text:
# On nonlocally coupled complex Ginzburg-Landau equation

## I introduction

Oscillatory reaction-diffusion systems are generally reduced to the complex Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equation by means of the so-called center-manifold reduction when the local oscillators are close to their supercritical Hopf bifurcation pointKura84 . This fact led to a now widely accepted view that, without resorting to individual systems, one may concentrate on CGL if one wishes to gain a qualitative understanding of some universal dyanmical features shared commonly by a broad class of oscillatory reaction-diffusion systems. This view in fact underlies a vast amount of work in the past (see CGLreview1 ; CGLreview2  for review) devoted to CGL. However, due to its local nature of coupling, CGL may fail to capture some important aspects of the dynamics characteristic to a certain class of oscillatory reaction-diffusion systems. In fact, it was argued recently that a situation may arise where the oscillator coupling becomes effectively nonlocal, and as a consequence the system exhibits such peculiar dynamics as can never be seen in CGL Kura95 ; STC . This suggests that there remains a yet unexplored area of reaction-diffusion systems where nonlocal effects on the pattern dynamics must seriously be considered. In the present paper, we are concerned with how this area is still accessible within the framework of the center-manifold reduction. It will turn out that this can actually be achieved by a slight extension of the conventional reduction scheme.

Effective nonlocality in coupling may become relevant when the reaction-diffusion system involves three or more chemical components. Suppose that the system of concern is such that the chemical components constituting the local oscillators are free of diffusion, i.e., the oscillators remain uncoupled, while the system involves an extra diffusive component which, for its diffusive nature, plays the role of a coupling agent. By eliminating mathematically this diffusive component, the system becomes a field of nonlocally coupled oscillators possibly involving delay also. The main goal of the present paper is to achieve a reduction of such reaction-diffusion systems to a universal equation of the Ginzburg-Landau type without missing the effects of nonlocality.

It may seem that the center-manifold idea would not work for our purpose because CGL is believed to be quite a general result of the center-manifold reduction. Still there seems to be a way out within the same framework if we slightly extend the conventional method of reduction. Note first that under usual conditions the disappearance of the effects of nonlocality near the bifurcation point comes from that the characteristic wavelength $`l_p`$ of the pattern becomes far longer than the effective coupling radius. If so, it may happen that nonlocality persists even close to the bifurcation point when the system involves a certain parameter whose suitable tuning as the bifurcation point is approached keeps $`l_p`$ comparable with the effective radius of coupling. Similar physical idea lies behind the multiple bifurcation theory which aims to capture such complex dynamics as is absent in the vicinity of a simple bifurcation point.

Section II starts with introducing a universal class of oscillatory reaction-diffusion systems involving three or more chemical components. After briefly discussing its physical relevance, we proceed to its reduction near the Hopf bifurcation. If a certain parameter associated with the strength of effective nonlocal coupling is as small as the bifurcation parameter, the reduced equation turns out to take the form of a nonlocally coupled complex Ginzburg-Landau equation. Analytic formulae for some coefficients of this equation are given, which would be of great help in inferring possible ranges of the parameters in the original system where nonlocality-dominated pattern dynamics is expected. Regarding the derivation of the reduced equation, our primary concern is the case when direct oscillator coupling is absent, but the effects of weak diffusive (i.e. direct) coupling will also be considered. In Section III, linear stability analysis of our nonlocal CGL is carried out about the uniform oscillation. The resulting eigenvalue spectra, especially those of the phase branch, can be qualitatively different from those of the standard CGL, whose physical implication is discussed. A short summary will be given in the final section.

## II a universal class of reaction-diffusion systems and their reduction

The reaction-diffusion model of our concern was previously proposed by one of the present authorsKura95  and is given by the general form

$`_t𝑿`$ $`=`$ $`𝒇(𝑿)+k𝒈(S),`$ (1)
$`\tau _tS`$ $`=`$ $`S+D^2S+h(𝑿).`$ (2)
Here the $`n`$-dimensional real vector field $`𝒇`$ represents a local limit-cycle oscillator with dynamical variable $`𝑿`$, so that the first equation with $`k=0`$ represents a field of continuously distributed oscillators without mutual coupling. The full system involves an additional chemical component with concentration $`S`$ whose dynamics is governed by the second equation. This component simply diffuses and decays at a constant rate, while it is produced locally as represented by the term $`h(𝑿)`$, the production rate depending on the local value of $`𝑿`$. The dynamics of the local oscillators is influenced in return by the local concentration of $`S`$, and this effect is represented by the term $`k𝒈(S)`$. For the sake of convenience, we inserted in Eq. (2) parameter $`\tau `$ to indicate explicitly the time constant of $`S`$, anticipating a limiting case in which $`\tau `$ is vanishingly small. Note that there is no direct coupling among the local oscillators, while their indirect coupling is provided by the diffusive chemical represented by $`S`$. In later discussions, we will generalize the above model by assuming $`𝒈`$ and $`h`$ to depend both on $`𝑿`$ and $`S`$ , and also by including a small diffusion term i.e. weak direct coupling in Eq. (1). Throughout the present paper, the spatial extension of the system is supposed sufficiently large.

Let the spatially uniform steady state of our system be given by $`(𝑿,S)=(0,0)`$, or equivalently, we measure $`𝑿`$ and $`S`$ always from their equilibrium values. Thus, we clearly have $`h(0)=0`$. It is also convenient to arrange $`𝒇`$ and $`𝒈`$ so that the equalities $`𝒇(0)=𝒈(0)=0`$ may be satisfied. If we like, $`S`$ may be eliminated from the system by solving Eq. (2), which can be done explicitly because the equation is linear. If the spatial dimension is $`d`$, the solution of Eq. (2) is given by

$`S(𝒓,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒒\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓)_{\mathrm{}}^t\frac{dt^{}}{\tau }}`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left((1+Dq^2){\displaystyle \frac{tt^{}}{\tau }}\right)h_𝒒(t^{}),`$
where $`h_𝒒(t^{})`$ is the spatial Fourer transform of $`h(𝑿(𝒓,t^{}))`$. Equation (1) with $`S`$ given by Eq. (3) constitutes a field of nonlocally coupled oscillators. Note that the nonlocality appears in time as well as in space, and the characteristic scales in time and space associated with the nonlocality are given by $`\tau `$ and $`D^{1/2}`$, respectively. This fact will be used in the discussion below.

Suppose that $`𝒇`$ involves a parameter $`\mu `$ such that if $`\mu <0`$ each local system given by Eqs. (1) and (2) with $`D=0`$ has a stable fixed point $`(𝑿,S)=(0,0)`$ while this becomes oscillatory unstable for $`\mu 0`$; namely, at $`\mu =0`$ a pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues of the Jacobian associated with each local system about the fixed point cross the imaginary axis of the complex plane, while the other eigenvalues all remain in the left half plane. It is a well known fact that the center-manifold reduction can be applied to reaction-diffusion systems near the Hopf bifurcation point of the local oscillatorsKura84 . This leads generally to the complex Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equation

$$_tA=\mu \sigma A\beta |A|^2A+\alpha ^2A,$$
(4)
where the amplitude $`A`$ and the parameters $`\sigma `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are generally complex. The small parameter $`\mu `$ has been retained in Eq. (4) so that $`A`$, $`t`$ and $`𝒓`$ scale like $`|\mu |^{1/2}`$, $`|\mu |^{3/2}`$ and $`|\mu |^{1/2}`$, respectively.

It is clear that the above reduced form of reaction-diffusion systems remains valid also for our particular system given by Eqs. (1) and (2). Since CGL is a diffusively coupled (i.e. locally coupled) system, it may seem that effective nonlocality in coupling characteristic to our system disappears completely near the bifurcation point. The reason for the disappearance of nonlocality is clear. This is because the characteristic wavelength $`l_p`$ of the field $`𝑿`$ becomes longer and longer as the bifurcation point is approached like $`l_p|\mu |^{1/2}`$ so that the effective coupling radius given by $`D^{1/2}`$ comes to fall well within this scale, which gives nothing but the definition of local coupling. In what follows, we will be concerned with a special situation in which spatial (and possibly temporal) nonlocality can survive even close to the bifurcation point, so that the reduced equation involves nonlocal coupling rather than diffusive coupling. The same result was used already in earlier worksKura95 ; STC  for the particular case of vanishingly small $`\tau `$ without showing how the reduction can actually be achieved. We will develop below the reduction procedure explicitly including the case of finite $`\tau `$.

Consider our system given by the form of Eqs. (1) and (3) for which Eq. (4) gives the right reduced form near $`\mu =0`$ provided there is no small parameter other than $`\mu `$. It is clear that the diffusion term in Eq. (4) is the reduced form of the coupling term $`k𝒈(S)`$ in Eq. (1). This implies that $`|\alpha |=O(|k|)`$. Disappearance of spatial nonlocality is consistent with the fact that the characteristic wavelength $`l_p`$ estimated from the dimensional argument for Eq. (4), which confirms $`l_p=O(|\mu /k|^{1/2})`$, is far larger than the effective coupling radius given by $`D^{1/2}`$ provided $`k`$ remains an ordinary magnitude. This consistency is apparently broken if $`k`$ becomes as small as $`\mu `$ by which $`l_p`$ becomes independent of $`\mu `$ and hence can be comparable with the coupling radius. Putting it differently, spatial nonlocality should remain relevant near the bifurcation point provided the strength of coupling between the local oscillators and the diffusive component becomes so weak as to satisfy

$$kO(|\mu |).$$
(5)
Thus, what we do next is to find a reduced equation valid near the doubly singular point $`(\mu ,k)=(0,0)`$. Before proceeding to this issue, however, we make a remark on temporal nonlocality. Temporal nonlocality, which is characterized by the time constant $`\tau `$, may be relevant to the dynamics even near the bifurcation point. However, this effect would never appear as a non-Markoffian form of the reduced equation for the amplitude $`A`$ because the time scale associated with the variation of $`A`$ is much longer than $`\tau `$. Still, $`\tau `$ could be comparable with the period of the basic oscillation. Then, as we see below, the effect of delay may appear in the reduced equation through the change in the space-dependence of the coupling function. Specifically, when $`\tau `$ is finite, the decay of the coupling function with distance becomes oscillatory rather than monotone.

Suppose first that $`k=0`$. Then the reduced form of the ordinary equation (1) is given by Eq. (4) with $`\alpha =0`$. Although its derivation is routine, we now recapitulate it for the purpose of explaining soon later how easily the reduced equation can be generalized when a small coupling term is introduced.

Let the Taylor expansion of $`𝒇(𝑿)`$ in terms of $`𝑿`$ be written as

$$𝒇(𝑿)=L𝑿+M𝑿𝑿+N𝑿𝑿𝑿+\mathrm{}.$$
(6)
Regarding the $`\mu `$-dependence of the coefficients appearing in the above expansion, we need to consider it only for the Jacobian $`L`$ to the first order in $`\mu `$ like $`L=L_0+\mu L_1`$; higher order corrections to $`L`$ as well as $`\mu `$-dependence of $`M`$, $`N`$ etc. are irrelevant to the reduced equation to the leading order. Let the pure imaginary eigenvalues at $`\mu =0`$ be $`\pm i\omega _0`$, and the corresponding right eigenvectors and its complex conjugate are written as $`𝑼`$ and $`\overline{𝑼}`$, respectively. The corresponding left eigenvectors and its complex conjugate are denoted by $`𝑼^{}`$ and $`\overline{𝑼}^{}`$, respectively. These eigenvectors satisfy $`𝑼^{}\overline{𝑼}=\overline{𝑼}^{}𝑼=0`$ and $`𝑼^{}𝑼=\overline{𝑼}^{}\overline{𝑼}=1`$. If $`\mu `$ is nonvanishing but small, the eigenvalues change to $`\pm i\omega _0+\mu \lambda _\pm `$, where $`\overline{\lambda }_+=\lambda _{}`$.

To the lowest order in $`\mu `$, the original field $`𝑿`$ and the complex amplitude $`A`$ are mutually related via

$$𝑿(t)=\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _0t}𝑼A(t)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(7)
Thus, in this approximation we have $`_tA=\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)𝑼^{}(\dot{𝑿}L_0𝑿)`$. This means further that the right-hand side of Eq. (4) with $`\alpha =0`$ is identical with the reduced form of $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)𝑼^{}(𝒇(𝑿)L_0𝑿)`$, or

$`\mu \sigma A\beta |A|^2A\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _0t}𝑼^{}\left(𝒇(𝑿)L_0𝑿\right)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _0t}𝑼^{}(\mu L_1𝑿+M𝑿𝑿+N𝑿𝑿𝑿+\mathrm{}).`$
The standard analysis determines the coefficients $`\sigma `$ and $`\beta `$ in terms of some parameters of the equations before reduction. It is clear that the linear coefficient $`\sigma `$ is given by

$$\sigma =𝑼^{}L_1𝑼=\lambda _+.$$
(9)
For obtaining $`\beta `$, the lowest order expression for $`𝑿`$ given by Eq. (7) is insufficient, and we have to use a more precise formula including the next order term:

$`𝑿(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _0t}𝑼A(t)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2i\omega _0t}𝑽_+A^2+\mathrm{e}^{2i\omega _0t}𝑽_{}\overline{A}^2+𝑽_0|A|^2,`$
where

$`𝑽_+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{𝑽}_{}=(L_02i\omega _0)^1𝑴𝑼𝑼,`$ (11)
$`𝑽_0`$ $`=`$ $`2L_0^1𝑴𝑼\overline{𝑼}.`$ (12)
Using these quantities, $`\beta `$ is given by

$$\beta =2𝑼^{}M𝑼𝑽_02𝑼^{}M\overline{𝑼}𝑽_+3𝑼^{}N𝑼𝑼\overline{𝑼}.$$
(13)
Suppose that the vector field $`𝒇`$ is modified slightly to $`𝒇+𝒑`$. It is clear that the corresponding reduced equation must also be modified slightly with an additive term $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)𝑼^{}𝒑`$. The specific form of $`𝒑`$ of our concern is the small coupling term $`k𝒈(S)`$ in Eq. (1) with $`S`$ given by Eq. (3). The original variable $`𝑿`$ and the reduced one $`A`$ must now be regarded as depending on space as well as on time. Thus, our problem is to find a reduced form of the quantity

$$k\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)𝑼^{}𝒈(S)k\stackrel{~}{𝒑}$$
(14)
using Eq. (3). Since $`k`$ is already small, we only need to consider the most dominant contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒑}`$. Noting that $`𝒈(0)=0`$, we may use a linear approximation

$`𝒈(S)`$ $``$ $`𝒈_0S`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈_0}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒒\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓)_{\mathrm{}}^t\frac{dt^{}}{\tau }}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left((1+Dq^2){\displaystyle \frac{tt^{}}{\tau }}\right)𝒉_0𝑿_𝒒(t^{}),`$
where $`𝒈_0=d𝒈/dS|_{S=0}`$ and $`𝒉_0=dh(𝑿)/d𝑿|_{𝑿=0}`$. Thus, using Eq. (7) with $`𝑿`$ and $`A`$ supposed to depend also on $`𝒓`$, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒑}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒒\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓)_{\mathrm{}}^t\frac{dt^{}}{\tau }}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}`$ $`\left((1+Dq^2){\displaystyle \frac{tt^{}}{\tau }}i\omega _0(tt^{})\right)A_𝒒(t^{}),`$ (16)
where

$$\eta =(𝑼^{}𝒈_0)(𝒉_0𝑼).$$
(17)
Note that Eq. (16) ignores the contribution from the complex conjugate of $`A(t)`$ which would give rise to a rapidly oscillating component of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒑}`$. This is allowed because such component would be averaged out in the equation describing the slow evolution of $`A(t)`$. Since the time-integral in Eq. (16) extends practically over the interval between $`t\tau `$ and $`t`$, the slowly varying amplitude $`A_𝒒(t^{})`$ may safely be replaced with $`A_𝒒(t)`$. In this way, we obtain

$$k\stackrel{~}{𝒑}=k\eta ^{}𝑑𝒓^{}G(𝒓𝒓^{})A(𝒓^{},t),$$
(18)
where

$$G(𝒓)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}𝑑𝒒\mathrm{e}^{i𝒒𝒓}\frac{1+i\omega _0\tau }{Dq^2+1+i\omega _0\tau },$$
(19)
and

$$\eta ^{}=\frac{\eta }{1+i\omega _0\tau }.$$
(20)
Note that $`G(𝒓)`$ satisfies the normalization condition

$$𝑑𝒓G(𝒓)=1.$$
(21)
Thus the final form of the reduced equation becomes

$`_tA`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \sigma A\beta |A|^2A`$ (22)
$`+k\eta ^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓^{}G(𝒓𝒓^{})A(𝒓^{},t)}`$
which we call nonlocally coupled complex Ginzburg-Landau equation or simply nonlocal CGL. It is clear that the situation of interest is such that $`k=O(|\mu |)`$ for which the coupling term in the reduced equation is balanced in magnitude with the other terms even if the characteristic wavelength is independent of $`\mu `$. We assume that the bifurcation is supercritical, i.e., the real part of $`\beta `$ is positive.

A few generalizations of the original system (Eqs. (1) and (2)) can be made. Firstly, $`𝒈`$ and $`h`$ may depend both on $`𝑿`$ and $`S`$. Since the most dominant part of these quantities alone is relevant to the reduced equation, one may safely approximate $`𝒈(𝑿,S)`$ and $`h(𝑿,S)`$ as $`𝒈(𝑿,S)=𝒈(𝑿,0)+𝒈(0,S)`$ and $`h(𝑿,S)=h(𝑿,0)+h(0,S)`$, respectively. The resulting new term $`k𝒈(𝑿,0)`$ may slightly modify $`𝒇(𝑿)`$, but the modified $`𝒇(𝑿)`$ may again be denoted by $`𝒇(𝑿)`$. Furthermore, because $`S`$ is small, $`h(0,S)`$ is practically linear in $`S`$. Thus, this quantity simply modifies the linear decay rate of $`S`$ which can be normalized by a suitable rescaling of time. In this way, the final result of reduction is unchanged except that $`𝒈(S)`$ and $`h(𝑿)`$ are replaced with $`𝒈(0,S)`$ and $`h(𝑿,0)`$, respectively. As the second generalization, we may include in Eq. (1) a diffusion term like

$$_t𝑿=𝒇(𝑿)+\widehat{\delta }^2𝑿+k𝒈(S),$$
(23)
where $`\widehat{\delta }`$ is a diagonal diffusion matrix with non-negative elements. In parallel with the above argument for obtaining a reduced form of the nonlocal coupling term, the reduced form of the quantity $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)𝑼^{}\widehat{\delta }^2𝑿`$ will then be added to the right-hand side of Eq. (22). To the lowest order approximation, one may apply Eq. (7) for $`𝑿`$, by which the above quantity becomes $`\delta ^2A`$ where $`\delta `$ is a complex number with positive real part, and is given by

$$\delta =𝑼^{}\widehat{\delta }𝑼.$$
(24)
Thus, Eq. (22) is modified as

$`_tA`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \sigma A\beta |A|^2A+\delta ^2A`$ (25)
$`+k\eta ^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓^{}G(𝒓𝒓^{})A(𝒓^{},t)}.`$
In the conventional reduction of reaction-diffusion systems, $`|\delta |`$ is assumed to be of ordinary magnitude, so that the diffusion term can be balanced with the linear and cubic terms in magnitude only if the characteristic wavelength of $`A`$ scales like $`|\mu |^{1/2}`$. However, the last property of $`A`$ contradicts with the particular situation of our concern in which the characteristic wavelength remains independent of $`\mu `$. Therefore, in what follows, we assume that $`|\delta |`$ as well as $`k`$ is of the order of $`\mu `$, by which all terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (25) are balanced with each other, and the coupling nonlocality represented by the last term can survive.

It is more convenient to write Eq. (25) in the form

$`_tA`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \sigma ^{}A\beta |A|^2A+\delta ^2A`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`k\eta ^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓^{}G(𝒓𝒓^{})\left(A(𝒓^{},t)A(𝒓,t)\right)},`$
where $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma +\mu ^1k\eta ^{}`$. With this form, the coupling term can be approximated by a diffusion term when the characteristic wavelength of $`A(𝒓,t)`$ is sufficiently longer than the coupling radius. Note that $`\sigma ^{}`$ remains ordinary magnitude because $`k=O(\mu )`$ by assumption. Hereafter, we assume that the system is supercritical or

$$\mathrm{Re}\sigma ^{}>0.$$
(27)
An additional remark should be made on the functional form of the coupling function $`G`$ in connection with the time scale $`\tau `$ of the diffusive component $`S`$. As implied by Eq. (16), finite $`\tau `$ generally gives rise to memory effects or temporal nonlocality after the variable $`S`$ has been eliminated. However, as was noted before, the reduced equation is free from memory effects because the time scale of the slowly varying amplitude $`A`$ is much longer than $`\tau `$. We also noted that because $`\tau `$ may be comparable with the period $`2\pi /\omega _0`$ of the fundamental oscillation, the effect of delay in coupling should be relevant to the reduced dynamics. Actually, as is clear from Eq. (19), the effect of finite $`\tau `$ appears in the coupling function $`G`$. For one-dimensional systems, in particular, the coupling function is simply expressed as

$$G(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _++i\alpha _{})\mathrm{e}^{(\alpha _++i\alpha _{})|x|},$$
(28)
where

$$\alpha _\pm =\sqrt{\frac{\pm 1+\sqrt{1+\theta ^2}}{2D}}$$
(29)
and $`\theta =\omega _0\tau `$. If $`\tau `$ is vanishing, $`G(x)`$ decays exponentially with $`|x|`$, the decay length being given by $`D^{1/2}`$, whereas the decay becomes oscillatory when $`\tau `$ is finite. Thus the effect of delay in coupling is such that the complex amplitude $`A(x^{})`$ in the coupling term is multiplied by a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _{}|xx^{}|)`$, or equivalently, the phase of $`A(x^{},t)`$, denoted by $`\varphi (x^{},t)`$, is replaced with $`\varphi (x^{},t)\alpha _{}|xx^{}|`$. In the physical language, this means that the phase at the spatial point $`x^{}`$ experienced by the oscillator at $`x`$ through the delayed coupling cannot be its current value $`\varphi (x^{},t)`$ but should be the value at some time $`tt_0`$ in the past, because the phase information travels at a finite speed. If this speed is constant, and the oscillation at $`x^{}`$ is nearly regular, then we have $`\varphi (x^{},tt_0)`$ equal to $`\varphi (x^{},t)`$ plus something proportional to the distance $`|xx^{}|`$, justifying the above result.

Coming back to general space dimensions, Eq. (26) with the coupling function given by Eq. (19) involves many parameters. However, some of the parameters can be eliminated by suitable transformations of some variables. Firstly, the imaginary part of the linear coefficient $`\mu \sigma ^{}`$ vanishes through the transformation $`AA\mathrm{exp}[(i\mu \mathrm{Im}\sigma ^{})t]`$. Secondly, one may rescale $`A`$, $`t`$ and $`𝒓`$ in such a way that $`\mathrm{Re}\beta `$, $`\mu \mathrm{Re}\sigma ^{}`$ and $`D`$ may all become unity. In this way, we may write Eq. (26) as

$`_tA`$ $`=`$ $`A(1+ic_2)|A|^2A+(\delta _1+i\delta _2)^2A`$
$`+K(1`$ $`+`$ $`ic_1){\displaystyle }d𝒓^{}G(𝒓𝒓^{})(A(𝒓^{},t)A(𝒓,t)),`$ (30)
where the coupling function $`G`$ is defined as an integral form given by Eq. (19), or

$`G(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒒\mathrm{e}^{i𝒒𝒓}G_q},`$ (31)
$`G_q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+i\theta }{q^2+1+i\theta }}.`$ (32)
The reduced equation now involves six independent parameters $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`K`$, $`\theta `$, $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ all of which are independent of smallness parameters $`\mu `$, $`k`$ and $`\delta `$. Note that the coupling coefficient in Eq. (30) is related to some original parameters through

$$K(1+ic_1)=\frac{k\eta ^{}}{\mu \mathrm{Re}\sigma ^{}}=\frac{k\eta ^{}}{\mu \mathrm{Re}\sigma +k\mathrm{Re}\eta ^{}},$$
(33)
or

$$K=1\frac{\mathrm{Re}\sigma }{\mathrm{Re}\sigma ^{}}$$
(34)
so that, by combining the last equation with the inequality (27) and the original assumption $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma >0`$, we have a restrictive condition

$$K<1.$$
(35)
## III Eigenvalue spectrum about the uniform oscillation

It is clear that Eq. (30) admits a family of plane wave solutions $`A_k(𝒓,t)=R\mathrm{exp}[i(𝒌𝒓\mathrm{\Omega }t)]`$ the stability of which is extremely important to the understanding of the pattern dynamics of our system. In the present paper we will focus on the stability of the uniform oscillation $`A_0(t)`$ for which

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (36)
$`\omega _0`$ $`=`$ $`c_2.`$ (37)
We now put

$$A(𝒓,t)=\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓,t)\right)A_0(𝒓,t),$$
(38)
and linearize Eq. (30) in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓,t)`$. The linearized equation can be solved in terms of the Fourier components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓,t)`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒒(t)`$. Assuming its time-dependence in the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒒(t)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$, we find the eigenvalue equation

$$\lambda ^2+u(q)\lambda +v(q)=0,$$
(39)
where

$`u(q)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\gamma (q),`$ (40)
$`v(q)`$ $`=`$ $`|\gamma (q)|^2|\gamma (0)|^2,`$ (41)
with

$`\gamma (q)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+ic_2)(\delta _1+i\delta _2)q^2`$ (42)
$`+K(1+ic_1)(G_qG_0).`$
In what follows, we shall first concentrate on the case without diffusive coupling, i.e. $`\delta _1=\delta _2=0`$; the effects of nonvanishing but small $`\delta _1`$ will be touched upon later.

Let the solutions of Eq. (39) be denoted by $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\lambda _{}`$ with $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _+\mathrm{Re}\lambda _{}`$. The uniform oscillation is stable if and only if $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _+<0`$ holds for all $`q`$. This holds only when $`u(q)>0`$ and $`v(q)>0`$ for all q. Equivalently, if one of these inequalities becomes violated for a certain $`q`$, then the uniform oscillation loses stability. This implies that the types of instability could be classified in terms of the signs of $`u(q)`$ and $`v(q)`$. Simple calculation shows that $`u(q)`$ and $`v(q)`$ can be expressed in the following form where we use the notation $`Qq^2`$.

$`u(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (Q)\xi _0(Q),`$ (43)
$`v(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta (Q)\zeta _0(Q)Q.`$ (44)
Here $`\xi _0(Q)`$ and $`\zeta _0(Q)`$ are non-negative functions of $`Q`$, and

$`\xi (Q)`$ $``$ $`a_2Q^2+a_1Q+a_0,`$ (45)
$`\zeta (Q)`$ $``$ $`b_1Q+b_0,`$ (46)
$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`1+\theta ^2,`$ (47)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`2+K(1+c_1\theta ),`$ (48)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`1+K,`$ (49)
$`b_0`$ $`=`$ $`2K(1+c_1c_2+(c_1c_2)\theta ),`$ (50)
$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`K(2(1+c_1c_2)+K(1+c_1^2)).`$ (51)
Figure 1 shows the $`a_1`$-$`a_2`$ plane divided into three domains (labeled by A, B and C) corresponding to qualitatively different forms of $`u(q)`$. Note that the $`a_1`$-$`a_2`$ plane covers all possible types of $`u(q)`$ because $`a_0`$ is positive definite. Similar picture for $`v(q)`$ in the $`b_0`$-$`b_1`$ plane is displayed in Fig. 2 where the whole space is divided into four domains (labeled by A to D). Since the parameters $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$ as functions of four independent parameters $`K`$, $`\theta `$, $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ can be changed independently, every combination between two members, one from the group (A,B,C) and the other from (A,B,C,D), is possible. Uniform oscillation is unstable for all these combinations except for (A,A). Loss of stability occurs as we move across the line $`a_2=0`$ or $`a_1^24a_0a_2=0`$ in Fig. 1, for which the instability is oscillatory, or otherwise $`b_0=0`$ or $`b_1=0`$ in Fig. 2, for which the instability is non-oscillatory. The critical wavenumber for which $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0`$ becomes first violated equals zero on the line $`b_0=0`$, finite on $`a_1^24a_0a_2=0`$ and infinite on $`a_2=0`$ and $`b_1=0`$. The last type of instability, i.e. the instability which starts at infinite $`q`$, was called short-wavelength bifurcation by Heagy et al.heagy .

If $`|K|`$ is not too large, $`u`$ is non-negative, so that the instability is only through $`v`$ becoming negative and hence it is non-oscillatory. The corresponding critical lines $`b_0=0`$ and $`b_1=0`$ in Fig. 2 can now be translated into critical relations between $`K`$ and $`Kc_1`$ under fixed $`c_2`$ and $`\theta `$. In this way, we have four types of eigenvalue spectrum shown schematically in Fig. 3 where lines $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ correspond to $`b_0=0`$ and $`b_1=0`$, respectively. The figure shows the spectra only for phase-like fluctuations, because in each case the amplitude branch which is separated from the phase branch remains negative for all $`q`$ so that the amplitude-like fluctuations are irrelevant to stability. Separation between the phase and amplitude branches also implies that the eigenvalues associated with these branches are all real. In contrast, if these branches merge, then the eigenvalues of the two branches for given $`q`$ would form a complex conjugate pair. Note that in each type of spectrum shown in the figure the eigenvalue saturates to a constant as the wavenumber tends to infinity, which is characteristic to nonlonally coupled systems. The characteristic wavenumber about which the eigenvalue starts to saturate equals the inverse of the coupling radius. Physically, this reflects the fact that the dynamics of fluctuations whose wavelengths are much shorter than the coupling radius is practically the same as the oscillators’ individual dynamics, and hence it is insensitive to the wavenumber. Note also that the type U<sub>2</sub> spectrum is possible only when $`\theta `$ is nonvanishing or, equivalently, when the nonlocal coupling before reduction involves delay.

For larger $`|K|`$, the phase and amplitude branches can merge, so that oscillatory instability becomes possible. In particular, the short-wavelength type instability i.e. the instability initiated by fluctuations with infinite wavenumber can occur across the line $`a_2=0`$ or $`K=1`$. This type actually appears in the stability diagram in Fig. 4 which is a global extension of the diagram in Fig. 3. The values of the other parameters are the same as in Fig. 3, i.e., $`c_2=1.0`$ and $`\theta =6.0`$. Oscillatory instability initiated by fluctuations with finite wavenumber, which occurs when crossing the line $`a_1^24a_0a_2=0`$ in Fig. 1, does not appear in Fig. 4, but may appear when different values of $`c_2`$ and $`\theta `$ are chosen. For instance, the stability diagram for the case of $`c_2=2.5`$ and $`\theta =1.5`$ is displayed in Fig. 5 where the line $`L_4`$ gives the boundary associated with the last type of instability.

Finally, we comment on the effects of weak diffusion represented by the term $`(\delta _1+i\delta _2)^2A`$ in Eq. (30). For simplicity, we assume that $`\delta _2`$ is vanishing while $`\delta _1`$ is a small positive. It is clear that this diffusion term simply gives rise to an additional stabilizing term $`\delta _1q^2`$ to each of the eigenvalues $`\lambda _\pm `$ as a function of $`q`$. Thus, the fluctuations with sufficiently short wavelength are always decaying. A particularly interesting result from this fact appears in type U<sub>2</sub> eigenvalue spectrum in Fig. 3. Depending on the value of $`\delta _1`$, the dispersion curve is deformed like some curves shown in Fig. 6. Even the dispersion curves of types U<sub>1</sub> and U<sub>12</sub> could be deformed into a similar form if some parameter vaules are chosen suitably. It is clear that there is a critical value of $`\delta _1`$ at which fluctuations with a certain wavenumber $`q_c`$ become unstable. Due to the presence of long-wavelength fluctuations which are almost neutral in stability, the unstable growth of the mode with $`q_c`$ will generally be unable to lead to a Turing type periodic standing pattern. Instead, from the outset, a group of modes with wavenumbers close to $`q_c`$ will couple nonlinearly with another group of modes of almost vanishing $`q`$ with almost neutral stability, leading to a peculiar spatio-temporal chaosTribel ; Dan . The simple evolution equation

$$_tu=_x^2[ϵ(1+_x^2)^2]u(_xu)^2,$$
(52)
called the Nikolaevskii equationNik , gives qualitatively the same eigenvalue spectrum as those in Fig. 6. Actually, it was argued previously that the Turing pattern in this system existing for small positive $`ϵ`$ is always unstable, and as a result the system immediately becomes turbulent characterized by the coexistence of turbulent fluctuations with vastly different length scales. Possibility of this type of turbulence in reaction-diffusion systems was discussed by Fujisaka and YamadaFY . In electro-convective systems, similar type of complex behavior was discovered by Kai et al.Kai  which they called soft-mode turbulence.

## IV summary

If spatially distributed limit cycle oscillators are diffusively coupled not directly but via a certain diffusive component, the oscillators may be viewed as coupled nonlocally after a mathematical elimination of this diffusive variable. We showed in the present paper that this actually occurs in reaction-diffusion systems and that the nonlocality of this kind persists even close to the Hopf bifurcation point provided the coupling between each local oscillator and the diffusive component is sufficiently weak. Specifically, under this condition, the systems is reduced to a comlex Ginzburg-Landau type equation with nonlocal rather than diffusive coupling. Temporal nonlocality or memory effects which generally exist before reduction does not appear explicitly in the reduced equation, still they may generally affect the functional form of the coupling function. Our results were generalized so as to include the effects of direct but weak diffusive coupling among the oscillators.

Linear stability analysis of the uniformly oscillating state of the reduced equation was also carried out. Some new types of eigenvalues spectrum were found to arise, and their physical relevance was suggested.

How the solution behaves in the nonlinear regime is known only partially. For instance, type U<sub>12</sub> spectrum in Fig. 3 was found to lead to turbulence with multi-affinitySTC . It was also found that even the normal spectrum (type S) can give rise to peculiar spiral waves without phase singularity when the nonlocal coupling becomes weakKS . Different aspects of the nonlocal CGL including the afore-mentioned type of turbulence associated with the dispersion curve in fig. 6 will be developed in forthcoming papersDan .

Figure Captions

* The sign of $`u(q)`$ changes with $`q`$ in three different ways. The figure shows how the corresponding domains A, B and C appear in the $`a_1`$-$`a_2`$ plane. $`u(q)`$ is positive for all $`q`$ in A, negative above some critical $`q`$ in B, and negative in a finite interval of $`q`$ in C. The line separating domains A and C is given by a parabola $`a_2=a_1^2/4a_0`$.
* The sign of $`v(q)`$ changes with $`q`$ in four different ways. The figure shows how the corresponding domains A, B, C and D appear in the $`b_0`$-$`b_1`$ plane. $`v(q)`$ is positive for all $`q`$ in A, negative above some critical $`q`$ in B, negative for all $`q`$ in C , and negative below some critical $`q`$ in D.
* Four types of eigenvalue spectrum for the phase-like fluctuations about the uniform oscillation which is stable only for type S. The figure shows how they appear in the $`K`$-$`Kc_1`$ plane in the vicinity of the origin $`K=0`$. The other parameters are fixed as $`c_2=1.0`$ and $`\theta =6.0`$. In each of the four cases, the eigenvalues of the amplitude-like fluctuations, which is not shown in the figure, form a branch completely separated from the phase branch and remain negative for all $`q`$.
* Figure 3 is extended to the region of larger $`K`$. A new type of eigenvalue spectrum appears for large negative $`K`$. This type, labeled by U<sub>3</sub> is similar to U<sub>2</sub> in Fig. 3 except that the amplitude branch merges with the phase branch above a certain wavenumber which is still below the wavenumber at which $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda `$ changes sign. Thus, the eigenvalues associated with the unstable fluctuations are complex rather than real, i.e., the instability is oscillatory in nature.
* Similar to Fig. 4 but for different values of $`c_2`$ and $`\theta `$, i.e., $`c_2=2.5`$ and $`\theta =1.5`$. New type of eigenvalue spectrum, denoted by U<sub>4</sub>, appears which differs from U<sub>3</sub> in Fig. 4 only in that the eigenvalues saturate to a negative value as $`q`$ goes to infinity.
* Eigenvalue spectra close to a finite-wavenumber instability, which are obtained as a modification of U<sub>2</sub> in Fig. 3 by assuming nonvanishing $`\delta _1`$ in the reduced equation (30).


format: text

text:
# Effect of pion thermal width on the sigma spectrum

(April 24, 2003)

## Abstract

We study the effect of thermal width of $`\pi `$ on the spectral function of $`\sigma `$ applying a resummation technique called optimized perturbation theory at finite temperature ($`T`$) to $`𝒪(4)`$ linear sigma model. In order to take into account finite thermal width of $`\pi `$, we replace the internal pion mass in the self-energy of $`\sigma `$ with that of complex pole found in a previous paper. The obtained spectral function for $`T>100\mathrm{MeV}`$ turns out to possess two broad peaks. Although a sharp peak at $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ threshold was observed in the one-loop calculation without pion thermal width, the peak is proved to be smeared out. We also search for the poles of the $`\sigma `$ propagator and analyze the behavior of the spectral function with these poles.

sigma meson, pion, spectral function, finite temperature, thermal width, linear sigma model  preprint: TH-881

It is now believed that the chiral symmetry is restored at finite temperature. As temperature increases to the critical temperature, $`\sigma `$ is softened while light $`\pi `$ becomes heavy, because their masses should degenerate after the symmetry restoration. At certain temperature, therefore, the mass of $`\sigma `$ coincides with twice that of $`\pi `$. Accordingly, the spectrum of $`\sigma `$ is expected to be enhanced near the threshold of $`\sigma \pi \pi `$, since the phase space available for the decay is squeezed to zero.

Chiku and Hatsuda chiku  showed that the threshold enhancement in the $`\sigma `$ channel is observed as expected. They also calculated the spectral function of $`\pi `$ and found that $`\pi `$ has finite width due to the scattering with thermal pions in the heat bath: $`\pi +\pi ^{\mathrm{thermal}}\sigma `$. The width of $`\pi `$ is $`50\mathrm{MeV}`$ at the temperature where the threshold in the $`\sigma `$ spectrum is most strongly enhanced. In their analysis of the spectrum of $`\sigma `$, however, the effect of the pion thermal width is not included, since they calculated the self-energy only up to one-loop order. The purpose of this paper is to show that the threshold enhancement is smeared out by taking into account the effect of pion thermal width.

Our strategy is as follows. We utilize the one-loop self-energy for $`\sigma `$, but we replace the masses of internal pions with complex ones. This complex mass was obtained from the location of the pole of the pion propagator in a previous work hidaka . Using the self-energy with the complex pion mass, we study the spectral function of $`\sigma `$. The poles of the $`\sigma `$ propagator are also searched for to analyze the behavior of the spectral function.

Along the lines mentioned above, here we employ the $`𝒪(4)`$ linear sigma model:

$$=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _\alpha )^2\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi _\alpha ^2\frac{\lambda }{4!}(\varphi _\alpha ^2)^2+h\varphi _0,$$
(1)
with $`\varphi _\alpha =(\varphi _0,𝝅)`$. As the chiral symmetry is taken to be dynamically broken at low temperature ($`T`$), the quadratic term in the Lagrangian has negative sign, $`\mu ^2<0`$. Owing to this choice of the sign and the explicit breaking term of $`h\varphi _0`$, the field $`\varphi _0`$ has a non-vanishing expectation value $`\xi `$. In this prospect, we decompose beforehand the field operator $`\varphi _0`$ into the classical condensate and the quantum fluctuation as $`\varphi _0=\xi +\sigma `$.

Integrating out the quadratic of the fluctuations $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ around the condensate, we obtain the one-loop effective potential $`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\xi )`$. As a minimum of the effective potential, the condensate $`\xi (T)`$ is determined and this leads us to the gap equation,

$`0={\displaystyle \frac{V^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\xi }}`$ $`=h+\mu ^2\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3!}}\xi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \xi }{2}}(I_\sigma ^{(1)}+I_\pi ^{(1)}).`$ (2)
The model parameters are fixed so as to reproduce the experimental values of the pion mass ($`m_\pi `$), the pion decay constant ($`f_\pi `$) and the peak energy of the spectral function $`\rho _\sigma `$ at $`T=0`$ following Ref.chiku : $`\mu ^2=(283\mathrm{MeV})^2,\lambda =73.0,h=(123\mathrm{MeV})^3`$. The last term in Eq.(2) is contribution from the tadpole diagrams in the modified minimal subtraction scheme ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$):

$$I_\varphi ^{(1)}\stackrel{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}{=}\frac{m_{0\varphi }^2}{16\pi ^2}(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{0\varphi }^2}{\kappa ^2})+_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}pp^2}{2\pi ^2}\frac{n(\omega _\varphi )}{\omega _\varphi },$$
(3)
with $`\omega _\varphi =\sqrt{p^2+m_{0\varphi }^2}`$ and $`n(\omega )=(\mathrm{e}^{\omega /T}1)^1`$. $`\kappa `$ is the renormalization point. $`m_{0\sigma }`$ and $`m_{0\pi }`$ are the tree-level masses of the fluctuations defined by

$$m_{0\sigma }^2=m^2+\lambda \frac{\xi ^2}{2},m_{0\pi }^2=m^2+\lambda \frac{\xi ^2}{6},$$

where $`m(T)`$ is an optimal mass parameter introduced in the framework of the optimized perturbation theory (OPT) chiku ; stev .

A physical concept of OPT is to impose thermal effects upon the optimal parameter(s) and to tune it by an optimal condition stev . In our case, $`m`$ is determined so that the (thermal part of) pion-mass correction vanishes at zero momentum chiku .

Making use of the OPT, the threshold enhancement of the spectral function of $`\sigma `$ was reported chiku . In order to understand how this enhancement occurs and will be smeared by the thermal width of $`\pi `$, it is important to consider the scattering with thermal pions as mentioned previously. At the same time, it is also of much account to clarify analyticity of the self-energy as well. This is basically because the spectral function, which is the imaginary part of the propagator, is related to the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (k,T)`$ as

$`\rho _\sigma (k,T)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{Im}D_\sigma (k,T)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{Im}(k^2m_{0\sigma }^2\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (k,T))^1,`$ (5)
with $`k=(\omega ,𝒌)`$. At one-loop level, the self-energy is written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (k,T)`$ $`=`$ $`(m^2\mu ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left(I_\sigma ^{(1)}+I_\pi ^{(1)}\right)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\xi ^2}{2}}\left(I_\sigma ^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}I_\pi ^{(2)}\right),`$
where $`I_\varphi ^{(2)}`$ corresponds to a bubble diagram shown in Fig.1,

$`I_\varphi ^{(2)}`$ $`\stackrel{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{0\varphi }^2}{\kappa ^2}}+c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{c1}{c+1}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}pp^2}{\omega _\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _\varphi )}{k^24\omega _\varphi ^2}},`$ (8)
with $`c=\sqrt{14m_{0\varphi }^2/k^2}`$ .

Now, we are ready to consider effects of pion thermal width on the spectrum of $`\sigma `$. Although the width can be estimated directly from relevant scattering processes, we adopt more simple prescription — to use a complex pion pole as internal pion mass in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma `$. The thermal width of $`\pi `$ is represented in the imaginary part of the complex pole of the pion propagator:

$`D_\pi ^1`$ $`=p^2m_{0\pi }^2\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (p^2,𝒑;T)|_{p^2=(m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}})^2}=0,`$
$`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}=m_\pi ^{}(T)i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (T)}{2}},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi `$ is the pion self-energy.

As a matter of course, the pole has dependence of $`|𝒑|`$ naturally hidaka , but contributions from $`|𝒑|T`$ are less effective to the loop integration in the thermal part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma `$. Therefore, as a simple recipe to incorporate the thermal width, we replace $`m_{0\pi }`$ in Eq.(7) with $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ at $`𝒑=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in Ref.hidaka  as depicted in Fig.1 and substitute it into Eq.(4) to obtain $`\rho _\sigma `$.

We show in Fig.2 the obtained spectral function, Eq.(4), at $`𝒌=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for several values of $`T`$. For comparison, we also show the spectral function at $`T=145\mathrm{MeV}`$ with $`m_{0\pi }`$ and that with $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ in Fig.3.

At low $`T`$ the spectrum consists of a broad bump around $`\omega =550\mathrm{MeV}`$. As $`T`$ increases, another strength grows at the left shoulder of the bump, while the spectrum for $`\omega >400\mathrm{MeV}`$ does not vary much. In contrast to this case, if $`m_{0\pi }`$ is used as the internal pion mass, the spectrum near the threshold of $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ is enhanced as $`T`$ is increased. At $`T=145\mathrm{MeV}`$, where the mass of $`\sigma `$ coincides with $`2m_{0\pi }`$, the spectrum near the threshold is most strongly enhanced as shown in Fig.3 (dotted curve). When $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ is used, however, due to the thermal width of $`\pi `$ in the decay $`\sigma \pi \pi `$, the sharp threshold is smeared to be a bump at $`\omega =200\mathrm{MeV}300\mathrm{MeV}`$ as the solid curve in Fig.3.

In general, the behavior of spectral function is governed by poles of the propagator. We thus next search for the poles of propagator on the complex $`\omega `$ plane. As can be clearly seen from Eq.(4) the analytic structure of the propagator is determined by that of the self-energy. Then, from Eq.(7) and Eq.(8) we see that the self-energy has a branch point at $`\omega =2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ around which the Riemann sheet is two-fold. The self-energy has another branch point due to $`\sigma `$ loop which, however, is irrelevant for the present discussion of the self-energy around the threshold of $`\sigma \pi \pi `$. The branch cut from $`\omega =2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ can be arbitrarily chosen at finite temperature, because it has no physical meaning. For definiteness we choose the cut from the branch point straight to the right, parallel to the real axis and refer to the sheet including the physical real energy as the first Riemann sheet and the other one as the second Riemann sheet. We show in Fig.4 the result of searching the locations of the poles on the Riemann sheets.

We found three relevant poles. Two of them, (II) and (II\*), are on the second Riemann sheet and off the real axis. Their positions are approximately symmetric with respect to the real axis with each other. For the spectral function of $`\sigma `$, on one hand, (II) and (II\*) show up as a bump around $`\omega =550\mathrm{MeV}`$ and the small movement of these poles explains the insensitivity to $`T`$ of the spectrum for $`\omega 400\mathrm{MeV}`$. On the other hand, the structure of the spectrum for low $`\omega `$ is mainly determined by the remaining one pole, (I). For preparation to consider this pole (I), let us first recall the movement of the corresponding pole in case of no thermal width of $`\pi `$ hidaka .

Without the pion width, the counterpart of the pole (I) exists on the second Riemann sheet apart from the branch point of $`2m_{0\pi }`$ for $`T60\mathrm{MeV}`$. Correspondingly, the $`\sigma `$ spectrum has no peak at the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold for low $`T`$. As $`T`$ increases, the pole moves along the real axis from below toward the branch point $`2m_{0\pi }`$ and turns around at the point to appear on the first sheet at $`T=145\mathrm{MeV}`$. In response to this movement, the $`\sigma `$ spectrum is strongly enhanced for $`T145\mathrm{MeV}`$. In other words, the threshold enhancement originates in the fact that the $`\sigma `$ pole approaches the branch point on the real axis near the temperature concerned.

Keeping this in mind, we return to the discussion on movement of the pole (I) next. As is the case with no pion width, this pole also resides on the second Riemann sheet for low $`T`$ and comes closer to the branch point with increasing $`T`$ as shown in Fig.4. At $`T=138\mathrm{MeV}`$, the pole crosses the branch cut and appears on the first Riemann sheet from the second, likewise. The branch point, however, is located at $`2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ apart from the real axis for $`T100\mathrm{MeV}`$ due to the finite thermal width of $`\pi `$ (see Fig.4). The complex branch point demands that the pole (I), whose counterpart caused the threshold enhancement by moving toward the point, also acquires imaginary part near $`T138\mathrm{MeV}`$. As a result, the $`\sigma `$ spectrum is smeared and the remarkable contrast is brought about for the spectrums as shown in Fig.3.

Let us argue on the correlation between the spectral function and poles of the propagator more quantitatively. For this purpose, we approximate the propagator of $`\sigma `$ with the superposition of the three pole contributions in the following way:

$`\rho _\sigma 2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{pole}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{\mathrm{pole}}}{qq_{\mathrm{pole}}}},`$ (9)
$`Z^{\mathrm{pole}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q_{\mathrm{pole}}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma }{k^2}}(k^2=(m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{pole}})^2)\right)^1,`$ (10)
where $`m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ stands for the pole of the $`\sigma `$ propagator. $`q`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ are defined by $`q=(k^2(2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}})^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{pole}}=((m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{pole}})^2(2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}})^2)^{1/2}`$, respectively. It should be noted that we have taken not $`k^2`$ but $`q=(k^2(2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{pole}})^2)^{1/2}`$ as an appropriate variable. The use of this variable enables us to unfold two leaves of the Riemann sheet around the branch point newton ; We can reflect which Riemann sheet accommodates each pole on the approximated propagator.

We show the approximated spectral function, Eq.(10), for two cases, $`T=60\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`T=145\mathrm{MeV}`$, in Figs.6 and 6, respectively. At $`T=60\mathrm{MeV}`$, pole (I) is located on the second Riemann sheet, while it is on the first sheet at $`T=145\mathrm{MeV}`$. We can see that poles (II) and (II\*) provide the broad peak around $`\omega =550\mathrm{MeV}`$ and that pole (I) mainly determine the behavior of the left shoulder of the peak. If we include only the contributions of (I) and (II), two broad peaks are still reproduced. However, a structure which is not seen in the spectral function appears at low $`\omega `$ region. The contribution of (II\*) cancels out the spurious structure caused by (II). At $`T=60\mathrm{MeV}`$, the left shoulder of the peak is small, although pole (I) seems to lie close to the real axis. This is because the pole is on the second Riemann sheet and is practically far from the real axis. In contrast, at $`T=145\mathrm{MeV}`$, pole (I) is on the first Riemann sheet and is close to the real axis. Accordingly, it provides a peak with more strength around $`\omega =200300\mathrm{MeV}`$. Thus, in order to reveal the relation between the poles and the behavior of the spectrum, it is necessary to know both of the complex structure of the Riemann sheet and the positions of the poles on it.

In conclusion, the thermal width of $`\pi `$ smears out the sharp peak of the $`\sigma `$ spectrum at $`\pi \pi `$ threshold. The structure of the spectral function can be well understood from the three relevant poles of the propagators and the branch points of the self-energy. Physically we can interpret the origin of the smearing as follows. By replacing the masses of $`\pi `$ in the decay $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ with the complex mass, processes like $`\sigma \pi ^{\mathrm{thermal}}\sigma \pi `$ are newly taken into account. Since this process is allowed for any energy of the initial $`\sigma `$ nishi , $`\pi \pi `$ threshold disappears thereby. Due to the above process, the $`\sigma `$ peak at the threshold is expected to acquire a width of

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma n(E_\pi )\sigma _{\pi \sigma }m_\pi ^3100\mathrm{MeV}`$ (11)
for $`T140\mathrm{MeV}`$, where $`E_\pi `$ is the typical energy of thermal pions. $`\sigma _{\pi \sigma }`$ is the scattering cross section of $`\sigma `$ with $`\pi `$ and its value is estimated to be $`𝒪(1/f_\pi ^2)`$ from the low energy theorem. In the present calculation, only the mass shift of the internal pion for the one-loop self-energy is taken into account. One might be worried whether other effects, such as vertex correction and wave function renormalization, might drastically change the results. The physical point, however, is that the calculated spectral function using the complex pion mass is consistent with the estimate, Eq.(11). Therefore, the results of the present paper should be essentially correct even after including other effects.

As was discussed in Ref.chiku , the behavior of $`\rho _\sigma `$ is reflected on the diphoton emission rate from the decay $`\sigma 2\gamma `$. This indicates that the diphoton yield will also be smeared out, which will be reported elsewhere ohtani . The smeared behavior of $`\rho _\sigma `$ is also seen for finite density chanf ; chaos , though physical origin of the width is different. It is interesting to apply the prescription adopted here in the context of finite density system.

What we have observed in this paper is expected to be universal for processes in which a particle decays into unstable particles.

One of the authors (M. O.) would like to thank H. Fujii for fruitful comments and discussions. The authors would like to acknowledge valuable discussions with T. Hatsuda.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We are told that nature is fundamentally ‘capricious’. For example, if we prepare many identical atoms in the same excited state at a given time, then they decay at different times, in general. This has been a source of tremendous surprise, if not shock, for many physicists who were brought up to accept, without question, the paradigm of laws . They believe that all physical systems are governed by the same laws, which should compel identical systems having the same initial conditions to behave in the same way. But if we are unbiased by centuries of traditional physics conditioning, then we should actually be surprised if all the atoms behave in the same way. Why should they? After all, they do not communicate with each other to ensure that they would all decay at the same time. And there is no evidence of a ‘cosmic rail road,’ i.e. fundamental laws of nature, that would compel all the atoms to behave in the same way .

The view that there are fundamental laws worked very well in classical physics until it was found that the laws of classical physics are really not fundamental. When physicists found that the laws of classical physics were in disagreement with observation, they decided to replace these laws with new laws. Although they discarded the existing laws, they did not give up the belief that there must be laws. Newton’s second law of motion was replaced by Schrodinger’s law that was supposed to govern the evolution of a quantum state. While this law is supposed to govern the unobserved evolution of the state between measurements, it does not appear to govern the observation of a quantum state, i.e. the process of measurement.

Some physicists found this state of affairs to be highly unsatisfactory. They wanted the quantum laws to apply a to every physical process including the process of measurement. Everett , for example, postulated that the Schrödinger law applied to every quantum evolution, which implied that the wave function never collapsed. Bohm , on the other hand, regarded the wave function and the particle to be real, the wave function playing the dual role of giving the probability density for the particle and guiding the particle’s motion according to a quantum law. Another approach, pioneered by Pearle , was to modify Schrödinger’s law to a new non linear law that would apply to the measurement process.

These and similar approaches to quantum theory were based on two assumptions: A) There are quantum laws that apply to every physical process, including the measurement process, and B) a system may exist by itself and its reality does not depend on its interaction with other systems, which I shall call the assumption of absolute reality. But the ‘capriciousness’ of nature mentioned at the beginning suggests that the assumption (A) may not be valid. The great difficulty in applying quantum laws to the observed measurement process suggests that these laws may not apply also to the unobserved state evolution in between measurements. The strangeness of assumption (B) is seen if we imagine a universe consisting of only one object. What is the metaphysical difference between this object existing and not existing? But if there are two objects then these two objects may interact, and each object would then have reality with respect to the other.

It seems reasonable therefore to suppose, instead, that 1) there are no fundamental causal laws but only probabilities for physical processes that are constrained by symmetries, and 2) reality is relational in that an object is real only in relation to another object that it is interacting with. These two assumptions help us to understand why the world is quantum mechanical. Assumption (1) implies that nature must necessarily be indeterministic or ‘capricious,’ which is consistent with observed quantum phenomena. Assumption (2) explains why the act of measurement brings into being the state of a quantum system. This is consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation that denies absolute reality. But the present interpretation goes beyond the Copenhagen interpretation by replacing the absolute reality with relational reality. This allows for an objective reality that is relational. According to the present view, a tree falls in a forest even when there is no one to observe it, because of the interactions between the molecules constituting the tree and their interaction with the environment.

A version of relational reality was proposed by Rovelli  and Mermin , who argued for the reality of “correlations without correlata.” But this interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to be indistinguishable from the Everett interpretation, which also has all the correlations in the wave function of the universe. The present interpretation differs from these interpretations in two ways: First the relational reality is associated with the interactions and not correlations. For example, the EPR correlation between two non-interacting spin-half particles is due to an interaction that the two particles have undergone in the past. Therefore, the measurements on an ensemble of such pairs that confirm these correlations are due to the earlier interaction that the particles underwent. Second, the implication of assumption (1) that the world is indeterministic introduces probabilities from the very beginning. Whereas, obtaining quantum probabilities in the deterministic picture of Everett is a major problem.

In section 2, I shall discuss the fundamental role played by the Poincare group of symmetries in quantum mechanics, and argue that symmetries are more basic than laws. This argument will be extended, in section 3, to include gauge symmetries. I shall then show, in section 4, that this point of view naturally leads to quantum mechanics. Relational reality will be used to justify the Born rule for obtaining quantum probabilities. Finally, in section 5, I shall argue, on the basis of assumption (1), that there should not be a finite symmetry group that gives all the fundamental interactions. This suggests that there must be an infinite number of gauge interactions associated with the groups $`SU(N),N=1,2,3\mathrm{}.`$.

It is a great pleasure to dedicate this paper to Eugene Wigner who, along with Hermann Weyl, pioneered the use of symmetries in quantum theory, and had a deep understanding and appreciation of the profound role of symmetries in physics .

## 2 Mysteries and Symmetries in Quantum Mechanics

One of the most mysterious aspects of quantum mechanics is the wave-particle duality. The state of the system may be in an approximate eigenstate of momentum $`p`$, in which case it may be regarded as a wave, or in an approximate eigenstate of position $`x`$, in which case it may be regarded as a particle. The wave particle duality is therefore due to $`x`$ and $`p`$ being independent observables in quantum theory. Closely related to this aspect is complementarity that is implied by the Heisenberg commutator the relation:

$$[x_j,p_k]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{jk},j,k=1,2,3$$
(1)
This is unlike in Newtonian physics where the momentum is defined by $`p=m\frac{dx}{dt}`$, and therefore $`x`$ and $`p`$ are not independent. Moreover, $`x`$ and $`p`$ commute in classical physics.

Both aspects in quantum theory may be understood by realizing that $`x`$ and $`p`$ are independent generators of the inhomogeneous Galilei group that is the symmetry group of non relativistic quantum mechanics. $`p`$ generates spatial translation and $`x`$ generates Galilei boost, and therefore they are independent, which gives rise to the wave-particle duality. During a measurement, what is observed is the relation between the apparatus and the observed system. This relation therefore should be regarded as the observable. This is the fundamental reason why observables are operators in quantum theory. These relations are elements of the symmetry group that constitutes the quantum geometry .

To understand the complementarity between $`x`$ and $`p`$, consider the Poincare Lie algebra relations:

$$[K_j,T_k]=i\delta _{ik}T_0,j,k=1,2,3,[T_\mu ,T_\nu ]=0$$
(2)
where $`iK_j`$ generate Lorentz boosts and $`iT_\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,3`$ generate space-time translations. Here $`K_j`$ are dimensionless because they get multiplied by the dimensionless parameters $`v/c`$ and exponentiated to obtain the infinitesimal Lorentz boosts, and $`T_\mu `$ have the dimension of $`1/`$length because they get multiplied by distances and exponentiated to get the translations, and the exponents of course must be dimensionless. In order to relate $`T_j`$ to the momentum $`p_k`$ that is conserved under translation, it is therefore necessary to introduce a new scale that has the dimension of momentum $`\times `$ length. This new fundamental constant, denoted $`\mathrm{}`$, enables also the time translation $`T_0`$ to be related to the energy $`p_0`$ that is conserved due to time translational symmetry. We then write

$$\mathrm{}T_j=p_j,j=1,2,3,\mathrm{}cT_0=p_0$$
(3)
The introduction of Planck’s constant here seems to be related to the space-time description in physics.

The Lorentz transformations are generated by $`L^{\mu \nu }=x^\mu T^\nu x^\nu T^\mu `$. Then

$$K_j=L^{j0}=x^jT_0+x^0T_j.$$
(4)
Substituting this in the first relation in (2), and using (3),

$$[x^j,p_k]p_0=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}p_0,j,k=1,2,3$$
(5)
Now $`\eta _{\mu \nu }T^\mu T^\nu =\mathrm{}^2c^2(p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)`$ is a Casimir operator that commutes with the Poincare group. For a given irreducible representation, we may therefore set $`p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2=m^2c^4`$, where $`m`$ is the mass. This implies that at low energies, $`p_0mc^2`$. Then (5) becomes (1). We could have obtained (1)by writing $`T_\mu =i\frac{}{x^\mu }`$ and using (3). But the purpose of the above exercise is to show that (1), which is so fundamental to quantum mechanics, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of that follows from it, ultimately come from the Poincare Lie algebra relations (2).

Consider now the Poincare Lie algebra relation

$$[K_j,T_0]=iT_j,j=1,2,3.$$
(6)
On using (4) and (3) this reads

$$\frac{1}{c^2}[x^j,p_0]p_0=i\mathrm{}p_j,j=1,2,3.$$
(7)
Writing $`p_0=mc^2+H`$, at low energies

$$[x^j,H]m=i\mathrm{}p_j,j=1,2,3.$$
(8)
This is satisfied by $`H=\frac{1}{2m}𝐩^2+V`$, where $`V`$ commutes with $`x^j`$. It follows also from the Poincare Lie algebra relations that $`[p_j,H]=0`$ and $`[J_k,H]=0`$, where $`J_k`$ generate rotations. However, the above assumption of Poincare symmetries implies that this non relativistic Hamiltonian $`H`$ corresponds to an isolated system that is non interacting.

The above procedure leads to the Inönü-Wigner contraction  of the Poincare group to the quantum mechanical inhomogeneous Galilei group. It was shown by Jauch  that the covariance of time evolution under the homogeneous Galilei group requires that the Hamiltonian that generates time evolution must be of the form

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}[𝐩𝐀(𝐱,t)]^2+V(𝐱,t)$$
(9)
Thus symmetries determine the ‘law’ of quantum evolution as well as the interaction of the quantum state that includes the electromagnetic interaction.

Another important consequence of the Poincare symmetries is seen by taking the expectation value of with respect to the vacuum of the first of the relations (2) with $`j=k`$:

$$<0|[K_j,T_j]|0>=i<0|T_0|0>,$$
(10)
Since the vacuum is invariant under translations or boosts, the left hand side is zero. Therefore, $`<0|T_0|0>=0`$, which implies that the vacuum energy is zero. But, as is well known, if we apply the laws of quantum mechanics to fields then the vacuum energy is infinite due to the fact that the fields consist of infinite number of harmonic oscillators that have zero point of energies. This shows that the symmetries should be regarded as more fundamental then the ‘laws’ that are applied to these harmonic oscillators.

It is now tempting to say that the above fundamental role played by the Poincare and Galilei groups in giving rise to quantum mechanics is due to the existence of space-time on which these groups act as symmetries. But the experimentally observed intrinsic spin suggests that the symmetries are more fundamental then the space-time description. The generators $`J_k`$ of the rotation group $`SO(3)`$ that is a subgroup of the Poincare group are the components of angular momentum. The commutator relations of these components are therefore the same as the Lie algebra relations of the rotation group. The intrinsic spin that is contained in these generators cannot be obtained from the space-time description that gives only the orbital angular momentum. Also, as is well known, in this way only the integer spin particles, or Bosons, are obtained. To obtain half integer spin particles, or Fermions, it is necessary to postulate $`SU(2)`$ that is the covering group of $`SO(3)`$ as the symmetry. We cannot regard a Fermionic wave function as ‘immersed’ in space time because when it is rotated by $`2\pi `$ radians it changes sign, which has observable consequences . The $`SU(2)`$ group which contains this transformation cannot therefore be associated with the symmetries of space. Also, the addition rules for angular momenta of two systems can only be understood by considering irreducible representations of $`SU(2)`$ group in the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the two systems, and not by regarding angular momentum vector as representing rotation of matter in space about an axis with arbitrary direction. To obtain this group, the usual space-time Poincare group $`P`$ needs to be replaced by the semi-direct product $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ of $`SL(2,C)`$ and the translational group. And $`SU(2)`$ is a subgroup of $`SL(2,C)`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is not a direct consequence of the usual space-time description, we should regard $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ as being more fundamental than space-time.

## 3 Structure of a Gauge Theory

More generally, in relativistic quantum theory, the quantum system interacts with a general gauge field. The gauge symmetry group implies, via Noether’s theorem, conserved quantities. These conserved quantities generate fields, which is believed to be in accordance with a ‘law’. For example, in electromagnetism the gauge symmetry group is $`U(1)`$ and the conserved quantity is the electric charge that generates the electromagnetic field in accordance with Maxwell’s law. The great achievement of Weyl and Yang-Mills was to recognize that the third side of this triangle (Fig. 1) may be completed by means of the gauge principle, i.e. the gauge fields may be obtained directly from the gauge group by requiring local gauge symmetry.

The first side of this triangle, namely Noether’s theorem that gives the conserved quantities from the symmetries is tautological  as mathematical theorems are. The third side may be made nearly tautological, if the gauge principle is implemented not in a particular Lagrangian but as follows: In order to compare vectors that belong to internal spaces at different space-time points it is necessary to introduce a connection that enables parallel transport of a vector from one point to another. In fact, the gauge field may be introduced by giving the holonomy transformations as elements of the symmetry group from which the connection may be reconstructed, and the connection is then unique up to gauge transformations . This shows that gauge fields may be obtained directly from symmetries without a dynamical or causal law. On the other hand, for the second side, it is usually supposed that the conserved quantity rigidly determines the gauge field according to a ‘law’. This would make the second side fundamentally different from the first and the third sides.

But I shall suppose now that going from the first vertex (symmetries) to the third vertex (gauge field) along the third side is in some sense equivalent to going along the first and the second sides. This implies that the second side should not pick out a particular form of the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian like the first and the third sides. Therefore, we should not suppose that the Lagrangian for the gauge field is the Yang-Mills Lagrangian that is proportional to the Lorentz- gauge invariant

$$I_1=F_{}^{i}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}F_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }$$
(11)
For the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field, for example, any Lorentz-gauge invariant that is a polynomial in the field strength $`F_{}^{i}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ is a polynomial function of ten Lorentz gauge invariants that are polynomials in $`F_{}^{i}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$, of which only nine are independent. The simplest of these invariants is (11). But there are other invariants such as $`I_2=ϵ_{ijk}F_{}^{i}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}F_{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho }F_{}^{k}{}_{\rho }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ or $`I_3=F_{}^{i}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}F_{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }F_{}^{j}{}_{\rho \sigma }{}^{}F_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }`$ on which the Lagrangian may depend on. I shall therefore suppose, in accordance with the above hypothesis, that the Lagrangian depends on all ten invariants. More generally, for an arbitrary gauge theory, I shall assume that the Lagrangian is a function of all the Lorentz-gauge invariants.

This makes all three sides of the triangle in Fig. 1 similar in the sense that none of them picks out a particular invariant to determine the dynamics. However, I do not have an explanation for the values of coupling constants that should appear in the Lagrangian apart from appealing to a version of the anthropic principle: There are parallel universes that constitute what I have called polyverse , and it then follows that we must live in a universe with coupling constants that enable life to evolve.

According to the standard model, three of the four fundamental interactions that are known today are described by a gauge theory with the gauge group $`U(1)\times SU(2)\times SU(3)`$. What about the remaining interaction, namely gravitation? From an experimental point of view, the best ‘law’ that we have for gravitation are the classical Einstein’s field equations. But this ‘law’ does not determine the signature of the metric. The Lorentzian signature of the metric, however, is obtained by requiring invariance of the metric at each point under the Lorentz group of symmetries. This suggests that for gravity as well symmetries maybe more fundamental than laws. Indeed, it is possible to characterize the gravitational field by associating an element of the Poincare group with each (piece-wise differentiable) curve on space-time  analogous to characterizing a gauge field by associating gauge group elements with each such curve .

However, hitherto it has been held that a fundamental difference between gravity and gauge fields is due to the Lagrangian for gauge fields being quadratic in the curvature or field strength whereas the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian for gravity is linear in the curvature. But the above hypothesis that the two paths to gauge field from the gauge group should be equivalent removes this fundamental distinction. This is because, according to this hypothesis, all the invariants should be included in the Lagrangian for both gravity and gauge fields.

It is well known that the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density for gravity $`\sqrt{g}R`$, where $`R`$ is the Rcci scalar, is not renormalizable If one requires that there should be a ‘law’ given by a Lagrangian that depends on a small finite number of invariants then it becomes necessary to deal with the infinities that arise in Feynman amplitudes by the process of renormalization. But if the Lagrangian depends on all possible invariants then there are counter terms to cancel all the infinities . The usual process of renormalization that absorbs the infinities in a finite number of coupling constants was conceived within the paradigm of laws because of the belief that the Lagrangian that constitutes the ‘law’ should depend on a small subset of all possible invariants. But if we allow all possible invariants then the infinities may all be cancelled.

The present approach then appears to solve the riddle that arises within the paradigm of laws of why nature should choose particular Lagrangians and not others for the laws. This is because, according to the present view, all lagrangians consistent with a given set of symmetries are allowed. However, in the present approach, symmetries replace the fundamental role previously played by laws. And the ‘laws’ are obtained from the symmetries, as effective laws, instead of the other way around.

## 4  Why the World is Quantum Mechanical

It was argued, in section 2, that a great deal of quantum mechanics may be obtained from the Poincare group of symmetries. In section 3, this argument was extended to include the gauge symmetries that are used today to describe three of the four known fundamental interactions. From an operational point of view, observing the gauge field by a quantum mechanical probe is the same as observing the holonomy transformations that are elements of the gauge group . Hence, symmetries are directly observable in quantum mechanics. But another important ingredient of quantum mechanics is the linearity of the time evolution of a quantum state, which leads to the quantum measurement problem. Why should the Hamiltonian obtained using symmetries in section 2, for example, generate linear time evolutions of state vectors? It will now be argued that assumption (1), stated in the introduction, naturally leads to this linear time evolution, or Schrödinger’s equation.

Since, according to assumption (1), there are no fundamental causal laws, all the infinite possible ways in which a system may go from an initial state to a final state should have equal probabilities. For this to make mathematical sense in the absence of laws, there should be cancellation between the different paths in spite of them having equal probabilities . This becomes possible only by introducing the probability amplitude associated with each path so that in order to determine the probability of a process the amplitudes should be added for the different ways in which the process can take place and the probability is determined from this sum. Mathematical considerations then suggest that the probability amplitudes should be complex numbers .

The requirement that these probability amplitudes should be invariant under the symmetries, in accordance with assumption (1), then gives quantum mechanics in the Feynman path integral formulation, except that the action that is the phase of the probability amplitude needs to include all possible terms that are invariant under the symmetries. Since the Feynman path integral formulation is equivalent to the Schrödinger formulation, we obtain the linear time evolution of the state vector. The natural origin of the action as the phase of the probability amplitude, in the present approach, provides a possible explanation for the fundamental role played by the action in physics.

Also, including all possible invariants in the action of a gauge theory provides counter terms to cancel all the infinities that arise in summing the amplitudes in the quantum field theory, as mentioned in section 3. But in order to have consistency with experiments, only the lowest order terms in the action that are in the standard model should be observable at the energies at which we do experiments at present. It can be argued to that such a theory would not have unitary time evolution at large energies. But this argument is based on our present understanding of quantum field theory, which may have to be modified at higher energies.

How and when do we convert probability amplitudes into probabilities? Quantum mechanics provides a clear answer to the question of ‘how’, namely the Born rule, but is infamously ambiguous about the question of ‘when’. We are told that probability amplitudes should be added or multiplied when no ‘observation’ is made, and that the probability amplitudes should be converted to probabilities when an ‘observation’ is made. But no clear criteria for what constitutes an observation is given, apart from some vague ideas about interaction with a macroscopic system. It is my contention that the answer to the above question of ‘when’ provides also the answer to the question of ‘how,’ i.e. a derivation of the Born rule.

In classical physics, the events, for which we can only predict probabilities in quantum physics, have no ontological ambiguity. These events are assumed to exist independently of any observation of them. But even in classical physics, events are due to interaction between two or more objects, such as the Einsteinian example of lightning striking a railway track. The belief in the existence of an object independently of its interaction, which I call absolute reality, cannot be operationally confirmed. Absolute reality is therefore a metaphysical assumption, which cannot even be philosophically defined because there does not exist a philosophical criterion for distinguishing between ‘existence’ and ‘nonexistence’ other than observation. The assumption of absolute reality may be justified if it’s consequences are confirmed by observation. But the observer dependence of the quantum state suggests that this assumption is not valid.

I shall therefore assume, instead, that reality is relational in the sense that two objects exist in relation to each other if and only if they interact. How can we speak of objects whose very existence is conditional upon their interaction? The statement that ‘there are no ghosts’ does not presuppose the existence of ghosts. So, there is no contradiction in referring to objects that do not exist, although in the present case they would exist in a relational sense when they interact, which necessitates referring to them. Even in classical physics, the reality of the electric field is determined by what it does to a charge; the field is therefore real with respect to the charge that it interacts with. The difference between classical and quantum physics is that different charges respond to a classical field like as if it is the same field, which gives the illusion that the field is independent of its interaction with the charge. Whereas, in quantum physics the states of two interacting systems become entangled, in general, which should prevent us from assigning independent reality to either state.

Relational reality leads to the experimentally observed Born rule for obtaining probabilities from probability amplitudes, which may therefore be regarded as evidence of relational reality. This is most easily seen in the double slit interference experiment. If the particle going through one of the slits interacts with another physical system, then it is this interaction that brings into reality the particle going through that slit relative to the physical system that it interacts with. If this interaction does not take place then the only way the particle could go through the screen with the double slit is by passing through the other slit. Therefore, for this arrangement, the probability of the particle interacting with any part of the subsequent screen is the sum of the two probabilities for passing through each of the two slits. This requirement naturally leads to the Born rule that this probability is $`|\psi |^2`$ where $`\psi `$ is the sum of the two probability amplitudes for the particle to go through the two slits .

A special case of an interaction is when a human being, or more generally an animal being, makes an observation. What is observed then acquires relational reality with respect to this being. We may therefore understand now Wigner’s hypothesis that the ‘consciousness’ collapses the wave function  as a special case of relational reality. However, it would be a mistake to assume, as Wigner may have done implicitly, that the collapsed wave function has absolute reality. For example, the Schrödinger cat inside a box may be alive in the sense that different parts of its body are accordingly interacting with each other and with the box. But an observer outside the box may expect the cat to be in a superposition of alive and dead states, on the basis of prior measurements, although there is no interaction to verify this expectation due to the large number of degrees of freedom of the cat. There is no contradiction between the two views because reality is relational. However, the cat acquires relational reality only as alive or dead because of the restrictions on the interactions that it could have with another object. But if the cat is replaced by a microscopic system, then the outside observer may observe this system in the expected superposition by means of a suitable interaction, which is now possible because of its small number of degrees of freedom. This provides a resolution of the Schrödinger cat paradox .

Descartes’ famous statement “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito ergo sum) created, despite Descartes’ healthy skepticism of reality, a great deal of confusion in Western philosophy. “I think” means interactions between different parts of the brain, which therefore have relational reality with respect to each other. But concluding from this “I am,” implying absolute reality of the self, is an unjustified extrapolation.

## 5 Beyond Symmetries

In order to do physics we must communicate information. This naturally leads to gauge fields and gravitation . The symmetry group of the experimentally very successful standard model is the direct product of the Poincare group and the gauge group. This suggests that the gauge group may also just be a direct product of groups, as it already is in the standard model. But if there is one finite dimensional symmetry group that determines all interactions then this would constitute a law. It may well be that the way we observe the universe with the very limited apparati that we have which makes symmetries so useful. At the low energies in which we do our experiments, the symmetry groups $`U(1),SU(2),SU(3)`$, which are the simplest unitary groups, useful. But at higher energies, we may find the gauge groups. $`SU(4),SU(5),SU(6),\mathrm{}.`$ useful.

The gauge group $`SU(4)`$ was used by Pati and Salam  to unify quarks and leptons by putting the three color states of a quark and the corresponding lepton in the same multiplet on which the fundamental representation of $`SU(4)`$ acts. Also, the smallest simple group that contains the gauge group of the standard model is $`SU(5)`$, which has therefore been used in an attempt to unify the electroweak and strong interactions . A major problem in such grand unification models is that proton decay has not been observed yet. Also, all the grand unification attempts implicitly assume that there exists a finite dimensional symmetry group that unifies the fundamental interactions. But such a symmetry group would constitute a law, and is therefore contrary to the spirit of the present paper according to which there is no intelligent design to the universe. This suggests that there should be an infinite hierarchy of fundamental interactions associated with $`SU(n),n=1,2,3,4,\mathrm{}.`$

The universe on a large scale is held together by the gravitational interaction, which is associated with the Poincare group . If we probe deeper on the scale of molecules and atoms, we find that they are held together by electromagnetic interactions, corresponding to the $`U(1)_{EM}`$ symmetry group. Owing to the success of the standard model, we should say that the electrons and the nucleus in an atom are held together by the electro-weak field corresponding to $`U(1)\times SU(2)`$, which leads to the experimentally observed parity violation in atoms. If we probe deeper, we observe the strong interactions that hold the quarks together in neutrons, protons and other hadrons, associated with the group $`SU(3)`$. The fact that these are the simplest unitary groups suggests that this may be due to the low energies of the experiments that we have been doing so far. Extrapolating, it would appear that quarks and leptons have constituents that are held together by a gauge field of the $`SU(4)`$ group. But since quarks and leptons have spin$`1/2`$, we then expect this symmetry group to be broken so that three of the four particles in the fundamental representation form the quarks and leptons. This is analogous to how in the Pati-Salam model the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry is broken so that the hadrons are formed by the quarks, while the leptons stand apart.

Present experiments have placed an upper limit for the radii of quarks and leptons of about $`10^{17}`$ cm. The next generation of experiments in the Lepton-Hadron Collider is expected to probe scales less than $`10^{18}`$ cm. So, there is hope that the above extrapolation to a super-strong force of the $`SU(4)`$ gauge field may be experimentally testable.

To conclude, we recall Einstein’s famous statement that our theories are to the external world what clothes are to the human body. The physical theories proposed so far have all been based on the assumption that there are fundamental laws. This would mean that these laws or “clothes” may be made to fit the objective reality more and more closely, but there is an unbridgeable gap between them. The purpose of this paper was to argue that these ‘laws’ are like ‘the emperor’s new clothes’. For the relational reality obtained through our observations, laws and, at a deeper level, symmetries are useful. But neither may be a reflection of any fundamental structural realism.

Acknowledgments

I thank Yakir Aharonov, Pawel Mazur, and Parameswaran Nair for useful discussions. This research was partially supported by an NSF grant, an ONR grant, and a Fulbright award.