text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently a lot of attention has been devoted to physics in a space time with positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i.e. de Sitter space. There are observational as well as theoretical reasons for this attention. From the observational point of view, there is strong evidence in favor of an accelerating universe, which might be due to a positive cosmological constant . Understanding de Sitter space is also important in inflationary scenarios, where the possibility of transplanckian imprints in the CMBR spectra has led to renewed interest in the field .

On the theoretical side the recent interest is partly due to the progress made in the understanding of quantum gravity for AdS spaces with negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . In this case holography has played a key role and the hope has been that similar ideas should be important for de Sitter space as well. The cosmological horizons present in de Sitter space, and the possible parallels with black hole physics, make the problem even more interesting and challenging.

In this paper we will focus on the problem of complementarity in de Sitter space. Our purpose is to investigate the possibilities of an information paradox and compare with the corresponding situation in the case of black holes. In black hole physics the general view is that a complementarity principle is at work implying that two observers, one travelling into a black hole and the other remaining on the outside, have very different views of what is going on. According to the observer staying behind, the black hole explorer will experience temperatures approaching the Planck scale close to the horizon. As a consequence the black hole explorer will be completely evaporated and all information transferred into Hawking radiation. According to the explorer herself, however, nothing peculiar happens as she crosses the horizon. As explained in  there is no paradox since the two observers can never meet again to compare notes. Any attempt of the observer remaining on the outside to send a signal to the one on the inside, will necessarily make use of planckian energies and presumably fail.

In order to probe the possibility of a similar paradox in the case of de Sitter space, we will consider a scenario where at some point in time the de Sitter phase is turned off and replaced by a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ phase with scale factor $`a(t)t^q`$, for $`1/3<q<1`$. We will refer to this latter phase as the post-de Sitter phase. This is, in fact, nothing but an inflationary toy model and towards the end of the paper we will make some comments relevant to such an application. Considering this scenario one might naively be led to a possible information paradox. The paradox is a result of assuming that an object receding towards the de Sitter horizon of an inertial de Sitter observer, will return its information content to the observer in the form of de Sitter radiation. If the cosmological constant turns off, the object itself will eventually return to the observers causal patch, and one has the threat of an information paradox.

As we will explain, the time scale for Poincaré recurrences will play an important role in the resolution of the paradox. This is similar to earlier work , where recurrence plays a crucial role in another setting, namely, the tunneling from de Sitter space to flat space. In that case, as well as in ours, the characteristic time scale for the process is of the order the recurrence time, implying that the process is unphysical. In fact, the time one has to wait for the information to return classically is of the same order as for an arbitrary miracle to occur, that is, a breakdown of the second law by chance.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we start by reviewing some basic classical and semi-classical properties of de Sitter space. We also briefly comment on quantum gravity in de Sitter space and discuss similarities and differences to the black hole case. In section 3 we describe the paradox in more detail, comment on various possible loopholes and make attempts to resolve it. We briefly compare the time scales involved with those in a realistic inflationary scenario, and touch upon some peculiarities encountered, related to de Sitter space itself. We end, in section 4, with some conclusions.

## 2 Some aspects of de Sitter space and the relation to black hole physics

### 2.1 Classical de Sitter space

de Sitter space is the maximally symmetric vacuum solution to the Einstein equations with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One way to realize de Sitter space is to view it as a hyperboloid embedded in ordinary flat Minkowski space. Four dimensional de Sitter space, which is of interest in this paper, is then described as the hypersurface

$$X_0^2+X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2+X_4^2=\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=R^2.$$
(1)
There are numerous coordinate systems that can be used in discussing the various aspects of de Sitter space (see  for a nice review). In the so called static coordinates, which are useful when we want to focus on observations made by a particular observer, the metric takes the form

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{R^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{R^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(2)
At $`r=R`$ we notice the presence of a horizon, the de Sitter horizon. From the point of view of an observer at $`r=0`$, the horizon acts as a one-way membrane preventing anything that leaves through it to ever come back again, as long as the space-time continues to be de Sitter. We can easily generalize to a situation with a black hole in de Sitter space described by

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2E}{r}\frac{r^2}{R^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2E}{r}\frac{r^2}{R^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(3)
In general this space has two horizons, the black hole and the de Sitter horizon respectively. As $`E`$ is increased it can be seen that the two horizons approach each other, and for $`E=3^{3/2}R`$ the two horizons coincide at $`r=3^{1/2}R`$. As a consequence there is a maximal sized black hole which can fit inside the de Sitter space.

In discussing cosmology, a more convenient choice of coordinates is the FRW coordinates

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(4)
where $`a(t)=Re^{t/R}`$, and the de Sitter radius $`R`$ is related to the Hubble constant, $`H`$, through $`R=1/H`$. With these coordinates, covering half of de Sitter space, one can address global questions such as those relevant for a cosmology with a period of inflation.

### 2.2 Semiclassical de Sitter space

Gibbons and Hawking  noted that the de Sitter horizon possesses surface gravity and obeys laws analogous to those that govern the physics of black holes. This analogy suggests that the de Sitter horizon can be associated with a temperature and an entropy, similar to what is the case for the black hole event horizon. A black hole steadily emits Hawking radiation, which can be interpreted as the spontaneous creation of particles at a point just outside the black hole horizon, and one would expect that the same kind of radiation would be emitted from the de Sitter horizon. Gibbons and Hawking demonstrated that an observer in de Sitter space indeed detects thermal radiation at a temperature

$$T_{dS}=\frac{1}{2\pi R},$$
(5)
in planckian units, and that the dS horizon can be endowed with an entropy

$$S_{dS}=\pi R^2=\frac{3\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(6)
supporting the analogy between the de Sitter horizon and the event horizon of a black hole.

Pointing out these similarities, there are some important differences between the two cases worth mentioning. The black hole horizon is an observer independent construction, while the de Sitter horizon is an observer dependent. Any observer in de Sitter space is surrounded by a de Sitter horizon, and if the observer moves, the horizon does so as well. So every observer in de Sitter space lives in the center of a “bubble”, bounded by an event horizon with the radius $`R`$. As a consequence, the relation between different observers in de Sitter space is, unlike the black hole case, symmetric.

Another crucial difference is that de Sitter space usually is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium.111An exception is the work  where the cosmological constant is claimed to relax due to the radiation. The horizon not only emits radiation, it also absorbs radiation, previously emitted by itself, at the same rate, keeping the radius fixed (under the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is kept fixed). In the case of black holes, on the other hand, one has the option of either studying black holes in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath, or black holes that are truly evaporating.

### 2.3 Quantum gravity in de Sitter space?

Lacking a true quantum gravity description of de Sitter space, one can only speculate on what kind of features it would possess. Many believe that the describing theory should be holographic. That is, the fundamental degrees of freedom should be the boundary degrees of freedom, with no more than one degree of freedom per Planck area. For a discussion of this interesting idea, see . This gives particularly strong constraints for de Sitter spaces, simply because the operationally meaningful part of de Sitter space is bounded by the (finite sized) de Sitter horizon. This implies that a microscopic description of de Sitter space should only have a finite number of degrees of freedom, i.e. the entropy $`S_{dS}=\pi R^2`$ should better be thought of as the total number of degrees of freedom describing the universe. Microscopically deriving this number is a great challenge.222There are, however, suggestions that this number is a defining property of the theory rather than some derivable consequence of it , i.e. in order to end up with a theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom one should postulate it from the beginning rather than deriving it in the end.

Much of this parallels the situation with black holes, where, indeed, the entropy has been microscopically derived in some special cases, for early references see . A microscopic description of black holes implies that they are not as featureless as the classical and semiclassical description suggests, and, in particular, the radiation should not be expected to be purely thermal, but rather be able to carry information. It is reasonable to assume that the same is true for the de Sitter radiation, even though it should be noted that radiation carrying information not necessarily implies that an observer will be able to extract information from it. We will return to this important point later on.

## 3 The paradox and possible resolutions

### 3.1 The scenario

As mentioned in the introduction, our scenario can globally be viewed as an inflationary toy model. The universe starts out in a de Sitter phase with a scale factor $`a(t)e^{t/R}`$. At a certain point in time, $`t_0`$, the de Sitter phase is turned off and replaced by a post-de Sitter phase where the universe is filled with matter with an equation of state given by $`p=\sigma \rho `$, and a scale factor $`a(t)t^q`$ with $`q=\frac{2}{3\left(1+\sigma \right)}`$. We will consider values of $`q`$ in the range $`1/3<q<1`$, where the lower bound comes from the requirement that $`\left|\sigma \right|1`$, and the upper bound is the condition for not having an accelerating universe, which would prevent our paradox from being realized.

At the time $`t_0`$ of transition we would like to match the scale factor $`a(t)`$ and the Hubble constant $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ smoothly. We imagine that the cosmological constant rapidly decays and the energy is transferred into matter through reheating. In the de Sitter phase we have

$$a(t)=Re^{t/R},\text{ }H=\frac{1}{R},$$
(7)
and in the post-de Sitter phase we make the following ansatz for the scale factor

$$a(t)=A(tB)^q.$$
(8)
The continuity of $`a(t)`$ and $`H`$ at $`t=t_0`$ requires that

$$A=\frac{Re^{t_0/R}}{(qR)^q}$$
(9)
$$B=t_0qR,$$
(10)
which gives us the scale factor during the post-de Sitter phase according to

$$a(t)=\frac{Re^{t_0/R}}{(qR)^q}(tt_0+qR)^q.$$
(11)
After these introductory remarks we will move to the possibility of obtaining a paradox.

### 3.2 An information paradox?

Let us consider an inertial observer during the de Sitter phase, who drops an object that recedes towards the horizon. Taking the perspective of global coordinates, the object will eventually leave the causal patch of the observer and information is apparently lost. However, as mentioned in section 2.3, the radiation coming from the horizon is expected, as in the case of black holes, to carry information. By itself, this gives rise to some highly non-trivial questions and issues, discussed in section 3.3.

In our scenario, this is however not the end of the story. By turning off the de Sitter phase, a new possibility for the information to get back emerges, namely, the object itself can return to within the causal patch of our observer, confusing her by apparently duplicating the information.

One natural question at this stage would be how long time it takes for the object to get back inside the causal patch of the observer. A short calculation gives us the answer. The condition for the return of the object to the observers causal region is that the distance, in global coordinates, between the observer and the object should be equal to the causal size of the observers part of the universe. Since the object moves away from the observer at the rate of the expansion of the universe, i.e. as $`t^q`$ with $`q<1`$, and the observers light cone grows like $`t`$, one concludes that at some point in time the two distances will coincide. For concreteness we will consider an object at constant comoving coordinate $`x`$ with $`x1`$. At time $`t=0`$ the object is consequently at a physical distance $`xRR`$ from the observer. The physical distance between the object and the observer at the time of return, $`t_{in}`$, is given by

$$xR\text{ }e^{\frac{t_0}{R}}\left(\frac{a(t_{in})}{a(t_0)}\right)=xR\text{ }e^{\frac{t_0}{R}}\left(\frac{t_{in}t_0+qR}{qR}\right)^q.$$
(12)
The causal size of the universe for the observer at $`t=t_{in}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (t_{in}t_0+qR)^q_{t_0}^{t_{in}}\frac{dt}{(tt_0+qR)^q}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{1q}(t_{in}t_0+qR)^q\left((t_{in}t_0+qR)^{1q}(qR)^{1q}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Identifying (12) and (13) and solving for $`t_{in}`$ gives

$$t_{in}=\left(\text{ }\frac{(1q)xR\text{ }e^{\frac{t_0}{R}}}{(qR)^q}+(qR)^{1q}\right)^{\frac{1}{1q}}+t_0qR.$$
(14)
As a consequence it seems like the information has returned twice to our observer, under the assumption that the observer can get complete information from the de Sitter radiation. In the following two subsections we discuss possible loopholes in the arguments leading to this apparent puzzle.

Before doing this, however, it is illuminating to consider what this would look like locally, i.e. what our observer actually would see happen. Let us assume that the object is continuously emitting signals towards our observer. As the object approaches the de Sitter horizon, the signals become increasingly redshifted and effectively disappears from the observers sight. As long as we are in the de Sitter phase, the redshift increases exponentially. In the post-de Sitter phase, however, we have a redshift that steadily decreases, meaning that the object eventually will become visible to the observer at a certain time in the distant future. Let us calculate this time and compare it with the time $`t_{in}`$ derived above.

For simplicity we focus on the case where not only the time of detection of the signal, $`t_{obs}`$, but also the time of emission, $`t_{em}`$, are in the post-de Sitter phase. We then find that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x& =_{t_{em}}^{t_{obs}}\frac{dt}{a(t)}=\frac{1}{A}\left[\frac{1}{1q}(tB)^{1q}\right]_{t_{em}}^{t_{obs}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{(1q)A}\left((t_{obs}B)^{1q}(t_{em}B)^{1q}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ was calculated in section 3.1. Using this, the redshift, $`z`$, becomes

$$1+z=\frac{a(t_{obs})}{a(t_{em})}=\frac{(t_{obs}B)^q}{(t_{em}B)^q}=\frac{(t_{obs}B)^q}{\left((t_{obs}B)^{1q}Ax\left(1q\right)\right)^{\frac{q}{1q}}},$$
(16)
where it can be noted that for $`t_{obs}\mathrm{}`$ the expression goes to unity as expected. The condition for the object to become visible again is

$$(t_{obs}B)^{1q}Ax\left(1q\right),$$
(17)
rendering (16) of order one. Solving for $`t_{obs}`$, we get

$$t_{obs}\left(Ax\left(1q\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{1q}}+B=\left(\frac{(1q)xR}{(qR)^q}\right)^{\frac{1}{1q}}e^{\frac{t_0}{(1q)R}}+t_0qR,$$
(18)
which indeed is of the same order as $`t_{in}`$, given by (14).

### 3.3 Measuring information in the de Sitter radiation

In the last subsection, a crucial point for the occurrence of the paradox was that one can actually extract information from the de Sitter radiation. Is this really possible? If so, how much radiation is needed and how long time will it take to receive the appropriate amount?

In order to answer these questions, one would need a full quantum analysis of the process. Following a less ambitious route, where one considers some very general entropy relations, one can at least obtain a reasonable estimate of the quantities involved. This was done by Page in , where the main idea was to consider a total system, in a random pure state, being built up by two subsystems. The question then was how much information could be expected to be contained in the different parts, i.e. the smaller subsystem, the larger subsystem and the correlations between the two. In our situation this would translate into asking how much information we have in the horizon, in the radiation and in the correlations between them. Page’s calculations revealed that the information in the smaller subsystem is always less than one half bit of information, thus basically containing no information at all.

Let us now consider a measuring process where a detector collects radiation and, perhaps, information. As we saw from the discussion of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric in section 2.2 our detector must be limited by the size of the largest black hole that can fit in de Sitter space. This means that it can never access more than one third of the degrees of freedom (as was also discussed in ). The argument of Page would furthermore suggest that almost no information will be located in the detector but rather it resides in the correlations.333Even if this is correct, this does not necessarily imply that the situation is clear cut. We still have to consider the possibility of extracting quantum information in the post-de Sitter phase, where the state of the detector must be correlated with something replacing the de Sitter horizon. One possibility is that the state of the detector is correlated with the matter created through reheating. Then it may, at least in principle, be possible to eventually extract the quantum information.

This discussion crucially hinges on the applicability of Page’s argument to the discussion of complementarity. In his calculation it is assumed that one is considering a random pure state of the total system. In our case it is not clear that this is a fair description. After all, a detector (and observer) prepared to take part in a measuring process is not just any state. But, as we will show, even if the information can be retrieved in the de Sitter phase, this will not necessarily lead to a paradox anyway.

Now, what is the minimum time needed to measure the information in the radiation? A reasonable estimate would be the time it takes for the $`R^2`$ degrees of freedom of the horizon to, at least in principle, become available to our observer. One would expect this to be the time it takes for an amount of entropy (or information) of the order of $`R^2`$ to circulate once through the system. That is, being emitted by the horizon and reabsorbed again. The total flow of entropy (per unit time) from the horizon is given by $`T^3R^2`$, and the time to transfer $`R^2`$ is then $`\tau R^2/\left(T^3R^2\right)T^3R^3`$, where we have used that $`T\frac{1}{R}`$.

One can argue for the same result in the following illuminating way. A single particle in de Sitter space would need roughly the time $`R`$ to pass through the causal patch of the observer. We then need to know how many particles there are in the de Sitter radiation at a given time. A rough calculation uses the fact that the number density, $`n`$, of black body radiation at the temperature $`T`$, goes like $`nT^3`$. This means that the total number of particles, $`N`$, in a horizon volume $`VR^3`$ becomes

$$N=nV\frac{1}{R^3}R^3=1.$$
(19)
This result444The fact that there is just one particle per horizon volume was also pointed out in , but has in general not received a lot of attention. might seem somewhat surprising and is not really compatible with what seems to be the general picture of an observer bathing in a sea of de Sitter radiation. Now it is straightforward to estimate the time it takes for $`R^2`$ particles to, at least in principle, become available. Since one particle needs the time $`tR`$ and we have roughly one particle per horizon volume, we recover $`\tau R^3`$ in the case of $`R^2`$ particles. This estimate will be used in the following subsection.

### 3.4 Exceeding the recurrence time?

In section 3.2 we calculated the time it takes for the object to be available again for the observer. The result, (14), has a dependence on $`t_0`$ which is the time passed from the moment the object is released to the time the de Sitter phase is turned off. Then it is natural to let this time be at least the time $`\tau `$ estimated in the last subsection, i.e. the time needed for the observer to, at least in principle, be able to collect enough radiation during the de Sitter phase.

Now, since $`\tau `$ is a large time, being the cube of $`R`$, we only consider the dominant term in (14). Hence the time of return is

$$t_{in}e^{\frac{1}{1q}\frac{\tau }{R}}e^{R^2}e^{S_{dS}},$$
(20)
where it is used that the entropy in de Sitter space is $`S_{dS}=\pi R^2`$, up to factors of order one in the exponential. But this is nothing but the Poincaré recurrence time for our de Sitter space! The recurrence time is the time it takes for a trajectory in phase space (for an isolated finite system) to return arbitrarily close to its initial value. In particular, this means that discussing experiments lasting longer than their recurrence time is meaningless, since the memory of the system then has been erased. Since the detector obviously has a smaller entropy than the entire de Sitter space, this suggests that we are considering an experiment lasting for too long to make any sense. Thus if the detector can be considered as an isolated system by itself in the post-de Sitter phase (until the expected signal is coming back), the paradox is eliminated. On the other hand, if the detector is allowed to interact with the environment, with more degrees of freedom coming into play, the relevance of Poincaré recurrences is not clear. At the same time, however, the issue of unitarity and a possible information paradox comes in a different light since we are considering an open system.

A related discussion regarding non-unitary processes can be found in , where tunneling from de Sitter to flat space was considered. In that case the entire causal diamond disappears, corresponding to a severe violation of unitarity. However, it was argued that this process should be considered unphysical, since the time needed for the process to occur was of the order of the recurrence time for the de Sitter space. This is in the same spirit as the suggested resolution of our paradox, as discussed above.

To summarize, if we consider a detector in de Sitter space, there does not seem to exist a physical process such that information beyond the horizon can be made accessible to the detector before the recurrence time of the detector has passed. This includes tunneling processes as discussed in , as well as an abrupt end of inflation as discussed in this paper. In other words, the observer needs to wait as long as the time needed for a thermodynamical miracle to happen.

### 3.5 Comparisons with a realistic inflationary cosmology

At this point it is interesting to compare our results with the time scales involved in a realistic inflationary cosmology, just to give a taste of the relevant order of magnitudes. To solve the classical cosmological problems, we need the number of e-foldings to be at least 70 or so, corresponding to a time $`t_{infl}`$, roughly given by $`t_{infl}70/H`$, if we consider $`H`$ as time-independent. The value of $`H`$ is constrained from observations of the CMBR to be no larger than $`10^4\text{ }m_{Pl}`$, which corresponds to $`t_{infl}710^5\text{ }t_{Pl}`$. The fluctuations that eventually will be visible in the CMBR emerges out of planckian scales well within this time frame, counted backwards from the end of inflation. Clearly this is much shorter than

$$\tau R^3=1/H^310^{12}\text{ }t_{Pl},$$
(21)
and as a consequence the issue of complementarity would not be expected to be relevant. Another way to say the same thing, is to estimate the time $`t_{in}`$ needed for an object, that left the time $`\tau `$ before the end of inflation, to reenter the causal patch of the observer. This is given by

$$t_{in}e^{R^2}=e^{\frac{1}{H^2}}e^{10^8}\text{ }t_{Pl},$$
(22)
which exceeds the present age of the universe by many orders of magnitude.

It follows that a detector present during inflation, when the fluctuations relevant for the CMBR are generated and leave the de Sitter horizon, can survive long enough to detect their return in the subsequent post-de Sitter era. One concludes, from the point of view of the detector, that these fluctuations will not have time to holographically thermalize on the horizon before the end of inflation. In other words, an observer present during the de Sitter phase will not have time to study the de Sitter radiation long enough, before the end of inflation and after the fluctuations are generated, to encounter any problems with respect to information.

On the other hand, as pointed out in , as far as the CMBR fluctuations are concerned we are more in the position of an observer inside a black hole and, as a consequence, a different outcome of the above calculation would not have been of great relevance.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper, we have discussed the possibility of an information paradox, arising in a specific cosmological scenario. The scenario resembles an idealized inflationary scenario, where we go from a pure de Sitter phase to a phase described by a scale factor $`a(t)t^q`$, where $`1/3<q<1`$. This could possibly lead to a duplication of information, by allowing an observer to receive information about an object, previously disappeared through the horizon, in two different ways. First, she could extract the information from the de Sitter radiation, assuming this could be done. Secondly, the object itself could return to the observer, well after the time of transition between the two different phases involved.

Assuming that it is possible to retrieve information during the de Sitter phase, we estimated the time needed to collect the appropriate amount of radiation, which turned out to be $`\tau R^3`$. We then turned to a calculation of the time it would take for the object to return to the observer, thereby apparently duplicating the information. This time turned out to be dominated by a factor $`e^{R^2}`$, using $`\tau `$ as input data. The appearance of this factor suggested that a recurrence argument could be invoked, related to issues discussed in . As a consequence, the observer will have to wait as long for the classical return of the information as she must wait for a miracle.
Note added: When this work was being completed we received  that discusses the measurement problem in de Sitter space.

## Acknowledgments

UD is a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Research Fellow supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The work was also supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR).


format: text

text:
# Encoding the scaling of the cosmological variables with the Euler Beta function

## Acknowledgements

We thank L. J. Boya, M. Asorey and J. Sesma for helpful comments. This work was supported by MCYT (Spain), grant FPA2000-1252.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For more than 20 years measurements of photon structure functions give deep insight into the rich structure of a fundamental gauge boson, the photon. A recent review on this subject can be found in .

The main idea is that by measuring the differential cross-section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{e}\gamma \mathrm{e}X}}{dxdQ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{xQ^4}}\left[\left(1+(1y)^2\right)F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)y^2F_\mathrm{L}^\gamma (x,Q^2)\right]`$
one obtains the photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$, see Figure 1 for an illustration. Here $`Q^2`$ and $`P^2`$ are the absolute values of the four momentum squared of the virtual and quasi-real photons, with $`P^2Q^2`$. The symbols $`x`$ and $`y`$ denote the usual dimensionless variables of deep-inelastic scattering, and $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. The flux of the incoming photons, $`f_\gamma (z,P^2)`$, where $`z`$ is the fraction of the electron energy carried by the photon, is usually taken from the equivalent photon approximation, EPA. In leading order, the structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ is proportional to the parton content of the photon and therefore reveals the structure of the photon.

In the region of small $`y`$ studied ($`y1`$), the contribution of the term proportional to $`F_\mathrm{L}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ is small, and is usually neglected. Because the energy of the quasi-real photon is not known, $`x`$ has to be derived by measuring the invariant mass of the hadronic final state $`X`$, which is a source of significant uncertainties, and makes measurements of $`F_2^\gamma `$ mainly limited by the systematic error, except for large values of $`Q^2`$.

At this conference new measurements of the hadronic structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ and its charm component $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$ have been presented. They are discussed, together with the most recent fits to the $`F_2^\gamma `$ data and the prospects for measurements of $`F_2^\gamma `$ at a future Linear Collider. In addition, an attempt by DELPHI is presented to investigate the photon structure by measuring the electron structure function $`F_2^\mathrm{e}`$.

## 2 Photon structure function

The improvement in the measurement of $`F_2^\gamma `$ since the first result by PLUTO in 1981 is quite impressive, see Figure 2. The analysis of the LEP data has extended the kinematic coverage by about two orders in magnitude, both to larger $`Q^2`$ and to smaller $`x`$. In addition, due to continuous improvements of the analyses and a LEP combined effort to obtain a better description of the data by the Monte Carlo models, the precision of the measurements has been improved considerably.

For this conference the final OPAL result for the measurement of the hadronic structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ at high $`Q^2`$ has been available. This measurement is based on the complete LEP2 data and extends the measurement of $`F_2^\gamma `$ to $`Q^2=780`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, the largest scale ever probed. As can be seen from Figure 3 the measured $`F_2^\gamma `$ is rather flat, and, within errors, the parameterisations from GRSc , SaS1D  and WHIT  are in agreement with the data.

The already available preliminary result from DELPHI  at a slightly lower $`Q^2`$ basically shows the same trend. Since the measurement at high $`Q^2`$ is mainly limited by the statistical error, it is very desirable to combine the OPAL result with the measurements to come from the other LEP experiments. To facilitate the combination, the analyses should be performed for the same bins in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$.

Also the investigation of the evolution of $`F_2^\gamma `$ with $`Q^2`$ in ranges of $`x`$ has been continued using the LEP2 data.

For medium values of $`x`$, the precision of the OPAL results based on LEP1 data has been improved considerably by using the large luminosity available at LEP2 energies. With the present level of precision the data start to challenge the existing parameterisations of $`F_2^\gamma `$. Given this, several theoretical as well as experimental issues have to be addressed in more detail when interpreting the data. Examples are the suppression of $`F_2^\gamma `$ with $`P^2`$ and radiative corrections to the deep-inelastic scattering process. A summary of the present status of all measurements of the $`Q^2`$ evolution of $`F_2^\gamma `$ is shown in Figure 5.

## 3 Fits to $`F_2^\gamma `$ data

There have been recent fits  to $`F_2^\gamma `$ based on all available data, except for the TPC/2$`\gamma `$ results. To facilitate the analysis, some simplifications are made in the treatment of the experimental results. In the analysis the correlation matrix of the various points is used if it is provided by the experiment. However, the systematic errors are treated as uncorrelated, the $`P^2`$ effect and the radiative corrections are neglected, and finally, in case of asymmetric errors, the data points are moved to the central value and symmetric error are assumed. Given the precision of the data mentioned above, this procedure should most likely be improved for future analyses. The fits are done in a fixed flavour scheme with $`uds`$ as active flavours and charm treated as a Bethe-Heitler contribution with $`m_\mathrm{c}=1.5\pm 0.1`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Two different types of fits are performed in leading and next-to-leading order, NLO, using the DISγ and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ schemes. In the first fit the hadron-like part of the photon structure is neglected, and only the point-like part, which is evolved from a starting scale of $`Q_0^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, is taken into account. Consequently the only free parameter of the fit is $`\alpha _s(M_\mathrm{Z})`$. Since the hadron-like part dominates at low $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$, only the data in the region $`x>0.45`$ and $`Q^2>59\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ are used in this fit. The second fit uses all data, takes into account both components and fits for $`(N,\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha _s,Q_0^2)`$ using the assumptions, $`uds(Q_0^2)=Nx^\alpha (1x)^\beta `$ and $`g(Q_0^2)=0`$. Both types of fits give a reasonable description of the data. Within the assumptions made, the quoted theoretical precision on $`\alpha _s(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ is about 3$`\%`$ and predicted to shrink to less than 2$`\%`$ for $`Q^2`$ values larger than 300 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

## 4 Prospects for $`F_2^\gamma `$ measurements

The prospects of future investigations of the photon structure in the context of the planned Linear Collider programme are very promising. The $`\text{e}^+\text{e}^{}`$ Linear Collider will extend the available phase space, as shown in Figure 6, for the measurement of the $`Q^2`$ evolution of $`F_2^\gamma `$ at medium $`x`$, see .

The higher beam energy and luminosity compared to LEP also allows for the investigations of novel features like the measurement of the flavour decomposition of $`F_2^\gamma `$ by exploring the exchange of $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons .

## 5 The charm contribution to $`𝑭_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝜸`$

The final OPAL result  has been presented of the measurement of the charm component $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$ using $`D^{}`$ mesons to identify charm quarks. Compared to the first OPAL result on $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$, this analysis is based on improved Monte Carlo models and higher statistics, leading to a more precise measurement presented in Figure 7.

In a similar way to the structure function for light quarks, $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$ receives contributions from the point-like and the hadron-like components of the photon structure. These two contributions are predicted  to have different dependences on $`x`$, with the hadron-like component dominating at very low values of $`x`$ and the point-like part accounting for most of $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$ at $`x>0.1`$.

For $`x>0.1`$ the OPAL measurement is described by perturbative QCD at next-to-leading order. For $`x<0.1`$ the measurement is poorly described by the NLO prediction using the point-like component alone, and therefore the measurement suggests a non-zero hadron-like component of $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$. Increased statistics and a better understanding of the dynamics for $`x<0.1`$ are needed to get a more precise result in this region. Also here, to increase the statistics, it would be advantageous to combine the data from all four LEP experiments taken in the same phase space.

## 6 Electron structure function

For this conference there has been an attempt by DELPHI to access the photon structure by measuring the electron structure function. In this analysis, instead of measuring the electron-photon scattering cross-section by utilising the EPA to account for the flux of the quasi-real photons, the cross-section of electron-electron scattering is studied as functions of $`Q^2`$ and $`x_\mathrm{e}`$, the fractional momentum of the parton with respect to the electron. This quantity is related to $`x`$ by $`x_\mathrm{e}=zx`$. The main advantage of this approach is experimental, i.e. the incoming particle probed by the virtual photon is the electron and not the photon. This means that its energy is known, and therefore $`x_\mathrm{e}`$ can be obtained without measuring $`W`$. However, there is also a disadvantage in this measurement. The photon structure is obscured because, e.g. the region of low values of $`x_\mathrm{e}`$ receives contributions from both, the region of large momentum fraction $`x`$ and low scaled photon energy $`z`$, and the region of small $`x`$ and large $`z`$. The measurement of $`F_2^\mathrm{e}`$ is performed with a precisions of about 3-20$`\%`$ both for the statistical and the systematic error. So far, no radiative corrections and no bin-centre corrections are applied. The preliminary DELPHI result is consistent with several existing parameterisations of $`F_2^\mathrm{e}`$, obtained from $`F_2^\gamma `$ and $`f_\gamma (z,P^2)`$ by convolution. The usual exception is the LAC1 parameterisation, which is disfavoured. This investigation serves as a valuable cross-check of the $`F_2^\gamma `$ measurements, but does not give more insight into the photon structure.

## 7 Conclusion

Given the large statistics available at LEP2 energies, the region of phase space covered in the investigations of the structure of the photon is constantly increasing. Despite these large luminosities, for some of the measurements the results are still limited by the statistical error and a combination of the results from several experiments is desirable. This is particularly true for the measurement of $`F_2^\gamma `$ at large $`Q^2`$ and the determination of $`F_{2,\mathrm{c}}^\gamma `$. For the first time, the high precision data from LEP have been used in NLO fits to $`F_2^\gamma `$ results. With an improved treatment of the experimental data, and the inclusion of the jet data from HERA to better constrain the gluon distribution in the photon, there are good prospects to achieve the first parametrisation of the parton distributions of the photon based on LEP and HERA data in the near future.


text:
# Quark matter in Neutron Star Mergers

## 1 Introduction

Binary neutron star mergers are expected to be one of the most promising source of gravitational waves (GW) for the network of laser interferometric and bar detectors becoming operational in the next few years. The merger wave signal is expected to be sensitive to the interior structure of the neutron star (NS). The structure of high density phases of matter is under current experimental investigation in heavy-ion collisions . We investigate the dependence of the merger process and its GW signal on the presence of quarks in these phases by performing numerical simulations, where the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method and the conformally flat approximation for the 3-geometry in general relativistic gravity are implemented .

## 2 Equation of state

Two types of EoS for high density matter, one with quarks and the other without, are used in our simulations. In the hadronic model, we describe the stellar matter in the high-density region using a EoS based on the relativistic mean field theory with the TM1 parameter set using a Lagrangian which contains the low-lying baryons and mesons as relativistic fields. The matter at low densities containing a small number of protons embedded in the neutron sea with electrons, muons, $`\alpha `$-particles and heavy nuclei is described using a Thomas-Fermi approximation . In the hybrid model, we switch to a MIT-bag model based EoS (B=90MeV/fm3) to describe the exotic phases of superdense matter with up and down quarks and a negligible small amount of electrons and muons . For the possible mixed phase of hadronic and quark matter which appears for densities between 1.8$`\rho _0`$ ($`\rho _0`$:nuclear saturation density) and 3.7$`\rho _0`$, we use the multiconserved charge phase transition construction . In both models, T=0 and $`\beta `$-equilibrium is assumed (see Fig. 2).

## 3 Results

We start both simulations from irrotational quasi-equilibrium configurations  with identical stars each having a gravitational mass in isolation of $`M=1.5M_{}`$ . In the case of the hybrid model, the component stars have mixed phase matter cores with a radius of about 2km. The fluid in the mixed phase has a very low adiabatic index between 1 and 1.5. Therefore, for constant restmass, a spherical star has a larger central density in the hybrid model than in the hadronic model.

In Fig. 4 we plot the evolution of the maximum density. As expected, the value of the hybrid model around the initial phase is slightly larger due to a certain amount of mixed phase material. At $`t2.5`$ms, this difference vanishes because the maximum density drops below the phase transition density of $`1.8\rho _0`$ as a result of tidal deformation. Soon after, the two stars start merging into a single object. The evolution of the merger objects largely depends on the EoS. In the hybrid model, the merger object is contracted further to form a high density core because of infalling matter and appearing quark matter which forms a compact mixed phase core. Finally the gravitation of the high density core overcome the pressure and the centrifugal forces to balance with it and the core starts to collapse. On the other hand, the hadronic EoS is much stiffer and the matter is harder to compress. Hence, the gravitational contraction is turned into an oscillation of the central object.

The GW signals (Fig. 4) are almost identical until their amplitudes reach the maximum values. Around $`t3`$ms, the amplitude drops down to the minimum as the two component stars merge. In the hybrid model, since the merger object contracts faster, the quadrupole moment becomes smaller and the angular velocity becomes larger compared to that of hadronic model. This is visible in the wave signal as a smaller amplitude and a phase shift. A moment later, when the merger object begins to collapse, the signals begin to deviate completely from each other. Due to the higher central density, the hybrid model merger object rotates and oscillates faster which results in a higher frequency of the GW signal.

The two models can be distinguished by the GW signal from the merger phase ($`t2.5`$ms) whose frequency is above $`1`$kHz. However, in this range, the broadband interferometers fail due to shot noise and narrowband resonant bar detectors are needed for a successful detection. We are expecting that the merger process of binaries with larger masses containing pure quark cores ($`M1.7M_{}`$, see Fig. 2) will also allow for a distinction of the models by the inspiral part of the GW signal which is measurable with the broadband interferometer detectors.


text:
# Dipolar corrections to the static magnetic susceptibility of condensed 3He

## Abstract

We examine the consequences of a recent model describing correlated zero-point polarization of the electronic cloud in solid 3He. This polarization arises from the highly anisotropic and correlated dynamic mixing of the $`s`$ and $`p`$ electronic levels ($`1`$%). The magnetic polarization introduces a small paramagnetic correction, of $`10.1`$%, to the static susceptibility of condensed 3He. This correction could explain recent measurements in liquid 3He.

Recent experiments gould  have called attention to the problem of the diamagnetism of condensed phases (liquid and solids) of 3He. Theoretical calculations bruch  have not been able to reproduce the relatively large ($`1\%`$) observed paramagnetic deviation from the expected value of the electronic diamagnetic response. In the ground-state of the free 3He atom $`|0`$ there is no electronic magnetic moment, as the filled $`s`$-shell has the two electrons in a singlet state. The static magnetic susceptibility of an insulating material such as 3He is given by ashcroft

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4mc^2}}0\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(x_i^2+y_i^2\right)\right|0`$ (1)
$`+2\mu _B^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|0\left|\left(𝐋_𝐳+g_0𝐒_𝐳\right)\right|n\right|^2}{E_nE_0}}`$
where $`g_02`$, $`\mu _B=e\mathrm{}/(2mc)`$ ($`m`$ is the electron mass) and the applied magnetic field is taken to be in the $`z`$-direction, so that only the perpendicular ($`x,y`$) projection of the electronic cloud contributes to the first, diamagnetic, term, and only $`L_z,S_z`$ operators appear in the second, paramagnetic term.

The dynamic corrections to the susceptibility where recently calculated bruch , and found a $`0.1\%`$ diamagnetic enhancement, with much smaller paramagnetic terms. This calculation was carried out under the assumption of spherical symmetry of the surrounding atomic potential. In our recent work on low density solid He, we showed that in a highly anisotropic potential the local zero-point atomic motion is correlated with electric dipoles arising from the corrections to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation afm . This model allows us to resolve long-standing problems regarding the experimental data in bcc 3He and 4He afm ; niremil . In addition we have predicted the appearance of a new excitations mode, which was recently observed by neutron scattering emiltuvy . Following this experimental evidence supporting our model, it seems worthwhile to explore the consequences for the static magnetic susceptibility of He. We show here that our model gives a paramagnetic correction, which is in rough agreement with the observed value of $`1\%`$.

We shall now give briefly the main properties of the ground-state dynamic mixing of the $`s`$ and $`p`$-shells in solid He (see more details in afm ). In the low density (specific volume $`V<21`$ cm3/mole) bcc phase of He, the potential an atom feels due to the Van-der Waals interactions with its neighbors, has a double-well structure niremil ; glyde , along directions pointing at the next-nearest neighbors. This is due to the average inter-atomic separation ($`3.5`$Å) being larger than the minimum of the potential well ($`2.7`$Å). Since the potential well is highly anharmonic only along these particular directions, the atoms will make highly directional, large amplitude zero-point oscillations between these double-wells, with typical energy niremil  $`E_0110`$K. We treat this anharmonicity as decoupled from the higher energy modes, which are well described by the usual harmonic approximation niremil ; afm .

We next couple the anaharmonic atomic motion with the atomic polarizations due to the correction to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation afm . The $`sp`$ level mixing is proportional to $`\lambda \sqrt{m/M}1\%`$ (where $`M`$ is the nuclear mass). Such a mixing results in an electric polarization of the electronic cloud, i.e. a zero-point electric dipole moment: $`\mu 2\lambda ex`$. When these dipoles (and the atomic motion) on neighboring atoms are uncorrelated, they give a negligible ($`0.1\%`$) correction to the usual Van-der Waals interactions.

If the atomic oscillations, and the corresponding electric dipoles, are phase correlated, the crystal can lower its ground state energy by choosing the correct relative phase for the oscillation of adjacent atoms niremil . For the bcc lattice there is long-range order of these relative phases, and the ground-state of the crystal may be described as a global state of quantum resonance between two degenerate configurations which minimize the instantaneous dipolar interaction energy niremil . In our picture, the zero-point energy is resonantly transferred back and forth between the atomic motion and the electronic energy in a coherent way throughout the lattice, with the resonance frequency $`E_0`$.

In the hcp and liquid phases we do not expect there to be long-range order in the dipole field, for the following reasons. In the hcp solid the triangular symmetry frustrates long-range ordering of the dipoles niremil . In the liquid, the direction of the instantaneous dipole on each atom is random, so that local correlations should decay with distance even faster than in the hcp solid. Additionally, the double-wells at different sites are randomly spread over a range of energies $`E_0`$, causing the oscillating dipoles to drift out of synchrony. Still, in both these phases we expect local correlations between the dipoles to exist. In order to describe single-atom properties, such as the static susceptibility $`\chi `$ (Eq.1), we will proceed essentially as for the bcc phase.

The first contribution of the $`p`$-level mixing to the susceptibility is in the diamagnetic (first) term of Eq.1. Due to the increase in the spatial extent of the electronic cloud the diamagnetism is enhanced by

$$\chi _{dia}=\chi _0\left(1+2\lambda ^2\frac{p\left|x^2+y^2\right|p}{s\left|x^2+y^2\right|s}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\chi _0`$ is the usual filled $`s`$-shell diamagnetism. Since the ratio of the mean-square spread of the $`p`$ and $`s`$ shells is $`7`$, the correction (2) is $`0.1`$% (using $`\lambda 10^2`$, as applicable for the lowest density solid afm  and liquid). A correction of this magnitude was also derived in bruch .

We now describe an additional correction to the magnetic susceptibility due to the dynamic and highly anisotropic mixing of the electronic levels. The electric polarization of the electronic cloud, has a magnetic polarization associated with it afm , due to the following argument: The mixed $`p`$-state of lowest energy is that with the two electrons in the $`S=1`$ state, due to electrostatic repulsion, of magnitude $`0.25`$eV. Additionally the spins of the two electrons will tend to align with the axis of the $`p`$-shell, due to magnetic dipolar interaction between them. The electronic spins are oriented with the oscillating $`p`$-states of the atom, with effective energy $`E_{es}1.4(1F(V))`$K, where the factor $`1F(V)`$ takes into account the pressure-induced overlap of the different electronic spin orientations afm . This overlap reduces the effective energy gap and electronic spin polarization: $`\mu _e(V)\left(1F(V)\right)\lambda (V)\mu _B`$, where $`\lambda (V)`$ is the volume dependent mixing coefficient. Since the overlap function $`F(V)`$ is a very steep function of the specific volume $`V`$ afm , and is $`F(V)0`$ at the lowest density, we will take it to be zero in the following calculation. Note that the zero-point mixing of the $`p`$-shell with $`S=1`$ has zero static expectation value of the magnetic and electric dipole moment.

The paramagnetic (second) term of Eq.(1) is now non-zero. Let us look at $`p`$-states orthogonal to the applied magnetic field, i.e. in the $`x,y`$-directions. The mixed $`p`$-shell of lowest energy is in the S=1 state afm , with the spins aligned along the axis of the $`p`$-state (Fig.1), i.e. $`|\psi _0|s,s;S=0+\lambda |s,p;S=1`$, where $`s,p`$ stand for the orbital angular momenta of the 2 electrons, and $`S=0,1`$ is the spin angular momentum. This describes a mixing of the $`p`$-orbital along the $`x`$-axis (for example), with the $`s`$-orbital, in a spin state $`S_x=\pm 1`$. An excited state, with respect to $`|\psi _0`$, is given by: $`|\psi _{ex}|s,s;S=0+\lambda |s,p;S=0`$, where the $`p`$-orbital is mixed with the $`s`$-orbital, in a spin state $`S_x=0`$. The $`S_z`$ operator in the second term of Eq.(1) connects between these two levels for mixing in the $`xy`$-plane, so we get a term of the form

$`\chi _{para}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu _B^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|\psi _0\left|g_0𝐒_𝐳\right|\psi _{ex}\right|^2}{E_{S_x=0}E_{S_x=1}}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`2\mu _B^2\lambda ^4(1F)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|S_x=1\left|g_0𝐒_𝐳\right|S_x=0\right|^2}{E_{es}}}`$
where $`E_{es}=E_{S_x=0}E_{S_x=1}1.4`$K is the effective spin-orbit interaction energy difference between the spin aligned and anti-aligned states afm .

Summing over a uniform distribution of the directions of the local oscillating spins relative to the external magnetic field, the value of this correction turns out to be $`\chi _{para}\chi _010^5\lambda ^410.1`$% (again using $`\lambda 10^2`$). This is of the order of the paramagnetic correction that was recently measured gould  in liquid 3He.

To summarize, using our postulated dynamic and anisotropic $`sp`$ mixing in bcc He, we calculate a paramagnetic correction to the magnetic susceptibility. We argue that since the local atomic neighborhood in the liquid is not very different from the low density bcc solid, this paramagnetic correction should appear also in the cold liquid cold . The small size of the paramagnetic correction, combined with the experimental uncertainties and uncertainties in determining $`\lambda `$, make this effect hard to calculate or observe with accuracy gould ; bozler .

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Gordon Baym for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship grant, NSF grant no. DMR-99-86199 and NSF grant no. PHY-98-00978 while in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.