text:
# Relativistic corrections to the Ekert test for eavesdropping

## Abstract

A degree of violation of the Bell inequality depends on momenta of massive particles with respect to a laboratory if spin plays a role af a “yes–no” observable. For ultra-relativistic particles a standard Ekert test has to take into accont this velocity dependent suppression of the degree of violation of the inequality. Otherwise Alice and Bob may “discover” a nonexisting eavesdropper.

The cryptographic protocol proposed by Ekert  consists of two essential parts. First, a two-particle singlet-state source produces pairs of particles generating identical sequences of bits which can be subsequently used by Alice and Bob as a cryptographic key. Second, some randomly chosen data are used to test whether the particles were really prepared in a singlet state. This can be done by measuring the “Bell average”

$$c(a,a^{},b,b^{},\psi )=\psi |\widehat{a}\widehat{b}+\widehat{a}\widehat{b}^{}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}^{}|\psi $$

where the binary observables $`\widehat{a}`$, etc., are chosen in such a way that the Bell inequality $`|c(a,a^{},b,b^{},\psi )|2`$ is violated. This will be done most efficiently if $`|c(a,a^{},b,b^{},\psi )|=2\sqrt{2}`$ and the violation is expected to be maximal. A result of the form $`|c(a,a^{},b,b^{},\psi )|<2\sqrt{2}`$ means that $`|\psi `$ is not a pure singlet, and this indicates an eavesdropper. After having detected the eavesdropper the data collected by Alice and Bob are thrown away and the whole procedure starts again.

The binary observables appearing in $`c(\mathrm{})`$ represent results of some “yes–no” experiments and it is known that for any entangled state there exists a set of observables leading to the maximal violation of the inequality. This statement is, strictly speaking, true in principle. In practice, however, there is no operational rule that could tell us how to measure an arbitrary observable. So practically we are confined to a concrete set of “physical” observables which, in this context, are various “polarizations”. In the photon case the “polarizations” are either simply linear polarizations or some observables related to interferometric experiments. The situation is less clear if one considers massive particles.

At this moment one may ask why should one worry about massive particles if massless photons work so well. A practical answer is provided by a very high efficiency of atomic detectors as compared to the photonic ones . Taking into account the spectacular comeback of atoms in interfereometry and the recent progress in experiments with coherent atomic sources one cannot exclude future applications of atomic entangled states in cryptography. The question I want to discuss here is the role of relativistic effects that may become important if very fast atomic EPR-type beams are used for the cryptographic key distribution .

Let us begin with the yes–no polarizations for relativistic massive particles. It is known that the spinor part $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ of the generator of rotations is not a well defined spin operator for, say, the Dirac electrons. Its projection on the momentum direction (helicity) commutes with the free Dirac Hamiltonian, but to measure $`c(\mathrm{})`$ we need measurements of spin in different directions. The naive approach based on $`\widehat{a}=\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{s}`$ cannot be physically meaningful since eigenstates of $`\widehat{a}`$ are not preserved by a free evolution. This is a general phenomenon present in all Poincaré covariant systems but this argument alone does not prove that any notion of spin is meaningless. There are at least two objects whose definitions are representation-independent and which can represent a physical spin of a relativistic system. One is the spin operator $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ constructed by means of a relativistic center-of-mass position operator. The other is the Pauli-Lubanski vector $`(W_0,\stackrel{}{W})`$. The two objects are not equivalent but their spacelike parts are proportional to each another. Their projections on $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ have different eigenvalues but the same eigenstates. Accordingly they both give the same values of $`c(\mathrm{})`$.

Let $`a_\alpha =(a_0,\stackrel{}{a})`$ be some world-vector. One can consider joint eigenstates of the Pauli-Lubanski vector and the 4-momentum. The eigenvalues of $`a_\alpha W^\alpha =aW`$ are

$$w_\pm (a,p)=\pm j_3\sqrt{(ap)^2a^2p^2}=\pm w(a,p)$$

where $`j_3=1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{},j`$, and $`a^2=a_\alpha a^\alpha `$ etc. For $`j=1/2`$ the “yes–no” observable $`\widehat{a}`$ can be defined in a relativistically invariant way as

$$\widehat{a}=\widehat{a}(p)=\frac{aW}{w(a,p)}.$$

An arbitrary two-spin-1/2-particle state can be written as

$$|f=\underset{\sigma _1,\sigma _2}{}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_1)𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_2)f(\sigma _1,\stackrel{}{p}_1,\sigma _2,\stackrel{}{p}_2)|\sigma _1,\stackrel{}{p}_1|\sigma _2,\stackrel{}{p}_2$$

where $`\sigma _k`$ is a helicity, $`f(\sigma _1,\stackrel{}{p}_1,\sigma _2,\stackrel{}{p}_2)=f(\sigma _2,\stackrel{}{p}_2,\sigma _1,\stackrel{}{p}_1)`$, and $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p})=(2\pi )^3(2|p_0|)^1d^3p`$ is an invariant measure on a mass hyperboloid. Let us consider the particular state

$$|f=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_1)𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_2)f(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)\left(|+,\stackrel{}{p}_1|,\stackrel{}{p}_2|,\stackrel{}{p}_1|+,\stackrel{}{p}_2\right)$$
$`(1)`$
where $`f(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)=f(\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{p}_1)`$. Denote $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=\stackrel{}{p}/p_0`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{p}/|\stackrel{}{p}|`$, and consider projections of $`W^\alpha `$ on spacelike directions satisfying in a laboratory frame $`a_\alpha =(0,\stackrel{}{a})`$, $`b_\alpha =(0,\stackrel{}{b})`$. The laboratory frame is here the one which defines the decomposition of the 4-momentum into energy and 3-momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ appearing in the wave functions. The EPR average is

$`f|\widehat{a}\widehat{b}|f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_1)𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_2)|f(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)|^2}`$ (1)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{1\beta _1^2}\left[\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{n}_1)\stackrel{}{n}_1\right]+\left(\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{n}_1\right)\stackrel{}{n}_1\right)\left(\sqrt{1\beta _2^2}\left[\stackrel{}{b}(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{n}_2)\stackrel{}{n}_2\right]+\left(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{n}_2\right)\stackrel{}{n}_2\right)}{\sqrt{1+\beta _1^2\left[(\stackrel{}{n}_1\stackrel{}{a})^21\right]}\sqrt{1+\beta _2^2\left[(\stackrel{}{n}_2\stackrel{}{b})^21\right]}}}`$ (2)
For

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_1)d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_2)|f(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)|^2d^3p_1d^3p_2\delta (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}_1)\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2)$$
$`(2)`$
we obtain the result discussed in :

$$f|\widehat{a}\widehat{b}|f\frac{\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{b}\beta ^2\stackrel{}{a}_{}\stackrel{}{b}_{}}{\sqrt{1+\beta ^2\left[(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{a})^21\right]}\sqrt{1+\beta ^2\left[(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{b})^21\right]}}.$$
$`(3)`$
(3) implies

$$f|\widehat{a}\widehat{a}|f=1,$$

which means that spins are always anti-parallel. The state (1) satisfying (2) can be therefore used for a secure key transfer. The same is true for more realistic states satisfying

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_1)d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{p}_2)|f(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)|^2d^3p_1d^3p_2|f(\stackrel{}{p}_1)|^2\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2)$$

where $`|f(\stackrel{}{p}_1)|^2`$ is a probability density. Notice that for $`\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{a}_{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$, we obtain the nonrelativistic formula

$$f|\widehat{a}\widehat{b}|f=\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{b}.$$

The condition $`\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{a}_{}`$, etc., cannot be satisfied in a real experiment since $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ is a fixed vector and the set of momenta perpendicular to a given fixed axis has 3-dimensional measure 0. So from any realistic wave packet one can remove all $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ and an experimentally measured average will not change. So assume that $`\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{p}0`$. In this case we find that

$$f|\widehat{a}\widehat{b}|f1$$

for $`\beta 1`$ independently of $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. Here $`\beta `$ is the average velocity of the wave packet.

To better understand this result let us recall the explicit form of the relativistic spin operator

$$\stackrel{}{S}=\stackrel{}{W}/p_0=\sqrt{1\beta ^2}\stackrel{}{s}_{}+(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{s})\stackrel{}{n}.$$

In the $`\beta 1`$ limit the vector points in the momentum direction and

$$[S_k,S_l]0.$$

The relativistic spin becomes the more “classical” the faster the particle. This explains qualitatively why one should expect a suppression of the Bell inequality violation for ultra-relativistic massive particles . It has been shown in  that for $`\beta 1`$

$$|c(a,a^{},b,b^{},f)|2$$

from above even if the measuring devices are optimally chosen.

The plots illustrate these phenomena. The vectors in $`c(\mathrm{})`$ are chosen coplanarly in a way which leads to the maximal violation of the Bell inequality in the nonrelativistic case ($`|c|=2\sqrt{2}`$): $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2},0)`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}^{}=(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2},0)`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}=(0,1,0)`$, and $`\stackrel{}{b}^{}=(1,0,0)`$. The measuring devices are at rest in a laboratory frame and $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ denotes velocities of particles with respect to the lab.

One may wonder why do we have here a suppression of $`|c(a,a^{},b,b^{},f)|`$ for any spin and simultaneously have maximal violation for photons. The answer is that in the photon polarization or interferometric experiments we do not measure spins. So a possibility exists that there are also some other observables that could be used in the EPR-type experiments with massive particles instead of spin, but none have been proposed so far.

The moral following from our story is that Alice and Bob do not necessarily have to throw away all data if they find $`|c(a,a^{},b,b^{},f)|<2\sqrt{2}`$. They first have to check the relativistic corrections. In order to do this they have to know the momentum distribution of the particle beam. The momentum can be measured, in principle, on each particle without disturbing its spin since 4-momentum and $`W_\alpha `$ commute.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the KBN grant 2P30B03809 and is a part of the Polish-Flamish project on “New models of probability calculus and new experiments on single quantum particles”. I’m indebted to the Batory Foundation and Nokia–Poland for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Time-Resolved Photometry of Kuiper Belt Objects: Rotations, Shapes and Phase Functions

## 1 Introduction

More than 500 Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) have been discovered in the decade since the discovery of 1992 QB1 (Jewitt & Luu 1993). These objects comprise the Kuiper Belt (also known as the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt) which is thought to contain about 70,000 objects with radii greater than 50 km (Jewitt, Luu and Chen 1996). The Kuiper Belt is thought to be a relic from the original protoplanetary disk, albeit one that has been dynamically disturbed and collisionally processed in ways that are not yet fully understood.

The Kuiper Belt is the most likely source of the Jupiter-family comets (Fernandez 1980, Duncan, Quinn and Tremaine 1988). It is by far the largest long-lived reservoir of small bodies in the planetary region, outnumbering the main-belt asteroids and Jovian Trojans by a factor of $``$ 300. The Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) are further thought to be chemically primitive, containing trapped volatiles and having experienced relatively little thermal evolution since formation. Thus we may be able to probe some aspects of the early history of the local solar nebula by studying the Kuiper Belt and related objects.

The determination of the physical characteristics of the KBOs has proceeded very slowly. This is because even the brightest known KBOs (other than Pluto and Charon) reach only apparent red magnitude $`m_R19.5`$ and thus are challenging with current spectroscopic technology. The surfaces of KBOs may have been altered over their lifetimes by collisions, cometary activity, and irradiation. The largest KBOs might even be partially differentiated from radiogenic heating. This could lead to the spinning up of objects to conserve angular momentum. Colors of the KBOs have been found to be diverse, ranging from neutral to very red (V-R$`0.3`$ to V-R$`0.8`$) (Luu & Jewitt 1996; Green et al. 1997; Tegler & Romanishin 2000; Jewitt & Luu 2001). While spectra of KBOs are mostly featureless, some show weak 2$`\mu `$m water ice absorptions (Brown, Cruikshank, & Pendleton 1999; Jewitt & Luu 2001). Most KBOs are too distant ($`30`$ AU) and small to resolve with current technology. They are also very cold objects ($`50`$K) which emit most of their thermal radiation in the inaccessible far infrared wavelengths, requiring observations from above the Earth’s atmosphere. Thus the most feasible way to determine KBOs shapes and surface features is through their photometric light variations.

The rotations and shapes of the KBOs may be a function of their size. Small KBOs (diameters $`D<`$ 100 km) are thought to be collisionally produced (Farinella and Davis 1996). These objects retain no memory of the primordial angular momentum of their parent bodies. Instead, their spins are presumably set by the partitioning of kinetic energy delivered by the projectile responsible for break-up. Larger objects may be structurally damaged bodies held together by gravity (rubble piles). The spins of these objects should be much less influenced by recent impacts. A similar situation prevails in the main asteroid belt, where collisional modification of the rotations and shapes of the smaller objects is observationally well established (Catullo et al. 1984). The large objects in both the main-belt and the Kuiper Belt may provide a record of the primordial distribution of angular momenta imbued by the growth process. A key attribute of the Kuiper Belt is that the population is very large compared to the main asteroid belt, allowing access to a substantial sample of objects that are too large to have been influenced by recent collisions.

We here use voluminous time resolved photometric observations to determine the rotational lightcurves, colors, and phase functions of KBOs. As our sample, we select the intrinsically brightest (presumably largest) KBOs. Specifically, we observed KBOs having absolute magnitude $`H_R7.5`$, corresponding to $`D`$ 200 km if a red geometric albedo of $`p_R`$ = 0.04 is assumed. We use most of the known KBOs with $`H_R6.0`$ which corresponds to $`D`$ 375 km in our analysis. The objects observed were all bright in order to guarantee high signal-to-noise ratios in short exposures to adequately sample the KBO lightcurves.

## 2 Observations

The University of Hawaii 2.2 m diameter telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii was used with a $`2048\times 2048`$ pixel Tektronix CCD ($`24`$ $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ pixels) and a $`0.\mathrm{}219`$ pixel-1 scale at the f/10 Cassegrain focus. An antireflection coating provides very high average quantum efficiency (0.90) in the R-band. The field-of-view was $`7\mathrm{}.5\times 7\mathrm{}.5`$. Exposures were taken using BVRI filters based on the Johnson-Kron-Cousins system, while the telescope was autoguided on bright nearby stars. The seeing ranged from $`0.\mathrm{}6`$ to $`1.\mathrm{}5`$ during the many nights of observation throughout 1999, 2000, and 2001. Objects moved relative to the fixed stars at a maximum of $`4\mathrm{}`$ hr-1 corresponding to trail lengths $``$ $`0.\mathrm{}45`$ in the longest (400 sec) exposures. Even for the fastest moving objects in the longest exposures the trailing motion is small compared to the seeing and so can be neglected as a source of error in the photometry.

The images were bias subtracted and then flat-fielded using the median of a set of dithered images of the twilight sky. Landolt (1992) standard stars were used for the absolute photometric calibration. Photometry of faint objects, such as the KBOs, must be done very carefully to achieve accurate results. To optimize the signal-to-noise ratio we performed aperture correction photometry by using a small aperture on the KBOs ($`0.\mathrm{}65`$ to $`0.\mathrm{}88`$ in radius) and both the same small aperture and a large aperture ($`2.\mathrm{}40`$ to $`3.\mathrm{}29`$ in radius) on (four or more) nearby bright field stars. We corrected the magnitude within the small aperture used for the KBOs by determining the correction from the small to the large aperture using the field stars (c.f. Tegler and Romanishin 2000; Jewitt & Luu 2001). Since the KBOs moved slowly we were able to use the same field stars from night to night within each observing run. Thus relative photometric calibration from night to night was very constant. The few observations that were taken in mildly non-photometric conditions were calibrated to observations of the same field stars on the photometric nights. The observational circumstances, geometry, and orbital characteristics of the 13 observed KBOs are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

## 3 Lightcurve Results

The photometric results for the 13 KBOs are listed in Table 3, where the columns include the start time of each integration, the corresponding Julian date, and the magnitude. No correction for light travel time has been made. Results of the lightcurve analysis for all the KBOs observed are summarized in Table 4 while the mean colors can be found in Table 5. We first discuss the lightcurves of (20000) Varuna, 2000 GN171, (33128) 1998 BU48, and 1999 KR16 and give some details about the null results below.

We employed the phase dispersion minimization (PDM) method (Stellingwerf 1978) to search for periodicity in the data. In PDM, the metric is the so-called $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ parameter, which is essentially the variance of the unphased data divided by the variance of the data when phased by a given period. The best fit period should have a very small dispersion compared to the unphased data and thus $`\mathrm{\Theta }<<`$ 1 indicates that a good fit has been found.

### 3.1 (20000) Varuna

Varuna shows a large, periodic photometric variation (Farnham 2001). We measured a range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_R`$ = 0.42 $`\pm `$ 0.02 mag. and best-fit, two-peaked lightcurve period $`P`$ = 6.3436 $`\pm `$ 0.0002 hrs (about twice the period reported by Farnham), with no evidence for a rotational modulation in the $`BV`$, $`VR`$ or $`RI`$ color indices. These results, and their interpretation in terms of a rotating, elongated rubble pile of low bulk density, are described in detail in Jewitt and Sheppard (2002).

### 3.2 2000 GN171

PDM analysis shows that 2000 GN171 has strong PDM minima near periods $`P`$ = 4.17 hours and $`P`$ = 8.33 hours, with weaker 24 hour alias periods flanking each of these (Figure 1). We phased the data to all the peaks with $`\mathrm{\Theta }<0.4`$ and found only the 4.17 and 8.33 hour periods to be consistent with all the data. The $`P`$ = 4.17 hour period gives a lightcurve with a single maximum per period while the $`P`$ = 8.33 hour lightcurve has two maxima per period as expected for rotational modulation caused by an aspherical shape. Through visual inspection of the phased lightcurves we find that the phase plot for $`P`$ = 4.17 hour (Figure 2) is more scattered than that for the longer period of $`P`$ = 8.33 hour (Figure 3). This is because the double-peaked phase plot shows a significant asymmetry of $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.08`$ magnitudes between the two upper and lower peaks. A closer view of the PDM plot in Figure 4 around the double-peaked period allows us to obtain a rotation period of $`P_{rot}=8.329\pm 0.005`$ hours with a peak-to-peak variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0.61\pm 0.03`$ magnitudes. We believe that the photometric variations in 2000 GN171 are due to its elongated shape rather than to albedo variations on its surface.

Broadband BVRI colors of 2000 GN171 show no variation throughout its rotation within the photometric uncertainties of a few % (Figures 5 and 6 and Table 6). This again suggests that the lightcurve is mostly caused by an elongated object with a nearly uniform surface. The colors $`BV=0.92\pm 0.04`$, $`VR=0.63\pm 0.03`$, and $`RI=0.56\pm 0.03`$ (Table 5 and Table 6) show that 2000 GN171 is red but unremarkably so as a KBO (Jewitt and Luu 2001).

### 3.3 (33128) 1998 BU48

The KBO 1998 BU48 showed substantial variability ($`>0.4`$ magnitude with period $`>4.0`$ hour) in R-band observations from 2 nights in 2001 February and April. However, a convincing lightcurve could not be found from just these 2 nights separated by 2 months. Additional observations were obtained in the period 2001 November $`1419`$. One minimum and one maximum in brightness within a single night was observed and put the full single-peaked lightcurve between about 4 and 6 hours. Through PDM analysis, 1998 BU48 was found to have a peak-to-peak variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0.68\pm 0.04`$ magnitudes with possible single-peaked periods near 4.1, 4.9, and 6.3 hours which are 24 hour aliases of each other (Figure 7). By examining the phased data using these three possible periods we find that the single-peaked periods of $`4.9\pm 0.1`$ and $`6.3\pm 0.1`$ hours are both plausible (Figure 8). The colors, $`BV=0.77\pm 0.05`$, $`VR=0.68\pm 0.04`$, and $`RI=0.50\pm 0.04`$ (Table 5) show no sign of variation throughout the lightcurve, within the measurement uncertainties (Table 7 and Figure 8).

### 3.4 1999 KR16

This object was observed on four different observing runs during the course of 2000 and 2001. The data from 2001 are more numerous and of better quality than the data from 2000. We observed one brightness minimum and one maximum within a single night of data and from this estimated that the full single-peaked lightcurve should be near 6 hours. In a PDM plot constructed using only the inferior data from 2000 we found single-peaked minima at 4.66 and 5.82 hours. Phased lightcurves at these periods are acceptable for the year 2000 data, but the 4.66 hour period is inconsistent with the data from 2001. In the PDM plot using the R-band data from February, April, and May 2001 the best fit single-peaked period is shown to be around 5.9 hours with associated flanking peaks from 24 hours and 15 and 60 day sampling aliases (Figure 9). Closer examination of the PDM fit near 5.9 hours shows the 15 and 60 day aliasing much better and gives two best fit periods, one at 5.840 and the other at 5.929 hours (Figure 10). We phased the 2001 data to both single peaks and found neither to be significantly better than the other. The true single-peaked period for 1999 KR16 is at one of these two values. The data phased to the $`5.840`$ hour single-peaked period are shown in Figure 11. Neither of the possible double-peaked periods of $`11.680`$ and $`11.858`$ hours show differences between the peaks. The peak-to-peak amplitude of 1999 KR16 is $`0.18\pm 0.04`$ in the 2001 data consistent with that found in the 2000 data. Colors of 1999 KR16, $`BV=0.99\pm 0.05`$, $`VR=0.75\pm 0.04`$, and $`RI=0.70\pm 0.04`$, are on the red end of the KBO distribution (Table 5). The colors show no signs of variation through the rotation of the object to the accuracy of our measurements (Table 8 and Figure 11).

### 3.5 Null Lightcurves

Nine of the TNOs (2001 FZ173, 2001 CZ31, (38628) 2000 EB173, (26375) 1999 DE9, 1998 HK151, (33340) 1998 VG44, (19521) Chaos 1998 WH24, 1997 CS29, and (26181) 1996 GQ21) show no measurable photometric variations. Practically, this means that their lightcurves have range $`0.15`$ magnitudes and/or period $`24`$ hours (Figures 12 and Table 4). A few objects show hints of variability that might, with better data, emerge as rotationally modulated lightcurves. Inspection of the 2001 CZ31 data hints at a single-peaked lightcurve of period $`3`$ hours and amplitude $`0.15`$ magnitudes, but since the photometry has large error bars we can not be sure of this result. The TNO 1999 DE9 may have a long period lightcurve of about 0.1 mag. range since the brightness on 2001 April 24 slowly increases towards the end of the night and the February data appear to have base magnitudes different by about 0.1 mag. The data from 2000 on 1999 DE9 show the object to have a flat lightcurve. (33340) 1998 VG44 may also have a long period lightcurve since its base magnitudes on 1999 November 11 and 12 are different by about 0.05 mag. The bright TNO (19521) 1998 WH24 may have a possible lightcurve of about 4 hours single-peaked period and peak-to-peak range of 0.07 mag. Confirmation of these subtle lightcurves will require more accurate data, probably from larger telescopes than the one employed here.

## 4 Interpretation

The KBOs should be in principal axis rotation since the expected damping time of any other wobbles is much less than the age of the Solar System (Burns & Safronov 1973; Harris 1994). Orbital periods of KBOs are long ($`>200`$ years) and thus the pole orientation to our line of sight should not change significantly between epochs. The apparent magnitude of a KBO depends on its physical characteristics and geometrical circumstances and can be represented as

$$m_R=m_{}2.5\text{log}\left[p_Rr^2\varphi (\alpha )/(2.25\times 10^{16}R^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\right]$$
(1)
in which $`r`$ \[km\] is the radius of the KBO, $`R`$ \[AU\] is the heliocentric distance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ \[AU\] is the geocentric distance, $`m_{}`$ is the apparent red magnitude of the sun ($`27.1`$), $`m_R`$ is the apparent red magnitude, $`p_R`$ is the red geometric albedo, and $`\varphi (\alpha )`$ is the phase function in which the phase angle $`\alpha =0`$ deg at opposition and $`\varphi (0)=1`$. The apparent brightness of an inert body viewed in reflected light may vary because of 1) changes in the observing geometry, including the effects of phase darkening as in Eq. (1) and 2) rotational modulation of the scattered light. These different effects are discussed below.

### 4.1 Non-uniform Surface Markings

Surface albedo markings or topographical shadowing can potentially influence the lightcurves. Judging by other planetary bodies, the resulting light variations are typically smaller than those caused by elongated shape, with fluctuations due to albedo being mostly less than about 10 to 20 percent (Degewij, Tedesco, Zellner 1979). A color variation at the maximum and minimum of a lightcurve may be seen if albedo is the primary cause for the lightcurve since materials with markedly different albedos often also have markedly different colors. For example, many pure ices and frosts have a very high albedo and are neutral to bluish in color. A lightcurve caused by an ice or frost patch should show a bluish color when at maximum brightness. Some of the most extreme albedo contrasts are found on Pluto and the Saturnian satellite Iapetus (Table 9). The latter is in synchronous rotation around Saturn with its leading hemisphere covered in a very low albedo material thought to be deposited from elsewhere in the Saturn system. Iapetus shows clear rotational color variations ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(BV)`$ 0.1 mag.) that are correlated with the rotational albedo variations. On the other hand, Pluto has large albedo differences across its surface but the hemispherically averaged color variations are only of order 0.01 mag. We feel that neither Iapetus nor Pluto constitutes a particularly good model for the KBOs. The large albedo contrast on Iapetus is a special consequence of its synchronous rotation and the impact of material trapped in orbit about Saturn. This process is without analog in the Kuiper Belt. Pluto is also not representative of the other KBOs. It is so large that it can sustain an atmosphere which may contribute to amplifying its lightcurve amplitude by allowing surface frosts to condense on brighter (cooler) spots. Thus brighter spots grow brighter while darker (hotter) spots grow darker through the sublimation of ices. This positive feedback mechanism requires an atmosphere and is unlikely to be relevant on the smaller KBOs studied here.

### 4.2 Aspherical Shape

The critical rotation period ($`T_{crit}`$) at which centripetal acceleration equals gravitational acceleration towards the center of a rotating spherical object is

$$T_{crit}=\left(\frac{3\pi }{G\rho }\right)^{1/2}$$
(2)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`\rho `$ is the density of the object. With $`\rho `$ = $`10^3`$ kg m-3 the critical period is about 3.3 hours. Even at longer periods, real bodies will suffer centripetal deformation into aspherical shapes. For a given density and specific angular momentum (H), the nature of the deformation depends on the strength of the object. In the limiting case of a strengthless (fluid) body, the equilibrium shapes have been well studied (Chandrasekhar 1987). For $`H`$ 0.304 (in units of $`(GM^3a^{^{}})^{1/2}`$, where $`M`$\[kg\] is the mass of the object and $`a^{^{}}`$\[m\] is the radius of an equal volume sphere) the equilibrium shapes are the oblate ”MacLaurin” spheroids. Oblate spheroids in rotation about their minor axis exhibit no rotational modulation of the cross-section and therefore are not candidate shapes for explaining the lightcurves of the KBOs. However, for 0.304 $`H`$ 0.390 the equilibrium figures are triaxial ”Jacobi” ellipsoids which generate lightcurves of substantial amplitude when viewed equatorially. Strengthless objects with $`H>`$ 0.390 are rotationally unstable to fission.

The KBOs, being composed of solid matter, clearly cannot be strengthless. However, it is likely that the interior structures of these bodies have been repeatedly fractured by impact, and that their mechanical response to applied rotational stress is approximately fluid-like. Such “rubble pile” structure has long been suspected in the main asteroid belt (Farinella et al. 1981) and has been specifically proposed to explain the short period and large amplitude of (20000) Varuna (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002). The rotational deformation of a rubble pile is uniquely related to its bulk density and specific angular momentum. Therefore, given that the shape and specific angular momentum can be estimated from the amplitude and period of the lightcurve, it is possible to use photometric data to estimate the density.

Elongated Objects exhibit rotational photometric variations caused by changes in the projected cross-section. The rotation period of an elongated object should be twice the single-peaked lightcurve variation due to its projection of both long axes (2 maxima) and short axes (2 minima) during one full rotation. From the ratio of maximum to minimum brightness we can determine the projection of the body shape into the plane of the sky. The rotational brightness range of a triaxial object with semiaxes $`abc`$ in rotation about the $`c`$ axis is given by (Binzel et al. 1989)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=2.5\text{log}\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)1.25\text{log}\left(\frac{a^2cos^2\theta +c^2sin^2\theta }{b^2cos^2\theta +c^2sin^2\theta }\right)$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is expressed in magnitudes, and $`\theta `$ is the angle at which the rotation ($`c`$) axis is inclined to the line of sight (an object with $`\theta =90`$ deg. is viewed equatorially).

It is to be expected that, through collisions, fragments would have random pole vector orientations. For example, the collisionally highly evolved asteroid belt shows a complete randomization of pole vector orientations, $`\theta `$. Only the largest asteroids may show a preference for rotation vectors aligned perpendicular to the ecliptic ($`\theta =90\mathrm{°}`$), though this is debatable (Binzel et al. 1989; Drummond et al. 1991; De Angelis 1995). In the absence of any pole orientation data for the KBOs, we will assume they have a random distribution of spin vectors. Given a random distribution, the probability of viewing an object within the angle range $`\theta `$ to $`\theta +d\theta `$ is proportional to sin$`(\theta )d\theta `$. In such a distribution, the average viewing angle is $`\theta =60`$ degrees. Therefore, on average, the sky-plane ratio of the axes of an elongated body is smaller than the actual ratio by a factor sin$`(60)0.87`$.

In addition to rotational deformation, it is possible that some asteroids and KBOs consist of contact binaries (Jewitt & Sheppard 2002). For a contact binary consisting of equal spheres, the axis ratio of 2:1 corresponds to a peak-to-peak lightcurve range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ = 0.75 mag., as seen from the rotational equator. For such an object at the average viewing angle $`\theta =60`$ degrees we expect $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ = 0.45 mag.

Collisionally produced fragments on average have axis ratios $`2:2^{1/2}:1`$ (Fujiwara, Kamimoto, & Tsukamoto 1978; Capaccioni et al. 1984). When viewed equatorially, such fragments will have $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ = 0.38 mag. At the mean viewing angle $`\theta =60`$ degrees we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ = 0.20 mag.

### 4.3 Lightcurve Model Results

The KBOs in our sample are very large ($`D>250`$ km assuming a low albedo) and should, in the absence of rotational deformation, be spherical in shape from gravitational self compression. The large amplitudes and fast rotations of (20000) Varuna, 2000 GN171, and (33128) 1998 BU48 suggest that the lightcurves are caused by elongation and not surface albedo features. In support of this is the finding that (33128) 1998 BU48 and (20000) Varuna have no color variations throughout their lightcurves and 2000 GN171 has only a slight if any variation in color. Independently 2000 GN171 shows two distinct lightcurve maxima and minima which is a strong reason to believe the object is elongated. The other lightcurve we found was for 1999 KR16. Since its amplitude is much smaller and period longer, the lightcurve of 1999 KR16 may be more dominated by nonuniform albedo features on its surface, though we found no measurable color variation over the rotation.

Table 10 lists the parameters of albedo, Jacobi ellipsoid and binary models that fit the axis ratios estimated from the lightcurve data (Table 4). For each object and model, we list the minimum bulk density, $`\rho `$, required to maintain a stable configuration, as described in Jewitt and Sheppard (2002). We briefly describe the procedure below for 2000 GN171. Results for the rest of the significant light variation objects in our sample ((20000) Varuna, (33128) 1998 BU48, and 1999 KR16) can be seen in Table 10 using the data from Table 4.

We use Equation 3 to estimate the axis ratio $`a/b`$. If we assume that the rotation axis is perpendicular to our line of sight ($`\theta =90`$) we obtain

$$\frac{a}{b}=10^{0.4\mathrm{\Delta }m_R}$$
(4)
Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_R`$ = 0.61 magnitudes we obtain from Equation 4 $`a/b`$ = $`1.75:1`$ for 2000 GN171. This is a lower limit to the intrinsic axis ratio because of the effects of projection into the plane of the sky. If 2000 GN171 is a Jacobi triaxial ellipsoid with $`P=8.329`$ hours then its $`a:b:c`$ axis ratio would be $`1.75:1:0.735`$ and the lower limit on the density would be $`\rho =635`$ kg m-3 (Chandrasekhar 1987; see Jewitt & Sheppard 2002 for a KBO context discussion of Jacobi ellipsoids). Finally if 2000 GN171 were a contact binary the ratio of the two radii, $`a_1:a_2`$, would be $`1.15:1`$ with a lower limit to the density of $`\rho =585`$ kg m-3 (see Jewitt & Sheppard 2002 for a discussion of contact binaries in the KBO context). Finally, though it is unlikely, if 2000 GN171 is spherical and the lightcurve is due to a $`1.75:1`$ contrast in albedo then the lower limit to the density of the KBO would be $`\rho =157`$ kg m-3 from Equation 2 and using $`P=8.329`$ hours.

## 5 Discussion

In Table 9 we show objects in the Solar System which have one axis of at least 200 km and which show large amplitude lightcurves. Interestingly there is a group of asteroids that are large ($`D=200`$ to $`300`$ km) and which have substantial lightcurve amplitudes. They also possess fast rotations. These objects are probably rotationally deformed “rubble piles” which may be similar to a Jocabi ellipsoid type object (Farinella et al. 1981). Such rubble pile structures may form in the main asteroid belt because all objects have been effected by the high-velocity ($`5`$ km/s) collisions that occur there (Farinella, Paolicchi, Zappala 1982). The effect of collisions is highly dependent on the object size. Objects with $`D>300`$ km are large enough not to be completely turned into rubble piles or have their momentum greatly altered. Objects with diameters $`200`$ to $`300`$ km are large enough to be gravitationally bound but impacts over the age of the Solar System will transform them into rubble piles and may significantly change their angular momentum. Most asteroids with $`D<200`$ km are thought to be fragments from catastrophic collisions and are not massive enough to be gravitationally spherical.

How does the collisional outcome scale with velocity and density differences in the asteroid belt versus the Kuiper Belt? We assume the target body has catastrophic break up when the projectile kinetic energy equals the gravitational binding energy of the target

$$\frac{1}{2}M_p\mathrm{\Delta }v^2=\frac{3GM_t^2}{5r_t}$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ is the mean collisional speed, $`M`$ is mass, $`r`$ is radius, and subscripts $`p`$ and $`t`$ refer to projectile and target, respectively. For collisions with a target of given radius, the ratio of the sizes of the projectiles needed to cause disruption in the main-belt and in the Kuiper Belt is

$$\frac{r_{p,KB}}{r_{p,MB}}=\left[\left(\frac{\rho _{t,MB}}{\rho _{t,KB}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_{KB}}{\mathrm{\Delta }v_{MB}}\right)^2\right]^{1/3}$$
(6)
where we have assumed all Kuiper Belt objects have density $`\rho _{KB}`$, all main belt asteroids have density $`\rho _{MB}`$. Here $`r_{p,MB}`$ and $`r_{p,KB}`$ are the radii of the projectile in the main belt and Kuiper Belt which are needed to fracture the target in their respective belts, $`\rho _{t,MB}`$ and $`\rho _{t,KB}`$ are the densities of the target body in the main belt and Kuiper Belt respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{MB}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{KB}`$ are the respective collision velocities. If we put in nominal values of $`\rho _{t,MB}=3000`$ kg m3, $`v_{MB}=5`$ km s-1 and $`\rho _{t,KB}=1000`$ kg m3, $`v_{KB}=1.5`$ km s-1 for the main belt asteroids and Kuiper Belt respectively we find

$$r_{p,KB}1.5r_{p,MB}.$$
(7)
Thus for targets of equal size, a projectile has to be about $`50\%`$ larger in the Kuiper Belt than in the main belt to be able to cause catastrophic break up of the target body. This difference is not large and since the current collisional timescales for the asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects are similar (Davis & Farinella 1997; Durda & Stern 2000), other factors such as material strength and the number density of objects during early formation of each belt will be important in determining collisional differences.

The current Kuiper Belt has been found to be erosive for KBOs with $`D<100`$ km while many of the larger objects are probably rubble piles (Davis & Farinella 1997). Laboratory and computer simulations show that self-gravitating targets are more easily fractured than dispersed (Asphaug et al. 1998). Once formed, rubble pile structures can insulate the rest of the body from the energy of impact, further inhibiting disruption. Collision experiments by Ryan, Davis, and Giblin (1999) also show that porous ices dissipate energy efficiently. The outcome of impact into a rubble pile depends heavily on the angle of impact. We note that glancing low velocity collisions substantially alter the spin of the target body and can create elongated objects and contact binaries (Leinhardt, Richardson, & Quinn 2000). These simulations all hint that rubble pile structures are able to remain gravitationally bound after an impact, but that their angular momentum may be altered in the process which could produce elongated shapes.

To date eight binary Kuiper Belt objects have been reported. It seems that there may be a large fraction of binary KBOs. It also appears that about $`32\%`$ of KBOs are highly elongated. Both the binaries and the highly elongated shapes indicate large specific angular momentum, most likely delivered by glancing collisions. The current rate of collisions is too small however for any substantial modifications of the spins or shapes of KBOs (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002). Instead, we prefer the hypothesis that the binaries and elongated shapes are products of an early, denser phase in the Kuiper Belt, perhaps associated with its formation.

### 5.1 Other Lightcurve Observations

We now consider lightcurve observations of KBOs published by others in order to make a larger sample. Unfortunately, few KBOs to date have been shown through independent observations to have repeatable lightcurves. Hainaut et al. (2000) reported that (19308) 1996 TO66 has a lightcurve which varies in amplitude over the course of one year and interpreted this as a result of possible on-going cometary activity. Object 1996 TO66 may show a color difference throughout its rotation (Sekiguchi et al. 2002). In contrast, 1996 TO66 was reported to have a flat lightcurve by Romanishin & Tegler (1999) during the same year in which Hainaut et al. (2000) detected variation. Our own observations show that 1996 TO66 does have a significant lightcurve, basically confirming the variation originally observed by Hainaut et al. (2000) and contradicting the null detection by Romanishin & Tegler (Sheppard 2002). Conversely, an object reported to have a lightcurve by Romanishin & Tegler (1999), (15820) 1994 TB, was found by us to display no significant variation (Sheppard 2002). Because of these conflicts of unrepeatability, and since many of the Romanishin & Tegler targets were very sparsely sampled with raw data that remains unpublished, we use their work with caution in the following analysis.

Our combined sample of 22 KBOs comprises only well observed objects with numerous observations that could constrain any significant photometric variation from this (Table 4) and other (Table 11) works. Among the objects newly observed in this survey (Table 4), the fraction with significant lightcurve variation is $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.15)=\frac{4}{13}`$ ($`31\%`$) and $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{3}{13}`$ ($`23\%`$). Including the objects reliably observed by others (Table 11) yields $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.15)=\frac{7}{22}`$ ($`32\%`$) and $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{5}{22}`$ ($`23\%`$). Although we have evidence that some of their lightcurves are unrepeatable, we note that Romanishin & Tegler (1999) found a comparable $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.10)=\frac{3}{11}`$ ($`27\%`$). We consider that these results all point to a similar fraction $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.15)`$ $`32\%`$ and $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)`$ $`23\%`$.

The samples of objects with significant lightcurves and flat lightcurves were tested for correlations with orbital parameters and colors. No significant correlations were found. From the sample of 22 objects, 2 of the 9 ($`22\%`$) resonant objects, 4 of the 8 ($`50\%`$) classical objects, and 1 of the 5 ($`20\%`$) scattered objects had measurable lightcurves ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.15`$). Many of the objects shown in Table 11 are detailed elsewhere by us (Sheppard 2002) because they were objects particularly targeted by us to confirm their reported lightcurves and determine amplitudes and periods if a lightcurve was seen. The 13 objects reported in this paper (Table 4) were selected because of their size and brightness and not because of previous reports of their variability.

In comparison to the percentages of KBOs with large amplitude lightcurves ($`>0.40`$ or about 1.5 difference in brightness), the four main belt asteroids with $`D>400`$ km have $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{0}{4}`$ ($`0\%`$), the largest being only about 0.15 magnitudes (Lagerkvist, Harris, & Zappala 1989; Tedesco 1989). For main-belt asteroids with $`D>200`$ km $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{5}{27}`$ ($`19\%`$) when their poles orientations are $`\theta =90`$ degrees to our line of site. With the average pole orientation of $`\theta =60`$ degrees only ($`11\%`$) ($`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{3}{27}`$) have large amplitude lightcurves. These large amplitude lightcurve objects are thought to be the Jacobi ellipsoid type objects. Asteroids with $`D<200`$ km have $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{111}{482}`$ ($`23\%`$) while the Centaurs (Chiron, Asbolus, Pholus, Chariklo, Hylonome, (31824) 1999 UG5, and (32532) 2001 PT13) have $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }m_R0.40)=\frac{0}{7}`$ ($`0\%`$). These objects are small and thus thought to be collisional fragments.

Figure 13 shows how the largest ($`D>200`$ km) main belt asteroids compare with the Kuiper Belt objects. Many of the Kuiper Belt objects fall in the upper and upper left parts of this figure, where the Jacobi ellipsoids are encountered in the asteroid belt. There is a bias in the KBO sample since light variations of less than about 0.1 magnitudes are very hard to detect, as are long single-peak periods $`>24`$ hours.

The Student’s t-test was used to measure the significance of the differences between the means of the asteroid and KBO periods and amplitudes. In order to reduce the effects of observational bias we used only periods less than 10 hours and amplitudes greater than 0.2 magnitudes from Figure 13. We found that the period distributions of the asteroids are significantly shorter than for the KBOs. The mean periods are $`5.56\pm 0.89`$ and $`7.80\pm 1.20`$ hours for the asteroids and KBOs respectively, giving a t-statistic of $`3.84`$ (12 degrees of freedom) which is significant at the 99.7% confidence level. This difference is formally significant at the $`3\sigma `$ level by the Student’s t-test, but it would be highly desirable to obtain more data from another large unbiassed survey in order to be sure of the effect. The KBOs have a larger mean amplitude, but the significance between the difference of means, $`0.36\pm 0.11`$ vs. $`0.50\pm 0.16`$ magnitudes for the asteroids and KBOs respectively, is only 95% ($`2\sigma `$) with a t-statistic of $`1.83`$. This may be because the KBOs are less dense and more elongated, on average, than asteroids. Below we discuss in more detail the shape distribution of the Kuiper Belt.

### 5.2 Shape Distribution Models

What constraints can be placed on the intrinsic distribution of KBO shapes from the apparent (sky-plane projected) distribution? We used a Monte-Carlo model to project several assumed intrinsic distributions into the plane of the sky and then compared them with the observations. This was done by using a pole orientation distribution proportional to sin$`\theta `$. The apparent axis ratio for each object was then calculated from this pole orientation distribution and the intrinsic axis ratio selected from one of several assumed distributions.

Firstly, as an extreme case, we ask whether the data are consistent with selection from intrinsic distributions in which all the objects have a single axis ratio $`x=b/a`$, with $`x=0.80,0.66,0.57`$ or $`0.50`$ (Figure 14). The Figure shows that the form of the resulting amplitude distribution differs dramatically from what is observed. We conclude that the distribution KBO lightcurve amplitudes cannot be modeled as the result of projection on any single axis ratio. A range of shapes must be present. While not surprising, this result does serve to demonstrate that the KBO lightcurve sample is of sufficient size to be diagnostic.

Secondly, we explored the effect of the width of the distribution using

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)dx=exp\left[\frac{(xx_0)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right]dx$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)dx`$ is the number of KBOs with axis ratios in the range $`x`$ to $`x+dx`$, $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation or width parameter and $`x_0`$ is the mean axis ratio. Examples for $`x_0`$ = 0.66 and $`\sigma `$ = 0, 0.35, 0.75, and 1.0 are plotted in Figure 15. We assumed that all objects had axis ratios $`0.5x1.0`$. The Figure shows that the data require an intrinsically broad distribution of body shapes, specifically with a dispersion comparable to the mean axis ratio.

Thirdly, we assumed that the axis ratios of the KBOs followed a differential power-law distribution of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)dx=x^qdx$$
(9)
where $`q`$ is a constant, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)dx`$ is again the number of KBOs with axis ratios in the range $`x`$ to $`x+dx`$. We assumed $`0.5x1.0`$. A positive $`q`$ favors objects with small axis ratios while negative $`q`$ favors objects that are near spherical. The results can be seen in Figure 16. The $`q=5`$ distribution is very similar to an exponential distribution with its peak at an axis ratio of $`x=1`$. Again we see that the models fit the data better with a broader distribution of axis ratios.

Fourthly, we ask whether the data are consistent with selection from an intrinsic distribution of shapes caused by collisional fragmentation. The fragment shape distribution is taken from Catullo et al. (1984). Figure 17 shows that the KBO $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ distribution is inconsistent with the collisional fragment distribution in the sense that more highly elongated KBOs are found than would be expected from the impact fragments. This finding is consistent with collisional models (Farinella and Davis 1996, Kenyon and Luu 1999) in the sense that only KBOs smaller than a critical diameter $``$ 100 km are likely to be impact fragments, while the observed KBOs are all larger than this.

Finally, we ask whether the data are consistent with selection from an intrinsic distribution of shapes like that measured in the large (D $`>200`$ km) main-belt asteroid population. We take this distribution from the published lightcurve data base of Lagerkvist, Harris, & Zappala (1989) which has been updated by A. Harris on the world wide web at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html. The results are shown in Figure 17, where we see that the KBOs contain a larger fraction of highly elongated objects than are found amongst the main-belt asteroids. A plausible explanation for such a large fraction of the highly elongated Kuiper Belt objects is that the objects are very large yet structurally weak and of low density. This would allow many of the Kuiper Belt objects to be gravitationally bound rubble piles easily distorted by centripetal forces due to their rotation.

### 5.3 KBO Density Comparisons in the Solar System

The Kuiper Belt objects are thought to consist of water ice with some rocky material mixed in, similar to the comets. How do the densities of the outer satellites compare to what we have found for our sample of Kuiper Belt objects? In Figure 18 we plot all the outer icy bodies in the Solar System that have well known densities and are less than 3000 km in diameter. There is a clear trend, with larger objects being denser. The KBOs seem to follow this trend. We also note there appears to be an object size vs. lightcurve amplitude and size vs. period trend for the KBOs in our data. Objects that have densities less than that of water ice (1000 kg m-3) must have significant internal porosity or be composed of ices less dense than water (see Jewitt and Sheppard 2002).

To date only about 10 main belt asteroids have reliably measured bulk densities. Most of these are from perturbation calculations between asteroids though two have been measured by passing spacecraft and a few others found from the orbital motions of known companions. Most asteroid densities are consistent with that of rock, $`2000\rho 3000`$ kg m-3. Some of the asteroids densities have been found to be lower than expected and attributed to internal porosity possibly from rubble pile structure (Yeomans et al. 1997).

In Table 9 we present new densities for five main belt asteroids calculated under the assumption that they are equilibrium rotational (Jacobi ellipsoid) figures. We used their lightcurves as seen at maximum amplitude, to eliminate the effects of projection. The densities are higher than those of the Kuiper Belt objects obtained using the same method (Figure 19) but lower than expected for solid rock objects. This provides another hint that these objects may be internally porous. The densities of 15 Eunomia ($`790\pm 210`$ kg m-3) and 16 Psyche (1800$`\pm 600`$ kg m-3) were reported separately from measurements of gravitational perturbations (Hilton 1997; Viateau 2000). The higher density for 16 Psyche is particularly interesting because this object is an M-type asteroid and thus expected to have a high density. The main belt asteroid 45 Eugenia was found to have a companion which was used by Merline et al. (1999) to find a density of $`1200_{200}^{+600}`$ kg m-3. Asteroid densities found by others are probably underestimated since they assumed that the objects were spheres. A sphere has the highest volume to projected area ratio and thus any deviation from a sphere will cause the object to appear to have a lower density. We calculated the density for these objects using the assumption they are Jacobi ellipsoids and thus the parameters used are the well known period and amplitude from the lightcurves. Interestingly the five best examples of main belt rotationally deformed asteroids (Table 9) are found in all the main classes, 2 C-type, 1 each of S, P, and M-types.

## 6 Phase Functions of KBOs

At large phase angles, the phase function in Equation 1 may be approximated as

$$\varphi (\alpha )=10^{\beta \alpha }$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$ is the phase angle in degrees, and $`\beta `$ is the ”linear” phase coefficient. Empirically, the magnitude of $`\beta `$ is inversely correlated with the surface albedo (Gehrels 1970; Bowell et al. 1989; Belskaya and Shevchenko 2000), suggesting that we might be able to indirectly assess the albedos of KBOs from their phase functions. Unfortunately, this is not possible. The maximum phase angle attained by an object at distance $`R`$ \[AU\] is roughly $`\alpha _{max}`$ \[degrees\] = $`\frac{180}{\pi R}`$. At $`R=30`$ AU, for instance, $`\alpha _{max}=`$ 1.9 degrees. This is exactly the phase angle range in which the opposition surge is potentially important (Scaltriti and Zappala 1980; Belskaya and Shevchenko 2000). The opposition surge is a complex, multiple scattering phenomenon which occurs in the grains of a porous regolith. The magnitude of the opposition surge, which causes an increase in scattered intensity over and above that predicted by Equation 10 at small $`\alpha `$, is determined by coherent-backscattering and is a complex function of regolith physical and optical properties. It is not simply related to the albedo and Equation 10 must be modified to take account of this surge. Nevertheless, the phase functions provide a new basis for comparison of the KBOs, and should be measured if we are to accurately assess the sizes of KBOs from their optical data.

Seven of the KBOs were observed over a range of phase angles sufficient for us to measure the phase darkening. We plot the quantity $`m_R(1,1,\alpha )=m_R5\text{log}(R\mathrm{\Delta })`$ against $`\alpha `$ for these 7 KBOs in Figures 20 and Figure 21. When observations from consecutive nights were available we averaged the phase angle and apparent magnitude over those nights to create a single point with small uncertainty. If an object showed a lightcurve, its time-averaged mean apparent magnitude was used. The linear least squares fits to the KBO data are listed in Table 12 and shown in Figure 20. Within the uncertainties, we find that photometry of the 7 KBOs is compatible with $`\beta (\alpha <2\mathrm{°})`$ = $`0.15\pm 0.01`$ mag deg-1. In contrast the phase function for Pluto was found to be linear throughout the 0 to 2 degrees phase angle range with $`\beta (\alpha <2\mathrm{°})=0.0372\pm 0.0016`$ mag deg-1, indicating a very shallow if any opposition surge and consistent with a high albedo surface (Tholen and Tedesco 1994).

Since the small phase angle observations are affected by the ”opposition surge”, caused by multiple scattering within the porous regolith, we also fit the data using the Bowell et al. (1989) $`HG`$ scattering parametrization. This technique gives a curved relation at small phase angles that becomes asymptotically like the linear $`\beta `$ relation at large phase angles and thus attempts to account for the opposition surge. In the Bowell et al. formalism $`H`$ is the absolute magnitude of the object, analogous to $`m_R(1,1,0)`$. The parameter $`G`$ provides a measure of the slope of the phase function at large angles, analogous to $`\beta `$. It is scaled so that $`G=0`$ corresponds to the darkest surfaces found on the asteroids while $`G=1`$ corresponds to the brightest (Bowell et al. 1989). The results of the $`HG`$ fits are presented in Table 12 and Figures 21 and 22. The KBOs show steep slopes with a possible moderate opposition surge. The best-fit values of the $`G`$ parameter are very low with an average of $`0.21`$. This small $`G`$ value more closely resembles that of dark, C-type asteroids ($`G0.15`$) than the brighter, S-types ($`G0.25`$) in the main-belt. This is consistent with, though does not prove, the assumption that the majority of KBOs are of very low albedo. The similarity of the slopes of the phase functions of all KBOs in our sample suggests comparative uniformity of the surface compositions, physical states, and albedos. As a comparison, Pluto was found to have a best fit $`G=0.88\pm 0.02`$ using data from Tholen & Tedesco (1994). The dramatic difference between the backscattering phase functions of Pluto and the smaller KBOs studied here is shown in Figure 22. This difference is again consistent with the smaller KBOs having low albedo (0.04?) surfaces qualitatively different from the high albedo (0.6), ice-covered surface of Pluto.

## 7 Summary

We have conducted a systematic program to assess the rotations and sky-plane shapes of Kuiper Belt Objects from their optical lightcurves.

1. Four of 13 ($`31\%`$) bright Kuiper Belt objects in our sample ( (33128) 1998 BU48, 2000 GN171, (20000) Varuna, and 1999 KR16) show lightcurves with range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ 0.15 mag. In an enlarged sample combining objects from the present work with objects from the literature, 7 of 22 ($`32\%`$) objects have $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ 0.15 mag.

2. The fraction of KBOs with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ 0.4 mag ($`23\%`$) exceeds the corresponding fraction in the main-belt asteroids ($`11\%`$) by a factor of two. The KBO $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ distribution is inconsistent with the distribution of impact fragment shapes reported by Catullo et al. (1984).

3. The large Kuiper Belt Objects (33128) 1998 BU48, 2000 GN171 and (20000) Varuna show large periodic variability with photometric ranges $`0.68\pm 0.04`$, $`0.61\pm 0.03`$ and $`0.45\pm 0.03`$ magnitudes, respectively, and short double-peaked periods of $`9.8\pm 0.1`$, $`8.329\pm 0.005`$ and $`6.3565\pm 0.0002`$ hours, respectively. Their BVRI colors are invariant with respect to rotational phase at the few percent level of accuracy.

4. If these objects are equilibrium rubble piles distorted by centripetal forces due to their own rotation, the implied densities must be comparable to or less than that of water. Such low densities may be naturally explained if the KBOs are internally porous.

5. In the phase angle range $`0\alpha 2`$ deg the average slope of the phase function of 7 KBOs is $`\beta (\alpha <2\mathrm{°})`$ = $`0.15\pm 0.01`$ mag deg-1 (equivalently, $`G=0.2`$). The corresponding slope for ice-covered Pluto is $`\beta (\alpha <2\mathrm{°})0.04`$ mag/deg (equivalently, $`G=0.88`$). The large difference is caused by pronounced opposition brightening of the KBOs, strongly suggesting that they possess porous, low albedo surfaces unlike that of ice-covered Pluto.

## Acknowledgments

We thank John Dvorak, Paul deGrood, Ian Renaud-Kim, and Susan Parker for their operation of the UH telescope, Alan Harris for a quick and thoughtful review. This work was supported by a grant to D.J. from NASA.


text:
# Anomalous magnetic and electric moments of 𝜏 and lepton flavor mixing matrix in effective lagrangian approach

## 1 Introduction

Some neutrino oscillation experiments in recent years indicate that neutrinos are massive and oscillate in flavor. That is to say, there exists lepton flavor mixing. Lepton flavor mixing is very important for solving some topics related to particle physics and cosmology, such as the lepton anomalous magnetic dipole moments (AMDM) and electric dipole moments (EDM) and lepton flavor violation (LFV) decays.

Theoretically, the standard model predicts $`\delta \alpha _\tau =1.1769(4)\times 10^3`$ and a very tiny $`d_\tau `$  from CP violation in the quark sector. Experimental analysis of the $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}\gamma `$ process from L3 and OPAL collaborations gives that $`\delta \alpha _\tau =0.004\pm 0.027\pm 0.023`$ and $`d_\tau =(0.0\pm 1.5\pm 1.3)\times 10^{16}ecm`$. We also note that the authors in ref.  investigated $`g2`$ and raditive lepton decays with the effective lagrangian approach. Moreover, in ref. , T. Huang, Z.H. Lin and X.M. Zhang firstly introduced the non-universal effective operators and leaded the lepton flavor violation to the effective approach. The authors of ref.  presented an effective lagrangian to describe the effect of new physics and obtained the bounds of AMDM and EDM. By using a special lepton mass matrix ansatz , ref.  pushed the anomalous magnetic and electric dipole moments of tau lepton down to

$$\left|\delta \alpha _\tau \right|<3.9\times 10^{11},\left|d_\tau \right|<2.2\times 10^{25}ecm.$$
(1)
However these results were obtained only in one Fritzsch-Xing ansatz which induces the nearly bi-maximal mixing pattern for atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations.

In fact, there are a lot of lepton mass matrices ansatz  which are compatible with the current neutrino oscillation experimental data. Similar to the CKM matrix, the lepton mixing matrix can be also measured by experiments. However, at the present neutrino oscillation experiment level, it is difficult to put the precise values of lepton mixing matrix elements. From the several famous oscillation experiments, we can just obtain the range of these matrix elements. In the effective lagrangian approach, AMDM, EDM and lepton flavor violation are mainly related to the lepton mixing matrix. And thus we can find a connection between AMDM and EDM of tau lepton and the lepton flavor mixing matrix. As a result, either can we investigate the parameter space of lepton mixing angles from experimental data of $`\tau `$ AMDM and EDM, or can study the bounds of $`\delta a_\tau `$ and $`d_\tau `$ imposed by the mixing angles obtained from the current neutrino oscillation experiments.

In this note, we briefly talk about AMDM, EDM and LFV in the effective lagrangian approach introduced in Sec. 2. In the sequent Sec. , the lepton mixing matrix and the numerically results are presented. And we summarize the subject in the last Sec. .

## 2 Effective lagrangian with magnetic and electric dipole moments operators

To study magnetic and electric moments beyond Standard Model (SM), the authors in refs.  considered an effective lagrangian approach to new physics:

$$_{Eff}=_{SM}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\underset{i}{}C_i𝒪_i,$$
(2)
where $`_{SM}`$ is the SM lagrangian, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the new physics scale, $`𝒪_i`$ are $`SU_C(3)\times SU_L(2)\times U_Y(1)`$ invariant operators and $`C_i`$ are constants which represent the coupling strengths of $`𝒪_i`$. A complete list of the operators can be found in Ref. . Related to the anomalous magnetic moment of tau lepton, there are two dimension-six operators

$`𝒪_{\tau B}`$ $`=\overline{L}_\tau \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\tau _R\mathrm{\Phi }B_{\mu \nu }`$ (3)
$`𝒪_{\tau W}`$ $`=\overline{L}_\tau \sigma ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^i}{2}}\tau _R\mathrm{\Phi }W_{\mu \nu }^i`$ (4)
where $`\sigma ^i`$ is Pauli matrices ( i=1, 2, 3 ), $`L_\tau =(\nu _\tau ,\tau _L)^T`$ the $`\tau `$ left-handed isodoublet, $`\tau _R`$ the right-handed singlet, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the Higgs scalar doublet, and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`W_{\mu \nu }^i`$ are strengths of $`U_Y(1)`$ and $`SU_L(2)`$ gauge fields. Similarly, operators below are introduced to induce the electric dipole moments of $`\tau `$,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\tau B}`$ $`=\overline{L}_\tau \sigma ^{\mu \nu }i\gamma _5\tau _R\mathrm{\Phi }B_{\mu \nu }`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\tau W}`$ $`=\overline{L}_\tau \sigma ^{\mu \nu }i\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^i}{2}}\tau _R\mathrm{\Phi }W_{\mu \nu }^i.`$ (6)
When $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ gets vacuum expectation value, operators $`𝒪_{\tau B}`$ and $`𝒪_{\tau W}`$ can give rise to the tau anomalous magnetic moment. After the broken of electroweak symmetry and diagonalization of the mass matrices of the leptons and the bosons, the effective neutral current couplings of the leptons to the photon $`\gamma `$ is

$$_{Eff}^\gamma =_{SM}^\gamma +e\frac{1}{2m_\tau }(ik_\nu \sigma ^{\mu \nu })S^\gamma \left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{e}\\ \overline{\mu }\\ \overline{\tau }\end{array}\right)^TU_l^{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & \\ & 0& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right)U_l\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where

$$S^\gamma =\frac{2m_\tau }{e}\frac{\sqrt{2}v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left[C_{\tau W}\frac{S_W}{2}C_{\tau B}C_W\right],$$
(8)
where $`S_W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, $`C_W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$, and $`\theta _W`$ is Weinberg angle. Matrix $`U_l`$ is the unitary matrix which diagonalizes the mass matrix of the charged leptons. It is not measurable and dependent on the basis choice. For simplicity, we can choice the basis where neutrino is diagonal and work on neutrino mass basis. So, the unitary matrix $`U_l^{}`$ here is just the lepton mixing matrix $`V_l`$,

$$V_l=U_l^{}U_\nu ,$$
(9)
where $`U_\nu `$ is the unitary transformation matrix that diagonalize the neutrino mass matrices $`M_\nu `$. By representing

$$\overline{V}=V_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & \\ & 0& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right)V_l^{},$$
(10)
the decay width of $`ll^{}+\gamma `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(ll^{}\gamma )=\frac{m_l}{32\pi }\left(\overline{V}_{ll^{}}eS^\gamma \frac{m_l}{m_\tau }\right)^2,$$
(11)
where $`\overline{V}_{ll^{}}(ll^{})`$ are the non-diagonal elements of matrix $`\overline{V}`$ defined in Eq. (10). The new physics contribution to the tau anomalous magnetic moment is given by

$$|\delta \alpha _\tau |=|\overline{V}_{\tau \tau }S^\gamma |.$$
(12)
A similar formula holds for the tau electric dipole moment. So we can find $`\tau `$ AMDM, EDM and LFV decays are all related to lepton mixing through the matrix $`\overline{V}`$.

## 3 Lepton mixing matrix and $`\tau `$ AMDM and EDM

The general form of the lepton flavor mixing matrix is

$$V_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}C_{12}C_{13}& S_{12}C_{13}& S_{13}\\ S_{13}S_{23}C_{12}+C_{23}C_{12}e^{i\delta }& S_{13}S_{23}S_{12}+C_{23}C_{12}e^{i\delta }& C_{13}S_{12}\\ S_{13}C_{23}C_{12}+S_{23}S_{12}e^{i\delta }& S_{13}C_{23}S_{12}+S_{23}C_{12}e^{i\delta }& C_{13}S_{23}\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`S_{ij}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, $`C_{ij}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, $`\theta _{ij}`$ is the mixing angles between different flavors; and $`\delta `$ is CP phase. Putting aside the LSND experiments , the mixing angles measured by atmospheric , solar  and long-baseline  experiments actually correspond to the $`\theta _{23}`$, $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$ respectively. If neglecting the possible CP-violating phase, and substituting $`\theta _{13}`$, $`\theta _{23}`$, $`\theta _{12}`$ with $`\theta _l`$, $`\theta _a`$, $`\theta _s`$, we can present the lepton mixing matrix as

$$V_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}C_lC_s& S_sC_l& S_l\\ S_lS_aC_s+C_aC_s& S_lS_aS_s+C_aC_s& S_sC_l\\ S_lC_aC_s+S_aS_s& S_lS_sC_a+S_aC_s& S_aC_l\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
where $`S_a\mathrm{sin}\theta _a`$, $`C_a\mathrm{cos}\theta _a`$, and so on. The present experimental data favor $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _a>0.8`$ or $`\theta _a32^{}45^{}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _l<0.1`$ or $`\theta _l0^{}9.2^{}`$. There are two different possible cases to the solar neutrino oscillation: the long wave-length vacuum oscillation with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _s1`$, or $`\theta _s45^{}`$; and the matter-enhanced oscillation (MSW mechanism ) with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _s10^310^2`$ (small-angle solution) and $`\theta _s1^{}3^{}`$ or with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _s0.651`$ (large-angle solution) and $`\theta _s27^{}45^{}`$.

From Eqs. (10)-(12) and (14), we get the explicit form of the anomalous magnetic moment expressed in $`\theta _l`$, $`\theta _a`$ and $`\theta _s`$,

$$|\delta \alpha _\tau |=\frac{m_\tau }{em_\mu }\left|\frac{C_lS_a^2}{S_lS_s}\right|\sqrt{\frac{32\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{(\mu e\gamma )}}{m_\mu }}.$$
(15)
By using the current experimental upper limits, $`BR(\mu ^{}e^{}\gamma )<4.9\times 10^{11}`$, we investigate the relation between $`\delta a_\tau `$ and $`d_\tau `$ and the mixing angle $`\theta _l`$ which are shown on Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the numerical calculation, we take $`\theta _a=32^{}`$ and $`45^{}`$ respectively, as well as $`\theta _s=1^{}`$, $`27^{}`$, $`45^{}`$.

In the Figs, such as Fig. 1, all three curves, which correspond to $`\theta _s=1^{},27^{}`$ and $`45^{}`$ respectively, as well as $`\theta _a=32^{}`$, are all decrease to the lepton mixing angle which constrained by the long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. On the one hand, Considering the bound of $`\delta a_\tau `$ in Eq. (1), we find that the curve A can be excluded. That is to saw, $`\theta _s`$ will be not in the region $`1^{}3^{}`$. This result is suited to large mixing angle MSW solution ($`\theta _s27^{}45^{}`$) which is favored by the recent data of the Super-K and SNO. For curve B (or C), the regions in which $`\theta _l<1.8^{}`$ (or $`\theta _l<3^{}`$) can be excluded. The similar analysis can be used to the other three Figs. On the other hand, from the lepton flavor mixing angles constrained by the experiments directly, we can obtain the bounds on $`\delta a_\tau `$ and $`d_\tau `$ same as or smaller than these from the ansatz in Eq. (1), if $`\theta _l`$ lies in the scope about from $`1.8^{}`$ to $`9.2^{}`$. In other words, by using the effective lagrangian approach and the lepton mixing matrix, we can push $`\tau `$ AMDM and EDM down to very tiny values.

## 4 Summary

We extend the work in ref.  to bound the AMDM and EDM of $`\tau `$ in the effective lagrangian by considering the current experimental lepton mixing data. The experimental limits on $`\mu e\gamma `$ can put strong limits on $`\tau `$ AMDM and EDM same as obtained in ref. . Our results are compatible with the large mixing angle MSW solution which is favored by the recent data of the Super-K and SNO. The AMDM and EDM of $`\tau `$ can also give some constraints on the lepton mixing angles $`\theta _s,\theta _a`$ and $`\theta _l`$ by solar, atmospheric and long-baseline neutrino experiment respectively.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China and Doctoral Programme Foundation of Institute of High Education of China. One of the authors(W.J.H) acknowledges supports from the Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation and CAS K.C. Wong Postdoctoral Research Award Fund. We grateful to Prof. T. Huang, X.M Zhang and Z.Z Xing for useful discussions.


text:
# A Bell-type theorem without hidden variables

## I Introduction

The premises of Bell’s original hidden-variable theorem1  postulate the existence of a substructure that determines in a local manner the outcomes of a set of alternative possible measurements at most one of which can actually be performed. The implementation of the locality condition in this way thus involves a technical hidden-variable assumption that goes beyond the locality condition itself. Consequently, Bell’s proof of the inconsistency of this local hidden-variable assumption with certain predictions of quantum theory casts no serious doubt on the locality condition: its implementation via the assumed hidden-variable substructure would appear to be the more likely cause of the derived inconsistency.

Bell2  later introduced a seemingly weaker local hidden-variable assumption. However, this latter form can be shown3 ; 4  to be equivalent to the original one, apart from errors that tend to zero as the number of experiments tends to infinity. Thus both forms of the hidden-variable assumption place strong conditions on the class of theories that are covered by the theorems. These conditions are logically equivalent to the assumption that values can be pre-assigned conjunctively and locally to all of the outcomes of all of the alternative possible measurements. That assumption conflicts with what I believe to be the orthodox quantum philosophical attitude that one should not make any assumption that effectively postulates the existence of a well defined outcome of a localized measurement process that is not performed. Thus these hidden-variable theorems place in no serious jeopardy the basic locality idea that a free choice made by an experimenter in one space-time region has no influence in a second region that is space-like separated from the first.

The present paper shows that this locality idea fails, however, not only under the hidden-variable assumption (or some closely related presumption that effectively ensures the existence, within the theory, of outcomes of unperformed local measurements), but also in a much larger class of theories, namely those that are compatible with the properties of free choice and no backward-in-time influence on observed outcomes, and that yield certain predictions of quantum theory in experiments of the Hardy type.5  The first two of these three properties is now described.

Free Choices. For the purposes of understanding and applying quantum theory, the choice of which experiment is to be performed in a certain space-time region can be treated as an independent free variable localized in that region. Bohr repeatedly stressed the freedom of the experimenter to choose between alternative possible options. This availability of options is closely connected to his complementarity idea that the quantum state contains complementary kinds of information pertaining to the various alternative mutually exclusive experiments that might be chosen. Of course, no two mutually incompatible measurements can both be performed, and an outcome of an experiment can be specified only under the condition that that particular experiment be performed. This “free choice” assumption is important because it allows the causal part of cause-and-effect relationships to be identified: it allows the choices made by experimenters to be considered to be causes. This identification underlies all Bell-type arguments about causal relationships.

No Backward-in-Time Influence (NBITI). An outcome that has already been observed and recorded in some spacetime region at an earlier time can be considered fixed and settled, independently of which experiment a far-away experimenter will freely choose to perform at some later time. This assumption assigns no value to a local measurement except under the condition that this local measurement be performed. But any such locally observed value is asserted to be independent of which measurement will at some later time be freely chosen and performed in a spacelike separated region. This NBITI assumption is required to hold in at least one Lorentz frame of reference, henceforth called LF.

This NBITI assumption is compatible with relativistic quantum field theory. In the Tomonaga-Schwinger6 ; 7  formulation the evolving state is defined on a forward moving space-like surface. Their work shows that this surface can be defined in a continuum of ways without altering the predictions of the theory, so that no Lorentz frame is singled out as preferred. On the other hand, their formalism allows the quantum state to be defined by the constant time surfaces in any one single Lorentz frame that one wishes to choose, and shows that in this one frame the evolution, including all reductions associated with specific outcomes of measurements, proceeds forward in time, with a well defined past that is not influenced either by later free choices made by experimenters or by the outcomes of the later measurements. Thus this NBITI assumption is compatible with the principles and predictions of relativistic quantum field theory. (Included in this assumption is the tacit assumption that if an outcome appears to an observer, then the mutually exclusive alternative does not occur: the many-worlds idea that both outcomes occur is excluded.)

This NBITI assumption is a small part of the larger locality condition in question here, which is the demand that what an experimenter freely chooses to do in one region has no effect in a second region that is spacelike separated from the first. The no backward-in-time part of the no-faster-than-light condition can be imposed without generating any difficulties or conflict with relativistic quantum field theory. But a faster-than-light effect then appears elsewhere. In particular the following theorem holds:

Theorem. Suppose a theory or model is compatible with the premises:

1. Free Choices: This premise asserts that the choice made in each region as to which experiment will be performed in that region can be treated as a localized free variable.
2. No Backward in Time Influence: This premise asserts that experimental outcomes that have already occurred in an earlier region (in frame LF) can be considered to be fixed and settled independently of which experiment will be chosen and performed later in a region spacelike separated from the first.
3. Validity of Predictions of quantum theory (QT): Certain predictions of quantum theory in a Hardy-type experiment are valid.

Then this theory or model violates the following Locality Condition: The free choice made in one region as to which measurement will be performed there has, within the theory, no influence in a second region that is spacelike separated from the first.

## II Proof of the Theorem

The theorem refers to the following Hardy-type5  experimental set-up. There are two experimental spacetime regions $`L`$ and $`R`$, which are spacelike separated, with $`L`$ lying earlier than $`R`$ in $`LF`$. The experimenter in $`L`$ freely chooses either $`L1`$ or $`L2`$, and an outcome, either $`+`$ or $``$, then appears in region $`L`$. Then the experimenter in region $`R`$ freely chooses either $`R1`$ or $`R2`$, and one or the other of the two alternative possible outcomes, $`+`$ or $``$, then appears in $`R`$.

The detectors are assumed to be 100% efficient, so that for whichever measurement is chosen in $`L`$, one of the two alternative possible outcomes of that measurement, either $`+`$ or $``$, will appear in $`L`$, with each of these possibilities occurring about half the time, and for whichever measurement is then chosen in $`R`$, some outcome of that measurement, either $`+`$ or $``$, will appear in $`R`$.

For each of the two choices $`L1`$ or $`L2`$ available to the experimenter in $`L`$, and for each of the two alternative possible outcomes $`+`$ or $``$ of that experiment, quantum theory makes predictions for both of the two alternative choices $`R1`$ and $`R2`$ available to the experimenter in $`R`$.

In the statements that follow, the symbol $`L1`$ will be an abbreviation of the statement “Experiment $`L1`$ is performed in $`L`$.” The symbols $`L2`$, $`R1`$, and $`R2`$ will have analogous meanings.

The symbol $`L1+`$ will stand for the assertion, “Experiment $`L1`$ is performed in $`L`$ and outcome $`+`$ of that experiment appears in $`L`$.” The symbols $`L1`$, $`L2+`$, $`L2`$, $`R1+`$, $`R1`$, $`R2+`$, and $`R2`$ have analogous meanings. Using these abbreviations the first two pertinent predictions of QT for this Hardy setup are that:foot

Under the condition that $`L2`$ is performed in $`L`$,

If $`R2+`$, then $`L2+`$ (1)
and

$$\text{If (}L2+\text{ and }R1\text{) then }R1.$$
(2)
If, in accordance with our assumption, the choice made in $`R`$ does not affect the outcome that has already occurred in $`L`$, then these two conditions entail:

Property 1. Quantum theory predicts that if an experiment of the Hardy-type is performed then, $`L2`$ implies $`SR`$, where,

$`SR`$ = If $`R2`$ is performed and gives outcome $`+`$, then if, instead,
$`R1`$ had been performed the outcome would have been $``$.
Proof of Property 1. The concept “instead” is given an unambiguous meaning by the combination of the premises of “free choice,” and “no backward in time influence;” the choice between $`R1`$ and $`R2`$ is to be treated, within the theory, as a free variable, and switching between $`R1`$ and $`R2`$ is required to leave any outcome in the earlier region $`L`$ undisturbed. But then statements (1) and (2) can be joined in tandem to give the result $`SR`$.

The second two pertinent predictions of QT for this Hardy setup are

Under the condition that $`L1`$ is performed in $`L`$,
If ($`L1`$ and $`R2`$) then $`R2+`$ (3)
and

If ($`L1`$ and $`R1`$) then sometimes $`R1+`$ . (4)
If our premises are valid, then these two predictions entail:

Property 2. Quantum theory predicts that if an experiment of the Hardy-type is performed then: “$`L1`$ implies $`SR`$” is false.

Proof of Property 2:

Quantum theory predicts that if $`L1`$ is performed, then outcome $``$ appears about half the time. Thus if $`L1`$ is chosen, then there are cases where $`L1`$ is true. But in a case where $`L1`$ is true, the prediction (3) asserts that the premise of $`SR`$ is true. But statement (4), in conjunction with our two premises that give meaning to “instead,” implies that the conclusion of $`SR`$ is not true: if $`R1`$ is performed instead of $`R2`$, the outcome is not necessarily $`R1`$, as it was in case $`L2`$. So there are cases where $`L1`$ is true but $`SR`$ is false.

The conclusion is that in any theory or model in which the three assumptions (free choices, NBITI, certain predictions of quantum theory) are valid, the statement $`SR`$ must be always true if the free choice in region $`L`$ is $`L2`$, but must sometimes be false if that free choice in $`L`$ is $`L1`$. But the truth or falsity of $`SR`$ is defined by conditions on the truth or falsity of statements describing possible events located in region $`R`$. The fact that the truth of $`SR`$ depends in this way on a free choice made in region $`L`$, which is space-like-separated from region $`R`$, can reasonably be said to represent the existence within that theory or model of some sort of faster-than-light influence. This conclusion is discussed in the following sections.

## III Hidden Variables and Counterfactual Arguments

The previous argument rests heavily on the use of counterfactuals: the key statement $`SR`$ involves, in a situation in which $`R2`$ is performed and gives outcome “+,” the idea “if, instead, $`R1`$ had been performed …” The Bell-type hidden-variable assumptions also are essentially counterfactual in nature. That is because the hidden variables identify instances in which the outcomes of all four of the alternative possible experiments can be considered simultaneously. But this similarity does not mean that the three assumtions used here are logically equivalent to the Bell-type hidden-variable assumptions. The Bell-type assumptions, in their original deterministic hidden-variable form, clearly entail the three assumptions used here. But these three assumptions do not entail the Bell-type hidden-variable assumptions. Indeed, our assumptions are, as repeatedly emphasized, compatible with orthodox Tomonaga-Schwinger relativistic quantum field theory, whereas the assumptions of Bell, either in its original form, or in terms of the factorization property assumed in the later probabilistic form of Bell’s assumption, 2  are in direct logical conflict with the principles of relativistic quantum field theory. Thus the assumptions made here are logically weaker than those of the traditional Bell’s theorems.

## IV Connection to Earlier Work

The aim of this work is similiar to that of an earlier work of this author.8  That work was criticized by Unruh,9  Mermin,10  and Shimony and Stein11  on various grounds. I have answered these objections.12 ; 13 ; 14  However, the very existence of those challenges shows that the approach used in Ref. 8,  has serious problems, which originate in the fact that it is based on classical modal logic.

Classical modal logic provides the possibility of a concise logically rigorous proof based on an established logic. However, that virtue is overshadowed by the following drawbacks:

1. Although the symbolic proof is concise and austere, that brevity is based on a background that most physicists lack, which means that most physicists cannot fully understand it without a significant investment of time.
2. The question arises as to whether the use of classical modal logic begs the question by perhaps being based in implicit ways on the deterministic notions of classical physics.
3. Classical modal logic itself is somewhat of an open question, and it is not immediately clear to what extent these issues undermine the proof.

For these reasons I have in the present formulation relied only on quantum thinking and language throughout: there is no appeal to concepts unfamiliar to physicists.

But the present proof differs from the 1997 version by more than just the use of the language of physicists. The earlier proof introduced the assumption LOC2. That assumption was introduce in order to set up a reducio ad absurdum argument: it was meant to be proved false. But a lot of the discussion in my earlier augument was whether I had adequately justified this “assumption,” which, however, I was trying to prove false. The present version gives a straightforward proof of the key properties 1 and 2, without introducing the false assumption LOC2.

A subtle objection to the earlier argument was made by Shimony and Stein11 : Although the explicit condition for the truth of $`SR`$ is specified entirely by the truth or falsity of statements about possible events localized in region $`R`$ — and hence the proven dependence of the truth of $`SR`$ upon which experiment is freely chosen in $`L`$ seems explictly to require an influence in $`R`$ of that choice made in $`L`$ — the word “instead” that occurs in $`SR`$ harbors, they say, an implicit dependence of $`SR`$ on the choice made in $`L`$, and that the implicit dependence upon $`L`$ upsets the conclusion.

I believe this objection to be invalid. The word “instead” gets its meaning from the explicitly stated assumption that the choices made by the experimenters can be treated as free variables, coupled with the explicitly stated assumption that, under any condition chosen by the experimenter in the earlier region $`L`$, whatever he/she observes in that region can be considered to be independent of the choice freely made in the later region $`R`$ by the other observer. These explicitly stated conditions are what enter into the logical structure of the proof, which then entails that the truth value of at least one statement whose truth or falsity is specified in terms of the outcome of a possible experiment in region $`R`$ must depend non-trivially on the choice made by the experimenter in the spacelike separated region $`L`$. This conclusion represents some sort of failure of the notion that no influence of any kind can act over a spacelike interval.

## V Connection to the Bohr-Einstein Debate

The conclusion obtained here about faster-than-light influences parallels and complements Bohr’s reply to the paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.15  That discussion was not directly about “faster-than-light” influences: it was explicitly about whether actions performed on one system can influence “real” properties of another system. In the gedanken experiments described by EPR, the action of one experimenter could be made in one place, whereas the property in question could be measured far away at the same time. So the issue was implicitly about the possibility of faster-than-light influences of nearby actions on faraway properties.

The EPR assumption was thus, essentially, that there was no faster-than-light influence of any kind. Bohr’s response16  was subtle. Rosenfeld’s commentary17  on Bohr’s response makes it clear that Bohr’s effort to compose a response was not an easy endeavor.

The EPR argument rests strongly on counterfactual ideas, and it stresses at the end that “Indeed, one would not arrive at our conclusion if one insisted that two or more physical quantities can be regarded as simultaneous elements of reality only when they can be simultaneously measured or predicted.15  (Italics are in the original.) But in spite of this crucial use of counterfactual ideas by EPR, Bohr did not attack their argument on those grounds. I think it likely that Bohr did not want to take the difficult road of trying to ban all use of counterfactual concepts in physics. Indeed, I believe he recognized that counterfactual concepts do play an important role in the pragmatic approach to physics that he was pursuing. The core of Bohr’s response was to insist that there was no faster-than-light “mechanical disturbance,” but to note that “there is an influence on the very conditions that define the possible types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system.”

A “mechanical disturbance” would be one capable of transmitting a signal. The EPR argument does not prove, or attempt to prove, the existence of any nonlocal mechanical influence of this kind. Their argument pertains to more subtle kinds of considerations that involve contemplating relationships between experiments that cannot be performed simultaneously, but that have outcomes that can be predicted with certainty (that is, with probability unity), and with what ensues from trying to impose upon these considerations also the idea that any predicted property that can be considered “real” in one region cannot depend upon what a faraway experimenter freely chooses to do. The argument of EPR is therefore of the same general kind as the one given here. On the other hand, the EPR argument is very different from arguments of the Bell type, because the existence of hidden-variables was a putative consequence of the EPR argument, whereas it is an assumption of the Bell-type local hidden-variable (or local realism) theorems.

Bohr challenged not the counterfactual aspect of the EPR argument, but rather the strong form of the locality assumption assumed by EPR: he claimed that “there is an influence (of the nearby choice) upon the very conditions that define the possible types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the (faraway) system.”

That statement by Bohr, the core of his reply to EPR, has puzzled many philosophers and physicists, and Bohr himself18  recognized its difficulty. The present argument can be considered to be an effort to further explicate the nature of the subtle quantum non-locality that Bohr apparently recognized, and whose existence falsified, in his opinion, the EPR argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory, that is, falsified, within the conceptual framework of Copenhagen quantum theory, the EPR argument for the existence of local hidden variables of the kind postulated in the Bell local hidden-variable (or local-realism) theorems. The present theorem separates the locality aspect of the Bell local-realism postulate from the reality aspect by imposing a valid (according to Copenhagen thinking) (effectively one-way) locality condition that is expressed exclusively in terms of observables, and that is true in relativistic quantum field theory, and then deducing the failure of a no-faster-than-light-influence condition in the other directions, rather than by proving the failure of a strong, and very alien to quantum thinking, property that intricately combines the locality condition with a “realism” assumption that conflicts with quantum philosophy.

This argument has been carried out in a purely theoretical plane. It rests on a highly idealized theoretical conception of the experimental conditions and on purely theoretical assumptions. No attempt is made here to derive conclusions directly from empirical data, as certain approaches to Bell’s theorem seek to do. A recent discussion of some of the difficulties that ensue if one tries to argue directly from experimental data is given in Ref. 19, .

## Appendix A Appendix: Connection to Hardy’s notation

To obtain these four predictions from Hardy’s paper,5  one transforms my notation into Hardy’s using

$$L1(+,)(c_1,d_1)$$

$$L2(+,)(v_1,u_1)$$

$$R1(+,)(d_2,c_2)$$

$$R2(+,)(u_2,v_2)$$

and uses the three zero’s connecting my pairs of states $`(R2+,L2)`$, $`(L2+,R1+)`$, and $`(L1,R2)`$ that arise from his Eq. (13), respectively to obtain my statements (1), (2), and (3), respectively, and uses his Eq. (13.d), which says that my matrix element $`(L1,R1+)`$ is positive, to obtain my statement (2.4).

###### Acknowledgements.

Extensive discussions with Asher Peres, Philippe Eberhard, Jerry Finkelstein, and particularly Abner Shimony, have contributed importantly to the development of this paper. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.

\[xx need titles of articles! xx\]