text:
# Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point [ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) ]

\[

## Abstract

The conductivity and the tunneling density of states of disordered itinerant electrons in the vicinity of a ferromagnetic transition at low temperature are discussed. Critical fluctuations lead to nonanalytic frequency and temperature dependences that are distinct from the usual long-time tail effects in a disordered Fermi liquid. The crossover between these two types of behavior is proposed as an experimental check of recent theories of the quantum ferromagnetic critical behavior. In addition, the quasiparticle properties at criticality are shown to be those of a marginal Fermi liquid.

\] Long-range spatial and temporal correlations are characteristic of systems near critical points, where critical soft modes lead to power-law, or scale invariant, behavior of correlation functions. This holds primarily for the order parameter correlations, but correlation functions of other observables that couple to the order parameter show related effects at a critical point. Away from critical points, soft modes unrelated to a phase transition can induce scale invariance in entire regions of parameter space. Such ‘generic scale invariance’ is in general stronger in quantum systems than in classical ones.

An example of generic scale invariance in quantum systems are the ‘weak-localization’ effects in disordered metals, which consist of nonanalytic temperature, frequency, and wavenumber dependences of various observables. For instance, in three-dimensions ($`3`$-$`D`$) the density of states (DOS) as a function of bias voltage has a square-root singularity at the Fermi level, the conductivity varies like the square root of temperature, etc. These nonanalyticities provide corrections to the leading disordered Fermi-liquid behavior in the metal. They arise from the diffusive nature of the basic fermionic excitations which couple to the various observables. In perturbation theory, integrals over diffusion poles lead to nonanalyticities. Alternatively, these phenomena can be considered as corrections to scaling near a disordered Fermi-liquid fixed point. In $`2`$-$`D`$, the corresponding effects are stronger and destroy the Fermi liquid. Near a quantum critical point, critical fluctuations appear. In general, they have a different dispersion relation then diffusive modes, and the nonanalyticities induced by them can be strong enough to destroy the Fermi-liquid behavior even in $`3`$-$`D`$. Non-Fermi liquid behavior induced by quantum critical points has been of much interest lately, in particular in connection with an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point that has been proposed to underly some of the behavior of high-Tc superconductors.

In this Letter we study the effects of a ferromagnetic (FM) quantum critical point on the transport, tunneling, and quasiparticle (QP) properties of disordered metals. The thermodynamic properties at this phase transition have been discussed elsewhere. We are motivated by the following observations: (1) The quantum FM transition is the best studied of all quantum critical points. Recent theoretical work has shown that the ‘weak-localization’ effects mentioned above couple to the quantum critical behavior and produce long-range interactions between spin density fluctuations. The most important implication is that these effects fundamentally modify the mean-field critical behavior predicted by Hertz. However, the feedback of the critical behavior on the fermionic degrees of freedom, and in particular on the ‘weak-localization’ effects, has been investigated only to the extent that it is needed to determine the exact critical behavior. For instance, the behavior of the resistivity across the quantum FM critical point is not known theoretically. (2) There are examples of itinerant ferromagnets, for instance MnSi, whose Curie temperatures under ambient conditions are very low due to doping or alloying with nonmagnetic materials. Such materials can be driven through the quantum ($`T=0`$) transition by means of stress tuning. The quantum critical point is thus readily accessible. While these experiments could in principle determine, e.g., the magnetization as a function of the distance from the critical point, and thus provide a direct check of the theory put forward in Ref. , in practice this is difficult to do. On the other hand, transport measurements can be easily performed.

Given points (1) and (2) above, our motivation for this Letter is to report theoretical results on observables that qualitatively depend on the quantum critical behavior, but are more easily accessible experimentally than a direct determination of the latter. Such observables include the resistivity, and the tunneling DOS. We will also discuss the dephasing time, which provides a finite-temperature cutoff for various singularities in disordered electron systems, and the QP inelastic lifetime, which is of fundamental theoretical interest.

We start by stating our results. We will consider the following observables: The electrical conductivity $`\sigma `$, the tunneling DOS $`N`$, the phase relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}`$, and the QP lifetime $`\tau _{\mathrm{QP}}`$. Let $`t`$ be the dimensionless distance from the quantum critical point at zero temperature, $`T=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the frequency, and $`ϵ`$ the distance in energy space from the Fermi surface. We will use units such that $`\mathrm{}=k_\mathrm{B}=1`$. Let the disorder strength be characterized by the elastic mean-free path $`\mathrm{}`$ in units of the inverse Fermi wavenumber $`k_\mathrm{F}`$. In $`3`$-$`D`$ we find at criticality, $`t=0`$,

$`\sigma (T)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0\left[1+c_\sigma \left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_\mathrm{F}}}g(\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mathrm{F}}{T}}))\right)^{1/3}+O(\sqrt{T})\right],`$ (2)
$`N(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mathrm{F}\left[1+c_N\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{ϵ_\mathrm{F}}}g(\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mathrm{F}}{ϵ}}))\right)^{1/3}+O(\sqrt{ϵ})\right],`$ (3)
$`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}^1(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}\left[c_\tau ^{\mathrm{ph}}(ϵ/ϵ_\mathrm{F})g(\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mathrm{F}}{ϵ}}))+O(ϵ)\right],`$ (4)
$`\tau _{\mathrm{QP}}^1(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}[c_\tau ^{\mathrm{QP}}(ϵ/ϵ_\mathrm{F})\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{ln}(ϵ/ϵ_\mathrm{F})]/\mathrm{ln}(ϵ/ϵ_\mathrm{F})`$ (6)
$`+O(ϵ\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}ϵ/\mathrm{ln}ϵ)].`$
Here $`\sigma _0`$ and $`N_\mathrm{F}`$ are the disordered Fermi-liquid values of $`\sigma `$ and $`N`$, respectively, $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi energy, and

$$g(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[(c(3)x)^n/n!]e^{(n^2n)\mathrm{ln}(2/3)/2},$$
(8)
with $`c(3)=O(1)`$, provides logarithmic corrections to power-law scaling. In an asymptotic expansion for large $`x`$, the leading term is

$$g(x)\left[2\mathrm{ln}(3/2)/\pi \right]^{1/2}e^{[\mathrm{ln}(c(3)x)]^2/2\mathrm{ln}(3/2)},$$
(9)
The $`c_\sigma `$, $`c_N`$, and $`c_\tau `$ depend on the disorder. For weak disorder, $`k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}>>1`$, their leading terms all are of the form $`c_i=\stackrel{~}{c}_i/k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}`$, with the $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i`$ constants of $`O(1)`$. Equation (2) also holds if $`T`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and Eqs. (3), (4), (6) also hold if $`ϵ`$ is replaced by $`T`$.

The terms shown are the exact leading temperature and energy dependences, within the framework of a perturbative renormalization group (RG), of these observables at criticality. At zero temperature, $`T=0`$, and zero frequency or energy, $`ϵ=0`$, we find

$`\sigma (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0\left[1+d_\sigma tg(\mathrm{ln}(1/t))\mathrm{ln}(1/t)+O(t)\right],`$ (11)
$`N(t)`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mathrm{F}\left[1+d_Ntg(\mathrm{ln}(1/t))\mathrm{ln}(1/t)+O(t)\right].`$ (12)
For weak disorder, $`d_i=O(1)/k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}`$. The scattering rates $`1/\tau `$, of course, vanish at zero energy and temperature. For sufficiently small values of $`ϵ`$ at nonzero $`t`$ their behavior is given by

$$\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}^1(t,ϵ)\tau _{\mathrm{QP}}^1(t,ϵ)(ϵ/t)^{3/2}.$$
(13)
These results can be summarized by means of the following generalized homogeneity laws, valid for all $`2<D<4`$,

$`\sigma (t,T,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.\times tg(\mathrm{ln}(1/t))\mathrm{ln}b`$ (16)
$`+F_\sigma (tb^2f(b),\mathrm{\Omega }f(b),Tf(b),ub^{(D2)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }N(t,ϵ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.\times tg(\mathrm{ln}(1/t))\mathrm{ln}b`$ (18)
$`+b^{(D2)}F_N(ϵf(b),Tf(b)),`$
$$\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}^1(t,ϵ,T)=b^DF_\tau (tb^2f(b),ϵf(b),Tf(b)).$$
(19)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=NN_\mathrm{F}`$, $`b`$ is an arbitrary length scaling factor, $`f(b)=b^Dg(\mathrm{ln}b)`$, and $`F_\sigma `$, $`F_N`$, and $`F_\tau `$ are scaling functions. The quasiparticle relaxation rate is given as a ratio,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{QP}}^1=ϵH^{\prime \prime }(ϵ)/H^{}(ϵ),$$
(20)
where $`H^{}`$ and $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ are the real and imaginary part, respectively, of a causal function $`H(\zeta =ϵ+i0)`$ of complex frequency $`\zeta `$ that obeys a homogeneity law

$`H(t,\zeta ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.\times g(\mathrm{ln}b)`$ (22)
$`+F_H(tb^2f(b),\zeta f(b),Tf(b)).`$
For completeness and later reference we also note that the specific heat coefficient, $`\gamma =lim_{T0}C_V/T`$, is given by $`H(t,0,T)`$ and thus obeys a homogeneity law,

$$\gamma (t,T)=\mathrm{const}.\times g(\mathrm{ln}b)+F_\gamma (tb^2f(b),Tf(b)).$$
(23)
By choosing $`b`$ appropriately, Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$) and (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$) are recovered from Eqs. (13). To obtain Eq. (13), one also needs to use the fact that at the disordered Fermi-liquid fixed point the relaxation rates are proportional to $`ϵ^{3/2}`$.

We will first explain the significance of these results, and then sketch their origin. We first consider the dependence of the conductivity, or the DOS, on $`T`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`ϵ`$. In disordered metals away from any quantum critical point one observes the well-known $`T^{1/2}`$, $`ϵ^{1/2}`$, or $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/2}`$ behavior in $`3`$-$`D`$. This is one example of the weak-localization effects mentioned above, and it is due to the diffusive nature of the electrons. In a diffusive process, frequency scales like a wavenumber squared, $`\mathrm{\Omega }b^2`$, and in a quantum problem, $`T\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Accordingly, the dynamical exponent $`z`$, defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }b^z`$, is $`z=2`$ in such a system. Near a quantum critical point, this behavior changes to one characterized by the dynamical critical exponent characteristic of the phase transition. For the quantum FM transition in disordered system, according to a recent theory the dynamical exponent is $`z=D`$, which is reflected in Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$) and (13), in contrast to Hertz’s theory which yielded $`z=4`$. Similarly, the correlation length exponent $`\nu `$, defined by $`tb^{1/\nu }`$, is $`\nu =1/(D2)`$ according to Ref. , while it is $`\nu =1/2`$ in Hertz’s theory. The former value is reflected in Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$). Measuring $`\nu `$ and $`z`$ directly at the quantum critical point would be hard, while an observation of the conductivity or the tunneling DOS on $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`t`$ should be much easier. Observing the crossover from the usual $`T^{1/2}`$ weak-localization nonanalyticity to the $`T^{1/3}`$ behavior predicted by the present theory may therefore be the easiest way to experimentally probe the dynamical critical behavior at the quantum FM transition. Similarly, the linear dependence of $`\sigma `$ and $`N`$ on $`t`$ at $`T=0`$ reflects the value of $`\nu `$. Also notice that $`d\sigma /dtg(\mathrm{ln}(1/t))\mathrm{ln}t`$ at $`T=0`$, see Eq. (11).

The behavior of the relaxation times $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{QP}}`$ is very remarkable from a theoretical point of view. In Landau Fermi-liquid theory, the relaxation rate is proportional to $`ϵ^2`$, and in a disordered Fermi liquid one has $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}\tau _{\mathrm{QP}}ϵ^{3/2}`$. The limiting case between Fermi-liquid and non-Fermi liquid behavior is given by a ‘marginal Fermi liquid’ with a relaxation rate proportional to $`ϵ`$ with logarithmic corrections. From Eqs. (4,6) we see that itinerant electrons at a quantum FM critical point provide a realization of a marginal Fermi liquid. The logarithmic $`T`$-dependence of the specific heat coefficient is consistent with this.

We now explain the origin of the scaling behavior discussed above. Microscopically, one should consider a theory of interacting electrons in the presence of quenched disorder and introduce an order parameter field that couples to the electron spin density. One then obtains a theory for the fermionic degrees of freedom that is missing the spin-density channel of the electron-electron interaction, coupled to a Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) action for the order parameter field. This program has recently been carried out. While this theory, and its RG analysis, are necessary for a complete justification of our results, most of them can be obtained from simple scaling arguments in conjunction with low-order perturbation theory. This we will show here, starting with a scaling analysis.

For scaling purposes, we note that the observables we are interested in can all be expressed in terms of fermionic correlation functions. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the scale dimensions of these observables and the underlying fermionic fields with respect to the magnetic fixed point are the same as with respect to the disordered Fermi-liquid fixed point identified in Ref. . We will proceed under this assumption and initially focus on power laws, ignoring all logarithmic corrections. All comparisons of Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$) with Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$)-(13) are thus to be understood as up to logarithms.

The conductivity is a charge current correlation whose scale dimension with respect to the quantum magnetic fixed point is expected to be zero. However, $`\sigma `$ will depend on the critical dynamics, since the paramagnon propagator enters the calculation of $`\sigma `$ in perturbation theory. The corrections to the Boltzmann conductivity will further depend on the leading irrelevant operator, which we denote by $`u`$. This is again related to diffusive electron dynamics, and one therefore expects the scale dimension of $`u`$ to be the same as in disordered Fermi-liquid theory, namely, $`[u]=(D2)`$. Standard scaling arguments then suggest a generalized homogeneity law

$$\sigma (t,T,\mathrm{\Omega })=F_\sigma (tb^{1/\nu },Tb^z,\mathrm{\Omega }b^z,ub^{(D2)}).$$
(25)
With $`z=D`$ and $`\nu =1/(D2)`$ from Ref.  this is Eq. (16). By putting $`b=T^{1/3}`$, and using that $`F_\sigma (0,1,0,x)`$ is an analytic function of $`x`$, we obtain Eq. (2).

Similarly, the leading correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ to the DOS is given by an integral over a four-fermion correlation function whose diffusive dynamics lead to $`\mathrm{\Delta }Nb^{(D2)}`$. This yields Eq. (18),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(t,ϵ,T)=b^{(D2)}F_N(tb^{1/\nu },ϵb^z,Tb^z).$$
(26)
Both the dephasing rate and the QP relaxation rate are dimensionally frequencies. Effectively, their scale dimensions are given by the critical time scale, $`[\tau ^1]=D`$. This implies Eqs. (19,20,22),

$$\tau (ϵ,T)=b^D\tau (ϵb^D,Tb^D).$$
(27)
Finally, the specific heat coefficient is expected to have zero scale dimension, as in Ref. . We thus have Eq. (23),

$$\gamma (t,T)=\gamma (tb^{1/\nu },Tb^z).$$
(28)
The logarithmic corrections to scaling in Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$)-(13) can be understood in terms of Wegner’s general classification. The first kind is due to resonance conditions between scale dimensions, which lead to simple logarithms. The second kind is due to marginal operators, which can lead to complicated functions of logarithms. Here, both mechanisms are operative. The scale dimension of the DOS correction, $`[\mathrm{\Delta }N]=D2`$, is the same as that of the relevant operator $`t`$, $`[t]=1/\nu =D2`$. Further, the correction to the conductivity is proportional to the irrelevant variable $`u`$, and $`[tu]=[\sigma ]=0`$. These ‘resonances’ lead to the simple logarithms in Eqs. (16) and (18).

The more complicated logarithms embodied in the function $`g(\mathrm{ln}b)`$ are due to an effectively marginal operator that is due to the presence of two frequency scales in the problem, namely the critical one with $`z=D`$, and a diffusive one with $`z=2`$. A full renormalization group analysis of this problem will be presented elsewhere, here we resort to low-order perturbation theory to make the result plausible. Perturbation theory is also useful for making our general results plausible. Consider the DOS as an example. To lowest order in both the disorder and the spin-triplet interaction amplitude $`K_t`$, the DOS correction in a disordered Fermi liquid is well known to have the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(ϵ)G^2𝑑𝐩\mathrm{Re}_{i\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ+i0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega K_t\left[𝒟(𝐩,\omega )\right]^2.$$
(30)
Here $`𝒟`$ is the basic diffusion propagator or ‘diffuson’,

$$𝒟(𝐩,\omega )=1/(𝐩^2+GH|\omega |),$$
(31)
with $`G1/k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}`$ the disorder parameter, and $`H`$ proportional to the specific heat coefficient $`\gamma `$, see Eqs. (13). In a theory that keeps $`K_t`$ to all orders and thus is capable of describing magnetism, $`K_t`$ gets replaced by the paramagnon propagator $``$, which has the structure

$$(𝐩,\omega )=1/[t+a_{d2}|𝐩|^{d2}+a_2𝐩^2+a_\omega |\omega |/𝐩^2].$$
(32)
The correction to $`N`$ thus reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(ϵ)G^2𝑑𝐩\mathrm{Re}_{i\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ+i0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \left[𝒟(𝐩,\omega )\right]^2(𝐩,\omega ).$$
(33)
The leading correction to $`G`$ has the same qualitative behavior as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, Eq. (33), while the one to $`H`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H(\mathrm{\Omega })G𝑑𝐩\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0^\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\omega 𝒟(𝐩,\omega )(𝐩,\omega ).$$
(34)
The interesting effects we discuss in this paper result from the nonanalytic $`|𝐩|^{d2}`$ term in Eq. (32). We therefore need to investigate the conditions under which this term dominates over the analytic $`𝐩^2`$ dependence. If we measure $`𝐩`$ and $`\omega `$ in units of $`k_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$, respectively, and remember that the dimensionless spin-triplet interaction is of $`O(1)`$ near a FM transition, then the coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`a_\omega `$ are of $`O(1)`$, while $`a_{d2}`$ is proportional to $`1/k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}`$. If we scale the wavenumber with the correlation length $`\xi `$, this means that the nonanalytic term will dominate over the analytic one when $`\xi \mathrm{}`$. With $`\nu =1`$ in $`D=3`$, this translates into $`t1/k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}`$. For typical values of the disorder, $`k_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{}10`$, this means that the nonanalytic term will dominate everywhere in the critical region. For less disordered samples, our effects will be present in a correspondingly narrower region around the critical point.

Performing the integral in Eq. (33) yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\mathrm{const}.+ϵ^{(D2)/D}`$, while from Eq. (34) we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }H\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Inserting the latter result back into the perturbative expressions leads to more complicated logarithms. Of course, insertions are at best indicative of the behavior at higher order, a complete treatment needs to take into account vertex corrections as well. We will report on the details of such a complete analysis elsewhere. The result is that the fully renormalized $`H`$ turns into $`Hg(\mathrm{ln}(1/\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )`$. Similarly, the coefficient $`a_{d2}`$ in the paramagnon propagator gets renormalized to $`a_{d2}/g(\mathrm{ln}(k_\mathrm{F}/k))`$. Doing the integrals then yields expressions that are consistent with Eqs. (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$) and (Transport Anomalies and Marginal Fermi-Liquid Effects at a Quantum Critical Point $`[`$ Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4602 (2000) $`]`$). The remarkable claim that one-loop perturbation theory is exact apart from logarithmic corrections finds its explanation in the RG analysis of Refs. .

We gratefully acknowledge helpful conversations and correspondence with Lior Klein and Achim Rosch. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grant Nos. DMR–98–70597 and DMR–99–75259, by the DFG under grant No. Vo659/2, and by the EPSRC under grant No. GR/M 04426. Part of this work was performed at the Aspen Center for Physics.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are strong and well known indications that the three ordinary (active) neutrinos $`\nu _a`$ ($`a=e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$) are mixtures of different mass eigenstates $`\nu _j`$, with $`j=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ (for a review see e.g. ). Active neutrinos can mix among themselves, and possibly only among themselves, in which case $`j=1,2,3`$. However, it is also possible that there are mixings of the active neutrinos with new sterile ones, $`\nu _s`$, that do not have any direct coupling to $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons mediating weak interactions. Sterile neutrinos have repeatedly been suggested as solutions of various anomalies in neutrino experiments. In particular, if all the present day data are correct, then at least one sterile neutrino must participate. For an explanation of the known neutrino anomalies, the mass differences should be very small, it should lie in the eV range or even in the sub-eV range. However, if we admit that there may be new neutrino states mixed to the usual ones, we should keep an open mind to possible values of their masses. It is an interesting question which values of masses and mixing angles can be excluded by direct experiments as well as by cosmology and astrophysics. The last two topics are addressed in the present paper which was partly stimulated by the recent limits on mixing of $`\nu _\tau `$ with a heavy sterile neutrino found by the NOMAD collaboration , and partly by our paper  where we have found that cosmology and astrophysics practically exclude the interpretation of the KARMEN anomaly  by a 33.9 MeV neutrino mixed with $`\nu _\tau `$ (astrophysical and cosmological limits on 33.9 MeV sterile neutrino were also considered in ref. ). According to a statement of the KARMEN collaboration made at Neutrino 2000  the anomaly was not observed in upgraded detector KARMEN 2, but the question still remains which area in the mass-mixing-plane can be excluded.

In what follows we will derive the bounds on masses and mixings that follow from big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and from the duration of the supernova (SN) 1987A neutrino burst. We essentially repeat our previous work , but now lifting the restriction on a specific value of mass and lifetime of the heavy neutrinos and considering mixings with all active states $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. We assume that the heavy neutrinos have Dirac mass. In the case of Majorana mass the limits would be slightly weaker.

## 2 Preliminaries

We assume that the sterile neutrino mixes predominantly with only one active flavour $`\nu _a=\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$. The mixed flavour states are expressed in terms of the mass eigenstates and the mixing angle $`\theta `$ as

$`\nu _a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _2,`$
$`\nu _s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _2,`$ (1)
where $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are assumed to be the light and heavy mass eigenstates, respectively.

This mixing couples the heavier neutrino to the $`Z^0`$, allowing for the decay channel

$`\nu _2\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\overline{\mathrm{}},`$ (2)
where $`\nu _1`$ is mostly an active flavour and $`\mathrm{}`$ is any lepton with a mass smaller than the mass $`m_2`$ of the heavy neutrino. We assume that $`m_2<2m_\mu `$ so that the decay into $`\overline{\mu }\mu `$ and $`\overline{\tau }\tau `$ is kinematically forbidden. If the active neutrino mixed with $`\nu _s`$ is either $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$, then we can translate the mixing angle into lifetime as

$`\tau _{\nu _s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu _2}^1={\displaystyle \frac{1.0\mathrm{sec}}{(M_s/\text{10 MeV})^5\text{sin}^22\theta }}.`$ (3)
For the mixing with $`\nu _e`$ the numerator is 0.7 sec; it is is different because of the presence of charged-current interactions.

A sterile neutrino mixed with $`\nu _a`$ could be observed in direct experiments, in particular where upper bounds on neutrino masses are obtained (see the list of references in ). The most accurate limits of course exist for $`\nu _e`$ , roughly $`m_{\nu _e}<3`$ eV. However, these experiments cannot help much in eliminating a heavy sterile neutrino because they are not sensitive to the mass range $`M_s>10`$ MeV which we consider. Such heavy neutrinos are simply not produced in beta-decays and their impact is only indirect, e.g. they renormalize vector and axial coupling constants.

The upper limit on the tau-neutrino mass obtained by the ALEPH Collaboration  could be translated into limits on mass/mixing of $`\nu _\tau `$ with $`\nu _s`$. However, one would need to reanalyse the data under the assumption of two (or several) mixed neutrinos, taking account of the sensitivity to measure the energy spectrum for different values of $`m_\nu `$. The bound obtained in Ref.  based on the assumption that the average neutrino mass $`m=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta m_1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta m_2`$ should be smaller than the experimental upper limit is too naive and can serve only as a rough order-of-magnitude estimate. Moreover the NOMAD bounds  are much more restrictive and thus we will not pursue the subject of the ALEPH bounds here.

## 3 Cosmological production and freeze-out of heavy sterile neutrinos

In the early universe sterile neutrinos are produced through their mixing with the active ones. The production rate for relativistic $`\nu _s`$ (i.e. for $`T_\gamma m_2`$) can be approximately estimated as :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{H}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _\mathrm{M}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\gamma }{T_w}}\right)^3,`$ (4)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble expansion parameter, $`T_\gamma `$ is the plasma temperature equal to the photon temperature. $`T_w`$ is the decoupling temperature of active neutrinos, taken to be 3 MeV, and $`\theta _\mathrm{M}`$ is the the mixing angle in the medium. According to the calculations of Ref.  one finds in the limit of small mixing:

$`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _\mathrm{M}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{1+0.76\times 10^{19}(T_\gamma /\text{MeV})^6(\delta m^2/\text{MeV}^2)^1}},`$ (5)
The matter effects become essential for

$`T_\gamma >1.5\times 10^3\text{MeV}(\delta m^2/\text{MeV}^2)^{1/6}.`$ (6)
For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/H>1`$, sterile neutrinos were abundantly produced and their number density was equal to that of light active neutrinos, at least during some epoch. The production rate reaches a maximum at $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=1.28\times 10^3(\delta m^2/\text{MeV}^2)^{1/6}`$ MeV. For the masses that are considered below, $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is well above the neutrino mass.

If the equilibrium number density of sterile neutrinos is reached, it would be maintained until $`T_f4(\mathrm{sin}2\theta )^{2/3}`$ MeV. This result does not depend on the heavy neutrino mass because they annihilate with massless active ones, $`\nu _2+\nu _aall`$. The heavy neutrinos would be relativistic at decoupling and their number density would not be Boltzmann suppressed if, say, $`T_f>M_s/2`$. This gives

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (\delta m^2/\text{MeV}^2)^{3/2}<500.`$ (7)
If this condition is not fulfilled the impact of $`\nu _s`$ on BBN would be strongly diminished. On the other hand, for a sufficiently large mass and non-negligible mixing, the $`\nu _2`$ lifetime given in Eq. (3) would be quite short, so that they would all decay prior to the BBN epoch. (To be more exact, their number density would not be frozen, but follow the equilibrium form $`e^{M_s/T_\gamma }`$.)

Another possible effect that could diminish the impact of heavy neutrinos on BBN is entropy dilution. If $`\nu _2`$ were decoupled while being relativistic, their number density would not be suppressed relative to light active neutrinos. However, if the decoupling temperature is higher than, say, 50 MeV pions and muons were still abundant in the cosmic plasma and their subsequent annihilation would diminish the relative number density of heavy neutrinos. If the decoupling temperature is below the QCD phase transition the dilution factor is at most $`17.25/10.75=1.6`$. Above the QCD phase transition the number of degrees of freedom in the cosmic plasma is much larger and the dilution factor is approximately 5.5. However, these effects are essential for very weak mixing, for example the decoupling temperature would exceed 200 MeV if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta <8\times 10^6`$. For such a small mixing the life-time of the heavy $`\nu _2`$ would exceed the nucleosynthesis time and they would be dangerous for BBN even if their number density is 5 times diluted.

Sterile neutrinos would never be abundant in the universe if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/H<1`$. In fact we can impose a stronger condition demanding that the energy density of heavy neutrinos should be smaller than the energy density of one light neutrino species at BBN ($`T1`$ MeV). Taking into account a possible entropy dilution by factor 5 we obtain the bound:

$`\left(\delta m^2/\text{MeV}^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\theta <2.3\times 10^7.`$ (8)
Parameters satisfying this conditions cannot be excluded by BBN. A more detailed consideration permits one to impose a somewhat better limit, but we will not go into such detail here.

Keeping these restrictions in mind we proceed to derive bounds on $`M_s`$ and the mixing angle $`\theta `$ demanding that the influence of heavy neutrinos on BBN should not be too strong.

## 4 Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis

In general, if a neutrino has a mass exceeding an MeV then it may influence the light element abundances unless it decays much before the onset of nucleosynthesis (see e.g.  and references therein). A heavy unstable sterile neutrino will affect BBN in several ways. The main effect is through the increased energy density which leads to a faster expansion and hence an earlier freeze-out of the $`n/p`$-ratio. However, also the decay products must be taken into account since the electron neutrinos directly enter the $`n`$-$`p`$ reactions. Moreover, if the $`\nu _s`$ decays into the $`e^+e^{}`$ channel the temperature evolution is altered (see  for discussion).

The calculations are described in detail in Ref. ; here we only briefly describe the basic steps. First we introduce the dimensionless variables

$`x=m_0a(t)\mathrm{and}y=pa(t),`$ (9)
where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmic scale factor and $`m_0`$ is an arbitrary normalisation factor that we have chosen as $`m_0=1`$ MeV. We also introduce a dimensionless temperature $`T=T_\gamma /m_0`$ and measure all masses in units of $`m_0`$. In terms of these variables the Boltzmann equations describing the evolution of the sterile neutrino, $`\nu _s`$, and the active neutrinos, $`\nu _a`$, can be written as

$`_xf_{\nu _s}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(f_{\nu _s}^{eq}f_{\nu _s}\right)}{\tau _{\nu _s}/\mathrm{sec}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1.48x}{(Tx)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}(T)}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (10)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{E_{\nu _s}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\times 2^7T^3}{M_s^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta (3)}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{144}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{\nu _s}T}{M_s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\nu _s}^2T}{3E_{\nu _s}M_s^2}}\right)\right)\right],`$
$`_x\delta f_{\nu _a}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{D}_a(x,y,M_s)+\text{S}_a(x,y),`$ (11)
where $`f_{\nu _s}^{eq}=(e^{E/T}+1)^1`$, $`\delta f_{\nu _a}=f_{\nu _a}(e^y+1)^1`$, and $`E_{\nu _s}=\sqrt{M_s^2+(y/x)^2}`$ and $`p_{\nu _s}=y/x`$ are the energy and momentum of $`\nu _s`$. Further, $`g_{}(T)=\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}/(\pi ^2T_\gamma ^4/30)`$ is the effective number of massless species in the plasma determined as the ratio of the total energy density to the equilibrium energy density of one bosonic species with temperature $`T_\gamma `$.

The scattering term in Eq. (11) comes from interactions of active neutrinos between themselves and from their interaction with electrons and positrons. For $`\nu _e`$ it has the form

$`\text{S}_{\nu _e}(x,y)`$ $`=0.26\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}(1+g_L^2+g_R^2)(y/x^4)`$ (12)
$`\times \{\delta f_{\nu _e}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^y}{1+g_L^2+g_R^2}}[1+0.75(g_L^2+g_R^2)]`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle 𝑑y_2y_2^3\delta f_{\nu _e}(x,y_2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y_2y_2^3\left(\delta f_{\nu _\mu }(x,y_2)+\delta f_{\nu _\tau }(x,y_2)\right)}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}(Tx1){\displaystyle \frac{g_L^2+g_R^2}{1+g_L^2+g_R^2}}e^y(11y/121)\},`$
where $`g_L=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+\frac{1}{2}`$, while $`g_R=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. The corresponding term for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is given by Eq. (12) with the exchange $`g_L\stackrel{~}{g}_L=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\frac{1}{2}`$.

The decay term in Eq. (11) comes from the decay of heavy sterile neutrino according to reactions Eq. (2). This term depends on the mixing channel. For $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$ mixings we have

$`\text{D}_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{467}{M_s^3\tau _{\nu _s}x^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{16y}{9M_sx}}\right)\left(n_{\nu _s}n_{\nu _s}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)\theta \left(M_sx/2y\right),`$ (13)
$`\text{D}_{\nu _\tau }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{935}{M_s^3\tau _{\nu _s}x^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{16y}{9M_sx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(1+\stackrel{~}{g}_L^2+g_R^2\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4y}{3M_sx}}\right)\right]`$ (14)
$`\times \left(n_{\nu _s}n_{\nu _s}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)\theta \left(M_sx/2y\right),`$
where $`n_{\nu _s}(x)`$ is the number density of $`\nu _s`$ and $`\theta (y)`$ is the step function which ensures energy conservation in the decay. For $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ mixing these terms come from Eq. (13) and Eq. (14) by exchange of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$.

For $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing those terms are

$`\text{D}_{\nu _\tau ,\nu _\mu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{341}{M_s^3\tau _{\nu _s}x^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{16y}{9M_sx}}\right)\left(n_{\nu _s}n_{\nu _s}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)\theta \left(M_s/2y/x\right),`$ (15)
$`\text{D}_{\nu _e}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{683}{M_s^3\tau _{\nu _s}x^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{16y}{9M_sx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(1+g_L^2+g_R^2\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4y}{3M_sx}}\right)\right]`$ (16)
$`\times \left(n_{\nu _s}n_{\nu _s}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)\theta \left(M_s/2y/x\right),`$
More details on the derivation of Eqs. (10,11) can be found in Ref. .

The temperature evolution is governed by the equation for energy conservation:

$`x{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dx}}=3(\rho +p),`$ (17)
where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are energy density and pressure.

For the solution of Eqs. (10,11,17) we divide the time region into 3 parts. At early times, when the light neutrinos are kept in tight equilibrium with the electromagnetic plasma, we need only to solve the equation for the heavy sterile neutrinos, Eq. (10). At intermediate temperatures we solve the full set of equations, taking into account the changed temperature evolution and the non-equilibrium distribution functions of the neutrinos. At late times, long after the neutrinos have decoupled and the heavy neutrinos have disappeared, we solve only the kinetic equations governing the $`n`$-$`p`$ reactions needed for the nucleosynthesis code. We use a 800 point grid in the momentum region big enough to encompass the decay products ($`0<y<M_sx/2`$), and for the BBN calculations we use $`\eta _{10}=5`$.

The results of the calculations have been imported into the modified Kawano nucleosynthesis code , and the abundances of all light elements have been calculated. At each time step $`x`$ we find the corresponding photon temperature and total energy density. Furthermore we integrate the kinetic equation governing the $`n/p`$ evolution taking into account the distorted spectrum of $`\nu _e`$.

For a given mass, $`M_s`$, we calculate the helium abundance, $`Y`$, for various mixing angles (or lifetimes) and use the approximate formula $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y=0.013\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ to find the minimum allowed mixing angle (Fig. 1) or the maximum allowed lifetime (Fig. 2) for that mass. We do this for both $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=0.2`$ and $`1.0`$. On the same figures we plot guide-the-eye lines, that are fitted in the form

$`(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )_{\mathrm{min}}`$ $`=`$ $`s_1M_s^\alpha +s_2`$ (18)
for the minimum allowed mixing and

$`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}=t_1M_s^\beta +t_2`$ (19)
for the maximum allowed life-time $`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$. Fitting parameters in Eqs.(18,19) are presented at the Table 1.

For small masses we followed Ref.  and used the expansion in a small parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=Tx1`$, to describe the temperature evolution, whereas for bigger masses we used a more correct, and somewhat more complicated, treatment of the photon temperature from Eq. (17). The results are in perfect agreement for $`M_s=60`$ MeV, and for $`M_s=140`$ MeV we find the maximal allowed lifetime about $`0.05`$ sec, in fair agreement with the approximate fitting formulae.

It is important to keep in mind, that the bounds obtained above are rather conservative, since all the approximations used in the derivation lead to slightly weakened bounds, as described in Ref. .

## 5 Decay $`\nu _2\nu _a+\pi ^0`$

The results obtained in the previous section are valid when the mass of the heavy neutrino is smaller than 140 MeV. For such low masses the dominant decay modes of $`\nu _2`$ would be into electrons and light neutrinos. A possible decay mode including muons which is possible for $`M_s>105`$ MeV is suppressed if $`M_s<140`$ MeV. However, for $`M_s>135`$ MeV the decay channel

$`\nu _2\pi ^0+\nu _a`$ (20)
becomes open and strongly dominating. The life-time of $`\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ was calculated in refs. . We can translate their results for the decay (20) and find for the life-time

$`\tau =\left[{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2M_s(M_s^2m_\pi ^2)f_\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{16\pi }}\right]^1=5.810^9\mathrm{sec}\left[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{M_s(M_s^2m_\pi ^2)}{m_\pi ^3}}\right]^1`$ (21)
where $`m_\pi =135`$ MeV is the $`\pi ^0`$-mass and $`f_\pi =131`$ MeV is the coupling constant for the decay $`\pi ^+\mu +\nu _\mu `$.

Immediately after $`M_s`$ becomes bigger than $`m_\pi `$ the two-body decay becomes the main one and all other channels can be neglected. We cannot directly apply our numerical program (that was made for a 33.9-MeV neutrino) to this case, so we will instead make some simple order of magnitude estimates for the impact of very heavy $`\nu _2`$ on BBN. One can roughly conclude that for the life-time of $`\nu _2`$ smaller than 0.1 sec, and corresponding cosmological temperature higher than 3 MeV, the decay products would quickly thermalize and their impact on BBN would be small. For a life-time larger than 0.1 sec, and $`T<3`$ MeV, we assume that thermalization of neutrinos is negligible and approximately evaluate their impact on BBN. If $`\nu _s`$ is mixed with $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$ then electronic neutrinos are not produced in the decay (20) and only the contribution of the decay products into the total energy density is essential. As we have already mentioned, non-equilibrium $`\nu _e`$ produced by the decay would directly change the frozen $`n/p`$-ratio. This case is more complicated and demands a more refined treatment than what is presented in this section.

The $`\pi ^0`$ produced in the decay (20) immediately decays into two photons and they heat up the electromagnetic part of the plasma, while neutrinos by assumption are decoupled from it. We estimate the fraction of energy delivered into the electromagnetic and neutrino components of the cosmic plasma in the instant decay approximation. Let $`r_s=n_s/n_0`$ be the ratio of the number densities of the heavy neutrinos with respect to the equilibrium light ones, $`n_0=0.09T_\gamma ^3`$. The total energy of photons and $`e^+e^{}`$-pairs including the photons produced by the decay is

$`\rho _{em}={\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}T^4+r_sn_0{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{M_s^2}}\right),`$ (22)
while the energy density of neutrinos is

$`\rho _\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{21}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}T^4+r_sn_0{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{M_s^2}}\right).`$ (23)
The effective number of neutrino species at BBN can be defined as

$`K_\nu ^{(eff)}={\displaystyle \frac{22}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\nu }{\rho _{em}}}.`$ (24)
Because of the stronger heating of the electromagnetic component of the plasma by the decay products, the relative role of neutrinos diminishes and $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}`$ becomes considerably smaller than 3. If $`\nu _s`$ are decoupled while relativistic their fractional number would be $`r_s=4`$ (two spin states and antiparticles are included). Possible entropy dilution could diminish it to slightly below 1. Assuming that the decoupling temperature is $`T_d=3`$ MeV we find that $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}=0.6`$ for $`M_s=150`$ MeV and $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}=1.3`$ for $`M_s=200`$ MeV if the frozen number density of $`\nu _s`$ is not diluted by the later entropy release and $`r_s`$ remains equal to 4. If it was diluted down to 1, then the numbers would respectively change to $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}=1.15`$ for $`M_s=150`$ MeV and $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}=1.7`$ for $`M_s=200`$ MeV, instead of the standard $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}=3`$. Thus a very heavy $`\nu _s`$ would result in under-production of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$. There could, however, be some other effects acting in the opposite direction.

Since $`\nu _e`$ decouples from electrons/positrons at smaller temperature than $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, the former may have enough time to thermalize. In this case the temperatures of $`\nu _e`$ and photons would be the same (before $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation) and the results obtained above would be directly applicable. However, if thermalization between $`\nu _e`$ and $`e^\pm `$ was not efficient, then the temperature of electronic neutrinos at BBN would be smaller than in the standard model. The deficit of $`\nu _e`$ would produce an opposite effect, namely enlarging the production of primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$, because it results in an increase of the $`n/p`$-freezing temperature. This effect significantly dominates the decrease of $`K_\nu ^{(eff)}`$ discussed above. Moreover even in the case of the decay $`\nu _2\pi ^0+\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$, when $`\nu _e`$ are not directly created through the decay, the spectrum of the latter may be distorted at the high energy tail by the interactions with non-equilibrium $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ produced by the decay. This would result in a further increase of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$-production. In the case of direct production of non-equilibrium $`\nu _e`$ through the decay $`\nu _2\pi ^0+\nu _e`$ their impact on $`n/p`$ ratio would be even much stronger.

To summarise, there are several different effects from the decay of $`\nu _s`$ into $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\nu `$ on BBN. Depending upon the decay life-time and the channel these effects may operate in opposite directions. If the life-time of $`\nu _2`$ is larger than 0.1 sec but smaller than 0.2 sec, so that $`e^\pm `$ and $`\nu _e`$ establish equilibrium the production of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ is considerably diminished so that this life-time interval would be mostly forbidden. For life-times larger than 0.2 sec the dominant effect is a decrease of the energy density of $`\nu _e`$ and this results in a strong increase of the mass fraction of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$. Thus large life-times should also be forbidden. Of course there is a small part of the parameter space where both effects cancel each other and this interval of mass/mixing is allowed. It is, however, difficult to establish its precise position with the approximate arguments described above. It would be a matter of separate and rather complicated non-equilibrium calculations.

Thus, in the case of $`\nu _s\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ mixing for $`M_s>140`$ MeV we can exclude the life-times of $`\nu _s`$ roughly larger than 0.1 sec, except for a small region near 0.2 sec where two opposite effects cancel and the BBN results remain undisturbed despite the presence of sterile neutrinos. Translating these results into mixing angle according to Eq.(21), we conclude that mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta <5.810^8m_\pi /M_s/((M_s/m_\pi )^21)`$ are excluded by BBN. Combining this result with Eq.(8) we obtain the exclusion region for $`M_s>140MeV`$:

$`5.110^8{\displaystyle \frac{\text{MeV}^2}{M^2}}<\mathrm{sin}^2\theta <5.810^8{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi }{M_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(M_s/m_\pi )^21}}.`$ (25)
In the case of $`\nu _s\nu _e`$ mixing for $`M_s>140MeV`$ the limits are possibly stronger, but it is more difficult to obtain reliable estimates because of a strong influence of non-equilibrium $`\nu _e`$ produced by the decay on neutron-proton reactions, and we will postpone this problem for future investigations.

## 6 Supernova 1987A

In Ref.  we have explained that massive sterile neutrinos can be constrained by the duration of the SN 1987A neutrino burst. If the sterile states live long enough and interact weakly enough to escape from the SN core, the usual energy-loss argument constrains the allowed interaction strength (in our case the active-sterile mixing angle). If the sterile states are so short lived or so strongly interacting that they decay or scatter before leaving the SN core, they contribute to the transfer of energy and thus still accelerate the cooling speed of the SN core.

The arguments given in Ref.  pertain directly to the present case as long as the sterile neutrino mass is not too large for its production to be suppressed in the relevant region of a SN core. Taking a typical temperature to exceed 30 MeV, the average thermal neutrino energy exceeds about 100 MeV so that threshold effects should not become important until the mass significantly exceeds this limit. Therefore, we believe that the SN limits pertain at least to masses up 100 MeV. For such a mass and maximal mixing, the lifetime is about $`10\mu \mathrm{s}`$, for relativistic particles corresponding to a distance of about 3 km, i.e. of order the SN core radius, and much larger than the standard mean free path of active neutrinos of a few meters. Therefore, for the entire range of interesting masses and mixing angles the lifetime far exceeds what is necessary for the sterile neutrinos to transfer energy within the SN core in the spirit of the energy-transfer argument.

In summary, the arguments of Ref.  imply that for sterile neutrino masses below about 100 MeV the approximate range $`3\times 10^8<\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )<0.1`$ is excluded.

## 7 Conclusion and Summary

In this work we have found cosmological and astrophysical bounds on possible mixings of a heavy sterile neutrino with mass $`10\mathrm{MeV}<M_s<140\mathrm{MeV}`$ with any active flavour $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$. Our results are summarised in Fig. 3. The region between the two horizontal lines running up to 100 MeV are excluded by the duration of the neutrino burst from SN 1987A. A more detailed discussion would probably permit one to expand this region both in the horizontal and vertical directions.

The BBN limits are presented by the two upper dashed curves, both corresponding to the conservative bound of one permitted extra neutrino species. The curve for $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ mixing is slightly higher than the curve for $`\nu _e`$ mixing. The lower dashed curve describes our approximate estimate of the efficiency of sterile neutrino production in the early universe Eq. (8). Below this curve the heavy $`\nu _2`$ are very weakly produced and their impact on BBN is not essential. Let us note that relation Eq. (7) is fulfilled for the entire BBN-excluded region of Fig. 3. In other words, sterile neutrinos are relativistic at decoupling and the Boltzmann suppression factor is not essential.

We have also made an order of magnitude estimates of the BBN-influence of heavier neutrinos with masses $`140\text{MeV}<M_S<200\text{MeV}`$ for $`\nu _s\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ mixing channel. We have found, that mixing angles in the range given by Eq.(25) are excluded by BBN. We do not present these order of magnitude estimates in our Fig. 3 since they are less precise than the limits presented for $`M_s<140`$ MeV. We believe that the BBN bounds also could be improved considerably with more detailed calculations. For the $`\nu _s\nu _\tau `$ mixing a part of the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$-$`M_s`$-plane is excluded by the NOMAD experiment . Their bound is also presented in Fig. 3.

We have done the calculations for the Dirac neutrinos. For the Majorana case the cosmological number density of the heavy neutrinos would be twice smaller and corresponding bounds would be changed in an evident way and rather weakly.

It is noteworthy that the impact of sterile neutrinos on BBN is very sensitive to the deviation from thermal equilibrium of both sterile neutrinos as well as their decay products, especially into the $`\nu _e`$-channel. In the usual approximate calculations, kinetic equilibrium is assumed. This assumption very much simplifies the calculations because the integro-differential kinetic equations are reduced to simple ordinary differential equations. However, we have found that this approximation deviates substantially from the more exact treatment presented here. Even more accurate calculations are feasible with the technique developed in our previous works  where an accuracy at the sub-percent level was achieved, but this is a difficult and time-consuming problem. We would like to postpone it until the existence of heavy sterile neutrinos becomes more plausible.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful to NOMAD collaboration for the permission to present their results before publication. We thank S. Gninenko for stimulating our interest to this problem, for numerous discussions, and for the indication of the importance of $`\nu _2\pi ^0\nu _a`$-decay. A. Dolgov is grateful to the Theory Division of CERN for the hospitality when this work was completed. In Munich, this work was partly supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant No. SFB 375. The work of DS supported in part by INTAS grant 1A-1065.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During the development of physics research is extended to phenomena at such spatial, time or energy scales that are far beyond the range of everyday experience. These phenomena sometimes force us to revise our previous concepts which have seemed to us natural or even indispensable, but are actually rooted in our limited previous experience and finally prove to be of approximate validity. This is reflected in the growing level of abstraction of physical theories. Quantum phenomena have forced already several such revisions. A primary example is the surrender of determinism, but the wavelike behaviour of particles, the existence of discrete energy levels and Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations also imply substantial revisions of some basic features of classical physics. It is well known that quantum phenomena force us to surrender or revise at least one more very basic concept: Bell’s theorem tells us that that we have to give up (or revise) either locality, or realism, or inductive inference-. On the other hand, these concepts are so deeply rooted in scientific thinking that one is reluctant to give up any of them. Many people think that perhaps locality is the weakest concept of the three (cf. arguments for nonlocality in Ref. and counterarguments in Ref.). Nevertheless, all the fundamental equations of physics satisfy the principle of locality, including e.g. the standard model of the elementary particles, so it is rather implausible that locality would be violated just in quantum measurements. The myth of nonlocality is much less attractive today than it has been in the fifties or sixties when people tried to build nonlocal quantum field theories.

There are at least two other myths related to quantum mechanics: one of them is the notorious belief that around some large particle number or mass quantum mechanics gradually becomes invalid and classical mechanics starts to be correct. Actually this very simple view has no experimental support at all. On the contrary, all the available experimental results confirm the validity of quantum mechanics, even in the macroscopic situation of superfluid He. The actual motivation of the above view is the paradox of quantum measurements, which involves the third myth, the fictitious collapse of the wave function. This process was invented for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, i.e., for making contact between theoretical results and the experience. Nevertheless, if considered an actual physical process, it contradicts the Schrödinger equation and violates the principle of locality.

In the present paper we show that a consistent theory can be constructed without accepting any of the three myths above. As a guiding principle, we try to confine the number of assumptions to a minimum and base our considerations on logical clarity and consistency. Obviously, this is all we can safely do in a range of phenomena where our intuition does not work. As expected, one has to revise rather substantially some basic concepts. Namely, it will be shown that one has to give up the belief that a physical system at a given instant of time has a quantum state in an absolute sense, i.e., a state which depends only on the system to be described (apart from unitary transformations which may appear if another coordinate system is chosen). Instead, quantum states will express basicly a relation between a system to be described and another system containing the former one. The latter, bigger system acts as reference system. This new kind of dependence on reference systems will be explained in detail in Section 2. The idea that quantum states are relational has been put forward (in mathematically and conceptually different ways) in Refs.,. The relational nature of quantum mechanics is expressed also by the proposal that correlations (rather than states) are the basic entities (”correlations without correlata”) .

In Section 3. the basic rules of quantum mechanics are formulated in a way that takes into account the dependence of the states on quantum reference systems. von Neumann’s measurement postulate will be replaced by the rules which express the indeterministic relation among states defined with respect to different quantum reference systems. The most important of these rules, which has no counterpart in standard quantum mechanics, utilizes the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix. These eigenstates (Schmidt states) play a central role also in the modal interpretations111One may even consider the present approach a modal interpretation in the sense that it also aims at giving a physical meaning to the quantum formalism (”properties attribution”) like modal interpretations.. Their significance has also been emphasized within the framework of decoherence theory , . According to the present approach, Schrödinger’s equation is universally valid and measurements are considered as any other interaction between two physical systems. If the dynamics of this interaction has the special form of a perfect (von Neumann type) measurement, the usual quantum mechanical expressions for the probabilities are recovered.

The dependence of quantum states on quantum reference systems (as defined in the present paper) leads to an even more radical consequence: some states which exist may not be compared. This is totally unusual for our intuition and classical experience, but if the states which we would like to compare are defined with respect to different reference systems, there is no logical necessity that one can indeed compare them. This basically influences the picture we have about reality. We cannot think of existing states as of letters in a big book. If two letters exist, we may compare them in principle, without changing them or their relationship. Thus (if we do not possess complete knowledge about them) it makes sense to speak about the joint probability of their simultaneous presence. In case of existing quantum states one may check any of them by a suitable measurement, without disturbing that particular state. But such a measurement usually does disturb the other states, therefore, these measurements usually cannot be performed simultaneously (or one by one) without influencing any of the relevant states. Thus one cannot give any operational definition of the joint probability of the simultaneous presence of states. This seems to be rather odd, and one might think that independently of this situation such probabilities must exist on the ground that each existing state somehow corresponds to an element of the reality. On the other hand, one should keep in mind that this set-like picture of the reality is based on the fact that in classical physics the property of comparability is always given. In the absence of that one has no reason to expect that the consequences remain intact. Let us emphasize that this modification of the concept of reality is completely independent of any influence of consciousness. Therefore, the resulting reality concept still preserves the idea that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness. The non-comparability of states will be discussed in Section 4.

In Section 5. the derivation of Bell’s inequality is analyzed from the point of view of the present modified quantum mechanics. It will be shown that the role of the ”hidden variable” is played by a particular quantum state. It turns out that the usual ”shadowing property” which would express local realism, does not follow, because the corresponding three-fold joint probability is physically meaningless due to the non-comparability of the relevant quantum states. On the other hand, all reasonable requirements of locality are fulfilled.

In Section 6. we summarize the results and conclude.

## 2 The basic new concept: quantum reference systems

Let us consider a simple example, namely, an idealized measurement of an $`\widehat{S}_z`$ spin component of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle. Be the particle $`P`$ initially in the state

$`\alpha |>+\beta |>,`$ (1)
where $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$ and the states $`|>`$ and $`|>`$ are the eigenstates of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$, respectively. The other quantum numbers and variables have been suppressed. The dynamics of the measurement is given by the relations $`|>|m_0>|>|m_{}>`$ and $`|>|m_0>|>|m_{}>`$, where $`|m_0>`$ stands for the state of the measuring device $`M`$ (e.g. a Stern-Gerlach apparatus) before the measurement (no spot on the photographic plate), while $`|m_{}>`$ ($`|m_{}>`$) is the state of the measuring device after the measurement that corresponds to the measured spin value $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$ ($`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$). The shorthand notation $``$ stands for the unitary time evolution during the measurement, which is assumed to fulfill the time dependent Schrödinger equation corresponding to the total Hamiltonian of the combined $`P+M`$ system. As the initial state of the particle is given by Eq.(1), the linearity of the Schrödinger equation implies that the measurement process can be written as

$`(\alpha |>+\beta |>)|m_0>|\mathrm{\Psi }>=\alpha |>|m_{}>+\beta |>|m_{}>.`$ (2)
This simplified dynamics is called a von Neumann type perfect measurement. Let us consider now the state of the measuring device $`M`$ after the measurement. As the combined system $`P+M`$ is in an entangled state, the measuring device has no own wave function and may be described by the reduced density matrix

$`\widehat{\rho }_M=Tr_P\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }><\mathrm{\Psi }|\right)=|m_{}>|\alpha |^2<m_{}|+|m_{}>|\beta |^2<m_{}|,`$ (3)
where $`Tr_P`$ stands for the trace operation in the Hilbert space of the particle $`P`$. Nevertheless, if we look at the measuring device, we certainly see that either $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$ or $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$ spin component has been measured, that correspond to the states $`|m_{}>`$ and $`|m_{}>`$, respectively. These are obviously not the same as the state (3). Indeed, $`|m_{}>`$ and $`|m_{}>`$ are pure states while $`\widehat{\rho }_M`$ is not. As is well known by now, $`\widehat{\rho }_M`$ cannot be considered a statistical mixture of $`|m_{}>`$ and $`|m_{}>`$, i.e., ”ignorance interpretation” cannot solve the problem of objectification. Why do we get different states? According to orthodox quantum mechanics, one may argue as follows. The reduced density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_M`$ has been calculated from the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ (cf. Eq.(2)) of the whole system $`P+M`$. A state is a result of a measurement (the preparation), so we may describe $`M`$ by $`\widehat{\rho }_M`$ if we have gained our information about $`M`$ from a measurement done on $`P+M`$. On the other hand, looking at the measuring device directly is equivalent with a measurement done directly on $`M`$. In this case $`M`$ is described by either $`|m_{}>`$ or $`|m_{}>`$. We may conclude that performing measurements on different systems (each containing the system we want to decribe) gives rise to different descriptions (in terms of different states). Let us call the system which has been measured (it is $`P+M`$ in the first case and $`M`$ in the second case) the quantum reference system. Using this terminology, we may tell that we make a measurement on the quantum reference system $`R`$, thus we prepare its state $`|\psi _R>`$ and using this information we calculate the state $`\widehat{\rho }_S(R)=Tr_{RS}|\psi _R><\psi _R|`$ of a subsystem $`S`$. We shall call $`\widehat{\rho }_S(R)`$ the state of $`S`$ with respect to $`R`$. Obviously $`\widehat{\rho }_R(R)=|\psi _R><\psi _R|`$, thus $`|\psi _R>`$ may be identified with the state of the system $`R`$ with respect to itself.

Let us emphasize that up to now, despite of the new terminology, there is nothing new in the discussion. We have merely considered some rather elementary consequences of basic quantum mechanics.

Let us return now to the question why the state of the system $`S`$ (i.e., $`\widehat{\rho }_S(R)`$) depends on the choice of the quantum reference system $`R`$. In the spirit of the Copenhagen interpretation one would answer that in quantum mechanics measurements unavoidably disturb the systems, therefore, if we perform measurements on different surroundings $`R`$, this disturbance is different, and this is reflected in the $`R`$-dependence of $`\widehat{\rho }_S(R)`$. Nevertheless, this argument is not compelling. We may also take the realist point of view and assume that the states of the systems have already existed before the measurements, and appropriate measurements do not change these states. Then the $`R`$-dependence of $`\widehat{\rho }_S(R)`$ becomes an inherent property of quantum mechanics, the states themselves represent actually existing properties (or correspond to some elements of the reality), and quantum formalism becomes a desciption of the reality rather than a calculational tool which relates consecutive measurement results. Let us leave at this decisive point the traditional framework of quantum mechanics and follow the new line just sketched. Below a comparison between the two approaches is given.       Standard QM:      Present approach:      Quantum reference system dependence is caused by the influence of the measurement. Measurement is a primary concept.      Quantum reference system dependence is a fundamental property. States exist and depend on quantum reference systems even in the absence of any measurement. Measurement is a derived concept.

The meaning of the quantum reference systems is now analogous to the classical coordinate systems. Choosing a classical coordinate system means that we imagine what we would experience if we were there. Similarly, choosing a quantum reference system $`R`$ means that we imagine what we would experience if we performed a measurement on $`R`$ that does not disturb $`\widehat{\rho }_R(R)=|\psi _R><\psi _R|`$. In order to see that such a measurement exists, consider an operator $`\widehat{A}`$ (which acts on the Hilbert space of $`R`$) whose eigenstates include $`|\psi _R>`$. The measurement of $`\widehat{A}`$ will not disturb $`|\psi _R>`$. Let us emphasize that the possibility of nondisturbing measurements is an expression of realism: the state $`\widehat{\rho }_R(R)`$ exists independently whether we measure it or not.

Despite the analogy, there are several differences between the concept of classical and quantum reference systems. These are summarized below:

|  | Classical reference system (CRS): |  |  | Quantum reference system (QRS): |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | CRS is an abstraction of actual physical systems, as their detailed structure is not important. |  |  | QRS is a physical system. The detailed structure cannot be eliminated. |
|  | measurements are done on a system by devices attached to the CRS |  |  | measurement is done on the QRS |
|  | there is a one-to-one relationship (transformation) between descriptions with respect to two different CRS-s. |  |  | there is a stochastic relationship between descriptions with respect to two different QRS-s (indeterminism), or they may not even be compared |

As the dependence of $`\widehat{\rho }_S(R)`$ on $`R`$ is a fundamental property now, one has to specify the relation of the different states and has to relate the formalism with experience. This can be done in terms of suitable postulates. Below these postulates are listed and are applied to the theoretical description of measurements.

## 3 Rules of the new framework

Postulate 1. The system S to be described is a subsystem of the reference system R.

Postulate 2. The state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{R})`$ is a positive definite, Hermitian operator with unit trace, acting on the Hilbert space of $`\mathrm{S}`$.

Definition 1. $`\widehat{\rho }_S(S)`$ is called the internal state of $`\mathrm{S}`$.

Postulate 3. The internal states $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{S})`$ are always projectors, i.e., $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{S})=|\mathrm{\psi }_\mathrm{S}><\mathrm{\psi }_\mathrm{S}|`$.

In the following these projectors will be identified with the corresponding wave functions $`|\psi _S>`$ (as they are uniquely related, apart from a phase factor).

Postulate 4. The state of a system $`\mathrm{S}`$ with respect to the reference system $`\mathrm{R}`$ (denoted by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{R})`$) is the reduced density matrix of $`\mathrm{S}`$ calculated from the internal state of $`\mathrm{R}`$, i.e. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{R})=\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{S}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{R})\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{S}`$ stands for the subsystem of $`\mathrm{R}`$ complementer to $`\mathrm{S}`$.

Definition 2.An isolated system is such a system that has not been interacting with the outside world. A closed system is such a system that is not interacting with any other system at the given instant of time (but might have interacted in the past).

Postulate 5.If $`\mathrm{I}`$ is an isolated system then its state is independent of the reference system $`\mathrm{R}`$: $`\widehat{\rho }_I(R)=\widehat{\rho }_I(I)`$.

Postulate 6.If the reference system $`\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{I}`$ is an isolated one then the state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{I})`$ commutes with the internal state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{S})`$.

This means that the internal state of $`S`$ coincides with one of the eigenstates of $`\widehat{\rho }_S(I)`$.

Definition 3.The possible internal states are the eigenstates of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{I})`$ provided that the reference system $`\mathrm{I}`$ is an isolated one.

Postulate 7. If $`\mathrm{I}`$ is an isolated system, then the probability $`\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{S},\mathrm{j})`$ that the eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S},\mathrm{j}}>`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{I})`$ coincides with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\rho }}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{S})`$ is given by the corresponding eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\lambda }_\mathrm{j}`$.

Postulate 8.The result of a measurement is contained unambigously in the internal state of the measuring device.

Postulate 9. If there are $`\mathrm{n}`$ ($`\mathrm{n}=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3},\mathrm{}`$) disjointed physical systems, denoted by $`\mathrm{S}_1,\mathrm{S}_2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{n}`$, all contained in the isolated reference system $`\mathrm{I}`$ and having the possible internal states $`|\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S}_1,\mathrm{j}}>,|\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S}_2,\mathrm{j}}>,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{j}}>`$, respectively, then the joint probability that $`|\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}_\mathrm{i}}>`$ coincides with the internal state of $`\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i}`$ ($`\mathrm{i}=1,..\mathrm{n}`$) is given by

$`P(S_1,j_1,S_2,j_2,\mathrm{},S_n,j_n)`$
$`=Tr_{S_1+S_2+\mathrm{}+S_n}[\widehat{\pi }_{S_1,j_1}\widehat{\pi }_{S_2,j_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{\pi }_{S_n,j_n}\widehat{\rho }_{S_1+S_2+\mathrm{}+S_n}(I)],`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}_\mathrm{i}}=|\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}_\mathrm{i}}><\mathrm{\varphi }_{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}_\mathrm{i}}|`$.

Postulate 10.The internal state $`|\mathrm{\psi }_\mathrm{C}>`$ of a closed system $`\mathrm{C}`$ satisfies the time dependent Schrödinger equation $`i\mathrm{}_t|\psi _C>=\widehat{H}|\psi _C>`$.

Here $`\widehat{H}`$ stands for the Hamiltonian.

Let us emphasize that Postulate 6 and 8 do not have any counterpart in standard quantum mechanics. They replace the measurement postulate but are not simple translations of that (as it will be shown below). The relation to the experience (that provides the whole construction with a physical meaning) is expressed by Postulate 8. On the other hand, Postulate 6 and Postulate 8 are mathematically equivalent with the proposals in Refs.,. The present approach differs from these at the level of interpretation.

In order to demonstrate the working of the postulates let us consider again the measurement discussed in the previous section. A measurement is treated as a usual interaction between two systems, therefore, it is specified by a Hamiltonian or the corresponding unitary time evolution. For simplicity we assume that it is given by Eq.(2) and that the measuring device \+ measured object composite is an isolated system. Then Postulate 5 and Postulate 3 imply that $`\widehat{\rho }_{P+M}(P+M)=|\mathrm{\Psi }><\mathrm{\Psi }|`$. According to Postulate 4 the state of the measuring device with respect to the compound system $`P+M`$ is

$`\widehat{\rho }_M(P+M)=|m_{}>|\alpha |^2<m_{}|+|m_{}>|\beta |^2<m_{}|.`$ (5)
Applying Postulate 6 we get that the internal state $`\widehat{\rho }_M(M)`$ (cf. Definition 1) of the measuring device is either $`|m_{}><m_{}|`$ (with probability $`|\alpha |^2`$, according to Postulate 7) or $`|m_{}><m_{}|`$ (with probability $`|\beta |^2`$). Finally, Postulate 8 tells us that the actual measurement results (the experience) correspond to this $`\widehat{\rho }_M(M)`$. As one can see, we get the same result as in orthodox quantum mechanics (this time without assuming the collapse of the wave function). One reason for this was the special dynamics (2). In orthodox quantum mechanics one usually specifies only which observable has been measured. It tacitly assumes a simple approximation for the dynamics of the measurement like (2). In such cases our postulates lead to the same results. If the dynamics is different (e.g., a more detailed description is given), nothing ensures that one gets back the results of the traditional approach exactly. This means that the above postulates cannot be considered as mere translations of orthodox quantum mechanics. One should also be aware that the present approach leaves much less flexibility than orthodox quantum mechanics. While in the traditional approach one may rather freely choose a bordering line between quantum and classical regime, according to the present approach such bordering line does not exist, and one should in principle always apply a quantum description. Based on this description one may justify the approximations which lead to the traditional approach.

## 4 Non-comparability of the states

It is an important feature of the present approach that the states defined with respect to different quantum reference systems are not necessarily comparable. Below we explain what it means.

The present approach works as follows. We assume that the internal state of an isolated system $`I`$ is known. Then the states of all the subsystems $`S_j`$ of $`I`$ with respect to $`I`$ (i.e., $`\widehat{\rho }_{S_j}(I)`$) are also known together with their possible internal states (i.e., the eigenstates of $`\widehat{\rho }_{S_j}(I)`$). The aim of a measurement performed on $`S_j`$ is to learn which of the possible internal states is the actual one. This can be done without disturbing that state. It can be achieved if an operator commuting with $`\widehat{\rho }_{S_j}(I)`$ is measured, i.e., if the dynamics of the measurement is approximately given by

$`|\varphi _{S_j,k}>|m_0>|\varphi _{S_j,k}>|m_k>,`$ (6)
where $`|\varphi _{S_j,k}>`$ stands for the $`k`$-th possible internal state of $`S_j`$ (cf. Definition 3).

If two subsystems $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are disjoint ($`S_1S_2=\mathrm{}`$) then one can perform such nondisturbing measurements on both systems simultaneously without disturbing either $`\widehat{\rho }_{S_1}(I)`$ or $`\widehat{\rho }_{S_2}(I)`$. Correspondingly, Postulate 9 provides us with a positive definite expresssion for the joint probability that these states coincide with specified possible internal states.

There is a special situation if $`S_2=IS_1`$. The internal state of the isolated system can be expressed in this case by the possible internal states of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ as

$`|\psi _I>={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_k|\varphi _{S_1,k}>|\varphi _{S_2,k}>.`$ (7)
This is the Schmidt representation. It readily implies that there is a unique relationship between the internal state of $`S_1`$ and that of $`S_2`$. Indeed, Eq.(4) yields

$`P(S_1,j_1,S_2,j_2)=P(S_1,j_1)\delta _{j_1j_2}`$ (8)
or

$`P(S_2,j_2|S_1,j_1)=\delta _{j_1j_2}.`$ (9)
We can rewrite Eq.(4) in the general case as follows:

$`P(S_1,j_1,\mathrm{}S_n,j_n)=<\psi _I|\varphi _{S_1,j_1}><\varphi _{S_1,j_1}|\mathrm{}|\varphi _{S_n,j_n}><\varphi _{S_1,j_1}|\psi _I>.`$ (10)
Eq.(7) implies

$`<\psi _I|\varphi _{S_1,j_1}><\varphi _{S_1,j_1}|={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_k^{}<\varphi _{IS_1,k}|<\varphi _{S_1,k}|\varphi _{S_1,j_1}><\varphi _{S_1,j_1}|`$ (11)
$`=c_{j_1}^{}<\varphi _{S_1,j_1}|<\varphi _{IS_1,k}|=<\psi _I|\varphi _{IS_1,j_1}><\varphi _{IS_1,j_1}|`$ (12)
i.e., one can replace $`\widehat{\pi }_{S_1,j_1}=|\varphi _{S_1,j_1}><\varphi _{S_1,j_1}|`$ by $`\widehat{\pi }_{IS_1,j_1}=|\varphi _{IS_1,j_1}><\varphi _{IS_1,j_1}|`$ in Eq.(4). This sometimes makes possible simultaneous nondisturbing check of internal states of non-disjoint systems.

Suppose, e.g., that $`I=S_1+S_2+S_3`$ (where $`S_i\mathrm{}`$ and $`S_iS_j=\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$) and we would like to learn the internal state of $`A=S_1+S_2`$ and of $`B=S_2+S_3`$. The systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not disjoint, but their complementary systems $`S_3`$ and $`S_1`$ are. Therefore, one may perform nondisturbing measurements on $`S_3`$ and $`S_1`$. The knowledge of the internal states of these systems uniquely specifies the internal states of the original systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ (cf. Eq.(9)). Correspondingly, Eq.(4) yields a positive definite expression for $`P(A,j,B,k)`$.

There are, however, situations when neither the systems nor their complementary systems are disjoint. The simplest case is if $`I=S_1+S_2+S_3+S_4`$ (where $`S_i\mathrm{}`$ and $`S_iS_j=\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$) and we would like to learn the internal state of $`A=S_1+S_2`$ and of $`B=S_2+S_3`$. Obviously,

$`AB,AB=S_2\mathrm{}`$ (13)
$`(IA)B=(S_3+S_4)(S_2+S_3)=S_3\mathrm{}`$ (14)
$`A(IB)=(S_1+S_2)(S_1+S_4)=S_1\mathrm{}`$ (15)
$`(IA)(IB)=(S_3+S_4)(S_1+S_4)=S_4\mathrm{}`$ (16)
Thus, one cannot relate this situation to the case of disjoint subsystems. Indeed, a measurement done on $`A`$ or on $`IA`$ (which does not disturb $`\widehat{\rho }_A(A)`$) usually does disturb $`\widehat{\rho }_B(B)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_{IB}(IB)`$. Therefore, there is no way to perform a measurement which conveys information about both the internal state of $`A`$ and that of $`B`$. This is reflected mathematically by the postulates, namely, the positivity of $`P(A,i,B,k)`$ (if Eq.(4) is formally applied) is not guaranteed (it is usually not even real). In such a situation the states $`\widehat{\rho }_A(A)`$, $`\widehat{\rho }_B(B)`$ cannot be compared, although both exist separately. Conclusions based on assumptions about the simultaneous existence of $`\widehat{\rho }_A(A)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_B(B)`$ (in the sense that one imagines that he knows both states) or, especially, about a related joint probability can lead to contradictions. Therefore, non-comparability of existing states is an essential feature of the present approach.

## 5 Bell’s inequality and the principle of locality

Let us consider a Bell-type experiment performed on two spin-$`1/2`$ particles. In order to exhibit the mathematical structure we write the internal state of the two particle system before the measurements as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}c_j|\varphi _{P_1,j}>|\varphi _{P_2,j}>`$ (17)
where $`c_1=a`$, $`c_2=b`$, $`|\varphi _{P_1,1}>=|1,>`$, $`|\varphi _{P_1,2}>=|1,>`$, $`|\varphi _{P_2,1}>=|2,>`$, $`|\varphi _{P_2,2}>=|2,>`$. Eq.(17) is just the Schmidt representation, thus $`P(P_1,j,P_2,k)=|c_j|^2\delta _{j,k}`$.

Let us consider now a typical experimental situation, when measurements on both particles are performed. We shall show that according to the present theory the observed correlations are exclusively due to the previous interaction between the particles. Before the measurements the internal state of the isolated system $`P_1+M_1+P_2+M_2`$ ($`P_1,P_2`$ stands for the particles and $`M_1,M_2`$ for the measuring devices, respectively) is given by $`\left(_jc_j|\varphi _{P_1,j}>|\varphi _{P_2,j}>\right)|m_0^{(1)}>|m_0^{(2)}>`$, while it is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}c_j\widehat{U}_t(P_1+M_1)\left(|\varphi _{P_1,j}>|m_0^{(1)}>\right)\widehat{U}_t(P_2+M_2)\left(|\varphi _{P_2,j}>|m_0^{(2)}>\right),`$ (18)
a time $`t`$ later, i.e. during and after the measurements. Here $`\widehat{U}_t(P_i+M_i)`$ ($`i=1,2`$) stands for the unitary time evolution operator of the closed system $`P_i+M_i`$.

Eq.(18) implies that the internal states of the closed systems $`P_1+M_1`$ and $`P_2+M_2`$ evolve unitarily and do not influence each other. This follows readily if one applies Postulates 4, 6 to Eq.(18) and takes into account the unitarity of $`\widehat{U}_t(P_i+M_i)`$. This time evolution can be given explicitly through the relations

$`|\xi (P_i,j)>|m_0^{(i)}>|\xi (P_i,j)>|m_j^{(i)}>,`$ (19)
where $`i,j=1,2`$ and $`|\xi (P_i,j)>`$ is the $`j`$-th eigenstate of the spin measured on the $`i`$-th particle along an axis $`z^{(i)}`$ which closes an angle $`\vartheta _i`$ with the original $`z`$ direction. The time evolution of the internal state of the closed systems $`P_i+M_i`$ is given explicitly by $`|\psi _{P_i}>|m_0^{(i)}>_j<\varphi _{P_i,j}|\psi _{P_i}>|\varphi _{P_i,j}>|m_j^{(i)}>`$. As we see, the $`i`$-th measurement process is completely determined by the initial internal states of the particle $`P_i`$. Therefore, any correlation between the measurements may only stem from the initial correlation of the internal states of the particles.

For the calculation of the state $`\widehat{\rho }_{M_1}(M_1)`$ (which corresponds to the measured value, cf. Postulate 8) one needs to know the state of the whole isolated system $`P_1+P_2+M_1+M_2`$. Using Eq.(19) the final state (18) may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}c_l<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}><\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l}>\right)`$
$`\times |m_j^{(1)}>|m_k^{(2)}>|\xi (P_1,j)>|\xi (P_2,k)>.`$
Direct calculation shows that

$`\widehat{\rho }_{M_1}(P_1+P_2+M_1+M_2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}|c_l|^2|<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}>|^2\right)|m_j^{(1)}><m_j^{(1)}|.`$
Note that it is independent of the second measurement.

According to Postulate 6 $`|\psi _{M_1}>`$ is one of the $`|m_j^{(1)}>`$-s. (Similarly one may derive that $`|\psi _{M_2}>`$ is one of the $`|m_k^{(2)}>`$-s.) The probability of the observation of the $`j`$-th result (up or down spin in a chosen direction) is

$`P(M_1,j)={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}|c_l|^2|<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}>|^2.`$ (20)
This may be interpreted in conventional terms: $`|c_l|^2`$ is the probability that $`|\psi _{P_1}>=|\varphi _{P_1,l}>`$, and $`|<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}>|^2`$ is the conditional probability that one gets the $`j`$-th result if $`|\psi _{P_1}>=|\varphi _{P_1,l}>`$. Indeed, the initial internal state of $`P_1`$ uniquely determines the internal state of $`P_1+M_1`$ (owing to the unitary time evolution), and the internal state of $`P_1+M_1`$ uniquely determines the internal state of its complementary system $`P_2+M_2`$ (and vica versa). Therefore, the joint probability that the initial internal state of $`P_1`$ coincides with its $`l`$-th possible internal state and the final internal state of $`M_1`$ coincides with its $`j`$-th possible internal state is the same as the joint probability $`P(P_2+_2,l,M_1,j)`$ that the final internal state of $`P_2+M_2`$ coincides with its $`l`$-th possible internal state and the final internal state of $`M_1`$ coincides with its $`j`$-th possible internal state. As $`P_2+M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ are disjoint systems, $`P(P_2+_2,l,M_1,j)`$ is positive definite, namely, if calculated according to Eq.(18), it is just the summand on the right hand side of Eq.(20).

Thus we see that the initial internal state of $`P_1`$ determines the outcome of the first measurement in the usual probabilistic sense. One may show quite similarly that the initial internal state of $`P_2`$ determines the outcome of the second measurement in the same way. In this sense the internal states of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ play the role of local hidden variables. On the other hand, to hidden variables some supernatural features are attributed (e.g. that they cannot be measured in any way) and they are assumed to be comparable with the results of both measurements. None of these properties applies to the internal states of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. As for the non-comparability we mean that the initial internal state of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is not comparable with both $`|\psi M_1>`$ and $`|\psi _{M_2}>`$ (while they can be compared with one of them). This means that in our theory there is no way to define the joint probability $`P(P_1,l_1,P_2,l_2,(0);M_1,j,M_2,k,(t))`$, i.e., the probability that initially $`|\psi _{P_1}>=|\varphi _{P_1,l_1}>`$ and $`|\psi _{P_2}>=|\varphi _{P_2,l_2}>`$ and finally $`|\psi _{M_1}>=|m_j^{(1)}>`$ and $`|\psi _{M_2}>=|m_k^{(2)}>`$. Intuitively we would write

$`P(P_1,l_1,P_2,l_2,(0);M_1,j,M_2,k,(t))`$
$`=|c_{l_1}|^2\delta _{l_1,l_2}|<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l_1}>|^2|<\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l_2}>|^2,`$ (21)
as $`|c_{l_1}|^2\delta _{l_1,l_2}`$ is the joint probability that $`|\psi _{P_1}>=|\varphi _{P_1,l}>`$ and $`|\psi _{P_2}>=|\varphi _{P_2,l}>`$, and $`|<\xi (P_i,j)|\varphi _{P_i,l_i}>|^2`$ is the conditional probability that one gets the $`j`$-th result in the $`ith`$ measurement if initially $`|\psi _{P_i}>=|\varphi _{P_i,l_i}>`$ ($`i=1,2`$). Certainly the existence of such a joint probability would immediately imply the validity of Bell’s inequality, thus it is absolutely important to understand why this probability does not exist.

As our postulates provide us with equal time joint probabilities, we should try to express $`P(P_1,l_1,P_2,l_2,(0);M_1,j,M_2,k,(t))`$ with them. As above, we may note that the initial internal state of $`P_1`$ is uniquely related to the final internal state of $`P_1+M_1`$, the initial internal state of $`P_2`$ is uniquely related to the final internal state of $`P_2+M_2`$, and the final internal state of $`P_1+M_1`$ is uniquely related to the final internal state of $`P_2+M_2`$. Therefore, if $`P(P_1,l_1,P_2,l_2,(0);M_1,j,M_2,k,(t))`$ exists, it coincides with $`P(P_1+M_1,l_1,M_1,j,M_2,k)\delta _{l_1,l_2}`$. But the systems $`P_1+M_2`$, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are not disjoint, neither are their complementary systems. As a result, if one tries to apply Eq.(4), one obtains

$`P(P_1+M_1,l_1,M_1,j,M_2,k)={\displaystyle \underset{j^{}}{}}<\xi (P_1,j^{})|\varphi _{P_1,l_1}><\varphi _{P_1,l_1}|\xi (P_1,j)>`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}c_l^{}<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l^{}}><\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l^{}}>\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{l^{\prime \prime }}{}}c_{l^{\prime \prime }}^{}<\xi (P_1,j^{})|\varphi _{P_1,l^{\prime \prime }}>^{}<\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l^{\prime \prime }}>^{}\right)`$ (22)
This expression fails to be real and positive when Bell’s inequality is violated. This can be seen because summing Eq.(22) over $`l_1`$ one gets the correct joint probability

$`P(M_1,j,M_2,k)=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}c_l<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}><\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l}>\right|^2.`$ (23)
which can also be obtained directly from Eq.(4). This is the usual quantum mechanical expression which violates Bell’s inequality and whose correctness is experimentally proven.

The other side of the non-comparability is that a nondisturbing measurement of $`|\psi _{P_1+M_1}>`$ inevitably disturbs $`|\psi _{P_1+M_1+P_2+M_2}>`$, and thus $`P(M_1,j,M_2,k)`$, too. Therefore, if one measures $`|\psi _{P_1+M_1}>`$ , $`|\psi _{M_1}`$ and $`|\psi _{M_2}`$ (in order to give an operational definition for $`P(P_1+M_1,l_1,M_1,j,M_2,k)`$) $`P(M_1,j,M_2,k)`$ will be changed. Indeed, after having measured $`|\psi _{P_1+M_1}>`$ 222 This is equivalent by recording the initial internal state of $`P_1`$. by a further measuring device $`M_3`$ we get for the internal state of the whole system

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}c_l\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}>|\xi (P_1,j)>|m_j^{(1)}>\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}<\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l}>|\xi (P_2,k)>|m_k^{(2)}>\right)|m_l^{(3)}>.`$ (24)
As the systems $`M_1,M_2,M_3`$ are disjointed, we may apply Postulate 9 for $`n=3`$ and we get for $`P(M_3,l_1,M_1,j,M_2,k)`$ the positive definite expression

$`P(M_3,l_1,M_1,j,M_2,k)=|c_{l_1}|^2|<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l_1}>|^2|<\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l_1}>|^2.`$ (25)
This readily implies Bell’s inequality. Indeed, if Postulate 9 is applied for Eq.(24) one gets

$`P(M_1,j,M_2,k)={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}|c_l|^2|<\xi (P_1,j)|\varphi _{P_1,l}>|^2|<\xi (P_2,k)|\varphi _{P_2,l}>|^2`$ (26)
which satisfies Bell’s inequality and differs from Eq.(23). This is due to the extra measurement which is equivalent with a measurement of the ”hidden variable”.

Summarizing, we have seen that the initial internal state of $`P_1`$ ($`P_2`$) determines the first (second) measurement process, therefore, these states ’carry’ the initial correlations and ’transfer’ them to the measuring devices. As the measurement processes do not influence each other, the observed correlations may stem only from the ’common past’ of the particles. On the other hand, any attempt to compare the initial internal states of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ with the results of both measurements changes the correlations, thus a joint probability for the simultaneous existence of these states cannot be defined. This means that the reason for the violation of Bell’s inequality is that the usual derivations always assume that the states (or ”stable properties”, ”hidden variables” etc.) which carry the initial correlations can be freely compared with the results of the measurements. This comparability is usually thought to be a consequence of realism. According to the present theory, the above assumption goes beyond the requirements of realism and proves to be wrong, because each of the states $`|\psi _{P_1+M_1}>`$, $`|\psi _{P_2+M_2}>`$, $`|\psi _{M_1}>`$ and $`|\psi _{M_2}>`$ exists individually, but they cannot be compared without changing the correlations.

## 6 Summary and conclusion

A new approach to quantum mechanics was presented. The measurement postulates were abandoned and replaced by different ones to get a self-consistent, universally valid quantum mechanics. The present approach was based on the idea of quantum reference systems and the relational nature of quantum states, and, from the mathematical point of view the Schmidt representation (eigenstates of density matrices) was utilized. It was briefly shown how this idea solved the objectification problem, then the concept of non-comparability was discussed. Finally, it was shown that locality was maintained in a Bell-type experiment and the violation of Bell’s inequality was rendered possible by non-comparability of existing states.

According to the present approach the principle of locality is valid in quantum mechanics, and it is the concept of realism that should be modified. This modification amounts to surrendering the overall comparability of existing things (states) which are defined with respect to different (quantum) reference systems.

Finally, let us mention that the present approach is self-contained, i.e., it does not rely upon the concept of a priori classical objects. This means that (if correct) it should give account of classical behavior. This is a great challenge but it has not been discussed here.

## 7 Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to D.Dieks, N.D.Mermin, P.Mittelstaedt, L.E.Szabó and P.Vermaas for useful discussions and remarks. This work has been supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences under Grant No. OTKA T 029752 and the János Bolyai Research Fellowship.