format: text

text:
# String Fluctuations, AdS/CFT and the Soft Pomeron Intercept

## 1 Introduction

The understanding of soft scattering phenomenae in QCD at high energies remains a formidable challenge due to their strongly nonperturbative character. The dominant behaviour at high energies (in the soft regime) is governed by the experimentally observed soft pomeron  giving amplitudes behaving like $`s^{1.08}`$ . The universality of the intercept, its smallness and the precise value remains a mystery.

The recent developments of the AdS/CFT correspondence  (for a review see ) provide an effective set of tools which can be used to study strong coupling physics of gauge theories. In  scattering amplitudes in a confining theory in the strong coupling limit were linked, through an identification with Wilson line/loop correlation functions, with minimal surfaces of the helicoid type in euclidean space. The resulting expressions were then analytically continued to Minkowski signature. The analytical structure of these expressions involved branch cuts which, when taken into account, gave contributions leading to inelastic amplitudes with linear trajectories and unit intercept.

In this paper we would like to address the problem whether quantum corrections might modify the intercept. We will evaluate quadratic fluctuations of the string worldsheet around the classical solution obtained in . We will show that the term responsible for a shift of the intercept arises by analytical continuation from a Lüscher term. This property is very specific to the helicoid minimal surface which appears when calculating Wilson loop/line correlation functions related to scattering amplitudes.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we recall the formalism for calculating scattering amplitudes from the AdS/CFT correspondence used in . In section 3 we recapitulate some general features of the Lüscher term arising from string fluctuations. Then, in section 4, we recall, in a modified way for the present purposes, the saddle point results of  on the helicoid and scattering amplitudes and proceed, in section 5, to calculate the quantum fluctuations around this minimal surface in euclidean space. We then perform analytical continuation to Minkowski signature in order to obtain corrections to the intercept. Finally we give our conclusions and list some remaining open problems.

## 2 Scattering amplitudes

In the eikonal approximation a scattering amplitude between two $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs (resp. between $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$) is expressed as a correlation function of two Wilson loops (resp. lines) which follow the classical straight line trajectories of the scattered particles -:

$$W(C_1)W(C_2)\stackrel{~}{A}(s,L)$$
(1)
where $`s`$ is the energy, $`L`$ is the impact parameter and $`\stackrel{~}{A}(s,L)`$ is related to the momentum space amplitude through

$$\frac{1}{s}A(s,t)=\frac{i}{2\pi }d^2le^{iql}\stackrel{~}{A}(s,L=|l|).$$
(2)
The loops (lines) $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ are closed at infinity in order to ensure gauge invariance. In the case of Wilson lines one has to introduce a finite temporal length $`T`$ which acts as an IR regulator.

The above correlation function may be equivalently evaluated in euclidean space, with the lines (loops) forming an angle $`\theta `$ and then performing the analytical continuation :

$`\theta `$ $``$ $`i\chi i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m^2}},`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`iT.`$ (3)
According to the AdS/CFT correspondence the correlation function is expressed as the partition function of a string stretching between the loops $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ . In the strong coupling limit the saddle point evaluation gives

$$W(C_1)W(C_2)e^{\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}A_{minimal}}$$
(4)
where $`A_{minimal}`$ is the area of the minimal surface spanned between $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. $`\alpha ^{}`$ depends on the gauge coupling as $`\alpha ^{}=1/\sqrt{2g_{YM}^2N}`$ in units of the AdS radius. In a confining theory, when the impact parameter is sufficiently large, the minimal surface is concentrated in the quasi-flat geometry near the horizon. The analysis of the scattering amplitudes in this approximation has been done in . For the case of $`q`$-$`\overline{q}`$ scattering with an IR cut-off $`T`$ the relevant minimal surface is a helicoid of length $`T`$. In a confining theory which we are considering here such a cut-off may arise naturally in a physical manner from e.g. the string breaking mechanism. For $`q\overline{q}`$-$`q\overline{q}`$ scattering the relevant minimal surface is a “tube” formed by a pair of helicoids of length $`T_{int}`$. $`T_{int}`$ is determined by a variational equation and tends to zero $`T_{int}0`$ as $`s\mathrm{}`$ (see ).

In this paper we would like to evaluate quadratic fluctuations around the helicoid which is the basic building block of the relevant scattering amplitudes. As is well known these $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections give factors which are independent of $`\alpha ^{}`$ and hence of the gauge coupling constant (recall that the leading order term (4) behaves like $`1/\alpha ^{}`$).

## 3 The Lüscher term

Before we discuss the case of helicoid let us recall the basic results for a single rectangular Wilson loop of size $`T\times R`$ relevant for the calculation of the static $`q\overline{q}`$ potential. A flat space calculation - gives

$$W(T\times R)=e^{\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}TR}e^{n_{}\frac{\pi }{24}\frac{T}{R}}.$$
(5)
The coulombic correction to the linear confining potential is the Lüscher term . Its main features are independence of the string tension $`\alpha ^{}`$ (related in the AdS/CFT correspondence to the gauge coupling) and a large degree of model independence (universality).

The term $`n_{}`$ appearing in (5) is the effective number of transverse massless bosonic degrees of freedom on the worldsheet. Possible massive fluctuations are exponentially supressed in $`R`$. For a bosonic string in flat $`D`$ dimensions $`n_{}=D2`$. A superstring in flat 10D spacetime has $`n_{}=88=0`$ (since massless bosonic and fermionic fluctuations cancel out).

The problem of the existence of the Lüscher term was reconsidered from the point of view of the AdS/CFT correspondence in -. We will be especially interested in the version dual to a confining theory. In  it was argued that for a specific black hole (BH) background all the fermions become massive due to interactions with the nontrivial RR background and hence do not contribute to the Lüscher term. In addition one of the $`8=102`$ transverse bosonic fluctuations also acquires a mass and $`n_{}`$ is effectively 7. It seems that these arguments are quite generic.

## 4 The helicoid

In a confining BH background, for a sufficiently large impact parameter, the boundary conditions are effectively transported up to the flat geometry near the horizon and it is enough to find the minimal surfaces using a flat metric (see  in this context, and  for a general discussion).

The minimal surface spanned between two lines separated by a distance $`L`$ and inclined at a relative angle $`\theta `$ is a helicoid, which is parameterized by

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^{}\mathrm{cos}p\sigma `$ (6)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^{}\mathrm{sin}p\sigma `$ (7)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma `$ (8)
where $`p=\theta /L`$ and $`\tau ^{}=T/2\mathrm{}T/2`$, $`\sigma =L/2\mathrm{}L/2`$. In fact it turns out to be more convenient to use a different parameterization with $`\tau ^{}`$ replaced by $`\tau `$ through $`\tau ^{}=\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{sinh}p\tau `$. In the $`\tau `$, $`\sigma `$ coordinates on the worldsheet the induced metric $`h_{ab}=_aX^\mu _bX^\mu `$ is conformally flat:

$$h_{ab}=(\mathrm{cosh}^2p\tau )\delta _{ab}.$$
(9)
The inverse relation between $`\tau ^{}`$ and $`\tau `$

$$\tau =\pm \frac{1}{p}\mathrm{log}\left(p\tau ^{}+\sqrt{1+p^2\tau ^2}\right)$$
(10)
defines the new intervals on which the parameters $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are defined, namely $`\sigma =a/2\mathrm{}a/2`$ and $`\tau =b/2\mathrm{}b/2`$ with

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`L`$ (11)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L}{\theta }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta T}{L}}+\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2T^2}{L^2}}}\right).`$ (12)
The classical area of the helicoid, entering formula (4), is now

$$A_{minimal}=𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \mathrm{cosh}^2p\tau =\frac{ab}{2}+\frac{a\mathrm{sinh}(bp)}{2p}.$$
(13)
The area (13) when inserted into (4) gives, according to the AdS/CFT prescription, the correlation function of Wilson lines in euclidean gauge theory (with the IR cut-off set by $`T`$).

### Analytical continuation — saddle point

Following  let us now perfom, staying within gauge theory, the analytical continuation (2) of the area formula (13). Due to the nonperturbative character of the calculation the euclidean correlation function related to (13) is not single valued as can be seen from the presence of the logarithm. When performing the analytical continuation to Minkowski signature we may not a priori rule out the possibility of moving onto a different Riemann sheet. As in  we will analyze the physical consequences of such a possibility. In the following we thus have to keep track of possible branch cut contributions. The sides of the rectangle thus become

$`a=L`$ $``$ $`L`$ (14)
$`b={\displaystyle \frac{2L}{\theta }}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L}{\chi }}(2\pi n+i\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{}))`$ (15)
where $`n`$ is an integer. If we now neglect the $`\mathrm{log}`$ with respect to $`2\pi `$ (which can be done if the helicoid forms a part of the tube corresponding to the scattering of two $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs  or if we assume that some confinement generated IR cut-off for $`q`$-$`\overline{q}`$ scattering is small enough) $`b`$ becomes just $`4\pi L/\chi `$ (or an integer multiple thereof333The $`n`$ of this paper corresponds to $`2n`$ of . The parametrization assumed here singles out even branch cut contributions of . The meaning of this still remains to be understood.). Inserting it back into the area formula (13) we get the classical contribution to the scattering amplitude (4)

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}n\frac{L^2}{\chi }\right\}.$$
(16)
A transformation into momentum space  leads to an amplitude with unit intercept and linear trajectory. A detailed discussion is presented in .

## 5 Quadratic fluctuations

In calculating the quadratic fluctuations we will make the following assumptions about the underlying string theory:

* the string theory is critical, i.e. conformally invariant,
* the bosonic massless fluctuations are described (up to quadratic order) by the Polyakov action

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \sqrt{g}g^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\mu .$$
(17)

We will now expand the action around the classical solution corresponding to the helicoid

$$X^\mu =\overline{x}^\mu +x^\mu .$$
(18)
Since we assumed that the theory is critical, the background value of the metric $`\overline{g}_{ab}`$ can be fixed to be any scalar multiple of the induced metric $`h_{ab}=_a\overline{x}_b\overline{x}`$. It will be convenient to take it to be flat:

$$\overline{g}_{ab}=\delta _{ab}=(\mathrm{cosh}p\tau )^2h_{ab}.$$
(19)
We will perform the calculation in the conformal gauge444A calculation in a modified ‘static’ gauge where two of the coordinates are used to fix diffeomorphism invariance is much more involved and leads to logarithmic divergences proportional to $`\sqrt{h}R^{(2)}(h_{ab})`$ similar to those discussed in , which are difficult to cancel explicitly.

$$g_{ab}=\rho ^2\overline{g}_{ab}=\rho ^2\delta _{ab}.$$
(20)
Gauge fixing leads to the standard Faddeev-Popov determinant

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}=𝒟ϵ_\tau 𝒟ϵ_\sigma \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau _kϵ_i_kϵ_i\right\}$$
(21)
with the boundary conditions for the diffeomorphism ghosts being

$$ϵ_\tau =0_\tau ϵ_\sigma =0$$
(22)
at the boundary $`\tau =\pm b/2`$ and

$$ϵ_\sigma =0_\sigma ϵ_\tau =0$$
(23)
at the boundaries at $`\sigma =\pm a/2`$. The Dirichlet boundary condition comes from the requirement that the diffeomorphisms preserve the boundary, while the Neumann boundary condition is due to fixing the normal direction (see ). We note that the corresponding ghost action and boundary conditions depend only on the background $`\overline{g}_{ab}`$ metric which is flat and hence are exactly the same as for the case of a rectangular $`a\times b`$ Wilson loop. Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}=det\mathrm{\Delta }_1$$
(24)
where the subscript in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ denotes that some boundary conditions are changed from Dirichlet to Neumann according to (22)-(23). This change does not, however, modify the determinant.

We will now consider the contributions of the bosonic fields $`X^\mu `$. In general, the boundary conditions on $`X^\mu `$ are Dirichlet up to a diffeomorphism acting on the boundary (see a discussion in ). The Polyakov action expanded to quadratic order gives

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \left(_a\overline{x}^\mu _a\overline{x}^\mu +2_a\overline{x}^\mu _ax^\mu +_ax^\mu _ax^\mu \right).$$
(25)
As we have already fixed the diffeomorphism symmetry we may impose true Dirichlet boundary conditions on all the fields . The first term gives just the area (13), the second term then can be seen to vanish, while the path integral over the $`x^\mu `$ gives

$$(det\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{D}{2}}.$$
(26)
To this we have to add the FP determinant. For a rectangle with the flat metric $`\delta _{ab}`$ on the worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}`$ just cancels two bosonic modes and one finally gets

$$(det\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{D2}{2}}.$$
(27)
Using $`\zeta `$-function regularization this gives

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{D2}{2}\zeta _{rec}^{}(0)\right\}$$
(28)
where $`\zeta _{rec}^{}(0)`$ is given by the expression (see e.g. )

$$\zeta _{rec}^{}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(2b)+\frac{\pi }{12}\frac{a}{b}+2\sqrt{\frac{a}{b}}\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{m}}K_{1/2}\left(2\pi mn\frac{a}{b}\right).$$
(29)
In the limit $`ab`$, the second term is dominant and for the standard rectangular Wilson loop gives directly the Lüscher coulombic potential. Indeed denoting $`n_{}=D2`$ the dominant expression is

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{n_{}\frac{\pi }{24}\frac{a}{b}\right\}$$
(30)
with $`a`$, $`b`$ given by (11) and (12) respectively.

### Analytical continuation — fluctuations

We will now perform the analytical continuation (2) of the fluctuation determinants (28), (30). With the same assumptions as in section 4 we have after continuation $`a=L`$ and $`b=4\pi L/\chi `$ (here we set the integer $`n=1`$). For high energies $`ab`$ and the dominant term in (29) will be just the ‘coulombic’ Lüscher term which gives for each massless bosonic degree of freedom

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi }{12}\frac{a}{b}=\frac{\pi }{24}\frac{\chi }{4\pi }=\frac{1}{96}\mathrm{log}s.$$
(31)
Therefore the shift of the intercept is given by

$$s^{n_{}\frac{1}{96}}.$$
(32)
Since the superstring moves in 10 dimensions, the generic number of bosonic fluctuations is $`n_{}=102=8`$ which would correspond to $`s^{8/96}=s^{0.08333}`$. The arguments of  suggest that one of the bosonic modes becomes massive leading to $`s^{7/96}=s^{0.0729}`$. The contribution of the massive bosonic and fermionic modes will not be studied in this paper, but they should not give rise to the ‘coulombic’ $`a/b`$ terms responsible for the shift of the intercept.

## 6 Discussion

In this paper we have studied corrections coming from fluctuations of the string worldsheet to the scattering amplitudes obtained within the AdS/CFT correspondence in . The saddle point results of  were obtained by evaluating correlation functions of Wilson lines/loops in euclidean space as a function of the relative angle $`\theta `$ and performing analytical continuation to Minkowski space. The possibility of analytic continuation to a different Riemann sheet manifested itself in an inelastic amplitude with a linear trajectory.

Here we concentrated on calculating the contribution of massless bosonic modes of fluctuations around a helicoid and performed the same analytical continuation, with the same choice of branch as in the saddle point. The final result for a helicoid555Setting the integer $`n=1`$. is

$$(prefactors)s^{1+n_{}\frac{1}{96}+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}t}$$
(33)
where the $`(prefactors)`$ can contain logarithms and weaker dependence on $`s`$ (here we just concentrated on the dominant terms giving a correction to the intercept). The intercept comes out to be $`1.073`$ for $`n_{}=7`$ (favoured by AdS/CFT correspondence ) and $`1.083`$ for $`n_{}=102=8`$. In the above it was assumed that the helicoid was ‘short’, i.e. that the logarithm in (15) could be neglected with respect to $`2\pi `$.

It is encouraging but indeed quite surprising that the result of the analytical continuation for the ‘short’ helicoid is so close to the observed value of the soft pomeron intercept $`s^{1.08}`$ .

The main result of this paper is the fact that a shift of the intercept may appear in a natural way from analytical continuation of the euclidean correlation function. This term comes directly from a Lüscher like term generated by string fluctuations and shares with it independence of the coupling constant through $`\alpha ^{}`$ 666It is possible, in the AdS/CFT correspondence, that some coupling constant dependence may be reintroduced through a modification of the massless character of fluctuations of the string worldsheet. This is, however, beyond the scope of this paper. . Moreover the numerical value (for the ‘short’ helicoid) is quite small and seems to be of the correct order of magnitude.

The above results suggest that the ‘short’ helicoid geometry may be relevant for the description of the soft pomeron, however one has to keep in mind the possibility that other geometries may be more appropriate (like the ’tube’ geometry for $`q\overline{q}`$ pair scattering) which may have similar (but quantitatively different) fluctuation properties, thus pointing towards a different ‘effective’ number of degrees of freedom $`n_{}`$. Also, some ambiguities concerning the choice of a physically motivated branch remain to be clarified .

Finally let us note that the string worldsheet which we considered in this paper corresponding to a helicoid with a finite temporal cut-off is quite far off from the standard picture of scattering of asymptotic on-shell open string states. This might be the reason for the possibility of deviation from the canonical open string intercept of 1. Also the string calculation was done purely in euclidean space (i.e. not in a direct scattering context). The shift of the intercept arose when making the Wick rotation within gauge theory and performing an analytical continuation to a different Riemann sheet.

A number of open questions remain. Firstly, as emphasized above, a careful analysis of fluctuations around the ‘tube’ geometry relevant for scattering of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs remains to be done . It is exactly this case which is physically much better defined, IR finite, and would be expected to correspond to the soft pomeron rather than the single helicoid. Therefore a lot of caution has to be maintained in interpreting (33). In addition possible terms with weaker energy behaviour have not been determined so far.

Secondly it would be interesting to reproduce the above results in a ‘static’ gauge calculation and investigate in more detail the subleading contributions of GS fermions and massive modes.

A more in depth understanding of the meaning of the branch cut structure of the Wilson line/loop correlation functions would also be very interesting. It is tempting to speculate that some features of this structure may be more universal and stable with respect to deformations or modifications of the minimal surfaces.

#### Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Robi Peschanski for numerous discussions and comments. This research was partially supported by KBN grants 2P03B08614 and 2P03B00814.


text:
# Solution of the Faddeev-Yakubovsky equations using realistic NN and 3N interactions

## 1 Introduction

In recent years it has become possible to solve rigorously the 4N Faddeev-Yakubovsky equations in momentum space . Using parallel computers one can achieve converged solutions for realistic nuclear Hamiltonians. There are several realistic interactions available which can describe the nuclear two-body problem with a very high accuracy. These are the potentials of the Nijmegen group Nijm I, II and 93 , the CD-Bonn  and the AV18 interaction . All these interactions account for charge independence breaking (CIB). The CD-Bonn and AV18 additionally distinguish pp and nn forces. It is well known that nonrelativistic calculations based on these potentials lead to an underbinding of 500-800 keV in the 3N system. Two additional dynamical ingredients should cure this underbinding: relativistic corrections and three-nucleon forces (3NF). In this contribution we would like to address the question whether 3NF’s can solve the underbinding problem in both the 3N and 4N system and investigate the dependence of binding energies and wave functions on the NN and 3N force model.

## 2 Binding energies

In Table 1 we compare our theoretical predictions for various nuclear potentials to the experimental binding energies. The results depend on the NN force model, but the experimental binding energy of the triton is always underpredicted by 500-800 keV for all nuclear potentials. The weakest binding is predicted by the three local potentials AV18, Nijm 93 and Nijm II, whereas the strongly non local CD-Bonn gives $`300`$ keV more binding. The non local potentials are less repulsive for small distances and their short range correlations are softer. This is visible in their smaller kinetic energy predictions . A linear correlation found in  for simple forces holds also in case of the modern realistic forces including charge independence and symmetry breaking .

The inclusion of 3NF’s cannot result in parameter free predictions for the 3N and 4N system because all realistic potentials are not accompanied by theoretically founded 3NF’s based on the same fundamental dynamical assumptions. Therefore we use the Tucson-Melbourne(TM) 2$`\pi `$ 3NF  and adjust the cutoff parameter in the NN$`\pi `$ form factors individually for each NN interaction insuring that the resulting 3N Hamiltonians reproduce the experimental triton binding energy. The Nijmegen forces do not specify a neutron-neutron force. In this case we used 3He for the adjustment. The resulting cutoff values are given in Table 2 . In  a modified version of the TM force was suggested which at least does not violate chiral symmetry. We call it TM’ and adjusted it to the AV18 force in the same manner. Additionally, we included the Urbana-IX 3N interaction .

As shown in Table 2 all force combinations overpredict the $`\alpha `$-particle binding energy. However the overbinding is rather small. This indicates that the contribution of 4N forces is small in the $`\alpha `$-particle. Of course, on this phenomenological level the addition of more structures to the 3NF (for example the $`\pi \rho `$ exchange) might change this situation.

## 3 Wave function properties

In this section we address the question whether 3NF’s have got any effects on the wave functions. Because the effects in the 3N and 4N systems are very similar and are more pronounced in the 4N system, we restrict ourselves to the $`\alpha `$-particle.

It is well known that 3NF’s are not treatable by perturbation theory . Therefore the inclusion of 3NF’s change the wave function. Surprisingly for us we found no significant differences in the nuclear momentum distributions and NN correlations comparing wave functions generated with and without 3NF. This holds for all force combinations we used.

To reveal the differences in the wave functions, we calculated expectation values of the 3NF operators. In Table 3 we compare the expectation values of the different 3NF’s obtained with wave functions which we generated using the AV18, AV18+TM, AV18+TM’ and AV18+Urbana IX interactions. The results of the wave function generated from the AV18 NN interaction alone are generally much smaller in magnitude than the values obtained from the “full” wave functions. Clearly the expectation values differ from the gain in binding energy one obtains with 3NF’s (see Table 1 and 2). Therefore the 3NF operators are sensitive to the differences in the wave functions.

In the next step we restrict the wave functions to their S,P and D-wave components and calculate the transition matrix elements of the Urbana IX and TM 3NF. The most important matrix elements are summarized in Table 4. The contribution of the different partial waves is very 3NF dependent. Whereas the repulsive part of the Urbana interaction is visible in the diagonal matrix elements, the TM force is strongly attractive in the S-S matrix element. The usage of the wave function generated with TM increases the attraction in the S-S and S-P transition. Most of the attraction in the Urbana force is generated by the S-D transition. In contrast these particular partial waves are extremely wave function dependent for the TM force. The results indicate that though the binding energies are similar both 3NF operators act very differently on the wave functions of the $`\alpha `$-particle.

## 4 Conclusions

We presented 3N and 4N binding energies using the most modern nuclear interactions. We showed that the underbinding of few-nucleon bound states, which is predicted by purely two-nucleon interactions, is solved adding a 3NF. This holds for all combinations of 3NF and NN interaction and indicates that 4N forces, at least in the $`\alpha `$-particle, are small. A look to NN correlations in the wave functions generated from different nuclear Hamiltonians reveals that all investigated 3NF’s do not change the short range correlations in the 3N and 4N system. Because we found at the same time that the expectation values of different 3N interactions are strongly dependent on the used wave function, we conclude that these wave functions have got very different 3N correlations. The next task of our study is to pin down these differences and visualize them. This might help to clarify the effects of 3NF’s in the 3N and 4N system.

This work was supported financially by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (A.N. and H.K.). The numerical calculations were performed on the Cray T3E of the NIC in Jülich.


text:
# Phase-coherent frequency measurement of the Ca intercombination line at 657 nm with a Kerr-lens mode-locked femtosecond laser

## Abstract

The frequency of the Calcium 3P11S0 intercombination line at 657 nm is phase–coherently measured in terms of the output of a primary cesium frequency standard using an optical frequency comb generator comprising a sub–10 fs Kerr-lens mode-locked Ti:Sapphire laser and an external microstructure fiber for self–phase–modulation. The measured frequency of $`\nu _{Ca}`$ = 455 986 240 494 276 Hz agrees within its relative uncertainty of $`4\times 10^{13}`$ with the values previously measured with a conceptually different harmonic frequency chain and with the value recommended for the realization of the SI unit of length.

So far, the use of optical frequency standards for the realization of basic units, e. g. of time and length, was hampered by the difficulties of measuring their high frequencies. As a result, the most precise frequency values recommended by the Comité International des Poids et Measures (CIPM) are based on very few frequency measurements . Recent progress in femtosecond pulse generation and the advent of microstructure optical fibers , however, have substantially facilitated such optical frequency measurements. These schemes  start with the highly periodic pulse train of a Kerr–lens mode–locked laser which corresponds in the to a comb–like frequency spectrum of equidistant lines. The spectral span of this comb reflects the duration of an individual pulse while the spacing between the lines is determined by the pulse repetition frequency. It has been shown, that the fast, spectrally far–reaching Kerr–lens mode–locking mechanism enforces a tight coupling  of the optical phases of the individual lines. As a result, the frequency of any of these lines is given by an integer multiple of the pulse repetition frequency $`f_{rep}`$ and a frequency $`\nu _{ceo}`$  which accounts for the offset of the entire comb with respect to the frequency origin. If these quantities are known, the unknown frequency of any external optical signal can be precisely determined by counting the frequency of the beat–note between this signal and a suitable comb line. In this Letter, we report the first application of this method to phase–coherent measurements of the frequency of an optical Ca frequency standard operating on the 1S03P1 intercombination transition at 657 nm.

The frequency of this state–of–the–art standard has already been measured with a conventional harmonic frequency chain , and the frequency value of $`\nu _{Ca}`$ = 455 986 240 494 150 Hz has been recommended by the CIPM for the ’Practical realization of the definition of the metre (1997)’  with a relative standard uncertainty of $`6\times 10^{13}`$. The present experiments allow for the first time the comparison of two conceptually different phase–coherent optical frequency measurements, the conventional type operating in absolute–frequency domain and the novel type operating in difference–frequency domain. This comparison is performed without the need for intermediate transportable standards.

Two of the three required measurements mentioned above, the pulse repetition rate $`f_{rep}`$ and the multiple integer factor, are straightforward to carry out. The measurement of the carrier–envelope offset frequency $`\nu _{ceo}`$, which arises from the relative velocity of the carrier phase and the pulse envelope, is a more demanding task. Several more or less complex schemes, depending on the comb span available, have been proposed for the measurement of $`\nu _{ceo}`$ . The simplest concept requires an octave span of the frequency comb which is not directly available from our laser. Thus, the available span has to be expanded, e. g. by external self–phase–modulation (SPM). Microstructure air–silica fibers, which allow for tailoring the group velocity dispersion (GVD) properties  are highly suited for SPM of moderate peak power pulses available from mode–locked laser oscillators since they provide both lateral and temporal confinement of the pulses over long interaction lengths. If the octave span is achieved, then the $`\nu _{ceo}`$ measurement can be accomplished by second–harmonic generation (SHG) of the spectral lines in the low–frequency wing of the comb. Whereas the of the comb lines are shifted by $`\nu _{ceo}`$ with respect to the origin, their harmonics are shifted by $`2\nu _{ceo}`$. Thus, the beat notes between these harmonics and the corresponding high–frequency–wing lines of the comb show the desired component at $`\nu _{ceo}`$.

As depicted in Fig. 1, our measurement set–up consists of four parts: the frequency comb generator (i), detectors and electronics for servo control and/or data acquisition of the pulse repetition frequency (ii), of the beat note between the laser and Ca–standard radiation (iii) and of the carrier–envelope–offset frequency (iv).

i) The Kerr-lens mode-locked (KLM) Ti:Sapphire laser is similar to that described in . The laser generates pulses with a duration of $``$ 10 fs, a repetition rate $`f_{rep}`$ = 100 MHz, an average power of 120 mW and a spectrum centered at 790 nm. The group velocity dispersion (GVD) of its cavity is controlled by double–chirped mirrors and an intracavity fused silica prism pair. A similar external prism pair (not shown in Fig. 1) is used for pulse recompression. Approximately 30 mW of the laser output is coupled into a 10 cm long piece of microstructure fiber with a core diameter of 1.7 $`\mu `$m and a zero–GVD wavelength of 780 nm . The output spectrum of the fiber was measured to cover the range from 520 nm to 1100 nm, while the comb structure with distinct lines spaced by 100 MHz is expected to be preserved even in the extreme wings of the SPM–broadened spectrum. This was confirmed by measurement of the fringe–visibility (after appropriate optical filtering) at the output of a two beam interferometer with 100 MHz fringe spacing yielding a 100 % visibility throughout the entire comb.
ii) The repetition frequency of the laser was detected with a fast Si PIN photo diode yielding a 100 MHz signal with a S/N–ratio of 140 dB (BW = 1 Hz). It was phase–locked to the 100 MHz output signal of a hydrogen maser which was controlled by the PTB primary Cs standards. The actuator of this servo loop is a double piezo device (PZT1A and B) which tilts the output coupler where the spectral components are laterally displaced by the intra–cavity double prism GVD compensator. Tilting of the output coupler predominantally modifies the resonator round–trip group delay  which, in turn, determines $`f_{rep}`$.
iii) The frequency $`f_{Ca}`$ of the beat note between the radiation from the Ca–standard (at optical frequency $`\nu _{Ca}`$) and the nearest comb mode was both measured and long–term stabilized. For this purpose, the output of the Ca standard was combined with the emission from the output of the microstructure fiber, which was filtered by an interference filter. The beat note was detected by a Si PIN photo diode. Its output signal with a typical S/N–ratio of 30 dB (BW = 100 kHz) was filtered by a phase–lock–loop tracking oscillator (PLL) and subsequently counted by a totalizing counter. The beat signal frequency was kept within the hold–in range of the PLL by an additional servo loop controlling the length of the Ti:Sapphire–laser resonator with the help of a piezo transducer (PZT2). The error signal of this slow loop was generated by a frequency–to–voltage–converter (FVC) which monitored the output frequency of the PLL. Unwanted cross–talk between the $`f_{rep}`$ and $`f_{Ca}`$ servo loops was minimized by adjustment of the lever point of the $`f_{rep}`$–tilting actuator to the lateral position of the red comb components at 657 nm. This was accomplished by choosing appropriate gain values (of opposite sign) for the piezo transducers PZT1A and B.
iv) The frequency $`\nu _{ceo}`$ was measured, as mentioned above, by external self–phase modulation in the microstructure fiber and subsequent second–harmonic generation in a nonlinear optical crystal. The infrared portion of the fiber output around 1070 nm was frequency doubled with a non–critically phase–matched, 10 mm long LiB3O5 (LBO) crystal, which was heated to about 140 C in order to fulfill the type-I phase–matching condition for this wavelength. The beat note between the resulting green SHG signal and the green output of the fiber was detected by a photo multiplier (PM) after spectral and spatial filtering both fields with a single mode fiber and a 600 l/mm grating, respectively. The PM output signal with a S/N ratio of up to 40 dB(BW = 100 kHz) was filtered with a second tracking oscillator and counted by a second totalizing counter. Both counters were synchronously gated by the same 1 Hz clock signal derived from the 100 MHz hydrogen maser signal.

The optical Ca frequency standard has been described elsewhere , and only the relevant details shall be given here. This standard is operated in a different building and is linked to the Ti:Sapphire laser by a 150 m long polarization–preserving single–mode fiber. Two independent systems are available, producing clouds of between $`10^6`$ and $`10^7`$ ballistic Ca atoms which are released from magneto–optical traps (MOT 1 and MOT 2). Each trap is loaded for 15 ms. Then the trapping lasers at 423 nm and the magnetic quadrupole fields are switched off, and a homogeneous magnetic field of 0.23 mT is switched on for spectral separation of the Zeeman components. At the same time the cloud starts to expand and to fall down due to its thermal velocity ($`T`$ 3 mK) and gravity, respectively. After a settling time for the magnetic field of 0.2 ms the atoms are interrogated by pulses from a frequency–stabilized dye laser. For the frequency measurements MOT 1 was employed, in which the low velocity atoms are directly captured from a thermal beam by three mutually perpendicular counterpropagating beams with two different frequencies. The atoms were excited in a time–domain analogue of the optical Ramsey excitation by two pulses separated by 216.4 $`\mu `$s followed by two pulses with the same separation from a counterpropagating beam . The frequency of the interrogating laser field was stabilized to the central fringe (FWHM of the fringes 1.16 kHz) of the interference structure that occurs when the fluorescence of the excited atoms is measured as function of the laser frequency. The uncertainty of the frequency of the Ca optical frequency standard during both measurement series was estimated to 53 Hz. A more detailed uncertainty budget is given in . Several tests have been performed to check the validity of this estimate. By reversing the temporal order of the excitation pulses a shift of a few Hertz was determined. The frequency of the laser stabilized to atoms of MOT 1 was compared with its frequency when stabilized to a second MOT 2. Here, the atoms of an effusive beam are decelerated in a Zeeman slower and these slow atoms are deflected and directed towards the magneto–optical trap . The frequency difference measured when the laser was stabilized alternatively to atoms from MOT 1 and MOT 2 by three pulses of a standing wave was $`12\pm 15`$ Hz. An additional laser field at 672 nm was used in MOT 1 to repump the atoms which are lost via the 1D2 state . The magnetic field of 0.23 mT caused a second order Zeeman shift of the Ca frequency of +3.1 Hz.

Two measurement series were carried out on different days with a total measurement time of 3000 and 4200 s, respectively. On these days the frequency deviation of the hydrogen maser and the Cs clock resulted in deviations of the measured Ca frequency of +26 Hz and 24 Hz, respectively. The deviations of the corrected measured mean values from the CIPM–recommended value of $`\nu _{Ca(CIPM)}`$ = 455 986 240 494 150 Hz are listed in Tab. 1 together with the corresponding relative 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties, which comprise the estimated relative frequency uncertainties of the standards and those of the frequency measurements. The values of the previous measurement  using the harmonic frequency chain and the CIPM values  are shown for comparison.

Fig. 2 shows the Allan standard deviation of the data of series B together with the corresponding frequency instabilities of the Ca standard  and those of the hydrogen maser . The inset of Fig. 2 shows a histogram of the data of series B (1 s averages) with respect to the CIPM–recommended frequency. The center frequency of the fitted Gaussian of $`\nu _{Ca(CIPM)}`$ \+ 46 Hz agrees within the uncertainty with the mean value of series B. The instability of the frequency measurement process is about one order of magnitude larger than the frequency instability of the Ca standard and of the hydrogen maser. So far, the measurements are still limited by the non–optimum detection of the frequency fluctuations of the Ti:Sapphire laser. Substantial improvement of the measurement process can be expected if the instantaneous residual phase error between $`f_{rep}`$ and the hydrogen maser reference signal is simultaneously measured, i.e. at a high harmonic of $`f_{rep}`$.

To conclude, the frequency of an optical frequency standard based on the Calcium 3P11S0 intercombination transition at 657 nm has been measured in terms of the output of a primary cesium frequency standard using a novel type of optical frequency chain. Accurate frequency measurements of this optical standard are of particular importance since it represents one of the realizations of the unit of length with lowest uncertainty. Furthermore, the optical frequency of the Ca standard is used as a reference for highly accurate frequency measurements of other optical or ultraviolet transitions . The frequency value presented in this Letter agrees within its relative uncertainty with the CIPM–recommended value, which is based on a measurement with a harmonic frequency chain. The agreement justifies the confidence in the data obtained from both measurement schemes. The advantages of the novel scheme employed here, such as the substantially reduced complexity and the accurately known, dense grid of reference frequencies throughout the visible and near infrared range, allows a variety of new applications including the realization of optical clocks or ultra–precise measurements in fundamental physics.

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through SFB 407, experimental assistance by B. Lipphardt and H. Schnatz, and help for the set–up of the Ti:Sapphire laser by G. Steinmeyer and U. Keller.


text:
# On the Local Separation of 𝐸 and 𝐵 Polarization Patterns in CMBR

## 1 Introduction

Anisotropy of the CMBR is linearly polarized(Rees, 1968; Bond and Efstathiou, 1984; Polnarev, 1985). The linear polarization was produced by the Thomson scattering of the local temperature quadrupole anisotropy off the uniform background electrons at the last scattering surface, where the optical depth was about $`1/2`$. The angular pattern of the CMBR linear polarization therefore contains the imprints of the temperature anisotropy. However, unlike the temperature anisotropy, which is a scalar, the polarization is a tensor. The angular pattern of tensor fluctuations can generally be decomposed into an electric-type pattern ($`E`$-mode) and a magnetic-type pattern ($`B`$-mode), according to their distinct global parity symmetries(Kamionkowsky et al., 1997; Zaldarriaga and Seljek, 1997).

Despite a handful of past works that have been devoted to the detailed analyses of CMBR polarization for the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes in the Fourier space(Kamionkowsky et al., 1997; Zaldarriaga and Seljek, 1997; Hu and White 1997a, ; Hu and White 1997b, ), few of them gave clear descriptions of what these unfamiliar $`E`$ and $`B`$ polarization patterns really are in the real space. These works followed the standard paradigm that the initial fluctuations are Gaussian with no feature, and hence the polarization Fourier spectra were the sole relevant quantities of investigations. Hu and White (1997b) gave, by far, the most intuitive picture of what these two types of polarization patterns are on the large scale, but their work on the subject of how the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes may be separated is still confined to the power-spectrum method and still under the assumption of Gaussian fluctuations.

In the coming dedicated experiments for CMBR polarization (Staggs et al., 1999; Lo et al., 2000), deep maps of finite patches of local sky are to be constructed. Though the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes have conventionally be defined in the spin harmonics space(Goldberg et al., 1967) or the Fourier space, it is in fact not desirable to analyze a map of finite sky coverage in such a space. This is because, unlike the global map, the local map does not satisfy the periodic boundary condition and the image has to be distorted in order for the Fourier transformation to be carried out, thereby making the detection of the predicted small $`B`$ mode to be unreliable. Merely for this reason, it has already had the real need to call for the real-space analysis of the CMBR polarization maps.

The real-space analysis also has the advantage of detecting localized non-Gaussian features, which may lead to discovery of the cosmic objects not predicted by the standard inflationary cosmology, such as the cosmic strings (Seljek et al., 1997). Even in the framework of the standard cold-dark-matter paradigm, where the CMBR polarization is produced almost instantaneously at the last scattering surface, the polarized sky should contain a clean signature of the coherent patches of Hubble spheres at the epoch of photon-electron decoupling. This expectation is signified by the large-amplitude oscillation of a well-defined period in the polarization power spectrum. The real-space analysis can thus be potentially better methodology than the Fourier (l) space analysis to capture a large fraction of the total power within the $`l`$-space oscillation by using some properly tailored real-space filter functions, a subject that will be addressed in the last section.

Despite these advantages, the direct means for measuring the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes in the real-space maps has not been available. It is in this context that the CMBR polarization in the real space is addressed in this report. To begin, I shall briefly review the CMBR polarization, followed by a more rigorous description of the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes in the real space. After that, a direct means for disentangling these two modes is proposed.

## 2 Spatial Symmetry

Unlike the brightness, which is a scalar, the linear polarization cannot distribute itself uniformly on the celestial sphere, due to the curvature of a sphere. In other words, one can never arrange line segments to be uniformly distributed on a spherical surface. This statement echoes the more familiar notation that never can two families of lines lay out a globally uniform coordinate on a spherical surface; the best one can do is the longitude-latitude coordinate, which has quadrupole inhomogeneity. For vector fields, the highest spatial symmetry has a dipole pattern, and for the polarization, a tensor field, the highest symmetry has a quadrupole pattern. Therefore the CMBR linear polarization must be angular dependent and must be a field with angular patterns, at scales smaller than or equal to the quadrupole, on the sky.

Though the instantaneous electric field is indeed a vector, the measured electric field of a polarized light is not a vector, since the measured electric field can be in either direction, a ”bi-vector”. With an 180-degree rotation of the ”bi-vector”, the polarization can recover itself but a true vector can not. Such a peculiar bi-vector can be constructed from a second-rank polarization tensor, as shown below. Similar to a two-dimensional vector, the polarization tensor can also be described by two parameters — the magnitude and orientation of the bi-vector. To distinguish a vector $`𝐕`$ from a polarization tensor $`𝐏`$, the former is usually expressed as a two-component array, or $`𝐕=V_x\widehat{x}+V_y\widehat{y}`$, and the latter as a traceless $`2\times 2`$ matrix, or $`𝐏=P_x\sigma _1+P_y\sigma _2`$, where $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are respectively the $`z`$ and $`x`$ components of the Pauli matrices. (Assume the line of sight to be along the $`z`$ direction.) The components $`P_x`$ and $`P_y`$ are the Stokes parameters, $`Q`$ and $`U`$, respectively, and the ratio $`U/Q`$ is related to the orientation of polarization. The angle between the polarized electric field and the $`x`$ axis is $`\theta =(1/2)\mathrm{tan}^1(U/Q)`$, which is bi-directional and has an $`180`$-degree directional ambiguity, and $`(Q^2+U^2)^{1/4}`$ is the amplitude of the polarized electric field.

As the polarization field $`𝐏(z,x)`$ must have spatial patterns on the sky, much like the more familiar vector field, the polarization field can be decomposed into two coordinate-independent components of different topologies. For the small-scale angular pattern, one may adopt the sky-flat approximation. The two topologically distinct components of a two-dimensional vector field are the curl-free $`\varphi (x,y)`$ and divergence-free $`\times (\psi (x,y)\widehat{z})`$ vector fields. However, the decomposition for the polarization field is not obvious, and it needs to be guided by some principles of spatial symmetry.

We shall first examine the familiar vector field in an attempt to extracting some guiding principles. Consider first the parity symmetry. The spatial inversion $`(x,y)(x,y)`$ yields $`\varphi \varphi `$ and $`\times (\psi \widehat{z})\times (\psi \widehat{z})`$, and hence such an operation can not distinguish the two components. In fact, the visual distinction of a diverging pattern from a swirling pattern arises from partial spatial inversion, $`xx`$ or $`yy`$. The $`x`$ and $`y`$ components of a diverging vector field transform in accordance with how the two coordinates change, but those of a swirling vector field transform just oppositely; that is, flipping the sign of the $`x`$ coordinate changes only the sign of the $`y`$ component of the swirling vector and flipping the sign of the $`y`$ coordinate changes only the sign of the $`x`$ component. The partial space symmetry clearly shows the difference of a two-dimensional vector (the gradient) from a two-dimensional pseudo-vector (the curl).

A traceless second-rank tensor can be regarded as a bilinear combination of two vectors, and hence it is possible to construct a vector from a tensor, where the constructed vector contains the topological features of the original tensor. To see how this is possible, we now consider the polarization tensor specifically.

## 3 Topological Characteristics in the Polarization Tensor Field

Let the measured electric field be

$$E_i(𝐱)E_j(𝐱)=I_0(𝐱)\delta _{ij}+Q(𝐱)\sigma _1+U(𝐱)\sigma _2,$$
(1)
where $`I_0`$ describes the anisotropy intensity and the traceless polarization tensor $`𝐏`$ is described by the last two terms on the right. We may also express the measured electric field equally well as

$$E_i(𝐱)E_j(𝐱)=I_0^{}(𝐱)\delta _{ij}+2p_i(𝐱)p_j(𝐱),$$
(2)
where $`𝐩(𝐱)`$ is a two-dimensional vector field. Similar to Eq.(1), $`E_iE_j`$ in Eq.(2) is also characterized by three independent parameters for a general $`2\times 2`$ symmetric real tensor, i.e., the unpolarized intensity $`I_0^{}=I_0(p_x^2+p_y^2)`$, and the linearly polarized components $`Q=p_x^2p_y^2`$ and $`U=2p_xp_y`$.

Though such a decomposition of a tensor field $`𝐏`$ into a bilinear combination of a vector $`𝐩`$ is legitimate, $`𝐩`$ is not unique since $`𝐩`$ can be an equally good choice, and this reflects the bi-directional nature of the polarization of $`𝐩`$. It is therefore of crucial importance to determine whether the polarization tensor $`𝐏`$ is the primary field which can mathematically be decomposed into the outer product of two vectors, or the vector field $`𝐩`$ is the primary field which, with a bilinear combination, can form a second-rank tensor. For the latter, the vector $`𝐩`$ and the tensor $`𝐏`$ are both well-defined, but for the former, $`𝐩`$ is an ambiguous bi-vector. In the CMBR, it is generally believed that the polarization tensor, i.e., the Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$, is the primary field produced by the temperature quadrupole anisotropy. That is, the bi-vector $`𝐩`$ is secondary, constructed from the primary tensor $`𝐏`$. Whether the $`𝐩`$ field is secondary or not can in fact be tested by examining whether there exist singularities in $`𝐩`$(Naselsky and Novikov, 1998). This is because the primary tensor field $`𝐏`$ vanishes locally most likely in a linear manner, i.e., non-vanishing first derivatives at the nulls; it therefore demands $`𝐩`$ to vanish non-analytically due to the bilinear combination of $`𝐩`$, thus resulting in the branch points in $`𝐩`$.

With this understanding of the CMB polarization field $`𝐏`$, it becomes clear that using the vector $`𝐩`$ to describe $`𝐏`$, as written in Eq.(2), can not be appropriate, and it calls for a suitable representation of the second-rank $`𝐏`$ tensor field. To avoid any singularity, this representation should be linear with $`𝐏`$, and the only possibility to construct a tensor via linear operations is through the spatial derivatives that act as vectors. One may construct such a second-rank tensor either by two spatial derivatives acting on a scalar field, or by one spatial derivative acting on a vector field. In two-dimensions, a vector field can always be represented by one spatial derivative on the scalar fields as shown above, and the two constructions are therefore equivalent. From now on, we adopt the former. The most general representation of a traceless tensor field of this kind in a flat two-dimensional space can be written as:

$$𝐏(x,y)=[(\widehat{z}\times )(\widehat{z}\times )]f(x,y)+[(\widehat{z}\times )+(\widehat{z}\times )]g(x,y).$$
(3)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two independent scalar-field components. Much like the two independent topological patterns in a vector field, these two components in the tensor field $`𝐏`$ also have their own topological characteristics; the former is called the $`E`$ mode and the latter the $`B`$ mode. The different spatial partial symmetries are revealed in the difference in $``$ and $`\widehat{z}\times `$. Having this expression of $`𝐏`$, it becomes possible to construct a two-dimensional vector from the tensor $`𝐏`$ by contracting it with a vector differential operator, either with a divergence operator, a curl operator or a combination of both. However, not all vector differential operators are able to capture the topological features of the tensor; only a unique choice of vector differential operator is.

A convenient and concise way to reveal such a choice of vector differential operator is in the complex representation, where

$$𝐏(x,y)=Q(x,y)+iU(x,y)=\frac{^2}{\overline{z}^2}[f(x,y)+ig(x,y)],$$
(4)
with $`zx+iy`$ and $`\overline{z}xiy`$. This representation agrees with the $`E`$ (associated with $`f`$) and $`B`$ (associated with $`g`$) modes defined above and those defined in the Fourier space (White et al., 1999). It also shows clearly how $`/\overline{z}`$ may act onto $`𝐏`$ to form a vector field $`𝐕`$:

$$𝐕\frac{}{z}𝐏=\frac{}{\overline{z}}[^2(f+ig)]=(\frac{Q}{x}+\frac{U}{y})+i(\frac{U}{x}\frac{Q}{y}),$$
(5)
where $`^2/z\overline{z}=^2`$ has been used and the last equality is given by the definition $`𝐏Q+iU`$. The first equality shows clearly that when $`g=0`$, the resulting $`𝐕`$ is a diverging vector, and when $`f=0`$, $`𝐕`$ a swirling vector. Thus, the two topologically different characteristics of a vector field is also contained in the polarization tensor field through the components of $`f`$ and $`g`$.

## 4 Separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$ Modes

In conventional vector notation, Eq.(5) is re-written as

$$𝐕(x,y)=\widehat{x}(\frac{Q(x,y)}{x}+\frac{U(x,y)}{y})+\widehat{y}(\frac{U(x,y)}{x}\frac{Q(x,y)}{y})=\varphi (x,y)+\widehat{z}\times \psi (x,y),$$
(6)
where $`\varphi ^2f`$ and $`\psi ^2g`$. The real-space separation of the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes may be conducted by employing suitable closed-loop integrations. Namely, using the Stokes theorem for a closed-line integral,

$$\widehat{z}𝐕(x,y)\times 𝑑𝐥=^2\varphi (x,y)d^2S,$$
(7)
it projects the $`E`$-mode ”charge” (or $`^2\varphi `$) averaged over a top-hat filter enclosed by the loop. On the other hand, the closed-line integral

$$𝐕(x,y)𝑑𝐥=^2\psi (x,y)d^2S$$
(8)
projects the top-hat-filter averaged $`B`$-mode ”current” (or $`^2\psi `$). The variances of the top-hat-filter averaged ”charge” and ”current” for various filter sizes can serve as alternative representations in place of the power spectra of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes. This representation has an advantage over the Fourier spectral representation and will be discussed in the next section.

It is worth noting that though the construction of $`𝐕`$ from the polarization tensor $`𝐏`$ involves one spatial derivative, which amplifies the measurement shot noises, the proposed projection of either mode involves one spatial integration. The two operations formally compensate, though in actual operations some small level of noises can be introduced.

## 5 Discussions

In this work, we show the topological natures of the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes by suitably projecting the polarization tensor into a vector. The $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes correspond to the diverging and swirling patterns of this vector, respectively. Having them identified in the real space, an integral method then becomes a natural choice for separating these two modes, as such a method can minimize amplification of the shot noises inherent in the CMBR measurements.

Moreover, this real-space analysis of CMBR polarization can retain the characteristics of $`E`$ and $`B`$ even when the measurements are subject to the detector beam smearing, giving rise to the convolution of the sky image with the detector beam pattern. The measured quantities are the Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$, and when they are subject to identical beam smearing, they become $`Q`$ and $`U`$, where

$$A(𝐱)W(𝐱+𝐫)A(𝐫)d^2r$$
(9)
with $`W`$ being the beam pattern. It is easy to see that if $`A(𝐫)=a(𝐫)/𝐫`$, the smeared quantity $`A(𝐱)=a/𝐱`$, which retains the same differential form, and it does so even when higher derivatives are involved. That is, the tensor decribed by Eq.(4) can retain the same topological nature with beam smearing. Moreover since Eq.(4) is linear in $`f`$ and $`g`$ and the convolution is a linear operation, it follows that the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes can not be mixed by beam smearing.

The pixelization of image is another issue in the real-space analysis, and it involves a particular form of the window function $`W(𝐱,𝐫)=_i\delta (𝐱𝐱_i)W_0(𝐱+𝐫)`$. The Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ can also maintain their two components of distinct topologies unmixed. However, further manipulations with differentiation, approximated by differencing, and integration, approximated by summation, should proceed with caution to keep $`E`$ and $`B`$ intact. We will leave this technical issue to a future paper.

As mentioned in the last section, the projection with a closed-loop line integral corresponds to a top-hat-filter average of the polarization signal. The Fourier spectrum of this filter function is proportional to $`J_1^2(kR)`$, which oscillates in the $`k`$ space with a frequency comparable to the filter size $`R`$, where $`J_1`$ is the Bessel function of order one and $`k`$ the Fourier wavenumber. It is noted that in the CDM cosmology, with or without the cosmological constant, the power spectrum of the $`E`$ polarization also oscillates with a well-defined period in the $`k`$-space. It is therefore anticipated that by varying the radius $`R`$ of a circular integration loop of Eq.(7), the frequency of the filter power spectrum can be made to match that of the $`E`$-mode power spectrum, where the response to polarization signals is maximal. Such an analysis strategy has not been considered, or even mentioned, in the past, mainly because most attention has so far been directed toward the Fourier-space analysis of CMBR signals.

The Fourier-space analysis can be good methodology for analyzing the CMBR temperature anisotropy, since the acoustic oscillations in the spectrum have an ill-defined $`k`$-space frequency, due to the changing Hubble radius when the acoustic waves entered the horizon. However, the polarization in the CMBR results from a much cleaner physics than the temperature anisotropy does. The polarization involves only the Thomson scattering of anisotropic photons at the epoch when the mean-free-path was about the then Hubble radius. Any structure of size smaller than the then Hubble radius is smeared out by the large Thomson mean-free-path, and any structure of size greater than the then Hubble radius has a negligible power. This characteristic Hubble sphere enters the phase of the perturbation, and naturally gives rise an oscillation in the power spectrum with a well-defined frequency comparable to the then Hubble radius. It is therefore of little surprise that a real-space top-hat filter function can capture the Hubble spheres and be well suited for detecting the $`E`$ polarization signals. A detailed analysis of how the presently proposed method performs for detecting the CMBR polarization will be reported elsewhere.

I would like to thank Cheng-Jiun Ma for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council of Taiwan under the grant NSC89-M-2112-002-065.


text:
# „…ich dachte mir nicht viel dabei…“ Plancks ungerader Weg zur Strahlungsformel

## Zusammenfassung

Max Plancks Ableitung seiner Strahlungsformel, mitgeteilt am 14. Dezember 1900 und von ihm selbst als „Akt der Verzweiflung“ charakterisiert, markiert die Geburtsstunde der Quantentheorie. Gleichzeitig wurde Planck dadurch zur Aufgabe eines langjährigen und systematisch angelegten Forschungsprogramms gezwungen, in dem er mit Hilfe der gerade erst etablierten Maxwell’schen Elektrodynamik versuchte, den 2. Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik als streng deterministisches Gesetz zu begründen.

## Einleitung

Die Studienzeit Max Plancks (1858-1947) fällt in die „besten Mannesjahre“ der klassischen theoretischen Physik, die in Deutschland durch das stattliche Dreigestirn der Mittfünfziger Clausius, Helmholtz und Kirchhoff eindrücklich vertreten war. Von diesen haben vor allem die Schriften Clausius’ den Studenten Planck durch ihre *„Klarheit und Überzeugungskraft der Sprache“* besonders angezogen. Mit seiner bis heute unverändert gelehrten Formulierung des 2. Hauptsatzes der Thermodynamik von 1865 gab Clausius ein Musterbeispiel des Planck’schen Ideals einer physikalischen Gesetzmäßigkeit: *„Was mich in der Physik von jeher vor allem interessierte, waren die großen allgemeinen Gesetze, die für sämtliche Naturvorgänge Bedeutung besitzen, unabhängig von den Eigenschaften der an den Vorgängen beteiligten Körper.“* 111Dieses und das vorangegangene Zitat Plancks sind seinem Aufsatz „Zur Geschichte der Auffindung des physikalischen Wirkungsquantums“ entnommen; , Bd.3, p.255. So ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass sich Planck eben diesen 2. Hauptsatz auch zum Thema seiner Dissertation wählte.

Neben der Thermodynamik beherrschte vor allem die Elektrodynamik die physikalische Öffentlichkeit im letzten Viertel des 19. Jahrhunderts. Der feldtheoretischen Formulierung Maxwells standen in Deutschland die Fernwirkungstheorien Webers und deren leichte Modifikation durch Helmholtz entgegen. Erst Heinrich Hertz, nur ein Jahr älter als Planck, verhalf ersterer sowohl mit seinen Aufsehen erregenden Versuchen zum Nachweis elektromagnetischer Wellen als auch mit seinen theoretischen Untersuchungen endgültig zum Durchbruch (siehe ). Somit zerfiel der physikalische Materiebegriff in die Dualität von Materie und (elektromagnetischem) Feld. Letzteres wurde damals noch als Anregungszustand des hypothetischen Mediums *Äther* aufgefasst, der als schwerelos galt und der ponderablen (d.h. wägbaren) Materie gleichberechtigt an die Seite gestellt wurde. Einen hervorragenden Eindruck dieser Auffassung vermittelt die gerade erstmalig herausgegebene Hertz’sche Vorlesung über *die Constitution der Materie*  aus dem Jahre 1884. Mit dem Durchsetzen der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie von 1905 ist dann bekanntlich auch die Äthervorstellung einem abstrakten, nicht substantiellen Feldbegriff gewichen.

Durch dieses dualistische Materiekonzept entstand unweigerlich die Frage nach der Natur der Wechselwirkung von Strahlung mit Materie, insbesondere nach den Mechanismen der Erzeugung und Vernichtung von Strahlung. Modellmäßig gelang zuerst Heinrich Hertz 1888 die vollständige Beschreibung der Emission elektromagnetischer Strahlung durch strenges Lösen der Maxwell’schen Gleichungen für den Spezialfall eines harmonisch schwingenden elektrischen Dipols (seitdem ‘Hertz’scher Oszillator’ genannt). Was hingegen die *allgemeinen*, von idealisierenden Modellvorstellungen unabhängigen Gesetzmäßigkeiten anbelangt, zeigte sich einmal mehr die ungeheure Kraft thermodynamischer Überlegungen. Dabei bestand nach den Hertz’schen Entdeckungen kein Zweifel mehr, dass Wärmestrahlung dem Licht wesensgleich und nur durch die Wellenlänge unterschieden ist und somit durch die Maxwell’sche Theorie im Prinzip vollständig beschrieben werden kann. Man durfte somit einfach von „Strahlung“ reden.

## Frühe Strahlungstheorie

Thermodynamische Überlegungen auf der Basis des 2. Hauptsatzes führten Kirchhoff schon 1859 zu der Einsicht, dass in einem gleichtemperierten Raum, dessen Wände für Strahlung undurchlässig sind, die sich einstellende Gleichgewichtsstrahlung von der Form des Raumes und der Natur der in ihm enthaltenen Körper unabhängig ist. Diese Strahlung ist identisch derjenigen, welche ein vollkommen schwarzer Körper aussenden würde. Dabei führte Kirchhoff die Idealisierung des *schwarzen Körpers* ein, der dadurch definiert ist, dass sein Absorptionsvermögen den höchsten theoretisch erreichbaren Wert 1 besitzt. Es muss also eine universelle Funktion $`u(T,\nu )`$ geben, die die spektrale Energiedichte der Strahlung im Gleichgewicht bei der absoluten Temperatur $`T`$ und im Frequenzintervall $`[\nu ,\nu +d\nu ]`$ angibt. Die Aufgabe war nun, diese Funktion zweier unabhängiger Variablen zu bestimmen. Für eine konzise Darstellung der frühen Strahlungstheorie sei auf  verwiesen.

Zunächst wurden weitere Informationen über die Funktion $`u(T,\nu )`$ gewonnen. So folgt aus der Maxwell’schen Theorie, dass ein isotropes Strahlungsfeld auf die undurchlässige Bewandung einen Druck ausübt, der gleich $`1/3`$ der gesamten, d.h. über alle Frequenzen integrierten Energiedichte $`U(T)`$ ist. Durch eine einfache thermodynamische Betrachtung konnte Boltzmann 1884 damit das von Stefan empirisch ermittelte *Stefan-Boltzmann’sche-Gesetz* ableiten:

$$U(T):=_0^{\mathrm{}}u(T,\nu )𝑑\nu =\sigma T^4,$$
(1)
wobei $`\sigma `$ eine Konstante ist.

Einen wesentlichen Fortschritt brachte eine Arbeit von W. Wien aus dem Jahre 1893, in der er durch recht raffinierte thermodynamische Überlegungen bewies, dass $`u(T,\nu )`$ von folgender Form sein muss *(Wien’sches Verschiebungsgesetz)*:

$$u(T,\nu )=\nu ^3f(\nu /T).$$
(2)
Damit war das „Strahlungsproblem“ auf die Bestimmung der einen universellen Funktion $`f`$ *einer* Veränderlichen zurückgeführt.

Zu diesem Zeitpunkt gab es keinerlei Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass sich diese überschaubar anmutende Aufgabe zu einem der tiefgründigsten und ausdauerndsten Probleme der gesamten Physikgeschichte auswachsen würde. Noch zwanzig Jahre später, also im Jahre 1913, gab Einstein in seiner Rede anläßlich der Übergabe des Rektorats der Berliner Universität an Max Planck die folgende Einschätzung: *„Es wäre erhebend, wenn wir die Gehirnsubstanz auf eine Waage legen könnten, die von den theoretischen Physikern auf dem Altar dieser universellen Funktion $`f`$ hingeopfert wurde; und es ist dieses grausamen Opfers kein Ende abzusehen! Noch mehr: auch die klassische Mechanik fiel ihr zum Opfer, und es ist nicht abzusehen, ob Maxwells Gleichungen der Elektrodynamik die Krisis überdauern werden, welche diese Funktion $`f`$ mit sich gebracht hat.“*

Doch zurück zum Wien’schen Verschiebungsgesetz (2). Es beinhaltet das Stefan-Boltzmann’sche-Gesetz (1), wie man sofort durch Integration über $`\nu `$ einsieht. Durch Differentiation findet man, dass sich die Frequenz maximaler Energiedichte proportional zu $`T`$ verschiebt (woraus der Name *Verschiebungs*gesetz resultiert), was ebenfalls ein damals empirisch bekanntes Gesetz war. In Anlehnung an die exponentielle Maxwell’sche Geschwindigkeitsverteilung machte Wien sogar folgenden konkreten Vorschlag (in der Schreibweise Plancks; $`a`$ und $`b`$ sind Konstanten)

$$u(T,\nu )=\frac{8\pi \nu ^3}{c^3}b\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a\nu }{T}).$$
(3)
Dieses *Wien’sche Strahlungsgesetz* war bis etwa Mitte des Jahres 1900 mit den experimentellen Daten vereinbar.

## Plancks Forschungsprogramm

Nach dem, was wir bereits über Plancks wissenschaftliche Orientierung gehört haben, ist es kaum verwunderlich, dass das Problem der Bestimmung der universellen Funktion $`f`$ genau nach seinem Geschmack war. Er ging dieses Problem jedoch nicht direkt an, sondern bettete es ein in ein sorgfältig geplantes und systematisch vorangetriebenes Forschungsprogramm, dessen Ziel eine strenge Ableitung des 2. Hauptsatzes der Thermodynamik mit Hilfe der Maxwell’schen Gesetze der Elektrodynamik war. Dabei ist es wesentlich, daran zu erinnern, dass Planck zu dieser Zeit den 2. Hauptsatz als streng deterministisches Gesetz verstand und nicht in seiner wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischen Bedeutung, wie wir es heute tun. Überhaupt hielt Planck damals noch wenig von Wahrscheinlickeitsgesetzen in der Physik, weil die von diesen stets erlaubten Ausnahmen keinen Platz in den ausnahmslos gültigen Gesetzmäßigkeiten hatten, mit denen er die Physik ausgestattet wissen wollte. Dabei war es Planck klar, dass als Folge des Poincaré’schen Wiederkehrsatzes ein solcher Beweis innerhalb der Mechanik *nicht* zu führen war. So hatte etwa 1896 sein damaliger Assistent E. Zermelo222E. Zermelo hat 1908 als erster eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre vorgeschlagen, wodurch er ein bis heute sehr bekannter Mathematiker wurde. einen noch heute sehr lesbaren und eleganten Beweis dieses Satzes veröffentlicht.

Innerhalb dieses Forschungsprogramms entstanden in kurzer Zeit Vorarbeiten, die sich – an Hertz anschließend – mit der Theorie der Emission und Absorption elektromagnetischer Wellen durch einfache Oszillatoren beschäftigten. Dabei entwickelte Planck übrigens ein Jahr vor Larmor (1896) die heute nach letzterem benannten Formeln für die Abstrahlungsleistung und Strahlungsdämpfung. Knapp zusammengefasst war Plancks Grundgedanke folgender: Nach Kirchhoff stellt sich im thermodynamischen Gleichgewicht ein von der Beschaffenheit der Materie unabhängiges Energiespektrum ein. Also ist es zulässig, zu dessen theoretischer Berechnung die Materie so zu idealisieren, dass sie der genauen Berechnung von Prozessen der Emission und Absorption zugänglich wird. Dabei ist es ganz unerheblich, ob solche idealisierten Oszillatoren in der Natur überhaupt realisiert werden; es kommt lediglich darauf an, dass sie mit den Naturgesetzen in Einklang stehen.

In seiner letzten von fünf Arbeiten *Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge* aus dem Jahre 1899 leitet Planck folgende, für sein weiteres Vorgehen fundamentale Beziehung zwischen $`u(T,\nu )`$ und dem zeitlichen Mittelwert $`E(T,\nu )`$ der Energie eines im Strahlungsfeld eingebetteten geladenen harmonischen Oszillators der Eigenfrequenz $`\nu `$ ab:

$$u(T,\nu )=\frac{8\pi \nu ^2}{c^3}E(T,\nu ).$$
(4)
Die Nützlichkeit dieser Gleichung liegt in der bemerkenswerten Tatsache begründet, dass sie die Parameter Ladung, Masse und Dämpfungskonstante des Oszillators nicht enthält. Für das Folgende ist es wichtig zu betonen, dass sie eine unzweideutige Folge der klassischen (d.h. Maxwell’schen) Elektrodynamik ist. Hätte sich Planck damals mit der statistischen Mechanik angefreundet, so hätte er aus deren Äquipartitionstheorem als unausweichliche Folge der klassischen Mechanik die Formel $`E=(R/N)T`$ für die mittlere Energie des linearen harmonischen Oszillators erhalten. Dabei ist $`R`$ die universelle, auf ein Mol bezogene Gaskonstante und $`N`$ die Avogadro-Zahl (Anzahl der Moleküle in einem Mol). Damit wäre er durch (4) ein Jahr früher als Rayleigh zur *Rayleigh-Jeans’schen Strahlungsformel* gekommen

$$u(T,\nu )=\frac{8\pi \nu ^2}{c^3}\frac{R}{N}T.$$
(5)
Nun ist aber trotz der scheinbar gut begründeten Herleitung diese Formel völlig unakzeptabel: Zunächst impliziert eine lineare Abhängigkeit von $`T`$, dass etwa die Strahlungsdichte bei Raumtemperatur ($`T290`$K) noch einem Sechstel der Weissglut schmelzenden Stahls ($`T1700`$K) entsprechen muss, was offensichtlich absurd ist. Weiter impliziert die quadratische Abhängigkeit von $`\nu `$ eine physikalisch sinnlose Divergenz („Ultraviolett-Katastrophe“) des Integrals (1) und damit der Energiedichte $`U(T)`$. Damit wird von (5), d.h von der klassischen Physik, die Existenz eines Gleichgewichts negiert. Es ist oft darüber gerätselt worden, warum Planck diesen schlagenden Hinweis darauf, dass mindestens eine der beiden klassischen Theorien – Mechanik und Elektrodynamik – nicht uneingeschränkt richtig sein kann, nicht oder zumindest erst sehr spät aufnahm; und dies, obwohl ab 1905 Einstein keine Gelegenheit ausließ, diesen Umstand immer wieder zu betonen.

Neben diesem rein elektrodynamischen Teil beschäftigte Planck sich vor allem mit der Frage nach möglichen Ausdrücken für die Entropie der Strahlung, die er ebenfalls auf die Frage nach der Entropie des einzelnen Oszillators zurückführte. Obwohl das eigentliche Ziel war, mit Hilfe der Maxwell’schen Gleichungen ein strenges Anwachsen der Entropie in der Zeit zu demonstrieren333Ganz wesentlich für das teilweise Gelingen war Plancks „Hypothese der natürlichen Strahlung“, die der Annahme einer vollständigen Inkohärenz der einzelnen Strahlungsanteile entsprach. Planck sah lange nicht, dass wegen der Bewegungsumkehrinvarianz der Maxwellgleichungen – auf die er durch Boltzmann deutlich hingewiesen wurde –, diese Annahme absolut essentiell ist, analog der Annahme der „molekularen Unordnung“ beim Boltzmann’schen Beweis des $`H`$-Theorems., ergab sich daraus auch Plancks Strategie zur Lösung des Strahlungsproblems: Man bestimme die Entropie $`S(E,\nu )`$ des einzelnen Oszillators (Eigenfrequenz $`\nu `$) im Strahlungsfeld als Funktion seiner Energie $`E`$. Aus der thermodynamischen Relation $`dS/dE=1/T`$ erhält man dann durch Auflösen nach $`E`$ die Funktion $`E(T,\nu )`$ und damit aus (4) $`u(T,\nu )`$. Dabei reduziert (2) das Problem wiederum auf das Auffinden einer Funktion *einer* Variablen, denn mit (4) ist (2) äquivalent zu $`E(T,\nu )=\nu f(\nu /T)`$ und damit auch zu

$$S(E,\nu )=f(E/\nu ),$$
(6)
wobei $`f`$ für eine jeweils andere, noch unbekannte Funktion steht.

In der letzten seiner Arbeiten *Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge* (, Bd.1) leitet Planck dann das Wien’sche Strahlungsgesetz in der eben beschriebenen Weise ab, wobei er allerdings die dazu nötige Funktion $`S(T,\nu )`$ definitorisch einführt und bemerkt, dass er keinen anderen mit dem 2. Hauptsatz verträglichen Ausdruck hat finden können. Er glaubt *„hieraus schließen zu müssen, dass die gegebene Definition der Strahlungsentropie und damit auch das Wien’sche Energieverteilungsgesetz eine notwendige Folge der Anwendung des Principes der Vermehrung der Entropie auf die elektromagnetische Strahlungstheorie ist und dass daher die Grenzen der Gültigkeit dieses Gesetzes, falls solche überhaupt existiren, mit denen des zweiten Hauptsatzes der Wärmetheorie zusammenfallen.“* So fest glaubt er zu dieser Zeit (November 1899) in Besitz einer absoluten Wahrheit zu sein, dass er diese Arbeit mit der Einführung eines „natürlichen Einheitensystems“ beendet, was dadurch definiert ist, dass in ihm die Konstanten $`a`$, $`b`$ des Wien’schen Strahlungsgesetzes, die Lichtgeschwindigkeit $`c`$ und die Newton’sche Gravitationskonstante $`G`$ jeweils den Wert eins haben. Diese heute mit Hilfe der Planck’schen Konstanten $`h`$ und der Boltzmann’schen Konstanten $`k`$ definierten *Planck’schen Einheiten* stammen also aus einer Zeit, in der das Planck’sche Strahlungsgesetz noch gar nicht existierte.

Bereits am 19. Sept. 1899 auf der Naturforscherversammlung in München und wiederholt in der Sitzung der DPG vom 3. Nov. desselben Jahres, hatten O. Lummer und E. Pringsheim über systematische Abweichungen vom Wien’schen Strahlungsgesetz im langwelligen Spektralbereich ($`48.5\mu `$) berichtet. Dadurch etwas verunsichert versuchte Planck im März 1900 erneut seine Begründung der Wien’schen Strahlungsformel durch eine *Ableitung* der Entropiefunktion $`S(T,\nu )`$ aus allgemeinen Prinzipien zu stärken, was ihm auch mit Hilfe einer plausibel scheinenden Hypothese gelang, die sich erst später als falsch herausstellen sollte. Noch hoffte er, dass sich die von Lummer und Pringsheim gefundenen „Divergenzen von erheblicher Natur“ (Planck) nicht bestätigen würden.

## Das Planck’sche Strahlungsgesetz

Weitere Messungen an der physikalisch-technischen Reichsanstalt durch Kurlbaum und Rubens, und ebenso durch Paschen in Hannover, bestätigten die von Lummer-Pringsheim gefundenen systematischen Abweichungen, worüber Kurlbaum in der Sitzung der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft vom 19. Oktober 1900 vortrug. Planck, dem diese Ergebnisse schon vorher mitgeteilt wurden, musste damit jede Hoffnung auf eine Ableitung des Wien’schen Strahlungsgesetzes aufgeben. Auch sein Hauptziel, die strenge Begründung des 2. Hauptsatzes, schien nun in weite Ferne gerückt.

Trotzdem nicht müde, schlug er in der gleichen Sitzung eine „Verbesserung“ der Wien’schen Formel vor, die er gemäß seiner alten Strategie über $`S(E,\nu )`$ zu bestimmen suchte. In seiner vorherigen Begründung der Wien’schen Formel hatte der 2. Differentialquotient von $`S`$ nach $`E`$ eine zentrale Rolle gespielt, der im Wien’schen Fall gerade proportional zu $`1/E`$ ist. Da die experimentellen Abweichungen nur für große Werte von $`T/\nu `$ auftraten, d.h. bei festem $`\nu `$ für große $`E`$, modifizierte er diese Proportionalität zu $`1/E(E+\beta )`$ mit $`\beta =`$ konst. Einmalige Integration liefert dann sofort das *Planck’sche Strahlungsgesetz*

$$u(T,\nu )=\frac{8\pi \nu ^2}{c^3}\frac{b\nu }{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a\nu }{T})1},$$
(7)
welches Planck zur experimentellen Prüfung empfahl. Es zeigte sich sehr schnell eine glänzende Übereinstimmung der neuen Formel mit den experimentellen Daten. Für kleine $`T/\nu `$ geht (7) tatsächlich in (2) über, während sich im dem Bereich großer $`T/\nu `$, in dem sich die experimentellen Abweichungen zeigten, das „klassische“ Gesetz (5) ergibt. Somit ist es als besondere Ironie dieser Geschichte zu verzeichnen, dass die Quantentheorie aus Beobachtungen *klassischer* Abweichungen von einem nur a posteriori mit Hilfe der Quantentheorie zu verstehenden Grenzgesetz entstanden ist.

## Intermezzo: Einsteins Bestimmung der Avogadro-Zahl

Zu Beginn seiner berühmten Arbeit über Lichtquanten aus dem Jahre 1905 (, Vol.2, Doc.14) macht Einstein eine wichtige Bemerkung, die man etwa so zusammenfassen kann: Fordert man, dass (5), was eine notwendige Folge der klassischen Physik ist, als Grenzgesetz in der als phänomenologisch gültig angesehenen Planck’schen Formel enthalten ist, so ergibt sich eine von jeder *theoretischen Begründung* der Planck’schen Formel *unabhängige* Methode zur Bestimmung der Avogadro-Zahl $`N`$. Diese Grenzbeziehung gilt nämlich nur, falls

$$N=\frac{a}{b}R.$$
(8)
Da $`R`$ gut bekannt ist, liefert jede Bestimmung von $`a,b`$ durch Strahlungsmessungen auch einen Wert für $`N`$. Einstein erhielt so den Wert $`N=\mathrm{6,17}10^{23}`$, der genau dem zuvor von Planck selbst erhaltenen entspricht, allerdings mit einer von seiner umstrittenen Theorie wesentlich abhängigen Begründung. Zu dieser Zeit war dies der mit Abstand genaueste Wert der Avogadro-Zahl (vgl. Kapitel 5 in ). Dabei sei gleich ergänzt, dass Planck aus der Kenntnis der Faradaykonstante (elektrische Ladung eines Mols einwertiger Ionen), die aus Elektrolysedaten gut bekannt war, durch Division mit $`N`$ den Wert der elektrischen Elementarladung $`e`$ erheblich besser als je zuvor bestimmte. Wieder ist es als besondere Ironie zu verzeichnen, dass dies ausgerechnet durch den damaligen Anti-Atomisten Planck möglich wurde.

## Der „Akt der Verzweiflung“

Wie sollte nun Planck nach all seinen Mühen, das Wien’sche Gesetz theoretisch zu zementieren, eine Ableitung des neuen Gesetzes (7) herzaubern? Wieder blieb er seiner alten Strategie treu, (4) zu benutzen und $`E(T,\nu )`$ über $`S(E,\nu )`$ zu bestimmen. Um letzteres zu erreichen war ihm jedes Mittel recht, denn *„eine theoretische Deutung musste um jeden Preis gefunden werden, und wäre er noch so hoch“* . So verfiel er schließlich der bis dahin von ihm bekämpften statistischen Auffassung der Entropie durch L. Boltzmann, wonach die Entropie $`𝒮`$ eines Makrozustandes proportional zum Logarithmus der Anzahl $`W`$ seiner mikroskopischen Realisierungen ist. Für Gase ergibt sich Übereinstimmung mit der thermodynamischen Definition, wenn als Proportionalitätsfaktor $`k:=R/N`$ gewählt wird, also

$$𝒮=\frac{R}{N}\mathrm{ln}W.$$
(9)
In seiner Arbeit vom *14. Dezember 1900* (, Bd.1,p.698), in der Planck zum ersten Male eine theoretische Begründung seiner Gleichung versuchte, wandte er diese Formel auf eine Anzahl $`n`$ gleicher Oszillatoren der Frequenz $`\nu `$ und Gesamtenergie $`E_n`$ an, wobei $`W`$ die Anzahl der Verteilungen der festen Gesamtenergie auf die $`n`$ Oszillatoren ist. Damit diese Zahl endlich ist, darf $`E_n`$ nicht beliebig teilbar sein. Planck nahm deshalb an, dass die Oszillatoren Energie nur in ganzzahligen Vielfachen einer Grundeinheit $`\epsilon `$ aufnehmen und abgeben können. *„Das war eine rein formale Annahme, und ich dachte mir nicht viel dabei, sondern eben nur das, dass ich unter allen Umständen, koste es was es wolle, ein positives Resultat herbeiführen musste.“* . Man beachte, daß Planck an dieser Stelle *nicht* explizit annahm, dass die Energien der Oszillatoren selbst nur ganzzahlige Vielfache von $`\epsilon `$ sein können; das hat später erst Einstein getan. Vielmehr erklärt Planck gleich nach Einführung des Energiequantums $`\epsilon `$ über den Quotienten $`p:=E_n/\epsilon `$: *„Wenn der so berechnete Quotient keine ganze Zahl ist, so nehme man für $`p`$ eine in der Nähe gelegene ganze Zahl“*. Setzt man nun $`W`$ gleich der Anzahl der Möglichkeiten, $`p`$ ununterscheidbare Energiequanten auf $`n`$ (unterscheidbare) Oszillatoren zu verteilen, so erhält man

$$W=\frac{(n+p1)!}{(n1)!p!}.$$
(10)
Eingesetzt in (9) ergibt dies444Man nimmt dazu $`n`$ und $`p`$ als große Zahlen an und verwendet jeweils die Stirling’sche Approximation $`\mathrm{ln}z!z\mathrm{ln}(z)z`$. für die Entropie $`S=𝒮/n`$ des einzelnen Oszillators als Funktion seiner Energie $`E=E_n/n`$ (d.h. $`p/n=E/\epsilon `$):

$$S=k[(1+E/\epsilon )\mathrm{ln}(1+E/\epsilon )(E/\epsilon )\mathrm{ln}(E/\epsilon )].$$
(11)
Zunächst sieht man, dass $`\epsilon `$ nicht Null sein kann. Das Wien’sche Verschiebungsgesetz in der Form (6) impliziert weiter, dass $`\epsilon `$ proportional $`\nu `$ sein muss; Planck nennt diese Proportionalitätskonstante $`h`$. Damit wird $`\epsilon =h\nu `$ und die Oszillatorenergie $`E`$ ein ganzzahliges Vielfaches davon. Aus (11) folgt in nun bekannter Weise das Planck’sche Strahlungsgesetz (7) mit $`b=h`$ und $`a=h/k`$.

## Interpretationen

Über die Bedeutung der (von Planck eingeführten) „Boltzmann’schen Konstanten“ $`k`$ haben wir schon gesprochen; sie ergibt sich aus $`k=R/N`$ und hat mit dem Atomismus zu tun, der $`N<\mathrm{}`$ bedingt. Die Bedeutung der Planck’schen Konstanten $`h`$ blieb vorerst dunkel. Wie war die Quantisierungsbedingung, bei der sich Planck „nicht viel dachte“, letztlich zu interpretieren? Als fundamentale Eigenschaft mechanisch gedachter Oszillatoren, also im Widerspruch zur klassischen Mechanik, oder als fundamentale Eigenschaft der zur Verteilung anstehenden Strahlungsenergie, dann wäre sie im Widerspruch zur Maxwellschen Theorie. In beiden Fällen wäre der Planck’schen Schlüsselgleichung (4) das Fundament entzogen, wie Einstein in den Jahren ab 1905 wiederholt betonte.

Planck entschied sich für keine dieser Möglichkeiten, sondern suchte die Quantisierung als Folge einer noch unverstandenen Modifikation der *Wechselwirkung* zwischen Strahlung und Materie aufzufassen. Einen ersten Hinweis darauf, daß Planck nicht die Quantisierung der Oszillatorenenergie selbst meint haben wir bereits oben angegeben. Aber schon gar nicht wollte sich Planck auf eine Aufgabe der gerade erst etablierten Maxwellgleichungen einlassen, was er nach Aufstellung der in seinen Augen viel zu radikalen *Lichtquantenhypothese* von 1905 duch A. Einstein, die genau diese Konsequenz heraufbeschwor, auch mehrfach betonte. So z.B. nach Einsteins viel beachtetem Vortrag „Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung“ anläßlich der Tagung der Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 1909 in Salzburg (, Vol.2, Doc.60). Nachdem Einstein eindrucksvoll die Unzulänglichkeiten der Planck’schen Strahlungstheorie analysiert und dabei seine Lichtquantenhypothese empfiehlt, bemerkt Planck in der darauffolgenden Diskussion: *„Jedenfalls meine ich, man müsste zunächst versuchen, die ganze Schwierigkeit der Quantentheorie zu verlegen in das Gebiet der *Wechselwirkung* zwischen der Materie und der strahlenden Energie; die Vorgänge im reinen Vakuum könnte man dann vorläufig noch mit den Maxwell’schen Gleichungen erklären“* (, Vol2., Doc.61). In seiner Ablehnung der Einstein’schen Lichtquantenhypothese wurde Planck übigens von fast allen zeitgenössischen Physikern unterstützt. Noch 1913 schrieben Planck, Nernst, Rubens und Warburg in ihrem Empfehlungsschreiben für Einsteins Aufnahme in die Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften: *„Dass er in seinen Spekulationen gelegentlich auch einmal über das Ziel hinausgeschossen haben mag, wie z.B. in seiner Hypothese der Lichtquanten, wird man ihm nicht allzuschwer anrechnen dürfen“* (, Vol.5, Doc.445).

So ist auch Plancks Verständnis der Abzählung (10) nicht das einer irgendwie neuen, nicht klassischen Statistik ununterscheidbarer Objekte (Lichtquanten), so wie sie heute unter dem Namen *Bose-Einstein-Statistik* für Photonen aufgefasst wird, sondern *rein klassisch*. Genauso wie wenn man nach der Anzahl der Möglichkeiten fragt, $`p`$ Liter Wasser mit einer Schöpfkelle die einen Liter fasst (und immer ganz gefüllt werden muss) auf $`n`$ Gefäße zu verteilen; auch dann wäre natürlich (10) die richtige Antwort. Dem Zwang hier die Schöpfkelle zur Verteilung zu benutzen entspricht bei Planck die noch unverstandene Wechselwirkung zwischen Strahlung und Materie, die ebenfalls die Oszillatoren zwingt mit dem Kontinuum der Strahlungsenergie immer nur ganze Portionen $`\epsilon `$ auszutauschen.

Tatsächlich verfolgte Planck in den Jahren 1911-14 eine Abänderung seiner ursprünglichen Theorie, in der eine Quantisierung des Energieaustauschs nur noch für den Emissionsvorgang, nicht jedoch für den Vorgang der Absorption angenommen werden musste (, Bd.2). Als Konsequenz ergab sich eine leichte Modifikation des Strahlungsgesetzes (7) um den additiven Term $`h\nu /2`$, der einer nicht verschwindenden Energie des Oszillators beim absoluten Temperaturnullpunkt entspricht. Dies ist das erste Auftreten der heute aus der Quantenmechanik wohlbekannten *Nullpunktsenergie*. Erneut bewegt sich Planck damit, ohne es zu wissen und diametral gegen seine Intention, von der klassischen Theorie weg. Spätestens zu diesem Zeitpunkt hatte die Entwicklung Planck hinter sich gelassen. Wie kein anderer förderte Einstein in dieser Zeit durch hartnäckiges Hinterfragen der Grundlagen der Planck’schen Strahlungstheorie den endgültigen Bruch mit der klassischen Physik; doch das ist eine andere – nicht minder spannende – Geschichte. *„Kurz zusammengefasst“*, schreibt Planck in dem schon mehrfach zitierten Brief des Jahres 1931 rückschauend, *„kann ich die ganze Tat als einen Akt der Verzweiflung bezeichnen“* .