text:
# An X-ray flare from the Lindroos binary system HD 560

## 1 Introduction

T Tauri stars (TTS) are young, late-type stars contracting to the main sequence (MS). In their evolution pre-main sequence stars pass through a phase before reaching the MS, defined as Post T Tauri stars (PTTS). Herbig (1978) first defined PTTS as young stars more evolved than Classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) but still contracting to the MS.

PTTS are difficult to detect because they do not show extreme properties which make them easy to identify: unlike CTTS, they do not show IR or UV excesses and the H$`\alpha `$ line is not longer seen in emission. Therefore, their identification relies on the presence of the Li I (6708Å) absorption line and the Ca II chromospheric lines in their spectra as well as on their X-ray emission.

Murphy (1969) was the first to propose that PTTS could be found in binary systems composed of early-type primaries and late-type secondaries, given that the MS lifetime of high-mass stars is comparable to the contraction timescale of late-type stars to the MS. Gahm et al. (1983) and Lindroos (1985) carried out photometric and spectroscopic observations of 253 binary systems and Lindroos (1986) was able to isolate a sample of 78 visual binary systems with likely PTTS secondaries.

The X-ray emission from these PTTS candidates as observed by ROSAT has been studied by Schmitt et al. (1993) and Huélamo et al. (2000). The derived X-ray luminosities for most of the late-type stars range between $`\mathrm{lg}L_\mathrm{x}=2831[\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}]`$. These values are comparable to those reported for T Tauri stars stars (Neuhäuser et al. 1995), showing that PTTS although somewhat more evolved are still strong X-ray emitters.

PMS late-type stars are also known to emit X-ray flares (see e.g. Feigelson & DeCampli 1981, Montmerle et al. 1983, Stelzer et al. 2000). Therefore, we have studied the X-ray lightcurves of all Lindroos PTTS candidates observed by the ROSAT satellite (see Huélamo et al. 2000 for further details) in order to search for X-ray variability due to activity episodes.

As a result of our study of the ROSAT PSPC and HRI lightcurves of the Lindroos systems, we have detected a large flare from HD 560, a binary system composed of a B9 and a G5 star. A previous flaring episode from HD 560 observed with EXOSAT was reported by Tagliaferri et al. (1988). The EXOSAT Medium Energy experiment provided no spatial resolution, however. Therefore, it was unclear whether to ascribe the event to HD 560 or to the nearby Seyfert type I galaxy, QSO 0007+107, located at $`\alpha =00^\mathrm{h}10^\mathrm{m}31.01^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\delta =10^{}58^{}29.5^{\prime \prime }`$. While Pounds & Turner (1987) attributed the flare to the galaxy, Tagliaferri et al. (1988) argued in favor of HD 560. The observation of another flare with the ROSAT PSPC whose spatial resolution is sufficient to identify the flaring source with HD 560, supports the arguments put forth by Tagliaferri et al. (1988). In this paper we provide an analysis of the ROSAT data of HD 560, and discuss the flare event.

## 2 The ROSAT data

The X-ray telescope and the instrumentation onboard the ROSAT satellite are described in detail by Trümper (1983), Pfeffermann et al. (1988) and David et al. (1996). The data presented in this work were obtained with the Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC) in pointed mode.

The spectral resolution of the PSPC (43% at 0.93 keV) allows spectral analysis in three energy bands:
\- Soft: 0.1 to 0.4 keV
\- Hard 1: 0.5 to 0.9 keV
\- Hard 2: 0.9 to 2.0 keV
We can obtain spectral information of our sources studying the X-ray hardness ratios ($`HR`$) defined as follows:

$$HR1=\frac{(H1+H2S)}{(H1+H2+S)}\text{and}HR2=\frac{(H2H1)}{(H2+H1)}$$
(1)
where $`H1`$ and $`H2`$ are the counts observed in the Hard 1 and Hard 2 bands, and $`S`$ are the counts observed in the Soft band. Hence, $`HR`$ values can range from $`1`$ to $`+1`$.

## 3 The X-ray emission from HD 560

HD 560 was observed twice by the PSPC. The details of these two observations are summarized in Table 1, where the ROSAT observation request number (ROR) is provided. Columns $`24`$ show the position of the X-ray detection, its displacement with respect to the B9 and G5 components of HD 560, respectively, and the distance of the X-ray source to the center of the detector. The latter number is important, given that the spatial resolution of the PSPC is off-axis dependent. The count rates, exposure times, and $`HR`$’s are given in columns $`58`$. An estimation of the probability of the detection according to the maximum likelihood (ML) algorithm implemented in EXSAS (Extended Scientific Software Analysis System, Zimmermann et al. 1995) is given in the last column. Note that $`ML=5`$ corresponds to a 2.7$`\sigma `$ signal over the background.

The spatial resolution of the PSPC ($`25\mathrm{}`$ at $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ at the center of the detector) does not allow to resolve the binary system ($`7.7^{\prime \prime }`$ separation). Therefore, in both observations there is a single X-ray detection located at $``$6 ″ from the binary system (see Table 1).

## 4 The X-ray flare on HD 560

During the ROSAT PSPC observation ROR 701092p the binary system HD 560 showed a large flare. The complete lightcurve is shown in Fig. 1. Next to the large outburst (around JD 2448814.4) an increase of the count rate is observed from the 2nd and 3rd data interval in Fig. 1. Since the count rate just before the eruption of the flare is about the same as that of the 3rd data interval, we suppose that between the 3rd and 5th data interval we see the quiescent emission. However, due to poor data sampling it is unknown for how long the emission indeed remained stable at this level. The strong variability besides the large flare might also reflect rotational modulation as a result of a spot on the surface of one of the companions in the binary, or it could be some kind of orbital effect.

With a binary separation of $`7.7^{\prime \prime }`$ the system is not resolved in both PSPC observations. Late-B type stars are not expected to produce X-rays because they lack both convective envelope (necessary for solar-type dynamo activity) and strong stellar winds (providing hot, shocked gas). However, in earlier studies (Schmitt et al. 1993, Huélamo et al. 2000) X-rays were observed from both stars in those Lindroos pairs that were resolved by the ROSAT HRI. While the typical $`\mathrm{lg}(L_\mathrm{x}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})`$ ratio for late-type stars is $`3`$, early-type stars are characterized by $`\mathrm{lg}(L_\mathrm{x}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})7`$. Huélamo et al. (2000) found that late-B type stars show intermediate $`L_\mathrm{x}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ values, but the hardness ratio is similar to that of late-type stars, suggesting unresolved companions. In the case of HD 560 we derive $`\mathrm{lg}(L_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{qui}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})=4.81`$ using the bolometric luminosity of the primary. Therefore it is likely that the late-type component is the X-ray source, and, although we can not exclude the opposite case, we assume that the flare occurred on the G5 dwarf star.

We have used the count-to-energy conversion factor of $`\mathrm{1.1\hspace{0.17em}10}^{11}\mathrm{cts}\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{erg}`$ (Neuhäuser et al. 1995) to compute the X-ray luminosity. For the Hipparcos distance of $`100\pm 9`$ pc the maximum count rate observed corresponds to a luminosity of $`L_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{1.3\; 10}^{31}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$. The luminosity derived for the quiescent count rate is $`L_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{qui}}=\mathrm{4.5\; 10}^{30}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$. We note, that an estimate of the possible contribution from the early-type primary to the quiescent emission is impossible. Therefore, for the evaluation of the flare luminosity, $`L_f=L_{\mathrm{max}}L_{\mathrm{qui}}`$, we have studied two different cases: (a) all X-rays (during quiescence and during the flare) come from the late-type component, and (b) both stars in the binary system contribute the same level to the quiescent emission, but the additional emission during the flare is only due to the late-type star. For these two cases we have found the following values for the flare luminosity:

(a) $`L_f=8.1\times 10^{30}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$

(b) $`L_f=1.0\times 10^{31}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$

No data is available for both rise and decay phase of the flare event. We chose 400 s for the binsize of the lightcurve displayed in Fig. 1. This is the best choice for the bin time given the satellite orbit wobble, and in order to achieve good S/N in each bin and high time resolution. Furthermore, we find that choosing finer time resolution does not improve our knowledge about the temporal development of the intensity. Due to the incomplete data sampling during the flare we can give only upper limits for both rise and decay timescales: $`\tau _{\mathrm{rise}}<1.2\mathrm{h}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}<11.3\mathrm{h}`$.

The time evolution of the PSPC hardness ratio $`HR\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ is displayed in the lower panel of Fig. 1. $`HR\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ seems to increase during the flare. However, the data are not conclusive in this respect due to low statistics. To verify whether the source really hardened during the flare event, we have extracted X-ray spectra for two time intervals representing the non-flaring state (pre- and post- flare data) and the flare (data interval #6). Spectral models for thermal emission from a hot, optically thin plasma (RS-model; Raymond & Smith 1977) plus a photo-absorption term are used to describe the spectra of both states.

We obtain good fits for two-temperature (2-T) RS models with abundances fixed to the solar value. One-temperature (1-T) models with solar abundance do not lead to acceptable fits ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2>1.6`$ for both flare and quiescent data). The F-test reveals that the significance of the improvement of the fit when the second temperature component is introduced is higher than 0.99. Only if the abundance is allowed to vary during the fitting process the quality of the fit is comparable to that of the 2-T models with fixed abundance. In all cases the column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ was held fixed at $`\mathrm{5.5\; 10}^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Berghöfer et al. 1996). In Table 2 the best fit parameters from the 1-T model with free abundance are compared to the result of the 2-T model with fixed abundance for both quiescent and flare spectra. In the 1-T model only a marginal temperature increase during the flare is observed despite the increase in spectral hardness (see Fig. 1). The contour plot for the two temperatures of the 2-T model is shown in Fig. 2. While the uncertainties make flare and quiescent state undistinguishable concerning $`kT`$ of the cooler component, the higher of the two temperatures is clearly representing the plasma heated during the flare.

## 5 Results and conclusions

We have presented a large X-ray flare from the Lindroos binary system HD 560 observed with the ROSAT PSPC. Earlier observations of a flare by EXOSAT had been reported, but left the identification with HD 560 ambiguous due to the lack of spatial resolution of the Medium Energy experiment.

The maximum X-ray luminosity during the ROSAT flare corresponds to $`10^{31}`$ erg/s, a value typical for young late-type stars. We have computed the bolometric luminosity for the G and the B star in HD 560 from the V magnitudes (Lindroos 1985) and the bolometric correction listed by Schmidt-Kaler (1982). Using the observed quiescent emission we derive the ratio of X-ray to bolometric luminosity $`\mathrm{lg}(L_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{qui}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})`$ for primary and secondary: $`(\mathrm{lg}(L_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{qui}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}))_{\mathrm{prim}}=4.81`$ and $`(\mathrm{lg}(L_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{qui}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}))_{\mathrm{sec}}=2.76`$. The latter value agrees well with the ‘canonical’ value of $`3`$ for late-type stars, while the value for the primary is neither typical for late-type nor for early-type stars. Therefore, supposedly, the flare has erupted on the G5 component of the system. However, the binary is unresolved, and it can not be ruled out that the flare originated on the B9 star. Whether or not late-B type stars emit X-rays is an unsolved problem.

We have analysed X-ray spectra for both the quiescent and the flare phase, and find acceptable fits for both phases with a two-temperature Raymond-Smith model. During the flare the higher temperature showed an increase with respect to the quiescent stage, while the lower temperature remained unaffected. A one-temperature model with free abundance provides fits of comparable quality. However, the rather similar temperature derived for the flare and the quiescent state with the one-temperature model is difficult to reconcile with coronal heating expected during flare outburst.

###### Acknowledgements.

The archived ROSAT observations investigated here were performed by R. Staubert. The ROSAT project is supported by the Max-Planck-Society and the German Government (DLR/BMBF).


format: text

text:
# Fine-tuning the basic forces of nature through the triple-alpha process in red giant starsThis work was partly supported by Grants D32513/FKFP-0242-2000/BO-00520-98 (Hungary), P13246-TPH (Austria), and by the John Templeton Foundation (938-COS153).

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Almost all the carbon in the Universe is produced through the triple-alpha process . Although the 8Be nucleus, formed in the collision of two alpha particles (4He), is unbound, it lives long enough to allow the possibility of capturing a third alpha particle to form stable 12C. However, in order to produce enough carbon, this second reaction must be resonant . The $`0_2^+`$ state of 12C, lying at 380 keV, relative to the $`3\alpha `$ threshold, therefore plays a key role in the synthesis of carbon. As both steps of the triple-alpha process are governed by narrow resonances, the reaction rate is given as

$$r_{3\alpha }3^{\frac{3}{2}}N_\alpha ^3\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{M_\alpha k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)^3\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{res}}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right),$$
(1)
where $`M_\alpha `$ and $`N_\alpha `$ are the mass and the number density of the alpha particles, respectively, $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ are the resonance energy and radiative width of the $`0_2^+`$ state of 12C, respectively, and $`T`$ is the stellar plasma temperature.

## 2 TRIPLE-ALPHA RATE AND N-N INTERACTION STRENGTH

As the rate of the triple-alpha process is exponentially sensitive to the resonance energy, even small changes in $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ can lead to big changes in $`r_{3\alpha }`$. We studied how much $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ can change if the strength of the N-N force is varied by a small amount. For this purpose we used a cluster-model description of 12C . We performed calculations using four different N-N forces, MHN, MN, V1, and V2 . Each force was tuned to give the experimental value for $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$. Then the strengths of the forces were multiplied by a factor $`p`$, which varied from 0.996 to 1.004. Thus $`p=1.0`$ gives back the experimental resonance energy. The $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ energies as functions of $`p`$ are shown in Fig. 1.

One can see that small changes (less than 1%) in the interaction strength lead to orders of magnitude bigger changes in the resonance energy. This effect is caused by the fact that the $`0_2^+`$ state lies close to the breakup threshold, effectively behaving as a nonlinear quantum amplifier .

As one can see in Fig. 1, the relation between $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`p`$ has a force dependence. Its origin can be traced back to the fact that the different interactions lead to different residual alpha-alpha forces, which is the key quantity in the nonlinear amplification phenomenon . If the $`0_2^+`$ state of 12C is correctly reproduced, then the resonance in the 8Be subsystem is underbound by the MHN force, while it is successively more and more overbound by MN, V1, and V2. This means that from the viewpoint of the 12C state, the residual $`\alpha \alpha `$ force is too strong for MHN, and increasingly too weak for MN, V1, and V2 (e.g., in the case of an MHN force which reproduces the correct 8Be energy, the 12C state would be overbound). This implies that the true behavior of $`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ as a function of $`p`$ is expected to be somewhere between the predictions of the MHN and MN forces.

Using the predictions of the MHN and MN forces, we calculated the $`r_{3\alpha }`$ rates for the modified interactions, and used these rates in a stellar model  in order to estimate the carbon and oxygen abundances . The results are shown in Fig. 2.

As one can see, the amount of carbon (oxygen) synthesized in any star is strongly reduced if the N-N force is weaker (stronger) than the standard case.

## 3 CONCLUSION

One can see in Fig. 2 that a 0.5% change in the N-N interaction strength would lead to a Universe which does not contain an appreciable amount of carbon or oxygen. This would make the existence of carbon-based life highly unlikely. This very strong fine-tuning effect gives us a possibility to try to constrain the possible values of some fundamental constants in the Standard Model. For example, if one assumes a pion-exchange model of the strong force, then the a smaller (larger) pion mass means a stronger (weaker) force. More detailed analyses show that our result on the fine-tuning of carbon and oxygen production can be used to give constraints on the possible values of the sum of the light quark masses and the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field at the 1% level .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

If a spherical star collapses to form a naked shell-focusing singularity, the nature and magnitude of the energy emission accompanying such a collapse is of interest. This emission may broadly be classified into three categories - classical  (where both matter and gravitational degrees of freedom are treated classically), semiclassical (where only the matter degrees of freedom are quantized on a classical curved background), and quantum gravitational (where both matter and gravity degrees of freedom are quantized).

A priori, it is not possible to say which of these three kinds of emission will dominate. In the present paper we bring together and analyze some of the results concerning the semiclassical emission. It is known that the quantum Hawking radiation is divergent as the Cauchy horizon is approached. We provide a fresh analysis of the divergence of the quantum flux on the Cauchy horizon, and derive the emission spectrum for a massless scalar field on the spherical dust background. The divergence of the quantum flux has been observed in various models , , ,  and the naked singularity spectrum was studied by Vaz and Witten  and by Harada et. al. .

The principal aim of the present paper is to show that during the epoch in which the semi-classical analysis is valid, the total emitted energy is about one Planck unit and is not divergent. If follows that, during this epoch, the back reaction is also unimportant for an astrophysical star because the total radiated energy is small compared with the mass of the star. Now the semiclassical approximation ceases to be valid about one Planck time before the formation of a Cauchy horizon because by then the curvature in the central region of the star reaches the Planck scale. Therefore further evolution of the star, i.e., during the last Planck time before the formation of the Cauchy horizon, will be determined by quantum gravity. An important consequence is that a star collapsing to a naked singularity enters the quantum gravitational phase with most of its mass intact. Because only about a Planck mass has been radiated away until then, semi-classical techniques cannot indicate whether the star radiates away a significant portion of its total mass on a short time scale or settles down into a black hole state.

## 2 Radiated Power

When a massless scalar field is quantized on the background of a collapsing spherical star, the radiated power can be calculated in the geometric optics approximation. The expression for the radiated power is

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\left[\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{𝒢^{\prime \prime }}{𝒢^{}}\right)^2\frac{𝒢^{\prime \prime \prime }}{𝒢^{}}\right]=\frac{\mathrm{}}{48\pi }\left[\left(\frac{𝒢^{\prime \prime }}{𝒢}\right)^22\left(\frac{𝒢^{\prime \prime }}{𝒢}\right)^{}\right],$$
(1)
or

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{48\pi }\left(\frac{𝒢^{\prime \prime }}{𝒢^{}}\right)^2,$$
(2)
where $`P`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ refer to a minimally coupled scalar field, $`\varphi `$, and a conformally coupled scalar field, $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, respectively. The difference is due to the nature of the coupling to the gravitational field and is seen to be only a total divergence which does not contribute to the total radiated energy under some physically reasonable assumptions. In this sense, it may be assumed that it is the radiated power for the conformally coupled scalar field that is relevant for the observed energy flux because this flux is positive definite. $`P`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ are the semiclassical contribution to the expectation value of the off-diagonal component of the stress-energy tensor, $`T_{UU}`$. We note that it is entirely expressed in terms of the function $`𝒢(U)`$, which maps ingoing null rays, $`V=`$constant, from $`^{}`$, to outgoing null rays $`U=`$constant on $`^+`$, i.e., $`V=𝒢(U)`$. This description of the radiated energy in terms of null rays is a consequence of the fact that the scalar field modes on the null infinites are most naturally expressed in terms of the null coordinates, $`U`$ and $`V`$ there . The aforementioned divergence in the radiated power is observed when the expressions (1) or (2) are evaluated for the case of a spherical star collapsing to a naked singularity. No such divergence is observed for a star collapsing to a black hole. In the following section, we display $`𝒢(U)`$ for both cases. In the former the function is polynomial, in the latter it is exponential. This key difference leads not only to the divergent flux but to a non-thermal spectrum as the star collapses to form a naked singularity.

## 3 The Dust Solution and the Map $`𝒢(U)`$

The spherical collapse of dust, as described by the Tolman-Bondi model, leads to the formation of a naked singularity for some initial data , ,  , . One can quantize a massless scalar field on the background of such a spacetime, and calculate the quantum power radiated in the low angular momentum modes, using the geometrical optics approximation described in the previous section. This has been done for the self-similar dust model , for non-self-similar dust collapse  and for a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ model , all of which are globally naked models. There is some indication from lower dimensional models that the locally naked models do not radiate catastrophically .

The marginally bound Tolman-Bondi metric is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2R^2dr^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(3)
The evolution of the area radius is given by

$$R^{3/2}=r^{3/2}\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{F(r)}t,$$
(4)
where $`F(r)`$ is the mass function, and the density evolution is determined by the equation (we set $`G=c=1`$)

$$8\pi \rho (t,r)=\frac{F^{}}{R^2R^{}}.$$
(5)
The cloud is assumed to extend up to some comoving radius $`r_b`$ and is matched to a Schwarzschild exterior. One can construct null coordinates $`(u,v)`$ in the interior and the Eddington-Finkelstein null coordinates $`(U,V)`$ in the exterior region.

The map $`𝒢(U)`$ defined in the previous section can be calculated, once an interior model for the collapsing spherical dust star is given. Let us first consider the self-similar model . In this case, the mass function is given by $`F(r)=\lambda r`$ and we have the scaling $`R=r`$ at the singular epoch, $`t=0`$. The density at the center evolves with time as

$$8\pi \rho =\frac{4}{3t^2}$$
(6)
becoming infinite at the singular epoch $`t=0`$.

At the boundary of the star, the Schwarzschild coordinates $`T,R`$ are related to the Tolman-Bondi coordinates by

$`T_b(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\sqrt{2M}}}r_b^{3/2}2\sqrt{2MR_b}+2M\mathrm{ln}|{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{R_b}+\sqrt{2M}}{\sqrt{R_b}\sqrt{2M}}}|,`$ (7)
$`R_b(t)`$ $`=`$ $`r_b\left[1a{\displaystyle \frac{t}{r_b}}\right]^{2/3}.`$ (8)
whence the Eddington-Finkelstein null coordinates become

$`U_b(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_b}{a}}y^3{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}ar_byr_by^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}a^2r_b\mathrm{ln}|3y/2a1|,`$ (9)
$`V_b(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_b}{a}}y^3{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}ar_by+r_by^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}a^2r_b\mathrm{ln}|3y/2a+1|.`$ (10)
where $`y=\sqrt{R/r}`$ and $`a=3\sqrt{\lambda }/2`$.

Tracing a ray $`V`$ = constant from $`^{}`$ through the cloud and out again toward $`^+`$, one finds that, for the self-similar model forming a naked singularity, the map $`𝒢(U)`$ is given by

$$𝒢(U)=AB(U_0U)^{\frac{1}{\gamma }}$$
(11)
where $`\gamma `$ is a positive constant, less than unity, which is determined by the only free parameter, $`\lambda `$, in the self-similar model. Above, $`U_0`$ is the Cauchy horizon. On the other hand, if the self-similar star collapses to form a black hole, the map is given by

$$𝒢(U)=AB\mathrm{exp}\left[U/4M\right],$$
(12)
where $`M=F(r_b)/2`$ is the total mass of the star.

## 4 Spectrum of Created Particles

Let us evaluate the expectation value of the number operator of the created particles, in the Minkowski in-vacuum. This is given by

$$0|N(\omega )|0=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega ^{}|\beta (\omega ^{},\omega )|^2$$
(13)
with $`\beta `$ is the Bogoliubov coefficient given by

$$\beta (\omega ^{}\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\omega ^{}}{\omega }}_{\mathrm{}}^{V_0}𝑑Ve^{i\omega ^{}V}e^{i\omega (V)}.$$
(14)
Here, the function $`U=(V)`$ is the inverse of the map $`V=𝒢(U)`$. The ingoing ray $`V_0`$ is the last ray which becomes an outgoing ray after passing through the center of the star. In case of the naked singularity model, one needs to make a subtle assumption about the nature of emission from beyond the Cauchy horizon. The present analysis amounts to the assumption that there are no outgoing modes from beyond the Cauchy horizon . In principle, one could consider alternate boundary conditions on and in the future of the Cauchy horizon (see for instance Harada et al. ).

It follows that,

$$0|N(\omega )|0=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^{V_0}𝑑V_{\mathrm{}}^{V_0}𝑑V^{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega ^{}\omega ^{}e^{i\omega ^{}(V^{}V)}e^{i\omega [(V^{})(V)]}$$
(15)
and carrying out the integral over $`\omega ^{}`$ we find

$$N(\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^{V_0}𝑑V_{\mathrm{}}^{V_0}𝑑V^{}\frac{1}{(V^{}V+iϵ)^2}e^{i\omega [(V^{})(V)]}.$$
(16)
Now inverting the expression (12) for $`𝒢(U)`$ to obtain the map $`(V)`$ for the black hole, and making the substitutions $`x=V_0V`$, $`y=V_0V^{}`$, and then $`p=xy`$, $`q=y/x`$ we get

$$N(\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dp}{p}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{q^{4iM\omega }}{(1q+iϵ)^2}.$$
(17)
The integral over $`q`$ can be performed . Finally taking the $`ϵ0`$ limit, we obtain

$$N(\omega )=\frac{2M}{\pi }\frac{1}{e^{8\pi M\omega }1}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dp}{p}.$$
(18)
Thus we recover the expected thermal result for the frequency dependence in the case of the black hole. The divergence resulting from the integral over $`p`$ represents a steady flux over an infinite time and can be eliminated by considering the emission per unit time.

The integral for the naked singularity case can be performed by inverting the map given in (11) and by making the substitutions $`x=V_0V`$, $`y=V_0V^{}`$ followed by $`p=x^\gamma y^\gamma `$, $`q=y/x`$. This gives

$$N(\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q+_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑p_0^1𝑑q\right]\frac{e^{i\omega Bp}}{\gamma |p|}\frac{1}{(1q+iϵ)^2}.$$
(19)
or, after integrating,

$$N(\omega )\frac{ϵ^1}{4\pi \omega \gamma }.$$
(20)
The frequency dependence of the spectrum is $`1/\omega `$. In evaluating the integral (16) for the naked case we have made the change $`ϵϵx`$. As is seen, the role of the regulator $`ϵ`$ in the naked case is quite different from that in the black hole case. The limit $`ϵ0`$ yields a divergence - the origin of this divergence appears to be different from the black hole case, since now the flux is not for an infinite time.

The fact that the divergent behaviour of the spectrum does not depend on the parameter $`\gamma `$ characterizing the naked singularity suggests that this spectrum may be the result of imposing self-similarity on the solution. It could also be related to the cutoff at the Cauchy horizon (i.e. the assumption that there are no outgoing modes beyond the Cauchy horizon). It also suggests that an inference of the spectrum will strongly depend on the nature of boundary conditions imposed on the Cauchy horizon.

We would like to emphasize that the boundary conditions assumed here for the spectrum calculation are not at all relevant for the calculation of the radiated energy described in the next section. The result on the radiated energy is entirely based on calculations in the spacetime region prior to the Cauchy horizon. Hence there is no need to make any assumptions regarding boundary conditions on the Cauchy horizon, in so far as the calculation of emitted energy is concerned.

## 5 Radiated Energy

Let us now calculate the radiated energy. Using (1) and the forms (12) and (11) for $`𝒢(𝒰)`$ we get the radiated power in the black hole case as

$$P=\widehat{P}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{768\pi M^2}$$
(21)
and in the naked case as

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{}}{48\pi }\left[\frac{1\gamma ^2}{\gamma ^2(U_0U)^2}\right],$$
(22)
and

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{48\pi }\left[\frac{(1\gamma )^2}{\gamma ^2(U_0U)^2}\right].$$
(23)
The net, integrated, flux emitted in the naked singularity model can be written as

$$E=_{\mathrm{}}^UP(U^{})𝑑U^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{48\pi }\left[\frac{1\gamma ^2}{\gamma ^2(U_0U)}\right],$$
(24)
and

$$\widehat{E}=_{\mathrm{}}^U\widehat{P}(U^{})𝑑U^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{48\pi }\left[\frac{(1\gamma )^2}{\gamma ^2(U_0U)}\right].$$
(25)
As seen above, in the limit that $`U`$ approaches the Cauchy horizon $`U_0`$, the emitted flux diverges. However, this divergence needs to be interpreted carefully. We are working with the semiclassical approximation, in which the gravitational field has not been quantized. The semiclassical approximation ceases to be valid if the curvature at some point inside the star approaches Planck scale. From (6) we see that this happens at the center of the star at $`tt_{Planck}`$ where $`t_{Planck}`$ is the Planck time. Hence, we may say that the results of the semiclassical approximation cannot be trusted beyond this epoch.

From equations (8) and (10) one can show that for a ray starting from the origin at $`t=t_{Planck}`$, the time difference $`U_0U`$ is greater than of the order of Planck time. This is done as follows. Let ray $`A`$ start from the origin $`r=0`$ at $`t=t_{pl}`$ and ray $`B`$ start from the origin at the singular epoch $`t=0`$. The outward propagation of a radial null ray is described by the equation

$$\frac{dt}{dr}=R^{}=\frac{1\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{2}\frac{t}{r}}{\left(1\frac{3\sqrt{\lambda }}{2}\frac{t}{r}\right)^{1/3}}.$$
(26)
Since ray $`B`$ arrives at a comoving coordinate $`r`$ later than ray $`A`$, it follows from this equation that the value of $`dt/dr`$ at a given $`r`$ will be higher for $`B`$ compared to $`A`$. Hence the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_Bt_A`$ between the arrival times $`t_B`$ and $`t_A`$ of these two rays at the boundary $`r_b`$ of the star will exceed $`t_{pl}`$.

Using equation (10) and the definition of $`y`$ we can write the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }UU_0UU_BU_A`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=t_Bt_A+\mathrm{other}\mathrm{positive}\mathrm{terms}$$
(27)
This shows that the asymptotic time difference $`U_0U`$ will be greater than of the order of Planck time. Hence, one can see from (24) that in the range that the semiclassical approximation can be trusted, the emitted semiclassical flux is less than of the order of Planck energy, which is in general much smaller than the mass of the original star.

This suggests that very early during the collapse, the star enters the quantum gravitational phase, with most of its mass intact. The further evolution, including the nature, duration and amount of emission, will be determined by quantum gravity. In this sense, the naked singularity system behaves very differently from the black hole system. For an evaporating black hole, quantum gravitational effects become important only during the very final stages, when the mass of the black hole approaches Planck mass. For an astrophysical black hole, the time taken to reach this quantum gravitational phase is enormous ($`10^{71}(M/M_{})^3\text{s}`$). Also, it is an open issue as to whether the black hole evaporates entirely, or leaves behind a Planck mass remnant.

On the other hand, for the star forming a naked singularity, quantum gravity becomes important much before the completion of the collapse. And it is at present an open issue as to whether the naked star settles into a black hole or explodes on a very short time scale. This issue has to be decided by quantum gravity. Perhaps one can say that for the first time physicists have encountered a dynamical system whose evolution, within the lifetime of the Universe, can only be understood with the help of quantum gravity. Indeed, the Universe may well contain such stars, whose final evolution cannot be understood without quantum gravity. A study of such systems appears to be a useful probe of theories of quantum gravity like canonical general relativity and string theory.

## 6 Back Reaction

An important aspect of the above analysis is that we have ignored the back-reaction, and one could well ask if our conclusions could be affected by its inclusion. We now give arguments as to why the back reaction cannot be important during the semiclassical evolution, in the present case. One can propose two different criteria for deciding as to when the back reaction becomes important. One is that the total flux received at infinity becomes comparable to the mass of the collapsing star. As we have seen above, if the mass of the collapsing star is much greater than the Planck mass (as is of course usually the case) then the back reaction does not become important during the semiclassical phase, because the net emission cannot be more than about one Planck mass.

The second criterion for the back-reaction to become important is that the energy density of the quantum field becomes comparable to the background energy density, inside the star. In a four-dimensional model, it is difficult to establish whether this happens. However, one can study the evolution of the quantum field inside the star using the 2-d model obtained by suppressing the angular part of the 4-d Tolman-Bondi model . Using this model, Iguchi and Harada  have shown that during the domain of validity of the semiclassical approximation the expectation value of the energy momentum tensor of the scalar field remains smaller than the energy density of the dust matter in the collapsing background. Thus the back reaction does not become significant during the semiclassical evolution, inside the star, for this 2-d model. Since a solution of the four dimensional model obtained using the geometric optics approximation is equivalent to the exact solution of the two-dimensional version, it is plausible that this result holds for the four dimensional stellar dust model as well. In this case we can conclude that quantum gravitational effects are more important than the semiclassical back reaction in deciding the evolution of the star.

Again we see that the semiclassical evolution is very different from the black hole case, since the back reaction plays a crucial role during the semiclassical history of the black hole.

## 7 The Smooth Case

Similar conclusions about the nature of the evolution hold also for a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ model studied by Harada et al. . They also find that the amount of energy emitted during the semiclassical phase is of the order of Planck energy. Hence our results are not specific to the self-similar model.

The situation is similar but more complicated than the self-similar case. The $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ case is given by

$$F(r)=F_3r^3+F_5r^5+\mathrm{}.$$
(28)
Then Harada et al. found that the function $`𝒢`$ behaves as

$$𝒢=V_0A(U_0U)f\nu _s^{1/2}(U_0U)^{3/2}+\text{higher order terms},$$
(29)
where $`\nu _s`$ is determined by the initial density profile and the above formula is valid only for $`\nu _s(U_0U)<1`$. Using the above formula, they also found

$`P`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\nu _s^{1/2}(U_0U)^{3/2},`$ (30)
$`\widehat{P}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\nu _s(U_0U)^1,`$ (31)
$`E`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\nu _s(U_0U)^{1/2},`$ (32)
$`\widehat{E}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\nu _s\mathrm{ln}[\nu _s(U_0U)^1],`$ (33)
$`N(\nu )`$ $``$ $`\nu _s\nu ^2.`$ (34)
It is noted that $`\nu _s`$ may exceed the Planck frequency $`\nu _{Planck}`$ because $`\nu _s`$ is determined by some combination of two macroscopic scales, the free-fall time and the scale of inhomogeneity. Nevertheless, we can find that the total radiated energy for this late time radiation cannot exceed the Planck energy $`\mathrm{}\nu _{Planck}10^{16}\text{erg}`$ before the Planck time $`t_{Planck}=10^{43}\text{s}`$. The proof is the following. If $`\nu _s>\nu _{Planck}`$, then it is found that the late time radiation is only for $`U_0U<\nu _s^1<t_{Planck}`$. Therefore, we only consider $`\nu _s<\nu _{Planck}`$. For this case, it is found

$`E_{U_0Ut_{Planck}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}(\nu _s\nu _{Planck})^{1/2}<\mathrm{}\nu _{Planck},`$ (35)
$`\widehat{E}_{U_0Ut_{Planck}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\nu _{Planck}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _s}{\nu _{Planck}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{Planck}}{\nu _s}}\right)<\mathrm{}\nu _{Planck},`$ (36)
where the second inequality comes from the fact that the function $`x\mathrm{ln}x`$ has a maximum value $`e^1`$ in the domain $`0<x<1`$.

## 8 Discussion

One could conjecture that this picture (i.e. the semiclassical flux is of the order of Planck energy) will in general hold for a naked singularity forming in spherical collapse, even if the matter model is other than dust. This is because the curvature induced quantum particle production is a kinematical effect and the only role dust plays is that of providing the background gravitational field. Any other matter model giving rise to a spherical naked singularity can be expected to have a similar semiclassical evolution. The fact that the semiclassical emission is so small appears to suggest that the emission comes from a very small central spacetime region in the neighborhood of the naked singularity. If so, then this is a property of the spherical geometry, which should continue to hold when pressure is included. In the case of a black hole, the semiclassical emission is a property of the event horizon - as a result the evaporation rate is slower and the semiclassical phase lasts for a much longer duration.

In contrast with the spherical case, if the collapse is highly non-spherical, say resulting in a spindle naked singularity, it is possible that the semiclassical emission could be a significant fraction of the initial mass. This is an important open problem which deserves to be investigated.

Understanding the quantum gravitational evolution of a spherical star which terminates in a naked singularity is thus an outstanding challenge for candidate theories of quantum gravity. One would like to know whether the star settles into a black hole state or instead, undergoes a catastrophic explosion on a short time scale, resulting in a cosmic burst. A first step towards modelling this phase has been taken in  where a formalism is developed for the midisuperspace quantisation of the Wheeler-deWitt equation describing spherical dust collapse.

Acknowledgements

TH is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 05540) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture. KN is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Creative Basic Research (No. 09NP0801) from Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture. TPS and CV acknowledge the partial support of the FCT, Portugal, under contract number POCTI/32694/FIS/2000. TT is supported by the Monbusho Grant-in-Aid No. 1270154.


text:
# Nonextensive distribution and factorization of the joint probability

## 1 Introduction

The nonextensive probability distribution

$$p_i=\frac{[1(1q)\beta (E_iC)]^{\frac{1}{1q}}}{Z_q}$$
(1)
plays a decisive role for the success of the generalized statistical mechanics  because it is capable of reproducing unusual distributions of non gaussian type which are met frequently in nature (see reference  and the references there-in). Very recently, distribution functions of type Eq. (1) were recognized by the so-called eigencoordinates method with high level of authenticity as good description of the amplitude distribution of earthquake noises which are proved to be fractal and strongly correlated . In Eq. (1), $`\beta `$ is the generalized inverse temperature, $`E_i`$ is the energy of the system in the state $`i`$, $`C`$ a constant to assure the invariance of the distribution through uniform translation of energy spectrum $`E_i`$, and $`Z_q`$ is given by

$$Z_q=\underset{i}{}[1(1q)\beta (E_iU_q)]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(2)
or by

$$Z_q=\underset{i}{}[1(1q)\beta (E_iU_q)]^{\frac{q}{1q}},\text{[4]}$$
(3)
in Tsallis’ multi-fractal inspired scenario  with $`U_q`$ the internal energy of the system and $`\beta =\frac{Z^{q1}}{kT}`$, and by

$$Z_q=\left[\underset{i}{}[1(1q)\beta E_i]^{\frac{q}{1q}}\right]^{\frac{1}{q}}.$$
(4)
with $`\beta =\frac{Z^{1q}}{kT}`$ in Wang’s incomplete statistics scenario  devoted to describe inexact or incomplete probability distribution  due to neglected interactions in the system hamiltonian. It is noteworthy that Eq. (1) is a canonical distribution function for isolated system in terms of its total energy $`E_i`$.

In this paper, we discuss the factorization problem of Eq. (1) and some of its consequences when the canonical system is composed of correlated subsystems or particles. At the same time, we also comment on some interesting applications of Eq. (1) found in the literature.

## 2 Factorization approximation

In Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon statistics (BGS), thanks to the easy factorization of the exponential distribution functions, i.e.,

$$\underset{i}{}e^{\beta _je_{ij}}=\underset{j}{}\underset{i}{}e^{\beta e_{ij}}.$$
(5)
the system distribution function can yield one particle one in terms of the single body energy $`e_{ij}`$ in the case of independent particles or of mean-field method with $`E_i=_{j=1}^Ne_{ij}`$, where $`j`$ is the index and N the total number of the distinguishable particles.

But this approach is impossible in the case of the nonextensive distribution, because,

$$\underset{i}{}[1(1q)\beta \underset{j}{}e_{ij}]^{\frac{1}{1q}}\underset{j}{}\underset{i}{}[1(1q)\beta e_{ij}]^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(6)
This inequality makes it difficult to apply the nonextensive distribution even to systems of independent particles, because the total partition function can not be factorized into single particle one. So in the definition of the total system entropy $`S_q=f[p(E_i),q]`$, $`p(E_i)`$ must be the probability of a microstate of the system and $`E_i`$ can not be replaced by one-body energy $`e_{ij}`$. However, in the literature, we find applications of Tsallis’ distribution in which $`E_i`$ is systematically replaced by $`e_{ij}`$ without explanation . The first examples are related to the polytropic model of galaxies and the authors have taken the one-body energy of stars and of solar neutrinos ($`ϵ=\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{v^2}{2}`$) as $`E_i`$. Other examples are the peculiar velocity of galaxy clusters ($`ev^2`$) and the electron plasma turbulence where the electron single site density $`n(r)`$ was taken as system (electron plasma) distribution function and the total energy was calculated with the one-electron potential $`\varphi (r)`$ . The last case is the application of nonextensive blackbody distribution to laser systems where the atomic energy levels were taken as laser system energy in equation (8) of reference . As a matter of fact, in above examples, the calculated entropies and distributions are one-particle ones, as we always do in BGS framework. Consequently, considering Eq. (6), they are only approximate applications of the $`exact`$ Tsallis’ distribution.

The legitimacy of the above mentioned applications depends on the approximation with which we write Eq. (6) as an equality. One of the solutions is the limit of $`q1`$ where Eq. (6) tends to an equality. But this solution does not hold for the cases of $`q`$ value very different from unity, as in the above mentioned examples of applications. Another way out is the factorization approximation proposed in order to obtain the nonextensive Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions  which read

$$n_q=\frac{g}{[1+(q1)\beta (e\mu )]^{\frac{1}{q1}}\pm 1}$$
(7)
where $`g`$ is the degeneracy of the level with energy $`e`$. As in the case of the corrected Boltzmann distribution (i.e. $`\frac{n_q}{g}1`$), Eq. (7) can be reduced to

$$p(e)\frac{n_q}{g}=[1(1q)\beta (e\mu )]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(8)
where $`p(e)`$ is one-particle probability and $`e`$ one-particle energy. So we can say that only in this approximation the above mentioned applications are justified.

It is worth mentioning that, although approximate, the above successful applications were the first proofs of the existence of Tsallis type distributions (Eq. (1)) in nature. In addition, this is a parametrized distribution. So in many cases, what we neglect in the approximation may be compensated (at least partially) by a different value of $`q`$ fixed empirically. The interest of the applications mentioned above is to show that this kind of nonextensive (nonadditive) probability can really describe some non-gaussian type peculiar distributions we observe. That is what is important in practice.

Nevertheless, an approximation has sometimes in itself theoretical importance when it concerns the basic foundation of a theory. That is the case of the factorization approximation.

## 3 Factorization of the joint probability

The factorization approximation is a forced marriage between the right-hand side and the left-hand side of Eq. (6), that is we write just like that :

$$[1(1q)\beta \underset{j}{}e_j]^{\frac{1}{1q}}\underset{j}{}[1(1q)\beta e_j]^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(9)
where we keep only the index $`j`$ of the particles, as we do from now on in this section. What is neglected in this approximation is the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the right-hand side and the left-hand side of Eq. (9) which has been investigated in reference  with a two-level system for the simple case where $`q>1`$ (or $`q<1`$), $`e_j>0`$ (or $`e_j<0`$) and $`\mu =0`$. Under these harsh conditions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ turns out to be very small at normal temperatures for mesoscopic or macroscopic systems (with important particle number $`N`$). But it is not the case for $`q<1`$ and $`e_j>0`$ with in addition $`\mu 1`$. So in general, we can not write Eq. (9).

Eqs. (6) and Eq. (9) can be discussed in another way as follows. If we replace $`_je_j`$ by the total energy $`E`$ in Eq. (9), we get :

$$[1(1q)\beta E]^{\frac{1}{1q}}=\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}[1(1q)\beta e_j]^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(10)
for $`N`$ subsystems (or particles with energy $`e_j`$ where $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$) of a composite system with total energy $`E`$ at a given state. This is just the factorization of the joint probability $`p(E)`$ as a product of all $`p(e_j)`$ :

$$p(E)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}p(e_j).$$
(11)
With Eq. (10) or (11), strictly speaking, we can not write

$$E=\underset{j}{}e_j.$$
(12)
But in Tsallis’ scenario, Eq. (12) is necessary for establishing the zeroth law of thermodynamics . Abe studied this problem with ideal gas model and concluded that Eq. (12) can hold for $`e_j>0`$, $`0<q<1`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$. That is the correlation energy $`E_c=E_je_j`$ between the maybe strongly correlated subsystems or particles can be neglected. But this is of course not a general conclusion for any $`q`$ value or any system. In what follows, we will try to give the general expression of the correlation energy in $`ISM`$ because this relation is implicit in Tsallis’ scenario . The following discussion is for $`0<q<\mathrm{}`$, the permitted interval of $`q`$ value in $`ISM`$ .

If $`N=1`$, from Eq. (11), we naturally obtain $`E=e_1`$ so $`E_c=0`$.

If $`N=2`$, we obtain :

$`aE`$ $`=`$ $`(1+ae_1)(1+ae_2)1`$
$`=`$ $`ae_1+ae_2+a^2e_1e_2=a{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}e_i+a^2e_1e_2`$
where $`a=(q1)\beta `$. So $`E_c=ae_1e_2`$.

If $`N=3`$, we get :

$`aE`$ $`=`$ $`(1+ae_1)(1+ae_2)(1+ae_3)1`$
$`=`$ $`a(e_1+e_2+e_3)+a^2(e_1e_2+e_1e_3+e_2e_3)+a^3(e_1e_2e_3)`$
$`=`$ $`a{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e_i+a^2{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2}{\overset{3(\frac{3!}{2!1!}terms)}{}}}e_{i_1}e_{i_2}+a^3{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e_i.`$
and

$`E_c`$ $`=`$ $`a(e_1e_2+e_1e_3+e_2e_3)+a^2(e_1e_2e_3).`$ (15)
When $`N\mathrm{}`$, this is a infinite product problem. In general, we obtain :

$`aE`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1+ae_i)1`$
$`=`$ $`a{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e_i+a^2{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{2!(N2)!}terms)}{}}}e_{i_1}e_{i_2}`$
$`+`$ $`a^3{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<i_3}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{3!(N3)!}terms)}{}}}e_{i_1}e_{i_2}e_{i_3}+\mathrm{}+a^N{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_N}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{N!(NN)!}terms)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a^k{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}terms)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}e_{i_j}`$
$`=`$ $`aE_0+aE_c`$
where $`E_0`$ is the system energy given by Eq. (12) for independent subsystems like the particles of perfect gas. $`E_c`$ is given by :

$`E_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1+ae_i)E_0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}a^{k1}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}terms)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}e_{i_j}`$
The value of $`E_c`$ is in general difficult to estimate. We can discuss it in the following way.

For $`q>1`$ (or $`0<q<1`$) and $`e_i>0`$ (or $`e_i<0`$), $`E_c`$ may be very big when $`N\mathrm{}`$ because $`_i(ae_i)`$ may diverge. So it is in general not negligible.

For $`q>1`$ (or $`0<q<1`$) and $`e_i<0`$ (or $`e_i>0`$),

$`E_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{k1}[(1q)\beta ]^{k1}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}terms)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|e_{i_j}|`$ (18)
The sign of each term varies alternatively, which may turn out to cancel $`E_c`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$. But this is only a possibility. In general, we can not say that $`E_c`$ is negligible.

Considering Eq. (11), the meanvalue of $`E_c`$ is given by following integral in phase-space $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )`$ :

$`U_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau p(E)E_c}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{k1}[(1q)\beta ]^{k1}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}terms)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau p(e_{i_j})e_{i_j}}|`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{k1}[(1q)\beta ]^{k1}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k}{\overset{N(\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}terms)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|U_{i_j}|`$
The conclusion of this section is that $`U_c`$ is in general not negligible. So one must be very careful in using nonextensive distribution for correlated subsystems within factorization approximation, especially in the case of the nonextensive quantum statistics derived on the basis of this approximation .

## 4 Re-establishment of the zeroth law of thermodynamics

In this section, we will discuss an application of the so called Incomplete Statistical Mechanics ($`ISM`$) , a new version of the nonextensive statistical mechanics ($`NSM`$) based on the normalization condition $`_ip_i^q=1`$ where $`q`$ is a positive parameter. $`q1`$ corresponds to the fact that the probability distributions $`\{p_i\}`$ with incomplete random variables  do not sum to one. If $`q=1`$, the random variables of the problem become complete and we recover the conventional normalization ($`CN`$) $`_ip_i=1`$. $`ISM`$ was proposed as a consequence of the study of the fundamental theoretical problems  of Tsallis version of $`NSM`$ with escort probability . The fundamental philosophy of $`ISM`$ is that $`CN`$ is difficult to be applied to the systems with important complicated interactions or correlations because, in this case, our ”incomplete” knowledge about the states of the systems does not permit us to sum all the (exact) probabilities. With simpler systems, this human ignorance could be neglected and $`CN`$ holds.

In our opinion, $`ISM`$ is not just another form of Tsallis nonextensive statistics, contrary to what some scientists thought. Some of the significant differences is discussed in Ref.. In what follows, we will re-establish, in a precise way, the zeroth law which was established within Tsallis theory only in the case of factorization approximation in neglecting the correlation energy.

In incomplete statistical mechanics, we have following equations for a composite system containing two correlated subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ :

$$S_q(A+B)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+\frac{q1}{k}S_q(A)S_q(B),$$
(20)
$$E_{ij}(A+B)=E_i(A)+E_j(B)+(q1)\beta E_i(A)E_j(B),$$
(21)
$$U_q(A+B)=U_q(A)+U_q(B)+(q1)\beta U_q(A)U_q(B)$$
(22)
$$S_q=k\frac{Z_q^{q1}1}{q1}+k\beta Z_q^{q1}U_q,$$
(23)
and

$$\beta =\frac{Z_q^{1q}}{kT}.$$
(24)
In Eq. (20), there is a plus sign ”+” before the correlated term. But it was minus sign ”-” in Tsallis formalism. Eqs. (21) and (22) show the same $`q`$-dependence of the correlation terms as Eq. (20). They do not exist in Tsallis formalism with escort probability . The $`q`$-dependence of the above equations is of crucial importance for the establishment of the zeroth law.

From Eq. (20), a small variation of the total entropy can be written as :

$`\delta S_q(A+B)`$ $`=`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{k}}S_q(B)]\delta S_q(A)+[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{k}}S_q(A)]\delta S_q(B)`$
$`=`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{k}}S_q(B)]{\displaystyle \frac{S_q(A)}{U_q(A)}}\delta U_q(A)`$
$`+`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{k}}S_q(A)]{\displaystyle \frac{S_q(B)}{U_q(B)}}\delta U_q(B).`$
And from Eq. (22), the variation of the total internal energy is given by :

$`\delta U_q(A+B)`$ $`=`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{k}}U_q(B)]\delta U_q(A)+[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{k}}U_q(A)]\delta U_q(B).`$ (26)
It is supposed that the total system $`(A+B)`$ is completely isolated. So $`\delta U_q(A+B)=0`$ which leads to :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta U_q(A)}{1+\frac{q1}{k}U_q(A)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta U_q(B)}{1+\frac{q1}{k}U_q(B)}}`$ (27)
When the composite system $`(A+B)`$ is in $`equilibrium`$, $`\delta S_q(A+B)=0`$. In this case, Eqs. (4) and (27) lead us to :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{q1}{k}U_q(A)}{1+\frac{q1}{k}S_q(A)}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_q(A)}{U_q(A)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{q1}{k}U_q(B)}{1+\frac{q1}{k}S_q(B)}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_q(B)}{U_q(B)}}.`$ (28)
With the help of Eqs. (23) and (24), it is straightforward to show that, in general :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{q1}{k}U_q}{1+\frac{q1}{k}S_q}}=Z_q^{1q}`$ (29)
which recasts Eq. (28) as follows :

$`Z_q^{1q}(A){\displaystyle \frac{S_q(A)}{U_q(A)}}=Z_q^{1q}(B){\displaystyle \frac{S_q(B)}{U_q(B)}}`$ (30)
or

$`\beta (A)=\beta (B)`$ (31)
where $`\beta `$ is the generalized inverse temperature defined in Eq. (24). Eq. (30) or (31) is the generalized zeroth law of thermodynamics which describes the thermodynamic relations between different nonextensive systems in thermal equilibrium.

one of the important meanings of Eq. (31) is that the thermal equilibrium of a system is now caracterized by $`\beta `$ but not $`T`$. This allows us to have an explicit distribution with Eq. (1), which becomes implicit in Tsallis formalism with Eq. (2) and (3).

## 5 Conclusion

Our conclusion is that all applications of Tsallis’ distribution relative to correlated subsystems or particles should be considered to be valid only under the factorization approximation and the condition $`\frac{n_q}{g}1`$. This factorization approximation must be employed carefully because the correlation energy between the correlated subsystems is in general not negligible even in the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$). The zeroth law of thermodynamics can be established in the framework of Incomplete Statistical Mechanics without any approximation.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We acknowledge with great pleasure the very useful discussions with Professor Sumiyoshi Abe on some points of this work.


text:
# Chiral Symmetry Breaking for Domain Wall Fermions in Quenched Lattice QCD

## 1 INTRODUCTION

An important feature of both domain wall and overlap fermion formulations is that the chiral limit is disentangled from the continuum limit. For the case of the domain wall fermions, the chiral symmetry breaking is solely controlled by the amount of coupling between the domain walls. To exploit the chiral properties of the domain wall fermions, it is essential to understand these chiral symmetry breaking effects.

We reported earlier that for quenched simulations, although the quantity $`m_\pi ^2(m_f=0)`$ obtained from the pseudoscalar density correlator decreased as the separation between the domain walls $`L_s`$ was increased, it did not appear to vanish in the $`L_s\mathrm{}`$ limit. Further investigation shows that the chiral limit of the pion mass is distorted by many factors. Besides the order $`a^2`$ effects and finite volume effects common to both dynamical and quenched simulations using domain wall fermions, the presence of topological near-zero modes in the quenched approximation significantly affects the determination of the pion mass. These zero-mode effects can be suppressed by going to a larger volume. Other non-linear behaviors caused by the absence of the fermion determinant in quenched simulations, such as “quenched chiral logs”, may also play an important role in the behavior of the pion mass as the chiral limit is approached. These factors make it difficult to determine the degree of chiral symmetry breaking from examination of the pion mass in the quenched chiral limit. The technique described in detail below quantifies the chiral symmetry breaking effects more precisely by a single residual mass measured from the extra term in the divergence of the axial current.

## 2 RESIDUAL CHIRAL SYMMETRY BREAKING

Close to the continuum, the effect of mixing between the domain walls produces chiral symmetry breaking terms with a coefficient $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$, the residual mass, in the low energy effective Lagrangian. This results in an effective quark mass of $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ entering all low momentum Green’s functions.

We can measure $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ starting from the divergence of the axial current, given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu 𝒜_\mu ^a(x)=2m_fJ_5^a(x)+2J_{5q}^a(x).$$
(1)
Compared with the corresponding continuum expression, the additional term from $`J_{5q}^a`$, referred as the “mid-point” contribution, should be equivalent to $`m_{\mathrm{res}}J_5^a`$ up to $`O(a^2)`$. Therefore when t is large enough such that low energy physics dominates, the ratio

$$R(t)=\frac{_\stackrel{}{x}J_{5q}^a(\stackrel{}{x},t)\pi ^a(0)}{_\stackrel{}{x}J_5^a(\stackrel{}{x},t)\pi ^a(0)}$$
(2)
should be equal to $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$. Fig. 1 shows that the plateau for $`R(t)`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$, $`L_s=16`$ starts from $`t=2`$, and at $`\beta =5.7`$, $`L_s=48`$ it starts from $`t=4`$.

Being part of the mass term of the low energy effective Lagrangian close to the continuum, $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ should provide a universal description of the residual chiral symmetry breaking effects in all long distance observables. This is demonstrated in Figure 2 where $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ shows little $`m_f`$ or volume dependence at $`\beta =5.70`$, $`L_s=48`$.

Figure 3 shows the $`L_s`$ dependence of $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$. The residual mass decreases with $`L_s`$, but the data points are poorly fit by a simple exponential. If we add a constant to the function, a much better fit can be obtained. This constant, which is the residual mass at infinite $`L_s`$, is about 1 MeV. The five points can also be fit extremely well to a double-exponential function; this may suggest the existence of multiple decay modes. The exact asymptotic form for $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ as a function of $`L_s`$ still needs further investigation. However for $`L_s=16`$, $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ is already as low as 3.87(16) MeV in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme at 2 GeV, about 1/30 of the strange quark mass. This value is so small that the residual chiral symmetry breaking is not very important for these simulations. Even at the stronger coupling $`\beta =5.7`$ ($`a^11`$ GeV), when $`L_s`$ is increased from 32 to 48, $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ drops from 0.0105(2) to 0.00688(13), which is about 1/14 of the strange quark mass. Good chiral properties can be obtained by simulating at this value of $`L_s`$. Studies of this issue can also be found in .

## 3 CALCULATION OF $`f_\pi `$

As a test of these measurements and chiral properties, we calculate the pion decay constant using the pseudoscalar density correlator, which requires knowledge of the residual mass, and compare the results with those obtained from the axial vector current correlator.

Following the definition of the pion decay constant, $`f_\pi `$ can be related to the amplitude of the axial current correlator $`A_{AA}`$:

$$A_{AA}=(\frac{f_\pi }{Z_A})^2\frac{m_\pi }{2}.$$
(3)
In Eq. 3, the renormalization factor $`Z_A`$ is needed to relate the local axial current to the conserved current in the domain wall fermion formulation. $`Z_A`$ can be measured by studying the large t behavior of the quantity $`Z_A(t)`$, defined as the ratio of the coupling between the conserved current and the pion to the coupling between the local current and the pion. Figure 4 shows that nice plateaus for $`Z_A(t)`$ can be found over the ranges $`4t14`$ and $`18t28`$ for both $`\beta =6.0`$, $`L_s=16`$ with $`16^3\times 32`$ volume and $`\beta =5.7`$, $`L_s=48`$ with $`8^3\times 32`$ volume. The $`L_s`$ dependence of $`Z_A`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ is presented in Fig. 5 . For $`L_s`$ ranging from 12 to 48, the change in $`Z_A`$ is less than $`1\%`$. Therefore, the effect of finite $`L_s`$ on the result for $`Z_A`$ is negligible.

Another method to calculate $`f_\pi `$ uses the relation between $`f_\pi `$ and the amplitude of the pseudoscalar correlator $`A_{PP}`$:

$$A_{PP}=(\frac{f_\pi }{m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}}})^2\frac{m_\pi ^3}{8},$$
(4)
which directly depends upon the residual mass $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$.

Results for $`\beta =5.7`$, $`L_s=48`$ with lattice volume $`8^3\times 32`$ show a discrepancy in the $`m_f`$ dependence of $`f_\pi `$ between these two methods. While the difference appears to become somewhat smaller at the larger volume of $`16^3\times 32`$, we attribute the discrepancy between these two methods of calculating $`f_\pi `$ to $`O(a^2)`$ errors.

Figure 6 shows the comparison of these two independent calculations at the weaker coupling $`\beta =6.0`$. Consistent results are seen at each valence quark mass, and the $`f_\pi `$ values measured by extrapolation to $`m_f=m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ agree well with the physical value of 130 MeV, where $`m_\rho `$ is used to set the scale. It is important to note that these good properties disappear if the value for $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ in Eq. 4 is replaced by 0 or by the $`x`$ intercept of the simple linear fit to $`m_\pi ^2`$. Therefore, the good agreement seen between the two approaches serves as a consistency check of the residual mass analysis and a demonstration of the good chiral properties of the domain wall fermion formulation.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

The chiral symmetry breaking effects in the domain wall fermion formulation can be characterized by a residual mass, which enters the effective quark mass in the low energy effective Lagrangian. This quantity can be determined accurately from the additional term in the divergence of axial current. Good chiral properties can be achieved for the quenched domain wall formulation for lattice spacing $`a^112`$ GeV. The results for $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ are further checked by our determinations of the pion decay constant.

## 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

These calculations were performed on the QCDSP machines at Columbia and the RIKEN BNL Research Center.


text:
# CHAOTIC QUANTIZATION OF CLASSICAL GAUGE FIELDS

## 1 Questions

Considering Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as a lower dimensional boundary of a higher dimensional classical field theory (ClassFT) assumes spacelike higher dimensions. A chaotic quantization assumes that higher dimensions (or at least one of them) are timelike. Here we list questions which motivated our considerations of a chaotic quantization mechanism or led from these considerations to relations to other, partially long known, but not yet satisfactorily answered questions of fundamental quantum mechanics.

Is (can be) something behind QFT? If yes at some instance there should be experiments which cannot be expalined by the principles of quantum mechanics (such as interference and linearity).

Is (can be) stohastic quantization natural? If yes, this brings us close to a many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, with the only difference that these copies of the universe would not be parallel but rather follow a sequence (“second” time coordinate).

Is (can be) given a timescale, beyond which quantum mechanics is no more valid? If yes, for very short times (at very high energy) Bell’s inequality would be satisfied again corresponding to classicality in higher dimensions.

Is (can be) higher dimension a hidden parameter? If yes, such higher dimensional theories are beyond quantum theory and Planck’s constant in the phenomenological world becomes derivable from (chracteristically more than one) parameters of the underlying theory.

Is (can be) time two dimensional? If yes, if there is an extra timelike dimension, time is no more one-dimensional in the underlying theory and the possibility of ordering (past - future) is lost. Physical time will be given birth first by quantization.

Is (can be) chaotic dynamics a self-driven mechanism for quantization? If it is so, the observed world of quantum field theories is experienced only in the infrared limit of the underlying theory; making only ergodically distributed average information (wave function) available for the “slow” experimentators.

Is (can be) spacetime a lattice? This is of course unlikely, and cannot be expected before the Planck scale. Even if it were so, then we would not have any reason to give preference to a cubic lattice (or to a hexagonal or to any other one). The continuum (ultarviolet) limit of classical lattice theories is therefore particularly important.

Is (can be) any classical theory insane enough to lead to quantum mechanics?  This question is due to H. B. Nielsen. It implies that the answer is better no. Inspite this warning, however, we can investigate, whether the classical dynamics of (certain) classical field theories possess at all characteristica which make them fit for the role of stohastic quantizator. In the next section we therefore review basic results of the study of classical chaos in lattice gauge theory and its continuum limit carried out in past years, in particular from the viewpoint of a possible applicability to chaotic quantization.

## 2 Classical Chaos in Lattice Gauge Theory

First studies of the chaotic dynamics of non-abelian gauge theories occured in the 1980-s, they were restricted to a few (infrared) degrees of freedom. Even the simplest Hamiltonian,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{A}_1^2\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{A}_2^1\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}g^2\left(A_1^2A_2^1\right)^2$$
(1)
led to chaotic motion. (Here $`A_1^2`$ and $`A_2^1`$ are SU(2) vector potential components). The classical solutions are scaling and everywhere chaotic. The surface of constant potential energy is hyperbolic, so the turning points of classical trajectories constitute a hypersurface with overall negative curvature. This system is part of the SU(2) gauge theory, it resides in the infrared sector.

In the 1990-s numerical studies on lattice gauge systems with U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) gauge groups has been carried out, up to linear size of $`N=50`$. Here the classical dynamics is governed by a lattice Hamiltonian, written in a per link version as

$$H=\left[\frac{1}{2}P,P+\left(1\frac{1}{4}U,V\right)\right],$$
(2)
with the general scalar product notation

$$A,B=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(AB^{})$$

for SU(2) matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`U`$ being the adjoint group variable describing a compact version of the vectorpotential on each lattice link,

$$U=\mathrm{exp}(iga^\mu A_\mu ^aT^a),$$
(3)
and $`V`$ the complement link variable constructed from products of $`U`$ variables on links closing an elementary plaquette with the selected link. Besides the Hamiltonian governing the dynamics, the unitarity ($`U,U=1`$) and orthogonality ($`P,U=0`$) is taken care of. There is a non-trivial conserved quantity expressing Gauss’ law as well:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{+}{}PU^{}\underset{}{}U^{}P,$$
(4)
defined on the joints of links. The $`+`$ sum belongs to links starting at, while the $``$ sum to links ending at a given joint. With update algorithms specifically designed to satisfy conservation laws the Hamiltonian dynamics of such lattice systems can be followed. Chaos reveals itself in divergence properties of nearby configurations.

In order to give words “nearby” and “diverging” a meaning one has to use a distance measure in the phase space of lattice gauge field configurations. The simplest gauge invariant choice is given by a sum of local deviations in the magnetic energy part:

$$d=\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{link}}}\underset{\mathrm{link}}{}\left|U,V(U)U^{},V(U^{})\right|.$$
(5)
Starting with an adjacent pair of configurations $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ the initial distance $`d_0`$ let be small. The Lyapunov exponent measures the long term divergence of such configurations:

$$\lambda =\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{d_00}{lim}\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{ln}\frac{d(t)}{d_0}.$$
(6)
Since the lattice Hamiltonian is conservative, the sum of all Lyapunov exponents is zero, but the sum of positive ones gives a good measure of the entropy generation:

$$h_{KS}=\underset{\lambda >0}{}\lambda _i.$$
(7)
As entropy is generated such systems ergodize without an external heat bath; the initially given energy becomes equipartioned in a chracteristic time. Assuming an ideal thermal state the correspondence between energy per degree of freedom $`E`$ and temperature $`T`$ can be checked, as well as the maximum entropy $`S`$. This way a characteristic thermalization time is given by $`\tau =S/h_{KS}.`$

The numerical studies of the chaos in lattice gauge systems gave the following main results:

* Lyapunov exponents: the total spectrum of Lyapunov exponents for smaller systems, and a correspondence between the maximal Lyapunov and the energy per degree of freedom in general were obtained, $`\lambda _0g^2E`$ for all non-abelian gauge groups, valid also in the continuum ($`a0`$) limit.
* Scaling: these result scale with system size, giving a numerical allusion to the extensivity of the chaos phenomenon. It relies on the infrared sector.
* Ergodicity: the ergodizing speed can be estimated by measuring the Kolmogorov entropy, its scaling properties with system size and observation time revealed that the ensemble of chaotic evolutions looks like motion in a Gaussian noise.
* Uniformly random configurations and those selected by quantum Monte Carlo programs has been compared. From the viewpoint of chaotic behavior they are found to be interchangable. The strength of chaoticity nevertheless correlates with the confining phase.

Beyond and parallel to the numerical studies, analytical results has also been obtained in high temperature field theory (resummation, study of transport properties). The most relevant results from this extended research for the investigation of chaotic quantization are the followings:

* Length scale hierarchy: a hierarchy of thermal ($`\mathrm{}/T`$), electric ($`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}/gT`$) and magnetic ($`1/g^2T`$) screening lengthes is established.
* Dimensional reduction: at very high temperature the effective theory resembles a field theory in a lower dimension, with a dimensionally transmutated effective coupling.
* Noise: an effective Langevin equation describing evolution in noisy background medium has been derived for the infrared plasma modes, valid for times $`t1/g^2T`$ by Bödeker.

These cited results are the necessary ingredients to combine a mechanism for chaotic quantization. It is presented in the next section.

## 3 The Mechanism of Chaotic Quantization

Step 1. The first step of the chaotic quantization mechanism is the connection between a $`D+2`$-dimensional Yang-Mills theory and the corresponding Langevin equation:

$$YM_{D+2}\mathrm{Langevin}_{D+2}.$$

This accounts for the equipartition of energy ($`ET`$) replacing the study of the chaotic Hamiltonian,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\dot{A}^2+\frac{1}{2}(D\times A)^2,$$
(8)
by solving the Langevin equation

$$\sigma \dot{A}=D\times B+\eta ,$$
(9)
with $`B=D\times A`$ magnetic field and $`\eta `$ white noise corrrelated as

$$\eta \eta ^{}=2\sigma T\delta ().$$
(10)
This resummed, finite-T perturbation theory result occuring first at the two-loop level, has been recently published . It is interesting to note, that the formal usage of (chromo)electric field by

$$\dot{E}=D\times B$$
(11)
(together with $`E=\dot{A}`$ ) renders this Langevin equation to one describing a simple Brownian motion:

$$\dot{E}+\sigma E=\eta .$$
(12)
It is easy to derive and has been since long known that Brownian motion leads to equipartition of the energy,

$$_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}}=\frac{1}{2}E^2,$$
(13)
in a characteristic time $`\tau =1/(2\sigma )`$:

$$_{\mathrm{elec}}\frac{1}{2}T.$$
(14)
Since the effective Langevin equation refers to a temperature and to the coefficient $`\sigma `$, called color conductivity, which depends on the ratio of magnetic and electric screening lengthes, this relation can be generalized. First of all, all these length scales and therefore the whole Langevin equation approach works as well in classical field theory.

In the following table we list the corresponding quantities in the quantum field theory and in the classical lattice gauge theory case, respectively. We consider in order the magnetic and electric screening lengthes, the squared plasma frequency and leading order damping, the color conductivity and the hierarchy condition. The paralells are intriguing.

All these results are equivalent if one considers the following conjecture:

$$\mathrm{}=aT.$$

The characteristic self-ergodization time is in the same order of magnitude either expressed due to the color conductivity or due to the Lyapunov exponent

$$\tau =\frac{1}{2\sigma }a\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{g^2Ta}a\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{a\lambda _0}.$$
(15)
Step 2. The solution of the Langevin equation is an ensemble of solutions, since the noise is known only statistically. This ensemble can be described equivalently by the solution of a corresponding Fokker-Planck equation:

$$\mathrm{Langevin}_{D+2}\mathrm{Fokker}\mathrm{Planck}_{D+2}.$$

Instead of equation(s) for the field confioguration $`A`$ this equation is for the distribution of solution field configurations $`P[A]`$:

$$\sigma \frac{}{x_{D+2}}P[A]=d^{D+1}x\frac{\delta }{\delta A}\left(T\frac{\delta P}{\delta A}+\frac{\delta W}{\delta A}P\right).$$
(16)
This is an integro - differential variational equation, analog to the one used in stohastic quantization. The driving term is the deterministic force term of the Langevin equation,

$$\frac{\delta W}{\delta A}=D\times B,$$
(17)
and hence

$$W[A]=d^{D+1}x\frac{1}{4}F_{ij}F^{ij}.$$
(18)
This “potential” energy is a $`D+1`$ dimensional integral of the magnetic energy density alone, but can be related to a $`D+1`$-dimensional Yang-Mills action. This is done in the next step.

Step 3. The stationary solution of the Fokker-Planck equation is what a slow observer experiences: the effective theory at large times features this distribution.

$$\mathrm{Fokker}\mathrm{Planck}_{D+2}\mathrm{Euclidean}\mathrm{Path}\mathrm{Integral}_{D+1}.$$

The $`t\mathrm{}`$ solution is simply a Boltzmann-weight

$$P[A]e^{W[A]/T}.$$
(19)
Interpreting this as proper weights of an euclidean field theory with the $`D+1`$-dimensional action, we identify

$$\frac{W[A]}{T}=\frac{S_{D+1}}{\mathrm{}_{D+1}},$$
(20)
and

$$S_{D+1}=\frac{1}{4}𝑑x_{D+1}d^Dx\widehat{F}^{ik}\widehat{F}_{ik}.$$
(21)
Here $`\widehat{F}_{ik}`$ stands for the field strength tensor of the $`D+1`$-dimensional Yang-Mills action, consisting of the integral of the magnetic part of the original, classical Yang-Mills action, up to a scaling. This scaling is related to the reduction of dimensionality of the integrals,

$$d^{D+2}x\mathrm{}=ad^{D+1}x\mathrm{}$$
(22)
and requires a re-definition of the field strength

$$F_{D+2}^{ik}=\sqrt{a}\widehat{F}_{D+1}^{ik}.$$
(23)
Finally, comparing this with eq.(20) we arrive at

$$\mathrm{}_{D+1}=aT_{D+2}.$$
(24)
The Planck constant is expressed by parameters of the higher dimensional theory. This result is consequent with the comparison of lattice and continuum Yang-Mills screening properties listed in Table 1, and therefore gives a good reason to accept that it is valid also in the continuum limit.

## 4 Speculations

Finally we birefly mention a few speculations about further possible extensions of this study. First the question arises: is there any guiding principle to decide whether a classical field theory is chaotic? A simple consideration shows, that a counting of space-time dimensions and gauge group degrees of freedom can give at least a minimum estimate for this.

We count the unconstrained degrees of freedom in phase space in the infrared ($`k=0`$ mode) limit. For a $`D+2`$ dimensional theory with $`𝒩`$ internal gauge bosons, the naive phase space is $`2(D+1)𝒩`$ dimensional according to the variables $`A_i^a(t)`$ and $`E_i^a(t)`$. Gauss law and the rest gauge symmetry in the Hamiltonian approach restricts $`2𝒩`$ of them, the $`SO(D,1)`$ rotational (Lorentz-) symmetry – active both for angles and angular momenta – further $`2D(D+1)/2`$. The rest dimensionality of the phase space becomes

$$n=2(D+1)𝒩2𝒩2\frac{D(D+1)}{2}=D(2𝒩D1).$$
(25)
Chaotic dynamics of long wavelength modes can be expected if $`n3`$. (Actually $`n`$ is even for conservative systems.) This way the $`𝒩=1`$ case, e.g. U(1), is not chaotic for any space dimension ($`n=D(1D)`$). $`𝒩=3`$, e.g. SU(2), is chaotic for space dimensions between 1 and 4:

$$n=D(5D)3,\mathrm{for}1D4.$$
(26)
For gravitational theories, with $`𝒩`$ counted from the higher dimensional Poincare group,

$$𝒩=\frac{(D+1)(D+2)}{2}$$
(27)
we arrive at

$$n=D(D+1)^2.$$
(28)
It can be chaotic already for one space dimension $`D1`$ (3 dimensional classical theory).

Finally we note that considering two-dimensional time as primordial also has been occured in other context: I. Bars arrives at the one-dimensional (phenomenological) time by gauge fixing in the higher dimensional (M) theory. This has consequences for energy spectra and dispersion relations in the lower dimensional theory and serves to explore symmetries which might be non-trivial (alike $`O(4,2)`$ in special relativity).

In the chaotic quantization mechanism time is also two dimensional to begin with. Along one direction a “physical” time arises after quantization – correspondingly the fast evolution over chaotic field configuration sequences must occur in higher time directions (at least locally) orthogonal to this time curve. The characteristic time in this orthogonal direction is given by the inverse color conductivity.

Summerizing we proposed the chaotic quantization mechanism underlying quantum field theory. This mechanism relies on a time and length scale, which can be much larger, than the Planck scale: $`1/(2\sigma )a`$. Some consequences for the interpretation of quantum mechanics also has been mentioned.

## Acknowledgments

Discussions with H.B. Nielsen are gratefully acknowledged. This work has been supported by the American Hungarian Joint Fund JFNr. 649 and the Hungarian National Research Fund OTKA T029158.

## References