text:
# Reflections on the Spatiotemporal Aspects of the Quantum World11footnote 1Invited talk at the First Meeting on the Interface of Gravitational and Quantum Realms held at IUCAA, Pune (India), December 17–21, 2001. To appear in Mod. Phys. Lett. A.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

At present the almost single constraint on speculations about the interface of the gravitational and quantum realms is consistency with general relativity (GR) and the standard model (SM) as effective theories for their respective realms. The meaning of quantum mechanics (QM) is not generally considered a constraint. The prevalent attitude seems to be that any interpretation will do as long as it permits asking the pertinent questions, or that the final resolution of interpretational issues must wait for a unified quantum theory of all forces including gravity. I shall argue instead that the proper resolution of the so-called measurement problem requires a “top-down” conception of the quantum world that is opposed to the usual “bottom-up” conception, which builds on an intrinsically and maximally differentiated manifold. The key to that problem is that the fuzziness of a variable can manifest itself only to the extent that less fuzzy variables exist. Inasmuch as there is nothing less fuzzy than the metric, this argues against a quantum-gravity phenomenology and suggests that a quantum theory of gravity is something of a contradiction in terms—a theory that would make it possible to investigate the physics on scales that do not exist, or to study the physical consequences of a fuzziness that has no physical consequences, other than providing a natural cutoff for the quantum field theories of particle physics.

Section 2 ties together the probabilistic nature of quantum “states,” the positional fuzziness that “fluffs out” matter, and the extrinsic nature of quantum variables. Section 3 requires nothing more sophisticated than a two-slit interference experiment to show that space cannot be a self-existent and intrinsically partitioned expanse, and that the intrinsically differentiated spatiotemporal background of classical field theory cannot be part of a description of the spatiotemporal aspects of the quantum world. Section 4 disposes of a vicious regress that appears to arise from the extrinsic nature of quantum variables, and establishes the existence of a macroworld—a system of causally connected properties that are effectively detached from the facts by which they are indicated. It further demonstrates that the quantum world is only finitely differentiated both spacewise and timewise, and that as a consequence it ought to be regarded as constructed from the top down, by the spatiotemporal differentiation of an intrinsically undifferentiated reality, rather than from the bottom up, on an intrinsically and maximally differentiated manifold.

Section 5 tries to bring our intuitions in line with the spatiotemporal aspects of the quantum world by stressing that the so-called “point particles” are formless objects, and that space exists between them—it is spanned by their (more or less fuzzy) relations. Section 6 deals with the physical roots of the metric properties of the quantum world and the meaning of “second quantization.” Section 7 discusses how the quantum world relates to its substance. Section 8 argues against the need for a quantum theory of gravity, and Sec. 9 reflects on the possible meaning of “the wave function of the (early) universe.”

## 2 INDEFINITENESS

Let me begin by denouncing a didactically disastrous approach to QM. This starts with the observation that in classical physics the state of a system is represented by a point $`𝒫`$ in some phase space, and that the system’s possessed properties are represented by the subsets containing $`𝒫`$. Next comes the question, what are the quantum-mechanical counterparts to $`𝒫`$ and the subsets containing $`𝒫`$ qua representations of an actual state of affairs and possessed properties, respectively? Once we accept this as a valid question, we are on a wild-goose chase.

If at all we need to proceed from classical physics, the right way to do so is to point out that every classical system is associated with a probability measure, that this is represented by a point $`𝒫`$ in some phase space, that observable properties are represented by subsets, and that the probability of observing a property is 1 if the corresponding subset contains $`𝒫`$; otherwise it is 0. Next comes the question, what are the quantum-mechanical counterparts to $`𝒫`$ and the subsets containing $`𝒫`$ qua representations of a probability measure and observable properties, respectively? Once we have the answer we are ready for the next question: Is it possible to reinterpret the quantum-mechanical counterpart to $`𝒫`$ as representing an actual state of affairs connoting a set of possessed properties? Because the classical probability measure assigns trivial probabilities (either 0 or 1), it is possible to think of it as an actual state of affairs. Because quantal probability measures generally assign nontrivial probabilities, it is not possible to similarly reinterpret the quantum counterpart to $`𝒫`$.

Whence the nontrivial probabilities? One of the most obvious features of the world is the stability of matter, by which I mean the existence of spatially extended material objects that neither explode nor implode the moment they are formed. We know that the world owes this feature to the indefiniteness of its relative positions. Together with the exclusion principle it “fluffs out” matter . The proper way of dealing with indefinite values is to make counterfactual probability assignments . If we say that a variable has an “indefinite value,” what we mean is that it does not have a value (inasmuch as no value is indicated) but that it would have a value if one were indicated, and that positive probabilities are associated with at least two possible values. While the reference to counterfactuality cannot be eliminated, it may be shifted from values that are only counterfactually indicated to values that are only counterfactually indefinite: If a certain measurement is performed on an ensemble of identically “prepared” systems and the results exhibit a positive dispersion, the value of the measured variable would be indefinite for each system if the measurement were not performed.

The occurrence of irreducible probabilities in a fundamental physical theory thus is a direct consequence of the positional indefiniteness to which matter owes its stability. So is the extrinsic nature of values. If a variable sometimes does and sometimes does not have a value, a criterion is called for, and this is the existence of a value-indicating fact. Such a variable possesses a value only if, when, and to the extent that, a value is indicated (by an actual event or state of affairs). A fundamental physical theory that is essentially a probability algorithm presupposes actual events (or states of affairs) not once but twice: as events to which probabilities are assigned, and as events on the basis of which probabilities are assigned.

What is a fact? Dictionaries define facts in epistemological terms. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th edition, 1990), for instance, defines “fact” as a thing that is known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true; a datum of experience; an item of verified information; a piece of evidence. Are the editors of dictionaries intent on convincing us that the existence of facts presupposes knowledge or experience? To find out, let’s look up these terms: “Experience” is the “actual observation of or practical acquaintance with facts or events”. “Knowledge” is “awareness or familiarity gained by experience (of a person, fact, or thing)” (italics supplied). These definitions are obviously circular, which might suggest a mutual dependence: All knowledge is knowledge of facts, and all facts are known facts. This may well be so, but it is beside the point.

Physics is concerned with laws, and hence with nomologically possible worlds (that is, with worlds consistent with the laws). It does not tell us which of these possible worlds corresponds to the actual world. In classical physics the actual world can be identified by initial or final conditions (or both), which we must gather from observational data. In quantum physics the identification of the actual world requires the identification of (i) the actual property-indicating facts (a.k.a. “measurements”) and (ii) the property indicated by each such fact (a.k.a. the “measurement result”). These too we need to gather from observations. Does this imply that quantum physics presupposes conscious observers? If the answer is negative for classical physics, it is equally negative for quantum physics.

The point is that a physical theory cannot identify the actual world, cannot characterize it, cannot distinguish it from the merely possible worlds, and thus cannot define actuality, reality, existence, or factuality. The existence of an actual world is the ultimate given. But what matters is that it is given, not for or to whom it is given, nor whether there is anyone to whom it is given. No theory can explain why there is anything at all, rather than nothing. This is why QM cannot explain the property-indicating facts, which it takes for granted.

That QM presupposes the existence of such facts is readily seen: The probability that a variable $`Q`$ has the value $`v`$ is the product of two probabilities—the probability that any one of the possible values of $`Q`$ is indicated, and the probability that the indicated value is $`v`$, given that a value is indicated. QM is exclusively concerned with probabilities of the latter type. It does not assign a probability to the occurrence of a value-indicating event, let alone specify sufficient conditions for such an occurrence. If QM is a fundamental and universal theoretical framework, this means that the value-indicating events presupposed by QM are uncaused. Any attempt to “explain why events occur”  is therefore a waste of time.

What needs to be shown instead is that QM is consistent: There are possible events to which actuality can be attributed consistently. In other words, there are properties that can be consistently regarded as intrinsic, and hence as capable of indicating extrinsic properties. The question is not, “how it is that probabilities become facts”  but, which properties of which objects should be considered factual per se. This question is addressed in Sec. 4.

## 3 POSITIONS ARE PROPERTIES, NOT SUBSTANCES

Making sense of QM is not so much a question about the ontological status of density operators—they are just sophisticated probability measures—as a question about the ontological status of the space and time coordinates that appear as arguments of density operators in the position representation. Classical field theory has instilled in us the disastrous habit of thinking of anything that depends on positions and times as something that exists at those positions and times, which implies the independent existence of those positions and times. Yet it should be obvious that the probability for something to happen in a given region of space at a given time is not something that exists in that region or at that time, and it stands to reason that the same is true of the algorithm that permits us to calculate this probability. Can we nevertheless postulate the independent existence of the intrinsically differentiated spatiotemporal background of classical field theory?

Showing that the answer is negative takes nothing more elaborate than a two-slit experiment with electrons . No electron is detected in the absence of the electron source in front of the slit plate, and no electron is detected behind the slit plate whenever the two slits are closed. This warrants the inference that each detected electron went through $`L\&R`$, the regions defined by the slits considered as one region. At the same time the existence of interference fringes demonstrates that each electron went through $`L\&R`$ without going through a particular slit (and, of course, without having been split into parts that went through different slits). But if space were something that existed by itself, independently of its “material content,” and if it were made up of distinct, separate regions, no object could have a fuzzy position—a position that is counterfactually and probabilistically distributed over disjoint regions. The truth of the proposition “The electron went through $`L\&R`$”—symbolically, $`eL\&R`$—would imply the truth of either $`eL`$ or $`eR`$.

Interference fringes have been observed using C60 molecules and a grating with 50-nm-wide slits and a 100-nm period . Do we need any further proof that $`L`$ and $`R`$ cannot be distinct, self-existent “parts of space,” and that, consequently, space cannot be a self-existent and intrinsically partitioned expanse? The proposition $`eL\&R`$ can be true while both $`eL`$ and $`eR`$ lack truth values. In other words, a definite relationship—“inside” or “outside”—can exist between the electron’s position (qua observable) and the region $`L\&R`$ while no such relationship exists between the electron’s position and either $`L`$ or $`R`$. In yet other words, $`L\&R`$ can be real for the electron while neither $`L`$ nor $`R`$ (nor the distinction we make between $`L`$ and $`R`$) is real for it.

Although we readily agree that red, or a smile, cannot exist without a red object or a smiling face, we just as readily believe that positions can exist without being properties of material objects. We are prepared to think of material objects as substances, and we are not prepared to think of their properties as substances—except for their positions. (A substance is anything that can exist without being the property of something else.) There are reasons for these disparate attitudes, but they are psychological and neurobiological . They concern the co-production, by the mind and the brain, of the phenomenal world—the world as we perceive it. They do not apply to the quantum world, but they certainly make it hard to make sense of it. As long as we treat $`L`$ and $`R`$ as substances that make up $`L\&R`$, we cannot comprehend the behavior of electrons in two-slit experiments. This behavior makes sense only if we treat each region of space as a property—the property of being in that region. Then a region exists iff it is possessed by at least one object, and the distinction between a region $`V`$ and its complement is real for an object $`O`$ iff the proposition “$`O`$ is in $`V`$” has a truth value (that is, if a truth value is indicated). If neither $`L`$ nor $`R`$ exists for the electron, nothing can “compel” the electron to go through either $`L`$ or $`R`$.

## 4 THE MACROWORLD

There are objects whose indicated positions are so correlated that each of them is consistent with every prediction that is based on previous indicated positions and a classical law of motion except when it serves to indicate an unpredictable value. Such objects deserve to be labeled “macroscopic.” (Note that this definition does not require that the probability of finding a macroscopic object where classically it could not be, is strictly 0. What it requires is that there be no position-indicating fact that is inconsistent with predictions based on a classical law of motion and earlier position-indicating facts.) Since between those times at which macroscopic objects serve as pointers their indicated positions are predictably correlated, these positions can be considered intrinsic, or factual per se. And since before and after each value-indicating transition the position of a pointer can be considered intrinsic, factuality can also be attributed to the transition itself. These claims will be substantiated in the present section.

The departure of an object $`O`$ from a classical trajectory can be indicated only if there are detectors whose position probability distributions are narrower than $`O`$’s. Such detectors do not exist for all objects. Some objects have the sharpest positions in existence. For these objects the probability of a position-indicating event that is inconsistent with a classical trajectory is necessarily very low. It is therefore certain that among these objects there will be macroscopic ones.

Since no object has an exact position, it might be argued that even for a macroscopic object $`M`$ there always exists a small enough region $`V`$ such that the proposition $`MV`$ lacks a truth value. But this is an error. Among the objects that have the sharpest positions in existence there are macroscopic objects, and they are macroscopic (in the sense defined above: their nonindicating positions are predictably correlated) because there isn’t any object that has a (significantly) sharper position. Hence there isn’t any object for which $`V`$ is real. But a region exists only if it is real for at least one object. It follows that there exists no region $`V`$ such that the proposition $`MV`$ lacks a truth value. Such a region may exist in our imagination, but it does not exist in the real world.

Now recall why positions are extrinsic: The proposition $`OV`$ may or may not have a truth value. One therefore needs a criterion for the existence of a truth value—a truth value must be indicated. But one doesn’t need a criterion for the existence of a truth value if for every existing region $`V`$ the proposition $`MV`$ has a truth value. Since macroscopic objects satisfy this condition, their positions can be consistently considered intrinsic. Since every existing region has a trivial probability of containing $`M`$, we can make the transition from a probability measure to an actual state of affairs, exactly as in classical physics (Sec. 2). We can think of the positions of macroscopic objects (macroscopic positions, for short) as forming a system of causally connected properties that are effectively detached from the facts by which they are indicated. We can think of this system as a self-contained causal nexus interspersed with transitions (of value-indicating positions) that are causally linked to the future but not to the past. And it is to this system—and this system alone—that an independent reality can be attributed. Everything else exists because it is indicated by the goings-on within this system, for without it no indicatable properties exist. (The function of a detector is not only that of indicating a position but also that of making real an indicatable position—the detector’s sensitive region—by possessing it as an intrinsic property—a predictably evolving shape.)

Macroscopic positions are so abundantly and so sharply indicated that they are only counterfactually fuzzy. Their fuzziness never evinces itself, through uncaused transitions or in any other manner. It exists solely in relation to an imaginary spatial background that is more differentiated than the real world. The space over which the position of a macroscopic object is “smeared out” is never probed. This space is undifferentiated; it contains no smaller regions. We may imagine smaller regions, but they have no counterparts in the real world. The distinctions we make between them are distinctions that nature does not make.

It follows that the quantum world is only finitely differentiated spacewise, and that we ought to regard it as constructed from the top down, by a finite process of differentiation, rather than from the bottom up, on an intrinsically and maximally differentiated manifold. And much the same applies to the world’s temporal aspect. Time, as everyone knows, is not an independent observable. Time has to be read off of deterministically evolving positions—the positions of macroscopic clocks. If these bear a residual fuzziness, so do all indicated times. The upshot: The quantum world is maximally differentiated neither spacewise nor timewise.

## 5 SPACE AND THE QUANTUM WORLD

Quarks and leptons are often described as “pointlike.” It is important to be clear about what this means. It expresses the fact that such an object lacks internal structure. Nothing in the formalism of QM refers to the shape of an object that lacks internal structure, and the empirical data cannot possibly do so. All that experiments can reveal in this regard is the absence of evidence of internal structure. The idea that a so-called “point particle” is an object that not only lacks internal relations but also has the shape of a point thus is unwarranted both theoretically and experimentally. It is, besides, seriously misleading, inasmuch as the image of a pointlike object suggests the existence of an infinitesimal neighborhood in an intrinsically and maximally differentiated manifold. To bring our intuitions in line with the spatiotemporal aspects of the quantum world, we ought to conceive of all so-called “point particles” as formless objects. What lacks internal relations also lacks a shape.

It follows that the shapes of material objects resolve themselves into sets of (more or less fuzzy) spatial relations between formless objects, and that space itself is the totality of such relations—relative positions and relative orientations. It further follows that the corresponding relata do not exist in space. Space contains, in the proper, set-theoretic sense of “containment,” the forms of all things that have forms—for forms are sets of spatial relations—but it does not contain objects over and above their forms; a fortiori it does not contain the formless constituents of matter. Instead, space exists between them; it is spanned by their relations.

Apart from being of philosophical interest, these conclusions may be important for a better understanding of the quantum/gravity interface, inasmuch as they provide us with a way of thinking about the spatial and temporal aspects of the quantum world that is consistent with their finite differentiation. The quantum world with its fuzzy spatial relations does not “fit” into the self-existent and maximally differentiated expanse of classical space; the possibility of thinking of the relata as points and embedding them in a single manifold exists only for definite (“sharp”) spatial relations. A clear distinction should therefore be made between the existing (more or less fuzzy) spatial relations that constitute space, and the purely imaginary space that comes with each localizable object $`O`$ and contains the unpossessed exact positions relative to $`O`$. These imaginary spaces are delocalized relative to each other: The unpossessed exact positions relative to $`O`$ are fuzzy relative to any object other than $`O`$.

## 6 THE PHYSICAL ROOTS OF THE METRIC

The formal expression of indefiniteness (fuzziness) through nontrivial probability assignments determines the kinematical aspects of QM up to the number field . Together with the conservation of probability for freely propagating particles, the kinematics determines the dynamical framework of QM including the number field. Here is (in outline) how the latter may be shown:

Consider a series of measurements. We assign probabilities to the possible results of the final measurement in conformity with the probability algorithm that constitutes the kinematics. If the intermediate measurements are not performed but the histories that lead to a possible result of the final measurement are defined in terms of the possible results of the intermediate measurements, the probability of any possible final result will be given by the (absolute) square of a sum over all histories that lead to this result. Each history contributes an amplitude, which may be real or complex.

Next consider the limit of a series of unperformed position measurements on an isolated scalar particle, in which the histories become continuous trajectories. Suppose $`s`$ parametrizes such a trajectory, and $`ds_1`$ and $`ds_2`$ label adjoining infinitesimal segments. The probability algorithm requires us to multiply the amplitudes associated with successive segments of a history, so that

$$A(ds_1+ds_2)=A(ds_1)A(ds_2).$$

Hence the amplitude for propagation along an infinitesimal path segment can be written as $`A(ds)=\mathrm{exp}(zds)`$, and the amplitude for propagation along a path $`𝒞`$ can be written as $`A(s[𝒞])=\mathrm{exp}(zs[𝒞])`$. But if $`z`$ had a real part, the probability of finding the particle anywhere would not be conserved; it would either increase or decrease exponentially with time. Thus $`A(s[𝒞])`$ must be a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(ibs[𝒞])`$.

It should perhaps be stated that no contradiction exists between (i) concluding that the intrinsically differentiated spatiotemporal background of classical field theory does not exist in the quantum world and (ii) introducing parametrized continuous trajectories. For one, each trajectory is defined counterfactually as a sequence of results of unperformed (and even unperformable) position measurements. For another, the particle trajectories “exist” in the purely imaginary space of unpossessed exact positions mentioned at the end of the previous section. (In this case the origin of that “space” is any object relative to which the particle got precisely localized by the first measurement.) By summing over all continuous paths leading from $`(x_1,t_1)`$ to $`(x_2,t_2)`$, we can calculate the propagator $`K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)`$, which determines the probability of detecting at $`(x_2,t_2)`$ a particle having last been “seen” at $`(x_1,t_1)`$ . The probability for something to happen at $`(x_2,t_2)`$, recall, is not something that exists at $`(x_2,t_2)`$, nor is the spacetime location $`(x_2,t_2)`$ something that exists by itself. It exists (for the particle) if something indicates that at the exact time $`t_2`$ the particle has the exact position $`x_2`$. The very fact that in calculating $`K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)`$ we sum over all particle trajectories connecting the two locations, implies that the distinctions we make between the trajectories are distinctions that nature does not make. If the particle is detected at $`(x_1,t_1)`$ and $`(x_2,t_2)`$, and if there isn’t any matter of fact about its intermediate whereabouts, the particle travels along “all of them” without traveling along any of them, in the same sense in which the electron goes through $`L\&R`$ without going through either $`L`$ or $`R`$ .

We are now ready to address the physical roots of the metric properties of the quantum world. Consider a scalar particle and a particular path. As the particle travels along this path (counterfactually), $`s`$ increases, and $`\mathrm{exp}(ibs)`$ rotates in the complex plane. Let us say that every time this phase factor completes a cycle, the particle “ticks.” If the particle is free, it singles out a class of uniform time parameters—those for which the number of ticks per second is constant. Different particles may tick at different rates, which are related to the standard rate of one tick per second by the species-specific constant factor $`b`$.

So much for the physical roots of mass and proper time. Our next task is to determine the physical origin of the spatial part of the metric. If space is a set of spatial relations then there are no absolute positions, nor is there anything like absolute rest. Hence all inertial coordinate systems are created equal. It can be shown  that, as a consequence, the proper-time interval $`ds`$ and inertial coordinates are related via

$$ds^2=dt^2+K(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),$$

where $`K`$ is a universal constant, which may be positive, zero, or negative. Here are some of the reasons why $`K>0`$ can be excluded: (i) Ubiquitous causal loops; reversing an object’s motion in time is as easy as changing its direction of motion in space. (ii) The nonexistence of an invariant speed—a speed that is independent of the inertial frame in which it is measured—rules out massless particles, long-range forces, and the possibility of resting the spatial part of the metric on the cyclic behavior of particles (the rates at which they tick).

If $`K`$ is not positive, causal loops are ruled out by the existence of an invariant speed. For $`K=0`$ this is infinite, and for negative $`K`$ it is $`c=\sqrt{1/|K|}`$. The problem with the nonrelativistic case $`K=0`$ is that the rates at which free particles tick cannot fix the spatial part of the metric. They just define a universal inertial time scale via $`ds=dt`$. Nor are light signals available for converting time units into space units. Nor do we get interference from free particles since $`ds=dt`$ implies that $`\mathrm{exp}(ibs[𝒞])`$ is the same for all paths with identical endpoints—and without interference QM is inconsistent (with the existence of a macroworld, which it presupposes). Yet all there is to fix the spatial part of the metric—for every inertial frame—is the rates at which free or freely falling particles tick. Hence these ought to be invariant, and this requires negative $`K`$ or a finite invariant speed.

The rates at which particles tick and the correlations between events in null separation not only underlie the metric properties of the world but also make it possible to influence the behavior of particles by influencing their propagators. The only way of influencing the probability of finding at one space-time location a scalar particle last “seen” at another location, is to modify the rate at which it ticks as it travels along each path connecting the two locations. The number of ticks associated with a path defines a species-specific Finsler geometry $`dS(dt,d𝐫,t,𝐫)`$ . By invoking again the stability of matter (Sec. 2), it can be shown that there are just two ways of influencing the Finsler geometry that goes with a scalar particle.

The stability of matter rests on the exclusion principle . For this to hold, the ultimate constituents of matter must be indistinguishable members of one or several species of fermions. The necessary indistinguishability requires that all free particles belonging to the same species of fermions tick at the same rate. This guarantees the possibility of a global system of spacetime units : While there may be no global inertial frame, there will be local ones, and they will mesh with each other as described by a pseudo-Riemannian spacetime geometry. Accordingly there is a species-specific way of influencing the Finsler geometry associated with a scalar particle that bends geodesics relative to local inertial frames, and there is a universal way that bends the geodesics of the pseudo-Riemannian spacetime geometry. In natural units:

$$dS=m\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu }+qA_\nu dx^\nu .$$

Here the one-form $`A`$ and the tensor $`g`$ \[of type (0,2)\] represent the possible effects on the motion of scalar particles—any effects, whatever the causes may be . If the sources of these fields have no definite positions, the fields themselves cannot have definite values. We take this into account by summing over histories of $`A`$ and $`g`$, and for consistency with the existence of a macroworld we make sure that a unique history is obtained in the classical limit. Obvious and well-known constraints then uniquely determine the terms that we need to add to $`dS`$ in order to obtain a definite field history in this limit (except for a possible cosmological term).

A note on the quantization of particle fields (“second quantization”): We know from Huygens’ principle that a sum over space-time trajectories can be replaced by a wave equation. A relativistic wave equation has “negative energy” solutions corresponding to particles for which proper time decreases as inertial time increases , and it conserves charge rather than probability. Particle numbers are therefore variables, and variables that are not sharply and continuously monitored by the macroworld (a.k.a. the environment) are fuzzy. To accommodate fuzzy particle numbers we sum over the histories of a field the Lagrangian of which yields the wave equation in the classical limit. This turns the field modes into harmonic oscillators the quanta of which represent individual particles with definite energies and momenta. Expanding the interaction part of $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ yields a sum over histories in which free particles are created and/or annihilated, and by using the appropriate wave equation for spin-$`1/2`$ particles we arrive at the Feynman rules for QED.

I mention this to emphasize that quantum field theory (QFT) is a method of calculating (multi-)particle propagators. There is no discernible reason for endowing quantum fields with a special ontological status. Since this is nevertheless frequently done, I shall devote the following section to questions of ontology.

## 7 ONTOLOGY

Wilczek creates the impression that what Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler call “the miraculous identity of particles of the same type”  is explained by the fact that quantum fields, rather than individual particles, are the primary reality: “We understand \[the identity of two electrons\] as a consequence of the fact that both are excitations of the same underlying ur-stuff, the electron field. The electron field is thus the primary reality” . Given that the self-existent and intrinsically differentiated spatiotemporal background of classical field theory is not a feature that can be consistently attributed to the quantum world, the assignment of ontological primacy to fields is a nonstarter.

For centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of intrinsically distinct substances. QM has settled the question for good: There are no intrinsically distinct substances. The concept of substance betokens existence; it never betokens individuality. Individuality is strictly a matter of properties.

If you think that QM is about regularities in sensory experience or about experimental “interventions into the course of Nature” , you don’t need the concept of “substance.” You need it if you want to think of the quantum world as a free-standing reality, inasmuch as it is the concept of “substance” that betokens independent existence. And you need to know how the quantum world relates to its substance. Since it would be absurd to substantialize a probability algorithm, substantiality can’t be attached to a state vector or a wave function. Nor can it be attached to the points of a space-time manifold. Nor can the substance of the quantum world be decomposed into a multiplicity of intrinsically distinct substances, as we just saw.

If the property of being here and the property of being there are simultaneously possessed, how many substances does that make? The correct answer is one, for the substance that betokens the reality of the property of being here also betokens the reality of the property of being there. QM does not permit us to interpose a multiplicity of distinct substances between the substance that betokens existence and the multiplicity of possessed positions. If particles are distinct, they are so by virtue of distinguishing properties. If there are no distinguishing characteristics, there is multiplicity without distinctness. The constituents of a Bose-Einstein condensate are many without being distinct. Their multiplicity is not a multiplicity of substances but the property of a single substance. When particles of the same type possess distinct positions, there exists a multiplicity of positions, not a multiplicity of substances. When the particles belong to different species, the distinct positions are correlated with different species-specific properties, but there never exists a multiplicity of substances. Treating particles as a multiplicity of substances, and hence as distinct by virtue of being a multiplicity of substances, rather than by virtue of possessing distinguishing properties, inevitably leads to the wrong statistics in situations in which distinguishing properties do not exist, as is well known.

QM thus lends unstinting support to the constitutive idea of all monistic ontologies: Ultimately there is only one substance (that is, only one thing that exists by itself, rather by virtue of something else). As physicists we are not concerned with the intrinsic nature of this substance. (It arguably plays an important role in the emergence of consciousness). What is of interest to us is how it acquires the aspect of a spatiotemporal expanse teeming with quarks and leptons. In broad outline the answer is simple enough: By entering into spatial relations with itself, this substance acquires at one stroke the aspect of a multiplicity of spatial relations, which constitute space, and the aspect of a multiplicity of formless relata, which constitute matter. And if you allow the spatial relations to change, you’ve got time as well, for change and time imply each other. (In a timeless world nothing can change, and a world in which nothing changes is a world without temporal relations; such a world is temporally undifferentiated and therefore timeless, just as a world without spatial relations is spatially undifferentiated and therefore spaceless.)

The title of this letter may give the impression that the quantum world owes its nonclassical aspects to the nonclassical nature of space or spacetime, rather than to the nonclassical nature of matter. This impression rests on a false opposition. Since space—the totality of spatial relations that exist between particles—does not exist in the absence of particles, the nonclassical “nature of space” is one (and only one) aspect of the nonclassical nature of matter. Another such aspect is the radical unity of substance pointed out in this section. The overarching principle is logical. It consists in the impossibility of objectifying all the distinctions we make, whether they be spatial, temporal, or substantial. It finds its formal expression in the necessity of summing amplitudes. Whenever QM requires us to do this, it is because the distinctions we make between the corresponding histories have no counterparts in the physical world. When we sum over histories with swapped particle identities, it is because the particles lack identities: The distinction between this particle and that particle (over and above the distinction between this property and that property) is a distinction that nature does not make.

## 8 A QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY?

The uncertainty principle implies that at finite energies particles cannot be brought arbitrarily close to each other, even if it made sense to consider arbitrarily small distances. The fuzziness of the metric implies that arbitrarily small distances do not exist. It thus provides a natural high-energy cutoff. Renormalization probably only makes sense because of this natural cutoff . It allows us to follow the scale-dependent parameters of a renormalizable theory down to where the “uncertainty” in a distance is of the same order of magnitude as the distance itself, and the concept of “scale” loses its meaning. (“Uncertainty” mistranslates Heisenberg’s term “Unschärfe,” which means “fuzziness.”) This suggests to me that even if a renormalizable quantum theory of gravity existed, it wouldn’t make sense, owing to the nonexistence of another fuzzy variable providing a natural cutoff for such a theory.

Worse than “uncertainty” (in lieu of “fuzziness”) is the widespread use of “fluctuations,” a term that refers to the statistical consequences of the fuzziness of a variable. Recall that the fuzziness of a variable finds expression as a statistical distribution over the possible results of unperformed measurements. If the measurements are performed, the fuzziness evinces itself counterfactually, as something that would have been had the measurements not been made (Sec. 2). As a rule, the indefiniteness of a variable cannot evince itself, through statistically distributed and hence unpredictable results, unless the results are distributed over something more definite. The fuzziness of the position of a material object, for instance, can evince itself through statistical fluctuations only to the extent that detectors with sharper positions exist. This is why the fuzziness of the positions of macroscopic objects cannot evince itself: Detectors with sharper positions do not exist.

The fuzziness of positions thus has factual consequences up to a point, and so has the fuzziness of the electromagnetic field. The indefiniteness of $`A`$ induces a fuzziness in the species-specific lengths of the “possible” trajectories of electrically charged particles. On all observationally accessible scales this fuzziness exceeds the fuzziness that is induced by the indefiniteness of the metric $`g`$. This is why the fuzziness of $`A`$ can have factual consequences such as the Lamb shift. This effect exists not simply because a 2S electron is closer to the proton on average than is a 2P electron but essentially because on atomic scales “closer” is still extremely well defined. Because the 2S electron probes the electromagnetic field on a smaller scale than the 2P electron, it “sees” a fuzzier field, and thus more contributions from the perturbation expansion of the interaction part of $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$.

On the other hand, there is nothing less fuzzy than the metric. Hence the fuzziness of the metric has no statistical consequences in the realm of facts, for essentially the same reason that the fuzziness of macroscopic positions has none. Nor can there be anything comparable to the Lamb shift, for it is essential for this kind of effect that distinct scales exist—such as the distinct scales on which electrons in the aforementioned states probe the field. This suggests to me that the only physical consequence of the fuzziness of the metric is that it provides a natural cutoff for the quantum field theories of particle physics. (There is another: the very existence of GR. In the quantum world, everything that is not completely indefinite, and therefore nonexistent, is based on the interference of “histories” that are not objectively distinct.)

GR has been said to be an effective theory , which suggests the existence of a more correct theory for scales on which the fuzziness of the metric becomes significant. But on such scales the very concept of “scale” loses its meaning. That is why a “quantum theory of gravity” may be a contradiction in terms. Such a theory would make it possible to investigate the physics on scales that do not exist. It would allow us to study the physical consequences of a fuzziness lacks physical consequences, other than the aforesaid ones.

## 9 “INITIAL CONDITIONS”

As we approach the cosmological time $`t=0`$, we reach a point at which the concept of “distance” loses its meaning and the possibility of spatiotemporal structure ceases to exist. Well before we reach this point, we enter an era in which there is as yet no macroworld. Yet nothing happens or is the case unless it is indicated by what goes on in the macroworld. The properties that make up the quantum domain, including the properties of the universe at pre-macroscopic times, exist only to the extent that they can be inferred from the goings-on in the macroworld. Hence whatever happened before the onset of the macroworld did so only because it is indicated by something that happened later.

For the rest, QM allows us to make counterfactual probability assignments. As long as the indefiniteness of the metric does not void the concepts of “distance” and “duration,” we can counterfactually consider regions of space that are not probed by any detector, and times that are not indicated by any clock. Such regions and times would exist if they were probed or indicated, which cannot be the case before the onset of the macroworld.

Finally, probabilities that are assigned to the possible results of measurements at pre-macroscopic times cannot be based on a “preparation.” QM allows us to assign probabilities on the basis of any relevant set of data, not only data pertaining to earlier times but also data pertaining to later times and data involving events in spacelike separation . However, where the early universe is concerned, there are no earlier relevant data, so probability assignments can only be based on data pertaining to later times. Hence the only density operator that we can meaningfully associate with the early universe is an advanced or “retropared” one—a density operator that “evolves” toward the past in the same (spurious) sense in which a retarded or “prepared” density operator “evolves” futurewards . The notion that the density operator of the early universe causally determines the later universe is therefore as absurd as the idea that a “prepared” density operator causally determines its “preparation.” If we had an ensemble of early universes, we would be dealing with a post-selected rather than a pre-selected ensemble. We would have final conditions—macroscopic data relevant to probability assignments to possible events at pre-macroscopic times—but no initial conditions.


format: text

text:
# PIPELINE PROCESSING OF VLBI DATA

## ABSTRACT

As part of an on-going effort to simplify the data analysis path for VLBI experiments, a pipeline procedure has been developed at JIVE to carry out much of the data reduction required for EVN experiments in an automated fashion. This pipeline procedure runs entirely within AIPS, the standard data reduction package used in astronomical VLBI, and is used to provide preliminary calibration of EVN experiments correlated at the EVN MkIV data processor. As well as simplifying the analysis for EVN users, the pipeline reduces the delay in providing information on the data quality to participating telescopes, hence improving the overall performance of the array. A description of this pipeline is presented here.

## INTRODUCTION

At the current time Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) datasets require considerable effort and detailed knowledge on the part of the astronomer to produce a calibrated dataset suitable for scientific analysis. This places high manpower requirements on any projects involving large amounts of VLBI data, such as surveys and monitoring campaigns. The high data rates and the requirement for real-time processing of future radio interferometers (e.g. ALMA, LOFAR, SKA) will create a situation where traditional reduction data methods will no longer be viable, necessitating a large element of automatic data reduction.

As a result, efforts are being made to produce ‘pipelines’ which will perform much of the data analysis in an automated way. The ultimate goal of these pipelines would be to provide a fully calibrated dataset to the astronomer, where the quality of the calibration is sufficient to meet the scientific aims of the experiment.

As a first step towards this goal, a pipeline procedure has been developed at JIVE to calibrate the regular Network Monitoring Experiments (NMEs) carried out by the European VLBI Network (EVN), and to perform the initial calibration of EVN user experiments. The NMEs are simple experiments, typically observing two sources in a continuum, phase-referencing mode and are intended to give an indication of the quality of the data and calibration information provided by the various stations making up the array. The simple nature of the NMEs makes them ideal candidates for pipeline processing. As an extension to the NME analysis, the pipeline can also be used to process data on calibrator scans in user experiments in order to provide more frequent feedback on the performance of the network than is provided by the NMEs alone. Finally, the pipeline procedure, since it carries out all of the main calibration tasks required in a typical VLBI experiment, can be used as the basis to provide a simplified data reduction path for many user experiments. This does not yet provide a truly automated reduction package as some data inspection and manipulation is still required on the part of the astronomer. The aim is to minimise the time and effort required of the astronomer in performing tasks that can be accomplished by the pipeline.

## DESCRIPTION OF THE PIPELINE

The EVN pipeline has been written as a procedure within AIPS (produced and distributed by NRAO); this is the standard software package used for calibration of astronomical VLBI data. The AIPS package provides a suite of tasks to perform the various steps of data calibration, as well as tasks that allow inspection of the data and removal of corrupted data. The EVN pipeline uses the facilities within AIPS to calibrate the dataset with a minimum of user input.

A subset of the data from a recently pipelined experiment at various stages of the pipeline procedure is presented below to illustrate the steps carried out by the pipeline. This experiment was observed at L-band with 8 stations each recording data at a rate of 512 Mb s<sup>-1</sup> \[2-bit Nyquist sampling of 64 MHz of bandwidth in two polarizations (right circular, RCP, and left circular, LCP)\]. Two sources were observed – a bright, compact, calibrator source, and a weak ($`10`$ mJy) target source, located about 1 degree from the calibrator. The phase-referencing method was used to calibrate the weak target using the data from the bright calibrator. The steps performed by the EVN pipeline are:

1. The raw data supplied by the correlator, stored in FITS format, are loaded into AIPS, then sorted and catalogued as required by the AIPS tasks. Data known to be invalid from information provided by the individual stations or the correlator is flagged. A subset of the raw data from our example experiment is presented in Fig. 1.
2. The a priori amplitude calibration is then performed using system temperatures and gain files which are provided by the participating stations and which have been preprocessed into a format suitable for use with the appropriate AIPS tasks. The amplitude calibration information for our example baseline is presented in Fig. 2.
3. The data are then fringe-fitted to remove frequency dependent phase slopes across the observing band. In the case of phase-referencing experiments it is possible to propagate solutions found for one source to another source. A bandpass calibration is also performed. The effects of these steps can be seen in Fig. 3.
4. Optionally, data on each baseline can then be flagged based on deviations from the mean value for that baseline. This sort of automated flagging is only useful for sources with simple structure.
5. The data from any sources deemed bright enough to self-calibrate are then iteratively self-calibrated and imaged to produce a crude map of the calibrator sources. The calibrated visibilities and the source model, and the pipeline map are presented in Fig. 4. After just a couple of iterations of self-calibration reasonable agreement is found between the data and the model, and a map with a dynamic range of $`100:1`$ is produced. The solutions produced for the calibrator source can be propagated to nearby weak target sources which are not suitable for self-calibration.
6. At a number of stages in the calibration procedure plots of the calibrated data are produced. These are useful to check the progress of the pipeline calibration, to identify problems with the data and to assess the performance of individual stations in the array.

## CONCLUSIONS

It is intended that the majority of user experiments correlated by the EVN MkIV data processor will be processed using the pipeline procedure. This will allow partially calibrated datasets to be provided to users. The pipeline analysis will also greatly increase the effectiveness of the correlator archiving policy as the plots of the calibrator sources produced by the pipeline are made available to all interested persons via the Internet. Users who are interested in archived data will have a means of instantly determining the quality of publicly available data in the archive on an experiment by experiment basis, by looking at the output from the pipeline. This will make it significantly easier to determine the usefulness of any data set for any given purpose.

The other principal benefit of the pipeline procedure is that it is now feasible to carry out the preliminary calibration of all experiments processed by the EVN data processor, within a very short time of the correlation being completed. This means that the array performance (i.e. data quality and the accuracy of the a priori calibration information) can be closely monitored throughout observing sessions. The improved feedback to telescopes resulting from this should result in a more reliable, and better calibrated array in the future.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Phil Diamond for providing the AIPS scripts on which the EVN pipeline is based.


text:
# Optimum pinning of the vortex lattice in extremely type-II layered superconductors

## I Introduction

It well known that the motion of vortex lines in the mixed phase of a type-II superconductor generates dissipation, and hence that an unpinned vortex-lattice state is in fact resistive tinkham . This has been confirmed recently in the mixed phase of clean high-temperature superconductors, where the superconductivity of samples with a strip geometry is found to be very much superior to that in samples with a Corbino disk geometry fuchs . Surface barriers in the strip geometry prohibit rigid motion of the vortex lattice, while the Corbino disk geometry allows for rigid rotations of the vortex lattice. The above phenomena can be understood theoretically in the extreme type-II limit, where magnetic screening is absent tinkham . Rigid translations of the vortex lattice result in an infrared divergence that destroys phase coherence at any temperature maki-moore . This infrared divergence can be removed by excluding rigid motion of the vortex lattice through surface barriers, whereupon phase coherence is restored jpr01 .

Defects in the bulk of a superconductor can also effectively prohibit the rigid motion of the vortex lattice tinkham . In this work we study the nature of phase coherence in an extremely type-II layered superconductor, with magnetic field oriented perpendicular to the layers, and containing an array of correlated pins. We choose to use an optimum arrangement of identical columnar pins blatter , the locations of which match the triangular vortex lattice at zero temperature. Such a configuration can be realized experimentally by artificial “anti-dot” arrays antidots . The Josephson coupling between layers is turned off initially, thus allowing us to model the system of vortices in each layer by a two-dimensional (2D) Coulomb gas with a uniform charge background and a commensurate pinning potential. (cf. ref. 7) We employ Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to uncover the thermodynamic phase diagram of this system under periodic boundary conditions. The depth of the pinning potential, $`U`$, becomes a useful control parameter. As $`U`$ increases from zero, the “floating” vortex lattice phase hattel\_xy ; franz\_prb  that exists at $`U=0`$ becomes pinned at a critical $`U_p`$. A finite-size analysis shows that $`U_p`$ tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit, and that floating is prohibited initially by a sparse distribution of pinned vortices. Phase coherence is then restored at a yet stronger pinning, $`U_m`$. The vortex lattice inside the range $`U_p<U<U_m`$ therefore shows no phase coherence despite the fact that it does not float! The identification of this regime with the hexatic phase HN  is indicated by recent theoretical work jpr01 . Indeed, a modest size analysis demonstrates that this phase shows (strict) long-range orientational order, which is a hallmark of the hexatic phase HN . The strong-pinning regime at the other extreme exhibits a standard Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) transition driven by the unbinding of vortex/anti-vortex pairs that are not linked to the vortex lattice KT , which is now fixed to the pins and appears to be irrelevant jpr00 . Lastly, the effects of a weak Josephson coupling between layers is determined through the application of a partial duality analysis of the corresponding layered $`XY`$ model jpr00 . On this basis, we conclude that the superconducting-normal transition shown by such an optimally pinned vortex lattice lies within the universality class of the three-dimensional (3D) $`XY`$ model.

## II 2D vortex lattice with commensurate pins

Consider an infinite stack of isolated superconducting layers in a perpendicular external magnetic field. Each layer is assumed to be identical in order to reflect the correlated pinning. A weak Josephson coupling will be switched on later. Magnetic screening effects can be neglected in the extreme type-II limit assumed throughout, in which case the $`XY`$ model over the square lattice with uniform frustration provides a qualitatively correct description of the mixed phase of each layer. The corresponding Boltzmann distribution is set by the energy functional

$$E_{XY}^{(2)}=\underset{\mu =x,y}{}\underset{\stackrel{}{r}}{}J_\mu (\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \varphi (\stackrel{}{r})A_\mu (\stackrel{}{r})]$$
(1)
for the superfluid kinetic energy in terms of the superconducting phase $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{r})`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \varphi (\stackrel{}{r})=\varphi (\stackrel{}{r}+a\widehat{\mu })\varphi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}=(0,2\pi fx/a)`$ make up the local supercurrent, where $`f`$ denotes the concentration of vortices over the square lattice, with lattice constant $`a`$. The local phase rigidity $`J_\mu (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is assumed to be constant over most of the nearest-neighbor links $`(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}+a\widehat{\mu })`$, with the exception of those links in the vicinity of a pinning site. We shall next take the Villain approximation which is generally valid at low temperature jose ; ID . After making a series of standard manipulations, we obtain a Coulomb gas ensemble with pins that describes the vortex degrees of freedom on the dual square lattice. The ensemble is weighted by the Boltzmann distribution set by the energy functional

$$E_{\mathrm{vx}}=(2\pi )^2\underset{(\stackrel{}{R}_1,\stackrel{}{R}_2)}{}[Q(\stackrel{}{R}_1)f]JG^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{R}_1,\stackrel{}{R}_2)[Q(\stackrel{}{R}_2)f]+\underset{\stackrel{}{R}}{}V_p(\stackrel{}{R})|Q(\stackrel{}{R})|^2,$$
(2)
in terms of the integer vorticity field $`Q(\stackrel{}{R})`$ over the sites $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ of the dual lattice. The logarithmic interaction between the vortices can be expressed as a Greens function $`JG^{(2)}=_n|n\epsilon _nn|`$, where the states $`|n`$ diagonalize the operator $`[J_x^1\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2+J_y^1\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2]`$ with corresponding eigenvalues $`\epsilon _n^1`$. Here, the lattice difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{y(x)}`$ acts between those adjacent points on the dual lattice that are split by the link on the base lattice that the coupling constant $`J_{x(y)}`$ refers to. The effective coupling energy $`J`$ is set by the requirement that $`\stackrel{}{q}_1|G^{(2)}|\stackrel{}{q}_2=q_1^2a^2\delta _{1,2}`$ for plane waves $`|\stackrel{}{q}_i`$ in the long wavelength limit, $`q_i0`$. The pinning potential, on the other hand, originates from the contribution to the former Greens function by bound states localized at the pinning sites: $`V_p(\stackrel{}{R})=(2\pi )^2_{\epsilon _n<0}\epsilon _n|\stackrel{}{R}|n|^2`$. Finally it is instructive to point out that the phase rigidity can also be directly computed within the Villain approximation, where it is given by minnhagen  one over the dielectric constant of the Coulomb gas ensemble (2). In particular, for an $`L\times L`$ square mesh with periodic boundary conditions, we have

$$\rho _s/J=1\underset{k0}{lim}(2\pi )^2\beta \left(Q_\stackrel{}{k}Q_\stackrel{}{k}Q_\stackrel{}{k}Q_\stackrel{}{k}\right)/k^2a^2L^2,$$
(3)
where $`\beta =J/k_BT`$ is the inverse temperature of the system, and $`Q_\stackrel{}{k}=_\stackrel{}{R}Q(\stackrel{}{R})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}}`$ is the Fourier transform of the charge density.

To proceed further, we shall first replace the Greens function mediating the interaction between vortices in Eq. (3) with the standard one $`G^{(2)}=^2`$ over the square lattice subject to periodic boundary conditions jose ; ID . This approximation neglects only the short-range features of the interaction energy near the pinning centers. Secondly, we shall consider the optimum pinning configuration: $`V_p(\stackrel{}{R})=U`$ for points $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ that coincide with the triangular vortex lattice at zero temperature, and $`V_p(\stackrel{}{R})=0`$ otherwise. The long-range logarithmic interaction among vortices enforces charge neutrality with the uniform background charge density $`f`$, such that:

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{R}}{}Q(\stackrel{}{R})=fL^2.$$
(4)
This means that the system of vortices is incompressible at all temperatures. Vacancies and interstitials are therefore impossible at long wavelengths. In the absence of extrinsic pinshattel\_xy ,franz\_prb , $`U=0`$, and at low vorticity, $`f<1/30`$, the triangular vortex-lattice depins from the underlying square lattice at a temperature $`k_BT_p^{(0)}=1.5fJ`$. At higher temperatures it “floats”, before melting at $`k_BT_m^{(0)}=J/20`$. At low vorticity and low temperature, the difference in the internal energy between the floating and the pinned vortex lattice phases is therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=N_{\mathrm{vx}\mathrm{p}}U`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{vx}\mathrm{p}}`$ denotes the average number of pinned vortices. The corresponding difference in the entropy is $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=k_B\mathrm{ln}(2/f)`$, which is not extensive. The balance in free energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=T\mathrm{\Delta }S`$, yields a (first-order) transition between the two phases at a critical pinning strength

$$U_p=N_{\mathrm{vx}\mathrm{p}}^1k_BT\mathrm{ln}(2/f)$$
(5)
that vanishes in the thermodynamic limit, $`L\mathrm{}`$. Below we shall confirm this prediction at weak pinning, as well as exploring the effect of strong pinning through MC simulation of the 2D Coulomb gas ensemble (2).

The following thermodynamic quantities are measured in the MC simulations of the Coulomb gas ensemble (2) describing a 2D vortex lattice with optimum pins. Phase coherence is probed by the superfluid stiffness (3). Pinning of the vortex lattice is determined by checking for the appearance of Bragg peaks in the vortex density, $`S_0(\stackrel{}{k})=|Q_\stackrel{}{k}|^2`$. This is quantified by taking the ratio between the heights of the first-order and zero-order Bragg peaks, which we term the “Bragg ratio”. Intrinsic positional correlations among the vortices, on the other hand, are measured through the fluctuation contribution to the structure function, $`S_1(\stackrel{}{k})=Q_\stackrel{}{k}Q_\stackrel{}{k}Q_\stackrel{}{k}Q_\stackrel{}{k}`$. Lastly we also measure the six-fold orientational order parameter characteristic of the triangular vortex lattice:hattel\_xy -HN  $`\varphi _6=N_{\mathrm{vx}}^2_{j,k}\mathrm{exp}[6i(\theta _j\theta _k)]`$. Here $`\theta _j`$ is the angle between a fixed direction in space and the direction of the bond between the $`j`$-th vortex and its nearest neighbor. In general, this orientational order parameter decays algebraically with system size as $`L^{\eta _6}`$ in the thermodynamic limit, $`L\mathrm{}`$. The correlation exponent $`\eta _6`$ is null in the case of a 2D vortex lattice with strict long-range order, while $`\eta _6=2`$ if only short-range orientational order existsfranz\_prb .

The MC scheme used closely follows that developed by Lee and Teitel teitel\_prb . A single MC move consists of selecting a lattice point and one of its nearest neighbors at random, and adding a unit charge to one of the points and subtracting unit charge from the other, thereby keeping the total charge of the system constant. This alteration is then either accepted or rejected according to the standard Metropolis algorithm. At temperatures lower than $`J/4k_B`$, simulations revealed that the accepted configurations only possessed charges of $`Q=+1`$, the total number of charges, $`N_{\mathrm{vx}}`$, being set by overall charge neutrality (4). All other configurations, such as those with multiple or negative charges, were heavily penalized on energetic grounds. This permits a much less computationally costly MC move to be employed in this regime, which consists of selecting one of these $`N_{\mathrm{vx}}`$ charges at random and moving it to an unoccupied neighboring lattice site. Extensive simulations at low temperatures were run using both MC updating methods to confirm that they indeed gave the same results, and thereafter the second algorithm was used to obtain the bulk of the low-temperature results in this paper. The MC estimates are based on between 8000 and 12000 measurements, following an equilibration from a random initial configuration consisting of 8000 MC sweeps. In all cases this process was repeated a number of times, using a different initial state, to ensure that the simulations were not becoming ergodically trapped.

Fig. 1 displays temperature profiles of the various physical probes that were listed above, for three different regimes of the strength of the pinning potential. The phase-incoherent floating phase lies in between the pinned vortex lattice and the vortex liquid as a function of temperature in the no-pinning regime shown in Fig. 1a franz\_prb ; hattel\_xy . A strange phase-incoherent state that does not float, on the other hand, lies in between the conventional solid and liquid phases in the weak-pinning regime (Fig. 1b). Table 1 demonstrates that this observation is not a spurious size effect. Notice, in particular, how the orientational order parameter $`\varphi _6`$ and the magnitude of the first-order Bragg peak saturate with increasing size, and how the phase rigidity remains null throughout. The former implies that the “strange” vortex phase exhibits strict long-range orientational order, with a correlation exponent $`\eta _6=0`$.franz\_prb  Fig. 2 displays the resulting phase diagram in the $`U`$-$`T`$ plane. The boundary, $`U_p(T)`$, that separates the floating phase (I) and the “strange” phase (II) extrapolates to zero roughly as $`L^1`$ at fixed temperature. This was determined from MC simulations at a temperature $`k_BT/2\pi J=0.0060`$ for two different sizes, $`L=56\text{and}112`$, with the addition of the thermodynamic limit, $`L\mathrm{}`$, under the assumption that $`U_p=0`$ there. (Note that our MC simulations show metastability in the vicinity of this first-order pinning transition, which reflects the two-fold orientational degeneracy of the floating states.) Consistent with the simple balance of free energy (5), we then conclude that the floating phase exists only in the absence of extrinsic pins ($`U=0`$) in the thermodynamic limit. The last size analysis also implies by Eq. (5), that the number of pinned vortices in the “strange” phase scales as $`N_{\mathrm{vx}\mathrm{p}}L`$, which is subthermodynamic. Finally, at yet stronger pinning, the line $`U=U_m(T)`$ along which macroscopic phase coherence sets in shows only minor size dependence for the three $`L\times L`$ lattices that we simulated.

A recent theoretical analysis of the 2D Coulomb gas (2) in the absence of bulk pinning finds that an intermediate hexatic phase can indeed exist if rigid translations of the vortex-lattice are prohibited jpr01 . This phase contains unbound dislocations that generate appreciable fluctuations in the center of mass of the 2D vortex lattice. These fluctuations are responsible for both the destruction of macroscopic shear rigidity and of macroscopic phase coherence at a 2D melting transition. The hexatic phase contrasts with the conventional pinned vortex-lattice phase that shows phase coherence. It also differs from the vortex liquid phase by the presence of orientational order HN . We propose to identify the strange intermediate phase (II) that neither floats nor shows macroscopic phase coherence, but that exhibits strict long-range orientational order (see Figs. 1 and 2, and Table 1), with such a hexatic phase. Fig. 3 displays the fluctuation part of the structure function, $`S_1(\stackrel{}{k})`$, in the putative hexatic phase found in the weak-pinning regime. It shows six-fold symmetric Bragg peaks of low order, which strikingly resemble those obtained experimentally in real-life hexatic phaseshexexp . Further, Fig. 4 shows a typical configuration of the vortex lattice in the putative hexatic phase near the pinning threshold. We may note the presence of an unbound dislocation and the small fraction of vortices that are pinned. The strict long-range orientational order (Fig. 1b), the six-fold pattern shown by this intrinsic structure function (Fig. 3), and the presence of unbound dislocations (Fig. 4) are all consistent with the identification of the “strange” vortex lattice with a hexatic phase over a commensurate substrate HN .

The vortex lattice tends to be fixed to each and every commensurate pin at strong $`U/2\pi J>0.01`$ (see Fig. 2). Interstitial vortex/anti-vortex excitations are the only remaining degrees of freedom in such case. The temperature dependence of the phase rigidity (3) obtained from our MC simulations strongly resembles that of the zero-field case ($`f=0`$) with no extrinsic pins ($`U=0`$) franz\_prb . In particular, Fig. 1c shows how $`\rho _s`$ decreases smoothly from $`J`$ to $`0`$ at the expected KT transition temperature KT , $`k_BT_c^{(0)}\frac{\pi }{2}J`$. The vortex lattice subsequently frees itself from the extrinsic pins at a higher temperature, $`T_p`$, as shown by Figs. 1 and 2.

## III 3D vortex lattice with optimum columnar pins

We finally apply the above results to the question of phase coherence in the vortex-lattice phase of layered superconductors. In the extreme type-II limit, this system can be modeled by an infinite stack of $`XY`$-model layers with uniform frustration, Eq. (1), but with an additional Josephson coupling, $`J_z=J/\gamma ^2`$, between all nearest-neighbors across adjacent layers. Also, in this limit the magnetic coupling to vortices in adjacent layers can be accounted for by weak optimum columnar pinning, $`V_p(\stackrel{}{R})`$, within the “substrate potential” approximationsubstrate . Such a layered $`XY`$ model can be analyzed through a partial duality transformation that is ideally suited to the weak-coupling limit. This leads to the following partition function that encodes the thermodynamics of the coupled system: $`Z_{\mathrm{CG}}=_{\{n_z\}}(\beta /2\gamma ^2)^{N[n_z]}\mathrm{\Pi }_lC[p_l]`$, where $`n_z(\stackrel{}{r},l)`$ is an integer link field on 2D points $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ between adjacent layers $`l`$ and $`l+1`$ jpr00 . Here $`C[p_l]=\mathrm{exp}[ip_l(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi (\stackrel{}{r},l)]_{J_z=0}`$ is the phase auto-correlation function of an isolated layer $`l`$ probed at the dual charge that collects onto that layer: $`p_l(\stackrel{}{r})=n_z(\stackrel{}{r},l1)n_z(\stackrel{}{r},l)`$. Also, $`N[n_z]`$ counts the total number of dual charges, $`n_z=\pm 1`$. The latter system is dilute in the weak-coupling limit reached at large model anisotropy parameters, $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{}`$. It has been shown recently by one of us jpr01  that the phase auto-correlator for a pure 2D vortex lattice that cannot move rigidly has the form $`|C(1,2)|=(\rho _s/J)(r_0/r_{12})^{\eta _{2D}}`$, with a small 2D correlation exponent, $`\eta _{2D}<(28\pi )^1`$. Here $`r_0`$ is of the order of the inter-vortex spacing and $`r_{12}`$ denotes the separation between the two probes. Since commensurate pinning, $`V_p(\stackrel{}{R})`$, increases phase coherence (see Fig. 1), the previous bound on $`\eta _{2D}`$ continues to hold. Yet the application of the above duality analysis yields a phase rigidity across layers equal tojpr00  $`\rho _s^{}=(\rho _s/\gamma ^2)(r_0/\gamma ^{}a)^{\eta _{2D}}`$. The extremely small bound on $`\eta _{2D}`$ then implies that a decoupling crossover, $`\rho _s^{}\rho _s/\gamma ^2`$, occurs only for astronomically large anisotropy, $`f\gamma ^2>10^{38}`$. This indicates that layer decoupling does not occur in practice in the vortex-lattice phase of extremely type-II layered superconductors at temperatures below 2D melting (cf. ref. 7).

The above partial duality analysis of course also applies directly to the question of optimum columnar pinning in the vortex-lattice phase of strongly type-II layered superconductors. In the strong pinning regime, Fig. 1 c, our MC simulation results for a single layer find conclusive evidence for a standard KT phase transition driven by the unbinding of interstitial vortex/anti-vortex pairs. This implies that the autocorrelation functions $`C[p]`$ that appear in $`Z_{\mathrm{CG}}`$ are precisely those corresponding to the 2D $`XY`$ model in the absence of frustration ($`f=0`$) and extrinsic pinning ($`U=0`$), up to a gauge transformation. We thereby conclude that the strongly pinned vortex lattice at the matching field goes through a superconducting/normal transition that is second-order, and that coincides with the universality class of the standard 3D $`XY`$ model.

## IV Discussion and conclusions

In summary, we have studied the nature of phase coherence in the 2D vortex lattice at the extreme type-II limit with identical commensurate pins through Monte Carlo simulation of the corresponding 2D Coulomb gas, Eq. (2). Our most striking result is the identification of a strange intermediate phase (II) that is pinned, but that shows no macroscopic phase coherence. It lies in the midst of a floating vortex lattice, a pinned vortex lattice, and a vortex liquid phase (see Fig. 2). A recent calculation has indicated that an intermediate hexatic phase with such characteristics is indeed expected in the 2D vortex lattice at the extreme type-II limit (1) if rigid translations of the vortex lattice are prohibited jpr01 . The present calculations show that an arbitrarily weak array of commensurate pins have this effect in the thermodynamic limit \[see Eq. (5) and Fig. 2\]. We have proposed, in conclusion, that the strange intermediate phase just mention is in fact a hexatic vortex lattice.

On the contrary, theoretical calculations of 2D lattice melting in the presence of a weak commensurate substrate potential do not predict the existence of separate liquid and hexatic phases HN . It is quite possible, then, that the transition that we observe through Monte Carlo simulation between a hexatic vortex lattice (II) that is pinned and a vortex liquid that is not pinned is in fact a sharp cross-over transition. In such case, the phase diagram shown in Fig. 2 would be topologically equivalent to that predicted by theory (see Ref. HN , Fig. 4, right-hand side). More extensive Monte Carlo simulations may be needed to settle this question.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank R. Markiewicz, F. Nori, F. Guinea, R. Mulet and E. Altshuler for valuable discussions. CEC acknowledges support from the EU TMR programme. JPR acknowledges the hospitality of the Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid, where this work was initiated.


text:
# UDC 537.591.15 astro-ph/0205260 NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF EAS CLUSTERS

## 1 Introduction

We have already studied the distribution of arrival times of extensive air showers (EAS) registered with the EAS–1000 Prototype array both by methods of classical statistics  and by methods of cluster analysis . In particular, we have found EAS clusters—groups of consecutive showers that were registered in time intervals much shorter than expected ones . Besides this, we have found that as a rule samples which contain clusters do not allow one to accept a hypothesis that EAS arrival times have an exponential distribution. To the contrary, the vast majority of other sufficiently long samples satisfy the same hypothesis if the barometric effect is taken into account . Thus we decided to apply methods of nonlinear time series analysis to samples that contain EAS clusters in order to clarify dynamical reasons of this situation. Below we present some results of this investigation.

Recall that modern methods of nonlinear time series analysis are mainly based on the results obtained by Takens , Mañé , and Packard et al. , and an algorithm suggested by Grassberger and Procaccia  and modified by Theiler . We are not going to review these results here (see, e.g., ) but will remind only the basic ideas of this approach. Suppose one studies a scalar time series $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ which, for instance, presents experimental results obtained during observations of a (nonlinear) process. It was suggested to study delay vectors $`X_i=(x_i,x_{i+\tau },x_{i+2\tau },\mathrm{},x_{i+(m1)\tau })`$ in order to figure out whether the process possesses chaotic dynamics or not; here $`\tau `$ is an arbitrary but fixed parameter, and $`m`$ is an integer constant called an embedding dimension. One should compute the number $`K`$ of vectors with mutual distance $`\rho `$ and such that delay vectors $`X_i`$ are shifted by at least $`W`$ indices. After this, one calculates the correlation dimension

$$D_2(\rho )=\frac{d\mathrm{log}C_2(\rho )}{d\mathrm{log}\rho },$$

where $`C_2=K/(\text{total number of vectors }X_i)`$ is the correlation sum. If the plot of $`D_2`$ has a plateau, then it is likely that the process demonstrates chaotic dynamics. A value of $`D_2`$ at the plateau is taken as an estimate of the correlation dimension of the attractor underlying the data. This quantity also gives a (lower) estimate for the number of degrees of freedom in the process under consideration.

Investigations in this field have lead to a discovery that a plateau in the plot of the correlation dimension can be observed not only for chaotic deterministic processes but also for certain types of stochastic processes . Thus there appeared a problem to distinguish these two classes using experimental data. The problem has occurred to be complicated, and this called an appearance of a number of approaches to its solution. One of the main approaches is the method of surrogate data . Other methods are based on certain additional functions. As for surrogate data, they are used both to compute some quantities that allow one to estimate a measure of nonlinearity of the process under consideration and to clarify the “nature” of the plateau in the plot of $`D_2`$. Namely, if the plateau is observed for surrogate data, then the process is assessed to be stochastic. Conversely, if the plateau disappears, then the process is deterministic. At the moment, there is a variety of methods for generating surrogate data. One can find a review of the main approaches in . Still, we should note that to the best of the authors knowledge there is no test that could automatically and unequivocally distinguish between a stochastic process and deterministic chaos, see, e.g., .

## 2 The Main Results

At the first stage of this investigation the experimental data set (time intervals between arrival times of $`1.7\times 10^6`$ EAS registered in the period from August, 1997 to February, 1999) was split into adjacent samples consisting of 128, 256, and 512 elements. For these samples, we computed the Fourier power spectrum, the correlation dimension $`D_2`$ (for $`\tau =1`$, $`W=1`$, $`m=5\mathrm{}12`$) and a number of additional quantities. To provide stationarity of the time series under consideration, time intervals between EAS arrival times were adjusted to a joint value of atmospheric pressure equal to 742 mm Hg. To perform calculations, we used GNU Octave  running in Mandrake Linux. As one could expect, this analysis has revealed that there is no plateau in the plot of $`D_2`$ for the vast majority of samples. Still, in the vicinity of some EAS clusters we have found samples that demonstrate signs of chaotic dynamics. Below we shall briefly discuss one of these events, namely a cluster registered on November 11, 1998 between 01:21:17.47 and 01:38:02.27 of Moscow local time . This event consists of three clusters that begin at EAS No. 435, 436, and 437 respectively and end at EAS No. 570. In our opinion, an appearance of these three clusters within one event is an effect of our selection procedure  and does not have an astrophysical nature. Thus in what follows we shall only discuss the outer cluster, which consists of 136 EAS.

In order to get an idea about the behavior of the correlation dimension in the vicinity of the cluster, let us consider three adjacent samples, each consisting of 256 time intervals. Fig. 1 depicts the correlation dimension for a sample that ends up in 2.5 minutes before the cluster, a sample that contains the cluster, and a sample that begins in 23 minutes after the cluster. The curves were computed for $`\tau =1`$, $`W=1`$, and $`m=1\mathrm{}12`$. The upper curves correspond to larger values of the embedding dimension $`m`$. The maximum norm was used to compute mutual distances between delay vectors.

As one can see from the figure, the plot of the correlation dimension obtained for the sample that contains the cluster has a clear plateau with $`D_22.5`$. On the contrary, no plateau is observed for two other samples. Thus we conclude that the sample with the cluster demonstrates signs of chaotic dynamics with the (fractal) dimension of an attractor approximately equal to 2.5. At the same time, the Fourier power spectrum of this sample does not considerably differ from a broadband spectrum, which can be observed, e.g., for random noises. We have employed the surrogate data method in order to figure out whether the sample with the cluster represents a deterministic chaotic process or a stochastic process. To make surrogate data, we used two different approaches: a random shuffling time delays that constitute the sample, and the amplitude adjusted Fourier transform method suggested in . Both methods preserve the distribution of the original data set. Besides this, the second method preserves the Fourier power spectrum. We used the TISEAN package  to prepare Fourier-based surrogate data.

An analysis of the surrogate data made by both methods for the sample that contains the cluster has revealed that plots of the correlation dimension do not contain a plateau. This gives an argument in favor of the hypothesis for the deterministic nature of the original sample since the order of time delays that constitute the sample occurs to be important for an appearance of the plateau. A similar conclusion can be made on the basis of an analysis of certain other quantities, e.g., a maximum likelihood estimator for the correlation dimension introduced in  and a function suggested in .

On the other hand, we must note that some other tests has lead to opposite results. For instance, one of the tests for nonlinearity is based on a measure for the time-reversibility of a time series . An application of this test to the sample that contains the cluster and to the surrogates has revealed that the null hypothesis for the linear structure of the time series cannot be rejected. A possibly stochastic nature of the observed behavior of the correlation dimension was also revealed by the analysis of the normalized slope, introduced in .

It is worth mentioning that a plateau in the plot of $`D_2`$ for samples that partially or completely include the cluster can be observed in a wide range of sample lengths (from $`N100`$ up to $`N500`$) and values of the Theiler window $`W`$. The value of the correlation dimension varies depending on $`N`$ and $`W`$ and the position of the cluster inside a sample. For example, for the same sample with $`N=256`$, $`D_23`$ for $`W7`$.

## 3 Discussion

The results presented above demonstrate that one can observe an unusual dynamics of EAS arrival times in the vicinity of certain clusters of EAS with the electron number of the order of $`10^5`$. Still it is rather difficult to make a final conclusion on the nature of this phenomenon: Does it represent deterministic chaos or a special type of a stochastic process? In our opinion, the majority of the tests performed witness in favor of the first of these two alternatives. On the other hand, it is not easy to suggest an astrophysical model that could explain chaotic dynamics in EAS arrival times. Thus it is interesting to compare our results with the conclusions of similar investigations performed by other research groups.

In a considerable number of articles devoted to the nonlinear time series analysis, one can find a comprehensive investigation of EAS arrival times registered with the EAS-TOP array . Basing on a detailed study of the available experimental data set and the results obtained with the underground muon monitor  the authors of this work made a conclusion that though an existence of deterministic chaotic effects in cosmic ray time series cannot be completely excluded, cosmic ray signals are all color random noise, independently of the nature of the secondary particle and of the primary parent particle. It was also demonstrated in one of the following articles that an impact of background noise brings additional difficulties to the problem of distinguishing between chaotic and stochastic dynamics .

Besides this, a whole series of investigations devoted to the nonlinear analysis of EAS time series is carried out in Japan beginning from early nineties at the experimental arrays that now constitute the LAAS network, see  and references therein. The authors of these investigations presented several dozens of events that demonstrate chaotic dynamics. More than this, it was conjectured that the observed dynamics may be due not only to the chaotic structure of the medium through which particles have traversed but also to the nature of the primary particles . Later on, there was suggested a model according to which chaotic events may be generated by cosmic rays that have a structure of a fractal wave arriving from a nonlinear accelerator like a supernova remnant . This model needs to be studied in details, but seems to be promising.

Thus, the results obtained during our analysis do not contradict the conclusions of similar investigations performed at other EAS arrays. It seems to be necessary to continue the work in this area and to involve some other methods of nonlinear time series analysis.

$``$

We gratefully acknowledge numerous useful discussions with A. V. Igoshin, A. V. Shirokov, and V. P. Sulakov who have helped us a lot with the experimental data set. This work was done with financial support of the Federal Scientific-Technical Program “Research and design in the most important directions of science and techniques” for 2002–2006, contract No. 40.014.1.1.1110, and by Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant No. 02-02-16081.

Only free, open source software was used for this investigation.