the theory based on POV-measures, see , . However, a simple contextual derivation of quantum probabilistic rule (2) was not found. Typically contextual papers explained that contextual transitions could violate classical probabilistic rule (1), see e.g. L. Ballentine for clear and simple presentation in . However, it was not clear why we have interference rule (2) in quantum formalism and why we use the Hilbert space calculus of quantum probabilities.

Such a classical probabilistic derivation of (2) was given in author’s paper , see also . In these papers we used Heisenberg-Dirac contextualism: experimental contexts produces perturbations of physical variables. By using magnitudes of statistical perturbations we derived (2). We should mention two disadvantages of this derivation: 1) the use of force-like perturbation picture of physical reality; 2) the use of von Mises’ frequency probability model . Restrictions of old-fashioneds perturbation approach becomes more evident in the process of the development of quantum theory. R. von Mises frequency approach induces quite complicated manipulations with frequencies ,  that are, in fact, irrelevant to our physical considerations. Therefore we tried to present Bohr-like contextual derivation of (2) and without to go to the frequency level. We did this in the preprint .

In this paper we present a modified variant of derivation  of (2). Then we present contextual derivation of the superposition principle as superposition of waves of contexts. Starting with (now classically derived) (2) we get vector space (and complex amplitude) representation of contextual probabilistic calculus.

## 2 The role of a complex of physical conditions

In fact, probabilities in (2) in quantum experiments are determined by at least three different contexts, $`𝒮,𝒮_1,𝒮_2.`$ We illustrate this situation by following fundamental example.

Example. (Two slit experiment) In the two slit experiment rule (2) is induced by combining of statistical data obtained in three different experiments: both slits are open; only $`j`$th slit is open, $`j=1,2.`$ The main distinguishing feature of statistical data obtained in these three experiments in the following one. By combining by (1) data obtained in experiments in that only one of slits is open we do not get the probability distribution for data obtained in the experiment in that both slits are open. On the other hand we never observe a particle that passes through both slits simultaneously - it would be observed passing the first or second slit. There is no the direct observation of particle splitting. As each particle passes only one of slits, we have the standard case of alternatives. Thus we should use conventional rule (1) for the addition of probabilities of alternatives. This disagreement between experimental statistical data and the rule of conventional probability theory looks as a kind of paradox. The traditional solution of this paradox is the use of the wave model for elementary particles.

We now perform detailed contextual analysis for the two slits experiment. We consider the following complexes of physical conditions, contexts.

$`𝒮=`$both slits are open, $`𝒮_j=`$only jth slit is open, $`j=1,2.`$

In fact, probabilities in (2) are related to these three contexts. Thus $`P=P_𝒮(A)`$ and $`P_j=P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}P_{𝒮_j}(A),j=1,2.`$

Here we use various context-indexes. The $`P_𝒮(A),P_{𝒮_j}(A)`$ denote probabilities of an event $`A`$ with respect to various contexts. The coefficients $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮},j=1,2,`$ have another meaning. In general these are not probabilities of $`𝒮_j`$ with respect to the context $`𝒮`$ (besides some very special, ”classical”, situations), because the context $`𝒮_j`$ in general is not an event for the context $`𝒮.`$ The $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮},j=1,2,`$ are kinds of balance probabilities. These are proportion coefficients in splitting of the ensemble $`S`$ prepared on the basis of the complex of physical conditions $`𝒮`$ into ensembles $`S_j`$ prepared on the basis of the complexes of physical conditions $`𝒮_j:`$

$$P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}=\frac{N_j}{N},$$
(3)
where $`N`$ is the number of elements in $`S`$ and $`N_j`$ is the number of elements in $`S_j,`$ see ,  for the details. We remark (and it is important for our further considerations) that we have the following balance condition:

$$P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}+P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}=1.$$
(4)
The balance condition has the following meaning: the total number of particles that arrives to the registration screen when both slits are open equals (in the average) to the sum of corresponding numbers when only one of the slits is open. So by closing e.g. the first slit we do not change the number of particles that pass the second slit (in the average). In fact, (4) gives the right description of alternative-situation in the two slit experiment. It is not related to alternative passing of slits by a particle in the experiment when both slits are open. This equation describes alternative sharing of particles between two preparation procedures: $`j`$th slit is open, $`j=1,2.`$

However, the balance probabilities $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}`$ would not play so important role in our considerations. The crucial role will be played by contextual probabilities $`P_𝒮(A),P_{𝒮_j}(A).`$

The conventional probability theory says, see e.g.  that we have:

$$P(A)=P(𝒮_1)P(A/𝒮_1)+P(𝒮_2)P(A/𝒮_2).$$
(5)
if $`𝒮_1𝒮_2=\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝒮_1𝒮_2=𝒮.`$ This is the well known formula of total probability. In many considerations (including works of fathers of quantum mechanics, see e.g. P. Dirac , see also R. Feynman ) people set $`P=P(A)`$ and $`P_j=P(𝒮_1)P(A/𝒮_1).`$ Finally, they get the contradiction between conventional probabilistic rule (1) and statistical data obtained in the interference experiments and described by quantum rule (2).

We would like to discuss physical and mathematical assumptions used for the derivation of (5). The main physical assumption is that this formula is derived for one fixed context $`𝒮`$ (in the mathematical formalism - for one fixed Kolmogorov probability space). To be precise, we have to write this formula as

$$P_𝒮(A)=P_𝒮(𝒮_1)P_𝒮(A/𝒮_1)+P_𝒮(𝒮_2)P_𝒮(A/𝒮_2).$$
(6)
It is also important that contexts $`𝒮_1,𝒮_2`$ can be realized as elements of the field of events corresponding to the context $`𝒮.`$ Thus we would get the contradiction between classical rule (1) and quantum rule (2) only if assume that balance probabilities $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}`$ can be interpreted as $`P_𝒮`$-probabilities, $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}=P_𝒮(𝒮_j)`$ and contextual probabilities $`P_{𝒮_j}(A)`$ as conditional probabilities with respect to the context $`𝒮,P_{𝒮_j}(A)=P_𝒮(A/𝒮_j).`$ Here the contextual probabilities are given by Bayes’ formula (the additional postulate of Kolmogorov’s probability theory):

$`P_{𝒮_j}(A)=P_𝒮(A𝒮_j)/P_𝒮(𝒮_j).`$

In general, there are no reasons to assume that new complexes of conditions $`𝒮_j`$ are ”so nice” that new probability distributions are given by the Bayes’ formula. Thus, in general, the formula of total probability can be violated when we combine statistical data obtained for a few distinct contexts. In particular, this formula does not hold true in statistical experiments with elementary particles. The right hand side of it is perturbed by the interference term. This explanation is well known in contextual community. We could only be surprised why R. Feynman was so surprised by such ”exotic behaviour” of quantum probabilities in the two slit experiment, see .

Remark. We can discuss the same experiment in the standard framework of preparation/measurement procedures. The context $`𝒮`$ produced an ensemble of particles $`S`$ that passed through the screen with slits when both slits are open. A measurement procedure is the measurement of the position of a particle on the registration screen. In the same way the context $`𝒮_j`$ produced an ensemble of particles $`S_j`$ that passed through the screen with slits when only $`j`$th slit is open.

Remark. I recently discovered that, in fact, there is no contradiction between Kolmogorov’s approach  and the contextual approach. 111I would like to thank Prof. A. Shiryaev (the former student of A. N. Kolmogorov) who explained this to me. It is the mysterious fact that a few generations of readers (including the author of this paper) did not pay attention to section 2 of Kolmogorov’s book . There Kolmogorov said directly that all probabilities of events are related to concrete complexes of conditions. Moreover, in his paper  he even used the symbol $`P(A|𝒮),`$ where $`𝒮`$ is a complex of conditions, \- an analogue of our symbol $`P_𝒮(A).`$

## 3 Interference term as the measure of statistical deviations due to the context transition.

The following simple considerations gives us the derivation of quantum probabilistic transformation (2) in the classical probabilistic framework.

Let $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮_j,j=1,2,`$ be three different complexes of conditions. We consider the transformation of probabilities induced by transitions from one complex of conditions to others:

$$𝒮𝒮_1\text{and}𝒮𝒮_2.$$
(7)
We start with introducing of balance probabilities, $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}.`$ These are proportional coefficients for numbers of physical systems obtained after preparations under the complexes of physical conditions $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮_j.`$ If (starting with the same number of particles) we get $`N`$ and $`N_j`$ systems after $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮_j`$ preparations, respectively, then $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}`$ are defined by (3). We assume that balance probabilities satisfy to balance equation (4). This is quite natural conditions: splitting (7) of the context $`𝒮`$ induces just sharing of physical systems produced by a source. We have already discussed this balance in the two slit experiment. The same situation we have in neutron interferometry for the balance between the numbers of particles coming to detectors when both paths are open and when just one of the paths is open.

We introduce the measure of statistical perturbations $`\delta `$ induced by context transitions:

$`\delta (A;𝒮;𝒮_j)=P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}[P_𝒮(A)P_{𝒮_1}(A)]+P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}[P_𝒮(A)P_{𝒮_2}(A)].`$

This quantity describes the deformation of probability distribution $`P_𝒮`$ due to context transitions.

By using balance equation (4) we get:

$`P_𝒮(A)=P_𝒮(A)P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}+P_𝒮(A)P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}.`$

Thus we get:

$$P_𝒮(A)=P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}P_{𝒮_1}(A)+P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}P_{𝒮_2}(A)+\delta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j).$$
(8)
Transformation (8) is the most general form of probabilistic transformations due to context transitions.

There is the correspondence principle between context unstable and (‘classical’) context stable transformations: If $`𝒮_j𝒮,j=1,2,`$ i.e., $`\delta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)0`$, then contextual probabilistic transformation (8) coincides (in the limit) with the conventional formula of total probability.

The perturbation term $`\delta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)`$ depends on absolute magnitudes of probabilities. It would be natural to introduce normalized coefficient of the context transition

$`\lambda (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)=\frac{\delta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)}{2\sqrt{P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}P_{𝒮_1}(A)P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}P_{𝒮_2}(A)}},`$

that gives the relative measure of statistical deviations due to the transition from one complex of conditions, $`𝒮,`$ to others, $`𝒮_j.`$ Transformation (8) can be written in the form:

$$P_𝒮(A)=\underset{j=1,2}{}P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}P_{𝒮_j}(A)+2\sqrt{P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}P_{𝒮_1}(A)P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}P_{𝒮_2}(A)}\lambda (A;𝒮,𝒮_j).$$
(9)
In fact, there are two possibilities:

1). $`|\lambda (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)|1;`$

2). $`|\lambda (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)|1.`$

In both cases it is convenient to introduce a new context transition parameter $`\theta =\theta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)`$ and represent the context transition coefficient in the form:

$$\lambda (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)=\mathrm{cos}\theta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j),\theta [0,\pi ];$$

and

$$\lambda (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)=\pm \mathrm{cosh}\theta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j),\theta [0,\mathrm{}),$$

respectively.

We have two types of probabilistic transformations induced by the transition from one complex of conditions to another:

$$P_𝒮(A)=\underset{j=1,2}{}P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}P_{𝒮_j}(A)+2\sqrt{P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}P_{𝒮_1}(A)P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}P_{𝒮_2}(A)}\mathrm{cos}\theta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j).$$
(10)
$$P_𝒮(A)=\underset{j=1,2}{}P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}P_{𝒮_j}(A)\pm 2\sqrt{P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}P_{𝒮_1}(A)P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}P_{𝒮_2}(A)}\mathrm{cosh}\theta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j).$$
(11)
We derived quantum probabilistic rule (2) in the classical probabilistic framework (in particular, without any reference to superposition of states) by taking into account context dependence of probabilities.

Relatively large statistical deviations are described by transformation (11). Such transformations do not appear in the conventional formalism of quantum mechanics. In principle, they could be described by so called hyperbolic quantum mechanics, .

Conclusion. For each fixed context (experimental arrangement), we have CLASSICAL STATISTICS. CONTEXT TRANSITION induces interference perturbation of the conventional rule for the addition of probabilistic alternatives.

## 4 Linear algebra for probabilities, complex amplitudes

One of the main distinguishing features of quantum theory is the Hilbert space calculus for probabilistic amplitudes. As we have already discussed, this calculus is typically associated with wavelike (superposition) features of quantum particles. We shall show that, in fact, the Hilbert space representation of probabilities was merely a mathematical discovery. Of course, this discovery simplifies essentially calculations. However, this is pure mathematics; physics is related merely to the derivation of quantum interference rule (2).

The crucial point was the derivation (at the beginning purely experimental) of transformation (2) connecting probabilities with respect to three different contexts. In fact, linear algebra can be easily derived from this transformation. Everybody familiar with the elementary geometry will see that (2) just the well known $`\mathrm{cos}`$-theorem. This is the rule to find the third side in a triangle if we know lengths of two other sides and the angle $`\theta `$ between them:

$$c^2=a^2+b^22ab\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$

or if we want to have ”+” before $`\mathrm{cos}`$ we use so called parallelogram law:

$$c^2=a^2+b^2+2ab\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(12)
Here $`c`$ is the diagonal of the parallelogram with sides $`a`$ and $`b`$ and the angle $`\theta `$ between these sides. Of course, the parallelogram law is just the law of linear (two dimensional Hilbert space) algebra: for finding the length $`c`$ of the sum $`𝐜`$ of vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ having lengths $`a`$ and $`b`$ and the angle $`\theta `$ between them.

We also can introduce complex waves by using the following elementary formula:

$$a^2+b^2+2ab\mathrm{cos}\theta =|a+be^{i\theta }|^2.$$
(13)
Thus the context transitions $`𝒮𝒮_j`$ can be described by the wave:

$$\phi =\sqrt{P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}P_{𝒮_1}(A)}+\sqrt{P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}P_{𝒮_2}(A)}e^{i\theta (A;𝒮,𝒮_j)}.$$

## 5 ‘Classical’ probabilistic derivation of the superposition principle for wave functions in the two slit experiment

We shall study in more details the possibility of contextual (purely classical) derivation of the superposition principle for complex probability amplitudes, ‘waves’, in the two slit experiment. We consider one dimensional model. It could be obtained by considering the distribution of particles on one fixed straight line, very thin strip. It is supposed that the source of particles is symmetric with respect to slits and the straight line (on the registration screen) pass through the center of the screen. This geometry implies that $`P_{𝒮_j/𝒮}=1/2,j=1,2.`$ By the symbol $`A_x,x𝐑,`$ is denoted the event of the registration of a particle at the point $`x`$ ofd the straight line. We set:

$`p(x)=P_𝒮(A_x)`$ and $`p_j(x)=P_{𝒮_j}(A_x),j=1,2,`$

where contexts $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮_j`$ were defined in Example 1. By using (10) we get:

$`p(x)=\frac{1}{2}[p_1(x)+p_2(x)+2\sqrt{p_1(x)p_2(x)}\mathrm{cos}\theta (x)].`$

By using (13) we represent this probability as the square of a complex amplitude, $`p(x)=|\varphi (x)|^2,`$

where

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\theta _1(x)}\sqrt{p_1(x)}+e^{i\theta _2(x)}\sqrt{p_2(x)})$$
(14)
and phases $`\theta _j(x)`$ are chosen in such a way that the phase shift $`\theta _1(x)\theta _2(x)=\theta (x).`$ We also introduce complex amplitudes for probabilities $`p_j(x):\varphi _j(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta _j(x)}\sqrt{p_j(x)}.`$ Here $`p_j(x)=|\varphi _j(x)|^2.`$ The complex amplitudes are said to be wave functions: $`\varphi (x)`$ is the wave function on (the straight line of) the registration screen for both slits are open; $`\varphi _j(x)`$ is the wave function on (the straight line of) the registration screen for $`j`$th slit is open.

Let us set $`\xi (x)=\frac{\theta (x)}{h},`$ where $`h>0`$ is some scaling factor. We have:

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{\frac{i\xi _1(x)}{h}}\sqrt{p_1(x)}+e^{\frac{i\xi _2(x)}{h}}\sqrt{p_2(x)})\text{and}\varphi _j(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{\frac{i\xi _j(x)}{h}}\sqrt{p_j(x)}.$$

By choosing $`h`$ as the Planck constant we get a quantum-like representation of probabilities. We recall that we did not use any kind of wave arguments. Superposition rule (14) was obtained in purely classical probabilistic (but contextual!) framework.

Suppose now that $`\xi `$ depends linearly on $`x:\xi _j(x)=\frac{𝐩_jx}{h},\xi (x)=\frac{𝐩x}{h},𝐩=𝐩_1𝐩_2.`$ Under such an assumption we shall get interference of two ‘free-waves’ corresponding to momentums $`𝐩_1`$ and $`𝐩_2.`$ Of course, this linearity could not be extracted from our general probabilistic considerations. This is a consequence of the concrete geometry of the experiment.

## 6 The coefficient of context transition as the measure of incompatibility of physical observables

We now consider the relation between the coefficient of context transition (the measure of statistical deviations due to the change of complex of physical conditions) and incompatibility of physical observables in quantum mechanics (noncommutativity of corresponding operators). As everywhere in this paper, we consider dichotomic observables. Each event $`A`$ generates the dichotomic variable $`a:`$ $`a=a_1`$ if $`A`$ occurs and $`a=a_2`$ if $`A`$ does not occur. Values $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ do not play any role in our considerations; in principle, we can consider the case $`a_1=0`$ and $`a_2=1.`$

Definition. A physical observable $`a`$ is incompatible with a pair $`𝒮_1,𝒮_2`$ of contexts if there exists a context $`𝒮`$ such that $`\delta (a=a_i;𝒮;𝒮_j)0.`$

In such a case a transition from the complex of physical conditions $`𝒮`$ to complexes $`𝒮_j`$ induces non-negligible statistical deviations for $`a`$-measurements. It is not the same to measure $`a`$ under the complex of conditions $`𝒮`$ or $`𝒮_j.`$222 We need to consider two complexes $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2,`$ because we would like to consider another dichotomic variable $`b`$ connected to these contexts.

We shall demonstrate that the incompatibility of physical observables in quantum mechanics is just a particular case of contextual incompatibility.

Let $``$ be the two dimensional Hilbert space. Rays of this space represent some class of complexes of physical conditions. Let the dichotomic variable $`a`$ be represented by a self-adjoint operator (symmetric matrix) $`\widehat{a}.`$ We remark that we can associate with any physical observable $`a`$ two complexes of conditions $`𝒮_1^a,𝒮_2^a`$ namely contexts corresponding to eigenvectors $`\varphi _1^a,\varphi _2^a`$ of $`\widehat{a}.`$ The $`𝒮_j^a`$ describes the filter with respect to the value $`a=a_j`$.

Let us consider other dichotomic physical observable $`b=b_1,b_2.`$ It is represented by a self-adjoint operator $`\widehat{b}`$ with eigenvectors $`\varphi _1^b,\varphi _2^b.`$ These eigenvectors represent contexts $`𝒮_1^b,𝒮_2^b`$ (filtrations corresponding to $`b=b_1`$ and $`b=b_2,`$ respectively).

Theorem. Quantum physical observables $`a`$ and $`b`$ are incompatible (i.e., corresponding operators do not commute) iff the observable $`a`$ is incompatible with the contexts $`𝒮_j^b`$ or vice versa:

$`\delta (a=a_i;𝒮;𝒮_j^b)0`$ or $`\delta (b=b_i;𝒮;𝒮_j^a)0.`$

Proof. Let $`𝒮`$ be an arbitrary quantum context. Thus it can be represented by a normalized vector $`\varphi .`$ We have:

$$\delta (a=a_i;𝒮;𝒮_j^b)=$$

$$P_{𝒮_1/𝒮}[P_𝒮(a=a_i)P_{𝒮_1}(a=a_i)]+P_{𝒮_2/𝒮}[P_𝒮(a=a_i)P_{𝒮_2}(a=a_i)]$$

$$=|(\varphi ,\varphi _1^b)|^2(|(\varphi ,\varphi _i^a)|^2|(\varphi _i^a,\varphi _1^b)|^2)+|(\varphi ,\varphi _2^b)|^2(|(\varphi ,\varphi _i^a)|^2|(\varphi _i^a,\varphi _2^b)|^2).$$

We have $`(\varphi ,\varphi _j^b)=k_je^{i\xi _j},(\varphi _j^b,\varphi _i^a)=k_{ji}e^{i\xi _{ji}},`$ where $`k_j,k_{ij}0.`$ We get:

$$\delta (a=a_i;𝒮;𝒮_j^b)=2k_1k_2k_{1i}k_{2i}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,$$

where $`\theta _i=\xi _2\xi _1+\xi _{2i}\xi _{1i}.`$

a). Let $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{b}]=0.`$ Then $`k_{12}=k_{21}=0.`$ Hence $`\delta (a=a_i;𝒮;𝒮_j^b)=0.`$

b). Let $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{b}]0.`$ Then $`k_{12},k_{21}0.`$ Let $`k_1,k_2>0`$ be arbitrary constants such that $`k_1^2+k_2^2=1.`$ We choose a context $`𝒮`$ that is described by the state:

$`\varphi =\sqrt{k_1}e^{i\xi _{21}}\varphi _1^b+\sqrt{k_2}e^{i\xi _{11}}\varphi _2^b.`$

Here $`\theta =0`$ and, hence,

$`\delta (a=a_i;𝒮;𝒮_j^b)=2k_1k_2k_{i1}k_{i2}>0.`$

I would like to thank L. Ballentine, W. De Myunck, D. Mermin, A. Peres for fruitful (rather critical) discussions.

References

 P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford Univ. Press, 1930).

 W. Heisenberg, Physical principles of quantum theory. (Chicago Univ. Press, 1930).

 N. Bohr, Phys. Rev., 48, 696-702 (1935).

 J. von Neumann, Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1955).

 R. Feynman and A. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (McGraw-Hill, New-York, 1965).

 J. M. Jauch, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968).

 A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994).

 G. Ludwig, Foundations of quantum mechanics, v.1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1983).

 P. Busch, M. Grabowski, P. Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics (Springer Verlag, 1995).

 E. Beltrametti and G. Cassinelli, The logic of Quantum mechanics. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1981).

 L. E. Ballentine, Quantum mechanics (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989).

 A.Yu. Khrennikov, Interpretations of probability (VSP Int. Publ., Utrecht, 1999).

 A. N. Kolmogoroff, Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Springer Verlag, Berlin (1933); reprinted: Foundations of the Probability Theory. Chelsea Publ. Comp., New York (1956).

 S. P. Gudder, J. Math Phys., 25, 2397 (1984); S. P. Gudder, N. Zanghi, Nuovo Cimento B 79, 291(1984).

 L. Accardi, Phys. Rep., 77, 169(1981); L. Accardi, Urne e Camaleoni: Dialogo sulla realta, le leggi del caso e la teoria quantistica. Il Saggiatore, Rome (1997).

 I. Pitowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett, 48, N.10, 1299(1982).

 A. Fine, Phys. Rev. Letters, 48, 291 (1982); P. Rastal, Found. Phys., 13, 555 (1983).

 W. De Baere, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 39, 234 (1984); 25, 2397(1984); W. De Muynck, W. De Baere, H. Martens, Found. of Physics, 24, 1589 (1994);

 L. Ballentine, Probability theory in quantum mechanics. American J. of Physics, 54, 883-888 (1986).

 E. B. Davies, Quantum theory of open systems, Academic Press, London (1976).

 A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1982).

 A. Yu. Khrennikov, Ensemble fluctuations and the origin of quantum probabilistic rule. Rep. MSI, Växjö Univ., 90, October (2000).

 A. Yu. Khrennikov, Linear representations of probabilistic transformations induced by context transitions. Preprint quant-ph/0105059, 13 May 2001; to be published in J. of Phys. A..

 R. von Mises, The mathematical theory of probability and statistics. (Academic, London, 1964);

 A. Yu. Khrennikov, ‘Quantum probabilities’ as context depending probabilities. Preprint quant-ph/0106073, 13 June 2001.

 A. N. Shiryayev, Probability. (Springer, New York-Berlin-Heidelberg, 1991).

 A. N. Kolmogorov, Theory of Probability. In series Mathematics, its context, methods and role, 2, 252-290, Academy of Sc. of USSR, Steklov Math. Institute (in Russian).

 A. Yu. Khrennikov, Hyperbolic Quantum Mechanics. Preprint: quant-ph/0101002, 31 Dec 2000.


text:
# Artifacts at 4.5 and 8.0 𝜇m in Short Wavelength Spectra from the Infrared Space Observatory1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO), an European Space Agency (ESA) project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the Principal Investigator countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

## 1 Introduction

The Short Wavelength Spectrometer (SWS) on the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) obtained approximately 1250 spectra covering the full 2.4–45 $`\mu `$m wavelength range at moderate resolution. We are engaged in an ongoing project to classify these spectra (Kraemer et al., 2001), to reprocess them, and to present them in a publically available database on-line (Sloan et al. 2002, in preparation). SWS data are currently available in a partially processed form called Auto-Analysis Results (AARs). The AARs have a fairly complex format (Leech et al., 2001) that requires further processing before the data can be used for scientific analysis. Our processing method reduces these data to a single continuous 2.4 to 45 $`\mu `$m spectrum.

In assessing the quality of our new reprocessing algorithm, we compared the results for several infrared standards observed with the SWS to absolutely calibrated spectra from Cohen et al. (1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 2001 (in preparation)). These standards are based on synthetic spectra of the A0 dwarf $`\alpha `$ Lyr and the A1 dwarf $`\alpha `$ CMa, which serve as the reference standards in the system. Cohen et al. (1992a) describe the details of their method that used high-quality ground-based and airborne photometry to normalize the synthetic spectra to measured astronomical fluxes. The synthetic spectra are based on the models of Kurucz (1979), with updated opacities and metallicities (Castelli & Kurucz, 1994).

Secondary standards are added to the system by observing their spectra in conjunction with that of the primaries so that atmospheric, telescopic, and instrumental transients can be removed. The spectra for the secondary standards are then obtained by dividing the observed secondary by the observed reference standard and multiplying by the assumed spectrum (the model) for the reference, degraded to match the spectral resolution of the instrument used:

$`S_{b,final}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{S_{b,obs}(\lambda )}{S_{a,obs}(\lambda )}}S_{a,assumed}(\lambda ),`$ (1)
where the subscript $`a`$ refers to the reference standard, and the subscript $`b`$ refers to the secondary. This is the standard method used by spectroscopists at ground-based telescopes to calibrate a program source by ratioing its spectrum to that of a standard star, preferably secured at an airmass matching that of the target. In effect, Equation 1 transfers the quality of the synthetic A star model from the reference to the new standard, whatever its spectral type.

Cohen et al. (1992b, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 2001) have applied this method to create absolutely calibrated composite spectra for 13 infrared standards, using spectra from ground-based telescopes, the Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO) and the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) (further details of the process can be found in Cohen et al., 1992a, b). Cohen et al. (1996a) added $`\alpha ^1`$ Cen (G2 V) as an alternative reference standard for the southern hemisphere to give a total of 3 reference standards as well as the 13 secondaries. Most of the secondary standards are giants with spectral classes later than K0 and were chosen for their intrinsic brightness; sources later than approximately M3 are avoided due to the possibility of their variability (Eyer & Grenon, 1997).

The preferred infrared reference standard is Sirius ($`\alpha `$ CMa), due to its brightness and its dust-free spectrum beyond 20 $`\mu `$m. Figure 1 compares our derived SWS spectrum of this source to the Kurucz model presented by Cohen et al. (1992a). Deviations between the two occur in the vicinity of 4.5 $`\mu `$m and again at 8.0 $`\mu `$m. We propose an explanation for the origin of this discrepancy in this Letter and discuss the implications for the calibration of the SWS database and the impact on calibration of future infrared missions.

## 2 Data Format and Analysis

Data from the SWS are publically available in AAR format. This format corrects the spectra, as far as possible, for the relative spectral response of the detectors, differences in gains between individual detectors and a variety of other issues, as described by Leech et al. (2001). The files are organized in 12 spectral segments, ranging from 1 to 4 for each of the 4 different detector bands. Each spectral segment contains interleaved spectra from the 12 individual detectors, scanned in the direction of both increasing and decreasing wavelength, giving a total of 24 separate spectra for each spectral segment. Thus the processing of the full wavelength range from an AAR file requires the combination of 288 individual spectra into one.

We start with data from the Off-line Processing (OLP) pipeline 10.0, available in June 2001, which was intended to be the final release. This version includes the latest attempts to remove the memory effect from the Si:As data (4–12 $`\mu `$m) (Kester et al. 2001). Although these attempts have significantly improved the data, residual effects remain, and one can see that the spectra presented here tend to diverge from the expected result as the data approach 12 $`\mu `$m. However, we have high confidence in the quality of the data at shorter wavelengths, where the flux levels from the sources are much stronger and where the discrepancies between the SWS data and the reference spectra occur.

Sloan et al. (2002) will present details of the algorithm used to combine the 288 individual spectra into one. We have tested for the possibility that the algorithm might be responsible for the artifacts seen in Figure 1 by processing the AAR data manually with the Infrared Spectral Analysis Package (ISAP) following the standard procedures. The two methods produce similar results, which indicates that the problem is intrinsic to the spectrum released by ISO and not to a specific method of processing. The artifact peaking at 4.5 $`\mu `$m also appears in Figures 6 and 7 of Decin (2001), although the wavelength stretch makes it more difficult to notice.

## 3 Discussion

The divergence between the SWS spectrum of $`\alpha `$ CMa and the Kurucz model is characterized by two broad “emission” features, at $``$4–5 $`\mu `$m and $``$$`\mu `$m. (The rise at longer wavelengths is caused by the memory effect mentioned in Sec. 2.) The feature at 8 $`\mu `$m is reminiscent of the 8 $`\mu `$m emission artifact found in the data from the Low Resolution Spectrometer (LRS) aboard IRAS by Cohen et al. (1992b). The LRS database was originally calibrated assuming that $`\alpha `$ Tau could be characterized as a $`10^4`$ K blackbody. However, since the spectrum of $`\alpha `$ Tau (a K5 III) contains significant absorption from the SiO fundamental band at 8 $`\mu `$m, this error propagated to the entire LRS database, producing an apparent emission feature in the spectra of $`\alpha `$ CMa, $`\alpha `$ Lyr, and other early-type stars.

Fifteen stars have served as spectral calibrators for the SWS (Schaeidt et al., 1996; Leech et al., 2001; Shipman et al., 2001). Ten of them are K and M giants, which show strong molecular absorption bands in their spectra. The dominant bands peak at wavelengths of $``$2.4 $`\mu `$m (CO overtone), $``$4.1 $`\mu `$m (SiO overtone), $``$4.5 $`\mu `$m (CO fundamental, blended with the weaker SiO overtone), and $``$8.0 $`\mu `$m (SiO fundamental). For the assumed spectrum of each of these stars in OLP 10.0, the SWS instrument team chose to use synthetic models of the stars from 2 to 12 $`\mu `$m. For longer wavelengths, a composite spectrum from Cohen et al. where available or a template spectrum from Cohen et al. (1999) where no composite existed were used. The two sets of data were spliced together at 12 $`\mu `$m (Schaeidt et al., 1996; Leech et al., 2001; Shipman et al., 2001). Previous pipeline releases used the Cohen composites and templates for the entire wavelength range.

The K5 giant $`\gamma `$ Dra is a typical example of an SWS calibrator. Figure 2 compares the synthetic spectrum of this source (Decin, 2000, 2001) to the observationally calibrated composite spectrum (Cohen et al., 1996b). The differences between the two spectra (the lower panel) are similar to the artifacts seen in Figure 1. Decin (2001) compares the composite spectra of several other SWS calibrators to the synthetic spectra (in her Figure 9), and most of them show similar deviations222Decin (2001) notes the discrepancy between the model and the composite spectrum of $`\gamma `$ Dra, but incorrectly attributes it to the substitution of data of $`\alpha `$ Tau for $`\gamma `$ Dra in this wavelength regime. In the header to the file containing the composite spectral data for $`\gamma `$ Dra, Cohen et al. (1996b) state that they calibrated this spectral region using spectral ratios of $`\gamma `$ Dra to $`\alpha `$ Boo obtained on the KAO.. It is highly unlikely that an instrumental effect (such as the memory effect) would manifest itself precisely at the wavelengths of these photospheric absorption bands.

The coincidence of the emission artifacts apparent in Figure 1 with the molecular bands in K and M stars and the similarity of the artifacts to the deviations between the model and composite spectrum in Figure 2 lead us to hypothesize that the artifacts result from an underestimate of the depth of these bands in the synthetic spectra.

Figure 3 compares the data from the SWS to both the model and composite spectrum of $`\gamma `$ Dra. Although not perfect, the SWS spectrum, as calibrated in OLP 10.0, matches the model of $`\gamma `$ Dra significantly better than the Cohen composite. Additional spectra of $`\gamma `$ Dra from the SWS database, taken at different times during the mission and at different spectral resolutions, as well as spectra of other cool calibrators, produce similar results.

If the synthetic spectra used to calibrate the SWS generally underestimate the strength of the molecular bands, then this miscalibration should propagate to the entire SWS database. As Figure 4 shows, the artifacts at 4.5 and 8 $`\mu `$m are readily seen in bright spectra from early-type stars, including the reference standard $`\alpha `$ Lyr, which should show neither emission nor absorption from molecular bands. In the spectrum of the average giant with no composite spectrum for comparison, the effect of the miscalibration will be more subtle and more difficult to recognize, since it will only reduce the apparent depth of the absorption bands.

In Figure 3 the difference between the SWS data and the composite spectrum for $`\gamma `$ Dra exhibits the largest excess between $``$4.0 and 4.7 $`\mu `$m. While an excess clearly exists at these wavelengths in the spectra of the hot stars in Figure 4, the confidence level of the magnitude of this excess shown in Figure 3 is not high. Because the atmosphere is almost opaque in the core of the CO2 band at 4.3 $`\mu `$m, even at aircraft altitudes, the uncertainty in the spectral composite is typically $``$6% from 4.22 to 4.58 $`\mu `$m and peaks at 10% at 4.22 $`\mu `$(Cohen et al., 1996b). Roughly half of the composites, including $`\gamma `$ Dra, have a data gap at $``$4.2-4.4 $`\mu `$m due to the atmospheric band. The spectral artifact is, however, much broader than the data gap and larger than the uncertainties can account for. The uncertainties in the composite spectrum at the other feature are $``$2%.

To reduce the noise from a single comparison, we calculated the weighted average of the ratios of all of the spectra common between the sources used to spectroscopically calibrate the SWS and the composite and reference spectra from Cohen et al. This weighted mean, displayed in Figure 5, provides an estimate for the modifications needed in the OLP 10.0 data. It also provides an assessment of the reliability of the synthetic spectra relative to the absolutely calibrated composite spectra.

In light of our findings, the SWS team has revised their calibration strategy and the ISO Data Center has agreed to an additional data release, OLP 10.1. By basing the new spectral calibration only on stars earlier than K, the worst of the discrepancy between the synthetic spectra and the Cohen spectra should be mitigated. The Decin models agree with the Cohen composites, templates, or Kurucz models (as appropriate) for the five stars (two As, one F, and two Gs) which meet this criterion (R. Shipman 2001, private communication).

## 4 Conclusions

We have identified spectral artifacts in the vicinity of the CO and SiO bands of late-type standard stars that appear in all OLP 10.0 spectra. These artifacts constitute a known systematic bias over a fairly large spectral range, and removing them is relatively straightforward. While OLP 10.0 was to have been the final version, an additional release, OLP 10.1, has been made to correct the database based on our findings.

The SWS calibrations between 2 and 12 $`\mu `$m were predominantly based on stellar atmospheric models of cool stars. These models have been used with great success in analysis of physical properties of cool stars (e.g. Decin et al., 2000). Model spectra of A stars, which contain only atomic lines and no molecular bands, appear to be well founded. Synthetic spectra can also achieve higher spectral resolution than that afforded by the composites. However, the artifacts in the SWS database that mirror the dominant molecular absorption features in the 4–10 $`\mu `$m range indicate that synthetic spectra of cool giants require further progress before they can be used for definitive spectral calibration.

The Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) on the upcoming Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) faces issues similar to those encountered by the SWS team, with the added complication that all of the commonly used spectral standards will be far too bright for use on the IRS. Until the commission of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), it will prove difficult to observationally calibrate standards faint enough for use by the IRS. Until this happens, the IRS will need to rely on models for spectral calibration. If models of later stars are required, improvements in the production of synthetic spectra will also be necessary.

We wish to thank Russ Shipman for many useful discussions regarding the calibration process. Thijs de Graauw provided support for this work through the USAF/SRON MOU. One author (KEK) was supported by the National Research Council via a Research Associateship through the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.


text:
# The zero point field in low light level experiments.

## 1 Introduction.

The electromagnetic field radiated by an oscillating dipole, studied by Hertz in the nineteenth century, gives a particular solution of Maxwell’s equations with a singular point at the origin. A linear development of this solution using solutions regular at the origin requires an infinite number of solutions. More physically, adding the solution for the dipole and another solution, the total energy may be higher, equal or lower than in the second solution, that is the dipole emits, refracts or absorbs energy; the last case corresponds to a partial cancellation of the exciting field by the field emitted by the dipole; this superposition of waves shows that while an oscillating dipole refracts or absorbs a part of the energy radiated by an other dipole, it diffracts a large fraction of this energy. Both demonstrations show that, in a semi-classical theory, the absorption by atoms of the light emitted by other atoms is slow, it remains a residual field named now the zero point field. While the existence of this field is trivial, the computation of the mean value of its intensity $`h\nu /2`$ per monochromatic mode, by Planck and Nernst , was difficult.

The oscillating dipole is a particular system of moving charges; any moving electron radiates a field, but if it belongs to a stationary system, in the average, it does not radiate energy: Sommerfeld’s electron does not fall on the proton, but the fluctuations of its perturbations by the zero point field produce the Lamb shift .

The building of the zero point field shows that it is an ordinary field; thus it may be amplified by a source; the starts of the laser pulses show that a spontaneous emission is exactly the amplification of the zero point field.

In this paper we qualify the electromagnetic field as follows :

-”genuine” for the total electromagnetic field;

”zero point” for the field which remains after the largest, coherent, physically possible absorption of the genuine field;

”conventional” for the genuine minus the zero point;

”stochastic” for a stochastic zero point field.

For a long time, the sensitivity of the detectors of light was bad so that the zero point field is neglected in the conventional classical electrodynamics; in modern optics, the ”genuine field” $`\widehat{E}`$ is the sum of the ”conventional field” $`E`$ and the zero point field $`E_0`$; consequently the sensitivity of the photosensors is revisited in section 2. A consequence is the correct classical computation of fourth order interferences in section 3.

The semiclassical emission or absorption is modelled by an excitation of a mono- or polyatomic molecule by an electromagnetic field up to a barrier between the two involved relative minimums of potential $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$; if the initial and final states are stationary $`|W_2W_1|=h\nu `$ 222As a monochromatic function is physically meaningless, we should write $`\frac{e(\nu )\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }=h`$, with $`|W_2W_1|=e(\nu )d\nu `$ . But our macroscopic experiments usually use nearly plane modes while the molecules emit light generally through dipoles or quadrupoles. Quantum mechanics transforms the geometry of the waves using the ”reduction of the wave packet”. Section 4 gives the classical reduction of the wave packet.

”Stochastic electrodynamics” is often used to avoid confusing the genuine with the conventional classical electrodynamics. Section 5 shows that this name is not very convenient because while the zero point field is stochastic far from the sources and the absorbers, this field is shaped by the sources and the absorbers.

The semi-classical theory is often preferred to quantum electrodynamics in nonlinear optics because it appears simpler and more concrete. The equivalence of the results provided by both theories, showed by Marshall & Santos  disappears only if the zero point field is neglected. As an example, section 6 describes a light matter interaction whole ignorance by the astrophysicists seems a consequence of the difficult use of quantum electrodynamics, while the right classical electrodynamics leads easily to a result which could avoid to look for astonishing objects in the universe.

## 2 Absorption and detection.

Usually, we write that the intensity absorbed or detected by a photocell is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the conventional electric field, this square being proportional to the conventional flux of electromagnetic energy. This supposes that there is no coherence between the conventional field and the zero point field, an assumption which is false because a spontaneous emission is an amplification of a mode of the zero point field (see section 4). The equations of absorption must fulfil two conditions: i) be written using only genuine fields (which may be zero point fields); ii) preserve the zero point field in the average. As a zero point field included in the genuine field is absorbed, an equivalent field must be reemitted (or the genuine field is attenuated down to the zero point field). Remark that in the dark, cold, good photocells generate a noise signal which seems produced by the fluctuations of the zero point field.

The net available energy on a receiver is proportional to

$$\widehat{E}^2E_0^2=(\beta E_0)^2E_0^2=2(\beta 1)E_0^2+((\beta 1)E_0)^2.$$
(1)
Usually $`E_0^2`$ is neglected, the usual rule is got; on the contrary, supposing that $`\beta `$ is nearly one, $`((\beta 1)E_0)^2`$ may be neglected; for a given optical configuration, the time- average of the zero point amplitude is constant, so that the detected signal is proportional to $`(\beta 1)E_0`$ that is to the amplitude of the conventional field, with $`E_0`$ as reference of phase. With an incoherent source, the phase factor fluctuates: without a sophisticated detection nothing appears.

## 3 Fourth order interferences.

A sophisticated detection is performed in the fourth order interference experiments with photon counting: two elementary measurements are done while the phase is constant (see, for instance, ). The result of these experiments is easily got qualitatively using the classical rules , but the contrast of the computed fringes is lower than shown by the experiments. In the simplest experiment  two small photoelectric cells are put in the interference fringes produced by two point sources; the interferences are not visible because they depend on the fast changing difference of phase $`\varphi `$ of the modes of the zero point field amplified by the sources. The sources are weak; the signal is the correlation of the counts of the cells.

Distinguishing the photoelectric cells by an index j equal to 1 or 2, set $`\delta _j`$ the difference of paths for the light received by the cells. The amplitude of the conventional field received by a cell is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\pi \delta _j/\lambda +\varphi /2)`$, so that, assuming the linearity in the conventional field, the probability of a simultaneous detection is proportional to

$$\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi \delta _1}{\lambda }+\frac{\varphi }{2})\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi \delta _2}{\lambda }+\frac{\varphi }{2}).$$
(2)
The mean value of this probability got by an integration over $`\varphi `$ is zero for $`\delta _1\delta _2=\lambda /2`$, so that the visibility has the right value 1. Assuming the usual response of the cells proportional to the square of the conventional field, the visibility would have the wrong value 1/2 .

## 4 Classical reduction of the wave packet.

The reduction of the wave packet breaks the symmetry of the waves, transforming, in particular, a local wave into a beam, for instance a dipolar wave into a plane wave.

The polarisation of a transparent matter by a light beam may be observed by a variation of the energy levels, or detecting Kerr effect,…Thus the beginning of a pulse of light must transfer energy to matter, and this energy is recovered in its tail (except for a small incoherent Rayleigh scattering). Thus, in the tail, the field is amplified, although there is no transition, no inversion of population, the polarisation mixing only slightly the initial state of the molecules with other states. This power of amplification applies not only to the exciting mode, so that many modes, usually initially at the zero point, are amplified, later reabsorbed in the medium : there is an dynamical equilibrium between the exciting field, the other modes and the polarisation of the molecules. The modes which are excited are dipolar or quadrupolar, they radiate far only the small incoherent Rayleigh field : they may be qualified ”local”. On the contrary, the interactions of the light pulse are strong because they are coherent.

As the local modes are amplified, the strongest and longest fluctuations of their field may be able to excite molecules up to a barrier, such that an absorbing transition occurs; the mean energy of the local field, then of the molecules is decreased, the amplification tail of the pulse is decreased, the medium has absorbed the light. In a laser, a similar process explains the coherent amplification by incoherently pumped molecules.

## 5 Is the zero point field stochastic ?

Whichever their far or close origin, the electromagnetic fields are mixed, so that splitting the electromagnetic field into the zero point field and the conventional field is physically meaningless; this splitting is an anticipation of the interaction of the field with a receiver able to extract from the mode all available energy. A pure, stochastic zero point field exists only far from sources, in the dark, coming from many far incoherent sources. On the contrary, the field emitted by a molecule which radiates or absorbs energy is, near the molecule, mostly the field of an oscillating dipole or quadrupole; even if an absorption re-establishes the mean value of the zero point field, the field is shaped by the molecule near it, not stochastic. Using the results of the previous section, this property extends to the modes of collimated beams; if a sheet of dark glass reduces the conventional intensity of a beam to zero, the phase of the beam remains written in the remaining zero point field.

A macroscopic consequence of the structuring of the zero point field by matter is observed in the Casimir effect : long wavelengths are rejected from inside two parallel plates, so that a lower pressure of radiation attracts the plates.

The emission of a field during the absorption of a quantum of energy is not instantaneous; during this emission and a short time after it, the probability for an extraordinarily strong and long fluctuation of the field is lowered, so that a sub-poissonian photon statistic appears; neglecting the space-time structuring of the field leads to a poissonian statistic .

Squeezing is also an elementary observation of a non-stochastic zero point field.

## 6 Low level ”Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering” (ISRS).

Quantum electrodynamics leads to consider the photon not only as an amount of energy but as a particle too; although this last concept is sometimes considered as dangerous and rejected , this concept led the astrophysicists to reject light-matter interactions as an alternative to the Doppler effect to explain observed redshifts of far objects. It is a rejection of coherent interactions.

ISRS, known since 1968  is now commonly used . It is not a simple Raman scattering, but a parametric effect, combination of two space-coherent Raman scattering, so that the state of the interacting molecules is not changed. The hot 333The temperature of a spectral line is deduced from Planck’s laws exciting beam and its scattered beams interfere into a single frequency, redshifted, beam; the cold beam is blueshifted.

ISRS is obtained using ultrashort light pulses, that is ”pulses shorter than all relevant time constants” , usually femtosecond laser pulses. As it has no intensity threshold it works with the light pulses which make the ordinary incoherent light. The relevant time constants in a gas may be adapted to incoherent light :

i) to avoid that the collisions destroy the coherence of the excitation of the molecules, the pressure must be very low;

ii) to obtain an interference of the scattered and incident lights into a single frequency light, the period which corresponds to the virtual Raman transition must be larger than the length of the impulsions. The molecules must have transitions in the radiofrequencies, generally hyperfine transitions.

Decreasing the intensity of the beams down to a value for which $`\widehat{E}`$ is not much higher than $`E_0`$, the Raman scattered conventional amplitude $`A`$ proportional to the intensity writes

$$A\widehat{E}^2E_0^2=(\beta E_0)^2E_0^2=2(\beta 1)E_0^2+((\beta 1)E_0)^2.$$
(3)
The last term may be neglected, the first, proportional to the incident amplitude, represents the usual spontaneous coherent Raman amplitude; the interference reduces the incident and scattered wave vectors into a single wave vector, so that the scattered light is not on a cone as in usual laser coherent Raman experiments.

The Universe, provides good experimental conditions for a confusion of this interaction with a Doppler effect: the paths are long and the pressures often low, a lot of mono- or polyatomic molecules, perturbed by Zeeman effect which are observed have hyperfine structures. The absorption spectra of the molecules which are destroyed at their first collision, H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ for instance cannot be seen because the redshift of their absorption spectra widens, thus weakens, their lines.

Similarly, all optical effects become linear at low light levels.

## 7 Conclusion.

The zero point field, often, improperly, qualified ”stochastic” is a trivial component of the genuine classical electromagnetic field. An artificial subtraction of this field leads to the conventional classical electromagnetism, breaking the equivalence of the classical and quantum electrodynamics.

Many authors tried to demonstrate that the semi-classical theory is not correct at low light levels; their demonstrations use the conventional classical electrodynamics which is an approximation of the genuine classical electrodynamics; this approximation fails at low light levels.

Quantum and classical electrodynamics have their specific advantages : Quantum electrodynamics provides ready to use properties or postulates, but a common improper use of some of its concepts, the photon for instance, leads to wrong conclusions ; classical electrodynamics is more intuitive, but it requires often more complicated demonstrations. It is so common and useful to use both theories than some physicists think that the zero point field is introduced by quantum electrodynamics !

The teachers should replace unnecessarily approximate rules, for instance the first Planck’s law, by the rigorous rules.


text:
# Fast Search Techniques for High Energy Pulsars

## 1. Introduction

Sensitive searches for pulsars in long duration high-energy (i.e. X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray) observations are difficult. For relatively short observations ($`T_{obs}<20`$ ks) all known isolated pulsars can be assumed to have a constant spin period during the observation. In this limiting case, searches for relatively bright pulsars are usually implemented using simple epoch folding or a standard Fourier analysis (e.g. Leahy et al., 1983; van der Klis, 1989). When $`T_{obs}`$ is long, however, the spin-down of young high-energy pulsars becomes important. The corresponding change in frequency during an observation can make these pulsars invisible to traditional search techniques.

Another difficulty involved in searching very long observations (i.e. many days) is the extraordinarily large number of independent trials required for a blind search. For epoch folding searches that cover a wide range of both frequency $`f`$ and frequency derivative $`\dot{f}`$, the computational complexity is $`N_{phot}T_{obs}^2`$, or $`T_{obs}^3`$ for a source of constant flux. Advanced Fourier analyses of very long time series (i.e. $`(220)\times 10^8`$ points where the photons have been binned) have been carried out by a few groups (e.g. Middleditch et al., 2000; Chandler et al., 2001) and are, in general, more efficient due to the use of the FFT (computational complexity $`T_{obs}^2\mathrm{log}T_{obs}`$). The difficulties involved in computing many FFTs of this size, however, have relegated such analyses to those with access to large-scale super-computing.

The techniques that I describe here allow large-scale blind searches of very long high-energy observations to be carried out on modest (albeit modern) workstations or inexpensive workstation clusters.

## 2. Optimized Epoch Folding ($`N_{phot}<10^4`$)

Epoch folding involves placing each event (i.e. photon) into one of a relatively small number of pulse phase bins (usually 2$``$20) by calculating the exact pulse phase of the event based on a trial pulsar ephemeris (e.g. $`f`$ and $`\dot{f}`$) and an arbitrary starting phase of the profile (i.e. phase zero). For each trial profile, one of many possible (but preferably computationally “cheap”) statistical tests is performed on the profile to determine if it shows a pulsed signal or not.

For blind searches, a large range of $`f`$ and $`\dot{f}`$ must be covered at high resolution in both the $`f`$ and $`\dot{f}`$ directions. In order to maximize sensitivity to low duty-cycle (i.e. narrow) pulse profiles, one must oversample the Independent Fourier Spacing ($`1/T_{obs}`$) in frequency and the equivalent independent spacing in $`\dot{f}`$ ($`6/T_{obs}^2`$) by a factor of 4 or more.

More advanced searches also attempt to match the complexity of the expected pulse shape with an appropriate number of pulse phase bins at the optimal starting phase of the profile. For example, sinusoidal profiles only require 2 properly phased bins for good sensitivity, but narrow pulse profiles are best detected if a single phase bin has the same width as the pulse and is centered on it. Unfortunately, searching over various numbers of phase bins and starting phases greatly increases the computer time required in an already costly search.

I have made modifications to the Bayesian method of epoch folding presented by Gregory & Loredo (1992, 1996) that incorporates everything described above in an efficient manner. These modifications allow brute force searches of “reasonable” high-energy data sets in a few weeks or less on a fast workstation (i.e. $`N_{phot}1000`$ photons, $`T_{obs}<30`$ days, $`0<f<500`$ Hz, $`|\dot{f}|<10^9`$ Hz s-1).

The calculations required to search over various numbers of phase bins and starting phases have been reduced dramatically from the exact method described in Gregory & Loredo (1992). The basic idea is to initially fold the data into 60 or 120 phase bins and then combine various numbers of these bins (i.e. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 bins) in an efficient manner at each of the 60 or 120 starting phases in order to maximize the signal-to-noise.

For very long duration observations, huge savings in CPU time can be had by searching the photons in a hierarchical manner and accepting some loss in sensitivity. Since for a search of a continuously sampled observation of a source with constant flux the required number of operations is $`T_{obs}^3`$, searching only a short but continuous part of the data takes much less time than searching the full observation (the number of photons and required resolution in $`f`$ and $`\dot{f}`$ are reduced significantly). Candidates above a very low threshold (say the top few percent) in this initial search are then examined using twice as many photons (or approximately twice the duration) at a correspondingly finer resolution. This process continues until all the photons are examined and the full resolution of the data is reached around the candidate.

My collaborators and I have recently applied these techniques to brute-force searches of *Chandra* observations of two very interesting X-ray sources: the point source found near the center of the Cas A SNR (Tananbaum, 1999) and the isolated neutron star RX J1856.5$``$3754 (Walter, Wolk, & Neuhäuser, 1996). Murray et al. (2002a) searched a 50 ks HRC-S observation (OBSID 1857) from the Cas A point source and reported no convincing candidates. More recently, we have searched the follow-up 50 ks observation (OBSID 1038) of Cas A and could neither find any convincing new candidates nor confirm any of the low significance candidates from the earlier search (manuscript in preparation). A similarly unsuccessful search for pulsations (and a corresponding 99% confidence level upper limit to pulsations of 4.5%) from the 450 ks Director’s Discretionary Time observation of RX J1856.5$``$3754 was reported by Ransom, Gaensler, & Slane (2002).

## 3. Fourier-Domain Acceleration Searches ($`N_{phot}>10^3`$)

When the observed number of photons is too large to allow efficient epoch folding searches to be conducted, the photons can be binned into a time series and searched using acceleration searches (i.e. $`\dot{f}`$ is constant during the observation) instead. Time domain acceleration searches have been used by numerous groups for some time (e.g. Middleditch & Kristian, 1984) and involve either re-sampling or re-binning the original uncorrected data to account for a non-zero $`\dot{f}`$. Each time series corresponding to a different $`\dot{f}`$ trial then requires a long FFT and a subsequent search for pulsations. Unfortunately, FFTs of very long time series are difficult to compute (e.g. Chandler et al., 2001).

By using Fourier domain acceleration search techniques (Ransom, 2001), only a single FFT of the original time series is required. All $`\dot{f}`$ trials are computed by correlating complex template responses with the raw Fourier amplitudes from the original FFT (i.e. matched filtering in the Fourier domain). The single long FFT that is required can be easily computed using out-of-core memory FFT techniques on even modest workstations. The subsequent Fourier domain acceleration search is very efficient since the matched filtering is inherently memory local and easily computed using short FFTs.

My collaborators and I have used a Fourier domain acceleration search code that includes Fourier interpolation (to minimize the effects of “scalloping”, e.g. van der Klis, 1989) and harmonic summing (to improve sensitivity to low duty-cycle pulsations) to successfully search numerous long radio observations of globular clusters and X-ray observations of potential X-ray pulsars. New pulsars detected using these methods include the binary millisecond radio pulsar PSR J1807$``$2459 in globular cluster NGC6544 (Ransom et al., 2001) and a probably isolated 4.714 ms pulsar in Terzan 5 (Ransom, 2001).

Recently, Murray et al. (2002b) used these techniques to confirm the new 65.6 ms X-ray pulsar discovered with *Chandra* in the 3C 58 SNR and measure its spin-down characteristics. We conducted a blind Fourier domain acceleration search on an archival 36 ks *RXTE* observation (OBSID 20259-02-01-00 with 20.6 ks on-source) and uncovered a $`6.4\sigma `$ candidate as a sum of 8 harmonics (the strongest having only $`13`$ times the local mean power — showing the need for a harmonic sum). The pulse profile from the *RXTE* observation is shown in Figure 1. By comparing the measured pulse periods from the *RXTE* and *Chandra* data we were able to measure the period derivative ($`1.93\times 10^{13}`$), spin-down $`\dot{E}`$ ($`2.7\times 10^{37}`$ ergs s-1), surface magnetic field strength ($`3.6\times 10^{12}`$ gauss), and characteristic age ($`5380`$ y), showing that it is a surprisingly “normal” young pulsar.

Figure 1 — The 2$``$20 kev *RXTE* profile of the young 65.6 ms X-ray pulsar J0205+6449 recently discovered in supernova remnant 3C 58 (see §3).