text:
# Radiative corrections in a minimal extension of the standard model.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The standard model of elementary particle physics based on the gauge group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ is essentially confirmed by the precision tests at LEP . However the Higgs particle has not been found and a naive analysis of the data gives a bound of $`m_H>112GeV`$. However the data are not without trouble. There is a large difference between the leptonic data, including the measured W-mass and the results from the b-physics data at LEP. The leptonic data by themselves would imply a lower mass for the Higgs boson than is acceptable from the direct search. While it is probably premature to conclude that the standard model is definitely ruled out, the discrepancy points out the importance of studying alternatives to the minimal Higgs sector of the standard model.

Because the effect is small and the general agreement with the standard model is there, a natural option is to study the effects of changes in the Higgs sector alone. The simplest such extension is to include extra Higgs singlet scalar particles in the model. Singlets do not couple to ordinary matter directly in a renormalizable way, but only to the Higgs sector. Therefore indirect effects of such particles appear only at the two-loop level in precision tests of the standard model. Since effects at the two-loop level are generically suppressed, significant contributions of the singlets can only arise if they have at least moderately strong interactions. When this is the case one can in principle not limit oneself to two-loop graphs only, but needs to resum an infinite number of graphs, thereby being forced to confront the non-convergent nature of perturbation theory. This problem is not unique to Higgs physics, but arises always when one has instable particles inside loops, since the propagator of an instable particle implies a Dyson-resummation of the one-particle irreducible contribution to the two-point function. In gauge theories this leads to complications regarding gauge invariance and questions regarding high precision predictions for instance for the process $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$.

In order to address such questions it is advantageous to have a simple model, that avoids some of the complications. Also the presence of a non-perturbative expansion parameter is desirable. These arguments lead one to consider the standard model coupled to an O(N)-symmetric sigma-model. By a suitable rescaling of coupling constants one can use the parameter (1/N) as a non-perturbative expansion parameter. It is this model that will be used in the following. Besides the fact that it is essentially the simplest extension of the standard model and therefore should be studied, the model has some interesting features. If the extra scalars are light enough, the Higgs boson will decay into them, giving a large invisible width to the Higgs boson. This will eliminate practically any signal at the LHC. However TESLA will have no problem discovering such a Higgs boson. The decay products of the Higgs boson are stable and weakly interacting with ordinary matter. They form a suitable candidate for the dark matter of the universe.

## 2 MNMSM or STEALTH MODEL

The model of a Higgs sector, containing the standard model Higgs boson plus an O(N)-symmetric sigma model, is essentially the simplest extension of the standard model and one can call it the M(inimal) N(on)-M(inimal) S(tandard) M(odel), filling in the gap between SM, MSSM and NMSSM. Because of the hidden nature of the Higgs boson one can also call it the stealth model.

The Lagrangian density is the following:

$`L_{Scalar}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{Higgs}+L_{Phion}+L_{Interaction}`$
where
$`L_{Higgs}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \varphi ^+^\mu \varphi \lambda (\varphi ^+\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}})^2`$
$`L_{Phion}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \stackrel{}{\phi }^\mu \stackrel{}{\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_P^2\stackrel{}{\phi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{8N}}(\stackrel{}{\phi }^2)^2`$
$`L_{Inter.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\sqrt{N}}}\stackrel{}{\phi }^2\varphi ^+\varphi `$ (1)
Here we use a metric with signature $`(+++)`$. $`\varphi =(\sigma +v+i\pi _1,\pi _2+i\pi _3)/\sqrt{2}`$ is the complex Higgs doublet of the SM with the vacuum expectation value $`<0|\varphi |0>=(v/\sqrt{2},0)`$, $`v=246`$ GeV. Here, $`\sigma `$ is the physical Higgs boson and $`\pi _{i=1,2,3}`$ are the three Goldstone bosons. $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$ is a real vector with $`<0|\stackrel{}{\phi }|0>=\stackrel{}{0}`$. We consider the case, where the $`O(N)`$ symmetry stays unbroken, because we want to concentrate on the effects of a finite width of the Higgs particle. Breaking the $`O(N)`$ symmetry would lead to more than one Higgs particle, through mixing. Since the goal of this exposition is to clarify the role of a finite width of the Higgs boson inside loop graphs, the model will be analyzed in the limit, where the phion mass is zero. Also the phion selfinteractions will be ignored. In this limit fully analytic results can be presented. A detailed analysis of the general case, which necessarily becomes numerical, is given in . The physics of the model in the above limit is quite simple. One has a Higgs boson that has a larger than usual width, but there are no other direct physics effects present. Within the $`1/N`$ expansion only bubble-graphs containing phions contribute to the Higgs propagator, which enters the electroweak radiative corrections.

## 3 THE $`\rho `$ PARAMETER

### 3.1 Definition

Higgs mass dependent corrections to low energy electroweak parameters, appear in a number of places. Because the Yukawa couplings are very small, the Higgs dependent effects are limited to corrections to the vector-boson propagators, which can be taken to be the $`\rho `$ parameter, the mass shift of the Z boson and the mass shift of the W boson, often parametrized by S,T,U or $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3`$ . The behaviour for the different quantities is very similar. If the Higgs mass is much larger than the Z-boson mass, the effects grow like $`log(m_H^2/M_W^2)`$. Already for the present limit $`m_H>112GeV`$, the large Higgs mass limit is a reasonable approximation. As the behaviour for the different quantities is similar, it is sufficient to focus on one of them. We will here choose the so-called $`\rho `$ parameter. It is the ratio of neutral to charged current strengths. The definition is:

$$\rho =G_F^0/G_F^+$$
(2)
At the tree level $`\rho =1`$. This is peculiar for a doublet Higgs field, the reason being the $`O(4)`$ symmetry of the Higgs potential, which is larger than the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry of the standard model as as whole. This larger symmetry is broken by the hypercharge coupling, leading to effects vanishing with $`tg(\theta _W)`$. The correction is given by:

$$\delta \rho =\rho 1=(\delta M_W^2cos^2(\theta _W)\delta M_Z^2)/M_W^2$$
(3)
where $`\delta M_W^2`$ and $`\delta M_Z^2`$ are the corrections to the vector boson masses at $`k^2=0`$.

### 3.2  $`\delta \rho `$ in the standard model

Within the standard model the Higgs mass dependent contribution can be most easily described in the unitary gauge, where only one-graph contributes, namely the virtual splitting and recombining of a vectorboson into a Higgs boson and a vectorboson. This holds for all the low energy precision variables, which explains why the contributions are so similar. This contribution, coming from the Higgs alone is still divergent, the divergence being canceled by graphs containing only virtual vectorbosons and photons. The exact expression becomes quite complicated. For the Higgs mass dependent contribution it is therefore advantageous to consider the difference with the hypothetical case of $`m_H=0`$. In the limit, that the Higgs mass becomes large one then finds the following simple result:

$`\delta \rho (SM,m_H)\delta \rho (SM,m_H=0)={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{64\pi ^2}}`$
$`(tg^2(\theta _W)log(m_H^2/m_Z^2)+log(1+tg^2(\theta _W))`$ (4)
The last term comes from the fact that one compares diagrams with different masses inside the loops; it is actually $`log(m_Z^2/m_W^2)`$. If one is interested in just the leading logarithm, without the constant, one can make an expansion directly inside the graphs and ignore the masses of the vectorbosons. One finds:

$`\delta \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(2\pi ^4)i}}tg^2(\theta _W)(11/n)`$
$`{\displaystyle d^nk(k^2)^1(k^2+m_H^2)^1}`$ (5)
This gives the leading Higgs mass behaviour. The integral is still divergent, but this divergence is canceled by the explicit vectorboson graphs. The extra factor $`(k^2)^1`$ simplifies the integral, which is useful in particular when more loops are present.

## 4 FINITE WIDTH EFFECTS

### 4.1 Perturbation theory

We are now ready to calculate higher order effects in the model coming from the extra interactions of the Higgs boson to the phions. Within the $`1/N`$ expansion the only contributions that arise are graphs with phion bubbles inserted in the Higgs propagator. The calculations can therefore be performed in the same style as the one-loop calculations. Contributions to the $`\rho `$ parameter at the n-phion bubble level are therefore determined by integrals of the form:

$$d^4k\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{1}{(k^2+m_H^2)^{n+1}}log^n(k^2/m_H^2)$$
(6)
The logarithms in this integral come from the phion-bubbles, that are easily calculated, since they are just the massless one-loop propagator graphs. The one-loop renormalization of the Higgs mass is taken into account, through the scale choice of $`\mu =m_H`$ in the bubble-graphs. Going to polar coordinates and using the simplification due to the factor $`(k^2)^1`$ it is now relatively easy to calculate the diagrams. The result is:

$$\delta \rho =\frac{3g^2tg^2(\theta _W)}{64\pi ^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta })^n\frac{log^n(s)}{(s+1)^{n+1}}𝑑s$$
(7)
where:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\omega ^2v^2}{32\pi ^2m_H^2}$$
(8)
Explicit evaluation of the integrals gives:

$$\delta \rho =\frac{3g^2tg^2(\theta _W)}{64\pi ^2}\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })^n}{n}|B_n|(12^{1n})$$
(9)
where $`B_n`$ are the Bernouilli numbers. Since the odd Bernouilli numbers are 0, only the graphs with an even number of phion-bubbles contribute. This at least partly explains the observation , that at the two-loop level within the standard model the correction due to the Higgs particle is small. It was noticed, that the correction is small, not only because of the loop-factors, but also because of extra cancellations between different terms in the final result. The above result explains that there is no enhancement proportional to the number of Goldstone bosons, three in the standard model.

### 4.2 Borel summation

The series that we found for the $`\rho `$ parameter is obviously divergent. The question is therefore in how far one can make sense of the series. A traditional way to look at such a series is to make a Borel transformation. The Borel sum is defined as follows. Given the above series

$$\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\mathrm{\Delta }^n$$
(10)
we form the new ”Borel” series

$$F(z)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nz^{n1}/(n1)!$$
(11)
We find :

$$F(z)\frac{\pi }{sin(\pi z)}\frac{1}{z}$$
(12)
If the Borel transformed function $`F(z)`$ would have no singularities on the positive real axis, one could construct a regular function $`G(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ having the correct perturbation expansion. One takes the exponentially damped integral:

$$G(\mathrm{\Delta })=_0^{\mathrm{}}exp(y/\mathrm{\Delta })F(y)𝑑y$$
(13)
However in our case the Borel transform has an infinity of poles for positive values of the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This means that there is no unambiguous way to resum the perturbative series, so that non-perturbative effects much be present. In order to get a meaningful result one has to deform the contour in the Borel plane. The correct choice of the contour is in general arbitrary and some physical insight is necessary. Here the situation is very similar to the calculation of the one loop effective Lagrangian in an external electric field in QED. The contour is deformed so as to give an imaginary part to the effective Lagrangian, which has the physical interpretation, that the electric field is instable under decay into electron-positron pairs. In the approximation we used in the calculation, the vacuum also ought to be instable, since in the bubblesum only the term $`H\stackrel{}{\phi }^2`$ contributes, which corresponds to a potential that is unbounded from below.

In complete analogy we therefore define the resummed series for $`\delta \rho `$ by:

$$\delta \rho =_0^i\mathrm{}exp(y/\mathrm{\Delta })F_\rho (y)𝑑y$$
(14)
This way one find an imaginary part :

$$Im(\rho )=\frac{3g^2tg^2(\theta _W)}{64\pi ^2}\frac{i\pi }{exp(1/\mathrm{\Delta })+1}$$
(15)
The non-perturbative form of the contribution is manifest. Actually one can evaluate the complete contribution to $`\delta \rho `$:

$`\delta \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2tg^2(\theta _W)}{64\pi ^2}}`$
$`(\psi (1/2i/(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }))+log(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })+i\pi /2)`$ (16)
Here the $`\psi `$-function is the logarithmic derivative of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function. For large width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$ one has the following asymptotic expansion:

$`\delta \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{3g^2tg^2(\theta _W)}{64\pi ^2}}`$
$`(\gamma _{Euler}+2log(2)+log(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })+i\pi /2)`$ (17)
This shows, that if the Higgs is light, but has a large width, the width plays the same role as a large Higgs mass, as far as low energy radiative corrections are concerned.

### 4.3 Direct summation

While the approach described above is mathematically acceptable, it is not quite satisfactory from the physical point of view. The presence of an imaginary part to $`\delta \rho `$ is clearly an artefact of the approximation, namely the effective use of a cubic potential. Within the full theory this term cannot be there, as the potential is positive definite. Also the separate summation of the higher-loop graphs, does not emphasize the connection between loop-graphs and corresponding tree graphs. A more naive calculation would consist of summing the bubbles in the Higgs propagator first and then substituting the resummed propagator into the loop-graph.

If one does this, one can consider the correction to the $`\rho `$-parameter as an averaged correction due to a density of Higgs-fields. The density is the Kallén-Lehmann mass density $`\sigma (s)`$ of the Higgs propagator. In formula-form:

$$\delta \rho =𝑑s\sigma (s)\delta \rho (m_H^2=s)$$
(18)
In this from the origin of the problem gets localized in the fact that the resummed Higgs propagator contains a tachyon pole $`m_T^2=s_0m_H^2`$ at:

$$s_0+1+\mathrm{\Delta }log(s_0)=0$$
(19)
The residue at the pole is given by $`s_0/(\mathrm{\Delta }+s_0)`$. The presence of a tachyon is unacceptable and one has to find a prescription to deal with it. Simply subtracting the pole part is reasonable, as it leads to a Kallén-Lehmann density $`\sigma (s)`$ that is physical in the sense that $`\sigma `$ has support only for positive s. However it leads to an undefined value of the $`\rho `$-parameter. The reason for this is that the integral $`𝑑s\sigma (s)`$ is not unity anymore. One has to correct for this effect. The simplest way is to add a non-perturbative factor $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+s_0)/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the Higgs-propagator. This last correction factor is of course somewhat arbitrary, as one needs only an overall normalization of the integral of $`\sigma `$. This kind of uncertainty appears to be unavoidable, since one is not able to solve the theory non-perturbatively. As the effect is however suppressed by a factor $`exp(1/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ the effect is very small in the case of a normal small coupling. The maximum correction factor we get here is in the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and is about $`28\%`$. A graph of the correction factor as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given in figure 1.

## 5 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have discussed the problem of an unstable Higgs particle inside loops, both by a direct summation and by substituting a resummed propagator in the loop. In both cases an uncertainty in the result is present, due to the fact that we cannot solve the theory non-perturbatively. The uncertainty was quantified to be maximally around $`28\%`$. Therefore qualitatively correct results can still be derived even for a wide Higgs. In this case the radiative effects cannot be distinguished from the effects of a heavy Higgs particle. The width starts playing the role of the Higss mass, which is easy to understand on the basis of the Kallén-Lehmann representation. We therefore conclude, that this model and similar ones with a wide mass density cannot explain the dicrepancies in the precision data, which were the original motivation of this study. The model is not better, but also not worse than the standard model.

While the method appears to work well in the present simple situation, a number of open questions remain. Foremost is the question, whether this method can be applied to gauge-theories. Furthermore one should consider the possibility of going to higher orders in the $`1/N`$ expansion. Some work along these lines, within the heavy-Higgs standard model, has been performed in . Finally connections with fully non-perturbative methods such as the lattice would be of interest.


format: text

text:
# Exclusion of correlation in the theorem of Bell

## I GWZZ’s “proof” of Bell’s theorem

GWZZ’s approach is not the standard EPR-B formulation. The first and most obvious difference is that GWZZ consider a simulation that involves only dichotomic variables as inputs and outputs; i.e., functions that take on only the values of $`\pm 1`$, in contrast to the continuous polarization settings over the $`[0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ]`$ range of polarizer settings considered usually in EPR-B experiments. Further, GWZZ do not stipulate precisely how what they label the “photons” emitted in opposed pairs are correlated. In so far as the correlations of the pairs in EPR-B experiments are the very source of the phenomena that Bell considered should serve to expose the preternatural character of QM, such carelessness in what GWZZ call “our own proof of Bell’s theorem” is more than just negligent; it admits, as shall be shown, an egregious error. Additionally, they specify that, what they label the “polarizers,” are to be set independently and randomly to only two settings based on coin tosses or other genuinely random procedures. These differences with customary proofs of Bell’s theorem all introduce additional confusions and errors that exacerbate those already present in Bell’s formulation.

Finally, GWZZ’s encoding of “locality” is not new, by their own acknowledgment, and therefore, as suspect as the encoding used by Bell himself, which turned out to be misdirected, as was demonstrated conclusively by the construction of counterexamples. In short, we hold that the GWZZ “proof” is riddled with confusions and errors, both the old and new.

## II Binary variables

A pervasive confusion throughout Bell’s analysis is that concerning the role of individual outcomes, versus the density of outcomes per unit time as a function of angleAKb . Bell’s discussion of that EPR-B experiment he envisages, leads the reader to think that he is considering the correlation of the individual coincident events. In fact, however, all the expressions he writes do not pertain to individual events, but to the relative frequency of coincidences at given settings of the detectors per unit time. This turns out not to be just an accident, but a necessity, as QM in fact does not predict the precise values of individual events (nor correlations derived from such), but just their expectations given a particular circumstance or experimental setup. That is, while QM provides, at best, the spectrum and relative frequencies of the observable quantities, it does not predict any particular outcome. Thus, for an EPR-B experiment, QM only enables one to calculate the average, or “expectation value” of the number of coincidences per unit time given the polarizer settings. Moreover, this is exactly what is measured in the laboratory in the form of a photocurrent intensity comprising what is in effect the average of many individual photoelectrons which is then plotted as a function of the difference in the polarizer settings.

If, after whatever simulations GWZZ carry out, they seek to compare the result with those averages or “expectations” that can be obtained by calculation from QM, as demanded by the logic of Bell theorems, then certainly their simulation must produce entities that have the same physical units as those resulting from the QM calculations. The GWZZ “proof” fails this requirement; it deals exclusively with correlations of individual events.

It can be shown, moreover, that any four dichotomic sequences, with zero mean and values $`\pm 1`$, no matter how derived or how correlated, tautologically satisfy a CHSH type Bell inequalityAKc , so the correlations considered by GWZZ can not distinguish between alternatives, because there can be none at this level. This, however, is not the main point herein, which is only that GWZZ’s “proof” of Bell’s theorem does not yield the sort of items that can be compared with a correspondent from QM.

## III Input, output variables and labels

The coincidence probabilities involved in analysis of EPR-B experiments take the form $`\rho (a,b,\lambda )`$ where $`a`$ and $`b`$ specify the polarizer settings, $`\lambda `$ is a “hidden variable” that presumably specifies the state of the pairs (or twins) and $`\rho `$ is a density or ratio of the number of times a coincidence event is registered when its arguments have particular values over the total number of coincidences for all values of the arguments. Just what all this means must be parsed and specified with great care. The arguments, or independent variables in $`\rho `$, for example, strictly speaking should have the units of angular displacement, radians or degrees, in so far as in the standard experiments they correspond to polarizer settings. However, in some particularly simple cases, when only a few angles are considered, then the actual values; e.g., $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ radians, can be given labels which are meaningful in the context of the experiment, *up* and *down*, say. This can severely confuse the mathematics as *up* and *down* do not lend themselves to symbolic manipulation according to the usual rules of algebra, etc. This is sometimes resolved by using numerical labels such as $`1`$ and $`+1`$, for example, which do lend themselves to mathematical manipulation—however, without automatically vesting the results with meaning! One can not just throw out physical units or introduce numerical labels for the convenience of arithmetic. These same considerations apply in spades to the significance or values of $`\rho (a,b,\lambda )`$, which are never just $`\pm 1`$’s, (labels), but ratios of coincidence counts or densities of counts per unit time; the physical parallel of probabilities. Thus, GWZZ’s proposal to compute the correlation of the *labels* of the outcomes, without specifying what this should mean (*inter alia* by giving the physical units), introduces pervasive confusion.

Further, Bell and many who followed, never in their writings distinguished between the active and passive input variables. Bell argued, for example, that locality requires that the output on one side can not depend on the polarizer setting on the other side. The fact is that the “hidden parameter(s)” $`\lambda `$ is(are) to specify the state of the twins. Thus, when the pair has a suitable state (correlation, or value of $`\lambda `$), it transfers this property, so to speak, through the polarizers, which, if set appropriately given the value of $`\lambda `$, will result in *coincident* output events at the detectors. Obviously, the output on one side (perhaps labeled by the polarizer setting at which it occurred) is independent of the *passive setting* on the other side; but, the occurrence of *coincidence* detections on both sides, in conjunction with the *active* inputs from the twins does depend on the passive settings on both sides. It is the twins that are correlated, and do the “transfer,” not the passive polarizers. In addition, throughout the analysis, the “sample space” consists of *coincidence events,* not individual events which are deliberately neglected in the calculations and explicitly excluded by coincidence circuits in the experiments. The confusion on this point in GWZZ’s formulation is vast; it is not specified how the photons must be correlated, nor what is to be measured as a coincidence, so that a relationship to EPR’s and Bell’s reasoning is moot.

## IV QM non-locality

The definition of “locality” used for the GWZZ argument does not encompass the realities of QM as ensconced in super-position and wave function collapse or the “projection hypothesis.” In his analysis Bell also did not explicitly delineate the possible source of non-locality in QM. Most readers infer that he in fact understood this feature and just glossed over it out of familiarity. But this is a serious defect in his presentation which ultimately led him into error.

All correlation of material objects which are space-like separated are in a sense “non-locally” interrelated. This is, however, not in conflict with Einstein’s stipulation that no influence can transpire faster that the speed of light in vacuo, if the objects obtained their correlation at some common event in both of their past light cones. This is the point at which QM introduces possible non-locality. QM holds that each of these twins is ontically ambiguous and comprised of a “superposition” of exclusive outcomes until the moment of measurement when a particular value, i.e., just one of the outcomes incorporated in the superposition, is “projected” out. This is the oft remarked “collapse” of the wave function. Now, it is here that non-locality arises when a measurement of one of the correlated twins is made, because by symmetry it must be that the other twin’s wave function also collapses, and this must happen at precisely the same instant as the measurement on the first particle.

In essence, what Bell claims to have demonstrated, is that it is impossible to account for EPR-B correlations without reference to such wave collapse. *Counterexamples conclusively demonstrate that this is not so!* These correlations can easily be taken into account in fully local (thence realistic) modelsAB AKa . (For a local-realistic model of an EPR-B experiment with time dependent correlations as considered by HP, see 11 .)

To encode locality in the relevant formulas, Bell supposed that the QM correlation of EPR-B measurements, $`P(a,b)`$, in terms of the individual, event-detection probabilities of a deeper theory, should be rendered as follows:

$$P(a,b)=A(a,\lambda )B(b,\lambda )\rho (\lambda )𝑑\lambda ,$$
(1)
where $`\rho (\lambda )`$ represents some possible density over the variable set $`\lambda `$ from the deeper, ‘hidden,’ theory. Bell described $`A(a,\lambda )`$ and $`B(b,\lambda )`$ as “the result of measuring $`\sigma _1a`$ and $`\sigma _2b`$” and $`P(a,b)`$ as the “expectation of the value of the product of $`\sigma _1a`$ and $`\sigma _2b`$,” i.e., their correlation. If these definitions are to be mutually consistent among themselves and with their QM correspondents, then we may write (after, if need be, exchanging labels for values): $`A(a,\lambda )=a\rho _A(a,\lambda )`$ and $`B(b,\lambda )=b\rho _B(b,\lambda )`$ so that Bell’s joint probability would therefore necessarily have to be of the form:

$$\rho (a,b,\lambda )=\rho _A(a,\lambda )\rho _B(b,\lambda )\rho (\lambda ),$$
(2)
where all $`\rho `$’s are probability densities over the appropriate parameter spaces.

The crucial feature incorporated in Eq. (2) is Bell’s encoding of locality, namely, that the probability of a photon detection at station $`A,`$ $`\rho _A(a,\lambda ),`$ must be independent of the settings of the measuring apparatus at station $`B`$, i.e., that it should not depend, he says, on the variable $`b,`$ and visa versa. Using Eq. (1) then, Bell and others derived inequalities for sets of correlations, $`P`$’s, which are intended to be empirically testable; e.g.:

$$|P(a,b)P(a,b^{})|+|P(a^{},b^{})+P(a^{},b)|2.$$
(3)
According to basic probability theory, however, joint probabilities, when expressed in terms of the probabilities of *individual* detections at stations $`A`$ and $`B`$, are encoded according to Bayes’ formula, a.k.a. the “chain rule”:

$$\rho (a,b,\lambda )\rho _A(a|b,\lambda )\rho _B(b|\lambda )\rho (\lambda ),$$
(4)
where $`\rho (c|d)`$ denotes a *conditional* probability; i.e., the probability of the occurrence of an event parameterized by $`c`$ given that a *condition* specified by $`d`$ is met. In application to the EPR-B experiment, for example, $`\rho _A(a|b,`$$`\lambda `$) is the probability of a detection of a photon at station $`A`$ when its polarizer is in the $`a`$ direction, given that its companion photon is detected coincidently at station $`B`$ when its polarizer is in the $`b`$ direction. The form of this equation is somewhat arbitrary; the interdependencies of $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$, in other words the correlations, can, with no untoward consequence, be built into either $`\rho _A`$ or $`\rho _B.`$ In any case, there is no implication of non-locality in such a condition; the correlation is imbued by a “common cause” in the past light cones of both entities, and carried, so to speak, by the active input $`\lambda `$, and not by the passive polarizer settings.

With respect to Bell’s analysis, the critical point here is: the right side of Eq. (4) reduces to the integrand of Eq. (1), Bell’s basic supposition, if and only if:

$$\rho _A(a|b,\lambda )\rho _A(a|\lambda )b.$$
(5)
If this is to encode locality, then one must presume that the presence of $`b`$ in the conditional probability $`\rho _A(a|b,\lambda )`$ implies that this correlation necessarily involves superposition and projection. But this is not necessary. Ordinary correlation invested in the twin objects at any point in time in the past light cones of both twins, e.g., at their birth, suffices. This relationship is then exposed by appropriately set detectors, whose ‘settings’ $`a`$ and $`b`$ play a purely passive role. They can be set at any time early enough to be in place when the twins arrive. This is exactly the tactic that permits the construction of local models of all EPR-B experiments. Here it can be seen clearly that Bell’s encoding inadvertently precludes *all* correlation, contrary to EPR-B’s hypothesis. By implicitly endorsing Eq. (5), GWZZ, following Bell, simply repeat his error.

It can be shown, moreover, that by correctly taking correlation into account, Bell-inequalities take the form:

$$|P(a,b)P(a,b^{})|2,$$
(6)
which is a scarcely surprising inviolable tautologyAKc . This, however, is not the main point herein, which is only that GWZZ’s “proof” of Bell’s theorem is based on invalid assumptions.

This defect in Bell’s argumentation was spotted, apparently, for the first time by Jaynes as early as 1988EJ . Subsequently it has been rediscovered independently by at least five othersEJ -BL , although ignored by GWZZ and like-minded non-locality proponents. It is this writer’s contention that it is actually the core of HP’s argument too. In this context, it should be observed that HP’s argument can be weakened, as the counterexamples demonstrate, in the sense that all that is needed to demolish Bell’s logic is the observation that the correlations are invested in the past light cones of both detection events, not that, as HP seem to hold, that the correlations must be time variable.

## V Loopholes

Separate from the soundness, or lack thereof, of Bell’s analysis, critical arguments concerning experiments done to test Bell’s hypothesis have been advanced to the effect that technical factors provide “loopholes” to evade Bell’s conclusions. One of the most discussed is that known as the “detection” loophole, which arises in experiments, because real detectors are not perfectly efficient and may not register all pairs emitted by the source. If this is the case, it is possible, however unlikely, that the detected set of coincidences might not be a fair representation of the whole set, but rather be skewed such that the statistics of the measured set gives results at odds with the statistics of the whole set. In effect, this problem arises because, experimentally one can not determine exactly the denominator of the various ratios that constitute the probabilities of interest.

Another such loophole can arise in principle if the twins can communicate with each other and, in effect, carry out a “conspiracy.” In this case, the twins, perhaps via as yet some totally unknown effect, might skew the statistics again to support false conclusions. Analysis of these loopholes has lead to the suggestion that the latter, “conspiracy,” loophole, and perhaps the former too, can be corked by randomly setting the polarizers in an EPR-B experiment at a time so close to the detection that it would be impossible, on account of detector separation, for the twins to collaborate using light signals. This is the rationale behind using randomly set polarizers, as GWZZ propose, unstated though it is in Ref. GWZZ .

In no case, however, does the possible existence of a loophole in the experiments address the fundamental correctness of Bell’s “theorem” per se, which concerns the statistics of the ideal case with uncorrupted outputs. It is at this point that GWZZ’s formulation introduces another fundamental confusion. In the first place, unless the “conspiracy” mechanism itself, or another bias, is encoded into a simulation, logically there is no need to program countermeasures. Their new “proof,” using randomly set polarizers, is therefore unnecessarily complex, because the point made by HP addresses the validity of the theorem, not the logical tightness of the experiments against loopholes. The issue is not, as GWZZ assert, whether the experimenters have “freedom” to set the polarizers, so as to prevent conspiracies, but rather, whether EPR-B correlations from idealized experiments can be modeled without recourse to non-local interaction, contrary to Bell’s claims.

## VI Counterexamples

If Bell’s theorem is wrong, and if there is no QM in the spaces in which the EPR-B experiments have been formulated, as argued above, then certainly it should be possible to model those experiments using only concepts from classical physics. This is indeed so; consider the following:

The model described below consists of simply rendering the source mathematically, and a computation of the coincidence rate. Photodetectors are assumed to convert continuous radiation into an electron current at random times with a Poisson distribution, but in proportion to the intensity of the radiation. The coincidence count rate is taken to be proportional to the second order coherence function.

The source is assumed to emit a double signal for which individual signal components are anticorrelated and confined to the vertical and horizontal polarization modes; i.e.

$$\begin{array}{cc}S_1& =(cos(n\frac{\pi }{2}),sin(n\frac{\pi }{2}))\\ S_2& =(sin(n\frac{\pi }{2}),cos(n\frac{\pi }{2}))\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`n`$ takes on the values $`0`$ and $`1`$ with an even random distribution. The transition matrix, $`\chi `$, for a polarizer is given by,

$$\chi (\theta )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\end{array}\right],$$
(8)
so the fields entering the photodetectors are given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_1& =\chi (\theta _1)S_1\\ E_2& =\chi (\theta _2)S_2\end{array}.$$
(9)
Coincidence detections among $`N`$ photodetectors, $`\gamma `$, (here $`N=2`$) are proportional to the single time, multiple-location, second-order cross correlation, i.e.:

$$\gamma (r_1,r_2,..r_N)=\frac{<_{n=1}^NE^{}(r_n,t)_{n=N}^1E(r_n,t)>}{_{n=1}^N<E_n^{}E_n>}.$$
(10)
It is easy to see that for this model the denominator usually consists of factors of $`1`$. The final result of the above is:

$$\rho (\theta _1,\theta _2)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2).$$
(11)
This is immediately recognized as the so-called ‘quantum’ answer. (Of course, it is also Malus’ Law.) Eq. (11) is the result for like channels. A similar expression with the sine replace by cosine, pertains to unlike channels. The total correlation is then $`\{P(+,+)+P(,)P(+,)P(,+)\}/\{P(+,+)+P(,)+P(+,)+P(,+)`$}for which the result here is $`cos(2(\theta _1\theta _2))`$, as is found also using QM.

Note that the mere existence of such models constitutes, irrespective of other critiques, counterexamples undermining the validity of Bell’s theorem. An informal criticism of this model is that actually it incorporates quantum structure in a covert manner. This is fully refutable on the basis that the model is not formulated in either phase space or quadrature space (i.e., in terms of amplitude and phase) which are the only two spaces in which the generators of translations parallel to the axes are subject to Heisenberg Uncertainty between themselves. (Noncommutivity among Stokes operators is not due to Heisenberg Uncertainty, but to the structure of the three dimensional rotation group. This structure enters only when the wave vector common to both polarization modes rotates; this is an entirely separate, and fully geometric matter.)

The above model is unfortunately also a conceptual “black box.” That is, while the inputs and outputs are clear, just what happens in detail inside the model is obscure, not physically motivated.

Early attempts to model EPR-B correlations in detail considered that the pairs in each superposition emitted by the source elicit independent photocurrent processes. For this pair the correlation, assuming that on each side the signal falls on a photodetector and evokes photoelectrons proportional to its square; i.e., its energy, would then be given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta \lambda )\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta \rho )𝑑\theta }{\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta \lambda )𝑑\theta \frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta \rho )𝑑\theta }}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{cos}(2(\lambda \rho )).`$ (12)
This is the explanation for EPR-B correlations proposed originally by Furry. In his conceptions, he envisioned that as the two signals obtained some distance from the source, they became independent or disentangled, thereby obviating the role of nonlocal interaction. To some degree this same notion underpinned the attempt by Jaynes and collaborators to advance the claim that a semiclassical treatment of electromagnetic phenomena might completely or in large measure preempt quantum electrodynamics. Early experiments by Clauser and collaborators torpedoed this hope, however. They observed that the visibility predicted by Eq. (12) was limited to 50%, but that both QED and experiments yield 100%.

This would be the end of this story were it not for technicalities overlooked in the derivation of Eq. (12). They include that in the experiments, the currents considered actually differ from those implied above. In the experiments, namely, the full current is not taken into account, but unpaired, single photoelectrons observed in either arm of the experiment are excluded deliberately by coincidence circuitry. Further, the geometric relationship used to construct the numerator is incorrect—as will be shown below. Finally, the signals are not distributed over $`2\pi `$, but limited to the vertical and horizontal.

It is worthwhile, therefore, to simulate in detail exactly what does happen in an EPR-B experiment. This can be done as follows: The source is assumed to emit paired, oriented (i.e., either vertically or horizontally polarized) pulses that are anticorrelated, e.g., left::vertical plus right::horizontal and visa versa. Then each pulse in each wing is directed through a polarizer set at an angle $`\theta _{l,r}`$ after which the emerging signal is sent through a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) whose axis is parallel to that of the source. Each arm of the PBS is taken to be observed by a photodetector, of which there are four, two on each wing. Each photodetector is independent of all others; each generates its own photocurrent where the intensity is proportional to the intensity of the total field impinging on it, in other words, according to Malus’ Law. Each photocurrent is comprised of photoelectrons for which the arrival time is a Poisson random variable. Positive coincidences are those between like channels (e.g., vertical:left—vertical:right), negative coincidences are between unlike channels.

Results from the simulation show that: 1) correlations among the photoelectrons considered as Poisson processes stimulated according to Malus’ Law always respect Bell inequalities; 2) correlations between the current *densities,* not the Poisson processes in the photodetectors, defined between channels using Malus’ Law again, conform with those calculated using QM, and as is well known, do not respect Bell inequalities.

The latter coincidences are exactly those selected by “coincidence circuitry,” which, in effect, upon detecting a photoelectron in any one detector, then looks for coincident photoelectrons in the other detectors within a specified window, that is, with respect to itself, not the source. The test for such a coincidence involves an expression that can not be factored, as indeed probabilities for coincident events can not be factored into the product of probabilities of independent events. In this case, however, this in no way implies nonlocality because the test has nothing to do with the existence of a photoelectron or any other physical interaction, just its relative position to other, already existing photoelectrons. Photoelectrons that fail the test do not suffer any physical consequence, they are just ignored when identifying coincidences—as “coincidence circuitry” ignores, but does not otherwise affect unpaired photoelectrons. In the end, coincidence of *intensities* between output channels can not be expressed as the direct product of the intensities generating the photocurrents for the same reason $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta \varphi )\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$, rather $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$, a simple trigonometric truth. The crucial insight from the simulation is that the role of coincidence filtering is at the core of EPR-B correlations; it is really the effect being studied, which is, at root, just geometry. That is, the simulation makes it clear that the statistics of the Poisson processes in the photodetectors are not the substance of the coincidence statistics measured by the coincidence circuitry, rather just the geometric relationship, i.e., Malus’ Law, between the *intensities* in the output channels.

This model and simulation are directly extendable to all other tests of EPR-B correlations, including multi-particle “GHZ” experiments. See AKa . To obtain Mermin’s “special case,” which is in fact just the ordinary case restricted to considering only three angles, simply set $`\theta _1\theta _2=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi /3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi /3`$. His stipulations i.) and ii.) in ref. NDM  are encoded in Eqs. (7) and (10 ) respectively. The extreme perplexity he finds in this case appears to derive from an implicit attempt to attribute the random input of the environment at the photodetectors, encoded in Eq. (10) as Malus’ Law and giving a continuous output, to the random aspect of the dichotomic source, Eq. (7). Furthermore, he fails to take account altogether of the coincidence circuitry and its role in selecting the sequences that exhibit perplexing statistics.

Likewise, GWZZ et al.’s “proof” is also just the standard EPR-B setup restricted to two observation angles. In their explication of their proof, they also explicitly go to considerable length to establish that the settings of the measurement devices, $`A`$ and $`B`$ in their notation, are statistically independent of the outcomes, $`X_1,X_2,Y_1,Y_2`$. This requirement parallels exactly Bell’s misconstrual in so far as he inadvertently encodes “locality” as the stipulation that the measurement settings are to be independent of the outcomes. On this point, it might reasonably be questioned, however, what purpose a measurement should have when the settings are independent of the outcomes; why make such a measurement even?

## VII Conclusion

Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof. Non-locality, interchanging the order of cause and effect as it can, is extraordinary in an extreme sense! To begin, there is *no* empirical verification in any area of science. What is considered proof, is simply the coincidence of the statistics of certain QM and empirical correlations. In view of the fact that the conclusion depends on the *interpretation* of these statistics, it clearly deserves prudent scepticism and extensive reanalysis before being taken as fact.

Moreover, counterexamples are the nuclear weapons of logic, as it were. The smallest, technical or artificial counterexample utterly devastates even the most elaborate theorem. The state of play, therefore, is now such that proponents of Bell’s analysis or the logical viability of non-locality, to support their case, must show that extant counterexamples are wrong or irrelevant. So long as the counterexamples stand, all other arguments are suspended.

GWZZ’s views in Ref. GWZZ  and Mermin’s in Ref. NDM  respect neither of these universal precepts.

As to the specifics of the GWZZ attack on HP’s criticisms, the situation is no better. HP’s essential argument is against the validity of Bell’s basic theorem, not the experiments which could be vulnerable by fault of loopholes. Most of GWZZ’s counter criticisms, on the other hand, address issues that pertain to evading the conspiracy loophole, not the theorem itself. The experimenters’ “freedom” can only effect the settings of the measuring devices, which in turn can only affect the time order in which the data is taken, not the actual patterns in the data (presuming that a conspiracy was not deliberately encoded into their simulation). GWZZ’s further comments regarding the alleged covert investment by HP of non-locality, is seen easily as a variation of the confusion of passive with active variables and their role in conditional probabilities pertaining to *coincident* events. Having failed to delineate how non-locality would enter in the first place, they then again by default attribute it to any and all correlation, whatever the source. For example, when GWZZ assert that Eq. (16) in Ref. HP  implies non-locality, they indulge exactly this confusion regarding the nature of correlation among coincident events. Thus, either GWZZ’s comments and arguments actually don’t pertain to HP’s arguments in the first place, or they just reiterate Bell’s original mistake.

Furthermore, moving the Bell argument in general into the arena in which individual events, instead of the density of events, introduces, fundamental obstacles. It precludes the possibility altogether of comparing any calculated result with that obtained using QM or obtained from experiments. This error is not indulged exclusively by GWZZ, but, regrettably, also pervades much current writing on Bell’s theorem, EPR-B correlations and non-locality.

GWZZ’s and Mermin’s arguments, in short, once again repeat Bell’s basic error of presuming effectively that all EPR-B correlations are expressed via projection from superposition states. Whereas Bell explicitly recognized the role of correlation but inadvertently excluded it by misencoding locality, GWZZ’s arguments fail even to analyze its importance and possible source and thereafter to take it appropriately into account. In conclusion, GWZZ and Mermin have neither demolished HP’s criticism of Bell’s “theorem,” nor contributed to the elucidation of the issues under debate on the validity of non-locality or its necessity in an extention of QM involving “hidden variables.” They also completely overlook both 1) the profound contribution of “coincidence circuitry” and a correct geometric rendering of its effects to the observed phenomena, and 2) the distinguished role of *intensity* correlations distinct from their underlying Poisson processes.

## Acknowledgment

I thank Barry Schwartz for extensive insightful remarks on Jaynes’ criticisms of Bell’s reasoning and a critical reading of this manuscript.


text:
# Upper semicontinuity of the dimensions of automorphism groups of domains in ℂ^𝑛

## 0. Introduction

The automorphism group $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ (the group of biholomorphic self-maps of $`D`$) of a bounded domain $`D`$ in $`^n`$ is, in general, difficult to describe and little is known about it. However, it is known (see \[SZ, BD\]) that any compact Lie group can be realized as the group of automorphisms of a smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain, and (see \[ShT\]) that any linear Lie group can be realized as the group of automorphisms of a bounded domain. So, if we consider the group $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ as a function of $`D`$, the set of values is quite large.

If one considers this function on the metric space $`^n`$ of all bounded domains in $`^n`$ with the metric equal to the Hausdorff distance between boundaries of domains, one can expect that small perturbation of the boundary may only “decrease” the group, i.e., the function $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ is “upper semicontinuous”. Indeed, in \[GK\], \[Ma\] and \[FP\] the authors, using topologies different from $`^n`$, proved the upper semicontinuity of the function $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ in the sense that $`\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is “close” to $`D`$. But, in general, this idea is not true according to the following theorem (\[FP\]).

###### Theorem 0.1.

Let $`M`$ be a domain in $`^n`$. Then there exists an increasing sequence of bounded domains $`M_kM_{k+1}M`$ such that $`M=M_k`$ and $`\mathrm{Aut}(M_k)`$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $`Z_k`$.

This shows that domains in $`^n`$ with an automorphism group containing $`Z_k`$ are everywhere dense in $`^n`$, and it is well known that domains without non-trivial automorphisms are dense in $`^n`$. So arbitrarily small perturbation of a domain in $`^n`$ may create a domain with a larger automorphism group. But, for all known examples, this group is discrete, so it is of dimension zero. The natural question arises: can small perturbation in $`^n`$ create domains with larger dimensions of automorphism groups?

In this paper we answer this question in the negative. Namely, we prove the following

###### Theorem 0.2.

The function $`dim\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ is upper semicontinuous on $`^n`$.

An immediate consequence is the following

###### Corollary 0.3.

For each $`k>0`$ the set of all domains in $`^n`$ whose groups of automorphisms have dimensions greater than or equal to $`k`$ is closed and, therefore, nowhere dense.

Thus a domain cannot be approximated by domains whose automorphism groups have strictly larger dimensions.

To prove Theorem 0.2 we consider a sequence of domains $`D_j`$ converging in $`^n`$ to a domain $`D`$. The identity components $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ of $`\mathrm{Aut}(D_j)`$ have the same dimensions as $`\mathrm{Aut}(D_j)`$. Also the dimensions of the Lie algebras of holomorphic vector fields generated by all one-parameter groups in $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ coincide with $`dim\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$. Lemma 2.4 states that the uniform norm of such fields on a compact set is bounded by its norm on an arbitrarily selected ball times a constant that, basically, depends on the size of the ball and the distances from the ball and the compact set to the boundary of a domain. This allows us to normalize bases in Lie algebras of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ and apply Theorem 2.5, which asserts the existence of non-trivial limits of those vector fields. The limits belong to the Lie algebra of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$ and this gives us the proof.

It is reasonable to ask whether $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ are always isomorphic to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$ when $`j`$ is large. An example in Section 3 shows that the answer is negative.

If $`K_j`$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$, then $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ is diffeomorphic to $`K_j\times ^{k_j}`$ (see \[MZ, p. 188\]). The groups $`K_j`$ may decrease or even disappear in the limit (see Example 3.2), while non-compact parts never vanish (see Theorem 3.3).

## 1. Some basic facts

Let $`D`$ be a bounded domain in $`^n`$. If the Lie group $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ has positive dimension, then it has one-parameter subgroups $`g(,t)`$, $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`g(z,t+s)=g(g(z,t),s)`$. Such subgroups generate vector fields

$$X(z)=\frac{g}{t}(z,0)$$

that are holomorphic. Also, if $`X`$ is a holomorphic vector field on $`D`$ that is $``$-complete, i.e., the initial value problem

$$\frac{g}{t}(z,t)=X(g(z,t)),g(z,0)=z$$

has a solution on $`D\times `$, then $`g(z,t)`$ is a one-parameter group.

The vector field $`X`$ has the following group property:

(1)
$$X(g(z,t))=\frac{g}{z}(z,t)X(z).$$

For every two points $`z`$ and $`w`$ in $`D`$ among all holomorphic mappings of $`D`$ into the unit disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we choose holomorphic functions $`f`$ such that $`f(w)=0`$ and $`f(z)`$ is real and the maximal possible. Such functions $`f`$ exist and are called Carathéodory extremal functions for $`z`$ and $`w`$ on $`D`$. The quantity

(2)
$$\rho (0,f(z))=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+f(z)}{1f(z)}$$

is called the Carathéodory distance $`c_D(z,w)`$ on $`D`$. (Note that the formula for $`\rho (0,a)`$ gives the Poincaré distance between $`0`$ and $`a`$ in the unit disc.) When $`D`$ is bounded this distance is non-degenerate and invariant, i.e., $`c_D(g(z),g(w))=c_D(z,w)`$ for every $`g\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ (see \[Sh, Ch. 5, §18\]).

For a point $`wD`$ and a vector $`Y`$ in $`^n`$, among all holomorphic mappings of $`D`$ into the unit disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we choose holomorphic functions $`f`$ such that $`f(w)=0`$ and $`(f^{}(w),Y)`$ is real and the maximal possible. (Here $`(Z,Y)=_{j=1}^nz_jy_j`$.) These functions are Carathéodory extremal functions for $`Y`$ at $`w`$ in $`D`$. The Carathéodory length of $`Y`$ at $`w`$ is defined to be $`C_D(w,Y)=(f^{}(w),Y)`$. It follows from \[Sh, Ch. 5, §18\] that if $`w(t)`$ is a smooth curve in $`D`$ with $`w(0)=w`$ and $`Y=w^{}(0)`$, then

(3)
$$c_D(w,w(t))=C_D(w,Y)t+o(t).$$

Let $`B(w,r)`$ be the ball of radius $`r`$ centered at $`w`$ and let $`|Y|`$ be the Euclidean norm of $`Y`$. If $`B(w,r)DB(w,R)`$, then

(4)
$$\frac{|Y|}{R}C_D(w,Y)\frac{|Y|}{r}.$$

## 2. Proof of Theorem 0.2

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $`^n`$ and let $`d(z,w)`$ be an invariant metric on $`D`$ satisfying the triangle inequality. If $`g(z,t)`$ is a group action on $`D`$, then for any $`w,zD`$

$$|d(g(w,t),z)d(w,z)|d(z,g(z,t)).$$

###### Proof.

Apply the identity $`d(w,z)=d(g(w,t),g(z,t))`$ and the triangle inequality. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`wB(w,r)DB(w,R)^n`$. Then for any $`Y^n`$, $`|Y|=1`$,

$$\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f_s(w),Y)>\frac{1}{4R},$$

where $`f_s(z)`$ is a Carathéodory extremal function for $`w`$ and $`w+sY`$ in $`D`$, and $`s`$ is a real number such that

$$0<s\epsilon =\frac{r^2}{16R}.$$

###### Proof.

Let us fix $`Y`$ and introduce $`D_Y=\{\xi :w+\xi YD\}`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,r)D_Y\mathrm{\Delta }(0,R)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,s)`$ is the disk of radius $`s`$ centered at 0.

Let $`g_Y(z)`$ be a Carathéodory extremal function for $`Y`$ at $`w`$ in $`D`$. For $`\xi D_Y`$ we introduce the functions $`u(\xi )=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}F(\xi )`$, where $`F(\xi )=f_s(w+\xi Y)`$, and $`v(\xi )=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}G(\xi )`$, where $`G(\xi )=g_Y(w+\xi Y)`$. All these functions are well-defined on $`D_Y`$ and $`F(0)=G(0)=0`$, $`G^{}(0)=C_D(w,Y)`$ and $`u(s)=F(s)v(s)`$. Let us prove that $`v(t)t/(2R)`$ when $`t[0,\epsilon ]`$. Since

$$|v(t)v^{}(0)t|\frac{1}{2}\underset{0x\epsilon }{sup}|v^{\prime \prime }(x)|t^2,$$

$`\epsilon r^2/(16R)<r/2`$ and by Cauchy estimate $`|v^{\prime \prime }(x)|2/(r\epsilon )^2`$ when $`x<\epsilon `$, we see that

$$v(t)v^{}(0)t\frac{1}{(r\epsilon )^2}t^2v^{}(0)t\frac{4}{r^2}t^2.$$

Since $`tr^2/(16R)`$ and by (4)

$$v^{}(0)=G^{}(0)=C_D(w,Y)\frac{1}{R},$$

$$v(t)\frac{t}{R}\frac{t}{4R}\frac{t}{2R}.$$

for $`0t\epsilon `$. In particular,

$$v(s)=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}G(s)\frac{s}{2R}.$$

Applying to the function $`u(t)`$ the same analysis as above we obtain

$$u(s)u^{}(0)s+\frac{4}{r^2}s^2.$$

Hence

$$\frac{s}{2R}v(s)u(s)u^{}(0)s+\frac{4}{r^2}s^2u^{}(0)s+\frac{s}{4R}.$$

Thus

$$\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f_s(w),Y)=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}F^{}(0)=u^{}(0)\frac{1}{4R}.$$

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`B(0,r+a)DB(0,R)`$, $`r,a>0`$. Then there exists a positive $`\delta =\delta (a,r,R)<a`$ such that

$$X_{B(0,r+\delta )}\frac{32R}{a}X_{B(0,r)}$$

for every holomorphic vector field $`X`$ generated by a one-parameter group action $`g(z,t)`$ on $`D`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`w`$ belong to $`B(0,r+a/2)`$. Since

$$wB(w,a/2)DB(w,2R),$$

by Lemma 2.2 there is an $`\epsilon =\epsilon (a,R)>0`$ such that for every $`wB(0,r+a/2)`$, every $`Y^n`$, $`|Y|=1`$, and every $`s(0,\epsilon ]`$

(5)
$$\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),Y)\frac{1}{8R},$$

where $`f`$ is a Carathéodory extremal function for $`w`$ and $`w+sY`$.

Let us take a positive number $`\delta <a/2`$ so small that for every $`wB(0,r+\delta )`$ and every unit vector $`V`$ there is a unit vector $`Y`$ such that $`w+sYB(0,r)`$ for some real $`s`$ with $`|s|<\epsilon `$ and

$$|VY|<b=\frac{a}{32R}.$$

Clearly, the choice of this $`\delta `$ depends only on $`a`$, $`r`$ and $`R`$.

The lemma needs a proof only for non-trivial group actions when $`X0`$. Let $`wB(0,r+\delta )`$, $`X(w)0`$ and let $`V=X(w)/|X(w)|`$. We choose a vector $`Y`$ and a real $`s`$ satisfying the above conditions.

Let $`f`$ be a Carathéodory extremal function for $`w`$ and $`z=w+sY`$. Since $`B(w,a/2)D`$, by Schwarz inequality,

$$|\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),YV)|b|f(w)|\frac{2b}{a}.$$

Hence by (5),

$$\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),V)\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),Y)\frac{2b}{a}\frac{1}{8R}\frac{1}{16R}=\frac{1}{16R}.$$

Let $`\zeta (t)=f(g(w,t))`$ and $`p=f(z)`$. We introduce

$$m(t)=\left|\frac{\zeta (t)p}{1p\zeta (t)}\right|.$$

If $`\rho (\zeta ,\xi )`$ is the Poincare metric on $`U`$, then $`\rho (0,p)=c_D(z,w)`$ and

$$\rho (\zeta (t),p)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+m(t)}{1m(t)}.$$

A straightforward calculation shows that

$$\frac{dm^2}{dt}(0)=2p(1p^2)\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),X(w)),$$

and, by using this calculation, we obtain

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho (\zeta (0),p)=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),X(w)).$$

Hence

$$\rho (\zeta (t),p)\rho (0,p)+t\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(f(w),X(w))c_D(z,w)+\frac{t}{16R}|X(w)|$$

for small positive $`t`$. Since the Carathéodory metric decreases under the holomorphic mapping $`f`$,

(6)
$$c_D(z,g(w,t))\rho (\zeta (t),p)c_D(z,w)+\frac{t}{16R}|X(w)|.$$

By (6) and Lemma 2.1,

$$\frac{t}{16R}|X(w)|c_D(z,g(w,t))c_D(z,w)c_D(z,g(z,t)).$$

By (3), $`c_D(z,g(z,t))=C_D(z,X(z))t+o(t)`$. Note that $`B(z,a)D`$ and, therefore, $`C_D(z,X(z))1/a`$. Hence

$$c_D(z,g(z,t))2C_D(z,X(z))t\frac{2}{a}|X(z)|t$$

for small positive $`t`$. Thus

$$|X(w)|\frac{32R}{a}|X(z)|$$

and

$$X_{B(0,r+\delta )}\frac{32R}{a}X_{B(0,r)}.$$

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`R>2r>2s>0`$. Let $`K`$ be a connected compact set containing 0 in $`^n`$. Let $`D`$ be a domain in $`^n`$ such that $`B(0,2r)DB(0,R)`$ and such that the $`3s`$-neighborhood of $`K`$ is contained in $`D`$. Then there exists a positive constant $`C=C(K,R,s)`$ such that $`X_KCX_{B(0,r)}`$ for each holomorphic vector field $`X`$ generated by a one-parameter group action $`g(z,t)`$ on $`D`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be such a vector field on $`D`$. By the previous lemma there exist positive numbers $`\delta =\delta (s,R)<s`$ and $`c=c(s,R)`$ such that

$$X_{B(z,s+\delta )}cX_{B(z,s)}$$

whenever $`zD`$ is at least $`3s`$ away from $`D`$. There is a positive integer $`N=N(K,\delta )`$ such that for each $`zK`$ there is a set of $`N`$ points $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_N\}K`$ with $`z_1=0`$, $`z_N=z`$, and $`|z_{k+1}z_k|<\delta `$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Since $`B(z_{k+1},s)B(z_k,s+\delta )`$, we see that

$$X_{B(z_{k+1},s)}cX_{B(z_k,s)}$$

for $`k=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Thus,

$$X_{B(z,s)}c^{N1}X_{B(0,s)}.$$

In particular, $`|X(z)|c^{N1}X_{B(0,s)}c^{N1}X_{B(0,r)}`$. Therefore, $`X_Kc^{N1}X_{B(0,r)}`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.5.

Suppose a sequence of domains $`D_j`$ converge in $`^n`$ to a domain $`D`$ and a ball $`B(p,r+a)`$, $`r,a>0`$, belongs to all $`D_j`$. Also suppose that $`g_j(z,t)`$ are non-trivial one-parameter group actions on $`D_j`$ generating the holomorphic vector fields $`X_j`$. If $`X_j_B=1`$, $`B=B(p,r)`$, then there is a subsequence of the group actions $`g_{j_k}(z,t)`$ that converges to a non-trivial group action $`g(z,t)`$ on $`D`$ uniformly on compacta in $`D\times `$ and

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}X_{j_k}(w)=X(w)$$

uniformly on compacta in $`D`$, where $`X`$ is the holomorphic vector field generated by $`g`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`KD`$. Choose $`\delta >0`$ so that the $`3\delta `$-neighborhood of $`K`$ is contained in $`D`$ and in each $`D_j`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ denote the $`2\delta `$-neighborhood and the $`\delta `$-neighborhood of $`K`$ respectively. By Lemma 2.4 there exists $`A>0`$ such that $`X_j_{\stackrel{~}{K}}A`$.

Let $`\tau =\delta /(2A)`$. Define the mapping $`h_j:\widehat{K}\times (\tau ,\tau )D_j`$ as the solution of the initial value problem

$$\frac{}{t}h_j(z,t)=iX_j(h_j(z,t)),h_j(z,0)=z.$$

Since $`\tau |X_j|<\delta `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, it follows from the ODE’s theory that the mapping $`h_j`$ is well-defined.

For $`M=\{\zeta :|\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\zeta |<\tau \}`$ we define $`G_j:\widehat{K}\times MD_j`$ by $`G_j(z,t+is)=g_j(h_j(z,s),t)`$. Since $`X_j`$ is holomorphic, the mapping $`G_j`$ is holomorphic in $`z`$. We now prove that it is holomorphic in $`\zeta =t+is`$. It is clear that

(7)
$$\frac{G_j}{t}(z,t+is)=X_j(G_j(z,t+is)).$$

It follows immediately from the fact that the Poisson brackets $`[X_j,iX_j]0`$, that

(8)
$$\frac{G_j}{s}(z,t+is)=iX_j(G_j((z,t+is)).$$

This fact also can be proved by a straightforward reasoning:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_j}{s}}(z,t+is)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g_j}{z}}(h_j(z,s),t)iX(h_j(z,s))`$
$`=iX_j(g_j(h_j(z,s),t))=iX_j(G_j(z,t+is));`$
the middle equality is by the infinitesimal group property (1). The equations (7) and (8) are the Cauchy-Riemann equations for $`G_j`$ in $`\zeta `$. So $`G_j`$ is holomorphic.

Passing to a subsequence, if necessary, we may assume that the mappings $`G_j`$ converge to a mapping $`G`$ uniformly on compacta in $`\widehat{K}\times M`$. Consequently, the mappings $`g_j(z,t)`$ converge to $`g(z,t)`$ uniformly on compacta in $`\widehat{K}\times `$, and the vector fields $`X_j`$ converge to

$$X(z)=\frac{g}{t}(z,0)$$

uniformly on compacta in $`\widehat{K}`$.

It follows that some subsequence of the sequence $`\{g_j(z,t)\}`$ converges to a mapping $`g(z,t)=G(z,t)`$ uniformly on compacta in $`D\times `$. Thus, $`g(z,t)`$ is a group action. Since $`X_B=1`$, this group action is non-trivial. ∎

Proof of Theorem 0.2. Let $`D_j`$ be a sequence of domains converging in $`^n`$ to a domain $`D`$. Let us choose a ball $`B(p,r+a)`$, $`r,a>0`$, belonging to all $`D_j`$ for sufficiently large $`j`$ and take $`\delta >0`$ from Lemma 2.3. Let $`B=B(p,r)`$ and $`\widehat{B}=B(p,r+\delta )`$. We may assume that the dimensions of all groups $`G_j=\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ are the same and equal to $`k`$. Since the Lie algebra $`A_j`$ of all holomorphic vector fields on $`D_j`$ generated by one-parameter subgroups in $`G_j`$ has the same dimension as $`G_j`$, we can choose $`X_j^mA_j`$, $`1mk`$, such that

$$\underset{\widehat{B}}{}(X_j^m,\overline{X}_j^l)𝑑V=\delta _{ml},$$

where $`\delta _{ml}`$ is Kronecker’s delta.

Clearly, $`X_j^m_{\widehat{B}}\text{Vol}(\widehat{B})^1`$. On the other hand, by Cauchy estimates and Lemma 2.4, for some constants we have

$$1C_1X_j^m_BC_2X_j^m_{\widehat{B}}.$$

Let $`g_j^m`$ be the one-parameter groups generated by $`X_j^m`$. By Theorem 2.5 one can choose a subsequence $`\{j_k\}`$ such that $`g_{j_k}^m`$ converge, uniformly on compacta in $`D\times `$, to a one-parameter group $`g^m(z,t)`$ on $`D`$, and $`X_{j_k}^m`$ converge to a vector field $`X^m`$ uniformly on compacta in $`D`$. Since

$$\underset{\widehat{B}}{}(X^m,\overline{X}^l)𝑑V=\delta _{ml},$$

the dimension of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$ is at least $`k`$.

## 3. Structural theorems

By Iwasawa’s theorem (see \[MZ, p. 188\]) the group $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$ is diffeomorphic to $`K\times ^k`$, where $`K`$ is a maximal compact subgroup and $`k`$ is the characteristic number of $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$. It is interesting to find out what happens with $`K`$ and $`^k`$ under small perturbations of domains. Let us look at maximal compact subgroups first. The argument of Corollary 4.1 in \[FP\] provides the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`D`$ be a bounded domain in $`^n`$, let $`z_0`$ be a point in $`D`$, and let $`W`$ be a compact set in $`D`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is sufficiently close to $`D`$ in $`^n`$ and for some maximal compact subgroup $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ the orbit $`\stackrel{~}{K}(z_0)W`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$.

Next example shows that without the condition in the above theorem of orbits being contained in a fixed compact set, it is possible that $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ does not contain a compact subgroup while close domains have $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ isomorphic to $`S^1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the unit disc in $``$.

###### Example 3.2.

There is a sequence $`\{D_j\}`$ of bounded pseudoconvex domains in $`^2`$ converging to a domain $`D`$ such that $`\mathrm{Aut}(D_j)S^1`$ for each $`j`$, and $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$.

Construction. Let $`Q_j=\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|z2^1+2^j|>1/2\}`$, $`Q=\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|z2^1|>1/2\}`$, $`D_j=\{(z,w):zQ_j,w\mathrm{\Delta },wz\}`$, $`D=\{(z,w):zQ,w\mathrm{\Delta },wz\}`$.

1. One can see that $`D_jD`$.

2. The domains $`D_j`$ and $`D`$ are bounded and pseudoconvex.

3. We now prove that $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$. Let $`F\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$. On each fiber $`(z,)`$, $`F`$ is bounded and has an isolated singularity, so $`F`$ extends to be an automorphism of $`Q\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus, $`F`$ has the form $`F(z,w)=(f(z),g(w))`$, or $`F(z,w)=(g(w),f(z))`$. For both cases, one has, by the definition of $`D`$, that

(9)
$$f(z)=g(z),zQ.$$

The second case is impossible, since implies that $`f(Q)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`g(\mathrm{\Delta })=Q`$, and $`f(Q)=g(Q)`$, which leads to a contradiction that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coincides with a subset of $`Q`$. Therefore, $`F`$ has the form $`F(z,w)=(f(z),g(w))`$, where $`f\mathrm{Aut}(Q)`$, $`g\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. By (9), $`f=g|_Q`$. Let $`\varphi (w)=i(w+1)/(w1)`$. Then $`\varphi `$ is a biholomorphic map from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the upper half-plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\zeta :\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\zeta >0\}`$, and $`\varphi (Q)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\zeta :0<\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\zeta <1\}`$. Now $`\varphi g\varphi ^1`$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and its restriction to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus $`\varphi g\varphi ^1(\zeta )=\zeta +t`$ for some $`t`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)=\{F_t:t\}`$, where $`F_t(z,w)=(g_t(z),g_t(w))`$, and

$$g_t(w)=\varphi ^1(\varphi (w)+t)=\frac{2w+i(w1)t}{2+i(w1)t}.$$

4. In a way very similar to the above argument, one can prove that $`\mathrm{Aut}(D_j)S^1`$ for each $`j`$.

By Theorem 0.2 the creation of compact subgroups with larger dimensions by small perturbations must be compensated by an elimination of some non-compact subgroups so that the total dimension will not go up. It seems to us that the other way around is impossible: characteristic numbers are upper semicontinuous on $`^n`$. While we cannot prove this statement, the following theorem certifies that non-compact parts cannot be created from nothing.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`D^n`$ be a bounded domain such that $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$ is compact. Then for all $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ sufficiently close in $`^n`$ to $`D`$ the group $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ is also compact.

###### Proof.

If the statement is not true, then there is a sequence $`\{D_j\}`$ of domains converging to $`D`$ such that for each $`j`$ the identity component $`G_j=\mathrm{Aut}_0(D_j)`$ is noncompact. Write $`G=\mathrm{Aut}_0(D)`$. Fix a $`z_0D`$. The orbit $`G(z_0)`$ is compact. We may assume that $`G(z_0)D_j`$ for each $`j`$. For each connected component $`H`$ of $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$, either the set $`H(z_0)`$ coincides with $`G(z_0)`$ or $`G(z_0)H(z_0)=\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, if $`hH`$ and $`h(z_0)G(z_0)`$, then $`H(z_0)=Gh(z_0)=G(z_0)`$, since $`H=Gh`$. Now we claim that there exists a positive number $`a`$ such that $`a<d(H(z_0),G(z_0))`$ for each component $`H`$ of $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ with $`H(z_0)G(z_0)`$, where $`d`$ is the euclidean distance. Otherwise, there is a sequence $`\{H_k\}`$ of distinct components of $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$ with $`H_k(z_0)G(z_0)`$ such that $`d(H_k(z_0),G(z_0))0`$. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that there are $`h_kH_k`$ such that $`h_k(z_0)`$ tends to a point in $`G(z_0)`$. It follows that some subsequence of $`\{h_k\}`$ converges in the compact-open topology to a $`g\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$; but this is impossible because $`h_k`$ belong to different components of the Lie group $`\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$. Therefore, such an $`a`$ exists. Decreasing $`a`$ if necessary, we see that the open set

$$V=\{zD:d(z,G(z_0))<a\}$$

is relatively compact in $`D`$ and in each $`D_j`$, and satisfies $`\overline{V}\mathrm{Aut}(D)(z_0)=G(z_0)`$. This implies that $`V\mathrm{Aut}(D)(z_0)=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`G_j`$ is noncompact, $`G_j(z_0)`$ is noncompact, hence $`G_j(z_0)V\mathrm{}`$. It follows that for each $`j`$ there is a $`g_jG_j`$ with $`g_j(z_0)V`$. Some subsequence of the sequence $`\{g_j\}`$ converges uniformly on compacta to a $`g\mathrm{Aut}(D)`$. It is clear that $`g(z_0)V`$, contradicting $`V\mathrm{Aut}(D)(z_0)=\mathrm{}`$. ∎


text:
# Entangled imaging and wave-particle duality: from the microscopic to the macroscopic realm

## Acknowledgements

Work in the framework of the FET project QUANTIM of the EU.


text:
# Trans-Planckian Physics and Inflationary Cosmology

## 1 Introduction

Inflationary cosmology  is an elegant paradigm of the very early Universe which solves several conceptual problems of standard cosmology and leads to a predictive theory of the origin of cosmological fluctuations. The basic idea of inflation is to replace the time line of Standard Big Bang (SBB) cosmology (a late time phase of matter domination preceded by a period in which radiation is dominant and which begins with a cosmological singularity) by a modified time line for which during some time interval $`I=[t_i,t_R]`$ \- long before the time of nucleosynthesis - the Universe is accelerating, often involving quasi-exponential expansion of the scale factor $`a(t)`$ (to set our notation, we will be writing the space-time metric for our homogeneous and isotropic background cosmology in the form

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2[dx^2+dy^2+dz^2],$$
(1)
where $`t`$ denotes physical time and $`x,y,z`$ are the three Euclidean comoving spatial coordinates - we are neglecting the spatial curvature). The time $`t_i`$ stands for the beginning of the inflationary phase, the time $`t_R`$ stands for the end, the time of “reheating”.

Inflationary cosmology solves several of the conceptual problems of SBB cosmology. In particular, it resolves the homogeneity problem, the inability of SBB cosmology to address the reason for the near isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), it explains the spatial flatness of the Universe, and it provides the first ever mechanism of cosmological structure formation based on causal physics.

Let us briefly recall how inflationary cosmology leads to the existence of a mechanism for using causal microphysics for producing fluctuations on cosmological scales (when measured today), which at the time of equal matter and radiation had a physical wavelength larger than the Hubble radius $`l_H(t)=H^1(t)`$, where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the expansion rate (for references to the original literature see textbook treatments ). The relevant space-time sketch is shown in Fig. 1. If we trace a fixed comoving length scale (corresponding e.g. to CMB anisotropies on a fixed large angular scale) back into the past, then in SBB cosmology this scale is larger than the horizon (which in standard cosmology is $`H^1`$ \- up to a numerical coefficient of order one) at early times. The time when such scales “cross” the horizon is in fact later than $`t_{\mathrm{rec}}`$. Thus, it appears impossible to explain the origin of the primordial fluctuations measured in the CMB without violating causality 111Topological defect models are a counterexample to this “standard dogma”.

In an inflationary Universe (taking exponential inflation to be specific), during the period of exponential expansion the physical wavelength corresponding to a fixed comoving scale decreases exponentially as we go back in time, whereas the Hubble radius $`l_H(t)`$ is constant 222The Hubble radius measures the distance over which microphysics can act coherently at a fixed time $`t`$, and in inflationary cosmology differs in a crucial way from the causal horizon (the forward light cone, which becomes exponentially larger).. Thus, as long as the period of inflation is sufficiently long, all scales of cosmological interest today originate inside the Hubble radius in the early stages of inflation. As will be shown in the next section, the squeezing of quantum vacuum fluctuations when they exit and propagate outside the Hubble radius is the mechanism for the origin of fluctuations in inflationary cosmology.

The same background dynamics which yields the causal generation mechanism for cosmological fluctuations, the most spectacular success of inflationary cosmology, bears in it the nucleus of the trans-Planckian problem. This can also be seen from Fig. 1. If inflation lasts only slightly longer than the minimal time it needs to last in order to solve the horizon problem and to provide a causal generation mechanism for CMB fluctuations, then the corresponding physical wavelength of these fluctuations is smaller than the Planck length at the beginning of the period of inflation. The theory of cosmological perturbations is based on classical general relativity coupled to a weakly coupled scalar field description of matter. Both the theory of gravity and of matter will break down on trans-Planckian scales, and this immediately leads to the trans-Planckian problem: are the predictions of standard inflationary cosmology robust against effects of trans-Planckian physics ? To answer this question, we need to give the reader a short review of the standard theory of cosmological fluctuations.

## 2 Fluctuations in Inflationary Cosmology

In the following we give an overview of the quantum theory of cosmological perturbations (see review articles  for details and references to the original literature). Since gravity is a purely attractive force, and since the fluctuations on scales of the CMB anisotropies were small in amplitude when the anisotropies were generated, the fluctuations had to have been very small in the early Universe. Thus, a linearized analysis of the fluctuations is justified. In this case, the Fourier modes of the cosmological fluctuations evolve independently.

The basic idea of the theory of cosmological perturbations is to quantize the linear fluctuations about a classical background cosmology. The starting point is the full action of gravity plus matter

$$S=\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}R+S_\mathrm{m},$$
(2)
where the first term is the usual Einstein-Hilbert action for gravity, $`R`$ being the Ricci scalar and $`g`$ the determinant of the metric, and $`S_\mathrm{m}`$ is the matter action. For the sake of simplicity, and since it is the usual assumption in simple inflationary Universe models, we take matter to be described by a single minimally coupled scalar field $`\phi `$. Then, we separate the metric and matter into classical background variables $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)},\phi ^{(0)}`$ which depend only on time, and fluctuating fields $`\delta g_{\mu \nu },\delta \phi `$ which depend on space and time and have vanishing spatial average:

$$g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(\eta )+\delta g_{\mu \nu }(\eta ,𝐱),\phi =\phi ^{(0)}(\eta )+\delta \phi (\eta ,𝐱).$$
(3)
We will focus on scalar metric fluctuations, the fluctuating degrees of freedom which couple to matter perturbations 333Greek variables run over space-time indices, Latin variables only over spatial indices..

The description of scalar metric perturbations is complicated by the fact that some perturbation modes correspond to space-time reparametrizations of a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology. A simple way to address this issue of gauge is to work in a system of coordinates which completely fixes the gauge. A simple choice is the longitudinal gauge, in which the metric takes the form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=a^2(\eta )\left[(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })d\eta ^2(12\mathrm{\Psi })\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j\right],$$
(4)
where the space- and time-dependent functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are the two physical metric degrees of freedom which describe scalar metric fluctuations, and $`\eta `$ is conformal time (related to physical time $`t`$ via $`dt=a(\eta )d\eta `$). The fluctuations of matter fields give additional degrees of freedom for scalar metric fluctuations. In the simple case of a single scalar matter field, the matter field fluctuation is $`\delta \phi `$.

In the absence of anisotropic stress, it follows from the $`ij`$ Einstein equations that the two metric fluctuation variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ coincide. Due to the Einstein constraint equation, the remaining metric fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is determined by the matter fluctuation $`\delta \phi `$. It is clear from this analysis of the physical degrees of freedom that the action for scalar metric fluctuations must be expressible in terms of the action of a single free scalar field $`v`$ with a time dependent mass (determined by the background cosmology). As shown in  (see also ), this field is

$$v=a\left(\delta \phi +\frac{\phi ^{(0)^{}}}{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)=z,$$
(5)
where $`=a^{}/a`$ (a prime denoting the derivative with respect to $`\eta `$),

$$za\frac{\phi ^{(0)^{}}}{},$$
(6)
and $``$ denotes the curvature perturbation in comoving gauge . The action for scalar metric fluctuations is

$$\delta S_{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}^4𝐱\left[(v_𝐤^{})^2\delta ^{ij}v_{𝐤,i}v_{𝐤,j}+\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}v_𝐤^2\right],$$
(7)
which leads to the equation of motion

$$v_𝐤^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}\right)v_𝐤=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(8)
the equation of motion of a harmonic oscillator with time-dependent mass, the time dependence being given by $`z(\eta )`$ which is a function of the background cosmology. Note that if $`a(\eta )`$ is a power of $`\eta `$, then $`\phi _0^{}`$ and $``$ scale with the same power of $`\eta `$, and the variable $`z`$ is then proportional to $`a`$.

At this point we can summarize the mechanism by which cosmological fluctuations are generated in inflationary cosmology: we canonically quantize the linearized metric/matter fluctuations about a classical background cosmology, solve the resulting dynamical problem as a standard initial value problem, setting off all Fourier modes of the scalar field $`v`$ in their vacuum state at the initial time (e.g. the beginning of the period of inflation).

The equation (8) is a harmonic oscillator equation with a time-dependent mass given by $`z^{\prime \prime }/z`$. On scales smaller than the Hubble radius ($`t<t_\mathrm{H}(k)`$), the mass term is negligible, and the mode functions oscillate with constant amplitude. On scales larger than the Hubble radius, however, the mass term dominates and the $`k^2`$ term can be neglected. The mode functions no longer oscillate. In an expanding background, the dominant mode of $`v_𝐤(\eta )`$ scales as $`z(\eta )`$. Note that it is incorrect to assume that fluctuations are created at the time of Hubble radius crossing (an impression one could get from reading ). Rather, the role of the time $`t_\mathrm{H}(k)`$ of Hubble radius crossing is to set the time when the classical mode functions cease to oscillate and begin to increase in amplitude (squeezing).

The quantum mechanical interpretation of the two phases $`t<t_\mathrm{H}(k)`$ and $`t>t_\mathrm{H}(k)`$ is the following: on sub-Hubble scales we have oscillating quantum vacuum fluctuations and there is no particle production. Once the scales cross the Hubble radius, the mode functions begin to grow and the fluctuations get frozen. The initial vacuum state then becomes highly squeezed for $`tt_\mathrm{H}(k)`$ 444The equation of motion for gravitational waves in an expanding background cosmology is identical to (8) with $`z(\eta )`$ replaced by $`a(\eta )`$, and thus the physics is identical. The case of gravitational waves was first discussed in .. The squeezing leads to the generation of effectively classical cosmological perturbations.

For cosmological applications, it is particularly interesting to calculate the power spectrum of the curvature perturbation $``$, defined as

$$𝒫_{}(k)=\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2z^2}|v_k|^2.$$
(9)
This last quantity can be estimated very easily. From the fact that on scales larger than the Hubble radius the mode functions are proportional to $`a(\eta )`$, we find

$$𝒫_{}(k)\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2k}\frac{1}{a^2[\eta _\mathrm{H}(k)]},$$
(10)
where $`\eta _\mathrm{H}(k)`$ is the conformal time of Hubble radius crossing for the mode with comoving wavenumber $`k`$. Note that the second factor on the r.h.s. of (10) represents the vacuum normalization of the wave function.

As is evident from Figure 1, the standard theory of cosmological fluctuations summarized in this section relies on extrapolating classical general relativity and weakly coupled scalar matter field theory to length scales smaller than the Planck length. Thus, it is legitimate to ask whether the predictions resulting from this theory are sensitive to modifications of physics on physical length scales smaller than the Planck length. There are various ways in which such physics could lead to deviations from the standard predictions. First, new physics could lead to a non-standard evolution of the initial vacuum state of fluctuations in Period I, such that at Hubble radius crossing the state is different from the vacuum state. A model of realizing this scenario is summarized in the following section. Secondly, trans-Planckian physics may lead to different boundary conditions, thus resulting in a different final state. A string-motivated example for this scenario is given in Section 4.

## 3 Trans-Planckian Analysis I: Modified Dispersion Relations

The simplest way of modeling the possible effects of trans-Planckian physics, while keeping the mathematical analysis simple, is to replace the linear dispersion relation $`\omega _{_{\mathrm{phys}}}=k_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ of the usual equation for cosmological perturbations by a non standard dispersion relation $`\omega _{_{\mathrm{phys}}}=\omega _{_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬}}}(k)`$ which differs from the standard one only for physical wavenumbers larger than the Planck scale. This method was introduced  in the context of studying the dependence of thermal spectrum of black hole radiation on trans-Planckian physics. In the context of cosmology, it has been shown  that this amounts to replacing $`k^2`$ appearing in (8) with $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(n,\eta )`$ defined by

$$k^2k_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(k,\eta )a^2(\eta )\omega _{_{\mathrm{phys}}}^2\left[\frac{k}{a(\eta )}\right].$$
(11)
For a fixed comoving mode, this implies that the dispersion relation becomes time-dependent. Therefore, the equation of motion of the quantity $`v_k(\eta )`$ takes the form

$$v_k^{\prime \prime }+\left[k_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(k,\eta )\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}\right]v_k=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(12)
A more rigorous derivation of this equation, based on a variational principle, has been provided  (see also Ref. ).

The evolution of modes thus must be considered separately in three phases, see Fig. 1. In Phase I the wavelength is smaller than the Planck scale, and trans-Planckian physics can play an important role. In Phase II, the wavelength is larger than the Planck scale but smaller than the Hubble radius. In this phase, trans-Planckian physics will have a negligible effect (this statement can be quantified ). Hence, by the analysis of the previous section, the wave function of fluctuations is oscillating in this phase,

$$v_k=B_1\mathrm{exp}(ik\eta )+B_2\mathrm{exp}(ik\eta )$$
(13)
with constant coefficients $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$. In the standard approach, the initial conditions are fixed in this region and the usual choice of the vacuum state leads to $`B_1=1/\sqrt{2k}`$, $`B_2=0`$. Phase III starts at the time $`t_\mathrm{H}(k)`$ when the mode crosses the Hubble radius. During this phase, the wave function is squeezed.

One source of trans-Planckian effects  on observations is the possible non-adiabatic evolution of the wave function during Phase I. If this occurs, then it is possible that the wave function of the fluctuation mode is not in its vacuum state when it enters Phase II and, as a consequence, the coefficients $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are no longer given by the standard expressions above. In this case, the wave function will not be in its vacuum state when it crosses the Hubble radius, and the final spectrum will be different. In general, $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are determined by the matching conditions between Phase I and II. By focusing only  on trans-Planckian effects on the local vacuum wave function at the time $`t_\mathrm{H}(k)`$, one misses this important potential source of trans-Planckian signals in the CMB. If the dynamics is adiabatic throughout (in particular if the $`a^{\prime \prime }/a`$ term is negligible), the WKB approximation holds and the solution is always given by

$$v_k(\eta )\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k_{\mathrm{eff}}(k,\eta )}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i_{\eta _\mathrm{i}}^\eta k_{\mathrm{eff}}d\tau \right],$$
(14)
where $`\eta _i`$ is some initial time. Therefore, if we start with a positive frequency solution only and use this solution, we find that no negative frequency solution appears. Deep in Region II where $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}k`$ the solution becomes

$$v_k(\eta )\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ik\eta ),$$
(15)
i.e. the standard vacuum solution times a phase which will disappear when we calculate the modulus. To obtain a modification of the inflationary spectrum, it is sufficient to find a dispersion relation such that the WKB approximation breaks down in Phase I.

A concrete class of dispersion relations for which the WKB approximation breaks down is

$$k_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(k,\eta )=k^2k^2|b_m|\left[\frac{\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{pl}}}}{\lambda (\eta )}\right]^{2m},$$
(16)
where $`\lambda (\eta )=2\pi a(\eta )/k`$ is the wavelength of a mode. If we follow the evolution of the modes in Phases I, II and III, matching the mode functions and their derivatives at the junction times, the calculation  demonstrates that the final spectral index is modified and that superimposed oscillations appear.

However, the above example suffers from several problems. First, in inflationary models with a long period of inflationary expansion, the dispersion relation (16) leads to complex frequencies at the beginning of inflation for scales which are of current interest in cosmology. Furthermore, the initial conditions for the Fourier modes of the fluctuation field have to be set in a region where the evolution is non-adiabatic and the use of the usual vacuum prescription can be questioned. These problems can be avoided in a toy model in which we follow the evolution of fluctuations in a bouncing cosmological background which is asymptotically flat in the past and in the future. The analysis  shows that even in this case the final spectrum of fluctuations depends on the specific dispersion relation used.

An example of a dispersion relation which breaks the WKB approximation in the trans-Planckian regime but does not lead to the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph was investigated in . It is a dispersion relation which is linear for both small and large wavenumbers, but has an intermediate interval during which the frequency decreases as the wavenumber increases, much like what happens in (16). The violation of the WKB condition occurs for wavenumbers near the local minimum of the $`\omega (k)`$ curve.

## 4 Trans-Planckian Analysis II: Space-Time Uncertainty Relation

A justified criticism against the method summarized in the previous section is that the non-standard dispersion relations used are completely ad hoc, without a clear basis in trans-Planckian physics. There has been a lot of recent work  on the implication of space-space uncertainty relations  on the evolution of fluctuations. The application of the uncertainty relations on the fluctuations lead to two effects . Firstly, the equation of motion of the fluctuations in modified. Secondly, for fixed comoving length scale $`k`$, the uncertainty relation is saturated before a critical time $`t_i(k)`$. Thus, in addition to a modification of the evolution, trans-Planckian physics leads to a modification of the boundary condition for the fluctuation modes. The upshot of this work is that the spectrum of fluctuations is modified.

We have recently studied  the implications of the stringy space-time uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{phys}}\mathrm{\Delta }tl_s^2$$
(17)
on the spectrum of cosmological fluctuations. Again, application of this uncertainty relation to the fluctuations leads to two effects. Firstly, the coupling between the background and the fluctuations is nonlocal in time, thus leading to a modified dynamical equation of motion. Secondly, the uncertainty relation is saturated at the time $`t_i(k)`$ when the physical wavelength equals the string scale $`l_s`$. Before that time it does not make sense to talk about fluctuations on that scale. By continuity, it makes sense to assume that fluctuations on scale $`k`$ are created at time $`t_i(k)`$ in the local vacuum state (the instantaneous WKB vacuum state).

Let us for the moment neglect the nonlocal coupling between background and fluctuation, and thus consider the usual equation of motion for fluctuations in an accelerating background cosmology. We distinguish two ranges of scales. Ultraviolet modes are generated at late times when the Hubble radius is larger than $`l_s`$. On these scales, the spectrum of fluctuations does not differ from what is predicted by the standard theory, since at the time of Hubble radius crossing the fluctuation mode will be in its vacuum state. However, the evolution of infrared modes which are created when the Hubble radius is smaller than $`l_s`$ is different. The fluctuations undergo less squeezing than they do in the absence of the uncertainty relation, and hence the final amplitude of fluctuations is lower. From the equation (10) for the power spectrum of fluctuations, and making use of the condition

$$a(t_i(k))=kl_s$$
(18)
for the time $`t_i(k)`$ when the mode is generated, it follows immediately that the power spectrum is scale-invariant

$$𝒫_{}(k)k^0.$$
(19)
In the standard scenario of power-law inflation the spectrum is red ($`𝒫_{}(k)k^{n1}`$ with $`n<1`$). Taking into account the effects of the nonlocal coupling between background and fluctuation mode leads  to a modification of this result: the spectrum of fluctuations in a power-law inflationary background is in fact blue ($`n>1`$).

Note that, if we neglect the nonlocal coupling between background and fluctuation mode, the result of (19) also holds in a cosmological background which is NOT accelerating. Thus, we have a method of obtaining a scale-invariant spectrum of fluctuations without inflation. This result has also been obtained in , however without a microphysical basis for the prescription for the initial conditions.

## 5 Non-Commutative Inflation

A key problem with the method of modified dispersion relations is the issue of back-reaction . If the mode occupation numbers of the fluctuations at Hubble radius crossing are significant, the danger arises that the back-reaction of the fluctuations will in fact prevent inflation. Another constraint arises from the observational limits on the flux of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Such cosmic rays would be produced  in the present Universe if Trans-Planckian effects of the type discussed in the two previous sections were present. These issues are currently under investigation.

Surprisingly, it has been realized  that back-reaction effects due to modified dispersion relations (which in turn are motivated by string theory) might it fact yield a method of obtaining inflation from pure radiation. In this section, $`p`$ and $`\omega `$ will denote physical wavenumber and frequency, respectively.

One of the key features expected from string theory is the existence of a minimal length, or equivalently a maximal wavenumber $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Thus, if we consider the dispersion relation for pure radiation in string theory, the dispersion relation must saturate or turn over at $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Some cosmological consequences of a dispersion relation which saturates at $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$, i.e. for which the frequency $`\omega `$ diverges as $`kp_{\mathrm{max}}`$ were explored recently . It was found that a realization of the varying speed of light scenario can be obtained.

Recent work  has focused on the case when the dispersion relation turns over at $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$, i.e. if the frequency is increased, then before $`p(\omega )`$ reaches $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the wavenumber begins to decrease again. This implies that for each value of $`p`$ there are two states corresponding to two different frequencies, i.e. that there are two branches of the dispersion relation. A class of such dispersion relations is given by

$$\omega ^2p^2f^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},f(\omega )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+(\lambda E)^\alpha ,$$
(20)
where $`\alpha `$ is a free parameter.

Let us now consider an expanding Universe with such a dispersion relation, and assume that in the initial state both branches are populated up to a frequency much larger than the frequency at which the dispersion relation turns over. As the Universe expands, the physical wavenumber of all modes decreases. However, this implies - in contrast to the usual situation - that the energy of the upper branch states increases. This is what one wants to be able to achieve an inflationary cosmology. Eventually, the high energy states will decay into the lower branch states (which have the usual equation of state of radiation), thus leading to a graceful exit from inflation.

To check whether the above heuristic scenario is indeed realized, one must compute the equation of state corresponding to the dispersion relation (20). The spectrum is deformed, and a thermodynamic calculation  yields an equation of state which in the high density limit tends to $`P=1/[3(1\alpha )]\rho `$ where $`P`$ stands for the pressure. Thus, we see that there is a narrow range of values of $`\alpha `$ which indeed give the correct equation of state for power-law inflation.

In such an inflationary scenario, the fluctuations are of thermal origin. Taking the initial r.m.s. amplitude of the mass fluctuations on thermal length scale $`T^1`$ to be order unity, assuming random superposition of such fluctuations on larger scales to compute the amplitude of fluctuations when a particular comoving length scale exits the Hubble radius, and using the usual theory of cosmological fluctuations to track the fluctuations to the time when the scale enters the Hubble radius, one finds a spectrum of fluctuations with the same slope as in regular power-law inflation, and with an amplitude which agrees with the value required from observations if the fundamental length scale $`l_s`$ at which the dispersion relation turns over is about an order of magnitude larger than the Planck length.

## 6 Conclusions

Due to the exponential redshifting of wavelengths, present cosmological scales originate at wavelengths smaller than the Planck length early on during the period of inflation. Thus, Planck physics may well encode information in these modes which can now be observed in the spectrum of microwave anisotropies. Two examples have been shown to demonstrate the existence of this “window of opportunity” to probe trans-Planckian physics in cosmological observations. The first method makes use of modified dispersion relations to probe the robustness of the predictions of inflationary cosmology, the second applies the stringy space-time uncertainty relation on the fluctuation modes. Both methods yield the result that trans-Planckian physics may lead to measurable effects in cosmological observables. An important issue which must be studied more carefully is the back-reaction of the cosmological fluctuations (see e.g.  for a possible formalism). As demonstrated in the final section, it is possible that trans-Planckian physics can in fact lead to dramatic changes even in the background cosmology.

A final remark related to other work on the trans-Planckian problem for inflationary cosmology: in our view, nontrivial trans-Planckian physics (which cannot be described in any way by a free scalar field) produces excitations about the Bunch-Davies vacuum state for a finite range of wavelengths. On these wavelengths, the excited state may (but need not) look like a nontrivial $`\alpha `$ vacuum of a free scalar field theory in de Sitter space . However, globally the state is NOT an $`\alpha `$ vacuum, so that the recent discussions about possible problems with $`\alpha `$ vacua  are not crucial to the question of whether Planck-scale physics can lead to distinctive signatures observable in cosmology.

## Acknowledgments

This is a slightly updated version of the contribution to the proceedings of the CosPA2002 meeting at National Taiwan University held May 31 - June 2 2002. I am grateful to the organizers of CosPA2002 for their wonderful hospitality, and to S. Alexander, P.-M. Ho, S. Joras, J. Magueijo and J. Martin for collaboration. The research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-FG02-91ER40688, TASK A.