text:
# Saving Astronomical Treasures

## 1 Introduction

Modern astronomy has become a multi-frequency discipline, where simultaneous observations from the $`\gamma `$-rays to radio are used to disentangle the physics of celestial sources. Such observations are obtained by ground or space-based platforms and are available to the investigator almost immediately, in a digital format. Modern astronomy has become a science domain where investigations are conducted by manipulating large data files on computers.

Clearly, this was not always the case. Permanent records have always been kept by astronomers, from scratches on pre-historic animal bones indicating the phases of the Moon, through stellar catalogs of Greek and Roman astronomers (culminating with Ptolemy’s Megale Syntaxis compilation) and Galileo’s telescope drawings. Since more than a century ago, semi-permanent impartial records have been available in the form of photographic plates. The first photograph of a comet (Donati in 1858) is almost 1.5 centuries old (Pasachoff & Olson 1995). Most of the images of the sky more than one decade old are not available digitally, with the very few exceptions of the large sky surveys. The scanning and subsequent calibration of the Palomar Sky Surveys (POSS-I and POSS-II) yielded very useful data sets, such as the Guide Star Catalog and the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS and XDSS). These digital images can now be compared with images taken in other spectral bands.

Modern astronomy is, therefore, multi-spectral in that it combines optical information with that collected in other bands. But while the recently-obtained data are available electronically and can be used to explore physical processes currently taking place in the target objects or recent changes in such objects, any long-term behavior remains largely unexplored.

Yet the world astronomical archives contain today more than two million photographic plates, each covering a sky region of one square degree or wider. Most of the plates are relegated to hardly-used astronomical archives; some even represent obstacles to the development of existing observatories, or belong to archives of “defunct” observatories. The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the scientific potential of such a rich heritage, to give some examples of recent usage and of possibly interesting future usage, to expound on ways to provide the information to the astronomical community, and to explain about the first steps taken in this direction by any interested group.

## 2 Plate archives and the IAU

The IAU Working Group on Sky Surveys (WGSS) has been aware of the lack of attention generally paid by the astronomical community to the existence of neglected plate archives and of the need to safeguard their continued existence. These questions have been discussed at length during meetings of the Organizing Committee of the WGSS and its previous incarnations. In particular, this subject was emphasized by Dr. Richard West, who called on the WGSS to maintain a living archive that could be used to identify and locate relevant plate material for various research projects.

This project has now been realized by MT and his co-workers at the Astronomical Observatory of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The information about many astronomical plate archives is contained in the Sofia Wide-Field plate archive (http://www.skyarchive.org) and has been described by Tsvetkov et al. (1997).

On the other hand, changes within old observatories are endangering many plate collections. The lack of space caused the compression of the Harvard (HCO) plate archives from three floors in a building to two floors. In the process of moving, it is possible that some plates were broken and the information once stored in them is now lost (true, perhaps, of some 2% of the plates in the collection of the HCO). On the closure of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in the UK, the entire historical archive was transferred to temporary storage in London. Although access to the collection, which is fully cataloged, is still available through the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, PPARC in the UK is seeking a long-term home for the collection which will allow more research to be carried out and a program of plate digitization, where appropriate.

An IAU Working Group concerned with 100-yr old plates has been in existence for some years. Its main target is the salvaging of the original plates of the Carte du Ciel (CdC), some of which are more than older than 100 years. Some of the CdC plates are already threatened because their emulsions are delaminating from the glass substrate, so their information is about to be lost forever to humanity. At the 24th General Assembly, the International Astronomical Union recognized the need to save the legacy of old photographic plates when it adopted Resolution B3, “Saving the information in photographic observations”. The Resolution recognizes the need for judicious action, and urges the Union to support suitable steps to save the plate collections. A Working Group is now being organized (WG for Preservation and Digitizition of Photographic Plate Archives), which will include representatives of countries hosting research quality plates, people engaged professionally in scanning and/or preserving plates, and leaders of projects to that end. This new WG is expected to operate under IAU Commission 5.

## 3 Projects using archival information

Below we give a number of examples when archival information from photographic plates was instrumental, and in some instances essential, to disentangle astronomical information. We also present a first-class scientific study that could be completed solely with archival plates.

### 3.1 Solar system studies

Pluto: While it is well-known that the discovery of Neptune was the result of its perturbing effects on the orbit of Uranus, the discovery of Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh was the result of a systematic search using photographic plates. The orbit of Pluto is problematic because the observations span only a small part of its orbit and the astrometry is prone to systematic zone errors in the catalogs. In addition, there is a systematic bias whose origin is not known (Standish 1996). An improvement in the absolute ephemeris is possible from remeasuring archival plates with new equipment and putting the results in the framework of modern astrometric catalogs; this is necessary for a future spacecraft mission to Pluto, such as the Pluto Fast Flyby Mission.

### 3.2 Stellar studies

R Aquari jet: The morphology of this object has been studied by Hollis et al. (1999) using archival information from the Lowell Observatory plate archives. The data from the digitized images, show that the jet of R Aqr was already affecting the inner compact nebulosity even before the early 1970s, when it was first observed and reported. The age of the jet can be estimated at $``$100 yr, from the proper motions of the oldest radio-jet components.

Eclipses in SS Lac: This system was known as an eclipsing one (P=14d.42) until $``$1950. The cessation of the eclipses was explained by Torres & Stefanik (2000) as a result of a third body orbiting in the system; this changed the inclination of the eclipsing binary. That result was derived from studies of long-term photometric variability using photographic plates as well as new observations.

The mass of Procyon: The derived mass for the F5 primary in the $`\alpha `$ CMi system has been adjusted by Girard et al. (2000), on the basis of astrometric information from more than 250 archival plates. It is now close to the theoretical value.

Activity of red dwarf stars: Studies of variability of flaring stars can benefit very much from long-term monitoring with photographic plates. Bondar’ (1995) studied this with plates from Moscow (Sternberg), Odessa and Sonneberg observatories, covering a 90-yr baseline. Ten objects out of a sample of 29 showed detected or suspected long-term variability. Two stars, V833 Mon (dK5e) and PZ Mon (dK2e), showed high-amplitude changes of 0.6 and 1.0 mag on timescales of 60 and 50-yr, respectively.

Searches for optical counterparts of GRBs: The existence of extensive archives on photographic plates makes it possible to search for transient optical phenomena that could be related to recurrent activity of gamma-ray bursts. Although such coincidences are likely to be extremely rare, Hudec et al. (1994) found such a transient by searching through 9104 photographic images covering the region of GRB 910219. They discovered that a short light flash ($`<`$35 minutes) occured on May 10, 1905 and it could not have been artificial. The recently suggested relation between GRBs and star forming regions in distant galaxies indicates that such recurrent events, from nearly the same sky location, are possible.

Previously, Shaeffer (1990) used the Harvard College Observatory plate archive to identify three optical transients in error boxes of GRBs. A measure of confidence in the detections was obtained by performing similar searches for optical transients (with negative results) in a much larger control sky area.

Optical analyses of X-ray stars: For many of the optically identified X-ray stars, such as X-ray binaries, X-ray novae, cataclysmic variables, etc., long-term optical data represent an extremely significant input for their understanding. The Her X-1/HZ Her system may serve as such an example. Archival plates have revealed the existence of active and inactive states, while the behavior of the system in an inactive state could be studied so far only by using data from plates (Hudec & Wenzel 1976, Simon, Hudec & Kroll 2000)

### 3.3 Photometric monitoring of AGNs

It is well-known that many AGNs, and QSOs in particular, are optically variable. The value of photographic plate archives for monitoring this form of acivity across historical time-scales has been recognized for some time (e.g., Angione et al. 1981). In fact, Angione & Smith (1985) used a subset of historical photographs containing the 3C273 field to study its photometric variability over a 93-yr period, from 1887 to 1980. A very interesting finding was the apparent presence of a $``$16-yr periodicity in the light curve, as shown by a Fourier analysis of the data from 1928 to 1954 (see Figure 1).

Angione & Smith (1985) could not conclude whether that periodicity is real or not, nor whether it existed prior to 1928, owing to the sparseness of the data sets. Determining the reality of very long-term periodic variability is important for reverberation mapping; to-date, no claims for periodic phenomena on time-scales of tens of years have been made. However, Türler et al. (2000) presented recently a long-term light curve of 3C273 in the submillimeter to radio bands. Their Figure 3 shows these light curves from 0.45 mm down to 2.7 GHz and has two possible peaks more evident in the three bands from 37GHz to 15 GHz that are spaced by 7-8 yrs, about half the photometric quasi-period suggested by Angione & Smith (1985). Türler et al. (2000) interpret the variability as the signature of multiple outbursts in the synchrotron emission from the jet. If such outbursts are periodic or quasi-periodic, the cause is likely to be a physical mechanism such as precession of the accretion disk and of the jets, as in SS433.

Additional optical variability work using more photographic plate data can be applied to expand the work of Angione & Smith (1985) so as to confirm or reject the approximate period which they determined. In the Wide-Field plate archive we found information on many hundreds of additional plates covering the 3C273 field that were not included in the Angione & Smith work. The ready availability of such data in digital form would clearly constitute an extremely valuable resours for the determination of such basic scientific facts.

## 4 Technical feasibility

In order to realize the potential of the historical information recorded on astronomical plates, it is vital to present that information in digital form for inclusion in modern studies. To that end, the international community needs to:

1. locate historical plate archives and catalog their contents in a computer-readable format
2. provide appropriate storage conditions to safeguard the plates; this may entail concentrating the plates at a few locations
3. ensure the accessibility of the information for research
4. select or design modes for scanning the relevant plates
5. generate reasonably complete digital datasets from the photographic information

The first task is already well in hand, following the opening of the WFPA in Sofia and the availability of computerized searches through the SIMBAD facility.

An important step towards accomplishing the remaining tasks was taken in March 2000, by a meeting at the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), in Brussels. This institution has offered to host a plate archive for European observatories, to be called UDAPAC (Uccle Direct Astronomical Plate Archive Centre). The UDAPAC collection could ultimately contain 0.5 million plates, about one-quarter of the entire world collection. To realize this part of the project, UDAPAC must adapt and refurbish the assigned space offered by the ROB into suitable plate vaults (waterproofing the walls, providing air conditioning, suitable storage cabinets, and the like).

The cheif objective of the project is the transfer of the photographic information into digital information for use by the astronomical community. That requires the development and/or modification of scanners to make them (a) fast and (b) accurate enough for the various scientific tasks which need to be undertaken. At least two parallel approaches could be followed:

1. The High-Speed Scanner (HISS: Kroll et al. 1999) of Sonneberg Observatory could be copied or adapted, and made available to the ROB and to other similar facilities. The HISS is a six-CCD scanner that can digitize a sizeable plate (up to 30$`\times `$30 cm2) in less than 15 minutes. First tests show the machine to be stable and accurate. The important point is that HISS was produced with a budget of less than $100k.
2. A commercial flatbed scanner could be adapted for astronomical work. High-quality scanners are now available for less than $50k. A set of such scanners was tested by the publishing industry (Brunner & Lindström 1999) and the results are encouraging.UDAPAC is planning tests of commercial scanners for astronomical plates.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. Elizabeth Griffin, whose determined efforts brought about the adoption of IAU Resolution B3, supporting efforts to save astronomical plates. She and Alain Fresneau (the latter on behalf of the IAU Working Group on 100-yr old plates) were instrumental in bringing about the Brussels meeting where the European Plate Centre UDAPAC was started.

## References

Angione, R.J., Roosen, R.G., Sievers, J. & Moore, E.P. 1981, AJ, 86, 653

Angione, R.J. & Smith, H.J. 1983, AJ, 90, 2474

Brunner, L. & Lindström. P. 1999, “The Seybold Report on Publishing Systems” 28(9), 3 and 28(11), 11

Bondar’, N.I. 1995, A&AS, 111, 259

Fresneau, A., Argyle, R.W., Marino, G. & Messina, S. 2000, in press

Girard, T.M., Wu, H., Lee, J.T., Dyson, S.E., van Altena, W.F., Horch, E.P., Gilliland, R.L., Schaefer, K.G., Bond, H.E., Ftaclas, C., Brown, R.H., Toomey, D.W., Shipman, H.L., Provencal, J.L. & Pourbaix, D. 2000, AJ, 119, 2428

Hollis, J.M., Bertram, R., Wagner, R.M. & Lampland, C.D. 1999, ApJ, 514, 895

Hudec, R., Dedoch, A., Pravek, P. & Borovicka, J. 1994, A&A, 284, 839

Hudec, R. & Wenzel, R. 1976, Bull. Astron. Soc. Czechoslovakia, 27, 325

Kroll, P., Brunzendorf, J. & Fleischmann, F. 1999 in “Treasure Hunting in Astronomical Plate Archives” (P. Kroll, ed.) Thun and Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Harri Deutsch, p.61

Pasachoff, J.M. & Olson, R.J.M. 1995, AAS, 187, 3501

Schaeffer, B.E. 1990, ApJ, 364, 590

Standish, E.M. 1996, in “Completing the inventory of the Solar System” (T.W. Retting & J.M. Hahn, eds.) Pasadena, CA.: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, p. 163

Simon, V., Hudec, R. & Kroll, P. 2000, Proceedings of the 4th INTEGRAL workshop, Alicante, in press

Torres, G. & Stefanik, R.P. 2000, ApJ, 119, 1914

Tsvetkov, M.K., Stavrev, K.Y., Tsvetkova, K.P., Semkov, E.H., Mutafov, A.S. & Michailov, M.-E. 1997, Baltic AStron., 6, 271

Türler, M. Courvoisier, T.J.-L. & Paltani, S. 2000, A&A preprint, astro/ph/0008480


format: text

text:
# Kaon B parameter from quenched domain-wall QCD Talk presented by Y. Taniguchi

## 1 Introduction

The Kaon B parameter $`B_K`$ is an important quantity to pin down the CKM matrix, thereby gaining an understanding on CP violation in the Standard Model.

A crucial ingredient in a precision calculation of $`B_K`$ is chiral symmetry. For this reason, the best result so far has been obtained  with the Kogut-Susskind (KS) quark action, which keeps $`U(1)`$ subgroup of chiral symmetry at finite lattice spacings. Carrying out a systematic and extensive set of simulations to control $`𝒪(a^2)`$ scaling violation and $`𝒪(\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^2)`$ errors that arise with the use of one-loop perturbative renormalization factors, the value $`B_K(\mu =2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=0.628(42)`$ was obtained in the continuum limit in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme with naive dimensional regularization (NDR).

The Wilson fermion action has a problem of explicit chiral symmetry breaking, which causes a nontrivial mixing between four-quark operators with different chiralities. This problem has been treated with several non-perturbative renormalization methods . The resultant values of $`B_K`$ are consistent with that of the KS action, but the numerical error is large.

The domain wall fermion formalism offers a possibility of a calculation preserving full chiral symmetry . Here we report a summary of a quenched calculation of $`B_K`$ with the Shamir’s variant  of the formalism and a renormalization group (RG) improved gauge action . The latter choice is motivated by our result  that chiral symmetry is much better realized with this action than with the plaquette gauge action. We may also expect that scaling behavior of $`B_K`$ is improved with the use of the RG-improved action. We also report on the strange quark mass obtained from meson mass measurements in our simulation.

## 2 Numerical simulation

Simulations are made at two values of coupling, $`\beta =2.6`$ and $`2.9`$ corresponding to a lattice spacing $`a^1=1.81(4)`$ GeV and $`2.87(7)`$ GeV determined by $`\rho `$ meson mass, in order to check the scaling behavior.

The choice of lattice size $`N_\sigma ^3\times N_t\times N_5`$ is made as follows: (i) Our main runs use $`24^3\times 40\times 16`$ at $`\beta =2.6`$, and $`32^3\times 60\times 16`$ at $`\beta =2.9`$. (ii) Spatial size dependence is examined at $`\beta =2.6`$ varying the spatial size from $`N_\sigma =24`$ to $`N_\sigma =16`$ and 32: They correspond to the physical size $`aN_\sigma 1.7,2.6,3.4`$ fm. (iii) Dependence on the fifth dimensional length $`N_5`$ is also examined at $`\beta =2.6,N_\sigma =24`$ using $`N_5=16`$ and $`N_5=32`$.

We choose $`m_f=0.01,0.02,0.03,0.04`$ for the bare quark mass, covering the range $`m_{PS}/m_V`$= 0.4 – 0.8. The u-d and s quarks are assumed degenerate in the analysis for $`B_K`$. The domain wall height is taken to be $`M=1.8`$. The number of configurations analyzed is given in Table 1.

We measure the Kaon B parameter,

$`B_K={\displaystyle \frac{K\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\right|K}{\frac{8}{3}K\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d\right|00\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d\right|K}},`$ (1)
and the matrix element divided by the pseudo scalar density,

$`B_P={\displaystyle \frac{K\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\right|K}{K\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5d\right|00\left|\overline{s}\gamma _5d\right|K}}`$ (2)
which should vanish at $`m_\pi 0`$. The extraction of these quantities from Kaon Green functions follows the standard procedure (see, e.g., Ref. ) using the Dirichlet boundary condition in time and wall sources for quark propagators. We simultaneously evaluate hadron masses. The physical point for quark masses is calculated by linearly fitting the light hadron masses $`m_{PS}^2`$ and $`m_V`$ as a function of $`m_f`$, and using the experimental values of $`m_\pi /m_\rho `$, $`m_K/m_\rho `$ as input.

## 3 Operator matching

We carry out matching of the lattice and continuum operators at a scale $`q^{}=1/a`$ using one-loop perturbation theory  and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme with NDR in the continuum. In the domain wall formalism the renormalization factor of an $`n`$-quark operator $`O_n`$ has a generic form

$$Z=(1w_0^2)^{n/2}Z_w^{n/2}Z_{O_n}$$
(3)
where $`w_0=1M`$ and $`Z_{w,O_n}=1+O(g^2)`$. We apply tadpole improvement by explicitly moving the one-loop correction to the domain wall height $`M`$ from $`Z_w`$ to $`w_0`$, and by factoring out a tadpole factor $`u^{n/2}=P^{n/8}`$ with $`P`$ the plaquette from $`Z_{O_n}`$. A mean-field estimate appropriate for the RG-improved action is used for calculating the coupling constant $`g_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^2(\mu )`$ . The continuum value at a physical scale e.g., $`\mu =2.0`$ GeV, is obtained via a renormalization group running from $`q^{}=1/a`$ to $`\mu `$.

For $`B_K`$ the factor $`(1w_0^2)^2Z_w^2`$ cancels out, and the one-loop value given by the ratio

$$\frac{Z_{O_4}}{Z_A^2}=\frac{1(4\mathrm{log}q^{}a+13.6)g^2/(16\pi ^2)}{(16.26g^2/(16\pi ^2))^2}$$
(4)
turned out to be very near unity i.e., $`Z_{B_K}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(q^{}=1/a)=0.984(\beta =2.6)`$ and $`0.988(\beta =2.9)`$. The $`Z`$ factor at the scale $`\mu =2`$GeV obtained with a 2-loop running becomes $`Z_{B_K}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu =2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=0.979(\beta =2.6)`$ and $`1.006(\beta =2.9)`$.

## 4 Results for $`B_K`$

### 4.1 Chiral property

We start by investigating the chiral property of the system through $`B_P`$. The renormalized value of $`B_P`$, extrapolated to $`m_f=0`$ linearly in $`m_f`$, is plotted as a function of the inverse of spatial size in Fig. 1.

Since results for the fifth dimensional size $`N_5=16`$ (filled circle) and 32 (open square) agree with each other, the observed non-zero value, albeit very small, should be due to a finite spatial-size effect. The decrease of the magnitude of $`B_P`$ toward larger spatial sizes supports this interpretation. The existence of finite-size effect is consistent with the result for the pion mass in Ref. , where a non-zero pion mass of a magnitude expected from finite-size effects observed for the KS fermion was found for $`N_516`$ at $`\beta =2.6`$. It is a future problem to see whether and how values of $`B_P`$ vanish toward the infinite volume limit.

### 4.2 $`B_K`$

The bare value of $`B_K`$ is interpolated as a function of $`m_fa`$ with the formula given by chiral perturbation theory,

$`B_K=B\left(13c(m_fa)\mathrm{log}(m_fa)+b(m_fa)\right)`$ (5)
as shown in Fig. 2. The physical value of $`B_K`$ is obtained at half the strange quark mass $`m_sa/2`$ (solid circle in Fig. 2) which is estimated from the experimental value of $`m_K/m_\rho `$.

We plot the renormalized value of $`B_K(\mathrm{NDR};\mu =2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$ as a function of the spatial size in Fig. 3. Filled circles and diamonds are data at $`\beta =2.6`$ and $`2.9`$ keeping the same fifth dimensional size $`N_5=16`$. The spatial size dependence is mild especially for $`N_\sigma a2.6`$ fm at $`\beta =2.6`$. This result is consistent with that of a previous finite spatial size study with the staggered quark action . We conclude that the size of about 2.4 fm used in our main runs is sufficient to avoid spatial size effects for $`B_K`$.

In Fig. 3 an open square shows the result for $`N_5=32`$ on a $`24^3\times 40`$ four-dimensional lattice at $`\beta =2.6`$. Since this data is consistent with that at $`N_5=16`$ within the statistical error, the fifth dimensional size of $`N_5=16`$ is sufficient for $`B_K`$.

Our final results from the main runs are shown in Fig. 4. We observe a good scaling behavior, and making a constant extrapolation $`B_K(a)=B_K`$, we find $`B_K(\mu =2\text{GeV})=0.5746(61)`$ where the error is statistical only. The open symbols and the associated lines represent results from a previous calculation with the staggered quark action , where gauge invariant and non-invariant four-quark operators are used. Compared to the result in the continuum limit $`B_K=0.628(42)`$ from this work, our present result is smaller but consistent within the error.

## 5 Strange quark mass

We show results for the strange quark mass in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme at $`\mu =2`$ GeV in Fig. 5, where $`m_K`$ is used as input. We observe that the fifth dimensional size $`N_5=16`$ and spatial size $`N_\sigma a=`$ $`2.4`$ fm is sufficient for a reliable determination of strange quark mass, giving $`m_s`$ 97 MeV. A recent result $`m_s=`$ 110(2)(22) MeV  using the domain wall fermions but with the plaquette gauge action at $`\beta =`$ 6.0 is also consistent with ours, if the systematic error from the conversion to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme is taken into account.

Our results exhibit a good scaling behavior as shown in Fig. 6. Making a constant fit yields $`m_s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=97.4(4.4)`$ MeV. Compared with results from the conventional 4-dimensional formalisms (the plaquette and Wilson quark action  and an RG-improved gauge action and the clover quark action ), our result is 3–4$`\sigma `$ (13–18 MeV) smaller. Reduction of systematic errors from one-loop renormalization factors and finite-size effects would be needed to see if there is an actual disagreement.

This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education (Nos. 10640246, 10640248, 10740107, 11640250, 11640294, 11740162, 12014202, 12304011, 12640253, 12740133). SE, TK, KN, JN and HPS are JSPS Research Fellows. AAK is supported by JSPS Research for the Future Program (No. JSPS-RFTF 97P01102).


text:
# Realistic Spin Glasses Below Eight Dimensions: A Highly Disordered View

## I Introduction

Rigorous  and non-rigorous  analyses ruling out mean-field pictures (for an overview, see ) of short-ranged finite-dimensional spin glass models leave open the question of whether there is a single pair or infinitely many pure states at low temperature (assuming that spin flip symmetry is indeed broken). The droplet/scaling picture  asserts the existence of at most a single pair in all dimensions , but the same conclusion might arise independently of the other predictions of droplet/scaling. On the other hand, if infinitely many pure states occur (for some dimension $`d`$ and temperature $`T`$), they should do so in accord with the chaotic pairs picture , in which only a single pair is seen in typical large finite volumes, with the particular pair changing chaotically with volume.

In this paper, we present an analysis that suggests that no multi-pair pictures should occur below eight dimensions. The analysis is based on relating non-zero temperature Gibbs states of Edwards-Anderson(EA) spin glass models  to zero-temperature ground states of the highly disordered model . The number of ground state pairs in the highly disordered model is known to be one for $`d<8`$ and (uncountably) infinite for $`d>8`$ . The relation is such that the number of ground states in the highly disordered model should serve as an upper bound for the number of (physically relevant) pure states of ordinary EA spin glasses at low but nonzero temperature. We make no claim about the number of ground states of the ordinary models at zero temperature (except by other arguments for $`d=2`$ ).

The idea behind the analysis is as follows. We construct a one-parameter family of EA models, parameterized by $`\lambda (\beta )`$, where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature, such that $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ (slowly) as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ in a way to be specified shortly. The construction is such that for any finite $`\beta \beta _0`$, the model is expected to have the same thermodynamic behavior as the “ordinary” EA nearest-neighbor Ising spin glass in the same dimension corresponding to $`\lambda (\beta _0)`$, in the sense that if the ordinary EA model is in a low-temperature broken-symmetry spin glass phase at $`\beta _0`$, our model should be also, and the number and organization of pure states in the two models should be identical. At $`T=0`$ (i.e., $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$), our model becomes the highly disordered spin glass , whose ground state structure is known . So the behaviors of the two models may diverge at $`T=0`$, i.e., the ground state structure of the highly disordered models may differ from that of the ordinary EA spin glass. But the crucial point is that any $`T>0`$ Gibbs measure, restricted to any finite volume, of our model becomes supported, as $`T0`$, on spin configurations that are ground states of the highly disordered model within that volume.

This results in three possible conclusions, any of which is interesting. The most reasonable follows from the natural expectation that the number of ground states is at least as great as the number of pure states at low temperatures; thus the number of ground states in the highly disordered spin glass should give an upper bound to the number of low-temperature pure states in an ordinary EA model. (There would however be no implication for the number of ground states in the EA model at $`T=0`$.) Because the highly disordered spin glass has only a single pair of ground states below eight dimensions , the conclusion would be that the EA spin glass has no more than a single pair of pure states for all $`d<8`$ at very low temperature. This conclusion would extend to $`d=8`$ if it were shown that the highly disordered model has only a single pair of ground states also in that dimension.

We will discuss below why the analysis and this conclusion should apply only to incongruent  pure states. Two distinct pure states that are not global flips of each other may be either incongruent or regionally congruent. Spin configurations chosen from incongruent pure states have a nonvanishing density of relative domain walls, i.e. couplings satisfied in one but not the other spin configuration; otherwise they are regionally congruent. If incongruence occurs, it should be generated using different sequences of coupling-independent boundary conditions, but to see regional congruence should require choices of boundary conditions that are coupling-dependent.

Two other possibilities, less straightforward but also intriguing, could conceivably occur. One of course is that the supposition that the number of (incongruent) ground states at $`T=0`$ is no smaller than the number of (incongruent) pure states at low $`T>0`$ does not hold for this class of models. Another is that there may be no continuity or even monotonicity at all in the number of pure states as a function of temperature in the spin glass — perhaps the most interesting but also least likely of the three possibilities raised here .

All three of these conclusions will be discussed in greater detail; we now turn to a discussion of the construction of the class of models to be analyzed.

## II The model

We will study the Edwards-Anderson (EA) Hamiltonian  on $`𝐙^d`$, the cubic lattice in $`d`$ dimensions:

$$_𝒥(\sigma )=\underset{x,y}{}J_{xy}\sigma _x\sigma _y,$$
(1)
where $`𝒥`$ denotes a realization of the couplings $`J_{xy}`$ and where the brackets indicate that the sum is over nearest-neighbor pairs only, with the sites $`x,y𝐙^d`$. We will take the spins $`\sigma _x`$ to be Ising, i.e., $`\sigma _x=\pm 1`$.

Eq. (1) is the EA Ising Hamiltonian for an infinite-volume spin glass on $`𝐙^d`$; we also need to define the EA model on a finite volume, given specified boundary conditions. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ be a cube of side $`2L+1`$ centered at the origin; i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L=\{L,L+1,\mathrm{},L\}^d`$. The finite-volume EA Hamiltonian is then just that of Eq. (1) confined to the volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$, with the spins on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ of the cube obeying the specified boundary condition. (The boundary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ of the volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ consists of all sites not in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ with one nearest neighbor belonging to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$.)

The couplings $`J_{xy}`$ are quenched, independent, identically distributed random variables; throughout the paper we will assume their common distribution to be symmetric about zero. Most studies use either the Gaussian or $`\pm J`$ distributions, under the assumption that the qualitative thermodynamic properties in fixed dimension — existence of a phase transition at some $`T_c(d)`$ (whose value, but presumably not its existence, will depend on the nature of the distribution), the presumed broken spin-flip symmetry (i.e., a nonzero EA order parameter $`q_{EA}`$) below $`T_c`$, the number of pure states below $`T_c`$, and so on — will be the same for any “reasonable” coupling distribution. Because this remains an assumption, there is no precise definition of “reasonable”, but the expectation is that any distribution that is symmetric about zero and falls off sufficiently quickly for larger coupling magnitudes will all exhibit similar spin glass behavior. Thus, for example, a uniform distribution supported on $`[1,1]`$ is expected to have the same basic thermodynamic properties as the $`\pm J`$ or Gaussian spin glasses. We proceed using this assumption (or weakened versions of it).

We depart from previous studies in parametrizing the coupling distribution through the variable $`\lambda (\beta )`$, with $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. The couplings $`J_{xy}`$ are defined through the relation (cf. )

$$J_{xy}^{\lambda (\beta )}=ϵ_{xy}c_{\lambda (\beta )}e^{\lambda (\beta )K_{xy}}$$
(2)
where $`c_{\lambda (\beta )}`$ is chosen to ensure that the model has a sensible thermodynamic limit (i.e., a finite energy/spin) when $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, and $`ϵ_{xy}`$ and $`K_{xy}`$ are two sets of independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Each variable $`ϵ_{xy}`$ takes on one of the two values $`\pm 1`$ with equal probability, and the $`K_{xy}`$ can be chosen from any continuous distribution (e.g. uniformly from $`[0,1]`$) so that the distribution of the $`J_{xy}`$’s is “reasonable”, as discussed above. Two examples will be given shortly.

Our general approach is to start with a “typical” EA model at $`\lambda (\beta _0)=1`$, and then embed this within a one-parameter family of models that has a known ground state structure (corresponding to $`\lambda (\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$). Let us denote by $`J_0`$ a given random coupling at the origin connecting to a specified nearest-neighbor site. By Eq. (2), for a given realization of the random variables $`ϵ`$ and $`K`$, we have $`J_0=ϵ_0|J_0|=ϵ_0c_1e^{K_0}`$ ($`c_1`$ can be taken equal to $`1`$). After a rescaling of the temperature, we have

$$J_0^\lambda =ϵ_0c_\lambda |J_0^\lambda |=ϵ_0c_\lambda e^{\lambda K_0}.$$
(3)
We will see that a choice of $`c_\lambda 1/\overline{|J_0|^\lambda }`$, where an overbar denotes an average over coupling realizations, will ensure a sensible thermodynamics for the model in the limit of zero temperature (providing $`\lambda `$ increases slowly as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$).

Note that when $`\lambda =0`$ the model becomes the $`\pm J`$ model for any starting choice of coupling distribution. Of more relevance is the opposite limit: as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, all initial coupling distributions merge into the highly disordered model discussed in . In this limit the coupling distribution is infinitely “stretched” nonlinearly, so that every coupling magnitude occurs on its own scale. A full analysis of the ground state structure of this model, and the transition in ground state pair multiplicity, is given in . A quantum version of the highly disordered limit has been used to study the random quantum Ising model in a transverse field .

So given a wide range of choices for the distribution of the $`K`$’s, the spin glass model described here has a “reasonable ” coupling distribution for any $`\beta <\mathrm{}`$; we will in fact work with coupling distributions that have a large-magnitude cutoff at finite values (depending on $`\beta `$), which guarantees this. As $`\beta `$ increases, the distribution becomes increasingly stretched, but retains its finite large-magnitude cutoff for any $`\beta <\mathrm{}`$, so that any of these models retains the qualitative thermodynamic behavior of the ordinary EA model.

As we will see, the dependence of $`\lambda `$ on $`\beta `$ can be chosen (with $`\lambda `$ increasing sufficiently slowly) so that if an ordinary EA model, corresponding to some finite $`\lambda `$ (e.g., $`\lambda (\beta _0)=1`$), is in a low-temperature spin glass phase, then so is the model described above with running $`\lambda `$. We will further see that if $`\lambda `$ increases slowly enough with $`\beta `$ (depending on the choice of distribution for $`K`$), then the Gibbs measures in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ are supported only on spin configurations that are ground states of the highly disordered model. That is natural since taking $`\lambda (\beta )\mathrm{}`$ slowly enough is roughly equivalent to first taking the $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ ($`T0`$) limit and then the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limit.

### A Two examples

In this section we give two examples of coupling realizations that can be used in subsequent analyses. As already noted, the precise form of the distribution is unimportant as long as the requirements listed earlier are met; all such models should exhibit the same positive-temperature behavior and will merge at zero temperature. The first example starts with a flat distribution for $`J_{xy}`$ in the interval $`[1,1]`$ at $`\lambda (\beta _0)=1`$. We need to determine the distribution for $`K`$ necessary to recover this flat distribution for $`J`$. Let

$$𝒰^\lambda =e^{\lambda K}$$
(4)
with $`𝒰^1=e^K`$ having a flat distribution in $`[0,1]`$.

It follows that $`K`$ is taken from an exponential distribution on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, with $`P(K)dK=e^KdK`$. Now let $`J_{xy}^\lambda =ϵ_{xy}c_\lambda 𝒰_{xy}^\lambda `$; then $`M=|J_{xy}^\lambda |`$ has the distribution

$$P(M)dM=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^1(M/c_\lambda )^{1/\lambda }M^1dM,\hfill & \text{if }0<M<c_\lambda \text{ ,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise\hspace{0.17em} .}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
It remains to choose $`c_\lambda `$. The procedure for doing this will be discussed in Sec. IV B; we here give the result, which is $`c_\lambda =\lambda `$, so that $`J_{xy}^\lambda =\lambda ϵ_{xy}𝒰_{xy}^\lambda `$ and

$$P(M)dM=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1/\lambda )\left[M/\lambda \right]^{1/\lambda }M^1dM,\hfill & \text{if }0<M<\lambda \text{ ,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise\hspace{0.17em} .}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The second example starts with a uniform distribution for $`K`$ on $`[0,1]`$. Again

$$J_{xy}^\lambda =\lambda ϵ_{xy}e^{\lambda K_{xy}},$$
(7)
where we have already chosen $`c_\lambda =\lambda `$, but the distribution of $`M=|J_{xy}^\lambda |`$ is now given by

$$P(M)dM=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1/\lambda )M^1dM,\hfill & \text{if }\lambda e^\lambda <M<\lambda \text{ ,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise\hspace{0.17em} .}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The coupling distribution for this case is graphed in Fig. 1.

It is important to note that as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the distributions of $`J_{xy}^\lambda `$ in the two examples approach each other; this is true in general. Both of these distributions have a temperature-dependent cutoff at large coupling magnitudes. While distributions with cutoffs are chosen for convenience, one could also choose a Gaussian distribution for $`J_{xy}`$ at $`\lambda (\beta _0)=1`$. Because all of these distributions are expected to give the same thermodynamic behavior, however, we will henceforth use the simplest of these, given by Eqs. (7) and (8).

## III Pure state structure within the metastate

We will study this class of models and will show that (for slow enough increase of $`\lambda `$ with $`\beta `$), as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, the Gibbs measures (restricted to arbitrary fixed volumes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$) become supported on the ground states of the highly disordered spin glass. We require that $`c_\lambda `$ be chosen so that the model will be sensible in the zero-temperature limit, in that that the energy density converges to a finite nonzero value, and further that the choice of $`\lambda (\beta )`$ be made in such a way that, for each $`\beta >\beta _0`$, the model always remains within the low temperature broken-spin-flip-symmetric spin glass phase (assuming the corresponding ordinary EA model at $`\beta _0`$ is in such a phase).

If these requirements can be met, then the most natural conclusion is that in any dimension $`d`$, the number of ground states of the highly disordered model provides an upper bound to the number of pure states observed at low (but nonzero) temperature in the ordinary EA spin glass. (We emphasize again, though, that other conclusions remain possible, though perhaps less plausible; these will be discussed in Sec. VI.)

As we have emphasized in earlier papers, if there are multiple pure states, the interesting, and physically relevant, situation is the occurrence of incongruent states. Regional congruence is of mathematical interest, but to see it would require a choice of boundary conditions carefully conditioned on the coupling realization $`𝒥`$. It is not currently known how to choose such b.c.’s in spin glasses. Numerical treatments that look for multiple pure states implicitly search for incongruent ones. (It is interesting to note that recent numerical studies , some employing coupling-dependent bulk terms in the Hamiltonian, have suggested the possibility of observation of regionally congruent states; but see also  for a different interpretation of the numerical data. However, recent work indicates that the energetics of the interfaces found in these studies are inconsistent with regionally congruent pure or ground states .)

We expect our analysis to hold for the number of (incongruent) pure states within any of the coupling-independent boundary condition metastates. The concept of metastate was introduced and discussed in Refs.  and , and shown to be equivalent to an earlier (but somewhat different) construct in Ref. .

A metastate is a measure on (infinite-volume) Gibbs states at fixed temperature that is constructed via an infinite sequence of volumes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$, with specified boundary conditions on each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ chosen in a coupling-independent manner. Roughly speaking, the metastate provides the probability (for varying large $`L`$) of various Gibbs states appearing within $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$. The equivalence of metastates constructed with certain different coupling-independent boundary conditions was shown in Ref. .

If there are infinitely many (incongruent) pure states, a metastate should be dispersed over them, giving their relative likelihood of appearance in typical large volumes. If there is no incongruence, the metastate should be unique and supported on a single pure state pair, and that pair will appear in most (i.e., a fraction one) of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$’s. Regionally congruent states, if present, would be “invisible” in the metastate, i.e., would appear in a vanishing fraction of all the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$’s. Hence, even if regional congruence existed, there would still be two special or “preferred” pure states that would be seen in a typical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ with $`L`$ large.

An example of regional congruence is afforded by interface states in ferromagnets, which can only be seen with carefully chosen boundary conditions, such as those of Dobrushin . These are b.c.’s in which the boundary spins above the “equator” (a plane or hyperplane parallel to two opposing faces of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ and cutting it essentially in half by passing at a finite height above or below the origin) are chosen to be plus and the boundary spins below the equator are minus. Here the special pair of states consists of the uniformly magnetized up and down states, which are seen in large volumes with random boundary conditions as well, of course, as with periodic or free b.c.’s. (They would also be seen even with antiperiodic b.c.’s, since the interface would pass through any fixed finite region only in a vanishing fraction of volumes.) An important difference with the spin glass case is that in the latter there is no known procedure for obtaining boundary conditions that would “see” any analogous regionally congruent states.

In the current context, one needs to specify which Gibbs measures are being examined at $`T>0`$. The procedure in which one chooses coupling-independent boundary conditions and then varies the temperature is well-defined when one is studying properties of the metastate as a whole. As noted, this will provide information on the number of incongruent pure states (in the metastate) at a given temperature. If one wants to push further in order to study the possible existence of regionally congruent pure states, then one needs to pick out these Gibbs states through a choice of coupling-dependent boundary conditions. In order to take the $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit, one would then have to change these coupling-dependent boundary conditions in some unknown way; in this case, the procedure of taking the zero-temperature limit is a priori not well-defined in general. For spin glasses, the only well-defined procedures known at this time use coupling-independent b.c.’s, as $`T0`$.

The consequence is that this argument is best able to provide information on the number of incongruent states in the spin glass metastate at various positive temperatures, but that it is harder to draw conclusions on the possible existence or nonexistence of regionally congruent states. These latter are the interface states that are “invisible” in coupling-independent metastates, and in any case, as we have argued in earlier papers , are unlikely to be physically relevant even if they exist, since boundary conditions used in (either numerical simulations or) laboratory experiments on spin glasses are coupling-independent — i.e., they are not tailored to the microscopic disorder configuration. (For other results and discussion concerning the distinction between coupling-dependent and independent boundary conditions, see .)

## IV Analysis

We now analyze the behavior of our class of models both at large finite $`\lambda `$ (i.e., at low temperature) and in the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limit. As noted above, for specificity we will study the behavior of the model with coupling distribution given by Eqs. (7) and (8).

Our argument relies on answering three questions (in the affirmative). For a given model (i.e., specified coupling distribution) can one choose a $`c_\lambda `$ and a $`\lambda (\beta )`$ (independently of particular coupling realization) so that:

1) the model has a thermodynamically sensible scaling limit as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, in that the energy per spin converges to some $`C`$ as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, with $`0<C<\mathrm{}`$;

2) $`\lambda (\beta )`$ scales in such a way to ensure that, if the model is in its low temperature thermodynamic phase originally, i.e., at $`\lambda (\beta _0)=1`$, the model at rescaled (lower) temperature remains in that same phase;

3) $`\lambda (\beta )`$ increases slowly enough with $`\beta `$ to ensure that any Gibbs state at positive temperature is increasingly supported, as temperature is lowered, on spin configurations that are ground states of the highly disordered model?

In the following three subsections, we provide an analysis that answers these questions in the affirmative, and shows how such a $`c_\lambda `$ and $`\lambda (\beta )`$ can be chosen.

### A Effective temperature and couplings

In this subsection we present a simple transformation on the (inverse) temperature and the couplings that enables us to map the class of models under study onto more familiar ones. In the absence of a scaling factor $`c_\lambda `$, the Gibbs weighting factor at inverse temperature $`\beta ^{}`$ is

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta ^{}\underset{xy}{}ϵ_{xy}e^{\lambda K_{xy}}\sigma _x\sigma _y\right].$$
(9)
We transform the temperature and couplings using

$$\beta ^{}ϵ_{xy}e^{\lambda (\beta )K_{xy}}=\beta J_{xy}^{\lambda (\beta )}$$
(10)
where $`\beta ^{}=\beta c_{\lambda (\beta )}`$ and

$$J_{xy}^{\lambda (\beta )}=ϵ_{xy}c_{\lambda (\beta )}e^{\lambda (\beta )K_{xy}},$$
(11)
so at a given $`\beta ^{}`$ the model maps onto an equivalent one at effective temperature $`\beta `$ and with effective couplings $`J_{xy}^{\lambda (\beta )}`$. Although simple, this rewriting of the Gibbs factor provides a natural separation of the various factors that allows us to choose the prefactor $`c_\lambda `$ in a coupling-independent way, so that the energy density has a sensible $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit.

To achieve the correct scaling limit, we need to choose $`c_{\lambda (\beta )}`$ so that it scales (with $`\beta `$ or $`\beta ^{}`$) as the inverse of (minus) the energy density $`e(\beta ^{},\lambda )`$ of the model with Gibbs factor (9). This energy density $`e(\beta ^{},\lambda )`$ is the same for all (infinite-volume) Gibbs states and for almost all realizations of the couplings (under the assumption that $`\overline{|J_{xy}^\lambda |}<\mathrm{}`$) and so equals its disorder average $`\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}`$. Since $`\beta ^{}`$ (and $`\beta `$) will be chosen to scale to infinity rapidly as functions of $`\lambda `$, we will choose $`c_\lambda `$ to scale like the inverse of (minus) $`\overline{e(\mathrm{},\lambda )}`$, the ground state energy density, which in turn scales like (minus) $`\overline{|J_{xy}^\lambda |}`$ as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. To justify this choice of $`c_\lambda `$, we need to compute $`e(\beta ^{},\lambda )`$ in the low-temperature limit. This is done in the next section.

### B Thermodynamic behavior of the zero temperature limit

In this subsection we estimate the disorder-averaged energy per spin $`\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}`$. Although $`\beta ^{}`$ and $`\lambda `$ will later be taken to depend on each other, for the purposes of this section we treat them as independent variables. One of the purposes of this calculation is to provide information on how slowly $`\lambda `$ needs to vary with $`\beta ^{}`$ (and hence with $`\beta `$) in order to have sensible thermodynamics in the zero temperature limit. In Sec. IV D we will study how $`\lambda `$ needs to vary with $`\beta `$ in order for pure states at positive temperature to be supported on ground states of the highly disordered model. We will see that if $`\lambda `$ grows slowly with $`\beta ^{}`$ and $`\beta `$, these two calculations result in mutually compatible ranges for allowed scaling behaviors.

We now proceed to show that the energy per spin, at large $`\beta `$, can be computed as a disorder average over a single (arbitrary) coupling $`J_0^\lambda =e^{\lambda K_0}`$, which as before denotes the coupling (in $`𝒥`$) connecting the spin at the origin with one of its nearest neighbors. Let $`P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }`$ denote the probability (within a Gibbs measure at fixed $`\beta ^{}`$). Then, in dimension $`d`$,

$$\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}=d\overline{\left(P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is satisfied})P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied})\right)|J_0^\lambda |}.$$
(12)
At large $`\lambda `$ (and larger $`\beta ^{}`$), the main contribution to the energy density arises from couplings corresponding to the smallest $`K_{xy}`$’s, and their probability of being satisfied approaches one. Moreover,

$$0=\overline{e(0,\lambda )}\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}\overline{e(\mathrm{},\lambda )}<d\overline{|J_0^\lambda |},$$
(13)
where the last inequality is because not every coupling is satisfied at zero temperature. So it will be sufficient for our purposes to derive a lower bound on $`\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}`$ that approaches $`d\overline{|J_0^\lambda |}`$ as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. In arriving at a lower bound, the following general inequality will be useful:

$`P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is satisfied})P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied})`$ (14)
$`=12P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied})`$ (15)
$`12{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied})}{P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is satisfied})}}.`$ (16)
We use the coupling magnitude distribution Eq. (8), which arises from the flat distribution for $`K`$ on the unit interval $`[0,1]`$. Because most of the contribution to the energy density comes from couplings corresponding to small $`K_{xy}`$’s, we break up the calculation into three cases according to the realization of $`K_0`$ and its $`2(2d1)`$ adjacent couplings:

Case I: $`K_0\delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is fixed and $`0<\delta 1`$;

Case II: $`K_0<\delta `$, and one or more adjacent couplings have magnitudes corresponding to $`Kb_0\delta `$, where $`b_0`$ is a constant with $`1/\delta >b_0>1`$;

Case III: $`K_0<\delta `$, and all adjacent couplings have magnitudes corresponding to $`K>b_0\delta `$.

If we denote by $`e_I`$ the contribution to (minus $`1/d`$ times) the energy density from coupling realizations corresponding to Case I, and similarly for the other cases, then trivially

$$(1/d)\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}=e_I+e_{II}+e_{III}.$$
(17)
We now study the three cases separately, denoting by $`_I`$, $`_{II}`$ and $`_{III}`$ the indicator functions that equal $`1`$ (otherwise $`0`$) only for those coupling realizations satisfying respectively the requirements of the three different cases.

Case I: Here we have

$$e_I\overline{_I|J_0^\lambda |}=_\delta ^1e^{\lambda K}𝑑K=O\left((1/\lambda )e^{\lambda \delta }\right)$$
(18)
as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

Case II: The calculation here is similar; we have

$$e_{II}\overline{_{II}|J_0^\lambda |}2(2d1)b_0\delta _0^\delta e^{\lambda K}𝑑K=O(\delta )_0^\delta e^{\lambda K}𝑑K$$
(19)
as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

Case III: This case is more involved. There are four possible configurations for the two spins coupled through $`J_0^\lambda `$; two of these correspond to $`J_0^\lambda `$ satisfied and two to $`J_0^\lambda `$ unsatisfied. Consider the ratio $`\frac{P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied})}{P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is satisfied})}`$ that appears in Eq. (14). This ratio is maximized by the following “worst case” scenario: in changing a satisfied configuration (for $`J_0^\lambda `$) to an unsatisfied one, all of the $`2d1`$ adjacent couplings touching the flipped spin change from unsatisfied to satisfied. This case maximizes the cost in the Gibbs factor for the change in spin configurations. It follows that under the requirements of case III,

$$\frac{P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied})}{P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is satisfied})}\mathrm{exp}[2\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta +(2d1)2\beta ^{}e^{b_0\lambda \delta }}].$$
(20)
Therefore

$`e_{III}=`$ $`\overline{_{III}|J_0^\lambda |(12P_{\beta ^{},\lambda }(J_0^\lambda \text{ is unsatisfied}))}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`[1O(\delta )]\left(1O[e^{2\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta }+(2d1)2\beta ^{}e^{b_0\lambda \delta }}]\right){\displaystyle _0^\delta }e^{\lambda K}𝑑K`$ (22)
as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

The behavior of the factor $`e^{2\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta }+(2d1)2\beta ^{}e^{b_0\lambda \delta }}`$ that appears in Eq. (21) as $`\beta ^{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ is sensitive to the dependence of these two parameters on each other. We have

$$e^{2\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta }+(2d1)2\beta ^{}e^{b_0\lambda \delta }}=e^{2\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta }(1(2d1)e^{(b_01)\lambda \delta })}e^{2\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta }}\text{ as }\lambda \mathrm{}$$
(23)
regardless of the detailed behavior of $`\lambda (\beta )`$. Furthermore, $`\beta ^{}e^{\lambda \delta }\mathrm{}`$ for any $`\delta `$, if $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ slower than $`\mathrm{log}(\beta ^{})`$ (i.e., if $`\lambda /\mathrm{log}(\beta ^{})0`$). We will therefore require (for this particular coupling distribution, but the calculation is similar for others) that

$$\lambda =o\left[\mathrm{log}(\beta )\right]\text{ as }\beta \mathrm{},$$
(24)
which, as we shall see, will also guarantee that $`\lambda =o\left[\mathrm{log}(\beta ^{})\right]`$.

Returning to the comparison of the energy densities (as $`\beta ^{}\mathrm{}`$) for the three cases, we see that $`e_I`$ is reduced from $`e_{III}`$ by a factor of order $`e^{\lambda \delta }`$, and $`e_{II}`$ is reduced from $`e_{III}`$ by a factor of order $`\delta `$. We therefore find that

$$\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}=d[1\pm O(\delta )]_0^1e^{\lambda K}𝑑K,$$
(25)
so that in the joint limit $`\beta ^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ (and with the condition $`\lambda =o\left[\mathrm{log}(\beta ^{})\right]`$ satisfied for $`K`$ uniformly distributed on $`[0,1]`$), since $`\delta `$ can be chosen arbitrarily small, it follows that

$$\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}/(d\overline{|J_0^\lambda |})1\text{ as }\beta ^{}\mathrm{}.$$
(26)
Therefore, if $`K[0,1]`$ uniformly, we have

$$\overline{e(\beta ^{},\lambda )}\overline{|J_0^\lambda |}=\overline{e^{\lambda K_0}}=_0^1e^{\lambda K}𝑑K1/\lambda \text{ as }\lambda \mathrm{},$$
(27)
and we set $`c_\lambda =\lambda `$ for this distribution, as in Eq. (7). Thus $`\beta ^{}=\beta c_\lambda =\beta \lambda `$ and (24) will indeed guarantee $`\lambda =o\left[\mathrm{log}(\beta ^{})\right]`$. A similar calculation for the distribution of Eq. (5), discussed in Sec. II A, results in $`c_\lambda \lambda +1`$, and so we may choose $`c_\lambda =\lambda `$. More generally, one chooses $`c_\lambda 1/\overline{|J_0^\lambda |}`$, as discussed in Sec. II, to obtain a finite, nonzero energy density as temperature goes to zero.

### C Comparison to phase behavior of ordinary EA models

We have shown that the first of our requirements, that the thermodynamics of our class of models behave properly in the zero temperature limit, can be met, and have shown how to compute the energy density at low temperatures. We turn now to our second requirement, namely that the model remain in the low temperature spin glass phase as $`T`$ is lowered from a starting temperature already within the spin glass phase for the $`\lambda (\beta _0)`$ model. Of course, the low-temperature behavior of the ordinary EA spin glass in dimensions three and higher is not well understood, and it could conceivably be the case that in some or all dimensions between three and eight it undergoes a succession of phase transitions (either at discrete temperatures or continuously), or has no phase transition at positive temperature at all (i.e., remains paramagnetic down to zero temperature), or has other, perhaps more exotic, behavior. Our only goal here is to show that our class of models behaves similarly to the ordinary EA spin glass at least for very low, nonzero temperatures. To keep matters simple, we’ll assume that for some range of $`d`$, the ordinary EA spin glass undergoes a phase transition at some $`T_c(d)>0`$, such that below that temperature there is a spin glass phase with broken spin flip symmetry, and with the number (and organization) of pure states not depending on $`T`$, for $`0<T<T_c(d)`$.

That our class of models should behave similarly (at $`\beta <\mathrm{}`$) to ordinary EA models, in terms of numbers and organization of pure states as $`\beta `$ changes, is not immediately obvious because the couplings in our models are temperature-dependent. It does seem reasonable to expect though that, so long as the couplings depend weakly on $`\beta `$, our models should behave similarly to more conventional ones. However, we can improve on this expectation and show that in fact this follows from a natural universality hypothesis.

The universality we have in mind is that the above assumption about ordinary EA spin glasses is valid separately for each fixed finite $`\lambda `$. Thus there will be a critical inverse temperature $`\beta _c(\lambda )<\mathrm{}`$ for the Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with couplings $`J_{xy}=ϵ_{xy}c_\lambda e^{\lambda K_{xy}}`$. In order to satisfy our second requirement, $`\lambda `$ has to grow slowly enough with $`\beta `$ (or equivalently, $`\beta `$ has to grow rapidly enough with $`\lambda `$) so that for $`\beta \beta _0`$,

$$\beta (\lambda )>\beta _c(\lambda ).$$
(28)
So, for example, if $`\lambda (\beta _0)=1`$ and the corresponding spin glass model is in its low $`T`$ spin glass phase, the inequality (28) will guarantee that the sequence of models with running $`\lambda >1`$ remain within their corresponding low $`T`$ spin glass phase. The above inequality can always be satisfied consistently with the other conditions 1) and 3); all that needs to be done is to choose $`\lambda `$ to grow sufficiently slowly with $`\beta `$. The remaining question will be whether the constraints imposed by conditions 1) and 3) are compatible; we reserve that for the following section.

### D Ground state behavior of zero temperature limit

We now turn to a central question in the analysis of our models, which is how slowly $`\lambda `$ must vary with $`\beta `$ in order that condition 3) above is satisfied, i.e., whether the Gibbs states of our models at positive temperature are increasingly supported, as temperature is lowered, on spin configurations that are ground states of the highly disordered model, and whether this constraint is compatible with condition 1).

Consider again a fixed (arbitrary) volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ centered at the origin, with any fixed boundary condition chosen independently of the coupling realization. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\lambda )`$ denote the energy difference between the lowest-energy state in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ at given $`\lambda `$ and the first excited state. Then condition 3) is satisfied if $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E(\lambda (\beta ))\mathrm{}`$ as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, because the lowest-energy state goes to the ground state of the highly disordered model (for that b.c., in that volume) as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

We again study this question in the context of a particular model, namely where $`K`$ is chosen uniformly from the interval $`[0,1]`$. We have here that $`J_{xy}^\lambda \lambda ϵ_{xy}e^{\lambda K_{xy}}`$. As $`\lambda `$ gets large for fixed $`L`$, the first excited state corresponds to the (multi-)spin flip that changes only the smallest magnitude coupling in the (wired b.c.) invasion tree (see Refs. ) from satisfied to unsatisfied. But for the distribution chosen, the magnitude of this coupling is larger than $`\lambda \mathrm{exp}[\lambda ]`$, so that at any $`\lambda `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\lambda )>\lambda e^\lambda `$. Therefore,

$$\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E(\lambda )\beta \lambda e^\lambda ,$$
(29)
so if $`\lambda `$ grows as $`\mathrm{log}(\beta )`$ or slower, condition 3) is satisfied (for this particular distribution of $`K`$).

Condition 1) requires a slightly stronger constraint, given by (24), which is certainly compatible with the constraint given above. It is gratifying that both conditions require $`\lambda `$ to grow slowly with $`\beta `$, as initially anticipated. It might be that condition 2) would require $`\lambda `$ to grow even more slowly with $`\beta `$, but in any event poses no conflicts with the other constraints.

The procedure given here can be adapted for other distributions, but it is already sufficient that an explicit example can be constructed of a model with all of the desired properties listed earlier.

## V Disordered Ferromagnets

The basic argument of this paper is that for the models with temperature dependent couplings as in Eq. (2) (and with properly chosen $`c_\lambda `$ and $`\lambda (\beta )`$), the absence of more than a single pair of ground states at $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ for $`d<8`$ is evidence for no more than two pure states in ordinary EA spin glass models with fixed couplings at very low temperatures.

A potential flaw in this line of reasoning seems to arise in the case of disordered ferromagnets, corresponding to the elimination of the random signs $`ϵ_{xy}`$ in Eq. (2). After all, highly disordered ferromagnets also have only a single pair of ground states for $`d<8`$ , but ordinary disordered ferromagnets are expected to have multiple pure states for $`d4`$  — namely, the interface states  obtained by using Dobrushin boundary conditions. Further, this expectation is strongly supported by the rigorous results of Bovier and Külske concerning the existence for $`d4`$ of such interface states in SOS models . Indeed, the existence of such interface states in ferromagnets motivated Bovier and Fröhlich to argue that there are more spin glass pure states in $`d4`$ than $`d=3`$ (see Sec. 6.4 of ). So we need to ask why our arguments, when applied to disordered ferromagnets, do not lead to a contradiction for $`4d<8`$.

In fact, they do not, for at least two reasons. One of them, already discussed above, is the lack of appearance of interface states in the metastate (with coupling independent boundary conditions). We have not argued, even for spin glasses, that there are absolutely no more than two pure states for $`d<8`$, but only that not more than two appear in the metastate (and that these are the physically relevant ones). For both ordinary EA spin glasses in $`d<8`$ and ordinary disordered ferromagnets in all $`d`$, the metastate with free or periodic (or random) b.c.’s should exhibit no more than a single pair of pure states. Indeed, in the highly disordered ferromagnet even for $`d>8`$, the free or periodic (but not random) b.c. metastate is supported only on the single pair of homogeneously magnetized ground states .

But one might object that in the ferromagnet setting, unlike the spin glass case, one does know how to choose b.c.’s, namely of the Dobrushin type, so that one can obtain Gibbs states with interfaces in the thermodynamic limit and metastates supported on them. For example, by taking a mixed b.c. with the Dobrushin “equator” between the plus and minus parts of the boundary occuring at a variety of heights with various weights, one could obtain a metastate supported on many different pure interface states. So, wouldn’t the fact that for $`4d<8`$, the zero temperature limit of the metastate could not be supported on more than two ground states, still contradict our reasoning that the number of ground states in the metastate at zero temperature is an upper bound for the number of pure states at very low temperature?

Here is where the second reason for a distinction between ferromagnets and spin glasses comes into play. It concerns the universality hypothesis of our argument, that for any fixed $`\lambda <\mathrm{}`$, the low temperature phase structure of a spin glass should be qualitatively the same, regardless of the value of $`\lambda `$. For spin glasses, this seems a perfectly plausible working hypothesis; indeed, if this were not so, then, e.g., a Gaussian distribution could have a different low $`T`$ thermodynamic structure, in terms of pure state multiplicity, than a uniform distribution on $`[J,J]`$, or a $`\pm J`$ spin glass. But this is not likely; it is expected that only non-universal features such as $`T_c(d)`$ depend on the coupling distribution (assuming that it is symmetric about zero and without slowly-decaying tails).

But this is not so for disordered ferromagnets, where there are no energy cancellations along an interface — unlike in spin glasses. This may well lead to a greater sensitivity of interface stability to the strength of the disorder. It seems quite plausible, as suggested to us by Bovier and Külske, that for some dimensions $`d4`$, the usual interface states obtained through normal Dobrushin b.c.’s could perhaps disappear for $`\lambda `$ above some critical value $`\lambda _c<\mathrm{}`$, even for arbitrarily low temperature. That is, for $`\lambda <\lambda _c`$, the interface would be flat for both $`T=0`$ and small $`T>0`$, but for $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$, the interface would be rough for any $`T>0`$ (and perhaps also for $`T=0`$).

Our analysis suggests that this is indeed so for $`d<8`$, so that there would be only two pure states (even for the mixed Dobrushin b.c. metastate described above) for ordinary disordered ferromagnets at very low temperatures, providing the disorder is sufficiently (but not infinitely) strong. For $`4d<8`$, this could be a consequence of the strong disorder either completely destabilizing the interface states so that they are entirely absent, or else of partially destabilizing them so that finding them would require Dobrushin type b.c.’s, but with a coupling-dependent equator (at a nonconstant height).

## VI Discussion

In this paper we have constructed a class of nearest-neighbor spin glass models with (unusual) coupling distributions depending on a disorder strength parameter $`\lambda `$ that itself is temperature dependent. These models are designed to have the property that their thermodynamic equilibrium properties at low temperature $`T`$ should be the same as for models with more familiar distributions (e.g., $`\pm J`$ or Gaussian), but they have the rare advantage that their ground state structure is known. The basic assumption of this paper is that a nearest-neighbor Ising spin glass model with any “reasonable” coupling distribution — i.e., symmetric about zero, and with small or zero weight on very large coupling magnitudes — will display qualitatively equivalent thermodynamics at fixed $`d`$ (e.g., presence or absence of a phase transition, number and organization of pure states in the spin glass phase, etc.) — at least for very low temperature. While this remains an assumption, it is a common one in theoretical spin glass studies — so, for example, the thermodynamics of two extreme cases, the $`\pm J`$ and Gaussian distributions, are usually assumed to be the same .

All of the models discussed here have the desired properties at finite $`\lambda `$ (i.e., when $`T>0`$). At infinite $`\lambda `$ ($`T=0`$) they do not, and we make no claims as to whether any ground state properties of ordinary spin glasses can be inferred from these highly disordered models. But the interesting aspect of the analysis is that, while the thermodynamic properties at nonzero temperature cannot be directly solved for, the ground state properties of our models can, and the analysis in Sec. IV enables us to infer properties of realistic spin glass models at low but nonzero temperatures.

In general, the number of pure states for a given system remains the same or increases (at a phase transition point) as temperature decreases. Of course, this general tendency is violated at a first-order phase transition, due to phase coexistence. One well-known example of such a violation is the $`q`$-state Potts ferromagnet with $`q`$ sufficiently large (depending on $`d`$), which at $`T_c`$ has its paramagnetic pure phase coexisting with its $`q`$ ordered pure phases, while below $`T_c`$ the paramagnetic phase is unstable (for rigorous proofs, see ). However, it remains the case, for these and other systems with first-order transitions, that the number of pure phases above the transition is no larger than the number below. More interesting re-entrant behavior occurs in other systems — see, e.g., Ref. . (A different type of re-entrant behavior occurs in some spin glasses in the temperature-concentration phase diagram , but this doesn’t appear to violate the general rule of number of pure states not decreasing as temperature decreases.)

However, we are unaware of any natural examples where the number of ground states is smaller than the number of pure states at arbitrarily low temperature . For the spin glass, we are looking at an even weaker claim — namely, that the number of pure states in the metastate does not decrease as temperature is lowered. That is, it is sufficient to consider only incongruent pure states, as discussed in Sec. III.

These considerations enable us to draw a set of interesting conclusions from our analysis of these models. The most natural, and obvious, one is that the number of ground states in the zero-temperature highly disordered metastate (e.g., with free or periodic boundary conditions) provides an upper bound to the number of pure states at very low temperature seen in realistic spin glass models. This ground state structure is known: the $`T=0`$ metastate of the highly disordered model is supported on a single pair of ground states below eight dimensions, and (uncountably) infinitely many above eight . Our analysis therefore provides evidence in favor of the existence of no more than a single pair of pure states at low temperatures in realistic spin glass models below eight dimensions . (This conclusion is consistent, of course, with there being only a single pure state, either paramagnetic or otherwise, at all nonzero temperatures in some or all of these dimensions.) Our analysis does not allow us to draw conclusions about what happens above eight dimensions.

There are two other logical possibilities, either of which would also be quite interesting. It could be that our general intuition about the behavior of the metastate as a function of temperature is violated here, so that the number of ground states is smaller than the number of pure states in some dimensions. In other words, in these models there might be a jump in the number of thermodynamic states, from larger to smaller, in the metastate at zero temperature. We cannot rule out this possibility, other to note that the discovery of a class of models in which this occurs raises the interesting possibility that it might occur elsewhere also.

Indeed, a jump presumably does occur in the ordinary $`2D`$ EA Ising spin glass — but it goes in the other, more natural, direction, i.e. from smaller to larger as temperature is lowered to zero. The $`2D`$ spin glass is believed to be paramagnetic at all nonzero temperatures, and has at least a pair of ground states at zero temperature. Our conclusion is that, while we cannot logically exclude the possibility of a lowering of the number of thermodynamic states as temperature goes to zero, it appears to be less likely than the number remaining the same or increasing.

We mention in passing a third possibility — that the number of pure states in a typical spin glass metastate does not behave in a continuous or even monotonic fashion at all as temperature is lowered . This possibility presents a picture of the low-temperature spin glass phase far different from any that have appeared so far in the literature. An extreme version of this possibility (bearing some similarity to eigenvalue dependence on disorder realizations in low dimensional localization), which we present primarily for illustrative purposes, is as follows. At any (low) temperature not depending on the coupling realization $`𝒥`$, there would be no broken symmetry (and a unique infinite volume Gibbs state) for almost every $`𝒥`$, but nevertheless, if a typical $`𝒥`$ were picked first and then the temperature $`T`$ were varied, there would be a (countably infinite) dense set of temperatures, depending on $`𝒥`$, with broken symmetry pure phases for that $`𝒥`$ at those temperatures! However, because there is no evidence of such a picture to date, we do not pursue it further here.

Acknowledgments. This research was supported in part by NSF Grants DMS-98-02310 (CMN) and DMS-98-02153 (DLS). The authors thank Anton Bovier, Aernout van Enter, Christof Külske and Peter Young for useful discussions and constructive comments.


text:
# A CP-Violating Kinematic Structure

## Introduction

The moment one invokes the Poincaré space-time symmetries the notions of mass, spin, and the existence of two types of matter, i.e. particles and antiparticles, immediately arise. Poincaré symmetries also play equally important role in the gravitational realm. One can even argue that the standard wave-particle duality carries its basis in the generators of space-time translations. The eigenstates of these generators, which can be superimposed to make normalizable physical states, carry a spatial periodicity that, in the presence of a non-vanishing Planck constant, can be identified with the de Broglie wave length.

Here, I argue that the quantum mechanical framework induces new elements in the C, P, and T structure of the representations offered by the Lorentz group. Arguments of this nature were long ago appreciated by Gürsey, Michel, Wigner, and by other physicists of their generation, see, e.g., Ref. fg  and pp. 453-457 of Ref. Vigier , and also refer to the Lee and Wick paper lw . The new element that I mentioned in the abstract turns out, in a very precise sense bww , to be a missing link that prevented construction of the Wigner classes (see Wigner in Ref. fg ). These arguments provide unsuspected source of CP violation. It emerges, e.g., that the violation of CP may also be found in a new quantum-induced CP-violating kinematic structure offered by the Lorentz group, rather than in a new interaction. To clarify, one should note that in the standard gauge theory of the electroweak interactions the underlying kinematic structure manifestly violates parity. The gauge group of the weak interactions serves to provide the gauge bosons that mediate the interaction on this P-violating kinematic structure. The credit on gauge bosons, and the Higgs boson, is to help set the range of this P-violating interaction in a renormalizable theory. Our general results are not in conflict with the common wisdom, see, e.g., Ref. ew , because these works confine to the usual kinematic structure for the spin-1/2 fermions and spin-1 vector bosons (note, just because a particle carries spin one does not necessarily make it a vector object) and which seek CP violation in interactions. Purely on the grounds of representations of the Lorentz group in the quantum realm, we shall discover the possibility of a new phase field (called $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ below). In this talk we shall remain far from identifying the (scalar) phase field with the Higgs, but the existence of the new field arises so naturally that there may be an important place for it in physics.

This also sets the stage to study CPT-related consequences of the possible deformations of the space-time symmetries required by the joint realm of the quantum and gravity. On the empirical side, the data on the ultra high energy cosmic rays has taken us to within nine orders of magnitude of the Planck scale. That data has already raised questions that invoke the violation of the Lorentz symmetries. In this context too, I find the reflections presented here to be more than of academic interest.

## The Quantum-Induced CPT Structure of Space-time

The kinematic structure of the existing quantum theory of fields originates from the Poincaré symmetries epw1939 . This is well explained in recent books of Ryder, Sterman, and Weinberg lhr ; gs ; sw . For the purpose at hand the reader is also referred to my book reviews r1 ; r2 , and Ref. gg . In these references certain conceptual issues have been clarified and corrected.

I now provide a brief, but careful, review of the spin-$`1/2`$ representation space. If we wish to construct a parity covariant spin-$`1/2`$ representation space then the fields operators associated with the kinematic structure must be constructed in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. One must further decide whether one wishes to describe charged particles in the Dirac sense, or neutral particles in the Majorana sense. To treat both of these constructs at an equal footing the underlying spinors must carry similar C, P, and T properties as the field operators themselves. For the usual Majorana field operator the just-stated requirement is badly violated because it is expanded in terms of the Dirac spinors. In the usual textbook constructs, see, e.g., Ref. rm , it is only in terms of the Fock space creation and annihilation operators that the distinction is made between the Dirac and Majorana field operators. In these constructs, we repeat, the underlying spinors, for the Majorana field operator, are still the Dirac spinors.

To describe the fundamentally charged particles in the Dirac sense the appropriate $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ spinors have the form:

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{p})\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})\\ \varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})\end{array}\right).`$ (3)
The $`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})`$ transforms as a $`(1/2,0)`$ spinor,111 Note, identical transformation properties under Lorentz group do not necessarily imply that other transformations properties will be identical as well. The latter, e.g., may refer to transformations under C, P, and T. Thus, the Dirac- and Majorana-$`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ constructs carry different physical characteristics under operations of C, P, and T, while carrying identical transformations under the Lorentz group. and boosts as

$`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (4)
In the above equation, the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the usual Pauli matrices, and $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is the boost parameter. The definition of $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is motivated by the fact that $`E^2\stackrel{}{p}^2=m^2`$, and that $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha \mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha =1`$ (as an identity). Thus,

$`\mathrm{cosh}\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}},\mathrm{sinh}\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|}{m}}.`$ (5)
The direction associated with $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is that of the three momentum associated with the particle:

$`\widehat{\phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{|\stackrel{}{p}|}}.`$ (6)
We shall assume that $`m0`$.

Whereas, the $`\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})`$ transforms is a $`(0,1/2)`$ spinor, and boosts with the opposite sign in the exponent:

$`\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (7)
The $`\stackrel{}{0}`$ corresponds to the momentum vector for the particle at rest.

On the other hand, if one wishes to describe fundamentally neutral particles in the Majorana sense then the correct choice of the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ spinors is:

$`\lambda (\stackrel{}{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\varphi _L^{}(\stackrel{}{p})\\ \varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
and

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})\\ \left(\zeta _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\right)^{}\varphi _R^{}(\stackrel{}{p})\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
In these expressions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}`$ is the spin-$`1/2`$ Wigner time reversal operator:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
The phases factors $`\zeta _\lambda `$ and $`\zeta _\rho `$, that appear in Eqs. (10) and (13), are determined by the condition of self(S)/anti-self(A) conjugacy under the operation of charge conjugation. In Refs. dva1996 ; agj  it was shown that this condition determines these phases to be:

$`\zeta _\lambda ^S`$ $`=`$ $`+i=\rho _\rho ^S,`$ (17)
$`\zeta _\lambda ^A`$ $`=`$ $`i=\rho _\rho ^A,`$ (18)
Incorporating the anti-self conjugate spinors is essential for the complete, in the sense of mathematically complete set, description of the neutral $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. The classic 1957 McLennan-Case reformulation of the Majorana theory was incomplete in this aspect. Similarly, there is a wide spread, but incorrect, belief that somehow Majorana neutral objects carry half as many degrees of freedom as Dirac neutral objects. The reader who wishes to scrutinize these issues is referred to Ref. dva1996 .

The wave equations satisfied by these spinors follow from: (a) The transformation properties of the $`(1/2,0)`$ and $`(0,1/2)`$ spinors, and very importantly, (b) The relative phase between the $`(1/2,0)`$ and $`(0,1/2)`$ spinors at rest. Because this may carry important physical consequences we establish this claim. We shall first carefully examine the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space suitable for describing charged particles. Only later shall we return to the neutral particles very briefly.

Due to the isotropy of the $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{0}`$, one may argue that $`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{0})=\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0})`$. In fact that is precisely what is done in the standard textbooks lhr ; Hladik . Ryder’s classic book on the theory of quantum fields lhr , in fact, argues, “Now when a particle is at rest, one cannot define its spin as either left- or right-handed, so $`\varphi _R(0)=\varphi _L(0)`$.” This may be argued to some extent if one was to confine to a purely classical framework. In the process, as it turns out, what one misses are anti-particles! However, if one is to invoke a quantum framework for the interpretation of these spinors then this equality can only be claimed up to a phase:

$`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{0})=e^{i\theta }\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (19)
This is the central physical input which will yield us the result (39). In fact, in a private communication, Ryder has pointed out that $`\theta `$ may be a $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Here, we shall confine to the simplest suggestion that $`\theta `$ is a real angle (possibly carrying a space-time dependence).

Equations (4), (7), and (19) contain essentially222We qualify with “essentially” because while constructing the field operators the Fock space considerations must be invoked, in addition. the entire kinematic structure of the charged spin-$`1/2`$ particles. To see this we follow the foot steps of Lewis Ryder lhr , but we now carefully incorporate the important ingredient embedded in a non-vanishing $`\theta `$.

> 1. On the right-hand side of Eq. (4), substitute for $`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{0})`$ from (19). This gives
>
> $`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})=e^{i\theta }\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (20)
> 2. From Eq. (7) obtain,
>
> $`\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0})=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (21)
> and insert it into the right-hand side of Eq. (20). This yields:
>
> $`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})=e^{i\theta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (22)
> 3. Similarly, starting from Eqs. (7) and (19) we obtain:
>
> $`\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})=e^{i\theta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (23)
> 4. Now, because $`\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{p}\right)^2=2\times 2\text{Identity matrix,}I_2`$
>
> $`\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{p}\right)^n=\{\begin{array}{cc}I_2\hfill & \text{for n even}\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{p}\hfill & \text{for n odd}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (24)
> This leads to the identities:
>
> $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)={\displaystyle \frac{EI_2\pm \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}}{m}}`$ (25)
> 5. Next, substitute these identities in Eqs. (22) and (23), and re-arrange to obtain:
>
> $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}me^{i\theta }& EI_2+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}\\ EI_2\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}& me^{i\theta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})\\ \varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})\end{array}\right)=0.`$ (30)
> 6. Finally, with $`p_\mu =(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$, $`E=P^0`$, read off the Weyl-representation gamma matrices:333We now abbreviate $`I_2`$ by $`I`$. The zeros below stand for $`2\times 2`$ null matrices, and $`\sigma ^1=\sigma _x`$, etc.
>
> $`\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^i\\ \sigma ^i& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
> and introduce
>
> $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(+i\theta )\end{array}\right),`$ (38)
> This yields, the central result of our thesis:
>
> $`\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu m\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{p})=0.`$ (39)

The obtained equation is Poincaré covariant and indeed carries the solutions with the correct dispersion relations $`E=\pm \sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m^2}`$, because not only

$`\text{Det}\left[\gamma ^\mu p_\mu m\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )\right]=\left(\stackrel{}{p}^2+m^2E^2\right)^2`$ (40)
but also because $`\text{Det}\left[\gamma ^\mu p_\mu m\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )\right]`$ is independent of $`\theta `$. Thus, as expected, Poincaré covariance cannot constrain $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ is constrained to be $`\pm 1`$ if one places the extra condition that the resulting equation be covariant separately under operations of C, P, and T. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$s cannot be “rotated away” particularly if one considers a general system of more than one spin-$`1/2`$. Further, in absence of the indicated CPT-related covariances, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ may carry a space-time dependence. Note, without the $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )=1`$, the “antiparticle” solutions are missed as was brought to the reader’s attention earlier.

We thus conjecture that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ may carry space-time dependence (particularly, in curved space-time) — and even if it were to be taken as a constant matrix — $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ carries information on the CPT structure of the spin-1/2 charged fields. It is too premature to speculate if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ may not be related to the observed CP violation in the universe. However, if one insists on a renormalizable theory with no space-time dependence in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$, then considerations of Weinberg, see Sec. 12.5 of Ref. sw , could render $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ physically unobservable. The CP violating kinematic structure obtained here is also contained in the postulated “CP violating Dirac equation” of Funakubo et al. f . For non local elements in this structure, and additional kinematic details, the reader is referred to Ref. cp .

Before proceeding further, let’s take note that the existence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )=1`$, missed in the well-known classical arguments, and in fact not allowed by the realm of classical framework, is a consequence of the quantum mechanical freedom encoded in Eq. (19). For a C–, P–, and T–covariant theory, existence of two values, rather than one, for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ is responsible for the existence of two types of matter, i.e. particles and antiparticles. In the standard treatment of spin-1/2 particles, the quantum-mechanical origin of this fact was well-understood by Dirac and other knowledgeable physicists, even though by no means existence of the phase field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ was so transparent, or was even suspected. Second, the linearity of Eq. (39) in $`p_\mu `$ is a consequence of the very specific property of the Pauli matrices contained in Eq. (24). Third, this linearity is not guaranteed if one considers neutral particles in the Majorana sense, see Ref. dva1996 .

When one repeats the same exercise for the charged particles in the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space one obtains a new, and to an extent unexpected, result that such spin-1 particles, as opposed to spin-1 vector particles, are of a Wigner class which was presented only relatively recently in Ref. bww . In this Wigner class, a boson and its antiboson carry opposite relative intrinsic parity. This arises because the C and P operators of the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space anticommute, rather than commute. No search for such particles in the low energy domain has yet been undertaken. Because the natural counterpart of the spin-$`1/2`$ $`\gamma ^\mu `$ in the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space is a set of two-indexed $`6\times 6`$ matrix objects $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ they may provide a natural coupling to the space-time metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. For this reason, these particles may have played an important role in the early universe. In particular, their unexpected properties as regards their C, P, and T transformations make them natural candidates for studying any unusual CP properties of the early phase of the universe. Once again, a phase field similar to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$ above can be introduced for the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space.

Here we shall refrain from further discussing the representation spaces associated with the neutral particles. Once again, one finds that neutral $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space carries distinct, and different, structure under the transformations of C, P, and T. The reader is referred to Refs. dva1996 ; agj ; vd1 ; vd2 .

## Discussion: Possible Role of Gravity

The CPT properties of the underlying kinematic structure of the existing quantum field theories are thus explicitly seen to have their entire roots in the space-time symmetries and the quantum mechanical phase fields, such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )`$. A natural thesis thus arises: The observed CP violation may carry its origins in some new CP-violating kinematic structure rather than a new interaction.

Having established these results it is now important to note that if gravitational effects of quantum measurements are not neglected then the resulting space-time is necessarily non-commutative, and brings in certain elements of non-locality grf1994 . This happens because the quantum mechanical collapse of a wave function also carries with it an unavoidable collapse of the associated energy-momentum tensor. This brings in an interplay of the gravitational and quantum realms. Therefore, at the Planck scale one expects a space-time that is non-commutative and which uses appropriate deformations of the Poincaré group. Such interplay of the quantum and gravitational realms generically introduce gravitationally-modified wave-particle duality,444In this context I refer the reader not only to the more physically motivated works, such as grf1994 ; pla2000 ; ak ; sdh ; as ; gac ; mm ; ns ; fs ; cls , but also to more formal and important works represented by Refs. jm ; ac ; sm . or equivalently in the context of string-theory suggested modifications in the fundamental uncertainty relations string\_ur . All this endows space-time with new quantum-induced modifications. This would have immediate consequences for the underlying kinematic structure of the theory as regards its CPT properties. This latter result, on the one hand this seems suggested by the intrinsic non-locality and non-commutative geometry imposed by the interplay of the quantum and gravitational realms grf1994 , and on the other by hand (which seems to contain the same physical origin) by more formal studies devoted to investigating non-commutative space-time. Therefore, it is clear that that deformations of the Poincaré symmetries, whether expected on the grounds of the latest data on ultra high-energy cosmic rays, or on the basis of more theoretical grounds, shall have far reaching consequences for the entire structure on which the present theoretical physics is basedcr1 ; cr2 ; cr3 ; cr4 ; cr5 . In this context, it is relevant to note that the instance Poincaré symmetries are deformed one must expect a modification of the principle of equivalence also.

It is important to emphasize that a $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )\pm 1`$ may lead to low energy consequences, such as CP violation, whereas deformations of the Poincaré symmetries and the associated change in the underlying CPT structure of the kinematics shall be responsible for additional effects that would be dominant as we approach the Planck scale.

Acknowledgements

First, my warm thanks to the organizers of this timely meeting in such a pleasant environment, and for inviting me to Metepec. Then, I want to acknowledge that I had three very particular readers in my mind when I started writing this talk. These are Mariana Kirchbach, Yong Liu, and Lewis Ryder. To Mariana I extend my thanks for an on-going discussion and for many many questions, to Lewis I send my thanks for he is the one whose book put me to all this in the first place, and to Yong I thank for being such a good student-teacher. I’m very proud of his work in yong  and for his uncompromised dedication to physics in the ancient traditions of the East. Finally, my zimpoic thanks remain with Christoph Burgard for many many useful discussions on the subject several years ago.