\section{Introduction}
Development of high energy $e^{+} e^{-}$ linear colliders
   is of crucial importance for the future particle physics.
Various R$\&$D works are now in progress to achieve
  higher energy and higher luminosity.
Development of a high gradient RF cavity is essential to attain high energy
  while realization of a low emittance beam as well as a good  beam monitor
  is important for high luminosity.
At KEK, the Accelerator Test Facility (ATF), consisting of
  a 1.54 GeV linac and a damping ring, has been built
  to study generation and manipulation of an ultra-low emittance
  electron beam.
In accordance with this purpose, we have started developing
  a beam profile monitor
  to measure beam emittance in the ring.
Table \ref{table-DRbeam} shows the design parameters of the ring
  relevant to our monitor~\cite{ref-ATF-design}.
Since the expected beam size is about  $10\,\mu $m
  vertically and about $ 60\,\mu$m horizontally,
  a beam profile monitor with
  better than $ 10 \mu$m resolution is required.
A wire scanner made of tungsten or carbon is
  one candidate~\cite{ref-wirescanner1}~\cite{ref-wirescanner2}.
However, a thin wire (for example, $10 \,\mu$m in diameter to
  achieve a desired resolution) is expected to be destroyed due to
  thermal stress caused by interactions with
  the intense electron beam inside the ring.
Wire material will also influence the beam condition;
  an undesirable property for the monitor.

Use of a laser beam, in stead of material wire,
  has been proposed~\cite{ref-sintake}~\cite{ref-Ross}.
For example, a monitor using an intense pulsed laser was
  tested successfully and achieved a resolution
  in a sub-micron range~\cite{ref-sintake}.
This monitor, however, works at a repetition
  rate of 10Hz and is not best suited to the quasi-continuous
  beam in the ATF damping ring; it would either take measurement time
  very long or necessitate a powerful laser.

A new beam profile monitor is designed
  using a CW laser and an optical cavity.
A laser beam with a very thin waist is realized by
  employing the cavity of nearly concentric mirror configuration
  while the intensity is amplified by
  adjusting the cavity length to a Fabry-Perot resonance condition.
This monitor, referred to as a laser wire beam profile monitor,
  operates as follows.
An electron interacts with laser light
  and emits an energetic photon into the original
  electron beam direction (Compton scattering).
The counting rate of a scattered photon is observed at various
  wire positions; its shape then
  gives a beam profile in one direction.
The monitor should be able to withstand an intense electron beam
  without interfering it.

In this report, we describe a conceptual design of the beam profile monitor
   and some experimental results of a basic study
   with a test cavity~\cite{ref-sakamura}.
The main aim of the study is to establish a  method to measure the size of
  laser beam waist and the power enhancement factor.
The paper is organized as follows :
  Sec. 2 deals with a theoretical approach to the design of a
  new monitor.
An experimental test setup and the results are shown in Sec.3.
A summary and discussions are given in Sec.4.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Beam parameters of the ATF damping ring.
 The values listed in the third column are used in the counting rate
 calculation. Note($a$): These values indicate the beam sizes
 at which this monitor will be installed.
        They are calculated from the designed emittance
        of $1.4 \times {10}^{-9}$m$\cdot$rad (horizontal) and
        $1.0 \times {10}^{-11}$m$\cdot$rad (vertical) with beta-functions of
        ${\beta}_{x}=2.6$m (horizontal) and
        ${\beta}_{y}=7.8$m (vertical), respectively.}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}[b]{lccc} \hline \hline
 parameters                          & design value  & rate calculation & units  \\ \hline
 beam energy                         & 1.54          & 1.54   & {\rm GeV}    \\
 circumference                       & 138.6         &        & {\rm m}  \\ \hline
 beam size (horizontal)${}^{(a)}$    & 61            & 61     & $\mu$m   \\
 beam size (vertical)${}^{(a)}$      & 8.8           & 8.8    & $\mu$m   \\
 beam size (longitudinal)            & 5             &        & {\rm mm} \\ \hline
 particles/bunch                     & 1 $\sim$ 3    & 1      & $10^{10}$   \\
 bunch spacing                       & 2.8 $\sim$ 5.6& 2.8    & {\rm nsec}  \\
 bunch /train                        & 10  $\sim$  60& 20     &           \\
 train spacing                       & 60            & 60     &{\rm nsec} \\
 train/ring                          &  2 $\sim$ 5   &  4     &         \\ \hline
 damping time (horizontal)           &  6.8          &        &{\rm msec}  \\
 damping time (vertical)             &  9.1          &        &{\rm msec}  \\
 damping time (longitudinal)         &  5.5          &        &{\rm msec}  \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table-DRbeam}
\end{center}
\end{table}%

\section{Theoretical approach}

In this section, we consider a Compton process and an optical cavity.
We first present a relation between the energy and angle
  of the photon emitted by the Compton process.
We then calculate its cross section and an expected counting rate.
Several parameters, such as intensities and sizes of the electron and laser beam,
  must be assumed to do this calculation.
We employ a set of parameters listed in the third column of Table~\ref{table-DRbeam}
  for the electron beam.
As to the laser beam, a 10 mW He-Ne laser and
  an optical cavity with a beam waist of  $10 \,\mu$m
  and a power enhancement of 100 are supposed.
These cavity parameters are our goals at present.
We review a theory of an optical cavity in the latter half
  of this section.

\begin{figure}[bhtp]
\hspace*{\fill}
\epsfysize=60mm
\epsfbox{figs/fig01.eps} \hspace*{\fill}
\caption{Compton  scattering kinematics in the laboratory system.
 (The recoil electron is not shown.)}
\label{fig-kinematics}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Compton scattering}
\paragraph{Kinematics}
Fig.\ref{fig-kinematics} shows the Compton scattering kinematics
  in the laboratory system.
Here a laser light with an energy ${k}_{0}$
  is assumed to be injected perpendicular to
  an electron beam with an  energy $E$.
The energy of scattered photon $k$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
  k=\frac{k_{0} E}
    {E+k_{0}- \sqrt{E^2- m_{e}^2} \cos {\theta}_{c} }
\end{eqnarray*}
  where $m_{e}$ denotes the electron mass.
In principle, $k$ depends upon
  both polar angle ${\theta}_{c}$  and azimuthal angle
  ${\phi}_{c}$ (not shown in Fig.\ref{fig-kinematics}).
In practice, however,
  $k$ depends only on ${\theta}_{c}$
  (hereafter referred to as a scattering angle),
   because the incident electron energy $E$ is
  much larger than the laser photon energy $k_{0}\,(E \gg k_{0})$.
The energy $k$ is plotted in Fig.\ref{fig-scattered}
 as a function of ${\theta}_{c}$ for a He-Ne laser ($\lambda=633$nm).
We note that energetic  photons are emitted in the direction of
 the incident electron;
 for example, photons with 10 MeV or larger are emitted within
  $0.53$ mrad.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig02.eps}
\caption{ The energy $k$ of a scattered photon vs
          the scattering angle ${\theta}_{c} $.}
\label{fig-scattered}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Cross Section}
The cross section of the Compton process is given by
 Klein-Nishina formula when the initial electron is at rest.
We made the appropriate Lorentz boost to calculate
 the cross section in the laboratory frame.
The result is shown in Fig.\ref{fig-xsection}.
We note that the cross section is sharply peaked at ${\theta}_{c}=0$ :
  for example, the partial cross section
  with ${\theta}_{c}< 0.53$ mrad ($k >10$ MeV) amounts to
  0.44 barn, which should be compared with
  the total cross section of 0.65 barn.
Evidently, to identify the Compton scattering unambiguously,
  it is best to detect the energetic photons emitted in the forward direction.
For the sake of argument, we assume that scattered photons with
  $k >10$ MeV can be detected with 100\% efficiency in the following.

\paragraph{Counting rate}
Having determined the cross section of the Compton scattering,
 we now estimate the counting rate.
Here, as stated before,  we assume a 10 mW laser and an optical cavity with
 a beam waist of $10\, \mu$m and a power enhancement factor of 100.
The counting rate is linear to the laser power and/or the enhancement
 factor so that extrapolation for other values is straightforward.
Taking all factors into account,
 we found the counting rate to be 3.2 kHz (horizontal measurement)
and 28.8 kHz (vertical  measurement)~\cite{note-dia10}.
Here the horizontal (vertical) measurement represents the case in which
   the electron's horizontal (vertical) beam size is measured
   at the peak of a gaussian-like beam
   with a vertical (horizontal) laser wire.
Since the vertical beam size is much smaller than
  that of horizontal one, the counting rate is larger accordingly.

\begin{figure}[bhtp]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig03.eps}
\caption{ The Compton scattering cross section.}
\label{fig-xsection}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Optical cavity}

In this section, we briefly summarize the theory of
 an optical cavity (resonator) which is necessary for discussions
 on the design and measurements of our test cavity.
It can be derived from the Helmholtz equation that
  there exists a set of electromagnetic waves
  that have spherical wave fronts and Gaussian amplitudes.
These waves are called Gaussian beams~\cite{ref-gauss}.
The electric field of the fundamental TEM$_{00}$ mode is represented by
\begin{eqnarray*}
E_{0}(x,y,z)=A \frac{w_{0}}{w(z)}
            \exp \left( -\frac{x^2+y^2}{w^2(z)} \right)
            \exp \left( i \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} \cdot
                                  \frac{x^2+y^2}{2R(z)} \right)
            \exp \left( i \Phi(z) \right),
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
   w(z)&=&w_{0} \sqrt{ 1 + \left( \frac{z}{z_{0}} \right)^2 }
     \label{eq-beam-wz},                                            \\
   R(z)&=&z+\frac{z_{0}^2}{z},  \nonumber                             \\
   \Phi(z)&=& \arctan \left( \frac{z}{z_{0} } \right), \nonumber      \\
   z_{0}&=&\frac{\pi w_{0}^2 }{\lambda }               \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
 where $\lambda $ represents the wave length,
 $w(z)$ the beam spot size at the location $z$,
 $R(z)$ the curvature of the wave front,
 $\Phi(z)$ the Guoy phase factor,
 and $z_0$ the Rayleigh length.
The parameter $w_{0}$ is called the beam waist,
 and represents the smallest spot size realized at $z=0$.
The beam is well described by the geometrical optics where $|z|>z_{0}$.
Suppose two spherical mirrors with curvatures $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ are
 placed at $z_{1}$ and $z_{2}$, respectively.
If conditions
\begin{eqnarray*}
 R_{1}&=&R(z_{1})=z_{1}+z_{0}^2/z_{1} \\
-R_{2}&=&R(z_{2})=z_{2}+z_{0}^2/z_{2}
\end{eqnarray*}
 are satisfied, then the Gaussian beam can be stably confined in the optical
 cavity formed by the two mirrors.
It can be shown that there always exists a certain stable Gaussian beam
 for any curvatures $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$
 and any cavity length $D$ ($D=z_{2}-z_{1}$),
 if the stability condition
\begin{eqnarray*}
 0 \le \left( 1-\frac{D}{R_{1}} \right) \left( 1-\frac{D}{R_{2}} \right) \le 1
\end{eqnarray*}
 is satisfied.
In other words, the properties of the stable Gaussian beam are uniquely determined
 once $R_{1}$, $R_{2}$ and $D$ are given.
In particular, the beam waist is represented by
\begin{eqnarray}
w_{0}^2=\frac{ \lambda }{ \pi }
        \frac{  \sqrt { D (R_{1}-D) (R_{2}-D) ( R_{1}+R_{2}-D )}  }
             { |    R_{1}+R_{2}-2 D   |                           }
        =\frac{ \lambda }{ \pi }
         \frac{ \sqrt { D (2 R-D )}  }{ 2 }
\label{eq-waist}
\end{eqnarray}
 where the latter equality holds for the mirrors with equal
 curvatures, i.e. $R=R_{1}=R_{2}$.
Fig.\ref{fig-waist} shows the beam waist $w_{0}$ as a
 function of $D$ for $\lambda=633$ nm and $R=20$ mm.
(These values of $\lambda$ and $R$ are employed in the actual studies
  described in the next section.)
It can be seen from the figure that, in order to realize a very thin
beam waist, the cavity must be nearly concentric ($D \simeq 2R$).
For example, a beam waist of 10 $\mu$m
 is realized when $D=40{\rm mm}-24 \mu{\rm m}$.
It should also be noted that the requirement for the setting
accuracy in $D$ is very severe.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig04.eps}
\caption{ The beam waist $w_{0}$ as a function of the cavity length $D$.}
\label{fig-waist}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

A stable Gaussian beam can be produced by injecting
 an appropriate laser beam into a cavity.
The spot and divergence of the input laser beam at the mirror
 must match with those of the Gaussian beam in the cavity.
Some of the laser light is transmitted to the other side of
 the cavity.
The transmission ratio T is given by the Airy function represented by
\begin{eqnarray}
T=1/\left[
           1+\frac{4 {\it F}^2 }{ \pi^2 }
            \cos^2  \left( \frac{2 \pi D}{ \lambda } -\delta \right)
          \right]
\label{eq-finesse}
\end{eqnarray}
 where $\delta $ is a phase shift which characterize the reflection at
 the mirrors.
The quantity $F$ is called ``finesse'' and is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
F=\frac{ \pi \sqrt{R_{m}} }{ 1- R_{m} }
\end{eqnarray*}
where $R_{m}$ is the reflectivity of the mirrors.
  (The two mirrors are assumed to be identical here.)
Alternatively, the finesse $F$ may be expressed,
  from Eq.(\ref{eq-finesse}), by
\begin{eqnarray*}
F=\frac{ \Delta D (peak-to-peak) }{ \delta D (fwhm)  }
 =\frac{ \lambda /2              }{ \delta D (fwhm)  }
\end{eqnarray*}
 where $\Delta D$ is the difference in $D$  between the two adjacent peaks,
 and $\delta D$ the full width at half maximum of a single peak.
The peak-to-peak distance $\Delta D$ is called the free spectral
 range, and is equal to a half of the wave length $\lambda$.

The power enhancement factor $P$ inside the cavity is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
P=\frac{ T }{ 1- R_{m} }
  \left\{ 1+R_{m} -2 \sqrt{ R_{m} } \sin
  \left( \frac{ \pi (z-D) }{ \lambda } + \delta \right)
  \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It exhibits an interference pattern along the laser beam axis.
Averaging the above formula over $z$,
  we obtain the average power enhancement factor $\bar{P}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{P}=\frac{ 1+ R_{m} }{ 1- R_{m} }T \simeq \frac{2}{3} F T,
\end{eqnarray*}
which takes its maximum value of \,
$\displaystyle
\frac{ 1+ R_{m} }{ 1- R_{m} }\simeq \frac{2}{3} F
$ \,
when \, $T=1$.
For example, we need a mirror with reflectivity $R_{m}=98\%$
 in order to obtain a power enhancement factor of 100.

\section{Experimental Studies with a Test Cavity}
In this section, we describe our experimental studies
with a test cavity.
Their main purpose is to establish methods of
 measuring the relevant Gaussian beam parameters.
Specifically, we would like to measure the beam waist $w_{0}$ and
 the average power enhancement factor $\bar{P}$.
Since the beam waist is the most important parameter to our application,
we examined several independent methods of  measuring $w_{0}$.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig05.eps}
\caption{ Schematic diagram of the test setup.}
\label{fig-setup}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Setup of the experiment}
Fig.\ref{fig-setup} shows a schematic diagram of our test setup.
It consists of a He-Ne laser ($\lambda=633$ nm)~\cite{ref-laser},
  an isolator, an input lens system,
  a test cavity, and a photodiode detector.
The laser provided a 1 mW beam with a diameter of 0.5 mm ($1/e^{2}$) and
 a full angular divergence of 1.6 mrad.
The transverse spatial mode is ${\rm TEM_{00}}$.
In order to avoid a reflected beam to reenter the laser cavity,
 an optical isolator consisting of a polarizer and a quarter-wave plate
 was placed at the laser exit.
A set of concave and convex lens formed an input lens system,
 which adjusted the laser beam to match with the Gaussian mode
 characteristics to the cavity.
We used two sets of spherical mirrors~\cite{ref-mirror}
  of equal curvature ($R=20$mm) with different reflectivity.
One set had a nominal reflectivity of $96\%$ and the other set $85\%$.
The substrate was  BK7 glass ($n=1.519$): its spherical surface was coated
 with multi-layer dielectric materials and the other flat surface was polished.
Thus they acted as a concave lens for input and output light.

These optical elements were installed on adjustable positioners.
In particular, the downstream mirror was staged on a piezo
 translator~\cite{ref-piezo} to scan the mirror along the beam direction $z$.
The piezo translator was controlled by a controller~\cite{ref-piezo}
 and was monitored by a strain gauge sensor
 with a 10 nm position resolution.
We could set the piezo translator manually or scan it
 by an external voltage signal via the controller.
A PIN photodiode~\cite{ref-photodiode} was placed at the exit of the cavity.
Its output signal was fed into
 a simple current-to-voltage amplifier
 whose output was in turn monitored by an oscilloscope.
Unless otherwise noted, we tuned the cavity to the fundamental
  TEM$_{00}$ mode.

\subsection{Measurement of a power enhancement factor}

We  measured the finesse to evaluate a power enhancement factor.
A function generator was used to produce a triangle signal at
 a frequency of $\sim$100 Hz.
It was fed into the piezo controller.
Its amplitude was set so that the cavity length $D$ spanned over
 several free spectral ranges.
A typical example of the detector output is shown in Fig.\ref{fig-fsr}.
We expected the horizontal trace to be
  proportional to the change in the cavity length $D$
  since the piezo translator was driven by a triangle signal.
In reality, however, the relation was found to be non-linear due to
 a hysteresis effect of the piezo translator
 as well as a mechanical resonance effect of the mirror holder.
We measured on the oscilloscope the full width of a single peak
 $(\delta D (fwhm))$ and the distances to
 the flanking peaks  ($\Delta D $).
Then average was taken for the latter to cancel out the non-linear effect.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig06.eps}
\caption{ A typical example of the detector output, showing the Airy function.}
\label{fig-fsr}
\end{figure}
Assuming that the observed $\Delta D$
 was equal to $\lambda  /2$,
 we found the finesse $F$ to be 70 (22)
 for the mirrors with $R_{m}=96\%  (85\%)$.
The uncertainty in the measurement, stemming mainly from the
 non-linear effect in $D$,
 was estimated to be less than 10\%.
The measured value should be compared with an expected value of $F$=77 (19).
We note that, for our actual application,
 precise knowledge of an absolute intensity is  unnecessary
 as long as it remains constant since a beam profile
 would be measured as a relative shape of
 scattered photon's counting rate.

\subsection{Waist measurement by a shift-rotation method}

In order to obtain a beam waist of \about$10 \mu$m,
 the cavity length should be set very close to twice
 of the mirror curvatures ($D \simeq 2R$).
The tolerance in $D$ is rather severe; for example,
 to realize 10\% accuracy in the beam waist
 ($\delta w_{0}/w_{0} = 10\%$) for $w_{0}=10 \mu$m, the setting error in $D$
 must be as small as \about$10 \mu$m.
This would be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
 since construction of the cavity necessarily induces setting errors,
 especially of glass mirrors.
Thus it is highly desirable to measure the cavity length $D$
 with sufficient accuracy.

\paragraph{Principle of shift-rotation method}
At first, we employed the following method~\cite{ref-sakamura}
 (referred to as a shift-rotation method).
Suppose that we have a cavity with unknown cavity length.
Suppose also that the cavity is tuned to the fundamental TEM$_{00}$ mode.
Now we shift one of the mirrors laterally.
Since the mirrors are both spherical, one can always realign
   it by rotating the whole cavity.
A simple calculation shows that the displacement $ x_{\theta}$
and rotation angle
 $ \theta $
 are related by
\begin{eqnarray*}
 \tan (  \theta ) = \frac{ x_{\theta}}{2R-D}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Because the actual mirror is made of concave glass,
 it acts as a lens.
When this effect is taken into account,
the formula above should be replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}
 \sin (  \theta ) = n \sin
 \left\{ \arctan \left( \frac{ x_{\theta}}{2R-D} \right) \right\}
\label{eq-shift-rotation}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n$ represents the refractive index of the glass substrate.
By measuring $ x_{\theta}$ and $ \theta$,
we can determine $2R-D$,
 and can calculate the beam waist $w_{0}$ with Eq.(\ref{eq-waist}).

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\hspace*{\fill}
\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig07.eps} \hspace*{\fill}
\caption{ Beam waist measurement by shift-rotation method
(a) $n {x}_{\theta}/\theta$ vs 2R-D. The solid line is a fit to
 the data points by a straight line with a unit slope.
(b) $\delta {w}_{0}/{w}_{0}$ vs ${w}_{0}$. The beam waist ${w}_{0}$ and
its relative error $\delta {w}_{0}/{w}_{0}$ are obtained from measured
$n {x}_{\theta}/\theta$ data and its rms deviation.}

\label{fig-Dcavity}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Results of the measurement}
We measured several sets of $ x_{\theta}$
and $ \theta$ at a fixed cavity length $D$.
We then changed cavity length $D$ by moving the stage on which the
 downstream mirror was mounted.
We could trace the amount of a change in $D$
 because the stage was driven by a micrometer
 (attached to the stage in tandem with the piezo translator).
Fig.\ref{fig-Dcavity} (a) shows the results
  of such measurements.
The ordinate is the quantity
\begin{eqnarray}
 \frac{ x_{\theta}}{\tan \left\{ \arcsin \left(
         { \sin  \theta }/{n}      \right) \right\}  }
 \simeq \frac{ n  x_{\theta} }{  \theta }
\label{eq-nx-over-theta}
\end{eqnarray}
where the approximation holds for small $ \theta $.
The abscissa, labeled as $2R-D$, represents actually
  $z$ position of the downstream mirror.
For a fixed z position,
each data point represents the measurement
 for different sets of $ x_{\theta}$ and $ \theta$.
It can be seen from Eq.(\ref{eq-shift-rotation}) that
 the quantity of Eq.(\ref{eq-nx-over-theta}) becomes $2R-D$.
Thus, ideally all the data points should reside on a straight
 line with a unit slope.
The solid line in the figure represents such a fit.
The intersection of the line with the abscissa is then relabeled as origin.
Having established the relation between $2R-D$ and the downstream mirror $z$ position,
 we calculated the beam waist $w_{0}$ with Eq.(\ref{eq-waist}).
We also calculated the root-mean-squared (rms) deviation of
 the data points from the fitted line at fixed $2R-D$.
Each rms deviation was then converted to a relative error in $w_{0}$
 and is shown in Fig.\ref{fig-Dcavity} (b).
These errors originated from both $ x_{\theta}$ and $ \theta$
measurements:  the former was due mainly to the reading
error of the micrometer
  and the latter to the uncertainty in determining the
  exact $ \theta $ at which the realignment of the
  optical axis was restored.
In this  paper,
  we assign a common error of $\delta w_{0}/w_{0}=0.05$
  to the measurements for  $w_{0}>20 \mu$m.
We would like to postpone drawing any conclusion
 for  $w_{0}<20 \mu$m~\footnote{
      This judgment was made partially because
      the cavity was found to be relatively unstable for
      $w_{0} < 20 \mu$m.}.

\subsection{Measurement of the far field beam divergence}
It can be seen from Eq.(\ref{eq-beam-wz})
 that the beam width $w(z)$ in a far
 field is given by
 $\displaystyle w(z) \simeq \frac{w_{0}}{z_{0}}z =
                      \frac{\lambda }{\pi w_{0}}z$.
Thus a measurement of the output laser profiles
 gives information on the beam waist $w_{0}$.
In particular, the beam intensity, when measured along $x$, reduces to
 $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{e}}$ at
 $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}}=\frac{\lambda z}{2 \pi w_{0}}$
 from the peak value.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\hspace*{\fill}
\epsfxsize=\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig08.eps} \hspace*{\fill}
\caption{ Intensity profile of the output laser beam at the positions
of (a)\,$z={180}$, (b) 230, (c) 280, and (d) 330 mm
 ($w_{0}=25 \mu$m). }
\label{fig-beamwidth25}
\end{figure}

Actual measurements were carried out for 4 different values of the
  beam waist; $w_{0}$=20, 25, 30 and 35 $\mu$m.
We call them ``nominal'' values because these were all determined by
 the shift-rotation method.
We inserted a slit with a horizontal width of $200 \mu$m
 in front of the photodiode.
It was then scanned horizontally ($x$ direction)
  to measure the beam profile.
In order to enhance measurement accuracy, we determined the beam widths
 $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}}$
 as a function of $z$, and obtained the beam waist $w_{0}$
 as a slope of these measurements~\footnote{
   In the actual analysis, the effect due to the concave mirror
   (with refractive index $n$) is taken  into account.
   Then the beam width $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}}$
   is given by
   $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}}=\frac{n \lambda z}{2 \pi w_{0}}$,
   instead.}.
Fig.\ref{fig-beamwidth25} shows typical results of such a measurement
 (for the nominal beam waist of $w_{0}=25 \mu $m).
Each solid line represents a Gaussian fit to the data points,
  from which the width $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}}$ is determined.
Fig.\ref{fig-beam-xvsz} shows  $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}} $
 as a function of $z$.
Each straight line in the figures is  a linear fit to the data points and
 $w_{0}$ is  deduced from its slope.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\hspace*{\fill}
\epsfxsize=\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig09.eps} \hspace*{\fill}
\caption{ Measurements of the beam widths
 $\displaystyle x_{1/\sqrt{e}} $
 as a function of $z$  for the nominal beam waist of
 $w_{0}=$ (a) 35, (b) 30, (c) 25,  and (d) 20 $\mu $m.
 The solid lines are the results of a straight line fit to the data points.}
\label{fig-beam-xvsz}
\end{figure}
Table \ref{table-beamwaist} shows the summary of the measurements
 (see the third column).
The listed errors are all fitting errors.
Note that, since the nominal values are determined by the
  shift-rotation method, they also have uncertainties,
  which are listed in the second column.
As seen, the two sets of the values agree well with each other.
(The fourth column will be explained in the next section.)

\subsection{Measurement of higher order  transverse modes}
The phase of a higher transverse mode ${\rm TEM_{mn}}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
 \phi (z) = -\frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} z + \left( m + n + 1 \right) \Phi(z)
\end{eqnarray*}
at $z$ on the beam axis.
These transverse modes interfere constructively when the phases
 at the mirrors ($z = \pm D/2$) satisfy the resonance condition
\begin{eqnarray*}
 \phi (-D/2) - \phi (D/2) = p \pi
\end{eqnarray*}
 where $p$ denotes an integer.
A straightforward calculation shows that
 the condition above is equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray}
 D_{p}= \frac{\lambda }{2}
       \left\{
              p+\frac{m+n+1}{\pi} \arccos
              \left( \frac{D_{p}}{R}-1 \right)
       \right\}.
\label{eq-higermode}
\end{eqnarray}
The transmitted beam intensity also exhibits its maximum value
 when the resonance condition is met.
Therefore, the spacing between the adjacent peaks
 belonging to the same p is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
 \Delta D_{p}=D_{p}(m+n=1)-D_{p}(m+n=0)=\frac{\lambda}{2}
 \left[ \frac{1}{\pi} \arccos
         \left( \frac{D}{R}-1 \right)  \right]
\label{eq-highermode-spacing}
\end{eqnarray}
where the quantity $ D_{p}$ in the right hand side
 of Eq.(\ref{eq-higermode}) is replaced by
 a representative value $D$ since its dependence is weak.
Thus we can determine  $D$ by measuring the
 spacing $\Delta D_{p}$ of these peaks.
As represented in Eq.(\ref{eq-highermode-spacing}), we actually measured
 the spacing between the first excitation mode
 ($m+n=1$) and the fundamental mode ($m+n=0$).

\begin{table}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{Summary of the beam waist measurements.
 The nominal values are defined to be those
 determined by the shift-rotation method. Their uncertainties are
 listed in the second column. }
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline
 nominal $w_{0}$  & shift-rotation
           & $a_{1/\sqrt{e}}$ measurement &   transverse mode    \\ \hline
 20.0 & $\pm$ 1.0 $\mu$m  & 20.4 $\pm$ 1.7 $\mu$m & 20.1 $\pm$ 0.58 $\mu$m  \\
 25.0 & $\pm$ 1.3 $\mu$m  & 24.8 $\pm$ 1.2 $\mu$m & 24.9 $\pm$ 0.42 $\mu$m  \\
 30.0 & $\pm$ 1.5 $\mu$m  & 31.0 $\pm$ 1.6 $\mu$m & 30.0 $\pm$ 0.30 $\mu$m  \\
 35.0 & $\pm$ 1.8 $\mu$m  & 37.5 $\pm$ 1.4 $\mu$m & 36.4 $\pm$ 0.25 $\mu$m  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table-beamwaist}
\end{center}
\end{table}

After confirming the cavity to be in the fundamental
 TEM$_{00}$ mode, we detuned the
 optical axis by shifting one of the mirrors laterally
 to excite the transverse mode.
Fig.\ref{fig-higermode} shows a typical example of
 an output including higher transverse modes.
We determined the spacing between the main peak (the fundamental mode)
 and its adjacent peak (the first excitation mode)
 as well as the spacing between two main peaks (a free spectral range).
Then we deduced the cavity length $D$ via Eq.(\ref{eq-highermode-spacing}).
The results of the measurements by this method are listed
 in the fourth column of Table \ref{table-beamwaist}.
Uncertainty came mainly from reading errors on the oscilloscope
 and also from non-linearity in $D$.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth
\epsfbox{figs/fig10.eps}
\caption{An example of an output including higher transverse modes.}
\label{fig-higermode}
\end{figure}

\section{ Summary and Discussions}
We described in this paper a conceptual design
 of a beam profile monitor for an electron beam
 with a transverse size of \about $60 \mu$m (horizontal)
and \about $10 \mu$m (vertical).
Specifically, the monitor is intended to diagnose
 an electron beam in the ATF damping ring at KEK.
The monitor works as follows: we realize a very thin
 (\about  $10 \mu$m) laser wire in an optical
 cavity.
Energetic photons are emitted by the Compton scattering
in the direction of the electron beam.
The counting rate, measured as a function of
 the laser beam position, will  give information on
 the electron beam profile.

We calculated the scattered photon energy spectrum
 (see Fig.\ref{fig-scattered}) and the Compton cross
 section (see Fig.\ref{fig-xsection}) for the 1.54 GeV
 electron beam.
Assuming a 10 mW laser and an optical cavity with a beam waist of $10 \mu$m
 and a power enhancement of 100,
 the expected counting rate is 3.2 kHz (horizontal)
and 28.8 kHz (vertical) when scattered
 photons with energies $>$10 MeV are detected.

A key element of the proposed monitor is the optical cavity,
 in which a Gaussian beam with a $10 \mu$m beam waist must be
 realized.
A power enhancement inside the cavity is an another
 important parameter to investigate.
We thus constructed a test cavity to measure these parameters.
The cavity realized the power enhancement of 50 and the beam
 waist of $20\mu$m.
For the beam waist measurement, we employed three independent methods.
As seen in Table \ref{table-beamwaist},
 the results obtained by these methods
 are consistent with each other.
The relative error $\delta w_{0}/w_{0}$ is about 5\% by
 the shift-rotation method,
 less than 10\% by the beam divergence measurement
 and less than  3\% by the higher transverse mode measurement.
We measured the finesse $F$ to obtain a power enhancement
 factor.
Using the mirrors with reflectivity of $ R_{m}=96\%$,
 we obtained the enhancement of 50 ($F=70$),
 which is consistent with the expected value.

Several comments are in order here.
First,
 we have not yet demonstrated a $10 \,\mu {\rm m}$ beam waist.
The main defect in this test cavity is its mechanical rigidity.
In particular the mirror holder (supporting rod)
 caused disturbing resonant vibration.
This can, however, be overcome with a proper cavity design.
The second comment is on comparison between the three methods
 employed to measure the beam waist.
The measurement of the beam width $x_{1/\sqrt{e}}$ is
 very simple and reliable.
A newly devised method, the shift-rotation method, gave  more
 accurate results than the beam divergence measurement.
However, these methods would not be applicable for an actual
 cavity installed in an electron beam line.
The third one, the observation of higher transverse modes,
 is simple and the most accurate among the three.
Thus this method is best suited to an in-situ measurement.
Finally, we comment on a power enhancement factor or
  an effective power inside the cavity.
We demonstrated the enhancement factor of 50.
Obviously a higher power is desirable: it would allow us
 faster measurement and would enable us
 to study, for example, an electron cooling process and/or a
 size of an individual bunch.
In this regard, we plan to employ a laser with a higher power and
 mirrors with a higher reflectivity for a prototype monitor.
A design work is now underway.

\begin{ack}
It is our pleasure to thank Dr. M. Ross for suggesting this work
and Prof. H. Sugawara and K. Takata
for their support and encouragement.
\end{ack}


\section{Introduction}
As a rule,
real entities, or ``real degrees of freedom",
 are described in quantum theory
through
operators which are self-adjoint.  There are,
however, exceptions to the rule.
A common feature of these exceptional
degrees of freedom is that they
display a form of ``unsharpness" or ``fuzzyness".
\medskip\newline
To see this, let us first recall that if an
observable is described, as usual,  through a self-adjoint
operator, then the observable is
absolutely sharp in the sense that,
in principle, it can be measured to arbitrarily
fine resolution. This is because
 every self-adjoint operator $Q$ possesses
 a spectral resolution, or
``eigenbasis".
Indeed, if the system is in a
$Q$-eigenstate, say $\vert q_n\rangle$, then the $Q$-uncertainty
\begin{equation}
\Delta Q ({\vert\psi\rangle})~ :=~  \langle \psi\vert
(Q-\langle \psi\vert Q\vert \psi\rangle)^2\vert \psi
\rangle^{1/2}
\end{equation}
(for $\vert \psi\rangle$ normalized)
vanishes:
 \begin{equation}
\Delta Q({\vert q_n\rangle})  =  \langle q_n\vert (Q-\langle
 q_n\vert Q\vert q_n\rangle)^2\vert q_n
 \rangle^{1/2}   =  0
\end{equation}
Also,
eigenvectors to different eigenvalues are orthogonal.
Thus, if the system is localized with respect to
the observable $Q$
around some value $q$ then the probability
for finding it localized around
any other value $q^\prime$
 vanishes. Of course, if an ``eigenvalue"
  $q$ is in the continuous
spectrum then the ``eigenstate" $\vert q\rangle$
is nonnormalizable and must be approximated by
a sequence of normalizable states. But also
 in this case,
the uncertainty $\Delta Q$ can be made arbitrarily
 small, and two eigenstates to different
points in the spectrum are
orthogonal, then with respect to the continuum
normalization.
\smallskip\newline
Thus, as is well-known, any self-adjoint
observable $Q$ is ``sharp" in the sense that
its states of maximal $Q$-localization - the
eigenstates $\{\vert q\rangle\}$ -
are orthogonal if localized around different
values of $q$,
and in the sense that each maximal localization
state has vanishing uncertainty $\Delta Q$.
\bigskip\newline
The reason why unsharp real degrees of freedom
 can occur is that,
a priori, a real entity in a quantized theory
 may correspond to
any operator whose expectation values are
 real - and, crucially, operators whose
expectation values are real need not be self-adjoint:
\smallskip\newline
We recall that an operator whose expectation
 values are real is
a symmetric operator. In
finite dimensional Hilbert spaces,
symmetric operators are
self-adjoint and self-adjoint operators
 are symmetric.
But in infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces,
 symmetric
operators need not be self-adjoint. This also
means that
they need not possess a spectral resolution
and diagonalization. As a consequence,
an operator $Q$ whose expectation values are real
 may also describe a
degree of freedom which
is fuzzy or unsharp, in the sense that the minimum
 value for $\Delta Q$ may be
larger than zero, and$/$or those vectors which
realize the minimum value for $\Delta Q$ may not be
orthogonal.
\smallskip\newline
A simple example  in nonrelativistic
quantum mechanics is
the momentum operator ${\bf p}$ of the particle
 in a box. For simplicity, let us consider
the case in one dimension, where the particle
 is confined, e.g.,
into the interval $[-L,L]$:
\smallskip\newline
We recall that all
physical wave functions $\psi(x)$ vanish at the
 boundary of the box and
that the momentum operator ${\bf p}$ acts on
physical wave functions
as the derivative operator
 ${\bf p} =-i\hbar\partial_x$. Indeed,
${\bf p}$ is an example of a merely symmetric operator:
Clearly, all expectation values of ${\bf p}$ are real, and
therefore ${\bf p}$ is symmetric.
On the other hand, ${\bf p}$ is not
self-adjoint. This is because
plane waves do not vanish at the boundaries
and they are therefore not physical states.
This means that plane waves are not in
the domain of ${\bf p}$, which implies that
${\bf p}$ has no eigenbasis and no spectral resolution.
\smallskip\newline
As a consequence, ${\bf p}$ is indeed
unsharp: From the uncertainty relation, since
$\Delta x$ is surely smaller than $2L$,
we can expect that the minimum uncertainty
in momentum is larger than zero. Indeed, the
precise minimum value
for $\Delta p$ is $\Delta p_{min}=\pi\hbar/2L$.
We will discuss this example in more detail below.
\medskip\newline
In general, for example
in any candidate theory for a fundamental
theory of quantum gravity,
it appears reasonable\footnote{
We will here not consider the alternative
possibility of nonlinear operators.}
to assume that entities which are described
in the classical theory through real variables
are described in the quantized theory
through operators which are linear and whose
expectation values are real.
Of course, we cannot assume that all those operators
are observables in the usual quantum mechanical
 sense, nor that
they even act on the space of states. Instead,
these operators may act
on some Hilbert space of fields, or
branes (as we will briefly discuss below), or
indeed on any abstract Hilbert space.
\smallskip\newline
On this level of generality we can only say that
while some real degrees of freedom
may be described as self-adjoint operators, others
may be described by merely symmetric
operators - and that correspondingly the real
 physical entities which
they correspond to are  ``sharp" or ``unsharp".
Interestingly, however, there exists
only a limited number of types of  sharpness or
 unsharpness, or ``short-distance structures",
which can occur with operators whose expectation
values are real, i.e. with symmetric operators.
A classification has been outlined in \cite{ak-erice}:
\smallskip\newline
Since the class of symmetric operators includes
the self-adjoint operators, two of the
possible short distance structures are lattices
and continua, corresponding to the fact that
self-adjoint operators occur with discrete and
continuous spectra. The other extreme
are the purely unsharp cases. These are described
by the class of
simple symmetric operators. Those are operators
 which are symmetric but not self-adjoint,
not even on any invariant subspace.
There exist subclasses of these operators which
describe different types
of unsharpness. In \cite{ak-erice}, they
 have been divided into two broad classes,
 fuzzy-A and fuzzy-B. Technically,
the two classes correspond the two possibilities
of the deficiency indices being
equal or unequal.
\smallskip\newline
In the present paper, we are concerned with those
operators which describe entities that are unsharp
of type fuzzy-A. Mathematically, these are the simple
 symmetric operators with equal deficiency indices.
For example, the momentum operator of the particle
in a box is of the type fuzzy-A.
\smallskip\newline
There are indeed theoretical indications that
short-distance structures
of the type fuzzy-A
occur with the description of space-time at the Planck scale:
\smallskip\newline
Various theoretical arguments have long indicated that
space-time displays a fundamental
``foaminess", see \cite{hawking}, or unsharpness
 at very small lengths.
In particular, several studies, see e.g.
\cite{gross}-\cite{haro}, suggest that
the structure of space-time at the Planck scale, or the
string scale, is characterized effectively by
 correction terms to the uncertainty relations
and, in particular, by corrections of the type:
\begin{equation}
\Delta X \Delta P ~\ge ~\frac{\hbar}{2}
(1 + k~ (\Delta P)^2 +...)
\label{stucr}
\end{equation}
As is easily verified, for any $k>0$,
 Eq.\ref{stucr} implies the existence of a
 finite lower bound for $\Delta X$, namely:
 \begin{equation}
 \Delta X_{min} =
\hbar \sqrt{k}
\end{equation}
Here, $k$ is assumed to be a small
positive constant
which is  related to the Planck scale,
or in string theory to the string
scale. We here only
remark that recent studies (on large extra
dimensions that are seen by
gravity only) suggest that the unification
and/or the Planck scale may even be
as low as the TeV scale, see e.g.\cite{dienes}.
\smallskip\newline
A positive minimum uncertainty $\Delta X_{min}>0$
arising from uncertainty relations of the
type of Eq.\ref{stucr} can be introduced as
an ultraviolet cutoff in quantum field
theories \cite{ak-jmp-qft,ak-gm}.
It has also been shown that this type of cutoff may
solve the transplanckian energy paradox
of black hole radiation, see
\cite{broutetal}. For general reviews of
quantum gravity -
and string theory motivations
of Eq.\ref{stucr}, see e.g.
\cite{garay,witten}. For a recent discussion of
the potential origins of Eq.\ref{stucr}
see e.g. \cite{santiago}, and
for a path integral approach to
modified uncertainty relations see \cite{mangano}.
\smallskip\newline
Technically, it is clear that any operator
 $X$ which obeys an uncertainty relation
of the type of Eq.\ref{stucr} cannot possess
 eigenvectors,
since the uncertainty $\Delta X$ would vanish
for eigenvectors.
Therefore, any such operator $X$ can only be symmetric
but not self-adjoint. More precisely, it must be of
the type fuzzy-A, as was first shown in \cite{ak-erice}.
We remark that operator realizations
and the functional analysis of uncertainty
relations of the type of Eq.\ref{stucr} were first
discussed in \cite{ak-ucr}.
\bigskip\newline
On the other hand, if we are to study those
cases in which a real degree of freedom
is represented not
by a self-adjoint but instead by a merely
symmetric operator, then
we must also address the fact that
 self-adjoint operators
often play two r{\^o}les, namely both
as real degrees of freedom \it and \rm
also as generators of symmetries.
Therefore,  the question arises, whether,
or how, merely symmetric operators could
also be involved in the generating of symmetries.
Indeed, it is known that there is an important
 difference in this respect between self-adjoint and
merely symmetric operators. Namely,
merely symmetric operators,
unlike self-adjoint operators, do not  generate unitaries,
at least not directly.
\medskip\newline
In the present paper, we therefore
consider fuzzy-A type operators
with respect to the generation of
unitary transformations - and
we will find that these operators possess
a remarkable property:
\medskip\newline
By definition, the fuzzy-A type operators
are those operators $Q$ which on the physical
domain $D_Q=D_{phys}$ are simple symmetric
with equal deficiency indices.
For each such operator there exists a family of
operators $\{Q(\alpha)\}$ which
coincide with $Q$ on the physical
 domain $D_Q$ and which
are self-adjoint.
The $Q(\alpha)$ therefore generate unitaries
 in the usual way.
We claim that these $Q(\alpha)$ - we
recall that they
all coincide with $Q$ on the physical domain -
generate, together,  \it all \rm unitary
 operators in the Hilbert space.
This shows that, in this way,
operators of the type fuzzy-A can  indeed
relate to all aspects of symmetries in the
Hilbert space on which they act.
\smallskip\newline
We will also find that this result supports a
 conjecture made in \cite{ak-erice,ak-euro}.
The conjecture proposes a mechanism by which
those small wavelengths which are being cut off
in the case of a fuzzy-A short-distance structure
effectively turn
into internal degrees of freedom with an isospinor
structure on which unitary groups act.

\section{Examples of  Unsharp Degrees of Freedom}
Before we discuss the theorem, let us introduce
 concrete examples of simple symmetric operators
to which the theorem will apply.
\subsection{The momentum of the
particle in a box
We have already mentioned the example of the
 momentum operator ${\bf p} =-i\partial_x$ of
 the particle in a
box  (from now on we set $\hbar =1$). Since
 we will later use this example also
to illustrate the new theorem on generating
symmetries,
let us discuss this case in more detail:
\smallskip\newline
Assume the box to be the  one-dimensional
interval $[-L,L]$.
Due to the confining  box potential, all
physical wave functions $\psi(x)\in
D_{phys}\subset H=L^2(-L,L)$ vanish at the boundary:
\begin{equation}
\psi(-L)=0=\psi(L)
\label{bc1}
\end{equation}
The expectation values of ${\bf p}$ are real:
\begin{equation}
\langle \psi\vert {\bf p} \vert \psi\rangle \in \mbox{I \hspace{-0.82em} R},
 ~~~~~\mbox{for all ~~} \vert \psi\rangle \in D_{phys}
\end{equation}
Thus, ${\bf p}$ is a symmetric operator. On the other hand,
since no plane wave obeys the boundary condition,
 Eq.\ref{bc1},
${\bf p}$ does not possess (normalizable nor
nonnormalizable) eigenvectors. Thus ${\bf p}$ is not
self-adjoint, instead ${\bf p}$ is simple symmetric.
\smallskip\newline
Even though there are no plane waves among the
 physical states,
plane waves can of course be
approximated by sequences of physical states which
 are
approximately plane waves within most of the
interval $[-L,L]$, but which also quickly
decay to zero towards the boundaries, such as to
 always obey the boundary condition, Eq.\ref{bc1}.
\smallskip\newline
One may therefore be tempted to assume that ${\bf p}$
is still ``approximately" self-adjoint and should
therefore describe a sharp entity. This is,
however, not the case: Indeed, as we already mentioned,
${\bf p}$ is unsharp in the sense that for all physical
states $\vert \psi\rangle \in D_{phys}$ the
momentum uncertainty is bounded from below by a
 fixed finite amount:
\begin{equation}
\Delta p(\psi) ~\ge ~\Delta p_{min} = \frac{\pi}{2L}
~~~~~\mbox{for all normalized}
 ~~\vert\psi\rangle~ \in~ D_{phys}
\end{equation}
Intuitively, the reason is that the larger the
part of the interval on which a physical
wave function approximates a plane wave, the
steeper it must decay to zero towards the
boundaries. The steep decay necessarily yields
 a significant contribution to the action
of the derivative operator ${\bf p}$. This is
connected to the fact
that ${\bf p}$ is a noncontinuous
operator. We remark that only noncontinuous i.e. only
unbounded operators can be simple symmetric and
display this unsharpness. For an explanation
of the unsharpness phenomena
in these terms, see \cite{ak-euro,ak-bialo}.
\smallskip\newline
Here, let us explicitly calculate
the physical states with the lowest momentum uncertainty.
To this end, we solve the variational problem of minimizing
\begin{equation}
(\Delta p)^2 = \langle \psi\vert {\bf p}^2\vert\psi\rangle
 -\langle\psi\vert {\bf p}\vert\psi\rangle^2
\end{equation}
by minimizing $\langle\psi\vert{\bf p}^2\vert\psi\rangle$
under the constraints
$\langle\psi\vert{\bf p}\vert\psi\rangle =\rho$ and
$\langle\psi\vert\psi\rangle=1$, and the boundary
condition Eq.\ref{bc1}.
\smallskip\newline
Introducing Lagrange multipliers $k_1,k_2$, the
functional to be minimized is:
\begin{equation}
S=\int_{-L}^L dx~\left\{-(\partial_x\psi^*)(\partial_x\psi) +
k_1 (\psi^*\psi - c_1) + k_2 (-i
 \psi^*\partial_x\psi-c_2)\right\},
\end{equation}
yielding the Euler-Lagrange equation:
\begin{equation}
\partial_x^2 \psi + k_1 \psi -i\partial_x\psi ~=~0
\end{equation}
For each choice of momentum expectation
value $\langle {\bf p}\rangle =\rho$, there is
(up to a phase) one normalized and the boundary
 condition obeying solution:
\begin{equation}
\psi_\rho(x)~=~ L^{-1/2}~\cos\left(\frac{\pi x}{2
 L}\right)~e^{i \rho x}
\label{tenn}
\end{equation}
These are the physical wave functions which minimize
$\Delta p$. We see that the $\psi_\rho(x)$
are essentially plane waves, apart from the
modulus, which
approaches zero at the boundaries, as it must,
 being a physical state.
It is clear that the modulus of the wave
functions $\psi_\rho(x)$ goes to zero with just
the optimal steepness to minimize the momentum
uncertainty $\Delta p$.
\smallskip\newline
The minimum value for the uncertainty in the momentum
of a particle in the box
is now readily calculated from the
solutions $\psi_\rho$, as:
\begin{equation}
\Delta p_{min} ~=~ \sqrt{\langle \psi_\rho\vert
{\bf p}^2\vert \psi_\rho\rangle - \rho^2}
~=~ \frac{\pi}{2 L}
\end{equation}
In this case here, the minimum uncertainty
$\Delta p_{min}$ does not depend
on the expectation value $\rho$. Note that
 for generic simple symmetric operators with
equal deficiency indices the
minimum standard deviation can depend on the
expectation value:
\begin{equation}
\Delta Q_{min} = \Delta Q_{min}(\langle Q\rangle).
\end{equation}
It is standard procedure to verify that the deficiency
indices of ${\bf p}$ are indeed equal,
namely $(1,1)$. Thus, the
short-distance structure (of momentum space) is of
 the type fuzzy-A in the
terminology of \cite{ak-erice}.

\subsection{An ``unsharp" position
 operator
Let us now illustrate the same phenomena
 with the example of a simple symmetric
operator which is given explicitly in terms
of an infinite dimensional matrix.
\smallskip\newline
Consider the operator $Q$ which is defined
as the matrix
\begin{equation}
Q =
\left(
\matrix{
0 & a_1 &  0 & 0 &  \ldots \cr
                           a_1 & 0 & a_2 & 0 &
                            \ldots \cr
                           0 & a_2 & 0 & a_3 &
                            \ldots \cr
                           0 & 0 & a_3 & 0 &
                            \ldots \cr
                           \vdots & \vdots &
                            \vdots &\vdots & \ddots
} \right)
\end{equation}
where we define the matrix elements $a_n$ through
\begin{equation}
a_n~:= ~\sqrt{1+s+s^2+...~s^{n-1}}
\end{equation}
with $s$ being a constant, obeying $s\ge 1$.
Of course, one may use the partial geometric series:
\begin{equation}
1+s+s^2+...~s^{n-1}~=~(s^n-1)/(s-1).
\end{equation}
We define the domain  $D_Q$ of $Q$ to consist
of all column vectors which possess an
arbitrary but finite number of nonzero entries.
The domain $D_Q$ is dense in the Hilbert
 space $H=l^2$ of all
of square summable vectors, i.e. $\overline{D_Q}=H$.\smallskip\newline
Clearly,
\begin{equation} Q_{ij} = Q_{ji}^{*}. \end{equation}
Thus, on its domain, $D_Q$, the
expectation values of  $Q$ are real, i.e.
$Q$ is a symmetric operator.
\medskip\newline
Let us consider first the special case $s=1$.
\smallskip\newline
In the case $s=1$, the matrix elements
reduce to $a_n=\sqrt{n}$. We recognize that $Q$ is then
the ordinary essentially self-adjoint
quantum mechanical position operator, in its
Fock space representation.
Its spectrum is the real line and there exist
sequences of vectors in its domain $D_Q$
such that $\Delta Q$ becomes arbitrarily small,
 i.e. $Q$ is a sharp observable.
\medskip\newline
The situation is qualitatively different for  $s>1$.
\smallskip\newline
It has been shown in \cite{ak-ucr} that if $s>1$,
 then for all vectors in $D_Q$ the uncertainty
$\Delta Q$ is finitely bounded from below,
by:
 \begin{equation} \Delta Q_{min}= \sqrt{1-s^{-1}} \end{equation}
This means that
for all normalized $\vert \phi \rangle \in D_Q$, i.e.
for all normalized vectors with an arbitrary but
finite number of nonzero entries, the
 uncertainty in $Q$ obeys:
\begin{equation}
\Delta Q({\vert \phi \rangle}) ~=~ \langle \phi \vert (Q-\langle
\phi \vert Q \vert \phi\rangle)^2\vert
 \phi \rangle^{1/2} ~\ge~ \Delta Q_{min}.
\end{equation}
The fact that $\Delta Q_{min} = \sqrt{1-s^{-1}}$
 is larger than zero implies that
there are no (normalizable nor nonnormalizable)
eigenvectors of $Q$, i.e. that
 $Q$ is not self-adjoint. $Q$ has been shown to
 be simple symmetric of type fuzzy-A,
 see \cite{ak-erice,ak-ucr}.
\smallskip\newline
In fact, in this example, the minimum standard
deviation is a nontrivial function of
the expectation value of $Q$. For simplicity, we
have only given  the absolute minimum
$\Delta Q_{min}$. For the precise form of
$\Delta Q_{min}(\langle Q\rangle)$
and its derivation, see \cite{ak-ucr}.
\medskip\newline
Finally, we remark that no finite dimensional
 truncation of the matrix  $Q$ could
possess a nonzero minimum uncertainty
$\Delta Q_{min}>0$. This is because
the notions of symmetry and  self-adjointness
 only differ
on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces:
Every finite dimensional symmetric matrix is also
self-adjoint and therefore possesses
eigenvectors $\vert q\rangle$
for which, of course, $\Delta Q(\vert q\rangle) =0$.
\subsection{Unsharpness from noncommutativity
The statement that self-adjoint
 operators can \it always \rm
be resolved to arbitrary precision is
compatible with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Assume, for example, that $S$ and $T$ are
two self-adjoint observables which do
not commute.
\smallskip\newline
Then, there  holds the uncertainty relation:
\begin{equation}
\Delta S~\Delta T~ \ge ~
\frac{1}{2}~\vert\langle[S,T]\rangle\vert
\end{equation}
This implies of course that
if $\Delta T$ is smaller than some value,
say $\Delta T < t_0$ and if, say,
 $[S,T]=i 1$ then the RHS is nonvanishing, yielding
$\Delta S \ge 1/2t_0$. Thus, in this case, $\Delta S$
cannot be made arbitrarily small but possesses instead
a finite lower bound $\Delta S_{min}=1/2t_0$.
\smallskip\newline
This is not a contradiction to the statement
that self-adjoint operators can
always be diagonalized, because
to require $\Delta T \le t_0$ is to restrict
 the Hilbert space to only those
states for which $\Delta T \le t_0$ holds.
On this restricted domain,
the operator $S$ is not self-adjoint, instead
it is simple symmetric.
\smallskip\newline
In general, noncommutativity of symmetric operators
 in any physical theory
induces an interplay between the domains of those
operators, which in turn
 affects  whether or not they are self-adjoint or
 merely symmetric. Indeed,
even more generally, not only kinematical but also
dynamical operator equations, i.e.
not only commutation relations but also operator
 equations of motion can affect the
domains of operators, and can therefore affect
whether or not
these operators are symmetric or self-adjoint.
\smallskip\newline
Thus, while it is a well-known and
much-discussed phenomenon
that the sharpness or unsharpness of
real entities in quantum theory
can depend on the \it kinematics \rm - through
uncertainty relations - it appears that
there is a priori no reason
to exclude the possibility that
the sharpness of real entities can also
change \it dynamically, \rm
for example in a fundamental theory of quantum gravity.

\section{Unsharp Degrees of Freedom and
the Generating of Unitaries}
As is well-known,
self-adjoint operators often act not only as real
degrees of freedom, but simultaneously also
as generators of symmetries.
Merely symmetric operators, on the other hand,
do not directly generate unitary operators.
\smallskip\newline
This appears to indicate that while symmetric
 operators possess
the interesting property of being able to
describe unsharp
real degrees of freedom,
they should not be able to play a r{\^o}le in
 the generation of symmetries.
\smallskip\newline
Here, we will therefore address the problem of
 the generation of unitary operators
for the class of simple symmetric operators
 which describe fuzzy-A type short-distance
 structures, i.e. which have
 equal deficiency indices. This class includes
our examples above, and it includes, in particular, all
operators $X$ with a finite lower bound
$\Delta X_{min}>0$.
\smallskip\newline
We will prove the following:
\smallskip\newline
For each simple symmetric operator $X$ with
equal deficiency indices, acting
on a physical domain $D_{phys}$ which is dense
in a Hilbert space $H$,
there exists a family of self-adjoint operators
 $X(\alpha)$ which coincide with $X$ on the
physical domain. We claim that these
 operators $X(\alpha)$,
together, generate
the full unitary group of the Hilbert space.
This result shows that, in this way,
the operators of this class can relate to all aspects
of symmetry in the Hilbert space on which they act.
\smallskip\newline
The precise formulation of the general
theorem and its proof are given in
Sec.\ref{s-five}.
Before, however, we will give a detailed illustration
of the theorem in concrete examples.

\subsection{The theorem in concrete examples}
\label{s-four}
In order to demonstrate the mechanism by
which simple symmetric operators are able to
generate all unitaries of the Hilbert space,
let us consider a concrete example
in ordinary nonrelativistic quantum mechanics
in one dimension.
\smallskip\newline
In this case, for the particle on the real line,
the operators ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf p}$ are
self-adjoint and can be exponentiated to yield
 unitaries:
\medskip\newline
We may represent the operators ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf p}$,
irreducibly, as the self-adjoint
multiplication and
differentiation operators ${\bf x}.\psi({{x}}) =
{{x}}\psi({{x}})$ and ${\bf p}.\psi({{x}})
= -i\partial_{{x}}\psi({{x}})$ acting
on a dense domain in the Hilbert space $H$ of
square integrable
wave functions $\psi({{x}})$ over the real line.
\smallskip\newline
As is well-known,
${\bf x}$ and ${\bf p}$, \it together, \rm  generate \it all
 \rm unitary operators $U$ on the
Hilbert space $H$, via the Weyl formula
\begin{equation}
U = \int\int \frac{ds dt}{2\pi \hbar} ~u(s,t)~
\exp[i (s{\bf x} +t{\bf p})/\hbar]  \label{weyl}
\end{equation}
where the $u(s,t)$ are suitable complex-valued
functions. In fact, all bounded operators
$B \in B(H)$ can be generated in this way.
\medskip\newline
On the other hand, we can also represent ${\bf x}$
and ${\bf p}$ reducibly, for example, as
the self-adjoint multiplication and
differentiation operators
\begin{equation}
{\bf x}.\psi_i({{x}}) ~=~ {{x}}\psi_i({{x}})
~~~\mbox{and}~~~ {\bf p}.\psi_i({{x}})
= -i\partial_{{x}}\psi_i({{x}})
\end{equation}
acting on a Hilbert space of wave functions
$\psi_i({{x}})$ on the real line which possess
an additional ``isospinor" index, running $i=1,...,n$.
\smallskip\newline
The  scalar product of wave functions then
contains an iso-sum:
\begin{equation}
\langle \psi \vert \phi\rangle =
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
 d{{x}} ~\psi_i^*({{x}})\phi_i({{x}})
\end{equation}
Clearly, ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf p}$ are acting diagonally
in the isospinor space. Therefore,
${\bf x}$ and ${\bf p}$ do not generate the $U(n)$ of
 the isorotations.
Thus, in this case,
the Weyl formula, Eq.\ref{weyl}, does not
yield all bounded
operators nor does it yield only all
unitaries on the Hilbert space.
Only if we supplemented the operators
${\bf x}$ and ${\bf p}$  by
additional hermitean $n\times n$ matrices,
$T_i$, could we generate
$U(n)$ on the isospinor space
and therefore all of $B(H)$.
\medskip\newline
Let us now consider again the case where the
particle is confined to the interval $[-L,L]$.
As we saw above,
the momentum operator ${\bf p}=-i\partial_{{x}}$
is then no longer self-adjoint and it is instead simple
symmetric of type fuzzy-A. Therefore, ${\bf p}$
then matches  the conditions of our proposition.
\medskip\newline
Namely, our proposition is that for any simple
 symmetric operator ${\bf p}$ of type fuzzy-A,
e.g. the momentum of the particle in a box,
there exists a one-parameter family of
self-adjoint operators ${\bf p}(\alpha),
~~(0\le \alpha<2\pi)$,~ such that:
\smallskip\newline
\begin{itemize}
\item each ${\bf p}(\alpha)$ coincides with ${\bf p}$ on the
 physical domain, i.e. $${\bf p}(\alpha)\vert \psi
\rangle = {\bf p} \vert \psi \rangle~~~~~\mbox{
 for all}~~~ \vert \psi\rangle \in D_{phys}$$
\item the ${\bf p}(\alpha)$, together, (weakly)
generate the algebra $B(H)$ of bounded operators
on the Hilbert space, which includes of course
the full unitary group on $H$.
\end{itemize}
$ $
\smallskip\newline
Indeed, we claim that, unlike in the Weyl formula,
 the operator ${\bf x}$ is now no longer needed
to generate $B(H)$, because
the operators ${\bf p}(\alpha)$ alone
already generate $B(H)$ (even though each $p(\alpha)$
coincides with ${\bf p}$ on the dense physical domain $D_{{\bf p}}$).
\smallskip\newline
Even further, we can consider the case
where the wave functions of the particle
in the box carry some
isospinor index. Then, ${\bf p}$ is again simple
 symmetric of type fuzzy-A and
our theorem  applies. We claim that there
then exists a multi-parameter
set of self-adjoint operators
 ${\bf p}(u)$, which again all coincide with ${\bf p}$ on
physical states, and which generate all of $B(H)$!
This means that there is no need to introduce
isospin rotation generators $T_j$ by hand,
since the ${\bf p}(u)$ are able to generate all:
translations, phase rotations and isorotations.
\subsection{Generating $B(H)$ in the scalar
case
To see this, we consider first the case without
an isospinor index.
\smallskip\newline
As discussed above, the
momentum operator ${\bf p}$, acting as ${\bf p}.\psi({{x}})
 = -i \partial_{{x}}\psi({{x}})$
on the physical wave functions $\psi\in D_{phys}$
over the interval is a simple symmetric operator.
We recall  that although all physical wave functions
vanish at the boundary,
they are a dense set in the Hilbert space of square
integrables $\overline{D_{phys}}=H=L^2(-L,L)$.
\medskip\newline
Let us now construct a family of operators ${\bf p}(\alpha)$ which
coincide with ${\bf p}$ on the physical domain $D_{phys}$,
but whose domain is larger and
who are self-adjoint on this larger domain.
\smallskip\newline
To this end, we define the operators
${\bf p}(\alpha)$  by extending
the domain $D_{phys}$ such as to include
 wave functions  which
are periodic up to a phase
\begin{equation} \label{bc}
\psi(-L) = e^{i \alpha} \psi(L) \label{boundc},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is some arbitrary but fixed real number.
To be precise, the domain of the self-adjoint
 extension ${\bf p}(\alpha)$ is therefore
\begin{equation}
D_{{\bf p}(\alpha)} ~:=~ D_{phys} ~\cup~
\left\{\psi({{x}})\in D_{{\bf p}^*}
 ~\vert~\psi(-L)=e^{i\alpha}\psi(L) \right\},
\end{equation}
where $D_{{\bf p}^*}$ is the domain of
 the adjoint operator ${\bf p}^*$.
\smallskip\newline
Note that $e^{i\alpha}$ must be a fixed phase in order
to ensure that the boundary terms cancel
in the partial integrations which are
needed to show that
$\langle \psi_1 \vert ({\bf p}(\alpha)\vert \psi_2\rangle) =
(\langle \psi_1 \vert {\bf p}(\alpha)) \vert \psi_2\rangle$.
\smallskip\newline
Indeed, for
each fixed choice of a
 phase $e^{i\alpha}$ there exist
eigenvectors of ${\bf p}(\alpha)$, i.e.
plane waves, $\psi_n^{(\alpha)}(x)$,
which obey the corresponding boundary condition:
\begin{equation}
\psi_n^{(\alpha)}(x)~ =~ e^{i\omega_n x}
~~~~~~~\mbox{where}~~\omega_n=
\frac{2\pi n-\alpha}{2L}, ~~~n\in \:\mbox{\sf Z} \hspace{-0.82em} \mbox{\sf Z}\,
\end{equation}
As is straightforward to check,
the $\psi_n^{(\alpha)}$ form an orthonormal
eigenbasis of ${\bf p}(\alpha)$, and
each ${\bf p}(\alpha)$ is self-adjoint.
\medskip\newline
Let us now consider the implications for the
generating of unitaries:
\medskip\newline
If the wave functions were not restricted to
the interval, ${\bf p}$ would be self-adjoint and
${\bf p}$ could be exponentiated
to obtain a unitary operator, say \begin{equation} U(a)~:=
~\exp(i a {\bf p}),\end{equation} for some $a\ge 0$. The
action of this unitary is to translate
wave functions  by the amount $a$ to the right:
\begin{equation} U(a).\psi({{x}}) ~=~e^{a\partial_{{x}}}
~\psi({{x}})
~=~
 \psi({{x}} +a).
\label{dfg}
\end{equation}
In the case where the particle is confined
 to the box, however,
i.e. where the
Hilbert space only consists of wave functions
on the interval, the operator
${\bf p}$ is not self-adjoint and
 cannot be exponentiated: The formal expression
 $U(a) =  \exp(i a {\bf p})$ is now not a unitary
 transformation, because it would translate
beyond the interval boundaries, which is not
defined in the Hilbert space.
\smallskip\newline
Nevertheless, for the particle in a box,
there exists, as we saw, a whole family of
self-adjoint extensions ${\bf p}(\alpha)$
of ${\bf p}$. Since each  ${\bf p}(\alpha)$ is self-adjoint,
each can be exponentiated and the resulting
operator
\begin{equation}
U_\alpha(a) := \exp(i a {\bf p}(\alpha))
\end{equation}
is unitary. The action of $U_\alpha(a)$ on
wave functions is again to translate
wave functions to the right (for $a>0$),
 as in Eq.\ref{dfg}. Now, however, due to the
 boundary condition,
Eq.\ref{bc}, the part of the wave function which
would be translated beyond the right interval
boundary reappears into the interval from the
left, with the same modulus, but phase shifted by
the phase $e^{i\alpha}$.
\smallskip\newline
Thus, the unitary $U_\alpha(a)$  translates the
wave functions by the
amount $a$ and phase shifts the
wave functions by $e^{i\alpha}$ when translating
them beyond a
boundary and into the interval again from the
opposite boundary.
\smallskip\newline
Let us consider the composition of such unitaries.
Crucially, the product
\begin{equation}
U_{\alpha^\prime}(-a)U_{\alpha}(a)
\end{equation}
 is a unitary operator which does
not translate wave functions. This is  because
the first factor translates by $a$ and the second
 factor translates back by the same
 amount. Nevertheless,
since the two factors translate with different
phase shifts,
the product
is not the identity operator. Namely,
 $U_{\alpha^\prime}(-a)U_{\alpha}(a)$ is the
 unitary operator whose action is to
leave the modulus of wave functions
unchanged, but to
phase shift the wave functions
on a part of the interval.
\smallskip\newline
E.g., choosing some $a\in[0,2L]$, the action is
\smallskip\newline
\begin{equation}
U_{\alpha^\prime}(-a)~U_{\alpha}(a). \psi({{x}}) ~=~
 \left\{\matrix{~~\psi({{x}}),  &
 ~~~\mbox{for}~~& x\in[-L,L-a] \cr \cr
e^{i(\alpha-\alpha^\prime)} \psi({{x}}),
 & ~~~\mbox{for}~~& x\in [L-a,L]}\right.
\end{equation}
$$ $$
By suitable composition of operators $U_\alpha(a)$
for various $a$ and $\alpha$
it is therefore  possible to
generate unitaries which yield \it arbitrary \rm
local phase rotations of wave functions.
\smallskip\newline
For example, choosing some $a,b$ obeying
$0< b<a<2L$, we form the operator:
$$ $$
\begin{equation}
U_{\alpha}(-(a-b))~U_{0}(-b)~
U_{\alpha}(a). \psi({{x}}) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\mbox{$ $ }
\end{equation}
$$ $$
$$ \mbox{ }~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~
\left\{\matrix{\psi({{x}}), & ~~\mbox{for}~&
x\in [-L,L-a] \cup
[L-a+b,L] \cr \cr
e^{i(\alpha)} \psi({{x}}), & ~~\mbox{for}~ &
x\in [L-a,L-a+b]}\right. ~~~~~~~
$$
$$ $$
The action of this operator
 is to phase rotate wave functions by $e^{i\alpha}$
in the interval $[L-a,L-a+b]$  and to leave
the wave functions
invariant outside that interval.
\smallskip\newline
Thus, remarkably, the set of self-adjoints
which coincide with ${\bf p}$
on the physical domain is able to generate all
translations \it and \rm also all local phase rotations,
while we recall that in the case where ${\bf p}$ is
 self-adjoint,
the operator ${\bf x}$ is needed order to generate
phase rotations, namely
through $e^{i f({\bf x})}\psi(x)=e^{if({{x}})}\psi(x)$.
\subsection{The case with isospin
We consider again
a particle constrained to the interval $[-L,L]$.
The particle's wave function $\psi_i({{x}})$
 shall now carry an
isospinor index $i=1,...,n$.
The scalar product in the Hilbert space of square
integrables on the interval then includes an iso-sum:
\begin{equation}
\langle \psi \vert \phi\rangle =
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{-L}^Ld{{x}} ~\psi_i^*({{x}})\phi_i({{x}})
\end{equation}
Due to the box potential, the physical wave functions,
$\vert \psi \rangle \in D_{phys}$, again
obey the boundary condition \begin{equation} \psi_i(-L)
=0=\psi_i(L),~ ~~~~(i=1,...n)\end{equation}
The action of ${\bf p}$ is diagonal in iso-space:
${\bf p}.\psi_i({{x}}) = -i\partial_{{x}}\psi_i({{x}})$.
Again, there are no plane waves in the
physical domain and therefore the momentum
operator on the physical domain
 is not self-adjoint. Instead, ${\bf p}$ is simple
 symmetric (with deficiency indices $(n,n)$).
Self-adjoint extensions ${\bf p}(u)$ are now
obtained by enlarging the domain of
${\bf p}$ to include wave functions
which obey the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\psi_i(-L) ~=~ \sum_{i=1}^n~u_{ij}~ \psi_j(L)
\label{bcis}
\end{equation}
where $u_{ij}$ is any unitary
$n \times n$ matrix, generalizing the
 phase $e^{i\alpha}$ of the scalar case above.
 As is readily checked, the proof of self-adjointness
of the ${\bf p}(u)$ requires again the cancellation of
the boundary terms which arise through
the partial integrations needed to show that
$(\langle \psi\vert {\bf p}(u))\vert \phi\rangle =
\langle \psi\vert( {\bf p}(u)\vert \phi\rangle)$,
and this cancellation is achieved exactly
by the boundary conditions of the form of Eq.\ref{bcis}.
\smallskip\newline
As in the scalar case,
while ${\bf p}$ does not directly yield
 unitaries, each of the self-adjoint
${\bf p}(u)$ which reduce to ${\bf p}$ on the
physical
domain does generate unitaries, e.g.
by exponentiation ($a$ real) :
\begin{equation}
U_u(a):= e^{i a p(u)}
\end{equation}
The unitaries $U_u(a)$ again act on wave functions
by translating them by the amount $a$, and,
due to the self-adjoint extensions' boundary conditions,
any part of
the wave function which hits a boundary
reappears from the other side into the interval,
now iso-rotated
by the matrix $u$ (or by $u^{-1}$ if $a$ is negative).
\smallskip\newline
It is possible to proceed as in the scalar
 case, composing such unitaries
to translate the wave functions
back and forth, using different self-adjoint
 extensions.
It is clear that in this way arbitrary local
isorotations can be generated.
\smallskip\newline
Thus, the set of self-adjoint operators which
reduce to ${\bf p}$ on the
physical domain indeed generates not only
translations, which they may be expected to,
 but also arbitrary
local phase rotations, and - if an isospinor
index is present - then
they even generate all local iso-rotations.
\medskip\newline
We now proceed to the proof of the theorem
for the general case.
\section{Theorem
\label{s-five}
\subsection{Definitions

Let us recall that a symmetric operator
 $X$ is called \it simple symmetric
\rm if $X$ is not self-adjoint and if it possesses
no invariant subspace such that the
restriction of $X$ to this subspace
yields a self-adjoint operator. Our
 examples above  are simple symmetric.
\smallskip\newline
Further, we recall that the  \it Cayley
 transformed \rm operator $S$ of
a symmetric operator $X$, defined as
\begin{equation}
S:= (X-i1)(X+i1)^{-1}
\end{equation}
is isometric. An isometric operator is called
 \it simple isometric \rm
if it cannot be reduced to an
invariant subspace such that the reduced
 operator is unitary.
It is known that a subspace
reduces a symmetric operator $X$ if and only
 if it reduces its  Cayley transform, see,
for example, \cite{AG}. Note, however, that
 not every isometric operator is the Cayley
transform of a symmetric operator.
\subsection{Theorem}
Let $X$ be a closed simple symmetric operator
with equal deficiency indices, defined on a
domain ${\bf D}_X$ which is
dense in a complex Hilbert space ${\bf H}$.
Then, the self-adjoint extensions
$X(\alpha)$ of $X$
generate a $^*$-algebra ${{\cal A}}$
which is weakly dense in ${\cal{B}}({\bf H})$.
Thus, in particular, the self-adjoint
extensions generate the full unitary group
${\cal{U}}({\bf H})$ of the Hilbert space.
\subsection{Outline of the proof
The first step will be to use
the $X(\alpha)$ to generate
a suitable set ${{\cal M}}$ of unitaries,
which in turn generate an algebra ${\cal A}$.
The proof then consists
in showing that the commutant ${{\cal A}}'$
of the algebra ${{\cal A}}$ is
${{\cal A}}' = \mbox{\bf{C}}1$. This implies
that its double commutant is
${{\cal A}}'' = {\cal{B}}({\bf H})$. The
proposition then follows since, with v. Neumann,
the double commutant of any $^*$-algebra
is its weak closure.
\subsection{Proof
We begin by choosing a suitable set of unitaries which are
generated by the self-adjoint
extensions $X(\alpha)$ of $X$.
To this end, consider
the isometric Cayley transform $S$
of $X$ \begin{equation} S := (X-i1)(X+i1)^{-1}\end{equation}
with domain \begin{equation}
{\bf D}_S = (X+i1).{\bf D}_X .\end{equation}
We define the \it local group \rm ${\cal{T}}$
as the set of all unitaries which map the deficiency
space ${\bf D}_S^\perp = ((X+i1).{\bf D}_X)^\perp$
onto itself and which act as the
identity on ${\bf D}_S$, i.e.:
\begin{equation} {{\cal T}} := \{T ~\vert~ T: {\bf D}_S
\rightarrow {\bf D}_S, ~ T: {\bf D}_S^\perp \rightarrow
{\bf D}_S^\perp, ~T_{\vert {\bf D}_S} =
 1, ~TT^\dagger = T^\dagger T = 1  \} . \end{equation}
It is clear that the local group, ${{\cal T}}$,
is isomorphic to the
unitary group $U(n)$, where $n$ is the deficiency
 index $n := \mbox{dim}({\bf D}_S^\perp)$.
\medskip\newline
Since, by assumption, both deficiency
indices are equal, i.e. both
spaces \begin{equation} L_\pm = ((X\pm i1).{\bf D}_X)^\perp\end{equation} are
of equal dimension, there exist unitary extensions of $S$.
\smallskip\newline
Let $U$ be one of the unitary extensions of $S$:
\begin{equation}
U^\dagger U = U U^\dagger =1, ~~
U: L_+ \rightarrow L_-, ~~
U_{\vert {\bf D}_S} = S.\end{equation}
We consider now
the coset \begin{equation}
{{\cal M}}:= \{M ~\vert ~~ M = U T,
 ~~T \in {{\cal T}}\}\end{equation}
of  unitary extensions of $S$.
\smallskip\newline
Indeed, as is well known, each unitary
extension
of the Cayley transform $S$ of a symmetric
 $X$, i.e. here
each element of ${{\cal M}}$, is indeed
generated, via the Cayley transform, by a
self-adjoint extension $X(\alpha)$ of $X$.
\smallskip\newline
We will now show that the $^*$-algebra
${{\cal A}}$ generated by ${{\cal M}}$
is weakly
dense in ${\cal{B}}({\bf H})$. As mentioned,
this follows from v. Neumann's double commutant
theorem if we can prove that only multiples
of the identity operator
commute with ${\cal{M}}$, i.e. with $U$ and
all elements
of ${{\cal T}}$.
\medskip\newline
To this end, let us consider an operator
$V$ which obeys: \begin{equation}
\vert\vert V \vert\vert < \infty ~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
[V,U]=0=[V,T],~~ \forall~ T\in {{\cal T}} \label{two} \end{equation}
We need to show that $V$ is a multiple
of the identity operator.
\medskip\newline
Since the closure of $X$ implies the closure
 of the deficiency space ${\bf D}_S^\perp$
 and of ${\bf D}_S$,
we can use  ${\bf H}= {\bf D}_S \oplus
{\bf D}_S^\perp$ to write $V$ and the elements $T \in
{{\cal T}}$ in block form:
\begin{equation}
T = \left( \matrix{1 & 0 \cr 0 & t} \right),
 ~~~~~~~~~
V = \left( \matrix{V_{{{\bf D}_S}{\bf D}_S} &
V_{{{\bf D}_S}{\bf D}_S^\perp} \cr
V_{{{\bf D}_S^\perp}{\bf D}_S} & V_{{{\bf
D}_S^\perp}{\bf D}_S^\perp}} \right)
\end{equation}
Here, $t= T_{\vert {\bf D}_S^\perp}$, i.e. $t:~
 {\bf D}_S^\perp ~\rightarrow~
 {\bf D}_S^\perp$ and,
e.g.,  $V_{{{\bf D}_S}{\bf D}_S^\perp}:
~{{\bf D}_S^\perp}~ \rightarrow ~{\bf D}_S$.
In this notation,
$[T,V]=0$ reads:
\begin{equation}
\left( \matrix{ 0 &  V_{{{\bf D}_S}{\bf
 D}_S^\perp} (1-t)\cr \cr
(t -1) V_{{{\bf D}_S^\perp}{\bf D}_S} & [t,
V_{{{\bf D}_S^\perp}{\bf D}_S^\perp}]} \right)
~~=~~0 \label{bm}
\end{equation}
\smallskip\newline
Eq.\ref{bm} holds for all $T \in {{\cal T}}$,
and
in particular it holds for unitaries $t:
{\bf D}_S^\perp \rightarrow {\bf D}_S^\perp$ for which
the value $1$ is a regular point, e.g. $t =-1$.
Thus, $V_{{{\bf D}_S}{\bf D}_S^\perp} = 0$
and $V_{{{\bf D}_S^\perp}{\bf D}_S} =0$.
\smallskip\newline
Further, ${{\cal T}}$ is the full unitary group on
${\bf D}_S^\perp$. It is therefore
irreducibly represented on ${\bf D}_S^\perp$.
Thus, $[t, V_{{{\bf D}_S^\perp}{\bf
 D}_S^\perp}]=0, ~\forall t$
 implies with Schur that
$V$ acts on ${\bf D}_S^\perp$ as a
multiple of the identity, i.e.
$V_{{{\bf D}_S^\perp}{\bf D}_S^\perp} =
 {\lambda} 1$ where ${\lambda} \in \bf{C}$.
In block matrix form, $V$ therefore reads:
\begin{equation}
V = \left( \matrix{V_{{{\bf
D}_S}{\bf D}_S} & 0 \cr
0 & {\lambda} 1} \right)
\end{equation}
Consider now the kernel \begin{equation}
{\bf K}:= \mbox{ker}(V-{\lambda} 1).\end{equation}
By construction, ${\bf D}_S^\perp \subset {\bf K}$,
and ${\bf K}^\perp \subset {\bf D}_S$.
As the kernel of a closed operator, ${\bf K}$ is closed.
We wish to show that in fact
 ${\bf K}={\bf H}$ and ${\bf K}^\perp =\emptyset$,
which is to say that $V= {\lambda} 1$.
\smallskip\newline
To this end, let us assume the opposite,
 namely that ${\bf K}^\perp \neq \emptyset$.
\smallskip\newline
We can then use ${\bf H}= {\bf K}^\perp
\oplus {\bf K}$ to write
both $V$ and $U$ in a new block form:
\smallskip\newline
\begin{equation}
V = \left( \matrix{V_{{\bf K}^\perp
{\bf K}^\perp} & 0 \cr
V_{{\bf K} {\bf K}^\perp} & {\lambda} 1}
\right), ~~~~~~~~~~~
U = \left( \matrix{U_{{\bf K}^\perp
{\bf K}^\perp} & U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}} \cr
U_{{\bf K} {\bf K}^\perp} & U_{{\bf K} {\bf K}}} \right)
\end{equation}
$$ $$
The relation $[V,U]=0$ now reads:
\smallskip\newline
\begin{equation}
\left( \matrix{... ~~ , & (V_{{\bf K}^\perp
{\bf K}^\perp} - {\lambda} 1) U_{{\bf
 K}^\perp {\bf K}} \cr \cr
... ~~,  & V_{{\bf K} {\bf K}^\perp}
U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}}  } \right) ~~~= ~~~
\left( \matrix{0~~ , & 0~~ \cr \cr
0 ~~ ,  & 0 ~~  } \right) \label{ten}
\end{equation}
$$ $$
On the other hand, $U_{{\bf K}^\perp
{\bf K}}.{\bf K} \subset {\bf K}^\perp$, i.e. the
range of $U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}}$
is not in the kernel of the operator $(V-{\lambda} 1)$:
\smallskip\newline
\begin{equation}
(V-{\lambda} 1)\vert w\rangle  = \left(
\matrix{(V_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}^\perp}-{\lambda}
 1)\vert w\rangle\cr \cr
V_{{\bf K} {\bf K}^\perp}\vert w\rangle}\right)
       ~~         \neq ~~0 ,
~~~~\forall ~\vert\omega\rangle \neq 0, \vert
\omega\rangle \in   U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}}.{\bf K}
\label{el}
\end{equation}
\smallskip\newline
Thus, the existence of any nonzero vector
$\vert w\rangle \in {\bf K}^\perp$ in the range
$U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}}.{\bf K}$ would contradict
Eq.\ref{ten}. Consequently,
the range of $U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}}.{\bf K}$
 is empty, i.e. $U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}}=0$.
\smallskip\newline
Therefore,  ${\bf K}$ is an invariant
subspace for $U$. Since also $[U^{-1},V]=0$,
 it follows analogously
that ${\bf K}$ is an invariant subspace for
$U^{-1}$. Thus, ${\bf K}$  and ${\bf K}^\perp$
both reduce $U$:
\smallskip\newline
\begin{equation}
U = \left( \matrix{U_{{\bf
K}^\perp {\bf K}^\perp} & 0 \cr
0 & U_{{\bf K} {\bf K}}} \right)
\end{equation}
$$ $$
Since  $U_{\vert {\bf D}_S} = S$ and ${\bf
K}^\perp \subset {\bf D}_S$
we have $U_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}^\perp} =
S_{{\bf K}^\perp {\bf K}^\perp}$.
This implies that ${\bf K}^\perp$
 is an
invariant subspace for $S$, on which $S$ is unitary.
However, the simplicity of $X$ implies
that also $S$ is simple, i.e.
$S$ does not have any invariant subspace on which it
would be unitary.
\medskip\newline
Thus, in fact, ${\bf K}^\perp = \emptyset$
and ${\bf K}={\bf H}$. Consequently,
$V={\lambda} 1$, which had to be shown.
\medskip\newline
With von Neumann this implies that
the weak closure of the $*$-algebra ${{\cal A}}$
generated by $1, U$ and the elements of
${{\cal T}}$ is the algebra ${\cal{B}}({\bf H})$
of all bounded operators on the Hilbert space,
and ${\cal{B}}({\bf H})$ includes of course all unitaries.
We recall that this means that
for each  bounded operator $B \in {\cal{B}}({\bf H})$
 there exist sequences of operators
$B_n \in {{\cal A}}$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}
 \langle \psi \vert B - B_n \vert \phi \rangle = 0
~~~~\forall~~ \vert \psi\rangle, ~
 \vert \phi \rangle \in H.$$
\smallskip\newline
Thus, for any simple symmetric $X$ with
equal deficiency indices the
set of self-adjoint operators which coincide
with $X$ on its domain
generate indeed (e.g. via generating the coset ${\cal M}$)
the full unitary group of the Hilbert space.
\subsection{A corollary}
As we mentioned before, in finite dimensional
Hilbert spaces every symmetric operator,
i.e.  every operator
whose expectation values are real, i.e. every
 matrix obeying $X_{ij}=X_{ji}^*$, is
also self-adjoint. Therefore, in finite
dimensional Hilbert spaces, there are
no simple symmetric operators, i.e. our
theorem cannot be applied.
\smallskip\newline
Let us add, however, that the above proof
yields as a corollary that
any simple isometric operator with equal
deficiency indices has the property that
its unitary extensions, together, generate
all unitaries and ${\cal B}(H)$.
And indeed,  there exist simple isometric
operators also in finite dimensional Hilbert spaces.
\smallskip\newline
As an illustration, let us consider the
simple case of the
two dimensional Hilbert space spanned by
normalized vectors $e_1,e_2$.
We define a linear operator, $S$, as the map
which maps
$S: e_1 \rightarrow e_2$. Clearly, $S$ is not
unitary, because of its
limited domain $D_S := {\bf C}e_1$ and range
${\bf C} e_2$. Also, $S$ does not have any invariant
proper subspace. $S$ is norm preseving where
it is defined. Thus, $S$ is
 a simple isometric
operator. The dimensions of its deficiency spaces,
 i.e. of the orthogonal complements of its
domain and range are both 1, i.e. they are equal.
Thus, $S$ is an operator to which the corollary
of our theorem applies. The claim is that the
 unitary extensions of $S$
generate all $2 \times 2$ matrices,
including of course the unitaries.
\smallskip\newline
To see this, we begin by choosing one unitary
 extension $U$ of $S$, e.g.:
\begin{equation}
U~=~ \left(\matrix{0~~1\cr 1~~0}\right)
\end{equation}
The elements $T(\alpha)$ of the
local group ${\cal T}$ of all unitaries which
act as the identity on $D_S$ and which act as
a unitary on $D_S^\perp$ are of the form
\begin{equation}
T(\alpha) ~:=~ \left(\matrix{1 & 0\cr 0 &
e^{i\alpha}}\right)
\end{equation}
where $e^{i\alpha}$ is any arbitrary phase.
Thus, each unitary extension of $S$ is of the
form $U~T(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha$. Indeed,
the algebra generated by $1,U$ and the
unitary extensions $T(\alpha)$ is all of
 $M_2({\bf C})$, as is clear because it contains
for example the Pauli matrices:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_1~ =~ U,~~~~~~\sigma_2 ~= ~i ~U~
T(\pi),~~~~~~ \sigma_3 ~= ~T(\pi).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we recall that simple
symmetric operators only exist in infinite dimensional
Hilbert spaces.
Indeed, in our 2-dimensional example here,
the inverse Cayley transform
$X$ of $S$ does exist,
\begin{equation}
X ~= ~ i~(S+1)(S-1)^{-1} ~=~
-i\left(\matrix{1~~0\cr 2 ~~1}\right)
\end{equation}
but $X$ is clearly not symmetric.
In general, the inverse Cayley
transform of a simple isometric
operator is not necessarily a simple symmetric
operator. In particular, it cannot be simple
symmetric in
finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. On the other
 hand, the fact that, vice versa, the
Cayley transform of a simple symmetric operator
is always a simple isometric operator is what
we used in the theorem.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook
Our subject of investigation is any physical entity,
within a quantized theory, which is real in the
 sense that it is described by an operator $Q$
whose expectation values are real.
\medskip\newline
Our first conclusion has been that any such real
entity or ``real degree of freedom"
can only be ``sharp" or ``unsharp" in a few
well-defined ways.
Namely, the physical entity is sharp if the
operator $Q$ is self-adjoint.
In this case, its possible short-distance
structures are lattices and continua.
On the other hand, the physical entity is
unsharp if  the operator $Q$ is merely symmetric.
Then, its possible short-distance structures are what
we call fuzzy-A and fuzzy-B. All other
possibilities are mixtures of these.
The sharpness or unsharpness of a real entity
 can depend on the
kinematics of the theory, e.g. through commutation
and uncertainty relations. A priori,
the unsharpness of a real entity can also be a
 function of the dynamics, e.g. through
 operator equations of motion.
Several properties of the fuzzy-A and fuzzy-B
short-distance structures are
discussed in \cite{ak-erice}. A more detailed
classification is in preparation.
\medskip\newline
Secondly, and this has been the main
subject of the present work, we considered that
self-adjoint operators often not only
represent real degrees of freedom
but that they can also act as generators of symmetries.
We therefore investigated in which way also
operators that describe fuzzy
degrees of freedom could generate symmetries.
\medskip\newline
To this end, we focussed on the
class of operators of the type fuzzy-A. We
 found that these possess a
remarkable property:
If, on the physical domain, $D_{phys}$, an
operator $Q$ is of the type fuzzy-A (i.e.
simple symmetric with equal deficiency indices),
then there exists a set of self-adjoint
operators $\{Q(\alpha)\}$ (the self-adjoint extensions)
which all agree with $Q$ on the physical
domain. We showed that
the operators $Q(\alpha)$, together,
generate all unitaries and all
bounded operators in the Hilbert space.  Thus,
in this way, at least the fuzzy operators
of type fuzzy-A can indeed play a r{\^o}le in
 all aspects of
symmetries in the Hilbert space in which they act.
\medskip\newline
In our investigation of the properties of
physical entities which are described by operators
 whose expectation values are real,
we did not make any assumptions about the
interpretation of these operators, nor about the
underlying physical theory.
Therefore, our conclusions,
firstly about the possible types of sharp- and
unsharpness
and secondly about  these operator's ability to
generate symmetries,
apply to all
linear operators which describe real
degrees of freedom - for example
in candidate theories
for a fundamental theory of quantum gravity.
\medskip\newline
Indeed, for example the matrix model for
 M-theory, see e.g.
\cite{polchinski}, does employ symmetric
operators, $X_i$, to encode
space-time information. In this case, the
matrix elements of the $X_i$ are interpreted
 in terms of coordinates of $D0$-branes.
Initially, the $X_i$ are finite
 dimensional, say $N\times N$ matrices.
The quantization and the necessary limit
$N\rightarrow \infty$ are highly
nontrivial, but it is clear that
the resulting operators will still
be at least symmetric.
The short-distance structure which they describe
will therefore fall into the
classification outlined in \cite{ak-erice}.
The $X_i$ are in general
 noncommutative, which is of course
a kinematical source for fuzzyness, but there may also
exist dynamical causes for fuzzyness of the $X_i$.
It is clear that if, or when, these operators
are of type fuzzy-A, then our
present results show how they relate
to the unitary group of
the Hilbert space on which they act.
\medskip\newline
Studies in the context of quantum groups,
 see e.g. \cite{majid-pl,majid},
and in the wider field of
noncommutative geometry, have yielded
new approaches to building
models for space-time at the Planck scale,
see e.g. \cite{connes}-\cite{cc}. Some of
this work has been shown to be related
to string theory, see
e.g. \cite{nc}. As far as these models of space-time
apply linear operators to describe real entities
we are covering these operators.
It should be very
interesting to investigate the
r{\^o}le of the present results in this context.
\medskip\newline
On the other hand, even on the level of generality
 on which we have been working here,
more conclusions can likely be drawn:
Indeed, one of the examples which we gave for our theorem
indicates a particular direction for further investigation:
\smallskip\newline
We discussed the case of the simple symmetric
 differential operator ${\bf p}=-i\delta_{ij}\partial_x$
which acts on a domain of wave
functions $\psi_i(x)$ with an isospinor index
$i=1,...,n$, defined over the interval $[-L,L]$.
There exists a whole $U(n)$- family of
 self-adjoint operators ${\bf p}(u)$
which coincide with ${\bf p}$ on its domain.
We showed that, even though ${\bf p}$ itself acts
diagonally on the isospinor space, the
operators ${\bf p}(u)$
are able to generate all unitaries in the
Hilbert space - which includes, in particular,
also all isospinor rotations.
\smallskip\newline
We can interpret this result as providing an
example for a  conjecture made in
\cite{ak-erice,ak-euro}. The conjecture
is that simple symmetric operators with
 equal deficiency indices $(n,n)$
\it always  induce \rm
isospinor structures of dimension equal
to the deficiency index.\smallskip\newline
The conjecture also yields an intuitive
 physical interpretation of the effect of an
ultraviolet cutoff of the type fuzzy-A:
Namely, those short wavelengths which
are being cut off at short distances  are
being turned
effectively into internal degrees of freedom
 associated with a unitary isospinor structure.
This would mean that local gauge group structures
 could have their
origin in what we here called the local unitary
group on the deficiency spaces.
Work in this direction is in progress.
\bigskip\newline
\bf  Acknowledgement: \rm
The author is happy to thank John Klauder
for useful criticisms.