abstract: Recently, Dufour et al. (2007) reported the unexpected discovery that a few white dwarfs found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey had an atmosphere dominated by carbon with little or no trace of hydrogen and helium. Here we present a progress report on these new objects based on new high signal-to-noise follow-up spectroscopic observations obtained at the 6.5m MMT telescope on Mount Hopkins, Arizona.
address: $^1$ Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721; $^2$ Département de Physique, Université de Montréal, C.P.6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7
author: P. Dufour$^1$, J. Liebert$^1$, B. Swift$^1$, G. Fontaine$^2$ and T. Sukhbold$^1$
title: A Progress Report on the Carbon Dominated Atmosphere White Dwarfs

# Introduction

White dwarfs have traditionally been divided into two main categories depending on the composition of the primary constituent of their atmosphere. Stars with a hydrogen rich surface composition are classified as DA white dwarfs while those with a helium dominated surface composition belong to the non-DA category (DO, DB, DC, DZ and DQ spectral type). A third category was recently uncovered by Dufour et al. (2007) when an analysis of Hot DQ white dwarfs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) revealed that their surface composition was dominated by carbon and not helium as was initially assumed by Liebert et al. (2003).

These strange objects are quite rare. Only 9 were found in the SDSS DR4 catalog of spectroscopically identified white dwarfs which contained nearly 10,000 stars (Eisenstein et al. 2006). A detailed analysis of the spectroscopic and photometric data by Dufour et al. (2008) showed that the hot DQ white dwarfs are found in a rather narrow range of effective temperature centered around $\sim$ 20,000 K.

No carbon dominated atmosphere white dwarfs with an effective temperature higher than $\sim$ 24,000 K have been found from a careful inspection of thousands of spectra in SDSS DR6 with $u-g < -0.2$ and $g-r < -0.3$. The absence of hotter counterparts for carbon dominated atmosphere white dwarfs suggest that they probably cool as helium atmosphere stars until a convection zone develops in the underlying carbon-rich mantle due to the recombination of that element. If this scenario is correct, a subphotospheric carbon convection zone would develop around 24,000 K and dilute the surface helium layer in the much more massive carbon envelope. This would transform a helium dominated DB star with a very thin surface helium layer into a carbon dominated Hot DQ white dwarf (see Dufour et al. 2008 for more on this scenario).

Why would some helium rich white dwarfs have thin helium layers is still not entirely understood yet. One possibility is that these stars are the result of the evolution of massive stars that have burned carbon and have an oxygen-magnesium-neon core (see Garcia-Berro et al. 1997 and reference therein). Alternatively, they could have experienced a late thermal pulse that eliminated most of the helium, a phenomenon similar to the one that is generally believed to explain the existence of other hydrogen deficient stars (Werner & Herwig 2006). There might also be other ways to eliminate the superficial helium layers that still need to be explored. However, a scenario involving close binary interaction, as proposed to explain the variability of J1426+5752 (Montgomery et al. 2008), now appears very unlikely since i) this star has been found to show multi-periodic variations (Green et al. 2008, see also Fontaine et al. in these proceedings) ii) no radial velocity variations have been detected in J1426+5752 (see again Green et al. 2008) and iii) more importantly, it doesn't explain why *all* Hot DQ's are found within the same temperature range and *none* at higher or lower effective temperatures. We thus believe that the convective mixing scenario presented in Dufour et al. (2008) is the most appealing.

One essential parameter that would give important clues about the origin and evolution of these objects is the mass. The mass of a white dwarfs is generally obtained from a determination of the surface gravity by matching the observed line profiles with those of model atmosphere calculations. However, in the case of the Hot DQ white dwarfs, the surface gravity is poorly known due to several factors.

First, the atmospheric parameter determinations of Dufour et al. (2008) were based on the analysis of rather noisy optical SDSS spectra. Years of experience from analyzing DA and DB white dwarfs has taught us that high signal-to-noise ratio spectroscopic observations are required for a precise measurement of the surface gravity (and effective temperature). Rough estimates of log g were obtained by Dufour et al. (2008) but the quality of the SDSS spectra is clearly insufficient to provide the needed accuracy.

Second, most of the flux emitted by these stars is in the ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This region of the spectrum contains many more absorption features than there is in the optical. All these absorption lines have an important influence on the thermodynamic structure (temperature and pressure as a function of optical depth) of the atmosphere since the flux absorbed at short wavelength tends to be redistributed at longer wavelength (see Fig. 4 of Dufour et al. 2008). Hence, small errors in our modeling of the UV part of the spectrum will have an important effect on the line profiles in the optical. Unfortunately, an assessment of the quality of our modeling of the UV will only be possible by comparing UV observations (which we should obtain, if the HST repair mission goes as planed, sometime next year) with our model calculations.

Finally, any determination of the surface gravity from the line profiles must rely on a state-of-the-art theory of the broadening of the spectral lines. At the time of the Dufour et al. (2008) analysis, detailed calculations for the Stark broadening of CII lines were not available and the standard scaled classical approximation was used. Therefore, surface gravities (and effective temperatures) obtained in Dufour et al. (2008) can only be considered as preliminary approximations until new tables for the Stark broadening of CII (which are currently being calculated) are incorporated in our next generation of model atmosphere.

In summary, atmospheric parameters will only be truly reliable when each of the three issues above have been properly addressed. This paper report our development on the first of these issues.

# New MMT Observations

As mentioned above, in order to obtain a precise determination of the atmospheric parameters, it is of utmost importance to have high signal-to-noise ratio spectroscopic observations. Due to the nature of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey acquisition procedure, spectra of faint objects such as the Hot DQ are of rather poor quality. We have thus recently undertaken a program to reobserve all the known carbon dominated atmosphere white dwarfs with the Mt. Hopkins 6.5m MMT telescope. We have obtained 7 nights of MMT time and succeeded in securing high signal-to-noise ratio spectra (typically S/N of 60 or more) for 8 of the 10 (9 from the DR4 WD catalog and a 10th one recently found in DR6) known Hot DQ white dwarfs (see Figure 1). We used the Blue Chanel with the 500 line mm$^{-1}$ grating with a 1" slit, resulting in a $\sim$ 3.6 Å FWHM spectral resolution at 5500 Å. The spectra were reduced with standard IRAF packages. The setup used allowed a coverage of a few hundred angstroms bluer than that of SDSS although at the expense of an equally good coverage of the redder part of the electromagnetic spectrum (our spectra cover a wavelength range of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3400-6300 Å  vs $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3800-9000 Å  for SDSS).

In Figure 1, we present the new high signal-to-noise ratio spectrum for all the Hot DQ that have been reobserved with MMT so far. We also show, for comparison, the corresponding SDSS spectra that were used for the preliminary analysis of Dufour et al. (2008). The noise level and sharpness of the observed spectral lines are now suitable for an eventual precise spectroscopic analysis. Howerver, it would be meaningless at this point to present updated atmospheric parameters based on these new observations since our grid does not incorporate the new tables for the Stark broadening of CII yet. We prefer to wait for the next generation of models, and also the HST observations, before sharing the results of our reanalysis for these stars. Nevertheless, even without proceeding with a full detailed analysis, several interesting observations are worth discussing.

The most remarkable concerns the fraction of Hot DQ stars that are found to be magnetic. In Figure 1, we clearly see magnetic splitting of the spectral lines for at least 4 objects. These are the 4 objects starting from the the bottom in Figure 1. The separation between the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ components indicates that the fields are of the order of 1 MG. The splitting was not observable in the noisier SDSS spectra except for the brightest Hot DQ SDSS J0005-1002. Spectropolarimetric measurement has also confirmed the magnetic nature for SDSS J0005-1002 (see Dufour et al. 2008). This is in contrast with the next 3 stars in Figure 1 that show instead very sharp CII lines where no trace of magnetic splitting is detectable. Given the spectral resolution of our observations, a limit of about 200 kG can be put on the strength of the magnetic field for these objects. The hottest stars in our sample, SDSS J0106+1513, do not show sharp and well defined lines which suggest perhaps the presence of a weak magnetic field but more precise spectropolarimetric measurements will be needed to confirm magnetism. Note also that one of the two stars that remains to be observed with MMT, SDSS J2200-0741, seems also to have lines slightly broadened by a weak magnetic field.

It thus seems that at least 4 (and perhaps 6) of the 10 known Hot DQ are magnetic. This is an incredibly high fraction considering that the fraction of magnetism of nearby white dwarfs is around 10$\%$ (Liebert et al. 2003). Is this an indication that Hot DQ have higher mass than average since magnetic white dwarfs tend to be more massive in general? The preliminary analysis of Dufour et al. (2008) indicated that most of these stars have surface gravities around log g $\sim$ 8.0 although this could possibly be revised if it is found that our approximation for the Stark broadening considerably overestimated the broadening of the lines.

This unusual high fraction could indicate that magnetism plays a significant role in the evolution of these objects. But if this is the case, why do we detect magnetism in only about 50$\%$ and not 100$\%$ of these stars? Could it be that they are indeed all magnetic but that in some cases the strength of the field is not strong enough to be detected from line splitting? More sensitive spectropolarimetric measurements, which we plan to obtain soon, should elucidate those questions.

We also detect the HeI 4471 line, indicating the presence of a significant amount of helium (C/He $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.5), in two of the coolest Hot DQ (SDSS J1426+5752 and SDSS J1402+3818). The presence of helium in SDSS J1426+5752 was also needed to explain the pulsational properties recently discovered by Montgomery et al. (2008) since pure carbon atmosphere white dwarfs are not expected to pulsate at this temperature (see Fontaine et al. 2008 and Fontaine et al., these proceedings).

We will conclude this discussion with some remarks on our models. The solutions presented in Dufour et al. 2008 were not bad considering the level of noise of SDSS spectra. However, with the new MMT observations, it is now obvious that improvement in our models will be needed before we can claim that we know the atmospheric parameters with great accuracy. This is illustrated in Figure 2 where we show the Dufour et al. 2008 solution and a very similar fit to the MMT data for SDSS J1153+0056. While the fit to the SDSS data looks quite acceptable, there are significant discrepancies that appear when observing in detail the MMT fit. It seems that our models do not reproduce correctly the strength of many lines. This is most evident when looking at the group of lines near 4400-4500 Å(and it can also be observed at many other wavelength). Some of the lines are quite well reproduced with our models while others seem to require a different log g or $T_{\rm eff}$ (see Figure 1 of Dufour et al. 2008 for example). This is usually symptomatic of a wrong thermodynamic structure. This could be due, as already mentioned above, to an improper modeling of the UV part of the spectrum. The treatment of the Stark broadening of CII lines might also cause such a discrepancy. The exact reason is probably a combination of both, as well as other parameters such as the abundance of other trace elements, treatment of the convective efficiency or perhaps even uncertainties in the atomic data used. Carbon dominated atmosphere modeling is relatively new and has obviously not reached yet the level of accuracy that is attained for DA and DB stars. We hope to achieve this in a near future.

# Conclusions

White dwarfs with a carbon dominated atmosphere represent a new challenge to stellar evolution. Their origin and evolution are very mysterious and as such, they deserve all our attention. Progress on our understanding of these objects will necessitate i) new models with state-of-the-art physics (Stark broadening) ii) observation in the UV part of the electromagnetic spectrum (HST observations are coming soon, assuming no problems with the next repair mission), and iii) high signal-to-noise ratio spectroscopic data. In this short report, we presented new optical spectra taken with MMT. Their analysis will eventually lead to a more precise measurements of the atmospheric parameters. One of the most outstanding characteristics that emerges from these new observations is the unusually high fraction of Hot DQ with a large magnetic field. Weather or not the magnetic field is intimately related to their evolution and origin remains unclear. Undoubtedly, further study of Hot DQ white dwarfs will increase our knowledge of stellar evolution. The new challenges that they bring to our field will be of the most interesting to solve.

## Acknowledgments

P.D. acknowledges the financial support of NSERC. This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation through grant AST 03-07321. Support from the Reardon Foundation is also gratefully acknowledged.

# References


January 31, 2000

**Evidence for a New State of Matter:
An Assessment of the Results from the CERN Lead Beam Programme**

Ulrich Heinz and Maurice Jacob
Theoretical Physics Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

The year 1994 marked the beginning of the CERN lead beam programme. A beam of 33 TeV (or 160 GeV per nucleon) lead ions from the SPS now extends the CERN relativistic heavy ion programme, started in the mid eighties, to the heaviest naturally occurring nuclei. A run with lead beam of 40 GeV per nucleon in fall of 1999 complemented the program towards lower energies. Seven large experiments participate in the lead beam program, measuring many different aspects of lead-lead and lead-gold collision events: NA44, NA45/CERES, NA49, NA50, NA52/NEWMASS, WA97/NA57, and WA98. Some of these experiments use multipurpose detectors to measure simultaneously and correlate several of the more abundant observables. Others are dedicated experiments to detect rare signatures with high statistics. This coordinated effort using several complementing experiments has proven very successful. The present document summarizes the most important results from this program at the dawn of the RHIC era: soon the relativistic heavy ion collider at BNL will allow to study gold-gold collisions at 10 times higher collision energies.

Physicists have long thought that a new state of matter could be reached if the short range repulsive forces between nucleons could be overcome and if squeezed nucleons would merge into one another. Present theoretical ideas provide a more precise picture for this new state of matter: it should be a quark-gluon plasma (QGP), in which quarks and gluons, the fundamental constituents of matter, are no longer confined within the dimensions of the nucleon, but free to move around over a volume in which a high enough temperature and/or density prevails. This plasma also exhibits the so-called "chiral symmetry" which in normal nuclear matter is spontaneously broken, resulting in effective quark masses which are much larger than the actual masses. For the transition temperature to this new state, lattice QCD calculations give values between 140 and 180 MeV, corresponding to an energy density in the neighborhood of 1 GeV/fm$^3$, or seven times that of nuclear matter. Temperatures and energy densities above these values existed in the early universe during the first few microseconds after the Big Bang.

It has been expected that in high energy collisions between heavy nuclei sufficiently high energy densities could be reached such that this new state of matter would be formed. Quarks and gluons would then freely roam within the volume of the fireball created by the collision. The individual quark and gluon energies would be typical of a system at very high temperature (above 200 MeV) even if the system should not have enough time to fully thermalize. Positive identification of the quark-gluon plasma state in relativistic heavy ion collisions is, however, extremely difficult. If created, the QGP state would have only a very transient existence. Due to color confinement, a well-known property of strong interactions at low energies, single quarks and gluons cannot escape from the collision – they must always combine to color-neutral hadrons before being able to travel to the detector. This process is called "hadronization". Thus, regardless of whether or not QGP is formed in the initial stage, the collision fireball later turns into a system of hadrons. In a head-on lead-lead collision at the SPS about 2500 particles are created (NA49) of which more than 99.9% are hadrons. Evidence for or against formation of an initial state of deconfined quarks and gluons at the SPS thus must be extracted from a careful and quantitative analysis of the observed final state.

**A common assessment of the collected data leads us to conclude that we now have compelling evidence that a new state of matter has indeed been created, at energy densities which had never been reached over appreciable volumes in laboratory experiments before and which exceed by more than a factor 20 that of normal nuclear matter. The new state of matter found in heavy ion collisions at the SPS features many of the characteristics of the theoretically predicted quark-gluon plasma.**

The evidence for this new state of matter is based on a multitude of different observations. Many hadronic observables show a strong nonlinear dependence on the number of nucleons which participate in the collision. Models based on hadronic interaction mechanisms have consistently failed to simultaneously explain the wealth of accumulated data. On the other hand, the data exhibit many of the predicted signatures for a quark-gluon plasma. Even if a full characterization of the initial collision stage is presently not yet possible, the data provide strong evidence that it consists of deconfined quarks and gluons.

We emphasize that the evidence collected so far is "indirect" since it stems from the measurement of particles which have undergone significant reinteractions between the early collision stages and their final observation. Still, they retain enough memory of the initial quark-gluon state to provide evidence for its formation, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland which remains even after the cat has disappeared. It is expected that the present "proof by circumstantial evidence" for the existence of a quark-gluon plasma in high energy heavy ion collisions will be further substantiated by more direct measurements (e.g. electromagnetic signals which are emitted directly from the quarks in the QGP) which will become possible at the much higher collision energies and fireball temperatures provided by RHIC at Brookhaven and later the LHC at CERN.

In the following the most important experimental findings and their interpretation are described in more detail:

Hadrons are strongly interacting particles. In nuclear collisions, after being first created, they undergo many secondary interactions before escaping from the collision "fireball". When they are finally set free, the fireball volume has expanded by about a factor 30–50; this information can be extracted from two-particle correlations between identical hadrons by a method called "Bose-Einstein interferometry" (NA44, NA49, WA98). At this point, the relative abundances and momentum distributions of the hadrons still contain important memories of the dense early collision stage which can be extracted by a comprehensive analysis of the hadronic final state. More than 20 different hadron species, including a few small anti-nuclei (anti-deuteron, anti-helium), have been measured by the seven experiments (NA44, NA45, NA49, NA50, NA52, WA97, WA98). A combined analysis of their momentum distributions and two-particle correlations shows that, at the point where they stop interacting and "freeze out", the fireball is in a state of tremendous explosion, with expansion velocities exceeding half the speed of light, and very close to local thermal equilibrium at a temperature of about 100-120 MeV. This characteristic feature gave rise to the name "Little Bang". The observed explosion calls for strong pressure in the earlier collision stages. Recently measured anisotropies in the angular distribution of the momenta perpendicular to the beam direction (NA49, NA45, WA98) indicate that the pressure was built up quickly, pointing to intense rescattering in the early collision stages.

An earlier glimpse of the expanding system is provided by a measurement of correlated electron-positron pairs, also called dileptons (NA45). These data show that in sulphur-gold and lead-gold collisions the expected peak from the rho ($\rho$) vector meson (a particle which can decay into dileptons even before freeze-out) is completely smeared out. Simultaneously, NA45 finds in lead-gold collisions an excess of dileptons in the mass region between 250 and 700 MeV, by about a factor 3 above expectations from hadron decays scaled from proton-nucleon to lead-gold collisions. Theory explains this by a broadening of the $\rho$'s spectral function, resulting from scattering among pions and nucleons in a very dense hadronic fireball, just below the critical energy density for quark-gluon plasma formation. The $\rho$ meson mixes with its partner under chiral symmetry transformations, signalling the onset of chiral symmetry restoration as matter becomes denser and denser.

The theoretical analysis of the measured hadron abundances (NA44, NA45, NA49, NA50, NA52, WA97, WA98) shows that they reflect a state of "chemical equilibrium" at a temperature of about 170 MeV. This points to an even earlier stage of the collision. In fact, such temperatures (corresponding to an energy density of about 1 GeV/fm$^3$) are the highest allowed ones before, according to lattice QCD, hadrons should dissolve into quarks and gluons. The observations are explained by assuming that at this temperature the hadrons were formed by a statistical hadronization process from a pre-existing quark-gluon system. Theoretical studies showed that at CERN energies subsequent interactions among the hadrons, while causing pressure and driving the expansion and cooling of the fireball, are very ineffective in changing the abundance ratios. This is why, after accounting for the decay of unstable resonances, the finally measured hadron yields reflects rather accurately the conditions at the quark-hadron transition.

A particularly striking aspect of this apparent "chemical equilibrium" at the quark-hadron transition temperature is the observed enhancement, relative to proton-induced collisions, of hadrons containing strange quarks. Globally, when normalized to the number of participating nucleons, this enhancement corresponds to a factor 2 (NA49), but hadrons containing more than one strange quark are enhanced much more strongly (WA97, NA49, NA50), up to a factor 15 for the Omega ($\Omega$) hyperon and its antiparticle (WA97)! Lead-lead collisions are thus qualitatively different from a superposition of independent nucleon-nucleon collisions. That the relative enhancement is found to *increase* with the strange quark content of the produced hadrons contradicts predictions from hadronic rescattering models where secondary production of multi-strange (anti)baryons is hindered by high mass thresholds and low cross sections. Since the hadron abundances appear to be frozen in at the point of hadron formation, this enhancement signals a new and faster strangeness-producing process *before or during* hadronization, involving intense rescattering among quarks and gluons. This effect was predicted about 20 years ago as a quark-gluon plasma signature, resulting from a combination of large gluon densities and a small strange quark mass in this color deconfined, chirally symmetric state. Experimentally it is found not only in lead-lead collisions, but even in central sulphur-nucleus collisions, with target nuclei ranging from sulphur to lead (NA35, WA85, WA94). This is consistent with estimates of initial energy densities above the critical value of 1 GeV/fm$^3$ even in those collisions.

Evidence for the formation of a transient quark-gluon phase without color confinement is further provided by the observed suppression of the charmonium states $J/\psi,\,\chi_c,$ and $\psi'$ (NA50). These particles contain charmed quarks and antiquarks ($c$ and $\bar c$) which are so heavy that they can only be produced at the very beginning when the constituents of the colliding nuclei still have their full energy. As one varies the size of the colliding nuclei and the centrality of the collision one finds, after subtracting the expected absorption effects from final state interactions between the $c\bar c$ pair and the nucleons of the interpenetrating nuclei, a succession of suppression patterns: The most weakly bound state, $\psi'$, is suppressed already in sulphur-uranium collisions (NA38), the intermediate $\chi_c$ seems to disappear quite suddenly in semicentral lead-lead collisions, and in the most central lead-lead collisions an additional reduction of the $J/\psi$ yield indicates that now also the strongly bound $J/\psi$ ground state itself is significantly suppressed (NA50). The observation of $\chi_c$ suppression is indirect, via its 30-40% contribution to the measured $J/\psi$ yield which is expected from scaling proton-proton measurements. Charmonium suppression was predicted 15 years ago as a consequence of color screening in a quark-gluon plasma which should keep the charmed quark-antiquark pairs from binding to each other. According to this prediction, suppressing the $J/\psi$ requires temperatures which are about 30% above the color deconfinement temperature, or energy densities of about 3 GeV/fm$^3$. This agrees with estimates of the initial energy densities reached in central lead-lead collisions, based on calorimetry or on a back-extrapolation from the freeze-out stage to the timei before expansion started. It was tried to reproduce the data by assuming that the charmonia are destroyed solely by final state interactions with surrounding hadrons; none of these attempts can account for the shape of the centrality dependence of the observed suppression. On the other hand, the interpretation of this pattern in terms of color screening by deconfined quarks and gluons leads to the prediction of a similar suppression pattern at RHIC in much smaller nuclei; this prediction will soon be tested.

In spite of its many facets the resulting picture is simple: the two colliding nuclei deposit energy into the reaction zone which materializes in the form of quarks and gluons which strongly interact with each other. This early, very dense state (energy density about 3–4 GeV/fm$^3$, mean particle momenta corresponding to $T$ $\approx$ 240 MeV) suppresses the formation of charmonia, enhances strangeness and begins to drive the expansion of the fireball. Subsequently, the "plasma" cools down and becomes more dilute. At an energy density of 1 GeV/fm$^3$ ($T$ $\approx$ 170 MeV) the quarks and gluons hadronize and the final hadron abundances are fixed. At an energy density of order 50 MeV/fm$^3$ ($T$ = 100–120 MeV) the hadrons stop interacting, and the fireball freezes out. At this point it expands with more than half the light velocity.

This does not happen only in a few "special" collision events, but essentially in *every* lead-lead collision: characteristic observables, like the average transverse momentum of produced particles or the kaon/pion ratio, show only the statistically expected fluctuations in a thermalized ensemble, around average values which are the same in all collisions (NA49). Since the kaon/pion ratio is essentially fixed at the point of hadronization, this indicates the absence of long-range correlations like those expected in a fully-developed thermodynamic phase transition. A better theoretical understanding of the phase-transition dynamics might emerge from these observations. The short-range character suggests similarities with the transition found in high-$T_c$ superconductivity.

"Direct" observation of the quark-gluon plasma may be possible via electromagnetic radiation emitted by the quarks during the hot initial stage. Searches for this radiation were performed at the SPS (WA98, NA45, NA50) but are difficult due to high backgrounds from other sources. For sulphur-gold collisions WA80 and NA45 established that not more than 5% of the observed photons are emitted directly. For lead-lead collisions WA98 have reported indications for a significant direct photon contribution. Preliminary data from NA45 are consistent with this finding, but so far not statistically significant. NA50 has seen an excess by about a factor 2 in the dimuon spectrum in the mass region between the $\phi$ and $J/\psi$ vector mesons. The predicted electromagnetic radiation rates at the above mentioned temperatures are marginal for detection. While under these conditions it is a great experimental achievement to have obtained positive evidence for a signal, its connection with the predicted "thermal plasma radiation" is not yet firmly established.

This is expected to change at the higher collision energies provided by RHIC and LHC. The much higher initial temperatures (up to nearly 1000 MeV for lead-lead collisions at the LHC have been predicted) and longer plasma lifetimes should facilitate the direct observation of the plasma radiation and lead to the production of additional heavy charm quarks by gluon-gluon scattering in the QGP phase. The much higher initial energy densities which can be reached at RHIC and LHC give us more time until the quarks and gluons rehadronize, thus allowing for a quantitative characterization of the quark-gluon plasma and detailed studies of its early tharmalization processes and dynamical evolution. Finally, the higher collision energies allow for the production of jets with large transverse momenta, whose leading quarks can be used as "hard penetrating probes" within the quark-gluon plasma. At RHIC a set of four large detectors, with complementary goals and capabilities, ensures that all experimental aspects of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions are optimally covered. The ability of the collider to simultaneously accelerate and collide nuclei of different sizes and energies promises a complete understanding of systematic trends as one proceeds from proton-proton via proton-nucleus to gold-gold collisions. As in solid state physics, where the knowledge of the basic interaction Lagrangian (QED) does not permit to reliably predict many bulk properties and where the detailed understanding of the latter is usually driven by experiment, we expect that such a systematic experimental study of strongly interacting matter will eventually lead to a quantitative understanding of "bulk QCD". We are looking forward to these far-reaching opportunities provided by RHIC and LHC.

NA44 Collaboration:

H. Beker et al., "$M_T$-dependence of boson interferometry in heavy ion collisions at the CERN SPS", Physical Review Letters **74** (1995) 3340-3343

I.G. Bearden et al., "Collective expansion in high-energy heavy ion collisions", Physical Review Letters **78** (1997) 2080-2083

I.G. Bearden et al., "Strange meson enhancement in Pb-Pb collisions", Physics Letters B **471** (1999) 6-12

NA45/CERES Collaboration:

G. Agakichiev et al., "Low-mass $e^+e^-$ pair production in 158 A GeV Pb-Au collisions at the CERN SPS, its dependence on multiplicity and transverse momentum", Physics Letters B **422** (1998) 405-412

B. Lenkeit et al., "New results on low-mass lepton pair production in Pb-Au collisions at 158 GeV/$c$ per nucleon", Nuclear Physics A **654** (1999) 627c-630c

B. Lenkeit et al., "Recent results from Pb-Au collisions at 158 GeV/$c$ per nucleon obtained with the CERES spectrometer", Nuclear Physics A **661** (1999) 23c-32c

NA49 Collaboration:

T. Alber et al., "Transverse energy production in $^{208}$Pb+Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon", Physical Review Letters **75** (1995) 3814-3817

H. Appelshäuser et al., "Hadronic expansion dynamics in central Pb+Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon", European Physical Journal C **2** (1998) 661-670

F. Sikler et al., "Hadron production in nuclear collisions from the NA49 experiment at 158 GeV/$c \cdot A$", Nuclear Physics A **661** (1999) 45c-54c

NA50 Collaboration:

M.C. Abreu et al., "Anomalous $J/\psi$ suppression in Pb-Pb interactions at 158 GeV/$c$ per nucleon", Physics Letters B **410** (1997) 337-343

M.C. Abreu et al., "Observation of a threshold effect in the anomalous $J/\psi$ suppression", Physics Letters B **450** (1999) 456-466

M.C. Abreu et al., "Evidence for deconfinement of quarks and gluons from the $J/\psi$ suppression pattern measured in Pb-Pb collisions at the CERN-SPS", CERN-EP-2000-013, submitted to Physics Letters B

NA52/NEWMASS Collaboration:

R. Klingenberg et al., "Strangelet search and antinuclei production studies in Pb+Pb collisions", Nuclear Physics A **610** (1996) 306c-316c

G. Ambrosini et al., "Baryon and antibaryon production in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 $A$ GeV/$c$", Physics Letters B **417** (1998) 202-210

G. Ambrosini et al., "Impact parameter dependence of $K^{\pm}, p,
\overline{p}, d$ and $\overline{d}$ production in fixed target Pb + Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon", New Journal of Physics **1** (1999) 22.1-22.23

WA97/NA57 Collaborations:

E. Andersen et al., "Strangeness enhancement at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 A GeV/c", Physics Letters B **449** (1999) 401-406

F. Antinori et al., "Production of strange and multistrange hadrons in nucleus-nucleus collisions at the SPS", Nuclear Physics A **661** (1999) 130c-139c

F. Antinori et al., "Transverse mass spectra of strange and multistrange particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 $A$ GeV/$c$", CERN-EP-2000-001, submitted to European Physical Journal C

WA98 Collaboration:

R. Albrecht et al., "Limits on the production of direct photons in 200 $A$ GeV $^{32}$S+Au collisions", Physical Review Letters **76** (1996) 3506-3509

M.M. Aggarwal et al., "Centrality dependence of neutral pion production in 158 $A$ GeV $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions, Physical Review Letters **81** (1998) 4087-4091; **84** (2000) 578-579(E)

M.M. Aggarwal et al., "Freeze-out parameters in central 158 $A$ GeV $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions", Physical Review Letters **83** (1999) 926-930


abstract: A concise survey of the contribution of D.I. Blokhintsev to the quantum physics, including solid state physics, physics of metals, surface physics, statistical physics and optics is given. These achievements have been considered in the context of modern development of these fields of physics.

**The Knight of the Quantum: On the Contribution of D.I. Blokhintsev to Quantum Physics**[^1]
A. L. Kuzemsky
*Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
email@example.com; http://theor.jinr.ru/kuzemsky*

The name of Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR D. I. Blokhintsev (January 11, 1908 – January 27, 1979) is widely known in Russia and abroad. His books are being republished; information on his biography and his scientific heritage can be found in multiple papers and collections of papers. However, for many scientists, his name is related mainly to his works in the field of atomic and nuclear physics, applied acoustics, participation in the creation of the first nuclear power station in Obninsk, reactor construction, and multiple studies in high energy and elementary particle physics. It is not so well known that at first he wrote some quite interesting and important works in the field of quantum solid state physics and statistical physics. In the beginning of his distinguished academic career , D.I. Blokhintsev has worked in the field of quantum solid state physics and statistical physics, as well as in the field of quantum physics . The aim of my talk is to recall these quite interesting and important works and correlate them with corresponding modern directions in condensed matter physics and quantum physics . D.I. Blokhintsev entered the Physics Faculty of Moscow State University in 1926. At that time L.I. Mandelstam was the head of the Department of theoretical physics and optics and I.E. Tamm was professor of theoretical physics of that Department. Blokhintsev considered L.I. Mandelstam, S.I. Vavilov and I.E. Tamm his teachers. I.E. Tamm become his Ph.D. promotor in postgraduate studies. Thus, Blokhintsev's student years brought him great and fruitful experience in communicating, at lectures and in laboratories, with brilliant and interesting representatives of physical sciences of the time. Blokhintsev was certainly influenced strongly by Mandelstam and learned a lot from him, in particular, his breadth of views on physics as an indivisible science, lecturing skills, understanding the importance of a scientific school, organization of science, etc. As was noted later, "Lectures and seminars given by Mandelstam at the university in 1925-1944 were of special importance. They were devoted to a wide field of the most topical problems in physics in which the lecturer delivered an extremely deep analysis of the modern state of the art without concealing existing difficulties, and he outlined original solutions to very complex problems. These lectures attracted a wide audience of physicists of various ages and ranks from all parts of Moscow." Mandelstam delivered his famous lectures on the principles of quantum mechanics (the theory of indirect measurements) in spring of 1939. He intended to read a series of lectures on the connection of the mathematical tools of quantum mechanics and its statistical interpretation, causality, etc., as a continuation of these lectures; the basis of this series of lectures was supposed to be the famous book written by J. von Neumann. Later, this program was realized by Blokhintsev.
It was time when quantum mechanics had acquired a certain maturity . In the book by Gurney , also referred to in Blokhintsev's works, quantum mechanics is characterized as a new language of physics and chemistry. "The program of quantum mechanics includes no more and no less than the reconsideration of atomic and molecular physics in their entirety on the basis of new laws of behavior of particles following from quantum mechanics". Blokhintsev joined the realization of a program of reconsideration of atomic and solid state physics in their entirety on the basis of new quantum physics with enthusiasm. As he later recollected, "During that period (1927-1929), new quantum mechanics originated and great capabilities in the application of this new physical concept and new methods of calculation of various atomic phenomena were found" . At that time, solid state physics, in particular, the theory of metals, attracted great attention. In 1932, the work "Temperature Dependence of the Photoeffect on Pure Metals" of D.I. Blokhintsev was published. The next paper was "The Work Function of Electrons from Metals" (1933) (jointly with I.E. Tamm). In the monograph  this study by Tamm and Blokhintsev was cited together with other basic works on the problem. Thus, from the very beginning, his works were at the highest level of quality. The early works of D.I. Blokhintsev have manifested also his talents of clear vivid presentation of the subject, transparent style, concreteness, the ability to point out most significant things and, most important, emphasis on the *physical meaning*. In a large work by Blokhintsev in 1933 "Theory of Electron Motion in a Crystal Lattice", the F.Bloch theory of motion of tight binding electrons was generalized for the many bands case and for the electron motion in a crystal which is bounded by surface. The next work was the paper "Theory of Anomalous Magnetic and Thermoelectric Effects in Metals"(1933) coauthored with L.W. Nordheim (1899-1985). In this work, the consistent theory of thermoelectric and galvanomagnetic effects in metals was constructed. Unlike earlier works, the case of $s-p$ band metals was considered. The authors studied the behavior of divalent metals in a magnetic field ( Thompson and Hall effects). To make their equations compact, Blokhintsev and Nordheim introduced a new notion, the tensor of reciprocal effective masses. In the book of Mott and Jones , the priority of Blokhintsev and Nordheim in the creation of this fundamental notion was established. The achievement made by Blokhintsev and Nordheim was that they showed that the concept of effective mass was much more general and workable than had been assumed before and for the first time demonstrated the tensor character of the effective mass by considering the behavior of the electron in external fields. It turned out that the notion of effective mass is extremely useful in the theory of conductivity and other fields of solid state physics, nuclear physics, etc. The concept of effective mass became widely applied, especially in semiconductor physics and the physics of semiconductor devices, the polaron theory, semiconductor superlattices, microelectronics and physics of nanostructures.
A few word should be said about Blokhintsev's coauthor Lotar Wolfgang Nordheim (1899-1985). Nordheim belonged to the Gettingen school of theoretical physics. He was a PhD student with M. Born, and after defending his PhD thesis in 1923, his assistant and colleague till 1933. All his works are marked by bright talent and deep insight into a problem. In Jammer's book , the following fact is given: "In autumn of 1926, Hilbert began systematic studies of the mathematical principles of quantum mechanics. Lotar Wolfgang Nordheim, Born's former student, and the 23-year-old John von Neumann helped him in these studies. Hilbert also gave lectures on the mathematical principles of quantum theory, which were published in shorter form in the spring of 1927." Nordheim worked successfully in the application of quantum mechanics to statistical physics and solid state physics. He gave a successful description of the electron work function in metals, thermoelectron emission, electron kinetics in metals and alloys, etc. Thanks to a grant from the Rockfeller Foundation, Nordheim visited Moscow in 1933 as an invited professor to MSU. His studies were quite close to those performed by the Tamm's group. It was during that visit that he performed his joint work with Blokhintsev.
In 1933, Blokhintsev published "Theory of the Stark Effects in a Time-Dependent Field". In this paper Blokhintsev showed that the atomic levels move under influence of variable electric field (Stark modulation). The picture of light scattering depends nonlinearly on the intensity of the incident light. This work was one of the first in the field of physics, which was latter called *nonlinear optics*.
In 1934, Blokhintsev published paper on the theory of phosphorescence. According to the author, "An attempt was made to explain the phenomenon of phosphorescence in the so called Lenard phosphors on the basis of quantum mechanical ideas of the electron motion in the crystal lattice" . Blokhintsev assumed that duration of the phosphorescence can be related with the capability of formation of *quasilocalized* electronic states in a real crystal as a result of the *local lattice deformation* due to the introduction impurities. Then he estimated the time of reciprocal recombination of these states. Thus, the theory of localized states made it possible to qualitatively ( and, partially, quantitatively) interpret the big duration of the phosphorescence. This point of view was included in textbooks on optics. This and subsequent works by Blokhintsev, in which the detailed theory of the kinetics of phosphorescence in heteropolar crystals and the theory of dyed crystals were constructed, contributed considerably to deeper understanding of this problem and showed once more that the quantum mechanical approach is indeed the "new language of physics and chemistry", providing effective description of phenomena considered "mysterious" in classical physics. The same approach was used by Blokhintsev in the work "Quantum Mechanical Theory of Adsorption" (1934) (co-authored with Sh. Shekhter). This work is a very useful and clear survey of the problem as a whole. The paper of the same authors "Lifetime of Particles in Adsorbed State" (1934) was devoted to the calculation of the lifetime of particles in the adsorbed state. In that paper it was demonstrated how the quantum mechanics provides one with the microscopic picture of phenomenon. The authors obtained the correct qualitative behavior of the average lifetime of the adsorbed molecule on the surface, which demonstrated once more the effectiveness of the quantum mechanical approach. In 1934, Blokhintsev presented his Ph.D. thesis to the Institute of Physics of the Moscow State University, entitled *Selected Problems of the Solid State Theory, Especially Metals*. As a result of the high level of the work, he received a degree of Doctor of Science. At the time, Blokhintsev was 26 years old.
In 1935–1936, Blokhintsev continued his work on the theory of light absorption in heteropolar crystals, the theory of phosphorescence, and the theory of dyed crystals. It is interesting to note that in the paper "Theory of Dyed Crystals" (1936), Blokhintsev, in certain sense, anticipated the concept of the *polaron*, which was formulated later by S.I. Pekar (1917-1985). S.I. Pekar wrote this story in his well known monograph  in 1951: "In 1936, Blokhintsev attempted to find out in which crystals autolocalization of electrons pointed out by Landau should be expected on the basis of the approximation of tight-binding electrons...". As is well known, S.I. Pekar coined the very term, *polaron*, in 1946. The main idea was that "excess" electron in ionic crystal polarizes the crystal lattice; this polarization in turn influences the electron, and this action is equivalent to the action of some effective potential well. The depth of this well in some crystals may be sufficiently large for discrete energy levels to exist in it. Local polarization caused by the electron is related to the displacement of ions from their average equilibrium positions. These states of the crystal with the polarization well in which the electron is localized were termed *polarons* by Pekar. The contribution made by Blokhintsev in 1936 to this direction of researches was mentioned later by a few other investigators. The main point was the formulation of the problem of autolocalized electronic states on the basis of approximation of tight-binding electrons. This approximation (LCAO)  later become widely used in condensed matter physics, especially for the description of localized states of different nature and disordered systems. The investigation of localized states in the framework of the tight-binding approximation bringed Blokhintsev to the point, namely to the need to describe the interaction of the electron with the lattice vibrations accordingly to the spirit of tight-binding approximation. This was carried out much later (see for details Ref. ).
In 1938, Blokhintsev prepared his work "*The Shift of Spectral Lines Caused by the Inverse Action of a Radiation Field*" for publication. He presented it at a seminar of the Physical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, where he was employed; he also submitted it to Zhurnal Experimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki \[Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics\] (ZhTEF). The work was rejected by the editorial board and published only in 1958 in Dubna in a collection of Blokhintsev's scientific works and papers. This work was mentioned in the survey report delivered by Ya.A. Smorodinskii  in 1949. Later on, the following was written : "Already in early works by Blokhintsev, deep understanding of the essence of quantum mechanics, fresh and bold ideas, an original way of thinking that foreshadowed the further development of physics were evident. Typical in this respect was his work on the calculation of the 'shift of spectral lines caused by inverse action of a radiation field,' which in essence contained the theory of the Lamb shift, which was the beginning of quantum electrodynamics. It was reported at the seminar at the Physics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and submitted to ZhTEF in 1938. The formula for the Lamb shift obtained by Blokhintsev became famous; it differs from the Bethe formula only by the numerical factor added in 1948 as a result of ultraviolet cutoff. Unfortunately, this important discovery was not published at that time in ZhTEF. There were no other outlets for publication". The genesis of the work "The Shift of Spectral Lines Caused by the Inverse Action of a Radiation Field" was best described by Blokhintsev himself . "I delivered the work that, in essence, contained the theory of the Lamb shift discovered ten years later, at a seminar at the Physics Institute. However, my work was not published, since the editorial board of ZhETF returned the manuscript because the calculations were considered unusual. I kept the manuscript, which was stamped by the journal certifying the date of its receipt (February 25, 1938). I found no support from my colleagues at the Physics Institute. There were no other outlets. Thus, this important work was not published in due time. The main idea of the work followed from my deep belief that a physical vacuum existed in reality; however, I refrained from presenting the affair in this light...". The **Lamb shift** is indeed related to quite remarkable and interesting effects of quantum physics . Lamb and his colleagues performed very precise, thorough, and elegant experimental studies on the determination of the structure of levels with $n = 2$ for hydrogen, deuterium, and singly ionized helium. Since the energy difference for these levels is very small, the probability of spontaneous transitions turns out to be negligible. However, if the atom is placed in a rotating (or oscillating) magnetic field with the corresponding frequency, induced transition can be observed. This frequency can be exactly measured; it is equal to the difference in energies of the two levels divided by $\hbar$. The measurement of the rotation frequency in Lamb's experiments yielded a value of the energy difference of two levels with the same principal quantum number in Rydberg units; it is interesting that this does not require any preliminary data on the Planck constant $\hbar$. The Lamb shift is mainly determined by the variation in the "scale" in wave functions of the atom, which are used upon calculation of the mathematical expectation of corresponding expressions. Blokhintsev wrote about his calculations in : "As a result of them, the following expression is obtained for the frequency shift: $$\label{ls3}
\delta \omega_{0} = k (\frac{e^{2}}{\hbar c})^{3} \frac{Z^{4}}{n^{3}} R \lg \left( \frac{\mu c^{2}}{\Delta E_{av}}\right),$$ where $k$ is the numerical coefficient,$\Delta E_{av}$ is the average energy, $n$ is the principal number of the level, and $R$ is the Rydberg constant. Due to the inaccuracy in cutoff, the coefficient $k$ and the values of $\Delta E_{av}$ differ somewhat from exact values obtained using the method of electron mass renormalization (note that () can be rewritten in the form $\delta \omega_{0} \cong |\psi_{s} (0) |^{2}$, as is usually done now; here, $\psi_{s} (0)$ is the value of the wave function at the point $r = 0$). The ratio $\delta \omega_{0}/\omega = 2.8 \cdot 10^{-8}$ calculated using this formula for the $He$ ion is in good agreement with respect to its absolute value and sign with the value measured by Paschen ($10^{-6} - 10^{-7}$). At the time, there were no more precise measurements. This circumstance was of course unfavorable for further improvement of an unpublished work. Only after World War II, in 1948, did the importance of this work for theoretical physics become clear." The Lamb shift in levels in hydrogen, i.e., the energy by which the $2S_{1/2}$ state is higher than the $2P_{1/2}$ state, is obtained by combining different terms contributing to the theoretical expression for the Lamb shift. Experimental investigations of the Lamb shift continue. It was reported not long ago that two-loop corrections to the Lamb shift were first measured in strongly ionized atoms of heavy elements using the ion trap technique . The history of theoretical calculation of the Lamb shift value is quite interesting. It is known from firsthand accounts and has been well described in many papers and books . According to V. Weisskopf  , "Since 1936, there have been vague data that the position of observed hydrogen levels does not exactly match the predictions following from the Dirac equation, the so-called Pasternak effect. Certain considerations existed on possible ways of calculating this effect using quantum electrodynamics in the presence of deviations. After the war, I decided to investigate this problem together with a very capable *PhD* student, B. French. We wanted to calculate this effect, which was more well known as the Lamb shift, by isolating the infinite self-energy of the electron. These were complicated calculations, since the renormalization technique had not been developed yet. It was necessary to calculate the energy difference of the free and bound electrons when both energies were infinite. We had to be very accurate, since the calculation of the difference of diverging quantities often results in errors. We overcame difficulties slowly, since there were no good experimental results at that time. Then Lamb and Retherford set up a good experiment, and finally, we obtained a result that agreed well with experimental data. I informed Julian Schwinger and Dick Feynman; they repeated the calculations; however, their results were different from ours, and Schwinger and Feynman obtained the same number. We postponed publication to find the error, spending half a year on it. Meanwhile, Lamb and Kroll published calculation result of the same effect, which more or less agreed with our result. Then Feynman called me from Ithaca, "You were right; I was wrong!" Thus, if we had had courage to publish our results, our paper would have been the first one to explain the experiment performed by Lamb and Retherford. What's the moral of this story? You have to believe in what you do."
In 1939, Blokhintsev published his work "Hydrodynamics of an Elecron gas". In this work, the hydrodynamic description of the system of many particles (electrons), i.e., description in terms of a "reduced" set of variables characterizing the system, the current $I(x)$ and the particle density $\rho(x)$, was considered. Blokhintsev maintained that since a many-particle problem could not be solved exactly, an approximate solution should be sought. It is known that an efficient way for calculating the energy eigenfunctions and eigenvalues is the self-consistent field method. This method was first developed by Hartree without taking into account electron exchange and then by Fock with this exchange taken into account. There exist a large number of works on this method both with and without the exchange account. Blokhintsev wrote in his work that from the very beginning he used the Hartree- Fock approximation, which assigns an individual function $\psi_{k}(x)$ to each electron $n$. In this approximation, the system of electrons is described by the density matrix. Considering the dynamic equations (equations of motion) for the current, Blokhintsev derived the "*hydrodynamic*" equation for a system of many particles (electrons) that contained gas density gradients in the stress tensor. To obtain closed expressions, he used approximations characteristic of statistical Fermi-Thomas theory. It is known that the statistical model of the atom describes the electrons of the atom statistically as an electron gas at a temperature of absolute zero. The model yields good approximation only for atoms with a large number of electrons, although it had been used for up to ten electrons. For the statistical approach, the details of the electronic structure had not been described; therefore, the application of a hydrodynamic description was quite relevant. Following the spirit of the statistical model of the atom, the total energy of the atom is obtained from the energy of the electron gas in separate elementary volumes $dv$ by integrating over the whole volume of the atom. Working in this way and using the continuity equation, Blokhintsev derived an expression for the gas energy that (in the statistical case) coincided with the expression obtained earlier by Weizsacker using a different method.
It is appropriate to note here that the work "Hydrodynamics of an Electron Gas" contains one more aspect that does not seem striking at first sight but is nonetheless of great interest. In essence, it was shown in this work that a system in the low-energy limit can be characterized by a small set of "collective" (or hydrodynamic) variables and equations of motion corresponding to these variables. Going beyond the framework of the low-energy region would require the consideration of plasmon excitations, effects of electron shell reconstructing, etc. The existence of two scales, low-energy and high-energy, in the description of physical phenomena is used in physics, explicitly or implicitly. Recently, this topic obtained interesting and deep development, connected with the concept of the "*quantum protectorate*." In a work with a remarkable title, "*The Theory of Everything*" , authors R. Laughlin and D. Pines discussed the most fundamental principles of the description of matter in a wide sense. The authors put forward the question what the "Theory of Everything" should be. In their opinion, "it describes the everyday world of human beings - air, water, rocks, fire, people, and so forth". The answer given by the authors was that "this theory is nonrelativistic quantum mechanics," or, more precisely, the equation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, which they wrote in the form $$\label{seq}
H\psi = - \frac{\hbar}{ i} \frac {\partial \psi}{\partial t}.$$ That was the only formula in their work; they also gave detailed definition of the Hamiltonian of a system consisting of many interacting particles. The authors agreed, however, that "Less immediate things in the universe, such as the planet Jupiter, nuclear fission, the sun, or isotopic abundances of elements in space are not described by this equation, because important elements such as gravity and nuclear interactions are missing. But except for light, which is easily included, and possibly gravity, these missing parts are irrelevant to people-scale phenomena. Eq.() is, for all practical purposes, the Theory of Everything for our everyday world. However, it is obvious glancing through this list that the Theory of Everything is not even remotely a theory of every thing. We know this equation () is correct because it has been solved accurately for small numbers of particles (isolated atoms and small molecules) and found to agree in minute detail with experiment. However, it cannot be solved accurately when the number of particles exceeds about 10. No computer existing, or that will ever exist, can break this barrier because it is a catastrophe of dimension. If the amount of computer memory required to represent the quantum wave function of one particle is $N$ then the amount required to represent the wave function of $k$ particles is $N^{k}$." According to R. Laughlin and D. Pines, "The emergent physical phenomena regulated by higher organizing principles have a property, namely their insensitivity to microscopics, that is directly relevant to the broad question of what is knowable in the deepest sense of the term. The low energy excitation spectrum of a conventional superconductor, for example, is completely generic and is characterized by a handful of parameters that may be determined experimentally but cannot, in general, be computed from first principles. An even more trivial example is the low-energy excitation spectrum of a conventional crystalline insulator, which consists of transverse and longitudinal sound and nothing else, regardless of details. It is rather obvious that one does not need to prove the existence of sound in a solid, for it follows from the existence of elastic moduli at long length scales, which in turn follows from the spontaneous breaking of translational and rotational symmetry characteristic of the crystalline state. Conversely, one therefore learns little about the atomic structure of a crystalline solid by measuring its acoustics. The crystalline state is the simplest known example of a quantum protectorate, a stable state of matter whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else. There are many of these, the classic prototype being the Landau fermi liquid, the state of matter represented by conventional metals and normal $^{3}He$... Other important quantum protectorates include superfluidity in Bose liquids such as $^{4}He$ and the newly discovered atomic condensates, superconductivity, band insulation, ferromagnetism, antiferromagnetism, and the quantum Hall states. The low-energy excited quantum states of these systems are particles in exactly the same sense that the electron in the vacuum of quantum electrodynamics is a particle: They carry momentum, energy, spin, and charge, scatter off one another according to simple rules, obey Fermi or Bose statistics depending on their nature, and in some cases are even "relativistic," in the sense of being described quantitatively by Dirac or Klein-Gordon equations at low energy scales. Yet they are not elementary, and, as in the case of sound, simply do not exist outside the context of the stable state of matter in which they live. These quantum protectorates, with their associated emergent behavior, provide us with explicit demonstrations that the underlying microscopic theory can easily have no measurable consequences whatsoever at low energies. The nature of the underlying theory is unknowable until one raises the energy scale sufficiently to escape protection."
The existence of two scales, low-energy and the high-energy, in the description of magnetic phenomena was stressed by Kuzemsky (see Refs. ) upon comparative investigation of localized and itinerant quantum models of magnetism. The concept of quantum protectorate was applied to the theory of magnetism in paper . We succeeded in formulating the criterion of applicability of quantum models of magnetism to particular substances on the basis of analyzing their low-energy and high-energy spectra.
In 1940, Blokhintsev's attention was attracted to the problem of statistical description of quantum systems. Interest to these problems stemmed from lectures and works on quantum mechanics by L. I. Mandelstam and K.V. Nikol'skii. Nikol'skii's book *Quantum Processes*  is mentioned many times in his papers. In the work "Correlation of a Quantum Ensemble with a Classical Gibbs Ensemble" (1940), the limiting transition from quantum equations of motion for the density matrix to the equations of motion for the classical distribution function was studied. Blokhintsev studied the possibility of correspondence between the classical distribution function $f(q, p)$ and the quantum density matrix $\rho$ from the general point of view. For this purpose, the mixed $(q, p)$ representation for the density matrix was used. Blokhintsev shown in that paper that there does not exist any distribution function depending on $(q,p)$ which could describe the quantum ensemble. In the next work on the topic (1940), the problem of the conditions of approximation of quantum statistics by classical statistics was considered. It was shown that there is no limiting transition $(h \rightarrow 0)$ from a quantum ensemble consisting of similar particles to a classical ensemble. The classical description is obtained if the state of the system is characterized by the position in the phase cell $\Omega \gg \hbar$. Thus, in these works, a new direction of physics was initiated: quantum mechanics in the phase space .
The title of the next work written by Blokhintsev (jointly with Ya.B. Dashevskii in 1941) is "Partition of a System into Quantum and Classical Parts." According to the authors, "Among physical problems that should be solved using quantum mechanical methods, there are such problems in which the system of interacting particles under study has a property that one of its parts during the processes occurring in the system moves as though it obeys classical laws of motion, i.e., moving along a trajectory." In this work, they studied the possibility of partitioning an interacting system into quantum and classical parts. They demonstrated the type of perturbation when the classical part acts on the quantum part. This field attracted great interest in subsequent years, especially in many problems of physical chemistry. A large number of works are devoted to this topic; some of them are considered in detail in survey .
In 1946, after switching to defense problems, Blokhintsev returned to quantum physics. The work performed in 1946 is titled "Calculation of the Natural Width of Spectral Lines Using a Stationary Method". This short work demonstrated high flexibility in handling tools of quantum mechanics when the result was reached in a simple and elegant way. Blokhintsev wrote, "Usually the problem of emission and absorption of light is considered using the method of quantum transitions. However, this problem, similar to the dispersion problem, can be solved in an extremely simple way using the method of stationary states". Then, the author wrote out the system of equations for state amplitudes of two types: (a) when the emitter is in the state $m$ and light photons are absent, and (b) when the emitter is in the state $n$ and one light photon has been emitted. Taking into account the energy conservation law, the solution for the amplitude was obtained, and on its basis, the approximate expression for the level position of the whole system (emitter and radiation). "This expression resulted in exactly the same shift and smearing of levels as those obtained by Dirac upon calculation of resonance scattering." Then, the spectral distribution within the line width was found. The author noted that upon transformation of the amplitude to the coordinate representation, , "we obtain a divergent wave with an amplitude that slowly increases with increasing distance from the radiation source in the same way as took place for a classical decaying oscillator".
In 1947, Blokhintsev published the work "The Atom under an Electron Microscope". Blokhintsev wrote that "this work, devoted to a very special problem, is worth mentioning due to a somewhat unusual formulation of the problem. The origin is thus. I paid attention to the fact that under the action of a scattered electron, the atom receives recoil and can be knocked out of its position on the surface of the 'object plate.' If it were not knocked out at first scattering, it could be knocked out at subsequent scattering. It should be noted that this experiment is unusual from the point of view of the common formulation of measurements in a quantum ensemble. Indeed, in this case, we consider the repetition of measurements with the same sample of the atom, rather than a set of atoms, as is usually done. After each measurement the state of the atom, generally speaking, changes, and it becomes a sample of another quantum ensemble. Thus, the series of scattering necessary for obtaining an image of the atom consists of a series of scattering related to objects from different quantum ensembles. This seems to be a unique case of such a situation."
Since physicists, chemists, metallurgists, and biologists needed improved microscopes, this problem always stirred interest. It should be noted that remarkable works were performed by Mandelstam on the theory of the microscope. Mandelstam displayed his inherent the strength and depth of thought and his keen understanding of the physical nature in analyzing this problem. Blokhintsev's work continued the development of the theory of the microscope at the new quantum stage. The interest in this problem not only stemmed from the applied value. According to Blokhintsev, "The development of the theory of the microscope is of interest from the theoretical point of view, since when observing a single atom using an electron microscope, the image will emerge as a result of repetition of single scattering acts on the same object, while in quantum mechanics, results are usually formulated with respect to a set of objects in the same initial state. Due to the action on the atom, each new scattering act, generally speaking, will force the atom to be in a new initial state. Therefore, it is important to analyze the influence of electron scattering on the state of the observed atom". Further development in physics proved that Mandelstam and Blokhintsev's interest in problems of the theory of the microscope was justified. This direction was developed in subsequent years greatly and is being extensively developed now.
Blokhintsev's name is closely related to the problem of **interpretation of the quantum mechanics** . Blokhintsev recollected  that "in the 1930s – 1940s, the interest of many physicists-theoreticians at the Lebedev Physics Institute and MSU was concentrated on the principles of quantum mechanics, which seemed full of paradoxes to many people." A large number of his books  and papers  were devoted to this problem. His views of the problem changed and evolved with deepening and perfection of arguments.
The most topical problems of interpreting quantum mechanics were the problem of measurement and the role of the observer, and the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function. The variety of opinions concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics increased with time. Blokhintsev wrote : "Those discussions are reflected in my works; the polemical character of my papers devoted to critical analysis of the ideas of the Copenhagen school and those of Fock gradually brought me to a consistent materialistic concept of quantum ensembles and mathematical measurement theory. Only in the 1960s, after discussions with the Hungarian physicist L. Janosi, did I manage to formulate a reasonable theory of quantum measurements free from inconsistencies in interpreting the role of the observer. In this new concept, the measuring device and its interaction with the microobject were transformed from the subject of philosophical discussions to the subject of theoretical physics".

As a result of longterm research and reflections, Blokhintsev developed his own approach to interpreting quantum mechanics, which included ideas put forward by J. von Neumann, L.I. Mandelstam, and K.V. Nikol'skii. It was called the interpretation of quantum mechanics on the basis of quantum ensembles. He wrote in a summary work , "The presentation of quantum mechanics undertaken in these lectures is essentially based on the ideas of von Neumann, which in their time attracted the attention of the Moscow school of theoreticians; in 1930s this school was headed by Academician Mandelstam; also Nikol'skii contributed considerably to our understanding of quantum mechanics." Blokhintsev thought that "this approach to the principles of quantum mechanics had an advantage, as compared to traditional interpretations on the basis of the wave function, since it allowed one to include the theory of quantum measurements as a chapter of quantum mechanics". In Blokhintsev's approach, the statistical operator describing the state of the microsystem in a quantum ensemble of the general type plays the primary role. The wave function describes a special type of quantum ensemble, the coherent ensemble. Blokhintsev's approach to the interpretation of quantum mechanics became widely known. De Witt and Graham  in their survey of different approaches to interpreting quantum mechanics wrote about Blokhintsev's books: "...they are both very well written and informative. The departure from orthodoxy occurs, in fact, only in certain attitudes and choice of words, while the general presentation of quantum mechanics is refreshing...; \[the second book\] contains an excellent account of measurement theory". Blokhintsev's approach to interpreting quantum mechanics is a constituent part of the scope of ideas of various researchers. One of the authoritative historians of quantum mechanics, Hooker , noted that "...Einstein and his co-workers Podolsky and Rosen, Blokhintsev, Bopp, de Broglie, Popper, Schrodinger, Lande, and most recently Ballentine constitute a small group of physicists and philosophers, who are determined to treat quantum theory as a species of statistical mechanics, many of them hoping ultimately to reinstate the classical conception of reality." A detailed survey of the interpretation of quantum mechanics on the basis of quantum ensembles can be found in . The interpretation of quantum mechanics on the basis of quantum ensembles is one of many in existence. Thus, the interpretation of quantum mechanics on the basis of quantum ensembles occupies a separate (noticeable) place among other possible approaches to interpretation of quantum mechanics. Interpretation of quantum mechanics on the basis of quantum ensembles was considered in detail by Ya.A. Smorodinskii (1986). The conclusion he made is quite remarkable : "Discussion showed that if the theory of quantum ensembles is used, these ensembles should be assigned unusual properties that could not be consistent with common probability theory; these properties are not manifested for one particle and can be found only in correlated effects; similar to non-Euclidean geometry necessary for the description of the velocity space in special relativity, quantum mechanics has generated the *non-Kolmogorov probability* theory; this is probably the deep meaning of analysis of the properties of a quantum ensemble" (see also recent book ).
We conclude this paper with the words by Max Born formulated in his lecture "Experiment and Theory in Physics" delivered in 1943. "Those who want to master the art of scientific prediction should, instead of relying on abstract deduction, try to comprehend the secret language of Nature, which is represented by experimental data." Blokhintsev in his lectures and talks more than once expressed similar thoughts, may be in slightly different words. In these notes and in the extended review  we have tried not only to write about Blokhintsev's studies, but build them into appropriate lines of the development of quantum physics and connect them, directly or indirectly, to the modern development of these fields of science. We have tried to show that Blokhintsev's book *Quantum Mechanics* , which is justly considered one of the best textbooks in quantum physics, was compiled by a witness to and a participant in the formation and development of quantum mechanics. It organically includes most of his original works in an integrated description of the subject. This, together with the definite literary talent of the author and his gift for presenting the subject clearly and lucidly, is the background on which the book *Quantum Mechanics* stands, and it continues to describes the world using the **language of a quantum**!
In this work due to the lack of space, not all the topics and problems that I wanted to discuss are here. Permit me to refer any reader who wants to reflect on Blokhintsev's works to a collection of selected works in two volumes that will be published in 2008 in Moscow.
A more detailed discussion of modern approaches to interpreting quantum mechanics can be found in paper . The full details and precise References are given in paper  as well.

[^1]: Plenary Talk, given at XIII-th Int. Conf. on Selected Problems of Modern Theoretical Physics, Dubna, 22–27 June 2008