text:
# Schrödinger Proof in Minplus complex Analysis

## 1. Introduction

We are presenting a complex process to model a quantum particle in the Schrödinger non-relativistic approximation. This model naturally generates an intrinsic angular momentum and leads to the Schrödinger equation using a generalization of the least action principle.

The model is based on two new mathematical concepts that we have brought up in previous papers: a complex analytical mechanics , and a periodical deterministic process .

The purpose of this paper is to develop this new model and to demonstrate some properties. We attempt to address the following questions: how does an intrinsic angular momentum emerge from the six periodical complex processes (theorem 2.7)? How can we find the Heisenberg inequalities (theorem 2.8)? the non commutation relations (theorem 2.9)? On what principle can the Schrödinger equation be demonstrated (theorems 3.4 and 3.5)? How can we find the trajectories of de Broglie and Bohm (theorem 3.6)?

## 2. The model of trajectory

In any orthonomal reference system R, let be UR the set of 8 vectors $`\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}`$ where e$`{}_{i}{}^{}=\pm 1`$, corresponding to the eight vertices of a cube. We then consider the set S of the circular permutations of the 6 vertices of this cube to correspond to a sequence of adjacent vertices. We verify that S corresponds to the following eight permutations:

To each of these permutations $`sS`$, we associate the set $`U_R^s`$ of these vertices. This gives $`s^6u^j=u^j`$ for any $`u^jU_R^s`$ .

###### Remark 2.1.

Each of these permutations corresponds to the rotation of the cube on a diagonal. Therefore, it will be necessary to choose one of these permutations in the case of the Schrödinger equation. In the case of the Pauli equation, the frame R will no longer be fixed but will be oriented along an axis (that of the spin or isospin) which will change with time under the effect of a magnetic field.

###### Definition 2.2.

For any time step $`\epsilon >0`$ and for any permutation $`sS`$, we define the 6 discrete processes $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ at time $`t=n\epsilon ,`$ with $`n=6q+r`$ ($`n,q,r`$ integers and $`0r5`$), by:

(1)
$$Z_ϵ^j(\left(n+1\right)ϵ)=Z_ϵ^j(nϵ)+𝒱(6(q+1)ϵ)ϵ+\gamma (s^{n+1}u^js^nu^j)$$

(2)
$$Z_ϵ^j(0)=Z_0,u^jU_R^s$$

where $`\gamma =`$ $`(1+i)\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}\epsilon }{8m}}`$ and where $`𝒱(t)`$ corresponds to a continuously differentiable complex function, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant and m is the mass of the particle, and where $`Z_0`$ is a given vector of $`𝒞^3`$.

###### Remark 2.3.

The 6 processes $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ look like stochastic processes of Nelson ,, but there are very different because there are deterministic. In $`\left[6\right]`$ p.117, Feynman and Hibbs show that the ”important paths” of quantum mechanics, although continuous, are very irregular and nowhere differentiable. They admit an average velocity (lim$`{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }t0^+}{}^{}\frac{x_{k+1}x_k}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}=v)`$, but no average quadratic velocity $`\left(\left(\frac{x_{k+1}x_k}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)^2=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{m\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right).`$ The processes $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ are built on the same idea, but with an $`\epsilon =\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ very small but finite and with an strong relation between the 6 processes.

We denote $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)`$ the solution of the discrete system defined at time $`t=n\epsilon `$ with $`n=6q+r`$ ($`n,q,r`$ integers and $`0r5`$), by:

(3)
$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ(\left(n+1\right)ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ(nϵ)+𝒱(6(q+1)ϵ)ϵ$$

(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ(0)=Z_0.$$

At all times $`n`$ $`ϵ,`$ we verify that:

(5)
$$Z_ϵ^j(nϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon (nϵ)+(1+i)\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}\epsilon }{8m}}\left(s^nu^ju^j\right).$$

As $`s^6u^j=u^j`$, we deduce from $`\left(5\right)`$ that for all $`j`$, $`Z_\epsilon ^j(6q\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(6q\epsilon \right).`$

Then, we have for all $`j`$ and $`t`$, $`Z_ϵ^j(t)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)+0\left(\sqrt{\epsilon }\right).`$

We denote $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right)`$, the solution of the classical differential equation

(6)
$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{Z}(t)}{dt}=𝒱(t)$$

(7)
$$\text{ }\stackrel{~}{Z}(0)=Z_0.$$

Because $`𝒱(t)`$ is continuously differentiable, we have for each $`t=n\epsilon `$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right)+0\left(\epsilon \right)`$ and thus $`Z_ϵ^j(t)=\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right)+0\left(\sqrt{\epsilon }\right).`$We conclude , when $`\epsilon 0^+,`$ that each $`Z_ϵ^j(t)`$ converges to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right).`$

Equation $`\left(5\right)`$ shows that the 6 processes $`Z_ϵ^j(t)`$ correspond to processes which oscillate around $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)`$ and which are, as the ”Feynman paths”, more and more irregular and nowhere differentiable as $`\epsilon 0^+.`$ We call $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)`$ the basic trajectory. This is the mean of the 6 processes $`Z_ϵ^j(t).`$

The 6 positions of processes $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ at times $`t=6q\epsilon `$ correspond to only one position on the basic trajectory $`\left(Z_\epsilon ^j(6q\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{Z_\epsilon }\left(6q\epsilon \right)\right)`$. The process defined by $`\left(1\right)`$ and $`\left(2\right)`$ leaves the basic trajectory of $`6q\epsilon `$ to $`\left(6q+1\right)\epsilon `$ and returns to the basic trajectory between $`\left(6q+5\right)\epsilon `$ and $`\left(6q+6\right)\epsilon `$.

###### Definition 2.4.

We denote $`Z_ϵ(t)`$ the discrete process forming each of the six complex processes $`Z_ϵ^j(t)`$ with a weight of $`\frac{1}{6}`$. We associate this process to a particle. Then, a particle is represented by six processes. Then $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)`$ can be interpreted as to the complex mean position of the particle.

A possible interpretation of the imaginary part of processes $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ corresponds to a bivector of the Clifford algebra $`Cl_3.`$ We discuss this point in conclusion.

We note $`X_\epsilon ^j\left(t\right)`$ the real part of process $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$. Equation (5) therefore becomes:

(8)
$$X_\epsilon ^j(n\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{X}_\epsilon (n\epsilon )+\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}\epsilon }{8m}}(s^nu^ju^j)$$

The evolution of the six processes $`X_\epsilon ^j(n\epsilon )`$ visualizes in the figure 2. At time $`t=6q\epsilon `$, the six points are in the center of a cube. At times $`t=(6q+1)\epsilon `$ and $`t=(6q+5)\epsilon `$, the six points are in the center of the six faces of this cube. At times $`t=(6q+2)\epsilon `$ and $`t=(6q+4)\epsilon `$, the six points are on a circle in the middle of six edges of the cube. At time $`t=(6q+3)\epsilon `$, the six points are on the six vertices of the cube.

###### Remark 2.5.

It is possible to give more interpretations of the processes $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$: non standard processes, fiber space, string. In the first interpretation, each process $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ is a non standard process in spite of the non standard analysis of Robinson  (field $`{}_{}{}^{\epsilon }`$ of Robinson built with the infinitesimal $`\epsilon `$ added to $``$) with $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right)`$ as standard part. In the fiber space interpretation, the process $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ corresponds to the total space and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right)`$ corresponds to the basic space.

The third interpretation of process defined by $`\left(1\right)`$ and $`\left(2\right)`$ is to consider this process as a special elastic string model. Its length at times $`t=6q\epsilon `$ is equal to zero. At times $`t6q\epsilon `$, it takes a finite length and the 6 points $`X_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ correspond to 6 points of a string. The motion of these points therefore corresponds to a vibration of the string. Moreover this interpretation suggests a sort of creation process between times $`t=6q\epsilon `$ and $`\left(6q+1\right)\epsilon `$ followed by an annihilation process between $`\left(6q+5\right)\epsilon `$ and $`6\left(q+1\right)\epsilon .`$

###### Definition 2.6.

The mean angular momentum of a process following (8) is given by:

$$\sigma =E_{n,j}\left(\sigma _n^j\right)=\frac{1}{36}\underset{n=6q}{\overset{6q+5}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}\sigma _n^j\text{ }\text{with}$$

$$\sigma _n^j=r_n^jp_n^j\text{ , }r_n^j=X_\epsilon ^j(n\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{r}_n+\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}\epsilon }{8m}}\left(s^nu^ju^j\right)\text{ }$$

$$\text{and }\text{ }p_n^j=m\frac{r_{n+1}^jr_n^j}{\epsilon }=m\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_{n+1}\stackrel{~}{r}_n}{\epsilon }+\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}m}{8\epsilon }}\left(s^{n+1}u^js^nu^j\right).$$

Using $`_{j=1}^6s^nu^j=0`$ for all n, it follows that

$$\sigma =\stackrel{~}{r}m\stackrel{~}{v}+\frac{1}{16}\mathrm{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}\left(u^jsu^j\right)$$

with $`\stackrel{~}{r}=\frac{1}{6}_{n=6q}^{6q+5}\stackrel{~}{r}_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}=\stackrel{~}{v}\left(6\left(q+1\right)\epsilon \right).`$

For instance, for $`s=s_1`$, that is for the permutation defined by the sequence of the 6 vertices: $`u^1=\{1,1,1\}`$, $`u^2=\{1,1,+1\}`$, $`u^3=\{1,1,1\}`$, $`u^4=\{1,1,1\}`$, $`u^5=\{1,1,1\}`$, $`u^6=\{1,1,1\}`$, we have

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}\left(u^js_1u^j\right)=\{2,2,0\}+\{0,2,2\}+\{2,0,2\}+\{2,2,0\}$$

$$+\{0,2,2\}+\{2,0,2\}=8\{1,1,1\}$$

and then:

$$\sigma _x=m\left(y\stackrel{~}{v}_zz\stackrel{~}{v}_y\right)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\text{}\sigma _y=m\left(z\stackrel{~}{v}_xx\stackrel{~}{v}_z\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\text{ }$$

$$\text{ and }\sigma _z=m\left(x\stackrel{~}{v}_yy\stackrel{~}{v}_x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$

We deduce the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2.7.

For any $`\epsilon >0`$ and for $`s=s_1`$, the real part of process defined by $`\left(1\right)\left(2\right)`$ has a mean intrinsic angular momentum of components: $`s_x=+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},s_y=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},s_z=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$. The 7 other combinations $`\left(\pm \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\right)`$ are given by the 7 other permutations of $`S`$.

Let be $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\epsilon (n\epsilon )`$ the real mean position on the $`x`$ axis of the particle at time $`n\epsilon `$ (with $`n=6q+r`$) and $`m\stackrel{~}{v}=m\stackrel{~}{v}\left(6(q+1)\epsilon \right)`$ the real mean momentum. The calculation of standard deviations $`\mathrm{}x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_x`$ of the position and of the momentum on the x axis, at time $`n\epsilon `$ with $`n=6q+w`$ $`\left(\left|w\right|3\right)`$, yields:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x\right)_{n\epsilon }=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\left(r_n^j\stackrel{~}{r_n}\right)_x^2}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\epsilon }{2m}}\sqrt{\left|w\right|}$$

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }p_x\right)_{n\epsilon }=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\left(p_n^j\stackrel{~}{p_n}\right)_x^2}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}m}{2\epsilon }}$$

For exemple, we have for $`s=s_1`$ and $`n=6q+1:`$

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x\right)_{n\epsilon }=\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}\epsilon }{8m}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\left(s_1u^ju^j\right)_x^2}$$

$$=\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}\epsilon }{8m}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}\left(2^2+2^2\right)}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\epsilon }{2m}}$$

and

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }p_x\right)_{n\epsilon }=\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}m}{8\epsilon }}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\left(s_1^2u^js_1u^j\right)_x^2}$$

$$=\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{}m}{8\epsilon }}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}\left(2^2+2^2\right)}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}m}{2\epsilon }}.$$

We deduce the second theorem:

###### Theorem 2.8.

For any $`\epsilon >0`$ and for any $`s`$, the real part of process defined by $`\left(1\right)\left(2\right)`$ verifies the Heisenberg inequalities at any point not located on the basic trajectory (i.e. for any $`t=n\epsilon 6q\epsilon `$):

(9)
$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x\right)_{n\epsilon }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }p_x\right)_{n\epsilon }\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$

Let us show that the non commutation relations of the type

$$\widehat{p}_xxx\widehat{p}_x=i\mathrm{}$$

can be interpreted as the non temporal commutation of $`p_x\left(t\right)`$ and $`x\left(t\right)`$. Accordingly, we calculate the mean of $`p_x\left(t+\epsilon \right)x\left(t\right)x\left(t+\epsilon \right)`$ $`p_x\left(t\right)`$:

$$E\left(p_x\left(t+\epsilon \right)x\left(t\right)x\left(t+\epsilon \right)p_x\left(t\right)\right)=$$

$$=E_{n,j}\left(1+i\right)^2\left(\left(p_{n+1}^j\right)_x\left(r_n^j\right)_x\left(r_{n+1}^j\right)_x\left(p_n^j\right)_x\right)$$

where $`r_n^j`$ and $`p_n^j`$ are defined in definition 3. We then obtain the desired result:

###### Theorem 2.9.

For any $`\epsilon >0`$ and for any $`s`$, the process defined by $`\left(1\right)\left(2\right)`$ verifies the non temporal commutativity relation

$$E\left(p_x\left(t+\epsilon \right)x\left(t\right)x\left(t+\epsilon \right)p_x\left(t\right)\right)=i\mathrm{}.$$

Moreover, we verify also that

$$E\left(p_x\left(t+\epsilon \right)y\left(t\right)y\left(t+\epsilon \right)p_x\left(t\right)\right)=0.$$

Let be $`f(x,t)`$ an application of class $`C^2`$ of $`^3\times `$ in $``$ and $`Z_ϵ^j\left(t\right)`$ a process defined by (1) and (2). We denote the complex Dynkin operator, previously introduced by Nottale  under the name of ”quantum covariant derivative”:

(10)
$$D=\frac{}{t}+𝒱\mathrm{}i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\mathrm{}$$

###### Lemma 2.10.

For any $`\epsilon >0`$ and for any $`s`$, the process $`Y_\epsilon \left(t\right)`$ defined by

(11)
$$Y_ϵ\left(t\right)=E_jf(Z_ϵ^j\left(t\right),t)=\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\left(f(Z_ϵ^j\left(t\right),t)\right)$$

with $`Z_ϵ^j\left(t\right)`$ based on (1) and (2), verifies for any integer $`q`$:

(12)
$$Y_ϵ\left(6qϵ\right)Y_ϵ\left(\left(6q1\right)ϵ\right)=Df(\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(6qϵ\right),6qϵ)ϵ+o\left(ϵ\right).$$

Proof: First, we have $`Y_ϵ\left(6qϵ\right)=f(\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(6qϵ\right),6qϵ)`$. Using $`\left(5\right)`$ and $`_js^nu^j=0`$, we find for all $`t=n`$ $`ϵ`$

$$E_jf(Z_ϵ^j\left(t\right),t)=f(\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ(t),t)+$$

$$+\frac{3i\mathrm{}}{8m}ϵE_j\left\{\underset{k,l}{}\frac{^2f}{x_kx_l}\left(s^nu^ju^j\right)_k\left(s^nu^ju^j\right)_l\right\}+o\left(ϵ\right).$$

For $`n=6q1`$,

$$E_j\left(s^nu^ju^j\right)_k\left(s^nu^ju^j\right)_l=\frac{4+4}{6}\delta _{kl}$$

and the calculation of the last term of $`E_jf(Z_ϵ^j\left(t\right),t)`$ gives $`\frac{3i\mathrm{}}{8m}ϵ\frac{8}{6}\mathrm{\Delta }f`$. Then we deduce

$$Y_ϵ\left((6q1)ϵ\right)=f(\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ((6q1)ϵ),(6q1)ϵ)+$$

$$+i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }f(\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ((6q1)ϵ),(6q1)ϵ)+o\left(ϵ\right).$$

Hence, with the development to first order of $`f(\stackrel{~}{Z}_ϵ((6q1)ϵ),(6q1)ϵ)`$, equation $`\left(12\right)`$ follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.11.

The process defined by $`\left(1\right)`$ and $`\left(2\right)`$ is only an example of processes that we could build with permutation groups about $`U_R`$. We can preserve the previous properties, if we change the permutation $`s`$ or the step of time $`\epsilon `$, between 2 positions of the basic trajectory. We will use this change in $`\epsilon `$ in the remark 3.7 where we give a possible interpretation of $`\epsilon .`$

The second part of the process defined by $`\left(1\right)`$ is discrete. There are many solutions to make this part continuous and differentiable, for example by a trajectory differentiable on the circumscribed sphere which passes through all the 6 vertices of each discrete process.

## 3. The Schrödinger equation

We then construct a complex analytical mechanics in the same way as the conventional analytical mechanics but with objects having a complex position $`Z(t)^3`$, a complex velocity $`𝒱\left(t\right)^3`$ and using the minimum of a complex function and complex minplus analysis, as introduced in , . It is a generalisation for the complex functions of the idempotent analysis introduced by Maslov . We recall the basic ideas in the two following definitions.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let a complex function $`f\left(z\right)=f\left(x+iy\right)`$ from $`^n`$ to $``$ such as $`f\left(z\right)=P(x,y)+iQ(x,y)`$ with $`P(x,y)`$ continuous at $`x`$ and $`y`$, and a closed set $`A^n`$ such as $`A=\{x+iy/xX^n,yY^n\}.`$ We define the minimum of $`f`$ for $`zA`$, if it exists, by:

$$\underset{zA}{\mathrm{min}}f\left(z\right)=\left\{f\left(z_0\right)\right\}$$

where $`z_0=x_0+iy_0A`$ and where $`(x_0,y_0)`$ is a saddle point of

$`P(x,y)`$:

$$P(x_0,y)\text{}P(x_0,y_0)\text{}P(x,y_0)\text{ }xX,yY.$$

If this saddle point is not unique, the complex part of $`\mathrm{min}\left\{f\left(z\right)/z^n\right\}`$ will be multivalued. It will be considered that a complex function $`f(z)`$ is (strictly) convex if $`P(x,y)`$ is (strictly) convex in $`x`$ and (strictly) concave in $`y`$.

If $`f(z)`$ is a holomorphic function, then a necessary condition for $`z_0`$ to be a minimum of $`f(z)`$ on $`^n`$is that $`f^{}\left(z_0\right)=0`$. It is sufficient if $`f(z)`$ is also convex.

###### Definition 3.2.

To each complex and convex function, we associate its complex Fenchel transform $`\widehat{f}\left(p\right):p^n`$ defined by:

$$\widehat{f}\left(p\right)=\underset{z^n}{\mathrm{max}}(p.zf\left(z\right)).$$

Using the classical Lagrange function $`L(x,\dot{x},t)`$, an analytical function in $`x`$ and $`\dot{x}`$, we define ,  the complex Lagrange function $`L(Z,𝒱,t)`$, when replacing $`x(t)`$ by the complex state $`Z(t)`$ and $`\dot{x}(t)`$ by the complex velocity $`𝒱\left(t\right)`$.

###### Definition 3.3.

For the process defined by $`\left(1\right)\left(2\right)`$, we define the complex action $`𝒮_\epsilon (Z,t)`$ using the recurrence equation at time $`t=6q\epsilon `$:

$$𝒮_\epsilon (\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right),t)=\underset{𝒱(t)}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\left\{𝒮_\epsilon (Z_\epsilon ^j(t\epsilon ),tϵ)+L(\stackrel{~}{Z}_\epsilon \left(t\right),𝒱(t),t)ϵ\right\}$$

in which the evolution between $`Z_\epsilon ^j(t)`$ and $`Z_\epsilon ^j\left(t\epsilon \right)`$ is given by the equation (1), and where the min is considered as the complex minimum for the possible complex velocity $`𝒱\left(t\right)`$. For $`t=0`$ we take:

$$𝒮_\epsilon (Z,0)=𝒮^0\left(Z\right)\text{ }Z^3$$

where $`𝒮^0\left(Z\right)`$ is a given holomorphic function.

This equation (13) can be interpreted as a new least action principle adapted to the trajectories of this type. The decision concerning the control takes place only at times $`t=6q\epsilon `$, i.e. at the times corresponding to passage into the basic trajectory.

###### Theorem 3.4.

If the complex process defined by (1) and (2) has $`L(x,\dot{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2V\left(x\right)`$ as a Lagrangian function, then the complex action verifies the complex second order Hamilton-Jacobi equation:

(13)
$$\frac{𝒮}{t}+\frac{1}{2m}\left(\mathrm{}𝒮\right)^2+V\left(Z\right)i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\mathrm{}𝒮=0\text{ }(Z,t)^3\times ^+$$

(14)
$$𝒮(Z,0)=𝒮^0\left(Z\right)\text{ }Z^3$$

Proof:  For the proof, we suppose that $`𝒮_\epsilon (Z,t)`$ is a very smooth function on $`\epsilon `$ and holomorphic at $`Z`$ and C1 at $`t.`$ By the lemma 2.10, we have

$$\frac{1}{6}\underset{j}{}\{𝒮_\epsilon (Z_\epsilon ^j(t\epsilon )\}=𝒮_ϵ(\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right),t)D𝒮_\epsilon (\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(t\right),t)+o(\epsilon ).$$

Whence, we deduce at point $`(Z,t)`$ the following equation:

(15)
$$\frac{𝒮_ϵ}{t}=\underset{𝒱}{\mathrm{min}}\left(L(Z,𝒱,t)𝒱\mathrm{}𝒮_ϵ+i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\mathrm{}𝒮_ϵ+o\left(ϵ\right)\right).$$

Using complex Fenchel transform of $`L(Z,𝒱,t)`$ in $`\left(16\right)`$ and doing $`ϵ`$ 0$`^+,`$ we obtain $`\left(13\right)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

If we take for wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{}}}`$ and apply the restriction of $`\left(14\right)\left(15\right)`$ to the real part of Z , the theorem 3.4 becomes:

###### Theorem 3.5.

If the complex process defined by (1)(2) has $`L(x,\dot{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2V\left(x\right)`$ for Lagrangian function, then the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ verifies the Schrödinger equation:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }+V(X)\mathrm{\Psi }(X,t)^3\times ^+$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(X,0)=\mathrm{\Psi }^0(X)X^3.\mathrm{}$$

As $`L(Z,𝒱,t)=\frac{1}{2}m𝒱^2V\left(Z\right)`$, the minimum of (15) is obtained with $`m𝒱𝒮_\epsilon =0`$. Then we have

(16)
$$𝒱\left(t\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}𝒮}{m}$$

By breaking down $`𝒮(X,t)`$ into its real and imaginary parts, $`𝒮(X,t)=S(X,t)\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\rho (X,t)`$, because the wave function is also written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\rho e^{i\frac{S}{\mathrm{}}}`$, we can deduce that the real basic trajectory $`\stackrel{~}{X}(t)`$ verifies the classical differential equation:

(17)
$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{X}(t)}{dt}=\frac{S}{m},\text{ }\stackrel{~}{X}(0)=X_0.$$

This is the trajectory proposed by de Broglie $`\left[4\right]`$ and Bohm $`\left[1\right]`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

If the complex process defined by (1) and (2) has $`L(x,\dot{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2V\left(x\right)`$ for Lagrangian function, then the real part of the basic trajectory follows the trajectory proposed by de Broglie and Bohm.

A fundamental property of this trajectory is that the density of probability $`\varrho (x,t)`$ of a family of particles satisfying (18), and having a probability density $`\rho _0\left(x\right)`$ at initial time, verifies the Madelung continuity equation:

(18)
$$\frac{\varrho }{t}+div(\varrho \frac{S}{m})=0$$

so that the trajectories are consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation, cf. by exemple $`\left[5\right]`$.

###### Remark 3.7.

The most natural hypothesis for the choice of $`\epsilon `$ is to link it to the de Broglie wavelength. Now, the internal motion of the process defined by $`\left(1\right)`$ and $`\left(2\right)`$ has a period of $`6\epsilon .`$ Thus, it is possible to identify this period to the frequency of de Broglie and to put:

(19)
$$6\epsilon =T=\frac{\lambda _{dB}}{v}=\frac{h}{mv^2}$$

## 4. Conclusion

There are some questions about this model. What is the sense of the imaginary velocity? Is it the good model for the Schrödinger equation?

The complex velocity $`𝒱\left(t\right)`$ of the process, given by (16), is written as:

(20)
$$m𝒱\left(t\right)=Si\mathrm{log}\rho \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$

The original velocity proposed by de Broglie and Bohm is the real part $`v(t)`$ of $`𝒱\left(t\right)`$

(21)
$$mv\left(t\right)=S.$$

However, it is possible to show, cf. and , that for particles with a constant spin s, as it is the case in the Schrödinger approximation, the Dirac equation implies that the momentum of a particle must be given by:

(22)
$$m𝒱\left(t\right)=S+\mathrm{log}\rho \times 𝐬$$

where the spin-dependant current is the Gordon current. The equation (21) is relevant only to spin-0 particles. This spin-dependant term was often suggested, cf. , , but only in the context of the Pauli equation and not the Schrödinger equation. This term is naturally obtained from Dirac equation and this representation in a Clifford algebra or the quaternion algebra. The momentum given by (22) has been recently valided, cf.  and , for hydrogen eigenstates.

Because $`𝐬=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}𝐮`$ (with $`𝐮`$ unitary), we can consider the equation (20) as the projection on the complex field of the equation (22) where

$$S+\mathrm{log}\rho \times 𝐬$$

is the gradient of the quaternion

$$S+log\rho 𝐬$$

as

$$Si\mathrm{log}\rho \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$

is the gradient of the complex number

$$Si\mathrm{log}\rho \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$

We can conclude that the process defined by $`\left(1\right)`$ and $`\left(2\right)`$ is only a first approximation on the complex field of a more general model, certainly based on a Clifford algebra or the quaternion algebra.


format: text

text:
# Sensitive observations at 1.4 and 250 GHz of 𝑧>5 QSOs

## 1 Introduction

Surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) (York et al. 2000) have generated large samples of QSOs out to z$``$6. Optical spectroscopy of two of the highest z QSOs revealed, for the first time, evidence for broad, optically thick absorption regions in the (rest frame) far UV, as expected for the neutral intergalactic medium (Gunn & Peterson 1965; Becker et al. 2001; Djorgovski et al. 2001; Pentericci et al. 2002; Fan et al. 2003), suggesting that we are probing into the epoch of reionization, the edge of the “dark ages” when the first stars and massive black holes were formed. Assuming that the intrinsic continuum spectra of the z $`>`$ 5 QSOs are similar to those of nearby QSOs as compiled by Elvis et al. (1994), and that these QSOs are not lensed, Eddington limit arguments result in lower limits of several times $`10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for the masses of the black holes in these high redshift objects.

Study of the dynamics of stars and gas in the nuclear regions of nearby galaxies has led to two remarkable discoveries: (i) the overwhelming majority of spheroidal galaxies in the nearby universe contain massive black holes and (ii) there is a correlation between the black hole mass and the velocity dispersion of the stars in the spheroid (Magorrian et al. 1998, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000, Tremaine et al. 2002). Assuming that these relations also apply in the high redshift universe (Shields et al. 2002), implies that the highest redshift QSOs are associated with massive galaxies ($`>10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$). Furthermore, strong metal emission lines in these QSOs suggests that their environments have been quickly enriched, possibly through starburst activity (Fan et al. 2001).

These fundamental results allow us to investigate the nature of these earliest objects, and in particular to probe the relationship between massive black hole and spheroidal galaxy formation. To address this and other related questions, and in general, to study the cosmic evolution of the radio-to-optical spectra of QSOs, we have undertaken an extensive observational program from radio through millimeter wavelengths of high redshift QSOs which includes: searches for emission from warm dust at millimeter wavelengths from a large sample of z $`>`$ 1.8 QSOs (Carilli et al. 2001a, Omont et al. 2001, 2003), high resolution imaging at cm wavelengths of the non-thermal radio continuum emission from these sources (Carilli et al. 2001a, b), and observations of the CO line emission from selected sources with large infrared luminosities (Carilli, Menten & Yun 1999; Carilli et al. 1999, 2002a, b; Cox et al. 2002; Beelen et al. in prep.).

Millimeter-continuum observations of high redshift QSO’s show that about 30$`\%`$ of the sources are detected in surveys with flux density limits of 1 to 2 mJy at 250 GHz (Omont et al. 2001; Carilli et al. 2001b; Isaak et al. 2002). Multifrequency studies of the rest-frame radio through far IR (FIR) spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of these sources reveal that the mm emission is thermal emission from warm dust (Benford et al. 1999), and in many of the sources the cm-to-mm flux density ratios are consistent with the radio-to-FIR correlation for star forming galaxies (Carilli et al. 2001b). Furthermore, searches for CO line emission from FIR luminous QSOs have resulted in the detection of molecular line emission indicating the presence of large gas reservoirs ($`10^{11}`$M; Cox et al. 2002). These detections lead some authors to conclude that active star formation is inevitable (Omont et al. 2001) in these FIR luminous, CO-rich quasars. Andreani et al. (2002) reached a similar conclusion for lower redshift QSOs, although for both low and high redshift samples the case for star formation is by no means proven.

In this paper we extend our radio study of distant QSOs to the highest redshifts ($`z>5`$). We present observations at 1.4, 5, and 250 GHz. These observations are an order of magnitude, or more, more sensitive than survey observations, such as FIRST and NVSS (Becker, White, & Helfand 1995; Condon et al. 1998). We assume a concordance cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$) and H0 = 65 km sec-1 Mpc-1 throughout.

## 2 Observations

We observed with the VLA all $`z>5`$ QSOs known at the time of observation, except J2245+0024 (Sharp, McMahon, Irwin & Hodgkin 2001), which was outside our LST range. The sources are listed in Table 1. Most of the sources come from the SDSS, and hence are luminous QSOs ($`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{B}<26`$), with the exception of J0301+0020, which is a low luminosity QSO discovered by Stern et al. (2000b).

VLA observations at 1.4 GHz were made in the A configuration (max. baseline = 30 km), with a total bandwidth of 100 MHz and two polarizations. Each source was observed for about two hours. In addition, J0756+4104 was observed for 2 hours at 1.4 GHz in B configuration (max. baseline = 10 km). Standard phase and amplitude calibration was applied, and all sources were self-calibrated using field sources. The absolute flux density scale was set with observations of either 3C48 or 3C286.

The final images were generated using the wide field imaging (Cotton 1999; Bridle & Schwab 1999) and deconvolution capabilities of the AIPS task IMAGR. The theoretical rms noise ($`\sigma `$) value corresponding to 2 hours of observing in continuum mode at 1.4 GHz is 16 $`\mu `$Jy, and in most of the maps presented here this sensitivity is roughly achieved. The noise level in one source (J1204-0021) was higher (35 $`\mu `$Jy), possibly due to some low level terrestrial interference. We also include a $`2\%`$ uncertainty in absolute flux density scale determination. The Gaussian restoring CLEAN beam Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) was typically $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ for the A configuration observations.

Two of the sources, J0836+0054 and J0913+5919, were observed at 5 GHz on August 17, 2002 in B configuration for about 20 minutes, achieving an rms sensitivity of about 60$`\mu `$Jy111D. Rusin and collaborators also observed J0836+0054 on May 5 at 5 GHz. Their flux densities are equal to ours within the errors.. The Gaussian restoring CLEAN beam (FWHM) was $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, matching the resolution of the 1.4GHz observations.

Observations at 250 GHz were made using MAMBO (Kreysa et al. 1999) at the IRAM 30m telescope on Pico Veleta in Spain, during the winter of 2001-2002 within dynamically scheduled, pooled observations, except for J0301+0020, which was reported on by Bertoldi & Cox (2002). MAMBO is a 37 element bolometer array with an effective central frequency of 250 GHz for thermal sources. The beam for the feed horn of each bolometer is matched to the telescope beam of 10$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6. Observations were made in standard on-off mode, with 2 Hz chopping of the secondary by 50′′ in azimuth. The data were reduced using the MOPSI software package (Zylka 1998). Pointing was monitored every hour, and was found to be repeatable to within 2′′. The sky opacity was monitored every hour. Zenith optical depths were lower than 0.3 at all times. Gain calibration was performed using observations of Mars, Uranus, and Ceres. We estimate a 20$`\%`$ uncertainty in absolute flux density calibration based on these observations.

The target sources were centered on the central bolometer in the array, and the temporally correlated variations of the sky signal (sky noise) detected in the surrounding six bolometers were subtracted from the central bolometer signal. The total sky + source observing time for each source was about 1 hour, leading to rms sensitivities of 0.5 to 1.0 mJy, depending on the weather.

## 3 Results

The results from the 1.4 and 250 GHz observations are listed in Table 1. The abbreviated source names (column 1), the redshifts (column 2), the absolute blue magnitude ($`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{B}`$) obtained by assuming a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated cosmology (column 3), and the optical position (columns 4 and 5) are compiled from the optical discovery papers. Columns 6 and 7 give the 1.4 and 250 GHz flux densities with 1$`\sigma `$ error-bars, and 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits are given for non-detections.

The 1.4 GHz images of these sources are shown in Figure 1. The positional uncertainty for the radio observations is given by: $`\sigma _\theta \frac{FWHM}{SNR}`$ (Fomalont 1999), where FWHM corresponds to that of the Gaussian restoring beam, and SNR=Signal-to-Noise ratio of the detection. For a 3$`\sigma `$ detection this corresponds to 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 for most of our sources. To this must be added the typical astrometric uncertainty 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 (Pier et al. 2003) of the optical data, and the uncertainty in the relationship between radio and optical reference frame which is about 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$25 (Deutsch 1999). Thus, we only consider emission within 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 of the optical position to be associated with the QSO.

Fomalont et al. (2003) show that the sub-mJy source counts follow the relation: $`\mathrm{N}(>\mathrm{S}_{1.4})=0.026\times \mathrm{S}_{1.4}^{1.1}`$ arcmin-2, with 1.4 GHz flux density, S1.4, in mJy. Hence, within 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 of a given source we expect $`1.5\times 10^4`$ sources with $`\mathrm{S}_{1.4}70\mu `$Jy by chance. Blain et al. (2002) show that there are about 2000 sources deg-2 with S$`{}_{250}{}^{}>1`$ mJy. At this flux density level we then expect 0.01 sources by chance within the beam of the 30m telescope (ie. within $`5\mathrm{}`$ of the target source).

Notes on individual sources

J0231–0728 (z=5.41)  There is a 3$`\sigma `$ unresolved source at 1.4 GHz situated 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 away from the optical position of the QSO. This is farther than the 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 positional accuracy of our measurements so J0231-0728 is considered a non-detection at 1.4GHz. This source is also not detected at 250 GHz.

J0301+0020 (z=5.50)  A radio continuum source with $`\mathrm{S}_{1.4}=73\pm 17\mu `$Jy is detected within 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 of the optical QSO position. The radio source is not resolved, and Gaussian fitting sets an upper limit to its size at 1.4 GHz of 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 . Bertoldi & Cox (2002) detect this QSO at 250 GHz with a flux density of $`0.87\pm 0.20`$ mJy.

J0756+4104 (z=5.09) The combined A and B configuration observations show a 1.4 GHz source with $`\mathrm{S}_{1.4}=65\pm 17\mu `$Jy within $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$ of the optical QSO position. Gaussian fitting to the radio emission sets an upper limit to its size of 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3 . This QSO is also detected with MAMBO with $`\mathrm{S}_{250}=5.5\pm 0.5`$ mJy.

J0836+0054 (z=5.82)  This source is clearly detected at 1.4 GHz with a flux density of $`1.75\pm 0.04`$ mJy. Gaussian fitting sets an upper limit to the source size of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}65`$ at 1.4 GHz. J0836+0054 is also detected at 5 GHz with a flux density of $`\mathrm{S}_5=580\pm 57\mu `$Jy. The implied radio spectral index is –0.8. A second radio source with S$`{}_{1.4}{}^{}=0.44`$mJy is detected 10″ south of the QSO. Deep optical and near-IR imaging of this field suggests that this second source is associated with a lower redshift galaxy, and unrelated to the QSO (Rusin et al. in prep). J0836+0054 is not detected at 250 GHz with a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of 2.9 mJy.

J0836+0054 was also detected in the FIRST radio survey (Becker, White & Helfand 1995) at 1.4 GHz with a flux density of 1.1$`\pm `$0.15 mJy. The difference in flux density between the FIRST measurement and our more recent measurement is significant at the 4$`\sigma `$ level, such that the radio source appears to be variable on yearly time-scales.

J0913+5919 (z=5.11) This source is clearly detected at 1.4 GHz with $`\mathrm{S}_{1.4}=18.95\pm 0.4`$ mJy. Gaussian fitting to the radio emission sets an upper limit to the source size of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$ at 1.4 GHz. J0913+5919 is also clearly detected at 5 GHz with $`\mathrm{S}_5=8.1\pm 0.2`$ mJy, implying a spectral index for this source of –0.7. This source is not detected at 250 GHz with a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of 2.8 mJy.

J0913+5919 was also detected in the NVSS radio survey (Condon et al. 1998) with a total flux density of 18.5$`\pm `$0.5 mJy, implying that the source is not variable on yearly time-scales.

J1030+0524 (z=6.28) This source was the highest redshift QSO published at the time of observation. The source is not detected at 1.4 or 250 GHz. However, four fairly bright sources ($`\mathrm{S}_{1.4}>200\mu `$Jy) are detected at 1.4 GHz in a 2′ field centered on the QSO (Figure 2), including an edge-brightened double radio source (’Fanaroff-Riley Class II’; Fanaroff & Riley 1974) with an extent of about 1′ and a total flux density of 29 mJy.

J1044-0125 (z=5.73) This source is not detected at 1.4 GHz with a 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit of S$`{}_{1.4}{}^{}<79\mu `$Jy. We did not observe this source with MAMBO. Iwata et al. (2001) report a flux density at 350 GHz for J1044–0125 of $`6.2\pm 2.0`$ mJy. Assuming a thermal IR spectrum typical for Ultraluminous IR galaxies leads to an expected 250 GHz flux density of $`3.4\pm 1.1`$ mJy for a source at $`z=5.73`$. Near-IR spectroscopic observations of this source reveal a prominent CIV absorption feature whose shape suggests that this is a Broad Absorption Line QSO (Maiolino et al. 2001; Goodrich et al. 2001).

## 4 Analysis

### 4.1 Fraction of radio loud objects

Questions regarding both the bi-modality of the radio luminosity function of QSOs, and its evolution, have been investigated by numerous workers (e.g. Peacock, Miller & Longair 1986; Miller, Peacock, & Mead 1990; Schmidt, van Gorkom, Schneider, & Gunn 1995; Stern et al. 2000; Lacy et. al 2001; Ivezic et. al. 2002). Two definitions are generally used to demarcate radio-quiet and radio-loud QSOs. One criterion is based on the radio-optical ratio, Rro, of the specific fluxes at rest-frame 5GHz and 4400Å (Kellerman et al. 1989) where typical radio–loud sources have Rro in the range 10–1000, while radio quiet sources have R$`{}_{\mathrm{ro}}{}^{}<1`$. Peacock, Miller & Longair (1986) point out that Rro can be used as a discriminating parameter only if the radio and optical luminosities are linearly correlated, which does not seem to be the case (Stocke et al. 1992). The second definition divides the sources at the 1.4 GHz luminosity density of $`3\times 10^{25}`$ W Hz-1 (Gregg et al. 1996). Ivezic et al. (2002) find that for optically selected QSOs the two definitions are consistent as a consequence of selection effects in flux limited samples, so for the remainder of this paper we will use the Gregg et al. (1996) definition to classify a source as radio loud.

Having the radio spectral indices of the two bright radio sources, J0836+0054 and J0913+5919 ($`0.8`$ and $`0.7`$, respectively), allows us to estimate their luminosity densities at a rest frame frequency of 1.4 GHz. For J0836+0054 the value is $`5.0\times 10^{26}`$ W Hz-1, while that for J0913+5919 is $`4.9\times 10^{27}`$ W Hz-1. Both these sources are radio-loud by any definition.

The radio spectral indices for J0756+4104 and J0301+0020 are unknown, so we calculate luminosity densities using the spectral index of $`0.5`$ adopted in previous studies (eg. Stern et al. 2000, Ivezic et al. 2002). The 1.4 GHz rest frame luminosities for these two sources are $`1.2\times 10^{25}`$ and $`1.6\times 10^{25}`$ W Hz-1 respectively, placing them below the radio-loud demarcation.

### 4.2 The radio-FIR correlation

Three sources (J0756+4104, J0301+0020 and J1044-0125) are detected at (sub)mm wavelengths at levels at least ten times above their 1.4 GHz flux densities, implying rapidly rising spectra from cm-to-mm wavelengths. Note that an observing frequency of 250 GHz corresponds to a rest frequency of 1600 GHz (= 188 $`\mu `$m) for a source at $`z=5.5`$, such that the MAMBO observations sample the rest frame far IR part of the spectra. Benford et al. (1999) have performed multiwavelength observations of a number of mm-loud high redshift QSOs, and in every case they find that the rest frame far IR SEDs are consistent with a gray body spectrum characteristic of thermal emission from warm dust. In the analysis below we will assume that the rapidly rising cm-to-mm spectra of the three mm-loud sources in our sample imply thermal emission from warm dust. However, we cannot preclude more exotic explanations for the rapidly rising spectra, such as synchrotron self absorption at rest frame far IR wavelengths.

One possible method for addressing the question of dust heating is using the fact that star-forming galaxies at low redshift follow a very tight linear relation between radio continuum and FIR luminosity (Condon & Yin 1990; Condon 1992; Crawford, Marr, Partridge & Strauss 1996; Miller & Owen 2001; Yun, Reddy, & Condon 2001). This correlation holds over four orders of magnitude in luminosity with only a factor of two scatter around linearity for galaxy samples selected in the optical, IR, and radio. While a general correlation is expected since the synchrotron radiation at centimeter wavelengths, and thermal dust emission at IR wavelengths, both relate to massive star formation, the tightness and linearity of the correlation remain puzzling. A further uncertainty in using the FIR-radio correlation, to assess the significance of star-formation in heating the dust, is that lower luminosity radio quiet QSOs at lower redshift also follow the standard radio–FIR correlation for star forming galaxies (Sopp & Alexander 1991). Whether the sources in the Sopp & Alexander sample also host active star formation remains unknown. Also, there is the question of whether the radio-FIR correlation holds in star forming galaxies at high redshift (Carilli & Yun 1999; 2000; Yun & Carilli 2002; Garrett 2001). Given these uncertainties, we feel that comparing centimeter and millimeter continuum luminosities is simply a consistency check for star formation, but not conclusive evidence for it.

Figure 3 shows the relationship between redshift and the 250-to-1.4 GHz spectral index ($`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}`$) for a star-forming galaxy taken from the study of Carilli & Yun (2000). This model consists of the mean SED (plus scatter) of 17 low-redshift star-forming galaxies. The far IR part of this model SED corresponds roughly to a modified blackbody spectrum with a dust temperature of 50K and emissivity index of 1.5, and the centimeter part of the spectrum is constrained to follow the radio-to-FIR correlation for star forming galaxies. A point located below the curve (plus scatter) on this diagram indicates a source that is radio loud relative to a star-forming galaxy. In such an object it is likely that the radio emission is due to the AGN and not star formation (Yun et al. 2001).

For J0301+0020 we find $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}=0.5\pm 0.1`$, well below the region defined by star forming galaxies. For J0756+4104 we find $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}=0.86\pm 0.08`$, which is consistent (within the errors) with the low end of the range for star forming galaxies. For J1044-0125 we extrapolate to 250 GHz from the measured 350 GHz flux density (section 3). This source was not detected at 1.4 GHz, implying $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}>0.7`$, which is at least consistent with star formation. A factor two deeper radio observations are required to test whether this source follows the radio-FIR relationship defined by low redshift galaxies.

### 4.3 Inverse Compton emission from J1306+0356?

X-ray observations of the source J1306+0356 (Brandt et al. 2002) suggest a possible jet-like feature 23″ from the QSO position (Schwartz 2002). Schwartz (2002) argues that the emission may be due to inverse Compton (IC) scattering of the cosmic background by relativistic electrons in a jet emanating from the QSO. These same relativistic electrons would emit radio synchrotron radiation in the presence of a magnetic field, hence we have searched for radio emission from the location of the jet-like X-ray feature.

We have not detected radio emission from the possible X-ray jet in J1306+0356 to a 3$`\sigma `$ limit of 150 $`\mu `$Jy at 1.4 GHz (after convolving to the $`5^{\prime \prime }\times 2^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution corresponding to the box containing the X-ray ’jet’). The flux density of the X-ray feature at 1 keV ($`2.4\times 10^{17}`$ Hz) is $`8.3\times 10^4\mu `$Jy, assuming a spectral index of $`1`$.

A long standing and well documented technique for deriving magnetic fields in extragalactic radio sources is by comparing the radio synchrotron and X-ray IC flux densities (Harris & Grindlay 1979). The constraint on the magnetic field strength comes from the fact that the IC X-ray emissivity is a function of the relativistic electron density and the energy density in the dominant ambient photon field (presumably the microwave background), and the synchrotron radio emissivity is a function of the relativistic electron density and the magnetic energy density. A recent simple parameterization of this calculation can be found in equation 4 in Carilli & Taylor (2002). In the case of the jet-like X-ray feature in J1306+0356, only a radio upper limit is available, such that we can only derive an upper limit to the magnetic field strength. Using equation 4 from Carilli & Taylor (2002), and the X-ray flux density and radio upper limits given above, we derive an upper limit of 3$`\mu `$G to the magnetic field in the jet-like feature in J1306+0356. Note that this limit assumes the X-ray emission is IC, and that the relativistic electrons have a power-law energy distribution of index –3 over a wide range in energy (see Section 5.3 for more details).

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Radio loud QSOs at high redshift

There has been considerable debate in the literature about the redshift evolution of the radio-loud fraction of QSOs (e.g. Visnovsky et al. 1992; Schneider, van Gorkom, Schmidt & Gunn 1992; Schmidt, van Gorkom, Schneider, & Gunn 1995; Hooper et al. 1995; Goldschmidt et al. 1999; Stern et al. 2000). Most recently Ivezic et al. (2002) have investigated this question using large samples of QSOs out to $`z2.2`$ from the SDSS. They conclude that about 8$`\%`$ of QSOs are radio-loud, independent of redshift. Two out of the ten QSOs at $`z>5`$ observed in our study are radio-loud, which is roughly consistent (given the small number statistics) with the fraction seen at lower redshift, eg. the Poisson probability of seeing 2 radio–loud quasars when the expectation value is 0.8 is 14$`\%`$. As emphasized by Ivezic et al (2002), larger QSO samples at high redshift are required to separate effects related to redshift-luminosity biases in flux limited samples.

The radio loud sources J0836+0054 and J0913+5919 are compact ($`<1`$″ ) and have steep spectra (–0.8 and –0.7), classifying them as Compact Steep Spectrum (CSS) objects. CSS objects are a mixed-bag of source types, ranging from steep spectrum core-jets (size $``$ few pc), to small (size $`1`$ kpc), double-lobed radio galaxies, ie. compact symmetric objects (CSOs; Tzioumis et al. 2002). The CSOs are particularly intriguing since they are thought to be very young radio sources, and their ages can be measured through VLBI observations of the proper motions of the radio hot spots, with typical measured ages between 103 and 104 years (Polatidis & Conway 2002). Recent VLBI imaging of J0836+0054 by Frey et al (2003) at 1.6 GHz shows a marginally resolved source at 10 mas resolution, suggesting that this source is a steep spectrum core-jet, and not a CSO. Similar VLBI imaging has not been performed for J0913+5919, but the lack of variability of this source (section 3) makes it a prime candidate for a high redshift CSO.

In either case, the fact that the radio-loud fraction of QSOs appears to be relatively constant out to very high redshift, and that the two radio-loud QSOs at $`z>5`$ discovered thus far have steep radio spectra, is encouraging from the perspective of studying the neutral intergalactic medium (IGM) during the epoch of reionization through observation of HI 21cm absorption (the ’21cm Forest’). Calculations by Carilli, Gnedin, & Owen (2002), and Furlanetto & Loeb (2002) show that the next generation low frequency, large area radio telescopes, such as the LOFAR and the Square Kilometer Array, will be able to study the neutral IGM beyond the epoch of reionization (EOR) in H I 21cm absorption toward discrete radio sources as faint as a few mJy at frequencies below 200 MHz. Both J0836+0054 and J0913+5919 would be easily adequate for such studies if they were placed beyond the EOR.

### 5.2 Thermal emission from warm dust and star formation

Three of the ten sources in our study (J0301+0020, J0756+4104, and J1044-0125) have been detected at (sub)mm wavelengths with flux densities much larger than their 1.4 GHz flux densities. Again, such steeply rising spectra provide strong evidence that the (sub)mm emission is thermal emission from warm dust.

We have considered these sources in the context of the radio-to-FIR correlation for star forming galaxies, as quantified in the 1.4-to-250 GHz spectral index, $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}`$ (Figure 3). For J0301+0020 the $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}`$ value is clearly below that expected for a star forming galaxy. In this case it seems likely that the radio emission relates to the AGN activity. For J0756+4104 the $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}`$ value is within the range defined by star forming galaxies, while for J1044–0125 the lower limit to $`\alpha _{1.4}^{250}`$ is at least consistent with a star forming galaxy.

Given the interest in co-eval massive black hole–spheroidal galaxy formation, it is instructive to consider what the properties of these sources would be if the 250 GHz emission were a result of dust heated by a starburst. Using the relations between 250 GHz flux density, FIR luminosity, and star formation rates, in Omont et al. (2003) based on typical spectra of low redshift ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (i.e. Arp 220) leads to: $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}=2.8\times 10^{12}`$ L for J0301+0020, $`1.4\times 10^{13}`$ L for J0756+4104, and $`7\times 10^{12}`$ L for J1044–0125222Shioya et al. (2003) have found a faint optical galaxy located within 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$9 of the quasar. They suggest that the QSO may be gravitationally magnified by this galaxy by a factor of about two. We have not corrected for this magnification in the calculations above., and massive ($`>5`$ M) star formation rates of 200, 1000, and 500 M year-1, respectively. At these extreme star-formation rates most of the stars in a large spheroidal galaxy could form in a dynamical time of $`10^8`$ years. However, it should again be stressed that these rates assume the dust is heated by star formation, as opposed to being heated by the AGN itself.

### 5.3 X-ray-loud, radio-quiet jets at high redshift?

We have not detected radio emission from the reported X-ray ’jet’ in J1306+0356 (Schwartz 2002). The implied upper limit to the magnetic field (3$`\mu `$G) is more than an order of magnitude below typical magnetic field values in powerful radio jets. Perhaps the simplest conclusion from these results is that the X-ray feature is not IC emission from a jet emanating from J1306+0356.

It is possible that such a jet could be Inverse Compton X-ray-loud and still be radio-quiet, even for strong magnetic fields, due to the different radiative lifetimes of the particles involved. The spectral peak of the CMB behaves as $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$(1+z) Hz, such that observations at 1 keV are sensitive to electrons with Lorentz factors, $`\gamma _e1000`$, independent of redshift. The radiative lifetime of such electrons at $`z6`$ is $`1.0\times 10^7`$ years. For comparison, observations of a $`z=6`$ jet at 1.4 GHz probe electrons with $`\gamma _e7000`$, assuming a 50$`\mu `$G magnetic field, corresponding to a radiative lifetime $`1.3\times 10^6`$ years. If particle acceleration ceased between 106 and 107 years ago, then the exponential cut-off at high energies in the relativistic particle population might lead to the situation observed, ie. an X-ray-loud but radio-quiet jet. More sensitive X-ray observations, and lower frequency radio observations, are required to test this interesting possibility.

### 5.4 Over-densities of radio sources toward the highest redshift QSOs

For the highest redshift QSO in our sample, J1030+0524 at $`z=6.28`$ (Figure 2), we find four fairly bright radio sources ($`\mathrm{S}_{1.4}>200\mu `$Jy) within 1′ of the QSO, one of which is an arcmin-scale powerful double (FRII) radio source. Note that for a 2′ field one expects only 0.5 sources by chance with S$`{}_{1.4}{}^{}>200\mu `$Jy. It seems unlikely that the sources are at the redshift of the QSO, since an arcmin-scale double radio galaxy has never been detected beyond $`z3`$ (Carilli et al. 1997). Interestingly, the highest redshift QSO known, J1148+5251 at $`z=6.4`$ (Fan et al. 2003), also has two bright radio sources (8 and 70 mJy at 1.4 GHz) within 1′ of the QSO position (Bertoldi et al. 2003).

A possible explanation for the excess radio source density in the fields of the two highest redshift QSOs is that the radio sources are in a group or cluster that happens to lie along the line-of-sight. If this is the case, then gravitational lensing by the cluster could magnify the QSO emission by a factor 2 or so without giving rise to arcsecond-scale distortions in the optical images of the QSOs.

The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. M.A.S. acknowledges support of NSF grant AST-0071091.

Figure Captions

Figure 1: Images at 1.4 GHz of the ten high redshift quasars discussed in this paper. The FWHM of the Gaussian restoring beams are shown in the insets in all frames. Contour levels (solid lines) are a geometric progression in the square root of two starting at 2$`\sigma `$, with $`\sigma `$ listed below ($`\sigma `$ corresponds to the measured rms on the image). Two negative contours (dashed) are included. The central cross in each image marks the optical QSO location.
Fig1a = J0231-0728, $`\sigma `$ = 16.6 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1b = RD J0301+0020, $`\sigma `$ = 17.2 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1c = J0756+4104, $`\sigma `$ = 17 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1d = J0836+0054, $`\sigma `$ = 21.6 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1e= J0913+5919, $`\sigma `$ = 14 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1f= J1030+0524, $`\sigma `$ = 20.3 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1g= J1044-0125, $`\sigma `$ = 26.5 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1h= J1204-0021, $`\sigma `$ = 29 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1i= J1208+0010, $`\sigma `$ = 20 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1; Fig1j= J1306+0356, $`\sigma `$ = 17.8 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1;

Figure 2: A wider field image of J1030+0524 at 1.4 GHz. The FWHM of the Gaussian restoring beam is $`3\mathrm{}\times 3\mathrm{}`$. Contour levels are a geometric progression in the square root two starting at 0.13 mJy beam-1. Three negative contours (dashed) are included. The cross shows the position of the optical QSO.

Figure 3: The relationship between redshift and the observed spectral index between 250 and 1.4 GHz for star-forming galaxies (solid curve), as derived from the models presented in Carilli & Yun (2000). The dashed lines show the rms scatter in the distribution. The 250–to–1.4 GHz spectral indexes for QSOs detected at 250 GHz are shown with 1$`\sigma `$ error bars.


text:
# Wave propagation in a chiral fluid: an undergraduate study

## I Introduction

In simple fluids, the propagation of an electromagnetic wave is usually treated as follows. Sticking to a classical description, one considers that the bound electrons of the fluid molecules are displaced from their equilibrium positions by the Lorentz force of the wavefield. This (time dependent) displacement or induced electric dipole can be modelled as a current density $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{j}}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ which is related to the electromagnetic field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{B}}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ through Newton’s force equation (Complications such as local fields effects will not be considered in this paper). Neglecting the magnetic contribution (the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom leads to an estimate $`|\frac{F_{magn}}{F_{elec}}||\frac{\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{B}}}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}}|\frac{v}{c}<10^2`$), and using Maxwell’s equations then leads to textbook expressions for the index of refraction of the fluid

For chiral molecules, one has to consider the displacement of the bound electrons on a well defined geometric structure. In other words, one has to take into account the variation of the electromagnetic field down to molecular distances. The induced electric dipole moment (or current density) depends now on the field and on its spatial derivatives. This may be the reason why the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a chiral fluid is not frequently treated at an undergraduate level .

On the other hand, students may encounter phenomenological models which show that Maxwell’s equations in an isotropic chiral fluid have circularly polarized waves as eigenmodes . This in turn suggests a comparison with the Faraday effect , which deals with the propagation of waves in an simple (achiral) fluid in the presence of a magnetic field. The comparison of these two situations raises questions about parity and time reversal transformations in a “non particle physics” context . These symmetry considerations are not confined to theory: recent experiments  have shown that the interplay of chirality and magnetism have remarkable consequences, that have been observed in interference experiments and in photochemical reactions. Roughly speaking, the application of a magnetic field on a chiral fluid leads to a change in the index of refraction, and this new “magnetochiral” term is independent of the state of polarization of the wave. The order of magnitude of this term is rather small (see below), but its possible implications for the origin of terrestrial homochirality in biomolecules (DNA, proteins,…) are rather interesting .

The present paper does not claim to be original. Its merit is perhaps to bring to the attention of students some topics which are somehow scattered through the litterature. Furthermore, experiments which are both “hot” and accessible to undergraduates are not so frequent.

To illustrate these considerations in a self contained way, section II will present polarization conventions and notations, as well as some definitions pertaining to chirality. Section III presents a sketchy derivation of the Faraday effect in a simple (achiral) fluid. In the framework of the elastically bound electron model, this model yields reasonable orders of magnitude, and enables one to study various aspects of the Faraday effet (dependence on the direction of propagation of light with respect to the magnetic field, reflection on a conducting mirror). The introduction of a damping term in the electron’s equation of motion can then model absorption phenomena.

In section IV, we consider a model of chiral molecules, which consists of two coupled anisotropic oscillators . By further restricting the accessible orientations (albeit in an isotropic way), we will derive to lowest order the influence of chirality on Maxwell’s equations and show explicitly that the eigenmodes are circularly polarized waves. The differences with the Faraday effect will be pointed out, in particular from the symmetry point of view.

In section V, we consider the effect of a magnetic field on a chiral fluid, along the lines of Larmor’s theorem. This non-rigorous point of view  suggests the existence of a new (symmetry allowed) term in the index of refraction, called the magnetochiral term. Its order of magnitude is obtained through the model of section IV, and we discuss a recent interference experiment where this term is involved. Finally, when absorption is taken into account, the magnetochiral contribution leads to remarkable results in photochemical reactions.

## II Definitions and notations

Two molecules are superposable if one can bring them into coincidence by using only translations and rotations. A molecule ($`\mathrm{L}`$) is chiral if it is non-superposable onto its mirror image ($`\mathrm{D}`$). The ($`\mathrm{L}`$) and ($`\mathrm{D}`$) forms of a molecule are called enantiomers of this molecule. A fluid made of equal amounts of both enantiomers is called racemic. A fluid made only of ($`\mathrm{L}`$) (resp. ($`\mathrm{D}`$) ) molecules will be called a ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid (resp. a ($`\mathrm{D}`$)-fluid) in this paper.

In agreement with many authors , we consider a wave to be right (resp. left) circularly polarized wave if an observer looking towards the source sees at a fixed point in space, the tip of the electric field turn clockwise (resp. anticlockwise) with time.

Physical properties pertaining to a right (resp. left) circularly polarized wave will be denoted by the subscript + (resp. -). A subscript $`\mathrm{L}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{D}`$) will be further added if one deals with a ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid (resp. ($`\mathrm{D}`$)-fluid). So $`n_+^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$ denotes the index of refraction of a right circularly polarized wave of frequency $`\omega `$ in the $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid.

## III The Faraday effect

### A The elastically bound electron model

We consider a monochromatic plane wave, of frequency $`\omega `$, propagating in a simple (achiral) fluid. The direction of propagation is the $`z>0`$ direction. We model the atoms as hydrogen atoms, where the bound electrons are submitted to an elastic force $`\stackrel{}{f}=m_e\omega _0^2\stackrel{}{r}`$, where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, $`\omega _0`$ a typical electronic frequency ($`\omega _010^{15}`$ Hz), and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is measured from the equilibrium position of the electron. Neglecting the magnetic force, we get

$$m_e\ddot{\stackrel{}{r}}=m_e\omega _0^2\stackrel{}{r}e\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}$$
(1)
If $`N`$ is the particle density, the induced electric dipole moment per unit volume then reads

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}=Ne\stackrel{}{r}=+\frac{Ne^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}}{m_e(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)}$$
(2)
leading to a polarisation current density $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{j}}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}}{t}`$. Plugging these results in Maxwell’s equations , and denoting by $`c`$ the speed of light in vacuo yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=\frac{1}{c^2}(1+\frac{Ne^2}{m_e\epsilon _0(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)})\frac{^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}}{t^2}$$
(3)
Looking for a plane wave solution $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=\mathrm{Re}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}_0e^{j(kz\omega t)})`$, and introducing the index of refraction $`n(\omega )`$ through $`k=\frac{\omega }{c/n(\omega )}`$ , we get

$$n^2(\omega )=1+\frac{Ne^2}{m_e\epsilon _0(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)}$$
(4)
### B Effect of a magnetic field and circular polarizations

We specifically consider the propagation of a right circularly polarized wave ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}_+=\mathrm{E}_0(\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t),\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t),0)`$) in the presence of a static magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0=B_0\stackrel{}{e}_z`$. The equation of motion

$$m_e\ddot{\stackrel{}{r}}=m_e\omega _0^2\stackrel{}{r}e(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}_++\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}\times \stackrel{}{B}_0)$$
(5)
shows that the Lorentz force due to $`B_0`$ is antiparallel to the elastic force. Following the same steps as before gives

$$n_+^2(\omega ,B_0)=1+\frac{Ne^2}{m_e\epsilon _0(\omega _0^2\omega ^2\frac{eB_0}{m_e}\omega )}$$
(6)
For a left circularly polarized wave ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}_{}=\mathrm{E}_0(\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t),\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t),0)`$), we find

$$n_{}^2(\omega ,B_0)=1+\frac{Ne^2}{m_e\epsilon _0(\omega _0^2\omega ^2+\frac{eB_0}{m_e}\omega )}$$
(7)
since in this case, the Lorentz force due to $`B_0`$ is parallel to the elastic force.

### C Faraday rotation

Let us now consider a linearly polarized wave propagating in a confined fluid ($`0<z<l`$), in the presence of the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0=B_0\stackrel{}{e}_z`$. Since a linearly polarized wave can be decomposed into two circularly polarized waves $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ of equal amplitude but with different phase velocities ($`v_\pm =c/n_\pm (\omega ,B_0)`$), elementary calculations show that the direction of vibration of the electric field rotates between $`z=0`$ and $`z=l`$ by an amount $`\alpha `$, with

$$\alpha =\frac{\omega l}{2c}\mathrm{\Delta }n(\omega ,B_0)$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\omega ,B_0)=n_+(\omega ,B_0)n_{}(\omega ,B_0)`$. This rotation is counterclockwise for an observer looking towards the source since $`v_+<v_{}`$ as shown by equations (6,7). (Note that this simple model applies only to diamagnetic materials; paramagnetic materials require a more sophisticated treatment).

Equations (6,7) also show that, as long as one deals with frequencies $`\omega \omega _L=\frac{eB_0}{2m_e}`$, one has

$$n_\pm (\omega ,B_0)n(\omega \pm \omega _L)$$
(9)
up to $`\mathrm{O}(\frac{\omega _L}{\omega })^2`$ terms. Since $`\omega \omega _010^{15}`$ Hz and even for $`B_0=10`$ T, we only have $`\omega _L10^{12}`$ Hz, we will consider that Larmor theorem, as expressed by equation (9), holds. This allows us to rewrite the magnetic birefringence as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n(\omega ,B_0)\frac{eB_0}{m_e}\frac{dn(\omega )}{d\omega }$$
(10)
Typical orders of magnitude for a liquid such as $`\mathrm{CS}_2`$ are $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\omega ,B_0)10^5`$ for $`B_0=1`$ T. The observation of the Faraday birefringence in an interference experiment is relatively easy since the Rayleigh and Michelson interferometers may detect index variations down to $`10^8`$ .

The above expressions pertain to a wave propagating parallel to the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$. For propagation in direction $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ (with $`\stackrel{}{u}=\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{k}`$), equations (9,10) read

$$n_\pm (\omega ,\stackrel{}{B}_0)n(\omega \pm \frac{e\stackrel{}{B}_0\stackrel{}{u}}{2m_e})$$
(11)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n(\omega ,B_0)\frac{e(\stackrel{}{B_0}\stackrel{}{u})}{m_e}\frac{dn(\omega )}{d\omega }$$
(12)
as can be checked for a wave propagating in the $`z<0`$ direction ($`\stackrel{}{B}_0\stackrel{}{u}<0`$).

The effect of placing a perfectly conducting mirror at $`z=l`$ in the original experiment (where the incident wave has $`\stackrel{}{u}=\stackrel{}{e}_z`$) can be analyzed from different points of view. The simplest one is probably described in : for an observer receiving the reflected wave, the incident wave from $`z=0`$ to $`z=l`$ is equivalent, in the (symmetric w.r.t the mirror) image space, to a wave propagating in the $`z<0`$ direction in the same magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0=B_0\stackrel{}{e}_z`$ (this is a clear illustration of the axial character of the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$, since $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ is perpendicular to the mirror). Taking into account the reflected wave, shows that Faraday’s rotation is doubled for this observer (the reflection on the mirror is irrelevant since it changes the sense, but not the direction of the electric field). Typical orders of magnitude for a liquid such as $`\mathrm{CS}_2`$ are $`\alpha 0.20.3`$ rd, for $`l=10^2`$ m and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\omega ,B_0)10^5`$.

Finally, the inclusion of damping in equations (1,5) leads to an absorption of the wave by the fluid. Denoting by $`n_2`$ the imaginary part of the index of refraction, we clearly have $`n_{2+}(\omega ,B_0)n_2(\omega ,B_0)`$. This magnetic dichroism implies an elliptical polarization (together with a Faraday rotation of the major axis of the ellipse) in the above experiments. Typical orders of magnitude are $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_2(\omega ,B_0)}{n_2(\omega )}10^410^5`$ for $`B_0=1`$ T.

## IV Propagation in a chiral fluid

### A The simplified Kuhn model

As previously mentionned, to take chirality into account requires a rather detailed geometric description of the fluid molecules. We consider here the simplest model of a chiral molecule , which consists of two coupled oscillators.

To fix notations, we consider a fixed trihedron ($`Oxyz`$), with unit vectors ($`\stackrel{}{e}_x,\stackrel{}{e}_y,\stackrel{}{e}_z`$), and a $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid with $`N`$ molecules per unit volume. Each molecule has two electrons, whose equilibrium positions are called $`\stackrel{}{R}_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}_2^0`$. We denote by $`d=|\stackrel{}{R}_2^0\stackrel{}{R}_1^0|`$ the size of the molecule. We also define $`\stackrel{}{R}_{12}^0=\stackrel{}{R}_2^0\stackrel{}{R}_1^0=d\stackrel{}{b_{12}^0}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}_0=\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_1^0+\stackrel{}{R}_2^0}{2}`$.

Due to their interaction with the propagating wave, the electrons are displaced from $`\stackrel{}{R}_1^0`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{}{R}_2^0`$) by an amount $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$).

For a fixed orientation of the molecule (i.e. for a fixed $`\stackrel{}{b_{12}^0}`$) , the displacements of the Kuhn model are both one dimensional and coupled:

(i) the unit vector in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$) is denoted by $`\stackrel{}{b}_1`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{}{b}_2`$). The chirality stems from the fact that the unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{b}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}_2`$ et $`\stackrel{}{b}_{12}^0`$ are such that

$$\chi =\stackrel{}{b_{12}^0}(\stackrel{}{b}_1\times \stackrel{}{b}_2)=1$$
(13)
(ii) the potential energy of the two electrons is written as

$$E_p=\frac{1}{2}m_e\omega _0^2(\stackrel{}{r}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{}{r}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2(\stackrel{}{b}_1\stackrel{}{r}_1)(\stackrel{}{b}_2\stackrel{}{r}_2)$$
(14)
where $`\omega _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}`$ are electronic frequencies.

Compared to the original Kuhn model, we further add two restrictions :

(iii) With respect to the fixed $`(Oxyz)`$ trihedron, each molecule of the fluid can only adopt the six orientations ($`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{i}=1,2,\mathrm{},6`$) shown in Figure 1.

The geometrical parameters of ($`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{i}`$) are denoted with an index $`(\mathrm{i})`$: we thus have $`\stackrel{}{b}_1^{(\mathrm{i})},\stackrel{}{b}_2^{(\mathrm{i})},\stackrel{}{r}_1^{(\mathrm{i})},\stackrel{}{r}_2^{(\mathrm{i})},\mathrm{}..`$. The chirality is clearly the same for all orientations

$$\chi ^{(\mathrm{i})}=\stackrel{}{b_{12}^{0(\mathrm{i})}}(\stackrel{}{b}_1^{(\mathrm{i})}\times \stackrel{}{b}_2^{(\mathrm{i})})=\chi =1.$$
(15)
(iv) We assume that the orientations ($`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{i}`$) are equiprobable.

These restrictions preserve the isotropy of the fluid, and make the calculations easier (more complete calculations can be found in ref ).

### B Equations of motion

Neglecting the magnetic contribution to the Lorentz force, we get

$$m_e\ddot{\stackrel{}{r}_1}=m_e\omega _0^2\stackrel{}{r}_1m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2\stackrel{}{b}_1(\stackrel{}{b}_2\stackrel{}{r}_2)e\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}(\stackrel{}{r}_1)$$
(16)
and

$$m_e\ddot{\stackrel{}{r}_2}=m_e\omega _0^2\stackrel{}{r}_2m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2\stackrel{}{b}_2(\stackrel{}{b}_1\stackrel{}{r}_1)e\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}(\stackrel{}{r}_2)$$
(17)
Projecting on $`\stackrel{}{b}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_2`$, and looking for forced solutions, we obtain for orientation ($`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{i}`$)

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\stackrel{}{r}_1}{\stackrel{}{r}_2}\right)^{(\mathrm{i})}=\mathrm{M}^1\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{e\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}(\stackrel{}{r}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_1}{m_e}}{\frac{e\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}(\stackrel{}{r}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_2}{m_e}}\right)^{(\mathrm{i})}$$
(18)
where the orientation independent matrix $`\mathrm{M}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{M}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega _0^2\omega ^2& \mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2& \omega _0^2\omega ^2\end{array}\right)$$

and $`\mathrm{M}^1`$ is its inverse.

Let us consider for the time being a linearly polarized wave, with $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{E}(z)e^{j\omega t})\stackrel{}{e}_x`$. The resolution of the equations for each (equiprobable) orientation yields the induced electric dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}`$ of the fluid. It will turn out that $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}`$ has components both parallel ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{//}`$) and perpendicular ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{}`$) to the field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}`$. It is easily seen that orientations $`(\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_6)`$ do not contribute to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}`$, and that orientations $`(\mathrm{A}_3,\mathrm{A}_4)`$ only contribute to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{//}`$. On the other hand, orientations $`(\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2)`$ contribute to both components. Elementary algebra show that

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{}=\frac{Ne^2}{6m_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2}{(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^4}(\mathrm{E}(z_1^{(2)})\mathrm{E}(z_2^{(1)})\stackrel{}{e}_y$$
(19)
Note that the perpendicular dipole component $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{}`$ does not vanish because of the finiteness of $`d`$ (see Figure 1). To lowest order in $`d`$ (or more appropriately in $`\frac{d}{\lambda }`$), one gets

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{}=\frac{Ne^2}{6m_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2}{(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^4}(d\frac{\mathrm{E}(z)}{z})\stackrel{}{e}_y$$
(20)
where the gradient term is calculated at $`\stackrel{}{R}_0`$.

Gathering all contributions to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}`$ and considering a general state of polarisation of the wave, we get

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}=\alpha (\omega )\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}+\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}$$
(21)
where the electric field and its derivatives are calculated at $`\stackrel{}{R}_0`$. In equation (21), one has

$$\alpha (\omega )=\frac{2Ne^2}{3m_e}\frac{(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)}{(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^4}$$
(22)
and

$$\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )=\frac{Ne^2}{6m_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^2(\stackrel{}{R_{12}^0}(\stackrel{}{b}_1\times \stackrel{}{b}_2))}{(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^4}$$
(23)
where we have used equation (13). Equation (23) explicitly shows that $`\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$ is a pseudo (or axial) scalar. This feature of $`\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$ is indeed required by equation (21), since $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}`$ is a true (or polar) vector and $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}`$ a pseudo (or axial) vector .

### C Rotatory power

Using equation (21) together with $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{j}}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}}{t}`$, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\left((1+\frac{\alpha (\omega )}{\epsilon _0})\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}+\frac{\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}{\epsilon _0}\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}\right)$$
(24)
We are now back to the traditional study of Maxwell’s equations in a chiral fluid . For circularly polarized waves in the long wavelength approximation ($`\frac{d}{\lambda }1`$), we get from equation (24)

$$n_\pm ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )n(\omega )\frac{\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}{2\epsilon _0}k_0$$
(25)
with $`n^2(\omega )=1+\frac{\alpha }{\epsilon _0}`$ and $`k_0=\frac{\omega }{c}`$.

A rough order of magnitude for the natural birefringence ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n^\mathrm{L}(\omega )=n_+^\mathrm{L}(\omega )n_{}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$) of a chiral liquid can be obtained from $`d=10`$ Å, $`N\mathrm{5\; 10}^{26}`$ m<sup>-3</sup>, $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}=\frac{\omega _0}{2}=\pi 10^{15}`$ Hz, leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n^\mathrm{L}(\omega )310^5`$.

Several points can easily be checked on equations (24,25)

(i) the index of refraction is the same for a (e.g. right) circularly polarized wave propagating in the ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid, in the $`z>0`$ and $`z<0`$ directions.

(ii) for the ($`\mathrm{D}`$)-fluid, one has $`n_\pm ^\mathrm{D}(\omega )=n_{}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$, since $`\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )=\gamma ^\mathrm{D}(\omega )`$.

(iii) if a linearly polarized wave propagates in a $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid, confined between $`z=0`$ and $`z=l`$, the direction of vibration of the electric field will rotate by an angle $`\beta `$ given by

$$\beta =\frac{k_0l}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }n^\mathrm{L}(\omega )=\frac{|\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )|k_0^2l}{2\epsilon _0}$$
(26)
In our model of a $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid, the rotation is counterclockwise, and a typical order of magnitude is $`\beta 1.5`$ rd for $`l10^2`$ m.

(iv) if one places a perfectly conducting plane at $`z=l`$, we again follow : for an observer receiving the reflected wave, the incident wave is equivalent to a wave propagating in the (symmmetric w.r.t the mirror) image space in the $`z<0`$ direction. In the image space, the image of the $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid is the $`(\mathrm{D})`$-fluid (again a clear illustration of the pseudo-scalar character of chirality). The full experiment for this observer amounts to a propagation in the $`z<0`$ direction, first through the $`(\mathrm{D})`$-fluid (incident wave), and then through the $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid (reflected wave), leading to a cancellation of the angle of rotation. Once again, the reflection on the mirror is irrelevant since it changes the sense, but not the direction of the electric field. This cancellation contrasts with the Faraday result and emphasizes the symmetry differences between the two cases

Finally, absorption of the wave can be modelled through damping terms in equations (16,17). Detailed calculations can be found in . We only stress here that the symmmetry properties of the real and imaginary parts of the index of refraction are very similar. In particular, we have $`n_{2+}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )n_2^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$ (natural dichroism) and $`n_{2\pm }^\mathrm{D}(\omega )=n_2^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$.

## V Effect of a magnetic field: the magnetochiral effect

In principle, it is possible to study analytically the effect of a static magnetic $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ on equations (16,17). It is much quicker, following  to apply Larmor theorem (11) to equation (25) and to write

$$n_\pm ^\mathrm{L}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{B}_0)n_\pm ^\mathrm{L}(\omega \pm \frac{e\stackrel{}{B}_0\stackrel{}{u}}{2m_e})$$
(27)
for a wave propagating in direction $`\stackrel{}{u}`$. Expanding the right hand side of (27) leads to

$$n_\pm ^\mathrm{L}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{B}_0)=n(\omega )\pm \frac{e(\stackrel{}{B}_0\stackrel{}{u})}{2m_e}\frac{dn(\omega )}{d\omega }\frac{\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )k_0}{2\epsilon _0}\frac{e}{4m_e\epsilon _0}\frac{d\gamma ^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}{d\omega }(\stackrel{}{k}_0\stackrel{}{B_0})$$
(28)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}_0=k_0\stackrel{}{u}=\frac{\omega }{c}\stackrel{}{u}`$. Note that the Larmor frequency shift has not be done on the “$`k_0`$” term of equation (25). This seems plausible since the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ will act only on the coupled oscillators, that is on $`\gamma (\omega )`$; the “$`k_0`$” term on the other hand, comes from the operator “curl” in equation (21) which is not affected by the dynamics. We refer the reader to reference  for further discussions on this point.

The remarkable prediction of equation (28) is that the last term, called the magnetochiral term, does not depend on the polarization of the wave. It exists for linearly polarized or non polarized light, and has several interesting consequences:

(i) magnetochiral birefringence: a ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid in a magnetic field and the associate ($`\mathrm{D}`$)-fluid in the same magnetic field do not have the same index of refraction for waves propagating parallel to the field, regardless of the polarization of the waves (one may also say that a ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid in a magnetic field does not have the same index of refraction for waves propagating parallel or antiparallel to the field).

(ii) magnetochiral dichroism: the introduction of damping in the Kuhn model shows that the absorption coefficient of a ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid in a magnetic field is not the same as the absorption coefficient of a ($`\mathrm{D}`$)-fluid, regardless of the polarization of the wave (one may also say that a ($`\mathrm{L}`$)-fluid in a magnetic field does not absorb in the same way waves propagating parallel or antiparallel to the field).

(iii) these magnetochiral effects vanish if light propagates perpendicularly to the field.

(iv) For the mirror experiment described in section IV C, (iv), in the presence of a magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0=B_0\stackrel{}{e}_z`$, the contributions of the magnetochiral term cancel. The argument is the same as for the chiral contributions.

From the Kuhn model, one may get an order of magnitude for the magnetochiral term of equation (28): setting $`d=10\AA `$, $`N=\mathrm{5\; 10}^{26}`$m<sup>-3</sup>, $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}=\frac{\omega _0}{2}=\pi 10^{15}`$ Hz and $`B_0=10`$ T, and using equation (23), we find a contribution to the index of refraction of order $`10^8`$, quite close to the experimental limits . One may further argue that this is precisely the order of magnitude of the terms which have been neglected in Larmor “theorem”(see equation (9)). So, one has finally to turn to experiments, which indeed have demonstrated the existence of the magnetochiral term(s).

### A Magnetochiral birefringence: an interference experiment

Imagine a Young double slit experiment with linearly polarized light, and let $`Oz`$ be the optical axis of the set-up. After slit $`S_1`$, one adds:

* a vessel $`C_1`$ containing the $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid in a magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0=B_0\stackrel{}{e}_z`$ followed by
* another vessel $`\overline{C_1}`$ containing the associate $`(\mathrm{D})`$-fluid in the opposite magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$).

One adds after slit $`S_2`$:

* a vessel $`\overline{C_2}`$ containing the associate $`(\mathrm{D})`$-fluid in a field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$, followed by
* another vessel $`C_2`$ containing the $`(\mathrm{L})`$-fluid in the opposite magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$).

The vessels are identical. Analyzing this experiment with equation (28) shows that the phase shift of the interference pattern caused by the enantiomers is entirely due to the magnetochiral term. All other contributions cancel, whereas the magnetochiral term is multiplied by four. The experiment has actually been done with a Michelson interferometer in a slightly modified way .

### B Magnetochiral dichroism: a photochemical reaction

Discriminating enantiomers is a major problem in chemistry. A classical experiment is the following (see  and references therein). One considers an initially racemic solution, that one illuminates with right circularly polarized light. The absorption of light gives rise to chemical reactions ($`\mathrm{D}\mathrm{L}`$) and ($`\mathrm{L}\mathrm{D}`$) . In a certain range of parameters, these reactions are first order and we denote by $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ their respective rates. Experimentally, one finds $`k_1=KI_0n_{2+}^\mathrm{D}(\omega )`$ and $`k_2=KI_0n_{2+}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )`$ where $`K`$ is a constant and $`I_0`$ the intensity of the light. The concentrations of the enantiomers $`[\mathrm{L}]`$ and $`[\mathrm{D}]`$ are given by

$$\frac{d[\mathrm{L}]}{dt}=\frac{d[\mathrm{D}]}{dt}=k_1[\mathrm{D}]k_2[\mathrm{L}]$$
(29)
At equilibrium, the solution is not racemic anymore, since one has

$$y=\left(\frac{[\mathrm{L}][\mathrm{D}]}{[\mathrm{L}]+[\mathrm{D}]}\right)_{eq}=\frac{k_1k_2}{k_1+k_2}=\frac{n_{2+}^\mathrm{D}(\omega )n_{2+}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}{n_{2+}^\mathrm{D}(\omega )+n_{2+}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}=\frac{n_2^\mathrm{L}(\omega )n_{2+}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}{n_2^\mathrm{L}(\omega )+n_{2+}^\mathrm{L}(\omega )}$$
(30)
so that the least absorbing enantiomer is in excess.

This experiment has recently been done with natural (unpolarized) light, in the presence of a magnetic field parallel to the direction of propagation of light : the magnetochiral effect implies that the absorption is not the same for the enantiomers, leading again to a non racemic solution at equilibrium. The experiment of , achieves a value $`y10^4`$, with a magnetic field $`B_0=10`$ T.

## VI Conclusion

We have presented in a simple way old theoretical models and recent experiments, on “chirality, light and magnetism” . These topics can be of interest for undergraduate students, either from a physical or a (bio)chemical point of view, the more so since they also show up in other fields . At a more advanced level, local field effects as well as quantum calculations can be introduced .

It is a pleasure to thank J-J. Girerd for discussions.

Figure Caption

Figure 1: The allowed orientations ($`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{i}`$) for a chiral molecule in the restricted Kuhn model. The displacement of the electrons are along $`\stackrel{}{b}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_2`$. We consider a linearly polarized wave propagating along the $`z`$ axis, with $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{E}(z)e^{j\omega t})\stackrel{}{e}_x`$, see text. In orientations ($`\mathrm{A}_1`$) and ($`\mathrm{A}_2`$), where $`\stackrel{}{b_{12}^0}=\stackrel{}{e}_z`$, the electric field is not the same on the two electrons, leading to a non zero contribution to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{}`$, see equation (19). In orientations ($`\mathrm{A}_3`$) and ($`\mathrm{A}_4`$), where $`\stackrel{}{b_{12}^0}=\stackrel{}{e}_y`$, the electric field is the same on the two electrons, leading to a contribution to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{//}`$. In orientations ($`\mathrm{A}_5`$) and ($`\mathrm{A}_6`$), where $`\stackrel{}{b_{12}^0}=\stackrel{}{e}_x`$, the electrons are not coupled to the electric field since ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}\stackrel{}{b}_1=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}\stackrel{}{b}_2=0`$).