text:
# Temperature and cooling age of the white dwarf companion of PSR J0218+4232

## 1 Introduction

Millisecond or recycled pulsars are almost always found in binaries. Their short (millisecond) periods are believed to be caused by the accretion of matter from the binary companion, which spins up the neutron star, and, by means poorly understood, decreases its magnetic field. This accretion will happen when the companion, in the course of its evolution, overfills its Roche lobe.

When the companion of the pulsar is a white dwarf, one would expect the cooling age of the white dwarf to match the age of the pulsar. This because the cooling and spin-down clocks start ticking at roughly the same time, when the companion starts to contract to a white dwarf and the pulsar turns on following the cessation of mass transfer.

The age of a spin-down powered pulsar, with period $`P`$ and period derivative $`\dot{P}`$, is given by

$$\tau _{\mathrm{PSR}}=\frac{P}{(n1)\dot{P}}\left[1\left(\frac{P_0}{P}\right)^{n1}\right],$$
(1)
where $`P_0`$ is the initial period and $`n`$ is the braking index. The latter determines how the rotational energy loss scales with the period ($`\dot{P}P^{2n}`$). For magnetic dipole radiation (see Lyne & Smith lyne (1998)) we have $`n=3`$, and if we further assume that $`P_0P`$, the pulsar spin-down age is given by $`\tau _{\mathrm{char}}=P/(2\dot{P})`$, the “characteristic age” of the pulsar. The uncertainty in the pulsar age is caused by $`n`$ and $`P_0`$, where, for the former, values lower than 3 will lead to ages longer than the characteristic age, while initial periods close to the current period will lead to shorter ages.

Another possible source of uncertainty in the characteristic pulsar age is the transverse velocity of the pulsar, which causes an apparent acceleration that contributes to the observed period derivative. Ignoring this ‘Shklovskii’ effect (Shklovskii shklovskii (1970)) can lead to significant underestimates of the characteristic age (Camilo et al. camilo (1994)).

The cooling age of the white dwarf can be determined from its effective temperature and its mass, using a cooling model. With the optical detection of several white dwarf companions to millisecond pulsars (e.g., Danziger et al. danziger (1993); Nicastro et al. nicastro (1995); Lundgren et al. 1996a ,b), considerable effort has been spent in constructing such cooling models (Hansen & Phinney 1998a ; Driebe et al. driebe\_a (1998); Serenelli et al. serenelli (2001)). It was found that the main uncertainty in predicting white dwarf cooling ages is the thickness of the Hydrogen envelope surrounding the Helium–core. Thick envelopes can support residual Hydrogen shell burning, which slows the cooling of the white dwarf, while thin layers cannot and thus lead to faster cooling.

Hydrogen shell burning can become unstable, leading to thermonuclear flashes, which may reduce the mass of the envelope until it cannot sustain Hydrogen fusion any longer. It was already found by Webbink (webbink (1975)) that these thermal flashes do not occur for white dwarfs with masses below $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$, a result that subsequently has been confirmed by Alberts et al. (alberts (1996)), Driebe et al. (driebe\_a (1998)), Sarna et al. (sarna\_a (2000)), and Althaus et al. (althaus (2001)). This limit is due to the fact that flashes are caused by unstable Hydrogen burning through the CNO cycle (Driebe et al. driebe\_b (1999)) which does not occur for stars with masses below $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

Above this limit all authors do find flashes, but the consequences differ. Driebe et al. (driebe\_a (1998)) find that the flashes do not reduce the envelope mass sufficiently to suppress residual Hydrogen shell burning and hence they predict long cooling ages for masses also above $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In a later paper, however, Schönberger et al. (schoenberger (2000)) suggest this result might be invalid for closer binaries, in which the mass of the envelope might be reduced due to Roche-lobe overflow during a flash. Sarna et al. (sarna\_b (2001)) used binary evolution calculations to pursue this idea further. On the other hand, the Hydrogen envelope may also be reduced by nuclear burning during the flashes. Indeed, Serenelli et al. (serenelli (2001)) and Rohrmann et al. (rohrmann\_b (2002)) find that for masses above $`0.18\mathrm{M}_{}`$, their models experience one or more thermonuclear flashes, leading to thinner Hydrogen envelopes that cannot sustain nuclear fusion and hence to white dwarfs that cool much faster.

The models are best compared with data. In Table 6, we list the three millisecond pulsars with white dwarf companions for which the mass and temperature are known, and the cooling age can be determined. The first system, PSR J1012+5307, has a pulsar with a characteristic age of 8.9 Gyr, and a white dwarf with a temperature of $`8600`$ K. The other two systems, PSR B1855+09 and PSR J0437$-$4715, both have ages of 5 Gyr and white dwarf companions with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}4800`$ K.

For the cooling ages of the white dwarf companions of these systems to equal to the characteristic pulsar ages, one can readily see that there must a difference in the cooling properties of these white dwarfs. The systems PSR B1855+09 and PSR J0437$``$4715 are very similar to each other, but rather different from PSR J1012+5307, the latter being older, but, paradoxically having a hotter white dwarf companion. Given the cooling models and the masses of these white dwarfs, it seems likely that this discrepancy is due to a difference in thickness of the Hydrogen layer, those of PSR B1855+09 and PSR J0437$``$4715 being thin and that of PSR J1012+5307 being thick.

Here we report on optical observations of the white dwarf companion of PSR J0218+4232, which, as we will explain below, is expected to have a mass that is between the masses of PSR J1012+5307 and PSR J0437$``$4715, and thus, potentially, may help us gain insight in the cooling of white dwarfs. In Sect. 2, we outline our current knowledge of the PSR J0218+4232 system. We describe our Keck observations in Sect. 3, from which, in Sect. 4, we determine the white dwarf temperature and surface gravity, together with radial–velocity measurements. The mass of the white dwarf and the age and distance of the system are described in Sect. 5 and we discuss and conclude in Sect. 6.

## 2 PSR J0218+4232

PSR J0218+4232, a 2.3 ms pulsar, was discovered by Navarro et al. (navarro (1995)). From radio timing observations, they found that it resides in a 2 day circular ($`e<2\times 10^5`$) orbit around a low mass object, with, assuming a pulsar mass of 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, a minimum mass of $`0.17\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Using the statistical argument that the probability of finding the orbit with an inclination $`i`$ less than $`i_0`$ is given by $`P(i<i_0)=1\mathrm{cos}i_0`$, we can conclude that, with 90% confidence, the mass of the companion is $`0.17M_{\mathrm{WD}}/\mathrm{M}_{}0.44`$, the range in which one would expect the object to be a white dwarf with a Helium–core.

From considerations of the evolution of binaries containing millisecond pulsars with Helium-core white dwarf companions, one expects a relation between the mass of a Helium–core white dwarf companion to a millisecond pulsar and the orbital period (see Joss et al. joss (1987)). This relation has been modelled by Rappaport et al. (rappaport (1995)), Tauris & Savonije (tauris (1999)) and others. For the orbital periods of PSR B1855+09 and PSR J0437$``$4715 (Table 6), the relation by Tauris & Savonije (tauris (1999)) predicts companion masses to within the observed errors. Though this relation is not expected to be accurate for orbital periods less than 2 days, the predicted white dwarf mass of PSR J1012+5307, having an orbital period of 0.605 days, is within 1.5$`\sigma `$ of the observed result. Since the orbital period of PSR J0218+4232 is in between that of PSR J1012+5307 and that of PSR J0437$``$4715 (5.471 days) it is expected that PSR J0218+4232 has a mass in between their masses. In fact, Tauris and Savonije (tauris (1999)) predict a mass of $`0.216\mathrm{M}_{}`$. This is near the mass of $`0.18\mathrm{M}_{}`$, where Althaus et al. (althaus (2001)) predict the transition between thick and thin Hydrogen envelopes.

From radio observations, a dispersion measure of 61.25 pc cm-3 was found. In the direction of the pulsar, the Taylor & Cordes (taylor (1993)) model for the distribution of interstellar free electrons predicts a minimum distance of 5.7 kpc for this dispersion measure. The quoted uncertainty is about 25%, but may be considerable larger in this direction as there are few pulsars with which the model could be calibrated. Indeed, a new model, presented by Cordes & Lazio (cordes (2002)), predicts a distance of 2.7 kpc.

The characteristic age of the pulsar is 0.46 Gyr (Navarro et al. navarro (1995)). Recent radio observations of PSR J0218+4232 with WSRT/PuMa (B. Stappers, priv. comm.) have reveiled a proper motion, of $`\mu =3.97\pm 1.73`$ mas/yr. Even for the largest distances we will need to consider, this has negligible effect on the characteristic age, and hence we ignore it below.

## 3 Observations

The location of the PSR J0218+4232 system was observed with the 10-m Keck I telescope at Hawaii, using the low–resolution imaging spectrometer (LRIS, Oke et al. oke (1995)). During the night of 1995 November 21/22, R and I–band images were obtained. The following night single deep B, V and R images were taken. In both nights the seeing was mediocre, 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$1, and the conditions were not photometric. Indeed, the images from the first night were of so much inferior quality than those taken the other night that we did not use them any further.

On the night of 1997 January 8/9 the conditions were photometric, and short exposures of the system were taken in B, V, R and I-band for photometric calibration. The seeing was again mediocre and varied between 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$2. Four standard fields (Landolt landolt (1992); Stetson stetson\_b (2000)) were also observed in the same bands. Table 1 shows the log of the imaging observations.

Spectra of the companion of PSR J0218+4232 were obtained with the same instrument, now at Keck II, on the nights of 1998 December 16/17 and 17/18. The 600 lines mm-1 grating was used, covering the wavelength range 3500-6000 Å at 1.25 Å pix-1. The width of the slit was 1″, resulting in a resolution of $``$6 Å. The seeing varied between 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$8–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0 on both nights.

On both nights that the pulsar companion was observed, the white dwarfs WD 0030+444 and WD 0518+333 (Reid reid (1996)) were observed by way of radial–velocity standards, and the spectrophotometric standard G 191B2B (Bohlin et al. bohlin (1995)) was observed for flux calibration. Exposures of a HgKrXe lamp were taken for wavelength calibration. All spectra were taken at a position angle close to the parallactic one, to minimize loss of light and velocity shifts due to differential refraction. For PSR J0218+4232, the angle was chosen such that there would be another nearby star in the slit. The spectroscopic observations are tabulated in Table 2.

### 3.1 Astrometry

For astrometric calibration, we selected all 85 stars from the USNO–A2.0 Catalog (Monet et al. monet (1998)) that overlapped with a 10 second R-band image obtained on November 23, 1995. Of these stars, 57 were not over exposed and appeared stellar and unblended. Their centroids were measured and corrected for instrumental distortion using a bicubic function determined by J. Cohen (1997, priv. comm.). These points were fitted for zero-point position, scale and position angle against the USNO–A2.0 positions. After rejecting 4 outliers, that had residuals larger than 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$6, the rms residuals were 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$18 and 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$22 in right ascension and declination respectively, consistent with the expected errors for USNO-A2.0 positions.

This solution was transferred to the 10 minute R-band (and the 20 minute B-band) image, using 184 (209) stars that appeared on both images and were stellar, unsaturated and not blended. Again the zero-point, scale and position angle were fitted and the final residuals were $`<`$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$03 ($`<`$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$06) in both directions. Thus, our positions should be on the USNO–A2.0 system to within 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$03. The USNO-A2.0 system is on the International Celestial Reference System (ICRS) to within about 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$2.

This latter uncertainty is much larger than the measurement error for our optical position, and also greatly exceeds the precision with which the very precise timing position (Navarro et al. navarro (1995); B. Stappers, 2003, priv. comm.) can be tied to the ICRS. Within this uncertainty, our images show a single object, ‘X’ hereafter, at a position coincident with the timing position (see Fig. 1). This object is also present on the 1997 images.

### 3.2 Photometry

We used the DAOPHOT II package (Stetson stetson\_a (1987)) for the photometry. First, all images were bias-subtracted and flat-fielded using twilight flats. Next, we determined a point spread function (PSF) for each object image from a selection of relatively isolated and single stars. We determined instrumental magnitudes by fitting this PSF to all stars. These fitting results were then used to remove all stars, except those used in determining the PSF. Using aperture photometry we determined the magnitudes of these PSF stars and calculated offsets between the PSF magnitude and the aperture magnitude.

Instrumental magnitudes of the standards stars were determined using aperture magnitudes. This was necessary since the images of the standard fields were deliberately taken out of focus to ensure that the stars would not saturate the detector. Using values of Stetson (stetson\_b (2000)) we determined magnitude offsets, colour and extinction coefficients to calibrate the 1997 images. The rms residuals after the calibration are smaller than 0.02 magnitudes.

Finally, magnitude offsets between the 1995 and 1997 images were determined to transfer the photometric calibration to the 1995 images. We find that for B, V and R respectively 90%, 76% and 85% of the flux actually reached the detector, consistent with the presence of thin cirrus during the 1995 observations. The magnitudes of the pulsar companion and other stars in the vicinity are tabulated in Table 3. We estimate the final uncertainty in the zero points at about 0.02 magnitudes.

### 3.3 Spectroscopy

All frames were bias-corrected and sky-subtracted using standard procedures. The spectra were extracted using an optimal extraction method similar to that presented by Horne (horne (1986)). Each extracted spectrum was wavelength calibrated using the arc lamp exposures, with a correction as detailed below. Then, each individual spectrum was flux calibrated using the observation of G 191B2B of that night.

The spectra of PSR J0218+4232 were extracted using the spatial profile determined from the brighter star that we had made sure was on the slit. After extraction, flux and wavelength calibration, all four spectra of each night were added and averaged. The average of the two averaged spectra is shown in Fig. 2. The Balmer lines H$`\beta `$, H$`\gamma `$ and H$`\delta `$ are clearly visible, indicating a Hydrogen atmosphere, in line with the object being a Helium–core white dwarf.

As we hoped to determine a radial-velocity orbit, we took particular pains in trying to verify our wavelength calibration and velocity scale. In the process, we encountered a number of problems, which we detail below. As will become clear in the remainder of this Section, we have not solved the problems, and hence there is an additional uncertainty in the velocities we derive. While in all likelihood this is smaller than the rather large measurement errors for PSR J0218+4232, we still will treat our velocities with caution. We stress, though, that the problems we encountered should have no effect on the main results of this paper, which rely on the temperature determination from the spectra.

As a first correction to the wavelength calibration, we measured the wavelength difference between the observed and known wavelength of the O i $`\lambda 5577`$ night-sky emission line. We found that these differences had a rms of 0.7 Å. We corrected all spectra appropriately.

Next, we determined radial velocities of the two radial-velocity standards for each night by fitting a 9 parameter profile to each line, H$`\beta `$ up to H9, separately. This profile consisted of a parabolic term, added to the sum of a Lorentzian and a Gaussian, both having the same centre, but different widths and amplitudes. This profile fitted the lines extremely well, but unfortunately we found that the resulting velocities for the different lines were inconsistent with each other.

After correcting for the barycentric motion of the Earth, the velocity determined from the H$`\beta `$ line in both spectra of WD 0518+333 was consistent with the results from Reid (reid (1996)), while the other lines gave higher velocities. In general, the H$`\gamma `$, H$`\delta `$ and H$`ϵ`$ lines gave velocities that were approximately 56, 78 and 80 km s-1 too red. The velocities determined from H8 and H9 had too large an error to be meaningful.

For the spectrum of WD 0030+444 taken on the first night, we found a similar result, with the H$`\beta `$ velocity in agreement with the known value and the velocities of other lines following the pattern described above. The results for the second night, however, differed from those of the first night. First, the H$`\beta `$ velocity was slow by 25 km s-1, and second, the other velocities followed a different pattern.

To verify our methods, we used the flux calibration standard G 191B2B, which is a hot sub-dwarf and which also has the H$`\beta `$ to H$`ϵ`$ lines in its spectra, though they are much less wide than those of WD 0518+333 and WD 0030+444. Its radial velocity has not been determined as accurately, but we can still use it for relative calibration. We determined velocities with the same method as described above, and found that these followed the same pattern as the observations of WD 0518+333 and the first observation of WD 0030+444.

On closer inspection, we found that the observation of WD 0030+444 on the second night differed in flux from the observation on the first night, the second spectrum having 40% fewer counts. Using the filter curve from Bessell (bessell (1990)), we calculated synthetic B-band magnitudes for both spectra. We found that the first spectrum gave a magnitude consistent with the literature value, while the second spectrum obviously did not. Since there was no difference in airmass and conditions, we believe that WD 0030+444 was incorrectly placed on the slit, thus causing the inconsistent velocities and the flux difference. Therefore, we decided not use the observation of WD 0030+444 on the second night any further.

We tried to find a reason for the trend in velocity found in the different Balmer lines, but could not find any. Therefore, we simply used the velocities found from H$`\beta `$, H$`\gamma `$, H$`\delta `$ and H$`ϵ`$ (H8 and H9 had too large an error) to calculated a new empirical wavelength scale, depending linearly on the wavelength calibration found from the arc lamp measurements. This correction was applied to all spectra, after applying the shift for the wavelength difference found from the night-sky line.

With both corrections in place, the resulting velocities (see Table 4) have root-mean-square errors of approximately 14 km s-1. We take this as an estimate of the additional uncertainty in any velocity measurement, but stress that since we do not know the cause of the problem with the wavelength calibration, we cannot be certain it applies to all observations. As noted, however, it should not influence our main results, which rely on the temperature determination.

## 4 Temperature, gravity and radial velocities

We use the photometry and the spectra of the companion of PSR J0218+4232 to constrain its effective temperature and surface gravity by comparing them with model atmospheres. Furthermore, we determine radial velocities of the two spectra and use these to estimate the mass ratio between the pulsar and the white dwarf and the systemic velocity of the system.

We take into account the reddening in the direction of the pulsar. Schlegel et al (schlegel (1998)) give $`E_{BV}=0.07\pm 0.01`$ and we correct our magnitudes accordingly. This reddening value was also used to correct the observed spectra using relations given by O’Donnell (odonnell (1994)).

The two separate average spectra of the companion, taken on the two subsequent days, were compared with model spectra for pure Hydrogen atmospheres, kindly provided by P. Bergeron (2002, priv. comm.), to infer the effective temperature and the surface gravity. The grid of models used spanned $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=`$ 7000 (500) 9500 K and $`\mathrm{log}g=`$ 6.5 (0.5) 8.0 cm s-2, where the number in parentheses is the step between the models. We convolved each model with a cut-off Gaussian to mimic the effects of seeing and the slit. This convolved model was then fitted to each observed spectrum, using data-points around H$`\beta `$ up to H$`ϵ`$, leaving the radial velocity $`v`$, flux normalisation $`A`$ and slope $`\alpha `$ to be fitted by minimising the $`\chi ^2`$ merit function, defined by

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{f_if[(1+v/c)\lambda _i]\times A(\lambda _i/4340\mathrm{\AA })^\alpha }{\sigma _i}\right)^2.$$
(2)
Here $`f_i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the observed flux and error at wavelength $`\lambda _i`$, and $`f[\lambda ]`$ is the model flux at wavelength $`\lambda `$. We introduce the slope $`\alpha `$ to account for possible errors in the (relative) flux calibration.

For each of the two observed spectra a surface of $`\chi ^2`$ values in the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ plane, spanned by the modelled spectra, was created. For each model spectrum the $`\chi ^2`$ value of the first spectrum was added to that of the second to create a third surface. In Fig. 3, we show contours and the location of the minimum in this latter surface; the surfaces found from the individual spectra are similar in shape. At the minimum, we find $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=778.8`$. As we have 606 degrees of freedom, this indicates that the fit is satisfactory, but that likely we underestimated our errors slightly. The errors in temperature and surface gravity were rescaled accordingly. The best-fit power-law slopes for the two spectra are small, $`0.11\pm 0.16`$ and $`0.21\pm 0.19`$ for the first and second night, respectively, indicating that our relative flux calibration was reasonably good. Indeed, also the absolute calibration is fair: the B-band magnitude, using the filter curve by Bessell (bessell (1990)), from our observed spectra is 24.43, within the error of the photometric measurement.

From Fig. 3, one sees that our spectra constrain the temperature fairly well ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=8060\pm 150`$ K), but provide only a very weak constraint on the gravity ($`\mathrm{log}g=6.9\pm 0.7`$ cm s-2). This is because the gravity mostly affects the higher Balmer lines, at wavelengths shortwards of 4000 Å, where our spectra are very noisy.

The photometric colours of the companion can also be used to infer a temperature. From atmosphere models by Bergeron et al. (bergeron\_a (1995)), we find a temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=8560\pm 700`$ K for a pure Hydrogen atmosphere with $`\mathrm{log}g=8`$. Serenelli et al. (serenelli (2001)) and Rohrmann et al. (rohrmann\_b (2002)) calculated evolutionary tracks of the formation and cooling of Helium white dwarfs. They also give colours based on model atmospheres of Rohrmann (rohrmann\_a (2001)). From these we infer a temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=8400\pm 500`$ K over a range of surface gravities ($`\mathrm{log}g=6.07.5`$). Both these temperatures are consistent with what we found from our spectra.

The radial velocities that we found from fitting the spectra to the models by Bergeron are given in Table 5. These velocities are corrected for the barycentric motion of the earth and are for the best fit of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$. The error estimates include the extra uncertainty in each velocity due to the uncertainties in the temperature, gravity, normalisation, and slope.

The two radial velocities were fitted to a circular orbit using the ephemeris of Navarro et al. (navarro (1995)). We find a systemic velocity of $`\gamma =57\pm 52`$ km s-1 and a radial-velocity amplitude of $`K_{\mathrm{WD}}=159\pm 50`$ km s-1. Naturally, this is a perfect fit, because we use two data points to determine two unknowns, i.e., we have no degrees of freedom and thus no information about the correctness of the fit. This makes the systemic velocity and the velocity amplitude very dependent on any error in the determinations of the radial velocities. We note, though, that possible systematic errors in the radial-velocity determinations have less effect on the velocity amplitude than on the systemic velocity, because, to first order, such errors should cancel out when determining the velocity amplitude, while being compounded in the systemic velocity.

From the radial velocity amplitude of the white dwarf and the pulsar, $`21.3243\pm 0.0001`$ km s-1, (Navarro et al. navarro (1995)), it follows that $`qM_{\mathrm{PSR}}/M_{\mathrm{WD}}=7.5\pm 2.4`$.

## 5 Mass, age and distance

With our effective temperature and estimate of the surface gravity, we can use evolutionary models to estimate the mass and age of the white dwarf as well as the distance of the system.

### 5.1 White dwarf mass

The weak constraint that our spectroscopic observations place on the surface gravity translate into a similarly weak constraint on the mass. Using the models of Rohrmann et al. (rohrmann\_b (2002)), which span the range of 0.148–0.406 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, we find a white dwarf mass of $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}=0.21_{0.04}^{+0.17}\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

Similar values are found using the white dwarf evolution models of Driebe et al. (driebe\_a (1998)). We stress, though, the uncertainty: the upper 2$`\sigma `$ error on the surface gravity is $`\mathrm{log}g=8`$ (see Fig. 3), which corresponds to a mass of about 0.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ which is above the range expected for a Helium–core white dwarf.

We can also use the mass ratio, determined above, to estimate the mass of the white dwarf. If we assume a pulsar mass of $`1.48\pm 0.08\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the weighed average of pulsar masses from Table 6 (excluding that of PSR J0218+4232), this results in a white dwarf mass of $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}=0.20\pm 0.06\mathrm{M}_{}`$, in line with what we determine from the surface gravity. The pulsar mass, as predicted by our observed values, is $`M_{\mathrm{PSR}}=1.6_{0.7}^{+2.2}\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

### 5.2 Distance and age

To compare the white dwarf cooling age with the characteristic age of the pulsar we need to know the white dwarf’s mass and temperature, as well as the distance to the system. The latter can be found from comparison with the white dwarf’s absolute magnitude and our photometry, but for this we, again, need to know the mass of the white dwarf.

Since our constraint on the white dwarf mass is weak, we invert the procedure. For a given white dwarf model and a given mass, we compare our temperature with the predictions from the model to infer a cooling age and use the luminosity or the absolute visual magnitude to find a distance.

By comparison of our temperature with the cooling models of Hansen & Phinney (1998a ) and the evolutionary models by Driebe et al. (driebe\_a (1998)) and Rohrmann et al. (rohrmann\_b (2002)) we estimate the cooling age and the distance of the white dwarf as a function of its mass: we show the result in Fig. 4. Each point represents a model with a certain mass. The errors in the distance and the age are caused by the uncertainty in the effective temperature of the white dwarf and, to a lesser extent, the uncertainty in the observed magnitudes. The errors are depicted by diagonal bars instead of horizontal and vertical ones, because the uncertainty in the distance is correlated with the uncertainty in the age, as both depend on the white dwarf temperature. The horizontal line depicts the characteristic age of the pulsar.

Figure 4 shows that, for this temperature and observed magnitude, there is a clear distinction between the models predicting thin Hydrogen envelopes and those predicting thick envelopes. All models by Driebe et al. (driebe\_a (1998)) and the two lowest mass models by Rohrmann et al. (rohrmann\_b (2002)) have thick Hydrogen envelopes and predict white dwarf cooling ages that are much older than the characteristic age of the pulsar. The Hansen & Phinney (1998a ) models and the Rohrmann et al. (rohrmann\_b (2002)) models with masses above $`0.18\mathrm{M}_{}`$ have thin Hydrogen envelopes and hence predict younger white dwarfs at the temperature found for the companion of PSR J0218+4232. If the age of the pulsar is indeed roughly equal to the characteristic age, then the white dwarf companion must have a thin Hydrogen envelope.

The second thing to note is the close agreement with which the different groups predict the distance for a given mass. Since the luminosity we observe depends on the temperature, distance and radius of the white dwarf, similar distances at a given temperature indicate similar radii. Apparently, the radius is set by the degenerate core, the thickness of the Hydrogen envelope having little influence at this temperature.

Returning to the comparison between the characteristic age of the pulsar and the cooling age of the white dwarf we can conclude that Helium–core white dwarfs with thin Hydrogen envelopes predict ages that are most similar, but a little older, to the characteristic age of the pulsar. The best agreement between both ages is found for white dwarfs with masses between 0.19 to $`0.30\mathrm{M}_{}`$, corresponding to distances of 2.5 to 4 kpc and cooling ages around 0.7 Gyr.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

We have identified the companion of PSR J0218+4232 and presented photometry and spectroscopy. Our spectra show that the companion has a Hydrogen atmosphere and from comparison with Hydrogen atmosphere models we find that the object has temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=8060\pm 150`$ K and a surface gravity of $`\mathrm{log}g=6.9\pm 0.7`$ cm s-1.

This temperature and gravity would imply a mass of $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}=0.21_{0.04}^{+0.17}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, in line with what one would expect for a Helium–core white dwarf. Similar white dwarf masses, 0.19 to $`0.30\mathrm{M}_{}`$, are found when comparing the predicted cooling age of the white dwarf with the characteristic age of the pulsar.

Furthermore, the comparison between the cooling age and the characteristic age shows that this white dwarf companion is likely to have a thin Hydrogen envelopes, in agreement with the prediction of Althaus et al. (althaus (2001)), that the transition between thick and thin Hydrogen envelopes is situated around a white dwarf mass of $`0.18\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

Thin Hydrogen envelopes are also required to match the white dwarf cooling ages with characteristic pulsar ages in the systems PSR B1855+09 and PSR J0437$``$4715 (Table 6). For PSR J1012+5307, several authors (Alberts et al. alberts (1996), Driebe et al. driebe\_a (1998), Althaus et al. althaus (2001)) have argued that a thick Hydrogen layer is needed to explain its old age and high temperature. Our mass determination is to weak to put a direct observational constraint on the location of the transition. On the basis of the relation between orbital period and mass, however, we expect that the mass of PSR J0218+4232 is in between those of PSR J1012+5307 and PSR J0437$``$4715. We can conclude that for whatever mass corresponds to an orbital period of 2 days, thin Hydrogen layers are needed.

This empirical constraint may be improved from observations of the white dwarf companions of millisecond pulsars PSR~J0034$-$0534 and PSR~J0613$-$0200, as these systems have orbital periods, 1.6 and 1.1 d respectively, in between those of PSR J0218+4232 and PSR J1012+5307.

The companion of PSR J0034$``$0534 has been detected by Lundgren et al. (1996b ) who place an upper limit on the temperature of 3800 K. This limit depends on the distance, which was inferred from the dispersion measure. Nevertheless, with a characteristic pulsar age of 5.9 Gyr, this white dwarf would likely need a thin Hydrogen envelope to have cooled to such a low temperature.

So far, the only observed system for which a thick Hydrogen envelope is required, is PSR J1012+5307. We should keep in mind, however, the possibility that this pulsar is actually very young, i.e., that the assumption $`P_0P`$ does not hold. If this were the case then perhaps no white dwarf would need thick Hydrogen layers.

This can be verified observationally by measuring the temperature of the white dwarf companion of PSR~J0751+1807. This binary has an orbital period of only 6.3 hours, shorter than that of PSR J1012+5307, and hence the white dwarf should have even lower mass. Optical observations by Lundgren et al. (1996a ) have not detected an optical counterpart down to $`V=23.5`$, indicating that the white dwarf companion is rather cool ($`T7000`$K for $`M<0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`d2`$kpc). It would need a thin Hydrogen layer to have cooled to such a low temperature within the characteristic age of the pulsar (8 Gyr). Identification of this counterpart and a measurement of its temperature could decide whether it has a thin or a thick Hydrogen layer.

###### Acknowledgements.

C.G.B. is indebted to F. Hulleman for help with the photometry. We thank P. Bergeron, A. Serenelli and B. Stappers for very useful discussions about white dwarf atmospheres, white dwarf interiors and radio observations, respectively. The observations reported here were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated by the California Association for Research in Astronomy. The reduction was done using the Munich Image Data Analysis System, which is developed and maintained by the European Southern Observatory. This research made use of the SIMBAD database. M.H.v.K. acknowledges support of a fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and S.R.K. of grants from NSF and NASA.


format: text

text:
# Invariant Operators vs Heisenberg Operators for Time-Dependent Generalized Oscillators

## I Introduction

In the last several decades there have been many attempts to develop formalisms for time-dependent quantum systems and apply them to physical systems, in particular, oscillators with time-dependent mass and frequency. For a time-dependent oscillator Lewis found an invariant operator, which satisfies the quantum Liouville-von Neumann (LvN) equation, and whose eigenfunctions up to time-dependent phase factors satisfy the time-dependent Schrödinger equation lewis . In classical theory Ermakov had already found such an invariant long before the advent of quantum theory ermakov . The Ermakov-Lewis invariant operators since then have been employed to develop the formalism for time-dependent oscillators and applied to many physical systems such as quantum optics. The original Ermakov-Lewis invariants are quadratic in position and momentum operators quad-inv  and the linear invariants are also introduced lin-inv ; kim .

The invariant operators method is a useful and convenient tool to find various kinds of exact quantum states in terms of the solutions of the auxiliary equation and has been widely applied to physical systems. The relation between the Ermakov-Lewis invariant operators and the Heisenberg operators in terms of the evolution operator was noticed by Dodonov and Man’ko dodonov . Also the Heisenberg picture was used applied to time-dependent oscillators heis1 ; heis2 . However, the relation between the quantum LvN equation for the invariant operators and the Heisenberg equation for the Heisenberg operators has not been seriously investigated.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of the quantum LvN equation used in the invariant operators method and compare it with the Heisenberg picture. The Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures are the two popular descriptions of quantum theory. In the Schrödinger picture, quantum states evolve in time but operators do not change, whereas in the Heisenberg picture, operators evolve in time but quantum states do not change sakurai . The quantum theory of systems are equivalently described in the both pictures. It is shown that the quantum LvN equation provides another description of quantum theory independently of the Heisenberg picture. In terms of the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(t)`$, the Heisenberg operators evolve according to $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\widehat{U}^{}(t)\widehat{O}\widehat{U}(t)`$ and satisfy the Heisenberg equation, whereas the invariant operators evolve according to $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)=\widehat{U}(t)\widehat{O}\widehat{U}^{}(t)`$ and satisfy the LvN equation. To illustrate this point, we apply the quantum theory based on the LvN equation to the time-dependent generalized oscillators. Further, we use the evolution operator from the invariant operators to find the Heisenberg operators in terms of the classical solution.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we discuss the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures. We also discuss the difference and relation between the Heisenberg equation and the LvN equation. In Sec. III, using a time-independent generalized oscillator, we illustrate the difference between the invariant operators and the Heisenberg operators. In Sec. IV we apply the invariant operators and the Heisenberg operators to time-dependent oscillators. The linear invariant operators are found directly from the LvN equation in terms of a classical solution. The evolution operator derived from the invariant operator is used to find the Heisenberg operators.

## II Invariant Operators vs Heisenberg Operators

For stationary (time-independent) quantum systems two pictures have been used: the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures. In this paper we consider both time-independent and time-dependent systems simultaneously. The Hamiltonian operator for a time-dependent system has time-dependent coefficients of each Schrödinger operator $`\widehat{O}_k`$:

$$\widehat{H}(t)=\underset{k}{}h_k(t)\widehat{O}_k.$$
(1)
In this sense the time-dependent Hamiltonian is called a Schrödinger operator, though it depends on time explicitly.

In the Schrödinger picture, the quantum states evolve according to the Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Psi },t=\widehat{H}(t)|\mathrm{\Psi },t.$$
(2)
All the information of the system is contained in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi },t`$. The physically measurable quantity corresponding to an observable $`\widehat{O}`$ is given by the expectation value

$$\widehat{O}_\mathrm{S}(t)=\mathrm{\Psi },t|\widehat{O}|\mathrm{\Psi },t$$
(3)
We introduce the evolution operator satisfying

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{U}(t)=\widehat{H}(t)\widehat{U}(t).$$
(4)
The solution is formally written as the time-ordered integral

$$\widehat{U}(t)=\mathrm{T}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}^t\widehat{H}(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right).$$
(5)
Note that for a time-dependent system, $`\widehat{H}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{H}(t^{})`$ do not commute in general for $`tt^{}`$. For a stationary (time-independent) system with $`\widehat{H}_0`$, the evolution operator is simply given by $`\widehat{U}(t)=e^{i\widehat{H}_0t/\mathrm{}}`$. The state vector is then written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi },t=\widehat{U}(t)|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(6)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is any state independent of time.

On the other hand, in the Heisenberg picture, quantum states do not change in time but operators evolve as

$$\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\widehat{U}^{}(t)\widehat{O}\widehat{U}(t).$$
(7)
The Heisenberg operators $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$ carrying all the information of the system satisfy the Heisenberg equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)+[\widehat{H}_\mathrm{H}(t),\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)]=0,$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$ is the Heisenberg operator

$$\widehat{H}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\underset{k}{}h_k(t)\widehat{O}_{k\mathrm{H}}(t).$$
(9)
For the stationary system $`\widehat{U}(t)`$ commutes with $`H_0`$, so $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{H}=\widehat{H}_0`$. The expectation value of the observable $`\widehat{O}`$ in the Heisenberg picture now takes the form

$$\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }=\widehat{O}_\mathrm{S}(t).$$
(10)
We now introduce another interesting operator, the so-called invariant or the LvN operator,

$$\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)=\widehat{U}(t)\widehat{O}\widehat{U}^{}(t).$$
(11)
The invariant operator $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$ is the backward evolution of the Schrödinger operator $`\widehat{O}`$, whereas the Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$ is the forward evolution balian . It follows that the invariant operators satisfy the quantum LvN equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)+[\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t),\widehat{H}(t)]=0.$$
(12)
Note that the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}(t)`$ appeared in Eq. (12) is a Schrödinger operator, whereas the Heisenberg Hamiltonian operator appears in Eq. (8).

Let us now suppose that the LvN equation (12) be directly solved by some techniques. For time-dependent oscillators, these operators are explicitly given in terms of the solution of an auxiliary equation and widely known as the Ermakov-Lewis invariants. In terms of the eigenstates of an invariant operator $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$,

$$\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)|\lambda ,t=\lambda |\lambda ,t,$$
(13)
the exact quantum state of the Schrödinger equation is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi },t=\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda ,t|(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}(t)+\frac{}{t})|\lambda ,t\right)|\lambda ,t.$$
(14)
It follows from Eqs. (11) and (6) that

$$\widehat{O}|\lambda =|\lambda .$$
(15)
Thus invariant operators carry all the information and provide a Hilbert space of quantum states without the direct knowledge of the evolution operator. The expectation value of the observable takes the same value as the Schrödinger picture

$$\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)=\mathrm{\Psi },t|\widehat{O}|\mathrm{\Psi },t=\widehat{O}_\mathrm{S}(t).$$
(16)
In conclusion, it is shown that the quantum LvN equation (12) self-consistently provides another description of quantum theory because all the invariant operators $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}`$ satisfying Eq. (12) carry all information of the system. Therefore, the invariant operators method may be called the LvN picture just as quantum theory based Eq. (8) is called the Heisenberg picture, in both of which time-dependent operators carry all quantum information.

## III Time-Independent Generalized Oscillator

As a simple and illustrative model, we consider the time-independent generalized oscillator

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{X_0}{2}\widehat{p}^2+\frac{Y_0}{2}(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+\widehat{q}\widehat{p})+\frac{Z_0}{2}\widehat{q}^2,$$
(17)
where it is assumed

$$\omega _0^2=X_0Z_0Y_0^20.$$
(18)
We introduce the annihilation (lowering) and creation (raising) operators

$`\widehat{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{X_0}{2\mathrm{}\omega _0}}}\left[i\widehat{p}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X_0}}(\omega _0+iY_0)\widehat{q}\right],`$
$`\widehat{a}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{X_0}{2\mathrm{}\omega _0}}}\left[i\widehat{p}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X_0}}(\omega _0iY_0)\widehat{q}\right].`$ (19)
The annihilation and creation operators satisfy the usual commutation relation $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{}]=1`$. Inverting Eq. (19) for the position and momentum operators, we obtain

$`\widehat{q}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}X_0}{2\omega _0}}}(\widehat{a}+\widehat{a}^{}),`$
$`\widehat{p}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _0X_0}}}[(i\omega _0+Y_0)\widehat{a}+(i\omega _0Y_0)\widehat{a}^{}].`$ (20)
Then the Hamiltonian takes the form

$$\widehat{H}_0=\mathrm{}\omega _0\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(21)
Now, using the evolution operator

$$\widehat{U}(t)=e^{i\omega _0(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+1/2)},$$
(22)
we find the Heisenberg operators

$$\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}(t)=e^{i\omega _0t}\widehat{a},\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}^{}(t)=e^{i\omega _0t}\widehat{a}^{},$$
(23)
and the invariant operators

$$\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t)=e^{i\omega _0t}\widehat{a},\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}(t)=e^{i\omega _0t}\widehat{a}^{}.$$
(24)
The Heisenberg operators (23) satisfy the Heisenberg equation, whereas the invariant operators (24) satisfy the quantum LvN equation. The invariant operator $`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$ has the positive frequency in contrast with the negative frequency of the Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$.

The Heisenberg position and momentum operators are obtained from Eq. (20) through the unitary transformation (7) as

$`\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}X_0}{2\omega _0}}}[\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}+\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}^{}],`$
$`\widehat{p}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _0X_0}}}[(i\omega _0+Y_0)\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}+(i\omega _0Y_0)\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}^{}].`$ (25)
On the other hand, the Schrödinger position and momentum operators in terms of the invariant annihilation and creation operators are given by

$`\widehat{q}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}[u\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}+u^{}\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}],`$
$`\widehat{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}{X_0}}[(\dot{u}Y_0u)\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}+(\dot{u}^{}Y_0u^{})\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}],`$ (26)
where $`u(t)`$ is the complex solution to the classical equation of motion

$$u(t)=\sqrt{\frac{X_0}{2\omega _0}}e^{i\omega _0t}.$$
(27)
## IV Time-Dependent Generalized Oscillator

We now consider a time-dependent generalized oscillator described by the Hamiltonian cervero ; kim-page

$$\widehat{H}(t)=\frac{X(t)}{2}\widehat{p}^2+\frac{Y(t)}{2}(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+\widehat{q}\widehat{p})+\frac{Z(t)}{2}\widehat{q}^2,$$
(28)
where $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ explicitly depend on time. The classical equation of motion corresponding to the Hamiltonian operator (28) is given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\dot{u}}{X}\right)+\left[XZY^2+\frac{\dot{X}YX\dot{Y}}{X}\right]\left(\frac{u}{X}\right)=0.$$
(29)
In the LvN picture, we look for the operators satisfying the LvN equation (12). Lewis and Riesenfeld found a quaratic invariant lewis . Following Ref. kim-page  we introduce a pair of linear invariant operators

$`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}}\left[u^{}\widehat{p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})\widehat{q}\right],`$
$`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}}\left[u\widehat{p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}(\dot{u}Yu)\widehat{q}\right],`$ (30)
where $`u`$ is a complex solution to the classical equation of motion (29). The Wronskian condition

$$\mathrm{Wr}\{u^{},u\}=\frac{1}{X}(u\dot{u}^{}u^{}\dot{u})=i,$$
(31)
makes the invariant operators satisfy the standard commutation relation at equal time

$$[\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t),\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}(t)]=1.$$
(32)
The Schröinger position and momentum operators can be expressed in terms of the invariant annihilation and creation operators as

$`\widehat{q}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}(u\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}+u^{}\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}),`$
$`\widehat{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}{X}}[(\dot{u}Yu)\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}+(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}].`$ (33)
Note that Eq. (26) is the constant parameters limit of Eq. (33).

The Fock space of exact quantum states for the Schrödinger equation consists of the number state $`|n,t`$ of the number operator $`\widehat{N}_\mathrm{L}(t)=\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}(t)\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$, another invariant operator:

$$\widehat{N}_\mathrm{L}(t)|n,t=n|n,t.$$
(34)
The quadratic Ermakov-Lewis invariants lewis ; quad-inv  are, up to overall constants, the number operator $`\widehat{N}(t)`$, whose auxiliary field $`\rho `$ is the amplitude of the complex solution $`u`$ kim-page . In contrast with the Schrödinger and Heisenber pictures, both the operators and states of the LvN picture depend on time but their eigenvalues (quantum numbers) do not change. For instance, the correlation functions with respect to the number state are given by

$`n,t|\widehat{q}^2|n,t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}u^{}u(2n+1),`$
$`n,t|\widehat{p}^2|n,t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{X^2}}(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})(\dot{u}Yu)(2n+1),`$
$`n,t|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+\widehat{q}\widehat{p})|n,t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2X}}[(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})u+(\dot{u}Yu)u^{}]`$ (35)
$`\times (2n+1).`$
The invariant operators (30) are related with the annihilation and creation operators (19) through the Bogoliubov transformation

$`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \widehat{a}+\beta \widehat{a}^{},`$
$`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}\widehat{a}^{}+\beta ^{}\widehat{a},`$ (36)
where

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{X_0}{2\omega _0}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X_0}}(i\omega _0+Y_0)u^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})\right],`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{X_0}{2\omega _0}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X_0}}(i\omega _0+Y_0)u^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})\right].`$ (37)
The evolution operator (5) can be written as

$$\widehat{U}(t)=e^{i\vartheta (t)\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}}\widehat{S}(t)$$
(38)
where

$$\widehat{S}(t)=e^{\frac{1}{2}[z(t)\widehat{a}^2z^{}(t)\widehat{a}^2]},$$
(39)
is the squeeze operator. The squeeze operator leads to the Bogoliubov transformation stoler

$`\widehat{S}(t)\widehat{a}\widehat{S}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}r\widehat{a}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sinh}r\widehat{a}^{},`$
$`\widehat{S}(t)\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{S}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}r\widehat{a}^{}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sinh}r\widehat{a},`$ (40)
where $`z=re^{i\phi }`$. From another form (11) of the invariant

$$\widehat{a}_\mathrm{L}(t)=\widehat{U}(t)\widehat{a}\widehat{U}^{}(t),$$
(41)
we find the phase and squeeze parameters

$$\alpha =e^{i\vartheta }\mathrm{cosh}r,\beta =e^{i\vartheta }e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sinh}r.$$
(42)
For the time-dependent oscillator with $`Y=0`$, the evolution operator in the Wei-Norman form wei

$$\widehat{U}(t)=e^{iw(t)(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+\widehat{q}\widehat{p})/2}e^{iw_+(t)\widehat{q}^2}e^{iw_{}\widehat{p}^2}$$
(43)
has been used in Ref. ev op , where $`w`$ and $`w_\pm `$ are found by directly solving Eq. (4). It was found there that $`e^w`$ and $`w_{}e^w`$ satisfy the classical equation (29).

Now, using the evolution operator (38), the annihilation and creation operators in the Heisenberg picture are found to be

$`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}^{}(t)\widehat{a}\widehat{U}(t)=\alpha ^{}\widehat{a}\beta \widehat{a}^{},`$
$`\widehat{a}_\mathrm{H}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}^{}(t)\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{U}(t)=\alpha \widehat{a}^{}\beta ^{}\widehat{a}.`$ (44)
Similarly, from Eq. (20) follows the Heisenberg position operator

$$\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\widehat{U}^{}(t)\widehat{q}\widehat{U}(t)=\sqrt{\mathrm{}}(u^{}(t)\widehat{a}+u(t)\widehat{a}^{}).$$
(45)
The Heisenberg momentum operator takes the form

$$\widehat{p}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\frac{1}{X}(\dot{\widehat{q}}_\mathrm{H}Y\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H})=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}{X}[(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})\widehat{a}+(\dot{u}Yu)\widehat{a}^{}].$$
(46)
Note that another Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{p}\widehat{U}`$ is not conjugate to $`\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}`$ except for the time-independent case. In the Heisenberg picture physical quantities are obtained by taking the expectations of Heisenberg operators with respect to time-independent state relevant to the physical system under study. The correlation functions with respect to the number state $`|n`$ of $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}`$ in Sec. II are given by

$`n|\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}^2|n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}u^{}u(2n+1),`$
$`n|\widehat{p}_\mathrm{H}^2|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{X^2}}(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})(\dot{u}Yu)(2n+1),`$
$`n|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{p}_\mathrm{H}\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}+\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}\widehat{p}_\mathrm{H})|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2X}}[(\dot{u}^{}Yu^{})u+(\dot{u}Yu)u^{}]`$ (47)
$`\times (2n+1).`$
A few comments are in order. First, as $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ satisfy Eq. (29), the Heisenberg position operator (45) satisfies the Heisenberg equation (8) for the time-dependent oscillator (28):

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\dot{\widehat{q}}_\mathrm{H}}{X}\right)+\left[XZY^2+\frac{\dot{X}YX\dot{Y}}{X}\right]\left(\frac{\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}}{X}\right)=0.$$
(48)
In fact, the general solution to Eq. (48) is

$$\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}(t)=v_1(t)\widehat{q}_1+v_2(t)\widehat{q}_2,$$
(49)
where $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are the solutions to Eq. (29) and $`\widehat{q}_1`$ and $`\widehat{q}_2`$ are two independent operators whose commutator does not vanish. The operator (45) is the special case with $`v_1=\sqrt{\mathrm{}}u^{}`$, $`v_2=\sqrt{\mathrm{}}u`$ and $`\widehat{q}_1=\widehat{a}`$, $`\widehat{q}_2=\widehat{a}^{}`$. This choice makes the standard commutation relation satisfied at equal time

$$[\widehat{q}_\mathrm{H}(t),\widehat{p}_\mathrm{H}(t)]=i\mathrm{}.$$
(50)
Second, by comparing Eqs. (33) and Eqs. (45) and (46), we see that the invariant operators have the negative (positive) frequency for the creation (annihilation) operator, which is a consequence of the backward evolution of the invariant operator (30). Third, the correlation functions (35) in the LvN picture are the same as those (47) in the Heisenberg picture.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we show that the invariant operators method based on the quantum Liouville-von Neumann equation provides another description of quantum theory, a counterpart of the Heisenberg picture. The invariant operators method, which we prefer to call the invariant picture, shares not only the property of the Schrödinger picture that quantum states are time-dependent, but also the property of the Heisenberg picture that operators are time-dependent, backwardly evolving in time. In terms of the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(t)`$, the Heisenberg operators evolve according to $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{H}(t)=\widehat{U}^{}(t)\widehat{O}\widehat{U}(t)`$ and satisfy the Heisenberg equation, whereas the invariant operators to $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)=\widehat{U}(t)\widehat{O}\widehat{U}^{}(t)`$ and satisfy the quantum Liouville-von Neumann equation. As $`\widehat{O}_\mathrm{L}(t)`$ carries all information of the system, the quantum Liouville-von Neumann equation provides another picture in addition to the Schrödinger and the Heisenberg pictures.

To illustrate the invariant picture we apply it to time-independent and time-dependent generalized oscillators. The time-independent oscillator shows manifestly the difference between the Heisenberg and the invariant pictures. The invariant operators have the opposite signs of frequencies to the Heisenberg operators. The invariant picture is particularly useful to handle time-dependent quantum systems. The Hilbert space of exact quantum states of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation consists of the eigenstates of an invariant operator. For time-dependent generalized oscillators we find two linear invariant operators and use them to derive the evolution operator. The evolution operator is then used to find the Heisenberg position and momentum operators. It is shown that the invariant picture and the Heisenberg picture provide the same physical results.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation under Grant No. KRF-2002-041-C00053.


text:
# Lack of observational evidence for quantum structure of space–time at Planck scales 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Institute. STScI is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

It is generally believed that a description of the gravity consistent with quantum theory (quantum gravity) should imply properties of the space–time much different from the conventional ones, when the latter is being observed at the so–called Planck scale. Such a Planck scale is obtained as a combination of fundamental constants and corresponds to a characteristic length $`l_P1.6\times 10^{35}`$ m and time interval $`t_P5.4\times 10^{44}`$ s given by:

$$l_P=ct_P=\sqrt{\frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}$$
(1)
Space and time, when observed at such scales, are expected to exhibit a grainy, fuzzy or a foam-like structure, as depicted by several authors (see for instance Rovelli 1998, Garay 1998, Kempf 1999). The operational definition of measurement of a length or of a time–interval should be affected by such property of space–time (Wigner, 1957; Salecker & Wigner. 1958; Adler & Santiago, 1999) and one can conceive several gedanken experiments that should be affected by the so–called Planck Scale Phenomenology (hereafter PSP, see Amelino–Camelia, 2001a).

In spite of the extremely small size of $`l_P`$, recently several authors pointed out that the systematic accumulation of such effect during the long journey of a photon propagating through a space–time affected by PSP could lead to observable consequences. Several possible measurements has been proposed so far (Amelino–Camelia et al., 1997, 1998; Ellis, Mavromatos & Nanopoulos, 2000; Ng & van Dam, 1999) and eventually later criticized (Adler et al., 2000).

Most recently Lieu & Hillman, 2002 (hereafter LH02) suggested that differential phase measurements of light propagated over a long distance, as implicitly made by interferometry of an extragalactic source, can place much tighter constraints on PSP. They derived the effect on the random phase variation as depending upon the ratio of the photon wavelength $`\lambda `$ and the Planck length $`l_P`$.

It is important to point out that the effects described by LH02 refers to a model of PSP leading to random variations of the light phase, while others exhibit a definite modification of radiation behavior for a given wavelength (Jacobson, Liberati & Mattingly, 2002; Amelino–Camelia 2002). In other words any spacetime structure model that yields a definite modification at a given wavelength is unconstrained by the random phase approach.

Furthermore, we are aware that LH02 has been the subject of even more recent criticism (Ng, van Dam & Christiansen, 2003) essentially based upon the idea that such random perturbation of space–time should add incoherently along the propagation path, leading to a square-root dependency upon the distance between the source and the observer. We just here note that such assumption is at the basis of other PSPs (Amelino Camelia, 1994) already ruled out by experimental verifications (Ng & van Dam, 1999) and that other theories does not incorporate such dependencies too (Karolyhazy, 1966; Ng & van Dam, 1994).

In this letter we argue that the use of diffraction, as an interferometry effect by a telescope dish, can put stringent limits on the PSP with random phase variations.

## 2 Single aperture observations

Following LH02 we assume that the error in the phase of a wavefront is just a different way of expressing the impossibility of measuring, by means of light at wavelength $`\lambda `$, a distance $`L`$ with a precision $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ such that:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{L}<a_0\left(\frac{l_P}{\lambda }\right)^\alpha $$
(2)
where the parameters $`a_0`$ and $`\alpha `$ characterize the theory being tested. For instance $`\alpha =1/2`$ corresponds to the random–walk approach (Amelino–Camelia, 2000) while $`\alpha =2/3`$ corresponds to the holography principle (Wheeler, 1982; Hawking, 1975) and $`\alpha =1`$ is the natural choice in a linearized theory. The coefficient $`a_0`$ can be reasonably expected to be of the order of the unity but, according to Amelino–Camelia (2001b) it can be a few orders of magnitude below unity. This gives an idea of the region of the parameter space described by $`a_0`$ and $`\alpha `$ where a meaningful search should be done.

Let us assume, in fact, that the measurement of any distance between a light source and a telescope of diameter $`D`$ is affected by the PSP described above, and translates into independent modification of the wavefront phase as determined from two distinct positions (this assumption, in the LH02 framework, corresponds to the, obviously verified, requirement of $`Dl_P`$). Let us consider the distances $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ as measured from a point source placed at a distance $`LL_1L_2`$ from the two sides of a telescope of aperture $`D`$, see Fig.1. Any intrinsic variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ in the wavefront along the two lines of sight will translate into an apparent angular shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{D}$$
(3)
where we did not co-add the (independent) uncertainties over the possible set of sightliness starting from any point of the telescope pupil (for instance, considering only $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ a $`\sqrt{2}`$ factor should be inserted into Eq.3) as this would not change the order of magnitude of the result.

It is important to emphasize that this result does not presume our knowledge of either $`L_1`$ or $`L_2`$ with the accuracy stated in Eq.(2). Actually the distance of any astronomical object is known with a much poorer accuracy than that required to test Eq.(2). The key point here is the independence of the accuracies on the measurements. Specifically, the difference in the optical paths joining various points of the telescope pupil and the (unresolved) source is randomly modified by PSP.

If the PSP effects of Eq. (2) are present, will this lead to a deterioration of any interference pattern (e.g. the Airy rings of a filled aperture) seen at the diffraction limit ? Such a consequence is inevitable - to avoid it one must invoke the highly unlikely scenario of correlated fluctuations in the optical paths over all points along the entire span of the light footprint, which in general has a size $`l_P`$ (excepting only an initial segment of paths, $`l_P\times L/D`$ in length, which for the purpose of this work is an irrelevantly short (i.e. $`\lambda `$) segment).

Thus it is reasonable to deduce that PSP leads to an apparent angular broadening of a light source placed at a distance $`L`$, as seen from a telescope of diameter $`D`$, given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =a_0\frac{L}{D}\left(\frac{l_P}{\lambda }\right)^\alpha $$
(4)
We compare such an angular broadening with the diffraction limit imposed by the telescope aperture by introducing a ratio $`\eta `$ defined as:

$$\eta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }{\lambda /D}=a_0\frac{L}{\lambda }\left(\frac{l_P}{\lambda }\right)^\alpha $$
(5)
The meaning of $`\eta `$ is that it directly influences fringe visibility in the case of an interferometer, or the Strehl ratio $`S`$ of deterioration in point spread function in the case of a telescope. This is because one can write, following Sandler et al. 1994 and assuming that the broadening is equivalent to a blurring effect due to (e.g.) atmospheric disturbance, the following equation for $`S`$:

$$S=\mathrm{exp}\left(\eta ^2\right)$$
(6)
It is reasonable to adopt $`\eta =1`$ as rough criterion for any experimental setup of this kind to secure a reliable test of PSP effects. At $`\lambda =1\mu `$m, a representative wavelength for diffraction limited optical telescopes (including the $`D=2.4`$m aperture of the HST and $`D=8\mathrm{}10`$m class ground–based telescopes equipped with Adaptive Optics facilities), this criterion requires the observation of sources at a minimum distance $`L_{\mathrm{min}}6.2\times 10^{22}`$ m $`2.1`$ Mpc, as already noted in LH02, to detect or to rule out the case for $`\alpha =1`$, $`a_0=1`$.

## 3 Astronomical benchmarks

A celestial object that appears extended can either be because it is genuinely so, or PSP causes a blurring of the image in the manner described above. To avoid confusion between the two possibilities, the best target choice is a Supernovae (SNe). This is because for a distant SNe, its angular size must remain considerably smaller than the telescope diffraction limit even if one assumes that the SNe shell has been expanding steadily at the speed of light since the initial explosion. Evidently, then, our purpose of scrutinizing PSP will be fulfilled by an investigation of an HST archival image of SN1994D, located at $`L13.7`$Mpc (Patat et al., 1996).

By comparing the HST–collected frame of SN1994D with that of a foreground Galactic star in the same field (see Fig.2) we see that both objects exhibit no deterioration of their Airy interference patterns. This constrains the Strehl deterioration parameter to $`S>0.2`$ (else the first Airy rings will become invisible), and hence (by Eq. 6) places a lower limit for $`\eta `$ at $`\eta >1.3`$.

A separate investigation concerns the Hubble Deep Field high–$`z`$ images. Spectroscopic follow–ups have shown that objects as distant as $`z=5.34`$, corresponding to $`L7.7`$Gpc are as small as 0.12arcsec (Spinrad et al., 1998). The distance adopted here is the comoving radial distance, as it is the summation over the journey of the photon of the length experienced by a comoving observer, where we assume the PSP exhibits in the same way. The exact value for $`L`$ depends on the cosmological model used; here we have chosen $`H_0=72`$km/s/Mpc and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.3,0.7)`$ as given in Krauss (2002),

Since $`\eta =1.7`$ is the ratio of this observed size to the diffraction limit capability of a $`D=2.4`$m telescope at the relevant wavelength of $`\lambda =814`$nm, one can clinch PSP even further than before. We note in passing that, in reality, such a ratio for $`\eta `$ understates the case against PSP, because while propagating from the source to us a photon initially had shorter wavelength, so that the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ of Eq.(2), hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ of Eq. (3), was larger in the past.

## 4 Discussion

In Fig. 3 implications of the two observations being analyzed thus far are plotted in $`a_0`$$`\alpha `$ space. We can see that a linear, first–order PSP characterized by $`\alpha =1,a_0=1`$ is consistently excluded, as are the other cited phenomenologies with smaller $`\alpha `$, for all reasonable values of $`a_0`$. In particular, when $`\alpha =1`$, the upper limit on the angular size of high–$`z`$ objects requires that $`a_0<3\times 10^4`$.

The two benchmarks presented in the previous section were established with the most powerful instruments currently available (HST for measurement of the angular size and Keck for determination of the cosmological distance). It should be realized that, in general, the existence of PSP with $`\alpha a_01`$ would render the universe unobservable at any appreciable redshift, due to the significant blurring of the images of point sources. This may be regarded as a form of Olber’s paradox. In the case of the far universe, where observations require special technique, additional benchmarks could be envisaged.

Quantitatively, the limits given above for the exclusion of first order PSP understate the case, because (a) the errors were estimated conservatively - they would have assumed larger values had we propagated them at every step; (b) the wavelength of radiation from a distant source is shorter towards the source, meaning that our upper limit on $`a_0`$ should in reality be even smaller. Thus, in the same context as that of LH02, the possibility of $`\alpha =1`$ may be ruled out with confidence.

Our conclusions may be compared and contrasted with other recent works, notably those of Jacobson, Liberati & Mattingly (2002) and Amelino–Camelia (2002). The former used X-ray observations of the Crab nebula to argue against PSP, its validity depends on the assumptions made about the physical processes in the Crab. The latter, however, proposed the existence of PSP effects as the reason why gamma-rays from a distant quasar survive their journey through the intergalactic medium to reach us. We note here also, that alternative interpretations are entirely possible.

In the framework of the assumptions made in LH02, PSP effects are excluded by the observations described in this Letter. Perhaps there exist some ad hoc explanations as to why first order PSP cannot be manifested as perturbation of a light pencil. As regards whether the present findings imply that the notion of structural space time at the Planck scales (a sort of aether embedded in the continuum where familiar physics holds) is untenable, or whether a subtle mechanism is at play to render such structures evasive, these questions are outside the scope of our Letter.

## Acknowledgements

Thanks are due for the useful hints and discussions to Richard Lieu and Lauro Moscardini. We also thank the unknown referee for his helpful comments.

## References

* Adler R.J., Nemenman I.M, Overduin J.M., Santiago D.I. 2000, Phys.Lett. B477 24-428
* Adler R.J., Santiago D.I. 1999, Mod.Phys.Lett. A14, 1371
* Amelino–Camelia G., Ellis J., Mavromatos N.E., Nanopoulos D.V.1997, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A12, 607-624
* Amelino–Camelia G. 1994, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 3415
* Amelino–Camelia G., Ellis J., Mavromatos N.E., Nanopoulos D.V., Sarkar S. 1998, Nature 393, 763
* Amelino–Camelia G. 2000, Towards quantum gravity, Proc. of the XXXV International Winter school on Theor. Phys., Polanica, Poland, Ed. Jerzy Kowalski–Glikman. Lecture Notes in Physics 541, 1 Berlin: Springer–Verlag
* Amelino–Camelia G. 2001a Int.J.Mod.Phys. D10 (2001) 1-8
* Amelino–Camelia G. 2001b Nature 410, 1065
* Amelino–Camelia G. 2002 Proceedings of the Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, edited by V.G. Gurzadyan, R.T. Jantzen and R. Ruffini, World Scientific, Singapore, 1485 (also gr-qc/0106005)
* Ellis J., Mavromatos N.E., Nanopoulos D.V. 2000, Gen. Rel. Grav. 32, 127
* Garay L.J. 1998, Phys.Rev.Lett. 80, 2508
* Jacobson T., Liberati S., Mattingly D. 2002 astro-ph/0212190
* Hawking S. 1975, Comm. Math. Phys. 43, 199
* Karolyhazy K. 1966, Il Nuovo Cimento A42, 390
* Kempf A. 1999, Rept. Math. Phys. 43, 171
* Krauss L.M. 2002 in Proc. ESO–CERN–SAS Symp. on Astronomy, Cosmolgy and Fundamental Physics, March 2002, also astro-ph/0301012
* Lieu R., Hillman L.W. 2002 astro-ph/0211402 ApJL in press (LH02 in the text)
* Ng Y.J., van Dam H. 1994, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 335
* Ng Y.J., van Dam H. 1999, Found. Phys. 30, 795
* Ng Y.J., van Dam H., Christiansen W.A. 2003, astro-ph/0302372
* Patat F., Benetti S., Cappellaro E., Danziger I.J., della Valle M., Mazzali P.A., Turatto M. 1996, MNRAS 278, 111
* Rovelli C. 1998, Living Rev. Rel. 1, 1
* Salecker H., Wigner E.P. 1958, Physical Rev. 109, 571
* Sandler D.G., Stahl S., Angel J.R.P., Lloyd–Hart M., McCarty D. 1994, JOSA–A 11, 925
* Spinrad H., Stern D., Bunker A., Dey A., Lanzetta K., Yahil A., Pascarelle S., Fernandez–Soto A. 1998, AJ 116, 2617
* Wheeler J. 1982, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 557
* Wigner E.P. 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 255