text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent developments in superstring/M theory and supergravity have showed that it is possible to have vacuum states such that our world is located on a 3-brane embedded in a warped 5 dimensional space-time with some or all of the extra dimensions compact. One such case is the Horava-Witten theory  compactified on a compact Calabi-Yau (CY) threefold . The compact space is characterized by a set of moduli $`b_i`$ describing its shape (squashing modes) and a modulus $`\phi `$, specifying its size (the breathing mode). Integrating out the squashing modes can be done by solving the equations  (for simplicity we assume that they are constant)

$$\zeta _{HW}b_i=\frac{3}{2}n_i,$$
(1)
where $`\zeta _{HW}=n_kb^k`$ with $`n_k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},h^{1,1}`$) integers. $`h^{1,1}`$ is the number of non trivial $`1,1`$ cycles of the CY. The low energy five dimensional effective action corresponds to an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, the gauge group carrying three branes being $`M5`$ branes located at the fixed points of the orbifold wrapped around the $`1,1`$ cycles of the CY. Consistency of the compactification requires non-trivial four-form field strength flux which induces the presence of a potential in the five dimensional bulk action. There is $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry in the bulk and half of it is broken on the branes. We will call this model the HW brane world model.

Another scenario is to start from IIB string theory, compactify it on a squashed five sphere  111There is nothing sacred about the squashed five sphere. One could presumably replace it with some other Ricci curved space which yields the appropriate number of supersymmetries and chirality on the branes and thus come up with other examples that have similar properties. (so that only $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry is left unbroken) and subsequently compactify on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orientifold . Tadpole cancellation will induce BPS $`D3`$-branes which can be placed at the fixed points of the orbifold. The gauge group and the chirality originate from open string states on the $`D3`$-branes. We can stabilize the squashing modes as before and call the breathing mode $`\phi `$. Consistency of the compactification requires non-trivial fluxes which again induce the presence of a potential in the five dimensional bulk action. In the following we ignore the squashing of the sphere to avoid unnecessary complications (however, see Appendix). The potential in that case depends on two parameters. One is $`\zeta _{I_5^{}}`$, the analogue of $`\zeta _{HW}`$ in the HW model and can be computed in terms of the string scale $`M_s`$, the radius of the sphere $`L`$ and an integer $`n`$ as :

$$\zeta _{I_5^{}}=\frac{n}{M_s^44\pi L^5}.$$
(2)
It is clearly quantized just as $`\zeta _{HW}`$ is. The other parameter is new, not present in a Ricci flat compactification such as that of the HW theory, and it is basically the Ricci scalar $`R_5`$ of the five sphere. It is not quantized: it can be regarded from the five dimensional point of view as a continuous integration constant. We will call this model the $`I_5^{}`$ brane world model. Notice that what we have done here is first compactify on the sphere and subsequently compactify the resulting five dimensional theory on an interval accompanied by an orientifold projection. An alternative route would be to first orientifold the type IIB theory, which would take us to type I string theory, then T-dualize to get the type I’ theory and finally compactify (and wrap the branes and orientifold planes) on $`CP^2\times S^1`$. This would apparently be precisely the compactification proposed in , provided that the above steps commute. For some more details on this see the Appendix.

There has been a lot of discussion on such Randall and Sundrum 1 (RS1)  type models. 222In “RS1 type” in this talk we include models with scalar fields in the bulk. Discussions include the possibility (or not) of having a zero or nearly zero cosmological constant without fine tuning , , , , (self tuning of the cosmological constant) and the possibility of recovering a standard cosmological evolution , , , even though these phenomena do not occur automatically in general RS1 brane worlds: cancellation between the bulk and the brane cosmological constants and therefore standard cosmological evolution is possible with at least one fine tuning.

In this letter we discuss these issues in the context of the HW and $`I_5^{}`$ string models and we hope to clarify first somewhat under what circumstances the various mechanisms can take place and second, we argue that string theory provides us with one additional integration constant compared to non-string theoretic brane worlds due to the presence of the compact space, so that the fine tuning can possibly be avoided.

## 2 Cosmological issues

The relevant piece of the five dimensional effective action for these compactifications is

$$S_{bulk}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}d^5x\sqrt{G}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2V(\phi )\right],$$
(3)
where $`\kappa _5^2=\frac{1}{M_5^3}`$ with $`M_5`$ the five dimensional Planck mass, which is related to the ten or eleven dimensional fundamental scale, once the details of the compactification are specified. The potential is

$$V(\phi )=\frac{1}{6}\zeta _{HW}^2e^{2\phi }$$
(4)
for the compactified Horava-Witten (HW) theory and

$$V(\phi )=R_5e^{\frac{4}{5}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }+8\zeta _{I_5^{}}^2e^{2\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }$$
(5)
for the compactified $`I_5^{}`$ theory333Strictly speaking, this potential corresponds to compactification on the round sphere, so it leaves $`𝒩=8`$ supersymmetry in the bulk and $`𝒩=4`$ on the branes. By squashing the sphere, we could break half of each of the above supersymmetries, in which case we would have more terms in the potential. This simpler form, however, will be sufficient to illustrate our point.. The five dimensional space time coordinates are labeled by $`\{x^\mu ,r\}`$ and the corresponding metric is $`G_{MN}`$, with $`M,N=0,1,2,3,5`$. The action for the branes sitting at $`r=0`$ and $`r=\pi R`$, in the static gauge, is

$$S_{branes}=\frac{1}{\kappa _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[T_1(\phi )\delta (r0)+T_2(\phi )\delta (r\pi R)\right],$$
(6)
with $`T_i`$ the brane tensions and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ the four dimensional induced metric. The above brane action corresponds to an energy momentum tensor (on the brane at $`r=0`$ for example, which we will take to be our “Standard Model” (SM) brane) $`(T_1,T_1,T_1,T_1,0)`$, to which we will eventually add some additional matter in the form $`(\rho ,p,p,p,0)`$ for a total energy momentum tensor on the SM brane

$$T_N^M=(T_1\rho ,T_1+p,T_1+p,T_1+p,0).$$
(7)
The matter density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ are assumed to depend only on time and also to be $`\rho ,p<<T_1`$. The functional form of the tensions before supersymmetry breaking can be computed directly in the Horava-Witten case to be

$$T_1=T_2=\zeta _{HW}e^\phi T(\phi )$$
(8)
and in the $`I_5^{}`$ case it can be fixed by supersymmetry to

$$T_1=T_2=\sqrt{5R_5}e^{\frac{2}{5}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }+4\zeta _{I_5^{}}e^{\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }T(\phi ).$$
(9)
We should note here that up today there does not exist a string theoretic calculation that justifies the expression (9) for the five dimensional effective brane tension. In fact, by naively pulling back the ten dimensional $`D3`$ brane tension to five dimensions in the given background, one finds precisely (but only) the second term in the expression for the five dimensional tension (9). This second term is the one that is analogous to the (quantized) brane tension term in the HW model, proportional to $`\zeta _{HW}`$. The problem here is that the additional term in the brane tension proportional to the Ricci scalar can not be reproduced by straightforward reduction arguments. The answer might have to do with effects not completely understood in orientifolding in a non Ricci flat background. 444It might be that a compactification of the HW theory on a non Ricci flat manifold instead of a CY manifold does not have this problem. The challenge is to find manifolds that preserve $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry in the 5D bulk. Perhaps some product space of spheres does this. Nevertheless, if the compactification is indeed supersymmetric as we claim, the effective brane tension has to be as in (9). We will assume that this is the case and we leave the proof for a later work.

After supersymmetry breaking, the tension gets renormalized and we parameterize the effect of supersymmetry breaking on the $`i`$’th brane by $`\mathit{}=T(\phi )+ϵ_it_i(\phi )`$ where $`ϵ_i`$ is the scale of supersymmetry breaking and therefore $`ϵ_i<<T`$ but also $`\rho ,p<<ϵ_i`$. In the following, we will assume that the breathing mode $`\phi `$ depends only on the coordinate $`r`$. Also, we will denote a time differentiation by a dot, an $`r`$ differentiation by a prime and a differentiation with respect to $`\phi `$ by a hat. The equations of motion corresponding to the actions (3) and (6) are

$$E_{MN}+\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}\left[\frac{1}{2}\phi ^2+V(\phi )\right]\frac{1}{2}\delta _{M4}\delta _{N4}\phi ^2+g_{\mu \nu }T(\phi )\left[\delta _0\delta _R\right]=0$$
(10)
and

$$\phi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{(\sqrt{G})^{}}{\sqrt{G}}\phi ^{}=\widehat{V}+2\widehat{T}\left[\delta _0\delta _R\right],$$
(11)
where $`E_{MN}`$ are the components of the Einstein tensor and we have defined for simplicity $`\delta (r0)\delta _0`$ and $`\delta (r\pi R)\delta _R`$.

First, we make the metric ansatz

$$ds^2=e^{2A(r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2,$$
(12)
which corresponds to a warped five dimensional but flat and static four dimensional world and we set $`\rho =p=0`$. The Einstein equations naturally split into the part along the $`\mu \nu `$ directions and the part along the $`r`$ direction:

$$E_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}e^{2A}\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[\frac{1}{2}\phi ^2+V+2T(\delta _0\delta _R)\right]=0,$$
(13)
$$E_{55}\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\phi ^{})^2V\right]=0.$$
(14)
The non-vanishing Einstein tensor components are

$$E_{\mu \nu }=e^{2A}\eta _{\mu \nu }(6A^2+3A^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{and}E_{55}=6A^2.$$
(15)
The equations of motion, in the bulk, after some algebra can be brought in the form

$$A^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{6}\phi ^2,A^2=\frac{1}{12}V(\phi )+\frac{1}{24}\phi ^2,\phi ^{\prime \prime }+4A^{}\phi ^{}=\widehat{V}.$$
(16)
It was suggested in  that supersymmetry preserving (BPS) solutions to the above second order set of equations is the (equivalent) first order set

$$\phi ^{}=\widehat{W},A^{}=\frac{1}{6}W,V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{W}^2\frac{1}{3}W^2,$$
(17)
where $`W`$ is a “superpotential” to be computed by solving the last of the above differential equations. We separate these solutions in two classes. One class will be the special solution that does not contain an integration constant and we will denote it by $`w`$. The other will be the general solution with the integration constant, which we will call $`\mathit{}`$. For the HW and the $`I_5^{}`$ models, we have respectively,

$$w=\zeta _{HW}e^\phi \mathrm{and}w=\sqrt{5R_5}e^{\frac{2}{5}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }+4\zeta _{I_5^{}}e^{\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }.$$
(18)
Expressions for $`\mathit{}`$ for these two models can be found in  and . The presence of the branes can be taken into account by integrating over $`r`$ equations (13) and the last of equations (16). Then, one obtains for the SM brane the junction conditions

$$\phi _0^{}=\widehat{T}_0,A_0^{}=\frac{1}{6}T_0,$$
(19)
where the subscript $`0`$ reminds us that these conditions have to be obeyed, in principle, only at $`r=0`$ (and at $`r=\pi R`$, since a similar set of junction conditions holds for the other brane as well). Now, notice the similarity between equations (19) and the first two equations in (17). Clearly, if $`T_0=W_0`$, the junction conditions are automatically satisfied. Since, however, these conditions have to be satisfied on both branes simultaneously, a particularly convenient way that this can happen is if the relation $`T=W`$ holds everywhere between and including $`r=0`$ and $`r=\pi R`$. In fact, for the two string theory effective actions we are looking at, this is exactly the case. For instance, in the HW model we have at the supersymmetric point $`T=w=\zeta _{HW}e^\phi `$ and therefore the junction conditions (which are just the consistency conditions for a vanishing cosmological constant on our brane), are satisfied identically without the use of any integration constants  . For the $`I_5^{}`$ model as well, it has been shown   that supersymmetry requires the relation $`T=w`$ for all $`r`$. This mechanism is sometimes called self tuning of the cosmological constant. In these string theory compactifications, the self tuning mechanism seems to be a direct consequence of supersymmetry and therefore not very surprising. Unfortunately, when supersymmetry is broken, the tension $`T`$ gets renormalized and the junction conditions, which still need to be obeyed, can only be satisfied for some superpotential different than $`w`$, namely $`\mathit{}`$, by the choice of a set of four integration constants, so that $`\mathit{}_0=\mathit{}_0`$. Two independent integration constants come from the solution of (17), one is the size of the orbifold $`R`$, and one is hidden in $`\zeta _{HW}`$ ($`R_5`$) in the HW ($`I_5^{}`$) case. For now, we will assume that this is always possible for both the HW and the $`I_5^{}`$ models.

Next, we make the slightly more interesting metric assumption

$$ds^2=e^{2A(r)}[dt^2+e^{a(t)}d𝐱^2]+dr^2,$$
(20)
which corresponds to a flat three dimensional space whose volume is changing in time. This is not necessarily the most general assumption (it is too simple; for more realistic metric assumptions see for example  and references therein) but it is good enough to demonstrate what we think is the essential point here. We will also allow for supersymmetry breaking, which will be taken into account by $`T\mathit{}`$. The equations of motion corresponding to the $`E_{00}`$, $`E_{ij}`$, $`E_{55}`$ components of the Einstein tensor, now become

$$3\dot{a}^2e^{2A}\left(6A^2+3A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{4}\phi ^2+\frac{1}{2}V\right)=e^{2A}\left(\mathit{}\rho \right)(\delta _0\delta _R),$$
(21)
$$3\dot{a}^2+2\ddot{a}^2e^{2A}\left(6A^2+3A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{4}\phi ^2+\frac{1}{2}V\right)=e^{2A}\left(\mathit{}+p\right)(\delta _0\delta _R),$$
(22)
$$3(2\dot{a}^2+\ddot{a}^2)=e^{2A}\left(6A^2\frac{1}{4}\phi ^2+\frac{1}{2}V\right),$$
(23)
respectively, and the $`\phi `$ equation of motion is still

$$\phi ^{\prime \prime }+4A^{}\phi ^{}=\widehat{V}+2\overline{)\widehat{T}}\left[\delta _0\delta _R\right].$$
(24)
Equations (21) and (22) in the bulk immediately imply that

$$a(t)=c_1t+c_2$$
(25)
and therefore that they are equivalent in the bulk. Explicit bulk solutions for $`A`$ and $`\phi `$ can be found in  so we will not present any here. Instead, we turn to the physics of the SM brane. Integrating (21), (22) and (24) we obtain the junction conditions

$$A_0^{}=\frac{1}{6}(\mathit{}_0\rho ),A_0^{}=\frac{1}{6}(\mathit{}_0+p),\phi _0^{}=\overline{)\widehat{T}}_0.$$
(26)
The $`\phi `$ junction condition is unchanged since we assumed that $`\rho =\rho (t)`$. The first two junction conditions are consistent only if $`p=\rho `$, which is the equation of state for vacuum. Consequently, the equation for the conservation of energy

$$\dot{\rho }=3H(\rho +p)$$
(27)
implies that $`\rho `$ is actually constant in time, i.e. matter does not flow out of the brane. Let us now substitute (26) into (23):

$$\frac{\dot{a}_0^2}{e^{2A_0}}=\left(\frac{1}{36}\mathit{}_0^2\frac{1}{24}\overline{)\widehat{T}}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{12}V\right)\frac{1}{18}\rho \mathit{}_0,$$
(28)
where we have dropped the term $`𝒪(\rho ^2)`$. Apparently, standard cosmological evolution is spoiled by the quadratic terms inside of the parenthesis. If the compactification breaks all the supersymmetry, then the brane tension does not take the form of its BPS form plus an order $`ϵ`$ correction and recovery of standard cosmological evolution can be achieved by adjusting integration constants to cancel those terms. This step is basically the RS1 mechanism of canceling the brane against the bulk cosmological constant to 120 orders of magnitude. In our case, however, the compactification preserves some supersymmetry. Supersymmetry breaks at a lower scale, so we can write $`\mathit{}_0=T_0+ϵ_it_i`$. Then, by choosing an integration constant so that $`e^{2A_0}=1`$ and expanding $`\mathit{}_0`$, we obtain, suppressing the brane indices on $`ϵ`$ and $`t`$

$$H_0^2=\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{1}{3}T_0^2\frac{1}{2}\widehat{T}_0^2+V\right)+\frac{ϵ}{12}\left(\frac{2}{3}T_0t\widehat{T}_0\widehat{t}\right)\rho \left(\frac{1}{18}T_0\right),$$
(29)
where we have defined the present Hubble parameter $`a_0H_0`$, which by (25) is equal to the constant $`c_1`$ (i.e. no inflation) and dropped a term of $`𝒪(ϵ\rho )`$. The three groups of terms in the right hand side of (29), (all the terms inside of the parentheses being $`𝒪(1)`$) are in decreasing order of magnitude, since $`\rho <<ϵ<<1`$. On the other hand, the left hand side $`H_0^2`$ is basically the observed cosmological constant, which is at most of the order of magnitude of the last term in (29). Therefore, agreement with the small observed value of the cosmological constant suggests that the terms of $`𝒪(1)`$ and of $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ may cancel separately. The cancellation of the $`𝒪(1)`$ terms is indeed not a problem as we saw in the previous section; $`T_0=w`$ in both the HW and the $`I_5^{}`$ cases and the terms cancel by the original supersymmetry. For the terms of $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ to vanish, it must be that $`\frac{2}{3}T_0t\widehat{T}_0\widehat{t}`$. This relation, just as before, can be satisfied generically only via the adjustment of the available integration constants, i.e. we can not escape from the cosmological constant problem with supersymmetry, we can only improve it by some fifty orders of magnitude. Again, this is not a surprise. Once these terms cancel, we have standard cosmological evolution with $`H_0^2\rho `$   . Here is in fact where apparently the $`I_5^{}`$ model seems to have an advantage over the HW model. Recall that in the $`I_5^{}`$ model we have four continuous integration constants , whereas in the HW model we have three continuous and one set of quantized constants (hidden in $`\zeta _{HW}`$) . It seems very hard to satisfy the cancellation of the $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ terms with a set of discrete parameters.

We can go one step further if in addition we make the stronger assumption that the actual functional form of $`t`$ is implied by the vanishing of the $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ term. This amounts to assuming by analogy to the supersymmetric $`T=w`$ relation that $`\mathit{}=\mathit{}`$ holds identically after supersymmetry breaking. Substituting in (29) the expressions for $`T_0`$ ($`=T`$) in the HW and $`I_5^{}`$ models and solving for $`t`$, we obtain a constraint on the functional form of the supersymmetry breaking correction to the brane tension:

$$t_{HW}(\phi )e^{\frac{3}{2}\phi }\mathrm{and}t_{I_5^{}}(\phi )e^{\frac{7}{3}\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\phi }\left(\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}e^{\frac{2}{5}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }+8\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}e^{2\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\phi }\right).$$
(30)
It would be interesting to check this last assumption using some popular supersymmetry breaking schemes, since it would be a realization of a self tuning mechanism even after supersymmetry breaking555Even if this is the case though, one has to worry about later phase transitions that might generate additional contributions to the cosmological constant.

Concluding, in this paper we emphasized that in our point of view, the reason that it is possible to have a vanishing cosmological constant and a standard cosmological evolution in RS1 type string theoretic brane worlds such as the HW and $`I_5^{}`$ models, is that the four available integration constants are just sufficient to satisfy the four junction conditions. The fourth integration constant ($`\zeta _{HW}`$ or $`R_5`$) that is usually not present in non-string theoretic brane worlds, is associated with the existence of the compact space.

## 3 Appendix

In the Appendix we will give some details of a possible string theory realization of the $`I_5^{}`$ model. We emphasize that even though the supergravity realization of this model is rather clear, several stages of its string theory realization are still at this point at a conjectural level and that is why we put it in an Appendix. The picture we have in mind is the following:

In the above, we have of course assumed that the diagram is commuting. Without the intermediate orientifold step $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we know that it is . With the orientifold step we do not know it but we assume that it is still a commuting diagram. The $`p3`$ branes in the picture at the bottmom are the $`D8/O8`$ branes of the original $`I^{}`$ theory wrapped around $`CP^2\times S^1`$. By squashing the $`S^5`$ on the left, or the $`CP^2`$ on the right, we expect that the maximal supersymmetry will break to $`𝒩=2`$ in the bulk and to $`𝒩=1`$ on the $`p3`$ branes in the $`I_5^{}`$ theory.

The the other important issue is whether the $`p3`$ branes can support chiral fermions on their world volume. This is necessary for the $`I_5^{}`$ model to be potentially fully realistic, i.e. to be able to reproduce the chiral representations of the quarks and the leptons of the Standard Model. Let us start again from type $`I^{}`$ string theory and compactify two directions -$`a`$ and $`b`$\- along the branes on a torus, say $`T^2=S_a^1\times S_b^1`$. Next, T-dualize along both directions, so that the $`D8/O8`$ branes become $`D6/O6`$ branes. Then compactify two more directions along the branes on an $`S^2`$ and one more direction along the branes, say direction $`c`$, on the circle $`S_c^1`$. Now, the directions $`b`$ and $`c`$ form a torus (with one direction along -direction $`c`$\- and the other direction transverse -direction $`b`$\- to the branes), and the branes can wrap this torus in such a way so that they intersect at non-zero angles. To summarize, what we have at this point is stacks of $`D6/O6`$ branes wrapped around $`S^2`$, intersecting at angles on a torus, with a transverse $`S_a^1\times S_d^1/Z_2`$, where the orbifold $`S_d^1/Z_2`$ is the orbifold of the original $`I^{}`$ theory. The question here is if this system can support chiral fermions. Even if it does not, we expect that some simple modification of the model will. The reason for our expectation is the fact that the $`I^{}`$ theory is related to the Horava-Witten theory by a simple circle compactification along the $`E_8`$ walls, and we know that the HW theory supports chiral fermions on the walls even after its compactification on a smooth manifold (eg a Calabi-Yau). Therefore, we expect that some smooth manifold compactification of type $`I^{}`$ must exist that supports chiral fermions on the branes.

To make the connection with the $`I_5^{}`$ model, now T-dualize back along directions $`a`$ and $`b`$. What we obtain is $`D8/O8`$ branes wrapped around $`S^2\times T^2\times S_a^1`$, with flux through the torus. Furthermore, the $`S^2\times T^2`$ part need not be globally a trivial product. It can be a non-trivial bundle for example. If $`CP^2`$ can be constructed as a torus bundle over a 2-sphere (this is not clear at all), then we get precisely to the $`I_5^{}`$ model and if not, to some cousin of it. Notice finally that in the limit that the flux goes to zero, which in the T-dual language means that the branes become parallel, maximal superymmetry is restored. In other words, tilting the branes in angles must correspond to the ’squashing’ of the $`CP^2`$ or of its cousin.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Shanta de Alwis for discussions and suggestions. This work is partially supported by the Department of Energy contract No. DE-FG02-91-ER-40672.


format: text

text:
# The origin of the runaway high-mass X-ray binary HD153919/4U1700-37Based on data obtained with ESA’s astrometric satellite Hipparcos.

## 1 Introduction

The massive stars in the Milky Way are not randomly distributed, but are concentrated in loose groups called OB associations located in the spiral arms of our galaxy (for a review, see e.g. Brown et al. BB99 (1999)). About 80% of the O stars are member of an OB association; the kinematical properties of the remaining 20% of the field population suggest that these O stars are runaways, i.e. they were born in an OB association, but at a certain stage they escaped from it (Blaauw Bl93 (1993)). The two most popular scenarios to explain the existence of runaway stars are (i) the dynamical ejection from a young cluster (Poveda et al. PR67 (1967)) and (ii) the supernova of the companion star in a massive binary (Blaauw Bl61 (1961)). A recent study by Hoogerwerf et al. (HD00 (2000)) based on Hipparcos data demonstrates that both scenarios are at work, probably at a rate of 1:2, respectively.

High-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) are the descendants of massive binaries (Van den Heuvel & Heise HH72 (1972)). A neutron star or a black hole, the compact remnant of the initially most massive star (the primary) in the binary system, produces X-rays due to the accretion of matter from the secondary (an OB supergiant or a Be star); see Kaper (Ka98 (1998)) for an overview of the OB-supergiant systems. The binary system remains bound after the supernova, if less than 50% of the total system mass is lost during the (assumed symmetric) explosion (Blaauw Bl61 (1961), Boersma Bo61 (1961)). The latter can be understood if one considers the phase of mass transfer occuring when the primary becomes larger than its critical Roche lobe (e.g. at the end of core-hydrogen burning when the star expands to become a supergiant) and matter flows from the primary to the secondary. This results in a change of the mass ratio from larger to smaller than one. A kick exerted on the compact object due to the eventual asymmetry of the supernova explosion has also to be taken into account when determining whether the binary breaks up or remains bound after the supernova.

According to the binary-supernova scenario all HMXBs should be runaways. Gies & Bolton (GB86 (1986)) did not find observational evidence supporting this hypothesis on the basis of radial-velocity measurements, though Van Oijen (VO89 (1989)) found strong indications that HMXBs are high-velocity objects. Based on pre-Hipparcos proper motion measurements, Van Rensbergen et al. (VV96 (1996)) suggested that the HMXB Vela X-1 is a runaway system produced by the supernova scenario, and that it originates in the OB association Vel OB1. The discovery of a wind-bow shock around Vela X-1 showed that this system indeed is running through interstellar space with a supersonic velocity, proving the runaway nature of this HMXB (Kaper et al. KL97 (1997)). The Hipparcos proper motions of a dozen HMXBs (Chevalier & Ilovaisky CI98 (1998), Kaper et al. KC99 (1999)) finally demonstrated that, as expected, likely all HMXBs are runaways. The most massive systems (those hosting an OB supergiant) have a mean peculiar (i.e. with respect to their standard of rest) tangential velocity of about 40 km s-1, whereas the Be/X-ray binaries have on average lower velocities (about 15 km s-1). This difference in velocity is consistent with the predictions of binary evolution (Van den Heuvel et al. VP01 (2001)).

The identification of the “parent” OB association of a HMXB is important, because it provides unique constraints on the evolution of high-mass X-ray binaries. When the system’s proper motion and parent OB association are known, its kinematical age can be derived. The kinematical age marks the time of the supernova that produced the compact X-ray source. The distance of a HMXB usually is quite uncertain (and required to calculate its space velocity), but the distance to an OB association can be determined with better accuracy. The space velocity relates to the amount of mass lost from the system during the supernova explosion (cf. Nelemans et al. NT99 (1999)). The age of the parent OB association should be equal to the age of the binary system. Consequently, the turn-off mass at the time of supernova yields the initial mass of the primary. Thus, this relatively straigthforward observation can be used to determine the age of the system, the time of supernova of the primary, the initial mass of the primary, and the amount of mass lost from the system during the supernova. Combining this information allows one to put constraints on the initial orbital parameters of the progenitor of the HMXB and on the evolutionary history of the system.

Here we apply this to the system HD153919/4U1700-37. HD153919 ($`m_V=6.6`$) is the O6.5 Iaf+ companion to 4U1700-37, most likely a neutron star powered by wind accretion (Jones et al. JF73 (1973), Haberl et al. HW89 (1989)), although no X-ray pulsations have been detected (Gottwald et al. GW86 (1986)). According to Brown et al. (BW96 (1996)) 4U1700-37 is a good candidate for a low-mass black hole. HD153919 is the hottest OB companion star known in a HMXB; therefore, the progenitor of 4U1700-37 potentially is a very massive star. Chevalier & Ilovaisky (CI98 (1998)) showed that the Hipparcos proper motion of HD153919 (5 mas yr-1) corresponds to a peculiar tangential motion of 57 km s-1 for an adopted distance of 1.7 kpc (Bolton & Herbst BH76 (1976)), which proves the runaway nature of the system.

In the following we will use the Hipparcos data of OB-type stars in the Sco-Cen region to search for the parent OB association of 4U1700-37. The result will be used to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the system.

## 2 Sco OB1: the parent OB association of 4U1700-37

### 2.1 Early suggestions

We now consider in which association 4U1700-37 may have originated. In their paper on the open cluster NGC 6281, Feinstein & Forte (FF74 (1974)) remark that HD153919, a comparison star in their study, fits remarkably well the color-magnitude and color-color relations of the open cluster NGC 6231. This cluster, the suggested core of the Sco OB1 association, is a few degrees away from NGC 6281. Feinstein & Forte suggested that HD153919 may be a runaway star from NGC 6231. Based on the proper motion listed in the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory catalogue (13 mas yr-1) they obtained a kinematical age of $`1.2\times 10^6`$ yr, “roughly in agreement with the age of NGC 6231 which is a very young cluster”.

### 2.2 Hipparcos observations of the OB stars around 4U1700-37

In our search for the parent OB association of 4U1700-37 we used the Hipparcos database (ESA ESA97 (1997), Perryman et al. PL97 (1997)) and selected the OB stars contained in a region of $`20\times 20`$ degrees centered on 4U1700-37 (Fig. 1). In principle, the Hipparcos data (location, magnitude, parallax, and proper motion) of the OB stars should be sufficient to identify the OB associations in that area. However, the Hipparcos data, in particular the parallax, are only accurate enough for OB stars closer than about 1 kpc (cf. De Zeeuw et al. DH99 (1999) for a Hipparcos census of the nearby OB associations). The estimated distance of 4U1700-37 (1.7 kpc) indicates that the candidate parent OB association of this runaway system is not within the required range for an accurate Hipparcos cluster membership analysis. In order to identify the likely members of an OB association we have to rely mainly on the position and proper motion of the O and B-type stars.

The membership list of Humphreys (Hu78 (1978)), based on radial-velocity studies, is used as a first indication to locate the OB associations in the area. It turns out that there is only one good candidate parent OB association in the backward direction of 4U1700-37: Sco OB1, for which distances are quoted in the range 1.6–2.3 kpc (Perry et al. PH91 (1991), Sung et al. SB98 (1998)). To eliminate some foreground stars we used the Hipparcos parallax. We also calculated photometric distances (taking into account an estimate of the interstellar extinction using the spectral type) to eliminate stars from the Hipparcos input list which are either nearby ($`d<1`$ kpc) or far away ($`d>3`$ kpc) compared to the distance of Sco OB1.

We identified several members of Sco OB1 in the Hipparcos catalogue which are also given as members in Humphreys (Hu78 (1978)) and Perry et al. (PH91 (1991)). In Fig. 2 we show the observed proper motions of the OB stars in the field. Using the mean location and mean proper motion of the OB stars in common with those listed in Humphreys and Perry et al., we could identify a few more candidate OB-type members of Sco OB1. The “Hipparcos confirmed” members of Sco OB1, with spectral type, proper motion, and radial velocity (from Humpreys Hu78 (1978) and Gies & Bolton GB86 (1986)) are listed in Table 1 and are indicated in the figures with a filled diamond. The mean proper motion of these members, and thus an estimate of the proper motion of Sco OB1, is: $`\mu _\alpha \mathrm{cos}\delta =0.39`$ mas yr-1, $`\mu _\delta =1.54`$ mas yr-1. This is in close agreement with the proper motion expected on the basis of differential galactic rotation and peculiar solar motion; correction for the latter two effects gives $`\mu _l^{\mathrm{pec}}=0.57`$ mas yr-1 and $`\mu _b^{\mathrm{pec}}=0.10`$ mas yr-1, which corresponds to a tangential velocity of $`5`$ km s-1 with respect to its standard of rest.

### 2.3 The kinematical age of 4U1700-37

Figure 3 displays the Hipparcos members of Sco OB1. We have also indicated the area of Sco OB1 studied by Perry et al. (PH91 (1991); note that the association might well extend beyond these borders) as well as the location of the open cluster NGC 6231, the suggested nucleus of Sco OB1. Subtraction of the average proper motion of Sco OB1 from the observed proper motion of HD153919 (4U1700-37) results in the path sketched in Fig. 3. In principle, the galactic potential should be taken into account when reconstructing the path of the runaway system, but for this relatively short track the corrections will be very small. The uncertainty in the proper motion measurement of HD153919 (Table 1) allows for a range in position represented by the straight dotted lines. Clearly, 4U1700-37 has been within the area of Sco OB1 about 2 million years ago; also NGC 6231 is included in the error cone. We derive a kinematical age of the system of $`2\pm 0.5`$ million years. Given the large proper motion of the system, the kinematical age can be derived with relatively high precision. Note that this age determination is independent of the adopted distance to 4U1700-37 and Sco OB1.

### 2.4 The distance and age of Sco OB1

Perry et al. (PH91 (1991)) determine the distance of Sco OB1 at 2.0 kpc, very similar to the 1.9 kpc reported by Humphreys (Hu78 (1978)). At a distance of 2 kpc the relative proper motion of 4U1700-37 with respect to Sco OB1 corresponds to a tangential velocity of 58 km s-1. Taking into account the radial velocities of the members of Sco OB1 (mean velocity $`14`$ km s-1, though the radial velocities display a large spread, Humphreys Hu78 (1978)) and of HD153919 ($`60`$ km s-1, Gies & Bolton GB86 (1986)), this results in a space velocity of 75 km s-1. As HD153919 is moving towards us, its present distance is about 100 pc less than Sco OB1, i.e. 1.9 kpc, in agreement with its photometric distance. For NGC 6231, the open cluster inside Sco OB1 (Fig. 3), Balona & Laney (BL95 (1995)) derive a distance modulus of $`11.08\pm 0.05`$ mag, and Sung et al. (SB98 (1998)) arrive at a very similar result: $`11.0\pm 0.07`$ mag, corresponding to a distance of 1.6 kpc. If this is the appropriate distance of the parent association, the present distance of HD153919 is about 1.5 kpc, and its space velocity with respect to NGC 6231 67 km s-1. Obviously, NGC 6231 might also be an open cluster in front of Sco OB1.

The mean radial velocity of Sco OB1 of $`14`$ km s-1 corresponds to a distance of 2.0 kpc. Neutral hydrogen measurements in the direction of HD153919 by Benaglia & Cappa (BC99 (1999)) indicate a distance of 2 kpc as well. For the remainder of this paper we adopt a distance of 2 kpc for Sco OB1.

Based on the evolutionary grids of Maeder & Meynet (MM88 (1988)), Perry et al. (PH91 (1991)) derive a logarithmic age of $`6.9\pm 0.2`$ (8 Myr) for Sco OB1 and the open clusters NGC 6231 and Tr 24. For NGC 6231 Balona & Laney (BL95 (1995)) estimate an age of $`5\pm 1`$ Myr. Using the models of Schaller et al. (SS92 (1992)), Sung et al. (SB98 (1998)) derive an age of 2.5–4 Myr for the massive stars in NGC 6231. The low-mass stars in this cluster show a large age spread. NGC 6231 may represent a relatively young region in Sco OB1. Perry et al. (PH91 (1991)) do not find a significant age difference between Sco OB1 and the enclosed clusters NGC 6231 and Tr 24. Anyway, Sco OB1 certainly is a young OB association given the large number of O stars still present.

## 3 On the evolutionary history of HD153919/4U1700-37

Our analysis shows that HD153919/4U1700-37 originates in the OB association Sco OB1, from which it escaped about 2 Myr ago due to the supernova of 4U1700-37’s progenitor. At the time of the (assumed symmetric) supernova explosion less than half of the total system mass was lost from the system, as the system remained bound. The amount of mass lost during the supernova explosion ($`\mathrm{}`$M) can be estimated from the current space velocity $`v_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ of the system. For a circular pre-supernova orbit and a symmetric supernova explosion, Nelemans et al. (NT99 (1999)) derive the following relation between $`\mathrm{}`$M and $`v_{\mathrm{sys}}`$:

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)=\left(\frac{v_{\mathrm{sys}}}{213\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^1\left(\frac{P_{\mathrm{cir}}}{\mathrm{day}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{M}+m}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{\frac{5}{3}},$$

where M is the present mass of HD153919, $`m`$ the mass of 4U1700-37, and $`P_{\mathrm{cir}}`$ the orbital period after re-circularization of the orbit due to tidal dissipation. The current orbital period of the system is 3.41 day and there is no indication that the orbit is non-circular. As the X-ray source is not pulsating, only the radial-velocity orbit of the O supergiant can be measured, so that the masses of both stars are not uniquely determined. Heap & Corcoran (HC92 (1992)) propose M $`=52\pm 2`$ M (i.e. a mass corresponding to its spectral type) and $`m=1.8\pm 0.4`$ M; Rubin et al. (RF96 (1996)) argue that M $`=30_7^{+11}`$ M and $`m=2.6_{1.4}^{+2.3}`$ M. For a space velocity of 75 km s-1, $`\mathrm{}`$M becomes 8 M or 6 M for the solution of Heap & Corcoran and Rubin et al., respectively. Therefore, the mass of the star that exploded was about 9 M111In case of an asymmetric explosion, the derived mass would be smaller. However, the kick on the neutron star cannot be too large, because otherwise the system would have been disrupted.. This is significantly higher than model calculations by e.g. Wellstein & Langer (WL99 (1999)) predict.

What can be said about the initial mass of 4U1700-37’s progenitor? Given its origin in Sco OB1, the system should have the same age as the association. As discussed in section 2.4, there likely is some spread in age within the association, but the observations indicate that at the moment of the supernova Sco OB1 was not older than $`6\pm 2`$ Myr. The corresponding turn-off mass is $`30_{10}^{+30}`$ M (Schaller et al. SS92 (1992)). Following Iben & Tutukov (IT85 (1985)) (and case B mass transfer), the initial mass of a star that will explode as a 9 M star is 25 M. Although Iben & Tutukov do not take into account the mass lost by the helium star, this result is consistent with our estimate of the progenitor mass based on the age of Sco OB1. If we take the initial mass of the primary to be 30 M, the initial mass of the secondary must have been less, and thus the present mass of HD153919 cannot be higher than about 60 M (i.e. conservative mass transfer).

It is difficult to reconstruct the evolution of the massive binary before the supernova explosion. The main problem is the current short orbital period of the system. Applying Eqs. (4) and (5) in Nelemans et al. (NT99 (1999)), the orbital period before the supernova was a bit longer, about 4 days. In such a close binary it might well be that the primary starts transfering mass when it is still on the main sequence (case A mass transfer), but then one would predict a relatively large increase of the orbital period in case of conservative mass transfer (cf. Wellstein & Langer WL99 (1999)). It might be that the evolution has been highly non-conservative due to strong stellar-wind mass loss and/or non-conservative Roche-lobe overflow. Case B mass transfer followed by a contact phase could produce systems like the Wolf-Rayet binary CQ Cep/HD214419 (e.g. Marchenko et al. MM95 (1995)) with an orbital period of 1.64 day. The latter system shows that in principle a short-period system like 4U1700-37’s conjectured pre-supernova configuration can be produced (cf. Van den Heuvel VH73 (1973)). A non-conservative evolutionary scenario for 4U1700-37 is also suggested by Wellstein & Langer (WL99 (1999)).

## 4 Discussion

We argue that the initial mass of the progenitor of 4U1700-37 was $`30_{10}^{+30}`$ M. This is relevant for the discussion which stars leave black holes and which stars end up as neutron stars. It is commonly believed that the most massive stars form black holes, while massive stars with a mass below a certain limit (MBH) form neutron stars. This mass limit is under strong debate (e.g. Ergma & Van den Heuvel EV98 (1998)). Maeder (Ma92 (1992)) suggested that the observed helium and overall metal abundance is best reproduced if M$`{}_{\mathrm{BH}}{}^{}20`$ M, while Timmes et al. (TW96 (1996)) set this limit at $`30`$ M. Whether the mass limit for black-hole formation in single stars can be compared to that in massive binaries is not clear (Brown et al. BW96 (1996)). Kaper et al. (KL95 (1995)) set the lower limit for black-hole formation in a massive binary at $`50`$ M based on observations of Wray 977 and X-ray pulsar companion GX301-2. But Wellstein & Langer (WL99 (1999)) propose that the initial mass of the neutron star in this system was much less, about 26 M. The same authors derive for single stars that M$`{}_{\mathrm{BH}}{}^{}25`$ M.

However, for 4U1700-37 we now have an independent estimate of its progenitor mass, based on the age of its parent OB association. The only drawback is that it is not clear whether 4U1700-37 is a neutron star or a black hole. Up to now, X-ray pulsations, which would immediately identify the compact star as a neutron star, have not been detected. The presence of a cyclotron feature in the X-ray spectrum would also classify the X-ray source as a neutron star. Reynolds et al. (RO99 (1999)) modeled the X-ray spectrum of 4U1700-37, obtained with BeppoSAX, and report the presence of a possible cyclotron feature at an energy of $`37`$ keV. If real, this observation yields a magnetic field strength of about $`5\times 10^{11}`$ G, so that 4U1700-37 must be a neutron star. Without confirmation, the alternative that 4U1700-37 is a low-mass black hole cannot be excluded. If 4U1700-37 is a neutron star, a lower limit for black-hole formation in a massive binary derived from this system would be M$`{}_{\mathrm{BH}}{}^{}=30_{10}^{+30}`$ M.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referee Dany Vanbeveren for carefully reading the manuscript. LK is supported by a fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. JD acknowledges NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to E.P.J. van den Heuvel. Ed van den Heuvel and Gijs Nelemans are thanked for stimulating discussions.


text:
# NON-SEQUENTIAL BEHAVIOR OF THE WAVE FUNCTION

## I Introduction

When a single photon goes through a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer, its behavior indicates that it has somehow traversed both arms. However, when its position is measured during this passage, it turns out to have traversed only one arm. This is one of the notable manifestations of the measurement problem, for which several competing interpretations have been proposed. These can be crudely divided into two groups: “collapse” (e.g. Copenhagen, GRW) and “non-collapse” (e.g. Guide Wave, Many Worlds) interpretations.

Both groups, however, share one assumption. The photon – whether in the form of wave-plus-particle or of a wave function evenly spread over all available positions - is believed to proceed from the source to the detector sequentially through space-time. Hence, if a few objects are placed along its path, the photon is expected to interact with them one after another, according to the order of their positions.

In this Letter we show an experiment in which space-time sequentiality does not hold.

## II Mutual IFM

Interaction-Free Measurement (IFM)  highlights the way two interferometer arms, or even a myriad of them , are “felt” by a single particle. Its essence lies in an exchange of roles: the quantum object, rather than being the subject of measurement, becomes the measuring apparatus itself, whereas the macroscopic detector (or super-sensitive bomb in the original version) is the object to be measured. In their paper , Elitzur and Vaidman (EV) mentioned the possibility of an IFM in which both objects, the measuring and the measured, are single particles, in which case even more intriguing effects can appear. This proposition was taken up in a seminal paper by Hardy . He considered an EV device (Fig. 1) where a single photon traverses a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI) and interacts with an atom in the following way: A spin $`{}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}`$ atom is prepared in a spin state $`X+`$ and split by a non- uniform magnetic field $`M`$ into its Z components. The box is then carefully split into two, holding the $`Z+`$ and $`Z`$ parts while preserving their superposition state:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\gamma \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(iZ++Z).$$
(1)
Now let the photon be transmitted by $`BS_1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(iu+v)(iZ++Z).$$
(2)
The boxes are transparent for the photon but opaque for the atom. The atom’s $`Z+`$ box is positioned across the photon’s $`v`$ path in such a way that the photon can pass through the box and interact with the atom inside in 100% efficiency. Discarding all cases of the photon’s absorption by the atom (25%) removes the term $`vZ+`$, leaving:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(uZ++iuZ+vZ).$$
(3)
Next, let us reunite the photon by $`BS_2`$:

$`v\stackrel{BS_2}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d+ic)`$ (4)
$`u\stackrel{BS_2}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(c+id),`$ (5)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}^3}[c(iZ++2Z)dZ+].$$
(6)
Once the photon reaches one of the detectors, the atom’s $`Z`$ boxes are joined and a reverse magnetic field $`M`$ is applied to bring it to its final state $`F`$. Measuring $`F`$’s X spin gives:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d(iX++X)`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c(3X++iX).`$
Here, it can happen that the photon hits detector $`D`$, while the atom is found in a final spin state of $`X`$ rather than its initial state $`X+`$. In such a case, both particles performed IFM on one another, destroying each other’s interference. Nevertheless, the photon has not been absorbed by the atom, so no interaction between the photon and the atom seems to have taken place.

Hardy’s analysis revealed the striking consequence of this result: The atom can be regarded as EV’s “bomb” as long as it is in a superposition, whereas a measurement that forces it to assume a definite Z spin (to “collapse”) amounts to “detonating” it. However, the photon’s hitting detector $`D`$ indicates that it has been disturbed too. And yet, in the absence of absorption, no interaction seems to have occurred between it and the atom. That means that the photon has traversed the $`u`$ arm of the MZI while “detonating” the atom on the other arm, forcing it to assume (as measurement indeed confirms) a definite $`Z+`$ spin!

Hardy argued that this case supports the guide-wave interpretation of QM. His reasoning was that the photon took the $`u`$ arm of the MZI while its accompanying empty wave took the $`v`$ arm and broke the atom’s superposition. However, Clifton  and Pagonis  argued that the result is no less consistent with the “collapse” interpretation. Griffiths , employing the “consistent histories” interpretation, argued that the result indicates that the particle might have taken the $`v`$ arm as well, and Dewdney et. al.   reached the same conclusion using Bohmian mechanics.

To show the inadequacy of all the above analyses, let us reconsider Hardy’s experiment with a slight yet crucial addition. Let a macroscopic object be placed after the atom on the $`v`$ arm of the photon MZI (“B” on Fig. 1). Here Eq. (2) becomes:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{i}{2}u(iZ++Z),$$
(9)
and consequently Eq. (8) changes into

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(d+ic)X+.$$
(10)
The atom has retained its $`X+`$ state, indicating that the peculiar effect Hardy pointed out will appear only if the two halves of the wave function are allowed to reunite. In other words, the alleged guide wave or collapse will not exert their effect unless path $`v`$ is allowed, later, to reach $`BS_2`$. This defiance of ordinary temporal notions will become more prominent in what follows.

We will now point out a more peculiar effect of the wave function for which all the above interpretations, due to their sequentiality assumption, seem to be insufficient.

## III IFM with one photon and several atoms

Consider the setup given in Fig. 2. Here too, one photon traverses the MZI, but now it interacts with three superposed atoms rather than one. Formally:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\gamma X_1+X_2+X_3+.$$
(11)
After the photon’s passage through $`BS_1`$ and the atoms’ splitting into their Z spins:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(iu+v)(iZ_1++Z_1)`$ (13)
$`(iZ_2++Z_2)(iZ_3++Z_3).`$
As in the previous experiment, we discard all the cases (44%) in which absorption occurred:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[vZ_1Z_2Z_3`$ (18)
$`+u(+iZ_1+Z_2+Z_3+iZ_1+Z_2Z_3+`$
$`+Z_1+Z_2Z_3+iZ_1Z_2+Z_3+`$
$`+Z_1Z_2+Z_3+Z_1Z_2Z_3+`$
$`iZ_1Z_2Z_3Z_1+Z_2+Z_3+)].`$
Now let us pass the photon through $`BS_2`$ and select only these cases in which it has lost its interference, hitting detector $`D`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}d`$ (23)
$`(iZ_1+Z_2+Z_3++Z_1+Z_2+Z_3`$
$`+Z_1+Z_2Z_3+iZ_1+Z_2Z_3`$
$`+Z_1Z_2+Z_3+iZ_1Z_2+Z_3`$
$`iZ_1Z_2Z_3+).`$
Measuring the 3 atoms’ spins now will yield, with a uniform probability, all possible results, except the case where all the atoms are found in their $`Z`$ boxes, which will never occur.

Reuniting the atoms’ $`Z`$ boxes and measuring their X spin will yield all possible combinations of $`X+`$ and $`X`$ in uniform probability, except the case of all three atoms measuring $`X+`$ which has a higher probability. This is not surprising, as these atoms are supposed to have interacted either with the guide wave, or with the real particle itself (see ) or with the uncollapsed wave function .

Let us, however, return to the stage before uniting the $`Z`$ boxes (as per Eq. (23)). We know that at least one atom must be in the $`Z+`$ box to account for the loss of the photon’s interference. Let us, then, measure atom 2’s spin, and proceed only if it is found to be $`Z_2+`$ (56% of the cases):

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`d(iZ_1+Z_1+)`$ (25)
$`Z_2+(iZ_3++Z_3).`$
Now unite the Z boxes of atoms 1 and 3 and apply the reverse magnetic field $`M`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}dX_1+Z_2+X_3+.$$
(26)
Surprisingly, these atoms will always exhibit their original spin undisturbed, just as if no photon has ever interacted with them. In other words, only one atom is affected by the photon in the way pointed out by Hardy, but that atom does not have to be the first one, nor the last; it can be any one out of the atoms. The other atoms, whose half wave functions intersected the MZI arm before or after that particular atom, remain unaffected.

We can prove, however, that although atom 3 seems to be totally unaffected by the photon, something must have passed through it. As in the previous section, let a macroscopic object be placed further along the $`v`$ route, after the three atoms (object “B” on Fig. 2). The above results will never show up. Here, all the atoms will give either $`Z`$ (when the photon hits the obstacle), or $`X+`$ (when it does not). Hence, something must have passed through all three atoms, yet it has left the first and last unaffected.

The next result will deal the final blow on any realistic account in which a particular atom is affected by the photon at the moment of their interaction. We noted above that if we pick one atom, measure its position and find it to reside in the $`Z+`$ box, then that measurement will disentangle the two other atoms and their spins will reveal no trace of interaction with the photon. One might think that there is, prior to measurements of the atoms, one particular atom that “has been” affected, and that the experimenter only has to be lucky to pick up that “right” atom that yields $`Z+`$. Not so: rather than the normal 33% probability to find the “right” atom, expected when there are 3 atoms, the probability is 56%!

In other words, it is the very choice of an atom by the experimenter, regardless of its position within the row, that increases the probability for that atom to be “the only atom that has been affected by the photon.” And once this atom gives this result, the other atoms will become disentangled.*** No superluminal communication is entailed. In all cases in which the particular atom is not detected in the intersecting path, the probability for one of the other atoms to reside in that path increases to 1. The overall result is Lorentz-invariant. Still, the correlation is Bell-like.

Note that the above analysis does not depend on the number of atoms or the index of the tested atom. For $`n`$ atoms, the probability for any atom to be “the right atom” is $`P=\frac{2^{n1}+1}{2^n}`$ instead of the expected $`P=1/n`$, reaching $`1/2`$ as $`n`$ increases.

Finally, we can demonstrate that, although all the atoms but the middle one reveal no indication that they have ever interacted with the photon, something physical must have passed through them at the right time. Let us place the atoms within sealed boxes, with apertures at the $`v`$ path, which open only for the minute interval during which the photon’s wave function is supposed to pass through them. The slightest failure in the timing of any aperture’s opening will ruin the predicted result.

## IV Conclusions

It is not surprising that several atoms, which have interacted with one photon, yield strictly correlated results (one entangled, the others disentangled). But it is the attempt to reconstruct a comprehensible evolution from these correlations that gives a highly counterintuitive picture: A single photon’s wave function seems to “skip” a few atoms that it encounters, then disturb the $`m^{th}`$ atom, and then again leave all next atoms undisturbed. Ordinary concepts of motion, which remain implicit in both “guide wave” and “collapse” interpretations, are inadequate to explain this behavior. Even more exotic interpretations of QM, such as those invoking advanced actions  or tunneling, can be shown to be inadequate for explaining this result.

The most prudent description of this result is that a wave function, when interacting with a row of other wave functions one after another, does not comply with ordinary notion of causality, space and time.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Yakir Aharonov, David Tannor and Terry Rudolph for very helpful comments. It is a pleasure to thank Anton Zeilinger and all participants of the Quantum Measurement Conference at the Schrödinger Institute in Vienna for enlightening discussions.