format: text

text:
# Nonlinear QM as a fractal Brownian motion with complex diffusion constant

## 1 Introduction

The theoretical study of quantum chaos has been developed mainly in two areas: The phenomenological characterization of the spacing of the energy levels of bound and quasi-bound quantum physical systems, whose main analytical tool is the random matrix theory , and the semi-classical limit of chaotic classical systems . The semi-classical approach pretends to seek solutions of the Schrödinger equation and to read in the wave functions any fingerprints of classical chaos. Due to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation there is no place where the sensibility to the initial conditions can be made manifest, which is present in nonlinear chaotic systems. The Riemann zeta function has been considered as a unifying link between those two approaches .

We believe that quantum chaos is truly a new paradigm in physics associated with non-unitary and nonlinear QM processes based on non-Hermitian operators (implementing time symmetry breaking). This chaotic behavior stems directly from the nonlinear Schrödinger equation without any reference to the nonlinear behavior of the classical limit. See . For this reason, the genuine quantum chaos should be exhibited only by systems whose behavior is correctly described by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation.

The nonlinear QM has a practical importance in different fields, like condensed matter, quantum optics and atomic and molecular physics; even quantum gravity may involve nonlinear QM. Another important example is in the modern field of quantum computing. If quantum states exhibit small nonlinearities during their temporal evolution, then quantum computers can be used to solve NP-complete (non polynomial) and #P problems in polynomial time. Abrams and Lloyd  proposed logical gates based on non linear Schrödinger equations and suggested that a further step in quantum computing consists in finding physical systems whose evolution is amenable to be described by a NLSE.

On other hand, we consider that Nottale and Ord’s formulation of quantum mechanics  from first principles based on the combination of scale relativity and fractal space-time is a very promising field of future research. In this work we extend Nottale and Ord’s ideas to derive the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. This could shed some light on the physical systems which could be appropriately described by the nonlinear Schrödinger equation derived in what follows.

The contents of this work are the following. In section 2 we derive different nonlinear Schrödinger-like equations starting from purely hydro-dynamical considerations. In section 3 a review of the derivation of the Schrödinger equation, based on Nottale and Ord’s  model of QM as a fractal Brownian motion of a particle zigzagging back and forth in space-time, is presented. In section 4 we derive the nonlinear Schrödinger equation from an extension of the Nottale’s approach to the case of a fractal Brownian motion with a complex diffusion constant. In section 5 real-valued energy solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation are proposed. In the final section 6, we summarize our conclusions and include some additional comments.

## 2 Nonlinear Srhödinger equations based on hydrodynamics

In this section we will write down two NLSE (nonlinear Srhödinger equations) using the hydro-dynamical models of QM . The first equation is based by adding a hydrostatic pressure term to the Euler-Lagrange equations  and the second equation is obtained by adding, instead, a kinematic pressure term. As far as we know, this second equation has not appeared in the literature before.

The hydrostatic pressure experienced by a fluid element at a point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ due to the force of gravity is given by the Euler equation $`\stackrel{}{}p=\rho \stackrel{}{g}`$; $`\stackrel{}{}`$ is the ordinary gradient, $`p`$ the pressure, $`\rho `$ the density and $`\stackrel{}{g}`$ the acceleration of gravity. For example, if the density and acceleration are uniform one can integrate such equation and arrived at $`p=\rho gx`$ giving the pressure at a given depth $`x`$.

The author  proposed to establish the QM analog of the Euler equation by relating the density $`\rho `$ to the quantum mechanical probability density $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ and by integrating the equation. Setting $`\rho =\psi ^{}\psi `$, $`b`$ a mass-energy parameter and the particular case that $`p=\rho `$, then one has that the hydrostatic potential is given by the integral

$$b\stackrel{}{g}(\stackrel{}{x})𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=b\frac{\stackrel{}{}p}{\rho }𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=b\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}=b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi ),$$
(1)
setting $`\rho _0=1`$. This is the nonlinear potential energy induced from a hydrostatic pressure term.

It is important to normalize the logarithms by a constant which we set to unity for convention. $`b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )`$ has energy units. From now these logarithmic terms are normalized that way.

The hydrostatic pressure term  has energy units and explains in a straightforward fashion the nonlinear term (nonlinear potential) added to the standard Schrödinger equation by Białynicki-Birula and Mycielski  long ago. The parameter $`b`$ has units of mass (energy), so the nonlinear wave equation is given by  after adding the nonlinear potential $`b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )`$.

The Birula-Mycielski NLSE for a particle is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi +U\psi b[\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )]\psi .$$
(2)
A derivation of this equation from the Nelson stochastic QM was given by Lemos ( p. 615 and ). As interesting as this equation may be there are some problems. Such equation does not obey the homogeneity condition (see Weinberg ) which says that if $`|\psi `$ represents a physical state, the rays $`|\lambda \psi `$ must also represent the same physical state, for any complex constant $`\lambda `$. But equation (2) is not invariant under $`\psi `$ $``$ $`\lambda \psi `$ because the logarithmic nonlinear potential breaks such homogeneity, this NLSE is not scaled by $`\lambda `$.

Another problem is that plane wave solutions to equation (2) do not seem to have a physical interpretation due to extraneous dispersion relations. Only the soliton solutions were physically meaningful . Upper limits on the values of the parameter $`b`$ had been found to be  $`b<310^{15}eV`$, which correspond to an electron soliton width of 3 mm . The smallness of $`b`$ is itself no reason to disregard equation (2) as physically relevant. For the authors, another problem with the logarithmic nonlinear potential term is that the hydrostatic pressure term in the NLSE is given by an explicit function of both $`\psi `$ and it complex conjugate $`\psi ^{}`$. It is desirable to write a NLSE solely in terms of the $`\psi `$ variable, or $`\psi ^{}`$, but not combined. Thus, another new NLSE can immediately be written and/or modified by adding the kinetic-pressure terms to the Euler-Newton hydro-dynamical equations of motion, i.e. by adding the term $`(1/2)\rho V^2`$ and taking $`\rho =a\psi ^{}\psi `$; where $`a`$ is a mass parameter, different from $`b`$, $`\stackrel{}{V}=\stackrel{}{p}/m`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the momentum.

Using the relations from the Hamilton-Jacobi theory

$$\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}=e^{2iS(x)/\mathrm{}},\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{}S(x)=m\stackrel{}{V},$$
(3)
we can express the square of the velocity in terms of $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ as follows,

$$\stackrel{}{V}=i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}},$$
(4)
so the energy-density becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}\rho |\stackrel{}{V}|^2=\frac{a\mathrm{}^2}{8m^2}\psi \psi ^{}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi },$$
(5)
from which we immediately conclude that the corresponding nonlinear potential term associated with the kinematical pressure term is

$$\frac{a\mathrm{}^2}{8m^2}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }.$$
(6)
Hence a candidate for a NLSE is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi +U\psi b[\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )]\psi +\frac{a\mathrm{}^2}{8m^2}\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }\right)\psi .$$
(7)
Here the Hamiltonian is Hermitian and $`ab`$ both are mass-energy parameters to be determined experimentally. As far as we know, this NLSE has not been derived so far.

The new term can be written also in the form

$$\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }=\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}\right)^2.$$
(8)
For simplicity purposes, from now on we shall refer to these nonlinear potential kinematic pressure terms as those terms of the type

$$U^{kin}(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )^2.$$
(9)
The reason we choose to impose that notation will become clear in the next sections.

Our goal now is to derive NLSE directly from the fractal space time dynamics of a particle undergoing a Brownian random motion. And such fractal space time interpretation does not require to add ad-hoc terms like

1. David Bohm’s quantum potential  into the Hamilton equation. See also .

2. To use the hydro-dynamical models discussed so far  nor to add the hydrostatic pressure and kinematic pressure terms to the Euler-Newton equations of motion as we have shown above, in an ad-hoc fashion.

The new NLSE can be obtained from first principles if, an only is, we assume a fractal trajectory of a point particle associated with a Brownian random motion .

Before we begin, we deem it very important to add some more comments about the kinematic pressure terms

$$\frac{1}{2}\rho V^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{a}{m}|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi |^2,$$
(10)
versus the hydrostatic pressure terms

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{}p}{\rho }b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )$$
(11)
in the new NLSE.

The hydrostatic term $`b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )\psi `$ explicitly breaks homogeneity $`\psi \lambda \psi `$ of the NLSE. Whereas the kinematic pressure term $`(\mathrm{}^2)/(2m)(a/m)|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi |^2\psi `$ does preserve the homogeneity condition and the NLSE should scale with a $`\lambda `$ factor, fact that can be easily verified.

The hydrostatic pressure term is not compatible with the motion kinematics of a particle executing a fractal Brownian motion. Only in the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit (heavy particle) it is reasonable to speak of the static limit. See  for a discussion of this limit. There are another deeper reasons to derive the NLSE from an underlying dynamics of a particle in a fractal space time, or more simply, from a fractal trajectory in a fixed space time background. We may, or may not, be switching on the quantum gravitational aspects of space time, so deeply linked to the non-linearity of QM. Perhaps the nonlinearity of QM is deeply inter-wined with the quantum gravitational aspects of a Cantorian-fractal-space-time .

Our goal is far less ambitious. Returning to our main points, the two NLSE have introduced two additional parameters of mass-dimension $`a`$, $`b`$ (or one parameter in the special case $`a=b`$). Such parameters need to be found experimentally. The advantage of the fractal formalism is that we will be able to relate the $`a`$, $`b`$ parameters to the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ itself, rather to have new parameters in physics unrelated to $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 3 QM as mechanics in non differentiable spaces

We will be following very closely Nottale’s derivation of the ordinary Scrödinger equation . The readers familiar with this work may omit this section. Recently Nottale and Celerier  following similar methods were able to derive the Dirac equation using bi-quaternions and after breaking the parity symmetry $`dx^\mu dx^\mu `$, see references for details. Also see the Ord’s paper  and the Adlers’s book on quaternionic QM . For simplicity the one-particle case is investigated, but the derivation can be extended to many-particle systems.

In this approach particles do not follow smooth trajectories but fractal ones, that can be described by a continuous but non-differentiable fractal function $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$. The time variable is divided into infinitesimal intervals $`dt`$ which can be taken as a given scale of the resolution. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,t^{},dt)`$ is a smoothing function centered on $`t`$, for example a step function of width $`2dt`$, a continuous and differentiable approximation to the true fractal $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ can be constructed as follows,

$$\stackrel{}{r}(t,dt)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(t,t^{},dt)\stackrel{}{r}(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(12)
While $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ = $`\stackrel{}{r}(t,0)`$ is non-differentiable, any $`\stackrel{}{r}(t,dt)`$, called “fractal trajectory”, is differentiable for all $`dt0`$.

Non-differentiability implies a lost of causality. For this reason the fractal trajectories are good candidates to describe the quantum behavior. Feynman in his path integral formulation of QM already found a interesting result involving the time scale $`dt`$: When seen at a time scale $`dt`$, the quantum mechanical mean quadratic velocity of a particle is $`v^21/dt`$. This can be easily explained by an argument involving fractals. If the trajectory is a fractal curve of fractal dimension $`D`$, the space and time resolutions are related by $`dtdx^D`$, so that $`v^2(dx/dt)^2dt^{2(1/D1)}`$. The comparison with Feynman’s result leads to $`D=2`$.

Here we omit the details of the arguments leading to $`dtdx^D`$, which the interested reader can find at  and references therein. They has as ingredients the scale dependence of any fractal curve and the renormalization group.

A fractal function $`f(x,ϵ)`$ can have, besides the derivative $`f(x,ϵ)/x`$, the new derivative with respect to the scale, $`f(x,ϵ)/ϵ`$. It was found useful to use $`\mathrm{ln}ϵ`$ instead of $`ϵ`$ as the variable for resolution. Renormalization group arguments say that the following relation is valid ,

$$\frac{f(x,ϵ)}{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}=a(x)+bf(x,ϵ),$$
(13)
this means that the variation of $`f`$ under an infinitesimal scale transformation $`d\mathrm{ln}ϵ`$ depends only on $`f`$ itself. This differential equation can be integrated to give us

$$f(x,ϵ)=f_0(x)\left[1+\zeta (x)\left(\frac{\lambda }{ϵ}\right)^b\right].$$
(14)
$`\lambda ^b\zeta (x)`$ is an integration constant and $`f_0(x)=a(x)/b`$. This result says that any fractal function can be approximated by the sum of two terms, one independent of the resolution and other resolution dependent. Due to the resolution dependence is associated to the fractal properties, and those are product of the non-differentiability, then is expected that $`\zeta (x)`$ is a fluctuating function with zero mean.

Provided than $`a0`$ and $`b<0`$ two cases can be considered: (i) $`ϵ\lambda `$, the scale dependent term is dominant and $`f`$ is given by a scale-invariant fractal-like power law with fractal dimension $`D=b1`$, namely $`f(x,ϵ)`$ = $`f_0(x)(\lambda /ϵ)^b`$. (ii) if $`ϵ\lambda `$ then $`f`$ becomes independent of the scale. $`\lambda `$ is the de Broglie wave length.

A continuous but non-differentiable function $`f(t)`$ at $`t`$ has two possible values of the derivative at $`t`$, for this reason its approximation by a fractal function requires considering “left” and “right” derivatives. For the position vector the following two infinitesimal differences can be considered,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{}{r}(t+dt,dt)\stackrel{}{r}(t,dt)& =& \stackrel{}{b}_+(\stackrel{}{r},t)dt+\stackrel{}{\xi }_+(t,dt)\left(\frac{dt}{\tau _0}\right)^\beta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{}{r}(t,dt)\stackrel{}{r}(tdt,dt)& =& \stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{r},t)dt+\stackrel{}{\xi }_{}(t,dt)\left(\frac{dt}{\tau _0}\right)^\beta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`\beta =1/D`$, and $`\stackrel{}{b}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$ are average forward and backward velocities . Adopting the non standard analysis formulation, $`dt`$ is also the time scale.

The instantaneous velocities are easily obtained from equation (15),

$$\stackrel{}{v}_\pm (\stackrel{}{r},t,dt)=\stackrel{}{b}_\pm (\stackrel{}{r},t)+\stackrel{}{\xi }_\pm (t,dt)\left(\frac{dt}{\tau _0}\right)^{\beta 1},$$
(16)
In the quantum case, $`D=2`$, then $`\beta =1/2`$, so that $`dt^{\beta 1}`$ is a divergent quantity, from which is evident the non-differentiability.

Then, following the definitions given by Nelson in his stochastic QM approach (Lemos in  p. 615; see also ), Nottale define mean backward an forward derivatives as follows,

$$\frac{d_\pm \stackrel{}{r}(t)}{dt}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t\pm 0}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{}{r}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)\stackrel{}{r}(t)}{\mathrm{\Delta }t},$$
(17)
from which the forward and backward mean velocities are obtained,

$$\frac{d_\pm \stackrel{}{r}(t)}{dt}=\stackrel{}{b}_\pm .$$
(18)
For his deduction of Schrödinger equation from this fractal space-time classical mechanics, Nottale starts by defining the complex-time derivative operator

$$\frac{\delta }{dt}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d_+}{dt}+\frac{d_{}}{dt}\right)i\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d_+}{dt}\frac{d_{}}{dt}\right),$$
(19)
which after some straightforward definitions and transformations takes the following form,

$$\frac{\delta }{dt}=\frac{}{t}+\stackrel{}{V}\stackrel{}{}iD^2.$$
(20)
$`D`$ is a real-valued diffusion constant to be related to the Planck constant. Now we are changing the meaning of $`D`$, since no longer a symbol for the fractal dimension is needed, it will have the value $`2`$.

The $`D`$ comes from considering that the scale dependent part of the velocity is a Gaussian stochastic variable with zero mean, (see de la Peña at  p. 428)

$$d\xi _{\pm i}d\xi _{\pm j}=\pm 2D\delta _{ij}dt.$$
(21)
In other words, the fractal part of the velocity $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$, proportional to the $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }`$, amount to a Wiener process when the fractal dimension is $`2`$.

Afterwards, Nottale defines a set of complex quantities which are generalization of well known classical quantities (Lagrange action, velocity, momentum, etc), in order to be coherent with the introduction of the complex-time derivative operator.

The complex time dependent wave function $`\psi `$ is expressed in terms of a Lagrange action $`S`$ by $`\psi =e^{iS/(2mD)}`$. $`S`$ is a complex-valued action but $`D`$ is real-valued. The velocity is related to the momentum, which can be expressed as the gradient of $`S`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{}S`$. Then the following known relation is found,

$$\stackrel{}{V}=2iD\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi .$$
(22)
The Schrödinger equation is obtained from the Newton’s equation (force = mass times acceleration) by using the expression of $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ in terms of the wave function $`\psi `$,

$$\stackrel{}{}U=m\frac{\delta }{dt}\stackrel{}{V}=2imD\frac{\delta }{dt}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi .$$
(23)
Replacing the complex-time derivation (20) in the Newton’s equation gives us

$$\stackrel{}{}U=2im\left(D\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi \right)2D\stackrel{}{}\left(D\frac{^2\psi }{\psi }\right).$$
(24)
Simple identities involving the $`\stackrel{}{}`$ operator were used by Nottale. Integrating this equation with respect to the position variables finally yields

$$D^2^2\psi +iD\frac{\psi }{t}\frac{U}{2m}\psi =0,$$
(25)
up to an arbitrary phase factor which may set to zero. Now replacing $`D`$ by $`\mathrm{}/(2m)`$, we get the Schrödinger equation,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi =U\psi .$$
(26)
The Hamiltonian operator is Hermitian, this equation is linear and clearly is homogeneous of degree one under the substitution $`\psi \lambda \psi `$.

## 4 Nonlinear QM as a fractal Brownian motion with a complex diffusion constant

Having reviewed Nottale’s work  we can generalize it by relaxing the assumption that the diffusion constant is real; we will be working with a complex-valued diffusion constant; i.e. with a complex-valued $`\mathrm{}`$. This is our new contribution. The reader may be immediately biased against such approach because the Hamiltonian ceases to be Hermitian and the energy becomes complex-valued. However this is not always the case. We will explicitly find plane wave solutions and soliton solutions to the nonlinear and non-Hermitian wave equations with real energies and momenta.

For a detailed discussion on complex-valued spectral representations in the formulation of quantum chaos and time-symmetry breaking see . Also a complex-valued time and two-times (see  and references therein) complex-valued dimensions have been discussed in .

Nottale’s derivation of the Schrödinger equation in the previous section required a complex-valued action $`S`$ stemming from the complex-valued velocities due to the breakdown of symmetry between the forwards and backwards velocities in the fractal zigzagging. If the action $`S`$ was complex then it is not farfetched to have a complex diffusion constant and consequently a complex-valued $`\mathrm{}`$ (with same units as the complex-valued action).

Our derivation follows closely that of Nottale, sketched into the previous section, but with some crucial differences in the evaluation of the correlation functions and the definition of the complex-time derivative operator, respectively.

Before the derivation further comments on complex-energies are in order. The energy functional $`E_{QM}`$ contains imaginary components. Since meaningful physical solutions demand real-valued energies this imposes constraints on the physically acceptable states in these non-linear QM equations, see Puszkarz .

Complex energy is not alien in ordinary linear QM. They appear in optical potentials (complex) usually invoked to model the absorption in scattering processes  and decay of unstable particles. Complex potentials have also been used to describe decoherence . The accepted way to describe resonant states in atomic and molecular physics is based on the complex scaling approach, which in a natural way deals with complex energies . We will show that real-valued energy solutions exist to the NLSE based on a fractal Brownian motion.

The imaginary part of the linear Schrödinger equation yields the continuity equation $`\rho /t+\stackrel{}{}(\rho \stackrel{}{V})=0`$. Because, as we shall see, our potential is complex, the imaginary part of such potential acts as a source term in the continuity equation.

Before, Nottale wrote,

$$d\zeta _\pm d\zeta _\pm =\pm 2Ddt,$$
(27)
with $`D`$ and $`2mD=\mathrm{}`$ real.

Now we set

$$d\zeta _\pm d\zeta _\pm =\pm (D+D^{})dt,$$
(28)
with $`D`$ and $`2mD=\mathrm{}=\alpha +i\beta `$ complex.

The complex-time derivative operator becomes now

$$\frac{\delta }{dt}=\frac{}{t}+\stackrel{}{V}\stackrel{}{}\frac{i}{2}(D+D^{})^2.$$
(29)
In the real case $`D=D^{}`$. It reduces to the complex-time-derivative operator described previously by Nottale.

Writing again the $`\psi `$ in terms of the complex action $`S`$,

$$\psi =e^{iS/(2mD)}=e^{iS/\mathrm{}},$$
(30)
where $`S`$, $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are complex-valued, the complex velocity is obtained from the complex momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{}S`$ as

$$\stackrel{}{V}=2iD\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi .$$
(31)
The NLSE is obtained after we use the generalized Newton’s equation (force = mass times acceleration) in terms of the $`\psi `$ variable,

$$\stackrel{}{}U=m\frac{\delta }{dt}\stackrel{}{V}=2imD\frac{\delta }{dt}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi .$$
(32)
Replacing the complex-time derivation (29) in the generalized Newton’s equation gives us

$$\stackrel{}{}U=2im\left[D\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi 2iD^2(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi \stackrel{}{})(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )\frac{i}{2}(D+D^{})D^2(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )\right].$$
(33)
Now, using the three identities (1) $`\stackrel{}{}^2=^2\stackrel{}{}`$, (2) $`2(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi \stackrel{}{})(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )=\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )^2`$ and (3) $`^2\mathrm{ln}\psi =^2\psi /\psi (\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )^2`$ allows us to integrate such equation above yielding, after some straightforward algebra, the new NLSE that has the nonlinear (kinematic pressure) potential found before (7),

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}^2\psi +U\psi i\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\beta }{\mathrm{}}\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi \right)^2\psi .$$
(34)
Note the crucial minus sign in front of the kinematic pressure term and that $`\mathrm{}=\alpha +i\beta =2mD`$ is complex. When $`\beta =0`$ we recover the linear Schrödinger equation.

The nonlinear potential is now complex-valued in general. Defining

$$W=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\beta }{\mathrm{}}\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi \right)^2,$$
(35)
and $`U`$ the ordinary potential, then the NLSE can be rewritten as

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}^2+U+iW\right)\psi .$$
(36)
This is the fundamental nonlinear wave equation of this work. It has the form of the ordinary Schrödinger equation with the complex potential $`U+iW`$ and the complex $`\mathrm{}`$. The Hamiltonian is no longer Hermitian and the potential itself depends on $`\psi `$. Nevertheless one could have meaningful physical solutions with real valued energies and momenta. Like the plane-wave and soliton solutions. Notice that the new NLSE obeys the homogeneity condition $`\psi \lambda \psi `$ for any constant $`\lambda `$. All the terms in the NLSE are scaled respectively by a factor $`\lambda `$. We did not obtain the hydrostatic pressure term $`b(\mathrm{ln}\psi ^{}\psi )\psi `$ which breaks the homogeneity condition for a simple reason: We are studying the true kinematics and dynamics of a particle of mass $`m`$ undergoing a fractal Brownian motion. It would be meaningless to have a hydrostatic pressure term in such a model. Moreover, our two parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are intrinsically connected to a complex Planck constant $`\mathrm{}=\alpha +i\beta `$ rather that being ah-hoc constants to be determined experimentally. Thus, the nonlinear QM equation derived from the fractal Brownian motion with complex-valued diffusion coefficient is intrinsically tied up with a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian and with complex-valued energy spectra . To be more precise, the nonlinear $`\beta `$ term in (36) is really the nonlinear partner of the kinetic energy term.

We will show that despite having a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian we still could have eigenfunctions with real valued energies and momenta. When $`\mathrm{}`$ is real ($`\beta =0`$) and the NLSE is linearized back to the ordinary one.

The reader may ask why not simply propose as a valid NLSE the following,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi +U\psi +\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{a}{m}|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi |^2\psi .$$
(37)
Such equation (with the ordinary real Planck constant) is based on a real Hamiltonian that satisfies the homogeneity condition. It also admits soliton solutions of the type

$$\psi =CA(xVt)e^{i(kx\omega t)},$$
(38)
$`A(xVt)`$ is a function to be determined by solving the NLSE. Galilean invariance imposes that the soliton is a traveling wave, a function of $`xVt`$. We will present explicit expressions for the function $`A(xVt)`$ afterwards. Therefore, in principle, this NLSE is a more suitable candidate that the Białynicki-Birula and Mycielski NLSE with a nonlinear potential term $`b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )`$ that breaks homogeneity and introduces also a $`\psi ^{}`$ dependence into the wave equation.

The only problem (perhaps there are others) with the NLSE above is that it suffers also from an extraneous dispersion relation. Plugging-in the plane-wave solution $`\psi e^{i(Etpx)/\mathrm{}}`$ one gets an extraneous energy-momentum relation, after setting $`U=0`$,

$$E=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m}\left(1+\frac{a}{m}\right),$$
(39)
not the usual $`E=\stackrel{}{p}^2/(2m)`$. So in this case we have that $`E_{QM}E_{FT}`$ (FT means field theory).

It has been known for some time, see Puskarz , that the expression for the energy functional in nonlinear QM does not coincide with the QM energy functional, nor it is unique. The simplest way to see this is, for example, writing down the Birula and Mycielski NLSE (2) in the Weinberg form

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{H(\psi ,\psi ^{})}{\psi ^{}},$$
(40)
where $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ are a pair of canonically-conjugate variables. The real-valued Hamiltonian density is given by

$$H(\psi ,\psi ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\psi ^{}^2\psi +U\psi ^{}\psi b\psi ^{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )\psi +b\psi ^{}\psi ,$$
(41)
using $`E_{FT}=d^3\stackrel{}{r}H`$, so we can see it is different from $`\widehat{H}_{QM}`$. Notice the last term in (41). Hence, one can immediately see that the $`H(\psi ,\psi ^{})`$ stemming from the field theory approach does not coincide with the Birula-Mycielski Hamiltonian. They differ by a constant, $`E_{FT}E_{QM}`$ = $`d^3\stackrel{}{r}b\psi ^{}\psi `$ = $`b`$. Exactly like it occurs when we plug in the plane wave solution into the NLSE with the nonlinear potential, real valued,

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{a}{m}|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi |^2.$$
(42)
Notice that this problem does not occur in the fractal-based NLSE, because such NLSE is written entirely in terms of the $`\psi `$ variable and does not contain the $`\psi ^{}`$ variable explicit or implicitly, like it occurs in the Birula-Mycielski NLSE.

The classic Gross-Pitaveskii NLSE (of the 1960’), based on a quartic interaction potential energy, relevant to Bose-Einstein condensation, contains the nonlinear cubic terms in the Schrödinger equation, after differentiation, $`(\psi ^{}\psi )\psi `$. This equation does not satisfy the Weinberg homogeneity condition and also the $`E_{FT}`$ differs from the $`E_{QM}`$ by factors of two.

In the fractal-based NLSE there is no discrepancy between the quantum-mechanical energy functional and the field theory energy functional. Both are given by

$$H_{fractal}^{NLSE}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\psi ^{}^2\psi +U\psi ^{}\psi i\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\beta }{\mathrm{}}\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )^2\psi .$$
(43)
The NLSE is then unambiguously given by equation (40), $`H(\psi ,\psi ^{})`$ is homogeneous of degree 1 in $`\lambda `$ respect to $`\psi `$. This is why we push forward the NLSE derived from the fractal Brownian motion with a complex-valued diffusion coefficient. Such equation does admit plane-wave solutions with the dispersion relation $`E=\stackrel{}{p}^2/(2m)`$. It is not hard to see that after inserting the plane wave solution into the fractal-based NLSE we get (after setting $`U=0`$),

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{\mathrm{}^2}+i\frac{\beta }{\mathrm{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m}\frac{\alpha +i\beta }{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m},$$
(44)
since $`\mathrm{}=\alpha +i\beta `$. So the plane-wave is a solution to the fractal-based NLSE (when $`U=0`$) with a real-valued energy and which has the correct energy-momentum dispersion relation.

## 5 Soliton solutions to the fractal based NLSE. One dimensional case

Let us find soliton solutions to the fractal-based NLSE given by (34), in the free particle case. We set the ansatz (one-dimensional for simplicity)

$$\psi =CA(xVt)e^{(Etpx)/\mathrm{}}.$$
(45)
The function $`A`$ must be complex-valued, otherwise no real-valued energy solutions exist. Then we set

$$A(xVt)=F(xVt)+iG(xVt),$$
(46)
and plugging-in $`\psi `$ with this $`A`$ into the fractal-based NLSE (34) yields 2 coupled differential equations, after separating the real and imaginary parts, respectively, which yield, in principle, the functions $`F`$ and $`G`$.

For example, the soliton solution to the NLSE with the $`b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )`$ is of the form ,

$$\psi (x,t)=Ce^{a/B}e^{(B/4)(xVt+d)^2}e^{ikxi\omega t},$$
(47)
where $`c`$, $`a`$, $`B`$, $`d`$ are numerical constants which can depend on $`\mathrm{}`$, $`m`$ and $`b`$.

As mentioned before, plane wave solutions to the NLSE based on the $`b\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^{}\psi )`$ potential exist but they have extraneous dispersion relations. For example, the energy-momentum relation turns out to be  $`E=\mathrm{}\omega =\stackrel{}{p}^2/(2m)+b\mathrm{ln}(2\pi )`$. Thus, plane-wave solutions do not seem to have physically meaningful interpretation. This was another reason why we believe that this NLSE has problems. Besides, we remarked already that this NLSE breaks the homogeneity condition as well.

To finalize we will find the soliton solutions to the NLSE based on the kinematic pressure potential $`|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi |^2`$ terms, given by equation (37), in the free particle case $`U=0`$.

Earlier on we have shown that it admits plane wave solutions with the extraneous dispersion relation $`E=\stackrel{}{p}^2/(2m)(1+a/m)`$. It obeys the homogeneity condition: Under scaling of $`\psi `$ by $`\lambda `$ the NLSE scales with an overall factor of $`\lambda `$ as expected.

Notice that if we wish to have a Hermitian Hamiltonian we must take the absolute value $`|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi |^2`$ instead of $`(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )^2`$ for our potential. Notice this important difference between these non-linear potentials in the fractal-based NLSE versus the kinematic pressure based one.

Pluggin-in the ansatz $`\psi =CF(xVt)e^{(Etpx)/\mathrm{}}`$ into the kinematic pressure NLSE for the free particle case $`U=0`$ yield for the imaginary parts $`i\mathrm{}VF^{}=i(\mathrm{}/m)F^{}p`$. Then, for any $`F`$ we have $`V=p/m`$. Therefore the ansatz is consistent with the de Broglie relations $`p=\mathrm{}k`$ and $`E=\mathrm{}\omega `$, as expected from this NLSE soliton solution.

The real parts give the differential equation

$$F^{\prime \prime }F\frac{a}{m}(F^{})^2+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[2mEp^2(1+\frac{a}{m})\right]F^2=0.$$
(48)
The solutions to this nonlinear differential equation yield $`F(xVt)`$. This differential equation involves the derivatives $`F^{}`$, $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ and is much harder to solve than the differential equation given in  that involves $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ but not $`F^{}`$.

For example a nonlinear differential equation which involves $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ but not $`F^{}`$ is $`F^{\prime \prime }F^3=0`$. Such equation, after multiplying both sides by $`F^{}`$, can then be integrated by quadratures, $`𝑑F/F^2=𝑑y/2^{1/2}`$.

## 6 Concluding remarks

Based on Nottale and Ord’s formulation of QM from first principles; i.e. from the fractal Brownian motion of a massive particle we have derived explicitly a nonlinear Schrödinger equation. Despite the fact that the Hamiltonian is not Hermitian real-valued energy solution exist like the plane wave and soliton solutions in the free particle case. The hydro-dynamical model analog of this fractal-based NLSE yields another new NLSE with Hermitian (real) Hamiltonian. The remarkable feature of the fractal approach versus all the nonlinear QM equation considered so far is that the quantum mechanical energy functional coincides precisely with the field theory one.

The hydro-dynamical-based NLSE has a nonlinear (real) potential term

$$\frac{a\mathrm{}^2}{8m^2}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi }{\psi ^{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi },$$
(49)
with $`a`$ the mass-energy parameter, bears a very rough similarity to the Staruszkiewicz imaginary potential term in three dimensions

$$\frac{\gamma }{8}\frac{^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }}{\psi ^{}\psi },$$
(50)
see , this potential is imaginary, $`\gamma `$ is a constant.

The fractal model based NLSE admits plane wave (soliton solutions also) with the correct dispersion relation $`E=\stackrel{}{p}^2/(2m)`$, real. Soliton solutions, with real-valued energy (momentum) are of the form

$$\psi [F(xVt)+iG(xVt)]e^{ipx/\mathrm{}iEt/\mathrm{}},$$
(51)
with $`F`$, $`G`$ two functions of the argument $`xVt`$ obeying a coupled set of two nonlinear differential equations.

It would be interesting to study solutions when one turns-on an external potential $`U0`$.

The reader may ask why concentrate on a complex diffusion constant to generate a nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian when one could have written from the start a NLSE with a Hermitian Hamiltonian that obeys the Weinberg homogeneity conditions and also with the correct energy dispersion relations.

Starting from the fundamental equations: $`\psi =e^{iS/S_0}=e^{iS/\mathrm{}_0}`$ and the generalized Newtonian law, written in terms of the Nottale complex derivative operator and the $`\psi `$:

$$\stackrel{}{}U=iS_0[\frac{\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi }{t}i\{\frac{S_0}{m}(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi \stackrel{}{})(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )+D^2(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )\}],$$
(52)
after adding and subtracting the quantity $`D_0^2(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )`$, and using the 3 vector-calculus identities used in (36), we get a nonlinear correction to the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{}_0}{2m}(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_0)(^2\mathrm{ln}\psi )\psi ,$$
(53)
where $`S_0=\mathrm{}_0=2mD_0`$ and $`\mathrm{}=2mD2mD_0`$.

As desirable as this NLSE may look a close inspection reveals that the nonlinearity is just an artifact of the definition of $`\psi `$. It looks nonlinear from the $`\psi `$ perspective. It is not difficult to see that under a re-definition of the wavefunction

$$\psi ^{}=e^{iS/\mathrm{}}=e^{iS/(2mD)}$$
(54)
the generalized Newtonian law of motion of a particle undergoing a fractal Brownian motion given by (52) yields now the standard linear Schrödinger equation for the $`\psi ^{}`$ wavefunction. Where we have chosen for a new value of $`S_0^{}=\mathrm{}=2mD`$.

It is important to emphasize that the diffusion constant is always chosen to be related to Planck constant as follows: $`2mD=\mathrm{}`$ which is just the transition length from a fractal to a scale-independence non-fractal regime discussed by Nottale in numerous occasions. In the relativistic scale it is the Compton wavelength of the particle (say an electron): $`\lambda _c=\mathrm{}/(mc)`$. In the nonrelativistic case it is the de Broglie wavelength of the electron.

Therefore, the NLSE based on a fractal Brownian motion with a complex valued diffusion constant $`2mD=\mathrm{}=\alpha +i\beta `$ represents truly a new physical phenomenon in so far as the small imaginary correction to the Planck constant (unobserved in present day experiments) is the hallmark of nonlinearity in QM. For other generalizations of QM see experimental tests of quaternionic QM (in the book by Adler ). Equation (36) is the fundamental NLSE of this work, where the $`\beta `$ term is essentially the nonlinear partner of the linear kinetic energy term in comparison to all other approaches which focused on nonlinear modifications of the potential.

## Acknowledgements

We acknowledge to the Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems, Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and the Research Committee of the University of Antioquia (CODI), Medellín, Colombia for support. C. C. wishes to thank Dr. Alfred Schöller and family for their Austrian hospitality.


text:
# Bell’s theorem and Bohr’s principle that the measurement must be classical

(February 23, 2002)

## Abstract

In a recent paper Karl Hess and Walter Philipp claim that hidden local variables cannot be ruled out. We argue that their claim is only valid if one gives up Bohr’s principle that the measuring instruments must be classical, and this principle belongs to the foundations of scientific knowledge: Therefore, nonlocal influences can be considered demonstrated.

Bell’s theorem jb64  states that certain mathematical inequalities (“Bell’s inequalities”) can be considered a criterion to distinguish between Einstein’s local realism epr  and Quantum Mechanics: Local realistic theories satisfy the inequalities, whereas Quantum Mechanics violates them. Experiments conducted in the last two decades demonstrate such a violation and the obtained results are in agreement with the quantum mechanical predictions exp . This fact has led to the today widespread conviction that in nature there are nonlocal influences acting faster than light jb64 , even though we cannot use such “Bell influences” for faster than light communication eb78 .

Nevertheless, Karl Hess and Walter Philipp have recently argued that Bell theorem’s proof is flawed. They propose a new local model using so-called time-like correlated parameters, and claim to prove that their extended space of local hidden variables does permit derivation of the quantum predictions and is consistent with all known experiments hp . The argument has been referred to as “exorcising Einstein’s spooks” pb .

In the following we first summarize the Hess-Philipp argument, and then show that it should be considered an invitation to take seriously Bohr’s distinction between “quantum object” and “classical measuring instrument” nb , rather than an “exorcism” of nonlocal influences.

The line of the Hess-Philipp argument is the following:

In his proof John Bell introduces an asymmetry in describing the spin properties of the particles and the properties of the measuring equipment. The particle’s properties are described by large sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of parameters. By contrast, the measurement apparatus is described by a vector of the Euclidean space (the settings), thus assuming in fact Bohr’s postulate that the measurement must be classical nb . However the measurement apparatus must itself in some form contain particles that, if one wants to be self consistent, also need to be described by large sets of parameters that are related to the settings.

Suppose the physicist at the analyzing station A chooses randomly the setting a for his measuring instrument, and the physicist at the station B chooses randomly the setting b for his one. The settings a and b are obviously uncorrelated. However, Hess and Philipp assume that the outcomes at each station are not determined by the source $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (hidden) variables *and* the settings a and b, but by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (hidden) variables *and* certain (hidden) parameters $`a_1,\mathrm{}.a_N`$ (related to the setting a) in station A, and $`b_1,\mathrm{}b_N`$ (related to the setting b)in station B. Moreover, they assume that the parameters $`a_1,\mathrm{}.a_N`$ are time-like correlated with the parameters $`b_1,\mathrm{}b_N`$, the same way as the times indicated by a computer clock in New-York are time-like correlated with those indicated by another clock in Geneva. Under these assumptions the model clearly becomes a local realistic description.

The last stone in the argument consists in showing that such a local model permits (applying some involved mathematics) to derive the correlations between the outcomes at A and B predicted by Quantum Mechanics.

Actually the mathematical model is more general than described above, and does not only encompass parameter sets that can be labeled with the natural numbers. Nevertheless this is not relevant for our discussion below. Note also that by setting in motion the clock in Geneva one additionally introduces a Lorentz transformation, but this does not break the times correlations between the clocks. Therefore, experiments with moving apparatuses asvs ; as97 ; szgs  would not escape the Hess-Philipp argument either, providing it holds.

In summary, the main assumption of Hess and Philipp is that choosing at random the settings a and b at the arrival of the particles into the stations does not ensure at all that the space like separated measurements that determine the outcomes at A and B are uncorrelated; they still may have time-related correlations like two setting dependent clocks. But, as they themselves acknowledge, this assumption is only valid if one gives up Bohr’s principle that the measurement is classical nb .

So, strictly speaking, what Hess and Philipp really show is that Bohr’s distinction between ”quantum object” and ”classical measuring instruments” nb  is a basic assumption in Bell’s proof, so that if one renounces to it, the proof fails, as it fails if one questions that the physicist is capable of performing free-willed choices. This clearly means also that after John Bell’s proof in 1964 a huge number of physicists have taken Bohr’s principle for the most obvious thing, from those who have established versions of Bell’s theorem and/or performed Bell experiments, to those who have proposed local realistic models (other than the Hess-Philipp’s one) to explain the results of Bell’s experiments.

That so many distinguished physicists (as well localists as nonlocalists) have so easily overlooked that Bell’s proof bases on Bohr’s principle is a sign that this principle is somehow much more natural than one uses to declare. Indeed that physics, also quantum physics and even all scientific knowledge, begins with classical observations and ends with classical observations can hardly be denied. At the beginning we introduce classical observable properties (time, length, mass, direction, charge, etc.) we can freely vary acting upon. And at the end we register classical observable events: the particle reaches one detector or the other. Only thereafter, we conclude on quantum (classically inexplicable) behavior: observing for instance interferences, we deduce that a particle which can reach the detectors by two alternative paths produces its outcome taking account at once of information concerning both paths. Therefore, the hidden $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ variables have to be defined with relation to the properties we can freely control, i.e. the settings of the measuring instruments.

This is especially clear in Bell experiments using Franson-type interferometers exhibiting a long path and a short one szgs . Here the settings are the lengths $`l`$ and $`s`$ of the long respectively short paths, and more precisely the phase-length differences $`\delta =ls`$ determining the phase parameters. Suppose you would like to build a local hidden variables theory to explain these experiments. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ programs, presumed to be hidden in the particles when they leave the source, cannot be characterized otherwise that with relation to the path-length’s differences we set. These programs would consist in strings of the form $`\{\delta _1+,\delta _2,\delta _3+,\delta _4,\mathrm{}\}`$ containing *all* the possible path-length’s differences $`\delta _i`$ the physicists can choose, and the particles would meet when they travel the interferometer, each $`\delta _i`$ having assigned either value $`+`$ (the particle will undergo transmission at the monitored beam-splitter) or $``$ (the particle will undergo reflection at the monitored beam-splitter). If the programs are so defined, then Bell’s theorem holds.

This view of things leads to the conclusion that in the Hess-Philipp model there is no measurement at all, for the relevant variables $`a_1\mathrm{}.a_N`$ and $`b_1\mathrm{}b_N`$ actually escape the physicist’s control.

To finish our discussion we would like to stress two points:

1. If one accepts Bohr’s principle and defines the hidden variables with relation to the possible setting choices the physicists can make at the measuring stations, then any hidden variable model rests on the assumption that the particle carries a program containing all possible settings, all possible physicists of all possible times may choose. This is for my taste a monstrous idea far more difficult to swallow than the quantum mechanical assumption, that is, each particle decides about the outcome in arriving at the measuring apparatus though taking account of nonlocal information. In this sense the Hess-Philipp paper helps us to look at Nonlocality as something natural, even without having to wait for violation of Bell’s inequalities or other locality criteria.

2. John Bell immensely contributed to increase our interest for two quantum mechanical questions: Nonlocality and Measurement. Regarding Nonlocality he was keen to know whether it is possible to harmonize a time ordered causal description with Einstein’s relativity. In order to decide this question we have proposed experiments with moving beam-splitters asvs ; as00 . This experiments have recently been done szgs  demonstrating a new astonishing feature of quantum correlations: they escape description in terms of “before” and “after” by means of any set of real clocks, are brought about without relation to any real timing; there is no real time ordering behind quantum causality as01 . This means that at the fundamental level it is impossible to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, though this has no observable consequence as01 . In this sense one of the quantum conundrums Bell mainly bother about has been solved. Regarding Measurement Bell was irritated by Bohr’s division of the world in classical and quantum, which he considered fuzzy and unworthy of a precise theory jb90 . Ironically, it now appears that if one gets rid of this division one gets rid of Bell’s theorem too, and also any physics, if we might say. So, the sound and cheapest solution would rather consist in maintaining both, Bohr’s principle and Nonlocality. Admittedly, the question of where we draw the line between quantum and classical or, in Wheeler’s wording, when a process of amplification becomes irreversible and produces a registered phenomenon (i.e. when does a detector actually click) jw , remains a mystery still to elucidate.

In conclusion, the Hess-Philipp’s paper doesn’t invalidate the proofs of nonlocal influences but invite us to reflect more in depth about Bohr’s principle. Experiments with space-like apparatuses in motion seem to have completed the characterization of quantum Nonlocality. Apparently, the interesting fundamental question to investigate now is that of when the things we see and control emerge from the invisible quantum world.

I would like to thank Karl Hess for clarifying remarks, and the Odier Foundation of Psycho-physics and the Léman Foundation for financial support.


text:
# On “the authentic damping mechanism” of the phonon damping model. II 1footnote 11footnote 1I cannot not neither confirm nor disprove that an article m was rejected by PRC as a reader learns from nn . It is common practice that a manuscript submission to any scientific journal remains a confidential information of the author(s) until the manuscript is accepted for publication. In PRC, it is protected by a secret accession code. It seems to me at least not ethical to publish openly on Web a confidential information of another person(s) as Mr. N. Dinh Dang did in nn . An editorial decision may be published only with a formal permission from the Editors. I doubt that Mr. N. Dinh Dang has it. I also interpret this fact as an attempt to influence a reader by non-scientific arguments in a scientific discussion.

## Abstract

This article continues a discussion raised in previous publications (LANL preprint server, nucl-th/0202006 and nucl-th/0202020). I try to convince my opponents that general arguments are not “my case” and may be applied to their model.

To remind in brief a discussion which is already distributed over several publications:

A damping mechanism of giant resonances (GR) is well established and represents now basic knowledge in nuclear structure physics. Calculations performed by many groups of authors within different microscopic approaches confirm that a spreading width (due to a coupling of collective modes, phonons, to complex configurations) is the main part of the total GR width in medium and heavy nuclei. In light nuclei, a coupling to continuum (an escape width) also plays an essential role.

A damping mechanism of GRs in a phenomenological phonon damping model (PDM) in its PDM-1 version is different from that (see, an important clarification in note0 ). A collective phonon fragments within PDM-1 as a result of coupling to simple and not to complex configurations, i.e. only the so-called Landau damping mechanism is accounted for. A coupling strength is a phenomenological model parameter which is adjusted to reproduce the GR width known from experiment. Agreement with data provided by fits within the PDM may be defined as from very good to excellent.

In a recent article n9  which raised the present discussion, it has been concluded that these type of fits confirm “the authentic damping mechanism” of the PDM as “the result of coupling between collective phonon and non-collective $`p`$-$`h`$ configurations” (i.e. the well established knowledge on the GR properties was put in doubt). This conclusion has been criticized in my article m . It has been argued that this model has the Breit-Wigner (BW) form for the phonon distribution as an ad hoc input and thus, even excellent description of the data available is not surprising. A fruitfulness of an idea to make conclusions from fits in which model parameters are adjusted to described physical observables has been put in doubts.

Although my evaluation of the PDM in m  was made for the point of view of general physical grounds, Dang et al. did not agree with me in the forthcoming publication nn . They claim that I consider some specific case (“his case”) which cannot be attached to the PDM and all my arguments “are either wrong or irrelevant”. I cannot agree with their conclusion and present below additional arguments in a sequence following the paragraphs in nn :

2. For the giant dipole resonance (GDR), the energy scale associated with variations in a coupling matrix between a phonon and uncorrelated $`1p1h`$ states is of the order of a few hundred keV. The width of the GDR strength function is of the order of a few MeV. So, I do not agree that the condition cited in nn  from Boh69  is satisfied in the GDR region: why are a few MeV small compared to a few hundred keV?

I know only one PDM-1 article n1  in which it is assumed that a phonon interacts 40 times stronger with some specific configurations than with other ones (see more on this article in 9. below). In all other PDM-1 papers, we find a single phonon which interacts equally with all $`1p1h`$ configurations. I do not want to discuss here the PDM fits at non-zero temperature. To keep on reproducing the data in hot nuclear, Dang et al. have to assume for unclear reasons that a phonon prefers to interact with $`1p1p`$ and $`1h1h`$ configurations about 10 times stronger than with $`1p1h`$ configurations. Again, as in the case of cold nuclei, an idea to provide the best fits is preferred to understanding of the physics. I think it is a blind way for theory.

It is true that PDM equations are presented in a general form in many papers by this group with different $`V_{q_1s_1}`$. But the point is that they are never used in actual calculations in this form. For this reason, I prefer to discuss what is used in calculations rather than what is written and not used even by the PDM authors themselves.

3. It is very simple to transform Eq. (1) in nn  for $`m_q^{(2)}`$ into Eq. (1) in m  for $`W_2`$, although Dang et al. claim it is impossible. For that, one needs to switch off an additional PDM smearing, i.e., consider the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. This would bring immediately to the first line of Eq. (2D-14) in Boh69 . Eq. (1) in m  (for a constant coupling strength) or its general form in Boh69 :

$$W_2=\underset{a,\alpha }{}(V_{a\alpha })^2\text{(2D-14)}$$

for the second moment $`W_2`$ is relevant to the PDM as well as to any model which deals with interactive systems.

Of course, to perform this transformation one should use the PDM strength function introduced in Ref. o1 :

$$S_q(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\gamma _q(E)}{\left(E\omega _qP_q(E)\right)^2+\gamma _q^2(E)}$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _q(E)`$ is the PDM damping, $`P_q(E)`$ is the polarization operator (see, e.g., Ref. o1  for definitions), and $`\omega _q`$ is a phonon energy, a model parameter. The strength function $`S_q(E)`$ presents fragmentation properties of a PDM phonon over eigen-states of the PDM Hamiltonian smeared with an additional parameter $`\epsilon `$. Parameter $`\epsilon `$ appears in $`\delta (E)=\epsilon /[\pi (E^2+\epsilon ^2)]`$ for $`\delta `$-functions in $`\gamma _q(E)`$.

I point this out because the strength function (1) has been replaced in the forthcoming PDM articles n9 ; nn ; n1 ; n2 ; n3 ; n4 ; n5 ; n6 ; n7 ; n8 ; n10 ; n11 ; n12 ; n13 , by its approximate form:

$$S_q^{}(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\gamma _q(E)}{\left(EE_{GDR}\right)^2+\gamma _q^2(E)}$$
(2)
where $`E_{GDR}`$ should be taken as a solution of

$$f(E)E\omega _qP_q(E)=0.$$
(3)
Eq. (2) has been obtained from Eq. (1) by expanding $`P_q(E)`$ near a solution of Eq. (3), $`E_{GDR}`$, and then extrapolating the properties of this approximation far away from $`E_{GDR}`$. In the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, Eq. (3) has $`N+1`$ solutions corresponding to eigen-energies of the PDM Hamiltonian.

4. I never claimed that the BW form for the phonon distribution is assumed within the PDM. But it is indeed an ad hoc input for PDM calculations. I may refer again to Boh69  where we read that “the Breit-Wigner form for the strength function is an immediate consequence of the assumption of a constant coupling to the other degrees of freedom of the system”. The BW under discussion has nothing to do with definition of the PDM strength function. Indeed, in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, $`S_q(E)`$ turns into a set of infinitely narrow lines while their envelope still remains the BW.

5. I do not agree that the calculation with random values of $`E_\alpha `$ in m no longer corresponds to the PDM”. I have used the PDM Hamiltonian and details on a spectrum and model parameters are only technical details of a calculation. The purpose of my calculation is to demonstrate that “the crucial feature of the PDM is the use of realistic single-particle energiesnn  is of marginal importance when a configuration space is not small; everything is determined by the BW discussed above.

$`E_0`$ in Ref. nn belongs to the Lorentz line in a hypothetical nucleus and not to my PDM fits. Eigen energies in my calculation in Ref. m  were obtained from Eq. (3) in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$.

6. I agree that if something “is by no mean\[s\] obvious” it has to be checked. My experience of microscopic calculations tells me that the increase of collectivity tends to the increase of a coupling strength. Of course, it is not necessary that everybody should trust my experience. But then, there are no other alternatives: the one, who puts it in doubt, should check it independently.

7. I never claimed that there are some reasons “why the values of $`f_1`$ for 40Ca and 48Ca should be the same” as there are no reasons to keep this parameter fixed along chains of isotopes. As pointed out in m , this parameter has no physical meaning. My issue is that one cannot learn anything from agreement with experiment from fits in which a free parameter is adjusted to a described observable. It is important to stress once again:

The Phonon Damping Model (PDM) has three phenomenological parameters, $`\omega _q`$, $`f_1`$, and $`c_1`$ for position, width, and amplitude of the GDR, respectively, and the Breit-Wigner as an ad hoc input for its shape. Numerical values of these parameters cannot be determined from independent data.

On the page 4 of the article under discussion n9 , we find: “For double closed-shell nuclei 16O and 40,48Ca, where the pairing gap is zero, such a kind of enlargement of configuration space is compensated simply by a renormalization of $`f_1`$, which reduces its value by $`25\%`$ for 16O, and $`3537\%`$ for 40,48Ca.” I read this statement after discussion of open-shell nuclei as a renormalization of $`f_1`$ in closed-shell nuclei in respect to open-shell nuclei. Or do Dang et al. mean to say that calculations in double-magic nuclei have been performed with pairing as one may conclude now from nn : “The results for GDR in 16O have been obtained already within the enlarged space”? Obviously, only the authors know whether they renormalized their $`f_1`$ in calculations along chains or not. Of course, I will take out the statement on the $`f_1`$ renormalization from 16O to 18O if it is not true. But before that, I need some help from the authors as to how a reader should interpret the above cited statements.

8. It is clearly explained in m  why comparing the PDM predictions in 40Ca to the data Har00 , the strongest $`1^{}`$ state observed should be excluded from consideration (because it has a two-phonon nature and two-phonon states are not included in the PDM model space). Thus, the PDM 0.25% of the TRK EWS corresponds to 0.007% and not to 0.025% from this experiment. It seems to me that Dang et al. try to hide again a huge disagreement by misleading comparison.

The same conclusion, that the PDM is not capable to reproduce “the significant experimental difference in the E1 strengths40Ca/48Ca, has been obtained independently by another group of authors Har01 . As they write, “It is important to note that the parameters of the PDM are adjusted to reproduce the gross structure of the GDR while investigations of $`\gamma `$-ray strength function models show that the extrapolation of the strength distribution down to energies below the particle threshold leads to unrealistic high dipole strengths and overestimates the experimental data”. Thus, it is not only my point of view that a conclusion in n9  (on a quantitative description of pygmy dipole resonance within the PDM) is not justified.

It is not true that the PDM with a structureless phonon has no problems with double counting. If a phonon internal structure is not accounted for, it does not change the physical meaning of the phonon. The PDM configuration space contains a phonon and uncorrelated $`1p1h`$ configurations. The last ones are also excited from the ground state and each of them has its own $`B_{1p1h}(E1)`$ value. If $`1p1h`$ spectrum is rather complete (it is always true in the PDM calculations) these uncorrelated $`1p1h`$ state alone exhaust about 100% of the TRK EWSR. But the PDM physics is determined only by the phonon strength function and not by its sum with $`N`$ strength functions of uncorrelated $`1p1h`$ configurations. This is equivalent to $`B_{1p1h}(E1)=0`$ within the PDM.

9. The previous article on pygmy resonances by Dang et al. n1  was not a subject of m . But if Dang et al. raise discussion on it in nn , I have some comments on it too:

The capability of the phonon damping model (PDM) to describe giant dipole resonance (GDR) damping in neutron-rich nuclei has been tested in n1 . To mimic essential differences of double-magic and exotic nuclei, a coupling between a phonon and some $`1p1h`$ configurations near the Fermi surface has been strongly enhanced in the last ones. As a result, a phonon interacts with these selected $`1p1h`$ configurations with a strength “equal to 41 MeV for oxygen isotopes, 13.856 MeV for calcium isotopes, and 6.928 MeV for tin isotopesnote1 . Let us try to understand how it is possible to stand such an enormous coupling strength which is far away from nuclear structure scales and report an agreement with experiment from this type of calculations. For that, I have repeated the PDM calculations for 16O and 18O at zero temperature keeping all the details of Ref. n1  and employing realistic $`1p1h`$ spectrum from Hartree-Fock calculation with SGII Skyrme forces note2 .

The results of my calculations code  are shown in Fig. 1. A difference in $`S_q(E)`$ for 16O and 18O in Fig. 1 is dramatic but not surprising. It is due to the fact that a phonon couples to all $`1p1h`$ configurations with an equal strength of $`F_1=1.025`$ MeV (a PDM parameter) in 16O while a coupling strength for $`[1p_{1/2}2d_{5/2}]_\nu `$ configuration at $`E_{[1p_{1/2}2d_{5/2}]_\nu }=8.2`$ MeV in 18O has been enhanced to $`F_1^{}=40F_1=41`$ MeV following the details of calculations in Ref. n1 . As a result, we find the GDR in 18O between 40 and 60 MeV and about 40% of its strength is pushed to $`20`$ MeV. The energy of the ground state is 0 MeV.

Comparing dashed lines in Fig. 1, one may be surprised that $`S_q^{}(E)`$ does not feel this enormous matrix element of 41 MeV in 18O confirming the results in n1 . But a very important detail is that $`S_q^{}(E)`$ in Fig. 1 has been calculated with $`E_{GDR}=22.5`$ MeV from Ref. n1 . It has been done in an attempt to reproduce the GDR strength functions published in Fig. 3 of n1  which are found in agreement with the data available in 16O and 18O. Taking into account that the employed $`1p1h`$ spectrum might be not exactly the same as in Ref. n1 , it is possible to conclude that dashed curves in Fig. 1 reproduce the results in Fig. 3a, 3b of Ref. n1  on a rather good qualitative level.

The only problem is that it is not possible to obtain $`E_{GDR}=22.5`$ MeV in 18O, reported in Ref. n1 , with parameters from this article as a solution of Eq. (3). To demonstrate this, let us consider a behavior of the function $`f(E)`$ of Eq. (3) in 16O and 18O. In 16O, it has a tendency of a continues increase with fluctuations reflecting $`1p1h`$ poles smeared by the parameter $`\epsilon `$ and crosses $`y=0`$ line in my calculation at $`E_{GDR}=18.5`$ MeV (see, Fig. 2, left). In 18O (Fig. 2, right), a fluctuation around $`E_{[1p_{1/2}2d_{5/2}]_\nu }`$ increases enormously because of 41 MeV coupling matrix element corresponding to this pole yielding a spurious solution of Eq. (3) at this energy. The physical PDM solutions of Eq. (3) in 18O have $`E_{GDR}=19.7`$, 50.6, and 55.0 MeV which are very different from $`E_{GDR}=22.5`$ MeV, reported in Ref. n1 . $`S_q^{}(E)`$ calculated with any them is dramatically different from the one in Fig. 1 (right).

The “18O effect” can be obtained even without any calculations. For that, one may neglect a phonon coupling to all $`1p1h`$ configurations (with a “weak” matrix element $`F_1`$) except for $`[1p_{1/2}2d_{5/2}]_\nu `$ configuration. Then, in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, Eq. (3) transforms into quadratic equation:

$$E\omega _q\frac{(F_1^{})^2n}{EE_{[1p_{1/2}2d_{5/2}]_\nu }}=0.$$
(4)
where a factor $`n`$ accounts partial occupation of $`\nu 2d_{5/2}`$ level in 18O. Eq. (4) yields the PDM eigen states at $`19.0`$ and 49.4 MeV with a phonon strength distribution among them as 40% and 60%, respectively.

It becomes clear that agreement with experiment for 18O (and accordingly for other neutron-rich nuclei) reported in Ref. n1  has been obtained by making use of the approximate PDM strength function $`S_q^{}(E)`$ and the GDR energy which is not a solution of Eq. (3) as announced. Correct PDM strength function with parameters from Ref. n1  for 18O is presented by solid curve in right part of Fig. 1.

1 and 10. I have examined the PDM from the point of view of general physical grounds. My arguments and conclusions are presented in m  and above. I think a reader may independently conclude whether general rules are not for this model (as the claims of Dang et al. in nn  may be understood) and whether one learns any physics from the PDM fits in Refs. n9 ; n1 ; o1 ; n2 ; n3 ; n4 ; n5 ; n6 ; n7 ; n8 ; n10 ; n11 ; n12 ; n13 ; n14 ; n15 ; n16  although agreement with experiment is always reported by the authors.


text:
# GHASP. A 3D Survey of Spiral and Irregular Galaxies at 𝐻𝛼. Comparison between low and high resolution rotation curves of late-type dwarf galaxies.

## 1. Introduction

An Homogeneous local sample of data cube. Up to now, it does not exist any homogeneous sample of optical data cube of nearby and isolated spirals with a large range of morphological types and luminosities allowing statistical and individual studies. This data base will constitute an unique and homogeneous 3D sample of velocity fields and line profiles to be used as a reference sample for: (1) comparing nearby galaxies in various environment (clusters, groups, pairs) with field galaxies; (2) studying galaxies at different stages of evolution (interactions, mergers, starbursts, …) and (3) analyzing galaxies presenting anomalous motions (counter rotating populations, non keplerian motions …) as well as (4) comparing high redshift galaxies for which 3D data will be available soon with the arrival of intermediate spectral resolution instruments on 8-meter class telescope (e.g. GIRAFFE on the VLT).

Mass distribution of spirals and irregulars.  N-body simulations of cosmological evolution have now reached a sufficient resolution to predict dark halos density profiles down to the innermost parts of spiral galaxies. Their trend is to show dense cuspy halos, which are not observed in most cases. High-resolution $`H\alpha `$ velocity fields are complementary to HI velocity fields mapping the outer galactic regions but suffering of beam smearing and of a lack of emission in the inner regions. The GHASP sample is a sub-sample of the WHISP (Westerbork Survey of HI Spiral in Galaxies), lead at Groningen and Dwingeloo, in order to map the neutral hydrogen of some 500 galaxies. The mass distribution of the luminous and dark matter deduced from multi-components mass models is strongly constrained by the inner slope of the rotation curves (RCs), only correctly drawn by 2D velocity fields once corrected for non-circular motions. Accurate inner shape RCs should allow disentangling cosmological scenarii (Blais-Ouellette et al. 2001).

Simulations and theoretical interpretation of velocity fields.  In central regions of spiral galaxies, the presence of numerous non-axisymmetric structures like bulges (often triaxials), bars (simple, double/nuclear or triple? bars), circum-nuclei annulus, spiral and inner spiral, … induces strong velocity gradients and non-axisymmetric velocity fields. To understand and reproduce these structures, fine tuning models are to be compared to the high resolution data cube. On the other hand, with self-consistent model, it will not be possible to match each individual velocity field with all details but it is possible to built a grid in the space parameter (mass of the galaxies, morphological type) in testing the good sets of initial parameters.

In paper, section 4, we will mainly focus on the comparison between the RCs and the mass distribution of a sub-sample of late-type dwarf galaxies obtained firstly in the HI 21cm-line alone and secondly in combining $`H\alpha `$ and HI. In section 2, we will describe the galaxy sample, the observations and the data reduction procedures. In section 3, we will explain on several examples why one needs a 3D local reference sample as well as for galaxies in different environments (binaries, groups, clusters) in the local universe as for high redshift galaxies. In section 5, we will give some details on the simulations. In section 6, we will conclude, summarize and provide some issues.

## 2. Galaxy sample, observations and data reductions.

Observations and data reduction. Observations began in 1998, using a scanning Fabry-Perot at the 1.93m telescope at OHP. Similar observations have begun in March 2001, using the same instrumentation at 1.6m telescope of Mont-Mégantic Observatory (Québec). The GHASP instrument is attached at the Cassegrain focus of the 1.93m telescope at OHP. The original f/15 aperture ratio of the telescope is brought to f/3.9 through the focal reducer. Interferential filters (typical FWHM 1.0 to 1.5 nm) enable to select the $`H\alpha `$ line of ionized hydrogen (656.278 nm). The $`H\alpha `$ line is scanned by moving the plates of the interferometer, providing a velocity accuracy of some $`kms^1`$ when the signal to noise ratio is sufficient. A Fabry-Perot interferometer with a free spectral range of $``$ 380 $`kms^1`$ at $`H\alpha `$ and a effective finesse of 12 is used, the free spectral range is scanned through 24 channels. The total field of view is 5.8 arcmin square and the pixel size 0.68 arcsec. The detector is an Image Photon Counting System (GaAs IPCS). The GHASP data are reduced with the ADHOCw software. For more detail see Hernandez et al, this meeting; Gach et al., 2002; Garrido et al. 2002; www-obs.cnrs-mrs.fr/interferometrie/GHASP/ghasp.html; www-obs.cnrs-mrs.fr/interferometrie/instrumentation.html#GaAs).

Galaxy sample. A sample of 200 galaxies has been decided to be a good compromise between the necessary amounts of data to obtain a significant sample in ad equation with the scientific goals and a reasonable number of observing runs for the data acquisition on the telescope. On average, a complete observation (including calibrations) of a galaxy can be achieved in 2 hours. For an eight-hours of dark time per night, 4 galaxies can be observed per night. At Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP, France), the average atmospheric conditions provide an efficiency rate of 50$`\%`$. With a rate of two runs of about 10-12 nights per year, 40 galaxy per year could be obtained. Furthermore, the survey should go on for about 5 years. Scientifically, we expect to cover and sample the plane (galaxy mass - galaxy morphological type). For convenient reasons, we use the plane luminosity-morphological type in the ranges $`16<M_B<23`$ and $`1<T<10`$. Eight galaxies per bin of 1.4 in magnitude $`\times `$ 2 in morphological type are observed, this leads to a total amount of 200 galaxies (8$`\times `$5$`\times `$5 = 200). Non-barred galaxy as well barred galaxies are selected in each bin. $`M_B`$ has been chosen because it is a simple a priori observational criteria, nevertheless it is not the best physical indicator of the total mass of a galaxy , $`M_R`$, $`M_I`$, $`M_H`$, are better ones but they are not available for a large range of galaxies. Furthermore, the sample is readjusted once the data have been reduced in order to extract the maximum rotational velocity of the galaxy, which is the best indicator of the total, mass at least within the optical radius. Maximum rotational velocity ranges between 50 and 350 $`kms^1`$.

## 3. A Local Reference sample.

An homogeneous sample of optical data cubes of nearby and isolated spirals with a large range of morphological types, luminosities and mass will allow statistical and individual studies of kinematics and dynamics of galaxies in various environments in the nearby and in the far universe.

The Nearby Universe. To disentangle the intrinsic kinematics proprieties of galaxies, including the effects of mass, luminosity and morphological type from the effects linked to peculiar environments, a large sample of isolated galaxies is as much necessary as samples of peculiar galaxies. By peculiar environments one generally refers to the presence of nearby galaxies or intergalactic gas, i.e. to high-density environments (like galaxies in pairs, groups, clusters) at different stages of evolution (like interactions, mergers, starbursts) and sometimes presenting anomalous motions (counter rotating populations -star or gas-, non-axisymetric motions and other anomalous features). In the hierarchical scenario, observationally confirmed by the Hubble Deep Fields studies, a consensus is emerging that, at early epochs, all the galaxies-in-formation were strongly interacting, at least to collapse and form the large galaxies observed today. In a certain sense, any form of galaxy interactions observed today could be considered as a nearby laboratory of the earlier universe, especially for small galaxies, relatively metal poor, in dense environments. Blue Compact Galaxies (BCGs), are supposed to be non-evolved galaxies experiencing an acceleration of their evolution (with respect to their star formation history) at present or recent epochs. Except that BCGs are often relatively isolated objects, they could be present relics of earlier epochs. They are characterised by small to intermediate sizes, low chemical abundances, high-star formation rate (per luminosity), HII-region-like-emission spectra, absolute B-magnitude ranging between -12 and -21, often surrounded by large HI clouds. An important issue for a better understanding of these objects is the knowledge of the non-continuous mechanisms triggering the present star formation. Among different hypothesis, cyclic infall of colded gas, galaxy interactions and collapse of proto-clouds are proposed. From a sample of 6 BCGs + 2 star forming galaxies, Östlin & al. (2001), Amram & Östlin (2001), proposed that the star formation is triggering by recent merging of gas rich objects. If the present environment of these objects is relatively poor, it could have been different in a recent past. A more complete sample of about 20 galaxies has been observed and is presently analyzed. Nevertheless, to achieve more conclusive results, careful calibration should be done with similar but isolated galaxies that do not experience star formation burst. Indeed, a massive star formation could induce strong winds affecting the gas dynamics. Galaxies in compact group of galaxies (CGGs) (1) are the galaxies in the more dense environment of the nearby universe (2) experiencing high rate of galaxy-galaxy interactions and sometimes galaxy-intergalactic gas interaction and (3) are probably also progenitor of galaxies in formation (tidal dwarf galaxy candidates in heavily interacting systems) in that way, they mimic the early universe. Nevertheless, they are different from the first galaxies because they are generally large galaxies and are not so different from field galaxies. It is really a challenge to quantify in these galaxies the rate of interaction and merging with respect to the evolution of CGGs. From a sample of 31 groups (for a total of 104 galaxies), see Plana et al in the present proceeding, we are going (1) to classify the groups in different evolutionary stages of the group (merging groups, strongly interacting groups, weakly interacting groups, non-groups and single irregular galaxies); (2) to built the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation CGGs and (3) to search for tidal dwarf galaxy candidates. Here also it is absolutely obvious that the calibration of the TF relation as well as the systematic studies of kinematical perturbations with respect to their dense environment need a reference sample of isolated galaxies obtained and analysed homogeneously with the same techniques. Galaxies in clusters are probably observed at more advanced stages of interactions than field galaxies with respect to HI deficiencies, HI and $`H\alpha `$ truncated disks, low star formation rate (by the lack of fuelling gas), associated radio sources (see e.g. Vollmer et al 2000 an example in Virgo and Gavazzi et al. 2001 for an example in Abell 1367). In clusters, an observational kinematical link is probably missing between the relatively weakly disturbed spirals and the large ratio of early type galaxies supposed to be formed from these spirals. For cluster galaxies also, a reference sample of isolated galaxies is dramatically needed to quantify the kinematical perturbations in spiral -if any- and the processes of violent relation leading to the observed high fraction of lenticular and elliptical galaxies. The same type of arguments could be declined for shells in early-type galaxies that are considered among the ”bona fide” signature of a past interaction event. Dynamics of warm gas component, present in some shell galaxies combined with stellar populations is used to constrain the accretion/interaction episode (see Rampazzo et al in the same proceeding). Identically, binary galaxy-galaxy interactions, for which the RCs are often non-flat (see Isaura Fuentes-Carrera in the same proceeding) should be interpreted through the frame of a reference sample.

The distant universe. Up to now, few observations using long-slit spectroscopy at relatively low spectral resolution with very large telescopes have revealed the kinematics of distant galaxies. With the arrival of intermediate spectral resolution instruments on 8-meter class telescope (e.g. GIRAFFE on the VLT), in the next years, 3D samples of high redshift galaxies will be studied (see Chemin et al., this proceeding). The comparison with 3D local samples like GHASP will be necessary to disentangle the effects of secular evolution from the effects link to the environment like those described in the previous section.

## 4. Mass distribution of late-type dwarf galaxies.

Dwarf galaxies are dark matter-dominated galaxies where the stellar population make only a small contribution to the observed RC, sometimes less important than the gaseous contribution. It is therefore straightforward to compare the observed RCs of these galaxies with those derived from numerical cosmological simulations, where the dark matter is the dominant component.

HI observations. A neutral hydrogen analysis of a sample of 60 RCs of late-type dwarf galaxies has been performed by Swaters in his PhD thesis (1999, hereafter refereed as S99). The S99’s observations is a part of the WHISP (Westerbork survey of HI in SPiral galaxies) led at Westerbork (Netherlands). Began in 1993, WHISP is a survey of the neutral component in spiral and irregular galaxies with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) at 21cm wavelength. Its aim is to obtain maps of the distribution and velocity structure of HI for some 500 galaxies. Such a uniform database will serve as a basis for research in many areas: dark halos, effects of environment on the structure and growth of HI disks, galaxy distances. More details can be found on the Web site http://www.astro.rug.nl/$``$whisp/. Once computed from the HI velocity fields, the S99’s RCs were refined iteratively by constructing models of the observations, taking the instrumental resolution into account. With this procedure the author corrected for the effects of beam smearing to a large extent. The beam smearing plays an important role for the steeper RCs, it depends on the inner slope of the RC and on the sampling of the curve (Blais-Ouellette et al,1999; Blais-Ouellette et al, 2001).

Comparison of the $`H\alpha `$ and HI observations The data for nine galaxies over the nineteen galaxies presented in this paper are discussed in Garrido et al. (2002, refereed hereafter as G2002 ). The others galaxies will be discussed in fore-coming papers. The $`H\alpha `$ and HI RCs have been combined using the following simple rule: when $`H\alpha `$ data are available they have been used otherwise HI data were used. This means that the inner parts of the RCs have been plotted using the $`H\alpha `$ velocity points while the outer parts with the HI data. The $`H\alpha `$ RCs have been shifted to the inclinations determined for the HI data. Best Fit Mass models (BFMs) including three components (luminous disk, dark halo and HI disk) have been performed with both data sets (HI alone and hybrid $`H\alpha `$+HI). The method used in this paper to model the mass distribution is described in Carignan $`\&`$ Freeman (1985), slightly generalized in Blais-Ouellette, Amram & Carignan (2001). The luminosity profile, in the R-band (S99), is used to probe the mass dominant stellar component. The luminosity profile is transformed into a mass distribution for the stellar disk (dash lines in Fig. 1 & 2), assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio $`(\text{M/L})_R`$. For the contribution of the gaseous component, the HI radial profile is scaled by 1.33 to account for He (dot-dash line). The difference between the observed RC and the computed contribution to the curve of the luminous (stars & gas) component is thus the contribution of the dark component, which can be represented by a dark spherical halo (dotted lines). BFMs have usually been computed except when the disk vanishes completely, in that case, a MDM is computed as summarized in Table 2.

The format of this paper does not allow us to describe individually all galaxies of the sample. As an example, let us briefly comment the first one. UGC 2023: The HI RC has a solid body shape reaching almost 80 arcsec (4 kpc). The $`H\alpha `$ RC has a completely different shape as it is rather flat up to 50 arcsec (2.5 kpc). Nevertheless, there is no $`H\alpha `$ emission at radius inner than 20 arcsec (1 kpc), furthermore the kinematics of the inner regions is not so well constrained. Using the HI data alone, the BFM leads to a weak disk component while the dark halo dominates at all radii! A BFM for the model hybrid $`H\alpha `$/HI RC leads to a M/L of 0.4, this low value is unrealistic and is due to the fact that there is no constrain in the inner part of the RC leading to a dominant dark halo. The MDM for the same hybrid RC leads to a value of M/L=4.7 while the dark halo is, in that case, almost negligible. In conclusion, the beam smearing effects are very important for this galaxy even if there is no information in the inner regions of the galaxy.

On figure 2-right, Mass to Luminous ratio of the disk component for the HI RCs versus hybrid HI/$`H\alpha `$ RCs has been plotted. The HI RC does not provide the same value for the disk M/L than the hybrid RC. The huge dispersion around the medium line (dash line) means that HI RCs obtained after beam smearing corrections on the HI data do not agree with the high resolution RCs. There is no systematic and predictable in the beam smearing correction. Nevertheless, the disk M/L computed from the HI RC is greater than the one computed from the hybrid RC for the 2/3 of this sample of 19 galaxies, for the other third of the sample it is the opposite. The beam smearing correction done on the HI data is on average too strong. This leads to an over estimation of the disk M/L ratio and by consequence a under estimation of the dark halo component in HI. The RCs for late type dwarf galaxies rise even more slowly when using hybrid $`H\alpha `$/HI data than with HI data alone. The mass of visible matter is then overestimated in HI.

## 5. Simulations Theoretical interpretation of velocity fields.

Parallel to the observations, the velocity fields are modelled, completing the works on the kinematics of the stars (Wozniak & Pfenniger 1997). We plan to perform the models on two levels:
(A) In a global way, one tries to characterize the velocity fields according to the morphological type, mass and environment of the galaxy. The models are generic; the results of models are statistically compared to the observations. The codes are adapted to the environment of studied objects. We use: (i) A particle-mesh N-BODY code coupled to an hydrodynamical SPH code (Friedli & Benz 1993, Friedli & al. 1996), adapted to the simulations of isolated discs; (ii) A hierarchical N-BODY code coupled to hydrodynamical SPH code (e.g. GADGET N-body, Springel et al, 2001) to simulate galaxies in interaction. Previous studies never focused specifically on kinematical issues. With these simulations, we plan to map and sample the plane (galaxy mass, morphological type) in same ranges than the observations in order to match the models to the observations. The simulations evolve freely from their start point a couple of Gyr ago, the results of the evolution depend only of the given initial conditions (total mass of the galaxy, amount of star and gas, gas to star ratio, disk to halo ratio, …).
(B) In an individual way, one tries to model separately each galaxy. The models are here specific. The technique is different: the gravitational potential is determined by photometric observations and the gas flows are simulated by the SPH code in the gravitational potential (e.g. Sempere et al., 1995). Although, the gas is not self-gravitating, the velocity field remains a good approximation in the regions of weak gas density (essentially outside nuclear regions). Finally a theoretical and numerical special attention will be given to the barred galaxies to disentangle the artefacts induced by the presence of the bar in the observational RCs, when the RCs are plotted from the 2D velocity fields without caution with respect to the radial component along the bar.

## 6. Summary, Conclusions and Issues.

This survey will provide an unique 3D sample of about 200 nearby spiral galaxies in the $`H\alpha `$ line, using a Fabry-Perot system. The data cubes obtained for each galaxy through their moment analysis allow us to derive crucial kinematical parameters. A data base will be built in order to provide the whole data to the community. The goals of this survey are:

(1) To constitute a 3D local reference sample of spirals/Irrs. It has been shown in section 3 that, with respect to the interaction with their high density environments, no conclusive evolutionary panel can be drawn without a solid reference sample for cluster’s galaxies, compact group galaxies, binary galaxies, shell galaxies, star forming, … galaxies as well as for high redshift galaxies.

(2) To constrain the mass distribution of spirals and Irrs. The present example of late type dwarf galaxies presented here give a good idea of the impact of higher resolution rotations curves (RCs). The main result of this analysis was to show that the HI RCs corrected for beam-smearing effects do not agree with the high resolution RCs. The beam smearing correction done on the HI data is on average too strong but could be under-estimated as well as over-estimated. The RCs for late type dwarf galaxies rise even more slowly when using hybrid $`H\alpha `$/HI data than with HI data alone. With the help of the GHASP survey we will explore all the regions in terms of galaxy mass, surface brightness and morphological types. Other shapes for the dark haloes will be tested with the aim to match the dark haloes computed in N-body simulations in a cosmic evolution frame (Kravtsov et al, 1996, Navarro et al, 1996, Burkert 1995, Burkert & Silk 1997, Zhao, 1996). The resolution reached in those simulations allows to predict the inner part of halo density profiles. These profiles could be directly compared to the ones deduced from modelling RCs obtained in combining the high spatial resolution of $`H\alpha `$ RCs and the extend of HI RCs. This will be done in a fore coming paper.

(3) To constrain the kinematics and dynamics of the internal regions. Parallel to the observations, modelled of the gaseous velocity fields are performed, completing the works on the kinematics of the stars. Simulations and theoretical interpretation of the gaseous velocity fields in inner regions of spiral needs an homogeneous data base. For that purpose, on one hand, generic models provide velocity fields characterized by morphological type, mass and environment of the galaxy (hierarchical N-BODY code coupled to hydrodynamical SPH code); on the other hand, a specific model characterizes each galaxy separately; the gravitational potential is determined by photometric observations and the gas flows are simulated by the SPH code in the gravitational potential.

## References

Amram P. & Östlin G., the Messenger, 103, (March 2001)

Blais-Ouellette S., Amram P., Carignan C., 2001, AJ, 121, 4, 1952-1964.

Blais-Ouellette S., Carignan C., Amram P. & Côté, S., 1999, AJ, 118, 2123.

Burkert A., 1995, ApJL, 447, L25.

Burkert A. & Silk J., 1997, ApJ, L55.

Carignan C., Freeman K.C., 1985, AJ 294, 494.

Chemin L., Cayatte V., Flores H., Balkowski C. and Amram P. in the present volume.

Fuentes-Carrera I., Amram P. & Rosado M. in the present volume.

Friedli, D., Wozniak, H., Ricke, M., Martinet, L., Bratschi, P.? 1996, A&AS, 118, 461.

Friedli, D., Benz, W., 1993, A&A, 268, 65.

Hernandez O., Gach J.L., Boulesteix J. & Carignan C. in the present volume.

Gach J-L., Hernandez O., Boulesteix J., Amram P., Boissin O., Carignan C., Garrido O., Marcelin M., Öslin G., Rampazzo R. submitted to PASP, 2002.

Garrido O., Marcelin M., Amram P. & Boulesteix J., 2002, submitted to A&A.

Gavazzi G., Marcelin M., Boselli A., Amram P., Vilchez J.M., Iglesias-Paramo J. and Tarenghi M., A&A, 2001, 377, 745.

Kravtsov A.V., Klypin A.A., Bullock J.S. et Primack, J.R. 1998, ApJ 502, 48

Navarro J.F., Frenk C.S., White SDM, 1996, ApJ 462, 563 - 1997, ApJ 490, 493.

Östlin G., Amram P. , Masegosa J., Bergvall N., Boulesteix J. and Márquez I., A&A, 2001, 374, 800.

Plana H., Amram P., Balkowski C. & Mendes de Oliveira C. in the present volume.

Rampazzo R., Amram P., Boulesteix J. & al in the present volume.

Sempere M.J., Garcia-Burillo S., Combes F., Knapen J.H., 1995 A&A 296, 45.

Springel, V., White, M., Hernquist, L., 2001, ApJ, 549, 681.

Swaters R.,A, 1999, PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (S99).

Vollmer B., Marcelin M., Amram P., Balkowski C., Cayatte V., Garrido O., A&A , 364, 532-542 (2000).

Wozniak H. & Pfenniger D., 1997, A&A 317, 14.

Zhao H., 1996, MNRAS, 278, 488.

### Acknowledgments.

We thank all our collaborators on the GHASP project. In particular M. Marcelin<sup>1</sup> for comments on the data; H. Wozniak<sup>1</sup> for providing a simulation of NGC 3893; S. Blais-Ouellette<sup>3</sup> and C. Carignan<sup>3</sup> for making adjustments on their mass model programs and also C. Adami<sup>1</sup>, C. Balkowski<sup>2</sup>, A. Boselli<sup>1</sup>, J.Boulesteix<sup>1</sup>, V. Cayatte<sup>2</sup> and L. Chemin<sup>2</sup>, J.L. Gach<sup>1</sup>, O. Hernandez<sup>1</sup>, L. Michel-Dansac<sup>1</sup>, H. Plana<sup>4</sup>, D. Russeil<sup>1</sup> and B. Vollmer<sup>5</sup>. <sup>1</sup>Observatoire Astronomique Marseille-Provence & Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille; <sup>2</sup>GEPI, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon; <sup>3</sup>Observatoire du Mont Mégantic & Université de Montréal; <sup>4</sup>Observatorio Nacional, Rio de Janeiro and <sup>5</sup>MPIfR Bonn.