text:
# Quantum noise influencing human behaviour could fake effectiveness of drugs in clinical trials

## 1 The problem of noncompliance
in randomized clinical trials

Evaluating statistical data from clinical trials is one of the most applied methods to investigate the effect of drugs or certain therapies on the patient’s health. To compare the recovery rate of the patients that have taken the drug to the recovery rate of the others is among the most popular methods of research in medicine. Despite the simplicity of this method, it can produce an abundance of misconclusions if it is not applied carefully. One of the most popular errors in too naive applications of this kind of statistical reasoning is not to distinguish clearly between so-called experimental and non-experimental data. Experimental data is produced if some (randomly selected) patients are advised to take the drug and some are advised not to take it. In the second case the patients may decide for their own whether they want to take it or not. Although one may prefer the second method for ethical reasons, the worth of the produced data for drawing causal statements is considerably reduced. There is even no way to prove any causal effects of the drug by those data sets. The reason is that the possibly observed correlation between recovery rate and taking the drug may stem from a hidden common cause: There may be an (unobserved) feature of certain patients that makes them decide to take the drug and at the same time makes them recover. In the simplest case, this common feature may be a variable that could be observable in principle. Assume for instance, the elderly people tend less to take the drug than the younger ones. On the other hand, they recover less likely. This would produce a correlation that fakes a causal effect of the drug. But this misconclusion could be avoided by taking into account the patient’s age and evaluating the recovering rates separately for each age. However, in the generic case, the common cause is less simple and may even be something that is not accessible at all. Imagine, for instance, there is something like a strong wish to recover without drugs that is highly correlated with a high recovery rate. Then the variable describing the common cause is a feature like personality (including mental and physiological constitution) and we are no able to quantify it in order to compare only persons with “equal personality”. Randomized experiments seem to avoid this problem completely. However, there is still a problem that is directly related to the problem above. In typical tests we cannot expect that all patients act like they are advised to do: Some may not take it although they should and some may even acquire it although they were not advised to take it. Assume that it is even possible to prove (by blood-tests, for instance) that some patients did not comply. Unfortunately, even this does not solve the problem completely since we cannot identify which part of the correlations are caused by the common personal feature influencing the patient’s decision and his recovery behavior and which part of the correlation is a causal effect of the drug. However, it is clear that the causal effect of the drug can almost be identified if almost all patients comply since this case approximates the perfectly randomized experiment. This intuition shows that quantitative lower and upper bounds on the causal effect of the drug can be given depending on the compliance rate. This has been investigated thoroughly in the literature (see  and references therein). First we rephrase their most intuitive conclusion. Imagine a naive researcher, not aware of the non-compliance, observes the two binary variables $`Z`$ and $`Y`$ where $`Z=z_1`$ or $`Z=z_0`$ means that the patient had or had not been selected to take the drug and $`Y=y_1`$ or $`Y=y_0`$ means that the patient recovered or not, respectively. Then he takes the difference between the probability to recover if one was advised to take the drug minus the probability to recover if one was not advised, i.e.,

$$P(y_1|z_1)P(y_1|z_0)$$

as the (positive) causal effect of the drug. 111Here we use the large sampling assumption, i.e., the sample size is large enough to estimate the joint distribution $`P`$ on all observed random variables. Issues of significance of correlations can therefore be neglected here. Now imagine that a less naive statistician asks for the maximal error that this naive conclusion can cause. He observes the variable $`X`$ where $`X=x_1`$ or $`X=x_0`$ means that the patient has or has not taken the drug, respectively. He concludes that in the worst case of overestimating the effect, all those that have been advised to take the drug but complied and have recovered, would have stayed ill if they had complied. On the other hand, all those that had been advised not to take it and took it nevertheless and did not recover may have recovered if they would have complied. By this intuition he concludes that the causal effect of the drug is to increase the probability to recover at least by

$$P(y_1|z_1)P(y_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)P(y_0,x_1|z_0),$$
(1)
where $`P(y_1,x_0|z_1)`$ denotes the conditional probability of the event ‘no drug taken and recovered’, given that the advice was to take it. The other definitions are similarly.

By the same kind of arguments one can give bounds on the underestimation of the causal effect. One obtains that the recovery rate is increased by at most

$$P(y_1|z_1)P(y_1|z_0)P(y_0,x_0|z_1)P(y_1,x_1|z_0).$$
(2)
Note that the increase of recovery rate we are talking about is the increase that would happen if all patients took the drug, also those that have decided not to take it. Therefore the definition of the causal effect relies on the hypothetical result of an experiment where all patients are forced to comply.

For a formal proof of statements of this kind one needs a precise model in which terms as “the recovery rate if all patients take the drug” make sense.

Here we follow the approach of Pearl  to formalize causal claims of this kind within graphical models. Random variables $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are the nodes of directed acyclic graphs and an arrow from variable $`X`$ to $`Y`$ indicates that there is a causal effect from $`X`$ to $`Y`$. Furthermore, one has to specify the transition probabilities for each node, i.e. for each variable $`X_j`$ one has the conditional probabilities

$$P(x_j|x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_k})$$

where $`X_{j_1},\mathrm{},X_{j_k}`$ are the parents of $`X_j`$. The joint distribution on all the random variables decomposes into

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{j}{}P(x_j|x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_k}).$$

An essential part of Pearl’s theory is that it distinguishes carefully between the probability measure that is obtained once one has observed that the variable $`X_j`$ takes the value $`x_j`$ and the measure that is obtained if $`X_j`$ is set to $`x_j`$ by external control. The first one is the usual conditional probability

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|x_j),$$

whereas he denotes the latter one by

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|\text{ do }x_j).$$

He formalizes this probability by

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|\text{ do }\widehat{x}_j):=\underset{ij}{}P(x_i|x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_k})\delta (x_j,\widehat{x}_j).$$

The intuition behind this definition is that the values of $`X_j`$ do no longer depend on the values of those variables that influence $`X_j`$ directly (“the parents of $`X_j`$”) or indirectly (“the ancestors of $`X_j`$”). Hence the transition probabilities “probability that $`X_j`$ takes the value $`x_j`$, given the value of the parents of $`X_j`$” have to be substituted by the Kronecker symbol. This manipulation, for instance, does not change the probability distribution of the ancestors of $`X_j`$. It changes only the distribution of the descendants of $`X_j`$. Whereas conditional probabilities reflect correlations among variables, the probabilities obtained by the do-operator reflect causal effects and distinguish between causal directions.

Following  the relevant variables in our drug testing problem are $`X,Y,Z`$ as already introduced and a latent variable $`U`$ that includes unobservable features as personality and physical constitution. The graphical model of the causal structure is shown in Fig. 1.

Whether there is an arrow from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ should be clarified by the clinical trial. A priori, we assume that there is an arrow. Then the model is specified by the following parameters

$$P(z),P(x|z,u),P(y|x,u),P(u).$$

Whether or not and how $`P(y|x,u)`$ dependends really on $`x`$ is not clear yet. The calculation of $`P(y|\text{ do }x)`$ would require to know these parameters, whereas only the joint distribution on $`X,Y,Z`$ is observable. But one can find bounds on the so-called average causal effect

$$ACE(XY):=P(y_1|\text{ do }x_1)P(y_1|\text{ do }x_0)=\underset{u}{}\left(P(y_1|x_1,u)P(y_1|x_0,u)\right)P(u)$$
(3)
in terms of observable quantities. Above, we have already mentioned one upper and one lower bound rather informally, namely inequalities (1) and (2). Following  we will call them “natural bounds”. They can formally be proven by the following considerations. As argued in  one can chose $`U`$ w.l.o.g. such that it can attain $`16=4\times 4`$ possible values and such that $`U`$ determines $`X`$ and $`Y`$ deterministically if the actual value $`z`$ of $`Z`$ is given (compare also ). The values of $`U`$ can be considered as a cartesian product of a variable $`B`$ that determines the patient’s decision $`X`$ and a component $`R`$ that determines $`Y`$, i.e., the physical response to the drug,i.e., to recover of not. The values of the first component are “never take”, “always take”, “comply” and “non-comply” . Following  the response behavior to the drug is given by “never recover”, “always recover”, “helped”, and “hurt”. We denote these 4 values by $`R=r_1,R=r_2,R=r_3,R=r_4`$. In this deterministic model, the only free parameters remaining are $`P(z)`$ and $`P(u)`$. Then the average causal effect is given by the difference

$$P(r_3)P(r_4),$$

i.e., the probability to recover because of the drug minus the probability not to recover because of the drug. Counterfactual statements like “the patient would have recovered without using the drug” are subject of philosophical debates with a long history (see ). Therefore it may cause unease to some readers to find causal implications of data based on such terms. However, Pearl has come up with convincing arguments (to our opinion) that counterfactual statements do make sense if appropriate models are available. Provided that one accepts that all variables describing mental and physiological processes are classical random variables the conclusion that it can be represented w.l.o.g. by a $`16`$-state variable seems indubitable. However, the assumption that all mental and physiological states (influencing human decision and health) are described by classical variables, is not self-evident at all. Here we do not participate in the (sometimes speculative) debate on the relevance of quantum superposition and incompatibility of quantum observables for mental processes . We just want to find out which rules in classical statistics can be violated in case quantum uncertainty is relevant for mental and physiological processes.

## 2 The instrumental inequalities

Within the hidden variable model where $`U`$ can attain $`16`$ different values one can prove the natural bounds (1) and (2) and even tighter bounds . These so-called instrumental inequalities read :

$$ACE\left\{\begin{array}{c}P(y_1,x_1|z_1)+P(y_0,x_0|z_0)1\\ P(y_1,x_1|z_0)+P(y_0,x_0|z_1)1\\ P(y_1,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_1,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_0)P(y_0,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)\\ P(y_0,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)\\ P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_0,x_0|z_1)P(y_0,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_0,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_0,x_0|z_0)P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_0)P(y_0,x_1|z_1)P(y_0,x_0|z_1)\end{array}\right\}$$

Note that the problem to identify the causal effect

$$P(y_1|\text{ do }x_1)P(y_1|\text{ do }x_0)=P(y_0|\text{ do }x_0)P(y_0|\text{ do }x_1)$$

is symmetric with respect to the joint substitution $`x_1x_0`$ and $`y_1y_0`$. Furthermore it is symmetric with respect to the substitution $`z_1z_0`$ since, abstractly considered, $`Z`$ is only an arbitrary binary variable that influences the patient’s decision. Note that perfect non-compliance would also make it possible to identify the effect of the drug. The 8 inequalities form two groups, namely $`1,2,5,6`$ and $`3,4,7,8`$ such that members of the same group can be converted into each other by those symmetries.

The upper bounds on the causal effect are given similarly by the substitution $`y_1y_0`$ and reversing the signs of all probabilities:

$$ACE\left\{\begin{array}{c}1P(y_0,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_0|z_0)\\ 1P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)\\ P(y_0,x_1|z_0)+P(y_0,x_1|z_1)+P(y_0,x_0|z_1)+P(y_1,x_1|z_0)P(y_0,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_0,x_1|z_1)+P(y_1,x_1|z_1)+P(y_0,x_0|z_1)+P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_0,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_1,x_1|z_1)+P(y_0,x_0|z_1)\\ P(y_1,x_1|z_0)+P(y_0,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_1,x_0|z_1)+P(y_1,x_1|z_1)+P(y_0,x_0|z_1)+P(y_1,x_1|z_0)+P(y_1,x_0|z_0)\\ P(y_1,x_0|z_0)+P(y_1,x_1|z_0)+P(y_0,x_0|z_0)+P(y_1,x_1|z_1)+P(y_1,x_0|z_1)\end{array}\right\}$$

These bounds imply the natural bounds (1) and (2) (for details see  and references therein).

## 3 Quantum model of latent factors

Here we do not want to discuss the difficult question to what extent quantum mechanical effects play a crucial role for mental and physiological processes. However, we do not want to base causal conclusions from statistical data on the assumption, that quantum effects are irrelevant in our brain and our body. For doing so, we have to propose a model that generalizes the model above from classical to quantum probabilities. We chose the formal setting of algebraic quantum theory which is general enough to include quantum and classical physical processes.

In this setting, the observable algebra of an arbitrary physical system is described by a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ (see ) containing the unity $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The algebra $`𝒜`$ is called the “algebra of observables”. In a pure quantum system with unrestricted superposition principle (“without super-selection rules”) $`𝒜`$ may for instance be the algebra of bounded linear operators on an arbitrary Hilbert space. An element $`a𝒜`$ is positive, written $`a0`$ if it can be written as $`a=bb^{}`$. A functional

$$\rho :𝒜$$

is called positive if it maps positive elements on non-negative numbers. The states are positive functionals $`\rho `$ of norm 1, where the norm is described by

$$\rho :=\underset{a𝒜}{sup}|\rho (a)|/a=|\rho (\mathrm{𝟏})|,$$

and $`a`$ denotes the operator norm of $`a`$. Every yes-no experiment, i.e. an experiment with two possible outcomes, is described by a positive operator $`a`$ with $`a1`$, i.e., $`1a0`$ and $`\rho (a)`$ is the probability for the outcome “yes” if the system is in the state $`\rho `$.

A physical process changing the system’s state can either be described by a completely-positive map $`G^{}`$ (“CP-map”)  on the set of positive functionals with $`G^{}(\rho )=\rho `$ or, by duality, as CP-map

$$G:𝒜𝒜$$

with $`G(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. In this formulation, the process acts on the state by transforming $`\rho `$ to $`G^{}(\rho )\rho G`$. Measurements with any finite number $`k`$ of outcomes are described by so-called positive operator valued measures (“POVMs”), i.e., a family $`m_1,m_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$ of positive operators with $`_im_i=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Then $`\rho (m_i)`$ denotes the probability to obtain the result “$`i`$”. Note that the POVM does not describe the effect of the measurement instrument on the state. If the state after the measurement is relevant, we have to describe the instrument by a family of $`k`$ CP-maps $`G_1,\mathrm{},G_k`$ with $`_iG_i(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. If the measurement outcome is “$`i`$” the state $`\rho `$ is transformed to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ with

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(a):=\rho (G_i(a))/\rho (G_i(\mathrm{𝟏})),$$

where $`\rho (G_i(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ is the probability to obtain the result “$`i`$”. Hence

$$G_1(\mathrm{𝟏}),\mathrm{},G_k(\mathrm{𝟏})$$

is the POVM representing the measurement. Without observing the measurement outcome, the instrument transforms $`\rho `$ to $`\rho G`$ with $`G:=_iG_i`$.

The formal setting for investigating the violation of the instrumental inequalities by quantum latent factors is based on the following assumptions.

1. The advice to take or not to take the drug is perfectly randomized and independent of all other factors.
2. All relevant latent factors influencing the patient’s decision and his response behavior to the drug are described by the state of a physical system in the sense of algebraic quantum theory. This state includes the patient’s mental and physical state as well as noise that influences the decision or response or both. The state is the state $`\rho `$ of a physical system (in the sense above) described by an observable algebra $`𝒜`$. The system is either purely quantum, purely classical, or a mixture of both. Although this may be a too materialistic view on mind and consciousness this approach is more general than any hidden variable model in the literature.
3. To take or not to take the drug is a classical event that either occurs or does not occur but there is no quantum superposition between both. The process of human decision is therefore like a measurement process in its broadest sense explained above. This instrument is described by CP-maps $`D_1,D_0`$ acting on $`𝒜`$. Hence the state $`\rho `$ is transformed to $`\rho D_1/\rho D_1`$ if the patient has decided to take the drug and $`\rho D_0/\rho D_0`$ otherwise. If the decision itself is ignored, the process of decision making is described by the process $`\rho \rho D`$ with $`D:=D_0+D_1`$.
4. The advice to take or not to take the drug is a classical signal that influences the patient’s internal state. The advice to take or not to take transforms the state to $`\rho G_1`$ or $`\rho G_0`$, respectively. Here $`G_j`$ are CP-maps on $`𝒜`$.
5. The effect of the drug is to transform the internal state $`\rho `$ to $`\rho E_1`$, whereas the natural evolution without drug in the considered time interval changes the state according to the operation $`E_0`$. The operations $`E_j`$ are CP-maps on $`𝒜`$.
6. Whether the patient recovers or not is a classical event and is therefore equivalent to a measurement process in the sense above. It corresponds to a yes-no-experiment described by a positive operator $`m𝒜`$.
7. The advice to take or not to take the drug has no direct causal influence on the heath, it influences the probability of recovery only indirectly by influencing the decision. This corresponds to the fact that the graphical model Fig. 1 for the classical setting has no arrow from $`Z`$ to $`Y`$.

One may think that it would be more appropriate to assume that the operations $`G_j`$ and $`E_j`$ act on different systems: $`G_j`$ acts on the mind and $`E_j`$ on the body. But we do not want to restrict our proofs to this assumption. In particular, we emphasize that there may be a part of the body with the property that its quantum state influences the decision and the recovery. This may, for instance, be a cell that influences the production of some hormone that has a causal effect on both mood and health.

For the observable quantities we obtain:

$$P(y_1,x_k|z_j)=\rho (G_jD_kE_k(m))$$
(4)
is for $`k=1`$ ($`k=0`$) the probability to take (take not) the drug and recover, given that the advice was to take the drug, i.e. $`j=1`$ (not to take, $`j=0`$). Similarly we have

$$P(y_0,x_k|z_j)=\rho (G_jD_kE_k(\mathrm{𝟏}m)).$$
(5)
For causal statements the following unobservable counterfactual probabilities are important:

$$\rho (G_jD_kE_l(m))$$

with $`kl`$. It expresses the hypothetical experiment that we observe the patients decision to take or not to take the drug and prevent him from taking it although he has decided to or force him to take it although he has refused to. In the following we use the abbreviation $`m_l:=E_l(m)`$. Assumption 7 translates to the statement

$$\rho (G_1D(m_l))=\rho (G_0D(m_l)),$$
(6)
for $`l=0,1`$.

The increase of the recovery probability that is caused by the drug (ACE) is given by

$$ACE=\rho (G_1D(m_1))\rho (G_1D(m_0))=\rho (G_0D(m_1))\rho (G_0D(m_0)).$$

Note that $`\rho (G_1D(m_1))`$ is a sum of the observed probability $`\rho (G_1D_1(m_1))`$ and the counterfactual probability $`\rho (G_1D_0(m_1))`$. This reflects the fact that the causal effect of the drug could only be identified if the taking of the drug was decoupled from the patient’s decision to take it. In the next section we will present a model violating the third instrumental inequality. Due to the symmetry of the problem we can violate inequalities $`4,7,8`$ similarly.

## 4 Violation of instrumental inequalities and Bell inequality

The violation of the so-called Bell inequality  is one of the most convincing arguments supporting the hypothesis that micro-physics cannot be described by classical probability theory. The idea behind Bell’s inequality is that it describes quantitatively the difference between those statistical correlations that appear in quantum theory and those that can be explained by a classical probability space where all uncertainty stems from our missing knowledge on the values of some hidden parameters. These parameters should decide deterministically which event will occur in future. Whereas Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (in the so-called EPR-paradox) gave intuitive arguments why quantum correlations may behave rather strange, Bell’s inequality formalized a testable difference between quantum and classical correlations.

As already noted in  the instrumental inequalities have some formal analogies to Bell’s inequality since they give bounds on the possible correlations between two random variables that are influenced by a common hidden parameter. We took this “formal analogy” seriously and show that the well-known setting that shows the violation of Bell’s inequality can be modified to violate the instrumental inequalities $`3,4,7,`$ and $`8`$.

We consider a quantum system in $`^4`$ and decompose it into $`^4=^2C^2`$. The two basis states of each subsystem can be for instance the horizontal and vertical polarization of a photon, denoted by $`|h`$ and $`|v`$, respectively. The superposition

$$\mathrm{cos}(\theta )|h+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )|v$$

describes a polarization in the direction of an axis with the angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the horizontal axis. The polarization can be measured by a polarization filter. All photons that pass the filter are polarized in the direction of the axis of the filter. A photon with polarization $`\theta `$ has the probability $`1/2(1+\mathrm{cos}(2\theta 2\stackrel{~}{\theta }))`$ to pass the filter if $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is the direction of the filter’s axis. We write the measurement result “$`1`$” if it passes and “$`0`$” if it doesn’t. Then we consider the so-called singlet state

$$|\psi :=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|h|v|v|h).$$

It has the following interesting property: For each filter both results appear with equal probability. If the polarization axis of filter 1 and filter 2 have the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively, the probability that both measurement results coincide is

$$\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha 2\beta )).$$
(7)
For $`\alpha =\beta `$ this means that the results are always different and for $`\alpha =\beta \pm 90^o`$ they always coincide.

In the typical setting to show that those kind of quantum correlations are fundamentally different from classical correlations there is a source emitting a photon pair in a singlet state in two different directions and the polarization axis of the two filters are chosen randomly and independently. Bell has shown  that there exist angles $`\alpha _0,\alpha _1`$ for the first polarization analyzer and $`\beta _0,\beta _1`$ for the second such that the correlations (7) cannot be explained by any hidden variable theory that is local. Here locality means that causal effects between physical systems require physical signals traveling through the space not faster than the speed of light. Explicitly, Bell’s inequality is as follows. Assign the values $`e_j=\pm 1`$ to the result “photon has passed the filter $`j`$” or “photon has not passed”, respectively. Then define the covariance

$$C(\alpha ,\beta ):=\underset{e_1=\pm 1,e_2=\pm 1}{}e_1e_1P(e_1,e_2|\alpha ,\beta ),$$
(8)
where $`P(.|\alpha ,\beta )`$ describes the joint distribution on the measurement outcomes given the position of the filters. Then Bell’s inequality states that

$$|C(\alpha _0,\beta _0)+C(\alpha _0,\beta _1)+C(\alpha _1,\beta _0)C(\alpha _1,\beta _1)|2$$

is satisfied whenever any hidden variable determines both measurement results in advance, i.e., before one has chosen the filter angles. In contrast, with the singlet state one can achieve the values $`\pm 2\sqrt{2}`$ if the angles are chosen appropriately. The factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ describing the difference between quantum and classical correlations will also appear in the violation of instrumental inequalities below.

Meanwhile, experiments of this kind  have given strong evidence for the fact that micro-physical effects are really in good agreement with quantum theory and hence in contradiction to any local hidden variable theory. Since the experiment above is one of those that cannot be explained by any local hidden variable model it is straightforward to use this setting to construct a causal toy model for patient’s decision and his physical response that violates the instrumental inequalities. Let the left polarization filter initially have the angle $`\alpha _0`$. The advice to take the drug turns the filter to the angle $`\alpha _1`$. The result of the left polarization measurement is the patient’s decision. The right filter is initially in the position $`\beta _0`$. The drug turns the filter to the position $`\beta _1`$. The measurement of the right photon decides whether the patient recovers. This is shown in Fig. 2

In this setting the decisive conditional probabilities are given by

$$P(y_j,x_k|z_l)=\frac{1}{4}\left(1(1)^{j+k}\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _l2\beta _k)\right).$$

This can be seen as follows: The indices $`l`$ (advice to take/ not to take) and $`k`$ (taken or not) determine the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the filters. The probability that the patient’s decision ($`0`$ or $`1`$) coincides with his response to the drug ($`0`$ or $`1`$) is given by $`(1\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _l2\beta _k)/2`$. The probabilitiy that the results disagree is $`(1+\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _l2\beta _k)/2`$. The probabilities for the results $`1`$ and $`0`$ in the first measurement are $`1/2`$ each, regardless of the measurement angle. This gives an additional factor $`1/2`$. Here we will not really need the general setting using CP-maps as described in Section 3. In order to show, that the experiment described above fits in the general formalism we shortly give the definitions of the CP-maps $`G_j,D_k,E_l`$ in an informal way. The maps $`G_0`$ and $`G_1`$ describe the turning of the first filter by the angle $`\alpha _0`$ or $`\alpha _1`$, respectively. $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ describe the operations on the system caused by a vertical polarization measurement if the result is negative or positive, respectively. $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ correspond to the filter rotations by the angles $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _1`$, respectively. The yes-no experiment that is given by polarization a measurement of the second photon (with respect to the vertical axis) is described by the operator $`m`$. Hence the operators $`E_0(m)`$ and $`E_1(m)`$ describe polarization measurements with angles $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _1`$, respectively. Let $`P_1^\alpha `$ and be the projector onto the subspace of $`^2`$ spanned by

$$\mathrm{cos}\alpha |h+\mathrm{sin}\alpha |v$$

and $`P_0^\alpha `$ be the projector onto the orthogonal subspace. Then $`G_jD_k`$ is the CP-map

$$a(P_k^{\alpha _j}\mathrm{𝟏})a(P_k^{\alpha _j}\mathrm{𝟏}).$$

Here we have assumed for simplicity that the polarizator is not a filter that absorbs some photons and let the others pass but we assume that is splits the photon beam into those with vertical and those with horizontal polarization. Otherwise the operation $`D_0`$ would be more difficult to describe formally since it annihilates the photon completely. The positive operators $`m_j=E_j(m)`$ are given by

$$E_l(m)=\mathrm{𝟏}P_1^{\beta _l}.$$

By applying the CP maps $`G_j`$ and $`D_j`$ to $`m_l`$ we obtain

$$G_jD_k(m_l)=P_k^{\alpha _j}P_1^{\beta _l}.$$

Due to

$$P_1^{\alpha _j}+P_0^{\alpha _j}=\mathrm{𝟏}$$

we have

$$G_0D(m_l)=G_1D(m_l)=\mathrm{𝟏}P_1^{\beta _l}.$$

This shows that equation (6) is satisfied.

It is almost obvious, that the average effect of the drug is zero since in both filter positions the probability to pass is $`1/2`$. If we would decouple the taking from the patient’s decision the recovery probability was in both cases $`1/2`$ whether the drug was taken or not.

This does not mean that the drug does not have any causal effect on the patient’s health at all: The drug might help the patients that have decided to take it and could hurt the others if they had been forced to take it. Hence the effect is only zero in the average for a hypothetical experiment where all patients are forced to take the drug, even those that would have decided against it. Since we have already argued that the average causal effect is zero, the third instrumental inequality is violated if we find polarizator positions $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ such that

$$P(y_1,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_1|z_1)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)P(y_0,x_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_0)>0.$$
(9)
For doing so, we show that we can chose the angles such that

$$P(y_1,x_1|z_0)=1/4(1+1/\sqrt{2})=:a^+$$

and all the other four terms should be

$$1/4(11/\sqrt{2})=:a^{}.$$

The equation $`P(y_1,x_1|z_0)=a^+`$ is satisfied if

$$\alpha _0\beta _1=90^o\pm 22,5^o.$$

By setting

$$\alpha _1\beta _1=\pm 22,5^o$$

we achieve that $`P(y_1,x_1|z_1)=a^{}`$. With

$$\alpha _1\beta _0=90^o\pm 22,5^o$$

we have $`P(y_1,x_0|z_1)=a^{}`$. By

$$\alpha _0\beta _1=90^o\pm 22,5^o$$

we obtain $`P(y_0,x_1|z_0)=a^{}`$. By

$$\alpha _0\beta _0=90^o\pm 22,5^o$$

we achieve $`P(y_1,x_0|z_0)=a^{}`$. All these equations can be satisfied if

$$\beta _1=0^o,\alpha _0=67,5^o,\beta _0=45^o,\alpha _1=22,5^o.$$

Then the left hand side of inequality (9) is

$$a^+4a^{}=1/4(3+5/\sqrt{2})0.134.$$

Hence the third instrumental inequality claims the average causal effect to be about $`13\%`$ although it is zero. Note that in this setting it was essential that there is indeed a causal effect of the drug on the recovery - sometimes negative and sometime positive depending on the patient’s decision. Hence the conclusion that the drug influences patient’s health is true nevertheless.

However, we present a modified version of the Gedankenexperiment where every classical statistician should come to the conclusion that there is a causal effect although the drug does not influence health at all. This version is even more analogue to the violation of Bell’s inequality, actually it is just a reinterpretation of it. Assume as above that some randomly selected patients are advised to take or not to take a drug, respectively. Not everyone complies but we can identify the non-compliers afterwards. After waiting for a while some of the patients (randomly selected) are given another drug. Since it is given in the presence of the doctor, we exclude the possibility of noncompliance here. Then we observe which patients have recovered. We describe the experiment by $`4`$ observed binary random variables $`X,Y,Z,W`$, where $`X,Y,Z`$ are as in Section 1 and $`W`$ is the taking of the second drug. As in Section 1 the there is a latent variable $`U`$ that influences decision and recovery behavior. The complete causal structure is given by the graphical model in Fig. 3.

Whether or not there is an arrow from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ should be clarified by statistical data.

Now we consider once more the singlet states and assume that the advice to take the drug turns the filter position from $`\alpha _0`$ to $`\alpha _1`$. As above, the result of the measurement at the left filter is the patient’s decision. In contrast to the setting above, the taking of the drug does not have any effect on the second filter. The second filter is turned from angle $`\beta _0`$ to $`\beta _1`$ by the second drug. With the definition of eq. (8) the singlet state can produce a joint measure on the outcomes such that

$$C(\alpha _0,\beta _0)+C(\alpha _1,\beta _0)+C(\alpha _0,\beta _1)C(\alpha _1,\beta _0)=\pm 2\sqrt{2},$$

for appropriate polarizator angles $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\beta _j`$. In analogy to Bell’s original argument, this value for the sum of covariances cannot be explained by any classical variable $`U`$ in the graphical causal model of Fig. 3 if there is no causal effect from $`X`$ to $`Y`$. The classical statistician should therefore come to the erroneous conclusion that there must be a causal effect from the first drug on the recovery.

Admittedly, we do not know of any example, where classical statistics draw causal conclusions based on Bell’s inequality. However, we want to point out that causal conclusions based on classical probability theory may even fail if the physiological and mental processes that are decisive for human behavior are sensitive to quantum noise. It is not necessary that the mental and physiological processes themselves are non-classical.

## 5 Some instrumental inequalities are still valid

We will prove that the group $`1,2,5,6`$ of instrumental inequalities is still valid in the quantum setting of Section 3. Due to the symmetry of the problem it is sufficient to prove only the first one given by

$$ACEP(y_1,x_1|z_1)+P(y_0,x_0|z_0)1.$$

It can be shown using simple operator inequalities. We have to show that

$$\rho (G_1D(m_1))\rho (G_1D(m_0))\rho (G_1D_1(m_1))+\rho (G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0))1.$$
(10)
We show this by simple calculations with operators. Note that

$$G_0D_1(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)0,$$
(11)
since $`\mathrm{𝟏}m_0`$ is a positive operator. The reason is that $`\mathrm{𝟏}m`$ is positive and $`\mathrm{𝟏}m_0=\mathrm{𝟏}E_0(m)=E_0(\mathrm{𝟏}m)`$ is positive because it is obtained by the application of the CP-map $`E_0`$ on $`\mathrm{𝟏}m`$. Similarly, the application of the CP-maps $`D_1`$ and $`G_0`$ conserve positivity. By the same arguments, $`G_1D_0(m_1)`$ is positive. Hence we obtain

$$G_0D_1(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)+G_1D_0(m_1)0.$$
(12)
Inequality (12) is equivalent to

$$G_0D_0(m_0)+G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)+G_0D_1(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)+G_1D_0(m_1)G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏})$$

Using $`D_0+D_1=D`$ we obtain

$$G_0D_0(m_0)+G_0D(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)+G_1D_0(m_1)G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏}).$$

This is equivalent to

$$G_0D_0(m_0)+G_1D(\mathrm{𝟏})+G_1D_0(m_1)G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏})+G_1D(m_0).$$

By $`G_1D(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ we obtain

$$G_0D_0(m_0)+\mathrm{𝟏}+G_1D_0(m_1)+G_1D_1(m_1)G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏})+G_1D(m_0)+G_1D_1(m_1),$$

and

$$G_1D(m_1)G_1D(m_0)G_1D_1(m_1)+G_0D_0(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

Applying the state $`\rho `$ to both sides, we obtain inequality (10). The second, fifth, and sixth instrumental inequality follow similarly due to the two symmetries of the problem according to the substitution $`z_1z_0`$ (corresponding to the substitution $`G_1G_0`$) and a common substitution $`x_1x_0,y_1y_0`$. Note that the substitution $`y_1y_0`$ corresponds to the substitution $`m_j\mathrm{𝟏}m_j`$ and $`x_0x_1`$ to the substitutions $`D_0D_1`$ and $`m_1m_0`$. Hence the second symmetry corresponds to the operator substitutions $`D_1D_0`$ and $`m_11m_0`$.

The same techniques can be used to prove the more intuitive natural bound (1)

$$ACEP(y_1|z_1)P(y_1|z_0)P(y_1,x_0|z_1)P(y_0,x_1|z_0.$$
(13)
Note that the probability $`P(y_1|z_1)`$ is given by $`\rho (G_1D_1(m_1)+G_1D_0(m_0))`$ and $`P(y_1|z_0)`$ is given by $`\rho (G_0D_1(m_1)+G_0D_0(m_0))`$. The probabilities that appear as the third and the fourth term in (13) can be obtained from eq. (4) and eq. (5).

We show that the operator inequality corresponding to inequality (1) is true which reads

$`G_1D(m_1)G_1D(m_0)`$
$`G_1D_1(m_1)+G_1D_0(m_0)G_0D_0(m_0)G_0D_1(m_1)G_1D_0(m_0)G_0D_1(\mathrm{𝟏}m_1).`$
Due to $`G_1D(m_0)=G_0D(m_0)`$ this is equivalent (by some elementary calculations) to

$$G_1D_0(m_1)+G_0D_1(\mathrm{𝟏}m_0)0,$$

which is certainly true. Hence the most intuitive bound, which is probably the best known one, cannot be violated by quantum effects. This is another interesting result.

## 6 No large-scale entanglement required

The EPR-setting above suggested that the violation of the instrumental inequalities requires large-scale entanglement between the part of the brain where the decision is made and the part of the body where the disease is located. We emphasize that large-scale entanglement of this kind is not necessary. Consider two nervous cells, one sending a signal to any endocrine gland that produces a hormone that supports the recovery process and the other one that sends signals to the central nervous system and influence human decisions. We assume that the output of both cells is a classical signal but its internal state cannot completely described by classical variables. Hence the internal process that decides whether the cell sends a signal or not is a quantum measurement process. Then our setting requires that both cells share an entangled quantum state and that their input signals operate on the corresponding internal quantum system. Our considerations show that entanglement between two cells may even produce interesting effects. Such an entangled state may for instance be provided by quantum correlated noise influencing both cells. Note that the EPR-pair provided by the noise may even be “one-particle-entanglement”, i.e., a particle being in a superposition of ariving at one cell and ariving at the other.

Nevertheless we do not want to speculate whether such models may be realistic. It is not really plausible that quantum noise influencing a small number of cells would produce correlations like in our toy model. One may also object that there is a large period of time between the decision and the response to the drug. Hence the violation of the instrumental inequalities requires quantum coherence that is stable for a long time (compared to time scales of decoherence in technical quantum systems). Therefore the violation seems to be even less likely.

However, the main purpose of this paper was to show that some classical causal interpretations of every-day life statistical data could in principle fail if latent quantum effects influence our behavior.

Thanks to Pawel Wocjan for useful corrections.


format: text

text:
# On the minimum radius of strange stars with crust

## 1 Introduction

The idea of the compact stars build of strange matter was presented by Witten (1984) and the models of stars were calculated using various models of strange matter by Haensel et al. (1986) and Alcock et al. (1986). The main idea is that the u,d,s matter is ground state of matter at zero pressure (self-bound strange quark matter) i.e. its energy per baryon is smaller than that of iron:

$$\mu _0\mu (P=0)<\mathrm{M}({}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Fe})c^2/56=930.4\mathrm{MeV}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{M}({}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Fe})`$ is the mass of the $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Fe}`$ atom.

Recently the increasing interest in strange stars is connected with some estimations of the radius of the isolated neutron (or strange) stars from some limits on the temperature of such a star. Some indications that the radius is small favor strange stars as a possible explanation.

Bare strange star surface is very poor emitter of photons with energies lower than $`20`$ MeV (Alcock et al. 1986; Chmaj et al. 1991). However strange star could be covered by a crust of nuclear matter, which changes the properties of the star allowing for the emission of photons of lower energies and the black body radiation from the stellar surface (Alcock et al. 1986). The additional mechanism of the radiation from bare strange star due to the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair creation has recently been proposed by Usov (1998, 2001), but its contribution for $`T<10^9`$ K is negligible.

As a result of observational data one can try to determine the apparent radius of the neutron star $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ would be smaller than $`12`$ km the only solution seems to be the strange star (Haensel 2001). Recent observations of the isolated neutron star candidate RX J1856.5-3754 have been interpreted as a star with the radius $`R_{\mathrm{}}3.88.2`$ km (Drake et al. 2002) (but see also Walter & Lattimer (2002)).

In this paper I present some limits on the radius of strange stars if they are covered by the crust of nuclear matter.

## 2 Strange stars with crust

### 2.1 Equations of state

In this paper I consider two types of EOSs of strange matter: MIT Bag Model and models presented by Dey et al. (1998).

In the framework of the phenomenological MIT bag model the quark matter is the mixture of the massless $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, electrons and massive $`s`$ quarks. The model is described in detail in Farhi & Jaffe (1984), where the formulae for physical parameters of a strange matter are also presented. There are the following physical quantities entering this model: $`B`$ – the bag constant, $`\alpha _c`$ – the QCD coupling constant and $`m_s`$ – the mass of the strange quark. It is necessary to introduce also the parameter $`\rho _N`$ – the renormalization point. Following Farhi & Jaffe (1984) we choose $`\rho _N=313`$ MeV.

The consequence of this model of strange matter is scaling of all thermodynamic functions and parameters of the strange stars (mass, radius etc.) with some powers of $`B`$ (Haensel et al. 1986; Zdunik 2000).

The main model considered in this paper corresponds to the following set of the MIT Bag Model model parameters for strange matter: bag constant $`B=56\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{fm}^3`$, mass of the strange quark $`m_\mathrm{s}=200\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$, and QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{c}=0.2`$. This EOS of strange quark matter (called SQM1 as in Zdunik et al. (2001)) had been also used in Zdunik (2000) and Zdunik & Gourgoulhon (2001)). It yields an energy per unit baryon number at zero pressure $`E_0=918.8\mathrm{MeV}<E(^{56}\mathrm{Fe})=930.4`$MeV. The maximum allowable mass for strange stars is $`M_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{stat}}=1.8\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

I also consider two cases of strange matter based on MIT Bag Models for massless strange quarks in which the dependence $`P(\rho )`$ is exactly linear and scaling laws with $`B`$ are exact (Zdunik 2000). These two models correspond to ”standard” value of the bag constant $`B=60\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$ and to the maximum possible value of $`B`$ consistent with the requirement of the stability of strange matter \[Eq. (1)\]: $`B_{\mathrm{max}}=91.5\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$.

The second EOS of strange matter considered in this paper is based on the model of strange matter proposed by Dey et al. (1998) which incorporates restoration of chiral quark masses at high densities. Two sets of parameters describing this model have been used to determine properties of strange stars (see eg. Li et al. 1999a, b) and usually referred to as SS1 and SS2.

The main property of the self bound strange matter is the large density at zero pressure and the equation of state which can be very accurately approximated by the linear dependence $`P(\rho )`$.

As it has been shown in Zdunik (2000); Gondek-Rosińska et al. (2000) in both cases (MIT and Dey et al. (1998) models) with accuracy of the order of 1-2 % we can write:

$$P=ac^2(\rho \rho _0)$$
(2)
where $`a1/3`$ and $`\rho _0`$ is the density of self bound strange matter at zero pressure. Both $`a`$ and $`\rho _0`$ are functions of the parameters describing the model of strange matter.

In all considered models the crust is described by the BPS model of dense matter below neutron drip Baym et al. (1971). The maximum pressure and density at the bottom of the crust which can be formed on strange star are defined by the neutron drip point (Alcock et al. 1986) and are equal to: $`P_{\mathrm{ND}}=\mathrm{7.8\hspace{0.17em}10}^{29}\mathrm{dyn}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{ND}}=\mathrm{4.3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{11}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

As it has been pointed out by Alcock et al. (1986) the width of the gap between the strange core and the crust could determine the density at the bottom of the crust and the crust could be significantly thinner (see e.g. Huang & Lu 1997; Phukon 2000). We can study this effect by considering different values of the pressure $`P_\mathrm{b}`$ (and density $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$) at the bottom of the crust i.e. treating $`P_\mathrm{b}`$ as a free parameter resulting from other considerations, not necessarily equal to $`P_{\mathrm{ND}}`$. Of course the condition $`P_\mathrm{b}<P_{\mathrm{ND}}`$ has to be fulfilled.

### 2.2 The role of the size of the crust

The strange star configurations are calculated by solving Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations in the case of spherical symmetry.

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}r}=\frac{Gm\rho }{r^2}\left(1\frac{2Gm}{rc^2}\right)^1\left(1+\frac{P}{\rho c^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{4\pi r^3P}{mc^2}\right)$$
(3)
It has been shown by Zdunik et al. (2001) that for strange stars the thickness of the crust can be well described by the approximate formula valid for large and intermediate values of the stellar mass.

The formula presented in Zdunik et al. (2001) does not render the properties of the $`M(R)`$ dependence for small stellar masses (say $`M<0.5M_{}`$), especially the existence of the minimum radius of the star.

This effect could be quite easily obtained by more careful approximation of the Eq. (3) in the crust region. The essential point is that although for small masses (close to the minimum radius) the mass is concentrated in the strange core (more than 99.9 %) the thickness of the crust is relatively large compared to the core radius. Thus in approximation we can assume that $`M=\mathrm{const}=M_{\mathrm{core}}`$ but we have to take into account the changes of $`r`$ thorough the crust. This effect has not been considered in our previous paper (Zdunik et al. 2001). We can safely neglect in the crust the last two terms of Eq. (3). In the crust the maximum values of the factors $`P/\rho c^2`$ and $`4\pi r^3P/mc^2`$ are of the orders $`10^3`$ and $`10^6`$ respectively. As a result we obtain:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\rho }=GM\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r^2(1\frac{2GM}{rc^2})}$$
(4)
which results in the following equation for the stellar radius $`R`$:

$$\chi =\frac{1}{2}c^2\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}}{1\frac{2GM}{R_{\mathrm{core}}c^2}}\right]$$
(5)
where

$$\chi =_0^{P_\mathrm{b}}\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\rho }$$
(6)
is thermodynamic potential characteristic to the equation of state and $`P_\mathrm{b}`$ is the pressure at the bottom of the crust.

The function $`\chi (\rho _\mathrm{b})`$ is plotted in Fig. 1.

The solution of Eq. (5) can be written in the form:

$$\frac{1}{R}=\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{core}}}\mathrm{exp}(2\chi /c^2)+\frac{c^2}{2GM}(1\mathrm{exp}(2\chi /c^2))$$
(7)
which in the limit up to the first order in $`1/c^2`$ results in the formula:

$$\frac{1}{R}=\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{core}}}\frac{\chi }{GM}+2\frac{\chi }{c^2}\left(\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{core}}}\frac{\chi }{2GM}\right)$$
(8)
In Fig. 2 one can see the accuracy of our approximation 7 in which we have used the values of the mass and radius of bare strange star ($`R_{\mathrm{core}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{core}}`$ depicted by the dashed line) to determine the radius of strange star with crust (the mass is assumed to have the same value). In Fig. 2 the results of Eq. (7) cannot be distinguished from the exact solution (the very small difference can be seen in the insert showing the enlarged region near to the minimum radius).

The minimum radius of the star can be easily obtained by differentiating Eq. (7) with respect to $`M`$ assuming that $`MR_{\mathrm{core}}^3`$ which for self bound stars of small masses is a very good approximation. As a result we obtain:

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}R_{\mathrm{core}}\mathrm{exp}(2\chi /c^2)`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{GM}{Rc^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2\chi /c^2)1`$ (10)
If we are interested in the minimum radius of the strange star with crust we can safely work in the nonrelativistic limit (the relativistic parameter $`GM/Rc^2`$ is of the order of 2%). In nonrelativistic limit we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{GM}{R_{\mathrm{core}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi G\rho _0R_{\mathrm{core}}^2=3\chi `$ (11)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}R_{\mathrm{core}}`$ (12)
It should be noted that the determination of the minimum radius in nonrelativistic limit is consistent with the assumption of the constant density of the core build of strange matter. For the small mass strange stars with EOS 2 the density in the center is larger then $`\rho _0`$ by $`\delta \rho `$ given by the formula:

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho _0}\frac{1}{2a}\frac{GM_{\mathrm{core}}}{R_{\mathrm{core}}c^2}$$
(13)
which follows from the expansion of the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium in $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ in Newtonian limit. The central pressure is given by:

$$P_c\frac{1}{2}\frac{GM_{\mathrm{core}}\rho _0}{R_{\mathrm{core}}}$$
(14)
In this approximation the mass of the strange core is:

$`M_{\mathrm{core}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5a}}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_0}{R_{\mathrm{core}}c^2}}\right)`$ (15)
$`M_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \rho _0R_{\mathrm{core}}^3`$ (16)
The interesting consequence of Eq. (13) is that the self-bound star with crust reaches its minimum radius at the central density $`\rho _c\rho _0(1+1.5\chi /ac^2)`$ and central pressure $`P_c1.5\chi \rho _0`$. The accuracy of this expansion at this mass is 10% for $`\delta \rho /\rho _0`$ which corresponds to 10% error in $`P_c`$ and 1% in $`\rho _c`$.

In Fig. 2 we present mass versus radius relations for the SQM1 Eos of the quark matter and different choices of $`P_\mathrm{b}`$ equal to 1, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 of the pressure at the neutron drip point.

The parameters of stellar configurations at the point with minimum radius are presented in Table 1. The gravitational redshift of photon emitted from from the surface

$$z_s=(12GM/Rc^2)^{1/2}1$$

measures the importance of relativistic effects. As we see this value is comparable to the departure of $`R_{\mathrm{core}}/R`$ from the Newtonian value $`2/3`$ \[Eq. (12)\]. The factor $`(1+z_s)`$ connects also the radius of the star and the ”apparent radius”:

$$R_{\mathrm{}}=R(1+z_s)$$
(17)
At its minimum value the ”apparent radius” is larger than the radius of the star by $`12\%`$.

The dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`M(R_{\mathrm{min}})`$ on $`P_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ is nearly power-law (see Fig. 3), due to the fact the equation of state of the crust can be very well approximated by the polytrope. For polytropic EOS we have:

$$P\rho ^\gamma \chi =\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\frac{P}{\rho }$$
(18)
From Eq. (12) we see that for polytropic EOS $`R_{\mathrm{min}}P_{\mathrm{b}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\gamma 1)/2\gamma }\rho _{\mathrm{b}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\gamma 1)/2}`$ and $`M(R_{\mathrm{min}})P_{\mathrm{b}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3(\gamma 1)/2\gamma }\rho _{\mathrm{b}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3(\gamma 1)/2}`$.

### 2.3 The role of the strange matter EOS

The mass vs radius relation for different models of strange matter is presented in Fig. 4 and the main parameters of these models ($`\rho _0`$, $`a`$) and stellar configurations at minimum radius are given in table 2

The radius of the strange star with crust at its minimum point is a very simple functional of the equation of state of strange matter. In the nonrelativistic limit it depends on the value of the density of the matter at zero pressure $`\rho _0`$ independently of the specific EOS of the self-bound matter. The parameter $`a`$ corresponding to the sound velocity of the matter enters next term in Eq. (16) via the slight increase of the density in the center of the strange core. For given $`\chi `$ we obtain from Eq. (12):

$$R_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{9}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\chi }{\pi G}}\rho _0^{1/2}=4.9\sqrt{\frac{\chi _{18}}{\rho _{0}^{}{}_{14}{}^{}}}\mathrm{km}$$
(19)
where $`\chi _{18}`$ and $`\rho _{0}^{}{}_{14}{}^{}`$ denotes $`\chi `$ and $`\rho _0`$ in units $`10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$ and $`10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ respectively.

As we see from Eq. (19) the minimum radius corresponds to the maximum $`\rho _0`$. In the MIT bag model of strange matter $`\rho _0`$ is limited by the assumption of the stability of the matter at zero pressure \[Eq. (1)\]. The maximum $`\rho _0`$ corresponds then to $`B=91.5\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$ for massless strange quarks. The numerical values of the stars at minimum radius as a function of $`\rho _0`$ are presented in Table 2. For other model of the self bound matter the parameters of the star with minimum radius can be easily obtained from the table 2 using scaling relations with $`\rho _0^{1/2}`$

$`R_{\mathrm{min}}(\overline{\rho }_0)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\mathrm{min}}(\rho _0)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\overline{\rho }_0}}}`$ (20)
$`M(R_{\mathrm{min}}(\overline{\rho }_0))`$ $`=`$ $`M(R_{\mathrm{min}}(\rho _0))\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\overline{\rho }_0}}}`$ (21)
As can be seen from the Table 2 the accuracy of these scalings is better than 1%.

The surface redshift at minimum radius depends only on the value of $`\chi `$ and for fixed density at the bottom of the crust the points with minimum radius and different $`B`$ (or $`\rho _0`$) lie in the $`M(R)`$ plane on the straight line $`GM/Rc^2=\mathrm{const}`$. The small differences in $`z`$ in table 2 reflects the accuracy of our approximations in Newtonian approach.

## 3 Conclusions

The radius of the the strange star with crust can be very accurately calculated from the parameters of the bare strange stars. Presented formula \[Eq. (5)\] gives us the stellar radius for a very wide range of stellar masses from the maximum one down to the masses $`0.02M_{}`$. The only important assumption is the concentration of the mass in the core built of strange matter. This assumption is fulfilled well below the star with minimum radius, thus the minimum radius of the star can be safely calculated using presented equations. It should be however mentioned that this method fails in determination of the point with minimum mass since the mass of crust plays crucial role there.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was partially supported by the KBN grant No. 2P03D.020.20. I am very grateful to P. Haensel for careful reading of manuscript and helpful comments and suggestions.