abstract: A locally causal hidden-variable theory of quantum physics need not be constrained by the Bell inequalities if this theory also partially violates the measurement independence condition. However, such violation can appear unphysical, implying implausible conspiratorial correlations between the hidden-variables of particles being measured and earlier determinants of instrumental settings. A novel physically plausible explanation for such correlations is proposed, based on the hypothesis that states of physical reality lie precisely on a non-computational measure-zero dynamically invariant set in the state space of the universe: the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate. To illustrate the relevance of the concept of a global invariant set, a simple analogy is considered where a massive object is propelled into a black hole depending on the decay of a radioactive atom. It is claimed that a locally causal hidden-variable theory constrained by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate can violate the CHSH inequality without being conspiratorial, superdeterministic, fine-tuned or retrocausal, and the theory readily accommodates the classical compatibilist notion of (experimenter) free will.
author: T.N.Palmer
Department of Physics, University of Oxford
bibliography: mybibliography.bib
title: Bell's Conspiracy, Schrödinger's Black Cat and Global Invariant Sets

# Introduction

It is well known that a locally causal hidden-variable theory of quantum physics need not be constrained by the Bell inequalities if this theory also violates the measurement independence condition (\| a, b)= (\| a', b') for all $a, a', b, b'$. Here $\rho(\lambda| a, b)$ denotes a probability density function over some hidden-variable $\lambda$, conditional on the orientations of Alice and Bob's measuring apparatuses, represented by the points $a$ and $a'$ (for Alice), and $b$ and $b'$ (for Bob), on the unit sphere. In fact, it may only be necessary to violate () partially , suggesting that this might be a fruitful area to explore in order to create viable realistic causal theories of fundamental physics. However, an important objection to any proposed violation of measurement independence is that it can give rise to correlations that seemingly have no basis in physical theory, suggesting some implausible conspiracy operating in the universe at large.

Consider the example proposed by Bell himself where a measurement orientation is set by some pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). The output of the PRNG is determined by, and depends sensitively on, some input variable. For example, the value of the most significant digit of the output variable may depend on the value of the millionth digit of the input variable. In Bell's own words:

> …this particular piece of information is unlikely to be the vital piece for any distinctively different purpose, i.e. is otherwise rather useless.

Hence, if we seek to violate measurement independence, even partially, then we must explain how the value of this millionth digit can somehow correlated with the value of the hidden variable of the particles being measured. This becomes especially problematic when we realise that the PRNG may be run months (or indeed billions of years, see ) before the particles being measured are actually produced as part of the experimental procedure. One proposal to explain such correlations is retrocausality .

Here, an alternative and novel way to understand these correlations is proposed, based on the concept of global invariant sets in state space, and fractal invariant sets in particular. Importantly, local properties of such sets cannot be determined by finite algorithm - they are formally non-computational. Whilst generic to a broad class of nonlinear dynamical system, fractal invariant sets are not especially familiar concepts to many quantum physicists and philosophers. Hence, in Section , to illustrate the power of the global invariant set in providing a new perspective on this long-studied problem, we consider a simple analogy: a gedanken experiment in which, depending on whether a radioactive atom decays, a massive object is fired into a black hole. We consider the temporal correlation between the size of the black hole at $t_0$, as determined by the radius of its event horizon $\mathscr H ^+ (t_0)$, and the (supposed) hidden variable of the radioactive atom at $t_1$. The existence of such a correlation, even when $t_0 \ll t_1$, is easy to understand (without conspiracy or retrocausality) if we take into account the fact that $\mathscr H ^+$ is a globally defined invariant subset of space time. In particular, like the fractal invariant set, $\mathscr H^+(t_0)$'s local properties cannot be defined from the neighbouring space-time geometry near $t_0$.

Two properties of fractal attracting invariant sets in state space are discussed in Section : their non-computability, and the notion that such sets are, in a well defined sense, 'large' when looked at from the inside, yet 'small' when looked at from the outside. The key thesis which underpins the subsequent analysis in this paper is then proposed: that states of physical reality lie precisely on a (fractal) invariant set in the state space of the universe - the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate. In Section it is shown how a development of these ideas, referred to as Invariant Set Theory, can nullify the CHSH version of the Bell Theorem, determinism and causality notwithstanding. In Section it is shown that the proposed nullification suffers from none of the familiar objections: it is not conspiratorial, it does not need retrocausality, the theory is not superdeterministic or fine tuned, it is robust under small perturbations, and experimenters are not prevented from measuring particle spins relative to any direction they may wish to measure. Despite this, the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate is manifestly not classical. Based on the discussion in this paper, in Section , some remarks are made about the relevance of the complex Hilbert Space as a description of physical reality.

# Schrödinger's Black Cat

Consider the following simple gedanken experiment. If a given radioactive atom decays (within a certain period of time) then a massive object - which could in principle be a cat in a box - is propelled into a black hole. If the radioactive atom does not decay, the massive object remains some distance from the black hole in question.

The mass and hence size of the black hole are therefore dependent on the decay of the radioactive atom. As shown in Fig , let the size of the black hole in the case where the radioactive atom does not decay be equal to the radius $r(t)$ of the event horizon $\mathscr H ^+$, where $t$ labels a family of spacelike hypersurfaces which intersect $\mathscr H ^+$. Fig shows a second null surface lying at a radius $r'(t)> r(t)$. If the radioactive atom does decay at time $t_1$ then whilst for $t<t_1$ it appears that this null surface will escape to future null infinity, $\mathscr I ^+$, in fact after the object has fallen into the black hole, increasing its mass, this null surface becomes trapped. The second null surface can be assumed to correspond to the event horizon of the black hole in the case where the atom decays. Hence at $t_0<t_1$ the size of the black hole is bigger if the atom decays at $t_1$ than if it doesn't. If the mass of the 'cat+box' is large enough, then even at times $t_0 \ll t_1$, it is possible that $r'(t_0) \gg r(t_0)$.

In the conventional language of quantum theory (assuming the whole system is unobserved) the black hole at the earlier time $t_0$ must be considered a linear superposition of black holes of size $r$ and $r'$. Here we pursue the possibility that quantum physics is indeed underpinned by some causal hidden-variable theory. Hence, let the decay of the radioactive atom at $t_1$ be determined by the value of some hidden variable $\lambda$. Then, according to the discussion above, the size of the black hole at $t_0 < t_1$ is both well-defined (i.e. not a superposition of sizes) and correlated with $\lambda$ at $t_1$. Instead of a radioactive atom decay, the release of the box could be determined by an experimenter. In this case, the size of the black hole at $t_0$ will be the result of experimenter decision at $t_1$.

A physicist who believed that the size of the black hole at $t_0$ can be determined from the space-time geometry in some neighbourhood of $\mathscr H^+$ at $t_0$ would be faced with a dilemma. Somehow, the black hole would have to 'know' to be the right size at $t_0$ in order to anticipate the decay or non-decay of the atom, or alternatively the experimenter decision, at $t_1$. The apparent dilemma is compounded by the fact that the photons which propagate on $\mathscr H^+$ never interact with the radioactive atom (or experimenter) at $t_1$. To avoid requiring some implausible conspiracy, the physicist may conclude that there may be a retrocausal effect by which information, associated with the decay of the radioactive atom, propagates back in time causing the black hole event horizon to expand at earlier times.

However, in this case there is a simple explanation for the correlation which requires neither conspiracy nor retrocausality. The explanation lies in the fact that $\mathscr H^+$ is defined by a global property of space-time, it being the boundary of null surfaces that escape to $\mathscr I^+$. Consistent with this, the location $r(t_0)$ of $\mathscr H^+$ cannot be determined by the geometry of space time in the neighbourhood of $\mathscr H^+$ at $t_0$. Hence, the correlation is explainable without conspiracy or retrocausality.

# Global Invariant Sets in State Space

Instead of the global geometric constructions in space-time, we now consider global geometric constructions in state space.

Consider a dynamical system $\mathcal D: X_{t_0} \rightarrow X_{t_0+t}$, defined, say, by a set of differential equations $\dot X=F[X]$. An attracting invariant set $I_{\mathcal D}$ is a closed subset of the state space of $\mathcal D$ with the properties (see e.g. ):

-   If $X_{t_0} \in {I}_{\mathcal D}$ then $X_{t_0+t} \in {I}_{\mathcal D}$ for all $t$.

-   $I_{\mathcal D}$ attracts an open set of initial conditions. That is, there is an open neighbourhood $\mathcal U$ containing ${I}_{\mathcal D}$ such that if $X(0) \in \mathcal U$, then the distance from $X(t)$ to $I _ {\mathcal D}$ tends to zero as $t \rightarrow \infty$. The largest such $\mathcal U$ is called the basin of attraction of $\mathcal {I}_{\mathcal D}$.

-   There is no proper subset of ${I}_{\mathcal D}$ having the first two properties.

Just as $\mathscr H^+$ is a subset of space-time defined globally, so $I_{\mathcal D}$ is a subset of state space defined globally. One can readily give simple examples of dynamical systems with attracting invariant sets. Consider for example the dynamical system whose evolution equations are $$\dot r=r(1-r^2) \;\;\;\; \dot \theta=1$$ in polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$. It is easily shown that all trajectories spiral asymptotically towards a limit cycle at $r=1$. The attracting invariant set is the subset of points where $r=1$. More generally, there is a generic class of nonlinear dynamical systems where the attracting invariant sets are not such simple subsets, but are fractal eg the Lorenz attractor $I_L$, derived from the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lorenz}
\dot X &=& -\sigma X + \sigma Y \nonumber \\
\dot Y &=& -XZ+rX-Y \nonumber \\
\dot Z &=&  \;\;\;XY -bZ
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma, r, b >0$. For such dynamical systems there is no formula defining the invariant set. Consider then the question of determining whether a given point in state space lies in $I_L$. One may start with a state known to be in the basin of attraction of $I_L$. However, one would have to integrate the evolution equations for an infinite time before one could be sure that the state had evolved onto the invariant set. One would then integrate for a further time, comparing the evolved state with the chosen point in state space, and stopping if the two were identical. This cannot be achieved by a finite algorithm and one must therefore conclude that the fractal invariant set is not computational. More formally, Blum et al have shown that for decision processes such as this to be solved in finite time, the invariant set must have integral Hausdorff dimension. By definition, fractal attracting invariant sets do not have integral Hausdorff dimension. Dube has shown that some of the classic problems in computation theory that cannot be solved by algorithm, can be recast in terms of fractal geometry. For example, the Post Correspondence Problem is equivalent to that of determining whether a given line intersects the attracting invariant set of an Iterative Function System.

A fractal invariant set can locally be considered the Cartesian product $\mathbb R \times \mathcal C$ where $\mathcal C$ denotes some (multidimensional) Cantor set. The simplest example of a Cantor Set is the ternary set $\mathcal T$, based on the intersection of all iterates $\mathcal T_k$, where $\mathcal T_{k}$ comprises two copies of $\mathcal T_{k-1}$, each copy reduced by a factor of $1/3$. Generalisations of $\mathcal T$ are needed to define invariant set geometries which exhibit quantum probability structure . Key properties shared by all Cantor sets are the following:

-   Relative to the full measure of the Euclidean space in which they are embedded, Cantor Sets have measure zero (i.e. are 'small' when looked at from the outside).

-   Despite this Cantor sets have the cardinality of the continuum (i.e. are 'large' when looked at from the inside.

For example, elements of $\mathcal T$ can be represented by the numbers $0 \le r \le 1$ whose base-3 expansion contain no digit '1'. The probability that a randomly chosen number on the interval $[0,1]$ has such a base-3 expansion is equal to zero. However, if we take the base-3 representation of a point in $\mathcal T$ and replace all occcurrences of '2' with the digit '1', and then interpret that number as a real number in binary form, it can be seen that there are as many points in $\mathcal T$ are there are points in $[0,1]$. The ternary set $\mathcal T$ can be readily generalised, firstly be extending into multiple state-space dimensions (e.g. the Menger Sponge) and secondly by considering restrictions on base-$N$ rather than base-$3$ numbers, where $N>3$. In this way, for large enough $N$ it is possible to construct multidimensional fractals which, whilst still measure zero in their embedding space, do not 'appear' at all gappy (or lacunar ). These are relevant in the discussion below. It should also be noted that a Cantor Set is an example of what, mathematically, is referred to as a 'perfect set". That is to say, given any point of the Cantor Set and any neighbourhood of this point in the embedding space contains another point of the Cantor Set - i.e. the Cantor Set has no isolated points. This is relevant in the discussion about 'superdeterminism' below.

There is an important technique for reconstructing an attracting invariant set using data from a (low-dimensional) dynamical system. It is based on the notion that the dynamics in the full state space can be reconstructed from measurements of just a single component of the state space : The Takens Embedding Theorem. The method is based on time delays. This fact has important conceptual implications discussed later.

We apply these concepts to fundamental physics through the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate : states of physical reality lie precisely on a fractal attracting invariant set $I_U$ of measure zero in the state space of the universe $U$, considered as a dynamical system. A crucial question to ask is: What fundamental physical process could account for the attraction of neighbouring state-space trajectories onto $I_U$? Here we appeal to ideas put forward by Roger Penrose (e.g. ), that the black hole no-hair theorem (and consequent quantum black-hole information loss) should imply the existence of regions of state-space trajectory convergence. The idea is illustrated schematically in Fig , which shows the trajectory of the universe in its state space over a cycle of an assumed quasi-cyclic cosmology. By the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate, this trajectory lies precisely on $I_U$. Shown in Fig are regions of state space (containing black holes) where neighbouring trajectories are converging onto $I_U$. It should be noted that these convergent trajectories do not lie on $I_U$, leading to some important new perspectives on the arrow of time problem that will be addressed elsewhere.

# The Bell Theorem

The relevance of the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate to the Bell Theorem can now be discussed. The key conceptual issues are related to the properties in the two bullets above:

-   $I_U$ is sufficiently small from the perspective of the embedding space that the counterfactual experiments needed to establish the Bell inequality do not lie on $I_U$ and therefore, by postulate, do not correspond to states of physical reality.

-   $I_U$ is sufficiently large that these restrictions do not pose any practical constraints on which experiments experimenters might want to perform. Related to this, the theory which arises out of the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate cannot be said to be 'superdeterministic' or fine tuned in any meaningful sense.

Before discussing these issues in detail, a brief summary of some ongoing technical developments to describe the geometry of $I_U$ using algebraic techniques - something referred to below as 'invariant set theory' (see ).

## Some Technical Preliminaries

As discussed above, locally, $I_U$ can be written as $\mathbb{R} \times \mathcal C$ where $\mathcal C$ is a Cantor Set. That is to say, locally $I_U$ is a Cantor Set of trajectories, each trajectory representing a cosmological space-time. Using the language of symbolic dynamics and recognising Schwinger's symbolic algebraic approach to quantum mechanics, a theoretical framework is developed in which defines a one-to-one mapping (which, importantly, is not a surjection) between a symbolic representation of fractal trajectory bundles on $I_U$ and the (multi-qubit) complex Hilbert Space of quantum theory.

For one qubit, this correspondence can be written $$\label{correspondence}
\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta(000\ldots 0)^T \sim
 \cos\frac{\theta}{2}\;|0\rangle + \sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i \phi}\;|1\rangle$$ where $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta(000\ldots 0)^T$ is a bit string of length $2^N$ comprising the symbols '0' and '1', $N$ is a large but finite integer from which the fractal dimension of $I_U$ is determined, and the superscript 'T' denotes matrix transpose. From the perspective of Invariant Set Theory, the symbols '0' and '1' describe discrete attracting subsets of $I_U$; from a quantum theoretic perspective these symbols describe measurement outcomes[^1]. From the perspective of Invariant Set Theory, the bit strings $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta(000\ldots 0)$ describe a bundle of trajectories belonging to a particular fractal iterate, $\mathcal C_k$ of $\mathcal C$; from a quantum theoretic perspective, these bit strings define the sample spaces from which measurement probabilities are defined. In Invariant Set Theory, $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta$ denotes a two parameter family of negation/permutation operators acting on bit strings, with the multiplicative property of quaternions (and hence Pauli Spin matrices). In particular, the frequency of occurrence of the symbol '0' in $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta(000 \ldots 0)^T$ is equal to $|1-\alpha/2|$. Importantly, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are only defined if their binary representations can be expressed with less than $N$ bits. In particular, $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta$ is undefined if either $\alpha$ or $\beta$ is irrational.

These numbers relate to complex Hilbert Space parameters through the relationships $$\begin{aligned}
\label{incom}
\cos^2 \theta/2&= |1-\alpha/2| \nonumber \\
\phi&=\pi\beta/2
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the frequency of occurrence of the symbol '0' in $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta(000 \ldots 0)^T$ is equal to $\cos^2\theta/2$, and, for example, the eigenstates $|0\rangle$ and $|1 \rangle$ in quantum theory correspond to the bit strings $\mathbf{E}^0_\beta (000 \ldots 0)=(000 \ldots 0)$ and $\mathbf{E}^2_\beta (000 \ldots 0)=(111 \ldots 1)$ respectively. The fractal structure of $I_U$ becomes relevant when considering multiple sequential spin measurements. Since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ must be expressible with $N$ bits, so too must $\theta$ and $\phi$. This means that according to Invariant Set Theory, complex Hilbert Space vectors where either $\theta$ or $\phi$ is not describable by $N$ bits (e.g. are irrational) do not correspond to a sample space of trajectories on the invariant set $I_U$, and therefore, by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate, do not corresponds to a sample space comprising elements of physical reality. Put another way, such Hilbert Space vectors describe physically unreal counterfactual experiments.

The relationship () can be readily extended to $M \ge 1$ qubits, corresponding to $M$ bit strings based on multiple copies of the quaternion operators $\mathbf{E}^\alpha_\beta$. We refer the reader to reference for details.

We can now discuss how precisely invariant set theory fails to be constrained by the Bell inequality, and the CHSH version of it in particular (similar arguments apply to an analysis of the original Bell inequalities ).

## CHSH

Alice and Bob each have a measuring device which has two orientation settings ($a_1$ and $a_2$ for Alice, and $b_1$ and $b_2$ for Bob) and two 'outputs' say $\pm1$. Let the orientations $a_1$, $a_2$, $b_1$ and $b_2$ be represented by four points on the unit sphere (see Fig ). A conventional causal hidden-variable theory is constrained by the CHSH inequality $$\label{chsh}
|\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_1, b_1) - \mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_1, b_2)|+|\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_2, b_1)+\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_2, b_2)| \le 2$$ where each correlation is defined by \_(a_i, b_j)=\_k A(a_i, \_k) B(b_j, \_k) where $A=\pm1$ and $B=\pm1$ denote deterministic (hidden-variable) functions and $\Lambda=\{\lambda_k\}$. As is well known, according to experiment and consistent with quantum theory, with $a_1 \approx 0^\circ$, $a_2 \approx 90^\circ$, $b_1 \approx 45^\circ$, $b_2 \approx 135^\circ$, then the left hand side of () sums to about 2.8, in clear violation of (). Does a causal hidden-variable theory constrained by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate necessarily obey the CHSH inequality? According to the discussion above, for Invariant Set Theory to necessarily obey the CHSH inequality, then the cosine of the angular distance between any pair of the four points $a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2$ must be describable by $O(N)$ bits. If this is possible, then the sample spaces which generate the correlations $\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_1, b_1), \mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_1, b_2), \mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_2, b_1)$ and $\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda}(a_2, b_2)$ can be associated with bit strings of the type $\{a_1, a_2, \ldots a_{2^N}\}$, where $a_i \in \{0,1\}$, and the symbol $0$ denotes a situation where $A \times B=1$ (Alice and Bob agree) and the symbol $1$ denotes a situation where $A \times B = -1$ (Alice and Bob disagree).

However, it is not the case that the cosine of the angular distance between all pairs of points $a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2$ are base-2 rational (and hence cannot be describable by $N$ bits). To see this, first of all note that $\cos \theta_{a_1a_2}$ must be describable by $N$ bits (where $\theta_{a_1a_2}$ denotes the relative orientation between $a_1$ and $a_2$). The reason for this is that it is possible for Alice to measure the spin of a particle with her apparatus oriented with respect to $a_1$, and, with the spin now prepared in the $a_1$ direction, to measure the same particle again with the apparatus oriented in the $a_2$ direction. For an experiment where a particle is prepared in the state associated with $a_1$ and measured in the state associated with $a_2$, then according to Invariant Set Theory, $\cos\theta_{a_1a_2}$ must be describable by $N$ bits. Similarly, $\cos \theta_{b_1b_2}$ must be describable by $N$ bits.

As discussed below, Alice and Bob can be considered, for all practical purposes, free agents. Therefore they can choose, without constraint, any of the following possibilities $\{a_1, b_1\}$, $\{a_1, b_2\}$, $\{a_2, b_1\}$, $\{a_2, b_2\}$. Each of these choices can be associated with a possible invariant set $I_{U_1}$, $I_{U_2}$, $I_{U_3}$ or $I_{U_4}$ respectively. Suppose, without loss of generality, Alice and Bob (independently) choose $a_1$ and $b_1$ respectively, implying that $\cos\theta_{a_1b_1}$ is describable by $N$ bits. By the cosine rule for spherical triangles \_a_2b_1=\_a_1a_2 \_a_1b_1+\_a_1a_2 \_a_1b_1 where $0<\phi< \pi/2$ is the (typically small) angle subtended by the two sides of $\triangle_{a_1a_2b_1}$ at $a_1$ and $\phi/\pi$ is describable by $N$ bits (see Fig 3). Now the first term on the right hand side of () is the product of two terms, each of which is describable by $N$ bits. Hence the product is base-2 rational. However, by a simple number theorem, $\cos \phi$ cannot be base-2 rational. Hence the left hand side of () cannot be base-2 rational, and in particular cannot not describable by $N$ bits, no matter how big is $N$. The theorem is:

$\mathbf{Theorem}$. Let $\phi/\pi \in \mathbb{Q}$. Then $\cos \phi \notin \mathbb{Q}$ except when $\cos \phi =0, \pm 1/2, \pm 1$.

$\mathbf{Proof}$. We derive a *reductio ad absurdum*. Assume that $2\cos \phi = a/b$ is rational, where $a, b \in \mathbb{Z}, b \ne 0$ have no common factors. Using the identity $2 \cos 2\phi = (2 \cos \phi)^2-2$ we have 2= Now $a^2-2b^2$ and $b^2$ have no common factors, since if $p$ were a prime number dividing both, then $p|b^2 \implies p|b$ and $p|(a^2-2b^2) \implies p|a$, a contradiction. Hence if $b \ne \pm1$, then the denominators in $2 \cos \phi, 2 \cos 2\phi, 2 \cos 4\phi, 2 \cos 8\phi \dots$ get bigger and bigger without limit. On the other hand, with $0 < \phi/\pi < 1/2 \in \mathbb{Q}$, then $\phi/\pi=m/n$ where $m, n \in \mathbb{Z}$ have no common factors. This implies that the sequence $(2\cos 2^k \phi)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ admits at most $n$ values. Hence we have a contradiction. Hence $b=\pm 1$ and $\cos \phi =0, \pm1/2, \pm1$. QED.

Hence if in reality Alice chooses setting $a_1$ and Bob chooses setting $b_1$ when measuring the spins of a particle pair described by the hidden-variable $\lambda$, then the actual invariant set is $I_{U_1}$, and a counterfactual universe where Alice chooses setting $a_2$ and Bob chooses setting $b_1$ lies off $I_{U_1}$. Conversely, if in reality Alice chooses $a_2$ and Bob $b_1$, then the invariant set is $I_{U_3}$ and a counterfactual universe where Alice instead chooses $a_1$ and Bob $b_1$ lies off $I_{U_3}$. In general, only two of the four correlations in () are definable for given $\lambda$, no matter what choices Alice and Bob make.

If only two of the four correlations are defined for any $\lambda$, what happens when experiments show that the inequalities are violated? The key point that distinguishes experimental procedure from the theoretical analysis above is that in an experimental test of the CHSH inequality the four correlation functions in () are evaluated using four separate sub-experiments (implying four disjoint sets of hidden variables). According to Invariant Set Theory, each sub-experiment must be associated with a state of the universe on an invariant set $I_U$, i.e. the cosines of the relative angles must all be definable by $N$ bits. That is to say, according to Invariant Set Theory, what is actually tested experimentally is not () but something of the form $$\label{chsh2}
|\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda_1}(a_1, b_1) - \mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda_2}(a'_1, b_2)|+|\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda_3}(a_2, b'_1)+\mathrm{Corr}_{\Lambda_4}(a'_2, b'_2)| \le 2$$ where $\Lambda_1 \ne \Lambda_2 \ne\Lambda_3 \ne\Lambda_4$. Here $a'_1=a_1$, $a'_2=a_2$, $b'_1=b_1$ and $b'_2=b_2$ to within the necessarily finite precision of the measuring instruments, such that all of $\cos \theta_{a_1 b_1}$, $\cos \theta_{a'_1 b_2}$, $\cos \theta_{a_2 b'_1}$ and $\cos \theta_{a'_2 b'_2}$ are describable by $N$ bits. By contrast, the theoretical analysis described above, necessary to determine whether a given hidden-variable theory is constrained by the CHSH inequality, considers different measurement orientations for a given $\lambda$, a situation which can never arise in an experimental test of the CHSH inequality.

In summary, the reason Invariant Set Theory can violate the CHSH inequalities is through a violation of the measurement independence condition (), in particular that (\| a, b)= (\| a, b') where the cosine of the angle between $a$ and $b$ is not describable by $N$ bits (e.g. is not dyadic rational), but the cosine of the angle between $a$ and $b' \approx b$ is. An immediate reaction to such a conclusion might be that such a violation would not be robust to the tiniest perturbation. We discuss this in Section below, showing it is not so.

It can be considered an open question as to whether all demonstrations of quantum non-locality are nullified in Invariant Set Theory by the incommensurateness of $\phi$ and $\cos \phi$. However, given the general applicability of such incommensurateness to the realistic interpretation of a range of quantum phenomena - interference, sequential Stern-Gerlach, and the original Bell inequality (see ) - we speculate here that this question can be answered in the positive.

# Fine Tuning, Conspiracy, Free Will and Superdeterminism

It is claimed above that the Bell Inequalities can be violated without resorting to a breakdown of realism or local causality. What are the conceivable objections to Invariant Set Theory as a description of physical reality? We list four: it is fine-tuned, inimical to experimenter free will, conspiratorial or superdeterministic. In this section it is shown that invariant set theory is none of these.

## Fine Tuning

The analysis above suggests that it might be sensitive to tiny perturbations (experimenter hand shake for example). However, this is not the case. We return to one of the basic properties of a Cantor Set, that it is 'large' (i.e. has the cardinality of the continuum) when looked at from the inside. That is to say, the analysis above is insensitive to perturbations which keeps a trajectory on the invariant set. There is a continuum of such perturbations. Indeed, one can perform continuous analysis on $I_U$ making use of the link to p-adic numbers. For example, there is a well-known continuous 1-1 mapping between the dyadic integers $...d_2d_1d_0$ and the points $0.e_0e_1e_2$ of the Cantor Ternary set, by the relationship $e_n=2d_n$ .

On the other hand, the analysis is sensitive to noise which is random with respect to the measure of the euclidean space in which $I_U$ is embedded - such noise will surely take a state on $I_U$ to a state off it, no matter how small the noise actually is. However, since by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate, only those perturbations which maps points of $I_U$ to points of $I_U$ can be considered physical, then such full-measure noise is not physical.

In this sense, the experimenter can certainly have a degree of hand shake. This will mean that parameters like $\theta$ in the discussion above are (epistemically) uncertain, and can be expected to vary during an experiment within some finite tolerance $\Delta \theta$. However, according to Invariant Set Theory, this uncertainty notwithstanding, the actual values of the parameter $\theta$ occurring within this finite tolerance must all be describable by $N$ bits.

## Conspiracy

Let us return to Bell's example (see Section ) where the orientation of a measurement device is set by the output of a PRNG, itself sensitive to the value of the millionth digit of some input variable. Let us suppose the PRNG is run at $t=t_0$, and the actual experiment takes place at $t=t_1$. In principle (like the black-hole experiment), let us assume that $t_0 \ll t_1$. Now let us denote by $\mathcal A$ Bell's assertion (cf Section ) that the value of the millionth digit is unimportant for any distinctly different purpose. Then, if $\mathcal A$ is true, there can be no rational reason to suppose the value of the millionth digit at $t_0$ should be correlated with the hidden variables associated with the particles whose spin is subsequently measured by Alice and Bob at $t_1$ (unless one invokes retrocausality).

However, assuming the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate, there are three related ways of seeing that $\mathcal A$ is false.

-   Consider an ensemble of putative states $X_U(d)$ of the Universe at $t_0$. By construction, suppose $X_U(d)$ are identical except for the value $d \in \{0,1,2, \ldots 9\}$ of the millionth decimal digit of the input variable to the PRNG. If $I_U$ is fractal, then it is impossible to determine by finite algorithm started at $t_0$, the value of $d$ which ensures $X_U(d) \in I_U$. The situation is fundamentally no different to that of the black-hole gedanken experiment. Similar to the discussion in Section , the value $d$ of the millionth digit for which $X_U(d) \in I_U$ is determined by events in the future of $t_0$, (a crucial) one of which will be the settings of the experiment to measure the spin of the particle pair at $t_1$.

-   Consider the implication of the Takens Embedding Theorem referred to in Section . In principle (but not in practice!) the entire invariant set $I_U$ could be reconstructed in state space, given sufficiently many values of the millionth digit of the input to the PRNG (over multiple aeons of the universe). This directly contradicts $\mathcal A$'s assertion that the values of the millionth digits are irrelevant for all distinctively different purposes.

-   Suppose the millionth digit was the number 8 and consider a counterfactual universe in which all degrees of freedom are kept fixed except for one, where the number 8 was perturbed to the number 9, taking $U \rightarrow U'$. Whilst $U \in I_U$, one cannot assume that $U' \in I_U$, since $I_U$ has measure zero in its embedding space. Above we have shown that at least some of the counterfactual measurement orientations needed to establish the CHSH inequality necessarily lie off $I_U$. Hence, states of the universe where the value of the millionth digit would have led to such counterfactual measurement orientations, rather than the actual measurement orientations, necessarily lie off $I_U$.

## Free Will

Alice and Bob can be said to have free will if they can hold rational beliefs that the future 'is up to them'. Holding a rational belief means that there is nothing that disprove such a belief. However, it doesn't mean that the rational belief is actually true. Here we take a 'classical compatibilist' view (whose proponents include notable philosophers such as Hobbes, Hume and Mill) that Alice and Bob are 'free' when there is an absence of constraints or impediments preventing them from doing what they want to do. In the analysis of the CHSH experiment above, there are certainly no 'knowable' constraints at the time when the experiment is performed, which prevent them from selecting any of the combinations $\{a_1, b_1\}$, $\{a_1, b_2\}$, $\{a_2, b_1\}$, $\{a_2, b_2\}$. This is consistent with the non-computability of $I_U$. Alice and Bob will makes their choices on the basis of what they want to measure, this notion of 'want' being determined by actions of the neurons in their brains, processes which themselves act out on the invariant set. Having made that choice, say $\{a_1, b_1\}$, then two of the three remaining pairs of values can, retrospectively, be said to not lie on $I_U$. Hence the counterfactuals in which measurements along these off $I_U$ directions are not physical.

In summary, according to the classical compatibilist view, the experimenters are free agents, determinism and the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate notwithstanding. That is to say, they can hold rational beliefs that they really do 'control' the settings (in the sense that they could have done otherwise), whereas in reality they do not (and, for some alternative settings, could not have done otherwise).

## Superdeterminism

The word 'superdeterminism' is generally used to denote a class of theories in which the measurement independent condition is violated. The word is generally used in a pejorative sense, with the implication that it such a theory is necessarily conspiratorial and denies free will. As shown above, Invariant Set Theory is not conspiratorial and does not deny free will. In this Section, we attempt a mathematical definition of the notion of superdeterminism and assess whether Invariant Set Theory can itself be considered superdeterministic.

By definition, a superdeterministic theory is more restrictive than a deterministic theory - but how? A superdeterministic theory must not only have deterministic laws of evolution (e.g. in the form $\dot X=F[X]$), it must also impose some restrictions on allowed initial states $X(t_0)$. Consider the set of state-space perturbations to $X(t_0)$, which are transverse to the (integral curve) trajectory of $\dot X=F[X]$ from $X(t_0)$ (see Fig ). If *any* such perturbation to an allowed $X(t_0)$ produces an initial state forbidden by the theory, i.e. if $X(t_0)$ was a completely isolated point in all transverse neighbourhoods of $X(t_0)$, no matter how large, then of course it would be reasonable to say that such a theory is superdeterministic. However, this is an unnecessarily strong restriction and instead we will take a much weaker definition of superdeterminism: a deterministic theory is superdeterministic iff there exists a transverse neighbourhood of $X(t_0)$ (no matter how small) comprising only forbidden states.

According to this weak definition, Invariant Set Theory is not superdeterministic. By the Cosmological Invariant Set postulate, states of the universe evolve on a fractal invariant set in state space - locally the product of a Cantor set and the real line. A Cantor set is a so-called 'perfect' topological set. Any neighbourhood of a point of a perfect set contains other points of the set, i.e. a perfect set contains no isolated points. Hence all transverse neighbourhoods of an allowed initial state contain allowed initial states.

Superdeterministic theories are rightly seen as unacceptable by physicists and philosophers. Most importantly, they offer no theoretical framework for defining the notion of probability (which is central to quantum theory). As such, they offer no theoretical framework to understand why the world is governed by quantum probability and not classical probability. This problem can be framed in the following way: if the world is indeed causal and deterministic (as a superdeterministic world could indeed be), how can we explain that the vast majority of quantum physicists have been fooled into believing otherwise. However as discussed, a fractal invariant set is not superdeterministic. In particular, any transverse neighbourhood of any state on $I_U$ contains an infinite number of states, also lying on $I_U$. From the statistics of these alternative states we can construct the notion of probability (and quantum probability in particular).

# Conclusions

We have presented a new approach to formulating a locally causal hidden-variable theory of quantum physics, in which the measurement independence condition is partially violated without conspiracy, superdeterminism, retrocausality, fine-tuning and without denying experimenter free will. The key ingredient in this approach is the global invariant set; more specifically the notion that globally defined invariant subsets of state space define the notion of physical reality. Such subsets are generic in nonlinear dynamical systems theory, but are less familiar to quantum physicists and philosophers. To try to make accessible the reasoning why such subsets do provide a novel solution to the problem of quantum non-locality, we considered a simple black-hole gedanken experiment - the event horizon in space-time being the analogy of the invariant set in state space. The fundamental postulate underlying the analysis in this paper is the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate, that states of the universe $U$ are evolving precisely on a global measure-zero fractal invariant set, $I_U$ in state space.

Recently, a proposal was made to close the measurement independence 'loophole' by setting measurement orientations from the light of distant quasars . Because the light originated so early in the universe, and because the cosmic sources have never been in causal contact with one another, it seems improbable (in line with Bell's reasoning about the PRNG) that this light could in any way be correlated with the hidden variables of particle source in an experiment being conducted today. However, by analogy with the black hole event horizon, it is shown that the cosmological invariant set is an atemporal one. The fact that the light was emitted billions of years before the experiment took place is really a 'red herring'. It is therefore predicted that if these proposed experiments are conducted, Bell's inequalities will continue to be violated.

This experiment draws to attention the notion that if quantum theory can be replaced by a deeper causal deterministic theory, that theory must treat cosmology and quantum physics much more synergistically than is done in contemporary theories of physics. This in turn suggests that the long-sought unification of gravitational and quantum physics should also be based on the development of a more synergistic relationship between cosmology and quantum physics than exists today.

We conclude with some remarks about the implications of the discussions above on the physical nature of the central mathematical structure in quantum theory: the complex Hilbert space. A vector space is a rudimentary algebraic structure defined over a field, the field of complex numbers in the case of the complex Hilbert Space. The set of elements of a field is by definition closed over addition and multiplication. However, in terms of the correspondence (), $\cos \theta$ and $\phi/\pi$ are restricted to rational numbers describable by fixed finite $N$ bits. Hence, the set of corresponding numbers $\cos \theta$ is not in general closed under multiplication, and the set of corresponding numbers $e^{i\phi}$ is not in general closed under addition, no matter how large is $N$. Hence the set of vectors corresponding to bit strings describable in Invariant Set Theory is not a vector space, no matter how large is $N$. Is this a problem? Whilst it is appealing to be able to describe all elements of a physical theory by rudimentary mathematical structures, as a physicist one should not be overly beguiled by the elegance of any *particular* mathematical structure. In particular, the property of closure guarantees that all conceivable counterfactual worlds have equal ontological status, the antithesis of that implied by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate. Hence we claim that closure can be an undesirable feature of theory if one strives for causal realism in physics. In particular, we reject the algebraic properties of the complex Hilbert Space as a description of physical reality and speculate that the unquestioning acceptance of these properties over the years has hindered the development of physical theory (the unification of quantum and gravitational physics in particular). In terms of Invariant Set Theory, the complex Hilbert space should be treated as the singular and not the regular limit of the set of bit string representations, as the parameter $1/N$ tends to zero. As Berry has noted , old physical theories generically arise as the singular limit of new physical theories.

# Acknowledgement

My thanks to Harvey Brown, Huw Price, Terry Rudolph and Simon Saunders for helpful discussions.

[^1]: In these attracting subsets are considered state-space manifestations of gravitational 'clumpiness' - thus linking Invariant Set Theory to descriptions of quantum measurement as a fundamentally gravitational process


abstract: One dimensional Particle-in-cell simulations using OSIRIS-4.0 has been conducted to study the interaction of a laser electromagnetic pulse with an overdense magnetized plasma target. The external magnetic field has been chosen to be directed along the laser propagation direction. This geometry supports the propagation of right (R) and left (L) circularly polarised electromagnetic waves in the plasma. The laser pulse is allowed to propagate inside the plasma when its frequency falls in the pass band of the dispersion curves of L and/or R waves. The strength of the applied external magnetic field is chosen as a parameter to ensure that the laser frequency lies in the appropriate pass band. It is demonstrated that for all possible polarization of the incident laser, parametric process involving a scattered Electromagnetic wave and an electrostatic mode occur. The parametric process has been identified as that due to the Brillouin back scattering process.
address: $^{*}$Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, India
author: Laxman Prasad Goswami$^{*1}$, Rohit Juneja$^*$, Dhalia Trishul$^*$, Srimanta Maity$^*$, Sathi Das$^*$ and Amita Das$^{*2}$
title: Particle - In - Cell observations of Brillouin scattering for laser interacting with magnetized overdense plasma

# Introduction

In recent years there has been a lot of progress (both fundamental and technological) in the area of laser plasma interaction studies . The development of low frequency pulsed $CO_2$ lasers and the possibility of generating strong magnetic fields (e.g. of the order of Kilo Tesla has already been achieved and there are proposals to generate Mega Tesla fields) are two developments which have opened up possibilities of carrying out experiments in a new direction involving laser interacting with magnetized plasma. This regime is of importance for fundamental explorations and also has rich implications for frontier applications such as direct heating of ions and neutron production in table top devices. In this paper we explore the prospect of parametric scattering process associated with a laser pulse interacting and propagating inside a magnetized plasma. The applied external magnetic field has been chosen to be along the laser propagation direction. This particular geometry supports the propagation of Right (R) and Left (L) circularly polarised electromagnetic waves inside the plasma for the specific range of pass band frequencies in their dispersion curves.

The parametric processes have been studied extensively for the past several decades. A detailed discussion of the same in the context of plasmas and its relevance to nuclear fusion experiments can be found in a recent review article . The parametric instability occurs when a high-amplitude pump electromagnetic wave couples with an electrostatic disturbance in the plasma and generates a scattered Electromagnetic radiation. The interaction of the pump and the scattered radiation accentuates the density disturbance and enhances the electrostatic perturbations, thereby creating a feedback loop for the instability to occur. Some early work in this area are as follows. Drake et al. , derived a compact dispersion relation for the wave interactions in the context of an unmagnetized plasma. They also discussed the limiting form of the dispersion relation leading to the various instabilities like Brillouin, Compton, and Raman scattering processes in plasma. In Raman scattering the excited electrostatic mode is an electron plasma wave, whereas for the Brillouin scattering process it is essentially an ion acoustic wave. The analytical expression for the growth rate and the threshold condition for the Raman and Brillouin scattering instability has been obtained by Liu et al. . The occurrence of these Raman and Brillouin instabilities were directly shown for pulsed electromagnetic solitonic structures propagating in plasmas by Saxena et al. and Sundar et al. respectively with the help of fluid simulations. The application of Brillouin scattering process in the context of laser fusion has been highlighted in many works . For magnetized plasma theoretical studies have been carried out for the parametric instability by many authors. For instance, Stenflo and Shukla provided a theoretical prediction of ionospheric heating experiments. Jaiman and Tripathi analyzed the generation of Brillouin and Compton scattering in magnetized plasma for oblique propagation of electromagnetic pump wave with respect to the external magnetic field direction.

We provide here an evidence of parametric process occurring for an electromagnetic pulse propagating inside a magnetized plasma using particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations . The laser is chosen to be incident on an overdense plasma and it propagates parallel to the applied external magnetic field. This particular geometry supports the propagation of Right (R) and/or Left (L) circularly polarised electromagnetic (EM) waves even for an overdense plasma, provided the EM wave frequency lies in the appropriate pass band of their dispersion relation.

The manuscript has been organized as follows. Section provides simulation details. In section , we present the details of observations made by simulating different cases of polarization of the incident EM pulse. These observations have been analyzed in detail in Section which provide evidence of the occurrence of parametric Brillouin back scattering process. In a recent work from our group we had observed the generation of electrostatic fluctuations for a sharp profile of the laser pulse in the same geometry by the ponderomotive pressure of the laser pulse. Here, in contrast for a smoother laser profile, we observe electrostatic fluctuations getting generated by the Brillouin backscattering process. We point out in section that both these processes in fact take place. The ponderomotive pressure driven process is the first to occur and gets saturated if the profile is relatively smooth. However the fluctuations generated from this process mimic the effective temperature of electron fluid to drive the brillouin scattering process which occurs at a later stage. We summarize and conclude in section .

# Simulation details

We have employed the OSIRIS-4.0 framework for carrying out 1-D particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations to study the interaction of a laser with magnetized plasma. The schematic of the simulation geometry (not to scale) has been shown in Fig.. The external magnetic field is directed along the laser propagation direction $\hat{x}$. A 1-D simulation box with dimension $L_{x} = 4000 c/\omega_{pe}$ has been chosen. Here $c$ is the velocity of light and $\omega_{pe}$ represents the plasma frequency. The number of particles per cell are taken to be $8$. The plasma boundary starts from $x = 400 c/\omega_{pe}$. There is vacuum region between $x = 0$ to $400 c/\omega_{pe}$ with a sharp plasma vacuum interface at $x=400 c/\omega_{pe}$. The spatial resolution is taken as $100$ cells per electron skin depth and it corresponds to the grid size $\Delta x = 0.01 c/\omega_{pe}$. The laser is incident on the plasma target from left side. We consider a short-pulse laser of frequency $\omega_l = 0.3 \omega_{pe}$. The laser profile is Gaussian having rise and fall time of $200 \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ ($400 \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ for some simulations) with the peak intensity of $I = 3.5 \times 10^{19} Wm^{-2}$ (corresponding to a relativistic factor $a_0 = 0.5$). Boundary conditions are taken as absorbing in the longitudinal direction. The PIC code OSIRIS uses normalised values of the various parameters. We have followed the dynamics of both electrons and ions. To reduce the computational time, we carried out the simulations for a reduced mass of ions, which is chosen to be $25$ ( the value of $40$, $50$ are also chosen for some simulations) times heavier than electrons. Thus $m_{i} = 25m_{e}$ ($40m_e$, $50m_e$ for some simulations), where $m_{i}$ and $m_{e}$ represent the rest mass of the ion and electron species respectively. We have provided the laser and plasma simulation parameters both in normalized units alongside their typical possible values in standard units in Table-. As per the convention the frequencies have been normalised by electron plasma frequency ($\omega_{pe}$), length by electron skin depth ($c/\omega_{pe}$), and the electric and magnetic fields by $m_ec\omega_{pe}e^{-1}$.

|         Parameters         | Normalized value |      Values in SI unit      |
|:--------------------------:|:----------------:|:---------------------------:|
|     Plasma Parameters      |                  |                             |
|           $n_0$            |      $1.0$       | $1.34\times10^{20} cm^{-3}$ |
|       $\omega_{pe}$        |      $1.0$       |  $0.67\times10^{15} rad/s$  |
| $\omega_{pi}$ ($M/m = 25$) |      $0.2$       |  $0.13\times10^{15} rad/s$  |
|      Laser Parameters      |                  |                             |
|        $\omega_{l}$        |      $0.30$      |  $0.2 \times10^{15} rad/s$  |
|       $\lambda_{l}$        |       $21$       |        $9.42 \mu m$         |
|         Intensity          |   $a_0 = 0.5$    |  $3.5\times 10^{19} W/m^2$  |

Values of simulation parameters in normalized and standard units

We have considered different configurations of incident laser polarization by appropriately choosing the parameter $\alpha_i$ (it is $0$ for linear, and $\pm 1$ for right (RCP), left (LCP) circular polarizations respectively). Here the incident and transmitted laser electric field is denoted as $\vec{E}_i = \Tilde{E}_{i}\left(\hat{y} + i\alpha_i\hat{z}\right)e^{-i\omega t}$ and $\vec{E}_t = \Tilde{E}_{t}\left(\hat{y} + i\alpha_t\hat{z}\right)e^{-i\omega t}$ respectively. Where $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_t$ respectively denote the polarization of incident and transmitted EM pulse. The applied external magnetic field $B_0$ in normalized units has been varied from $2.5$ to $10$ for our simulation studies as tabulated in Table-.

The four different cases of study carried out by us correspond to four different choices of the incident laser EM field parameters. For case (A) and case (B), a linearly polarized laser ($\alpha_i = 0$) propagating along the $X$-direction is considered. The two choices of magnetic field ensures that for the given laser frequency and the choice of $B_0 = 2.5$ in case(A) only the $R$ mode lies in the pass band of the dispersion curve, while for higher value of $B_0 = 10$ in case(B) both $R$ and $L$ EM modes are in the pass band. The polarization of laser is taken RCP ($\alpha_i = +1$) and LCP ($\alpha_i = -1$) in case (C) and (D) respectively. The transmitted wave also has the same polarization as the incident wave in these two cases as listed in Table -. A fifth and sixth possibility of choosing LCP for incident EM wave with an external magnetic field of $B_0 = 2.5$ and RCP for $B_0 = 10$ respectively, does not permit any EM wave propagation inside the plasma, and hence have not been reported. In Table-, $\omega_{cs} = \frac{q_sB_0}{m_s}$ is the gyro- frequency of the species $s$ of the plasma (where $s = e,i$ correspond to electron and ion particles) in the external magnetic field $B_0$.

| Cases | Incident Laser | Magnetic Field Parameters |  |  | EM in Plasma |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
|  | $\alpha_i$ | $B_0$ | $\omega_{ce}$ | $\omega_{ci}$ | $\alpha_t$ |
|  Case A | Linear $\alpha_i = 0$ | $B_0 = 2.5$ | $2.5$ | $0.1$ | R-wave $\alpha_t = +1$ |
|  Case B | Linear $\alpha = 0$ | $B_0 = 10$ | $10$ | $0.4$ | R and L-waves $\alpha_t = \pm 1$ |
|  Case C | RCP $\alpha = +1$ | $B_0 = 2.5$ | $2.5$ | $0.1$ | R-wave $\alpha_t = +1$ |
|  Case D | LCP $\alpha = -1$ | $B_0 = 10$ | $10$ | $0.4$ | L-wave $\alpha_t = -1$ |

List of simulation cases, incident and transmitted laser polarization, and external magnetic field parameters

# Observations

In a recent publication Goswami et al. have employed similar geometry to study the interaction of a laser pulse with a magnetized plasma. The study had interestingly shown excitation of electrostatic perturbations at the electron plasma frequency. Since the background plasma is overdense, such a perturbation cannot be understood through a parametric excitation process. Instead it was shown that the difference in the ponderomotive pressure experienced by electrons and ions led to the charge separation leading to plasma oscillations. Here, on the other hand we demonstrate that with a choice of a smoother laser pulse profile (consequently weakening the ponderomotive pressure term) one can excite parametric instability. Since the plasma is overdense only the Brillouin scattering process is observed.

We show in Fig. the dispersion curves for both $R$ and $L$ waves for the two values of the magnetic field $2.5$ and $10$ respectively. The incident laser frequency of $\omega_l = 0.3 \omega_{pe}$ lies in the pass band of only the $R$ wave for the case of $B_0 = 2.5$. For the other case of $B_0 = 10$ the laser frequency lies in the pass band of both $R$ and $L$ waves. The two waves, however, have distinct phase and group speeds. The various subplots (A, B, C, D) of Fig. correspond to the four different cases (A, B, C, D) respectively of study listed in Table.2. The $y$ component of the electric field $E_y$ has been shown at three different times in this figure as a function of $x$. While in subplot(A) and (B) the incident pulse has linear polarization for (C) and (D) the incident pulse has been chosen to have Right and left circular polarization. The pulse in red color shows $E_y$ for the incident EM pulse at $t = 0$. It is placed in the vacuum region initially. The plasma starts from $x= 400c/\omega_{pe}$. The blue and green pulses in the figure depict the $E_y$ component of electric field at $t = 1200 \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ and $t = 3800 \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ respectively. For $B_0 = 2.5$ both linear and right hand circular polarised incident laser, shown in (A) and (C) subplots propagate as $R$ waves inside the plasma. This is so because the laser frequency lies in the stop band of $L$ wave. The left circularly polarised incident radiation in this case gets totally reflected for this particular case. For case (B) the incident linearly polarised EM pulse generates both $L$ and $R$ waves, as the frequency lies inside the pass bands of both the modes. The $L$ and $R$ waves get spatially separated as they propagate inside the plasma due to their different group speeds. The $R$ wave being faster it moves ahead. For case (D), the incident laser pulse is chosen to have left circular polarization. This pulse propagates as $L$ wave inside the plasma. Thus Case (A) and (C) show the propagation of pure $R$ waves inside the plasma and case (D) shows pure $L$ wave propagation. Case(B) on the other hand depicts the propagation of both $L$ and $R$ wave. Thus for these cases one can study separately the propagation of each of the $R$ and $L$ waves without getting hindered by the other wave in any fashion.

From Fig. it is clear that as the EM pulse propagates inside the plasma, electrostatic field disturbances get generated behind the pulse. These disturbances have a higher amplitude when the incident laser pulse has circular polarisation. This may be so as the power level of the propagating $L$ and $R$ waves for the linear case get low compared to the case of circular polarization. Associated with these electromagnetic disturbances one can observe electrostatic perturbation which are shown as the plot of $E_x$ in Fig. at three different times. The corresponding electron and ion charge density perturbations are shown in Fig. for $t = 3800$. The zoomed plot alongside shows that the electron (in solid blue line) and ion (in red dash line) density perturbations have similar form. In the next section we try to characterize these perturbations and provide the evidence that they represent the Brillouin scattering phenomena.

# Characterization of the observed excitation as a Brillouin process

We evaluate the spatial Fourier transform (FFT) spectra for the electromagnetic $E_y$ and electrostatic $E_x$ fluctuations. The spectral wavenumber peak for one particular case (D) of the $L$ wave propagation has been shown in Fig.. The FFT of $E_y$ field using only the region of pump pulse region shows a peak at $k_0 = 0.41$ (which satisfies the Dispersion curve for the $L$ wave. However, when FFT is taken of the $E_y$ in a region just behind the main pulse the peak of the spectra occurs slightly shifted at $k_1=0.46$. This appears to be the scattered EM radiation. The fourier spectra of the electrostatic field $E_x$ on the other hand peaks at $k_2 = 0.87$. It is interesting to note that the wave-vector matching condition for the parametric process is satisfied as $\vec{k_2} = \vec{k_0} + \vec{k_1}$. The electrostatic perturbation being at shorter scales than the pump and scattered EM radiation shows that it is a back scattering process that is taking place. Furthermore, as shown in Fig., the electron and ion density perturbations seem to occur in phase indicating that it is a Brillouin process. Furthermore, we have also repeated these simulations for the case of static ions (corresponding to $m_i = \infty$). For such a case no scattering is observed.

The simulations were carried out for the case of a plasma which was cold. The question then arises is what plays the role of effective temperature for exciting an ion acoustic perturbation in the Brillouin process. We feel that the velocity acquired by the electrons as a result of ponderomotive pressure from the EM pulse may contribute for the same. In fact similar observations were noted in the work by Sundar et. al. where they observed a Brillouin scattering process for a flat top solitonic structure in a fluid simulation. We will discuss more about the role the ponderomotive pressure term plays by choosing different laser profiles in section .

In Fig. we have shown the evolution of electrostatic field energy for Case(C) of $R$ wave propagation for two different ion to electron mass ratios (e.g. $25 m_e$ and $50 m_e$). The other parameters for the laser pulse and the plasma medium are the same. It is interesting to observe that the initial slope for the two cases are identical. Subsequently a second phase with a faster growth rate occurs in both the cases. The onset of second phase occurs at an earlier time for ion mass $m_i = 25m_e$ compared to that of $m_i = 50m_e$. Also, the growth rate as discerned from the slope in this phase for the lower ion mass is higher. This can be understood by realising that the initial small rise of the electrostatic energy arises as a result of ponderomotive forcing from the laser pulse, during which the electrons acquire a certain kinetic energy which acts as an effective temperature for facilitating the Brillouin scattering process. The second phase corresponds to the Brillouin scattering instability during which the two growth rate differs. After the second phase the nonlinear effects seem to set in which slows down the growth rate. In Fig. we have plotted the evolution of electrostatic energy for the case of $L$ wave propagation of Case (D). In this case also similar behaviour is observed.

We now discuss briefly the nonlinear phase of the instability. We choose a specific time of $t = 3000$ for the Case D at which the evolution of electrostatic energy is in its third phase, showing a slow down in the growth. In Fig. we show the spatial fourier transform of the electrostatic field at various spatial blocks with respect to the pump pulse as illustrated in the figure. It can be observed that when the spatial FFT is taken just behind the pulse it shows a clear peak ($k_2 = 0.87$). At longer distances behind the pulse other peak in the spectra start appearing (e.g. $k= 0.97$). Thereafter it becomes broad with multiple scales indicating the presence of nonlinear effects as expected. We have tracked the power of two different wave numbers by carrying out a Fourier transform in several blocks of localised spatial region and observe that while the power in $k = 0.87$ satisfying the Brillouin condition maximizes in the spatial regime overlapping with the pump pulse, the power in the second mode picks up thereafter.

# Role of smooth and sharp laser profiles

In the work by Goswami et al. , published earlier for the same geometry a very sharp laser profile was chosen. There we observed the ponderomotive force driven electrostatic flluctutions. For the present studies we have chosen a smoother laser profile. In the section we describe a study where we carry out simulations with varying laser profile. The observations corresponding to four different laser profiles have been shown in Fig. subplot(v). The sharpest profile has been denoted by the violet line with triangular dots. It can be observed from the subplot (iii) that there is an initial growth of electrostatic energy which is highest for this particular case. A zoomed picture has been shown in subplot(iv) of this region which also confirms the same. This is the time regiem where the initial ponderomotive pressure driven electrostatic fluctations occur. The thermalization of the effective electron kinetic energy acquired by this process leads to the effective temperature for the Brillouin process to occur later. The onset of the Brillouin process occurs earlier for the cases of the fourth profile where this happens fastest. Since the total energy associated with the pulse for these profiles may slightly differ. We have also compared the evolution of the electrostatic energy normalised by the total input energy from the laser pulse. It can be observed that the normalised electrostatic energy in the case of profile 4 is higher compared to all other profiles after the scattering process takes place.

# Conclusion

With the help of OSIRIS-4.0, we have carried out a comprehensive PIC simulations studies to understand the interaction of a laser pulse propagating in an overdense magnetize plasma for which the external magnetic field is directed along the laser propagation direction. It has been shown that the laser energy can get converted to the electrostatic energy by two distinct processes. The ponderomotive force driven process occurs first and is obviously found to be dependent on the sharpness of laser profile. Such an excitation process was also shown in an earlier publication by us where purposely a very sharp laser pulse profile was chosen. Here we provide evidence of the Brillouin scattering process taking place. We also observe that there is a synergy between the ponderomotive process leading to charge density fluctuations and the Brillouin back scattering process. The Brillouin process occurs subsequently and the timing of its onset is related to electrostatic energy gained during the first process.

# Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the OSIRIS Consortium, consisting of UCLA ans IST (Lisbon, Portugal) for providing access to the OSIRIS4.0 framework which is the work supported by NSF ACI-1339893. This research work has been supported by the Core Research Grant No. CRG/2018/000624 of Department of Scient and Technology (DST), Government of India. We also acknowledge support from J C Bose Fellowship Grant of A D (JCB-000055/2017) from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SFERB), Government of India. The authors thank IIT Delhi HPC facility for computational resources. Laxman thanks the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Grant no. -09/086(1442)/2020-EMR-I) for funding the research.

# References