text:
# A Relativistic Extension of Event-Enhanced Quantum Theory

## 1 Introduction

Seeking to bridge the conceptual frameworks of classical and quantum theory, Blanchard and Jadczyk  have proposed an extension of standard (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics called Event-Enhanced Quantum Theory (EEQT). Its main idea is to view the total system as consisting of a classical and a quantum part which are coupled. The pure states of the quantum part are wave functions which are not directly observable, whereas the pure states of the classical part can be observed without disturbing them. Changes of the classical pure states are called events. Events are discrete and irreversible. A review about applications of EEQT is for example .

Trying to define states and a reduction postulate in a relativistic theory can lead to paradoxes and logical difficulties (for example see Y. Aharonov and D.Z. Albert ).

One possibility to avoid some of these difficulties is to consider the wave function for relativistic particle not as a function on the space-time continuum but as a function on the set of flat, space-like hypersurfaces in Minkowski space (for example see the papers by Breuer and Petruccione ).

Another possibility is the introduction of a supplementary, intrinsic time, the proper time $`\tau `$. The proper time $`\tau `$ is independent of the reference frame. It plays the role of (absolute) time in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The idea of a proper time was first used physically by Horwitz and Piron  and later in a lot of other approaches (a review with more references is for example written by Fanchi ).

Blanchard and Jadczyk have also introduced a relativistic version of EEQT  using the idea of a proper time and an indefinite scalar product.

The main aim of this paper is to present an alternative relativistic version of EEQT which uses a positive-definite scalar product. The theory will describe a single spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle with mass $`m`$ in a relativistic way and should be useful in situations in which one can neglect pair-creation and pair-annihilation. As in the relativistic extension introduced by Blanchard and Jadczyk , we postulate an additional parameter, called proper time $`\tau `$. The total system consists of a classical and a quantum part. Therefore, at a given proper time $`\tau `$, the (pure) state of the total system is a pair $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$. $`\omega _\tau `$ is the state of the classical part and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ is the state of the quantum part.

We assume that a (pure) state $`\omega _\tau `$ of the classical part is a number: $`\omega _\tau _0=\{0,1,2,..\}`$. Again, a change of the classical (pure) state is called an “event”.

The (pure) states of the quantum part shall be (heuristically spoken) solutions $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\times ^3^4`$ of the Dirac-equation $`\left(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \frac{e}{c\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu A_\mu \frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0`$. An interesting property of a quantum state is that it is uniquely given by its values on a spacelike hyperplane. Moreover, it will be possible to introduce a positive-definite scalar product between two quantum states. In the second section of this paper, we will present the definition of (pure) states of the quantum part and their properties in a more mathematical way.

We define in the third section how the system state changes if we change the reference frame or “charge conjugate” the system.

In the forth section, we postulate a covariant algorithm for simulating ideal measurements of infinitesimally small duration. It plays the role of the standard reduction postulate in non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

An algorithm for simulating detections of the particle is presented and examined in the fifth section.

In the last section, we summarize the properties of our formalism.

In a future paper, we will examine applications of our algorithm for simulating detections. A first application can be found in .

## 2 Pure states of the quantum part

We want to define a (pure) state of the quantum part of the total system. It describes the state of a single particle with spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and mass $`m`$.

Let $`𝒫=\{(y,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi }):y^4,\stackrel{}{\alpha }^3,\left|\stackrel{}{\alpha }\right|<1,\stackrel{}{\phi }^3,\left|\stackrel{}{\phi }\right|<\pi \}`$ and we define with $`\lambda ((y^0,\stackrel{}{y}),\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })𝒫`$:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})& =& (y^0+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{R}_\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{y}+\widehat{R}_\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{u})\hfill & \stackrel{}{u}^3\hfill \\ \hfill <f|g>_\lambda & =& \stackrel{}{u}f^+(\stackrel{}{u})\left(1\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{\alpha }\right)g(\stackrel{}{u})\hfill & f,gL_2(^3)^4\hfill \\ \hfill f_\lambda & =& \sqrt{<f|f>_\lambda }\hfill & fL_2(^3)^4\hfill \end{array}`$
with $`\overline{}=\{\pm \mathrm{}+\mathrm{}\}\{\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}\{\pm \mathrm{}\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`L_2(^3)^4=\{f:^3\overline{}^4:x\left|f(x)\right|^2<\mathrm{}\}`$. $`\gamma ^\mu =(\gamma ^0,\stackrel{}{\gamma })`$ are the Dirac matrices and $`\widehat{R}_\stackrel{}{\phi }SO(3)`$ is the rotation of the angle $`\left|\stackrel{}{\phi }\right|`$ around the vector $`\stackrel{}{\phi }/\left|\stackrel{}{\phi }\right|`$ (the sense of rotation is determined by the right-hand rule). We continue with the following definition:

Definition. $`\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$ if and only if the following conditions are satisfied

$`(i)`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\times ^3^4,\mathrm{\Psi }\text{continuous differentiable}`$ (2)
$`(ii)`$ $`\left(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e}{c\mathrm{}}}\gamma ^\mu A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0`$ (3)
$`(iii)`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _\lambda _\lambda <\mathrm{}\text{for all}\lambda 𝒫`$ (4)
$`(iv)`$ $`\underset{\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|^3\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})\right|^2=0\text{for all}\lambda 𝒫`$ (5)
$`A_\mu :^4^4`$ is the external electromagnetic potential.

$`\widehat{}`$ is a vector space. Now we want to define a scalar product for all $`\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$. The next theorem is very important for achieving this task.

Theorem 1. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A,\mathrm{\Psi }_B\widehat{}`$, let $`j_{AB}^\mu :=\mathrm{\Psi }_A^+\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_B`$, the quantity

$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_A\sigma _\lambda |\mathrm{\Psi }_B\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda {\displaystyle _{\sigma _\lambda }}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu `$
exists for all $`\lambda =((y^0,\stackrel{}{y}),\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })𝒫`$ and is independent of $`\lambda `$. $`f_\mu (1,\stackrel{}{\alpha })\stackrel{}{u}`$ denotes the differential “surface element” of $`\sigma _\lambda `$.

Proof. (i) existence: This follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A\sigma _\lambda ,\mathrm{\Psi }_B\sigma _\lambda L_2(^3)^4`$ (see (4)).
(ii) independence: We get $`_\mu j_{AB}^\mu =0`$ by a simple calculation. The integral is clearly independent of $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$. Therefore, we can assume $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}=0`$. Let $`\sigma _1=\sigma _{((y_1^0,\stackrel{}{0}),\stackrel{}{\alpha }_1,0)}`$ and $`\sigma _2=\sigma _{((y_2^0,\stackrel{}{0}),\stackrel{}{\alpha _2},0)}`$ be two hyperplanes. Let $`\widehat{x}(\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })=(\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })`$.
(a) case $`\stackrel{}{\alpha _1}=\stackrel{}{\alpha _2}=:\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$: Let

$`F_1(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\sigma _1(\stackrel{}{u}):\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|R\}`$
$`F_2(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\sigma _2(\stackrel{}{u}):\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|R\}`$
$`s_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`(y_1^0+\nu (y_2^0y_1^0)+R\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{x}(\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }),R\widehat{x}(\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }))`$
$`S(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{s_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }):0\nu 1,0\phi <2\pi ,0\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi \}`$
Let $`V(R)`$ be the volume bounded by $`F_1(R),F_2(R)`$, and $`S(R)`$. The differential “surface element” of $`S(R)`$ is $`S_\mu =R^2W_\mu (\nu ,\phi ,\alpha )d\nu d\phi d\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The function $`W_\mu `$ need not to be explicitly calculated, because it is enough to know that $`W_\mu `$ does not depend on $`R`$. We get by Gauss theorem (with $`j_{AB}^\mu (R,\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })j_{AB}^\mu s_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })`$)

$`{\displaystyle _{\sigma _1}}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu +{\displaystyle _{\sigma _2}}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu =\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{F_1(R)}}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu +\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{F_2(R)}}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu `$
$`=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{V(R)}}_\mu j_{AB}^\mu ^4x\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S(R)}}j_{AB}^\mu S_\mu `$
$`=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S(R)}}j_{AB}^\mu S_\mu `$
$`=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \nu \phi \mathrm{\Theta }R^2j_{AB}^\mu (R,\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })W_\mu (\nu ,\phi ,\alpha )}`$
$`={\displaystyle \nu \phi \mathrm{\Theta }\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}(R^2j_{AB}^\mu (R,\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }))W_\mu (\nu ,\phi ,\alpha )}=0`$
because

$`R^2\left|j_{AB}^\mu (R,\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right|=R^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_A^+\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_Bs_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right|`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{const}{2}}\left(R^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_As_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right|^2+R^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_Bs_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right|^2\right)\stackrel{R\mathrm{}}{}0`$
uniformly in $`\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (see (5)) and $`\nu `$ (because $`j_{AB}^\mu `$ is continuous).
(b) case $`\stackrel{}{\alpha _1}\stackrel{}{\alpha _2}`$: Because of case (a), we can assume $`y_1^0=y_2^0=0`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\nu )`$ be chosen in such a way that $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\nu )`$ is continuous, $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }(0)=\stackrel{}{\alpha _1}`$, $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }(1)=\stackrel{}{\alpha _2}`$ and $`\left|\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\nu )\right|<1\nu [\mathrm{0..1}]`$. Let

$`F_1(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\sigma _1(\stackrel{}{u}):\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|R\}`$
$`F_2(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\sigma _2(\stackrel{}{u}):\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|R\}`$
$`s_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`(R\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\nu )\widehat{x}(\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }),R\widehat{x}(\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }))`$
$`S(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{s_R(\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }):0\nu 1,0\phi <2\pi ,0\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi \}`$
Again, $`V(R)`$ should be the volume bounded by $`F_1(R),F_2(R)`$, and $`S(R)`$. The differential “surface element” of $`S(R)`$ is $`S_\mu =R^3\stackrel{~}{W}_\mu (\nu ,\phi ,\alpha )d\nu d\phi d\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (note the factor $`R^3`$ instead of $`R^2`$ in case (a)!). Analog to case (a), it follows

$`{\displaystyle _{\sigma _1}}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu +{\displaystyle _{\sigma _2}}j_{AB}^\mu f_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
because $`\left|R^3j_{AB}^\mu (R,\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right|\stackrel{R\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly in $`\nu ,\phi ,\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Now we are able to introduce a scalar product between elements of $`\widehat{}`$:

Definition. We introduce a scalar product between $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A,\mathrm{\Psi }_B\widehat{}`$:

$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_B>_\widehat{}`$ $`:=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_A\sigma _\lambda |\mathrm{\Psi }_B\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda `$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_A_\widehat{}`$ $`:=`$ $`\sqrt{<\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_A>_\widehat{}}`$
with $`\lambda 𝒫`$ arbitrary.

$`<.|.>_\widehat{}`$ is a sesquilinear form. It is clear that $`<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }>_\widehat{}0\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$ because the eigenvalues of $`(1\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{\alpha })`$ are $`1+\left|\stackrel{}{\alpha }\right|>0`$ and $`1\left|\stackrel{}{\alpha }\right|>0`$.

The independence of the scalar product from the parameters $`\lambda (y,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })`$ “expresses” the independence of the reference frame. Note that the number of “free parameters” is ten and equals the number of parameters of a Poincaré-transformation.

An element $`\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$ is uniquely given by its values on a hyperplane $`\sigma _\lambda `$. This fact results indeed from the next theorem.

Theorem 2. Let $`\mu =(y,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })𝒫`$ arbitrary, let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2\widehat{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\sigma _\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_2\sigma _\mu `$ then it follows $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$.

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:=\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, we get $`\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _\mu (\stackrel{}{u})=0\stackrel{}{u}`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _\mu _\mu =0`$. We assume $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, so it exist $`z=(z^0,\stackrel{}{z})^4`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_2(z)0`$. Because $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is continuous there must be a neighborhood of $`z`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)0`$. So it exists $`ϵ>0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _{(z,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}(\stackrel{}{u})0`$ for all $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ with $`\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|<ϵ`$ (because $`z=\sigma _{(z,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}(0)`$). It follows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _{(z,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}_{\sigma _{(z,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}}>0`$. But we get

$`0=\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _{(y,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}_{\sigma _{(y,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}}\stackrel{Theorem\text{2}}{=}\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _{(z,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}_{\sigma _{(z,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\phi })}}0`$
The assumption that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ is wrong and it implies that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$.

Theorem 3. $`(\widehat{},<.|.>_\widehat{})`$ is a pre-Hilbert space.

Proof. It is only left to proof that $`<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }>_\widehat{}=0`$ provides $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. We assume

$`0=<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }>_\widehat{}={\displaystyle \stackrel{}{u}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(0,\stackrel{}{u})\right|^2}=<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }>_{L_2(^3)^4}`$
It results that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,\stackrel{}{u})=0\stackrel{}{u}`$, because $`<.|.>_{L_2(^3)^4}`$ is a scalar product. As $`0(0,\stackrel{}{u})=0\stackrel{}{u}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,\stackrel{}{u})=0\stackrel{}{u}`$, we get by Theorem 2 that $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$.

We demand that the quantum states are elements of a Hilbert space. So we must complete the pre-Hilbert space $`(\widehat{},<.|.>_\widehat{})`$.

Definition. Let

$``$ $`=`$ $`\{F:^4\overline{}^4|F\sigma _\lambda L_2(^3)^4\lambda 𝒫\text{and}\text{sequence}\{\mathrm{\Psi }_m\}_m,\mathrm{\Psi }_m\widehat{}:`$ (6)
$`ϵ>0N_ϵ:(F\mathrm{\Psi }_m)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda <ϵm>N_ϵ\lambda 𝒫\}`$
Let $`F`$, we define $`F=0F\sigma _\lambda _\lambda =0\lambda 𝒫`$.
A scalar product $`<.|.>_{}:\times `$ is defined by:

$`<F_1|F_2>_{}:=<F_1\sigma _\lambda |F_2\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda ,F_1,F_2`$
with $`\lambda 𝒫`$ arbitrary.

The following theorem proves that $`(,<.|.>_{})`$ is really a Hilbert space and a completion of $`(\widehat{},<.|.>_\widehat{})`$.

Theorem 4. The above scalar product is well defined (independent of the parameter $`\lambda `$). $`(,<.|.>_{})`$ is a Hilbert space and $`\widehat{}`$ is a dense subspace of it.

Proof. (i) We first prove that $``$ is a vector-space. The only thing which is (perhaps) not trivial is the existence of a sequence in the above sense. Let $`F_1,F_2`$, $`a,b`$, then it exits sequences $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m},\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}`$ in the above sense. Now we get

$`((aF_1+bF_2)(a\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m}+b\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}))\sigma _\lambda _\lambda `$
$`=`$ $`a(F_1\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m})\sigma _\lambda +b(F_2\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m})\sigma _\lambda _\lambda `$
$``$ $`\left|a\right|(F_1\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m})\sigma _\lambda _\lambda +\left|b\right|(F_2\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m})\sigma _\lambda _\lambda `$
$`\stackrel{m\mathrm{}}{}`$ $`0`$
uniformly for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$.
(ii) We now prove that $`<F_1\sigma _\lambda |F_2\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda `$ is independent of $`\lambda 𝒫`$ for all $`F_1,F_2`$. Let $`F_1,F_2`$, then it exists sequences $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m},\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}`$ in the above sense. Now we get with $`\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }𝒫`$

$`<F_1\sigma _\lambda |F_2\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda `$
$`=`$ $`<lim\lambda _m\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m}\sigma _\lambda )|lim\lambda _m\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}\sigma _\lambda )>_\lambda `$
$`=`$ $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}<\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m}\sigma _\lambda |\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda `$
$`\stackrel{Theorem\text{2}}{=}`$ $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}<\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m}\sigma _{\overline{\lambda }}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}\sigma _{\overline{\lambda }}>_{\overline{\lambda }}`$
$`=`$ $`<lim\overline{\lambda }_m\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,m}\sigma _{\overline{\lambda }})|lim\overline{\lambda }_m\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,m}\sigma _{\overline{\lambda }})>_{\overline{\lambda }}`$
$`=`$ $`<F_1\sigma _{\overline{\lambda }}|F_2\sigma _{\overline{\lambda }}>_{\overline{\lambda }}`$
$`lim\lambda `$ and $`lim\overline{\lambda }`$ means the limit concerning the norms $`._\lambda `$ and $`._{\overline{\lambda }}`$ in the Hilbert spaces $`(L_2(^3)^4,<.|.>_\lambda )`$ and $`(L_2(^3)^4,<.|.>_{\overline{\lambda }})`$ . It is now clear that $`<.|.>_{}`$ is a sesquilinear form with $`<F|F>_{}0F`$.
(iii) Let $`F`$ with $`<F|F>_{}=0`$, then it follows

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& <F|F>_{}=0\hfill & \\ & <F\sigma _\lambda |F\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda =0\hfill & \lambda 𝒫\hfill \\ & F\sigma _\lambda _\lambda =0\hfill & \lambda 𝒫\hfill \\ (& (F\sigma _\lambda )(\stackrel{}{u})=0\hfill & \text{for almost all}\stackrel{}{u}^3,\lambda 𝒫)\hfill \\ \stackrel{def.}{}& F=0\hfill & \end{array}`$
So $`<.|.>_{}`$ is a scalar product.
(iv) We now prove that $``$ is complete. Let $`\{F_m\}`$ be a Cauchy-sequence in $``$, so $`(F_mF_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{m,n\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly $`\lambda 𝒫`$. So it exists a sub-sequence $`\{F_{n_k}\}`$ with

$`(F_{n_{k+1}}F_{n_k})\sigma _\lambda _\lambda 2^kk\lambda 𝒫`$
By using Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem with the sequence $`f_{\lambda ,k}:=F_{n_k}\sigma _\lambda `$, we can show that it exist $`f_\lambda L_2(^3)^4`$ with

$`F_{n_k}\sigma _\lambda f_\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0\lambda 𝒫`$
and $`lim_k\mathrm{}F_{n_k}\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})=f_\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})`$ almost everywhere and $`\lambda 𝒫`$. Note that the sub-sequence $`\{n_k\}_k`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$! We also get $`F_n\sigma _\lambda f_\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0\lambda 𝒫`$. Because $`(F_mF_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{m,n\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly $`\lambda 𝒫`$, we get by taking $`lim\lambda _m\mathrm{}`$ that $`F_n\sigma _\lambda f_\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly $`\lambda 𝒫`$. Now we set

$`F(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})& \text{if}\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})=x\text{and}lim_k\mathrm{}F_{n_k}\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})=f_\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})\\ 0& \text{otherwise}\end{array}`$
This function is well defined, because the sub-sequence $`F_{n_k}`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$! It is also trivial that $`F\sigma _\lambda =f_\lambda `$ almost everywhere.
We now prove that $`F`$. The only thing which is left to prove is the existence of a sequence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m\widehat{}`$. Because $`F_m`$, it exists sequences $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,v}\}`$ with $`(F_m\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,v})\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{v\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly $`\lambda 𝒫`$. So it exists $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m\widehat{}`$ with $`(F_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda <\frac{1}{m}\lambda 𝒫`$. Now we get

$`(F\mathrm{\Psi }_m)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda `$
$``$ $`(FF_m)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda +(F_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda `$
$``$ $`\underset{\stackrel{m\mathrm{}}{}0\text{uniformly}\lambda 𝒫}{\underset{}{f_\lambda F_m\sigma _\lambda _\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\stackrel{m\mathrm{}}{}0`$
uniformly(!) for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$. So it results that $`F`$.
The last step to prove is: $`F_m\stackrel{m\mathrm{}}{}0`$ concerning the norm in $``$. We get for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$:

$`(FF_m)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda =f_\lambda F_m\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{m\mathrm{}}{}0`$
(v) It is trivial that $`\widehat{}`$ and that $`\widehat{}`$ is dense in $``$.

We are now in position to postulate that the (pure) states of the quantum part of the total system are the elements of the Hilbert space $`(,<.|.>_{})`$.

Let $`\lambda 𝒫`$ and we define the function $`U_\lambda :_\lambda `$ by

$`U_\lambda :F(x)F\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})_\lambda `$ (9)
with $`_\lambda L_2(^3)^4`$ denoting the range of $`U_\lambda `$. A quantum state is uniquely given by its values on a hyperplane $`\sigma _\lambda `$. This means that the function $`U_\lambda `$ is injective for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$. The following theorem proves this property.

Theorem 5. Let $`F_1,F_2`$ such that it exists $`\mu 𝒫`$ with $`F_1\sigma _\mu =F_2\sigma _\mu `$ then it follows $`F_1=F_2`$.

Proof. Let $`F=F_1F_2`$, we get $`F\sigma _\mu =0`$. $`F`$, so it exists sequence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n\widehat{}`$ with $`(F\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$. We get

$`0\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}(F\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\sigma _\mu _\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_n\sigma _\mu _\mu \stackrel{Theorem\text{2}}{=}\mathrm{\Psi }_n\sigma _\lambda _\lambda ,\lambda 𝒫`$
Because

$`F\sigma _\lambda _\lambda (F\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda +\mathrm{\Psi }_n\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0\lambda 𝒫`$
we get $`F\sigma _\lambda _\lambda =0\lambda 𝒫F=0`$.
It follows that $`0=F=F_1F_2F_1=F_2`$.

The function $`U_\lambda `$ is invertible, let $`U_\lambda ^1:_\lambda `$ be the inverse function. The following theorem proves some properties of $`U_\lambda `$ and $`U_\lambda ^1`$ respectively.

Theorem 6. Let $`\lambda 𝒫`$ and the functions $`U_\lambda :_\lambda `$ and $`U_\lambda ^1:_\lambda `$ are defined as above.

* Let $`F`$ and $`f_\lambda `$, then $`<U_\lambda ^1f|F>_{}=<f|U_\lambda F>_\lambda `$ and especially $`U_\lambda F_\lambda =F_{}`$ and $`U_\lambda ^1f_{}=f_\lambda `$
* We use the Hilbert space $`(L_2(^3)^4,<.|.>_\lambda )`$. Then the set $`_\lambda L_2(^3)^4`$ is closed.

Proof. (i) $`<U_\lambda ^1f|F>_{}=<\underset{f}{\underset{}{(U_\lambda ^1f)\sigma _\lambda }}|\underset{U_\lambda F}{\underset{}{F\sigma _\lambda }}>_\lambda =<f|U_\lambda F>_\lambda `$
(ii) Let $`f_n_\lambda `$ for all $`n`$ and $`lim\lambda _n\mathrm{}f_n=fL_2(^3)^4`$. We want to prove that $`f_\lambda `$. We set $`F_n:=U_\lambda ^1f_n`$. $`\{F_n\}_n`$ is also a Cauchy-sequence. Because $``$ is complete, it exists $`F`$ with $`lim_n\mathrm{}F_n=F`$. Moreover we get

$`f=lim\lambda _n\mathrm{}f_n=lim\lambda _n\mathrm{}U_\lambda F_n=U_\lambda \underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}F_n=U_\lambda F`$
(because $`U_\lambda `$ is bounded/continuous). So $`_\lambda `$ is closed.

It follows that $`(_\lambda ,<.|.>_\lambda )`$ is a Hilbert space and $`U_\lambda :(,<.|.>_{})(_\lambda ,<.|.>_\lambda )`$ is an unitary operator for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$. Because $`(L_2(^3)^4,<.|.>_\lambda )`$ is a separable Hilbert space, $`(_\lambda ,<.|.>_\lambda )`$ is a separable “sub”-Hilbert space. Therefore, $`(,<.|.>_{})`$ must be a separable Hilbert space.

## 3 Change of the reference frame and Charge conjugation

Our aim is now to define how the quantum state changes, if we change the reference frame $`K\stackrel{~}{K}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\mathrm{\Lambda }x+a`$. The classical state does not change in this case.

We look only at Poincaré-transformations $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ which do not mirror the space and do not invert the direction of time, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_+^{}`$. Let $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ be a non-singular $`4\times 4`$-matrix with $`S^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })\gamma ^\mu S(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu \gamma ^\nu `$, $`S^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })=S(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)`$ and $`S^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\gamma ^0S^+(\mathrm{\Lambda })\gamma ^0`$.

Let us first present a lemma which will be needed in the proofs of the main theorems.

Lemma. Let $`f,g:^4\overline{}^4`$, $`f\sigma _\lambda ,g\sigma _\lambda L_2(^3)^4`$ for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_+^{}`$, $`a^4`$, we set

$`\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })f(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })g(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$
Let $`\lambda 𝒫`$ arbitrary, then it exists $`\mu (\lambda )𝒫`$ with

$`<\stackrel{~}{f}\sigma _\lambda |\stackrel{~}{g}\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda =<f\sigma _{\mu (\lambda )}|g\sigma _{\mu (\lambda )}>_{\mu (\lambda )}`$
Proof. Each arbitrary Lorentz-transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_+^{}`$ can be expressed as a product of pure translations, pure rotations and Lorentz-boosts in the $`x^1`$-direction. So it is enough to prove the lemma for pure translations, pure rotations and Lorentz-boosts in the $`x^1`$-direction separately. This can be done by straightforward calculations.

The electromagnetic potential in the reference frame $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)_\mu ^\nu A_\nu (\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$
So we define

$`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}=\{`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}:\times ^3^4|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\text{cont. diff.},\left(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e}{c\mathrm{}}}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\stackrel{~}{x})=0,`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _\lambda _\lambda <\mathrm{},\underset{\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|\stackrel{}{u}|^3\right|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})|^2=0\lambda 𝒫\}`$
A scalar product $`<.|.>_{\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}}`$ between two elements of $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}`$ and a completion $`(\stackrel{~}{},<.|.>_\stackrel{~}{})`$ can be constructed in the same way as in the previous section.

Let the quantum state in the reference frame $`K`$ be $`\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$. Then the quantum state in the reference frame $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is defined to be

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$
We get the following theorem:

Theorem 7. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}`$.

Proof. It is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is continuous differentiable and that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is a solution of the Dirac-equation with external field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ (see for example ). The third condition in (10) is clear because of the lemma. The last condition can be proved by simple calculations. Again, it is enough to do this only for pure translations, pure rotations and Lorentz-boosts in the $`x^1`$-direction separately.

Now, we look at the general case $`F`$. Let us define an operator $`W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}:\stackrel{~}{}`$:

$`(W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}F)(\stackrel{~}{x}):=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })F(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))F`$
This operator is well defined. Using these transformation rules, the scalar product is covariant. Its value is equal in all reference frames. Or in other words: the operator $`W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}`$ is unitary. All these will be proven by the next theorem.

Theorem 8.

* Let $`F`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\stackrel{~}{x})=(W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}F)(\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{}`$.
* Let $`F_1,F_2`$, define $`\stackrel{~}{F_1}=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}F_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F_2}=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}F_2`$ then

$`<\stackrel{~}{F_1}|\stackrel{~}{F_2}>_\stackrel{~}{}=<W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}F_1|W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}F_2>_\stackrel{~}{}=<F_1|F_2>_{}`$

Proof. (i) Because of the lemma, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{F}\sigma _\lambda _\lambda =F\sigma _{\mu (\lambda )}_{\mu (\lambda )}<\mathrm{}`$
for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$.
The existence of the sequence $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}`$ is only left to prove. Since $`F`$, it exists a sequence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n\widehat{}`$ with $`(F\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}`$ because of Theorem 3. Since $`(F\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$ uniformly for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$, we also get

$`(\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n)\sigma _\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{\text{see lemma}}{=}(F\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\sigma _{\mu (\lambda )}_{\mu (\lambda )}\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$
uniformly for all $`\lambda 𝒫`$. We have indeed $`\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{}`$.
(ii)

$`<\stackrel{~}{F_1}|\stackrel{~}{F_2}>_\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`=`$ $`<\stackrel{~}{F_1}\sigma _\lambda |\stackrel{~}{F_2}\sigma _\lambda >_\lambda ,\text{arbitrary}\lambda 𝒫`$
$`\stackrel{\text{see lemma}}{=}`$ $`<F_1\sigma _{\mu (\lambda )}|F_2\sigma _{\mu (\lambda )}>_{\mu (\lambda )}`$
$`=`$ $`<F_1|F_2>_{}`$
Now, we examine the situation if we charge conjugate the system $`KK^C`$. We define

$`\widehat{}^C=\{`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^C:\times ^3^4|\mathrm{\Psi }^C\text{cont. diff.},\left(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c\mathrm{}}}\gamma ^\mu A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^C(x)=0,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^C\sigma _\lambda _\lambda <\mathrm{},\underset{\left|\stackrel{}{u}\right|\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|\stackrel{}{u}|^3\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^C\sigma _\lambda (\stackrel{}{u})|^2=0\lambda 𝒫\}`$
Again a scalar product $`<.|.>_{\widehat{}^C}`$ between two elements of $`\widehat{}^C`$ and a completion $`(^C,<.|.>_^C)`$ can be constructed in the same way as in the previous section.

It is well known that in any representation of the $`\gamma `$-matrices there must exist a matrix $`C`$ which satisfies

$`C\gamma _{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{T}C^1=\gamma ^\mu `$ (12)
(see e.g. ). In addition, we want to use only representations of the $`\gamma `$-matrices for which there exists an unitary matrix $`C`$ satisfying (12). (This is true e.g. in the Dirac-representation with $`C=\mathrm{}\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$.)

The following theorem expresses the relation between the spaces $``$ and $`^C`$. It can be proved by straightforward calculations.

Theorem 9.

* Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\widehat{}^C`$.
* Let $`F`$, then $`F^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}F^{}^C`$.
* Let $`F_A,F_B`$, let $`F_A^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}F_A^{}`$, $`F_B^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}F_B^{}`$, then

$`<F_A^C|F_B^C>_^C=<F_B|F_A>_{}`$

## 4 Events Generating Algorithm <br>(ideal, infinitesimal short measurements)

In the previous sections, we have precisely defined the state of the total system and examined some of its properties. We are now in position to present the proper-time evolution of the system state. More precisely, we will postulate algorithms which generate events, i.e. irreversible changes of the classical state. Because we know that the set of quantum states is indeed a Hilbert space, we can use the well-known formulation in Hilbert space framework. In this section, we formulate an algorithm to describe ideal measurements of infinitesimal short duration. In principle, we rewrite the standard reduction postulate of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics by replacing $`t`$ with $`\tau `$ and using our Hilbert space of “solutions.” Doing this, we get a covariant algorithm playing the role of the standard reduction postulate in non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

We name the reference frame $`K`$. Let the particle be prepared at proper time $`\tau _0`$ in a space-time point $`z_0`$.

There should be $`n`$ measurements, which happen at proper times $`\tau _i`$ in space-time points $`z_i`$, $`i=1..n`$. The $`i`$th measurement is represented by an observable $`M_i`$ with

$`M_i={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\lambda _{i,j}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}><\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}`$, $`1=_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}><\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|`$, $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,k}>_{}=\delta _{j,k}`$ and $`\lambda _{i,j}`$.

We assume that $`\tau _0<\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _n`$. We want to preserve a weak kind of order, so we demand the following: no event (e.g. preparation, measurement or detection) can take place in the backward light-cone of the previous event:

$`(z_{j+1}z_j^20\text{and}z_j^0<z_{j+1}^0)\text{or}(z_{j+1}z_j^2<0)j=0,1,..n1`$
with $`x^2=(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})^2=(x^0)^2\left|\stackrel{}{x}\right|^2`$ being the Minkowski-distance. Or in other words: let two successive events happen in space-time points $`z_j=(z_j^0,\stackrel{}{z}_j)`$ and $`z_{j+1}=(z_{j+1}^0,\stackrel{}{z}_{j+1})`$, then it must exist a Poincaré-transformation $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_+^{}`$) such that

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^0z_j^\mu +a^0=\stackrel{~}{z}_j^0\stackrel{!}{<}\stackrel{~}{z}_{j+1}^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^0z_{j+1}^\mu +a^0`$
It must exist a reference frame in which the time of the first event $`\stackrel{~}{z}_j^0`$ is earlier than the time of the second event $`\stackrel{~}{z}_{j+1}^0`$.

Now we start with the formulation of a relativistic reduction-postulate for ideal measurements. Let $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$ be the state of the total system.

* The particle is prepared at proper time $`\tau _0`$ in space-time point $`z_0`$. The quantum state is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}_{}^2=1`$ and the classical state is $`\omega _{\tau _0}=0`$. Let $`i=1`$.
* The quantum and classical state change only in case of measurement. They have no $`\tau `$-dependence if there is no measurement:

$`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )=(\omega _{\tau _{i1}},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _{i1}})`$
for $`\tau _{i1}\tau \tau _i`$.
* The $`i`$th measurement takes place at proper time $`\tau _i`$ in space-time point $`z_i`$. We choose the measurement result $`\lambda _{i,j}`$ with probability

$`p(\lambda _{i,j})=\left|<\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _i}>_{}\right|^2`$
If $`\lambda _{i,j}`$ is the received measurement result, the state of the total system changes in the following way:

$`(\omega _{\tau _i},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _i})(j,\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j})`$
* Let $`ii+1`$ and go to step (ii).

We want to examine how this algorithm looks like in another reference frame. Let $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ be a reference frames which is connected to $`K`$ by a Poincaré-transformation $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_+^{}`$.

In $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, the situation is described in this way: the particle is prepared at $`\tau _0`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }z_0+a`$ with initial quantum state

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\tau _0}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`(W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0})(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\tau _0}_\stackrel{~}{}^2=1`$ (the operator $`W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}`$ is unitary). The measurement $`i`$ at proper time $`\tau _i`$ happens in $`\stackrel{~}{z}_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }z_i+a`$ and is represented by

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_i=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}M_iW_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}^+={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\lambda _{i,j}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,j}><\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,j}|`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,j}=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}`$. It is true that $`1=_j|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,j}><\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,j}|`$ and $`<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,j}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i,k}>_\stackrel{~}{}=\delta _{j,k}`$.

If we apply the algorithm in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ and if we choose the same random numbers, then we get the same measurement results than those we get if we apply the algorithm in $`K`$, because

$`\stackrel{~}{p}(\lambda _{i,j})=\left|<W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _i}>_\stackrel{~}{}\right|^2=\left|<\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _i}>_{}\right|^2=p(\lambda _{i,j})`$
The system state $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$ in the reference frame $`K`$ and the system state $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau )`$ in the reference frame $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ are always connected in the following way:

$`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau )=(\omega _\tau ,W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$
The above algorithm describing ideal, infinitesimal short measurements is covariant.

Now we consider the charge conjugated system $`K^C`$. We set

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}^C`$ $`:=`$ $`C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}^{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^C`$ $`:=`$ $`C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^{}`$
The charge conjugated observables are defined by

$`M_i^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}M_i^{}\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}C^+={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\lambda _{i,j}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^C><\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^C|`$
The complex conjugated operator $`M_i^{}`$ is defined by $`M_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }:=(M_i\mathrm{\Psi }^{})^{}`$.

If we execute the algorithm in a charge conjugated system $`K^C`$ or if we execute the algorithm in the normal system $`K`$, both will result the same events (if we choose the same random numbers), because

$`p^C(\lambda _{i,j})=\left|<\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^C|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _i}^C>_^C\right|^2=\left|<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _i}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}>_{}\right|^2=p(\lambda _{i,j})`$
The system state $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$ in $`K`$ and the system state $`(\omega _\tau ^C,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C)`$ in $`K^C`$ are always connected by

$`(\omega _\tau ^C,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C)=(\omega _\tau ,C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^{})`$
We demand that the algorithm applied in the “charge conjugated world” or applied in the “normal world” describes the same physical situation.

We end this section with the derivation of an important relationship between the standard reduction postulate used with the Dirac-equation and the above algorithm: the standard reduction postulate formulated in a (preferred) fixed reference frame can be rewritten as a special case of the above algorithm. Especially, the standard reduction postulate used in a fixed reference frame gives the same probabilities than the above (covariant) algorithm.

We choose the (preferred) fixed reference frame. We assume that the electromagnetic potential $`A_\mu `$ is time-independent in this frame. Now, we define

$`H_D=\mathrm{}c\mathrm{}\gamma ^0\gamma ^k{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^k}}+e\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu A_\mu +\gamma ^0mc^2`$
Let $`U_tU_{((ct,\stackrel{}{0}),\stackrel{}{0},\stackrel{}{0})}`$ (see (9)), so that $`(U_t\mathrm{\Psi })(\stackrel{}{u})=\mathrm{\Psi }(ct,\stackrel{}{u})`$. We are now in position to prove our claim.

Let the wave function be $`\psi _0`$ at time $`t=0`$ with $`\psi _0_{L_2(^3)^4}=1`$. We assume measurements happening at times $`t_1,..,t_n`$ with $`0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_n`$. The measurement $`i`$ is represented by an observable $`m_i`$ with

$`m_i={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\lambda _{i,j}|\varphi _{i,j}><\varphi _{i,j}|`$
and $`1=_j|\varphi _{i,j}><\varphi _{i,j}|`$, $`<\varphi _{i,j}|\varphi _{i,k}>_{L_2(^3)^4}=\delta _{j,k}`$ and $`\lambda _{i,j}`$.

Next, we describe this situation in the framework of our formalism. Let

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`:=`$ $`U_0^1\psi _0`$
We get $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0_{}=1`$. We define $`n`$ measurements happening at proper times $`\tau _i:=t_i`$ at space-time points $`z_i=(ct_i,\stackrel{}{y}_i)`$. $`\stackrel{}{y}_i`$ can be chosen arbitrary. The measurements are represented by observables $`M_i`$ with

$`M_i:=U_{ct_i}^1m_iU_{ct_i}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\lambda _{i,j}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}><\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|`$
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}=U_{ct_i}^1\varphi _{i,j}`$. Note that $`1=_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}><\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|`$ and $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,k}>_{}=\delta _{j,k}`$.

We execute the standard reduction postulate (SR) and the above algorithm (AL):

* + At time $`t=0`$ the wave function is $`\psi _0`$.
    + At $`\tau =0`$ the state of the quantum part is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ with $`\psi _0=U_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$.
* + Until $`t=t_1`$, the time evolution of the wave function is given by

    $`\psi (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}}tH_D\right)\psi _0`$
    + The state of the quantum part does not change until $`\tau =\tau _1=t_1`$:

    $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau =\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$

The following relationship between $`\psi (t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is fulfilled for $`0tt_1`$:

$`\psi (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}}tH_D\right)U_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0=U_t\mathrm{\Psi }_0=U_t\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$
* + At $`t=t_1`$, the first measurement happens. The probability for the result $`\lambda _{1,j}`$ is given by

    $`p_{1,j}=\left|<\varphi _{1,j}|\psi (t_1)>_{L_2(^3)^4}\right|^2`$
    + At $`\tau =\tau _1=t_1`$, the first measurement happens. The probability for the result $`\lambda _{1,j}`$ is given by

    $`p_{1,j}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|<\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,j}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>_{}\right|^2`$
    $`=`$ $`\left|<U_{t_1}^1\varphi _{1,j}|U_{t_1}^1\psi (t_1)>_{}\right|^2`$
    $`=`$ $`\left|<\varphi _{1,j}|\psi (t_1)>_{L_2(^3)^4}\right|^2`$
* + The result should be $`\lambda _{1,j}`$. Then, the following change of the wave function happens

    $`\psi (t_1)\varphi _{1,j}=U_{t_1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,j}`$
    + The result should be $`\lambda _{1,j}`$. Then, the following change of the wave function happens

    $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,j}=U_{t_1}^1\varphi _{1,j}`$

The algorithm continues with the other measurements.

We want to underline two facts. First the probabilities resulting from the standard reduction postulate and the probabilities resulting from the above algorithm are equal. Additionally, it is true for all $`t0`$ that

$`\psi (t)=U_t\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$
## 5 Events Generating Algorithm (detections of the particle)

In this section, we formulate an algorithm for modelling continuous relativistic measurements, indeed we will propose in the following an algorithm to simulate detections of the particle. In principle, we will do this rewriting the algorithm of EEQT by replacing $`t`$ with $`\tau `$ and using our Hilbert space of “solutions.”

We label the reference frame $`K`$. The particle is prepared at proper time $`\tau _0`$ in a point $`x_0=(x_0^0,\stackrel{}{x_0})`$.

We consider $`n`$ detectors with trajectories $`z_j(\tau )`$, $`j=1..n`$. The trajectories start at proper time $`\tau =\tau _0`$ from the backward light-cone of the space-time point of the ’preparation event’:

$`x_0z_j(\tau _0)^2=0,z_j^0(\tau _0)x_0^0`$
We allow detections which happen in the past of the preparation time. But we do not allow detections, if the detection space-time point is located in the backward light-cone of the space-time point of the preparation event.

Each detector is characterized by operators $`G_j(\tau )`$. Let $`G_j^+(\tau )`$ be the adjoint operators. The total coupling between the quantum and the classical system is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau ):=_jG_j^+(\tau )G_j(\tau )`$.

Let $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$ be the state of the total system. We define the following algorithm:

* The particle is prepared in a space-time point $`x_0`$ at proper time $`\tau =\tau _0`$. The quantum state is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}_{}^2=1`$ and the classical state is $`\omega _{\tau _0}=0`$.
* Choose a uniform random number $`r[0,1]`$.
* Propagate the quantum state forward in proper time by solving

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ (13)
until $`\tau =\tau _1`$, where $`\tau _1`$ is defined by

$`1\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _1}_{}^2={\displaystyle _{\tau _0}^{\tau _1}}\tau <\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau |\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau >_{}=r`$
Let $`\omega _\tau =\omega _{\tau _0}`$ until $`\tau =\tau _1`$, a detection happens at proper time $`\tau =\tau _1`$.
* We choose the detector $`k`$ \- which detects the particle - with probability

$`p_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}G_k(\tau _1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _1}_{}^2`$
with $`N=_jG_j(\tau _1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _1}_{}^2`$.
* Let $`l`$ be the detector which detects the particle. The detection happens at the point $`z_l(\tau _1)`$. The detection induces the following change of the states:

$`(\omega _{\tau _1},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _1})(l,{\displaystyle \frac{G_l(\tau _1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _1}}{G_l(\tau _1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _1}_{}}})`$

The algorithm can start again perhaps with other detectors at position (ii).

We want to examine how this algorithm looks like in another reference frame. Let $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ be the reference frames which is connected to $`K`$ by a Poincaré-transformation $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_+^{}`$.

In $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, the situation can be described as follows: the particle is prepared at $`\tau _0`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{x}_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }x_0+a`$ with initial quantum state

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\tau _0}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`(W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0})(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\stackrel{~}{x}a))`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\tau _0}_\stackrel{~}{}^2=1`$ (because the operator $`W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}`$ is unitary). The trajectories of the detectors are $`\stackrel{~}{z}_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }z_i+a`$, and the detectors are characterized by

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_j(\tau )=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}G_j(\tau )W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}^+`$
We get $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\tau )=_j\stackrel{~}{G}_j^+(\tau )\stackrel{~}{G}_j(\tau )=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau )W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}^+`$.

Note, that if $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ is a solution of (13) then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau :=W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ is a solution of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau =W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau )W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\tau )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau `$
This result implies that the algorithm executed in the reference frame $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ will give the same detections as the algorithm executed in $`K`$ (if we choose the same random numbers). The space-time points of the detections in the two reference frames are connected by the Poincaré-transformation $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$.

The system state $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$ in the reference frame $`K`$ and the system state $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau )`$ in the reference frame $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ are always connected in the following way:

$`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\tau )=(\omega _\tau ,W_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$
The algorithm modelling detections of the particle is indeed covariant.

Now we consider the charge conjugated system $`K^C`$. Let

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}^C:=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}^{}^C`$
The charge conjugated coupling is given by

$`G_j^C(\tau )=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}G_j^{}(\tau )\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}C^+`$ (14)
with $`G_j^{}(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }:=(G_j(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }^{})^{}`$. Let

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^C(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}G_j^{C+}(\tau )G_j^C(\tau )=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\tau )\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}C^+`$
Note, that if $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ is a solution of (13) then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^CC\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^{}`$ is a solution of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\tau )\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}C^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^C(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C`$
We also note that

$`G_j^C(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}G_j^{}(\tau )\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}C^+C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^{}=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}(G_j(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )^{}(G_j(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )^C`$
A corollary of this fact is $`G_j^C(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C_^C^2=G_j(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau _{}^2`$ and $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C|\mathrm{\Lambda }^C(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C>_^C=<\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau |\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau >_{}`$.

We can conclude: if we start with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}`$ and operators $`G_j(\tau )`$, then the algorithm will give the same results as if we start with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}^C=C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\tau _0}^{}^C`$ and operators $`G_j^C(\tau )`$ defined in (14) (if we choose the same random numbers).

The state $`(\omega _\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )`$ in the normal system $`K`$ and the state $`(\omega _\tau ^C,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C)`$ in the charge conjugated system $`K^C`$ are again connected by

$`(\omega _\tau ^C,\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^C)=(\omega _\tau ,C\gamma _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau ^{})`$
Again, we demand that the algorithm applied in the “charge conjugated world” or applied in the “normal world” describes the same physical situation.

In the last part of this section, we examine the non-relativistic limit of the above algorithm and prove heuristically that the non-relativistic limit reduces to the algorithm of the non-relativistic EEQT. To establish this fact, we define

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x}):=(U_\tau \mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )(\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau (c\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})`$
with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ being a solution of (13) (we recall that $`U_tU_{((ct,\stackrel{}{0}),\stackrel{}{0},\stackrel{}{0})}`$) and we assume that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau \widehat{}\tau `$. We get

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau \right)(c\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau }{\tau }}(c\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})`$ (15)
$`=H_D\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau (c\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}(U_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau )\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau )(\stackrel{}{x})`$
$`=H_D\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\underset{=:g_j^+(\tau )}{\underset{}{\left[U_\tau G_j^+(\tau )U_\tau ^1\right]}}\underset{=:g_j(\tau )}{\underset{}{\left[U_\tau G_j(\tau )U_\tau ^1\right]}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})`$
We examine the non-relativistic limit of (15) doing the assumption (in analogy with calculations of the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac-equation, see e.g. )

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{\mathrm{}}}\tau \right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ \chi \end{array}\right)`$ (18)
Furthermore, we assume that

$`g_j(\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{j,1}(\tau )& 0\\ 0& g_{j,2}(\tau )\end{array}\right)`$
Inserting (18) in (15), we take the limit $`c\mathrm{}`$ but we keep $`\frac{e}{c}A^k`$. In this way, we obtain the modified equation of the non-relativistic EEQT (see for example )

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^l}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}A^l\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{2mc}}\stackrel{}{\widehat{\sigma }}\stackrel{}{B}+eA^0\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{j,1}^+(\tau )g_{j,1}(\tau )\right]\varphi `$
with $`\widehat{\sigma }^k`$ being the Pauli-matrices. We note that

$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau |\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau >_{}={\displaystyle \stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Omega }^+(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})}\stackrel{c\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{x}\varphi ^+(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})}`$
If we set $`t:=\tau `$, we see immediately that the algorithm of the EEQT is the non-relativistic limit of the above relativistic algorithm.

## 6 Summary

In this paper, we have presented an alternative version of a relativistic extension of the Event-Enhanced Quantum Theory (EEQT). It describes one massive spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle.

We use the idea of an additional time, the proper time, which is invariant in all reference frames (in analogy to the relativistic extension of Blanchard and Jadczyk ).

The total system consists of a quantum part and a classical part analogously to EEQT. A pure state $`\omega _\tau `$ of the classical part at a proper time $`\tau `$ is a number ($`\omega _0`$). A pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ of the quantum part at a proper time $`\tau `$ is (heuristically) a solution of the Dirac equation. We have proved that the solutions of the Dirac equation can be extended to a separable Hilbert space with a positive-definite scalar product. An important property of a quantum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$ is that it is uniquely given by its projection onto a spacelike hyperplane.

The advantage of a positive-definite scalar product must be paid for with a more complicated Hilbert space compared to the relativistic extension of Blanchard and Jadczyk . In that extension, the Hilbert space is simpler but they use an indefinite scalar product.

The transformation rules of a system state (if we change the reference frame) have been presented. They are chosen in such a way that the scalar product between two quantum states is independent of the reference frame.

First, we have postulated a covariant algorithm to simulate ideal, infinitesimal short measurements. We have shown that the (non-covariant) standard reduction postulate formulated in a (preferred) fixed reference frame can be rewritten as a special case of our (covariant) algorithm.

Second, we have postulated a covariant algorithm to simulate detections of a particle. We have shown that the non-relativistic limit of this algorithm reduces to the PDP algorithm of the non-relativistic EEQT.

Moreover, we have shown that both algorithms are invariant by charge conjugation.

We want to end this paper with a summary of the properties of an event in our theory: An event is a change of the (pure) state of the classical part happened at a proper time. An event can be observed without disturbing it. We demand that each event be associated with a point in space-time. In general, if an event happens, the quantum state changes simultaneously and instantaneously over the whole space-time. We do not want to include the principle of relativistic causality explicitly in our formalism: we even allow that an event can happen in the past of the previous (concerning proper time) event. But we want to preserve a weak kind of order, so we demand the following: no event (e.g. preparation, measurement, or detection) can be created in a space-time point which lies in the backward light-cone of that space-time point which is associated with the previously (concerning proper time) created event. All these demands are fulfilled by the events generated by our algorithms.

I would like to thank Ph. Blanchard for many helpful discussions and the critical reading of the manuscript. Thanks to A. Jadczyk for some critical comments.

## References


format: text

text:
# High speed photometry of faint Cataclysmic Variables: II. RS Car, V365 Car, V436 Car, AP Cru, RR Cha, BI Ori, CM Phe and V522 Sgr

## 1 Introduction

The first paper in this series (Woudt & Warner 2001, Paper I) explained the philosophy driving our survey of faint Cataclysmic Variable stars (CVs). In essence, the combinations of basic parameters (masses, mass transfer rates, periods, magnetic fields) and viewing angles (orbital inclination) result in no two CVs appearing alike. Furthermore, there has been a steady increase in revealed new phenomena as larger numbers of CVs have been studied in detail. Also, the advent of 8-m class telescopes opens opportunities for high resolution studies of much fainter CVs than hitherto, so a preliminary examination of such stars down to magnitudes 20 or 21 is now justified in order to discover the more interesting specimens.

The observations reported here were in almost all cases made with the University of Cape Town (UCT) CCD photometer (O’Donoghue 1995) attached to the 1.0-m (40-in) or 1.9-m (74-in) reflectors at the Sutherland site of the South African Astronomical Observatory. As in Paper I, the full wavelength response of the CCD was used, i.e. we observed in white light. Our photometry was calibrated by observing hot white dwarf standards. We have tended to concentrate on faint nova remnants in crowded fields, this having proved a rewarding area for the discovery of objects of particular interest, and one where the UCT CCD photometer reveals its greatest advantages.

The observations are given in Section 2 and some brief conclusions in Section 3. The list of our observations is given in Table 1.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 RS Carinae

RS Car was Nova Carinae 1895, reached a photographic magnitude of at least $`m_{pg}=7.2`$, and was probably a moderately fast nova. Its post-nova quiescent magnitude was thought to be $`>`$22 mag (Duerbeck 1987), but a recent spectroscopic search has located it at $`V18`$, 7<sup>′′</sup> away from its previously estimated position (Bianchini et al. 2001). The spectrum shows a blue continuum with a slope characteristic of an optically thick disc, on which are superimposed strong HeII, NIII/CIII, and moderate Balmer emission lines. The H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width of 20 Å measured by Bianchini et al. (2001), entered into the $`W(H\alpha )`$ – inclination correlation diagram (Warner 1986), indicates an inclination of $``$65.

The log of our photometric observations is included in Table 1. The longest of our light curves is displayed in Fig. 1 and shows a clear modulation with a period near 2 h. From the Fourier transform of the entire data set we measure a period of 1.977 h. The mean light curve at this period is shown in Fig. 2. As expected from the profile, the Fourier spectrum is rich in harmonics; the first, third and higher harmonics are quite strong but the second harmonic is very weak. Prewhitening of the light curve at the fundamental and harmonics leaves no significant features.

We cannot tell from our short baseline whether the periodic brightness variation is an orbital or a superhump modulation. From the gradient of the flux in the spectrum of RS Car, which resembles that of an optically thick accretion disc (Bianchini et al. 2001) and shows that the system is in the high $`\dot{M}`$ state characteristic of an old nova, and the short orbital period (implying a low mass ratio), we expect the accretion disc to be permanently perturbed into an eccentric shape. The period we have found is therefore probably a superhump period, and the orbital period will be a few percent shorter. The profile of the light modulation is characteristic of a superhump.

RS Car joins the small group of classical novae with orbital periods shorter than 2 h. The others are RW UMi ($`P_{orb}`$ = 1.419 h: Retter & Lipkin 2001), GQ Mus ($`P_{orb}`$ = 1.425 h: Diaz et al. 1995), CP Pup ($`P_{orb}`$ = 1.474 h, $`P_{sh}`$ = 1.500 h: Patterson & Warner 1998), and V1974 Cyg ($`P_{orb}`$ = 1.950 h, $`P_{sh}`$ = 2.039 h: Retter, Leibowitz & Ofek 1997).

For a disc inclination of 65, the correction in magnitude to the standard inclination of 57 is $`0.4`$ (Warner 1995). At minimum light RS Car would therefore appear at $`V`$(min) $`18.1`$ at the standard inclination. For a nova with $`t_2=32`$ d and standard inclination, the range of eruption should be $``$13.1 (Figure 5.4 of Warner 1995) which would make RS Car $`V5.0`$ at maximum, which adds support to the suspicion that maximum light was missed (Duerbeck 1987).

### 2.2 V365 Carinae

V365 Car was Nova Carinae 1948, a very slow nova reaching $`m_{pg}=10.1`$ at maximum. It is listed in the Downes, Webbing & Shara (1997) catalogue as $`m_j=21.6`$ at minimum, but photometry by Zwitter & Munari (1996) in 1995 gave $`V=18.31`$, $`UB=0.51`$ and $`BV=0.63`$, and Downes & Duerbeck (2000) give $`V=18.47`$ in 1998. The eruption range of $`9`$ mag is normal for the speed class. The spectrum obtained by Zwitter & Munari shows strong HeII and moderate Balmer emission; the slope of the continuum is shallow because of reddening of this distant low Galactic latitude object. There is no X-ray detection.

Our high speed photometric runs on V365 Car are listed in Table 1 and the two longest light curves, spaced two days apart, are presented in Fig. 3. The Fourier transform of these light curves shows no features other than the fundamental and harmonics associated with the slight upward convexity in the two long runs and the slow flickering. However, the two light curves seen in Fig. 3 show a strong resemblence to each other, which could be the result of a modulation period that is near to a submultiple of the two day spacing, e.g., 6.86 h or 8.0 h. These light curves illustrate a limitation of our photometric survey: despite two long runs of good quality of $``$9 h each, no definitive modulation was detected, and it was deemed not good use of available time to continue on this star. In effect, we are insensitive to low amplitude modulations with periods $`>`$ 8 h.

### 2.3 V436 Carinae

V436 Car was identified as the optical counterpart ($`V15.3`$) of the ROSAT source RX J0744.9-5257, having strong Balmer, moderate HeI and weak HeII emission lines, together with evidence for long term variations in brightness by $`2`$ mag (Motch et al. 1996). Ramsay, Buckley & Cropper (1998) obtained time-resolved spectroscopy and photometry of V436 Car and deduced a probable orbital period of 3.60 h from the former and a possible 2.67 h modulation in the latter. No X-ray periodic modulation was detected, nor any optical polarization. From its X-ray luminosity and the X-ray/optical ratio, Ramsay et al. (1998) suggested that V436 Car may be an intermediate polar, with rotational and magnetic axes nearly aligned.

V436 Car currently has no clear interpretation: its spectrum resembles that of a dwarf nova in quiescence, but its X-ray properties are unlike a dwarf nova and are more nearly those of an intermediate polar.

Our photometric observations on V436 Car are listed in Table 1 and the light curves are illustrated in Fig. 4. The Fourier transform of the combined runs S6039, S6040, S6041, and S6044, is shown in Fig. 5 and is clearly dominated by a periodic signal with an extensive set of harmonics. The period that we find to be most compatible with the aliases of the fundamental and harmonics is $`P_{orb}`$ = 4.207 h. This corresponds closely with the 0.1761 d (= 4.226 h) period reported by Ramsay et al. (1998) to be a strong alias of their spectroscopic period. There is no other convincing coincidence of aliases in the spectroscopic and photometric Fourier transforms. We conclude that our photometric observations have confirmed the results obtained from the spectroscopic study.

The mean light curve at the 4.207 h period is shown in Fig. 6 and has a range of $`\pm `$0.08 mag. Our observations in 2000 January showed that V436 Car had brightened by $``$0.75 mag on the final night of our run (S6044: the amplitude of the fast variations is noticeably reduced by the addition of the constant background, see Fig. 4). In order to investigate the nature of this brightening, the observer on the telescope during the following week – Dr. E. Romero Colmenero – kindly obtained some short runs. The long term light curve is shown in Fig. 7 and shows a rise of about 0.8 mag followed by a decay two days later. The speed of the initial rise (0.75 mag in less than a day) and the time scale of the decay are compatible with a dwarf nova in outburst, but the pause during decline is not, so more frequent monitoring of V436 Car is required in order to settle its CV subtype.

The harmonics of $`P_{orb}`$ seen in Fig. 5 coincide in some cases with the structures in the Fourier transform of the photometric data obtained by Ramsay et al. (1998). Their marked peaks at 62 min and 52 min are the third and fourth harmonics, respectively, and the first harmonic is probably present. The fundamental is not clearly visible in their work because of the dominance of runs with length less than, or about equal to, $`P_{orb}`$.

In addition, Ramsay et al. find considerable power near 24 min and 160 min. The latter they interpret as possibly the signature of an intermediate polar with spin or reprocessing period of 2.67 h.

As can be seen from the Fourier transform of the total data set (Fig. 5), we do not see any persistent modulations at these or other periods (though there is a broad feature centred on $``$400 $`\mu `$Hz $``$ 42 min). On individual nights, however, there are significant peaks in the Fourier transforms (e.g., $``$25 min in S6039, $``$14.8 min and $``$23 min in S6040, $``$27.3 min in S6041 and $``$30.5 min in S6044). These are characteristic of the quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) seen in CVs (e.g., Woudt & Warner 2002). There is also a significant band of power at $``$123 s in run S6040 and dwarf nova oscillations (DNOs) at $``$40 s in the second half of run S6039. These QPOs and DNOs will be analysed in detail elsewhere.

It should be noted that no intermediate polar has been seen to possess DNOs, and that this is a natural consequence of the magnetic accretion model for DNOs (Warner & Woudt 2002).

We conclude that there is no evidence that V436 Car is an intermediate polar.

### 2.4 AP Crucis

AP Cru was Nova Crucis 1936, reaching $`m_{pg}=10.7`$, and is listed in the Downes et al. (1997) catalogue at $`m_j=21.7`$. There were no spectra obtained during eruption and no detailed light curve was obtained, which leaves the classification of AP Cru uncertain – even its status as a nova is unclear, though the eruption range of 11 mag is strongly suggestive. Munari & Zwitter (1998) obtained a spectrum that shows AP Cru to be uncharacteristic of CVs: it has an absorption spectrum like a K7 star with quite strong and very narrow H$`\alpha `$ emission superimposed. They also obtained $`V=18.68`$, $`BV=1.37`$ and $`UB=0.60`$. There is no X-ray detection of AP Cru.

Our four high speed photometric runs are listed in Table 1 and the light curves are shown in Fig. 8. In the three longer runs there is evidence for modulation on a time scale of $``$ 2.5 hours. Combining the two long runs made in 2000 March produces the Fourier transform shown in Fig. 10, where the mean magnitude and trend has been removed from the individual light curves. From this we obtain a period of 2.56 h.

AP Cru was 0.6 – 0.9 mag brighter during our photometric runs than when Munari & Zwitter (1998) obtained their spectrum. We suggest that the star was in a state of very low or zero rate of mass transfer then, revealing the K7 secondary with H$`\alpha `$ emission from its chromosphere (heated by radiation from the primary). The additional luminosity present during our observations arises from an accretion disc produced by the resumption of mass transfer. However, the additional luminosity is only about equal to that of the secondary, so the flux from AP Cru (especially in the red, where our CCD is most sensitive) will continue to be dominated by that from the secondary. Consequently, we expect that our observed 2.56 h modulation is caused by ellipsoidal variation of the secondary, and therefore the orbital period is 5.12 h. The latter period is more compatible with the Spectral Type – $`P_{orb}`$ correlation for CVs (see Figure 1 of Smith & Dhillon 1998) than is 2.5 h. The mean light curves for each long run, calculated from the 2.56 h periodicity, are shown in Fig. 9.

The Fourier transform (Fig. 10) shows a significant band of power around 500 $`\mu `$Hz. On examining this in detail, we discovered that it is due to a coherent modulation, broadened by amplitude modulation. The signal is present in all four of our light curves and has a period of 1837 s (30.61 min). Some maxima of this modulation in run S6075 are marked in Fig. 8. The mean light curves at 1837 s for our three long runs are shown in Fig. 11; the amplitude is noticeably larger in S6094 when the system was brighter.

A persistent signal of this kind is characteristic of an intermediate polar. Unfortunately, AP Cru is at low Galactic latitude (2) and at a large distance, so it is unlikely to be detectable in the X-ray region ($`P_{orb}5`$ h gives $`M_V10.3`$ for the secondary (Warner 1995); combined with the apparent magnitude at the time of Munari & Zwitter’s observation this gives a distance of $`>`$ 500 pc even without allowance for reddening).

### 2.5 RR Chamaeleontis

RR Cha reached at least $`m_{pg}=7.1`$ at maximum as Nova Chamaeleontis 1953. It was a moderately fast nova and is listed in the Downes et al. (1997) catalogue at $`m_j=19.3`$. Gill & O’Brien (1998) have detected a nova shell around RR Cha. Zwitter & Munari (1996) found $`V=18.93`$ and obtained a spectrum showing strong HeII and Balmer emission characteristic of a hot post-nova.

Our high speed photometric observations of RR Cha are listed in Table 1 and the light curves appear in Fig. 12. It can be seen that RR Cha is an eclipsing system with large humps that do not remain locked in orbital phase – they appear to be superhumps. The varying depth of the eclipses seen in Fig. 12 is another characteristic of a superhumping system.

The orbital period determined from the eclipses in the three nights of 2001 February, is 3.362 h. The gap between the 2001 February (group 1) and 2001 May (group 2) observations is too large to bridge in order to get a more precise period. The ephemeris derived from group 1 is

$$\mathrm{HJD}_{\mathrm{min}}=2451965.5964+0.1401\mathrm{E}$$
(1)
Because of the presence of narrow eclipses, Fourier transforms of the light curves of RR Cha are dominated by the fundamental and harmonics of the orbital period. We therefore removed the eclipses from the light curves and the resulting Fourier transforms are shown in Fig. 13.

We will start by describing the Fourier transform of the combined two nights of group 2 (lower panel of Fig. 13). Removal of the orbital harmonics (as a result of excising the eclipses) reveals a harmonic structure on the lower frequency wings of the orbital harmonics. This is due to a non-sinusoidal modulation with a period of 3.466 h (80.1 $`\mu `$Hz). The peak at 120.9 $`\mu `$Hz we suspect is an artefact due to a short data length in one of the observing runs. The 3.466 h modulation is probably a positive superhump, with a period 3.1% longer than the orbital period.

A striking feature of the Fourier transform is the presence of a strong modulation at a period near 1970 s. This is far removed from a harmonic of either the orbital or the superhump periods. There are three aliases in this peak: 1954 s, 1976 s and 2000 s. The first harmonic of this modulation is only just visible above the noise in the Fourier transform.

In the Fourier transform of the three nights of group 1 (upper panel of Fig. 13), the dominant feature is the window pattern centred on 3.271 h. This is almost purely sinusoidal, the amplitude of the harmonics is very low. This is evidently a negative superhump, with a period 2.7% shorter than the orbital period. Because the superhump amplitude varies, the harmonics have additional components caused by amplitude modulation.

In group 1, the $``$1970 s modulation again appears strongly, with three aliases: 1859 s, 1903 s and 1948 s. We are able to select among these aliases by appeal to the first harmonic of the $``$1970 s modulation, where we find 964 s, 976 s and 988 s, respectively. This determines a unique solution, i.e. 1950 s = 32.5 min. This peak coincides with the 1954 s alias in the 2001 May observations. In the upper panel of Fig. 13 it can be seen that the 5th harmonic of the negative superhump, if it were present, would be close to the 1950 s peak. They can, however, be clearly distinguished from each other: the window pattern is of the 1950 s modulation, the 5th harmonic would lie at a minimum of this pattern. The higher amplitude of the 1950 s modulation is at times very obvious in the light curve, see Fig. 12.

The high stability of the 1950 s modulation excludes the possibility of quasi-periodic oscillations of the kind often seen in CVs (e.g. VW Hyi: Woudt & Warner 2002; Warner & Woudt 2002). This modulation and the high ionization emission lines seen in the spectrum, mentioned above, point to RR Cha being an intermediate polar (e.g. Warner 1995). RR Cha is not detected in the ROSAT survey (G. Israel, private communication), which is not unexpected given the high inclination with resulting obscuration of X-rays by the disc. We conclude that RR Cha is an eclipsing old nova in which both positive and negative superhumps occur, and furthermore it is an intermediate polar. We cannot tell from the Fourier transforms whether the 1950 s modulation is the spin period of the white dwarf or a reprocessed period. RR Cha offers great potential for examining the interaction between the rotating beam of radiation from the white dwarf and the structures (e.g. elliptical prograde precessing disc, and/or retrogradely precessing tilted disc) in the system.

### 2.6 BI Orionis

BI Ori is classified as a dwarf nova, perhaps of Z Cam type, with a listed range $`V`$ = 13.2 – 16.7. Bateson, McIntosh & Stubbings (1997) find a mean outburst interval of 22 d and two types of outburst. No orbital period is known and only $``$ 2 h of high speed photometry has been published (Szkody 1987), which shows flickering at minimum light. The spectrum at quiescence shows the strong Balmer emission characteristic of a dwarf nova; the lines are broad and possibly double, indicative of a system of moderate inclination (Szkody 1987). BI Ori is a weak ROSAT source (Richman 1996).

Our observations of BI Ori are listed in Table 1. The brightening on 2001 October 11 was also recorded by the AAVSO, as an isolated observation. Our observations show that it was still bright on October 15, which puts it into the long outburst duration category of Bateson et al. (1997).

The high speed photometry shown in Fig. 14 shows the flickering typical of a dwarf nova in quiescence and its reduction in amplitude during outburst. In none of the light curves is there a hint of an orbital modulation. Fourier transforms of the light curves reveal no short time scale periodicities.

### 2.7 CM Pheonix

CM Phe, designated Phe1 in the Downes et al. (1997) catalogue, is a nova-like variable which was for many years misidentified until recovered by Jaidee & Lyngâ (1969) and confirmed to be a rapidly flickering object by Koen & O’Donoghue (1995). Hoard & Wachter (1998) found $`V`$ = 15.3 and confirmed rapid photometric variability. In a medium-resolution spectrum they found strong H$`\alpha `$ and moderate strength He I emission on a blue continuum, but also detected TiO bands from a secondary component estimated to have spectral type M2–5.

The existing high speed photometry being of short duration and limited interpretational value, we added CM Phe to our candidate list. The observations we made in December 2000 were barely sufficient to give an unambiguous determination of orbital modulation, but in the meantime a more extensive study has been published by Hoard, Wachter & Kim-Quijano (2001; hereafter HWK), so we terminated our own work and use it here only to supplement that of HWK.

Our observing runs are listed in Table 1. For the last two of our runs we used the SAAO CCD photometer instead of the UCT CCD photometer (which we used simultaneously on the 1.9-m telescope). The data taken with the SAAO CCD were uncalibrated. The Fourier amplitude spectrum of the whole data set is shown in Fig. 15. Guided by the conclusion of HWK, namely that the light curve has two unequal maxima and minima in each cycle, we list candidates for the fundamental, first and second harmonics (ordered by amplitude at each harmonic) in Table 2.

We have quoted the periods at the maxima of the peaks (in the Fourier transform) and their one-day aliases, without formal error estimates, which are difficult to estimate realistically. Looking first at the first harmonic, our values are identical within errors to the values 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1552 (21) and 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1348 (17) found by HWK. For the fundamental HWK deduced 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$2667 (62) as the most probable, on the grounds that it is close to twice the period of the 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1348 1st harmonic, and that they found no significant amplitude at 2 $`\times `$ 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1552. In our case, our 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$325 candidate for the fundamental is closer to 2 $`\times `$ 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1556 than 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$245 is to 2 $`\times `$ 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1345. However, appeal to the second harmonic produces an unambiguous choice.

We note first that the cleaned power spectrum produced by HWK has a peak at 11.2 d$`{}_{}{}^{1}0.^\mathrm{d}089`$, i.e. $`\frac{1}{3}\times 0.^\mathrm{d}2667`$, but not at the 2nd harmonic of any 1 day<sup>-1</sup> alias of 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$2667. Their 2nd harmonic matches ours of 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$0900; both are close to $`\frac{2}{3}`$ of our well determined first harmonic at 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1556. On the other hand, our alias at 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$0976 is not close to $`\frac{2}{3}`$ of either of our candidate values of the first harmonic.

In conclusion, we confirm HWK’s choice of aliases: the fundamental period is 2 $`\times `$ 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$1345 = 0$`.^\mathrm{d}`$2690. With our baseline of 9 d, compared to HWK’s 5d, we expect our determination of the period to be of slightly higher precision. A non-linear least squares fit of a sinusoid to the first harmonic in our data provides the following ephemeris for the times of the deepest of the minima:

$$\mathrm{HJD}_{\mathrm{min}}=2451900.4561+0.2689(\pm 7)\mathrm{E}$$
(2)
The mean light curve folded on this period is shown in Fig. 16.

In the shorter period domain we have found no significant modulations below periods of $``$500 s. There is, however, an interesting difference in the flickering amplitude as registered by the UCT CCD photometer and the SAAO CCD photometer. The former has good sensitivity in the blue and near UV, whereas the latter has high red and near-infrared sensitivity but very low short wavelength efficiency. All of our light curves obtained with the UCT instrument shows high speed activity – an example is given in the upper panel of Fig. 17. In contrast, all the light curves obtained with the SAAO instrument are smooth and apparently free of rapid activity – for an example see lower panel of Fig. 17. We consider this to be in accord with the conclusion of HWK that the double wave modulation is due to ellipsoidal variation of the red secondary, to which is added accretion-related flickering that has a higher energy flux distribution.

### 2.8 V522 Saggitarii

V522 Sgr was discovered at $`m_{pg}`$ 12.9 in August 1931 and faded to $`V17.5`$ (Duerbeck 1987; Downes et al. 1997). The small amplitude is uncharacteristic of a nova, leaving the possibility that V522 Sgr is a dwarf nova (Duerbeck 1987). However, the spectrum of the candidate nova remnant is that of a G2 – K5 star (Ringwald, Naylor & Mukai 1996), throwing doubt on the correctness of its identification.

We obtained one high speed photometric run centred on the nova candidate (Table 1). The candidate and all but one of the other stars in the vicinity showed no flickering activity. The only non-constant star is 6 seconds of arc south of the candidate (a finding chart is given in Fig. 18) at $`V`$ 19.0, and showed some slow low amplitude flickering in the last half of our run. We suggest this to be the true remnant of Nova Saggitarii 1931. However, the image is elongated which suggests it is a blend of two stars each of magnitude $``$ 19.7. This would give a revised eruption amplitude of $``$ 6.8 mag which is still compatible with a long interval outbursting dwarf nova of the WZ Sge type.

## 3 Conclusions

We have presented high speed photometry for eight faint CVs, of which five are old novae. Periodic modulations are definitely detected in three of the five novae, giving orbital periods for two (AP Cru and RR Cha) and a probable superhump period for RS Car. In addition, a possible long period modulation of undetermined period is found in V365 Car. An alternative candidate is proposed from the remnant of Nova Saggitarii 1931.

RR Cha is found also to be an intermediate polar candidate, with a period of 32.5 min (which could be either the spin period of the white dwarf or its orbital sideband). RR Cha is therefore a deeply eclipsing intermediate polar – and in addition it shows positive superhumps and negative superhumps.

AP Cru is also an intermediate polar candidate, with an observed period of 30.61 min

The nova-like variable V436 Car has a photometric period of 4.207 h, which is an alias of the spectroscopic period previously found by Ramsay et al. (1998) but does not show the 2.67 h modulation which led those authors to propose its intermediate polar candidature. Instead, we find it to have DNOs near 40 s, which is compatible with previous findings that intermediate polars and DNOs do not co-exist.

For BI Ori we find no orbital modulation in the range of periods accessible to us.

From our photometry of CM Phe, made without knowledge of that being carried out by HWK, we concur with their choice of $`P_{orb}`$ from among the various harmonics and aliases.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. D. O’Donoghue for the use of his EAGLE program for Fourier analysis of the light curves. Dr. G. Israel kindly searched in the ROSAT database at our request. We kindly acknowledge Dominic de Guzman. PAW is funded partly through strategic funds made available to BW by the University of Cape Town. BW’s research is funded entirely by that university.