text:
# nucl-th/0302053 Intensity Interferometry for a Chaotic Source with a Collective Flow and Multiple Scattering

## I Introduction

Intensity interferometry, as first proposed by Hanbury-Brown-Twiss (HBT) to measure the angular diameter of a star using the correlation between two photons Hbt54 , has been applied to optical coherence, subatomic physics, and heavy-ion collisions, utilizing different types of particles Won94 -Mol02a . Much information on the space-time distribution of the emitting source is obtained from these measurements.

Recent experimental measurements of HBT correlations in relativistic heavy-ion collisions show only relatively small changes of the extracted longitudinal and transverse radii as a function of collision energies Phe02 ; Sta01 ; Lis00 ; Ahl02 ; Ahl00 ; Agg00 . The small variation of the HBT radii can be explained partly as due to the space-time ordering of the momenta (correlation between the position and the momentum) of the produced particles which was used to explain similar weak collision-energy dependencies of HBT radii in $`e^+e^{}`$, $`pp`$, $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions (see, for example, Section 17.4 of Ref. Won94 ). In addition to space-time ordering of momenta, produced particles are subject to collective flows. It is important to find out what physical quantities are measured by the two-particle intensity interferometry for a chaotic source with a collective flow. This will help us understand how collective flows may affect the size parameters extracted in two-particle correlation measurements.

As the detected particles traverse from the source point to the freeze-out point, they are subject to final state mean-field interactions and multiple collisions with particles in the medium. The effect of final mean-field potential has been studied earlier by Gyulassy $`etal.`$ Gyu79 . They found that for a coherent source the only effect of the mean field potential is to redistribute the momentum distribution and the two-particle correlation function is not affected. For a chaotic source, the effect of a mean field is given in terms of distorted wave functions in the mean field Gyu79 . The effects of the mean field in a chaotic source was further studied by Chu $`etal.`$ Chu94  and Shoppa $`etal.`$ Sho00 . They found that for low-energy detected particles the Coulomb mean-field leads to substantial modification of the two-particle correlation, but the effect is small for high-energy detected particles.

The collisions of the detected particles with medium particles has been considered to be a source of chaoticity. It is usually assumed that as a result of the random collisions of medium particles, the initial source will evolve into a chaotic source at freeze-out. The source that is observed in HBT measurements will be the chaotic freeze-out source, and the HBT radii will correspond to those of the freeze-out configuration. For example, in the emission function modeling of Wie98 ; Wie99 , an analytical form of the freeze-out phase-space distribution with a collective flow is assumed, and the single-particle distribution and two-particle correlations are described by a freeze-out distribution. In other examples, hydrodynamics or covariant transport theory is followed until freeze-out and the radii of the freeze-out configuration are then extracted to compare with experimental HBT radii Ris96 ; Hei02 ; Zsc02 ; Mol02 ; Mol02a . In such an analysis, there is the outstanding puzzle that experimental measurements give $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}0.91.1`$ while hydrodynamical predictions yield $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ significantly larger than 1.0 at freeze-out Ris96 ; Hei02 ; Zsc02 . The covariant transport theory can explain the magnitude of $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ by assuming a large opacity, but there remains the puzzle that $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ is under-estimated Mol02 ; Mol02a .

In the context of intensity interferometry, the question whether the freeze-out configuration in a collective flow is a chaotic source needs to be re-examined carefully as the problem of multiple scattering must be treated properly. Because the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss intensity interferometry is purely a quantum-mechanical phenomenon, the problem of multiple scattering must be investigated within a quantum-mechanical framework. We shall focus our attention to high- and intermediate-energy detected particles that have sufficient energies to propagate from the production point to the detection point. It is necessary to study the interference of waves using the probability amplitudes in the multiple scattering process, instead of the conventional description of incoherent collisions in terms of probabilities and cross sections. The Glauber theory of multiple scattering Gla59  has been shown to be a valid description for the interaction of a pion with the nuclear medium at a pion energy from 300 to 1200 MeV Ari91 ; Ose91 ; Joh92 . At lower energies, the optical model Joh92 ; Sat92 ; Joh96 ; Hon99 ; Che93 ; Che95  has been found to give a very good description of the interaction of a pion with a nucleus from 120 MeV to 766 MeV Hon99 . They can be applied here to describe the probability amplitudes for the propagation of energetic detected particles (pions from 0.1 to 1 GeV, say). By using the Glauber theory of multiple scattering at high energies and the optical model at intermediate energies, we find that the multiple scattering process leads to an absorption of particles and an HBT effective density distribution that depends on the initial source distribution rather than the freeze-out density distribution.

Previously, the intensity interference was studied in the framework of probability amplitudes for the propagation of produced particles Won94 . We shall used the same framework to investigate here the effects of a collective flow and multiple scattering. We examine first the single-particle distribution in Section II. The probability amplitude for the propagation of a produced particle from the production point to the detected point is obtained. The sum over the probability amplitudes from all the source points then leads to the single-particle distribution which depends on the initial source distribution. In Section III, we study the two-particle momentum distribution. For a chaotic source, the quantum effect of symmetrizing the amplitude for bosons (or anti-symmetrizing the amplitude for fermions) with respect to the exchange of the two particles leads to the phenomenon of intensity interferometry. We show that under a collective flow the two-particle correlation function depends on the initial source distribution and a collective flow phase function. In Section IV, we study the effects of multiple scattering of the detected particles with particles in the medium. In Section V, we discuss the relevance of the present results to HBT measurements in high-energy heavy-ion collisions.

## II Single-Particle Distribution

Following arguments similar to those in Ref. Won94 , we consider the production of a particle with four-momentum $`\kappa =(𝜿,\kappa ^0)`$ at a source point $`x=(𝒙,t)`$ and its subsequent detection with four-momentum $`k=(𝒌,k^0)`$ at the space-time point $`x_d=(𝒙_d,t_d)`$, as shown in Fig. 1. For convenience, we shall use the source center-of-mass system as the reference frame to measure all momenta and space-time coordinates.

To describe the single-particle distribution and intensity interference, we need the probability amplitude for the particle to be produced at the source point $`x`$, to propagate to the freeze-out point $`x_f`$, and to arrive at the detection point $`x_d`$. We can characterize the production probability amplitude for producing a particle of momentum $`\kappa `$ at $`x`$ by a magnitude $`A(\kappa x)`$ and a phase $`\varphi _0(x)`$. Without loss of generality, the functions $`A(\kappa x)`$ and $`\varphi _0(x)`$ can be taken to be real, and $`A(\kappa x)`$ can be taken to be non-negative. The magnitude $`A(\kappa x)`$ is related to the initial phase-space distribution $`f_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)`$ (see Eq. (15) below). The production phase $`\varphi _0(x)`$ describes the degree of coherence or chaoticity of the particle production process. We shall be interested in an initially chaotic source which can be represented by random and fluctuating production phases $`\varphi _0(x)`$ at the source points.

The complete probability amplitude $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\kappa xkx_d)`$ for a particle of momentum $`\kappa `$ to be produced from the source point $`x`$, to propagate along the classical trajectory, and to arrive at $`x_d`$ with momentum $`k`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\kappa xkx_d)=A(\kappa x)e^{i\varphi _0(x)}\psi (\kappa xkx_d),`$ (1)
where $`\psi (\kappa xkx_d)`$ is the probability amplitude for the propagation of the produced particle from the production point $`x`$ to the freeze-out point $`x_f`$ and the detection point $`x_d`$. From the path-integral method, this amplitude is given by Won94

$`\psi (\kappa xkx_d)=S(\mathrm{classical}\mathrm{path},\kappa xkx_d)=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _x^{x_d}}\kappa (x^{})𝑑x^{}\},`$ (2)
where the integration is carried out along the classical trajectory, and we have used the notation $`\kappa (x^{})`$ to represent the momentum of the particle at the space-time point $`x^{}=(𝒙^{}t^{})`$ with $`tt^{}t_d`$. We consider a Lagrangian picture of collective motion in which we follow the fluid element at $`x^{}`$ and its velocity field $`𝜷(x^{})`$. For a given detected particle with momentum $`k=(k^0,𝒌)`$, the initial momentum $`\kappa `$ depends on the collective flow velocity $`𝜷(x_f)`$ at freeze-out (see Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) below). The freeze-out coordinate $`x_f`$ in turn depends on the initial source coordinate $`x`$. Therefore, $`\kappa (x)`$ is a function of the initial source coordinate $`x`$.

The momentum of the produced particle $`\kappa (x^{})`$ in different space-time regions along the classical path from $`x`$ to $`x_d`$ is given in the non-relativistic case by:

$`𝜿(x^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝜿(x)+m𝜷(x^{}),\hfill & \text{ for }tt^{}t_f\text{,}\hfill \\ 𝜿(x)+m𝜷(x_f)=𝒌,\hfill & \text{ for }t_ft^{}t_d\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
and

$`\kappa ^0(x^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}[𝜿(x)+m𝜷(x^{})]^2/2m,\hfill & \text{ for }tt^{}t_f\text{,}\hfill \\ [𝜿(x)+m𝜷(x_f)]^2/2m=k^0,\hfill & \text{ for }t_ft^{}t_d.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
In the relativistic case, the momentum $`\kappa (x^{})`$ under a collective flow with velocity $`𝜷(x^{})`$ is given by

$`\kappa (x^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x^{}))\kappa (x),\hfill & \text{ for }tt^{}t_f\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x_f))\kappa (x)=k,\hfill & \text{ for }t_ft^{}t_d,\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x^{}))`$ is a matrix with elements

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^0(𝜷)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1|𝜷|^2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^i(𝜷)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^0(\beta )=\gamma \beta ^i,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^i(𝜷)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _k^i+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\beta ^2}}\beta ^i\beta ^k,`$
and $`i,k=1,2,3`$.

The momentum of the particle does not change after freezing out at $`t^{}=t_f`$. Thus, the exponential function in $`\psi (\kappa xkx_d)`$ can be separated into the contribution from $`x`$ to $`x_f`$ and from $`x_f`$ to $`x_d`$,

$`\psi (\kappa xkx_d)=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}\kappa (x^{})𝑑x^{}ik(x_dx_f)\}.`$ (7)
In addition the production from the source point $`x`$, the particle can also be produced from other source points in the extended source. The total amplitude for the detection of a particle at $`x_d`$ is the sum of the probability amplitudes from all source points. After taking into account the production probability amplitude $`Ae^{i\varphi }`$ at different source points, the total probability amplitude for a particle with momentum $`k`$ to be produced from the extended source and to arrive at the detection point $`x_d`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(k:\{{}_{\mathrm{points}}{}^{\mathrm{all}x}\}x_d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}A(\kappa (x),x)e^{i\varphi _0(x)}\psi (\kappa xkx_d)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}A(\kappa (x),x)e^{i\varphi _0(x)}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}\kappa (x^{})𝑑x^{}ik(x_dx_f)\}.`$
The single-particle momentum distribution, $`P(k)`$, which is the probability for a particle of momentum $`\kappa `$ to be produced from the extended source and to arrive at the detection point $`x_d`$ with momentum $`k`$, is the absolute square of the total probability amplitude,

$`P(k)`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(k:\{{}_{\mathrm{points}}{}^{\mathrm{all}x}\}x_d)|^2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}A(\kappa (x),x)e^{i\varphi _0(x)}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}\kappa (x^{})𝑑x^{}ik(x_dx_f)\}|^2.`$
We expand the righthand side of Eq. (9) into terms independent of $`\varphi _0(x)`$ and terms containing $`\varphi _0(x)`$. We obtain

$`P(k)={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}A^2(\kappa (x),x)+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x,y}{xy}}{}}`$ $`A(\kappa (x),x)A(\kappa (y),y)e^{i\varphi _0(x)}e^{i\varphi _0(y)}e^{ik(x_dx_f)+ik(y_dy_f)}`$ (10)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}\kappa (x^{})𝑑x^{}+i{\displaystyle _y^{y_f}}\kappa (y^{})𝑑y^{}\}.`$
For an initially chaotic source, the phases at different source points can be described by a random and fluctuating phase $`\varphi _0(x)`$ with a period much shorter than the mean-life of the source. For such a source, the second term on the righthand side of the above equation gives a zero contribution because the large number of terms with slowly varying magnitudes, but rapidly fluctuating random phases, cancel out one another in the sum over the source time coordinate (see Supplement 17.1 of Ref. Won94 ). The properties and the validity of using the time average for a chaotic source have been discussed in detail in Chapter X of the text of Born and Wolf Bor64 . Therefore, Eq. (10) becomes

$`P(k)={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}A^2(\kappa (x),x).`$ (11)
The summation over the source points necessitates the specification of the initial density $`\rho (x)`$ of the source points per unit space-time volume at the point $`x`$. With this specification, the summation should be transcribed as an integral over $`x`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^4x\rho (x)\mathrm{}}`$ (12)
Therefore, we can rewrite Eq. (11) as

$`P(k)={\displaystyle d^4x\rho (x)A^2(\kappa (x),x)},`$ (13)
which is independent of $`x_d`$. We can compare this equation with the properties of the phase space distribution function. One can describe the observed particles as coming from the initial phase space distribution $`f_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)`$ defined by

$`P(k)={\displaystyle d^4xf_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)}.`$ (14)
A comparison of the above equation with Eq. (13) shows that the observed particle with momentum $`k`$ comes from the initial phase space distribution

$`f_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)=\rho (x)A^2(\kappa (x),x).`$ (15)
One can alternatively describe the observed particles as coming from the freeze-out phase space distribution $`f_f(k,x_f)`$ defined by

$`P(k)={\displaystyle d^4x_ff_f(k,x_f)}={\displaystyle d^4xf_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)}.`$ (16)
The initial distribution and the freeze-out distribution are equivalent descriptions and they are related to each other by

$`f_f(k,x_f)=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒙,x^0)}{(𝒙_f,x_f^0)}}\right|f_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒙,x^0)}{(𝒙_f,x_f^0)}}\right|\rho (x)A^2(\kappa (x),x),`$ (17)
where $`\left|(𝒙,x^0)/(𝒙_f,x_f^0)\right|`$ is the Jacobian determinant arising from the mapping of the initial source point $`\{𝒙,x^0\}`$ to the freeze-out point $`\{𝒙_f,x_f^0\}`$ due to the collective flow.

## III Two-particle Distribution

We consider the case in which a particle of momentum $`\kappa _1(x_1)`$ starts from $`x_1`$, propagates to the freeze-out point $`x_{f1}`$, and arrives at the detection point $`x_{d1}`$ with momentum $`k_1`$, and another identical particle of momentum $`\kappa _2(x_2)`$ starts from $`x_2`$, propagates to the freeze-out point $`x_{f2}`$, and arrives at $`x_{d2}`$ with momentum $`k_2`$, as indicated by the solid lines in Fig. 2. The probability amplitude for the production of the particle with momentum $`\kappa _j(x_i)`$ at $`x_i`$ is given by $`A(\kappa _j(x_i),x_i)e^{i\varphi _0(x_i)}`$. Therefore, the probability amplitude for the two particles to be produced at the source points, to propagate from the source points to the freeze-out points, and to arrive at the detection points is

$`A(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)}A(\kappa _2(x_2),x_2)e^{i\varphi _0(x_2)}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_1(x_{d1}x_{f1})\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_2(x_{d2}x_{f2})\}.`$ (18)
However, this is not the only probability amplitude contribution for two identical particles produced from $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ to arrive at $`x_{d1}`$ and $`x_{d2}`$. The particle of momentum $`k_1`$ detected at $`x_{d1}`$ can also be produced at $`x_2`$ with momentum $`\kappa _1(x_2)`$ , propagate from $`x_2`$ to the freeze-out point $`x_{f2}^{}(x_2)`$, and arrives at $`x_{d1}`$ with momentum $`k_1`$, while the other identical particle of momentum $`\kappa _2(x_1)`$ starts at $`x_1`$, propagates from $`x_1`$ to the freeze-out point $`x_{f1}^{}(x_1)`$, and arrives at $`x_{d2}`$ with momentum $`k_2`$, as indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. 2. As the distances between the freeze-out points and the source points are much smaller than the distances between the freeze-out points, and the detection points and two-particle correlations occur for $`k_1`$ close to $`k_2`$, it is reasonable to make the approximations $`x_{f1}^{}=x_{f1}`$ and $`x_{f2}=x_{f2}^{}`$ (see Fig. 2). The probability amplitude for this occurrence along the trajectories $`x_1x_{f1}^{}x_{d2}`$ for $`k_2`$ and $`x_2x_{f2}^{}x_{d1}`$ for $`k_1`$ is

$`A(\kappa _1(x_2),x_2)e^{i\varphi _0(x_2)}A(\kappa _2(x_1),x_1)e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_1(x_{d1}x_{f2})\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_2(x_{d2}x_{f1})\}.`$ (19)
Because of the indistinguishability of the particles and the Bose-Einstein statistics of identical bosons (or the Fermi-Dirac statistics for fermions), the probability amplitude must be symmetrical (or antisymmetrical) with respect to the interchange of the labels of the particles which distinguish them. In this case, the only labels which distinguish the two identical particles are the source point coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, because one particle of momentum $`k_1`$ has been determined to have been detected at $`x_{d1}`$ and the other identical particle of momentum $`k_2`$ at $`x_{d2}`$. The probability amplitude must be symmetrical for bosons and anti-symmetrical for fermions, with respect to the interchange of the labels $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Accordingly, the probability amplitude which satisfies this symmetry is the sum (or difference) of Eqs. (III) and (III) divided by $`\sqrt{2}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\{`$ $`A(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)}A(\kappa _2(x_2),x_2)e^{i\varphi _0(x_2)}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_1(x_{d1}x_{f1})\}`$ (22)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_2(x_{d2}x_{f2})\}`$
$`+\theta A(\kappa _1(x_2),x_2)e^{i\varphi _0(x_2)}A(\kappa _2(x_1),x_1)e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_1(x_{d1}x_{f2})\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _2(x^{})dx^{}ik_2(x_{d2}x_{f1})\}\}`$
$`e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)}e^{i\varphi _0(x_2)}\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2,x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2}),`$
where $`\theta `$ is 1 for bosons, $`1`$ for fermions, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2,x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})`$ is the part of the probability amplitude in the above equation which does not depend on $`\varphi _0`$. It is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\{A(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)A(\kappa _2(x_2)x_2)\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _1(x^{})dx^{}ik_1(x_{d1}x_{f1})\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_2(x_{d2}x_{f2})\}`$
$`+\theta A(\kappa _1(x_2),x_2)A(\kappa _2(x_1),x_1)\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_1(x_{d1}x_{f2})\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}ik_2(x_{d2}x_{f1})\}.`$
Besides originating from the source points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, the two particles can also be produced at other source points in the extended source. The total amplitude is the sum of amplitudes from all combinations of two source points. Therefore, the total probability amplitude for two identical particles to be produced from two source points in the extended source and to arrive at their respective detection points $`x_{d1}`$ and $`x_{d2}`$ with momenta $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(k_1k_2:\{{}_{\mathrm{points}}{}^{\mathrm{all}x_1x_2}\}x_{d1}x_{d2})={\displaystyle \underset{\{x_1,x_2\}}{}}e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)}e^{i\varphi _0(x_2)}`$ $`[`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`\theta \mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_2x_1x_{d1}x_{d2})]`$
where the sum is carried over distinct combinations of $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$. The two-particle momentum distribution $`P(k_1,k_2)`$ is defined as the probability distribution for two particles of momenta $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ to be produced from the extended source and to arrive at their respective detection points $`x_{d1}`$ and $`x_{d2}`$. From Eq. (24), it is given by

$`P(k_1,k_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:\{{}_{\mathrm{points}}{}^{\mathrm{all}x_1x_2}\}x_{d1}x_{d2})|^2.`$ (25)
We now apply the results of Eqs. (23)-(25) to examine the momentum correlations of a chaotic source. A chaotic source is described by a phase function $`\varphi _0(x)`$ that is a random and fluctuating function of the source point coordinate $`x`$. For a chaotic source, we again make use of the random and fluctuating nature of the phases by substituting Eq. (23) into Eq. (24) and expand the righthand side of Eq. (25). We separate out terms which are independent of $`\varphi _0`$ and terms which contain $`\varphi _0`$. We obtain

$`P(k_1,k_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_1,x_2}{}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\kappa _1\kappa _2:y_1y_2x_{d1}x_{d2})|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y_1=x_1}{y_2=x_2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})`$
$`+\theta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\kappa _1\kappa _2:y_1y_2x_{d1}x_{d2})|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y_2=x_1}{y_1=x_2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2}{\{x_1x_2\}\{y_1y_2\}}}{}}\{e^{i\varphi _0(x_1)+i\varphi _0(x_2)i\varphi _0(y_1)i\varphi _0(y_2)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\kappa _1\kappa _2:y_1y_2x_{d1}x_{d2})\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})\}.`$ (26)
The two terms in the first summation on the righthand side are equal because of exchange symmetry. For the chaotic source, the last term in Eq. (26) gives a zero sum because the contributions of a large number of terms with similar magnitudes but random and fluctuating phases cancel out. Therefore, Eq. (26) becomes

$`P(k_1,k_2)={\displaystyle \underset{x_1,x_2}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})|^2,`$ (27)
Converting the summations in Eq. (27) into integrals with the transcription (12), we can rewrite the total probability as a double integral over the source point coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$,

$`P(k_1,k_2)={\displaystyle }d^4x_1d^4x_2\rho (x_1)\rho (x_2)|\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa _1\kappa _2:x_1x_2x_{d1}x_{d2})|^2.`$ (28)
In the above equation, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$ can be obtained by using Eq. (23). We get

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$ $`=`$ $`A^2(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)A^2(\kappa _2(x_2)x_2)`$ (29)
$`+\theta A(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)A(\kappa _2(x_2)x_2)A(\kappa _1(x_2),x_2)A(\kappa _2(x_1),x_1){\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(𝒜+)}+e^{i(𝒜+)}}{2}},`$
where

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}+{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}\kappa _2(x^{})𝑑x^{}+{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\kappa _1(x^{})𝑑x^{}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_{f1}}}[\kappa _1(x^{})\kappa _2(x^{})]𝑑x^{}{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}[\kappa _2(x^{})\kappa _1(x^{})]𝑑x^{},`$
and

$``$ $`=`$ $`k_1(x_{f1}x_{d1})+k_2(x_{f2}x_{d2})k_1(x_{f2}x_{d1})k_2(x_{f1}x_{d2})`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`(k_1k_2)x_{f1}+(k_2k_1)x_{f2}.`$
Therefore, we have

$`P(k_1,k_2)={\displaystyle d^4x_1\rho (x_1)A^2(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)d^4x_2\rho (x_2)A^2(\kappa _2(x_2),x_2)}`$
$`+\theta {\displaystyle d^4x_1\rho (x_1)A(\kappa _1(x_1),x_1)A(\kappa _2(x_1),x_1)e^{i(k_1k_2)x_1}\mathrm{exp}\{i_{x_1}^{x_{f1}}\{[\kappa _1(x^{})\kappa _2(x^{})][k_1k_2]\}𝑑x^{}\}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^4x_2\rho (x_2)A(\kappa _2(x_2),x_2)A(\kappa _1(x_2),x_2)e^{i(k_1k_2)x_2}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_{f2}}}\{[\kappa _1(x^{})\kappa _2(x^{})][k_1k_2]\}dx^{}\}`$
Using Eq. (13), we can rewrite the above equation as

$`P(k_1,k_2)=P(k_1)P(k_2)`$
$`+\theta \left|{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(k_1k_2)x}\mathrm{exp}\{i_x^{x_f}\{[\kappa _1(x^{})\kappa _2(x^{})][k_1k_2]\}𝑑x^{}\}\rho (x)A(\kappa _1(x),x)A(\kappa _2(x),x)}\right|^2,`$
which is independent of $`x_d`$. It is convenient to rewrite the two-particle distribution function as

$`P(k_1,k_2)=P(k_1)P(k_2)\left(1+\theta \left|{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(k_1k_2)x+i\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)}\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}(x;k_1k_2)}\right|^2\right),`$ (34)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective density

$`\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}(x;k_1k_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho (x)A(\kappa _1(x),x)A(\kappa _2(x),x)}{\sqrt{P(k_1)P(k_2)}}},`$ (35)
and $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ is the collective flow phase function

$`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)={\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}\{[\kappa _1(x^{})\kappa _2(x^{})][k_1k_2]\}𝑑x^{}.`$ (36)
The HBT two-particle correlation function $`R(k_1,k_2)=P(k_1,k_2)/P(k_1)P(k_2)1`$ becomes

$`R(k_1,k_2)=\theta \left|{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(k_1k_2)x+i\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)}\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}(x;k_1k_2)}\right|^2.`$ (37)
From Eq. (5), we have

$`[\kappa _1(x^{})\kappa _2(x^{})][k_1k_2]=[\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x^{}))\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x_f))]\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(𝜷(x_f))(k_1k_2).`$ (38)
The collective flow phase $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ becomes

$`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)={\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}𝑑x^{}\left\{[\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x^{}))\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x_f))]\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(𝜷(x_f))(k_1k_2)\right\}.`$ (39)
Thus, under a collective flow the two-particle correlation function depends on the initial source distribution and a collective flow phase function $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$, as given by Eqs. (34)-(37). When there is no collective flow, $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ is zero, and $`P(k_1,k_2)`$ and $`R(k_1,k_2)`$ reduce to the usual two-particle correlation functions of Eqs. (17.29) and (17.38) in Ref. Won94 .

We note that the collective flow phase function $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ consists of the differences $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x^{}))\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝜷(x_f))`$ and $`k_1k_2`$ which can lead to substantial cancellation. In fact, if $`\beta (x^{})`$ reaches the asymptotic velocity $`𝜷(x_f)`$, then there will be no contribution from this path element $`dx^{}`$ at $`x^{}`$ to the phase function $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$.

The velocity profile $`𝜷(x^{})`$ of a source can be obtained by solving the relativistic hydrodynamical equations. We can get some ideas on the expansion scenario for a highly compressed relativistic ideal fluid initial at rest from the results of Rischke and Gyulassy Ris96 . We can consider a spherical fireball in which the collective flow is along the radial direction. (The transverse expansion of a Bjorken cylinder can be discussed in a similar way Ris96 .) When this highly compressed fluid is allowed to evolve hydrodynamically, fluid elements at the surface reach their asymptotic velocity (close to the speed of light) very rapidly — nearly at the beginning of the expansion. Fluid elements at the central region remain essentially at rest until they are carried outward by the strong rebounding wave, and they reach the asymptotic velocity also rapidly.

From Fig. 2 of Ris96 , the velocity of the fluid element initial at $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ is approximately

$`𝜷(x^{})=𝜷(x_f)\theta (t^{}t_c)\mathrm{for}tt^{}t_f,`$ (40)
where $`t_c=t+2(Rr)`$, $`rR`$, and $`R`$ is the radius of the initial source. The trajectory for the fluid element is $`r^{}(t^{})=r+\beta (x^{})t^{}`$, $`\theta ^{}(t^{})=\theta ,`$ and $`\varphi ^{}(t^{})=\varphi `$. For such a collective flow, we can describe this as an initial source up to $`t=t_c`$, and the source undergoes collective flow at $`t>t_c`$ with a flow velocity reaching the asymptotic velocity approximately in a step-wise manner. Fluid elements reaching the asymptotic velocity do not contribute to the collective phase $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$, as one notes previously in Eq. (39). The collective flow phase function $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ is approximately zero for this case. For other initial conditions and compression, the radial expansion and rapid rise of the collective velocity to the asymptotic velocity should be similar, as the collective motion arises from the expansion of a compressed matter into an empty vacuum. The magnitude of the asymptotic velocity may depend on the degree of compression (and therefore on the heavy-ion collision energy). The collective flow phase function $`\varphi _c`$ will likely remain small because of the substantial cancellation in Eq. (39) mentioned above. We should expect that the effective density measured in HBT measurements should depend essentially on the initial source distribution. Much more work will be required to examine further the behavior of $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ and $`R(k_1k_2)`$ for general flows and initial conditions.

## IV Effects of Multiple Scattering and Optical Potential

The observation of the intensity interferometry depends on the degree of coherence or chaoticity of the source. As the initial source particles traverse from the source point $`x_i`$ to the freeze-out point $`x_{fi}`$ under a collective flow, they are subject to multiple scattering with medium particles. One may think that as a result of these scatterings, the source becomes chaotic at freeze-out and the distribution observed in an HBT measurement should correspond to the freeze-out distribution Wie98 ; Wie99 .

The problem of multiple scattering must however be treated properly in the context of intensity interferometry. As the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect is purely a quantum-mechanical effect, the problem of multiple scattering must be investigated within the quantum-mechanical framework in terms of probability amplitudes instead of incoherent collisions involving probabilities and cross sections.

Within such a theoretical framework, we can study our problem in the Glauber model Gla59 ; Ari91  or the optical model Sat92 ; Joh96 ; Hon99 ; Joh92 ; Che93 ; Che95 , depending on the energy of the detected particle relative to the medium. The Glauber theory has been applied successfully to study the interaction of a pion with the nuclear medium at a pion energy from 300 to 1200 MeV Ari91 ; Ose91 ; Joh92 . It can therefore be used to study the interaction of an energetic pion with the hadron medium produced in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. At these energies, the trajectory can be approximately described as a straight line, the probability amplitude for the particle to traverse from $`x`$ to $`x^{}`$ after suffering multiple scatterings with particles in the medium is

$`\mathrm{exp}\{i\varphi _s(xx^{})\}=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}}\chi (𝒙_{}^{}𝒔_j)\theta (𝒙_{}^{}𝒔_j)\theta (𝒔_j𝒙_{})\},`$ (41)
where the function $`\chi (𝒙_{}^{}𝒔_j)`$ is the Glauber phase shift function for the interaction of the produced particle with a medium particle at $`𝒔_j`$ and the sum $`_j`$ is carried over all medium particles having coordinates $`x_j=(t_j,𝒔_j,𝒔_j),j=2,3,\mathrm{},N`$ Gla59 . The phase shift function $`\chi (𝒃)`$ can be obtained from two-body scattering data and is an analytical function of the transverse coordinate $`𝒃`$. The subscript $``$ in Eq. (41) denotes the component transverse to the particle trajectory and the subscript $``$ denotes the component along the trajectory.

The wave function Eq. (41) from Glauber multiple scattering theory contains a wealth of relevant information. It depends on the coordinates of all the particles with which the incident particle has interacted. It treats correctly the case of no scattering and multiple scattering, even up to the extreme case of $`N1`$ scatterings in succession. It makes no difference whether the medium particles are dense in close proximity or dilute in far separation. Information on the density of medium particles can be provided when one integrates out the distribution of the medium particles.

One can show that starting with the multiple scattering wave function Eq. (41), one can construct the Wigner function in the transverse and longitudinal degrees of freedom. The multiple scattering wave function Eq. (41) leads naturally to to the diffractive transport theory, and the equation of motion for the Wigner function is just the Boltzmann equation Won03b . The solution of the Wigner function can be decomposed into multiple-scattering components each of which corresponds to the scattering of the incident particle with a definite number of medium particles. The transverse width of the $`n`$-scattering component increases with $`\sqrt{n}`$ and the maximum of the longitudinal distribution of the $`n`$-scattering component is located longitudinally at $`n`$ times the mean-free path.

As Glauber multiple scattering theory gives the classical diffractive transport theory on the one hand, and retains the wave nature of the propagation on the other hand, it is therefore appropriate to use Glauber multiple scattering wave function to investigate the effects of multiple scattering in intensity interferometry.

Using this description for the multiple scattering of the particle, the probability amplitude for the produced particle to travel from the source point $`x`$ to $`x_d`$ becomes

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\kappa xkx_d)=A(\kappa x)e^{i\varphi (x)}\psi (\kappa xkx_d)`$ (42)
where $`\varphi (x)`$ is

$`\varphi (x)=\varphi _0(x)+\varphi _s(xx_f),`$ (43)
$`\varphi _0(x)`$ is the initial random and fluctuating phase due to the chaoticity of the production source, and $`\varphi _s(xx_f)`$ is

$`\varphi _s(xx_f)={\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}}\chi (𝒙_f𝒔_j)\theta (𝒙_f𝒔_j)\theta (𝒔_j𝒙_{}).`$ (44)
As $`x_f`$ is a function of $`x`$, the phase function $`\varphi _s(xx_f)`$ is a function of $`x`$ and can be abbreviated as $`\varphi _s(x)`$. It contains a real and imaginary part. The imaginary part is given by

$`m\varphi _s(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}}m\chi (𝒙_f𝒔_j)\theta (𝒙_f𝒔_j)\theta (𝒔_j𝒙_{}),`$ (45)
and it represents the degree of absorption as the detected particle passes through the medium.

With this modification, the derivation of the single-particle and two-particle distributions can be carried out as in the last sections. As the multiple scattering bring in a complex phase $`\varphi _s(x)`$ that depends on $`x`$, the quantum description of the scattering amplitude leads to the single-particle distribution

$`P(k)={\displaystyle 𝑑x_2𝑑x_3𝑑x_4\mathrm{}𝑑x_N\underset{x}{}e^{i(\varphi _s(x)\varphi _s^{}(x))}A^2(\kappa (x),x)\rho _{\mathrm{med}}(x_2,x_3,x_4,\mathrm{},x_N)},`$ (46)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{med}}(x_2,x_3,x_4,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ is the distribution of the medium particles. Note that the real part of $`\varphi _s(x)`$ cancel out in the factor $`\varphi _s(x)\varphi _s^{}(x)`$ in the above equation. Consequently, when the multiple scattering between the detected particle and the medium is taken into account, the single-particle distribution for a collective flow is

$`P(k)={\displaystyle d^4xe^{2m\overline{\varphi }_s(x)}\rho (x)A^2(\kappa (x),x)},`$ (47)
where

$`e^{2m\overline{\varphi }_s(x)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x_2𝑑x_3𝑑x_4\mathrm{}}.dx_Ne^{2m\varphi _s(x)}\rho _{\mathrm{med}}(x_2,x_3,x_4,\mathrm{},x_N).`$ (48)
In this case, we have

$`P(k)={\displaystyle d^4xf_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)},`$ (49)
where

$`f_{\mathrm{init}}(\kappa (x),x)=e^{2m\overline{\varphi }_s(x)}\rho (x)A^2(\kappa (x),x).`$ (50)
The two-particle distribution for a system with a collective flow can be obtained as in the last section, and we get

$`P(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`P(k_1)P(k_2)`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`\theta \left|{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(k_1k_2)x+i\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)}e^{2m\overline{\varphi }_s(x)}\rho (x)A(\kappa _1(x),x)A(\kappa _2(x),x)}\right|^2,`$
or

$`P(k_1,k_2)=P(k_1)P(k_2)\left(1+\theta \left|{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(k_1k_2)x+i\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)}e^{2m\overline{\varphi }_s(x)}\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}(x;k_1k_2)}\right|^2\right),`$ (52)
where $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ is given by Eq. (36) and $`\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}(x;k_1k_2)`$ is given by Eq. (35). Thus, multiple scattering leads to an absorption of produced particles as they traverse from the source point to the freeze-out point. There is an absorption factor in both the single-particle distribution and the two-particle correlation function. The effective density distribution $`\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ revealed by HBT two-particle correlation measurements depends on the initial source distribution and not necessarily on the freeze-out density distribution.

At lower energies, the interaction of the pion with the medium can be described by an optical model Sat92 ; Joh96 ; Hon99 ; Joh92 ; Che93 ; Che95 . For example, in the interaction of a pion with a nucleus, a local phenomenological optical potential has been successfully applied to explain the $`\pi `$-nucleus elastic scattering data from 120 MeV to 766 MeV Sat92 ; Joh96 ; Hon99 . The effects of intermediate resonances such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ shows up as giving rise to a peak in the imaginary part of the optical potential near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1323)`$ resonance energy. The optical potential is normally non-local but can be described in terms of a local-equivalent potential by redefining some kinematic quantities Sat92 . A “model-exact’ microscopic description of the optical potential has also been developed to describe the interaction of a pion with a nuclear medium in terms of the interaction between the pion and medium particles, including the effects of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1323)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}(1520)`$, and $`F_{15}(1680)`$ resonances Che93 ; Che95 .

Based on the successes of the optical model in describing the interaction between a pion and nuclear matter, it is reasonable to use similar descriptions to study the dynamics of an intermediate-energy pion in hadronic matter produced in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. An optical model is specially appropriate as the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss intensity interferometry arises from an optical interference of the wave amplitudes.

One can accordingly introduce a complex optical potential $`V(k,x)`$ with a negative imaginary part to describe the interaction between the detected particle and the medium particles as it travels from the source point to the freeze-out point. The optical potential $`V`$ depends on the momentum of the particle $`k`$. The momentum dependence is particularly pronounced in the neighborhood of a resonance. In principle, the optical potential can be determined from two-body data and the distribution of particles in the medium, as carried out for example in Ref. Joh92 ; Che93 ; Che95 . Under the interaction of an optical potential $`V(k,x)`$, the amplitude for a produced particle to propagate from $`x`$ to $`x^{\prime \prime }`$ is given by Gla59

$`\mathrm{exp}\{i\varphi _s(xx^{\prime \prime })\}=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _x^{x^{\prime \prime }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}V(k,x^{})𝑑x_{}^{}\},`$ (53)
where $`v`$ is the magnitude of the velocity of the detected particle relative to the hadron medium along the direction of propagation. Therefore, when the multiple scattering between $`x`$ and $`x_f`$ is taken into account, the probability amplitude for the particle to propagate from $`x`$ to $`x_d`$ becomes

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\kappa xkx_d)=A(\kappa x)e^{i\varphi (x)}\psi (\kappa xkx_d),`$ (54)
where

$`\varphi (x)=\varphi _0(x){\displaystyle _x^{x_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}V(k,x^{})𝑑x_{}^{}.`$ (55)
The phase shift due to the optical potential, $`\varphi _s(k,x)`$, is a complex quantity containing a real and an imaginary part,

$`\varphi _s(k,x)={\displaystyle _x^{x_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}V(k,x^{})𝑑x_{}^{}.`$ (56)
As $`x_f`$ is a function of $`x`$, the phase function $`\varphi _s(xx_f)`$ is a function of $`k`$ and $`x`$ and can be abbreviated as $`\varphi _s(k,x)`$.

With this modification, the derivation of the single-particle and two-particle distributions can be carried out as in the case with the Glauber theory. The two-particle correlation function $`R(k_1,k_2)`$ becomes

$`R(k_1,k_2)=\left|{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(k_1k_2)x+i\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)}e^{i(\varphi _s(k_1,x)\varphi _s^{}(k_2,x))}\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}(x;k_1k_2)}\right|^2,`$ (57)
where

$`e(\varphi _s(k_1,x)\varphi _s^{}(k_2,x))={\displaystyle _x^{x_d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}eV(k_1,x^{})dx_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_2}}eV(k_2,x^{})dx_{}^{}\right),`$ (58)
$`m(\varphi _s(k_1,x)\varphi _s^{}(k_2,x))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{x_d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}mV(k_1,x^{})dx_{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_2}}mV(k_2,x^{})dx_{}^{}\right)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`2m\overline{\varphi }_s(x)`$
and $`v_i=|(𝒌_i)_{}|/k_i^0`$. For low-energy detected particles, the velocities of the two detected particles can differ substantially and the real part of the phase function does not cancel exactly. There will be a substantial correction to the two-particle correlation function at low energies Chu94 ; Sho00 . For detected pions particles with kinetic energies close to or greater than its rest mass, in which we shall focus our attention, $`v_i1`$. The real parts of the phase function $`\varphi _s(k,x)`$ cancel and there will be negligible modification of the two-particle correlation function. We again obtain the results of Eqs. (46), (47), and (50) for the single-particle distribution, and the result of Eq. (51) for the two-particle distribution.

In applying the Glauber theory at high energies or the optical model at intermediate energies, the precise energy at which one needs to switch from the Glauber theory to the optical model needs not concern us here at present as both descriptions lead to a complex phase shift function $`\varphi _s(x)`$. The imaginary part of the phase shift function gives rise to an absorption. The real part of the phase shift leads to negligible modification of the two-particle correlation function. The conclusion concerning the real phase of coordinate is a rather general result. Any final-state interaction, that leads to an additional real phase function of coordinate and a weak dependence on momentum, does not modify the two-particle correlation. As a consequence, the effective density distribution depends on the initial source distribution and not necessarily on the freeze-out distribution. The intensity interferometry arises from the difference in the phases when the two particles takes on two different sets of histories. For either set of histories depicted in Fig. 2, even though the amplitude for the propagation from $`x_1`$ to $`x_{f1}`$ depends on the positions of the medium scatterer which can be random, the real parts of the phases in propagating from the source point to the freeze-out points are the same. They cancel out when we evaluate the HBT two-particle correlation function $`R(k_1,k_2)`$.

Previously, Gyulassy $`etal.`$ found that the two-particle correlation function for a coherent source is unaffected by a final-state mean-field potential. For a chaotic source, which is the object of our interest here, they expressed the two-particle correlation function in terms of distorted waves in the mean-field \[Eq. (5.32) of Gyu79 \]. The present results for the optical potential corresponds to an explicit evaluation of this two-particle correlation function using the eikonal approximation for high-energy particles. In the process of this evaluation, we find that the phase distortion due to a real mean-field potential cancels out, as we remarked earlier, and lead to negligible effect on the two-particle correlation at high particle energies. The distortions can however be substantial for low-energy particles as discussed in Chu94 ; Sho00 .

## V Conclusions and Discussions

We start from the probability amplitude written in terms of the path integral over the classical trajectory for a single particle and a pair of identical particles. The sum over the probability amplitudes for a chaotic source leads to an intensity interference for the detection of two identical particles.

As the detected particles traverse from the source point to the freeze-out point, they are subject to scattering with particles in the medium. We have examined the effects of multiple scattering. Because the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss intensity interferometry is purely a quantum-mechanical phenomenon, we investigate the problem of multiple scattering within the quantum-mechanical framework of the Glauber theory and the optical model. We find that multiple scattering leads to an effective density distribution that depends on the initial source distribution rather than the freeze-out density distribution. This conclusion follows from the wave nature of the detected particle, which is an important ingredient for the occurrence of intensity interferometry. The Glauber multiple scattering amplitude and the optical model scattering also represent coherent scattering processes Gla59  as the corresponding phase function is an analytical function of the coordinate. There is the expected absorption arising from the imaginary part of the phase shift function in the multiple scattering process.

We have studied the multiple scattering process at high energies using the Glauber model and at intermediate energies using the optical model in the eikonal approximation. At low energies when these simple approximations may not be valid, it will be of great interest to study a quantum mechanical description of the multiple scattering process using either a quantum mechanical many-particle theory or a pion mean-field optical potential without the eikonal approximation.

In the presence of a collective flow, we find that two-particle correlation measurements lead to an effective source distribution that depends on the initial source distribution. The relevant momentum is the initial momentum shifted from the detected momentum downward by the collective flow, as given by Eq. (35) obtained here. In addition, the collective flow leads to a phase function $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ in Eq. (36) which will modify the effective two-particle correlation. It consists of terms which tend to cancel each other. We examine sample results of hydrodynamical calculations of Rischke and Gyulassy Ris96  for a highly compressed relativistic fluid initially at rest. We find that the flow velocity of a fluid element reaches the asymptotic velocity rapidly at the surface, or in the interior when the rebounding wave carries the fluid element outward. There can be a substantial cancellation in the collective flow phase function $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$. As a consequence, the effective density measured in HBT measurements is expected to depend essentially on the initial source distribution for such an expansion. Much more work will be required to examine further the behavior of $`\varphi _c(x,k_1k_2)`$ and $`R(k_1,k_2)`$ for general flows and initial conditions.

While further studies are continuing, it is interesting to explore the possibility that HBT measurements are indeed related mainly with the distribution of the initial source distribution. In that case, we expect that the initial source transverse dimension should be given approximately by the spatial dimension of the colliding nuclei which should be nearly independent of the collision energy. We also expect that in the initial source prior to the collective flow, the transverse size in the “out” direction should be approximately the same as that in the “side” direction. Hence, the HBT transverse radii should be approximately the same as the colliding nuclear radii, have only a weak collision-energy dependence, and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ should be approximately close to 1. These expectations are consistent with the gross features of HBT transverse radii in high-energy heavy-ion collisions Phe02 ; Sta01 ; Lis00 ; Ahl02 ; Ahl00 ; Agg00 .

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Prof. R. Glauber for collaborative discussions on the multiple scattering model and diffractive transport. The author wishes to thank Drs. T. Awes, V. Cianciolo, M. Gyulassy, C. Pajares, S. Pratt, S. Sorensen, G. Young, and Weining Zhang for valuable discussions and comments. The author would like to thank specially Drs. T. Awes and V. Cianciolo for reading through the manuscript and making insightful suggestions. The author is indebted to Professor J. A. Wheeler for his earlier favorable comments on the treatment of intensity interferometry in author’s book Won94 . Professor Wheeler’s comments provide additional impetus to investigate the present problem. This research was supported by the Division of Nuclear Physics, Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 managed by UT-Battelle, LLC.


format: text

text:
# Derivation of the Symmetry Postulates for Identical Particles from Pilot-Wave Theories

## 1 Quantum indistinguishability

It is well known that identical particles in standard (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics are characterised by symmetry conditions on the wavefunction. For spinless wavefunctions, these are given by

$$\psi (𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_i,\mathrm{},𝐱_j,\mathrm{},𝐱_n,t)=e^{i\gamma }\psi (𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_j,\mathrm{},𝐱_i,\mathrm{},𝐱_n,t),$$
(1)
where $`\gamma =0(\text{mod }2\pi )`$ for bosons (symmetry), and $`\gamma =\pi (\text{mod }2\pi )`$ for fermions (antisymmetry). In two dimensions, it is possible for $`\gamma `$ to be arbitrary (anyons), where the value depends on the homotopy class of the path along which the particles are exchanged, and the wavefunction is multi-valued. For spinorial wavefunctions (which we discuss only in three dimensions) one requires total symmetry or antisymmetry under simultaneous exchange of both spatial and spinorial indices (bosons or fermions).222The possibility of anyons was first pointed out by Leinaas and Myrheim (1977). They were described in detail by Goldin et al. (1981) and by Wilczek (1982), and appear to be relevant to the explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect (Arovas et al., 1982, Laughlin, 1983, Tsui et al., 1982).

The derivation of these symmetry conditions from first principles, however, is not self-evident. As stressed in the classic discussion by Messiah and Greenberg (1964), the empirical content of quantum indistinguishability is captured by the requirement that all observables commute with the permutation operators,

$$[A,\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}]=0,A,i,j.$$
(2)
But this merely leads to the conclusion that wavefunctions describing indistinguishable particles should lie in subspaces of Hilbert space that are invariant under all elements of an irreducible representation of the permutation group. Since for $`n>2`$ particles the permutation group is non-commutative, one obtains in addition to the usual one-dimensional representations also higher-dimensional ones, connected with the so-called parastatistics, and which have never been observed experimentally.

It is the purpose of this paper to give a natural proof that parastatistics are excluded and a derivation of the three known symmetry types in the framework of two pilot-wave theories, namely de Broglie–Bohm theory (de Broglie, 1928, Bohm, 1952), and Nelson’s (1966) stochastic mechanics. In non-relativistic quantum theory, this is one of the most rigorous proofs to date, in particular in int extension to spinors. The two pilot-wave theories are sketched in Section 2. The main result follows in Section 3 for two spinless particles, and is generalised to $`n`$ particles and to spinors in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, in Section 6, we briefly examine the relation of our approach to the topological approaches of Laidlaw and C. DeWitt (1971) and Leinaas and Myrheim (1977), and to the approach of Goldin et al. (1980, 1981).

An independent treatment of this question by Dürr et al. (in preparation) is forthcoming, which explicitly includes spinorial wavefunctions, and gives a label-free description of identical particles in the Bohm framework. For other partial or related results in de Broglie–Bohm theory see Schneider (1995),333Schneider shows under that under quite general conditions, two wavefunctions satisfying the same Schrödinger equation and generating the same de Broglie velocity field are proportional to each other. Applying this to identical particles, he obtains a result similar to ours (for scalar wavefunctions). Sjöqvist and Carlsen (1995) and Brown et al. (1999), and in stochastic mechanics see Nelson (1985) and Goldstein (1987).

## 2 Pilot-wave theories

The development of wave mechanics, with both de Broglie and Schrödinger, was based on the optico-mechanical analogy. For de Broglie (1928), the Hamilton–Jacobi action, which is related to the canonical momentum of particle $`i`$ via

$$𝐩_i=\mathbf{}_iS,$$
(3)
should be interpreted as the geometric limiting case of the phase of a wave, for which a wave equation (on configuration space) had meanwhile been derived by Schrödinger. While in Schrödinger’s formulation of wave mechanics, as in wave optics, one does away with light rays or particle trajectories, de Broglie’s formulation is a dynamical theory of point masses, a pilot-wave theory, defined by a guidance equation of the form (3) and the Schrödinger equation for $`\psi =Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$. In the case of non-vanishing vector potential, the guidance equation reads

$$m_i\dot{𝐱}_iq_i𝐀(𝐱_i)=\mathbf{}_iS,$$
(4)
or

$$\dot{𝐱}_i=\frac{1}{m_i}(\mathbf{}_iS+q_i𝐀(𝐱_i)),$$
(5)
and is thus gauge invariant.

From the Schrödinger equation one standardly derives the two coupled equations for $`R^2`$ and $`S`$:

$`_tR^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathbf{}_i(R^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i}}\mathbf{}_iS),`$ (6)
$`_tS`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathbf{}_iS)^2}{2m_i}}V+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_iR}{R}},`$ (7)
and accordingly with vector potential. Equation (6) is a continuity equation for $`R^2`$, while equation (7) has the form of a Hamilton–Jacobi equation with an additional term, sometimes called the quantum potential,

$$Q=\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_iR}{R}.$$
(8)
This explains intuitively results such as electron diffraction and interference, as can be seen qualitatively from the shape of the quantum potential (see e.g. Bohm and Hiley, 1993, p. 34). Notice that the quantum potential factorises if and only if the wavefunction does.

After a lull of twenty-five years, the theory was rediscovered by Bohm (1952) and revitalised through his discovery that it allows a consistent quantum description of measurement and of the phenomenology of collapse. We now sketch the latter description, which we need for Section 5.

During a measurement interaction, eigenstates $`\psi _i(x)`$ of some self-adjoint operator of a system (call it the particle) become coupled with essentially non-overlapping states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(y)`$ of some other system (call it the apparatus):

$$\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\psi _i(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_i(y).$$
(9)
This means that during the measurement interaction, the configuration space of the composite system is carved up into regions separated by high quantum potential barriers, corresponding to the different components of (9). If the components are not reinterfered, the future trajectory of the particle will be guided, via (5), only by one of the states $`\psi _i(x)`$, the effective wavefunction of the particle, as if the wave had physically collapsed. Given a fixed experimental arrangement, it is the initial configuration of the system that determines which component is the effective wavefunction. In this sense, one can talk of the theory as a hidden variables theory. In general, however, the result depends also on the experimental arrangement, so that the standard arguments against such theories do not apply (Bell, 1987, esp. Chaps 1 and 18).

Application of this model to position and momentum measurements already yields a qualitative understanding of uncertainty, and application to parallel Stern–Gerlach measurements on particles in the singlet state yields strict anticorrelations (see Section 5 for the relevant generalisation of the theory to spinors). The quantitative aspects of quantum mechanics are obtained by assuming that particle positions in an ensemble are distributed according to the quantum distribution $`R^2=|\psi |^2`$, which will then be true at all times (under a unitary evolution the particle distribution satisfies the same continuity equation as $`R^2`$, and in a measurement the preceding analysis shows why no other subensembles can be selected other than those characterised by one of the distributions $`|\psi _i|^2`$). This distribution plays a role analogous to that of equilibrium distributions in classical statistical mechanics. Indeed, the analogy between the two theories stretches from justifications of equilibrium down to cousins of Maxwell’s demon.

Standard references to de Broglie–Bohm theory, in addition to the original papers, are the textbooks by Bohm and Hiley (1993), Holland (1993), Dürr (2001) and the forthcoming one by Valentini (in preparation). A concise non-technical overview is given by Goldstein (2001). The model of spin to be used in Section 5 is due to Bell (1987, Chap. 19), which contains several other papers providing insights into, extending and generally promoting the approach.

Nelson’s (1966, 1985) stochastic mechanics can also be seen as a pilot-wave theory, although this is not his own understanding. One modifies de Broglie–Bohm theory by assuming that the particle undergoes not a deterministic evolution but a diffusion process, in which the guidance equation is given by the following Itô equation:

$$d𝐱_i=𝐛_idt+d𝝎_i,$$
(10)
with

$$𝐛_i=\frac{1}{m_i}\mathbf{}_iS+\frac{q_i}{m_i}𝐀+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_i}\frac{\mathbf{}_iR^2}{R^2},$$
(11)
and where $`d𝝎_i`$ is a Wiener process with

$$\overline{d𝝎_i}=0,\overline{(d𝝎_i)^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}dt.$$
(12)
Here, $`𝐛_i`$ is the drift velocity of particle $`i`$, and $`\nu _i:=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_i}`$ its diffusion coefficent.

By inserting the distribution $`R^2`$, the corresponding Fokker–Planck equation reduces to the continuity equation (6), so that one sees both that $`R^2`$ is the equilibrium distribution also for Nelson’s theory, and that the average velocity of the particles at equilibrium is their de Broglie–Bohm velocity (5). Thus, one can consider Nelson’s theory as de Broglie–Bohm theory with added noise (see also Bohm and Hiley, 1993, Sects 9.5 ff.).

## 3 Case of two spinless particles

Since pilot-wave theories include more structure than the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, namely particle trajectories, it is now possible to formulate stronger conditions of indistinguishability than merely requiring (2), and this will allow us to derive all the standard symmetry properties for wavefunctions. We start with the case of two spinless particles. Since any Hamiltonian will be symmetrical, it suffices to establish the result at a single instant in time; it will then hold for all instants. We treat the phase $`S`$ and amplitude $`R`$ in succession. We shall allow $`S`$ in general to be multi-valued, while $`R`$ is obviously single-valued and positive. Notice, however, that although $`S`$ may be multi-valued, $`_tS`$ and all the $`\mathbf{}_iS`$ need to be uniquely defined, in order for $`Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$ to solve the Schrödinger equation, in particular (6) and (7). (A unique $`\mathbf{}_iS`$ is also needed for the corresponding guidance equation to be well-defined.) In the following, we shall set $`m_i=m=1`$ and $`q_i=q=1`$ for all $`i`$.

The treatment of $`S`$ is identical in de Broglie–Bohm theory and in Nelson’s mechanics. We impose a symmetry condition on the velocities of the particles (respectively, on the average velocities), as given by (5):

$$\mathbf{}_1S(\xi _1,\xi _2,t)+𝐀(\xi _1,t)|_{\xi _1=𝐱,\xi _2=𝐲}=\mathbf{}_2S(\xi _1,\xi _2,t)+𝐀(\xi _2,t)|_{\xi _1=𝐲,\xi _2=𝐱}.$$
(13)
That is, the velocity (average velocity) of particle 1 in a given configuration is equal to that of particle 2 in the configuration with the particles exchanged. This is the natural requirement of indistinguishability at the level of particle trajectories. By renaming the variables on the right-hand side, we see that the vector potential drops out, and we obtain:

$$\mathbf{}_1\left(S(\xi _1,\xi _2,t)S(\xi _2,\xi _1,t)\right)|_{\xi _1=𝐱,\xi _2=𝐲}=0.$$
(14)
Similarly we obtain:

$$\mathbf{}_2\left(S(\xi _1,\xi _2,t)S(\xi _2,\xi _1,t)\right)|_{\xi _1=𝐱,\xi _2=𝐲}=0.$$
(15)
In other words, we have (with $`2D`$-dimensional notation for the $`\mathbf{}`$ operator, $`D`$ the dimension of space):

$$\mathbf{}\left(S(𝐱,𝐲,t)S(𝐲,𝐱,t)\right)=0.$$
(16)
Were $`S`$ everywhere defined, we would conclude that $`S(𝐱,𝐲,t)=S(𝐲,𝐱,t)+\gamma (\text{mod }2\pi )`$, and in fact $`\gamma =0`$ for all $`t`$ (setting $`𝐱=𝐲`$). However, $`S`$ is undefined where $`R`$ has a zero. For example, if the two particles are trapped in two disjoint boxes with infinite potential walls, the region $`\{R0\}`$ is disconnected, and $`\gamma `$ can be arbitrary. Indeed, if $`\psi `$ and $`\phi `$ are single-particle wavefunctions with support in the two boxes, respectively, such that the symmetric combination $`\psi (\xi _1)\phi (\xi _2)+\phi (\xi _1)\psi (\xi _2)`$ solves the Schrödinger equation, the two terms have disjoint support in the configuration space, and solve the Schrödinger equation separately. Thus any wavefunction

$$\psi (\xi _1)\phi (\xi _2)+\alpha e^{i\beta }\phi (\xi _1)\psi (\xi _2)$$
(17)
is also a solution. (Notice that not only the phase difference may be arbitrary, but also the symmetry of the amplitude may be destroyed. Incidentally, (17) furnishes an example in which there is more than one equilibrium measure for the particle distribution.)

We must thus require, as is implicit also in the standard requirement (2), that the particles be indistinguishable under all possible circumstances, in particular if we open the boxes. (This and similar ways of speaking in the following do not imply reference to actual laboratory procedures, but to the fact that (16) needs to hold at all times even with arbitrary time-dependent symmetric potentials, magnetic fields etc.)

We still may not assume, however, that the spreading of the wave function makes $`R`$ everywhere different from zero, because we know that the diagonal set $`\{𝐱=𝐲\}`$ may be exceptional, from the example of antisymmetric wavefunctions. (It is also exceptional from the point of view of the pilot-wave dynamics, as discussed below in Section 6.) We omit the case $`D=1`$, for which the set $`\{𝐱𝐲\}`$ is disconnected. For $`D2`$ instead this set is connected. Given the freedom to vary $`V`$ etc., we shall thus assume that there is an open time interval in which $`R`$ is different from zero on the set $`\{𝐱𝐲\}`$ (or at least a connected subset). On this interval we can indeed conclude

$$S(𝐱,𝐲,t)=S(𝐲,𝐱,t)+\gamma (\text{mod }2\pi ).$$
(18)
For $`D3`$ the set $`\{𝐱𝐲\}`$ is simply connected (or we may assume that so is the connected subset). Thus $`S`$ is single-valued ($`\text{mod }2\pi `$). Interchanging $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ in (18), we see that $`\gamma `$ equals $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ (bosons or fermions). When $`D=2`$ the set $`\{𝐱𝐲\}`$ is multiply connected. The (equal-time) paths $`\lambda `$ from $`(𝐱,𝐲)`$ to $`(𝐲,𝐱)`$ fall into different homotopy classes, depending on whether the two particles pass each other on the left or on the right (call these ‘simple exchange paths’), or on whether and how often they wind around each other in either sense. Any exchange path is homotopic to a concatenation of simple exchange paths. Thus for $`D=2`$ the phase difference along an exchange path is independent of $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$, and is equal to a whole number $`n`$, depending on the homotopy class, times an arbitrary constant $`\gamma `$ (anyonic phase). This holds over a whole time interval, and the question arises whether $`\gamma `$ may be time-dependent. Were this the case, however, $`_tS`$ would be ill-defined. Thus $`\gamma `$ is independent of $`t`$, for all $`D2`$.

We now establish that $`R`$ is symmetric. The second proof given below covers both de Broglie and Bohm’s theory and Nelson’s, but we note that there is a more direct proof in Nelson’s theory. (Both proofs hold for all $`D2`$.) Indeed, we require not only that the average velocity (5), but also the drift velocity (11) be symmetric. The two conditions combined yield:

$$\frac{\mathbf{}R^2(𝐱,𝐲,t)}{R^2(𝐱,𝐲,t)}=\frac{\mathbf{}R^2(𝐲,𝐱,t)}{R^2(𝐲,𝐱,t)}.$$
(19)
We take any instant from the interval for which $`R0`$ on $`\{𝐱𝐲\}`$ (or the connected subset), and thus again consider (19) on this set ($`R`$ is already symmetric on the complement). From (19) we have:

$$\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}R^2(𝐱,𝐲,t)=\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}R^2(𝐲,𝐱,t).$$
(20)
Thus,

$$\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}R(𝐱,𝐲,t)=\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}R(𝐲,𝐱,t),$$
(21)
and since for $`D2`$ the region is connected,

$$\mathrm{log}R(𝐱,𝐲,t)=\mathrm{log}R(𝐲,𝐱,t)+\delta ,$$
(22)
and

$$R(𝐱,𝐲,t)=e^\delta R(𝐲,𝐱,t).$$
(23)
It follows that

$$R(𝐱,𝐲,t)=e^{2\delta }R(𝐱,𝐲,t),$$
(24)
and since $`R`$ is single-valued by definition, $`e^{2\delta }=1`$, or

$$R(𝐱,𝐲,t)=\pm R(𝐲,𝐱,t);$$
(25)
and since it is positive,

$$R(𝐱,𝐲,t)=R(𝐲,𝐱,t),$$
(26)
for any instant of the time interval under consideration (both on $`\{𝐱𝐲\}`$ and on $`\{𝐱=𝐲\}`$). Thus, in both phase and amplitude the wavefunction has the desired symmetries on a certain time interval, and since $`H`$ is symmetric, it has them at all times.

For the case of de Broglie and Bohm’s theory, we do not have the additional condition (19), but we use the fact that on the given time interval $`S`$ is symmetric (up to a time-independent $`\gamma `$), and $`R`$ and $`S`$ are coupled via (6) and (7), with symmetric $`V`$. Since we can vary the Hamiltonian, we choose the case of zero magnetic field, so in an appropriate gauge $`𝐀=0`$. (This is not only for ease of calculation, but also because at one point in Section 5 we shall need precisely this case.) We introduce the notation $`\stackrel{~}{S}(𝐱,𝐲,t):=S(𝐲,𝐱,t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}(𝐱,𝐲,t):=R(𝐲,𝐱,t)`$.

First of all, since $`Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}e^{i\stackrel{~}{S}/\mathrm{}}`$ both solve the Schrödinger equation and thus (7), and since all of $`_tS`$, $`\mathbf{}S`$ and $`V`$ are symmetric on the given time interval, it follows that the quantum potential (8) is symmetric:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}}{\stackrel{~}{R}},$$
(27)
or

$$\stackrel{~}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }RR\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}=0$$
(28)
identically, and thus also

$$_t\left(\stackrel{~}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }RR\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}\right)=0.$$
(29)
From the continuity equation (6), on the region $`R0`$, one has

$$_tR=\mathbf{}R\mathbf{}S\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }S,$$
(30)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, since they also satisfy the continuity equation. Substituting into (29) one has:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _t\left(\stackrel{~}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }RR\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}\right)& =& (_t\stackrel{~}{R})\mathrm{\Delta }R+\stackrel{~}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }(_tR)(_tR)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}R\mathrm{\Delta }(_t\stackrel{~}{R})\hfill \\ & =& \mathbf{}R\mathbf{}S\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}+\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }S\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}+R\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R})\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{S}+\hfill \\ & & 2R(\underset{m,n}{}_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}_m_n\stackrel{~}{S})+R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S})+\hfill \\ & & R\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}+R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S})+R\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}\hfill \\ & & \mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{\Delta }R\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{\Delta }R\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }R)\mathbf{}S\hfill \\ & & 2\stackrel{~}{R}(\underset{m,n}{}_m_nR_m_nS)\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }S)\hfill \\ & & \stackrel{~}{R}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }S\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }S)\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }S\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
(where we continue to use $`2D`$-dimensional notation for $`\mathbf{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`m`$ and $`n`$ also run from $`1`$ to $`2D`$). Simplifying using (28) and the symmetry of $`\mathbf{}S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbf{}S\left(\mathbf{}R\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}+R\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R})\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }R\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }R)\right)+\hfill & & \\ 2(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }S)(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)+2\underset{m,n}{}_m_nS(R_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{r}_m_nR)\hfill & =& \\ (\mathbf{}S)\mathbf{}(R\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }R)+2(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }S)(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)+\hfill & & \\ 2\underset{m,n}{}_m_nS(R_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{r}_m_nR)\hfill & =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
Thus, again because of (28),

$$(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }S)(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)+\underset{m,n}{}_m_nS(R_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{r}_m_nR)=0,$$
(33)
and again taking the time derivative,

$$\begin{array}{c}_t\left((\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }S)(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)\right)=\hfill \\ (\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }_tS)(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)+\mathbf{}(\mathrm{\Delta }S)_t(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)+\hfill \\ \underset{m,n}{}(_m_n_tS)(R_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{r}_m_nR)+\hfill \\ \underset{m,n}{}(_m_nS)_t(R_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{r}_m_nR)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
In the limit of instantaneously varying $`V`$, we can affect (via (7)) the terms containing $`_tS`$ without changing the others. Indeed, at any time $`t`$, we can add an arbitrary (symmetric) term $`U`$ to the potential, thus adding to (34) a term of the form

$$(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }U)(R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R)\underset{m,n}{}_m_nU(R_m_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{r}_m_nR)$$
(35)
which has to be zero. If we further choose $`U`$ of the form

$$U=u^1(\xi _1^1)+\mathrm{}+u^D(\xi _1^D)+u^1(\xi _2^1)+\mathrm{}+u^D(\xi _2^D),$$
(36)
all mixed derivatives vanish, and the requirement reduces to

$$\underset{n}{}_n^3U(R_n\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}_nR)+\underset{n}{}_n^2U(R_n^2\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}_n^2R)=0,$$
(37)
where all $`_n^2U`$ and $`_n^3U`$ can be varied independently. Thus, in particular,

$$R\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}\mathbf{}R=0.$$
(38)
From this, on $`\{R0\}`$, follows again equation (21), and the rest of the proof proceeds as in the case of Nelson’s mechanics.

## 4 Case of $`n`$ spinless particles

For $`n`$ particles, one can take over the above arguments largely unmodified, and conclude that for all $`i,j`$,

$$S(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_i,\mathrm{},𝐱_j,\mathrm{},𝐱_n,t)=S(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_j,\mathrm{},𝐱_i,\mathrm{},𝐱_n,t)+\gamma _{\{i,j\}}.$$
(39)
As before, $`\gamma _{\{i,j\}}`$ is independent of $`t`$, and also of $`𝐱_k`$ ($`ki,j`$), because $`_tS`$ and $`\mathbf{}S`$ would otherwise be ill-defined. As before, for $`D3`$ the configuration space without the set where two or more particles coincide is simply connected, and thus the constant $`\gamma _{\{i,j\}}`$ can take only the two values $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, while for $`D=2`$ it is arbitrary. The only additional step that is required is to show that $`\gamma _{\{i,j\}}`$ is in fact independent of the pair $`\{i,j\}`$, and, for $`D=2`$, to discuss the dependence on the homotopy structure of the exchange paths, which is rather more complicated for $`n`$ particles than it is for two.

For $`D=3`$, the phase difference between $`S`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is path-independent, and thus $`\gamma _{\{i,j\}}`$ is uniquely associated with a permutation of the labels $`i,j`$. For permutations $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$ we have, however:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{jk}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ik}\mathrm{\Pi }_{jk},$$
(40)
so that

$$\gamma _{\{i,j\}}=\gamma _{\{j,k\}}+\gamma _{\{i,k\}}+\gamma _{\{j,k\}}(\text{mod }2\pi ).$$
(41)
Since

$$\gamma _{\{j,k\}}+\gamma _{\{j,k\}}=0(\text{mod }2\pi ),$$
(42)
we have

$$\gamma _{\{i,j\}}=\gamma _{\{i,k\}}(\text{mod }2\pi ),$$
(43)
and exchange of one particle with any other yields the same phase difference. It follows that exchange of any two particles yields the same phase difference.

Take $`D=2`$. For two particles we have said that all exchange paths are homotopic to concatenations of the simple exchange paths along which the two particles do not wind around each other. For $`n`$ particles, two such paths, even if like-handed, are not generally homotopic to each other. The homotopy class further depends on whether and how many other particles may be enclosed within the path, and on whether and how often any such particles are circled by either of the particles being exchanged. We can, however, redefine simple exchange paths as those along which the particles being exchanged neither wind around each other nor enclose any other particles. One can then easily convince oneself that any exchange path is homotopic to a concatenation of such simple exchange paths. The phase difference along a simple exchange path is $`\pm \gamma _{\{i,j\}}`$, according to whether the path is left-handed or right-handed. What we wish to establish is that this is independent of the pair $`\{i,j\}`$. And in fact, we can mimick the above argument based on permutations.

We first exchange particles $`j`$ and $`k`$ along a simple exchange path, say a left-handed one; then we exchange $`i`$ and $`k`$ along another, say also a left-handed one; finally we exchange $`j`$ and $`k`$ again, this time along a right-handed simple exchange path. This concatenation is homotopic to a simple path exchanging $`i`$ and $`j`$ (a left-handed one). In terms of the phase differences along the paths, we obtain:

$$\gamma _{\{i,j\}}=\gamma _{\{j,k\}}+\gamma _{\{i,k\}}\gamma _{\{j,k\}}(\text{mod }2\pi ).$$
(44)
That is, even without (42), we obtain the result (43), now for the phase differences along simple exchange paths (not enclosing any other particles) in two dimensions.

## 5 Generalisation for spinorial wavefunctions

We shall now treat the case of spinorial wavefunctions (in three dimensions). These obey the Pauli equation:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{𝚿}{t}=\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}(\mathbf{}_iiq_i𝐀(𝐱_i))^2𝚿+V𝚿+\mu \underset{i}{}𝐒_i𝐁(𝐱_i)𝚿,$$
(45)
where $`𝐒_i`$ is the spin matrix vector acting on particle $`i`$, and $`𝐁`$ is the (external) magnetic field. Writing spinorial wavefunctions as

$$𝚿=\underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}\psi _{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}|s_1>\mathrm{}|s_n>,$$
(46)
the condition to be derived is

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_i\mathrm{}s_j\mathrm{}s_n}(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_i,\mathrm{},𝐱_j,\mathrm{},𝐱_n,t)=\hfill \\ e^{i\gamma }\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_j\mathrm{}s_i\mathrm{}s_n}(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_j,\mathrm{},𝐱_i,\mathrm{},𝐱_n,t),\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
with $`\gamma =0`$ for all $`i,j`$ or $`\gamma =\pi `$ for all $`i,j`$ (total symmetry or antisymmetry of the spinorial wavefunction). Notice also that for $`𝐁=0`$, the single components of the spinorial wavefunction decouple and all obey the same (symmetric) Schrödinger equation (in which $`𝐀`$ can be gauged to zero).

We first generalise the two pilot-wave theories to the case of spinorial wavefunctions, following the most common treatment, due to Bell (1987, Chap. 19). Notice first of all that de Broglie’s guidance equation (5) can be written

$$\dot{𝐱}_i=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}\text{Im}\frac{\psi ^{}\mathbf{}_i\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }+\frac{q_i}{m_i}𝐀(𝐱_i),$$
(48)
and similarly, Nelson’s can be written

$$d𝐱_i=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}\text{Im}\frac{\psi ^{}\mathbf{}_i\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }+\frac{q_i}{m_i}𝐀(𝐱_i)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}\text{Re}\frac{\psi ^{}\mathbf{}_i\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }\right)dt+d𝝎_i.$$
(49)
The generalisations of (48) and (49) to spin are given, respectively, by

$$\dot{𝐱}_i=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}\text{Im}\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}^{}\mathbf{}_i\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}}{{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}^{}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}}+\frac{q_i}{m_i}𝐀(𝐱_i),$$
(50)
and

$`d𝐱_i`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}^{}\mathbf{}_i\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}}{{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}^{}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{m_i}}𝐀(𝐱_i)+`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}^{}\mathbf{}_i\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}}{{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n}{}}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}^{}\psi _{s_1\mathrm{}s_n}}})dt+d𝝎_i,`$
which are manifestly independent of the spin basis chosen. (These are the equations needed to analyse the Bell experiments.)

Our methods of Section 3 are not directly applicable to derive (47). There is, however, an elegant way of generalising the results. We make use of the treatment of measurement theory sketched in Section 2, according to which after a measurement interaction one can identify a specific component of the wavefunction (9) of the total system as uniquely responsible for the further motion of the particles. A measurement interaction, however, just means an appropriate choice of potentials and magnetic fields over a period of time, which we are free to make.

Specifically, we first confine the particles via symmetric potentials to $`n`$ boxes with infinite walls, each box containing a single particle. We then perform (ideal) measurements of spin on each of the particles, yielding results, say, $`s_1^0,\mathrm{},s_n^0`$. The effective wavefunction for the $`n`$ particles is now

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}\psi _{s_{\mathrm{\Pi }(1)}^0,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{\Pi }(n)}^0}|s_{\mathrm{\Pi }(1)}^0>\mathrm{}|s_{\mathrm{\Pi }(n)}^0>,$$
(52)
where the sum ranges over all and only permutations that yield distinct sequences. Since with a fixed experimental arrangement, the different sequences of results depend on different initial positions of the particles, the requirement that the original wavefunction leave all possible trajectories invariant under exchange of any two particles translates into requiring the same separately of all non-zero components of the form (52). (If one such component is zero, then it is already totally symmetric or antisymmetric.)

For illustration, take the case of three spin-$`1/2`$ particles. The general case is analogous. (We need at least three particles in order to cover the possibility of parastatistics.) The easiest case is when all spin measurements yield the same result, say up. Then the effective wavefunction is

$$\psi _{+++}|+>|+>|+>.$$
(53)
If we choose the magnetic field $`𝐁=0`$, the system is effectively described by one scalar wavefunction obeying the Schrödinger equation. We can open the boxes and treat it by the methods used for scalar wavefunctions in Section 3.

In general, however, we will have different spin values in different boxes, say spin up in two boxes and spin down in the third. We first pull down the potential barriers between boxes containing particles with the same spin, so that in this case we have one box containing two spin-up particles and one containing one spin-down particle. The effective wavefunction is now given by

$$\psi _{++}|+>|+>|>+\psi _{++}|+>|>|+>+\psi _{++}|>|+>|+>,$$
(54)
each term corresponding to a different particle being in the spin-down box, and one still needs the guidance equations (50) or (51). Notice, however, that as long as the particles are confined to the two boxes, for any possible configuration only one of the terms in (54) will be non-zero, e.g. for any configuration in which particle 1 is in the spin-down box, the only non-zero term is $`\psi _{++}|>|+>|+>`$. It follows that, as long as the particles are in the boxes,

$`\mathbf{}S_{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}S_{++}(𝐲,𝐱,𝐳),`$ (55)
$`\mathbf{}S_{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}S_{++}(𝐲,𝐱,𝐳),`$ (56)
etc. (where $`S_{++}`$ is the phase of $`\psi _{++}`$, etc.). Taking $`𝐁=0`$, not only do $`\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)`$ and $`\psi _{++}(𝐲,𝐱,𝐳)`$ obey the same (symmetric) Schrödinger equation, but also $`\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)`$ and $`\psi _{++}(𝐲,𝐱,𝐳)`$, etc.

For each fixed $`z`$, when non-empty, the region $`\{R_{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)0\}`$ is connected (we exchange the two particles in the spin-up box), so that we can apply our previous methods (for both phase and amplitude) to obtain

$$\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)=\pm \psi _{++}(𝐲,𝐱,𝐳)$$
(57)
(and similarly for $`\psi _{++}`$ under exchange of $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐳`$, and for $`\psi _{++}`$ under exchange of $`𝐲`$ and $`𝐳`$). Instead, when non-empty, the region $`\{R_{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)0\}\{R_{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)0\}`$ has two disconnected components, according to whether particle 1 or particle 2 is in the spin-down box. We obtain only

$$\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)=\delta e^{i\gamma }\psi _{++}(𝐲,𝐱,𝐳),$$
(58)
with $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ arbitrary (and similarly in the other cases). One sees that the spinorial wavefunction must have the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)|+>|+>|>+`$ (59)
$`\delta e^{i\gamma }\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐳,𝐲)|+>|>|+>+`$
$`\delta ^{}e^{i\gamma ^{}}\psi _{++}(𝐳,𝐲,𝐱)|>|+>|+>,`$
with $`\psi _{++}`$ symmetric or antisymmetric in the first two variables.

As a penultimate step, we flip the spin in the spin-down box, set the magnetic field back to $`0`$, and pull down the wall between this box and the spin-up box. (If there are more than two boxes with different values of spin, we repeat this operation several times.) The wavefunction in (59) becomes

$$(\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳)+\delta e^{i\gamma }\psi _{++}(𝐱,𝐳,𝐲)+\delta ^{}e^{i\gamma ^{}}\psi _{++}(𝐳,𝐲,𝐱))|+>|+>|+>,$$
(60)
i.e. has the form (53), and must therefore be symmetric in all pairs of variables (if $`\psi _{++}`$ is symmetric in the first two variables) or antisymmetric in all pairs of variables (if $`\psi _{++}`$ is antisymmetric in the first two variables). It follows easily that, respectively,

$$\delta e^{i\gamma }=\delta ^{}e^{i\gamma ^{}}=\pm 1.$$
(61)
Thus, we have shown that also an effective wavefunction with different spin terms such as (54) is totally symmetric or antisymmetric.

Finally, one convinces oneself that the effective wavefunctions need to be either all symmetric or all antisymmetric (e.g. by considering non-maximal measurements after which the effective wavefunction is a superposition of any two thus far considered). Thus, the spinorial wavefunction is totally symmetric or totally antisymmetric at the time of the spin measurements, and since the Pauli equation is symmetric, for all times.

This completes our derivation of the symmetry conditions in the spinorial case, and shows that parastatistics is excluded. Unfortunately, our proof yields no complete connection between spin and statistics, since for arbitrary spin the velocity field is invariant both when the wavefunction is symmetric and when it is antisymmetric. Incidentally, there is another model of spin in pilot-wave theories, due to Bohm and Hiley (1993, Chap. 10), where the guidance equation includes an additional velocity term. (This term is added so to have the velocity field obtained from the Pauli equation be the non-relativistc limit of the one obtained from the Dirac equation.) However, this term also transforms invariantly under exchange irrespectively of whether the wavefunction is symmetric or antisymmetric, so that Bohm and Hiley’s model can also not be used to derive the spin-statistics connection.

## 6 Alternative approaches

To conclude, we briefly mention the alternative approaches to identical particles in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, one of which also aims to exclude parastatistics and bears an interesting relation to our approach above. This is the topological approach developed by Laidlaw and C. DeWitt (1971) and by Leinaas and Myrheim (1977), with an anticipation by Finkelstein and Rubinstein (1968). This approach is based on the use of a reduced configuration space for identical particles, defined by excising the points in which two or more particles coincide, and identifying configurations related by a permutation of the particles. Exclusion of the coincidence points makes the resulting space multiply connected. In three dimensions or more, it is doubly connected, corresponding to the simply connected case above (without identifications). In two dimensions (treated only by Leinaas and Myrheim), the reduced configuration space is infinitely connected.

Laidlaw and DeWitt use the Feynman-path formalism to calculate transition amplitudes. From the topology of the paths, they derive the usual amplitudes. (Notice the different point of application of the topological considerations: Feynman paths versus equal-time paths.) Leinaas and Myrheim define wavefunctions (and a Schrödinger equation) directly on the reduced configuration space, and obtain two-valued and multi-valued wavefunctions in three and two dimensions, respectively (they also have a discussion of the one-dimensional case). Laidlaw and DeWitt treat only the spinless case, while Leinaas and Myrheim give an extension to spinor-valued wavefunctions on the reduced configuration space (explicitly only for two particles).

In both cases, the choice of the reduced configuration space is conceptually the central step. As pointed out already in Brown et al. (1999), the pilot-wave approach gives a particularly perspicuous justification for this step. Indeed, the set of coincidences is dynamically inaccessible, whether or not the wavefunction is zero on the set. This can be seen as follows. We set $`\xi _1=\xi _2=𝐱`$ in (13) above:

$$\mathbf{}_1S(\xi _1,\xi _2,t)+𝐀(\xi _1,t)|_{\xi _1=\xi _2=𝐱}=\mathbf{}_2S(\xi _1,\xi _2,t)+𝐀(\xi _2,t)|_{\xi _1=\xi _2=𝐱},$$
(62)
and see that if two particles coincide at one instant $`t`$, they coincide for all times. Thus, if they do not coincide at one instant, they cannot come to coincide at any later time. The configuration space for two identical particles decomposes into an unphysical configuration space for one particle of double mass and charge, and the configuration space with coincidence points removed. As regards the identification of points related by permutations, it would seem that this is also perfectly natural, since the motions are perfectly symmetrical, and indeed de Broglie–Bohm theory can be consistently formulated in a label-free way, as described in Dürr et al. (in preparation) (see also Sjöqvist and Carlsen, 1995).

Goldin et al. (1980, 1981) work within the framework of second-quantised non-relativistic fields $`\psi (𝐱)`$, or more precisely, the Lie algebra formed by the mass density and momentum density operators:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\rho (𝐱)\hfill & :=& m\psi ^{}(𝐱)\psi (𝐱),\hfill \\ 𝐉(𝐱)\hfill & :=& \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}(\psi ^{}(𝐱)\mathbf{}\psi (𝐱)\mathbf{}\psi ^{}(𝐱)\psi (𝐱))\hfill \end{array}$$
(63)
(suitably averaged with Schwartz space functions). The representations of this current algebra yield fields satisfying the canonical commutation and anticommutation relations, as well as anyonic commutation relations (see also Goldin and Sharp, 1983, where the relation to Leinaas and Myrheim’s work is discussed in more detail). Goldin (1987) points out that also this approach yields a natural justification for excising the coincidence points. As opposed to the justification provided by de Broglie–Bohm theory, however, coincidence points are excised also in the case of distinguishable particles.

The current algebra approach provides a rigorous framework for anyons, but it explicitly allows for parastatistics, unless the wavefunction is scalar-valued (Goldin, 1987). Goldin et al. (1985) therefore conjecture that the topological approach may be able to rigorously exclude parastatistics only in the case of scalar wavefunctions (e.g. suitable extensions of Feynman-path methods would also allow for parastatistics). If this is correct, the approach based on pilot-wave theories, as in the present paper and in Dürr et al. (in preparation) would provide the first rigorous proof that parastatistics are excluded also in the spinorial case.

## Acknowledgements

I wish to thank first of all Harvey Brown and Erik Sjöqvist for early discussions of this topic in the context of our joint paper (Brown et al., 1999). I am further very much indebted to Detlef Dürr, Shelly Goldstein, James Taylor and Nino Zanghì for discussion, correspondence and earlier drafts of Dürr et al. (in preparation); to Detlef also for attracting my attention to Schneider (1995) and for a week’s wonderful hospitality at the University of Munich, and to Shelly and especially James for pointing out an error in a previous draft. I am grateful to Simon Saunders and Antony Valentini for discussion, and to Jerry Goldin for yet more discussion, correspondence and various useful references and papers. I would finally like to thank audiences at the Seventh U.K. Conference on Foundations of Physics, the Sixth Annual Florence–Stanford Meeting, the 2001 Biennial Meeting of the International Quantum Structures Association, and at the Universities of Oxford, Utrecht, Freiburg, München and at the Technische Universität München. I completed part of this work as holder of a generous Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from the British Academy, and part as the spoilt and happy guest of Carsten Held in the Philosophisches Seminar I at the University of Freiburg.

## References

Arovas, D., Schrieffer, J. R., and Wilczek, F. (1982), ‘Fractional Statistics and the Quantum Hall Effect’, Physical Review Letters 53, 722–723.

Bell, J. S. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bohm, D. (1952), ‘A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. I’ and ‘II’, Physical Review 85, 166–179 and 180–193.

Bohm, D., and Hiley, B. J. (1993), The Undivided Universe (London: Routledge).

Broglie, L. de (1928), ’La nouvelle dynamique des quanta’, in Électrons et Photons, Rapports et discussions du cinquième Conseil de Physique Solvay (Paris, Gauthier-Villars), pp. 105–141.

Brown, H. R., Sjöqvist, E., and Bacciagaluppi, G. (1999), ‘Remarks on Identical Particles in de Broglie–Bohm Theory’, Physics Letters A 251, 229–235.

Dürr, D. (2001), Bohmsche Mechanik als Grundlage der Quantenmechanik (Berlin: Springer).

Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Taylor, J., and Zanghì, N. (in preparation), ‘Bosons, Fermions, and the Natural Configuration Space of Identical Particles’.

Finkelstein, D., and Rubinstein, J. (1968), ‘Connection between Spin, Statistics, and Kinks’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 9, 1762–1779.

Goldin, G. A. (1987), ‘Parastatistics, $`\theta `$-statistics, and Topological Quantum Mechanics from Unitary Representations of Diffeomorphism Groups’, in H.-D. Doebner and J. D. Hennig (eds), Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics (Singapore: World Scientific), pp. 197–207.

Goldin, G. A., Menikoff, R., and Sharp, D. H. (1980), ‘Particle Statistics from Induced Representations of a Local Current Group’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 21, 650–664.

Goldin, G. A., Menikoff, R., and Sharp, D. H. (1981), ‘Representations of a Local Current Algebra in Nonsimply Connected Space and the Aharonov–Bohm Effect’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 22, 1664–1668.

Goldin, G. A., Menikoff, R., and Sharp, D. H. (1985), ‘Comments on “General Theory for Quantum Statistics in Two Dimensions” ’, Physical Review Letters 54, 603.

Goldin, G. A., and Sharp, D. H. (1983), ‘Rotation Generators in Two-Dimensional Space and Particles Obeying Unusual Statistics’, Physical Review D 28, 830–832.

Goldstein, S. (1987), ‘Stochastic Mechanics and Quantum Theory’, Journal of Statistical Physics 47, 645–667.

Goldstein, S. (2001), ‘Bohmian Mechanics’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ .

Holland, P. R. (1993), The Quantum Theory of Motion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Laidlaw, M. G. G., and DeWitt, C. M. (1971), ‘Feynman Functional Integrals for Systems of Indistinguishable Particles’, Physical Review D 3, 1375–1378.

Laughlin, R. B. (1983), ‘Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitations’, Physical Review Letters 50, 1395–1402.

Leinaas, J. M., and Myrheim, J. (1977), ‘On the Theory of Identical Particles’, Il Nuovo Cimento B 37, 1–23.

Messiah, A. M. L., and Greenberg, O. W. (1964), ‘Symmetrization Postulate and its Experimental Foundation’, Physical Review 136 B, 248–267.

Nelson, E. (1966), ‘Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics’, Physical Review 150, 1079–1085.

Nelson, E. (1985), Quantum Fluctuations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Schneider, M. (1995), Identische Teilchen und Bohmsche Mechanik, Diplomarbeit, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Sektion Physik,
http://emma.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de/ schneider/ .

Sjöqvist, E., and Carlsen, H. (1995), ‘Fractional Statistics in Bohm’s Theory’, Physics Letters A 202, 160–166.

Tsui, D. C., Stormer, H. L., and Gossard, A. C. (1982), ‘Two-Dimensional Magnetotransport in the Extreme Quantum Limit’, Physical Review Letters 48, 1559–1562.

Valentini, A. (in preparation), Pilot-Wave Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Wilczek, F. (1982), ‘Quantum Mechanics of Fractional-Spin Particles’, Physical Review Letters 49, 957–959.