text:
# Width of phonon states on defects of various dimensions

## I Introduction

The interaction of elementary excitations with defects is an old problem of solid state physics. For the case of optical phonons, it has attracted considerable attention in recent years because of the Raman scattering applications for determination of the isotopic composition , for detection of stacking faults in polytypes , for investigations of residual strain and strain relaxation at interfaces in semiconductors .

A refinement of these effects takes the interactions among phonons and with defects into account.

(i) The phonon decay into two (or more) acoustic or optical phonons is possible even at zero temperature. These unharmonic processes give rise to the so-called natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}\omega _0\sqrt{m/M}`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the optical-phonon frequency, $`m`$ and $`M`$ are the electron and atom masses. In spite of the small value $`\sqrt{m/M}10^2`$, the decay processes give the observable linewidth in Raman spectra and the quite small mean-free path $`r_\gamma a\sqrt{\omega _0/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}}10a`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice constant. The decay cross section depends weakly on the phonon frequency since no singularities exist in the final density of states for that processes. Therefore, the natural optical-phonon width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$ can be considered for given material as constant up to room temperatures and for the phonon frequency varying in a small interval of the order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$. Then we obtain for perfect crystals the Lorentzian line shape of Raman spectra.

(ii) The phonon interaction with defects should be considered in two aspects. First, it gives rise to elastic phonon scattering and makes an additional contribution to the phonon width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This contribution (linear in defect concentration $`c`$) can be evaluated  using the golden rule of quantum mechanics. The scattering by defects, being elastic, conserves singularities of the phonon density of states. This is important for the Raman scattering, because we are interested in phonons with small wave vectors. For the short-range potential of defects with the radius of the order of $`a<r_\gamma `$, the singularity arises also in the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as function of phonon frequency $`\omega `$ at the phonon branch edge, i.e., at the maximum (or minimum) value $`\omega _0`$. Thus we obtain the asymmetrical Raman line shape, that was observed in experiments with 3$`C`$-SiC . This asymmetry is sensitive to the defect geometry, which may have the point, line or plain form . Secondly, the interaction with defects can result in appearance of new modes. For instance, the mode forbidden by selection rules in perfect crystals at given experimental conditions has been observed in crystals with the stacking faults which give an example of plain defects in SiC polytypes . Some additional modes were found also in computer simulations for the sequence of number layers with the stacking faults . In addition, the localized mode can be associated with defects .

The problem of localized states on the single isotopic defect has the exact solution. However, the case of the low, but finite defect concentration involves serious difficulties . That is because the solution should be self-consistent for the large distances essential near the edge of phonon branches. If the natural width is ignored, the answer obtained in the series expansion of the phonon self-energy is the following. The edge of phonon branches is displaced linearly in $`c`$ and the band of localized states arises with a width of the order of $`c^2`$. This $`c^2`$ behavior is explained by fluctuations in the spatial distribution of defects.

The aim of the present paper is to consider (taking the natural width into account) the situation when the states localized on defects can exist. We are especially interested in the case when the localized states appear near an edge of optical-phonon branches. Broadening of localized states is found just in the lowest order in the defect concentration $`c`$, if this additional width is larger than the natural phonon width. This unusual behavior is conditioned by the resonance interaction of localized states with the close edge of the extended phonon branch. The defects of different geometries are treated such as point defects, line defects involved by dislocations, and plain defects produced by stacking faults or by the crystallite boundaries. They give the different broadening and asymmetry of the Raman line shape. The preliminary results of the work were published in Ref. .

## II Interaction of phonon modes with defects

We solve the equation for the phonon Green’s function in the form:

$$D(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )=D_0(𝐫𝐫^{},\omega )𝑑𝐫^{\prime \prime }D_0(𝐫𝐫^{\prime \prime },\omega )U(𝐫^{\prime \prime })D(𝐫^{\prime \prime },𝐫^{},\omega ),$$
(1)
where the interaction with defects located in points $`𝐫_n`$ is

$`U(𝐫)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}u(𝐫𝐫_n)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧,𝐪}{}}u(𝐪)e^{i𝐪(𝐫𝐫_n)}.`$

For an isotopic defect, $`u(𝐪)`$ is constant: $`u(𝐪)=u_0=(M_0M)a^3/M_0`$, where $`M`$ and $`M_0`$ are the masses of the defect atom and the host atom, respectively, $`a`$ is the lattice constant. In the following, the large distances from the defect on the atomic scale are important. Then for any type of defects, we can set the Fourier component $`u(𝐪)`$ equal to the constant $`u_0`$ supposing the short-range potential. For the same reason we expand the phonon spectrum near the Brillouin-zone center taking the Green’s function in the absence of defects as

$$D_0(k,\omega )=(\omega _0^2s^2k^2\omega ^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}})^1,$$

where the natural phonon width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$ is connected to decay into acoustic or optical phonons.

The imaginary part of $`D(𝐤,\omega )`$ gives the differential density of squared frequencies. In addition, the Raman intensity $`I(\omega )`$ for phonon excitation with frequency $`\omega `$ and momentum $`𝐤`$ is proportional to $`\text{Im}D(𝐤,\omega )`$ which gives the Lorentzian line shape in the absence of defects

$$I(\omega )\text{Im}D_0(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}}{(\omega _0^2s^2k^2\omega ^2)^2+(\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}})^2},$$

if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$ is assumed to be small in comparison to the frequency $`\omega _0`$.

In the presence of defects, the Green’s function must be averaged over defect positions. It is convenient to use the well-known diagram technique for impurities scattering . This method can be modified  in order to take the possible localized states into account. Performing the iterations of Eq. (1) in $`U(𝐫)`$ and averaging over the defect positions, we have for the sum of noncrossing diagrams:

$`D(𝐤,\omega )=D_0(k,\omega )+cD_0^2(k,\omega )`$ (2)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(u_0)^{n+1}(cD_0(k,\omega )+{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}D(𝐪,\omega ))^n,`$ (3)
which gives after some algebra

$$D(𝐤,\omega )^1=D_0(k,\omega )^1+cu_0\left(1+u_0\underset{q}{}D(𝐪,\omega )\right)^1.$$
(4)
The term of first order only in the defect concentration $`c`$ is held in the phonon self-energy given by the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (4), since we assume that the distance between defects ($`r_cc^{1/2}`$ for line defects) is larger, than the phonon mean-free path $`r_\gamma `$.

Let us emphasize that the phonon self-energy involves the perturbed function $`D(𝐪,\omega )`$, but not $`D_0(𝐪,\omega )`$. Then the Green’s function $`D(𝐪,\omega )`$ has to be found from the integral equation (4). Integration (summation) is perfomed with respect to the 3D-vector $`𝐪`$ for point defects, over the 2D-vector $`𝐪_{}`$ for line defects (then $`q_z=k_z`$), and over $`q_z`$ for plain defects (then $`𝐪_{}=𝐤_{}`$).

The integral equation (4) can be reduced to an algebraic equation. We introduce the new unknown function $`\zeta `$ and the complex variable $`\zeta _0`$ in the case of point defects by the definition

$$D(𝐤,\omega )=(\zeta s^2k^2)^1,\zeta _0=\omega _0^2\omega ^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}.$$

Then Eq. (4) gives

$$\zeta =\zeta _0+c\omega _0^3\left(\frac{\kappa }{\lambda }\kappa +\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\zeta }\right)^1.$$
(5)
In the case of line defects

$$D(𝐤,\omega )=(\zeta s^2k_{}^2)^1,\zeta _0=\omega _0^2s^2k_z^2\omega ^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}$$

and we obtain

$$\zeta =\zeta _0+c\omega _0^2\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\kappa ^2}{\zeta }\right)^1.$$
(6)
For plain defects

$$D(𝐤,\omega )=(\zeta s^2k_z^2)^1,\zeta _0=\omega _0^2s^2k_{}^2\omega ^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}},$$

we have

$$\zeta =\zeta _0+c\omega _0^2\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }\frac{\omega _0}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\right)^1,$$
(7)
where $`\lambda `$ is the dimensionless coupling constant proportional to $`u_0`$, $`c`$ is the atomic concentration of defects in 3D, 2D, or 1D region, respectively for the point, line, or plain defects, $`\kappa `$ is the cutoff frequency, the $`z`$ axis is taken in direction of the line defect or normal to the plane defect, $`𝐤_{}`$ is parallel to the plane defect. The branches of $`\sqrt{\zeta }`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(\zeta )`$ have to be taken in the upper half-plane. We consider the retarded Green’s function which has no singularities in the upper half-plane of complex variable $`\omega `$.

The equations (5)–(7) have two singularities. One at $`\zeta =0`$ is related to the branch edge of the extended optical-phonon mode. Other at $`\zeta _l`$ is related to the localized mode and determined by the zero of expressions in parentheses of Eqs. (5)–(7). For instance, for line defects we have

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\kappa ^2}{\zeta _l}=0$$

which gives

$$\zeta _l=\kappa ^2e^{1/\lambda }.$$

Notice, that the zero $`\zeta _l`$ of the expressions in parentheses, if it exists, is negative. The zero can exist, if $`\lambda >1`$ in the case of point defects, and for any positive $`\lambda `$ in the cases of both line and plain defects.

The situation is schematically explained in Fig. 1, where $`\zeta _0`$ determined by Eqs. (5)–(7) is shown as function of $`\zeta `$. In the regions plotted by solid lines and indicated by the arrows 1, the solution $`\zeta `$ is real for real values of $`\zeta _0`$ and has no singularities in the upper half-plain of $`\omega `$, as it must be for the retarded Green’s function. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}=0`$, this region makes no contribution to the density of phonon states. The second solution $`\zeta `$ (dashed lines indicated by the arrows 2) corresponding to the same $`\zeta _0`$ should be rejected since it has singularities in the upper half-plain. For real $`\zeta _0`$, the solution $`\zeta `$ has the imaginary part in the regions shown by dot-dashed lines and indicated by arrows 3 and 4. The region 3 represents the extended phonon mode. The region 4 shows the localized states.

a) Low concentration of defects: unrenormalized approximation.

We can solve Eqs. (5)–(7) analytically supposing $`c`$ to be small. Using the iterative method (if $`|\zeta \zeta _0||\zeta _0|`$) we obtain on the first step for point defects

$$\zeta =\zeta _0+c\omega _0^3\left(\frac{\kappa }{\lambda }\kappa +\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\zeta _0}\right)^1,$$
(8)
for line defects

$$\zeta =\zeta _0+c\omega _0^2\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\kappa ^2}{\zeta _0}\right)^1,$$
(9)
and for plain defects

$$\zeta =\zeta _0+c\omega _0^2\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }\frac{\omega _0}{\sqrt{\zeta _0}}\right)^1.$$
(10)
This unrenormalized approach corresponds to substituting $`D_0(𝐪,\omega )`$ for $`D(𝐪,\omega )`$ in the self-energy of Eq. (4).

In Eqs. (8)–(10), the terms proportional to the concentration $`c`$ represent the contribution of defects. If Re $`\zeta _0>0`$, i.e., for the region shown by the arrow 3 in Fig. 1, the frequency belongs to the extended states. Then the imaginary and real parts of the second terms on the right-hand side of Eqs. (8)–(10) give the phonon shift and the additional width induced by the defect - phonon scattering. If Re $`\zeta _0<0`$ and for positive $`\lambda `$, the localized states can exist. In the absence of the natural width, they always exist for the cases both the line and plain defects, in accord with the well-known statement of quantum mechanics about the bound state in a shallow potential. However, for the finite value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$, the coupling constant should be strong to give the substantial gap: $`\omega _l\omega _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$. This condition can be rewritten as $`r_lr_\gamma `$, if we introduce the radius of localized states $`r_l=a\sqrt{\omega _0/(\omega _l\omega _0)}`$ and the phonon mean-free path $`r_\gamma =a\sqrt{\omega _0/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}}`$.

b) Self-consistent approach: the square-root behavior.

The conditions of validity for Eqs. (8)–(10) impose a constraint on the concentration of defects $`c`$. It is hard to satisfy the conditions of validity, if $`\zeta _0\zeta _l`$. In fact, the equation $`\zeta _0=\zeta _l`$ determines the frequency $`\omega _l`$ of localized phonon states. For $`|\zeta _0\zeta _l||\zeta _l|`$, we expand the expressions in parentheses of Eqs. (5)–(7) in ($`\zeta \zeta _l`$) and arrive to the quadratic algebraic equation which has the solution

$$\zeta =\frac{\zeta _0+\zeta _l}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{(\zeta _0\zeta _l)^2}{4}bc},$$
(11)
where $`b=4(\zeta _l)^{1/2}\omega _0^3/\pi `$ for point defects, $`b=\zeta _l\omega _0^2`$ for line defects, and $`b=2\omega _0(\zeta _l)^{3/2}`$ for plain defects. We notice again that the solution with the positive imaginary part should be taken in Eq. (11).

If $`\zeta _0\zeta _l`$, we obtain a negative value under the square root in Eq. (11), that gives the imaginary part of $`\zeta `$. Then the imaginary part is determined in competition of $`\omega _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$ with $`2(bc)^{1/2}`$. The region where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}<2(bc)^{1/2}/\omega _0`$ is indicated by the arrow 4 in Fig. 1. This condition may be compatible with the conditions (i) $`r_cr_\gamma `$ for the expansion in terms of $`c`$ used in Eq. (4) and (ii) $`r_\gamma r_l`$ for the existence of localized states. Here, the localized states make the maximal contribution to the differential density of states and to the Raman intensity,

$$\text{Im}\frac{1}{\zeta }=\frac{\sqrt{bc}}{\zeta _l^2},$$
(12)
which is proportional to the square root of the defect concentration. In the opposite limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}>2(bc)^{1/2}/\omega _0`$, we can use the Eqs. (8)–(10) which give the contribution linear in the defect concentration.

c) Self-consistent approach: the numerical solution.

As a matter of fact, each of the equations (5), (6), and (7) is a system of two equations for the real and imaginary parts of $`\zeta `$. This system may be solved numerically. It is convenient to introduce the unknown real variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ as

$$\zeta =\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{x}{y}\right)\right]$$

supposing $`y>0`$ and $`\pi /2<\mathrm{arctan}z<\pi /2`$ in order to comply with the analytical requirements in the upper-half plain. The similar form is used also for $`\zeta _0`$ with $`x\omega ^2\omega _0^2`$ and $`y\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$.

The results of the numerical solution are shown by solid lines in Fig. 2 (line defects) and in Fig. 3 (plain defects) for the cases, when the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ is negative and no localized states exist. We used the values of $`\omega _0=520`$ cm-1 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}=3.2`$ cm-1, which correspond to pure silicon, and the cutoff parameter $`\kappa =\omega _0`$. The unrenormalized approximation is shown by dashed lines. We see that the interaction of phonons with defects results in broadening and shift of the Raman line from the position (dotted line) in the absence of defects.

The broadening is much more on the low-frequency side of the line than on the high-frequency side, that gives the line shape asymmetry. This is an effect of the phonon density of states: the elastic interaction with defects makes a contribution to the phonon life-time only in the region $`\omega ^2<\omega _0^2`$, where the final phonon states exist.

In Fig. 4, the dependences of the line shift and width on the concentration are shown for the point, line, and plain defects. The value of coupling constant $`\lambda =1`$ is taken. We define the full width at half maximum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (FWHM) in the usual way: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega _+\omega _{}`$, where the Raman intensities $`I(\omega _\pm )=0.5I(\omega _{\text{max}})`$ and $`\omega _+>\omega _{\text{max}}>\omega _{}`$. The behavior of the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and of the line position $`\omega _{\text{max}}`$, calculated with the help of Eqs. (5), (6), and (7) is shown in the left panel. In the right panel, the Raman line asymmetry $`(\omega _+\omega _{\text{max}})(\omega _{\text{max}}\omega _{})`$ is plotted. We see that the plain defect affect more intensively on the width and asymmetry, than the line and point defects. To the contrary, the Raman line is shifted more for the point defects.

The cases of the positive coupling constant, when the localized states arise, are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The accurate results (solid lines) differ considerably from that obtained in the unrenormalized approximation (dashed lines). The maximum that was found in the unrenormalized approximation is smoothed out, transforming into a shoulder with the width of the order of $`\sqrt{c}`$ in accord with Eq. (11). Emphasize, that the total number of localized states, integrated over frequency, is proportional to $`c`$ independently of the approximation.

The difference in results for defects of different geometries is evident from Figs. 2–6. These distinctions in the Raman line shape and shift can be detected in fitting to the experimental data.

## III Conclusions

To summarize, we investigate here the structure of the phonon density of states and the Raman line shape in the situation when localized levels $`\omega _l`$ interact strongly with the closely-spaced edge of the extended optical-phonon states. In the linear approximation in defect concentration $`c`$, the contribution of localized states does not have the well-known form of $`\delta `$-function: $`c\delta (\omega \omega _l)`$, if the effect of defect concentration is more essential than the phonon natural width.

The line shape of bulk-phonon extended states is asymmetrical. The additional width (proportional to the defect concentration) arises on the side of line related to the band of extended states. As a most intriguing example, we would like to compare the behavior of the Raman lines of graphite at 1600 cm-1 and of diamond-like material at 1300 cm-1. When defects are added to graphite, the low-frequency wing of the line becomes to drop more slowly than the high-frequency wing (see Figs. 1 and 2 in Ref. ) in just the same way as shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of the present paper. But if it is diamond samples that are impaired, the opposite, i.e. high-frequency, side slopes more gently (see Fig. 7 in Ref.  and Fig. 2 in Ref. ). Using the present theory, the explanation of the phenomenon may be attributed to the difference in the phonon dispersion of these substances. Namely, contrary to graphite, there is a minimum of the optical-phonon branch at the Brillouin zone-center in diamond .

## IV acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the kind hospitality of Max-Plank-Institute für Physik Komplexer Systeme, Dresden, where this work was performed.


format: text

text:
# References

Vector mesons in Quasilocal Quark Models111Talk given at the XV International Workshop on High Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory, Tver’,Russia, Sept.14-20,2000

A. A. Andrianov222Visiting professor at the Departament d’Estructura i Constituents de la Matèria, Universitat de Barcelona, España., V. A. Andrianov and S. S. Afonin

Department of Theoretical Physics, St.Petersburg State University,

198504 St.Petersburg, Russia

## Abstract

We consider the Quasilocal Quark Model of NJL type including vector and axial-vector four-fermion interaction with derivatives. In the presence of a strong attraction in the scalar channel the chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken and as a consequence the composite meson states are generated in the vector and axial-vector channels. The appropriate set of Chiral Symmetry Restoration Sum Rules in these channels are imposed as matching rules to QCD at intermediate energies. The mass spectrum and some decay constants for ground and excited meson states are calculated.

1. Introduction

The QCD-inspired quark models with four-fermion interaction are often applied for the effective description of low-energy QCD in the hadronization regime. The local four-fermion interaction is involved to induce the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB) due to strong attraction in the scalar channel. As a consequence, the dynamical quark mass $`m_{dyn}`$ is created, as well as an isospin multiplet of pions, massless in the chiral limit, and a massive scalar meson with mass $`m_\sigma =2m_{dyn}`$ arise. However it is known from experiment that there are series of meson states with equal quantum numbers and heavier masses, in particular, $`0^+(\pi ,\pi ^{},\pi ^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{})`$; $`0^{++}(\sigma (f_0),\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{})`$; $`1^{}(\rho ,\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{})`$. Due to confinement, one expects an infinite number of such excited states with increasing masses. Therefore in order to describe the physics of those resonances at intermediate energies one can extend the quark model with local interaction of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) type \[1-10\] taking into account higher-dimensional quark operators with derivatives, i.e. quasilocal quark interactions . For sufficiently strong couplings the new operators promote the formation of additional meson states. Such a quasilocal approach (see also \[12-16\]) represents a systematic extension of the NJL-model towards the complete effective action of QCD where many-fermion vertices with derivatives possess the manifest chiral symmetry of interaction, motivated by the soft momentum expansion of the perturbative QCD effective action. In the effective action of QuasilocalModels of NJL type (QNJLM) the low-energy gluon effects are hidden in the coupling constants. The alternative schemes including the condensates of low-energy gluons can be found in .

At intermediate energies the correlators of QNJLM can be matched  to the O.P.E. of QCD correlators . This matching realizes the correspondence to QCD and improves the predictivity of QNJLM. It is based on the large-$`N_c`$ approach which is equivalent to planar QCD . In this approximation the correlators of color-singlet quark currents are saturated by narrow meson resonances. In particular, the two-point correlators of scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial-vector quark currents are represented by the sum of related meson poles in Euclidean space-time:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^C(p^2)=d^4x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)T(\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q(x)\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q(0))_{planar}=\underset{n}{}\frac{Z_n^C}{p^2+m_{C,n}^2}+D_0^C+D_1^Cp^2,$$
(1)
$$CS,P,V,A;\mathrm{\Gamma }=i,\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\mu \gamma _5;D_0,D_1=const.$$

The last two terms both in the scalar-pseudoscalar and in the vector-axial-vector channel represent a perturbative contribution with $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ being contact terms required for the regularization of infinite sums. On the other hand the high-energy asymptotics is provided  by the perturbation theory and the operator product expansion due to asymptotic freedom of QCD. Therefrom the above correlators increase at large $`p^2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^C(p^2)_{p^2\mathrm{}}p^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
(2)
When comparing the two expressions one concludes that the infinite series of resonances with the same quantum numbers should exist in order to reproduce the perturbative asymptotics.

Meantime the differences of correlators of opposite-parity currents rapidly decrease at large momenta :

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }^P(p^2)\mathrm{\Pi }^S(p^2))_{p^2\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{SP}}{p^4}+O(\frac{1}{p^6}),\mathrm{\Delta }_{SP}24\pi \alpha _s<\overline{q}q>^2$$
(3)
and

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }^V(p^2)\mathrm{\Pi }^A(p^2))_{p^2\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}}{p^6}+O(\frac{1}{p^8}),\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}16\pi \alpha _s<\overline{q}q>^2$$
(4)
where we have defined in the V,A channels

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{V,A}(p^2)(\delta _{\mu \nu }p^2+p_\mu p_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }^{V,A}(p^2),$$
(5)
and the vacuum dominance hypothesis  in the large-$`N_c`$ limit is adopted.

Therefore the chiral symmetry is restored at high energies and the two above differences represent a genuine order parameter of CSB in QCD. As they decrease rapidly at large momenta one can perform the matching of QCD asymptotics by means of few lowest lying resonances that gives a number of constraints from Chiral Symmetry restoration. They may be used both for obtaining some additional bounds on the model parameters and for calculating of some decay constants (see, some examples in  and references therein). In the present work the QNJL model is considered with two channels where two pairs of vector and axial-vector mesons are generated. Respectively it is expected to reproduce the lower part of QCD meson spectrum in the planar limit and the leading asymptotics of chiral symmetry restoration for higher energies.

2. Quasilocal Quark Model of NJL-type

The low energy effective action of QCD in the quark sector has a qualitatively different structure depending on whether it is built at the CSB scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by means of perturbation theory  or below the CSB scale when the formation of light pseudoscalar meson is implemented manifestly . We will discuss only the first case where the QNJL model  extends the NJL one with chiral symmetry broken due to strong attractive four-fermion forces in the color-singlet scalar channel. When dynamical quark masses are supposed to be sufficiently smaller than the CSB scale (cutoff) the minimal $`n`$-channel lagrangian of the QNJLM has  the following form,

$$L=\overline{q}i\widehat{}q+L_{SP}^I,$$
(6)
where indices $`S,P`$ denote the scalar and pseudoscalar case and

$$L_{SP}^I=\frac{1}{4N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{kl}[\overline{q}f_kq\overline{q}f_lq+\overline{q}f_ki\gamma _5q\overline{q}f_li\gamma _5q].$$
(7)
$`a_{kl}`$ represents here a symmetric matrix of real coupling constants. We will restrict ourselves by the case $`n=2`$ and describe the ground meson states and their first excitations only. Let us choose the polynomial formfactors as being orthogonal on the unit interval,

$$_0^1f_k(\tau )f_l(\tau )𝑑\tau =\delta _{kl}.$$
(8)
We select out here:

$$f_1(\tau )=23\tau ;f_2(\tau )=\sqrt{3}\tau ;\tau \frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(9)
As this model interpolates the low-energy QCD action it is supplied with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (of order of the CSB scale) for virtual quark momenta in quark loops. For simplicity we neglect the isospin effects encoded in quarks of different flavor, $`N_f=1`$. Moreover the chiral limit $`m_q=0`$ is implied throughout this paper.

Let us now incorporate the vector and axial-vector interaction with appropriate matrix of couplings $`b_{kl}`$,

$$L_{SPVA}^I=\frac{1}{4N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\{a_{kl}[\overline{q}f_kq\overline{q}f_lq+\overline{q}f_ki\gamma _5q\overline{q}f_li\gamma _5q]$$

$$+b_{kl}[\overline{q}f_ki\gamma _\mu q\overline{q}f_li\gamma _\mu q+\overline{q}f_ki\gamma _\mu \gamma _5q\overline{q}f_li\gamma _\mu \gamma _5q]\}.$$
(10)
Following the standard procedure we introduce auxiliary scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial-vector fields,

$$L_{aux}^I=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}i\overline{q}(\sigma _k+i\gamma _5\pi _k+i\rho _{k,\mu }\gamma _\mu +ia_{k,\mu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)f_kq$$

$$+N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\{\sigma _ka_{kl}^1\sigma _l+\pi _ka_{kl}^1\pi _l+\rho _{k,\mu }b_{kl}^1\rho _{l,\mu }+a_{k,\mu }b_{kl}^1a_{l,\mu }\}.$$
(11)
The observables should not depend on the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The scale invariance is achieved by appropriate prescription of cutoff dependence for effective coupling constants $`a_{kl},b_{kl}`$. Namely, we require the cancellation of quadratic divergences and parametrize the matrices of coupling constants in the vicinity of polycritical point as follows,

$$8\pi ^2a_{kl}^1=\delta _{kl}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2};\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$

$$16\pi ^2b_{kl}^1=\delta _{kl}\frac{4}{3}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2};\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$
(12)
The last inequalities provide the masses to be essentially less then the cutoff.

For strong four-fermion coupling constants $`a_{kl}8\pi ^2\delta _{kl}`$ in the scalar channel the above interaction induces the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. In the language of the theory of critical phenomena it is equivalent to developing our model around a critical or scaling point (a critical surface in our case) where the quantum system undergoes the second-order phase transition. The parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl}`$ just describe the deviation from a critical point and determine the physical mass of scalar mesons. The CSB is generated by the dynamic quark mass function corresponding to nontrivial v.e.v. of scalar fields $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$,

$$M(\tau )=\sigma _1f_1(\tau )+\sigma _2f_1(\tau );M_0M(0)=2\sigma _1.$$
(13)
This CSB is characterized by the quark condensate,

$$<\overline{q}q>\frac{N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{8\pi ^2}(\sigma _1\sqrt{3}\sigma _2).$$
(14)
We remark that this quark condensate in general is not defined solely by the dynamical mass $`M_0`$ as in the conventional (one-channel) NJL model but depends also from the second v.e.v. $`\sigma _2`$. Only if the dynamical mass function is strictly constant, $`\sigma _2=\sqrt{3}\sigma _1`$, one reproduces the NJL relation

$$<\overline{q}q>\frac{N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M_0}{4\pi ^2}.$$
(15)
When integrating out the quark fields one comes to the bosonic effective action where the quadratic parts in boson field fluctuations are retained only to describe the meson mass spectrum,

$$S_{eff}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}[\sigma _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^{\sigma \sigma }\sigma _l+\pi _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^{\pi \pi }\pi _l$$

$$+\rho _{k,\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^{\rho \rho ,\mu \nu }\rho _{l,\nu }+a_{k,\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^{aa,\mu \nu }a_{l,\nu }+2\pi _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^{\pi a,\mu }a_{l,\mu }].$$
(16)
Herein $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ (except the last one - $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\pi a}`$, which corresponds to the $`\pi a`$ mixing ) have the structure:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\widehat{A}p^2+\widehat{B},$$
(17)
where the two symmetric matrices - the kinetic term $`\widehat{A}`$ and the momentum independent part $`\widehat{B}`$ \- have been introduced. Several comments are in order.

1. We neglect terms $`O(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})`$ in all calculations.
2. The large-log approximation $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}1`$ is adopted, where $`M_0`$ denotes the dynamical mass at zero external momentum. It is compatible with confinement.
3. In order that the physical masses were insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the effective coupling constants should be weakly dependent on the cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}M_0^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}`$.

The physical mass spectrum can be found from solutions of the corresponding secular equation,

$$det(\widehat{A}p^2+\widehat{B})=0;m_{phys}^2=p_0^2.$$
(18)
The consistency of mass equation in the vector and axial-vector channel imposes the similar scale condition on parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}`$ as in the scalar and pseudoscalar case:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}=O(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}).$$
(19)
Let us display the mass-spectrum for ground meson states and their first excitations. We introduce the notations,

$$\sigma ^2\sigma _1^2+\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}\sigma _1\sigma _2+3\sigma _2^2>0,$$

$$d3\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}+2\sqrt{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22},$$
(20)
and take into account the consistency inequalities

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}<0,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}<0.$$
(21)
Spectrum for scalar and pseudoscalar mesons

$$m_\sigma =4\sigma _1=2M_0;m_\pi =0;$$
(22)
$$m_\pi ^{}^2\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}+\sigma ^2;m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^22\sigma ^2>0.$$
(23)
Spectrum for vector and axial-vector mesons

$$m_\rho ^2\frac{\text{det}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}}{2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}};m_a^2m_\rho ^2+6M_0^2;$$
(24)
$$m_\rho ^{}^2\frac{4}{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}\frac{d}{6\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}m_\rho ^2;m_a^{}^2m_\rho ^{}^2\frac{3}{2}(m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^2)=3\sigma ^2>0.$$
(25)
The prime labels everywhere the corresponding excited meson state.

Let us comment on these spectra.

1. The formula for $`m_\sigma `$ is a well-known Nambu relation.
2. The expression for $`m_a`$ is also a known result (see, for example, -). Combining it with the Nambu relation we arrive to the remarkable equality:

$$m_a^2m_\rho ^2\frac{3}{2}m_\sigma ^2,$$
(26)
which has the same form as the relation for excited meson states (25) for $`m_\pi =0`$.
3. In both spectra the radial excitations are logarithmically heavier than the corresponding ground meson states.
4. The value of mass splitting between excited states in both spectra is logarithmically suppressed as compared with the mass values. Therefore the masses of first excited meson states both in the scalar-pseudoscalar channel and in the vector-axial-vector one are approximately equal.
5. Another prediction is that a mass of $`\sigma ^{}`$-meson is a little more than that of $`\pi ^{}`$-meson. The situation in the vector-axial-vector spectrum is opposite - the $`a^{}`$-meson is a little heavier than $`\rho ^{}`$-one.
6. When taking into account the $`\pi a_1`$ mixing the pion decay constant is determined by the physical meson masses,

$$f_\pi ^2\frac{N_cm_\sigma ^2m_\rho ^2}{16\pi ^2m_{a_1}^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2},$$
(27)
wherefrom it follows that the logarithm of the cutoff is uniquely obtained from this relation in terms of physical parameters.

We identify $`\sigma `$ with $`f_0(4001200)`$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ with $`f_0(1370)`$, $`\pi ^{}`$ with $`\pi (1300)`$, $`\rho `$ with $`\rho (770)`$, $`\rho ^{}`$ with $`\rho (1450)`$ and $`a`$ with $`a_1(1260)`$ . The first excitation of the $`a_1`$ \- the particle $`a^{}`$ \- is not found yet. This second axial-vector state, perhaps, could be found from hadronic $`\tau `$ decays, although there are the strong phase space limitations .The experimental data give us:

$$m_\sigma =400÷1200\text{ MeV};m_\sigma ^{}=1200÷1500\text{MeV};m_\pi ^{}=1300\pm 100\text{ MeV};$$

$$m_\rho =770\pm 0.8\text{ MeV};m_\rho ^{}=1465\pm 25\text{ MeV};m_a=1230\pm 40\text{ MeV}.$$
(28)
The prediction for mass of $`\sigma `$-meson is then

$$m_\sigma 800\text{ MeV},$$
(29)
which is close to the averaged experimental value. Furthermore we have the following prediction for the mass of $`a^{}`$-particle,

$$m_a^{}1465÷1850\text{ MeV}.$$
(30)
The large range for a possible mass of $`a^{}`$-meson is accounted for by a big experimental uncertainty for the mass of $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ mesons. If we accept the averaged values for them, then $`m_a^{}m_\rho ^{}30`$ MeV.

Let us compare the parameters of the NJL and QNJL models. First we notice that in both models the Nambu relation (22) together with (24) leads to the large value of the dynamical mass $`M_0400`$ MeV for physical masses of $`\rho `$ and $`a_1`$ mesons. Then the physical value of the pion decay constant (27) $`f_\pi 90`$ MeV can be achieved for a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ GeV. In turn, in the NJL it leads to a unacceptably high values of the quark condensate (15), $`<\overline{q}q>(310)\text{MeV}^3`$ whereas in the QNJL one can easily adjust the second v.e.v. to reproduce the condensate in agreement with the estimations from Chiral Perturbation Theory  (see also,). In particular, the value $`<\overline{q}q>(250)\text{MeV}^3`$ corresponds to $`\sigma _1\sqrt{3}\sigma _2`$ (see the discussion of this point in the next section).

3. Chiral symmetry restoration constraints

Let us exploit the constraints based on chiral symmetry restoration at QCD at high energies. Expanding the meson correlators (1) in powers of $`p^2`$ one arrives to the CSR Sum Rules. In the scalar-pseudoscalar case (3) they read:

$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^S\underset{n}{}Z_n^P=0;$$

$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^Sm_{S,n}^2\underset{n}{}Z_n^Pm_{P,n}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{SP},$$
(31)
and in the vector-axial-vector one (4) one obtains:

$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^V\underset{n}{}Z_n^A=4f_\pi ^2;$$

$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^Vm_{V,n}^2\underset{n}{}Z_n^Am_{A,n}^2=0,$$

$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^Vm_{V,n}^4\underset{n}{}Z_n^Am_{A,n}^4=\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}.$$
(32)
The first two relations are the famous Weinberg Sum Rules, with $`f_\pi `$ being the pion decay constant. The residues in resonance pole contributions in the vector and axial-vector correlators have the structure,

$$Z_n^{(V,A)}=4f_{(V,A),n}^2m_{(V,A),n}^2,$$
(33)
with $`f_{(V,A),n}`$ being defined as corresponding decay constants.

In the scalar-pseudoscalar case it has been obtained  that:

1. the residues in poles are of different order of magnitude,

$$\frac{Z_{\sigma ,\pi }}{Z_{\sigma ^{},\pi ^{}}}=O(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}).$$
(34)
Moreover, due to $`m_\pi ^{}^2m_\sigma ^{}^2`$ it happens to be

$$Z_\pi Z_\sigma ;Z_\pi ^{}Z_\sigma ^{}Z_0\frac{N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{2\pi ^2}.$$
(35)
2. The remarkable relation takes place:

$$Z_\sigma 4\frac{<\overline{q}q>^2}{f_\pi ^2}.$$
(36)
3. The second CSR Sum Rules constraint results in the estimation for splitting between the $`\sigma ^{}`$\- and $`\pi ^{}`$-meson masses,

$$Z_0(m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^2)24\pi \alpha _s<\overline{q}q>^2.$$
(37)
If the optimal fit for $`f_\pi `$ and the quark condensate is performed then $`\sigma _1\sqrt{3}\sigma _2`$ (see the end of the previous section) and,

$$m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^2\frac{1}{6}m_\sigma ^2.$$
(38)
4. The chiral coupling constant $`L_8`$  are calculated:

$$L_8=\frac{f_\pi ^4}{64<\overline{q}q>^2}(\frac{Z_\sigma }{m_\sigma ^2}+\frac{Z_\sigma ^{}}{m_\sigma ^{}^2}\frac{Z_\pi ^{}}{m_\pi ^{}^2})\frac{f_\pi ^2}{16m_\sigma ^2}(1\frac{6\alpha _s\pi f_\pi ^2m_\sigma ^2}{m_\pi ^{}^4}).$$
(39)
Its value $`L_8=(0.9\pm 0.4)10^3`$ from  accepts $`m_\sigma 800`$ MeV.

In the vector-axial-vector case all residues are found to be of the same order of magnitude in contrast to the scalar-pseudoscalar channel. When using the notation (20) they read:

$$Z_\pi =4f_\pi ^2\frac{N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^4(m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2)(6m_\rho ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}+d)}{32\pi ^2m_\rho ^2m_{a_1}^2m_{a_1^{}}^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}},$$

$$Z_\rho \frac{m_{a_1}^2}{m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2}Z_\pi ;Z_{a_1}\frac{m_\rho ^2}{m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2}Z_\pi ;$$

$$Z_\rho ^{}\frac{Z_1}{m_\rho ^{}^2};Z_{a_1^{}}\frac{Z_1}{m_{a_1^{}}^2};Z_1\frac{3N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{16\pi ^2}.$$
(40)
The relation for $`Z_\pi `$ is considered a constraint on effective coupling constants of the QNJLM $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}`$ (see (27)). The first and the second Sum Rules are fulfilled identically in the large-log approach. The third one takes the form:

$$Z_1(m_{a_1^{}}^2m_\rho ^{}^2)16\pi \alpha _s<\overline{q}q>^2.$$

It is instructive to compare this sum rule with the similar one, (37) in the scalar channel. In terms of (14) and (S0.Ex6) and taking into account eqs.(23), (25) one obtains:

$$\sigma ^2\frac{4N_c\alpha _s}{9\pi }(\sigma _1\sqrt{3}\sigma _2)^2,\text{vector SR}\text{vs.}\sigma ^2\frac{3N_c\alpha _s}{8\pi }(\sigma _1\sqrt{3}\sigma _2)^2,\text{scalar SR}.$$

The minor discrepancy between 4/9 and 3/8 is about 15% and can be referred to the quality of two-resonance approximation. Thus the above sum rules consistently bound v.e.v.’s of scalar fields, i.e. control CSB.

The structure of $`Z_\rho ^{}`$ and $`Z_a^{}`$ shows that if $`m_a^{}m_\rho ^{}`$ then $`Z_a^{}Z_\rho ^{}`$ and therefore $`f_a^{}f_\rho ^{}`$. As a consequence these residues approximately cancel each other in Sum Rules and the one-channel results for $`f_\rho ,f_a`$ holds,

$$f_\rho \frac{f_\pi m_a}{m_\rho \sqrt{m_a^2m_\rho ^2}};f_a\frac{f_\pi m_\rho }{m_a\sqrt{m_a^2m_\rho ^2}}.$$
(41)
After evaluating we get $`f_\rho 0.15`$ and $`f_a0.06`$ to be compared with the experimental values  from the decay $`\rho ^0e^+e^{}`$, $`f_\rho =0.20\pm 0.01`$, and from the decay $`a_1\pi \gamma `$, $`f_a=0.10\pm 0.02`$. We have also a reasonable prediction for the chiral constant $`L_{10}`$

$$L_{10}=\frac{1}{4}(\underset{n}{}f_{A,n}^2\underset{n}{}f_{V,n}^2)\frac{1}{4}(f_a^2f_\rho ^2)5.110^3,$$
(42)
which confronts the phenomenologically accepted estimation  $`L_{10}=(5.5\pm 0.7)10^3`$.

4. Summary

We have shown that the QNJL model truncating low energy QCD effective action in vector sector can serve to describe the physics of meson resonances. The matching to non-perturbative QCD based on chiral symmetry restoration at high energies improves the predictability of the model. The CSR Sum Rules are well saturated by four resonances. Let us summarize the results obtained in the present work.

1. The mass of the second axial-vector particle with $`I=1`$ is predicted. It is comparable with the mass of the vector counterpartner: $`m_a^{}=1465÷1850`$ MeV and the most plausible value of the mass difference is $`m_a^{}m_\rho ^{}30`$ MeV.
2. The estimation on the mass of the $`\sigma `$-meson does not contradict to existing experimental data : $`m_\sigma 800`$ MeV.
3. The couplings $`f_\rho ,f_a`$ and the chiral constant $`L_{10}`$ are evaluated from CSR Sum Rules as matching rules for our model to QCD at intermediate energies, with the result being $`f_\rho 0.15,f_a0.06,L_{10}5.110^3`$;

Finally we would like to mention possible applications of QNJLM. Firstly, such models are thought of as relevant for investigations of behaviour of hadron matter at high temperatures and nuclear densities in the region near the restoration of chiral symmetry. One could expect that for increasing quark densities the mass-splitting is collapsing and therefore excitations become lighter and more important in hadron kinetics. Secondly, QNJLM can be used to describe Higgs particles in extensions of the Standard Model (SM). The models of such extension can be found in .

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the organizers of the International Workshop QFTHEP 2000 in Tver’ and especially to Prof.V.I.Savrin and Dr.V.V.Keshek for hospitality and financial support. This work is supported by Grant GRACENAS, by Generalitat de Catalunya, Grant PIV 1999, and by Grant RFBR 98-02-18137.


text:
# Untitled Document

Individual consistency

of 2-events quantum histories

Giuseppe Nisticò

Dipartimento di Matematica - Università della Calabria

87036 Arcavacata, Rende (CS), Italy

gnistico@unical.it

Roberto Beneduci

Dipartimento di Fisica - Università della Calabria

87036 Arcavacata, Rende (CS), Italy

cabeneduci@libero.it

It is argued that the property of consistency of consistent history approach to quantum physics is not an individual property, in the sense that when such consistency holds, it cannot be attributed to each single sample of the physical system. This fact is not a logical inconsistency but it is in striking contrast with the physical idea of consistency. In this letter we introduce a meaningful notion of consistency, named self-decoherence, based on the concept of mirror projection. We prove that self-decoherence satisfies our tentative criterion of individuality. Furthermore, it is proved that self-decoherence forbids contrary inferences.

In 1984 R.B. Griffiths  proposed a reinterpretation of quantum formalism with the aim of giving a solution to the “well-known conceptual difficulties which arise in various interpretations of quantum mechanics”. While standard quantum theory is based on the concept of event, represented by a projection operator $`E`$ of the Hilbert space $``$ describing the system, the consistent history approach (CHA) is based on the concept of history, which is any finite ordered sequence $`h=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n)`$ of events. The CHA provides the framework in which it is possible to establish whether histories have physical meaning . Such framework is made up of suitable families of histories. Let $`𝐄_1,𝐄_2,\mathrm{},𝐄_n`$ be finite resolutions of the identity, i.e $`𝐄_k=\{E_k^{\left(1\right)},E_k^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},E_k^{\left(i_k\right)}\}`$, where $`E_k^{\left(i\right)}E_k^{\left(j\right)}`$ if $`ij`$ and $`_{i=1}^{i_k}E_k^{\left(i\right)}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. A family $`𝒞`$ of histories is the set of all histories $`h=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n)`$ such that $`E_k=_{\text{some }i}E_k^{\left(i\right)}`$ for a fixed $`n`$-uple $`𝐄_1,𝐄_2,\mathrm{},𝐄_n`$ of resolutions of the identity. When every event $`E_k`$ constituting a history $`h`$ is just an event of $`𝐄_k`$, i.e. if $`E_k𝐄_k`$ for all $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, then $`h`$ is called elementary history. Hence the set $``$ of all elementary histories of $`𝒞`$ is the cartesian product $`=𝐄_1\times 𝐄_2\times \mathrm{}\times 𝐄_n`$. Two histories $`h_1=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n),h_2=(F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_n)𝒞`$ are summable if they differ in only one place, say $`k`$, hence $`E_j=F_j`$ for all $`jk`$, and $`E_kF_k`$; in such a case their sum is $`h_1+h_2=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_k+F_k,\mathrm{},E_n)𝒞`$. The histories $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are said to be alternative if there is $`k`$ such that $`E_kF_k`$.

Let $`h=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n)`$ be a commutative history, i.e. all $`E_k`$ commute with each other. According to quantum theory, the statement “$`h`$ occurs” means that all events $`E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n`$ occur in the given order. Therefore, $`h`$ is identified with the single event $`E_1E_2\mathrm{}E_n=E_1E_2\mathrm{}E_n`$. Though the mathematical notions of CHA are given within the standard quantum theoretical formalism, quantum theory is unable to consider and describe the occurrence of a history when it is not commutative. On the contrary, according to CHA, the histories of a family $`𝒞`$ have physical meaning whenever a condition of consistency is satisfied, which allows to assign a probability of occurrence $`p(h)`$ to every $`h𝒞`$. According to such idea of consistency, the occurrence of an elementary history must imply the non-occurrence of every other elementary history. Therefore, if there is a probability $`p(h)`$ of occurrence of $`h`$, then it must satisfy the sum rule

$$p\left(\underset{j}{}h_j\right)=\underset{j}{}p\left(h_j\right);\underset{h}{}p\left(h\right)=1.$$
$`\left(C.0\right)`$
Moreover, the empirical validity of the theory requires that such probability should be consistent with the probability assigned to single events by quantum theory. Then, another condition for $`p`$ is

(C.1) whenever $`h=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n)`$ and $`[E_j,E_k]=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ then

$$p\left(h\right)=Tr\left(E_nE_{n1}\mathrm{}E_1\rho \right),$$

where $`\rho `$ is the density operator such that $`Tr(E\rho )`$ is the quantum probability of occurrence of the event $`E`$.

Condition (C.1) is satisfied if $`p`$ is the functional $`p:𝒞[0,1]`$, $`p\left(h\right)=Tr\left(C_h\rho C_h^{}\right)`$, where $`C_h=E_nE_{n1}\mathrm{}E_1`$. Such $`p`$ satisfies also (C.0) if and only if

$$Re\left[Tr\left(C_{h_1}\rho C_{h_2}^{}\right)\right]=0\text{for all summable }h_1,h_2.$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
When (1) holds, $`𝒞`$ is said to be weakly decohering.

DEFINITION 1. A family of histories $`𝒞`$ is said to be consistent with respect to $`\rho `$ if it is weakly decohering.

The following P1 and P2 are the basic principles of CHA.

P1: All predictions about the physical system are those obtained by interpreting $`p(h)=Tr(C_h\rho C_h^{})`$ as probability of occurrence of $`h`$, within a consistent family $`𝒞`$.

The notion of family of histories of CHA turns out to be a generalization of the notion of observable of standard quantum theory; this last can be recovered within CHA by considering families of one-event histories $`h=\left(E\right)`$, i.e. generated by only one resolution of the identity. As well as in standard quantum theory it is not possible to non-contextually assign values to all observables , in CHA it is not possible to assign the occurring histories in all consistent families together, without giving rise to contrary inferences, i.e. to contradictions of Kochen-Specker type . This is the content of the single family rule:

P2: the occurrence or the non-occurrence of a history $`h`$ can be considered only within a single consistent family $`𝒞`$, i.e. when $`h𝒞`$ and $`𝒞`$ is weakly decohering.

The correct use of the basic principles of CHA makes it possible to recover all results of standard quantum theory, avoiding important conceptual difficulties .

The question we face in the present paper is whether the consistency of a given family $`𝒞`$ is a property to be attributed to every single sample of the physical system or not. From the point of view of our intuition, given a consistent family $`𝒞`$ and a history $`h𝒞`$, for each individual sample of the physical system there are two mutually exclusive alternatives: either $`h`$ occurs or $`h`$ does not occur. Therefore, the physical idea of consistency which is at the root of CHA suggests that consistency should be an individual property.

In quantum theory and in CHA there are properties which are individual and also properties which are not individual. For instance, the property of having a given value $`c`$ of an observable $`C`$ is individual. The following example shows that the consistency of $`𝒞`$ in definition 1 is not an individual property.

EXAMPLE 1. – Let us consider two density operators $`\rho _1=|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ and $`\rho _2=|\psi _2\psi _2|`$, where $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are two mutually orthonormal vectors of $``$. Let $`\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi _1+\psi _2\right)`$ be a third unit vector. If we put $`E_1=|\phi \phi |`$, then $`E_1\psi _1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi _1+\psi _2\right)=E_1\psi _2`$ and $`E_1^{}\psi _1=E_1^{}\psi _2`$, where $`E_1^{}=\mathrm{𝟏}E_1`$. Therefore, taking $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left[\rho _1+\rho _2\right]`$, we have

$$Tr\left(E_2E_1\rho E_1^{}E_2\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[E_1^{}\psi _1E_2E_1\psi _1+E_1^{}\psi _2E_2E_1\psi _2\right]=0$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
for all projections $`E_2`$. Since $`Tr\left(E_2^{}E_1\rho E_1E_2\right)=0`$ whatever $`E_2`$, the family of histories $`𝒞`$ generated by the history $`(E_1,E_2)`$ is consistent, whatever the projection operator $`E_2`$. This $`E_2`$ can be chosen in such a way that $`𝒞`$ turns out to be consistent neither with respect to $`\rho _1`$, nor with respect to $`\rho _2`$. Indeed, by representing vectors and operators of $``$ with respect to any fixed orthonormal basis $`\left(u_n\right)_{n𝐍}`$ so that $`u_1=\psi _1`$ and $`u_2=\psi _2`$, we have $`\psi _1\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right]`$, $`\psi _2\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right]`$, $`E_1\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 1& 1& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right]`$. Let us consider the histories $`h_1=(E_1,E_2)`$, $`h_2=(\mathrm{𝟏}E_1,E_2)`$ and $`h=h_1+h_2=(\mathrm{𝟏},E_2)`$, where $`E_2\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}& \frac{i}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \frac{i}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right],`$ with $`0<\theta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Then, $`Tr\left(C_h\rho _1C_h^{}\right)=\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}`$, while $`Tr\left(C_{h_1}\rho _1C_{h_1}^{}\right)=Tr\left(C_{h_2}\rho _1C_{h_2}^{}\right)=\frac{1}{4}`$, and this implies $`Tr\left(C_{h_1+h_2}\rho _1C_{h_1+h_2}^{}\right)Tr\left(C_{h_1}\rho _1C_{h_1}^{}\right)+Tr\left(C_{h_2}\rho _1C_{h_2}^{}\right)`$. The same argument applied to $`\rho _2`$ shows that $`Tr\left(C_{h_1+h_2}\rho _2C_{h_1+h_2}^{}\right)Tr\left(C_{h_1}\rho _2C_{h_1}^{}\right)+Tr\left(C_{h_2}\rho _2C_{h_2}^{}\right)`$. Therefore the family $`𝒞`$ generated by $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ is not consistent with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, but it becomes consistent by mixing together the two statistical ensembles represented by $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, i.e. with respect to the mixture $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left[\rho _1+\rho _2\right]`$.

Example 1 suggests the following tentative definition of what is an “individual property” of the physical system.

DEFINITION 2 – A property $`\pi `$ is individual for a quantum system if the following statement holds.

If $`\pi `$ does not hold when the system is described by $`\rho _1`$ or $`\rho _2`$, then $`\pi `$ does not hold when the system is described by any mixture $`\rho =\lambda \rho _1+(1\lambda )\rho _2`$, with $`0<\lambda <1`$.

It must be said that several notions of consistency other than weak decoherence have been introduced in literature to achieve a more strict adherence with the idea of consistency.

M. Gell-Mann and J.B. Hartle  introduced the stronger notion of medium decoherence: a family $`𝒞`$ has the property of medium decoherence if $`Tr(C_{h_1}\rho C_{h_2}^{})=0`$ for all alternative $`h_1,h_2𝒞`$. Now, from (3) it follows that the family $`𝒞`$ of example 1 has the property of medium decoherence with respct to $`\rho `$; but with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ it is not weakly decohering and therefore even medium decoherence does not hold. Thus, medium decoherence is not an individual property.

The linearly positive decoherence proposed by S. Goldstein and D.N. Page  consists in requiring that $`Re[Tr(C_h\rho )]0`$ for all $`h𝒞`$; it is weaker than weak decoherence. Therefore, the family $`𝒞`$ of example 1 is also linearly positive with respect to $`\rho `$, whatever $`E_2`$. We can choose $`E_2`$ so that $`𝒞`$ is not linearly positive with respect to $`\rho _1`$. Let us consider the projection operator

$$E_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}& \frac{1}{2}e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \frac{1}{2}e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right],$$

and the history $`h_1=(E_1,E_2)`$. We have

$$Tr\left(C_{h_1}\rho _1\right)=\psi _1E_2E_1\psi _1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\right).$$

Therefore, for $`0<\theta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$ the condition $`Re(Tr[C_{h_1}\rho _1])0`$ of linear positivity becomes $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}0`$ and it can be violated by a suitable choice of $`\theta `$ and $`\alpha `$. Thus, also linear positivity violates the individuality condition.

Now we consider the ordered consistency introduced by A. Kent to avoid contrary inferences . Following A. Kent we define the ordering $`h_1h_2`$ iff $`E_kF_k`$ for all $`k`$, where $`h_1=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_k,\mathrm{})`$ and $`h_2=(F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_k,\mathrm{})`$. A history $`h_1`$ is said ordered consistent if $`h_1h_2`$ implies $`Tr(C_{h_1}\rho C_{h_1}^{})Tr(C_{h_2}\rho C_{h_2}^{})`$, where both $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ belong to two medium decohering families. When all histories of a medium decohering family $`𝒞`$ are ordered consistent, then $`𝒞`$ is said to be ordered consistent. Not even ordered consistency is individual. Indeed, if we take $`=𝐂^2`$ in example 1, then $`𝒞`$ must be ordered consistent with respect to $`\rho `$, but it does not with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ because it is not weakly decohering.

The lack of individuality exhibited by all these notions of consistency is in striking contrast with the idea of consistency of which they should be the mathematical representation. However, this is not a problem for the logical coherence of the theories, but, rather, it reflects their unability in implementing the individuality of consistency.

Furthermore, the fact that all notions of consistency so far proposed are not individual gives rise to the suspect that individual consistency is a chimera.

Now we show that on the contrary, at least for 2-events histories, a meaningful notion of individual consistency exists, which we call self-decoherence. It is stronger than medium decoherence. Furthermore, contrary inferences are forbidden by self-decoherence.

Our proposal is based on the concept of mirror projection . Given a 2-event history $`h=(E_1,E_2)`$ and a density operator $`\rho `$, a projection operator $`T`$ is a mirror projection for $`(h,\rho )`$ if

M1. $`[T,E_1]=[T,E_2]=\mathrm{𝟎}`$,

M2. $`Tr\left(TE_1\rho \right)=Tr\left(T\rho \right)=Tr\left(E_1\rho \right)`$.

To understand the physical meaning of the mirror projection, we notice that, since (by (M1)) $`T`$ commutes with $`E_1`$, we may compute the quantum conditional probabilities $`p\left(TE_1\right)=\frac{Tr\left(TE_1\rho \right)}{Tr\left(E_1\rho \right)}`$ and $`p\left(E_1T\right)=\frac{Tr\left(TE_1\rho \right)}{Tr\left(T\rho \right)}`$, which are both 1 because of (M2). Therefore, the events $`T`$ and $`E_1`$ are directly correlated: $`T`$ occurs iff $`E_1`$ occurs. Given the history $`h=(E_1,E_2)`$ with $`[E_1,E_2]\mathrm{𝟎}`$, standard quantum theory is unable to describe the occurrence of $`h`$. The existence of a mirror projection $`T`$ for $`(h,\rho )`$ allows to introduce the following notion of occurrence of $`h`$.

(oc) the history $`h`$ occurs if both events $`T`$, which is directly

correlated to $`E_1`$, and $`E_2`$ occur.

Then we are led to the following notion of consistency:

DEFINITION 3. A family $`𝒞`$ of 2-event histories is said self-decohering with respect to $`\rho `$ if there is a mirror projection for $`(h,\rho )`$, for all $`h𝒞`$.

Interesting physical situations may be described by self-decohering histories. The following example was suggested by some works of M.O. Scully, B-G. Englert and H. Walter .

EXAMPLE 2. – Let us consider the two-slits experiment for a particle which possesses, besides the spatial degrees of freedom $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)=𝐱`$, an internal degree of freedom $`s`$ corresponding to a dichotomic observable $`S`$ with spectrum $`\sigma \left(S\right)=\{1,0\}`$. Such a system is described in the Hilbert space $`L_2\left(𝐑^3\right)𝐂^2`$. The event “the particle goes through slit 1 (resp., 2)” is represented by the projection operator $`E_1`$ (resp., $`F_1`$). Given any interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the final screen, by $`E_2`$ we denote the projection operator which represents the event “the particle hits the final screen in a point within $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$”. Therefore $`h_1=(E_1,E_2)`$ and $`h_2=(F_1,E_2)`$ are non-commutative histories which generate a family $`𝒞`$. Now suppose that the state vector of the particle is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\psi _11+\psi _20\right]`$, where $`\psi _1`$ (resp. $`\psi _2`$) is a spatial wave function localized in slit 1 (resp., 2) when the particle is in the two-slits’ region. Therefore

$$E_1\psi _1=\psi _1,F_1\psi _2=\psi _2,E_1\psi _2=F_1\psi _1=0.$$

In this situation the projection operators $`T=|11|`$ and $`U=|00|`$ are mirror projections for $`(h_1,|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$ and $`(h_2,|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$. Therefore the family $`𝒞`$ is self-decohering, so that the history $`h_1`$ (resp., $`h_2`$) may be interpreted as “the particle hits the final screen in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ passing through slit 1 (resp., 2)”. Actually, the which-slit test can be performed for each individual sample of the physical system by measuring together $`E_2`$, $`T`$ and $`U`$. Then we assign history $`h_1`$ ($`h_2`$) to that sample if both $`E_2`$ and $`T`$ ($`U`$) yield a positive outcome.

Now we prove that self-decoherence is an individual property. Let us suppose that (M2) holds for $`\rho =\lambda \rho _1+(1\lambda )\rho _2`$. From $`Tr(E_1T\rho )=Tr(T\rho )`$ we get

$$\lambda Tr\left[(TE_1T)\rho _1\right)]+(1\lambda \left)Tr\right[(TE_1T)\rho _2]=0.$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
The traces in this equation are non-negative because $`E_1TT`$. Therefore (3) implies $`Tr[(TE_1T)\rho _1)]=Tr[(TE_1T)\rho _2]=0`$. In a similar way, $`Tr[(E_1E_1T)\rho _1)]=Tr[(E_1E_1T)\rho _2]=0`$ follows from $`Tr(E_1T\rho )=Tr(E_1\rho )`$. Then $`T`$ must be a mirror projection for both $`(h,\rho _1)`$ and $`(h,\rho _2)`$. Thus individuality condition is satisfied by self-decoherence.

Now we prove that medium decoherence, and hence weak decoherence, hold in a self-decohering family. We limit ourselves to pure density operators $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$: the extension to general density operators is straightforward.

PROPOSITION 1. If $`T`$ and $`U`$ are mirror projections respectively for $`(h_1=(E_1,E_2),\rho )`$, $`(h_2=(F_1,E_2),\rho )`$, where $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$, then the following statement holds.

$$E_1F_1\text{implies}\psi E_1E_2F_1\psi =0.$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
PROOF. Let $`T`$ and $`U`$ be mirror projections for $`(h_1,\rho )`$ and $`(h_2,\rho )`$, respectively, and let $`TU`$ denote the projection operator which is the least upper bound of $`T`$ and $`U`$. If $`E_1F_1`$, by (M2) we get

$$T\psi U\psi ,\left(TU\right)\psi =T\psi +U\psi ,T\psi =\left(TU\right)\psi U\psi .$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi E_1E_2F_1\psi & =T\psi E_2U\psi =\left(TU\right)\psi E_2U\psi U\psi E_2U\psi \hfill \\ & =\psi \left(TU\right)E_2U\psi \psi E_2U\psi \hfill \\ & =\psi E_2\left(TU\right)U\psi \psi E_2U\psi \hfill \\ & =\psi E_2U\psi \psi E_2U\psi =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the fourth equation we have used the fact that since $`E_2`$ commutes with both $`T`$ anf $`U`$, then $`E_2`$ must commute with $`TU`$ (see, for instance, theorem 2.24 in ). Thus, proposition 1 is proved.

Individuality is not sufficient to assign the meaning of consistency to self-decoherence. A sensible notion of consistency should satisfy conditions (C.0) and (C.1). Now, if $`𝒞`$ is self-decohering, the probability of occurrence of $`h=(E_1,E_2)𝒞`$ which agrees with (oc) is $`p(E_1,E_2)=Tr(E_2T\rho )=Tr(E_2E_1\rho )`$. Therefore, it satisfies both (C.0) and (C.1). Furthermore, because of (M1) and (M.2) we have $`p(h)=Tr(E_2T\rho )=Tr(E_2T\rho TE_2)=Tr(E_2E_1\rho E_1E_2)=Tr(C_h\rho C_h^{})`$. Therefore we arrive at the same formula of the probability assumed by CHA, without imposing it. It turns out to be, rather, a natural consequence of the notion of occurrence of a history (oc) we have introduced by means of the concept of mirror projection.

The possibility of contrary inferences is the main critique opposed to CHA. Let us briefly describe them. Suppose that $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ are two different weakly decohering families such that $`h_1=(E_1,E_2)𝒞_1`$ and $`h_2=(F_1,E_2)𝒞_2`$, with $`E_1F_1`$. A. Kent  was able to find examples in which the conditional probabilities $`p_{𝒞_1}(h_1E_2)=\frac{p_{𝒞_1}(h_1)}{p_{𝒞_1}(E_2)}`$ and $`p_{𝒞_2}(h_2E_2)=\frac{p_{𝒞_2}(h_2)}{p_{𝒞_2}(E_2)}`$ are both 1. Therefore, when $`E_2`$ occurs we may state, according to CHA, that also $`E_1`$ occurs within the family $`𝒞_1`$, and that also $`F_1`$ occurs within the family $`𝒞_2`$; on the other hand, $`E_1F_1`$ means that the occurrence of $`E_1`$ excludes the occurrence of $`F_1`$: then we have two inferences which are contrary to each other. They do not entail logical inconsistency for CHA, because they take place in different consistent families. But the meaning of the occurrence of $`E_1`$, or $`F_1`$, once $`E_2`$ has occurred, becomes obscure. This state of affairs has been judged negatively by some authors , according to whom CHA is an unsatisfactory theory.

We can easily prove that such kind of contrary inferences cannot take place if we consider only self-decohering families. Indeed, if $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ are self-decohering we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p_{𝒞_1}\left(h_1\right)+p_{𝒞_2}\left(h_2\right)=& \psi E_1E_2E_1\psi +\psi F_1E_2F_1\psi \hfill & \\ \hfill =& \psi E_1E_2E_1\psi +\psi F_1E_2F_1\psi +\hfill & \\ & +\psi E_1E_2F_1\psi +\psi F_1E_2E_1\psi \hfill & \mathrm{byprop}.1\hfill \\ \hfill =& \psi \left(E_1+F_1\right)E_2\left(E_1+F_1\right)\psi \psi E_2\psi =p\left(E_2\right).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Then the sum of $`p_{𝒞_1}(h_1E_2)=\frac{p_{𝒞_1}(h_1)}{p_{𝒞_1}(E_2)}`$ and $`p_{𝒞_2}(h_2E_2)=\frac{p_{𝒞_2}(h_2)}{p_{𝒞_2}(E_2)}`$ cannot be greater than 1. Thus, contrary inferences are forbidden.

We end with a necessary remark. At this stage we cannot state that self-decoherence is the ultimate consistency’s notion able to solve all difficulties of CHA. Several questions should be seriously examined. A problem is how to extend the notion of self-decoherence to histories made up of more than two events. Another question is whether the following condition should be required for a property $`\pi `$ being an individual property.

C) If $`\pi `$ holds with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, then $`\pi `$ holds with respect $`\lambda \rho _1+(1\lambda )\rho _2`$.

Actually, self-decoherence does not satisfy such further condition . This notwithstanding, we think that self-decoherence possesses sufficiently interesting features to be submitted to the attention of researchers working in the field of foundations of physics.

 R.B. Griffiths, J.Stat.Phys., 36, 219 (1984).

 R.B. Griffiths, Phys.Rev. A54, 2759 (1996); Phys.Rev. A57, 1604 (1998),

R. Omnès, The interpretation of quantum mechanics, Princeton Un. Press, Princeton 1994; Understanding quantum mechanics, Princeton Un. Press, Princeton 1999.

 J.S. Bell, Rev.Mod.Phys., 38, 447 (1966);

S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, J.Math.Mech., 17, 59 (1967).

 A. Kent, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78 2874 (1997); Lect. Notes Physics, 559, 93 (2000).

 M. Gell-Mann and J.B. Hartle, Phys.Rev. D47, 3345 (1993)

 S. Goldstein and D.N. Page, Phys.Rev.Lett., 74, 3715 (1995).

 G. Nisticò and M.C. Romania, J.Math.Phys., 35, 4534 (1994);

G. Nisticò, Found.Phys., 25, 1757 (1995)

 M.O. Scully, B-G. Englert and H. Walter, Nature 351, 111 (1991).

 Here we prove the second statement of (5). If we choose a basis $`\left\{u_n\right\}`$ of the Hilbert space $``$ such that $`u_1=\frac{T\psi }{T\psi }`$ and $`u_2=\frac{U\psi }{U\psi }`$, then by representing the vector $`\left(TU\right)\psi `$ with respect to $`\left\{u_n\right\}`$ we have $`\left(TU\right)\psi =T\psi +U\psi +P\psi `$, where $`P\psi \{T\psi ,U\psi \}`$. It is obvious that $`\left(TU\right)\left(T+U\right)`$. Therefore $`\psi \left(T+U\right)\psi =T\psi ^2+U\psi ^2\left(TU\right)\psi \left(TU\right)\psi =T\psi ^2+U\psi ^2+P\psi ^2`$. Thus $`P\psi =0`$ and $`\left(TU\right)\psi =T\psi +U\psi `$.

 C. Piron, Foundations of quantum physics, Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts 1976.

 A. Bassi and G.C. Ghirardi, Phys. Lett. A257, 247 (1999).

 Indeed, if (C) holds, whenever $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are mirror projections for $`(h,|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ and $`(h,|\psi _2\psi _2|`$, then one mirror projection $`T`$ should exist for both. This implies that such $`T`$ should be a mirror projection for $`(h,\frac{|\psi _1+\psi _2\psi _1+\psi _2|}{\psi _1+\psi _2\psi _1+\psi _2}`$. But this is not always true, as proved in .