text:
# The Entropy of the Microwave Background and the Acceleration of the Universe

## 1 Introduction

Recent observations of supernovae indicate that the universe is accelerating . This suggests that, at present, the energy density of the universe is dominated by a fluid with an equation of state $`p<\frac{1}{3}\rho `$. We will assume in this paper that the source of the observed acceleration is a positive cosmological constant

$$p=\rho =\lambda .$$
(1)
We will then argue that in this case, the entropy stored in local field theoretical degrees of freedom cannot exceed a bound set by a power of the cosmological constant. The upper bound on this entropy scales like $`\lambda ^{3/4}`$, which is parametrically smaller than the entropy of empty de Sitter space, $`S_{DS}\lambda ^1`$ . We will refer in the rest of the paper to the entropy of the microwave background, although the discussion applies to the entropy of any field theoretical degree of freedom.

The physics that underlies the bound, in a nutshell, is the limited efficiency with which a fluid described by local field theoretical degrees of freedom stores entropy in space. This capacity to store information, as seen by local observers, depends on the equation of state. It was shown  that the entropy of a fluid with an equation of state $`p=\kappa \rho `$ scales as a power of the linear size $`R`$,

$$SR^{3\frac{2}{1+\kappa }}.$$
(2)
This result was obtained in the absence of a cosmological constant. We will show that any attempt, when there is no cosmological constant, to squeeze more entropy in a region of fixed size $`R`$ leads to the formation of black holes. This implies that for radiation, $`\kappa =1/3`$, a given region of space with linear size $`R`$ can only accommodate an entropy of $`O(R^{3/2})`$. This is rather inefficient when compared to the storage capabilities of a black hole, or a fluid with $`\kappa =1`$. Indeed, in the latter cases the entropy scales like the area, $`R^2`$.

One might then wonder about what happens to the “storage of entropy” in the presence of a positive cosmological constant. We will argue that in order for such a space-time to asymptote to de Sitter space, there is a bound on the amount of stored entropy, that a local observer can ever measure. This local observer eventually perceives this space-time as a hot cavity  of finite size $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$ in which the entropy of the microwave background never exceeds $`\lambda ^{3/4}`$. The bulk of the paper is devoted to argue that any attempt to store more entropy than the bound allows, meets with black hole formation or a change of the equation of state to a stiffer one, or more probably imprints itself on the event horizon of de Sitter space, and in some cases the universe ends up in a big crunch.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, as a warm-up, we discuss what happens in the contracting phase of a space-time with a cosmological constant and a perfect fluid, as a function of the entropy of the fluid. In section 3, we discuss how efficient a fluid in equilibrium can be in packing entropy. We then use in section 4 the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Snyder (TOS) model  in a way that differs from its original purpose. In this paper, we use the TOS model in the presence of a cosmological constant  to give us a handle on the amount of entropy inside a “star”. This will allow us to draw further evidence for our bound. We end with conclusions and an appendix where a preliminary setup in the “O-gauge”  can be found.

## 2 Contracting Phase of a Space-time with a Fluid and a Cosmological Constant

In this section we will consider the case of a homogeneous universe with a positive cosmological constant and a perfect fluid. We will show that any attempt to store more information, during the contracting phase of this cosmology, than what is allowed by a bound on the entropy, leads to a big crunch 111For a discussion on the endpoint of a big crunch, see .. Consider he Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric,

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right).$$
(3)
The equation that the scale factor obeys is,

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{1}{a^2}=\frac{\lambda }{3}+\rho (a),$$
(4)
where $`\rho (a)`$ is the energy density of the fluid 222For the remainder of the paper we will work in Planck units.. We will use a fluid with a linear equation of state, $`p=\kappa \rho `$. For a given $`\kappa `$ the energy density obeys

$$\rho (a)=\frac{\rho (a_0)a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3(1+\kappa )}}{a^{3(1+\kappa )}}.$$
(5)
By using the thermodynamic relation between the energy and entropy densities,

$$\rho \sigma ^{1+\kappa },$$
(6)
it is then convenient for our purposes to rewrite the energy density as,

$$\rho (a)=\frac{S_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1+\kappa }}{a^{3(1+\kappa )}},$$
(7)
where $`S_0`$ is the entropy associated with the fluid when the scale factor is $`a_0`$. Using this last equation, we can then rewrite (4) as

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{1}{a^2}=\frac{\lambda }{3}+\frac{S_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1+\kappa }}{a^{3(1+\kappa )}}.$$
(8)
This equation implies that in order to avoid a big crunch, $`a0`$, $`S_0`$ should be bounded from above by

$$S_0<C_\kappa \lambda ^{\frac{1+3\kappa }{2(1+\kappa )}},$$
(9)
where $`C_\kappa `$ is a positive number that depends on $`\kappa `$ and microscopic physics of the fluid.333A similar bound on the entropy as a function of the cosmological constant for closed universes was found years ago by Gibbons  in a completely different context. For radiation the bound reads

$$S_0<C_{1/3}\lambda ^{3/4},$$
(10)
where $`C_{1/3}`$ is a coefficient of $`O(1)`$.

The bound for the entropy given by (9), has an intriguing interpretation. The power law is exactly the one that is obtained if one answers the question about the maximum amount of entropy in the fluid, at the threshold of black hole formation, that can fit in a box of linear size, $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$, i.e. the size of the de Sitter horizon.

## 3 Efficiency of Entropy Packing

In this section we will give a heuristic derivation of the scaling law of the entropy of a fluid as a function of the size of the region to which it is confined. We will assume that a perfect fluid contained in a box of size R has a linear equation of state $`p=\kappa \rho `$. We will estimate the entropy versus box size as one tries to pack entropy to the verge of black hole formation. We will assume that a single mode but no more than a single mode of the fluid, with energy $`ϵ`$ occupies a volume $`ϵ^3`$ in Planck units. The number density of modes is

$$n(ϵ)=ϵ^3.$$
(11)
The energy density as a function of $`ϵ`$ is,

$$\rho (ϵ)=ϵ^2.$$
(12)
Using the thermodynamics relation between the entropy density $`\sigma `$ and the energy density $`\rho `$,

$$\sigma (ϵ)\rho (ϵ)^{\frac{1}{1+\kappa }},$$
(13)
we obtain a relation, at the threshold of black hole formation , between the entropy $`S`$ and the size $`R`$ of the region where the fluid is contained.

$$S(R)_0^R𝑑ϵϵ^2\sigma (ϵ)R^{3\frac{2}{1+\kappa }}.$$
(14)
Notice that this is the exact same scaling law for the entropy that was derived from the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkov (TOV) equations  describing a spherically symmetric perfect fluid in equilibrium 444The derivation of the entropy at the threshold of black hole formation can be easily generalized to an arbitrary number of dimensions and $`\frac{1}{1D}<\kappa 1`$. The result reproduces the scaling obtained using the TOV equations in D dimensions.

It seems reasonable to conclude, based on the earlier heuristic derivation of the scaling law, that any attempt to squeeze more entropy in a given volume beyond the bound (9) leads to black hole formation. This picture seems consistent with our present understanding that a black hole is the most efficient environment at packing entropy.

The previous discussion on efficient entropy packing, is modified by the presence of a cosmological constant. Additional distinction should be made between the contracting and expanding parts of the FRW geometry. In the contracting phase black hole formation is enhanced, and the bound on the entropy remains the same. In the expanding case, when the size of the region containing the fluid becomes of $`O(\lambda ^{1/2})`$ the fluid is subjected to a pull due to the cosmological constant, which makes it increasingly harder to increase the entropy in that region beyond the bound discussed in the absence of $`\lambda `$. However any attempt to violate the bound is accompanied by a repackaging of the excess entropy until one reaches the “Bekenstein bound”.

In order to provide additional intuition about the bound for the entropy of a fluid in the presence of a cosmological constant, we will devote our next discussion to studying a modified version of the TOS model . The TOS model was originally designed to describe the collapse of a spherical star made of dust. The interior of the star is modeled by a FRW geometry, whereas the exterior (using Birkhoff’s theorem) is a static Schwarzchild geometry.

## 4 A generalized TOS model

The TOS model will be modified in what follows, by adding a cosmological constant . Our intention is to view the star from the outside as the amount of entropy on the inside is tuned to eventually violate the aforementioned bound. In the setup of this generalized TOS model, we will closely follow some of the analysis by Markovic and Shapiro . This study will give us evidence for our claim that the entropy in a universe with a cosmological constant is bounded by an amount that is parametrically smaller than the Bekenstein bound.

Basically, the TOS model describes the dynamics of a ball of dust in the presence of a positive cosmological constant. The region inside the ball is described by a (truncated) FRW geometry,

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2a(\tau )^2\left(\frac{dx^2}{1kx^2}+x^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),$$
(15)
where $`k`$ determines the curvature of the spatial part of the geometry. The $`x`$ coordinate take values in the region $`0xX`$.

The scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ satisfies

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{\lambda }{3}+\frac{\xi }{F(X)}\frac{S(a_0)}{a^3},$$
(16)
where $`\xi `$ is a fixed parameter that has dimensions of mass, and depends on microscopic physics. This parameter appears in the relation between the energy density and the entropy density of the dust

$$\rho =\xi \sigma ,$$
(17)
and

$$F(X)=_0^X\frac{dxx^2}{\sqrt{1kx^2}}.$$
(18)
The generalized Birkhoff theorem  guarantees that the space-time outside the sphere is Schwarzchild-de Sitter (SdS)

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{\lambda }{3}r^2\right)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{\lambda }{3}r^2\right)}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(19)
In order to complete the description of the space-time geometry, we need to match the 3-geometry across the interface between the dust and the exterior space-time, which is at $`r=R(\tau )`$ using the the exterior coordinate patch, and at $`x=X`$ using the interior coordinate patch. This is achieved by imposing the continuity of the surface’s 3-metric

$$ds_3^2=d\tau ^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(20)
where $`R(\tau )=Xa(\tau )`$, and then imposing Israel’s junction conditions . As shown in  these conditions lead to an equation for $`R(\tau )`$

$$\dot{R}^2+f(R)=1kX^2,$$
(21)
where

$$f(R)=1\frac{2M}{R}\frac{\lambda R^2}{3}.$$
(22)
We want to remind the reader that we are exploring the consequences of injecting more entropy than the bound given in (9). With that in mind we will take an $`S_0`$ in (16) that exceeds the bound by requiring $`S_0>\lambda ^{1/2}`$ parametrically.

By comparing equations (21), (22) and (16) one finds a relation between the “mass” as seen from the outside, and the amount of entropy, inside the “star”

$$M=\xi \frac{X^3}{F(X)}S(a_0),$$
(23)
where the ratio $`\frac{X^3}{F(X)}`$ is bounded below by a number of $`O(1)`$, independent of $`\lambda `$.

If we now impose that the entropy exceeds our bound, $`S_0>\lambda ^{1/2}`$ parametrically, we find that the “mass” is parametrically larger than $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$, which in turn implies that the function $`f(r)`$ that appears in the SdS metric changes sign. At this point, the view of the universe as a cavity no longer applies.

$$f(r)=1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{\lambda r^2}{3}<0.$$
(24)
This implies an exchange of roles between the radial and time coordinates in the description of the space-time geometry. The metric can then be rewritten by introducing $`Tr`$ or $`Tr`$ and $`yt`$

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{g(T)}dT^2g(T)dy^2T^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(25)
where

$$g(T)=\frac{\lambda T^2}{3}+\frac{2M}{T}1.$$
(26)
The space-time geometry is now time dependent. The inside of the “star” and the outside geometry either both collapse to a big crunch or expand from a big bang singularity. The outside geometry looks like a contracting or expanding hyper-cylinder. This is rather different from the case where the entropy of the “star” satisfies the bound.

We do not expect that an increase of the entropy beyond the bound, entails such drastic changes. Instead, we believe that the excess entropy will be stored, some in small black holes, but most we believe stored on the de Sitter horizon. The case concerning the behavior of a “star” has to be contrasted with the case of black holes where the entropy storage is maximal. A somewhat related phenomenon is the case of the repulsion between two black holes in de Sitter space , with respective areas smaller than a bound allowed by de Sitter space, but whose merger would have created a black hole with size larger than the bound

The main point that we are trying to argue in this paper is that the entropy in radiation that a local observer can measure cannot exceed a bound, that is smaller parametrically than the Bekenstein bound. Any excess entropy gets repackaged. So far we have provided circumstantial evidence for the bound and what remains to be shown is how this bound emerges for a local observer immersed in a universe filled with radiation and in the presence of a small cosmological constant. An argument for the bound might be based on the theorem  that states that there is an upper bound on the entropy and hence the “mass” of a black hole in de Sitter space. Such a black hole has a maximum “size” $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$. We have seen earlier that in the absence of a cosmological constant, the entropy that radiation in equilibrium can fit into a sphere of size $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$, before the onset of black hole formation is of $`O(\lambda ^{3/4})`$ . Any more entropy stored in radiation would need more space or be repackaged. The cosmological constant merely acts as a cavity which the radiation fills.

Before concluding it would be important to describe the observation of a local observer immersed in a geometry determined by a perfect fluid and a positive cosmological constant, without using a “star” to obtain the bound. Although this gauge, known as the “O-gauge”,  can be constructed, the technical difficulty (for us) in this gauge is that the dynamics is described by two dimensional partial differential equations 555see the appendix. This is in contrast with our use of a “star” where only one dimensional differential equations are involved.

## 5 Conclusions

Let us briefly recapitulate our main message: a local observer in a four dimensional FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant will never “see” more entropy in the microwave background than $`S\lambda ^{3/4}`$. Any excess entropy up to $`O(\lambda ^1)`$ gets processed into black holes or gets absorbed by the horizon. If we ascribe the observed acceleration of our universe to a cosmological constant then the entropy in the microwave background must be smaller than $`O(10^{91})`$.

The local observer does not in general witness catastrophic events, he or she merely sees the microwave background and the occasional black hole. The experience of the observer becomes drastically different in the collapsing phase if the amount of entropy exceeds the “Bekenstein bound” of $`O(\lambda ^1)`$, he or she ends with the rest of the universe in a big crunch.

The question of why the entropy in the microwave background is $`O(10^{85})`$ which is some five orders of magnitude smaller than the bound discussed in this paper remains unanswered. A plausible answer is that if there is an excess entropy produced, in reheating the universe, the process of repackaging that excess entropy somehow overshoots the bound. In this context it is interesting to note that the current estimate of the entropy stored in black holes at the center of galaxies is $`O(10^{95})`$. Another possible explanation in the context of inflation is that the subsequent reheating of the universe produces an amount of entropy short of the bound.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The research of Willy Fischler, Amit Loewy and Sonia Paban was supported in part by NSF grant 0071512, and grant support from the US Navy, Office of Naval Research, Grant No. N00014-03-1-0639, Quantum Optics Initiative. Useful conversations with Julie Blum, Eduardo di Napoli, Hyukjae Park and Marija Zanic are gratefully acknowledged.

## 7 Appendix

In order to describe what a local observer experiences, it is useful to work in the “O-gauge” coordinate system which only covers the causal region that the observer. It was shown in  that given a space-time metric of the FRW form

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right),$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$ and $`0\theta \pi `$, one can make the following coordinate transformation to a coordinate system that covers only the causal patch with a metric of the form

$$ds^2=e^v(dt^2dr^2)Z^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(28)
where $`v`$ and $`Z`$ are in general functions of space and time.

First, conformally rescale (27) by defining the new time coordinate $`\tau =𝑑t/a(t)`$. The Penrose diagram associated with the new metric is depicted below.

For a stationary observer at $`\theta =0`$, the causal patch is marked by the shaded region. A point $`P`$ in the causal patch can be mapped to a pair of points on the observer’s world-line by following the light-like trajectories to $`\tau ^+`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$. Clearly, the following relations hold $`\tau =(\tau ^++\tau ^{})/2`$ and $`\theta =(\tau ^+\tau ^{})/2`$. From this it follows that the metric on the causal patch can be written as

$$ds^2=a^2\left(\frac{\tau ^++\tau ^{}}{2}\right)d\tau ^+d\tau ^{}a^2\left(\frac{\tau ^++\tau ^{}}{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\tau ^+\tau ^{}}{2}\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(29)
where $`\tau _{min}\tau ^\pm \tau _{max}`$. Applying a further (holomorphic) coordinate transformation $`\tau ^\pm X^\pm (\tau ^\pm )=t\pm r`$, subject to the gauge-fixing conditions $`v(r=0)=Z(r=0)=0`$ brings the metric to the form (28).

We will now write Einstein’s equations in the presence of a perfect fluid with the equation of state $`p=\kappa \rho `$ and a positive cosmological constant . The energy-momentum tensor of this fluid is given by

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\rho \left((1+\kappa )U^\mu U^\nu +\kappa g^{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(30)
where $`U`$ is the 4-velocity of the fluid. The $`tt`$, $`rr`$, and $`tr`$ components of Einstein’s equation read

$$\frac{\dot{Z}\dot{v}}{Z}+\frac{\dot{Z}^2}{Z^2}+\frac{v^{}Z^{}}{Z}2\frac{Z^{\prime \prime }}{Z}+\frac{e^v}{Z^2}\frac{Z^2}{Z^2}\lambda e^v=T_{tt},$$

$$\frac{\dot{Z}\dot{v}}{Z}\frac{\dot{Z}^2}{Z^2}2\frac{\ddot{Z}}{Z}+\frac{v^{}Z^{}}{Z}\frac{e^v}{Z^2}+\frac{Z^2}{Z^2}+\lambda e^v=T_{rr},$$

$$\frac{\dot{Z}v^{}}{Z}+\frac{Z^{}\dot{v}}{Z}2\frac{\dot{Z}^{}}{Z}=T_{tr}.$$
(31)
The last two components, $`\theta \theta `$ and $`\varphi \varphi `$ give the same equation (assuming spherical symmetry)

$$e^v\left(Z\ddot{Z}ZZ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2}Z^2\ddot{v}\frac{1}{2}Z^2v^{\prime \prime }e^v\right)+\lambda Z^2=T_{\theta \theta }.$$
(32)
The system is further constrained by energy-momentum conservation $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$. One must now give initial conditions on a space-like hyper-surface $`t=t_0`$ for the geometry and the fluid. The entropy on such an initial slice is given by

$$S(t=t_0)𝑑re^{v/2}Z^2\rho ^{\frac{1}{1+\kappa }}.$$
(33)
What, in this gauge, would be the signal that the bound has been violated? .


format: text

text:
# Analyticity and the phase diagram of QCD

## Abstract

Some consequences of the analyticity of the free energy (pressure) of QCD at finite chemical potential are deduced. These include a method for numerical exploration of the full phase diagram by a novel use of simulations at imaginary chemical potential to extract Yang-Lee zeroes of the grand-canonical partition function. We make use of, and comment on, CPT symmetries, positivity of non-linear susceptibilities and the finiteness of screening lengths. We also comment on the structure of zeroes expected for the usual picture of the phases of QCD, following a discussion of the physics of imaginary chemical potential.

preprint: TIFR/TH/03-0?, hep-lat/0307007

Motivated by the complex phase structure of QCD at finite chemical potential, $`\mu `$, predicted by effective theories and perturbative analyses alford , there has been a spate of work extending lattice computations to finite $`\mu `$ fodor ; owe ; maria ; allton ; suscp . Most of these methods extrapolate data obtained at $`\mu =0`$ out to finite $`\mu `$ using, implicitly or explicitly, a Taylor expansion in $`\mu `$ of the free energy. As a result, these expansions cannot be continued beyond the nearest phase transition to $`\mu =0`$. Much of the interesting phase structure of QCD then lies beyond their scope. This paper explores consequences of the analyticity of the free energy (guaranteed by time reversal invariance) as a function of complex $`\mu `$ to suggest a numerical technique for exploring the QCD phase diagram. It turns out that analyticity also has many other consequences, some of which are touched upon.

The plan of this paper is the following. First it is shown how analyticity is guaranteed by time reversal symmetry. This material is known to practitioners, but serves to introduce notation and several concepts I use later. Next I write down the canonical product representation for the partition function and make contact with the Yang-Lee theory of phase transitions. A numerical technique is developed to explore the phase diagram using simulations at imaginary chemical potential, which goes beyond using Taylor series for analytic continuation. The need for a different approach is discussed next, with remarks on the phase diagram.

The partition function of QCD, i.e., $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory, with $`N_f`$ flavours of fermions, each subjected to a common chemical potential, $`\mu `$, is

$$Z(T,\mu )=DU\mathrm{e}^{S_g(T)}\underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\mathrm{Det}M(m_f,\mu ,T),$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the Dirac operator, $`S_g`$ the gauge part of the action and the temperature $`T`$ enters the action through boundary conditions on the fields. The free energy, $`F`$ and the pressure are defined by

$$P(T,\mu )=\frac{1}{V}F(T,\mu )=\left(\frac{T}{V}\right)\mathrm{log}Z(T,\mu ).$$
(2)
At any purely real or imaginary value of the chemical potential, the free energy (or the pressure) is purely real weiss . Is it possible then for the free energy to be an analytic function of a general complex $`\mu `$? Recall that this requires the real and imaginary parts of $`F`$, $`F_r`$ and $`F_i`$ respectively, to satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations, implying that they are conjugate harmonic functions. This rules out $`F_i=0`$ unless $`F`$ is constant.

The answer is that it is entirely possible to have a harmonic function (i.e., a function satisfying Laplace’s equation) which is zero along the real and imaginary axes and is non-trivial elsewhere. Since all even powers of the complex number $`\mu `$ satisfy these requirements, it seems that analyticity of $`F(\mu )`$ (at fixed $`T`$) requires that it be even in $`\mu `$.

Now recall that the transformation $`\mu \mu `$ can be compensated by time-reversal, i.e., by interchanging particles and anti-particles. However, this definition is arbitrary; in the absence of CP violating terms in the action, thermodynamics remains unchanged by such a relabelling. The physics is therefore unchanged by changing the sign of $`\mu `$. In other words, CP symmetry (same as time reversal, by the CPT theorem) implies that $`F(\mu )`$ is an even function of $`\mu `$, i.e., only even powers of $`\mu `$ appear in the Taylor expansion. Since the whole chain of logic above can be inverted, this means that CP symmetry is necessary and sufficient for the analyticity of $`F`$, and its reality along the coordinate axes of $`\mu `$ in the complex plane.

The simplest use of analyticity is to expand the pressure in a Taylor series allton ; suscp  and to determine the coefficients by direct lattice simulations at $`\mu =0`$ suscp ; valence  or by fitting to results obtained at imaginary $`\mu `$ maria . However, this approach is limited, since it only gives information on the phase connected to $`\mu =0`$. The first phase transition encountered stops the extrapolation, and more machinery is required to get around this barrier. This is what we develop in this paper.

At real $`\mu `$, the path integral measure in eq. (1) is complex wilczek  and importance sampling in a Monte Carlo procedure fails although the integral is real. From the argument above, it seems that by grouping together configurations related by CP, it should be possible to construct a real weight by summing over each such “CP orbit”. Since CP symmetry forms a $`Z_2`$ group, each orbit consists of exactly two configurations, and the sum of the weights in these two configurations (for real $`\mu `$) must be real. The simplest example is the Gibbs model gibbs .

This model contains Fermions on a 1-dimensional lattice ($`N_t`$ sites in the temporal direction) and $`U(1)`$ gauge fields on the links. Since there are no plaquettes, the gauge action is trivial and the path integral can be performed easily. The model is a zero (spatial) dimensional field theory, and, therefore is the quantum mechanics of a single fermion subjected to a constant $`U(1)`$ field. It is possible to choose a gauge where all links have equal value $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$. With fermion mass $`m`$, chemical potential $`\mu `$ and defining $`q^{N_t}=z=\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$, the Fermion matrix is—

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}m& qU& & \mathrm{}& U^{}/q\\ U^{}/q& m& qU& & \mathrm{}\\ & U^{}/q& m& qU& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ qU& \mathrm{}& & U^{}/q& m\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The determinant is—

$$\mathrm{Det}M=w^{N_t}+1/w^{N_t}2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{1}{2}Nm^{}$$
(4)
where $`w=qU`$ and $`ma/2=\mathrm{sinh}m^{}a/2`$. The lattice spacing is $`a=1/TN_t`$. The partition function is

$$Z(N,z)=_\pi ^\pi \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\mathrm{Det}M,$$
(5)
which is real, although the weight is complex. In this simple model a CP transformation induces the mapping $`UU^{}`$. Then, summing over each CP orbit one gets

$$\underset{CP}{}\mathrm{Det}M=4\mathrm{cosh}(\mu /T)\mathrm{cos}(N_t\theta )4\mathrm{cosh}(m^{}/2T),$$
(6)
which is real. In the partition function one should compensate the double counting by dividing by a factor of two. This is immaterial for expectation values.

In a more realistic model, the gauge configurations connected by a CP transformation are harder to construct. It turns out to be easier to implement the symmetry transformation C (which is the same as PT) which is local and maps each link matrix $`UU^{}`$. The T part of the transformation can be used as before to prove that the free energy is even in $`\mu `$. Moreover, this symmetry transformation preserves the values of $`S_g`$ and $`\mathrm{Det}M`$ (see eq. 1) separately. As a result, for the Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{Det}M`$ summed over each PT orbit—

$$\mathrm{Det}M(m,T,\mu )=\mathrm{Det}M(m,T,0)\left[1+a_1\mu +\frac{a_2}{2}\mu ^2+\frac{a_3}{3!}\mu ^3+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(7)
one has $`\mathrm{}a_i=\mathrm{}a_i=0`$ for all odd $`i`$. In other words, summed over PT orbits, the measure is even in $`\mu `$.

Since this summation over a symmetry orbit leads to a weight that is the sum of two determinants, it is clear that the measure cannot be rewritten using local pseudo-fermion fields. Disappointingly, these symmetries turn out to be unexploitable in this form for molecular dynamics algorithms paralleling those which are used at zero chemical potential algo . However, by ensuring analyticity, they lead to other numerical approaches to the problem, as I show next.

From the Hamiltonian expression for the partition function,

$$Z(T,\mu )=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\widehat{H}}{T}\frac{\mu \widehat{N}}{T}\right],$$
(8)
(where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the Hamiltonian and $`\widehat{N}`$ the number operator) it is clear that $`Z`$ has a periodicity of $`2\pi T`$ in the imaginary part of the chemical potential—

$$Z(T,\mu )=Z(T,\mu +2\pi ikT)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{integer}k.$$
(9)
Functions with such periodicity are best analysed in terms of the fugacity, $`z=\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$. Entire functions in $`\mu `$ are regular in the complex $`z`$ plane without the origin, i.e., the punctured $`z`$ plane notea . Then the partition function can be written in the canonical product form ahlfors

$$Z(T,z)=\mathrm{e}^{\overline{F}(T,z)/T}\left(1\frac{z}{z_n(T)}\right),$$
(10)
where $`z_n(T)`$ are the zeroes of $`Z`$, and $`\overline{F}`$ is the regular part of the free energy. CP symmetry constrains the set of zeroes, $`\{z_n\}`$ to be symmetric under inversions in the unit circle. Branch points in the full free energy, $`F=T\mathrm{log}Z`$, then do not appear in the regular part $`\overline{F}`$. The periodicity of $`Z`$ in $`\mu `$ also implies that

$$\overline{F}(T,\mu )=\overline{F}(T,\mu +2\pi ikT)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{integer}k.$$
(11)
The appropriate setting for further analysis is the Yang-Lee theory of phase transitions yang .

According to this theory, phase transitions occur at points in the parameter space where dense sets of zeroes develop into pinch points. In the present understanding of the phase diagram of QCD, one expects pinch points on the real $`\mu `$ axis at small $`T`$ where interesting new phases of QCD appear alford . We shall come back to this after a digression on ideal gases which throws more light on the question of periodicity in the imaginary part of $`\mu `$.

An ideal gas has the free energy—

$$F(T,\mu )=N_cN_fV\left[\frac{7\pi ^2}{180}T^4+\frac{1}{6}\mu ^2T^2+\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}\mu ^4\right],$$
(12)
which does not have the required periodicity; no polynomial in $`\mu `$ can. By examining the Hamiltonian formulation of an ideal gas, we can show where the periodicity is hidden. The free energy can be written as

$$F(\mu ,T)=\frac{N_cN_fVT^4}{3\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^3\left[\frac{1}{z\mathrm{e}^x+1}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^x/z+1}\right].$$
(13)
Since $`z`$ is unchanged under $`\mu \mu +2\pi iT`$, this has explicitly the required periodicity. By the substitution $`y=\mathrm{exp}x`$, the integral can be written in terms of fourth order Euler Polylogarithm functions li

$$F(\mu ,T)=\frac{2N_cN_fVT^4}{\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{Li}_4\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)+\mathrm{Li}_4\left(z\right)\right],$$
(14)
which also explicitly retains the periodicity. In fact, each of the terms has this periodicity explicitly. This property is lost in a Taylor expansion of the polylogs in $`\mu /T`$

$$\mathrm{Li}_4\left(\mathrm{e}^x\right)=\frac{7\pi ^4}{720}\frac{3\zeta _3}{4}x\frac{\pi ^2}{24}x^2\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{6}x^3\frac{x^4}{48}\frac{x^5}{480}+\frac{x^7}{40320}\frac{x^9}{1451520}\mathrm{}$$
(15)
where the remaining terms are odd in the expansion parameter. The reason is that in taking the logarithm of the argument one makes a choice of the Riemann sheet, which is precisely equivalent to working within a single strip of width $`2\pi iT`$. When the sum in eq. (14) is expanded in a Taylor series in $`\mu `$, it is clear that every term cancels, apart from those which appear in eq. (12). Periodicity can be restored by averaging this expression over all Riemann sheets of the logarithm, the result of which is expressed concisely in eq. (14) noteb . In general, interactions modify the integral expression in eq. (13), without spoiling the periodicity. This upsets the conspiracy which cancels all higher terms in $`F`$, leading to non-vanishing values for general Taylor coefficients, i.e., the non-linear number susceptibilities suscp .

We return now to considerations of phase transitions in QCD through the Yang-Lee mechanism. The set of zeroes, $`z_n(T)`$, of the partition function contains the full information needed to identify all the phase transitions in the theory through the Yang-Lee mechanism yang . But for all this to make sense, one needs to check that a thermodynamic limit exists, and that, in this limit, the pressure is a continuous and monotonically increasing function of $`z`$. This is Theorem I of yang , and is proven there in the non-relativistic limit when interparticle potentials obey two conditions— first that there should be a limit to the number of particles that can be accommodated in a finite box, and second that the interactions between them be of finite range. Non-intuitive phenomena can occur when these conditions are violated mukamel . All work on QCD assumes the validity this theorem. However, it is useful to first examine the basis for this assumption.

In the low temperature phase, where the carriers of baryon number are the baryons themselves, the problem is essentially non-relativistic, since the baryon mass is much greater than the temperature. There is ample experimental evidence that the inter-nucleon potential satisfies both conditions necessary for the theorem to hold— the baryon-baryon interaction has a hard core repulsion and a short ranged Yukawa interaction at long distances. In the high-temperature phase the problem is relativistic, since one expects that the carriers of baryon number are the quarks, whose masses are much less than the temperature. Quarks and antiquarks are freely created and destroyed, and, as is well-known, the correct reformulation of the problem is to work in ensembles where the excess (or deficit) of quarks over antiquarks is fixed (the canonical ensemble) or is conjugate to the chemical potential (the grand canonical ensemble). The second requirement, of finite range of interactions, is straightforward. The gauge interaction, which could be long-ranged, is known to be screened in the electric sector electric . In the magnetic sector there is no evidence for screening, but there is evidence of confinement and hence a mass-gap magnetic . All other screening lengths are smaller in the continuum limit valence . While these phenomena are best established for $`N_c=2`$ and 3, they are expected to hold also for other $`N_c`$.

If we accept these arguments, or otherwise directly assume the first theorem of yang — that the pressure is a continuous increasing function for $`z1`$, then an immediate consequence is that the Taylor expansion coefficients of $`P(T,z)`$ in $`z`$ at fixed $`T`$ are non-negative. Now, the generalised susceptibilities suscp , are Taylor coefficients of $`P(T,\mu )`$ in an expansion in $`\mu `$. Since the expansion in $`\mu `$ can be obtained from that in $`z=\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$ by expanding out the exponential, which is itself a convex function, it follows that the sum of all generalised susceptibilities of a given order are strictly positive.

This theorem of Yang and Lee is expected to hold for a continuum theory in the thermodynamic limit of infinite volume. It is also expected to hold for a continuum theory in a finite volume much bigger than the range of interactions, even when the limit is taken with a sequence of cutoffs, holding the physical volume fixed. On the other hand, at any intermediate step in this procedure, the convexity argument may fail if some of the screening masses are far from their continuum limits and not sufficiently small. Negative values of some of the susceptibilities may then be observed at finite volume. However, convexity is regained either by increasing the spatial volume or on taking the continuum limit billoire .

Further practical use of this theory necessitates estimation of the set of zeroes, $`\{z_n(T)\}`$. Further information hinges on the connection between the grand-canonical and the canonical partition functions. The partition function in eq. (1) generates expectation values in a grand canonical ensemble with respect to quark number. A partition function for fixed quark number, $`Q`$, i.e., in a canonical ensemble has also been used before weiss ; miller ; barbour ; hasenfratz . One defines this canonical partition function by the Fourier transform

$$𝒬(T,Q)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi Z(T,i\varphi )\mathrm{cos}Q\varphi ,$$
(16)
where $`Z(T,i\varphi )`$ denotes the grand canonical partition function in an imaginary chemical potential $`\mu =i\varphi `$. One can invert this formula to write

$$Z(T,z)=\underset{Q=1}{\overset{VN_sN_fN_c}{}}𝒬(T,Q)\left[z^Q+\frac{1}{z^Q}\right],$$
(17)
where $`N_s`$ is the number of components of the Dirac spinor ($`N_s=4`$ in four dimensions). Note that on any lattice with $`V`$ sites on each spatial slice, $`Z`$ is a polynomial in $`z`$ of degree $`VN_sN_fN_c`$. The $`Z_{N_c}`$ symmetry of the gauge action can be used to show that $`𝒬_n=0`$ unless $`n`$ is a multiple of $`N_c`$ hasenfratz . The remaining coefficients are real and non-negative. Hence the $`VN_sN_f`$ distinct zeroes of $`Z`$ cannot lie on the positive real axis of $`z`$. The Yang-Lee picture now follows, with phase transitions occurring when $`V\mathrm{}`$ and the zeroes pinch the positive real $`z`$ axis. Note that the finite Laurent series on the right of eq. (17) is typical of a relativistic theory with its CP symmetry. In non-relativistic theories this is just a finite polynomial.

This gives a method for determining the transition line in the $`(\mu ,T)`$ plane. Construct the partition function at imaginary chemical potential and, by Fourier transforming it, build up the coefficients of the polynomial in $`z`$. Transform this information into that of the zeroes of the polynomial and check whether they begin to pinch the positive real $`z`$ axis. Since this information finds all the pinch points, this is one way to go beyond the present day lattice computations and look for signals of phase transitions to the conjectured colour superconducting phases. Some results will be presented elsewhere.

This is an appropriate place to discuss a couple of interesting points about this algorithm. An absolute normalisation for $`Z`$ is not needed in any practical implementation of this method. An overall multiplicative factor in $`Z`$ appears as such in the $`𝒬`$’s, and hence is irrelevant to the zeroes of eq. (17). Simulations will never give an absolute normalisation for $`Z`$. However, combinations of simulations at several different values of $`\varphi `$ can be combined to give the relative values of $`Z`$, as is done in setting up a multi-histogram reweighting. There have been preliminary investigations of methods for constructing $`𝒬`$’s barbour ; hasenfratz .

A second practical question is that of statistical errors. Any simulation will necessarily contain statistical errors, and the question naturally arises whether they allow a determination of the pinch point of the Lee-Yang zeroes with any degree of accuracy. Since the pinch points lie on the real axis, after appropriate scaling, the zeroes in the vicinity of this point are the solution of $`z^N+1=0`$, with $`N`$ being a large integer of the order of $`V`$. The zeroes of this polynomial lie at the points $`z_n=\mathrm{exp}[2\pi i(n+1/2)/N]`$. The effect of simulation errors is to change this equation to a general polynomial of order $`k`$

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _iz^i=0,$$
(18)
where the coefficients are real and we can write $`|\alpha _N1|=ϵ_N`$, $`|\alpha _01|=ϵ_0`$ and $`|\alpha _i|=ϵ_i`$ (for $`0<i<N`$). We model the errors $`ϵ_i`$ as being independent random numbers drawn from Gaussians of width $`\sigma `$. For sufficiently large statistics $`\sigma `$ is small, and the deviations of the roots of eq. (18) from $`z_n`$, $`\delta _n`$, can be treated as linear in the $`ϵ_i`$. It is then a straightforward exercise to show that $`\delta _n=0`$ and the RMS error, $`\sqrt{\delta _n^2\delta _n^2}=\sigma z_n/N`$. Thus the problem is statistically well conditioned. The estimates of zeroes are unbiased and the errors fall inversely with the square root of the statistics and inversely with the system volume.

We turn to the question of phase transitions at purely imaginary $`\mu `$, since this yields further insight into the locations of the zeroes of the partition function. We note at the outset that crucial convexity theorems (such as the second law) fail at imaginary $`\mu `$, and hence thermodynamics in its usual sense does not apply. The idea of owe  is to use the peak in a response function, $`\chi `$, (i.e., second derivative of the free energy with respect to an intensive parameter) to identify putative critical points at imaginary $`\mu `$ and finite volume, analytically continue them to real $`\mu `$, and then take the infinite volume limit. Note several subtleties in the argument. First, for a function $`\chi (\mu ^2)`$, the extrema for imaginary chemical potential, $`\mu _{}^2<0`$, are obtained by solving for the zeroes of the first derivative. This does not necessarily give the extrema at real chemical potential, since the solution of $`\chi ^{}(\mu _{}^2)=0`$ does not guarantee that $`\chi ^{}(\mu _{}^2)`$ also vanishes. A second, related subtlety can be seen in a double Taylor expansion for any response function at finite volume—

$$\chi (T/T_c,\mu /T)=\underset{nm}{}c_{nm}\left(1T/T_c\right)^n\left(\frac{\mu }{T}\right)^{2m},$$
(19)
where the Taylor coefficients $`c_{nm}`$ are independent of $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ owe . At the critical end-point, $`T_E(\mu _E)`$ this series must sum to the divergent quantity $`|1T/T_E(\mu _E)|^\gamma `$ (with $`\gamma >0`$) in the infinite volume limit. There may also be a critical point, $`(T_E^{},\mu _E^{})`$ at an imaginary chemical potential, $`(\mu _E^{})^2<0`$. Clearly the sum in eq. (19) differs at the two points, i.e., even if $`\chi (T_E/T_c,\mu _E/T_E)`$ and $`\chi (T_E^{}/T_c,\mu _E^{}/T_E^{})`$ are both divergent, neither $`\chi (T_E/T_c,i\mu _E/T_E)`$ nor $`\chi (T_E^{}/T_c,\mu _E^{}/iT_E^{})`$ need to diverge note1 .

In the context of our earlier arguments, it is more natural to look for accumulation points of zeroes of the partition function for imaginary chemical potential. This leads to the third subtlety, and a genuine difference between real and imaginary chemical potential due to the lack of convexity mentioned earlier. The theorem of Yang and Lee which we have earlier quoted allowed us to express the partition function as a finite (at all finite volumes) Laurent series in $`z`$ with non-negative coefficients (eq. 17). This constraint on the coefficients ensures convexity and prevents zeroes at real positive $`z`$, i.e., for real $`\mu `$. Only in the limit of infinite volume can the zeroes pinch the real line and cause a phase transition. However, this same structure allows, (and, in some models, may force) the occurrence of zeroes on the unit circle in $`z`$ (i.e., for imaginary $`\mu `$) even at finite volume.

Examples abound. We point out the extension of the Gibbs model to $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge group where the partition function has been computed bilic , and found to be

$$Z=2\mathrm{cosh}[N_c\mu /T]+\mathrm{sinh}[(N_c+1)m^{}/T]/\mathrm{sinh}[m^{}/T].$$
(20)
This is of the form in eq. (17), with $`𝒬(T,N_c)=2`$, $`𝒬(T,0)`$ being the second term in the expression on the right, and all other coefficients vanishing. In the limit $`m0`$, $`Z=2\mathrm{cosh}[N_c\mu /T]`$, and the zeroes of $`Z`$ are at

$$z_n=\mathrm{e}^{i(2n+1)\pi /2N_c},(0n<N_c).$$
(21)
Note that there are no positive real $`z_n`$. The zeroes lie exclusively on the imaginary axis in the $`\mu `$-plane. The nearest zeroes to the positive real $`z`$ axis are at $`z=\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\pi /2N_c)`$. In this 0+1 dimensional problem there is no phase transition for any finite $`N_c`$. However, a pinch point develops at $`z=1`$ as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, very beautifully illustrating van Hove’s theorem.

The zeroes on the imaginary $`\mu `$ axis give rise to logarithmic branch point singularities of the free energy evaluated at imaginary chemical potential. The quark number density, all quark number susceptibilities, the energy density and all its derivatives diverge at all these points for all values of $`N_c`$. These divergences are thermodynamically meaningless since they occur without the necessity of taking a thermodynamic or continuum limit. At finite quark mass, the zeroes remain on the unit circle but move about as long as $`𝒬(T,0)1`$. When the mass becomes larger, these zeroes leave the imaginary axis, but they are still visible as maxima of these observables (see Figure 1), and can be interpreted as crossover points. The effect of mass seems to be one of the main differences between the perturbative and strong coupling computations of weiss .

These crossovers are generic at imaginary chemical potential— Potts models (or $`O(N)`$ models) with an ordering field in one direction and an imaginary transverse field show such behaviour, as do massive fermions subjected to imaginary chemical potential. Removing the first ordering field converts them into branch point singularities. Both pose dangers to numerical simulations, since these non-thermodynamical singularities are easily misinterpreted as strong first order transitions, or developing critical points. If one indeed misidentifies such points, then finite size scaling studies are also misleading, since one tries to apply inappropriate homogeneity relations arising from thermodynamic considerations. The idea of locating the zeroes of the partition function using data collected at imaginary chemical potential is to bypass these problems altogether.

The connection of the results of weiss  and the phase diagram of QCD at real $`\mu `$ seems to be rather subtle. Here we make a hypothesis which is consistent with the observed absence of a critical point with $`Z_3`$ symmetry z3  and with present understanding of the physics of the $`Z_{N_c}`$ phases kiskis . Figure 2 is a cartoon of the conjectured phases of QCD ($`N_c=3`$ and $`N_f=2`$) with finite quark mass alford . There are three lines of first order phase transitions (labelled A, B and C) in the figure. These meet at a triple point, where the normal phase, the plasma phase and a colour-superconducting phase coexist. The line A, separating the normal and plasma phases ends in a critical point note2 . The line $`B`$ is expected to continue to infinity. For imaginary chemical potential, only the locus of zeroes of the partition function, the lines F and G, are shown.

There are also two insets showing the positions of Yang-Lee zeroes which might lead to such phase diagrams. In this figure only the pinch points are constrained— the remainder of the lines ’a’ and ’b’ are allowed to twist, merge or intersect without changing the phase diagram borgs . The important point is that in a range of temperatures, there are two pinch points on the real axis note3 . As the temperature rises, the pinch point on the right, labelled ’b’, moves to higher and higher $`\mu _r`$, whereas the one on the left, labelled ’a’, lifts away from the real axis at the critical end point, $`T_E`$. Its effect can still be felt at the crossover temperature, $`T_c`$, seen in finite temperature simulations at $`\mu =0`$. Above $`T_c`$ the line ’b’ continues to move outwards, but there remain isolated $`N_c`$ zeroes on or near the unit circle (drawn with a dotted line), depending on the quark mass, which give rise to the crossovers (F and G) observable at imaginary $`\mu `$.

We end by summarizing the contents of this paper. The complex analytic structure of the free energy (pressure) of QCD was investigated. It was shown that CP symmetry makes the free energy an analytic function of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ at all temperatures $`T`$. This symmetry is unexploitable to give an algorithm for a Monte Carlo procedure that works through a molecular dynamics algorithm. Exploiting analyticity, it is possible to write a canonical product representation of the partition function, and made contact with the Yang-Lee theory. It was argued that analyticity, monotonicity and continuity of the pressure implies that non-linear susceptibilities of arbitrary order must exist and be non-negative at all $`T`$. It was further argued that this is connected with electric screening and magnetic confinement in high temperature QCD. I showed how to use canonical partition functions, derived from Monte Carlo simulations at purely imaginary chemical potential, to obtain information on the phase structure of QCD. Finally, a plausible phase diagram of QCD was used to anticipate the behaviour of the zeroes that such numerical techniques might give rise to.


text:
# Observed Correlations in Minkowski Space

## Introduction

In several previous papers , the author proposed five rules that describe how conscious observers become engaged with quantum mechanical systems. These rules connect solutions to Schrödinger’s equation with observation more completely than is possible with the Born rule. Our rule (1) replaces the Born rule. These rules are not simply definitions or interpretations of the symbols in the Schrödinger solutions, for they add synthetic content. They place constraints on brains that play an observational role in quantum mechanics. The rules are given in the appendix, and a summary and discussion of them is found in another paper .

These five rules imply the existence of a wider theoretical understanding of conscious brains that is yet to be discovered. I make no attempt to formulate a wider theory or in any way ‘explain’ these rules. The rules are correct in the sense that they set quantum theoretical solutions into correspondence with well understood laboratory experiences. They do a more thorough job in this respect than the Born rule by itself, and to this extent they are to be thought of as ‘empirical’ rules whose theoretical basis is as yet unknown. Further discussion is found in ref. 5.

The rules have been successfully applied to the measurement of a single particle in all of the ways that one or two observers might interact with the measuring device. It is shown in the present paper that the rules also apply to the measurement of two nonlocally correlated particles, where the location of each is recorded by a different detector. We show how a dual measurement of this kind would look in Minkowski space, where two different strategies for imposing reduction boundaries are considered. In the first, an Aharonov-Albert reduction is assumed ; and in the second, a Hellwig Krause reduction is assumed . We discuss the relativistic covariance of the rules

## Correlated Particles, Non-Relativistic

In the following, two independent detectors are represented in their ground state (i.e., prior to particle capture) by $`D_0D_0`$, where first term refers to the first detector and the second term refers to the second detector. A sub-zero means that the detector is in its ground (no capture) state, and a sub-one means that it is in its excited (i.e., capture) state. The detectors do not interact with each other. Prior to the time that a particle interacts with either one of the detectors, the equation of state is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_i)=\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0D_0$$

where $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)`$ is a two particle state given as a function of non-separable spatial coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$ and time $`t`$, where $`t_i`$ is the initial time.

When each particle interacts with its own detector, the Hamiltonian of the system gives rise to three new components.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0D_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0`$
$`+`$ $`\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$
where the added components are equal to zero when the interaction begins at time $`t_0`$. The first detector captures the first particle at $`x_1=a`$, and the second detector captures the second particle at $`x_2=b`$. Each particle is located inside of its own detector state $`D_1`$, so the second order component $`D_1(t)D_1(t)`$ contains both captured particles.

The fourth component reflects that possibility that each detector has captured a particle, where the temporal sequence of the captures is not a consideration. We assume that the Hamiltonian in eq. 1 does not allow a direct transition from the first to the fourth component, so the fourth component can only acquire amplitude following a second order transition that goes through the second or third component.

Now suppose that both detectors have been observed from a time before the beginning of the interaction. The initial state function of the system is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_i)=\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0$$

where the first $`\underset{¯}{B}_0`$ is the conscious brain state of the first observer looking at the first ground state detector, and the second $`\underset{¯}{B}_0`$ is the conscious brain state of the second observer looking at the second ground state detector. The underline of a brain state means that it is conscious.

The moment the particles begin to interact with the detectors, the Hamiltonian of the system will give rise to two other terms.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1B_1D_0B_0`$
$`+`$ $`\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0B_0D_1B_1`$
where the second and third components are zero when the interaction begins at time $`t_0`$, and increase in time. As before, the second component represents the possibility that the first detector captures the first particle while the second detector remains in its ground state, and the third component represents the possibility that the second detector captures the second particle while the first detector remains in its ground state. The brain states in the second and third components are *not* conscious states as indicated by the absence of an underline. These are called *ready brain states*, which means that they are neither conscious nor unconscious. They occupy a stand-by status that has no classical counterpart. A ready state is one that will become conscious the moment the component is stochastically chosen in accordance with rules (1 & 3) in the appendix.

Notice that eq. 2 does not contain a fourth component like eq. 1. Rule (2) requires that any newly created component (in eq. 2) contains ready brain states, and rule (4) does not allow a transition to go from a ready brain state to another ready brain state of the same observer. Since there is no direct Hamiltonian connection from the first component to a possible fourth component in eq. 2, it follows that a fourth component cannot be reached by *any* route at this stage of the interaction. Therefore a fourth component does not appear in that equation. As previously stated, rule (4) is a selection rule that affects the behavior of the physical system by forbidding transitions of a certain kind - in this case, a second order transition to the $`4^{th}`$ component.

This is another case in which rule (4) spares us an anomalous result. The fourth component of eq. 1 represents the possibility that both detectors have captured a particle, where the temporal sequence of these captures is not a consideration. However, if there is an observer present at both detectors, then the question of the temporal order of capture (in the given Lorentz frame) can be answered unambiguously. It will be a matter of record that either the first detector was the first to capture a particle or the second detector was the first to capture a particle222Simultaneous capture in some Lorentz frame is always a possibility, but a problem is avoided by the way the Minkowski boundaries of the reduction are defined in the section on the Hellwig-Kraus strategy.. Therefore, a fourth component cannot be stochastically chosen prior to the stochastic choice of either component two or three. So rule (4) correctly modifies the brain’s Hamiltonian in the presence of conscious observers.

Suppose that the second component in eq. 2 is the first to be stochastically chosen, corresponding to a capture of the first particle at $`x_1=a`$ at time $`t_{sc}^a`$. Then from rule (3) we will get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^a)=\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1\underset{¯}{B}_1D_0\underset{¯}{B}_0+D_1(t)B_1D_1(t)B_1$$
(3)
where the second component is equal to zero at $`t_{sc}^a`$ and increases in time. This might be followed by a second stochastic hit, resulting in the second particle capture at $`x_2=b`$ at time $`t_{sc}^b`$ . In that case, eq. 3 becomes

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^b>t_{sc}^a)=D_1\underset{¯}{B}_1D_1\underset{¯}{B}_1$$
(4)
by virtue of rule (3). So a dual observation can be realized with rule (4) in effect, but only after a rule (3) reduction resulting from a single observation.

It is possible that there will not be a capture of either particle. In that case, components two or three in eq. 2 will acquire the status of a phantom components as defined in ref. 1. Current will cease to flow into them, so their subsequent existence will be of no importance to the dynamics of the system. They will remain dormant until another interaction leads to a state reduction that causes them to go discontinuously to zero, or until they go to zero by the discharge of current to a new component.

It is also possible that only the second particle avoids capture. In that case, the second component in eq. 3 will become a phantom, lying dormant until some other interaction causes it to go to zero.

## Reduction Rules (1a) or (3)

In ref. 5 we discussed the possibility that there might be state reductions that can come about *without* an observer being present. These are called *objective measurements*, and are dealt with more thoroughly in a separate paper . Rule (3) in the appendix provides for state reductions, but this happens only when there is an observer present. To give an objective measurement a concrete form, we propose another rule (1a) in refs. 5 and 8 (also in the appendix) that provides for objective measurements independent of observation. Either reduction rule (1a) or (3) requires an instantaneous global reduction of the state function. In the following, equations are written to accommodate either kind of reduction; so the initial state in eq. 1 will have square brackets around the fourth component. This will mean that that component is equal to zero if an observer is present, but not otherwise. Also for *observation measurements*, brain states are understood to be attached to each component as in eqs. 2, 3, and 4.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)=\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0D_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0+\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+[D_1(t)D_1(t)]$$

As before, $`t_{sc}^a`$ will be the time of a stochastic hit and subsequent reduction on the first detector at point $`x_1=a`$; and $`t_{sc}^b`$ will be the time of a stochastic hit and subsequent reduction on the second detector at point $`x_2=b`$. Dropping the reference to $`t_0`$, the initial state will now be written $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a,t_{sc}^b>t)`$, which refers to any time before either of the stochastic times $`t_{sc}^a`$ and $`t_{sc}^b`$. The function $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)`$ is assumed to include a description of its own initial preparation. There are then four separate solutions that are generated by the rules in the case of two correlated non-relativistic particles.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a,t_{sc}^b>t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_1D_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0`$
$`+\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+[D_1(t)D_1(t)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^b>tt_{sc}^a)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a>tt_{sc}^b)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^a,t_{sc}^b)`$ $`=`$ $`D_1D_1`$
Figure 1 shows the temporal regions in which these four equations apply. The diagram on the left assumes that event A occurs first at time $`t_{sc}^a`$, and the diagram on the right assumes that event B occurs first at time $`t_{sc}^b`$ .

Remember the significance of these equations. The solutions to Schrödinger’s equation are not themselves grounded in observation. They need to be supplemented by rules that tell us what happens (empirically) when specific boundary conditions are added. A state reduction is equivalent to adding a new boundary represented by one of the horizontal lines in fig. 1, but Schrödinger’s equation cannot alone describe that process. Therefore, the adopted rules tell us how the Schrödinger solutions change when a new boundary is imposed by an event such as A or B. The effect is to discontinuously change the solution as one moves from one region in space-time to another.

## Relativistic Reduction: Aharonov-Albert Strategy

One must decide how a reduction splits up the regions of Minkowski space, for it is not obvious how these boundaries should be relativistically drawn when A and B are space-like events. Different strategies have been worked out. Aharonov and Albert propose that a state reduction occurs along the $`t=0`$ line in each Lorentz coordinate system (ref. 6).

Figure 2 shows a Minkowski map of the Aharonov-Albert solutions as witnessed by two different Lorentz observers: One who sees event A occur first, and one who sees event B occur first. In fig. 1, events A and B on the left side are understood to be *different* than A and B on the right side. However in fig. 2, A and B are the *same* events seen by different Lorentz observers. Nonetheless, the solutions divide these two space-time regions in a very similar way.

The Aharonov-Albert strategy makes it impossible to imagine a general transformation that will carry a state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (defined at a single world point) from one Lorentz frame to another. Consider an event X on the world line of detector #1 just prior to event A in fig. 2. According to the first Lorentz observer, the solution at event X will be $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a,t_{sc}^b>t)`$, but according to the second Lorentz observer, the solution at X will be $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a>t^{}t_{sc}^b)`$. No local transformation can carry $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a,t_{sc}^b>t)`$ into $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a>t^{}t_{sc}^b)`$, for that crosses the boundary between regions. This does not deter Aharonov and Albert, for they do not try to transform a state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ between Lorentz frames at a single world point. Instead, they represent reduced states as surface functionals, thereby allowing different reductions to apply along different spacelike hypersurfaces . This can be done in a way that preserves the appearance of covariance. It means that the boundary between regions is not an invariant, but is a function of the chosen hypersurface.

## The Hellwig-Kraus Strategy

In ref. 7, Hellwig and Kraus proposed that a measurement at an event A gives rise to a state reduction that takes place over the entire surface of the backward time cone of A. If the reduction occurs at the time $`t_{sc}^a`$ shown in fig. 3, we define another time given by

$$t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x)=t_{sc}^a|xx_a|/c\text{with}c=1$$
(6)
This is a function of $`x`$ over entire the backward time cone of A. So $`t>t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ refers to all times $`t`$ after $`t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for any value of $`x`$, and this includes all events forward of the backward time cone. Also, $`t<t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ refers to all times $`t`$ that are inside of the backward time cone of event A. At the apex we have $`t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x_a)=t_{sc}^a`$. Hellwig and Kraus require that the function that is reduced at event A is defined for all times $`t<t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, and the function that results from the reduction is defined for all times $`tt_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

Consider the two detector case in which there is a stochastic hit (on detector #1) at event A, but there is no hit on detector #2. Equation 5 is then just two solutions.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^a>t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0D_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0`$
$`+\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+[D_1(t)D_1(t)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^a)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$
To impose Hellwig-Kraus boundaries on this solution, one need only change $`t_{sc}^a`$ to $`t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in the argument of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This gives

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}>t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0D_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0`$ (7)
$`+\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+[D_1(t)D_1(t)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$
as shown in fig. 4. The component $`D_1(t)D_1(t)`$ is zero at time $`t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

The first two rows in eq. 7 are defined in the shaded backward time cone of event A, and the third row of eq. 7 is defined on the surface of the backward time cone and everywhere forward of that surface. Both detectors are exposed to the possibility of a stochastic hit in the backward time cone. But forward of that surface, only the second detector is exposed to the possibility of a stochastic hit from the once reduced state $`\psi (a,x_2,t)`$.

Now return to the original case in which the first detector is stochastically chosen at event A and the second detector is stochastically chosen at event B. In this case the correct solutions are again those in eq. 5, except that we impose Hellwig-Kraus boundaries. This is done by changing $`t_{sc}^a`$ to $`t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`t_{sc}^b`$ to $`t_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in the argument of the four solutions.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }},t_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }}>t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)D_0D_0+\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0`$
$`+\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+[D_1(t)D_1(t)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }}>tt_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (a,x_2,t)D_1D_0+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}>tt_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,b,t)D_0D_1+D_1(t)D_1(t)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }},t_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ $`=`$ $`D_1D_1`$
In an inertial system in which event A precedes event B, the result appears in the Minkowski diagram of fig. 5. Again, for an observed measurement, brain states are understood to be attached to each component as in eqs. 2, 3, and 4.

The immediate backward time cone of event A is the reduced function of event B (vertical lined region on the left), and the immediate backward time cone of event B is the reduced function of event A (vertical lined region on the right). It is clear that boundary surfaces defined by $`t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`t_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are covariant, as are the four regions defined by those boundaries and occupied by the four solutions in eq. 8.

The advantage of the Hellwig-Kraus strategy is that the equation of state at any world point is subject to the same boundary conditions in any inertial system. This means that Lorentz transformations of state are possible in principle. It is my inclination to favor the Hellwig-Kraus strategy for this reason. I believe that the objections to it raised by Aharonov and Albert can be satisfactorily answered . This paper (ref. 10, Part II) also displays Minkowski boundaries like those in fig. 5, applied to a pair of 1/2 spin particles in the spin zero state ($`J=J^2=0`$).

It is the advantage of the five proposed rules that they are just as amenable to the Hellwig-Kraus strategy as they are to the Aharonov-Albert strategy. One need only specify the intended boundary in the argument of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and the solutions will correctly describe the intended domain in Minkowski space. The rules of engagement proposed by the author (appendix) give us the boundary conditions on Schrödinger’s equation, but they do not tell us which of the above boundary types apply in Minkowski space.

## Stochastic Hit Invariance

Equation 8 does not exclude the possibility that the bracketed $`4^{th}`$ component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_{sc}^{a\mathrm{\Lambda }},t_{sc}^{b\mathrm{\Lambda }}>t)`$ is stochastically chosen before the $`2^{nd}`$ or $`3^{rd}`$ component. That is possible under rule (1a) absent an observer s ready brain state. This means that at a certain time in the given Lorentz frame, both particles will be simultaneously captured without any indication as to which was captured first and which was captured second. Suppose this stochastic occurrence happens at time $`t_{sc}^{ab\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ resulting in the equation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_{sc}^{ab\mathrm{\Lambda }})=D_1(t)D_1(t)$$
(9)
There is a problem with eq. 9. It identifies two simultaneous events in Minkowski space so there is no temporal order placing one ahead of the other; but the events in question will have a definite temporal order in another Lorentz frame. This means that eq. 9 requires the existence of only ‘one’ stochastic hit in the original frame, but ‘two’ stochastic hits in any other frame. However, *the number of stochastic hits ought to be Lorentz invariant*; because the number of boundaries ought to be Lorentz invariant. Equation 9 suggests that there is only one boundary in fig. 5, namely the one that separates the sum of the backward time cones of (simultaneous events) A and B from the unshaded area forward of that sum. At the same time, there will be four boundaries in another Lorentz frame like those shown in fig. 7 separating the four functions in eq. 8. This same ambiguity will exist if we used Aharonov-Albert boundaries.

In my mind, this difficulty provides another reason why there can be no such thing as an objective measurement. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that a theory that justifies rule (1a) might also solve this problem. That is, such a theory might provide a selection rule like rule (4) by forbidding direct transitions to second order terms, thereby preserving the Lorenz invariance of the number of stochastic hits that are required along the way.333If this were the case, then the bracketed component in eqs. 5, 7, and 8 would always be equal to zero.  I would say that any theory of objective measurement must include a rule of this kind. So as claimed in ref. 8, the choice between objective or observer measurements will depend on future theoretical developments. It is understood that an observer theory of measurement *does* require the invariance of stochastic hits, because it includes the selection rule (4).

## Causality

The Hellwig-Kraus scheme may suggest a causal paradox. An observation at event B changes the particle state in the backward time cone of event A from $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1,x_2,t)`$ in fig. 4 to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1,b,t)`$ in fig. 5, and the square modulus of the first is generally greater than the square modulus of the second. So the probability of event A is generally altered by the occurrence of an event B that follows A (temporally) in the given inertial system. That appears to interfere with the causal order of things, hence a looming paradox. However, the observer at A cannot possibly determine the probability of A on the basis of a single observation. An ensemble of similar experiments is necessary to find the probability of that event.

The threat of a causal paradox arises only when the events in question have a space-like relationship to one another. Only then might the observer at the *single* event A seem to predict the observation of the *single* (future) event B. But since the observer of event A cannot possibly know how the probability of A has been changed (or not) by a single observation, the A observer’s prediction of the B observer’s future behavior is not a possibility. A paradox is thereby avoided. Also see ref. 10, p. 9.

## Covariance of rule (1)

With a qualification of the word “immediately” in rule (1a or 3) that reflects a Hellwig-Kraus boundary, the proposed rules of engagement are valid in any Lorentz system of coordinates and are relativistically covariant. However, that generalization might not be clear in the case of rule (1).

The probability per unit time is given for a single component in rule (1) by

$$J/s=\frac{lim}{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s}{s}\right)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ is the change of square modulus of the component in time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and $`s`$ is the square modulus of the total system. I will call the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }s/s`$ the *fractional change* of $`s`$ for that component.

Figure 6 is the Minkowski diagram of a traveling wave with the parallel lines representing lines of constant phase. The heavy vertical line segment is a stationary world line of length $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ that goes between events a and b. The change of phase between a and b is clearly a Lorentz invariant quantity. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suppose that any fractional change $`\mathrm{\Delta }s/s`$ of a component of the wave function is also Lorentz invariant. This is not known with certainty because we have no generally covariant formulation of quantum mechanics. However, I will state it as an assumption to be added to assumptions A, B, and C in ref. 4.

D. Between any two events in Minkowski space, the fractional change of $`s`$ for any component in a superposition is Lorentz invariant.

If event b is in the forward light cone of event a with a proper time $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ between them, then the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }s/s\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ will also be Lorentz invariant. That is, $`J/s`$ for the component will be Lorentz invariant as the system moves from event a to event b. If, in addition, the quantity $`J/s`$ is positive, then the effect of assumption D is to say that the probability of a stochastic hit on the component between a and b is Lorentz invariant. That is certainly correct. The probability of a stochastic hit within a given interval of proper time is the primary observable that connects a (quantum) theory to any possible observation. Assumption D is therefore empirically required of any quantum theory, whether or not it is itself generally covariant.

Rule (1) is stated in terms of the coordinate time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ rather than the proper time $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. That presents no difficulty if it is understood that a Lorentz transformation of the probability per unit time requires a change of the coordinate time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (in the given inertial system) to a proper time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ = $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. It follows that we may regard the proposed rules (in appendix below) as relativistically covariant.

## Appendix: The proposed rules

Rule (1): *For any subsystem of n components in an isolated system with a square modulus equal to s, the probability per unit time of a stochastic choice of one of those components at time t is given by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_nJ_n)/s`$, where the net probability current $`J_n`$ going into the $`n^{th}`$ component at that time is positive.*

Rule (2): *If the Hamiltonian gives rise to new components that are not classically continuous with the old components or with each other, then all active brain states that are included in the new components will be ready brain states.*

Rule (3): *If a component that is entangled with a ready brain state B is stochastically chosen, then B will become conscious, and all other components will be immediately reduced to zero.*

> To reflect a Hellwig-Kraus boundary, the last sentence in rule (3) should be: “. . . will be immediately reduced to zero in the space-like region around the chosen event.”

Rule (3a): *The Hamiltonian of the brain will convert the chosen conscious state into a conscious pulse whose width reflects the ability of the brain to resolve the conscious experience.*

> Rule (3a), introduced in ref. 3, is a modification of rule 3. It takes account of continuous nature of brain states.

Rule (4): *A transition between two components is forbidden if each is an entanglement containing a ready brain state of the same observer.*

Rule (5): *If two states within a conscious pulse represent different degrees of pain, then the square modulus of the state with the lesser pain will increase at the expense of the state with the greater pain.*

Special rule in the case of an objective measurement

Rule (1a): *If the component of a superposition is environmentally decoherent, and if it is stochastically chosen, then all of the other components in the superposition will be immediately reduced to zero.*

> To reflect a Hellwig-Kraus boundary, the last sentence in rule (1a) should be: “. . . will be immediately reduced to zero in the space-like region around the chosen event.”


text:
# Rethinking the Properties of the Quark-Gluon Plasma at 𝑇∼𝑇_𝑐

\[

## Abstract

We argue that although at asymptotically high temperatures the QGP in bulk behaves as a gas of weakly interacting quasiparticles (modulo long-range magnetism), at temperatures up to few times the critical temperature $`T_c`$ it displays different properties. If the running of the QCD coupling constant continues in the Coulomb phase till the screening length scale, it reaches the strong coupling treshold $`\alpha _s(m_D)1`$. As a result, the Coulomb phase supports weakly bound Coulombic s-wave $`\overline{c}c`$, light quark and even $`gg`$ states. The existence of shallow bound states dramatically increases the quasiparticle rescattering at low energies, reducing viscosity and thereby explaining why heavy ion collisions at RHIC exhibit robust collective phenomena. In conformal gauge theories at finite temperature the Coulomb binding persists further in the strong coupling regime, as found for $`𝒩=4`$ SUSY YM in the Maldacena regime.

\]

Soon after the discovery of QCD, it has been found that at high temperature $`T`$ the color charge is $`screened`$  (rather than anti-screened in the vacuum), and the corresponding phase of matter was named the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP). Also, it has been shown, both analytically and on the lattice, that at high temperature bulk quarks and gluons exist in it as relatively free propagating quasiparticles, modulo color-magnetic effects that are known to be non-perturbative . Although explicit perturbative series for thermodynamical quantities were found to be badly divergent, it was still hoped that some kind of re-summation will make the weak-coupling quasiparticle picture work, as the screening would keep the effective coupling weak anywhere at $`T>T_c`$. The earliest suggested QGP signal was a disappearance of familiar hadronic peaks – $`\rho ,\omega ,\varphi `$ mesons – in the dilepton spectra . Moreover, even small-size deeply-bound $`\overline{c}c`$ states, $`\eta _c,J/\psi `$, were expected to melt at $`T>T_c`$ .

In this paper we will show that at $`TT_c`$ it is not the case. The electric effects are still strong, causing perturbation theory to fail. But before we go into our reasoning, let us point out that a motivation comes from two recent developments, the experimental discovery of robust collective effects at RHIC, known as radial and elliptic flows, as well as recent advances in lattice simulations at $`T=(13)T_c`$. They have led to two related questions we are going to address: i. Are there bound states of quasiparticles above the QCD phase transition? ii. Why does the Quark-Gluon Plasma behave like a good liquid rather than a dilute gas of quasiparticles?

The former question should not be confused either with the non-perturbative magnetic interaction or with the issue of “screening masses” for space-like correlators. For earlier discussion of real bound states above $`T_c`$ in the framework of high temperature QCD sum rules see . Based on chiral dynamics driven by instanton it was found that the pi-sigma chiral multiplet should still exist as a resonance in the QGP .

Recent numerical lattice studies have found that, contrary to earlier expectations, charmonium states remain bound at least up to $`T=1.5T_c`$ . Moreover, the time-direction correlators at finite $`T`$ found significant deviations from free behavior at $`T3T_c`$ , in quantitative agreement with . Their analysis by the minimal entropy method have suggested that pseudoscalars and even vector resonances exist above $`T_c`$. Below, we will show why these states exist, and not just for quarks but for gluonic plasmons as well.

The main idea  is that after deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration at $`T_c`$, nothing prevents the QCD coupling from running to larger values at lower momentum scale until it is stopped at the screening mass scale. Although at high $`T`$ the coupling is always small , at $`TT_c`$ it can reach large value $`\alpha _s1`$. As we show below, this makes Coulomb binding of the pertinent s-wave levels possible, in spite of screening.

Let us start with charmonium problem first, using the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation (and ignoring collisional broadening). For the standard radial wave function $`\chi (r)=\psi /r`$ it has the usual form with the reduced mass $`m=m_c/2`$.We will use throughout this work the same in-QGP screened Coulomb potential of the Debye form  $`V=(4\alpha _s(r)/3r)exp(M_Dr)`$ and use the ($`T`$-dependent) screening mass as a definition of the length unit to have its shape fixed for fixed coupling. In such units the equation to be discussed reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\chi }{dx^2}}+\left(\kappa ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_c}{3M_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(x)}{x}}e^x\right)\chi =0`$ (1)
with $`\kappa ^2=m_cE/M_D^2`$. The appearance of a bound level corresponds to zero binding $`E=0,\kappa =0`$. If the coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ does not run and is a constant, all parameters of the problem appear in a single combination. Solving the equation, one can find the condition for the bound state to exist

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4m_c}{3M_D}}\alpha _s>1.68`$ (2)
For example, using $`4/3\alpha _s=0.471`$ from the vacuum charmonium potential and $`m_c=1.32\mathrm{GeV}`$, as Karsch et al  did long ago, one finds a restriction on the screening mass $`M_D<M_D^{crit}=0.37\mathrm{GeV}`$. Lattice studies of the screening masses have been carried in  and found that for the near-critical QGP $`M_D=(2.25\pm .25)T`$. So, for $`TT_c=170MeV`$ one expects $`M_D=0.340.42\mathrm{GeV}`$. So, the condition (2) is satisfied marginally if at all, and these authors concluded that $`\eta _c,J/\psi `$ may hardly exist inside the QGP phase.

The loophole in this traditional argument is the assumption that the gauge coupling constant remains frozen in the QGP, at the same value it had in the in-vacuum charmonium potential. Our main idea is that it does not have to be so: in the QGP, after deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration, non-perturbative effects are smaller and the charge continues to run to larger values. In Fig.1(a) we compare two such potentials: although the version with the running coupling leads to a smaller potential at smaller distances, it is larger at larger $`r`$. One cannot of course rely on perturbative formulae in a strong coupling regime (the alternative will be discussed elsewhere ), in this work we have decided to simply freeze $`\alpha _s`$ when it reaches 1. The cusp in the potential reflects on that, and it occurs at about the screening length $`rM_D1`$.

The modified potential with the running coupling leads to a more liberal condition for charmonium binding, namely $`M_D<0.62\mathrm{GeV}`$. This translates into charmonium remaining bound at

$`T<T_{\overline{c}c}1.6T_c.`$ (3)
This value agrees well with recent lattice measurements  mentioned in the introduction, so the modified color potential had passed its first test.

Are there bound states of $`\overline{q}q`$, and $`gg`$?  For simplicity, in this work we ignore quark masses, as well as instantons and the $`U(1)`$ axial anomaly, so one can view the chirality of light fermions to be permanently conserved in the QGP. Chiral symmetry excludes the usual mass from being developed, and $`L,R`$-handed quarks propagate independently. Nevertheless, the propagating quark modes in the QGP have some dispersion curves with the so called chiral mass, defined as the energy of the mode at zero momentum $`M_q=\omega (\stackrel{}{p}=0)`$, perturbatively $`M_q=gT/\sqrt{6}`$ to the lowest order . In weak coupling there are two fermionic modes: i. with the same chirality and helicity the dispersion curve at small $`p`$ is $`\omega =M_q+p/3+p^2/3M_q+\mathrm{}`$; ii. with the opposite chirality and helicity the mode is often called a “plasmino”, its dispersion curve has a shallow minimum at $`p=0.17gT`$ with the energy $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=0.38gT`$ slightly below $`M_q`$. The latter is related to a new in-matter gluonic mode, the plasmon .

For a general analysis of these modes see , where in particular both modes should have the same effective mass. Lattice data on the dispersion curves for quasiparticles remains rather crude, and restricted to essentially Coulomb gauge . Here we will assume that $`\omega ^2=p^2+M^2`$, with the following values (at $`T=1.5T_c`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{T}}=3.9\pm 0.2{\displaystyle \frac{m_g}{T}}=3.4\pm 0.3`$ (4)
Note that at such $`T`$ masses are large and their ratio is very different from the weak coupling prediction $`1/\sqrt{6}`$, while at $`T3T_c`$ and higher they are reduced toward perturbative values (which we would not include in this work, for simplicity).

If the dispersion law is known, the effective equation of motion suitable for discussion of the bound state problem can be obtained by standard substitution of the covariant derivatives in the place of momentum and frequency. It has the form of the Schrodinger equation if the dispersion curve can be parameterized as $`\omega =M_q+p^2/2M^{}+..`$, in general with two different constants $`M,M^{}`$. Both for weak coupling and lattice data, such approximation seem to be accurate withing several percents.

Now, to address the issue of binding, we first note that if all effective masses grow linearly with $`T`$, including the screening mass, the explicit $`T`$ dependence drops out of (2) to the exception of the logarithmic dependence in $`T`$ left out in $`\alpha _s1/\mathrm{ln}(T/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$. This is why the region of “strongly coupled QGP” turns out to be relatively substantial. For a qualitative estimate, let us set the coupling to its maximum, $`\alpha _s=1`$. The combination of constants is $`(4\times 3.9T)/(3\times 2.25T)=2.3`$, larger than the critical value (2), so one should expect the occurrence of (strong) Coulomb bound states. Although the (plasmon) gluon modes are somewhat lighter than quarks in (4), their Coulomb interaction has a larger coefficient due to a different Casimir operator for the adjoint representation, 3 instead of 4/3. As a result the effective combination in the potential is $`3m_g\alpha _s/M_D`$, which is about twice larger than for quarks, and thus the gluons are bound even stronger (modulo collisional broadening).

Solving the equations one can make a quantitative analysis, using the same potential as above. We found that the highest temperature $`T`$ at which light quark states are Coulomb bound is somehow lower than that of charmonium,

$`T_{\overline{q}q}1.45T_c250\mathrm{MeV},`$ (5)
while the s-wave $`gg`$ gluonium states remain bound till higher temperatures $`T_{gg}4T_c`$. As an example, in Fig. 1(b) we show the binding energy of two gluons. (In absolute units it reaches about 100 MeV, while it is much smaller MeV for quarks.) The wave functions of all loosely bound states are similar to that of a deuteron, with the usual $`\chi e^{\kappa r}`$ behavior outside the potential.

How many bound states are there? Stating with quarks, we note that if one ignores current quark masses and instanton effects, the chiralities (left and right) are conserved. Furthermore, there are two different modes of quarks depending on helicity (“particle” and “plasmino”), times antiquarks, times flavors. All in all $`4N_f^2`$ states, connected by continuity to the pseudoscalar, scalar, vector and axial vector nonets in the vacuum (see Fig.2).

Now we come to gluons: both may have any of 3 polarizations ( with longitudinal “plasmons in matter). Furthermore (as discussed in our longer paper ) there can be binary composites even if the total charge is non-zero, which provides $`N_c^2`$ states. On top of that, one can also think of hybrid (qg) composites, with $`N_fN_c`$ states. These exotic states however need stronger coupling and may exist only very close to $`T_c`$, if at all.

QGP kinetics was studied in weak coupling, with a rather large mean free path, $`Tl_{\mathrm{mfp}}1/g^4\mathrm{ln}(1/g)1`$. Similar pQCD-inspired ideas have led to the somehow pessimistic expectation that the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) project in Brookhaven National Laboratory, would produce a firework of multiple jets and mini-jets with perturbative corrections for rescattering. To the contrary, the very first RHIC run in the summer of 2000 has shown spectacular collective motion patterns, known as radial and elliptic flows. The spectra of about 99% of all kinds of secondaries, except the high-$`p_t`$ tails, were shown to be described by hydrodynamics , based on the opposite – zero mean free path – regime. Further studies of partonic cascades  and viscosity corrections  have found that the data can only be explained if partonic cross sections are increased by huge factors, from 2-3 mb for pQCD estimates to about 100 mb. The equation of state used in  is not very different from lattice predictions and even simple weak coupling expectations.

A sequence of loosely bound states (black dots in Fig.2) should be very important for the QGP kinetics. The scattering cross section may be strongly enhanced by low-lying resonances, as known examples from nuclear physics (such as low-energy neutron-capture resonances) clearly demonstrate. The Wigner cross section of slow particles

$`\sigma (E)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+|E_\mathrm{b}|}}`$ (6)
has a peak when there is both a shallow level and a virtual state, as we know from NN scattering in the triplet and singlet channels. With the denominator $`E+|E_\mathrm{b}|`$ ranging from 100 to 10 MeV, the corresponding $`gg`$ cross section is in the range 50-500 mb. These huge cross sections make quasi-free propagation of quasiparticles impossible.

We stress that our analysis is not based on the in-vacuum effective potential , but on the in-matter screened one. The bound states emerge in a screened but still strongly coupled Coulomb phase. Still, not all of the many-body effects are included in the screening. Indeed, the range of distances in the weakly bound states is large, and by including the $`1/N_c^2`$ factor needed for absolute matching of the gluon colors, we may even have more than one matching gluon inside the available bound-state volume. More detailed many-body studies should be made, such as the ones carried for “excitonic matter” in semiconductors and insulators. We recall that the Coulomb parameter in QED plasmas is $`e^2/ϵv`$ where $`e^2=1/137`$ is the usual fine structure constant, $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant of the background substance and $`v`$ is a typical particle/hole velocity. It can in principle be tuned to be around 1, resulting in bound excitons (particle-hole pairs). The latter occur despite Debye-screening, a situation much alike ours. Depending on a number of parameters, including the density of excitons and temperature, the system exhibits various phases, ranging from an ideal gas of excitons to a liquid or plasma, or even a Bose-condensed gas. On its way from a gas to a liquid, clustering with 3- and 4-body states play an important role. Although one cannot directly relate these two problems (quarks and gluons have $`N_c`$ and $`(N_c^21)`$ colors respectively, while particles and holes have simply charges $`\pm e`$), one may think that in the QGP at $`TT_c`$ some of these phenomena may well be there.

More generally, strongly coupled many-body problems, with large or divergent binary scattering length, are studied in at least two other settings: (i) a gas of neutrons, with $`a=18fm`$ due to a virtual level; (ii) trapped atomic $`Li^6,Li^7`$ in which the scattering length can be tuned. Its hydrodynamic properties are of great interest.

Discussion and Outlook. The main assumption made in this work is that at $`T>T_c`$ the gauge coupling is allowed to run till the screening scale. As a result, we found that the QCD phase above $`T_c`$ supports Coulomb bound states. In this work we were mainly interested in the location of the point at which the s-wave state disappear. However, more generally, one may ask how these states are related to know hadrons at $`T=0`$. How it supposed to happen is shown in Fig.2 (for 2 massless flavors, when the phase transition is second order and all lines must be continuous). Very close to $`T_c`$ the quark (chiral) mass is expected to become large, so here mesons are rather deeply bound states in this region and both relativistic and non-perturbative effects become important: we plan to study this region elsewhere. It would also be interesting to study whether annihilation of vector states can be seen in the dilepton spectra, and how the survival of charmonium above $`T_c`$ affects its evolution at RHIC.

In QCD, as soon as the lowest state hits zero there is a phase transition. This is however impossible for conformal gauge theories (CFTs), such as $`𝒩`$=4 supersymmetric gauge theory. In CFT the gauge coupling is allowed to become supercritical or even large $`\lambda g^2N_c1`$. Maldacena’s AdS/CFT duality  has opened a way to study this strong coupling limit using classical gravity. At finite $`T`$ it was recently actively discussed, for Debye screening , bulk thermodynamics  and kinetics . Although the thermodynamical quantities are only modified by an overall factor of 3/4 in comparison to the black-body limit, kinetics is changed dramatically. In our separate paper  we show that in this regime the matter is made of very deeply bound binary composites, in which the supercritical Coulomb can be balanced by centrifugal force. a re-summation of a class of diagrams, in vacuum and at finite $`T`$. Specific towers of such bound states can be considered as a continuation of Fig.2 to the left, toward stronger and stronger coupling.

Acknowledgments. We thank Gerry Brown for many valuable discussions. This work was supported in parts by the US-DOE grant DE-FG-88ER40388.