text:
# Thermal Featureless Spectrum: Evidence for Bare Strange Stars?

## 1 Introduction

To affirm or negate the existence of strange star is an exciting and meaningful approach to guiding physicists in studying the quantum chromodynamical (QCD) nature of strong interaction. With regard to those three possible ways of finding strange stars (see, e.g., Xu & Busse 2001, for a short review), a hard evidence to identify a strange star might be found by studying only the surface conditions since the other two avenues are subject to many complex nuclear and/or particle physics processes poorly known. New advanced X-ray detectors, the Chandra and the XMM, increase the possibility of discovering the surface differences between neutron star (NS) and bare strange star (BSS) since both exteriors of NS and BSS should be thermal X-ray radiators.

Many calculations, first developed by Romani (1987) and then by others (e.g., Zavlin et al. 1996), show that spectral lines form in the atmospheres of NS or crusted strange stars (CSS), which should be detectable with the spectrographs on board Chandra and XMM. However none of the sources reported recently has significant spectral features in the observations with Chandra or XMM. These sources are collected in Table 1, the spectra of which can be well fitted with blackbody models for the thermal components. An observation presented by Marshall & Schulz (2002) indicates still no significant line feature even in the pulse-phased spectra over the 0.15-0.80 keV band, which does not favor both models of atmospheres of heavy elements or pure hydrogen. Although this discrepancy could be explained for some of the sources by assuming a low-Z element (hydrogen or helium) photosphere or by adjusting the magnetic field, a simple and intuitive suggestion, which will be addressed in this Letter, for the explanation is that these “neutron stars” are actually just BSSs, especially the nearest one RX J1856.5-3754 (no NS atmosphere model available can fit its X-ray and optical data, Burwitz et al. 2001), since almost no atom appears above a bare quark surface.

Strange stars can be bare and BSSs can exist as compact stars (Xu & Qiao 1998, Xu, Zhang & Qiao 2001). Drifting subpulses of radio pulsars could be an evidence for BSSs (Xu, Qiao & Zhang 1999), which represent the strong binding of particles above pulsar surfaces. Super-Eddington emission of soft $`\gamma `$ray repeaters might be another evidence for BSSs (Zhang, Xu & Qiao 2001, Usov 2001a). If further observations with much higher signal-to-noise ratios still find no spectral feature in the thermal components of the sources listed in Table 1, the featureless thermal spectrum should be a new evidence for BSSs.

## 2 Strange stars: crusted or bare?

Current researches show that it is possible to leave a strange star after a core-collapse type supernova explosion. However, it depends on wether the strange star is bare or crusted to distinguish neutron stars and strange stars based on their sharp differences in surface conditions. Although relevant qualitative arguments are addressed separately in many published papers, it is worth summarizing concisely those discussions, with the inclusion of some quantitative estimates and modifications. A protostrange star may be bare due to strong mass ejection and high temperature (Usov 1998), whereas a BSS may still have the possibility to be covered by a crust due to the accretion of (1) supernova fallback and of (2) debris disk. It follows below that such an accretion-formed crust looks probably in no likelihood.

In case (1), as Xu et al. (2001) suggest, due to rapid rotation and strong magnetic field, most of the fallback matter may form temporarily a fossil disk, and the initial accretion onto a star is almost impossible. Recently, 3-D simulations by Igumenshchev & Narayan (2002) show that the gravitational energy of the infall magnetized plasma has to be converted to other energies, and that the initial accretion rate could be reduced significantly. Nevertheless, Xu et el. (2001) proposed another trapping of supernova ejecta by magnetic fields, rather than the Chevalier’s (1989) one by gravity. This trapped material with mass $`10^{15}M_{}`$ could fall back onto the surface to form a massive atmosphere if there exits no other force but gravity. However, the radiative pressures of strong photon and neutrino emission are not negligible because of high temperature ($`T10^{11}10^8`$ K, see §3). Only more than years latter could the photon luminosity be smaller than the Eddington one ($`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}10^{38}`$ ergs/s). A possible scenario could be as follow. The trapped ions, forced by radiation, move along the magnetic lines to an out most region of each line, where these enriched ions go across the field lines (higher density increases the kinematic energy density), and may merge eventually into debris disk.

Accretion in case (2) was supposed to power the X-ray emission of AXPs and SGRs (e.g., Marsden & White 2001) during the non-stationary “prospellar” phase, since the X-ray powers of these sources are much higher than the energy loss rates of their spindowns. These accretion energy rates $``$ could be expected $`<10^{36}`$ ergs/s (the maximum persistent X-ray luminosity of AXPs and SGRs). Can a crust be formed during such accretions? Because of strong fields, infalling matter is funneled toward the polar caps, goes like freefall until feeling the deceleration due to the radiation pressure generated by the accreted material on the caps. Without this halting, a proton could have kinematic energy of $`100`$ MeV near the surface of a BSS, and could thus penetrate the Coulomb barrier ($`20`$ MeV) and dissolves. But in a radiation field with energy density $`U`$, a hydrogen atom will actually have a back force $`f_\mathrm{r}\sigma _\mathrm{T}U`$ with $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ the Thompson cross section. For low accretion limit, such force is not negligible only when atoms are near the hot spot powered by accretion, and the height of this region is about the polar cap radius, $`r_\mathrm{p}`$. In view of only $`\epsilon `$ times of the accretion energy has been re-emitted above polar cap (see Appendix), by $`f_\mathrm{r}r_\mathrm{p}=GMm_\mathrm{p}/R`$, we obtain a critical accretion rate $`^{}`$,

$$^{}=\frac{2\pi Gcr_\mathrm{p}Mm_\mathrm{p}}{\epsilon \sigma _\mathrm{T}R}=\frac{9.1\times 10^{35}}{\epsilon }M_1R_6^1P^{1/2}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
which is $`1/\epsilon `$ times higher than the critical value presented by Basko & Syunyaev (1976). If $`<^{}`$, an atom may still have enough kinematic energy to penetrate after the deceleration. We expect that the accretion of ISM or fossil disk can also keep a strange star to be bare since $`<10^{36}`$ ergs/s $`<^{}`$. It is very likely that $`^{}>L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, since $`\epsilon `$ can be as small as $`10^4`$ (see Appendix). This means that BSSs may also survive some of the accretions with super-Eddington rates. A crust covering a strange star could be formed via accretion if $`>^{}`$, which ensures no distinction between the faced and magnetospheric radiations of SSs and NSs. But such a high accretion rate might be only possible for binary X-ray sources. Recycled millisecond pulsars could be BSSs as long as the accretion rates $`<^{}`$ during their accretion phases.

There may be another way to produce BSSs. A nascent rapid rotating magnetized NS could form with a mass reaching the Oppenheimer limit, but quickly losses its angular momentum via gravitational (driving the rotation-modes unstable) and electromagnetic (magnetic dipole) radiations. A NS central density has to be high enough for a phase conversion to a strange star111This process was supposed to be a candidate of the “center engines” of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts (e.g., astro-ph/9908262). before the NS is so slow and cool that a super-Oppenheimer mass is possible. Such a strange star should also be bare since 1, the phase transition energy $``$ the crust gravitational binding; 2, the photon emission rate $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$.

In conclusion BSSs can exist in nature. Probably some of them may act as those X-ray sources in Table 1.

## 3 Cooling and thermal emission of bare strange stars

We could expect a nascent strange star with thermal energy $`_\mathrm{i}10^{52}`$ ergs since the gravitational and the degenerate energies are in the same order, $`10^{53}`$ ergs, even if other energy sources (e.g., the rotation energy, the phase transition energy) are included. The specific heat of strange quark matter is (e.g., Usov 2001b) $`C=C_\mathrm{q}+C_\mathrm{e}`$, with $`C_\mathrm{q}=1.9\times 10^{12}\rho _{15}^{2/3}T_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)[2.51.7T/T_\mathrm{c}+3.6(T/T_\mathrm{c})^2]`$ ergs cm-3K-1, $`C_\mathrm{e}=1.3\times 10^{11}Y_\mathrm{e}^{2/3}\rho _{15}^{2/3}T`$ ergs cm-3K-1. The specific heat of unpaired electrons dominates, $`C_\mathrm{e}>C_\mathrm{q}`$, when $`T<7.45\times 10^9`$ K. The electron fraction $`Y_\mathrm{e}10^3`$. The energy gap is very uncertain, and whether the color super-conducting (CSC) occurs is therefore still a question. We choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }=50`$ MeV for next discussion, so a strange star should be in CSC state except for the very beginning of its birth. The critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ in the BCS model. By $`_\mathrm{i}=CT_\mathrm{i}4\pi R^3/3`$, one obtains the initial temperature $`T_\mathrm{i}10^{10}`$ K, which means strange is very hot soon after supernova explosion.

Effective neutrino emissivity of a newborn hot strange star rapidly expels the thermal energy, making the strange star have a much cooler temperature at which the photon emission dominates. The dividing temperature $`T_\nu `$ is a solution of

$$3\times 10^4\sigma T_\nu ^4=Rϵ_\nu (T_\nu ),$$
(2)
which is $`T_\nu 4\times 10^{10}`$ K for typical parameters, where the neutrino emissivity (e.g., Usov 2001b) $`ϵ_\nu =7.8\times 10^{28}\alpha _\mathrm{s}Y_\mathrm{e}^{1/3}\rho _{15}T^6\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1`$, and $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The factor $`10^4`$ in Eq.(2) is due to the upper limit on photon emissivity of strange quark matter at energies $`<20`$ MeV (Chmaj et al. 1991). This $`T_\nu `$ estimated is on the high side if CSC does not occur at the very beginning, nevertheless this value implies photon emission almost dominates all over a strange star’s life. This conclusion is strengthened if the Usov’s (1998) photon emission mechanism is included.

The equation governing a BSS’s cooling history is

$$\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3C\frac{\mathrm{d}T}{\mathrm{d}t}=\xi \sigma T^44\pi R^2,$$
(3)
where $`\xi 1`$ for $`T>10^9`$ K at which the Usov mechanism works, whereas $`\xi 10^4`$ for $`T<8\times 10^8`$ K (Usov 2001c). When $`T<7.45\times 10^9`$ K, assuming a constant $`\xi `$, Eq.(3) can be solved to be

$$T=T_0(1+2𝒥\xi T_0^2t)^{1/2},$$
(4)
where $`𝒥=3\sigma /(\stackrel{ˇ}{C}_\mathrm{e}R)`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}_\mathrm{e}=C_\mathrm{e}/T`$, $`t`$ is the time duration when a BSS cools from temperature $`T_0`$ to $`T`$. According to Eq.(4), a BSS cools to $`T10^6`$ K after $`10^3`$ years. However, because of the magnetospheric polar cap heating, powered by the bombardment of downward-flowing particles, a BSS should keep a minimum temperature $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$. As a rough estimate at first, equating the photon emission rate to the pulsar spindown power, $`\xi \sigma T_{\mathrm{min}}^44\pi R^26.2\times 10^{27}B_{12}^2R_6^6(2\pi /P)^4`$, one has $`T_{\mathrm{min}}=3.4\times 10^6R_6B_{12}^{1/2}P^1\mathrm{K}`$. For PSR J0437-4715 and PSR B0833-45, $`T_{\mathrm{min}}9\times 10^2R_6`$ eV and $`6\times 10^3R_6`$ eV, respectively. Considering that the photon emission power is $`\xi 10^4`$ times that of a blackbody, these temperatures, modified by a factor of $`0.1`$, are comparable with observations (Table 1).

In fact the minimum temperature is model-dependent, and it is worth to discuss $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in some pulsar emission models. Due to the high binding energy of bare quark surface, the space-charge-limited flow model (e.g., Arons & Scharlemenn 1979) can not work for BSSs. We focus thus on the polar cap heatings in the vacuum polar model (Ruderman & Sutherland 1975) and the outer gap model (Cheng, Ho & Ruderman 1986), both of which are depicted in Xu et al. (2001). The polar heating rate of RS-type gap is $`1.1\times 10^{31}\gamma _7B_{12}P^2`$ ergs/s, and the minimum temperature is thus $`T_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{RS}}3.5\times 10^6\gamma _7^{1/4}R_6^{1/2}B_{12}^{1/4}P^{1/2}\mathrm{K}`$, with $`\gamma =10^7\gamma _7`$ the typical Lorentz factor of the primary particles. If outer gaps exist, the luminosity deposited onto the surface is $`8.2\times 10^{30}B_{12}P^{5/3}`$ ergs/s, and the correspondence temperature is $`T_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CHR}}3.3\times 10^6R_6^{1/2}B_{12}^{1/4}P^{5/12}\mathrm{K}`$. We see that these three values of $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{RS}}`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CHR}}`$ are almost the same. This is not surprising because, although the total energy deposit fluxes differ, the thermal temperature is the amount flux to the power of 1/4.

As for the AXPs (or SGRs), the thermal energy with temperature $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can not account for their persistent X-ray emissivity since the observed X-ray power is many orders higher than the energy loss rate of rotarion. Nonetheless there are actually two suggestions for extra energy supplying: magnetism-powered (the so called magnetar model, e.g., Thompson & Duncan 1995) and accretion-powered (e.g., Marsden & White 2001). Both these mechanisms have been widely discussed in literatures recently. Since BSSs can also act as magnetars as long as the dynamo action in proto-strange stars is effective enough (see Xu & Busse 2001), we deem that magnetic field line reconnection on BSS surfaces can also work to produce abundant energy. As discussed in section 2 (see eq.1), accretion in AXPs and SGRs can still keep a strange star to be bare. So it is also possible that AXPs (or SGRs) are accretion powered BSSs. Therefore the energy budget problem of AXPs and SGRs are solved if those two popularly discussed mechanisms are adapted to fit BSSs.

In principle, one can study the thermal radiative properties by comparison of theoretically modelled spectra with that of observations. Unfortunately no emergent spectrum calculation of BSSs appears in literature. The total power of photon emissivity of BSSs was done by Chmaj et al. (1991). Nevertheless we could expect that the spectra could be close to blackbodies, which represents the general apparent of the X-ray spectra observed, since, e.g., for the quark bremsstrahlung radiation mechanism (Chmaj et al. 1991), quarks are nearly in thermal equilibrium by inter-collisions within a depth less than the mean free path ($`10`$ fm) of photons with energy $`<\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{p}20`$ MeV. A BSS with surface temperature $`T`$ may have a slightly harder spectrum than that of a blackbody with $`10^1T`$. New fits by BSS emergent spectra may alter significantly the physical quantities derived through the thermal radiations. For example, one powerlaw and only one thermal spectra might be enough to model precisely the observed spectrum of PSR J0437-4715 (Zavlin et al. 2002). Because of this lack of fits, the temperatures and radii listed in Table 1 may not be relevant if we want to obtain observationally the thermal properties (e.g., the temperature distribution) on a BSS surface.

This kind of research may get a real information of photons from quark matter astrophysically, whereas in terrestrial physics, direct photons and lepton pairs have been recognized to be the clearest signatures for quark-gluon plasma (e.g., Cassing & Bratkovskaya 1999). It is worth noting that the BSS thermal photon emission is in the low energy limit, which would thus complement the study of the high energy photons of relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. Future observations in various ways may confirm the existence of BSSs, and in return the observational fit of the thermal spectra from the quark surfaces could be used as a test in checking those phenomenological models for quark gluon plasma in strong magnetic fields.

It should be noted that magnetospheric power law components of BSSs are also featureless (Xu & Qiao 1998, Xu et al. 2001), but a neutron star may have magnetospheric line features because of the ions, pulled out from NS surface by the space-charge-limited-flow mechanism, in the open field line region.

## 4 Conclusion & discussion

An alternative opinion is proposed for the nature of the sources with featureless X-ray spectra observed by Chandra and XMM, which is that these X-ray emitters are simply bare strange stars (BSSs). Possible scenarios to create a BSS are studied, and we find that accretion can not prevent from forming a BSS unless the accretion rate is much higher than the Eddinton one. The cooling and the thermal radiation of a BSS are also discussed, indicating that they are not strongly conflict with observations.

There could be indications for one or two lines at about 40Å and 20Å in RX J1856.5-3754 (van Kerkwijk 2002). This is a real challenge for the BSS idea. If future longer observations with Chandra and XMM confirm the existence, the source is certainly not a BSS, but could be a crusted strange star since stringent constrains on the mass ($`M1M_{}`$) and radius ($`R6`$ km) for RX J1856.5-3754 (Ransom et al. 2001) show clearly that it can hardly be modelled by the equations of states of nuclear matter.

The age of PSR J0437-4517 is worth deliberating. A millisecond pulsar could be very hot soon after recycling phase when the polar heat is transported effectively to the other part of BSS due to a small $`\epsilon `$. However, r-mode instability may spin down a BSS to an initial period $`P_035`$ ms (e.g., Andersson & Kokkotas 2001), which can have substantial influence on the age calculation by dipolar radiation braking. However $`P_0`$ is temperature dependent, and thus relevant to the accretion history. The fastest rotating pulsar, PSR 1939+21, might have a small accretion rate but a long time during its accretion phase. The age of PSR J0437-4517 is much smaller if its $`P_05`$ ms soon after accretion, and it thus has high temperature today.

This is a critical time in obtaining the thermal spectra from pulsar-like compact stars. Besides Chandra and XMM, more X-ray missions (HETE-II in 2003, Astro-E in 2005) may finally reveal the secrets, including whether some of the sources are BSSs. We are looking forward to the discoveries over the coming years.

## Appendix: Energy re-emitted on the polar caps

The essential difference between the accretion- or rotation-powered energy deposit processes of NSs and BSSs is that part of the energy should be transported to the outsite of the polar caps for BSSs, but not for NSs (e.g., Xu et al. 2001), since the coefficient of thermal conductivity of electron in the neutron star surface $`\kappa ^{\mathrm{NS}}=3.8\times 10^{14}\rho _5^{4/3}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{K}^1`$, is much smaller than the coefficient of degenerate quark matter $`\kappa ^{\mathrm{BSS}}=\kappa _\mathrm{q}^{\mathrm{BSS}}+\kappa _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{BSS}}`$, with $`\kappa _\mathrm{q}^{\mathrm{BSS}}=1.41\times 10^{21}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^1\rho _{15}^{2/3}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{K}^1`$ for quark scattering, $`\kappa _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{BSS}}=1.55\times 10^{23}Y_\mathrm{e}\rho _{15}T_9^1\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{K}^1`$ for electron scattering (e.g., Blaschke et al. 2001), $`\rho _5`$ and $`\rho _{15}`$ being the densities in unit of $`10^5`$ and $`10^{15}`$ g cm-3, respectively, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ the coupling constant of strong interaction, $`T`$ the temperature, $`T_9=T/(10^9\mathrm{K})`$, the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }10100`$ MeV, and $`Y_\mathrm{e}10^3`$ the ratio of numbers of electrons and baryons. A dimensional argument gives out the temperature difference between polar cap and equator for BSSs,

$$\delta T/(\kappa ^{\mathrm{BSS}}R),$$
(5)
where $``$ is the rate of total energy deposit, $`R10^6`$ cm is the stellar radius. For $`10^{36}`$ ergs s-1, one has $`\delta T6.5\times 10^9T_9`$ K, which is in the same order of polar temperature.222In case of no energy dissipated (e.g., for NSs), the polar temperature $`T=2.3\times 10^6_{30}^{1/4}P^{1/4}`$, where $`_{30}=/(10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{s})`$. This temperature is an upper limit of that of BSSs.  This means substantial energy should be dissipate to outside of polar cap in BSS if $`10^{36}`$ ergs s-1. Defining $`\epsilon `$ to be the re-emission photon fraction of the total energy deposit, we have $`1>\epsilon >r_\mathrm{p}^2/(2R^2)10^4/P`$ if $`10^{36}`$ ergs s-1, where $`r_\mathrm{p}=1.45\times 10^4P^{1/2}`$ cm is the polar cap radius, $`P`$ the rotation period. Assuming one-half of the deposit energy being brought away by neutrinos rather than photons in this case, one obtains modified limits for $`\epsilon `$: $`5\times 10^5/P<\epsilon <0.5`$, where the upper limit is for $`+\mathrm{}`$ and the lower limit for $`0`$.


format: text

text:
# Generalized Qualitative Probability: Savage revisited

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In \[Savage, 1954\], Savage showed that a set of postulates concerning rational decisions in the face of uncertainty implies that the decider acts as if he/she were maximizing the expectation of some utility function. His postulates imply that a decider gives subjective probabilities, that obey the laws of the calculus of probabilities, to each event. The impact of his results have been felt very strongly and have strengthened the idea that rationality is maximization of expected utility and that subjective probabilities obey the laws of the calculus of probabilities. A number of researchers, though, have contested each of those two points: A. Wald, prior to Savage, has defended a maximin strategy irreconcilable with maximization of expected utility, and the Dempster-Shafer approach, among many others, rejects the idea that subjective probabilities are probabilities. In this paper, an approach closely following Savage’s is pursued. Some of his assumptions are weakened and an exact characterization of subjective probabilities is obtained.

Three main criticisms may be raised against three of Savage’s postulates.

* In P1, Savage \[Savage, 1954\] requires preference to be a simple order (which is a misnomer since, contrary to expectations, it does not imply it is an order relation). He recognizes that this a very strong assumption and writes “There is some temptation to explore the possibilities of analyzing preference among acts as a partial ordering, that is, in effect to replace part 1 of the definition of simple ordering by the very weak proposition $`ff`$, admitting that some pairs of acts are incomparable. This would seem to give expression to introspective sensations of indecision or vacillation, which we may be reluctant to identify with indifference. My own conjecture is that it would prove a blind alley losing much in power and advancing little, if at all, in realism; but only an enthusiastic exploration could shed real light on the question.” This work is a first step in this possibly blind alley. Further work is needed on the utility theory for generalized qualitative probability structures.

This assumption implies that, if a decider is undecided between two acts $`f`$ and $`g`$, and also undecided between $`g`$ and $`h`$, then he/she is undecided between $`f`$ and $`h`$. In many realistic situations, in which the decider has only partial information, this property cannot be expected to hold. Consider, for example, a choice between betting heads in one of three different coin tosses. Coin 1 is believed to be fair. Coins 2 and 3 are unknown, i.e., not believed to be fair, but coin 2 is known to land heads more often than coin 3. In such a situation a decider may well be undecided between coins 1 and 2 and also between coins 1 and 3, but definitely prefer coin 2 to coin 3. A criticism of the same nature may be found in \[Aumann, 1962\], although framed in the von Neumann-Morgenstern setting \[von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1947\].

There are two different reasons one may object to this completeness assumption. The first one, behind \[Aumann, 1962\], is that one may doubt that consequences may be totally pre-ordered, mainly because consequences may be multi-dimensional (e.g., time and money, human lives and money, or just a very high dimensional space) and one may be either reluctant to trade one dimension for the other or just incapable of describing a total pre-order in a very rich space. Such a concern is at the basis of a large body of work on decision in a many-criteria environment.

The second reason is that one may doubt that subjective probabilities may be exactly described (i.e., events totally pre-ordered), because of one’s uncertainty about what is unknown, or because one may be reluctant to compare subjective probabilities of events pertaining to very different realms, e.g., the probability of a Republican president being elected in 1996 (Savage’s example) and that of a coin landing “heads”. Such a concern is at the basis of a large body of work on decision in uncertain environments.

The results of this paper do not depend on the source of incompleteness. It has been elaborated with the second point of view in mind, though.
* Savage’s treatment of null events is disputable since it does not allow for events that are null relatively to other null events. As any treatment based on probabilities, or reducible to them, it allows conditioning on an event $`H`$ only if the probability of $`H`$ is positive. This point is made in \[Blume et al., 1991\] where non-archimedean probability structures are proposed, in the framework of a total pre-order. There, reference is made to \[Blackwell and Dubins, 1975\] and de Finetti \[de Finetti, 1972\] is quoted as saying: “there seems to be no justification $`\mathrm{}`$ for introducing the restriction $`P(H)0`$”.
* It follows from Savage’s postulate P4 that if a consequence $`c`$ is strictly preferred to a consequence $`d`$, and if the act of winning $`c`$ in case of an event $`A`$ and winning $`d`$ otherwise is strictly preferred to winning $`c`$ in case of an event $`B`$ and winning $`d`$ otherwise, then the act of winning $`c^{}`$ in case of $`A`$ and winning $`d^{}`$ otherwise is strictly preferred to winning $`c^{}`$ in case of $`B`$ and winning $`d^{}`$ otherwise, for any consequences $`c^{}`$, $`d^{}`$ such that $`c^{}`$ is stricly preferred to $`d^{}`$. This seems too strong. One may, rationally, strictly prefer winning $1M on $`A`$ and winning $0 otherwise to winning $1M on $`B`$ and winning $0 otherwise, be undecided between winning 1c on $`A`$ and $0 otherwise or winning 1c on $`B`$ and $0 otherwise, and still prefer a sure win of 1c to nothing. The treatment of subjective probabilities in \[Anscombe and Aumann, 1963\], similarly, includes no anologue to P4. Note Savage’s pessimistic outlook in \[Savage, 1954, p. 30, Section 2\]: “Though I have not explored the latter possibility carefully, I suspect that any attempt to do so formally leads to fruitless and endless regression”.

This work presents postulates, in the style of Savage, that are weak enough to answer all three criticisms above. Nevertheless, those postulates enable a full characterization of the structure of subjective probabilities.

## 2 DECISION IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

Notations follow those of \[Savage, 1954\]. $`S`$ is a non-empty set of states. Subsets of $`S`$ are noted $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and called events. We follow Savage in assuming that every subset of $`S`$ is an event, i.e., measurable. The treatment of the general case, in which the measurable subsets of $`S`$ form only a sub-algebra of the power set of $`S`$ poses no serious problems. $`F`$ is a set of consequences, denoted $`c`$, $`d`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. Acts are arbitrary functions from $`S`$ to $`F`$, denoted by $`f`$, $`g`$, $`h`$, $`\mathrm{}`$.

A basic problem with Savage’s treatment is the elimination of the event of reference, i.e., the event on which the decider conditions, from the formalization. The preference relation shall here be indexed by an arbitrary event. For every event $`A`$: $`f_Ag`$ means that, given $`A`$, either $`g`$ is strictly preferred to $`f`$ or one is indifferent between $`f`$ and $`g`$. The reason for this richer formalism is not a rejection of the Sure Thing Principle, which is accepted and derived, but the rejection of Savage’s idea that comparing two acts that agree on $`\overline{A}`$ is enough to compare them given $`A`$. If $`A`$ is negligible with respect to $`\overline{A}`$, acts may be equivalent (on the whole set $`S`$) but not given $`A`$.

Notice also that the intuitive meaning of $``$ is preference or indifference, as in \[Aumann, 1962\], and not non-preference as in \[Savage, 1954\]. In this way, any two acts may stand in four possible situations:

* $`f_Ag`$ and $`g_Af`$, i.e., $`g`$ is strictly prefered to $`f`$, given $`A`$, which will be denoted $`f<_Ag`$,
* $`g_Af`$ and $`f_Ag`$, i.e., $`f`$ is strictly prefered to $`g`$, given $`A`$, which will be denoted $`g<_Af`$,
* $`f_Ag`$ and $`g_Af`$, i.e., $`f`$ and $`g`$ are indifferent, given $`A`$, which will be denoted $`f_Ag`$, or
* $`f_Ag`$ and $`g_Af`$, i.e., one is undecided between $`f`$ and $`g`$, given $`A`$.

We propose, in this work, two weakenings of Savage’s postulates: a partial pre-order in place of a total pre-order, and the consideration of events that are negligible with respect to other events (that may be negligible with respect to a third class of events). Those two weakenings are essentially orthogonal, and one may study either one of them in isolation. The postulates proposed will be presented and discussed now. The first two postulates require the preference relation, on any event $`A`$, to be a pre-order.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟎})f_Af.$$

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟏})f_Ag,g_Ahf_Ah.$$

Notice that the relation $`_A`$ does not satisfy the first property of the definition of a simple ordering on p.18 of \[Savage, 1954\], i.e., either $`f_Ag`$ or $`g_Af`$, but satisfies the second property, i.e., transitivity. Postulates (Q0) and (Q1) are therefore strictly weaker than Savage’s (P1). It clearly follows from (Q0) and (Q1) that, on any event $`A`$, $`<_A`$ is irreflexive and transitive, i.e., a strict partial order, and that $`_A`$ is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, i.e., an equivalence relation. Notice that the event $`A`$ may be empty: $`f`$ is not strictly preferred to $`f`$, even if the empty event obtains, but one is indifferent between $`f`$ and itself even if the empty event obtains. It also follows from (Q0) and (Q1) that indifferent acts behave in exactly the same way concerning the preference relation, i.e., if $`f_Ag`$ then

$$f_Ag,h<_Af,f<_Akh<_Ag,g<_Ak.$$

So far, all postulates considered one fixed event $`A`$. The next postulates deal with the influence of the event $`A`$ in the relation $`<_A`$. First, preferences on $`A`$ should not depend on the values of the acts $`f`$ and $`g`$ outside $`A`$.

###### Definition 1

Acts $`f`$, $`g`$ are said to be equivalent on event $`A`$ iff for every $`sA`$, $`f(s)=g(s)`$. This will be denoted by $`f=_Ag`$.

Our postulate says only that, given $`A`$, one should be indifferent between acts that are equivalent on $`A`$.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟐})f=_Agf_Ag.$$

Notice that (Q2) implies (Q0). A consequence of (Q2) is that equivalent acts are indeed equivalent with respect to the preference relation.

###### Lemma 1

If $`f=_Af^{}`$ and $`g=_Ag^{}`$, then $`f_Ag`$ implies $`f^{}_Ag^{}`$.

Another consequence is that the preference order on the empty event is trivial.

###### Lemma 2

$`h,h^{}`$, $`h_{\mathrm{}}h^{}`$ and therefore $`h_{\mathrm{}}h^{}`$.

Events different from the empty event may yield a trivial relation: such events will be called null events.

###### Definition 2

An event $`A`$ is null iff, $`h,h^{}`$, $`h_Ah^{}`$.

Definition 2 is similar in spirit with Savage’s definition of null events, but technically different, since the formalism used here is richer and we may conditionalize explicitly on the event $`A`$. The next two postulates consider two disjoint events $`A`$ and $`B`$ (this assumption is essential), and two acts $`f`$ and $`g`$ that are indifferent given $`B`$. Postulate (Q3) assumes information on the preferences on $`A`$ to deduce information concerning the preferences on $`AB`$. Postulate (Q4) assumes information on $`AB`$ and deduces information on $`A`$.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟑})AB=\mathrm{},f_Ag,f_Bgf_{AB}g$$

If one is indifferent between $`f`$ and $`g`$ given $`B`$ and either indifferent or prefers $`g`$ given $`A`$, one should be indifferent between them given $`AB`$ or prefer $`g`$, one could not reasonably prefer $`f`$ or even be undecided. The condition $`AB=\mathrm{}`$ is essential. If it were not satisfied, it could be the case that one prefers $`g`$ to $`f`$ on the intersection of $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`f`$ being preferred to $`g`$ on the symmetric difference. In such a case, it may well be the case that $`f`$ is overall preferred to $`g`$ on the union, but $`g`$ is preferred to $`f`$ on both $`A`$ and $`B`$.

###### Corollary 1

If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`f_Ag`$ and $`f_Bg`$, then $`f_{AB}g`$.

Some notation will be helpful for our next postulate. We shall say that $`A`$ is negligible compared to $`B`$ if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are disjoint and the relations of indifference and preference on the union $`AB`$ are exactly as on $`B`$.

###### Definition 3

Assume $`AB=\mathrm{}`$. We shall say that $`A`$ is negligible compared to $`B`$ and write $`A𝒩B`$ if $`h,h^{}`$, $`h_{AB}h^{}`$ $``$ $`h_Bh^{}`$.

Notice that $`A𝒩B`$ implies that $`h,h^{}`$, $`h_{AB}h^{}`$ iff $`h_Bh^{}`$ and $`h<_{AB}h^{}`$ iff $`h<_Bh^{}`$. We may now express our next postulate. Suppose $`A`$ and $`B`$ are disjoint. Suppose also that, on the union $`AB`$, $`g`$ and $`f`$ are indifferent or $`g`$ is preferred, and that, on $`B`$, $`g`$ and $`f`$ are indifferent. Then two cases may arise: either $`f_Ag`$, explaining, in accordance with (Q3) that $`f_{AB}g`$, or $`A`$ is negligible with respect to $`B`$.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟒})AB=\mathrm{},f_{AB}g,f_Bg$$

$$\mathrm{either}f_Ag\mathrm{or}A𝒩B.$$

###### Corollary 2

If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`f_{AB}g`$ and $`f_Bg`$, then either $`f_Ag`$ or $`A𝒩B`$.

Our next corollary says that if $`g`$ is strictly preferred to $`f`$ on $`A`$, but $`f`$ and $`g`$ are indifferent on $`B`$, then two cases may occur: either $`A`$ is not negligible w.r.t. $`B`$ and $`g`$ is strictly preferred to $`f`$ on the union $`AB`$, or, $`A`$ is negligible w.r.t. $`B`$, and therefore $`f`$ and $`g`$ are indifferent on $`AB`$.

###### Corollary 3

If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`f<_Ag`$ and $`f_Bg`$, then either $`f<_{AB}g`$ or $`A𝒩B`$. Notice that, in the second case, $`f_{AB}g`$.

If $`g`$ is strictly preferred to $`f`$ on the union, but $`f`$ and $`g`$ are indifferent on $`B`$, $`g`$ must be preferred to $`f`$ on $`A`$.

###### Corollary 4

If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`f<_{AB}g`$ and $`f_Bg`$, then $`f<_Ag`$.

###### Lemma 3

Assume $`AB=\mathrm{}`$. If $`f_Ag`$ and $`f_Bg`$, then $`f_{AB}g`$.

Proof: Let

$$h(s)=\{\begin{array}{c}g(s)\mathrm{if}sA\hfill \\ f(s)\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
We have, by (Q2), $`h_Ag`$ and $`h_Bf`$. Therefore $`f_Ah`$ and $`f_Bh`$. By (Q3), then $`f_{AB}h`$. Similarly, $`h_Ag`$ and $`h_Bg`$ and, therefore, $`h_{AB}g`$. By (Q1), then, $`f_{AB}g`$.

One may now prove a result similar to Lemma 3 for strict preferences.

###### Lemma 4

Assume $`AB=\mathrm{}`$. If $`f<_Ag`$ and $`f<_Bg`$, then $`f<_{AB}g`$.

A property stronger than postulate (Q4) may be considered by not allowing the second possibility in the conclusion:

$$(𝐐^{}\mathrm{𝟒})AB=\mathrm{},f_{AB}g,f_Bgf_Ag.$$

This property is consistent with the postulates since it is satisfied by models in which acts are compared by their expectations. We shall now show that the postulates above imply Savage’s Sure Thing Principle (Postulate P2).

###### Lemma 5

Let $`AB=\mathrm{}`$. If $`f=_Af^{}`$, $`g=_Ag^{}`$, $`f=_Bg`$ and $`f^{}=_Bg^{}`$, then $`f_{AB}g`$ implies $`f^{}_{AB}g^{}`$.

Proof: By (Q2), we have $`f_Af^{}`$, $`g_Ag^{}`$, $`f_Bg`$ and $`f^{}_Bg^{}`$. If $`A𝒩B`$, then $`f^{}_Bg^{}`$ implies $`f^{}_{AB}g^{}`$. We may, therefore, without loss of generality, assume that $`A`$ is not negligible with respect to $`B`$. Since $`f_{AB}g`$ and $`f_Bg`$, (Q4) then implies, since $`A`$ is not negligible with respect to $`B`$, that $`f_Ag`$. Therefore $`f^{}_Ag^{}`$ and, by (Q3), $`f^{}_{AB}g^{}`$.

The next two postulates deal with the constant acts, i.e., with the preference ordering on consequences.

###### Definition 4

An act $`f`$ is constant iff for any $`s,tS`$, $`f(s)=f(t)`$.

A constant act $`f`$ may be identified with the consequence $`f(s)`$ for $`sS`$. Preferences on constant acts are independent of the event considered.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟓})\mathrm{If}c,d\mathrm{are}\mathrm{constants}\mathrm{and}A\mathrm{is}\mathrm{not}\mathrm{null},$$

$$\mathrm{and}c_Ad,\mathrm{then}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{event}B,c_Bd.$$

Postulate (Q5) is a slight strengthening of Savage’s (P3), since, in the latter, the condition on $`A`$ is that $`A`$ be not null, whereas (Q5) uses the stronger condition $`A`$ non-empty. This strengthening is not significant for two reasons:

* we could use a weaker version of (Q5), introducing the notion of a null event as in Savage, and
* null events may be treated as events of positive probability infinitesimally close to zero.

From here on, preference between constants will be denoted $``$ without subscript. The restriction that $`A`$ be non-null is clearly crucial since, otherwise, for any $`h`$, $`h^{}`$, $`h_Ah^{}`$.

Our last postulate ensures non-triviality: there are two constants, i.e., consequences, one of them preferred to the other.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟔})\mathrm{There}\mathrm{are}\mathrm{constants}c,d\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}d<c.$$

Notice that we do not assume the set $`F`$ of consequences is totally or even modularly ordered (i.e., $`d<c`$ implies that, for any $`e`$, either $`d<e`$ or $`e<c`$). Notice also that we have no postulate similar to Savage’s (P4). The next section will show that any system of preferences and indifferences that satisfies (Q1)–(Q6) yields a binary relation on events that enables us to compare the (generalized) probability of events. This relation enjoys extremely interesting properties.

## 3 GENERALIZED QUALITATIVE PROBABILITY

Postulates (Q5) and (Q6) deal with constant acts, i.e., acts that take only one single value. Of special importance are also acts that take only two different values. Suppose $`c`$ and $`d`$ are different consequences and that $`f`$ is an act that takes only values $`c`$ and $`d`$, i.e., on some event $`A`$, $`f`$ takes value $`c`$ and on the complement of $`A`$, $`\overline{A}`$, it takes value $`d`$. Let us devise the following notation:

$$w_A^{c,d}(s)=\{\begin{array}{c}c\mathrm{if}sA\hfill \\ d\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Assuming $`d<c`$, $`w_A^{c,d}`$ “wins” on $`A`$, i.e., gets on $`A`$ the high pay-off $`c`$ and “loses”, i.e., gets the low pay-off $`d`$ on $`\overline{A}`$. The following may be shown.

###### Lemma 6

If $`ABD`$, $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$ implies $`w_A^{c,d}_Dw_B^{c,d}`$.

The meaning of $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$ is: winning on $`B`$ is preferred to or indifferent with winning on $`A`$. Could it be that preferences depend on the prizes $`c`$ and $`d`$? In many circumstances, probably not, and Savage has a postulate, (P4), on p. 31 to that effect. In the present framework, we may easily formalize this by: if $`d<c`$ and $`d^{}<c^{}`$, then

$$(𝐑)w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}w_A^{c^{},d^{}}_{AB}w_B^{c^{},d^{}}$$

A restricted version, in which $`A`$ and $`B`$ are assumed to be disjoint, is equivalent. A difference between (R) and (P4) should be noted: (R) is relativized to $`AB`$, as is our constant policy.

We shall, after some discussion, reject this postulate, but let us see, first, the argument in its favor. If one prefers to win on $`B`$ than to win on $`A`$, this should not depend on the prizes offered: if two horses are at equal odds and one prefers to wage $1,000 on one of them, “archie” than on the other one , “belle”, then one must also prefer to wage $1 on “archie” than on “belle”. The reason is clearly that one must think that the chances of “archie” winning are better than those of “belle” winning, and this enough to convince us to strictly prefer waging even a small sum on “archie” than on “belle”, at least if the small sum is big enough to be strictly preferred to $0.

Now, the argument against (R). Suppose $`A`$ is an event, e.g., the result of a lottery, for the probability of which one has a precise and reliable estimation. Suppose, on the contrary, one has only a very fuzzy estimation of the probability of $`B`$. A rational decider may well, if the sum involved is small, prefer to bet on $`B`$ than on $`A`$, but prefer to bet on $`A`$ if the sum involved is large. Similarly, the choice of $`A`$ or $`B`$ may depend on whether a gain or a loss is expected.

As explained above, we do not accept (R). Given a system of preferences and indifferences, one may naturally define a relation on events.

###### Definition 5

We shall say that $`A`$ is not more plausible than $`B`$, and write $`AB`$ iff $`c,d`$, such that $`d<c`$, one has $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$. The relation $``$ on events will be said to be defined by the preference structure $`_{}`$ on acts.

The meaning of Definition 5 is he following: if one prefers betting on $`B`$ than on $`A`$, whatever the prize is, it must be because one considers $`B`$ as more probable than $`A`$.

Let us now consider the consequences of Definition 5. First, one prefers losing on a less probable event than on a more probable event.

###### Lemma 7

If $`AB`$, then $`cd`$ $``$ $`w_B^{c,d}_{AB}w_A^{c,d}`$.

Proof: For $`dc`$, by (Q5) and (Q2), $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$ and $`w_A^{c,d}_{BA}w_B^{c,d}`$. Since $`w_A^{c,d}=_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$, by (Q2) and Corollary 1, we see that $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$. For $`c<d`$, by Definition 5, $`w_A^{d,c}_{AB}w_B^{d,c}`$. Let $`f=w_A^{d,c}`$, $`g=w_B^{d,c}`$, $`f^{}=w_B^{c,d}`$ and $`g^{}=w_A^{c,d}`$. Let also $`D=(AB)(BA)`$ and $`E=AB`$. We have: $`DE=\mathrm{}`$, $`f=_Df^{}`$, $`g=_Dg^{}`$, $`f=_Eg`$ and $`f^{}=_Eg^{}`$. Lemma 5 (The Sure Thing Principle) says that $`f_{DE}g`$ implies $`f^{}_{DE}g^{}`$.

Before embarking on a study of the properties of the relations $``$ on events, one would like to be convinced that the postulates (Q1)–(Q6) are consistent and consider some models for them. Let $`F`$ be the unit interval and assume $`S`$ is a probability space, in which every event is measurable. Let any event of probability zero be null, and for $`A`$ of positive probability, define $`f_Ag`$ iff the expected value of $`f`$ conditioned on $`A`$ is less or equal to that of $`g`$ conditioned on the same event. It is easy to see that all postulates are satisfied, and it is worth noticing that the stronger property (Q’4) is also satisfied. The restriction that the empty event be the only event of probability zero is needed because (Q5) is a slight strengthening of Savage’s (P3). Another, perhaps more interesting and more widely applicable, model of the postulates is obtained if one considers a non-standard probability measure on $`S`$ in which every event is measurable and the empty event is the only event of probability zero. Notice that we may have non-empty events of infinitesimally small probability. Notice also that we take $`F`$ to be the standard unit interval and do not allow infinitesimally small consequences. For $`A`$ of positive probability, define $`f<_Ag`$ iff the expected value of $`f`$ conditioned on $`A`$ is less than that of $`g`$ conditioned on the same event, and the difference is not infinitesimal. If $`A`$ has zero probability, it is a null event. A third way of generating preferences is the following. Assume $`S`$ is totally ordered in a way every event has a maximum. Intuitively $`s<t`$ means that state $`t`$ is more plausible than $`s`$ to such an extent that, given an event that contains both, one should not be influenced by the consequences on $`s`$. Given an event $`A`$, let $`s_A`$ be the maximal element of $`A`$. Given two acts $`f`$ and $`g`$ and an event $`A`$, we shall compare $`f`$ and $`g`$ on $`A`$ by the values they take on $`s_A`$: $`f_Ag`$ iff $`f(s_A)g(s_A)`$.

We are now going to prove properties of the relation $``$ on events. They parallel the definition of qualitative probability given by Savage in \[Savage, 1954, page 32\] and will be used as the definition of generalized qualitative probabilities given in Definition 6. Our first lemma states that $``$ is a pre-order.

###### Lemma 8

The relation $``$ on events is reflexive and transitive.

As usual we shall write

* $`AB`$ for $`AB`$ and $`BA`$, and
* $`A<B`$ for $`AB`$ and $`BA`$.

The relation $``$ is an equivalence relation and $`<`$ is a strict partial order. Lemma 8 generalizes part 1 of the definition of qualitative probability in \[Savage, 1954, p. 32\]: $``$ is a simple ordering. We now prove results that parallel part 2 there: $`BC`$ iff $`BDCD`$, provided $`BD=CD=\mathrm{}`$. D. Dubois remarked, some time ago, that the two directions implied by the “if and only if” there were not at all equally obvious, or desirable. The “only if” part seems inescapable, and we prove now it holds for generalized qualitative probability.

###### Lemma 9

Let $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$. If $`AB`$, then $`ADBD`$.

The “if” part does not hold in our framework. A weaker property will be presented in Lemma 12 but, first, the exact counterpart of the first part of part 3 of the definition of qualitative probability. We now prove properties that parallel property 3 there.

###### Lemma 10

For any event $`A`$, $`\mathrm{}A`$.

###### Corollary 5

If $`AB`$, then $`AB`$.

The following will be helpful.

###### Lemma 11

If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, then $`A𝒩B`$ iff $`(BA)B`$.

Proof: Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be disjoint. Suppose, first, that $`A𝒩B`$. Assume $`d<c`$. We must show that $`w_{BA}^{c,d}_{BA}w_B^{c,d}`$. But this follows from $`w_{BA}^{c,d}=_Bw_B^{c,d}`$.

Assume, now, that $`(BA)B`$. By (Q6) there are constants, $`c`$ and $`d`$, such that $`d<c`$. We have $`w_{BA}^{c,d}_{BA}w_B^{c,d}`$. But $`w_{BA}^{c,d}=_Bw_B^{c,d}`$, and (Q2) and (Q4) imply that either $`w_{BA}^{c,d}_Aw_B^{c,d}`$, or $`A𝒩B`$. In the second case, we are through. In the first case, $`c_Ad`$, and, by (Q5), $`A`$ is null, and therefore $`A𝒩B`$.

We may now present the lemma announced above.

###### Lemma 12

Let $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$. If $`ADBD`$ and $`(DB)D`$, then $`AB`$.

Our last lemma is more original: it is a strengthening of the property $`\mathrm{}<S`$ of the definition of subjective probability. It expresses the fact that a sum must be greater than at least one of its parts.

###### Lemma 13

If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are disjoint events, $`AB`$ and $`ABA`$, then, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are null events.

Proof: Let $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`AB`$ and $`ABA`$. Let $`d<c`$, as guaranteed by (Q6). We know that $`w_{AB}^{c,d}_{AB}w_A^{c,d}`$, and $`w_{AB}^{c,d}_Aw_A^{c,d}`$. By (Q4), either $`w_{AB}^{c,d}_Bw_A^{c,d}`$, i.e., $`c_Bd`$, implying $`B`$ is a null event, or $`B𝒩A`$. In both cases, then, $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$ implies $`AB`$ is a null event. A subset of a null event is a null event.

The following corollary says that a non-null event, and in particular $`S`$, is strictly larger than the empty set.

###### Corollary 6

An event $`A`$ is null iff $`A\mathrm{}`$.

We may now encapsulate the properties above in a definition. It strictly generalizes the definition of qualitative probability\[Savage, 1954, p. 32\].

###### Definition 6

A reflexive and transitive relation $``$ on the subsets of $`S`$ is a generalized qualitative probability iff:

1. $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$, $`AB`$ $``$ $`ADBD`$,
2. $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$, $`ADBD`$, $`DBD`$ $``$ $`AB`$,
3. if $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`AB`$ and $`ABA`$, then $`B\mathrm{}`$,
4. for any event $`A`$, $`\mathrm{}A`$.

Notice that we do not ask that $`AB`$ imply $`\overline{B}\overline{A}`$. This property does not follow from our requirements. We have shown that, given any preference structure satisfying (Q1)–(Q6), the relation described in Definition 5 is a generalized qualitative probability (g.q.p.).

## 4 PROPERTIES OF GENERALIZED QUALITATIVE PROBABILITY

Let us now consider properties of generalized qualitative probabilities. Most of the properties we shall prove are needed in the proof of Theorem 1, others are of independent interest. For lack of space, proofs will not be given.

###### Lemma 14

* An event $`A`$ is null iff $`\mathrm{}A`$.
* In a g.q.p., $`AB`$ implies $`AB`$.
* $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$, $`AD<BD`$ $``$ $`A<B`$.
* $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$, $`A<B`$, $`D<BD`$ $``$ $`AD<BD`$.
* If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`A^{}A`$ and $`B^{}B`$, then $`A^{}B^{}AB`$.
* If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}<AB`$, then either $`A<AB`$ or $`B<AB`$.

A fundamental notion is needed to study further the properties of g.q.p.

###### Definition 7

We shall say that $`A`$ is negligible with respect to $`B`$, and write $`AB`$ iff $`B\mathrm{}`$ and $`ABBA`$.

The intuition is that $`A`$ is negligible w.r.t. $`B`$ iff both $`AB`$ and $`AB`$ are negligible w.r.t. $`B`$, i.e., $`BB(AB)`$ and $`BB(AB)`$. The properties of the relation $``$ are many and delicate to prove. Again no proofs will be given. The main result we need about $``$ (all needed properties will easily follow) is that $``$ is modular, i.e., if $`AC`$, then, for any $`B`$, either $`AB`$, or $`BC`$. The term modular is taken from Grätzer \[Grätzer, 1971\]).

###### Lemma 15

* If $`ABC`$, then $`AC`$.
* If $`ABC`$, then $`AC`$.
* If $`AB`$, then $`A<B`$.
* Assume $`BC`$. If $`AC`$, then either $`AB`$ or $`BC`$.
* Assume $`BC=\mathrm{}`$. If $`AC`$, then either $`AB`$ or $`BC`$.
* If $`AC`$, then, for any $`B`$, either $`AB`$ or $`BC`$.
* If $`ABCD`$, then $`AD`$.
* If $`AB`$ and $`A^{}B`$, then $`AA^{}B`$.
* If $`ABB^{}`$, then either $`AB`$ or $`AB^{}`$.
* If $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$ and $`ADBD`$, then either $`AB`$ or $`ABD`$.
* If $`AD=BD=\mathrm{}`$ and $`ADBD`$, then either $`AB`$ or $`(AB)D`$.
* If $`AD=\mathrm{}`$ and $`ADBD`$, then either $`AB`$ or $`(AB)D`$.
* If $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, $`ABA^{}B^{}`$ and $`B^{}B`$, then either $`AA^{}`$ or $`(AA^{})B^{}`$.

It may now been shown that there is no additional property that should be added to the definition of g.q.p.

###### Theorem 1

If $``$ is a generalized qualitative probability, there is a preference structure satisfying (Q1)–(Q6) that defines it, in the sense of Definition 5.

Proof: Lef $`F=\{high,low\}`$. Since acts can take only two values, every act is of the form $`w_A^{high,low}`$ for some event $`A`$ ($`A`$ is the set of states on which the act takes the value high). We shall drop the upper index and write $`w_A`$. Let us define:

$$w_A_Dw_B\mathrm{iff}(DA)D\mathrm{or}ADBD.$$

Notice immediately that $`w_A_{AB}w_B`$ iff $`AB`$ or $`AB`$, which holds iff $`AB`$. Therefore $``$ is the relation defined by the preferences on acts that have been just defined and the only task left to us is to check that postulates (Q1)–(Q6) are satisfied. In fact property (R) is also satisfied. The proof will appear in the full paper.

## 5 FURTHER RESULTS

### 5.1 FAMILIES OF GENERALIZED QUALITATIVE PROBABILITIES

A number of interesting families of generalized qualitative probabilities may be defined.

###### Definition 8

* A g.q.p. is total iff for any events $`A`$, $`B`$, either $`AB`$ or $`BA`$.
* A g.q.p. is standard iff $`AB=\mathrm{}`$ and $`A\mathrm{}`$ imply $`B<AB`$.
* A g.q.p. is purely non-standard iff $`A<B`$ implies $`BAAB`$.

The g.q.p. generated by classical probabilistic models, as described just before Lemma 8, are both total and standard. Standard structures are generated by preference stuctures that satisfy a strengthening of (Q4), excluding the second possibility in the conclusion. A g.q.p. is standard iff it satisfies the condition: $`AB`$ implies $`\overline{B}\overline{A}`$. The g.q.p. generated by the non-standard probabilistic models there are total but not always standard. The g.q.p. generated by total orderings on $`S`$ as described there are total and purely non-standard. Any purely non-standard g.q.p. is total.

Conjecture: any generalized qualitative plausibility structure is the intersection of all the total g.q.p. that extend it. This conjecture stands, even though such structures are not closed under intersection.

Open problems include the search for a uniform way of generating all generalized qualitative probabilities and the consideration of utility theory on these structures. The framework presented here should allow for a decider to specify only a list of pairs of acts that enter the relations $`<_A`$, for different $`A`$’s and this should define a system of preferences satisfying our postulates. How should this system be defined?

### 5.2 EQUIVALENCE OF ACTS THAT TAKE THE SAME VALUES ON EQUIVALENT EVENTS

Let us return to the analogue of Theorem 5.2.1 of Savage \[Savage, 1954\]: two acts that take the same values on events that are pairwise equivalent necessarily equivalent. Suppose, on some event $`A`$, acts $`f`$ and $`g`$ take only a finite set of values $`c_i,i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. Define, for any such $`i`$, $`F_i`$ (resp. $`G_i`$) to be the event on which act $`f`$ (resp. $`g`$) gets value $`c_i`$. Formally, $`F_i\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{sAf(s)=c_i\}`$ and $`G_i\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{sAg(s)=c_i\}`$. Suppose, moreover that, for every $`i`$, $`F_iG_i`$. We expect this to imply that $`f_Ag`$. I could not prove that this is implied by (Q1)–(Q6) and I conjecture it is not, but I still lack a counter-example.

But an additional, very natural, postulate implies this conclusion. This additional postulate will be presented now. Notice that it is a natural postulate on preferences that is completely original, in the sense that it does not resemble any of Savage’s postulates. Savage’s Theorem 5.2.1 requires his Postulate P6, that assumes the existence of fine partitions. No requirement of the sort will be needed here.

$$(\mathrm{𝐐𝟕})\mathrm{If}AB=\mathrm{},ABD,w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d},$$

$$f=_Ad,g=_Bd,f^{}=_Ac,g^{}=_Bc,$$

$$f^{}=_{DA}f,g^{}=_{DB}g$$

$$\mathrm{and}f_Dg\mathrm{then}f^{}_Dg^{}.$$

The meaning of (Q7) is the following. One concludes $`f^{}_Dg^{}`$ because $`f_Dg`$ and $`f^{}`$ is very similar to $`f`$ and $`g^{}`$ is very similar to $`g`$: $`f^{}=_{DA}f`$ and $`g^{}=_{DB}g`$. The difference between $`f^{}`$ and $`f`$ (and $`g^{}`$ and $`g`$) lies in the fact that, where $`f`$ has value $`d`$ on $`A`$, $`f^{}`$ has value $`c`$ there (and where $`g`$ has value $`d`$ on $`A`$, $`g^{}`$ has value $`c`$ there). To simplify things, suppose $`d<c`$. Then $`f^{}`$ is better than $`f`$ and $`g^{}`$ is better than $`g`$ and the difference lies in the difference between $`c`$ and $`d`$ and the respective sizes of $`A`$ and $`B`$. The assumption that $`w_A^{c,d}_{AB}w_B^{c,d}`$ implies, given that $`d<c`$, that $`B`$ is at least as probable as $`A`$ (at least as far as $`d`$ and $`c`$ are concerned, since we have no postulate implying this does not depend on the prizes $`d`$ and $`c`$). In this case, improving $`g`$ on $`B`$ (by going fromn $`d`$ to $`c`$) is at least as significant as improving $`f`$ on $`A`$ in the same way, and, therefore, $`f^{}`$ cannot be preferred to $`g^{}`$.

In (Q7), we assumed that $`A`$ and $`B`$ were disjoint. One easily sees that this assumption may be dropped: consider $`A^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}AB`$ and $`B^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}BA`$ and then use the Sure Thing Principle, Lemma 5.

With the help of (Q7), we can prove the following analogue to Savage’s Theorem 5.2.1.

###### Theorem 2

Assume preferences on acts satisfy (Q1)–(Q7). Let $`Z`$ be a finite subset of the set $`F`$ of consequences, $`f`$ and $`g`$ acts, and let $`A`$ be an event. Assume that, for any $`sA`$, both $`f(s)`$ and $`g(s)`$ are elements of $`Z`$. For any $`zZ`$, let $`\varphi _z\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{sAf(s)=z\}`$ and $`\psi _z\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{sAg(s)=z\}`$. Assume that, for any $`zZ`$, $`\varphi _z\psi _z`$. Then, $`f_Ag`$.

Proof: By induction on the size of $`Z`$. If $`Z`$ is empty, then $`A`$ is empty and the claim holds by (Q2). If $`Z`$ has one element, then $`f=_Ag`$ and the claim holds by (Q2). Let us assume that $`Z`$ has $`n+1`$ elements for $`n1`$ and that the claim holds for $`Z`$ of size $`n`$.

Let $`z_i`$, $`i=0,1`$ be distinct elements of $`Z`$. Define $`f^{}`$ to be equal to $`f`$, except on $`\varphi _{z_0}`$ where it is equal to $`z_1`$. Define $`g^{}`$ to be equal to $`g`$, except on $`\psi _{z_0}`$ where it is equal to $`z_1`$. On $`A`$, $`f^{}`$ and $`g^{}`$ take only $`n`$ different values. Since $`\varphi _{z_i}\psi _{z_i}`$, for $`i=0,1`$, by Lemma 14, we have $`\varphi _{z_0}\varphi _{z_1}\psi _{z_0}\psi _{z_1}`$ and the assumptions of Theorem 2 hold and, by the induction hypothesis, $`f^{}_Ag^{}`$. The conclusion that $`f_Ag`$ now follows from (Q7) (we noticed above the restriction that the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ of (Q7) be disjoint could be removed), since $`\varphi _{z_0}\psi _{z_0}`$ imply

$$w_{\varphi _{z_0}}^{z_0,z_1}_{\varphi _{z_0}\psi _{z_0}}w_{\psi _{z_0}}^{z_0,z_1}.$$

The results above may contain an avenue to strengthen Savage’s results by weakening his (P6). It may be possible to replace, in the proof of Savage’s Theorem 5.3.4, his postulate (P6) by the weaker (Q7) and some assumption, similar to Scott’s \[Scott, 1964\], implying that subjective probabilities are defined by probability measures.

#### Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to R. Aumann, D. Dubois, H. Prade and D. Schmeidler for their remarks and comments. This work was partially supported by the Jean and Helene Alfassa fund for research in Artificial Intelligence and by grant 136/94-1 of the Israel Science Foundation on “New Perspectives on Nonmonotonic Reasoning”.


text:
# Cyclotron Emission and Thermalization of the CMB Spectrum

\[

## Abstract

If there was a weak magnetic field in the early universe, cyclotron emission could play an important role in the thermalization of the CMB. We study this process in the tightly coupled primordial electron-photon plasma and find that if the magnetic field is large enough so that the plasma effects allow emission of cyclotron photons, this process will wipe out deviations from the black body spectrum.

PACS numbers: 98.70.Vc, 98.80.Cq, 11.27.+d

\]

The observed spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is beautifully fit by a black body spectrum. The FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite measured this spectrum and found that deviations from a Planck spectrum are less than a few hundredth of a percent. In particular, the chemical potential potential is less than $`9\times 10^5`$ . This puts strong constraints on any non-thermal photon production mechanism, for example, the decay ,, or annihilation  of relic particles after $`z10^7`$. After $`z10^7`$, the previously studied thermalization processes, i.e. bremsstrahlung and double Compton, can no longer significantly change the number of photons. As a lower limit, a value of $`10^9`$ is expected for the chemical potential, in the absence of these processes. This a consequence of dissipation of the acoustic waves at small scales prior to the recombination.

There are indications that a primordial magnetic field is necessary to explain the observed magnetic fields in galaxies and galaxy clusters (see  and references therein for a review of the issues relevant to the primordial magnetic field). In the absence of any dynamo effect, the required field strength today is of the order of $`10^9G`$ in the Mpc scales.

There are many proposed mechanisms for generating magnetic fields. They could be produced through QCD (e.g. ,) and Electroweak  phase transitions. The magnitude of the generated field depends on scale and the details of the phase transition model. Although the typical predictions are several orders of magnitude less than the required field strength ($`10^{20}G`$, e.g. ) on the relevant scales, there are extreme models that can produce large enough field strengths. However, note that the generated field can be significantly larger at small scales.

There are two main stages in the thermalization of the radiation field. The first stage is relaxation into a Bose-Einstein energy distribution which is mainly through Compton scattering of photons off electrons. The number of photons is fixed during this stage. This process, so-called Comptonization, is efficient for temperatures higher than $`10\mathrm{eV}`$. The second stage is relaxation of the chemical potential which, in general, requires an increase in the number of photons. The most efficient processes in the early universe that can change the number of photons are bremsstrahlung and double Compton. In a universe with low barion density , double Compton is more important than bremsstrahlung but ceases to be efficient for $`T<1\mathrm{keV}`$.

We show that a weak magnetic field can change this picture for $`T<1\mathrm{keV}`$. We see that if the cyclotron frequency is larger than the plasma frequency, cyclotron emission thermalizes the radiation spectrum. Finally we consider the observational and theoretical constraints on the possiblity of this effect and see that plausible levels of magnetic field strength may allow efficient cyclotron emission.

This phenomenon has been first considered in . However, since the cyclotron absorption process was neglected, the phenomenon was interpreted as a process for generation rather than relaxtion of chemical potential. This problem was correctly pointed out in .

The rate of energy loss via cyclotron emission by non-relativistic electrons moving in magnetic field $`B`$ can be obtained classically

$$\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^2\omega _c^2v_{}^2}{c^3},$$
(1)
where $`\omega _c=eB/(m_ec)`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`v_{}`$ is the velocity of the electron, normal to the magnetic field direction.

In the non-relativistic limit, almost all the emitted photons have the frequency $`\omega _c`$ and thus, the rate of photon production per unit volume, $`\varphi `$, can be obtained using Eq. (1)

$$\varphi =\frac{2}{3}\frac{n_ee^3B<v_{}^2>}{\mathrm{}m_ec^4}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{n_ee^3Bk_BT}{\mathrm{}m_e^2c^4},$$
(2)
where $`n_e`$ is the electron number density and $`T`$ is the temperature of the electron gas.

In the rest of the paper, we are going to set $`k_B=\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

The presence of photons in the environment can enhance the photon production mechanism through stimulated emission. Also photons can get absorbed by the rotating electrons. These processes can be expressed via

$$\dot{n}(E_c)=\underset{\{E\}}{}𝒜(1+n(E_c))n_e(E+E_c)n(E_c)n_e(E).$$
(3)
Here, $`n(E)`$ is the photon occupation number, $`E_c=\omega _c`$ is the energy of the cyclotron photons and $`𝒜`$ & $``$ are Einstein coefficients. The sum, is over the energy states of the of electrons (Landau levels, in this case).

We note that, since for a Planckian distribution

$$n_{Pl}(E)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(E/T)1},$$
(4)
$`\dot{n}`$ must vanish, (if the electrons have the same temperature as photons, which is the case before matter-radiation decoupling , when Compton scattering is efficient) we must have

$$\underset{\{E\}}{}\mathrm{exp}(E_c/T)𝒜n_e(E+E_c)=\underset{\{E\}}{}n_e(E).$$
(5)
Since we are assuming that Comptonization is efficient, the only free parameters in the spectrum of photons are the temperature, $`T`$, and the chemical potential, $`\mu `$. Alternatively, they can be replaced by the total number density, $`N`$, and the energy density $`u`$, of the photon gas. As a result, we can integrate Eq. (3) over the phase space to obtain the total photon injection rate, without losing any information. Multiplying this by $`E_c`$, gives the energy injection rate.

$$\dot{N}=2d^3p\underset{\{E\}}{}𝒜n_e(E+E_c)(1+n(E_c)\mathrm{exp}(E_c/T)n(E_c)).$$
(6)
The factor in front of the bracket is the photon production rate for zero photon occupation number, which is the same as $`\varphi `$ in Eq.(2). Plugging in a Bose-Einstein energy distribution for $`n(E_c)`$, and assuming $`\mu ,E_cT`$, we end up with

$$\dot{N}=\frac{\varphi \mu }{E_c\mu },$$
(7)
and the energy production rate per volume

$$\dot{u}=E_c\dot{N}=\frac{\varphi E_c\mu }{E_c\mu }.$$
(8)
For $`\mu T`$, energy and number density of photons can be written as

$`u{\displaystyle \frac{T^4}{\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{15}}+7.212{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{T}}],`$ (9)
$`N{\displaystyle \frac{T^4}{\pi ^2}}[2.404+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{T}}].`$ (10)
To study the relaxation process, we replace $`T`$ by $`T+\theta `$ and consider $`\theta T`$ as the time dependent perturbation of the temperature, while $`T`$ is constant. To the first order in $`\theta `$ and $`\mu `$, we find

$$\delta u=\pi ^2T^3[4\alpha \theta +\beta \mu ],\delta N=\pi ^2T^2[3\gamma \theta +\delta \mu ]$$
(11)
where

$$\alpha =\pi ^4/15,\beta 7.212,\gamma 2.404,\delta =2\pi ^2/3,$$
(12)
are the numerical coefficients in Eq. (9).

Now, we can use Eqs. (7)& (8) to get the time derivatives of $`\delta N`$ and $`\delta u`$ in Eq. (10). We are interested in the relaxation of $`\mu `$, for which we find

$$\dot{\mu }=[\frac{4\alpha \pi ^2}{4\alpha \delta 3\beta \gamma }]\frac{\varphi \mu }{T^2(E_c\mu )}.$$
(13)
Note that, to the first order, $`\theta `$ does not appear in Eq. (12). The reason is that, in the absence of cyclotron emission, $`\mu `$ and $`\theta `$, both remain constant. Also, $`\mu 0`$ to have a finite photon occupation number at all energies. Eq. (12) is simplified by introducing the following variables

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\frac{\mu }{E_c},t_c=T^2E_c\varphi ^1[\frac{4\alpha \pi ^2}{4\alpha \delta 3\beta \gamma }]^1.$$
(14)
In terms of these variables, Eq. (12) takes the form

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{t_c(1+\mu )},$$
(15)
with the solution

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }+\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mu }=t/t_c+\mathrm{const}.$$
(16)
We see that, for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }<1`$ ($`|\mu |<E_c`$), there is an exponential decay with the characteristic time $`t_c`$. In the radiation dominated era, in a cosmological scenario, the value $`t_c`$ is ***Assuming $`T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=2.73\mathrm{K},h_{100}=0.7,g_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.36`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.04`$.

$$t_c=3.346(\frac{m_eT^3}{\alpha _en_em_{Pl}})H^1=1.723\times 10^{10}H^1.$$
(17)
where, $`m_{Pl}=G^{1/2}`$ and $`\alpha _e=e^2`$ are the Planck’s mass and the fine structure constant. It is amazing that the ratio of $`t_c`$ to the Hubble time is so small and also independent of time and the magnetic field strength. However, this is not un-physical, since as $`B`$ goes to zero, the cyclotron energy, $`E_c`$, becomes smaller than $`\mu `$ and we are not in this regime any more. Since stimulated emission is proportional to the occupation number which goes as $`E_c^1`$ at small energies, it cancels the $`E_c`$ that appears in $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (2), thus the equilibrium time is independent of the magnetic field strength.

More interesting is the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }>1`$ ($`|\mu |>E_c`$). In this case, $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}t_c^1`$ is almost constant and so the relaxation time is proportional to the initial value of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$.

$`t_{rel}=({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{E_c}})t_c=2.22(Ht_c)({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{T}})\beta _M^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{m_e}})^1H^1`$ (18)
$`=(6.204\times 10^2H^1)({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{T}})({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _M}{10^5}})^{1/2}T^1(eV),`$ (19)
where

$$\beta _M\frac{B^2}{8\pi \rho },$$
(20)
and $`\rho `$ is the energy density of the universe and so $`\beta _M`$ is the fraction of the total energy density in the magnetic field (Note that $`\beta _M`$ remains constant in the radiation dominated era). At the end of this time, the chemical potential decays in a time scale, much shorter than the Hubble time.

Since the decay is linear, rather than exponential, this relaxation process behaves differently from other processes (specifically bremsstrahlung and double Compton): either $`\mu /T`$ is basically constant (if $`Ht_{rel}>1`$) or it is completely suppressed ($`Ht_{rel}<1`$). Eq. (18) implies that even a dynamically negligible primordial magnetic field ($`B^210^6\rho `$ which is $`10^9G`$ today, if the flux remains frozen) can completely suppress even a significant deviation from the Planck spectrum in the radiation dominated era.

The natural frequency of the primordial plasma sets a lower bound for the frequency of propagating photons. As a result, no photon can be emitted via cyclotron emission if $`\omega _c`$ falls below the plasma frequency, $`\omega _p=\sqrt{4\pi n_ee^2/m_e}`$. Therefore this thermalization process works only if

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega _c^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi n_em_e}{B^2}}=0.452\beta _M^1({\displaystyle \frac{n_e}{T^3}})({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{T}})`$ (21)
$`=2.575\times 10^5\beta _M^1T^1(\mathrm{eV})<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},`$ (22)
which yields

$$\beta _M=\frac{B^2}{8\pi \rho }>2.575\times 10^5T^1(\mathrm{eV}).$$
(23)
or in terms of the magnetic field strength at the present time

$$B>2.3\times 10^8T^{1/2}(\mathrm{eV})\mathrm{G}$$
(24)
It is reasonable to assume that the maximum value of $`\mu /T`$, as a result of a non-thermal process, is close to one, since $`\mu `$ and $`T`$ are affected in similar ways by non-thermal processes (see Eq.(10)). With this assumption, combining Eqs. (17) & (20) yields

$$Ht_{rel}<3.866\times 10^2T^{1/2}(\mathrm{eV})<1,$$
(25)
for $`T>10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, which is clearly the case in the radiation dominated era. This leads to the main conclusion of this letter: if the condition of Eq. (20) is satisfied, any deviation from the Planck spectrum will be completely suppressed. This will be basically indpendent of the origin or the magnitude of this deviation.

The strongest observational constraint on the magnitude of a primordial magnetic field comes from the spectrum of the CMB fluctuations . The current upper limit on $`\beta _M`$ is about $`10^{10}`$ at the comoving scale of $`1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. However, the actual strength of the magnetic field can be significantly larger at smaller scales. For example, with the random dipole approximation , $`\beta _Mr^3`$ and so we see that the observational constraint hardly gives us any information about the possibility of cyclotron thermalization process if the field extends down to the scale of $`r10\mathrm{kpc}`$. If the actual magnitude of the field is anywhere close to the observational limit at this scale, it is likely that $`\beta _M`$ will satisfy Eq.(20) at smaller scales and the cyclotron emission will suppress any chemical potential in the CMB.

A direct method has been suggested in  to set an upper limit on the field strength at small scales. The method is based on the fact that the dissipation of small scale magnetic field can alter the chemical potential of the CMB. The current upper limit on the chemical potential , yields an upper limit on the magnetic field, $`B<3\times 10^8\mathrm{G}`$ at the comoving scale of $`400\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$. It is amazing that this limit is so close to the lower limit for $`B`$ in Eq. (21), for the cyclotron emission to be efficient. The implication is that if Eq. (21) is satisfied, cyclotron emission suppresses any chemical potential, while if Eq. (21) is not satisfied, the induced chemical potential is less than the observational limit. Therefore, both cases are consistent with the observations.

The theoretical estimate for the magnitude of $`\beta _M`$, generated in the QCD phase transition at $`T_c150\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, which relies on the presence of hydrodynamic instabilities produced by expanding bubble walls, is about $`10^{29}`$ at a $`10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ comoving scale. This translates to $`\beta _M10^8`$ at $`1\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$, the comoving Hubble radius at the phase transition. This value is barely enough to satisfy Eq. (20), at $`T=1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, where double-Compton ceases to be efficient but falls below the the required limit for lower temperatures.

On the other hand, another way of generating magnetic field is via Electroweak phase transition . The maximum value of $`\beta _M`$ generated in this case can be as large as $`10^3`$ which does satisfy Eq.(20).

In summary, we introduce cyclotron emission as a potential thermalization process of the CMB spectrum. We found that the process of relaxation of the chemical potential, in a regime that Comptonization is efficient, is linear instead of exponential for large deviations of the chemical potential from zero. As a result, the relaxation time is proportional to the original value of the chemical potential. Requiring that the plasma effects do not suppress this process sets a lower limit on the magnitude of the magnetic field. While observational constraints are not conclusive about if the primordial magnetic field is larger than this lower limit or not, there are theoretical estimates that suggest magnetic fields large enough for cyclotron thermalization process to be efficient, are produced in the early universe.

I would like to thank Bruce Draine for useful discussions, and David Spergel for his supervision on this work.