text:
# ‘Stable’ QPOs and Black Hole Properties from Diskoseismology

## 1 Introduction

A few years ago, we predicted that the angular momentum of the candidate black hole in the X-ray binary GRO J1655–40 is approximately 93% of maximum (Wagoner, 1999). (The dimensionless angular momentum parameter $`a=cJ/GM^2`$ is less than unity in absolute value.) This was based upon the identification of the ‘stable’ 300 Hz feature with the fundamental g–mode in its accretion disk (Perez, Silbergleit, Wagoner & Lehr, 1997), plus the mass determination of $`7.02\pm 0.22M_{\mathrm{}}`$ from observations of its companion by Orosz & Bailyn (1997). As we shall see below, the fundamental c–mode should then be at a frequency near 450 Hz, in agreement with the recent discovery of another apparently stable feature in its power spectrum by Strohmayer (2001a). A second relatively stable high frequency QPO has also been recently seen in another galactic microquasar, GRS 1915+105 (Strohmayer, 2001b).

For the past ten years, our group has investigated the normal modes of oscillation of standard (geometrically thin) equilibrium models of black hole accretion disks. The early work of various groups has been reviewed by Kato, Fukue & Mineshige (1998) and Wagoner (1999). We perturb the optically thick fully relativistic models of Novikov & Thorne (1973); Page & Thorne (1974). We have usually considered accretion disks which are barotropic \[$`p=p(\rho )`$\], producing a vanishing buoyancy frequency. The results below are relatively insensitive to the value of the viscosity parameter, here taken to be $`\alpha =0.1`$.

The key frequencies, associated with free-particle orbits in the disk, are the rotational \[$`\mathrm{\Omega }(a,r)`$\], vertical epicyclic \[$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(a,r)`$\], and radial epicyclic \[$`\kappa (a,r)`$\] angular frequencies, respectively. The effective inner edge of the disk is close to the radius $`r_i(a)`$ of the last stable circular orbit, where $`\kappa (a,r_i)=0`$. For $`a>0`$, which we shall henceforth assume, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)>\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(r)>\kappa (r)`$.

We stress that linear combinations of these modes should describe all adiabatic perturbations of such disks. There are essentially three classes of modes, designated g, c, and p. We shall focus mainly on the fundamental mode within each class, corresponding to the minimum number of nodes in the axial, radial, and vertical components of the eigenfunction $`\delta p=A(r,z)\mathrm{exp}[i(m\varphi +\sigma t)]`$ of the pressure (and any other) perturbation. The corresponding mode numbers are $`m`$ (axial), $`j`$ (vertical), and $`n`$ (radial). One would expect that most mechanisms of excitation (such as turbulence) would produce the highest amplitudes for the lowest modes numbers, where the wavelength of the mode best matches the dominant length scale of the (turbulent, etc.) excitation. In addition, the resulting luminosity fluctuations would tend to increasingly cancel for higher mode numbers.

The g (inertial-gravity)–mode oscillations (Perez, Silbergleit, Wagoner & Lehr, 1997) can be characterized by a restoring force that is dominated by the net gravitational–centrifugal force. The axisymmetric ($`m=0`$) g–modes are centered at the radius $`r_g`$ where the radial epicyclic frequency $`\kappa `$ achieves its maximum. The eigenfrequencies of the modes with only a few nodes in the radial eigenfunction are slightly below $`\kappa _0\kappa (r_g)`$.

The c (corrugation)–modes which have so far been investigated (Silbergleit, Wagoner & Ortega-Rodríguez, 2001) are non-radial ($`m=\pm 1`$) vertically incompressible waves near the inner edge of the disk, that precess around the angular momentum of the black hole. They do not exist in counter-rotating ($`1<a<0`$) disks. Their fundamental frequency coincides with the Lense-Thirring frequency (produced by the dragging of inertial frames generated by the angular momentum of the black hole) at the outer boundary of their capture zone, in the appropriate slow-rotation limit.

The p (inertial-pressure)–mode oscillations can be characterized by a restoring force that is dominated by pressure gradients, as for ordinary acoustic modes. The fundamental p–modes exist near the inner and outer edges of the disk, but higher modes can cover a greater area. The frequency of the inner edge fundamental p–mode is comparable to that of the fundamental g and c–modes, and much greater than that of the outer edge p–mode, so only it will be considered below. Details will be presented by Ortega-Rodríguez, Silbergleit & Wagoner (2001).

Unless otherwise indicated, we take $`c=1`$, and express all distances in units of $`GM/c^2`$ and all frequencies in units of $`c^3/GM`$ (where $`M`$ is the black hole mass).

## 2 Properties of the Fundamental Modes

### 2.1 g–modes

The axisymmetric g–modes are trapped in the region of the disk where the eigenfrequency $`|\sigma |\kappa `$. The width $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ of this region \[centered on $`r_g(a)`$\] is proportional to $`c_s^{1/2}`$. The speed of sound $`c_s(r,z)`$ is proportional to the disk luminosity $`L`$ where radiation pressure dominates. This should be valid (for typical luminosities) because $`r_g`$ is near the radius where the disk temperature peaks. For $`0<a0.95`$ and small values of the mode numbers $`j`$ and $`n`$, the width

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r3.3(L/L_{Edd})^{1/2},$$
(1)
while $`r_g(0)=8`$ and $`r_g(0.95)3`$ \[see Perez, Silbergleit, Wagoner & Lehr (1997), Figure 2\].

The eigenfrequencies of the axisymmetric g–modes with small values of the vertical ($`j`$) and radial ($`n`$) mode numbers are

$$\sigma _g=(1ϵ_{jn})\kappa _0,ϵ_{jn}E_{jn}(a)L/L_{Edd}.$$
(2)
The small correction term $`ϵ_{jn}`$ depends upon the adiabatic index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as well as the usual parameters $`M`$, $`a`$, the viscosity parameter $`\alpha `$, and the luminosity $`L`$. For relevant values and $`nj1`$, $`ϵh/r_g`$, giving $`E_{jn}(0.0)0.077`$ and $`E_{jn}(0.9)0.11`$. Thus the frequencies should drop slightly as the luminosity increases (as long as the disk remains thin). In particular,

$$d\mathrm{log}\sigma _g/d\mathrm{log}L=E_{jn}(a)L/L_{Edd}$$
(3)
when $`ϵ_{jn}1`$.

### 2.2 c–modes

The fundamental ($`|m|=j=1`$) c–modes are trapped within $`r_irr_c`$. For radial mode number $`n=0`$, its width can be approximated by the formula

$$r_cr_i=K_0a^{K_1}(1a)^{K_2},$$
(4)
where $`K_0=0.093`$, $`K_1=0.79`$, and $`K_2=0.20`$ for $`M10M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`L0.1L_{Edd}`$. So the mode has a significant radial extent only for slowly rotating black holes, although this extent increases with increasing radial mode number.

The eigenfrequencies of the fundamental c–modes are also relatively insensitive to the properties of the accretion disk (except for very slowly rotating black holes). They are also related to the basic frequencies mentioned above, in this case by

$$\sigma _c=\mathrm{\Omega }(r_c)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(r_c).$$
(5)
We have found that

$$d\mathrm{log}\sigma _c/d\mathrm{log}L=K(a),$$
(6)
with $`K(0.003)=0.51`$ and $`K(0.1)=0.044`$ for $`M10M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`n=0`$. The frequencies decrease slowly with increasing values of $`n`$.

### 2.3 p–modes

The fundamental ($`m=j=0`$) p–modes that can produce the high frequencies of interest here also exist near the inner edge of the disk, $`r_irr_p`$, where $`|\sigma |\kappa `$. We take the modified speed of sound

$$c_s^{}(r)c_s(r,z=0)/[U^tg_{rr}^{1/2}](rr_i)^\mu $$
(7)
for $`r`$ close to $`r_i`$, where $`U^\nu `$ is the four-velocity of the fluid and $`g_{rr}`$ is a metric component. For the standard disk model, $`\mu =2/5`$. However, magnetic stresses in the gas that is spiraling toward the black hole (Hawley & Krolik, 2001) may torque the inner edge of the disk enough to produce $`\mu =0`$. The fraction of the specific angular momentum at $`r_i`$ that is eventually captured by the black hole is usually denoted by $`\beta `$. \[Thus $`\mu (\beta =1)=2/5`$ and $`\mu (\beta <1)0`$.\] For $`0\mu <1/2`$, we find that

$$r_pr_i=[C_n(\mu )q^1c_s^{}(r_p)]^{2/3},$$
(8)
where $`q^2(a)(d\kappa ^2/dr)_{r_i}`$ and $`C_n(2n+1)[2/(\mathrm{\Gamma }+1)]^{1/2}`$ for any value of $`\mu `$. Since typically $`r_pr_i1`$, we expect gas pressure to dominate, giving $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3`$. For $`a0.9`$, this equation can approximated by

$$r_pr_iD_n(\beta ,L)[a_n^{}(\beta ,L)a].$$
(9)
For instance, $`D_0(1,0.1L_{Edd})0.041`$ and $`a_0^{}(1,0.1L_{Edd})1.22`$, while $`D_0(0.95,0.1L_{Edd})0.24`$ and $`a_0^{}(0.95,0.1L_{Edd})1.18`$. This trapping region size increases (roughly as $`n^{2/3}`$) for increasing values of the radial mode number $`n`$ (like the c–modes).

The eigenfrequencies of the fundamental inner p–modes have a similar dependence on the speed of sound. In terms of the quantities defined above, the basic relation $`\sigma ^2=\kappa ^2(r_p)q^2(r_pr_i)`$ gives

$$\sigma _p=[C_n(\mu )q^2c_s^{}(r_p)]^{1/3},$$
(10)
so $`(r_pr_i)\sigma _pC_n(\mu )c_s^{}(r_p)`$. This frequency increases (roughly as $`n^{1/3}`$) for increasing values of $`n`$. Since $`c_s(L^2/\alpha M)^{1/10}`$ near the inner edge,

$$d\mathrm{log}\sigma _p/d\mathrm{log}L=1/15.$$
(11)
## 3 Comparison with Observations

In Table 1 we indicate the radial location and extent of each mode, for two values of the angular momentum parameter $`a`$. In Figure 1 we plot the fundamental eigenfrequencies of each mode as a function of $`a`$. All the mode frequencies are essentially proportional to $`1/M`$.

Since all of the mode frequencies are relatively weak functions of the disk luminosity (and other disk properties such as the viscosity parameter), we shall focus our attention on the two black hole candidates which exhibit more than one ‘stable’ high frequency quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in their power spectrum. They are the microquasars GRO J1655-40 (Remillard et al., 1999b; Strohmayer, 2001a) and GRS 1915+105 (Morgan, Remillard & Greiner, 1997; Strohmayer, 2001b). In Table 2 we present their QPO frequencies $`f`$, quality factors $`Q=f/\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, and fractional amplitudes. The amplitudes are usually increasing functions of photon energy.

We can obtain numerical estimates of the dependence of the frequency $`f`$ on the observed energy flux $``$ from equations (3), (6), and (11). For the p–modes, $`d\mathrm{log}f/d\mathrm{log}=0.067`$. Note that the frequencies of the g and c–modes decrease with increasing flux. We see that $`|d\mathrm{log}f/d\mathrm{log}|0.1`$ for them if $`LL_{Edd}`$ (necessary for our thin disk assumption) and $`a0.03`$. Only the c–mode can produce a greater variation, for very slowly rotating black holes. Unfortunately, there is little information available on the disk (thermal) flux when each QPO was observed. So all we can do is use these limits to eliminate from consideration any QPOs which violate them. For instance, if we assume that the thermal flux $``$ varies by a factor of $`<5`$, then we require that the frequency $`f`$ vary by $`16`$%. This allows the shift in frequency of about 4% observed in GRS 1915+105, if the flux was larger when the lower frequency was observed.

From Table 1, we see that the p–mode probably occupies a smaller region than the other modes. In addition, its oscillations have very little emergent flux to modulate since they are located near the inner edge of the disk. We will therefore focus on the g and c–modes. Then the pair of frequencies observed in each source allow (at most) two possible choices for $`M`$ and $`a`$ (with a spread from unknown properties of the disk), as seen from Figure 1.

For GRO J1655-40, choosing the lower frequency (295 Hz) to be that of the g–mode \[in keeping with our earlier choice (Wagoner, 1999)\] gives $`M=5.9\pm 1.0M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`a=0.917\pm 0.024`$. This predicted mass is consistent with the value $`M=6.3\pm 0.5M_{\mathrm{}}`$ obtained from spectral observations of the companion star (Shahbaz et al., 1999; Greene, Bailyn & Orosz, 2001). (From Figure 1, but for $`0.1L/L_{Edd}1.0`$, the corresponding p–mode frequency is then 118—193 Hz for $`\beta =0.95`$ and 50.4—87.6 Hz for $`\beta =1.00`$.) Identifying instead the lower frequency with that of the c–mode gives an unacceptably smaller mass ($`2.5M_{\mathrm{}}`$).

However, there is an apparent problem with this assignment of the modes. Since the g–mode occupies a much larger region of the disk (Table 1, $`a=0.9`$), one might expect that the resulting amplitude of the luminosity modulation would be greater than that of the c–mode if they are excited in the same manner. This disagrees with the amplitudes in Table 2. However, since the c–mode is virtually incompressible, it should mainly modulate the coronal photons via reflection from its changing projected area; whereas the g–mode modulates the internal properties of the disk (Nowak & Wagoner, 1993; Nowak, Wagoner, Begelman & Lehr, 1997). This matches the fact that the higher frequency QPO has the harder energy dependence (Strohmayer, 2001a), since the coronal (power law) photons are more energetic than those emitted directly by the disk. In addition, the viscous damping (or growth) rate of the c–mode should be less than the viscous growth rate of the g–mode (Ortega-Rodríguez & Wagoner, 2000), producing a larger $`Q`$ value (which agrees with Table 2). Of course, nonlinearities may play an important role. The excitation of higher mode numbers, as well as radiation leakage, can also contribute to the frequency width (Nowak, Wagoner, Begelman & Lehr, 1997).

For GRS 1915+105, our earlier choice (Nowak, Wagoner, Begelman & Lehr, 1997) of the g–mode for production of the 67 Hz QPO gives $`M=18.2\pm 3.1M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`a=0.701\pm 0.043`$. (The corresponding p–mode frequency is then 34.6—56.8 Hz for $`\beta =0.95`$ and 14.5—25.2 Hz for $`\beta =1.00`$.) If it is produced by the c–mode, $`M=42.4\pm 7.0M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`a=0.926\pm 0.020`$. (The corresponding p–mode frequency is then 16.3—26.5 Hz for $`\beta =0.95`$ and 7.00—12.1 Hz for $`\beta =1.00`$.) This second choice is supported by the claim of Strohmayer (2001b) that the dependence of the properties of QPOs on their frequency is in the same direction in both sources, as moderately indicated by the data on the quality factors and amplitudes of the QPOs in Table 2.

Not unexpectedly, the observed power spectra of both sources show no ‘stable’ features at the p–mode frequencies indicated above. An example of another mode of interest is the $`m=1`$ g–mode, whose frequency is about a factor of 4 greater than that of the $`m=0`$ (fundamental) g–mode (Perez, Silbergleit, Wagoner & Lehr, 1997). The large inclination angle of about 70 degrees for both of these microquasars could make this nonaxisymmetric mode (like the c–mode) visible. However, existing power spectra are often too noisy to be able to detect such higher frequencies.

There is not yet evidence that any of the high-frequency QPOs in other black hole candidates \[XTE J1550-564 (Remillard et al., 1999a; Homan et al., 2001; Miller et al., 2001), XTE J1859+226 (Cui, Shrader, Haswell & Hynes, 2000), and 4U 1630-47 (Remillard & Morgan, 1999)\] are stable to the extent required if they are produced by these modes. Some are known to vary significantly, while others have only been detected during a single observation.

This work was supported by NASA grant NAS 8-39225 to Gravity Probe B.


format: text

text:
# ZEUS at HERA II

## 1 Introduction

The HERA upgrade will produce about a factor five improvement in luminosity delivered to the experiments and aims to accumulate 1 fb-1 of data in the HERA II programme. In order to take advantage of this, the ZEUS detector has been upgraded in several areas: the silicon microvertex detector (MVD); the straw-tube tracker (STT); and the luminosity monitor. The addition of spin rotators will produce longitudinal polarisation in both ZEUS and H1; both experiments have collaborated with HERMES and HERA to produce an accurate measurement of the degree of polarisation.

This talk reviews the characteristics and status of the major upgrades, together with the physics towards which they are aimed. It is not a comprehensive review of HERA II physics, and should be read in conjunction with the talks at this workshop by E. Elsen, which covers complementary areas, and by W. Buchmüller.

## 2 The vertex region

The ZEUS MVD  consists of 20 $`\mu `$m pitch $`n`$-type silicon-strip detectors with $`p^+`$-type implants. The readout pitch is 120 $`\mu `$m, leading to more than 200,000 readout channels, which are digitised by a custom-built clock, control and ADC system. The detectors are organised in two main groups: a “barrel”, which surrounds the elliptical 2 mm-thick ($`1.1`$% of a radiation length) aluminium-beryllium beam-pipe; and four “wheels”, consisting of wedge-shaped detectors mounted perpendicular to the beam-line and displaced in the proton, or “forward” direction. The layout of the barrel detector is shown in Fig. 1a); it gives maximum coverage for charged particles emanating from the interaction point while accommodating the elliptical beam-pipe. Most tracks pass through three separate detectors as they leave the interaction point; the remainder pass through two. Figure 1b) shows one half of the MVD before installation at DESY. In the barrel region, the ladders, each of which consists of 5 silicon detectors, and halves of the four forward “wheels”, can be seen, as can the dense array of readout and services cables and the cooling system. The complete MVD was installed in ZEUS in April 2001.

The physics programme addressed by the MVD is that of the flavour decomposition of the proton and photon and the search for physics beyond the Standard Model. At HERA I, precise measurements of the inclusive structure function, $`F_2`$, have been made over a large kinematic range. In addition, measurements of the semi-inclusive charm structure function, $`F_2^c`$, have also been made, but these are limited by statistics. The large increase in luminosity of HERA II, together with the ability to tag heavy-quark decays in the MVD, should improved the measurement of $`F_2^c`$. After about 500 pb-1, an uncertainty of around the 2% currently measured on $`F_2`$ should be obtained. In addition, $`b`$-quark production can be measured precisely; a Monte Carlo simulation  of a measurement of $`F_2^b/F_2^c`$ after 500 pb-1 is shown in Figure 2.

It should also be possible, from a combination on neutral and charged current measurements, to separate out the $`u,d,s,c,b`$ and $`g`$ contribution to $`F_2`$. The MVD will not only be vital in the extraction of the $`b`$ and $`c`$ signal; it will also be important to measure the strange quark contribution , by looking for charm in charged current interactions via the transition $`s\stackrel{W}{}c`$. Since many possible exotic particles tend to decay preferentially to heavy quarks, the MVD will also help in searches for physics beyond the Standard Model.

## 3 Charged-particle tracking in the forward direction

The higher luminosity expected at HERA II will increase the number of very high $`Q^2`$ events in which the electron or positron is scattered into the forward direction. It will also give access to rare processes, including possible physics beyond the Standard Model, which tend to have forward jets. The pattern-recognition capabilities of the ZEUS Forward Tracker have therefore been improved by the replacement of two layers of transition radiation detector by layers of straw tubes, as shown schematically in Fig. 3. The straws are approximately 7.5 mm in diameter and range in length from around 20 cm to just over 1 m. They are constructed from two layers of 50 $`\mu `$m kapton foil coated with a 0.2 $`\mu `$m layer of aluminium, surrounding a 50 $`\mu `$m wire at the centre. The straws are arranged in wedges consisting of three layers rotated with respect to each other to give three-dimensional reconstruction. Each of the two ‘supermodules’ consists of four layers of such wedges. Figure 3 shows, schematically, the arrangement of the new forward detector, together with the central tracking detector (CTD) and the MVD. The smaller of the two supermodules is shown after construction in Figure 4.

Groups of six straws are multiplexed to a single FADC channel. New front-end pre-amplification and shaping circuitry based on the ASDQ chip, as well as cable drivers, were constructed. The detector was installed in ZEUS in May, 2001.

One of the major gains in the improved forward tracking will be in the measurement of the $`F_2`$ structure function at high $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$. An estimate  of the accuracy that can be achieved with 1 fb-1 is shown in Fig. 5, together with the corresponding accuracy of the gluon distribution function extracted from a QCD fit to this data.

## 4 Luminosity monitor

The high luminosity at HERA II together with the large synchrotron-radiation background require a new approach to the measurement of luminosity at ZEUS. The simple photon calorimeter used previously must be upgraded to cope with the background and the increased probability for multiple bremsstrahlung photons in one beam-crossing. In order to improve the accuracy of the luminosity measurement, a second technique, with very different systematic uncertainties, based on an electron-positron pair spectrometer, has been constructed. Both devices use the information from a small calorimeter placed around 6 m from the interaction point which detects the radiating electron. The set-up is shown schematically in Fig. 6.

The photon calorimeter is a lead-scintillator sandwich with a position detector consisting of strips of scintillator. In order to cope with the synchrotron radiation background, an “active filter”, consisting of two carbon absorbers, each of two radiation lengths, alternating with Aerogel Cerenkov detectors has been constructed. The absorbers protect the calorimeter from radiation damage, while the Cerenkov detectors detect high-energy photons that convert in the absorbers, allowing the calorimeter energy to be corrected and good resolution to be recovered. The calorimeter is currently being installed in the HERA tunnel.

The pair spectrometer is situated downstream of an exit window corresponding to around 12% of a radiation length. The electron-positron pairs that covert therein are separated by a dipole magnet and detected in a pair of tungsten-scintillator sandwich calorimeters, previously used to detect small-angle, very low-$`Q^2`$ electrons close to the beam-line in the main ZEUS detector. These devices have been refurbished and installed in the spectrometer in April 2001.

The “6 m tagger” consists of a $`10\times 10\times 5`$ cm tungsten-scintillating fibre calorimeter next to the beam-pipe inside one of the HERA magnets. The device has been tested in the DESY test beam and shown to be linear to better than 1%, to have a relative energy resolution of 17%/$`\sqrt{E}`$ and a uniformity better than 5%. In order to protect against possible radiation damage, the tagger will be installed after HERA commissioning is complete.

Each of these devices uses a common electronic readout system. This will be completed, installed and tested in the next few months. It is hoped to attain a luminosity measurement precision of around 1%.

## 5 Polarisation

For several years, HERMES have trail-blazed the use of polarised electrons at HERA and, in close partnership with the HERA accelerator physicists, polarisations of around 65% have been achieved. It is hoped to increase the accuracy with which the polarisation can be measured to $`\delta P/P`$ 2% per bunch per minute. This will be achieved by a collaboration between H1, HERMES, ZEUS and the HERA machine in the POL2000 project. The collaboration is constructing two instruments, both of which detect asymmetries in back-scattered light from high-intensity polarised lasers. One, the LPOL, measures the energy asymmetry between left- and right-handed polarised scattered photons, which, in the photon-electron centre-of-mass frame, can be understood as arising from the relative orientation of the electron and photon spin leading to orbital angular momentum of either 1/2 or 3/2. When boosted back to the laboratory system, this results in a difference in energy between the two situations. It is proposed to use a Fabry-Pérot cavity in order to permit very fast bunch-by-bunch measurements. The other detector, the TPOL, measures the degree of transverse polarisation by measuring the up-down asymmetry of the detected photons. This asymmetry arises since the transverse spin direction defines a preferred spatial axis with respect to the beam direction. The TPOL uses a high-precision position detector, which is the ZEUS contribution to the POL2000 project, plus a calorimeter to measure this asymmetry.

The combination of high-precision measurements of both luminosity and polarisation will be important in a wide range of HERA II physics. The most obvious application is in the electroweak sector, where, for example, the charged current cross section should vanish for the appropriate combinations of lepton charge and polarisation. A measurement at three polarisations, such as shown in Fig. 7a), even with relatively modest luminosity, will provide an accurate test of this prediction, and provide mass limits on right-handed $`W`$s higher than 400 GeV.

Strong polarisation effects are also predicted at high $`Q^2`$ in the neutral current, where, e.g. at $`Q^2=10^4`$ GeV2 and $`x=0.2`$, there is a factor two difference between the predicted cross sections for left- and right-handed electrons. The luminosity available at HERA II will permit the determination of the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quark couplings. The gain in the determination of the $`u`$-quark electroweak couplings from 1 fb-1 of simulated data  as the degree of polarisation is increased is clearly visible in Fig. 7b).

In addition to the use of precise luminosity and polarisation information in the study of electroweak processes, polarisation also offers an invaluable tool in the study of possible signals beyond the Standard Model. Varying the polarisation to reduce the cross sections of Standard Model processes could well improve the signal to background for new physics signals, such as leptoquarks or supersymmetric particles that violate $`R`$ parity, for which HERA will still have the highest sensitivity for the next few years.

## 6 Summary

The summer of 2001 will see HERA and the general-purpose experiments H1 and ZEUS upgraded and operational. The promise of the HERA II programme is great. HERA I produced deep insights into QCD and laid the foundations for the study of the space-like electroweak interaction at high $`Q^2`$. HERA II promises to build on those foundations to open new fields of precision electroweak study and searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. The prospects for the new few years are indeed exciting.


text:
# Photometric Variability of the Gravitational Lens 0142-100 (UM 673) 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations made with a) the 60 cm Bochum and the ESO 90 cm Dutch telescopes, at La Silla, Chile, b) the 1.2 m telescope at Kryonerion Observatory, Greece, c) the 1.3 m telescope at Skinakas Observatory, Crete, Greece, and d) the European Space Agency OGS telescope operated on the island of Tenerife by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.

## 1 Introduction

Surdej et al. (1987, 1988) presented UM 673 ($`0142100`$) as a “new case of gravitational lensing”. The two lensed images originate from a quasar at a redshift $`z_{qso}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.72}`$, while the lensing galaxy is much closer to the Milky Way ($`z_l=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.49}`$). The angular separation between component $`A`$ and $`B`$ was found to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$, while the magnitude of the QSO images and the lens galaxy, at the time of discovery, was $`R_A=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}9`$, $`R_B=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}19}\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ and $`R_g19.1`$ magnitude, resulting in a total magnitude $`R_{A+B+G}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16.65}`$, with a standard deviation of the order of 0.2 magnitude. They concluded that UM 673 appeared to be one of the most luminous quasars, due to the amplification of image $`A`$ by gravitational lensing.

A spectroscopic study of this gravitational lens was published by Smette et al. (1992), in order to investigate the size of the corresponding $`Ly\alpha `$ clouds. Since they found that the equivalent widths of the $`Ly\alpha `$ lines in the spectra of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are well correlated, they concluded that both light beams actually cross the same clouds. Data from this paper were used by Miralda & Rees (1993) to test their model for the minihalo of the $`Ly\alpha `$ forest for the case of UM 673.

Daulie et al. (1993) observed UM 673 from 1987 to 1993. The observations were performed in the $`B`$-band, to eliminate any possible contamination originating from the deflecting galaxy. They mainly derived the magnitude difference of the two QSO components, because the observing conditions were of modest quality for most of the nights. The photometric zero point was computed for the nights of 1988 October 31, 1988 December 17 and 1991 October 27. The respective joint $`B`$ magnitude of the two QSO components (no contribution from the galaxy in the $`B`$-band) was 16$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$8, 16$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$9 and 16$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$7. Their results led to the conclusion that the quasar was not showing any significant variability, but the accuracy of the relative photometry was of the order of 0.05 to 0.2 magnitude. The mean $`B`$-band magnitude difference was $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}16\pm 0\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}08`$. In a later report based on an ESO Key-program for photometric monitoring of gravitational lenses, Courbin (1995) confirmed the above conclusions.

During a 2-days workshop held in Hambourg, Borgeest (1993) presented some preliminary results from the 1988-1994 monitoring of the lens. The relative photometry of component $`A`$, with respect to a reference magnitude $`R_o`$, was indicating variations of the order of 0.2 magnitude! Unfortunately, nothing more was ever published, and therefore no additional information concerning the reduction method used or the reference magnitude could be found.

In a recently published paper concerning $`HST`$ observations of gravitational lenses, Lehár et al. (2000) reported on observations of UM 673 performed in November 1994. The $`R`$ magnitude of the components $`A`$$`B`$, and the galaxy was $`16.67\pm 0.06,18.96\pm 0.05`$ and $`19.35\pm 0.04`$ respectively, resulting in an integrated magnitude of $`R_{A+B+G}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16.47}`$. The error on the total magnitude is of the order of $`\sigma _R0\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}07`$.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey ($`SDSS`$) also observed UM 673. Having their own photometric system under preparation (Fukugita et al., 1996), they presented their measurements in a preliminary red filter, designated as $`r^{}`$ (see section 4). Observations in the $`r^{}`$ filter were performed in 1995 November 24 and 1996 December 12. For the first period, Richards et al. (1997) reported $`r^{}=16.47\pm 0.01`$, while for the second period Newberg et al. (1999) reported $`r^{}=16.52\pm 0.01`$.

We report in this paper about a photometric monitoring through the years 1995-2000, with conclusions to significant variations in the total light of the gravitational lens system. We also present $`R`$ magnitudes and $`VR`$ colours of seven field stars, situated in the neighborhood of UM 673. These results, based on data which were accumulated during a period of 3.5 months, consist in a preliminary tool for directly checking the photometric variability of the quasar.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Sites and instrumentation

During the six-year monitoring period, we performed CCD photometry of UM 673 from four different observing sites. In detail, we observed at:

(a) La Silla (Chile) in November 1995, December 1996 and October 1997. During the first two periods, we used the 0.6 m (f/15) Bochum telescope, in conjunction with the TH7882 CCD (384$`\times `$576, 22 $`\mu `$m2 pixels); in 1997, the observations were performed with the 0.9 m Dutch (f/11) telescope and the Tektronix TK512CB CCD (512$`\times `$512, 27 $`\mu `$m2 pixels). The above configurations gave a scale of 0.55$`\mathrm{}`$ pixel-1 and 0.463$`\mathrm{}`$ pixel-1 , corresponding to a field of view of 3.2$`\mathrm{}\times 4.8\mathrm{}`$ and $`4\mathrm{}\times 4\mathrm{}`$, respectively. All observations were carried out through the standard Johnson $`R`$ filter. The exposure time for the first, second, and third period was 180, 300 and 1200 sec, respectively.

(b) Kryonerion (Greece) in 1998 October 29, using the 1.2 m (f/13) telescope and the Class I SI502 CCD chip (512$`\times `$512, 24 $`\mu `$m2 pixels), resulting in a scale of 0.30$`\mathrm{}`$ pixel-1 with a field of view of 2.65$`\mathrm{}\times 2.65\mathrm{}`$. The images were taken using the $`R`$ filter, with an integration time of 120 sec per exposure. A dark current subtraction was also included in the preliminary data reduction pipeline.

(c) Tenerife (Spain) in 2000 August 23, using the 1.0 m OGS telescope (f/13.3 at the Ritchey-Chrétien) combined with a Thomson CCD (1024$`\times `$1024, 19$`\mu `$m2 pixels) giving a scale of 0.3$`\mathrm{}`$ pixel-1 and a field of view of 5.12$`\mathrm{}\times 5.12\mathrm{}`$. This time the object was observed in both the $`V`$ and $`R`$ filters, with a same exposure time of 120 sec.

(d) Skinakas, Crete (Greece) from 2000 September to 2000 December, using the 1.3 m (f/7.7) Ritchey-Chrétien telescope. The SI003B CCD chip (1024$`\times `$1024, 24 $`\mu `$m2 pixels) was the detector, giving a scale of 0.5$`\mathrm{}`$ pixel-1 and a field of view of 8.57$`\mathrm{}\times 8.57\mathrm{}`$. The observations were performed in the standard Johnson $`V`$ and $`R`$ filters, with an exposure time of 240 sec per image.

Most of the nights UM 673 was monitored for many hours and we have obtained, in total, images from 29 clear nights. Individually, the median seeing at the Bochum telescope was 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 and better at the Dutch telescope, around 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1. For the night 1998 October 29 the seeing varied between 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 - 3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0, while on 2000 August 23 it was of sub-arsecond quality. Finally, a value between 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 to 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 was measured for the period September - December 2000. The observational details are summarized in Table 1.

### 2.2 Photometric standards

No study has ever been performed on neighbouring field stars to check the variability of the quasar, since UM 673 lies in a quasi-empty region of the sky. Therefore, the only possibility for almost all sets of observations (the Skinakas data were the single exception), was to use photometric standard stars (equatorial in our case) to calibrate our measurements (extinction and zero point correction).

We mainly used the blue star HD 12021 for the 1995 - 1998 missions. This photometric standard (HIPPARCOS identifier HIP 9155) has been extensively observed by different observers (Klemola, 1962; Landolt, 1983; Cousins, 1984; Menzies et al., 1991; Grenon, 1992) and its properties are known with high precision. Its equatorial co-ordinates are: $`\alpha _{2000}=01^h57^m56^s`$ and $`\delta _{2000}=02\mathrm{°}06\mathrm{}15\mathrm{}`$; Menzies et al. (1991) report: $`V=8\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}877`$ $`\pm `$0.015 and $`(VR_c)=0\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}044`$. In 2000 August 23 the calibration was performed by taking exposures at different airmasses of the photometric standard 113191 (Landolt, 1992). For the Skinakas observations, apart from HD 12021 we also used the Geneva photometric standard with identification GEN +7.0093407 (Landolt, 1992). ¿From the photometric standards observed in each mission a mean extinction coefficient and zero point were computed for every (photometric) night, which were then applied to the data of UM 673.

## 3 Data reduction and results

### 3.1 Photometry of UM 673

The data reduction was performed by developing scripts in the ESO-MIDAS environment. We applied aperture photometry on our CCD frames in order to study the photometric behavior of the total light of UM 673, which is composed of the two lensed images and the lensing galaxy. We used a circular aperture of 15″ to 18$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 diameter for this purpose, depending on the observing run conditions (i.e. exposure time, quality of optics, seeing). The “no-man’s-land” was properly set, to avoid contamination from the faint galaxy seen at the south of UM 673. A precise calculation of the sky background near the gravitational lens was performed by using a 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 width ring, external to “no-man’s-land”.

The incorporation of errors, apart from the aperture photometry errors, included the uncertainty due to the extinction correction and the zero point correction, as computed with the help of the photometric standard stars. The reduction of the data showed that the contribution of the first factor on the daily averaged values was practically negligible (of the order of a few milli-magnitude), thanks to the numerous exposures and the good observing conditions. The error due to the zero point and extinction correction was of the order of 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$055, 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$04, 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$015, 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$04 and 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$015 for the 1995 to 2000 missions, respectively.

Table 2 contains the $`R`$-band photometric results. Column 2 presents the daily averages for each run, with their accuracy, composed of all exposures of each night. Column 3 contains the mean value and its standard deviation for each run. Our results, together with the two $`R`$-band measurements available in the literature (Surdej et al. (1988), Lehár et al. (2000)) are plotted in Fig. 1. The variability of the gravitational lens system is clearly seen in the graph.

### 3.2 Reference stars in the vicinity of UM 673

Thanks to the relatively large field of view of the configuration of the Skinakas 1.3 m telescope, it was possible to perform aperture photometry on ten field stars in the neighborhood of UM 673, which were present in the majority of our frames. Although almost all of them are fainter than the lens, an optimized combination of several factors (i.e. photometric conditions, high quality telescope optics, precise tracking by means of an autoguider) resulted in a large set of good quality data (81 frames in $`R`$ and 60 frames in $`V`$, obtained during a period of 3.5 months), from which significant information on these field stars could be extracted.

The variability of the field stars was checked by properly co-adding all the frames of the given night and then performing aperture photometry on them. This operation gave a set of eight frames per filter. For every frame we computed the magnitude difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ik}`$, of the star $`k`$ with respect to the star $`i`$ and finally obtained a mean magnitude difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{ik}`$, for every pair of stars in the whole data set. The results obtained from the differential photometry showed that for most cases the mean errors in the magnitude differences were between 0.01-0.03 magnitude, except for three stars. Therefore, we finally decided to reject them, and to use the rest for checking the variability of the lens.

A finding chart with the identification of the field stars is given in Fig. 2. By using the same photometric standards that were used for the lens, we performed a zero-point and extinction correction, converting the instrumental values to $`V`$ and $`R`$ magnitudes. Second order extinction correction and colour transformation were not performed. We also performed a preliminary astrometric identification with the help of the $`XEphem`$ software, developed by E. Downey (2000)111$`XEphem`$ \- An Interactive Astronomical Ephemeris Program for $`X`$ Windows is available at http://www.ClearSkyInstitute.com/xephem. By correlating our results with the co-ordinates presented in Newberg et al. (1999), we identified the seven field stars. Table 3 lists the RA-Dec co-ordinates of the reference stars, their $`R`$ magnitude and $`(VR)`$ colour, including errors associated with the determination of the instrumental magnitudes.

## 4 Discussion on the variability of the lens

Although it is approximately fifteen years since the discovery of the lens, UM 673 has hardly been observed. Consequently, the very few existing measurements can not provide a clear view concerning the photometric behavior of the gravitational lens system before 1995.

The closest (in time) observations to our measurements are those performed by the $`SDSS`$, with a photometric system consistsing of five passbands ($`u^{},g^{},r^{},i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$). Since the definition of the system is still under progress, the observations are performed using filters which are similar but not identical to the final ones, designated as $`u^{},g^{},r^{},i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$.

UM 673 was observed by the $`SDSS`$ group in 1995 November 24, and in 1996 December 12. For the first period, Richards et al. (1997) report $`u^{}=17.35\pm 0.07,g^{}=16.63\pm 0.01,r^{}=16.47\pm 0.01`$, while for the second period Newberg et al. (1999) report $`17.30\pm 0.01,16.70\pm 0.01`$ and $`16.52\pm 0.01`$, respectively. The transformation of the $`SDSS`$ measurements to the Johnson $`UBV`$ and Cousins $`RI_c`$ photometric system is a complicated task (cf Krisciunas et al. (1998) and Newberg et al. (1999)) and, as a consequence, a direct comparison of the $`SDSS`$ with our measurements is not possible. Nevertheless, since both we and the $`SDSS`$ have data obtained during the same periods (November 1995 and December 1996), we tried to derive some additional conclusions on the variability of the lens by comparing the observations obtained by $`SDSS`$ in the two different periods.

The comparison of the 1995 and 1996 $`SDSS`$ measurements yielded ambiguous results, since the decrease of the $`u^{}`$ magnitude shows that the lens became brighter, while a comparison of the $`g^{}`$ and $`r^{}`$ measurements gave the opposite conclusion. As it is mentioned in Newberg et al. (1999), the main task of the 1996 $`SDSS`$ observations was to explore the detection of QSOs, based on colour selection criteria. For this reason, observations were performed even if the conditions were non-photometric. As a consequence, we conclude that a comparison of the 1995 and 1996 $`SDSS`$ measurements does not give any supplementary information on the variability of the quasar.

The instrumentation used during our 1995-1996 missions did not allow us any additional exploitation of the data (e.g. profile fitting of the QSO components). Hence, both a microlensing scenario and an internal variability of the quasar could equivalently explain the brightening of UM 673. However, our measurements, which are characterized by a photometric precision of the order of a few hundredths of a magnitude, clearly demonstrate the 1996 peak in brightness. At the same time, they indicate that since 1997 the quasar seems to be in a less variable state, but the situation of a quiet phase can not be ruled out.

## 5 Conclusions

We have been monitoring the gravitational lens UM 673 through the years 1995 - 2000. To measure the total light of the lens (component $`A`$ \+ component $`B`$ \+ lensing galaxy) we constrained ourselves to aperture photometry. The numerous observations obtained during each run (several hours per night), allowed us to reach a photometric precision of a few hundredths of a magnitude. The photometric calibration was performed with the help of several photometric standard stars. Although the observations were performed using several configurations, all measurements agree with the conclusion that the QSO has undergone a long term variability, that corresponds to a brightening in the total light of the system of $``$ 0.3 magnitude in respect to its discovery value, in 1987. From the agreement between the 1995 and 1997 measurements we see that this variability had its peak (additional 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 brightening) in 1996.

The $`R`$ magnitude of UM 673 we derived was 16.30$`\pm `$0.02 in November 1995, 16.08$`\pm `$0.01 in December 1996, 16.30$`\pm `$0.01 in October 1997, 16.23$`\pm `$0.05 in October 1998 and 16.34$`\pm `$0.01 for the last quarter of 2000 (Fig. 1).

Thanks to the optimized configuration of the Skinakas observatory, we managed to have $`V`$ and $`R`$ measurements of seven field stars in the vicinity of UM 673 during the period September - December 2000. Although more observations are needed for a better knowledge about the stability of these stars over a longer time-basis, the photometric reduction showed no significant variability at the level 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$02 - 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}`$03.

The measurements obtained after 1996 seem to form a plateau at around $`R16.3`$, indicating that since 1997 the quasar seems to be in a less variable, or even quiet, state. Nevertheless, we propose a systematic monitoring of UM 673 at a rate of a few images at fixed time intervals. With the help of the reference stars, differential photometry would directly show any new variability in the system. We also suggest new measurements with instruments allowing analysis of the spectra of the components for comparison with earlier ones, and photometric observations to derive the fluxes of the two QSO components.

We thank Dr. A. Erikson (DLR, Berlin) for his introduction to the 0.6 m Bochum telescope and for his help to convert our CCD data to FITS format, and A. Kougentakis for his excellent assistance during the observations at Skinakas Observatory. T.N. would like to thank N. Shatsky, visiting astronomer at ROB, for the helpful discussions.
The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. J. Surdej, for his useful comments. Finally, it is a pleasure to thank the referee, Dr. R. Schild, for his constructive suggestions.
This research (D.S.) was mainly carried out in the framework of the projects “Service Centres and Research Networks”, and “Pôles d’Attraction Interuniversitaires” P4/05, both initiated and financed by the Belgian Federal Scientific Services (DWTC/SSTC). T.N. acknowledges support from the project ”Chercheurs Supplémentaires aux Etablissements Scientifiques Federaux”. P.B. acknowledges support from a “P.EN.E.D.” program of the General Secretariat of Research and Technology of Greece, and the Royal Observatory of Belgium for financing his visit in Brussels.
Skinakas Observatory is a collaborative project of the University of Crete, the Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas and the Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik.


text:
# References

Covariant quantum measurements may not be optimal
ASHER PERES and PETRA F. SCUDO

Department of Physics, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel

Abstract.  Quantum particles, such as spins, can be used for communicating spatial directions to observers who share no common coordinate frame. We show that if the emitter’s signals are the orbit of a group, then the optimal detection method may not be a covariant measurement (contrary to widespread belief). It may be advantageous for the receiver to use a different group and an indirect estimation method: first, an ordinary measurement supplies redundant numerical parameters; the latter are then used for a nonlinear optimal identification of the signal.

1. Indiscrete quantum information111Note to printer: this is not a typo. The term we use is indiscrete (meaning not discrete). Do not confuse that with the word indiscreet.

Information theory usually deals with the transmission of a sequence of discrete symbols, such as 0 and 1. Even if the information to be transmitted is of continuous nature, such as the position of a particle, it can be represented with arbitrary accuracy by a string of bits. However, there are situations where information cannot be encoded in such a way. For example, the emitter (conventionally called Alice) wants to indicate to the receiver (Bob) a direction in space. If they have a common coordinate system to which they can refer, or if they can create one by observing distant fixed stars, Alice simply communicates to Bob the components of a unit vector $`𝒏`$ along that direction, or its spherical coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. But if no common coordinate system has been established, all she can do is to send a real physical object, such as a gyroscope, whose orientation is deemed stable.

In the quantum world, the role of the gyroscope is played by a system with large spin. Earlier works \[1–4\] considered the use of spins for transmitting a single direction. The simplest method  is to send these spins polarized along the direction that one wishes to indicate. This, however, is not the most efficient procedure: when two spins are transmitted, a higher accuracy is achieved by preparing them with opposite polarizations . If there are more than two spins, optimal results are obtained with entangled states .

The fidelity of the transmission is usually defined as

$$F=\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi /2)=(1+\mathrm{cos}\chi )/2,$$
(1)
where $`\chi `$ is the angle between the true $`𝒏`$ and the direction indicated by Bob’s measurement. The physical meaning of $`F`$ is that the infidelity,

$$1F=\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi /2),$$
(2)
is the mean square error of the measurement, if the error is defined as $`\mathrm{sin}(\chi /2)`$ . The experimenter’s aim, minimizing the mean square error, is the same as maximizing fidelity. We can of course define “error” in a different way, and then fidelity becomes a different function of $`\chi `$ and optimization leads to different results. With the definition in Eq. (2), it can be shown  that for a large number $`N`$ of spins, the infidelity asymptotically tends to

$$1F=5.783/N^2=1.446/d,$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the dimension of the subspace of Hilbert space that is effectively used for the transmission.

A more difficult problem is the transmission of a complete Cartesian frame, if a single quantum messenger is available. In an earlier publication , we showed how a hydrogen atom (formally, a spinless particle in a Coulomb potential) can transmit a complete frame. We assumed the hydrogen atom to be in a Rydberg state (an energy eigenstate is needed to ensure the stability of the transmission). The $`n`$-th energy level of that atom has degeneracy $`d=n^2`$ because the total angular momentum may take values $`j=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, and for each one of them $`m=j,\mathrm{},j`$. A similar calculation was done by Bagan, Baig, and Muñoz-Tapia (hereafter BBM) , who were able to reach much higher values of $`j`$ and to prove that the asymptotic behavior was

$$1F1/\sqrt{d}.$$
(4)
Here the infidelity $`1F`$ is the sum of the mean square errors for three orthogonal axes.

There is an essential difference between our work and that of BBM. We considered a single system (a hydrogen atom in a Rydberg state), while BBM took $`N`$ spins, and one irreducible representation for each value $`j`$ of the total angular momentum. The maximum value is $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=N/2`$, and then the mathematics are the same as for our Rydberg state, with $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=n1`$, as explained above. However, if there are $`N`$ spins that can be sent independently, there is a better method. Alice can use half of them to indicate her $`z`$ axis, and the other half for her $`x`$ axis. The two directions found by Bob may not be exactly perpendicular, because separate transmissions have independent errors due to limited angular resolution. Some adjustment will be needed to obtain Bob’s best estimates for the $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes, before he can infer from them his guess of Alice’s $`y`$ direction. Even without this adjustment, this method is far more accurate, especially if $`N`$ is large. From Eq. (3), the mean square error for each one of the $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes is $`5.783/(N/2)^2=23.13/N^2`$, rather than $`4/3N`$ which is the result with the method used by BBM .

Similar results hold even for low values of $`N`$. For example, if Alice has four spins at her disposal, she can do better in this way than with the BBM method: she sends two spins with opposite polarizations along her $`z`$ axis (the Gisin-Popescu method ) and two with opposite polarizations along her $`x`$ axis. The infidelity for each one of these axes is 0.21132 (this can still be improved by forcing orthogonality on Bob’s axes, as explained in Sect. 4). On the other hand, with a hydrogen atom  and $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$, if we optimize two axes, the mean square error per axis is 0.23865. Why is there such a discrepancy?

2. Covariant measurements are not always optimal

In all the works that were mentioned above, and in many other similar ones, it was assumed that Holevo’s method of covariant measurements  gave optimal results. That method considers the case where Alice’s signals are the orbit of a group $`𝒢`$, with elements $`g`$. Namely, if $`|A`$ is one of the signals, the others are $`|A_g=U(g)|A`$, where $`U(g)`$ is a unitary representation of the group element $`g`$. The only problem was to find optimal quantum states for Alice’s signals and Bob’s detectors. Originally, Holevo considered only irreducible representations. It is known now that in some cases reducible representations are preferable . One then never needs to use more than one copy of each irreducible representation in the reducible one. For example, if $`|A_g`$ has four spins as in the above example, this state can be written by using each one of $`j=0,1,2`$ only once, as shown explicitly in the next section.

We now turn our attention to Bob. The mathematical representation of his apparatus is a positive operator valued measure (POVM) , namely a resolution of identity by a set of positive operators:

$$\underset{h}{}E_h=\text{1l},$$
(5)
where the label $`h`$ indicates the outcome of Bob’s experiment. This is true for any type of measurement, provided that the labels $`h`$ are kept “raw” and not subjected to further classical processing into a new set of labels, as explained in Sect. 4 and 5. In the case of covariant measurements, the labels $`h`$ run over all the elements of the group $`𝒢`$ (with a suitable adjustment of the notation in the case of continuous groups). Then the probability that Bob’s apparatus indicates group element $`h`$ when Alice sent a signal $`|A_g`$ is

$$P(h|g)=A_g|E_h|A_g.$$
(6)
The method of covariant measurements further assumes that $`E_h`$ can be written as

$$E_h=|B_hB_h|,$$
(7)
where

$$|B_h=U(h)|B.$$
(8)
Here, $`|B`$ is a fiducial vector for Bob (which has to be optimized) and $`U(h)`$ is a representation (possibly a direct sum of irreducible representations) of the same group $`𝒢`$ that Alice is using.

All this seems quite reasonable (and this indeed usually works well) but, as the above example of four spins shows, this may not be the optimal method. In that example, Alice’s signals $`|A_g`$, for all possible positions of her axes, are $`SO(3)`$ rotations of a fiducial state $`|A`$ with $`j=0,1,2`$ (see next section for details). On the other hand Bob uses two separate POVMs, each one testing only two of the four spins. Each one of these POVMs also involves $`SO(3)`$, but with $`j=0`$ and 1 only. (Strictly speaking, the relevant mathematical structure is $`S_2S_2`$, where $`S_2`$ is the quotient $`SO(3)/SO(2)`$, namely the two-dimensional sphere which is not a group. We shall ignore this technical point and informally call it a group, to avoid unnecessarily cumbersome terminology.)

3. Equivalent irreducible representations

Let us examine carefully the meaning and construction of equivalent irreducible representations. Unitary equivalence is not equivalence from the point of view of physics . A simple example is a particle of spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$, whose state space has four dimensions and is unitarily equivalent to that of a pair of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles. In atomic physics, unitarily equivalent representation naturally arise when we consider different couplings of the various spins, and we use Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in order to construct new states in a systematic way. These “equivalent” unitary representations actually correspond to quite different states. For example, if we have three spins and we wish to construct states of total spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, we may couple two of the spins into a singlet, so as to get a doublet:

$$|0(|01|10)/\sqrt{2}\text{and}|1(|01|10)/\sqrt{2},$$
(9)
where $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ denote the eigenstates of $`\sigma _z`$, as usual. The rotations of this doublet generate an irreducible representation of $`SU(2)`$.

We can also generate other, equivalent, irreducible representations by starting with different pairs of spins to make a singlet. These equivalent representations have of course different physical meanings. If we used quantum numbers for indicating internal symmetries, they would have different quantum numbers.

It was shown in  that the use of more than one equivalent representation does not improve the fidelity of the transmission. In these articles, the choice of that representation was irrelevant (of course Alice and Bob had to use the same one). However, in some cases, that choice may be imposed on us.

As a simple example, consider a given state $`|001`$ of three spins. We want to split it into a spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ component and a single spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ component. This can easily be done, but the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ component will not be of the type represented by Eq. (9), or by any permutation of the three spins in Eq. (9). To see that, we note that spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ states are symmetric under permutations of the particles. Therefore we project $`|001`$ on

$$|\frac{3}{2}\text{,}\frac{1}{2}=(|001+|010+|100)/\sqrt{3}.$$
(10)
It follows that the $`j=\frac{3}{2}`$ part of $`|001`$ is

$$|\frac{3}{2}\text{,}\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}\text{,}\frac{1}{2}|001=(|001+|010+|100)/3.$$
(11)
What remains of $`|001`$, namely

$$|001(|001+|010+|100)/3=(2|001|010|100)/3,$$
(12)
is the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ part. This is not the direct product of a singlet and a doublet as in Eq. (9). Still that state generates a perfectly legitimate irreducible representation, with $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$. (Of course, had we started from a different state, such as $`|010`$, we would have ended with a different basis for the irreducible representation with $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$.)

We have a similar construction, but slightly more complicated, for Alice’s signal having two opposite spins oriented along $`z`$ and two others along $`x`$, as proposed at the end of Sect. 1. It should be clear that a pair of signals (or any combination of signals) still are one signal. Alice’s signal thus is, with the same notations as above

$$|A=|01(|0+|1)(|0|1)/2=(|0100+|0110|0101|0111)/2.$$
(13)
To find the parts of $`|A`$ with $`j=0,1,2`$, we proceed as we did for the case of three spins (we shall not show the explicit calculations, which are quite lengthy, because they are not necessary for the sequel).

Two points should be emphasized. In earlier works , it was not necessary to specify the actual construction of the irreducible representations that were used. Their choice was arbitrary and irrelevant. It just had to be the same for Alice and Bob. Now, the situation is different: these representations are uniquely defined by Alice’s signal in Eq. (13). The choice of that particular signal was suggested by the Gisin-Popescu method for two spins . We do not claim that it is the optimal signal for two pairs of spins. To actually investigate optimization, Alice’s signal should be taken as general as possible, namely a sum of 16 terms,

$$|A=a_0|0000+\mathrm{}+a_{15}|1111,$$
(14)
and we would have to determine the coefficients $`a_n`$, subject to normalization $`|a_n|^2=1`$. However, this optimization is a long shot beyond the scope of the present article. Here, we only want to show that covariant measurements are not always optimal.

4. Contravariant quantum measurements

We now come to Bob’s measurement method. As explained in Sect. 1, Bob examines separately the spins sent by Alice to indicate her $`z`$ axis, and those indicating her $`x`$ axis. (The argument below applies to any number of spins, not just two spins for each axis.) In his coordinate frame, Bob thus gets two sets of polar angles, $`\theta _z\varphi _z`$ and $`\theta _x\varphi _x`$ respectively, from which he has to infer the Euler angles $`\psi \theta \varphi `$ that transform Alice’s Cartesian frame into his frame. If Bob’s measurements were perfect, the relations between these angles would be given by equating the Cartesian components of Bob’s results for Alice’s $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes with the corresponding columns of the orthogonal transformation matrix . This gives

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta _z\mathrm{cos}\varphi _z\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _z\mathrm{sin}\varphi _z\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _z\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(15)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta _x\mathrm{cos}\varphi _x\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _x\mathrm{sin}\varphi _x\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _x\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \end{array}\right).$$
(16)
These are four independent equations (owing to normalization) for three unknowns. If Bob’s experimental data were exact, a simple solution would be to obtain from Eq. (15)

$$\theta =\theta _z\text{and}\psi =(\pi /2)\varphi _z.$$
(17)
The fidelity of this result, namely for finding the direction of a single axis by using any number of spins, is discussed in  where it is shown that, asymtotically, $`(1F)N^2`$.

Once $`\theta `$ is known, $`\varphi `$ can be obtained from the third line of (16):

$$\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _x/\mathrm{sin}\theta _z,$$
(18)
where use was made of the result in Eq. (17). Now there is a difficulty: if $`N`$ is finite, Bob’s estimates are not perfectly accurate and the right hand side of (18) may be larger than 1. In general, it is preferable to solve the four equations (15) and (16) simultaneously and to seek a best fit for the three unknowns. The accuracy of this best fit is of course better than the one given by Eqs. (17) and (18), where one of the four original equations was ignored. A simple geometric construction of the solution is as follows: first, find the direction perpendicular to the estimated $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes; this direction is the best estimate for the $`y`$ axis, and therefore for the $`zx`$ plane. Then, in that plane, the angle between the estimated $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes (given by $`\theta _z\varphi _z`$ and $`\theta _x\varphi _x`$ respectively) is adjusted so that they become exactly perpendicular. Detailed calculations are under progress (we hope they will appear in a future publication).

5. The dihedral group

A clearer understanding of contravariant measurements may be gained by using a finite group. As a concrete example, let us consider six directions, defined by the polar angles $`\theta =45^{}`$ or $`135^{}`$, and $`\varphi =0`$ or $`\pm 120^{}`$. Alice wishes to indicate one of these directions to Bob. Now, these directions are the orbit of the dihedral group $`D_3`$ with six elements: E (the identity), A, B, C (rotations by $`180^{}`$ around the symmetry axes $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pm 120^{}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane), and D, F (rotations by $`\pm 120^{}`$ around the $`z`$ axis). Here, we are using the same notations as Wigner . This group has a one-dimensional representation where all the elements are 1, another where E, D, F are 1, while A, B, C are $`1`$, and there is a two-dimensional representation, explicitly given in . From the characters of these three representations, it is possible to find the contents of any other, reducible one.

Suppose that Alice has a single particle of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, and she wants to indicate to Bob which one of the six directions she has chosen. Obviously, she orients her spin along that direction, so that there are six input states,

$$\rho =(\text{1l}+𝒏\mathbf{}𝝈)/2,$$
(19)
where $`𝒏=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. Likewise Bob has six POVM elements

$$E_m=(\text{1l}+𝒎\mathbf{}𝝈)/6.$$
(20)
Note that $`E_m=\text{1l}`$. Then the probability of Bob getting result $`𝒎`$ is Alice’s input is $`𝒏`$ is

$$P(𝒎|𝒏)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho E_m)=(1+𝒏\mathbf{}𝒎)/6.$$
(21)
Note that the probability of getting the correct result is always 1/3.

We must now specify a criterion for the fidelity of the transmission. A simple one is to give a score 1 is Bob guesses the correct result, and 0 for all incorrect results. It could also be argued that some results are more incorrect than others, just as large errors $`\chi `$ in Eq. (1) are more heavily penalized than small error angles. Here, for a group of order 6, we could assume that elements belonging to the same class are less wrong than those belonging to different classes of the group, and incur a lesser penalty. However, we shall just assume that all wrong results are equally worthless. Therefore the best that can be achieved with one spin is fidelity $`F=1/3`$.

Suppose now that Alice sends several spins. Rather than using individual measurements and classical statistics, Bob may perform joint measurements on all these spins. For example, if there are two spins, their state belongs to the rotation group representations with $`j=0,1`$. However, that group is too rich: we are interested only in the $`D_3`$ group which is a subgroup of $`SO(3)`$. Obviously $`j=0`$ corresponds to the symmetric one-dimensional representation of $`D_3`$ (all the elements are 1). As for $`j=1`$, we have to find the characters of all the rotations that correspond to elements of $`D_3`$. This is very easy, because one may use for $`SO(3)`$ the real orthogonal representation, and then, owing to Euler’s theorem , the characters (that is, the traces of the rotation matrices) are equal to $`1+2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the rotation angle. We thus find that the character of E is 3, those of A, B and C are $`1`$, and those of D and F vanish. This means that the triplet state involves the one-dimension representation with alternating signs and the two-dimensional representation.

Therefore a pair of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles generates all the representations of $`D_3`$, each one once. Taking more spins will not produce any new irreducible representation. If Bob is restricted to the use of covariant measurements, the maximal fidelity that can be achieved is 2/3 (detailed calculations are given in an Appendix).

A simple method which gives better results is the following. Alice sends $`N`$ spins, all aligned in the direction she wants to indicate, as in Ref. . This is an angular momentum coherent state  for spin $`j=N/2`$:

$$𝒏\mathbf{}𝑱|\psi =j|\psi .$$
(22)
(This is surely not the optimal strategy. In the present paper, we are not seeking optimality. We only want to show that some methods give a better fidelity than a straightforward covariant measurement.) Bob then performs the covariant measurement for a particle of spin $`j`$. His POVM elements are coherent states as above, with directions uniformly distributed over the two-dimensional sphere. The overlap of two such states is

$$\mathrm{cos}^{4j}(\chi /2)=\mathrm{cos}^{2N}(\chi /2),$$
(23)
where $`\chi `$ is the angle between the true and estimated directions.

Once Bob has found a result $`\theta \varphi `$ (this is what we call the “raw” result), he infers (guesses) that the true answer for Alice’s signal is the direction $`𝒏`$ closest to $`\theta \varphi `$. It is, as in the preceding example, the best fit for the answer, knowing the approximate value given by $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. As there are finite angles between the six directions $`𝒏`$ that Alice can use, it follows from (23) that the probability of error decreases exponentially with $`N`$. It is plausible that a truly optimal method would also have such an exponential accuracy, but with a larger coefficient for $`N`$ in the exponent.

6. Concluding remarks and apologies

Due to the pressure of a deadline, we did not attempt to find the optimal strategy in the two examples given above. In both cases, the same pattern emerges. Bob first executes a POVM which uses a group that is not the one for Alice’s signals. This POVM gives redundant raw data to Bob, from which he infers, by a classical statistical analysis, the best estimate for identifying the signal. This final best estimate is nonlinear and it cannot be obtained directly by a POVM of rank one, as in Eq. (7). Indeed, if it could, then it would have to be a covariant POVM, and we have just shown that this is not the best method. Explicitly, the POVM elements that give the best guess are $`E_g=E_h`$, where the sum runs over all the raw outcomes $`h`$ that lead to the same guess $`g`$.

Note that there is no contradiction with Gleason’s theorem  because the proof of the latter refers only to the outcome of the measuring process, without a further best fit or other classical statistical analysis. We hope that further research on this problem will clarify the missing details and give a complete prescription for the optimal procedure.

Acknowledgments

Work by AP was supported by the Gerard Swope Fund and the Fund for Encouragement of Research. PFS was supported by a grant from the Technion Graduate School.

Appendix. Dihedral group signals with one or two spins

In this Appendix we analyze covariant measurements for the detection of signals belonging to the $`D_3`$ group. If only one particle of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is sent by Alice, its state is given as usual by

$$|2_g=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)}{\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }}\right),$$
(A 1)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the angles that correspond to group element $`g`$. Bob’s fiducial state is

$$|B=|2_E/\sqrt{3}.$$
(A 2)
(The factor $`\sqrt{3}`$ comes from the order of the group divided by the number of dimensions .) Then

$$U(g)|BB|U^{}(g)=\text{1l},$$
(A 3)
is Bob’s POVM. The fidelity, which is defined in this problem as the probability of a correct result, is

$$F=|2_E|B|^2=\frac{1}{3}.$$
(A 4)
Suppose now that Alice has two spins. She sends them both in state $`|2_g`$, and Bob tests them separately. The probability that he gets twice the correct answer is $`\frac{1}{9}`$. The probability that he gets the correct answer once, together with one wrong answer, is $`\frac{4}{9}`$. In the latter case, faced with an ambiguous result, Bob will make a random choice. Then the final probability for a correct guess is $`\frac{1}{9}+\frac{2}{9}=\frac{1}{3}`$, exactly as for a single signal!

If Alice sent more than two spins in this way and Bob tested them separately, the result, given by a multinomial distribution, would slowly improve. As shown in Sect. 5, Alice and Bob can do much better by using entangled signals. Let us examine how well they can do if they have unlimited experimental skill, but are restricted to the use of covariant measurements.

Alice prepares a signal state within the orbit of group $`𝒢`$:

$$|A_g=a_0|0_g+a_1|1_g+a_2|2_g,$$
(A 5)
where $`|0_g`$ corresponds to the trivial representation (all the $`|0_g`$ are equal), $`|1_g`$ to the alternating one, and $`|2_g`$ is still given by Eq. (A 1). The coefficients $`a_m`$ are normalized:

$$|a_0|^2+|a_1|^2+|a_2|^2=1.$$
(A 6)
Bob’s fiducial vector now is

$$|B=\sqrt{1/6}|0_E+\sqrt{1/6}|1_E+\sqrt{1/3}|2_E,$$
(A 7)
so that Eq. (A 3) is still valid.

The probability for a correct result thus is

$$F=|B|A_E|^2=|(a_0+a_1)/\sqrt{6}+a_2/\sqrt{3}|^2.$$
(A 8)
This is a quadratic expression for the coefficients $`a_m`$, subject to the normalization (A 6). Its maximum is easily found to be $`\frac{2}{3}`$, when

$$a_0=a_1=1/2\text{and}a_2=1/\sqrt{2}.$$
(A 9)
We see that this optimal covariant measurement only improves the fidelity from $`\frac{1}{3}`$ to $`\frac{2}{3}`$. A contravariant measurement such as the one described in Sect. 4 gives better results: the infidelity $`(1F)`$ decreases exponentially with the number of spins, owing to Eq. (23).