text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Rotational invariance in quantum mechanics is usually associated with spin-singlet states. In this article, after having first established a uniqueness theorem relating rotational invariance and spin-singlet states, a statistical classification is carried out. In effect, it will be shown that, within the construct of the proposed mathematical model, rotationally invariant quantum states can only occur in pairs. These pairs will be referred to as isotropically spin-correlated states (ISC) and will be defined more precisely later on. This in turn will suggest a statistical classification procedure into systems containing paired states and those that do not. It will be shown that a system of $`n`$ coupled and indistinguisable states obey the Fermi-Dirac statistic, while Bose-Einstein statistics will follow when the coupling is broken.

Hopefully, the above results will help deepen our understanding of the spin-statistics theorem first enunciated by Pauli in his 1940 paper: “The Connection Between Spin and Statistics” . At the core of these results is the concept of entanglement and the work of Bell, both of which would appear to suggest that in the case of spin-singlet states, microscopic causality might be violated precisely because of the nature of entanglement and non-locality. This will be discussed in more detail towards the end of the article (section 7).

Throughout the paper the following notation will be used for spin systems:
$`\theta `$ will represent a polar angle lying within a plane such that $`0\theta <2\pi `$. Denote $`|\theta _j\theta _i|`$ by $`\theta _{ij}`$ and write $`a.e.\theta `$ for “$`\theta `$ almost everywhere”.
$`|\psi _{1\mathrm{}n}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>`$ will represent an n-particle state, where $`1\mathrm{}n`$ represent particles and $`\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$ represent the corresponding states. However, if there is no ambiguity oftentimes this state will be written in the more compact form
$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>\mathrm{or}\mathrm{more}\mathrm{simply}\mathrm{as}|\psi >.`$
$`s_n(\theta )`$ will represent the spin states of particle $`n`$ measured in direction $`\theta `$ where $`s_n(\theta )=|\pm >`$. In the case of $`\theta =0`$, replace $`s_n(0)`$ with $`s_n`$ or by $`|+>`$ or $`|>`$ according to the context, where $`+`$ and $``$ represent spin up and spin down respectively. Also let $`s_n^{}(\theta )`$ denote the spin state ORTHOGONAL to $`s_n(\theta )`$.
The wedge product of $`n`$ 1-forms is given by: $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n=\frac{1}{n!}\delta _{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}^{1\mathrm{}n}a^{i_1}\mathrm{}a^{i_n}`$.
Specifically, $`a^1a^2a^3=\frac{1}{3!}(a^1a^2a^3+a^2a^3a^1+a^3a^1a^2a^2a^1a^3a^1a^3a^2a^3a^2a^1).`$

## 2 A Coupling Principle

The concept of isotropically spin-correlated states (to be abbreviated as ISC) is now introduced. This definition is motivated by the probability properties of rotational invariance. Intuitively, $`n`$ particles are isotropically spin-correlated, if a measurement made in an ARBITARY direction $`\theta `$ on ONE of the particles allows us to predict with certainty, the spin value of each of the other $`n1`$ particles for the same direction $`\theta `$.

###### Definition 1

Let $`H_1H_2`$ be a tensor product of two 2-dimensional inner product spaces. Then $`|\psi >H_1H_2`$ is said to be rotationally invariant if

$$(R_1(\theta ),R_2(\theta ))|\psi >=|\psi >,$$

where each

$$R_i(\theta )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(c\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(c\theta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(c\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(c\theta )\end{array}\right]$$

represents a rotation on the space $`H_i`$ and $`c`$ is a constant.

###### Definition 2

Let $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_n`$ represent $`n`$ 2-dimensional inner product spaces. $`n`$ particles are said to be isotropically spin correlated (ISC) if
(1) for all $`\theta `$ the two state $`|\psi _{ij}>H_iH_j`$ is rotationally invariant for all $`i,j`$ where $`ij`$ and $`1i,jn`$,
(2) for all $`\theta `$ and each $`mn`$ the state $`|\psi >H_1\mathrm{}H_m`$ can be written as

$`|\psi >={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[s_1(\theta )s_2(\theta )\mathrm{}s_m(\theta )\pm s_1^{}(\theta )s_2^{}(\theta )\mathrm{}s_m^{}(\theta )]`$ (1)
Note that it follows from the definition of ISC states that rotationally invariant states of the form

$`|\psi >={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|+>|+>+|>|>+|+>|>|>|+>)`$ (2)
are excluded. In other words, the existence of ISC states means that if we measure the spin state $`s_1`$ then we have simultaneously measured the spin state for $`s_2\mathrm{}s_n`$ (see Lemma 1). It can also be shown by means of projection operators that the state defined by equation (1) is the only state that can be projected onto the state $`|\psi _{ij}>H_iH_j`$ for each $`i,j`$. This further highlightes its significance.

Two examples of ISC states can be immediately given:

$`|\psi >={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+>|+>+|>|>)`$ (3)
and

$`|\psi >={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+>|>|>|+>).`$ (4)
However, what is not apparent is that these are the only ISC states permitted for a system of n-particles. This is now proven, after having first introduced some probability notation.

Recall that $`s_n(0)=|\pm >`$. Associated with these states, define the random variable $`S_n(\theta ):|\pm >\pm 1`$ such that $`P(S_n(\theta )=1)=P(S_n(\theta )=1|S_n(0)=1)=\mathrm{cos}^2(c\theta )`$ and $`P(S_n(\theta )=1)=P(S_n(\theta )=1|S_n(0)=1)=\mathrm{sin}^2(c\theta )`$ where $`c`$ is constant. In other words, $`P`$ is the spectral measure associated with the state $`|\psi (\theta )>=\mathrm{cos}(c\theta )|+>+\mathrm{sin}(c\theta )|>`$. Similarily, a joint measure $`P`$ can be associated with the state

$`|\psi (\theta _1,\theta _2)>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(c\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(c\theta _2)|+>|+>+\mathrm{cos}(c\theta _1)\mathrm{sin}(c\theta _2)|+>|>`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}(c\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(c\theta _2)|>|+>+\mathrm{sin}(c\theta _1)\mathrm{sin}(c\theta _2)|>|>`$
such that $`P(S_1(\theta _1)=+,S_2(\theta _2)=+)=P(S_1(\theta _1)=,S_2(\theta _2)=)=\mathrm{cos}^2(c\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}^2(c\theta _2)`$ etc. In particular, note that $`c\theta _1=\frac{\pi }{4}`$ and $`\theta _2=\theta `$ implies $`P(S_1=+,S_2=+)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2(c\theta )`$.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`|\psi >`$ represent an ISC state, $`|\psi _1>=1/\sqrt{2}(|+>+|>)`$ be the initial state of particle 1 and $`S_n`$ be a random variable as defined above. If a measure $`P`$ on $`\{S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\}`$ exists then $`P(S_n=\pm |S_1=\pm )=1`$ or $`P(S_n=\pm |S_1=)=1`$.

Proof: From the definition of $`|\psi _1>`$, it follows that $`P(S_1=+)=P(S_1=)=\frac{1}{2}`$. Without loss of generality we assume $`(S_1=+,S_2=+,\mathrm{},S_n=+)`$. But from the definition of ISC states $`P(S_1=+,S_2=+,\mathrm{},S_n=+)=\frac{1}{2}`$. Also

$`P(S_1=+,S_2=+,\mathrm{},S_n=+)`$ $`=`$ $`P(S_1=+)P(S_2=+,\mathrm{},S_n=+|S_1=+)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(S_2=+,\mathrm{},S_n=+|S_1=+)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
Hence, $`P(S_n=+|S_1=+)=P(S_2=+,\mathrm{},S_n=+|S_1=+)=1`$.
Remark: In terms of the physics this means that once the spin-state of particle 1 is measured along an axis then the values of each of the other particle states are also immediately known along the same axis. Secondly, associated with the ISC state as given in (3), random variables $`S_1`$ and $`S_2(\theta )`$ and an associated measure $`P`$ can be defined such that $`P(S_1=+,S_2(\theta )=)=(1/2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )`$ where $`\theta `$ can be considered as the angle between $`s_1`$ and $`s_2(\theta )`$.

It is now shown that it is impossible to have three or more particles in such ISC states. Specifically, we ask if there can exist $`n`$ or more ISC particles which generate a spectral measure $`P`$ associated with the random variables $`S_1(\theta _i),S_2(\theta _j),\mathrm{}S_n(\theta _k)`$ and the state

$$|\psi >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(s_1\mathrm{}s_ns_1^{}\mathrm{}s_n^{})$$

on the sample space $`H_1H_2\mathrm{}H_n`$? However, since the existence of $`n`$ ISC particles, presupposes the existence of $`n1`$ such particles, it is sufficient to prove the theorem for $`n=3`$. As noted above, such measures clearly exist for $`n=2`$.

In the interest of clarity, assume without loss of generality, that there are three ISC particles such that $`s_1(\theta _i)=s_2(\theta _i)=s_3(\theta _i)`$, for an arbitrary direction $`\theta _i`$. This means that the joint spin state for any two of them is given by equation (3). Also, we further refine notation to write, for example, $`(+,+,)`$ for $`S_1(\theta _i)=+,S_2(\theta _j)=+,S_3(\theta _k)=.`$ These can also be interpreted as measurements in the $`i,j,k`$ direction respectively. Also, for the purpose of the argument below, let $`c=1/2`$. However, the argument can be made to work for any constant value of $`c`$, and in a particular can be applied to the spin of a photon, provided $`c=1`$.

With notation now in place, an argument of Wigner  is now adopted to show that isotropically spin-correlated particles must occur in pairs. The proof is by contradiction. Specifically, consider three isotropically spin-correlated particles (see Fig. 1), as explained above. It follows from the probability 1 condition, that three spin measurements can be performed, in principle, on the three particle system, in the directions $`\theta _i,\theta _j,\theta _k`$. In the above notation, this means that $`(S_1(\theta _i),S_2(\theta _j),S_3(\theta _k))`$ represent the observed spin values in the three different directions. Recall that $`S_n=\pm `$ which means that there exists only two possible values for each measurement. Hence,for three measurements there are a total of 8 possibilities in total. In particular,

$`\{(+,+,),(+,,)\}`$ $``$ $`\{(+,+,),(+,,),(,+,),(+,,+)\}`$
$`P\{(+,+,),(+,,)\}`$ $``$ $`P\{(+,+,),(+,,),(,+,),(+,,+)\}.`$
Therefore,

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta _{ki}}{2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta _{jk}}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta _{ij}}{2}$$

which is Bell’s inequality. Taking $`\theta _{ij}=\theta _{jk}=\frac{\pi }{3}`$ and $`\theta _{ki}=\frac{2\pi }{3}`$ gives $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{4}`$ which is clearly a contradiction. In other words, three particles cannot all be in the same spin state with probability 1, or to put it another way, isotropically spin-correlated particles with respect to the measure $`P`$ must occur in pairs.
Remark: (1) If the ISC particles are such that $`(s_1(\theta _i)=+,s_2(\theta _i)=,s_3(\theta _i)=+)`$ (note same $`i`$) then regardless of distinguisability or not, the spin measurements in the three different directions $`\theta _i`$, $`\theta _j`$, $`\theta _k`$i can be written as:

$$\{(+,+,),(+,,)\}\{(+,+,),(+,,),(,,),(+,+,+)\}$$

The previous argument can now be repeated as above.

(2) Each of the previous arguments apply also to spin 1 particles, like the photons, provided full angle formulae are used instead of the half-angled formulae.

## 3 Pauli exclusion principle

The above results can be cast into the form of a theorem (already proven above) which will be referred to as the “coupling principle”.

###### Theorem 1

(The Coupling Principle) Isotropically spin- correlated particles must occur in PAIRS.

It follows from the coupling principle that multi-particle systems can be divided into two categories, those containing indistinguisable coupled particles and those containing indistinguisable decoupled particles. It now remains to show that a statistical analysis of these two categories generates the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics respectively.

First note that in the case of ISC particles the two rotationally invariant states can be identified with each other by identifying a spin measurement of $`\pm `$ on the second particle in the $`x`$ direction with a spin measurement of $``$ in the $`x`$ direction, in such a way as to maintain the rotational invariance. In other words, by replacing the second spinor with its spinor conjugate , the state

$$|\psi >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+>|+>+|>|>)$$

can be written as

$$|\psi (\pi )>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+>|>_\pi |>|+>_\pi )$$

where the $`\pi `$ subscript refers to the fact that the measurements on particles 1 and 2 are made in opposite directions, while maintaining the rotational invariance . The state $`|\psi (\pi )>`$ shall be referred to as an improper singlet state. Furthemore, without loss of generality the above identification means it is sufficient to confine oneselves to singlet states when discussing the properties of ISC particles. 222Whether or not improper singlet states actually exist in nature, remains an open question. If such states were actually discovered then they would throw new light on the “handedness” problem and their existence might possibly be linked to parity violation. It remains to show that the requirement of rotational invariance for ISC particles generates a Fermi-Dirac type statistic. Howevever, before doing so, it is important to emphasize that the Pauli principle has not being assumed but rather is being derived from the usual form of the principle (written in terms of the Slater determinant) by imposing orbital restrictions on the ISC states.

The essential ideas are as follows: The existence of ISC particles means that from the coupling principle (above), the wave function can be written uniquely as a singlet state on the $`H_1H_2`$ space. It then follows by imposing the additional requirement that ISC particles occur only in the same orbital, that the usual singlet-state form of the wave function can be extended to the space $`𝒮_1𝒮_2`$ where $`𝒮_i=L^2(^3)H_i`$. Indeed, it would almost seem to be a tautology stemming from the definition of rotational invariance. Nevertheless, the manner in which the notion of ISC states extend to these spaces needs to be clarified, since it permits an extension of the results to the usual $`L^2H`$ space associated with quantum mechanics and not just the more restricted spin spaces. Once this extension is made, proof by induction can be used to derive the usual form of the Pauli principle associated with the Slater determinant, for an n-particle system. Moreover, it is also worth noting that the existence of spin-singlet states in general, and not only in the same orbital, permits more general forms of the exclusion principle (see for example Lemma 3 and Theorem 3).

In what remains, let $`s_n=s_n(\theta )`$ represent the spin of particle $`n`$ in the direction $`\theta `$. However, in general the $`\theta `$ can be dropped when there is no ambiguity but its presence should always be understood. Also, let $`\lambda _n=(q_n,s_n)`$ represent the quantum coordinates of particle $`n`$, with $`s_n`$ referring to the spin coordinate in the direction $`\theta `$ and $`q_n`$ representing all other coordinates. In practice, $`\lambda _n=(q_n,s_n)`$ will represent the coordinates of the particle in the state $`\psi (\lambda _n)`$ defined on the Hilbert space $`𝒮_n=L^2(^3)H_n`$, where $`H_n`$ represents a two-dimensional spin space of the particle $`n`$. We will mainly work with $`\lambda _n`$ but sometimes, there will be need to distinguish the $`q_n`$ from the $`s_n`$. This distinction will also allow the ket to be written as: $`|\psi (\lambda )>=|\psi (q)>s=|\psi (q)>s`$ where $`s`$ represents the spinor. With these distinctions made, the notion of orbital is now defined and a sufficient condition for obtaining the usual form of the Fermi-Dirac statistics within the context of our mathematical model, is given.

###### Definition 3

Two particles whose states are given by $`|\psi (q_1,s_1)>`$ and $`|\psi (q_2,s_2)>`$ respectively are said to be in the same q-orbital when $`q_1=q_2`$.

The following Lemma allows us to extend the results for ISC particles defined on the space $`H_1H_2`$ to the larger space $`𝒮_1𝒮_2`$. As mentioned above, the Pauli principle is not being assumed but rather is being deduced by invoking rotational invariance of the ISC particles. Conversely, if the rotational invariance condition is relaxed then the Pauli principle need not apply and as a result many particles can be in the same orbital.

###### Lemma 2

Let

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>`$ $`=`$ $`c_1|\psi _1(\lambda _1)>|\psi _2(\lambda _2)>+c_2|\psi _1(\lambda _2)>|\psi _2(\lambda _1)>,`$
where $`c_1,c_2`$ are independent of $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, represent an indistinguisable two particle system defined on the space $`𝒮_1𝒮_2`$. If ISC states for a system of two indistinguisable and non-interacting particles occur only in the same q-orbital then the system of particles can be represented by the Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Proof: The general form of the non-interacting and indistinguisable two particle state is given by

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>`$ $`=`$ $`c_1|\psi _1(\lambda _1)>|\psi _2(\lambda _2)>+c_2|\psi _1(\lambda _2)>|\psi _2(\lambda _1)>`$
$`=`$ $`c_1|\psi _1(q_1)>s_1|\psi _2(q_2)>s_2+c_2|\psi _1(q_2)>s_2|\psi _2(q_1)>s_1`$
where $`c_1,c_2`$ are constants, such that $`c_1^2=c_2^2=1/2`$ for all $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. Let $`q_1=q_2`$ then the particles are in the same q-orbital and hence rotationally invariant by the ISC condition. Therefore, $`c_1=c_2`$ and

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi _1(\lambda _1)>|\psi _2(\lambda _2)>|\psi _1(\lambda _2)>|\psi _2(\lambda _1)>].$$

The result follows. QED
Remark: (1) The above lemma also applies to improper singlet states, in other words to particles whose spin correlations are parallel to each other in each direction. This can be done by correlating a measurement in direction $`\theta `$ on one particle, with a measurement in direction $`\theta +\pi `$ on the other. In this case, the state vector for the parallel and anti-parallel measurements will be found to be:

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _2(\pi ))>|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _1(\pi ))>]$$

where the $`\pi `$ expression in the above arguments, refer to the fact that the measurement on particle two is made in the opposite sense, to that of particle one.
(2)If the coupling condition (rotationally invariance) is removed then a Bose-Einstein statistic follows and is of the form:

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>+|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>].$$

This will be discussed in more detail later. See, for example, Corollary 1 following Lemma 3 and Corollary 2 following Theorem 4. We now prove the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2

(The Pauli Exclusion Principle) A sufficient condition for a system of n indistinguishable and non-interacting particles defined on the space $`𝒮_1\mathrm{}𝒮_n`$ to exhibit Fermi-Dirac statistics is that it contain spin-coupled q-orbitals.

Proof: It is sufficient to work with three particles, but it should be clear that the argument can be extended by induction to an n-particle system. Consider a system of three indistinguishable particles, containing spin-coupled particles. Using the above notation and applying Lemma 2 to the coupled particles in the second line below, gives:

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\{|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>+|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _3,\lambda _1)>`$
$`+|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3!}}}\{|\psi (\lambda _1)>[|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>]`$
$`+|\psi (\lambda _2)>[|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>]`$
$`+|\psi (\lambda _3)>[|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>]\}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{3!}|\psi _1(\lambda _1)>|\psi _2(\lambda _2)>|\psi _3(\lambda _3)>`$
where $``$ represents the wedge product. Thus the wave function for the three indistinguishable particles obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics. The n-particle case follows by induction. QED
As an example, consider the case of an ensemble of 2n identical non-interacting particles with discrete energy levels $`E_1,E_2,\mathrm{}`$, satisfying the Fermi-Dirac statistics as above then all occurances of such a gas would necessarily have a twofold degeneracy in each of the discrete energy levels and the lowest energy would be given by

$$E=2E_1+2E_2+2E_3+\mathrm{}+2E_n.$$

The above theorem applies only under certain conditions. However, both in theory and practice, the spin-singlet state do not have to be confined to the same q-orbital, as for example in the case of the 1s2s-electron configuration in He. This in turn requires a more general formulation of an exclusion principle:

###### Lemma 3

Let $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>L^2(^3)(q_1,q_2)H_1H_2`$ denote the state of two indistinguisable particles where the $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are as defined above. If the particles are in a spin-singlet state then

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi (q_1,q_2)>s_1s_2|\psi (q_1,q_2)>s_2s_1].$$

Proof: The general form for the indistinguisable two particle state is given by

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=c_1|\psi (q_1,q_2)>s_1s_2+c_2|\psi (q_2,q_1)>s_2s_1.$$

Invoking rotational invariance of the spin-singlet state gives
$`c_1|\psi _1(q_1,q_2)>=c_2|\psi (q_2,q_1)>`$, from the linear independence of the $`s_1s_2`$ states. Normalizing the wave function gives $`|c_1|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. The result follows. QED

###### Corollary 1

Let $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>L^2(R^3)(q_1,q_2)H_1H_2`$ denote the state of two indistinguisable particles where the $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are as defined above, then

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi (q_1,q_2)>s_1s_2+|\psi (q_2,q_1)>s_2s_1].$$

Proof: The general form of the two particle state is given by

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=c_1|\psi (q_1,q_2)>s_1s_2+c_2|\psi (q_2,q_1)>s_2s_1.$$

Indistinguisability implies that $`c_1^2=c_2^2=1/2`$. Since the particles are not necessarily in a singlet state, then it is possible to consistently choose $`c_1=c_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, in this case. The result follows. QED

Lemma 2, Lemma 3 and Corollary 1 taken together can now be used to give a complete classification of the 1s2s state of He. The $`SU(2)SU(2)`$ properties of spin give the decomposition $`22=31`$. Corollary 1 gives the triplet state composition of the 1s2s configuration. Lemma 3 gives the singlet state configuration in general. All of these states are experimentallay verified . Lemma 2 on the other hand, indicates that the Slater determinant permits ONLY the triplet state of the 1s2s configuration and the $`1s^2`$ singlet. It precludes the 1s2s singlet state. Lemma 3 defines the spin singlet state which is antisymmetric under an exchange of spin. In contrast, Lemma 2 defines the spin singlet state which is antisymmetric under complete particle exchange and not just spin alone.

To conclude this section, Lemma 2 and Theorem 2 express a Pauli type exclusion principle which follows naturally from the coupling principle, or equivalently the rotational invariance. Either two particles are ISC and obey a Fermi-Dirac type statistic or they are statistically independent of each other and obey a Bose-Einstein statistic. In the next section, Theorem 2 is generalized to cover interacting n-particle systems.

## 4 Multi-particle interacting systems

Attention is now turned to interacting particles. Once again, the coupling principle is sufficient to derive an exclusion principle in this case. The burden of the proof rests on making full use both of the notions of isotropy and indistinguisability. Isotrophy, in fact, will be introduced by working with the Fock spaces.

Let $`F[n]=H(\theta _1)\mathrm{}H(\theta _n)`$ be a Fock space, where each $`H(\theta _i)`$ is a two-dimensional Hilbert space. If $`s[n]F[n]`$ then $`s[n]`$ is said to be a spin n-state. The scalar product of two vectors $`s_1[n]`$ and $`s_2[n]`$ in $`F[n]`$ is defined by $`(s_1[n],s_2[n])=_{k=1}^ns_1(\theta _k)s_2(\theta _k).`$ We then say that two particles are in the same spin n-state if $`s_1[n]=s_2[n]`$ and in OPPOSITE spin-states if $`s_1(\theta _k)=s_2^{}(\theta _k)`$ for each $`k`$.

Specifically, consider n interacting particles as defined on the space
$`L^2(^3)(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)F_1[m]\mathrm{}F_n[m]`$, where $`mn`$ and $`F_k[m]`$ represents the Fock spin space of the particle $`k`$. It should be noted that the use of the Fock space is essential and cannot be replaced by a Hilbert space of the form $`H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$, otherwise the results below would become meaningless. For example, in the case of spin measurements on three electrons in the same direction $`\theta `$, two of them must necessarily be in the same spin state. This means that for the above Hilbert space representation, the only possible Fermi-Dirac state for the electrons would be the vacuum state which is impossible. However, by introducing Fock spaces for the spin, not only can three electrons be in different spin states, but only two different statistical structures emerge naturally, namely, those containing coupled particles and those which do not.

For example, in the case of three particles, denoting the spin state $`s_k[m]`$ by $`s_k`$, gives

$`\sqrt{3}!|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi (q_1,q_2,q_3)>s_1s_2s_3+|\psi (q_2,q_1,q_3)>s_2s_1s_3`$
$`+|\psi (q_2,q_3,q_1)>s_2s_3s_1+|\psi (q_3,q_2,q_1)>s_3s_2s_1`$
$`+|\psi (q_3,q_1,q_2)>s_3s_1s_2+|\psi (q_1,q_3,q_2)>s_1s_3s_2.`$
Now imposing spin-singlet state coupling on $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>`$ for each pair $`\lambda _i,\lambda _j`$ yields $`|\psi (q_{i_1},q_{i_2},q_{i_3})>=|\psi (q_1,q_2,q_3)>`$ for for every even permutation and
$`|\psi (q_{i_1},q_{i_2},q_{i_3})>=|\psi (q_1,q_2,q_3)>`$ for every odd permutation. Hence

$`\sqrt{3}!|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi (q_1,q_2,q_3)>(s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_3`$
$`+s_2s_3s_1s_3s_2s_1+s_3s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2).`$
This can be expressed more formally with the following theorem:

###### Theorem 3

In a system of n indistinguisable particles containing a spin-singlet pair, no two particles can be in the same state and the general form of the state function in $`L^2(^3)(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)F_1[m]\mathrm{}F_n[m]`$, where $`mn`$ and $`F_k[m]`$ is a Fock space, is given by:

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>=|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{}q_n)>\sqrt{n!}s_1\mathrm{}s_n.$$

Proof: Let $`\sigma _P`$ denote a permutation of the particle states. The general form of an n particle indistinguisable state for the system under discussion, is given by

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}\sigma _P|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{}q_n)>s_1\mathrm{}s_n.$$

But, indistinguisability and the rotational invariance of the singlet coupling gives for every transposition $`(ij)`$

$$|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{}q_i\mathrm{}q_j\mathrm{},q_n)>=|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{}q_j\mathrm{}q_i\mathrm{},q_n)>.$$

This means that $`\sigma _P|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)>=|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)>`$ for every even permutation and $`\sigma _P|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)>=|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)>`$ for every odd permutation. It follows immediately that for a.e $`\theta `$ that

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>=|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{}q_n)>\sqrt{n!}s_1\mathrm{}s_n.$$

The theorem is proven. QED

Remark:(1) In the general case, no claim is being made as to the properties of
$`|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)>`$. Ideally the boundary conditions of each problem will dictate these properties. Also, there is no reason why this state vector should be symmetric or anti- symmetric under a change of coordinates nor are such conditions necessary to formulate a Pauli-type exclusion principle. In fact, our construct has yielded a Fermi-Dirac type statistic with respect to the spin operator of the system, independently of the properties of $`|\psi (q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)>`$. However, it is always possible to impose further restrictions in terms of energy density or locality requirements, to further restrict the structure. (2) The properties of spin-type systems help explain why in chemistry only two electrons share the same orbital, why all chemical bonding involves pairs of electrons and why Cooper pairs occur in the theory of superconductivity.,

## 5 Bose-Einstein Statistics

In the above discussion rotational invariance has played a key role in formulating a Fermi-Dirac statisticis for multi-particle ISC systems as defined by definition 1, 2 and 3. Indeed, from the perspective of this paper, it would seem to be the underlying cause of the Pauli exclusion principle. It now remains to investigate the statistics of multiparticle systems when this condition is relaxed. As noted above the rotational invariance implies that ISC particles can be written in the form of a singlet state, (either proper or improper). Moreover, the definition of indistinguisability means that there is no bias in favor of any of the components of the permutable states. For example, if

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=a|\lambda _1>|\lambda _2>+b|\lambda _2>|\lambda _1>$$

is permutable then $`a^2=b^2`$, otherwise if $`|a|>|b|`$ (respectively $`|b|>|a|`$) there would be a bias in favor of the state associated with $`a`$ (respectively $`b`$) which, together with the law of large numbers, could then be used to partially distinguish the states.

###### Theorem 4

Permutable states for a system of $`n`$ non-interacting particles, defined on the space $`𝒮_1\mathrm{}𝒮_n`$, obey either the Fermi-Dirac or the Bose-Einstein statistic.

Proof: Let

$$\sigma |\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n!}{}}c_i|\psi (\sigma _i\lambda _1)>\mathrm{}|\psi (\sigma _i\lambda _n)>$$

where $`\sigma _i`$ represents a permutation of the particles in the states $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$. We now claim that if the system of indistinguisable particles are not in the Fermi-Dirac state then

$$\sigma (|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n!}{}}|\psi (\sigma _i\lambda _1>\mathrm{}|\psi (\sigma _i\lambda _n)>.$$

This follows by noting that if $`c_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}`$ and $`c_{i+1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}`$ for each $`i`$ then Fermi-Dirac statistics results. Hence, assume that there is not an exact pairing and that $`c_1=\mathrm{}c_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}`$ where either $`i>\frac{n!}{2}`$ or $`i<\frac{n!}{2}`$ and $`c_{i+1}=\mathrm{}=c_{n!}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}`$. Then taking $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$ many of the terms on the right hand side (in fact $`\mathrm{min}\{2i,2(n!i)\}`$ terms) will cancel, leaving only the excess unpaired positive (negative) terms. If the remaining number of terms in the expansion is less than $`n!`$ then $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>`$ is NOT invariant under the complete set of permutations, which is a contradiction. It follows that the number of terms must be $`n!`$ and nothing vanishes. Hence $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)>`$ exhibits Bose-Einstein statistics. The result follows. It might be instructive to apply the above theorem to a three particle wave function that is not of the above type. Consider:

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3!}}}\{|\psi (\lambda _1)>[|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>+|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>]`$
$`+|\psi (\lambda _2)>[|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>+|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>]`$
$`+|\psi (\lambda _3)>[|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>]\}.`$
On putting $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$,

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3!}}}\{|\psi (\lambda _1)>[|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>+|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _2)>]`$
$`+|\psi (\lambda _2)>[|\psi (\lambda _3)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>+|\psi (\lambda _1)>|\psi (\lambda _3)>]`$
which is not invariant under permutations.

###### Corollary 2

Let

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _n)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n!}{}}}c_i|\psi (\sigma \lambda _1)>\mathrm{}|\psi (\sigma \lambda _n)>,`$
where $`c_i`$ are independent of $`\lambda _i`$, represent an indistinguisable $`n`$-particle system defined on the space $`𝒮_1\mathrm{}𝒮_n`$. This system of particles can be represented by the Bose-Einstein statistics.

Proof: Normalizing the wave function and using indistinguisability gives $`c_i^2=c_j^2`$, for each $`i`$ and $`j`$. If $`c_i=c_{i+1}`$ then each q-orbital would be a spin-singlet state. But this is not so. Hence $`c_i=c_j`$ by the previous lemma and the result follows.

Denote the set of permutations that leave invariant the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics by $`s_n`$ and $`a_n`$, respectively. It follows that certain types of mixed statistics can be now described. For example, the 2-electrons of a helium atom, considered together with the 3-electrons in a lithium atom obey $`a_2a_3`$ statistics while the 5 electrons in the boron atom obey $`a_5`$ Fermi-Dirac statistics. The electrons in three different helium atoms obey $`a_2a_2a_2`$ if the helium atoms are considered distinguisable and $`s_3(a_2a_2a_2)`$ if the atoms are indistinguisable. Finally, if we consider collectively the $`n`$ distinct electrons in $`n`$ indistiguisable hydrogen atoms then these $`n`$ electrons can be described with $`s_n`$ Bose-Einstein statistics.

## 6 Clarification by Contrast

It now remains to discuss the above mathematical results from the perspective of Pauli’s famous paper on spin-statistics  and in the overall context of the experimental evidence (discussed next section).

First, in Pauli’s construct the principle of microscopic causality ($`[\mathrm{\Theta }(x),\mathrm{\Theta }(y)]=0`$ for $`(xy)^2<0`$ where $`x`$ and $`y`$ represent Minkowski 4-vectors) underlies the distinction between bosons and fermions. In contrast, rotationally invariant states (particles) which are key to understanding the model presented, would seem to violate this principle by definition. Specifically, in Pauli’s formulation if $`\sigma _i(x)`$, $`\sigma _j(y)`$ represent the spin operators for particles located at $`x`$ and $`y`$ respectively then particles which are statistically independent of each other can have their joint spin operators represented by $`I\sigma _i(x)`$ and $`\sigma _j(y)I`$ respectively. This reflects the fact that the joint system represented by the Hilbert spaces $`H_1H_2`$ can be decomposed into two coherent systems $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, and the joint state for the two particles is a mixture of states from $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. Moreover, since these commute both for timelike and spacelike separations then microscopic causality is obeyed. However, in the case of two particles in a spin-singlet state no such decomposition is possible. The spin-singlet state is a pure state and obeys the principle of superposition, even at spacelike separations. Hence, it cannot be written as a mixture of two states governed by superselection rules. Moreover, a measurement made on one particle of the singlet state means that we have SIMULTANEOUSLY measured the spin of the other particle in the same direction (see Lemma 1), but it does not permit us to make a second independent measurement in a different direction, without destroying the predicted value for the second particle. In other words, for pure singlet states $`[\sigma _i(x),\sigma _i(y)]=0`$ for all $`x`$ and $`y`$ but $`[\sigma _i(x),\sigma _j(y)]0`$ for all $`x`$ and $`y`$, $`ij`$, including spacelike intervals. Therefore, it would seem that microscopic causality is violated for entangled states and the existence of such states constitute non-local events. However, it should be emphasized that non-locality does NOT mean a breakdown of cause and effect (at least in this case); it simply means that “alla Pauli” we are dealing with the mathematics of non-commuting operators and the statistics of predetermined correlations which remain correlated even when the distance between the particles is spacelike. Any other usage of the word “non-locality” is NOT intended.

Secondly, if the principle of microscopic causality were to be violated then as a consequence particles in themselves would be neither fermions nor bosons, but rather the relationship between the particles would determine whether the multi-particle system obeyed Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics. In our construct, indistinguisable ISC particles behave as fermions(Theorem 2), but once the same particles are disentangled they behave as bosons (Cor. 2). For this reason, as already noted previously, the consequences of coupling can be applied also to spin 1 particles like photons. In our formulation, singlet-state photons as used in the Aspect et al. experiment , are an (albeit trivial) instance of Fermi-Dirac statistics.

The above classification is also consistent with Pauli’s own work. He is very aware that if he includes the possibility of non-local events in his schema then his demand that particles with integral spin not obey an exclusion principle would fall apart. To quote him: “ For integral spin the quantization according to the exclusion principle is not possible. For this result it is essential the use of the $`D_1`$ function in place of the $`D`$ function be, for general reasons, discarded.” In fact, it is precisely the class of $`D_1(x,x_0)`$ solutions of the second order wave equation ( p 720), that underlies non-local events. In his own indirect way, Pauli is indeed affirming that non-locality permits bosons to be second quantized as fermions.

Thirdly, as pointed out above, in Pauli’s original discussion the distinction between entangled states and non-entangled states does not arise. This is understandable, since the significance of entanglement only emerged in the 1960’s with the work of Bell and others. This also has consequences for the theory of angular momentum. Specifically, Pauli assumes that particle wave functions obey the rule $`U_1(j_1,k_1)U_2(j_2,k_2)=_{j,k}U(j,k)`$ (, p717) where $`j=j_1+j_2,j_1+j_21,\mathrm{},|j_1j_2|`$ and $`k=k_1+k_2,k_1+k_21,\mathrm{},|k_1k_2|`$. In fact, it would appear that this rule only applies to disentangled particles. As a counter example, consider two spin-1/2 electrons in a singlet state. The above decomposition, if it were valid, would mean that $`U(1/2)U(1/2)=U(1)U(0)`$ but we know that for a singlet state only the $`U(0)`$ case arises. This can be seen more clearly, if written in terms of probability theory. Let $`S_1,S_2`$ be two independent and identically ditributed random variables such that for $`i=1`$ or $`i=2`$, $`P(S_i=1/2)=P(S_i=1/2)=1/2`$. Let $`M(S_1)`$ and $`M(S_2)`$ be the probability moment generating functions of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ respectively, then it is easy to show that $`M(S_1)M(S_2)=M(S_1+S_2)`$. However, once the independence condition is relaxed the above multiplication rule is no longer valid.

## 7 Experimental evidence

The experimental justification for accepting the new form of the spin-statistics theorem would appear to come from a wide range of physical phenomena. First, note that the existence of photons in the spin-singlet state seems to support the above formulation. Secondly, we will argue that the new approach offers a more unified and coherent explanation of the phenomenon of paramagnetism. Thirdly, the existence of Cooper pairs in superconductivity can be explained as a specific instance of ISC particles. Fourthly, we discuss baryonic structure from the new perspective. Finally, in keeping with the tradition of theoretical physics, a prediction will be made about the probability distribution for the spin decomposition of a beam of ionized deuterons, a prediction which will distinguish it from the current theory.

(1) Rotational invariance demands the wave function for spin-singlet-state photons to be of the form

$$|\psi >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+>|>|>|+>).$$

By definition this is a Fermi-Dirac type statistic. Spin-singlet-state photons were at the heart of the Aspect experiment  and hence their existence has already been verified. The exclusion principle is then a tautology in the sense that while photons are in a spin-singlet state then both of them cannot be in the same state. Note, however, that the fermionic state of photons can easily be destroyed by experiment and forced into a Bose-Einstein state. It is a trite (but nevertheless valid) application of the exclusion principle.

(2) The theory of paramagnetism yields two different equations for the magnetic susceptibility, one given by the classical Langevin (Curie) function which makes no reference to the Pauli exclusion principle and the other which is derived as a direct application of the exclusion principle. It would appear that our formulation of the exclusion principle gives an equally apt understanding of the phenomenam and would appear to further clarify Pauli’s explanation, by focusing on the unique role of the non-spin-singlet states. Specifically, when the magnetic field is turned on, the spin up component of the spin-singlet state has its energy shifted down by $`\mu B`$ while the spin down component has its energy shifted up by $`\mu B`$, with the spins being aligned into parallel and anti-parallel states, resulting in a net contribution to the magnetic field of 0. Hence, the paired elecrons contribute nothing to the magnetic susceptibility. The remaining unpaired electrons act in such a way that there is an excess of electrons in the spin up state over the spin down state, in order to maintain the common electrochemical potential. Specifically, if we let $`g(ϵ)`$ be the electron density of available states per unit energy range then the total excess energy is given by $`g(ϵ_F)\mu B`$, provided $`\mu B<<ϵ_F`$, which is Pauli’s result for paramagnetism. It should also be pointed out that from the perspective of Pauli’s version of the spin-statistics theorem, half-integral-spin particles such as electrons or gaseous-nitric-oxide (NO) molecules, remain as fermions regardless of thermodynamic considerations or of the state they occupy. However, it is generally taken forgranted  that as $`kT>>ϵ_f`$ the Pauli principle no longer applies and the magnetic susceptibility is in this case best estimated by using the Boltzmann statistics. This gives rise to the ambivelant situation of referring to particles as fermions, although they are no longer subjected to the Pauli exclusion principle. With our approach, this ambiguity is removed and a more natural and coherent explanation of the transition from Fermi-Dirac to Boltzmann statistics is forthcoming. Essentially, the Boltzmann statistics emerges when the spin coupling which seems to be the underlying causes of the Fermi-Dirac statistics, is first broken and the particles then move apart to become distinguisable and statistically independent. This breaking of the coupling occurs naturally when the temperature is raised, and they become distinguisable and independent when the distance separating the particles become large enough to overcome interactions between the particles. As a result, the particles obey Boltzmann statistics and “the Curie law applies to paramagnetic atoms in a low density gas, just as to well separated ions in a solid…”..

(3) The existence of Cooper pairs as spin-singlet states in the theory of superconductors is another instance of the coupling principle at work. Moreover, the fact that $`2n`$ superconducting electrons exhibit the statistics of $`n`$ boson pairs and NOT the usual $`a_{2n}`$ Fermi-Dirac statistics (, p268), normally associated with the exclusion principle, again suggests that the current definition of bosons and fermions in terms of quantum number is inadequate. In contrast, this paper classifies particles into coupled or decoupled particles and then permits various statistics to emerge in accordance with the degree of indistinguishability that is imposed on the system. When complete indistinguisability is imposed on the system then Fermi-Dirac or Bose-einstein statistics will ensue according as to whether the system permits coupled (Theorem 2) or only decoupled particles (Theorem 4) respectively. On the other hand, if complete indistinguisability is relaxed in favor of some type of partial indistinguisability (as with Cooper pairs), we obtain different types of mixed statistics (see for example the last paragraph of section 5).

(4) Spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ baryons may be viewed as excited states of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ baryons. In particular, spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ quarks may be viewed as composed of three quarks with uncorrelated spin states (statistically independent) while the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ baryon would contain a pair of quarks in a singlet state. Moreover, the need for color to explain the structure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ particle, becomes unnecessary in the new approach. Of course, this does not preclude the use of color to give “colorless” baryons.

(5) It is well known that the deuteron ion is in a spin-triplet state. Denote the possible observed spin values $`X`$ by +1, 0, -1 respectively. Conventional quantum mechanics predicts that $`P(X=+1)=P(X=0)=P(X=1)=\frac{1}{3}`$. On the other hand, if we assume that the absence of the spin-singlet state for deuteron ions means that the Bose-Einstein triplet state is composed of two independently distributed spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles then the model proposed in this paper predicts $`P(X=+1)=P(X=1)=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`P(X=0)=\frac{1}{2}`$. This should be testable by passing a beam of neutral deuteron atoms (not molecules) through a Stern-Garlach apparatus. 333Strictly speaking the failure of particles to form a spin-singlet state does not necessarily mean that the subsequent spin values of the triplet state are governed by the laws of independent probability. It may mean that there is some type of dependent but non-deterministic relationship between the particles ($`<1`$). This further highlights the importance of performing an experiment like that described above. If decoupled spin states imply statistical independence then classification procedures become very simple. On the other hand, if statistical independence fails to be observed then the Bose-Einstein type statistic would have to be further sub-classified.

## 8 Conclusion:

In this paper a “spin-coupling principle” is derived which suggests a statistical classification of particles in terms of ISC states (spin-entangled pairs) and non ISC states. These ISC states appear to unify our understanding of atomic orbitals, covalent bonding, paramagnetism, superconductivity, baryonic structure and so on. In summary, subatomic particles seem to form entangled pairs whenever they are free to do so and there appears to be a universal principle at work, although the mechanism behind this coupling would need to be further investigated.

Secondly, in contrast to the current paper, Pauli’s version of the spin-statistics theorem imposes many other conditions on his particle system including Minkowski invariance, locality ( “measurements at two space points with a space-like distance can never disturb each other”( p 721)), charge and energy densities. However, the imposition of such extra conditions would seem to be unnecessary in the light of our current understanding of entanglement.

Finally, note that a connection between Bell’s inequality\[B\]ell and rotational invariance has been established.

## 9 Appendix

In this section, an alternate proof of Lemma 2 is presented using a probability argument. As before, let $`s_n=s_n(\theta )`$ represent the spin of particle $`n`$ in the direction $`\theta `$, although the $`\theta `$ will be dropped when there is no ambiguity. However, its presence should always be understood. Also, let $`\lambda _n=(q_n,s_n)`$ represent the quantum coordinates of particle $`n`$, with $`s_n`$ referring to the spin coordinate in the direction $`\theta `$ and $`q_n`$ representing occasionally, in the interest of clarity, all other coordinates. In practice, $`\lambda _n=(q_n,s_n)`$ will represent the eigenvalues of an operator defined on the Hilbert space $`𝒮=L^2(^3)H_n`$, where $`H_n`$ represents a two-dimensional spin space of the particle $`n`$. We will mainly work with $`\lambda _n`$ but sometimes, there will be need to distinguish the $`q_n`$ from the $`s_n`$. This distinction will also allow us to write the ket $`|\psi (\lambda )>=|\psi (q)>s`$ where $`s`$ represents the spinor.

###### Lemma 4

Let

$`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>`$ $`=`$ $`c_1|\psi _1(\lambda _1)>|\psi _2(\lambda _2)>+c_2|\psi _1(\lambda _2)>|\psi _2(\lambda _1)>,`$
where $`c_1,c_2`$ are independent of $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, represent an indistinguisable two particle system defined on the space $`𝒮_1𝒮_2`$. If ISC states for a system of two indistinguisable and non-interacting particles occur only in the same q-orbital then the system of particles can be represented by the Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Proof: $`q`$-orbital spin-singlet states implies that $`P(\lambda _1=\lambda _2)P(s_1=s_2)=0`$. Therefore, $`<\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _1)|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _1)>=0`$ and hence $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _1)>=0`$, from the inner product properties of a Hilbert space. It follows, that $`c_1=c_2`$ when the particles are coupled and normalizing the wave function gives $`|c_1|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. The result follows. QED

A slightly less restrictive form of the lemma can also be proven using essentially the same probability argument, as above.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>`$ denote a two particle state where the $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are as above. If the particles are in a spin-singlet state and non-interacting then their joint state can be expressed in the form:

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi (\lambda _1)|\psi (\lambda _2)|\psi (\lambda _2)>|\psi (\lambda _1)>].$$

In other words, coupled particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Proof: The particles are in a pure state of the subspace $`H_1H_2`$ for non interactive and indistinguisable particles. This implies that the general form of the two particle state is given by:

$$|\psi (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)>=c_1|\psi _1(\lambda _1)>|\psi _2(\lambda _2)>+c_2|\psi _1(\lambda _2)>|\psi _2(\lambda _1)>.$$

Moreover, the particles are in a spin-singlet state and hence $`P(q_1,s_1;q_2,s_2)P(s_1=s_2)=0`$. Therefore, $`<\psi (q_1,s_1;q_2,s_1)|\psi (q_1,s_1;q_2,s_1>=0`$ and hence $`|\psi (q_1,s_1;q_1,s_2)>=0`$, from the inner product properties of a Hilbert space. It follows, that $`c_1=c_2`$ when the particles are coupled and normalizing the wave function gives $`|c_1|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. The result follows. QED


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The most probable candidate for the so called quintessence matter responsible for the current phase of the accelerated expansion of the Universe is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term o more generally an exotic x-fluid - perfect fluid with negative pressure satisfying a linear barotropic equation of state (see, for instance,  and refs. therein). To describe the present stage of evolution this x-fluid is to be added to the normal matter, which mainly consist of cold dark matter. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model , describes the flat Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) Universe filled with a mixture of quintessence represented by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and cold dark matter in the form of pressureless perfect fluid (dust).

However, the flat FRW cosmologies with a x-fluid and a normal perfect fluid are not free from some difficulties. One of them is the so called coincidence problem : to explain why the quintessence density and the normal matter density are comparable today, one has to tune their initial ratio very carefully. The problem may be ameliorated by replacement the x-fluid by the so called quintessence scalar field - homogeneous scalar field $`Q`$ slowly rolling down with some potential $`V(Q)`$ ,. For instance, the potential $`V(Q)=M^{4+\alpha }Q^\alpha ,\alpha >0`$, leads to the so called ”tracker” solution, which ”attracts” solutions to the equations of motion before the present stage for very wide range of initial conditions. Another way for resolving the problem was proposed in . The idea is to use a fluid with bulk viscosity in combination with a quintessence scalar field.

The aim of this paper is to show that the cosmic coincidence problem may be resolved by using a x-fluid as the quintessence and a viscous fluid as the normal matter. In section 2 we describe the general model and get basic equations. To integrate the equations of motion we choose the so called ”second equations of state”, which provide us with the dependence of the shear and bulk viscosity coefficients on time, in some special form of their metric dependence. The exact solutions for both isotropic and anisotropic case are obtained in section 3, where their dynamical properties are discussed.

## 2 The general model

We assume the following metric

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma (t)}\mathrm{d}t^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{exp}[2x^i(t)]\mathrm{d}s_i^2,$$
(2.1)
on the $`D`$-dimensional space-time manifold

$$\text{IM}=\text{IR}\times M_1\times \mathrm{}\times M_n,$$
(2.2)
where $`\mathrm{d}s_i^2`$ is the metric of the Ricci-flat factor space $`M_i`$ of dimension $`d_i`$, $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`x^i(t)`$ are scalar functions of the cosmic time $`t`$. $`a_i\mathrm{exp}[x^i]`$ is the scale factor of the space $`M_i`$ and the function $`\gamma (t)`$ determines a time gauge. The synchronous time $`t_s`$ is defined by the equation $`\mathrm{d}t_s=\mathrm{exp}[\gamma (t)]\mathrm{d}t`$.

We consider a source of gravitational field in the form of 2-component cosmic fluid. The first one is a perfect fluid with a density $`\rho ^{(1)}(t)`$ and a pressure $`p^{(1)}(t)`$. The second component supposed to be a viscous fluid. It is characterized by a density $`\rho ^{(2)}(t)`$, a pressure $`p^{(2)}(t)`$, a bulk viscosity coefficient $`\zeta (t)`$ and a shear viscosity coefficient $`\eta (t)`$. The overall energy-momentum tensor of the cosmic fluid reads

$$T_\nu ^\mu =\left(\rho ^{(1)}+\rho ^{(2)}\right)u^\mu u_\nu +\left(p^{(1)}+p^{(2)}\zeta \theta \right)P_\nu ^\mu 2\eta \sigma _\nu ^\mu ,$$
(2.3)
where $`u^\mu `$ is the $`D`$-dimensional velocity of the fluid, $`\theta =u_{;\mu }^\mu `$ denotes the scalar expansion, $`P_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu +u^\mu u_\nu `$ is the projector on the $`(D1)`$-dimensional space orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$, $`\sigma _\nu ^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{\alpha ;\beta }+u_{\beta ;\alpha }\right)P^{\alpha \mu }P_\nu ^\beta (D1)^1\theta P_\nu ^\mu `$ is the traceless shear tensor and $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},D1`$.

By assuming the comoving observer condition $`u^\mu =\delta _0^\mu \text{e}^{\gamma (t)}`$, the overall energy-momentum tensor may be written as

$$T_\nu ^\mu =T_\nu ^{\mu (1)}+T_\nu ^{\mu (2)},$$
(2.4)
where

$`\left(T_\nu ^{\mu (1)}\right)=\text{diag}(\rho ^{(1)},p^{(1)},\mathrm{},p^{(1)}),`$ (2.5)
$`\left(T_\nu ^{\mu (2)}\right)=\text{diag}(\rho ^{(2)},\stackrel{~}{p}_1^{(2)}\delta _{l_1}^{k_1},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{p}_n^{(2)}\delta _{l_n}^{k_n}),`$ (2.6)
$`k_i,l_i=1,\mathrm{},d_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Here $`\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{(2)}`$ denotes the effective pressure including the dissipative contribution of the viscous fluid in the factor space described by the manifold $`M_i`$. It reads

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{(2)}=p^{(2)}\text{e}^\gamma \left[\zeta \dot{\gamma }_0+2\eta \left(\dot{x}^i\frac{\dot{\gamma }_0}{D1}\right)\right],$$
(2.7)
where

$$\gamma _0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_ix^i.$$
(2.8)
Furthermore, we assume that the barotropic equations of state hold

$$p^{(\alpha )}=\left(1h^{(\alpha )}\right)\rho ^{(\alpha )},\alpha =1,2,$$
(2.9)
where the $`h^{(\alpha )]}`$ are constants such that $`h^{(1)}h^{(2)}`$.

The Einstein equations $`R_\nu ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu R=\kappa ^2T_\nu ^\mu `$, where $`\kappa ^2`$ is the gravitational constant, can be written as $`R_\nu ^\mu =\kappa ^2(T_\nu ^\mu [T/(D2)]\delta _\nu ^\mu )`$. Further, the equations $`R_0^0\frac{1}{2}\delta _0^0R=\kappa ^2T_0^0`$ and $`R_b^a=\kappa ^2(T_b^a[T/(D2)]\delta _b^a)`$, where $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},D`$, give the following equations of motion

$`\dot{\gamma }_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_i(\dot{x}^i)^2`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa ^2\text{e}^{2\gamma }\left(\rho ^{(1)}+\rho ^{(2)}\right),`$ (2.10)
$`\ddot{x}^i+(\dot{\gamma }_0\dot{\gamma })\dot{x}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2\text{e}^\gamma \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{e}^\gamma }{D2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h^{(\alpha )}\rho ^{(\alpha )}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{D2}}\dot{\gamma }_02\eta \left(\dot{x}^i{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }_0}{D1}}\right)\right],`$ (2.11)
$`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

The energy conservation law $`_\mu T_0^{\mu (2)}=0`$ for a viscous fluid described by a tensor given by equation (2.6) reads

$$\dot{\rho }^{(2)}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i\dot{x}^i\left(\rho ^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{(2)}\right)=0.$$
(2.12)
Owing to the constraint $`_\mu T_0^\mu =0`$ for the overall energy-momentum tensor given by equation (2.3) the similar energy conservation law is valid for the perfect fluid

$$\dot{\rho }^{(1)}+\left(\rho ^{(1)}+p^{(1)}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i\dot{x}^i=0.$$
(2.13)
Taking into account equation (2.9), ones easily integrates equation (2.13). The result is

$$\rho ^{(1)}=Ae^{(h^{(1)}2)\gamma _0},$$
(2.14)
where $`A`$ is a positive constant. We note that the contribution of the perfect fluid component with $`h^{(2)}=2`$ to the overall energy momentum tensor is equivalent to the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\kappa ^2A`$.

Furthermore, by using equations (2.10) and (2.14) the presence of the densities $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ in equations (2.11) can be cancelled. Thus, we obtain the main governing set of equations

$`\ddot{x}^i+(\dot{\gamma }_0\dot{\gamma })\dot{x}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2A{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(1)}h^{(2)}}{D2}}\text{e}^{[h^{(1)}2]\gamma _0+2\gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(2)}}{2(D2)}}\left(\dot{\gamma }_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_i(\dot{x}^i)^2\right)`$ (2.15)
$`+`$ $`\kappa ^2\text{e}^\gamma \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{D2}}\dot{\gamma }_02\eta \left(\dot{x}^i{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }_0}{D1}}\right)\right].`$
We use an integration procedure which is based on the $`n`$-dimensional Minkowsky-like geometry. Let $`\text{IR}^n`$ be the real vector space and $`𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_n`$ be the canonical basis in $`\text{IR}^n`$ (i.e. $`𝐞_1=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ etc). Let us define a symmetrical bilinear form $`,`$ on $`\text{IR}^n`$ by

$$𝐞_i,𝐞_j=\delta _{ij}d_jd_id_j.$$
(2.16)
Such a form is non-degenerate and has the pseudo-Euclidean signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$  . With this in mind, a vector $`𝐲\text{IR}^n`$ is timelike, spacelike or isotropic respectively, if $`𝐲,𝐲`$ takes negative, positive or null values respectively and two vectors $`𝐲`$ and $`𝐳`$ are orthogonal if $`𝐲,𝐳=0`$. Hereafter, we use the following vectors

$`𝐱`$ $`=`$ $`x^1(t)𝐞_1+\mathrm{}+x^n(t)𝐞_n,`$ (2.17)
$`𝐮`$ $`=`$ $`u^1𝐞_1+\mathrm{}+u^n𝐞_n,u^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{D2}},u_i=d_i,`$ (2.18)
where the covariant coordinates $`u_i`$ of the vector $`𝐮`$ are introduced by the usual way. Moreover, we obtain

$$\dot{𝐱},\dot{𝐱}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i(\dot{x}^i)^2\dot{\gamma }_0^2,𝐮,𝐱=\gamma _0,𝐮,𝐮=\frac{D1}{D2}.$$
(2.19)
Thus, using equations (2.17)-(2.19) we rewrite the main governing set of equations in the following vector form

$`\ddot{𝐱}+(\dot{\gamma }_0\dot{\gamma })\dot{𝐱}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\kappa ^2A\left(h^{(2)}h^{(1)}\right)\text{e}^{[h^{(1)}2]\gamma _0+2\gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(2)}}{2}}\dot{𝐱},\dot{𝐱}\right]𝐮`$ (2.20)
$``$ $`\kappa ^2\text{e}^\gamma \left[\left(\zeta +{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{D1}}2\eta \right)\dot{\gamma }_0𝐮+2\eta \dot{𝐱}\right].`$
Moreover, the density $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ can be expressed as

$$\rho ^{(2)}=\frac{\dot{𝐱},\dot{𝐱}}{2\kappa ^2}\text{e}^{2\gamma }\rho ^{(1)}.$$
(2.21)
Now we summarize thermodynamics principles. The first law of thermodynamics applied to the viscous fluid reads

$$T\mathrm{d}S=\mathrm{d}\left(\rho ^{(2)}V\right)+p^{(2)}\mathrm{d}V,$$
(2.22)
where $`V`$ stands for a fluid volume in the whole space $`M_1\times \mathrm{}\times M_n`$, $`S`$ is an entropy in the volume $`V`$ and $`T`$ is a temperature of the viscous fluid. By assuming that the baryon particle number $`N_\mathrm{B}`$ in the volume $`V`$ is conserved, equation (2.22) transforms to

$$nT\dot{s}=\dot{\rho }^{(2)}+\left(\rho ^{(2)}+p^{(2)}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i\dot{x}^i$$
(2.23)
where $`s=S/N_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`n=N_\mathrm{B}/V`$ stands for the entropy per baryon and the baryon number density. The comparison between equations (2.12) and (2.23) gives the variation rate of entropy per baryon

$$nT\dot{s}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i\dot{x}^i\left(p^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{(2)}\right)=\text{e}^\gamma \left[\left(\zeta +\frac{D2}{D1}2\eta \right)\dot{\gamma }_0^2+2\eta \dot{𝐱},\dot{𝐱}\right].$$
(2.24)
## 3 Exact solutions

To integrate equation (2.20) one needs a second set equations of state, involving the bulk viscosity coefficient $`\zeta `$ and the shear viscosity coefficient $`\eta `$. Herein, we suppose

$$\zeta =\frac{\zeta _0}{\kappa ^2}\frac{D2}{D1}\dot{\gamma }_0\text{e}^\gamma ,\eta =\frac{\eta _0}{2\kappa ^2}\dot{\gamma }_0\text{e}^\gamma ,$$
(3.1)
where $`\zeta _00`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are constants. When the cosmological model is isotropic, i.e. $`\dot{x}^i=\dot{\gamma }_0/(D1),i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and the shear viscosity is not significant, the expression $`H\dot{\gamma }_0\text{e}^\gamma /(D1)`$ is the Hubble parameter.Then we get from equation (3.1): $`\zeta =\frac{D2}{\kappa ^2}\zeta _0H`$, i.e. the bulk viscosity coefficient is linear proportional to the Hubble parameter. Such kind of the second equation of state describes the so called ”linear dissipative regime” in the FRW world model (see, for instance, ). As we study an anisotropic cosmological model, we must involve a shear viscosity as well as a bulk one. So, we propose equations (3.1) for the anisotropic model as a simplest generalization to the of the second equation of state describing the linear dissipative regime.

In order to integrate equation (2.20), we use the orthogonal basis

$$\frac{𝐮}{𝐮,𝐮},𝐟_2,\mathrm{},𝐟_n\text{IR}^n,$$
(3.2)
where the vector $`𝐮`$ was introduced by equation (2.18) The orthogonality property reads

$$𝐮,𝐟_j=0,𝐟_j,𝐟_k=\delta _{jk},(j,k=2,\mathrm{},n).$$
(3.3)
Let us note that the basis vectors $`𝐟_2,\mathrm{},𝐟_n`$ are space-like, since they are orthogonal to the time-like vector $`𝐮`$. The vector $`𝐱\text{IR}^n`$ decomposes as follows

$$𝐱=\gamma _0\frac{𝐮}{𝐮,𝐮}+\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}𝐱,𝐟_j𝐟_j.$$
(3.4)
Hence, under the above assumptions equation (2.20) reads in the terms of coordinates in such basis as follows

$`\ddot{\gamma }_0+\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(2)}}{2}}\zeta _0\right)\dot{\gamma }_0\dot{\gamma }\right]\dot{\gamma }_0`$ $`=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{D2}}`$ $`\left[\kappa ^2A\left(h^{(1)}h^{(2)}\right)\text{e}^{[h^{(1)}2]\gamma _0+2\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(2)}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\dot{𝐱},𝐟_j^2\right]`$ , (3.5)
$`\ddot{𝐱},𝐟_j+\left[(1+\eta _0)\dot{\gamma }_0\dot{\gamma }\right]\dot{𝐱},𝐟_j`$ $`=0(j=2,\mathrm{},n).`$ (3.6)
The integration of equation (3.6) gives

$$\dot{𝐱},𝐟_j=p^j\text{e}^{\gamma (1+\eta _0)\gamma _0},$$
(3.7)
where $`p^j`$ is an arbitrary constant.

Further we determine the time gauge by

$$\gamma =k\gamma _0,$$
(3.8)
where $`k`$ is a constant.

By substituting the functions $`\dot{𝐱},𝐟_j`$ into equation (3) we obtain the following integrable by quadrature ordinary differential equation

$`\ddot{\gamma }_0\left(k1+{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(2)}}{2}}+\zeta _0\right)\dot{\gamma }_0^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{D1}}\text{e}^{2(k1)\gamma _0}\left[\kappa ^2A\left(h^{(1)}h^{(2)}\right)\text{e}^{h^{(1)}\gamma _0}{\displaystyle \frac{h^{(2)}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(p^j\right)^2\text{e}^{2\eta _0\gamma _0}\right].`$ (3.9)
In what follows we accept the agreement

$$\mathrm{d}t>0,$$
(3.10)
i.e. the cosmic time increases during the evolution.

It should be noted that the solutions of equation (3) corresponding to different sets of the parameters $`h^{(1)},h^{(2)},\zeta _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ may lead to nonsatisfactory from the physical viewpoint cosmological evolutions. Further, we study only ones, which satisfy the following consistency condition: neither the density $`\rho ^{(2)}(t)`$ nor the variation rate of entropy $`\dot{s}(t)`$ have negative values on any time interval.

### 3.1 The isotropic model

The isotropic model is described by the metric given by equation (2.1) with

$$a\text{e}^{x^i}=\text{e}^{\gamma _0/(D1)},i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(3.11)
The scale factor $`a`$ of the whole isotropically evolving space $`M_1\times \mathrm{}\times M_n`$ can be obtained by integration of equation (3) with

$$p^j=0,j=2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(3.12)
It can be proven that the above mentioned consistency condition leads to the following constraint

$$h^{(1)}h^{(2)}2\zeta _0>0.$$
(3.13)
At first we present the special solution to equation (3). The special solution describes the asymptotical behaviour of all solutions at late time. It is the steady state solution

$$a\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+\epsilon _0)}{(D1)(D2)}}t_s\right],\rho ^{(1)}=A\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa ^2,$$
(3.14)
for $`h^{(2)}=2`$ and shows a power-law behaviour

$$at_s^{2/[(2h^{(1)})(D1)]},\rho ^{(1)}t_s^2$$
(3.15)
for $`h^{(1)}2`$, where $`t_s`$ is the synchronous time. Moreover, we present the deceleration parameter

$$q\frac{a(\ddot{a}\dot{\gamma }\dot{a})}{\dot{a}^2}=1+\frac{D1}{2}\left(2h^{(1)}\right),$$
(3.16)
the density ratio

$$\rho ^{(2)}/\rho ^{(1)}=\epsilon _0\frac{2\zeta _0}{h^{(1)}h^{(2)}2\zeta _0}$$
(3.17)
and the overall pressure

$$p^{(1)}+\stackrel{~}{p}^{(2)}=\left(1h^{(1)}\right)(1+\epsilon _0)\rho ^{(1)}.$$
(3.18)
The variation rate of entropy is positive (if $`\zeta _0>0`$) and $`nT\dot{s}\rho ^{(1)}`$.

To obtain the general solution to equation (3) in the isotropic case we suppose that the parameter $`k`$ specifying the time gauge by equation (3.8) is

$$k=1h^{(1)}/2.$$
(3.19)
(We note that the time $`t`$ becomes synchronous if the perfect fluid component appears as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term, i.e. $`h^{(1)}=2`$). This yields that equation (3) under the condition given by equation (3.12) is integrable by elementary methods. The result is

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`a_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{1\tau ^2}}\right)^{1/[(D1)(h^{(1)}h^{(2)}2\zeta _0)]},`$ (3.20)
$`\rho ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`Aa^{(D1)[h^{(1)}2]},`$ (3.21)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}\left[2h^{(1)}+\left(h^{(1)}h^{(2)}2\zeta _0\right)(1\tau ^2)\right],`$ (3.22)
$`\rho ^{(2)}/\rho ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\epsilon _0)/\tau ^21,`$ (3.23)
$`p^{(1)}+\stackrel{~}{p}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\epsilon _0)\left[\left(1h^{(2)}2\zeta _0\right){\displaystyle \frac{1\tau ^2}{\tau ^2}}+1h^{(1)}\right]\rho ^{(1)},`$ (3.24)
where we introduced the following variable

$$\tau =\mathrm{tanh}\left[\left(h^{(1)}h^{(2)}\right)\sqrt{\frac{\kappa ^2(D1)A}{2(D2)(1+\epsilon _0)}}(tt_0)\right],t>t_0.$$
(3.25)
Now we analyze the role of viscosity in this isotropic 2-component model using the obtained exact solution. The main features of the model are the following. Under the weak energy condition ($`\rho ^{(1)}+\rho ^{(2)}0,\rho ^{(1)}+\rho ^{(2)}+p^{(1)}+\stackrel{~}{p}^{(2)}0`$), which leads to the following restriction on the parameters $`2h^{(1)}>h^{(2)}+2\zeta _0`$, the Universe expands eternally from the initial singularity. Near the singularity we obtain in the main order $`at_s^{2/[(2h^{(2)}2\zeta _0)(D1)]}`$ There is only nonsingular solution given by equation (3.14).

All solutions describes the accelerated expansion at least on the late phase of evolution if $`h^{(1)}>2(D2)/(D1)`$. The solutions given by equation (3.20) describe the period of decelerated expansion if $`h^{(2)}+2\zeta _0<2(D2)/(D1)`$. We note that the cosmic deceleration phase is important within mechanism of the clumping of matter into galaxies (see, for instance, ). Under the assumption $`2h^{(1)}>2(D2)/(D1)>h^{(2)}+2\zeta _0`$ the decelerated expansion takes place during the time interval $`(t_0,t^{})`$, where $`t^{}`$ is defined by

$$t^{}t_0=\frac{\mathrm{arcosh}\sqrt{1+\frac{2(D2)/(D1)h^{(2)}2\zeta _0}{h^{(1)}2(D2)/(D1)}}}{\sqrt{\kappa ^2\frac{A(D1)}{2(D2)}\left(h^{(1)}h^{(2)}\right)\left(h^{(1)}2\frac{D2}{D1}\right)\left[1+\frac{2(D2)/(D1)h^{(2)}2\zeta _0}{h^{(1)}2(D2)/(D1)}\right]}}.$$
(3.26)
Equation (3.26) shows that introducing of the bulk viscosity reduces the phase of the decelerated expansion.

The density ratio given by equations (3.17) and (3.23) exhibits the following property

$$\mathrm{lim}_{t+\mathrm{}}\rho ^{(2)}/\rho ^{(1)}=\epsilon _0\frac{2\zeta _0}{h^{(1)}h^{(2)}2\zeta _0}.$$
(3.27)
So, the bulk viscosity allow to resolve the coincidence problem which appears in the unviscous 2-component model.

### 3.2 The anisotropic model

Now we consider the general anisotropic behaviour of the model. Once integrating equation (3) we get the first integral of the form $`\dot{\gamma }_0=F(\gamma _0,C)`$, where $`F`$ is some function and $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant. Substituting $`\dot{\gamma }_0`$ and the functions $`\dot{𝐱},𝐟_j`$ given by equation (3.7) into equations (2.21) and (2.24) we express $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`nT\dot{s}`$ via $`\gamma _0`$. The subsequent analysis of the expressions for $`\gamma _0`$, $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`nT\dot{s}`$ shows the presence of solutions with physically nonsatisfactory behaviour near the initial singularity. To exclude such solutions we put the following restrictions on the parameters

$$2h^{(1)}>h^{(2)}+2\zeta _02\eta _02\zeta _0,2\eta _0h^{(2)}0.$$
(3.28)
These restrictions guarantee the following properties for all solutions: the density $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and the variation rate of entropy $`\dot{s}`$ are positive during the evolution, which starts at the initial singularity of the Kasner type and proceeds eternally to the subsequent isotropic expansion; the density ratio $`\rho ^{(2)}/\rho ^{(1)}`$ tends to the nonzero constant as $`t+\mathrm{}`$ (see equation (3.27)).

To study these behaviour in detail let us obtain the exact solution. We note that the equation $`\dot{\gamma }_0=F(\gamma _0,C)`$ is integrable by quadrature for arbitrary parameters $`h^{(1)},h^{(2)},\zeta _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$. To express the exact solution in elementary functions we put the following relation on the parameters

$$h^{(1)}2h^{(2)}2\eta _04\zeta _0=0.$$
(3.29)
For the nonviscous model ($`\eta _0=\zeta _0=0`$) the relation reads $`h^{(1)}=2h^{(2)}`$. The latter corresponds, for instance, to the so called $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term ($`h^{(1)}=2`$) and dust ($`h^{(2)}=1`$). We remind that the parameters obey the inequalities given by formula (3.28). Comparing equation (3.29) and formula (3.28), one gets $`h^{(2)}>0`$.

Now we start the integration procedure in the time gauge defined by equations (3.8) and (3.19) . The integration of equation (3) gives

$$\text{e}^{\beta \gamma _0(t)}=C_0\frac{\tau (\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )}{1\tau ^2},$$
(3.30)
where we cancelled the constant $`_{j=2}^n(p^j)^2`$ by introducing the following constants

$$C_0\sqrt{\frac{2h^{(2)}}{\kappa ^2A(h^{(1)}h^{(2)})}\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}(p^j)^2},\alpha =\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{\sqrt{\frac{2h^{(2)}}{\kappa ^2A(h^{(1)}h^{(2)})}_{j=2}^n(p^j)^2}}{C_0}[0,\pi /2],$$
(3.31)
the parameter $`\beta `$ is defined as follows

$$\beta =h^{(1)}h^{(2)}2\zeta _0>0.$$
(3.32)
The variable $`\tau `$ was introduced by equation (3.25). Substituting equation (3.30) into equation (3.7) and taking into account equations (3.8) and (3.19), we obtain by integration

$$𝐱,𝐟_j=\sqrt{\frac{(D2)\beta }{(D1)h^{(2)}_{j=2}^n(p^j)^2}}p^j\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha }\right]^{1/\beta }+q^j,$$
(3.33)
where $`q^j`$ are arbitrary constants. Substituting equations (3.30) and (3.33) into the decomposition given by equation (3.4), we get

$$𝐱=\mathrm{ln}\left[C_0\frac{(\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )^2}{1\tau ^2}\right]^{1/\beta }\frac{𝐮}{𝐮,𝐮}+\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\tau }{\tau (\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )}\right]^{1/\beta }𝐫+𝐬,$$
(3.34)
where the vectors $`𝐫\text{IR}^n`$ and $`𝐬\text{IR}^n`$ are defined as follows

$$𝐫\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r^i𝐞_i=\sqrt{\frac{(D2)\beta }{(D1)h^{(2)}_{j=2}^n(p^j)^2}}\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}p^j𝐟_j+\frac{𝐮}{𝐮,𝐮},𝐬\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}s^i𝐞_i=\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}q^j𝐟_j.$$
(3.35)
Owing to the orthogonality property given by equation (3.3) the coordinates $`r^i`$ and $`s^i`$ of these vectors in the canonical basis $`𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_n`$ satisfy the following constraints

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_ir^i=𝐮,𝐫=1,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_i\left(r^i\right)^2=𝐫,𝐫{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_id_jr^ir^j={\displaystyle \frac{(D2)\beta }{(D1)h^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}},`$ (3.36)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_is^i=𝐮,𝐬=0.`$ (3.37)
The constants $`r^i`$ may be called Kasner-like parameters, because of the existence of the constraints given by equation (3.36). We remind, that the coordinates of the vector $`\mathrm{x}`$ in the canonical basis are the logarithms of the scale factors $`a_i\mathrm{exp}[x^i]`$.

Finally, we present the exact solution:

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )}{1\tau ^2}}\right]^{(2h^{(2)})/\beta }\mathrm{d}t^2+\left[C_0{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )^2}{1\tau ^2}}\right]^{2/(D1)\beta }\times `$ (3.38)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha }}\right]^{2r^i/\beta }\text{e}^{2s^i}\mathrm{d}s_i^2,`$
$`\rho ^{(1)}=A\left[C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )}{1\tau ^2}}\right]^{(2h^{(2)})/\beta },`$ (3.39)
$`\rho ^{(2)}/\rho ^{(1)}=(1+\epsilon _0)F_1^2(\tau )\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{h^{(2)}}}F_2^2(\tau )\right]1,`$ (3.40)
$`nT\dot{s}=\sqrt{8\kappa ^2A{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{D2}}(1+\epsilon _o)^3}F_1^3(\tau )\left[\zeta _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0\beta }{h^{(2)}}}F_2^2(\tau )\right]\rho ^{(1)},`$ (3.41)
where

$$F_1(\tau )=\frac{\frac{1}{2}(1+\tau ^2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\tau (\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha )},F_2(\tau )=\frac{(1\tau ^2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{(1+\tau ^2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +2\tau \mathrm{cos}\alpha }.$$
(3.42)
The solution has the following integration constants: $`C_0>0`$, $`\alpha [0,\pi /2]`$, $`t_0`$, $`r^1,\mathrm{},r^n`$, $`s^1,\mathrm{},s^n`$. The constants $`r^i`$ and $`s^i`$ satisfy the constraints given by equations (3.36) and (3.37). Then the number of free integration constants is $`2n`$ as required. The limit for $`\alpha +0`$ of this exact solution is the isotropic solution obtained in section 3.2.

Before we start the studying of the obtained exact solution near the initial singularity let us remind the multi-dimensional generalization of the well-known Kasner solution . It reads (for the synchronous time $`t_s`$) as follows

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{d}t_s^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_it_s^{2\epsilon ^i}\mathrm{d}s_i^2.$$
(3.43)
Such a metric describes the evolution of a vacuum model under consideration. The Kasner parameters $`\epsilon ^i`$ satisfy the constraints

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i\epsilon ^i=1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i\left(\epsilon ^i\right)^2=1.$$
(3.44)
The generalized Kasner solution describes the contraction of some spaces from the set $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_n`$ and the expansion for the other ones. According to equation (3.44), the number of either contracting or expanding spaces depends on $`n`$ (the total number of spaces) and $`d_{i=1,n}`$ (their dimensions).

We note that the constraints given by equation (3.36) for $`r^i`$ coincide with these constraints for $`\epsilon ^i`$ when $`\zeta _0=\eta _0=0`$ and $`h^{(1)}=2h^{(2)}`$, i.e. the Kasner-like parameters $`r^i`$ become exactly Kasner parameters $`\epsilon ^i`$ in the absence of viscosity. Therefore, if the parameters $`\zeta _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are small enough, then the model describes a behaviour of the Kasner type as $`\tau +0`$, i.e. towards to the initial singularity. However, too strong viscosity suppress a behaviour of the Kasner type. It can be shown that if the parameters $`\zeta _0=\eta _0=0`$ are large enough, then the model describes expansion of all factor spaces $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_n`$ near the initial singularity.

One can prove that the final stage of the evolution ($`\tau 10`$) exhibits the isotropic expansion. The asymptotical behaviour of the model for $`\tau 10`$ is described by the exact solution given by equation (3.14)-(3.18).

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant 98-02-16414) and DFG Proj. 436 RUS 113/236/0(R).


text:
# Measurement of Λ⁰ polarization in 𝜈_𝜇 CC interactions in NOMAD

## I Introduction

A study of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization in (anti)neutrino nucleon DIS is motivated by several reasons. First, a possible longitudinal polarization in the target fragmentation region can be related to the polarized nucleon strangeness which is a conclusion (in the framework of quark parton model assuming $`SU(3)_F`$ symmetry and vanishing gluon spin contribution to the nucleon spin) of DIS experiments with both polarized beam and target EMC . The authors PSM  attempt to explain the negative sign of the nucleon strangeness and predict that it could manifest itself as a negative (aligned in the opposite direction to the $`W`$ exchange boson) longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in (anti)neutrino nucleon DIS. Second, a measurement of the longitudinal polarization in the current fragementation region provides a test of different models for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin structure cfr ; cfr\_aram ; cfr\_soffer  with a clean flavour separation provided by the nature of neutrino interactions. Last but not least, transverse polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons has been observed for a long time in unpolarized hadron-hadron experiments lambda\_hadron , and was never observed in (anti)neutrino nucleon DIS experiments lambda\_neutrino . This surprizing feature challenges experimental and theoretical efforts in this field. The neutrino nucleon DIS is again exceptional due to the different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production mechanisms in the target and current fragmentation regions in contrast to $`pp`$ scattering. The quark and di-quark fragmentations are believed to be the subject of the current and target fragmentation regions respectively. Therefore, it is possible to study the transverse polarization in connection with the different mechanisms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production.

## II Experimental procedure and analysis

The active part of the NOMAD detector consists of 44 drift chambers located in a $`0.4`$ Tesla magnetic field. The drift chambers serve as a nearly isoscalar target for neutrino interactions and as a tracking medium. These drift chambers provide an overall efficiency for charged track reconstruction of better than 95% and a momentum resolution of approximately 3.5% in the momentum range of interest (less than 10 $`\text{GeV}/\text{c}`$). Reconstructed tracks are used to determine the event topology (the assignment of tracks to vertices), to reconstruct the vertex position and the track parameters at each vertex and, finally, to identify the vertex type (primary, secondary, V0, etc.).

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons appear in the detector as two charged tracks with opposite charges emerging from a common vertex separated from the primary interaction vertex (V0 -like signature). These events correspond to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0p\pi ^{}`$ decay. The background to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ decays consists of K$`{}_{S}{}^{0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ decays, $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ conversions, and random combinations of tracks wrongly labeled as V0s. To identify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons we first apply some quality cuts to reject as much as possible of the combinatorial background, $`\gamma `$-conversions, and secondary interactions, we then perform a kinematic fit with energy and momentum constraints for each V0 for the final resolution of V0-like particles. As a result we obtained 8087 reconstructed and identified $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons with about $`4\%`$ background contamination in our data sample NOMAD\_lambda . This sample is used for the polarization analysis reported below.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization is measured through the asymmetry in the angular distribution of the protons in the parity violating decay process $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0p\pi ^{}`$. In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ rest frame the decay protons are distributed as: $`\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{4\pi }(1+\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐏𝐤),`$ where $`𝐏`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization vector, $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.642\pm 0.013`$ PDG  is the decay asymmetry parameter and $`𝐤`$ is the unit vector along the decay proton direction. A fit of the raw angular distributions of the decay protons in the data can only be performed after correction for the detector acceptance. To take into account the detector acceptance, and smearing of the angular distributions we developed a new 3-dimensional method for the polarization analysis NOMAD\_lambda . We used its 1-dimensional option for the results reported below because of its better applicability to the samples with low statistics as is the case in the study of the polarization dependence on different kinematic variables.

The axes are defined as follows (in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ rest frame):

* $`𝐧_x=e_W`$, where $`𝐞_W`$ is the reconstructed $`W`$-boson direction;
* $`𝐧_y=𝐞_W\times 𝐞_T/|𝐞_W\times 𝐞_T|`$ axis is orthogonal to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production plane
* $`𝐧_z=𝐧_x\times 𝐧_y`$.

## III Results and discussion

Table 1 displays the results for the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons in our sample as a function of $`x_F`$. We observe negative longitudinal (“$`P_x`$”) and transverse (“$`P_y`$”) polarizations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s which are enhanced in the target fragmentation region. Note that transverse polarization has never been observed before in (anti)neutrino nucleon DIS experiments. It is believed that the origin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization is different in the target and in the current fragmentation regions. Therefore it can be useful to study $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization at $`x_F<0`$ and $`x_F>0`$ separately.

### III.1 Target fragmentation region

#### III.1.1 Longitudinal polarization

The dependence of the longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ on $`W^2`$ at $`x_F<0`$ is shown in Fig. 2. Large negative $`P_x`$ is observed at small $`W^2`$, while at larger $`W^2`$ the longitudinal polarization vanishes. Such an effect can be interpreted as a manifestation of the polarized nucleon strangeness due to the larger probability for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ at small $`W^2`$ to include an $`s`$quark originally present in the nucleon, while at larger $`W^2`$ the $`s`$quarks (presumably unpolarized) are also created in the fragmentation process. The same dependence of $`P_x`$ on $`Q^2`$ is observed.

#### III.1.2 Transverse polarization

We have performed a study of the dependence of the transverse polarization on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ transverse momentum with respect to the jet direction ($`p_T`$) in the target fragmentation region and found it to be in qualitative agreement (both sign and shape) with that found in unpolarized hadron-hadron collisions lambda\_hadron . Also, we observed no dependence of $`P_y`$ on $`W^2`$. These features make possible to conclude that the origin of the transverse polarization is in the fragmentation process.

### III.2 Current fragmentation region

#### III.2.1 Longitudinal polarization

Measurement of the longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization in the current fragmentation region provides a test of different models for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin structure. A comparison of our data to theoretical calculations cfr\_aram  and cfr\_soffer  performed for different models of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin content (details can be found in cfr\_aram ; cfr\_soffer ) is presented in Fig. 4. One can draw the conclusion that naive quark parton model is favoured by our measurement while still some progress in theoretical calculations is expected.

#### III.2.2 Transverse polarization

Transverse polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ in the current fragmentation region in neutrino-nucleon DIS is related to the quark fragmentation processes, therefore it is crucial to look for its $`p_T`$ dependence. Fig. 4 displays such a dependence.

### III.3 Target nucleon effects

Imposing a cut on the total charge ($`Q_{tot}`$) of the event we can study $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization on different target nucleons. We select $`\nu _\mu p`$ ($`\nu _\mu n`$)-like events requiring $`Q_{tot}1`$ ($`Q_{tot}0`$) with purity of the selection 76% (85%). The results are summarized in Table. 2. There is a strong dependence of the polarization vector on the target nucleon. We attribute it to the different contribution of the polarization transfer from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ during their decays into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ in the final state.

## IV conclusion

Our measurements indicate for many interesting phenomena are hidden in the nucleon and in the fragmentation process.

## Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the SPIN2000 organizers for making possible me to participate in the symposium. Special thanks to the NOMAD collaborators making possible this work to appear.


text:
# Detecting a non-Gaussian stochastic background of gravitational radiation

## Abstract

We derive a detection method for a stochastic background of gravitational waves produced by events where the ratio of the average time between events to the average duration of an event is large. Such a signal would sound something like popcorn popping. Our derivation is based on the somewhat unrealistic assumption that the duration of an event is smaller than the detector time resolution.

Consider a large collection of similar gravitational wave sources. If we cannot resolve the individual signals produced by these sources and know only their statistical properties, the signals form a stochastic background. We group stochastic backgrounds into the following two classes: those for which the individual sources have (i) average redshift $`z1`$ and (ii) average redshift $`z1`$. Typically in case (i) the number of individual sources is large enough that the duration of events is long compared to the time between events, and then the central limit theorem enforces Gaussianity of the background. However, for some sources in case (ii) the anticipated number of individual sources might be small enough that this argument breaks down and a non-Gaussian stochastic background might be expected. Examples of (ii) are supernovae, binary inspirals, and young neutron stars. Well developed data analysis methods exist for detecting Gaussian backgrounds. Here we derive a data analysis method for a non-Gaussian background under idealized assumptions; further work is needed to obtain realistic detection methods.

Assume a pair of co-located, aligned detectors with outputs $`h_i^k=n_i^k+s^k`$ ($`i=1,2`$) of uncorrelated Gaussian noise $`n_i^k`$ and possibly a stochastic background signal $`s^k`$. Here $`i`$ labels the detectors and $`k`$ with $`1kN`$ labels the time samples of the detector output. We assume the following probability distribution for the stochastic background signal:

$$p(𝐬|\xi ,\alpha )=\underset{k}{}\left\{\frac{\xi }{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(s^k\right)^2}{2\alpha }\right]+(1\xi )\delta (s^k)\right\},$$
(1)
where $`𝐬=(s^1,\mathrm{},s^N)`$. Thus, the individual time samples are assumed to be statistically independent and identically distributed; this is because we assume the duration of events is smaller than the detector sampling time, so each event affects only one time sample111 Detector time resolutions can be on the order of milliseconds and even supernovae waveforms can be on the order of hundreds of milliseconds, so this assumption is somewhat unrealistic.. In Eq. (1), the parameter $`\xi `$ is the probability that a randomly-chosen data sample will contain an event, and $`\alpha `$ is the signal strength. The Gaussian case is recovered in the limit $`\xi 1`$.

We use Bayesian methods to motivate the choice of detection statistic. Let $`P^{(1)}`$ be the probability that a signal is present in the data (posterior) and $`P^{(0)}`$ be the probability that a signal will be present (prior). The relation between these probabilities is given in terms of the likelihood ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by

$$\frac{P^{(1)}}{1P^{(1)}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{P^{(0)}}{1P^{(0)}}.$$
(2)
A natural detection criterion is to threshold on $`P^{(1)}`$, which is equivalent to thresholding on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, we will say that the signal has been detected if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$ for some threshold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$222We restrict attention here to finding a useful statistic and ignore the issue of how to choose the value of the threshold, which may be done using either Bayesian or frequentist methods..

To compute $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we need only detector data and the probability density functions for the signal and for the noise in each detector. We find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=d^Ns\frac{p_{𝒩_1,𝒩_2}(𝐡_1𝐬,𝐡_2𝐬)}{p_{𝒩_1,𝒩_2}(𝐡_1,𝐡_2)}\stackrel{~}{p}_𝒮^{(0)}(𝐬),$$
(3)
where $`𝐡_i`$ is the vector $`(h_i^1,\mathrm{},h_i^N)`$, $`p_{𝒩_1,𝒩_2}(𝐧_1,𝐧_2)`$ is the joint probability density of the detector noises $`𝐧_1`$ and $`𝐧_2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_𝒮^{(0)}(𝐬)`$ is the probability density that the signal $`𝐬`$ is present in the data, given that some signal is in the data. We take $`\stackrel{~}{p}_𝒮^{(0)}(𝐬)=𝑑\xi 𝑑\alpha p(𝐬|\xi ,\alpha )\stackrel{~}{p}^{(0)}(\xi ,\alpha )`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{p}^{(0)}(\xi ,\alpha )`$ is the prior distribution for the signal parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\alpha `$. Combining these equations and assuming uncorrelated white Gaussian noise of unit variance in each detector333We expect to be able to relax this assumption in the near future. we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝑑\xi 𝑑\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\alpha )\stackrel{~}{p}^{(0)}(\xi ,\alpha )$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\alpha )=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\xi v^j\right)$$

and

$$v^j\left(1+2\alpha \right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(h_1^j+h_2^j\right)^2\frac{\alpha }{4\alpha +2}\right]1.$$
(5)
The detection statistic we suggest is the maximum likelihood statistic

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}=\underset{\alpha ,\xi }{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\alpha ),$$
(6)
which we expect to be large when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ itself is large. The maximization can be carried out numerically444While such a search is computationally intensive, we have had some success with numerical simulations using small (length $`10^6`$) data segments.. If a signal is detected, then the values $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ which achieve the maximum give estimators of the true values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\xi `$. One can also form a posterior distribution for $`\alpha `$ and $`\xi `$ from the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\xi )`$ and thereby attempt to distinguish between Gaussian and non-Gaussian backgrounds.


text:
# 1 Review of product integration

## 1 Review of product integration

The long history of product integration starts with Volterra?. In fact the product integral is to the product what the ordinary integral is to the sum. For starting point consider an evolution equation of the type $`𝐘^{}(𝐬)=A(s)𝐘(𝐱)`$ on the interval $`[a,b]`$. Given $`𝐘(a)`$ we want to find $`𝐘(b)`$. We can obtain an approximate value

$$𝐘(b)e^{A(s_n)(s_ns_{n1})}\mathrm{}e^{A(s_1)(s_1s_0)}𝐘(a)\mathrm{\Pi }_P(A)𝐘(a)$$
(1)
for any partition $`P=\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}`$ of the interval $`[a,b]`$. In fact this approximation process can be made completely precise, and in the limit where the norm of the partition $`\mu (P)`$ goes to zero, under suitable conditions, the expression (1) converges to the product integral: $`𝐘(b)=lim_{\mu (P)0}\mathrm{\Pi }_P(A)𝐘(a)`$.

We briefly enumerate some of the basic properties of product integrals?,?. First we note that $`_a^xe^{A(s)ds}`$ is the solution of the initial value problem we started with. From the formula $`det\left(_a^xe^{A(s)ds}\right)=e^{_a^x\mathrm{Tr}A(s)𝑑s}`$ we infer that product integrals are non-singular matrices. We have a composition rule similar to that of ordinary integrals: $`_a^be^{A(s)ds}=_c^be^{A(s)ds}_a^ce^{A(s)ds}`$. The rule of differentiation with respect to the endpoints reads: $`\frac{}{x}\left(_y^xe^{A(s)ds}\right)=A(x)_y^xe^{A(s)ds}`$ and $`\frac{}{y}\left(_y^xe^{A(s)ds}\right)=_y^xe^{A(s)ds}A(y)`$.

The usual way of computing ordinary integrals is by the means of the Newton-Leibnitz formula, involving primitive functions. The analogous notion for product integrals uses the so-called L-operation. The L-derivative for a nonsingular matrix valued function $`P:[a,b]𝐂_{n\times n}`$ is defined by: $`LP(x):=P^{}(x)P^1(x).`$ It is immediate that $`_a^be^{(LP)(s)ds}=P(b)P^1(a)`$, the analog of the well known Newton-Leibnitz formula.

We reproduce three more important theorems that will be of great use later on:

Sum rule: $`_a^xe^{[A(s)+B(s)]ds}=P(x)_a^xe^{P^1(s)B(s)P(s)ds}`$, where $`P(x)=_a^xe^{A(s)ds}`$.

Similarity rule: $`P(x)\left(_a^xe^{B(s)ds}\right)P^1(a)=_a^xe^{[LP(s)+P(s)B(s)P^1(s)]ds}.`$

Derivative with respect to a parameter: For $`A(s;\lambda )`$ with the right properties? we have: $`\frac{}{\lambda }_y^xe^{A(s;\lambda )ds}=_y^x𝑑s_s^xe^{A(s;\lambda )ds}\frac{A}{\lambda }(s;\lambda )_y^se^{A(s;\lambda )ds}`$.

## 2 Wilson lines and Wilson loops

Let $`M`$ be an n-dimensional manifold representing the space-time and $`A`$ a Lie-algebra valued connection one-form $`A(x)=A_\mu ^k(x)T_kdx^\mu .`$ For a curve $`C`$ (closed) the Wilson line (loop) is defined as $`W[C]=𝒫e^{_a^bA}.`$ If $`C`$ is parametrized by $`\sigma `$ then $`A(x)=A(\sigma )d\sigma ,`$ where $`A(\sigma )A^\mu (x(\sigma ))dx^\mu /d\sigma `$. $`A(\sigma )`$ plays the role of the matrix function in the product integral.

Let us next consider the Wilson loop. For simplicity we assume that the loop may be taken to be the boundary of a two dimensional orientable surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ parametrized by $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$. We can construct the pulled-back field strength $`F_{ab}`$ in two different ways: as the the field strength of the pulled-back connection or as the pull-back of the field strength. It is easy to check that the two coincide.

Our goal is to express the Wilson loop operator in terms of product integrals. As the Wilson loop depends only on the homotopy class of $`C`$, we can parameterize $`C`$ conveniently: break it up into segments along which either $`\sigma `$ or $`\tau `$ remains constant. The composition rule for product integrals ensures that the final result is independent of the intermediate points. Accordingly we have $`W[C]=W_4W_3W_2W_1`$. For these intermediate Wilson lines $`\sigma _0=const.`$ along $`W_1`$ and $`W_3`$, and $`\sigma _1=const.`$ along $`W_2`$ and $`W_4`$.

Based on the properties of product integrals, it was shown by two independent methods? that $`W[C]`$ has a surface integral representation of the form:

$$W=\underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}e^{_{\sigma _0}^\sigma T^1(\sigma ^{};\tau ^{})F_{01}(\sigma ^{};\tau ^{})T(\sigma ^{};\tau ^{})𝑑\sigma ^{}𝑑\tau ^{}},$$
(2)
where $`T`$ is a given Wilson line. This can be interpreted as a non-abelian Stokes theorem.

Let us now focus on the transformation properties of Wilson lines and Wilson loops under a gauge transformation $`A(x)g(x)A(x)g^1(x)g(x)dg(x)^1`$. It was shown? using product integration that Wilson lines have the expected transformation $`𝒫e^{_a^bA}g(b)\left(𝒫e^{_a^bA}\right)g(a)`$. For the Wilson loop one has two ways to derive the transformation property: use the already established one for the lines, or use the surface integral representation provided by the non-abelian Stokes theorem (2). It was checked? that both ways we get the well established answer, reinforcing our confidence in the techniques used.

## 3 Further properties

It is interesting to use the product integral formalism to derive interesting identities among Wilson lines. For brevity we introduce the following notation: $`P(A;b,a)=_a^be^{A(s)ds}`$. Observing that $`_a^be^{A(s)ds}=_a^be^{[\lambda A(s)+(1\lambda )A(s)]ds}`$ for any real $`\lambda `$, based on the sum rule we can deduce immediately that

$$P(\lambda A;a,b)P(A;b,a)=\underset{a}{\overset{b}{}}e^{P(\lambda A;a,s)(1\lambda )A(s)P(\lambda A;s,a)ds}.$$
(3)
An interesting immediate application of (3) is the addition law we obtain for $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$: $`P(2A;b,a)=P(A;b,a)_a^be^{P(A;a,s)A(s)P(A;s,a)ds}`$.

Another application of (3) is by differentiating with respect to $`\lambda `$. After some algebra, involving the formula for differentiation with respect to a parameter recalled earlier, we obtain the following result:

$`{\displaystyle _a^b}ds\{P(\lambda A;a,s)A(s)P(\lambda A;s,b)P(A;b,a)P(\lambda A;s,b)P(A;b,s)`$
$`[P(\lambda A;a,s)A(s)+(1\lambda ){\displaystyle _a^s}dt[P(\lambda A;a,s)A(s)P(\lambda A;s,t)A(t)P(\lambda A;t,s)`$
$`+P(\lambda A;a,t)A(t)P(\lambda A;t,s)A(s)]P(A;s,a)]\}=0.`$ (4)
In conclusion we note that the results described here were extended to the supersymmetric case, marking the beginning of supersymmetric product integration?,?,?.

Acknowledgements

Most of the results presented here were obtained in an enjoyable collaboration with F. Mansouri. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under the contract number DOE-FGO2-84ER40153.

References