text:
# Noncanonical quantum optics

## I Introduction

The standard quantization of a harmonic oscillator is based on quantization of $`p`$ and $`q`$ but $`\omega `$ is a parameter. To have, say, two different frequencies one has to consider two independent oscillators. On the other hand, it is evident that there can exist oscillators which are in a quantum superposition of different frequencies. The example is an oscillator wave packet associated with distribution of center-of-mass momenta. It is known that the superposition of momenta gets translated into a superposition od Doppler shifts and therefore also of frequencies. We stress here the word “quantum” since the superpositions we have in mind are not those we know from classical oscillations.

This trivial observation raises the question of the role of superpositions of frequencies for a description of a single harmonic oscillator. The motivation behind the problem is associated with the question of field quantization: Is it possible that a quantum field consists of oscillators whose frequencies are indefinite? If so, maybe to quantize the field it is sufficient to use only one oscillator which exists in a quantum superposition of all the possible frequencies allowed by the boundary conditions of a given problem?

The idea is very simple. It is known that a “one-particle” state vector can be regarded as a representation of an ensemble of particles in a given pure state. On the other hand, the classical electromagnetic field can be regarded as an ensemble of oscillators. The standard idea of quantization, going back to 1925 , is to treat the field as an ensemble of quantum oscillators. But the ensemble itself is, in a sense, a classical one since for each frequency we need a separate oscillator. This is analogous to a classical ensemble of particles forming a classical wave on a lake surface. For each point on the surface we need a separate particle because a classical particle can ocupy only a single point in space. A quantum wave is of course different and we are all accustomed to the idea of a single-particle wave. In this case the properties of the entire ensemble are somehow encoded in properties of a single element of the ensemble.

For some reasons, probably partly historical, it seems that the idea of a single-particle state vector representation of the ensemble of oscillators has never been considered. The historical reason may be the fact that the very concept of field quantization occured already in 1925. At that stage quantum mechanics existed still in a matrix form and the Schrödinger paper “Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem”, where the Schrödinger equation occured for the first time and the role of eigenvalues was explained, was not yet published. Actually, as explained by Jammer , Heisenberg quantized the harmonic oscillator without having heard of matrices so no wonder he could not treat the parameter $`\omega `$ entering $`E=p^2/2m+m\omega ^2q^2/2`$ as an eigenvalue of some operator.

Heisenberg’s quantization leads to the well known algebra of canonical commutation relations (CCR) $`[a_\omega ,a_\omega ^{}]=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the identity operator and $`\omega `$ a classical parameter. As it turns out the replacemwnt of $`\omega `$ by an operator $`\widehat{\omega }`$ leads to non-canonical commutation relations (non-CCR) $`[a_\omega ,a_\omega ^{}]=\mathrm{𝟏}_\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is an eigenvalue of $`\widehat{\omega }`$ and $`_\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_\omega =\mathrm{𝟏}`$. $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\omega `$, similarly to $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ commutes with all creation and annihilation operators and the remaining commutators of non-CCR are the same as those of CCR. This subtle difference of the right-hand sides of CCR and non-CCR immediately explains why a non-CCR-quantized electromagnetic field will have vacuum with finite energy. Since the non-CCR and CCR algebras are so similar to each other it is not surprizing that the resulting theories are also very similar.

The main consequence of the non-CCR modification of CCR is different normalization of $`n`$-photon states. For example,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}0|a_\omega a_\omega ^{}|0=1`$ (1)
and therefore $`0|a_\omega a_\omega ^{}|0<1`$. This should be contrasted with the CCR result $`0|a_\omega a_\omega ^{}|0=1`$, and the resulting divergence

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}0|a_\omega a_\omega ^{}|0=\mathrm{}`$ (2)
which is the source of infinite vacuum energy.

To end these introductory remarks one should mention that several approaches towards an alternative description of the electromagnetic field at a fundamental level were already proposed (e.g. Janes’  neoclassical theory, stochastic electrodynamics ). But the main idea of all such alternatives was to treat the field in classical terms and to associate the observed discreteness of emission/absorbtion phenomena with the quantum nature of atoms and not with the field itself.

The approach we will discuss in this paper does not belong to this tradition, is much more radical and, so to say, goes in the opposite direction. We will not try to make the field more classical. What we will try to do is to make it even more quantum by replacing classical parameters with eigenvalues.

## II Harmonic oscillator in superposition of frequencies

We know that frequency is typically associated with an eigenvalue of some Hamiltonian or, which is basically the same, with boundary conditions. A natural way of incorporating different frequencies into a single harmonic oscillator is by means of the frequency operator

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k,j_k}{}}\omega _k|\omega _k,j_k\omega _k,j_k|`$ (3)
where all $`\omega _k0`$. For simplicity we have limited the discussion to the discrete spectrum but it is useful to include from the outset the possibility of degeneracies, represented here by the additional discrete quantum numbers $`j_k`$. The corresponding Hamiltonian is defined by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+aa^{}\right)`$ (4)
where $`a=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{n+1}|nn+1|`$. The eigenstates of $`H`$ are $`|\omega _k,j_k,n`$ and satisfy the required formula

$`H|\omega _k,j_k,n=\mathrm{}\omega _k\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)|\omega _k,j_k,n`$ (5)
justifying our choice of $`H`$. The standard case of the oscillator whose frequency is just $`\omega `$ coresponds either to $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \mathrm{𝟏}`$ or to the subspace spanned by $`|\omega _k,j_k,n`$ with fixed $`\omega _k=\omega `$. Introducing the operators

$`a_{\omega _k,j_k}=|\omega _k,j_k\omega _k,j_k|a`$ (6)
we find that

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k,j_k}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _k\left(a_{\omega _k,j_k}^{}a_{\omega _k,j_k}+a_{\omega _k,j_k}a_{\omega _k,j_k}^{}\right).`$ (7)
The algebra of the oscillator is “noncanonical”:

$`[a_{\omega _k,j_k},a_{\omega _k,j_k}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`|\omega _k,j_k\omega _k,j_k|\mathrm{𝟏}=1_{\omega _k,j_k}`$ (8)
$`[a_{\omega _k,j_k},a_{\omega _l,j_l}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}(\omega _k,j_k)(\omega _l,j_l)`$ (9)
$`[a_{\omega _k,j_k},a_{\omega _l,j_l}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
$`[a_{\omega _k,j_k}^{},a_{\omega _l,j_l}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
The dynamics in the Schrödinger picture is given by

$`i\mathrm{}_t|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`H|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (12)
In the Heisenberg picture we obtain the important formula

$`a_{\omega _k,j_k}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iHt/\mathrm{}}a_{\omega _k,j_k}e^{iHt/\mathrm{}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`|\omega _k,j_k\omega _k,j_k|e^{i\omega _kt}a=e^{i\omega _kt}a_{\omega _k,j_k}.`$ (14)
Taking a general state

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k,j_k,n}{}}\psi (\omega _k,j_k,n)|\omega _k,j_k,n`$ (15)
we find that the average energy of the oscillator is

$`H=\psi |H|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k,j_k,n}{}}|\psi (\omega _k,j_k,n)|^2\mathrm{}\omega _k\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (16)
The average clearly looks as an average energy of an ensemble of different and independent oscillators. The ground state of the ensemble, i.e. the one with $`\psi (\omega _k,j_k,n>0)=0`$ has energy

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k,j_k}{}}|\psi (\omega _k,j_k,0)|^2\mathrm{}\omega _k`$ (17)
which is finite if

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k,j_k}{}}\psi (\omega _k,j_k,0)|\omega _k,j_k`$ (18)
belongs to the domain of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The result is not surprising but still quite remarkable if one thinks of the problem of field quantization.

The very idea of quantizing the electromagnetic field, as put forward by Born, Heisenberg, Jordan  and Dirac , is based on the observation that the mode decomposition of the electromagnetic energy is analogous to the energy of an ensemble of independent harmonic oscillators. In 1925, after the work of Heisenberg, it was clear what to do: One had to replace each classical oscillator by a quantum one. But since each oscillator had a definite frequency, to have an infinite number of different frequencies one needed an infinite number of oscillators. The price one payed for this assumption was the infinite energy of the electromagnetic vacuum.

The infinity is regarded as an “easy” one since one can get rid of it by redefining the Hamiltonian and removing the infinite term. The result looks correct and many properties typical of a quantum harmonic oscillator are indeed observed in electromagnetic field. However, subtraction of infinite terms is in mathematics as forbidden as division by zero so to avoid evident absurdities one is forced to invent various ad hoc regularizations whose only justification is that otherwise the theory would not work. In larger perspective (say, in cosmology) it is not at all clear that an infinite (or arbitrarily cut off at the Planck scale) energy of the vacuum does not lead to contradictions with observational data . Finally, Dirac himself had never been fully satisfied by the theory he created. As Weinberg put it, Dirac’s “demand for a completely finite theory is similar to a host of other aesthetic judgements that theoretical physicists always need to make” .

The oscillator that can exist in superpositions of different frequencies is a natural candidate as a starting point for Dirac-type field quantization. Symbolically, if the Heisenberg quantization is $`p^2+\omega ^2q^2\widehat{p}^2+\omega ^2\widehat{q}^2`$, where $`\omega `$ is a parameter, the new scheme is $`p^2+\omega ^2q^2\widehat{p}^2+\widehat{\omega }^2\widehat{q}^2`$, where $`\widehat{\omega }`$ is an operator. Its spectrum can be related to boundary conditions imposed on the fields.

We do not need to remove the ground state energy since in the Hilbert space of physical states the correction is finite. The question we have to understand is whether one can obtain the well known quantum properties of the radiation field by this type of quantization.

## III “First quantization” — One-oscillator field operators

The new quantization will be performed in two steps. In this section we describe the first step, a kind of first quantization. In next sections we shall perform an analogue of second quantization which will lead to the final framework.

The energy and momentum operators of the field are defined in analogy to $`H`$ from the previous section

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+aa^{}\right)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }\left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{}{P}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\kappa }|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+aa^{}\right)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\kappa }\left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (22)
where $`s=\pm 1`$ corresponds to circular polarizations. Denote $`P=(H/c,\stackrel{}{P})`$ and $`Px=Ht\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{x}`$. We employ the standard Dirac-type definitions for mode quantization in volume $`V`$

$`\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }V}}}\left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\right)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`e^{iPx/\mathrm{}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}e^{iPx/\mathrm{}}`$ (24)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{2V}}}\left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`e^{iPx/\mathrm{}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}e^{iPx/\mathrm{}}`$ (26)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{2V}}}\stackrel{}{n}_\kappa \times \left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`e^{iPx/\mathrm{}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}e^{iPx/\mathrm{}},`$ (29)
where

$`a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ $`=`$ $`|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|a`$ (30)
$`a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|a^{}.`$ (31)
For later purposes we introduce the notation

$`[a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}]=1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ (32)
Now take a state (say, in the Heisenberg picture)

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },n}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },n}|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },n`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (34)
where $`|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ form a family of one-oscillator coherent states:

$`a|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (35)
The averages of the field operators are

$`\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }V}}}\left(\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\kappa x}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\kappa x}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{2V}}}\left(\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\kappa x}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\kappa x}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{2V}}}\left(\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\kappa x}\stackrel{}{n}_\kappa \times \stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\kappa x}\stackrel{}{n}_\kappa \times \stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (38)
These are just the classical fields. More precisely, the fields look like averages of monochromatic coherent states with probabilities $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2`$. The energy-momentum operators satisfy also the standard relations

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}d^3x\left(\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})+\widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\right),`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{}{P}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}d^3x\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}(t,\stackrel{}{x}).`$ (40)
To end this section let us note that

$`\mathrm{\Psi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2\left(|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }|\stackrel{}{P}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2\left(|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (42)
The contribution from the vacuum fluctuations is nonzero but finite. One can phrase the latter property also as follows. The noncanonical algebra of creation-annihilation operators satisfies the resolution of identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}[a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}]=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (43)
wheras the canonical algebra would impliy

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}[a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}]=\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ (44)
## IV “Second quantization”

The Hilbert space of states of the field we have constructed is spanned by vectors $`|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },n`$. Still there is no doubt that both in reality (and the standard formalism) there exist multiparticle entangled states such as those spanned by tensor products of the form

$`|+,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1,1|,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2,1,`$ (45)
and the similar. It seems that there is no reason to limit our discussion to a single Hilbert space of a single oscillator. What we have done so far was a quantization of the electromagnetic field at the level of a “one-particle” Hilbert space. Similarly to quantization of other physical systems the next step is to consider many particles. What is not obvious (physically) is whether the oscillators should be considered as noninteracting. This physical freedom leads to two natural candidates for a free-field Hamiltonian.

The noninteracting extension is essentially clear. Having the one-particle energy-momentum operators $`P_a`$ (i.e. generators of 4-translations in the 1-particle Hilbert space) we define in the standard way their extensions to the Fock-type space

$`𝒫_a`$ $`=`$ $`P_a`$ (46)
$`\left(P_a\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}P_a\right)`$ (47)
$`\left(P_a\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}P_a\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}P_a\right)`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{}.`$ (49)
The $`x`$-dependence of fields is introduced similarly to the one-particle level

$`\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}`$ (50)
but the field itself has yet to be defined. Assume

$`\stackrel{}{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\stackrel{}{F}`$ (51)
$`c_2\left(\stackrel{}{F}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{}{F}\right)`$ (52)
$`c_3\left(\stackrel{}{F}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{}{F}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{}{F}\right)`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (54)
where $`c_k`$ are constants discussed below, and $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ is $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}`$, $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}`$, or $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{B}}`$. The multi-oscillator annihilation operator associated with such fields must be therefore of the form

$`𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (55)
$`c_2\left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\right)`$ (56)
$`c_3\left(a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\right)`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{}.`$ (58)
Having two 1-particle operators, say $`X`$ and $`Y`$, one can easily establish a relation between the 1-particle commutator $`[X,Y]`$ and the commutator of the extensions $`𝒳`$, $`𝒴`$:

$`[𝒳,𝒴]`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^2[X,Y]`$ (59)
$`c_2^2\left([X,Y]\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}[X,Y]\right)`$ (60)
$`c_3^2\left([X,Y]\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}[X,Y]\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}[X,Y]\right)`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{}.`$ (62)
The annihilation operators so defined satisfy therefore the algebra

$`[𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},𝒂_{s^{},\stackrel{}{\kappa }^{}}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })(s^{},\stackrel{}{\kappa }^{}),`$ (63)
$`[𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},`$ (64)
$`[𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},𝒂_{s^{},\stackrel{}{\kappa }^{}}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (65)
$`[𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{},𝒂_{s^{},\stackrel{}{\kappa }^{}}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (66)
where the operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^21_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (67)
$`c_2^2\left(1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\right)`$ (68)
$`c_3^2\left(1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\right)`$ (69)
$`\mathrm{},`$ (70)
and $`1_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ is a single-oscillator operator (32).

An important property of the 1-oscillator description was the resolution of identity (43). The requirement that the same be valid at the multi oscillator level leads to $`c_n=1/\sqrt{n}`$. In such a case one finds that

$`\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^2\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (71)
but nevertheless

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (72)
that is $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ are the so-called positive operator valued (POV) measures . Below we shall give still another justification of this particular choice of $`c_n`$.

We can finally write

$`\stackrel{}{𝒜}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }V}}}\left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}+𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\right)`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{𝒜}e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}`$ (74)
$`\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{2V}}}\left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}`$ (76)
$`\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{2V}}}\stackrel{}{n}_\kappa \times \left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}e^{i𝒫x/\mathrm{}}.`$ (79)
These operators form a basis of the modified version of nonrelativistic quantum optics.

Let us return for the moment to the case of a general $`c_n`$. A straightforward calculation shows that

$`𝐇`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}d^3x\left(\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})+\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }\left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }[c_1^2\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}`$ (81)
$`c_2^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right)`$ (82)
$`c_3^2(\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}`$ (83)
$`+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}`$ (84)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\mathrm{𝟏}a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{})`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{}]`$ (86)
where $`\{,\}`$ denotes the anti-commutator. Comparing this with the generator of time translations

$`=c𝒫_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }[\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}`$ (87)
$`\left(\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\right)`$ (88)
$`\left(\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{2}\{a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},a_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\}\right)`$ (89)
$`\mathrm{}]`$ (90)
we can see that there is a relation between $``$ and $`𝐇`$ but the latter contains terms describing interactions between the oscillators. The contribution from these interactions vanishes on vacuum states. Below, when we introduce the notion of a generalized coherent state, we will be able to relate averages of $``$ and $`𝐇`$. In a similar way one can introduce the “Pointing operator”

$`\stackrel{}{𝐏}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}d^3x\stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\times \stackrel{}{}(t,\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\kappa }\left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}+𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\right).`$ (91)
Its relation to the generator of 3-translations $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}`$ is similar to this between $``$ and $`𝐇`$.

In the above construction the only element which is beyond a simple transition to many oscillators is the choice of $`c_n`$. For different choices of these constants we obtain different representations of non-CCR and therefore also different quantization schemes. Several different ways of reasoning lead to $`c_n=1/\sqrt{n}`$ as we shall also see in the next sections.

## V Some particular states

We assume that all the multi-oscillator states are symmetric with respect to permutations of the oscillators.

### A Generalized coherent states

For general $`c_n`$ an eigenstate of $`𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ is of the form

$`|𝜶_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ $`=`$ $`f_1(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}/c_1`$ (92)
$`f_2(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}/(2c_2)|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}/(2c_2)`$ (93)
$`f_3(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}/(3c_3)|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}/(3c_3)|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}/(3c_3)`$ (94)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (95)
where

$`|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }},`$ (96)
$`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}|f_n(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|^2=1`$, and $`a|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$. What is interesting not all $`f_n`$ have to be nonvanishing.

The average “energies” of the field in the above eigenstate are

$`𝜶_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}||𝜶_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{nc_n^2}}|f_n(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n|f_n(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|^2`$ (97)
and

$`𝜶_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|𝐇|𝜶_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}nc_n^2|f_n(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|^2.`$ (98)
The two averages will differ only by the value of the vacuum contribution if $`c_n=1/\sqrt{n}`$ which leads us back to the above mentioned choice of $`c_n`$. With this choice and taking the general combination of coherent states

$`|𝚿={\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|𝜶_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (99)
we find

$`𝚿||𝚿`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n|f_k(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })|^2`$ (100)
and

$`𝚿|𝐇|𝚿`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2|\alpha _{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}|^2.`$ (101)
One may wonder, then, what is the more natural choice of the free-field Hamiltonian: $`𝐇`$ describing interacting oscillators, or $``$ describing the noninteracting ones? The coherent-state average of $`𝐇`$ does not depend on the average number of the oscillators and naturally includes the process of energy exchange between different oscillators. Moreover, both $`𝐇`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝐏}`$ are defined in the standard way in terms of the multi-oscillator non-CCR algebra. With this choice of free dynamics we find

$`e^{i𝐇t/\mathrm{}}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i𝐇t/\mathrm{}}=e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t\mathrm{𝟏}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$ (102)
as opposed to the standard formula

$`e^{it/\mathrm{}}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{it/\mathrm{}}=e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}.`$ (103)
The latter choice is simpler because it leads to the standard form of the interaction-picture Hamiltonian and therefore will be the basis of our non-canonical quantum optics. The version based on $`𝐇`$ is a subject of ongoing study.

### B Vacuum

Similarly to the one-oscillator case the traditional notion of a vacuum state is replaced in our formalism by a vacuum subspace consisting of all the vectors annihilated by all $`𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$. Their general form is

$`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}O_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },0}^{(1)}|s,\stackrel{}{\kappa },0`$ (104)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s_j,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_j}{}}O_{s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2,0,0}^{(2)}|s_1,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1,0|s_2,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2,0`$ (105)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s_j,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_{\lambda _j}}{}}O_{s_1,s_2,s_3\stackrel{}{\kappa }_{\lambda _1},\stackrel{}{\kappa }_{\lambda _2},\stackrel{}{\kappa }_{\lambda _3},0,0,0}^{(3)}|s_1,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1,0|s_2,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2,0|s_3,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_3,0`$ (106)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (107)
It seems that there is no reason for introducing the standard unique “vacuum state” understood as the cyclic vector of the GNS construction.

As an example of a vacuum state consider

$`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{p_1}|O`$ (108)
$`\sqrt{p_2}|O|O`$ (109)
$`\sqrt{p_3}|O|O|O`$ (110)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (111)
The average energy of the free-field vacuum state is therefore

$`\overline{}=\mathrm{𝟎}||\mathrm{𝟎}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}np_nO|H|O=\overline{n}\overline{H}`$ (112)
where $`\overline{n}`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ are, respectively, the average number of oscillators and the average energy of a single oscillator. For the sake of completeness let us note that

$`\overline{𝐇}=\mathrm{𝟎}|𝐇|\mathrm{𝟎}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_n^2np_nO|H|O=\overline{H}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_n^2np_n`$ (113)
For $`c_n=1`$ we obtain $`\overline{𝐇}=\overline{}`$; for $`c_n=1/\sqrt{n}`$ $`\overline{𝐇}=\overline{H}`$ the latter being independent of the number of oscillators. In both cases no problem with infinite vacuum energy is found. Obviously, one can contemplate also other vacua, say, in entangled or mixed states.

### C Multi-photon states

Assume $`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is a vacuum state. The non-canonical algebra (non-CCR) differes from the canonical one in the commutator

$`[𝒂_\lambda ,𝒂_\lambda ^{}]=\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda `$ (114)
where for any $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$

$`[\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{},𝒂_\lambda ]=[\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{},𝒂_\lambda ^{}]=0`$ (115)
where $`\lambda `$ stands for $`(s,\stackrel{}{\kappa })`$. A normalized state describing a collection of photons is defined in analogy to the standard formalism by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n_1!n_2!\mathrm{}n_N!\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_{\lambda _N}^{n_N}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\lambda _2}^{n_2}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\lambda _1}^{n_1}|\mathrm{𝟎}}}}(𝒂_{\lambda _N}^{})^{n_N}\mathrm{}(𝒂_{\lambda _2}^{})^{n_2}(𝒂_{\lambda _1}^{})^{n_1}|\mathrm{𝟎}=:|𝒏_{\lambda _1},𝒏_{\lambda _2},\mathrm{},𝒏_{\lambda _N}`$ (116)
States corresponding to the same $`\lambda `$ but different $`n`$’s, or to the same $`n`$ but different $`\lambda `$’s, are orthogonal. As a consequence a non-canonical vacuum average of any product of non-canonical creation and annihilation operators vanishes if and only if an analogous expression formulated in terms of the canonical objects does. This property is a consequence of three facts which hold true in both formalisms: (a) annihilation operators annihilate vacuum states, (b) creation operators are obtained by a Hermitian conjugate of the annihilation operators, and (c) the RHS of a commutator of creation and annihilation operators commutes with all creation and annihilation operators.

## VI Perturbation theory

It is essential that, similarly to the one-oscillator formalism, the free Hamiltonian (defined simply as a generator of time translations) generates the standard dynamics of annihilation operators:

$`e^{it/\mathrm{}}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{it/\mathrm{}}=e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}.`$ (117)
Accordingly, the form of the interaction-picture Hamiltonian will by the same as in the standard theory. This would not be quite the same if we have chosen $`𝐇`$ in the role of the free Hamiltonian (an option which, nevertheless, should be investigated). In what follows we start with $`H=H_0+V`$, where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`H_A+`$ (118)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\stackrel{}{𝒜}(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{p}`$ (119)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }V}}}\left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\stackrel{}{p}+𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\stackrel{}{p}\right).`$ (120)
In the interaction picture we get

$`V(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\stackrel{}{𝒜}(t,\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{p}(t)`$ (121)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }V}}}\left(𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x})}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\stackrel{}{p}(t)+𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{x})}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}^{}\stackrel{}{p}(t)\right),`$ (122)
and

$`\stackrel{}{p}(t)=e^{iH_At}\stackrel{}{p}e^{iH_At}.`$ (123)
Since we are purposefully neglecting the “$`\stackrel{}{A}^2`$” term in the Hamiltonian, one should restrict the analysis to the dipole approximation and therefore it is justified to set $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$:

$`V(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\left(𝒂_\lambda \widehat{g}_\lambda (t)+𝒂_\lambda ^{}\widehat{g}_\lambda ^{}(t)\right).`$ (124)
The operators

$`\widehat{g}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }V}}}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }t}\stackrel{}{e}_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}\stackrel{}{p}(t)=\widehat{g}_\lambda (t)`$ (125)
are identical to those from the standard formalism and act only on atomic degrees of freedom (i.e. commute with $`𝒂_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}`$).

### A Spontaneous decay of an excited state

The first problem we shall treat in the non-canonical way is a lifetime of an excited atomic state. The problem, as we shall see, is of particular importance for the physical interpretation of the non-canonical formalism.

Assume that at $`t=0`$ the atom-field system is described by the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|\mathrm{𝟎},A`$. The amplitude that the atom remains in the excited state is

$`\mathrm{𝟎},A|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (126)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{}}\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_{\lambda _2}𝒂_{\lambda _1}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}A|\widehat{g}_{\lambda _2}(t_2)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _1}^{}(t_1)|A`$ (127)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^4}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_4{\displaystyle _0^{t_4}}𝑑t_3{\displaystyle _0^{t_3}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}}\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_{\lambda _4}𝒂_{\lambda _3}^{}𝒂_{\lambda _2}𝒂_{\lambda _1}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}A|\widehat{g}_{\lambda _4}(t_4)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _3}^{}(t_3)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _2}(t_2)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _1}^{}(t_1)|A`$ (128)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^4}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_4{\displaystyle _0^{t_4}}𝑑t_3{\displaystyle _0^{t_3}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}}\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_{\lambda _4}𝒂_{\lambda _3}𝒂_{\lambda _2}^{}𝒂_{\lambda _1}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}A|\widehat{g}_{\lambda _4}(t_4)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _3}(t_3)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _2}^{}(t_2)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _1}^{}(t_1)|A`$ (129)
$`+\mathrm{}`$ (130)
$`=`$ $`1`$ (131)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{}}\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_{\lambda _2}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _1}^{}|\widehat{0}A|\widehat{g}_{\lambda _2}(t_2)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _1}^{}(t_1)|AX_{\lambda _2\lambda _1}^{01}`$ (132)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^4}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_4{\displaystyle _0^{t_4}}𝑑t_3{\displaystyle _0^{t_3}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}}\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_{\lambda _4}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _3}^{}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _2}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _1}^{}|\widehat{0}A|\widehat{g}_{\lambda _4}(t_4)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _3}^{}(t_3)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _2}(t_2)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _1}^{}(t_1)|A`$ (133)
$`\times X_{\lambda _4\lambda _3\lambda _2\lambda _1}^{0101}`$ (134)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^4}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_4{\displaystyle _0^{t_4}}𝑑t_3{\displaystyle _0^{t_3}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}}\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_{\lambda _4}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _3}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _2}^{}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _1}^{}|\widehat{0}A|\widehat{g}_{\lambda _4}(t_4)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _3}(t_3)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _2}^{}(t_2)\widehat{g}_{\lambda _1}^{}(t_1)|A`$ (135)
$`\times X_{\lambda _4\lambda _3\lambda _2\lambda _1}^{0011}`$ (136)
$`+\mathrm{}`$ (137)
In the above perturbative expansion we have explicitly shown all the nonvanishing terms up to the fifth order of perturbation theory. Here $`\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_{\lambda _4}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _3}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _2}^{}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _1}^{}|\widehat{0}`$ etc. are the expressions one would have obtained in ordinary canonical formalism and

$`X_{\lambda _4\lambda _3\lambda _2\lambda _1}^{0011}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_{\lambda _4}𝒂_{\lambda _3}𝒂_{\lambda _2}^{}𝒂_{\lambda _1}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_{\lambda _4}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _3}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _2}^{}\widehat{a}_{\lambda _1}^{}|\widehat{0}}}`$ (138)
etc. Such expressions are well defined since whenever their denominators vanish the whole term it containing vanishes as well. This fact is of crucial importance and shows that the perturbative expansions in both canonical and noncanonical frameworks contain terms of exactly the same type but differing by the numerical factors $`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Let us note that in the above calculation we have not used the explicit realization of the non-canonical algebra but only the algebra itself. At such a general level both the canonincal and non-canonical theories can be regarded as particular cases of a more general theory characterized by the algebra

$`[a_\lambda ,a_\lambda ^{}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}I_\lambda ,`$ (139)
$`[a_\lambda ,a_\lambda ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (140)
$`[a_\lambda ^{},a_\lambda ^{}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (141)
$`[a_\lambda ^{},I_\lambda ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (142)
$`[a_\lambda ,I_\lambda ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (143)
The canonical choice, based on oscillators with classical parameter $`\lambda `$, is $`I_\lambda =\mathrm{𝟏}`$; the choice based on oscillators with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ is $`I_\lambda =\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda `$.

To proceed further and get more information as to the physical meaning of the non-canonical dynamics we have to make the analysis less general. First of all let us stick to the particular choice of $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda `$ in terms of POV measures we have introduced earlier and assume that $`_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda =\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Second, let us take the vacuum state in the form (111). Under such assumptions we can explicitly compute the factors $`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$:

$`X_{\lambda \lambda }^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda ^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}|\widehat{0}}}=\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda |\mathrm{𝟎}=|O_\lambda |^2`$ (144)
$`X_{\lambda \lambda \lambda ^{}\lambda ^{}}^{0101}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda ^{}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}^{}|\widehat{0}}}=\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_n\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right)|O_\lambda |^2|O_\lambda ^{}|^2=\left(11/n\right)|O_\lambda |^2|O_\lambda ^{}|^2`$ (145)
$`X_{\lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda }^{0101}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda ^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}|\widehat{0}}}=\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^2|\mathrm{𝟎}=\left(11/n\right)|O_\lambda |^4+1/n|O_\lambda |^2`$ (146)
$`X_{\lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda }^{0011}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda ^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}|\widehat{0}}}=\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^2|\mathrm{𝟎}=\left(11/n\right)|O_\lambda |^4+1/n|O_\lambda |^2`$ (147)
$`X_{\lambda \lambda ^{}\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{0011}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|𝒂_\lambda 𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda ^{}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{0}|\widehat{a}_\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}^{}|\widehat{0}}}=\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}=\left(11/n\right)|O_\lambda |^2|O_\lambda ^{}|^2.`$ (148)
What is interesting (and very characteristic) all these factors are smaller than 1 (this follows trivially from $`_\lambda |O_\lambda |^2=1`$). An analysis of higher order terms shows that this is a generic property of the non-canonical perturbation theory. The $`n`$ occuring in the average $`1/n`$ is the number-of-oscillators operator. For realistic vacua one may expect the average number of oscillators to be large and therefore $`1/n0`$. Taking a more general vacuum state we arrive at $`1/n_\lambda `$ instead of $`1/n`$, which means that the influence of the vacuum may vary from frequency to frequency (i.e. from point to point in space).

Now, if we ignore the corrections coming from $`1/n`$ we can see that the non-canonical perturbative expansion of the amplitude is the same we would have obtained by using the standard theory but with $`\widehat{g}_\lambda `$ regularized by $`\widehat{g}_\lambda O_\lambda \widehat{g}_\lambda `$. As a consequence there exists a natural cut-off in the theory which follows only from the fact that the vacuum wave function is square-integrable and therefore $`O_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}0`$ for $`|\stackrel{}{\kappa }|\mathrm{}`$. It is quite remarkable that the same mechanism that eliminated the infinite vacuum energy plays a similar role in the other parts of the theory. As we shall see shortly the actual role of the vacuum can be analyzed only in a fully relativistic setting since then the charge and mass renormalization come into play.

However, for the sake of concreteness and to make some rough estimates of the effects involved let us take the trivial example where the vacuum amplitudes are constant, say, $`O_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=C`$ for all $`\omega _\stackrel{}{\kappa }<\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and zero otherwise. The dynamics of the amplitude is then (up to $`1/n0`$) equivalent to the standard one with the cut-off at $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and the coupling constant $`e/m`$ replaced by $`Ce/m`$. This implies that $`e`$ and $`m`$ have to be treated as bare parameters and the experimantal value is $`e_{\mathrm{ex}}/m_{\mathrm{ex}}=Ce/m`$. With this observation in mind we can discuss non-canonically other perturbative effects which are widely believed to be a consequence of the standard canonical quantization. Below we find it useful to make the bare parameter $`e/m`$ explicit in calculations and for this reason will use the notation $`\widehat{g}_\lambda =(e/m)\widehat{f}_\lambda `$.

### B Spontaneous emission of $`N`$ identical photons in $`N`$-th order perturbation theory

Assume the atomic transition is $`|A|B`$. Up to the $`N`$-th order perturbative correction we get

$`𝑵_\lambda ,B|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\right)^N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^N}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_N{\displaystyle _0^{t_N}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}𝑑t_1𝑵_\lambda |𝒂_\lambda ^N|\mathrm{𝟎}B|\widehat{f}_\lambda ^{}(t_N)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}_\lambda ^{}(t_1)|A`$ (149)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\right)^N{\displaystyle \frac{𝑵_\lambda |𝒂_\lambda ^N|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{N}_\lambda |\widehat{a}_\lambda ^N|\widehat{0}}}\times (\mathrm{relevant}\mathrm{canonical}\mathrm{formula})`$ (150)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\right)^N\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^N|\mathrm{𝟎}}\times (\mathrm{relevant}\mathrm{canonical}\mathrm{formula})`$ (151)
where the “hatted” expressions are those from the canonical theory. As we can see the task is reduced to computing $`\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^N|\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The general formula, valid for any $`N`$, is somewhat complicated and not very illuminating. The cases $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ we have already met. Making the simplifying choice of a very “flat” distribution of the vacuum modes (i.e. $`O_{s,\stackrel{}{\kappa }}=C`$ below some threshold) we get

$`\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ,B|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`C\widehat{1}_\lambda ,B|\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t)`$ (153)
$`\mathrm{𝟐}_\lambda ,B|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{C^4+1/n(C^2C^4)}\widehat{2}_\lambda ,B|\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t).`$ (154)
Identifying $`Ce/m`$ with $`e_{\mathrm{ex}}/m_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ we obtain the standard quantum-optics results provided

$`\sqrt{C^4+1/n(C^2C^4)}C^2.`$ (155)
For $`N=3`$

$`\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^3|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^3}}\left(nC^2+3n(n1)C^4+(n^33n^2+2n)C^6\right)p_n`$ (156)
$`=`$ $`C^6+3C^4\left(1C^2\right)1/n+C^2\left(13C^2+2C^4\right)1/n^2.`$ (157)
As before the result becomes the standard one if the approximation

$`\sqrt{C^6+3C^4\left(1C^2\right)1/n+C^2\left(13C^2+2C^4\right)1/n^2}C^3`$ (158)
is justified. Let us note that in the standard cananonical quantum optics one considers vacuum consisting of an infinite number of oscillators and such subtleties are trivially ignored.

### C Spontaneous emission of two different photons

By the same argument as before the proportionality factor we need to estimate in second-order perturbation theory is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ,\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{}|𝒂_\lambda ^{}𝒂_\lambda ^{}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\widehat{1}_\lambda ,\widehat{1}_\lambda ^{}|\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}^{}|\widehat{0}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}}=\sqrt{11/n}C^2C^2`$ (159)
so the result agrees with the canonical one. It is also in perfect agreement with the explicit calculations given in .

### D Stimulated emission

The last example we will discuss is the first order calculation of the transition amplitude $`|𝑵_\lambda ,A|(𝑵\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏})_\lambda ,B`$. The appropriate proportionality coeeficient is

$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^{N+1}|\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}_\lambda ^N|\mathrm{𝟎}}}}C`$ (160)
provided the values of $`1/n`$, $`1/n^2`$, etc. are sufficiently small. This is the correct result since $`C`$ gets absorbed into the renormalized coupling constant.

## VII Blackbody radiation

The final test of the new formalism we want to perform is the problem of blackbody radiation. Planck’s famous formula

$`\varrho (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^3}{e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2c^3}}\omega ^3\overline{N}_\omega ,`$ (161)
where $`\overline{N}_\omega `$ is the average number of excitations of an oscillator in inverse temperature $`\beta `$, is one of the first great sucesses of quantum radiation theory and marks the beginning of quantum mechanics. Contemporary measurements of $`\varrho (\omega )`$  performed by means of COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) are in a very good agreement with the Planck law. The data have been carefully analyzed in the context of nonextensive statistics  in search of possible deviations from extensivity. The result that comes out systematically is $`|q1|<10^4`$ where $`q`$ is the Tsallis parameter. The case $`q=1`$ corresponds to the exact Planck formula. If there are any corrections whatever, they must be quite small.

The derivation of the formula given by Einstein is based on the properties of spontaneous and stimulated emissions. As we have seen above there may occur differences with respect to the standard formalism but under reasonable assumptions they may be expected to be small.

Below we follow another standard route which consists basically of two steps. First, one counts the number of different wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ such that $`c|\stackrel{}{k}|[\omega ,\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ]`$. Second, one associates with each such a vector an oscillator and counts the average number of its excitations assuming the Boltzmann-Gibbs probability distribution at temperature $`T`$ and chemical potential $`\mu =0`$. The latter assumption is justified by the fact that the number of excitations of the electromagnetic field is not conserved in atom-light interactions.

In the new model the situation is slightly different since there exists an additional conserved quantum number: The number of oscillators. As we have seen in previous calculations the Hamiltonian is block-diagonal with respect to $``$ but changes the number of excitations in each $`N`$-oscillator subspace of the direct sum. The state vectors at the multi-oscillator level are symmetric with respect to permutations of the oscillators and therefore the oscillators themselves have to be regarded as bosons whose number is conserved and their chemical potential is $`\mu 0`$. However, their excitations should be regarded as bosons with vanishing chemical potential.

The eigenvalues of $``$

$`E_{m,n}=m\mathrm{}\omega \left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (162)
corresponding to the oscillator whose frequency is $`\omega `$ are parametrized by two natural numbers: $`m`$ (the number of oscillators) and $`n`$ (the number of excitations). Assuming the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics we obtain the probabilities

$`p_{m,n}=Z^1e^{\beta [m\mathrm{}\omega (n+\frac{1}{2})m\mu ]}`$ (163)
where

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{\beta m(\mu +\mathrm{}\omega /2)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta m\mathrm{}\omega }}{1e^{\beta m\mathrm{}\omega }}}.`$ (164)
The Lambert series

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_m{\displaystyle \frac{x^m}{1x^m}}`$ (165)
is convergent for any $`x`$ if $`_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_m`$ is convergent. Otherwise (165) converges for exactly those $`x`$ for which the power series $`_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_mx^m`$ does. In (164) $`a_m=e^{\beta m(\mu +\mathrm{}\omega /2)}`$ and $`_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_m<\mathrm{}`$ if $`\mu +\mathrm{}\omega /2<0`$. If $`\mu +\mathrm{}\omega /20`$ we still have convergence of (164) as long as $`_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}e^{\beta m[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \mu ]}<\mathrm{}`$. The upper limit imposed on $`\mu `$ by the finiteness of $`Z`$ is therefore $`\mu <\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega `$. In what follows we assume that $`\mu `$ is $`\omega `$-independent and therefore $`\mu 0`$.

The appropriate average number of excitations is

$`\overline{n}_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`Z^1{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}mne^{\beta [m\mathrm{}\omega (n+\frac{1}{2})m\mu ]}`$ (166)
and the Planck formula is replaced by

$`\varrho _{\mathrm{new}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2c^3}}\omega ^3\overline{n}_\omega .`$ (167)
It is easy to show that $`\varrho _{\mathrm{new}}(\omega )`$ tends to the Planck distribution with $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. To see this consider a more general series

$`Z^1{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}mnq_me^{\beta m\mathrm{}\omega (n+\frac{1}{2})}`$ (168)
where $`Z`$ is the normalization factor and $`_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}q_m<\mathrm{}`$. If $`q_1=1`$ and $`q_m=0`$ for $`m>1`$ then (168) is just the exact Planckian formula. Factoring out $`e^{\beta |\mu |}`$ in both the numerator and the denominator of $`\overline{n}_\omega `$ we obtain $`q_1=1`$ and $`q_m=e^{\beta |\mu |(m1)}`$ for $`m>1`$. For $`|\mu |\mathrm{}`$ all $`q_m`$, for $`m>1`$, vanish and the limiting distribution is Planckian.

This proves that an experimental agreement with the ordinary Planck’s $`\varrho (\omega )`$ cannot rule out our modification but can, at most, set a lower bound on an admissible value of $`|\mu |`$. However, assuming that $`\mu `$ has some finite and fixed value it should be in principle measurable. The plots show that the modifications become visible around $`\mu 3k_BT`$. Assuming that the chemical potential is temperature independent, say $`\mu =k_BT_0`$, we obtain a kind of critical temperature $`T_{\mathrm{critical}}T_0/3`$ above which the ratio $`\mu /(k_BT)`$ is small enough to make the modifications of the distribution observable. For $`T<T_{\mathrm{critical}}`$ the distribution should be given by the Planck law; for $`T>T_{\mathrm{critical}}`$ the distribution should approach the $`\mu =0`$ distribution, i.e. this would be a Planck-type curve but with the maximum lowered and shifted towards higher energies.

Fig. 1 shows the plots of $`\varrho _{\mathrm{new}}(\omega )`$ for $`\mu =0`$ (lower dotted), $`\mu =0.8k_BT`$ (upper dotted), and $`\mu =10k_BT`$ (solid). The thick dashed curve is the Planck distribution. The curve obtained for $`\mu =10k_BT`$ is indistinguishable from the Planck distribution. The plot does not change if one takes $`\mu <10k_BT`$ and differences are not visible even if one plots the distributions in logarithmic scales (not shown here). This is a numerical proof that the distribution we have obtained on the basis of the modified quantization tends very quickly to the Planck one as $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. It is instructive to compare the modification we have predicted with those arising from nonextensive statistics. The two thin dashed lines represent Tsallis distributions resulting from nonextensive formalism for $`q=0.95`$ (lower) and $`q=1.05`$ (upper). The modifications we have derived are therefore qualitatively different from those resulting from Tsallis statistics.

## VIII Conclusions

“A theory that is as spectacularly successful as quantum electrodynamics has to be more or less correct, although we may not be formulating it in just the right way” . The above quotation from Weinberg could serve as a motto opening our paper. The main idea we have tried to advocate was that the standard canonical quantization procedure is, in certain sense, too classical to be good.

The reasons for such a choice of quantization could be both historical and sociological and may be rooted in the fact that the idea of quantizing the field was formulated before the real development of modern quantum mechanics. In oscillations of a simple pendulum it may be justified to treat $`\omega `$ as an external parameter defining the system (via, say, the length of the pendulum). But oscillations of the electromagnetic field do not seem to have such a “mechanical” origin and it is more natural to think of the spectrum of frequencies as eigenvalues of some Hamiltonian. That is exactly what happens with other quantum wave equations.

We have defined the quantum electromagnetic field as an oscillator that can exist in a superposition of different frequencies (or, rather, wave vectors). This should not be confused with the classical superpositions of frequencies created by, say, a guitar string. The superpositions we have in mind dissappear at the classical level.

Once one accepts this viewpoint it becomes clear how to quantize the field at the level of a single oscillator. We do not need many oscillators to perform the field quantization. But there is no reason to believe that all the possible fields can be described by the same single oscillator. And even more: We know that the structure of the one-oscillator Hilbert space is not rich enough to describe multi-particle entangled states and there is no doubt that such states are physical. The next step, performed already after the quantization, is to consider fields consisting of 1, 2, 3 and more oscillators, and even existing in superpositions of different numbers of them. The resulting structure is in many respects analogous to the Fock space so that the procedure can be (although somewhat misleadingly) referred to as “second quantization”. What is essential we do not need the vacuum state understood as the unique cyclic vector of the GNS construction.

On the other hand, there exist vacuum states. These are all the states describing ground states of the oscillators. They correspond to concrete finite average values of energy. A general vacuum state is therefore a superposition of different eigenstates of a free Hamiltonian and is not, in itself, an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.

One technical assumption we have made is the resolution of identity property of the non-CCR algebra. This assumption is clearly satisfied at the one-oscillator level. The remaining assumptions are standard. The system is described by laws of ordinary quantum mechanics so that to compute concrete problems we can use standard methods. Perturbation theory leads to structures we know from the standard Feynmann diagrams. The blackbody radiation is calculated by means of the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics.

There are still several unexplored possibilities. To give an example, we have seen in explicit calculations that differences between the canonical and non-canonical formalisms consist of the factors occuring in perturbative expansions of amplitudes. These factors explicitly depend on the choice of the RHS of the non-CCR algebra. As such, they point into possible experiments testing directly the algebra of canonical commutation relations. The meaning of such tests is, at the present stage, obscured by the lack of proper understanding of the role of renormalisation. Actually, one should not expect here precise results since even the nonrelativistic canonical quantum electrodynamics is non-renormalizable. The simple illustration we have used, namely the one with the cut-off and flat vacuum, shows that the new theory is not that far from the canonical one as one might expect.

Let us close these remarks with another quotation: “Present quantum electrodynamics contains many very important ‘elements of truth’, but also some clear ‘elements of nonsense’. Because of the divergences and ambiguities, there is general agreement that a rather deep modification of the theory is needed, but in some forty years of theoretical work, nobody has seen how to disentengle the truth from the nonsense. In such a situation, one needs more experimental evidence, but during that same forty years we have found no clues from the laboratory as to what specific features of QED might be modified. Even worse, in the absence of any alternative theory whose predictions differ from those of QED in known ways, we have no criterion telling us which experiments would be relevant ones to try.

It seems useful, then, to examine the various disturbing features of QED, which give rise to mathematical or conceptual difficulties, to ask whether present empirical evidence demands their presence, and to explore the consequences of the modified (although perhaps rather crude and incomplete) theories in which these features are removed. Any difference between the predictions of QED and some alternative theory, corresponds to an experiment which might distinguish between them; if it appears untried but feasible, then we have the opportunity to subject QED to a new test in which we know just what to look for, and which we would be very unlikely to think of without the alternative theory. For this purpose, the alternative theory need not be worked out as completely as QED; it is sufficient if we know in what way their predictions will differ in the area of interest. Nor does the alternative theory need to be free of defects in all other respects; for if experiment should show that it contains just a single ‘element of truth’ that is not in QED, then the alternative theory will have served its purpose; we would have the long-missing clue showing in what way QED must be modified, and electrodynamics (and, I suspect, much more of theoretical physics along with it) could get moving again “ .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was done partly during my stays in Antwerp University, UIA, and Arnold Sommerfeld Institute in Clausthal. I gratefully acknowledge a support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Polish-Flemish grant No. 007. I’m indebted to Prof. Iwo Białynicki-Birula, Robert Alicki, Jan Naudts, Maciej Kuna, and Wolfgang Luecke for critical comments, and Paweł Syty for a stimulating discussion on small $`\omega `$’s. I express my gratitude to prof. Heinz-Dietrich Doebner for various help.


format: text

text:
# Radio and X-ray Signatures of Merging Neutron Stars

## 1 Introduction

The gravitational wave-induced merger of binary neutron stars has evoked considerable interest in recent years due to their importance as a source of gravitational radiation (Thorne 1987 and references therein) and potentially also gamma-ray bursts (Blinnikov et al 1984; Paczynski 1986; Eichler et al 1989; Paczynski 1991). The goal of identifying electromagnetic signatures of the merger events is an important one, even if such manifestations are not gamma-ray bursts. Given the considerable information processing required to infer the presence of a gravitational wave burst (Cutler et al 1993), the presence of another signature will be invaluable.

In this paper we examine the magnetospheric interactions in merging neutron star binary systems and describe their pre- and post-merger signatures. In particular, we consider systems containing one low field $`B_r10^{911}G`$, rapidly spinning ($`P1100ms`$) recycled pulsar and one high field ($`B_m10^{1215}G`$), slowly spinning ($`P101000s`$) non-recycled pulsar, as expected on both empirical and evolutionary grounds. We shall examine how energy is extracted from the spin and orbital motion of the pulsar and in what manner it is radiated. Aspects of this calculation have been considered before by Vietri (1996), who considered magnetospherically induced gamma-ray bursts, and Lipunov & Panchenko (1996), who considered the the far-field dipolar and quadrupolar configurations of a dipole merging with a superconducting sphere. Our default estimates will be for systems in which the high field pulsar has a field $`10^{15}`$ G (sometimes called a magnetar), which has the potential for the strongest signal. Recent work suggests that such pulsars may constitute $`10\%`$ of the young pulsar population (Kulkarni & Thompson 1998).

In section 2 we will describe the magnetospheric interactions that remove energy from the orbit and which allow it to emerge in electromagnetic form. This section will draw heavily on concepts from pulsar electrodynamics and also the field of satellite-magnetosphere electrodynamics, such as in the Io-Jupiter system. One of the primary results is that much of the energy is released as a pair plasma into the magnetosphere. Section 3 describes the physical state and evolution of this plasma, drawing on concepts developed to describe Soft Gamma Repeaters and section 4 reviews the state of the observations appropriate to this phenomenon.

## 2 The Extraction of Spin and Orbital Energy

High magnetic field pulsars spin down rapidly, so that we consider the high field pulsar to be essentially non-rotating. A corollary to this is that the light cylinder radius for the magnetar magnetosphere (or ‘magnetarsphere’!) is $`c/\mathrm{\Omega }5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}(P/100\mathrm{s})`$, so that all of our subsequent discussion concerns processes occurring deep within the closed region of this magnetosphere. This will hold true right up to the point of merger as tidal interactions cannot enforce synchronisation in a coalescing neutron star binary (Bildsten & Cutler 1992).

The extraction of energy from the pulsar spin and orbital motion is driven by how the strongly conducting neutron star interacts with the external magnetic field of the magnetar. As a model problem we consider perfectly conducting sphere moving through an externally imposed uniform magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$ with velocity $`𝐯`$ and rotating with angular velocity $`𝛀`$. Motion of a conducting sphere through magnetic field is possible only if the resistivity of the sphere (neutron star) is nonzero. But the neutron star crust is virtually a perfect conductor: the magnetic diffusion times for neutron stars are very long - in fact comparable to the age of the universe. We argue that the required resistivity is due to the dissipation of the induced magnetospheric currents far from the neutron star surface. This is analogous to the case of isolated pulsars, where currents are dissipated in the pulsar wind-ISM shocks more than $`10^9`$ light cylinder radii away.

The electrodynamics of the low-field pulsar interaction with the magnetar magnetic field is considered in appendix A. Qualitatively, this interaction has several important ingredients. The conducting neutron star excludes the external field from its interior. The induced magnetic field has a dipole structure with the magnetic dipole directed against the external field. The resultant magnetic field is

$$𝐁_{tot}=𝐁_0+\frac{R^3}{2r^3}𝐁_0\frac{3R^3(𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}𝐫)𝐫}{2r^5}$$
(1)
At the surface the total magnetic field has only a tangential component, inside the star the magnetic field is zero. The orbital motion of the neutron star with respect to the external field will induce surface charges with a dipole structure and surface charge density

$$\sigma _{orb}=\frac{1}{4\pi cR_0}\left(𝐁_0[𝐑_0\times 𝐯]\right)$$
(2)
where $`R_0`$ is the radius of the neutron star. These surface charges will also produce electric fields which will have a component along the total magnetic field. If the neutron star orbits in a vacuum, this electric field will accelerate charges from the surface or surrounding region to relativistic energies. If the internal magnetic field of the neutron star is exactly zero, the resulting structure of the electric field will be of the ”outer gap type” (Chen, Ho & Ruderman 1986) - a region in the magnetosphere with $`E_{}`$ which does not intersect the surface of the neutron star. However, there is likely to be some small component of radial magnetic field at the surface. This could result either from whatever intrinsic field the recycled neutron star possesses or from a second-order induced field resulting from rotation of the star (see below and appendix A). In this case the electric field will draw charges from the surface.

Similarly to orbital motion, the rotation of the neutron star will produce a surface charge density

$$\sigma _{rot}=\frac{3R_0\mathrm{\Omega }B_0\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta }{8\pi c}$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{sin}\psi =\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ and $`𝛀=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,0,\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$, i.e. $`\psi `$ is the polar angle in the frame aligned with $`𝛀`$ and rotating with the neutron star. This charge density is stationary in the frame of the neutron star while in the laboratory frame it yields an additional surface current $`𝐣=\sigma _{rot}𝛀\times 𝐫`$. The magnetic field due to this current is of order $`(R\mathrm{\Omega }/c)^2`$ smaller than the external field $`𝐁_0`$, but has a radial component at the surface.

Similarly to the case of the aligned rotator studied by Goldreich & Julian (1969), the strong electric field produced by surface charges will accelerate charges in an attempt to short out the component of the electric field that lies parallel to the magnetic field. The typical densities of the primary beam will be $`n_{GJ}\mathrm{\Omega }B_0/2\pi ec`$ for acceleration by $`\sigma _{rot}`$ and $`vB_0/ecR`$ for acceleration by $`\sigma _{orb}`$. After being accelerated to sufficient energies ($`\gamma 10^6`$) the initial primaries produce curvature photons and a dense population of secondary electron-positron pairs that will screen the induced electric field. This mechanism of energy extraction is essentially the same as in the classical pulsar case with a couple of small but important differences. The first is that, unlike the case of the pulsar, the near field energy density is dominated by the plasma, rather than Poynting flux (see appendix A). Secondly, the field configuration defined by (1) contains no closed magnetosphere. In the traditional pulsar case, the ‘working surface’ of the energy extraction is limited to the polar cap, a fraction $`(r\mathrm{\Omega }/c)^2`$ of the the total surface area, which is linked to the open field lines. In the case under discussion here, the polar cap effectively encompasses the entire star.

The energy extracted by accelerating primary particles is limited by the maximum energy that primary particles can reach:

$$L4\pi R^2n_{GJ}\gamma _{max}m_ec^33.1\times 10^{36}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(4)
However, the energy extraction from the orbital motion is likely to be significantly more efficient than implied by (4). Once the pair production cascade has loaded the external field lines with plasma, the spiraling neutron star emits Alfvén waves along the external magnetic field (Drell, Foley & Ruderman 1965; Barnett & Olbert 1986; Wright & Southwood 1987), in much same way as Io interacting with Jupiter or various artificial satellites in the earth’s magnetosphere. In this case, the pair production front acts as a surface of finite resistivity, allowing the neutron star to ‘cross field lines’111Even if the resistivity were considerably lower, a similar level of energy extraction would occur via the screw-instability of strongly wound magnetic field configurations (Low 1986; Aly 1991; Volwer, van Oss & Kuijper 1993; Gruzinov 1999), given only the assumption of sufficient ambient plasma to justify the force-free approximation. We assume that these waves are dissipated in the magnetar magnetosphere by non-linear damping mechanisms similar to those invoked by Soft Gamma Repeater models (e.g. Thompson & Duncan 1995). Thus we shall assume that the bulk of the energy extracted from the orbit is deposited into the magnetospheric pair plasma, and is of order (Drell et al 1965)

$`L_{orb}`$ $`4\pi R^2B_m^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^6{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{c}}`$
$``$ $`7.4\times 10^{45}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_m}{10^{15}\mathrm{G}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{10^7\mathrm{cm}}}\right)^7.`$ (5)
Additional sources of energy are the Poynting losses due to the motion of the induced dipole (Lipunov & Panchenko 1996) and the time varying component of the induced magnetic fields (see appendix A), though the corresponding luminosities are much smaller than that given by Eq. (5). Poynting fluxes will be in a form of low frequency electromagnetic waves. Unlike the equivalent situation for pulsars, where the density of the secondary plasma is low, these low frequency electromagnetic waves may not be able to propagate through the dense secondary plasma present in the ”magnetarsphere” - they will convert their energy into plasma (Asseo et al. 1978). Thus, most of the energy lost by the neutron star will be converted into plasma in the near zone and later radiated - this is in contrast to normal pulsars where most of the losses within the light cylinder are due to the Poynting flux.

Our situation also differs somewhat from that considered by Vietri (1996), who addressed the problem of the merger of two high-field pulsars. The consequently large radii of field line curvature implied screening was ineffective and allowed efficient acceleration of particles and high energy emission. The fundamental difference in our case is that plasma screening occurs close to the low field neutron star, where the radius of curvature is smaller. The result is efficient generation of pair plasma and effective screening of parallel electric fields. The pair plasma will then mediate the dominant energy extraction by Alfvén wave emission.

### 2.1 Radio Emission

In normal pulsars, the acceleration of particles by electric fields at the surface yields coherent radiation observed as radio emission. Thus, we might hope for similar signals in this instance. The lack of a complete theory of pulsar radio emission forces us to adopt a simple parameterisation based on what we know about pulsars. We expect the radio emission to be associated with the primary beam only, whose luminosity is given by Eq. (4). We shall adopt an efficiency of $`ϵ0.1`$ for the conversion of primary beam energy to radio luminosity, based on the radio efficiencies of pulsars (see Taylor, Manchester & Lyne 1993), assuming the pulsar beam luminosity is $`10^3`$ of the spin-down luminosity (Kennel & Coroniti 1984). Then an optimistic estimate for the radio flux at 400 MHz (chosen because it is at this frequency that the pulsar fluxes are best estimated) is

$$F_\nu 2.1\mathrm{mJy}\frac{ϵ}{0.1}\left(\frac{D}{100Mpc}\right)^2B_{15}^{2/3}a_7^{5/2}.$$
(6)
This is within the range of the larger radio telescopes operating today, although somewhat less than the sensitivities of current radio transient searches.

There are several complications that may preclude generation of radio emission. If the neutron star is moving through a pre-existing plasma generated by the previous orbital cycles the electric gaps may be quenched, there will be no need to accelerate further particles and the beam luminosity may drop to zero. In addition, the formation of positronium in the magnetic fields exceeding $`4\times 10^{12}G`$ (Usov & Melrose 1996, Arons 1998) may also quench the radio emission.

Furthermore, the generated radio emission may be absorbed in the magnetarsphere. We expect that nonresonant Thomson scattering of the low frequency ($`\nu <<\nu _B`$) radio emission will not be important due to the the strong suppression ($`\sigma =\sigma _T(\nu /\nu _B)^2`$) of the scattering cross-section by the magnetic field at low frequencies. Resonant cyclotron absorption may be important in the outer regions of the magnetarsphere where the cyclotron frequency becomes comparable to the radio wave frequency ($`a10^{10}cm`$). Nevertheless, such absorption does not occur in the pulsar case, so we may reasonably expect the radio emission to escape the magnetarsphere.

Thus, the first electromagnetic signature we anticipate from a realistic merging neutron star binary is a coherent radio burst, emitted $``$ seconds before the gravitational wave burst. However, the effects of interstellar dispersion can cause delays of hours, possibly allowing for radio follow-up observations at low frequencies (Palmer 1993; Lipunova, Panchenko & Lipunov 1997).

## 3 Evolution of the Magnetospheric Pair Plasma

Most of the energy liberated by the strong electric fields of section 2 is not radiated, but is rather released into the magnetosphere of the slowly-rotating magnetar in the form of Alfvén waves and a dense pair plasma. The energy release (5) is a significant fraction of the local magnetic energy density. In such a case, a wind, driven either by hydromagnetic or plasma pressure, is likely to result (Paczynski 1986, 1990, Melia & Fatuzzo 1995; Katz 1996) while some will remain trapped, in a fashion similar to that of the Soft Gamma Repeater picture of a magnetically confined pair plasma (Thompson & Duncan 1995). We envisage that the plasma released into regions of decreasing field strength powers the wind while plasma released into regions of increasing field strength will be trapped. Figure 1 shows a schematic version of our scenario.

Let us consider first the case of the wind. A release of energy at the rate given by equation (5) results in a compactness parameter $`\eta =L/ac10^7B_{15}^2a_7`$. Thus, this is the same situation envisaged in cosmological models for gamma-ray bursts (Paczynski 1986; Goodman 1986), wherein the release of a large quantity of pure energy within a small volume leads to a relativistically expanding fireball. The energy release during the neutron star inspiral will drive a relativistically expanding wind of pairs and photons. Thermal and statistical equilibrium between photons and pair plasma is maintained during the expansion by pair production and comptonization (Cavallo & Rees 1978) until the comoving temperature drops to $`T3\times 10^8`$ K and pair production can no longer maintain the necessary electron scattering optical depth. At this point the radiation escapes, with an approximately thermal spectrum. However, the relativistic boost increases the observed temperature by a factor $`\gamma `$, the original Lorentz factor of the fireball and reduces the observed burst time by the same factor. Thus, the observed energetic and temporal properties of the wind emission may be approximately described by thermal emission at the appropriate initial temperatures and timescales, despite the fact that the true photosphere is on scales much larger than the original volume. Hence, we shall estimate the observed flux in this case as

$$F_{wind}\frac{\alpha L}{4\pi a^2}3\times 10^{30}\alpha \mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1B_{15}^2a_7^9,$$
(7)
($`\alpha `$ is the fraction of the energy release lost in the wind) yielding effective temperatures just before merger $`1.5\mathrm{MeV}B_{15}^{1/2}`$.

The case of the trapped plasma is somewhat more subtle. This plasma is very optically thick (Svensson 1987; Thompson & Duncan 1995) and the inspiral time $`0.4\mathrm{s}a_7^4`$ is short. Hence, very little of the total energy contained in the magnetosphere is radiated in this time. The emission that does occur is dominated by the region just above the surface of the magnetar, where the strong magnetic field decreases the electron scattering cross-section and thereby promotes a larger photon flux. At late times, the plasma temperature is high enough that ablation of material from the surface of the star is likely to provide an Eddington limit

$$F_{edd}4.14\times 10^{26}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1B_{15}a_7^3.$$
(8)
In the case of Eddington limited cooling, we see that the emission actually gets softer as the inspiral proceeds (the opposite of the contribution (7) from the relativistic wind) because the plasma temperature increases and acts to negate the magnetic suppression of the electron scattering cross-section.

Thus, our strongest prediction is the presence of an X-ray precursor to the neutron star merger. This precursor should be dominated by approximately thermal emission from the wind component, which progressively hardens as the binary approaches merger. For magnetars ($`B_{15}1`$), this can approach energies $``$ 1.5 MeV while binaries containing a normal pulsar ($`B_{15}10^3`$) will only get as hard as $`50`$ keV. In some cases these objects may be accompanied by softer ($``$ 1 keV) components associated with the cooling of the trapped plasma. The observed flux will be dominated by the harder wind component, with flux levels $`3\times 10^9\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1B_{15}^2a_7^7`$ for a source at 100 Mpc (the distance scale for which we expect a few neutron star mergers per year).

### 3.1 The Ultimate Fate of the Pair Plasma

Much of the energy released by the processes in section 2 is retained in the magnetospheric plasma for timescales longer than the inspiral time, i.e. the merger event will occur surrounded by a significant magnetospheric plasma. This energy totals about $`E_{\mathrm{plasma}}2\times 10^{47}\mathrm{ergs}B_{15}^2`$. Vietri (1996) proposed that this energy, most of which is released on the last few orbits, could power a Gamma-Ray Burst as it escapes it’s magnetic confinement. Our estimate of the energy release is somewhat smaller than his (strictly speaking he calculated the maximum energy a magnetosphere could contain, rather than the energy release itself). Recent determinations of the distances (Metzger et al 1997; Kulkarni et al 1998; Djorgovski et al 1998) to burst events suggest that much larger energy releases are required to explain many gamma-ray bursts (modulo beaming considerations).

A more intriguing possibility occurs if it is the magnetar which is disrupted to form a rapidly rotating disk around the compact merger remnant (as might be expected from the non-recycled and thus presumably lighter object). If the magnetic field footpoints remain tied to the disrupted material the magnetosphere is forced to co-rotate with the disk and the corotation radius must move rapidly inwards, converting closed field lines to open ones and ejecting the magnetospheric plasma. This would allow the plasma to tap the much larger reservoir of disk rotational energy to power the gamma-ray burst (as in many other gamma ray burst models. See Hartmann 1996 for a review) and could also account for significant collimation of the outflow. Furthermore, the approximate equipartition between plasma energy density and magnetic field energy is appropriate for the formation of an episodic jet (Ouyed & Pudritz 1997), which may contribute to burst temporal variability. Finally, the magnetospheric origin of the pair plasma would also avoid the baryonic loading problem encountered by mechanisms which propose to generate the pairs by neutrino annihilation close to the merger product (Janka & Ruffert 1996; Ruffert & Janka 1998).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Observations

Our results predict the appearance of X-ray and Radio transients as precursors to gravitational wave bursts and possibly also Gamma-Ray Bursts.

Motivated by the search for X-ray counterparts to GRB, Gotthelf, Hamilton & Helfand (1996) and Greiner (1999) have searched the Einstein & ROSAT databases, respectively, for brief X-ray transients. The energy ranges searched are somewhat softer ($`0.14`$ keV) than we would predict for the peak of the energy distribution. Nevertheless, both searches found classes of transients of possible astronomical origin in sufficient abundance to encompass any reasonable estimate of the event rate (Phinney 1991; Narayan, Piran & Shemi 1991; Lipunov et al 1995, Arzoumanian, Cordes & Wasserman 1999). Searches for untriggered bursts in the BATSE catalogue (Kommers et al 1997) proved even more interesting, revealing a class of bursts restricted to the 25-50 keV channel. Most of these events are consistent with being intensity fluctuations in Cygnus X-1, but the remaining 10% are consistent with the expectations of our model.

If some neutron star mergers do yield GRB, then our results may provide an explanation for the subset of GRB discovered to show X-ray precursors (Murakami et al 1992; Castro-Tirado et al 1993; in ’T Zand et al 1999). These events show the characteristic soft-to-hard spectral evolution we anticipate, although the spectrum in well-studied cases such as GB900126 (Murakami et al 1991), appears somewhat softer ($`1.5`$ keV) than we would expect. The flux ($`2\times 10^9\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$), however, is appropriate, suggesting perhaps that an analysis more sophisticated than the black-body assumption is required.

Perhaps the best candidate for our model is the unusual transient GB900129 observed by Ginga (Strohmayer et al 1995), which yielded a thermal bremstrahlung temperature $`20`$ keV and duration 5-10 s. Strohmayer et al note the similarity to the SGR spectral characteristics, which agrees with the magnetospheric origins in our model as well. Figure 2 shows the comparison of the energetics of various observed transients with our models.

Radio transients associated with GRB are a subject of growing interest and several searches (e.g. FLIRT and STARE) are ongoing. However, radio searches for brief transients are particularly bedevilled by terrestrial interference. Most limits lie in the 10-100 kJy range at 76 MHz (FLIRT; Balsano 1999) and 611 MHz (STARE; Katz et al 1998). These don’t particularly constrain our model, which anticipates signals $``$ mJy-Jy. One radio transient uncovered by FLIRT does deserve mention. FLIRT (Balsano 1999) located a radio transient apparantly associated with GRB 980329. The transient is unique in the database and occurred within 50 s of the burst. The transient showed evidence for dispersion, with a DM$`66\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. All these argue that the association is real. However, the signal was very narrow band, indicative of terrestrial interference. If one does choose to interpret this ambiguous transient as a real association, the dispersion measure would rule out a truly cosmological burst. Furthermore, the $``$ kJy flux would suggest distances $``$1 Mpc based on our luminosity estimates. All these would argue against the suggestion that the event occurred at very high redshift (Fruchter 1999) and the red optical transient would most likely arise from extinction (Reichart et al 1999).

### 4.2 Binaries with Black Holes

We have not yet discussed the signatures of mergers associated with binaries in which one of the components is a black hole rather than a neutron star, although such binaries may outnumber the double neutron star binaries (e.g. Bethe & Brown 1998). If the black hole is formed from a strongly magnetized object, then only open field lines remain. Thus, the inspiral of a neutron star through this magnetosphere will still generate the relativistic wind and it’s associated X-ray signature222This precursor may also be cut off before the merger if the open field lines are restricted to only a small polar cap, i.e. the neutron star may eventually orbit in a field free zone., but there will be no trapped magnetospheric plasma. We would then expect to see the same X-ray and radio precursor to the event, but no soft X-ray component to the precursor or any post merger signature associated with the magnetospheric pair plasma. For binaries in which the low field component is a black hole, the effective resistivity of the event horizon (Thorne, Price & Macdonald 1986) is considerably larger than that for a neutron star crust. Consequently the distortion of the magnetic field due to the orbital motion is much smaller and the energy extraction in observable energy is similarly reduced. Furthermore, one cannot extract charged particles from the event horizon, although ‘outer gap’ acceleration is still feasible. We expect such mergers to be (electromagnetically) much quieter.

## 5 Conclusion

If neutron star mergers are not associated with GRB, then any additional electromagnetic signatures will be invaluable when the search begins in earnest for the gravitational wave signal. Li & Paczynski (1999) have suggested one such signature; namely a post-merger mini-supernova powered by radioactive decay of disrupted neutron star material. We have demonstrated the possibility of additional precursor signals in the radio and X-ray regimes, driven by the magnetospheric interactions of the neutron star and their magnetic fields. Our results differ somewhat from those of Vietri (1996) who considered a related model. We ascribe this to the much more localized interaction in our scenario, the result of a more realistic choice of parameters, and to our more complete description of the electrodynamics of the accelerated plasma.

To conclude we re-iterate the properties of what we would consider a prime candidate for an electromagnetic counterpart to a neutron star merger. Estimates of the merger rate suggest that the events typically observed would be at distances $`100`$ Mpc, suggesting X-ray fluxes $`3\times 10^9\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ with effective temperatures progressing upwards through the 10-100 keV range preceding the gamma-ray event on timescales of order seconds or less. Associated radio fluxes could be as much as $`5`$ Jy at this distance, although the ability of the radio waves to propagate in the late-time plasma shroud is rather uncertain. The coincidence of the radio signal could be influenced by dispersion in both the host galaxy and ours. Dispersion in the inter-Galactic medium will be of the order of $`1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^2\mathrm{pc}(D/100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})`$ for an ionized IGM mass fraction $`10^2`$ of the critical density and thus is unlikely to contribute significantly for any detectable events. There are also several possible signatures of the merger event itself, depending on how the orbital and binding energies of the binary and components is disbursed between remnant and ejecta.

We thank Steve Thorsett, Vicky Kaspii & Jackie Hewitt for information regarding the FLIRT and STARE radio transient programs and Vladimir Lipunov and Andrei Gruzinov for discussions.

## Appendix A Electromagnetic interaction of a neutron star with external magnetic field

Our problem concerns the electrodynamics of a low field neutron star orbiting in the field of a high field neutron star. Although the intrinsic field of the neutron star will be important, let us begin with the model problem of a spinning, conducting sphere in a uniform, externally imposed field.

Consider an unmagnetized conducting sphere in an external homogeneous magnetic field $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The external field will induce surface currents

$$𝐠=\frac{c}{4\pi }B_0\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_\varphi $$
(9)
flowing in the azimuthal direction $`𝐞_\varphi `$ about the $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ axis. These currents will induce magnetic field with a dipole structure $`\mu =𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}R_0^3/2`$ so that the total field is

$$𝐁_{tot}=𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}+\frac{R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}}{2r^3}\frac{3R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}(𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}𝐫)𝐫}{2r^5}$$
(10)
At the surface the radial component of the total magnetic field is zero. Consider now the same sphere, moving with velocity $`𝐯`$ and rotating with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Up to the relativistic correction of the order $`v^2/c^2`$ the magnetic field is the same in the star’s rest frame (which is moving and rotating with respect to the laboratory frame). In the star’s rest frame the electric field is a sum of electric fields due to the uniform motion and rotation. The electric field due to the rectilinear motion is uniform, given by $`𝐄_{orb}=\frac{1}{c}\left[𝐯\times 𝐁_0\right]`$, while the electric field due to the rotation is $`𝐄_{rot}=\frac{1}{c}\left[\left[𝛀\times 𝐫\right]\times 𝐁_{tot}\right]`$. $`𝐄_{rot}`$ has radial and meridional components:

$`E_{rot,r}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(2r^3+R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\right)}{2cr^4}}\left(r^2(𝐁_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}𝛀)(𝐁_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}𝐫)(𝛀𝐫)\right)`$
$$E_{rot,\psi }=\frac{\left(r^3R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\right)}{cr^5}(𝐁_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}𝐫)\left(\left(r^2𝛀\right)+(𝛀𝐫)𝐫\right)$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{sin}\psi =\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \right)`$ is the polar angle in the frame alinged with $`𝛀`$ and we assumed that $`𝐁`$ is antiparallel to $`𝐳`$ and $`𝛀=\mathrm{\Omega }\{\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,0,\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}`$. There is also a non-inertial, spatially distributed charge density associated with this electric field (the Goldreich-Julian density)

$$\rho =\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{div}𝐄=\frac{𝛀𝐁_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}}{2\pi ec}.$$
(12)
The ample supply of charges inside the star will short out the total electric field inside the star by producing surface charge density $`\sigma =\frac{1}{4\pi }E_r`$:

$`\sigma _{orb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi cR_0}}\left(𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}[𝐑_0\times 𝐯]\right)`$
$`\sigma _{rot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3B_{tot}\mathrm{\Omega }R_0\mathrm{sin}(\psi )\mathrm{sin}\theta }{8\pi c}}`$ (13)
The surface charge distribution $`\sigma _{orb}`$ has dipole structure with $`𝐛=\frac{R_0^2}{8\pi c}\left[𝐯\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}\right]`$, while $`\sigma _{rot}`$ has monopole (total charge $`Q_{rot}=B_0\mathrm{\Omega }R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{cos}\alpha /c`$) and quadrupole contributions. Both types of surface charges will produce electric fields outside of the star with nonzero component along the magnetic field line of the order

$`E_{,orb}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{cr^4}}\left(𝐁_0\left[𝐫\times 𝐯\right]\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`E_{,rot}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_0\mathrm{\Omega }R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta }{cr^2}}`$ (14)
These electric fields will accelerate the primary charges to relativistic energies.

The surface charge distribution $`\sigma _{orb}`$ is stationary in the moving but non-rotating frame, while surface charges $`\sigma _{rot}`$ are stationary in the neutron star frame (which is moving and rotating with respect to the lab frame). An observer in the neutron star frame will detect three types of electric currents: due to rotation of $`\sigma _{orb}`$ and inertial currents due to electric fields of the surface charges $`𝐣_{in}=\left[(𝐄_{\sigma _{orb}}+𝐄_{\sigma _{rot}})\times 𝛀\right]/(4\pi )`$. Inertial current due to $`𝐄_{\sigma _{rot}}`$ will generate magnetic field of the order $`B_{rot}B_0(\mathrm{\Omega }R_0/c)^2`$ with a component perpendicular to the surface of the millisecond pulsar. Equivalently, in the laboratory frame the charges $`\sigma _{rot}`$ rotating with the star will produce surface currents along the $`\psi `$ direction $`𝐠_{rot}=\sigma _{rot}\left[𝛀\times 𝐫\right]`$ that will generate magnetic field $`B_{rot}`$.

The Poynting losses due to rotating dipole will be proportional to the time varying component of the induced magnetic field $`B_0(\mathrm{\Omega }R_0/c)^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$, so that the resulting Poynting flux would be $`PB^2(\mathrm{\Omega }R_0/c)^4\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$. It is suppressed by a small factor $`(\mathrm{\Omega }R_0/c)^41`$ if compared with the rotating dipole with the strength equal to the external magnetic field.