format: text

text:
# Behaviour of spin-1/2 particle around a charged black hole

## I. INTRODUCTION

Chandrasekhar separated Dirac equation in Kerr geometry into radial and angular parts  in 1976. His separation method can be extended to Schwarzschild geometry and corresponding separated equations can be found. But he did not consider the charge of the black hole. If we consider the black hole as a charged one then electromagnetic interaction is important for incoming particle with charge. To study the behaviour of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle, Dirac wave is treated as a perturbation in the space-time which is asymptotically flat . Far away from the black hole its influence on particle is not significant. As it comes closer, feels the curvature of the space-time and corresponding behaviours start to change with respect to that of flat space. Their behaviour around black-hole without charge have been studied in the past by several authors \[1-6\]. In this paper, we will introduce charge in the black hole. Here, we study a simpler problem to have a feeling about the solution when the black hole is non-rotating but charged. Here we have to solve Dirac equation in electromagnetic field around a Reissner-Nordström black-hole. Thus we will study the particle in crossed electromagnetic and gravitational field. It is very clear that the potential felt by the incoming Dirac wave will be different from that for Schwarzschild black hole . For the incoming uncharged particle like neutron, electromagnetic field does not play any part and the Dirac equation will be reduced to same as Schwarzschild case except the re-definition of horizon. For charged incoming particle like electron, proton etc. electromagnetic gauge field should be introduced. One also can study the neutrino wave whose behaviour is known for Kerr geometry . In the next Section, we present the basic Dirac equations and separate them in this crossed field. In §3, we study the behaviour of the potential and possibilities of super-radiance. In §4, we present a complete solution. Finally, in §5, we draw our conclusions.

## II. DIRAC EQUATION AND IT’S SEPARATION

By introducing electromagnetic interaction and gravitational effect the covariant derivatives take the form as

$$D_\mu =_\mu +iq_1A_\mu +q_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu .$$
$`(1)`$
The derivative of spinor $`P^A`$ can be written as

$$D_\mu P^A=_\mu P^A+iq_1A_\mu P^A+q_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^AP^\nu ,$$
$`(2)`$
where, $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are coupling constants. $`q_1`$ is the charge of the incoming particle (say $`q_1=q`$) and $`q_2`$ is chosen throughout $`1`$. $`A_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^A`$ are electromagnetic and gravitational gauge (spin coefficients) fields respectively. Thus, following  the Dirac equation in Newman-Penrose formalism can be written as

$$\sigma _{AB^{}}^\mu D_\mu P^A+i\mu _p\overline{Q}^C^{}ϵ_{C^{}B^{}}=0,$$
$`(3a)`$
$$\sigma _{AB^{}}^\mu D_\mu Q^A+i\mu _p\overline{P}^C^{}ϵ_{C^{}B^{}}=0,$$
$`(3b)`$
where, for any vector $`X_i`$, according to the spinor formalism  $`\sigma _{AB^{}}^iX_i=X_{AB^{}}`$; $`A,B=0,1`$. Here, we introduce a null tetrad $`(\stackrel{}{l},\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{\overline{m}})`$ to satisfy orthogonality relations, $`\stackrel{}{l}.\stackrel{}{n}=1`$, $`\stackrel{}{m}.\stackrel{}{\overline{m}}=1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{l}.\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{}{n}.\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{}{l}.\stackrel{}{\overline{m}}=\stackrel{}{n}.\stackrel{}{\overline{m}}=0`$ following Newman & Penrose . $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu _p`$ is the mass of the Dirac particle. In terms of this new basis in Newman-Penrose formalism Pauli matrices can be written as

$$\sigma _{AB^{}}^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}l^\mu & \hfill m^\mu \\ \overline{m}^\mu & \hfill n^\mu \end{array}\right).$$
$`(4)`$
Using equation (2), (3a), (4) and choosing $`B=0`$ and subsequently $`B=1`$ we get

$$l^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )P^0+\overline{m}^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )P^1+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1000^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0010^{}})P^0+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1100^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0110^{}})P^1i\mu _p\overline{Q}^1^{}=0,$$
$`(5a)`$
$$m^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )P^0+n^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )P^1+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1001^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0011^{}})P^0+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1101^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0111^{}})P^1+i\mu _p\overline{Q}^0^{}=0,$$
$`(5b)`$
Next by taking complex conjugation of equation (3b), writing various spin coefficients by their named symbol  and choosing

$$P^0=F_1,P^1=F_2,\overline{Q}^1^{}=G_1,\overline{Q}^0=G_2$$

we get

$$l^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )F_1+\overline{m}^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )F_2+(ϵ\rho )F_1+(\pi \alpha )F_2=i\mu _pG_1,$$
$`(6a)`$
$$m^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )F_1+n^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )F_2+(\mu \gamma )F_2+(\beta \tau )F_1=i\mu _pG_2,$$
$`(6b)`$
$$l^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )G_2m^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )G_1+(ϵ^{}\rho ^{})G_2(\pi ^{}\alpha ^{})G_1=i\mu _pF_2,$$
$`(6c)`$
$$n^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )G_1\overline{m}^\mu (_\mu +iqA_\mu )G_2+(\mu ^{}\gamma ^{})G_1(\beta ^{}\tau ^{})G_2=i\mu _pF_1,$$
$`(6d)`$
These are the Dirac equations in Newman-Penrose formalism in curved space-time with the presence of electromagnetic interaction.

Now we write the basis vectors of null tetrad in terms of elements of the Reissner-Nordström geometry  as,

$$l^\mu =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(r^2,\mathrm{\Delta },0,0),$$
$`(7a)`$
$$n^\mu =\frac{1}{2r^2}(r^2,\mathrm{\Delta },0,0),$$
$`(7b)`$
$$m^\mu =\frac{1}{r\sqrt{2}}(0,0,1,icosec\theta ),$$
$`(7c)`$
$$\overline{m}^\mu =\frac{1}{r\sqrt{2}}(0,0,1,icosec\theta ),$$
$`(7d)`$
where, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22Mr+Q_{}^2`$ and $`G=\text{}h=c=1`$ are chosen. Here $`M`$ is mass of the black hole, $`Q_{}`$ is charge of the black hole, $`G`$ is gravitational constant, $`h`$ is Plank’s constant, $`c`$ is speed of light.

We consider the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ wave function as the form of $`e^{i(\sigma t+m\varphi )}f(r,\theta )`$ where, $`\sigma `$ is the frequency of the incoming wave and $`m`$ is the azimuthal quantum number. The temporal and azimuthal dependencies are chosen same but radial and polar dependencies are chosen different for different spinors. Thus we write,

$$f_1=e^{i(\sigma t+m\varphi )}rF_1,f_2=e^{i(\sigma t+m\varphi )}F_2,g_1=e^{i(\sigma t+m\varphi )}G_1,g_2=e^{i(\sigma t+m\varphi )}rG_2$$
$`(8)`$
Now we strictly consider the static field so the magnetic potentials are chosen zero, i.e., $`A^\mu =(A^t,0,0,0)`$. $`A^t`$ is nothing but corresponding scaler potential of the field as (in this spherically symmetric space-time)

$$A^t=\frac{qQ_{}}{rr_+},$$
$`(9)`$
where, $`r_+=\mathrm{locationofthehorizon}=M+\sqrt{M^2Q_{}^2}`$.

So using equations (7), (8) and (9) and writing various spin coefficients in terms of the Reissner-Nordström metric elements (actually in terms of basis vectors)  equation (6)s reduce to

$$𝒟_0f_1+2^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}f_2=i\mu _prg_1$$
$`(10a)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒟_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}f_22^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}f_1=2i\mu _prg_2$$
$`(10b)`$
$$𝒟_0g_22^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}g_1=i\mu _prf_2$$
$`(10c)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒟_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}g_1+2^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}g_2=2i\mu _prf_1$$
$`(10d)`$
where,

$$𝒟_n=\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{ir^2\sigma }{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{iqQ_{}r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }(rr_+)}+2n\frac{rM}{\mathrm{\Delta }},𝒟_n^{}=\frac{d}{dr}\frac{ir^2\sigma }{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{iqQ_{}r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }(rr_+)}+2n\frac{rM}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
$`(11)`$
$$_n=\frac{d}{d\theta }+Q+ncot\theta ,_n^{}=\frac{d}{d\theta }Q+ncot\theta ,Q=mcosec\theta .$$
$`(12)`$
Now considering $`f_1(r,\theta )=R_{\frac{1}{2}}(r)S_{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta )`$, $`f_2(r,\theta )=R_{\frac{1}{2}}(r)S_{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta )`$, $`g_1(r,\theta )=R_{\frac{1}{2}}(r)S_{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta )`$, $`g_2(r,\theta )=R_{\frac{1}{2}}(r)S_{+\frac{1}{2}}(\theta )`$ and following Chandrasekhar  we can separate the Dirac equation into radial and angular parts as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}𝒟_0R_{1/2}=(\lambda +im_pr)\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}R_{1/2},$$
$`(13a)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}𝒟_0^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}R_{1/2}=(\lambda im_pr)R_{1/2},$$
$`(13b)`$
$$_{1/2}S_{1/2}=\lambda S_{1/2},$$
$`(14a)`$
$$_{1/2}^{}S_{1/2}=\lambda S_{1/2}.$$
$`(14b)`$
Here, $`m_p`$ is the normalised rest mass of the incoming particle and $`\lambda `$ is the sepreration constant.

## III. Nature of the Potential in decoupled system

The equations (14a-b) are same as the angular equation in Schwarzschild geometry whose solution is given in  as

$$\lambda ^2=\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2,R_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}=\mathrm{standaredsphericalharmonics}=_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}Y_m^l(\theta ).$$
$`(15)`$
It is clear that the separation constant depends on orbital angular momentum quantum number $`l`$.

The equations (13a-b) are in coupled form. Following Chandrasekhar’s  and Mukhopadhyay & Chakrabarti’s  approach we can decouple it as

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{d\widehat{r}_{}^2}+\sigma ^2\right)Z_\pm =V_\pm Z_\pm ,$$
$`(16)`$
where,

$$\widehat{r}_{}=r_{}+\frac{1}{2\sigma }tan^1\frac{m_pr}{\lambda }+\frac{qQ_{}}{\sigma }\left[log(rr_{})+\left\{\frac{2r_+}{r_+r_{}}\frac{r_+^2}{(r_+r_{})^2}\right\}log\left(\frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}\right)\frac{r_+^2}{(rr_{})(rr_+)}\right],$$
$`(17)`$
$$r_{}=r3M+\frac{r_+^2}{r_+r_{}}log(rr_+)\frac{r_{}^2}{r_+r_{}}log(rr_{}),$$
$`(18)`$
$$r_\pm =M\pm \sqrt{M^2Q_{}^2},Z_\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}R_{1/2}e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }/2}\pm R_{1/2}e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }/2},\mathrm{\Theta }=m_pr.$$
$`(19)`$
In the extreme case when $`M=Q^{}`$, expression for $`\widehat{r}_{}`$ and $`r_{}`$ are given as,

$$\widehat{r}_{}=r_{}+\frac{1}{2\sigma }tan^1\frac{m_pr}{\lambda }+\frac{qQ_{}}{\sigma }\left[log(rM)\frac{2M^2}{(rM)^2}\frac{2M}{(rM)}\right],$$
$`(17^{})`$
$$r_{}=rM+2Mlog(rM)\frac{M^2}{(rM)}.$$
$`(18^{})`$
Here, $`\widehat{r}_{}`$ is varying from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ (cartesian coordinate). If we compare equation (16) with one dimensional Schrödinger equation in cartesian coordinate system the energy $`E`$ of the incoming particle can be written as $`E\sigma ^2`$ and the potential ($`V_\pm `$) felt by the particle is given as

$$V_\pm =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)^3}{\left[r^2(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)\left(1+\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)\sigma }\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda m_p}{2\sigma }\right]^2}\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)}{\left[r^2(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)\left(1+\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)\sigma }\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda m_p}{2\sigma }\right]^3}$$

$$[\{r^2(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)(1+\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)\sigma })+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda m_p}{2\sigma }\}\frac{(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}\{(rM)(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)+3\mathrm{\Delta }rm_p^2\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)^{3/2}$$

$$\{2r(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)(1+\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)\sigma })+2r^3m_p^2(1+\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)\sigma })r^2(\lambda ^2+m_p^2r^2)\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)^2\sigma }+\frac{(rM)\lambda m_p}{\sigma }\}].$$
$`(20)`$
From the expression of $`V_\pm `$ it is very clear that potential strictly depends on charge of the particle as well as of black hole. More precisely it depends on Coulomb interaction between charge of black hole and incoming particle. When charge of the black hole or particle or both are chosen zero the potential reduces to same as that in Schwarzschild geometry . When factor $`\frac{Q_{}q}{\sigma }`$ is positive potential varies smoothly. When $`\frac{Q_{}q}{\sigma }`$ becomes negative $`V_\pm `$ diverges at a certain location $`r=\alpha `$. For the second case factor $`\left(1+\frac{Q_{}q}{(rr_+)\sigma }\right)`$ vanishes at $`r=r_+\frac{Q_{}q}{\sigma }>r_+`$ and then becomes negative. At $`r=\alpha >r_+`$ denominator of $`V_\pm `$ vanishes. For all other cases $`\alpha <r_+`$ always, so there is no scope to diverge the potential. Thus for the positive energy solution when the electro-magnetic scalar potential in the field is of attractive nature corresponding potential diverges again for negative energy solution potential diverges for repulsive electro-magnetic scalar potential. For the integral spin particle, it is found that when potential diverges energy extraction is possible i.e., super-radiation is occurred in the space-time . On the other hand for the case of spin-half particle in Kerr geometry although at a certain parameter region potential diverges but super-radiation does not exist . In the case of spherically symmetric Schwarzschild geometry potential does not diverge at all and no scope of super-radiation . Here it is interesting to note that although our space-time is spherically symmetric but due to presence of electromagnetic interaction term, the region exist which is expected to be super-radiant.

Figure 1 shows behaviour of potential $`V_+`$ for different values black hole charges, where $`\sigma =0.8`$, $`m_p=0.8`$, $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`q=1`$ are chosen; $`\alpha <r_+`$. When $`Q_{}=0`$ (solid curve), potential reduces to same as Schwarzschild case shown in Fig. 2 by Mukhopadhyay & Chakrabarti . It is also seen that with the increment of charge of the black hole, barrier height decreases. Increment of black hole charge indicates the increment of electro-magnetic coupling and corresponding repulsive scalar potential opposes the attractive gravitational field. So net effect decreases. Figure 2 shows the change of potential barrier for different values of particle charge, where $`\sigma =0.8`$, $`m_p=0.8`$, $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`Q_{}=0.6`$ are chosen; $`\alpha <r_+`$. Solid curve indicates the potential felt by the neutron like particle.

Now come to the cases when $`\frac{Q_{}q}{\sigma }`$ is negative. For these cases $`\widehat{r}_{}r`$ relation attends multivalues. For both $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`rr_+`$, $`\widehat{r}_{}\mathrm{}`$. As explained above net potential barrier diverges at a certain location in this parameter region. From equation (20) it is very clear that near $`r=\alpha `$, potential varies as $`\frac{1}{(r\alpha )^3}`$. So it has two branches, one repulsive and another attractive on each side of the singular point. As a result super-radiation is absent for the case of Reissner-Nordström geometry as in other cases . We can choose any combination of $`Q_{}`$, $`q`$ and $`\sigma `$ in such a way that $`\frac{Q_{}q}{\sigma }`$ is negative.

In Fig. 3 we show how nature of the potential ($`V_+`$) changes with rest mass of the incoming particle where, $`\sigma =0.8`$, $`Q_{}=0.5`$, $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`q=1`$ are chosen. Solid curve shows nature for neutrino wave. It is very clear from the figure that with the increase of rest mass of the incoming particle gravitational interaction increases and corresponding potential barrier attains high value.

## IV. The complete solution

Now we will find spatially complete solution. As we mentioned earlier that solution of the angular part is known which is same as Schwarzschild case . For radial solution we need to solve decoupled radial equation. The solution of equation (16) for potential $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$, using Instantaneous WKB Approximation (in short IWKB) method  can be written as

$$Z_+=\sqrt{T_+[k_+(\widehat{r}_{})]}exp(iu_+)+\sqrt{R_+[k_+(\widehat{r}_{})]}exp(iu_+),$$
$`(21a)`$
$$Z_{}=\sqrt{T_{}[k_{}(\widehat{r}_{})]}exp(iu_{})+\sqrt{R_{}[k_{}(\widehat{r}_{})]}exp(iu_{}),$$
$`(21b)`$
where,

$$k_\pm (\widehat{r}_{})=\sqrt{\left(\sigma ^2V_\pm \right)},$$
$`(22)`$
$$u_\pm (\widehat{r}_{})=k_\pm (\widehat{r}_{})𝑑\widehat{r}_{}+\mathrm{constant},$$
$`(23)`$
with

$$T_+(r)+R_+(r)=1,T_{}(r)+R_{}(r)=1\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{y}.$$
$`(24)`$
Here, $`k`$ is the wavenumber of the incoming wave and $`u`$ is the Eiconal, $`T_\pm `$ and $`R_\pm `$ are instantaneous transmission and reflection coefficients  respectively. Using this method at each location, instantaneously, WKB method is applied. This solution is valid when $`\frac{1}{k}\frac{dk}{d\widehat{r}_{}}<<k`$, otherwise different method  should be used.

In Fig. 4, the comparison of instantaneous reflection and transmission coefficients in between Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström geometry are shown. The parameters chosen are given in Figure Caption. With the decrease of barrier height the transmission coefficient increases as well as reflection coefficient decreases. As it is seen that by introduction of the electromagnetic coupling, potential barrier heights reduce so corresponding transmission probability increase with respect to that of Schwarzschild case (the behaviour for Schwarzschild case is graphically shown in ) for a particular set of parameter. So the presence of the charge of black hole decreases the curved nature of space-time.

Now recombining $`Z_+`$ and $`Z_{}`$ one easily can find out original radial Dirac wave functions $`R_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`R_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ . Finally we will have complete solution as $`J(r,\theta )=R_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}(r)S_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}(\theta )`$.

## V. conclusions

In this paper, we have studied analytically the scattering of spin-half particles off Reissner-Nordström black hole. Our main motivation is to show analytically how the spin-half particles behave in the presence of electromagnetic interaction in curved space-time. We introduced the gravitational and electromagnetic gauge fields. Since no such kind of study had been carried out previously we started from scratch. Firstly, we wrote corresponding dynamical equation of spin-half particle namely Dirac equation in combined gravitational and electromagnetic background. Due to curvature of the space-time gravitational gauge field (here, spin coefficients for Reissner-Nordström geometry) was introduced. The electromagnetic interaction comes into the game because of charge of the black hole. Here, we have considered steady-state problem and corresponding components of electromagnetic vector potential to zero. We then separated the equation into radial and angular parts. It is seen that in case of spherically symmetric space-time, presence of charge of the gravitating object does not affect the behaviour of the incoming particles in polar direction. Only the radial part of the equation is influenced. We then decoupled the radial Dirac equation. Now the potential is dependent on charge-charge coupling in the space-time. If the charge of the black hole reduces to zero, the potential reduces to that of Schwarzschild case. With the presence of repulsive (or attractive) charge-charge interaction for positive (or negative) energy solution magnitude of curvature effect reduces. This is because of opposing nature of two simultaneous interactions.

There is one interesting sector of the solution (which sector was absent in uncharged spherically symmetric space-time). If the charge-charge interaction is of attractive nature for positive energy solution (or repulsive for negative energy solution) then potential at a certain location ($`r=\alpha `$) diverges. But because of $`\frac{1}{(r\alpha )^3}`$ variance of potential super-radiation is absent.

Here we study the behaviour of potential by varying charge of the black hole, charge of the incoming particle, rest mass of the incoming particle. We also study the space-dependent reflection and transmission coefficients and show graphically for one set of physical parameter. It is seen that as potential barrier height decreases corresponding transmission probability increases. We solve the radial Dirac equation by IWKB method.

## Acknowledgment

I am thankful to Prof. Sandip K. Chakrabarti regarding selection of this problem. I also like to thank to Kaushik Ghosh for helpful comments during my work.

## figure captions

Fig. 1: Behaviour of potential for different values of the black hole charge. Fixed parameters are, $`\sigma =0.8`$, $`m_p=0.8`$, $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`q=1`$. From upper to lower curves the charge $`Q_{}`$ of the black holes are chosen as $`0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.998`$.

Fig. 2: Behaviour of potential for different values of the incoming particle charge. Fixed parameters are, $`\sigma =0.8`$, $`m_p=0.8`$, $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`Q_{}=0.6`$. From upper to lower curves the charge $`q`$ of the particles are chosen as $`0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1`$.

Fig. 3: Behaviour of potential for different values of the rest mass of incoming particle. Fixed parameters are, $`\sigma =0.8`$, $`Q_{}=0.5`$, $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`q=1`$. From upper to lower curves the mass $`m_p`$ of the particles are chosen as $`0.4,0.3,0.2,0.1,0`$.

Fig. 4: Instantaneous reflection (R) and transmission (T) coefficients for Reissner-Nordström (solid curves) and Schwarzschild (dotted curves) black holes. Physical parameters are chosen as $`\sigma =0.8,m_p=0.8,l=\frac{1}{2},q=1`$. For Reissner-Nordström case $`Q_{}=0.5`$.


text:
# Unconventional odd-parity superconductivity in the ladder compounds

\[

## Abstract

Superconductive properties of the two-leg ladder compounds are studied theoretically. The antiferromagnetic fluctuations are considered because of the good nesting of the Fermi surfaces. The attractive interaction which is most likely due to the electron-phonon coupling is also taken into account. Under this circumstance, it is shown that the superconductivity has two sets of spin-triplet pairings. The gaps for both pairings have no node.

\]

A number of unconventional superconductivities are under intensive study in recent years. Examples include the high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates, heavy fermions, Sr2RuO4, organic conductors etc. The common property of these compounds is the existence of antiferromagnetic(AF) fluctuations. Because of this a large number of works are devoted to understand the unconventional nature from AF fluctuations. As a result most of them neglect the electron-phonon interactions which explain most of the superconductors before the discovery of the high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates. Although, there exist a few attempts to explain the unconventional nature of superconductivity from attractive interactions (which most likely come from electron-phonon coupling) under the influence of AF fluctuations.

Recently the ladder compounds which may have some connections with the high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates were found. The crystal structures are different but the basic role of Cu and O looks similar. Hiroi et al. were the first to synthesize the family of layer compounds Srn-1CunO2n-1, which have arrays of parallel line defects. Nearly ideal ladder compounds should result. The first member ($`n=2`$ or SrCu2O3) has two-leg ladders, the second ($`n=3`$ or Sr2Cu3O5) has three-leg ladders and so on. It was also clearly shown that the material LaCuO2.5 has an insulator-metal transition upon hole doping by substitution of Sr2+ for La3+ but no sign of superconductivity was observed. There have been considerable interests in magnetism of the ladder compounds .

The ladder material (Sr, Ca)14Cu24O41-δ was synthesized by MaCarron et al. and by Siegrist et al.. In this compound superconductivity was found by Uehara et al.. It appears at around $`T_\mathrm{c}10`$K but only under high pressure more than 3GPa. Due to this limitation essential properties of these compounds have not yet clarified by experiments. In particular the nature of superconductivity is not well understood.

In this paper we study the superconductive properties of two-leg(two-chain) ladders theoretically. In order to obtain universal features we only consider the minimum model which is supposed to give essential features of superconductivity. Details which are pertinent to specific compounds are not considered. Neither did we try to estimate the values of physical quantities like $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. This is because, for quantitative predictions, one needs to fix various physical quantities which are not known theoretically or experimentally. Although, as shown below, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is similar to those of the classical BCS superconductors.

The existence of unconventional spin-triplet superconductivity in the ladder systems is shown. This result seems to be robust and there is a possibility to find unconventional superconductivity in other ladder materials which include more than two legs ladders.

Band structure
The energy dispersion of the noninteracting two-chain ladder is given

$`\epsilon (k)=2t\mathrm{cos}k_x\pm t^{},`$ (1)
where $`t`$ is the transfer integral in the $`x`$-direction which is along the chains (usually denoted as $`c`$-axis direction), and $`t^{}`$ is the transfer integral between the two chains. The two transfer integrals, $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ have the same order of magnitude. The sign in front of $`t^{}`$ represents parity with respect to exchange of the two chains.

The inter-ladder hoppings are small and estimated to be $`t^{\prime \prime }1/20\mathrm{to}1/30t^{}`$, and we shall neglect them hereafter.

There are four Fermi surfaces as shown in Fig. 1. The superconductive pairs with finite momenta are in general have smaller binding energies compared with those with momentum zero, i.e. those consist of electrons in the same band (either $`+`$ or $``$ in Eq.(1)). Therefore we shall consider only one band and the two Fermi surfaces for the moment.

Attractive interaction
First let us study interactions which are attractive and do not change spins. See Fig. 2. The general form is

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}:f(q)a_{k+q,\alpha }^{}a_{k,\alpha }a_{k^{}q,\beta }^{}a_{k^{},\beta }:,`$ (2)
where $`f(q)>0`$ represents an attractive interaction and mainly depends on $`q_x`$. It has a peak at $`q_x=0`$. Here $`::`$ denotes creation-annihilation normal ordering. This interaction most likely comes from electron-phonon coupling. Let us concentrate on the interactions which are relevant to $`(k,k)`$ pairing. Thus choose $`k^{}=k`$ and put $`q=k^{\prime \prime }k`$

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}f(k^{\prime \prime }k)a_{k^{\prime \prime },\alpha }^{}a_{k^{\prime \prime },\beta }^{}a_{k,\alpha }a_{k,\beta }.`$ (3)
(4)
Let us introduce $`V_{s_1s_2s_3s_4}(k,k^{})`$ by

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ (5)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4}{}}V_{s_1s_2s_3s_4}(k,k^{})a_{k,s_1}^{}a_{k,s_2}^{}a_{k^{},s_3}a_{k^{},s_4},`$ (6)
where $`s_i^{}s`$ are spin indices. By the symmetry

$`V_{s_1s_2s_3s_4}(k,k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`V_{s_2s_1s_3s_4}(k,k^{})`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`V_{s_1s_2s_4s_3}(k,k^{}),`$ (8)
we obtain

$`V_{s_1s_2s_3s_4}(k,k^{})`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{f(k+k^{})+f(kk^{}))\}\delta _{s_1s_3}\delta _{s_2s_4}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{f(kk^{})+f(k+k^{})\}\delta _{s_1s_4}\delta _{s_2s_3}.`$ (11)
Magnetic interaction
The general form of magnetic interaction is written (see Fig. 3)

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{m}`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},q}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}:J_x(q)(\sigma _x)_{\alpha \beta }(\sigma _x)_{\gamma \delta }a_{k+q,\alpha }^{}a_{k,\beta }a_{k^{}q,\gamma }^{}a_{k^{},\delta }:`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},q}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}:J_y(q)(\sigma _y)_{\alpha \beta }(\sigma _y)_{\gamma \delta }a_{k+q,\alpha }^{}a_{k,\beta }a_{k^{}q,\gamma }^{}a_{k^{},\delta }:`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},q}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}:J_z(q)(\sigma _z)_{\alpha \beta }(\sigma _z)_{\gamma \delta }a_{k+q,\alpha }^{}a_{k,\beta }a_{k^{}q,\gamma }^{}a_{k^{},\delta }:.`$ (15)
(16)
In general $`J_i(q)(>0)`$’s ($`i=x,y,z`$) are different each other, but for simplicity we treat explicitly only the case $`J_x(q)=J_y(q)=J_z(q)J(q)`$ in the following. The anisotropy of the magnetic interaction amplifies the tendency toward the odd-parity superconductivity, and it determines the direction of the $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ vector ( which is defined by Eq.(LABEL:dvec)) . If the anisotropy is strong enough, the odd-parity superconductivity is realized even if $`f(q)=0`$.

By considering only the terms which contribute ($`k,k`$) pairings, we have (by putting $`k=k^{}`$)

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{m}`$ (17)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,q}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}:J(q)(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\gamma \delta }a_{k+q,\alpha }^{}a_{k,\beta }a_{kq,\gamma }^{}a_{k,\delta }:.`$ (18)
Put $`q=k^{\prime \prime }k`$ then

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{m}`$ (20)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}:J(k^{\prime \prime }k)(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\gamma \delta }a_{k^{\prime \prime },\alpha }^{}a_{k,\beta }a_{k^{\prime \prime },\gamma }^{}a_{k,\delta }:`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}J(k^{\prime \prime }k)(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\gamma \delta }a_{k^{\prime \prime },\alpha }^{}a_{k^{\prime \prime },\gamma }^{}a_{k,\beta }a_{k,\delta }.`$ (22)
(23)
By comparing this equation (23) and Eq.(6), and using the symmetry (8), the magnetic interaction is written

$`V_{s_1s_2s_3s_4}^\mathrm{m}(k,k^{})`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{J(k+k^{})+J(kk^{})\}(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{s_1s_3}(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{s_2s_4}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{J(kk^{})+J(k+k^{})\}(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{s_1s_4}(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{s_2s_3}.`$ (26)
Gap equation
We use the weak coupling BCS theory. It is possible that the strong-coupling corrections modify the results quantitatively but not qualitatively because $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is not so high. The gap equation is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ss^{}}(k)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{},s_3,s_4}{}}V_{s^{}ss_3s_4}(k,k^{})`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_3s_4}(k^{})}{2E_k^{}}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_k^{}}{2}}\right),`$ (28)
where the (scalar) excitation energy $`E_k^{}`$ is given by

$`E_k=\sqrt{\epsilon (k)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }(k)\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^{})},`$ (29)
For even-parity states (spin-singlet pairing) one can write

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _y\psi (k)`$ (30)
with $`\psi (k)=\psi (k)`$. Thus the gap equation for even-parity states is

$`\psi (k)={\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}V_{kk^{}}^{\mathrm{even}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (k^{})}{2E_k^{}}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_k^{}}{2}}\right).`$ (31)
where $`V_{kk^{}}^{\mathrm{even}}`$ is obtained from Eq.(11) and Eq.(26) as

$`V_{kk^{}}^{\mathrm{even}}`$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{f(k+k^{})+f(kk^{})+f(kk^{})+f(k+k^{})\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\{J(k+k^{})+J(kk^{})+J(kk^{})+J(k+k^{})\}.`$
(35)
For odd-party states (spin-triplet pairing) one can write

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(`$ $`k`$ $`)=i(\stackrel{}{d}(k)\stackrel{}{\sigma })\sigma _y`$ (36)
with $`\stackrel{}{d}(k)=\stackrel{}{d}(k)`$. The gap equation for odd-parity states is

$`\stackrel{}{d}(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}V_{kk^{}}^{\mathrm{odd}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{d}(k^{})}{2E_k^{}}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_k^{}}{2}}\right).`$ (38)
where $`V_{kk^{}}^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ is obtained from Eq.(11) and Eq.(26) as

$`V_{kk^{}}^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ (39)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{f(k+k^{})+f(kk^{})f(kk^{})f(k+k^{})\}`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{J(k+k^{})+J(kk^{})J(kk^{})J(k+k^{})\}.`$ (41)
(42)
BCS approximation
Following the BCS treatment of superconductivity we make further approximations. Namely the pairing interactions are constant within the cutoff and zero outside the cutoff. The function $`f(q)`$ has a peak at $`q_x=0`$ but it is approximated by a constant $`V>0`$. Therefore this interaction corresponds to the phonon-mediated interaction in the classical BCS theory. In addition to this interaction the ladder compounds have interactions due to AF fluctuations which are induced by nesting of the Fermi surfaces in a similar fashion to some of the organic conductors or the high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates in the low doping region. Since the Fermi surfaces are straight and parallel, the nesting is perfect. Therefore the nesting vector is $`Q=(c,k_y,k_z)`$ where c is the distance between the two Fermi surfaces of the same band. See Fig.1. (Nesting is also perfect between the Fermi surfaces of different bands. But these are not relevant to the superconducting pairing of $`(k,k)`$.) Therefore there exist AF fluctuations with nesting vector $`Q`$. Now we take the magnetic interaction $`J(q)`$ to be constant $`J(Q)>0`$ when $`q`$ is is close to $`Q`$ and connects two points in different Fermi surfaces (of the same band) within the cutoff. Then Eq.(35) gives

$`V^{\mathrm{even}}=V+3J(Q)`$ (43)
for even-parity states, and Eq.(42) gives

$`V^{\mathrm{odd}}=V+J(Q)`$ (44)
for odd-parity states. Therefore we always have $`V^{\mathrm{odd}}>V^{\mathrm{even}}`$ as long as magnetic interactions are present. It leads to odd-parity (spin-triplet) pair condensation with

$`T_\mathrm{c}=1.13\omega _\mathrm{D}e^{1/\{N(k_\mathrm{F})V^{\mathrm{odd}}\}}.`$ (45)
where $`\omega _\mathrm{D}`$ is a cutoff.

When the anisotropy of AF fluctuations is taken into account, $`V^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ is replaced by

$`V^{\mathrm{odd}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}VJ_x(Q)+J_y(Q)+J_z(Q)\hfill & \text{for }d_x0\hfill \\ VJ_y(Q)+J_z(Q)+J_x(Q)\hfill & \text{for }d_y0\hfill \\ VJ_z(Q)+J_x(Q)+J_y(Q)\hfill & \text{for }d_z0\hfill \end{array}.`$ (49)
It can be seen from Eq.(49) that if AF fluctuations perpendicular to the $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ vector are strong enough, there is no superconductive condensation. It also can be seen that AF fluctuations parallel to the $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ vector promote the odd-parity superconductivity. It is rather straightforward to show that there is no node in the gaps from the gap equation (28).

Discussions
To conclude, we study the unconventional superconductive nature of the two-leg ladder compounds. The attractive interactions which are most likely due to the electron-phonon coupling are considered. AF fluctuations from the good nestings of the Fermi surfaces are also included.

Our main conclusion is that the two-leg ladder compounds have two sets of spin-triplet superconductive states without nodes in the gap corresponding the two sets of the Fermi surfaces. These superconductivities are suppressed by AF fluctuations perpendicular to the $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ vector and vanish if the AF fluctuations are strong enough. Our results also apply to the ladder compound with more than two legs.

It is possible to have two $`T_\mathrm{c}`$’s corresponding to the two bands, respectively. However it is likely to have a single $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ due to some proximity effects induced by the interactions which are not included here.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank J. Akimitsu and N. Mori for useful discussions.


text:
# On the nature of continuous physical quantities in classical and quantum mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Consider the following experimental setup: We have a source of quantum-mechanical particles (e.g. electrons), a fluorescent screen, and a barrier between the source and the screen which has one or more openings. The barrier, with its openings, prepares an ensemble of particles whose state, upon arrival at the screen, is given by some wavefunction $`\psi `$. Let’s assume for simplicity that the screen is one-dimensional and infinite in both directions (i.e., represented by $``$). The screen should be thought of as a measuring device for the position of particles in the ensemble, and we know that the pattern of shading on the screen will be distributed in accordance with the squared modulus $`|\psi |^2`$ of the wavefunction. For any individual particle in the ensemble, and any region $`S`$ on the screen, $`_S|\psi |^2`$ gives the probability that the the screen will flash inside $`S`$ when the particle hits the screen. It would be very natural then to attempt to interpret the probability distribution $`|\psi |^2`$ as a measure of our ignorance about the precise state of individual particles in the ensemble. That is, it is natural to think that each particle in the ensemble does in fact have a “sure-fire” (probability $`1`$) disposition to be found at a certain point $`\lambda `$, and probabilities arise out of our ignorance about precisely which point $`\lambda `$ that is.

It is clear that the traditional interpretive obstacles in quantum theory do not prevent us from thinking this way of this measurement. For one, since we are not asking how a particle gets from the source to the screen, interference effects play no role. Second, since we are in a position measurement context (i.e., we are ignoring other observables such as momentum), there can be no question of the no-hidden-variables theorems presenting any obstacles to our thinking of $`|\psi |^2`$ as a mixture of pure position states.

However, there remains a serious difficulty for supplying an ignorance interpretation of $`|\psi |^2`$: There does not appear to be any object in the standard Hilbert space formalism of QM which could represent the state of an individual particle in the ensemble. According to Teller , then, attempting to give an ignorance intepretation to $`|\psi |^2`$ amounts to questioning the “descriptive completeness” of quantum theory:

> “…if imprecise or imperfectly defined values of a continuous quantity are to be explained in terms of assumed underlying states with exact point values, these assumed underlying states cannot be described within the theory, and the theory is descriptively incomplete.” (p. 347)

But since QM is descriptively complete, $`|\psi |^2`$ should not be interpreted as a measure of our ignorance of the precise state of the individual particles.

Now it is certainly true that no *vector* in Hilbert space can be taken to describe the state of an individual particle with a sharp location. This is just the familiar point that operators with continuous spectra, like position, have no eigenvectors. Furthermore, Gleason’s Theorem  entails that any (pure) $`\sigma `$-additive probability measure on the logic of quantum propositions (i.e., lattice of subspaces of a Hilbert space) is given by a vector $`\psi `$, via the standard formula $`E\psi |E\psi `$. I believe, however, that the $`\sigma `$-additivity assumption in Gleason’s theorem is too restrictive. Indeed, I will argue that if we required $`\sigma `$-additivity of the states of a *classical* mechanical system, then we would similarly have to conclude — in direct contradiction to what we know to be true — that there can be no states assigning sharp values to continuous quantities in that case as well. In fact, I will show that in both cases it is possible to assign sharp values to continuous quantities using finitely-additive (“singular”) states. I will also demonstrate that difficulties which arise when using singular states in conjunction with the traditional von-Neumann account of ideal measurement are resolved when we adopt a more realistic account of measurement.

## 2 Observables, properties, and states

It is well-known that there are methods of extending the Hilbert space formalism of QM so that it includes “generalized eigenstates” for continuous spectrum observables (e.g., the rigged Hilbert space formalism). However, these constructions are not needed for my purposes: Any continuous spectrum observable is associated with a Boolean algebra of spectral projections, and a 2-valued homomorphism on this Boolean algebra gives a generalized eigenstate. Furthermore, such homomorphisms should not be considered any less a part of the Hilbert space formalism in the continuous case than they are in the discrete case, where they just happen to be represented by proper eigenvectors.

### 2.1 Preliminaries

I begin by establishing the terminology I will be using in this paper. Let $``$ be an arbitrary $`\sigma `$-complete Boolean algebra, with additive identity $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and multiplicative identity $`𝐈`$. We say that $`\omega `$ is a *state* of $``$ just in case $`\omega `$ is a mapping of $``$ into $`[0,1]`$ such that $`\omega (𝐈)=1`$ and

$$\omega (AB)=\omega (A)+\omega (B),$$
(1)
for each disjoint $`A,B`$, i.e., $`AB=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Clearly, the set of states on $``$ is a convex set. If $`\omega `$ is an extreme point among the states on $``$, we say that $`\omega `$ is a *pure* state. That is, $`\omega `$ is pure just in case: If $`\omega =a\rho +(1a)\tau `$, for some $`a(0,1)`$ and states $`\rho ,\tau `$ on $``$, then $`\omega =\rho =\tau `$. The state $`\omega `$ is pure if and only if it is a Boolean homomorphism of $``$ onto $`\{0,1\}`$. If $`\omega `$ is not pure, we say that $`\omega `$ is *mixed*. We say that a state $`\omega `$ is *normal* just in case

$$\omega \left(_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_i\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega (A_i),$$
(2)
for each countable pairwise disjoint sequence $`\{A_i\}`$ in $``$. If $`\omega `$ is not normal, we say that $`\omega `$ is *singular*. Recall that a family $``$ of elements in $``$ is called a *filter* just in case: (i) $`\mathrm{}`$, (ii) $`AB`$, when $`A,B`$, and (iii) if $`A`$ and $`AB`$, then $`B`$. If, furthermore, either $`A`$ or $`\neg A`$ for all $`A`$, then $``$ is said to be an *ultrafilter*. Each ultrafilter $`𝒰`$ on a Boolean algebra $``$ is the preimage of $`1`$ under some pure state $`\omega `$ of $``$, and $`\omega `$ is normal if and only if $`𝒰`$ is closed under countable meets. For any non-zero element $`A`$, the set $`𝒰_A=\{B:AB\}`$ is a filter, and is an ultrafilter if $`A`$ is an atom in $``$. In this case, $`𝒰_A`$ is called the *principal ultrafilter* generated by $`A`$. It is easy to see then that principal ultrafilters give rise to normal pure states.

The discussion of this paper focuses on two Boolean algebras: The $`\sigma `$-complete Boolean algebra $`()`$ of Borel subsets of $``$, and its quotient $`()/𝒩`$ by the ideal of Lebesgue measure zero sets. Recall that $`()`$ is the (Boolean) $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by the open subsets of $``$. The logical operations on $`()`$ are just the set-theoretic operations $``$ (intersection), $``$ (union), and $``$ (complement in $``$). Clearly, $`()`$ is purely atomic; i.e., for each $`S()`$ there is some atomic element $`A()`$ (i.e., a singleton set) such that $`AS`$. Thus, by the considerations adduced above, $`()`$ has an abundance of pure normal states.

Let $`𝒩`$ denote the family of Lebesgue measure zero sets in $`()`$. We define an equivalence relation $``$ on $`()`$ by setting $`S_1S_2`$ just in case $`S_1\mathrm{}S_2𝒩`$, where $`S_1\mathrm{}S_2=(S_1\backslash S_2)(S_2\backslash S_1)`$. For each $`S()`$, let $`\pi (S)=\{S^{}():S^{}S\}`$, and let

$$()/𝒩=\{\pi (S):S()\}.$$
(3)
For any countable family $`\{\pi (S_i)\}`$ of elements in $`()/𝒩`$, we define,

$$_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\pi (S_i)=\pi \left(_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}S_i\right).$$
(4)
(This is well-defined since $`𝒩`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal.) For $`\pi (S)()/𝒩`$, we set $`\neg \pi (S)=\pi (S)`$. It then follows that $`()/𝒩,,\neg `$ is a $`\sigma `$-complete Boolean algebra. It is also possible to show — although I do not prove it here — that $`()/𝒩`$ has *no* atoms; i.e., for each nonzero $`A()/𝒩`$, there is some nonzero $`B()/𝒩`$ such that $`B<A`$. This, in fact, is equivalent to the nonexistence of pure normal states for $`()/𝒩`$, which I do prove below in Proposition 1.

### 2.2 The position observable in QM

It is well-known that no wavefunctions $`\psi `$ in a Hilbert space give a probability density $`|\psi |^2`$ that is focused at one point. In this section, I will show that this well-known fact may be described in purely logical terms as the nonexistence of pure normal states on the Boolean algebra $`()/𝒩`$.

The state space of quantum mechanics is obtained by requiring an irreducible representation of the canonical commutation relation (CCR):

$$[\widehat{Q},\widehat{P}]=i\mathrm{}I,$$
(5)
by operators $`\widehat{Q},\widehat{P}`$ on some Hilbert space $``$. In its integrated (Weyl) form, there is a unique (up to unitary isomorphism) representation of the CCR on the Hilbert space $`L_2()`$ of equivalence classes of square integrable functions from $``$ into $``$ . (Two functions are equivalent just in case they agree except possibly on a set of measure zero.) In this representation, the position operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ is defined on a dense subset of $`L_2()`$ by the equation

$$(\widehat{Q}\psi )(q)=q\psi (q).$$
(6)
A “proposition” about the position of the particle is then given by a projection operator which is a function of $`\widehat{Q}`$. In particular, for each $`S()`$, we define an operator $`E(S)`$ on $`L_2()`$ by the equation

$$(E(S)\psi )(q)=\chi _S(q)\psi (q).$$
(7)
The set $`𝒪_Q=\{E(S):S()\}`$ is a $`\sigma `$-complete Boolean algebra of projection operators on the Hilbert space $``$, and $`E`$ is a Boolean $`\sigma `$-homomorphism from $`()`$ onto $`𝒪_Q`$. Moreover, $`E(S)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ if and only if $`S`$ has Lebesgue measure zero. Thus, the kernel of the mapping $`E`$ is $`𝒩`$, and (by the first isomorphism theorem for rings) $`𝒪_Q`$ is isomorphic to the quotient Boolean algebra $`()/𝒩`$. ($`E`$ is usually called the spectral measure for $`\widehat{Q}`$.)

Now, every wavefunction $`\psi `$ gives rise to a normal state $`\rho _\psi `$ on $`𝒪_Q`$ in the standard way:

$$\rho _\psi (E(S)):=\psi |E(S)\psi =_{}\chi _S(q)|\psi (q)|^2𝑑q=_S|\psi (q)|^2𝑑q.$$
(8)
However, it follows from purely logical considerations that there cannot be normal “eigenstates” for $`\widehat{Q}`$.

###### Proposition 1.

There are no pure normal states of $`()/𝒩`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\omega `$ be a pure state of $`()/𝒩`$, and let $`𝒰=\omega ^1(1)`$ be the corresponding ultrafilter. (Case 1) Suppose that $`\pi (S)𝒰`$ for all compact subsets $`S`$ of $``$. For each $`n`$, let $`A_n=[n,n]`$. Then, $`\pi (A_n)𝒰`$ and since $`𝒰`$ is an ultrafilter, $`\pi (A_n)=\neg \pi (A_n)𝒰`$. However,

$$_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\pi (A_n)=\pi \left(_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_n\right)=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(9)
and therefore $`𝒰`$ is not closed under countable meets. (Case 2) If $`\pi (S)𝒰`$ for some compact set $`S`$ in $``$, then $`𝒰`$ contains $`\pi (_\lambda )`$ where $`_\lambda `$ is the family of open neighborhoods of some point $`\lambda `$. For each $`n`$, let

$$B_n=(\lambda n^1,\lambda +n^1).$$
(10)
Then, $`\pi (B_n)𝒰`$ for each $`n`$. However,

$$_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\pi (B_n)=\pi \left(_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}B_n\right)=\pi \left(\{\lambda \}\right)=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(11)
since $`\{\lambda \}`$ has Lebesgue measure zero. Thus, $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\pi (B_n)𝒰`$ and $`𝒰`$ is again not closed under countable meets. ∎

Thus, assuming that quantum theory is descriptively complete, and that quantum states must be $`\sigma `$-additive, $`|\psi |^2`$ can not be interpreted as a measure of our ignorance of the true (pure) state of individual particles in the ensemble. Some philosophers draw the moral from this that quantum theory is teaching us something new about the nature of continuous quantities, namely that we should not think or talk about continuous quantities possessing point values, nor should we think or talk about statistical states as distributions over point-valued states. For example, Fine  argues that we should think of statistical state $`\rho _\psi `$ as a map that assigns a *set*, rather than a numerical value, to $`\widehat{Q}`$. In particular,

$$\rho _\psi (\widehat{Q}):=\{S:\rho _\psi (E(S))=1\}.$$
(12)
Of course, $`\rho _\psi (\widehat{Q})`$ will never be a singleton, and — perhaps contrary to our intuitions — the statement that the particle lies in $`S`$ is a maximally specific description of the location of the particle.

Teller  agrees with Fine that a statistical state should be interpreted not as a mixture of value states, but as assigning a “partless” set value. Nonetheless, Teller does recognize that this description of the location of the particle can be misleading: it suggests — contrary to the predictions of quantum theory — that no matter where we look in $`S`$, we will find a “piece” of the particle. Teller suggests, however, that we should think of the property “being located in $`S`$” as including,

> “a collection of dispositions or potentialities to manifest a more refined position of the same nature whenever a more refined measurement interaction takes place.” (p. 357)

Thus, Teller seems to be claiming that the probability distribution $`|\psi |^2`$ itself gives a maximally specific description of an individual element in the ensemble.

Teller claims, moreover, that this dual property/disposition nature of position in QM is “nothing exceptional;” in fact, it is just like the color white which is “a manifest property and at the same time an array of dispositions” (ibid). This analogy to color, however, seems to show exactly what leaves us uneasy about Teller’s proposal. In the case of the color white, we can explain an object’s dispositions to appear certain ways in certain contexts in terms of categorical properties of the object (viz., the chemical composition of its surface). On the other hand, Teller is claiming that a quantum-mechanical particle can have irreducibly probabilistic dispositions with no categorical basis (apart from, perhaps, $`\psi `$ itself, which is difficult to see as anything other than a catalog of those dispositions).

### 2.3 The ignorance interpretation in classical mechanics

According to Teller, these irreducibily probabilistic dispositions are a peculiar feature of quantum mechanics. Unlike the quantum case, the probabilities in classical mechanics may be thought of as measures of our ignorance of the precise state:

> “In the context of classical physics the outcome of an inexact measurement may be described as a probability distribution over exact values, and we know how to state what this means: There is a probability (interpreted as a relative frequency, subjective degree of belief, or propensity) for the value of the measured quantity to have one or another of the exact values in the support of the distribution.” (p. 352)

Let us attempt, then, to give a mathematically rigorous description of this purported distinction between the classical and quantum cases.

A classical particle moving in one dimension has a *phase space* $`^2`$, with one coordinate for the position $`Q`$ of the particle, and the other coordinate for the momentum $`P=m(dQ/dt)`$ of the particle. We may think of Borel subsets of $`^2`$ as representing statements that ascribe properties to the particle. (For background material, see Chap. 1 of Ref. References.) A dynamical variable is represented by a measurable, real-valued function $`F`$ on phase space. For example, the position of the particle is represented by the function $`F((q,p))=q`$. For any Borel set $`S`$ in $``$, $`F^1(S)`$ consists precisely of those “states” (i.e., points in phase space) for which the value of $`F`$ lies in $`S`$. $`F^1`$ (considered as a set mapping) is in fact a Boolean $`\sigma `$-homomorphism from $`()`$ onto some Boolean subalgebra $`_F`$ of $`(^2)`$. For example, the disjunctive proposition *“The value of $`F`$ lies either in $`S_1`$ or in $`S_2`$* is represented formally by

$$F^1(S_1S_2)=F^1(S_1)F^1(S_2).$$
(13)
Consider now the completely classical example of a person (or machine) Bob throwing darts at a (one-dimensional) dartboard. Since we are ignorant of the factors that influence each individual throw, we assign a probability density $`\rho `$ to the points on the dartboard (represented here by $``$). Now, just as in the quantum-mechanical case, the distribution $`\rho `$ on $``$ defines a mixed normal state on $`_F`$ by means of the equation

$$\rho (F^1(S))=_{}\chi _S(q)\rho (q)𝑑q=_S\rho (q)𝑑q.$$
(14)
Any particular dart in the “ensemble” should, however, be characterized by a *pure* state on $`_F`$. (i.e., there is some point $`\lambda `$ such that the dart has probability $`1`$ of hitting that point). And, in fact, everything works out fine in this case since there *are* pure normal states of $`_F`$. Indeed, the atoms in $`_F`$ are just lines in $`^2`$ on which $`F`$ is constant: $`A_\lambda =\{(q,p):F((q,p))=\lambda \}`$. Since each atom in a Boolean algebra gives rise to a pure normal state, there is a normal pure state $`\omega _\lambda `$ of $`_F`$ defined explicitly by the condition that $`\omega _\lambda (S)=1`$ if and only if $`A_\lambda S`$. Conversely, if $`\omega `$ is a pure normal state of $`_F`$, then $`\omega =\omega _\lambda `$ for some $`\lambda `$. \[First show that $`\omega (F^1(S))=1`$ for some compact set $`S`$. Standard topological arguments then show that $`\omega (F^1(V))=1`$ for every open neighborhood $`V`$ or some point $`\lambda `$. Now use the fact that $`\{\lambda \}`$ is the intersection of a countable family of open sets.\] Thus, the pure normal states on $`_F`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the sets on which $`F`$ takes a constant value. Finally, it is easy to see that the distribution $`\rho `$ does admit interpretation as a measure of ignorance over the pure normal states, namely $`\rho =\omega _\lambda 𝑑\rho `$.

However, before we grant that there is a fundamental difference here between the quantum and classical cases, let’s think a bit more carefully about the interpretation of the mathematical objects we’ve been dealing with. In particular, an element $`F^1(S)_F`$ is interpreted as a statement that *ascribes a property* to the particle, namely the statement *“The particle is located in $`S`$.”* Now take an element $`E(S)𝒪_Q`$. Is it the quantum equivalent of the classical statement $`F^1(S)`$; i.e., an ascription of a property *“located in S”*? If we interpret $`E(S)`$ this way, then it is trivially true that a quantum particle cannot have a sharp location:

> Let $`\lambda `$. Then $`E(\{\lambda \})=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ since $`\{\lambda \}`$ has Lebesgue measure zero. Thus, the proposition *“The particle is located at $`\lambda `$* is a contradiction. *QED*

Thus the property ascription interpretation of elements of $`𝒪_Q`$ rules out our being able to describe particles with sharp locations. However, the property ascription interpretation is not the traditional interpretation of projection operators in quantum theory. According to the traditional interpretation, the projection operators are *observables* or *experimental propositions*. This is sometimes made precise by saying that $`E(S)`$ represents the statement:

> *“A measurement of $`\widehat{Q}`$ will yield a value lying in $`S`$.”*

Under this interpretation, $`E(\{\lambda \})=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ does *not* entail that a particle cannot be located at $`\lambda `$; it simply means that it is false (in fact, a contradiction) to say that any measurement of $`\widehat{Q}`$ will yield the precise value $`\lambda `$. (This, for example, may be the result of the fact that precise measurements of $`\widehat{Q}`$ are impossible.) But now, if $`𝒪_Q`$ consists of observables, while $`_F`$ consists of property ascriptions, differences in the state spaces of the two logics do not necessarily reflect differences in the descriptive resources of classical and quantum mechanics.

The distinction between observables (experimental propositions) and property ascriptions should not be drawn only in quantum physics. For example, although $`F^1(\lambda )_F`$ is a classical property ascription, it is doubtful that any classical experiment ever determines that the value of the quantity $`F`$ is the *exact* real number $`\lambda `$; and thus the proposition “$`\mathrm{Val}(F)=\lambda `$” is not really an experimental proposition — even in the classical case. The same intuition is expressed by Birkhoff and von Neumann  who claim that, it would be absurd,

> “to call an “experimental proposition,” the assertion that the angular momentum (in radians per second) of the earth around the sun was at a particular instant a rational number!” (p. 825)

Indeed, what experiment would we perform in order to determine that it was a rational number?

There will certainly be a number of different ways to give a mathematically precise account of the notion of approximate measurement. Here, though, I will just explain briefly von Neumann’s \[25, 595-598\] account, without trying to argue positively for its merits. I wish simply to show that according to von Neumann’s account of approximate measurement in *classical* physics, the logic of classical experimental propositions (for one continuous quantity) is mathematically identical to $`𝒪_Q`$.

The fact that measurements are of arbitrarily good, but always finite, precision is given formal statement by von Neumann as follows:

> For each $`n`$, the value space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`F`$ may be partitioned into a finite or countably infinite family of measurable sets $`\{N_i^{(n)}:i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, of which each two have measure-zero overlap. We may do this so that the partition $`\{N_i^{(n+1)}\}`$ is strictly finer than $`\{N_i^{(n)}\}`$ for each $`n`$, and if we let $`\delta _n`$ denote the maximum diameter of the sets in $`\{N_i^{(n)}\}`$, then $`\delta _n0`$. We say that some procedure is a $`F`$-measurement of $`n`$-th level precision just in case it determines the $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)N_i^{(n)}`$. Then, $`F`$-measurements of all finite levels of precision are possible.

With this as the basic principle of measurement, von Neumann proves: For any set $`S`$, we can determine via measurement (up to an arbitrary level of confidence) whether $`\mathrm{Val}(F)S`$, if and only if $`S`$ has non-vanishing Lebesgue measure. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine with any good level of confidence that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)`$ lies in a Lebesgue measure zero set — in agreement with the intuition that “$`\mathrm{Val}(F)=\lambda `$” and *$`\mathrm{Val}(F)`$ is a rational number”* are not experimental propositions. Furthermore, if two subsets $`S_1,S_2()`$ agree except possibly on a set of measure zero, then there is no way to determine that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)S_1\backslash S_2`$ or that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)S_2\backslash S_1`$. Thus, two elements $`S_1,S_2_F`$ define the same classical observable just in case $`S_1\mathrm{}S_2=(S_1\backslash S_2)(S_2\backslash S_1)𝒩`$. But then the logic of classical observables $`𝒪_F`$ for the quantity $`F`$ is *also* the quotient Boolean algebra $`()/𝒩`$. (See p. 825 of Ref. References.)

Now, Teller claims that,

> “…if we believe that systems possess exact values for continuous quantities, classical theory contains the descriptive resources for attributing such values to the system, whether or not measurements are taken to be imprecise in some sense. Quantum mechanics has no such descriptive resource” (p. 352).

Apparently, then, Teller endorses the claim that classical mechanics does have states assigning exact values to a continuous quantity, even after we take into account the fact that absolutely precise measurements are not possible. However, when we take that into account, the logic of classical experimental propositions $`𝒪_F`$ is *isomorphic* to the logic of quantum experimental propositions $`𝒪_Q`$. Moreover, if we require quantum states to be $`\sigma `$-additive (thereby depriving quantum theory of the resources to describe exact values), we should also require classical states to be $`\sigma `$-additive — which would also deprive classical theory of the resources to describe exact values. But this conclusion cannot be right: Classical theory does already have these resources to describe exact values, namely points in phase space. The difficulty, then, is not with a lack of resources; but rather with the connection between the theoretical description of point values (viz., pure normal states on $`_F`$) and the “surface” description given by states on $`𝒪_F`$. I will argue in the next section that the solution to this difficulty is that the “hidden states” give rise to finitely-additive (singular) states on $`𝒪_F`$.

### 2.4 Singular states

Let $`𝒮`$ be any family of elements in $`()/𝒩`$ with the finite meet property. That is, for any finite family $`\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_n\}𝒮`$, we have

$$A_1\mathrm{}A_n\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(15)
Then, the Ultrafilter Extension Theorem \[19, p. 339\] entails that there is some 2-valued homomorphism $`\omega `$ on $`()/𝒩`$ such that $`\omega (A)=1`$ for all $`A𝒮`$. In particular, $`()/𝒩`$ *does* have pure states, even though they are not $`\sigma `$-additive. Furthermore, any probability distribution $`\rho `$ on $`()/𝒩`$ can be written explicitly as a mixture of pure states; i.e., there is some measure $`\mu `$ on the pure state space of $`()/𝒩`$ such that

$$\rho =\omega _\alpha 𝑑\mu (\alpha ).$$
(16)
Thus, the distribution $`\rho `$ does admit an ignorance interpretation; viz., it measures our ignorance of the (singular) state which describes an individual particle in the ensemble.

The pure states on $`()/𝒩`$ should be thought of as “surface states.” That is, each pure state on $`()/𝒩`$ gives a consistent catalog of sure-fire responses of the system to all possible measurements. I will now argue that for each $`\lambda `$, there is at least one surface state whose predictions can be interpreted as consistent with the fact that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)=\lambda `$, and inconsistent with the fact that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)=\xi `$ for any $`\xi \lambda `$.

Consider again the dart throwing example. According to the von Neumann measurement theory, there is no experiment which would tell us the real number $`\lambda `$ at which the dart lands. However, we can rule out segments of the dart board. In particular, choose some open segment $`V`$ along the line. Then, if the system responds $`0`$ to the measurement $`\pi (V)`$, we are entitled to conclude that the dart did not land at any point in the segment $`V`$. In other words, a necessary condition for the value of $`F`$ to be $`\lambda `$ in the state $`\omega `$ is that:

$`\omega (\pi (V))=1,\text{for all}V_\lambda ()`$
where $`_\lambda `$ is the family of open neighborhoods of $`\lambda `$. Suppose, conversely, that $`\omega `$ satisfies $`()`$ with respect to some point $`\lambda `$. \[If $`()`$ holds, we say that the state $`\omega `$ converges to the point $`\lambda `$.\] Then, for any other point $`\xi `$ along the line, there is some open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`\xi `$ which excludes $`\lambda `$. A measurement of $`\pi (W)`$ in the state $`\omega `$ then shows that the dart did not land at $`\xi `$. Thus, when $`\omega `$ converges to $`\lambda `$, the only interpretation consistent with the von Neumann theory of measurement is that $`\mathrm{Val}(F)=\lambda `$; that is, the “hidden” state of the system is given by some phase space point along the line $`\{(q,p):F((q,p))=\lambda \}`$.

Now consider again some mixed state $`\rho `$ on $`()/𝒩`$. Then, $`\rho `$ is a mixture of pure states as in Eq. 16, and each pure state assigns some definite value to $`F`$. (We do have to be sure that $`\rho `$ falls off sufficiently quickly at infinity. See Sec. 3 of Ref. References.) Thus, this validates the idea that in classical mechanics, the distribution $`\rho `$ represents the “…probability for the value of the measured quantity to have one or another of the exact values in the support of the distribution.”

However, everything we have just said about singular states of $`()/𝒩`$ was entirely neutral as to whether we were discussing classical or quantum mechanics. Thus, a quantum-mechanical probability distribution $`|\psi |^2`$ may also be thought of as representing a probability for $`\widehat{Q}`$ to have one or another of the exact values in the support of $`|\psi |^2`$. According to Teller, though, even if there were some mathematically acceptable method for describing sharp positions in QM, doing so would not be *physically* acceptable:

> “Such an extended physical theory would describe systems having totally indeterminate momentum, not even highly localized to any finite interval. Such systems would have an infinite expectation value for their kinetic energy” (p. 353).

This argument, however, is not a criticism of singular states *per se* (which, by the way, are not extensions of the standard formalism). Since the energy observable is an unbounded operator, there are vectors in the Hilbert space that are not in the domain of this observable, and so these vectors too will assign “infinite kinetic energy” to the system. Thus, following Teller’s reasoning here to its logical conclusion, the Hilbert space is not really the state space, rather the domain of the energy observable is the state space. But then, what about other unbounded observables such as the position observable $`\widehat{Q}`$ itself? Should we also throw away all those vectors that assign an infinite expectation value to position? And once we’ve cleansed the Hilbert space of vectors not in the domains of all physically relevant observables, would anything be left?

Besides these obvious retorts, it is not completely clear what is meant by Teller’s talk about assigning infinite expectation values. What we do know — in the case of pure (singular) states of $`𝒪_Q`$ — is that these states cannot be thought of as assigning some finite expectation values to the energy observable. (Precisely: Each pure, convergent state on $`𝒪_Q`$ gives rise to a mixed state on the logic of experimental propositions about energy, and measure one of the pure states in its integral decomposition do not converge to a finite value. See Ref. References, Section 3.) It may be mathematically convenient, then, to adjoin $`\mathrm{}`$ to the normal range of values, but we should *not* say that these states assign “$`\mathrm{}`$” to the energy observable. Rather, we should think of this infinity — as we do of the infinities related to singularities in General Relativity — as indicating the limits of the descriptive capabilities of our theory. And if, with Teller, we take the theory to be descriptively complete, then there is nothing more to describe about energy in these situations.

## 3 Potential difficulties with singular states

In the previous section, I have argued that singular states permit us to give an ignorance interpretation of the probability distributions associated with individual continuous quantities in QM. I imagine my reader may still not be convinced, though, of the acceptability of singular states. In this section, I will confirm that there are indeed difficulties with these singular states. In the final section, however, I will show that these difficulties can be remedied by taking a more modest view of the measurements that can be made on a continuous quantity.

It would be quite natural to think that if we pick a point $`\lambda `$, it determines uniquely a pure state $`\omega `$ on $`()/𝒩`$ that converges to $`\lambda `$. There is, however, a difficulty. Suppose we divide the screen (or dartboard) into two halves $`A=\{q:q>\lambda \}`$ and $`B=\{q:q<\lambda \}`$. Then,

$$\pi (A)\pi (B)=\pi (A)\pi (B)\pi (\{\lambda \})=\pi ()=𝐈,$$
(17)
since $`\{\lambda \}`$ has Lebesgue measure zero. Thus,

$$\omega (\pi (A))+\omega (\pi (B))=1,$$
(18)
while either $`\omega (\pi (A))=0`$ or $`\omega (\pi (B))=0`$. Thus, any pure state $`\omega `$ must assign $`1`$ to either $`\pi (A)`$ or $`\pi (B)`$, but not to both. What would be the right answer for a state in which the particle is located at $`\lambda `$?

Actually, it is easy to show that both value assignments are consistent with the particle being located at $`\lambda `$. Indeed, let $`𝒮_1=_\lambda \{\pi (A)\}`$ and let $`𝒮_2=_\lambda \{\pi (B)\}`$. Since both $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ have the finite meet property, there is an ultrafilter $`𝒰_1`$ which contains $`𝒮_1`$ and an ultrafilter $`𝒰_2`$ which contains $`𝒮_2`$. Since $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$ both converge to $`\lambda `$, both should be interpreted as surface manifestations of some “hidden” state in which the particle is located at $`\lambda `$. On the other hand, the particle’s being in some hidden state $`(\lambda ,p)`$, gives no information concerning its disposition to respond to a measurement of $`\pi (A)`$.

The apparent mismatch between hidden states and surface states is, in fact, quite severe.

###### Proposition 2.

For each $`\lambda `$, there are at least $`\mathrm{}_0`$ distinct ultrafilters on $`()/𝒩`$ that converge to $`\lambda `$.

In order to prove this proposition, we will first require a lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

Suppose that $`\{B_j:jJ\}`$ is a family of open subsets of $``$ such that $`B_iB_j=\mathrm{}`$ when $`ij`$ and such that $`\lambda \mathrm{clo}(B_j)`$ for all $`jJ`$. Then, there is a family $`\{𝒰_j:jJ\}`$ of distinct ultrafilters on $`()/𝒩`$ such that $`\pi (_\lambda )𝒰_j`$ for all $`jJ`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{B_j:jJ\}`$ be given as above. For each $`jJ`$, let

$$𝒮_j=\pi (_\lambda )\{\pi (B_j)\}.$$
(19)
From the Ultrafilter Extension Theorem, $`𝒮_j`$ is contained in a Boolean ultrafilter $`𝒰_j`$ if and only if the meet of any finite collection of elements in $`𝒮_j`$ is nonzero. Let $`\{\pi (U_1),\pi (U_2),\mathrm{},\pi (U_n)\}𝒮_j`$. If $`U_i_\lambda `$ for each $`i`$, then $`_{i=1}^nU_i`$ is an open set that contains $`\lambda `$. If $`U_1=B_j`$, and $`U_i_\lambda `$ for $`i2`$, then $`_{i=2}^nU_i`$ is an open set that contains $`\lambda `$, and since $`\lambda \mathrm{clo}(B_j)`$, $`_{i=1}^nU_i`$ is a nonempty open set. In either case, the open set $`O:=_{i=1}^nU_i`$ is nonempty. Since Lebesgue measure does not vanish on any nonempty open set, we have

$$_{i=1}^n\pi (U_i)=\pi \left(_{i=1}^nU_i\right)=\pi (O)0.$$
(20)
Thus, there is an ultrafilter $`𝒰_j`$ that contains $`𝒮_j`$. Since $`\pi (B_i)\pi (B_j)=0`$ when $`ij`$, it follows that $`𝒰_i𝒰_j`$ when $`ij`$. ∎

###### Proof of the proposition.

We will consider the case where $`\lambda =0`$. In light of the lemma, it will suffice to construct a family $`\{B_n:n\}`$ of open subsets of $``$ such that $`B_nB_m=\mathrm{}`$ when $`nm`$ and such that $`0\mathrm{clo}(B_n)`$ for all $`n`$.

For each $`n\{0\}`$, let $`a_n=2^n`$. For each $`n,m`$, let $`b_{nm}=(a_n+a_{n1})/2^m`$, and let

$$A_m=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(a_n,b_{nm}).$$
(21)
Note that $`A_mA_{m+1}`$ for all $`m`$, and in fact $`A_mA_{m+1}`$ has nonempty interior. Thus, if we set

$$B_m=\mathrm{int}(A_mA_{m+1}),$$
(22)
then $`B_m`$ is a nonempty open set. We must show that $`B_iB_j=\mathrm{}`$ when $`ij`$ and that $`0\mathrm{clo}(B_i)`$ for all $`i`$. Suppose that $`ij`$. We may assume that $`i+1j`$, in which case $`A_{i+1}A_j`$, and

$$B_iB_j\left(A_iA_{i+1}\right)\left(A_jA_{j+1}\right)A_jA_{i+1}=\mathrm{}.$$
(23)
It is easy to verify that the sequence $`\{b_{nm}:n\}`$ is in $`\mathrm{clo}(B_m)`$ for each $`m`$. But $`lim_nb_{nm}=0`$ and since $`\mathrm{clo}(\mathrm{clo}(B_m))=\mathrm{clo}(B_m)`$, it follows that $`0\mathrm{clo}(B_m)`$. ∎

Thus, even though we are able to explain probabilistic dispositions as measures of ignorance of sure-fire dispositions, we are not able to further reduce the latter to categorical location properties. So, one could still think that attributing categorical location properties is objectionable on the grounds that these attributions are explanatorily bankrupt.

There is also a serious practical obstacle for using singular states as the explanans for a reduction of probabilistic dispositions; namely, none of these singular states can be explicitly defined. By saying that these singular states cannot be “explicitly defined,” I mean to contrast this with the pure normal states of $`()`$ given by principal ultrafilters, as well as with mixed normal states on $`()/𝒩`$. First of all, it is quite trivial to give an explicit definition of a principal ultrafilter on $`()`$. Indeed, once I choose some $`\lambda `$, then (trivially) if you give me a Borel set $`S`$, then I can tell you whether or not $`S`$ is in the principal ultrafilter generated by $`\{\lambda \}`$. We have also seen that any quantum-mechanical wavefunction $`\psi `$ defines a mixed normal state $`\rho _\psi `$ on $`()/𝒩`$ by means of the formula

$$\rho _\psi (\pi (S))=_S|\psi (q)|^2𝑑q.$$
(24)
Since it is possible to explicitly define a wavefunction $`\psi `$, Eq. 24 gives an explicit recipe for computing the value $`\rho _\psi (\pi (S))`$ for any Borel set $`S`$.

On the other hand, although we “know” that there are ultrafilters (i.e., pure states) on $`()/𝒩`$, we do not know this because someone has constructed an example of such an ultrafilter. In order to obtain an ultrafilter, we note that a certain (explicitly defined) family $`𝒮`$ of elements in $`()/𝒩`$ has the finite meet property, and then we invoke the Ultrafilter Extension Theorem to extend $`𝒮`$ to an ultrafilter $`𝒰`$. This extension procedure is a classic example of nonconstructive mathematics: We are told that there is some pure state $`\omega `$ on $`()/𝒩`$, but we are not given a recipe for determining the value $`\omega (A)`$ for an arbitrary element $`A()/𝒩`$.

A strong case can be made that the sometimes imprecise distinction between “giving an explicit example” and “proving existence (nonconstructively),” corresponds to a precise distinction in the strength of the set-theoretic axioms used to prove the existence of the object in question (see Ref. References). In particular, many concrete mathematical objects (such as the Real numbers \[17, Appendix\]) are constructed using the Principle of Recursive Constructions:

> (PRC) Suppose $`X`$ is a non-empty set, and let a function $`G`$ be given from the set of finite sequences in $`X`$ into $`𝒫(X)\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$. Then there exists exactly one function $`F:X`$ such that $`F(0)G(\mathrm{})`$ and $`F(n)G(F(0),\mathrm{},F(n1))`$ for all $`n>0`$.

PRC is equivalent in ZF to the axiom of Dependent Choices \[14, p. 147\]:

> (DC) If $`R`$ is a binary relation on a nonempty set $`X`$ such that for every $`xX`$ there exists a $`yX`$ with $`x,yR`$, then there exists a sequence $`(x_n)_n`$ of elements of $`X`$ such that $`x_n,x_{n+1}R`$ for every $`n`$.

DC is a very weak form of the Axiom of Choice: ZF+DC entails the Axiom of Countable Choice, but ZF+DC does not entail the Ultrafilter Extension Theorem, nor does it entail any of the “paradoxical” consequences of ZF+AC (e.g. the Banach-Tarski paradox) \[19, Chap. 6\]. In fact, a good case can be made that *applied* mathematics makes use *only* of those objects in the ZF+DC universe . For example, all theorems of classical (19th century) analysis, and even all theorems of the traditional Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics can be proved in ZF+DC .

Following , let us say that a mathematical object is *intangible* just in case that object exists in the ZF+AC universe, but that object cannot be proved to exist in the ZF+DC universe. For example, a free ultrafilter on $``$ (i.e., an ultrafilter containing all subsets of $``$ whose complements are finite) is an intangible . We now show that value states of $`()/𝒩`$ are also intangibles.

###### Proposition 3.

It cannot be proved in ZF+DC that there is a pure state of $`()/𝒩`$.

###### Proof.

Let WUF (weak-ultrafilter principle) denote the statement that there is a free ultrafilter on $``$, and let PS denote the statement that there is a pure state on $`()/𝒩`$. We must show that ZF+DC+$`\neg `$PS is consistent. Since ZF+DC+$`\neg `$WUF is consistent , it will suffice to show that ZF+DC$``$(PS$``$WUF). Thus, suppose that PS holds; i.e., there is an ultrafilter $`𝒰`$ on $`()/𝒩`$. By Prop. 1, $`𝒰`$ is not closed under countable meets; i.e., there is a family $`\{P_n:n\}`$ of elements of $`()/𝒩`$ such that $`P_n𝒰`$ for all $`n`$, but $`_nP_n𝒰`$. (It’s important to note that Prop. 1 uses no choice axiom stronger than DC.) Define a family $`𝒥`$ of subsets of $``$ by

$$J𝒥_{nJ}P_n𝒰.$$
(25)
It is easily verified that $`𝒥`$ is an ultrafilter in $`𝒫()`$ that contains all subsets of $``$ whose complements are finite. ∎

## 4 The logic of unsharp experimental <br>propositions

I have argued that it is possible to give an ignorance interpretation of the probabilites associated with a continuous quantity in quantum mechanics. In order to do so, however, I had to make use of singular states, which turn out to have some pretty odd properties that militate against their playing a serious role in explaining a particle’s probabilistic dispositions. Some might attribute the oddities encountered in the last section to the fact that we permitted ourselves to use states that are not $`\sigma `$-additive. On the contrary, I will now argue that the difficulty is not with the states but with the observables: We were trying to account for too many measurement outcomes.

If we take $`()/𝒩`$ to be in one-to-one correspondence with possible experiments, then Prop. 2 shows that there are experiments whose outcomes could distinguish two states, both of which correspond to one point $`\lambda `$. If, however, these distinguishing experiments cannot in fact be performed, then these two states corresponding to $`\lambda `$ are empirically equivalent. In this section, I will show how to make this idea precise using the fact that real experimental questions are always “unsharp.”

Consider again a person, Bob, throwing darts at a one-dimensional dartboard. With the knowledge we have of Bob’s skills, we choose a region $`S`$ on the dartboard which we feel confident Bob can hit on 100 consecutive throws. Since we don’t have time, though, to watch each of Bob’s throws, we rig a device to keep score. In particular, each time a dart hits the board, we get a printout that records $`y`$ when the dart lands in $`S`$ and that records $`n`$ when the dart lands outside of $`S`$. Now, after Bob has made his $`100`$ throws, we take a look at the printout: there are $`98`$ $`y`$’s and $`2`$ $`n`$’s. Do we then conclude that Bob was not as skilled a dart thrower as we thought? Not necessarily. Perhaps it was our score-keeping device, not Bob, which failed on those two counts. Or, perhaps some environmental factor interfered with two of Bob’s throws. In any case, the point is that in a real experimental situation, the measuring device itself and the environment introduce factors of uncertainty which have to be taken into account when interpreting out measurement results.

To make the imperfections in the experimental setup mathematically precise within the confines of the standard Hilbert space formalism of QM, we can associate a confidence measure $`e`$ with the device $``$. (Here I follow Busch et al. .) If, using this measuring device, we attempt to test for the claim “the particle is in $`S`$,” then what we actually measure is the “smeared” observable

$$E^e(S):=_{}e(q)E(S+q)𝑑q=(\chi _Se)(\widehat{Q}).$$
(26)
Here the operation $``$ is the convolution product defined by

$$(fg)(q_0):=_{}f(q)g(q_0q)𝑑q.$$
(27)
For a fixed confidence measure $`e`$, the mapping $`SE^e(S)`$ is a positive operator valued (POV) measure on $`(,())`$. If $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are disjoint Borel sets, then we represent the disjunctive question *“Is the particle in $`S_1S_2`$?”* formally by

$$E^e(S_1)E^e(S_2):=E^e(S_1)+E^e(S_2).$$
(28)
The conjunctive question *“Is the particle in $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$?”* is represented by the operator $`E^e(S_1S_2)`$. In general, however, it is not the case that

$$E^e(S_1S_2)=E^e(S_1)E^e(S_2).$$
(29)
In fact, the operator on the right-hand side of Eq. 29 will not generally be in the range of $`E^e`$. Finally, the question *“Is the particle in the complement of $`S`$?”* is represented formally by

$$\neg E^e(S):=E^e\left(\backslash S\right).$$
(30)
We obtain the standard projection valued (PV) measure $`E`$ if we apply the above construction to the case in which we have absolute confidence in the accuracy of our measuring apparatus. Formally, if we let $`\delta `$ be the Dirac delta function, then

$$E^\delta (S)=(\chi _S\delta )(\widehat{Q})=\chi _S(\widehat{Q})=E(S),$$
(31)
for all Borel sets $`S`$. On the other hand, if $`e`$ has non-zero deviation (i.e., $`e`$ is an integrable *function*), then for each Borel set $`S`$, $`(\chi _Se)`$ is a uniformly continuous function \[13, Prop. 3.2\].

Realistically, then, the family $``$ of experimental propositions about the location of the particle should consist only of elements of the form $`E^e(S)`$, where $`e`$ is some confidence function with non-zero deviation. Let’s be generous, though, and suppose that $``$ contains all operators of the form $`f(\widehat{Q})`$ where $`f`$ is a uniformly continuous function from $``$ into $`[0,1]`$. If we say that $`AB`$ just in case $`A+B𝐈`$, then we may extend the exclusive disjunction defined in Eq. 28 by setting

$$AB:=A+B,$$
(32)
when $`AB`$. It is easy to verify then that $`(,,\mathrm{𝟎},𝐈)`$ is an *effect algebra*, or *unsharp quantum logic* . (Recall that every Boolean algebra is an effect algebra if we set: $`AB`$ iff. $`AB=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and $`AB=AB`$ .) Thus, in particular, for each $`A`$, there is a unique element $`\neg A=𝐈A`$ such that $`A\neg A`$ and $`A\neg A=𝐈`$. For $`A,B`$, we say that $`AB`$ just in case there is some $`CA`$ such that $`AC=B`$. A *state* on $``$ is a mapping $`\omega :[0,1]`$ such that $`\omega (𝐈)=1`$ and

$$\omega (AB)=\omega (A)+\omega (B),$$
(33)
whenever $`AB`$ is defined. From this it follows that whenever $`A,B`$ and $`AB`$, then $`\omega (A)\omega (B)`$ and

$$\omega (BA)=\omega (B)\omega (A).$$
(34)
We say that a state $`\omega `$ of $``$ is pure just in case: If $`\omega =a\rho +(1a)\tau `$, for some $`a(0,1)`$, then $`\omega =\rho =\tau `$. Unlike the Boolean case, however, a pure state of a general effect algebra may take on any value in the interval $`[0,1]`$. (For example, even if Bob hits the bullseye on each try out of $`100`$, our less than ideal score-keeper might only credit him with only, say, $`98`$ hits.)

I began this section with the idea that there are too many observables in $`𝒪_Q()/𝒩`$, and that we should be more modest about what can actually be measured. Let me show precisely, now, how the effect algebra $``$ does represent a more modest perspective on what the *experimental* propositions about position truly are.

Both $``$ and $`𝒪_Q`$ are subsets of the algebra $`_Q`$ of all operators of the form $`f(\widehat{Q})`$, where $`f`$ is some Borel function from $``$ into $``$. Although the intersection of $``$ and $`𝒪_Q`$ contains only $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐈`$, we should think of $``$ as containing a much smaller set of observables than $`𝒪_Q`$. Indeed, any element in $``$ may be uniformly approximated by linear combinations of elements in $`𝒪_Q`$ (by the spectral theorem). Thus, any pure state $`\omega `$ on $`()/𝒩`$ will give rise to a unique pure state $`\omega |_{}`$ on $``$. (This slight abuse of notation is justified by the fact that pure states on $`𝒪_Q`$ extend uniquely to pure states of the von Neumann algebra $`_Q`$.) On the other hand, since the family of uniformly continous functions is closed under linear combinations and uniform limits, no element of $`()/𝒩`$ (other than $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐈`$) can be approximated by linear combinations of elements in $``$. Thus, $``$ is “coarser grained” than $`𝒪_Q`$ in the sense that two states which give different outcomes for measurements in $`𝒪_Q`$ may give identical outcomes for all measurements in $``$. And, indeed, the elements of $``$ do not permit us to distinguish between states that correspond to a common point $`\lambda `$.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`\omega ,\rho `$ be pure states of $`𝒪_Q`$, both of which converge to $`\lambda `$. Then,

$$\omega (f(\widehat{Q}))=\rho (f(\widehat{Q}))=f(\lambda ),$$
(35)
for all $`f(\widehat{Q})`$.

###### Proof.

See Prop. 3.4 of Ref. References. ∎

This proposition gives us everything we want. For each $`\lambda `$, there is precisely one (explicitly defined) pure state $`\omega _\lambda `$ of $``$ corresponding to $`\lambda `$. (Moreover, it can be shown that every “convergent” state of $``$ is of this form. See Proposition 5 in the appendix.) Therefore, any statistical state $`\rho _\psi `$ of $``$ decomposes as an integral

$$\rho _\psi =_{}\omega _\lambda 𝑑\mu (\lambda ),$$
(36)
which permits interpretation as a measure of our ignorance of the precise, categorical location property of individual particles in the ensemble.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank E. Schechter (Vanderbilt) for helpful correspondence. Special thanks are due to Rob Clifton for providing the impetus for this paper, and for numerous discussions during its composition.

## Appendix A Appendix

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`\omega `$ be a state of $``$. Then $`\omega (aA)=a\omega (A)`$ for all $`A`$ and $`a(0,1)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose first that $`a=1/2`$. Then, $`\omega (A)\omega ((1/2)A)=\omega ((1/2)A)`$ and so $`\omega ((1/2)A)=(1/2)\omega (A)`$. It then follows easily by induction that $`\omega (aA)=a\omega (A)`$ when $`a=2^n`$ for some $`n`$.

Suppose now that $`a`$ is a diadic rational; i.e., $`a=m/2^n`$ for some $`m,n`$, where $`m<2^n`$. Note then that

$$\frac{m}{2^n}A=\underset{m\text{ times}}{\underset{}{\frac{1}{2^n}A\frac{1}{2^n}A\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2^n}A}},$$
(37)
and so

$$\omega \left(\frac{m}{2^n}A\right)=m\omega \left(\frac{1}{2^n}A\right)=\frac{m}{2^n}\omega (A).$$
(38)
Finally, let $`a`$ be an arbitrary element in $`(0,1)`$. Then, $`a=lim_na_n`$ for some strictly decreasing sequence $`\{a_n\}(0,1)`$ of diadic rationals. Now, for every $`N`$, there is some $`M`$ such that

$$a_nAaA2^N𝐈,$$
(39)
for all $`nM`$, and therefore

$$\omega \left(a_nAaA\right)2^N,$$
(40)
for all $`nM`$. We may also assume that $`a_na2^N`$ when $`nM`$. Thus,

$`\left|\omega (aA)a\omega (A)\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\omega (aA)\omega (a_nA)+a_n\omega (A)a\omega (A)\right|`$ (41)
$``$ $`\left|\omega (aA)\omega (a_nA)\right|+\left|a_n\omega (A)a\omega (A)\right|`$ (42)
$``$ $`2^N+2^N.`$ (43)
Since this is true for all $`N`$, it follows that $`\omega (aA)=a\omega (A)`$. ∎

There are pure states on $``$ that assign $`0`$ to all elements of the form $`E^e(S)`$, where $`S`$ is a compact subset of $``$. (That such states exist can be seen from the proof of Proposition 5 below.) When $`S`$ is compact, then the function $`f:=(\chi _Se)`$ vanishes at infinity; i.e., for each $`ϵ>0`$, there in a $`N`$ such that $`f(x)<ϵ`$ when $`|x|>N`$ \[13, Prop. 3.2\]. This motivates the following definition.

###### Definition.

Let $`\omega `$ be a pure state of $``$. We say that $`\omega `$ converges just in case $`\omega (f(\widehat{Q}))>0`$ for some $`f`$ that vanishes at infinity.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`\omega `$ be a convergent pure state of $``$. Then, $`\omega (f(\widehat{Q}))=f(\lambda )`$ for some $`\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

Recall that the Stone-Cech compactification $`\beta `$ of $``$ is the unique compact Hausdorff space such that every bounded continuous function $`f:`$ can be extended uniquely to a continuous function $`\overline{f}:\beta `$. Let $`BUC()`$ denote the set of bounded, uniformly continuous functions from $``$ into $``$. Since a uniform limit of elements in $`BUC()`$ is again in $`BUC()`$, it follows that there is a unique compact Hausdorff space $`\gamma `$ such that every $`fBUC()`$ has a unique extension to a continuous function $`\overline{f}:\gamma `$. We may refer to $`\gamma `$ as the uniform compactification of $``$. Let $`C(\gamma )`$ denote the set of continuous functions from $`\gamma `$ into $``$. Thus, there is an algebraic isomorphism from $`BUC()`$ onto $`C(\gamma )`$ and we may identify $``$ with the family of functions in $`C(\gamma )`$ with range $`[0,1]`$.

We show that every (pure) state $`\omega `$ of $``$ has a unique extension to a (pure) state $`\widehat{\omega }`$ of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(\gamma )`$. We may then appeal to the result that any pure state $`\widehat{\omega }`$ on $`C(\gamma )`$ is of the form $`\widehat{\omega }(f)=f(x_0)`$ for some $`x_0\gamma `$ \[16, Corollary 3.4.2\].

Let $`\omega `$ be a state of $``$. Let $`C^+(\gamma )`$ denote the set of functions from $`\gamma `$ into $`[0,+\mathrm{})`$. If $`fC^+(\gamma )`$, then $`f/f`$ and we may define

$$\widehat{\omega }(f):=f\omega \left(f/f\right).$$
(44)
Using Lemma 2, it is easy to see that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ is homogenous with respect to positive real numbers, and it is straightforward to verify that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ is additive over positive functions. Thus, $`\widehat{\omega }`$ is an additive function from $`C^+(\gamma )`$ into $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. It follows then that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ extends uniquely to a linear mapping from $`C(\gamma )`$ into $``$ \[19, Prop. 11.55\].

Suppose now that $`\omega `$ is a pure state of $``$, and let $`\widehat{\omega }`$ be the unique extension of $`\omega `$ to $`C(\gamma )`$ as defined above. Suppose that $`\widehat{\omega }=a\rho +(1a)\tau `$, where $`\rho ,\tau `$ are states of $`C(\gamma )`$ and $`a(0,1)`$. Then $`\rho |_{}`$ and $`\tau |_{}`$ are states of $``$, and $`\omega =a\rho |_{}+(1a)\tau |_{}`$. However, since $`\omega `$ is a pure state of $``$, we have $`\omega =\rho |_{}=\tau |_{}`$ and since extensions are unique, it follows that $`\widehat{\omega }=\rho =\tau `$. Thus, $`\widehat{\omega }`$ is a pure state of $`C(\gamma )`$.

Thus, there is some $`x_0\gamma `$ such that $`\widehat{\omega }(f)=f(x_0)`$ for each $`fC(\gamma )`$. We show that if $`x_0\gamma \backslash `$, then the state $`\omega `$ does not converge. Indeed, since $``$ is dense in $`\gamma `$, there is a net $`(x_a)_{a𝔸}`$ in $``$ such that $`x_ax_0`$. Let $`f`$ be a function that vanishes at infinity. We show that $`\overline{f}(x_0)=0`$. Let $`ϵ>0`$ be given. Then, there is an $`N`$ such that $`\overline{f}(x)<ϵ`$ for all $`x`$ with $`|x|N`$. However, since the set $`[N,N]`$ is compact in $`\gamma `$ and $`x_0`$, there is some $`b𝔸`$ such that $`x_a[N,N]`$ for all $`ab`$. Since $`f(x_0)=limf(x_a)`$, $`f(x_0)<ϵ`$. Since this is true for any $`ϵ>0`$, it follows that $`f(x_0)=0`$ and $`\omega (f)=0`$. ∎