text:
# Wave attenuation to clock sojourn times.

## Abstract

The subject of time in quantum mechanics is of perennial interest especially because there is no observable for the time taken by a particle to transmit (or reflect) from a particular region. Several methods have been proposed based on scattering phase shifts and using different quantum clocks, where the time taken is clocked by some external input or indirectly from the phase of the scattering amplitudes. In this work we give a general method for calculating conditional sojourn times based on wave attenuation. In this approach clock mechanism does not couple to the Hamiltonian of the system. For simplicity, specific case of a delta dimer is considered in detail. Our analysis re-affirms recent results based on correcting quantum clocks using optical potential methods, albeit in a much simpler way.

D. Electron Transport, A. Nanostructures, D. Sojourn times, D. Wave Propagation

There has been considerable interest on the question of time spent by a particle (interaction time) in a scattering region or in a given region of spacelandauer ; hauge ; gasparian . This problem has been approached from many different points of view, but there is no clear consensus about a simple expression for this time as there is no hermitian operator associated with it (although experimentalists have claimed to measure itlandauer ). The prospect of nanoscale electronic devices has in recent years brought new urgency to this problem as this is directly related to the maximum attainable speed of such devices. When it comes to quantum phenomena of tunneling, the time taken by a particle to traverse the barrier is a subject of controversy till nowlandauer ; hauge . In some formulations this time leads to a real quantity and in others to a complex quantitybaskin . In certain cases tunneling time is considered to be ill-defined or quantum mechanics does not allow us to discuss this timebaskin ; yamada ; steinberg . Furthermore sometimes it is maintained that tunneling through a barrier takes zero timereflandauernature . Recently, Anantha Ramakrishna and Kumar (AK)anantha ; ananthathesis  have proposed the non unitary Optical potential as a clock to calculate the sojourn times without the clock affecting it. In this paper we examine another non-unitary clock, i.e.,wave attenuation (or, stochastic absorption) to calculate the sojourn lengths, i.e., the total effective distance travelled by a particle in the region of interest. This sojourn length on appropriate division by the speed of the particle in the region of interest will give us the sojourn time.

Before, we go to the main body of our paper it would be appropriate to describe the relative merits and demerits of the proposals up-till now. The first proposal was by Wignerwigner  and the so called Wigner delay time defined separately for reflection or transmission. These are asymptotic times and include self interference delays as well as the time spent in the barrier. This method is based on following the peak of the wave packet, and it loses it’s significance under strong distortion of the wave packetlandauer . Moreover, there is no causal relationship between the peak of the transmitted packet and the peak of the incident packet. This is due to the fact that peak of the transmitted packet can leave the scattering region long before the peak of the incident packet has arrived. In this treatment one cannot address the time spent by a particle in a local region of scattering. However, it should be emphasized that this time is of physical importance as it is intimately connected to the dynamic admittance and other physical properties of microstructures3joshithesis . The next proposal of dwell timesmith ; but  is an exact statement of the time spent in a region of space averaged over all incoming particles. The problem with this is that it does not distinguish between reflection and transmission and consequently it cannot answer the question “How much time a transmitted (alternatively, Reflected) particle spent in the scattering region?”. Some other proposals lanbut ; but  include the oscillating barrier which considers only a particular limit, i.e., the opaque barrier limit, and others invoke a physical clockbut ; butchamber  possesing extra degrees of freedom that co-evolves with the sojourning particle. In some of these treatments the sum of the times spent in two-non overlapping intervals is non-additive and also the very clock mechanism affects the sojourn time to be clocked finitely even as the perturbing clock potential is infinitesimally smallanantha ; ananthathesis . This raises the important question namely “Can quantum mechanical sojourn time be clocked without the clock affecting it?”. To this end AK have proposed a non-unitary clock wherein the absorption caused by an infinitesimal optical potential formally introduced over the locality of interest acts as a physical clock to count the time of sojourn in it. The problem for this non-unitary clock is that the optical potential itself introduces spurious scattering’s and this affects the time to be clocked. In a novel manner AK propose a formal procedure by which these spurious scattering’s are eliminated and the sojourn times clocked by this optical potential counter satisfies all the necessary conditions especially it is real, additive and distinguishes between reflection and transmission.

In this paper we introduce the wave attenuation (or stochastic absorption) method to calculate the sojourn lengths and times. In this methoddatta ; joshi  we damp the wave function by adding an exponential factor ($`e^{\alpha l}`$) every time we traverse the length of interest, here $`2\alpha `$ represents the attenuation per unit length. This method is better than the optical potential model as it does not suffer from spurious scattering’sCB ; jayan ; rubio . The corrections introduced in case of Optical potential model to take care of spurious scattering’s will become manifestly difficult when we calculate the sojourn times for a superlattice involving numerous scatterer’s. Thus our method of wave attenuation scores over the optical potential model. Moreover, this method will be helpful in calculating delay times in presence of incoherence which have been done earlier using imaginary potentials.

In the presence of wave attenuation a wave attenuates exponentially and thus the transmission (or reflection) coefficient becomes exponential with the length endured in presence of the attenuator and this acts as a natural counter for the sojourn length. Following the procedure of AK we calculate the sojourn lengths and times in case of propagation as outlined in (Fig. 1).

We calculate the closed form formulas for reflection and transmission coefficients as also the sojourn lengths and times in case of propagation. The amplitude for transmission and reflection can be calculated by summingdatta  the different paths as in Fig. 1. The scatterer $`S_1`$ in Fig. 1 has as its elements $`r_1,r_1^{},t_1`$ and $`t_1^{}`$. $`r_1`$ is the reflection amplitude when a particle is reflected from the left side of the barrier while $`r_1^{}`$ is the reflection amplitude when a particle is reflected from the right side of the barrier. $`t_1`$ and $`t_1^{}`$ are the amplitudes for transmission when a particle is transmitted from left to right of the barrier and vice-versa. Similar assignments are done for the scatterer $`S_2`$.

Thus for the amplitude of transmission we have- $`t=t_1t_2e^{ik^{}l}e^{\alpha l}+t_1r_2r_1^{}t_2e^{3ik^{}l}e^{3\alpha l}+\mathrm{}`$ which can be summed as

$`t={\displaystyle \frac{t_1t_2e^{ik^{}l}e^{\alpha l}}{1r_2r_1^{}e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}}`$ (1)
and this is the transmission amplitude in presence of wave attenuation. Again for the case of reflection amplitude we have $`r=r_1+t_1r_2t_1^{}e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}+t_1r_2r_1^{}r_2t_1^{}e^{4ik^{}l}e^{4\alpha l}+t_1r_2r_1^{}r_2r_1^{}r_2t_1^{}e^{6ik^{}l}e^{6\alpha l}+..`$ , which leads to -

$`r=r_1+{\displaystyle \frac{t_1r_2t_1^{}e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}{1r_1^{}r_2e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}}`$ (2)
or

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{r_1ar_2e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}{1r_1^{}r_2e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}}`$ (3)
In Eq. 3, $`a=r_1r_1^{}t_1t_1^{}`$ is the determinant of the S-Matrix of the first barrier and as we are only dealing with unitary S-Matrices therefore the determinant is of unit modulus for all barriers. In these expressions $`k^{}`$ is the wave vector in the region of interest. The transmission and reflection coefficients can be calculated by taking the square of the modulus of the expressions in Eq’s. (1) and (3).

The sojourn lengths for transmission and reflection are calculated as belowanantha \- The sojourn length for transmission is given as

$`l^T=\underset{2\alpha 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}|t|^2)}{(2\alpha )}}`$ (4)
and for reflection is defined as-

$`l^R=\underset{2\alpha 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}|r|^2)}{(2\alpha )}}`$ (5)
The sojourn times for reflection or transmission can be calculated from the formula- $`\tau ^{R/T}=\frac{l^{R/T}}{|\frac{\mathrm{}k^{}}{m}|}`$ wherein as before $`|\frac{\mathrm{}k^{}}{m}|`$ is the speed of propagation in the region of interest. From Eq’s. (4) and (5) we can calculate the sojourn lengths for transmission-

$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^T}{l}}={\displaystyle \frac{1|r_1^{}|^2|r_2|^2}{12\mathrm{}(r_1^{}r_2e^{2ik^{}l})+|r_1^{}|^2|r_2|^2}}`$ (6)
and for reflection-

$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^R}{l}}={\displaystyle \frac{l^T}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|r_2|^2|r_1|^2}{|r_1|^22\mathrm{}(r_1^{}r_2ae^{2ik^{}l})+|r_2|^2}}`$ (7)
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ represents real part of the quantity in brackets. In the above two equations the sojourn lengths have been normalized with respect to the length $`l`$ of the locality of interest. Throughout the discussion the quantities are expressed in their dimensionless form.

We consider the case of a delta dimer with strength $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ as shown in Fig. 2 separated by a distance $`l`$. The potentials $`V_j`$’s in their dimensionless form are expressed as $`V_j\frac{V_jl}{k^{}\mathrm{}^2/2m},j=1,2`$.

The S-Matrices for the delta dimer are given as-

$$S_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_j& t_j^{}\\ t_j& r_j^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{V_j}{2ikV_j}& \frac{2ik}{2ikV_j}\\ \frac{2ik}{2ikV_j}& \frac{V_j}{2ikV_j}\end{array}\right)$$

In Figures (3) and (4) we plot the Transmission and Reflection coefficients and the normalized sojourn times $`\tau ^T`$ and $`\tau ^R`$ for a non symmetrical delta dimer. We have normalized these sojourn times by the time taken by a particle to traverse a distance $`l`$ in absence of barrier, i.e., $`\frac{ml}{|\mathrm{}k^{}|}`$. From Eq. 6 it is clear that transmission time is always positive definite. Moreover we can readily show from our treatment that local times spent by the particle in non-overlapping regions are additive. In Fig. 3 we have plotted the transmission and the normalized sojourn time $`\tau ^T`$ for a non symmetrical delta dimer. As expected the sojourn times are larger near the resonances. When transmission approaches unity in the large $`kl`$ limit, the dimensionless transmission sojourn time approaches unity. In Fig. 4 we have plotted the reflection coefficient and the normalized sojourn time $`\tau ^R`$. We observe that for an unsymmetrical delta-dimer the sojourn time in case of reflection goes negative for certain values of the potentials. Hence we get negative sojourn times in certain regions for the case of reflection. Even though additivity of local sojourn times in two non-overlapping regions holds here too. It has been argued by AK that this is because in case of reflection there is a partial wave corresponding to prompt reflection $`r_1`$ that never samples the region of interest, and also this prompt part leads to self interference delays which cause the sojourn time $`\tau ^R`$ to become negative for some values of the parameters. If one removes this prompt part as suggested by AK, i.e., $`r_{np}=rr_1`$, and we calculate the sojourn time $`\tau ^{R_{np}}`$ with this prompt part removed we find it to be positive definite and given by $`\tau ^{R_{np}}=\tau ^T+1`$, as $`\tau ^T`$ is positive definite. Removing the prompt part of course cures the problem of negative sojourn times but it causes another problem we find when $`V_2`$ is zero, $`\tau _R=0`$, as expected because particle is not reflected after entering the region as there is no barrier to the right of the locality of interest, but $`\tau ^{R_{np}}=2`$. Even in absence of barriers when there is no reflection still we get $`\tau ^{R_{np}}=2`$, which follows trivially from the formal final expression $`\tau ^{R_{np}}=\tau ^T+1`$, as $`\tau ^T=1`$ irrespective of the case whether $`V_2=0`$ or both $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are zero. This is unexpected looking at the expression for $`r`$ in Eq. 3. This leads us to the conclusion that to get a positive definite answer for the reflection time by removing prompt part requires careful thinking. In case of a symmetric barrier as is obvious from Eq’s. 6 and 7 $`\tau ^T=\tau ^R`$. Again in case of a non-symmetric delta dimer $`\tau ^T`$ is independent of the fact whether particle is incident from the right or left, but $`\tau ^R`$ depends non-trivially on the direction of incidence of the particle.

A remarkable assertion found in the literaturehauge  concerning the measurement of the time of transmission or reflection is $`\tau ^D=T\tau ^T+R\tau ^R`$. Herein $`\tau ^T`$ and $`\tau ^R`$ are as given above while the dwell time $`\tau ^D=\frac{1}{v}_0^l|\psi |^2𝑑x`$. $`\psi `$ is the wavefunction in the locality of interest and $`v`$ is the speed of the particle in the region of interest. In Fig. 5 we plot $`\tau ^D`$ and $`T\tau ^T+R\tau ^R`$, for a symmetrical delta dimer. We find that they are inequivalent in the small $`kl`$ regime landauer .

For the case of rectangular barriers of height $`V`$, $`r`$ and $`t`$’s are the reflection and transmission amplitudes at the interfaces and $`k^{}=\sqrt{\frac{2m(EV)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ in the propagation regime and the speed is $`|\frac{\mathrm{}k^{}}{m}|`$. For this case we get the same result as obtained in the Ref.anantha .

In conclusion, we have given a simple method of calculating sojourn times using wave attenuation method. In this method, wave attenuation (or, stochastic absorption) as we have treated cannot be incorporated in a Hamiltonian. Thus it inherently takes care of spurious scattering’s, which arise when Hamiltonians with an optical potential are used (or for every clock where perturbation due to clock mechanism couples to the Hamiltonianananthathesis ). Our results reaffirm those obtained by AK after taking care of the spurious contributions from the optical potential. The transmission sojourn times are always positive definite and are additive as mentioned above. Reflection sojourn times can become negative. By removal of the prompt part of reflection $`r_1`$ one gets positive reflection sojourn time but it further leads to another problem. Thus, if we insist on reflection sojourn time to be positive then it requires further careful analysis, or, reflection time itself needs closer inspection. Finally when we compare the dwell time with the conditional sojourn times weighted over appropriate reflection and transmission coefficients, we find them not to be equivalent.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Dr. S. Anantha Ramakrishna for useful discussions on this problem and one of us (AMJ) thanks Professor N. Kumar for his continual interest and discussions on this problem over the years.


format: text

text:
# System size resonance in coupled noisy systems and in the Ising model

## Abstract

We consider an ensemble of coupled nonlinear noisy oscillators demonstrating in the thermodynamic limit an Ising-type transition. In the ordered phase and for finite ensembles stochastic flips of the mean field are observed with the rate depending on the ensemble size. When a small periodic force acts on the ensemble, the linear response of the system has a maximum at a certain system size, similar to the stochastic resonance phenomenon. We demonstrate this effect of system size resonance for different types of noisy oscillators and for different ensembles – lattices with nearest neighbors coupling and globally coupled populations. The Ising model is also shown to demonstrate the system size resonance.

Stochastic resonance has attracted much interest recently GJ . As was demonstrated in Benzi-Sutera-Vulpiani-81 , a response of a noisy nonlinear system to a periodic forcing can exhibit a resonance-like dependence on the noise intensity. In other words, there exists a “resonant” noise intensity at which the response to a periodic force is maximally ordered. Stochastic resonance has been observed in numerous experiments LS . Noteworthy, the order in a noise-driven system can have a maximum at a certain noise level even in the absence of periodic forcing, this phenomenon being called coherence resonance PN .

Being first discussed in the context of a simple bistable model, stochastic resonance has been also studied in complex systems consisting of many elementary bistable cells JM , moreover, the resonance may be enhanced due to coupling Lindner . In this paper we discuss another type of resonance in such systems, namely the system size resonance, when the dynamics is maximally ordered at a certain number of interacting subsystems. Contrary to previous reports of array-enhanced stochastic resonance (cf. also NH ), here we fix the noise strength, coupling, and other parameters; only the the size of the ensemble changes.

The basic model to be considered below is the ensemble of noise-driven bistable overdamped oscillators, governed by the Langevin equations

$$\dot{x}_i=x_ix_i^3+\frac{\epsilon }{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x_jx_i)+\sqrt{2D}\xi _i(t)+f(t).$$
(1)
Here $`\xi _i(t)`$ is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean: $`\xi _i(t)\xi _j(t^{})=\delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{})`$; $`\epsilon `$ is the coupling constant; $`N`$ is the number of elements in the ensemble, and $`f(t)`$ is a periodic force to be specified later. In the absence of periodic force the model (1) has been extensively studied in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. It demonstrates an Ising-type phase transition at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _c`$ from the disordered state with vanishing mean field $`X=N^1_ix_i`$ to the “ferromagnetic” state with a nonzero mean field $`X=\pm X_0`$ Desai-Zwanzig-78 .

While in the thermodynamic limit the full description of the dynamics is possible, for finite system sizes we have mainly a qualitative picture: in the ordered phase the mean field $`X`$ switches between the values $`\pm X_0`$ and its average vanishes for all couplings. The rate of switchings depends on the system size and tends to zero as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

For us, of the main importance is the fact that qualitatively the behavior of the mean field can be represented as the noise-induced dynamics in a potential with one minimum in the disordered phase (at $`X=0`$) and two symmetric minima (at $`X=\pm X_0`$) in the ordered phase. Now applying the ideas of the stochastic resonance, one can expect in the bistable case (i.e. in the ordered phase for small enough noise or for large enough coupling) a resonant-like behavior of the response to a periodic external force when the intensity of the effective noise is changed. Because this intensity is inverse proportional to $`N`$, we obtain the resonance-like curve of the response in dependence of the system size. The main idea behind the system size resonance is that in finite ensembles of noise-driven or chaotic systems the dynamics of the mean field can be represented as driven by the effective noise whose variance is inverse proportional to the system size DPH . This idea has been applied to description of a transition to collective behavior in Pikovsky-Ruffo-99 . In Pikovsky-Rateitschak-Kurths-94  it was demonstrated that the finite-size fluctuations can cause a transition that disappears in the thermodynamic limit.

Before proceeding to a quantitative analytic description of the phenomenon, we illustrate it with direct numerical simulations of the model (1), with a forcing term $`f(t)=A\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$. Figure 1 shows the linear response function, i.e. the ratio of the spectral component in the mean field at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the amplitude of forcing $`A`$, in the limit $`A0`$. For a given frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the dependence on the system size is a bell-shaped curve, with a pronounced maximum. The dynamics of the mean field $`X(t)`$ is illustrated in Fig. 2, for three different system sizes. The resonant dynamics (Fig. 2b) demonstrates a typical for stochastic resonance synchrony between the driving periodic force and the switchings of the field between the two stable positions.

To describe the system size resonance analytically, we use, following Desai-Zwanzig-78 , the Gaussian approximation. In this approximation one writes $`x_i=X+\delta _i`$ and assumes that $`\delta _i`$ are independent Gaussian random variables with zero mean and the variance $`M`$. Assuming furthermore that $`N^1_i\delta _i^2=M`$ and neglecting the odd moments $`N^1_i\delta _i`$, $`N^1_i\delta _i^3`$, as well as the correlations between $`\delta _i`$ and $`\delta _j`$, we obtain from (1) the equations for $`X`$ and $`M`$:

$`\dot{X}`$ $`=`$ $`XX^33MX+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2D}{N}}}\eta (t)+f(t),`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{M}`$ $`=`$ $`M3X^2M3M^2\epsilon M+D,`$ (3)
where $`\eta `$ is the Gaussian white noise having the same properties as $`\xi _i(t)`$. In the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ the noisy term $`\eta `$ vanishes. If the forcing term is absent ($`f=0`$), the equations coincide with those derived in Desai-Zwanzig-78 . This system of coupled nonlinear equations exhibits a pitchfork bifurcation of the equilibrium $`X=0,M>0`$ at $`\epsilon _c=3D`$. This bifurcation is supercritical for $`D>2/3`$ in accordance with the exact solution of (1) given in Desai-Zwanzig-78 , below we consider only this case. For $`\epsilon >\epsilon _c`$ the system is bistable with two symmetric stable fixed points

$$X_0^2=(2\epsilon +S)/4,M_0=(2+\epsilon S)/12,$$
(4)
(here $`S=\sqrt{(2+\epsilon )^224D}`$) and the unstable point $`X=0,M=(1\epsilon +\sqrt{(1\epsilon )^2+12D})/6`$. Now, with the external noise $`\eta `$ and with the periodic force $`f(t)`$ the problem reduces to a standard problem in the theory of stochastic resonance, i.e. to the problem of the response of a noise-driven nonlinear bistable system to an external periodic force (because the noise affects only the variable $`X`$, it does not lead to unphysical negative values of variance $`M`$, since $`\dot{M}`$ is strictly positive at $`M=0`$).

To obtain an analytical formula, we perform further simplification of the system (2),(3). Near the bifurcation point we can use the slaving principle to obtain a standard noise-driven bistable system

$$\dot{X}=aXbX^3+\sqrt{\frac{2D}{N}}\eta (t)+f(t),$$
(5)
where $`a=1+0.5(\epsilon 1)0.5\sqrt{(\epsilon 1)^2+12D}`$, $`b=0.5+1.5(\epsilon 1)((\epsilon 1)^2+12D)^{1/2}`$. A better approximation valid also beyond a vicinity of the critical point can be constructed if we use $`\overline{b}=aX_0^2`$ instead of $`b`$, where the fixed point $`X_0`$ is given by (4). Having written the ensemble dynamics as a standard noise-driven double-well system (5) (cf. GJ ; Jung-Hanggi-91 ), we can use the analytic formula for the linear response $`R`$ derived in Jung-Hanggi-91 . It reads

$$R=\frac{NX_0^2}{2Da}\left(\frac{𝒟_{3/2}(\sqrt{s})}{𝒟_{1/2}(\sqrt{s})}\right)^2\left[1+\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2a^2}\mathrm{exp}(s)\right]^1$$
(6)
where $`s=aNX_0^2/(2D)`$, and $`𝒟`$ are the parabolic cylinder functions. We compare the theoretical linear response function with the numerically obtained one in Fig. 3. The qualitative correspondence is good, moreover, the maxima of the curves are rather good reproduced with the formula (6).

Above we concentrated on the properties of the linear response. Numerical simulations with the finite forcing amplitude yielded the results similar to that presented in Figs. 1,3. However, for large amplitudes of forcing (e.g., $`A>0.1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.01`$, $`D=0.5`$, $`\epsilon =2`$) a saturation was observed: here the response grows monotonically with $`N`$. This is in full agreement with the corresponding property of the stochastic resonance in double-well systems of type (5), where the saturation occurs for small noise intensities (cf. Fig. 7 in GJ ), due to the disappearance of multistability for large forcing amplitudes.

It is instructive to compare the response of the noise-driven system (1) with the noise-free case $`D=0`$. Without external force, the ensemble relaxes eventually to a steady state solution with some mean field $`X`$; in this state each oscillator can be in one of stable steady positions of the potential, correspondingly the oscillators form one or two clusters. From the clustering it follows that the linear response does not depend on the number of elements in the ensemble. Our numerical experiments demonstrated also that the response is system-size independent for large forcing amplitudes as well, where, e.g., the force-induced cluster-mergings occur. Thus, the effect of system size resonance essentially relies on the presence of noise, which breaks the clustering.

Above we have considered the system of globally coupled nonlinear oscillators (1). The same effect of system size resonance can be observed in a lattice with nearest neighbors coupling as well. In the thermodynamic limit, the Ising-type phase transition occurs in the lattice (if its dimension is larger than one). Similar to the globally coupled ensemble, in finite lattices in the ordered phase the switchings between the two stable states of the mean field are observed. With the same argumentation as above we can conclude that the response of the mean field to a periodic forcing can have a maximum at a certain lattice size, while all other parameters (noise intensity, coupling strength, etc.) are kept constant. We illustrate this in Fig. 4.

As the next example we consider the two-dimensional nearest neighbor Ising model in the presence of a time-dependent external field. The Hamiltonian of the system reads

$$H=J\underset{ij}{}s_is_jA\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\underset{i}{}s_i,$$
(7)
where $`J>0`$ and $`s_i=\pm 1`$. We are interested in the dependence of the response of the mean magnetization $`m(t)=\frac{1}{N}_is_i(t)`$ on the system size $`N`$ (for the usual stochastic resonance in the Ising model, i.e., for the dependence of the response on the temperature, see NP ). To calculate the linear response we used the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and obtained this quantity by virtue of the power spectrum of fluctuations of $`m(t)`$. The latter was found using the Metropolis Monte Carlo method on a lattice with helical boundary conditions Newman-Barkema-99 . The results presented in Fig. 5 demonstrate the system size resonance of the linear response in the two-dimensional Ising model.

As the last example of the system size resonance we consider a lattice where each individual element does not exhibit bistable noisy dynamics, but such a behavior appears due to interaction and multiplicative noise. This model is described by the set of Langevin equations VB ; Landa-Zaikin-Schimansky-Geier-98

$$\dot{x}_i=x_i(1+x_i^2)^2+\frac{\epsilon }{K}\underset{j}{}(x_jx_i)+\sqrt{2D}\xi _i(t)(1+x_i^2)+f(t).$$
(8)
As has been demonstrated in VB , in some region of couplings $`\epsilon `$ system (8) exhibits the Ising-type transition. If an additional additive noise is added to (8), then one observes transitions between these states and the so-called double stochastic resonance in the presence of the periodic forcing ZK . As is evident from the considerations above, such transitions occur even in the absence of the additive noise if the system is finite. Thus, the system size resonance should be observed in the lattice (8) as well. We confirm this in Fig. 4.

Another possible field of application of the system size resonance is the neuronal dynamics (see, e.g., Tass-99 ). Individual neurons have been demonstrated to exhibit stochastic resonance LS ; DR . While in experiments one can easily adjust noise to achieve the maximal sensitivity to an external signal, it may be not obvious how this adjustment takes place in nature. The above consideration shows, that changing the number of elements in a small ensemble of coupled bistable elements to the optimum can significantly improve the sensitivity (cf. JM ). Moreover, changing its connectivity and/or coupling strength, a neuronal system can tune itself to signals with different frequencies.

Concluding, we have shown that in populations of coupled noise-driven elements, exhibiting in the thermodynamic limit the Ising-type transition, in the ordered phase (i.e. for relatively small noise and large coupling) the response to a periodic force achieves maximum at a certain size of the system. We demonstrated this effect for the Ising model, as well as for lattices and globally coupled ensembles noisy oscillators. We expect the system size resonance to occur also in purely deterministic systems demonstrating the Ising-type transition, e.g. in the Miller-Huse coupled map lattice Miller-Huse-93 . The system size resonance is described theoretically by reducing the dynamics of the mean field to a low-dimensional bistable model with an effective noise that is inverse proportional to the system size. The stochastic resonance in the mean field dynamics then manifests itself as the system size resonance.

We thank N. Brilliantov, A. Neiman, J. Parrondo, F. J. de la Rubia and R. Toral for useful discussions and M. Rosenblum for help in analysis of eq. (6). M. C. thanks the DGESEIC Project No. PB97-0076 and the DGES Grantship No. AP98 07249358. A.Z. acknowledges financial support from ESA.


text:
# 1 Basics of the Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE)

## 1 Basics of the Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE)

A state-of-the-art description of the weak decays of heavy flavour hadrons $`H_Q`$ has to be based on the operator product expansion (OPE), which allows to express decay widths – semileptonic, radiative or nonleptonic ones – through an expansion in powers of $`1/m_Q`$ with $`m_Q`$ denoting the heavy flavour quark mass :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_Q)G_F^2m_Q^5(\mu )\left[c_0(\mu )+\frac{c_2(\mu )}{m_Q^2(\mu )}+\frac{c_3(\mu )}{m_Q^3(\mu )}+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(1)
Some points have to be emphasized for later reference:

* With the leading contribution to the width being proportional to the fifth power of the heavy quark mass it is essential to give an unambiguous and precise definition of the latter. This requires a field theoretical treatment specifying both the renormalization scheme employed and the scale $`\mu `$ at which the mass is taken 111An observable of course cannot depend on this scale $`\mu `$; the dependance of $`m_Q`$ has to be compensated for by a $`\mu `$ dependance of the radiative corrections, matrix elements etc., as denoted by the coefficients $`c_i`$ in Eq.(1).. Such a treatment has been given in terms of the so-called kinetic mass  and the large sensitivity to the quark mass does not pose a real problem for the OPE. A quark model treatment without OPE support cannot meet this essential requirement as a matter of principle; it thus suffers from intrinsic ambiguities in the quark mass values, which lead to considerable irreducible uncertainties in its estimates for the weak widths. This is well-known and has been discussed extensively in the literature.
* The colour gauge symmetry forbids contributions of order $`1/m_Q`$. Hence:

+ Through $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$ the contributions to the width are universal for a given flavour; i.e., they do not depend on the specific hadron.
    + In particular, an ansatz where the leading term in the width is proportional to the fifth power of the heavy hadron mass rather than the heavy quark mass is inconsistent with the OPE. A clear-cut violation of quark-hadron duality (duality) would be required for such an ansatz to emerge. Yet even then it could hold only for some values of the hadron mass, but not parametrically .
    + The pole mass, though universal for a given flavour, cannot be used here in principle, since it suffers from an irreducible uncertainty $`𝒪(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$; it would introduce an uncertainty $`5\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/m_Q`$ into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_Q)`$, which is of higher order than the contributions one can calculate.
* The contributions of order $`1/m_Q^2`$ differentiate between baryons and mesons, while treating the latter in a practically universal way.
* In order $`1/m_Q^3`$ explicitely spectator-dependant contributions enter that are usually referred to as Pauli interference ($`PI`$) , weak annihilation ($`WA`$) and $`W`$ scattering. Those had been identified in quark model treatments already before the development of the HQE.
* Spectator and (higher order) $`WA`$ amplitudes can interfere with each other! This property is actually essential for the decay width to be controlled by the large scale $`m_Q`$, see Eq.(1), rather than a hadronic low energy scale, as has been demonstrated explicitely in Ref. . As discussed in detail in Refs.  it is quite possible a priori that the inclusion of $`WA`$, when it is not the leading contribution, can actually diminish a width!
* With the OPE-based HQE providing a quantitative description of nonperturbative dynamics in heavy flavour decays, we have now reached a stage where we can go beyond folklore when discussing duality .

## 2 Criticism of Ref.

After this review in a nut shell I list specific criticism of various statements in Ref.; the first point is basically conceptual, the others somewhat more technical:

1. The authors suggest that the observed $`D^0D_s^+`$ lifetime difference is due to $`SU(3)_{Fl}`$ breaking in the phase space of the exclusive $`D^0`$ and $`D_s^+`$ channels. For their argument they adopt the following prescription: they take all observed $`D^0`$ modes, which actually saturate the $`D^0`$ width, correct them one by one with some phase space factor for the corresponding $`D_s`$ modes and add up the thus obtained estimates for the partial $`D_s`$ widths; this procedure yields $`\tau (D_s^+)/\tau (D^0)1.25`$ – similar indeed to the observed value.

* Such a description cannot be viewed as a genuine explanation, though. Adding all exclusive modes has to yield the total width, of course; the only nontrivial element here is that one relates $`D^0`$ and $`D_s^+`$ channels by simple phase space considerations. It has to be kept in mind, however, that there is no unique prescription for the phase space of multibody final states, since it depends very much on their resonance etc. structure.
    * The real challenge is whether one can provide an at least adequate theoretical description of the hadron’s width expressed on the quark-gluon level; that is the very essence of the concept of duality! A success in this task signals that duality applies already at the charm scale for inclusive transitions. It is on the quark-gluon level that $`WA`$ is primarily defined.
    * In properly addressing duality one has to keep some subtle features in mind. Observable rates depend on the phase space as it applies to hadrons and their masses; it is certainly different from the phase space for quarks (and gluons). Duality cannot be based on some kind of equivalence between hadronic and quark-level phase space alone; it can hold only if quark phase space plus quark dynamics are effectively equivalent to hadronic phase space plus boundstate dynamics. Such equivalence, which at first sight would look miraculous, is enforced through sum rules – as discussed in detail in Ref..

    An effect that on the hadronic level represents $`SU(3)_{Fl}`$ breaking merely in the phase space, has on the quark level to be a combination of $`SU(3)_{Fl}`$ breaking in the phase space and in quark dynamics. $`SU(3)_{Fl}`$ breaking in the quark phase space is modest since $`m_c\mathrm{\Lambda }m_s,m_d,m_u`$ (for current quark masses); likewise for the nonperturbative contributions $`𝒪(1/m_Q^2)`$. In order $`1/m_c^3`$ $`PI`$ and $`WA`$ enter, both of which induce $`SU(3)_{Fl}`$ breaking in a quark level description.
2. Replacing the quark mass by an effective quark mass reduced by some sort of binding energy $`BE`$ is inconsistent with the OPE! For substituting $`m_QBE`$ for $`m_Q`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m_Q^5`$ generates a correction of order $`5BE/m_Q`$ which is not allowed due to the absence of an independant colour gauge invariant operator of dimension four. The absence of a $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$ contribution can be understood in a less abstract way as well: there are indeed $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$ corrections to the initial state energy and likewise to the final state energies. Both of these effects yield $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$ contributions to the phase space – yet they compensate each other there up to terms $`𝒪(1/m_Q^2)`$. This compensation is due to colour symmetry, namely that both initial and final state quarks carry the same colour charge.

Replacing the quark mass by an effective mass reduced by some binding energy had been suggested before in the description of $`B_c`$ decays where it would have some dramatic consequences: it would shift the bulk of the $`B_c`$ width to $`b`$ rather than $`c`$ quark decays and lead to a relatively long $`B_c`$ lifetime in excess of 1 psec. Yet it was pointed out  that the HQE derived from the OPE, which does not contain $`1/m_Q`$ terms, predicts the $`B_c`$ width to be generated mainly by $`c`$ quark decays producing a ‘short’ lifetime below 1 psec – as has subsequently been observed .

The authors of Ref.  have proposed a different ansatz leading to $`1/m_Q`$ contributions, namely to replace the heavy quark mass by the heavy flavour hadron mass in the expression for the total width; it might be amusing to note in passing that such an ansatz would reduce $`\tau (D_s)/\tau (D^0)`$ by 30 %. It is authors’ privilege to suggest an ad-hoc ansatz; yet one should be clear on the price such an ansatz entails. In this case it would be a clear-cut breakdown in the OPE. Also the authors of Ref. seem to be quite unaware that questions of duality and its limitations in observables described by an OPE can be addressed in a much more mature way now than five to ten years ago .
3. The first footnote of  claims that as far as inclusive transitions are concerned the amplitudes for the spectator and $`WA`$ processes have to be added in modulus squared with no interference since the final states correspond to four- and two-quark states, respectively. As already mentioned, such a statement is incorrect as demonstrated in the literature : the numerically leading $`WA`$ contributions are provided by non-factorizable terms that are not helicity suppressed; those are of higher order in $`\alpha _S`$ and interfere with the dominant spectator amplitude (and others in general). A priori, this interference can be destructive as well as constructive.
4. One cannot argue that the $`WA`$ contribution is much more reduced in $`D_s`$ than in $`D^0`$ decays. While this would be true for the factorizable terms, it is not true in general for the non-factorizable ones which are numerically more important due to the chiral suppression of the factorizable terms .
5. There are some more detailed tests of the HQE description of $`D_s`$ decays. The width of Cabibbo suppressed $`D_s`$ decays leading to final states with the quantum numbers of $`u\overline{s}s\overline{s}`$ will be reduced by a factor of about two due to $`PI`$, whereas the latter cannot affect the corresponding $`D^0`$ transitions; likewise for doubly Cabibbo suppressed modes. This relative suppression is in both cases considerably larger than in the ansatz of Ref. . However, identifying the footprints of WA in subclasses of decays is still an open challenge.

## 3 Summary

There is nothing wrong with coming up with a simple (or for that matter even a sophisticated) phase space based description for relating exclusive $`D^0`$ and $`D_s`$ channels leading to an estimate of $`\tau (D_s)/\tau (D^0)`$. Yet that does not remove the motivation for analysing whether one can find a ‘dual’ quark based description; furthermore $`WA`$ is an element of non-perturbative quark rather than hadronic dynamics. Duality could not be realized by simply equating quark phase space with an average over hadronic phase space: it requires quark phase space coupled with quark dynamics to account for hadronic phase space together with boundstate effects on average. The OPE naturally incorporates quark decay, $`PI`$, $`WA`$ etc. – and interferences between them – in a well-defined way. It is certainly conceivable that the OPE based description fails for charm decays since the charm scale could be too marginal for duality to apply here. In that case – but only in that case – contributions of order $`1/m_Q`$, as would be introduced through use of an effective quark mass $`m_QBE`$, could emerge. But it should be clearly understood and explicitely stated that such an occurrance would constitute a clearcut breakdown of the OPE! Acknowledgements: This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY00-87419.


text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0112258

Multi-Trace Operators, Boundary Conditions,
And AdS/CFT Correspondence

Edward Witten

Institute For Advanced Study, Princeton NJ 08540 USA

We argue that multi-trace interactions in quantum field theory on the boundary of AdS space can be incorporated in the AdS/CFT correspondence by using a more general boundary condition for the bulk fields than has been considered hitherto. We illustrate the procedure for a renormalizable four-dimensional field theory with a $`(\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2`$ interaction. In this example, we show how the AdS fields with the appropriate boundary condition reproduce the renormalization group effects found in the boundary field theory. We also construct in related examples a line of fixed points with a nonperturbative duality and a flow between two methods of quantization.

December, 2001

1. Introduction

Large $`N`$ limits for matrix-valued fields have been a subject of considerable interest ever since the large $`N`$ limit of $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory was recognized as a likely starting point for understanding the dynamics of four-dimensional quantum gauge theories . Much recent work centers around the AdS/CFT correspondence .

In general, given a collection of matrix-valued fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, to construct a theory with a large $`N`$ limit, one considers normalized trace operators

$$𝒪_\alpha =\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}F_\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi }_i)$$

and an action functional

$$I=N^2W(𝒪_\alpha ).$$

Here, the $`F_\alpha `$ are arbitrary functions1 In many applications, one considers only polynomial functions. of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and their derivatives, and $`W`$ is an arbitrary function of the $`𝒪_\alpha `$. $`F_\alpha `$ has no explicit dependence on $`N`$ and is defined without any traces, so $`𝒪_\alpha `$ is a “single-trace operator,” and $`W`$ likewise has no explicit dependence on $`N`$. The powers of $`N`$ have been chosen to ensure the existence of a large $`N`$ limit.

If $`W`$ is a linear function of the $`𝒪_\alpha `$’s, then it is a “single-trace action,” while nonlinear terms in $`W`$ are “multi-trace interactions.” Many important examples, like four-dimensional gauge theory without matter fields, are based on single-trace actions. Theories with multi-trace interactions have, however, also been considered in matrix models of two-dimensional gravity \[3--7\] and in the AdS/CFT correspondence \[8\].

The purpose of the present paper is to make a general proposal for how multi-trace interactions can be incorporated in the AdS/CFT correspondence, by generalizing the boundary conditions \[9,,10\] that are used in the case of single-trace actions. This is somewhat subtle for reasons explained in \[8\]. Multi-trace operators in the CFT correspond to multi-particle states in AdS space, and it is not immediately apparent what is meant by placing a boundary condition at infinity on a multi-particle state. Nevertheless, we will see that the familiar boundary conditions have a natural generalization that serves this purpose.

In section 2, we practice by recalling how multi-trace interactions are treated in the simplest of all matrix models, which is the theory of a single matrix. This model can be solved very directly in the large $`N`$ limit  and the solution can be extended to incorporate multi-trace interactions .2 This theory also has scaling limits related to two-dimensional gravity that can be solved in a much more subtle way , but we do not need that here. In section 3, we present our proposal for the general boundary conditions in the AdS/CFT correspondence and their interpretation in terms of multi-trace interactions. In section 4, we discuss the application of this proposal to a class of four-dimensional examples suggested in . We also describe in related examples a line of fixed points that admits a nonperturbative duality.

The role of boundary conditions in the AdS/CFT correspondence has been re-examined recently in . The paper , which appeared on hep-th the same day as the present one, has some results that overlap with those presented here.

2. Review Of The One-Matrix Model

First we practice by recalling the case of a model (in zero space-time dimensions) in which the field variables comprise a single $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Assuming that we want to consider only polynomial interactions (in this particular model, there is no difficulty in relaxing this assumption), the general single-trace operators are

$$𝒪_n=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^n,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.$$

The action depends on an arbitrary function of the $`𝒪_n`$’s:

$$I=N^2W(𝒪_1,𝒪_2,\mathrm{}).$$

One wishes to perform the integral

$$Z=𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(I)$$

in the large $`N`$ limit, as a function of $`W`$.

The model has $`U(N)`$ symmetry, acting on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by conjugation. Because of this symmetry, the action depends only on the eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$; in fact, $`𝒪_n=\frac{1}{N}_i\lambda _i^n`$. Up to a constant factor (computable and independent of $`W`$) which comes from the volume of the group $`U(N)`$, the partition function in terms of the eigenvalues becomes

$$Z=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda _1\mathrm{}𝑑\lambda _N\underset{i<j}{}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)^2\mathrm{exp}(N^2W).$$

The integral can be evaluated for large $`N`$ because the integrand has a sharp maximum at a suitable configuration of the $`\lambda `$’s. This configuration is characterized by a smooth distribution of the $`\lambda `$’s. To find it, we assume that the density of the $`\lambda `$’s is of the form $`N\rho (x)`$ for some positive function $`\rho (x)`$ with $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\rho (x)=1`$. The $`𝒪_n`$ now become $`𝒪_n=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^n\rho (x)`$, and the integrand in (2.1) is

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(N^2(W(𝒪_i)𝑑x𝑑x^{}\rho (x)\rho (x^{})\mathrm{ln}|xx^{}|)\right).$$

Maximizing the exponent with the constraint $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\rho (x)=1`$ gives the equation

$$\underset{n}{}x^n\frac{W}{𝒪_n}2𝑑x^{}\mathrm{ln}|xx^{}|\rho (x^{})+t=0,$$

where $`t`$ is a Lagrange multiplier for the constraint. How to solve such equations, for suitable $`W`$’s, is explained in .

Let us consider what happens in the single-trace case, for which $`W=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}w_n𝒪_n`$ with constants $`w_n`$. Then (2.1) simply reduces to

$$\underset{n}{}x^nw_n2𝑑x^{}\mathrm{ln}|xx^{}|\rho (x^{})+t=0.$$

The lesson to be learned is that in the general case, there is a saddle-point equation of the same form as in the single-trace case, except that the coupling constants $`w_n`$ of the single-trace case are replaced by $`W/𝒪_n`$, where $`𝒪_n`$ are the observables of the matrix field theory under study and $`W`$ is the coupling function which can be, in general, an arbitrary function of these observables.

3. The AdS/CFT Case

The remainder of this paper is concerned mainly with adapting that last statement to the AdS/CFT correspondence. However, first we practice with another familiar example of a different type.

Consider a scalar field $`\varphi `$ on the half-space $`x_10`$ in $`𝐑^n`$. We take the action for $`\varphi `$ to be a sum

$$I=\frac{1}{2}_{x_10}d^nx|d\varphi |^2+_{x_1=0}d^{n1}xW(\varphi ,d\varphi ,\mathrm{})$$

of the free kinetic energy for $`\varphi `$, integrated over the half-space, plus a boundary interaction $`W`$ that is an arbitrary local function of $`\varphi `$ and its derivatives. Now when we vary $`\varphi `$, $`\varphi \varphi +\delta \varphi `$, to obtain the Euler-Lagrange equations, we encounter boundary terms

$$_{x_1=0}d^{n1}x\delta \varphi \left(\frac{\varphi }{x_1}+\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi }\right).$$

Hence, to satisfy the equations of motion, we have to impose a boundary condition

$$\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi }\frac{\varphi }{x_1}=0.$$

This equation has an analogy with (2.1). The term $`\delta W/\delta \varphi `$ is analogous to the term $`_nx^n\frac{W}{𝒪_n}`$ in (2.1), while $`\varphi /x_1`$ corresponds to the terms in (2.1) that do not depend on $`W`$.

(3.1) can also be given the following intuitive interpretation. Let us think of $`x_1`$ as a “time” direction, even though in a boundary problem like this one with local boundary conditions (and also in the AdS case that we turn to presently) it is usually a spatial direction. Then $`p=\varphi /x_1`$ is naturally regarded as the “momentum.” For $`W=0`$, the boundary condition is simply the vanishing of the momentum, $`p=0`$. For general $`W`$, the boundary condition $`p=\delta W/\delta \varphi `$ differs by a canonical transformation (generated by $`W`$) from the condition $`p=0`$. In the phase space of canonically conjugate variables $`\varphi `$ and $`p`$ (defined at $`x_1=0`$), the variables $`p`$ or equally well $`p\delta W/\delta \varphi `$ are a maximal set of commuting variables, so their vanishing defines a “Lagrangian submanifold” of the phase space. A Lagrangian submanifold determines a quantum state at least formally (in the present case, the operators $`p\delta W/\delta \varphi `$ annihiliate the state with wave function $`e^W`$). In two-dimensional conformal field theory, the state determined in this way by the boundary conditions is called the boundary state .

Analog for Anti de Sitter Space

Anti de Sitter space is somewhat similar, except that the boundary is replaced by a conformal boundary at spatial infinity. We consider AdS space of dimension $`D=d+1`$, with metric

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}dx_i^2}{r^2}$$

in the region $`r0`$. The conformal boundary is at $`r=0`$.

Consider a scalar field $`\varphi `$ of mass $`m`$ in AdS space. It behaves near $`r=0`$ as

$$\varphi =\alpha (x)r^{d\lambda }+\beta (x)r^\lambda ,$$

where we take $`\lambda `$ to be the larger root of the equation $`\lambda (\lambda +d)=m^2`$. (For $`\lambda =d/2`$, a case we consider in section 4, the roots are equal and the two solutions are $`r^{d/2}`$ and $`r^{d/2}\mathrm{ln}r`$.) $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are canonically conjugate variables, analogous to $`\varphi `$ and $`_1\varphi `$ in the example treated above in which the boundary is at finite distance.

In the AdS/CFT correspondence, one interprets $`\beta (x)`$ as the expectation value of a scalar field $`𝒪`$ of dimension $`\lambda `$ in the boundary conformal field theory.3 For a certain range of negative values of $`m^2`$, there are two ways to quantize the $`\varphi `$ field in AdS space , and correspondingly $`𝒪`$ can have dimension $`d\lambda `$ instead of $`\lambda `$ \[17,,18\]. This possibility will enter in section 4. $`\alpha (x)`$ is related in a way we specify presently to a source for $`𝒪`$. The relationship between the fields and sources is analogous to the relationship between normalizable and unnormalizable operators in Liouville theory .

For theories with the familiar sort of large $`N`$ limit, $`𝒪`$ is a single-trace operator. To compute the expectation value of $`\mathrm{exp}(N^2d^nxf(x)𝒪)`$ in the boundary conformal field theory, the familiar recipe \[9,,10\] is to compute the AdS partition function with the boundary condition

$$\alpha =f$$

on $`\varphi `$.

Computing the expectation value of $`\mathrm{exp}(N^2d^nxf(x)𝒪)`$ is the same as computing the partition function of the boundary conformal field theory in the presence of a perturbation $`N^2W`$ added to the Lagrangian, where $`W=d^nxf(x)𝒪`$. Since $`\beta `$ corresponds in the AdS/CFT correspondence to the expectation value of $`𝒪`$, we can symbolically write the boundary coupling as $`W=d^nxf\beta `$.4 The factor of $`N^2`$ multiplying $`W`$ is replaced in the string theory by a factor of $`1/g_s^2`$, where $`g_s`$ is the string coupling constant. Both the bulk Lagrangian and the boundary coupling have this factor, so it does not show up in the boundary condition. If we do this, then the boundary condition (3.1) can be written

$$\alpha =\frac{\delta W}{\delta \beta }.$$

The problem of multi-trace interactions arises if we replace $`W`$ by a local but nonlinear functional $`W(x,𝒪,d𝒪,\mathrm{})`$ of $`𝒪`$ and its derivatives. Now we can state our proposal for incorporating multi-trace interactions in the AdS/CFT correspondence: interpret $`W`$ as a functional of $`\beta `$ by replacing $`𝒪`$ everywhere with $`\beta `$ to get a functional $`W(x,\beta ,d\beta ,\mathrm{})`$ and impose the boundary condition (3.1) whether $`W`$ is linear or not.

This generalizes immediately to the case of several scalar fields $`\varphi _i`$ of masses $`m_i`$. They behave near $`r=0`$ as

$$\varphi _i=\alpha _i(x)r^{d\lambda _i}+\beta _i(x)r^{\lambda _i}.$$

The $`\beta _i`$ are related to expectation values of operators $`𝒪_i`$ of dimension $`\lambda _i`$ in the boundary field theory, and the $`\alpha _i`$ are related to sources for those operators. Given a general multi-trace interaction $`W(x,𝒪_i,d𝒪_i,\mathrm{})`$ in the boundary theory, to incorporate it in the bulk theory we impose the boundary condition

$$\alpha _i=\frac{\delta W(x,\beta _k,d\beta _k,\mathrm{})}{\delta \beta _i}.$$

4. $`(\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2`$ Interaction In Four Dimensions And Related Examples

To illustrate this proposal, we consider first an example along lines suggested in : a renormalizable field theory in four dimensions with a double-trace interaction.

Let $`𝒪`$ be a half-BPS operator of dimension 2 in, for example, $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions. (For example, take $`𝒪=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are two of the scalar fields.) We want to perturb the theory with the boundary coupling

$$W=\frac{f}{2}d^4x𝒪^2.$$

$`f`$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. Classically, turning on $`f0`$ preserves conformal invariance while completely breaking supersymmetry. Quantum mechanically, conformal invariance is violated in order $`f^2`$.

In fact, on flat $`𝐑^4`$ at $`f=0`$, the two-point function of the operator $`𝒪`$ is determined by conformal invariance to be $`𝒪(x)𝒪(y)=v/|xy|^4`$, with $`v>0`$ by unitarity. This leads to a non-trivial beta function in order $`f^2`$. Indeed, to compute quantum mechanical amplitudes in order $`f^2`$, we would need matrix elements of

$$\frac{f^2}{8}d^4xd^4y𝒪^2(x)𝒪^2(y).$$

To evaluate the divergent contributions in (4.1), we need to know the operator product expansion of $`𝒪(x)𝒪(y)`$ for $`xy`$. In the large $`N`$ limit, the structure simplifies drastically: the two factors of $`𝒪`$ in $`𝒪^2(x)`$ or $`𝒪^2(y)`$ do not “interfere” with each other. A divergent term that renormalizes $`f`$ and survives in the large $`N`$ limit comes only from the identity operator appearing in the product $`𝒪(x)𝒪(y)`$ for one pair of $`𝒪`$’s (analogous to a “single contraction” in free field theory). So we have to evaluate the divergent part of

$$\frac{f^2}{2}d^4xd^4y𝒪(x)𝒪(y)𝒪(x)𝒪(y).$$

Setting $`w=yx`$, we encounter the logarithmically divergent integral

$$d^4w𝒪(x)𝒪(x+w)𝒪(0)𝒪(w)𝒪(x)^2d^4w\frac{v}{|w|^4}2\pi ^2v\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪(x)^2,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cutoff. This divergence, since it multiplies the operator $`𝒪^2(x)`$ that appears in the original interaction (4.1), can be interpreted as a renormalization of $`f`$. Because correlation functions factorize in the large $`N`$ limit, there are no higher order corrections to the beta function; the renormalization just described gives the full answer. Henceforth, we normalize $`𝒪`$ so that the beta function coefficient is 1.

Now, let us try to reproduce this behavior in the AdS language. Because $`𝒪`$ has dimension $`2=d/2`$, the corresponding scalar field $`\varphi `$ in AdS space has an exceptional behavior

$$\varphi =\alpha (x)r^2\mathrm{ln}(\mu r)+\beta (x)r^2$$

near the boundary. Here $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary scale factor that must be included to define the logarithm. Our boundary interaction, interpreted in AdS language, is $`W=\frac{f}{2}d^4x\beta ^2`$. Hence, the boundary condition (3.1) becomes

$$\alpha =f\beta .$$

With this boundary condition, the field behaves near infinity as

$$\varphi =\beta r^2(f\mathrm{ln}(\mu r)+1).$$

Let us try to extract from this the renormalization effects of the boundary field theory. We want to re-express (4.1) in terms of a bare coupling $`f_0`$ defined at a cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>>\mu `$, and a bare field $`\beta _0`$. We expect $`\beta `$ to be related to $`\beta _0`$ by multiplicative renormalization, $`\beta =F(f_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )\beta _0`$. Since the observable quantity $`\varphi `$ of the bulk theory must be independent of the quantity $`\mu `$ that was introduced in defining $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (or alternatively, it must be independent of the renormalization procedure used on the boundary), we want

$$\beta _0(f_0\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }r)+1)=\beta (f\mathrm{ln}(\mu r)+1).$$

It follows that $`\beta _0f_0=\beta f`$ and

$$f=\frac{f_0}{1+f_0\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )}.$$

(4.1) is the typical relation between the renormalized coupling and the bare coupling in a theory with only a “one-loop” beta function. Note that $`f>0`$ is required for positivity of the boundary coupling. As in analogous examples of large $`N`$ bosonic theories discussed in , the theory is not asymptotically free for $`f>0`$, though asymptotic freedom would arise formally for $`f<0`$.

A Line Of Fixed Points And A Nonperturbative Duality

Thus, we have shown in a non-trivial example how the more general boundary condition of the bulk theory reproduces the behavior of the boundary field theory. We will now consider another example that is suggested in part by a recent investigation in de Sitter space \[21,,22\]. We consider in $`D=d+1`$-dimensional AdS space a theory with two scalar fields $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ of equal mass squared. Thus near the boundary

$$\varphi _i\alpha _i(x)r^{d\lambda }+\beta _i(x)r^\lambda $$

with equal $`\lambda `$. We suppose that $`\lambda `$ is in the range $`d/2>\lambda >d/21`$ where  two methods of quantization are possible. We adopt one method of quantization for $`\varphi _1`$ and the second for $`\varphi _2`$, so that \[17,,18\] $`\varphi _1`$ is related in the boundary theory to a conformal primary operator $`𝒪_1`$ of dimension $`\lambda `$ but $`\varphi _2`$ is related to a conformal primary operator $`𝒪_2^{}`$ of dimension $`d\lambda `$. Because of the reversed method of quantizing $`\varphi _2`$, we write $`\beta _2=\alpha _2^{}`$, $`\alpha _2=\beta _2^{}`$, so (4.1) becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi _1\alpha _1(x)r^{d\lambda }& +\beta _1(x)r^\lambda \hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _i\beta _2^{}(x)r^{d\lambda }& +\alpha _2^{}(x)r^\lambda .\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2^{}`$ are related to the expectation values of $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2^{}`$, and $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2^{}`$ are related to sources for those operators.

Now we want to perturb the boundary theory by the marginal operator $`f𝒪_1𝒪_2^{}`$. This means that the boundary functional is to be $`W=fd^nx\beta _1\beta _2^{}`$, and hence the boundary condition (3.1) is

$$\alpha _1=f\beta _2^{},\alpha _2^{}=f\beta _1.$$

The boundary condition preserves conformal invariance and is compatible with $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0`$. Because $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are fields of non-zero mass squared, they vanish in the unperturbed AdS solution at $`f=0`$. That solution still obeys the boundary conditions for $`f0`$, and so if stable remains the correct solution for any $`f`$. So (modulo stability) we get in this way a line of conformal fixed points, parameterized by $`f`$. The dependence of this family on $`f`$ is non-trivial, since the operator $`𝒪_1𝒪_2^{}`$ is a nonzero conformal primary, and correlation functions computed using the boundary condition (4.1) will certainly depend on $`f`$.

In fact, this line of fixed points admits a nonperturbative duality. The boundary condition (4.1) is invariant under $`f1/f`$ together with $`\alpha _1\beta _1`$, $`\alpha _2^{}\beta _2^{}`$. The latter operation is not a symmetry of the full theory, since it is not a symmetry of the $`r0`$ formulas in (4.1). But suppose that the bulk theory has a symmetry that exchanges $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. Our method of quantization broke this symmetry, because we quantized $`\varphi _1`$ one way and $`\varphi _2`$ the other way. But $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ is a symmetry when combined with $`f1/f`$. For this operation, which exchanges $`\alpha _1`$ with $`\alpha _2=\beta _2^{}`$ and $`\beta _1`$ with $`\beta _2=\alpha _2^{}`$, is a symmetry of both (4.1) and (4.1) as well as being, by hypothesis, a symmetry of the bulk theory.

For $`f\mathrm{}`$, the physics is the same as at small $`f`$ except that $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are exchanged. So in this limit, $`\varphi _1`$ is quantized to give an operator of dimension $`d\lambda `$ and $`\varphi _2`$ to give an operator of dimension $`\lambda `$, the reverse of the situation for small $`f`$. Such a switch in varying $`f`$ is possible because for $`f`$ of order one, the two operators are mixed by the $`𝒪_1𝒪_2^{}`$ perturbation.

In the above, since we assumed $`\lambda <d/2`$, we could have added a relevant perturbation $`𝒪_1^2`$, corresponding to a term $`\beta _1^2`$ in $`W`$. One can analyze the effects of such a relevant perturbation in a fashion similar to the above. In fact, in doing so, let us for simplicity omit the field $`\varphi _2`$ and return to the case of a single scalar field $`\varphi `$ with expansion

$$\varphi \alpha r^{d\lambda }+\beta r^\lambda .$$

For $`d/2>\lambda >d/21`$, we can quantize the field with a boundary condition $`\alpha =0`$, in which case it corresponds to an operator $`𝒪`$ of dimension $`\lambda `$ in the boundary theory, or with a boundary condition $`\beta =0`$, in which case it corresponds to an operator $`𝒪^{}`$ of dimension $`d\lambda `$ in the boundary theory. Let us adopt the first method of quantization but include a relevant perturbation $`W=\frac{g}{2}\beta ^2`$. The boundary condition is $`\alpha =g\beta `$, and we see that as $`g\mathrm{}`$, the boundary condition approaches the condition $`\beta =0`$ that is suitable for quantization to get a field of dimension $`d\lambda `$. So in fact, the renormalization group flow leads from one method of quantization to the other. If we quantize with $`\beta =0`$ to get an operator of dimension $`d\lambda `$, the perturbation that would probe this flow would be $`W=\frac{g^{}}{2}\alpha ^2`$, which is an irrelevant perturbation by an operator of dimension $`2(d\lambda )`$.

The results we have just found are quite similar to results found in the old matrix model , where adding a double trace interaction with a suitable coefficient reverses the “gravitational dressing” of the interaction. (For a review, see .) Such a reversal is the Liouville analog of switching from $`\lambda `$ to $`d\lambda `$ the dimension of the operator that is associated with a given bulk field in the boundary theory.

A Remark On Boundary States

In section 3, we noted that the boundary condition (3.1) can be interpreted formally as saying that the boundary condition determines a quantum state, sometimes called the boundary state. In AdS space, this interpretation is somewhat formal because the boundary is at spatial infinity. Especially in the case of a Lorentz signature AdS space, to have a quantum state flowing in from spatial infinity does not correspond to standard physical intuition.5 Nevertheless, this viewpoint has been adopted in some previous papers, for example .

The situation is somewhat different in de Sitter space, with positive cosmological constant. Here the boundary is at past and future infinity, and it is perfectly natural to interpret the physical conditions at the boundary as defining an initial or final state $`|i`$ or $`f|`$, and the path integral as a matrix element $`f|i`$. From this point of view, any operators that might be inserted in the past and future induce changes in the initial and final states. Hence the boundary correlation functions, studied in \[24,,25,,21,,22\], arise by expanding the transition matrix element $`f|i`$ in “perturbation theory” around the de Sitter invariant state,6 Existence of more than one de Sitter invariant state, as investigated in \[21,,22\], presumably means that there are different possible Hilbert spaces – inequivalent quantizations of the field – as occurs in flat spacetime in the presence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. a process in which one can extract part of the information contained in that transition matrix element. The correlation functions were approached from this standpoint in .

This work was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-0070928. I would like to thank J. Maldacena, E. Silverstein, and I. R. Klebanov for discussions.

References

relax G. ’t Hooft, “A Planar Diagram Theory For Strong Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B72 (1974) 461. relax J. Maldacena, “The Large $`N`$ Limit Of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231. relax S. R. Das, A. Dhar, A. M. Sengupta, and S. R. Wadia, “New Critical Behavior in $`D=0`$ Large $`N`$ Matrix Models,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A5 (1990) 1041. relax L. Alvarez-Gaumé, J. L. Barbon, and C. Crnkovic, “A Proposal For Strings At $`D>1`$,” Nucl. Phys. B394 (1993) 383. relax G. Korchemsky, “Matrix Model Perturbed By Higher Order Curvature Terms,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A7 (1992) 3081, “Loops In The Curvature Matrix Model,” Phys. Lett. B296 (1992) 323. relax I. R. Klebanov, “Touching Random Surfaces And Liouville Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 1836; I. R. Klebanov and A. Hashimoto, “Nonperturbative Solution Of Matrix Models Modified By Trace-Squared Terms,” Nucl. Phys. B434 (1995) 264; J. L. F. Barbon, K. Demeterfi, I. R. Klebanov, and C. Schmidhuber, “Correlation Functions In Matrix Models Modified By Wormhole Terms,” Nucl. Phys. B440 (1995) 189. relax I. R. Klebanov and A. Hashimoto, “Wormholes, Matrix Models, and Liouville Gravity,” in String Theory, Gauge Theory, and Quantum Gravity, ed. R. Dijkgraaf et. al. (North Holland, 1996). relax O. Aharony, M. Berkooz, and E. Silverstein, “Multiple Trace Operators And Nonlocal String Theories,” JHEP 0108:006 (2001), hep-th/0105309, “Non-Local String Theories On $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ And Stable Non-Supersymmetric Backgrounds,” hep-th/0112178. relax S. Gubser, I. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge Theory Correlators From Noncritical String Theory,” Phys. Lett. B428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109. relax E. Witten, “Anti De Sitter Space And Holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150. relax E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, G. Parisi, and J.-B. Zuber, “Planar Diagrams,” Commun. Math. Phys. 59 (1978) 35. relax D. J. Gross and A. A. Migdal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 717; M. Douglas and S. Shenker, Nucl. Phys. B335 (1990) 635; E. Brezin and V. Kazakov, Phys. Lett. 236B (1990) 144. relax P. Minces and V. O. Rivelles, “Energy And The AdS/CFT Correspondence,” hep-th/0110189. relax M. Berkooz, A. Sever, and A. Shomer, “ ‘Double-Trace’ Deformations, Boundary Conditions, And Spacetime Singularities,” hep-th/0112264. relax C. G. Callan, Jr., C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi, and S. A. Yost, “Adding Holes And Crosscaps To The Superstring,” Nucl. Phys. B293 (1987) 83. relax D. Z. Freedman and P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “Stability In Gauged Extended Supergravity,” Ann. Phys. 144 (1982) 249. relax V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus, and A. Lawrence, “Bulk vs. Boundary Dynamics In Anti-de Sitter Spacetimes,” hep-th/9808017. relax I. Klebanov and E. Witten, “AdS/CFT Correspondence And Symmetry Breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B556 (1999) 89, hep-th/9905104. relax N. Seiberg, “Notes On Quantum Liouville Theory And Quantum Gravity,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 102 (1990) 319. relax D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, “Dynamical Symmetry Breaking In Asymptotically Free Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 3235. relax M. Spradlin, A. Strominger, and A. Volovich, “Les Houches Lectures On De Sitter Space,” hep-th/0110007. relax R. Bousso, A. Maloney, and A. Strominger, “Conformal Vacua And Entropy In De Sitter Space,” hep-th/0112218. relax E. Witten, “AdS/CFT Correspondence And Topological Field Theory,” JHEP 9812:012 (1998), hep-th/9812012. relax E. Witten, “Quantum Gravity In de Sitter Space,” hep-th/01060109. relax A. Strominger, “The dS/CFT Correspondence,” JHEP 0110:034 (2001).


text:
# What does the local black hole mass distribution tell us about the evolution of the quasar luminosity function?

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of remarkable correlations between the masses of supermassive BHs hosted at the centers of galaxies and the global properties of the parent galaxies themselves 8 ; 9 ; 12  leads to a natural link between the cosmological evolution of QSOs and the formation history of galaxies 2 . The investigation of such interesting correlations looks promising not only to better understand how and when galaxies formed, but also to obtain information on the QSO population itself 4 . Here we focus on two specific points raised by the general remarks above: 1) The use of the “Magorrian relation” to determine the QSO duty cycle at redshift $`z=0`$; 2) The expected relation between the cosmological evolution of the total luminosity emitted by star–forming galaxies and that of the total luminosity emitted by QSOs. As we will see, an interesting consequence of this last point is the possible existence of a physical process limiting gas accretion onto BHs at high redshifts. The observational inputs of our analysis are the Magorrian relation 12 , the galaxy mass–to–light ratio (from the Fundamental Plane) 5 ; 6 , the present-day luminosity function of spheroids 14 , the present-day and the integrated QSO cosmological (light) evolution 13 , and finally the star formation history 11 . A possible alternative to the use of the mass-to-light ratio is the use of the Faber-Jackson 7  relation coupled with the so-called $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sigma `$ relation 8 ; 9 . The technical details will be given elsewhere 4 .

## 2 Results

We start our analysis by deriving the QSO’s mean accretion efficiency associated with the BH’s growth (see, e.g., 15 ) as $`ϵE_\mathrm{Q}^\mathrm{T}/M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{T}c^20.06`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{T}`$ is the present-day total mass of BHs at the center of stellar spheroids, and $`E_\mathrm{Q}^\mathrm{T}`$ is the total energy emitted by all QSOs over the entire life of the Universe. We then derive the QSO (mean) duty cycle $`f_\mathrm{Q}`$ in two ways:

$$<f_\mathrm{Q}>_x\frac{ϵc^2M_{\mathrm{BH}}(x)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}L_\mathrm{Q}(x,t)𝑑t},<f_\mathrm{Q}>_x\frac{N_{\mathrm{BH}}^>[M_{\mathrm{BH}}(x)]}{N_\mathrm{Q}^>[L_\mathrm{Q}(x,0)]},$$
(1)
where $`L_\mathrm{Q}(x,t)`$ is such that QSOs brighter than $`L_\mathrm{Q}(x,t)`$ (whose number is $`N_\mathrm{Q}^>[L_\mathrm{Q}(x,t)]`$) emit the fraction $`x`$ of $`L_\mathrm{Q}^\mathrm{T}(t)`$, and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}(x)`$ is such that all BHs heavier than $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}(x)`$ (whose number is $`N_{\mathrm{BH}}^>[M_{\mathrm{BH}}(x)]`$) sum up to $`xM_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{T}`$ (at z=0). We found that the two ways give consistently $`<f_\mathrm{Q}>_{0.1}0.003`$ and $`<f_\mathrm{Q}>_{0.9}0.006`$, in good agreement with theoretical results 1 . Our result is similar in spirit but different in detail from that derived in 10 , who obtained a QSO lifetime of $`10^7`$ yr at a Hubble epoch of $`10^9`$ yr or, in our terms, $`f_\mathrm{Q}10^2`$. Finally, an interesting expectation based on the Magorrian relation would be a parallel evolution of the QSO accretion and star formation histories. As is well known, at $`z\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ the QSO total luminosity and the UV luminosity associated to the star formation history are indeed roughly parallel but at $`z\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ they have clearly divergent slopes. A fit shows that the QSO luminosity evolution is reasonably well fitted under the assumptions that BHs are accreting at one tenth of the Eddington luminosity, as computed under the standard assumption of pure electron scattering. A global picture could then be that at low redshift the BH accretion (and star formation) are limited by the available amount of gas, while at high redshift some extra source of opacity (as for example bremsstrahlung opacity 3 ), able to reduce the Eddington luminosity of one order of magnitude (with respect to the pure electron scattering case), is at work 4 .


text:
# Conservative Quantum Computing

## Abstract

Conservation laws limit the accuracy of physical implementations of elementary quantum logic gates. If the computational basis is represented by a component of spin and physical implementations obey the angular momentum conservation law, any physically realizable unitary operators with size less than $`n`$ qubits cannot implement the controlled-NOT gate within the error probability $`1/(4n^2)`$, where the size is defined as the total number of the computational qubits and the ancilla qubits. An analogous limit for bosonic ancillae is also obtained to show that the lower bound of the error probability is inversely proportional to the average number of photons. Any set of universal gates inevitably obeys a related limitation with error probability $`O(1/n^2)`$. To circumvent the above or related limitations yielded by conservation laws, it is recommended that the computational basis should be chosen as the one commuting with the additively conserved quantities.

Since the discovery of Shor’s algorithm , physical realization of quantum computers is one of the major topics in physics. One of the formidable obstacles to the realization of quantum computers is the decoherence induced by the environment. The theory of quantum error correction and the theory of fault-tolerant quantum computing have been developed to overcome this difficulty. One of the main achievements of this field is the threshold theorem: Provided the noise in individual quantum gates is below a certain threshold it is possible to efficiently perform an arbitrarily large quantum computing. However, the threshold is rather demanding and the problem turns to whether there is any fundamental limit for implementing quantum gates. Recently, Lloyd  and Ng  have discussed how fundamental constants provide limits on speed and memory of quantum computers. Here, I will propose another approach based on conservation laws.

If we consider the ultimate performance of computing allowed by the laws of physics, elementary quantum gates should be isolated and small, so that the corresponding unitary operators should satisfy fundamental symmetries, or conservation laws. From this point of view, it is likely that the degree of conflict with a conservation law depends on the nature of its logic to be performed and that the imperfection can be reduced by increasing the size of implementation. However, no serious investigation has ever taken place. In this letter we model qubits as spin 1/2 objects and investigate the quantum limit induced by the angular momentum conservation law. We show that although the SWAP gate has no conflict with the conservation law, the controlled-NOT gate, which is one of the universal quantum logic gates, cannot be implemented by any 2-qubit rotationally invariant unitary operation within error probability $`1/16`$. Thus, to obtain more accuracy, we need to blow up the unitary operation to an ancilla system. Then, the size of an implementation of the quantum gate is defined as the total number of qubits in the computational basis and the ancilla. It is shown that any physically realizable unitary operator with size less than $`n`$ qubits cannot implement the controlled-NOT gate within the error probability $`1/(4n^2)`$. An analogous limit for bosonic ancillae will be also obtained by defining the size of the ancilla as 2 times the square root of the average number of photons, and thus the lower bound is inversely proportional to the average number of photons. It is also shown that in any set of universal gates, for any size limit $`s`$ there is at least one gate which cannot be implemented within the error probability $`1/(ks^2)`$ for some constant $`k`$. Thus, we cannot circumvent this limitation by a clever choice of the set of universal gates.

Let $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ be a controlled-NOT gate on a 2-qubit system $`𝐂+𝐓`$. Let $`X_i`$, $`Y_i`$, and $`Z_i`$ be the Pauli operators of qubit $`𝐂`$ for $`i=1`$ or qubit $`𝐓`$ for $`i=2`$ defined by $`X_i=|10|+|01|`$, $`Y_i=i|10|i|01|`$, and $`Z_i=|00||11|`$ with the computational basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$. On the computational basis, $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ acts as $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}|a,b=|a,ba`$ for $`a,b=0,1`$, where $``$ denotes the addition modulo 2. Thus, in particular, we have

$$U_{\mathrm{CN}}|a,0=|a,a$$
(1)
for $`a=0,1`$. The above relation shows that the unitary operator $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ serves as an interaction between the “object” $`𝐂`$ and the “probe” $`𝐓`$ for a measurement of $`Z_1`$ satisfying the projection postulate. Thus, by the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem , if there are additive conserved quantities not commuting with $`Z_1`$, the unitary operator $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ cannot be implemented. To be precise, let $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ be a pair of observables of $`𝐂`$ and $`𝐓`$, respectively, such that

$$[Z_1,L_1]0.$$
(2)
Then, the controlled-NOT gate $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ cannot satisfy the conservation law

$$[U_{\mathrm{CN}},L_1+L_2]=0.$$
(3)
A simple proof runs as follows. Assume Eq. (3). If $`ab`$, we have

$`a|L_1|b`$ $`=`$ $`a,0|L_1+L_2|b,0`$
$`=`$ $`a,0|U_{\mathrm{CN}}^{}(L_1+L_2)U_{\mathrm{CN}}|b,0`$
$`=`$ $`a,a|L_1+L_2|b,b=0.`$
Thus, $`L_1`$ is diagonal in the computational basis of $`𝐂`$. Therefore, if $`L_1`$ does not commute with $`Z_1`$, then $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ cannot satisfy the conservation law (3). In particular, $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ cannot be implemented in the presence of the angular momentum conservation law.

The above impossibility of implementation depends on the logic. Despite the limitation on the controlled-NOT gate, the SWAP gate $`U_{\mathrm{SWAP}}`$, defined by $`U_{\mathrm{SWAP}}|a,b=|b,a`$ for $`a,b=0,1`$, can be implemented precisely under the angular momentum conservation law. In fact, the SWAP gate can be precisely implemented as

$$U_{\mathrm{SWAP}}=\mathrm{exp}\frac{i\pi }{4}(1+X_1X_2+Y_1Y_2+Z_1Z_2).$$
(4)
In order to construct a physical implementation of $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$, the above consideration suggests the need for blowing up the unitary operation to a larger system including additional qubits. Let $`\alpha =(U,|\xi )`$ be a physical implementation of $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ defined by a unitary operator $`U`$ on the system $`𝐂+𝐓+𝐀`$, where $`𝐀`$ is a quantum system called the ancilla, and a state vector $`|\xi `$ of the ancilla, in which the ancilla is prepared at the time at which $`U`$ is turned on. The implementation $`\alpha =(U,|\xi )`$ defines a trace-preserving quantum operation $`_\alpha `$ by

$$_\alpha (\rho )=\text{Tr}_𝐀[U(\rho |\xi \xi |)U^{}]$$
(5)
for any density operator $`\rho `$ of the system $`𝐂+𝐓`$, where $`\text{Tr}_𝐀`$ stands for the partial trace over the system $`𝐀`$. On the other hand, the gate $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ defines the trace-preserving quantum operation $`\mathrm{ad}U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ by

$$\mathrm{ad}U_{\mathrm{CN}}(\rho )=U_{\mathrm{CN}}\rho U_{\mathrm{CN}}^{}$$
(6)
for any density operator $`\rho `$ of the system $`𝐂+𝐓`$.

How successful the implementation $`(U,|\xi )`$ has been is most appropriately measured by the completely bounded (CB) distance between two operations $`_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{ad}U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ defined by

$$D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})=\underset{n,\rho }{sup}D(_\alpha \mathrm{id}_n(\rho ),\mathrm{ad}U_{\mathrm{CN}}\mathrm{id}_n(\rho )),$$
(7)
where $`n`$ runs over positive integers, $`\mathrm{id}_n`$ is the identity operation on an $`n`$-level system $`𝐒_n`$, $`\rho `$ runs over density operators of the system $`𝐂+𝐓+𝐒_n`$, and $`D(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)`$ stands for the trace distance\[2, p. 403\] of two states $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. Since the trace distance of the above two states can be interpreted as an achievable upper bound on the so-called total variation distance of two probability distributions arising from measurements performed on the two output states of the corresponding gates \[2, p. 405\], we interpret $`D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})`$ as the worst error probability of operation $`_\alpha `$ in simulating the gate $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ on any input state of any circuit including those two gates. We shall call $`D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})`$ the gate error probability of the implementation $`\alpha `$ of the gate $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$.

Another measure, which is more tractable in computations, is the gate fidelity\[2, p. 418\] defined by

$$F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})=\underset{|\psi }{\mathrm{min}}F(\psi )$$
(8)
where $`|\psi `$ varies over all state vectors of $`𝐂+𝐓`$, and $`F(\psi )`$ is the fidelity of two states $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}|\psi `$ and $`_\alpha (|\psi \psi |)`$ given by

$$F(\psi )=\psi |U_{\mathrm{CN}}^{}_\alpha (|\psi \psi |)U_{\mathrm{CN}}|\psi ^{1/2}.$$
(9)
By the relation\[2, p. 416\]

$$1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}}),$$
(10)
any lower bound of $`1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2`$ gives a lower bound of the gate error probability. The operator $`U`$ and the operation $`_\alpha `$ is generally described by the following actions on computational basis states

$`U|a,b|\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c,d=0}{\overset{1}{}}}|c,d|E_{cd}^{ab}`$ (11)
$`_\alpha (|a,ba,b|)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l=0}{\overset{1}{}}}|i,jE_{k,l}^{a,b}|E_{i,j}^{a,b}k,l|`$ (12)
for $`a,b=0,1`$, where $`|E_{cd}^{ab}`$ is not necessarily normalized. It follows that the fidelity is given by

$$F(a,b)=|E_{a,ba}^{a,b}.$$
(13)
Now, we assume that there are additive conserved quantities $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, and $`L_3`$ of systems $`𝐂`$, $`𝐓`$, and $`𝐀`$, respectively, so that the unitary operator $`U`$ should satisfy the conservation law

$$[U,L_1+L_2+L_3]=0.$$
(14)
Since computational qubits, $`𝐂`$ and $`𝐓`$, should have the same physical structure, we naturally assume $`L_1=L_2`$ for their operator norms.

Our problem is to find a good lower bound of the gate error probability (7) under the conservation law (14). In order to derive the lower bound from uncertainty relations, we introduce the deviation operators $`D_{ij}`$ of the system $`𝐂+𝐓+𝐀`$ for $`i,j=1,2`$ defined by

$$D_{ij}=Z_i^{}Z_j,$$
(15)
where we write $`A^{}=U^{}AU`$ for any operator $`A`$. The root-mean-square deviation $`\delta _{ij}(\psi )`$ on arbitrary input state $`|\psi `$ of $`𝐂`$ is defined as the root-mean-square of the deviation operator $`D_{ij}`$ in state $`|\psi ,0,\xi =|\psi |0|\xi `$, i.e.,

$$\delta _{ij}(\psi )=D_{ij}^2^{1/2},$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ abbreviates $`\psi ,0,\xi |\mathrm{}|\psi ,0,\xi `$. For any observable $`A`$, we shall denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ the standard deviation of $`A`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=(AA)^2^{1/2}`$. Then, we easily see

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_{ij}\delta _{ij}(\psi )$$
(17)
for $`i,j=1,2`$. In the case where $`U=U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$, we have $`D_{11}=0`$, $`D_{12}=Z_1Z_2`$, $`D_{21}=Z_1(Z_2I)`$, and $`D_{22}=(Z_1I)Z_2`$, so that $`\delta _{11}(\psi )=\delta _{21}(\psi )=0`$ for any state $`|\psi `$ of $`𝐂`$. Thus, the relation $`\delta _{11}(\psi )^2+\delta _{21}(\psi )^2>0`$ implies $`UU_{\mathrm{CN}}`$. Hence, the quantity $`\delta _{11}(\psi )^2+\delta _{21}(\psi )^2`$ measures a degree of imperfection.

Now, we shall evaluate $`\delta _{11}(\psi )`$ and $`\delta _{21}(\psi )`$ for a general implementation $`\alpha =(U,|\xi )`$ under the conservation law (14). From the conservation law (14) and the relations $`[Z_1,L_2]=[Z_1,L_3]=0`$, we have

$$[Z_1,L_1]=[Z_1,L_1^{}]+[Z_1,L_2^{}]+[Z_1,L_3^{}].$$
(18)
From the definition of deviation operators, Eq. (15), we have

$`[Z_1,L_1^{}]=[L_1^{},D_{21}]\text{and}[Z_1,L_2^{}]=[L_2^{},D_{11}],`$ (20)
$`[Z_1,L_3^{}]=[L_3^{},D_{11}]=[L_3^{},D_{21}].`$ (21)
Thus, we have the following noise commutation relations

$`[Z_1,L_1]`$ $`=`$ $`[L_1^{},D_{21}]+[L_2^{},D_{11}]+[L_3^{},D_{11}],`$ (22)
$`[Z_1,L_1]`$ $`=`$ $`[L_1^{},D_{21}]+[L_2^{},D_{11}]+[L_3^{},D_{21}].`$ (23)
Taking the modulus of the expectations of the both sides of Eq. (22) and applying the triangular inequality, we have

$`|[Z_1,L_1]|`$ (24)
$``$ $`|[L_1^{},D_{21}]|+|[L_2^{},D_{11}]|+|[L_3^{},D_{21}]|.`$ (25)
By the uncertainty relation  and Eq. (17), we have

$$|[L_k^{},D_{ij}]|2\mathrm{\Delta }D_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }L_k^{}2\delta _{ij}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_k^{}.$$
(26)
Thus, we obtain the following consequence of the first noise commutation relation, Eq. (22),

$`|[Z_1,L_1]|`$ $``$ $`2\delta _{21}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_1^{}+2\delta _{11}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{}`$ (28)
$`+2\delta _{11}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{}.`$
Similarly, from the second noise commutation relation, Eq. (23), we obtain the following relation

$`|[Z_1,L_1]|`$ $``$ $`2\delta _{21}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_1^{}+2\delta _{11}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{}`$ (30)
$`+2\delta _{21}(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{}.`$
Summing up both inequalities and using the relations $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_1^{},\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{}L_1=L_2`$, we have

$$|[Z_1,L_1]|(\delta _{11}(\psi )+\delta _{21}(\psi ))(2L_1+\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{}).$$

By the inequality $`(x+y)^2/2x^2+y^2`$, we have the lower bound of the imperfection

$$\frac{|[Z_1,L_1]|^2}{2(2L_1+\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{})^2}\delta _{11}(\psi )^2+\delta _{21}(\psi )^2.$$
(31)
Let us consider the computational basis defined by the spin component of the $`z`$ direction and the angular momentum conservation law for the $`x`$ direction. Thus, we assume $`L_i=X_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$, so that

$$L_1=L_2=1,$$
(32)
and that $`L_3`$ is considered as the $`x`$-component of the total angular momentum divided by $`\mathrm{}/2`$ of the ancilla system $`𝐀`$. In order to maximize the bound in Eq. (31), suppose that the input state $`|\psi `$ is the spin state of the $`y`$ direction, i.e., $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1).`$ Then, by straightforward calculations we have

$`\delta _{11}(\psi )^2`$ $`=`$ $`2|E_{00}^{10}^2+2|E_{01}^{10}^2+2|E_{10}^{00}^2`$ (34)
$`+2|E_{11}^{00}^2,`$
$`\delta _{21}(\psi )^2`$ $`=`$ $`2|E_{00}^{10}^2+2|E_{01}^{00}^2+2|E_{10}^{10}^2`$ (36)
$`+2|E_{11}^{00}^2.`$
Since $`_{c,d=0}^1|E_{cd}^{ab}^2=1`$ for $`a,b=0,1`$, from Eq. (13) we have

$`\delta _{11}(\psi )^2+\delta _{21}(\psi )^2`$ (37)
$``$ $`4[1F(00)^2]+4[1F(10)^2]`$ (38)
$``$ $`8[1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2].`$ (39)
Since $`[Z_1,L_1]=[Z_1,X_1]=2iY_1`$, we have

$$|[Z_1,L_1]|=2.$$
(40)
Thus, from Eqs. (31), (32), (37), and (40), we have the following fundamental lower bound of the gate error probability

$$\frac{1}{4(2+\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{})^2}1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}}).$$
(41)
In the following, we shall interpret the above relation in terms of the notion of the size of implementations for fermionic and bosonic ancillae separately.

We now assume that the ancilla $`𝐀`$ comprises qubits. Then, the size $`s(\alpha )`$ of the implementation $`\alpha `$ is defined to be the total number $`n`$ of the qubits included in $`𝐂+𝐓+𝐀`$. Then, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{}L_3=n2.$$
(42)
Thus, we have the following lower bound of the gate error probability

$$\frac{1}{4s(\alpha )^2}1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}}),$$
(43)
with $`s(\alpha )=n`$. Therefore, it has been proven that if the computational basis is represented by the $`z`$-component of spin, any implementation with size $`n`$ which preserves the $`x`$-component of angular momentum cannot simulate the controlled-NOT gate within the error probability $`1/(4n^2)`$. In particular, any implementation on $`𝐂+𝐓`$ cannot simulate $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ within the error probability $`1/16`$.

In current proposals , the external electromagnetic field prepared by the laser beam is considered to be a feasible candidate for the ancilla $`𝐀`$ to be coupled with the computational qubits $`𝐂+𝐓`$ via the dipole interaction. In this case, an analogous limit for bosonic ancillae is obtained by defining the size of the ancilla as 2 times the square root of the average number of photons, and thus the lower boud is inversely proportional to the average number of phtons. In fact, the ancilla state $`|\xi `$ is considered to be a coherent state, for which we have $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2=\xi |N|\xi =N`$, where $`N`$ is the number operator. We assume that the beam propagates to the $`x`$-direction with RHC polarization. Then, we have $`L_3=2N`$, and hence

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{}=2\mathrm{\Delta }N^{}=2N^{}^{1/2}2(N+2)^{1/2}.$$
(44)
Thus, Eq. (43) holds with defining the size of implementation $`\alpha `$ by $`s(\alpha )=2N^{1/2}`$ appropriately for the strong field, and hence Eq. (43) turns to be the relation

$$\frac{1}{16N}1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}}).$$
(45)
Formula (43) holds, therefore, appropriately for both fermionic and bosonic ancillae. In the most general case, Eq. (43) holds with $`s(\alpha )=2+\mathrm{\Delta }L_3^{}`$ dependent on the ancilla state, or with $`s(\alpha )=2+L_3`$ independent of the ancilla state.

The above limit on implementations of elementary gates cannot be circumvented by any choices of the set of universal gates. In fact, we can generally prove that in any set of universal gates, for any size limit $`s`$ there is at least one gate which cannot be implemented within the error probability $`1/(ks^2)`$ for some constant $`k`$. A proof runs as follows. Suppose that $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ can be constructed from $`m`$ elementary gates. Let $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}=U_m\mathrm{}U_1`$ and $`_\alpha =_m\mathrm{}_1`$, where $`_i`$ is the operation of the best implementation of gate $`U_i`$ with size $`s`$. Then, $`s(\alpha )ms`$, and hence from the chain property of CB distance, we have

$$\frac{1}{4(ms)^2}D_{CB}(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}D_{CB}(_i,U_i).$$
(46)
Thus, one of $`U_i`$ must satisfy $`1/(4m^3s^2)D_{CB}(_i,U_i).`$

By modifying the model of a measurement due to Araki and Yanase , it can be shown that there is a physical implementation $`\alpha `$ of $`U_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ with any size $`n`$ satisfying the angular momentum conservation law such that $`1F(_\alpha ,U_{\mathrm{CN}})^2=O(1/n)`$. Thus, it is really possible to make the error probability small by making the ancilla large. The detailed construction will be discussed elsewhere.

Although it is difficult to envisage what the hardware of the quantum computer will be like, in order to realize a mobile quantum computer a fermionic ancilla appears to be plausible. The current theory demands the “threshold” error probability $`10^5`$$`10^6`$ for each quantum gate \[2, p. 482\]. Thus, a single controlled-NOT gate would not in reality a unitary operation on a 2-qubit system but will be a unitary operation on a system with at least 100 qubits, as long as the computational basis is chosen as a spin component. The present investigation suggests that the current choice of the computational basis should be modified so that the computational basis commutes with the conserved quantity. Since the additive conserved quantity has degenerate spectrum on the multiple qubits, we may find such a computational basis comprised of orthogonal entangled states over a multiple-qubit system. Accordingly, the theory of fault-tolerant quantum computing based on single qubit errors should be modified to incorporate with such choice of the computational basis.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Julio Gea-Banacloche and Horace Yuen for helpful comments. This work was supported by the R&D on Quantum Commun. Tech. Program of MPHPT, by the CREST project of the JST, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the JSPS.