text:
# Rotational Broadening and Doppler Tomography of the Quiescent X-Ray Nova Centaurus X-4

## 1 INTRODUCTION

X-ray novae (XRNe) are a subclass of low mass X-ray binaries characterized by the exhibition of occasional outbursts with a recurrence time-scale of a few decades (see the reviews by van Paradijs & McClintock 1995; Tanaka & Shibazaki 1996; van Paradijs 1998). During the outburst state the optical spectrum of the companion star is overwhelmed by the light of the X-ray irradiated accretion disc surrounding the compact object. During the long intervals of quiescence, the X-ray luminosity falls by at least 5 orders of magnitude, rendering the spectrum of the secondary star detectable. This provides an ideal opportunity to obtain the system parameters, constrain the physical properties of both the compact object and companion star and hence cast light on the nature and origin of these binary systems (see e.g. Charles 1998). In this way it has been shown that $`75`$ per cent of the XRNe harbour black holes.

Centaurus X-4 is a well-studied XRN. It was discovered during an X-ray outburst in 1969 (Conner, Evans & Belian 1969), and a second outburst ten years later allowed the identification of its optical counterpart which had brightened by $``$ 6 magnitudes (Canizares, McClintock & Gridlady 1980). A Type I X-ray burst was detected during the decline phase of the outburst (Matsuoka et al. 1980), indicating that the primary in this case is an accreting neutron star. Photometric and spectroscopic studies of the optical counterpart in its quiescent state led to the determination of a 15.1 hr orbital period (Chevalier et al. 1989; McClintock & Remillard 1990) and a $``$ 0.2 M mass function (Cowley et al. 1988). The secondary star was identified as a $`\mathrm{K5}\mathrm{K7}`$ evolved main sequence star.

The Cen X-4 quiescent light curves show a double-humped modulation with a full amplitude of $``$ 0.15 mag (Cowley et al. 1988; Chevalier et al. 1989; McClintock & Remillard 1990) which is associated with the tidal distortion of the Roche-lobe-filling secondary star. McClintock & Remillard (1990), based on the phasing of the H$`\beta `$ emission line radial velocity curve, suggested the presence of an accretion disc hotspot to explain the unequal maxima and unusual different depths of the minima in the V and I light curves. Star spots or X-ray heating of the K-star were also invoked to explain the long term changes observed in the light curves by Chevalier et al. (1989). Shahbaz, Naylor & Charles (1993) observed Cen X-4 in the IR, where the contamination of the ellipsoidal light curve by the accretion disc is minimized. Their fit of the H-band light curve with an ellipsoidal model led to the determination of a low inclination ($`31^{}54^{}`$) and a primary mass lying in the range $`0.52.1`$ M.

In this paper we refine the system parameters and ephemeris of Cen X-4. From our higher resolution spectra we are able to determine the rotational broadening of the companion star for the first time. Finally, we investigate the H$`\alpha `$ Doppler map of the system during the quiescent state.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

Centaurus X-4 in its quiescent state was observed during three runs. The first was from 1993 June 24-27 when spectra were acquired using the RGO spectrograph attached to the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT). A 1200 line mm-1 grating centred on H$`\alpha `$ and a 1.2 arcsec slit width yielded a dispersion of 0.8 Å pix-1 and a spectral resolution of 74 km s-1 (FWHM). On 1994 March 6-8 we employed the EMMI spectrograph on ESO’s New Technology Telescope (NTT) on La Silla. Use of grating # 6 and a 1.2 arcsec slit yielded a dispersion of 0.31 Å pix-1 and a spectral resolution of 45 km s-1. Our final run was with the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on La Palma. Spectra were acquired during the nights of 1994 July 9/10 and 13/14 using the red arm of ISIS, a 1200R grating and a 0.8 arcsec slit which provided a spectral resolution of 25 km s-1. In addition to the spectra of Cen X-4, on the night of July 9 radial velocity standard stars of spectral types K3 III (HR 5536), K4 III (HR 6159) and K5 III (HR 5622) were acquired using the same setting as for the target. Table 1 provides a more detailed journal of the Cen X-4 observations.

All the runs were photometric, with seeing less than 1.5 arcsec at all times, and $`<1`$ arcsec occasionally. Copper-Neon arc lamp spectra were taken every hour. The spectra were extracted in a standard way using iraf111iraf is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories.. The pixel-to-wavelength calibration was derived from third-order polynomial fits to 12 arc lines, giving a rms scatter $`0.03`$ Å. The calibration curves were interpolated in time and the accuracy of the whole process was checked by cross-correlating the sky spectra, which was found to be within 10 km s-1. The spectra were re-binned into a constant velocity scale and normalized by dividing with the result of fitting a low order spline to the continuum after masking the emission lines.

## 3 RADIAL VELOCITY CURVE AND ORBITAL EPHEMERIS

Radial velocities were extracted by cross-correlating each target spectrum with the spectra of the three template stars in the range $`\lambda \lambda 63876513`$. We performed least-squares sine fits to our radial velocity data, fixing the orbital period at $`P=0.629063`$ d (McClintock & Remillard 1990). The resultant dynamical parameters are summarized in Table 2. We adopt the K4 III parameters of the radial velocity curve because it provided the lowest reduced $`\chi ^2`$: $`K_2`$ = 150.0 $`\pm `$ 1.1 km s-1, $`\gamma __2`$ = 184.0 $`\pm `$ 1.9 km s-1 and $`T_0=\mathrm{HJD}2449163.934\pm 0.001`$. This zero phase is defined as inferior conjunction of the secondary star. The combination of our $`T_0`$ determination with the value reported by McClintock & Remillard (1990) enables us to refine the orbital period to $`P=0.6290496\pm 0.0000021`$ d. Fig. 1 displays the radial velocity curve. Although our velocity semi-amplitude $`K_2`$ agrees with the values presented by Cowley et al. (1988) and McClintock & Remillard (1990), we find a systemic velocity intermediate to these reported earlier.222These values are: $`K_2`$ = 152.0 $`\pm `$ 10 km s-1, $`\gamma `$ = 234 $`\pm `$ 8 km s-1 (Cowley et al. 1988). $`K_2`$ = 146 $`\pm `$ 12 km s-1, $`\gamma `$ = 137 $`\pm `$ 17 km s-1 (McClintock & Remillard 1990). This discrepancy could be due to the use of an erroneous heliocentric radial velocity for the template stars used by these authors. Unfortunately we have not found any updating of them.

## 4 SPECTRAL CLASSIFICATION AND ROTATIONAL BROADENING

We determined the spectral type and rotational broadening of the secondary by subtracting a set of templates from the Doppler-corrected average spectrum of the target until the lowest residual was obtained (see e.g. Marsh, Robinson & Wood 1994).

Regarding the spectral classification we have constrained this analysis to these spectra acquired with the AAT because of their higher signal-to-noise ratio. The target spectra were summed in the rest frame of the template star HR 6159 by using the radial velocity parameters of Sect. 3. Different weights were assigned to different target spectra in order to maximize the signal-to-noise of the sum. In addition to the K III-type standards acquired with the WHT, we have employed a set of K V-type standards observed with the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) in 1993 October (see Casares et al. 1996). These spectra were Doppler-shifted to the rest frame of HR 6159 and degraded appropriately to match the broadening of our AAT observations. This value was found by subtracting different broadened copies of the WHT and INT spectral templates from the Doppler-corrected average of Cen X-4 and performing a $`\chi ^2`$ test on the residuals.

The templates were multiplied by a factor $`0<f<1`$, representing the fractional contribution of light from the secondary star, and subtracted from the target average. Then a $`\chi ^2`$ test on the residuals was performed in the range $`\lambda \lambda 63876513`$. The optimal values of $`f`$ are provided by minimizing $`\chi ^2`$, with quoted uncertainties corresponding to $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$+1 (Lampton, Margon & Bowyer 1976). The minimization of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ does not give a single minimum (see Table 3) and the secondary star in Cen X-4 is most probably of spectral type $`\mathrm{K3}\mathrm{K5}`$ contributing $`75`$ per cent to the total flux of the system at H$`\alpha `$. A similar result was obtained when applying this technique to the NTT and WHT data subsets. Because HD 29697 is an active star (Casares et al. 1996), this might hint that the companion star in Cen X-4 is also active. Fig. 2 depicts the normalized Doppler-shifted average of Cen X-4 before and after subtraction of the K5 V template. The Cen X-4 spectrum shows H$`\alpha `$ and He i $`\lambda 6678`$ emission lines. Li i $`\lambda 6708`$ in absorption becomes prominent after the subtraction. The detection of a strong Li i $`\lambda 6708`$ line in the late-type companion is an unexpected result since the initial Li i content should be quickly depleted by means of convective mixing in the star and mass transfer to the compact object. The reader should refer to Martín et al. (1994) for a detailed discussion of the significance of the anomalous high abundance of Li i in Cen X-4 and other XRNe.

For the rotational broadening calculation we have selected a subset of our data which has the higher spectral resolution. This consists of the target and template spectra acquired with the WHT. The spectra were Doppler-shifted to the rest frame of the template HR 6159 and then the target spectra were summed with different weights to optimize the final signal-to-noise ratio. In order to correctly estimate $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ we simulate in our template spectra the drift due to the orbital motion of the secondary during the exposures: we created 8 versions of each WHT template which were smeared in the same way as the target spectra by convolution with a rectangular profile of the appropriate width. This is given by:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{smear}}=t_{\mathrm{exp}}\frac{2\pi }{P}K_2|\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \phi \right)|$$

where $`t_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the length of the exposure and $`\phi `$ the orbital phase.

The smeared template copies were then summed using identical weights as for the Cen X-4 spectra. Subsequently, we broadened the three summed templates from 1 to 100 km s-1, in steps of 1 km s-1, and subtracted the resultant broadened spectra (as above) from the target Doppler-corrected average. The summed templates were broadened through convolution with the rotational profile of Gray (1992). We used linearized limb-darkening coefficients of $`\mu =0.69`$, $`\mu =0.73`$ and $`\mu =0.75`$ appropriate for a K3 III, K5 III and K7 III star, respectively (Al-Naimiy 1978; Wade & Rucinski 1985). The results from the $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ minimization are listed in Table 4, with quoted uncertainties on $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ corresponding to $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$+1. Because the minimum $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ for the output residuals is acceptable ($`1`$) for the three templates, we choose for the rotational broadening the mean of the results obtained from the analysis: $`v\mathrm{sin}i=43\pm 6`$ km s-1. To check the systematic errors introduced by the choice of $`\mu `$ (which is only suitable for the continuum; Collins & Truax 1995), we have allowed $`\mu `$ to vary in the range 0-1. This leads to 5 per cent ($``$ 3 km s-1) changes in the resulting value of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$, and therefore it is the statistical noise and not the uncertainty in $`\mu `$ which limits our accuracy. Unfortunately, we cannot make use of the higher signal-to-noise spectra acquired with the AAT and NTT to refine the rotational broadening. The absorption features of the former are artificially broadened by the instrumental resolution (74 km s-1), whereas the latter are dominated by the instrumental resolution (45 km s-1) and the orbital smearing. In particular, the total broadening (calculated by adding in quadrature the instrumental resolution and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{smear}}`$) ranges from 25 to 37 km s-1 for the WHT spectra and 47 to 61 km s-1 for the NTT spectra.

## 5 THE BINARY SYSTEM PARAMETERS

Assuming that the companion star is synchronized with the binary motion and fills its Roche lobe we can calculate the mass ratio ($`q=M_2/M_1`$) through the expression (see e.g. Wade & Horne 1988):

$$v\mathrm{sin}i=0.462K_2q^{1/3}(1+q)^{2/3}$$

From the values of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ and $`K_2`$, we derived $`q=0.17\pm 0.06`$, which implies a primary velocity semi-amplitude of $`K_1=qK_2=26\pm 9`$ km s-1. On the other hand, our values of $`K_2=150.0\pm 1.1`$ km s-1 and $`P=0.6290496\pm 0.0000021`$ d imply a mass function of $`f(M)=0.220\pm 0.005`$ M. Combining the values for $`f(M)`$ and $`q`$, the masses of the compact object and the companion star are: $`M_1=(0.30\pm 0.04)\mathrm{sin}^3i`$ M and $`M_2=(0.05\pm 0.03)\mathrm{sin}^3i`$ M. We used the constraint upon the inclination from the IR observations of Shahbaz et al. (1993). By fitting the H-band light curve with an ellipsoidal model these authors found the system inclination to be in the range 31$`{}_{}{}^{}<i<54^{}`$ (90 per cent confidence). Taking the extreme limits for $`i`$ we obtain ranges for the masses of: $`0.49<M_1<2.49`$ M and $`0.04<M_2<0.58`$ M. The companion star of Cen X-4 is of spectral type $`\mathrm{K3}\mathrm{K5}`$ V. Main-sequence stars of these spectral types have masses in the range $`0.740.68`$ M. The disagreement with the masses obtained above is easily explained if the secondary star is undermassive (i.e. evolved) for its spectral type as proposed by Shahbaz et al. (1993).

## 6 DOPPLER TOMOGRAPHY

The H$`\alpha `$ emission line has a FWHM of $`640`$ km s-1 and a mean equivalent width (EW) of 35 $`\pm `$ 7 Å, with the error accounting for the intrinsic line variability during the three runs. The line profile has a double-peaked structure, the classic signature of an accretion disc, and shows periodic changes in the height of the two peaks by the action of an S-wave emission component. We have made use of the Doppler tomography technique (Marsh & Horne 1988) on the orbitally resolved line profiles to reconstruct the H$`\alpha `$ brightness distribution and identify the location of the S-wave in the binary system. In order to construct the Doppler map, the 25 spectra were re-binned into 82 pixels of constant velocity scale (36.6 km s-1) and the continua removed. The derived Doppler image computed with the maximum entropy method (Marsh & Horne 1988) is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 3. This image should be interpreted as a one year time-averaged map since the data were acquired over a year. We have overplotted the theoretical path of the gas stream and the Roche lobe of the secondary star and the gas stream trajectory for $`K_2=150`$ km s-1 and $`q=0.17`$. The Doppler image shows a region of enhanced intensity at the position of the secondary star, superposed on a weak ring-like structure, which represents the emission arising from a rotating accretion disc. There is no evidence for emission from the gas stream or the hotspot (the stream/disc impact region). We think unlikely that this absence is an artifact of using spectra spread over a year since a very similar result is obtained when using only the AAT data subset which expands over 5 consecutive orbital cycles. Individual Doppler maps for the WHT and NTT data subsets could not be computed because of scarce phase coverage. However, we note that the S-wave component from the secondary is clearly detected in all the individual line profiles.

## 7 DISCUSSION

In order to constrain the possible causes of the H$`\alpha `$ emission arising from the secondary, we have extracted the H$`\alpha `$ S-wave component from the line profiles as described by Casares et al. (1997). The procedure applied is illustrated in Fig. 4. First, we simulate the accretion disc by averaging all the spectra in the laboratory rest frame. Because the resultant profile showed the blue peak significantly stronger than the red one (clearly an artifact of the S-wave emission due to the gaps in our phase coverage), we built a symmetric double-peaked profile by folding a copy of the red part of the emission line profile (spectrum $`a`$ in Fig. 4). Next, twenty five versions of this ’accretion disc’ profile were shifted to the rest frame of the secondary star, at the times of our individual spectra, and then averaged using the same weights (spectrum $`b`$ in Fig. 4). Finally, the resultant profile was removed from the Doppler-corrected average of Cen X-4 with the $`\mathrm{K5}`$ V template spectrum subtracted, to be left with the narrow H$`\alpha `$ component with EW(H$`\alpha `$)=1.7$`\pm `$0.5 Å (spectrum $`d`$ in Fig. 4). In an attempt to find secular variations in the strength of the H$`\alpha `$ S-wave component, we extracted it (as above) from each individual data subset. It was found that the values of EW(H$`\alpha `$) were comparable within the errors to the one obtained using the complete baseline.

To compare EW(H$`\alpha `$) with observations of rapidly rotating stars, we convert this value into H$`\alpha `$ line surface flux at the star (F). F is derived using the relationship given by Soderblom et al. (1993):

$`\mathrm{log}F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{EW}(\mathrm{H}\alpha )+0.113(BV)_0^2`$
$`1.188(BV)_0+7.487`$
Using $`(BV)_0`$=+1.25 mag (Chevalier et al. 1989) and an equivalent width (corrected by the disc’s contribution) of EW(H$`\alpha `$)$`=1.7/0.75=2.3`$ Å, we obtain F$`{}_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }{}^{}=3.5\times 10^6`$ erg cm-2 s-1. The dependence of the chromospheric activity on rotation is given by the relation between the fraction of the stellar luminosity emitted in the H$`\alpha `$ line ($`R_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$) and the Rossby number $`R_0=P/\tau _\mathrm{c}`$ (Noyes et al. 1984), where $`P`$ is the orbital period of the star and $`\tau _\mathrm{c}`$ is the convective turnover time. Adopting $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=3600`$ K (Shahbaz et al. 1993) and $`\tau _\mathrm{c}25`$ d, as calculated using eq. 4 of Noyes et al. (1984), we derive $`\mathrm{log}R_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=3.4`$ and $`\mathrm{log}R_0=1.6`$. These values can be compared with observations of rapidly rotating ($`P0.25`$ d) chromospherically active stars in the Pleiades (Soderblom et al. 1993; fig. 19a). According to fig. 19a, saturation of chromospheric activity would occur for $`P`$ 2d or $`v\mathrm{sin}i15`$ km s-1. Indeed the companion of Cen X-4, with $`P=0.63`$ d and $`v\mathrm{sin}i=43`$ km s-1, lies in the region of activity saturation ($`\mathrm{log}R_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }3.7`$), but with $`R_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ slightly higher than expected.

We now examine the possibility that the H$`\alpha `$ component is caused by the incidence of X-rays on the inner face of the secondary. The observations of Cen X-4 have shown that its quiescent X-ray luminosity is variable on time-scales from days (Campana et al. 1997) to years (van Paradijs et al. 1987; Rutledge et al. 2001). We adopt the 1994 intrinsic X-ray luminosity of $`2.4\times 10^{32}`$ erg s-1 ($`0.510`$ keV) obtained with ASCA (Asai et al. 1996). Using this value and neglecting any shielding by the accretion disc, the X-ray flux irradiation of the secondary star would be $`F_\mathrm{X}=3\times 10^8`$ erg cm-2 s-1, where we have used a binary separation of 3.6 R (assuming $`M_1=1.4`$ M). At these flux levels, the secondary would be receiving sufficient energy to power the narrow H$`\alpha `$ component. Therefore we can only conclude that the H$`\alpha `$ emission arising from the secondary star may be either due to chromospheric activity, and/or powered by X-ray heating on the secondary.

H$`\alpha `$ emission with origin in the secondary star has also been found in the quiescent systems Nova Muscae 1991 ($`P=10.4`$ hr, $`v\mathrm{sin}i=106`$ km s-1; Casares et al. 1997) and probably in A0620-00 ($`P=7.8`$ hr, $`v\mathrm{sin}i=83`$ km s-1; Marsh et al. 1994), V404 Cygni ($`P=155.3`$ hr, $`v\mathrm{sin}i=39`$ km s-1; Casares & Charles 1994; Casares 1996), Nova Ophiuchi 1977 ($`P=12.5`$ hr, $`v\mathrm{sin}i79`$ km s-1; Harlaftis et al. 1997) and Nova Scorpii 1994 ($`P=62.9`$ hr, $`v\mathrm{sin}i=86`$ km s-1; Shahbaz et al. 1999). The high rotational broadening measured suggests that coronal activity may exist in these XRNe. Unfortunately, the poor phase coverage in the case of Nova Sco 1994 and Nova Oph 1977, the lack of EW values of the H$`\alpha `$ component in A0620-00 and V404 Cyg, and the fact that we only have an upper limit to the X-ray flux of Nova Mus 1991, prevent us from doing a more detailed analysis of the origin of the H$`\alpha `$ emission in these systems.

The contribution to the optical flux due to a hotspot is required in order to explain and model the optical and IR light curves of Cen X-4 (McClintock & Remillard 1990; Shahbaz et al. 1993). The presence of such hotspot was strongly supported by the phasing of the 1987 H$`\beta `$ emission line radial velocity curve (McClintock & Remillard 1990). Therefore its absence in our H$`\alpha `$ tomogram is a puzzling result. A possible explanation would be that the hotspot is fainter or comparable in brightness to the accretion disc at H$`\alpha `$ and brighter at shorter wavelengths (higher members of the Balmer series or high excitation lines). A second possibility is that the secondary star in Cen X-4 might under-fill its Roche lobe by a few percent of its radius and mass transfer is unstable.

The acquisition of new orbitally resolved high-resolution data will bring substantial progress in the knowledge of Cen X-4. A simultaneous and uniform orbital phase coverage of the binary orbit may reveal whether or not the origin of the secondary star’s H$`\alpha `$ emission is only chromospheric or due to X-ray heating. The absence of hotspot at H$`\alpha `$ in XRNe in quiescence has also been seen in Nova Persei 1992 ($`P=5.09`$ hr; Harlaftis et al. 1999), Nova Mus 1991 (Casares et al. 1997) and maybe in Nova Oph 1977 (Harlaftis et al. 1997). This result suggests that it may be a common phenomena among X-ray transients. Unfortunately very little data following an XRN during its quiescent state are presently available. Therefore observations at different epochs of quiescence are required to show whether this is a transient phenomenon or a temperature effect of the hotspot.

## 8 SUMMARY

We have presented spectroscopic observations of the XRN Cen X-4 during quiescence. A $`\chi ^2`$ test applied to the residuals obtained by subtracting different template stars from the Cen X-4 spectrum supports a secondary star of spectral type $`\mathrm{K3}\mathrm{K5}`$ V contributing $`75`$ per cent of the observed flux at H$`\alpha `$. Using the high-resolution spectra, we have determined the rotational broadening of the companion star to be $`v\mathrm{sin}i=43\pm 6`$ km s-1. This has provided a reliable measurement of the mass ratio in Cen X-4: $`q=0.17\pm 0.06`$. We obtain a mass function of $`0.220\pm 0.005`$ M which, when combined with the mass ratio and binary inclination constraints, gives a range of $`0.49<M_1<2.49`$ M and $`0.04<M_2<0.58`$ M for the neutron star and secondary star masses. This result reinforces the possibility that the secondary is evolved for its spectral type. Furthermore, we have revised the ephemeris of Cen X-4 for the inferior conjunction of the secondary to $`T_0=\mathrm{HJD}2449163.934(1)+0.6290496(21)\times \mathrm{N}`$ d. Our Doppler tomogram of the H$`\alpha `$ line is dominated by a strong emission arising from the companion star but no hotspot contribution is observed. The H$`\alpha `$ flux derived from the S-wave component is consistent with the value expected for a chromospherically active and/or X-ray heated secondary.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to P. Molaro and E. Martín for helping during the NTT observations. We also thank the referee, Dr Daniel Rolfe, for useful comments. Use of molly, doppler and trailer routines developed largely by T. R. Marsh is acknowledged. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.


format: text

text:
# References

hep-th/0203108

UUITP-04/02

Stretched strings in tachyon condensation models

Joseph A. Minahan111E-mail: joseph.minahan@teorfys.uu.se

Department of Theoretical Physics

Box 803, SE-751 08 Uppsala, Sweden

Abstract

In this note, we consider the two derivative truncation of boundary string field theory for the unstable D9 brane in Type IIA string theory. We construct multiples of the stable codimension 1 solitons that correspond to stacks of D8 branes. We find the fluctuation modes that correspond to open strings stretching between the branes, and find that their masses are consistent with the string tension. We show that these modes are localized halfway between the branes and that their width is independent of the brane separation.

Simple field theory models have proven to be quite useful in giving qualitative and surprisingly good quantitative descriptions for tachyon condensation222For early pioneering work in the field of tachyon condensation see . in open string field theory -. These models turn out to be two derivative truncations of boundary string field theory -. In particular, the model described in  is the two derivative truncation of boundary superstring field theory . The lagrangian for this model is given by

$$𝒯_9\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu T_\mu T+1\right)e^{T^2/4}$$
(1)
where $`𝒯_9`$ is the tension of the the unstable D9 brane. The potential has an unstable vacuum at $`T=0`$, where the tachyon mass squared is $`1/2`$ (we have set $`\alpha ^{}=1`$). It also has stable vacuua at $`T=\pm \mathrm{}`$, where the mass of the tachyon becomes infinite. There is a stable codimension one soliton solution with a tension $`𝒯_8=2\sqrt{2\pi }𝒯_9`$, a result reasonably close to the actual value of $`𝒯_8=\sqrt{2}\pi 𝒯_9`$. It was also shown in  that the fluctuation modes about this soliton have integer mass squared level spacing. Thus, this model nicely conforms with the Sen conjectures .

Of course, open string field theory should contain an infinite number of fields. In  a prescription was given for including higher level fields into the models. For instance, it was argued that including gauge fields with the Lagrangian

$$\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }e^{T^2/4}$$
(2)
led to fluctuation modes on the codimension one brane with the correct mass squared spectra. Moreover, it was shown that a zero momentum mode for the gauge field was gauged away on the D8 brane but was compensated by the zero mode coming from the tachyon field. Some preliminary evidence was also given for how to include higher level fields in the model. In any event, the surprising conclusion is reached that dropping the higher derivative terms does not seem to drastically effect the physics, at least at tree-level. Dropping the higher derivatives changes the tensions of the branes and fattens them out, but it does not seem to effect the spectrum.

The “open string” modes that we find in these models are localized around the brane, that is, the center of the soliton. One interesting question is what do the stretched strings look like in these models. By stretched string we mean a mode that corresponds to a string stretching between two D-branes separated by some distance. The naive guess is that the mode is more or less evenly distributed between the branes. This turns out not to be the case. Instead we will show that the mode is  localized halfway between the branes, with the localization width independent of the brane separation. This last fact seems to indicate that the modes will be localized, not stretched, even when higher derivative terms are taken into account.

Nevertheless, the modes get an extra contribution to their mass-squared which is precisely the amount expected for a string stretched between two D-branes.

In order to describe multiple brane solutions, the tachyon field needs to be generalized to an $`N`$ by $`N`$ tensor field -,. The tachyon potential is then

$$V(T)=\text{Tr}(e^{T^2/4}).$$
(3)
Generalizing the kinetic term requires some care because of ordering ambiguities. One consideration is to find a solvable spectrum. We will see that

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(_\mu Te^{T^2/8}_\mu Te^{T^2/8})$$
(4)
serves this purpose.

Nontrivial codimension 1 solutions to the equations of motion are the diagonal matrices

$$T=\text{diag}(T_1,T_2\mathrm{}T_N)$$
(5)
where

$$T_i=\pm \sqrt{2}(xx_i)$$
(6)
and where $`x_i`$ is the location of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ brane. The $`+`$ ($``$) sign corresponds to a D8 brane (anti-brane).

Let us begin by assuming that $`N=2`$, our results being easily generalized to higher $`N`$. In this case, we can rewrite $`T`$ as

$$T=T_0\sigma _0+\mathrm{\Delta }T\sigma _3$$
(7)
where

$$\sigma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
We now look for fluctuations about these solutions. The diagonal fluctuations are exactly as in . However, the off-diagonal fluctuations are nontrivial if $`\mathrm{\Delta }T0`$. In order to find these, let us write the off-diagonal fluctuation piece as

$$T_{fl}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& T_+\\ T_{}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
We now make use of the fact that

$$\text{Tr}\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A\\ B& 0\end{array}\right)(\sigma _3)^n\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A\\ B& 0\end{array}\right)(\sigma _3)^m\right)=AB\left[(1)^n+(1)^m\right],$$
(10)
which among other things implies that

$`\text{Tr}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A\\ B& 0\end{array}\right)e^{T_0^2/8\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/8T_0\mathrm{\Delta }T\sigma _3/4}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A\\ B& 0\end{array}\right)e^{T_0^2/8\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/8T_0\mathrm{\Delta }T\sigma _3/4}\right]`$ (15)
$`=2AB\mathrm{exp}(T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4).`$ (16)
To quadratic order in the off-diagonal fluctuations, the lagrangian is

$$((_\mu T_+_\mu T_{}+\frac{1}{4}[(_\mu T_0)^2(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }T)^22]T_+T_{})e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}$$
(17)
where we have used the equations of motion for $`T_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$,

$`^2T_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_0\left[(T_0)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mu T_0_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`^2\mathrm{\Delta }T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }T\left[(T_0)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_0_\mu T_0_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (18)
Making further use of the equations of motion and integrating by parts, we find that the expression in (17) can be rewritten as

$$_\mu \left(\frac{T_+}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right)_\mu \left(\frac{T_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right)e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}(\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2.$$
(19)
The $`U(N)`$ symmetry of the tachyon field is actually a gauge symmetry, so accordingly, the ordinary derivatives should be replaced by covariant derivatives. We will assume that the kinetic term has the form

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}([_\mu iA_\mu ,T]e^{T^2/8}[_\mu iA_\mu ,T]e^{T^2/8}).$$
(20)
We then expect all of the off-diagonal fluctuations of $`T`$ to be eaten by the gauge fields. Again, let us consider the case that $`N=2`$ and let us find the terms quadratic in $`A_\mu `$ and the tachyon fluctuations. Using the properties in (10) and (15), we find the quadratic off-diagonal piece to be

$$4\left(A_{+\mu }+\frac{i}{2}_\mu \left(\frac{T_+}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right)\right)\left(A_\mu \frac{i}{2}_\mu \left(\frac{T_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right)\right)e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}(\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2.$$
(21)
To show the importance of ordering in the tachyon kinetic terms, let us suppose that the appropriate term in the lagrangian were

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}([_\mu iA_\mu ,T]^2e^{T^2/4}]).$$
(22)
In this case, one would find that the off-diagonal fluctuations have the form

$$4\left(A_{+\mu }+\frac{i}{2}_\mu \left(\frac{T_+}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right)\right)\left(A_\mu \frac{i}{2}_\mu \left(\frac{T_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right)\right)e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}\mathrm{cosh}(T_0\mathrm{\Delta }T/4)\mathrm{\Delta }T^2,$$
(23)
and so would clearly have a different spectrum than that coming from (21).

Now consider the kinetic term for the gauge fields. Again, there will be ordering ambiguities. There is also some ambiguity as to how even the diagonal action should be chosen. For the D9 brane, one expects the quadratic piece of the lagrangian to come from expanding the Born-Infeld lagrangian

$$\sqrt{det(\eta _{\mu \nu }2\pi F_{\mu \nu })}\left(\frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \nu }_\mu Te^{T^2/8}_\nu Te^{T^2/8}+e^{T^2/4}\right),$$
(24)
where $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the open string metric which is the symmetric part of

$$\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }2\pi F_{\mu \nu }\right)^1.$$
(25)
The problem with this formulation is that the D8 solution for $`T`$ will have no quadratic piece for the gauge fields; the contribution from the kinetic term cancels off the contribution from the potential. These difficulties are probably due to our two derivative limitation as well as the assumption in (24) that the field strengths are constant.

We will instead assume that the quadratic gauge lagrangian has the form

$$\frac{(2\pi )^2}{4}\text{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }_\gamma Te^{T^2/8}_\gamma TF_{\mu \nu }e^{T^2/8}+F_{\mu \nu }e^{T^2/8}F_{\mu \nu }e^{T^2/8}\right).$$
(26)
This form of the lagrangian is consistent with reduction from the unstable D9 to the stable D8 branes. The ordering in (26) leads to a particularly simple form for the off-diagonal gauge fluctuations,

$$(2\pi )^2\left(_\mu A_{+\nu }_\nu A_\nu _\mu A_{+\nu }_\nu A_\mu \right)e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu T_0_\mu T_0+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }T_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }T+1\right).$$
(27)
Defining $`A_{+\mu }^{}`$ as

$$A_{+\mu }^{}=A_{+\mu }+\frac{i}{2}_\mu \left(\frac{T_+}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right),$$
(28)
the complete quadratic lagrangian for the off-diagonal gauge fluctuations is

$`[(2\pi )^2(_\mu A_{+\nu }^{}_\mu A_\nu ^{}_\mu A_{+\nu }^{}_\nu A_\mu ^{})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }T)^2+1)`$
$`+4A_{+\mu }^{}A_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }T^2]e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}.`$ (29)
We can now use (S0.Ex2) to compute the spectrum of $`A_{\pm \mu }^{}`$. Let us take the classical solutions in (6), and assume that we have two D8 branes, one at $`x=x_0/2`$ and the other at $`x=x_0/2`$. Thus,

$`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(xx_0/2)`$
$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(x+x_0/2),`$ (30)
and so

$`T_0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}x`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}x_0.`$ (31)
The equations of motion for $`T_+`$ lead to the equation

$$_\mu (A_{+\mu }^{}e^{x^2/2})=0.$$
(32)
Substituting this into the equation of motion for $`A_{+\nu }^{}`$, we have

$$^2A_{+\nu }^{}+x_xA_{+\nu }^{}+A_{+,x}^{}\delta _{\nu x}+\frac{x_0^2}{(2\pi )^2}A_{+\nu }^{}=0.$$
(33)
Letting $`A_{+\nu }=B_\nu e^{x^2/4}`$ we find the equation

$$^2B_\nu +\left[\frac{1}{4}x^2\frac{1}{2}+\delta _{\nu x}+\frac{x_0^2}{(2\pi )^2}\right]B_\nu =0.$$
(34)
Hence the mass spectra for the modes is

$$m^2=n+\frac{x_0^2}{(2\pi )^2}n0$$
(35)
for polarizations along the brane ($`\nu x`$) and

$$m^2=n+1+\frac{x_0^2}{(2\pi )^2}n0$$
(36)
for the transverse polarization $`(\nu =x)`$. Since the string tension is $`1/(2\pi )`$, we obtain the desired contribution to the mass coming from a string stretching between the two branes separated by a distance $`x_0`$. Note that the massive modes of $`T_+`$ and $`T_{}`$ have been eaten by the $`B_x`$ modes while the massless modes of $`T_+`$ and $`T_{}`$ have been Higgsed by the massless gauge mode.

Let us examine a few facts that might seem surprising about these stretched modes. First of all, they are not really stretched. If one were to consider a classical wave corresponding to one of these modes, they would find the energy density localized at $`x=0`$. This is half-way between the branes, which contrasts with the diagonal modes which are localized on the branes. One also finds that the width of the modes is independent of the brane separation.

However, there is no suppression of the interactions between the charged and the diagonal modes, even at large D-brane separation. For instance, consider the full nonabelian lagrangian coming from (26). Writing the gauge field as

$$A_\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{3\mu }& A_{+\mu }\\ A_\mu & A_{3\mu }\end{array}\right),$$
(37)
the cubic interaction term coming from (26) is

$$2i(2\pi )^2A_{3\nu }\left[A_{+\mu }_{[\nu }A_{\mu ]}A_\mu _{[\nu }A_{+\mu ]}\right]e^{T_0^2/4\mathrm{\Delta }T^2/4}.$$
(38)
The kinetic term for $`A_{3\mu }`$ comes with a gaussian factor localizing the mode around the branes. But the normalized modes for $`A_{3\mu }`$ have no such suppression. For instance, the zero mode has $`A_{3\mu }`$ constant in the $`x`$ direction. Hence the 3 point interaction is not suppressed even though the charged modes and the neutral modes are localized at different positions in $`x`$.

It is straightforward to generalize these results to multiple branes. In this case, the off-diagonal fluctuations corresponding to strings attached to branes $`i`$ and $`j`$ are

$`[2(2\pi )^2(_\mu A_{ij,\nu }^{}_\nu A_{ji,\nu }^{}_\mu A_{ij,\nu }^{}_\nu A_{ji,\mu }^{})`$
$`+A_{ij,\nu }^{}A_\nu ^{}(T_iT_j)^2]e^{T_i^2/8T_j^2/8}.`$ (39)
This will lead to the anticipated spectrum for the stretched strings.

One can also consider the case where the transverse direction is compactified on a circle such that

$$xx+2\pi R.$$
(40)
The analysis will be similar to that in  for matrix models on the circle. Now the gauge group must be extended to $`U(\mathrm{})`$. A stable D8 brane on the circle is given by the infinite diagonal matrix

$$T=\text{diag}(..,T_n,T_{n+1}\mathrm{})T_n=\sqrt{2}(x2\pi nR).$$
(41)
Hence, the solution is invariant under the shift $`xx+2\pi R`$ up to a gauge transformation. An open string wound $`n`$ times around the circle is then given by a superposition of the $`A_{i,i+n}`$ modes.

Note that the center of mass $`U(1)`$ is not present in (S0.Ex5). The usual picture for an open string stretched between two branes is that of a flux tube between opposite charges of the diagonal $`U(1)`$. That is not the picture that emerges here. Instead, everything operates as an adjoint Higgsing of the $`SU(N)`$ group. Of course, this is expected for the low energy effective gauge theory on the world volume, but it is nonetheless surprising to see it happen for the stringy modes as well.

This also raises questions about how the closed strings will appear -. One could certainly look for closed strings in a D brane vacuum. For example, in the compact case, there should be closed strings that wrap around the compact direction. It seems from the analysis here that these are more likely to come from the $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ sector and not the COM $`U(1)`$, since the decay of a wound open string into an unwound open string and a closed string with zero momentum in the transverse direction still needs to preserve the winding. The wound open string modes are localized, either on the brane or diametrically opposite from it. One would expect a closed string to be delocalized on the circle. It would be interesting to see how this could occur, if indeed it can occur when only considering a finite number of the open string fields. One might need the full machinery of cubic string field theory  or vacuum string field theory  to see this.

It is also possible that the localization is gauge dependent. For instance, in boundary string field theory, the width of a D-brane has zero size , but in cubic string field theory, the width is nonzero . These theories must be related by a gauge transformation, so the width of the D-brane must be a gauge artifact. Likewise, the widths of fluctuation modes might also be gauge artifacts and that a gauge exists where the mode is evenly distributed between the branes.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the CTP at MIT and the theory group at Harvard for hospitality during the course of this work. I would also like to thank B. Zwiebach for many helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported in part by the NFR.


text:
# References

UAB-TH-521

March 2002

A Stückelberg formalism for the gravitino

from warped extra dimensions

Tony Gherghettaa and Alex Pomarolb

aSchool of Physics & Astronomy, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
b IFAE, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
E-08193 Barcelona, Spain

## Abstract

We consider supersymmetric theories with a warped extra dimension where supersymmetry is broken by boundary conditions that preserve an $`R`$-symmetry. It is shown that this supersymmetry breaking mechanism naturally invokes the Stückelberg formalism for the gravitino in order to give a four-dimensional theory with a smooth massless limit.

1. The idea of the unification of forces makes us believe that the Standard Model (SM) is replaced, at high energies, by a more fundamental theory with larger symmetries. Two interesting possibilities are grand unified theories and supersymmetric theories. Of course, the extra symmetries of the fundamental theory must be broken, by some mechanism, down to the SM symmetry group. Extra dimensions allow for new possibilities to break the symmetries of the more fundamental theory down to the Standard Model. The idea is that these symmetries could be realized in the higher dimensional theory but not in four dimensions. It is during the process of compactification that the symmetries are broken. Therefore it is interesting to analyze the breaking of symmetries by boundary conditions and to study its consistency.

In this Letter we want to study the fate of gravitinos in five-dimensional (5d) warped spaces when supersymmetry is broken by boundary conditions. It has been shown  that in these theories an $`R`$-symmetry (which is a chiral symmetry) can be preserved and, as a consequence, there are two light gravitinos, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$), that combine to form a Dirac field. If the effective scale on the boundary where supersymmetry is broken is the TeV scale, then the gravitino mass is of order $`10^3`$ eV (instead of order the TeV scale as would be the case for a flat 5d space). One of the gravitinos, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}`$, is weakly coupled with $`1/M_P`$-suppressed couplings, and is similar to the usual four-dimensional (4d) supersymmetric theories with supersymmetry broken at the TeV scale. Therefore its presence is not unusual. However, the presence of another light gravitino (due to the $`R`$-symmetry), $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$, is different from ordinary scenarios. Furthermore, it has a coupling suppressed only by the supersymmetry breaking scale 1/TeV (which will be explained later why this is the case). This raises the following apparent inconsistency. Since this gravitino is coupled to a nonconserved current $`J_\mu `$ (because supersymmetry is broken) its contribution to an amplitude $``$ is

$$=\overline{J}^\mu P_{\mu \nu }J^\nu ,$$
(1)
where $`P_{\mu \nu }`$ is the propagator of a massive gravitino

$$P_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\left[\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}\right)(i\text{/}pm)\frac{1}{3}\left(\gamma _\mu +i\frac{p_\mu }{m}\right)(i\text{/}pm)\left(\gamma _\nu +i\frac{p_\nu }{m}\right)\right].$$
(2)
We are assuming a Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(1,1,1,1)`$. Notice that this amplitude diverges in the limit $`m0`$. In particular, for the coupling of the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu ,R}`$ to the photon and photino via the fermionic current

$$\overline{J}^\mu =\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}M}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^{\nu \rho }F_{\nu \rho }(1\gamma _5),$$
(3)
we can see, using dimensional analysis, that the amplitude $``$ grows with the energy $`E`$ as

$$\frac{E^4}{m^2M^2}.$$
(4)
Clearly, this amplitude will overwhelm unitarity bounds at energies $`E>\sqrt{Mm}`$. For $`MM_P`$ this consistently occurs at energies $`E>`$ TeV, and there are no problems in the effective theory. However, for $`M`$ TeV, this implies that the theory is not consistent at energies $`E>0.1`$ MeV, which is much below the effective scale which is at the TeV. We will see how this apparent inconsistency is dealt with in the compactification of a higher-dimensional warped theory.

Before we consider supersymmetry and warped geometry it is instructive to consider a simpler example where similar features occur. In fact the above situation is similar to the case of a massive spin-1 particle coupled to a nonconserved current. The Lagrangian is given by

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu +A_\mu J^\mu ,$$
(5)
where $`J_\mu `$ is the vector current containing the matter fermions. The propagator of a massive spin-1 particle is given by

$$\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}\right],$$
(6)
and becomes singular in the limit $`m0`$. Therefore the gauge boson contribution to the four-fermion amplitude grows with energy like $`g^2E^2/m^2`$, where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling, and will saturate the unitarity bounds at energies $`Em/g`$. In this case the procedure for achieving a smooth limit $`m0`$ is known. If we add a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with negative kinetic term

$$_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu J^\mu ,$$
(7)
then the four-fermion amplitude will receive an extra contribution mediated by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that cancels the singular term $`\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}`$ coming from the massive gauge boson. This can also be explicitly seen by performing the shift $`A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }/m`$ in the Lagrangian (5), and together with (7) leads to the combined Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu +A_\mu J^\mu +m\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu A^\mu .$$
(8)
In this form the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ appears as a Lagrange multiplier which can be integrated out. This is achieved by introducing a term $`\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ in the Lagrangian, performing a Gaussian integration, and taking the limit $`\mu 0`$. This finally leads to the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu +A_\mu J^\mu +\frac{1}{2\alpha }(A)^2,$$
(9)
with $`\alpha =\mu ^2/m^20`$. This is the Lagrangian for a massive vector field and in the massless limit $`(m=0)`$ the last term corresponds to the Landau gauge-fixing term. The propagator now becomes

$$\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right],$$
(10)
and there is no singular term in the limit $`m0`$. This is known as the Stückelberg formalism  111 Notice that this is different from a non-linear realization of the gauge symmetry, which in the U(1) case, is sometimes also called the Stückelberg formalism.. The field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the same couplings as a Nambu-Goldstone boson of the global U(1) but its kinetic term has an opposite sign. Therefore it acts like a “ghost” (with negative energy and negative norm). In the massless limit ($`m0`$) and gauge-symmetric limit ($`_\mu J^\mu =0`$), $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ cancels the extra degree of freedom of the massive spin-1 boson leaving only the two degrees of freedom of the massless gauge boson

This particular way of achieving a smooth $`m0`$ limit using the Stückelberg formalism is, as we shall discuss below, the same way that warped higher dimensional theories recover a smooth $`m0`$ limit in the gravitino contribution to amplitudes.

2. Let us consider a 5d supersymmetric theory compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$, where the two boundaries are located at $`y^{}=0`$ and $`y^{}=\pi R`$. Fields living in the 5d bulk must have definite boundary conditions. For fermions, we can assume that

$$\psi _{L,R}(0)=\pm \psi _{L,R}(0),\psi _{L,R}(\pi R)=\pm \psi _{L,R}(\pi R).$$
(11)
If their supersymmetric bosonic partners have the same boundary condition, the theory will remain supersymmetric after compactification.

Let us consider the effect of changing the boundary conditions at $`y^{}=\pi R`$ from those at $`y^{}=0`$ but only for the fermions. This means that the 5d fermions of the theory satisfy

$$\psi _{L,R}(0)=\pm \psi _{L,R}(0),\psi _{L,R}(\pi R)=\psi _{L,R}(\pi R).$$
(12)
These boundary conditions break supersymmetry but preserve a U(1)R symmetry. This mechanism is usually called Scherk-Schwarz supersymmetry breaking . In a flat 5d space the action for the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$, $`(M=\mu ,5)`$, is given by

$$S_5=d^5x\sqrt{g}[i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\gamma ^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_P+[i\overline{J}^M\mathrm{\Psi }_M+h.c.]],$$
(13)
and has an $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. If we impose the boundary conditions of Eq. (12) then the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is spontaneously broken to $`N=0`$. In other words, the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is still realized but only nonlinearly. After compactification all the gravitinos are massive. In particular, the lowest modes consist of two gravitinos, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$, with a mass $`m=1/(2R)`$. The components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{5L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{5R}`$ play the role of Goldstinos , and can be eliminated by choosing the unitary gauge

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}\frac{1}{m}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{5L},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}+\frac{1}{m}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{5R}.$$
(14)
The spectrum of this theory preserves an $`R`$-symmetry.

For warped spaces the situation is different. Let us consider the metric

$$ds^2=a^2(y)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2.$$
(15)
Although we believe that our results are valid for a general warp factor $`a(y)`$, for concreteness, we will focus on the Randall-Sundrum (RS) scenario , where $`a(y)=e^{k|y|}`$, and $`1/k`$ is the curvature radius which is assumed to be of order the fundamental scale. The 5d gravitino action is given by

$$S_5=d^5x\sqrt{g}[i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\gamma ^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_P+i\frac{3}{2}\frac{a^{}}{a}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\gamma ^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N+(i\overline{J}^M\mathrm{\Psi }_M+h.c.)].$$
(16)
Let us impose the boundary conditions Eq. (12) on the gravitino wavefunction. This leads to the zero-mode gravitino wavefunctions

$$f_L(y)\sqrt{2\pi kR}e^{\frac{1}{2}k|y|}(e^{4k(|y|\pi R)}1),$$
(17)
and

$$f_R(y)2\sqrt{\pi kR}e^{\frac{k}{2}(|y|4\pi R)}(e^{2k|y|}1).$$
(18)
Consequently, we see that the gravitino zero-mode $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}`$ is localized on the boundary at $`y^{}=0`$ (where the effective scale is $`M_P`$), while $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$ is localized on the boundary at $`y^{}=\pi R`$ (where the effective scale is TeV). This will lead to a 4d theory with the features described in the introductory remarks.

As in the 5d flat space case, we would like to know whether the 4d $`N=1`$ supersymmetry is nonlinearly realized by trying to eliminate the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{5L,R}`$. If we attempt to go to the unitary gauge, using the equivalent redefinitions for the 5d warped space (which are given in Eq. (12) of Ref. ), we find that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{5L}`$ is eliminated but that contrary to the flat case, the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{5R}`$ does not disappear from the theory. Instead, we find that the zero-mode gravitino 4d Lagrangian is given by

$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu L}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\rho L}i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu R}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\rho R}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`[im\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu L}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu R}+i\overline{J}^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}+i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu R}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.],`$
where $`m\sqrt{8}ke^{2k\pi R}`$ is the gravitino mass, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a linear combination of the Kaluza-Klein fields of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\sqrt{12\pi kR}e^{\frac{1}{2}\pi kR}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{f_R^{(n)}(\pi R)}{m_n}\mathrm{\Psi }_{5R}^{(n)}(x).$$
(20)
Notice that in Eq. (19) we have only considered the current to be coupled to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$, and have neglected the couplings to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}`$ since they are suppressed by $`1/M_P`$. As we discussed earlier, the presence of a light gravitino coupled to the nonconserved current of Eq. (3) leads to a photon-photino scattering amplitude 222Notice that using Eq. (3) we have $`\overline{J}\gamma =\gamma J=0`$.

$$_{3/2}=\overline{J}^\mu \frac{(i\text{/}p)}{p^2+m^2}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{2}{3}\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}\right]J^\nu ,$$
(21)
that diverges in the limit $`m0`$. However, the interesting feature in Eq. (19) is that the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ appears as a Lagrange multiplier in an analogous way to the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq. (8). This suggests that the fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ will play a similar role to the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in recovering the smooth limit $`m0`$. In fact, this is exactly what happens. If we perform the following redefinitions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu L}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi },`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi },`$ (23)
then the gravitino and Stückelberg fermion, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, decouple from each other in the Lagrangian (19), and leads to the separate Lagrangians

$`_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu L}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\rho L}i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu R}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\rho R}`$ (24)
$`+[im\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu L}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu R}+i\overline{J}^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}+h.c.],`$
$`_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+[i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_\mu \overline{J}^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.].`$ (25)
The Lagrangian (25) is the analogue of Eq. (7) in the massive vector field example. We now see from Eq. (25) that the fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ gives a new contribution to the amplitude of Eq. (21), namely

$$_\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{J}^\mu i\frac{2}{3}\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}\frac{\text{/}p}{p^2}J^\nu .$$
(26)
Thus, combining the two contributions (21) and (26) we see that the divergent piece of Eq. (21) is precisely cancelled leading to the combined total amplitude

$$=_{3/2}+_\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{J}^\mu \frac{(i\text{/}p)}{p^2+m^2}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{3}\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]J^\nu ,$$
(27)
which is smooth in the limit $`m0`$. Again the similarity with the vector field case is quite clear.

We have seen that the presence of the Stückelberg fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ guarantees that the amplitudes of the theory remain well behaved at energies above the gravitino mass. Unlike the vector field example where the Stückelberg scalar was introduced by hand, in the supersymmetric example the Stückelberg fermion results from the compactification of the warped geometry. However, in order that the above cancellation takes place it is crucial that the Stückelberg fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has a kinetic term of opposite sign compared to the other fermions in the theory –see Eq. (25). Classically this is not a problem because $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a fermion, and its free energy is bounded from below (in fact this is a marked improvement compared to the Stückelberg scalar where classically the energy is unbounded). Furthermore, at the quantum level, in processes where the gravitino and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ appear off-shell, this will not present a problem either. Nevertheless, the contribution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, Eq. (26), has a pole at $`p^2=0`$ revealing that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be produced on-shell with negative probability. This is difficult to interpret in quantum mechanics. The fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ behaves like a “ghost” of negative norm. Although it is not clear how to make sense of this ghost in production processes, it is interesting to notice that the Lagrangian of Eqs. (24) and (25) maintains its structure at the one-loop quantum level, i.e., ultraviolet divergences can be absorbed by the counterterms of the tree-level couplings. This property is due to the fact that the theory consists of two sectors, namely, the Lagrangian of Eq. (24) that corresponds to a spontaneously broken supersymmetric theory in the unitary gauge, and the Lagrangian of Eq. (25) that contains the fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which behaves as a Goldstino of a global supersymmetry but with an opposite sign kinetic term. Thus, each sector is protected by its own supersymmetry (at least at the one-loop level). This property makes these theories theoretically interesting .

A similar situation to the above but for the case of gravitons instead of the gravitino is present in the model of Ref. . In this theory the graviton is massive and a smooth massless limit is achieved due to the presence of a ghost  that turns out to be the radion of the extra dimension .

3. We have seen that breaking supersymmetry by boundary conditions in warped geometries naturally invokes the Stückelberg formalism. Let us now discuss why supersymmetry breaking is qualitatively different in compact 5d theories with warped geometry compared to that encountered in 5d flat spaces. The important thing to note is that in flat space supersymmetry is realized in the bulk of $`S^1/Z_2`$, and there is no need for boundary terms. Supersymmetry is always a good symmetry of the bulk independently of the boundary conditions of the fields. If boundary conditions are different between bosons and fermions then supersymmetry is realized nonlinearly from a 4d perspective. The 4d unitary gauge for the gravitinos corresponds to the 5d gauge $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5(x,y)=0`$.

The situation changes in warped spaces. Supersymmetry in warped spaces requires particular boundary couplings for the fields. For example, in the RS scenario with the boundary conditions (11), supersymmetry requires  a cosmological constant term on the two boundaries, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\pi R)}`$ , related to the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the following way

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\pi R)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k.$$
(28)
These are precisely the conditions needed for the RS metric . If we now change the boundary conditions of the bulk fermions (but not the boundary couplings) then supersymmetry is no longer realized. There is an explicit breaking on the boundary. Consequently, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5(x,y)`$ cannot be gauged away as in the flat case. This explains the appearance of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5`$ in the spectrum. Let us be more explicit. If the fermions of the theory satisfy the boundary conditions (12), then the relation between the cosmological constants required by supersymmetry is no longer given by Eq. (28) but instead given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\pi R)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k.$$
(29)
These relations, however, do not lead to the RS metric and in fact, do not even lead to a static configuration . If we insist on obtaining the RS metric we must add an explicit supersymmetry breaking term of the form

$$d^5x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k}\delta (y\pi R).$$
(30)
This term only breaks one of the two bulk supersymmetries. Due to Eq. (12), the supersymmetry parametrized by $`\eta _L`$ vanishes on the boundary at $`y^{}=\pi R`$, and is insensitive to terms on that boundary. Only the supersymmetry parametrized by $`\eta _R`$ is broken explicitly, and it is for this reason that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{5R}`$ cannot be eliminated from the spectrum.

The appearance of the Stückelberg fermion seems to occur in theories with (1) a localized gravitino at $`y^{}=0`$, (2) supersymmetry broken at the opposite boundary at $`y^{}=\pi R`$, and (3) $`R`$-symmetry invariance. The first two conditions are necessary if one wants to explain the hierarchy between $`M_P`$ and the TeV scale by a warp factor. Therefore the only possibility to avoid the presence of the Stückelberg fermion is to relax the third condition and break the underlying $`R`$-symmetry. For example, this will be the case for any supersymmetry breaking mechanism that generates a Majorana mass for the gravitinos and gauginos on the $`y^{}=\pi R`$ boundary. This will make all the modes of the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu R}`$ heavy (with masses of order TeV), and the problem of unitarity discussed above will not arise (see Ref.  for an example). In this modified scenario the effective warped model at low energies contains only one light gravitino, and we recover an explicit realization of the usual scenarios considered in phenomenological studies of superlight gravitinos .

Let us finally comment on similar possibilities involving gauge symmetries. Either in flat or warped space the gauge symmetry can be realized in the bulk without the need for boundary terms. For example, in an Abelian gauge theory, the Lagrangian is given by

$$d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}F^{MN},$$
(31)
which is invariant under the transformation $`A_MA_M+_M\theta `$, irrespective of whether the space is flat or warped. Therefore the breaking of the gauge symmetry by boundary conditions is always nonlinearly realized with $`A_5`$ playing the role of the Nambu-Goldstone boson.

Acknowledgments: T.G. thanks the CERN Theory Division for hospitality where part of this work was done. A.P. was partially supported by the CICYT Research Project AEN99-0766 and DURSI Research Project 2001-SGR-00188.


text:
# A Zeno Story11footnote 1Written evening, 11-26-01, in Delphi, Greece, during the 22nd Solvay Conference on Physics, following a lecture that day on Quantum Zeno Effect by Professor S. Pascazio. A substantial portion of this conference dealt directly or indirectly with the Zeno effect, and I was struck by the fact that some important mathematical beginnings of the Zeno story were not known to many participants. Professor Pascazio, however, was clearly cognizant of some of the early history. Therefore I wrote this draft (in preliminary form) and the next day circulated it to Professor Pascazio and a few others at the conference. Also in that draft I presented my Zeno alternative, worked out a few days prior (on 11-18-01, to be precise) to the Solvay Conference. Professor Pascazio urged me to publish this account. Professor Antoniou has long urged me to publish some account of my early work on the Zeno problem.

## 1 Introduction

I was involved in the formulation of the quantum Zeno effect some years ago, in 1974–75, working with B. Misra in Boulder. I wrote up some of that in  at that time, as a first draft of a paper. I also lectured on the problem at the Rocky Mt. Mathematics Consortium summer school in Bozeman in summer 1975 . These contributions were never published, although I did summarize briefly some of the issues in . Therefore I would like to return to this problem, describe the situation in 1974–75, and also propose a new formulation of the Zeno problem, using my recent results in .

The Zeno’s paradox “a watched pot never boils” has been presented in  and has since been discussed by many authors. As I recall, the problem was presented to Misra and me by Professor Josef Jauch when he visited us in Boulder in April 1974. In my work on the problem, I preferred to call it “The Counter Problem” . I had nothing to do with the later and more popular formulation as “Zeno’s Paradox”, although I note now that in  I did state

“When $`lim\; sup(PU_{t/n}P)^n\psi \stackrel{a.e.}{=}P\psi ^2`$, then $``$ (affirmative answer) $`=`$ (that part was in $`C`$ initially) $``$ “particle cannot decay”. Here $`C`$ refers to a counter which can be visualized as absorbing the wave packet. In fact we were mostly following the formulation of Friedman , who deserves more citation. Like Friedman, I could not resolve the main mathematical issue, which was the existence and properties of an operator limit

$$s\text{-}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(PU(t/n)P)^n$$
$`(1.1)`$
In (1.1) $`U`$ is a unitary evolution group and $`P`$ is an orthogonal projection on a Hilbert space $``$. As  and  reveal, I spent considerable time on this question, because it seems to represent an important new domain in the theory of unbounded operator limits. Briefly, neither the “Trotter” theory of operator limits found in , nor the monotone forms approach found in , could be made to apply to the limit (1.1). Misra and I did publish the two related papers  but (frankly) I was surprised when  appeared, because I thought the problem was not solved.

As it turns out, the publication of  created considerable interest, so that was a good thing for physics. However  is based on never-proven mathematical assumptions. “Paradoxes” are often incompletely-cast models, although how to most-correctly cast a situation may not be easy.

## 2 The Continual Observation Problem

Friedman  treated what is now called the Zeno problem by reducing it to the question (1.1) above and to related operator-theoretic considerations. I quote (, Section 5, p. 1007)

> My original motivation for studying semigroup product formulas was the following situation: $`P^t`$ is a contraction semigroup on the Hilbert space $``$, $`E`$ an orthogonal projection in $``$. If strong $`lim_n\mathrm{}(EP^{t/n}E)^n`$ exists, we call it the compression of $`P^t`$ by $`E`$. Formally one expects the limit to be $`\mathrm{exp}(tEAE)`$ where $`A`$ is the infinitesimal generator of $`P^t`$. However, $`EAE`$ is not in general the generator of a contraction semigroup, nor is its closure.

Friedman  goes on to give some partial results when the infinitesimal generator $`A`$ is a negative selfadjoint operator, but he does not resolve the strong limit question (1.1). In (, Section 6) he then goes to the quantum mechanical continual observation problem. First he discusses Feynman’s ideal measurement formulation, that of determining whether or not a trajectory of a particle lies in a given space-time region. Then he presents a modified formulation of ideal measurements attributed to Ed Nelson, which becomes (, p. 1010)

> This makes it reasonable to define
>
> $$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(E\mathrm{exp}(itH_0/n)E)^n\psi (x)^2$$
> $`(2.1)`$
> (if it exists) as the probability that—an ideal measurment of ‘continual observation’ during the interval $`(0,t)`$ for the purpose of determining whether the particle stays in $``$ yields the result that the particle is indeed constantly in $``$ during $`(0,t)`$.

I leave it to the interested reader to pursue further details in . I preferred to call the problem that of a (opaque) counter in . The Zeno interpretation was put in in . Since then there is a large literature. For such, I just defer to  and citations therein.

Friedman  concludes:

> The question of whether strong $`lim_n\mathrm{}(E\mathrm{exp}(itH_0/n)E)^n`$ exists in $`^2`$ and whether it is a unitary group remains open; to answer this would seem to require a much deeper knowledge of semigroup product formulas.”

Very recently I have found  an alternative approach to this question which I now present in the next section.

## 3 A new formulation

Some recent authors  have rediscovered Friedman’s work  or have otherwise been led to wonder  if one cannot stay in the reversible regime (e.g., lecture on 11-26-01 at the Solvay Conference by S. Pascazio). Although a bit oversimplified, this would mean that one could say under general conditions that the operator limit (1.1) would be $`e^{iPHPt}`$ where $`H`$ was the original self-adjoint infinitesimal generator of the evolution group $`U_t=e^{iHt}`$. Therefore one naturally poses the question: when is $`PHP`$ selfadjoint, i.e., when is $`(PHP)^{}=PHP`$? Of course one asked this question in the beginning . The difficulty is that the usual operator-theoretic conditions for product adjoints do not apply well to such projected Hamiltonians. Briefly, the usual conditions (e.g., see ) for operators $`A`$ and $`B`$ to satisfy $`(BA)^{}=A^{}B^{}`$ are either $`A`$ and $`B`$ bounded, or if not, $`A`$ and $`B`$ Fredholm (closed ranges and finite index). The tacit assumption is, of course, that generally $`A`$ and $`B`$ are regarded as noncommuting operators.

What I propose  is to reformulate (1.1) as the question

$$(AHA)^{}=A^{}H^{}A^{}$$
$`(3.1)`$
where $`A`$ replaces $`P`$. What I have in mind is that the spatial (Dirichlet) projection $`P`$ used by Friedman , see also , may not be the best way to formulate a “Zeno” (continual) measurement. Not only will (3.1) be provable mathematically (below), but it also opens up the use of new physical observables $`A`$ representing the act of measurement.

Here is an example of my approach. In  I recently obtained the following result.

###### Lemma 3.1

 Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be arbitrary densely defined operators in a Hilbert space $``$ and suppose the domain $`𝒟(AB)`$ is dense, the range $`(B)𝒟(A)`$, the domain $`𝒟(B^{})(A^{})`$, and that $`B`$ is 1–1. Then $`(AB)^{}=B^{}A^{}`$. In particular, when $`A`$ and $`B`$ are selfadjoint, then the conditions are $`𝒟(AB)`$ dense, $`(B)𝒟(A)`$, $`𝒟(B)(A)`$.

We may now apply this Lemma to the “Zeno” problem. For simplicity, let me first restrict here to observables $`A`$ which are bounded selfadjoint operators on $``$. This stipulation may be relaxed later. Then we have

$$(AHA)^{}=(HA)^{}A(A^{}H^{})A=AHA$$
$`(3.2)`$
The relations in (3.2) follow because $`A=A^{}()`$, I have assumed the domain $`𝒟(HA)`$ to be dense so that the adjoint operator $`(HA)^{}`$ exists, and one always has the relation $`(AB)^{}B^{}A^{}`$ when all adjoint operators spoken of therein are defined. Thus the only remaining issue is to make the second relation in (3.2) an equality. To that end one may use the result of . Therefore I have shown the following.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`A`$ be a “continual measurement observable” such that $`A=A^{}()`$, $`(A)𝒟(H)`$, $`𝒟(HA)`$ dense. Then $`(AHA)^{}`$ is selfadjoint and the exponentiation $`e^{iAHAt}`$ is unitary.

Note that the condition $`(A)𝒟(H)`$ in the Theorem seems reasonable for “continual” measuring observables: we should have $`A`$ able to cover all possible wave functions $`\psi `$ in the domain of the Hamiltonian. Another way to view this requirement is that $`A`$ as measuror is also compatible with $`A`$ as preparor of state. The condition $`𝒟(HA)`$ dense is a technical one which could be loosely viewed as assuring that the measurement observable $`A`$ is not “too” incompatible with the Hamiltonian $`H`$ whose action is to be measured. One could call these measuring observables those of ‘full measurement’.

## 4 Elaboration (after the conference)

Here I would like to add a few clarifications to the above. Further development of this approach will be pursued elsewhere .

### 4.1 Measurement and Domains

The issues surrounding measurement in quantum mechanics are numerous and longstanding. See for example \[11, 17–20\] for recent treatments. Here I will just make a few comments related to this paper.

Friedman , like many others, equates observation with measurement. The space–time region is $`(0,t)\times `$ Counter. His main example, although stated as a free particle evolution $`e^{itH_0}\psi _0`$ where $`H_0=_{i=1}^3^2/x_i^2`$ is the three dimensional Laplacian operator, is almost classical. What I call the Counter is in  a closed bounded three-dimensional real domain $``$ with smooth boundary $``$. Variations of this example are studied in .

Now I would like to make an observation about this setting. One of the difficulties of Friedman’s  model and analysis is that there are two different operators posed, both called $`H_0`$. The first $`H_0`$ is the free space Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`^2(R^3)`$. Its domain $`𝒟(H_0)`$, in order that it be selfadjoint, may be specified  by appropriate Sobolev derivatives and appropriate decay rates at infinity. Then $`^2(R^3)`$ is projected to $`^2`$ (Counter). Friedman’s projection $`E`$ is implemented by multiplication by the characteristic function $`\chi ()`$. Within $`^2()`$ we then find another selfadjoint operator $`H_0`$, the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`^2()`$ with specified Dirichlet boundary conditions. The domain $`𝒟(H_0)`$ of this operator is well known (see  and citations therein) but the trace nature of what means $`\psi =0`$ on the boundary $``$ for $`\varphi `$ in $`𝒟(H_0)`$ is as is well known a delicate matter. Remember that $`\psi `$ needed two Sobolev derivatives in the interior of $``$. So to project the larger “quantum mechanical” evolution $`e^{itH_0}\psi _0`$ simply by multiplying by the characteristic function $`\chi ()`$ does nothing at all about attending to the matter of the regularity at the boundary needed by functions $`\psi `$ which are to be in the domain $`𝒟(H_0)`$ of the other operator $`H_0`$, namely, the Poisson–Dirichlet operator in $`^2()`$. This, in my opinion, lies at the root of Friedman’s  inability to prove any rigorous result about continual measurement. Also, in my opinion, when Misra and Sudarshan must assume \[5, eqn (14)\] $`s\text{-}lim_{tO^+}T(t)=E`$, one is on unfirm ground of the same underlying nature. Stated another way and more generally, we once again find the quantum-classical interface between quantum probability wave and classical measuror, a delicate business.

On the other hand, the quantum mechanical evolutions $`e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ freespace and the classical evolution $`e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ Poisson–Dirichlet proceed easily on their way. The former is analyzed in  in one dimension and it is shown that, for initial state $`\psi _0`$ taken with support in $`=[0,1]`$, the evolution corresponds to the propagator of a particle in a square well with Dirichlet boundary conditions. In  “We prepare a particle in a state with support in $`A`$” (we may take $`A[0,1]`$ the counter) and this state $`\psi _0`$ is evolved by the free space evolution and frequently projected by $`E=\chi ()`$ according to Friedman’s prescription. Much of the work in  then consists in using the explicit, Green’s function representation of the evolution $`e^{itp^2/2m}`$ to show Zeno nondecay. In this way they  are able to obviate a use of Trotter formula approach  which we have seen many times  does not quite go through.

Here I would like to make a second observation. Consider any Dirichlet domain $``$ in $`^2(R^n)`$. By this I mean one for which the Poisson–Dirichlet problem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =f\text{in},\psi =0\text{on}$$
$`(4.1)`$
is well-posed. Let $`H_0`$ denote the corresponding selfadjoint operator in $`^2()`$. Consider any initial $`\psi _0`$ in $`𝒟(H_0)`$. We notice that means that $`\psi _0=0`$ on $``$ and also that $`\psi _0`$ possesses the necessary regularity, especially up to the boundary, to be in $`𝒟(H_0)`$. Now we know rather generally (e.g., \[8, Chapter IX\]) that exponentiations $`U_t`$ commute with their infinitesimal generators, i.e., $`U_tH_0H_0U_t`$. This means that $`U_t`$ maps $`𝒟(H_0)`$ into $`𝒟(H_0)`$. So the evolving Poisson–Dirichlet wave packet $`e^{itH_0}\psi _0`$ keeps vanishing on the surface of the counter. Moreover it is a unitary evolution in $`^2()`$. This means that had we started with the free space evolution $`e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and any initial state $`\psi _0`$ in $`^2(R^n)`$, then if we want to ‘count it’ in the way desired by Friedman  et al., we want a “projection” $`E`$ which maps us not only to the counter $``$ but also to $`𝒟(H_0)`$ where $`H_0`$ is the Poisson–Dirichlet Hamiltonian. That means restricting $`^2(R^n)`$ to $`^2()𝒟(H_0)`$. In other words, once you ‘project’ into the counter, also satsifying the Dirichlet trace boundary condition on the surface of the counter, then that portion of your original wave-packet free particle evolution continues as a unitary evolution within the counter. Once you are in the counter, you stay in the counter always. This, in my opinion, is the real meaning of the claim in  that “Zeno dynamics uniquely determines the boundary conditions, and they turn out to be of Dirichlet type.” In my opinion, they are of Dirichlet type only because one started with ‘Dirichlet type’ boundary conditions (neglecting the questions of needed regularity at the boundary) when one projected by means of multiplication by $`\chi ()`$. Stated another way: you can have any kind of selfadjoint boundary conditions on the surface of the counter, provided you ‘project’ to $`^2()𝒟(H_0)`$ where $`𝒟(H_0)`$ now contains those boundary conditions. Then the above evolution-infinitesimal generator commutation property assures you of a Zeno dynamics in the counter thereafter.

### 4.2 Domains and Zeno Measurors

In my alternate formulation (Section 3), we were able to give conditions under which the ‘projected’ infinitesimal generator $`EHE`$ remained a generator. To do so I needed to let $`E`$ be a ‘wider’ measuror $`A`$, so that $`AHA`$ remained selfadjoint in the original Hilbert space. It is desirable, I think, to be able to remain in the original Hilbert space, in contrast to what I have shown above to be a reduction of physical description to a unitary evolution trapped in a counter.

Therefore here I want to return to the approach of , viz. Lemma 3.1 above, and ask, rather than when $`(AB)^{}=B^{}A^{}`$, the question: when is $`(ABC)^{}=C^{}B^{}A^{}`$? This can then be specialized to: when is $`AHA`$ selfadjoint? By the same analysis as  one can establish the following.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`A,B,C`$ be densely defined operators in a Hilbert space $``$. Suppose the domains $`𝒟(BC)`$ and $`𝒟(ABC)`$ are dense, ranges $`(BC)𝒟(A)`$, $`(C)=𝒟(B)`$, domains $`𝒟((BC)^{})(A^{})`$, $`𝒟(C^{})(B^{})`$, and $`C`$ and $`BC`$ are 1–1. Then $`(ABC)^{}=C^{}B^{}A^{}`$.

###### Corollary 4.1

Let $`A`$ and $`H`$ be selfadjoint operators in a Hilbert space $``$. Suppose $`𝒟(HA)`$ and $`𝒟(AHA)`$ are dense, $`(HA)𝒟(A)`$, $`(A)𝒟(H)`$, $`𝒟((HA)^{})(A)`$, $`𝒟(A)(H)`$. Then $`(AHA)^{}=AHA`$.

The assumptions in Corollary 4.1, although appearing somewhat general, may be seen to reduce to rather precise statements about domains and ranges. I will state this as a further corollary.

###### Corollary 4.2

Let $`A`$ and $`H`$ be selfadjoint operators in a Hilbert space $``$. Then the sufficient conditions of Corollary 4.1 require necessarily that $`(H)=𝒟(A)`$.

I remark that the quantum mechanical free space $`H_0`$ and Poisson–Dirichlet $`H_0`$ Hamiltonians we discussed above differ in this respect. Because 0 is in the continuous spectrum (e.g. see ) of the free space $`H_0`$, we know that $`(H_0)`$ is properly dense in $`^2(R^n)`$. So the measuring observable $`A`$ should also be unbounded in that case. The Poisson–Dirichlet $`H_0`$ maps onto $`^2()`$ and so the measuring observable $`A`$ should be everywhere-defined, and hence bounded, in that case.

I will give a more complete accounting of these domain considerations elsewhere. For example, one may obtain another version of Theorem 4.1 by factoring $`ABC`$ in the other way. There are versions where we may just obtain $`AHA`$ symmetric. However I would like again to emphasize the point: these domain considerations, essential to selfadjointness and hence for application to obtain reversible Zeno evolutions, are delicate and (in my opinion) should be treated with care in measurement theory. In such a way they may provide useful insight into how measurors should measure. Thus one may regard my approach as a new viewpoint towards quantum measurement theory.