text:
# REFERENCES

Power Law in Hadron Production

Marek Gaździcki***E–mail: Marek.Gazdzicki@cern.ch
CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

and

Institut für Kernphysik, Universität Frankfurt

D–60486 Frankfurt, Germany

Mark I. GorensteinE–mail: goren@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Frankfurt

D–60054 Frankfurt, Germany

and

Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine

## Abstract

In high energy p($`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$)+p interactions the mean multiplicity and transverse mass spectra of neutral mesons from $`\eta `$ to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ ($`m0.5÷10`$ GeV/c2) and the transverse mass spectra of pions ($`m_T>`$ 1 GeV/c2) reveal a remarkable behaviour: they follow, over more than 10 orders of magnitude, the power–law function: $`Cm_{(T)}^P`$. The parameters $`C`$ and $`P`$ are energy dependent, but similar for all mesons produced at the same collision energy. This scaling resembles that expected in the statistical description of hadron production: the parameter $`P`$ plays the role of a temperature and the normalisation constant $`C`$ is analogous to the system volume. The fundamental difference is, however, in the form of the distribution function. In order to reproduce the experimental results and preserve the basic structure of the statistical approach the Boltzmann factor $`e^{E^{}/T}`$ appearing in standard statistical mechanics has to be substituted by a power–law factor $`(E^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda })^P`$.

It is well established that basic properties of hadron production in high energy collisions approximately follow simple rules of statistical mechanics. A principal assumption of statistical models of strong interactions  states that the single particle energy distribution in the local rest frame of hadronizing matter follows a Boltzmann form:

$$\frac{dn}{d𝐩^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E^{}}{T}\right),$$
(B.1)
where $`E^{}=\sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}=m_T\mathrm{cosh}(y^{})`$ is the hadron energy ($`m_T\sqrt{m^2+p_T^2}`$ is the transverse mass and $`y^{}`$ is the local hadron rapidity) and $`T`$ is a common (for all particles) temperature parameter usually extracted by a comparison with the experimental data. In the fixed rest frame (e.g. in the c.m. frame of the colliding particles) the energy $`E^{}`$ equals to $`m_T\mathrm{cosh}(yy^{})`$, where $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$ are the rapidities of considered particle and the ‘hadron fluid elements’ (fireballs), respectively.

Integration of hadron distribution along the collision axis (i.e. over $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$ with an arbitrary rapidity distribution function, $`f(y^{})`$, of fireballs) leads to an approximately (for $`m_T>>T`$) exponential form of transverse mass spectrum :

$$\frac{dN}{m_Tdm_T}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_T}{T}\right).$$
(B.2)
According to this approach the final state hadrons should obey this distribution providing that collective transverse motion of hadronizing matter and contributions from resonance decays are neglected. Further integration over transverse mass yields an expression for the mean hadron multiplicity, $`N(m)`$, which is also (for $`m>>T`$) governed by the Boltzmann factor:

$$N(m)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m}{T}\right).$$
(B.3)
The exponential distributions (B.2,B.3) are confirmed in high energy particle collisions by numerous experimental results on $`p_T`$ spectra in the transverse momentum region $`p_T2`$ GeV/c and on hadron yields at $`m2`$ GeV/c2  (a correction for contributions from resonance decays is necessary for a detailed comparison with data). For a given hadron species, $`h`$, the normalisation factors in Eqs.(B.2B.3) are proportional to a volume parameter $`V`$ (a sum of the proper volume of ‘hadron fluid elements’), which has to be common for all hadrons, following the assumption of statistical production. Additional factors are degeneracy factor $`g=(2j+1)`$, where $`j`$ is the particle spin, and a chemical factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu _h/T)`$, which accounts for material conservation laws in grand canonical approximation. The chemical potential $`\mu _h`$ equals to zero for neutral hadrons (i.e. for hadrons with zero values of the conserved charges). Consequently, for neutral hadrons the exponential distributions (B.2B.3) with a common temperature parameter and a common volume parameter (multiplied by the degeneracy factors $`g`$) are expected to be valid.

However, in high energy p+p interactions the measurements of $`\pi ^0`$ meson spectra in a high $`p_T`$ ($`p_T>2`$ GeV/c) domain show a strong deviation from the exponential shape. In this region the distribution follows a power–law dependence . In the standard, QCD–based, approach this behaviour is attributed to the hard parton scattering . A strong violation of the Boltzmann behaviour in the high mass region is also seen in the case of mean hadron multiplicities. The hadron yields from the $`\eta `$-meson ($`m`$ 0.55 GeV/c2) to the $`J/\psi `$-meson ($`m`$ 3.1 GeV/c2) follow  approximately an exponential law (B.3). This is, however, not true any more for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ meson ($`m`$ 9.5 GeV/c2). The experimental ratio of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ to $`J/\psi `$ mean multiplicity at 800 GeV/c is

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{J/\psi }10^3,$$

whereas Boltzmann’s exponential law predicts:

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{J/\psi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}m_{J/\psi }}{T}\right)10^{16}$$

for typical value of $`T`$ 0.170 GeV. Thus the standard statistical model underpredicts the experimental data by more than 10 orders of magnitude!

In this letter we discuss a possibility to extend the statistical approach of hadron production in elementary hadronic interactions to the high (transverse) mass domain. Based on experimental data we postulate that the energy spectrum in the local rest frame of hadronizing matter is given by a power–law distribution:

$$\frac{dn}{d𝐩^{}}\left(\frac{E^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^P,$$
(P.1)
instead of the exponential Boltzmann distribution (B.1). We assume further that the remaining structure of the statistical approach is unchanged. Two new parameters appear in the proposed statistical power–law model: a scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and an exponent $`P`$, both are assumed to be common for all hadrons. We do not attempt here to introduce proper canonical treatment of material conservation laws needed for description of charged hadrons in small systems . Therefore, we limit our analysis to the case of neutral mesons only. Further on, in order to be able to neglect effects of large resonance widths in the statistical treatment we consider only narrow mesonic states.

Integration of Eq. (P.1) over longitudinal motion results in a power–law transverse mass distribution:

$$\rho (m_T)\frac{dN}{gm_T^2dm_T}=Cm_T^P,$$
(P.2)
where $`C`$ is a normalisation parameter in which we absorbed the dependence on the scale ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and volume ($`V`$) parameters. As both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V`$ are assumed to be common for all hadrons, so does the normalisation parameter $`C`$.

The integration of Eq. (P.2) over transverse mass yields:

$$\rho (m)\frac{P3}{gm^3}N(m)=Cm^P,$$
(P.3)
where $`N(m)`$ is the hadron multiplicity.

Several nontrivial predictions of the statistical power–law model follow from Eqs. (P.2) and (P.3):

* both transverse mass spectra and hadron yields should obey a power–law behaviour; the power $`P`$ in the $`m_T`$–distribution, $`\rho (m_T)`$ (P.2), and in the hadron yield formula, $`\rho (m)`$ (P.3), should be the same,
* the normalisation constant $`C`$ also should be the same for both $`m_T`$–distribution (P.2) and hadron yield spectrum (P.3),
* the power $`P`$ and the normalisation constant $`C`$ should be universal (equivalent to the temperature and volume parameters in the standard statistical approach), i.e. they are the same for different hadron species.

In order to test these predictions we plot in Fig. 1 experimental results on $`m_T`$–spectra and hadron yields for p+p interactions at $`\sqrt{s}=27÷30.8`$ GeV as a function of $`m_T`$ and $`m`$, respectively. Within the statistical power–law model, results on both $`\rho (m)`$ vs $`m`$ and $`\rho (m_T)`$ vs $`m_T`$ should follow the same dependence: $`Cm_{(T)}^P`$.

Full dots in Fig. 1 indicate results on $`\rho (m)`$ calculated for the mean multiplicity of hadrons: $`\eta ,\omega ,\varphi \text{[8]},J/\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ , whereas triangles indicate the data on $`m_T`$–spectra, $`\rho (m_T)`$, of neutral pions . The measurements of $`J/\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$  were performed for p+S interactions at 800 GeV/c. The extrapolation to p+N interactions was done assuming the $`A^{0.92}`$ dependence on nuclear mass number. The measured energy dependence of midrapidity yield  was used to calculate multiplicities at $`\sqrt{s}30`$ GeV. The $`\pi ^0`$ measurements are done at central rapidities only. In order to calculate the rapidity integrated distributions needed for comparison with the model, we use the following approximation: $`dN/dm_T=d^2N/(dm_Tdy)\mathrm{\Delta }y`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=1`$. Measurements of the transverse momentum spectra of $`\pi ^0`$ mesons performed by several experiments at the ISR  differ typically by a factor of about 2. This together with similar uncertainty introduced by the extrapolation procedure for rapidity integrated distributions, yield a relatively large systematic error on the absolute normalisation of $`\pi ^0`$ spectra. An additional bias of a similar magnitude is possible due to a missing correction for contributions from resonance decays. A more detailed analysis is obviously needed in the future. Nevertheless, we observe a surprising agreement over more than 10 orders of magnitude of the experimental results with the expectations following from the statistical power–law model. Typical deviations of the experimental points from the universal power–law dependence are of about factor 2, which is a similar magnitude as the systematic errors estimated above. In the power–law fits to the data the statistical and 50% systematic errors were added in squares. The values of the parameter $`P`$ ($`10`$) and the noramlization constant $`C`$ resulting from the separate fits to the $`m_T`$ spectra and hadron multiplicities are similar (for details see Table 1). The solid line in Fig. 1 indicates a fit to the multiplicity data.

As seen from Fig. 1 the power–law model (P.2P.3) works reasonably well even for intermediate values of $`m_{(T)}`$ ($`0.5÷2`$ GeV/c2), where the exponential distributions (B.2,B.3) are normally assumed, e.g. the power–law function (P.3) seems to describe also the data for $`\eta `$ and $`\varphi `$ multiplicities. This fact requires a further study.

In order to check whether the observed power–law $`m_T`$–scaling is valid also for higher collision energies we compiled data on $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}`$ , $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1s)`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2s)`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3s)`$  in p+$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ interactions at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 1800 GeV (the highest energy accessible today). The $`p_T`$ distributions for the quarkonia are measured at midrapidity and they allow to calculate $`\rho (m_T)`$ spectra in this region. The resulting distributions are indicated by open symbols in Fig. 1 together with the line showing the power–law fit ($`P8`$, for details see Table 1) to these data. It is seen that the distributions of quarkonia produced in p+$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ interactions at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 1800 GeV follow approximately the same power–law function. The relative comparison of data for different quarkonia may be biased by a systematic error of about 50% due to the use of midrapidity spectra instead of spectra integrated over all rapidities. Therefore, as previously, in the fit the square of the error was calculated as a sum of the squares of statistical and systematic (50%) errors.

There are no data on $`\pi ^0`$ meson production in p+$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ interactions at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 1800 GeV. However, there are measurements of $`\pi ^0`$ spectra performed close to midrapidity ($`y^{}1.4`$) at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 540 GeV which extend up to $`p_T`$ 40 GeV/c . The resulting $`\rho (m_T)`$ distribution is shown in Fig. 2. The fit of the power–law function indicated by a solid line yields $`P8`$ (for details see Table 1), the value similar to one obtained for quarkonium spectra at 1800 GeV. The power–law fits to 30 and 1800 GeV data, indicated in Fig. 2 for a comparison, are both below the spectrum at 540 GeV. This observation may suggest a possible violation of the scaling for $`\pi ^0`$ mesons at 1800 GeV. This is because one may expect a monotonic increase of $`\rho (m_T)`$ at fixed $`m_T`$ with increasing collisions energy and this expectation is not obeyed by the 540 GeV data. We note, however, that the measurements of $`\pi ^0`$ spectrum at high $`p_T`$ region were indirect due to difficulty to resolve single photons from $`\pi ^0`$ decay. Therefore, a direct measurements of $`\pi ^0`$ spectrum at 1800 GeV are necessary in order to verify a validity of the scaling in this domain.

What is the origin of the power–law $`m_T`$–scaling observed in p($`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$)+p interactions and not (yet) seen in the collisions of heavy nuclei ? The production of heavy hadrons (like $`J/\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons) as well as the power–law behaviour of pion spectra at high $`p_T`$ are fitted by QCD inspired models . However different assumptions and parameters enter in these models for $`\pi ^0`$ and quarkonia description. Thus the observed power–law $`m_T`$–scaling seems to be an unexpected and interesting feature of the data which requires explanation. In this context we list known to us developments which can be helpful in attempts to understand the power–law $`m_T`$–scaling. It was recently pointed out  that quantum fluctuations of the string tension may account for the thermal features of the hadron spectra. A possible appearance of the power–law instead of Boltzmann spectrum was suggested within thermal field theory  in the low temperature and high mass limit. Generalization of standard thermodynamics to non–extensive systems  leads to distribution of energy in the canonical ensemble with the power–law tail for high energies.

Finally we repeat the basic results presented in this letter. Properly normalized multiplicities and $`m_T`$ spectra of neutral mesons from $`\eta `$ to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ ($`m0.5÷10`$ GeV/c2) and $`m_T`$ spectra of $`\pi ^0`$ meson ($`m_T>1`$ GeV/c2) obey the $`m_T`$–scaling. The scaling function has approximately the power–law form: $`m_{(T)}^P`$. The values of parameter $`P`$ and normalisation constant $`C`$ resulting from the fits to data on production of different mesons at fixed collision energy are similar. This scaling behaviour resembles that expected in statistical mechanics: the parameter $`P`$ plays the role of temperature and the normalisation constant $`C`$ is analogous to the system volume. Thus the basic modification of the statistical approach needed to reproduce the experimental results on hadron production in p($`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$)+p interactions in the large $`m_{(T)}`$ domain is the change of the shape of the distribution function. The Boltzmann function $`e^{E^{}/T}`$ appearing in the standard statistical mechanics has to be substituted by a power–law function $`(E^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda })^P`$.

Acknowledgements

We thank F. Becattini, K. A. Bugaev, L. Gerland, L. Frankfurt, Sh. Matsumoto, C. Tsallis, M. Thoma, R. Renfordt, W. Retyk and M. Yoshimura for discussion and comments to the manuscript. We acknowledge financial support of DAAD, Germany. The research described in this publication was made possible in part by Award # UP1-2119 of the U.S. Civilian Research and the Development Foundation for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (CRDF).

Table 1 The values of the parameters ($`P`$ and $`C`$) resulting from the power–law fits ($`\rho (m_{(T)})=Cm_{(T)}^P`$) to various data sets discussed in this letter (for details see text). The values of $`\chi ^2/ndf`$ are also given.

| data set | $`P`$ | $`C10^2`$ (GeV$`{}_{}{}^{(}P3)`$) | $`\chi ^2/ndf`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| neutral meson multiplicity at $``$30 GeV | 10.1 $`\pm `$ 0.3 | 3.6 $`\pm `$ 1.0 | 1.02 |
| $`m_T`$–spectra of $`\pi ^0`$ at $``$30 GeV | 9.8 $`\pm `$ 0.1 | 6.1 $`\pm `$ 0.9 | 1.4 |
| $`m_T`$–spectra of quarkonia at 1800 GeV | 7.7 $`\pm `$ 0.4 | 3.4 (+4.4,-2.0) | 1.13 |
| $`m_T`$–spectra of $`\pi ^0`$ at 540 GeV | 8.1 $`\pm `$ 0.1 | 129 $`\pm `$ 15 | 1.3 |


format: text

text:
# Discovery of X rays from Class 0 protostar candidates in OMC-3

## 1. Introduction

Young stellar objects (YSOs) evolve from a molecular cloud core through protostellar and T Tauri phases to a main sequence star. Protostars are generally associated with Class 0 and I energy distributions, peaking in the mm and mid-to far infrared wavelengths, respectively. The Class I infrared objects appear to be in a later phase of protostellar evolution.

One of the recent highlights in X-ray studies of YSOs is the discovery of hard X-rays from embedded Class I objects, showing highly absorbed spectra with occasional flares, or even quasi-periodic flaring activity (Koyama et al. 1996, Grosso et al. 1997, Kamata et al. 1997, Tsuboi et al. 2000). The overall X-ray phenomena are consistent with enhanced solar-like magnetic activity, probably generated by a coupled activity of convection and differential rotation on a star or between a star and an inner disk (Tsuboi et al. 2000; Montmerle et al. 2000). X-rays from protostars may be related to the competing processes of accumulation of angular momentum towards the growing central star vs. release of angular momentum by outflow processes. In this context, X-ray observations of Class 0 objects in the dynamical infall phase would be potentially important for the study of protostellar evolution.

The infrared to mm radio spectrum of Class 0 objects can be described by a black body model whose temperature is typically 15–30 K (e.g. André, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony 1993). Virtually all the emission is from the surrounding envelope; no emission from a central protostar is seen. Prominent outflows accompany such sources, indicating disk accretion and release of angular momentum from the accreting material. Class 0 protostars may have extremely large absorption, up to 1023-24 H cm-2 or even more. Therefore hard X-ray imaging is a unique technique to probe the central protostars.

The Orion Molecular Cloud 2 and 3 regions (hereafter OMC-2 and OMC-3), at a distance of about 450 pc (e.g. Genzel & Stutzki 1989) exhibit a chain of Class 0 objects detected at 1300 $`\mu m`$ (Chini et al. 1997), 350 $`\mu m`$ (Lis et al. 1998), and 450 and 850 $`\mu m`$ bands (Johnstone & Bally 1999). The size of the dust condensations is typically 10–50 arcsec (FWHM) which corresponds to 5000–20000 AU (FWHM) at 450 pc distance. The mass of each condensation is estimated to be about 10 $`M_{}`$, hence could be sites of low to intermediate mass protostars (Chini et al. 1997). Evolution of protostars, from Class 0 to Class I, can be traced from north to south in the clouds: from mainly Class 0 sources in OMC-3 to mainly Class I sources in OMC-2. Consequently, the OMC-2/3 region is a superb place to study Class 0 and Class I sources with the same instrument, and observationally trace the evolution of these protostellar phases.

ASCA observed the OMC-2/3 region (Yamauchi et al. 1996), and hard X-rays (2–10 keV band) are found from the densest regions of the dust filament in the further analysis of the same data by Tsuboi (1999). The hard X-ray distribution is well correlated with both the ridge of molecular clouds and the cold dust condensations (1300 $`\mu m`$ and 350 $`\mu m`$ peaks) within the limited spatial resolution of ASCA. No excess in the soft X-ray band (0.7–2 keV) is found from the OMC-3 region. Stimulated by this suggestion of hard X-ray emission from inside the dust condensations (1300 $`\mu m`$ and 350 $`\mu m`$ peaks), and in order to find X-ray emission from Class 0 sources, we have carried out Cycle 1 Chandra observations with more than 100 times better spatial resolution than ASCA. This paper presents a first report on the highlights of the new Chandra observations detecting hard X-ray emission from the north of OMC-3, a site of the youngest protostellar objects.

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

The OMC-2/3 observation was made in the New Year days of the new millennium (2000 January 1–2) with the Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) for 89.2 ks, having wide band sensitivity in the 0.2–10 keV energy range with moderate energy resolving power and particularly high spatial (sub-arcsec) resolution at the on-axis position. We used the ACIS-I array consisting of four abutted X-ray CCDs, which covers the complete OMC-2 and OMC-3 clouds, and one CCD from the ACIS-S array covering a small region north of OMC-3. In this paper we focus on and discuss the data towards the northern part of OMC-3, which were recorded with one of the ACIS-I CCDs.

We used Level 1 processed events provided by the pipeline processing at the Chandra X-ray Center. To minimize the effect of the degradation of charge transfer inefficiency (CTI), we applied the improved data processing technique developed by Townsley et al. (2000). To reject background events, we applied a grade filter to keep only ASCA grades111see http;//asc.harvard.edu/udocs/docs/POG/MPOG/index.html 0, 2, 3, 4, & 6. We removed events from flaring pixels using the “flagflare” routine written by T. Miyaji. Artificial stripes caused probably by hot pixels in the frame-store region and by particles which hit on the CCD node boundaries were also removed. Detailed procedures for cleaning low-quality events are given in http://www.astro.psu.edu/xray/axaf/recipes/clean.html.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. X-ray positions and identifications

Figure 1 shows a 2$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 3^{}`$ field image around the northern part of OMC-3 in the 0.5–6 keV band overlaid with the 1300 $`\mu m`$ emission contour map from Chini et al. (1997). Red color represents photon energies below 3 keV, while blue represents hard photons above 4 keV energy. The absolute coordinates of the X-ray images are fine-tuned to better than 0.1 arcsec, using the 2MASS infrared source catalog 2MASS, of which details are given below.

For source finding, we used the wavdetect program in the Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations Software (CIAO222available at http;//asc.harvard.edu/ciao/, Version 1.0), which is based on a Mexican hat wavelet decomposition and reconstruction of the image (Freeman et al. 2000). We set the significance criterion at 1$`\times `$10-5 and wavelet scales ranging from 1 to 16 pixels in multiples of $`\sqrt{2}`$. The source detection was performed separately in the soft (0.5–2 keV), hard (2–8 keV), and total (0.5–8 keV) bands to improve sensitivity for non-embedded (soft X-ray band), embedded (hard), and mildly embedded faint (total) sources, respectively. In the 0.5–2 keV band, the contribution of the ASCA grade 6 to the photons of point sources is about 1 %, while that to background is about 8 % in the same band. In order to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio, we hence used only the ASCA grades 0, 2, 3 and 4 for the source finding in the soft (0.5–2 keV) band, while the ASCA grades 0, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are used in the other bands.

In the field shown in Figure 1, the source finding algorithm picked up thirteen sources (No. 1–13 in Table 1) above a 4 $`\sigma `$ significance level in either of the three bands. We compared these sources to the optical star catalog Hipparcos, and the infrared catalog 2MASS. Only one counterpart is found from the optical catalog, while two thirds of the sources have counterparts in the 2MASS catalog. Selecting the five brightest X-ray sources, with statistical errors within 0.3 arcsec at 90 % confidence, we have made a cross-correlation to the 2MASS infrared candidates, weighting by photon counts. This resulted in a 1′′.1 bore-sight correction to the ACIS field; ACIS sources had offsets of $`+`$0′′.51 and $``$0′′.95 for right ascension and declination from the 2MASS frame, respectively. After the coordinate correction, the systematic astrometric accuracy becomes better than 0.1 arcsec at 90 % confidence. The thus corrected X-ray positions, counts in the 0.5–8 keV band, and hardness ratio are listed in Table 1, together with the $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$ magnitudes of the infrared counterparts and the offset angle between the X-ray and IR positions. Since the offsets and nominal absolute errors of the 2MASS sources are about 0.1–0.3 arcsec and 0.1 arcsec, our X-ray position errors of sources No. 1–13 should be 0.1–0.4 arcsec.

From figure 1, we see the hard X-ray sources more concentrated to the dust emission in the 1300 $`\mu m`$ band (Chini et al. 1997). Among the hard X-ray sources, two sources (No. 8 and 10 in Table 1) coincide with positions of the dust condensations MMS 2 and MMS 3333The coordinates of MMS 3 given in Table 1 of Chini et al. was incorrect due to their problem in a Gaussian fit. Then we referred the correct coordinate $`\alpha =`$5h32$`{}_{}{}^{m}51.3_{}^{s}`$, $`\delta =5^d02^m44.3^s`$ in B1950 (Sievers A. private communication). (Chini et al. 1997) and CSO 6 and CSO 7 (Lis et al. 1998) within position errors of $`5^{\prime \prime }`$.

We further checked the hard X-ray enhancements from the other Class 0 protostar candidates or the dust condensations in the field of Figure 1. The 2–8 keV band photon fluxes in a 5′′ radius circle around the 1300 $`\mu m`$ (MMS 1–4, Chini et al. 1997) and 350 $`\mu m`$ (CSO 4–8, Lis et al. 1998) sources are all below 3 $`\sigma `$ significance level except for MMS 2 ($`=`$ CSO 6) and MMS 3 ($`=`$ CSO 7).

Since we found a complex structure around source No. 8, we made closed-up views near this source in the 0.5–3 keV and 3–6 keV bands, which are shown in figure 2. The position of 2MASS sources are indicated by crosses. In the close vicinity of source No. 8, we can clearly see one source in the 0.5–3 keV and two sources in the 3–6 keV band, although the source finding algorithm has missed them. We here refer to these sources as $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$, as indicated in Figure 2. The X-ray positions are listed in Table 1. Neither optical nor IR counterparts are found towards the hard band sources $`a`$ and $`b`$, but the soft band source $`c`$ coincides with a 2MASS source with the $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$ magnitudes of $`>`$16.9, $`>`$15.2, and 11.4, respectively.

### 3.2. X-ray spectra

#### 3.2.1 Bright Sources

The brightest five sources in Figure 1 have reasonable statistics (more than 100 photons), and we therefore made the X-ray spectra by selecting 4′′–9′′ radius circles around the sources to include $``$99 % and $``$90 % photons at 1.5 keV and 10 keV, respectively. The background spectra are made from an annulus with inner and outer radii of 1.0 and 1.3 times of the source radius, respectively. We fitted the background subtracted spectra with a thin thermal plasma model (MEKAL model; Mewe, Gronenschild, & van den Oord 1985, Mewe, Lemen, & van den Oord 1986, Liedahl, Osterheld, & Goldstein 1995) with interstellar absorption. The effective area of the telescope mirrors and the detection efficiency of ACIS were calculated with the mkarf program in CIAO, Version 1.0. In the fitting, we fixed the abundances to 0.3 solar, referring to the results for many YSOs in various star forming regions obtained from the earlier ASCA observations (ex. Orion: Yamauchi et al. 1996, Rho Oph: Kamata et al. 1997). The best fit values are listed in Table 2.

In order to justify our spectra fitting procedure, we selected the ASCA target No. 7 in Yamauchi et al. (1996) and compared our Chandra results. This source lies 9 arc-min south-east from the center of Figure 1. Both our result and that in Yamauchi et al. (1996) are in reasonable agreement; the temperature, abundance, and the absorbing column, are 2.7 vs. 2.2 keV, 0.19 vs. 0.20 solar, and 1.1 $`\times `$ 1021 vs. 0.8 $`\times `$ 1021 H cm2 (we referred to the 1-temperature model obtained with SIS and GIS simultaneous fitting in Yamauchi et al. 1996). Therefore even with significant calibration uncertainties in the early phase of the CXO observations, our fitting gives reliable results.

#### 3.2.2 Hard X-ray Sources

Although the statistics are limited, we examined spectra of the new hard X-ray sources No. 8, 10 and 11. To minimize contamination from the three sources ($`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$) located in the close vicinity of source No. 8, we extracted the spectrum for No. 8 from a small circle of 2 arcsec radius centered on No. 8. Then now, the contamination from sources $`a`$ and $`b`$ to the region is negligible. As for No. 10 and 11, we also used the same radius circles in order to treat the hard source spectra uniformly. Using the software package XSPEC444http://xspec.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and MARX555http://spce.mit.edu/ASC/MARX (version 3.01), we calculated the effective area for this region smaller than the Chandra Point Spread Function at the off-axis position of these sources. These small regions include a background of at most 1 photon, hence we made no background subtraction for these hard sources.

The spectra of No. 10 and 11 are fitted with a thin thermal plasma model (MEKAL model) with 0.3 solar abundance and absorption. However, essentially no constraints on the temperature and absorption are obtained, since these two parameters are strongly coupled. We hence fixed the temperature at two extremes, 1 and 5 keV, referring the best fit temperature of the soft sources. The absorptions are constrained to be larger than 1023 H cm-2. We next assumed the temperature to be 3.2 keV, because the hardest source (No. 12) among the bright five has 3.2 keV plasma, and previous results towards very young stars (Class I) are more or less around this value. The best-fit spectra and parameters are shown in Figure 3 (b) and (c) and listed in Table 2.

Figure 3 (a) indicates the spectrum obtained from the circle centered on No. 8. It is more complicated than the others, showing a flux minimum at about 3 keV, which implies the presence of two spectral components: one is hard and heavily absorbed component (dashed line) from No. 8 and the other is soft and less absorbed component that is contamination from the source $`c`$ (dash-dotted line) separated from No. 8 by 2′′. Then we fitted the spectrum with two thin thermal plasma (MEKAL model) components with independent absorptions. Since the 2MASS counterpart of source $`c`$ has flux ratios in $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$ consistent with those of source No. 12, we assumed the X-ray temperature and absorption for the contamination from $`c`$ (soft component) to be the same as those of No. 12. The absorption of the hard component is found to be larger than 1023 H cm-2, with weak dependence on the assumed temperature (1 and 5 keV). In Table 2, we give the best-fit model in which we assume the temperature of the hard component to be 3.2 keV. The lower energy component is exactly the same as that of spill-over photons from $`c`$ to the source region of No. 8 (3 counts) which was predicted by simulation with XSPEC and MARX.

### 3.3. Time Variability

To obtain temporal variations of individual X-ray sources, we applied a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test under the assumption of constant flux for individual sources using the XRONOS666http://xronos.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (Ver. 4.02) software package. The results are listed in Table 1. Among the sources, only one source (source No. 9 in Table 1) exhibited a clear flare.

## 4. Discussion

We have detected about one dozen X-ray sources in the northern part of OMC-3. This region has been observed in X rays with $`Einstein`$ (Ku & Chanan 1979, Vaiana et al. 1981, Caillault & Zoonematkermani 1989, Gagné et al. 1994), with $`ROSAT`$ (Gagné et al. 1995, Alcalá et al. 1996) and with $`ASCA`$ (Yamauchi et al. 1996), however, no X-ray sources has been detected in the previous observations. Then all the X-ray sources in Table 1 are new X-ray objects. All the soft band sources (hardness ratios in Table 1 are less than 0.2; No. 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13) have IR counterparts, most of which are likely to be TTSs. The X-ray properties of the the soft band sources, i.e., plasma temperatures (a few keV), luminosities (1030 erg s-1), and time variabilities including the detection of a flare (for source No. 9) are consistent with those of TTSs previously reported (ex. Kamata et al. 1997).

The most notable result is the discovery of the highly absorbed X-ray sources No. 8 and 10 coincident within the absolute position error of $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ with the dust condensations MMS 2 ($`=`$ CSO 6) and MMS 3 ($`=`$ CSO 7). Since the background X-ray source density above the present detection limit (10-14 erg cm-1 s-1) is about 1 source arcmin-2, the probability to detect an X-ray source by chance within the error circle of the millimeter sources (5 arcsec radius circle) is about 2 %. On the other hand, Reipurth, Rodríguez, & Chini (1999) found a VLA source (VLA 1) towards MMS 2 with absolute position accuracy of 1′′. It is only 1′′.4 apart from the source No. 8, hence these are certainly associated with each other. Together with the large column of No. 8 and No. 10 of 1–3 $`\times `$1023 H cm-2, we therefore conclude that the hard X-ray sources No. 8 and 10 are located in the dust condensations MMS 2 and 3.

The flux ratios of 350 $`\mu m`$ to 1300 $`\mu m`$ for MMS 2 ($`=`$ CSO 6) and MMS 3 ($`=`$ CSO 7) are 99 and 87777The peak flux density of MMS 3 in Table 1 in Chini et al. 1997 was incorrect. Then we referred the correct flux 300 mJy (Sievers A. private communication)., respectively, which are somewhat larger than the average of the other MMS sources in OMC-3. However, no systematic trends are apparent. The MMS 3 seems to be associated with a shock-excited H2 flow D (Yu, Bally, & Devine 1997), plotting the correct coordinate (Sievers A. private communication) on Figure 4 of Yu et al. (1997). MMS 2 is associated with a prominent H2 flow B (Yu, Bally, & Devine 1997), a Herbig-Haro object HH 331 (Reipurth 1999), molecular outflow (12CO $`J=21`$, Yu et al. 2000), and 3.6 cm emission (VLA 1, Reipurth, Rodríguez & Chini 1999), which is most likely due to a thermal jet. In addition, Aso et al. (2000) detected unresolved HCO+ outflow around MMS2–4 region. Given these powerful outflow activities and considering that the two sources are parts of a chain of similar sources of which at least six are documented Class 0 sources, MMS 2 and 3 are most probably also Class 0 sources. Besides them, the absorption columns of MMS 2 and 3 obtained by our observation ($`>10^{23}`$ cm-2) are one order of magnitudes larger than those of Class I protostars obtained with ASCA (Kamata et al. 1997, Tsuboi et al. 2000) and Chandra (Imanishi, Koyama & Tsuboi 2001), which highly supports that they are Class 0 sources. Therefore it is likely that this is the first discovery of X-rays from YSOs preceding the Class I phase.

No significant X-ray enhancement is found from other dust condensations than MMS 2 and 3 in the northern part of OMC-3. One may attribute it to much more larger columns (larger mass) than for MMS 2 and 3, but simple estimates based on the mass and size suggest that the column densities of them are 1023–1024 H cm-2, and no systematic difference from MMS 2 and 3 are seen.

The soft source $`c`$ is probably unrelated to the MMS 2 condensation, and may be located in front. However, the hard sources $`a`$ and $`b`$ are likely to be located within the MMS 2 core. If this is so, the MMS 2 core is a site of multiple star formation.

Source No. 11, although located at the edge of the dust filament, exhibits a large absorption of 3$`\times `$1023 H cm-2, which exceeds the expected column of the cloud at this position. Thus the large absorption should be very local to the source No. 11, possibly either infalling gas around a protostar (protostellar scenario) or a torus surrounding an active galactic nucleus (type II AGN scenario).

We express our thanks to the High-energy Astrophysics Group at the Penn State University led by Prof. G. Garmire. Most of the data reduction procedure and analysis were made using the software packages and methods developed by this team. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Prof. E. D. Feigelson, Dr. Y. Maeda, and Dr. L. Townsley. We are grateful to Dr. A. Sievers for information about 1300 $`mum`$ emission from MMS 3. A part of this work is supported by the JPS grant of collaboration with foreign country (grant No. 10147103). YT is financially supported by JSPS.

Reference

Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D. & Barsony, M. 1993, ApJ 406, 122

Aso, Y., Tatematsu, K., Sekimoto, Y., Nakano, T., Umemoto, T., Koyama, K., Yamamoto, S. 2000, ApJS in press

Caillault, J-P & Zoonematkermani, S. 1989, ApJL 338, L57

Chini, R., Reipurth, Bo., Ward-Thompson, D., Bally, J., Nyman, L-A, Sievers, A., & Billawala, Y., 1997, ApJ 474, L135

Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D. Q. 2000, ApJ, submitted

Gagne, M. & Caillault, J-P. 1994, ApJ 437, 361

Gagne, M., Caillault, J-P., & Stauffer, J. R., 1995 ApJ 445, 280

Genzel, R. & Stutzki, J. 1989, ARA&A 27, 41

Grosso, N., Montmerle, T., Feigelson, E. D., Andre, P., Casanova, S., & Gregorio-Hetem, J. 1997, Nature 387, 56

Imanishi, K., Koyama, K., & Tsuboi, Y. 2001 in preparation

Johnstone, D. & Bally, J. 1999, ApJL 510, L49

Kamata, Y., Koyama, K., Tsuboi, Y., & Yamauchi, S. 1997, PASJ 49, 461

Koyama, K., Hamaguchi, K., Ueno, S., Kobayashi, N., & Feigelson. E. 1996, PASJ 48, L87

Ku W. H.-M. & Chanan, G. A. 1979, ApJL 234, L59

Liedahl, D. A., Osterheld, A. L., Goldstein, W. H. ApJL 438, 115

Lis, D. C., Serabyn, E., Keene, Jocelyn, Dowell, C. D., Benford, D. J., Phillips, T. G., Hunter, T. R., & Wang, N. 1998, ApJ 509, 299

Mewe, R., Gronenschild, E. H. B. M., & van den Oord, G. H. J. 1985, A&AS 62, 197

Mewe, R., Lemen, J. R, & van den Oord, G. H. J. 1986, A&AS 65, 511

Montmerle, T., Grosso, N., Tsuboi, Y., & Koyama, K. 2000, ApJ 532, 1089

Reipurth, B. 1999, A General Catalogue of Herbig-Haro Objects, 2. Edition, available at http://casa.colorado.edu/hhcat

Reipurth, B., Rodríguez, L. F., & Chini, R. 1999, ApJ 118, 983

Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Garmire, G. P., & Nousek, J. A. 2000, ApJL 534, L139

Tsuboi, Y., Imanishi, K., Koyama, K., Grosso, N., & Montmerle, T. 2000, ApJ 532, 1097

Tsuboi, Y. 1999, PhD thesis, see also ISAS RN 689

Vaiana, G. S., Fabbiano, G., Giacconi, R., Golub, L., Gorenstein, P., Harnden, F. R. Jr., Cassinelli, J. P., Haisch, B. M., Johnson, H. M., Linsky, J. L., Maxson, C. W., Mewe, R., Rosner, R., Seward, F., Topka, K., & Zwaan, C. 1981, ApJ 245, 163

Yamauchi, S., Koyama, K., Sakano, M., & Okada, K. 1996, PASJ 48, 719

Yu, K. C., Bally, J., & Devine, D. 1997, ApJL 485 L45

Yu, K. C., Billawala, Y., Smith, M. D., Bally, J., Butner, H. M. 2000, AJ in press


text:
# Quantization of Chaos for Particle Motion

## Abstract

We propose a formalism which makes the chaos to be quantized. Quantum mechanical equation is derived for describing the chaos for a particle moving in an electromagnetic field.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ca, 03.65.Pm, 05.45.Mt

Consider a particle of charge $`q`$ and mass $`m`$ moving in an electromagnetic field. Suppose that the particle revolves about a nucleus and runs into a chaotic state, it is convenient to consider the bunch of the particle paths to be a flow characterized by a 4-vector velocity field $`u(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=ict)`$ in a Cartesian coordinate system (in a laboratory frame of reference). According to the relativistic Newton’s second law, the motion of the particle satisfies the following equations

$`m{\displaystyle \frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`qF_{\mu \nu }u_\nu `$ (1)
$`u_\mu u_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`c^2`$ (2)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the curl of electromagnetic 4-vector potential $`A`$. Since the Cartesian coordinate system is a frame of reference whose axes are orthogonal to one another, there is no distinction between covariant and contravariant components, only subscripts need be used. Here and below, summation over twice repeated indices is implied in all case, Greek indices will take on the values 1,2,3,4, and regarding the mass $`m`$ as a constant. Eq.(1) and Eq.(2) is valid at every point for the particle in the field. As mentioned above, the velocity $`u`$ can be regarded as a 4-vector velocity field, then

$$\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{u_\mu }{x_\nu }\frac{dx_\nu }{d\tau }=u_\nu _\nu u_\mu $$
(3)
$$qF_{\mu \nu }u_\nu =qu_\nu (_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )$$
(4)
Substituting them back into Eq.(1), and re-arranging their terms, we obtain

$`u_\nu _\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (qA_\nu )`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu (mu_\nu u_\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu (mc^2)`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )`$
Using the notation

$$K_{\mu \nu }=_\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )_\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )$$
(6)
Eq.(5) is given by

$$u_\nu K_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(7)
Because $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ contains the variables $`_\mu u_\nu `$, $`_\mu A_\nu `$, $`_\nu u_\mu `$ and $`_\nu A_\mu `$ which are independent from $`u_\nu `$, then a solution satisfying Eq.(7) is of

$`K_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`_\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )`$ (9)
The above equation allows us to introduce a potential function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in mathematics, further set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi `$, we obtain a very important equation

$$(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )\psi =i\mathrm{}_\mu \psi $$
(10)
where $`\psi `$ representing the wave nature may be a complex mathematical function, its physical meanings will be determined from experiments after the introduction of the Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$.

Multiplying the two sides of the following familiar equation by $`\psi `$

$$m^2c^2=m^2u_\mu u_\mu $$
(11)
which is valid at every point in the 4-vector velocity field, and using Eq.(10), we obtain

$`m^2c^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`mu_\mu (i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi `$ (12)
$`=`$ $`(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(mu_\mu \psi )[i\mathrm{}\psi _\mu (mu_\mu )]`$
$`=`$ $`(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi `$
$`[i\mathrm{}\psi _\mu (mu_\mu )]`$
According to the continuity condition for the particle motion

$$_\mu (mu_\mu )=0$$
(13)
we have

$$m^2c^2\psi =(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi $$
(14)
It is known as the Klein-Gordon equation.

On the condition of non-relativity, the Schrodinger equation can be derived from the Klein-Gordon equation(P.469).

However, we must admit that we are careless when we use the continuity condition Eq.(13), because, from Eq.(10) we obtain

$$_\mu (mu_\mu )=_\mu (i\mathrm{}_\mu \mathrm{ln}\psi qA_\mu )=i\mathrm{}_\mu _\mu \mathrm{ln}\psi $$
(15)
where we have used the Lorentz gauge condition. Thus from Eq.(11) to Eq.(12) we obtain

$$m^2c^2\psi =(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi +\mathrm{}^2\psi _\mu _\mu \mathrm{ln}\psi $$
(16)
This is of a complete wave equation for describing accurately the motion of the electron. The Klein-Gordon equation is a linear equation so that the principle of superposition remains valid, however, with the addition of the last term of Eq.(16), Eq.(16) turns to display chaos.

In the following we shall show the Dirac equation from Eq.(10) and Eq.(11). From Eq.(10), the wave function can be given in integral form by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi =_{x_0}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu +\theta $$
(17)
where $`\theta `$ is an integral constant, $`x_0`$ and $`x`$ are the initial and final points of the integral with an arbitrary integral path. Since the Maxwell’s equations are gauge invariant, Eq.(10) should preserve invariant form under a gauge transformation specified by

$$A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu +_\mu \chi ,\psi ^{^{}}\psi $$
(18)
where $`\chi `$ is an arbitrary function. Then Eq.(17) under the gauge transformation is given by

$`\psi ^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\theta \right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}q\chi \right\}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\psi \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}q\chi \right\}`$
The situation in which a wave function can be changed in a certain way without leading to any observable effects is precisely what is entailed by a symmetry or invariant principle in quantum mechanics. Here we emphasize that the invariance of velocity field is hold for the gauge transformation.

Suppose there is a family of wave functions $`\psi ^{(j)},j=1,2,3,\mathrm{},N,`$ which correspond to the same velocity field denoted by $`P_\mu =mu_\mu `$, they are distinguishable from their different phase angles $`\theta `$ as in Eq.(17). Then Eq.(11) can be given by

$$0=P_\mu P_\mu \psi ^{(j)}\psi ^{(j)}+m^2c^2\psi ^{(j)}\psi ^{(j)}$$
(20)
Suppose there are matrices $`a_\mu `$ which satisfy

$$a_{\nu lj}a_{\mu jk}+a_{\mu lj}a_{\nu jk}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{lk}$$
(21)
then Eq.(20) can be rewritten as

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu kj}a_{\mu jk}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}`$
$`+(a_{\nu lj}a_{\mu jk}+a_{\mu lj}a_{\nu jk})P_\nu \psi ^{(l)}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}|_{\nu \mu ,when\nu =\mu ,lk}`$
$`+mc\psi ^{(j)}mc\psi ^{(j)}`$
$`=`$ $`[a_{\nu lj}P_\nu \psi ^{(l)}+i\delta _{lj}mc\psi ^{(l)}][a_{\mu jk}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}i\delta _{jk}mc\psi ^{(k)}]`$
Where $`\delta _{jk}`$ is the Kronecker delta function, $`j,k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. For the above equation there is a special solution given by

$$[a_{\mu jk}P_\mu i\delta _{jk}mc]\psi ^{(k)}=0$$
(23)
There are many solutions for $`a_\mu `$ which satisfy Eq.(21), we select a set of $`a_\mu `$ as

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`4,a_\mu =\gamma _\mu (\mu =1,2,3,4)`$ (24)
$`\gamma _n`$ $`=`$ $`i\beta \alpha _n(n=1,2,3),\gamma _4=\beta `$ (25)
where $`\gamma _\mu ,\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the matrices defined in the Dirac algebra(P.557). Substituting them into Eq.(23), we obtain

$$[ic(i\mathrm{}_4qA_4)+c\alpha _n(i\mathrm{}_nqA_n)+\beta mc^2]\psi =0$$
(26)
where $`\psi `$ is an one-column matrix about $`\psi ^{(k)}`$.

Let index $`s`$ denote velocity field, then $`\psi _s(x)`$ whose four component functions correspond to the same velocity field $`s`$ may be regarded as the eigenfunction of the velocity field $`s`$, it may be different from the eigenfunction of energy. Because the velocity field is an observable in a physical system, in quantum mechanics we know that the $`\psi _s(x)`$ constitute a complete basis in which arbitrary function $`\varphi (x)`$ can be expanded in terms of them

$$\varphi (x)=C(s)\psi _s(x)𝑑s$$
(27)
Obviously, $`\varphi (x)`$ satisfies Eq.(26). Eq.(26) is well known as the Dirac equation.

Of course, on the condition of non-relativity, the Schrodinger equation can be derived from the Dirac equation (P.479).

Alternatively, another method to show the Dirac equation is more traditional: At first, we show the Dirac equation of free particle by employing plane waves, we easily obtain Eq.(26) on the condition of $`A_\mu =0`$; Next, adding electromagnetic field, plane waves are valid in any finite small volume with the momentum of Eq.(10) when we regard the field to be uniform in the volume, so the Dirac equation Eq.(26) is valid in the volume even if $`A_\mu 0`$, plane waves constitute a complete basis in the volume; Third, the finite small volume can be chosen to locate at anywhere, then anywhere have the same complete basis, therefore the Dirac equation Eq.(26) is valid at anywhere.

By further calculation, The Dirac equation can arrive at the Klein-Gordon equation with an additional term which represents the effect of spin, this term is just the last term in Eq.(15) in a sense.

But, do not forget that the Dirac equation is a special solution of Eq.(LABEL:20), therefore we believe there are some quantum effects beyond the Dirac equation.

Eq.(10) constructs a relationship between the chaos, quantum and spin. Eq.(15) indicates that the continuity of chaotic velocity field is violated.

It follows from Eq.(10) that the path of particle is analogous to ”lines of electric force” in 4-dimensional space-time. In the case that the Klein-Gordon equation is valid, i.e. Eq.(13) is valid, at any point, the path can have but one direction (i.e. the local 4-vector velocity direction), hence only one path can pass through each point of the space-time. In other words, the path never intersects itself when it winds up itself into a cell about a nucleus. No path originates or terminates in the space-time. But, in general, the divergence of the 4-vector velocity field does not equal to zero, as indicated in Eq.(15).

The condition of the appearance of spin behavior for the chaos is that Eq.(15) is not negligeable. The above mechanism profoundly accounts for the quantum wave natures.

In conclusion, In terms of chaotic 4-vector velocity field, the relativistic Newton’s second law can be rewritten as a wave field equation. By this formalism, the Klein-Gordon equation, Schrodinger equation and Dirac equation can be derived from the relativistic Newtonian mechanics on different conditions, respectively. The chaos for a particle moving in an electromagnetic field is inevitably bound to be quantized and the spin corresponds the continuity breakdown of the chaotic velocity field.


text:
# Single-particle nonlocality and entanglement with the vacuum

## I Introduction

Single-photon sources are coming of age. The most common way to produce single-photon states with random emission times is to use photon-pair emission in spontaneous parametric down-conversion Hong ; Rarity ; Kwiat , followed by detection of one of the emitted photons. However, recently sources able to deliver a single photon on demand have been demonstrated, such as single-molecule emitters De Martini ; Lounis ; Brunel ; Fleury , electrically-driven semiconductor p-i-n junctions Kim , color centers in diamond Kurtsiefer ; Brouri , and semiconductor quantum dots Michler ; Michler 2 ; Santori ; Zwiller . As deterministic single-photon sources are being refined, it is relevant to discuss their potential in quantum information applications and in fundamental tests of physics. In this work we focus on the second of these questions, and specifically address if and how a single photon can be used to demonstrate quantum nonlocality.

Nonlocal properties of a single particle have been discussed by several authors Tan ; Hardy ; Czachor ; Revzen ; Peres ; Home ; Gerry ; MMichler . However, most of the proposals have been (or can be) criticized for various reasons. The proposals by Tan, Walls, and Collett Tan  and by Hardy Hardy  have been criticized as being multiparticle demonstrations of nonlocality in disguise Greenberger ; Greenberger 2  and for other reasons Santos ; Vaidman ; Hardy 2 . The criticism has been refuted as partially being a “semantic issue”, pertaining to the interpretation of the meaning of “single-particle nonlocality” Hardy 2 . The proposals put forth by Czachor Czachor  and by Home and Agarwal Home  are based on Mach-Zehnder interferometers, so the measurement does not take place in two spacelike separated locations and, consequently, the tests are not “loop-hole free”. The remarkable inequality found by Revzen and Mann Revzen  is not derived in terms of experimentally testable entities; instead it demonstrates that the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is at odds with a local hidden-variables theory. Peres Peres  presents a very clear and concise discussion of single-particle nonlocality, but offers no suggestion how to experimentally implement the projective measurements his discussion centers around. In the experiment proposed by Gerry Gerry  the nonlocal properties of a single photon are transferred to two atoms prior to the measurement and, therefore, what is finally measured are the correlations between two particles, which makes the claim of single-particle nonlocality somewhat weaker. To the best of our knowledge, only one experiment has hitherto been performed that claims to be a single-particle test of noncontextual hidden variables MMichler , but, unfortunately, it is also based on self-interference in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Thus, one can conclude that so far no loop-hole free demonstration of single-particle nonlocality has been performed.

In this paper we shall re-examine single-photon nonlocality. Specifically, we shall point out why early, conceptually simple, proposals Tan ; Hardy  are very hard to implement in practice. We will argue that, while the proposal of Tan, Walls, and Collett Tan  in our opinion is sound, by replacing the quadrature amplitude measurements the proposals are based on, with phase measurements, one will obtain a single-particle equivalent to Bohm and Aharonov’s two-particle version of the EPR gedanken experiment Bohm . The advantage with our proposal is that Bohm and Aharonov’s version of the EPR experiment is well understood and familiar to most physicists. We will also show that an experiment involving relative phase, rather than phase, will be experimentally much simpler.

At first, it may seem counterintuitive that a single particle could have nonlocal properties, since observation of nonlocality would entail detection of some property of the particle at two spacelike separated locations. Clearly, detection of the particle at one location would immediate nullify any possibility to simultaneously record the particle, or any property associated with the particle, at another location. The resolution of this apparent conflict is provided by quantum-mechanical duality. Recall that any particle also has wavelike properties, and while the word “particle” brings to mind a pointlike, localized entity, waves are usually thought of as delocalized. Hence, the nonlocal properties of a single particle should naturally be sought in its wavelike properties.

Going back to the particle viewpoint, in order to be able to simultaneously record some joint property of a particle at spacelike separated regions, the particle must be prepared in a superposition state of being localized at one or the other location. The only other state that we can invoke in the superposition is the vacuum and, hence, single-particle nonlocality entails entanglement with the vacuum.

Entanglement with the vacuum is a controversial issue. We cite from Ref. Greenberger 2 : “We point out that it can be very misleading to discuss entangled states in Fock space. Some states that seem to be entangled there are merely single-particle states in configuration space, with no EPR-type nonlocality implications. Other states that seem to be product states are clearly entangled states in configuration space. Especially misleading is the concept of ‘states entangled with the vacuum’.” We do not share the opinions voiced by Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger: since the Fock basis is a complete basis, it is just as good as any other to express and calculate quantum physics, provided the configuration space, or the modes of the system, are unambiguously defined. Along this paper we shall show that this concept of “entanglement with the vacuum”, when properly used, could be very useful and, with a conventional interpretation of the measurement process, lead to the conclusion of the nonlocality of a single particle.

## II A single-particle Bell-inequality violation

The smallest state space in which it is possible to demonstrate EPR effects is a four-dimensional space (the product space of two spacelike separated two-state spaces). The basis vectors of this four-dimensional Hilbert space is conventionally taken as the Bell basis. In this paper we will focus on the Bell state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1_a|0_b|0_a|1_b),$$
(1)
where the indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ usually are taken to refer to “particle $`a`$” and “particle $`b`$”, and where

$${}_{a}{}^{}0|1_{a}^{}={}_{b}{}^{}0|1_{b}^{}=0.$$
(2)
We stress that sufficient requirements for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ to display nonlocal properties is that the indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ represent modes, or configurations, that are spacelike separated and that the orthogonality condition (2) is satisfied. What physical states the kets $`|0_a`$, $`|1_a`$, $`|0_b`$, and $`|1_b`$ represent is irrelevant from a strictly fundamental point of view.

A single-particle state of the form (1) is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1,0|0,1),$$
(3)
where we have suppressed the indices, abbreviated $`|m|n`$ to $`|m,n`$, and used the number basis. This is a single particle entangled with the vacuum (in the following we shall assume that the particle is a photon). The state can be generated by letting a one photon state prepared in a well specified spatio-temporal mode impinge on a 50:50 beam splitter, see Fig. 1. If the beam splitter is oriented so that the transmitted and reflected modes propagate perpendicularly, the two emerging wave packets will be separated by a spacelike distance, and a loop-hole free Bell test could in principle be performed. The state, after propagation during times $`\tau _c`$ and $`\tau _d`$ along the two “arms” $`c`$ and $`d`$, will become

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau _c,\tau _d)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\omega \tau _c}|1,0e^{i\omega \tau _d}|0,1),$$
(4)
where $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency of the light.

Let us now discuss how, in principle, the nonlocal properties of this state, identical in form to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$, could be measured. To this end, let us consider the projectors

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[e^{i(\varphi _c+\omega \tau _c)}|1+|0][e^{i(\varphi _c+\omega \tau _c)}1|+0|]`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[e^{i(\varphi _d+\omega \tau _d)}|1+|0][e^{i(\varphi _d+\omega \tau _d)}1|+0|]`$ (6)
acting on the state in arms $`c`$ and $`d`$, respectively. These projectors are Pegg-Barnett phase projectors Pegg  in a two-dimensional Hilbert space. Calculating the associated projection probabilities of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau _c,\tau _d)`$ one finds that

$$P(\varphi _c)=P(\varphi _d)=\frac{1}{2},P(\varphi _c,\varphi _d)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2[(\varphi _c\varphi _d)/2],$$
(7)
where, e. g., $`P(\varphi _c)`$ denotes the probability to detect the phase $`\varphi _c`$ in arm $`c`$, and $`P(\varphi _c,\varphi _d)`$ denotes the joint probability to detect the phase $`\varphi _c`$ in arm $`c`$ and the phase $`\varphi _d`$ in arm $`d`$. The probabilities are identical to those encountered in Bohm and Aharonov’s version of the EPR paradox Bohm , and in Bell subsequent analysis of bounds on local hidden variables and quantum predictions Bell . This is simply because the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is identical in form to the Bell state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$.

There is nothing in quantum theory ruling out an experimental implementation of the projectors (5) and (6) as classical measurement devices. Consequently, we have to assume that classical measurement devices exist that can implement them, just like we assume that there exist classical devices implementing, e.g., the projector $`|11|`$. Therefore , one is lead to the conclusion that quantum theory is nonlocal even for single particles. However, the sensitive time dependence of (5) and (6) implies that an experimental configuration would have to be stable in time by a fraction of an optical period, and consequently in space by a fraction of a wavelength. Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau _c,\tau _d)`$ is not an eigenstate of the free-space propagation Hamiltonian, it will be difficult to implement such an experiment. This is the main reason why the experiments proposed in Refs. Tan  and Hardy  have not yet been attempted. The conventional (and experimentally simpler) tests of Bell’s inequalities are based on two-particle states that are eigenstates of the free-space propagation Hamiltonian. We stress that going from single-particle to two-particle nonlocality tests simplifies things tremendously from an experimental point of view, but changes nothing from a fundamental point of view.

Peres Peres  has pointed out that the projectors (5) and (6) do not commute with the total photon-number operator. He concludes that “nonlocal effects may thus appear for an initial state that contains a single particle, provided that the final state may contain two.” While the statement is correct, it should be an unsatisfactory answer to whose who argue that single-particle states cannot be used to demonstrate nonlocality. The reason is that while the final (post-measurement) state will contain two photons with probability 1/4, it will contain no photon with the same probability. If the first outcome is taken as an argument that our, and earlier, similar proposal are only a demonstration of multiphoton nonlocality in disguise, the same logic leads to the conclusion that the second outcome indicates that nonlocality can also be demonstrated with no particles. However, both “conclusions” are equally misleading, since they “explain” the nonlocal characteristics of the pre-measurement state in terms of probabilities derived from the post-measurement state.

The pre-measurement state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is fully characterized by two binary, truth propositions Zeilinger . Expressed operationally, they are: (a) the sum of the photon numbers measured in the two arms is unity; and (b) the phase measured in one arm will always differ by $`\pi `$ from the phase measured in the other arm. Since the phases measured at the two locations contain an element of reality (the $`\pi `$ difference is certain) our proposed experiment avoids “the law of the excluded muddle” Bernstein . The title of our paper is simply a summary of the consequences of truth propositions (a) and (b).

## III Single-photon nonlocality based on relative phase

Now let us return to the experiment. The difficulties associated with single-particle nonlocality based on measurement of phase can be overcome by measuring relative phase instead of phase. To this end, consider the schematic setup depicted in Fig. 2. Incident on a polarizing beam splitter is a product state between a single-photon state and a coherent state with a mean photon number $`2|\alpha |^2`$ (for simplicity, and without loss of generality, we shall assume that $`\alpha `$ is real). The states are both linearly polarized at a direction 45 degrees from the horizontal (in the following, vertical and horizontal polarizations will be denoted V and H, respectively). Expressing the state in a vertical-horizontal linear-polarization four-mode basis, the impinging state can be written as

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1,0|0,1)|\alpha ,\alpha ,$$
(8)
where we take the kets (left to right) to denote the modes $`a`$V, $`a`$H, $`b`$V, and $`b`$H. After the polarizing beam splitter, the state becomes

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1,\alpha ,\alpha ,0|0,\alpha ,\alpha ,1)$$
(9)
if expressed in the modes $`c`$V, $`c`$H, $`d`$V, and $`d`$H. In absence of polarization dispersion (assume, e. g., that the wave packets propagate in vacuum or air), the state after mode $`c`$ has evolved during time $`\tau _c`$ and mode $`d`$ during the time $`\tau _d`$ will be

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\omega \tau _c}|1,e^{i\omega \tau _c}\alpha ,e^{i\omega \tau _d}\alpha ,0e^{i\omega \tau _d}|0,e^{i\omega \tau _c}\alpha ,e^{i\omega \tau _d}\alpha ,1).$$
(10)
The exponential phase factors in Eq. (10) preserve the relative phase between the modes in each arm. In absence of birefringence the relative phase between the two modes is a constant of motion.

To measure the relative phase between the states in arm $`c`$ we introduce, in each two-mode energy manifold $`n>0`$, the projector with eigenstate

$$|\xi ^{(n)}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+n/\alpha ^2}}\left[\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\alpha }|0,n+e^{i\varphi }|1,n1\right].$$
(11)
Note that this projector is time-independent, and it is therefore also invariant under translations along the arm. In the $`n=0`$ energy manifold, there is only one associated state, so in this manifold there exist no relative-phase-dependent projector. In all other manifolds the eigenstate $`|\xi ^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ is similar in form to the eigenstates of the relative-phase operator Luis . The projection probabilities in the two arms on the states $`|\xi ^{(n_c)}(\varphi _c)`$ and $`|\xi ^{(n_d)}(\varphi _d)`$, respectively, and the joint probability of detecting the relative phases $`\varphi _c`$ and $`\varphi _d`$ and the photon numbers $`n_c>0`$ and $`n_d>0`$ become:

$`P(n_c,\varphi _c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\alpha ^2}\alpha ^{2(n_c1)}}{(1+n_c/\alpha ^2)(n_c1)!}},`$
$`P(n_d,\varphi _d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\alpha ^2}\alpha ^{2(n_d1)}}{(1+n_d/\alpha ^2)(n_d1)!}},`$ (12)
$`P(n_c,n_d,\varphi _c,\varphi _d)`$ $`=`$ $`2P(n_c,\varphi _c)P(n_d,\varphi _d)\mathrm{sin}^2[(\varphi _c\varphi _d)/2].`$
The relative-phase probabilities $`P(n_c,\varphi _c)`$ and $`P(n_d,\varphi _d)`$ are independent of the settings of $`\varphi _c`$ and $`\varphi _d`$. Summing, e. g., $`P(n_c,\varphi _c)`$ over $`n_c`$, one finds that probability of obtaining the relative phase $`\varphi _c`$ approaches 1/2 as the coherent state excitation increases. In Fig. 3 we have plotted the difference $`1/2_{n_c=1}^{\mathrm{}}P(n_c,\varphi _c)`$ as a function of the mean photon number $`\alpha ^2`$ of the coherent state. In Fig. 4 we show how closely the projector defined by summing $`P(n_c,n_d,\varphi _c,\varphi _d)`$ over $`n_c`$ and $`n_d`$ approximates the ideal projector for $`\alpha ^2=3`$ and $`\alpha ^2=10`$. To quantify the deviation between the joint relative-phase probability and the joint phase-projector probability $`P(\varphi _c,\varphi _d)`$, we have also plotted the maximum difference between the two (that is, for $`\varphi _c\varphi _d=\pm \pi `$) in Fig. 3.

Before returning to the central question of the paper, namely nonlocal properties of single particles, let us briefly discuss some technical aspects of our relative-phase proposal. One way to experimentally implement the proposal would be to make devices that, in each arm and each manifold $`n>0`$, perform the transformation

$$|m,nm\xi ^{(n)}(0)|,$$
(13)
where $`0<mn`$ (in this context it is irrelevant how all states orthogonal to $`|\xi ^{(n)}(0)`$ are transformed). In this way, detection of the state $`|\xi ^{(n)}(0)`$ is converted to the much simpler (photon counting) detection of the state $`|m,nm`$. In manifold $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ such transformations have be accomplished by the means of linear components, i.e., beam splitters and phase plates Grangier ; Trifonov . To make the projectors depend in the desired way on the relative phases $`\varphi _c`$ and $`\varphi _d`$, variable birefringence components, such as birefringent liquid crystal cells, or birefringent wedges, could be inserted in the arms prior to the projective measurements Trifonov . In manifolds $`n>2`$ the transformations will require a nonlinear Hamiltonian Bjork , of the same level of technical difficulty as implementing a quantum optical controlled NOT gate. Hence, our proposal is experimentally challenging at the moment, but is serves to demonstrate that single particles can indeed be used to show Bell-type correlations.

Now, let us go back to the interpretation of the proposed experiment. Clearly the measurement involves more than a single particle. However, all the nonlocal properties demonstrated by such an experiment are carried by a single particle. Hardy Hardy 2  suggested four criteria for unambiguous demonstration of single-photon nonlocality. Slightly abbreviated they are: (I) There should be a single-photon source and two quantum channels leading to spacelike separated measurement regions. In addition there may be classical channels between the measurement regions carrying classical information. (II) Photon detectors placed directly into the quantum channels will detect no more that one photon in the measured spatio-temporal modes. (III) If any of the quantum channels are blocked, no violation of locality can be observed. (IV) The results of the experiment violate locality. Our proposal meets all four criteria. The coherent state is a classical phase reference, copropagating with the single photon only to make the experiment less sensitive to measurement imperfections due to limited precision, or nonfundamental noise, in the time and space coordinates.

In principle, the coherent states could be produced locally. Since the phase stability of a laser are fundamentally limited only by the cold-cavity linewidth of the resonator and the energy stored in the cavity, there i s no fundamental limit for how long two lasers can stay in synchronism Schawlow . Hence, in principle, two lasers could be adjusted (by a homodyne measurement) so that their respective phases coincided, then transported to two remote locations. Within a time proportional to the inverse linewidths, the lasers would stay synchronized and the experiment could be performed without a classical communication channel, that is, as a “black-box measurement”. Hence, the needed phase reference provided by the coherent states should be interpreted as internal states associated with the macroscopic measurement apparata implementing the projectors (5) and (6). That such an interpretation is both customary and legitimate has already been argued by Peres Peres ; Peres 2 . Enclosing the lasers in “black boxes”, such an experiment performed on a single photon in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ could yield identical measurement statistics and a similar measurement configuration as spin analysis of two spin 1/2 particles in a singlet state.

In a more realistic scenario one can envision two individual (slave) lasers, one at the end of each arm, that are regularly synchronized by a short pulse of light from a centrally placed master laser, see Fig. 5. During a short time, the classical channels are used to synchronize the slave lasers to the master laser and no measurements are done. Then the master laser is switched off and a series of single-photon relative-phase measurements, where the coherent states are produced locally, are made. The process is then repeated with a frequency higher than the lasers linewidth (that is assumed to impose a more stringent requirement on the repetition frequency than the mechanical drift and vibrations of the experimental setup). This is essentially how “clock recovery” is performed in coherent optical communications systems. In these, local oscillator synchronization (albeit usually at much lower frequencies) is an integral part of the whole system. We see no fundamental reason why such a synchronization scheme could not be implemented at optical frequencies. In fact, more than ten years ago, such schemes were seriously being discussed in the context of coherent optical communication Kikuchi .

## IV Summary

In conclusion, we have proposed an experiment that demonstrates nonlocal properties of a single particle. Our proposal is a single-particle analog to the two spin 1/2 particle experiment proposed by Bohm and Aharonov. Our experiment will be difficult to perform in practice, because most, if not all, detectors with a single-quanta sensitivity are particle (or energy) counters. Since single-particle nonlocality must not involve direct particle detection, but phase, or relative-phase detection, a unitary transformation must be used to convert these properties to properties measurable by a particle counter.

We have argued that the states providing the needed phase references should be ascribed to the macroscopic meter. At any rate these states carry no nonlocal characteristics. The inevitable conclusion must be that any spacelike separated state fulfilling (1) and (2) has nonlocal properties, independent of what the kets represent. It is our hope that within a relatively near future the experiment we have proposed will be implemented experimentally.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Prof. D. Greenberger, Prof. A. Zeilinger, and Prof. F. De Martini for making Ref. Greenberger 2  available to us. This work was supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF), the European Union through program IST-1999-10243 (S4P), and L M Ericssons stiftelse för främjande av elektroteknisk forskning.


text:
# On the equivalence of the Ashkin-Teller and the four-state Potts-glass models of neural networks

## Abstract

We show that for a particular choice of the coupling parameters the Ashkin-Teller spin-glass neural network model with the Hebb learning rule and one condensed pattern yields the same thermodynamic properties as the four-state anisotropic Potts-glass neural network model. This equivalence is not seen at the level of the Hamiltonians.

It is well-known that the classical Ashkin-Teller (AT) model is a generalization of the Ising, the four-state clock and the four-state Potts models. This can be easily seen already at the level of the Hamiltonian, especially when one rewrites the Hamiltonian of the AT model  using two Ising spins located at each site of the lattice interacting via two- and four-spin couplings .

For spin-glass systems similar observations can be made ( and references therein). The AT spin-glass Hamiltonian contains as particular limits, for certain bond realizations, both the four-state clock spin glass and the four-state Potts-glass Hamiltonians.

Concerning neural network models, the situation is more complicated. It is straightforward to see at the level of the Hamiltonian that for two, respectively one of the coupling strengths taken to be zero, the AT neural network model  is equivalent to the Hopfield model  respectively the four-state clock neural network model . On the contrary, the possible relation with the four-state Potts neural network models existing in the literature  is, at first sight, unclear. However, since we discovered in the study of the thermodynamic and retrieval properties of the AT neural network  for equal coupling strengths some resemblance to the properties of the Potts-glass neural network , we expect that a relation with the latter does exist. To investigate this relation is the purpose of this brief report.

The AT neural network with the Hebb learning rule is described by the following infinite-range Hamiltonian

$`_{AT}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(i,j)=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[J_1\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu s_is_j+J_2\eta _i^\mu \eta _j^\mu \sigma _i\sigma _j`$ (1)
$`+J_3\xi _i^\mu \eta _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu \eta _j^\mu s_i\sigma _is_j\sigma _j]`$ (2)
with the two types of Ising neurons $`s_i,\sigma _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ describing the state of the network. In this model storage and retrieval of the patterns $`\{\xi _i^\mu \},\{\eta _i^\mu \},\mu =1,\mathrm{},p`$ are studied. The patterns are randomly chosen configurations of the network. Based upon our observations mentioned above we take equal coupling strengths $`J_1=J_2=J_3=1`$ in the sequel.

Two Potts-glass neural networks with Hebb learning have been studied in the literature. Considering four Potts-states the first network  is described by the Hamiltonian

$$_K=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{(i,j)=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{16}\left(𝐮_i𝝍_i^\mu \right)\left(𝐮_j𝝍_j^\mu \right),$$
(3)
while the second one is given by

$$_{VZ}=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{(i,j)=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{16}\left(𝐮_i𝐮_j\right)\left(𝝍_i^\mu 𝝍_j^\mu \right),$$
(4)
where $`𝐮_i`$ and $`𝝍_i`$ are state and pattern vectors taken from the set of four-dimensional vectors $`𝐯=\{𝐯^{(l)}\}`$ with components $`v_k^{(l)}=4\delta _{kl}1`$ for $`l,k=1,2,3,4`$. The main difference between the two models is that in the first, anisotropic model precisely one specific Potts state is favoured at each site, while in the second, isotropic model the fact whether or not two neurons are in the same state is important.

Two models can be equivalent at the level of the Hamiltonian or at the level of the free energy. It is clear that for the Hamiltonians of the models we have introduced above there are one state and $`p`$ pattern variables associated with each of the $`N`$ sites of the network. Thus the Hamiltonians can be written in the form

$$_{mod}=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{(i,j)}{}H_{mod}(C_{ij}^\mu )$$
(5)
where $`mod`$ denotes $`AT`$, $`K`$ or $`VZ`$. The energy of the interaction between two sites is a sum over patterns of $`H_{mod}(C_{ij}^\mu )`$ and depends on the state-pattern configuration $`C_{ij}^\mu `$ of sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. Hence, it is enough to compare the $`H_{mod}(C_{ij}^\mu )`$. In the case of four state models we are considering here, all possible values of $`H_{mod}(C_{ij}^\mu )`$ can be written in the form of a $`16\times 16`$ matrix ( 16 state-pattern configurations for a given site). For the sake of easy comparison we write down these matrices explicitly

$$H_K=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
$$H_{VZ}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1\\ \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1\\ \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1\\ \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}\\ \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}\\ 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}& \overline{3}\\ 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9& \overline{3}\\ 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& 1& 1& 1& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& \overline{3}& 9\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
$$H_{AT}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3\\ \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}\\ 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3\\ \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}\\ \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}\\ 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& \overline{1}& 3\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
where we have used the standard notation $`\overline{c}=c`$.

One can see that $`H_{AT}`$ differs from $`H_K`$ and $`H_{VZ}`$ by the number of energy levels and by their position in the matrix. We have not found a transformation of the Hamiltonians removing this difference. Therefore, we conclude that at the level of the Hamiltonian the AT neural network is not equivalent to any of the two four-state Potts models.

In order to find out whether a possible equivalence exists on the level of the free energies we start from the model with Hamiltonian $`_K`$ because the matrix $`H_K`$ has the same global symmetry as $`H_{AT}`$. We note that the symmetry of $`4\times 4`$ blocks in $`H_K`$ and $`H_{AT}`$ is different. It is a consequence of the fact that $`_{AT}`$ is invariant under inversion of all the spins, while $`_K`$ is not invariant under any permutation of the state variables. The Hamiltonian $`_{VZ}`$ on the contrary is completely invariant under any permutation of those variables.

As remarked in  $`H_K`$ can be rewritten using two different types of Ising spins

$`H_K(C_{ij}^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`(s_i\xi _i^\mu +\sigma _i\eta _i^\mu +s_i\xi _i^\mu \sigma _i\eta _i^\mu )`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`(s_j\xi _j^\mu +\sigma _j\eta _j^\mu +s_j\xi _j^\mu \sigma _j\eta _j^\mu )`$ (10)
Applying the usual replica method  to calculate the quenched average over the patterns, chosen to be independent identically distributed random variables taking the values $`+1`$ and $`1`$ with equal probability, the free energy density can be written in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in the form $`f=lim_{n0}=\varphi _n/n`$ with $`\varphi _n`$ the replicated free energy. For the model at hand, assuming at first that there is only one condensed pattern, say $`\mu =1`$, we get

$`\varphi _{n,K}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}r_{ab}^{}q_{ab}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{9\alpha ^{}}{4\beta ^{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{\{s,\sigma \}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}m_a^{}b_a+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\alpha ^{}\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}r_{ab}^{}b_{ab}\right\}`$ (12)
where we have dropped the index $`1`$ and where

$`b_a`$ $`=`$ $`s^a\xi +\sigma ^a\eta +s^a\sigma ^a\xi \eta `$ (14)
$`b_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`s^as^b+\sigma ^a\sigma ^b+s^a\sigma ^as^b\sigma ^b`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`(13\beta ^{})\delta _{ab}\beta ^{}q_{ab}^{},a,b=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (16)
The brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ indicate the average over the condensed pattern. As usual $`\beta ^{}`$ is the inverse temperature, $`\alpha ^{}`$ the capacity defined as the number of patterns per number of couplings per spin, i.e. $`\alpha ^{}=2p/9N`$, $`_{\{s,\sigma \}}`$ denotes the sum over all configurations at one site and $`_{a<b}`$ denotes the sum over pairs of different replicas $`a<b`$. Finally, the set of order parameters is given by

$`m_a^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}s_i^a\xi _i^\mu +\sigma _i^a\eta _i^\mu +s_i^a\sigma _i^a\xi _i^\mu \eta _i^\mu `$ (17)
$`q_{ab}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}s_i^as_i^b+\sigma _i^a\sigma _i^b+s_i^a\sigma _i^as_i^b\sigma _i^b`$ (18)
$`r_{ab}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{9\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu >1}{\overset{p}{}}}m_a^\mu m_b^\mu `$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the thermal average and the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ now indicate the average over all patterns.

The order parameters $`m_a^{}`$, $`q_{ab}^{}`$ and $`r_{ab}^{}`$, and the inverse temperature $`\beta ^{}`$ can be rescaled in such a way that the resulting replicated free energy density (12) satisfies $`\varphi _{n,K}`$ = 3 $`\varphi _{n,AT}`$, with $`\varphi _{n,AT}`$ the replicated free energy density for the AT neural network. Hereby we have taken into account that for the AT neural network model with equal coupling strengths and one condensed pattern, the nine order parameters ($`m_a^\nu ,q_{ab}^\nu ,r_{ab}^\nu `$) with $`\nu =1,2,3`$ refering to $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\xi \eta `$ reduce to three, i.e. ($`m_a,q_{ab},r_{ab}`$), where a reference to a specific type of pattern is now irrelevant. This is due to the fact that for this AT model only states satisfying $`m_a^\nu =m_a,q_{ab}^\nu =q_{ab},r_{ab}^\nu =r_{ab},\nu =1,2,3`$, i.e. so-called simple states, mimimize the free energy. For the replica symmetric ansatz this property of the simple states has been shown in  to be related to taking the quenched average over just one condensed pattern. Since patterns do not carry replica indices, we assume that it is also valid in the fully replicated case.

The proper rescaling is the following :

$`m_a^{}=3m_a,q_{ab}^{}=3q_{ab},r_{ab}^{}=3r_{ab},`$ (20)
$`\beta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\beta ,\alpha ^{}=\alpha .`$ (21)
Next, assuming more than one condensed pattern, the order parameters $`𝐦_a^\nu `$ get a vector character in $`\mu `$ and stable states for which the $`𝐦_a^\nu `$ are different for different $`\nu `$ occur. This no longer allows for a reduction of the order parameters. We remark that these states have a bigger replica symmetric free energy than the one for the simple states and, hence, they play a minor role in the thermodynamics of the model. Nevertheless, they do destroy the thermodynamic equivalence with the Potts model.

In brief, we conclude that the AT neural network with equal coupling strengths and one condensed pattern is thermodynamically equivalent to the four-state anisotropic Potts model studied in , in spite of the different Hamiltonians. In fact, the AT Hamiltonian (2) does not contain three-spin interaction terms present in (10). We have demonstrated this thermodynamic equivalence by rewriting the Hamiltonian of the Potts model using two different types of Ising variables and calculating the replicated free energy.

These results clarify the resemblance found before  of the thermodynamic properties of the AT and the Potts neural networks. Furthermore, they imply that the four-state Potts model described by $`_{VZ}`$ is thermodynamically equivalent to the AT neural network model with one condensed pattern only in the limit of low loading, i.e. for $`\alpha =0`$, or at zero temperature assuming replica symmetry, where we know that the fixed-point equations for the two four-state Potts models are the same, as shown in .