text:
# Quantum Mechanics Without The Quantum

## 1 Distinguishing Within Incompatibility

In a series of previous works one of us  has argued that the incompatibility of the two pairs of conjugated variables, comprising the action products $`Et`$ and $`pq`$, as manifested in the two corresponding quantum uncertainties (UR here after), comes in two, *antithetic* types, once because this is how theorists as a rule tend to argue (unfortunately), twice because this is an option contained in the nature of incompatibility itself. Indeed, and contrary to appearances or common opinion, Incompatibility as such is a *twofold* concept. It is not too difficult to establish this in formal logic. The dichotomy can be immediately seen (and felt) in the following way:

* $`\left(p\neg q\right)\left(q\neg p\right)`$ however, also
* $`\left[\left(p\neg q\right)\left(q\neg p\right)\right]r`$.

These two expressions of Incompatibility are contradictory to one another. For the possible value ascription $`\neg r`$ in \[b\] we will obtain “$`p`$ *and* $`q`$”, a possibility which will never come up within the contents of formula \[a\]. For ascription $`\neg r`$ to \[b\], formulae \[a\] and \[b\] immediately develop incompatible truth tables. This is because formula \[a\] expresses unconditional incompatibility between p and q, while formula \[b\] only a conditional incompatibility between them, conditional, to be exact, on $`r`$. \[b\] reads: “$`p`$ excludes $`q`$ and $`q`$ excludes $`p`$ if and only if $`r`$.” But not otherwise. Since the possibility that $`\neg r`$ stands for “otherwise”, for the ascription $`\neg r`$ the two propositional variables, $`p`$ and $`q`$, will cease to be incompatible. But in formula \[a\] they never cease to be, come what may.

In other words, the incompatibility between the two propositional variables expressed in formula \[b\], as being conditional on the presence of an additional factor (r), is one which obtains only in *some* cases. Namely, iff $`r`$. Since, however, the incompatibility expressed in formula \[a\] is not conditional on anything, this latter obtains independently of all other factors whatosoever and hence obtains for *all possible* cases instead. It therefore (trivially) follows that no two pairs of concepts can be ever both, conditionally as well as unconditionally incompatible for no two pairs of concepts can ever be both, incompatible in all possible cases and also incompatible only in some.

The problem in QM is that, once this distinction is explicitly drawn as above (which it never is), we frequently find ourselves oblidged to conclude that the classical concepts, $`E`$ with $`t`$ and $`p`$ with $`q`$, are indeed both. But of this later.

At present our task is to determine why and how -viz. under what specific conditions Incompatibility presents itself in two antithetic ways. To put the point differently, it may be clear to us how the concepts “one” and “many” may be incompatible to one another. They are as a matter of *definition*. Hence, the incompatibility between “one” and “many” is a straightforward matter of logic. And is therefore unexceptional. (Unconditional). But we have already seen in our definition that not all kinds of Incompatibility are unexceptional; that is to say, \[b\]. How then does the incompatibility expressed by \[b\] come about?

Here is an example: I have a daughter and, besides, 10.000 dollars in the bank. No problem there. But then my daughter is kidnapped and I receive a ransom note for 10.000 dollars. I can no longer have both, my daughter *and* 10.000 dollars in the bank. In view of the specific circumstances confronting me, a pair of hitherto compatible situations have been rendered “mutually exclusive”, Bohr’s known term for inaugurating his introduction to Complementarity (CTY hereafter). “Having one’s daughter” and “having 10.000 dollars in the bank” are not incompatible states *per se* in the least. But they can be made incompatible, provided that the right sort of suitable *conditions* are introduced. In their face any two, hitherto compatible states (or concepts) can be rendered incompatible, *on condition* that a suitable set of physical conditions are obtaining or provisionally introduced, thereby forbidding their hitherto recorded mutual compatibility for the entire duration of their presence. It goes without saying that, once the presence of such conditions is removed, the two (temporarily) disjunctive states will become mutually compatible once again in their usual, peaceful coexistence.

We have seen, therefore, that in the case of conditional incompatibility between a pair of states (i.e. of incompatibility type \[b\]), it takes the intervention of an *additional fact*, if it is to ever result. This we may entitle “*the prohibitive fact*”. (, p. 188). It should be stressed that the “prohibitive” element in question is invariably and uniquely an additional *fact* and nothing over and above a (mere) fact. And as such, unexpected from a formal point of view. By contrast, unconditional incompatibility should never be unexpected from a formal point of view, because it is a matter of *logic*. Not a matter of fact which could, formally at least, have gone the other way. The two pairs of antithetic clusters, “factual/conditional”-“logical/unconditional”, are therefore individually coextensive, respectively.

Conditional incompatibility cannot result by virtue of the *definitions* of the (currently) incompatible pair of states (or pair of concepts). If it could, their incompatibility would be logical and, as such, unexceptional; in other words, unconditional. It therefore follows that all instances of conditional incompatibility will invariably turn out to be factual, whereas, by evident contrast, all instances of unconditional incompatibility invariably logical. From this realization follows a further consequence, the importance of which to the overall argument we can hardly overemphasize. The preceding considerations have unequivocally established that *unconditional incompatibility is self sufficient*. By contrast, once again, conditional incompatibility is *never* self sufficient. It invariably requires an *additional*, prohibitive factor, capable of driving the two thus related states to incompatibility, an incompatibility which otherwise -and in absence of the said factor - would itself be impossible to result.

The two formal (and exhaustive111Exhaustive, that is to say, in Two-Valued Propositional Calculus.) definitions of incompatibility previously specified, i. e. those of incompatibility type \[a\] and incompatibility type \[b\], succeed in reflecting the property of Self-Sufficiency -or its absence- quite explicitly. In formula \[a\] the incompatibility is *confined* to the two related variables, $`p`$ and $`q`$, at the exclusion of all other conditions, and we are forbidden to go looking beyond the two variables *per se* for its establishment. In fact, to go looking *beyond* the two variables of relation $`\left(p\neg q\right)\left(q\neg p\right)`$ for tracing or grounding their incompatibility is, quite simply, contradictory to the assumption. If only to repeat the point, unconditional incompatibility is (*intolerantly*) self sufficient.

In formula \[b\], however, the situation is altogether different. The biconditional connective, $``$, speaks for itself. The variables $`p`$ and $`q`$ will never in the context of formula \[b\] enter a relation of mutual incompatibility without help from outside. $`p`$ and $`q`$ will simply be compatible without such help, as can be seen immediately from assuming $`\neg r`$. The outside help is withdrawn and the variables become compatible. Consequently, on the whole, unconditional incompatibility is synonymous with self-sufficient incompatibility and, accordingly, conditional incompatibility synonymous with self-*insufficient* incompatibility. Emphasis on this provision, though it may seem pedantic to most readers at this stage, is nonetheless well warranted and many quantum surprises will depend on it.

Now that the distinction between conditional and unconditional Incompatibility has been defined and understood as above it is time to turn and ask the next, natural question: Do the two quantum uncertainties, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }qh`$ express conditional or do they express unconditional incompatibility between their two related sets of variables, $`E`$ with $`t`$ and $`p`$ with $`q`$? In view of the preceding reasoning the answer to this question is similarly natural. The reciprocal uncertainties in the values of the two pairs of conjugated variables, $`E`$ with $`t`$ and $`p`$ with $`q`$, as presently joined, obviously express *conditional* incompatibility between these variables. Conditional (obviously) on $`h`$ itself. Clearly, for $`h=0`$ both clusters of related uncertainties would vanish. On the other hand, they do emerge for $`h>0`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ are uncertainties which are there because and *only* because of $`h`$. And would be removed in its absence. This reads, respectively,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th>0`$ and, accordingly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }qh>0`$

which both precisely correspond to logical formula \[b\]. Evidently, then, the two UR express conditional incompatibility between their related variables, conditional, that is, on nothing other than $`h`$.

The interpretation thus suggested can then be integrated just as naturally as all the other elements so far were in the following (natural) fashion: The two pairs of conjugate classical variables, $`E`$ and $`t`$, $`p`$ and $`q`$, yielding the two action products Et and pq of the corresponding uncertainties, are rendered incompatible in QM because, simply, the latter theory incorporates an *additional fact*, hitherto unacknowledged and unanticipated by the classical theory, namely, action quantization, and it is the intervention of this precise fact, absent in classical assumptions, which is responsible for the incompatiblity in the joint determinations of $`E`$ and/or $`t`$ and $`p`$ and/or $`q`$ below its limit, $`h`$. The two sets of incompatibilities are therefore *fact dependent*, that is to say, conditional on a *fact*; $`h`$. And therefore, trivially, express conditional incompatibility only. One of the most reliable commentators in the field, C.A.Hooker, certainly seems to think so and not at all without reason:

> Bohr believes that while it has seemed to us at the macro-level of classical physics that the conditions were in general satisfied for the joint applicability of all classical concepts, we have *discovered* this century that this is not accurate and that the conditions required for the applicability of some classical concepts are actually incompatible with those required for the applicability of other classical concepts. This is the burden of the doctrine (B4) \[=CTY.\]
>
> This conclusion is necessitated by the discovery of the quantum of action *and only because of its existence*. It is not therefore a purely *conceptual* discovery that could have been made *a priori* through a more critical *analysis* of classical concepts. It is a discovery of the factual absence of the conditions required for the joint applicability of certain classical concepts.\[ Dark letters for the author’s italics.\]

This, therefore, is exactly as foretold. The incompatibility above referred to is factual, because it is not the product of concept analysis, disclosing a logical discrepancy between the disjunctive concepts (and as such available a priori) and, therefore, as being fact *dependent*, it is eo ipso conditional. Conditional, that is, on the fact itself upon which it is dependent, and which we have previously labelled “the prohibitive fact”. In other words, the quantum. Perhaps a fleeting allusion to the spontaneity of the author’s account of the matter, its ‘naturaleness’ so to speak, would not be entirely out of place. Spontaneity is important in this instance because it serves in crosschecking the two accounts, ours, which is in conscious awareness of a contrast between these two types of incompatibility, formally defined, and Hooker’s, which is rather intuitive and reflexive at this stage222And at a subsequent stage he has repudiated it altogether! Indeed, at a later time Hooker has actually expressed his *scepticism* as concerns the viability of the distinction between logical and factual incompatibility as formulated by  or, even, its usefulness as such. In his letter to Antonopoulos, dated 18 December 1989, he says that when it comes to “formal” as opposed to “factual” aspects of the problem at hand “naturalists like me \[him\] cannot make a sharp distinction between the two kinds of truth”. Well, up *there* he has! Not too consciously, it would appear, but nonetheless most definitely. Which is all to the better, really, for, when not too much undue sophistication has come by just yet, to hold one captive to wavering amphiboly, first thoughts are best thoughts..

On the whole, therefore, at first it seems a safe bet that the two pairs of classical variables of QM, when featuring pairwise in the two corresponding quantum uncertainties, they should express conditional incompatibility between the thus related concepts and nothing but that. On closer inspection, however, the situation appears a great deal more complex than initially assumed. Closer inspection in fact reveals that, when analyzed and examined all across the logico-mathematical board, the quantum uncertainties manifest and force upon us an incompatibility which is *both*; conditional *and* unconditional for one and the same pair of classical concepts.

Amazingly, the same phenomenon is noticeable, as we shall demonstrate later on, right within the noncommutative formalism itself. To the fundamental, noncommutative formalism inaugurated by the formula $`pqqp=i\mathrm{}`$ there is now erected the noncommutative formalism of $`ABBA`$. In other words, a noncommutativity without the quantum! There is hardly ever a commentator who would not treat the two commutativities as interchangeable, with the sole exception, in our knowledge, of Hilgevoord and Uffink . But they are not really interchangeable at all. One is the *mathematical* consequence of non-diagonal matrix multiplication, yielding noncommutativity by definition, the other a noncommutativity *due to $`\mathrm{}`$*. There’s a difference.

## 2 Applying the Distinction

### 2.1 Application to Wave-Particle Duality

The results of applying the Conditional vs Unconditional Incompatibility distinction to quantum problems appear quite startling when viewed in this light. As a rule observed by nearly all physicists, the quantum uncertainties and Wave-Particle Duality (WPD hereafter) are treated as if intimately associated. And, indeed, there is a strong temptation to associate them. According to this association a certain group of classical variables by nature relate to the particle, their complementary variables by nature to the wave. But particles are local entities, so particles are small. By contrast, waves are nonlocal entities, so waves are large. And the opposition between large and small is logical, that is to say, fact *in*dependent. Hence, waves and particles are *self-sufficiently* incompatible. This is why, besides, waves and particles are incompatible *also in classical mechanics*. And classical mechanics does not contain the quantum.

Well, then. If the two UR are a consequence of WPD, one set of variables belonging to the wave, the other set to the particle, then, since waves (large) and particles (small) exclude one another *self-sufficiently*, and hence without any help from the quantum, the variables appearing in the two UR, as derived from WPD, would *also* exclude one another self-sufficiently, and hence exclude one another without any help from the quantum. In fact, they do not need any help from anything at all, except of course the *self contained* opposition between “large” and “small” itself. Which opposition, as remarked, obtains independently of the quantum. Consequently, either the two UR have nothing to do with WPD or else they have to do with WPD333Which is what one of us has been insisting for two decades now; See  and, especially, ., but then they have nothing to do with the …*quantum*, on which, however, they are supposed to depend!

In other words, how can the incompatibility contained in WPD, which is self sufficient enough to obtain full force even in *classical mechanics*, ever be responsible for the incompatibility between the classical conjugate variables, which latter results only on the basis of *quantum* assumptions? Or, to put the point differently, how can a fact independent incompatibility, as that belonging to WPD, ever be responsible for a fact dependent incompatibility, as that demanded by the two quantum uncertainties?

Some people still believe that WPD is the epitome of the quantum uncertainties, if not indeed the epitome of QM as such. But once the Conditional/Unconditional Incompatibility contrast is applied to it, it simply proves to be an incoherence. The uncertainties, exactly as Hooker stressed, must absolutely depend on the quantum or be nothing at all. But if the uncertainties are constructed upon the logical model afforded by WPD, they will thereby express a *self-sufficient* type of incompatibility and, as we have seen, such incompatibility -trivially- has no need of the quantum. To be precise, cannot even make room for the quantum, except contradictorily. People think that WPD furnishes the right sort of quantum incompatibility required by the UR. We have just shown that it furnishes the wrong sort, if there ever was one.

### 2.2 Application to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$

But the real trouble does not lie in the comparison between an invalid derivation and a -let us say- valid one. The invalid one can be discrarded at no cost. The real trouble lies within the frame of the valid derivation itself. For that too is equally open to both accounts, the conditional *and* the unconditional. Consider the Fourier reasoning applied to the quantum relation $`E=h\nu `$. (See  and Bohr’s own work referred to there; for more detail see Marmet, 1994, p.343; see, finally, )

Fourier’s known relation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{1}{2\pi }`$, was based on the observation that it is a logical impossibility to determine the frequency at an instand $`dt=0`$. Frequency is by definition a repetitive phenomenon and hence by definition such as requires a time latitude to be exemplified, if at all. Obviously, I cannot define the regular reoccurrence of a certain event over even time intervals within a time $`dt=0`$, i.e. a time so narrow that won’t allow the event to occur even once. As D.M. Mackay has remarked almost fifty years ago, the idea of defining a frequency at an instant $`dt0`$ is self contradictory. “This is not physics but logic”, he says .

Once the quantum relation, $`E=h\nu `$ is (factually!) established, by simply substituting for $`\nu =\frac{E}{h}`$ in Fourier’s above mentioned relation, we immediately obtain $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{h}\mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{1}{2\pi }`$ and, finally, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$. Now, what *sort* of incompatibility does express, if derived in this way? Well, it should express precisely the sort of incompatibility which $`\nu `$ itself, the frequency, does in Fourier’s relation. Are we not constantly reminded that “energy” is the frequency in QM? Mackay, for instance, speaks of

> the *identification* of energy with frequency .

and, in much more recent times, we are told in no uncertain terms that

> This simple Planck relationship between energy and light frequency in effect says that energy and frequency are *the same thing*, measured in different units .

A shorthand expression of the whole idea is the relation $`E\nu `$, which says it all. So to the task of specifying the syllogistic mechanism involved:

* Premise 1: Energy is logically equivalent with the frequency.
* Premise 2: Frequency is logically incompatible with an exact time.
* Conclusion: Hence, *energy* is logically incompatible with an exact time.

Here *Conclusion* follows from Premises 1 and 2 as trivially as the proverbial mortality of Socrates follows from “All Men Are Mortal” and “Socrates Is A Man”. Attention should be paid to the subordinate predicate, “logically”, modally conditioning the primary predicate, “incompatible”. If Energy is coextensional with the Frequency, this predicate must necessarily be included in the *Conclusion*, otherwise, and in its absence, the latter will not be validly drawn, contradicting their coextensionality. Hence, in the most straightforward and valid of manners, energy is above shown to be *logically* incompatible with an exact time, just as frequency previously was. But, as we have seen, concepts incompatible in this sense are self - sufficiently so. And concepts which are self - sufficiently incompatible are concepts whose incompatibility is in fact independent. And therefore such that cannot even *relate* to a fact, e.g. $`h`$. Hence, in accordance with the Fourier treatment of the relation $`E=h\nu `$, we obtain an uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ due to a fact, $`h`$, with which it cannot even relate.

The reactions to this conclusion are not too difficult to foresee. Fortunately, we have at our disposal something a good deal more substantial than mere foresight to get our hands on, namely, an actual objection recently raised. It is the following:

> I cannot share the author’s diagnosis. The energy - time uncertainty relation can be derived from two premises: (1)$`E=h\nu `$ (2)$`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t1`$. Here it is clear that the second relation is the result of Fourier analysis, and therefore independent of any physical assumption. The first however is clearly a non-trivial *physical* assumption, that need not hold in physical theories other than QM. (1) and (2) together imply $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$ (3). The diagnosis is simply this: since conclusion (3) depends on two premises, one of which is dependent upon a physical assumption, the conclusion444The conclusion should be dependent on this physical assumption, $`h`$ or $`E=h\nu `$, says the author of the passage, correcting us. But we have never denied that it depends on this assumption. Anything but. We have only raised the question, whether the physical assumption referred to RETAINS ITS IDENTITY. We have never denied whether $`E=h\nu `$ is a premise to the argument. This is precisely what we have stressed. We have only questioned the NATURE of this premise and whether the CONTEXT of the argument, imposing the logical relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t1`$, allows it to reatin its original logical properties or whether it retrodictively cancels them,given the overall pressures of the said context. is dependent on this \[physical\] assumption too.555Extract from a report on a previous version of this paper, dated 4th November 2003. Italics, brackets and initial ours. The report was written for *Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics* and is at the disposal of the Editor of.

And hence must be dependent on $`h`$. This is all so nice and cozy and so consonant with quantum tradition that hardly anyone would resist the temptation of replying just thus, a referee all the more so. However, it takes but one word to spoil it all, its hopes and plans included, though not necessarily the fun as well: Substitution. Once this word is properly attended to, this objection is exposed in all its circular and dogmatic incorrigibility.

What is the true essence of the entire Fourier derivation? It is, in a word, the *substitution* of $`\nu `$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t1`$ by $`E/h`$ in order to derive $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$. And in order that one can be at all entitled to substitute $`E/h`$ for $`\nu `$ one needs to presuppose that the two of them, the substitute and the substituted, will just have to be identical, or equal, or equivalent or what have you, provided they are so intimately linked as to license and, indeed, entail the substitution. You name it, they have to be it. In consequence, $`E/h`$, which replaces $`\nu `$, the frequency, *is* the frequency, or else the substitution is illegitimate and has no business being there in the first place. And then, since $`E/h`$ is the frequency, what is true of the frequency must be true of its substitute, $`E/h`$. And then, since what is true of the frequency is that it is unconditionally incompatible with time, which this referee openly concedes, $`E/h`$ is also unconditionally incompatible with time, which he inconsistently does not. It is either that or else the substitution is sheer bogus and no $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$ of any kind will result, coherent or otherwise.

By right of mathematical law, the law of substitutions, $`E/h\left(=\nu \right)`$ is unconditionally incompatible with time, *even* if it deceitfully contains $`h`$ in the denominator of the fraction just to mislead(some of) us. The conclusion can now be denied at the pain of contradiction. By inserting $`E/h`$ in the place of $`\nu `$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t1`$, we commit ourselves to making $`E/h`$ whatever $`\nu `$ is, thus deriving a logical uncertainty and, therefore, a fact independent one that cannot even relate to this very $`h`$, which it has itself put there! In the face of our distinction the Fourier tratment of $`E=h\nu `$ leads to incoherence and absurdity comparable to that of WPD previously encountered(essentially it is the same exact problem), if not indeed to a worse kind. Valid reasoning is reasoning which transmits the logical properties of the premises down to the last conclusion. And the logical properties of premise $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t1`$ is that it incorporates a self - sufficient type of incompatibility, which renders $`h`$ redundant.

The essence of the problem here encountered stems from the fact that, in view of the distinction here introduced (and hitherto absent in all quantum theorizing), $`E=h\nu `$ proves a full scale logical *hybrid*. Initially, $`E=h\nu `$ states a factual truth -a startling one at that- so whatever $`E`$, $`t`$ incompatibility is subsequently destined to result on its basis, it should only be fact-dependent in this particular context. However, what this (unique) factual truth reveals right after is, that the concept which is (factually) equivalent with $`E`$, i.e. the frequency, $`\nu `$, is itself *logically* incompatible with an exact t, thereby rendering the thus resulting $`E`$, $`t`$ incompatibility a fact independent one, in this other context. Given the surrounding, ‘outer’ context, i.e. the factualness of $`E=h\nu `$, E and t must be conditionally incompatible. But given the *surrounded*, ‘inner’ context, i.e. the logical incompatibility between a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =0`$ with a $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$, E and t must now be unconditionally incompatible.

When, in other words, $`E=h\nu `$ is considered in its (outward) relation to reality, it must in this capacity be a factual truth. But when considered in itself (inwardly), in this other capacity it incorporates a logical truth. What should we say then? That what $`E=h\nu `$ really asserts is that, on its basis, $`E`$ and $`t`$ are unconditionally incompatible concepts *on condition* that $`E=h\nu `$ is true? On the basis of the distinction here introduced this is exactly what we have to say. Though, of course, in its absence, we wouldn’t have to.

## 3 The hybrid nature of Quantum Mechanical Formalism

In Heisenberg’s paper of 1925 there is mentioned a type of multiplication between the quantities characteristic of a quantum system directly leading to relations of noncommutativity between them. Such multiplication was subsequently identified by Born and Jordan as a multiplication of matrices corresponding to the physical quantities attributable to a quantum system. This was the inauguration of transformation theory which in turn developed into the widely disseminated axiomatic foundation of von Neumann’s.

In the following pages of the present essay we shall attempt to classify Heisenberg’s quantum multiplication -this is how it will be referred to from now on so that it will be distinguished from matrix multiplication as such-, the multiplication of matrices and their concomitant noncommutativities, and finally the resulting uncertainties, on the basis of the distinction established in the first part of the paper. In particular, the relations mentioned in Heisenberg’s paper are satisfied by physical systems on condition that action is quantized and on that condition alone. By contrast, the mathematical treatment, which was initiated by Born and Jordan, constitutes a “hybrid” for the second time running, because the premises of this latter hypothesis may lead to the noncommutative relation $`pqqp0`$ for the variables $`p`$,$`q`$, but the specific relation $`pqqp=i\mathrm{}I`$666This formula is refered to as canonical commutation relation. In  there is only a specific form of this relation. is not intrinscically derivable from within it. It is extrinscically introduced on the basis of further assumptions.

In other words, the latter noncommutativity is inherent in advance within the chosen formalism, as a self-subsisting mathematical property, contrary to Heisenberg’s multiplication, which is factually *dependent* on the quantum and cannot result in its absence. Whereupon, the noncommutativity in question must become system-specific in order to be applied to the relevant phenomena.

Commencing, Heisenberg dennounces the classical picture of an electron’s kinematics and proceeds to the adoption of a different interpretation of the function $`x\left(t\right)`$ whose classical interpretation would be the particle’s position in the space of intuition. In a parallel course, however, considering the correspondence principle, he retains the differential equation which governs the said function (Newton’s second law) in the classical treatment. Thus he accepts that the equation $`\ddot{x}\left(t\right)+f\left(x\right)=0`$ regulates the connection of $`x\left(t\right)`$ with the outwardly exerted force $`f\left(x\right)`$.

In what follows he analyzes $`x\left(t\right)`$ in “Fourier” fashion, so that the resulting expression will harmonize itself with the quantum conditions. In the classical case, if $`\nu (n,a)`$ is the frequency observed during the transition from state $`n`$ to state $`a`$, then $`\nu (n,a)=\frac{a}{\mathrm{}}\frac{dW\left(n\right)}{dn}`$(1) Where $`W\left(n\right)`$ is the energy of the said state. By contrast, due to the presence of discontinuous states in the quantum case, the frequency during the transition from state $`W\left(n\right)`$ to state $`W\left(na\right)`$ is characterized by emission of radiation $`\nu (n,na)=\frac{W\left(n\right)W\left(na\right)}{\mathrm{}}`$(2). Suppose then that $`x(n,t)`$ is $`x\left(t\right)`$ in the specific case that the electron is in the state $`W\left(n\right)`$. Then, classically, $`x(n,t)`$ would be expanded as $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}U_a\left(n\right)e^{i\omega \left(n\right)at}𝑑a`$(3), where $`U_a\left(n\right)`$ is now a complex quantity, i.e. the transition amplitude, whose squared measure furnishes the probability that an electron will pass from state $`W\left(n\right)`$ to state $`W\left(a\right)`$. Quantum mechanically, $`x(n,t)`$ is expanded into a series $`_{a=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}U(n,na)e^{i\omega (n,na)t}\left(4\right)`$777With the assumption that the system is periodic or multiperiodic. Else the series has to be replaced by the integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}U_a(n)e^{i\omega (n,na)t}𝑑a`$ without any essential change in the foregoing argument., where $`U(n,na)`$ plays a part analogous with $`U_a\left(n\right)`$ and $`\omega (n,na)=2\pi \nu (n,na)`$. Then in accordance with the form assumed by $`f\left(x\right)`$ there are obtained retrodictive formulae for the quantities $`A(n,na)`$ and $`\omega (n,na)`$, where $`A(n,na)=Re\left\{U(n,na)\right\}`$, introducing the expansion into the differential equation.

Consider then two quantities
$`\alpha \left(t\right)=_{a=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}U(n,na)e^{i\omega (n,na)t},\beta \left(t\right)=_{a=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}V(n,na)e^{i\omega (n,na)t}`$. Then $`\alpha \left(t\right)\beta \left(t\right)=_{b=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Z_1(n,nb)e^{i\omega (n,nb)t}`$ and
$`\beta \left(t\right)\alpha \left(t\right)=_{b=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Z_2(n,nb)e^{i\omega (n,nb)t}`$,
where $`Z_1(n,nb)=_{a=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}U(n,na)V(na,nb)e^{i\omega (n,nb)t}`$ and $`Z_2(n,nb)=_{a=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}V(n,na)U(na,nb)e^{i\omega (n,nb)t}`$.

Whereupon, in general, we obtain $`\alpha \left(t\right)\beta \left(t\right)\beta \left(t\right)\alpha \left(t\right)0`$. That is to say, the multiplication of the two quantities ceases being commutative. And this noncommutativity exists by virtue of the quantum of action. Were it not for the quantum, we would not have observed a discontinuous and countable sequence of states, starting from the ground state. In consequence, it would not be formula of minuses nr.(2), which would then obtain, but nr.(1). But then, as can be verified by a single calculation, $`\alpha \left(t\right)\beta \left(t\right)\beta \left(t\right)\alpha \left(t\right)=0`$. This result is directly specified for the magnitudes $`x\left(t\right)`$, of position, and $`p=m\dot{x}\left(t\right)`$, of momentum.

We conclude by contending that the noncommutative quantum multiplication here obtained is satisfied only on the basis that $`h>0`$ and would reduce to ordinary, commutative multiplication, were the limitation $`h>0`$ to be withdrawn. As will soon become evident this is no longer true for transformation theory and, by extension, for von Neumann’s axiomatization. Noncommutativity is still there but it is now of a different type, resulting as a self contained property of the mathematical scheme employed. And which is therefore unconditionally true, i.e. such that obtains independently of $`h`$. To compensate for this, it then has to be remodified in order to accord itself with the phenomenon investigated, and thus it is inconsistently reshaped into a noncommutativity by virtue of facts on top of the previous. This may not suffice to condemn all parts of the formalism, but it can be a severe problem.

Commencing their treatment Born and Jordan assume that the conjugate dynamical variables of the system under investigation, $`p`$,$`q`$, constitute hermitian matrices of the form $`p=\left(p\left(nm\right)e^{i\omega \left(nm\right)t}\right)`$ and $`q=\left(q\left(nm\right)e^{i\omega \left(nm\right)t}\right)`$, where $`m,n`$, $`\omega \left(nm\right)=\omega (n,m)=2\pi \frac{W\left(n\right)W\left(m\right)}{\mathrm{}}`$ in Heisenberg’s symbolism and $`q\left(nm\right),p\left(nm\right)`$ generally. Due to this the products $`pq`$ and $`qp`$ are considered to be the products of a pair of matrices. It is commonplace knowledge that matrix multiplication is the archetype of noncommutative multiplication in Mathematics. Therefore, generally $`pqqp0`$ (5) without the quantum playing a part in this effect. What is more, it is shown next in the work referred to that the relation $`pqqp=i\mathrm{}I`$, where $`I`$ is the identity matrix, by means of Bohr’s quantum formula $`J=_0^{\frac{1}{\nu }}p𝑑q=nh`$. It is more than evident that this last formula constitutes the premise, so as to make matrix mechanics agree with the phenomenon, which in Heisenberg’s argument has perfectly sufficed for deriving the quantal multiplication without any external help. The authors of the paper themselves remark that relation (5) constitutes a direct statement of the correspondence principle. That is to say, when $`\mathrm{}0`$, $`pqqp0`$, and the quantities become commutative. However, this statement is misleading.

It is true that $`pqqp0`$, when $`\mathrm{}0`$, but this “0” is the zero matrix and not the zero of real numbers. If that relation constituted a genuine statement of the correspondence principle, $`p`$ and $`q`$ would in the end turn out real numbers, and this is not what happens. Quite simply, from noncommutative matrices they turn into commutative ones. This will not of course degenerate all the eigenvalues of each and every matrix into one, and so the quantum fluctuations will remain invariant. The difference is that the conjugate variables coevolve without excluding one another. Although the two multiplications, the quantal and the matrix, display the same formal attitude, this will not coerce their referents to become identical.

By contrast, in Heisenberg’s reasoning, when $`\mathrm{}0`$, the “Fourier” series assumes a classical expansion, since we can now differentiate by using formula (1) and the two quantities turn out to be real numbers. In this way, while the two multiplications, the quantal and the matrix, manifest the same outward effects, the mathematical objects which each one refers are quite distinct.

And it is at this point that the inconsistent deviation from Heisenberg’s multiplication is inaugurated. Conflating the two cases, as we have seen it done before (1st Part) Born, Jordan and von Neumann proceed on the supposition that the two noncommutativities were analogous or identical and, hence, that the two formalisms were. But they are not. For while in Heisenberg’s multiplication, on the assumption that “$`h=0`$” noncommutativity is eliminated, in the case of  where a zero matrix is obtained instead, noncommutativity is not. It just assumes a different look by putting on a mask, yet without ever departing from its authentic identity.

On our understanding of the matter, the problem is rather simple to state though not necessarily simple to solve. The noncommutativity in Heisenberg’s multiplication is eliminable in principle because it is conditional on the quantum, hence removable in its absence, but the noncommutativity of Born, Jordan and von Neumann is ineliminable in principle, because it is self subsisting. It is a fact-independent noncommutativity and therefore ineliminable come what may. It is a noncommutativity ascertainable in advance, a clear cut mathematical phenomenon the residues of which stay on in one form or another, once this mathematics is employed. Not being conditional on anything except its own self it therefore continues to tacitly obtain even when the quantum is removed, yielding for classical expectations a zero matrix only, instead of zero just, bearing witness to its own fact-independent origin.

Consequently, it will either be consistently regarded in its pure mathematical essence, whereupon however it cannot even relate to the quantum, or else incorporate Heisenberg’s conditional noncommutativity, if to be at all able to apply to specific quantum problems, but then do so at the price of an antinomy. The very antinomy detected in our first part of the argument, where the logical $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t1`$ is turned into the factual $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th`$, when the empirical relation $`E=h\nu `$ is introduced. Yielding in both instances the same logical hybrid.

Before we conclude we wish to make explicit the situation in von Neumann’s abstract axiomatization888We shall study autonomous(isolated) systems. So the Hamiltonian is time-independent and corresponds to the totel energy of the system. Let us list the axioms in this approach:

* To each quantum system there corresponds a complex separable Hilbert space $`(,,)`$ where $`,`$ is the inner product. Every $`\psi `$ with $`\psi =\sqrt{\psi ,\psi }=1`$ corresponds to a state of the system. By equivalence, the projectile space $`P=\{\left[\psi \right]:\left(\psi \right)\left(\psi =1\right)\}`$ constitutes the set of the states of the system.
* The observables of the system in question are symmetrical operators of space $`(,,)`$ that is to say, observable $`A`$ is represented by a linear operator $`A`$ such that $`A\varphi ,\psi =\varphi ,A\psi ,\varphi ,\psi `$. The values of the observable $`A`$ are the spectrum of the corresponding symmetrical operator, $`\sigma \left(A\right)=\{\lambda :A\lambda Id_{}\text{ is singular}\}`$999Cause of the operator’s symmetry the spectrum is a subset of the real numbers, where $`Id_{}`$ is the identity mapping. The mean value of the observable, $`E\left(A\right)`$, is given by the corresponing spectral measure, $`E\left(A\right)=\psi ,A\psi `$, where $`\psi `$ the state of the system.
* The Hamiltonian of the system, $`H`$, constitutes an observable and its corresponding operator is self-adjoint. In Heisenberg’s representation, if $`A`$ is an observable, then its temporal evolution is determined by the equation $`\dot{A}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H,A]`$, where $`[H,A]=HAAH`$ is the commutator of $`H`$ and $`A`$. In Schroedinger’s picture, when the system is in state $`\psi \left(t_0\right)`$ at the time $`t_0`$, it is in the state $`\psi \left(t\right)=exp\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H\left(tt_0\right)\right)\psi \left(t_0\right)`$101010We ‘ve used here the Stone theorem, see (formally the Schroedinger equation is then written as $`i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=H\psi `$). In every one of the cases the Hamiltonian constitutes an infinitesimal generator of the evolution of the dynamical quantities.

The first two axioms introduce a self-contained noncommutativity, since the observables are represented as symmetric operators in a Hilbert space. The sole case, when the symmetric operators always commute, is that of a one-dimensional Hilbert space, that is to say $`=`$. But then the system should have only one state which could occupy. It is evident why we can’t accept this strongly artificial situation. If we demand, however, of the quantities of momentum and position to fulfill the normal rules of commutativity, the resulting space must now be one of infinite diamensionality, as Born and Jordan themselves remark. (To be precise, the operators of momentumn and position cannot be bounded , and this is why in the foregoing axioms we speak of symmetric rather than of self-adjoint operators.)

Consequently, noncommutativity is in this case inherent within the axiomatic system a priori, as is inherent in the statetement, “If $`X>10`$, then $`X>5`$”, the statement that “then $`X>6`$”. Which latter is a trivial consequence of the previous, hypothetical statement. Similarly the noncommutativity in question is a tautological consequence of the axioms 1 and 2 and has nothing to do with the quantum of action. Further ahead, in the third axiom the quantum emerges in the evolution equation of each picture. This, however, constitutes a further introduction for settling the matter, exactly as it has in the papers of Born and Jordan, and that of Born, Jordan and Heisenberg which followed.

Operating within the frame of von Neumann’s axiomatization we can demonstrate Robertson’s general uncertainty relation: Let $`A`$,$`B`$ be two observables. Then the inequality $`\left(Var\left(A\right)Var\left(B\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2}\left|E\left([A,B]\right)\right|`$ obtains, where $`Var\left(A\right)`$ the variance of A, $`Var\left(A\right)=E\left(\left(AE\left(A\right)\right)^2\right)`$(the same for $`Var\left(B\right)`$).

This inequality is also self-sufficient and obtains without mediation of the quantum. If we consider the relation $`[p,q]=i\mathrm{}Id_{}`$ for position and its conjugated momentum then $`\left(Var\left(p\right)Var\left(q\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$ or equivalent $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }q\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=\sqrt{Var\left(A\right)}`$ is the uncertainty dispersion of quantity $`A`$, that is to say, Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation for momentum and position. But this uncertainty should be dependent on the quantum and still its derivation, down to its terminal conclusion, has been quite possible without it.

We therefore notice that although Robertson’s inequality reflects a self-sufficient noncummutativity and hence independent of $`h`$, by introducing further premises, we end up with a hybrid noncommutativity, due to and not due to $`h`$ in the end. In other words an uncertainty relation that is fact dependent and fact independent at the same time. Higevoord and Uffing argue that Robertson’s inequaltity presents problems additional to the one we have detected.

In concluding we contend that the mathematical formalism has since 1925 been tracking a most mysterious and confusing path. On the one hand it imposes upon the physical magnitudes involved noncommutativities warranted *a priori*, and hence such as were true in advance of the factual discovery that $`h>0`$, and on the other hand introduces a different kind of noncommutativity altogether, in order to force the former to come to agreement with the physical content it purports to reflect. We are not pursuing the deeper causes or motives behind this contradictory tendency but we do believe that steps towards its amendment should be taken, so that the formalism may maintain its applicability and at the same time restore the authenticity of the physical ideas which have given rise to it.


format: text

text:
# The New Paradigm for Gamma Ray Bursts: a Case of Unethical Behaviour?

## 1 Motivation

It is often said that ‘battles between scientists are so fierce… because there is so little at stake’. This is probably true of most scientific disputes, perhaps even of the matter I shall discuss. However, this note is less concerned with scientific issues than with questions of academic integrity: the proper procedure by which novel ideas may be adopted from the works of others, the appropriate attribution of priorities, and the example to be set by those in high office — in this instance, Sir Martin Rees, the British Astronomer Royal and Master designate of Trinity College, Cambridge.

The issue at hand is the understanding of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs), intense but transient showers of high-energy photons (gamma rays) impinging upon the upper atmosphere several times per day. GRBs were discovered in the late 60’s by the American Vela satellites and were later shown to be cosmological, in the sense that the mighty engines making them are distributed roughly uniformly throughout the visible universe.

What can these engines be and what is the mechanism by which the gamma rays are produced? These two puzzles, often considered as among the greatest mysteries of astrophysics, have challenged scientists for decades. Several different interpretations of GRBs —often vague and mutually incompatible models that were provisionally accepted by most workers in the field— have succeeded one another to address these questions. Until recently, none of these schemes adequately explained the data. However, I believe that recent observations of GRBs and their theoretical interpretation are now sufficient to provide a definitive paradigm. The once-mysterious engines responsible for GRBs are nothing more than supernova explosions, and the mechanism producing the bursts is inverse Compton scattering (ICS), the process by which high-energy electrons strike low-energy photons, thereby uplifting their energy to that of gamma rays, seen as GRBs111To be precise, these answers apply most convincingly to the best studied GRBs, those of long duration (seconds or minutes, as opposed to fractions of a second)..

The currently best-studied theories of GRBs are the Fireball models and the Cannonball model. The first set of models is often considered to be the standard model of GRBs. The second, of which I am a coauthor, is generally viewed as heretical (to borrow a term used by one of our anonymous referees). In spite of their similarly-sounding names, these two models are completely different in their basic hypothesis, in their description of the data, and in their predictions.

What I shall discuss here is not the validity of any particular model, but the ways by which some scientists rewrite history by de-emphasizing the contributions of others relative to their own, or by imposing their own modes of thought upon the community. I shall also pose the question of whether the main concepts underlying what is very likely to become the new GRB paradigm will be attributed to their creators. Today, because scientific articles are virtually instantaneously ‘posted on the web’ in freely accessible and inviolate electronic Archives222Most articles cited here can be found in the Astrophysics or (in one case) the High-Energy-Physics-Phenomenology section of http://www.arxiv.org/ Their numbers (year, month, serial arrival number) are quoted in the reference list. New versions of an article can be added to the Archives, but the older versions cannot be erased, even if the paper is ‘withdrawn’., one might naively suppose an affirmative answer. But science is a profoundly human endeavour and what may appear obvious is not always so.

Whether or not a note such as this should be posted in the Archives is a debatable question, alternatives to which I have discusssed with many colleagues. But a “higher court” of science does not exist. Moreover, the Archives now have a much greater impact than journals: it is mostly the original version of posted papers that people read, without checking the journal versions for changes, even when the journal version is the one they quote. In my opinion, what is freely posted in the Archives ought to be discussed in the Archives, since it is the sole responsability of its authors.

In this note I shall focus on the mechanism producing GRBs (for which I have no responsibility) rather than the engine generating them (for which development I do claim a shared responsibility). This gives me the benefit of a somewhat wider perspective.

## 2 Facts

By facts I mean the statements itemized below, in which all of the quotations are copied from the Archives on the web.

$``$ In an article posted on the web on 14 July, 1994, Nir Shaviv and Arnon Dar  argued persuasively that ICS is the mechanism underlying GRB generation. I quote from their abstract: “Striking similarities exist between high energy gamma ray emission from active galactic nuclei and GRBs. They suggest that GRBs are generated by inverse Compton scattering from highly relativistic electrons in transient jets. Such jets may be produced along the axis of an accretion disk formed around stellar black holes (BH) or neutron stars (NS) in BH-NS and NS-NS mergers and in accretion-induced collapse of magnetized white dwarfs or NSs in close binary systems”333The quoted production mechanisms are those thought to give rise to “Type Ia” supernovae. Our current contention is that these supernovae are responsible for short-duration GRBs .. The emphasis is mine. In this article Shaviv & Dar predicted what would be a tell-tale signature of the ICS mechanism: a very large polarization of the gamma-rays of a GRB444Shaviv & Dar state that ICS was first discussed as a mechanism for GRB production by Shemi , but in the context of (spherical) fireballs, in which there is no expected polarization. Actually, ICS was discussed earlier by Zdziarski et al. ..

$``$ It is difficult to measure the degree of polarization of the gamma-rays of a GRB. Very recently, however, the RHESSI satellite (whose primary purpose is to study the Sun) succeeded in measuring  the polarization of a GRB555The data analysis has been criticised  and defended .. The result is $`\mathrm{\Pi }=80\pm 20\%`$. That is, the gamma ray polarization is virtually complete, as predicted by Shaviv & Dar.

$``$ From the 90’s and until most recently, the generally-accepted paradigm  for the mechanism generating GRBs was synchrotron radiation: light emitted by electrons moving in a magnetic field666Synchrotron radiation can produce a large polarization, but only under the most unrealistic circumstances. In my opinion, this is what recent articles on the subject show , although it is not what they say.. Nonetheless, at the time (1994), Shaviv & Dar discussed, both in person and by mail, their then novel idea —ICS by narrow jets ejected in stellar processes— with Martin Rees, who kindly pointed to them a typografical error in a calculation they had originally quoted and used.

$``$ In an article posted on the web on August 14th, 2003 , Dar and I incorporated in detail the idea of ICS into the Cannonball model of GRBs , which we have developed in collaboration with Shlomo Dado . The large polarization it entails is but one of the many successes of the model. Not surprisingly, in that paper  we provide ample reference to the original idea of Shaviv & Dar. On the GRB-generating mechanism, we say in the introduction: “The gamma-rays of a GRB may not be produced by synchrotron radiation and their polarization may not necessarily imply a strong, large-scale, ordered magnetic field in their source. In fact, Shaviv and Dar (1995) suggested that highly relativistic, narrowly collimated jets … may produce cosmological GRBs by inverse Compton scattering (ICS) of stellar light”.

$`\mathrm{}`$ In an article posted on the web on September 1st, 2003 , Rees and his junior collaborators state: “In this paper we show that the detection of a high level of linear polarization does not necessarily imply that the gamma-ray photons are produced by synchrotron… Compton (Thomson) scattering of photons can, under the appropriate observing geometry, produce highly polarized radiation”. These statements are very similar to those of the previous item.

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ Even clearer is the attribution by Rees and collaborators, in the same article , of the idea that Compton scattering is the GRB-generating mechanism. They write: “The possibility that the gamma-ray photons in the prompt phase of GRBs are due to the bulk Compton up-scatter of UV field photons was first discussed by Lazzati et al. (2000; see also Ghisellini et al. 2000)”. The emphasis is mine and the quoted papers  are also by Rees and collaborators. The basic idea was not “first discussed” by them, but was thoroughly studied nine years earlier by Shaviv & Dar. This fact cannot have escaped their attention, for they cite our recent paper , though in a disparaging manner: “For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{>}{}10`$ the curves are indistinguishable and can be approximated with Eq. 1 with an accuracy of $`2\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ and $`0.1\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$ (see also Dar & De Rujula 2003, who consider only this limiting case)”777The electrons’ Lorentz factor is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}`$. In ICS, the energy of the struck photon is uplifted by a factor that can reach a maximum of $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. The Eq. 1 of  is Eq. 28 of Shaviv & Dar, written in its more precise form. It also appears in this form as Eq. 19 in , and in many standard books on quantum electrodynamics.. Rees and collaborators neglect to inform the reader that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$ is the only relevant case, even for their analysis888The deviations from the approximate result are of order $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$: it is not necessary to draw curves to convince oneself that, even for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$, the precision of the approximation is more than sufficient. Moreover, for low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, other uncertainties are crucial, e.g. the directional distribution of target photons. Thus, in my opinion, these calculations in  are not only unnecessary, but also misleading..

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ In their paper of the year 2000 , Rees and collaborators state: The Compton drag effect has already been invoked for GRBs by Zdziarski et al. (1991)  and Shemi (1994) … none of these scenarii was able to account for all the main properties of GRBs. They do not quote the work of Shaviv & Dar (1995), which they would have no good reason to dismiss. By September 2003, as we have seen, Rees and collaborators refer to the Compton mechanism as something that they ‘first discussed’. One of the very many reasons  making this mechanism so compelling in comparison to any others is the observation of a high polarization, a result announced on the web in May 2003 .

$``$ Is the behavioural pattern described above unusual in the field? No. In the concluding section of Dar & De Rújula , after itemizing many similar grievances, we dare to state: “The Cannonball model \[ours\] may of course be wrong, but it is successful. It is not at all inconceivable that the Fireball models \[theirs\] continue to incorporate and “standardize” other aspects of the Cannonball model”. In Section 19.1 we referred more specifically to the earlier work of Rees et al.  in which they ‘first discuss’ the ICS mechanism: “The authors noticed that, for a large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the characteristic GRB energies could be explained (Shaviv & Dar 1995); but —perhaps because at the time fireball ejecta were still considered to be broad and to point at the observer— they overlooked the crucial prediction of Shaviv and Dar: a large polarization”. This time Rees and collaborators  no longer missed that crucial prediction .

## 3 Later and earlier developments

On September 3rd, 2003, Dar sent an e-mail to Rees, the senior author of the above appropriation of ideas, expressing his surprise and stating: “With due respect, Sir Martin Rees, I think that your position as the Royal Astronomer of Britain requires setting an example of proper scientific conduct and more responsibility . I expect you to withdraw your paper and I expect an apology.” Rees answered promptly, saying that “when we revise our paper we will add a reference to your 1995 paper and change the wording of our comment on your 2003 preprint”.

The response of Rees is inadequate. There is a clear difference between inadvertently forgetting a relevant reference and knowingly attributing someone else’s ideas to oneself, while paraphrasing the original authors’ principal hypothesis, conclusions and results. No one, least of all the Astronomer Royal, should feel licensed to write a paper  in which (at least in the original version posted in the web) the ideas of others are simply appropriated. Even if this incorrect attribution of authorship were a momentary lapse, any responsible researcher, having written such a paper, should be apologetic and glad to withdraw it or —at the very least— to correct its posted version inmediately. The response of Rees to Dar is not the solution but a further symptom of the problem. Thus, on September 4th, 2003, I sent Rees a strongly-worded e-mail asking him for an apology (which Dar did not obtain) and again requesting that the article be withdrawn. A copy of the message was sent to Rees by registered mail a few days later. I have had no response. As I wrote to Rees, I am left with no choice but to make this issue public.

Fearing a serious clash between astronomers (Rees) and particle physicists (me), a common friend of ours wrote to Rees expressing his concerns. Rees, in his very kind answer (which I was explicitly allowed by Rees to see), writes: “It’s very likely that the paper will need revising on the basis of referee’s comments. Indeed it may of course be rejected – and undoubtedly will be if Dar and de Rujula’s assessment is well-based”. I disagree with this transfer of responsibility to an anonymous referee. It is the duty of the authors and of the editor, who in this case had been informed of the issue. By October 2nd the paper  had been accepted, with the proviso that proper references be given. That will not affect the subsequent attribution of the original ideas by other workers in the field, particularly since, to date, the original version of  is still the only one posted on the web.

Let me give three other pertinent instances of inadequate citation. When the gamma-ray signal of a GRB is over, the event is not. The GRB is followed by an afterglow (AG). That is, the source continues to shine photons of lower energy, and remains observable for a very long time. GRB afterglows have been observed at many frequencies, from X-rays to visible light, to radio. As far as I know, the first prediction of AGs is due to Jonathan Katz , who wrote: “The debris’ energy degrades. Its radiation shifts to lower frequencies and increases in duration, and may be observable at frequencies from X-rays down to radio.”999Paczynski & Rhoads  independently predicted a radio AG, analogous to that of SN remnants. The predicted AGs were discovered in 1997  and have played a crucial role in the understanding of GRBs. However, the prediction of AGs is systematically attributed to Mészáros and Rees , who, some four years after Katz, wrote: “We find that the resulting cosmological GRB remnants … produce significant fluxes of softer radiation, mostly X-rays and optical, but in some cases radio as well”. These authors do cite Katz , not for the prediction of AGs (which is what Mészáros and Rees allege to make), but in a collective reference unrelated to AGs. In this case, peer review did not ensure that the earlier work of Katz was properly aknowledged.

The self-attribution by Rees and collaborators of ICS as the GRB-generating mechanism and of the subsequent polarization has born fruit, for they are already quoted in the literature for both items. For instance, Sikora et al. , state: “Proposed scenarios include… and Compton scattering… (Lazzati et al. 2000  and references therein). If the polarization measured by the RHESSI satellite is real… the Compton mechanism can still work (… Lazzati et al. 2003 ), provided that the jet has an opening angle $`<1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.”

Incidentally, the last-cited condition is a complete novelty in Fireball models, while it is satisfied by construction in the \[uncited\] Cannonball model, in which the only relevant angle is the observer’s viewing angle. To accommodate the data, the original spherical “Fireball” models had to evolve into “Firecone” models . Firecones were to emit gamma rays as idealized torches, that is, within a cone with a given “jet” opening angle. For years, these models were anthropoaxial: the observer was placed exactly on the axis of the cone. In Dado et al. 2002 , we criticized this improbable hypothesis. Subsequently, in a handful of papers, one of them by Rees and collaborators , the relevance of the viewing angle was at last recognized by the GRB community. We were not cited in any of those papers for this trivial but crucial point101010One of these papers was coauthored by the (not anonymous) referee of our papers , who had ample time to paraphrase and publish our simple geometrical considerations while delaying our publications for more than a year..

## 4 In lieu of a conclusion

I have felt obliged to describe several instances of what appears to me to be unethical behaviour on the part of Rees and others. Whether or not this behaviour is plagiarism may be a matter of opinion. Alas, this kind of behaviour is not exceptional in the field, as we have already documented in Dar & De Rújula , particularly in the conclusions and in an appendix on the history of the contention that supernovae are the engines of GRBs.

## 5 Aftermath

The first version (v1) of this paper was posted on October 27th. Rees and collaborators posted version v2 of their paper in October 29th, with the comment “this manuscript is posted following the comments and allegations of Dr. De Rujula.”. In this v2, full reference is given to Shaviv & Dar  and the comments that I considered inappropriate have been erased. In this sense, I consider their v2 satisfactory.

The authors of  now refer to  and  as “the point-source limit.” Cannonballs  are supposed to initially contain a dense enclosed radiation field that drives their expansion during the GRB phase at a radial velocity (in their rest system) comparable to (or somewhat smaller than) the speed of sound in a relativistic plasma ($`c/\sqrt{3}`$). Since they travel at $`vc`$, their “jet opening angle”, as viewed from the SN’s center (in the SN rest system) is $`\theta _j1/(\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, or smaller: CBs are “small”, but not pointlike. True enough, we have made the (good) approximation of neglecting the opening angle relative to the viewing angle, but cannonballs are not point sources.

A more significant question of nomenclature —or tactics— is the use of the generic trademark “fireball” to describe contradictory models. The opening angle of the “fireballs” that Rees et al. choose to study varies from $`\theta _j=0.2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . While the larger of these “fireballs” are not what we would call cannonballs, they subtend extremely narrow angles. These “fireballs” are very much more similar to cannonballs than to the original fireballs: concentrical spherical shells spanning a full $`4\pi `$ solid angle, or a good fraction thereof, see  and references therein. In this sense, v2 of Rees et al. is still a good example of a possibility contemplated in : “that the Fireball models continue to incorporate and “standardize” other aspects of the Cannonball model”. If the opening angle is further restricted to $`\theta _j<1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as in the statement by Sikora et al.  quoted in section 3, this good example becomes a perfect example, and we may have been right in having said: “fireballs may turn out to have always been cannonballs” .


text:
# Two Radio Pulsars with Magnetar Fields

## References

Baring, M. G. & Harding, A. K., 1998, ApJ, 507, L55

Kaminker, A. D., Haensel, P., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2001, A&A, 373, L17

Manchester R. N., & Taylor J. H., 1977, Pulsars. Freeman, San Francisco

Manchester R. N. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 17

McLaughlin, M. A. et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, L135


text:
# Properties of radio pulses from lunar EeV neutrino showers

## 1 Introduction

Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, its surface has been proposed as a target for detection of cosmic rays by mounting detectors on the Moon as early as in the original Askar’yan’s papers (Askaryan, 1962, 1965). Using the whole visible lunar surface with its huge effective volume by monitoring the Moon with ground based radiotelescope has been first proposed by Dagkesamanskii & Zheleznykh, 1989. Large effective volume presumed detection of particles with extremely low fluxes, while the distance from the observer limits to the very energetic events. Using Askar’yan’s effect for detection of neutrinos of cosmic rays is considered advantageous, since shower coherent radio emission grows roughly as a square of initial particle energy, and with this consideration in mind it had hoped to overcome the steep decline in flux expected from known CR spectrum. However the first rough estimates (Dagkesamanskii & Zheleznykh, 1989), has been shown to be too optimistic. This is due to the particular target geometry: neutrinos at EeV energies are expected to have rather high cross-section, and the detectable events will be only those crossing the edge of the Moon, and the fact that Ĉerenkov angle is complimentary to the full internal reflection angle.

Up to now, there has been several attempts to detect ultrashort radio pulses from the Moon (Hankins et al. 1996; Gorham et al, 2001) none of which shown any signs of such pulses. However, these observations, combined with the detailed modeling of the emission will allow to reject particular models of EeV neutrino spectrum.

Particles with energies around $`10^{20}`$eV and higher became one of the major interest in the field of CR science since the formulation of the GZK paradox (Greisen et al, 1966; Zatsepin & Kuzmin, 1966). That is, starting with $`510^{19}`$eV particles loose energy on the pion production interacting with CMB on scales of around 10Mpc, while the our Galaxy’s or stochastic intergalactic magnetic fields is not high enough to sufficiently curve them. So we expect to see the sources of such particles which should be relatively nearby, but up to now, with around a hundred cosmic ray events detected near the GZK energy, they seem to be distributed rather uniform on the sky.

The expected sources of neutrinos with GZK energies, ranging from certain, such as GZK cosmic rays, to possible, such as AGNs and exotic – topological defects or massive relic particles, predict neutrino flux somewhat or of the order of magnitude higher than CR flux. Beyond GZK limit this difference might be even bigger, so it is no wonder that detection of extra high energy neutrinos received a considerable attention lately (Alvarez-Muñiz et al, 2000; Razzaque et al, 2002; Provorov & Zheleznykh, 1995; Buniy & Ralston, 2002; Alvarez-Muñiz & Zas, 1997, 1998; Gandhi et al, 1998).

The observation of the Moon with ground radio telescopes could either detect EeV neutrinos or put a limit on their flux. This paper studies various aspects of such observations and tries to find the most favorable setups.

## 2 Coherent Ĉerenkov radiation

Well known Frank-Tamm formula for particle Ĉerenkov losses in dense media, usually found in textbooks is not applicable in our case. This formula addresses the case of infinite track length, hence, inevitably, near-field region. However, the formula for finite track, in the Fraunhofer limit, has indeed been known for a long time (Tamm, 1939):

$$\frac{d^2P}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{ne^2\omega ^2L^2}{4\pi ^2c^3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2X}{X^2},$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`P`$ is the one-sided energy spectral density radiated in a given solid angle, $`n`$ is the refraction index, $`L`$ is the track length, $`\theta _c`$ is the Ĉerenkov angle, $`X`$ is the phase equaled to $`n\omega L(\mathrm{cos}\theta _c\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ 111CGS units are used unless otherwise noted.. The most prominent difference from the infinite track formula is in the frequency dependence with flux growing like the frequency squared, rather than the frequency in the first power.

Maxwell’s equation for the infinite space filled with dielectric with permittivity of $`ϵ`$, and permeability of unity, will give the following solution for the Fourier component of the electric field

$$E(\omega ,x)=\frac{i\omega }{c^2}𝑑t^{}d^3x^{}e^{i\omega t^{}+ik|xx^{}|}\frac{J_{}}{|xx^{}|}.$$
$`(2)`$
Here we defined Fourier component of $`E`$ as

$$E(\omega )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E(t)e^{i\omega t}𝑑t.$$
$`(3)`$
In this normalization the radiated energy spectral density, similar to one presented in (1), one-sided, with negative and positive frequency parts summed will be

$$\frac{d^2P}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{cn}{4\pi ^2}|RE(\omega )|^2.$$
$`(4)`$
From the first glance (2) does not contain any traces of the properties of the media. However, $`k`$ here is not a variable, it is determined by the Ĉerenkov resonance condition $`k=n\omega /c`$. This expression can be reduced further by using Fraunhofer, or far field limit, that is, approximating $`|xx^{}|`$ to the linear order and assuming a particular charge current distribution.

Since particles in a shower move mostly along one particular axis, the current density could be decently approximated by

$$J_{}(x,t)=Q(z)\widehat{n}_{}c\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta ^3(xn_zct).$$
$`(5)`$
And the electric field, from (2),

$$E(\omega ,x)=\frac{i\omega }{c^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{e^{ikR}}{R}n_{}Q(z^{})e^{ipz^{}}𝑑z^{},$$
$`(6)`$
where $`p=(1n\mathrm{cos}\theta )\omega /c`$. The angular dependence of the electric field amplitude near Ĉerenkov angle may be seen as a Fourier transform of the longitudinal charge distribution. From here it is easy to reproduce finite track Frank-Tamm formula, (1).

This so called one-dimensional approximation works surprisingly well in describing maximum intensity at low frequencies and angular dependence (Alvarez-Muñiz et al, 2000). But, rather obviously, it fails to describe decoherence that comes from the transverse spread of the shower.

There has been several independent Monte-Carlo simulations of showers and their Ĉerenkov electric field (Zas et al, 1992; Razzaque et al, 2002; Provorov & Zheleznykh, 1995). The results are in pretty good agreement, concerning integral quantities such as the total projected (e-p) tracklength, $`L`$, which determines the field at the Ĉerenkov angle at low frequencies.

$$R|E(\omega ,\theta =\theta _C)|=\frac{e\omega L\mathrm{sin}\theta }{c^2}$$
$`(7)`$
The tracklength has been shown to scale linearly with the energy of the showers, or with the electromagnetic energy in the hadronic showers. The accelerator observation of the effect (Saltzberg et al, 2001) does also comply reasonably well with this simulations.

The first estimates of the decoherence from the transverse spread of the shower were done as early as in one of the pioneering Askaryan papers (Askaryan, 1965). Indeed, this issue is important for choosing the best observation frequency and for estimates of maximum coherent flux.

In the present paper we adhere to the particular parametrization for the electric field of one of these simulations, (Alvarez-Muñiz et al, 2000), assuming that tracklength, decoherence frequency and the angular width of the Ĉerenkov cone scale with radiation length.

The decoherence is described by the phenomenological form-factor fitting electric field intensity at the Ĉerenkov angle, (Alvarez-Muñiz et al, 2000),

$$F(\nu )=\frac{1}{1+(\nu /\nu _0)^{1.44}},$$
$`(8)`$
We have to note, however, that different shower MC’s do not agree very well at frequencies higher than decoherence frequency, which is around $`2.5`$GHz for regolith.

## 3 Showers

As we see from (6) the longitudinal profile of the shower determines the angular width and the form of the Ĉerenkov electric field peak. Showers with energies higher than 1 TeV but less than 1 PeV do not fluctuate much and have profiles close to gaussian, with longitudinal spread growing slowly with energy as $`\sqrt{2/3\mathrm{log}(E_0/E)}`$ (Rossi, 1952). Starting with energies around 10 PeV, electromagnetic showers are affected by Landau Pomeranchuk Migdal effect (Landau & Pomeranchuk, 1953; Migdal, 1956, 1957). Due to suppressed interaction at high energies the shower looks as a combination of several subshowers, with normal length, that is of several radiation lengths. The number of these subshowers are usually not enough to add up to the good averaged gaussian profile, so LPM showers fluctuate a lot. In fact, each of them has the individual form. However the Fourier transform of such a sparse showers have some general features. Namely, there are two characteristic lengths, one of the total length of the shower, and the other is 7-9 radiation lengths, the typical length of a non-LPM shower at these energies. So, the Fourier transform have an envelope inside of which there is a typical interference pattern, and the total shower length determine the width of an individual peaks.

Neutrino or antineutrino interacting with nucleon’s quark by charged current ($`W^\pm `$) gives the corresponding charged lepton and changes the flavour of the quark. The charged lepton, say, the electron, then initiate electromagnetic shower of energy $`(1y)E_\nu `$, and the quark initiate hadronic shower of energy $`yE_\nu `$. Due to the high multiplicity of the collisions governed by strong force high initial energy in hadronic shower got divided pretty quickly, thus mitigating the LPM effect. It has been shown than some hadronic showers of energy as high as 100EeV show little or no LPM elongation, while the others are lengthening only by several tenths percent (Alvarez-Muñiz & Zas, 1998). So, the charge current interacting neutrino produces two distinctly different showers, in the case of initial electron neutrino they are develop in the same place and the Ĉerenkov electric field will be the sum of that of each of them. The neutral current ($`Z`$) interactions got neutrino scattered, and produces only hadronic shower of energy of $`yE_\nu `$.

The deep inelastic scattering (DIS) cross sections for the energies in question is determined mainly by the behavior of the distribution function of the sea quarks at low values of $`x`$, such as $`xM_W^2/2ME_\nu y`$ which is $`310^8/y`$ at $`E_\nu =10^{20}\text{eV}`$. The distribution function at these $`x`$ has not been measured directly, however it could be extrapolated from lower values of $`x`$ by the power law with index of around -1.3 (Gandhi et al. 1998). We assumed $`xq_s(x)x^{0.33}`$. This parametrization gives an semianalytic expression for the $`d\sigma /dy`$ dependence we are interested in. For example, for muon neutrino the differential cross section is proportional to $`(3+2(1y)^2)y^{0.67}`$ for charged current and $`(1+(1y)^2)y^{0.67}`$ for neutral current, mean values of y being 0.2 and 0.19 correspondingly.

In our simulation the total $`\nu N`$ CC and NC cross sections were taken from the parametrization in (Gandhi et al. 1998), $`\sigma _{NC}`$ being a 0.42 fraction of $`\sigma _{CC}`$.

## 4 Time dependence

Determining the time dependence of the real Ĉherenkov pulse might be a tricky matter. Even though early papers on Askaryan effect suggested using full-bandwidth ionospheric-delay compensated radio observations which will maximize signal-to-noise ratio and make use of the unique Ĉherenkov pulse shape (Dagkesamanskii & Zheleznykh, 1989), it would probably be the way only future dedicated instruments will work. All experiments up to date used a bandwidth limited, maximum flux triggered setup.

It was suggested to use the frequency domain electric field strength directly from the theory (Gorham et al, 2001), as the receiving system works with voltages, which are basically the electric field times the antenna effective height. However, certain disadvantages come with this approach. The different simulations of showers often use different fourier transform normalisation, which sometimes lead to confusion (Razzaque et al, 2002). In the real experiment voltage is always recorded in the time domain. Also, the effective height of the antenna is not always easy to get, and the effective area may change due to orientation. In radio astronomy it is more common to calibrate receiving system with one or two strong radio sources. This calibration relates mean squared voltages with the spectral flux of the source. It is also easier to speak of decoherent weakening of the signal, such as scattering, in terms of the power, rather that the amplitude.

In a maximum flux triggered setups, used in today (GLUE) and proposed for future experiments (ANITA), the phase characteristic of the system plays a major role, while the radio astronomers are used to fluxes and usually cut several narrow bands in the primary wide band. For a gaussian characteristic of the system without phase shifts the maximum flux recorded will be the one-sided energy spectral density times $`2\pi (\mathrm{\Delta }f)_{1/2}/1.18`$, in the assumption that the signal phase and amplitude do not change significantly over this band. For filters with flat top used in radio receiving systems this coefficient is lower, but more impotantly, it is hard to keep zero phase shifts over a wide bandwidth. In general, we can use the effective response time of the system, which is the maximum recorded flux divided by the energy spectral density of the delta-like pulse. For real systems this time might be much larger than that determined by uncertainty relation ($`1/(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }f)`$), thus making maximum flux trigger setup less effective. The calibration of the system with sufficiently short pulses is almost always neccesary for this setup.

## 5 Geometry and refraction

In this section, and later, in Monte Carlo, we limit ourselves with purely refracted pulses. The reason for this is that only refracted pulses, as opposed to scattered over surface roughness ones, keep their unique ultra-short time structure. The typical timescale of a pure pulse which is determined by the decoherence frequency 2.5 GHz is around 60 picoseconds, while the delays from the radiation scattered over the range of several tens of meters would be hundreds of nanoseconds. Thus, the amplitude and phase characteristics of the scattered pulses are affected down to frequencies of 100 MHz or even lower.

The solid angle of the part of the ray caught by the telescope is much smaller than the typical refracted Ĉerenkov cone, so we can use ray optics. According to the effect mentioned in the introduction there should be strong damping of the outgoing radiation, however, as it was found, the transmissivity at the regolith-vacuum interface is not much to blame. As it follows from the geometry of the most detectable events, the $`E`$ vector will lay close to the plane of refraction, however the $`T_{}`$ transmission coefficient, being zero at total reflection angle, rises sharply to 1 in a few degrees.

It is the solid angle stretching near zero angles that does the most effect. Indeed, the solid angle before and after refraction will have the ratio of

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta }{n^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha },$$

where $`\beta `$ is an angle between the plane of the surface of the Moon and the outgoing ray, and $`\alpha `$ is the same angle for incoming ray. This coefficient scales like $`\beta `$ at small angles, as well as $`T_{}`$ does, however it is much smaller than $`T_{}`$ for the angles of a few degrees – the ones we are interested in. As an example in Figure 1 we showed the full exact damping coefficient which is the product of the above ratio to the $`T_{}`$, plotted versus $`r=1\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. $`r`$ may be thought of as a relative distance of the event from lunar limb, $`r=0`$ correspond to the limb, $`r=1`$ to the center. Both transmissivity and solid angle stretching is proportional to $`\beta `$ at small $`\beta `$, however for transmissivity this law fails already at a few degrees.

It is also interesting to calculate which part of the incoming particles full $`4\pi `$ solid angle will give radiation coming out of the Moon, though not necessarily detectable, in the assumption that all radiation is concentrated in the cone with typical angle estimated in section 2. This “effective” solid angle is shown on figure 2. It happened, that those neutrinos that have positive entrance angles, that is those, that hit the visible hemisphere, give important income to this total angle, especially at low frequencies and low $`\beta `$’s.

As we see from Figures 1 and 2 both the effective solid angle and the intensity damped by more than order of magnitude, which undermines previous optimistic estimates (Dagkesamanskii & Zheleznykh, 1989) and brings close attention to the detailed modeling of the transmissivity properties of the lunar-vacuum interface. In the next section we describe such a modeling.

## 6 Monte Carlo

We modeled a 64 meter telescope with standard circular aperture, pointed at some point between lunar center and the limb, making observations at some frequency $`\nu `$ with a bandwidth of 100 MHz, set up so to trigger events which have a total flux density higher than a certain threshold.

For each prospective CC or NC event we generated its lunar coordinates, depth at which interaction took place, two angles of the incoming neutrino, Bjorken y, calculated the radio flux taking into account LPM by parametrizations from (Alvarez-Muñiz & Zas, 1997, 1998) and polarization position angle. We used exact formulae for transmissivity of two different polarizations, adopted absorption length of 15 m(1 GHz/$`\nu `$). We assumed that regolith or some other material with similar properties cover the Moon with a layer of at least 30 meters deep, which somewhat increased effective volume at very high energies. We adopted the lunar surface slopes model with the gaussian distribution of the slope angles with an rms of of $`6^o`$ at the length scales we are interested in. The angular dependence of the shower radio flux, and the angular dependence of the sensitivity of the telescope were both taken into account.

Several events with their polarizations were drawn on Figure 3. The frequency of observation was 2.3 GHz and the flux density limit 3000 Jy. The telescope was aimed $`13.5^{}`$ from the lunar center. As we see, most of the events are concentrated close to the rim, and this behavior becomes more prominent with higher energies, since the neutrino interaction length shortens. As it comes from a theory, all events are fully linearly polarized, and polarization tends to align along radius-vector to the lunar center.

Neutrinos with positive entrance angles give almost no contribution at low energies, $`<10^{20}`$eV, however their relative contribution grows as cross-section grows, at $`10^{23}`$eV contributing about the half of all trigger events.

Even though the mean value of $`y`$ is around 0.2, that is most of the time most of the energy goes to either electromagnetic shower or neutrino, in this geometry electromagnetic showers happen to be relatively unimportant for radio detection. They contribute to trigger significantly only close to the edge of detection, which is around $`10^{20}`$eV for 2.3 GHz and a bandwidth of 100 MHz. The number of triggers came purely from EM showers do not grow much with energy.

The effective detector aperture for the frequency of 2.3GHz and a limit of 3000 Jy as dependent on primary particle energy is shown on Figure 4. Also shown apertures from two GLUE publications.

We show effective apertures instead of effective volumes, traditional in neutrino experiments, for a good reason. In order to provide predictions on flux we need aperture, which is usually deduced from volume and the cross section. In our case, however, the cross section itself is under discussion, and the simulation naturally use cross sections to calculate shadowing factors. Thus, showing apertures we avoid the situation when someone use our effective volume with the cross section different from that we used.

Even though radio location of the Moon suggest the rms of the slopes to be around $`6^o`$, the different parts of the surface has this value different. Such as the places abundant in craters have significantly higher rms slope and marines have lower ones. Hence, in the case of a large single dish and high observation frequency, when the Moon is resolved, it might be advantageous to look at the places with craters. The present ground radio techniques, however, can only measure rms of the slopes of the frontal part of the surface of the Moon, and since we almost always want to aim at the rim, these results must be taken with caution, until the lunar surface roughness is explored in more detail. On Figure 5 we show the dependence of the effective volume, as opposed to the rms of the slope in degrees, for three neutrino energies.

## 7 Diffuse neutrino flux limits and discussion

Having the observational time, and the effective aperture deduced in a previous section it is straightforward to estimate a diffuse neutrino flux at a given energy, having several events detected, or put an upper limit on flux if there were no detection. However, the fact of no-detection, logically, allows us to reject only one particular model spectrum of the cosmic neutrinos. It allows not the upper limits on a real differential flux curve $`EdF/dE`$ at any given energy. Indeed, the differential flux might have a thin but high fluke constituting only a small amount of an integrated flux, which surely will not be detected.

For the purpose of the GLUE experiment (Gorham et al, 2001) the so called model-independent limit of flux is described as the limit on the the $`EdF/dE`$ curve equaled inverse of the product of aperture and the observational time, corrected by the appropriate Poisson factor for the certain confidence level. This limit is appoximately true, if the flux does not change significantly over the order of magnitude of energy. However, we propose a bit more strict limit, which is multiplied by the factor of $`1/\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, thus allowing to rule out the total flux between and under two ajacent points. The closer points are, the higher will be the limit.

As we see from previous discussion, especially from figure 4, the lunar neutrino experiments, such as GLUE, or Pushchino experiment are rigged with uncertanty in the interpretation. Even the estimates of the aperture given by the same group changes significantly. In the case of purely refracted pulses considered in this article, the biggest uncertanty is in the fact, that we do not know exactly neither the distribution of the slopes, nor the number of the pulses that will be refracted purely, as opposed by scattered by small irregularities of the surface.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to R. D. Dagkesamanskii and I. M. Zheleznykh for fruitful discussion and suggestions. This work was partially supported by Russian Foundation of Base Research grant N 02-02-17229.

References

Alvarez-Muñiz J.; Vázquez R. A.; Zas E., 2000, Phys. Rev. D,62,063001

Alvarez-Muñiz J., Zas E., 1997, Phys.Lett. B411, 218-224

Alvarez-Muñiz J., Zas E., 1998, Phys.Lett. B434, 396-406

Askaryan G.A., 1962, JETP 14, 441

Askaryan G.A., 1965, JETP 21, 658

Buniy R.V., Ralston J.P., 2002, Phys.Rev. D 65, 016003

Butkevich A.V., et al, 1988, Z. Phys. C, 39, 241-250

Dagkesamanskii R.D., Zheleznykh I.M., 1989, JETP Lett, 50, 233

Gandhi R., et al, 1998, Phys.Rev. D 58, 093009

Gorham P.W., et al, 2001, Proc. RADHEP-2000, p.177.

Greisen K., 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748

Hankins T.H., Ekers R.D., O’Sullivan J.D., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1027.

Landau L., Pomeranchuk I., 1953, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 92, 535; 92, 735

Migdal A. B., 1956, Phys. Rev. 103, 1811

Migdal A. B., 1957, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 527

Provorov A. L. and Zheleznykh I. M., 1995, Astropart. Phys. 4, 55

Razzaque S., et al, 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 103002

Rossi B., 1992, High Energy Particles (Prentice Hall, New York)

Saltzberg D., Gorham P.W., et al., 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 13, 2802.

Tamm I.E., 1939, J. Phys. (Moscow) 1, 439

Zas E., Halzen F., and Stanev T., 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 362

Zatsepin G.T., Kuzmin V.A., 1966, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 4, 114