text:
# Bounds for log canonical thresholds with applications to birational rigidity

## Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a smooth algebraic variety, defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, and let $`VX`$ be a proper closed subscheme. Our main goal in this paper is to study an invariant of the pair $`(X,V)`$, called the log canonical threshold of $`X`$ along $`V`$, and denoted by $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V)`$. Interest in bounds for log canonical thresholds is motivated by techniques that have recently been developed in higher dimensional birational geometry. In this paper, we study this invariant using intersection theory, degeneration techniques and jet schemes.

A natural question is how does this invariant behave under basic operations such as restrictions and projections. Restriction properties have been extensively studied in recent years, leading to important results and conjectures. In the first section of this paper, we investigate the behavior under projections, and we prove the following result (see Theorem 1.1 for a more precise statement):

###### Theorem 0.1.

With the above notation, suppose that $`V`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, of pure codimension $`k`$, and let $`f:XY`$ be a proper, dominant, smooth morphism of relative dimension $`k1`$, with $`Y`$ smooth. If $`f|_V`$ is finite, then

$$\mathrm{lc}(Y,f_{}[V])\frac{k!\mathrm{lc}(X,V)^k}{k^k},$$

and the inequality is strict if $`k2`$. Moreover, if $`V`$ is locally complete intersection, then

$$\mathrm{lc}(Y,f_{}[V])\frac{\mathrm{lc}(X,V)^k}{k^k}.$$

Examples show that these bounds are sharp. The proof of the above theorem is based on a general inequality relating the log canonical threshold of a fractional ideal of the form $`h^b𝔞`$, and the colength of $`𝔞`$. Here $`𝔞`$ is a zero dimensional ideal in the local ring of $`X`$ at some (not necessarily closed) point, $`b_+`$, and $`h`$ is the equation of a smooth divisor. We prove this inequality in the second section (see Theorem 2.1), using a degeneration to monomial ideals. It generalizes a result from \[dFEM\], which was the case $`b=0`$.

In the third section, we give lower bounds for the log canonical threshold of affine subschemes defined by homogeneous equations of the same degree. We prove the following

###### Theorem 0.2.

Let $`VX=𝔸^n`$ be a subscheme defined by homogeneous equations of degree $`d`$. Let $`c=\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)`$, and let $`Z`$ be the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n,cV)`$. If $`e=\mathrm{codim}(Z,𝔸^n)`$, then

$$\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)\frac{e}{d}.$$

Moreover, we have equality if and only if the following holds: $`Z`$ is a linear subspace, and if $`\pi :𝔸^n𝔸^n/Z`$ is the projection, then there is a subscheme $`V^{}𝔸^n/Z`$ such that $`V=\pi ^1(V^{})`$, $`\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n/Z,V^{})=e/d`$, and the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n/Z,(e/d)V^{})`$ is the origin.

The proof of this result is based on the characterization of the log canonical threshold via jet schemes from \[Mu2\]. In the particular case when $`V`$ is the affine cone over a projective hypersurface with isolated singularities, the second assertion in the above result proves a conjecture of Cheltsov and Park from \[CP\].

In the last section we apply the above bounds in the context of birational geometry. In their influential paper \[IM\], Iskovskikh and Manin proved that a smooth quartic threefold is what is called nowadays birationally superrigid; in particular, every birational automorphism is regular, and the variety is not rational. There has been a lot of work to extend this result to other Fano varieties of index one, in particular to smooth hypersurfaces of degree $`N`$ in $`^N`$, for $`N>4`$. The case $`N=5`$ was done by Pukhlikov in \[Pu1\], and the cases $`N=6,7,8`$ were proven by Cheltsov in \[Che\]. Moreover, Pukhlikov showed in \[Pu2\] that a general hypersurface as above is birationally superrigid, for every $`N>4`$. We use our results to give an easy and uniform proof of birational superrigidity for arbitrary smooth hypersurfaces of degree $`N`$ in $`^N`$ when $`N`$ is small.

###### Theorem 0.3.

If $`X^N`$ is a smooth hypersurface of degree $`N`$, and if $`4N12`$, then $`X`$ is birationally superrigid.

Based on previous ideas of Corti, Pukhlikov proposed in \[Pu3\] a proof of the birational rigidity of every smooth hypersurface of degree $`N`$ in $`^N`$, for $`N6`$. Unfortunately, at the moment there is a gap in his arguments (see Remark 4.2 below). Despite this gap, the proof proposed in \[Pu3\] contains many remarkable ideas, and it seems likely that a complete proof could be obtained in the future along those lines. In fact, the outline of the proof of Theorem 0.3 follows his method, and our contribution is mainly to simplifying and solidifying his argument.

### Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Steve Kleiman and Rob Lazarsfeld for useful discussions. Research of the first author was partially supported by MURST of Italian Government, National Research Project (Cofin 2000) “Geometry of Algebraic Varieties”. Research of the second author was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS 02-00278. The third author served as a Clay Mathematics Institute Long-Term Prize Fellow while this research has been done.

## 1. Singularities of log pairs under projections

Let $`X`$ be a smooth algebraic variety, defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, and let $`VX`$ be a proper subscheme. For any rational number $`c>0`$, we can consider the pair $`(X,cV)`$. The usual definitions in the theory of singularities of pairs, for which we refer to \[Kol\], extend to this context. In particular, we say that an irreducible subvariety $`CX`$ is a center of non log canonicity (resp. non log terminality, non canonicity, non terminality) for $`(X,cV)`$ if there is at least one divisorial valuation of $`K(X)`$, with center $`C`$ on $`X`$, whose discrepancy along $`(X,cV)`$ is $`<1`$ (resp. $`1`$, $`<0`$, $`0`$). We will denote by $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V)`$ the log canonical threshold of the pair $`(X,V)`$, i.e., the largest $`c`$ such that $`(X,cV)`$ is log canonical. We will occasionally consider also pairs of the form $`(X,c_1V_1c_2V_2)`$, where $`V_1`$, $`V_2X`$ are proper subschemes of $`X`$. The definition of (log) terminal and canonical pairs extends in an obvious way to this setting.

We fix now the set-up for this section. Let $`f:XY`$ be a smooth and proper morphism onto a smooth algebraic variety $`Y`$. We assume that $`VX`$ is a pure dimensional, Cohen-Macaulay closed subscheme, such that $`dimV=dimY1`$, and such that the restriction of $`f`$ to $`V`$ is finite. If $`[V]`$ denotes the cycle associated to $`V`$, then its push-forward $`f_{}[V]`$ determines an effective Cartier divisor on $`Y`$. We set $`\mathrm{codim}(V,X)=k`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

With the above notation, let $`CX`$ be an irreducible center of non log terminality for $`(X,cV)`$, for some $`c>0`$. Then $`f(C)`$ is a center of non log terminality (even non log canonicity, if $`k2`$) for the pair

(1.1)
$$(Y,\frac{k!c^k}{k^k}f_{}[V]).$$

Moreover, if $`V`$ is locally complete intersection (l.c.i. for short) then $`f(C)`$ is a center of non log terminality for the pair

(1.2)
$$(Y,\frac{c^k}{k^k}f_{}[V]).$$

###### Example 1.2.

Let $`k`$ and $`n`$ be two positive integers with $`n>k`$, and let $`R=K[x_k,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. We take $`X=_R^{k1}=\mathrm{Proj}R[x_0,\mathrm{},x_{k1}]`$, $`Y=\mathrm{Spec}R`$, and let $`f`$ be the natural projection from $`X`$ to $`Y`$. For any $`t>0`$, let $`V_t`$ be the subscheme of $`X`$ defined by the homogeneous ideal $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)^t`$. Note that $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V_t)=k/t`$, and that if $`c=k/t`$, then $`V_1`$ is a center of non log terminality for $`(X,cV_t)`$. Since $`l(𝒪_{V_t,V_1})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+t1}{k}\right)`$, we see that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k!c^k/k^k}{\mathrm{lc}(Y,f_{}[V_t])}=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{t(t+1)\mathrm{}(t+k1)}{t^k}=1,$$

so the bound in (1.1) is sharp (at least asymptotically).

To prove sharpness in the l.c.i. case, let $`W_tX`$ be the complete intersection subscheme defined by $`(x_1^t,\mathrm{},x_k^t)`$. This time $`l(𝒪_{W_t,W_1})=t^k`$, and $`\mathrm{lc}(Y,f_{}[W_t])=1/t^k=\mathrm{lc}(X,W_t)^k/k^k`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

By hypothesis, there is a proper birational morphism $`\nu :WX`$, where $`W`$ can be chosen to be smooth, and a smooth irreducible divisor $`E`$ on $`W`$, such that $`\nu (E)=C`$, and such that the discrepancy of $`(X,cV)`$ at $`E`$ is

(1.3)
$$a_E(X,cV)1.$$

The surjection $`f`$ induces an inclusion of function fields $`f^{}:K(Y)K(X)`$. Let $`R_E:=𝒪_{W,E}K(X)`$ be the discrete valuation ring associated to the valuation along $`E`$, and let $`R=(f^{})^1R_E`$. Note that $`R`$ is a non-trivial discrete valuation ring.

###### Lemma 1.3.

$`R`$ corresponds to a divisorial valuation.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that the transcendence degree of the residue field of $`R`$ over the ground field is $`dimY1`$ (see \[KM\], Lemma 2.45). This follows from \[ZS\], VI.6, Corollary 1. ∎

The lemma implies that there is a proper birational morphism $`\gamma :Y^{}Y`$ and an irreducible divisor $`G`$ on $`Y^{}`$ such that $`R=𝒪_{Y^{},G}`$. By Hironaka’s theorem, we may assume that both $`Y^{}`$ and $`G`$ are smooth, and moreover, that the union between $`G`$ and the exceptional locus of $`\gamma `$ has simple normal crossings. Since the center of $`R_E`$ on $`X`$ is $`C`$, we deduce that $`R`$ has center $`f(C)`$ on $`Y`$, so $`\gamma (G)=f(C)`$.

Consider the fibered product $`X^{}=Y^{}\times _YX`$. We may clearly assume that $`\nu `$ factors through the natural map $`\varphi :X^{}X`$. Therefore we have the following commutative diagram:

where $`\varphi \eta =\nu `$. Note that $`X^{}`$ is a smooth variety, $`g`$ is a smooth, proper morphism, and $`\eta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are proper, birational morphisms. Let $`V^{}=\varphi ^1(V)`$ be the scheme theoretic inverse image of $`V`$ in $`X^{}`$, i.e., the subscheme of $`X^{}`$ defined by the ideal sheaf $`I_V𝒪_X^{}`$.

###### Lemma 1.4.

$`V^{}`$ is pure dimensional, $`\mathrm{codim}(V^{},X^{})=k`$, and $`\varphi ^{}[V]`$ is the class of $`[V^{}]`$. Moreover, if $`V`$ is l.c.i., then so is $`V^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Note that both $`\gamma `$ and $`\varphi `$ are l.c.i. morphisms, because they are morphisms between smooth varieties. The pull-back in the statement is the pull-back by such a morphism (see \[Ful\], Section 6.6). Recall how this is defined. We factor $`\gamma `$ as $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$, where $`\gamma _1:Y^{}\times YY`$ is the projection, and $`\gamma _2:Y^{}Y^{}\times Y`$ is the graph of $`\gamma `$. By pulling-back, we get a corresponding decomposition $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$, with $`\varphi _1`$ smooth, and $`\varphi _2:X^{}Y^{}\times X`$ a regular embedding of codimension $`dimY^{}`$. Then $`\varphi ^{}[V]=\varphi _2^!([Y^{}\times V])`$.

Since $`f|_V`$ is finite and $`V^{}=Y^{}\times _YV`$, $`g|_V^{}`$ is also finite. Moreover, since $`g(V^{})`$ is a proper subset of $`Y^{}`$, we see that $`dimV^{}dimY^{}1`$. On the other hand, $`V^{}`$ is locally cut in $`Y^{}\times V`$ by $`dimY^{}`$ equations, so that every irreducible component of $`V^{}`$ has dimension at least $`dimV`$. Therefore $`V^{}`$ is pure dimensional, and $`dimV^{}=dimV`$.

Since $`Y^{}\times V`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, this also implies that $`\varphi _2^!([Y^{}\times V])`$ is equal to the class of $`[V^{}]`$, by Proposition 7.1 in \[Ful\]. This proves the first assertion. Moreover, if $`V`$ is l.c.i., then it is locally defined in $`X`$ by $`k`$ equations. The same is true for $`V^{}`$, hence $`V^{}`$ is l.c.i., too. ∎

We will use the following notation for multiplicities. Suppose that $`W`$ is an irreducible subvariety of a variety $`Z`$. Then the multiplicity of $`Z`$ along $`W`$ is denoted by $`e_WZ`$ (we refer to \[Ful\], Section 4.3, for definition and basic properties). If $`\alpha =_in_i[T_i]`$ is a pure dimensional cycle on $`Z`$, then $`e_W\alpha :=_in_ie_WT_i`$ (if $`WT_i`$, then we put $`e_WT_i=0`$). Note that if $`W`$ is a prime divisor, and if $`D`$ is an effective Cartier divisor on $`Z`$, then we have $`e_W[D]=\mathrm{ord}_W(D)`$, where $`[D]`$ is the cycle associated to $`D`$, and $`\mathrm{ord}_W(D)`$ is the coefficient of $`W`$ in $`[D]`$. As we work on smooth varieties, from now on we will identify $`D`$ with $`[D]`$.

Let $`F=\eta (E)`$. Note that by construction, we have $`g(F)=G`$. Since $`FV^{}`$, and $`g|_V^{}`$ is finite, and $`dimG=dimV^{}`$, it follows that $`F`$ is an irreducible component of $`V^{}`$, hence $`\mathrm{codim}(F,X^{})=k`$. We set $`a=e_F(K_{X^{}/X})`$.

To simplify the statements, we put

$$\delta =\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }V\text{ is a l.c.i.,}\hfill \\ k!\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 1.5.

We have

$$\mathrm{ord}_G(\gamma ^{}f_{}[V])\frac{(a+1)k^k}{\delta c^k},$$

and the inequality is strict in the case $`\delta =k!`$, if $`k2`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\varphi `$ and $`\gamma `$ are l.c.i. morphisms of the same relative dimension, it follows from \[Ful\], Example 17.4.1, and Lemma 1.4 that $`g_{}[V^{}]`$ and $`\gamma ^{}f_{}[V]`$ are linearly equivalent, as divisors on $`Y^{}`$. As the two divisors are equal outside the exceptional locus of $`\gamma `$, we deduce from the Negativity Lemma (see \[KM\], Lemma 3.39) that also their $`\gamma `$-exceptional components must coincide. This gives $`g_{}[V^{}]=\gamma ^{}f_{}[V]`$.

In particular, $`\mathrm{ord}_G(\gamma ^{}f_{}[V])`$ is greater or equal to the coefficient of $`F`$ in $`[V^{}]`$. Lemma 1.4 implies

$$\mathrm{ord}_G(\gamma ^{}f_{}[V])l(𝒪_{V^{},F}),$$

so that it is enough to show that

(1.4)
$$l(𝒪_{V^{},F})\frac{(a+1)k^k}{\delta c^k},$$

and that the inequality is strict in the case $`\delta =k!`$, if $`k2`$.

By replacing $`W`$ with a higher model, we may clearly assume that $`\nu ^1(V)`$ is an effective divisor on $`W`$. If $`I_V𝒪_X`$ is the ideal defining $`V`$, then we put $`\mathrm{ord}_E(I_V):=\mathrm{ord}_E\nu ^1(V)`$. It follows from (1.3) that we have

$$1\mathrm{ord}_E(K_{W/X})c\mathrm{ord}_E(I_V)=\mathrm{ord}_E(K_{W/X^{}})(c\mathrm{ord}_E(I_V^{})\mathrm{ord}_E(K_{X^{}/X})).$$

Therefore $`F`$ is a center of non log terminality for the pair $`(X^{},cV^{}K_{X^{}/X})`$. Since $`g(F)=G`$ is a divisor on $`Y^{}`$, it follows that $`F`$ can not be contained in the intersection of two distinct $`\varphi `$-exceptional divisors. Hence the support of $`K_{X^{}/X}`$ is smooth at the generic point of $`F`$. Then (1.4) follows from Theorem 2.1 below (note that the length of a complete intersection ideal coincides with its Samuel multiplicity). ∎

We continue the proof of Theorem 1.1. Note that $`\mathrm{ord}_GK_{Y^{}/Y}e_F(g^{}K_{Y^{}/Y})`$. Since $`K_{X^{}/X}=g^{}K_{Y^{}/Y}`$ (see \[Har\], Proposition II 8.10), we deduce

$$\mathrm{ord}_GK_{Y^{}/Y}a.$$

In conjunction with Lemma 1.5, this gives

$$a_G(Y,\frac{\delta c^k}{k^k}f_{}[V])=\mathrm{ord}_G\left(K_{Y^{}/Y}\frac{\delta c^k}{k^k}\gamma ^{}f_{}[V]\right)1.$$

Moreover, this inequality is strict in the case when $`\delta =k!`$, if $`k2`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

###### Remark 1.6.

We refer to \[Pu3\] for a result on the canonical threshold of complete intersection subschemes of codimension 2, via generic projection.

## 2. Multiplicities of fractional ideals

In this section we extend some of the results of \[dFEM\], as needed in the proof of Theorem 1.1. More precisely, we consider the following set-up. Let $`X`$ be a smooth variety, $`VX`$ a closed subscheme, and let $`Z`$ be an irreducible component of $`V`$. We denote by $`n`$ the codimension of $`Z`$ in $`X`$, and by $`𝔞𝒪_{X,Z}`$ the image of the ideal defining $`V`$. Let $`HX`$ be a prime divisor containing $`Z`$, such that $`H`$ is smooth at the generic point of $`Z`$. We consider the pair

$$(X,VbH),$$

for a given $`b_+`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

With the above notation, suppose that for some $`\mu _+^{}`$, $`(X,\frac{1}{\mu }(VbH))`$ is not log terminal at the generic point of $`Z`$. Then

(2.1)
$$l(𝒪_{X,Z}/𝔞)\frac{n^n\mu ^{n1}(\mu +b)}{n!},$$

and the inequality is strict if $`n2`$. Moreover, if $`e(𝔞)`$ denotes the Samuel multiplicity of $`𝒪_{X,Z}`$ along $`𝔞`$, then

(2.2)
$$e(𝔞)n^n\mu ^{n1}(\mu +b).$$

###### Remark 2.2.

For $`n=2`$, inequality (2.2) gives a result of Corti from \[Co2\]. On the other hand, if $`b=0`$, then the statement reduces to Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 in \[dFEM\].

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

We see that (2.1) implies (2.2) as follows. If we apply the first formula to the subscheme $`V_tX`$ defined by $`𝔞^t`$, to $`\mu _t=\mu t`$, and to $`b_t=bt`$, we get

$$l(𝒪_{X,Z}/𝔞^t)\frac{n^n\mu ^{n1}(\mu +b)}{n!}t^n.$$

Dividing by $`t^n`$ and passing to the limit as $`t\mathrm{}`$ gives (2.2).

In order to prove (2.1), we proceed as in \[dFEM\]. Passing to the completion, we obtain an ideal $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ in $`\widehat{𝒪}_{X,Z}`$. We identify $`\widehat{𝒪}_{X,Z}`$ with $`K[[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]]`$ via a fixed isomorphism, where $`K`$ is the residue field of $`𝒪_{X,Z}`$. Moreover, we may choose the local coordinates so that the image of an equation $`h`$ defining $`H`$ in $`𝒪_{X,Z}`$ is $`x_n`$. Since $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ is zero dimensional, we can find an ideal $`𝔟R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, which defines a scheme supported at the origin, and such that $`\widehat{𝔟}=\widehat{𝔞}`$.

If $`V^{}`$, $`H^{}𝔸^n`$ are defined by $`𝔟`$ and $`x_n`$, respectively, then $`(𝔸^n,\frac{1}{\mu }(V^{}bH^{}))`$ is not log terminal at the origin. We write $`\mu =r/s`$, for some $`r,s`$, and we may clearly assume that $`sb`$. Consider the ring $`S=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},y]`$, and the inclusion $`RS`$ which takes $`x_n`$ to $`y^r`$. This determines a cyclic covering of degree $`r`$

$$M:=\mathrm{Spec}SN:=𝔸^n=\mathrm{Spec}R,$$

with ramification divisor defined by $`(y^{r1})`$.

For any ideal $`𝐜R`$, we put $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}:=𝐜S`$. If $`W`$ is the scheme defined by $`𝐜`$, then we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ the scheme defined by $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}`$. In particular, if $`H^{\prime \prime }M`$ is defined by $`(y)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{H^{}}=rH^{\prime \prime }`$. It follows from \[Ein\], Proposition 2.8 (see also \[Laz\], Section 9.5.E) that $`(N,\frac{1}{\mu }(V^{}bH^{}))`$ is not log terminal at the origin in $`N`$ if and only if $`(M,\frac{1}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{V^{}}(sb+r1)H^{\prime \prime })`$ is not log terminal at the origin in $`M`$.

We write the rest of the proof in the language of multiplier ideals, for which we refer to \[Laz\]. We use the formal exponential notation for these ideals. If $`\stackrel{~}{𝔟}`$ is the ideal defining $`\stackrel{~}{V^{}}`$, then the above non log terminality condition on $`M`$ can be interpreted as saying that

(2.3)
$$y^{bs+r1}𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝔟}^{1/\mu }).$$

We choose a monomial order in $`S`$, with the property that

$$x_1>\mathrm{}>x_{n1}>y^{bs+r1}.$$

This induces flat deformations to monomial ideals (see \[Eis\], Chapter 15). For an ideal $`𝔡S`$, we write the degeneration as $`𝔡_t𝔡_0`$, where $`𝔡_t𝔡`$ for $`t0`$ and $`𝔡_0=:\mathrm{in}(𝔡)`$ is a monomial ideal.

We claim that

(2.4)
$$y^{bs+r1}\mathrm{in}(𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝔟}^{1/\mu })).$$

Indeed, suppose that $`y^{bs+r1}\mathrm{in}(𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝔟}^{1/\mu }))`$. Then we can find an element $`f𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝔟}^{1/\mu })`$ such that $`\mathrm{in}(f)=y^{bs+r1}`$. Because of the particular monomial order we have chosen, $`f`$ must be a polynomial in $`y`$ of degree $`bs+r1`$. On the other hand, $`𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝔟}^{1/\mu })`$ defines a scheme which is supported at the origin (or empty), since so does $`\stackrel{~}{𝔟}`$. We deduce that $`y^i𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝔟}^{1/\mu })`$, for some $`ibs+r1`$, which contradicts (2.3).

###### Lemma 2.3.

For every ideal $`𝔡S`$, and every $`c_+^{}`$, we have

$$\mathrm{in}(𝒥(𝔡^c))𝒥(\mathrm{in}(𝔡)^c).$$

###### Proof.

Consider the family $`\pi :𝔐=𝔸^n\times TT`$, with $`T=𝔸^1`$, and the ideal $`𝔇𝒪_𝔐`$ corresponding to the degeneration of $`𝔡`$ described above. If $`U`$ is the complement of the origin in $`T`$, then there is an isomorphism

$$(\pi ^1(U),𝔇|_{\pi ^1(U)})(𝔸^n\times U,\mathrm{pr}_1^1𝔡).$$

Via this isomorphism we have $`𝒥(\pi ^1(U),𝔇^c)\mathrm{pr}_1^1(𝒥(𝔡^c))`$. Since the family degenerating to the initial ideal is flat, we deduce easily that

$$𝒥(𝔐,𝔇^c)𝒪_{\pi ^1(0)}\mathrm{in}(𝒥(𝔡^c)).$$

On the other hand, the Restriction Theorem (see \[Laz\]) gives

$$𝒥(\mathrm{in}(𝔡)^c)=𝒥((𝔇|_{\pi ^1(0)})^c)𝒥(𝔐,𝔇^c)𝒪_{\pi ^1(0)}.$$

If we put together the above inclusions, we get the assertion of the lemma. ∎

Note that the monomial order on $`S`$ induces a monomial order on $`R`$, and that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{in}(𝔟)}=\mathrm{in}(\stackrel{~}{𝔟})`$. Indeed, the inclusion $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{in}(𝔟)}\mathrm{in}(\stackrel{~}{𝔟})`$ is obvious, and the corresponding subschemes have the same length $`rl(R/𝔟)`$.

On the other hand, Lemma 2.3 and (2.4) give

$$y^{bs+r1}𝒥(\mathrm{in}(\stackrel{~}{𝔟})^{1/\mu }).$$

Applying again Proposition 2.8 in \[Ein\], in the other direction, takes us back in $`R`$: we deduce that $`(N,\frac{1}{\mu }(WbH^{}))`$ is not log terminal at the origin, where $`WN`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{in}(𝔟)`$. Since $`l(𝒪_{X,Z}/𝔞)=l(R/𝔟)=l(R/\mathrm{in}(𝔟))`$, we have reduced the proof of (2.1) to the case when $`𝔞`$ is a monomial ideal. In this case, we have in fact a stronger statement, which we prove in the lemma below; therefore the proof of Theorem 2.1 is complete. ∎

The following is the natural generalization of Lemma 2.1 in \[dFEM\].

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`𝔞`$ be a zero dimensional monomial ideal in the ring $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, defining a scheme $`V`$. Let $`H_i`$ be the hyperplane defined by $`x_i=0`$. We consider $`\mu _+^{}`$ and $`b_i`$, such that $`\mu \mathrm{max}_i\{b_i\}`$. If the pair $`(𝔸^n,\frac{1}{\mu }(V+_ib_iH_i))`$ is not log terminal, then

$$l(R/𝔞)\frac{n^n}{n!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\mu b_i),$$

and the inequality is strict if $`n2`$.

###### Proof.

We use the result in \[ELM\] which gives the condition for a monomial pair, with possibly negative coefficients, to be log terminal. This generalizes the formula for the log canonical threshold of a monomial ideal from \[How\]. It follows from \[ELM\] that $`(X,\frac{1}{\mu }(V+_ib_iH_i))`$ is not log terminal if and only if there is a facet of the Newton polytope associated to $`𝔞`$ such that, if $`_iu_i/a_i=1`$ is the equation of the hyperplane supporting it, then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mu b_i}{a_i}1.$$

Applying the inequality between the arithmetic mean and the geometric mean of the set of nonnegative numbers $`\{(\mu b_i)/a_i\}_i`$, we deduce

$$\underset{i}{}a_in^n\underset{i}{}(\mu b_i).$$

We conclude using the fact that $`n!l(R/𝔞)_ia_i`$, and the inequality is strict if $`n2`$ (see, for instance, Lemma 1.3 in \[dFEM\]). ∎

## 3. Log canonical thresholds of affine cones

In this section we give a lower bound for the log canonical threshold of a subscheme $`V𝔸^n`$, cut out by homogeneous equations of the same degree. The bound involves the dimension of the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n,cV)`$, where $`c=\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)`$. Moreover, we characterize the case when we have equality. In the particular case when $`V`$ is the affine cone over a projective hypersurface with isolated singularities, this proves a conjecture of Cheltsov and Park from \[CP\].

The main ingredient we use for this bound is a formula for the log canonical threshold in terms of jet schemes, from \[Mu2\]. Recall that for an arbitrary scheme $`W`$, of finite type over the ground field $`k`$, the $`m`$th jet scheme $`W_m`$ is again a scheme of finite type over $`k`$ characterized by

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Spec}A,W_m)\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Spec}A[t]/(t^{m+1}),W),$$

for every $`k`$-algebra $`A`$. Note that $`W_m(k)=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Spec}k[t]/(t^{m+1}),W),`$ and in fact, we will be interested only in the dimensions of these spaces. For the basic properties of the jet schemes, we refer to \[Mu1\] and \[Mu2\].

###### Theorem 3.1.

(\[Mu2\], 3.4) If $`X`$ is a smooth, connected variety of dimension $`n`$, and if $`VX`$ is a subscheme, then the log canonical threshold of $`(X,V)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{lc}(X,V)=n\underset{m}{sup}\frac{dimV_m}{m+1}.$$

Moreover, there is $`p`$, depending on the numerical data given by a log resolution of $`(X,V)`$, such that $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V)=n(dimV_m)/(m+1)`$ whenever $`p(m+1)`$.

For every $`W`$ and every $`m1`$, there are canonical projections $`\varphi _m^W:W_mW_{m1}`$ induced by the truncation homomorphisms $`k[t]/(t^{m+1})k[t]/(t^m)`$. By composing these projections we get morphisms $`\pi _m^W:W_mW`$. When there is no danger of confusion, we simply write $`\varphi _m`$ and $`\pi _m`$.

If $`W`$ is a smooth, connected variety, then $`W_m`$ is smooth, connected, and $`dimW_m=(m+1)dimW`$, for all $`m`$. It follows from definition that taking jet schemes commutes with open immersions. In particular, if $`W`$ has pure dimension $`n`$, then $`\pi _m^1(W_{\mathrm{reg}})`$ is smooth, of pure dimension $`(m+1)n`$.

Recall that the non log terminal locus of a pair is the union of all centers of non log terminality. In other words, its complement is the largest open subset over which the pair is log terminal. Theorem 3.1 easily gives a description via jet schemes of the non log terminal locus of a pair which is log canonical, but is not log terminal. Suppose that $`(X,V)`$ is as in the theorem, and let $`c=\mathrm{lc}(X,V)`$. We say that an irreducible component $`T`$ of $`V_m`$ (for some $`m`$) computes $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V)`$ if $`dim(T)=(m+1)(nc)`$. Note that basic results on jet schemes show that for every irreducible component $`T`$ of $`V_m`$, the projection $`\pi _m(T)`$ is closed in $`V`$ (see \[Mu1\]). It follows from Theorem 3.1 that if $`W`$ is an irreducible component of $`V_m`$ that computes the log canonical threshold of $`(X,V)`$ then $`\pi _m(W)`$ is contained in the non log terminal locus of $`(X,cV)`$ (see also \[ELM\]).

For future reference, we record here two lemmas. For $`x`$, we denote by $`[x]`$ the largest integer $`p`$ such that $`px`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

(\[Mu1\], 3.7) If $`X`$ is a smooth, connected variety of dimension $`n`$, $`DX`$ is an effective divisor, and $`xD`$ is a point with $`e_xD=q`$, then

$$dim(\pi _m^D)^1(x)mn[m/q],$$

for every $`m`$.

In fact, the only assertion we will need from Lemma 3.2 is that $`dim(\pi _m^D)^1(x)mn1`$, if $`mq`$, which follows easily from the equations describing the jet schemes (see \[Mu1\]).

###### Lemma 3.3.

(\[Mu2\] 2.3) Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒲S`$ be a family of schemes, and let us denote the fiber $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(s)`$ by $`𝒲_s`$. If $`\tau :S𝒲`$ is a section of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then the function

$$f(s)=dim(\pi _m^{𝒲_s})^1(\tau (s))$$

is upper semi-continuous on the set of closed points of $`S`$, for every $`m`$.

The following are the main results in this section.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`V𝔸^n`$ be a subscheme whose ideal is generated by homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$. Let $`c=\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)`$, and let $`Z`$ be the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n,cV)`$. If $`e=\mathrm{codim}(Z,𝔸^n)`$, then $`ce/d`$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

With the notation in the previous theorem, $`c=e/d`$ if and only if $`V`$ satisfies the following three properties:

1. $`Z=L`$ is a linear subspace of codimension $`e`$.
2. $`V`$ is the pull back of a closed subscheme $`V^{}𝔸^n/L`$, which is defined by homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$ and such that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n/L,V^{})=e/d`$.
3. The non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n/L,e/dV^{})`$ is just the origin.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.4.

If $`\pi _m:V_mV`$ is the canonical projection, then we have an isomorphism

(3.1)
$$\pi _m^1(0)V_{md}\times 𝔸^{n(d1)},$$

for every $`md1`$ (we put $`V_1=\{0\}`$). Indeed, for a $`k`$-algebra $`A`$, an $`A`$-valued point of $`\pi _m^1(0)`$ is a ring homomorphism

$$\varphi :k[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]/(F_1,\mathrm{},F_s)A[t]/(t^{m+1}),$$

such that $`\varphi (X_i)(t)`$ for all $`i`$. Here $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_s`$ are homogeneous equations of degree $`d`$, defining $`V`$. Therefore we can write $`\varphi (X_i)=tf_i`$, and $`\varphi `$ is a homomorphism if and only if the classes of $`f_i`$ in $`A[t]/(t^{m+1d})`$ define an $`A`$-valued point of $`V_{md}`$. But $`\varphi `$ is uniquely determined by the classes of $`f_i`$ in $`A[t]/(t^m)`$, so this proves the isomorphism in equation (3.1).

By Theorem 3.1, we can find $`p`$ such that

$$dimV_{pd1}=pd(nc).$$

Let $`W`$ be an irreducible component of $`V_{pd1}`$ computing $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V)`$, so $`dimW=pd(nc)`$ and $`\pi _{pd1}(W)Z`$. By our hypothesis, $`dim\pi _{pd1}(W)ne`$. Therefore Lemma 3.3 gives

(3.2)
$$pd(nc)=dimWdim\pi _{pd1}^1(0)+ne=dimV_{(p1)d1}+(d1)n+ne,$$

where the last equality follows from (3.1). Another application of Theorem 3.1 gives

(3.3)
$$dimV_{(p1)d1}(p1)d(nc).$$

Using this and (3.2), we get $`ce/d`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.5.

We use the notation in the above proof. Since $`c=e/d`$, we see that in both equations (3.2) and (3.3) we have, in fact, equalities. The equality in (3.3) shows that $`dimV_{(p1)d1}=(p1)d(nc)`$, so we may run the same argument with $`p`$ replaced by $`p1`$. Continuing in this way, we see that we may suppose that $`p=1`$. In this case, the equality in (3.2) shows that for some irreducible component $`W`$ of $`V_{d1}`$, with $`dimW=dne`$, we have $`dim\pi _{d1}(W)=ne`$. It follows that if $`Z_1:=\pi _{d1}(W)`$, then $`Z_1`$ is an irreducible component of $`Z`$.

Fix $`xZ_1`$. If $`\mathrm{mult}_xFd1`$, for some degree $`d`$ polynomial $`F`$ in the ideal of $`V`$, then Lemma 3.2 would give $`dim\pi _{d1}^1(x)(d1)n1`$. This would imply $`dimWne+(d1)n1`$, a contradiction. Therefore we must have $`\mathrm{mult}_xFd`$, for every such $`F`$.

Recall that we have degree $`d`$ generators of the ideal of $`V`$, denoted by $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_s`$. Let $`L_i=\{x𝔸^n|\mathrm{mult}_xF_i=d\}`$, for $`is`$. By the Bézout theorem, $`L_i`$ is a linear space. If $`L=_{i=1}^sL_i`$, then $`Z_1L`$. On the other hand, by blowing-up along $`L`$, we see that $`L`$ is contained in the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n,cV)`$. Therefore $`Z_1=L`$. Let $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_e`$ be the linear forms defining $`L`$. Then each $`F_i`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`d`$ in $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_e`$. This shows that $`V`$ is the pull back of a closed subscheme $`V^{}𝔸^n/L`$, defined by $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_s`$. Since the projection map $`\pi :𝔸^n𝔸^n/L`$ is smooth and surjective, we see that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n/L,V^{})=\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)`$ and that the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n,\frac{e}{d}V)`$ is just the pull-back of the corresponding locus for the pair $`(𝔸^n/L,e/dV^{})`$. Note that the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n/L,e/dV)`$ is defined by an homogeneous ideal. By dimension considerations, we conclude that this locus consists just of the origin, so $`Z=L`$.

Conversely, if $`V`$ is the pull back of a closed subscheme from $`𝔸^n/L`$ as described in the theorem, one checks that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)=e/d`$ and that the corresponding non log terminal locus is just $`L`$. ∎

Let $`V^{}`$ be a closed subscheme of $`^{n1}`$ defined by degree $`d`$ homogeneous polynomials $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_s`$, and let $`V`$ be the closed subscheme in $`𝔸^n`$ defined by the same set of polynomials. Let $`c=\mathrm{lc}(^{n1},V^{})`$, and let $`Z^{}`$ be the non log terminal locus of $`(^{n1},cV^{})`$. Suppose that the codimension of $`Z^{}`$ in $`^{n1}`$ is $`e`$.

###### Corollary 3.6.

With the above notation, $`\mathrm{lc}(^{n1},V^{})e/d`$. Moreover, if we have equality, then $`V^{}`$ is the cone over a scheme in some $`^{e1}`$.

###### Proof.

Note that

$$\mathrm{lc}(^{n1},V^{})=\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n\{0\},V\{0\})\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V).$$

Now the first assertion follows from Theorem 3.4.

If $`\mathrm{lc}(^{n1},V^{})=e/d`$, then $`\mathrm{lc}(𝔸^n,V)=e/d`$ and the non log terminal locus of $`(𝔸^n,\frac{e}{d}V)`$ is a linear space $`L`$ of codimension $`e`$. If $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_e`$ are the linear forms defining $`L`$, then each $`F_i`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`d`$ in $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_e`$. Therefore $`V^{}`$ is the cone with center $`L`$ over the closed subscheme of $`^{e1}`$ defined by $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_s`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.7.

In \[CP\], Cheltsov and Park studied the log canonical threshold of singular hyperplane sections of smooth, projective hypersurfaces. If $`X^n`$ is a smooth hypersurface of degree $`d`$, and if $`V=XH`$, for a hyperplane $`H`$, then they have shown that

(3.4)
$$\mathrm{lc}(X,V)\mathrm{min}\{(n1)/d,1\}.$$

It follows from Theorem 3.1 that $`\mathrm{lc}(X,V)=\mathrm{lc}(^{n1},V)`$. As it is well known that $`V`$ has isolated singularities, if we apply the first assertion in Corollary 3.6, then we recover the result in \[CP\].

Cheltsov and Park have conjectured in their setting that if $`dn`$, then equality holds in (3.4) if and only if $`V`$ is a cone. They have shown that their conjecture would follow from the Log Minimal Model Program. The second assertion in Corollary 3.6 proves, in particular, their conjecture.

## 4. Application to birational rigidity

Using the bounds on log canonical thresholds from the previous sections, we prove now the birational rigidity of certain Fano hypersurfaces. We recall that a Mori fiber space $`X`$ is called birationally superrigid if any birational map $`\varphi :XX^{}`$ to another Mori fiber space $`X^{}`$ is an isomorphism. For the definition of Mori fiber space and for another notion of rigidity, we refer to \[Co2\]. Note that Fano manifolds having Néron-Severi group of rank 1 are trivially Mori fiber spaces. Birational superrigidity is a very strong condition: it implies that $`X`$ is not rational, and that $`\mathrm{Bir}(X)=\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$. Note that if $`X`$ is a smooth hypersurface of degree $`N`$ in $`^N`$ ($`N4`$), then $`X`$ has no nonzero vector fields. Therefore if $`X`$ is birationally superrigid, then the birational invariant $`\mathrm{Bir}(X)`$ is a finite group.

The following theorem is the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 4.1.

For any integer $`4N12`$, every smooth hypersurface $`X=X_N^N`$ of degree $`N`$ is birationally superrigid.

The case $`N=4`$ of the above theorem is due to Iskovskikh and Manin (see \[IM\]). The case $`N=5`$ was proven by Pukhlikov in \[Pu1\], while the cases $`N=6,7,8`$ were established by Cheltsov in \[Che\]. Birational superrigidity of smooth hypersurfaces of degree $`N`$ in $`^N`$ (for $`N5`$) was conjectured by Pukhlikov in \[Pu2\], where the result is established under a suitable condition of regularity on the equation defining the hypersurface. We remark that there is an attempt due to Pukhlikov in \[Pu3\] to prove the general case (for $`N6`$). Despite a gap in the proof (see the remark below), we believe that the method therein could lead in the future to the result. In fact, the proof given below for Theorem 4.1 follows his method, and our contribution is mainly in simplifying and solidifying his argument.

###### Remark 4.2.

The following gives a counterexample to Corollary 2 in \[Pu3\]. Let $`Q^4`$ be a cone over a twisted cubic, and let $`\pi _a:QR=\pi _a(Q)`$ be the projection from an arbitrary point $`a^4Q`$; note that $`R`$ is the cone over a singular plane cubic. If $`p`$ is the vertex of $`Q`$, then the restriction of $`\pi _a`$ to any punctured neighbourhood of $`p`$ in $`Q`$ can not preserve multiplicities, as $`q=\pi _a(p)`$ lies on a one dimensional component of the singular locus of $`R`$.

Before proving the above theorem, we recall the following result, due to Pukhlikov:

###### Proposition 4.3.

(\[Pu3\], Proposition 5) Let $`X^N`$ be a smooth hypersurface, and let $`Z`$ be an effective cycle on $`X`$, of pure codimension $`k<\frac{1}{2}dimX`$. If $`m`$ is such that $`Zmc_1(𝒪_X(1))^k`$, then $`dim\{xZe_xZ>m\}<k`$.

###### Remark 4.4.

Because we have assumed $`k<\frac{1}{2}dimX`$, the existence of $`m`$ as in the proposition follows from Lefschetz Theorem. One can check that the proof of Proposition 4.3 extends to the case $`k=\frac{1}{2}dimX`$, if we assume that such $`m`$ exists. Note also that the statement is trivially true if $`k>\frac{1}{2}dimX`$.

We need first a few basic properties which allow us to control multiplicities when restricting to general hyperplane sections, and when projecting to lower dimensional linear subspaces. The following proposition must be well known, but we include a proof for the convenience of the readers. We learned this proof, which simplifies our original arguments, from Steve Kleiman.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`Z^n`$ be an irreducible projective variety. If $`HZ`$ is a general hyperplane section, then $`e_pH=e_pZ`$ for every $`pH`$.

###### Proof.

As observed by Whitney (e.g., see \[Kle\], page 219), at any point $`pZ`$, the fiber over $`p`$ of the conormal variety of $`Z`$, viewed as a linear subspace of $`(^n)^{}`$, contains the dual variety of every component of the embedded projective tangent cone $`C_pZ`$ of $`Z`$ at $`p`$. A hyperplane section $`H`$ of $`Z`$ satisfies $`e_pH=e_pZ`$ if the hyperplane meets $`C_pZ`$ properly. Therefore, this equality holds for every point $`p`$ in $`H`$ whenever $`H`$ is cut out by a hyperplane not in the dual variety of $`Z`$. ∎

In the next two propositions, we consider a (possibly reducible) subvariety $`Z^{n+s}`$, of pure dimension $`n1`$, for some $`n2`$ and $`s1`$, and take a general linear projection $`\pi :^{n+s}\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes the center of projection, that is an $`(s1)`$ dimensional linear space. We put $`T=\pi (Z)`$ and $`g=\pi |_Z:ZT`$. It is easy to see that since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is general, $`g`$ is a finite birational map. For convenience, we put $`dim(\mathrm{})=1`$.

###### Proposition 4.6.

With the above notation, consider the set

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\{qTe_qT>\underset{pg^1(q)}{}e_pZ\}.$$

If the projection is chosen with suitable generality, then $`\mathrm{codim}(\mathrm{\Delta },^n)3`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`e_qTe_pZ`$ for every $`qT`$, the sum being taken over all points $`p`$ over $`q`$. Moreover, for a generic projection, every irreducible component of $`Z`$ is mapped to a distinct component of $`T`$. Therefore, by the linearity of the multiplicity, we may assume that $`Z`$ is irreducible.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}T`$ be the set of points $`q`$, such that for some $`p`$ over $`q`$, the intersection of the $`s`$ dimensional linear space $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }q}`$ with the embedded projective tangent cone $`C_pZ`$ of $`Z`$ at $`p`$, is at least one dimensional. We claim that $`\mathrm{codim}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{},^n)3`$. Indeed, it follows from the theorem on generic flatness that there is a stratification $`Z=Z_1\mathrm{}Z_t`$ by locally closed subsets such that, for every $`1jt`$, the incidence set

$$I_j=\{(p,x)Z_j\times ^{n+s}xC_pZ\}$$

is a (possibly reducible) quasi-projective variety of dimension no more than $`2dimZ=2n2`$. Let $`\mathrm{pr}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{pr}_2`$ denote the projections of $`I_j`$ to the first and to the second factor, respectively. It is clear that the set of those $`y^{n+s}`$, with $`dim\mathrm{pr}_2^1(y)=\tau `$ has dimension at most $`\mathrm{max}\{2n2\tau ,1\}`$, for every $`\tau `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a general linear subspace of dimension $`s1`$, it intersects a given $`d`$ dimensional closed subset in a set of dimension $`\mathrm{max}\{dn1,1\}`$. Hence $`dim\mathrm{pr}_2^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })n3`$, and therefore $`dim(\mathrm{pr}_1(\mathrm{pr}_2^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })))n3`$. As this is true for every $`j`$, we deduce $`\mathrm{codim}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{},^n)3`$. Thus, in order to prove the proposition, it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.

For a given point $`pZ`$, let $`L_p^{n+s}`$ be an $`(s+1)`$ dimensional linear subspace passing through $`p`$. Let $`𝔪_p`$ be the maximal ideal of $`𝒪_{Z,p}`$, and let $`𝒫𝒪_{Z,p}`$ be the ideal locally defining $`L_pZ`$. If $`L_p`$ meets the tangent cone $`C_pZ`$ of $`Z`$ at $`p`$ properly, then the linear forms defining $`L_p`$ generate the ideal of the exceptional divisor of the blow up of $`Z`$ at $`p`$. Therefore $`e(𝔪_p)=e(𝒫)`$.

Consider now some $`qT\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Let $`L_q^n`$ be a general line passing through $`q`$, and let $`𝒬𝒪_{T,q}`$ be the ideal generated by the linear forms vanishing along $`L_q`$. We denote by $`L`$ the closure of $`\pi ^1(L_q)`$ in $`^{n+q}`$. For every $`pg^1(q)`$, let $`𝒫𝒪_{Z,p}`$ be the ideal generated by the linear forms vanishing along $`L`$. Since $`L_q`$ is general and $`q\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, we may assume that $`L`$ intersects $`C_pZ`$ properly, hence $`e(𝔪_p)=e(𝒫)`$. On the other hand, if $`𝔪_q`$ is the maximal ideal of $`𝒪_{T,q}`$, then $`𝒬𝔪_q`$, which gives

$$𝒫=𝒬𝒪_{Z,p}𝔪_q𝒪_{Z,p}𝔪_p.$$

Therefore $`e(𝔪_p)=e(𝔪_q𝒪_{Z,p})`$ for every $`p`$ as above, hence $`q\mathrm{\Delta }`$, by \[Ful\], Example 4.3.6. ∎

###### Proposition 4.7.

With the notation in Proposition 4.6, consider the set

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(Z,\pi ):=\{qTg^1(q)\text{ has al least 3 distinct points}\}.$$

If the projection is sufficiently general, then $`\mathrm{codim}(\mathrm{\Sigma },^n)3`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`\mathrm{codim}(\mathrm{\Sigma },^n)3`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }P=\mathrm{}`$ for every general plane $`P^n`$. Pick one general plane $`P`$, let $`P^{}(^{s+2})`$ be the closure of $`\pi ^1(P)`$ in $`^{n+s}`$, and let $`\pi ^{}`$ be the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`P^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If $`Z^{}=ZP^{}`$, then $`Z^{}`$ is a (possibly reducible) curve, and its multisecant variety is at most two dimensional (see, for example, \[FOV\], Corollary 4.6.17). Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is general in $`P^{}`$. Indeed, choosing the center of projection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ general in $`^{n+s}`$, and then picking $`P`$ general in $`^n`$ is equivalent to first fixing a general $`(s+2)`$-plane $`P^{}`$ in $`^{n+s}`$ and then choosing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ general in $`P^{}`$. Therefore we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }P`$, which is the same as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(Z^{},\pi ^{})`$, is empty. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.1.

By adjunction, $`𝒪_X(K_X)𝒪_X(1)`$. Let $`\varphi :XX^{}`$ be a birational map from $`X`$ to a Mori fiber space $`X^{}`$, and assume that $`\varphi `$ is not an isomorphism. By the Noether-Fano inequality (see \[Co1\] and \[Isk\], or \[Mat\]), we find a linear subsystem $`|𝒪_X(r)|`$, with $`r1`$, whose base scheme $`B`$ has codimension $`2`$, and such that the pair $`(X,\frac{1}{r}B)`$ is not canonical. We choose $`c<\frac{1}{r}`$, such that $`(X,cB)`$ is still not canonical, and let $`CX`$ be a center of non canonicity for $`(X,cB)`$. Note that $`C`$ is a center of non canonicity also for the pairs $`(X,cD)`$ and $`(X,cV)`$, where $`V=DD^{}`$ and $`D`$, $`D^{}`$ are two general members. Applying Proposition 4.3 for $`Z=D`$ and $`k=1`$, we see that the multiplicity of $`D`$ is $`r`$ on an open subset whose complement has dimension zero. On this open subset $`(X,cD)`$ is canonical (see, for example, \[Kol\] 3.14.1). Therefore $`C=p`$, a point of $`X`$.

Let $`Y`$ be a general hyperplane section of $`X`$ containing $`p`$. Then $`p`$ is a center of non log canonicity for $`(Y,cB|_Y)`$. Note that $`Y`$ is a smooth hypersurface of degree $`N`$ in $`^{N1}`$. Let $`\pi :^{N1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{N3}`$ be a general linear projection, where the center of projection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a line. We can assume that the restriction of $`\pi `$ to each irreducible component of $`V|_Y`$ is finite and birational. Note that $`\pi _{}[V|_Y]`$ is a divisor in $`^{N3}`$ of degree $`Nr^2`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=\mathrm{Bl}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }Y}Y`$, then we get a morphism $`f:\stackrel{~}{Y}^{N3}`$. If we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ general enough, then we can find an open set $`U^{N3}`$, containing the image $`q`$ of $`p`$, such that $`f`$ restricts to a smooth (proper) morphism $`f^1(U)U`$. Applying Theorem 1.1, we deduce that the pair

(4.1)
$$(^{N3},\frac{c^2}{4}\pi _{}[V|_Y])$$

is not log terminal at $`q`$.

We claim that

(4.2)
$$dim\{y\pi (V|_Y)e_y(\pi _{}[V|_Y])>2r^2\}\mathrm{max}\{N6,0\}.$$

Indeed, by Propositions 4.7 and 4.6, the map $`\mathrm{Supp}([V|_Y])\mathrm{Supp}(\pi _{}[V|_Y])`$ is at most 2 to 1 and preserves multiplicities outside a set, say $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, of dimension $`\mathrm{max}\{N6,1\}`$. This implies that, for each $`y`$ outside the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`e_y(\pi _{}[V|_Y])=e_x([V|_Y])`$, where the sum is taken over the points $`x`$ over $`y`$, and this sum involves at most two non-zero terms. Then (4.2) follows from the fact that, by Propositions 4.3 and 4.5 (see also Remark 4.4), the set of points $`x`$ for which $`e_x[V|_Y]>r^2`$ is at most zero dimensional.

Note that the pair (4.1) is log terminal at every point $`y`$ where $`e_y(\pi _{}[V|_Y])4r^2`$. If $`4N6`$, we deduce that the pair is log terminal outside a zero dimensional closed subset. In this case, Corollary 3.6 gives $`c^2/4(N3)/(Nr^2)`$. Since $`c<1/r`$, this implies $`N<4`$, a contradiction. If $`7N12`$, then we can only conclude that the pair (4.1) is log terminal outside a closed subset of codimension at least $`3`$. This time the same corollary gives $`c^2/43/(Nr^2)`$, which implies $`N>12`$. This again contradicts our assumptions, so the proof is complete. ∎


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IFT–02/41

ChroNodynamics or a quantum theory

involving deviations from uniform run of time.

Wojciech Królikowski

Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University

Hoża 69, PL–00–681 Warszawa, Poland

Abstract

Let us imagine that there is an overall quantum theory (not necessarily recognized yet) of matter and energy (i.e., of elementary fermions and bosons) interacting with the physical spacetime (treated on a quantum level). Since states of quantum spacetime are so far not observed directly, they ought to be projected out from the overall Hilbert space (much like states of a quantum medium in the optical model often constructed in nuclear physics). Then, in the reduced Hilbert space only states of quantum matter and energy are left, but now endowed with the energy width that enters through an antiHermitian interaction-like operator, a remainder of their coupling to the quantum spacetime. We postulate that such an energy width involves an averaged coupling of quantum matter and energy to a classical field of time deviations from the uniform time run (in the classical spacetime of special relativity). The well known time-temperature analogy helps us to fix other postulates leading altogether to a quantum theory we call chronodynamics (a loose analogue of thermodynamics of small deviations from thermal equilibrium).

PACS numbers: 11.10.Lm , 11.90.+t , 12.90.+b .

December 2002

1. Introduction

It is a part of common knowledge in the quantum physics that there is a kind of correspondence between temperature and time. Speaking more precisely, in the quantum physics an analogy exists between the thermal-equilibrium operator $`\mathrm{exp}(H/kT)`$ and the time-evolution operator $`\mathrm{exp}(iHt/\mathrm{})`$, both generated by the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of a quantum system . Such an analogy implies the correspondence

$$1/kTit/\mathrm{}$$
(1)
that parallels the notion of uniform temperature $`T`$ of a quantum system (persisting in the thermal equilibrium with a thermostat) with the notion of uniformly running time $`t`$ ascribed to a quantum system (most correctly on the ground of special relativity, if the effects of general relativity can be neglected).

If in a system some deviations $`\delta T(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ appear from the uniform temperature $`T`$ of a thermal equilibrium, they are conducted throughout the system according to the heat conductivity equation. One may ask the exciting question, as to whether in Nature there may appear also some deviations $`\delta t(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ from the uniformly running time $`t`$  (hopefully, different and larger than the effects of general relativity), and then, what may be the mathematical equation governing their propagation throughout the system.

In the present paper, postulating the possibility of such time deviations (not being the effect of general relativity), we will describe them by the multiplicative scalar field $`\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$:

$$t+\delta t(\stackrel{}{x},t)[1+\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)]t,\delta t(\stackrel{}{x},t)\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)t.$$
(2)
Since time $`t`$ is always a classical real parameter, the scalar $`\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ ought to be a classical real field. Of course, the values of $`\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ should be tiny: $`1\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)1`$. Note that the scalar $`\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is connected with the scaling field, but acting only for time $`t`$ (not for the space coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x})`$. As we argue in Section 3, this action can be made explicitly Lorentz covariant in a way à la Tomonaga-Schwinger.

2. Classical field equation for time deviations

We will assume the field equation for $`\epsilon (x)\epsilon (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ in the form of a relativistic differential equation that in the formal nonrelativistic approximation becomes a conductivity equation. Such a form can be obtained, indeed, from the tachyonic-type Klein-Gordon equation which, in the sourceless case, may be written as

$$\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)=0,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{}=^2=\mathrm{\Delta }(1/c^2)^2/t^2`$ with $`_\mu =/x^\mu `$ and $`x=(x^\mu )=(ct,\stackrel{}{x})`$. In fact, inserting $`\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)=\varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}(ct/\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda =\sqrt{\lambda ^2}>0`$ is a lengthdimensional constant, we calculate from Eq. (3):

$$0=\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)=e^{\frac{ct}{\lambda }}\left(\mathrm{}\frac{2}{\lambda c}\frac{}{t}\right)\varphi (x)e^{\frac{ct}{\lambda }}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{2}{\lambda c}\frac{}{t}\right)\varphi (x).$$
(4)
Here, the last step is valid in the nonrelativistic approximation when, in addition, the constant $`\lambda `$ is such that

$$|\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\varphi (x)|\frac{2}{\lambda c}|\frac{}{t}\varphi (x)|.$$
(5)
Then, from Eq. (4) the conductivity equation for $`\varphi (x)`$ with a lengthdimensional conductivity coefficient $`\lambda /2`$,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{2}{\lambda c}\frac{}{t}\right)\varphi (x)=0,$$
(6)
follows approximately.

Notice that in the case of conventional Klein-Gordon equation $`\left(\mathrm{}1/\lambda ^2\right)\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)=0`$ we should insert $`\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)=\varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}(ict/\lambda )`$ in order to cancel the term $`1/\lambda ^2`$ in the Klein-Gordon operator. Then, in the nonrelativistic approximation and with the use of Eq. (5) we would obtain the Schrödinger equation $`[\mathrm{\Delta }+i(2/\lambda c)/t]\varphi (x)=0`$, where $`1/\lambda c=m/\mathrm{}`$.

The homogeneous tachyonic-type Klein-Gordon equation (3) allows for plane-wave solutions $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$ of two interesting kinds: the ultraluminal plane-wave solutions with $`k_0=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^21/\lambda ^2}`$, where $`|\stackrel{}{k}|>1/\lambda `$, and the damped-in-time plane-wave solutions with $`k_0=i|k_0|=i\sqrt{1/\lambda ^2\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$, where $`|\stackrel{}{k}|<1/\lambda `$. In the second case, $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}c|k_0|t)`$. The less interesting solutions with $`k_0=+i|k_0|=+i\sqrt{1/\lambda ^2\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$, where $`|\stackrel{}{k}|<1/\lambda `$, also exist, leading to $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}+c|k_0|t)`$ i.e., the growing-in-time plane-wave solutions.

Now, the crucial problem arises, what is the source for the scalar field $`\epsilon (x)`$. Such a source should be introduced into Eq. (3) on its rhs. Since the scalar field $`\epsilon (x)`$ is classical, its source ought to be also a classical scalar field. Connecting the time deviations described by $`\epsilon (x)`$ with the state of matter and energy (i.e., of fermions and bosons), it is natural to consider in the context of $`\epsilon (x)`$ the classical or, more precisely, averaged four-current $`j^\mu (x)`$ of all fermions and bosons appearing in Nature. Such a structure can be presented generically as

$$j^\mu (x)\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (t)J^\mu (\stackrel{}{x})]$$
(7)
or, for pure quantum states, as

$$j^\mu (x)<\psi (t)|J^\mu (\stackrel{}{x})|\psi (t)>_{\mathrm{av}},$$
(8)
where the Schrödinger picture for quantum states and operators is used (the subscript av in Eq. (8) denotes averaging over spins of all particles present in the considered state). Here, $`\rho (t)`$ and $`\psi (t)`$ denote, respectively, the density matrix and the state vector describing alternatively the considered state of the system, while $`J^\mu (\stackrel{}{x})`$ stands for the operator of four-current of all fermions and bosons \[represented in the Schrödinger picture; if the Heisenberg picture is used, the four-current operator depends both on $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`t`$: $`J_H^\mu (x)`$\].

Since the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ is a scalar, it is natural to expect that the scalar $`_\mu j^\mu (x)`$, formed with the use of classical four-current (7) or (8), is the source of $`\epsilon (x)`$. Thus, we will postulate that the inhomogeneous tachyonic-type Klein-Gordon equation of the form

$$\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon (x)=g_\epsilon \lambda ^2\frac{1}{c}_\mu j^\mu (x),$$
(9)
where $`g_\epsilon >0`$ denotes a dimensionless coupling constant, is the classical field equation for the scalar $`\epsilon (x)`$ (describing, as in Eq. (2), the time deviations $`\delta t(x)\epsilon (x)t`$ from the uniform time run $`t`$). Note that in the source term on the rhs of Eq. (9) there figures the constant $`\lambda ^2`$ (the same as on its lhs) because of dimensional reasons. Evidently, the new coupling constant $`g_\epsilon `$ should be tiny in order to generate tiny time deviations. Hopefully, its value will be at one time determined experimentally.

The field equation (9) tells us that $`\epsilon (x)`$ is generated at such spacetime points $`x`$, where $`_\mu j^\mu (x)0`$ i.e., where the averaged total number of particles, $`N(t)=\frac{1}{c}d^3\stackrel{}{x}j^0(x)`$, changes locally. Since the total number of fermions (more precisely, fermions minus antifermions) does not change at all (even locally), the changing part of $`N(t)`$ is given by the averaged total number of bosons i.e., $`_\mu j^\mu (x)=_\mu j_{\mathrm{boson}}^\mu (x)`$ (this conclusion is true, if $`<\psi (t)|\psi (t)>=`$ const; strictly speaking, the conventional conservation of norm of the state vector will turn out an approximation only, but an extremely good one). Obviously, for the whole space

$$\frac{dN(t)}{dt}d^3\stackrel{}{x}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}j^0(x)=d^3\stackrel{}{x}_\mu j^\mu (x),$$
(10)
if the spatial current $`\stackrel{}{j}(x)`$ vanishes properly in the spatial infinity.

We would like to emphasize that, though in our experience on the Earth the physical systems emitting particles e.g. photons (for which $`_\mu j^\mu (x)>0`$) are rather exceptional requiring some excitations to be realized, in the cosmic scale they are the most frequent natural systems such as, for instance, the Sun and other stars. On the other hand, systems absorbing particles e.g. photons (for which $`_\mu j^\mu (x)<0`$) appear often, even on the Earth. Thus, the situation where $`_\mu j^\mu (x)0`$ is normal in the Universe.

3. Quantum state equation dependent on time deviations

Thus, we have the classical field equation for $`\epsilon (x)`$, determining time deviations in terms of local changes of averaged total number of particles in the quantum state described by $`\rho (t)`$ or $`\psi (t)`$. Now, we can pass to the second crucial problem, how these time deviations affect in turn the quantum time evolution of the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ or state vector $`\psi (t)`$. This problem, if solved, closes the logical loop in the structure of a possible dynamical theory of time deviations that may be called chronodynamics (in order to stress its loose, but characteristic, analogy with the thermodynamics of small deviations from thermal equilibrium).

Of course, in absence of time deviations, the conventional density matrix equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\rho ^{(0)}(t)}{dt}=[H,\rho ^{(0)}(t)]$$
(11)
or state equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\psi ^{(0)}(t)}{dt}=H\psi ^{(0)}(t)$$
(12)
works (in the Schrödinger picture). These equations should be modified, however, when some time deviations appear.

To this end, let us imagine our system of particles as an interacting subsystem of a larger quantum system whose other interacting subsystem is the physical spacetime treated dynamically on a quantum level (we assume here that such a quantum theory of spacetime exists potentially; its explicit structure will not be needed for our purposes). Note that for our original system of particles the physical spacetime plays the role of some unavoidable classical surroundings, where the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ describing time deviations may propagate. Then, let us project out from the Hilbert space of the larger quantum system all states of the interacting subsystem corresponding to the physical spacetime, leaving only states of the interacting subsystem identified with our system of particles. This projecting-out procedure answers the situation, where the potential quantum spacetime is not observed directly. For pure quantum states, such a procedure , analogical to the derivation of the simple optical model in nuclear physics, leads us to the state equation involving a new antiHermitian operator $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ added to the Hermitian energy operator $`H`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Hermitian operator that may be called energy width. Thus, the modified state equation is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\psi (t)}{dt}=(Hi\mathrm{\Gamma })\psi (t)$$
(13)
(in the Schrödinger picture). From the methodological point of view we must treat this quantum state equation for particles (i.e., for matter and energy) as a postulate. Generically, we get the modified density matrix equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\rho (t)}{dt}=[H,\rho (t)]i\{\mathrm{\Gamma },\rho (t)\}$$
(14)
(in the Schrödinger picture).

Above, we assume hopefully that the potentially existing quantum theory of spacetime stresses the role of time deviations among all, a priori possible, spacetime deviations, and that it works in the framework of special relativity (for the problem of its explicit covariance cf. a paragraph a bit later). This theory in spe is different from the longawaited quantum gravity, conventionally identified with general relativity in a quantum version. Note that deformations of space could be included into our chronodynamics, when $`x^\mu +\delta x^\mu (x)[1+\epsilon (x)]x^\mu ,\delta x^\mu (x)\epsilon (x)x^\mu `$ with $`\epsilon (x)`$ related to the scaling field. In this paper we do not consider such an extension, believing in the existence of differences between deformations of time and space (considered on the ground of special relativity).

To complete the structure of chronodynamics we must construct the operator of energy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, adequate to our situation. It seems natural to expect that this operator ought to involve the coupling of field $`\epsilon (x)`$ to the source $`_\mu j^\mu (x)`$ appearing in the field equation (9). In the present paper, we will postulate that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\mathrm{𝟏}g_\epsilon \mathrm{}d^3\stackrel{}{x}_\mu j^\mu (x)\epsilon (x),$$
(15)
where $`g_\epsilon `$ is the same tiny dimensionless coupling constant as that in the source term of field equation (9). The constant $`\mathrm{}`$ appears because of dimensional reasons. The unit operator 1 in the Hilbert space of our system of particles guarantees in Eq. (13) the (trivial) operator character of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$. The rest of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is classical. Hereafter, by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ we will understand this rest,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)g_\epsilon \mathrm{}d^3\stackrel{}{x}_\mu j^\mu (x)\epsilon (x).$$
(16)
Thus, the operator (15) appearing in Eq. (13) will be equal to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$.

In the case of pure quantum states, the set of Eqs. (9) with (8) and (13) with (15) for the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ and quantum state vector $`\psi (t)`$ defines a theory, consistent with special relativity, that we have called chronodynamics. This is an extension of the conventional quantum dynamics, when the time deviations $`\delta t(x)\epsilon (x)t`$ are allowed in the reference system, where $`\psi (t)`$ is the state vector (and when the effects of general relativity can be neglected).

Note that both $`\delta t(x)`$ and $`\psi (t)`$ can be replaced by the explicitly Lorentz-covariant structures by means of the known Tomonaga-Schwinger construction  using in the Minkowski space the spacelike three-dimensional hypersurface $`\sigma (x)`$ that replaces the running hyperplane $`t=`$ const. Then, the time deviations $`\delta t(x)\epsilon (x)t`$ from $`t`$ are replaced by $`\delta \sigma (x)\epsilon (x)\sigma (x)`$, the timelike deviations from $`\sigma (x)`$, and the function $`\psi (t)`$ by the functional $`\psi [\sigma ]`$. As in the conventional theory without time deviations, the derivative $`i\mathrm{}d/dt`$ is replaced by the functional derivative $`i\mathrm{}c\delta /\delta ^4\sigma (x)`$, and the operator $`H`$, in our case $`Hi\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, by its density. Here, $`\delta ^4\sigma (x)`$ in $`\delta /\delta ^4\sigma (x)`$ denotes the infinitesimal four-dimensional volume in the Minkowski space determined by the infinitesimal timelike deformation of the spacelike hypersurface $`\sigma (x)`$, localized around its point $`x`$. Since in a relativistic field theory the density of the operator $`H_{\mathrm{int}}i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ denoting the interaction part of H is a Lorentz scalar, the Lorentz covariance of the Tomonaga-Schwinger form of state equation (13) becomes explicit in the interaction picture.

From Eq. (13) we obtain

$$\psi (t)=\psi ^{(0)}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t^{})\right],$$
(17)
where $`\psi ^{(0)}(t)`$ satisfies the conventional state equation (12) with the initial condition $`\psi ^{(0)}(t_0)=\psi (t_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is given as in the definition (16). On the fundamental level, the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is always time-independent (in the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures). Then, Eq. (12) gives

$$\psi ^{(0)}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}H(tt_0)\right]\psi ^{(0)}(t_0).$$
(18)
We can see from Eq. (17) that the norm of $`\psi (t)`$ changes in time, namely

$$<\psi (t)|\psi (t)>=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t^{})\right]$$
(19)
for $`<\psi (t_0)|\psi (t_0)>=1`$. In contrast, $`<\psi ^{(0)}(t)|\psi ^{(0)}(t)>=1`$. Naturally, the variation in the formula (19) is very slow, as $`g_\epsilon `$ in Eq. (16) defining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is tiny. Generically, Eq. (14) gives

$$\rho (t)=\rho ^{(0)}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t^{})\right],$$
(20)
where $`\rho ^{(0)}(t)`$ fulfils the conventional density matrix equation (11) with the initial condition $`\rho ^{(0)}(t_0)=\rho (t_0)`$. Hence,

$$\mathrm{Tr}\rho (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t^{})\right]$$
(21)
for Tr $`\rho (t_0)=1`$. In contrast, Tr $`\rho ^{(0)}(t)=1`$. Note that in our case Eq. (14) takes the form $`i\mathrm{}d\rho (t)/dt=[H,\rho (t)]2i\rho (t)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ as defined in Eq. (16).

The formal reason for the variation in time of $`<\psi (t)|\psi (t)>`$ and, generically, of Tr $`\rho (t)`$ is that the physical spacetime of chronodynamics is not included as a part into the considered quantum system in spite of mutual interactions exciting time deviations on the classical level. In fact, one can imagine that it is projected out (in the sense of its states) from the larger quantum system including it as an interacting subsystem on a quantum level .

In conclusion of the first part of this paper, we can see that Eqs. (9) \[together with (8)\] and (13) \[together with (15)\] form a mixed, classical-quantum set of two coupled equations for the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ describing the time deviations $`\delta t(x)\epsilon (x)t`$, and the quantum state vector $`\psi (t)`$ of time-evolving matter and energy. One may also say that this set is a quantum set of two coupled equations, namely the equation for the quantum state vector $`\psi (t)`$ in the classical (or, more precisely, classical-valued) field $`\epsilon (x)`$ of time deviations introduced by means of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$, and the constraint imposed on the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ dependent functionally on the quantum state vector $`\psi (t)`$ through $`_\mu j^\mu (x)`$. Because of the bilinear form of $`\psi (t)`$ appearing in Eq. (8) this set of equations is (strictly speaking) nonlinear with respect to the state vector $`\psi (t)`$, what violates (slightly) the superposition principle for $`\psi (t)`$. This perturbs the fundamental probability interpretation of $`\psi (t)`$.

However, in the first-order perturbative approximation with respect to the tiny $`g_\epsilon `$, where $`\psi (t)`$ in Eq. (8) is approximated by $`\psi ^{(0)}(t)`$ satisfying the conventional state equation (12) (and $`\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)`$ fulfilling the homogeneous field equation (3) is put zero), the set of Eqs. (9) and (13) becomes linear with respect to $`\psi ^{(1)}(t)`$, the state vector in the first-order perturbative approximation. In fact, in this approximation

$$\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)=g_\epsilon \lambda ^2\frac{1}{c}_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)$$
(22)
with

$$j^{\mu (0)}(x)<\psi ^{(0)}(t)|J^\mu (\stackrel{}{x})|\psi ^{(0)}(t)>_{\mathrm{av}},$$
(23)
and

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\psi ^{(1)}(t)}{dt}=\left[Hi\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)\right]\psi ^{(1)}(t)$$
(24)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)g_\epsilon \mathrm{}d^3\stackrel{}{x}_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)\epsilon ^{(1)}(x).$$
(25)
Here, $`\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)`$ fulfilling the homogeneous field equation (3) is put zero; then, the possible contribution $`_\mu j^{\mu (1)}(x)\epsilon ^{(0)}(x)`$ with $`j^{\mu (1)}(x)<\psi ^{(0)}(t)|J^\mu (\stackrel{}{x})|\psi ^{(1)}(t)>_{\mathrm{av}}+`$ c.c. to the integrand in Eq. (25) is zero. Thus, in this approximation we obtain a classical-quantum set of two uncoupled equations for $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)`$ and $`\psi ^{(1)}(t)`$. They give

$$\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)=g_\epsilon \lambda ^2\frac{1}{c}\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)^1_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)$$
(26)
and

$$\psi ^{(1)}(t)=\psi ^{(0)}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t^{})\right],$$
(27)
where $`\psi ^{(0)}(t_0)=\psi ^{(1)}(t_0)`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)^1_\nu j^{\nu (0)}(x)}`$ (28)
$``$ $`g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}q^{(0)}(x)\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)^1q^{(0)}(x)}`$
with

$$q(x)_\mu j^\mu (x).$$
(29)
Due to the linearity of the state equation (24) with respect to $`\psi ^{(1)}(t)`$ the state vector can be normalized at an initial moment and so, interpreted probabilistically, though its norm varies (very slowly) in time, namely

$$<\psi ^{(1)}(t)|\psi ^{(1)}(t)>=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t^{})\right]$$
(30)
for $`<\psi ^{(1)}(t_0)|\psi ^{(1)}(t_0)>=1`$. Note that in Eq. (25)

$`_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`<\psi ^{(0)}(t)|{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}c}}[H,J^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})]+\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{J}(\stackrel{}{x})|\psi ^{(0)}(t)>_{\mathrm{av}}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`<\psi _H^{(0)}|_\mu J_H^\mu (x)|\psi _H^{(0)}>_{\mathrm{av}},`$
where the label $`H`$ indicates the Heisenberg picture.

One should remember that, in chronodynamics, the deviation from the strict conservation of norm for $`\psi (t)`$ has an optical-model-like character which is not of a fundamental nature, if only the "projected-out" quantum level of the physical spacetime really exists and, in principle, can be observed (in a sense known from our quantum-dynamical experience). Note also that, correctly speaking, the optical-model-like connection of chronodynamics with the potential background theory including the quantum spacetime should be considered in the linear first-order perturbative approximation, where $`\psi (t)`$ of chronodynamics is replaced by $`\psi ^{(1)}(t)`$ in the state equation (and by $`\psi ^{(0)}(t)`$ in the averaged current of particles), since this background overall quantum theory is linear in the overall state vector. At the end of Section 6 an extreme case is considered, where the consistent background theory does not exist, but an act of abstraction referring to it is realized.

In the second part of this paper we discuss some simple consequences of chronodynamics.

4. Violation of optical theorem

The first-order perturbative $`S`$ matrix in chronodynamics is related to the conventional $`S`$ matrix through the formula

$$S^{(1)}=S^{(0)}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)\right],$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)`$ given in Eq. (25) determines the first-order unitary defect, since $`S^{(0)}S^{(0)}=\mathrm{𝟏}=S^{(0)}S^{(0)}`$. In Eq. (32), the interval $`\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}`$ symbolizes a time interval very long in comparison with a short reaction time (where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)0`$).

Thus, in place of the conventional optical theorem

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}i}^{(0)}=\frac{(2\pi )^4\mathrm{}^2}{v_i}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}R_{ii}^{(0)}$$
(33)
we obtain the modified formula

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}i}^{(1)}=\frac{(2\pi )^4\mathrm{}^2}{v_i}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}R_{ii}^{(1)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)\right].$$
(34)
Here, diagonal elements of the reaction matrices $`R^{(0)}`$ and $`R^{(1)}`$ appear, calculated in initial asymptotic states $`i`$ of two colliding particles (averaged over particle spins). Since

$$R_{ii}^{(1)}=R_{ii}^{(0)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)\right],$$
(35)
the rhs of Eq. (34) includes the exponential squared.

5. Excitations of time deviations by a stationary source of particles

Consider a pointlike stationary system, located at the point $`\stackrel{}{x}_S`$, emitting $`1/\tau _S`$ particles of all sorts per unit of time which form a constant averaged current $`\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$. It may be e.g. a source of light. According to Eq. (22) that takes here the form

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})=g_\epsilon \lambda ^2\frac{1}{c}\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(36)
this system is also a pointlike source of the static field $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ describing the time deviations $`\delta t^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})t`$ thus excited in such a way. Assume for the source $`\stackrel{}{q}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ of $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ a mathematical model that may be reasonably realistic and, at the same time, allows to solve Eq. (36) analytically:

$$\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})\frac{1}{\tau _S}\left[\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S)+\frac{\mathrm{cos}(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|/\lambda )}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|^3}\underset{lm_l}{}c_{lm_l}\frac{l(l+1)}{4\pi }Y_{lm_l}(\theta ,\varphi )\right],$$
(37)
where $`c_{lm_l}=c_{lm_l}^{}`$ are dimensionless coefficients normalized in such a way that $`_{lm_l}c_{lm_l}Y_{lm_l}(0,0)=1`$, while $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ denote the spherical angles of the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S`$. Then, it follows from Eq. (36) that

$$\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{g_\epsilon \lambda ^2}{4\pi c\tau _S}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|/\lambda )}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|}\underset{lm_l}{}c_{lm_l}Y_{lm_l}(\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(38)
In particular, if $`c_{lm_l}=0`$ for $`l>0`$ i.e., $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})(1/\tau _S)\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S)`$, then

$$\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{g_\epsilon \lambda ^2}{4\pi c\tau _S}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|/\lambda )}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|}.$$
(39)
In stationary situations, as e.g. for the system discussed here, the energy width (25) is time-independent,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}g_\epsilon \mathrm{}d^3\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{div}j^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(40)
In particular, in the case of Eqs. (37) and (38) with $`c_{lm_l}=0`$ for $`l>0`$ the energy width (40) calculated for the system itself becomes the divergent expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=\frac{g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi c\tau _S^2}\underset{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S}{lim}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|},$$
(41)
containing the divergence typical for the classical selfenergy of a pointlike source. Of course, the pointlike character of a classical source is only an idealization, apparently not allowed in the discussion of selfenergy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$.

Thus, in stationary situations, the state vector (27) satisfying Eq. (24) takes the form

$$\psi ^{(1)}(t)=\psi ^{(0)}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(tt_0)\right],$$
(42)
where $`\psi ^{(0)}(t_0)=\psi ^{(1)}(t_0)`$. Hence,

$$<\psi ^{(1)}(t)|\psi ^{(1)}(t)>=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(tt_0)\right]$$
(43)
for $`<\psi ^{(1)}(t_0)|\psi ^{(1)}(t_0)>=1`$.

6. The Sun changes norms of matter states on the Earth surface

Notice that in chronodynamics, in consequence of absorption of Sun photons in the daily cycle from sunrise to sunset, the states of atoms and molecules of the matter on the Earth surface should have their norms changed. In fact, from Eqs. (16) and (9)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon (x)\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon (x)}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}\left\{\left[\stackrel{}{}\epsilon (x)\right]^2+\epsilon (x)\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon (x)\right\}},`$
where $`\epsilon (x)`$ is excited by the source $`_\mu j^\mu (x)`$ (during the day $`_\mu j^\mu (x)<0`$, as Sun photons are absorbed, implying mixed photon numbers in $`\psi (t)`$; then the radiative excitation of atoms and molecules transits mainly into the kinetic excitation of their neighbourhood, what leads to growing temperature). Since the field $`\epsilon (x)`$ is practically static (in some time intervals), Eq. (44) implies that during the day $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)>0`$ for $`\lambda `$ large enough, and then norms of matter states on the Earth surface should be decreased. In contrast, for $`\lambda `$ small enough the effect should be opposite, but negligible, as then during the day $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^40`$, causing practically no change of norms of these matter states.

However, according to chronodynamics the Sun not only emits photons (and various matter particles such as electrons and neutrinos), but also excites the time deviations described by the solar field $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x)`$ that for atoms and molecules on the Earth plays the role of an external field (practically static), leading to the energy width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{ex}}(t)`$ $``$ $`g_\epsilon \mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}_\mu j^\mu (x)\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x)}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x)\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon (x)},`$
where $`_\mu j^\mu (x)`$, detecting the solar field $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x)`$ on the Earth, is at the same time the source exciting its own field $`\epsilon (x)`$ \[that appears also in Eq. (44)\]. When solar photons are absorbed on the Earth surface, then $`_\mu j^\mu (x)<0`$, while on the average $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x)>0`$ or $`0`$, respectively, for $`\lambda `$ large or small enough, as $`_\mu j^{\mu \mathrm{ex}}(x)>0`$ on the Sun. Thus, Eq. (45) shows that during the day $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{ex}}(t)<0`$ or $`0`$, respectively. The energy widths (44) and (45) are to be summed. Since the factor $`_\mu j^\mu (x)`$ in the integrands of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{ex}}(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is the same and the solar field $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x)`$ should dominate over $`\epsilon (x)`$ (even on the Earth), the energy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{ex}}(t)`$ should dominate over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ leading, respectively, to an increase or practically no change of norms of matter states on the Earth surface during the day.

The change in time of norms of matter states may be translated into a change in time of the averaged matter density (i.e., averaged number of matter particles contained in a unit volume; strictly speaking, for matter states with changing norms the particle number cannot be a "good" quantum number corresponding to a constant of motion, so e.g. a state of one hydrogen atom acted on by the Sun is here only an approximation, but an extremely good one). Of course, both changes are expected to be very small, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{ex}}(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ are of the order $`g_\epsilon ^2`$ where $`g_\epsilon `$ is tiny. The actual value of norms of matter states is always normalized to one, and only comparative observations corresponding, perhaps, to cosmological time scale could reveal its changes in time. Then, the lengthdimensional constant $`\lambda `$ of, perhaps, cosmological length scale might be here natural.

We would like to emphasize that, from the viewpoint of the overall quantum theory including hopefully the physical spacetime interacting on a quantum level, our conclusion on the change of norms of matter states is valid only for such matter states which are observed alone, without any accompanying states of quantum spacetime. Then, their interrelations with all quantum states of matter plus spacetime or of spacetime alone are described implicitly by the operator of their energy width multiplied by $`i`$. In this argument we assume, of course, that the observation of matter states separated from quantum spacetime states is practically possible (like the observation of matter states, e.g. electrons, separated from energy states, e.g. photons).

In an extreme case, our optical-model-like theory might work even if its background theory, including the physical spacetime interacting on a quantum level, did not exist as a correct, selfconsistent theoretical scheme. In this case, an act of abstraction from the familiar optical-model mechanism would be realized in application to the spacetime as a possible physical medium. Then, the change in time of the norms of matter states would get a fundamental character. Notice generically that, from the viewpoint of the time-temperature analogy, the energy width multiplied by $`i`$, $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is an analogue of the heat $`Q`$ (what implies the complex internal energy $`U`$ in the first law of thermodynamics).

7. Detection of time deviations by a stationary source of particles

Consider again a pointlike stationary system, located now at the point $`\stackrel{}{x}_D`$, producing a constant averaged current $`\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ of particles of all sorts emitted at the rate $`\tau _D`$. Such a system excites according to Eq. (22) the static field $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ of time deviations that, however, will not be discussed here. Let the system be situated in an external static field $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ of time deviations, excited e.g. like the field $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ described by Eq. (38) in Section 5. In such a case,

$$\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{g_\epsilon \lambda ^2}{4\pi c\tau _S}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|/\lambda )}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|}\underset{lm_l}{}c_{lm_l}^{\mathrm{ex}}Y_{lm_l}(\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(46)
where the mathematical model (37) is applied to $`q^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$.

In the present situation, the energy width (25) calculated for the system in external field is time-independent,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}g_\epsilon \mathrm{}d^3\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(47)
and the state vector (27) satisfying Eq. (24) can be presented as in Eq. (42). Hence, also Eq. (43) holds. If the mathematical model (37) is applied not only to $`q^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ but also to $`q^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$, and if $`c_{lm_l}=0`$ and $`c_{lm_l}^{\mathrm{ex}}=0`$ for $`l>0`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=\frac{g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi c\tau _D\tau _S}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(|\stackrel{}{x}_D\stackrel{}{x}_S|/\lambda )}{|\stackrel{}{x}_D\stackrel{}{x}_S|}.$$
(48)
Note that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\frac{g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi c\tau _D\tau _S}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}_D\stackrel{}{x}_S|}$$
(49)
if $`\lambda |\stackrel{}{x}_D\stackrel{}{x}_S|`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}0`$ if $`\lambda |\stackrel{}{x}_D\stackrel{}{x}_S|`$.

We can see that the appearance of energy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}0`$ in the state vector $`\psi ^{(1)}(t)`$ describing the system with $`q^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{x})0`$ is a signal coming from the external field $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ of time deviations. Thus, in principle, such a system may play the role of a detector for the external time deviations $`\delta t^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})\epsilon ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\stackrel{}{x})t`$.

8. Excitation of time deviations by a vibrating source of particles

Consider a pointlike vibrating system, located at the point $`\stackrel{}{x}_S`$, producing a changing averaged current $`\stackrel{}{j}^{(0)}(x)`$ of particles of all sorts emitted at the averaged rate $`1/\tau _S`$. It may be e.g. a source of radio waves. According to Eq. (22), this system is also a pointlike source of the varying field $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)`$ describing the time deviations $`\delta t^{(1)}(x)\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)`$ excited in such a way. In a simple model, the source $`q^{(0)}(x)_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)`$ of $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)`$ may be

$$_\mu j^{\mu (0)}(x)\frac{1}{\tau _S}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S)\mathrm{cos}\omega _St,$$
(50)
leading to Eq. (22) in the form

$$\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)=\frac{g_\epsilon \lambda ^2}{c\tau _S}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S)\mathrm{cos}\omega _St.$$
(51)
Then,

$$\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)=\frac{g_\epsilon \lambda ^2}{4\pi c\tau _S}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{\omega _S^2/c^2+1/\lambda ^2}|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|\omega _St)}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|}.$$
(52)
In the present situation, the energy width (25) calculated for the system itself is the time-dependent divergent expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)=\frac{g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi c\tau _S^2}\underset{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\omega _St}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|},$$
(53)
caused by the pointlike character of the classical source. Obviously, this is only an idealization not working in the discussion of selfenergy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t)`$. Formally, the related divergent exponent appearing in the state vector (27) is

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(t^{})=\frac{g_\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2}{4\pi c\tau _S^2}\underset{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega _St\mathrm{sin}\omega _St_0}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_S|}.$$
(54)
In the spherical wave solution (52) for the field $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)`$ satisfying the tachyonic-type Klein-Gordon equation the wave number is $`|\stackrel{}{k}|=\sqrt{\omega _S^2/c^2+1/\lambda ^2}>\omega _S/c`$, while in the case of conventional Klein-Gordon equation it would be $`|\stackrel{}{k}|=\sqrt{\omega _S^2/c^21/\lambda ^2}\sqrt{\omega _S^2/c^2(mc/\mathrm{})^2}\omega _S/c`$ for $`\omega _S/c1/\lambda mc/\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the group velocity of the wave (52) is equal to $`|\stackrel{}{k}|/(\omega _S/c^2)=c\sqrt{\omega _S^2+c^2/\lambda ^2}/\omega _S>c`$, so it is ultraluminal, whilst the group velocity in the case of conventional Klein-Gordon equation would be $`|\stackrel{}{k}|/(\omega _S/c^2)=c\sqrt{\omega _S^2c^2/\lambda ^2}/\omega _S<c`$ for $`\omega _Sc/\lambda mc^2/\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the field $`\epsilon ^{(1)}(x)`$ satisfying the tachyonic-type Klein-Gordon equation cannot transport the energy of a quantum system and so, any physical information (at least, in the sense ascribed conventionally to this term).

9. Final remarks

The absence of energy transport by the field $`\epsilon (x)`$ is generally evident in the framework of chronodynamics, where no observable energy related to $`\epsilon (x)`$ is ascribed to the quantum system. Instead, the quantum system gets the energy width defined by the (trivial) operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ related to the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ through Eq. (16). In fact, any observable energy related to the field $`\epsilon (x)`$ (and its interaction with particles) is absent from the state equation (13), even in the form of some (trivial) operator proportional to 1, because all states of the physical spacetime, if treated dynamically on a quantum level, are ideologically projected out from the Hilbert space of the considered quantum system. It leaves in the state equation (13) the operator of energy width as their only remainder (according to the general projecting-out procedure in the Hilbert space ). Of course, the energy related via Eq. (9) to the classical (or, more precisely, classical-valued) field $`\epsilon (x)`$,

$$E_\epsilon (t)=d^3\stackrel{}{x}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2\lambda ^2}\left[\frac{1}{c^2}\dot{\epsilon }^2(x)+\left(\stackrel{}{}\epsilon (x)\right)^2\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\epsilon ^2(x)\right]+g_\epsilon \mathrm{}_\mu j^\mu (x)\epsilon (x)\right\},$$
(55)
and the corresponding (trivial) Hermitian operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}E_\epsilon (t)`$ can be introduced formally into the state equation (13) through the unitary transformation

$$\psi ^{}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{𝟏}E_\epsilon (t^{})\right]\psi (t)=\psi (t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}E_\epsilon (t^{})\right]$$
(56)
which, in fact, is reduced to a phase transformation and thus, is physically unobservable. Naturally, the situation with the antiHermitian operator $`i\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ (also trivial) is quite different as it generates changes of the norm of state vector $`\psi (t)`$ which, in principle, are observable. This is so, in spite of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ as given in Eq. (16) is formally equal to the interaction part of $`E_\epsilon (t)`$ in Eq. (55) \[of course, all the difference is caused by the factor $`i`$ at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$\].

However, in chronodynamics an ultraluminal communication via the classical field $`\epsilon (x)`$ is allowed, resulting in an apparent transfer of energy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ between two quantum systems (for which the averaged four-currents of particles, e.g. photons, are not to be conserved locally i.e., $`_\mu j^\mu (x)0`$ for both). Such a transfer changes slightly the norms of state vectors of both systems what, in principle, can be observed in time.

References

 Cf. e.g. A.L. Fetter and J.D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems, McGraw-Hill 1971.

 W. Królikowski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 24, 1903 (1993); B 26, 1511 (1995); B 27, 2159 (1996); B 29, 2081 (1998); Nuovo Cim. 107 A, 1759 (1994); in the present paper, the description of time deviation and the structure of energy width are improved (as we hope).

 P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th edition, Oxford University Press 1959.

 For a general procedure of projecting out all states of an interacting subsystem from the Hilbert space of a larger quantum system cf. W. Królikowski and J. Rzewuski, Nuovo Cim. 25 B, 739 (1975).

 S. Tomonaga, Progr. Theor. Phys. 1, 27 (1946).

 J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 74, 1439 (1948).