text:
# A Discrete Time Presentation of Quantum Dynamics

## I Introduction

The recent work of Bojowald on Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) obtains the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (Hamiltonian constraint) as a difference equation wd-oprs . The eigenvalues of the volume operator are discrete in quantum geometry and are taken as playing the role of a ‘discrete time’ in the context of isotropic LQC discrete . The order of the difference equation is typically high (16 for isotropic, Bianchi-I) and the number of independent (and non-degenerate) solutions is reduced by one due to the coefficient of the highest (lowest) order term vanishing for discrete time equal to zero isotropic . This feature is crucial for the ‘singularity avoidance’ mechanism absense . Furthermore, a continuum limit is defined wherein the Immirzi parameter plays a crucial role. This limit is used to distinguish the so called ‘pre-classical’ solutions and it is shown that the singularity avoidance mechanism also leads to a unique (up to normalization) pre-classical solution of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation unique ; semiclassical . These are very interesting indications that the procedures of loop quantum gravity as applied to cosmological mini-superspaces, do lead to physically reasonable solutions. Although certain choices of definitions of constraint operators with certain factor orderings can be made with reasonable justification, the procedure is not devoid of ambiguities isotropic ; ambiguities . While there are many issues to be resolved, we focus on one feature, namely ‘discrete evolution’, which seems to be robust.

For instance, mathematically, solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be presented as a sequence of states (isotropic LQC). The sequence label is highly suggestive of a discrete ‘time’. This dynamical interpretation is something additionally attempted and its viability needs to be established. In a quantum theory, an evolution interpretation must be established at least at the level of expectation values, the states being not directly observable. Furthermore it is not enough to generate a family, continuous or discrete, of expectation values. It should be possible to detect the changes paying due attention to the uncertainties. By contrast, a continuum limit does not appear to be essential for a dynamical interpretation even though emergence of a continuous time description in a semi-classical limit is of course desirable. Presently, in the context of LQC, these issues are discussed somewhat schematically. One of the motivations for the present work is to have simple, well known examples which nonetheless mimic steps taken in LQC.

It is well known that the usual quantum mechanical systems (or classical for that matter) can also be viewed as a constrained system leading to a frozen-time description. The Dirac procedure nonetheless allows one to interpret the physical state condition as an evolution equation - the usual Schrodinger equation. By using the ‘Fock’ representation instead of the Schrodinger representation for the extra time degree of freedom, one can get a discrete ‘evolution’ equation which mimics all the features seen in the LQC work. The order of the difference equation is two but there is a reduction of number of non-trivial independent solutions; there is a parameter analogous to the Immirzi parameter which can play a similar role in exploring pre-classicality and a continuum limit.

To explore evolution at the level of expectation values of course needs definitions of physical inner products, observables and their matrix elements. The advantage in the quantum mechanical case however is that we know physical inner products and physical matrix elements so that we can push further the interpretation of the difference equation as “really” an evolution equation. Furthermore since the Schrodinger and the ‘Fock’ representations are equivalent, we can relate the continuous and the discrete evolutions by a transform. It turns out that the dynamical interpretation is not as straightforward as indicated by the LQC works.

‘Discrete Time’ has appeared in the literature several times history  in various forms and with various motivations. The present work is very different from these earlier works. In particular, we are not seeking a discrete time formulation, ab initio, for any particular reason. We observe that in a frozen time formulation of dynamics, a ‘time’ appears as a basis label which has an arbitrariness about it. The dynamics is then obtained as a family of states labeled by the ‘time’. One has natural choices of continuous and discrete labels. The choice of the continuous label leads to the usual quantum dynamics and we explore the discrete choice in detail, in particular with regards to observability of evolution.

In section II we detail the case of usual quantum mechanics cast in a frozen time form, both with continuous and discrete time and exhibit its analogy with LQC. We discuss the continuum limit and show the relation between the continuous and the discrete time descriptions. In section III we discuss natural candidates for physical quantities needed to push the evolution interpretation further and the difficulties encountered. In the last section we discuss the issue of interpretation in some generality and point out a possible role of the parameter $`\beta `$ appearing in the discrete description. We conclude by making a series of remarks.

## II Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics

### II.1 Frozen Time Description: Continuum Case

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ denote a classical phase space and let $`_0`$ denote the Hilbert space of the corresponding quantum system. Let $`\tau ,\pi _\tau `$ denote two extra phase space variables corresponding to the usual continuous time and its ‘conjugate momentum’. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kin}:=R^2\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ denote an extended phase space and let $`_{kin}:=L_2(R,d\tau )_0`$ the corresponding kinematical Hilbert space. At the classical level we impose the single constraint $`\varphi :=\pi _\tau +H(\omega )0`$. Here, $`\omega `$ denote the usual phase space coordinates and $`H(\omega )`$ denotes a time independent Hamiltonian on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Quantum mechanically, the operator version of the constraint is imposed on to select the ‘physical states’. Explicitly, the physical states are those on which the operator $`\pi _\tau +H`$ vanishes. The constraint operator is of course is not identically zero. For definiteness one may think of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=R^{2N},_0=L^2(q^i,d^nq)`$ and $`H(\omega )=\frac{p_i^2}{2m}+V(q^i)`$ though this is not necessary. There is no external time any more.

At the classical level, the Dirac observables, $`A(\tau ,\pi _\tau ,\omega )`$ are defined by $`\{A,\varphi \}_{PB}0`$. Some simple examples of Dirac observables are: functions of only $`\pi _\tau `$ and functions independent of $`\tau ,\pi _\tau `$ which Poisson commute with the Hamiltonian (in particular the Hamiltonian itself). This is a rather limited class of observables. One could however choose a $`\tau `$ dependent family of functions of $`\omega `$ satisfying the differential equation $`\frac{A}{\tau }+\{A(\tau ,\omega ),H(\omega )\}_{PB}=0`$ with the initial condition $`A(0,\omega )=A_0(\omega )`$. Such solutions of the differential equation are trivially Dirac observables. In particular, the usual solutions of Hamilton’s equation are also Dirac observables but with $`\tau \tau `$. These are the ‘evolving’ observables in a frozen time formulation evolving .

In the quantum description, one quantizes the $`\tau ,\pi _\tau `$ in the usual manner and the constraint equation becomes just the Schrodinger equation. Explicitly, one can write a general vector in $`_{kin}`$ in the form:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝑑\tau |\tau |\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )$$
(1)
The kinematical inner product is then given by,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{kin}=𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )_0$$
(2)
The suffix $`0`$ refers to the inner product in $`_0`$.

Thus physical states are those $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ whose $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ satisfy the usual time dependent Schrodinger equation. Introducing $`U(\tau ):=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\tau \widehat{H}}`$, we denote the solutions of the Schrodinger equation as $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )=U(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$. The corresponding $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$’s are not normalizable with respect to the kinematical inner product since the integrand is independent of $`\tau `$ rendering $`\tau `$ integration divergent.

Dirac observables are usually defined as those observables which commute with the constraints. It may be sufficient to require that the physical observables commute only weakly with the constraints. In this case the factor ordering must ensure that the constraint operators act first i.e. are to the right. Weak commutation then amounts to physical observables acting invariantly on the physical states. As an example one can define ‘evolving observables’ as follows discrete . Corresponding to a usual operator, $`\widehat{O}`$ on $`_0`$, define a family of operators on the space of physical states by,

$$[\widehat{O}(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }](\tau ^{}):=U(\tau ^{})U(\tau )\widehat{O}|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )$$
(3)
These ‘evolving observables’ are physical in the sense they act invariantly on the space of physical states. In general, they do not commute with the constraint operator in the full $`_{kin}`$. Since physical states are not kinematically normalizable, one has to define a physical inner product on the space of solutions of the constraint. A natural definition suggests itself as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{phy}:=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\tau _0)|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _0)_0\tau _0\text{ is some fixed time}$$
(4)
The kinematical inner product is just the integral of the physical inner product over $`\tau _0`$. It is obvious that the physical inner product is independent of the particular $`\tau _0`$ chosen and of course coincides with the usual inner product in $`_0`$.

It is easy to see that the physical matrix elements of these evolving observables between physical states are given by,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\widehat{O}(\tau )|\mathrm{\Psi }_{phy}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(0)|U(\tau )\widehat{O}U(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)_0$$
(5)
Hence, the physical matrix elements are obtained as the usual matrix elements of operators on $`_0`$. We see thus that the usual description of quantum dynamics in terms of a continuous time can be recast as a frozen time presentation. This is of course well known. We will now introduce a discrete time description which mimics all the features seen in the loop quantum cosmology.

### II.2 Discrete case

Instead of choosing the usual Schrodinger representation for $`\tau ,\pi _\tau =i\mathrm{}\frac{}{\tau }`$, let us introduce a number representation. Define $`a:=\alpha \tau +i\beta \pi _\tau `$ and $`a^{}`$ its hermitian conjugate. $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are real and satisfy $`2\alpha \beta \mathrm{}=1`$. Hence we have a one parameter family of creation-annihilation operators labeled by $`\beta `$, say. This parameter is expected to play a role analogous to that played by the Immirzi parameter in LQC. We will choose the eigenvalues of the number operator, $`N:=a^{}a`$ as our discrete time label. Notice that these eigenvalues are independent of $`\beta `$. For future use in continuum limit we note that,

$$N=(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}\beta })^2\tau ^2+\beta ^2\pi _\tau ^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4\mathrm{}^2\beta ^2}\tau ^2\text{as }\beta 0$$
(6)
This will justify the eigenvalues of the number operator being identified with $`\tau `$ at least for large eigenvalues and small $`\beta `$ and of course $`n`$ is monotonic in $`\tau ^2`$.

In terms of creation-annihilation operators, the constraint equation becomes,

$$\left(\frac{aa^{}}{2i\beta }+\widehat{H}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(7)
Writing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}|n|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ one obtains the kinematical inner product as,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n_0.$$
(8)
The physical states are then those $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ whose $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$’s satisfy,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+2}=\frac{2i\beta }{\sqrt{n+2}}\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}+\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n+2}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_nn1$$
(9)
This is our discrete time evolution (discrete Schrodinger equation). We notice that the difference equation is an operator difference equation of order two implying that two vectors (in $`_0`$ ) have to be specified to determine a solution i.e. has ‘two independent’ solutions. However exactly as in the case of loop quantum cosmology, we have a consistency condition (since spectrum of $`N`$ is bounded below) which fixes $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ in terms of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ implying a unique solution for every given $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. By contrast, in the continuum description, there is no such condition but the equation is of course a first order differential equation.

For subsequent analysis, it is convenient to convert the vector equation in to infinitely many scalar equations by expanding the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n=_\alpha C_n^\alpha |_\alpha `$ in the eigenbasis of the $`\widehat{H}`$. For simplicity we have assumed that spectrum of $`\widehat{H}`$ in $`_0`$ is discrete. The discrete equation then becomes,

$$C_{n+2}^\alpha =\frac{2i\beta _\alpha }{\sqrt{n+2}}C_{n+1}^\alpha +\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n+2}}C_n^\alpha n1,\alpha .$$
(10)
Let us now turn to the “continuum limit”. This can be understood in various ways. A simple way is to ask whether one can find continuous variable $`t`$ and a function $`C^\alpha (t)`$ which will interpolate a solution of the discrete equation for large $`n`$. To explore this let us look for a function $`C(t)`$ and a function $`t(n)`$ such that in a suitable large $`n`$ limit one has (suppressing the label $`\alpha `$),

$$C_{n+k}:=C(t(n+k)):=C(t(n)+k\delta t)C(t)+k\delta t\frac{C}{t}.$$
(11)
where, $`k\delta t=t(n+k)t(n)`$ has been used. Treating $`\delta t`$ small is equivalent to requiring $`t(n)`$ to be slowly varying with $`n`$. Substitution in the difference equation and keeping terms to leading order in $`n`$ (treating $`\delta t`$ also as small), leads to $`C^1\frac{C}{t}=i\frac{\beta }{\delta t\sqrt{n}}`$. The left hand side is a function of $`t`$ by assumption so we must have $`\frac{\beta }{\delta t\sqrt{n}}`$ to be a function of $`t`$. Since the limit is to be considered for all $`C^\alpha `$, we have excluded $``$. Simplicity and dimensional considerations then suggest that we choose $`t`$ such that $`\frac{\beta }{\delta t\sqrt{n}}:=\mathrm{}^1`$. The variable $`t`$ so specified will be denoted by $`\tau `$. It follows that $`\tau (n)=2\mathrm{}\beta \sqrt{n}`$. Observe that $`\delta \tau n^{1/2}`$ and thus vanishes for large $`n`$ without having to take $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ to be vanishingly small. This is different from the LQC. To get a finite $`\tau `$ for arbitrarily large $`n`$ however, we must consider a joint limit $`n\mathrm{},\beta 0`$ keeping $`\tau `$ fixed. We could have taken $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ to zero but presently we are interested in a continuum limit instead of a semi-classical limit. It follows that in the above joint limit $`C(\tau )`$ satisfies the usual Schrodinger equation and so does the full $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$. Thus we see that continuous functions that interpolate solutions of the difference equation asymptotically are solutions of the usual Schrodinger equation with a suitable identification of $`\tau (n)`$.

Can we obtain $`C(\tau )`$ as a limiting function from the joint limit of $`C_n`$? The answer is yes. Consider the difference equation for large $`n`$ but with fixed $`\beta `$,

$$C_{n+2}^\alpha C_n^\alpha =(\frac{2i\beta _\alpha }{\sqrt{n}})C_{n+1}^\alpha +o(\frac{1}{n}).$$
(12)
The left hand side of this equation equated to zero is an equation with constant coefficients (Poincare type)diff-eqns . The asymptotic behaviour of its solutions is given in terms of its characteristic roots obtained by substituting $`C_n^\alpha \lambda ^n`$. The characteristic roots are just $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, independent of the label $`\alpha `$. Evidently, the root $`\lambda =1`$ can not correspond to a solution which has limiting value in the joint limit. Furthermore, even for $`\lambda =1`$, one can not see the limit to be a solution of the continuum Schrodinger equation. One needs a more refined ansatz: $`C_n\lambda ^n\mu ^\sqrt{n}`$. Substitution determines $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ from the $`n`$ independent term and also gives $`\mathrm{}n\mu =2i\lambda \beta _\alpha `$ from the sub-leading $`n^{1/2}`$ term. For $`\lambda =1`$ we see that $`C_n^\alpha `$ goes over to the solution of the continuum Schrodinger equation. By contrast , $`\lambda =1`$ does not have a limit. A generic asymptotic solution will be a linear combination of these two asymptotic solutions and it will not have a limiting value in the joint limit. There is then a unique solution that does have limiting value. This is very similar to the arguments unique .

So far the steps are completely analogous to those taken in loop quantum cosmology. However here we run in to a problem. No exact solution of the difference equation can possibly have a non-zero and finite limiting value in the joint limit. This follows because the ratio of the $`C_n^\alpha `$ for $`n`$ odd and $`n`$ even is necessarily purely imaginary as is evident from the difference equation. Thus although the assumptions we made about a conceivable continuum limit do admit a corresponding ansatz for the asymptotic solution of the difference equation, no exact solution can in fact support such an ansatz. The notion of pre-classical limit as articulated in LQC unique ; semiclassical , is not realized by any exact solution even though a continuum limit in the sense of difference equation going over to a differential equation is valid. One has only asymptotic solutions i.e. solutions of asymptotic equation as distinct from asymptotic form of solutions of the exact equation, which have a pre-classical limit but no exact solution has this property. It seems that the continuum solutions can at best be thought of as approximating the exact solution that too only asymptotically i.e. for large $`n`$.

Is not having any pre-classical solutions a disaster for getting a continuum picture? Not necessarily. For emergence of a continuum description from an underlying discrete one what is needed is a mapping to continuous description and not necessarily a continuum limit. The next sub-section shows how this can happen.

### II.3 Relating the continuum and the discrete descriptions

The evolution equations have been derived by writing:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{kin}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau |\tau |\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )\text{ continuous case}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|n|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\text{ discrete case}`$
Imposing the constraint in the Schrodinger representation and the Fock representation respectively leads to the usual Schrodinger equation for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ and the difference equation for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$. The two basis vectors $`|\tau `$ and $`|n`$ are related as:

$`|\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|nn|\tau ={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f_n^{}(\tau )|n,`$
$`|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau |\tau \tau |n={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau f_n(\tau )|\tau }`$ (14)
The transformation functions, $`f_n(\tau )`$ are easily determined and are given by,

$`f_n(\tau )`$ $`:=`$ $`\tau |n=𝒩_nH_n(\xi )e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2}\text{ }\xi :=\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\beta }\text{,}`$
$`𝒩_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left((2\pi )^{1/4}\sqrt{\mathrm{}\beta }\sqrt{2^nn!}\right)^1`$ (15)
and $`H_n(\xi )`$ are the Hermite polynomials. The vectors $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ are easily seen to be related as:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f_n(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau f_n^{}(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )}.`$ (16)
Using the properties of the Hermite polynomials, it is easy to see that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ satisfy the difference equation iff $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ satisfies the Schrodinger equation. The respective initial states are related as:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{(2\pi )^{1/4}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}\beta }\left\{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi e^{\frac{\xi ^2}{2}i\sqrt{2}\xi \beta \widehat{H}}\right\}|\mathrm{\Phi }(0).$$
(17)
By expanding $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ in eigenstates of the Hamiltonian one can show that,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\mathrm{\Phi }_0__02\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(0)|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)__0.$$
(18)
This shows that in the limit $`\beta 0`$ the transform breaks down.

This route, available in the present case, shows that it is possible to define states depending on a continuous variable in a differentiable manner without appealing to any ‘pre-classical’ or otherwise limiting procedure.

## III Physical Quantities

As a first attempt, we will just mimic the steps followed in the continuous time case. For this it is convenient to write the second order difference equation as a first order matrix difference equation. This is easily achieved discrete . The evolution equation can be written as:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}\\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+2}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝕀\\ \sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n+2}}𝕀& \frac{2i\beta }{\sqrt{n+2}}\widehat{H}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}\end{array}\right)z_{n+1}=𝔸(n)z_nn0`$ (25)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}\\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_n\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2i\beta }{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{H}& \sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}}𝕀\\ 𝕀& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}\end{array}\right)z_{n1}=𝔹(n)z_nn1.`$ (32)
It follows from the definitions that $`𝔸(n1)𝔹(n)=𝔹(n+1)𝔸(n)=𝕀`$. Not all states evolving by the above equations are physical though because the physical states also have to satisfy the consistency condition namely $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_1=2i\beta \widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

Let is denote by $`D_n`$ the space spanned by the $`z_n`$’s. It can be viewed as $`_0_0`$. To define an evolving observable $`\widehat{O}(m)`$ corresponding to an operator $`\widehat{O}`$ acting invariantly on all $`D_n`$’s, consider the $`z_m`$ member of an physical state $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\}`$. Operate on it by $`\widehat{O}_0`$ and evolve back to $`D_0`$. This will not in general satisfy the consistency condition. Let $`𝒫`$ be a projection operator which will project any element of $`D_0`$ on to one corresponding to a physical one. That is, define a new $`z_0`$ whose components satisfy the consistency condition. Evolve this to any $`n>0`$. This clearly defines a physical state. $`\widehat{O}(m)`$ is defined to produce this physical state from the starting physical state. By construction, these operators, defined to act on physical states, produces a new physical state. Introduce the evolution operators $`E(0,n):D_0D_n`$ and $`E(n,0):D_nD_0`$ given explicitly by,

$`E(0,n)`$ $`:=`$ $`𝔸(n1)𝔸(n2)\mathrm{}𝔸(0)`$
$`E(n,0)`$ $`:=`$ $`𝔹(1)𝔹(2)\mathrm{}𝔹(n)`$ (33)
Then $`\widehat{O}(m)`$ is expressible as,

$$[\widehat{O}(m)z]_n:=E(0,n)𝒫E(m,0)\widehat{O}z_m.$$
(34)
The projection operator can be constructed easily and is uniquely given by,

$$𝒫:=\frac{1}{𝕀+4\beta ^2\widehat{H}^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝕀& 2i\beta \widehat{H}\\ 2i\beta \widehat{H}& 4\beta ^2\widehat{H}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
In analogy with the continuum case, one may naturally define a physical inner product as the $`n=0`$ term of the series in equation 8. We can make other possible choices, for example, $`z_0^{}z_0`$, where $``$ is a suitable $`2\times 2`$ matrix of operators on $`_0`$. $`=diag(𝕀,𝕆)`$ will produce the $`n=0`$ term of the series. Physical matrix elements of the evolving observables are then given by,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\widehat{O}\mathrm{\Psi }=z_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒫𝒫E(m,0)\widehat{O}E(0,m)z_0$$
(36)
We have used $`z_0^{}𝒫=z_0^{}`$ for physical states to obtain a symmetrical expression. While this looks very similar to the continuum case (apart from the presence of $`𝒫𝒫`$), its implications are very different.

These definitions, while plausible, are unsatisfactory. We have focussed on the operators which act invariantly on the space of physical states. However to be of use for measurements, such operators must satisfy further properties such as self-adjointness. This of course needs to be defined relative to the physical inner product. The non-unitarity of evolution however implies that even if have a self-adjoint operator at $`n=0`$, the other members of the family are not self-adjoint in general. The presence of the projection operator implies that algebraic relations among operators are not preserved by the evolution. For example, an operator associated with an $`\widehat{O}^2(0)`$ is not the square of the corresponding operator associated with $`\widehat{O}(0)`$ and like wise for commutation relations. In the present case of Fock representation, the condition arises due to the spectrum of number operator being bounded below. In LQC, although the state label $`n`$ takes all integral values, there is still the consistency condition which should cause similar difficulties.

One could have dealt with the second order equation it self. Now there is no need for any explicit projection operator. The evolution is still non-unitary but in addition, one can not evolve a given $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ back to a $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ since the equation is second order. The first order formulation avoids this but introduces explicit projection operator. Thus our attempt to mimic the steps followed in the continuous time case do not lead to satisfactory definitions.

However, we can appeal to the relations between the continuum and the discrete description discussed before. Then the physical inner product and matrix elements as defined in the continuous case can be expressed as,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}f_m^{}(\tau )f_n(\tau )\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\tau )|A|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}f_m^{}(\tau )f_n(\tau )\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{}|A|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ (37)
These are very different from the physical inner products and matrix elements we attempted previously! The right hand sides involve infinite sums and are highly non-local in the discrete time label. Note that the apparent $`\tau `$ dependence on the right hand sides is consistent with that implied by the left hand sides of the above equations. Thus, if we somehow invented these inner products and matrix elements, we could construct a continuum description from the discrete one. In the case of quantum mechanical example we are discussing, we have the advantage of knowing a continuum description ab initio but for LQC also something similar can be conceivable. This however is not attempted in the present work. In the next section we make some general remarks regarding viability of a ‘dynamical’ interpretation and attempt to arrive at an interpretation of $`\beta `$.

## IV ‘Evolution’ in Quantum Mechanics

Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics permits two notions of evolution which are not equivalent due to the uncertainty relation. The two notions correspond to evolution at the level of states i.e. a continuous or a discrete family of rays (or vectors) and evolution at the level of observed quantities i.e. family of expectation values of observables. To appreciate the non-equivalence of these two let us quickly recall the derivation of time-energy uncertainty relation. One can do this quite generally.

Let $`G`$ be a self adjoint operator on a Hilbert space. Consider the one parameter group of unitary operators generated by $`G`$, $`U(\xi ):=`$ exp($`i\xi G`$), $`\xi `$. Define a family of normalized state vectors $`|\psi (\xi ):=U(\xi )|\psi (0)`$. For any self adjoint operator, $`A`$, corresponding to an observable define $`f_\psi (\xi ):=\psi (\xi )|A|\psi (\xi )`$. Assume $`A`$ to be independent of $`\xi `$ for simplicity. Then it follows that,

$$\delta f_\psi (\xi ):=\delta \xi \frac{f_\psi }{\xi }=i\delta \xi \psi (\xi )|[G,A]|\psi (\xi ),\delta \xi >0\text{(say)}$$
(38)
Defining $`G^{}:=G\psi (\xi )|G|\psi (\xi )`$ and like wise for $`A`$ one gets,

$`|\delta f_\psi (\xi )|`$ $`=`$ $`|\delta \xi \psi (\xi )|[G^{},A^{}]|\psi (\xi )|`$ (39)
$``$ $`2\delta \xi |\text{Im}(G^{}\psi ,A^{}\psi )|`$
$``$ $`2\delta \xi |(G^{}\psi ,A^{}\psi )|`$
$``$ $`2\delta \xi G^{}|\psi A^{}|\psi `$
$``$ $`2\delta \xi \mathrm{\Delta }G_\psi \mathrm{\Delta }A_\psi `$
Clearly in order to detect a change in the expectation value $`f_\psi (\xi )`$, the change computed above must be at least as large as the uncertainty, $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_\psi `$. This immediately gives the uncertainty relation:

$$\delta \xi \mathrm{\Delta }G_\psi \frac{1}{2}$$
(40)
Note that this derivation is independent of canonical commutation relations and thus is not tied to a phase space $`^{2N}`$, $`\delta \xi \mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\xi }_\psi `$ although it could be. The above derivation has also assumed $`\delta \xi `$ to be small enough so that the higher order terms can be neglected. If these are also included, then the uncertainty relation will assume a different form.

Taking $`G`$ to be the Hamiltonian and $`\xi =\tau /\mathrm{}`$ we get the usual time-energy uncertainty relation while for $`G`$ equal to the momentum (say) and $`\xi =q/\mathrm{}`$ we get the position-momentum uncertainty relation. Its meaning is that we can not observationally resolve values between $`\xi `$ and $`\xi +\delta \xi `$. The fact that there is a non-zero lower bound and $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_\psi `$, in a physical situation is always finite (though it could be very large) implies that continuum values for $`\xi `$ are strictly mathematical idealizations. This distinguishes the two notions of ‘evolution’ in quantum mechanics, mentioned above. The states can be thought of as evolving continuously but observationally, continuous evolution is necessarily an idealization. The absence of a non-zero lower bound in classical mechanics permits continuum values of $`\xi `$ to be taken more literally. Note that this applies not just to ‘time’ but also to ‘space’.

The notion of observationally detectable evolution can be articulated as follows. We can meaningfully say that a system has changed its state provided we can measure at least one of its properties and detect a change. Any such measurements will give expectation values together with uncertainties for the corresponding observable. Thus to conclude that a system in some given state has changed ‘over a period of time’ one must be able to find at least one observable whose expectation value in that state changes more that the uncertainty. Note that this must be understood at the level of an ensemble of identically prepared systems since a single measurement on a single system will just produce some eigenvalue of the observable according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. To account for ‘over a period of time’, one must assume a family (discrete or continuous) of states in which the expectation values are to computed.

Thus, for the observational notion of an evolution, the central quantities are expectation values. Given a discrete family of vectors and self adjoint operators (or a family thereof) one can construct a corresponding family of expectation values. Such a family could be usefully interpreted as an ‘evolution’ provided that the difference between consecutive members of the family of expectation values is larger than the corresponding uncertainties, at least for some observable and for generic states. Such a criterion of detectable evolution is independent of how the family of vectors is chosen and whether the members of this family are connected by unitary operators. This is also independent of whether the sequence of vectors is obtained from solutions of some (Hamiltonian) constraint of a constrained system.

As seen in the example of quantum mechanical system, the net result of imposing constraint in the kinematical arena is to produce a family of vectors in $`_0`$. Since such families are uniquely determined by $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (or $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$), the space of ‘physical states’ is isomorphic to $`_0`$. A natural choice of physical inner product is then simply the inner product in $`_0`$ and ‘physical observables’ are naturally self adjoint operators on this Hilbert space. We can now construct a sequence of ‘physical’ expectation values:

$$A_n:=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A|\mathrm{\Phi }_n}{\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\mathrm{\Phi }_n}$$
(41)
Expanding the states in terms of eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (assuming discrete spectrum for simplicity), $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n=_\rho C_{n,\rho }|_\rho `$, we get,

$$A_n=\frac{_{\rho ,\sigma }C_{n,\rho }^{}C_{n,\sigma }_\rho |A|_\sigma }{_\rho |C_{n,\rho }|^2}$$
(42)
If $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, then so are $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_nn`$. The expectation values defined above are then independent of $`n`$. Thus eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are ‘stationary’ states even with respect to the discrete ‘evolution’.

The coefficients $`C_{n,\rho }`$ above, satisfy the difference equations and are $`n^{th}`$ order polynomials in $`(2i\beta _\rho )`$. The expectation values and the uncertainties are thus rational functions of $`\beta `$.

Applying the reasoning to the simplest two level system brings out further possibilities. Let $`_0`$ be two dimensional and let the Hamiltonian be $`\widehat{H}=\sigma _3`$. Let a generic observable be a Hermitian $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Then it is easy to see that all expectation values (and hence also the uncertainties) are independent of $`\beta `$! Explicitly, let

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0:=\left(\begin{array}{c}cos\theta \hfill \\ sin\theta e^{i\varphi }\hfill \end{array}\right)A:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\hfill & b\hfill \\ b^{}\hfill & c\hfill \end{array}\right)\text{a, c real.}$$
(43)
Putting $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n:=\frac{P_n}{\sqrt{n!}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0,n0`$ and $`Q:=2i\beta \widehat{H}`$, one can see that the $`P_n`$’s satisfy the equation,

$$P_{n+2}=QP_{n+1}+(n+1)P_n,n1,P_0:=𝕀,P_1:=0$$
(44)
By inspection, $`P_n`$’s are $`n^{th}`$ order polynomials in $`Q`$. Furthermore, for even (odd) $`n`$, only even (odd) powers of $`Q`$ occur. Since $`Q^2`$ is a multiple of the identity matrix, $`P_{2m}`$ is a polynomial in $`(4\beta ^2^2)`$ times the identity matrix while $`P_{2m+1}`$ is another polynomial in the same variable times $`\sigma _3`$. In computing the expectation values, these polynomials cancel out in the ratios and all the $`\beta `$ dependence disappears leaving us with,

$`A_n`$ $`=`$ $`acos^2\theta +csin^2\theta +(1)^nsin\theta cos\theta (be^{i\varphi }+b^{}e^{i\varphi })`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)_n^2`$ $`=`$ $`|b|^2+sin^2\theta cos^2\theta \{(ac)^2(be^{i\varphi }+b^{}e^{i\varphi })^2\}`$ (45)
$`+(1)^nsin\theta cos\theta cos2\theta (ca)(be^{i\varphi }+b^{}e^{i\varphi })`$
From these it follows that change in the consecutive expectation values depends only on $`b`$ as it should since the diagonal part of $`A`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian. Taking $`a=c=0`$ for simplicity and requiring that the change be at least as large as the uncertainty leads to,

$$\frac{|sin\theta cos\theta (be^{i\varphi }+b^{}e^{i\varphi })|}{|b|}\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}$$
(46)
This simple example illustrates that a discrete evolution of the type being considered could be independent of $`\beta `$, could have an oscillatory n-dependence and there could be a sub-class of states which are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian and yet will not exhibit detectable evolution. These are of course special properties of the particular system.

More generically, one could try to see the $`\beta `$ dependence in the limit $`\beta 0`$. The expectation values can then be expressed as a power series in $`\beta `$. It turns out that,

$`A_{2m}`$ $``$ $`A_0+o(\beta ^2)`$
$`A_{2m+1}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{HAH_0}{H^2_0}}+o(\beta ^2)`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)_{2m}^2`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)_0^2+o(\beta ^2)`$ (47)
Thus the difference of expectation values at $`n=2m+1`$ and $`n=2m1`$ is of order $`\beta ^2`$ while the uncertainty at $`n=2m`$ is the uncertainty at $`n=0`$ plus a term of order $`\beta ^2`$. For detectability then the uncertainty at $`n=0`$ must be comparable to $`\beta ^2`$. This gives a hint about the role of $`\beta `$. If we select a set of observables with respect to which we wish to detect an evolution then $`\beta `$ should be chosen to be of the order of (or larger than) the square root of the uncertainty of the observable with the smallest uncertainty. Note that this gives a lower limit on the value of $`\beta `$. In this manner, the criterion of detectable evolution can be used to get some condition(s) on $`\beta `$. However there does not seem to be a simple way of obtaining an analogue of uncertainty relation. For continuous family $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$, there is no $`\beta `$, the evolution is unitary and the usual results follow.

Remarks:

1) The possibility of a discrete time arises naturally for a theory presented in a frozen time form. Even conventionally presented theories can be cast in this form and we exploited this in constructing our example. For such theories (always a constrained theory), one needs to choose a suitable degree of freedom as a ‘time degree of freedom’. One can always view the kinematical Hilbert space as a tensor product of Hilbert space of the time degree of freedom and the Hilbert space of the rest of the degrees of freedom. Solutions of the constraint can then be obtained as a families of vectors in the non-time sector. The ‘time’ now appears as a label for each of the family and this could be continuous or discrete. The families themselves are then determined as solutions of differential or difference equation. The form and order of the equations depends on the form of the constraint, the choice of representation (or choice of basis in the Hilbert space of the time degree of freedom) and of course on the choice of the time degree of freedom. Except for these details, a discrete time presentation can be set up generally.

A continuum approximation for a discrete presentation can be looked for in the usual manner as indicated in subsection II B. The stronger notion of ‘pre-classicality’ however may not always be realizable. Even in our case, we do have asymptotic solutions which do have a pre-classical limit but exact solutions do not admit such a limit. Emergence of continuous time however can be sought via a transform instead of a limit.

Note that we did not need to be explicit about the Hilbert space of non-time degrees of freedom. Even the number of degrees of freedom is unimportant for discrete time description. These details are of course crucial in the construction of $`_0`$ and observables.

2) The parameter $`\beta `$ is a priori completely arbitrary and has dimensions of inverse energy, $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ is thus a time scale. What possible interpretation can one ascribe to this parameter? In particular, does it reflect some intrinsic property of the system (and thus is selected by the system) or is it related to the resolutions with which a set of measurements are performed (and thus is to be selected by the experimenter)? Quite independently, there are two time scales: the intrinsic one by which a physical system keeps evolving and the clock scale eg. the least count of an actual clock of an observer.

If $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ is the intrinsic time scale then logic of continuum approximation would require that the clock scale be much much larger that the intrinsic one so that continuum time description is a very good approximation. Conversely if the clock scale is comparable to the intrinsic scale then one should use the discrete evolution. The schematic argument for small $`\beta `$ given above would now imply that discrete evolution may still not be observable if the uncertainties in the tracked observables are larger than permitted by the $`\beta `$.

The intrinsic time scale may be roughly estimated to be of the order of the inverse of the maximum uncertainty in energy measurement that may occur in the system. This need not be infinite, since there would be a maximum energy above which modeling of the physical system breaks down - eg. particle a box would not be a valid description for arbitrarily high energies though the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is of course unbounded.

If however $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ is not an intrinsic time scale, then it needs to be adjusted depending upon what observables are used for tracking evolution. The small $`\beta `$ argument gives lower bounds on $`\beta `$ in terms of the uncertainties of the tracked observables. Unlike the continuous evolution, which is also unitary, the detectability of evolution is directly dependent on particular observables used for tracking.

We are unable to decide between the alternatives. It is possible that $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ is a scale intermediate to the intrinsic and the clock scales. Considering analogy with the Immirzi parameter in the context of LQC, interpretation of $`\beta `$ here may also throw some hints about the role of the Immirzi parameter.

3) One of the powerful methods of studying semi-classical limit for systems with phase space $`R^{2N}`$, is via the Wigner distribution function berry . It is essentially a double Fourier transform of expectation value of a certain unitary operator. In the usual continuous time description, the distribution function satisfies the classical Liouville equation to leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$ when the expectation value is taken with respect to a solution of the Schrodinger equation halliwell . It would be interesting to repeat the steps with discrete time though it looks complicated because of the structure of the difference equation.

4) This work has been motivated by the LQC work. So what does it say about discrete time evolution in LQC? As mentioned in the introduction, at present the discussion of physical quantities such as inner products and matrix elements of observables is at a schematic level. The present work points out the possible pitfalls one may encounter. Our analysis of pre-classical limit indicates that such a limit could exist, at the level of states, only for solutions whose asymptotic behaviour has a characteristic root equal to 1. It may still go through at the level of expectation values if the largest root is positive. For the isotropic cosmology with positive spatial curvature (Bianchi-IX), for the expressions given in isotropic , there is neither a root equal to one nor is the highest root positive. However, independent of whether a pre-classical limit exist or not, one could go ahead with a discrete equation at the level of expectation values. One may then take recourse to Wigner distribution formalism to explore the semi-classical limit. This of course needs the Wigner distribution formalism to be developed in the context of the polymer representation.

While one may construct families of states and even arrange schemes to distinguish corresponding expectation values, it leaves unanswered the question as to why does any system evolve at all?

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Martin Bojowald for useful comments and pointing out the earlier works on discrete time quantum mechanics.


format: text

text:
# Some remarks on the statistical model of heavy ion collisions

## 1 INTRODUCTION

As already pointed out in the contribution by A. Bialas  the statistical model (see e.g. ) works very well in describing/predicting measured ratios of particle abundances in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions. But even more remarkably, it works also for particle ratios measured in high energy proton-proton and even $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. In this contribution we will take the success of the statistical model as given and rather ask ourselves what can be learned from that. A critical discussion of possible shortcomings of the statistical model is given in the contribution of J. Rafelski .

In general a statistical description of a physical system is appropriate if the system has many degrees of freedom but is characterized only by few observables/measurements. This is e.g. the case in a thermal system, which is characterized only by the constants of motion, namely the energy (and momentum), volume and all the conserved particle numbers. (Of course in a canonical or grand canonical formulation, the energy and/or particles number are replaced by the conjugate variables temperature and chemical potential).

But not only a thermal system meets the requirements for a statistical description. Let us consider a high energy collision which produces many particles in the final state. If we are only interested in the number of pions produced, we constrain the final state very little, and thus statistical methods should be applicable. This is the idea of the statistical theory of particle production first invented by Fermi .

Now suppose the statistical model of Fermi applies for particle production in high energy collisions. Does that mean that we are dealing with a thermal system in the sense of Boltzmann, where particle collisions keep the system in a state of equilibrium? This is very unlikely in case of $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, where the produced particles hardly have a chance to re-interact. And actually explicit measurements  show no indication for interaction among the partons from different jets in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions (see also contribution by H. Satz ). Therefore, “statistical” does not always mean “thermodynamic” in the sense that one is dealing with matter in thermal equilibrium, and that one can define a pressure and an equation of state. Statistical may simply mean phase-space dominance and the ”temperatures” and ”chemical” potentials are nothing but Lagrange multipliers characterizing the phase-space integral

This, however, may be different in a heavy ion collision. There one would naively expect (this is actually the main motivation for such complicated experiments) that the initially produced particles do re-interact on the partonic and/or hadronic level. The question then is, how to experimentally establish that a sufficient amount of re-interaction has taken place and that matter in the Boltzmann sense has been formed.

This contribution is organized as follows. In the first section, we will discuss the phase-space (or statistical model) for elementary collisions such as $`e^+e^{}`$. Then we will proceed with nucleus-nucleus collisions. Finally we will try to assess to which extent a case for thermal matter can be made in nucleus-nucleus collisions. We will conclude with a discussion on what the statistical variables extracted from particle ratios can tell us about the phase structure of QCD.

## 2 PHASE-SPACE DOMINANCE

Let us consider a high energy collision of elementary particles such as $`e^+e^{}`$ or proton proton. The probability to produce $`n`$ particles of a given species, such as pions, is given by

$`P_n={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}P_{n,x}`$ (1)
where $`P_{n,x}`$ denotes the probability to find $`n`$ particles of interest and $`x`$ other particles in the final state,

$`P_{n,x}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q_i}{E_i}}|M(q_1,\mathrm{}q_m;p_1,p_2)|^2\delta (E({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}E_i)\delta ^{(3)}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\stackrel{}{q}_i).`$ (2)
Here $`E`$ is the total energy of the system, which we consider in the center of momentum frame. The total multiplicity $`m`$ is given by

$`m=n+x.`$ (3)
In case of many particles in the final state, $`m1`$, one integrates over a large phase-space volume. As a result the details of the matrix element $`M(q_1,\mathrm{},q_m;p_1,p_2)`$ become less relevant. Instead one is sensitive to a phase-space average of the matrix element. Thus we can rewrite eq. (2) as

$`P_{n,x}`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V^m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|M(q_1,\mathrm{},q_m;p_1,p_2)\right|^2}{_{i=1}^mE_i}}\right]V^m{\displaystyle \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d^3q_i\right)\delta (E\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_i)\delta ^{(3)}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_i)}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\overline{S}_m\mathrm{\Phi }_m(E)`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(E)=V^m{\displaystyle \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d^3q_i\right)\delta (E\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_i)\delta ^{(3)}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_i)}`$
is the micro-canonical m-particle phase-space volume known from statistical physics, and

$`\overline{S}_m`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V^m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|M(q_1,\mathrm{},q_m;p_1,p_2)\right|^2}{_{i=1}^mE_i}}\right]`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_m(E)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{d^3q_i}{E_i}\left|M(q_1,\mathrm{},q_m;p_1,p_2)\right|^2\delta (E\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_i)\delta ^{(3)}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_i)}`$
denotes the phase-space averaged m-particle matrix element.

Obviously, if $`\overline{S}_m`$ is simply a constant, independent of $`m`$, and thus independent on $`n`$ and $`x`$, the relative probability to find a given number of particles is simply given by the ratio of the phase-space volumes,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_n}{P_n^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_n(E)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}(E)}},`$ (7)
or in other words, it is given by statistics only.

Similarly, the mean number of particles in this case is, up to a constant, given by statistics

$`N={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}nP_n\overline{S}{\displaystyle \underset{n,x}{}}n\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+x}(E),`$ (8)
where $`\overline{S}`$ denotes the constant averaged matrix element. Obviously, in this case particle ratios are given only by statistics, as the constant $`\overline{S}`$ drops out. Note, that for a large average multiplicity $`m=n+x`$, the sum in eq. (8) will be dominated by a few terms with $`n+xm`$. This is analogous to the the grand-canonical approximation in statistical physics.

If the mean multiplicity is large, $`m1`$, then the micro-canonical phase-space volume $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(E)`$ may be evaluated in the canonical or grand-canonical approximation  leading to Lagrange multipliers, which in the thermodynamic framework are the temperature and the chemical potential. In the situation at hand, however, these Lagrange multipliers do not have a physical meaning. They simply characterize the phase-space integral. Their actual magnitude depends on the available energy as well as on the density of states, i.e., the hadronic mass spectrum. They, however, do not reflect exchange of energy with a heat-bath, as is the case for the temperature in the canonical ensemble of thermal physics. Thus, in order to avoid confusion, we will denote the application of statistical physics in the non thermodynamics context by ”phase-space dominance”.

### 2.1 Conditions on the matrix elements

As discussed above, the essential assumption for phase-space dominance to work is that the phase-space averaged matrix elements (6) are constant, independent of $`m`$. What requirements does this impose on the matrix elements? Obviously, if the matrix elements simply scale with the multiplicity $`m`$ like

$`\left|M_m\right|^2=C(V^m{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}E_i)`$ (9)
with $`C`$ being a constant, the condition is fulfilled. The scaling with $`_{i=1}^mE_i`$ is simply due to the normalization of the states, and thus is not a dynamical constraint. The scaling with $`V^m`$ on the other hand is not trivial and implies that there is only one relevant length/mass scale in the problem. Before we discuss this in more detail let us list other conditions, which the matrix element has to satisfy.

* Absence of strong correlations. Correlations imply that the matrix element provides more support in localized regions of phase space. Consequently it is far from being constant. Or in other words, the integral in eq. (6) will only have support in a limited region leading to a decrease of $`\overline{S}_m`$ with increasing $`m`$.
* Absence of strong energy dependence in the matrix element. This is similar to the previous condition and actually related. Strong energy dependence (other than the trivial one from the normalization factors of the states) obviously implies a non-constant matrix element.
* Absence of strong interference effects, which lead to both correlations and energy dependencies.

Hadronic resonances, such as $`\rho `$ mesons give rise to correlations and energy dependencies. And indeed, the statistical model fails to reproduce the data if only true final state particles such as pions, kaons etc. are taken into account . Instead, the successful fits of the particle ratios are obtained only if the hadronic resonances are part of the statistical ensemble. This way, the correlations are removed from the matrix elements and put into the ”final” states, in the spirit of . This is schematically depicted in Fig.1.

Thus, the relevant phase-space to be considered is a phase-space of all hadronic resonances and the matrix element is reduced to one with resonances in the final state

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(E)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}^R(E)`$
$`M(E;q_1,\mathrm{},q_m)`$ $``$ $`M_R(E;p_1^R,\mathrm{},p_m^{}^R)`$ (10)
As a result the reduced matrix element $`M_R`$ is free of all the correlations introduced by the resonances and, therefore, it is more likely that it meets the requirements stated above.

Let us return to the issue of the volume dependence of the matrix element. Only if the matrix element scales with the volume as given by eq. (9), the statistical approach is justified. From dimensional arguments an m-particle matrix element has the correct scaling behavior.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|M_m\right|^2}{E^m}}[\mathrm{mass}]^{(3m+4)}.`$ (11)
In general there may be several length/mass scales contributing to the matrix element, such as e.g. the hadronic resonances. In this case the statistical approach should not work. If, on the other hand, all the dynamical mass scales of QCD aside from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ are the masses of the resonances, then the reduced matrix element $`M_R`$ (10) contains only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, and the statistical approach will work as long as the volume is of the size of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3`$. This would be about the size of the proton, which appears to be a reasonable size for a volume in an elementary particle collision. We should note, however, that the fits to proton-proton collisions  lead to volumes of the order of $`20\mathrm{fm}^3`$, which is somewhat on the large side of what one would expect from our considerations here.

The constraints on the intrinsic mass scales, however, are not as severe as it might appear from the previous considerations. If the mean multiplicity $`m`$ is large, the particle production is dominated by events with final state multiplicities near $`m`$, i.e. $`m=n+x`$ is approximately constant for all n. And, therefore, the condition (9) is fulfilled trivially.

Finally, the matrix element is responsible for conservation laws due to intrinsic symmetries, such as strangeness, charge and baryon number. This, however, is already accommodated in the statistical approach. If the amount of conserved quanta is small, one may have to use a canonical description instead of a grand canonical one. But this is all within the framework of statistical physics, which actually is based on conservation laws.

The success of the statistical fits to the particle ratios for $`e^+e^{}`$ as well as proton proton is demonstrated in Fig. (2). As already pointed out, these fits are based on a statistical ensemble of hadronic resonances. Following the above arguments, we may conclude from the success of the statistical model that the relevant dynamical correlations and mass scales of QCD are contained in the hadronic resonances. In order to see more subtle dynamic effects, one probably has to resort to higher order correlations. The alternative conclusion would be that even in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, re-scattering leads to a true thermodynamic system. This, however, is difficult to imagine and there is no experimental evidence for any re-scattering .

Finally, let us point out that the statistical model also seems to work for correlation measurements of strange particles , such as $`K_sK_s`$. In the statistical approach, these correlations are mostly due to strangeness conservation and the agreement with the data indicates the absence of strong dynamical correlations.

## 3 NUCLEUS-NUCLEUS COLLISIONS

As we have discussed above, the success of the statistical model in describing particle yields in proton-proton collisions can be understood as a result of phase-space dominance. The goal of nucleus nucleus collisions, however, is to create matter, i.e., a thermal system in the sense of Boltzmann, where particle collisions lead to and maintain thermal equilibrium. It is only in this situation, where we can give the Lagrange multipliers ”$`T`$” and ”$`\mu `$” the physical meaning of temperature and chemical potential.

Obviously, if each individual nucleon-nucleon collision can be described by a statistical approach, we expect the statistical model to work even better in a nucleus-nucleus collision. And indeed it does, as can be seen from Fig.3. But how do we know that the statistical behavior of a nucleus-nucleus collision is again not simply phase-space dominance?

To illustrate this point, let us assume for a moment that a nucleus-nucleus collision is a simple superposition of “$`N`$” nucleon-nucleon collisions. Let us also assume that nucleon-nucleon collisions can be described by statistics as a result of phase-space dominance. If we were dealing with a simple classical ideal gas without additional constraints from conservation laws, the partition function of the nucleus-nucleus system $`Z_{AA}`$ is simply the product of the partition functions of the nucleon-nucleon collisions $`Z_{nn}`$

$`Z_{AA}^{(a)}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}Z_{nn}.`$ (12)
This situation is sketched in Fig.4a. There is no cross talk between the individual systems.

On the other hand $`Z_{AA}^{(a)}`$ also represents the partition function of a system of volume

$`V_{AA}=NV_{nn}`$ (13)
which would correspond to the system depicted in Fig.4b, and thus to “matter”, or in other words

$`Z_{AA}^{(a)}=Z_{AA}^{(b)}`$ (14)
So in this case there would be simply no way to distinguish between situation (a) and (b) in Fig.4 within a statistical framework.

So how can we find out if indeed thermalized matter has been created in a heavy ion collisions?

Obviously the factorization condition (14) will break down, once we probe the boundaries of phase-space available for a nucleon-nucleon collision, where the statistical model will not work. This could for example be achieved by studying $`n`$-particle correlations, with $`n`$ larger than the average multiplicity of a nucleon-nucleon collision, $`nN_{nn}`$. If, such a n-particle correlation would still look ”thermal” in an AA collision, then the vastly bigger phase space of an $`AA`$-system has been populated by scattering processes, and we may talk about “matter”.

The sensitivity of this approach can be improved by looking at conserved quantum numbers. If additional conservation laws, such as strangeness, are at work, phase space is even more restricted and factorization may break down already on the single particle level. Consider for example strangeness conservation. In scenario (a), strangeness has to be conserved for each nucleon-nucleon collision separately, whereas in (b) conservation applies only to the entire system. This additional constraint is most relevant if the number of strange particles produced in a nucleon-nucleon collision is small, $`N_s1`$. If $`N_s1`$ a grand-canonical treatment is adequate and factorization (14) works again at least on the single particle level. Consequently, in this case multi-particle correlations need to be investigated.

In nucleon-nucleon collisions a canonical treatment, where strangeness as well as baryon number are conserved explicitely, is required to explain the particle abundances . Also for lower energy and peripheral heavy ion collisions, the explicit treatment of strangeness conservation seems to required .

In  the centrality dependence of the strange baryon yields was studied based on the above concepts. The authors found, that the centrality dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ enhancement should flatten out, once the volume over which strangeness is conserved exceeds that of about 20 time the volume of a nucleon. Therefore, if a flat centrality dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ enhancement is observed, one can conclude that strangeness has ”percolated” at least over a volume 20 times as large as in a nucleon-nucleon collision. This would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of matter. Unfortunately the results reported by the NA57 collaboration  show a steep increase of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ enhancement up to the highest centralities.

However, even if the centrality dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-enhancement is not completely understood, the fact that there is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-enhancement clearly shows that a nucleus-nucleus collision is more than simply a superposition of nucleon-nucleon collisions. And there is evidence from other observables that a certain amount of re-scattering is taking place in heavy ion collisions. Flow, radial or elliptic, would be difficult to understand without re-scattering on the partonic/hadronic level. To which extent they are sufficient to form matter in the Boltzmann sense is, however, not clear.

So have we formed matter in these collisions? A definitive answer to this question requires additional measurements such as multi-particle correlations of conserved quantities. At lower energy ($`12\mathrm{AGeV}`$) collisions, the measurement of kaon pairs for example provides a sensitive measurement on the degree of equilibrium reached . At higher energies one might think about multiple $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ production, in order to really probe the boundaries of phase-space.

But we also have no evidence against the hypothesis of thermal equilibrium. Quite to the contrary, there is evidence for the necessary re-scattering from flow and dilepton production as well as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-enhancement. Therefore, let us assume that we indeed have been able to create matter in these collision. In this case, we may interpret the Lagrange multipliers $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ as temperature and chemical potential. The result of fits to system at different collision energies  is shown in Fig.5.

Does Fig.5 reflect a measurement of the phase-separation line in the QCD phase diagram? Certainly not! All it shows are the thermal parameters at which the systems fall out of chemical equilibrium under the assumption of unchanged particle properties. Does it tell us about a limiting temperature? Maybe! Suppose that LHC experiments lead to the same temperature of $`T170\mathrm{MeV}`$. If at the same time radial flow increases considerably above the values observed at RHIC, then we can conclude that indeed much more energy has been deposited into the initial partonic system than reflected by the final temperature. Otherwise, one could argue that the constant temperature simply reflects the decreasing efficiency of depositing energy in the central rapidity region. Actually the radial flow from RHIC seems to be slightly larger than that extracted at the SPS .

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We have discussed the phase-space dominance assumption in the context of particle production in nucleon-nucleon, $`e^+e^{}`$ and nucleus-nucleus collisions. The fact that the statistical model is able to explain observed particle ratios in these experiments may simply be a result of this assumption. We also have attempted to assess the difference between nucleus-nucleus and nucleon-nucleon collisions, and to which extent matter is produced in the former. While there is evidence for re-scattering processes to take place, we have not yet definitively established that a thermal system has been created in these collisions. A detailed study of multi-particle correlations of conserved quanta is one possible way to address this issue. Finally, we have argued that even if we consider the parameters extracted from the fits to the statistical model as temperature and chemical potential, the energy dependence of these parameters is not a measurement of the phase separation line of QCD.

## 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank F. Becattini, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Knoll, A. Majumder, J. Randrup, K. Redlich and S. Soff for useful discussions. This work was supported by GSI Darmstadt, and the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, and by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Nuclear Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.


text:
# Oblique Polarization Structures in AGN and QSO Radio Jets

## 1 Introduction

There has been considerable past success in fitting quantitative transverse shock models to selected radio outbursts in extragalactic sources where the radio polarized flux is parallel to the VLBI jet axis (\[Hughes, Aller, & Aller 1989\]). However, many sources have exhibited bursts where the radio polarization is at an arbitrary angle to the jet flow direction, and we suspect that in these cases, the linear polarization is produced by oblique shocks. To better understand the evolution of these oblique polarization structures we made multi-epoch observations of ten highly active extragalactic sources selected from the University of Michigan variability program: DA 55, 0607-157, OJ 287, 1055+018, 3C 279, 1510-089, OT 081, 1928+738, BL Lacertae and 3C 446. The goals of this study are to find if, in fact, the observed polarizations can be produced by the alignment of magnetic fields and acceleration of particles associated with oblique shocks in relativistic jet flows, and to investigate what constraints can be placed on the physical conditions and processes in the jets. The interpretation is made somewhat more complex by the effects of relativistic aberration. Here we report on preliminary results for one program source, BL Lacertae, based on 2 cm measurements with the VLBA at five epochs and the monitoring results from the University of Michigan ( hereafter UMRAO) 26-meter telescope.

## 2 Results

The single-antenna 14.5 GHz measurements of BL Lacertae from the UMRAO are shown in Figure 1. Our observations at 4.8 and 8.0 GHz are not shown, to simplify the figure, but they show similar variations. A relatively large outburst occurred in late 1999 through 2000, and there have been several smaller flux events. The epochs of the VLBA polarization observations are indicated by the arrows along the abscissa in Figure 1, and the epochs of the five maps shown in Figure 2. are designated by the letters a to e. The total polarized flux does not mimic the flux density curve in a simple way. The polarization position angle is consistently offset from the average direction of the jet flow, $`197^{}`$ (defined by the direction from the core to the strongest jet component, and shown as the horizontal line). As discussed below, we believe that this offset is associated with the curvature of the jet structure and the resulting orientation of oblique shock structures to generate a deflection of the flow in the observed direction.

The five VLBA polarization maps are shown in Figure 2. The contour levels (chosen to emphasize the diffuse emission) are the same in all images, but the noise levels vary due to weather conditions or temporary equipment problems. Note that the top three images (a, b, and c) were obtained in a five-month period, while the last two images are at a yearly spacing from the first image. The basic morphology of the source remained unchanged over the two year observing period, and is very similar to the structures observed by \[Denn et al. 2000\]. The ‘hot spot’ evident in the jet appears to change position in an erratic manner; it is not possible to define an ‘expansion rate’ from these images. There is also considerable brightening and fading of the outer tail of the jet. Although not evident without close inspection, most of the flux variations seen in Figure 1 are produced in the core component; the first three epochs are associated with the development of the burst that peaked in 2000, an event has almost completely faded by epoch d.

The majority of the variability (and the polarized flux) originates in the unresolved (and part of the time partially opaque) ‘core’. The most highly polarized component, however, is often the ‘hot spot’ located two or more mas from the core, where the degree of polarization is as high as 25%. We believe that this is the site of a relatively strong shock in the jet flow. The striking feature is that this region maintains a relatively fixed polarization position angle (in the vicinity of $`45^{}`$) from epoch to epoch. This is certainly not associated with a transverse shock (such as fit the BL Lacertae data in the early 1980s). The observed orientation is consistent with an oblique shock which could be associated with the deflection or bending of the jet flow towards the south east.

The description of an oblique shock in a relativistic flow is more complex than for the case of a transverse shock. We use the same notation as \[Cawthorne & Cobb 2000\] who considered the case of conical shocks in relativistic flows. Their parameters, $`\beta _u`$ (the upstream flow velocity), and the angles $`\eta ,\theta ,\theta ^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ are illustrated in Figure 3. We have added an additional parameter (derivable from the others) $`\chi `$, the flow deflection angle. This angle can be quite extensive as is illustrated in Figure 4. Note that the deflection of the flow is in the opposite sense from the rotation of the EVPA with respect to the initial flow direction.

We can define limits for the parameters of the shocks required to reproduce individual maps, but there are many possible combinations of shock obliquity and observer viewiing angle that can produce the same apparent polarization structure. Figure 5 illustrates the range of $`\eta ,\theta `$, and $`\varphi `$ which will produce a 25% polarized component at an EVPA of $`30^{}`$ to the initial flow direction. The deflection angles shown in Figure 4 are certainly large enough to generate the jet structures trailing off to the Southeast in Figure 2. However, the eratic motion of the polarized peak, together with the unknown flow rate down the tail, makes it difficult to measure the apparent deflection angle of the flow. The erratic motion of the ‘hot spot’, where the deflection in flow direction takes place, may contribute to the widening of the tail region, even if the deflection angle remains fixed.

Some regions of the BL Lacertae images presented here, and a dominant characteristic of many QSO jets are polarization structures which are perpendicular to the flow direction. Although this might be due to a shear layer, such structures can also be generated by oblique shocks when the effects of relativistic aberration are taken into account. Figure 6 shows the region of parameter space where an apparently perpendicular EVPA could be generated.

## 3 Conclusions

The polarized structures observed in the images that we have analysed to date are all consistent with oblique shock structures which have similar shock strengths to those found in previous studies of transverse shocks. While the spacing of outbursts and the time–scales of gross changes in the parsec scale jet structure of BL Lacertae are measured in years, images obtained months apart reveal that there are significant changes in polarization structures and erratic motions of intensity peaks on much shorter time scales.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by grant AST-9900723 from the National Science Foundation. UMRAO is operated with funds from the Department of Astronomy of the University of Michigan. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.