text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

Cosmology education has become an integral part of modern physics courses. Directed by National Curricula, major UK examination boards have developed syllabi that contain explicit statements about the model of the Big Bang and the strong observational evidence that supports it. This work examines the similarities and differences in these specifications, addresses when cosmology could be taught within a physics course, what should be included in this teaching and in what sequence it should be taught at different levels.

## 1 Introduction

Contained within the frameworks of UK National Curricula, the model of the Big Bang is a requisite part of modern day physics teaching (see Pimbblet 2002 for a fuller discussion). For example, the English National Curriculum states that pupils should be taught about some ideas used to explain the origin and evolution of the Universe . Building upon these curricula, the major examination boards in the UK incorporate statements about Universal origins in their syllabi (see Appendix A). There is, however, little guidance about when to teach cosmology (both within a physics course and at what point in schooling), what topics and issues to cover and in what order to teach them. This plan of this work is as follows. We examine what topics are required to be taught, firstly at G.C.S.E. level and then at A-level. Within each of these areas, we define the sequence of topics to be taught. Finally we address when cosmology should be taught within any given physics course.

## 2 Cosmology in science courses for 14-16 year olds

All of the G.C.S.E. specifications (Appendix A) require an understanding of the Hubble relation. In some cases this is explicit in the form of $`v=Hd`$, in others, it is implicitly suggested via a qualitative relationship between recession velocity and distance (Hubble and Humason 1931). Given that the Hubble relation represents one of the major cornerstones of evidence in favour of an evolving Universe, this is of little surprise.

Many of the examination syllabi, however, delve little further into cosmology education than Hubble’ s relation. It is of credit to EdExcel that its course goes into a little more depth. Firstly, there is the topic of the future evolution of the Universe. Depending on the amount of mass and energy that the Universe possesses, one of several fates may befall it. If the Universe has enough matter, then it may cease expanding and start to contract back under gravitational force. This would result in a Big Crunch scenario. Conversely, with very little matter contents, the Universe would simply go on expanding forever. The figure of merit that determines which fate awaits the Universe is known as the critical density and represents a quantity of matter that is just sufficient to cease the Universal expansion. Modern observations display a trend in favour of the latter scenario (Perlmutter et al 1999). Further, the inflationary scenario (e.g. Guth 2000) provides a theoretical backdrop for constraining the critical density to be very close to one (i.e. the Universe just manages to avoid collapsing back in on itself).

Related to this topic is the issue of dark matter. It is thought that much of the matter in the Universe has not been (and probably cannot be) observed directly (e.g. Peebles 1993). Therefore, the so-called cold dark matter (e.g. Governato, Ghigna & Moore 2001; Colberg et al 2000) will add a significant amount of matter to the content of the Universe and hence will influence its future evolution (see above).

The final topic that appears in some G.C.S.E. course specifications is the cosmic microwave background radiation, arguably one of the most important astronomical discoveries of the twentieth century (Penzias and Wilson 1965). If interpreted as highly redshifted radiation from the Big Bang, it provides unrivalled evidence for an evolving Universe that was once extremely hot- several billion Kelvin (see Pimbblet 2002 for further discussion of this point).

Interestingly, the G.C.S.E. EdExcel syllabus also makes explicit reference to the Steady State theory of the Universe. It is easy, perhaps, to forget that the Big Bang theory was at one time just one of many competing theories (see Ellis 1987 for a review of alternative cosmologies). In the first half of the twentieth century, Hoyle and collaborators proposed the rival steady state theory. In simple terms, the steady state theory describes a Universe that is homogeneous, isotropic and isochronal. That is to say, almost the same as the Big Bang model apart from that it appears identical no matter what point in time it is viewed at (i.e. has no definite beginning). Whilst it can explain an expanding Universe, steady state predicts that there must also be a continuous creation of matter: something that has never sat well with the astronomy community. The fall from grace for steady state came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (Penzias and Wilson 1965; see above), which only the Big Bang model provides a compelling, natural explanation for.

Therefore, within any G.C.S.E. course, we advise teachers to commence cosmology with a review of some of the observational evidence in favour of the evolutionary Big Bang model: the Hubble relation and the cosmic microwave background radiation. This can then readily be underscored with a discussion of the future evolution of the Universe. Finally a whole class discussion about other cosmological theories, including steady state, can take place (Pimbblet 2002).

## 3 Cosmology in advanced pre-university courses

The A-level specifications (Appendix A) broadly follow the same pattern as the G.C.S.E. ones. They concentrate on the observational foundations of the evolving Big Bang theory (see above) but also touch on other topics.

For example, in the OCR specification is Olbers paradox. Named after Wilhelm Olbers (1758-1840), the paradox is an old astrophysical issue (see Jaki 1969 for an authoritative summary of pre-twentieth century work). Simply put, the paradox asks why the night sky is so dark? If the Universe is of an infinite age and the stars that it contains are distributed evenly (i.e. homogeneous and isotropic), it is fairly straight forward to conclude that the night sky should be equal in brightness to the Sun (e.g. Tipler 1988). Olbers own resolution to this paradox was to conceive of invisible interstellar dust absorbing the light. Yet, this explanation is insufficient: the amount of dust required would obscure the Sun during the day! Work that followed demonstrated that in order for the night sky to appear luminous, the Universe must possess an age of $`10^{23}`$ years. Therefore, the assumption of an infinite age for the Universe is invalid. Yet, authors also overlooked two important factors for some time: stars have finite ages (hence they burn out) and special relativity (hence each photon of light that arrives carries less energy than when it was emitted). Whilst Harrison (1987) shows that the dominant factor is the finite ages of stars, both effects contribute in the same way: to make the sky darker and thus resolve the paradox.

One major part of cosmology that is conspicuous by its absence from A-level is the abundance of the elements that results from nucleosynthesis (e.g. Burles, Nollett and Turner 2001). In simple terms, Big Bang nucleosynthesis explains why there is an abundance of light elements in comparison to heavier elements. As such, it provides cosmologists with a very good method of testing the quantitative predictions of Big Bang theory (Krauss and Romanelli 1990). We advocate that teachers include nucleosynthesis in any advanced level course as, taken in combination with the Hubble relation and the cosmic microwave background radiation, they make the Big Bang theory appear highly watertight.

Finally, although not on any examination syllabus examined, there are further pieces of observational evidence pointing towards an evolving (and hence non-steady state) Universe. Such evidence should only be taught to high ability classes when time permits. For example, the Butcher-Oemler effect (Butcher and Oemler 1984) shows a recent, strong evolution within the stellar populations of galaxies. At a diluted level, this effect demonstrates that the fraction of blue, star-forming (young) galaxies within clusters of galaxies increases with increasing redshift (and hence with decreasing time since the Big Bang). Thus, clusters of galaxies that are further away are less evolved and younger than those located nearby.

Therefore, any advanced level course should broadly follow the sequence outlined for G.C.S.E. courses. We advise teachers to build upon the observational evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory: the Hubble relation, cosmic microwave background radiation and include nucleosynthesis. Olbers paradox can potentially be slotted in after this, or at the end of teaching about stellar evolution. As time permits, other bits of evidence such as the Butcher-Oemler effect can also be included as evidence in favour of the Big Bang. The sequence would then follow the G.C.S.E. outline again: the future evolution of the Universe and a guided class discussion about alternative cosmologies.

## 4 Sequencing cosmology education

Having outlined what topics to teach and in which order to teach them in, we now turn to the question of when cosmology should be taught within a given physics specification.

Astrophysics as a discrete unit of teaching typically comes last within any G.C.S.E. or A-level scheme of work. Since the topic requires a synthesis of prior knowledge from many parts of a syllabus, this is of little surprise. The downside is, of course, that teaching astrophysics as the last subject will probably not leave sufficient time for it. Attempting to teach this topic earlier, say at the beginning of the final year of a course, may prove productive, especially given its timeless popularity (e.g. Toscano 2002). Instead of being a synthesis for other topics, astrophysics can readily be turned into a springboard for them. Thus we advocate teaching astrophysics in the middle of a physics course, after some groundwork in classical physics such as forces has been taught.

Within astrophysics, cosmology nearly always comes last. The reason for this primarily appears that astrophysics is taught lengthwise as a bottom-up subject: starting off with Earth-bound phenomena and working up in scale through the Solar System to the Universe as a whole. The bottom-up method is, however, a sound premise because it institutes in pupils a sense of Universal size.

Finally, throughout our discussion about what topics to include in cosmology (see above), we have emphasized an observational approach. This has been done for two reasons. Firstly, any successful cosmological theory (such as the Big Bang) must be able to explain the observations. Secondly, it is predicted that such an observational approach will help to deal with many misconceptions that pupils hold about cosmology (Pimbblet 2002; Prather, Slater and Offerdahl 2002).

## 5 Conclusions

This work has discussed what sequence cosmology should be taught in (within both the 14-16 year old age range and in pre-university courses), what topics to include and at what point in schooling it should be taught.

We have suggested that:

1. Astrophysics as a discrete unit should be taught in the middle of a course once sufficient grounding in classical physics (e.g. forces) is completed. It can then be used as a springboard into other topics (e.g. light).
2. Cosmology should be the last subject within an astrophysics unit.
3. Cosmology education should be built upon the observational foundations that support the Big Bang theory (Hubble s relation and the cosmic microwave background radiation at G.C.S.E. with the addition of nucleosynthesis at A- level). Any successful cosmology must, after-all, be able to explain such observations.
4. Both Olbers paradox and the Butcher-Oemler effect broadly support the case for an evolving Universe and can be taught as necessary and desired.
5. A discussion about the future evolution of the Universe and other cosmologies (Pimbblet 2002) should then follow.

This work follows Pimbblet (2002) and is the second paper in a series examining aspects of cosmology education.

## Acknowledgements

KAP and JCN thank the staff and students of St.Leonard’ s RCVA technology college, Durham.

## References

Burles S, Nollett K M and Turner M S 2001 Astrophys. J. 552 L1
Butcher H and Oemler A 1984 Astrophys. J. 285 426
Colberg J M et al 2000 Monthly Not. R. Astron. Soc. 319 209
Ellis G F R 1987 A. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. 22 157
Einstein A 1950 The Principle of Relativity London: Metheun
Governato F, Ghigna S and Moore B 2001 in Astrophysical Ages and Times Scales, ASP Conference Series 245 469
Guth A H 2000 Phys. Rep. 333 555
Harrison E 1987 Darkness at Night Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
Hubble E and Humason M L 1931 Astrophys. J. 74 43
Jaki S L 1969 The Paradox of Olbers Paradox Herdr & Herder, New York
Krauss L M and Romanelli P 1990 Astrophys. J. 358 47
Moore G S M 1992 Progress of Theoretical Phys. 87 525
Peebles P J E 1993 Principals of Physical Cosmology Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press, NJ
Penzias A A and Wilson R W 1965 Astrophys. J. 142 419
Perlmutter S et al 1999 Astrophys. J. 517 586
Pimbblet K A 2002 Phys. Educ. 37 512
Prather E E, Slater T F and Offerdahl E G 2002 Astron. Educ. Rev. Issue 2 (see aer.noao.edu)
Thomas O 2002 Phys. Educ. 37 492
Tipler F J 1988 Quart. J. R. Astron. Soc. 29 313
Toscano M 2002 Phys. Educ. 37 464

## Appendix A

We provide in Table 1 a brief survey of examination syllabi from the major examination boards in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Scotland has been excluded from this survey simply because its examination structure is different from that of the other Kingdoms. Although limited in scope to UK examination boards, the content of non-UK physics course specifications, where a statement is made about cosmology, are broadly similar in nature. Readers from outside the UK, however, may be surprised at the knowledge expected of students for G.C.S.E. level (age 14- 16) and A-level (age 16-19), especially given an already heavily loaded teaching schedule (c.f. geophysics; Thomas 2002). Additionally, we note in passing that cosmology education is typically only given to students who are expected to achieve the higher grades (C or above at G.C.S.E. level) and is usually not required in foundation level G.C.S.E. physics courses.
Table 1. These are the results from surveying the major examination boards syllabi for cosmology education content. Each syllabus is analysed for content and this is presented in the categories column. A letter H denotes reference to Hubble s relation, either implicitly or explicitly; $`\mu `$ indicates reference to the cosmic microwave background radiation; $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ indicates reference to the future evolution of the Universe; DM shows explicit reference to dark matter whilst Olbers denotes reference to Olbers paradox.
Examination board, Exemplar Categories  type and year. statement   CCEA G.C.S.E. Describe the Big Bang model for H  physics (2004) the creation of the Universe   AQA G.C.S.E. This suggests that the whole Universe H  physics (2003) is expanding and that it might have    started, billions of years ago, from    one place with a huge explosion (Big Bang)   EdExcel G.C.S.E. Describe the Big Bang theory of H, $`\mu `$,  astronomy (2003) the origin of the Universe and consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, DM   other theories such as the steady state theory    Explain how the future evolution of the    Universe depends on the amount of mass present.   OCR G.C.S.E. Interpret given information about H, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$  physics (2003) developments in ideas on the origin    of the Universe   WJEC G.C.S.E. Understand that these ideas support H  physics (2003) a model of an expanding Universe    which originated approximately 12    billion years ago with the Big Bang.   AQA A-Level (Hubbles law) Qualitative treatment H  physics (2003) of Big Bang theory   OCR A-level Describe qualitatively the evolution of H, $`\mu `$,  physics (2003) the Universe from $`0.01s`$ after the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, Olbers   Big Bang to the present

Of significant note, the exemplar G.C.S.E. statement from AQA suggests that the Universe started from one place. This is a common misconception. From Einstein s field equations of general relativity (e.g. Einstein 1950), it is known that $`G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi Gc^4T_{\mu \nu }`$. For a flat space-time, the $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ components will vanish. They will also vanish for an absence of matter and pressure. The startling bottom line is that space-time is generated by matter itself. Therefore, to say that the Universe started from one place is simply wrong: with no matter, there could not have been any place , anywhere, to define! Thus it is gratifying to see that AQA have deleted the phrase from one place for their 2004 G.C.S.E. syllabus.


format: text

text:
# SuperGZK neutrinos: testing physics beyond the Standard Model

## I Introduction

The abbreviation ‘SuperGZK neutrinos’ implies neutrinos with energies above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin GZK  cutoff $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}5\times 10^{19}`$ eV. Soon after theoretical discovery of the GZK cutoff it was noticed that this phenomenon is accompanied by a flux of UHE neutrinos, that in some models can be very large BZ69 . In 80s it was realized that topological defects can produce unstable superheavy particles with masses up to the GUT scale Witten  and neutrinos with tremendous energies can emerge in this process HiSch .

It has been proposed that SuperGZK neutrinos can be detected with help of horizontal Extensive Air Showers (EAS) BeSm . The exciting prospects for detection of SuperGZK neutrinos have appeared with the ideas of space detection, e.g. in the projects EUSOEUSO  and OWLOWL . The basic idea of detection can be explained by example of EUSO.

A superGZK neutrino entering the Earth atmosphere in near-horizontal direction produces an EAS. The known fraction of its energy, which reaches 90% , is radiated in form of isotropic fluorescent light. An optical telescope from a space observatory detects this light. Since the observatory is located at very large height ($`400`$ km) in comparison with thickness of the atmosphere, the fraction of detected flux is known, and thus this is the calorimetric experiment (absorption of light in the upward direction is small). A telescope with diameter 2.5 m controls the area $`10^5`$ km2 and has a threshold for EAS detection $`E_{\mathrm{th}}1\times 10^{20}`$ eV.

## II Sources of SuperGZK neutrinos

The sources can be of the accelerator and non-accelerator origin.
Accelerator sources
A source comprises an accelerator and target. Low energy photons inside the source or outside it (e.g. CMB photons) are usually more efficient for neutrino production than gas. The problem is acceleration to $`E1.10^{20}`$ eV. For shock acceleration the maximum energy can reach optimistically $`E_{\mathrm{max}}10^{21}`$ eV for protons. There are some other, less developed accelerator mechanisms (e.g. unipolar induction, acceleration in strong e-m waves), which hopefully can provide larger $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$. An interesting mechanism with very large $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ has been recently proposed in Ref.Chen .

The large neutrino fluxes at the superGZK energies is also a problem for accelerator sources.
Non-accelerator (top-down) sources
Topological Defects (TD) and Superheavy Dark Matter (SHDM) can easily produce required superGZK energies. In both cases the superGZK neutrinos are produced in the decays of very heavy particles, unstable gauge and Higgs particles in case of TDs, and quasistable particles in case of SHDM. Neutrinos are born mostly in pion decays and have $`E_{\mathrm{max}}0.1m_X`$. A natural upper limit for mass is $`m_Xm_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}`$ GeV.

TDs differ substantially by mechanisms of SH particle production.

They include emission of X-particles through cusps in superconducting cosmic strings. In this case the energy of X-particle is boosted by the Lorentz-factor of the cusp which can reach $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^310^6`$.

In case of network of monopoles connected by strings, monopoles move with large acceleration $`a`$ and can thus radiate the gauge bosons such as gluons, $`W^\pm ,Z^0`$. Neutrinos appear in their decays, in case of gluons through production and decays of pions. The typical energy of radiated quanta is $`Ea\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ is the Lorentz-factor of the monopole.

In necklaces, where each monopole (antimonopole) is attached to two strings, all monololes and antimonopoles inevitably annihilate in the end of evolution, producing neutrinos in the this process (see Subsection IV.3).

Vortons can decay due to quantum tunnelling, producing neutrinos.

In some of the cases listed above the neutrino energies can be larger (due to Lorentz factor) than the GUT scale.

SHDM is very efficiently produced at inflation due to gravitational radiation and is accumulated in galactic halos with overdensity $`10^5`$. Neutrinos are produced at the decay of these particles mostly in extragalactic space. (see Subsection IV.4).

For more details of the top-down particle production see reviews td .

## III Upper limits on diffuse neutrino fluxes

Cascade upper limit BeSm ; book
Production of HE neutrinos is accompanied by photons and electrons which start e-m cascade colliding with target photons ($`\gamma +\gamma _{\mathrm{tar}}e^++e^{}`$, $`e+\gamma _{\mathrm{tar}}e^{}+\gamma ^{}`$). The cascade photons get into range observed by EGRET, and the energy density of these photons, $`\omega _{\mathrm{cas}}`$, put the upper limit on diffuse HE neutrino flux $`J_\nu (E)`$ as it follows from the obvious chain of inequalities BeSm ; book :

$$\omega _{\mathrm{cas}}>\omega _\nu (E)\frac{4\pi }{c}_E^{\mathrm{}}EJ_\nu (E)𝑑E>\frac{4\pi }{c}E_E^{\mathrm{}}J_\nu (E)𝑑E=\frac{4\pi }{c}EJ_\nu (>E),$$

from which the bound for differential neutrino flux follows

$$E^2I_\nu (E)(c/4\pi )\omega _{\mathrm{cas}}.$$
(1)
The upper bound Eq. (1) is obtained under assumptions that neutrinos are produced in the chain of decays of particles (e.g. pions, $`W`$ and $`Z^0`$), where electrons or photons appear too, and that the sources are not opaque for the cascade photons. In fact cascade can develop inside a source, provided that produced cascade photons are not absorbed by gas in the source. Only fully opaque (‘hidden‘) sources escape the bound Eq. (1), e.g. see Subsection IV.5.

This bound has a great generality. It is valid for photon and proton target and for any spectrum index (in this case the bound becomes up to factor 2 stronger book , p.359).
Waxman-Bahcall (WB) upper limit WB
If UHE protons escape freely from a source, their flux should be less than the observed one. It gives the WB bound on neutrino flux produced by escaping protons. It is obtained for a specific shape ($`1/E^2`$) of the production spectrum. This bound is much stronger than the cascade limit, but it is not valid for many sources and models (e.g. for TDs and SHDM, where production of protons is negligible, for acceleration sources at high redshift, from which UHE protons do not reach us, for clusters of galaxies, since time of CR exit from there is larger than age of universe, for some specific AGN models, e.g. the Stecker model etc). However, it is valid for diffuse flux from some interesting sources like GRBs and some models of AGN.
Mannheim-Protheroe-Rachen (MPR) upper bound MPR
As compared to the WB bound, the MPR limit is valid for sources with various optical depths and for different maximal acceleration energies. It is weaker than WB bound, and for high and low energies differ not too much from the cascade limit.
Since UHE protons is subdominant component for most sources of superGZK neutrinos (see next Section), the WB and MPR bounds are not valid for them, and the cascade bound becomes most appropriate.

## IV Diffuse fluxes of superGZK neutrinos

### IV.1 AGN and other accelerator sources

The fluxes of UHE neutrinos produced in $`p\gamma `$ collisions with CMB photons by UHE protons from AGN (quasars and Seyfert galaxies) were calculated in Ref.BeSm  up to $`E_{\mathrm{max}}10^{21}`$ eV. The assumed cosmological evolution of the sources up to redshift $`z=14`$ with the evolutionary index $`m=4`$ increases strongly the flux. The cascade upper bound has been taken into account.

Recently the detailed calculations of diffuse neutrino fluxes from evolutionary and non-evolutionary sources have been performed in Ref.Kal  (see also Fod ). The acceleration mechanisms are not specified, but it is assumed that generation spectra are flat and $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ can reach $`3\times 10^{22}`$ eV. Neutrinos are produced in collisions with CMB photons. The calculated fluxes agree by order of magnitude with those from Ref.BeSm

### IV.2 Reionization bright phase

The WMAP detection of reionization WMAP  implies an early formation of stars at large redshifts up to $`z20`$, able to reionize the universe.

A plausible process is formation of very massive, $`M>100M_{}`$, Population III stars with subsequent fragmentation to SN. Two-burst scenario of reionization is plausible: at $`z15`$ and $`z6`$ Cen . The fraction of baryonic matter in the form of compact objects is $`0.01`$ at $`z10`$ WMAP . Fragmentation of massive Pop III stars into presupernovae and black holes results in CR acceleration by various mechanisms (shocks, jets in miniquasars and hypernovae etc). Not specifying them we shall assume that the energy release in the form of CR is $`W_{\mathrm{cr}}5\times 10^{50}`$ erg/$`1M_{}`$, generation spectrum is $`E^{2.1}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=1\times 10^{13}`$ GeV. Neutrinos are produced in collisions with CMB photons. In Fig.1 we present the calculated neutrino spectrum for two values of $`z`$ (20 and 5) BeGa , together with cascade upper limit for one neutrino flavour. This model is very similar to the galactic bright phase (for a review see book , p.352).

### IV.3 Necklaces

Necklaces are hybrid TDs (monopoles connected by strings) formed in a sequence of symmetry breaking phase transition $`GH\times U(1)H\times Z_2`$. In the first phase transition the monopoles are produced, and at the second each monopole gets attached to two strings.

The symmetry breaking scales of these two phase transitions, $`\eta _m`$ and $`\eta _s`$, are the main parameters of the necklaces. They give the monopole mass, $`m4\pi \eta _m/e`$, and tension of the string, $`\mu 2\pi \eta _s^2`$. The evolution of necklaces is governed by ratio $`r=m/\mu d`$, where $`d`$ is a length of a string between two monopoles. During the evolution this length diminishes due to gravitational radiation, and in the end all monopoles and antimonopoles annihilate, producing high energy neutrinos as the dominant radiation. The diffuse neutrino flux from necklaces is given ABB  in Fig. 2. Note, that the rate of UHE particle production in this model is $`\dot{n}_Xr^2\mu /t^3m_X`$, where $`r`$ tends in evolution of a necklace to $`r_{\mathrm{max}}\eta _m/\eta _s10^{13}`$ contrary to expectation in Ref.Kal  that this parameter is typically $`1`$ for all TDs.

### IV.4 Superheavy dark matter (SHDM)

Production of SHDM particles naturally occurs in time varying gravitational field of the expanding universe at post-inflationary stage KuTk ; Kolb . This mechanism of production does not depend on the coupling of X-particles with other fields, and occurs even in case of sterile X-particles. The relic density of these particles is mainly determined (at fixed reheating temperature and inflaton mass) by mass $`m_X`$. SHDM can constitute all CDM observed in the universe, or be its subdominant component. The range of practical interest is given by masses $`(310)10^{13}`$ GeV, at larger masses the SHDM is subdominant.

SHDM is accumulated in the Galactic halo with overdensity $`10^5`$.

In many elementary-particle models SH particles can be quasi-stable with lifetime $`\tau _X10^{10}`$ yr. Such decaying particles produce UHECR with photons from the halo being the dominant component. The measured flux of these photons with corresponding signatures (anisotropy in the direction of Galactic Center and the muon-poor EAS) determines $`\tau _X`$ experimentally. Such precise determination of a parameter from experimental data has nothing to do with fine-tuning.

The energy spectrum of HE particles is now reliably calculated in the SUSY-QCD framework as $`dE/E^2`$, there is an agreement between the calculations of different groups BK-MC ; SaTo ; BaDr .

Neutrino flux from SHDM is given in Fig.3 according to Refs.BKV ; BK-MC . It is produced by decays of X-particles in extragalactic space, while UHECR signal is produced mainly by photons from X-particle decays in the Galactic halo.

### IV.5 Mirror matter

Mirror matter can be most powerful source of UHE neutrinos not limited by the usual cascade limit mirror .

Existence of mirror matter is an interesting theoretical idea which was introduced by Lee and Yang (1956), Landau (1957) and most notably by Kobzarev, Okun and Pomeranchuk (1966) to have a space reflection operator $`I_s`$ commuting with Hamiltonian $`[I_s,H]=0`$. The mirror particle space is generated by operator $`I_s`$, which transfers the left states of ordinary particles into right states of the mirror particles and vise versa. The mirror particles have interactions identical to the ordinary particles, but these two sectors interact with each other only gravitationally. Gravitational interaction mixes the visible and mirror neutrino states, and thus causes the oscillation between them.

A cosmological scenario must provide the suppression of the mirror matter and in particular the density of mirror neutrinos at the epoch of nucleosynthesis. It can be obtained in the two-inflaton model mirror . The rolling of two inlaton to minimum of the potential is not synchronised, and when mirror inflaton reaches minimum, the ordinary inflaton continues its rolling, inflating thus the mirror matter produced by the mirror inflaton. While mirror matter is suppressed, the mirror topological defects can strongly dominate mirror . Mirror TDs copiously produce mirror neutrinos with extremely high energies typical for TDs, and they are not accompanied by any visible particles. Therefore, the upper limits on HE mirror neutrinos in our world do not exist. All HE mirror particles produced by mirror TDs are sterile for us, interacting with ordinary matter only gravitationally, and only mirror neutrinos can be efficiently converted into ordinary ones due to oscillations. The only (weak) upper limit comes from the resonant interaction of converted neutrinos with DM neutrinos: $`\nu +\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{DM}}Z^0`$ mirror .

In Fig.4 UHE neutrino flux from mirror TDs is presented according to calculations ABB . This model provides the largest flux of superGZK neutrinos being not restricted by the standard cascade bound (1).

## V Conclusions

The detectable fluxes of superGZK neutrinos ($`E_\nu >10^{20}`$ eV) can be produced by accelerator and non-accelerator sources.

The accelerator sources need $`E_{\mathrm{max}}1\times 10^{21}`$ eV, which most probably implies the non-shock acceleration mechanisms.

The non-acceleration sources, topological defects and superheavy relic particles, involve physics beyond the Standard Model. Very high neutrino energies, in excess of the GUT scale, are possible for these sources. The fluxes are normally limited by the cascade bound. The largest flux (above the standard cascade bound) is predicted by the mirror matter model.


text:
# Timing of the Penrose R-Process

## Introduction

Penrose assumes that Nature will not tolerate significant differences in geometry between two competing eigenstates in a quantum mechanical system. If the metrical uncertainty between the states is greater than the Planck length, then according to Penrose, there will be an “objective” collapse (R-process) of the wave function that selects one component of the superposition and drives the other to zero . This collapse is coupled to the onset of environmental decoherence between the components, rendering them locally incoherent.

The timing of a collapse is said to depend on the difference between the gravitational energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of the competing eigenstates including their environments. The time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ allowed for the R-process to occur is then given by $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. In the macroscopic case to be considered, the difference in gravitational energy of the competing environments will dominate the effect, guaranteeing a virtually instantaneous decay of the state function as classically expected (ref. 1, pp. 341-342).

## The Interaction

In another paper , the author considers an interaction in which a particle/detector system is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=exp(iHt)\psi _iD_i`$, where $`\psi _i`$ and $`D_i`$ are the initial states of the incoming particle and the detector, and $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian divided by $`\mathrm{}`$. Because $`H`$ includes an interaction term between $`\psi `$ and $`D`$, the resulting state $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is an entanglement in which the particle variables and the detector variables are not separable. However, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is a superposition (in the representation considered) so we can group its components in any way that we like. I form two major components: (1) those detector states $`D_0`$ in which there is no particle capture, and (2) those detector states $`D_1(t)`$ in which there is a particle capture. Let $`\psi (t)`$ represent the free particle as a function of time, including all the incoming and scattering components. It is therefore entangled with $`D_0`$. But since the detector is macroscopic, we may approximate $`D_0`$ to be a constant that can be factored out of $`\psi (t)`$. The captured particle is included in the component $`D_1(t)`$. This gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=\psi (t)D_0+D_1(t)$$
(1)
where $`D_1(t)`$ is equal to zero at $`t_0`$ and increases in time, whereas $`\psi (t)D_0`$ is normalized to one at $`t_0`$ and decreases in time.

When the environments $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are attached to these components the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ associated with these macroscopic components is very large; so, the Penrose theory predicts an “immediate” stochastic reduction. But that cannot be correct, for the Hamiltonian has other plans.

The Hamiltonian requires that the superposition in eq. 1 will last as long as is necessary for the interaction to run its course. The timing of a collapse (i.e., a particle capture) is determined by the probability current flowing from the first to the second component, and that is determined by the rate at which the particle wave approaches and overlaps the detector at each moment. For low-level radioactive emissions yielding particle waves that are spread widely over space, the interaction in eq. 1 might last for hours or days. In that case the superposition will last for hours or days. So the ‘time’ of a particle capture in this treatment is not a function of decoherence or gravitational thresholds. It is, *and should be*, a function of the parameters of the incoming particle and the cross section of the particle with the detector. The dynamics of the Hamiltonian therefore conflict with the predictions of the Penrose theory.

## Alternative Interpretation

There is another difficulty with the above interpretation of $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. It is said that a reduction occurs immediately because of the great difference in gravitational energy between the first and second components in eq. 1. But “immediately” means at time $`t_0`$, and at time $`t_0`$ the second component is equal to zero. How can the second component be gravitationally competitive with the first component if it is equal to zero?

Normally the decay time of a quantum mechanical system is given by $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is its Heisenberg spread in energy. In the above example $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ would then correspond to the spread in the energy of the incoming particle wave packet, and the time $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ would correspond to the time that it takes for the packet to pass over the detector. This ‘alternative’ interpretation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ would give the right result. The trouble is, the expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is a minimum condition, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ might be much larger than $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

Imagine that the incoming particle is a photon that is divided into two equal pulses by a half-silvered mirror. Let both pulses be directed toward the detector, which is represented in the accompanying figure by a shaded rectangle; and assume that the total cross section is such that there is a probability of 1.0 that the particle will be captured. Then the uncertainty of the time of interaction is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ which is approximated in the figure as the time interval between the pulses. This interval can be made indefinitely large, so the interaction time can be made indefinitely large without changing the uncertainty in energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

If the particle is not captured when the first pulse goes by, it will be captured when the second pulse arrives at the detector. Since the theory prescribes that a reduction must occur within a time $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E<\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, a reduction will necessarily occur *between* the two pulses according to our second (alternative) interpretation of $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. This is certainly not correct. Another way of putting this is to say that the second component in eq. 1 would be stochastically chosen at a time when there is no probability current flowing into it – also not correct. So the second interpretation of $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is just as problematic as the first. This argument disqualifies any interpretation of $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ because $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in the figure can be made indefinitely large.

The Penrose theory attributes state reduction (R-process) to a gravitational tension that exists between competing components in a quantum mechanical superposition. However, the theory does not work as a function of time because it cannot generally replicate Hamiltonian dynamics. If the theory is to be modified in such a way that it does follow the Hamiltonian, it must find a way to introduce *probability current* as a determining influence. The importance of probability current to *any* theory of state reduction is explained in ref. 2. A Penrose-like gravitational tension must have something to do with the dynamics between states, and not just their respective static magnitudes.


text:
# Interwoven basin structures of double logistic map at the edge of chaos

## Abstract

The carpeting regularity of basin structures for simply doubled logistic map is studied. Examining the elementary structures of which global basin structures are composed, we found them to have a impressive interrelation which we call *all in one and one in all*. Curves appearing in the basins and their expressions are also discussed.

preprint: HEP/123-qed

We occasionally come across some patterns where several geometrical structures are interwoven exquisitely. Those structures seem to have very curious interrelations such that they are interwoven into others repeatedly over a wide range of scale. Consequently, a small section of the structure may contain information about the whole. Interwoven patterns and their regularity deserve to be objects of aesthetical appreciation and scientific research. Prominent instances would be those patterns appearing in Mandelbrot sets and Julia sets j1 . Also, dynamic systems with multistability show various features of interwovenness in basins of attraction, such as fractal f1 ; f2 ; fr ; fn , riddled fr ; r1 ; r2 ; rn ; rs  and intermingled i1  basin boundaries. Recently they became objects of intense investigations with related subjects including synchronization rs ; s1  and noise effects fn ; rn ; n1 .

In this paper, geometrical regularities of basin structures for two-dimensional simply doubled logistic map at the edge of chaos is investigated. These basin structures are found to have a regularity which shows global interwovenness and overall interrelation.

Simply doubled logistic map is

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}x_{t+1}\\ y_{t+1}\end{array}\right\}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mu x_t(1x_t)\\ \mu y_t(1y_t)\end{array}\right\}.$$
(1)
It is a very simple two-dimensional map which is physically trivial. Nevertheless, it shows very regular interwovenness which may have referential significances for other interwoven structures.

In the period-2 region, the map has two attractors “in-phase”, $`(x_1,x_1)(x_2,x_2)`$ and “out-of-phase”, $`(x_1,x_2)(x_2,x_1)`$ where $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are cyclic points of the logistic map, $`x_{t+1}=F_\mu (x_t)=\mu x_t(1x_t)`$. Likewise, the Eq. (1) has $`2^p`$ attractors in the $`2^p`$-cycle region with phases,

$$y_t=x_{t+m}form=0,1,2,\mathrm{},2^p1.$$

With $`\mu =3.4`$ in period-2 region, the map has two basins of attraction as shown in Fig. 1, where dark regions are the basin of the “in-phase” attractor while white rectangles are that of the “out-of-phase” attractor.

Divisions of these rectangular regions can be given with straight lines, $`x=x_n`$, $`x=1x_n`$, $`y=x_n`$, and $`y=1x_n`$ with $`x_n`$’s as

$`x_n=\mathrm{max}\{x|F_\mu ^{(n1)}(x)=F_\mu ^{(n)}(x)\}`$
$`forn=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.`$ (2)
The basin of the “in-phase” attractor with $`\mu =3.54`$ in the period-4 region is shown in Fig. 2 with dark regions, while white regions will be occupied by the other three basins. For the convenience of later discussions, let us designate rectangles white or dark in Fig. 1 as “primary”, and inner rectangles in “primary” ones as seen in Fig. 2 as “secondary” rectangles. Actually there are an infinite number of “primary” rectangles with a wide range of sizes and proportions in Fig. 1. Consequently, most of them have infinitesimal area.

Our main concern is basin structures with $`\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$, on the edge of chaos where there exist an infinite number of attractors. Among them, a few basins of attractors with small phase differences between $`x`$ and $`y`$ are selected and presented in Figs. 3 \- 6 ($`y_t=x_t`$, $`y_t=x_{t+1}`$, $`y_t=x_{t+2}`$, $`y_t=x_{t+3}`$ in sequence).

In these Figures, we can see repeated appearances of some patterns in various sizes with winding curves, thus, one might suspect the existence of a carpeting regularity ruling all basin structures. We may ask how the patterns of those basin carpets are composed, and what those curves are.

A simple and effective way to answer the first question is to elucidate the overall interrelation among basin structures rather than enumerate each of them. Examining every “primary” rectangle in global basin structures, its pattern is found to have correspondence with a global basin structure. It is needed to magnify “primary” rectangles whose sizes are too small for direct examination. The result is summarized in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 which represent central parts of $`[2m]`$ and $`[2m+1]`$, global basin structures of two attractors with phases $`y_t=x_{t+2m}`$ and $`y_t=x_{t+(2m+1)}`$. Here we let a symbol $`[m]`$ denote the pattern of the global basin structure for an attractor with phase $`y_t=x_{t+m}`$, and the letter $`m`$ in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 has the same meaning. We should remark that \[m\] represents only the pattern of the basin structure and not its exact proportion or size, and all “primary” rectangles are presented as squares in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 in spite of differences in area and proportion.

The rectangles are occupied in a checker pattern and the largest central “primary” square as in Figs. 3 \- 6 is oriented at the center of Fig. 7 or Fig. 8. In $`[2m]`$ (Fig. 7), the central square and those along the diagonals are occupied by $`[m]`$, this is followed by $`[m1]`$, $`[m2]`$, etc. moving horizontally away from the diagonals and by $`[m+1]`$, $`[m+2]`$, etc. moving vertically away from the diagonals. For $`[2m+1]`$, the central square is empty and the nearest rectangles are occupied with $`[m]`$ and $`[m+1]`$ as shown in Fig. 8. Accordingly, global patterns of Figs. 3 \- 6 can be symbolized as $`[0]`$, $`[1]`$, $`[2]`$ and $`[3]`$ respectively. The same rule will hold for the relation between “primary” rectangles and “secondary” ones and also for rectangles of further levels.

The pattern of basin carpet $`[m]`$ can be defined by $`\{\mathrm{}b_3b_2b_1\}`$, the binary notation of an integer number $`m`$, as the last digit $`b_1`$ determines occupations of “primary” rectangles and $`b_2`$ arranges “secondary” ones. With their binary variations, these basin patterns remind us of the T’ai Chi (Tai Ji) diagram in I jing (Yijing, Book of Changes) which is the central frame in chinese cosmology t1 .

We can see the emergence of a large number of curves which are crossing each other in Figs. 3 \- 6. The appearance of curves seems to be a consequence of the edge of chaos. In Fig. 3, noticeable ones are diagonal lines, a circular shape and more winding curves. We attempt to express them respectively as

$`\overline{y}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x},`$
$`\overline{y}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x},`$
$$\overline{x}^2+\overline{y}^2+A_1=0,$$
(3)
and

$$\overline{x}^4+\overline{y}^4+B_1\overline{x}^2+B_1\overline{y}^2+B_2=0,$$
(4)
with proper constants which can be expressed with $`x_n`$’s of Eq. (2) as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`B_1=\overline{x}_1^2\overline{x}_2^2,`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x}_1^2\overline{x}_2^2+\overline{x}_1^2\overline{x}_3^2+\overline{x}_2^2\overline{x}_3^2\overline{x}_3^4.`$
Here we used $`\overline{x}`$, $`\overline{y}`$ and $`\overline{x}_n`$ as $`\overline{x}x\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\overline{y}y\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\overline{x}_nx_n\frac{1}{2}`$ for simplicity of expressions. Curves of these expressions are depicted in Fig. 9, they show exact coincidences with the curves in Fig. 3.

In this paper, we have studied orderly interwoven patterns in basins of double logistic map. Interwovenness is beautiful from an aesthetic viewpoint and certainly has some geometrical regularities. But for the most part they are emergent and mystic, so, direct apprehension of them is not easy. We have dealt with interwoven patterns which are exceptionally regular, with a definite global order. This regularity may have referential significance for other interwoven structures, as well as for basin structures of coupled maps. The order in these patterns may be visible facets of an exquisite regularity for which there remains much room for further investigation. We see that these basin structures have impressive interrelations which might be called *all in one and one in all*, all the basin structures are contained in a basin which takes part in building up the all vice versa over a wide range of scale. *This interrelation suggests an interesting idea to us about the wholeness and the elementariness.* Interwovenness may be ubiquitous, and is an interesting aspect of nonlinear phenomena in nature. Clarification of the regularity might be a way to understand the nonlinear features.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author acknowledges a critical reading of the manuscript and also fruitful discussions with Michael Walker.


text:
# RELATIVISTIC ASTROPHYSICS EXPLORER

## INTRODUCTION

Timing is a key tool of X-ray astronomy. The first definitive source identifications made using X-ray data alone were of X-ray pulsars – identified via periodic signals with sinusoidal period modulation due to orbital motion (Tananbaum et al. 1972). Recently, X-ray timing has made substantial and unique contributions to our understanding of accreting compact objects including the behavior of matter in strong gravitational fields, the formation of relativistic jets, the physical geometry and emission mechanisms of active galactic nuclei, the evolution of neutron stars in binaries, and X-ray emission regions in cataclysmic variables by exploiting the large effective area of the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) (for a review see Bradt 1999).

These successes are a strong indication that further advances in X-ray timing instrumentation will engender further scientific advances. To take an ‘order of magnitude’ step, a next generation X-ray timing mission will need an X-ray detector with an area ten times that of RXTE, on the order of 6 m2 (Kaaret et al. 2001). With an order of magnitude increase in photon counting rate, it will be possible to go beyond the initial steps made with RXTE and exploit high frequency X-ray timing to test models of the behavior of matter in strong gravitational fields and to measure the fundamental physical properties of black holes and neutron stars. In addition, the increased sensitivity will make possible new discoveries of unanticipated phenomena. Here, we describe two examples highlighting application of X-ray timing to the study of strong-field gravity and ultradense matter.

### 0.1 Fast quasiperiodic oscillations from black hole candidates

Quasiperiodic oscillations (QPOs) have been discovered in the X-ray emission from several accreting black hole candidate (BHC) systems with frequencies up to 450 Hz. In two sources the fast QPO frequencies appear constant regardless of the source state, while in a third the QPO frequency varies by 10% (Remillard et al. 1999). The fast QPO frequencies appear to be harmonically related, occurring at integer multiples of a (usually absent) fundamental frequency. A number of models of the QPOs have been proposed, most of which involve strong-field general relativistic effects. One very intriguing model explains the harmonic structure as due to resonances between orbital and epicyclic motion around a rotating black hole (Abramowicz and Kluzniak 2001). These fast QPOs from BHCs are weak (amplitudes near 1%), often detected only at hard X-ray energies (above 12 keV), and difficult to study in detail with RXTE. Distinguishing amongst the various models will be difficult with the current data or any data likely to be obtained in the remaining lifetime of RXTE. The increase in the photon statistics with a 6 m2 X-ray detector would enable reliable detection of the fast QPOs with relatively short integrations, allowing accurate measurement of the QPO parameters and their variations with time or correlations with spectral or other timing parameters. Such detailed measurements should lead to unique identification of the physical process generating the QPOs. With a unique model, it should be possible to exploit these QPOs to probe strong-field gravity and measure the spin, and possibly mass, of the black holes.

### 0.2 Millisecond oscillations in X-ray bursts

Millisecond oscillations have been discovered in X-ray bursts from several accreting neutron stars. The detection of oscillations with very high coherence in a long-duration X-ray burst (Strohmayer and Markwardt 2002) and the detection of burst oscillations at the known spin frequency of the millisecond pulsar SAX 1808.4-3658 (D. Chakrabarty 2002) show that the oscillations are related to the neutron star spin and are likely due to inhomogeneous nuclear burning on a rotating neutron star. The burst oscillations probe conditions at the neutron star surface and detailed measurements of their properties should lead to constraints on the mass-radius relation of neutron stars and therefore on the equation of state of ultradense matter. Because the strength of relativistic light bending due to the gravity of the neutron star depends on the neutron-star mass-radius relation, the observed maximum modulation in the burst oscillations places direct constraints on the mass-radius relation (Strohmayer et al. 1998). In addition, the spectrum of the emitted radiation should be modified by Doppler shifts as the line-of-sight velocity of the nuclear burning hot spot changes as the neutron star rotates (Ford 1999). This provides a direct measure of the surface velocity and, hence, the neutron star radius since the spin period is known. A 6 m2 X-ray detector would detect roughly 1000 counts in each oscillation cycle near the peak of a bright X-ray burst. This would permit detailed examination of individual oscillation cycles and allow accurate measurement of the modulation amplitude and Doppler shifts for individual oscillation cycles.

## INSTRUMENT REQUIREMENTS

The key characteristic of RXTE is its large effective area. To achieve an order of magnitude increase in X-ray timing capabilities, a “next generation” X-ray timing mission will need a large area X-ray detector with an effective area equal to ten times that of RXTE, on the order of 6 m2 (Kaaret et al. 2001; Barret et al. 2001). Good sensitivity extending up to energies of 20 to 30 keV is required because the modulation of timing signals detected from Galactic accreting objects is, in general, much higher at high energies. Figure 1 shows the rms modulation versus energy for several typical high frequency signals detected with RXTE. The strong increase at high energies is clear. Because the time required for detection of a signal at fixed source counting rate scales inversely with the fourth power of the rms modulation and the detection significance for a fixed integration time scales as the square of the rms modulation, there are great advantages to be gained from a timing instrument with significant collecting area at high energies. Furthermore, there are some signals, such as the higher frequency QPOs from accreting black holes candidates discussed in the previous section that are detected only at high energies. For GRO J1655-40, the second QPO at higher frequency was detected only at energies above 13 keV (Strohmayer 2001).

Focusing of X-rays in the hard band is difficult because of the extremely small graze angles required for efficient broad-band reflection and it is unlikely that focusing telescopes will achieve the required areas, of order 6 m2, in the near future. The Hard X-ray Telescope (HXT) on the Constellation-X mission is expected to have a total area of less than 0.6 m2 at 10 keV, and even the extended XEUS mission may achieve only 1.7 m2 at 10 keV with the area decreasing rapidly at higher energies (Aschenbach et al. 2001). Integrated over the band where the second QPO from GRO J1655-40 was detected, the effective area of XEUS is less than that of the RXTE PCA. While some advance in X-ray timing will be possible with the currently planned major observatories, a significant increase in X-ray timing capabilities will likely require a dedicated mission. Only moderate energy resolution ($`1\mathrm{keV}`$ at 6 keV) and no position resolution are required. The detector may be non-imaging with a field of view limited by a collimator. Better energy resolution is desirable, but is not essential for X-ray timing.

Non-focusing instruments do not suffer from the difficulties of reflecting hard X-ray photons and large effective area in the 10–30 keV band is relatively easily achieved. The high energy response is typically limited by absorption depth in the detector. High efficiency up to 20 or 30 keV can be achieved by gaseous or solid state detectors as described in the next section. The primary disadvantage of a non-focusing instrument is the relatively high background counting rate. For this reason, great care must be taken to actively veto background events. Large non-focusing instruments can easily be constructed in a modular fashion. In addition to reducing costs and facilitating construction, dividing the full effective area of the instrument into multiple independent units decreases the count rate for each unit. This is particularly advantageous for a timing mission because the effect of instrumental dead time decreases, making it possible to achieve very high total count rates with minimal dead time effects.

A large detector area with sensitivity over a broad band extending up to high energies (2-30 keV) is the critical requirement for achieving the very high source counting rate essential for the success of a future X-ray timing mission. To effectively exploit such high rates, a high telemetry bandwidth is also required. To fully telemeter the event rate of $`2\times 10^5`$ c/s from a bright source, comparable in intensity to the Crab nebula, will require a telemetry rate of the order of 10 Mbps. Multiple ground stations may be needed to achieve the required average telemetry rate. To buffer events while out of ground contact and for very bright sources, a large on-board memory (of order 100 Gbit) will be required.

Most of the sources of interest for high frequency X-ray timing are variable or transient. To maximize the scientific return of a timing mission, or timing observations in general, it is critical to have an all-sky monitor sufficiently sensitive to discover and localize new transients and determine the state of known persistent sources. In addition, flexible observation scheduling and rapid response to targets of opportunity are needed in order to perform observations while the sources are in interesting states. This is something that may be very difficult to achieve with a multi-purpose large observatory and is a strong advantage for a dedicated mission. An X-ray timing mission should be designed so that a large fraction of the sky is accessible at any instant and so that frequent repointing can be performed in order to contemporaneously monitor multiple targets.

## DETECTOR TECHNOLOGIES

The primary technology driver for a new X-ray timing mission will be the large area X-ray instrument. We have considered both gas proportional counters and solid-state silicon detectors for the detection technology. Gas proportional counters have a long history in space. However, proportional counters require delicate construction, need high-voltage, and are notoriously tricky to build and finicky to operate, particularly after the first one or two years of operation. Each proportional counter unit (PCU) in the PCA on RXTE currently requires attention to its history of operation with each PCU being cycled on and off to prevent sparking and detector damage. More advanced proportional counter technologies have been developed recently, including gas electron multipliers and microwell arrays, but these are lacking in flight heritage.

Silicon is, perhaps, the most widely used radiation detection medium today. Silicon has a long heritage in radiation detection applications, including specifically satellite-borne X-ray detectors which have been operated successfully in high radiation environments (e.g. Aukerman, Vernon, & Song 1984). Silicon detectors are operated without high-voltage or internal amplification, and are robust and have stable operation over long periods. Furthermore, the technology for processing silicon is well understood and widely available. Hence, detectors, even those requiring large amounts of material, can be fabricated by industry with existing facilities and at reasonable cost.

The simplest silicon detector is the p-i-n photodiode, and we have studied the suitability of p-i-n photodiode detectors for an large-area X-ray detector. The energy resolution of a large area p-i-n photodiode detector is limited by electronic noise originating in the device. Good energy resolution, better than $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=1`$ keV at 6 keV, can be achieved for devices with areas of 1 cm2. Assuming an area for each individual detector pixel of $`0.6\mathrm{cm}^2`$, a total of $`10^5`$ pixels would be required for a $`6\mathrm{m}^2`$ detector. One electronics channel, with preamplifier, shaping amplifier, and sample/hold, would then be required for each pixel, leading to a total electronics channel count of $`10^5`$. With an expected power per channel near 2 mW, the total power required is near 200 W. Our preliminary studies and also those done for the European Experiment for X-ray Timing and Relativistic Astrophysics (EXTRA) proposal (Barret 2001) show that p-i-n photodiode detectors can meet the scientific requirements of an X-ray timing mission.

Until now, silicon detectors have been limited primarily to the soft or standard X-ray band (below 10 keV) due to the limited absorbing power of the relatively thin (typically $`300\mu `$m or less) wafers commonly used by the microelectronics industry. To extend the reach of silicon-based detectors to higher energies, thick devices must be used to obtain sufficient stopping power. The key problem with thick silicon detectors is that a high bias voltage must be applied to fully deplete the silicon and allow efficient collection of the charge produced by incident X-rays. Many previous attempts to fabricate thick silicon detectors have failed because either the detectors break down when the bias voltage is applied or the bias required causes large dark currents, leading to poor performance. Recently, some success has been obtained by Ota et al. (1999) who developed thick p-i-n diodes for the hard X-ray instrument on Astro-E (now Astro-E2) and by Phlips et al. (2001) who demonstrated the X-ray detection capabilities of a thick diode developed for heavy-ion detection.

Multi-guard ring structures allow high bias voltages to be applied without causing excessive dark currents or premature detector breakdown (Evensen et al. 1993; Avset & Evensen 1996; Da Rold et al. 1997) . Figure 3 shows schematics of such devices. Working with Photon Imaging, Inc., we have designed new multi-guard ring structures and fabricated devices from thick silicon wafers with good efficiency up to 30 keV. The devices were fabricated by Photon Imaging from high resistivity silicon to lower the depletion voltage. The starting material was carefully selected and the pixel p/n junction diffusion structures were optimized to further increase the breakdown voltage (Sze & Gibbons 1966; Waver 1972; Beck et al. 1996). These advanced designs produced very low dark currents, leading to 1.5 mm thick detectors with good X-ray performance.

Figure 4 shows the spectral response of 1.5 mm thick diodes to X-rays emitted by the radioactive isotopes 55Fe and 109Cd. The X-ray response was measured with the diodes fully depleted at 500 V. A three-stage thermoelectric cooler was used for cooling to $`30^{}\mathrm{C}`$. A standard low noise NIM-based amplifier and a PC-based multi-channel analyzer were used for data collection. The preamplifier was not optimized for the leakage currents and capacitances of such large diodes. For the 1.5 mm thick diodes with an area 25 mm2 cooled to $`30^{}\mathrm{C}`$, the measured energy resolution is 775 eV FWHM at 5.9 keV and 800 eV at 22 keV. This energy resolution meets the scientific requirements for a new X-ray timing mission.

## CONCLUSION

There have been only two US-lead major X-ray astrophysics observatories in the past decade: RXTE and Chandra. Although Chandra was very recently launched, next-generation capabilities in X-ray imaging and spectroscopy are already under serious development. RXTE has addressed scientific issues, including relativistic gravity and the physics of extreme phenomena, which are central to NASA’s scientific goals. Further advances in X-ray timing, which are unlikely to come from any currently planned mission but are possible with a dedicated mission, will likely lead to further significant advances in our understanding of compact objects and accretion in strong gravitational fields.


text:
# Chi**2 analysis of the minimal supergravity model including WMAP, g(mu)-2 and b→ s gamma constraints

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-FG02-97ER41022.


text:
# Quantum-wave pattern recognition: from simulations towards implementation

## Abstract

A neural-net-like model, which is realizable using quantum holography, is proposed for quantum associative memory and pattern recognition. This Hopfield-based mathematical model/algorithm, translated to quantum formalism, has been successfully tested in computer simulations of concrete pattern-recognition applications. In parallel, the same mathematics governs quantum dynamics which can be harnessed for information processing by proper (de)coding manipulation. Since we are able to give quantum interpretation to all the elements (e.g., variables, couplings) of the model, and as far as we are able to show that processing, governed by that mathematics, is experimentally implementable in real quantum systems, we can expect efficient quantum computing – in our case pattern recognition based on quantum content-addressable associative memory.
Keywords: quantum, pattern recognition, Hopfield, neural net, holography, phase, associative memory

1. INTRODUCTION

Quantum neural nets  are a branch of quantum computers needing no logic gates. It will be shown that the implementation of associative neural nets can be naturally-physical, i.e. no artificial classical-physical devices are necessary, except for encoding into and decoding from quantum systems. To demonstrate quantum implementation of certain ANN, it is best to remember a fundamental technique which has already been much experimentally tested and used – holography. Holography is a practical 3D image-storage and -reconstruction procedure . Its imaging is powerful and of high resolution, although the technique is relatively simple — it uses merely reflection from the laser-illuminated object and interference of the ”object”-beam with a ”reference”-beam. Early associative memories were inspired by holography . They were a version of digitalized amplitude-information holography. Merging of ANN and holographic approach  continues to be very useful.

Since holography can be in principle realized applying any sort of coherent waves , it is realizable also using quantum waves or wave-packets. The latter are of the same type as the Gabor wavelets used, e.g., in computer vision . Dennis Gabor got the Nobel prize for physics for his invention of holography. The fast-developing nanotechnology promises to realize it soon in quantum field, i.e. using quantum probability-distribution waves .

This paper introduces some relations of parallel-distributed processes (PDP) in neural and quantum systems (overview in ), and their relations to holography, in order to propose a quantum pattern recognition model. The mathematics of this algorithmic model to be presented has already been successfully computer-simulated, e.g. in . The next step made here is to proceed from simulations to a proposal of quantum implementation, supported by considering quantum-optical / -holographic experiments.

This step was enabled by the following observation on the parallel-distributed information-encoding into waves, i.e. into $`(A_1e^{i\phi _1},A_2e^{i\phi _2},\mathrm{},A_Ne^{i\phi _N})`$, in general. It has two special cases: (I) encoding in amplitudes $`A`$ only, i.e. in $`(A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_N)`$, and (II) encoding in oscillatory phases $`\phi `$ only, i.e. in $`(e^{i\phi _1},e^{i\phi _2},\mathrm{},e^{i\phi _N})`$, $`i=\sqrt{1}`$. These two cases enable effectively the same information processing as far as the following variable exchange can be made in the mathematics of the model/algorithm: $`Ae^{i\phi }`$. It will be shown for our wave-model (II) with $`A=1`$: what works for real-valued coding-numbers (A) works for sinusoid encoding also. I.e., ”wave-based” model (II) is equivalent to ”intensity-based” model (I).

In sec. 2 we ”translate” Hopfield’s model into quantum formalism . In sec. 3 we ”transform” Hopfield’s model into wave-model (II), showing their equivalence for pattern recognition. In sec. 4 we present possible quantum implementations of the simulated model.
2. QUANTUM-WAVE HOPFIELD-BASED NET

The simplest Hopfield ANN (1982) incorporates Hebbian memory-storage ”into” correlation matrix J, i.e. $`𝐉=_{k=1}^P\stackrel{}{v}^k\stackrel{}{v}^k`$ ($``$ denotes tensor/outer product), and a memory-influenced transformation of patterns $`\stackrel{}{v}`$: $`\stackrel{}{v}^{output}=𝐉\stackrel{}{v}^{input}`$. Each of $`P`$ patterns, simultaneously stored in the same net/J, is denoted by a superscript index $`k`$: $`k=1,\mathrm{},P`$. Patterns $`\stackrel{}{v}^k`$, which become Hopfield-net’s eigenstates (attractors), can be complex-valued and can be quantum-encoded (as will be shown). Therefore, we will henceforth use the quantum notation, $`\psi ^k`$, for them (i.e., $`\stackrel{}{v}^k=\psi ^k`$, instead of the standard case: $`\stackrel{}{v}^k=A^k`$). (So-called wave-function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ describes the whole state of the quantum system/net; $`\psi ^k`$ describes the $`k^{th}`$ of its eigenstates.) Thus, patterns are assumed to be encoded into quantum eigen-wave-functions $`\psi ^k`$ (physical realization will be discussed later).

Turning from global description of the quantum PDP (using associative memory J and net-states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$) into local one (using interaction-weights $`J_{hj}`$ and unit-states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$; $`j,h=1,\mathrm{},N`$, for $`N`$ units; $`N`$ is huge), we have:

$$J_{hj}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}\psi _h^k(\psi _j^k)^{}$$
$`(1),`$
where the asterisk denotes complex conjugation, and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{output}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}J_{hj}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{input}$$
$`(2).`$
Inserting eq. (1) into eq. (2), we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{output}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}\psi _h^k(\psi _j^k)^{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{input}=$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\psi _j^k)^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{input}\right)\psi _h^k=\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}c^k\psi _h^k$$
$`(3).`$
Usually, exclusively those coefficient $`c^k`$, say $`c^{k_0}`$, is close to 1 which belongs to the memorized pattern $`\psi ^{k_0}`$ which is the most similar to $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{input}`$. Consequently, all other $`c^k`$, $`kk_0`$, are close to zero. In such a case of the process of eq. (3), the quantum associative net recognizes the input-pattern. See analysis of this matching process in .

J is called Green-function propagator, $`G`$, in quantum theory . $`G`$’s description of input–output transformations corresponds to statistical description of state-relations (relations in encoded data) by the quantum density matrix $`\rho `$. We will not use $`\rho `$ here; we merely wanted to emphasize $`\rho `$’s role as a ”quantum archive” (of all potential input–output transformations, in contrary to $`G`$’s actual ones).

For physics-oriented readers, we write eq. (2), with kernel of eq. (1) inserted, into space-time form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_2,t_2)=$$

$$=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}\psi ^k(\stackrel{}{r}_2,t_2)(\psi ^k(\stackrel{}{r}_1,t_1))^{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,t_1)𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_1𝑑t_1$$
$`(4).`$
We replaced unit-indices $`h,j`$ by ($`\stackrel{}{r_2},t_2`$), ($`\stackrel{}{r_1},t_1`$), and discrete summation by an integration over the whole effectively-continuous quantum system/net (if it consists of very many ”units”). This is the Feynman (path-integral) version of the Schrödinger equation, the fundamental equation for quantum dynamics — in Dirac’s notation:
$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=(_k\psi ^k\psi ^k)\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The Hopfield computational model, incorporating coupled eqs. (1) & (2) with real-valued variables, has been used in very many different applications of numerous authors. Based on , it is a historical prototype-model, out from which so many other models, more applicable for particular problems, have been developed. Using it, the first author has computationally recognized patterns of approximated 3D structures of proteins using a huge memorized data-base (from the Brookhaven protein data bank) . However, for quantum implementation of associative PDP, we should first turn to this model, eqs. (1) & (2), again using it as a ”Rosetta stone”. This might then enable subsequent fantastic improvements which are promised by possibly-entangled  quantum field dynamics manipulated by so-called classical–quantum interactions. So, the quantum breakthrough for ANN-implementations can best be made with the prototypical associative content-addressable memory of eqs. (1) & (2), because its dynamics is relatively similar to natural processes, mainly in spin systems (i.e., spin glass)  and quantum fields .
3. SINUSOID ACTIVITIES OF NET’S ”UNITS”

Quantum wave-functions $`\psi ^k`$ can have many forms. For our purposes, (quantum-optical) plain-waves $`\psi ^k(\stackrel{}{r},t)=A^k(\stackrel{}{r},t)e^{i\phi ^k(\stackrel{}{r},t)}`$ are the most appropriate. An advanced alternative, to be left for our future work, are quantum wave-packets nearly-identical to Gabor wavelets .

Holography shows, at least for non-quantum waves, how one can parallel-distributively encode patterns $`k`$ into a web of waves $`(A_1^ke^{i\phi _1^k},A_2^ke^{i\phi _2^k},\mathrm{},A_N^ke^{i\phi _N^k})`$. The amplitude $`A_j^k`$ and the oscillatory phase $`\phi _j^k`$ have the same lower index $`j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$; $`N`$ huge), since they belong to the same ”waving” point, which is our ”unit” (encoding a point of the pattern).

We can use plain-waves (sinusoids) with the same constant amplitude, say $`A=1`$; so, $`A_j^k=1`$ for all $`k,j`$. This is functioning for few decades, known as phase-information holography. We thus replace all $`\psi `$-variables $`(v)`$ in eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (4), with $`e^{i\phi }`$, instead of Hopfield’s $`A`$. We are allowed to do this – it’s a usual mathematical exchange of variables. The essential observation is that with this legal variable-exchange, $`Ae^{i\phi }`$, giving $`\psi _j^k=e^{i\phi _j^k}`$ instead of $`\psi _j^k=A_j^k`$, all the simulation-tested mathematics remains valid for sinusoid-encoded patterns also. Thus, we can claim that the Hopfield algorithm, i.e. eqs. (1) & (2), works with complex-valued sinusoid-inputs at least as much as with real-valued inputs! Performance of the wave-phase model (II) with eigenpatterns $`\psi ^k=e^{i\phi ^k}`$, $`A^k=1`$, is equal to performance of the amplitude model (I) with $`\psi ^k=A^k`$, $`A^k`$ real number. However, when using both – different amplitudes and different phases – performance might be (much) improved, as practically proved by HNeT . Much better results arise using HNeT’s preprocessing method  where inputs $`v_j^k`$ are sigmoidally mapped into phases $`\phi _j^k`$ to obtain a convenient symmetric (uniform) data-distribution: $`\phi _j^k=2\pi \left(1+exp(\frac{\overline{v}^kv_j^k}{\sigma (v^k)})\right)^1`$.

To prove quantum-wave pattern recognition with the system of eqs. (1) & (2), it suffices to execute the exchange, $`\psi _j^ke^{i\phi _j^k}`$, first in the Hebbian eq. (1), using $`(e^{i\phi })^{}=e^{i\phi }`$:

$$G_{hj}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}e^{i\phi _h^k}e^{i\phi _j^k}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}e^{i(\phi _h^k\phi _j^k)}$$
$`(5),`$
and secondly in eq. (2). So, instead of eq. (2), when inserting now expression (5) into $`J_{hj}`$ of eq. (2) and exchanging $`\psi _h^ke^{i\phi _h^k}`$ in it, we obtain the following equivalent of eq. (3):

$$e^{i\phi _h^{output}}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}e^{i\phi _h^k}e^{i\phi _j^k}\right)e^{i\phi _j^{input}}=$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{P}{}}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\phi _j^{input}}e^{i\phi _j^k}\right)e^{i\phi _h^k}e^{i\phi _h^{k_0}}$$
$`(6).`$
This enormous process of phase (mis)matching, producing constructive or destructive interferences, is described in detail, mathematically and informatically, in  and for quantum case in . The right-most expression of eq. (6) really describes the output, i.e. approximately $`e^{i\phi _h^{k_0}}`$, only if the same conditions are valid as described below eq. (3): If the input wave has a similar phase to one of the memorized waves, say $`k=k_0`$, then those wave will be reconstructed — the pattern it is carrying, $`k_0`$, will be recognized. See  for discussion of the precise conditions for clear pattern-recall. If these conditions are not satisfied by the data correlation-structure, interferences (”cross-talk”) lead to a mixed or averaged output (details in ).

So, instead of a long series of products (correlations) of real-valued information-coding numbers, $`A`$, as in the Hopfield model, we have here a long series of complex-valued exponentials (waves) with differences of information-coding phases, $`\phi `$, in each exponent. These phase-differences (peak delays) encode discrepancies in data. Our wave output $`e^{i\phi _h^{k_0}}`$ is the same as Hopfield’s $`A_h^{k_0}`$. In sum, input–output transformations are the same in the wave case as it were in our simulated real-number (intensity) case . All this proves the pattern recognition capabilities of the wave model (II) with phase-encoding of pattern-points $`h`$. The memory is ”represented” by the hologram, i.e. wave-interference pattern, of eq. (5).
4. DISCUSSION ON IMPLEMENTATION

Mathematically and computationally , we have proved the associative memory-storage and pattern-recognition performance of Peruš’s model named Quantum Associative Network . It remains to prove it in quantum-physical experimental practice, i.e. with real quantum pattern-encoding waves, not merely with digital simulated ones (complex sinusoids).

It is crucial that our model  is fundamental, optimized and relatively natural, i.e. almost no artificial devices are really necessary, in contrary to all other models. Laser is also not unavoidable.

Implementation of our model is most appropriate using quantum-wave holography which is within the reach of present experimental technology . Several applied techniques, which are at least partially quantum-holography-based, are already functioning, e.g. some sorts of tomography (fMRI and PET scanning) . Holography is a fundamental and universal procedure in the sense that, in principle, any sort of coherent waves can be applied for interference-based simultaneous recording of many objects into (and for selective reconstruction from) various hologram-media. Apart of classical optical and acoustical holography, microwave-, X-ray-, atom- and electron-holography were realized . There is just a step further to quantum-wave holography as described here.

This attempt is supported by the following reports: According to , universal quantum computation is realized using only projective measurement, like ours of eq. (3) or eq. (6), quantum memory, like ours of eq. (1) or eq. (5), and preparation of the initial state (the laser-wave in our case). Information-storage and -retrieval through quantum phase  and measurements of quantum relative phase  have been experimentally demonstrated. Quantum encodings in spin systems and coupled harmonic oscillators are possible , thus enabling Hopfield-like pattern-storage and -recognition in such nets, including spin-wave holographic ones.

However, if nanotechnology could not (which is unlikely) realize quantum-holographic pattern-recognition as proposed here, something like that is hypothesized to be happening in the (visual) brain . Not only brain, the whole quantum Nature itself probably incorporates such processes, at least in interaction with our quantum-measurement devices . In worst case, it does merely not let us to collaborate with – until tomorrow?

Recently, we found similar quantum pattern-recognition proposals . Trugenberger’s one is related to the fact that a special case of Hebbian memory-storage, eq. (1), i.e. with bipolar states (1 and -1 only), is equivalent to quantum-implementable NOT XOR gate. This makes a link between ANN-like and logic-gate-based branches of quantum pattern recognition.

The benefits of the first branch, i.e. quantum neural-net approach, are the following: Quantum decoherence (”collapse of the wave-function”) is not devastating (as is in main-stream quantum computers), but is usefully harnessed for pattern recognition. No special mechanisms are needed for quantum error-correction, since it is done spontaneously by the net’s self-organizing process (as in ANN). Initialization problems are not as serious  as in logic-gate quantum computers, at least not when an object is holographed. In this case, reflection from the surface determines the phases, and fluctuations do not destroy the modulation (cf., experimental quantum-phase storage and retrieval ). Finally, as it is characteristic for quantum computers, quantum associative net is exponentially superior to its classical counterparts in memory capacity, processing speed and in miniaturization . This brings improvements in computational capacity and efficiency. Quantum ANN promise to outperform logic-gate quantum computing in associative tasks like discussed here, and in flexibility (fuzzy processing) , where also classical ANN outperform sequential computing. Finally, our net presented  is relatively inexpensive, because it is relatively natural, and is of huge (at least) theoretical importance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
This work was enabled by the European-Union’s Marie-Curie fellowship for M.P (contract no. HPMF-CT-2002-01808). M.P. is also grateful to Professors Karl H. Pribram and Alexandr A. Ezhov for encouragement for fundamental studies.