text:
# Statefinder parameters for interacting dark energy

## I Introduction

In the last years the conviction that our Universe is undergoing a phase of accelerated expansion has gained further ground among cosmologists sdss  albeit the nature of the cosmic substratum (usually called dark energy) behind this acceleration remains as elusive as ever paris . While several candidates have been proposed review  there is no agreement on which of them should be considered as the favored one. By all accounts, much more observational input is needed before this point might be settled.

The acceleration is evaluated by the deceleration parameter $`q=\ddot{a}/(aH^2)`$, where $`a(t)`$ stands for the scale factor of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric and $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ for the Hubble parameter. As mentioned above, the present state of the Universe seems to be characterized by a negative $`q`$, but it is hard to determine its value observationally. Therefore, since many models predict acceleration some further information should be welcome.

Among others, there are cosmological models whose evolution is dominated by interacting components -say, dark matter and dark energy. Models in which the main energy components do not evolve separately but interact with each other bear a special interest since they may alleviate or even solve the “coincidence problem” that afflicts many approaches to late acceleration afflicts . This problem can be summarily stated as “why now?”, that is to say: “Why the energy densities of the two main components happen to be of the same order today?” In this paper we focus on a Universe filled with two components, namely, non-relativistic matter (subscript $`m`$) with negligible pressure, i.e., $`p_m\rho _m`$ and dark energy (subscript $`x`$) -with equation of state $`p_x=w\rho _x`$ where $`w<0`$ -, such that the latter decays into the former component according to

$`\dot{\rho }_m`$ $`+`$ $`3H\rho _m=Q,`$
$`\dot{\rho }_x`$ $`+`$ $`3H(1+w)\rho _x=Q,`$ (1)
where $`Q0`$ measures the strength of the interaction. For later convenience we will write it as $`Q=3\mathrm{\Pi }H`$ where the new quantity $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ has the dimension of a pressure.

The Einstein field equations for spatially flat FLRW cosmologies are

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\rho ,`$ (2)
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{2}}(\rho +p_x),`$ (3)
where $`\rho =\rho _m+\rho _x`$ is the total energy density, and we have set $`c=1`$. The quantity $`\dot{H}`$ is related to the deceleration parameter $`q`$ by $`q=1(\dot{H}/H^2)=(1+3w\mathrm{\Omega }_x)/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x8\pi G\rho _x/(3H^2)`$. It is obvious, that the deceleration parameter does not depend on whether or not both components are interacting. However, differentiating $`\dot{H}`$ again, we obtain

$$\frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}=\frac{9}{2}\left(1+\frac{p_x}{\rho }\right)+\frac{9}{2}\left[w\left(1+w\right)\frac{\rho _x}{\rho }w\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\rho }\frac{\dot{w}}{3H}\frac{\rho _x}{\rho }\right].$$
(4)
At variance with $`H`$ and $`\dot{H}`$, the second derivative $`\ddot{H}`$ does depend on the interaction between the components. Consequently, to discriminate between models with different interactions or between interacting and non-interacting models it is desirable to characterize the cosmological dynamics additionally by parameters that depend on $`\ddot{H}`$. Recently, Sahni et al. sahni  and Alam et al. alam  have introduced a pair of new cosmological parameters (the so-called “statefinder parameters”) that seem to be promising candidates for this purpose. These are:

$$r=\frac{\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{a}}{aH^3},s=\frac{r1}{3(q\frac{1}{2})}.$$
(5)
In the present context of interacting fluids they take the form

$$r=1+\frac{9}{2}\frac{w}{1+\kappa }\left[1+w\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\rho _x}\frac{\dot{w}}{3wH}\right],$$
(6)
where $`\kappa \rho _m/\rho _x`$, and

$$s=1+w\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\rho _x}\frac{\dot{w}}{3wH}.$$
(7)
For non-interacting models i.e., for $`\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$, these parameters reduce to the expressions studied in sahni  and alam . The target of this short communication is to illustrate how the statefinder parameters may be of help when exploring cosmological models whose evolution is dominated by interacting components. While we focus ourselves on interacting cosmologies, we mention that the third derivative of the scale factor is generally necessary to characterize any variation in the overall equation of state of the cosmic medium visser . This becomes obvious from the general relation alam

$$r1=\frac{9}{2}\frac{\rho +P}{P}\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{\rho }},$$
(8)
where $`P`$ is the total pressure of the cosmic medium which in our case reduces to $`Pp_x`$. Since

$$\left(\frac{P}{\rho }\right)^{}=\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\rho }\left[\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{\rho }}\frac{P}{\rho }\right],$$
(9)
it is evident, that an interaction term in $`\dot{P}\dot{p}_x=\dot{w}\rho _x+w\dot{\rho }_x`$ according to (1) will additionally change the time dependence of the overall equation of state parameter $`P/\rho `$.

Interacting models allow a dynamical approach to the coincidence problem. The central quantity here is the density ratio $`\kappa `$ introduced beneath Eq. (6). This parameter should be a constant of the order of unity at late times for the coincidence problem to be strictly solved. At least it should, however, vary slowly over a time of the order of $`H^1`$. The ratio $`\kappa `$ is governed by the evolution equation (cf. Eqs. (1))

$$\dot{\kappa }=3H\left[\left(\frac{\rho _x+\rho _m}{\rho _m\rho _x}\right)\mathrm{\Pi }w\right]\kappa .$$
(10)
Below we study the statefinder parameters for different solutions of this equation, corresponding to two broad classes of matter–quintessence interacting models.

## II Scaling solutions

In a recent paper scaling  the authors showed that scaling solutions, i.e., solutions of the form $`\rho _m/\rho _xa^\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ denotes a constant parameter in the range $`[0,3]`$, can be obtained when the dark energy component decays into the pressureless matter fluid -Eqs. (1). These solutions are interesting because they alleviate the coincidence problem dalal . Indeed, a model with $`\xi =3`$ amounts to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`w=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$. For the opposite extreme value $`\xi =0`$ the Universe dynamics admits a stable, stationary solution $`\kappa =`$ constant, thereby no coincidence problem arises ZPC . Hence, the deviation of the parameter $`\xi `$ from $`\xi =0`$ quantifies the severity of the problem whereby any solution that differs from $`\xi =3w`$ represents a testable, non–standard cosmological model and any solution with $`\xi <3`$ renders the coincidence problem less acute. In that scheme, with $`w=`$ constant, it can be shown that the interactions which produce scaling solutions are given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\rho _x}=\left(w+\frac{\xi }{3}\right)\frac{\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi }{1+\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi },$$
(11)
where $`\kappa _0`$ denotes the present energy density ratio and $`z=(a_0/a)1`$ is the redshift. Inserting this expression in Eqs. (6) and (7) we get for the statefinder parameters

$$r=1+\frac{9}{2}\frac{w}{1+\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi }\left[1+w\left(w+\frac{\xi }{3}\right)\frac{\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi }{1+\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi }\right],$$
(12)
and

$$s=1+w\left(w+\frac{\xi }{3}\right)\frac{\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi }{1+\kappa _0(1+z)^\xi }.$$
(13)
Figure 1 depicts the function $`r(s)`$ for different values of $`\xi `$. The lower the value of $`\xi `$, the lower the value of the corresponding curve in the $`s`$-$`r`$ plane and the less acute results the coincidence problem. Note that qualitatively these curves remain similar to those of non-interacting models (see Fig.1 of Ref.sahni ). For the sake of comparsion, we note that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model ($`\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$, $`w=1`$) corresponds to the point (not shown in the figure) $`s=0`$, $`r=1`$.

From an observational point of view and for discriminating between different models, the current values $`r_0`$ and $`s_0`$ of the statefinder parameters are of particular relevance. For the scaling models we have

$$r_0=1+\frac{9}{2}\frac{w}{1+\kappa _0}s_0,\mathrm{and}s_0=1+w\left(w+\frac{\xi }{3}\right)\frac{\kappa _0}{1+\kappa _0}.$$
(14)
Realizing that

$$q_0=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1+\kappa _0+3w}{1+\kappa _0},$$
(15)
and introducing

$$q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}q_0\left(w=1\right)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\kappa _0}{1+\kappa _0}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\kappa _0}{1+\kappa _0}=1+q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(16)
we may classify the different models through their dependence $`s_0(q_0)`$ which reads

$$s_0=\frac{2}{3}\left[q_0q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\left(\frac{\xi }{3}1\right)\left(1+q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\right].$$
(17)
The first part in the bracket on the right hand side describes the deviation from $`w=1`$, the second part accounts for the deviations from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scaling $`\xi =3`$. For models with $`w=1`$, e.g., which all have the same deceleration parameter $`q_0=q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, we have $`s_0=\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{\xi }{3}1\right)\left(1+q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)`$. Of course, $`\xi =3`$ corresponds to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`s_0=0`$. Assuming $`\kappa _0=3/7`$, a scaling $`\xi =1`$ results in $`s_0\left(\xi =1\right)=0.2`$, while the stationary solution $`\xi =0`$ has $`s_0\left(\xi =0\right)=0.3`$. Similar considerations hold for other values of $`w`$. Thus, the parameter $`s_0`$ is able to discriminate between different scaling models, characterized by the same deceleration parameter.

### II.1 Luminosity distance

It is interesting to see how the statefinder parameters enter the expression for the luminosity distance. Up to second order in the redshift the Hubble rate is

$$H\left(z\right)=H_0+\left(\frac{\text{d}H}{\text{d}z}\right)_{z=0}z+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\text{d}^2H}{\text{d}z^2}\right)_{z=0}z^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
By virtue of

$$\frac{\text{d}H}{\text{d}z}=\frac{q+1}{z+1}H\text{and}\frac{\text{d}^2H}{\text{d}z^2}=\frac{r1+2\left(1+q\right)\left(1+q\right)^2}{\left(1+z\right)^2}H,$$
(19)
this can be written as

$$H\left(z\right)=H_0\left\{1+\left(q_0+1\right)z+\frac{1}{2}\left[r_01+2\left(q_0+1\right)\left(q_0+1\right)^2\right]z^2+\mathrm{}\right\}.$$
(20)
The luminosity distance

$$d_L=\left(1+z\right)\frac{\text{d}z}{H},$$
(21)
becomes (cf. visser )

$$d_L=H_0^1z\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\left(1q_0\right)z+\frac{1}{6}\left(3\left(q_0+1\right)^25\left(q_0+1\right)+1r_0\right)z^2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(22)
Since the interaction affects $`r_0`$ but neither $`q_0`$ nor $`H_0`$, it is obvious that the luminosity distances of different interacting as well as of interacting and non-interacting models manifests itself only in third order in the redshift. For the scaling model leading to $`\xi =1`$, and $`w=1`$ we have $`q_0=(2\kappa _0)/[2(1+\kappa _0)]`$ and $`r_0=1[3\kappa _0/(1+\kappa _0)^2]`$, and we recover the previously obtained expression (see Eq. (38) of Ref. scaling )

$$d_\mathrm{L}H_0^1z\left[1+\frac{1+\frac{\kappa _0}{4}}{1+\kappa _0}z\frac{1}{8}\frac{\kappa _0}{\left(1+\kappa _0\right)^2}\left(6+\kappa _0\right)z^2\right].$$
(23)
For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model the factor $`\left(6+\kappa _0\right)`$ occurring in last expression is replaced by $`\left(10+\kappa _0\right)`$. On the other hand, for a given $`w`$ all the scaling models, including $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, are degenerate with respect to the deceleration parameter. For all these models the present value of $`q`$ is

$$q_0=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{w}{1+\kappa _0}.$$
(24)
This expression also holds true for the asymptotically stable model of the next section. This demonstrates explicitly that discrimination between interacting and non-interacting models or between different interacting models requires the knowledge of the luminosity distance up to the third order in the redshift. In other words, the circumstance that the interaction is felt only by parameters containing the third derivative of the scale factor corresponds to the fact that the luminosity distance of interacting models is affected only in the third order of the redshift.

## III Asymptotically stable solutions

For the special case that the interaction term is assumed to obey $`\mathrm{\Pi }=c^2\rho `$ with $`c^2=\text{constant}<1`$, the evolution equation (10) has two stationary solutions for $`w=`$ constant, namely, $`\kappa _s^+`$ and $`\kappa _s^{}=1/\kappa _s^+`$ (with $`\kappa _s^+>1`$), given by

$$\kappa _s^\pm =\left[1+\frac{1}{2c^2}\left(w\sqrt{w(w+4c^2)}\right)\right],$$
(25)
-see Ref. iqs  for details. It can be shown that whereas the solution $`\kappa _s^{}`$ is stable the solution $`\kappa _s^+`$ is unstable. There exists a solution

$$\kappa =\kappa _s^{}\frac{1+y\kappa _s^+}{1+y\kappa _s^{}},$$
(26)
with $`y=(a_{eq}/a)^\lambda `$ where $`a_{eq}`$ is the scale factor at which the energy density of dark energy equals the energy density of dark matter and $`\lambda =3w(1\kappa _s^{})/(1+\kappa _s^+)`$, according to which $`\kappa `$ evolves from a matter dominated phase ($`\kappa _s^+>1`$) for $`aa_{eq}`$ to a dark energy dominated phase ($`\kappa _s^{}<1`$) for $`aa_{eq}`$ as the Universe expands. In this case we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\rho _x}=c^2(1+\kappa _s^{})\frac{1+y_o(1+z)^\lambda }{1+y_o(1+z)^\lambda \kappa _s^{}},$$
(27)
with $`y_0=\kappa _s^+(\kappa _0\kappa _s^{})/(\kappa _s^+\kappa _0)`$.

Accordingly, we readily obtain that the statefinder parameters of this model reduce to

$$r=1+\frac{9}{2}w\left[\frac{1+w}{1+\kappa _s^{}}\frac{1+y_o(1+z)^\lambda \kappa _s^{}}{1+y_o(1+z)^\lambda }+c^2\right]$$
(28)
and

$$s=1+w+c^2(1+\kappa _s^{})\frac{1+y_o(1+z)^\lambda }{1+y_o(1+z)^\lambda \kappa _s^{}},$$
(29)
where $`c^2=w\kappa _s^{}/(1+\kappa _s)^2`$ is valid.

Figure 2 shows some graphs of the function $`r(s)`$ for different choices of $`\kappa _s^{}`$. At variance with graphs of the scaling model, the location of the curves in the plane $`(s,r)`$ is unrelated to the alleviation or solution of the coincidence problem since $`\kappa =\kappa _s^{}=`$ constant at late times for all the cases of this model.

For the present value of the parameter $`s`$ this model yields

$$s_0=1+w+c^2\left(1+\kappa _0\right),\mathrm{where}1+\kappa _0=(1+\kappa _s^{})\frac{1+y_o}{1+y_o\kappa _s^{}}.$$
(30)
A parallel study to the case of the scaling solutions leads to

$$s_0=\frac{2}{3}\left[q_0q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{3}{2}c^2\right]\left(1+\kappa _0\right).$$
(31)
Again, the first two terms in the bracket account for the difference to models with $`w=1`$ for which $`q_0=q_0(w=1)q_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The $`c^2`$ term describes the impact of the interaction on the parameter $`s_0`$.

## IV Concluding remarks

The statefinder parameters introduced in sahni  and alam  are expected to be useful tools in testing interacting cosmologies that solve or at least alleviate the coincidence problem which besets many approaches to late acceleration. It is manifest that while the deceleration parameter does not feel the interaction between the dark energy and dark matter the statefinder pair $`(r,s)`$ does.

We hope that in some not distant future we will have at our disposal observational techniques capable of determining these parameters. These are bound to shed light on the nature of dark energy and dark matter.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology under grants BFM 2000-C-03-01 and 2000-1322.


format: text

text:
# SAX J1808.4-3658 and the origin of X-ray variability in X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei

## 1 Introduction

Aperiodic X-ray variability, occuring over a broad range of time-scales in the form of ‘flicker noise’ or ‘band-limited noise’ is a ubiquitous characteristic of X-ray binary systems (, 1995) and active galaxies (1988, 2002, 2003). The origin of this variability is not well understood. Recently, a new fundamental property of the aperiodic variability in XRBs and AGN was discovered: the rms-flux relation (, 2001). Specifically, there exists a strong linear correlation between the amplitude of X-ray variability on short time-scales and the X-ray flux as measured on longer time-scales (2001, 2002, 2003). Since the flux variations on all the time-scales probed in these studies are dominated by the aperiodic variability, this linear ‘rms-flux relation’ implies that aperiodic variations on longer time-scales modulate the aperiodic variations on shorter time-scales, i.e. the aperiodic variations on different time-scales are coupled together.

Importantly, the observed linear rms-flux relations, which occur over a broad range of time-scales, cannot be explained if the variability is produced by simple shot-noise models where the light curve is produced by the summation of randomly occuring shots or flares which are independent of one another (see 2001 for a detailed discussion). Instead the shots must be coupled together. For example, the shots may correspond to fractal structures, e.g. flares that break into smaller structures, which in turn break up and so on, producing a coupling between larger slower variations and smaller faster ones. Alternatively, the required coupling may be produced if flares trigger avalanches of smaller flares (e.g. similar to the model of 1996). A natural interpretation of such models is that they correspond to flares due to magnetic reconnection in the corona (, 1999), so we refer to this class of explanations for the variability as the ‘coronal-flare’ or CF model.

Alternatively, a linear rms-flux relation can be naturally produced by the model of (1997), where the variability is caused by variations in accretion rate occuring at different radii (with slower variations occuring at larger radii), which propagate inwards and modulate the X-ray emitting region and hence the X-ray light curve. In this model, the amplitudes of accretion rate variations produced at a given radius scale with the local accretion rate at that radius (which is driven by the slower variations that originated at larger radii) and hence variations on different time-scales are coupled together. In fact, any model of propagating perturbations in the accretion flow (e.g. density waves, 2000) could produce a linear rms-flux relation provided the perturbations can couple linearly together. We will call this class of explanations for the variability the ‘propagating perturbation’ or PP model.

In this Letter, we point out that the CF and PP models can be distinguished in the case of accreting neutron star XRBs, which show a linear rms-flux relation in their aperiodic X-ray variability, provided that it can be shown that the aperiodic X-ray variability containing the rms-flux relation originates on or close to the neutron star surface, and hence cannot be associated with coronal flares. We demonstrate explicitly that the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 fulfils these criteria, so that the CF model can be ruled out in this case and the PP model is the most likely explanation for the aperiodic variability and the rms-flux relation in this system. We then infer that the PP model is also the correct explanation for the aperiodic variability which shows a linear rms-flux relation in other XRBs, and AGN, before discussing the further implications of this result.

## 2 The origin of the rms-flux relation in SAX J1808.4-3658

In (2001) we demonstrated that the linear rms-flux relation is observed in the aperiodic X-ray variability of the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658. Due to its highly coherent 401 Hz X-ray pulsations (, 1998a) SAX J1808.4-3658 is a confirmed NS system, and offers the possibility of directly testing the CF and PP models for aperiodic X-ray variability, if it can be shown that the X-ray variability originates on or close to the neutron star surface. This is because although the CF model requires that the X-ray variability originates in a flaring corona, the PP model does not require a specific physical origin for the X-ray emission, provided that the perturbations in the accretion flow can propagate in to the X-ray emitting region (whether this is an accretion powered corona or the surface of a neutron star) and so modulate the X-ray emission.

### 2.1 Coupling of the 401 Hz pulse and aperiodic flux variations

Evidence that much of the X-ray emission in neutron star XRBs originates at the neutron star surface (or some boundary layer close to the surface) comes from comparisons of X-ray spectra of neutron star and black hole candidate systems (, 2003). Fourier-frequency resolved analysis of neutron star XRB spectral variability confirms this result and further suggests that some component of the variability originates at the neutron star surface or boundary layer, provided certain plausible assumptions are made about the spectral shape of emission from that surface (, 2003). However, we require more model-independent evidence that the aperiodic variability in SAX J1808.4-3658 originates at or close to this surface. Interestingly, such evidence is provided by a coupling between the aperiodic variability and the 401 Hz pulsation in this system, which has been inferred from a broadening of the pulse peak measured in the power spectrum of this source (, 2003). This result implies that a significant component of the aperiodic X-ray variations originates on the neutron star surface, at the accretion-fed magnetic caps, and is modulated at the spin frequency to produce the observed coupling.

The method used by (2003) to demonstrate coupling between the aperiodic and periodic variability in SAX J1808.4-3658 tests the assumption that the observed power spectrum results from a simple convolution of the Fourier transforms of aperiodic and periodic variations. In the time domain, this assumption corresponds to the case where the light curve of aperiodic variations is multiplied by a sinusoidal pulse light curve with a mean of unity and an rms equal to the fractional rms of the pulse. Then it is easy to see that a prediction of the coupling of the pulse and aperiodic variability reported by (2003) is that the absolute rms of the pulse should scale linearly with the aperiodic flux variations, i.e. the pulse will itself show a linear rms-flux relation.

To test this prediction we used data from a Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) observation of SAX J1808.4-3658 used by (2001) and (2003)111Observation IDs 30411-01-06-000, 30411-01-06-00 observed 1998 April 18. A 2-20 keV light curve (with $`2^{11}`$ s resolution), of 23 ks exposure was extracted from the data and split into segments of 1 s length. The power spectrum and flux (count rate) was measured for each individual segment, and the power spectra of many segments were averaged together according to their flux (here, power spectra are measured in $`rms^2`$ units, i.e. not normalised by the square of the mean flux). We estimated the noise level directly from the data by fitting a power-law to the surrounding 200 Hz window of data, centred on but excluding the peak at 401 Hz, and took the square-root of the noise-subtracted power at 401 Hz (directly equivalent to the integrated power or variance, since the frequency resolution is 1 Hz) to obtain the absolute rms of the pulse as a function of flux. The resulting rms-flux relation is shown in Fig. 1. A linear fit to the data provides a good fit ($`\chi ^2=8`$ for 6 degrees of freedom), and yields an offset on the flux axis consistent with zero (flux offset $`C=5\pm 38`$ count s-1, errors are 90% confidence).

### 2.2 Coupling of the pulse to the aperiodic variability amplitude

The linear rms-flux relation shown by the pulse confirms that aperiodic and periodic variations are coupled, and therefore at least some component of the aperiodic X-ray variability must originate at or close to the magnetic caps of the neutron star. However, this does not necessarily imply that the component of aperiodic X-ray variability showing a linear rms-flux relation also originates at the same location. For example, if a component with a linear rms-flux relation, which is not coupled to the pulse, contributes a similar flux to a component with constant rms which is coupled to the pulse, both the pulse and aperiodic rms-flux relations can be preserved. This is because the highest and lowest total observed fluxes correspond to the times when the fluxes of both aperiodic components are high and low respectively. Hence, when the total flux is high both the pulse rms and the aperiodic rms will be high, and the rms of the pulse and aperiodic variability will both be low when the total flux is low.

However, in the case where the aperiodic rms-flux relation is produced in a separate component to the pulsed component of aperiodic variability, we expect that the amplitude of the aperiodic variability and the rms of the pulse will not be correlated. To demonstrate this fact, we use simulated light curves. As shown in (2003) and Uttley, McHardy & Vaughan (in prep.), aperiodic light curves with a linear rms-flux relation on all time-scales may be simply generated by replacing each data point in a linear light curve (e.g. generated using the algorithm of 1995) with its exponential. We examined two cases:

1. The aperiodic variability is produced by a single component with a linear rms-flux relation on all time-scales, which is modulated by a sine wave at the pulse frequency (i.e. in its simplest form this model corresponds to the case where the rms-flux relation is produced at the magnetic caps of the neutron star).
2. The aperiodic variability is produced in equal parts by two components: a linear component with rms independent of flux (which is modulated by a sine wave at the pulse frequency), and an unpulsed component with a linear rms-flux relation on all time-scales (i.e. the rms-flux relation is produced in a different location to the magnetic caps, e.g. in a corona).

In both cases, the simulated aperiodic variability assumed a broken power-law power spectrum with power-law slope 0 below 0.3 Hz and -1 at higher frequencies (up to the Nyquist frequency), to approximate the observed power spectrum (, 1998b). The simulated amplitudes of variability (combined amplitude in case (ii)) were chosen to match that of the source, and Poisson noise corresponding to the observed source plus background count rates was also included.

To examine the correlation between the amplitude of aperiodic variability and the pulse amplitude, we averaged together the 1 s measurements of the power spectrum (discussed in Section 2.1) according to their noise-subtracted variance (i.e. integrated power) measured in the 1-10 Hz band, to obtain the pulse rms as a function of the aperiodic 1-10 Hz variance. We bin the pulse rms as a function of 1-10 Hz variance rather than rms, because in individual 1 s segments the true noise level may exceed the estimated value, which can lead to negative noise-subtracted variance, so that rms cannot be determined (e.g. see discussion in 2001, 2003).

Fig. 2 shows the pulse rms versus aperiodic variance for the case (i) and case (ii) simulations described above. Case (i), where the pulsed aperiodic variability contains a linear rms-flux relation, shows a clear correlation between pulse rms and aperiodic variance, with a linear plus constant model $`\chi ^2`$ fit yielding a positive gradient $`(2.3\pm 0.4)\times 10^4`$ for $`\chi ^2=1.3`$ for 2 degrees of freedom (errors are 90% confidence limits). Note that the increase in pulse rms with aperiodic variance is relatively small, because the aperiodic variance contains a large amount of intrinsic scatter, unrelated to the rms-flux relation, due to the stochastic nature of the variability and the effects of noise. Nonetheless, a significant correlation between pulse rms and aperiodic variance is easily seen. Case (ii), on the other hand, shows no such correlation (gradient $`(0.4\pm 0.5)\times 10^4`$ for $`\chi ^2=5.9`$, for 2 degrees of freedom), due to the fact that the pulsed aperiodic component does not contain the linear rms-flux relation. Note that the spread in 1-10 Hz variance is larger in case (i) than in case (ii) because of the stronger rms-flux relation (which applies to the entire light curve) in case (i), but the average variance is the same in both cases.

In Fig. 3 we plot the observed pulse rms versus aperiodic variance. The pulse rms and the aperiodic variance are clearly correlated (gradient $`(2.2\pm 0.4)\times 10^4`$ for $`\chi ^2=3.2`$, for 2 degrees of freedom). Furthermore, the observed gradient of the correlation is consistent with that predicted by the case (i) simulated data. Therefore, we conclude that the aperiodic variability containing the linear rms-flux relation is coupled to the pulse, and furthermore, no additional component of aperiodic variability is required by the data. Thus we infer that the X-ray variability carrying the rms-flux relation originates at the magnetic caps of the neutron star and therefore the PP model is correct in SAX J1808.4-3658 and the CF model is ruled out. For completeness, we note here the possibility that case (i) corresponds to a more complicated PP model, where most of the aperiodic variability is produced before the pulsed variability by perturbations propagating through a separate unpulsed emitting region (e.g. a static corona above the disk), before reaching the site of the pulsed emission. However, given the available spectral-variability evidence for other neutron stars (, 2003), it is simplest to assume that all the variable emission originates at or close to the neutron star surface.

## 3 Discussion

We have demonstrated that the aperiodic X-ray variations which contain the linear rms-flux relation in SAX J1808.4-3658 are coupled to the 401 Hz pulsation, and hence originate on or close to the magnetic caps of the neutron star. The only existing model which can explain this result is the PP model: specifically, the rms-flux relation is produced by the coupling of perturbations in the accretion flow as they propagate inwards. When the accretion flow is channeled on to the magnetic caps of the neutron star, the energy of accretion is released and the pattern of fluctuations in the accretion flow (including the rms-flux relation) is imprinted on the resulting X-ray emission.

Although we have only shown that the PP model is the most likely explanation of the rms-flux relation in SAX J1808.4-3658, it seems highly likely also that the PP model explains the aperiodic variability and rms-flux relation in other accreting neutron star and black hole systems (including AGN). For example, the power spectra of broadband noise in both black hole and neutron star XRBs (including SAX J1808.4-3658) can be described by a simple model involving the superposition of broad Lorentzian features (2002, 2003, 2003), and both neutron star and black hole systems show similar correlations between the different characteristic frequencies of these features (e.g. 1999, 2002, 2003). The strong similarities between black hole XRB variability and that of AGN, with characteristic time-scales apparently scaling with the black hole mass (e.g. 2002, 2003, 2003) also strongly support the idea that AGN and XRBs share the same aperiodic variability mechanism. Since the light curves of all these types of system show a linear rms-flux relation (e.g. 2001, 2003, 2003), the application of Ockham’s Razor would suggest that the rms-flux relation is produced by the same mechanism in all cases and hence the aperiodic X-ray variability in neutron star and black hole XRBs and AGN is produced by a PP mechanism, and not by coronal flares.

It should be restated here that the PP interpretation of the variability does not carry any implications for the existence of an X-ray emitting corona. This is because the aperiodic variability (and the rms-flux relation imprinted in it) is produced in the accretion flow and is independent of where the X-rays are emitted, provided that variations in the accretion flow can modulate the X-ray emission. Thus a corona which is heated by many small reconnection events (too small to have a very strong effect on the variability) remains a viable source of the X-ray emission (in black hole systems, at least). In fact, by invoking an extended X-ray emitting region (such as a corona) which possesses a temperature gradient, so that higher energy X-rays are preferentially emitted closer to the black hole, PP-type models naturally produce the time-dependent delays between energy bands and the energy-dependent shape of the power spectrum, which are observed in black hole X-ray binaries (e.g. 2000, 2001, 2003) and AGN (e.g. 2003, 2003).

We have recently shown (2003, and Uttley et al., in prep.) that the existence of an rms-flux relation on all time-scales leads naturally to the appearance of non-linear behaviour which is observed over a range of time-scales in both XRBs (2002, 2003) and AGN (1999, 2002), Although the PP model is not a necessary explanation for such behaviour (which is a phenomenological outcome of the rms-flux relation), it provides a natural physical framework for understanding it, in that the PP model appears to be the correct physical explanation for the rms-flux relation.

The PP model allows a simple understanding of other aspects of the variability. For example, the characteristic time-scales observed in the variability of XRBs and AGN can be understood in terms of time-scales in the accretion flow (e.g. the broad Lorentzian features can be formed if perturbations are produced over certain narrow ranges of radii), thus potentially unifying models for the aperiodic variability with models for quasi-periodic oscillations that are sometimes observed in XRBs (though not yet conclusively in AGN). What physical time-scales these characteristic features correspond to is not yet clear. The PP model requires that perturbations are produced at different radii in the accretion flow, that these perturbations can propagate inwards without being suppressed (e.g. damped by viscous dissipation), and that the perturbations produced at different radii can couple together. A possible configuration which could fulfil these criteria is a geometrically thick accretion flow (such as a thick disk, or an advection dominated accretion flow), where accretion time-scales are relatively short so that variations, e.g. on the thermal time-scale, can propagate to the inner regions of the accretion flow without being significantly damped (1996, 2001). Alternatively, the fact that a linear rms-flux relation is observed in Cyg X-1 in both the soft and hard states has been used by (2003) to suggest that the variations originate in a coronal accretion flow (rather than a disk), which should also show a short accretion time-scale and hence might satisfy the PP model requirements. The physical origin of the perturbations is unclear, although a variety of well-known accretion instabilities could contribute (, 1992). Furthermore, (2003) have recently shown that MHD turbulence can cause accretion perturbations on sufficiently long time-scales for a linear rms-flux relation to be produced by the inward propagation and coupling of the perturbations.

Finally, we note that a PP model origin for aperiodic variability in XRBs and AGN implies that the variability can be used to probe the location and structure of the X-ray emitting regions close to the neutron star surface or black hole event horizon. For example, an extended emitting region acts as a low pass filter, suppressing variations which originate within the emitting region relative to slower variations which originate outside, for the simple reason that an inward-propagating perturbation can only modulate emission within the radius at which it is formed. This simple picture can help to explain why neutron star XRBs show stronger high-frequency noise (at frequencies $`>10`$ Hz) than black hole systems (, 2000), i.e. because their X-ray emission originates predominantly on the neutron star surface, within the radius where the highest frequency accretion flow perturbations are produced. Similarly, in black hole systems the suppression of variability within a coronal emitting region with a temperature gradient will lead to energy dependent power-spectral shapes, which can be used to constrain the radial emission structure of the corona (2001, 2003).

## 4 Conclusions

We have demonstrated that the aperiodic variability which carries the linear rms-flux relation in the accreting millisecond pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658, is coupled to the 401 Hz pulsation in this source, and hence the component of X-ray emission which contains the rms-flux relation is produced at the magnetic caps of the neutron star. We conclude that the aperiodic variability is produced by inward-propagating perturbations in the accretion flow on to the neutron star, with the rms-flux relation produced by a coupling of perturbations produced on different time-scales. By extension, this result suggests that the same mechanism produces the rms-flux relations observed in black hole XRBs and AGN, so that the aperiodic X-ray variability in all these diverse systems is caused by perturbations in the accretion flow, and not by flares due to magnetic reconnection in the corona.

### Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments.


text:
# Von Neumann Quantum Processors 304th WE-Heraeus-Seminar ‘Elementary Quantum-Processors,’ 13–15 October 2003

## 1 Introduction

So-called von Neumann architecture was used already in first electronic computers like EDVAC  more than 50 years ago. Main idea of such approach is storage of program in computer memory, unlike of some elementary electronic calculators.

Such idea is also appropriate for quantum computers and present work recollects some previous discussions . General idea of such aproach — is to consider a Hilbert space of composite quantum system with two parts:

$$=_c_d.$$
(1)
Here $`_d`$ is a Hilbert space of quantum system considered as data, and $`_c`$ is Hilbert space of “code”, i.e., program.

## 2 Quantum processing units

### 2.1 Programmable quantum gate arrays

The programmable quantum gate array  or quantum processor  — is a quantum circuit with fixed structure. Similarly with classical von Neumann Architecture here are data register $`|\psi _d`$ and program (code) register $`|c_c`$. Different operations $`𝒖`$ with data are indexed by a state of the program (code)

$$𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}:\left(|c|\psi \right)|c^{}(𝒖_c|\psi ).$$
(2)
It was discussed already in , that Eq. (2) is compatible with unitary quantum evolution, if different states of program register are orthogonal — due to such requirement number of accessible programs coincides with dimension of Hilbert space and it produces some challenge for construction of universal quantum processors. It was suggested few ways around such a problem: to use specific “stochastic” design of universal quantum processor , to construct (non-stochastic) quantum processor with possibility to approximate any gate with given precision  (it is also traditional approach to universality , sometime called “universality in approximate sense” ).

### 2.2 Conditional quantum dynamics

In finite-dimensional case unitary operator $`𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}`$ satisfying Eq. (2) can be simply found . Let us consider case with $`|c^{}=|c`$ in Eq. (2). It was already mentioned, that states $`|c`$ of program register corresponding to different operators $`𝒖_c`$ are orthogonal and, so, may be chosen as basis. In such a basis $`𝒖_c`$ is simply set of matrices numbered by integer index $`c`$, and operator $`𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}`$ Eq. (2) can be written as block-diagonal $`NM\times NM`$ matrix:

$$𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒖_1& & & \\ & \hfill 𝒖_2& & \hfill 0\\ & & \hfill \mathrm{}& \\ \hfill 0& & & \hfill 𝒖_M\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
with $`N\times N`$ matrices $`𝒖_c`$, if dimensions of program and data registers are $`M`$ and $`N`$ respectively;

$$𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}=\underset{c=1}{\overset{M}{}}|cc|𝒖_c,$$
(4)
It is conditional quantum dynamics . For quantum computations with qubits $`M=2^m`$, $`N=2^n`$.

### 2.3 Three-buses design

Operator $`𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}`$ described above is only first approach to von Neumann quantum processors. Such quantum processing unit (QPU) simply generates some gate encoded (indexed) by state of program register. For performing arbitrary sequence of operations it is possible to use more difficult design .

Let us instead of one program (code) register $`_c`$ consider compound system $`_p_c`$, there $`_p`$ corresponds to “program memory” in von Neumann architecture. Then Hilbert space of such von Neumann quantum processor may be described as

$$=_p_c_d.$$
(5)
Let us use simplest example with “cyclic memory” (resembling Hg delayed-line memory of some old classical computers). In this example $`dim_c=M`$ and it is necessary to have possibility to perform any sequence of up to $`P`$ operators $`𝒖_c`$ with data register. Then it is possible to consider $`dim_p=M^P`$ (it is $`mP`$ qubits for $`M=2^m`$) and write basic states $`|p|c_p_c`$ as

$$|p|c|p;c|c_P,\mathrm{},c_1;c_0,$$
(6)
where $`c_i<M`$ are integer indexes and $`c_0c`$ is index in $`_c`$. It is possible to consider right cyclic shift operator $`𝖲_{\mathrm{𝗁𝖿𝗍}}`$ acting on $`_p_c`$ as

$$𝖲_{\mathrm{𝗁𝖿𝗍}}:|c_P,c_{P1}\mathrm{},c_1;c_0|c_0,c_P,\mathrm{},c_2;c_1$$
(7)
Now it is possible to compose application of $`𝖲_{\mathrm{𝗁𝖿𝗍}}`$ Eq. (7) operator on first two terms in Eq. (5) {$`_p_c`$} with $`𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}`$ on $`_c_d`$. Then it is possible to write for $`P`$ applications of such compound operator $`𝖲_{\mathrm{𝗁𝖿𝗍}}𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}`$

$$(𝖲_{\mathrm{𝗁𝖿𝗍}}𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}})^P:\left(|p;c|\psi \right)|p;c(𝒖_{c_P}\mathrm{}𝒖_{c_1}|\psi )$$
(8)
and it is possible to implement any sequence with $`P`$ operators using different programs $`|p;c`$.

It should be mentioned, that instead of cyclic shift operator it is possible to use arbitrary reversible algorithm for generation of indexes in register $`|c`$ and so general three-buses design may be depicted on Fig. 1. Here Hilbert spaces $`_p`$, $`_c`$ and $`_d`$ are called pseudo-classical, intermediate and quantum data buses respectively .

## 3 Hybrid quantum processors

Here is also revisited  an alternative approach for strictly universal quantum processor — to use continuous quantum variables in program register and discrete ones for data, i.e. hybrid quantum computer . In such a case number of different programs is infinite and it provides possibility to construct strictly universal hybrid quantum processor for initial (“deterministic”) design described by Eq. (2). It is enough to provide procedures for one-qubit rotations with three real parameters together with some finite number of two-gates .

Generalization to hybrid system with program register described by one continuous quantum variable and qubit data register is straightforward. The states of program register may be described as Hilbert space of functions on line $`\psi (x)`$. In coordinate representation a basis is

$$|q=\delta (xq);q\psi (x)=\psi (q).$$
(9)
Let’s represent some continuous family of gates $`𝒖_{(q)}`$ acting on data state, say controlled qubit rotations

$$𝜽_{j,(q)}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq𝝈_j),$$
(10)
where $`𝝈_j`$ are three Pauli matrices. It is possible to write continuous analog of Eq. (4):

$`𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}={\displaystyle 𝑑q\left(|qq|𝒖_{(q)}\right)},`$ (11)
$`𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}\left(\psi (x)|s\right)={\displaystyle \delta (xq)\psi (q)|𝒖_{(q)}s𝑑q}=\psi (x)|𝒖_{(x)}s,`$ (12)
where $``$ is omitted because $`|\psi |s`$ can be considered as product of scalar function $`\psi (x)`$ on complex vector $`|s`$. Finally:

$$𝖰_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}(|q|s)=|q|𝒖_{(q)}s.$$
(13)
It is convenient also to use momentum basis, i.e.:

$$|\stackrel{~}{p}=e^{ipx};\stackrel{~}{p}\psi (x)=e^{ipx}\psi (x)𝑑x\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p).$$
(14)
(where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is Fourier transform of $`\psi `$) and operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝖰}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝖰}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}=𝑑p\left(|\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{p}|𝒖_{(p)}\right),$$
(15)
$$\stackrel{~}{𝖰}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝖴}}(|\stackrel{~}{p}|s)=|\stackrel{~}{p}|𝒖_{(p)}s.$$
(16)
It has simpler physical interpretation. Let us consider scattering of some scalar particle on quantum system with two states (qubit). Then Eq. (16) can be written symbolically as:

$$\stackrel{|\mathrm{exp}(ikx)_1}{\text{ }}\stackrel{|s_2}{}\stackrel{𝒖_{(k)}|s_2}{}\stackrel{|\mathrm{exp}(ikx)_1}{\text{ }}$$

Using such approach with hybrid program register (few continuous variables for different qubit rotations and discrete ones for two-gates like CNOT), it is possible to suggest design of universal quantum processor with qubits data register.

Hilbert space of hybrid system with $`k`$ continuous and $`M=2^m`$ discrete quantum variables can be considered as space of $`^M`$–valued functions with $`k`$ variables

$$F(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k):^k^M.$$

For construction of universal processor it is possible to use three continuous variables for each qubit together with discrete variables for control of two-qubit gates (see Fig. 2).

## 4 Comparison with more traditional <br>models

On the one hand, model of von Neumann quantum processor discussed in present paper looks rather difficult for realization and author did not hear about any proposal for experimental implementation of such model. Of course, formally even Controlled-NOT or more general Controlled-U quantum gates satisfy QPU design Eq. (2), but they are too simple gates for serious discussions.

On the other hand, it is clear, that modern situation, when for control of quantum processing are used some macroscopic and even huge equipment may be not very convenient from point of view of possible further plan to design elementary quantum processors.

There is yet another advantage of discussed approach. Paradigm of hybrid quantum processor discussed above formally includes even more traditional design, because continuous quantum variables without superposition used in such model are analogues of classical variables like different kind of electro-magnetic (including light) signals used for construction of Hamiltonians for control of quantum gates almost in any approach to quantum processing.


text:
# Avoiding superluminal propagation of higher spin waves via projectors onto 𝑊² invariant subspaces.

## I Introduction.

The field theoretical description of interacting particles with spin $`>1`$ is a long standing problem. The interaction of a spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ Rarita-Schwinger (RS) field minimally coupled to an external electromagnetic field was shown to be inconsistent more than forty years ago sudarshan1 . Later on, Velo and Zwanziger observed superluminal propagation of the RS wave front in the presence of a minimally coupled electromagnetic field VZ1  and studied also the conditions under which the Proca field interacting with an external electromagnetic field propagates causally VZ2 . After these works many authors have addressed above problem from different perspectives and for different interactions todos  and the general feeling seems to be that it is not possible to construct a consistent quantum theory for massive particles with $`s>`$ 1.

At several decades of distance in looking afresh onto the equations of motion can lead to different understanding of this fundamental problem. Weinberg emphasizes in his textbook on quantum field theory Weinberg:mt  that the equation of motion satisfied by the Dirac field is nothing but the record about the way how one puts together the two irreducible representations, (1/2,0), and (0,1/2), of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group to form a field that transforms invariantly under parity. In a wider understanding, this means that the equations of motion satisfied by a field are just a consequence of the properties of the representations of the Homogeneous Lorentz Group (HLG) chosen by us to accommodate the field and the discrete symmetries we require to be realized in this space. Closely related arguments can be found, among others in WKT , ryder , MK97 , and prinind .

More recently, Refs. MK03 ; Gaby  studied covariant projectors onto invariant subspaces of the squared Pauli-Lubanski operator in the representation space of the four-vector–spinor and showed that the associated equations are free from the Velo-Zwanziger problem. The corresponding projectors for the $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ representation space were studied in MC  where it was shown that under minimal coupling a particle in this representation has the correct value for the spin gyromagnetic factor, $`g_s=\frac{1}{s}`$, thus proving Belinfante’s conjecture belinfante  from 1953.

In this work we explore the projectors onto the invariant subspaces of the Poincaré Casimir operators, the squared four-momentum and thesquared Pauli-Lubanski operator, for any $`s`$, and study propagation of the corresponding wave fronts along the lines of Refs. VZ1 ; VZ2 . The paper is organized as follows. In the next Section we recall in brief current description of higher spins and its relation to the Poincaré group. In Section III we suggest to describe higher spins as invariant subspaces of the Poincaré Casimirs. In Section IV we show that particles within this framework propagate causally in the presence of an electromagnetic field, thus avoiding the classical Velo-Zwanziger problem. The paper closes with a brief Summary.

## II Current description of fields and its relation to Poincaré group representations.

The primary classification of elementary systems is usually done by identifying them (up to form factors) with the irreducible representations (irreps) of the Poincaré group ($`PG`$). If so, then one necessarily has to consider particles as invariant spaces of the Casimir operators of this group– the squared four-momentum $`P^2`$, on the one side, and the squared Pauli-Lubanski operator $`W^2`$, on the other side and label them by their respective eigenvalues, $`p^2`$, and $`p^2s(s+1)`$, as $`|p^2,s(s+1)>`$. Further quantum numbers can be associated with the Casimir invariants of the underlying Homogeneous Lorentz Group (HLG), $`SO(1,3)`$, and are approached by the reduction chain $`PGSO(1,3)`$. For finite dimensional representations, the Casimir invariants of $`SO(1,3)`$ are frequently expressed in terms of two $`SU(2)`$ Casimirs, in turn denoted by $`\text{S}_L^2`$, and $`\text{S}_R^2`$, of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$, a group that is locally isomorphic to $`SL(2,C)`$, the universal covering of HLG. The two additional quantum labels gained in this manner are the well known left– and right handed ”angular momenta”, $`s_L`$, and $`s_R`$, respectively. Therefore, a covariant state labeling can be introduced as: $`|p^2,s(s+1);s_L,s_R>`$, with $`s=|s_Ls_R|,\mathrm{},s_L+s_R`$. In so doing one encounters essentially two types of finite dimensional HLG representations.

1. The first ones contain just one $`W^2`$ invariant subspace, and correspond to the case when one of the $`s_L`$, $`s_R`$ labels vanishes (i.e. either $`(s_L,0)`$, or $`(0,s_R)`$), and $`s_R=s_L`$. In such a case, $`s_{L/R}(s_{L/R}+1)=s(s+1)`$, equals the $`\left(\frac{1}{m^2}W^2\right)`$ eigenvalue in the space under consideration (see Eq. (20) below) and $`W^2`$ – and $`\text{S}_{L/R}^2`$ invariant spaces coincide. Irreps of the above type are suggestive of replacing $`W^2`$– by $`SU(2)`$ spin labels.

As long as the basic fields in physics are precisely of the above type (the Dirac field is $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$, the electromagnetic field strength tensor is $`(1,0)(0,1)`$, and scalars are just $`(0,0)`$) identifying Poincaré labels with $`SU(2)`$ spins works out without any harm.
2. The second ones are HLG irreps containing several $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces. In this case, both $`s_L`$, and $`s_R`$ are non-vanishing, and the irreps are of the type $`(s_L,s_R)`$ with $`s_L0`$, and $`s_R0`$. Examples are the vector–, and tensor gauge fields, $`(1/2,1/2)`$, and $`(1,1)`$, respectively. In the rest frame, $`W^2=\frac{1}{m^2}\text{ }\text{S}^2`$ hence $`W^2`$ and $`\text{ }\text{S}^2`$ invariant sub-spaces coincide. However, beyond rest frame, in flight, $`W^2`$ and $`\text{S}^2`$ invariant sub-spaces are no longer identical, a situation caused by the property of the boost to mix up SU(2) spins differing by one unit.

Often, Lorentz representations that contain as building blocks irreps of the second type, appear attractive for the description of higher spins, the classical examples being the totally symmetric $`K`$ rank Lorentz tensors with Dirac spinor components, generically denoted by $`\psi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}`$. They are exploited for the description of fields that have been labeled in the rest frame by the highest spin $`J=K+1/2`$. The separation between Lorentz and spinor indices inherent to such tensors makes them especially appealing for the construction of covariant fermion-boson vertices. However, one has to face the problem how to pick up the favored degrees of freedom and exclude interference with the unwanted ones. It seems inevitable to return back to the Poincaré invariants, if one wishes to distinguish all the degrees of freedom contained in $`\psi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _K}`$ in a covariant and transitionally invariant fashion. Yet, for one reason or the other, this is not the path tenaciously pursued by the theory. Rather, one still prefers to stay within the elaborated scheme of substituting $`W^2`$ by $`SU(2)`$ labels, but, yes, modify the latter scheme to account for the new situation in introducing constraints, considered as appropriate.

To be specific, in order to select out of $`\psi _\mu `$ (a field belonging to $`[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)`$) the $`W^2`$ invariant subspace that relates to spin $`3/2`$ at rest, one requires

$`(i^\mu \gamma _\mu m)\psi _\mu `$ $`=0,`$
$`^\mu \psi _\mu `$ $`=0,`$
$`\gamma ^\mu \psi _\mu `$ $`=0.`$ (1)
Exploiting constraints (some times termed to as auxiliary, or, supplementary, conditions) in place of $`W^2`$ quantum numbers brings the advantage to remain within the framework of equations linear in the momenta, and to work with four-dimensional Dirac spinors. However, these advantages reveal themselves as deceptive at the moment one has to face grave worries about compatibility of constraints and dynamics. Recall, that the constraints change upon gauging and one has to make sure that the modification is preserved in time by the equation of motion and the latter does not violate causality. Notice that covariance alone is indeed a necessary but not a sufficient condition for special relativity. For example, space-like intervals are doubtlessly covariant objects, but they are unacceptable for the description of free physical fields as they prescribe the particle to violate causality during propagation. Precisely a flaw of that very type was revealed by Velo and Zwanziger in Ref. VZ1  regarding the $`\gamma ^\mu \psi _\mu =0`$ constraint onto the four–vector spinor. Velo and Zwanziger showed that above constraint triggers acausal propagation of Rarita-Schwinger particles crossing an electromagnetic field.

In the present article we shall avoid above inconsistencies in developing a different view on form and content of wave equations for higher spins. Namely, we take the position that the equation of motion for whatever free particle has to be (i) a function of $`P^2`$ and $`W^2`$, the Casimir invariants of the Poincaré group, (ii) operates immediate, i.e. without any supplementary constraints, on the HLG representation chosen to embed the field as one of its covariant sectors111We shall design argumentation very general and in reference to any one Lorentz representation with more but one $`W^2`$ invariant subspace. The particular case of $`\psi _{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _K}`$ is then automatically accounted for..

Within this context, there are two primordial equations of motion to be satisfied by any field. One of them searches for $`P^2`$ invariant subspaces. It is nothing more but the Klein-Gordon equation. The other one secures in addition invariance under pseudo–rotations and pins-down $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces by means of appropriately constructed covariant projectors. It is that very latter type of equations on which we focus attention here. For the sake of self-sufficiency of the presentation, the subsequent Section opens with a brief review of the basics of space-time symmetries.

## III  Covariant wave equations for higher spins from $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces.

### III.1 Basics of Space-Time Transformations.

A general Poincaré transformation in space time can be written in the factorized form

$$g(b,\mathrm{\Lambda })=T(b)\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(2)
where $`T(b)=g(b,E)`$ (E denotes the unit matrix) is a translation and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=g(0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a proper Lorentz transformation. In the standard convention, the generators of the translation group in 1+3 time-space dimensions, $`𝒯`$ 1,3 , are $`P_\mu `$ in $`T(b)`$, which are commuting,

$$[P_\mu ,P_\nu ]=0.$$
(3)
The HLG transformation in coordinate space,

$$x_\mu ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu x_\nu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu =\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }L_{\mu \nu }\right],L_{\mu \nu }=X_\mu P_\nu X_\nu P_\mu ,$$
(4)
induces the following transformation for a field $`\psi (x)`$,

$$\psi ^{}(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }M_{\mu \nu }\right]\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }^1x).$$
(5)
Here, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$are continuous parameters, while the $`n\times n`$ matrices $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ represent a totally antisymmetric 2nd rank Lorentz tensor. They are the generators of the homogeneous Lorentz group in the representation space of interest, and satisfy the commutation relations of the associated algebra :

$$[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\alpha \beta }]=i(g_{\mu \alpha }M_{\nu \beta }g_{\mu \beta }M_{\nu \alpha }+g_{\nu \beta }M_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \alpha }M_{\mu \beta }).$$
(6)
Their commutators with the generators of the translation group read

$$[P_\mu ,M_{\alpha \beta }]=i(g_{\mu \alpha }P_\beta g_{\mu \beta }P_\alpha ),$$
(7)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,1)`$ is the metric tensor. The $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ generators consist of

$$M_{\mu \nu }=L_{\mu \nu }+S_{\mu \nu },[L_{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \nu }]=0,$$
(8)
where $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ in turn generate rotations in external coordinate– and internal representation spaces. The generators of boosts ($`𝒦_x,𝒦_y,𝒦_z`$) and rotations ($`J_x,J_y,J_z`$) are related to $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ via

$$𝒦_i=M_{0i},J_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M_{jk},$$
(9)
respectively.

### III.2 Pauli Lubanski Vector and Associated Casimir Invariant.

The Pauli–Lubanski (PL) vector is now defined as

$$W_\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }M^{\nu \alpha }P^\beta ,$$
(10)
where $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$. This operator can be shown to satisfy the commutators

$$[W_\alpha ,M_{\mu \nu }]=i(g_{\alpha \mu }W_\nu g_{\alpha \nu }W_\mu ),[W_\alpha ,P_\mu ]=0,$$
(11)
i.e. it transforms as a four-vector under Lorentz transformations. The remarkable point is that the external coordinate part of $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, namely the ”orbital” momentum $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, does not contribute to $`W_\mu `$ due to the anti-symmetric Levi-Civita tensor. As a result, $`W_\mu `$ restricts to

$$W_\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \tau }S^{\nu \rho }P^\tau ,$$
(12)
and its squared (in covariant form) is calculated to be

$$W^2=\frac{1}{2}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }P^2+G^2,G_\mu :=S_{\mu \nu }P^\nu .$$
(13)
The operators $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ act exclusively in the internal spin space and commute like

$$[S_{\mu \nu },S_{\alpha \beta }]=i(g_{\mu \alpha }S_{\nu \beta }g_{\mu \beta }S_{\nu \alpha }+g_{\nu \beta }S_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \alpha }S_{\mu \beta }).$$
(14)
As long as Eq. (14) has same form as Eq. (6), one may view $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ as generators of Lorentz transformations in the intrinsic space. However, in contrast to Eq. (7), $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ commute with the operators of translations

$$[P_\alpha ,S_{\mu \nu }]=0.$$
(15)
In effect, one does not find precisely Poincaré transformations in the internal space but rather a contracted form of them. Hereafter we will refer to the group generated by $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ as the “Internal Homogeneous Lorentz Group” ($``$HLG) to distinguish it from the HLG spanned by $`M_{\mu \nu }`$. In summary, one can write down generators of boosts and rotations in the internal space as

$$K_i=S_{0i},S_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}S_{jk}.$$
(16)
The internal HLG has by itself two Casimir invariants, in turn given by $`C_1=\frac{1}{4}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }`$, and $`C_2=`$ $`S_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{S}^{\mu \nu }`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \tau }S^{\rho \tau }`$. In terms of K, and S one finds

$$C_1=\frac{1}{2}(𝐒^2𝐊^2),C_2=i𝐒𝐊.$$
(17)
The latter equation allows to cast $`W^2`$ into the form

$$W^2=2C_1P^2+G^2.$$
(18)
For irreps of the type $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ where $`K_i=iS_i`$, one finds the insightful relation Gaby

$$G^2=W^2.$$
(19)
Insertion of Eq. (19) into Eq. (18) amounts to

$$W^2=𝐒^2P^2.$$
(20)
The latter relation explains the privileged position of $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ states to carry unique SU(2) spin both at rest (where $`W^2`$ any way reduces to $`𝐒^2m^2`$ in accord with Eq. (20)) and in flight. However, for all the other types of Lorentz representations, $`W^2G^2`$ and the $`\left(\frac{1}{m^2}W^2\right)`$ labels for particles in flight do not have the interpretation of ordinary $`SU(2)`$ spin. In the following we label $`W^2`$ invariant sub-spaces by $`s`$ but in general without any reference to SU(2) spin.

### III.3 Covariant projectors onto $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces.

To begin with we recall that the interpretation of elementary systems as Poincaré group irreducible representations requires any field to transform invariantly under the action of both $`P^2`$ and $`W^2`$. In the following we work with massive fields. The former invariance leads to the Klein-Gordon equation for any arbitrary field

$$\left(P^2m^2\right)\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(21)
Invariance under the action of $`W^2`$ results into the new condition

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^s(𝐩)\psi (𝐩)=\psi (𝐩),$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^s(𝐩)`$ stands for an appropriately constructed covariant projector onto the $`\left(p^2s(s+1)\right)`$ invariant subspace of $`W^2`$ in $`\psi (𝐩)`$. To be specific, for the case of the four-vector spinor, such projectors have been presented in Ref. MK03 . In general, equations of the type (22) are equivalent to

$$\left[W^2+P^2s(s+1)\right]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(23)
Next, it is necessary to account for the mass shell condition in Eq. (21). For this purpose, we sum up Eqs. (23) and (21) to obtain

$$\left[\frac{1}{s}W^2+sP^2+m^2\right]\psi (𝐩)=0,$$
(24)
and cast the latter equation into the explicitly covariant form

$$\left[t_{\mu \nu }P^\mu P^\nu m^2\right]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(25)
Here $`t_{\mu \nu }`$ stands for

$$t_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{s}(2C_1g_{\mu \nu }S_{\alpha \nu }S_\mu ^\alpha )sg_{\mu \nu },$$

$`C_1`$ denotes the first Casimir in Eq.(17) and $`S^{\beta \rho }`$ are the $`HLG`$ generators in the particular representation chosen for $`\psi (𝐩)`$. Their construction as solutions of the algebra of the Lorentz group for the representation space under consideration is straightforward ryder ; prinind ; MK03 .

Using now the gauge principle for electromagnetism in this equation we obtain

$$\left[\left(\frac{1}{s}(2C_1g_{\mu \nu }S_{\alpha \nu }S_\mu ^\alpha )sg_{\mu \nu }\right)\pi ^\mu \pi ^\nu m^2\right]\psi (𝐩)=0,$$
(26)
with $`\pi ^\mu =P^\mu +eA^\mu `$, and $`e`$ denoting the charge of the field $`\psi (𝐩)`$. Notice that Eq. (26) is a covariant matrix equation that operates in the vector space of the dimensionality of $`\psi (𝐩)`$. For example, when $`\psi (𝐩)`$ stands for the four-vector– spinor, $`W^2`$ is represented by a $`16\times 16`$ matrix. For the sake of illustration, we here bring the Lagrangian density for the lowest Rarita-Schwinger representation. It reads

$$(x)=\overline{\psi }(x)t_{\mu \nu }\pi ^\mu \pi ^\nu \psi (x)m^2\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x),$$
(27)
where $`\overline{\psi }(x)=\psi ^{}(x)(\gamma ^0g)`$ where $`g`$ is the matrix of the metric tensor. The definition of $`\overline{\psi }(x)`$ has to be performed for each representation individually. When applied to the Dirac representation $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ , Eq. (26) also has the great advantage to yield the correct value of the gyromagnetic factor, $`g_s=2`$. This is not fortuitous but reflects the general property of our master equation (26) to predict the correct value for the gyromagnetic ratio as $`g_s=\frac{1}{s}`$ for fields in $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ MC . Had we used instead Eq. (23) alone, we would have found the problematic case of $`g_s=\frac{1}{s(s+1)}`$.

With respect to $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$, Eq.(24) is nothing more but the Klein-Gordon equation for each field component. This is due to the fact that the squared Pauli-Lubanski vector for all $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ fields is just $`s(s+1)P^2\mathrm{𝟏}_{(2s+1)\times (2s+1)}`$. The $`W^2`$ Casimir invariant identifies only the spin content and remains indifferent to the discrete $`C`$, $`P`$, or, $`T`$ properties of the representation of interest. Recall that one has different options to stick together, say, $`(\frac{1}{2},0)`$ and $`(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ in depending on whether one wants $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ to diagonalize the parity–, $`\gamma ^0`$ or, the charge conjugation–, $`i\gamma _2K`$, operator. For parity eigenstates one ends up with the standard Dirac equation, while for $`C`$ parity states one finds again the Dirac equation but with a Majorana mass term, respectively. Notice however that, under gauging, this equation gives the right magnetic properties for $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ fields . This means that solutions to Dirac equation are solutions to Eq.(26) although the converse is not necessarily true since our equation specifies just the value of the spin.

For product representation spaces of the type $`\psi _{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _K}`$, the most interesting representation space for applications in hadron physics, the situation is different provided, one is tracking the highest spin. As long as the highest spins are non-degenerate, there is no confusion with parity doubling, as would be the case for the lower spins. For these reasons, Eq. (26) has its major merits with respect to the highest spins in the representations.

Next we study wave front propagation of particles described by means of Eq. (26) along the line of Refs. VZ1 ; VZ2 .

## IV Avoiding superluminal propagation of higher spin waves.

Wave propagation is associated with a hyperbolic system of partial differential equations CH . For such a class of differential equations the initial value problem can be posed on a class of surfaces ( ”space like” surfaces with respect to the equation of motion). The equations possess solutions with wave fronts traveling along rays at finite velocities. At any point on the surface, the rays form a cone that is entirely determined by the coefficients of the highest derivatives in the equation of motion CH . The wave front can be characterized by $`n_\text{ }^\mu =(n^0,𝐧)`$, the vectors normal to the characteristic surface. The system of equations is hyperbolic if $`n^0`$ is real for any $`𝐧`$. To find the normal vectors it is sufficient to first replace in the highest derivatives of the equation of motion $`P_\mu `$ by $`n_{\mu \text{ }}`$ and then calculate the determinant $`D(n)`$ (so called ”characteristic determinant” VZ2 ) of the matrix given by the corresponding coefficients.

### IV.1 Wave front propagation of the Klein-Gordon, Dirac and Rarita-Schwinger equations.

In cases when the coupling to external fields is carried by the lower derivatives in the equation of motion, such as, say, the Klein–Gordon equation, the ray cones for interacting and free fields coincide. Indeed, in the latter case and under minimal coupling one finds

$$\left[\pi ^\mu \pi _\mu m^2\right]\psi (𝐩)=\left[P^\mu P_\mu +e(P^\mu A_\mu +A^\mu P_\mu )+e^2A^\mu A_\mu m^2\right]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(28)
The vanishing of the characteristic determinant in this case yields

$$D(n)=\text{Det}(n^2)=n^2=0,$$
(29)
which has real $`n^0`$ for any $`𝐧`$. Same is true for Dirac particles, though not as obvious. As is well known, a Dirac particle coupled minimally to the electromagnetic field is described by

$$\left[\gamma ^\mu (P_\mu +eA_\mu )m\right]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(30)
Now, the resulting characteristic determinant is found to be the squared of Eq. (29)

$$D(n)=\text{Det}(\gamma ^\mu n_\mu )=(n^2)^2.$$
(31)
The vanishing of this determinant results once again into a ray cone that coincides with the light cone.

The wave front propagation of the solution of the Rarita-Schwinger set of equations was studied in great detail in Ref. VZ1 . To understand the essence of the latter work recall that Eqs. (1) or the analogous equation in the interacting case, can be derived from a Lagrangian, a method suggested by Fierz and Pauli FP . Within the latter framework not all the Euler-Lagrange equations appear as genuine equations of motion, meaning that some of them may not involve time derivatives, a property that qualifies them only as constraints onto the fields. Precisely this is the case for the Rarita-Schwinger framework discussed in Section II. As a consequence, any surface in space-time is a characteristic surface CH . The Rarita-Schwinger system of coupled equations turns to be equivalent to a system of hyperbolic equations supplemented by constraints that are conserved in time. In this case, the wave fronts of the constrained system are no longer given by the characteristic determinant of the Euler-Lagrange equations. Rather, it is necessary to find the genuine equation of motion, i.e. the one which (i) contains all the higher order derivatives needed for the complete characterization of the system, (ii) preserves the constraints in time. Finding such an equation in general introduces, in addition to the derivatives already present in the system of coupled equations, also new ones which as a rule spoil causal propagation, a result due to VZ1 ; VZ2 .

### IV.2 Wave front propagation of $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces.

In the present work we suggested an alternative formalism to the Rarita-Schwinger framework. Our proposal was to pin down the degrees of freedom of interest by means of Eq. (26). This equation was build upon the covariant projector onto the $`W^2`$ invariant vector spaces in the representation under consideration, and did not invoke any supplementary conditions. In this concern, it is worth to remark that the formalism does not deal with the whole representation space but only with one of its $`W^2`$ invariant sub-spaces. Below we prove that equations of the latter type do not suffer the Velo-Zwanziger problem upon gauging.

Firstly, we have to check that for all the degrees of freedom of $`\psi (𝐩)`$, the second order time-derivatives enter Eq. (26) with non-vanishing coefficients. This can be done in full generality in momentum space where

$$t_{00}=\frac{1}{s}(2C_1g_{00}S_{\alpha 0}S_0^\alpha )sg_{00}=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(32)
Therefore, for all $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces, the time derivative of each field component in Eq. (26) does not vanish. This equation will be hyperbolic if the solutions $`n^0`$ to $`D(n)=0`$ are real for any $`𝐧`$. In this case we must solve

$$\text{Det}\left[\frac{1}{s}W^2(n)sn^2\right]=0.$$
(33)
In order to demonstrate that (26) is a hyperbolic equation in the HLG representation space chosen for $`\psi (𝐩)`$ we here exploit decomposition of the latter into invariant subspaces of $`W^2`$.

The most transparent representation of $`W^2`$ is obtained in the basis of $`𝐩`$-dependent $`W^2`$ eigenstates where $`W^2`$ is block diagonal and equal to

$$W^2(P)=P^2\text{Diag}[s_1(s_1+1)\mathrm{𝟏}_{s_1},s_2(s_2+1)\mathrm{𝟏}_{s_2},\mathrm{}s_N(s_N+1)\mathrm{𝟏}_{s_N}].$$
(34)
Here $`\{s_1,s_2\mathrm{}s_N\}`$ label the different eigensubspaces of $`W^2`$ (one of them being $`s`$) in the representation of interest, while $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{s_j}`$ denotes the unit matrix of dimensionality $`(2s_j+1)\times (2s_j+1)`$. Notice that the dimensionality, $`(d)`$, of the representation space $`\psi (𝐩)`$ relates to the $`W^2`$ quantum numbers via $`d=_im_i(2s_i+1)`$, where $`m_i`$ is the multiplicity of $`s_i`$. The latter accounts for possible degeneracies of the $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces in $`\psi (𝐩)`$ with respect to further symmetries such like, say, one of the discrete space–time symmetries.

The determinant (33) is calculated as

$$\text{Det}\left[\frac{1}{s}W^2(n)sn^2\right]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(n^2(\frac{s_k(s_k+1)}{s}s)\right)^{2s_k+1}.$$
(35)
As long as for the integer/half-integer $`s`$ under consideration, there are no positive integers and half-integers $`s_k`$ satisfying

$$\frac{s_k(s_k+1)}{s}s=0,$$
(36)
the roots of the characteristic determinant are $`n^2=0`$. Thus the solutions have $`n^0`$ real for any $`𝐧`$, and Eq.(26) is a set of hyperbolic equations for the $`\psi (𝐩)`$ components. The characteristic surfaces are same for free and interacting particles, and the ray cone coincides with the light cone. In other words, the wave front propagation of $`W^2`$ invariant subspaces is free from the Velo–Zwanziger problem.

## V Conclusions and perspectives.

In the present article we advocate the idea to consider higher spins as invariant subspaces of the Casimir operators of the Poincaré group, the squared four-momentum and the squared Pauli-Lubanski vector, in a properly chosen representation of the HLG, $`\psi (𝐩)`$. In executing the idea we demonstrated that any higher spin is described in terms of one covariant matrix equation that (i) is determined exclusively by the HLG generators in $`\psi (𝐩)`$, (ii) is of the dimensionality of $`\psi (𝐩)`$, (iii) is always of second order in the momenta. We gauged this equation minimally and found the resulting particle propagation to be causal, thus avoiding the classical Velo-Zwanziger problem. Moreover, for the single spin valued $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ representations, our master equation (26) has the great advantage to predict the correct value for the gyromagnetic ratio, $`g_s=\frac{1}{s}`$, thus proving Belinfante’s conjecture belinfante  from 1953.

The development of a calculation scheme for interacting particles of higher spins from the perspective of the present work is underway.

## VI Acknowledgments

Work supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) Mexico under projects 37234-E and C01-39820 .


text:
# Large Radio Astronomy: next 70 Years Step

## 1 Introduction

Looking back, we can better predict our future. Few historical remarks. In Russian tradition, we divide the Radio history into Radio as a tool for ”People-to People” communication and Radio as a tool for ”People-to Nature” communication. Loomis (USA, 1876) had the first patent on wireless telegraph, much before Marconi and Popov, but Popov with his patent on ”Thunderstorm marker” was the first in ”People-to Nature” communication (Russia, 1897).During the last 100 years, Radio Astronomy made the really big step – from the atmospherics lightning to the Big Bang… It was demonstrated by many radio astronomers, that, by averaging of the small steps in the 5-10 Years intervals, practically all important parameters are improving exponentially during the whole history of Radio Astronomy (Popov point is on the same line).

Such big progress in Radio Astronomy tools, comparable only with computers science, resulted in transformation of ”Quantitative changes” into the ”Qualitative changes”. Below we suggest few examples.

1. From Milky Way to the End of the luminous Universe

2. From the ”FINAL PRODUCT” of the Universe activity (nearby objects) to the ”Initial Conditions”, (Inflation etc).

3. From ”Objects” to ”Proto objects” (CMB anisotropy)

4. From small addition to the Optical Astronomy to the ”Only Window” to the Early Universe, $`z>10`$.

In instrumentation:

1. From ”Receiver noise limited” devices to the ”Natural limited” devices (Galaxy and Metagalaxy noise, CMB anisotropy noise etc)

2. From Telescope dimension limits to the ”Natural limits” sets by physical size of objects (Compton Tb limit, e.g).

Both lists may be extended greatly.

It is not easy to predict the main scientific targets of interest for future Radio Astronomy. There was nice case with attempt to predict Physical science targets by M.A.Markov (later- famous theorists in Russian Academy of Science). He made the list of predictions, compiled after direct interview with world best experts in Physics of the first quarter of 20th century (including Einstein, Planck, Bohr, and many others) and checked these predictions 25 years later- NO ONE PREDICTION WAS CONFIRMED.

New unsolved problems with DARK Energy, Dark matter, Dark Ages and HE Physics will be as a long time scale targets, but we are going to talk here about possible revolution in the FACILITIES. Few remarks.

1. We shall begin with the new frequency domain, connected with deepest observations. Human main facilities in optical domain(eye, telescope) where adjusted nicely to the maximum emission of the Sun and to the atmospheric window (which again was adjusted by LORD to the Sun emission). For future civilization we have CMB emission as a major source of energy in the Universe, and it is happened by some reason that the Universe is the most transparent to the wavelengths where CMB has maximum of its emission (200GHz). New information about the width of this Window in the ”Angular scale- frequency plane” we received recently during the 3-Years long 25-frequencies monitoring of the 24 Hours in R.A. sky strip (,). New window happened to be wider and deeper (see fig.1,2), than it was suggested few Years ago just by strong extrapolation in frequency and in angular scales ().

We see, that sub-microK experiments are possible in the future.

2.Phase disturbance in the wavefront, introduced by the medium between the source under exploration and observer, strongly affect the information. 50 Years ago we believed, that atmospheric phase screen set absolute limit on the resolving power of the instruments. In Radio, we realized in 60th, that it is not the case, and wavefront restoration is possible. Later. it was demonstrated, that in optical domain it is possible also (Palomar experiment with non-redundant array of the holes in the aperture screen). Interplanetary scattering was removed also in the properly organized observation. Recently, gravitational lensing effects were corrected, and undisturbed map of the radio source was found. It is very interesting, how far we can go in this way.

3. Change the targets, from ”Objects” to ”Protoobjects”, results in the drastically change in requirements to the facilities. Instead of standard one (resolution, collecting surface etc) we need now in ” temperature resolution”. Up to now, there are no project which can work as deep as the Nature suggests. The main problem – even with no noise receiver – the integration time should be hundreds and thousands Years. One of the possible solution-next generation multi-elements array should be prepared not only to the registration $`E_iE_j`$ products, but also for $`(E_i)^2`$, that is, to the total power mode. Looking at the same sky pixel, it is possible to reduce the integration time by factor N (number of elements). Another way, which we try to test with the world greatest reflector RATAN-600 with giant unaberration field – multi-element focal plane array. Up to few thousands receivers may be put in the focal plane, each looking at the same pixel on the sky (see fig.3) (, and ”Cosmological Gene” project in www.sao.ru)

3. Up to now, the biggest in the collecting surface ground based project was suggested in 1964 to the IAU meeting (Hamburg) by Pulkovo radioastronomers (5 $`10^6m^2`$ ring reflector array, ). It was too early, but now several well documented projects with close collecting surface and with modern phase imaging concept are under discussion. Here we want to stress, that using simple extrapolation low, we should be ready to the $`10^8m^210^9m^2`$ Radio telescopes in the middle of the 21 century. Up to now, there are no suggestions for this Radio telescopes class. Here we suggest two unusual (but possible) ways of realization of $`10^9m^2`$ project.

a) From ”dedicated” to ”private” facilities.

Even if someone is not interested in the science, but just has switched on his personal ”People-to People” device with omnidirectional antenna (dipole, e.g.), he receives (see in TV mode, listening in the audio mode) all cosmic radiation above the horizon, including discrete objects and CMB. The level of this radiation may be from few percent to almost $`100\%`$ of the personal equipment noise.

As is stated by the most powerful companies, in the distant future practically all Earth population will use personal People-to-People broad band communication facilities, interconnected through the global communication systems. With predicted 10-20 billion population, the collecting surface of the personal dipole type antenna will be not very far from $`10^9m^2`$,see fig.4. Phase adjustments may be properly introduced to the communication signals, and all population may be organized as an giant phased array with big collecting surface, VLBI type resolution and better than VLA image quality ().

b) Solar System resources.

As was discovered by the first generation Radar exploration of the Moon, the first Frehnel zone is well visible in the reflected signal. The same was found in other cases- from all Earth type planets to about 100 minor planets (asteroids). The size of the first zone is about $`(R\lambda )^{1/2}`$ and even for minor planets it has about 1000 $`m^2`$ surface. The reflection is not ideal, only few percent, but it was found recently through SDSS survey, that number of asteroids with size more than 50 km increases now to 57000 . They are scattered in the solar system inside the about 10 a.e. radius,see fig.5. It is suggested, that the real number may as big as $`10^8`$. It means, that the total reflecting surface of these flying radio telescopes is much bigger, than SKA (). It is important, that this array has nano-arcsecond resolution, about billion $`m^2`$ surface, and also the whole sky field of view. With big dedicated radio telescope we can put first Frehnel zone into the near field zone, and collect the signals without distance -dependent losses.

c) From uv- to uvw synthesis.

With item b) type array all, deviations from the plane wavefront of radiation, coming from point source at $`c/H_0`$ (c- light velocity, $`H_0`$\- Hubble constant) distance may be comparable with wavelength, that is the whole Universe will be in the near field zone of ecliptic array. It means, that cosmological parallaxies may be measured, and 3-dimensional aperture synthesis may be realized ().

d) From single pixel Radio Telescopes to the All Sky field of view with the same pixel sensitivity.

It is well known, that ideal instrument should read all information available in the Wolf Coherent function, $`W(r,\tau )`$, where r is the space distance between two points on the collecting surface and $`\tau `$ is the time lag between these signals. Space structure and frequency spectrum may be collected from this function. The problem is, that reflectors can solve this problem only at the optical axes, that is ONE PIXEL solution may be found. Aperture synthesis array are better, but just 1/GAIN field of view may be realized (GAIN=Physical array element surface$`/(4\pi \lambda ^2)`$. We hope, that by some way the field of view problem will be solved, and all sky may be mapped with greater sensitivity than achieved now with VLA in the one-arcmin. field.

## 2 Conclusion

We predict the ”Second Birth” of the Radio Astronomy, and not only due to expected e-fold increase of the facilities potential, but also due to drastically change in the role it will play in the future; from secondary (to optical domain) to the ”prima ballerina” role at $`z>10`$