text:
# How to Formulate Non-Equilibrium Local States in QFT? – General Characterization and Extension to Curved Spacetime– Dedicated to Professor Hiroshi Ezawa on the occasion of his seventieth birthday

## 1 Introduction

It is a great honour for me to make a contribution to this volume to commemorate Professor Ezawa’s 70th anniversary, especially because I have benefited very much from him and from what he wrote and said on physics in general and on quantum field theory in particular, at various stages of my research career. I have been impressed by his wide perspectives ranging from mathematical physics to any kind of physical aspects of nature, among which non-equilibrium statistical physics to be discussed in the following, is an important common subject between him and myself.

“Non-equilibrium” seems to be one of the characteristic features of domains or phenomena in which nature exhibits its most vivid essence. However, theoretical attempts of systematic approaches to it starting from the first principles of microscopic quantum theory seem to have been rather rare (aside from some attractive phenomenological theories in thermodynamic frameworks), in sharp contrast with equilibrium cases. For the latter, we know the existence of variety of achievements successfully attained in the clear-cut formulation based upon the notion of Gibbs ensembles or Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) states (as generalized version of the former applicable to infinitely extended systems in thermodynamic limit), ranging from detailed analyses of concrete models to abstract sophisticated mathematical treatments of general infinite systems. The reason for such a difference seems to be evident: pursuits for concise and universal characterization of non-equilibrium have been given up, for such reasons as

* strong negative influence of poor and ambiguous images originating from negative ideas and pictures: in the word “non-equilibrium (states)” one sees only simple negation of equilibrium, missing positive contents.
* On the positive side, the experiences of being confronted with the huge variety exhibited by non-equilibrium domains can easily mislead one to a superstition that emphasis on ample individual features at macroscopic levels is equivalent to negating connections with their universal microscopic bases, which ends up with pessimism against ab initio discussions starting from the “first principles” of microscopic quantum theory.

We need to recall, however, that the great achievements in equilibrium statistical mechanics and solid state physics should be found in their unified understanding of macroscopic variety on the universal basis of microscopic quantum theory. At this point, we recall also many fruitful positive examples in the history of transitions to such domains with “non-”, as $``$from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometries$``$, $``$from commutative classical world to non-commutative quantum one$``$, or $``$from standard to non-standard logic$``$, and so on.

Taking analogy to the basic idea of manifolds exhibiting the process $``$from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometries$``$, I try here to re-view the general conceptual essence of our recent work  towards a general framework for treating nonequilibrium in relativistic QFT, where nonequilibrium local states are specified by a concise selection criterion and their thermal interpretations are canonically fixed. (The emphasis here is on the conceptual aspects with technical details omitted.)

When we try to understand non-Euclidean geometry as the geometry of curved spaces $`M`$, e.g., surface of the earth, in a precise way, the aim is never attained with such insistence that what is curved should be treated as it stands. According to the common wisdom, we start from a small neighbourhood $`U_i`$ in $`M`$ so that effects of curvature are negligible and try to draw a precise map of $`U_i`$ on a flat Euclidean space, which is nothing but a usual local map in the case of surface of the earth. While the whole sphere cannot correctly be drawn on one sheet, a (geometrically) “precise” description of such a curved space as the earth sphere can be attained by an atlas as the totality of many local charts $`\phi _i:U_i^d`$ covering $`M=_iU_i`$.

This familiar discussion found at the beginning of any textbooks on manifolds tells us the following points: In our scientific attempts to describe something in nature, e.g., “curved space” $`M`$, as

* our unknown target object to be described,

we inevitably need to relate it with

* something familiar to serve as a standard reference frame,

(such as a flat Euclidean space $`^d`$ in the example), which is implemented by

* the processes of measuring unknown target objects so that i) is mapped to ii) \[: as the case of $`\phi _i`$ above\],

and then,

* the data obtained in iii) need be collected and organized into a coherent interpretation (through which a description is realized) \[: the atlas in the example\].

These are just the minimum ingredients for our purpose. What corresponds to these in our discussion of non-equilibrium local states can be identified as follows:

* \[unknown target object\]=unknown quantum state $`\omega `$ to be identified as our non-equilibrium local state,
* \[standard reference frame\]=\[family $`K`$ of thermal reference states\] consisting of convex combinations of global equilibrium states $`\omega _\beta `$ at all the possible temperatures,
* \[processes of measuring to map i’) to ii’)\]=\[local thermal observables $`𝒯`$\] which detect local thermal properties and whose measured values in an unknown state $`\omega `$ in i’) are to be compared with the corresponding values in known states belonging to $`K`$,
* \[to organize data obtained in iii’) into a coherent interpretation\]= \[criterion to select non-equilibrium local states \+ thermal interpretations of selected states\] in terms of measured values of thermal quantities obtained in iii’).

In the following sections, the actual contents of ii’)-iv’) will be explained.

## 2 Thermal reference states

In relativistic QFT we identify global thermal equilibria with relativisitc KMS states given as follows. The KMS condition  is a mathematical characterization of a KMS state $`\omega _\beta `$ which generalizes familiar Gibbs states into a form applicable to infinitely extended systems by extracting characteristic relation

$$Tr(e^{\beta H}AB(t))=Tr(e^{\beta H}Ae^{iHt}Be^{iHt})=Tr(e^{\beta H}B(ti\beta )A).$$
(1)
In a relativistic version, a state $`\omega _\beta `$ as an expectation functional on the algebra $`𝒜`$ of observables ($`\omega _\beta :𝒜A\omega _\beta (A)`$) is called a relativistic KMS state with an inverse temperature 4-vector $`\beta =(\beta ^\mu )V_+(:=\{xR^4;x^2(x^0)^2(\stackrel{}{x})^2>0,x^0>0\})`$, if it satisfies the following relativistic KMS condition : for any pair $`A,B𝒜`$ there is a function $`h=h_{A,B}`$, analytic in $`D_\beta :=^4+i\left(V_+(\beta V_+)\right)`$, and continuous on $`\overline{D_\beta }`$ with the boundary conditions

$$h(a)=\omega _\beta (A\alpha _a(B)),h(a+i\beta )=\omega _\beta (\alpha _a(B)A),$$
(2)
where $`^4a\alpha _aAut(𝒜)`$ \[: \*-automorphism group of $`𝒜`$\] is a spacetime translation acting on $`𝒜`$. Then, $`\omega _\beta `$ can be seen to describe a global thermal equilibrium at a temperature $`T=(k_B\sqrt{\beta ^2})^1`$ in a rest frame determined by a timelike unit vector $`e=\beta /\sqrt{\beta ^2}V_+`$.

The totality $`K_\beta `$ of relativistic KMS state with $`\beta V_+`$ is known  to be a simplex admitting for each state $``$ $`K_\beta `$ a unique decomposition into a convex combination of extremal points, which can be identified with thermodynamic pure phases and can be parametrized uniquely by such thermodynamic parameters as $`\beta `$ (in combination with some such additional ones as chemical potentials $`\mu `$, if necessary).

A non-trivial Poincaré transformation $`\lambda =(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝒫_+^{}:=^4L_+^{}`$ transforms $`\omega _\beta K_\beta `$ into another one $`\omega _\beta \alpha _\lambda ^1K_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }`$ with inverse temperature $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta `$, through which a temparature defined by $`1/\sqrt{\beta ^2}=1/\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta )^2}`$ is unchanged but the state $`\omega _\beta \alpha _\lambda ^1\omega _\beta `$ can be different from the original one $`\omega _\beta `$, because of the change of reference frame $`e=\beta ^\mu /\sqrt{\beta ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }ee`$: this is the spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz invariance due to temperature . When convenient for simplification in the following, we introduce the assumption of the absence of phase transitions formulated as the uniqueness of KMS state at each temperature $`\beta V_+`$, which implies the relation $`\omega _\beta \alpha _\lambda ^1=\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }`$, and hence, the invariance of $`\omega _\beta `$ under spacetime translations as well as its isotropy in the rest frame.

As ii’) \[family $`K`$ of thermal reference states\] for local thermal description of an unknown state $`\omega `$, we take all the possible statistical mixtures $`\omega =_Bd\rho (\beta )\omega _\beta =:\omega _\rho `$ of KMS states $`\omega _\beta `$ in which temperature $`\beta `$ is fluctuating over some compact subsets $`B`$ in $`V_+`$ with such a probability distribution $`d\rho (\beta )`$ that supp$`(\rho )B`$. Namely, we adopt the definition

$$K:=\underset{B:\text{ cpt }V_+}{}K_B$$
(3)
with

$$K_B:=\{\omega _\rho =_B𝑑\rho (\beta )\omega _\beta ;\rho \text{: probability measure on }V_+\text{ with supp}(\rho )B\}.$$
(4)
In more general situations, the requirement of compact supports of $`\rho `$ may have to be removed and, when the assumption of no phase transition is invalidated, we also add other order-parameters like chemical potential $`\mu `$, etc., so as for all the relevant thermodynamic pure phases to be discriminated. Then we denote generically the spaces of all the relevant thermodynamic parameters $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ and of (a suitable class of) probability measures $`d\rho (\beta ,\mu )`$, respectively, by $`B_K`$ and by $`Th`$ ($`=M_1(B_K)=`$ the space of probability measures on $`B_K`$, for instance): $`K\omega _\rho :=`$ $`_{B_K}𝑑\rho (\beta ,\mu )\omega _{\beta ,\mu }`$, $`(\beta ,\mu )B_K`$, $`\rho Th`$.

## 3 “Coordinatization” by local thermal observables

Next, we need “coordinatization map” iii’) connecting i’) to ii’). The basic idea for this is first to measure some thermal observables $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i\}`$ in an unknown state $`\omega `$ under consideration and then to plot on “$`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i\}`$-space” the measured values $`\{\omega (\mathrm{\Phi }_i)=\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\omega )\}`$ regarding them as “$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$-coordinates” of $`\omega `$. If we find a data set $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\omega _\beta )\}`$ for a known equilibrium state $`\omega _\beta K_\beta `$ s.t. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\omega )=\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\omega _\beta )`$, then our unknown $`\omega `$ can be identified with this known $`\omega _\beta `$ $`K`$ as far as thermal properties determined by quantities $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i\}`$ is concerned: $`\omega \underset{\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i\}}{}\omega _\beta `$. (The inclusion of mixture $`\omega _\rho =_B𝑑\rho (\beta )\omega _\beta `$ is just for the sake of wider range of data search to include temperature fluctuations.)

Now the problem is how to find physical quantities $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i\}`$ suitable for describing local thermal properties of non-equilibrium states in the framework of relativistic QFT?

The aim of this section is to give an answer to this. While the most desirable form of the answer would be such that thermal properties of unknown states in a small spacetime region $`𝒪`$ are determined by local observables measurable within $`𝒪`$. In contrast to our motivating example of manifold, however, it is almost impossible to attain directly this goal starting from a finitely extended region.

Our strategy here is first to concentrate on a spacetime point $`x`$ and then to extend the obtained results to a finitely extended region. However, we immediately encounter the well-known difficulty of ultraviolet (UV) divergences invalidating a quantum field at a point, which seems to make our desire hopeless! (Perhaps, this may be one of the reasons for which the programme to construct general framework of non-equilibrium starting from microscopic quantum theory has been discouraged for a long time.) It is too early, however, to give up here! There is an escape through which quantum field $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ at a point can be made meaningful. Since the cause to invalidate $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ is just the UV divergenges due to high-frequency modes in quantum fields, $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ makes sense in states to which high energy components make no significant contributions.

This idea can be formulated in a mathematically meaningful form as follows. In many model examples in constructive field theory, the validity of energy-bound inequality has been checked : for $`l>0`$ there exist $`m>0`$ and a constant $`c>0`$ s.t.

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^m\widehat{\varphi }(f)(\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^mc𝑑x|(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Delta })^lf(x)|,$$
(5)
holds for $`f𝒮(^4)`$. Here $`H`$ is a Hamiltonian defined in the vacuum representation where operator norm $`||||`$ is defined and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplacian in $`^4`$. Taking a sequence $`\delta _i`$ of test functions s.t. $`\delta _i\underset{i\mathrm{}}{}\delta _x`$ (: Dirac measure on $`x`$), we have, for sufficiently large $`m>0`$,

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^m\widehat{\varphi }(\delta _i)(\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^m=:(\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^m\widehat{\varphi }(x)(\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^m$$
(6)
which justifies $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ mathematically. Then, $`\omega (\widehat{\varphi }(x))`$ is meaningful for any state $`\omega `$ s.t. $`\omega ((\mathrm{𝟏}+H)^{2m})<\mathrm{}`$.

By replacing $`H`$ meaningful only in the vacuum represetation with a local Hamiltonian $`H_𝒪`$ playing the role of $`H`$ in a local region $`𝒪`$ independently of representations, we arrive at the condition

$$\omega ((\mathrm{𝟏}+H_𝒪)^{2m})<\mathrm{},$$
(7)
to be imposed on states $`\omega `$ in question. Actually this is automatically satisfied by any states admitting local thermal interpretation which should have finite energy locally. We denote $`E_𝒪`$ the totally of states $`\omega `$ satisfying Eq.(7) with a suitable $`m>0`$,

$$E_𝒪:=\{\omega ;\omega \text{: state of }𝒜\text{ and }m>0\text{ s.t. }\omega ((\mathrm{𝟏}+H_𝒪)^{2m})<\mathrm{}\}K,$$
(8)
whose pointlike limit (projective limit)

$$E_x(=\underset{𝒪x}{\underset{}{lim}}E_𝒪)K$$
(9)
is given by the set of equivalence classes in $`_𝒪E_𝒪`$ with respect to the equivalence relation $``$ defined by

$$\omega _1\omega _2\stackrel{def}{}𝒪\text{: neighbourhood of }x\text{ s.t. }\omega _1_𝒪=\omega _2_𝒪.$$
(10)
(The family $`𝒪E_𝒪`$ constitutes a presheaf of state germs  whose stalk at $`x`$ is given by $`E_x`$.)

While the product structure of quantum fields is lost through this procedure, it can effectively be recovered by the notion of normal products in the operator-product expansion (OPE) reformulated recently by  in a mathematically rigorous form. Namely, linear spaces $`𝒩(\widehat{\varphi }^2)_{q,x}`$ consisting of normal products appearing in the expansion of $`\widehat{\varphi }(x+\zeta )\widehat{\varphi }(x\zeta )`$ around $`\zeta =0`$ (valid for sufficiently large $`n`$),

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}+H_𝒪)^n\left[\widehat{\varphi }(x+\zeta )\widehat{\varphi }(x\zeta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{J(q)}{}}c_j(\zeta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_j(x)\right](\mathrm{𝟏}+H_𝒪)^nc^{}|\zeta |^q,$$
(11)
as coefficients $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_j(x)`$ of $`c`$-number singular functions $`c_j(\zeta )`$ in $`\zeta `$ are seen to serve as substitutes for the ill-defined $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)^2`$, and similarly $`𝒩(\widehat{\varphi }^p)_{q,x}`$ for higher power $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)^p`$.

Through the similar expansion of $`_\zeta \widehat{\varphi }(x+\zeta )\widehat{\varphi }(x\zeta )`$, the derivatives in the relative coordinates $`\zeta `$ (called “balanced derivatives” here),

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}+H_𝒪)^n\left[_\zeta \widehat{\varphi }(x+\zeta )\widehat{\varphi }(x\zeta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{J(q)}{}}_\zeta c_j(\zeta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_j(x)\right](\mathrm{𝟏}+H_𝒪)^nc^{\prime \prime }|\zeta |^r,$$
(12)
can be similarly made meaningful (for sufficiently large $`n,q`$), which describe internal structures of composite operators at the same spacetime point $`x`$. The expectation values of these normal products determine $`p`$-point correlation functions around $`x`$. While derivatives $`_x`$ in the centre of mass coordinates are sensitive to the spacetime inhomogeneity of an unknown state $`\omega `$, the corresponding quantities to $`\omega (_x(\mathrm{}))`$ in thermal reference states are all vanishing $`\omega _\beta (_x(\mathrm{}))=0`$, owing to the translational invariance of $`\omega _\beta `$. Since the comparison iii’) between $`\omega `$ and $`\omega _\beta `$ is for the sake of clarifying thermal properties of $`\omega `$ instead of spacetime ones, this discrepancy indicates that local observables involving $`_x`$ should not be counted as local thermal observables suitable for detecting local thermal properties. With all such irrelevant observables excluded, a suitable choice of local thermal observables as “coordinatization map” in iii’) amounts to the linear space $`𝒯_x`$ of point-like fields,

$$𝒯_x:=\underset{p,q}{}𝒩(\widehat{\varphi }_0^p)_{q,x},$$
(13)
consisting of basic fields $`\widehat{\varphi }_0(x)`$ at $`x`$ together with their normal products $`𝒩(\widehat{\varphi }_0^p)_{q,x}`$.

What is remarkable about $`𝒯_x`$ is its natural hierarchical nesting structure ordered by indices $`m,p,q`$ related to energy bound and OPE, according to their increasing orders starting from scalar multiples of identity with basic fields $`\widehat{\varphi }_0(x)`$ coming next, and so on. Since $`p`$-point functions with larger $`p`$ govern those with smaller $`p`$, this hierarchy has an operationally intrinsic meaning in such a form as “the larger $`p`$, the finer resolution of thermal properties is provided by $`𝒩(\widehat{\varphi }_0^p)_{q,x}`$, $`q>0`$”. In this context, macroscopic properties of thermal states are expected to be described by subspaces $`𝒩(\widehat{\varphi }_0^p)_{q,x}`$ with smaller $`p`$,$`q`$.

—Macroscopic interpretations of $`𝒯_x`$

We now examine how these local thermal observables in $`𝒯_x`$ provide information about macroscopic thermal properties of states in $`K`$. This is materialized by thermal functions as macroscopic observables as follows. In thermodynamics, the physical contents of relevant thermodynamic quantities like internal energy, entropy, etc., are specified by their dependence on temperature (together with other necessary thermodynamic parameters like pressure, chemical potentials, etc.). In parallel with this, all intensive thermal parameters associated with states in $`K`$ can be represented here by functions $`B_K(\beta ,\mu )F(\beta ,\mu )`$, which we call thermal functions.

The relation between quantum local thermal observables and classical macroscopic observables is described by a map $`𝒞`$ associating a thermal function $`𝒞(A)`$ to each quantum observable $`A𝒜`$ or $`𝒯_x`$ by

$$𝒞:A𝒞(A):=[(\beta ,\mu )\omega _{\beta ,\mu }(A)]C(B_K).$$
(14)
In the case where all the thermal reference states $`\omega _\beta `$ are translation invariant, the thermal function $`𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ corresponding to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒯_x`$ is $`x`$-independent, which is invalidated, for instance, by the crystalline structures to break the spatial homogeneity, though. In the special case of no phase transitions where we have $`\omega _\beta \alpha _{(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)}^1=\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }`$, the thermal function $`𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ even becomes an $`x`$-independent Lorentz tensor in $`\beta `$.

We see now that thermal interpretation of each $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒯_x`$ is given by thermal function $`(\beta ,\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_x(\beta ,\mu )=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))(\beta ,\mu )=\omega _{\beta ,\mu }(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ (which amounts to recording the mean values of a local thermal observable $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)`$ in all equilibrium states $`\omega _{\beta ,\mu }`$).

Since the map $`𝒞`$ is normalized and positive linear, $`𝒞(\mathrm{𝟏})=1,𝒞(\widehat{A}^{}\widehat{A})0`$ taking values in a commutative algebra $`C(B_K)`$, it is a completely positive (CP) map characterized by the condition $`_{ij=1}^n\overline{f}_i𝒞(\widehat{A}_i^{}\widehat{A}_j)f_j0`$ for $`n,f_1,\mathrm{},f_nC(B_K)`$ and $`\widehat{A}_1,\mathrm{},A_n𝒜`$. The dual map $`𝒞^{}`$ of CP map $`𝒞`$ defined on states by

$`𝒞^{}(\rho )(\widehat{A})=\rho (𝒞(\widehat{A}))={\displaystyle _{B_K}}𝑑\rho (\beta ,\mu )𝒞(\widehat{A})(\beta ,\mu )={\displaystyle _{B_K}}𝑑\rho (\beta ,\mu )\omega _{\beta ,\mu }(\widehat{A}),`$
$`𝒞^{}(\rho )={\displaystyle _{B_K}}𝑑\rho (\beta ,\mu )\omega _{\beta ,\mu }=\omega _\rho K,`$ (15)
becomes a classical-quantum (c$``$q) channel  $`𝒞^{}:Th\rho 𝒞^{}(\rho )K`$, mapping classical probabilities $`\rho `$ into quantum states $`𝒞^{}(\rho )K`$. (Recall that $`Th=M_1(B_K)`$ is the space of classical thermal states identified with probability measures $`\rho `$ on $`B_K`$ describing the mean values of thermodynamic parameters $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ together with their fluctuations.) Measuring a local thermal observable $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒯_x`$ in this thermal reference state $`𝒞^{}(\rho )`$, we obtain

$$𝒞^{}(\rho )(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=_{B_K}𝑑\rho (\beta ,\mu )\omega _{\beta ,\mu }(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=_{B_K}𝑑\rho (\beta ,\mu )[𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))](\beta ,\mu )=\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }_x).$$
(16)
Thus the thermal interpretation of a quantum observable $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)`$ in all thermal reference states of the form $`𝒞^{}(\rho )=\omega _\rho K`$ is given by the corresponding macroscopic thermal function $`𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ evaluated with the classical probability $`d\rho (\beta ,\mu )`$ which describes the fluctuations of thermodynamic configurations $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ in $`\omega _\rho `$.

This applies to the case where $`\rho `$ is already known. What we need in the actual situations is how to determine the unknown $`\rho `$ from the given data list $`\mathrm{\Phi }\omega _\rho (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }_x)`$ of expectation values of thermal functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ (which is the problem of state estimation): this problem can be solved if $`𝒯_x`$ has sufficiently many local thermal observables so that the image $`𝒞(𝒯_x)`$ of $`𝒯_x`$ is dense in $`C(B_K)`$ so as to approximate arbitrary continuous functions of $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ (which need be checked in each concrete model). In this case $`\rho `$ is given as the unique solution to a (generalized) “moment problem”. Thus we see:

* If the set $`𝒯_x`$ of local thermal observables is large enough to discriminate all the thermal reference states in $`K`$, any reference state $`K`$ can be written as $`𝒞^{}(\rho )`$ in terms of a uniquely determined probability measure $`\rho `$ on $`B_K`$ describing the statistical fluctuations of thermal parameters in the state in question. Then local thermal observables $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒯_x`$ provide the same information on the thermal properties of states in $`K`$ as that provided by the corresponding classical macroscopic thermal functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ \[e.g., internal energy, entropy density, etc.\]: $`\omega _\rho (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\rho (\mathrm{\Phi })`$.

In this situation, any continuous function $`F`$ on compact $`BV_+`$ can be approximated by thermal functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ with arbitrary precision, even if $`F`$ itself is not an image of $`𝒞`$. In spite of the absence of quantum $`\widehat{s}(x)𝒯_x`$ s.t. $`\omega _\beta (\widehat{s}(x))=s(\beta )`$: entropy density, $`s(\beta )`$ can be treated as an approximate thermal function.

The above ($`\mathrm{}`$) ensures the existence of inverse of c$``$q channel $`𝒞^{}`$ on $`K`$:

$$K\omega _\rho =𝒞^{}(\rho )(𝒞^{})^1(\omega _\rho )=\rho Th,$$
(17)
and the thermal interpretation of thermal reference states $`K`$ is just given by this q $``$c channel $`(𝒞^{})^1:\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\omega }\mathrm{\rho }\mathrm{T}\mathrm{h}`$ s.t. $`\omega =𝒞^{}(\rho )`$ (, which can be regarded as a simple adaptation and extension of the notions of classifying spaces and classifying maps to the context involving (quantum) probability theory). We express formally the essence of the above situation ($`\mathrm{}`$) by

$$K(\omega ,𝒞^{}(\rho ))/𝒯_x\stackrel{qc}{}Th((𝒞^{})^1(\omega ),\rho )/𝒞(𝒯_x),$$
(18)
with a quantum state $`\omega E_x`$ and a probability measure $`\rho Th`$. (The precise meaning of this can be understood as a categorical adjunction between two functors given by c $``$q ($`𝒞^{}`$) and q $``$c ($`(𝒞^{})^1`$) channels which connect $`K`$ and $`Th`$ both regarded as groupoids<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1A groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is, roughly speaking, a generalization of a group so that there are many unit elements constituting a set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Each element $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has its source $`s(\gamma )`$ and target $`r(\gamma )`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and these points are thought to be connected by $`\gamma `$, $`s(\gamma )\stackrel{𝛾}{}r(\gamma )`$, in an invertible way: $`r(\gamma )\stackrel{\gamma ^1}{}s(\gamma )`$. Two elements $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are not always composable but $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ is meaningful only when $`r(\gamma _2)=s(\gamma _1)`$. There is a one-to-one and onto correspondence between a groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and an equivalence relation $``$ on a set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ through \[$`ab`$ for $`a,b`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$\] $``$ \[$`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ s.t. $`a=r(\gamma )`$ and $`b=s(\gamma )`$\]. As a category, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is one with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ as the set of objects and with all its morphisms being invertible. In our case, they are defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0:=K`$ or $`Th`$ together with the equivalence relation $`\underset{𝒯_x}{}`$ or $`\underset{𝒞(𝒯_x)}{}`$, respectively. corresponding to the equivalence relations $`\omega _1\underset{𝒯_x}{}\omega _2`$ and $`\rho _1\underset{𝒞(𝒯_x)}{}\rho _2`$ defined, respectively, by $`(\omega _1\omega _2)(𝒯_x)=\{0\}`$ and $`(\rho _1\rho _2)(𝒞(𝒯_x))=\{0\}`$; in the form (18), the essence of ($`\mathrm{}`$) can be generalized to wider contexts as selection criteria to choose states of relevance .) From the conceptual viewpoint, what is important here is that two different levels, quatum statistical mechanics with family $`K`$ of mixtures of KMS states and macroscopic thermodynamics described by $`Th`$ of probability measures of fluctuating thermal parameters on the parameter space $`B_K`$, are so interrelated by the two channels, c $``$q ($`𝒞^{}`$) and q $``$c ($`(𝒞^{})^1`$), that the following two points are simultaneously attained:

a) characterization of thermal reference states $`K`$ as image of $`𝒞^{}`$, $`\omega _\rho =𝒞^{}(\rho )`$: selection criterion for $`K`$,

b) thermal interpretation of selected states in $`K`$ in terms of classical data, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ and $`\rho =(𝒞^{})^1(\omega _\rho )`$.

Then the problem is now boiled down into how to select suitable classes of non-equilibrium states $`\omega K`$ in such a way that some thermal interpretations are still guaranteed. This is what to be answered in the next section.

## 4 Characterization of non-equilibrium local states by hierarchized zeroth law of local thermodynamics and their thermal interpretations

Hierarchized zeroth law of local thermodynamics : to meet simultaneously the two requirements of characterizing an unkown state $`\omega `$ as a non-equilibrium local state and of establishing its thermal interpretation in a similar way to the above a) and b), we compare $`\omega `$ with thermal reference states $`K=𝒞^{}(Th)`$ by means of local thermal observables $`𝒯_x`$ at $`x`$ whose physical meanings are exhibited by the associated thermal functions $`𝒞(𝒯_x)`$.

In view of the above conclusion \[q$``$c channel $`(𝒞^{})^1`$= thermal interpretation of quantum states\] and also of the hierarchy in $`𝒯_x`$, we relax the requirement for $`\omega `$ to agree with $`\omega _\rho :=𝒞^{}(\rho _x)K`$ up to some suitable subspace $`𝒮_x`$ of $`𝒯_x`$. Then, we characterize $`\omega `$ as a non-equilibrium local state by the equalities

$$\omega (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=\omega _{\rho _x}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=𝒞^{}(\rho _x)(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))$$
(19)
valid for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒮_x`$. Namely, the unknown $`\omega `$ should look like a thermal reference state $`\omega _{\rho _x}`$ as far as the thermal properties described by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒮_x`$ are concerned. We denote this selection criterion by

$$\omega \underset{𝒮_x}{}𝒞^{}(\rho _x),$$
(20)
and call such $`\omega `$ an $`𝒮_x`$-thermal state. In terms of thermal functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x:=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))𝒞(𝒮_x)`$, this can be rewritten as

$$\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })(x):=\omega (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))=\rho _x(\mathrm{\Phi }_x).$$
(21)
So, $`\omega `$: $`𝒮_x`$-thermal implies that the selection criterion $`\omega \underset{𝒮_x}{}𝒞^{}(\rho _x)`$ can be “solved” conditionally in favour of $`\rho _x`$ as $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(𝒞^{})^1\mathrm{"}(\omega )\underset{𝒞(𝒮_x)}{}\rho _x`$, which provides the local thermal interpretation of $`\omega `$ . Physically this means the state $`\omega `$ looks like a thermal equilibirum $`𝒞^{}(\rho _x)`$ locally at $`x`$ to within a level controlled by a subset $`𝒮_x`$ of thermal observables.

To be precise mathematically, we need here to be careful about the meaning of such a heuristic expression as $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(𝒞^{})^1\mathrm{"}(\omega )`$ for $`\omega K`$ in relation to our observation above: $`\omega K=𝒞^{}(Th)`$. As we shall see below, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(𝒞^{})^1\mathrm{"}`$ outside of $`K`$ is certainly not a q$``$c channel preserving the positivity, whereas it can be seen to be still definable on the states $`\omega `$ selected out by the above criterion Eq.(20), by means of its equivalent reformulation given by:

###### Criterion 1

For a subspace $`𝒮_x`$ of $`𝒯_x`$ containing $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, a state $`\omega E_x`$ is $`𝒮_x`$-thermal iff there is a compact set $`BV_+`$ s.t.

$`|\omega (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))|`$ $`\tau _B(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)):=\underset{(\beta ,\mu )B_K,\beta B}{sup}|\omega _{\beta ,\mu }(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))|`$
$`=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))_B,\text{for }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒮_x.`$ (22)
(The above semi-norm is well-defined under the condition that $`B_K(\beta ,\mu )\omega _{\beta ,\mu }K`$ is (weakly) continuous, which requires singularities of critical points to be excluded from our considerations.)

While the requirement for $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(𝒞^{})^1\mathrm{"}(\omega )`$ to be a probability measure forces $`\omega `$ to be among the reference states belonging to $`K`$, the above inequality (22) combined with the Hahn-Banach extension theorem (under the assumption for $`\tau _B`$ to be a norm) allows us to extend $`𝒞(𝒮_x)𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))\omega (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ as a linear functional defined on $`𝒞(𝒮_x)`$ to one $`\nu `$ defined on $`\overline{𝒞(𝒯_x)}=C(B_K)`$, which should not be a positive-definite measure but is a signed measure: $`\nu =\nu _+\nu _{}`$, $`0\nu _\pm C(B_K)_+^{}`$, $`\nu _{}0`$, $`\nu _{}_{𝒞(𝒮_x)}=0`$, $`𝒞^{}(\nu _+)_{𝒮_x}=\omega `$ $`_{𝒮_x}`$. The similar argument for this has already been used in  to ensure the existence of a genuine non-equilibrium local state $`\omega `$ which is $`𝒮_x`$-thermal with finite-dimensional subspace $`𝒮_x`$ at a lower level of hierarchy in $`𝒯_x`$, but which shows deviations from $`K`$ for observables outside of $`𝒮_x`$. (See this discussion also for the case with $`\tau _B`$ being a semi-norm.) Thus, understanding the meaning of $`(𝒞^{})^1(\omega )`$ as the set of inverse images of $`\omega `$ under $`𝒞^{}`$ in the space $`C(B_K)^{}`$ of linear functionals,

$`(𝒞^{})^1(\omega ):=`$ $`\{\nu C(B_K)^{};\nu =\nu _+\nu _{},\nu _\pm 0,`$
$`\nu _{}_{𝒞(𝒮_x)}=0,𝒞^{}(\nu _+)_{𝒮_x}=\omega _{𝒮_x}\};`$ (23)
we can put Eq.(20) into the similar form to Eq.(18) as

$$E_x(\omega ,𝒞^{}(\rho _x))/𝒮_x\stackrel{qc}{}Th((𝒞^{})^1(\omega ),[\rho _x])/𝒞(𝒮_x),$$
(24)
where $`[\rho _x]:=\{\sigma Th;\sigma _{𝒞(𝒮_x)}=\rho _x_{𝒞(𝒮_x)}\}`$ enters here owing to the non-uniqueness of $`\rho _xTh`$ in Eq.(20). This relation can be viewed as a form of “hierarchized zeroth law of local thermodynamics”; the reason for mentioning the “zeroth law” here is due to the implicit relevance of measuring processes of local thermal observables validating the above equalities, which require the contacts of two bodies, measured object(s) and measuring device(s), in a local thermal equilibrium, conditional on the chosen $`𝒮_x`$. (The transitivity of this contact relation just corresponds to the localized and hierarchized version of the standard zeroth law of thermodynamics.)

It is interesting to note that, in view of the relation

$`\nu `$ $`=\nu _+\nu _{}(𝒞^{})^1(\omega )\text{ with }\nu _{}=0(𝒞^{})^1(\omega )=\{\nu \}Th`$
$`\omega K\text{[maximal choice of }𝒮_x^{}\text{ s.t. }𝒞^{}(\nu _+)_{𝒮_x^{}}=\omega _{𝒮_x^{}}\text{]}=𝒯_x,`$ (25)
we can specify the extent to which a non-equilibrium $`𝒮_x`$-thermal $`\omega `$ deviates from equilibria belonging to $`K`$ by the failure of state positivity ($`\nu _{}0`$) and can also measure it by the maximal size of $`𝒮_x^{}`$ within the hierarchy of subspaces $`𝒮_x^{}`$ in $`𝒯_x`$ such that $`𝒮_x^{}𝒮_x`$, $`\nu _{}_{𝒞(𝒮_x^{})}=0`$ with all the possible choices of $`\nu (𝒞^{})^1(\omega )`$: owing to the presence of $`\nu _{}`$, $`\omega `$ ceases to be $`𝒮_x^{}`$-thermal when $`𝒮_x^{}`$ is so enlarged that $`\nu _{}_{𝒞(𝒮_x^{})}=0`$ is invalidated, which shows that $`\omega `$ shares with reference states in $`K`$ only gross thermal properties described by smaller $`𝒮_x^{}`$. In this sense, the hierarchy of $`𝒮_x^{}`$ in $`𝒯_x`$ should have a close relationship with the thermodynamic hierarchy at various scales appearing in the transitions between non-equilibrium and equilibrium controlled by certain family of coarse graining procedures. Thus, we see that our selection criterion can give a characterization of states identifiable as non-equilibrium ones and, at the same time, provide associated relevant physical interpretations of the selected states in a systematic way.

—Fluctuations of thermal quantities; temperature as a physical quantity—

The present framework allows one also to judge whether a thermal function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has locally a sharply specified value in a state $`\omega `$ or is statistically fluctuating, which can be implemented if $`𝒮_x`$ is large enough for the mean value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ together with its fluctuations to be determined within it. For instance, if $`𝒮_x`$ contains local observables $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(x)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(x)`$ corresponding respectively to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(x))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x^2=𝒞(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(x))`$, we have a thermal function $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_x\kappa \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})^2=𝒞(\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\kappa (x))`$ with

$$\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\kappa (x):=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(x)2\kappa \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(x)+\kappa ^2\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},\kappa .$$
(26)
Since this is non-negative in all thermal reference states $`K`$ and vanishes only in those states with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ having a sharp value $`\kappa `$, we can conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ at $`x`$ has the sharp value $`\kappa `$ in such an $`𝒮_x`$-thermal state $`\omega `$ that $`\omega (\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\kappa (x))=0`$.

In virtue of this scheme it is meaningful to treat the (inverse) temperature $`\beta `$ as a real physical quantity to be determined a posteriori through its measurements, which is in sharp contrast to the standard idea in statistical mechanics of treating it as an a priori given parameter. Choosing suitable spaces $`𝒮_x`$ (which is finite dimensional in generic cases ), we can select a state $`\omega `$ having locally a sharp temperature vector $`\beta _x`$, i.e., $`\omega \underset{𝒮_x}{}\omega _{\beta _x}`$. In this case, all thermal functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ corresponding to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)𝒮_x`$ have locally definite values. Concerning the possible objections against the introduction of a temperature $`\beta _x`$ (as well as any kind of thermal objects) at a point $`x`$ (without any extension), it is important to recall here that any state $`\omega E_x`$ relevant to our present context is already extended in spacetime effectively, owing to the regularity condition (7) imposed on it. In this sense, the point $`x`$ in $`\beta _x`$ should not literally be understood to refer to a strictly microscopic spacetime point but to a macroscopic one with certain fuzzy extensions, which is taken into account on the side of chosen states.

—Space-time evolution of thermal properties—

Extending our formalism from a point $`x`$ to a (finitely extended) subregion $`𝒪^4`$, we can now incorporate local states with thermal interpretation in $`𝒪`$. For simplicity, we keep the set of thermal functions fixed in each region, by identifying the spaces $`𝒮_x`$, $`x𝒪`$ through translations:

$$𝒮_x:=\alpha _x(𝒮_0),x𝒪.$$
(27)
With this convention understood, we say that a state $`\omega E_𝒪`$ is $`𝒮_𝒪`$-thermal in $`𝒪`$, if there exists $`\omega _{\rho (x)}K`$ for each $`x𝒪`$, s.t. $`\omega \underset{𝒮_x}{}\omega _{\rho (x)}`$. The resulting functions $`𝒪x\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })(x):=\omega (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x))`$ describe the space-time behaviour of mean values of thermal functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Hence they provide the link between microscopic dynamics $`\alpha _x`$ and the evolution  $`x\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })(x)`$ of macroscopic thermal properties, i.e. thermo-dynamics of states. We have reached the same level as the familiar local formulation of manifolds at the beginning.

On this setting, thermal functions in a state near equilibrium are generally shown to satisfy a linear evolution equations, which can be viewed as a generalization of low energy theorems to thermal situations. This is consistent with interpretation of perturbations to equilibrium in terms of quasi-particles.

The two goals of identifying non-equilibrium local states admitting local thermal interpretation and of describing their specific thermodynamic properties are solved simultaneously by the above selection criterion based upon a localized and hierarchized form of the zeroth law of thermodynamics. In this framework, we have identified at least three different kinds of sources of derivations of an $`𝒮_x`$-thermal non-equilibrium local state $`\omega E_x`$ from the genuine equilibrium states $`\omega _\beta `$ as

* spacetime dependence of thermal parameters such as temperature distributions $`x\beta (x)`$,
* statistical fluctuations of thermal parameters at $`x`$ described by probability distributions $`d\rho _x(\beta )Th`$,

and

* essential deviations of local states $`\omega E_x`$ from states in $`K`$ expressed by the positivity-violating term $`\nu _{}0`$ in $`\nu =\nu _+\nu _{}(𝒞^{})^1(\omega )C(B_K)^{}`$ with $`\nu _{}_{𝒞(𝒮_x)}=0,𝒞^{}(\nu _+)_{𝒮_x}=\omega _{𝒮_x}`$.

For concrete examples to exhibit the basic features, see . Here discussions have been focused on the conceptual aspects developed in .

## 5 General-relativistic extension: global vs. local and flat vs. curved

–Global vs. local–

Looking back over what is done so far, we notice here some room for further improvements and generalizations in view of such restricted choices of global KMS states  on the side of thermal reference states. When compared with our motivating discussion of manifolds, it also looks strange that the whole theory is restricted only to within the flat Minkowski spacetime  in spite of the emphasis on the local aspects of states to be examined. Actually, in the comparison of an unknown state $`\omega `$ with a known reference state $`\omega _\rho K`$, the latter serves only to provide a reference data set $`\omega _\rho (A)`$ involving local thermal observables $`A𝒯_x`$ or $`𝒮_x`$ near the focus point $`x`$, which requires only the local restrictions of states $`\omega _\rho K`$ onto small neighbourhoods of $`x`$ (i.e., local state germs in $`KE_x`$). Therefore, once the reference states $`\omega _\rho `$ can properly be specified within small neighbourhoods of spacetime, we expect the freedom to go across the barriers separating the flat and curved spacetimes, existing at the global level but irrelevant locally. Such a possibility can naturally be read off in our selection criterion formulated as a relation of comparison (more appropriately, a categorical adjunction), Eq.(24), which is not necessarily required to be a strict equality between $`\omega `$ and $`𝒞^{}(\rho )`$ but should be a well-defined and suitably controllable relation, as is common in many cases of reference to standard objects constituting a model space, such as local charts referring to $`^n`$ in manifolds. On the basis of this observation, a more flexible setting up is envisaged to emerge through such a possibility that unknown $`\omega `$ to be examined can be generalized to those states living in curved background spacetimes: the mathematical basis for this physical ideas can already be found in the notions of local definiteness and/or local normality (see ), which allow one to treat generic localized states of quantum fields in curved spacetime backgrounds in the same Hilbert space of the vacuum representation in the Minkowski spacetime.

–Flat vs. curved spacetimes–

From the above point of view, we try now to extend the previous scheme to the situation with quantum fields in a curved spacetime by restricting the original thermal reference states to local small regions in the flat Minkowski spacetime. Note here that, in sharp contrast to the examined unknown $`\omega `$ being allowed to be a state in a curved spacetime, the reference states $`\omega _\rho `$ are understood as the local restrictions of mixtures of global KMS states still living in the flat Minkowski spacetime; this is not only in harmony with the line of thought found in our starting discussion of manifolds taking the flat $`^n`$ as the model space, but also is a very important and inevitable choice necessitated by the possible absence of appropriate vacua and/or KMS states in generic curved spacetimes.

In spite of the inherent slight delocalization of our selected states $`\omega `$ due to the condition (7), we can here benefit from the expressions referring to one spacetime point $`x`$ as follows. To a small neighbourhood of a point $`x`$ in a curved spacetime $`M`$ we can apply Einstein’s basic idea of equivalence principle based upon the free-falling frame at $`x`$ whose mathematical expression can be found in the notion of normal coordinates , the coordinates along geodesic flows starting from $`x`$ which are always definable in some neighbourhood $`𝒪_0`$ of the origin $`0`$ of the tangent space $`T_x(M)`$ at $`x`$ even for incomplete geodesic flows, $`Exp_x:(T_x(M))𝒪_0Exp_x(𝒪_0)=𝒪_x()M`$. Corresponding to this local diffeomorphism $`Exp_x`$, we can define a mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ to transform locally a QFT defined in a flat $`𝒪_0(^4)`$ into the local restriction of a QFT in curved $`M`$ on its small neighbourhood $`𝒪_x`$ of $`x`$ (owing to the functoriality in the definition of quantum fields on curved spacetimes ): $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x:𝒜_0(𝒪_0)𝒜_M(𝒪_x)`$, where $`𝒪𝒜_0(𝒪)`$ and $`𝒪𝒜_M(𝒪)`$ denote the corresponding local nets, respectively, on the flat Minkowski spacetime and on a curved spacetime $`M`$. Then what we need is simply to modify our selection criterion Eq.(24) into $`E_{M,x}(\omega ,𝒞_x^{}(\rho ))/\mathrm{\Phi }_x(𝒮_0):=E_0(\omega \mathrm{\Phi }_x,𝒞^{}(\rho ))/𝒮_0\stackrel{qc}{}Th((𝒞_x^{})^1(\omega ),[\rho ])/𝒞(𝒮_0)`$, where $`E_{M,x}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x(𝒮_0)`$ are the sets of local thermal states and of local thermal observables, respectively, at $`x`$ in the curved spacetime $`M`$ and $`𝒞_x=𝒞\mathrm{\Phi }_x^1`$. In this way, our formulation of non-equilibrium local states can safely be extended to the general-relativistic context by simple restriction of reference states onto small neighbourhoods. (While the set $`K_{M,x}`$ of reference states at $`x`$ in a curved spacetime $`M`$ can simply be defined here as the image $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{})^1(K)`$ of the corresponding set $`K`$ on the flat spacetime through the normal coordinates $`Exp_x`$ in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-context, the intrinsic characterization of the notions in $`M`$ related to the KMS condition will certainly require the analytic structure on $`M`$, as is the case in the discussion of analytic wavefront sets in .)

–Interacting vs. free–

In view of our focus on small neighbourhoods of a spacetime point, the local normality allows us to treat the effects of interactions as a perturbation to the free dynamics, without complications related to the thermodynamic limit such as the Haag theorem, at least, at the abstract levels. Therefore, it will be very convenient if we can choose free field models for the reference system ; this will not only make the reference states more accessible to the practical computations, but also conceptually appealing in relation to the physical origin of temperature referring to the ideal gas in the equation of states as well as Bolzmann’s kinetic definition of it. To implement this idea, however, we should solve the difficulty taking the familiar form of ultraviolet divergences. While the combined use of the regularity condition (7) imposed on the states of relevance and the normal products in OPE can remove divergences order by order systematically in the perturbation, the available methods are not powerful enough to remove the full-order divergences at once, in spite of all the up-dated attractive tools for regularizing and renormalizing these divergences (e.g., the use of energy bounds, OPE , local perturbation scheme  of Epstein-Glaser type and Connes-Kreimer method  of renormalization). If we succeed in finding a satisfactory reason for terminating the perturbative expansions at some finite orders, then the algebraically formulated local perturbation scheme  will become physically relevant. Aside from this long-standing problem, what is also important in the present context is to attain the effective separation between order parameters to describe non-trivial structures in phase diagrams due to interactions and small fluctuations within fixed phases which are expected to be described by particle-like modes (). In any case, it seems still premature to expect a practical and satisfactory solution to our desire in this direction.

Extrapolating the above logical lines, we can formulate  a unified scheme for generalized sectors (discrete and/or continuous) based upon selection criteria, which provides new physical operational interpretations of superselection theory, extends it to spontaneously broken symmetries, and exhibits close relationship of basic notions in quantum measurement theory with those in control theory , such as the notions of measurement scheme  and state preparation processes in connection with realizability and reachability, respectively, constituting the core of the latter. It would be important to note that applicability domain of a given theory is, in principle, encoded in this scheme in the matching relation between a chosen selection criterion for relevant states and the available observables.