format: text

text:
# Impact of Future Submillimeter and Millimeter Large Facilities on the Studies of Galaxy Formation and Evolution

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A significant fraction of galaxies in their youth are expected to be dusty starburst since the first epoch of star formation produces a lot of dust. The radiation of underlying stars is absorbed by dust that re-radiates in the far infrared (IR) (for a review, see e.g., Sanders & Mirabel 1996). For distant galaxies, this emission is redshifted to the the submillimeter and millimieter wavelengths. Hence, observations at these wavelengths are regarded as key for the studies of the formation and early evolution of galaxies.

The first product of any galaxy survey is the number counts, i.e. the number of galaxies as a function of limiting flux in a certain sky area. The evolution of galaxies is often investigated through number counts. Number counts alone do not provide non-degenerate information on the redshifts of detected sources; therefore one constructs a suitable model and extracts the history of galaxy evolution through the model. Various models of IR galaxies have been proposed (e.g., Beichman & Helou 1991; Franceschini et al. 1994; Pearson & Rowan-Robinson 1996; Guiderdoni et al. 1998; Malkan & Stecker 1998; Tan, Silk, & Balland 1999; Takeuchi et al. 1999, 2001; and Pearson 2000) to understand and interpret the observational results. Recent studies using the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) (e.g., Kawara et al. 1998; Puget et al. 1999; Dole et al. 2000; Serjeant et al. 2000; Efstathiou et al. 2000; Kawara et al. 2000; and Okuda 2000) and the Submillimeter Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) (e.g., Smail et al. 1997; Barger et al. 1998; Hughes et al. 1998; Barger, Cowie, & Sanders 1999; Eales et al. 1999, 2000; Holland et al. 1999; and Blain et al. 1999, 2000) have stimulated this field. Unfortunately, observations in the submillimeter wavebands are difficult, mainly because of the following reasons. First, ground-based observations in these wavelengths are hard because of the atmospheric absorption. Second, state-of-the-art instruments are required both for the antennas and for the detectors. New breakthroughs in the submillimeter field are just around the corner with the Large Millimeter and Submillimeter Array (LMSA) and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA).

The LMSA111URL: http://www.nro.nao.ac.jp/~ lmsa/index.html. is the ground-based radio interferometric facility proposed by Japan. In the current design concept the array will consist of 32 12-m antennas, whose total collecting area is $`3619\mathrm{m}^2`$. The baselines can be $`20\mathrm{m}`$ to $`10000\mathrm{m}`$, which realizes the maximum angular resolution of $`0.01\mathrm{arcsec}`$ at 345 GHz. The receivers will cover observing frequencies from 80 to 900 GHz. The array will be located at Pampa la Bola/Llano de Chajnantor, a very high site in Chile, to realize sub-arcsec resolution imaging at the very high frequencies. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA)222URL: http://www.mma.nrao.edu/ (U.S. side) and http://www.eso.org/projects/alma/ (European side). is the new name for the merger of the major millimeter array projects into one global project: the European Large Southern Array (LSA), the U.S. Millimeter Array (MMA), and the LMSA. Hereafter we use the ALMA to describe the whole. The $`5\sigma `$ sensitivities of the LMSA at wavelengths 350 $`\mu `$m, 450 $`\mu `$m, 650 $`\mu `$m, 850 $`\mu `$m, 1.3 mm, and 3.0 mm (mean values in winter season) are 1200, 660, 370, 49, 23, and 14 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1, respectively (8-hour integration and 8-GHz bandwidth) in dual polarization and DSB mode. For the reference of the atmosphere condition and system temperature $`T_{\mathrm{sys}}`$, see Matsushita et al. (1999). The ALMA will consist of 96 12-m antennas, and in this case the $`5\sigma `$ sensitivities at the above wavelengths are 390, 220, 120, 16, 7.5, and 4.6 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1, respectively, under the same assumptions.

The Atacama Submillimeter Telescope Experiment (ASTE) is a Japanese project to install and operate a 10-m submillimeter antenna at Pampa la Bola in the Atacama desert in northern Chile. A new 10-m antenna has been constructed in Nobeyama Radio Observatory in February 2000, and is scheduled to be installed in Chile in 2001. The telescope will be equipped with submillimeter-wave SIS mixer receivers and a submillimeter-wave direct detector camera. This project has two goals: One is to examine the 10-m submillimeter antenna as the technical prototype of the LMSA at the site of northern Chile, and the other is to explore the possibility of the submillimeter observations in the southern hemisphere and to obtain astrophysical results. Details of the present development of the ASTE is given in e.g., Matsuo et al. (2000) and Ukita et al. (2000)333We should also mention that the SMA (Sub-Millimeter-wave Array) will be operational with all 8 telescopes on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, by the end of 2001..

Before the ALMA/LMSA begins operation, a Japanese infrared satellite ASTRO-F will be launched444 URL: http://www.ir.isas.ac.jp/ASTRO-F/index-e.html.. The ASTRO-F will carry out a FIR all-sky survey at two narrow bands, N60 ($`5070\mu `$m) and N170 ($`150200\mu `$m) and two wide bands, WIDE-S ($`50110\mu `$m) and WIDE-L ($`110200\mu `$m). The detection limits are estimated as 39 mJy and 110 mJy for N60 and N170, and 16 mJy and 90 mJy for WIDE-S and WIDE-L, respectively (Takahashi et al. 2000). A huge database of IR galaxies can be expected from the survey. Some other stratospheric and space facilities such as SOFIA (Becklin 1998), SIRTF (Fanson et al. 1998), and FIRST (Pilbratt 1998) are also in progress, but we stress that the ASTRO-F is the one and only all-sky surveyor among these facilities555Since the following discussion of this paper is based on large survey-type datasets, we hereafter concentrate on the estimation based on the ASTRO-F, ASTE, and ALMA/LMSA. Similar discussion for other facilities can be done straightforwardly.. The combination of the FIR data from the ASTRO-F and the submillimeter and millimeter data from the ASTE and the ALMA/LMSA promises to a new era of extragalactic astrophysics and observational cosmology.

In this paper, we study and examine what we can learn about galaxy formation and evolution from the unprecedentedly high-quality data which will be obtained by the ASTE and the ALMA/LMSA through a simple empirical galaxy number count model proposed by Takeuchi et al. (2001). The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the IR galaxy number count model on which our subsequent discussions are based. We also formulate the source confusion limit and optimal survey area to suppress both the fluctuation caused by the source clustering, and the Poisson shot noise by the sparseness of the sources. In Section 3 we show the galaxy number counts at submillimeter and millimeter wavelengths and extensively examine how galaxy evolution and formation epoch affect the number counts. We also discuss the optimal strategy of a survey at these wavelength to obtain the maximal information on galaxy evolution and formation. Section 4 is devoted to our summary and conclusions.

## 2 MODEL DESCRIPTION

### 2.1 Number Count Model

The galaxy number count model is represented by galaxy spectral energy distributions (SEDs), luminosity function (LF), cosmology, and galaxy evolution. We briefly review the number count model by Takeuchi et al. (2001; hereafter T01). Based on this model, we calculate galaxy number counts with various galaxy evolution histories in the subsequent part of this paper.

The FIR SED is constructed based on the IRAS color–luminosity relation (Smith et al. 1987; Soifer & Neugebauer 1991),

$`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{60}}{S_{100}}}=(0.10\pm 0.02)\mathrm{log}L_{60}(1.3\pm 0.2),`$ (1)
where $`S_\lambda `$ is the detected flux density at wavelength $`\lambda `$ \[$`\mu `$m\], and $`L_{60}`$ \[$`L_{}`$\] is the intrinsic luminosity evaluated at $`60`$-$`\mu `$m, $`L_{60}\nu L_\nu `$. This relation is converted to the dust temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}`$$`L_{60}`$ relation, then the modified blackbody continuum with the corresponding $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}`$ are calculated. We then added the mid-IR and radio continuum spectrum based on the empirical correlations between fluxes in these wavelengths and FIR continuum. The final SEDs that we use in our number count and CIRB models are presented in Figure 1. For the full description of the SED construction, see T01.

The $`60`$-$`\mu `$m LF based on IRAS data by Soifer et al. (1987) is adopted as the local IR LF of galaxies and pure luminosity evolution is assumed in this study. Thus the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity of a galaxy at redshift $`z`$ is described by

$`L_{60}(z)=L_{60}(0)f(z).`$ (2)
We also assumed that the luminosity evolution is ‘universal’, i.e. its functional form is fixed. In this paper we call $`f(z)`$ ‘the evolutionary factor’ as in T01.

Using the above formulae, we calculate the galaxy number counts. As we see later, we set the maximum redshift we consider the counts of galaxies into the calculation, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=5`$ and we vary it from $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$ to $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=7`$ to investigate the effect of $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the number counts. T01 statistically estimated the permitted range of the evolutionary factor from the observed IR number counts and the CIRB spectrum. The evolutionary factor is directly connected to the evolution of the cosmic IR luminosity density, which is closely related to the cosmic star formation history (e.g., Kennicutt 1998). The conversion from the IR luminosity to the star formation rate and the interpretation of the evolutionary factor to the cosmic star formation history are discussed in T01. In this paper we examine how the number counts at submillimeter and millimeter wavelengths vary with different evolutions, based on the two representative evolutions from T01 (we call them Evolution 1, and 2 in this paper).

The model of T01 has been constructed based on the properties of IR galaxies, and it slightly underestimates the submillimeter source counts. Therefore in this study, we use an additional model based on the SCUBA source counts. The additional evolution model overestimates the CIRB spectrum, but the possibility of reconciling the CIRB and submillimeter number counts is discussed in Takeuchi et al. (2000); therefore, we do not go into the details of this problem further. We call this model ‘Evolution 3’. These three evolutions are summarized in Figure 2.

### 2.2 Formulation of Source Confusion

We summarize the framework of the source confusion statistics and derive the source confusion limit. The basic formulation of the source confusion was first discussed by Scheuer (1957). The formula for the confusion limit for power-law number counts was formulated in the classical work of Condon (1974), and extended for the case of general number counts by Franceschini et al. (1989).

In this subsection, we briefly re-formulate these issues and examine the formulae carefully for precise numerical calculations. The original formulation of Scheuer (1957) was rather complex, so we use a simper but modern theory of random summation (e.g., Gnedenko & Korolev 1996) to clarify the mathematical structure of the problem.

#### 2.2.1 Statistics of Signal from Faint Sources in the Beam

First we define a differential number count per sr with flux $`S[S,S+dS]`$, $`n(S)dS`$,

$`n(S)dS={\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dS}}|_SdS,`$ (3)
where $`N=N(>S)`$ is the cumulative number count. As a radio telescope scan across the sky, the antenna temperature fluctuates due to many confusing sources passing through the beam. Let $`h(\theta ,\varphi )`$ be the beam pattern (normalized to unity at the beam center), and $`x=Sh(\theta ,\varphi )`$, the response of the telescope to a source of flux density $`S`$ located at an angular position $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ from the beam axis. The mean number of source responses of intensity $`x`$ in a beam is

$`R(x)dx={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{beam}}}}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{h(\theta ,\varphi )}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{h(\theta ,\varphi )}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (4)
The amplitude of the total signal at any point, $`D`$, is a randomly-stopped sum of the responses $`x`$ due to all the sources in the response pattern:

$`D=x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_K,`$
where $`K`$ is the total number of contributing sources. We should note that $`K`$ randomly varies and takes an integer value. The mean number of $`x`$’s, $`\kappa `$, is

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}R(x)𝑑x={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}R(x)𝑑x.`$
The probability that the total number of $`x`$’s has a value $`k`$ is given by a Poisson distribution

$`p_k={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^k}{k!}}e^\kappa .`$ (5)
We have the (cumulative) distribution function (d.f.) of $`x`$, $`F(x)`$,

$`F(x)=𝖯(x^{}<x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x}{\displaystyle \frac{R(x^{})}{\kappa }}𝑑x^{}.`$ (6)
Then the d.f. of a signal $`D`$ with $`k`$ summands is

$`F^{(k+1)}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^D}F^k(Dx^{})𝑑F(x^{}),`$ (7)
$`F^1(D)`$ $`=`$ $`F(D).`$ (8)
Combining eqs. (5), (6), (7), and (8), we obtain the d.f. of $`D`$, $`G(D)`$:

$`G(D)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_kF^k(D).`$
The characteristic function (c.f.) of $`G(D)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G(t)`$, is expressed by the c.f. of $`F(D)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_F(t)`$, as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_G(t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{itD}𝑑G(D)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_k\mathrm{\Phi }_F(t)^k.`$ (9)
Recall that $`p_k=(\kappa ^ke^\kappa )/k!`$, then we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_G(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^ke^\kappa }{k!}}\mathrm{\Phi }_F(t)^k`$
$`=`$ $`e^\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^k\mathrm{\Phi }_F(t)^k}{k!}}`$
$`=`$ $`e^\kappa e^{\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_F(t)}=e^{\kappa (\mathrm{\Phi }_F(t)1)}.`$
The expectation value and variance of a randomly-stopped sum $`D`$ are known to be

$`𝖤[D]`$ $`=`$ $`𝖤[k]𝖤[x_1],`$
$`𝖵[D]`$ $`=`$ $`𝖤[k]𝖵[x_1]+𝖵[k](𝖤[x_1])^2`$
(e.g., Stuart & Ord 1994) where $`𝖤[]`$ and $`𝖵[]`$ represent the expectation and variance, respectively. Thus we have

$`𝖤[D]`$ $`=`$ $`𝖤[k]𝖤[x]=\kappa 𝖤[x]`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}x{\displaystyle \frac{R(x)}{\kappa }}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}xR(x)𝑑x,`$
$`𝖵[D]`$ $`=`$ $`𝖤[k]𝖵[x]+𝖵[k](𝖤[x])^2`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\kappa (𝖤[(x𝖤[x])^2]+(𝖤[x])^2)`$
$`=`$ $`\kappa 𝖤[x^2]={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}x^2R(x)𝑑x.`$
#### 2.2.2 Confusion limit

We next formulate the relation between the beam size $`\theta _0`$ and the source confusion limit. Hereafter we assume that $`h(\theta ,\varphi )=h(\theta )`$. A general case without this assumption is considered by Condon (1974), but the result is not substantially affected by the above simplification. First we discuss the case that the number count is described by a power-law:

$`n(S)=\alpha S^\gamma .`$ (13)
Then we have

$`n\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{h(\theta )}}\right)=\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{h(\theta )}}\right)^\gamma =\alpha h(\theta )^\gamma x^\gamma .`$ (14)
The mean number of $`x`$, $`R(x)`$ is

$`R(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{beam}}}}\alpha h(\theta )^\gamma x^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{h(\theta )}}=\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}x^\gamma ,`$ (15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{beam}}}}h(\theta )^{\gamma 1}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (16)
Here we consider the Gaussian beam pattern:

$`h(\theta )=e^{(4\mathrm{ln}2)\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _0}\right)^2}.`$ (17)
We note that more complex beam patterns can be taken into account. Other beam patterns have been commented upon by e.g., Scheuer (1957) and Franceschini et al. (1989). But in a real situation, the result does not depend on the details of the beam pattern, and a Gaussian beam can be used as a representative case. In Equation (17), $`\theta _0`$ is the FWHM of the beam and relates to the standard deviation of the Gaussian, $`\sigma `$, through $`\theta _0=2\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}2}\sigma `$ . We assume that the beam area on the sky is small enough that the solid angle can be integrated on a plane. Then Condon (1974) derived the effective beam size as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{(4\mathrm{ln}2)(\gamma 1)\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _0}\right)^2}\theta 𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi `$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\pi \theta _0^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{(4\mathrm{ln}2)(\gamma 1)\psi }𝑑\psi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \theta _0^2}{(4\mathrm{ln}2)(\gamma 1)}},`$
$`(1<\gamma <3)`$. In the third step we set $`\psi =(\theta /\theta _0)^2`$. We obtain the confusion limit flux to a cutoff deflection $`x_\mathrm{c}`$:

$`\sigma (x_\mathrm{c})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}x^2R(x)𝑑x`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}x^{2\gamma }𝑑x=\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}x^{2\gamma }𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{3\gamma }}\right)x_\mathrm{c}^{3\gamma },`$
and thus

$`\sigma (x_\mathrm{c})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{3\gamma }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x_\mathrm{c}^{\frac{3\gamma }{2}}.`$ (20)
As usually defined, if we set $`x_\mathrm{c}=q\sigma `$, we have

$`\sigma =\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{3\gamma }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}q^{\frac{3\gamma }{2}}\sigma ^{\frac{3\gamma }{2}}.`$
Thus we obtain the important expression for the case of a power-law number count,

$`\sigma =\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^{3\gamma }}{3\gamma }}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}}(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}})^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}}.`$ (21)
For the Gaussian beam pattern, eqs. (21) and (18) lead to

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^{3\gamma }}{3\gamma }}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \theta _0^2\alpha }{(4\mathrm{ln}2)(\gamma 1)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}}.`$ (22)
This formula is used very frequently, probably because it is expressed in a simple analytic function. However, we should note that this derivation includes a mathematical flaw because $`\theta `$ is integrated from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, even though $`\theta `$ must be small. Fortunately, the above integration converges, but when we generalize the form of the number counts, it diverges, as we discuss below. Therefore we should set a certain cutoff in the integration in the real calculation. Thus, the confusion limit given by Equation (22) is too pessimistic.

We now turn to formulate the confusion limit for the general number counts (Franceschini et al. 1989). Equation (4) leads to

$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}x^2R(x)𝑑x={\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}x^2\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{beam}}}}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{h(\theta )}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{h(\theta )}}\right]𝑑x`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}x^2\left[\pi \theta _0^2{\displaystyle _0^{\psi _\mathrm{c}}}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{e^{(4\mathrm{ln}2)\psi }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{e^{(4\mathrm{ln}2)\psi }}}\right]𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \theta _0^2}{4\mathrm{ln}2}}{\displaystyle _0^{x_\mathrm{c}}}x^2\left[{\displaystyle _1^{\eta _\mathrm{c}}}n(\eta x)𝑑\eta \right]𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \theta _0^2}{4\mathrm{ln}2}}I(x_\mathrm{c}),`$
where $`\psi _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{c}`$ are the upper cutoff, which corresponds to the beam area and is set to obtain a numerically reasonable result. The result strongly depends on the value of the cutoff. Just as in the above discussion, we set $`x_\mathrm{c}=q\sigma `$, so

$`\sigma =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi I(q\sigma )}{4\mathrm{ln}2}}}\theta _0.`$ (24)
Thus, we obtain a general relation between the beam size and the confusion limit as

$`\theta _0=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{ln}2}{\pi I(q\sigma )}}}\sigma .`$ (25)
### 2.3 Required Survey Area

Next we formulate the calculation for the necessary sky area of the survey for the studies of galaxy evolution. In order to estimate the effects of galaxy evolution from survey data, a significant sky area should be scanned to suppress the variation in the galaxy surface number density. Since galaxies are clustered on the sky, the nominal error bar estimated from the assumption of Poisson statistics is an underestimate, and we must take the galaxy angular correlation function into account. Barcons (1992) considered the effect of clustering in his fluctuation analysis. Despite its importance, this problem is often overlooked in the literature on deep surveys. At the faintest fluxes, this additional effect is gradually diluted by the projection along the line of sight. We formulate the effect in the following.

Consider a survey area $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and divide it into small cells $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i\}`$ so that the number of galaxies in the cell $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i\}`$, $`𝒩_i=0`$ or 1. We set the mean galaxy surface number density $`𝒩`$. Then we have a mean number in a solid-angle cell $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, $`𝒩_i`$,

$`𝒩_i=𝒩\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i.`$ (26)
By definition, we have $`𝒩_i=𝒩_i^2=𝒩_i^3=\mathrm{}`$. We observe

$`𝒩_i𝒩_j`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^2(1+w(\theta _{ij}))\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ (27)
$`(𝒩_i𝒩_i)(𝒩_j𝒩_j)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_i𝒩_j𝒩_i𝒩_j`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`𝒩^2w(\theta _{ij})\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_j,`$
where $`w(\theta )`$ is the angular two-point correlation function of galaxies. Next we consider the number of galaxies $`N`$ in the survey area $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We have

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}𝒩_i={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒩d\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒩\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (29)
$`N^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝒩_i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝒩_j`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒩d\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }𝒩^2(1+w(\theta _{12}))d\mathrm{\Omega }_1d\mathrm{\Omega }_2}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒩^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+𝒩^2{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }w(\theta _{12})d\mathrm{\Omega }_1d\mathrm{\Omega }_2}.`$
and thus

$`(NN)^2=N^2N^2=𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒩^2{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }w(\theta _{12})d\mathrm{\Omega }_1d\mathrm{\Omega }_2}.`$ (31)
If we assume that we take sufficiently wide area whose dimension is much larger than the coherent scale of angular clustering, we can approximate the above expression as

$`(NN)^2`$ $``$ $`𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒩^2\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}w(\theta )d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }\left(1+𝒩{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}w(\theta )d\mathrm{\Omega }\right).`$
Here we evaluate the ‘signal-to-noise ratio’ of the number counts $`𝖲/𝖭`$:

$`𝖲/𝖭`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{(NN)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }\left(1+𝒩_\mathrm{\Omega }w(\theta )d\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}}}`$ (33)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{_\mathrm{\Omega }w(\theta )d\mathrm{\Omega }}}}.`$
The approximation used in the third step can be adopted when $`𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is sufficiently large. We see that the $`𝖲/𝖭`$ depends on the angular correlation strength and the solid angle of the survey and is almost independent of the surface density of the sources $`𝒩`$. This fact shows that, in order to determine galaxy evolution from number counts, large-area surveys are required. The angular correlation function of the IRAS galaxies is $`w(\theta )=(\theta /\theta _0)^{0.66}`$ ($`\theta _0=0.{}_{}{}^{}11`$: Lahav, Nemiroff, & Piran 1990). We assume that the submillimeter sources and the faint radio sources have the same clustering properties as IRAS galaxies. But even if we observe the same species of galaxies as the IRAS galaxies, an IR galaxy appears to be bright at FIR but faint at submillimeter; therefore, we should assume their SEDs and convert the correlation function. For the relatively bright radio sources, a steeper clustering power-law exponent $`w(\theta )\theta ^{(1.1\text{}1.4)}`$ has been reported by Cress et al. (1996). The angular correlation of galaxies out to a fainter flux limit is obtained by using the scaling relation of $`w(\theta )`$ with a detection limit through the relativistic Limber’s equation (e.g., Peebles 1980).

Using this formula, in Section 3.3 we estimate the minimum survey area required for a sufficient $`𝖲/𝖭`$.

## 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

### 3.1 The Galaxy Number Count Predictions Expected in the ALMA/LMSA

First we show the galaxy number counts \[$`\text{sr}^1`$\] from $`90\mu `$m to 3 mm expected by the ALMA/LMSA in Figure 3. The dotted curves describes the no-evolution predictions at each wavelength. The other curves depict the expected number counts with the three evolutionary histories discussed in Section 2.1, Evolution 1, 2, and 3. All of these evolutions give a good fit to the FIR data and we cannot distinguish between each other with the present quality of the observed data (T01). Some observed source counts are also shown in Figure 3. In the IR, we plot the galaxy counts from Stickel et al. (1998), Kawara et al. (1998), Puget et al. (1999), and Dole et al. (2000), Juvela, Mattila, Lemke (2000), Matsuhara et al. (2000), and Efstathiou et al. (2000). We also show the IRAS 100 $`\mu `$m galaxy counts by a hatched thin area at brightest flux. In the submillimeter, the data are taken from Smail et al. (1997), Barger et al. (1998), Barger, Cowie, & Sanders (1999), Hughes et al. (1998), Eales et al. (1999), Holland et al. (1999), and Blain et al. (1999, 2000). At 1.3 mm, we show the preliminary result of MAMBO (Max-Planck Millimeter Bolometer array) reported by Bertoldi (2000).

### 3.2 The Source Confusion Limits

We calculated the source confusion limits at the submillimeter and radio wavelengths based on Evolution 2. The results are shown in Figure 4. The angular resolution of the ALMA will be better than $`0_{}^{^{\prime \prime }}01`$, i.e., there will never be a confusion problem in the ALMA observation, and we do not show it in Figure 4. When the slope of the number counts is flat, the source confusion limit will be much improved if better angular resolution can be achieved. On the other hand, in the case that the slope of the number counts is very steep, the source confusion limit will not be drastically improved even with a much better angular resolution. Since the slope of the submillimeter counts is steep in the brighter flux regime and gets flatter towards the fainter fluxes, the confusion limit becomes lower quickly if the beam size (FWHM) becomes small.

In the submillimeter regime, we see that SCUBA ($`\text{beam size}=14.5\text{arcsec}`$) deep surveys are nearly confusion-limited. Recently Hogg (2000) pointed out that if the number count slope is steep, i.e., $`d\mathrm{log}N/d\mathrm{log}S\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1.5`$, the information of faint sources can be completely destroyed by the confusion effect. Eales et al. (2000) also performed a Monte Carlo simulation and concluded that their estimated fluxes of the submillimeter SCUBA sources are actually boosted upwards significantly. The median boost factor is 1.44, with a large scatter; in the worst case the bias reaches an order of magnitude. They also showed from their simulations that 19 % of their SCUBA sources have positional errors greater than 6 arcsec. Therefore, we should be quite cautious of the fluxes or positions of the faintest submillimeter sources. Considering this point, we can obtain the flux safely for sources brighter than $`10`$ mJy. In the next subsection, we see that a reliable survey at brighter fluxes is crucially important for the study of galaxy evolution. The large-area submillimeter survey of sources brighter than 10 mJy by the ASTE is suitable for this purpose.

On the other hand, the high angular resolution of the ALMA/LMSA results in a very low confusion limit of $`<1\mu `$Jy. Thus, we can estimate the flux and position of such faint sources very precisely. Since the slope of the number counts of millimeter sources becomes flatter at such faint fluxes, improving the angular resolution provides a drastically better confusion limit.

### 3.3 Submillimeter Bright Source Counts and Galaxy Evolution at $`z=12`$

In order to derive information on evolution at $`z=12`$ from submillimeter source counts, we modify the evolutionary factor and examine how the number counts vary with the modification. We show the evolutionary factors used here in the top panel of Figure 2. The thick solid step function is Evolution 1 itself. We first modify Evolution 1 so that the evolutionary factor at $`z=12`$ is $`10^{1.5}`$. Secondly we set the evolutionary factor at $`z=12`$ to be $`10^{2.0}`$. The resulting number counts are shown in Figure 5. The effect of the different evolutions at $`z=12`$ is clearly seen in the bright end of the number counts in Figure 5. However an important problem arises here. For measuring the number counts in such a bright flux regime, a very large-area sky survey is required. Since the number density of the sources is so small and the statistical fluctuations are large, secure determination of the counts is difficult.

The necessary sky area is estimated by using the formulation presented in Section 2.3. The characteristic depth of a survey is defined by the survey flux limit, $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}`$. As we mentioned in Section 2.3, we here assume that the submillimeter sources brighter than 100 mJy are clustered as strongly as the IRAS sources brighter than 0.7 Jy, which have the angular correlation function $`w_0(\theta )=(\theta /\theta _0)^{0.66}`$.

We define the relative characteristic depth of a survey by $`d_{}=(0.1[\text{Jy}]/S_{\mathrm{lim}}[\text{Jy}])^{1/2}`$. Then, the angular clustering $`w(\theta )`$ is scaled as

$`w(\theta )=d_{}^1w_0(d_{}\theta )`$ (34)
where $`w_0(\theta )`$ is the angular correlation function of the survey whose flux limit is 0.1 Jy. Under the assumptions mentioned above, the clustering of the submillimeter sources is expressed as

$`w(\theta )=d_{}^{1.66}w_0(\theta ).`$ (35)
The signal-to-noise ratio defined in Section 2.3 becomes

$`𝖲/𝖭=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{d_{}^{1.66}_\mathrm{\Omega }w_0(\theta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^{0.5}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{(S_{\mathrm{lim}}/0.1)^{0.83}\mathrm{\Omega }}{_\mathrm{\Omega }w_0(\theta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^{0.5},`$
and we obtain

$`S_{\mathrm{lim}}=0.1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{(𝖲/𝖭)^2_\mathrm{\Omega }w_0(\theta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^{1/0.83}.`$ (36)
In the left panel of Figure 6 we show the area–limiting flux relation derived directly from eqs. (33) and (35). In fact, the equation is well approximated by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(S_{\mathrm{lim}})S_{\mathrm{lim}}^{2.5}.`$ (37)
The above approximation is valid as long as the fluctuation by clustering dominates the variance. Since recent observations of the submillimeter number counts suggest strong galaxy evolution (Section 1), the number counts increase rapidly toward fainter fluxes. Consequently, the Poisson fluctuation is small as compared with the clustering variance and the condition for the approximation is satisfied. Thus, the relation presented in Figure 6 is well represented by Equation (36).

We can also estimate the relative observation time to perform such a survey by multiplying $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}^2`$ by the obtained sky area $`\mathrm{\Omega }(S_{\mathrm{lim}})`$. It is straightforward to see that the relative observation time is roughly proportional to $`\sqrt{S_{\mathrm{lim}}}`$. Therefore, the fainter the limiting flux, the shorter the required observation time. This is presented in the right panel of Figure 6. But actually, as we discussed above, we cannot make the flux limit too faint ($`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ mJy) because of severe source confusion.

If we adopt $`𝖲/𝖭=5`$, the required survey area is $`10\mathrm{deg}^2`$ at 10 mJy, which is large but not unreasonable for a present-day submillimeter survey. If $`𝖲/𝖭=3`$, then the survey area is $`20\mathrm{deg}^2`$ at 50 mJy. Thus, the large-area survey by the ASTE is suitable for this purpose. For the minimal survey of $`1\text{deg}^2`$, the virtual observation time is estimated to be approximately 200 hours by a single-pixel detector. If the array-type detector is available, this survey will be performed much more quickly and efficiently.

We note that these predictions depend on the assumed clustering strength. When the survey is finished, we will have a large database of submillimeter sources with firm counterpart associations. Using the resulting catalog, we will be able to estimate the angular clustering properties of the submillimeter sources. If the variance of the detected source counts are different than what we assumed, then it provides important quantitative information on the clustering evolution of dusty galaxies. We stress that this will be another important purpose of this survey.

### 3.4 Faintest Source Counts and Galaxy Formation

We next adopt three other cases for the evolutionary factor $`f(z)`$ to examine the effect of the galaxy formation epoch on the number counts at submillimeter and radio wavelengths. First we use the evolutionary histories based on Evolution 2, and vary the the cutoff redshifts as $`z_{\mathrm{form}}=2`$, 3, 5, and 7. We note that this cutoff redshift represents the epoch of the formation or appearance of the dusty galaxies, and does not necessarily imply the formation of all species of galaxies. In addition, we also study the case of submillimeter-based Evolution 3, introduced in Section 2.1. For the modified evolutionary histories based on the Evolution 3, the redshift cutoff are also set to be $`z_{\mathrm{form}}=2`$, 3, 5, and 7.

The resulting number counts with various redshift cutoffs are shown in Figure 7. The top two panels present the number counts at 850 $`\mu `$m and 1.3 mm with Evolution 2. The bottom tow panels show the number counts with Evolution 3. The effect of the cutoff is clearly seen in the faintest end of the number counts in these two panels. In the bottom panel of Figure 7, the effect of redshift cutoff is more prominent than in the top panel.

In contrast to the case discussed in Section 3.3, a very deep detection limit is required to investigate the redshift cutoff, i.e., the galaxy formation epoch. The extremely deep survey by ALMA/LMSA is a unique opportunity for this purpose. At such a faint flux level, the variance of the number count is diluted by the large source surface density and the source projection; we can, therefore, distinguish between the predictions of different models presented in Figure 7.

When we discuss such a deep flux limit, the dynamic range of a detector should be taken into account. If a very bright source exists in the field of view, the faintest sources near the detection limit cannot be detected in the field. We evaluated the probability that the sources $`10^3`$ times brighter than the $`5\sigma `$-detection limit of the LMSA and ALMA exist in a field of view. The field of view of the LMSA observation is 20-arcsec diameter circular area ($`7.4\times 10^9`$ sr). The number density of the sources $`10^3`$ times brighter than the $`5\sigma `$ limit at each waveband, $`N`$, is directly obtained from Figure 3. For example, $`N`$ of the ALMA at $`850\mu `$m is $`4\times 10^4\text{sr}^1`$. Then we obtain the expectation value of the number of very bright sources compared with the detection limit found in the field of view, $`\mu =N\times (\text{field of view})`$. By using this value, we can treat the probability of finding $`k`$ bright sources in the field as a Poisson process

$`P_\mu (k)={\displaystyle \frac{e^\mu \mu ^k}{k!}}.`$ (38)
Then the probability that more than one source exist in the field of view is

$`1P_\mu (0)=1e^\mu .`$ (39)
Even in the worst case of the ALMA (when we use Evolution 3) the probability is $`3\times 10^4`$. Thus, the probability that a very bright radio source lies in the field of view is so small that we do not have to worry about the dynamic range, and we can safely obtain the information of very distant faint sources.

### 3.5 Redshift Estimation from the Dust Continuum

Determination of source redshifts is an important but quite challenging issue in cosmological studies. Information on source redshifts enables us to construct the LF as a function of redshift. We here assume the LF shape to be unchanged during evolution, but this is a strong assumption which should be tested with observational data. Spectroscopic observations will be extremely difficult or almost impossible on very distant objects, and alternative methods are necessary. In the optical wavelength, photometric redshift technique has provided a breakthrough for further studies of ultra high-redshift objects (e.g., Fernández-Soto et al. 1999).

On the other hand, at longer wavelengths such as the far-IR (FIR) or submillimeter it is harder to estimate source redshifts because of the smooth nature of their SEDs. Takeuchi et al. (1999) tried to estimate redshifts roughly from FIR photometry and found a practical possibility. Carilli & Yun (1999) proposed the radio-to-submillimeter spectral index as a redshift indicator for star-forming galaxies. They used the correlation between the FIR flux from the thermal dust and the radio flux from the synchrotron emission from the interstellar matter and supernova remnants, and utilized the spectral index between the two kinds of emission as a function of redshift.

Though the radio-to-submillimeter index method is now often used to estimate the redshift of submillimeter sources, the origin of the two components of radiation is substantially different. If we can estimate the redshift of the sources from the ratio of two or more flux densities which have the same physical origin, it will be undoubtedly the most desirable method.

We here develop such a method which is an extension of the attempt of Takeuchi et al. (1999). We use FIR and submillimeter/millimeter flux densities for this purpose. For the FIR database, we suppose the wideband photometric catalog of the ASTRO-F FIR all-sky survey. At FIR to submillimeter wavelengths, continuum emission is dominated by blackbody radiation from the big dust grains in equilibrium with the ambient ultraviolet radiation field. Thus, the flux densities in this wavelength range are radiated from the same emission mechanism.

First we show the redshifted SED of an infrared galaxy with luminosities $`10^8`$, $`10^{10}`$, $`10^{10}`$, and $`10^{12}L_{}`$ at redshift $`z=0.1,0.5,1.0`$, and 5.0 in Figure 8. The $`5\sigma `$-detection limits of ASTRO-F and LMSA are also shown. The problem is that the peak of the blackbody radiation shifts not only with redshift but also with dust temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}`$. Therefore, this method suffers from this degeneracy. Is it useless as a redshift estimator? In order to clarify this point, we present the detected flux densities and flux density ratios of star-forming galaxies as a function of redshift in Figure 9. The top two panels are the flux–redshift relations at $`170\mu `$m and $`850\mu `$m. The horizontal dotted line in the top-left and top-right panels depicts the detection limit at each wavelength. The middle and bottom panels present the color–redshift relations. Submillimeter colors are a strong function of redshift, and we expect that they work well as rough redshift indicators.

But the ambiguity is of order unity and is too large for, e.g., estimating the shape evolution of the source LF. Here we can use some additional information. We use the empirical relation between FIR luminosities of galaxies and the flux ratio $`S_{60\mu \mathrm{m}}/S_{100\mu \mathrm{m}}`$ (Equation (1)) when we construct the SED model. Therefore when we obtain the flux ratio of a source, we can estimate the luminosity $`L_\nu (\text{at }60\mu \mathrm{m})`$. Then we compare the estimated flux density

$`\widehat{S}_{60(1+z)\mu \mathrm{m}}={\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)\widehat{L}_\nu (\text{at }60\mu \mathrm{m})}{4\pi d_\mathrm{L}(z)^2}}`$ (40)
with the detected flux density at the corresponding wavelength. If the two flux densities are significantly different, we correct the assumed $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}`$ and repeat this trial. Thus we can obtain the redshift estimation by an iterative procedure. Galaxies do not degenerate in the color–color–flux three-dimensional space (Figure 10), and we safely use this method. We call this the dust-$`z`$ method.

In order to examine the accuracy of the dust-$`z`$ method, we performed a series of Monte Carlo simulations. We assumed the following observational wavebands: 60, 90, 170, 450, 850, 1300, and 3000 $`\mu `$m. The errors in flux measurements are set to be 5 % and 30 %. We input the assumed SEDs and added random errors to them, and calculate their ‘observed’ fluxes. Then we performed the above algorighm, and estimated the redshifts and luminosities of simulated galaxies. The result of the simulation is presented in Figure 11. We show the estimates for galaxies with input luminosity $`10^{10},10^{12}`$, and $`10^{14}L_{}`$. The input redshifts of galaxies are fixed to 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0. We examined two representative cases where the errors are $`5`$ % and $`30`$ %. In these simulations, we calculated 100 realizations for each redshift and luminosity. We conclude that if the error in each band is $`5`$ % (i.e. $`S/N20`$), then the redshift can be successfully estimated by the dust-$`z`$ method. Even in case the error is $`30`$ %, the uncertainty in the estimation is comparable or even better than some other presently used indirect methods for redshift estimation (cf. Rengarajan & Takeuchi 2001).

We also evaluate the uncertainty in the adopted SEDs. Taking the error in Equation (1) into account, we assess the error of $`40`$ % in luminosity estimation. The luminosity of galaxies in the FIR is well approximated by $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}T_{\mathrm{dust}}^{4+\gamma }`$, hence the error in temperature estimation is at most $`(1\pm 0.4)^{1/4+\gamma }1\pm 10`$ %. The peak frequency, $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$, obeys the Wien displacement law: $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}=5.88\times 10^{10}T`$. Thus, the error associated with the uncertainty in SED templates is evaluated as $`10`$ %.

This method works effectively when we have many photometric bands or channels. Therefore, instruments that have a large number of wavebands are very useful for this purpose. This method provides us not only the redshift information but also the dust temperature of the submillimeter sources at the same time. This will surely be a strong constraint on the star formation history of galaxies.

### 3.6 $`1.4`$-GHz Radio Source Counts

We show the comparison of the observed 8, 5, and 1.4 GHz source counts and our model counts in Figure 12 to examine the contribution of star forming galaxies to the faint radio galaxies. The observational data are taken from Windhorst et al. (1995), Richards et al. (1998) (8 GHz), Fomalont et al. (1991), Hammer et al. (1995) (5 GHz), White et al. (1997), Ciliegi et al. (1999) and Gruppioni et al. (1999) (1.4 GHz). At 8 GHz the observed source counts are slightly higher than our model prediction, but the discrepancy is not so significant because the survey areas are quite small in these studies. The 5 GHz data are well reproduced by the present model. Recent studies revealed that the faint radio sources with flux densities $`S_\nu 110\mu `$Jy are dominated by actively star-forming galaxies (e.g., Haarsma et al. 2000). At $`1\text{}0.01`$ Jy we see an excess of 1.4-GHz sources compared with our model calculations. The excess component mainly consists of radio galaxies that are dominated by ellipticals and are not directly related to the star formation in galaxies. But the observed counts and model predictions show a convergence with each other toward the fainter flux regime. This supports the claim of Haarsma et al. (2000); thus, we expect that the millijansky radio sources are really star-forming galaxies.

In such a long wavelength as 1.4 GHz (20 cm), we must be careful of the diffraction limit. We show the $`5\sigma `$-confusion limit of the 1.4 GHz observations in Figure 13. The model basically treats the contribution of the star-forming galaxies, but as we mentioned above, bright nonthermal sources contribute to the source confusion at this wavelength. We take their contribution to the confusion estimation. The dashed line in Figure 13 is the confusion when only the star-forming galaxies are taken into account, and the solid thick line represents the confusion limit including strong nonthermal radio sources.

Then we investigate what we know from the faint radio source counts. We present the radio number counts based on the evolutionary histories presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 in Figures 14 and 15. Figure 14 clearly shows that the faint radio counts at 1.4 GHz depend on the evolutionary status of galaxies at $`z=1\text{}2`$. On the contrary, Figure 15 demonstrates that the 1.4-GHz counts are almost insensitive to the evolutionary status of galaxies at $`z>2`$. The redshift information by direct measurement is required for very high-$`z`$ objects to evaluate the star formation activity, as studied by Haarsma et al. (2000).

This result shows that deep radio surveys are another probe of galaxy evolution in the redshift range $`z=1\text{}2`$. It should be tested by comparison with future results from submillimeter large-area surveys, discussed in Section 3.3.

## 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we investigated what we can learn about galaxy formation and evolution from the data which will be obtained by the forthcoming new large submillimeter/radio facilities, mainly by the ASTE and the ALMA/LMSA.

We first calculated the source counts from $`90\mu `$m to 3 mm by using the infrared galaxy number count model of Takeuchi et al. (2001). Based on their number counts, we then derived the source confusion noise and estimated the confusion limits at various wavebands as a function of the characteristic beam size.

We found that, at the submillimeter wavelengths, source confusion for the 10 – 15-m class facilities becomes severe at the 0.1 to 1 mJy level, and astrometry and flux measurement are difficult. Then we showed that a very large-area survey of the submillimeter sources brighter than 10 – 50 mJy can provide a unique constraint on the infrared galaxy evolution at $`z=1\text{}2`$, and such a survey is suitable for a facility such as the ASTE. A large area is required to suppress the statistical fluctuation caused by galaxy clustering on the sky. Such a survey will also enable us to study the clustering properties of the bright submillimeter sources, which is still highly unknown.

We also found that the $`5\sigma `$-confusion limit of LMSA reaches to $`1\mu `$Jy, which enables us to study the contribution of sources at extremely large redshifts. The source counts at such a faint flux level give important information on the galaxy formation epoch. At such faint fluxes the statistical uncertainty stated above is small enough that we can safely estimate the galaxy number counts.

We then discussed the possibility of using multiband photometric measurements in the infrared (by ASTRO-F in this work) to the millimeter as a rough redshift estimator. We suggested that the source redshift can be obtained from the color and flux of the thermal dust emission. More precise redshift values can be estimated by ‘the dust-$`z`$ method’, which additionally uses the relation between the $`S_{60\mu \mathrm{m}}/S_{100\mu \mathrm{m}}`$ color and the luminosity at $`60\mu `$m. Thus multiband instrument is very welcome for this purpose. We examined the effectiveness of this method by Monte Carlo simulations and found that it successfully works if we have reasonable measurement accuracy. In addition, the forthcoming IR facilities such as ASTRO-F and SIRTF will provide very good information of IR SEDs of galaxies, which will certainly improve the validity of the method.

We calculated the comparison of the observed 1.4 GHz source counts and our model counts, to examine the contribution of star forming galaxies to the faint radio galaxies. The faint radio counts at 1.4 GHz depend on the evolutionary status of galaxies at $`z=1\text{}2`$ but are insensitive to the evolutionary status of galaxies at $`z>2`$. In order to explore the radio properties of such high-$`z`$ sources, we need a direct measurement of their redshifts.

First we thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions and comments. We also thank Drs. Hiroshi Shibai, T. N. Rengarajan, Hiroshi Matsuo, Hideo Matsuhara, Nobuharu Ukita, and Tomonori Totani for fruitful discussions and comments. We are grateful to Drs. Shin Mineshige and Yasushi Suto for continuous encouragement. HH, KY, and KN are grateful to JSPS fellowship. We made extensive use of the NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service (ADS).


text:
# On Ordering of Operators in Canonical Quantization in Curved Space

## 1 Introduction

Various procedures of quantization (canonical, path integration, quasiclassical, deformational) of classical mechanics are more or less well–developed mathematical theories. However, being used to construct the quantum mechanics (QM)111I will use the term ‘quantum mechanics’ for the restricted problem of quantization of the minimal set of observables that is necessary to describe the dynamics of a physical system, while ‘quantization’ will mean a more general problem of mapping from a sublalgebra of the Poisson algebra of functions on a phase space onto a set of operators on a Hilbert space, or for modifications of this problem. for a concrete classical system, the procedures occur to be ambiguous. For example, the result of canonical quantization depends generally on the definition of ordering of operators of observables in their products, see, e.g., , though there is no ambiguity for the standard oscillator–like systems. This ambiguity manifests itself also in the path integral formalism, see, e.g., . This situation does not trouble apparently the mathematicians, because they consider different versions of the same approach, as cohomologically equivalent . However, the ambiguities are essential in physics, because they can lead, for example, to different Hamilton operators and, thus, are unequivalent from a physicist’s point of view.

A point-like, chargless and spinless particle moving along a geodesic of the $`n`$–dimensional Riemannian space $`V_n`$ is an especially interesting example of a system, to which different QMs correspond under canonical quantization. This is the simplest and, therefore, elementary physical

object, and its dynamics has a clear geometrical meaning. At the same time, there are a lot of more complicated conceptual systems whose dynamics can be modelled as a motion in some $`V_n`$ (see, e.g. ).

In the present paper, it is shown that the ambiguity of ordering of operators can be removed if the condition of consistency (to an extent that can be reached) between the canonical and quasiclassical approaches to QM of the elementary particle in $`V_n`$ is imposed. At first sight, it looks strange to deduce a general rule of ordering

from the consideration of a concrete system, and, moreover, from the consideration of a particular operator of an observable, namely, the Hamilton one. However, if the rule is supposed to be universal, and only a single version is provided by the condition of the consistency in the particular but fundamental and geometrically determined case, then it is natural to accept the selected rule as the general one. After that, it selects ”the physically true” definition of the path integral.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.2, the form of the Hamilton operator originally obtained by B.DeWitt  from the quasiclassical (WKB) propagator is discussed. The general scheme of canonical quantization and its particular versions determined by the Weyl and Rivier orderings are recalled in Sec.3. In Sec.4, the Hamilton operators in QM in $`V_n`$ for the mentioned orderings are written out and compared with the DeWitt’s one; it is shown here that the consistency can be achieved only for a single combination of the Weyl and Rivier orderings. This combination is proposed as a distiguished rule of canonical quantization in general. Relation of the selection of the rule of ordering to definition of the path integral for propagator is discussed in Sec.5. Short conclusions are made in Sec.6.

## 2 Quasiclassical quantum potential

Let $`\omega _{ij}(\xi ),i,j,k,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},n,\{\xi ^i\}V_n`$, is the metric tensor of $`V_n`$ , the latter being supposed an elementary manifold. Then the representation space (the space of states) can be taken as $`L^2(V_n;;\sqrt{\omega }d^n\xi )`$. The general form of a one-particle Hamilton operator in the Schrödinger representation is the same for the canonical and quasiclassical approaches222The index 0 is attached to $`\widehat{H}_0`$ for consistency with notation in  where it denotes a nonrelativistic Hamilton operator. In the present context, relativistic and nonrelativistic classical theories are equivalent and the corresponding quantum ones can differ (This is one more problem of quantization.) Thus, QM is considered here on a nonrelativistic level, see also :

$$\widehat{H}_0=\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )+V_q(\xi )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\xi V_n,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )`$ is the Laplace–Beltrami operator in $`V_n`$ and $`V_q(\xi )`$ is the so called quantum potential.

In the quasiclassical approach, DeWitt  came to the Hamilton operator (1) with

$$V_q^{(\mathrm{DW})}(\xi )=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{1}{6}R(\xi ),$$
(2)
instead of the expected $`V_q(\xi )=0`$; here $`R(\xi )`$ is the scalar curvature .

DeWitt  started with the following conjecture on a one-particle propagator333 Here, I change slightly the notation in eq.(7.8) in  and restrict the consideration to the time–independent metric tensor $`\omega _{ij}(\xi )`$:

$$<\xi ^{},t^{}|\xi ,t>=\omega ^{1/4}(\xi ^{})D^{1/2}(\xi ^{}|\xi )\omega ^{1/4}(\xi )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}S(\xi ^{},t^{}|\xi ,t)\right)$$
(3)
where $`D`$ is the Van Vleck determinant, and $`S(\xi ^{},t^{}|\xi ,t)`$ is a solution of the Hamilton–Jacobi equation in both the sets of arguments. This propagator is a generalization to $`V_n`$ of the WKB-propagator constructed by Pauli  for a particle in an electromagnetic field in the flat space. Considering the limit $`t^{}t(\xi ^{}\xi )`$ along the geodesic line

connecting $`\xi ^{}`$ and $`\xi `$, DeWitt comes to the following Schrödinger equation

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{t^{}}<\xi ^{}|\xi >+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}(\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi ^{})+\frac{1}{6}R(\xi ^{}))<\xi ^{}|\xi >=o(\xi ^{}\xi ))<\xi ^{}|\xi >$$
(4)
and, thus, to eq.(2).

This was an outstanding result that surprised DeWitt himself, because it was for the first time when the curvature appeared explicitly in a fundamental equation, thus breaking the (weak) Principle of Equivalence. (A clear exposition of the Principle can be found in ). Since beginnings of QM there was a confidence that $`V_q(\xi )=0`$, based on the work by Podolski  on QM in the curvilinear coordinates in the Euclidean space. Much later, Sniatycki  came to the same result using the Blattner-Kostant-Sternberg kernel in the framework of geometric quantization. At last, for $`n=3`$, there is a support in favor of $`V_q^{(\mathrm{DW})}(\xi )`$ from the relativistic theory of scalar field: for the space-time $`TV_3`$ eq.(1), is a non-relativistic consequence of the quantum theory of a scalar field coupled conformally to the geometry, (see details in ).

Consider now the general scheme of the canonical formalizm.

## 3 Canonical quantization in $`V_n`$

We start with the phase space $`X_{2n}=R^{}V_n`$, the trivial cotangent bundle over the configurational space $`V_n`$, in which the Darboux (canonically conjugate) coordinates

$$\{p_i\}R_n^{},\{\xi ^i\}V_n$$
(5)
are introduced. We assume also that all coordinate lines for $`\{\xi ^i\}`$ are complete and not closed, that is $`\mathrm{}<\xi ^i<\mathrm{}`$. In this sense, $`\xi ^i\}`$ are similar to the Cartesian coordinates; this assumption is necessary because, in the canonical quantization, one starts usually with polynomials as observables and genereralize the class of functions by use of the Fourier transforms . A physical interpretaion of this very restrictive assumption is that local manifestations of the space curvature are taken into account.

For our purposes, quantization (see, e.g., ) can be defined as a map

$$𝒬:_{2n}f(p,\xi )\widehat{f}(\text{an operator acting in }L^2(V_n;;\sqrt{\omega }d^n\xi )),$$
(6)
where $`_{2n}`$ is an appropriate subalgebra of the Poisson algebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(X_{2n})`$–functions; the map Q is assumed to satisfy the following postulates of quantization:

1) $`1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$;

2) $`\{f,g\}i\mathrm{}^1(\widehat{f}\widehat{g}\widehat{g}\widehat{f})\stackrel{def}{=}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}^1[\widehat{f},\widehat{g}]`$ where $`\{.,.\}`$ is the Poisson bracket on $`X_{2n}`$;

3)$`\widehat{\overline{f}}=(\widehat{f})^{}`$ where the overline and the dagger denote, respectively, the complex conjugation and the Hermitean conjugation with respect to the inner product in $``$ ;

4) for a complete set of functions $`f^1(x),\mathrm{},f^n(x),f^i(X_{2n}),(\{x\}\{p,\xi \})X_{2n})`$, the corresponding operators $`\widehat{f}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{f}^n`$ also form a complete set, that is, if $`[\widehat{f},\widehat{f}^i]=0`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, then

$`\widehat{f}=\widehat{f}(\widehat{f}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{f}^n)`$.

The real functions $`f(x)(X_{2n})`$ are observables for a classical system on $`X_{2n}`$. The Darboux coordinates are particular cases of such functions, and, since any $`f(x)`$ can be expressed through these coordinates, the latter can be called basic classical observables. The corresponding quantum operators of the observables acting in $`L^2(V_n;;\sqrt{\omega }d^n\xi )`$ are

$$\xi ^i\stackrel{𝒬}{}\widehat{\xi }^i=\xi ^i\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},p_j\stackrel{𝒬}{}\widehat{p}_j=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}(_j+\frac{1}{4}_j\mathrm{ln}\omega )$$
(7)
The main problem is further to construct the map $`f(p,\xi )\stackrel{𝒬}{}\widehat{f}`$ in terms of the basic observables $`\widehat{p},\widehat{\xi }^i`$. In the canonical approach, one proceeds as follows :
1) Starts with (real) polynomial observables:

$$f(p,\xi )=f+\underset{a,b}{}f_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}^{j_1\mathrm{}j_l}\xi ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{i_k}p_{j_1}\mathrm{}p_{j_l};$$
(8)
2) substitutes $`p_j,\xi ^i`$ by $`\widehat{p}_j,\widehat{\xi }^i`$, respectively;
3) hermitizes the obtained operator by a certain rule of ordering of $`\widehat{p}_j,\widehat{\xi }^i`$;
4) generalizes the rule, if possible, to a class of observables $`f(p,\xi )`$ wider, than that of polynomials.

There are infinitely many realizations of this scheme. They are classified, e.g., in . Consider now two examples, one of which, the Weyl ordering, is the most popular one, and the both of them are important for our further consideration.

Example 1. According to , the Weyl ordering as applied to polynomial (8) consists in complete symmetrization of operators $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$ in each monomial in the right-hand side of eq.(8) after substitutions $`p_i\widehat{p}_i,q^j\widehat{q}^i`$. The result can be represented in $`V_n`$ as

$`f(p,\xi )`$ $`\stackrel{𝒬}{}(\widehat{f}\psi )(\xi )`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`(2\pi \mathrm{})^n\omega ^{\frac{1}{4}}(\xi ){\displaystyle d^n\stackrel{~}{\xi }d^np\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}(\xi ^i\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i)p_i\right)f(p,\frac{\xi +\stackrel{~}{\xi }}{2})\omega ^{\frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{\xi })\psi (\stackrel{~}{\xi })}.`$
Further, this result is taken as a rule determining an operator $`\widehat{f}`$ for any function $`f(p,\xi )`$ for which the expression has a meaning.

Example 2. Rivier  proposed a correspondence that is equivalent to the following one

$`f(p,\xi )\stackrel{𝒬}{}(\widehat{f}\psi )(\xi )`$
$`=(2\pi \mathrm{})^n\omega ^{\frac{1}{4}}(\xi ){\displaystyle d^n\stackrel{~}{\xi }d^np\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}(\xi ^i\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i)p_i\right)\frac{f(p,\xi )+f(p,\stackrel{~}{\xi })}{2}\omega ^{\frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{\xi })\psi (\stackrel{~}{\xi })}.`$ (10)
An argument in favor of this rule was that it provides one-to-one correspondence between infinitesimal canonical transformations on $`X_{2n}`$ and infinitesimal unitary transformations in $``$. It is easily shown that the Rivier rule of quantization (10) leads to the following ordering of each term in (8): .

$$\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\xi }^{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{\xi }^{i_k}\widehat{p}_{j_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{p}_{j_l}+\widehat{p}_{j_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{p}_{j_l}\widehat{\xi }^{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{\xi }^{i_k})$$

A question of fundamental importance is: which rule of ordering should be used to obtain QM of the most elementary physical system, a point-like, spinless and chargeless particle, if external gravitation is switched on in the form of nontrivial time-independent space metric?

## 4 Quantum Mechanics of Geodesic Motion in $`V_n`$

Having the correspondence (7) and reducing the general problem of quantization to a formulation of QM corresponding to the geodesic motion of a particle , one should only construct a quantum counterpart for the Hamilton function

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2m}\omega ^{ij}(\xi )p_ip_j$$
(11)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle According to the scheme given above, the problem consists in the choice of ordering of operators

$$\widehat{\xi }^i,\widehat{p}_j,\widehat{\omega }^{ij}\stackrel{def}{=}\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })=\omega ^{ij}(\xi )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}.$$

Note that the metric tensor becomes now an operator determined in fact by the von Neumann rule for quantization : if $`f\stackrel{𝒬}{}\widehat{f}`$, then $`g(f)\stackrel{𝒬}{}g(\widehat{f})`$. Then, the variety of natural orderings which give $`\widehat{f}=\widehat{f}^{}`$ for $`f(p,\xi )=\overline{f}(p,\xi )`$, is exhausted by linear combinations of the Weyl and Rivier orderings considered above. However, other more exotic versions of ordering might be introduced by representing $`\omega ^{ij}`$ as a product of other observables and taking their symmetrizations with $`\widehat{p}_i`$ and $`\widehat{p}_j`$, as it is done in , but we do not consider here these possibilities.

The Hamilton operators for the Weyl and Rivier orderings are, respectively,

$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Weyl})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m}}(\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })+2\widehat{p}_i\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })\widehat{p}_j+\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j)`$ (12)
$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Riv})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}(\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })+\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j)`$ (13)
Using representation (7) for the basic operators, after some algebra, one obtains both the Hamilton operators in the form of eq.(1) with a quantum potential, respectively,

$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Weyl})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_j(\omega ^{ij}\gamma _i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_i_j\omega ^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega ^{ij}\gamma _i\gamma _j\right)`$ (14)
$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Riv})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_j(\omega ^{ij}\gamma _i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega ^{ij}\gamma _i\gamma _j\right)`$ (15)
where $`\gamma _i\stackrel{def}{=}\gamma _{}^{k}{}_{ki}{}^{}`$, and $`\gamma _{}^{k}{}_{ij}{}^{}`$ are the Christoffel symbols for metric tensor $`\omega _{ij}`$ .

One sees that the quantum potentials in both the cases are noncovariant, with respect to diffeomorphisms of $`V_n`$, though the ”kinematic” term $`(\mathrm{}^2/2m)\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )`$ is a scalar operator. It can be explained by that the coordinates $`\xi ^i`$ play in the theory a two-fold role: they provide $`V_n`$ by a manifold structure and, at the same time, as a part of $`2n`$ coordinates of the phase space $`X_2n`$, they are classical observables. Correspondingly, $`\widehat{\xi }^i`$ form a complete set of quantum observables, in terms of which the preparation and observation of a state of the system is performed.

The dependence of the quantum dynamics on a choice of observables (that form ”the quantum statics” according to ) via the Hamilton operator is hidden in the standard QM in the flat space by use of Cartesian coordinates as position observables, for which $`V_q=0`$. There, a use of curvilinear cordinates, e.g., the spherical ones, is done a posteriori, after introduction of the Hamilton operator in terms of basic observables which are firmly related to Cartesian coordinates. The curvilinear coordinates are used only as an auxiliary mathematical tool and, thus, play only the first part of the two-fold role mentioned above. The situation changes drastically in $`V_n`$ where one forced to use curvilinear coordinates as

basic observables from the begining, and the problem of noncovariance of the quantum potential arises inevitably.

This problem is often circimvented by taking $`\widehat{H}_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )`$ as a postulate. However, it leads us out the framework of the canonical formalism, and, what is much worse, one comes then to noncovariance of the exponent term in the path integral, see  and Sec.5 of the present paper.

Adopting the line which we has taken, return now to the Hamilton operators 14,15. It is easy to see that no linear combination of them can produce a scalar quantum potential. However, there is a combination $`\widehat{H}_0^{(new)}`$ which is consistent with Hamilton operator 4 in a particular class of coordinates (and, consequently, of the position observables).

To show this, consider $`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Weyl})}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Riv})}`$ in the normal quasi-Cartesian system of coordinates $`\{y^a\},`$ with its origin at the point $`\xi ^i`$; indices $`a,b,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are further used to denote components of objects in the coordinate system $`\{y^a\}`$. In these coordinates, the values of $`y^a`$ at an arbitrary point $`\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$ are $`y^a=h^as`$ where $`s`$ is the distance along the geodesic connecting points $`\xi ^i`$ and $`\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$, and $`h^a`$ are components of the tangent vector to the geodesic with respect an orthonormal $`n`$-tuple at the origin $`\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$.

In the normal quasi-Cartesian system, the metric tensor $`\omega _{ab}`$,

its derivatives with respect to $`y^a`$, and, consequently, the Christoffel symbols $`\gamma _{}^{a}{}_{bc}{}^{}(y)`$ can be expressed as a power series with coefficients that are polynomials of components of the curvature tensor

$$R_{}^{a}{}_{bcd}{}^{}=_d\gamma _{}^{a}{}_{bc}{}^{}_c\gamma _{}^{a}{}_{bd}{}^{}+\gamma _{}^{a}{}_{de}{}^{}\gamma _{}^{e}{}_{bc}{}^{}\gamma _{}^{a}{}_{ce}{}^{}\gamma _{}^{e}{}_{bd}{}^{}$$

and of the covariant derivatives of the tensor. Then, using the Veblen method of affine extensions  and the contracted Bianchi identities, one obtains the following representations for Hamilton operators:

$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Weyl})}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R|_{y=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_aR)|_{y=0}y^a+O(y^2)\right).`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R(\xi )+O(s^2)\right).`$ (18)
$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Riv})}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R|_{y=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(_aR)|_{y=0}y^a+O(y^2)\right).`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R(\xi )+O(s^2)\right).`$
(In transitions from eq.(17) to eq.(18) and from eq.(19) to eq.(19), asymptotic relation

$$R(\xi ^{})=R(\xi )_iR(\xi ^i\xi ^i)=R(\xi )_iR(xi)(\xi ^i\xi ^i)+O(s^2)=R(\xi )_aR(y)|_{y=0}h^as+O(s^2)$$

is used). It is seen from here that a Hamilton operator with any coefficient of

$`R(\xi )`$ can be obtained by appropriate linear combination of $`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Weyl})}(y)`$ and $`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Riv})}`$. Our aim is to get a local consistency between a certain ordering rule in canonical quantization and the WKB result eq.(4) in the neighborhood of the origin $`\xi ^i`$, We see easily that combination

$`\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{new})}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Weyl})}(y)\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{Riv})}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R(\xi )+O(s^2)\right)`$
is just the Hamilton operator in the Schrödinger equation (4) in the approximation indicated there.

In terms of the basic operators $`\widehat{p}_j,\widehat{\xi }^i`$

$$\widehat{H}_0^{(\mathrm{new})}=\frac{1}{2m}\widehat{p}_i\omega ^{ij}(\widehat{\xi })\widehat{p}_j,$$
(21)
that is the simplest of possible Hermitean expressions which can be constructed from $`\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{p}_j`$ and $`\omega ^{kl}(\widehat{\xi })`$.

The further logic is very simple. If an ordering rule is universal for quantization of any $`f(x,p)`$ then one should consider the combination of the Weyl and Rivier orderings in the right-hand side of eq.(4) as the general rule of ordering distinguished by the condition of local coincidence of WKB and canonical QMs. The corresponding general formula of quantization is the combination of quantizations (9) and (10)

$`f(p,\xi )`$ $`\stackrel{𝒬}{}`$ $`(\widehat{f}\psi )(\xi )`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`(2\pi \mathrm{})^n\omega ^{\frac{1}{4}}(\xi ){\displaystyle }d^n\stackrel{~}{\xi }d^np\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}}(\xi ^i\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i)p_i)(2f(p,{\displaystyle \frac{\xi +\stackrel{~}{\xi }}{2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f(p,\xi )+f(p,\stackrel{~}{\xi })}{2}})\omega ^{\frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{\xi })\psi (\stackrel{~}{\xi }).`$
## 5 The path integral and canonical formalism

In the path integral formalism one usually starts with the following formal expression for the propagator

$$𝕂(\xi ^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime }|\xi ^{},t^{})=<\xi ^{\prime \prime }|e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}(t^{\prime \prime }t^{})\widehat{H}_0}|\xi ^{}>$$
(23)
which is proposed to be approximated as

$$𝕂(\xi ^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime }|\xi ^{},t^{})=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{A=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\omega (\xi _A)}d^n\xi _A\underset{B=1}{\overset{N1}{}}<\xi _A|e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}ϵ\widehat{H}_0}|\xi _B>$$
(24)
where $`ϵ=(t^{\prime \prime }t^{})/N`$ and $`\xi _0=\xi ^{},\xi _N=\xi ^{\prime \prime }`$. The problem is: from where does one know the Hamilton operator $`\widehat{H}_0`$ from? At least, the following answers are possible:

1) To find it from experiments.

2) To postulate it as a differential operator in $`L^2(V_n;;\sqrt{\omega }d^n\xi )`$; the standard postulate is $`(\mathrm{}/2m^2)\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

3) To quantize canonically $`H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$, solving somehow the problem of ambiguities.

4) To conjecture the form of $`𝕂(\xi ^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime }|\xi ^{},t^{})`$ for $`t^{\prime \prime }t^{}`$ and to determine $`\widehat{H}_0`$ from the asymptotic Schrödinger equation ; this is just the Pauli–DeWitt way .

5) To deduce the Schrödinger equation as an asymptotic of the corresponding quantum field theory, as it is done in .

Consider approach 2) to the path integration following , where the reader is referred for details. These authors, as many others, consider the general covariance of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ as a necessary condition. (From my point of view, it is a sort of prejudice that does not take into attention the two-fold role of coordinates mentioned above.) Having taken the standard expression

$$(\mathrm{}/2m^2)\mathrm{\Delta }$$

, one should express it in terms of the basic operators $`\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{q}^j`$. To this end, one should to take any canonically obtained Hamilton operator and to subtract the nonvanishing noncovariant quantum potential

$`V_q`$ corresponding to the ordering chosen. (In , the latter is the Weyl ordering). After that, $`V_q`$ will be inevitably present in the exponential of any resulting form of the path integral. For example, it reads in the lagrangean form

$`𝕂(\xi ^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime }|\xi ^{},t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}ϵ}\right)^{\pi N/2}\underset{A=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\omega (\xi _A)}d^n\xi _A}`$ (25)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{B=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{1/4}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_B)}{[\omega (\xi _B)\omega (\xi _{B1})]^{1/4}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}}ϵL^{(\mathrm{eff})}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_B,{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B\xi _{B1}}{ϵ}})\right]`$
where $`L^{(\mathrm{eff})}(\xi ,\dot{\xi })=L^{(\mathrm{cl})}(\xi ,\dot{\xi })V_q(\xi )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ denotes that the value of the function $`f`$ taken in a special way depending on the ordering chosen; if the Weyl one is adopted, then

$$f(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A)\stackrel{def}{=}f\left(\frac{\xi _A\xi _{A1}}{2}\right))$$

; for the ordering introduced in the present paper

$$f(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A)\stackrel{def}{=}2f\left(\frac{\xi _A+\xi _{A1}}{2}\right)\frac{f(\xi _A)+f(\xi _{A1})}{2}$$

Thus, we come to the conclusion that the direct canonical approach, that does not appeal to the general covariance, leads to $`L^{(\mathrm{eff})}(\xi ,\dot{\xi })=L^{(\mathrm{cl})}(\xi ,\dot{\xi })`$ in eq.(25) that corresponds better to the original Feynman idea. However, a dependence of the path integral on the choice of ordering remains in the form of a rule of evalution of $`f(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A)`$.

## 6 Conclusion

The approach adopted here can be considered as a sort of a ”physical” experiment with different mathematical schemes of quantization. A physical system (point-like particle moving along a geodesic in $`V_n`$) taken as a probe is the simplest geometrically and physically meaningful one when the ambiguities of quantization clearly manifest themselves. At the same time, the system is sufficiently fundamental that the results obtained by its consideration might be used to select a preferred version of the canonical quantization, in general. The system considered reveals also a dependence of the quantum dynamics on the choice of the basic observables (on ”the quantum statics”) . In particular, this question seems to be important for such fundamental

problem as quantization of gravitation where a separation of the proper dynamics of the gravitational field from effects of the choice of coordintes is one of the main dificulties. In any case, our knowledge of the quantum theory would not be complete without clear realization the basic questions considered here.

Acknowledgement

The author is deeply grateful to the Russian Foundation for Basic Research which supported this work by Grant No 00-01-00871 and to Professor B.M.Barbashov for a useful discussion.