text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The second half of the 20th century in the field of gravitation was devoted mainly to theoretical study and experimental verification of general relativity and alternative theories of gravitation with a strong stress on relations between macro and microworld fenomena or, in other words, between classical gravitation and quantum physics. Very intensive investigations in these fields were done in Russia by M.A.Markov, K.P.Staniukovich, Ya.B.Zeldovich, A.D.Sakharov and their colleagues starting from mid 60’s. As a motivation there were: singularities in cosmology and black hole physics, role of gravity at large and very small (planckian) scales, attempts to create a quantum theory of gravity as for other physical fields, problem of possible variations of fundamental physical constants etc. A lot of work was done along such topics as :

\- particle-like solutions with a gravitational field,

\- quantum theory of fields in a classical gravitational background,

\- quantum cosmology with fields like a scalar one,

\- self-consistent treatment of quantum effects in cosmology,

\- development of alternative theories of gravitation: scalar-tensor, gauge, with torsion, bimetric etc.

As all attempts to quantize general relativity in a usual manner failed and it was proved that it is not renormalizable, it bacame clear that the promising trend is along the lines of unification of all physical interactions which started in the 70’s. About this time the experimental investigation of gravity in strong fields and gravitational waves started giving a powerful speed up in theoretical studies of such objects as pulsars, black holes, QSO’s, AGN’s, Early Universe etc., which continues now.

But nowadays, when we think about the most important lines of future developments in physics, we may forsee that gravity will be essential not only by itself, but as a missing cardinal link of some theory, unifying all existing physical interactions: week, strong and electromagnetic ones. Even in experimental activities some crucial next generation experiments verifiing predictions of unified schemes will be important. Among them are: STEP - testing the corner stone Equivalence Principle, SEE - testing the inverse square law (or new nonnewtonian interactions), EP, possible variations of the newtonian constant G with time, absolute value of G with unprecedented accuracy . Of course, gravitational waves problem, verification of torsional, rotational (GPB), 2nd order and strong field effects remain important also.

We may predict as well that thorough study of gravity itself and within the unified models will give in the next century and millenium even more applications for our everyday life as electromagnetic theory gave us in the 20th century after very abstract fundamental investigations of Faraday, Maxwell, Poincare, Einstein and others, which never dreamed about such enormous applications of their works.

Other very important feature, which may be envisaged, is an increasing role of fundamental physics studies, gravitation, cosmology and astrophysics in particular, in space experiments. Unique microgravity environments and modern technology outbreak give nearly ideal place for gravitational experiments which suffer a lot on Earth from its relatively strong gravitational field and gravitational fields of nearby objects due to the fact that there is no ways of screening gravity.

In the developement of relativistic gravitation and dynamical cosmology after A. Einstein and A. Friedmann, we may notice three distinct stages: first, investigation of models with matter sources in the form of a perfect fluid, as was originally done by Einstein and Friedmann. Second, studies of models with sources as different physical fields, starting from electromagnetic and scalar ones, both in classical and quantum cases (see ). And third, which is really topical now, application of ideas and results of unified models for treating fundamental problems of cosmology and black hole physics, especially in high energy regimes. Multidimensional gravitational models play an essential role in the latter approach.

The necessity of studying multidimensional models of gravitation and cosmology  is motivated by several reasons. First, the main trend of modern physics is the unification of all known fundamental physical interactions: electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational ones. During the recent decades there has been a significant progress in unifying weak and electromagnetic interactions, some more modest achievements in GUT, supersymmetric, string and superstring theories.

Now, theories with membranes, $`p`$-branes and more vague M- and F-theories are being created and studied. Having no definite successful theory of unification now, it is desirable to study the common features of these theories and their applications to solving basic problems of modern gravity and cosmology. Moreover, if we really believe in unified theories, the early stages of the Universe evolution and black hole physics, as unique superhigh energy regions, are the most proper and natural arena for them.

Second, multidimensional gravitational models, as well as scalar-tensor theories of gravity, are theoretical frameworks for describing possible temporal and range variations of fundamental physical constants . These ideas have originated from the earlier papers of E. Milne (1935) and P. Dirac (1937) on relations between the phenomena of micro- and macro-worlds, and up till now they are under thorough study both theoretically and experimentally.

Lastly, applying multidimensional gravitational models to basic problems of modern cosmology and black hole physics, we hope to find answers to such long-standing problems as singular or nonsingular initial states, creation of the Universe, creation of matter and its entropy, acceleration, cosmological constant, origin of inflation and specific scalar fields which may be necessary for its realization, isotropization and graceful exit problems, stability and nature of fundamental constants , possible number of extra dimensions, their stable compactification etc.

Bearing in mind that multidimensional gravitational models are certain generalizations of general relativity which is tested reliably for weak fields up to 0.001 and partially in strong fields (binary pulsars), it is quite natural to inquire about their possible observational or experimental windows. From what we already know, among these windows are:

– possible deviations from the Newton and Coulomb laws, or new interactions,

– possible variations of the effective gravitational constant with a time rate smaller than the Hubble one,

– possible existence of monopole modes in gravitational waves,

– different behaviour of strong field objects, such as multidimensional black holes, wormholes and $`p`$-branes,

– standard cosmological tests etc.

Since modern cosmology has already become a unique laboratory for testing standard unified models of physical interactions at energies that are far beyond the level of the existing and future man-made accelerators and other installations on Earth, there exists a possibility of using cosmological and astrophysical data for discriminating between future unified schemes.

As no accepted unified model exists, in our approach we adopt simple, but general from the point of view of number of dimensions, models based on multidimensional Einstein equations with or without sources of different nature:

– cosmological constant,

– perfect and viscous fluids,

– scalar and electromagnetic fields,

– their possible interactions,

– dilaton and moduli fields,

– fields of antisymmetric forms (related to $`p`$-branes) etc.

Our program’s main objective was and is to obtain exact self-consistent solutions (integrable models) for these models and then to analyze them in cosmological, spherically and axially symmetric cases. In our view this is a natural and most reliable way to study highly nonlinear systems. It is done mainly within Riemannian geometry. Some simple models in integrable Weyl geometry and with torsion were studied as well.

Here we dwell mainly upon some problems of fundamental physical constants, the gravitational constant in particular, upon the SEE project shortly (see A.Sanders’ paper in this volume) and exact solutions in the spherically symmetric case, black hole and PPN parameters for these solutions in particular, within a multidimensional gravity.

## 2. Fundamental physical constants

2.1. In any physical theory we meet constants which characterize the stability properties of different types of matter: of objects, processes, classes of processes and so on. These constants are important because they arise independently in different situations and have the same value, at any rate within accuracies we have gained nowadays. That is why they are called fundamental physical constants (FPC) . It is impossible to define strictly this notion. It is because the constants, mainly dimensional, are present in definite physical theories. In the process of scientific progress some theories are replaced by more general ones with their own constants, some relations between old and new constants arise. So, we may talk not about an absolute choice of FPC, but only about a choice corresponding to the present state of the physical sciences.

Really, before the creation of the electroweak interaction theory and some Grand Unification Models, it was considered that this choice is as follows:

$$c,\mathrm{},\alpha ,G_F,g_s,m_p(\mathrm{or}m_e),G,H,\rho ,\mathrm{\Lambda },k,I,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$, $`G_F`$, $`g_s`$ and $`G`$ are constants of electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational interactions, $`H`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are cosmological parameters (the Hubble constant, mean density of the Universe and cosmological constant), $`k`$ and $`I`$ are the Boltzmann constant and the mechanical equivalent of heat which play the role of conversion factors between temperature on the one hand, energy and mechanical units on the other. After adoption in 1983 of a new definition of the meter ($`\lambda =ct`$ or $`\mathrm{}=ct`$) this role is partially played also by the speed of light $`c`$. It is now also a conversion factor between units of time (frequency) and length, it is defined with the absolute (null) accuracy.

Now, when the theory of electroweak interactions has a firm experimental basis and we have some good models of strong interactions, a more prefarable choice is as follows:

$$\mathrm{},(c),e,m_e,\theta _w,G_F,\theta _c,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD},G,H,\rho ,\mathrm{\Lambda },k,I$$
(2)
and, possibly, three angles of Kobayashi-Maskawa — $`\theta _2`$, $`\theta _3`$ and $`\delta `$. Here $`\theta _w`$ is the Weinberg angle, $`\theta _c`$ is the Cabibbo angle and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is a cut-off parameter of quantum chromodynamics. Of course, if a theory of four known now interactions will be created (M-, F-or other), then we will probably have another choice. As we see, the macro constants remain the same, though in some unified models, i.e. in multidimensional ones, they may be related in some manner (see below). From the point of view of these unified models the above mentioned ones are low energy constants.

All these constants are known with different accuracies. The most precisely defined constant was and remain the speed of light c: its accuracy was $`10^{10}`$ and now it is defined with the null accuracy. Atomic constants, $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`m`$ and others are determined with errors $`10^6÷10^8`$, $`G`$ up to $`10^4`$ or even worse, $`\theta _w`$ — up to 10%; the accuracy of $`H`$ is also about 10%. An even worse situation is now with other cosmological parameters (FPC): mean density estimations vary within an order of magnitude; for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we have now data that its corresponding density exceeds the matter density (0.7 of the total mass).

As to the nature of the FPC, we may mention several approaches. One of the first hypotheses belongs to J.A. Wheeler: in each cycle of the Universe evolution the FPC arise anew along with physical laws which govern this evolution. Thus, the nature of the FPC and physical laws are connected with the origin and evolution of our Universe.

A less global approach to the nature of dimensional constants suggests that they are needed to make physical relations dimensionless or they are measures of asymptotic states. Really, the speed of light appears in relativistic theories in factors like $`v/c`$, at the same time velocities of usual bodies are smaller than $`c`$, so it plays also the role of an asymptotic limit. The same sense have some other FPC: $`\mathrm{}`$ is the minimal quantum of action, $`e`$ is the minimal observable charge (if we do not take into account quarks which are not observable in a free state) etc.

Finally, FPC or their combinations may be considered as natural scales determining the basic units. While the earlier basic units were chosen more or less arbitrarily, i.e., the second, meter and kilogram, now the first two are based on stable (quantum) phenomena. Their stability is believed to be ensured by the physical laws which include FPC.

Another interesting problem, which is under discussion, is why the FPC have values in a very narrow range necessary for supporting life (stability of atoms, stars lifetime etc.). There exist several possible but far from being convincing explanations . First, that it is a good luck, no matter how improbable is the set of FPC. Second, that life may exist in other forms and for another FPC set, of which we do not know. Third, that all possibilities for FPC sets exist in some universe. And the last but not the least: that there is some cosmic fine tuning of FPC: some unknown physical processes bringing FPC to their present values in a long-time evolution, cycles etc.

An exact knowledge of FPC and precision measurements are necessary for testing main physical theories, extention of our knowledge of nature and, in the long run, for practical applications of fundamental theories. Within this, such theoretical problems arise:

1) development of models for confrontation of theory with experiment in critical situations (i.e. for verification of GR, QED, QCD, GUT or other unified models);

2) setting limits for spacial and temporal variations of FPC.

As to a classification of FPC, we may set them now into four groups according to their generality:

1) Universal constants such as $`\mathrm{}`$, which divides all phenomena into quantum and nonquantum ones (micro- and macro-worlds) and to a certain extent $`c`$, which divides all motions into relativistic and non-relativistic ones;

2) constants of interactions like $`\alpha `$, $`\theta _w`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ and $`G`$;

3) constants of elementary constituencies of matter like $`m_e`$, $`m_w`$, $`m_x`$, etc., and

4) transformation multipliers such as $`k`$, $`I`$ and partially $`c`$.

Of course, this division into classes is not absolute. Many constants move from one class to another. For example, $`e`$ was a charge of a particular object – electron, class 3, then it became a characteristic of class 2 (electromagnetic interaction, $`\alpha =\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}c}`$ in combination with $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$); the speed of light $`c`$ has been in nearly all classes: from 3 it moved into 1, then also into 4. Some of the constants ceased to be fundamental (i.e. densities, magnetic moments, etc.) as they are calculated via other FPC.

As to the number of FPC, there are two opposite tendencies: the number of “old” FPC is usually diminishing when a new, more general theory is created, but at the same time new fields of science arise, new processes are discovered in which new constants appear. So, in the long run we may come to some minimal choice which is characterized by one or several FPC, maybe connected with the so-called Planck parameters — combinations of $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`G`$:

$`L=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}G}{c^3}}\right)^{1/2}`$ $`10^{33}\mathrm{cm},`$
$`m_L=(c\mathrm{}/2G)^{1/2}`$ $`10^5\mathrm{g},`$
$`\tau _L=L/c`$ $`10^{43}\mathrm{s}.`$ (3)
The role of these parameters is important since $`m_L`$ characterizes the energy of unification of four known fundamental interactions: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational ones, and $`L`$ is a scale where the classical notions of space-time loose their meaning.

2.2. The problem of the gravitational constant $`G`$ measurement and its stability is a part of a rapidly developing field, called gravitational-relativistic metrology (GRM). It has appeared due to the growth of measurement technology precision, spread of measurements over large scales and a tendency to the unification of fundamental physical interaction , where main problems arise and are concentrated on the gravitational interaction.

The main subjects of GRM are:

\- general relativistic models for different astronomical scales: Earth, Solar System, galaxes, cluster of galaxies, cosmology - for time transfer, VLBI, space dynamics, relativistic astrometry etc.(pioneering works were done in Russia by Arifov and Kadyev, Brumberg in 60’s);

\- development of generalized gravitational theories and unified models for testing their effects in experiments;

\- fundamental physical constants, G in particular, and their stability in space and time;

\- fundamental cosmological parameters as fundamental constants: cosmological models studies, measurements and observations;

\- gravitational waves (detectors, sources…);

\- basic standards (clocks) and other modern precision devices (atomic and neutron interferometry, atomic force spectroscopy etc.) in fundamental gravitational experiments, especially in space…

There are three problems related to $`G`$, which origin lies mainly in unified models predictions:

1) absolute $`G`$ measurements,

2) possible time variations of $`G`$,

3) possible range variations of $`G`$ – non-Newtonian, or new interactions.

Absolute measurements of $`G`$. There are many laboratory determinations of $`G`$ with errors of the order $`10^3`$ and only 4 on the level of $`10^4`$. They are (in $`10^{11}`$ m3 kg-1 s-2):

| 1. Facy and Pontikis, France | 1972 — | 6,6714 $`\pm `$ 0.0006 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. Sagitov et al., Russia | 1979 — | 6,6745 $`\pm `$ 0.0008 |
| 3. Luther and Towler, USA | 1982 — | 6,6726 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 |
| 4. Karagioz, Russia | 1988 — | 6,6731 $`\pm `$ 0.0004 |

¿From this table it is evident that the first three experiments contradict each other (the results do not overlap within their accuracies). And only the fourth experiment is in accord with the third one.

The official CODATA value of 1986

$$G=(6,67259\pm 0.00085)10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2$$
(4)
is based on the Luther and Towler determination. But after very precise measurements of $`G`$ in Germany and New Zealand the situation became more vague. Their results deviate from the official CODATA value by more than 600 ppm.

As it may be seen from the Cavendish conference data , the results of 7 groups may agree with each other only on the level $`10^3`$. The most recent and precise $`G`$-measurement  diverge also from the CODATA value of 1986.

This means that either the limit of terrestrial accuracies has been reached or we have some new physics entering the measurement proceedure . The first means that, maybe we should turn to space experiments to measure $`G`$ , and and second means that a more thorough study of theories generalizing Einstein’s general relativity or unified theories is necessary.

There exist also some satellite determinations of $`G`$ (namely $`GM_{\mathrm{Earth}}`$) on the level of $`10^9`$ and several less precise geophysical determinations in mines.

The precise knowledge of $`G`$ is necessary, first of all, as it is a FPC; next, for the evaluation of mass of the Earth, of planets, their mean density and, finally, for construction of Earth models; for transition from mechanical to electromagnetic units and back; for evaluation of other constants through relations between them given by unified theories; for finding new possible types of interactions and geophysical effects; for some practical applications like increasing of modern gradiometers precision, as they demand a calibration by a gravitational field of a standard body depending on G: high accuracy of their calibration ($`10^5`$ \- $`10^6`$) requires the same accuracy of $`G`$. (I am indebted to Dr.N.Kolosnitsyn for this last remark.)

The knowledge of constants values has not only a fundamental meaning but also a metrological one. The modern system of standards is based mainly on stable physical phenomena. So, the stability of constants plays a crucial role. As all physical laws were established and tested during the last 2-3 centuries in experiments on the Earth and in the near space, i.e. at a rather short space and time intervals in comparison with the radius and age of the Universe, the possibility of slow variations of constants (i.e. with the rate of the evolution of the Universe or slower) cannot be excluded a priori.

So, the assumption of absolute stability of constants is an extrapolation and each time we must test it.

2.3. Time Variations of $`G`$. The problem of variations of FPC arose with the attempts to explain the relations between micro- and macro-world phenomena. Dirac was the first to introduce (1937) the so-called “Large Numbers Hypothesis” which relates some known very big (or very small) numbers with the dimensionless age of the Universe $`T10^{40}`$ (age of the Universe in seconds $`10^{17}`$, divided by the characteristic elementary particle time $`10^{23}`$ seconds). He suggested (after Milne in 1935) that the ratio of the gravitational to strong interaction strengths, $`Gm_p^2/\mathrm{}c10^{40}`$, is inversely proportional to the age of the Universe: $`Gm_p^2/\mathrm{}cT^1`$. Then, as the age varies, some constants or their combinations must vary as well. Atomic constants seemed to Dirac to be more stable, so he chose the variation of $`G`$ as $`T^1`$.

After the original Dirac hypothesis some new ones appeared and also some generalized theories of gravitation admitting the variations of an effective gravitational coupling. We may single out three stages in the development of this field:

1. Study of theories and hypotheses with variations of FPC, their predictions and confrontation with experiments (1937-1977).
2. Creation of theories admitting variations of an effective gravitational constant in a particular system of units, analyses of experimental and observational data within these theories  (1977-present).
3. Analyses of FPC variations within unified models  (present).

Within the development of the first stage from the analysis of the whole set of existed astronomical, astrophysical, geophysical and laboratory data, a conclusion was made  that variations of atomic constants are excluded, but variations of the effective gravitational constant in the atomic system of units do not contradict the available experimental data on the level $`10^{11}÷10^{12}\mathrm{year}^1`$. Moreover, in  the conception was worked out that variations of constants are not absolute but depend on the system of measurements (choice of standards, units and devices using this or that fundamental interaction). Each fundamental interaction through dynamics, described by the corresponding theory, defines the system of units and the system of basic standards.

Earlier reviews of some hypotheses on variations of FPC and experimental tests can be found in .

Following Dyson (1972), we can introduce dimensionless combinations of micro- and macro-constants:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c=7,310^3,\hfill & \gamma =Gm^2/\mathrm{}c=510^{39},\hfill \\ \beta =G_Fm^2c/\mathrm{}^3=910^6,\hfill & \delta =H\mathrm{}/mc^2=10^{42},\hfill \\ \epsilon =\rho G/H^2=210^3,\hfill & t=T/(e^2/mc^3)10^{40}\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
We see that $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\epsilon `$ are of order 1 and $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are of the order $`10^{40}`$. Nearly all existing hypotheses on variations of FPC may be represented as follows:

Hyposesis 1 (standard):

$`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ are constant, $`\delta t^1`$, $`\epsilon t`$.

Here we have no variations of $`G`$ while $`\delta `$ and $`\epsilon `$ are determined by cosmological solutions.

Hyposesis 2 (Dirac):

$`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\epsilon `$ are constant, $`\gamma t^1`$, $`\delta t^1`$.

Then $`\dot{G}/G=510^{11}\mathrm{year}^1`$ if the age of the Universe is taken to be $`T=210^{10}`$ years.

Hyposesis 3 (Gamow):

$`\gamma /\alpha =Gm^2/e^210^{37}`$, so $`e^2`$ or $`\alpha `$ are varied, but not $`G`$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$; $`\epsilon =\mathrm{const}`$, $`\alpha t^1`$, $`\delta t^1`$.

Then $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha =10^{10}\mathrm{year}^1`$.

Hyposesis 4 (Teller):

trying to account also for deviations of $`\alpha `$ from 1, he suggested $`\alpha ^1=\mathrm{ln}\gamma ^1`$.

Then $`\beta `$, $`\epsilon `$ are constants, $`\gamma t^1`$, $`\alpha (\mathrm{ln}t)^1`$, $`\delta t^1`$

$$\dot{\alpha }/\alpha =510^{13}year^1.$$
(9)
The same relation for $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ was used also by Landau, DeWitt, Staniukovich, Terasawa and others, but in approaches other than Teller’s.

Some other variants may be also possible, e.g. the Brans-Dicke theory with $`Gt^r`$, $`\rho t^{r2}`$, $`r=[2+3\omega /2]^1`$, a combination of Gamow’s and Brans-Dicke etc. .

2.4. There are different astronomical, geophysical and laboratory data on possible variations of FPC.

Astrophysical data:

from comparison of fine structure $`(\alpha ^2)`$ and relativistic fine structure $`(\alpha ^4)`$ shifts in spectra of radio galaxies, Bahcall and Schmidt (1967) obtained

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |210^{12}\mathrm{year}^1;$$
(10)
comparing lines in optical $`(Ry=me^4/\mathrm{}^2)`$ and radio bands of the same sources in galaxies Baum and Florentin-Nielsen (1976) got the estimate

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |10^{13}\mathrm{year}^1,$$
(11)
and for extragalactic objects

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |10^{14}\mathrm{year}^1;$$
(12)
from observations of superfine structure in H-absorption lines of the distant radiosource Wolf et al. (1976) obtained that

$$|\alpha ^2(m_e/m_p)g_p|<210^{14};$$
(13)
¿from these data it is seen that Hyposeses 3 and 4 are excluded. Recent data only strengthen this conclusion. Comparing the data from absorption lines of atomic and molecular transition spectra in high redshifts QSO’s, Varshalovich and Potekhin, Russia,  obtained for $`z=2.83.1`$:

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |1.610^{14}\mathrm{year}^1$$
(14)
and Drinkwater et al. :

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |10^{15}\mathrm{year}^1\text{ for }z=0.25$$
(15)
and

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |510^{16}\mathrm{year}^1\text{ for }z=0.68$$
(16)
for a model with zero deceleration parameter and $`H=75\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

The same conclusion is made on the bases of geophysical data. Indeed,

$`\alpha `$-decay of $`U_{238}Pb_{208}`$. Knowing abundancies of $`U_{238}`$ and $`P_{238}`$ in rocks and independently the age of these rocks, one obtains the limit

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |210^{13}\mathrm{year}^1;$$
(17)
from spontaneous fission of $`U_{238}`$ such an estimation was made:

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |2,310^{13}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(18)
finally, $`\beta `$-decay of $`Re_{187}`$ to $`Os_{187}`$ gave:

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |510^{15}\mathrm{year}^1$$
(19)
We must point out that all astronomical and geophysical estimations are strongly model-dependent. So, of course, it is always desirable to have laboratory tests of variations of FPC.

Such a test was first done by the Russian group in the Committee for Standards (Kolosnitsyn, 1975). Comparing rates of two different types of clocks, one based on a Cs standard and another on a beam molecular generator, they found that

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |10^{10}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(20)
From a similar comparison of a Cs standard and SCCG (Super Conducting Cavity Generator) clocks rates Turneaure et al. (1976) obtained the limit

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |4.110^{12}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(21)
More recent data were obtained by J. Prestage et al.  by comparing mercury and $`H`$-maser clocks. Their result is

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |3.710^{14}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(22)
All these limits were placed on the fine structure constant variations. From the analysis of decay rates of $`K_{40}`$ and $`Re_{187}`$, a limit on possible variations of the weak interaction constant was obtained (see approach for variations of $`\beta `$, e.g. in )

$$|\dot{\beta }/\beta |10^{10}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(23)
But the most strict data were obtained by A. Schlyachter in 1976 (Russia) ¿from an analysis of the ancient natural nuclear reactor data in Gabon, Oklo, because the event took place $`210^9`$ years ago. They are the following:

$`|\dot{G}_s/G_s|<510^{19}\mathrm{year}^1,`$
$`|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |<10^{17}\mathrm{year}^1,`$ (24)
$`|\dot{G}_F/G_F|<210^{12}\mathrm{year}^1.`$
Quite recently Damour and Dyson  repeated this analysis in more detail and gave more cautious results:

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |510^{17}\mathrm{year}1$$
(25)
and

$$|\dot{G}_F/G_F|<10^{11}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(26)
So, we really see that all existing hyposeses with variations of atomic constants are excluded.

2.5. Now we still have no unified theory of all four interactions. So it is possible to construct systems of measurements based on any of these four interactions. But practically it is done now on the basis of the mostly worked out theory — on electrodynamics (more precisely on QED). Of course, it may be done also on the basis of the gravitational interaction (as it was partially earlier). Then, different units of basic physical quantities arise based on dynamics of the given interaction, i.e. the atomic (electromagnetic) second, defined via frequency of atomic transitions or the gravitational second defined by the mean Earth motion around the Sun (ephemeris time).

It does not follow from anything that these two seconds are always synchronized in time and space. So, in principal they may evolve relative to each other, for example at the rate of the evolution of the Universe or at some slower rate.

That is why, in general, variations of the gravitational constant are possible in the atomic system of units ($`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`m`$ are constant) and masses of all particles — in the gravitational system of units ($`G`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c`$ are constant by definition). Practically we can test only the first variant since the modern basic standards are defined in the atomic system of measurements. Possible variations of FPC must be tested experimentally but for this it is necessary to have the corresponding theories admitting such variations and their certain effects.

Mathematically these systems of measurement may be realized as conformally related metric forms. Arbitrary conformal transformations give us a transition to an arbitrary system of measurements.

We know that scalar-tensor and multidimensional theories are corresponding frameworks for these variations. So, one of the ways to describe variable gravitational coupling is the introduction of a scalar field as an additional variable of the gravitational interaction. It may be done by different means (e.g. Jordan, Brans-Dicke, Canuto and others). We have suggested a variant of gravitational theory with a conformal scalar field (Higgs-type field ) where Einstein’s general relativity may be considered as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking of conformal symmetry (Domokos, 1976) . In our variant spontaneous symmetry breaking of the global gauge invariance leads to a nonsingular cosmology . Besides, we may get variations of the effective gravitational constant in the atomic system of units when $`m`$, $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ are constant and variations of all masses in the gravitational system of units ($`G`$, $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ are constant). It is done on the basis of approximate  and exact cosmological solutions with local inhomogenity .

The effective gravitational constant is calculated using the equations of motions. Post-Newtonian expansion is also used in order to confront the theory with existing experimental data. Among the post-Newtonian parameters the parameter $`f`$ describing variations of $`G`$ is included. It is defined as

$$\frac{1}{GM}\frac{d(GM)}{dt}=fH.$$
(27)
According to Hellings’ data  from the Viking mission,

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }1=(1.2\pm 1.6)10^3,f=(4\pm 8)10^2.$$
(28)
In the theory with a conformal Higgs field  we obtained the following relation between $`f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$:

$$f=4(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }1).$$
(29)
Using Hellings’ data for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, we can calculate in our variant $`f`$ and compare it with $`f`$ from . Then we get $`f=(9,6\pm 12,8)10^3`$ which agrees with (24) within its accuracy.

We used here only Hellings’ data on variations of $`G`$. But the situation with experiment and observations is not so simple. Along with , there are some other data :

1. ¿From the growth of corals, pulsar spin down, etc. on the level

$$|\dot{G}/G|<10^{10}÷10^{11}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(30)
2. Van Flandern’s positive data (though not confirmed and critisized) from the analysis of lunar mean motion around the Earth and ancient eclipses data (1976, 1981):

$$|\dot{G}/G|=(6\pm 2)10^{11}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(31)
3. Reasenberg’s estimates (1987) of the same Viking mission as in :

$$|\dot{G}/G|<(0\pm 2)10^{11}\mathrm{year}^1$$
(32)
4. Hellings’ result in the same form is

$$|\dot{G}/G|<(2\pm 4)10^{12}\mathrm{year}^1.$$
(33)
5. A result from nucleosythesis (Acceta et al., 1992):

$$|\dot{G}/G|<(\pm 0.9)10^{12}year^1.$$
(34)
6. E.V.Pitjeva’s result, Russia (1997), based on satellites and planets motion:

$$|\dot{G}/G|<(0\pm 2)10^{12}year^1$$
(35)

As we see, there is a vivid contradiction in these results. As to other experimental or observational data, the results are rather inconclusive. The most reliable ones are based on lunar laser ranging (Muller et al, 1993 and Williams et al, 1996). They are not better than $`10^{12}`$ per year. Here, once more we see that there is a need for corresponding theoretical and experinmental studies. Probably, future space missions like Earth SEE-satellite  or missions to other planets and lunar laser ranging will be a decisive step in solving the problem of temporal variations of $`G`$ and determining the fates of different theories which predict them, since the greater is the time interval between successive masurements and, of course, the more precise they are, the more stringent results will be obtained.

As we saw, different theoretical schemes lead to temporal variations of the effective gravitational constant:

1. Empirical models and theories of Dirac type, where $`G`$ is replaced by $`G(t)`$.
2. Numerous scalar-tensor theories of Jordan-Brans-Dicke type where $`G`$ depending on the scalar field $`\sigma (t)`$ appears.
3. Gravitational theories with a conformal scalar field arising in different approaches .
4. Multidimensional unified theories in which there are dilaton fields and effective scalar fields appearing in our 4-dimensional spacetime from additional dimensions . They may help also in solving the problem of a variable cosmological constant from Planckian to present values.

As was shown in  temporal variations of FPC are connected with each other in multidimensional models of unification of interactions. So, experimental tests on $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha `$ may at the same time be used for estimation of $`\dot{G}/G`$ and vice versa. Moreover, variations of $`G`$ are related also to the cosmological parameters $`\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`q`$ which gives opportunities of raising the precision of their determination.

As variations of FPC are closely connected with the behaviour of internal scale factors, it is a direct probe of properties of extra dimensions and the corresponding theories .

2.6. Non-Newtonian interactions, or range variations of $`G`$. Nearly all modified theories of gravity and unified theories predict also some deviations from the Newton law (inverse square law, ISL) or composition-dependent violations of the Equivalence Principle (EP) due to appearance of new possible massive particles (partners) . Experimental data exclude the existence of these particles at nearly all ranges except less than millimeter and also at meters and hundreds of meters ranges. The most recent result in the range of 20 to 500 m was obtained by Achilli et al. using an energy storage plant experiment with gravimeters. They found a positive result for the deviation from the Newton law with the Yukawa potential strength $`\alpha `$ between 0.13 and 0.25. Of course, these results need to be verified in other independent experiments, probably in space ones .

In the Einstein theory $`G`$ is a true constant. But, if we think that $`G`$ may vary with time, then, from a relativistic point of view, it may vary with distance as well. In GR massless gravitons are mediators of the gravitational interaction, they obey second-order differential equations and interact with matter with a constant strength $`G`$. If any of these requirements is violated, we come in general to deviations from the Newton law with range (or to generalization of GR).

In  we analyzed several classes of such theories:

1. Theories with massive gravitons like bimetric ones or theories with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term.

2. Theories with an effective gravitational constant like the general scalar-tensor ones.

3. Theories with torsion.

4. Theories with higher derivatives (4th-order equations etc.), where massive modes appear leading to short-range additional forces.

5. More elaborated theories with other mediators besides gravitons (partners), like supergravity, superstrings, M-theory etc.

6. Theories with nonlinearities induced by any known physical interactions (Born-Infeld etc.)

7. Phenomenological models where the detailed mechanism of deviation is not known (fifth or other force).

In all these theories some effective or real masses appear leading to Yukawa-type deviation from the Newton law, characterized by strength and range.

There exist some model-dependant estimations of these forces. The most well-known one belongs to Scherk (1979) from supergravity where the graviton is accompanied by a spin-1 partner (graviphoton) leading to an additional repulsion. Other models were suggested by Moody and Wilczek (1984) – introduction of a pseudo-scalar particle – leading to an additional attraction between macro-bodies with the range $`210^4`$ cm $`<\lambda <20`$ cm and strength $`\alpha `$ from 1 to $`10^{10}`$ in this range. Another supersymmetric model was elaborated by Fayet (1986, 1990), where a spin-1 partner of a massive graviton gives an additional repulsion in the range of the order $`10^3`$ km and $`\alpha `$ of the order $`10^{13}`$.

A scalar field to adjust $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was introduced also by S. Weinberg in 1989, with a mass smaller than $`10^3\mathrm{eV}/c^2`$, or a range greater than 0.1 mm. One more variant was suggested by Peccei, Sola and Wetterich (1987) leading to additional attraction with a range smaller than 10 km. Some $`p`$-brane models also predict non-Newtonian additional interactions in the mm range, what is intensively discussed nowadays. About PPN parameters for multidimensional models with $`p`$-branes see below.

2.7. SEE - Project

We saw that there are three problems connected with $`G`$. There is a promising new multi-purpose space experiment SEE - Satellite Energy Exchange , which addresses all these problems and may be more effective in solving them than other laboratory or space experiments.

This experiment is based on a limited 3-body problem of celestial mechanics: small and large masses in a drag-free satellite and the Earth. Unique horse-shoe orbits, which are effectively one-dimensional, are used in it.

The aims of the SEE-project are to measure: Inverse Square law (ISL) and Equivalence Principle (EP) at ranges of meters and the Earth radius, $`G`$-dot and the absolute value of $`G`$ with unprecedented accuracies.

We studied some aspects of the SEE-project  :

1. Wide range of trajectories with the aim of finding optimal ones:

\- circular in spherical field;

\- the same plus Earth quadrupole modes;

\- elliptic with eccentricity less than 0.05.

2. Estimations of other celestial bodies influence.

3. Estimation of relative influence of trajectories to changes in $`G`$ and $`\alpha `$.

4. Modelling measurement procedures for $`G`$ and $`\alpha `$ by different methods, for different ranges and for different satellite altitudes: optimal - 1500 $`km`$, ISS free flying platform - 500 $`km`$ and also for 3000 $`km`$.

5. Estimations of some sources of errors:

\- radial oscillations of the shepherd’s surface;

\- longitudal oscillations of the capsule;

\- transversal oscillations of the calsule;

\- shepherd’s nonsphericity;

\- limits on the quadrupole moment of the shepherd;

\- limits on addmissible charges and time scales of charging by high energy particles etc.

6. Error budgets for $`G`$, $`G`$-dot and $`G(r)`$.

The general conclusion is that the SEE-project may really improve our knowledge of these values by 3-4 orders better than we have nowadays.

## 3. Multidimensional Models

The history of the multidimensional approach begins with the well-known papers of T.K. Kaluza and O. Klein on 5-dimensional theories which opened an interest to investigations in multidimensional gravity. These ideas were continued by P. Jordan who suggested to consider the more general case $`g_{55}\mathrm{const}`$ leading to a theory with an additional scalar field. They were in some sense a source of inspiration for C. Brans and R.H. Dicke in their well-known work on a scalar-tensor gravitational theory. After their work a lot of investigations have been performed using material or fundamental scalar fields, both conformal and non-conformal (see details in ).

A revival of ideas of many dimensions started in the 70’s and continues now. It is completely due to the development of unified theories. In the 70’s an interest to multidimensional gravitational models was stimulated mainly by (i) the ideas of gauge theories leading to a non-Abelian generalization of the Kaluza-Klein approach and (ii) by supergravitational theories. In the 80’s the supergravitational theories were “replaced” by superstring models. Now it is heated by expectations connected with the overall M-theory. In all these theories, 4-dimensional gravitational models with extra fields were obtained from some multidimensional model by dimensional reduction based on the decomposition of the manifold

$$M=M^4\times M_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(36)
where $`M^4`$ is a 4-dimensional manifold and $`M_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is some internal manifold (mostly considered to be compact).

The earlier papers on multidimensional gravity and cosmology dealt with multidimensional Einstein equations and with a block-diagonal cosmological or spherically symmetric metric defined on the manifold $`M=mathbbR\times M_0\times \mathrm{}\times M_n`$ of the form

$$g=dtdt+\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_r^2(t)g^r$$
(37)
where $`(M_r,g^r)`$ are Einstein spaces, $`r=0,\mathrm{},n`$. In some of them a cosmological constant and simple scalar fields were also used .

Such models are usually reduced to pseudo-Euclidean Toda-like systems with the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}G_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}A_k\mathrm{e}^{u_i^kx^i}$$
(38)
and the zero-energy constraint $`E=0`$.

It should be noted that pseudo-Euclidean Toda-like systems are not well-studied yet. There exists a special class of equations of state that gives rise to Euclidean Toda models .

Cosmological solutions are closely related to solutions with spherical symmetry . Moreover, the scheme of obtaining the latter is very similar to the cosmological approach . The first multidimensional generalization of such type was considered by D. Kramer and rediscovered by A.I. Legkii, D.J. Gross and M.J. Perry (and also by Davidson and Owen). In  the Schwarzschild solution was generalized to the case of $`n`$ internal Ricci-flat spaces and it was shown that a black hole configuration takes place when the scale factors of internal spaces are constants. It was shown there also that a minimally coupled scalar field is incompatible with the existence of black holes. In  an analogous generalization of the Tangherlini solution was obtained, and an investigation of singularities was performed in . These solutions were also generalized to the electrovacuum case with and without a scalar field . Here, it was also proved that BHs exist only when a scalar field is switched off. Deviations from the Newton and Coulomb laws were obtained depending on mass, charge and number of dimensions. In  spherically symmetric solutions were obtained for a system of scalar and electromagnetic fields with a dilaton-type interaction and also deviations from the Coulomb law were calculated depending on charge, mass, number of dimensions and dilaton coupling. Multidimensional dilatonic black holes were singled out. A theorem was proved in  that “cuts” all non-black-hole configurations as being unstable under even monopole perturbations. In  the extremely charged dilatonic black hole solution was generalized to a multicenter (Majumdar-Papapetrou) case when the cosmological constant is non-zero.

We note that for $`D=4`$ the pioneering Majumdar-Papapetrou solutions with a conformal scalar field and an electromagnetic field were considered in .

At present there exists a special interest to the so-called M- and F-theories etc. These theories are “supermembrane” analogues of the superstring models in $`D=11,12`$ etc. The low-energy limit of these theories leads to models governed by the Lagrangian

$$=R[g]h_{\alpha \beta }g^{MN}_M\phi ^\alpha _N\phi ^\beta \underset{a\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\frac{\theta _a}{n_a!}\mathrm{exp}[2\lambda _a(\phi )](F^a)^2,$$
(39)
where $`g`$ is a metric, $`F^a=dA^a`$ are forms of rank $`F^a=n_a`$, and $`\phi ^\alpha `$ are scalar fields.

In  it was shown that, after dimensional reduction on the manifold $`M_0\times M_1\times \mathrm{}\times M_n`$ and when the composite $`p`$-brane ansatz is considered, the problem is reduced to the gravitating self-interacting $`\sigma `$-model with certain constraints. For electric $`p`$-branes see also  (in  the composite electric case was considered). This representation may be considered as a powerful tool for obtaining different solutions with intersecting $`p`$-branes (analogs of membranes). In  Majumdar-Papapetrou type solutions were obtained (for the non-composite electric case see  and for the composite electric case see ). These solutions correspond to Ricci-flat $`(M_i,g^i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and were generalized to the case of Einstein internal spaces . The obtained solutions take place when certain orthogonality relations (on couplings parameters, dimensions of “branes”, total dimension) are imposed. In this situation a class of cosmological and spherically symmetric solutions was obtained . Special cases were also considered in . Solutions with a horizon were considered in detail in . In  some propositions related to (i) interconnection between the Hawking temperature and the singularity behaviour, and (ii) to multitemporal configurations were proved.

It should be noted that multidimensional and multitemporal generalizations of the Schwarzschild and Tangherlini solutions were considered in , where the generalized Newton formulas in a multitemporal case were obtained.

We note also that there exists a large variety of Toda solutions (open or closed) when certain intersection rules are satisfied .

We continued our investigations of $`p`$-brane solutions based on the sigma-model approach in . (For the pure gravitational sector see .)

We found a family of solutions depending on one variable describing the (cosmological or spherically symmetric) “evolution” of $`(n+1)`$ Einstein spaces in the theory with several scalar fields and forms. When an electro-magnetic composite $`p`$-brane ansatz is adopted, the field equations are reduced to the equations for a Toda-like system.

In the case when $`n`$ “internal” spaces are Ricci-flat, one space $`M_0`$ has a non-zero curvature, and all $`p`$-branes do not “live” in $`M_0`$, we found a family of solutions to the equations of motion (equivalent to equations for Toda-like Lagrangian with zero-energy constraint ) if certain block-orthogonality relations on $`p`$-brane vectors $`U^s`$ are imposed. These solutions generalize the solutions from  with an orthogonal set of vectors $`U^s`$. A special class of “block-orthogonal” solutions (with coinciding parameters $`\nu _s`$ inside blocks) was considered earlier in .

We considered a subclass of spherically symmetric solutions. This subclass contains non-extremal $`p`$-brane black holes for zero values of “Kasner-like” parameters. A relation for the Hawking temperature was presented (in the black hole case).

We also calculated the Post-Newtonian Parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (Eddington parameters) for general spherically symmetric solutions and black holes in particular . These parameters depending on $`p`$-brane charges, their worldvolume dimensions, dilaton couplings and number of dimensions may be useful for possible physical applications.

Some specific models in classical and quantum multidimensional cases with $`p`$-branes were analysed in . Exact solutions for the system of scalar fields and fields of forms with a dilatinic type interactions for generalized intersection rules were studied in , where the PPN parameters were also calculated.

Finally, a stability analysis for solutions with $`p`$-branes was carried out . It was shown there that for some simple $`p`$-brane systems multidimensional black branes are stable under monopole perturbations while other (non-BH) sperically symmetric solutions turned out to be unstable.

### Acknowledgement

The author is very grateful to Don Strayer, Ulf Israelsson and Monica King for their hospitality during his stay in Solvang. The work was supported in part by the NASA/SEE project and CONACYT, Mexico


format: text

text:
# References

IEEC/CSM-00-31

quant-ph/0007035

October 2000 (revised)

Quantum deletion is possible via a partial randomization procedure

E. Elizalde111Presently on leave at Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139. E-mail: elizalde@math.mit.edu elizalde@ieec.fcr.es http://www.ieec.fcr.es/cosmo-www/eli.html

Instituto de Ciencias del Espacio (CSIC)

& Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC/CSIC),

Edifici Nexus, Gran Capità 2-4, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

and

Departament ECM i IFAE, Facultat de Física,

Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

An alternative kind of deleting/erasing operation is introduced which differs from the commonly used controlled-not (C-not) conditional logical operation $``$to flip to a standard, ‘zero’ value the (classical or quantum) state of the last copy in a chain, in a deletion process. It is completely reversible, in the classical case, possessing a most natural cloning operation counterpart. We call this deleting procedure R-deletion since, in a way, it can be viewed as a ‘randomization’ of the standard C-not operator. It has the remarkable property of by-passing in a simple manner the ‘impossibility of deletion of a quantum state’ principle, put forward by Pati and Braunstein recently .

PACS: 03.67.Lx, 03.67.Hk, 89.70.+c

The possibility of constructing a consistent quantum information theory and, what is more, of making practical use of its impressive potentialities (e.g., quantum cryptography , quantum teleportation , quantum computing , etc.) has attracted considerable attention in the Physics community during the last twenty years . Almost as old is, however, the quantum ‘no-cloning theorem’, due to Wooters and Zurek , and Dieks , which prevents the replication of unknown quantum states. In spite of this result $``$which does not allow, in particular, quantum information to be amplified accurately$``$ and as it usually happens with no-go theorems, different alternatives to circumvent this strict prohibition have appeared in the literature -. They reestablish, in several different ways, a sort of consistency between the quantum theory and its possible real application as an information theory, which will obviously have the processes of copying, storing, and retrieving of information as some of its most basic tasks. However, such consistency has been regained, at the very best, only at the level of arbitrarily good approximations in specific circumstances, while the no-cloning theorem still remains as a cornerstone in this field.

Recently, Pati and Braunstein have formulated what looks a complement to this theorem, namely a proposition that can be termed as a quantum ‘no-deleting theorem’ . In the same way as the no-cloning theorem told us that, contrary to what happens in classical information issues, the cloning of quantum information cannot be taken for granted, it also would now happen that deleting quantum information is in no way a trivial operation. One might argue, at first sight, that this result sounds quite old and well known (see Szilard  and Landauer ). In fact, replacing a sequence of 0’s and 1’s by a perfectly ordered state of 0’s is thermodynamically costly, at the classical level. But the concept of deletion used in  has a more subtle formulation, which prevents the result from being trivial, and makes it much resemble the inverse of the usual cloning operation in , in the sense that it consists in the deletion of just one copy of a bit that is kept in several (at least two) copies. In other words, this sort of deletion can only start when one has two arbitrary, unknown but identical, bits (which can be termed ‘original’ and ‘copy’).

To be precise, and for the benefit of the reader, let us here recall the controlled not (or C-not) operation of classical information theory, which allows the deletion and copying of an arbitrary sequence of classical bits (see, for instance, Zurek ). Confronted with a pair of states, $`|s_1>|s_2>`$, C-not yields:

$`|0>|0>|0>|0>,|0>|1>|0>|1>,`$
$`|1>|0>|1>|1>,|1>|1>|1>|0>,`$ (1)
that is, it replaces the second bit by its opposite whenever the first bit is $`|1>`$, and leaves it untouched, when the first is $`|0>`$. It is immediate that, classically, this operation clones the first component of a sequence of pairs of states (by imprinting it in the second component), when acting on a sequence of pairs where the second components are all 0’s (blank sequence). Thus, for instance,

$`|0>|0>,|0>|0>,|1>|0>,|0>|0>,|1>|0>,|1>|0>,\mathrm{}`$
$`|0>|0>,|0>|0>,|1>|1>,|0>|0>,|1>|1>,|1>|1>,\mathrm{}`$ (2)
Moreover, this operation is reversible: when confronted with a sequence of identical pairs of states (such as for instance the second one in (2)), the C-not operation will turn out a sequence where the first components remain unchanged, while the second ones are all 0’s. It is rather immediate (see e.g. ) that this simple operation fails altogether as a copying or deleting tool when applied to pairs of quantum bits (qubits). In terms of the states $`|0>`$ and $`|1>`$ a qubit will have the general form $`|s>=\alpha |0>+\beta |1>`$ ($`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being complex numbers such that $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$) and, the C-not operation acting, for instance, on the pair $`|s>|0>`$ yields an entangled state:

$`(\alpha |0>+\beta |1>)|0>\alpha |0>|0>+\beta |1>|1>`$ (3)
(the C-not operation is linear). Put it in this way, it looks like there is no way out of the conclusion in the paper by Pati and Braunstein  $``$to which the reader is addressed for conventions, notation and additional references$``$ that it is impossible to delete a copy of a quantum state, that comes in at least two copies, $`|s>|s>`$. Our main idea here will be to use a different form of the C-not operation together with an alternative notion of deletion, which depart from and extend in a way the definitions above.

We shall now fix our strategy. We give the term deletion a similar sense as in Ref. , as has been just described and which, in the words of Zurek , may be termed a narrow concept, but one that is being indeed most widely employed. This means, in what follows we shall just (as above) delete a single copy of some classical or quantum information piece that is kept in some device in at least two copies, so that at least one copy of the information remains in the end. But, as already advanced, our logical deleting/cloning operations will be different from the C-not operation. They will be called, respectively, random deletion and cloning from random, the first being a genuine R-choice. As it happens with the C-not operation, they also can operate both on classical and quantum systems. Being more specific, classical R-deletion will be defined as:

$`\{\begin{array}{c}|0>R|0>=\{\begin{array}{c}|0>,\text{with}p=1/2,\hfill \\ |1>,\text{with}q=1p=1/2,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ |1>R|1>=\{\begin{array}{c}|0>,\text{with}p=1/2,\hfill \\ |1>,\text{with}q=1p=1/2,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
where $`p`$ and $`q`$ denote probabilities and we have obviated the extra copies. That is, any state of the classical system is replaced by a reference state, which is not determined to be the $`|0,0,0,\mathrm{},0>`$ state, but rather one chosen each time at random, from a given set of pure states. Plainly, we would, for instance, delete the information contained in a Shakespearian play not by replacing all the characters with say $`a`$’s, but by replacing it with say222I apologize for the example an equally long play written by a monkey sitting in front of a typewriter (that is, an arbitrary state in a thermal bath, rather than a chosen, standard, zero-state ). Of course, it will not always be the same play and the obvious question could be asked: how can we know a priori, on looking to a track or a whole disk, that it has undergone a deletion process, e.g., that it is empty and does not contain any information, if spins are not all aligned as in the usual $`|0,0,0,\mathrm{},0>`$ state? One of the possible answers: we know that the device is ‘empty’ because it is labeled as such. For this we will just need an additional bit. To give a further visual picture of this last issue, let us mention that it freely corresponds to what we do at home when we decide that a video-tape or a CD are ready for re-use, after we have seen the movie (or are just fed up with the music) that we had previously recorded on them. In short, the new bit just mentioned should mimic this practice.

It should be noted that there is presently a great deal of confusion about the definition of ‘deletion’ in the case of quantum information . Classically, the convention seems to be that deletion is the reversible implementation of the erasure map: $`|\psi ><\psi ||\psi ><\psi ||\psi ><\psi ||0><0|`$ $``$where $`|0>`$ is a standard initial pure state$``$ with $`|\psi >`$ restricted to the classical symbols from some alphabet (usually $`\{0,1\}`$). Whether the map is reversible or not is determined by its action on states with different symbols on the two systems. Quantumly, it is obvious that this is not possible . A related (albeit different) definition of a (complete) randomization process, that has features in common with the one we have implemented in R-deletion, was introduced in , and has been used very recently in different situations  (although never in the context of the no-deletion principle). Ideally one would wish to delete without generating heat, but the amount produced in the present case is strictly. In particular, it has been proven in  that the generation of $`n`$ bits of entropy is sufficient and necessary in order to randomize arbitrary tensor products of $`n`$ real amplitude qubits. Observe that this is just an upper bound, in our case, since the randomization here amounts only to a unit fraction of the total for the tensor product state. While this might be a technical problem at some point, it does not prevent the definition and use of our R-deletion operator as a working, alternative erasure method and a substitute for ordinary deletion. (Often the physical implementation of related procedures is not without difficulties).

One may observe that the purpose of deletion or erasure is to prepare the system for reuse, what requires a standard pure state, and that R-deletion (classically or quantumly) will defer this process to when the system is actually used again. And then, in the quantum case, the net effect of losing a copy of the state to the environment or the apparatus by the time the system is reused could still occur. Neither of these are true. In fact, the use of a set of pure states for the family of standard states and the introduction of a new operator, that we shall call R-cloning $``$and is classically an extension of the ordinary logical operation ‘inverse’ to C-not$``$ will take care of the first issue. As for the second, it turns out that the copy that is lost to the environment, by the time the system is reused, is going to be always an informationless, randomized remnant of the initial copy and no information will go to the reusing apparatus either. The new pure state to be prepared for reuse is got from the newly randomized state, which has lost any information on the initial one. Quantumly this corresponds to a diagonalization of the randomized density matrix, obtained in the first step of the procedure.

R-cloning has no essential difference with respect to the ordinary logical operation ‘inverse’ to C-not in Eq. (1)  (see also the very clear description by Zurek ). By presenting pairwise the state to be cloned together with the random state (whatever it may be), R-cloning will replace the last with the first. There is nothing essentially distinct with the procedure in this case but, rigorously, it is a different operator, as we shall later explain.

In complete analogy with (10), quantum R-deletion starts by considering first a family of quantum states, labeled by a random parameter, $`\sigma `$. The parameter range can be finite or infinite, discrete or continuous. Actually, a family with only two members (as the states of a pair of horizontally and vertically polarized photons) would suffice to get an information loss in the way we are going to see. (For an example of a continuous, infinite family one may think, for instance, in the set of wave functions $`\phi _\sigma (x)`$ given by Gaussian distributions N(0, $`\sigma `$), with $`\sigma `$ a positive real number that labels here the family of quantum states $`|\phi _\sigma >`$). The quantum states in the family will be chosen to be pure states. Using the same notation of Pati and Braunstein , let us consider a couple of identical qubits (as two photons of arbitrary polarization) in some quantum state $`|\psi >`$ together with an ancilla in a state $`|A>`$, corresponding to the ‘ready’ state of the deleting device . The aim of the deleting device in the spirit of Ref.  was to replace one of the two copies of $`|\psi >`$ with some standard, fixed state of a qubit $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$. However, in the spirit of our approach to deletion (as described above, in the classical case), the R-deletion operator yields, in the quantum situation:

$`|\psi >|\psi >|A>|\psi >|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _1}>|A_\psi >,`$ (11)
where now the standard state of a qubit ($`|\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ in ) is replaced with one of the family of pure states, chosen at random, $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _1}>`$.

When we now consider the action of R-deletion on a pair of horizontally and vertically polarized photons, respectively, we obtain

$`|H>|H>|A>`$ $``$ $`|H>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _2}>|A_H>,`$ (12)
$`|V>|V>|A>`$ $``$ $`|V>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _3}>|A_V>,`$ (13)
and odds are against having the same standard state for the deleted copy, namely $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma >`$ (therefore the three different labels). By applying now R-deletion to an arbitrary input qubit $`|\psi >=\alpha |H>+\beta |V>`$ (with $`|H>`$ and $`|V>`$ forming a basis, and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being complex numbers such that $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$), we obtain

$`|\psi >|\psi >|A>\alpha ^2|H>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _2}>|A_H>+\beta ^2|V>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _3}>|A_V>+\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta |\mathrm{\Phi }>,`$ (14)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }>`$ is the state obtained by R-deletion of the entangled state $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|H>|V>+|V>|H>)|A>`$. But, whatever this state be in our actual realization of R-deletion, we do not recover now, from the linearity of Quantum Mechanics, the result in  that $`|A_\psi >=\alpha |A_H>+\beta |A_V>`$. In fact, the strong implications that the linearity of QM has for the ordinary deletion process are lost when using the R-deletion transformation (the most obvious reason being the lack of a unique, standard $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ state to play with). Note that, in order to completely define the operation, we must still assign values to the rest of the basis of the tensor space, namely: $`|H>|V>|A>`$ and $`|V>|H>|A>`$ $``$what can be done freely$``$ to close then the definition by extending linearly the operator to the whole of the tensor space of our quantum system . This is in common with the ordinary definition of deletion, the only difference being thus the multiple choice of pure states to be assigned to the last component of the symmetrical elements of the basis for the tensor product. The generalization of this example to higher dimensional Hilbert spaces is straightforward.

In few words, the definition of R-deletion, although linear in essence, induces a weird behaviour when combined with the linear transformations of QM. As it involves randomly several ‘standard’ states, it prevents the linearity of the relation $`|\psi >=\alpha |H>+\beta |V>`$ from being simply transfered to the ancilla state $`|A_\psi >`$, what would eventually lead to a preservation of the whole information content and prevent its deletion . In fact, R-deletion acting on $`|\psi >|\psi >|A>`$ yields (11) which, on the other hand, if $`|A_\psi >`$ were to be given by $`|A_\psi >=\alpha |A_H>+\beta |A_V>`$, by taking into account (12) and (13), would yield the identity:

$`\alpha ^2|H>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _2}>|A_H>+\beta ^2|V>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _3}>|A_V>+\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta |\mathrm{\Phi }>`$
$`=\alpha ^2|H>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _1}>|A_H>+\beta ^2|V>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _1}>|A_V>`$ (15)
$`+\alpha \beta \left(|H>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _1}>|A_V>+|V>|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _1}>|A_H>\right),`$
which is impossible to fulfill given the nature of R-deletion (in particular, the randomness of the $`\sigma _i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$). Given that the states $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\sigma _i}>`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, are unrelated, it is now impossible to recover information about the state $`|\psi >`$ from that of the ancilla remnant $`|A_\psi >`$. In conclusion, we have actually managed to delete one copy of the information, in the end.

R-deletion does not seem to have much new to say on results about cloning. Notwithstanding that, if one considers cloning as (in some sense) an inverse procedure to deleting, we are here in the presence of two sensibly different deleting operations to which, in the classical case, the same cloning operation appears to be a common inverse. This is in fact not completely true. Strictly speaking, the cloning operation which is the inverse of R-deletion strictly contains the cloning operation that is the inverse of C-not. This is so, since the last cloning will always act on the standard blank state $`|0,0,0,\mathrm{},0>`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ state only (as the second state, to be cloned). Only provided its definition were extended, allowing it to act on any state as second in the pair, would it coincide with the cloning which is the (classical) inverse of R-deletion.

To summarize, the new logical operation, R-deletion, that has been here introduced, is able to avoid the linear transference of the information kept in any arbitrary quantum state to the ancilla, as it inevitably happened with the ordinary deletion procedure , what prevented even the least amount of deletion of quantum information in that case. Our result provides support to a recent suggestion  that the non-deletion principle should preferably be called the erasure-only principle.

Acknowledgments

This investigation has been supported by DGICYT (Spain), project PB96-0925, by CIRIT (Generalitat de Catalunya), grant 1999SGR-00257, and by a USA-Spain Cooperation Agreement.


text:
# Computational AstroStatistics: Fast Algorithms and Efficient Statistics for Density Estimation in Large Astronomical Datasets

## 1. Introduction

With recent technological advances in wide field survey astronomy it has now become possible to map the distribution of galaxies and stars within the local and distant Universe across a wide full spectral range (from X-rays through to the radio) e.g. FIRST, MAP, Chandra, HST, ROSAT, SDSS, 2dF, Planck. In isolation, the scientific returns from these new data sets will be enormous, combined however, these data will represent a new paradigm for how we undertake astrophysical research. They present the opportunity to create a “Virtual Observatory” that will enable a user to seamlessly analyze and interact with a multi-frequency digital map of the sky. While the wealth of information contained within these new surveys is clear, the questions we must address is how to we efficiently analyze these massive and intrinsically multidimensional data sets. Standard statistical approaches do not easily scale to the regime of 108 data points and 100’s of dimensions.

Therefore, we have formed a collaboration of computer scientists, statisticans and astrophysics to address this problem through the development of fast and efficient statistical algorithms that scale to many dimensions and large datasets like those found in astronomy. In this volume, we present outlines of our on–going research including the use of tree algorithms for fast n–point correlation functions (Schneider et al.), non-parametric density estimations (Genovese et al.) and data visualisation (Welling et al.). In this paper, we present initial results from the application of Mixture Models to the general problem of density estimation in astrophysics; the reader is referred to Connolly et al. (2000, in preparation) for the full details of the theory, the algorithm and our results.

## 2. Outline of the Algorithm

Let $`X^n=(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ represent the data. Each $`X_i`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional vector giving, for example, the location of the $`i^{th}`$ galaxy. We assume that $`X_i`$ takes values in a set $`A`$ where $`A`$ is a patch of the sky from which we have observed. We regard $`X_i`$ as having been drawn from a probability distribution with probability density function $`f`$. This means that $`f0`$, $`_Af(x)𝑑x=1`$ and the proportion of galaxies in a region $`B`$ is given by $`Pr(X_iB)=_Bf(x)𝑑x.`$ In other words, $`f`$ is the the normalized galaxy density and the proportion of galaxies in a region $`B`$ is just the integral of $`f`$ over $`B`$. Our goal is to estimate $`f`$ from the observed data $`X^n`$.

The density $`f`$ is assumed to be of the form

$$f(x;\theta _k)=p_0U(x)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_j\varphi (x;\mu _j,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)$$
(1)
where $`\varphi (x;\mu ,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ denotes a $`d`$-dimensional Gaussian with mean $`\mu `$ and covariance $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$\varphi (x;\mu ,\mathrm{\Sigma })=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d/2}|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^{1/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(x\mu )^T\mathrm{\Sigma }^1(x\mu )\right\},$$

and $`U()`$ is a uniform density over $`A`$ i.e. $`U(x)=1/V`$ for all $`xA`$, where $`V`$ is the volume of $`A`$. The unknown parameters in this model are $`k`$ (the number of Gaussians) and $`\theta _k=(p,\mu ,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ where $`p=(p_0,\mathrm{},p_k)`$, $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)`$. Here, $`p_j0`$ for all $`j`$ and $`_{j=0}^kp_j=1`$. This model is called a mixture of Gaussians (with a uniform component). The parameter $`k`$ controls the complexity of the density $`f`$. Larger values of $`k`$ allow us to approximate very complex densities $`f`$ but also entail estimating many more parameters. It is important to emphasize that we are not assuming that the true density $`f`$ is exactly of the form (Eqn. 1). It suffices that $`f`$ can be approximated by such a distribution of Gaussians. For large enough $`k`$, nearly any density can be approximated by such a distribution (see Roeder & Wasserman 1997).

### 2.1. The EM Algorithm

How do we find the maximum likelihood estimate of $`\theta _k`$ i.e. $`\widehat{\theta }`$? (We assume for the moment that $`k`$ is fixed and known.) The usual method for finding $`\widehat{\theta }`$ is the EM (expectation maximization) algorithm. We can regard each data point $`X_i`$ as arising from one of the $`k`$ components of the mixture. Let $`G=(G_1,\mathrm{},G_k)`$ where $`G_i=j`$ means that $`X_i`$ came from the $`j^{th}`$ component of the mixture. We do not observe $`G`$ so $`G`$ is called a latent (or hidden) variable. Let $`\mathrm{}_c`$ be the log-likelihood if we knew the latent labels $`G`$. The function $`\mathrm{}_c`$ is called the complete-data log-likelihood. The EM algorithm proceeds as follows. We begin with starting values $`\theta _0`$. We compute $`Q_0=E(\mathrm{}_c;\theta _0)`$, the expectation of $`\mathrm{}_c`$, treating $`G`$ as random, with the parameters fixed at $`\theta _0`$. Next we maximize $`Q_0`$ over $`\theta `$ to obtain a new estimate $`\theta _1`$. We then compute $`Q_1=E(\mathrm{}_c;\theta _1)`$ and continue this process. Thus we obtain a sequence of estimates $`\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{}`$ which are known to converge to a local maximum of the likelihood. See Connolly et al. (2000) for more details.

Above, we have assumed that $`k`$ is known. One approach of choosing $`k`$ from the data is to sequentially test a series of hypotheses i.e. test the density estimation using $`k`$ versus the one with $`k+1`$ and repeat for various $`k`$.The usual test for comparing such hypotheses is called the “likelihood ratio test” which compares the value of the maximized log-likelihood under the two hypotheses. This approach is infeasible for large data sets where $`k`$ might be huge. Also, this requires knowing the distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic which is not known. As an alternative (see Connolly et al. 2000 for the explanation), we use two common penalized log–likelihoods to test these two hypotheses, namely Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) which take the general form of $`\mathrm{}(\widehat{\theta }_k)\lambda _kR_k`$ where $`R_k`$ is the number of parameters in the $`k^{th}`$ model. For AIC $`\lambda _k=1`$ while $`\lambda _k=\mathrm{log}n/2`$ gives the BIC criterion. See Connolly et al. (2000) for a full explanation.

Given the definition of the EM algorithm and the criteria for determining the number of components to the model using AIC and BIC we must now address how do we apply this formalism to massive multi–dimensional astronomical datasets. In its conventional implementation, each iteration of EM visits every data point pair, meaning $`kR`$ evaluations of a $`M`$-dimensional Gaussian, where $`R`$ is the number of data-points and $`k`$ is the number of components in the mixture. It thus needs $`O(M^2kR)`$ arithmetic operations per iteration. For data sets with 100s of attributes and millions of records such a scaling will clearly limit the application of the EM technique. We must therefore develop an algorithmic approach that reduces the cost and number of operations required to construct the mixture model. To do this, we have used Multi-resolution KD-trees to gain impressive speed–ups for the numerous range–searches involved in computing the fits of these $`k`$ gaussians to the data. Such tree algorithms are discussed in detail by Schneider et al. in this volume.

## 3. Applications to Astrophysical Problems

To test the sensitivity of the Mixture Model density estimation to the heirarchical clustering in the universe, and thus determine if it is better than present, more traditional, astronomical methods of density estimations, we have tested our algorithm using simulated data generated from a Voronoi Tessellation since this mimics the observed distribution of filaments and sheets of galaxies in the universe. In Figure 1, we present the underlying Voronoi density map we have constructed; this is the “truth” in our simulation. From this distribution we derive a set of 100,000 data points to represent a mock 2-dimensional galaxy catalog.

We have applied the EM algorithm (with both the AIC and BIC criteria) and a standard fixed kernel density estimator to these point-like data sets in order to reproduce the original density field. The latter involved finely binning the data and smoothing the subsequent grid with a binned Gaussian filter of fixed bandwidth which was chosen by hand to minimize the Kullback-Leibler distance ($`D(f,g)=f(x)\mathrm{log}f(x)/g(x)𝑑x`$) between the resulting smoothed map and the true underlying density distribution. Clearly, we have taken the optimal situation for the fixed kernel estimator since we have selected it’s bandwidth to ensure as close a representation of the true density distribution as possible. This would not be the case in reality.

In Figure 2, we show the reconstructed density field using the fixed kernel and EM algorithm (AIC). As we would expect the fixed kernel technique provides an accurate representation of the overall density field. The kernel density map suffers, however, when we consider features that are thinner than the width of the kernel. Such filamentary structures are over-smoothed and have their significance reduced. In contrast the EM algorithm attempts to adapt to the size of the structures it is trying to reconstruct. The right panel shows that where narrow filamentary structures exist the algorithm places a large number of small Gaussians. For extended, low frequency, components larger Gaussians are applied. For the fixed kernel estimator, we have a measured KL divergence of 0.074 between the final smoothed map and the true underlying density map (remember, this is the smallest KL measurement by design). For the EM AIC density map we measure a KL divergence of 0.067 which is lower than the best fixed kernel KL score thus immediately illustrating the power of the EM methodology. We have not afforded the same prior knowledge to the EM measurement – i.e.  hand–tune it so as to minimize the KL divergence – yet we have beaten the kernel estimator.

We have extended the analysis above to real astronomical data e.g. the the distribution of 6298 stellar sources in the B-V and V-R color space (with R$`<`$22) taken from a 1 sq degree multicolor photometric survey of Szokoly et al. (2000). In this case, the mixture model density distribution naturally provides a probability density map that a stellar object drawn at random from the observed distribution of stars would have a particular set of B-V – V-R colors. We can now assign a probability to each star in the original data that describes the likelihood that it arises from the overall distribution of the stellar locus. We can then rank order all sources based on the likelihood that they were drawn from the parent distribution. The right panel of Figure 3 shows the colors of the 5% of sources with the lowest probabilities. These sources lie preferentially away from the stellar locus and thus can be used to find high redshift quasars as outliers to color–space. As we increase the cut in probability the colors of the selected sources move progressively closer to the stellar locus.

The advantage of the EM approach over standard color selection techniques is that we identify objects based on the probability that they lie away from the stellar locus (i.e. we do not need to make orthogonal cuts in color space as the probability contours will trace accurately the true distribution of colors). While for two dimensions this is a relatively trivial statement as it is straightforward to identify regions in color–color space that lie away from the stellar locus (without being restricted to orthogonal cuts in color-color space) this is not the case when we move to higher dimensional data. For four and more colors we lose the ability to visualize the data with out projecting it down on to a lower dimensionality subspace (i.e. we can only display easily 3 dimensional data). In practice we are, therefore, limited to defining cuts in these subspaces which may not map to the true multidimensional nature of the data. The EM algorithm does not suffer from these disadvantages as a probability density distribution can be defined in an arbitrary number of dimensions. It, therefore, provides a more natural description of both the general distribution of the data and for the identification of outlier points from high dimensionality data sets. With the new generation of multi-frequency surveys we expect that the need for algorithms that scale to a large number of dimensions will become more apparent.

## References

Szoloy, G., et al., ApJ, 2000, in prep.

Roeder, K., Wasserman, L., 1997, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 894