text:
# What is the speed of quantum information?

## Abstract

We study the apparent nonlocality of quantum mechanics as a transport problem. If space is a physical entity through which quantum information (QI) must be transported, then one can define its speed. If not, QI exists apart from space, making space in some sense ‘nonphysical’. But we can still assign a ‘speed’ of QI to such models based on their properties. In both cases, classical information must still travel at $`c`$, though in the latter case the origin of local spacetime itself is a puzzle. We consider the properties of different regimes for this speed of QI, and relevant quantum interpretations. For example, we show that the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is nonlocal because it is what we call spatially complete.

preprint: BNL-HET-02-26

Since the seminal work of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen EPR , it has been clear that quantum mechanics appears to be nonlocal. Of course, classical observables respect relativistic causality, but this was imposed upon the theory a posteriori by insisting that commutators of spacelike operators vanish. Bell showed that quantum mechanics violates an inequality which is satisfied by any model with local hidden variables Bell , and experiments agree with quantum predictions Aspect . So there is something beyond classical information in quantum theory, and if we were to try to model it in terms of hidden variables, it would behave nonlocally. We believe that this apparent nonlocality must either be reified or explained away in any complete theory.

By quantum information (QI), we mean the set of all dynamical entities in the formalism of a complete quantum theory. QI could include ‘information’ about the wave function, phases, entanglement, histories, or something else. Although QI could specify unique outcomes for observables, like the nonlocal hidden variables of Bohm’s model, and our results should apply to such models, we will stress more the possibility that QI does not involve hidden variables. Instead, QI would allow a deeper understanding of the theory without adding classical determinism. In any case, our goal is simply to categorize the spacetime behavior this QI can have, and ask questions such as “Is it local?”, “Is it causal?” and even more simply, “Where is it?”

In classical mechanics, information resides in physical space. To affect another location, it must be transported across space, with limiting speed $`c`$i.e., it can affect things only in its forward lightcone. For QI, one possibility is that space is ‘physical’ in this way, and QI exists in it. Then QI needs transport through space at some speed $`v_{QI}`$, and the theory should explain the dynamics of this new kind of transport. Alternatively, space could be ‘nonphysical’ in that QI does not exist in it and thus does not need transport through it. As we will see later, it is still useful to characterize this kind of world by a ‘speed’. So either way, we believe that any complete theory should give a definitive answer to the title question.

For the cases where QI resides in physical space, let us define $`v_{QI}`$ by the extent of spacetime through which one quantum entity can affect another. Consider the smallest cone which can bound this region. Let $`\theta _{QI}`$ be the angle of this cone from the vertical. Then $`v_{QI}=0`$ corresponds to $`\theta =0`$, $`v_{QI}=c`$ to $`\theta _{QI}=\pi /4`$ (coincides with the forward lightcone), and $`v_{QI}=\mathrm{}`$ to $`\theta _{QI}=\pi /2`$. But these cases cover only half of spacetime, and one can in principle have speeds “faster than infinity” for $`\theta _{QI}>\pi /2`$. These correspond to quantum entities which can interact with others backwards through time. For example, $`\theta _{QI}=3\pi /4`$ means that QI can travel along the backward lightcone, which we define as having ‘speed’ $`v_{QI}=`$$`c`$’. We can then conveniently define an inverse speed,

$$w_{QI}=\mathrm{cot}\theta _{QI}=(v_{QI}/c)^1,$$
(1)
so that the cases of $`v_{QI}=c,\mathrm{},`$ and ‘$`c`$’ correspond to $`w_{QI}=1,0,`$ and $`1`$. For the rest of the paper, we will be asking what it means for a quantum model to correspond to different values of $`w_{QI}`$ (coupled with a characteristic spacetime). We summarize these results in Table I. Categories are written such that “Y” is theoretically desirable (‘spatial completeness’ possibly excepted), and we list “Y” when there is no reason the answer has to be “N”. The final column is just opinion.

Let us dispense with the first line of Table I, which we will call a ‘scripted universe’. Each point in space has all the QI it will ever need from the start, and there is no transport of any (including classical) information. This universe of disjoint points then appears to have dynamics in the same way that players appear to have an impromptu conversation in a carefully written play. This is anathema to physics because dynamics are an illusion. There are no real causes and effects, just the script.

The second possibility is $`v_{QI}=c`$ ($`w_{QI}=1`$). Such a model would be local and causal. The question of Lorentz invariance has two aspects, for one-way and two-way QI transport. Recall that distance and time measurements are ultimately based upon two-way communication of light, from the origin to a reference point and back in a given frame. We can then use such points to measure one-way communication. Thus let us define a normalized inverse speed for the round trip to a reference point,

$$\stackrel{~}{w}=\frac{\mathrm{QI}\mathrm{round}\mathrm{trip}\mathrm{time}}{\mathrm{light}\mathrm{round}\mathrm{trip}\mathrm{time}},$$
(2)
which can in principle be frame-dependent. In whatever frame we use to define $`w_{QI}`$ (which is the preferred frame if there is one), we have $`\stackrel{~}{w}=w_{QI}`$ (for $`w_{QI}0`$). For $`v_{QI}=c`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{w}=w_{QI}=1`$ in all frames, and thus two-way transport of QI in this regime is Lorentz invariant. But we still want to know if the one-way transport picks out a preferred frame (apart from the one from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics). For the $`v_{QI}=c`$ case, there is nothing a priori which does.

But is such a $`v_{QI}=c`$ model allowed? As we said, experiments rule out only $`v_{QI}=c`$ hidden variable models. However, it also cannot be a collapse model, because such collapses are inherently nonlocal. Even the measurement of a single particle on a spacelike screen shows this, since all the other points on the screen instantly know they can no longer be the one to fire.

What about a noncollapse model such as the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)? By the MWI, we mean a quantum model based upon unitary evolution of a universal wave function. It would not entail new ‘worlds’ coming into existence with each quantum fork in the road (which would be a horribly nonlocal phenomenon) but rather mundane Schrödinger evolution of a single wave function of the Universe allowing arbitrary macroscopic superpositions. QI in such a model could consist of that wave function, but possibly also include information about a preferred basis for reality pref basis . Can such a model be local?

No. Consider spatial completeness, which means that some or all dynamical ‘information’ describing a state of the Universe is present (‘stored’ or otherwise accessible to dynamics there) at every point in space $`𝐱`$. Spatially complete theories are necessarily nonlocal. Classical mechanics is spatially incomplete because it is local: dynamical information at $`(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)`$ differs from that at $`(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t)`$.

For a quantum model to be local, it would need to be spatially incomplete, so that its QI differed from point to point. But dynamics in the MWI are encoded in a universal wave function, which is spatially complete. Thus the MWI is nonlocal. There is only a single wave function at time $`t_0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_0)`$, with no provision for different points having different $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_0)`$. A spin singlet with particles at points $`𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is represented by the wave function $`[|0;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}|0;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}+|1;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}|1;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}]/\sqrt{2}`$, whether one speaks about it at $`𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, or $`𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, or any other point. It is a function of multiple spacetime points and does not “belong” to any one of them. It is this property which makes the wave function nonseparable (i.e., $`\psi (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ cannot be written as $`\varphi (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\chi (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐})`$), and thus lies at the core of quantum nonlocality. An augmented MWI could have other QI such as preferred basis information or histories, which could differ from point to point, but since the theory relies on a spatially complete wave function, it is nonlocal.

An argument is sometimes made that the MWI is local because one cannot measure EPR-like correlations until the measured subsystems are brought together, e.g. that if Alice and Bob each measure half of an EPR pair, they can see violations of Bell’s inequalities only after pooling their information in a relativistically causal way. But the wave function in the MWI, which contains QI about both measurements, is present and exactly the same at both locations even when they are spacelike separated. That ‘information’ is of course classically unavailable, but we are interested in the properties of QI.

There are other arguments that noncollapse models are local. Deutsch and Hayden argue that the Heisenberg representation of the MWI is local Deutsch , but their formulation does not include position operators. When one does, position is again quantal and the theory is again nonlocal. Griffiths argues that there is no evidence for nonlocal influences in the Consistent Histories Interpretation if one enforces a ‘one-framework rule’ Griffiths . However, the formalism of the approach still contains a spacelike wave function, and thus has nonlocal QI.

Quantum field theory does not seem to evade nonlocality either. The Lagrangian and canonical commutation relations respect locality, but this ensures only that interactions and classical observables are local. The formalism of field theory still relies on a spatially complete quantum state. Unless quantum theory can be written using a formalism which is manifestly spatially incomplete, with QI at each point confined to its forward lightcone, one cannot claim that the theory is truly local.

The third regime is $`c<v_{QI}<\mathrm{}`$ (distinguishably less than $`\mathrm{}`$). Such models would be spatially incomplete and thus could not include the MWI. They would also be nonlocal and would require a preferred reference frame in which $`v_{QI}`$ is isotropicEberhard . Further, even their two-way communication breaks Lorentz invariance. Viewed in a frame traveling at $`\beta `$ with respect to the preferred frame, $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{}=\stackrel{~}{w}(1\beta ^2)/(1\beta ^2\stackrel{~}{w}^2)\stackrel{~}{w}(1\beta ^2)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{w}=w_{QI}`$ close to zero. Since $`w_{QI}`$ is distinguishable from zero, we can tell that $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{}`$ differs from $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$.

Next come the discrete and continuous physical spacetimes with infinite $`v_{QI}`$ (zero $`w_{QI}`$). They can accommodate collapse models, or noncollapse models such as the Bohm model and the MWI. They can be spatially complete, are nonlocal, and require a preferred reference frame with a corresponding preferred time. We need to be careful about defining the term ‘causal’, though. A weak criterion we would want any causal theory to meet is that QI at each spacetime point cannot affect QI in its past lightcone. A stronger criterion would be that there is at least one local frame in which QI cannot affect QI at prior times. (‘Relativistic causality’ is even stronger, but identical to locality.) Models with zero $`w_{QI}`$ satisfy weak causality, since QI cannot propagate into the past lightcone, but strong causality is satisfied as well, since in the preferred frame, no QI can affect an earlier time. One might argue that an infinite velocity, when viewed in another frame, seems to go backward in time. But we can simply insist that the theory be defined in the preferred frame. And as we showed above, when $`w_{QI}`$ is immeasurably close to zero, $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ appears the same in all frames. Thus a model in these regimes can in principle be written in a causal and Lorentz invariant way, except for the imposition of a preferred frame. We note that one can define a set of preferred frames in a generally covariant way by specifying a timelike unit vector $`u^a`$ at each point jacobson . The $`u^a`$ define spacelike hypersurfaces which one might say specify a ‘preferred simultaneity’ with each hypersurface having a unique temporal index, $`\tau `$ (this requires that the hypersurfaces do not cross each other, which is met if $`u_{[a}_bu_{c]}=0`$ ted ). At each point on such a hypersurface, the tangent vectors correspond to infinite velocity in the local preferred frame.

In the discrete infinite case, $`v_{QI}=c/ϵ`$ with $`ϵ=w_{QI}`$ fixed but indistinguishable from zero. This follows if QI can travel the length of the Universe in a single unit of time, i.e., $`ϵ<c\mathrm{\Delta }\tau /L_{Universe}`$ Note discrete . For example, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau t_{Planck}10^{43}`$ sec, and $`L_{Universe}10^{10}`$ lyr, then if $`v_{QI}>10^{61}c`$Gisin , one can never distinguish it from $`\mathrm{}`$. Such models can be effectively spatially complete, since QI at each location is at most $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ out of date. All QI dynamics could happen in sub-$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ time, according to some new parameter $`𝒯`$, which cycles through those dynamics each $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. In some sense this is a second ‘time’, which governs QI dynamics. But in this regime we can also think of $`\tau `$ and $`𝒯`$ as different aspects of a single underlying time $`T`$ via a mapping like

$$\tau =\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \mathrm{int}(T/\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ),𝒯=T\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau .$$
(3)
In the continuous case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$ and $`v_{QI}=\mathrm{}`$. Many physicists, if pressed, would probably pick this regime since it seems that the wave function is updated everywhere “instantly”, i.e., it is spatially complete. A problem with this regime is that, since all QI dynamics and transport take place in zero $`\tau `$, one really needs a second ‘time’ because the above mapping becomes singular. One cannot base these dynamics (whatever they are) on $`\tau `$, which along each preferred hypersurface is constant. But what does it mean to have two times? Picture a curve $`\gamma (T)`$ tracing a path through a cylindrical $`\tau 𝒯`$ space. The path is a helix going through all values of $`𝒯`$ before advancing infinitesimally in $`\tau `$. Thus the helix has vanishing pitch. In that limit, the curve $`\gamma (T)`$ becomes two-dimensional, because any point belonging to the two-dimensional $`(𝒯,\tau )`$ space (e.g. $`𝒮^1\times `$) also belongs to the curve $`\gamma (T)`$ (this is analogous to a singular mapping of a line to a plane, which are equivalent infinite sets). Thus in this regime we need two different temporal parameters: one for the observed temporal evolution to each new hypersurface, and one for QI transport dynamics along each hypersurface. But unless one can probe QI transport dynamics, one cannot detect the preferred frame or the $`𝒯`$ dimension, and all observations will correspond to the usual SO(3,1) Lorentz invariance with one apparent time.

All the above regimes are specified by QI and the spacetime on which it exists. Now suppose that QI does not exist on spacetime, but rather spacetime information, such as the metric, is part of QI. Then space would be ‘nonphysical’ in the sense that QI would neither be stored in nor transported through space. QI would exist elsewhere, such as a reified Hilbert or Fock space. If QI encodes all spacetime behavior, space has at most a secondary role. This is appealing from the quantum point of view because the spatial wave function $`|\psi (𝐱_1,𝐱_2,t)=𝐱_1|𝐱_2|\psi (t)`$ is only one possible representation of $`|\psi (t)`$. In such a model, all QI could be instantly associated with any spatial point (though without actually needing transport there), which is like the infinite speed cases above. So we assign this case $`w_{QI}=\stackrel{~}{w}=0`$. (If local quantum models were allowed, one could construct a nonphysical space version, which would have the same properties as $`w_{QI}=1`$ physical space models.) Like those cases, this case is nonlocal and can be spatially complete (now even spacetime information could be spatially complete). For causality, there are two possibilities. If the theory has a preferred frame, then, just as in physical space, weak and strong causality are satisfied. But it is possible that the theory is completely Lorentz-invariant. In that case, the theory would be only weakly causal because it is the preferred frame which allows us to specify a unique past and future for spacelike interactions. In either case, we do not need the second time $`𝒯`$ since there is no need to transport QI.

What is the role of ‘space’ here? First, it could be just an abstract entity, a convenient way of expressing certain properties of QI. Then it should be possible to write the theory without reference to space at all. It is not clear how to do this, especially when one brings in gravity. Second, space could be a construct arising from QI. Then space would still exist in some sense and could have a dynamical role, but it would ultimately be explained solely in terms of QI. We note that recently there have been attempts to construct discrete (extra) spatial dimensions out of gauge degrees of freedom ACG , but these do not yet include a complete description of gravity.

The fundamental question for nonphysical space models is not “why is there nonlocality”, since nonlocality can arise trivially, but “why is there locality?” Why do classical observables have a limiting speed $`c`$ if QI (which must account for all classical information) is unfettered by space at all? How would such a theory meld with general relativity where space itself has a dynamical role? Some argue Rovelli  that general relativity prefers space to be nonphysical, with all (quantum) dynamics occurring via the relations between entities. But this might make things more complicated. For example, to specify $`N`$ points purely relationally requires of order $`N^2`$ numbers instead of order $`N`$ (where $`N`$ is huge).

Finally we have the regimes with “$`v_{QI}>\mathrm{}`$”, where QI can travel into the past. If any QI can travel arbitrarily far backwards in time, then $`w_{QI}`$ is really $`\mathrm{}`$. However, we refer to this case as $`w_{QI}=1`$ because the only Lorentz-invariant choice is to restrict propagation to the forward and backward lightcones transactional . Here the definition of “round trip” is ambiguous. It can mean return as close as possible to the starting spacetime point, in which case $`\stackrel{~}{w}=0`$ (zero round trip time), or as “fast” a return as possible, in which case we could have $`\stackrel{~}{w}=1`$ (negative round trip time). Both of these possibilities are Lorentz invariant. While classical observables seem causal, the underlying QI dynamics would depend upon QI from the distant past and future. We again need a second time to parametrize this, but it is less clear what this means since causality for QI is, in a real sense, lost.

Instead, one could have $`w_{QI}=1`$ with a hard cutoff on how far QI can propagate backwards in time. Such a model would be causal in macroscopic time. In fact, at scales above the cutoff, this case is identical to the infinite $`v_{QI}`$ cases with the cutoff picking out the preferred frame. Although we again need both $`\tau `$ and $`𝒯`$, if classical evolution happens only on scales above the cutoff, and space is finite, then backwards and forwards evolution of $`\tau `$ in $`\tau `$$`𝒯`$ space can in principle be represented with a nonsingular mapping $`\gamma (T)`$, with one underlying time $`T`$. But if space is infinite, the mapping becomes singular.

So it is useful to characterize quantum models by $`v_{QI}`$. Since the MWI is spatially complete, it cannot have $`v_{QI}=c`$ and thus is nonlocal. It is probably not possible to have any local dynamical quantum model, in which case the appealing regimes are those with infinite effective speed. Continuous physical space is appealing from the classical point of view, but such models require a second time for QI transport. Discrete models with $`v_{QI}=c/ϵ`$ avoid this, but only if the Universe is finite Note discrete . Nonphysical space, where spacetime information is part of or arises from QI, is appealing from the quantum point of view, but no complete model exists yet. This tension between classical local spacetime and quantum nonlocality will need to be resolved in any quantum theory of gravity.

We thank Carlo Rovelli, Nicholas Gisin, Ted Jacobson, Rashmi Ray, Bob Griffiths, and Seth Lloyd for helpful comments.


format: text

text:
# Domains in the Nonperturbative QCD Vacuum

## Abstract

QCD vacuum gluon fields are modelled by hyperspherical domains of constant field strength. The pure glue theory confines static quarks. Solutions of the Dirac operator have chirality properties in agreement with lattice results.

Long-range gluon fields in the QCD vacuum are suspected to be sources for confinement and chiral-symmetry breaking. We proposed a Euclidean-space model for such fields as idealised domains of hyperspherical geometry enclosing regions of covariantly constant Abelian self-dual or anti-self-dual field strength. The domains are characterised by two parameters, $`R`$ and $`B`$, the average domain size and field strength magnitudes respectively. We assign the following boundary conditions to gluon $`A_\mu `$ and quark $`\psi `$ fluctuations respectively at the $`j`$-th domain: $`\stackrel{˘}{n}_{(j)}A_\mu ^{(j)}=0`$, and

$$\psi =i\overline{)}\eta ^{(j)}e^{i\alpha _j\gamma _5}\psi ,\overline{\psi }=\overline{\psi }i\overline{)}\eta ^{(j)}e^{i\alpha _j\gamma _5},$$
(1)
for quarks, with antihermitian $`\gamma `$ matrices and $`\gamma _5=\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3\gamma _4`$. These conditions can arise from the presence of finite action singular fields at the boundaries. The adjoint matrix $`\stackrel{˘}{n}_{(j)}=T^an_{(j)}^a`$, $`n_{(j)}^a`$ a constant unit vector selecting the Cartan subalgebra, appears in the condition for gluons, and for the quarks the unit radial vector $`\eta _\mu ^{(j)}(x)=x_\mu /|x|`$ is normal to the $`j`$-th surface. The covariantly constant (anti-)-self-dual mean field $`F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)=_{j=1}^Nn^{(j)a}B_{\mu \nu }^{(j)}\theta (1(xz_j)^2/R^2)`$, with $`B_{\mu \nu }^{(j)}B_{\mu \rho }^{(j)}=B^2\delta _{\nu \rho }`$ in each domain, compensates for a decoupled treatment of domains.

To zeroeth order in gluon fluctuations the model gives a gluon condensate density $`g^2F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)=4B^2,`$ topological charge per domain $`q=B^2R^4/16,`$ topological susceptibility $`\chi =B^4R^4/128\pi ^2`$, and an $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{colour}}`$ string tension of the form $`\sigma =Bf(BR^2)`$ with the function

$`f(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\pi z}}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi z}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi z/\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\mathrm{sin}x{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{\pi z}}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi z/\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\mathrm{sin}x\right)`$
which is positive for $`z>0`$ and has a maximum for $`z=1.55`$. Estimating the model parameters at this $`z`$value we fit the string constant to the lattice result, and obtain $`\sqrt{B}=947\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},R^1=760\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, and thus get for the gluonic parameters of the vacuum $`\sqrt{\sigma }=420\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},\chi =(197\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4,\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }F^2=0.081(\mathrm{GeV})^4`$ and $`q=0.15`$, while the density of the system is $`42\mathrm{fm}^4`$. An area law does not occur for adjoint charges because of the presence of zero eigenvalues of the adjoint matrix $`n^aT^a`$.

The massless Dirac operator in a domain,

$`(i\overline{)}D\lambda )\psi (x)=0,D_\mu =_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\widehat{n}B_{\mu \nu }x_\nu ,`$
subject to the boundary condition Eq. (1), is exactly soluble. The matrix $`\widehat{n}`$ is in the fundamental representation. We decompose eigenspinors via

$`\psi _\kappa =i\overline{)}\eta \chi _\kappa +\phi _\kappa ,\gamma _5\chi _\kappa =\chi _\kappa ,\gamma _5\phi _\kappa =\phi _\kappa ,`$
where $`\chi _\kappa =\frac{1}{i\lambda _\kappa }\overline{)}\eta \overline{)}D\phi _\kappa `$, and $`\overline{)}D^2\phi _\kappa =\lambda _\kappa ^2\phi _\kappa `$. To give the quantum numbers $`\kappa `$ we use projectors $`N_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \widehat{n}/|\widehat{n}|)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{B}/B)`$ with $`\widehat{B}=|\widehat{n}|B`$ and the mixed projector $`O_\zeta =N_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\zeta +N_{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\zeta `$ with $`\zeta =\pm `$. Then $`\kappa =(\zeta ,n,k,m_{1,2})`$. Eq.(1) gives $`\chi _\kappa =e^{i\alpha }\phi _\kappa `$ on the boundary if the domain is (anti-)self-dual, possible only if the chiralities of the spinors $`\chi `$ and $`\phi `$ are consistent with the duality of the vacuum gluon field: $`\gamma _5\phi =\phi `$ and $`\gamma _5\chi =\chi `$ if the field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is (anti-)self-dual. The discrete eigenvalues $`\lambda _\kappa `$ include then a principal quantum number $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The angular momentum orbital and azimuthal quantum numbers take values $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_{1,2}=k/2,\mathrm{},k/2`$. Zero modes $`\lambda =0`$ are absent.

As an application, we study the local chirality parameter $`X(x)`$ defined via $`\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi }{4}(1X(x))\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\psi ^{}(x)(1\gamma _5)\psi (x)}{\psi ^{}(x)(1+\gamma _5)\psi (x)}}`$ which gives $`X(x)=\pm 1`$ at $`x`$ where $`\gamma _5\psi (x)=\pm \psi (x)`$. For lattice overlap fermions, histograms of $`X`$ measured at maxima of $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ for low-lying overlap-Dirac eigenmodes peak at $`X\pm 1`$ suggesting that low-lying modes are strongly chiral and filter the duality of “lumps” underlying the gauge field fluctuations. At domain centres radial modes are exactly chiral and probability densities are maximal. The “width” of the peaks at half-maximum for these modes is $`\alpha `$-dependent and of the order $`0.120.14\mathrm{fm}`$. The chirality of the modes are characterised via a histogram by averaging $`X(x)`$ over a small neighborhood of the domain centre. With all $`\alpha `$ equally probable, we compute the probability to find a given value of smeared $`X`$ among a set of modes. The result in Fig. 1 is for the lowest modes and all spin-color orientations. The double peaks at $`X\pm 0.8`$ and the above values for width and density of domains are consistent with the lattice. This is argued to signal spontaneously broken chiral symmetry on the lattice. In our model this is achieved without fermionic zero modes; strongly chiral low-lying modes suffice. Explicit calculation of the chiral condensate in the model is underway, though an estimate of the condensate density at the domain centre gives $`(228\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^3`$.