text:
# K-calculus in 4-dimensional optics

## 1 Introduction

In recent times the author has written several papers on the subject of his proposed alternative to general relativity,  all of them rejected by the journals to which they were submitted; refs.  and  were accepted as posters in conferences. The main reason for rejection can be found in the words of one referee:

> The foundation of the author’s model is inconsistent with SR (special relativity). In particular, he gives no compelling reason why we should abandon SR which is a highly successful theory. Just to turn to an alternative speculation since, according to the author, SR is too complicated, is no sufficient reason. Therefore I have no option but to suggest to the editor of the … to reject this paper.

One should therefore ask why any effort should be made to set up an alternative to an existing theory that has proven so successful. There are at least two reasons to do so: In the first place any theory is just as good as the predictions it allows for observable phenomena and if two competing theories allow the same predictions they are equally good until some phenomenon is better predicted by one of them. Until one is proven better than the other, the coexistence of the two theories allows different perspectives which can only enhance our understanding of the underlying physics. Secondly general relativity has failed to explain properly a number of phenomena, see for instance , while people keep trying to merge it with the other main physical theory, the standard model. This suggests that there may be some other theory that unifies everything, the most successful so far being string theory .

The field is wide open for new ideas that combine the best of general relativity and the standard model, proving capable of predictions as accurate as those provided by these two theories but somehow having an entirely different approach. One must always keep in mind that any model or theory is just a representation of reality and not reality itself, the latter being rather difficult to define without resorting to the observer’s own perception. In the present paper the author adopts an approach to his theory based on the K-calculus by Herman Bondi , which has been so successful in introducing relativity to undergraduates all over the world. In his previous works the author used a different approach and he hopes that this effort may render the theory more acceptable to those that have difficulty accepting that there may be alternatives to relativity. Furthermore there issues related to simultaneity which have not been addressed so far and are clarified in the present work.

The coordinate system used in 4-dimensional optics, henceforth referred to as 4DO, differs from the relativistic space-time in complementing the 3 spatial coordinates ($`x^1=x`$, $`x^2=y`$, $`x^3=z`$) with a 0th coordinate ($`x^0=\tau `$) such that time becomes a measure of geodesic arc length in Euclidean space. Using the usual simplification of making $`c=1`$,

$$\left(\mathrm{d}t\right)^2=\left(\mathrm{d}\tau \right)^2+\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{d}y\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{d}z\right)^2.$$
(1)
This equation is valid on tangent space only; for the more general situation of curved space the definition is extended as

$$\left(\mathrm{d}t\right)^2=g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{d}x^\alpha \mathrm{d}x^\beta ,$$
(2)
with $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ the movement metric, rather than the space metric as in general relativity .

Understanding the meaning of coordinate $`\tau `$ is crucial for proper handling of the theory in the most general situations, so it was felt necessary to develop the basic theory in a way similar to what is usually used to introduce relativity in undergraduate courses, thereby giving the reader a good means for assessing the similarities and differences between the two theories. The author chooses to follow an introductory path closely similar to what was introduced by Bondi  and later used by other authors, namely Martin  and D’Inverno . For an observer traveling at speed $`v`$, Bondi introduced the $`K`$ factor

$$K=\sqrt{\frac{c+v}{cv}},$$
(3)
which has since been used to identify this approach as *K-calculus*.

It is useful to remember that in 4DO the speed as we see it, what will be designated by 3-speed, is actually the 3-dimensional component of a 4-vector with the magnitude of the speed of light. This was first explained in an introductory work by the author  and later developed in the works cited previously. This approach ensures that 3-speed is bound by the speed of light without resorting to hyperbolic space, as is the case in relativity. Besides, it has been shown that 4DO holds the potential for explaining physical processes which relativity has failed to account for satisfactorily.

## 2 Coordinate definition

Bondi resorts to imaginary radar pulses bouncing on a distant observer and a clock for the definition of space and time coordinates. The idea is that the observer fixed on the laboratory frame investigates the space around him with the help of radar pulses and a clock. When a radar pulse is sent the observer records the send instant $`\tau _1`$ and when the echo is received from some location in space the observer records the receive instant $`\tau _3`$ and the direction angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$; the reflection instant $`\tau _2`$ is inaccessible to the observer. The direction angles provide two of the position coordinates; remembering that the speed of light is set to unity, the third position coordinate is the distance to the reflecting object

$$r=\frac{\tau _3\tau _1}{2}.$$
(4)
The time coordinate is naturally given by

$$t=\frac{\tau _3+\tau _1}{2}.$$
(5)
Conversely 4DO replaces the time coordinate with a coordinate defined by the reflection instant

$$\tau =\tau _2.$$
(6)
The locus of an observer’s points in either space is said to define the observer’s worldline in that particular space. The graphical representation of 4-dimensional spaces is difficult, so it is usual to suppress two spatial dimensions in order to represent a 2-dimensional section of the space or to suppress one spatial dimension and project the resulting 3-dimensional section on the plane as a perspective diagram; this paper uses mainly the 2-dimensional section representation.

Suppose now an observer moving with uniform velocity $`v`$ in the laboratory frame. This observer’s worldline is a straight line on both systems and for convenience it can be assumed that it passes through the coordinate origin. In 2 dimensions the observer’s worldline has an equation $`x=vt`$; using Eqs. (4, 5) one can write

$$\tau _3\tau _1=v\left(\tau _3+\tau _1\right),$$
(7)
which leads to the relation

$$\tau _3=\frac{1+v}{1v}\tau _1.$$
(8)
Considering the K-factor definition, Eq. (3), it is

$$\tau _3=\tau _1K^2.$$
(9)
Two inertial observers A and B are now considered, the latter moving with velocity $`v`$ relative to A. Fig. 1 shows the Minkowski space-time worldlines of the two observers as two straight lines diverging from the origin. The origin placement at the point of intersection of the two worldlines does not represent any limitation on the problem conditions. At instant $`\tau _0`$ observer A launches a radar pulse which is bounced back and forth successively between the two observers. The radar pulse moves at the speed of light with respect to both observers so, in observer A’s frame its worldline is a broken line with alternating segments of slope $`+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively. The radar pulses worldlines follow the general equation $`t=\pm x+\tau _{2m2}`$, with $`m`$ integer.

Observe that the $`K`$-factor is the same for both observers and so it is possible to write Eq. (8) generally as

$$\tau _{n+1}=\frac{1+v}{1v}\tau _{n1}=\tau _{n1}K^2.$$
(10)
The last equation defines recursively a succession of general term

$$\tau _n=\tau _0K^n.$$
(11)
It is now possible to use Eq. (11) as an alternative to Eq. (6) for the definition of the $`\tau `$ coordinate

$$\tau _n=\sqrt{\tau _{n+1}\tau _{n1}}.$$
(12)
Comparing with Eq. (5) it becomes clear that while Minkowski space-time defines time as the arithmetic mean between the send and receive instants, 4DO uses a coordinate defined as the geometric mean between the same instants for $`\tau `$. This coordinate will be designated *proper time* in view of its relationship with the similarly designated quantity in relativistic theory .

Eq. (5) can be used to relate $`t_n`$ and $`\tau _n`$ eliminating $`\tau _{n+1}`$ and $`\tau _{n1}`$ from the following three equations:

$$\tau _n=K\tau _{n1},\tau _{n+1}=K\tau _n,t_n=\frac{\tau _{n+1}+\tau _{n1}}{2},$$

resulting in

$$t_n=\gamma \tau _n,$$
(13)
where

$$\gamma =\frac{K+K^1}{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}.$$
(14)
Eqs. (12 or 13) allow the construction of a graphic representation for the two observers’ 4DO worldlines using coordinates $`x,\tau `$. Observer A’s worldline is drawn as the $`\tau `$ axis, because this observer does not move in his own frame. For observer B it is sufficient to plot the successive pairs $`(x_n,\tau _n)`$ and join them by a straight line; B worldline’s slope is $`\tau _n/x_n`$ and considering Eq. (13) it is easily seen that this slope is given by $`\gamma /v`$. Obviously light and radar pulses have $`v=1`$ and must be represented by horizontal lines of zero slope.

The final graph is shown in Fig. 2 but the interaction between radar pulses and observers needs some explanation. When the two observers leave the origin they have synchronous clocks; time, however, is then evaluated separately over each observer’s worldline. When A launches the first radar pulse, at instant $`\tau _0`$, the pulse is synchronous with A’s clock and evaluates time over it’s own worldline. The pulse’s time is compared with B’s own time at every point along the way; only when they coincide can interaction occur and this happens beyond the crossing point of the two worldlines on the graph. On B’s frame the interaction instant $`t_1`$ is translated into the proper time $`\tau _1`$; this is represented by a dashed vertical line joining the pulse’s and B’s worldlines.

The reflected pulse must suffer a similar process, only the roles of observers A and B are now interchanged. The dashed lines representing the reflected pulses at $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _3`$ must not be mistaken by these pulses worldlines, because they are the representation of worldlines on B’s frame. On A’s frame the instants $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _3`$ are inaccessible and the pulses actually return at $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _4`$, respectively.

From Eqs. (13 and 14) it is clear that $`\tau _n`$, $`vt_n`$ and $`t_n`$ are the sides of a rectangular triangle. Remembering that $`x_n=vt_n`$, it is possible to write

$$t^2=\tau ^2+x^2.$$
(15)
The subscripts have been suppressed because the relation most hold for pulses sent out irrespective of the particular initial instant $`\tau _0`$.

A simple geometrical construction can be used to plot the points of the moving observer’s worldline, Fig. 3.

If a radar pulse is sent at $`\tau _o`$ and its reflection is received at $`\tau _2`$, a circle is drawn with diameter $`\tau _2\tau _0`$ and, according to Eq. (4), the moving observer is at a distance $`x_1`$ equal to the circle radius. Considering Eq. (5) the time $`t_1`$ for the moving observer is equal to the distance from the origin to the center of the circle. A new circle is now drawn with center at the origin and radius equal to the value of $`t_1`$, in order to transport this value to the moving observer’s position. The value of coordinate $`\tau _1`$ is automatically found by the intersection of the second circle with the vertical line at position $`x_1`$. The same process can then be repeated for all the pairs of sent, received pulses.

## 3 Interval

Consider now how two different inertial observes ”see” a third one. Fig. 4 a)

is a Minkowski space-time representation of the worldlines of two observers A and B, B moving with speed $`v`$ relative to A, and a third observer $`𝒫`$, moving with speed $`u`$ relative to B. The first two observers use the radar formulas (4, 5, 12) to compute $`𝒫`$’s coordinates. Note first of all that

$$\frac{\tau _1}{\tau _0}=K_v,\frac{\tau _2}{\tau _1}=K_u,\frac{\tau _3}{\tau _2}=K_u,\frac{\tau _4}{\tau _3}=K_v.$$
(16)
The coordinates of $`𝒫`$ evaluated by the two observers are

$$\begin{array}{cc}x_A=(\tau _4\tau _0)/2,\hfill & x_B=(\tau _3\tau _1)/2,\hfill \\ t_A=(\tau _4+\tau _0)/2,\hfill & t_B=(\tau _3+\tau _1)/2,\hfill \\ \tau _A=\sqrt{\tau _0\tau _4},\hfill & \tau _B=\sqrt{\tau _1\tau _3}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
by direct replacement of $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _3`$ from Eqs. (16) it is possible to conclude that $`\tau _A=\tau _B=\tau _2`$, i. e. the proper time coordinate is independent of the inertial observer’s own speed, as long as its worldline passes through the origin. This conclusion can be seen as equivalent to interval invariance in Minkowski space-time  .

The representation of Fig. 4 b) shows how the situation discussed above appears in 4DO space. The outgoing pulse at $`\tau _0`$ is detected by observer B at $`\tau _1`$ and by $`𝒫`$ at $`\tau _2`$. The return pulse is sent by $`𝒫`$ at $`\tau _2`$ but is here represented by its worldline in the laboratory frame, at $`\tau _4`$, unlike Fig. 2. Observer B detects the return pulse at $`\tau _3`$.

It is possible to combine Eqs. (16 and 17) to obtain

$$t_A^2=\tau _A^2+x_A^2,t_B^2=\tau _B^2+x_B^2.$$
(18)
Eqs. (18) mean that the quantity $`t^2`$ can be evaluated as $`\tau ^2+x^2`$ by any observer whose worldline passes by the origin. If the problem is given a more general formulation, in 4 dimensions and without the restriction of the worldlines having to cross at the origin, it can be said that

$$\left(\mathrm{d}t\right)^2=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{d}x^\alpha \mathrm{d}x^\beta ,$$
(19)
which is equivalent to saying that *time is a measure of geodesic arc length in Euclidean 4DO space*.

The important results are then: 4DO space is Euclidean, with time intervals being measured over the worldline of the observer. In a change of coordinates from one observer to a different one, which is in motion relative to the former, time intervals are not preserved but rather proper time intervals.

In Minkowski space-time it is well known that the interval is preserved in coordinate transformations and is given by

$$\left(\mathrm{d}\tau \right)^2=\eta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\alpha }}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\beta }},$$
(20)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\eta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=1,\hfill & \overline{\alpha }=\overline{\beta }=0;\hfill \\ \eta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=1,\hfill & \overline{\alpha }=\overline{\beta }0;\hfill \\ \eta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=0,\hfill & \overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
for the set of coordinates

$$x^0=t,x^1=x,x^2=y,x^3=z.$$
(22)
The bar over the indices is here used to designate Minkowski space-time coordinates.

Eqs (18 and 20) provide the rules for elementary displacement transformation when changing from one space to the other. Assume that the vector $`\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ is expressed in Minkowski space-time and must be transformed to 4DO space; the transformation rule is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{d}x^\alpha =\sqrt{\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\mu }}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\nu }}},\hfill & \alpha =0;\hfill \\ \mathrm{d}x^\alpha =\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\mu }},\hfill & \alpha =\overline{\mu }0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
The opposite transformation follows a similar rule

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\alpha }}=\sqrt{\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu },\hfill & \overline{\alpha }=0;\hfill \\ \mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\alpha }}=\mathrm{d}x^\mu ,\hfill & \overline{\alpha }=\mu 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
It is possible to define the 4-velocity for an observer in the two spaces as $`\dot{x}^\alpha =\mathrm{d}x^\alpha /\mathrm{d}t`$ and $`\dot{x}^{\overline{\alpha }}=\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\alpha }}/\mathrm{d}t`$, respectively, with the $`t`$ derivatives taken over the worldline. The 4-velocity transformation between the two spaces follows rules similar to those expressed by Eqs. (23, 24) with $`\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ and $`\mathrm{d}x^\alpha `$ replaced by $`\dot{x}^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ and $`x^\alpha `$.

## 4 Lorentz equivalent transformations

The subject of this paragraph has already been considered in  but needs to be reviewed here for completeness. Our approach to coordinate transformation between observers moving relative to each other is different from special relativity; while in the latter case the interval is given by Eq. (20), thus ensuring that a coordinate transformation preserves the interval and affects both spatial and time coordinates, our option of making time intervals measure geodesic arc length gives time a meaning independent of any coordinate transformation. We thus propose that Lorentz equivalent transformations between a ”fixed” or ”laboratory” frame and a moving frame are a combination of two simultaneous processes. The first process is a tensorial coordinate transformation, which changes the coordinates keeping the origin fixed, with no influence in the way time is measured, while the second process corresponds to a ”jump” into the moving frame, changing the metric but not the coordinates.

It has been established in page 2 that photons follow worldlines of $`\mathrm{d}\tau =0`$ and carry the value of the $`\tau `$ coordinate across the Universe, which was confirmed in page 17 by the verification that proper time intervals were independent of the observer. On the other hand the time interval must also evaluate to the same value on all coordinate systems of the same frame, due to its definition as interval of 4DO space.

One can consider observers $`O`$ and $`\overline{O}`$, the latter moving along one geodesic of $`O`$’s coordinate system, as depicted in Fig. 5. Let the geodesic equation have a parametric equation $`x^\alpha ^{}(t)`$. The aim is to to find a coordinate transformation tensor between the two observers’ coordinate systems, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{\mu }}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=x^{\overline{\mu }}/x^\alpha `$; it has already established that $`\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{0}}=\mathrm{d}x^0`$ and so it must be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{0}}{}_{0}{}^{}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{0}}{}_{i}{}^{}=0`$.

A photon traveling parallel to the $`x^1`$ direction follows a geodesic characterized by $`\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}x^1`$ on $`O`$’s coordinates. On $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates the photon will move parallel to $`x^{\overline{1}}`$ and so it must be also $`\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{1}}`$. The same behaviour could be established for all three $`(x^i,x^{\overline{i}})`$ coordinate pairs and one concludes that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{i}{}_{\overline{i}}{}^{}=1`$.

Consider now two points $`𝒫_1`$ and $`𝒫_2`$ on a line parallel to $`x^0`$ axis in $`O`$’s coordinates, separated by a time interval $`\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}x^0`$. On $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates it will be

$$\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{i}}=\dot{x}^i^{}\mathrm{d}t=\frac{\dot{x}^i^{}}{\dot{x}^0^{}}\mathrm{d}x^0,$$
(25)
allowing the conclusion that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{i}}{}_{0}{}^{}=\dot{x}^i^{}/\dot{x}^0^{}=\stackrel{˘}{x}^i`$, where the notation $`\stackrel{˘}{x}^i`$ is used for derivation with respect to $`\tau `$. Fig. 5 shows graphically the relation between the two coordinate systems.

The coordinate transformation tensor between $`x^\alpha `$ and $`x^{\overline{\mu }}`$ is consequently defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{\mu }}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^1^{}& 1& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^2^{}& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^3^{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].$$
(26)
The reverse transformation is obtained changing the sign of $`\stackrel{˘}{x}^i`$.

The metric for $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates can now be evaluated

$$g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\overline{\mu }}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\beta }{}_{\overline{\nu }}{}^{}g_{\alpha \beta };$$
(27)
and after substitution it is

$$g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1+\delta _{a^{}b^{}}\stackrel{˘}{x}^a^{}\stackrel{˘}{x}^b^{}& \stackrel{˘}{x}^1^{}& \stackrel{˘}{x}^2^{}& \stackrel{˘}{x}^3^{}\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^1^{}& 1& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^2^{}& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^3^{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].$$
(28)
The metric given by the previous equation will evaluate time in $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates in a frame which is fixed relative to $`O`$, that is, this is still time as measured by observer $`O`$. Observer $`\overline{O}`$ will measure time intervals $`\mathrm{d}\overline{t}`$ in his own frame and so, although the coordinates are the same as they were in $`O`$’s frame, time is evaluated with the Kronecker metric $`\delta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}`$ instead of metric given by Eq. (28). Mathematically the metric replacement corresponds to the identity

$$\delta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=\left(g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}\right)^1g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}.$$
(29)
It was said in page 4 that the transition from the laboratory frame to a moving observer’s frame was the result of two separate processes, one of which was responsible for the change of coordinates and the other one for the time change. The first process can now be identified with a coordinate change governed by the tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{\mu }}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$, while the second one involves multiplication of the metric by $`g^{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}`$. The second process is intrinsically separate from the first one and was used in  to derive the Lorentz force due to a moving charge and the center of mass equivalent of an orbiting mass.

Note that this double process preserves the essential relationship of special relativity, i. e. $`\mathrm{d}\overline{t}^2\delta _{\overline{i}\overline{j}}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{i}}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{j}}=\mathrm{d}t^2\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j`$.

### 4.1 Time contraction for a moving observer

Eq. (18) established that time intervals should be measured by the arc length of an observer’s worldline. Recalling Fig. 5, the time measured for observer $`\overline{O}`$’s trajectory in the laboratory frame of observer $`O`$ is given by $`\mathrm{d}t=\gamma \mathrm{d}\tau `$, according to Eq. (13). Observer $`\overline{O}`$ is at rest in his own frame and sees his frame axes normal to each other, i.e. he uses the Kronecker metric, and so he measures for himself a time interval $`\mathrm{d}\overline{t}=\mathrm{d}\tau `$. Obviously $`\mathrm{d}\overline{t}<\mathrm{d}t`$ and so we say that the time measured by a moving observer runs slower than the time measured on the laboratory frame.

At this point it is useful to give physical meaning to the coordinate $`\tau `$, so that 4DO is understood as a space with physical significance. This space is designed to represent the movement of observers through 3-dimensional space. Accordingly it uses the standard coordinates to identify the observers’ positions, eventually scaled by the observers’ masses as described in Refs. . The 0th coordinate $`\tau `$ does not have a Universal meaning, as was shown in the previous paragraph; it is just the time indicated by the observers’ own clocks and so it does deserve to be called proper time. The fact that coordinate $`\tau `$ can be identified with each observer’s own time is of no consequence for the representation of his own worldline but becomes important when two observers interact, for then time must evaluate to the same value when both observers’ worldlines are represented in a common frame. The problems of interaction between observers and the concept of simultaneity will be dealt with in paragraph 7.

### 4.2 The twin paradox in optical space

It is customary to discuss the case of two twins $`A`$ and $`B`$, of which $`A`$ stays at home, remaining inertial at all times, while $`B`$ goes on an extended space flight at high speed before he eventually joins $`A`$ back home. The reasoning is that as $`B`$’s time is constantly running slower than $`A`$’s, $`B`$ must come back younger than $`A`$.

In 4DO the argument is inconsistent because one must distinguish between the time measurements on the frames of the two twins. In fact $`B`$’s time measured on his own frame is shorter than his time measured by $`A`$ on the fixed frame. On the other hand $`B`$’s time measured by himself is exactly the same as $`A`$’s time measured on the fixed frame and the two twins actually grow old together. A proper discussion of this problem should not ignore the fact that $`B`$’s frame is necessarily accelerated and this has also an influence on the way clocks run.

## 5 Lagrangean definitions for geodesics in Minkowski and 4DO

If $`\sigma `$ is a parameter along a geodesic, for any space the geodesic equations can be derived from the Lagrangean

$$L(x^\alpha ,\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\alpha }{\mathrm{d}\sigma })=g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\alpha }{\mathrm{d}\sigma }\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\beta }{\mathrm{d}\sigma }.$$
(30)
The geodesic equations are then

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma }\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\frac{L}{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^\alpha }{\mathrm{d}\sigma }}}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\frac{L}{x^\alpha }=0,$$
(31)
with $`n1`$ independent equations on an $`n`$-dimensional space. If the geodesic arc length is chosen as parameter the Lagrangean becomes unity.

It can be shown that the geodesic equations are equivalent in Minkowski and optical spaces. For this one chooses arc length as parameter in both spaces and derives the geodesic equations starting from the Lagrangean.

Considering Eq. (20), in 2-dimensional Minkowski space-time the Lagrangean is

$$L_\mathrm{M}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\right)^2=1.$$
(32)
As the Lagrangean is independent of $`t`$ one can write

$$\frac{L_\mathrm{M}}{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}}=2\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(33)
Making the second member of the equation above equal to $`2\gamma `$ and replacing in Eq. (32)

$$1=\gamma ^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\right)^2.$$
(34)
Noting that $`\mathrm{d}x/\mathrm{d}\tau =\gamma \mathrm{d}x/\mathrm{d}t=\gamma v`$

$$1=\gamma ^2\left(1v^2\right),$$
(35)
which is an equation equivalent to Eq. (14).

Considering now a 2-dimensional section of 4DO space and using again arc length as parameter, the Lagrangean is

$$L_\mathrm{O}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\mathrm{d}t}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)^2=1.$$
(36)
The fact that the Lagrangean does not depend on $`\tau `$ allows one to set $`\mathrm{d}\tau /\mathrm{d}t=1/\gamma `$ and replace above to get

$$\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}+v^2=1,$$
(37)
the same as Eq. (35).

Eqs. (34, 35) were both derived from the Lagrangeans and state the basic relationship between time and proper time that had been established before. It is then clear that both spaces are equally adequate for derivation of the geodesic equations.

Although the geodesic equations are the same in both spaces the Lagrangeans are not equivalent; when $`t`$ is used as parameter in Eq. (30) the Minkowski Lagrangean simplifies to $`L_\mathrm{M}=1v^2`$ while the 4DO Lagrangean is still given by Eq. (36). The implications of this difference will be discussed below.

## 6 Hamiltonian and particle energy

The Hamiltonian of a system is a function of coordinates, conjugate momenta and a parameter, that describes the system evolution in phase space. Phase space associated with 4-dimensional coordinate space should then be 9-dimensional. In classical mechanics one is usually led to use time as parameter, thus eliminating two dimensions in phase space. What follows compares phase spaces associated with 2-dimensional sections of Minkowski and 4DO spaces.

It has been established that the Lagrangean must be unity when expressed in terms of the arc length so the action in Minkowski space-time is

$$\delta ds=\delta \sqrt{(\mathrm{d}t)^2(\mathrm{d}x)^2}=\delta \sqrt{1\dot{x}^2}dt=0,$$
(38)
with ”dot” used to represent time derivative. The Lagrangean with time as parameter can then be taken as

$$L_\mathrm{M}=\sqrt{1\dot{x}^2}=\frac{1}{\gamma },$$
(39)
from which it is possible to derive the conjugate momentum

$$p_\mathrm{M}=\frac{L_\mathrm{M}}{\dot{x}}=\gamma \dot{x},$$
(40)
and the Hamiltonian

$$H_\mathrm{M}=p_\mathrm{M}\dot{x}L_\mathrm{M}=\frac{1}{\gamma }.$$
(41)
Eq. (41) justifies the statement that a unit mass body’s energy is given by $`1/\gamma `$ and quite naturally, if the body has mass $`m`$ one says that the energy increases proportionally.

Looking at 4DO space one can perform a similar derivation; the action is now

$$\delta dt=\delta \sqrt{(\mathrm{d}\tau )^2+(\mathrm{d}x)^2}=\delta \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\right)^2}d\tau =0.$$
(42)
from which the Lagrangean and conjugate momentum with $`\tau `$ as parameter can be derived

$`L_\mathrm{O}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma =\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx}{d\tau }}\right)^2},`$ (43)
$`p_\mathrm{O}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_\mathrm{O}}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\tau }}.`$ (44)
Note that $`p_\mathrm{O}=\dot{x}/(\gamma \dot{\tau })`$ and considering Eq. (13) $`p_\mathrm{O}=\dot{x}`$.

The Hamiltonian becomes

$$H_\mathrm{O}=p_\mathrm{O}\frac{x}{\tau }L_\mathrm{O}=\frac{1}{\gamma }.$$
(45)
It is tempting to see the fact that $`H_\mathrm{M}=H_\mathrm{O}`$ as a confirmation that both spaces are equivalent for the study of a body’s movement. This is actually not quite true!

The differences arise when the body is influenced by a coordinate dependent potential $`V`$, in which case one should write $`H=m/\gamma +V`$; in Minkowski space one gets the familiar canonical equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{H}{x},$$
(46)
while in 4DO space it is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{O}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }=\gamma \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left(\frac{p_\mathrm{M}}{\gamma }\right)=\frac{H}{x}.$$
(47)
The difference between Eqs. (46) and (47) exists only when $`\gamma `$ is time dependent; this happens if the velocity is varying not only in direction but also in magnitude. In fact the problem only arises because a potential was considered but it has been stated already  that 4DO precludes potentials and considers all interactions to be dealt with through space curvature and associated metric modification. The problem is then ill-posed; nevertheless the predictions of general relativity will not be coincident with 4DO’s whenever the former theory appeals to potentials.

## 7 Conservation law and simultaneity

Understanding the physical meaning of proper time is important if one wishes to acquire the feeling of the physical phenomena that are expressed in optical space. One is used to the concept of simultaneity and the discussion in section 3 has already shown that this concept is not easily translated into the new space; the following lines discuss a typical problem involving simultaneity, which hopefully will clarify this point. A collision situation is as good as one can get to discuss simultaneity, with the bonus that it will bring conservation into the picture.

First of all it will be admitted that for some fortunate reason the coordinate origin coincides exactly with the collision point, so that the simultaneity problem is solved automatically. Two particles are to be considered, $`a`$ and $`b`$, with position vectors in 2D optical space given by

$$𝐫_a=(\tau _a,x_a),𝐫_b=(\tau _b,x_b).$$
(48)
By derivation with respect to $`t`$ it is possible to define the speed vectors

$$𝐯_a=(\frac{1}{\gamma }_a,v_a),𝐯_b=(\frac{1}{\gamma }_b,v_b);$$
(49)
both vectors have unit length. The momentum vectors are

$$𝐩_a=m_a(\frac{1}{\gamma }_a,v_a),𝐩_b=m_b(\frac{1}{\gamma }_b,v_b),$$
(50)
with $`m_a`$, $`m_b`$ the masses of particles $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. Notice that coordinate scaling of the particles’ coordinates by their respective masses cannot be used in graphical representations, although it is useful for mathematical calculations, as explained in Refs. .

Momentum conservation implies that at any position along $`x`$ the sum of the two momenta must be preserved; in particular at $`x=0`$ one can write the two equations

$$\frac{m_a}{\gamma _a}+\frac{m_b}{\gamma _b}=\frac{m_a}{\gamma _a^{}}+\frac{m_b}{\gamma _b^{}},$$
(51)
$$m_av_a+m_bv_b=m_av_a^{}+m_bv_b^{},$$
(52)
where the prime is used to denote the values after the collision.

The first of these equations is obviously an energy conservation law when Eq. (45) is considered and can be written

$$m_a\sqrt{1v_a^2}+m_b\sqrt{1v_b^2}=m_a\sqrt{1v_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+m_b\sqrt{1v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(53)
The length of the particles momenta stay unaltered by the collision; only their directions are changed. Fig. (6) exemplifies a collision situation. The addition of the momenta $`𝐩_a+𝐩_b`$ gives the total momentum that must stay unaltered by the collision. The length of individual momenta must also be preserved because the particles’ masses don’t change. The construction shows the only other way that two vectors of lengths $`|𝐩_a|`$ and $`|𝐩_b|`$ can be added so that their sum is preserved; these vectors are $`𝐩_a^{}`$ and $`𝐩_b^{}`$, respectively and their orientation gives the speed of both particles after the collision.

The problem was analyzed from the point of view of an observer standing at the collision position. When represented on a distant observer’s frame, the particles’ worldlines no longer intersect at the collision position, as shown in Fig. 7 where $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$ are the collision and observer’s positions, respectively. The collision instant $`\tau `$ is the time measured along each of the four different worldlines. The geometrical construction on the figure is such that circles 1, 2 and 3 have centers on the intersection of the observer’s worldline, at $`x_1`$ with the worldlines $`b`$, $`a`$ and $`b^{}`$, respectively. The circle associated with $`a^{}`$ worldline is not shown. All the circles cross $`x_1`$ at a common point $`\tau `$, ensuring that each circle’s radius is exactly the time that mediates between the instant of the associated worldline passing at $`x_1`$ and the collision instant. The point of intersection of each circle with the vertical line at $`x_0`$ marks the point of passage of the associated worldline by this position. The dotted lines meeting at $`x_0`$ represent the situation depicted on Fig. 6 and clearly highlight the difficulty in representing simultaneous events on distant observers’ frames.

## 8 Conclusions

4DO has been shown in previous work to be a viable alternative to general relativity, being able to produce identical predictions in most observable situations but offering reasonable explanations for phenomena that Einstein’s theory has not been able to accommodate comfortably. Furthermore, 4DO shows prospects of being compatible with standard theory, paving the ground for a unified theory of Physics, which has so far been the realm of string theory.

4DO is based on the use 4-dimensional movement space, resulting from the consideration of the usual 3-dimensional coordinates complemented by proper time. The physical meaning of this space is not intuitive and the present paper uses the established K-calculus to make a parallel derivation of special relativity and 4DO, allowing a real possibility of comparison between the two theories. The significance of the proper time coordinate is given special attention and its definition is made very clear in terms of just send and receive instants of radar pulses.

Special relativity and 4DO are also compared in terms of Lagrangian definition of worldlines and movement Hamiltonian. The final section of the paper discusses simultaneity through the solution of a two particle head-on collision problem. It is shown that a very simple graphical construction automatically solves energy and momentum conservation when the observer is located at the collision position. A further discussion of the representation for a distant observer further clarifies how simultaneity is accommodated by 4DO.


format: text

text:
# References

CCNY-HEP-01/11

hep-th/0201002

Non-Commutative Space-Times, Black Hole, and Elementary Particle

Mu-In Park111Electronic address: muinpark@yahoo.com

Department of Physics, City College of the CUNY

New York, NY 10031

ABSTRACT

It is shown that elementary black hole can not be distinguished from an elementary particle in the non-commutative space-times (space/space and space/time) at the Planck scale. But, the non-commutative space-times can not be “directly” measured in the elementary black hole system. A $`timevarying`$ non-commutative parameter $`\theta (t)`$ is suggested in accordance with the time-varying-$`G`$ scenario. By identifying the elementary black hole with an elementary particle, the large hierarchy between the weak scale and Planck scale is naturally understood. For large black hole, the discrete spectrum of the horizon area is derived by identifying the black hole horizon with a non-commutative sphere.

Keywords: Non-Commutative Geometry, Black Holes.

7 Jan 2002

Recently, there have been notable studies on the non-commutative space-times in diverse aspects . However, it seems still unclear whether this is just a hypothetical extension of the usual theory as the commutative space-times are generalized to the non-commutative space-times inspired by the string theory, or a new physical paradigm which governs the space-time quantum. Moreover, we don’t even know how small the non-commutative parameter is.

In this paper, I show that how the non-commutative $`spacetimes`$222It has been well-known that the lowest Landau level has the non-commutative spatial coordinates . More recently, it has been proposed that the Chern-Simons theory on the non-commutative $`space`$ is an effective description of the fractional quantum Hall effect . (space/space and space/time) can provide new insights on our physical world which is sometimes mysterious: If one identify the non-commutative space/space, space/time parameter $`\sqrt{\theta }`$ as the Planck length, the elementary black hole, which is smaller than the Planck scale, can not be distinguished from the elementary particle such as the elementary black hole may be identified as an elementary particle. But, it is found that the non-commutative space-times can not be “directly” measured in the elementary black hole system. A $`timevarying`$ non-commutative parameter $`\theta (t)`$ is suggested in accordance with the time-varying $`G`$ scenario. From the identification of the elementary black hole with the elementary particle, the large hierarchy between the weak scale and Planck scale is naturally understood. A plausible way of resolution for the instability problem is proposed within the non-commutative quantum mechanics. For the large black hole, which is larger than the Planck scale, the discrete spectrum of the horizon area may be naturally understood from a non-commutative sphere.

Elementary black hole: Let me start by considering an elementary black hole whose horizon radius $`r_+`$ is smaller than the Planck length $`l_{\text{Planck}}`$

$`l_{\text{Planck}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}}10^{33}\text{cm}.`$ (1)
But since the black hole (with mass $`m`$) has a horizon, according to the general relativity, at

$`r_+l_{\text{Schwarzschild}},`$ (2)
where $`l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}`$ is the radius of the Schwarzschild-black-hole horizon:

$`l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}={\displaystyle \frac{2Gm}{c^2}},`$ (3)
the condition of the elementary black hole becomes

$`l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}l_{\text{Planck}}`$ (4)
and then one finds a condition for the mass for the elementary black hole

$`mm_{NC}`$ (5)
with a critical mass

$`m_{NC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c\mathrm{}}{G}}}10^5\text{g},`$ (6)
which is (half) of the Planck mass.

Now, let me consider the elementary black hole on a two dimensional non-commutative quantum plane with the coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$:

$`[x_1,x_2]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta .`$ (7)
The non-commutativity parameter $`\sqrt{\theta }`$ defines a length scale in which the non-commutativity is relevant. On the other hand, it is well-known in the black hole physics that the Planck length is a natural length below which the usual continuous space and time may be broken down . I take this as a fundamental assumption in this paper. So, let me take $`\sqrt{\theta }=l_{\text{Planck}}`$ such as the commutation relation (7) implies that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1\mathrm{\Delta }x_2l_{\text{Planck}}^2/2.`$ (8)
But there is no restriction on the accuracy of the measurement for one coordinate at $`one`$ time so far.

Then, let me consider a measurement process for the coordinates of the elementary black hole on the quantum plane. To this end, one first note that the genuine size of the black hole is the horizon size $`r_+`$ since the black hole horizon is a boundary of our observable world. So, if the elementary black hole had a best localized position $`before`$ the measurement, then the position will be given $`apriori`$ with an accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_il_{\text{Schwarzschild}}`$. Now, if one measure one of the spatial coordinate say $`x_1`$, but the other coordinate $`x_2`$ was kept intact such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_2l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}`$, then the uncertainty relation (8) shows that the uncertainty on the measured coordinate $`x_1`$ becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{\Delta }x_2}}l_{\text{Compton}},`$ (9)
where

$`l_{\text{Compton}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2mc}}`$ (10)
is (half of) the Compton length of the elementary black hole, i.e., one can not measure the coordinate of the elementary black hole with an uncertainty smaller than $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$.

This limit on the localization of the spatial coordinate is the same as it for the elementary particle which does not have substructure . Furthermore, it seems that there is no way to distinguish those two objects fundamentally: From the mass condition (5) one obtains another condition,

$`l_{\text{Compton}}l_{\text{Planck}}`$ (11)
such as one obtains eventually

$`l_{\text{Compton}}l_{\text{Planck}}l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}.`$ (12)
But according to (9), this inequality means that one can not localize the elementary black hole as much as one can measure its boundary ($`l_{\text{Compton}}l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}`$), which is consistent with the concept of the elementary particle, and non-commutative space ($`l_{\text{Compton}}l_{\text{Planck}}`$) such as the non-commutative space is not measured directly.

A remarkable point of my derivation is that I have not used any of the commutation relations for other dynamical variables, i.e., $`[x_i,p_j],[p_i,p_j]`$ $`explictly`$, which is contrast to the usual derivation in the quantum mechanics  where the commutation relation $`[x_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}`$ and $`c`$ as a limit velocity333If one allow the “tachyon”, which does not have a complete interpretation yet though, this quantum mechanical derivation will be invalid .are used. This fact implies that one may consider generalized commutation relations such as444Operator forms of $`f_{ij},g_{ij}`$ will be strongly constrained by the Jacobi identities (see for example ). But, the status of the Jacobi identities on the non-commutative plane remains unclear.

$`[x_i,p_j]=f_{ij}(\mathrm{},\theta ),`$ (13)
$`[p_i,p_j]=g_{ij}(\theta )(i=1,2).`$ (14)
The commutation relation (13) shall be the usual one $`[x_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}`$ when one use the current value of $`G`$ as $`6.67\times 10^8\text{cm}^3\text{g}^1\text{sec}^2`$ for consistency with the quantum mechanical derivation for the elementary particles such as the existence of an elementary black hole is not inconsistent with the existence of an elementary particle. But since my derivation is independent on the value of $`G`$, the additional contribution of $`G`$ through $`\sqrt{\theta }=l_{\text{Planck}}`$ need not be always neglected: This may be important in the early universe with the $`timevaryingG`$ scenario; furthermore, in this scenario the non-commutative parameter change as $`\theta (t)G(t)`$ if $`\mathrm{},c`$ are the true universal constants.

Moreover, since the critical mass $`m_{NC}`$ of (6) is large enough such as all known elementary particles can be included in this category, the derivation of (9) from the quantum theory around the black hole on the non-commutative space, which should be also understood as a quantum gravity, is sensible also for the elementary particles if we identify the elementary black hole with an elementary particle. In other words, the hierarchy of the length scales between $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ and $`l_{\text{Planck}}`$ is understood by considering the quantum gravity on non-commutative space for the elementary black hole (see Ref.  for other mechanism from small extra dimension); in particular, for the case of $`W^\pm ,Z`$ bosons which satisfy the mass condition (5) \[$`m_{W,Z}10^{22}\text{g}`$\] well, the hierarchy is

$`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ $``$ $`10^{16}\text{cm},`$
$`l_{\text{Planck}}`$ $``$ $`10^{33}\text{cm},`$
$`l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}`$ $``$ $`10^{50}\text{cm}`$
and this is explained essentially as

$`l_{\text{Compton}}\times l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}l_{\text{Planck}}^2.`$ (15)
In other words, the hierachy is a result of the space/space non-commutavity at the Planck scale and the existence of the black hole horizon for the elementary particle. Moreover, if one consider the time-varying $`\theta `$ according to the time-varying $`G`$ scenario, there may be no hierarchy in the early universe (with $`G10^{26}\text{cm}^3\text{g}^1\text{sec}^2`$).

All the results that I have considered so far supports the identification of the elementary black hole with an elementary particle. Now, the questions, which might cause this identification to be inaccurate, are

1) Can’t the elementary black hole be probed below $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ by any successive measuremnets contrast to an elementary particle ?

2) Is there the Hawking radiation which might cause the elementary black hole to be unstable contrast to the stable elementary particle ?

In order to consider the first question, one needs also to consider the space/time non-commutativity555This has been considered in the context of string theory  such as the narural non-commutativity scale $`\sqrt{\theta }`$ is the string length $`l_s\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}`$. But, in our context, this is considered as a generic property of particle theory.

$`[t,x_i]=i\theta /c`$ (16)
in conformity with the quantum mechanics  on the limitation of the time measurement:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{\Delta }x_i}}l_{\text{Compton}}/c`$ (17)
\[the elementary black hole is assumed also to have a best localised position such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_il_{\text{Compton}}`$ a priori before the time measurement as in the measument of coordinate\]; in this case, the causality may not be applied below the Compton length $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ where the concept of time is fuzzy by the amount of $`\mathrm{\Delta }tl_{\text{Compton}}/c`$, the time it takes light to traverse the distance $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ . This explains why the two orthogonal coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$ were not $`simultaneously`$ measured in (9). Moreover, since the operator nature of the time $`t`$ is a genuine fact in my framework of ideas, there is no obstacle to understand the usual energy-time uncertainty relation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}/2`$ (18)
as an operator relatrion anymore, which has been absent in the conventional quantum mechanics,

$`[t,E]=i\mathrm{}`$ (19)
that is consistent with the non-commutative space-times commutation relations (7) and (16).

Now, let me show that how this energy-time uncentainty relation insure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_il_{\text{Compton}}`$ for any successive measurments in time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ after the first measurment of one coordinate $`x_1`$: From the energy-time uncertainty relation (18) and limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (17) one obtains $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=v\mathrm{\Delta }pmc^2`$ such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }pmc,vc`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p,v`$ are the momentum uncertainty, velocity of the particle after the first measurement in respectively; then, one finds that the struck particle will move $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_iv\mathrm{\Delta }tl_{\text{Compton}}`$ from the first observation point. $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1`$ is the same order of the first measurement and so it is a repeatable measurment. But the important point is that the other coordinate $`x_2`$, which has not been measured in the first measuremnt but only considered a priori as the horizon size $`l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}(<l_{\text{Compton}})`$ which would be a genuine size of the particle, can not be probed below $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ still in the successive measurements. This insures that $`l_{\text{Compton}}`$ is a genuine bound on the space localization. But notice that in this measureing process, the minimum uncertainty state (8) is destroyed and a higher uncertainty state is observed in the second measuremnet, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1\mathrm{\Delta }x_2l_{\text{Compton}}^2/2>l_{\text{Planck}}^2`$.

Now, let me turn to the question on the Hawking radiation which might cause the elementary black hole to be unstable. It is well known that the large mass black hole has the Hawking radiation according to the semi-classical quantization which neglect the back reaction . But, its validity is questionable for this microscopic black hole where the back reaction can not be neglected anymore. Moreover, the space outside the horizon is non-commutative space such as the usual physical laws might be broken down near the horizon666With a naive use of the elementary particles’ mass, charge, and interpretation of $`j`$ as the spin $`\mathrm{}`$, horizon becomes naked. But, this might not be the case from this non-commutativity.. On the other hand, similar to the atomic physics, quantum mechanics would be also crucial to make the elementary black hole be stable against the radiation777This has been recently argued also by Adler et al.  within the generalized uncertainty principle context. ; but complete understanding needs to be discovered888Probably, this elementary black hole will be relevant to the ground state of the macroscopic black holes ..

Large Black Hole: For large black hole whose horizon radius $`r_+`$ is bigger than the Planck length $`l_{\text{Planck}}`$ one can probe its boundary $`(l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}>l_{\text{Compton}})`$ such as it can not be considered as an elementary particle anymore. Moreover, the non-commutative space have neglizable relavance in the dynamics for center of black hole $`(l_{\text{Schwarzschild}}>l_{\text{Planck}})`$ but rather have dominant relavance in the surface dyanamics on the horizon $`(l_{\text{Planck}}>l_{\text{Compton}})`$. This may be understood as a holography of the bulk non-commutative spaces onto the horizon of the semiclassical black hole . So, it would be more natural to consider the compactified noncommutative space for a treatment of the large black hole.

As the simpliest space, let me consider a non-commutative sphere with three coordinates $`x_i(i=1,2,3)`$

$`[x_i,x_j]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{r}}ϵ_{ijk}x_k,`$ (20)
where $`r`$ is the radius of the non-commutative sphere. Now then, let me identify this non-commutative sphere as the black hole horizon, then the discrete spectrum of the horizon area $`A`$ is derived, with an identification of $`x_i^2=r^2`$, within the non-commutative quantum mechanics :

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r=r_+}}d^2x=4\pi r^2`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`4\pi l_{\text{Planck}}^2\sqrt{j(j+1)},`$
where $`j`$ is the heightest weight of an irreducible representation of $`SU(2)`$ spin algebra of $`R_i=(r/\theta )x_i`$.

On the other hand, this non-commutative sphere approach is exactly the same as what Bekenstein  has assumed in an algebraic formulation of the black hole quantization by identifying $`R_i`$ and $`A`$ with Bekenstein’s angular momentum operator $`\widehat{𝐉}`$ and area operator $`\widehat{A}`$, in respectively. So, it will be an interesting problem to derive the uniformly spaced area spectrum, $`Al_{\text{Planck}}^2n`$ , which produces a more interesting interpretation on the black hole entropy, within my context also without assuming other more complicated algebraic works.

Finally, I note that, for the quantization of an elementary black hole system, study on the bulk non-commutative space is needed in contrast to large black hole. In this procedure, finding the black hole solutions on the non-commutative space will be a outstanding challenge which will be a first step toward the quantization .

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Parameswaran Nair and Alexios Polychronakos for comments. This work was supported in part by a CUNY Collaborative Incentive Research Grant.


text:
# Scaling in the Lattice Gas Model

## Abstract

A good quality scaling of the cluster size distributions is obtained for the Lattice Gas Model using the Fisher’s ansatz for the scaling function. This scaling identifies a pseudo-critical line in the phase diagram of the model that spans the whole (subcritical to supercritical) density range. The independent cluster hypothesis of the Fisher approach is shown to describe correctly the thermodynamics of the lattice only far away from the critical point.

Since the first heavy ion experiments multifragmentation has been tentatively connected to a critical phenomenon historique . The recent determination of a consistent set of critical exponents in different multifragmentation data eos ; michela  tends to confirm this hypothesis even if the finite size corrections to scaling are largely unknown. On the other side the experimental observation of a flattening of the caloric curve caloric ; natowitz  and the measurement of a negative heat capacity palluto  points towards a first order phase transition as it is also suggested by the thermodynamics of statistical multifragmentation models gross . The debate on the order of the transition has been further animated by a very recent analysis of the Isis data moretto2  which shows a high quality scaling of the fragment size distribution over a wide range of charges and deposited energies with an ansatz for the scaling function taken from the Fisher droplet model fisher  which approximates a real fluid as an ideal gas of clusters. The critical temperature extracted from the Fisher analysis is identified as the temperature of the thermodynamical critical point and the whole coexistence line of the nuclear phase diagram is reconstructed under the hypothesis that the Fisher model gives a good description of the multifragmentation phenomenon moretto2 .

In this paper we apply the Fisher scaling method of ref.moretto2  to the Lattice Gas model, which is a well known paradigm of first as well as second order phase transitions lee , the canonical version of this model being isomorphous to the Ising model at fixed magnetization. We will show that the observation of Fisher scaling does not allow to determine the location of the critical point. Critical behaviors are observed on a line at supercritical density campi  which extends inside the coexistence region noi ; richert  due to finite size effects. We suggest that the inadequacy of the Fisher model to describe the lattice gas phase diagram comes from the Fisher independent cluster hypothesis which should be correct only at low densities and high temperatures ; indeed we demonstrate that the thermodynamics reconstructed from the Fisher partition sum coincides with the exact one only in the low density and high temperature regime.

In our implementation of the lattice gas model lee  the $`N`$ sites of a cubic lattice are characterized by an occupation number $`n_i`$ which is defined as $`n_i=0(1)`$ for a vacancy (nucleon). Particles occupying nearest neighboring sites interact with a constant coupling $`c`$. The relative particle density $`\rho /\rho _0`$ is defined as the number of occupied sites divided by the total number of sites and is linked to the magnetization of the Ising model by $`\rho /\rho _0=2m1`$. Observables expectation values are evaluated in the canonical ensemble sampled through a standard Metropolis algorithm lattice\_noi . The use of the canonical constraint allows a direct exploration of the coexistence region richert . The backbending of the chemical potential as a function of the particle number and of the pressure as a function of the density allows an unambiguous definition of the phase diagram even for a finite system noi . Fragments are defined within the standard Coniglio-Klein bond breaking probability between occupied neighbor sites. For all technical details, see refs.noi ; lattice\_noi .

Renormalization group arguments lead to the expectation that in the vicinity of the critical point $`(T_c,\rho _c)`$ the size distribution scales as stauffer

$$n(A,T)=qA^\tau f\left(ϵA^\sigma \right)$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ measures the distance from the critical point $`ϵ=(T_cT)/T_c`$, $`q`$ is a normalization constant, $`f`$ is the scaling function and $`\tau ,\sigma `$ are critical exponents. We will refer to eq.(1) in the following as to RG scaling. The RG scaling analysis performed on a $`8X8X8`$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions at the critical density $`\rho _c=1/2`$ is displayed in figure 1anoi ; lattice\_noi . A good scaling behavior is observed for all temperatures $`0.36<T/c<3.6`$ and all cluster sizes $`4<A<30`$. The critical exponents $`\tau =2.2,\sigma =0.61`$ are close to the expected values of the liquid-gas universality class $`\tau =2.2,\sigma =0.64`$ and the critical temperature $`T_c=1.16c`$ is in good agreement both with the temperature at the thermodynamical critical point noi  $`T_c^{th}=1.22c`$ and with the expected critical temperature at the thermodynamical limit $`T_c^{\mathrm{}}=1.12c`$. Indeed finite size corrections to scaling have been evaluated lattice\_noi  and found to be small. The method used to extract the critical parameters is discussed in detail in refs. noi ; lattice\_noi .

In the Fisher droplet model fisher  the vapor coexisting with a liquid in the mixed phase of a liquid-gas phase transition is schematized as an ideal gas of clusters. A similar scaling around the critical point is supposed by this model but a different form is suggested for the scaling function

$$n(A,T)=qA^\tau exp(\frac{A\mathrm{\Delta }\mu c_0ϵA^\sigma }{T})$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ represents the difference in chemical potential between the two phases, and $`c_0`$ is the surface energy coefficient. Since both $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`c_0`$ can be in principle temperature dependent, we have parametrized these quantities as polynomials of order 4 and 1 respectively following ref.moretto1 ; the normalization $`q`$ has been taken as in the infinite system elliott . The critical parameters obtained from the best $`\chi ^2`$ fit as well as the scaled distributions are shown in figure 1b. Only temperatures lower than the maximum production temperature for each size have been used in the fit (black dots in figure 1). The scaling is violated only for higher temperatures (grey dots) consistently with the Fisher approach which modelizes only the vapor coexisting with a liquid, i.e. is relevant for temperatures $`T<T_c`$. It is surprising that two such different ansatz for the scaling function lead to a comparable quality for the scaling of the size distributions and to coherent and close values for the critical exponents; this remarkable result confirms the wide universal validity of generic thermal scalings ther\_sca . The main ambiguity concerns the critical temperature which comes out about 20% higher with the Fisher technique. This difference is not a broadening effect due to finite sizes, a well defined critical point being replaced in small systems by a wide spread critical region. As a matter of fact, if the RG critical parameters of figure 1a are implemented in the Fisher analysis and a reduced 7 parameters fit is done with the ansatz (2) the scaling is clearly violated even at low temperatures (figure 1d) and the same thing is true if the Fisher scaling parameters of figure 1b are inserted in the RG ansatz eq.(1) as shown by figure 1c. This means that the two scaling ansatz are not equivalent and the good quality of the scaling is insufficient to prove the adaptation of the model to the data. Therefore before giving a physical meaning to the precise value of the extracted critical temperature one should a priori know if the chosen scaling ansatz is consistent with the system under study. On the other side the critical exponents seem to be very robust and depend only very slightly on the scaling hypothesis.

The analysis shown in figure 1 was performed at a constant density equal to the critical density.In the case of nuclear collisions it is not obvious that multifragmentation occurs systematically at the critical density. In particular the good adequacy between statistical models and data favours a lower value for the freeze out density gross  and similar information come from interferometry measurementsaladin . On the other side recent calculations in the framework of classical molecular dynamics campi  propose an early fragmentation at supercritical density. To understand the effect of volume we have performed different lattice gas calculations at different densities. As shown in the upper part of figure 2, a very good scaling is observed for all subcritical as well as supercritical densities. In all cases the values of the critical exponents are comparable but the critical temperature is a monotonically increasing function of the density. To visualize all the results on the same picture a constant horizontal shift $`C(\rho )`$ is given to each scaled distribution. The critical temperatures obtained for each density are represented by the black symbols in the lower part of figure 2. In this figure the full line gives the coexistence line of the model calculated in a precise way from the derivatives of the canonical partition sum noi . The locus of criticality lies approximately over a line which passes close to the thermodynamical critical point (open dot) but extends further at supercritical (Kertesz linecampi ) as well as subcritical densities inside the coexistence region. A qualitatively similar behavior has been already observed with the RG analysis (dashed line in figure 2b) noi  and has been interpreted in terms of finite size effects. This result implies that in the framework of the lattice gas model the observation of Fisher scaling and more generally of a critical behavior does not allow to localize the critical point and is compatible also with fragment formation at low density inside the coexistence region.

A first order phase transition in a finite system corresponds to a concavity anomaly in the free energy $`F=TlnZ`$ which in turn leads to a backbending of the canonical chemical potential $`\mu =f+\rho _\rho f`$ where $`f`$ is the free energy per particle. The coexistence line in figure 2b corresponds to the equality of the chemical potentials $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$ on the liquid and gas branch defined by a Maxwell construction noi ; topology . If the Fisher model is a good approximation to the Lattice Gas physics it should be therefore possible to reconstruct the vapor side of the coexistence line $`\rho _{CL}(T)`$ directly from the fragment yields as proposed in ref.moretto2  as

$$\rho _{CL}=\underset{A}{}n(A,T)Aexp(A\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )$$
(3)
where the sum extends over all fragments but the biggest. The resulting curves are given by the grey lines in figure 2b for the four different densities shown in figure 2a. The end point of the lines giving by construction the total density of the system and the critical temperature extracted by the Fisher fit, these lines are obviously meaningless if the system is fragmenting at a density different from the critical density $`\rho _c=1/2`$. However even at $`\rho =\rho _c`$ when the thermodynamical critical point is included in the data set the reconstruction of the coexistence line is very poor. In particular the curvature of this line at the reconstructed critical temperature corresponds to an exponent $`\beta =0.84`$ which strongly deviates from the expected $`\beta =0.31`$ exponent given by the thermodynamical coexistence line (full line in fig.2b) which would be consistent with the liquid gas universality class ($`\beta =0.33`$)and with the critical exponents extracted from the clusters.

This means that despite the magnificent scaling shown by figure 2a the physics of the Fisher droplet model does not correspond to the Lattice gas.

This may look surprising since the main hypotheses of the Fisher model are shared by the Lattice : clusters are essentially defined by a volume and a surface contribution; they exhibit a critical behavior at the thermodynamical critical point; the statistical weight of a given configuration is given by a Boltzmann factor. The spectacular collapse of all the cluster distributions on the single curve of figure 2 indeed indicates that the Fisher ansatz gives a good prediction of an important part of the physics of the Lattice, i.e. the inclusive yields. However it may be interesting to remark that a somewhat different value for $`\beta `$ can be obtained by changing the order of the polynomial assumed for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ without any sizeable change in the quality of the scaling. This suggests that the informations contained in the inclusive yields may be insufficient to pin down the thermodynamics of the system.

The two models strongly differ on one point: if in the Fisher picture fragments constitute an ideal vapor of non interacting composite particles (the individual production probabilities are factorized) in all microscopic models as the Lattice Gas, interactions among fragments are naturally taken into account through the volume they exclude and through the surface coupling between neighboring fragments. One may therefore wonder if these interactions, which seem to affect in a non crucial way the inclusive yields, may induce important differences in the thermodynamics. The importance of these effects can be studied by testing the deviation of the Lattice equation of state from the ideal gas hypothesis of the Fisher model. If fragments can be modelized as an ideal classical gas, in a constant volume transformation the pressure can be deduced directly from the fragments yields moretto2

$$\frac{p}{p_c}=\frac{_An(A,T)}{_An(A,T_c)}\frac{T}{T_c}$$
(4)
where the sum extends over the vapor phase (all fragments but the biggest) and $`T_c=T_c(\rho )`$ is the temperature obtained from the Fisher fit for each density (black dots in figure 2b). This pressure is shown by the open dots in figure 3 at two different densities and can be compared to the exact pressure of the model from ref.lattice\_noi  $`p=\rho ^2_\rho f`$ (black dots). Not surprisingly, the gas of clusters behaves as an ideal gas only at low density and high temperature. The attractive interaction among fragment surfaces causes the pressure to become negative at low temperatures (the system is bound) while an extra pressure comes from the excluded volume interaction at high density.

In conclusion in this paper we have analyzed the fragment size distributions issued of the canonical implementation of the Lattice Gas model by means of Fisher scaling. A very good scaling is observed at subcritical as well as supercritical densities with values for the critical exponents compatible (within finite size effects) with the universality class of the model. This implies that the observation of scaling does not allow to infer the position of the critical point and is compatible with a fragmentation inside the coexistence region of a first order phase transition. Knowing that the scaling function of the model is sensibly different from the Fisher exponential ansatz, Fisher scaling appears as a very powerful tool to extract critical exponents in a way which is essentially independent of the assumptions made on the detailed shape of the scaling function. On the other side the reliability of thermodynamical quantities extracted from the Fisher analysis (coexistence curve, critical temperature, saturated pressure..) for any set of experimental or simulated data depends critically on the possibility of approximating the fragment partitions as an ideal noninteracting gas. In the case of the Lattice Gas model this hypothesis is verified only for densities much lower and temperatures much higher than the ones of the critical point.

This work has been partially supported by NATO grants CLG 976861.


text:
# 1RXS J232953.9+062814: A Dwarf Nova with a 64-minute Orbital Period and a Conspicuous Secondary Star 1footnote 11footnote 1Based in part on observations obtained at the MDM Observatory, operated by Dartmouth College, Columbia University, Ohio State University, and the University of Michigan.

## 1 Introduction

Cataclysmic variable stars (CVs) are close binary systems in which a low-mass secondary transfers mass onto a white dwarf; Warner (1995) wrote an excellent monograph on CVs. Orbital angular momentum losses $`\dot{J}`$ evidently drive CV evolution. As the orbit shrinks, the secondary star’s Roche critical lobe contracts, causing mass transfer. The Roche geometry tightly constrains the secondary star’s mass at a given orbital period $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. Short-period systems have low-mass secondaries, so if the chemical composition is normal ($`X0.7`$), the secondary is faint and contributes negligibly to the visible-light spectrum (Fig. 4 of Patterson 2001). For normal compositions the radius is expected to reach a minimum around 0.05 $`M_{}`$, leading to a predicted period minimum around 70 – 75 minutes (the exact value being dependent on $`\dot{J}`$), with subsequent evolution driving the system to greater separations (Kolb & Baraffe, 1999; Patterson, 1998; Pacynszki & Sienkiewicz, 1981).

During outburst, short-period dwarf nova systems often show photometric oscillations (superhumps) at periods a few percent longer than $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. The superhump frequency is thought to be the beat between $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and a tidally driven precession of an eccentric disk. The fractional period excess of the superhump appears to be a measure of the mass ratio (Patterson, 2001).

We recently observed 1RXS J232953.9+062814 (hereafter RX2329+06), a newly-recognized dwarf nova system with $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ below the canonical minimum period for hydrogen-rich secondary stars. Our observations reveal an unexpectedly hot secondary star. We suggest that the secondary has undergone substantial nuclear evolution leading to an enhanced helium abundance.

## 2 Observations and Analysis

Our optical photometry is from differential CCD measurements, mostly from the Center for Backyard Astrophysics (CBA) worldwide network of small telescopes (Skillman & Patterson, 1993). Our spectroscopy is from the 2.4 m Hiltner telescope at MDM Observatory on Kitt Peak. Details of the instrumental setup and reduction were as described in Thorstensen et al. (1998). We obtained a total of 77 exposures of 360 s each, on 2001 Nov 20 - 22 and 24 UT, spanning 6.0 h of hour angle.

We defer detailed discussion of the outburst photometry for a longer paper. Briefly, the superhump period during outburst was 0.04637(4) d, decreasing gradually over the next 10 days to around 0.0458 d.

For astrometry, we obtained several $`I`$-band images with the 1.3m McGraw-Hill telescope at MDM. We compared these with archival sky-survey data from the USNO Flagstaff Station Image and Catalogue Archive, and found $`\mu =61\pm 11`$ mas yr-1 in P.A. $`331\pm 10`$ degrees. The ICRS position at J2000, referred to USNO A2.0 (Monet et al., 1996) and five Tycho-2 stars (Høg et al., 2000), was $`\alpha =23^\mathrm{h}29^\mathrm{m}54^\mathrm{s}.22`$, $`\delta =+6^{}28^{}11^{\prime \prime }.8`$, $`\pm 0^{\prime \prime }.3`$

Fig. 1 shows the mean low-state spectrum. Broad Balmer emission is prominent, along with weaker emission from He I (Table 1). The Balmer lines show double peaks most of the time, separated by $`1000\pm 100`$ km s-1 when the peaks are most distinct. The continuum has $`F_\lambda \lambda ^{1.6}`$, and the flux level indicates $`V=16.2\pm 0.3`$ (estimated uncertainty). The spectrum also shows conspicuous absorption features which appear consistent with a late-type star.

We measured absorption velocities by cross-correlating our spectra against a rest-frame sum of several IAU velocity standards, using xcsao (Kurtz & Mink, 1998). Although the absorption was nearly invisible in the individual spectra, the cross-correlation technique succeeded in all cases, giving typical formal errors $`15`$ km s-1. A least-squares period search of the absorption velocities (Thorstensen et al., 1996) showed a strong, unambiguous period near 64 minutes, and a sine fit (Fig. 2) gave the parameters in Table 2. H$`\alpha `$ emission-line velocities measured using a convolution method sensitive to the line wings (Schneider & Young, 1980) gave noisier velocities (also in Fig. 2), but yielded the same period. Fig. 3 shows a greyscale representation of the spectra with phase (Taylor & Thorstensen, 1998). The absorption spectrum and its modulation are obvious, and the H$`\alpha `$ emission line also shows an apparent $`S`$-wave.

Using library spectra from Pickles (1998), we estimate the secondary’s spectral type to be K4 $`\pm 2`$ subclasses. Earlier spectral types do not show CaI $`\lambda `$6162 as strongly as RX2329+06, and later types begin to show molecular features which are not present here. Assuming the secondary’s absorption line strengths are similar to the library spectra, we estimate that the secondary contributes $`50\pm 20`$ per cent of the light near 5500 Å.

The bottom panel of Fig. 2 shows phase-averaged white-light differential photometry from the CBA network. The double-peaked modulation is consistent with ellipsoidal variations, which are not unexpected since the secondary contributes so strongly to the total light.

## 3 Inferences

Distance. The secondary spectrum and period constrain the distance. From Roche lobe arguments we infer $`R_2=0.12\pm 0.03`$ R (see below), where the uncertainty is conservative since $`R_2`$ scales as $`M_2^{1/3}`$. K-star surface brightnesses inferred from Table 3 of Beuermann et al. (1999) then imply that the secondary has $`M_V=10.4\pm 0.7`$. Our data give $`V=17.0\pm 0.5`$ for the secondary alone, where the uncertainty includes the flux calibration and the secondary’s relative contribution. The distance is then 210 (+110, $`70`$) pc. At the nominal distance the transverse velocity is 61 km s-1. The quiescent disk at 210 pc has $`M_V10`$, rising to $`M_V5`$ in outburst, which agrees well with the $`M_V`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ relation of Warner (1987).

Masses. There are no eclipses, so the inclination $`i`$ is uncertain. The secondary’s velocity amplitude gives a mass function of 0.194(6) M. This may be distorted by illumination effects, but we see no evidence of variation of the line features around the spectrum. The secondary is presumably at least $`0.05`$ M, which implies a white dwarf mass $`M_1>0.28`$ M, not a particularly stringent constraint. In principle, the ellipsoidal variations could constrain $`i`$, but this is sensitive to the assumed limb-darkening parameters (Bochkarev et al., 1979) and to the fractional contribution from the secondary. We tried measuring the emission lines with a range of convolution parameters (Shafter, 1983), but found a consistent 0.05-cycle phase offset between the emission velocities and the expected phase of the white dwarf motion, so we do not use the emission lines to estimate the mass ratio.

The mass ratio can be estimated from the superhump period excess $`ϵ=(P_{\mathrm{sh}}P_{\mathrm{orb}})/P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, using the $`ϵ`$-$`q`$ relationship calibrated by Patterson (2001). At maximum light, $`ϵ=0.040`$, implying $`q=M_2/M_1=0.185`$, or $`M_2=0.13`$ M for a broadly typical $`M_1=0.7`$ M. The Roche constraint implies $`R_2/R_{}=0.245(M_2/M_{})^{1/3}`$ at this period (Beuermann et al., 1998); combining this with $`q`$ yields $`R_2=0.124(M_1/0.7M_{})^{1/3}`$. The illustrative system with $`(M1,M2)=(0.7,0.13)`$ M would reproduce the observed mass function at $`i=47`$ degrees.

## 4 Discussion

It is surprising to find such a hot secondary at this short period, where the secondary mass must be $`0.1`$ M. No calculation beginning with a solar-abundance secondary has produced periods this short (Kolb & Baraffe, 1999), and hydrogen-rich stars of this small a mass would be much cooler than observed.

We suggest that the secondary is substantially enriched in helium, as a result of nuclear evolution prior to mass transfer. As shown by Baraffe & Kolb (2000), secondary donors which have evolved off the Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS) at the onset of mass transfer can explain a substantial fraction of the observed CVs with late spectral types and $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>6`$ h. Test calculations with constant mass transfer rates show that significantly evolved donors (e.g. with mass transfer starting near the end of central H burning) can be much hotter at a given $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ h than ZAMS donors. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, which displays sequences with initial donor mass $`M_2`$ = 1.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and starting mass transfer on the ZAMS (solid line) or near the end of H burning (dashed line). As already noted by Baraffe & Kolb (2000), such extreme sequences never become fully convective, because of the lower central H abundance, and may continue to transfer mass in the 2-3 h period gap. If they sequences do so, they can reach very low orbital periods with unusually high $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

For the test case shown in Fig. 4, the evolved sequence (dashed line) reaches $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ = 64 min with a mass $`M_2`$ 0.11 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a radius $`R_2`$ $``$ 0.13 $`R_{}`$, in close agreement with the estimates in §3. We derive a spectral type K5, based on the empirical SpT - $`(IK)`$ relation of Beuermann et al (1998), again matching observation. We stress that our spectral type estimate is to be treated with caution, since the surface chemical composition is expected to be non-standard, with a mass fraction of H $``$ 30-40%. Because CNO-processed material should be visible on the surface, the model has C significantly depleted and N enriched by a factor $``$ 5, whereas O is hardly affected.

We stress that this evolutionary sequence is preliminary, but it provides a surprisingly good match to the observed properties of RX2329.

The emission line fluxes (Table 1) suggest that helium is enhanced. The ratio of H$`\alpha `$ to HeI $`\lambda 6678`$ is about 3.6. We measured the H$`\alpha `$/$`\lambda `$6678 ratio in archival spectra of SU UMa stars (Thorstensen et al., 1996; Thorstensen & Taylor, 1997; Thorstensen, 1997) and found typical values of 8, with none below 6. This could be an excitation effect, but even high-excitation novalikes such as V603 Aql (Patterson et al., 1997) have larger ratios. The 59-minute binary V485 Cen also appears to have an unusually low H$`\alpha `$/$`\lambda `$6678 in the spectrum published by Augusteijn et al. (1996), but absorption features are not evident there. As noted earlier, the relative CNO abundances should be affected, but we cannot comment on this since CNO elements lack strong lines at this $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

In sum, RX2329 is a CV in which the secondary evidently has undergone significant nuclear burning and then had much of its mass stripped away, since at its present mass, its nuclear evolution timescale greatly exceeds the Hubble time. If the white dwarf mass is similar to most CVs ($`0.7`$ M), much of the mass lost by the secondary appears to have been lost from the system. Evidently the system formed with a secondary considerably more massive than the white dwarf. In principle this leads to mass transfer on a thermal timescale, until $`M_2`$ becomes small enough for the system to reappear as a standard CV (see Baraffe & Kolb 2000 for a discussion).

Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge funding by the NSF (AST 9987334), and we thank the MDM staff for their excellent support. Special thanks go to the CBA observers who contributed to the photometry, including Dave Skillman, Arto Oksanen, Ed Beshore, and Tonny Vanmunster; a fuller report on their work will be forthcoming. We made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/).

Note added 2002 January 29: We obtained seven more spectra with the 2.4m on 2002 Jan. 21 UT. Combining absorption velocities from these with the 2001 November data yields a refined $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ = 0.0445671(2) d.


text:
# Finding optimal strategies for minimum-error quantum-state discrimination

## Abstract

We propose a numerical algorithm for finding optimal measurements for quantum-state discrimination. The theory of the semidefinite programming provides a simple check of the optimality of the numerically obtained results. With the help of our algorithm we calculate the minimum attainable error rate of a device discriminating among three particularly chosen non-symmetric qubit states.

Nonorthogonality of quantum states is one of the basic features of quantum mechanics. Its deep consequences are reflected in all quantum protocols. For instance, it is well known that perfect decisions between two nonorthogonal states cannot be made. This has important implications for the information processing at the microscopic level since it sets a limit on the amount of information that can be encoded into a quantum system. Although perfect decisions between nonorthogonal quantum states are impossible, it is of importance to study measurement schemes performing this task in the optimum, though imperfect, way.

Two conceptually different models of decision tasks have been studied. The first one is based on the minimization of the Bayesian cost function, which is nothing but a generalized error rate . In the special case of linearly independent pure states, the second model — unambiguous discrimination of quantum states — makes an interesting alternative. The latter scheme combines the error-less discrimination with a certain fraction of inconclusive results .

Ambiguous as well as unambiguous discrimination schemes have been intensively studied over the past few years. In consequence, the optimal measurements distinguishing between pair, trine, tetrad states, and linearly independent symmetric states are now well understood . Many of the theoretically discovered optimal devices have already been realized experimentally, mainly with polarized light . As an example of the practical importance of the optimal decision schemes let us mention their use for the eavesdropping on quantum cryptosystems .

The purpose of this paper is to develop universal method for optimizing ambiguous discrimination between generic quantum states.

Assume that Alice sets up $`M`$ different sources of quantum systems living in $`p`$-dimensional Hilbert space. The complete quantum-mechanical description of each source is provided by its density matrix. Alice chooses one of the sources at random using a chance device and sends the generated quantum system to Bob. Bob is also given $`M`$ numbers $`\{\xi _i\}`$ specifying probabilities that $`i`$-th source is selected by the chance device. Bob is then required to tell which of the $`M`$ sources $`\{\rho _i\}`$ generated the quantum system he had obtained from Alice. In doing this he should make as few mistakes as possible.

It is well known  that each Bob’s strategy can be described in terms of an $`M`$-component probability operator measure (POM) $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}`$, $`0<\mathrm{\Pi }_i<1`$, $`_j\mathrm{\Pi }_j=1`$. Each POM element corresponds to one output channel of Bob’s discriminating apparatus. The probability that Bob points his finger at the $`k`$-th source while the true source is $`j`$ is given by the trace rule: $`P(k|j)=\mathrm{Tr}\rho _j\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$. Taking the prior information into account, the average probability of Bob’s success in repeated experiments is

$$P_s=\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\xi _j\mathrm{Tr}\rho _j\mathrm{\Pi }_j.$$
(1)
Since the objective is to keep Bob’s error rate as low as possible we should maximize this number over the set of all $`M`$-component POMs. In compact form the problem reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{maximize}\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{s}\text{subject to constraints}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_j0,j=1\mathrm{}M,\hfill \\ _j\mathrm{\Pi }_j=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Unfortunately, attacking this problem by analytical means has chance to succeed only in the simplest cases ($`M=2`$) , or cases with symmetric or linearly independent states . In most situations one must resort to numerical methods. In the following we will use the calculus of variations to derive a simple iterative algorithm that provides a convenient way of dealing with the problem (2). This approach has already found its use in the optimization of teleportation protocols  and maximum-likelihood estimation of quantum measurements . We are going to seek the global maximum of the success functional $`P_s`$ subject to the constraints given in Eq. (2). To take care of the first constraint we will decompose the POM elements as follows $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j=A_j^{}A_j,j=1\mathrm{}M`$. The other constraint (completeness) can be incorporated into our model using the method of uncertain Lagrange multipliers. Putting all things together, the functional to be maximized becomes

$$=\underset{j}{}\xi _j\mathrm{Tr}\{\rho _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{j}^{}\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{j}\}\mathrm{Tr}\{\lambda \underset{\mathrm{j}}{}\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{j}^{}\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{j}\},$$
(3)
where $`\lambda `$ is a Hermitian Lagrange operator. This expression is now to be varied with respect to $`M`$ independent variables $`A_j`$ to yield a necessary condition for the extremal point in the form of a set of $`M`$ extremal equations for the unknown POM elements: $`\xi _j\rho _j\mathrm{\Pi }_j=\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }_j,j=1\mathrm{}M`$. For our purposes it is advantageous to bring these equations to an explicitly positive semidefinite form,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_j=\xi _j^2\lambda ^1\rho _j\mathrm{\Pi }_j\rho _j\lambda ^1,j=1\mathrm{}M.$$
(4)
Lagrange operator $`\lambda `$ is obtained by summing Eq. (4) over $`j`$,

$$\lambda =\left(\underset{j}{}\xi _j\rho _j\mathrm{\Pi }_j\rho _j\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
The iterative algorithm comprised of the $`M+1`$ equations (4) and (5) is the main formal result of this paper. One usually starts from some “unbiased” trial POM $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j^0\}`$. After plugging it in Eq. (5) the first guess of the Lagrange operator $`\lambda `$ is obtained. This operator is, in turn, used in Eq. (4) to get the first correction to the initial-guess strategy $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j^0\}`$ . The procedure gets repeated, until, eventually, a stationary point is attained. Notice that both the positivity and completeness of the initial POM are preserved in the course of iterating.

Since equations (4) and (5) represent only a necessary condition for the extreme, one should always check the optimality of the stationary point. In the following we will make use of the theory of the semidefinite programming (SDP)  to derive a criterion of the optimality of the iteratively obtained POM, which turns out to be the well-known Helstrom condition . SDP theory also provides alternative means of solving the problem (2) numerically.

Recently, it has been pointed out  that many problems of the quantum-information processing can be formulated as SDP problems. For instance, let us compare our original problem (2) to the SDP dual problem that is defined as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{maximize}\mathrm{Tr}F_0Z,\hfill \\ Z0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{Tr}F_iZ=c_i,i=1\mathrm{}m,\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where data are $`m+1`$ Hermitian matrices $`F_i`$ and a complex vector $`c^m`$, and $`Z`$ is a Hermitian variable. As can be easily checked, our problem (2) reduces to a dual SDP problem upon the following substitutions:

$`F_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\xi _j\rho _j,Z={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_j,`$ (7)
$`F_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,c_i=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,i=1\mathrm{}p^2.`$ (8)
Here operators $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,i=1\mathrm{}p^2\}`$ comprise an orthonormal operator basis in the $`p^2`$-dimensional space of Hermitian operators acting in the Hilbert space of our problem: $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\delta _{jk},j,k=1\mathrm{}p^2`$. For simplicity, let us take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ proportional to the unity operator, then all $`c_i`$ apart from $`c_1`$ vanish.

An important point is that there exists a primal problem associated with the dual one,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{minimize}c^Tx,\hfill \\ F(x)=F_0+_ix_iF_i0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Here data $`F_i`$ and $`c_i`$ are the same as in Eq. (6), and vector $`x`$ is now the variable.

The advantage of the SDP formulation of the quantum-state discrimination problem is that there are strong numerical tools designed for solving SDP problems. In particular, these methods are guaranteed to converge to the real solution. This might become important when the iterative algorithm derived above encounters convergence problems.

A primal (dual) SDP problem is called “strictly feasible” if there exists $`x`$ ($`Z`$) satisfying the constraints in Eq. (9) \[Eq. (6)\] with sharp inequalities. One can easily check that both the primal and dual problems associated with the quantum-state discrimination problem are strictly feasible. Hence we can use a powerful result of SDP theory saying that in this case, $`x`$ is optimal if and only if $`x`$ is primal feasible and there is a dual feasible $`Z`$ such that

$$ZF(x)=0.$$
(10)
This condition is called the complementary slackness condition. Now, taking $`x_i`$ to be the coordinates of the Lagrange operator $`\lambda `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ basis, $`x_i=\mathrm{Tr}\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}p^2`$, the complementary slackness condition is seen to be equivalent to the extremal equation. Since the dual feasibility of the iteratively obtained POM elements is guaranteed by construction, our extremal equation becomes a necessary and sufficient condition on the maximum of $`P_s`$ once the positive semidefiniteness of $`F(x)`$ is verified. In terms of states and POM elements this latter condition reads:

$$\lambda \xi _j\rho _j0,j=1\mathrm{}M$$
(11)
One perceives that complementary slackness condition (10) together with the criterion of optimality (11) are nothing else than the well-known Helstrom equations  for POM maximizing the success probability (1).

Let us illustrate the utility of our algorithm on a simple, albeit nontrivial example of discriminating between three non-symmetric coplanar qubit states. The geometry of this problem is shown in Fig. 1.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ taken to be equal-prior states, $`\xi _1=\xi _2=\xi /2`$, symmetrically placed around the $`z`$ axis; the third state lies in the direction of $`x`$ or $`y`$. A similar configuration (with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ lying along $`z`$) has recently been investigated by Andersson et al. . Exploiting the mirror symmetry of their problem the authors derived analytic expressions for POMs minimizing the average error rate. For a given angle $`\phi `$ the optimum POM turned out to have two or three nonzero elements depending on the amount of the prior information $`\xi `$.

Our problem is a bit more complicated one due to the lack of the mirror symmetry. Let us see whether the transition from the mirror-symmetric configuration to a non-symmetric one has some influence on the qualitative behavior of the optimal POMs. Minimal error rates calculated using the proposed iterative procedure \[Eqs. (4) and (5)\] for the fixed angle of $`\phi =\pi /16`$ are summarized in Fig. 2.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the numerical results partly coincide with that of Ref. . For large $`\xi `$ (region III) the optimum strategy consist in the optimal discrimination between states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$. When $`\xi `$ becomes smaller than a certain $`\phi `$-dependent threshold (region II), state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ can no longer be ignored and the optimum POM has three nonzero elements. Simple calculation yields

$$\xi _{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{III}}=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi }$$
(12)
for the threshold value of the prior. However, when $`\xi `$ becomes still smaller (region I), the optimum POM will eventually become a two-element POM again – the optimal strategy now being the optimal discrimination between states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$. This last regime is absent in the mirror-symmetric case. The transition between regions I and II is governed by a much more complicated expression than Eq. (12), and will not be given here. We will close the example noting that already a few iterations are enough to determine the optimum discriminating device to the precision the elements of the realistic experimental setup can be controlled with in the laboratory.

In this paper we derived a simple iterative algorithm for finding optimal devices for quantum-state discrimination. Utility of our procedure was illustrated on a non-trivial example of discriminating between three non-symmetric states. From the mathematical point of view, the problem of quantum-state discrimination is a problem of the semidefinite programming. Such correspondence is a good news since there exist robust numerical tools designed to deal with SDP problems. These can substitute our iterative algorithm in the very few exceptional cases (if there are any) where our procedure might suffer from the convergence problems.

This work was supported by grant No. LN00A015 and project CEZ:J14/98 “Wave and particle optics” of the Czech Ministry of Education.