text:
# Black Holes From Diifferent Perspectives

## 1 Introduction

It is generally believed that the concept of Black Holes requires General Relativity for its understanding and interpretation. In this brief note we will show that Black Holes could also be understood without invoking General Relativity at all.
We start by defining a Black Hole as an object at the surface of which, the escape velocity equals the maximum possible velocity in the universe viz., the velocity of light. We next use the well known equation of Keplerian orbits,

$$\frac{1}{r}=\frac{GM}{L^2}(1+ecos\theta )$$
(1)
where $`L`$, the so called impact parameter is given by, $`Rc`$, where $`R`$ is the point of closest approach, in our case a point on the surface of the object and $`c`$ is the velocity of approach, in our case the velocity of light.
Choosing $`\theta =0`$ and $`e1`$, we can deduce from (1)

$$R=\frac{2GM}{c^2}$$
(2)
Equation (2) gives the Schwarzchild radius for a Black Hole and can be deduced from the full General Relativistic theeory.
We will now use (2) to exhibit Black Holes at three different scales, the micro, the macro and the cosmic scales.

## 2 Black Holes

Our starting point is the observation that a Planck mass, $`10^5gms`$ at the Planck length, $`10^{33}cms`$ satisfies (2) and, as such is a Schwarzchild Black Hole (Cf.ref.). Infact Rosen has used non-relativistic Quantum Theory to show that such a particle is a mini universe.
We next come to stellar scales. It is well known that for an electron gas in a highly dense mass we have

$$K\left(\frac{\overline{M}^{4/3}}{\overline{R}^4}\frac{\overline{M}^{2/3}}{\overline{R}^2}\right)=K^{}\frac{\overline{M}^2}{\overline{R}^4}$$
(3)
where

$$\left(\frac{K}{K^{}}\right)=\left(\frac{27\pi }{64\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{\gamma m_P^2}\right)10^{40}$$
(4)
and

$$\overline{M}=\frac{9\pi }{8}\frac{M}{m_P}\overline{R}=\frac{R}{(\mathrm{}/m_ec)},$$

$`M`$ is the mass, $`R`$ the radius of the body, $`m_P`$ and $`m_e`$ are the proton and electron masses and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the reduced Planck Constant. From (3) and (4) it is easy to see that for $`\overline{M}<10^{60}`$, there are highly condensed planet sized stars. (Infact these considerations lead to the Chandrasekhar limit in stellar theory). We can also verify that for $`\overline{M}`$ approaching $`10^{60}`$ corresponding to a mass $`10^{36}gms`$, or roughly a hundred to a thousand times the solar mass, the radius $`R`$ gets smaller and smaller and would be $`10^8cms`$, so as to satisfy (2) and give a Black Hole in broad agreement with theory.
Finally for the universe as a whole, using only the theory of Newtonian gravitation, it is well known that we can deduce

$$R\frac{GM}{c^2}$$
(5)
where this time $`R10^{28}cms`$ is the radius of the universe and $`M10^{55}gms`$ is the mass of the universe.
Equation (5) suggests that the universe itself is a Black Hole. It is remarkable that if we consider the universe to be a Schwarzchild Black Hole as suggested by (5), the time taken by a ray of light to traverse the universe equals the age of the universe $`10^{17}secs`$ as shown elsewhere .

## 3 The Kerr-Newman Formulation for the Electron

It was already noted, that a particle with the Planck mass viz. $`10^5gms`$ could be considered to be a Schwarzchild black hole whose radius is of the order of the Planck length viz., $`10^{33}cms`$. One could then ask whether a charged rotating black hole, that is a Kerr-Newman black hole could represent an elementary particle with charge. Indeed the remarkable fact has been well known that the purely classical Kerr-Newman metric does describe the electron, including its purely Quantum Mechanical anomalous gyro magnetic ratio $`g=2`$! This could have been construed to be the much sought after unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, except for the fact that such a Kerr-Newman electron black hole would have a naked singularity. That is, its radius becomes complex:

$$r_+=\frac{GM}{c^2}+ıb,b(\frac{G^2Q^2}{c^8}+a^2\frac{G^2M^2}{c^4})^{1/2}$$
(6)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant $`M`$ the mass and $`aL/Mc,L`$ being the angular momentum.
Even in the derivation of the above Kerr-Newman metric, Newman has noted the puzzling fact that an imaginary shift of coordinates has to be invoked and that it is this imaginary shift which gives the rotation or spin. From a classical point of view this is inexplicable.
On the other hand it has been pointed out by the author that the Quantum Mechanical coordinate of a Dirac electron is given by

$$x=(c^2p_1H^1t+a_1)+\frac{ı}{2}c\mathrm{}(\alpha _1cp_1H^1)H^1,$$
(7)
where $`a_1`$ is an arbitrary constant and $`c\alpha _1`$ is the velocity operator with eigen values $`\pm c`$.
It has also been noted that for the electron the imaginary parts in (6) and (7) are of the same order, and that this imaginary coordinate was given a physical explanation long ago by Dirac: This has to do with the famous Zitterbewegung. As space time intervals shrink, by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle the uncertainty in the momentum - energy values increases. Thus only averages over space time intervals, specifically at the Compton scale, are physically meaningful. Within the Compton scale we encounter unphysical Zitterbewegung effects which show up as complex (or non-Hermitian) coordinates (Cf.also ref.).
So the unsatisfactory feature of the Kerr-Newman electron black hole can be circumvented with the Quantum Mechanical input that rather than space time points as in classical theory, we need to consider averages over Compton scale space time intervals.
All this pleasingly dovetails with the fact that minumum space time cut offs can be taken consistently with the Lorentz transformation as shown by Snyder a long time ago. In recent years there has ben a return to ideas of discrtee space time including through string theory. Further if the cut off is at the Compton scale ($`l,\tau `$) then we have a non commutative geometry viz.,

$$[x,y]=0(l^2),[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}(1l^2)$$
(8)
and similar equations, which can be shown to directly lead to the Dirac equation. In other words it is this minimum Compton scale space time cut off as in equation (8) which leads to the Dirac matrices, spin and the anomalous gyro magnetic ratio $`g=2`$. Indeed it has been noted recently by Ne’eman that such a non commutative geometry provides a rationale for renormalization. Infact this was the motivation for the very early work of Snyder and others in introducing discrete space time.
It must be mentioned that if in (8) terms $`l^2`$ are neglected, then we recover the usual commutation relations of Quantum theory.

## 4 Some Experimental Consequences

The question that arises is, are there any experimental consequences of the above formulation:
I. We first observe that the magnetic component of the field of a static electron as a Kerr-Newman black hole is given in the familiar spherical polar coordinates by (Cf.refs.).

$$B_{\widehat{r}}=\frac{2ea}{r^3}cos\mathrm{\Theta }+0(\frac{1}{r^4}),B_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=\frac{easin\mathrm{\Theta }}{r^3}+0(\frac{1}{r^4}),B_{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,$$
(9)
whereas the electrical part is given by

$$E_{\widehat{r}}=\frac{e}{r^2}+0(\frac{1}{r^3}),E_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=0(\frac{1}{r^4}),E_{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,$$
(10)
A comparison of (9) and (10) shows that there is a magnetic component of shorter range apart from the dipole which is given by the first term on the right in equation (9). We would like to point out that a short range force, the $`B^{(3)}`$ force, mediated by massive photons has indeed been observed at Cornell and studied over the past few years.
On the other hand as the Kerr-Newman charged black hole can be approximated by a solenoid, we have as in the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a negligible magnetic field outdside, but at the same time a real vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ which would contribute to a shift in phase. Infact this shift in phase is given by (Cf. also ref.)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\widehat{B}}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A}.\stackrel{}{ds}$$
(11)
There is also a similar effect due to the electric charge given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\widehat{E}}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}A_0𝑑t$$
(12)
where $`A_0`$ is the usual electro static potential given in (10). In the above Kerr-Newman formulation, $`(\stackrel{}{A},A_0)`$ of (11) and (12) are given by (Cf.refs.)

$$A_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}(\eta ^{\mu v}h_{\mu v}),\sigma ,$$
(13)
From (13) it can be seen that

$$\stackrel{}{A}\frac{1}{c}A_0$$
(14)
Substitution of (14) in (11) then gives us the contribution of the shift in phase due to the magnetic field.
II. Let us now consider some imprints of discrete space time, as discussed in section 1.
First we consider the case of the neutral pion. As is known, this pion decays into an electron and a positron. Could we think of it as an electron-positron bound state also? In this case we have,

$$\frac{mv^2}{r}=\frac{e^2}{r^2}$$
(15)
Consistently with the above formulation, if we take $`v=c`$ from (15) we get the correct Compton wavelength $`l_\pi =r`$ of the pion.
However this appears to go against the fact that there would be pair annihilation with the release of two photons. Nevertheless if we consider discrete space time, the situation would be different. In this case the Schrodinger equation

$$H\psi =E\psi $$
(16)
where $`H`$ contains the above Coulumb interaction could be written, in terms of the space and time separated wave function components as (Cf. also ref.),

$$H\psi =E\varphi T=\varphi ı\mathrm{}[\frac{T(t\tau )T}{\tau }]$$
(17)
where $`\tau `$ is the minimum time cut off which in the above work has been taken to be the Compton time. If, as usual we let $`T=exp(irt)`$ we get

$$E=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }sin\frac{\tau r}{2}$$
(18)
(18) shows that if,

$$|E|<\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }$$
(19)
holds then there are stable bound states. Indeed inequality (19) holds good when $`\tau `$ is the Compton time and $`E`$ is the total energy $`mc^2`$. Even if inequality (19) is reversed, there are decaying states which are relatively stable around the cut off energy $`\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }`$.
This is the explanation for treating the pion as a bound state of an electron and a positron, as indeed is borne out by its decay mode. The situation is similar to the case of Bohr orbits– there also the electrons would according to classical ideas have collapsed into the nucleus and the atoms would have disappeared. In this case it is the discrete nature of space time which enables the pion to be a bound state as described by (15).
Another imprint of discrete space time can be found in the Kaon decay puzzle, as pointed out by the author. There also we have equations like (16) and (17) above, with the energy term being given by $`E(1+i)`$, due to the fact that space time is quantized. Not only is the fact that the imaginary and real parts of the energy are of the same order borne out but as pointed out in this also explains the recently observed  Kaon decay and violation of the time reversal symmetry. In the words of Penrose, ”the tiny fact of an almost completely hidden time-asymmetry seems genuinely to be present in the $`K^0`$-decay. It is hard to believe that nature is not, so to speak, trying to tell something through the results of this delicate and beautiful experiment.”
From an intuitive point of view, the above should not be surprising because time or even space reversal symmetry is based on a space time continuum and is no longer obvious if space time were discrete.
Indeed this can be seen from equation (8): If we retain terms $`l^2`$ then there is no invariance under not just time but also space reflections. It is within this framework that we can also explain the handedness of the nearly massless neutrino: It has a comparatively large Compton wavelength $`l`$ and by (8) space reflection symmetry no longer holds.


format: text

text:
# Quantum coherence and interaction–free measurements

## Abstract

We investigate the extent to which “interaction-free” measurements perturb the state of quantum systems. We show that the absence of energy exchange during the measurement is not a sufficient criterion to preserve that state, as the quantum system is subject to measurement dependent decoherence. While it is possible in general to design interaction-free measurement schemes that do preserve that state, the requirement of quantum coherence preservation rapidly leads to a very low efficiency. Our results, which have a simple interpretation in terms of “which-way” arguments, open up the way to novel quantum non-demolition techniques.

Interaction-free measurements (IFM) are a particularly puzzling example of the “paradoxes” illustrating the strangeness of quantum physics. In a nutshell, they are measurements that offer a way to detect the presence of an object without any apparent interaction with the measuring device.

The history of IFM can be traced back to 1960, when Renninger , realized that at the quantum level, the non-observation of a result does have a physical impact in that it implies a collapse of the wave function. This point was further investigated by Dicke  in the framework of non-scattering of photons by particles. In 1993, Elitzur and Vaidman (EV) proposed a measurement scheme illustrating particularly vividly the IFM paradox: They demonstrated that one can to a certain extent determine the presence of a classical or quantum mechanical object in an interferometer path without touching it with a probe photon, and without prior information about the location of the object. The EV scheme was soon experimentally realized  and its efficiency was subsequently increased by use of the quantum Zeno effect . Recent research has been directed towards applications of the scheme, e.g. in the interaction-free imaging of macroscopic objects with less than the classically expected amount of light .

Of course, IFMs are not really interaction-free: if the interaction Hamiltonian between the object and the “measuring stick”, in most experimental cases a light beam, were to be set equal to zero, then nothing would happen. But past this rather trivial and easy way out of the problem, a more interesting question is to try and quantify the meaning of interaction-free. “Energy exchange free”  is now well established as a more precise way to characterize IFMs in the case of classical objects. This concept has also been applied at the quantum level, where two–state systems have been investigated . In a recent paper, White et al  showed that true IFM is not possible in the optical detection of two-level atoms, due to the nonzero rate of forward scattered photons. This gives a first indication that the quantum mechanical situation is indeed more subtle than classical IFM.

It is well known that the quantum superpositions that oftentimes characterize the state of an object are more sensitive to interactions than its energy. In order to gain a full understanding of IFMs, it is therefore important to analyze their impact on such states. In addition, quantum superpositions constitute a major ingredient of quantum entanglement. As such they play a central role in quantum information processing, including teleportation , quantum computing  and cryptography . Decoherence is one of the major obstacles to quantum information processing, and the impact of IFMs on quantum coherence is an important question in this context.

The goal of this paper is to analyze the impact of IFMs on quantum coherence, as well as their interplay. Our main conclusion is that even “energy exchange free” is an overly simplified description of the situation. IFMs do generally change the state of the system, as evidenced e.g. in the destruction of the quantum superposition of two internal states as well as of the quantum entanglement of two atoms. However, we also show that carefully designed IFM schemes can provide a powerful and non-destructive tool to probe quantum superpositions and entanglements. Potential applications include the determination of the presence of ions in a linear trap without disturbing their entanglement, and hence an ongoing quantum computer calculation.

The situation that we consider is an extension of the EV scheme, considering a multilevel atom in a coherent superposition of electronic levels. Our goals are (a) to determine whether an IFM can detect the presence of an atom without destroying that superposition, and (b) to quantify the impact of that superposition on the outcome of the IFM measurements.

An essential ingredient of the EV scheme is the fact that if the photon path is along the arm of the interferometer where the object is located, it will be irreversibly absorbed by this object. Figure 1 illustrates a model atomic system that has this same property. It consists of a four-level atom, initially in a general superposition of the two metastable states $`|m_{}`$ and $`|m_+`$.

The atoms can absorb single photons with unit efficiency, inducing a transition to the excited level $`|e`$, from which they can irreversibly decay to the ground state $`|g`$. If the wavelength of the $`|e|g`$ transition is much larger than that of the $`|m_\pm |e`$ transitions, then the branching ratio of these transitions is extremely high, and reabsorption can be neglected. As a result, the absorption of photons is de facto irreversible, the state $`|g`$ being the“exploding bomb” state of Ref. . Filtering of the high-frequency spontaneous photons circumvents the problem of forward scattering described in Ref. .

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the IFM scheme of Ref.  is extended in such a way that the atom in the lower arm of the interferometer is in a superposition of the internal metastable states, the initial state of the atomic system taken for concreteness to be

$$|\varphi _{atom}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|m_++|m_{}\right).$$
(1)
This superposition can be interpreted as describing an atom which is half absorbing and half transparent for a given photon polarization. While at first sight similar to the superposition states of being “there” or “not there” of Ref. , our “half-absorbers” are both located inside the interferometer path and thus the polarization dependence of the two transitions involved provides an additional degree of freedom. An appropriate choice of field polarization enables us to simultaneously probe both constituents of the superposition. This opens up the way to additional control on the outcome on the IFM, and in particular to the possibility of a non-demolition measurement of the quantum superposition of Eq. (1). As such, it permits the IFM of a “quantum bomb” in a superposition of its “armed” and “unarmed” states.

We denote the photon creation and annihilation operators by $`\widehat{a}_{k,\mu }^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{k,\mu }`$, respectively, where $`k=\{u,l\}`$ stands for photons of polarization $`\mu `$ following the upper or lower path in Fig. 2. Hence, the ket $`\widehat{a}_{l,\mu }^{}|0`$ describes a photon of polarization $`\mu `$ in the lower interferometer arm. We consider both circular polarizations $`\sigma _\pm `$, in which case $`\mu =\{+,\}`$, and linear polarizations $`\mu =\{x,y\}`$, the atomic selection rules being such that the $`|m_{}|e`$ and $`|m_+|e`$ are excited by left and right-circularly polarized light $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _+`$, respectively. The absorption of a photon by the atom can therefore be described by the transition

$$\widehat{a}_{l,\pm }^{}|0|m_\mu \{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |𝒮|g\text{for}& \mu =\pm ,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{a}_{l,\pm }^{}|0|m_{}\text{for}& \mu =,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`|𝒮`$ is a scattered photon. We assume that this high-frequency photon escapes the system without possible reabsorption, and can be additionally be filtered away from the detectors.

As in the original EV setup, a single photon enters the interferometer via the lower input port in the state

$$|\psi _{light,in}=a_{l,\mu }^{}|0.$$
(3)
Two identical non-polarizing 50-50 beam splitters constitute the input and output of the interferometer. The phase shifts upon transmission are chosen so that the upper detector $`D_u`$ fires with unit probability in case if no atom is in the interferometer. In that case, the annihilation operators $`\widehat{a}_{u,l}`$ before and $`\widehat{a}_{u,l}^{}`$ after each beam splitter are related by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_u^{}\\ \widehat{a}_l^{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 1\\ 1& i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_u\\ \widehat{a}_l\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
independently of the photon polarization .

Consider first the case of a $`\sigma _+`$-polarized photon entering the lower port of the first beam splitter, so that the initial state of the atom-field system is

$$|\psi _{in}=\widehat{a}_{l,+}^{}|0|\varphi _{atom}.$$
(5)
As the photon propagates through the interferometer, Eqs. (2) and (4) show that the system evolves to the final state

$`|\psi _{out}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|𝒮|g+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}}\widehat{a}_{l,+}^{}|0|m_+`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\widehat{a}_{u,+}^{}|0|m_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\widehat{a}_{u,+}^{}|0|m_{}.`$ (7)
Since the interferometer tuning is such that the upper detector $`D_u`$ clicks with unit probability in case no atom is present, the register of a click on the lower detector indicates with certainty the presence of an atom in the lower arm. As a result of the form of the interaction between the atom and the light field, this click can be interpreted as resulting from a “photon propagating through the upper arm”, hence an IFM. Eq. (7) shows that the probability for such an event is 1/8, a factor of 2 less than in the classical absorber and two-level atom cases. This is because in the present case, the atom can be thought of as a “half-absorber”, a point to which we shall return shortly. After detection of a click on $`D_l`$, the normalized reduced atomic density operator is

$$\rho _{atom,out}\text{Tr}_{light}\left\{|\psi _{out}\psi _{out}|\widehat{a}_{l,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{l,+}\right\}=|m_+m_+|.$$
(8)
Hence, the IFM destroys the initial quantum superposition of the atomic state, leaving it in the energy eigenstate $`|m_+`$.

This results from the fact that an atom initially in state $`|m_{}`$ is transparent to $`\sigma _+`$-polarized light. Hence, if a signal is registered at detector $`D_l`$ we know for sure that the atom had to be initially in state $`|m_+`$. A measurement scheme using circularly polarized light therefore provides “which path” information about the atomic state, and leads to a projection of its state onto $`|m_+`$. Likewise, using $`\sigma _{}`$-polarized light projects the superposition to $`|m_{}`$ upon detection with $`D_l`$.

The “which path” information can be erased by using linearly polarized light, say along the $`x`$-direction. Decomposing this polarization into its circular components, the initial atom-field system is now in the state

$$|\psi _{\mathrm{𝑖𝑛}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\widehat{a}_{l,}^{}\widehat{a}_{l,+}^{}\right)|0|\varphi _{\mathrm{𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑚}},$$
(9)
and yields the final state

$`|\psi _{\mathrm{𝑜𝑢𝑡}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(|𝒮|g|𝒮^{}|g\right)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{a}_{u,+}^{}|0|m_+\widehat{a}_{u,}^{}|0|m_{}\right)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{a}_{u,+}^{}|0|m_{}\widehat{a}_{u,}^{}|0|m_+\right)`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{a}_{l,+}^{}|0|m_+\widehat{a}_{l,}^{}|0|m_{}\right).`$ (13)
It is the last term of this expression, the maximally entangled atom-photon state

$$|\psi _{\mathrm{𝑜𝑢𝑡}}_l\widehat{a}_{l,+}^{}|0|m_+\widehat{a}_{l,}^{}|0|m_{},$$
(14)
which is of interest to us, since it is associated with the detection of light on the lower detector $`D_l`$. Karlsson and coworkers  discussed a similar state in the case of the IFM detection of a two-level atom and proposed its use to make a nondemolition measurement of the ground–state atom number. The present situation is different in that the entanglement is now in the state of the coupled atom-field system associated with the output at just one arm of the interferometer. As we now show, this entanglement can be used to perform an interaction-free, quantum non-demolition measurement of the quantum superposition of the atomic state. More generally, we can make use of the mapping of the atomic and photon states associated with the entanglement to encode an atomic superposition in the state of the measured photon. The associated selective measurement then leaves the atom in the desired quantum superposition.

We proceed by re-expressing the normalized state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{𝑜𝑢𝑡}}_l`$ in terms of linearly polarized light components as

$`|\psi _{\mathrm{𝑜𝑢𝑡}}_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\widehat{a}_{l,x}^{}|0\left(|m_++|m_{}\right)`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\widehat{a}_{l,y}^{}|0\left(|m_+|m_{}\right).`$ (16)
From this result it is immediately apparent that a polarization-sensitive measurement of $`x`$-polarized photons leaves the atoms in the pure final state

$$|\varphi _{atom}_{out}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|m_++|m_{}),$$
(17)
which is precisely the initial superposition $`|\varphi _{atom}`$, while a detection of $`y`$-polarized photons gives the orthogonal final state

$$|\varphi _{atom}_{out}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|m_+|m_{}).$$
(18)
In each case, the detection probability is readily seen from Eq. (10) to be 1/16, a factor of 2 less than previously and a factor of 4 less than in the case of two-level atoms. We are able to preserve the initial superposition because each circular polarized component performs an IFM on a different “half-absorber”, located in the same interferometer path. The appropriate measurement of a linear polarization, a superposition of both circular polarizations, then combines both results.

It is important to remark that in the case of polarization-insensitive detection, the final atomic state is not a pure quantum superposition, but rather the mixture

$$\rho _{atom,out}=\frac{1}{2}\left(|m_+m_+|+|m_{}m_{}|\right).$$
(19)
We see, then, that the atom-photon entanglement between of the state $`|\psi _{out}_l`$ provides us with a tool not just to perform an interaction-free, quantum-nondemolition measurement of the state of an atom, but also to map its quantum coherence to a prescribed value.

We already mentioned that compared to the original EV scheme , the probability of detecting the presence of an atom in an interaction-free fashion, either without destroying its initial state or preparing it in a prescribed superposition, is considerably smaller than for two-level atoms. For the specific example considered here, the reduction is by a factor of 4. This results from the multiplicity of atomic and light polarization states, i.e. the larger dimensionality of the relevant Hilbert space. Of all the “branches” followed by the wave function of the system during its evolution, only a few are useful to reconstruct the initial superposition state. The situation rapidly worsens for larger systems, and it is quite clear that decoherence–free IFMs soon become unrealistic. We note in addition that unlike in the EV scheme, there is no way to guarantee the preservation of the atomic state in case the photon is detected by the upper branch detector $`D_u`$. It is easily shown that in that case, the post-measurement probability to find the atom in its initial state is always less than unity, due to the fact that there are two orthogonal maximally entangled contributions in Eq. (10) associated with the upper detector. Consequently, the initial state of the object has to be reset before a subsequent measurement can be performed, in contrast to the EV situation.

Despite these difficulties, it should be emphasized that the polarization-dependent measurement scheme presents advantages of considerable interest for quantum information processing applications. In particular, it is easily extended to the situation of entangled atoms, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Assume for concreteness that the two particles are initially in the Bell state

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|m_{}_1|m_+_2+|m_+_1|m_{}_2\right),$$

where $`|_i`$ corresponds to atom $`i`$. As a result of the local character of the measurement scheme, it follows that a choice of polarization-sensitive detection that preserves the quantum coherence of the atom inside the interferometer also preserves its entanglement with the other atom, while decoherence also implies the destruction of the entanglement. As such, decoherence–free IFMs provide a tool to monitor the presence of atoms without destroying their state of entanglement.

In summary, it is possible to determine the presence of an atom in a quantum superposition of internal states without destroying it, provided that the measurement scheme does not provide the “which way” information that would in principle permit to determine its internal state. This implies that when aimed at measuring multi-level atoms, IFMs have to be designed exceedingly carefully. Compared to the classical case their efficiency is very low, and information is lost even if the upper detector detects a photon. We also showed how polarization-sensitive IFMs can be used to map the polarization state of the detected photon onto the internal state of the atoms, and how these measurements translate directly to the domain of entangled atoms. Although our scheme does not actively prevent a system from decoherence, it opens up possibilities to better control quantum systems and monitor quantum systems, with potential applications in quantum information processing.

We wish to thank M. G. Moore and M. Wilkens for stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research Research Contract No. 14-91-J1205, the National Science Foundation Grant PHY98-01099, the US Army Research Office and the Joint Services Optics Program.


text:
# Interference and the lossless lossy beam splitter

## 1 Introduction

The beam splitter is the main component of many optical interferometers, both classical and quantum . Much of its usefulness in quantum optics is derived from the fact that an unentangled input beam can emerge from the device in an entangled state. This state can then either have its quantum correlations confirmed by measurement, or can itself be used in interference experiments. Two photon interference is a higher order quantum interference effect which has received much attention . In the classic experiments two identical photons from different input arms falling simultaneously upon a 50/50 beam splitter both exit the beam splitter from the same output arm; whereas if the photons arrive at the beam splitter in the same input they are distributed between the output arms as if they obeyed the laws of classical probability, with each having a transmission and reflection probability of $`1/2`$.

The relations between the input and output single-mode boson operators for the different arms of a lossless beam splitter (Fig. 1) are

$`\widehat{a}_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`t\widehat{a}_{in}+r\widehat{b}_{in},`$
$`\widehat{b}_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`t\widehat{b}_{in}+r\widehat{a}_{in},`$ (1)
where $`t`$ and $`r`$ are the transmission and reflection coefficients.

Throughout this paper discrete-mode theory is used. It is merely an approximation to the more correct continuous-mode formalism, but it is an adequate description here, provided that the reflection and transmission coefficients can be treated as constants at the frequencies of interest. Conservation of the boson commutators and the requirement that independent inputs give independent outputs force the coefficients to satisfy $`|t|^2+|r|^2=1`$ and $`t=\pm ir`$. It is useful to define superposition modes, the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$. The annihilation operators for these are (for either inputs or outputs)

$`\widehat{c}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}+\widehat{b}}{\sqrt{2}}},\widehat{d}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{b}\widehat{a}}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (2)
so that the input and output operators are related by

$`\widehat{c}_{out}=(t+r)\widehat{c}_{in},\widehat{d}_{out}=(tr)\widehat{d}_{in}.`$ (3)
It is clear from the above relations that these superposition operators are not mixed by the beam splitter. The action of the device on any input state which is factorisable into a product state of the superposition modes, $`|\psi _{in}=|\psi _c|\psi _d`$, is simply to produce a phase shift. For example, the photon number state product

$`|\psi _{in}=|n_c|m_d|\psi _{out}=\mathrm{exp}[\pm i\theta (nm)]|n_c|m_d,`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =t`$ and $`|\mathrm{sin}\theta |=r`$. For the 50/50 beam splitter two simple examples are the one photon superpositions

$`|1_+`$ $`=`$ $`|1_c,0_d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_a,0_b+|0_a,1_b),`$
$`|1_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|0_c,1_d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_a,0_b|0_a,1_b).`$ (5)
It is also possible to construct states for which the beam splitter is transparent with two photons. Consider an input in one of the superpositions

$`|2_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|2_a,0_b\pm |0_a,2_b\right).`$ (6)
Two photons falling on a beam splitter from the same input arm are usually distributed between the outputs according to the laws of classical probability but this is not the case here. Photons in the positive superposition are constrained to take different output arms. This is an illustration of the reversibility of light beams in optics, as it is merely the standard two photon interference phenomenon with the inputs and outputs reversed. The input state in this case is not factorisable in terms of states of the $`c`$ and $`d`$ modes. The negative superposition, on the other hand, is a two photon example of a state which passes through the beam splitter unchanged. This state can also be written

$`|2_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{a}^2\widehat{b}^2)|0_a,0_b>=\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{d}^{}|0_c,0_d.`$ (7)
The reason that the state is passed is now clear. It is factorisable into a product state of the superposition modes.

Much of the theory of the beam splitter has been done assuming that it is a lossless component , for which absorption is simply an experimental problem that hinders the observation of interesting effects. Absorption is unavoidable at some frequencies, however, as optical devices must be compatible with the Kramers-Kronig relations. In recent years loss has come to be seen as a quantum property in its own right, with its own effect on correlations. There has been some work on loss in fibre couplers  but it is only recently that a quantum theory of the absorbing beam splitter was proposed . All of the features of the lossless device are retained but there are additional quantum effects such as nonlinear absorption which are only possible when loss is present.

In this paper a discrete-mode version of the lossy beam splitter theory is used to show several interesting effects. Firstly, the beam splitter may be rendered transparent or opaque, depending on the phase relation of the transmission and reflection coefficients and the state of the input light; and secondly, the nonlinear absorption effect discussed in reference  is shown to occur with other two photon input states.

## 2 The lossy beam splitter

In this section the theory of the lossy beam splitter  will be outlined in discrete-mode form. The device relates two inputs to two outputs as before (Fig. 1), but the presence of absorption forces changes to the theory. The beam splitter input and output operators are related by

$`\widehat{a}_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`t\widehat{a}_{in}+r\widehat{b}_{in}+\widehat{f}_a,`$
$`\widehat{b}_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`t\widehat{b}_{in}+r\widehat{a}_{in}+\widehat{f}_b,`$ (8)
where in this case $`|t|^2+|r|^2<1`$. The noise operators, $`\widehat{f}_a`$ and $`\widehat{f}_b`$, are necessary to preserve the commutators of the observable outputs. We will assume that the noise modes are unexcited, and can thus make no contribution to output photocounts. Furthermore, the reflection and transmission coeffecients are not constrained by a phase relation similar to the one for the lossless beam splitter (that is, $`tir`$ in general). The requirement that the beam splitter is lossy for coherent inputs does, however, give another relation which the reflection and transmission coefficients must satisfy,

$`|t\pm r|<1.`$ (9)
The superposition operators for the lossy beam splitter are simply the sum and difference operators as before. The output operators are appended by noise operators,

$`\widehat{c}_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`(t+r)\widehat{c}_{in}+\widehat{f}_c,`$
$`\widehat{d}_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`(tr)\widehat{d}_{in}+\widehat{f}_d,`$ (10)
where $`\widehat{f}_c`$ and $`\widehat{f}_d`$ are respectively the sum of and difference between the noise operators $`\widehat{f}_a`$ and $`\widehat{f}_b`$. The theory outlined above is sufficient for this paper. A fuller account of the general theory in a continuous mode formalism is given in reference .

## 3 The lossless lossy beam splitter

Consider a lossy beam splitter with transmission and reflection coefficients which are equal or opposite, $`t=\pm r`$. Such a phase relation would not be allowed for the lossless beam splitter, but the extra freedom given by the noise operators associated with absorption means that it is an allowed choice. There is, however, one restriction imposed by equation (9) which limits the moduli of $`t`$ and $`r`$ to be less than or equal to 1/2. The result of this is at best a 25/25 beam splitter with 50% loss. The effects described also occur with reduced visibility for beam splitters with greater absorption than 50% but it is this ideal case which is assumed henceforth. It is clear that for this choice of phase relation one of the superposition modes is passed completely and the other is fully absorbed. The $`|1_\pm `$ states are the one-photon excitations of these superposition operators, and Table 1 summarises the effect of the beam splitter on these inputs.

Table 1

| input | beam splitter | output |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`|1_+`$ | $`t=r`$ | $`|1_+`$ |
|  | $`t=r`$ | $`|0`$ |
| $`|1_{}`$ | $`t=r`$ | $`|0`$ |
|  | $`t=r`$ | $`|1_{}`$ |

Table 1. One photon superposition input states and output states for the 25/25 lossy beam splitter.

Clearly the photons are passed or absorbed with either unit or zero probability. They are not subject to the randomness normally associated with an absorbing medium that plagues other input states. Although the table illustrates the results with one photon states, the effect is not specifically quantum in nature. The beam splitter will be rendered either transparent or opaque to any excitation of the superposition modes, even a classical excitation such as the coherent state. The device exhibits the remarkable property that even though half of the input light is normally lost, the full intensity can be obtained at the outputs if the input is in a particular mode. Furthermore, it is relatively easy to put input light into a beam splitter in one of the superposition modes. A Mach-Zehnder interferometer with the second beam splitter as the lossy one could be set up to do this for narrow band input light (Fig. 2).

## 4 Two photon interference and nonlinear absorption

The previous section described how a beam splitter can be made transparent (or opaque) for classical or quantum excitations of the superposition modes. In this section the effects of the absorbing beam splitter on purely quantum input states are described. The standard two photon interference experiment, in which a pair of photons incident on a beam splitter from different input arms produce no coincidences at the outputs, survives with reduced visibility in the lossy case provided that the same phase relation $`t=\pm ir`$ is upheld. The same is true of the extensions to two photon interference described in the Introduction. If, however, the beam splitter has equal or opposite $`t`$ and $`r`$, nonlinear absorption can take place. It has previously been pointed out that for an input state with one photon in each input arm it is not possible to obtain a one photon output . Either both photons pass through or both are absorbed. There are similar nonlinear phenomena which occur when the input is in one of the two-photon superposition states (6). These are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2

| input | output ($`t=\pm r`$) |
| --- | --- |
| $`|1_a,1_b`$ | mixture of $`|0_a,0_b`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1_a,1_b\pm |2_+)`$ |
| $`|2_+`$ | mixture of $`|0_a,0_b`$ and $`\frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1_a,1_b\pm |2_+)`$ |
| $`|2_{}`$ | $`|1_\pm `$ |

Table 2. Two photon input states and output states for the 25/25 lossy beam splitter.

Clearly nonlinear absorption takes place in each case. For the input states specified in the first two lines of Table 2 the outputs cannot consist of only one photon, whereas the input state in the third line produces an output of one photon with certainty. In fact nonlinear interference occurs for two photon input superpositions with any relative phase angle (not merely $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ as in the Table 2). There is a simple explanantion for the nonlinear interference in terms of the superposition operators. The input state from the first line of the Table 2 can be written

$`|1_a,1_b=\widehat{a}_{in}^{}\widehat{b}_{in}^{}|0_a,0_b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{c}_{in}^2\widehat{d}_{in}^2)|0_c,0_d,`$ (11)
when expressed in terms of the superposition operators for the inputs. One of $`\widehat{c}`$ or $`\widehat{d}`$ is completely absorbed by the beam splitter, so that the part of the output which passes is either $`\widehat{c}_{out}^2/2`$ or $`\widehat{d}_{out}^2/2`$ acting on the vacuum. The output state, found by re-expressing these operators in terms of the standard output operators, is as given in Table 2. Similarly the input state in the second line of Table 2, $`|2_+`$, can be written $`\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{c}_{in}^2+\widehat{d}_{in}^2)|0_c,0_d`$, so the explanation, and the output state are the same (except for a simple phase change in one case). The odd state out is the input in the third line of the Table 2, which from equation (7) is $`|1_c,1_d`$. There is therefore one photon in each of the input superposition modes, one of which is absorbed and the other passes. Hence the output must contain one photon in the passed superposition mode.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper it has been shown that the amount of absorption produced by a lossy beam splitter can be reduced if the transmission and reflection coefficients have an appropriate phase relation and the input light is directed into particular modes. For a 50% lossy beam splitter, which ordinarily would absorb half of the light, it is possible to obtain all of the input light in the output, thus rendering the device transparent.

The modes which are affected are the superposition modes, the sum and difference of the two inputs. One photon excitations of these modes are quantum states which are useful in quantum information . The lossy beam splitter described here could therefore be used as a filter, absorbing merely that part of the input which is not in the required superposition.

A further consequence of the different amount of loss in each superposition is the possibility of nonlinear absorption from a linear device. For some two photon inputs the chance of a one photon output can be eliminated. On the other hand for the two photon input which is factorisable in terms of superposition input states, a single photon output is obtained with certainty. It is clear from the above that, in both the classical and quantum cases, interference is not simply washed out by absorption. Loss can enhance interference, and it even has effects of its own which are not present in lossless environments.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. I would like to thank Steve Barnett for useful comments.


text:
# RR charges of D2-branes in the WZW model

## Appendix

Here we collect explicit formulas for the fields $`H`$, $`B`$ and $`B_0`$ in the case of the $`SU(2)`$ WZW model.

We recall  that in this case the field $`B_D`$ which determines the open string boundary conditions on the D-brane is given by formula,

$$B_D=\frac{k}{8\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\left(dgg^1\frac{1+Ad(g)}{1Ad(g)}dgg^1\right),$$
(14)
where $`k`$ is the level on the WZW model. In terms of the Euler angles $`\psi ,\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ this expression can be rewritten as

$$B_D=\frac{k}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta )d\theta d\varphi .$$

The $`H`$-field is simply equal to the WZW form,

$$H=\frac{k}{12\pi }\mathrm{Tr}(dgg^1)^3=\frac{2k}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2(\psi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta )d\psi d\theta d\varphi .$$
(15)
In terms of the Euler angles, one can solve equation $`H=dB`$ with (see equation (2.3) of ),

$$B=\frac{k}{\pi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )}{2}\psi \right)\mathrm{sin}(\theta )d\theta d\varphi .$$

Finally, the field $`F`$ is obtained as a difference of $`B_D`$ and $`B`$,

$$F=\frac{k}{\pi }\psi \mathrm{sin}(\theta )d\theta d\varphi ,$$

with integral over D given by formula,

$$_DF=2k\psi .$$
(16)
For integral D-branes of the WZW model $`\psi _n=\pi n/k`$ which yields the contribution to the RR charge equal to $`n`$.


text:
# Deformation of the Fermi surface in the extended Hubbard model

## Abstract

The deformation of the Fermi surface induced by Coulomb interactions is investigated in the $`tt^{}`$–Hubbard model. The interplay of the local $`U`$ and extended $`V`$ interactions is analyzed. It is found that exchange interactions $`V`$ enhance small anisotropies producing deformations of the Fermi surface which break the point group symmetry of the square lattice at the Van Hove filling . This Pomeranchuck instability competes with ferromagnetism and is suppressed at a critical value $`U(V)`$. The interaction $`V`$ renormalizes the $`t^{}`$ parameter to smaller values what favors nesting. It also induces changes on the topology of hole of the Fermi surface which can go from hole to electron-like what may explain recent ARPES experiments.

The shape of the Fermi surface plays a crucial role in determining the instabilities of interacting Fermi systems. The importance of Fermi surface deformations by interaction in the non-spherical case was already recognized in the early papers on the foundation of the Fermi liquid concept , and remains a central question both under a fundamental point of view as well as for the phenomenological implications.

The physics of the cuprates and the recent ARPES experiments has renewed interest on the anisotropic Fermi surfaces. Main questions are how close is the meassured Fermi surface from the non–interacting?, how much can the Fermi surface be deformed before it breaks down driving the system to a broken symmetry phase?, does the deformation always respect the point group symmetry of the lattice?

In this paper we address the former questions in a very simplified model of the cuprates. We study the Fermi surface deformation in the $`tt^{}`$–Hubbard model on the squared two–dimensional lattice in the presence of week to moderate Coulomb interactions. We include an on-site coupling $`U`$ to take account of the magnetic interactions and an extended exchange interaction $`V`$ which can be as large as $`t`$  and is widely used recently to account for the stripe feature and the possible phase separated phase in the cuprates. It will be seen that the $`V`$ interaction plays a crucial role when the shape of the Fermi surface does not have special features favoring magnetic instabilities.

The deformation of the Fermi surface in the Hubbard and $`tJ`$ models has been studied recently  with a variety of methods. In most of these approaches attention is centered on the influence of magnetic interactions so the exchange interaction $`V`$ is not taken into account. Our results show that, even at the mean field level, this interaction has a strong influence on the Fermi surface renormalization.

In a very recent paper  it was argued that the Fermi surface of the $`tt^{}`$– Hubbard model may undergo a deformation breaking the point symmetry of the underlying lattice (Pomeranchuck instability) driven by the renormalization of the forward channel. A deformation of this type seems to be observed in recent ARPES experiments . Ferromagnetic instabilities which would directly compete with the Pomeranchuck instability were not taken into account. We investigate the conditions for the formation of Pomeranchuck instabilities and the competition with ferromagnetism. We argue that the instability is a fine tuning effect which only takes place at the Van Hove filling and is suppressed by ferromagnetism.

Our analysis provides also interesting results concerning the renormalization of the $`t^{}`$ parameter which is shown to decrease with $`V`$.

The hamiltonian that we shall use is

$$H=\underset{i,j,\sigma }{}t_{ij}c_{i,\sigma }^+c_{j,\sigma }+U\underset{i}{}n_{i,}n_{i,}+V\underset{<ij>,ss^{}}{}n_{is}n_{js^{}},$$
(1)
where $`t_{ij}=t`$ for nearest neighbors, $`t_{ij}=t^{}`$ for next nearest neighbors, and it is zero otherwise, and where we have included an extended Coulomb interaction $`V`$.

The non-interacting band structure of (1) in the squared lattice is

$$\epsilon ^0(𝐤)=2t\mathrm{cos}k_x2t\mathrm{cos}k_y+4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y$$
(2)
what originates the constant energy contours shown in fig. 1.

The shape of the interacting Fermi surface is encoded in the two–point Green’s function of the interacting system

$$G(\omega ,𝐤)=\frac{1}{\omega (\epsilon ^0(𝐤)\mu )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,𝐤)},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,𝐤)`$ is the fermion self–energy. The Fermi surface of the interacting system is defined by the equation

$$\mu \epsilon ^0(𝐤)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,𝐤)=0,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ stands for the real part of the electron self–energy. A mean field decoupling of the interacting term in (1) gives rise to an exchange interaction

$$V(𝐤_x,𝐤_y)=2V\underset{k_x^{},k_y^{}}{}[\mathrm{cos}(k_xk_x^{})+\mathrm{cos}(k_yk_y^{})]n(𝐤^{}),$$
(5)
where $`n(𝐤)`$ is the occupation of the site $`𝐤`$ in momentum space. The $`𝐤`$ dependence of the interacion $`V`$ in (5) is the key point of the results.

The diagrams contributing to the electron self–energy in perturbation theory are shown in fig. 2.

Local interactions $`U`$ do not change the shape of the Fermi surface at the one loop level. Diagrams in fig. 2a) and fig. 2b) give rise to a constant that is absorbed in the chemical potential so as to keep the system at constant density. The first contribution to the Fermi surface deformation in the local case comes from the diagram in fig. 2c) and has been computed in the literature  and found to be very small. The interaction $`V`$ contributes to the fermion self–energy at the one loop level through diagram in fig. 2b).

We compute numerically the contribution of diagram in fig. 2b) to the Fermi surface deformation in eq. (4) by solving self-consistently the equation

$`\epsilon (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{kin}(𝐤)+\epsilon _{exch}(𝐤)\mu `$ (6)
$`=`$ $`2t\mathrm{cos}k_x2t\mathrm{cos}k_y+4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y2V{\displaystyle \underset{k_x^{},k_y^{}}{}}[\mathrm{cos}(k_xk_x^{})+\mathrm{cos}(k_yk_y^{})]n(𝐤^{})\mu ,`$ (7)
where $`\mu `$ is adjusted so that the total number of electrons remains constant and spin interactions are not taken into account.

Ferromagnetism is included by starting with two different Fermi surfaces for electrons with spin up and down and solving the equations

$`\epsilon _{}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{}^0(𝐤)+\epsilon _{}^{exch}(𝐤)+U{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}}{N}}\mu `$ (8)
$`\epsilon _{}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{}^0(𝐤)+\epsilon _{}^{exch}(𝐤)+U{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}}{N}}\mu ,`$ (9)
where the total number of electrons $`N=n_{}+n_{}`$ remains constant.

From eqs. (7) and (9), it is clear that in the absence of feromagnetism, i.e starting with two identical Fermi surfaces in (9), the interaction $`U`$ contributes to the total energy with a global constant that is absorbed in the chemical potential. The deformations induced by $`V`$ are in general similar to the ones obtained in the literature when computing diagram in fig. 2c) with a local $`U`$ interaction. The reason is that the electron susceptibility inserted in the loop acts as a $`𝐤`$–dependent effective interation. The global sign is also the same (attractive). In the second order perturbation theory because of the closed fermion loop in the diagram, and in $`V`$ due to the exchange. The present analysis has the relevance of acting already at the one loop level.

Our results can be summarized as follows. The deformation of the Fermi surface depends on the filling. The general effect of $`V`$ is to smoothen out anisotropies in the curvature of the Fermi surface. This has a number of interesting consequences. In particular for closed surfaces (electron–like), the inflection points present with a finite $`t^{}`$ which were related in  to pairing instabilities with an extended-s order parameter, dissapear at a value of $`V1`$. In the context of ref. , the presence of $`V`$ favors a d-wave pairing. This result seems at odds with the claims in  which find spontaneous generation of $`t^{}`$ in a Monte Carlo analysis of the $`tJ`$ model. We think that this is due to the sign of the interaction. The effect of a positive $`V`$ is the reversed one: it reinforces the curvature of the Fermi surface leading to bigger values of $`t^{}`$.

The general agreement of our computation with other very different approaches  suggests that there will be a general tendency towards nesting in the $`tt^{}`$–Hubbard model with an extended attractive interaction of any origin.

A related topic of experimental relevance  concerns the possible change in Fermi surface topology induced by interactions. The presence of a $`t^{}`$ parameter breaking the electron–hole symmetry of the Hubbard model is crucial in this analysis. We find no changes in the Fermi surface topology with $`t^{}=0`$ in agreement with . In the presence of finite $`t^{}`$ and $`V`$, the Fermi surface does undergo changes in topology from open (hole–like) to closed (electron–like) when the initial Fermi energy lies close to – and slightly over – the Van Hove filling. This effect can explain recent messurements of electron–like surfaces in BISCO . The reversed change would be observed by reversing the sign of $`V`$.

It is interesting to note that the interacting Fermi surface lies at the level of the Van Hove singularities for a variety of initial fillings in the hole–like regime. The Van Hove filling is never reached if starting with an overdoped situation (closed Fermi surface). This last result is very insensitive to the value of $`t^{}`$ and mimics the result about the pinning of the Fermi surface obtained in .

We have searched for Pomeranchuck instabilities by investigating the response of the system to very small perturbations of the free Fermi surface. The result is extremely sensitive to the value of the chemical potential of the final system. The effect of the interactions is, in general, to restore the lattice symmetry for generic values of the final $`\mu `$. Even in the case of very strong initial perturbation (of the order of a 4 per cent), the final Fermi surface is four-fold symmetric. The exception arises when the chemical potential of the interacting system coincides with the Van Hove singularity . We have checked that, in the absence of ferromagnetism, the Van Hove filling is unstable towards Pomeranchuck deformations. This result agrees with the general considerations exposed in  that the Fermi level of electron systems tend to avoid peaks in the density of states.

Fig. 3 shows the deformation caused by $`V=2`$ in a paramagnetic situation when a point is removed by hand in the initial Fermi surface of a 61 x 61 lattice (corresponding to an anisotropy of less than $`10^3`$).

The solid line represents the free Fermi surface, the dotted line is the interacting Fermi surface in the absence of the perturbation, and the dashed line shows the final Fermi surface obtained after perturbing the free Fermi surface. Similar results are obtained with different values of V(n). This result is independent of $`t^{}`$ and occurs also at $`t^{}=0`$. It is nevertheless extremely sensitive to the value of the final chemical potential which has to be fine tuned by selecting the initial number of particles.

Magnetic interactions do substantially change the former picture. We have centered our attention on the effect of ferromagnetism as the predominant competing interaction in the forward channel . Our results show that ferromagnetism is enhanced by $`U`$ and $`t^{}`$ as expected, but it is disfavored by $`V`$. This can be understood on the light of our previous analysis showing that $`V`$ renormalizes the $`t^{}`$ parameter downwards. For small to moderate values of $`U`$, the free ferromagnetic system evolves to an interacting paramagnetic state. There is, however, a critical value of $`U(V)`$ where the final state corresponds to a fully polarized ferromagnetic system. This supression of ferromagnetism by exchange interactions might explain the absence of ferromagnetic phases in real systems which are otherwise well described by the $`tt^{}`$–Hubbard model as the one in .

The Pomeranchuck instabilities described above compete with ferromagnetism. A schematic phase diagram showing the evolution of the ferromagnetic behavior of the system as a function of $`U`$ and $`V`$ is despicted in fig. 4.

Pomeranchuck instabilities are found systematically under the appropriate conditions in the paramagnetic zone of the phase diagram. By increasing $`U`$ and keeping $`V`$ constant, they enter into the phase denoted by FM$``$ in fig. 4 changing it into a paramagnetic phase. Finally there is a critical value of $`U`$ for which ferromagnetism prevails and the deformation dissapears.

In conclusion we have shown that exchange interactions renormalize $`t^{}`$ to smaller values. An inmediate consequence of this is that, in our search for microscopic models of the cuprates, one should start the computations with a bigger value of $`t^{}`$ to account for a phenomenologically fitted value of $`t^{}`$. The effect is doping–dependent and should be stronger in the underdoped situation where screening is less effective. In this regime it will increase the nesting of the Fermi surface and enhance antiferromagnetic instabilities. The renormalization of the $`t^{}`$ parameter may also explain the absence of ferromagnetic phases in some real systems described by the $`tt^{}`$–Hubbard model, and recent meassurements of electron–like Fermi surfaces in some cuprates.

Pomeranchuck instabilities are found as the response of the system to small impurities when the Fermi surface lies at the Van Hove filling and can be regarded as an instability of the Van Hove level. They compete with ferromagnetism and dissapear at a critical value U(V).

Although the results presented in this paper are mean field results , we believe that the main features will survive the test with more accurate methods and that exchange interactions should be included – or checked to be negligible – in Hubbard related studies.

Acknowledgements. We are very grateful to F. Guinea for valuable discussions. Financial support from MEC (Spain) through grant PB96/0875 and CAM (Madrid) through grant 07/0045/98 is acknowledged.


text:
# Extracting Energy from Black Hole through Transition Region

## 1 Introduction

How to extract energy from a rotating black hole is an interesting and important issue in astrophysics. For a Kerr black hole, up to $`29\%`$ of its total energy (i.e. all of its rotational energy) is available for extraction in principle (Christodoulou 1970). Penrose (1969) was the first to propose a Gedankenexperiment for extracting energy from a Kerr black hole by splitting a particle into two inside the ergosphere: one particle with negative energy (relative to observers at infinity) is captured by the black hole, the other with energy greater than that of the original particle escapes to infinity. However, the Penrose process has been argued to be impractical in astrophysics since it requires the two new-born particles separate from each other with speed greater than half of the light speed (Bardeen, Press, & Teukolsky 1972; Wald 1974). Since then many people have considered various alternative mechanisms for extracting energy from a rotating black hole. Among them the most promising one is the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (Blandford & Znajek 1977), which in fact has been proposed to be a possible process for powering jets in quasars and active galactic nuclei (Rees, Begelman, Blandford, & Phinney 1982; Begelman, Blandford, & Rees 1984) and gamma-ray bursts (Paczyński 1993; Mészáros & Rees 1997; Lee, Wijers, & Brown 2000). In the Blandford-Znajek mechanism, a Kerr black hole is assumed to connect with remote loads with magnetic field lines. The magnetic field lines thread the black hole’s horizon, the rotation of the black hole twists the magnetic field lines and transports energy and angular momentum from the black hole to the loads (Blandford & Znajek 1977; Macdonald & Thorne 1982; Phinney 1983). Recently, a variant picture has been considered: instead of connecting with remote loads, the magnetic field lines are assumed to connect a Kerr black hole with a disk surrounding it (Blandford 1999; Gruzinov 1999; Li 2000). If the black hole rotates faster than the disk, energy and angular momentum are extracted from the black hole and transferred to the disk and ultimately radiated away by the disk (Li 2000).

In this paper we consider a new scenario for extracting energy from a Kerr black hole. Assume some magnetic field lines connect plasma particles inside the ergosphere of a Kerr black hole with remote loads. Because of the frame dragging of the Kerr black hole, plasma fluid inside the ergosphere always has a positive angular velocity relative to observers at infinity (“positive” means that the angular velocity of the plasma particles and the angular velocity of the black hole have the same sign). Because of the rotation of the plasma fluid, energy and angular momentum are extracted from the plasma particles by the magnetic field lines and transported to the remote loads. If the magnetic field is strong enough, so much energy can be extracted that as the particles fall into the horizon they have negative energy relative to observers at infinity. So, effectively, the energy is extracted from the black hole. The particles inside the ergosphere can be continuously replenished with accretion from a disk surrounding the black hole, so a transition region with sufficient amount of plasma particles is formed between the black hole’s horizon and the inner edge of the disk. Thus energy can be continuously extracted from the black hole through the transition region. We will show that this may be the most efficient way for extracting energy from a Kerr black hole: in principle almost all of its rotational energy (up to $`29\%`$ of its total energy) can be extracted.

Similar processes inside the ergosphere have been considered by other people, who have assumed that magnetic field lines connect an accretion disk either with particles in the transition region (Gammie 1999; Agol & Krolik 2000; however see the critical comments of Paczyński 2000, and Armitage, Reynolds, & Chiang 2000) or with remote loads (Meier 1999). Then the accreting particles can fall into the black hole with negative energy and negative angular momentum if the magnetic coupling is strong enough, so energy and angular momentum flow from the black hole into the disk. While in our scenario, the magnetic field lines connect particles in the transition region with remote loads without going through the disk. The energy extracted from the black hole is transported to infinity through the transition region instead of going through the disk.

## 2 Extraction of Energy and Angular Momentum

Consider some magnetic field lines connecting plasma fluid inside the ergosphere of a Kerr black hole with remote loads. The foot-points of the magnetic field lines in the plasma fluid are supposed to be close to the event horizon of the black hole, where the angular velocity of the fluid is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$ because of the frame dragging, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$ is the angular velocity of the black hole (Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973). The electromotive force induced in the plasma fluid by the frame dragging is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }/2\pi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the magnetic flux threading the plasma. We use the geometric units with $`G=c=1`$ throughout the paper. The power on the loads (i.e. the energy extracted per unit time from the fluid in the transition region, which is measured by observers at infinity) is

$`P\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}^2Z_\mathrm{L}}{\left(Z_\mathrm{L}+Z_0\right)^2}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}\right)}{Z_0}},`$ (1)
where $`Z_\mathrm{L}`$ is the resistance of the loads, $`Z_0`$ is the resistance of the plasma fluid, and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}Z_\mathrm{L}}{Z_\mathrm{L}+Z_0}}`$ (2)
is the angular velocity of the magnetic field lines. The torque on the loads (i.e. the angular momentum extracted per unit time from the fluid in the transition region, which is measured by observers at infinity) is $`T=P/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}`$. If the plasma inside the ergosphere is perfectly conducting so $`Z_0`$ is small, $`P`$ can easily reach a big value for a wide range of $`Z_\mathrm{L}`$: from $`Z_\mathrm{L}Z_0^2/Z_\mathrm{H}`$ to $`Z_\mathrm{L}Z_\mathrm{H}`$, where $`Z_\mathrm{H}`$ is the resistance of the black hole which is $`Z_0`$. In other words, we do not need “impedance-matching” — which is needed by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (Macdonald & Thorne 1982).

The plasma particles inside the ergosphere are continuously replenished with accretion from a disk surrounding the black hole with accretion rate $`\dot{M}=dM/dt`$ (measured by observers at infinity). In a steady state, the black hole must capture particles at the same rate. If the particles captured by the black hole have negative energy (measured by observers at infinity; we use the convention $`\dot{M}>0`$ for accretion), energy is extracted from the black hole. In a steady state the power and the torque of the black hole are respectively

$`P_\mathrm{H}=P\dot{M}e_i,T_\mathrm{H}=T\dot{M}j_i,`$ (3)
where $`P`$ is given by equation (1), $`T=P/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}P/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$ assuming $`Z_\mathrm{L}Z_0`$, and $`e_i`$ is the specific energy ($`0<e_i<1`$), $`j_i`$ is the specific angular momentum, of the particles before they enter the transition region. When $`P>\dot{M}e_i`$, we have $`P_\mathrm{H}>0`$, the particles fall into the black hole with negative energy, so energy is extracted from the black hole111A particle with negative energy inside the ergosphere must have negative angular momentum, so $`P_\mathrm{H}>0`$ implies $`T_\mathrm{H}>0`$. But the reverse is incorrect: a particle with negative angular momentum inside the ergosphere does not have to have negative energy, so $`T_\mathrm{H}>0`$ does not imply $`P_\mathrm{H}>0`$. The angular velocity of a particle inside the ergosphere is always positive, no matter its energy (or angular momentum) is positive or negative.. However, the angular velocity of the particles inside the ergosphere is always positive and so energy is continuously extracted from the particles and transported to the remote loads until the particles fall into the black hole. (The fluid-lines of the plasma particles in the transition region are illustrated in Fig. 4.)

For a fast rotating black hole with $`a/M_\mathrm{H}1`$ where $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ is the mass of the black hole and $`aM_\mathrm{H}`$ is the angular momentum of the black hole, the magnitude of $`P`$ can be estimated as $`B^2r_\mathrm{H}^2`$ if $`Z_\mathrm{L}Z_\mathrm{H}`$ as in the case of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism, where $`B`$ is the strength of the magnetic field in the transition region, $`r_\mathrm{H}`$ is the radius of the black hole’s horizon. By absorbing all ambiguous factors (with order of magnitude $`1`$) into $`B`$ and $`\dot{M}`$, the condition for $`P_\mathrm{H}>0`$ is given by $`B^2r_\mathrm{H}^2>\dot{M}`$, or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}}}<0.1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^9M_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{10^4\mathrm{Gauss}}}\right)^2,`$ (4)
where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}10^{27}\left(M_\mathrm{H}/10^9M_{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ g/s is the Eddington limit of accretion rate.

## 3 Efficiency in Extracting Energy from Black Hole

Suppose energy and angular momentum are extracted from a Kerr black hole at rates $`P_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ respectively. As the black hole’s spin $`s=a/M_\mathrm{H}`$ goes down from $`s_0`$ to $`s`$, the total energy extracted from the black hole is $`E=\eta M_\mathrm{H}`$, where $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ is the black hole’s initial mass, $`\eta `$ is the efficiency for the process which can be calculated by (Li 2000)

$`\eta =1\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{\left(\mu M_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}\right)^12s}},`$ (5)
where $`\mu =P_\mathrm{H}/\left(T_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}\right)`$ measures the step-by-step efficiency in extracting energy from the black hole. The value of $`\mu `$ depends on the process. For the process described in the previous section, $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}1`$ with the assumptions of $`Z_0Z_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`P\dot{M}e_i`$. For $`s_0=1`$ and $`s=0`$ we have $`\eta 29\%`$. Compared with the Blandford-Znajek mechanism and the magnetic coupling between a black hole and its disk (Li 2000), the precess presented in this paper is most efficient in extracting energy from a Kerr black hole. In principle, the amount of energy that can be extracted from a Kerr black hole through the transition region can be as close as we want to the total rotational energy, which is up to $`0.29M_\mathrm{H}`$ for $`a/M_\mathrm{H}=1`$. The Blandford-Znajek mechanism can extract $`0.09M_\mathrm{H}`$, the magnetic coupling between a black hole and its disk can extract $`0.16M_\mathrm{H}`$ for $`s_0=1`$. (See Fig. 4.)

By the first law of black hole mechanics we have

$`P_\mathrm{H}=T_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dt}},`$ (6)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity of the black hole, $`A`$ is the surface area of the black hole’s horizon. The term $`(8\pi )^1\kappa dA/dt`$ represents the rate of energy dissipation in the black hole, i.e. the increase in the black hole’s entropy. The second law of black hole physics says $`dA/dt0`$ always. \[For the four laws of black hole mechanics see Bardeen, Carter, & Hawking (1973).\] So, to gain a high efficiency in extracting energy from a Kerr black hole, $`P_\mathrm{H}/T_\mathrm{H}`$ should be as close as possible to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$, but keep less than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$. For the process discussed in this paper, with $`P\dot{M}e_i`$, we have $`P_\mathrm{H}/T_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{F}`$ which is close to but less than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$ near the horizon of the black hole. So through the transition region — whose inner boundary is at the black hole’s horizon — we can get the highest efficiency in extracting energy from a Kerr black hole.

The black hole spins down as it loses angular momentum. However, it can spin up again through accretion from the disk (Bardeen 1970). By alternating the spin-up process associated with accretion and the spin-down process associated with magnetic braking, an indefinite cyclic process can be constructed with the black hole’s spin $`s=a/M_\mathrm{H}`$ oscillating between $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ (Li & Paczyński 2000). In each cycle the overall efficiency in converting mass into energy is

$`\eta _t={\displaystyle \frac{E_1+E_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{D}}},`$ (7)
where $`E_1`$ is the energy radiated in the spin-up phase, $`E_2`$ is the energy radiated in the spin-down phase, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{D}`$ is the mass accreted from the disk during the spin-up phase. (In the spin-down phase the mass accreted from the disk is assumed to be negligible.) $`E_1`$ can be calculated with equations in Bardeen (1970), $`E_2`$ can be calculated with $`E_2=\eta M_\mathrm{H}`$ where $`\eta `$ is given by equation (5). We find that, $`\eta _t`$ peaks at $`s_10.7288`$ and $`s_20.99997`$ for $`0s_1<s_2<1`$, and $`\eta _{t,\mathrm{max}}63.8\%`$. In each cycle the black hole’s mass increases $`76\%`$. If we restrict $`s`$ in the interval $`0s0.998`$, as suggested by Thorne (1974)222However, Abramowicz and Lasota (1980) have argued that Thorne’s limit can be exceeded for a thick accretion disk. And, we should keep in mind that the upper limit on $`s`$ given by the third law of black hole physics is 1 (Bardeen, Carter, & Hawking 1973)., then $`\eta _t`$ peaks at $`s_10.8076`$ and $`s_20.998`$, but $`\eta _{t,\mathrm{max}}`$ doesn’t change much: $`\eta _{t,\mathrm{max}}63.2\%`$. In this case the black hole’s mass increases $`52\%`$ per cycle. This efficiency is higher than that in the case with the black hole spun-down by the magnetic coupling with the disk, which is $`43.6\%`$ (Li & Paczyński 2000).

In realistic cases, magnetic field lines distribute over the transition region instead of touching the transition region exactly at the inner boundary. Then the averaged angular velocity of the magnetic field lines $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{F}=P/TP_\mathrm{H}/T_\mathrm{H}`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$, i.e. $`\mu =P_\mathrm{H}/\left(T_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}\right)<1`$, thus the total efficiency in extracting energy from the black hole is smaller than that estimated above. From equation (5), for fixed values of $`s`$ and $`s_0`$, $`\eta `$ increases as $`\mu `$ increases from $`0`$ to $`1`$. The Blandford-Znajek mechanism has $`\mu 1/2`$ and $`\eta 0.09`$. Thus, if the averaged value of $`\mu `$ lies between $`1/2`$ and $`1`$, the mechanism of extracting energy from a black hole through the transition region has a higher efficiency than the Blandford-Znajek mechanism does. Otherwise, the mechanism of extracting energy from a black hole through the transition region has a lower efficiency. $`\eta 29\%`$ provides an upper limit for the efficiency in extracting energy from a Kerr black hole, as originally shown by Christodoulou (1970).

## 4 Conclusions and Discussions

As plasma particles in a magnetized accretion disk accrete onto a black hole, the magnetic field lines frozen in the plasma drift toward the black hole together. Since a black hole cannot hold magnetic fields by itself, excess magnetic field lines coming with the accreting plasma will be expelled from the black hole when the magnetic flux threading the black hole’s horizon gets saturated. So, we can expect that as accretion goes on, in the transition region between the horizon of the black hole and the inner boundary of the disk a strong magnetic field will be built up near the black hole’s horizon. This magnetic field could be stronger than both the magnetic field on the black hole’s horizon and the magnetic field in the accretion disk. Along with the accretion of the plasma particles, the toroidal currents in the disk accrete onto the black hole. As these currents get into the black hole, they are quickly dissipated since a black hole is a poor conductor. Accompanying the dissipation of currents, some magnetic field lines diffuse from the black hole to the transition region, which is equivalent to accumulation of toroidal currents in the transition region. The toroidal currents accumulated in the transition region sustain the magnetic field in the transition region and the magnetic field on the black hole’s horizon. The magnetohydrodynamics inside the transition region is very complicated. However, in a steady state with low accretion rate, the plasma in the transition region is expected to have a density $`\rho B^2/8\pi `$, which provides sufficient amount of plasma particles for carrying poloidal currents flowing across the magnetic field lines (Krolik 1999).

For a Kerr black hole, the inner part of the transition region is inside the ergosphere. In fact, for a Kerr black hole with a thin Keplerian disk, the whole transition region is inside the ergosphere when $`a/M_\mathrm{H}>0.9428`$. Because of the frame dragging the plasma fluid inside the ergosphere always has a positive angular velocity. If the magnetic field lines threading the transition region inside the ergosphere connect with remote astrophysical loads, energy and angular momentum can be extracted from the transition region by magnetic braking. When the accretion rate is low and the magnetic field is strong enough, so much energy can be extracted that the plasma particles fall into the black hole’s horizon with negative energy. Then the energy is essentially extracted from the black hole, though the magnetic field lines relevant to this process don’t touch the black hole at all.

This provides a new scenario for extracting energy from a Kerr black hole with some interesting features: (1) Since the resistance in the transition region can be much smaller than that of the black hole, and the angular velocity of the plasma fluid near the black hole horizon is close to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}`$, the efficiency in extracting energy from the black hole can be very high — in an optimal case it can be close to the limit $`29\%`$ for a Kerr black hole with initial $`a/M_\mathrm{H}=1`$; (2) Since inside the ergosphere particles with negative energy must be captured by the black hole, the energy extracted in this way is expected to be cleaner than that extracted from the disk; (3) Since the transition region has a small resistance, a high power can be gained more easily than that in the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.

I am very grateful to Bohdan Paczyński and Jeremy Goodman for helpful and stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the NASA grant NAG5-7016.


text:
# On the origin of order from random two-body interactions

## Abstract

We investigate the origin of order in the low-lying spectra of many-body systems with random two-body interactions. Contrary to the common belief our study based both on analytical as well as on numerical arguments shows that these are the higher $`J`$-sectors whose ground states are more orderly than the ones in the $`J=0`$-sector. A predominance of $`J=0`$ ground states turns out to be the result of putting on together states with different characteristic energy scales from different $`J`$-sectors.

PACS numbers: 05.45.+b, 21.60.Cz, 24.60.Lz

The nature of mechanism generating order out of randomness constitutes one of the most fundamental issues of the contemporary physics. Theories based on various versions of ensembles of the random matrices provide one possible theoretical frame for studying such effects. In this context the recently identified  preponderance of the $`J=0`$ ground states in strongly interacting Fermi systems, such as atomic nuclei, arising from random two-body interactions came as a surprise since there is no obvious pairing character in the assumed random force. Various possible explanations of this effect have been tested  with no success, however. One purpose of the present note to provide a consistent picture of the mechanism generating this effect.

Schematically, indicating nevertheless all the relevant ingredients, the interaction matrix elements $`v_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^J`$ of good total angular momentum $`J`$ in the shell-model basis $`|\alpha `$ can be expressed as follows :

$$v_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^J=\underset{J^{}}{}\underset{ii^{}}{}c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha ^{}}g_{ii^{}}^J^{}.$$
(1)
The summation runs over all combinations of the two-particle states $`|i`$ coupled to the angular momentum $`J^{}`$ and connected by the two-body interaction $`g`$. $`g_{ii^{}}^J^{}`$ denote the radial parts of the corresponding two-body matrix elements while $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ globally represent elements of the angular momentum recoupling geometry.

In statistical ensembles of matrices the crucial factor determining the structure of eigenspectrum is the probability distribution $`P_V(v)`$ of matrix elements . Especially relevant are the tails of such distributions since they prescribe the probability of appearance of the large matrix elements. From the point of view of the mechanism producing the energy gaps they are most effective in generating a local reduction of dimensionality responsible for such effects. In principle, the probability distribution of the shell model matrix elements is prescribed by their general structure expressed by the eq. (2), provided the probability distributions of both $`g_{ii^{}}^J^{}`$ and $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ are known. In general terms this structure can be considered to have the following form:

$$V=V_1+V_2+\mathrm{}+V_N$$
(2)
and each $`V_i`$ to be a product of another two variables denoted as $`C_i`$ and $`G_i`$. By making use of the convolution theorem  the probability distribution $`P_V(v)`$ that $`V`$ assumes a value equal to $`v`$ can be expressed as:

$$P_V(v)=F^1[F(P_{V_1}(v_1))F(P_{V_2}(v_2))\mathrm{}F(P_{V_N}(v_N))],$$
(3)
where $`F`$ denotes a Fourier transform, $`F^1`$ its inverse and $`P_{V_i}(v_i)`$ the probability distributions of individual terms in eq. (2). Taking in addition into account the fact that

$$P_{V_i}(v_i)=𝑑g_iP_{G_i}(g_i)P_{C_i}(\frac{v_i}{g_i})\frac{1}{|g_i|}$$
(4)
one can explicitely derive the form of $`P_V(v)`$ in several cases. Assuming for instance that all the above constituents are identically Gaussian distributed (then, according to eq. (4), $`P_{V_i}(v_i)=K_0(|v_i|)/\pi `$ and thus $`F(P_{V_i}(v_i))=1/\sqrt{1+\omega ^2}`$ ) one arrives at

$$P_V(v)=\frac{|v|^{(N1)/2}K_{(N1)/2}(|v|)}{2^{(N1)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/2)\sqrt{\pi }},$$
(5)
where $`K`$ stands for the modified Bessel function. Asymptotically, for large $`v`$, this leads to

$$P_V(v)\mathrm{exp}(|v|)|v|^{N/21}.$$
(6)
For such a global estimate the identical Gaussian distribution of $`g_{ii^{}}^J^{}`$ is consistent both with the Two-Body Random Ensemble (TBRE)  and with the Random Quasiparticle Ensemble (RQE) . The only anticipated difference originates from the fact that in the second case the variance of the distribution drops down with $`J^{}`$ like the inverse of $`2J^{}+1`$ which is expected to result in a smaller effective $`N`$ as compared to TBRE. By contrast, in both versions of the above random ensembles the geometry expressed by $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ enters explicitely. However, the complicated quasi-random coupling of individual spins is believed  to result in the so-called geometric chaoticity . If applicable indeed then this fact implies validity of the above estimate for $`P_V(v)`$. Since this is an important element for the present considerations below we explicitely verify its range of applicability.

The model to be quantitatively explored here consists, similarly as in ref. , of 6 identical particles (all single-particle energies are set to zero) operating in the $`sd`$ shell. From the nuclear spectroscopy point of view this can be identified as $`{}_{}{}^{22}O`$. Fig. 1 shows distributions of the corresponding geometrical factors $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ for $`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$ and for the relevant values of $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$.
Fig. 1 The normalised distribution of geometrical factors $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ entering the off-diagonal matrix elements (eq. (1)) for the model of 6 particles in the $`sd`$-shell.
As one can see, the Gaussian may be considered quite a reasonable representation of the distribution of such factors for all combinations of $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ with one exception for those which involve $`J=0`$. In this later case the distribution of $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{0\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ resembles more a uniform distribution over a finite interval located symmetrically with respect to zero. These empirical facts justify well the estimates of $`P_V(v)`$ based on eq. (5) for $`J0`$ and not so well for $`J=0`$. More appropriate in this particular case is to assume a uniform distribution of $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{0\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ over an interval confined by say $`c_0`$ and $`c_0`$, i.e., $`P_{C_i}(c_i)=1/2c_0`$, retaining $`P_{G_i}(g_i)`$ in its original Gaussian form of course. By making use of eqs. (3) and (4) one then obtains

$$P_V(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{erf(c_0\omega /\sqrt{2})}{c_0\omega }\right]^N\mathrm{cos}(\omega v)𝑑\omega $$
(7)
which for large $`v`$ behaves like

$$P_V(v)\mathrm{exp}(|v|^2).$$
(8)
An explicit calculation of the distribution of the shell model off-diagonal matrix elements for the various $`J`$-values based on the present model with two-body matrix elements drawn from RQE (TBRE results in similar relations among different $`J`$-sectors though the distributions are somewhat broader as compared to RQE) confirms the above analytical estimates as is illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 The probability distribution of nonzero many-body off-diagonal matrix elements in different $`J`$-sectors drawn from one thousand of RQE samples of two-body matrix elements. The energy scale is set by $`\overline{v}`$ where $`w_J^{}=\overline{v}^2/(2J^{}+1)`$ and $`w_J^{}`$ determines the RQE mean square variance. These distributions are fitted (continuous solid lines) in terms of eq. (5) with $`N`$ treated as a fitting parameter. The corresponding best $`N`$’s $`(N_{eff})`$ for each $`J`$ are listed. By increasing $`N`$ the distribution prescribed by eq. (5) quickly approaches (as a consequence of the central limit theorem) the Gaussian distribution. In this way the $`J=0`$ distribution is demonstrated to be much closer to the Gaussian than the remaining ones whose asymptotic behavior is consistent with a slower, exponential fall-off.
Indeed, such a distribution in the $`J=0`$ sector resembles more a Gaussian and the tails of this distribution drop down faster as compared to the $`J0`$-sectors where the large $`v`$ tails drop down slower, as consistent with an exponential asymptotics of eq. (3). At the same time the $`J0`$ sectors are dominated by very small matrix elements to a larger degree than $`J=0`$. The probability of appearance of a large off-diagonal matrix element which in magnitude overwhelms the remaining ones is thus greater for $`J0`$ than for $`J=0`$. Such an effective reduction of the rank in the former case is expected to result in a stronger tendency to localization as compared to GOE . The corresponding characteristics can be quantified in terms of the information entropy

$$K_l^J=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M_J}{}}|a_{l,\alpha }^J|^2\mathrm{ln}|a_{l,\alpha }^J|^2$$
(9)
of an eigenstate labelled by $`l`$ from the $`J`$-sector. The coefficients $`a_{l,\alpha }^J`$ denote the eigenvector components in the basis $`|\alpha |`$. Since the definition of $`K_l^J`$ involves the total number of states $`M_J`$ which differ for different $`J`$’s and since the appropriate reference for our considerations is GOE, we normalise $`K_l^J`$ to the GOE limit of this quantity which reads :

$$K_{GOE}^J=\psi (M_J/2+1)\psi (3/2),$$
(10)
where $`\psi `$ is the digamma function. Within our model the so-calculated and RQE ensemble averaged quantity for all the states versus their corresponding energies $`E_l^J`$ is illustrated in Fig. 3. As anticipated, it is not $`J=0`$ whose lowest eigenstate comes out most localised, i.e., most regular. The lowest states for several higher $`J`$ values deviate much more from GOE. This in particular applies to $`J=2`$ and, especially, to $`J=4`$. This thus indicates more favorable conditions for the emergence of energy gaps for larger $`J`$ than for $`J=0`$, contrary to the numerical outcome of ref. . That our numerical procedure is equivalent to that of ref.  is confirmed by the fact that we can reproduce the results when calculating the same quantities. The question thus arises as how to reconcile such conflicting conclusions.

In fact Fig. 3 provides one hint of what might be the reason. The $`J=0`$ states are spread over the broadest energy interval even though the number of states $`(M_0=14)`$ is here significantly smaller than for several larger $`J`$ values $`(M_1=19,M_2=33,M_3=29,M_4=26)`$. As a result, the average separation between the states is a factor of few larger for $`J=0`$ than for the remaining ones. Putting on the states from different $`J`$-sectors together, as is done in ref. , is thus likely to hide the genuine character of the effect under consideration.

In order to illustrate the consequence of such a procedure in Fig. 4 (dashed line) we show distributions of the ground state $`(E_1^J)`$ gaps

$$s^J=(E_2^JE_1^J)/D^J,$$
(11)
Fig. 3 The information entropy normalised to its GOE limit $`(K_l^J/K_{GOE}^J)`$ for all the states $`l`$ from various $`J`$-sectors (all positive parity) versus energies $`(E_l^J)`$ of those states. All the quantities are ensemble averaged. The energy units are the same as in Fig. 2.
where similarly as in ref.

$$D^J=<E_3^JE_2^J>,$$
(12)
for each $`J`$ individually.

As it is clearly seen the $`J=0`$-sector no longer distinguishes significantly from the remaining ones. From the point of view of our considerations presented above one would however expect an even reduced probability for occurance of the large ground state energy gaps in this particular sector as compared to the $`J>0`$ ones. As the solid lines in Fig. 4 indicate such an effect does indeed take place when $`D^J`$ in eq. (11) is replaced by

$$\overline{D}^J=<E_{M_J}^JE_2^J>/(M_J2).$$
(13)
Actually the definition of $`D^J`$ as specified by eq. (12) looks somewhat arbitrary. It seems more appropriate and more consistent with the above global considerations to relate the ground state energy gap just to the average global level spacing among the remaining states, characteristic for a given $`J`$.

Finally one may ask a question why this tendency does not extend to even higher $`J`$-values. In this connection one has to remember that the off-diagonal matrix elements is not the only relevant element. These are the diagonal matrix elements which constitute the driving term. Irrespective of the value of $`J`$ their distribution is always Gaussian-like. This can be observed numerically and is consistent with arguments formulated in terms of eqs. (1 \- 8) since the geometrical factors $`c_{J^{}ii^{}}^{J\alpha \alpha }`$ entering the diagonal matrix elements are always nonnegative. Increasing however $`J`$ beyond 4 results in a significant reduction of the variance of $`P_V(v)`$ for the diagonal matrix elements and consequently a larger fraction of the off-diagonal matrix elements becomes effective in mixing the basis states. Thus the effect under investigation results from an interplay between distributions of the diagonal and off-diagonal matrix elements and their relative magnitudes.

Fig. 4 Distributions of ground state energy gaps $`s^J`$ as defined by the eq. (11) for successive $`J`$’s. The dashed line uses $`D^J`$ defined by eq. (12) while the solid line the one defined by eq. (13).

In conclusion, the present investigation based both on theoretical as well as on numerical arguments clearly shows that the many-body problems described in terms of various variants of the two-body random ensembles (like RQE or TBRE) develop quantitatively well identified deviations from the GOE. These deviations quantified in terms of localisation or of energy gaps point to the angular momenta between 2 and 4 as those $`J`$-sectors whose ground states are ordered most. From this perspective the current interpretation of the numerical results of ref.  is thus an artifact of mixing states with different characteristic energy scales from different $`J`$-sectors. As a side remark it seems also appropriate to notice at this point that the arguments going in parallel to eqs. (1-8) provide a more adequate approach towards understanding the distribution of matrix elements in realistic nuclear shell-model calculations than the ones based on multipole expansion .

We acknowledge useful discussions with J. Okołowicz, M. Płoszajczak and I. Rotter at the early stage of this development. This work was partly supported by KBN Grant No. 2 P03B 097 16.