format: text

text:
# Quantum Geometry In Action: Big Bang and Black Holes

## 1 Introduction

Major paradigm shifts in theoretical physics have required mathematical arenas that were, at the time, new to physics. Newton’s mechanics and theory of gravitation could not have been introduced without calculus; Maxwell’s electrodynamics required partial differential equations and analysis; Einstein had to learn differential geometry to develop general relativity; and quantum mechanics needed the theory of Hilbert spaces and operator algebras. It is widely believed that quantum gravity will lead to the next profound paradigm shift in physics. What would be the required mathematical arenas? The answers to this question vary. For example, Roger Penrose’s twistor theory posits that space-time would be a secondary, derived concept, arising from a 4-dimensional complex space; the fundamental theory would be based on complex manifolds, sheaf-cohomology and algebraic geometry. Alain Conne’s approach aims at describing fundamental physics through non-commutative geometry. In the loop quantum gravity approach I will discuss here, the basic tool is Riemannian quantum geometry. Just as differential geometry provides the mathematical language to formulate classical gravitational theories, such as general relativity, a specific quantum Riemannian geometry provides the required setting for quantum gravitational theories. Since this subject was covered in detail by Baez, I will only provide a semi-qualitative introduction and focus, rather, on applications of this quantum geometry. However, let me make a general remark in this Introduction. As Dennis Sullivan emphasized during discussions at the conference, from the perspective of graph theory, freedom in the construction of a (background independent) quantum theory of geometry is very limited. Thus, the mathematical structures, definitions and constructions we use are not only natural from this perspective, but essentially unique.

Let us now turn to physics. What are some of the central physical and conceptual questions of quantum gravity? I would like to outline a few of these to give a flavor of the subject. Since this article is addressed to non-specialists, I will select questions that arise from what we already know about Nature, and what we expect based on physical theories which are firmly based on observations, avoiding issues —such as higher dimensions and supersymmetry– that are internal to specific quantum gravity programs and which have yet to receive observational support. Further discussion of the background material can be found in Section 3.

$``$ Big-Bang and other singularities: It is widely believed that the prediction of a singularity, such as the big-bang of classical general relativity, is primarily a signal that the physical theory has been pushed beyond the domain of its validity. A key question to any quantum gravity theory, then, is: What replaces the big-bang? Is there a mathematically consistent description of the evolution of the quantum state of the universe which is singularity free? General relativity predicts that the space-time curvature must grow as we approach the big-bang but we expect the quantum effects, ignored by general relativity, to intervene, making quantum gravity indispensable before infinite curvatures are reached. If so, what is the upper bound on curvature? How close to the big-bang can we ‘trust’ classical general relativity? What can we say about the ‘initial conditions’, i.e., the quantum state of geometry and matter that correctly describes the big-bang? If they have to be imposed externally, is there a physical guiding principle?

$``$ Black holes: In the early seventies, using imaginative thought experiments, Jacob Bekenstein argued that black holes must carry entropy proportional to their area. About the same time, Jim Bardeen, Brandon Carter and Stephen Hawking (BCH) showed that black holes in equilibrium obey two basic laws, which have the same form as the zeroth and the first laws of ordinary thermodynamics, provided one replaces the area of the black hole horizon $`a_{\mathrm{hor}}`$ by a multiple of the entropy $`S`$ in thermodynamics and black hole surface gravity $`\kappa `$ by a corresponding multiple of the temperature $`T`$.111One can think of the horizon as the ‘surface’ of the black hole. In classical general relativity, one can not send causal signals from the region within the horizon to the region outside. Surface gravity $`\kappa `$ is, roughly, the black hole analog of the acceleration $`g`$ due to gravity on the surface of the earth. However, at first this similarity was thought to be only a formal analogy because the BCH analysis was based on classical general relativity and simple dimensional considerations show that the proportionality factors must involve Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$. Two years later, using quantum field theory on a black hole background space-time, Hawking showed that black holes in fact radiate quantum mechanically as though they are black bodies at temperature $`T=\mathrm{}\kappa /2\pi `$. Using the analogy with the first law, one can then conclude that the black hole entropy should be given by $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=a_{\mathrm{hor}}/4G\mathrm{}`$, where $`G`$ is Newton’s gravitational constant. This conclusion is striking and deep because it brings together the three pillars of fundamental physics —general relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics. However, the argument itself is a rather hodge-podge mixture of classical and semi-classical ideas, reminiscent of the Bohr theory of atom. A natural question then is: what is the analog of the more fundamental, Pauli-Schrödinger theory of the Hydrogen atom? More precisely, what is the statistical mechanical origin of black hole entropy? What is the nature of a quantum black hole and what is the interplay between the quantum degrees of freedom responsible for entropy and the exterior curved geometry? Can one derive the Hawking effect from first principles of quantum gravity?

$``$ Planck scale physics and the low energy world: Perhaps the central lesson of general relativity is that gravity is geometry. There is no longer a background metric, no inert stage on which dynamics unfolds. Geometry itself is dynamical. Therefore, one expects that a fully satisfactory quantum gravity theory would also be free of a background space-time geometry. However, of necessity, a background independent description must use physical concepts and mathematical tools that are quite different from those of the familiar, low energy physics formulated in flat space-time. A major challenge then is to show that this low energy description does arise from the pristine, Planckian world in an appropriate sense.222The characteristic length scale in the Planck regime is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{33}\mathrm{cm}`$ while the smallest distance we can probe with our highest energy accelerators today is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{17}\mathrm{cm}`$. In this ‘top-down’ approach, does the fundamental theory admit a ‘sufficient number’ of semi-classical states? Do these semi-classical sectors provide enough of a background geometry to anchor low energy physics? can one recover the familiar description? Furthermore, can one pin point why the standard ‘bottom-up’ perturbative approach fails? That is, what is the essential feature which makes the fundamental description mathematically coherent, but is absent in the standard perturbative quantum gravity?

Of course, this is by no means a complete list of challenges. There are many others. Since there is no background space-time metric, what does ‘time evolution’ mean? Without a fixed space-time at one’s disposal, what is one to make of quantum measurement theory and the associated questions of interpretation of quantum mechanics? What role does space-time topology play and can it change? …. Recent advances within loop quantum gravity have led to illuminating answers to many of these questions and opened-up avenues to address others. As in my talk, in this report, I will focus on issues related to black holes and big-bang.

## 2 A bird’s eye view of loop quantum gravity

In this section, I will briefly summarize the salient features and current status of quantum geometry. The emphasis is on structural and conceptual issues; details can be found in references \[1-9\].

### 2.1 Viewpoint

In this approach, one takes the central lesson of general relativity seriously: gravity is geometry whence, in a fundamental theory, there should be no background metric. In quantum gravity, geometry and matter should both be ‘born quantum mechanically’. Thus, in contrast to approaches developed by particle physicists, one does not begin with quantum matter on a background geometry and use perturbation theory to incorporate quantum effects of gravity. There is a manifold but no metric, or indeed any other physical fields, in the background.333In 2+1 dimensions, although one begins in a completely analogous fashion, in the final picture one can get rid of the background manifold as well. Thus, the fundamental theory can be formulated combinatorially . To achieve this goal in 3+1 dimensions, one needs a much better understanding of the theory of (intersecting) knots in 3 dimensions. In classical gravity, Riemannian geometry provides the appropriate mathematical language to formulate the physical, kinematical notions as well as the final dynamical equations. This role is now taken by quantum Riemannian geometry, discussed below. In the classical domain, general relativity stands out as the best available theory of gravity, some of whose predictions have been tested to an amazing accuracy, surpassing even the legendary tests of quantum electrodynamics. However, if one applies to general relativity the standard perturbative techniques of quantum field theory, one obtains a ‘non-renormalizable’ theory , i.e., a theory with uncontrollable infinities. Therefore, it is natural to ask: Does quantum general relativity, coupled to suitable matter (or supergravity, its supersymmetric generalizations) exist as a consistent theory non-perturbatively ? There is no a priori implication that such a theory would be the final, complete description of Nature. Nonetheless, this is a fascinating open question at the level of mathematical physics.

In the particle physics circles, the answer is often assumed to be in the negative, not because there is concrete evidence against non-perturbative quantum gravity, but because of an analogy to the theory of weak interactions, where non-renomalizability of the initial ‘Fermi theory’ forced one to replace it by the renormalizable Glashow-Weinberg-Salam theory. However this analogy overlooks the crucial fact that, in the case of general relativity, there is a qualitatively new element. Perturbative treatments pre-suppose that the space-time can be assumed to be a continuum at all scales of interest to physics under consideration. Since this is a safe assumption for weak interactions, non-renormalizability was a genuine problem. However, in the gravitational case, the scale of interest is given by the Planck length $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and there is no physical basis to pre-suppose that the continuum picture should be valid down to that scale. The failure of the standard perturbative treatments may simply be due to this grossly incorrect assumption and a non-perturbative treatment which correctly incorporates the physical micro-structure of geometry may well be free of these inconsistencies.

As indicated above, even if quantum general relativity did exist as a mathematically consistent theory, there is no a priori reason to assume that it would be the ‘final’ theory of all known physics. In classical general relativity, while requirements of background independence and general covariance do restrict the form of interactions between gravity and matter fields and among matter fields themselves, they do not determine these interactions. Quantum general relativity would have the same limitation. Put differently, such a theory would not be a satisfactory candidate for unification of all known forces. However, just as general relativity has had powerful implications in spite of this limitation in the classical domain, quantum general relativity should have qualitatively new predictions, pushing further the existing frontiers of physics. Indeed, unification does not appear to be an essential criterion for usefulness of a theory even in other interactions. Quantum chrmodynamics (QCD) for example, is a powerful theory of strong interactions even though it does not unify them with electro-weak ones. Furthermore, the fact that we do not yet have a viable candidate for the grand unified theory does not make QCD any less useful.

### 2.2 Quantum Geometry

Although there is no natural unification of dynamics of all interactions in loop quantum gravity, it does provide a kinematical unification. More precisely, in this approach one begins by formulating general relativity in the mathematical language of connections, the basic variables of gauge theories of electro-weak and strong interactions. Thus, now the configuration variables are not metrics (as in Wheeler’s geometrodynamics program), but certain spin connections; the emphasis is shifted from distances to holonomies . Consequently, the basic kinematical structures are the same as those used in gauge theories. A key difference, however, is that while a background space-time metric is available and crucially used in gauge theories, now there are no background fields whatsoever. This absence is forced on us by the requirement of diffeomorphism invariance.

This is a key difference and it causes a host of conceptual as well as technical difficulties in the passage to quantum theory. For, most of the techniques used in the familiar, Minkowskian quantum theories are deeply rooted in the availability of a flat back-ground metric. It is this structure that enables one to single out the vacuum state, perform Fourier transforms to decompose fields canonically in to creation and annihilation operators, define masses and spins of particles and carry out regularizations of products of operators. Already when one passes to quantum field theory in curved space-times, extra work is needed to construct mathematical structures that are adequate for physics. In our case, the situation is much more drastic: there is no background metric what so ever. Therefore new physical ideas and mathematical tools are now necessary. Fortunately, they were constructed by a number of researchers in the mid-nineties and have given rise to a detailed quantum theory of geometry .

Because the situation is conceptually so novel and because there are no direct experiments to guide us, reliable results require mathematical precision to ensure that there are no hidden infinities. Achieving this precision has been a high priority in the program. Thus, while one is inevitably motivated by heuristic, physical ideas and formal manipulations, the final results are mathematically rigorous. In particular, due care is taken in constructing function spaces, defining measures and functional integrals, regularizing products of field operator, and calculating eigenvectors and eigenvalues of geometric operators. The final results are all free of divergences, well-defined, and respect the background independence and diffeomorphism invariance.

Let me now turn to specifics. It is perhaps simplest to begin with a Hamiltonian or symplectic description of general relativity. The phase space is the cotangent bundle. The configuration variable is a connection, $`A`$ on a fixed 3-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ representing ‘space’ and (as in gauge theories) the momenta are the ‘electric field’ 2-forms $`E`$, both of which take values in the Lie-algebra of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. In the present gravitational context, the momenta acquire a geometrical significance: their Hodge-duals $`{}_{}{}^{}E`$ can be naturally interpreted as orthonormal triads (with density weight $`1`$) and determine the dynamical, Riemannian geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus, (in contrast to Wheeler’s geometrodynamics) the Riemannian structures on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are now built from momentum variables. The basic kinematic objects are holonomies of $`A`$, which dictate how spinors are parallel transported along curves, and the 2-forms $`E`$, which determine the Riemannian metric of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (Matter couplings to gravity have also been studied extensively .)

In the quantum theory, the fundamental excitations of geometry are most conveniently expressed in terms of holonomies . They are thus one-dimensional, polymer-like and, in analogy with gauge theories, can be thought of as ‘flux lines of the electric field’. More precisely, they turn out to be flux lines of areas: an elementary flux line deposits a quantum of area on any 2-surface $`S`$ it intersects. Thus, if quantum geometry were to be excited along just a few flux lines, most surfaces would have zero area and the quantum state would not at all resemble a classical geometry. Semi-classical geometries can result only if a huge number of these elementary excitations are superposed in suitably dense configurations . The state of quantum geometry around you, for example, must have so many elementary excitations that $`10^{68}`$ of them intersect the sheet of paper you are reading, to endow it an area of $`100\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^2`$. Even in such states, the geometry is still distributional, concentrated on the underlying elementary flux lines; but if suitably coarse-grained, it can be approximated by a smooth metric. Thus, the continuum picture is only an approximation that arises from coarse graining of semi-classical states.

These quantum states span a specific Hilbert space $`=L^2(\overline{𝒜},d\mu _o)`$, consisting of functions on the space of (suitably generalized) connections which are square integrable with respect to a natural, diffeomorphism invariant (regular, Borel) measure $`\mu _o`$ . This space is very large. However, it can be conveniently decomposed in to a family of orthonormal, finite dimensional sub-spaces $`=_{\gamma ,\stackrel{}{j}}_{\gamma ,\stackrel{}{j}}`$, labelled by finite graphs $`\gamma `$ each edge of which itself is labelled by a non-trivial irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ (or, a half-integer, or a spin $`j`$) . $`_{\gamma ,\stackrel{}{j}}`$ can be regarded as the Hilbert space of a ‘spin-system’. These spaces are extremely simple to work with; this is why very explicit calculations are feasible. Elements of $`_{\gamma ,\stackrel{}{j}}`$ are referred to as spin-network states .

As one would expect from the structure of the classical theory, the basic quantum operators are the holonomies $`\widehat{h}_p`$ along paths $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the triads $`\widehat{{}_{}{}^{}E}`$ . Both sets of operators are densely defined and self-adjoint on $``$. Furthermore, a striking result is that all eigenvalues of the triad operators are discrete. This key property is, in essence, the origin of the fundamental discreteness of quantum geometry. For, just as the classical Riemannian geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is determined by the triads $`{}_{}{}^{}E`$, all Riemannian geometry operators —such as the area operator $`\widehat{A}_S`$ associated with a 2-surface $`S`$ or the volume operator $`\widehat{V}_R`$ associated with a region $`R`$— are constructed from $`\widehat{{}_{}{}^{}E}`$. However, since even the classical quantities $`A_S`$ and $`V_R`$ are non-polynomial functionals of the triads, the construction of the corresponding $`\widehat{A}_S`$ and $`\widehat{V}_R`$ is quite subtle and requires a great deal of care. But their final expressions are rather simple .

In this regularization, the underlying background independence turns out to be a blessing. For, diffeomorphism invariance constrains the possible forms of the final expressions severely and the detailed calculations then serve essentially to fix numerical coefficients and other details. Let us illustrate this point with the example of the area operators $`\widehat{A}_S`$. Since they are associated with 2-surfaces $`S`$ while the states have 1-dimensional support, the diffeomorphism covariance requires that the action of $`\widehat{A}_S`$ on a state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ,\stackrel{}{j}}`$ must be concentrated at the intersections of $`S`$ with $`\gamma `$. The detailed expression bears out this fact: the action of $`\widehat{A}_S`$ on $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ,\stackrel{}{j}}`$ is dictated simply by the spin labels $`j_I`$ attached to those edges of $`\gamma `$ which intersect $`S`$. For all surfaces $`S`$ and 3-dimensional regions $`R`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\widehat{A}_S`$ and $`\widehat{V}_R`$ are densely defined, self-adjoint operators. All their eigenvalues are discrete . Naively, one might expect that the eigenvalues would be uniformly spaced, given by, e.g., integral multiples of the Planck area or volume. This turns out not to be the case; the distribution of eigenvalues is quite subtle. In particular, the eigenvalues crowd rapidly as areas and volumes increase. In the case of area operators, the complete spectrum is known in a closed form, and the first several hundred eigenvalues have been explicitly computed numerically. For a large eigenvalue $`a_n`$, the separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_n=a_{n+1}a_n`$ between consecutive eigenvalues decreases exponentially: $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_n\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{a_n}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$! Because of such strong crowding, the continuum approximation becomes excellent quite rapidly just a few orders of magnitude above the Planck scale. At the Planck scale, however, there is a precise and very specific replacement. This is the arena of quantum geometry. The premise is that the standard perturbation theory fails because it ignores this fundamental discreteness (see Section 2.1).

There is however a key mathematical subtlety . This non-perturbative quantization has a one parameter family of ambiguities labelled by $`\gamma >0`$. This $`\gamma `$ is called the Barbero-Immirzi parameter (and is rather similar to the well-known $`\theta `$-parameter of QCD). In the classical theory, $`\gamma `$ is irrelevant but in quantum theory different values of $`\gamma `$ correspond to unitarily inequivalent representations of the algebra of geometric operators. The overall mathematical structure of all these sectors is very similar; the only difference is that the eigenvalues of all geometric operators scale with $`\gamma `$. For example, the simplest eigenvalues of the area operator $`\widehat{A}_S`$ in the $`\gamma `$ quantum sector is given by

$$a_{\{j\}}=8\pi \gamma \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2\underset{I}{}\sqrt{j_I(j_I+1)}$$
(1)
where $`I=1,\mathrm{}N`$ for some integer $`N`$ and each $`j_I`$ is a half-integer. Since the representations are unitarily inequivalent, as usual, one must rely on Nature to resolve this ambiguity: Just as Nature must select a specific value of $`\theta `$ on QCD, it must select a specific value of $`\gamma `$ in loop quantum gravity. With one judicious experiment —e.g., measurement of the lowest eigenvalue of the area operator $`\widehat{A}_S`$ for a 2-surface $`S`$ of any given topology— we could determine the value of $`\gamma `$ and fix the theory. Unfortunately, such experiments are hard to perform! However, we will see in Section 3.2 that the Bekenstein-Hawking formula of black hole entropy provides an indirect measurement of this lowest eigenvalue of area for the 2-sphere topology and can therefore be used to fix the value of $`\gamma `$.

## 3 Applications of quantum geometry

In this section, I will summarize two recent developments that answer several of the questions raised under first two bullets in the Introduction.

### 3.1 Big bang

Let us first recall how the big-bang singularity arises in classical general relativity. Observations have shown that the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic on a cosmological scale. Therefore, to model the large scale behavior of the universe, one begins by assuming that the 4-manifold representing space-time is foliated by 3-dimensional spatial manifolds, each equipped with a metric of constant curvature. Thus there are three possibilities: the leaves of the preferred foliation are either metric 3-spheres, or flat, or metric 3-hyperboloids, depending on whether the scalar curvature (which is constant on each leaf) is positive, zero or negative. To be specific, let me assume the first case. Then, although the scalar curvature is constant on any one spatial slice, it changes in time, giving rise to an overall expansion or contraction. The radius $`a`$ of the 3-sphere encodes the full information of the 3-metric at that instant of time and is called the scale factor. One then suitably models matter-sources —galaxies and the observed radiation fields— and seeks solutions of Einstein’s equation with these symmetries. The equation implies that the universe must have ‘originated from a big-bang’: if we evolve the solution backwards in time, the scale factor $`a`$ must eventually go to zero and the curvature must diverge as $`1/a^2`$. At this ‘initial instant’, Einstein’s equation breaks down; classical physics stops. As discussed in the Introduction, the general belief is that this singular behavior is an artifact of our insistence of applying general relativity beyond the domain of its validity. Quantum effects are thought to intervene and dominate the ‘real physics’ in the high curvature regions. The question then is: what replaces the big-bang in this new, more accurate theory?

This question has been discussed for over thirty years in a framework called ‘quantum cosmology’. Traditionally, one has proceeded by first imposing spatial symmetries —such as homogeneity and isotropy— to freeze out all but a finite number of degrees of freedom already at the classical level and then quantizing the reduced system. In the simplest case, the basic variables of the reduced classical system are the scale factor $`a`$ and matter fields $`\varphi `$. One then asks: in the theory so quantized, do the singularities of the classical general relativity disappear? Unfortunately, without an additional input, they do not: typically, to resolve the singularity one either had to introduce matter with unphysical properties or introduce boundary conditions by invoking new principles.

In a series of seminal papers , Martin Bojowald has shown that the situation in loop quantum cosmology is quite different: the underlying quantum geometry makes a qualitative difference very near the big-bang and naturally resolves the singularity. In the standard procedure summarized above, the reduction is carried out at the classical level and this removes all traces of the fundamental discreteness. Therefore, the key idea in Bojowald’s analysis is to retain the essential features of quantum geometry by first quantizing the kinematics of the full theory as in Section 2.2 and then restricting oneself to quantum states which are spatially homogeneous and isotropic. As a result, the scale factor operator $`\widehat{a}`$ has discrete eigenvalues. The continuum limit is reached rapidly. For example, the gap between an eigenvalue of $`\widehat{a}`$ of $`1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}`$ and the next one is less than $`10^{30}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$! Nonetheless, near $`a\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ there are surprises. Predictions of loop quantum cosmology are very different from those of traditional quantum cosmology.

The first surprise occurs already at the kinematical level. Recall that, in the classical theory curvature is essentially given by $`1/a^2`$, and blows up at the big-bang. What is the situation in quantum theory? Denote the Hilbert space of spatially homogeneous, isotropic kinematical quantum states by $`_{\mathrm{HI}}`$. A self-adjoint operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{curv}}`$ corresponding to curvature can be constructed on $`_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ and turns out to be bounded from above. This is very surprising because $`_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ admits an eigenstate of the scale factor operator $`\widehat{a}`$ with a discrete, zero eigenvalue! At first, it may appear that this could happen only by an artificial trick in the construction of $`\widehat{\mathrm{curv}}`$ and that this quantization can not possibly be right because it seems to represent a huge departure from the classical relation $`(\mathrm{curv})a^2=1`$. However, these concerns turn out to be misplaced. The procedure for constructing $`\widehat{\mathrm{curv}}`$ is natural and, furthermore, descends from full quantum theory.

Let us examine the properties of $`\widehat{\mathrm{curv}}`$. Its upper bound $`u_{\mathrm{curv}}`$ is finite but absolutely huge:

$$u_{\mathrm{curv}}\frac{256}{81}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\frac{256}{81}\frac{1}{G\mathrm{}}$$
(2)
or, about $`10^{77}`$ times the curvature at the horizon of a solar mass black hole. The functional form of the upper bound is also illuminating. Recall first the Pauli-Schrödinger treatment of the hydrogen atom in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Because the Coulomb potential between the proton (nucleus of the atom) and the electron diverges as $`1/r`$, in the classical theory the energy is unbounded from below. However, thank to the Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$, in the quantum theory, we obtain a finite value, $`E_0=(me^4/\mathrm{}^2)`$. Similarly, $`u_{\mathrm{curv}}`$ is finite because $`\mathrm{}`$ is non-zero and tends to the classical answer as $`\mathrm{}`$ tends to zero.

At curvatures as large as $`u_{\mathrm{curv}}`$, it is natural to expect large departures from classical relations such as $`(\mathrm{curv})a^2=1`$. But is this relation recovered in the semi-classical regime? The answer is in the affirmative. In fact it is somewhat surprising how quickly this happens. As one would expect, one can simultaneously diagonalize $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{curv}}`$. If we denote their eigenvalues by $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ respectively, then $`a_nb_n1`$ is of the order $`10^4`$ at $`n=100`$ and decreases rapidly as $`n`$ increases. These properties show that, in spite of the initial surprise, the quantization procedure is viable. Furthermore, one can apply it also to more familiar systems such as a particle moving on a circle and obtain results which at first seem surprising but are in complete agreement with the standard quantum theory of these systems.

Since the curvature is bounded above in the entire Hilbert space, one might hope that the quantum evolution may be well-defined right through the big-bang singularity. Is this in fact the case? The second surprise is that although the quantum evolution is close to that of the so-called Wheeler-DeWitt equation of standard quantum cosmology for large $`a`$, there are dramatic differences near the big-bang which makes it well defined even at the big-bang, without any additional input. To solve the quantum Einstein equation, Bojowald again follows, step by step, the procedure introduced (by Thomas Thiemann) in the full theory. Let us expand the full quantum state as $`\mathrm{\Psi }>=_n\psi _n(\varphi )n>`$ where $`n>`$ are the eigenstates of the scale factor operator and $`\varphi `$ denotes matter fields. Then, the quantum Einstein equation takes the form:

$$c_n\psi _{n+8}(\varphi )+d_n\psi _{n+4}(\varphi )+e_n\psi _n(\varphi )+f_n\psi _{n4}(\varphi )+g_n\psi _{n8}(\varphi )=\gamma \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2\widehat{H}_\varphi \psi _n(\varphi )$$
(3)
where $`c_n,\mathrm{}g_n`$ are fixed numerical coefficients, $`\gamma `$ the Barbero-Immirzi parameter and $`\widehat{H}_\varphi `$ is the matter Hamiltonian. (Again, using the Thiemann regularization, one can show that the matter Hamiltonian is a well-defined operator.)

As one would expect from the phase space-formulation of classical general relativity, primarily, Eq(3) serves to constrain the coefficients $`\psi _n(\varphi )`$ of physically permissible quantum states. However, if we choose to interpret the scale factor (more precisely, the square of the scale factor times the determinant of the triad) as a time variable, Eq(3) can be interpreted as an ‘evolution equation’ which evolves the state through discrete time steps. In a (large) neighborhood of the big-bang singularity, this notion of time is viable. For the choice of factor ordering used in the Thiemann regularization, one can evolve in the past through $`n=0`$, i.e. right through the classical singularity. Thus, the infinities predicted by the classical theory at the big-bang are indeed artifacts of assuming that the classical, continuum space-time approximation is valid right up to the big-bang. In the quantum theory, the state can be evolved through the big-bang without any difficulty. However, the classical space-time description fails near the big-bang; quantum evolution is well-defined but the classical space-time ‘dissolves’.

The ‘evolution’ equation (3) has other interesting features. To begin with, the space of solutions is 16 dimensional. Can we single out a preferred solution by imposing a physical condition? One possibility is to impose a pre-classicality condition, i.e., to require that the quantum state not oscillate rapidly from one step to the next at late times when we know our universe behaves classically. Although this is an extra input, it is not a theoretical prejudice about what should happen at (or near) the big-bang but an observationally motivated condition that is clearly satisfied by our universe. The coefficients $`c_n,\mathrm{}g_n`$ of (3) are such that this condition singles out a solution uniquely. One can ask what this state does at negative times, i.e., before the big-bang. (Time becomes negative because triads flip orientation on the ‘other side’.) Preliminary indications are that the state does not become pre-classical there. If this is borne out by detailed calculations, then the ‘big-bang’ separates two regimes; on ‘our’ side, classical geometry is both meaningful and useful at late times while on the ‘other’ side, it is not.444There is thus a qualitative similarity to the phenomenon of phase transitions in magnets. ‘Our side’ of the big-bang is analogous to the ferro-magnetic phase (the role of the ‘magnetization’ mean field —the vector pointing from the south to the north pole of a ferro-magnet— being played by the classical geometry) and the ‘other side’ is analogous to the para-magnetic phase (where ‘magnetization’ is no longer a useful concept. Another interesting feature is that the standard Wheeler-DeWitt equation is recovered if we take the limit $`\gamma 0`$ and $`n\mathrm{}`$ such that the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{a}`$ take on continuous values. This is completely parallel to the limit we often take to coarse grain the quantum description of a rigidly spinning rotor to ‘wash out’ discreteness in angular momentum eigenvalues and arrive at the classically allowed continuous angular momenta. From this perspective, then, one is led to say that the most striking of the consequences of loop quantum gravity are not seen in standard quantum cosmology because it ‘washes out’ the fundamental discreteness of quantum geometry.

Finally, the detailed calculations have revealed another surprising feature. The fact that the quantum effects become prominent near the big bang, completely invalidating the classical predictions, is pleasing but not unexpected. However, prior to these calculations, it was not clear how soon after the big-bang one can start trusting semi-classical notions and calculations. It would not have been surprising if we had to wait till the radius of the universe became, say, a few million times the Planck length. These calculations strongly suggest that few hundred Planck lengths should suffice. This is fortunate because it is now feasible to develop quantum numerical relativity; with computational resources commonly available, grids with $`(10^6)^3`$ points are hopelessly large but one with $`(100)^3`$ points are readily available.

### 3.2 Black-holes

Loop quantum cosmology illuminates dynamical ramifications of quantum geometry but within the context of mini-superspaces where all but a finite number of degrees of freedom are frozen. In this sub-section, I will discuss a complementary application where one considers the full theory but probes consequences of quantum geometry which are not sensitive to full quantum dynamics —the application of the framework to the problem of black hole entropy. This discussion is based on joint work with Baez, Corichi and Krasnov  which itself was motivated by earlier work of Krasnov, Rovelli and others.

Let us begin with classical general relativity. Consider first the simplest solution of Einstein’s equation: a manifold which is topologically $`R^4`$, equipped with a flat metric (of signature -+++). It has the property that an observer near infinity can receive a causal signal from any point in the interior, sometime along its infinite world-line. Thus, no part of space-time is permanently hidden from infinity. However, Einstein’s equation admits solutions which do not share this property. In such solutions, the portion of space-time which is hidden from all asymptotic observers is called a black hole region. Physically, since gravity is attractive, the space-time metric around dense, compact astrophysical objects is such that the light cones in their vicinity are ‘bent towards the object’. Since causal signals propagate with a speed less than or equal to that of light, it is ‘harder for the information to leak out’ from their vicinity. A black hole region results if light cones are bent so much that they are ‘tilted completely inwards’; i.e., no causal signal can leave the region of space-time in question. A space-like surface representing an ‘instant of time’ intersects the boundary of the black-hole region in a 2-sphere. We will refer to this 2-sphere boundary as the black hole horizon. (This terminology is not the standard one but is more convenient for our purposes here.)

As explained in the Introduction, since mid-seventies, a key question in the subject has been: What is the statistical mechanical origin of the black hole entropy $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=a_{\mathrm{hor}}/4\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$? What are the microscopic degrees of freedom that account for this entropy? This relation implies that a solar mass black hole must have $`(\mathrm{exp}10^{77})`$ quantum states, a number that is huge even by the standards of statistical mechanics. Where do all these states reside? To answer these questions, in the early nineties John Wheeler suggested the following heuristic picture, which he christened ‘It from Bit’. Divide the black hole horizon in to elementary cells, each with one Planck unit, $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$, of area and assign to each cell two microstates, or one ‘bit’. Then the total number of states $`𝒩`$ is given by $`𝒩=2^n`$ where $`n=(a_{\mathrm{hor}}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2)`$ is the number of elementary cells, whence entropy is given by $`S=\mathrm{ln}𝒩a_{\mathrm{hor}}`$. Thus, apart from a numerical coefficient, the entropy (‘It’) is accounted for by assigning two states (‘Bit’) to each elementary cell. This qualitative picture is simple and attractive. Therefore it is natural to ask if it can be made precise. Can these heuristic ideas be supported by a systematic analysis from first principles? What is the rationale behind dividing the black hole horizon in to elementary cells of unit Planck area? Why are there exactly two quantum states associated with each cell? It turned out that quantum geometry could supply answers to these questions through a detailed analysis.555I should add, however, that this account does not follow chronology. Black hole entropy was computed in quantum geometry quite independently and the realization that the ‘It from Bit’ picture works so well was somewhat of a surprise.

A systematic approach requires that we first specify the class of black holes of interest. Since the entropy formula is expected to hold unambiguously for black holes in equilibrium, most analyses were confined to space-times with ‘eternal’ black holes admitting a global time-translation isometry, rather than the astrophysical ones which result from a gravitational collapse. From a physical viewpoint however, this assumption seems overly restrictive. After all, in statistical mechanical calculations of entropy of ordinary systems, one only has to assume that the given system is in equilibrium, not the whole world. Therefore, it should suffice to assume that the black hole itself is in equilibrium; the exterior geometry should not be forced to be time-independent. Finally, it has been known since the mid-seventies that the thermodynamical considerations apply not only to black holes but also to so-called ‘cosmological horizons’. A natural question is: Can these diverse situations be treated in a single stroke? Within the quantum geometry approach, the answer is in the affirmative. The idea that the black hole (or the cosmological horizon) is itself in equilibrium is captured by certain boundary conditions which ensure that the horizon itself is isolated, allowing time-dependent space-time geometry and matter fields in the exterior region. Entropy associated with an isolated horizon refers to the family of observers in the exterior region for whom the isolated horizon is a physical boundary that separates the region which is accessible to them from the one which is not. (This point is especially important for cosmological horizons where, without reference to observers, one can not even define these horizons.) States which contribute to this entropy are the ones which can interact with the states in the exterior; in this sense, they ‘reside’ on the horizon.

In the detailed analysis, one considers space-times admitting an isolated horizon as inner boundary and carries out a systematic quantization. The quantum geometry framework can be naturally extended to this case. The isolated horizon boundary conditions imply that the intrinsic geometry of the quantum horizon is described by the so called $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory on the horizon. This is a well-developed, topological quantum field theory. A deeply satisfying feature of the analysis is that there is a seamless matching of three otherwise independent structures: the isolated horizon boundary conditions which come from classical general relativity; the quantum geometry in the bulk; and the Chern-Simons theory on the horizon. In particular, one can calculate eigenvalues of certain physically interesting operators using purely bulk quantum geometry without any knowledge of the Chern-Simons theory, or using the Chern-Simons theory without any knowledge of the bulk quantum geometry. The two theories have never heard of each other. Yet, thanks to the isolated horizon boundary conditions, the two infinite sets of numbers match exactly, providing a coherent description of the quantum horizon.

In this description, the polymer excitations of the bulk geometry, each labelled by a spin $`j_I`$, pierce the horizon, endowing it an elementary area $`a_{j_I}`$ given by (1). The sum $`_Ia_{j_I}`$ adds up to the total horizon area $`a_{\mathrm{hor}}`$. The intrinsic geometry of the horizon is flat except at these puncture, but at each puncture there is a quantized deficit angle. These add up to endow the horizon with a 2-sphere topology, as required by a quantum analog of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem. For a solar mass black hole, a typical horizon state would have $`10^{77}`$ punctures, each contributing a tiny deficit angle. So, although the quantum geometry is distributional, it can be well approximated by a smooth metric.

The counting of states can be carried out as follows. First one constructs a micro-canonical ensemble by restricting oneself only to those states for which the total area, angular momentum, and charges lie in small intervals around fixed values $`a_{\mathrm{hor}},J_{\mathrm{hor}},Q_{\mathrm{hor}}^i`$. (As is usual in statistical mechanics, the leading contribution to the entropy is independent of the precise choice of these small intervals.) For each set of punctures, one can compute the dimension of the surface Hilbert space, consisting of Chern-Simons states compatible with that set. One allows all possible sets of punctures (by varying both the spin labels and the number of punctures), subject to the constraint that the total area $`a_{\mathrm{hor}}`$ be fixed, and adds up the dimensions of the corresponding surface Hilbert spaces to obtain the number $`𝒩`$ of permissible surface states. One finds that the horizon entropy $`S_{\mathrm{hor}}`$ is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{hor}}:=\mathrm{ln}𝒩=\frac{\gamma _o}{\gamma }\frac{a_{\mathrm{hor}}}{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}+𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{a_{\mathrm{hor}}}),\mathrm{where}\gamma _o=\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{\sqrt{3}\pi }$$
(4)
Thus, for large black holes, entropy is indeed proportional to the horizon area. This is a non-trivial result; for examples, early calculations often led to proportionality to the square-root of the area. However, even for large black holes, one obtains agreement with the Hawking-Bekenstein formula only in the sector of quantum geometry in which the Barbero-Immirzi parameter $`\gamma `$ takes the value $`\gamma =\gamma _o`$. Thus, while all $`\gamma `$ sectors are equivalent classically, the standard quantum field theory in curved space-times is recovered in the semi-classical theory only in the $`\gamma _o`$ sector of quantum geometry. It is quite remarkable that thermodynamic considerations involving large black holes can be used to fix the quantization ambiguity which dictates such Planck scale properties as eigenvalues of geometric operators. Note however that the value of $`\gamma `$ can be fixed by demanding agreement with the semi-classical result just in one case —e.g., a spherical horizon with zero charge, or a cosmological horizon in the de Sitter space-time, or, …. Once the value of $`\gamma `$ is fixed, the theory is completely fixed and we can ask: Does this theory yield the Hawking-Bekenstein value of entropy of all isolated horizons, irrespective of the values of charges, angular momentum, and cosmological constant, the amount of distortion, or hair. The answer is in the affirmative. Thus, the agreement with quantum field theory in curved space-times holds in all these diverse cases.

Why does $`\gamma _o`$ not depend on other horizon parameters such as the charges $`Q_{\mathrm{hor}}^i`$? This important property can be traced back to a key consequence of the isolated horizon boundary conditions: detailed calculations show that only the gravitational part of the symplectic structure has a surface term at the horizon; the matter symplectic structures have only volume terms. (Furthermore, the gravitational surface term is insensitive to the value of the cosmological constant.) Consequently, in the geometric quantization procedure used in this analysis, there are no independent surface quantum states associated with matter. This provides a natural explanation of the fact that the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy depends only on the horizon geometry and is independent of electro-magnetic (or other) charges.

Finally, let us return to Wheeler’s ‘It from Bit’. One can ask: what are the states that dominate the counting? Perhaps not surprisingly, they turn out to be the ones which assign to each puncture the smallest quantum of area (i.e., spin value $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$), thereby maximizing the number of punctures. In these states, each puncture defines one of Wheeler’s ‘elementary cell’ and his two states correspond to the $`j_z=\pm 1/2`$ states, i.e. to whether the deficit angle is positive or negative. However, in the complete theory, all values of $`j`$ (and hence of $`j_z`$) must be allowed to obtain a complete description of the geometry of the quantum horizon. If one is only interested in counting states for large black holes, however, the leading contribution comes from the $`j=1/2`$ states.

To summarize, quantum geometry naturally provides the micro-states responsible for the huge entropy associated with horizons. In this analysis, all black holes —including the ones of direct astrophysical interest— and cosmological horizons are treated in an unified fashion. The sub-leading term has also been calculated and shown to be proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}a_{\mathrm{hor}}`$ .

## 4 Conclusion

In this brief report, I have summarized two of the recent advances which have answered some of the long standing questions of quantum gravity raised in the Introduction. There have been two other notable advances: i) the development of ‘spin-foam models’ discussed briefly by Baez at the conference which provide a new, non-perturbative path integral approach to quantum gravity and have led to a variety of interesting and intriguing mathematical results on state sum models, extending in certain ways the very interesting work on Turiev and Viro in 3-dimensions; and, ii) the introduction of new measures on the space of connections relating the quantum geometry framework to the standard Fock description of photons and gravitons, which is paving the way to relate the Planck scale calculations of quantum geometry to the more familiar world of ‘low energy physics’. The vitality of the program is reflected in the fact that many of the key ideas in all these developments came from young researchers —from Bojowald in quantum cosmology, Krasnov in the understanding of quantum black holes, Perez in spin foams and Varadarajan in the relation to low energy physics.

Throughout the development of loop quantum gravity, unforeseen simplifications have arisen regularly, leading to surprising solutions to seemingly impossible difficulties. Progress could occur because some of the obstinate problems which had slowed developments in background independent approaches, sometimes for decades, evaporated when ‘right’ perspectives were found. I will conclude with a few examples.

$``$ Up until the early nineties, it was widely believed that spaces of connections do not admit non-trivial diffeomorphism invariant measures. This would have made it impossible to develop our background independent approach. Quite surprisingly, such a measure could be found by looking at connections in a slightly more general perspective. It is simple, natural, and has just the right structure to support quantum geometry. This geometry, in turn, supplied some missing links, e.g., by providing just the right expressions that Ponzano-Regge had to postulate without justification in their celebrated, early work on 3-dimensional gravity.

$``$ Fundamental discreteness first appeared in a startling fashion in the construction of the so-called ‘weaves’, quantum states which approximate given classical 3-geometries. In this construction, quantum states based on finite graphs were introduced as a starting point, with the goal of taking a ‘continuum limit’ as in lattice gauge theories. It came as a major surprise that, if one wants to recover a given classical geometry on large scales, one can not take this limit, i.e., one can not refine the underlying graph arbitrarily; there is an in-built discreteness.

$``$ Traces of holonomies of a suitably defined connection around a smooth loop define a natural set of functions of connections. At a heuristic level, it was found that they automatically solve the most difficult part of the quantum Einstein’s equation. No one expected to find such simple and natural solutions even heuristically. This calculation suggested that the action of this part of the quantum Einstein equation is concentrated at vertices of graphs, which in turn led to strategies for its regularization.

$``$ As I indicated in some detail, unforeseen insights arose in the well-studied subject of quantum cosmology essentially by taking an adequate account of the quantum nature of geometry, i.e., by respecting the fundamental discreteness of the eigenvalues of the scale factor operator. Similarly, in the case of black holes, three quite distinct structures —the isolated horizon boundary conditions, the bulk quantum geometry and the surface Chern-Simons theory— blended together unexpectedly to provide a coherent theory of quantum horizons.

Repeated occurrence of such ‘unreasonable’ simplifications suggest that the ideas underlying loop quantum gravity may have captured an essential germ of truth.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank John Baez, Martin Bojowald, Rodolfo Gambini, Jerzy Lewandowski, Alejandro Perez, Jorge Pullin, Carlo Rovelli and Thomas Thiemann for numerous discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-0090091 and the Eberly research funds of Penn State.


text:
# Continuous variable teleportation as a generalized thermalizing quantum channel

## Abstract

A quantum channel is derived for continuous variable teleportation which is performed by means of an arbitrary entangled state and the standard protocol. When a Gaussian entangled state such as a two-mode squeezed-vacuum state is used, the continuous variable teleportation is equivalent to the thermalizing quantum channel. Continuous variable dense coding is also considered. Both the continuous variable teleportation and the continuous variable dense coding are characterized by the same function determined by the entangled state and the quantum measurement.

Quantum information processing attracts much attention in quantum physics and information science Nielsen and Chuang (2000); Bouwmeester and A. Zeilinger (2000); Alber et al. (2002), which gives deeper insight into the principles of quantum mechanics and provides novel communication systems such as quantum teleportation and quantum dense coding. Quantum teleportation transmits an unknown quantum state by means of classical communication and quantum entanglement Bennett et al. (1993). Quantum dense coding sends classical information via a quantum channel and quantum entanglement Bennett and Wiesner (1992). Bowen and Bose have recently shown that a finite dimensional quantum teleportation with the standard protocol is equivalent to a generalized depolarizing quantum channel Bowen and Bose (2001). In this letter, we generalize this result to infinite dimensional quantum teleportation and we show that continuous variable quantum teleportation with the standard protocol is equivalent to a generalized thermalizing channel.

We explain the standard protocol of continuous variable quantum teleportation Braunstein and Kimble (1998); Furusawa et al. (1998). Alice and Bob first share an entangled quantum system in a quantum state $`\widehat{W}^{AB}`$ which is arbitrary though a two-mode squeezed-vacuum state is usually used, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ stand for the quantum system at Alice’s and Bob’s sides. When Alice is given a quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }^Q`$ to be teleported to Bob, she performs the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum of the compound quantum system $`Q+A`$. Then Alice sends the measurement outcome $`(x,p)`$ to Bob via a classical communication channel. After receiving the measurement outcome, Bob applies the unitary transformation described by the displacement operator $`\widehat{D}(x,p)=e^{i(p\widehat{x}x\widehat{p})}`$ to the system $`B`$. Bob finally obtains the quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }^B`$ which is, in an ideal case, identical to the quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }^Q`$ to be teleported.

The main result of this letter is that the completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$ which describes the continuous variable teleportation by means of an arbitrary entangled state and the standard protocol is given by

$$\widehat{}\widehat{\rho }=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p𝒫(x,p)\widehat{D}(x,p)\widehat{\rho }\widehat{D}^{}(x,p),$$
(1)
with

$$𝒫(x,p)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{AB}(x,p)|\widehat{W}^{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{AB}(x,p),$$
(2)
$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{AB}(x,p)=[\widehat{1}^A\widehat{D}^B(x,p)]|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB},$$
(3)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}`$ is a completely entangled state of continuous variable

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x|x^A|x^B,$$
(4)
which satisfies the relations,

$`\text{Tr}_A|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\widehat{1}^B,`$ (5)
$`\text{Tr}_B|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\widehat{1}^A.`$ (6)
In this state, the systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ have the same values of position and the opposite values of momentum,

$$(\widehat{x}^A\widehat{x}^B)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}=(\widehat{p}^A+\widehat{p}^B)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}=0.$$
(7)
When $`𝒫(x,p)=P(x)P(p)`$ and $`P(x)`$ is a Gaussian function of $`x`$, the completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$ becomes the thermalizing quantum channel. Hence we refer to the completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$ as a generalized thermalizing quantum channel. In a discrete quantum teleportation of a $`N`$-dimensional Hilbert space, this corresponds to a generalized depolarizing quantum channel obtained by Bowen and Bose Bowen and Bose (2001). When a pure state $`\widehat{\rho }=|\psi \psi |`$ is teleported, the fidelity $`F_\psi `$ is calculated by the formula

$$F_\psi =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p𝒫(x,p)|\psi |\widehat{D}(x,p)|\psi |^2.$$
(8)
The property of the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum is essential for deriving the completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$. The simultaneous measurement which yields the measurement outcome $`(x,p)`$ is described by a projection operator,

$$\widehat{X}^{AB}(x,p)=|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)|,$$
(9)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)`$ is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y|x^A+y^A|y^Be^{ipy}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{D}^A(x,p)\widehat{1}^B\right]|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}e^{\frac{1}{2}ipx}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{1}^A\widehat{D}^B(x,p)\right]|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}e^{\frac{1}{2}ipx}`$
$`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{AB}(x,p)e^{\frac{1}{2}ipx},`$
where $`\widehat{D}(x,p)`$ is the displacement operator,

$$\widehat{D}(x,p)=\mathrm{exp}[i(p\widehat{x}x\widehat{p})]=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \widehat{a}^{}\alpha \widehat{a}),$$
(11)
with $`\widehat{a}=(\widehat{x}+i\widehat{p})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\alpha =(x+ip)/\sqrt{2}`$. The vector $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)`$ is the simultaneous eigenstate of position-difference operator $`\widehat{x}^A\widehat{x}^B`$ and momentum-sum operator $`\widehat{p}^A+\widehat{p}^B`$, which satisfies the relations,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x^{},p^{})=\delta (xx^{})\delta (pp^{}),$$
(12)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)|=\widehat{1}^A\widehat{1}^B.$$
(13)
For quantum optical systems, the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum is implemented by a heterodyne detection Leonhardt (1997).

Let us now derive the main result given by Eqs (1)–(4). Suppose that Alice and Bob share an arbitrary entangled state $`\widehat{W}^{AB}`$ and Alice has a quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }^Q`$ which is to be teleported to Bob. The total quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }^{QAB}`$ of Alice and Bob is given by

$$\widehat{\rho }^{QAB}=\widehat{\rho }^Q\widehat{W}^{AB}.$$
(14)
Alice performs the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum of the compound system $`Q+A`$, described by the projection operator $`\widehat{X}^{QA}(x,p)`$, and informs Bob of the measurement outcome $`(x,p)`$. Then Bob applies the unitary operator $`\widehat{D}^B(x,p)`$ to the system $`B`$ and he finally obtains the quantum state,

$$\widehat{\rho }^B(x,p)=\frac{\widehat{D}^B(x,p)\left\{\text{Tr}_{QA}\left[\left(\widehat{X}^{QA}(x,p)\widehat{1}^B\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }^Q\widehat{W}^{AB}\right)\right]\right\}\widehat{D}^B(x,p)}{\text{Tr}_{QAB}\left[\left(\widehat{X}^{QA}(x,p)\widehat{1}^B\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }^Q\widehat{W}^{AB}\right)\right]},$$
(15)
with probability,

$$P(x,p)=\text{Tr}_{QAB}\left[\left(\widehat{X}^{QA}(x,p)\widehat{1}^B\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }^Q\widehat{W}^{AB}\right)\right].$$
(16)
In deriving Eq. (15), we have used the state-reduction formula Davies (1976); Kraus (1983); Ozawa (1984). Hence the teleported quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{out}}^B`$ of Bob is given, in average, by

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{out}}^B=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\widehat{D}^B(x,p)\left\{\text{Tr}_{QA}\left[\left(\widehat{X}^{QA}(x,p)\widehat{1}^B\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }^Q\widehat{W}^{AB}\right)\right]\right\}\widehat{D}^B(x,p),$$
(17)
which determines the completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$ of the continuous variable teleportation by means of an arbitrary entangled state and the standard protocol.

To obtain the completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$ from Eq. (17), we expand the entangled quantum state $`\widehat{W}^{AB}`$ in terms of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)`$’s as

$$\widehat{W}^{AB}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑vF_W(x,u;y,v)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,u)\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(y,v)|,$$
(18)
where we set $`F_W(x,u;y,v)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,u)|\widehat{W}^{AB}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(y,v)`$. Note that the state vector $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)`$ satisfies the relation,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,u)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{BC}(y,v)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z|z^Cy^Cz^A+x^A|e^{iuz+iv(zy)}.$$
(19)
Substituting these equations into Eq. (17) and using $`|x+y=e^{iy\widehat{p}}|x`$, after some calculation, we obtain

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{out}}^B=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pF_W(x,p;x,p)\widehat{D}^B(x,p)\widehat{\rho }^B\widehat{D}^B(x,p).$$
(20)
where $`\widehat{\rho }^B`$ is the quantum state of the system $`B`$, which is identical to that described by $`\widehat{\rho }^Q`$. Using Eq. (10), we can arrive at the result given by Eqs. (1)–(4). Therefore, we have found that the continuous variable teleportation by means of an arbitrary entangled state and the standard protocol is equivalent to the generalized thermalizing quantum channel.

The continuous variable teleportation is usually performed by means of a two-mode squeezed-vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{SV}}^{AB}=e^{r(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{b})}|0^A,0^B`$ Braunstein and Kimble (1998); Furusawa et al. (1998). In this case, calculating $`𝒫(x,p)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{SV}}^{AB}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x,p)|^2`$, we obtain

$$\widehat{}\widehat{\rho }=\frac{1}{2\pi \overline{n}_r}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2+p^2}{2\overline{n}_r}\right)\widehat{D}(x,p)\widehat{\rho }\widehat{D}^{}(x,p),$$
(21)
where $`\overline{n}_r=e^{2r}`$ and $`r`$ is the squeezing parameter of the two-mode squeezed-vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{SV}}^{AB}`$. The completely positive map $`\widehat{}`$ given by Eq. (21) is equivalent to the transfer-operator representation of the continuous variable teleportation Hofmann et al. (2000). When we denote the Glauber-Sudarshan $`P`$-function of the quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ as $`P(\alpha )`$, Eq. (21) can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{}\widehat{\rho }=\frac{d^2\alpha }{\pi }P(\alpha )\widehat{D}(\alpha )\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{th}}\widehat{D}^{}(\alpha ),$$
(22)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the thermal state

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{1}{1+\overline{n}_r}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\overline{n}_r}{1+\overline{n}_r}\right)^n|nn|.$$
(23)
This result explicitly shows that the continuous variable teleportation by means of the two-mode squeezed-vacuum state is nothing but the thermalizing quantum channel. When the two-mode squeezed-vacuum state is shared through a noisy quantum channel, the parameter $`\overline{n}_r=e^{2r}`$ appeared in Eq. (21) is replaced with $`\overline{n}_r=1\left(1e^{2r}\right)T`$ Lee et al. (2000); Chizhov et al. (2002); Takeoka et al. (2002), where $`T`$ stands for the transmission coefficient of the noisy quantum channel.

We next consider the continuous variable quantum dense coding by means of an arbitrary entangled state and the standard protocol in which Alice applies the unitary operator $`\widehat{D}(x,p)`$ to encode some classical information and Bob performs the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum to extract the information Ban (1999); Braunstein and Kimble (2000); Ban (2000a, b). Suppose that Alice and Bob share an arbitrary entangled quantum state $`\widehat{W}^{AB}`$ to transmit classical information via the continuous variable quantum dense coding. When Alice applies the unitary operator $`\widehat{D}(x,p)`$ to her system and sends it to Bob, his quantum state $`\widehat{W}^{AB}(x,p)`$ is given by

$$\widehat{W}^{AB}(x,p)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑vF_W(y,u;z,v)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x+y,p+u)\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x+z,p+v)|.$$
(24)
Thus the conditional probability (the channel matrix of the quantum dense coding) $`P(x^{},p^{}|x,p)`$ that Bob obtains the measurement outcome $`(x^{},p^{})`$ when Alice encoded $`(x,p)`$ is calculated to be

$`P(x^{},p^{}|x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x^{}x,p^{}p)|\widehat{W}^{AB}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{AB}(x^{}x,p^{}p)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`F_W(x^{}x,p^{}p;x^{}x,p^{}p)`$
$`=`$ $`𝒫(xx^{},p^{}p),`$
where $`𝒫(x,p)`$ is given by Eq. (2). When $`\widehat{W}^{AB}`$ is the two-mode squeezed-vacuum state, we obtain

$$P(x^{},p^{}|x,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \overline{n}_r}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(x^{}x)^2+(p^{}p)^2}{2\overline{n}_r}\right].$$
(26)
In the strong squeezing limit $`(r1)`$, the channel matrix $`P(x^{},p^{}|x,p)`$ is approximated as $`\delta (x^{}x)\delta (p^{}p)`$ and thus the continuous variable quantum dense coding can transmit the amount of classical information twice as that without quantum entanglement Braunstein and Kimble (2000). When the two-mode squeezed-vacuum state is sent through a noisy quantum channel, the parameter $`\overline{n}_r=e^{2r}`$ appeared in Eq. (26) is replaced with $`\overline{n}_r=1\left(1e^{2r}\right)T`$ Ban (2000a, b).

In summary, we have shown that the continuous variable quantum teleportation by means of an arbitrary entangled quantum state and the standard protocol is equivalent to the generalized thermalizing quantum channel. This is a continuous version of the result obtained by Bowen and Bose Bowen and Bose (2001), in which they have shown that the discrete (the finite dimensional) quantum teleportation with the standard protocol is equivalent to the generalized depolarizing quantum channel. In particular, when a two-mode squeezed-vacuum state is used as an entanglement resource, the continuous variable quantum teleportation becomes the thermalizing channel in which the number of thermal photons is given by $`\overline{n}_r=e^{2r}`$. The continuous variable quantum dense coding by means of an arbitrary entangled state the standard protocol has been also considered. As long as the standard protocol is applied, not only the continuous variable quantum teleportation but also the continuous variable quantum dense coding is completely determined by the function $`𝒫(x,p)`$ given by Eq. (2).


text:
# LAPTH-901/2002 DTP-MSU/02-04 Monopoles in NBI-Higgs theory and Born-Infeld collapse

## 1 Introduction

An effective low-energy dynamics of strings attached to multiple D-branes is governed by the non-Abelian Born-Infeld (NBI) action . Different aspects of this theory were studied recently including the problem of magnetic monopoles. The NBI theory contains a parameter, $`\beta `$, of dimension of the field strength (string tension), reflecting a non-local nature of the underlying string theory. It was observed numerically  that monopole solutions exist for $`\beta `$ varying from infinity (which corresponds to the usual form of the YM action) till some boundary value $`\beta _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, while for $`\beta <\beta _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ only pointlike (embedded abelian) monopoles exist (see also ). Previous study  also revealed an existence of the excited monopoles in the NBI theory with the similar threshold behavior. Here we study monopoles near the threshold in more details, and find an interesting new phenomenon in the NBI theory, resembling gravitational collapse.

In fact, magnetic monopoles in the Yang-Mills-Higgs (YMH) theory with the standard YM lagrangian coupled to gravity exhibit similar features  (for a review and further references see ). Gravity imposes an upper limit on the monopole mass, whose physical meaning is simple: when the monopole radius becomes smaller than its gravitational radius, the black hole should be formed. A detailed study of the monopole — black hole transition was undertaken recently by Lue and Weinberg . The ratio of the monopole mass to the Planck mass serves as an order parameter, $`\alpha `$, describing transition from the globally regular solutions to black holes. Regular solutions exist for $`\alpha <\alpha _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the critical value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ being of the order unity. Another feature of the near critical region is the bifurcation of the mass curve, giving rise to new branches of the gravitationally excited monopoles. The latter may be regarded as bound states of monopoles with gravitational sphalerons , known as Bartnik-McKinnon’s (BK) solutions , which live inside the monopole core. Therefore, the threshold in the parameter space of gravitating monopoles is associated both with the monopole-black hole transition and branching off the gravitationally excited monopoles.

It turns out that the flat space NBI theory admits sphaleron solutions similar to Bartnik-McKinnon particles  (though with some differences in the detailed structure ). Moreover, when the NBI theory is coupled to gravity, parameters of the NBI sphalerons are continuously driven with the increasing Newton constant to these of the BK particles. Existence of both the BK and the NBI sphalerons is related to breaking of scale invariance of the Yang-Mills theory by non-linearity of the BI lagrangian in the first case, and by gravity in the second. Therefore, the possibility of bound states of the NBI sphalerons with magnetic monopoles could be expected by an analogy with the gravitating case. Note that the limit of vanishing gravity corresponds to the YM limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ in the case of the NBI theory.

Surprisingly enough, the analogy with gravitation goes farther, and one observes some analog of gravitational collapse in the flat space NBI theory. The size of monopoles (including excited states) is rapidly decreasing when $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ with the limiting configuration being an Abelian pointlike monopole. An analysis of stresses inside monopoles near the criticality shows that both radial and tangential pressure become negative in the core and rapidly increase. It is expected that in the dynamical picture these stresses will force the regular configuration to shrink to the pointlike structure.

The plan of the paper in as follows. In Sec. 2 we discuss the form of the NBI lagrangian and present the ordinary trace and the symmetrized trace versions of the theory. Sec. 3 contains the description of the monopole-sphaleron bound states in the ordinary trace model. In Sec. 4 we discuss the structure of solutions near the threshold and reveal the collapse behavior for both the ground and excited monopoles. In sec. 5 the analogous results are briefly discussed within the symmetrized trace NBI model.

## 2 The action

A subtle point in the definition of the NBI action is the specification of the trace over the gauge group generators  (for an earlier discussion see ). Formally a number of possibilities can be envisaged. Starting with the determinant form of the $`U(1)`$ Dirac-Born-Infeld action

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left\{1\sqrt{det(g_{\mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu })}\right\}d^4x,$$
(1)
one has different options including the usual trace, the symmetrized or antisymmetrized traces , or evaluation of the determinant both with respect to Lorenz and the gauge matrix indices . Alternatively, one can start with the Abelian ‘square root’ form, which is obtained in the four-dimensional case evaluating the determinant under the square root:

$$\sqrt{det(g_{\mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu })}=\sqrt{det(g)}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2}F^2\frac{1}{16}(F\stackrel{~}{F})^2},$$
(2)
with $`F^2=F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu },F\stackrel{~}{F}=F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$. For a non-Abelian gauge group this relation is no more valid, unless a special trace prescription is made, but this U(1) action may serve as another starting point for non-Abelian generalization applying the simple trace to the right hand side of this equation.

A particular trace operation, for which the relation Eq.(2) remains valid, is the ‘symmetrized trace’ suggested by Tseytlin . The original argument was that in the non-Abelian case the commutators of the field strength tensors can be expressed via their derivatives, these should be absent within the constant field approximation in which the NBI action s derived in the string theory. The trace definition eliminating commutators involves the symmetrization of all products of the generators obtained in the power series expansion of the square root. Independently of whether this prescription corresponds indeed to the string theory result in all orders in $`\beta `$ (actual calculations shows that it may be not true in higher orders ), this is a valuable model to be considered.

The explicit form of the SU(2) NBI action with the symmetrized trace for static $`SO(3)`$-symmetric magnetic type configurations was found in . One starts with the definition

$$L_{NBI}^{str}=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }Str\left(1\sqrt{det\left(g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{\beta }F_{\mu \nu }\right)}\right)=k\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }Str(1),$$
(3)
where

$$=\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{16\beta ^4}(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu })^2},$$
(4)
and $`\beta `$ of the dimension of length<sup>-2</sup> is the BI ’critical field’. Assuming the usual spherically symmetric t’Hooft-Polyakov ansatz

$$A_0^a=0A_i^a=ϵ_{aij}\frac{n^j}{r}(1w(r)),$$
(5)
where $`n^k=x^k/r`$, $`r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}`$ and $`w(r)`$ is the real valued function, the lagrangian (3) is evaluated by expanding the square root in powers of $`F`$, performing symmetrization of all products of the gauge generators, evaluating the trace, and finally summing up the resulting expansion. The result is the following :

$$L_{NBI}^{str}=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }\left(1\frac{1+V^2+K^2𝒜}{\sqrt{1+V^2}}\right),$$
(6)
where

$`V^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1w^2(r))^2}{\beta ^2r^4}},K^2={\displaystyle \frac{w^2(r)}{\beta ^2r^2}},`$
$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+V^2}{V^2K^2}}}arctanh\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{V^2K^2}{1+V^2}}},`$ (7)
and dash denotes derivative with respect to $`r`$. This form of the lagrangian is appropriate for $`V^2>K^2`$, otherwise the function $`arctanh`$ could be replaced by $`\mathrm{arctan}`$. Note that, when the difference $`V^2K^2`$ changes sign, the function $`𝒜`$ remains real valued.

The action with an ordinary trace applied to the square root form (2) reads

$$L_{NBI}^{tr}=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }\left(1\sqrt{1+V^2+2K^2}\right).$$
(8)
It can be checked that, as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, the standard Yang-Mills lagrangian (restricted to the monopole ansatz) is recovered in both cases. But in the strong field region the two expressions differ substantially.

The total action to be used here is the sum $`S=S_{NBI}+S_H`$, where the Higgs part is taken in the usual form

$$S_H=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(D_\mu \varphi ^aD^\mu \varphi ^a\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(\varphi ^a\varphi ^av^2\right)\right).$$
(9)
Here the dimensionless gauge coupling constant (in units $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$) is set to unity, so we have three parameters: the Higgs expectation value $`v`$, Higgs self-interaction constant $`\lambda `$ and the BI critical field $`\beta `$. By additional rescaling, the constant $`v`$ can be set to unity. For the Higgs field the standard hedgehog ansatz is assumed:

$$\varphi ^a=\frac{H(r)}{r}n^a.$$
(10)
## 3 NBI sphalerons inside monopoles

We start with the square root form of the NBI action (8). Performing an integration over spherical angles one obtains the one-dimensional reduced action, equal to minus the energy functional:

$$S=4\pi 𝑑rr^2\left\{\beta ^2(1)+\frac{1}{2r^2}\left((H^{}\frac{H}{r})^2+\frac{2}{r^2}H^2w^2\right)+\frac{\lambda }{4}\left(\frac{H^2}{r^2}1\right)^2\right\},$$
(11)
where

$$=\sqrt{1+\frac{2}{\beta ^2r^4}(r^2w^2+\frac{1}{\beta ^4}(w^21)^2)}.$$
(12)
Variation of this functional leads to the following equations of motion

$`r^2w^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`w(H^2+w^21)+r^2{\displaystyle \frac{^{}}{}}w^{},`$ (13)
$`r^2H^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`2Hw^2\lambda H(r^2H^2).`$ (14)
Boundary conditions at infinity for the monopole solutions read

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}w(r)=0,\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{H(r)}{r}=1,$$
(15)
while regularity at the origin implies

$$w(0)=1,H(0)=0.$$
(16)
Starting with the values (16), one can construct the following power series solution converging in some domain around the origin:

$`w`$ $`=`$ $`1br^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta b^2\left(22b^2+\beta ^2\right)+d^2\left(6b^2+\beta ^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{10\beta \left(2b^2+\beta ^2\right)}}r^4+O(r^6),`$ (17)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`dr^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}\lambda d+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}db\right)r^4+O(r^6),`$ (18)
where $`b`$ and $`d`$ are free parameters. Solutions which start at the origin in this way reach monopole asymptotics (15) for some discrete values of $`b`$ and $`d`$. The equations reduces to those of the standard YMH-theory as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. In  it was shown that monopole solutions to the Eq.(13-14), generalizing the usual t’Hooft–Polyakov monopole, continue to exist for all finite $`\beta `$ greater than some limiting value $`\beta _{cr}`$ of the order unity. Here we investigate in more details what happens in the critical region.

The situation resembles that of gravitating monopoles, i.e. solutions of the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs equations . In that case there is a critical value of the gravitational constant (with other parameters fixed) after which regular monopoles cease to exist. In the critical region the gravitational interaction becomes strong and the new solution with the monopole asymptotics arise, which look like bound states of the monopole with the Bartnik-McKinnon particles , the latter being solutions of the Einstein-Yang-Mills equations without Higgs. The bifurcation of the monopole branch giving rise to excited monopoles occurs in the vicinity of the critical value of the gravitational constant, the detailed picture depending on the Higgs mass.

The analogy with gravitating monopoles is based on the fact that in the flat space NBI theory (without Higgs) there also exist sphaleron type particle-like solutions . In this case the Derrick’s obstruction is overpassed due to violation of the scale invariance by the NBI action. Therefore, one might expect the existence of bound states of monopoles with NBI sphalerons inside. The structure of these solutions can be described as follows. Near the origin the Higgs field is almost zero, so the influence of the term $`H^2K`$ in the equations of motion is small, and the NBIH system behaves similarly to the NBI one. As was argued in , NBI theories with different $`\beta `$ are equivalent up to rescaling, so, for $`\beta `$ large enough, the formation of NBI sphalerons starts close to the origin. Outside their core the Higgs field becomes significant, and the solution in the far zone is driven to the monopole configuration. More precisely, in the region of $`r1/\sqrt{\beta }`$, the function $`w(r)`$ is similar to that is the sphaleron type solutions of : starting with $`w=1`$ it passes through zero and (possibly) oscillates $`N`$ times before the solution is driven to an asymptotic regime. This time, however, the function $`w`$ tends not to one of its vacuum values $`w=\pm 1`$, but is captured to the monopole asymptotic $`w=0`$. The Higgs field $`H(r)`$ behaves qualitatively in the same way as in the ground state monopole solutions. These considerations can be converted into the rigorous proof of existence, like in the case of NBI sphalerons .

Therefore, for large enough $`\beta `$, one expects to find the solutions which can be thought of as bound states of the t’Hooft-Polyakov monopole (slightly distorted by the Born-Infeld nonlinearity) and a very small (of size $`\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$) sphaleron sitting in the monopole core. Numerically one finds the whole family of excited monopoles which corresponds to the family of solutions discovered in . They are labeled by the number $`N`$ of nodes of the function $`w`$, the $`N=0`$ solution being the ground sate NBI monopole.

The second parameter which enters the lagrangian (11) is the self-coupling parameter $`\lambda `$ of the Higgs field. One can see from the equation of motions that the respective terms are small in the deep core, where the excited solutions are starting to form. In the region of near critical $`\beta `$, all happens in the close vicinity of the origin, so solutions are little sensitive to the values of $`\lambda `$. Numerical calculations show that the parameters $`b`$ and $`d`$ of the excited solutions remain practically unchanged when $`\lambda `$ is doubled. This is not true for the ground state $`N=0`$ monopole, which mostly inherits properties of the Yang-Mills-Higgs solution, but one observes that the role of the $`\lambda `$-depending terms also decreases while approaching the critical region. In particular, the value of $`\beta _{cr}`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$.

Numerical solutions were constructed starting with the regular initial conditions in the origin (16) in terms of the logarithmic variable $`t=\mathrm{ln}(r)`$ and applying the shooting strategy to find the discrete values of parameters $`b`$ and $`d`$ which ensure that the monopole asymptotic conditions (17-18) are fulfilled after several oscillations of $`w`$. The initial guess for the values of $`b`$ is provided by the glueball values found in . Dependence of $`b`$ on $`N`$ and $`\beta `$ is shown on the Tab. 2. The other parameter, $`d`$, turns out to be weakly sensitive to the value of $`\beta `$ and tends to a constant, as $`\beta `$ approaches infinity (Tab. 3). The sample solutions for $`N=1,2,3`$ are shown on Fig. 1 together with the ground state monopole for $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\beta =30`$.

## 4 Born-Infeld collapse

This simple picture holds if the size of sphalerons inside the monopoles is small as compared with the size of the unexcited monopole. However, with decreasing $`\beta `$, the ratio of the sphaleron radius to that of the monopole increases. At the same time, both radii rapidly fall down. Numerically it is observed that for large enough $`\beta `$ the parameter $`b`$ first goes down with decreasing $`\beta `$), causing the expansion of the NBI glueball (the region of $`w`$-oscillations). On the other hand, the monopole radius stabilizes for sufficiently small $`\beta `$ (see ), so both sizes become comparable for certain $`\beta `$. With $`\beta `$ further decreasing, the YM parameter $`b`$ in (17-18) starts to increase, as well as the Higgs parameter $`d`$. The whole solution then acquires the following structure: the function $`w`$, starting from the value $`w=1`$, rapidly falls down, performs several oscillations of small amplitude around zero, and approaches zero asymptotically. The Higgs variable $`H/r`$ does not have any peculiarities: starting from initial value it monotonically grows up to the vacuum expectation value. For smaller $`\beta `$, the both parameters $`b`$ and $`d`$ begin to grow faster and faster and for the critical value $`\beta _{cr}`$ they tends to infinity. In terms of the logarithmic radial variable $`t=\mathrm{ln}r`$ one clearly sees that shapes of $`w`$ and $`H/r`$ remain almost the same while $`\beta `$ approaches the critical value, but the whole picture moves to negative $`t`$ (Tab. 1). This means that the region of the localization of essentially nonabelian structure becomes smaller and smaller, while in the outer region the solution looks like an embedded Abelian monopole

$$w=0,\frac{H}{r}=1.$$
(19)
The figure 2 illustrates this behavior for the lowest excited solution $`N=1`$. The functions $`w`$ and $`H`$ are plotted for various $`\beta `$, from very large, up to ones slightly exceeding $`\beta _{cr}`$. It is seen that the YM function starts to fall down for smaller and smaller values of the radial coordinate when criticality is approached. Similar picture hold for excited solutions with any number of nodes. This collapse process is observed also for the ground state monopole $`N=0`$ near the critical value $`\beta _{cr_0}`$, approaching which the solution shrinks to the abelian counterpart. The numerical experiments indicate that the critical values of $`\beta `$ are independent of $`\lambda `$. For $`N2`$, the value $`\beta _{cr_0}`$ is practically independent on $`N`$ and is equal to $`\beta _{cr_2}1.03`$. For $`N=1`$ the collapse occurs at $`\beta _{cr_1}0.92`$ while for the ground state monopole $`\beta _{cr_0}0.52`$.

Physical reason for the Born-Infeld collapse can be understood as follows. At high density, the stress-energy tensor of the NBI field develops large negative pressure. From the lagrangian (8) one can derive the following relation for the sum of principal pressures $`p_r=T_{rr},p_\varphi =T_{\varphi \varphi }`$:

$$2p_\varphi +p_r=f(\rho )=\frac{\rho (\rho 2\beta ^2)}{\rho +2\beta ^2},$$
(20)
where $`\rho =T_{tt}`$ is the energy density. This quantity becomes negative for $`\rho >2\beta ^2`$. Numerical data for the radial and tangential pressures corresponding to the ground state monopole are given in Figs. 4,5 for the pure gauge component and together with Higgs. When $`\beta `$ goes to the critical value, the tangential pressure exhibits a small positive knob near the monopole boundary and then becomes negative in the core region. With decreasing $`\beta `$ it falls down rapidly tending to minus infinity at the threshold. The radial pressure near the threshold is always negative and also tend to minus infinity.

The masses of solutions in the critical region rapidly converge to the energy of the embedded Abelian pointlike monopole (recall that in the Born-Infeld theory the singular pointlike solution 19 has a finite energy):

$$E_{lim}=𝑑rr^22\beta ^2(1)=\sqrt{\beta }𝑑xx^2(\sqrt{1+\frac{2}{x^4}}1)=1.23604978\sqrt{\beta }.$$
(21)
This value serves as the upper bound for the mass as a function of $`\beta `$ and $`N`$. Moreover, this value describes pretty well the masses of all excited solutions starting from $`N=1`$: for all $`\beta `$ the discrepancy does not exceed 3% and it decreases fast near the threshold. This can be seen on Figure 3, showing the masses of $`N=0,1,2`$ solutions as a function of $`\beta `$. The bifurcation pattern of the main branch with excited branches is similar to that of gravitating monopoles, but now it occurs with a decreasing parameter.

## 5 Symmetrized trace model

Within the symmetrized trace model the equations of motion read:

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left\{\frac{w^{}}{2(V^2K^2)}\left(\frac{K^2\sqrt{1+V^2}}{1+K^2}\frac{(2V^2K^2)𝒜}{\sqrt{V^2K^2}}\right)\right\}=$$

$$\frac{Vw(K^2𝒜V^2)}{(V^2K^2)\sqrt{1+V^2}}+\frac{wH^2}{r^2}$$
(22)
$$r^2H^{\prime \prime }=H(H^2r^2)\lambda +2Hw^2,$$
(23)
where $`V`$ and $`K`$ are defined in (2).

The pure NBI model with the symmetrized trace also possesses the sphaleronic type excitations which are qualitatively the same as in the ordinary trace model . In particular, the same scaling behavior follows immediately from the action (6). Hence the above arguments about the existence of monopole-sphaleron bound states apply directly, and one can expect to find sphaleronic excitations at least for large $`\beta `$. Numerical experiments indicate that for large values of $`\beta `$ there are indeed excited monopole solutions analogous to those considered above (Fig. 6). But, since the structure of the essentially nonabelian region is not the same in both models, there are some differences in the behavior of the solution with varying $`\beta `$. One observes that, in the symmetrized trace model, the sphaleronic solutions for a given node number $`N`$ are smaller than those in the ordinary trace model. Also, the amplitude of $`w`$-oscillations is relatively smaller. All this is reflected in the relatively large values of the parameters $`b`$ and $`d`$ which now grow much faster with increasing $`\beta `$ and $`N`$.

As a consequence, the collapse, which takes place in this model also, occurs at larger values of $`\beta `$ for any positive $`N`$. Moreover, for any given $`\beta `$, there exist excited solutions only up to some finite $`N`$, the boundary value of $`N`$ being dependent on $`\beta `$.

## 6 Discussion

Our purpose was to describe an astonishing similarity between gravitating monopoles and those in the flat space non-Abelian Born-Infeld theory. Both theories contain ground state monopoles as well as excited monopoles which can be regarded as bound states of monopoles and sphalerons. In both cases there is a threshold in the parameter space, which marks the end of the monopole sequence. In the gravitating case this happens since the monopole radius becomes smaller that its gravitational radius, so it is the gravitational collapse phenomenon which stands behind this picture. Physically, gravitational collapse can be attributed to development of strong attractive forces when the event horizon is approached. Surprisingly enough, we observed an analogous behavior in in the flat space NBI theory. The size of monopoles (including their excited states) become smaller and smaller when a certain threshold value of the BI field strength parameter is approached, and no extended monopoles exist beyond the threshold. In this region the large negative pressure (tension) is developed inside the regular NBI monopoles, which cause them to shrink to a singular pointlike (Abelian) monopole. Large negative pressure developed inside the high density ball of the NBI matter apparently should create an instability against the contraction to the pointlike structure. The dynamical picture of the collapse phenomenon in the NBI theory is currently under investigation.

It is worth noting, that if one couples the NBI model to gravity, a continuous interpolation between the NBI sphalerons and Bartnik-McKinnon particles is observed . It is expected that parameters of monopole-sphaleron bound states will also exhibit the analogous transition.


text:
# Comment on “Experimental Nonlocality Proof of Quantum Teleportation and Entanglement Swapping”

In a recent letter, Jennewein *et al.*  reported an experiment demonstrating entanglement swapping among two pairs (0,1 and 2,3) of down-converted photons. They accomplished this by performing a Bell measurement on photons 1 and 2, and they verified the effect with regular polarization measurements on photons 0 and 3. By selecting data from runs in which 1,2 are measured to be in the Bell state $`|\psi ^{}`$, they find that the measurement results for 0,3 violate a Bell (CHSH) inequality, and they conclude that 0,3 have exhibited quantum nonlocality.

A peculiarity is noted for the case in which the Bell measurement on 1,2 is performed only *after* 0,3 have their polarizations measured. In this case, Jennewein *et al.* say that the measurements on 0 and 3 “indicate… that photons 0 and 3 were entangled.”

But at the time 0 and 3 were measured, they were not entangled, because they started out unentangled and no entangling operation had been performed up to that point. They cannot be entangled retroactively. We are thus lead to conclude that photons 0 and 3 have violated a Bell inequality while not even being entangled with each other!

In fact, while the data for 0 and 3 does technically violate a Bell inequality in this case, it is due not to quantum nonlocality between 0 and 3, but rather to the post-selection of 0,3 data according to whether or not 1,2 are measured to be in the Bell state $`|\psi ^{}`$.

As far as Bell inequalities are concerned, this kind of post-selection is the same as enhancing observed correlations by manually discarding selected runs after comparing the 0,3 polarization records. In these experiments, the measurement results for photons 1 and 2 have simply been used as markers for such runs. Indeed 0 was entangled with 1, and 2 with 3, but this entanglement has nothing to do with the Bell inequality violations involving 0 and 3.

On the other hand, in the experiments where 1 and 2 are measured first, 0 and 3 are in fact projected into an entangled state and the resulting Bell inequality violation does indicate real quantum nonlocality.


text:
# Time-resolved flickering mapping of V2051 Ophiuchi

## References

Baptista, R., Steiner, J. E. 1993, A&A, 277, 331

Bennie, P. J., Hilditch, R., Horne, K. 1996, in IAU Coll. 158, Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, eds. A. Evans & J. Wood (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 33

Horne, K., 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 157, Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables, eds. K. Mukai & C. Hellier (San Francisco: ASP), 349