text:
# Completion of semirings11footnote 1 In 1985 I wrote a diploma thesis (in German) on “completion of semirings” at the Institute of Algebra at the Vienna University of Technology. My advisor was Werner Kuich. I never published my thesis, but some people have expressed an interest in seeing it, and references to it appear in a few published papers or books ([2], [6],[5], [8], [1]). So here is an English summary.

## Definitions and easy facts

###### Definition 1.

A semiring is a structure $`(S,+,,0,1)`$ such that $`(S,+,0)`$ is a commutative monoid, $`(S,,1)`$ is a monoid, and the two distributive laws $`x(y+z)=xy+xz`$, $`(y+z)x=yx+zx`$ hold.

###### Definition 2.

A complete semiring $`(S,+,,0,1,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a semiring in which for any family $`(a_i:iI)`$ the infinite sum $`_{iI}a_i`$ is defined, and the function $``$ satisfies the following:

* If $`I=\{j,j^{}\}`$ has two elements, then $`_{iI}a_i=a_j+a_j^{}`$
* If $`f:IJ`$ is a bijection, and $`a_i=b_{f(i)}`$ for all $`iI`$, then $`_{iI}a_i=_{jJ}b_j`$
* Whenever $`I=_{kK}J_k`$ is a disjoint union of sets, and $`b_k:=_{jJ_k}a_j`$ for all $`kK`$, then $`_{iI}a_i=_{kK}b_k`$.
* $`x\left(_{iI}a_i\right)=_{iI}(xa_i)`$, $`\left(_{iI}a_i\right)x=_{iI}(a_ix)`$.
* If all $`a_i`$ are $`=0`$, then $`_{iI}a_i=0`$.

###### Remark 3.

If $`S`$ is a complete semiring, then there are cardinal numbers $`\lambda _1`$ (the “characteristic cardinality” of $`S`$, similar to the characteristic of a field) and $`\lambda _S\mathrm{max}(\lambda _1,\text{cardinality of }S)`$ such that

* For any set $`I`$ there is a subset $`JI`$ of cardinality $`\lambda _1`$ such that $`_{iI}1=_{iJ}1`$
* For any set $`I`$ there is a subset $`JI`$ of cardinality $`\lambda _S`$ such that $`_{iI}a_i=_{iJ}a_i`$

This makes it possible to view the function $``$ as a set rather than a proper class.

###### Definition 4.

A complete semiring is called d-complete if for all $`(a_i:i=1,2,3,\mathrm{})`$ we have:

> If $`a_1+\mathrm{}+a_k=c`$ for all $`k`$, then $`_{i\{1,2,\mathrm{}\}}a_i=c`$.

Thus, in a d-complete semiring at least the “discrete convergence” will be respected by countable sums.

$`^{(\mathrm{})}`$ (the natural numbers together with infinity) is a d-complete semiring. If $`S`$ is a d-complete semiring, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is any “alphabet”, then the set $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, the formal power series over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with coefficients in $`S`$, will again naturally form a d-complete semiring.

In , the notion of $`\omega `$-continuity was developed, which is a variant of d-completeness.

###### Definition 5.

An “ordered semiring” is a semiring with a partial order $``$ such that the operations $`+`$ and $``$ are weakly monotone in both arguments, and $`0`$ is the least element. In particular, this implies $`aa+x`$ for all $`a,x`$.

On every semiring (or even any monoid) we can define a transitive reflexive relation $``$ by

$$abx(a+x=b)$$

This relation is a quasiorder, called the “natural quasiorder” on $`(S,+)`$.

###### Fact 6.

Let $`(S,+,,0,1)`$ be a semiring. The following are equivalent:

1. There exists an ordered semiring $`T`$ such that $`S`$ is isomorphic to a subsemiring of $`T`$.
2. $`S`$ can be ordered”, i.e.: there exists a partial order on $`S`$ making $`S`$ into an ordered semiring.
3. The natural quasiorder is antisymmetric (i.e., a partial order).
4. For all $`a,x,yS`$: ( $`a+x+y=a`$ implies $`a+x=a`$).

###### Definition 7.

A complete ordered semiring is called “finitary” if: For any $`(a_i:iI)`$, the sum $`_{iI}a_i`$ is the least upper bound of all finite subsums:

$$\underset{iI}{}a_i=sup\{\underset{iF}{}a_i:FI\text{ finite}\}$$

###### Fact 8.

Every finitary semiring is d-complete.

The characteristic cardinality of any finitary semiring is at most $`\mathrm{}_0`$.

## Main theorem

###### Theorem 9.

Let $`(S,+,,0,1,)`$ be an ordered semiring. Then there is a finitary (complete ordered) semiring $`\overline{S}`$ such that $`S`$ is a subsemiring of $`\overline{S}`$ (with the induced order).

Moreover, the construction $`S\overline{S}`$ is “universal”, that is: For all finitary semirings $`T`$ and all embeddings $`f:ST`$ (respecting the semiring operations and the order) there is a unique embedding $`\overline{f}:\overline{S}T`$ (respecting semiring operations, order, and therefore also $``$) such that $`\overline{f}`$ extends $`f`$.

In other words: Let $`𝔒`$ be the category of ordered semirings (where maps have to preserve order and the semiring operations), and let $`𝔉`$ be the category of finitary semirings, $`U:𝔉𝔒`$ the forgetful functor. Then the map $`S\overline{S}`$ is a left adjoint to $`U`$.
However, see example 13.

###### Proof.

Let $`S^{}`$ be the free (multiplicative) monoid over $`S`$ (consisting of all formal words with letters in the alphabet $`S`$, including the empty word), and let $`S^{}`$ be the set of formal polynomials over the alphabet $`S`$ with coefficients in $``$ (i.e., maps from $`S^{}`$ into $``$ which are 0 except on a finite set), with pointwise addition, and multiplication defined by the Cauchy product.

Let $`^{(\mathrm{})}:=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$, and let $`^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}`$ be the set of formal power series over the alphabet $`S`$ with coefficients in $`^{(\mathrm{})}`$ (i.e., the set of all functions from $`S^{}`$ to $`^{(\mathrm{})}`$, again with addition defined pointwise, and the Cauchy product.

$`S^{}`$ is a semiring. As as set (but not as a semiring), $`S`$ is naturally embedded in $`S^{}`$ through a map $`e:SS^{}`$. There is a natural semiring homomorphism (the “evaluation map”) $`\phi :S^{}S`$, satisfying $`\phi (e(s))=s`$ for all $`sS`$.

$`^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}`$ is a finitary complete semiring (with the natural order), and $`S^{}`$ is to a subsemiring of $`^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}`$. We will find $`\overline{S}`$ as a homomorphic image of $`^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S^{}& & ^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}\\ e\phi & & \kappa \\ S& \mathrm{}& \overline{S}\end{array}$$

For $`r,s^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}`$ define $`rs`$ iff

> For all $`pS^{}`$ with $`p_{^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}}r`$ there exists $`qS^{}`$, $`q_{^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}}s`$, and $`\phi (p)_S\phi (q)`$.

Now check that the relation $`rs:rs\&sr`$ is a congruence relation on the semiring $`^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}`$. Moreover, this congruence relation also respects infinite sums, so

$$\overline{S}:=^{(\mathrm{})}S^{}/$$

is a complete semiring. Clearly $`S`$ is embedded in $`\overline{S}`$ as an ordered semiring.

It is easy to see that $`\overline{S}`$ is actually a complete finitary semiring.

For the “moreover” part: note that a partially ordered semiring can be made into a complete finitary semiring in at most one way. This fact helps to show that the construction $`S\overline{S}`$ is universal.

###### Corollary 10.

Let $`(S,+,,0,1)`$ be a semiring. The following are equivalent:

1. $`S`$ can be ordered.
2. $`S`$ is a subsemiring of some d-complete semiring.
3. $`S`$ is a subsemiring of some complete finitary semiring.

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (3) is proved in theorem 9.

(3) $``$ (2) is trivial.

(2) $``$ (1): Assume that $`a+x+y=a`$. Then $`a=a+(x+y)+(x+y)+(x+y)+\mathrm{}=(a+x)+(y+x)+(y+x)+\mathrm{}=a+x`$. ∎

My thesis contained also the following remark:

###### Fact 11.

Let $`(S,+,,0,1)`$ be a semiring. The following are equivalent:

1. $`S`$ is zero sum free (i.e., $`x+y=0`$ implies $`x=y=0`$.)
2. $`S`$ is a subsemiring of some complete semiring.

###### Proof.

(2) $``$ (1): Similar to Corollary 10, (2) $``$ (1).

(1) $``$ (2): Adjoin an element $`\mathrm{}`$, and declare $`_{iI}a_i=\mathrm{}`$ iff the set $`\{i:a_i0\}`$ is infinite, or if for some $`i`$ we have $`a_i=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

However, it is not clear that this completion will satisfy the infinite distributivity law.

## Examples

1. Let $`S=`$, then $`\overline{S}=^{(\mathrm{})}`$.
2. Let $`S`$ be the semiring of finite subsets of some set $`X`$, together with $`X`$ itself, with addition=union, multiplication=intersection. Then $`\overline{S}`$ is the full powerset of $`X`$.
3. Let $`S`$ be the set of finite formal languages $`L\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ over an alphabet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`L_1+L_2=L_1L_2`$, $`L_1L_2=\{vw:vL_1,wL_2\}`$.
Then $`\overline{S}`$ is the set of all formal languages over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.
4. Example of a complete but not d-complete semiring: $`\{0,\text{finite},\text{infinite}\}`$, with the obvious operations.
5. Example of a d-complete nonfinitary semiring:

$$\{0,\text{finite},\text{countable},\text{uncountable}\}$$

with the obvious operations. This semiring has uncountable characteristic cardinality.

###### Remark 12.

Finitary semirings are d-complete and have characteristic cardinality $`\mathrm{}_0`$.

The converse is true for finite semirings: If $`S`$ is finite, d-complete and has characteristic cardinality $`\mathrm{}_0`$, then $`S`$ is finitary.

Example of a d-complete semiring with characteristic cardinality $`\mathrm{}_0`$ which is not finitary:

$$\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}2,\mathrm{}1,\mathrm{}\}$$

with the obvious operations, e.g.: $`n+(\mathrm{}k)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`nk`$, and $`\mathrm{}(kn)`$ otherwise

The following example shows that the restriction to finitary semirings in theorem 9 is reasonable.

###### Example 13.

There is no embedding $`f`$ from $``$ into a complete semiring $`𝔑`$ such that

> For all complete semirings $`C`$ and all semiring embeddings $`g:C`$ there is a complete semiring embedding $`h:𝔑C`$ with $`hf=g`$.

###### Proof.

Use $`C`$ with a large characteristic cardinality. ∎

Martin Goldstern
Algebra, TU Wien
Wiedner Hauptstr 8–10 / 118
A-1040 Wien
Österreich / Austria (Europe)
goldstern@tuwien.ac.at
http://info.tuwien.ac.at/goldstern/


format: text

text:
# Subsurface magnetic fields from helioseismology

## 1 Introduction

Helioseismology has been successful in probing the spherically symmetric structure (Gough et al. 1996) of the Sun as well as the rotation rate in its interior (Thompson et al. 1996; Schou et al. 1998). To the first order, rotation affects only the frequency splitting coefficients which represent odd terms in the azimuthal order $`m`$ of the oscillation modes. The even terms in these splitting coefficients, can arise from second order effects of rotation, magnetic field or any latitudinal dependence in the structure. It is not possible to distinguish between the effects of a magnetic field and aspherical perturbations to the solar structure (Zweibel & Gough 1995).

The even order splitting coefficients are fairly small, and no definitive results have so far been obtained regarding the magnetic field strength in the solar interior. Dziembowski & Goode (1989) using data from the Big Bear Solar Observatory claimed to find evidence for a mega Gauss field near the base of the convection zone. Improved data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) project (Hill et al. 1996) and the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) instrument (Rhodes et al. 1997) on board the SOHO satellite has not confirmed these results (Antia et al. 2000).

Instead of a magnetic field one can invoke aspherical structure to explain the even coefficients of frequency splittings. In this case, it is possible to apply an inversion technique to determine the latitudinal dependence in solar structure variables like the sound speed and density (Antia et al. 2001a). The advantage of this approach is that it can give the location of perturbation giving rise to the observed even splitting coefficients.

The GONG and MDI instruments have been observing the Sun for the last 7 years and it is also possible to study possible temporal variation in the internal magnetic field. It is well known that the frequencies of solar oscillations vary with time and this variation is correlated with solar activity (Elsworth et al. 1990; Libbrecht & Woodard 1990). Similarly, the even splitting coefficients are also known to vary with time and their variation is correlated to the corresponding component of observed magnetic flux at the solar surface (Libbrecht & Woodard 1990; Woodard & Libbrecht 1993; Howe et al. 1999; Antia et al. 2001a). However, most of these temporal variations are found to arise from perturbation near the solar surface (Basu & Antia 2000; Antia et al. 2001a). There is little evidence for any significant temporal variations in the solar structure below the thin surface layers.

Inversions for rotation rate (Thompson et al. 1996; Schou et al. 1998) have shown that the observed differential rotation at the solar surface continues through the convection zone, while in the radiative interior the rotation rate is more or less independent of latitude. The transition takes place close to the base of the convection zone in a region which has been named as the tachocline (Spiegel & Zahn 1992). It is generally believed that the solar dynamo operates in the tachocline region. Hence it would be interesting to look at the temporal variations in the solar structure and rotation rate in the tachocline region. Howe et al. (2000) found a 1.3 year periodicity in the equatorial rotation rate at $`r=0.72R_{}`$. But other investigations (Antia & Basu 2000; Corbard et al. 2001) did not find any systematic variation in the same region. Helioseismic inversions are unreliable in the tachocline region and the properties of the tachocline have been studied using forward modelling approach (Kosovichev 1996; Antia et al. 1998; Charbonneau et al. 1999). These results have also not shown any significant temporal variations in the tachocline properties (Basu & Antia 2001).

Although no temporal variations have been seen in the tachocline properties, there is a definite latitudinal variation in the position and possibly also in the thickness of the tachocline (Charbonneau et al. 1999; Basu & Antia 2001). On the other hand, there is no latitudinal variation in the depth of the convection zone or the solar structure in the tachocline region. These results appear to be contradictory as it is believed that the tachocline region is mixed by some rotationally induced instability (Richard et al. 1996; Brun et al. 1999). Hence, it would be interesting to study the latitudinal variation in the tachocline with accumulated data over the last seven years.

The global modes of oscillations used in these studies can only give information about the large scale structure and magnetic field in the solar interior. To study smaller features like active regions we need to use local helioseismic techniques, like the time-distance analysis (Duvall et al. 1993) or the ring diagram technique (Hill 1988). In this work we present some results obtained using the ring diagram technique, while the time-distance analysis of active regions is described by Kosovichev (2002).

## 2 Effect of a magnetic field on solar oscillations frequencies

In the absence of rotation or magnetic field the frequencies of solar oscillations are independent of the azimuthal order $`m`$. Rotation or magnetic field break this degeneracy leading to splitting of frequencies with the same radial order $`n`$ and degree $`\mathrm{}`$. The frequencies of solar oscillations can be expressed in terms of the splitting coefficients:

$$\nu _{n,\mathrm{},m}=\nu _{n,\mathrm{}}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{J_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}a_j^{n,\mathrm{}}𝒫_j^{\mathrm{}}(m),(J_{\mathrm{max}}2\mathrm{})$$
(1)
where $`𝒫_j^{\mathrm{}}(m)`$ are orthogonal polynomials of degree $`j`$ in $`m`$ (Ritzwoller & Lavely 1991; Schou et al. 1994). The odd coefficients $`a_1,a_3,a_5,\mathrm{}`$, can be used to infer the rotation rate in the solar interior, while the even coefficients arise basically from second order effects due to rotation and magnetic field. Since forces due to rotation or magnetic field in the solar interior are smaller by about 5 orders of magnitude as compared to the gravitational forces, it is possible to apply a perturbative treatment to calculate their contribution to frequency splittings (Gough & Thompson 1990). Since the rotation rate in the solar interior can be inferred from the odd splitting coefficients, we can use this inferred profile to calculate the expected contributions to the even splitting coefficients from the second order effects of rotation. This calculated contribution can be subtracted out from the observed splitting coefficients to get the residuals which may be due to a magnetic field or other asphericities.

For simplicity we consider only a toroidal magnetic field, taken to be of the form,

$$𝐁=[0,0,a(r)\frac{dP_k}{d\theta }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{}],$$
(2)
with the axis of symmetry coinciding with the rotation axis. Here, $`P_k(x)`$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $`k`$ and

$$a(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{8\pi p_0\beta _0}(1(\frac{rr_0}{d})^2)\hfill & \text{if }|rr_0|d\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`p_0`$ is the gas pressure, $`\beta _0`$ is a constant giving the ratio of magnetic to gas pressure, $`r_0`$ and $`d`$ are constants defining the mean position and half-thickness of layer where the field is concentrated.

### 2.1 The seismic data

We use data sets from both GONG and MDI for this study. The solar oscillations frequencies and the splitting coefficients from the GONG project (Hill et al. 1996) were obtained from 108 day time series. The MDI data were obtained from 72-day time series (Schou 1999). These data sets consists of the mean frequency and the splitting coefficients for each $`n,\mathrm{}`$ multiplet. We use the 62 data sets from GONG covering a period from May 7, 1995 to July 21, 2001. Each set covers data from 108 days with a spacing of 36 days between consecutive data sets. The MDI data sets (Schou 1999) consist of 28 non-overlapping sets covering a period from May 1, 1996 to March 30, 2002, with a break between July 1998 and January 1999 when the contact with SOHO was lost.

### 2.2 Field near the base of the convection zone

Since there have been some suggestions that a toroidal magnetic field may be concentrated near the base of the convection zone (Dziembowski & Goode 1989) we consider splitting coefficients arising from such a field with $`r_0=0.713R_{}`$, $`d=0.02R_{}`$, $`\beta _0=10^4`$ and $`k=2`$. Figure 1 shows the resulting splitting coefficients $`a_2`$ as a function of the lower turning point of the modes. These coefficients show a characteristic signature which should be detectable in the observed splittings if a strong enough magnetic field is indeed present in these layers. The errors in observed splitting coefficients is too large to show this signal and hence we take averages over neighbouring modes to reduce error bars. The resulting $`a_2`$ after subtracting out the contribution due to rotation is shown in the right panel of Fig. 1, which also shows the expected signal averaged in the same manner for a magnetic field with $`\beta _0=10^4`$. The MDI data is from the first year of observation and the GONG data is from averaged spectrum for GONG months 4–14. Both these data sets are from observations around the minimum in solar activity. From this figure it can be seen that there is no clear signature of any feature near the base of the convection zone in the observed splittings. Thus we can only set an upper limit on the magnetic field in this layer, which will of course, depend on the thickness of the magnetic layer. For a layer with half-thickness of $`0.02R_{}`$ the upper limit turns out to be $`\beta _0=7\times 10^5`$ or a magnetic field strength of 300 kG near the base of the convection zone (Antia et al. 2000). Similar limits have been obtained by Basu (1997). This limit is consistent with the value independently inferred by D’Silva & Choudhuri (1993).

### 2.3 Field in the upper convection zone

Looking at Fig. 1 it appear that there is no signature of a magnetic field in the radiative interior, as the observed splitting coefficients fall off smoothly with depth of the lower turning point. The only noticeable feature in the observed splitting coefficients is the peak around $`r=0.96R_{}`$. If this peak is solely due to a magnetic field, the field may be distributed around this depth. This is approximately the depth to which the outer shear layer in rotation profile extends (Antia et al. 1998; Schou et al. 1998). Comparison with expected splittings from magnetic field indicates that the observed peak may be due to a field with $`\beta _0=10^4`$ (or $`B20`$ kG) concentrated around $`r=0.96R_{}`$ (Antia et al. 2000).

We do not expect an ordered large scale magnetic field inside the convection zone. It is possible that there is a concentration of randomised magnetic field at this depth which gives rise to the observed peak in the splitting coefficients. The splitting due to such a field will be quite different from what we have calculated and hence it is difficult to get the exact form or strength of the magnetic field from these calculations. Alternately, it is possible that this peak is due to departure from spherical symmetry in solar structure. This question is discussed in the next section. This feature is found to be present in all data sets and does not appear to depend significantly on the solar activity level.

## 3 Asphericity in the solar structure

Apart from second order contributions from rotation, which can be easily estimated, the even splitting coefficients can arise from either a magnetic field or departures from spherical symmetry in solar structure. We have discussed the first possibility in the previous section. In this section we consider the other possibility. The departure from spherical symmetry can arise due to magnetic field (in which case this is included in the calculations described in the previous section) or may arise because the Sun may not be in strict hydrostatic equilibrium as is the case inside the convection zone. There could be other contributions to pressure, e.g., turbulent pressure, which are not isotropic and these may cause departure from spherical symmetry. Leaving aside the origin of asphericity we attempt to generalise the structure inversion technique to include departures from spherical symmetry. The splitting coefficients are sensitive only to the north-south symmetric component of asphericity and hence only this component can be determined. The differences in the sound speed, $`c`$, and the density, $`\rho `$, with respect to a spherically symmetric solar model can be calculated using (Antia et al. 2001a)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}a_{2k}(n,\mathrm{})}{\nu _n\mathrm{}}}=Q_\mathrm{}k{\displaystyle \frac{F_k(\nu _n\mathrm{})}{E_n\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\mathrm{}k(4k+1)}{2}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^R}𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta \left(𝒦_{c^2,\rho }^n\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta c^2}{c^2}}+𝒦_{\rho ,c^2}^n\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}\right)P_{2k}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$
where $`E_n\mathrm{}`$ is the mode inertia (Christensen-Dalsgaard & Berthomieu 1991) and $`Q_\mathrm{}k`$ is a geometric factor as defined by Antia et al. (2001a). Here $`F_k(\nu )`$ are the surface terms which accounts for uncertainties in the treatment of surface layers.

### 3.1 Temporal variations in asphericity

Eq. 3 can be used for inversion to determine the sound speed and density as a function of radial distance and latitude. Using seismic data at different times it is also possible to study temporal variations in the solar structure. It is well known that the frequencies and even order splitting coefficients vary with solar activity. Thus it would be interesting to study if this implies any variations in the solar structure. The spherically symmetric component has been well studied and will not be considered in this work.

Fig. 2 shows the results for aspherical component of squared sound speed obtained using GONG data at $`r=0.96R_{}`$ as a function of time and latitude. To see the temporal variations more clearly, the figure shows the residuals obtained after subtracting the temporal average at each latitude. There is no pattern in the residuals, thus suggesting that there is no significant temporal variation. Similar results are obtained at other depths also. The aspherical component of density also shows a similar result and does not show any significant temporal variation. Thus it is clear that all the temporal variation in the splitting coefficients is accounted for by that in the surface term. In fact the surface term is well correlated with the corresponding component of the observed magnetic flux at the solar surface (Antia et al. 2001a).

Fig. 3 shows the residuals in sound speed at $`r=0.96R_{}`$ as determined by the MDI data. The left panel which shows the results using full data shows a distinct temporal variation in contrast to the GONG results. However, a careful look at the figure suggests that most of the temporal variation occurs between July 1998 and January 1999, when the contact with SOHO satellite was lost. This period is marked by the gap in the contour diagram. Before the gap there is positive asphericity at low latitudes and negative values at high latitudes. This is reversed after the gap and in fact there is very little systematic variations in the results before or after the gap. Thus there are two possibilities, either the Sun has had some interesting transition exactly when the MDI instrument was not operational, or the apparent variation is due to systematic errors introduced due to instrumental variations during recovery of the SOHO satellite. Considering the fact that the GONG data does not show any abnormality during this period, the second possibility appears to be more likely. This seems to be confirmed by the right panel which shows the same results but using only modes with $`\mathrm{}<110`$. In this case there is no temporal variation in asphericity. Thus it appears that the systematic errors in MDI data are predominantly in the high degree modes.

These systematic errors in MDI data are likely to affect other conclusions too. For example, from the observed variation in the solar f-mode frequencies Dziembowski et al. (2001) have concluded that the solar radius is reducing at the rate of 1.5 km per year. Looking at their Fig. 2 (results with $`\gamma _f`$ included) it appears that most of the variation has occurred between 1998.5 and 1999.2, the same period when MDI was not operational. There is very little variation in estimated radius before or after the break. This becomes more clear if additional data that has now become available is added. Thus once again the claimed radius variation is probably an effect of systematic errors. In fact, using an independent analysis Antia et al. (2001b) did not find any significant variation in the solar radius.

### 3.2 Temporal average of asphericity

Since we do not find any significant temporal variation in asphericity in the solar interior, it is possible to improve the accuracy of inversions by taking temporal average over all data sets. The average asphericity from GONG data as a function of radius and latitude is shown in Fig. 4. The MDI results obtained using only modes with $`\mathrm{}<110`$ are similar to this. The typical errors in low latitude region inside the convection zone is about $`10^5`$ which is half the contour spacing. The errors increase with depth and latitude. The most striking feature is the broad peak around $`r=0.9R_{}`$ and a latitude of $`60^{}`$. This is similar to the feature seen in section 2.3 in the splitting coefficients. The peak has shifted downwards when the surface term is removed for inversion. The maximum asphericity in sound speed is $`10^4`$. The perturbation in density is significantly smaller than that in squared sound speed. This may imply that a major part of this perturbation is coming from a magnetic field. A thermal perturbation will affect the density and squared sound speed (which is essentially temperature) to a comparable extent. Of course, this is not essential and there could be thermal perturbation which don’t affect the density significantly. As noted earlier this feature could be due to a random magnetic field in the convection zone. If that is the case we can argue that the propagation speed is altered due to magnetic field and we may expect $`\delta c^2/c^2v_A^2/c^2`$, where $`v_A`$ is the Alfven speed. This will translate to a field of about 70 kG at $`r=0.9R_{}`$.

Near the base of the convection zone $`\delta c^2/c^25\times 10^5`$ around a latitude of $`60^{}`$. If this is due to a magnetic field the field strength would be about 250 kG, comparable to the upper limit obtained in Section 2.2. It should be noted that in Section 2.2 we only considered field concentrated near the base of the convection zone, while the feature seen in Fig. 4 is spread over a broad region. Thus the earlier limit does not apply to this. From Fig. 4 if we try to put a limit on the magnetic field concentrated near the tachocline, then it will be of the order of $`v_A^2/c^22\times 10^5`$ (twice the estimated error in $`\delta c^2/c^2`$), which will correspond to a field strength of about 150 kG, close to the value inferred by D’Silva & Choudhuri (1993). Thus it is not clear if any significant field as required by dynamo theories is concentrated in this region.

To study the possibility of small temporal variation in inferred asphericity in sound speed, we divide the data sets into two parts around middle of 1998 and take averages separately over these parts. The results are shown in Fig. 4. There is a distinct increase in asphericity in post 1998.6 set as compared to earlier times. The increase appears to be up to $`2\times 10^5`$ in some regions and is spread over a wide region.

## 4 Magnetic field in the solar core

The inversions for asphericity become unreliable in the solar core ($`r<0.3R_{}`$) since very few p-modes penetrate into this region. Further, the few modes that penetrate have large errors in the splitting coefficients and since the sound travel time in the core is fairly small the splitting coefficients are not very sensitive to the magnetic field in this region. As a result, it is difficult to get much information about possible magnetic field or asphericity in the solar core from these even order splitting coefficients. However, most of the solar mass is in the core and any significant perturbation to spherical symmetry in that region will cause significant distortion which will be visible even at the surface, unless it is compensated by suitably large distortions in the outer layers. From the temporal average of asphericity shown in Fig. 4, we can conclude that for $`r>0.3R_{}`$, $`\delta c^2/c^2<10^4`$ except possibly close to the peak in asphericity around $`r=0.9R_{}`$ and latitude of $`60^{}`$. It would be interesting to examine if this limit is applicable to possible asphericity in the solar core also.

Using the formalism developed by Gough & Thompson (1990) it is possible to calculate the distortion due to a large scale magnetic field in the solar interior. If we assume that the magnetic field is toroidal and given by Eqs. 2,3, with $`\beta _0=10^4`$ and $`k=2`$ we can calculate the resulting distortion at the solar surface and the results for a few different values of $`r_0`$ are summarised in Table 1. It is clear that a magnetic field in the core produces distortion at the solar surface which is comparable to $`\beta _0`$, while if the field is located in the outer regions, the distortion is much less. This may be expected because the fractional mass affected by the magnetic field is small when the field is in outer regions.

The expected distortion at the solar surface can be compared with the observed distortion of $`(5.4\pm 0.5)\times 10^6`$ (Kuhn et al. 1998). Of this the seismically inferred rotation profile accounts for a distortion of $`5.8\times 10^6`$ (Antia et al. 2000). Thus the residual distortion at the surface is at a level of $`10^6`$. This will imply that the magnetic field in the core should be such that $`\beta _0<10^6`$. The actual distortion will depend on the form of the magnetic field and thickness of region where it is located. To allow for all these factors we can increase the upper limit by an order of magnitude. Thus we can put a conservative upper limit of $`10^5`$ on the ratio of magnetic to gas pressure in the solar core.

## 5 The tachocline

Using the forward modelling technique described by Antia et al. (1998) we study the properties of the tachocline as a function of time using the GONG and MDI data. The rotation rate in the tachocline is modelled by (Antia et al. 1998)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tac}}=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }}{1+\mathrm{exp}[(r_tr)/w]},$$
(5)
where $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the jump in the rotation rate across the tachocline, $`w`$ is the half-width of the transition layer, and $`r_t`$ the radial distance of the mid-point of the transition region. No significant temporal variation is found in any of these properties of the tachocline (Basu & Antia 2001). Thus we can take temporal average to improve the accuracy and the results are shown in Table 2.

From Table 2 it is clear that there is significant latitudinal variation in the position and thickness of the tachocline, which is consistent with the earlier results (Charbonneau et al. 1999; Basu & Antia 2001; Corbard et al. 2001). However, from the table it appears that the latitudinal variation is not continuous. The position and thickness for latitudes of $`0^{}`$ and $`15^{}`$ are the same within error-bars. Similarly, those for latitudes of $`45^{}`$ and $`60^{}`$ are close to each other, but they are significantly different from the values for low latitudes. Thus it appears that the tachocline actually consists of two parts, one at low latitudes where $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ and another at high latitudes where $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }<0`$. This two parts are located at different depths and have different thicknesses, but there may be no significant latitudinal variation within each part. Thus the tachocline may cover the shaded region in Fig. 5, where we have used a half-thickness of $`2.5w`$, which would cover about 85% of the variation in the rotation rate.

It is believed that large shear in the tachocline region gives rise to some instabilities which cause mixing in the tachocline region. This mixing accounts for low observed lithium abundance at the solar surface and also yields sound speed profile in better agreement with seismic inversions (Richard et al. 1996; Brun et al. 1999). If the tachocline has a significant latitudinal dependence, then we would expect the mixed region also has a latitudinal dependence giving rise to asphericity in solar structure. However, there is no evidence for significant asphericity in this region as seen from Fig. 4 and further the depth of the convection zone also does not have any significant latitudinal variation (Basu & Antia 2001). This will appear to suggest that the tachocline may not be responsible for the mixing below the base of the convection zone. Another alternative is that the thickness of the tachocline varies in such a manner that the lower boundary of the mixed region does not have significant latitudinal dependence. This appears to be the case in Fig. 5. Of course, we have chosen the width of $`2.5w`$ to achieve this. Nevertheless, this is a reasonable estimate for extent of mixing due to the tachocline. It may be argued that it is a coincidence that variation in position and thickness match each other. If there is no mixing in the tachocline, as in the standard solar model (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996), the deviation in squared sound speed is of order of 0.5%, while the asphericity in the tachocline region is of order of $`5\times 10^5`$. Thus the agreement between position and thickness variations in the tachocline should be at level of 1%. A part of asphericity seen inside the convection zone may be due to latitudinal variation in the tachocline.

## 6 Magnetic field in active regions

To study the subsurface magnetic field in active regions we use the ring diagram technique (Hill 1988) which involves study of 3d spectra from observations over a part of the solar disk. We use the available spectra from the MDI data for this study. Each spectra covers a region of $`15^{}`$ in heliographic longitude and latitude. Each spectra is fitted following the procedure explained by Basu et al. (1999) and Basu & Antia (1999) to calculate the mode parameters. To study the influence of active region on mode properties, we choose a pair consisting of a quiet and an active region at the same latitude. The difference in mode properties between these two regions will give the effect of magnetic field in the active region (Rajaguru et al. 2001). It is found that frequencies increase with surface magnetic field. This frequency difference cannot be accounted by the surface term, which shows that the difference between active and quiet region persists to a depth of at least few Mm. Further, the frequency shift in f-modes is comparable to those in p-modes of similar frequency, which probably implies that the difference is arising from a magnetic field rather than thermal perturbation. The thermal perturbations are not expected to affect the f-modes significantly. But it is difficult to infer the form or location of the field from the seismic data. It is possible that Wilson depression associated with the Sunspot can account for the frequency differences between active and a quiet regions. It may be noted that because of spatial resolution of $`15^{}`$ on the solar surface we can only study average properties over regions much larger than sunspots. Time-distance analysis (Kosovichev 2002) is better suited to study the magnetic field in active region because of higher spatial resolution.

## 7 Summary

Using the even order splitting coefficients it is possible to study the magnetic field and departures from spherical symmetry in the solar interior. Unfortunately, it is not possible to distinguish between these two possibilities. The seismic data from GONG and MDI covering the last 7 years does not show any signal from possible toroidal magnetic field concentrated near the base of the convection zone. An upper limit on such a concentrated field is about 150 kG. The seismic data shows a broad feature around $`r=0.9R_{}`$ and a latitude of $`60^{}`$ which may be due to a magnetic field or aspherical perturbation to the solar structure. The aspherical perturbations to the sound speed are at the level of $`10^4`$ in this region and if these are due to a magnetic field we may expect a field strength of 70 kG. We do not expect large scale ordered magnetic field inside the convection zone but it is possible that some randomised magnetic field is present. This feature extends to the base of the convection zone where it has a magnitude of $`5\times 10^5`$, which will correspond to a field strength of 250 kG. The observed splitting coefficients do not yield a tight constraint on the magnetic field in the solar core as very few modes penetrate to the core. However, any magnetic field in this region will yield significant distortion at the solar surface. From the observed distortion we can put an upper limit of $`B^2/(8\pi p_0)<10^5`$ in the solar core ($`r<0.4R_{}`$). This corresponds to a field strength of 7 MG at the centre, or 3MG at $`r0.2R_{}`$ or 0.8 MG at $`r0.4R_{}`$.

There is no significant temporal variation in aspherical component of sound speed or density in the solar interior. This also applies to possible temporal variations in magnetic field. Thus any temporal variation in solar interior is less than about $`5\times 10^5`$, which is the error estimate inside the convection zone at low latitude. By taking temporal average over the high activity and low activity data sets it appears that there may be a small increase in sound speed asphericity with activity at the level of $`10^5`$ in a broad region centred at latitude of $`60^{}`$. This is comparable to the error estimate and its significance is not clear. The MDI data do show some temporal variation, but a closer look shows that most of the temporal variation has occurred during the time when SOHO had lost contact. Thus this is likely to be an artifact of systematic error introduced during recovery of SOHO. This systematic error will also affect other inferences about temporal variation obtained using the MDI data. This systematic error appears to be predominantly in high degree ($`\mathrm{}>110`$) modes.

It is generally believed that the solar dynamo is operating in the tachocline region. But no significant temporal variation is seen in properties of the tachocline. Nevertheless, the tachocline is known to be prolate and there is indeed a significant latitudinal variation in the position and thickness of the tachocline. However, this latitudinal variation may not be continuous and it appears that the tachocline may consist of two parts one at low latitude where the rotation rate increases with radius and second one at high latitude where the rotation rate decreases with radius. These two parts may be located at different depths and have different thicknesses. But there may be no significant variations within each part. The thickness difference between the two parts should match the depth variation to ensure that the lower limit of mixing due to the tachocline is essentially independent of latitude.

## Acknowledgements

This work utilises data obtained by the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) project, managed by the National Solar Observatory, which is operated by AURA, Inc. under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. The data were acquired by instruments operated by the Big Bear Solar Observatory, High Altitude Observatory, Learmonth Solar Observatory, Udaipur Solar Observatory, Instituto de Astrofisico de Canarias, and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. This work also utilises data from the Solar Oscillations Investigation/ Michelson Doppler Imager (SOI/MDI) on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The effects of observation upon the obtained results have been extensively discussed in the literature (see, for example,  and references therein). A special kind of experimentations which attract many discussions by many authors  are those in which a large number of experiments are involved. Among these one may note the special role played by those in which the time duration of each of the involved experiments tends to become infinitesimally small. Two quantum versions of these very short-time experiments were studied; (1) The same experiment is infinitely repeated, in a finite total time, upon the same system which results in preserving its initial state (from the very large number of different states to which it may be projected by the experiment) . (2) A very large number of slightly different experiments are densely performed upon the same system which results in "realizing"  the path of states through which the system is continuously projected. That is, the probability to be projected to this specific path of states (and not to any of the other large number of different possible paths along which the system may evolute) tends to unity ). The first version is termed static Zeno effect and the second dynamic Zeno effect .

Another kind of observation that involves many experiments is the space Zeno effect  which is obtained when one performs the same experiment in a large number of identical independent nonoverlapping regions of space. It has been shown  that when these regions become infinitesimally small, corresponding to the shrinking of the measurement times in the time Zeno effect, the performance of such experiments has, as for the static Zeno, a null effect .

We show here that what generally characterizes these and other similar situations is that all the involved experiments, even those that seems to be entirely independent, are related to each other in some kind of relationship which is responsible for the obtained results. This is shown for entirely remote and different physical situations which are studied by different methods such as the Feynman path integral , the Everett’s universal wave function  and the classical cylinder-piston system . We show that the mentioned relationship assumes different forms for these different situations which, actually, determine the necessary details of the involved experiments. Thus, for some situations, like the static Zeno efect, all the systems should be related by preparing them in the same initial state whereas for the dynamic Zeno effect they are related by preparing them in different initial states as we show in Section 1. We represent in the following sections examples which explain the meaning of this relationship and the effects it produces.

In Section 2 we use the Feynman path integral method  to show that if one wants to obtain a large probability for an evolution along a prescribed path of states then all the involved systems must be related so that not even two of them happen to have the same initial state. That is, if this condition is not strictly kept and one prepares these systems so that some of them may have the same initial states then the expected evolution along the specified path of states may not be obtained. In Section 3 we use the Everett’s relative state theory , which has been especially formulated to take into account the influence of observers and experiments, to show the effect of experimenting with related systems. In Everett’s theory the necessity of relationship among the systems is so obvious that it becomes almost trivial to emphasize it. We show that if the measurement of the observable $`A`$ results with $`K`$ different possible outcomes then the probability to find a specified group of $`r`$ eigenvalues (from the given $`K`$) in an $`n`$-sequence becomes very small for large $`K`$ and small $`r`$. This is effected through obtaining an asymptotically large number of different sequences (observers) for these values of $`K`$ and $`r`$ which means that the relationship among them is very small.

In Section 4 we use entropy considerations and the classical thermodynamical system of cylinder and pistons  to show the influence of related systems. We generalize the discussion in  to include a large ensemle of identical cylinders and show that the results obtained when these systems are related greatly differ from those obtained when the ensemble’s components are independent.

## 2 The Feynman path integrals of the ensemble of observers

The large number of experiments discussed here are performed by first preparing $`N`$ similar systems at $`N`$ arbitrarily selected states from, actually, the very large number of possible states which may be assigned to any system. These systems are then delivered to the $`N`$ observers of the ensemble so that the system $`i`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{}N)`$, prepared at the state $`\varphi _i`$, is assigned to the observer $`O_i`$. As known , the state of any quantum system changes with time without having to touch it. Thus, we may write for the conditional probability of a self-transition that the first observer $`O_1`$ finds his system, after checking its present state, to be at the state $`\varphi _2`$ of the second observer $`O_2`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}=\underset{i}{}\varphi _{1i}\varphi _{i2}$$
(1)
The summation is over all the possible secondary paths  (as those shown along the middle path of Figure 1) which lead from $`\varphi _1`$ to $`\varphi _2`$ and the quantities $`\varphi _{1i}`$ and $`\varphi _{i2}`$ denote  the probability amplitudes to proceed from the state $`\varphi _1`$ to the intermediate one $`\varphi _i`$ and from $`\varphi _i`$ to $`\varphi _2`$ respectively. In the same manner one may write for the conditional probability amplitude that the second observer $`O_2`$ finds his system at the state $`\varphi _3`$ (of the observer $`O_3`$), provided that the observer $`O_1`$ finds his system at the state $`\varphi _2`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{23|12}=\underset{ij}{}\varphi _{1i}\varphi _{i2}\varphi _{2j}\varphi _{j3}$$
(2)
Where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23|12}`$ is the remarked conditional probability amplitude and $`_{ij}`$ is the summation over all the secondary paths that lead from the state $`\varphi _1`$ to $`\varphi _2`$ and over those from $`\varphi _2`$ to $`\varphi _3`$. Correspondingly, the conditional probability amplitude that the $`(N1)`$-th observer finds his system at the state $`\varphi _N`$ of the observer $`O_N`$ provided that all the former $`(N2)`$ observers find their respective systems to be at the states $`\varphi _i(i=2,3,\mathrm{}N1)`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{N1N|12,23,\mathrm{},N2N1}=\underset{ij\mathrm{}rs}{}\varphi _{1i}\varphi _{i2}\varphi _{2j}\varphi _{j3}\mathrm{}\varphi _{N2r}\varphi _{rN1}\varphi _{N1s}\varphi _{sN},$$
(3)
where the intermediate states in Eqs (1)-(3) are orthonormal. Figure 1 shows 7 Feynman paths of states, from actually a large number of paths, that all begin at the state $`\varphi _1`$ and end at $`\varphi _8`$ (only 8 states are shown in the figure for clarity). The middle path is the specific one along which the described collective measurement is performed. Along this line we have the $`N`$ ($`N=8`$ in the figure) initially prepared states $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{}\varphi _N`$ as well as the secondary Feynman paths that lead from each $`\varphi _i`$ to $`\varphi _{i+1}`$ where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},(N1)`$. As seen from Eqs (1)-(3) the paths (of states) between nonneighbouring states as, for example, from $`\varphi _i`$ to $`\varphi _{i+2}`$ are obtained as the sum of the separate paths which lead from $`\varphi _i`$ to $`\varphi _{i+1}`$ and from $`\varphi _{i+1}`$ to $`\varphi _{i+2}`$.

The relevant conditional probability is found by multiplying the last probability amplitude from Eq (3) by its conjugate to obtain, omitting the subscripts of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s for clarity

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{`}{i}\stackrel{`}{j}\mathrm{}\stackrel{`}{r}\stackrel{`}{s}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\mathrm{}rs}{}}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{i}1}\varphi _{1i}\varphi _{2\stackrel{`}{i}}\varphi _{i2}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{j}2}\varphi _{2j}\varphi _{3\stackrel{`}{j}}\varphi _{j3}\mathrm{}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{r}N2}\varphi _{N2r}\varphi _{N1\stackrel{`}{r}}\varphi _{rN1}`$
$`\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{s}N1}\varphi _{N1s}\varphi _{N\stackrel{`}{s}}\varphi _{sN}=({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{`}{i}i}{}}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{i}1}\varphi _{1i}\varphi _{2\stackrel{`}{i}}\varphi _{i2})({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{`}{j}j}{}}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{j}2}\varphi _{2j}\varphi _{3\stackrel{`}{j}}\varphi _{j3})\mathrm{}`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{`}{r}r}{}}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{r}N2}\varphi _{N2r}\varphi _{N1\stackrel{`}{r}}\varphi _{rN1})({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{`}{s}s}{}}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{s}N1}\varphi _{N1s}\varphi _{N\stackrel{`}{s}}\varphi _{sN}),`$
where the number of all the double sums $`_{\stackrel{`}{i}i}_{\stackrel{`}{j}j}\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{`}{r}r}_{\stackrel{`}{s}s}`$ is $`N`$.

As remarked, we are interested in the limit of dense measurement along the relevant Feynman path so we take $`N\mathrm{}`$. In this limit the length of the secondary Feynman paths among the initially prepared $`N`$ states (where now $`N\mathrm{}`$) tends to zero  so that the former probabilities to proceed along the secondary paths between the given states become the probabilities for these states . Thus, we may write for Eq (4) in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}<\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }>=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}<\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{I}1}|\varphi _{2\stackrel{`}{I}}><\varphi _{I2}|\varphi _{1I}><\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{J}2}|\varphi _{3\stackrel{`}{J}}><\varphi _{J3}|\varphi _{2J}>\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}<\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{R}(N2)}|\varphi _{(N1)\stackrel{`}{R}}><\varphi _{R(N1)}|\varphi _{(N2)R}><\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{S}(N1)}|\varphi _{N\stackrel{`}{S}}>`$ (5)
$`<\varphi _{SN}|\varphi _{(N1)S}>=\delta _{\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{I}1}\varphi _{2\stackrel{`}{I}}}\delta _{\varphi _{1I}\varphi _{I2}}\delta _{\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{J}2}\varphi _{3\stackrel{`}{J}}}\delta _{\varphi _{2J}\varphi _{J3}}\mathrm{}\delta _{\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{R}(N2)}\varphi _{(N1)\stackrel{`}{R}}}`$
$`\delta _{\varphi _{R(N1)}\varphi _{(N2)R}}\delta _{\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{S}(N1)}\varphi _{N\stackrel{`}{S}}}\delta _{\varphi _{SN}\varphi _{(N1)S}}=1,`$
where the former indices, for finite $`N`$, $`i,\stackrel{`}{i},j,\stackrel{`}{j},\mathrm{},r,\stackrel{`}{r},s,\stackrel{`}{s}`$ are now, in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$, written in an upper case format. This is to emphasize that, unlike the case for finite $`N`$, neighbouring states along the traversed Feynman path differ infinitesimally. The last result of unity follows because, as just noted, in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ successive states differ infinitesimally from each other so we may write as in  $`<\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{k}1}|\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{k}}>=<\varphi _{k1}|\varphi _k>\delta _{\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{k}1}\varphi _{\stackrel{`}{k}}}=\delta _{\varphi _{k1}\varphi _k}1`$. Thus, we see that performing dense measurement along any Feynman path of states results in its "realization"  in the sense that the probability to proceed through all of its states tends to unity.

As remarked, the key feature of the described dense measurement is that all the $`N`$ systems are related to each other in such a way that their $`N`$ initial states are prepared to be different from each other where in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ these differences become infinitesimal for neighbouring states. Note that we do not take all the $`N`$ initial states to be identical since in this case all the former discussion and Eqs (1)-(5) would not be relevant. This is because the primary Feynman path formerly applied for describing the path of these $`N`$ states would shrink to a point if they are identical. Note that by taking the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ and by having (for continuity) a slight differences between neighbouring states we have already caused the secondary Feynman paths of the relevant primary one (see Figure 1) to shrink and disappear. Thus, as noted, taking $`N`$ identical initial states may causes the primary Feynman path, in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$, to shrink to a point which is not the meant results of this discussion. Note that this procedure of taking $`N`$ different initial states where the neighbouring ones differ infinitesimally in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ is the key property of the dynamic Zeno effect as seen in  (see, especially, Sections 1-2 in ). Also the continuity condition is not violated as seen from Eq (5).

Note that the described dense measurement is performed through the joint action of all the members of the ensemble as schematically illustrated in Figure 2 which represents the ensemble of observers after the remarked collective measurement. Each batch of 4 similar curves denotes a member of the $`N`$-ensemble system that has, as known, a large number of different possible Feynman paths of evolution (only 4 are shown for clarity). In the middle part of the figure we have a large number of different batches of paths all mixed among them so it becomes difficult to see which curve belongs to which batch. This corresponds to densely measuring ( $`N\mathrm{}`$) where neighbouring states infinitesimally differ from each other. The emphasized path in Figure 2 is the definite path along which the described collective dense measurement has been done. Note that this path, actually, belongs to all the different mixed batches which means that after completing the collective measurement each one of those that participates in it has now the same Feynman path. The reason is that although each observer $`O_i`$ of the ensemble performs his experiment on his prepared state $`\varphi _i`$, nevertheless, the results he obtains are valid for all the others since any observer that acts on the same state $`\varphi _i`$ under exactly the same conditions obtains the same result. In other words, the emphasized Feynman path belongs now to all of them in the sense that the probability for each to move along its constituent states tends to unity as seen from Eq (5).

We note that in contrast to the relationship discussed just now which demands a preparation of different initial states for the realization of its (dynamic Zeno) effect the situation regarding the static Zeno effect is opposite and contrary. This is because the required relationship there demands to prepare all the initial states of the involved experiments to be identical  so as to be able to preserve this state in time. We note that using a large ensemble of similar systems for analysing experimental results has been fruitfully done in the literature  without invoking any Zeno idea. It has been shown, for example, that by considering $`N`$ identical systems all prepared in the same initial state one may derive the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$. That is, this probability is not imposed upon the theory as an external assumption as done in the conventional Copenhagen interpretation  of quantum mechanics but is derived from other principles of quantum mechanics . This is done using Finkelstein theorem .

## 3  The relative state theory of Everett

The last results may be demonstrated in a more natural and appealing manner by using the relative state theory of Everett  which has been formulated, especially, for taking observers into account. We use, in the following, the special notation and terminology of this theory. Thus, if the initial state was some eigenstate of an operator $`A`$ the total initial state of the (system $`S`$ $`+`$ observer $`O`$) is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{S+O}=\varphi _i\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}]`$, where $`\varphi _i`$ is the initial eigenstate of the system $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes the observer’s state before the measurement. After the experiment the observer’s state is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}\alpha _i]`$, where $`\alpha _i`$ stands for recording the eigenvalue $`\alpha _i`$ by the observer and the total final state of the (system $`S`$ $`+`$ observer $`O`$) is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{S+O}=\varphi _i\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}\alpha _i]`$. Now, if the initial state of the system is not an eigenstate then it may be expressed as a superpositions of such eigenfunctions $`_ia_i\varphi _i`$ and the total states before and after the measurement are  $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{S+O}=_ia_i\varphi _i\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}]`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{S+O}=_ia_i\varphi _i\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}\alpha _i]`$ respectively where $`a_i=<\varphi _i|\mathrm{\Psi }^{S+O}>`$. We note that we consider here the one-step measurement of  and not the two-step version  of it in which a macroscopic apparatus is introduced between a microscopic system and a macroscopic observer.

We, now, wish to represent the former process of measuring the observable $`A`$ on $`N`$ identical independent systems. We assume that the initial state of each one of the $`N`$ systems is not an eigenstate of $`A`$ so it can be expanded as a superpositions of such eigenfunctions. Thus, we may write for the initial state of the $`N`$-system ensemble

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^S=\underset{i}{}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{}\underset{k}{}\underset{l}{}<\varphi _i|\varphi ><\varphi _j|\varphi >\mathrm{}<\varphi _k|\varphi ><\varphi _l|\varphi >\varphi _i\varphi _j\mathrm{}\varphi _k\varphi _l$$
(6)
where $`\varphi _i,\varphi _j,\mathrm{}\varphi _k,\varphi _l`$ are the eigenfunctions of the operator $`A`$. Thus, the initial and final states of the total system ($`N`$ systems $`+`$ observer) are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{S+O}=\underset{i}{}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{}\underset{k}{}\underset{l}{}<\varphi _i|\varphi ><\varphi _j|\varphi >\mathrm{}<\varphi _k|\varphi ><\varphi _l|\varphi >\varphi _i\varphi _j\mathrm{}\varphi _k\varphi _l\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\mathrm{}]$$
(7)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{S+O}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}<\varphi _i|\varphi ><\varphi _j|\varphi >\mathrm{}<\varphi _k|\varphi ><\varphi _l|\varphi >\varphi _i\varphi _j\mathrm{}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{}\varphi _k\varphi _l\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^O[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ denotes that the observer has measured the $`n`$ eigenvalues $`\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l`$ of $`A`$. Note that each term in Eq (8) actually denotes an observer with his specific sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ which results from the $`n`$ experiments. Thus, Eq (8), termed the Everett’s universal wave function , gives all the possible results that may be obtained from performing the same experiment upon the $`n`$ systems.

We, now, count the number of observers that have the same or similar sequences $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ which record, as remarked, the $`n`$ measured eigenvalues. For this we assume that each measurement of the observable $`A`$ may give any of $`K`$ possible different eigenvalues and that some of the $`n`$ components in any sequence may be identical. Thus, denoting by $`R_1,R_2,\mathrm{},R_r`$ the numbers of times the $`r`$ particular different eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ respectively appear in some specified sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ one may see from Eq (8) that each possible value of $`R_i`$ in the range $`0R_in`$, and for each $`i(1ir)`$, may be realized in some observer. Now, the number of sequences in which $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ respectively occur at $`R_1,R_2,\mathrm{},R_r`$ predetermined positions is $`(Kr)^{(n_{i=1}^{i=r}R_i)}`$. This is because for each position in the sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ in which the $`r`$ eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ are absent there are $`(Kr)`$ possible locations. Note that $`K`$ and $`r`$ should satisfy the relation $`Kr`$. Thus, the total number of sequences in which $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ respectively occur in $`R_1,R_2,\mathrm{},R_r`$ positions (we denote this number by $`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$) is

$`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ R_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(nR_1)\\ R_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(n(R_1+R_2))\\ R_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{}`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{c}(n_{i=1}^{i=r1}R_i)\\ R_r\end{array}\right)(Kr)^{(n_{i=1}^{i=r}R_i)},Kr,K1`$ (18)
where $`\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ R_1\end{array}\right)`$ is the number of possible ways to choose in the $`n`$-member sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ $`R_1`$ places for $`l_1`$, $`\left(\begin{array}{c}(nR_1)\\ R_2\end{array}\right)`$ is the number of possible ways to choose $`R_2`$ places from the remaining $`(nR_1)`$ etc. Note that when $`K=r`$, which means that any one of the $`K`$ possible results of the experiment must be one of the $`r`$ eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$, then the probability that all the $`n`$ components (where some of them may be identical) of any sequence belong to the $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$’s group is unity. In this case the number of observers that have in their sequences all the $`r`$ different eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ is

$`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ R_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(nR_1)\\ R_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(n(R_1+R_2))\\ R_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{c}(n_{i=1}^{i=r1}R_i)\\ R_r\end{array}\right),`$
$`K=r,K1`$
which is the same as Eq (15) but without the factor in $`K`$.

The relevant measure may be found  by taking account of the expected relative frequency $`P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$ of the eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ and the corresponding relative frequency $`Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$ of any other eigenvalue $`m`$ different from $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$. The first is given by $`P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}=|<\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}|\mathrm{\Psi }>|^2`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}>`$ is the state in which the eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ occur among those of the sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ and the second is $`Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}=_{(ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r)}|<\mathrm{\Psi }_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}|\mathrm{\Psi }>|^2=1P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$ were $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}>`$ is the state in which the eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ do not occur among those of this sequence. Thus, the measure of the sequences that have the eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ at the respective $`R_1,R_2,\mathrm{},R_r`$ predetermined positions is $`P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}^{_{i=1}^{i=r}R_i}Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}^{(n_{i=1}^{i=r}R_i)}`$. The last expression must be multiplied by the number of possible ways to choose first $`R_1`$ places for $`l_1`$ from the $`n`$ positions of the sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$, then to choose $`R_2`$ places for $`l_2`$ from the remaining $`nR_1`$ etc, until the last step of choosing $`R_r`$ places from $`(n_{i=1}^{i=r1}R_i)`$ (see Eq (15)). That is, the sought-for measure $`M_e`$ is

$`M_e(r)=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ R_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(nR_1)\\ R_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(n(R_1+R_2))\\ R_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{c}(n_{i=1}^{i=r1}R_i)\\ R_r\end{array}\right)P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}^{_{i=1}^{i=r}R_i}Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}^{(n_{i=1}^{i=r}R_i)},`$ (29)
which is the Bernoulli distribution . As remarked in  $`M_e(r)`$ from Eq (26) may be approximated, for large $`N`$, by a Gaussian distribution with mean $`NP_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$ and standard deviation $`\sqrt{NP_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}}`$. We, now, calculate an explicit expression for $`P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(r)`$ and $`Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(r)`$ as functions of $`r`$, for $`n=30`$. The probability $`P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(r)`$ to find the eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ among those of the sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$ may be written as $`P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(r)=|<\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}|\mathrm{\Psi }>|^2=\frac{r}{n}=\frac{r}{30}`$, and the probability to find any other eigenvalue $`ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ is $`Q_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(r)=_{(ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r)}|<\mathrm{\Psi }_{ml_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}|\mathrm{\Psi }>|^2=1P_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}=1\frac{r}{30}=\frac{(30r)}{30}`$. For simplifying the following calculations we assign to all the values of $`R_ii=1,2,\mathrm{}r`$ the unity value, in which case each of the given eigenvalues $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r`$ may occurs only once in the sequence $`[\alpha _i,\alpha _j\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _l]`$. Thus, the relevant total number of sequences (observers) $`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r)`$ and the corresponding measure $`M_e(r)`$ from Eqs (15)-(26) are given by

$`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r)=\left(\begin{array}{c}30\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}29\\ 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{c}(30(r1))\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (36)
$`(K1)^{(30r)}={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{i=r1}{}}}(30i)(K1)^{(30r)}`$
and

$`M_e(r)=\left(\begin{array}{c}30\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}29\\ 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{c}(30(r1))\\ 1\end{array}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{r}{30}})^r`$ (43)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{(30r)}{30}})^{(30r)}={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{i=r1}{}}}(30i)({\displaystyle \frac{r}{30}})^r({\displaystyle \frac{(30r)}{30}})^{(30r)}`$
In Table 1 we show the number of observers (sequences) that have $`r`$ predetermined different eigenvalues in their respective $`n`$-place sequences for $`n=30`$ and for the five different values of $`K=1100,100,10,5,2`$. Note that for the large values of $`K`$, which signifies a large number of possible results for the measurement of the observable $`A`$, the sequences most frequently encountered are, as expected, the ones that contain small number of the $`r`$ eigenvalues. That is, the larger is $`K`$ the smaller is the relationship among the ensemble’s members. For example, for $`K=1100`$ and $`K=100`$ the number of different observers (sequences) with $`r=1`$, that have only one of the preassigned eigenvalues, are $`4.635049110^{89}`$ and $`2.241516310^{59}`$ respectively compared to $`2.652528610^{32}`$ and $`2.652528610^{32}`$ that have all the 30 places in their sequences occupied by such eigenvalues. That is, for $`K=1100`$ and $`K=100`$ the number of different observers (sequences) with $`r=1`$ are respectively larger by the factors of $`1.747410^{57}`$ and $`8.4504810^{26}`$ compared to those with $`r=30`$.

These results, although in a smaller scale, are found also for small $`K`$ which signifies a small number of possible different results for the measurement of $`A`$. That is, most observers are found to have in their sequences a small number of the $`r`$ predetermined eigenvalues. Note that for small $`K`$ we can read from Table 1 the values of $`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$ also for $`K=r`$. For example, for $`K=r=2`$ the number of different sequences is greater by a factor of 29 than for $`K=2`$ and $`r=1`$. The results of Table 1 are corroborated by directly calculating the relative rate $`R(K,r)`$ of the increase of $`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}`$ from Eq (36) which is

$$R(K,r)=\frac{N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r)N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r1)}{N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r)},$$
(44)
It has been found that the rate $`R(K,r)`$ is always negative for the order of magnitudes of $`K=100`$ and $`rK`$ discussed here which means that $`N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r)<N_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_r}(K,r1)`$. That is, as we have found from Table 1, the large number of observers (sequences) are found at small $`r`$. Also, we find for small $`r`$ (not shown) that the larger $`K`$ becomes the more inclined toward negative values is the surface of $`R(K,r)`$ which means that the large number of observers are found, as in Table 1, at large $`K`$ and small $`r`$. When $`K=1`$, which means that there is only one result for the measurement of $`A`$, then we must have $`r=1`$ and the former problem of calculating the probability to find $`r`$ specified eigenvalues in $`n`$-sequence reduces to finding one known eigenvalue which is trivially unity since there exists no other eigenvalue to measure.

In summary, we see that an important necessary aspect for obtaining a large probability for a specific configuration of $`n`$-sequence is that its components must be related. This relationship is expressed through the number of different sequences in Table 1 so that the smaller is this number the greater is the relationship and vice versa. The number of different sequences (observers) is determined by $`K`$ and $`r`$ so that for small $`K`$ and large $`r`$, where always $`Kr`$, this number is small and for large $`K`$ and small $`r`$ it is large. Note that if they do not measure the same observable then the observers are totally unrelated and our former results would not be obtained even for small $`K`$.

## 4 The classical effect of an ensemble of observers

We discuss now the same system used in  for demonstrating the effect of observation upon the experimental results. The discussion in  is generalized to include the large ensemble of related $`N`$ thermodynamical systems, of the kind studied in . That is, a hollow cylinder that contains $`n`$ particles, not all of the same kind, among four pistons as shown in Figure 3. The pistons $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{A}`$ are fixed while $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ may move along the cylinder. Also the pistons $`\stackrel{`}{A}`$ and $`B`$ do not allow passage of particles through them, whereas $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ are permeable so that each permits some kind of particles to move through it where those that are allowed to pass through $`A`$ are not allowed through $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ and vice versa. The pistons $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ move in such a way that the distances $`B\stackrel{`}{B}`$ and $`A\stackrel{`}{A}`$ are always equal as seen in Figure 3. These distances are measured using the $`x`$ axis which is assumed to be upward along the cylinder. We assume that the piston $`A`$ is permeable only to the particles inside the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ only to those outside it. We denote by $`w_1`$ the initial probability that any randomly selected particle is found to be in the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and by $`w_2`$ that it is outside it. At first the pistons $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ were at the positions of $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{A}`$ respectively and all the $`n`$ particles were in the one space between. We, now, wish to perform, reversibly and with no external force, a complete cycle of first moving up the pistons $`B\stackrel{`}{B}`$ and then retracing them back to their initial places. Thus, by moving up, without doing work, the pistons $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ the volume enclosed between them equals, as remarked, that between $`A\stackrel{`}{A}`$ and we obtain two separate equal volumes, each of which equals to the initial one. Now, since $`A`$ is permeable to the particles in the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ to the rest the result is that the upper volume $`B\stackrel{`}{B}`$ contains only the particles from the predetermined interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and the lower $`A\stackrel{`}{A}`$ only the others.

When we retrace the former steps and move down the pistons $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ to their former places at $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{`}{A}`$ the same initial volume is obtained. We must take into account, however, that during the upward motion some particles that were inside (outside) the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ may come out of (into) it due to thermal or other kind of fluctuation so that these particles change from the kind that may pass through the piston $`A`$ ($`\stackrel{`}{B}`$) into the kind that is not allowed to do that. Thus, the last step of retracing the pistons $`B`$, $`\stackrel{`}{B}`$ into their former initial positions at the pistons $`A`$, $`\stackrel{`}{A}`$ respectively can not be performed without doing work since the molecules that have come out of (into) the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ are not permitted now to pass through $`A`$ ($`\stackrel{`}{B}`$). That is, the former process of expanding the volume is not reversible as described because we have to exert force on these molecules to move them back into (out of) the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ so that they can pass through $`A`$ ($`\stackrel{`}{B}`$).

We may express this quantitatively by noting that there is now  a decrease of entropy per molecule after the first step of moving up the pistons. This is calculated by taking into account that now the probabilities to find any randomly selected molecule out of (in) the preassigned interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ are different from the initial values $`w_2`$ and $`w_1`$ before moving up the pistons. Thus, suppose that during the first stage of expanding the initial volume of the cylinder $`n_o`$ molecules, from the total number $`n`$, have come out of the remarked interval and $`n_i`$ from outside have entered so that the probability to find now any randomly selected molecule out of it is $`(w_2+\frac{(n_on_i)}{n})`$ and that to find it in is $`(w_1+\frac{(n_in_o)}{n})`$. Thus, denoting the entropies per molecule before and after moving up the pistons by $`s_i`$ and $`s_m`$ respectively we have

$$s_i=k(w_1\mathrm{ln}w_1+w_2\mathrm{ln}w_2),$$
(45)
$`s_m=k((w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_in_o)}{n}})\mathrm{ln}(w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_in_o)}{n}})+`$ (46)
$`+(w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n}})\mathrm{ln}(w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n}})),`$
where $`k`$ is Boltzman’s constant. The difference in the entropy per molecule between the two situations from Eqs (45)- (46) is

$`\delta s=(s_ms_i)=(kw_1(\mathrm{ln}(w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_in_o)}{n}})\mathrm{ln}w_1)+kw_2(\mathrm{ln}(w_2+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n}})\mathrm{ln}w_2)+k{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n}}(\mathrm{ln}(w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n}})`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{ln}(w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_in_o)}{n}})))=(kw_1(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_in_o)}{w_1n}})\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_in_o)}{w_1n}})+`$
$`+kw_2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{w_2n}})\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{w_2n}})+{\displaystyle \frac{k(n_on_i)}{n}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{w_2}{w_1}}))`$
Eliminating $`w_2`$ through use of the relation $`w_1+w_2=1`$ one may write the last equation as

$`\delta s=(s_ms_i)=(kw_1(1{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{nw_1}})\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{nw_1}})+`$ (48)
$`+k(1w_1)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n(1w_1)}})\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n(1w_1)}})+{\displaystyle \frac{k(n_on_i)}{n}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{(1w_1)}{w_1}}))`$
We note that the probability $`w_1`$ must be directly proportional to the length of the remarked interval $`x_2x_1`$, so that a small or large value for one indicates a corresponding value for the other. Thus, we may assume a normal distribution  for $`w_1`$ in terms of $`x`$ and write for the density function of $`w_1(x)`$ $`f_{w_1}(x)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(x\mu )^2}{2\sigma ^2})}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }`$, where $`\mu `$ is the mean value of $`x`$ and $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation. To further simplify the following calculation we assume a standard normal distribution  $`z=\frac{(x\mu )}{\sigma }`$ for which $`\mu =0`$ and $`\sigma =1`$. Thus, the density function $`f_{w_1}(x)`$ may be written as $`f_{w_1}(z)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(z)^2}{2})}{\sqrt{2\pi }}`$ and the probability $`w_1(x)`$ to find any randomly selected molecule in the interval $`(x,x)`$, where now this interval is symmetrically located around the origin $`x=0`$, is

$$w_1(x)=_x^xf_{w_1}(z)𝑑z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_x^x𝑑ze^{\frac{z^2}{2}}=erf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}})$$
(49)
$`erf(x)`$ is the error function defined as $`erf(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^xe^{u^2}𝑑u`$. Note that $`erf(0)=0`$, $`erf(\mathrm{})=1`$, and $`erf(x)=erf(x)`$ so that this function is appropriate for a representation of the probability $`w_1(x)`$. Substituting from Eq (49) into Eq (48) we obtain

$`\delta s=(s_ms_i)=(kerf({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{nerf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}})}})\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{nerf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}})}})+`$
$`+k(1erf({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}}))(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n(1erf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}))}})\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_on_i)}{n(1erf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}))}})+`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k(n_on_i)}{n}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{(1erf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}))}{erf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}})}}))`$
Eq (50) which gives the entropy decrease per molecule, must be multiplied by the number $`n`$ of molecules in the cylinder in order to obtain the total decrease of entropy after moving up the pistons. Figure 4 shows a three-dimensional representation of the entropy $`s`$ per molecule from the last equation as function of $`\frac{n_i}{n}`$ and $`\frac{n_o}{n}`$ which are respectively the fractions of molecules that have entered and come out of the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$. The probability $`w_1=erf(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}})`$ must begin from the minimum value of $`\frac{n_0}{n}`$ since $`w_1`$ can not be smaller than $`\frac{n_0}{n}`$. The ranges of both $`\frac{n_i}{n}`$ and $`\frac{n_o}{n}`$ are specified to $`0.005\frac{n_i}{n},\frac{n_o}{n}0.5`$ because in the reversible motion discussed here it is unexpected that more than half of the total particles will enter or leave the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$. One may realize from the figure that for large values of $`\frac{n_0}{n}`$ ($`\frac{n_i}{n}`$) and comparatively small values of $`\frac{n_i}{n}`$ ($`\frac{n_o}{n}`$) the entopy differences tend to $`+1`$ ($`1`$) and when both $`\frac{n_0}{n}`$ and $`\frac{n_i}{n}`$ are large $`s`$ tends to zero from negative values.

As realized from Eq (50) when $`n_o=n_i`$, which means that there is no net transfer of molecules out of or into the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$, the entropy decrease from Eqs (50) is obviously zero. When, however, $`n_on_i`$ the molecules that come out of the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and those that have entered it prevent, as remarked, the reversible return of the pistons to their former places. This problem has been discussed and solved in  for the single cylinder. Our main interest is to generalize from this four-piston cylinder to a large ensemble of such cylinders and calculate, as done for the quantum examples in Sections II-III, the correlation among them.

We assume that the initial state of all the $`N`$ identical four-pistons cylinders is that in which the movable pistons $`\stackrel{`}{B}_j`$, $`B_j`$ are on the fixed ones $`\stackrel{`}{A}_j`$ and $`A_j`$ where $`1jN`$ (see Figure 3). One then simultaneously and reversibly raise up and down in a complete cycle all the $`2N`$ movable pistons $`\stackrel{`}{B}_j`$ and $`B_j`$, $`1jN`$. Thus, if after the moving-up stage we find, for some of them, that no molecule comes out of the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and no one from outside has entered it then, as remarked, they record no entropy decrease during this stage. Note that if no entropy decrease has been detected during the reversible upward motion then one may assume no such decrease also in the downward motion. If, on the other hand, one finds $`n_o`$ molecules come out of the interval $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`n_i`$ have entered where $`n_on_i`$ then, as remarked, a decrease of entropy must occurs. In such case the total decrease of entropy for the $`N`$ cylinders after the moving-up stage is

$`\delta s_{total}=k{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{j=N}{}}}n(erf({\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}})(1`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{o_j}n_{i_j})}{nerf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}})}})\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{o_j}n_{i_j})}{nerf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}})}})+(1erf({\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}}))(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{o_j}n_{i_j})}{n(1erf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}))}})`$
$`\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{o_j}n_{i_j})}{n(1erf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}))}})+{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{o_j}n_{i_j})}{n}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{(1erf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}))}{erf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}})}})),`$
where we use Eq (50) and assume that the total number of molecules $`n`$ are the same for all the ensemble members. We, now, show that when the $`N`$ experiments of reversibly moving the pistons up and down are related to each other in the sense that no two of them share the same value of either $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$ or $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$ (or $`x_j`$), where $`1jN`$, then the larger is $`N`$ the more probable is to obtain entropy decrease. If, on the other hand, they are not related in this manner so that some systems share the values of either $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$ or $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$ (or $`x_j`$) then the mentioned probability will be discontinuous, stochastic and much less clear compared to the former case. We first note that since for all $`x3`$ $`erf(x)1`$ we may assume a range of $`(3,3)`$ from which we take the values for the $`N`$ preassigned intervals $`(x_j,x_j)`$ where $`1jN`$. That is, we subdivide the interval $`(3,3)`$ into $`N`$ different subintervals, where $`N`$ is the number of cylinders, so that each has its unique interval $`(x_j,x_j)`$ besides its specific values of $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$ and $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$. Also, each probability $`w_{i_j}=erf(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}})`$ for any system $`O_j,(j=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ must begin, as remarked after Eq (50), from the minimum value of $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$ and we also assume (see the discussion after Eq (50)) that the $`2N`$ different values of $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$ and $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$, $`1jN`$ are from the range $`0.005\frac{n_{o_j}}{n},\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}0.5`$. We assign to each experiment that results in entropy decrease, after moving-up the pistons, the value of $`+1`$ and 0 otherwise. Thus, assuming that the movable pistons in the $`N`$ cylinders are moved up we calculate the quantity

$$g(N)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=N}{}}g_i(N),$$
(52)
where $`g_i(N)=1`$ for an entropy decrease result and $`g_i(N)=0`$ otherwise. That is, the function $`g(N)`$ is directly proportional to the number of experiments which result in entropy decrease and inversely proportional to those with a different result (for which $`\delta s0`$). Figure 5 shows $`g(N)`$ as a function of $`N`$, in the range $`400N3500`$, and we see that $`g(N)`$ grows as the number $`N`$ of related cylinders increases where this relationship is effected, as remarked, by preparing the $`N`$ experiments so that any one of them have its unique $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$, $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$ and $`(x_j,x_j)`$ where $`1jN`$. That is, the larger is the number of related experiments the more frequent is the result of entropy decrease. If, on the other hand, this kind of relationship is absent as when assigning randomly to any system $`O_j(j=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ an interval $`(x_j,x_j)`$ (from $`(3,3)`$) and also $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$, $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$ (from $`(0.005,0.5)`$) we obtain a stochastic result for $`g(N)`$ that implies no clear-cut consistent value. This is clearly seen in the sawtooth form of the curve of Figure 6 which is drawn under exactly the same conditions as those of Figure 5 except that the values of $`(x_j,x_j)`$, $`\frac{n_{o_j}}{n}`$ and $`\frac{n_{i_j}}{n}`$ are randomly chosen.

We note that the same results may be obtained by using other methods and terminology. Thus, it is shown  that the “localization” (in the sense of smaller dispersion) for the state $`|\varphi >`$ is greater the smaller is the entropy which results when the rate of “effective interaction with the environment”  increases. Localization is another name for what we call here “realizing or preserving a specific state” and the interaction with the environment is equivalent to performing experiment , so that as the rate of performing experiment grows the more realized and localized is the state one begins with or the path of states along which one proceeds.

## Concluding Remarks

We have studied the influence of obsevation, and especially the large number of them, upon the obtained results. This has been shown for both quantum and classical systems. For the quantum part in Sections 2-3 we have made use of the Feynman path integral  and the Everett’s relative state  methods. For the classical part in Section 4 we use entropy considerations  for discussing the four-piston cylinder . Using these analytical methods we show that for producing the obtained results all the involved systems and experiments should be related to each other in some kind of relationship which assumes different, and even contradictory, forms for different situations. Thus, for the static Zeno effect the relationship between the systems is their being initially prepared in the same initial state and for the dynamic Zeno and the classical cylinder this relationship is effected by initially preparing the systems in different states.

This is, especially, emphasized in a clearer way using entropy considerations in Section 4. The important factor that entails the collective entropy decrease is, as remarked, when all the memebers of the ensemble are related to each other as described in Section 4 (see Figure 5). Unrelated ensemble of observers, no matter how large it is, does not obtain the same required entropy decrease as seen clearly in Figure 6.

## Acknowledgement

I wish to thank L. P. Horwitz for discussions on this subject.


text:
# On the Field-Aligned Particle Acceleration in the presence of Electron-Positron Pairs

## 1 Introduction

One of the promising models for the pulsar action is the polar cap model where the field-aligned electric field accelerates charged particles up to TeV energies, and causes an electromagnetic shower. The potential drop is normally thought to be confined in a small region: the field-aligned electric field is screened out at the both ends of the accelerator (Fig. 1). The polar cap potential drop is a part of the electromotive force produced by the rotating magnetic neutron star. The voltage drop is a few percent of the available voltage for young pulsars, while it becomes some important fraction for older pulsars. The localized potential is maintained by a pair of anode and cathode regions, the formation mechanism of which is the long issue of the polar cap accelerator.

## 2 Pair Production Front (PPF) and Screening

If the field-aligned electric field is formed to accelerate particles up to the Lorentz factor of $`10^610^7`$, then a number of curvature gamma-photons convert into electron-positron pairs under strong magnetic field $`10^{12}`$ G above a surface, which may be called the pair production front (PPF). The expected multiplicity — number of pairs produced by one primary particle — is typically $`10^3`$ within a distance $`10^5`$ cm.

In a number of literatures, it is assumed that the field-aligned electric field is screened out above PPF because the density of pairs is higher than the Goldreich-Julian (GJ) density. However, this screening process had not been studied in detail. Shibata, Miyazaki & Takahara (1998) showed that pair polarization is not efficient even if pair density is much higher than the GJ density. In their work, presence of the particles reflected backward by unscreened electric field was ignored. In this paper, taking the backward-moving particles into account, we derive an expression for the steady screening at PPF.

## 3 Model

Let us consider a model for the steady accelerator which has a finite potential drop along the magnetic field with the electric field screened at the both ends. For definite sign of charge, let us assume electrons are accelerated outwards, i.e., the electric field points toward the star. $`\gamma `$-rays emitted by the electrons convert into pairs beyond PPF continuously.

Schematic picture of the screening region is shown in Fig. 2. At the top panel, electrons are accelerated to the right, so the electric field points to the left. The gamma-rays emitted by the electrons are converted in to pairs above PPF (the right side of PPF in the figure). Since the pairs are created almost continuously in a half space to the right of PPF, the pair-flux monotonically increases with the coordinate $`x`$ along the magnetic lines of force, where curvature is ignored since the scale considered here is very short.

The second panel indicates the pair flux $`F(x)`$, which is defined as the number of pairs created below $`x`$. The multiplication factor $`m(x)`$ may be much convenient: $`F(x)=m(x)j_0`$ where $`j_0`$ is the primary flux of electrons coming up from a region below PPF.

Here, it must be reminded that why the accelerating electric field is formed below PPF. The electric field well within the light cylinder is conveniently decomposed by the co-rotational and non-corotational fields:

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \stackrel{}{r}}{c}\times \stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the non-corotational electric potential, and field aligned electric field is given by $`E_{}=\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{}\varphi /B`$. The Poisson equation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reads

$$^2\varphi =4\pi (\rho \rho _0),$$
(2)
where $`\rho _0\mathrm{\Omega }B_z/2\pi c`$ is the GJ charge density. From this expression it follows that the anode region is formed where $`\rho >\rho _0`$, and the cathode region is formed where $`\rho <\rho _0`$. In the screened region, $`\rho =\rho _0`$.

In our sign convention, the GJ density is negative, and electronic flow with super-GJ density can produce cathode (negative) region, which is located above the stellar surface (see Fig. 1). There must be such a negative region below the PPF. Above PPF, created pair positrons will be returned back by the electric field, so they can destroy the cathode region. This fact sets a constraint to the flux of pair positrons. In the problem of electric field screening, one needs an anode region where the effective charge $`\rho \rho _0`$ is positive. There are two possible ways of producing the anode region. One is the ‘geometrical effect’, and the other is pair polarization.

The geometrical effect is cased by the fact that the GJ charge density is proportional to the magnetic component along the rotation axis $`B_z`$ while the charge density of the electronic flow is proportional to the magnetic field strength, or equivalently inversely proportional to the cross sectional area of the magnetic flux tube if the flow velocity is $`c`$ (constant). Therefore, if the flow is curving toward the rotation axis, the GJ density decreases slower than the primary electronic charge density so that the electronic charge is insufficient to compensate the GJ density, and the anode is formed. This effect is effective, and the accelerating electric field can be terminated without pair creation. Although geometrical screening is effective, PPF can in general appear before geometrical screening. If this is the case, dynamics of pairs just after PPF will be important.

Our interest in this paper is not the geometrical screening but the pair effect. In general, at PPF, whatever values of the effective charge can be; it can even be negative so that anode formation relay only on pair polarization.

As shown in Fig. 2, pair electrons are accelerated while pair positrons are decelerated after their birth. As far as the speed of pair positron is relativistic, net space charge due to pairs are essentially zero. However, once the pair positron become non-relativistic, positive space charge appears owing to charge conservation. This is the effect which produces anode charge. If the electric field is strong enough, some positrons are reflected backward and weaken the cathode space charge. Assuming steadiness, one can relate the strength of the electric field to the pair creation rate, the returning positron flux, and the effective space charge before PPF. If the pair creation rate is more or less uniform, one can do this analytically as shown in the following section. Then, we have an screening condition.

## 4 Results

If the pair creation rate is more or less uniform, the screening condition with returning positron can be derived analytically. Detailed calculation will be published near future, but main results are discussed below.

The field-aligned electric field $`E_{}`$ at PPF is screened if the following two conditions are satisfied:

$$\frac{1}{2}E_\mathrm{f}^2=j\alpha _\varphi [\varphi _1(2\varphi _1)+\zeta ](jj_0jM_1)\varphi _\mathrm{s}.$$
(3)
$$\rho _\mathrm{s}=j\alpha _\varphi (12\varphi _1)(jj_0M_1j)>0.$$
(4)
(3) is just the result of Gauss’ law: a condition for giving the column positive charge to screen the electric field. (4) is the positiveness of the space charge density at the screening surface where $`E_{}`$ vanishes.

$`E_\mathrm{f}`$ is the normalized electric field to be screened: $`E_\mathrm{f}(e\lambda _0/mc^2)E_{}`$, where $`\lambda _0=\sqrt{c^2/2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_B}=`$ 2.0 cm $`B_{12}^{1/2}P^{1/2}`$ is the Debye length of typical GJ plasma. For $`10^{12}`$ Volt acceleration in $`10^4`$ cm, $`E_\mathrm{f}100`$. $`j`$ is the primary electronic current density in units of the typical GJ density: $`j=J/(\mathrm{\Omega }B/2\pi )`$. $`\alpha _\varphi `$ is the pair multiplicity — number of pairs produced by one primary electron — in an unit breaking distance $`\lambda _{}`$, with which a non-relativistic particle turns by the unscreened electric field, i.e., $`eE_{}\lambda _{}=mc^2`$. In non-dimensional form, this distance is $`1/E_\mathrm{f}`$. $`\varphi _1`$ is defined in such a way that a pair positrons produced in between $`\varphi =0`$ (PPF) and $`\varphi _1`$ are reflected backward, and therefore $`M_1=\alpha _\varphi \varphi _1`$ gives the returning multiplication factor, i.e., $`jM_1=j\alpha _\varphi \varphi _1`$ gives the returning positron flux. $`j_0`$ is the normalized (local) GJ charge density: $`j_0=B_\mathrm{z}/B`$. $`\zeta `$: a numerical factor determined by the Lorentz factor at the birth of pairs; e.g., for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{birth}}100`$, $`\zeta =1.7`$.

## 5 Application

Positive space charge by pair polarization is little. A previous belief that pair creation with a pair density higher than the Goldreich-Julian density immediately screen out the electric field is unjustified. This is because
(1) only the non-relativistic positrons can provide positive space charge,
(2) the non-relativistic positrons are reflected backward by the electric field and leave the pair electrons behind, so that a negative space charge is produced in the screening region where the positive charge is required.

In the case where geometrical screening is ineffective, more specifically, $`jj_0jM_1>0`$, we have a condition on the multiplication factor produced in unit breaking distance $`\lambda _{}`$ at PPF:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{screen}}\frac{E_{}^2}{8\pi mc^2n_0\zeta ^{}j},$$
(5)
which indicates that if $`j1`$, a multiplication factor of $`10^3`$ is required in 0.01 cm. This condition will not be satisfied in the pulsar magnetosphere.

Thus the geometrical screening (toward curvature) is the only known way of screening, i.e., in (3), the positive effective charge $`j+j_0+jM_1>0`$ last in an appropriate distance (until the electric field is screened out or weakened enough to be screened by pair polarization). Even on toward curved field lines, if the current density is super-GJ, or if $`E_{}`$ at PPF is not so weakened, then there is no way of maintaining a steady potential drop along field lines.

Difficulty in pair screening is always true for field lines curving away from the rotation axis regardless of the strength of the current density.

In our analysis, we do not take interaction between the particle beams into account. Beam instability may produce some frictional force on returning positrons and enlarge positive space charge. Time dependent behavior such as repetition of acceleration and screening may be an alternative way for a self-consistent model.