text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is understood that investigations of the fusion reactions between hydrogen isotope nuclei at low energies are of great importance for determining properties of lightest nuclei and for the astrophysics. In particular, there is a need for new or improved measurements of many radiation capture reactions included in various astrophysical scenarios. Due to the Coulomb repulsion fusion cross-sections $`\sigma (E)`$ drop rapidly at low ($`E100keV`$) collision energies (in an exponential scale for ”bare” nuclei).

Reaction

$$d+d^4He+\gamma +23.8MeV$$
(1)
is involved in both primordial and stellar nucleosynthesis. Its cross section is rather small (about 1 pb at 50 keV, compared to 1 mb for main fusion channels $`d(d,n)^3He`$ and $`d(d,p)^3H`$), and its experimental investigations in $`dd`$ collisions are rather difficult.

At energies $`E>400`$ keV reaction (1) proceeds mainly by a d-wave E2 transition to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$-state of 4He . The reason is the identical boson character of the entrance channel requiring $`L+S`$ to be even ($`L`$ and $`S`$ are orbital angular momentum and total spin of the $`dd`$ system). At lower energies, the centrifugal barrier suppresses the d-wave E2 capture, allowing s-wave E2 transition to the D-state admixture of 4He. Measurements extended to energies below 100 keV  have confirmed this picture. However, an existence of multipoles other than E2 in reaction (1) was not excluded experimentally despite belief that dipole transitions $`E1`$ and $`M1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ should be suppressed due to standard isospin selection rule $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$.

Measurements of the cross section angular distributions $`\sigma (\theta )`$, of vector $`A_y`$ and tensor $`A_{yy}`$ analyzing powers performed with a polarized deuteron beam with energy $`E_d`$(lab) = 80 keV stopping in the target have yielded an unexpected observation of the p-wave strength in $`{}_{}{}^{2}H(\stackrel{}{d},\gamma )^4He`$ reaction . It has been found that over 50% of the cross section strength at these low energies is due to E1 and M2 p-wave capture. This finding might affect the low energy behavior of the S-function and be considered as an isospin selection rule violation.(Some other evidences for non-E2 radiation are cited in ). It would be extremely interesting to observe this p-wave manifestation in an independent measurement.

During past decades experiments in which various fusion reactions between hydrogen isotopes are catalyzed by muons have provided supplementary information about these reactions at energies well below the lowest energies accessible by conventional beam-target experiments . In the muon catalyzed (MC) process fusion takes place from the bound states of muonic molecules. Nuclei inside muonic molecules are practically at rest, being separated by average distances $`a_\mu \mathrm{}^2/e^2m_\mu ^2=2.510^{11}cm`$ ( $`m_\mu `$ is the muon mass).

Muonic molecules can be formed in the states with total angular momenta $`J=0`$ and $`J=1`$, that correspond to the relative orbital angular momenta of nuclei $`L=0`$ and $`L=1`$. Depending on the hydrogen isotope mixture parameters various states of muonic molecules can be populated. This makes possible study fusion reactions at super-low energies from prepared $`s`$ and $`p`$ nuclear states with definite spins.

Study of the MC fusion process in $`dd\mu `$ muonic molecule resulted in the complimentary and detailed information about charge-symmetric reactions $`d(d,n)^3He`$ and $`d(d,p)^3H`$. A significant difference in the p-wave parts of the $`d(d,p)^3H`$ and $`d(d,n)^3He`$ reaction yields was observed in the experiments with low energy polarized deuteron beams . Comparison of two reaction branches showed some s-wave enhancement together with essential p-wave suppression of the proton branch. (This result was then interpreted by some as an evidence for charge symmetry breaking forces.)

Direct measurement of the yields ratio $`R_p(n/p)`$ for reactions

$$dd\mu ^3He+n+\mu ,\mu ^3He+n,$$
(2)
$$dd\mu t+p+\mu $$
(3)
proceeding from the $`J=1`$ state of $`dd\mu `$ molecules ,  gave the value $`R_p(n/p)=1.42\pm 0.03`$. It agreed with the ratio from  determined from the elaborate (and model dependent) analysis of the in-flight data. Rates of $`dd\mu `$ fusion reactions (2),(3) from the p-wave were experimentally measured  and corresponding nuclear reaction constants were extracted from MC data .

The deuteron radiative capture reaction in the $`dd\mu `$-molecule

$$dd\mu ^4He\mu +\gamma +23.8MeV,$$
(4)
has not previously been investigated because of the extreme smallness of its expected yield. In the systematic study of the MC process in deuterium we have recently performed  measurements in the temperature range T=85-800 K. As in our earlier experiments , neutrons from reaction (2) were detected. At temperatures $`T>`$ 150 K $`dd\mu `$ molecules are mainly formed in J=1 state and fusion reactions proceed from the p-wave of relative nuclear motion. Hence, being detected, 23.8 MeV $`\gamma `$-quanta would unambiguously indicate a finite p-wave contribution to process (4) rate.

In view of this, we performed a feasibility study of process (4) detection in our last measurements of the $`dd\mu `$-molecule formation rate . For this aim one of two usually used neutron detectors was removed and a gamma detector was installed instead. The level of the radiation background in our installation has been measured. We present the first experimental estimation for the yield of the radiative deuteron capture in the p-wave from the $`dd\mu `$-molecule.

## 2 Experimental setup

The experimental setup (its layout is shown in Fig. 1) has been described in detail in . The muon beam of the JINR phasotron was directed into a high pressure deuterium target (HPDT) . Scintillation counters 1-4 detected incoming muons. Cylinder-shaped counter 5 served to identify the muon stop in the target and to detect electrons from muon decay. A coincidence between signals of counters $`5`$ and $`1e,2e`$ served as the electron signal.

A large neutron detector ND (volume of NE-213 $`v=12.5l`$) ,  was aimed to detect neutrons from reaction (2). To reduce a background, the $`n\gamma `$ separation was realized by comparing the signals for the total charge and the fast component charge of the ND pulse. The efficiency of the $`\gamma `$-quanta discrimination was better than $`10^3`$ for energies $`E_{\gamma ,e}>100keV`$.

Figure 1. Experimental layout.

The $`\gamma `$-quanta were detected with a $`NaI(Tl)`$ crystal of a 150 mm diameter and a 100 mm height. It was calibrated with $`\gamma `$-sources $`{}_{}{}^{60}Co`$ (total energy of two $`\gamma `$-s 2.5 MeV), $`Pu`$-$`Be`$ ($`E_\gamma =4.43`$ MeV) and with 5.5 MeV $`\gamma `$-s from the reaction

$$pd\mu ^3He\mu +\gamma .$$
(5)
Reaction (5) was observed in the test exposures when the target was filled with H/D mixture containing about 20% of protium. The energy resolution of the detector was $`15\%`$ FWHM at 5.5 MeV.

Linearity of the energy scale was checked under different voltages supplied to the detector in the measurements with available $`\gamma `$-sources $`{}_{}{}^{60}Co`$ and $`Pu`$-$`Be`$. In the used amplitude region it proved to be linear at the level 2-3%. Expected position for $`\gamma `$-s from (4) is then approximately 200-th channel. Stability of the spectrometric system was controlled with $`\gamma `$-sources during the run.

We estimated the $`\gamma `$-quanta detection efficiency using values of $`\gamma `$-s cross sections in $`NaI`$ and the known solid angle of the detector. Taking into account efficiency losses ($`3040\%`$) due to the bremsstrahlung in the target walls we determined the efficiency for 24 MeV $`\gamma `$-quanta detection

$$ϵ_\gamma =(5\pm 1)\%.$$
(6)
Primary selection of the events detected by the neutron and $`\gamma `$-detectors was realized by the trigger. It allowed only those events for further time and amplitude analysis which were connected with electron registration, i.e., delayed coincidences $`\mu n,\gamma e`$ were used. Under this condition the timing sequence of the $`NaI`$ and ND signals was registered by flashes ADC and recorded on the PC.

## 3 Measurements

During the run eight exposures were performed at different deuterium temperatures and densities. Experimental conditions for them are presented in Table 1. Deuterium density is given in relative units: $`\varphi =n/n_0`$ where $`n_0=4.2510^{22}nucl/cm^3`$ is the liquid hydrogen density (LHD). For all exposures the intensity of muons detected by counters 1-4 was $`2.510^3s^1`$. The electron counting rate was 15-30 per second depending on the deuterium density.

Table 1. Experimental conditions.

| Exposure | T, K | Content, % | | $`\varphi ,`$ | $`N_e`$ | $`N_n`$ | $`N_{dd\mu }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`C_p`$(H) | $`C_d`$(D) | $`LHD`$ |  |  |  |
| 1 | 85 (5) | 20.7 (0.5) | 79.3 (0.5) | 0.84 (0.03) | 712 300 | 4 000 | $`1.210^5`$ |
| 2 | 110 (5) | 20.7 (0.5) | 79.3 (0.5) | 0.84 (0.03) | 474 600 | 4 700 | $`1.210^5`$ |
| 3 | 230 (5) | 20.7 (0.5) | 79.3 (0.5) | 0.83 (0.03) | 433 200 | 15 000 | $`4.510^5`$ |
| 4 | 301 (4) | 20.7 (0.5) | 79.3 (0.5) | 0.83 (0.03) | 443 700 | 20 200 | $`6.110^5`$ |
| 5 | 299 (4) | 20.7 (0.5) | 79.3 (0.5) | 0.47 (0.02) | 388 900 | 13 900 | $`4.210^5`$ |
| 6 | 298 (4) | 0.1 (0.1) | 99.9 (0.1) | 0.50 (0.02) | 232 500 | 18 100 | $`5.710^5`$ |
| 7 | 548 (10) | 0.1 (0.1) | 99.9 (0.1) | 0.50 (0.02) | 240 000 | 19 500 | $`5.110^5`$ |
| 8 | 791 (15) | 0.1 (0.1) | 99.9 (0.1) | 0.49 (0.02) | 315 000 | 20 500 | $`6.110^5`$ |

The number of detected electrons from muon decay, $`N_e`$, was determined from the fit of the electron time spectra taking into account the background from muon stops in the target walls. The latter one was found in the exposure with the empty target. Number of electrons detected per 10 hours of phasotron operation (one exposure) was $`(0.51.0)10^6`$. Details of the analysis can be found in .

The number of neutrons from reaction (2), $`N_n`$, was obtained from the analysis of the time spectra of the events detected by ND and belonging to the neutron region in the $`n\gamma `$ plot . The neutron background was measured in the special exposure with the target filled with helium. Thus determined numbers of $`N_e`$ and $`N_n`$ are presented in Table 1.

Exposures made with H/D mixture allowed detection of reaction (5), which was used both for energy calibrating and checking the $`\gamma `$-quanta detection efficiency.

As expected, exposures 1 and 2 are characterized by a low neutron/electron ratio. In other words, only small fraction of the muon stops in the target lead to formation of $`dd\mu `$-molecules and subsequent reaction (2), detected in our experiment. It is due to the fact , , ,  that, at low temperatures $`T<150K`$, the $`dd\mu `$ formation rate $`\lambda _{dd\mu }\varphi <0.110^6s^1`$ is small compared to the $`d\mu `$-atom disappearance rate $`\lambda _{d\mu }=\lambda _0+\lambda _{dd\mu }\varphi (1C_p)+\lambda _{pd\mu }\varphi C_p`$, where $`\lambda _0=4.5510^5s^1`$ is the free muon disappearance rate and $`\lambda _{pd\mu }=(5.53\pm 0.16)10^6s^1`$  is the $`pd\mu `$ formation rate. This allowed use these exposures for the estimate of the accidental background. Exposures 3-8 were accepted for the search of $`\gamma `$-s from reaction (4) and estimation of its relative yield.

From the measured numbers of neutrons $`N_n`$, known efficiency of neutron detection $`ϵ_n=13\%`$  and partial probability of reaction (2) $`\beta 0.58`$   $`dd\mu `$ formation rates $`\lambda _{dd\mu }`$ were determined for each exposure. With thus obtained values $`\lambda _{dd\mu }`$ and data from Table 1 we calculated average number of catalysis cycles, $`n_c`$, using a simplified formula describing $`\mu `$CF kinetics in H/D mixture (see, e.g. )

$$n_c=\lambda _{dd\mu }\varphi (1C_p)/[\lambda _0+\lambda _{dd\mu }\varphi (1C_p)\varpi _{dd}+\lambda _{pd\mu }\varphi C_p\varpi _{pd}].$$
(7)
Here $`\varpi _{dd}=0.07`$ and $`\varpi _{pd}=0.85`$ are branching ratios of fusion reactions with muon sticking to helium with respect to all fusion channels in muonic molecules $`dd\mu `$ and $`pd\mu `$. These reactions lead to the muon loss from the catalysis cycle. Using thus determined $`n_c`$ and measured numbers of electrons $`N_e`$ we could calculate numbers of $`dd\mu `$ molecules $`N_{dd\mu }`$, formed in each exposure, as $`N_{dd\mu }=N_en_c`$. The results are presented in Table 1 and the total number of $`dd\mu `$ molecules for exposures 3-8 was used for the estimation of reaction (4) yield.

## 4 Analysis of $`\gamma `$-events

Of all events detected by the $`\gamma `$-detector those with $`\gamma `$ energy

$$E_\gamma >17MeV$$
(8)
were selected for the further analysis. These events accumulated in exposures 3-8 were displayed in a two-dimensional plot $`\gamma `$ time ($`t_\gamma `$) - electron time ($`t_e`$), shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2. Two-dimensional $`t_et_\gamma `$ plot for the events with $`E_\gamma >17`$ MeV detected by $`NaI`$ detector in exposures 3-8.

Fusion events from reaction (4) should arrive after the muon entrance ($`t_\mu `$) and before the muon decay ($`t_e`$), so for the primary selection the following time sequence $`t_e,t_\gamma >t_\mu `$, $`t_e>t_\gamma `$ was required, corresponding to the dashed area in Fig. 2.

It is seen that a noticeable fraction of events in this plot is concentrated at small $`t_et_\mu `$, $`t_\gamma t_\mu `$. These events might be a manifestation of the muon stops in the target walls. In their material (Ni, Fe) muon disappears after the average time $`\tau _\mu =0.2\mu s`$, either due to its decay starting the false trigger, or due to the nuclear capture with emission of capture products. To reduce the background originating from such processes events corresponding to fast $`\gamma `$\- and electron emission should be excluded from the consideration by introducing a time delay with respect to $`t_\mu `$.

From the other side, time distribution of events resulting from the $`dd\mu `$ molecule fusion (4) should obey the exponential law

$$f_\gamma (t)=Constexp([\lambda _0+\varphi \lambda _{dd\mu }\varpi _{dd}]t),$$

so allowing a large time delay would lead to the loss of the efficiency.

To provide the suppression of the accidental background and simultaneously avoid the efficiency losses the following time intervals were chosen:

$$1\mu s<t_\gamma t_\mu <3\mu s;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.5}\mu s<t_\gamma t_e<4.5\mu s.$$
(9)
The corresponding region is indicated by a BOX in Fig. 2 with 3 $`N_\gamma ^t`$ events inside.

To estimate the background, we selected the area $`t_\gamma >1\mu s`$, $`0.5\mu s<t_e<4.5\mu s`$ and found 7 events there. This corresponds to the number of background events in the region (9) $`N_\gamma ^{b1}=2\pm 1`$.

In addition, for an independent estimation of the accidental background, events from exposures 1,2 satisfying to (8) and (9) were selected. The number of such events normalized to the number of electrons in exposures 3-8 was found $`N_\gamma ^{b2}=2`$. It proved to be at the level of the previous estimate obtained from exposures 3-8.

The background is found to exceed the measured intrinsic background of the installation, corresponding to the cosmic ray intensity at sea level, by a factor of 2. We conclude that additional background is correlated with phasotron operation.

The energy distribution of the events detected by the $`NaI`$ detector and selected with criteria (9) for exposures 3-8 (solid line) is shown in Fig. 3. The dashed line is the spectrum for the normalized background.

Figure 3. Amplitude $`\gamma `$-quanta spectra for the events selected with criteria (8) for exposures 3-8 (solid line) and the normalized ”background” ones (dashed line). Response function of the $`NaI`$ detector is represented by the gaussian.

It is seen from the figure that these spectra practically coincide for energies $`E_\gamma >17`$ MeV. Some excess of events for lower energies can be ascribed to the background induced by neutrons from reaction (2).

From considerations above the number of candidate events can be obtained

$$N_\gamma =N_\gamma ^tN_\gamma ^b=1\pm 2$$
(10)
The measured yield of reaction (4) per $`dd\mu `$-molecule is evaluated as

$$\eta _\gamma =\frac{N_\gamma }{ϵ_\gamma N_{dd\mu }^{tot}},$$
(11)
where $`N_{dd\mu }^{tot}`$ is the total number of $`N_{dd\mu }`$ molecules accumulated in exposures 3-8:

$$N_{dd\mu }^{tot}=3.410^6$$
(12)
Using the estimation (6) for the efficiency of $`\gamma `$-quanta registration and taking into account the selection efficiency due to the accepted criteria (9) one obtains the detection efficiency of $`\gamma `$-s from reaction (4)

$$ϵ_\gamma =(3\pm 0.5)\%$$
(13)
Substituting values (10), (13) and (14) into Eq. (11) we obtain for the absolute $`\gamma `$ yield per one $`dd\mu `$-molecule

$$\eta _\gamma ^{(1)}=(1\pm 2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5.$$
(14)
In the second run new measurements with deuterium target and $`NaI(Tl)`$ detector of larger size have been conducted and result of the similar analysis of the new data set is in agreement with (14)

$$\eta _\gamma ^{(2)}=(0.8\pm 1.5)10^5.$$
(15)
Combining (14) and (15) one obtains (at 90% C.L.)

$$\eta _\gamma <210^5.$$
(16)
From here an upper limit for the radiative fusion rate $`\lambda _\gamma ^1`$ from the J=1 state of $`dd\mu `$ molecule can be deduced using the experimental value of the total fusion rate $`\lambda _f^1=410^8s^1`$

$$\lambda _\gamma ^1<810^3s^1.$$

## 5 Conclusion

The first attempt has been undertaken to estimate the yield of radiative capture reaction (4) from the J=1 state of $`dd\mu `$ muonic molecule. The background conditions were evaluated and appropriate methods of data analysis were elaborated. The sensitivity of the present experiment is not enough to make a decisive conclusion about the p-wave contribution to the process of radiative $`dd`$ capture. (With the data from  we would expect $`\eta _\gamma 10^6`$.) We plan to achieve this level of sensitivity using new $`\gamma `$-detectors of larger efficiency. Of crucial importance is the understanding of the background structure and elaboration of background suppression methods.

## 6 Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Department of Atomic Science and Technology of Minatom of Russia under the Contract 6.25.19.19.00.969. The authors thank L.I. Ponomarev for support and V.B. Belyaev, V.E. Markushin and L.N. Strunov for the stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# ‘Superresonance’ from a rotating acoustic black hole

## Abstract

Using the analogy between a shrinking fluid vortex (‘draining bathtub’), modelled as a (2+1) dimensional fluid flow with a sink at the origin, and a rotating (2+1) dimensional black hole with an ergosphere, it is shown that a scalar sound wave is reflected from such a vortex with an amplification for a specific range of frequencies of the incident wave, depending on the angular velocity of rotation of the vortex. We discuss the possibility of observation of this phenomenon, especially for inviscid fluids like liquid HeII, where vortices with quantized angular momentum may occur.

The possibility of experimental observation of the acoustic analog of Hawking radiation from regions of flow of inviscid and barotropic fluids behaving as outer trapped surfaces (‘acoustic event horizons’), was pointed out by Unruh  more than two decades ago. Recent advances in theoretical understanding of such acoustic analogs of black holes, as well as improved experimental techniques involving Bose-Einstein condensates  have brought such experimental possibilities within the realm of reality. A variety of fluid flow configurations have been identified, all of which can now be described in terms of different analog black hole models . Many of these can actually be realized in the laboratory under cryogenic conditions; thus, the analogy enables laboratory tests of a class of phenomena associated with those aspects of black hole physics that are insensitive to whether or not the metric satisfies the Einstein equation.

While attention so far has been focussed on the observation of Hawking radiation from these acoustic black holes, the question of possible energy extraction from these analogs via the Penrose process  also needs to be addressed. This process requires black holes with angular momentum. The analogous situation would correspond to fluid flow with rotation, possessing a region of supersonic flow analogous to the ergosphere of a Kerr black hole, surrounding the horizon. In the case of the Kerr black hole, a scalar wave (a solution of the massless Klein-Gordon equation in the black hole spacetime), entering the ergosphere, is reflected back outside with an amplitude that exceeds the amplitude of the incident wave, for a certain range of frequencies bounded from above by the angular velocity of the black hole. The wave extracts energy from the rotational energy of the hole, leading to a ‘spin-down’ of the latter. This wave-analog of the Penrose process was discovered by Zeldovich  and investigated in detail by Starobinsky  and Misner (who dubbed the phenomenon ‘superradiance’) .

In this paper, we investigate the possibility of the acoustic analog of superradiance (a phenomenon that we call ‘superresonance’), i.e., the amplification of a sound wave by reflection from the ‘ergo’-region of a rotating acoustic black hole. For the latter, we choose the so-called ‘draining bathtub’ type of fluid flow , which is basically a 2+1 dimensional flow with a sink at the origin. A two surface in this flow, on which the fluid velocity is everywhere pointing towards the sink, and the radial velocity component exceeds the local sound velocity everywhere, behaves as an outer trapped surface in this ‘acoustic’ spacetime, and is identified with the (future) event horizon of the black hole analog. Thus, the velocity potential for the flow has the form  (in polar coordinates on the plane)

$$\psi (r,\varphi )=A\mathrm{log}r+B\varphi ,$$
(1)
where, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are real constants. This leads to the velocity profile

$$𝐯=\frac{A}{r}\widehat{r}+\frac{B}{r}\widehat{\varphi }.$$
(2)
It has been shown  that, for barotropic and inviscid fluids with flows that are free of turbulence, a linear acoustic disturbance is described by a velocity potential that satisfies the massless general-coordinate-invariant Klein-Gordon equation,

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right)\psi =0,$$
(3)
where, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is a metric (with Loretizian signature), not of spacetime itself, but of an acoustic ‘analog spacetime’. Such analog spacetimes often resemble black hole spacetimes. For the velocity potential given in (1), the analog black hole metric is 2+1 dimensional with Lorentzian signature, and is given by

$$ds^2=\left(c^2\frac{A^2+B^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2\frac{2A}{r}drdt2Bd\varphi dt+dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2,$$
(4)
where $`c`$ is the velocity of sound.

The properties of this metric become clearer in slightly different coordinates, defined through the transformations of the time and the azimuthal angle coordinates in the exterior region ($`|A|/c+0r<\mathrm{}`$ ),

$`dt`$ $``$ $`dt+{\displaystyle \frac{|A|r}{(r^2c^2A^2)}}dr`$ (5)
$`d\varphi `$ $``$ $`d\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{B|A|}{(r^2c^2A^2)}}dr.`$ (6)
In the new coordinates, the metric in the exterior region assumes the form, after a rescaling of the ‘time’ coordinate by $`c`$,

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{A^2+B^2}{c^2r^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{A^2}{c^2r^2}\right)^1dr^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{B}{c}d\varphi dt+r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(7)
As for the Kerr black hole in general relativity, the radius of the ergosphere is given by the vanishing of $`g_{00}`$, i.e., $`r_e=(A^2+B^2)^{1/2}/c`$. The metric has a (coordinate) singularity at $`r_h=|A|/c`$, which signifies the horizon, i.e., the boundary of the outer trapped surface.***Note that the constant $`A`$ must be chosen to be negative to obtain the horizon as indicated. The metric is a stationary and axisymmetric one with two Killing vector fields. Note that the fall-off of the metric components at $`r\mathrm{}`$ is faster than that of standard asymptotically flat black hole spacetime. This has the consequence that the standard definitions of globally conserved quantities in terms of Komar integrals  do not seem to work without modification.

We now turn to the Klein-Gordon equation (3) in the background metric (7). Given the stationarity and axisymmetry of the metric, the equation can be separated as

$$\psi (t,r,\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}i(\omega tm\varphi )R(r),$$
(8)
where, $`m`$ is a real constant that is not restricted to assume only a discrete set of values, because we are working with only two space dimensions. This should be contrasted with the usual 3+1 dimensional treatment of superradiance . We assume further that $`\omega >0`$. The radial function $`R(r)`$ satisfies the linear second order differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{c^2r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[r\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{c^2r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\right]R(r)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\left[\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2Bm\omega }{cr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{r^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{A^2+B^2}{c^2r^2}}\right)\right]R(r)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (10)
Thus, the problem has reduced to a one dimensional Schrödinger problem.

Two further analytical simplifications can be made: first, we introduce the tortoise coordinate $`r^{}`$ through the equation

$$\frac{d}{dr^{}}=\left(1\frac{A^2}{r^2c^2}\right)\frac{d}{dr},$$
(11)
which implies that

$$r^{}=r+\frac{|A|}{2c}\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{r\frac{|A|}{c}}{r+\frac{|A|}{c}}\right|.$$
(12)
Observe that the tortoise coordinate spans the entire real line as opposed to $`r`$ which spans only the half-line; the horizon $`r=|A|/c`$ maps to $`r^{}\mathrm{}`$, while $`r\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`r^{}+\mathrm{}`$. Next, introducing a new radial function $`G(r^{})r^{1/2}R(r)`$, one obtains the modified radial equation,

$$\frac{d^2G(r^{})}{dr_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\left[Q(r)+\frac{1}{4r^2}\left(\frac{dr}{dr^{}}\right)^2\frac{A^2}{r^4c^2}\left(\frac{dr}{dr^{}}\right)\right]G(r^{})=0,$$
(13)
where,

$$Q(r)=\frac{A^2m^2+B^2m^2c^2m^2r^22Bmr^2\omega +r^4\omega ^2}{r^4}.$$
(14)
The main advantage of the new radial equation (13) over (10) is the absence in the former of a first derivative of the radial function; this implies that the Wronskian of linearly independent solutions is a constant independent of $`r^{}`$ (or $`r`$). This property is of crucial importance in what follows.

We analyze (13) in two distinct radial regions, viz., near the horizon, i.e., $`r^{}\mathrm{}`$ and at asymptopia, i.e., $`r^{}+\mathrm{}`$. In the asymptotic region, equation (13) can be written approximately as,

$$\frac{d^2G(r^{})}{dr_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\omega ^2G(r^{})=0;$$
(15)
this can be solved trivially,

$$G(r^{})=\mathrm{exp}(i\omega r^{})+\mathrm{exp}(i\omega r^{})G_A(r^{}).$$
(16)
The first term in equation (16) corresponds to ingoing wave and the second term to the reflected wave, so that $``$ is the reflection coefficient in the sense of potential scattering. It is not difficult to calculate the Wronskian of the solutions (16); one obtains

$$𝒲(+\mathrm{})=2i\omega (1||^2).$$
(17)
Near the horizon ($`r^{}\mathrm{}`$), eqn. (13) can be written approximately as,

$$\frac{d^2G(r^{})}{dr_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\left(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }_H\right)^2G(r^{})=0.$$
(18)
where, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_HBc/A^2`$ is identified with the angular velocity of the acoustic black hole. We impose the boundary condition that of the two solutions of this equation, only the ingoing one is physical, so that one has

$$G(r^{})=𝒯\mathrm{exp}i(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }_H)r^{}G_H(r^{}).$$
(19)
The undetermined coefficient $`𝒯`$ is the transmission coefficient of the one dimensional Schrödinger problem. Once again, it is easy to calculate the Wronskian of this solution; one obtains

$$𝒲(\mathrm{})=2i(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }_H)|𝒯|^2.$$
(20)
Since both equations are actually limiting approximations of eq. (13), which, as we have mentioned, has a constant Wronskian, it follows that

$$𝒲(+\mathrm{})=𝒲(\mathrm{}),$$
(21)
so that, from eqn.s (17) and (20), we obtain the relation

$$1||^2=\left(\frac{\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }_H}{\omega }\right)|𝒯|^2.$$
(22)
It is obvious from eq. (22) that, for frequencies in the range $`0<\omega <m\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$, the reflection coefficient has a magnitude larger than unity. This is precisely the amplification relation that emerges in superradiance from rotating black holes in general relativity , .

For a given frequency $`\omega `$ in the above range and a given value of the azimuthal mode number $`m`$, the total energy flux at asymptopia can be easily calculated  in terms of the reflection coefficient $``$. By conservation of energy, this flux must equal the rate of loss of mass (energy) from the black hole, so that one may write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{\omega m}^{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega ^2}{c}}\left(1|_{\omega m}|^2\right)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega }{c}}\left(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }_H\right)|𝒯_{\omega m}|^2,`$ (24)
where, $`M`$ is the mass of the acoustic black hole (which must be related to the energy of the vortex under consideration) and $`𝒫_{\omega m}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the average power radiated to asymptopia for a given $`\omega `$ and $`m`$ (modulo an overall positive constant proportional to the equilibrium density of the fluid). We have used eq. (22) in arriving at (24). The loss of mass of the black hole superresonance is obvious in the above equation, so long as the frequency lies in the range quoted above. A similar equation can be derived for the time rate of change of angular momentum of the hole .

In order to link up more precisely with experimental possibilities, one needs to be able to compute the reflection coefficient by explicitly solving eq. (13). We shall not attempt this excercise in this paper, but postpone that discussion to a future publication . Here, we shall concentrate instead on certain qualitative features of the sort of observations one might hope to make on this phenomenon. In particular, our assumption at the outset of an irrotational, nonviscous fluid flow leads us immediately to a kind of fluid that is known for decades to have truly remarkable properties, liquid HeII, or more precisely, superfluid He4. We are especially interested in the existence of vortices with quantized angular momenta. We follow  to obtain a rough picture of what this will do to superresonant amplitudes.

The velocity profile for fluids under consideration is given by eq. (2) and follows from (1) using standard relations of fluid dynamics. Now, let us imagine that the fluid is actually superfluid HeII and our black hole is a vortex in the fluid with a sink at the centre. In the quantum theory of HeII, the wave function is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}i\underset{i}{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{r}_i)\mathrm{\Phi }_{ground},$$
(25)
where, $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is the location of the $`i`$th particle of HeII. The velocity at any point is given by the gradient of the phase at that point

$$𝐯\varphi .$$
(26)
This means that the velocity potential can be thought of crudely as the phase of the wave function. However, this phase cannot be non-singular everywhere, since we are assuming a sink at $`r=0`$. Thus, there exist non-trivial holonomies of the velocity field on closed curves around this sink. For simplicity, let us concentrate on circles around the sink. The change of phase of the wave function around any of these circles, for the velocity profile given in (2) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 2\pi B,$$
(27)
where, the constant of proportionality depends on the microscopic properties of the fluid, and is unaffected by our choice of (2). Thus, for the overall wave function to be single valued, the parameter $`B`$ in the acoustic black hole metric must be proportional to an integer $`n`$.

The immediate implication of this property is that the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ at the horizon is likewise restricted to be proportional to the integer $`n`$. The likely fallout of this is ‘quantization’ of the outgoing energy flux, through the last part of eq. (24). In other words, it is conceivable that the angular momentum of the black hole will now change discontinuously from being proportional to $`n`$ to being proportional to $`n1`$ due to superresonance; this will cause the energy flux also to change in discrete steps - an effect that should make observations easier than in actual black holes. This will also be manifest in the frequency spectrum of the reflection coefficient $``$  : one should see a multilpicity of equally-spaced peaks in this spectrum, perhaps with differing strengths and, of course, with widths that are multiples of the smallest width. We hope to report in more quantitative terms on these interesting aspects of superresonance in a forthcoming publication.

We end the letter with the rather curious observation that at the time of the original discovery of superradiance, the phenomenon of sound amplification due to reflection from a medium at rest, with a supersonically moving boundary, was already known for about four decades . It is not completely clear to us whether this is the same as superresonance. There may also be some connection of superresonance with stimulated vortex sound . If indeed these classical acoustic phenomena are examples of superresonance, then one would be led to conclude that evidence already exists of acoustic black hole analogs existing in nature. On the other hand, it also means that these acoustic phenomena have a novel interpretation in terms of semiclassical black hole analog models. However, the intriguing aspects of superresonance in HeII may still be novel enough to do further experiments, to confirm all aspects of the black hole analog picture.

This is a preliminary report of an ongoing investigation that began in collaboration with S. Das and G. Kunstatter; One of us (P.M.) thanks them both for stimulating initial discussions and also for pointing out  to us. He also thanks the Physics Department of the University of Winnipeg for hospitality during the initial phase of this work. We thank R. Bhaduri and G. Date for very illuminating discussions.

Note added After submission of this paper to the Archives, we became aware of some general discussion of the possibility of superresonance in superfluid HeII ; however, the aspects of the phenomenon dealt with in that reference seem to be different from our concerns in this paper. We thank G. Volovik for bringing this reference to our attention. We also thank U. Fischer for correspondence regarding transformations (6) and for bringing  to our attention. Reservations expressed about the validity of these tranformations do not appear to be significant in the region exterior to the event horizon, which is our region of interest.


text:
# Quantum gambling using three nonorthogonal states

## I introduction

Unforgeable quantum money proposed by Wiesner  opened the field of ‘quantum cryptography’. The most successful of the quantum cryptographic protocols is Bennett and Brassard (BB84) quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol , whose unconditional security was proved more than a decade later . Since another very useful ingredient in cryptographic tasks is the bit commitment, there has been much effort to find an unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment protocol. However, it turns out that no such thing exists . This fact motivated the search for a slightly weaker protocol, quantum coin tossing. However, it turns out that the ideal quantum coin tossing protocol also does not exist . It is still an open question whether almost ideal quantum coin tossing exists or not . However, it was found that there exists a quantum gambling protocol that is weaker than quantum coin tossing .

We can say that the quantum money and the BB84 protocol are based on a basic property of quantum mechanics, the no-cloning theorem . Another closely related but different property in quantum mechanics is that nonorthogonal quantum states cannot be distinguished with certainty . It is interesting to search for quantum protocols utilizing this property. Bennett’s later QKD scheme indeed utilizes this property . Recently, Hwang et al. gave a quantum gambling scheme that utilizes this basic property .

The two quantum gambling protocols  are not ideal in the sense that there is a bias $`\delta >0`$: It is an unfair game by the amount of the bias $`\delta `$. That is, for each round of the game the expectation value of one party’s gain is given by the bias $`\delta `$. However, since the bias $`\delta `$ is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{R}`$ where $`R`$ is the money penalty, the bias $`\delta `$ can be made negligible by making $`R`$ very large in both schemes .

In this paper, we provide a quantum gambling protocol using three nonorthogonal states. In the proposed scheme, two participants Alice and Bob can be regarded as playing a game of making guesses at the identities of quantum states that are in one of three given nonorthogonal states: If Bob makes a correct (incorrect) guess at the identity of a quantum state that Alice has sent, he wins (loses). We show that the proposed scheme is secure against non-entanglement attacks. The security of the proposed scheme against entanglement attacks is shown heuristically. However, since the idea behind the proof is simple, we believe that a rigorous one will be found as in the case of the QKD . The advantage of the proposed scheme over previous ones is that the bias $`\delta `$ is proportional to $`1/R`$. We discuss this advantage.

## II quantum gambling using three nonorthogonal states

Let us now describe the three symmetric nonorthogonal states to be used in the protocol. Let $`\{p_i,|ii|\}`$ denote a mixture of pure states $`|ii|`$ with relative frequency $`p_i`$ with $`_ip_i=1`$. $`\rho =_ip_i|ii|`$ is a density operator that corresponds to the mixture $`\{p_i,|ii|\}`$. Any pure quantum bits (qubits) $`|ii|`$ can be represented by a (three-dimensional Euclidean) Bloch vecter $`\widehat{r}_i`$ as $`|ii|=(1/2)(\mathrm{𝟏}+\widehat{r}_i\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ . Here $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the identity operator, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$, and $`\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z`$ are the Pauli operators. The Bloch vectors of the three nonorthogonal states $`|a`$, $`|b`$, and $`|c`$ are in the same plane and make an angle $`2\pi /3`$ with one another to be symmetric. Here we adopt $`|a=|0`$, $`|b=1/2|0+\sqrt{3}/2|1`$, and $`|c=1/2|0\sqrt{3}/2|1`$, where $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ denote two mutually orthogonal states of a qubit as usual.

Let us now give the protocol.
(1) Alice randomly chooses one among the three nonorthogonal states $`|a`$, $`|b`$, and $`|c`$, and sends it to Bob.
(2) On the qubit he receives, Bob performs an optimal measurement, that is, a measurement by which he can obtain the maximal probability $`p`$ of correctly guessing the identity of the qubit.
(3) On the basis of the measurement’s results, he makes a guess at which one the qubit is and annouces it to Alice.
(4) If he made a correct (incorrect) guess, Alice announces he has won (lost).
(5) When Bob has won, Alice gives him one coin. When he has lost, Bob gives her $`p/(1p)`$ coins.

However, after the first step, Bob follows the following steps $`69`$ instead of steps $`25`$, at randomly chosen instances with a rate $`r`$ ($`0<r1`$).
(6) Bob performs no measurement on the qubit and stores it.
(7) He announces his randomly chosen guess at the identity of the qubit.
(8) Step 4 is repeated.
(9) In the previous step, Alice has actually revealed which one she chose to tell him the qubit is (regardless of her honesty). When it is $`|\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =a,b,c`$), Bob performs $`\widehat{S}_\alpha `$. ($`\widehat{S}_\alpha `$ is an orthogonal measurement that is composed of two projection operators $`|\alpha \alpha |`$ and $`|\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{}|`$. Here $`|\alpha ^{}`$ is a normalized state that is orthogonal to $`|\alpha `$.) If the outcome is $`|\alpha ^{}`$, Bob announces that he performed $`\widehat{S}_\alpha `$ and got $`|\alpha ^{}`$ as an outcome. Then Alice must give him $`R`$ ($`1`$) coins. If the outcome is $`|\alpha `$, Bob says nothing about which measurement he performed and follows step 5. $`\mathrm{}`$

As in the two-state scheme , it is important in step 2 for Bob to perform the optimal measurement that assures maximal probability $`p`$ of correctly guessing the identity of the qubit, in order to assure his maximal gain. The optimal measurment for the three nonorthogonal states $`|\alpha `$ was recently given . It is a positive operator valued measurement (POVM)  whose component operators are, interestingly, proportional to the three operaters $`|\alpha \alpha |`$ . That is, they are $`(2/3)|aa|`$, $`(2/3)|bb|`$, and $`(2/3)|cc|`$. Now it is easy to see that the maximal probability $`p`$ is $`2/3`$.

## III security of the protocol

Now let us show how each player’s average gain is assured. (Here we repeat the corresponding part of Ref.  in a slightly varied form.)

First it is clear by definition that Bob can do nothing better than performing the optimal measurement, as long as Alice prepares the specified qubits. In the protocol, the numbers of coins that Alice and Bob pay are adjusted so that no one gains when Bob’s win probability is $`p`$. Thus Bob’s gain $`G_B`$ cannot be greater than zero, that is, $`G_B0`$.

Next let us consider Alice’s strategy. As noted above, we first show the security against Alice’s nonentanglement attacks. Roughly speaking, Alice can do nothing but prepare the given states $`|\alpha `$ and honestly tell Bob the identity of the state later. Otherwise she must pay $`R`$ ($`1`$) coins to him sometimes, making her gain negative. Let us consider this more precisely. In the most general nonentanglement attacks, Alice randomly generates each qubit in a state $`|i`$ with a probability $`p_i`$. Here the $`|i`$’s are arbitrarily specified states of qubits, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`_i^Np_i=1`$. However, since Bob has no information about which $`|i`$ Alice has selected at each instance, his treatments of the qubits actually become equal for all qubits. Thus it is sufficient to show the security for a qubit in an arbitrary state. Let us denote the angles that the Bloch vector of a state $`|i`$ makes with those of $`|\alpha `$ as $`\theta _\alpha `$. At ramdomly chosen instances with a rate $`r`$, Bob checks Alice’s claim by measuring $`\widehat{S}_\alpha `$ when the claim is that the state is $`|\alpha `$ (the steps $`69`$). If the measurement’s outcomes are $`|\alpha ^{}`$, the claim is proved wrong. Then Alice must give Bob $`R`$ coins. The probability that a state $`|i`$ is checked is $`|\alpha ^{}|i|^2=1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _\alpha /2)`$ in the case when the checking measurement $`\widehat{S}_\alpha `$ is performed. Thus one term in Alice’s gain $`G_A`$ is $`rR[1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _\alpha /2)]`$ where $`rR`$ is set to be much larger than $`1`$. Now it is simple to see that Alice should prepare only states that are highly nonorthogonal to one of the $`|\alpha `$’s. Thus one of the $`\theta _\alpha `$ is very small. Otherwise, Alice’s gain $`G_A`$ will be dominated by highly negative term $`rR[1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _\alpha /2)]`$ in any case. Similarly we can see that she should claim the prepared state to be the one that is nearest to it. Here it should be noted that we should take into account the fact that Alice obtains partial information about whether Bob has performed the measurement or not, due to Bayes’ rule. However, Alice still cannot increase her gain as long as the $`R`$ is large enough, because she cannot be confident that Bob has already performed the measurement. Let $`f_u`$ be Alice’s estimation of the probability that Bob did not perform the measurement. With no information, $`f_u`$ is $`r`$. However, Bob’s announced guess gives her partial information about his measurement’s result if he performed it. This information can be used to make a better estimate of $`f_u`$. For example, in the case where Alice sends $`|\alpha `$ and Bob performs the optimal measurement, we obtain using Bayes’ rule that $`f_u=(r/3)/[(r/3)+(1r)(2/3)]`$ when his guess is $`|\alpha `$. However, it is clear that $`f_ur/3`$: when Bob did not perform the measurement, he simply guesses it with equal probabilities regardless of what he received. Thus, by Bayes’ rule, Alice can see that there remains a probability greater than $`r/3`$ that Bob did not perform the measurement. The relation $`f_ur/3`$ also holds for the entanglement attacks, since it is satisfied for any $`|\alpha `$.

Now let us consider a state $`|i`$ that satisfies the requirements $`\theta _a0`$, $`\theta _b2\pi /3`$, and $`\theta _c2\pi /3`$, without loss of generality. The probability $`P_C`$ that Bob makes a correct guess is given by $`P_C=(2/3)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)`$. That for an incorrect one is given by $`P_I=1P_C`$. Alice’s gain is $`1`$ ($`2`$) when Bob makes a correct (incorrect) guess. Let us denote Alice’s gain $`G_A^n`$ ($`G_A^c`$) in the case of the normal (checking) steps. Alice’s total gain is given by $`G_A=(1r)G_A^n+rG_A^c`$. Alice’s gain $`G_A^n`$ in the case of the normal steps can be obtained as

$`G_A^n`$ $`=`$ $`(1)(2/3)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)+2\{1(2/3)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)\}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`2\{1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)\}.`$ (2)
Alice’s gain $`G_A^c`$ in the case of the checking steps (when Alice claims that the sent qubit is $`|a`$) is given by

$`G_A^c`$ $`=`$ $`R[1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)]+\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2).`$ (3)
The second term in the right-hand side of Eq. (3) is because Bob makes a random guess without performing the optimal measurement in the checking steps and thus it is disadvantageous for him. Then we can obtain that

$`G_A`$ $`=`$ $`(1r)2\{1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)\}rR\{1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)\}`$ (5)
$`+r\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)`$
$`=`$ $`\{2r(R+2)\}\{1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2)\}+r\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a/2).`$ (6)
Here it is easy to see that if $`r(R+2)2`$ the optimal choice for Alice is that $`\theta _a=0`$. Then the maximal gain for Alice is given by $`G_A^{max}=r`$. If we determine the values of $`r`$ and $`R`$ such that they satisfy the relation $`r(R+2)=k2`$ ($`k`$ is a constant), Alice’s maximal gain or the bias $`\delta `$ is $`r`$. Thus the bias $`\delta `$ is proportional to 1/R. The basic reason for this advantage is that the measured states $`|\alpha `$ coincide with the elements of the optimal POVM in the proposed scheme. Alice could increase her gain $`G_A^n`$ for the normal steps by increasing $`\theta _a`$ in both two- and three-state schemes but with the following difference. In the three-state (two-state) scheme, $`G_A^n`$ increases with the second (first) order of $`\theta _a`$ while the probability to be checked increases with the second order of $`\theta _a`$.

Let us heuristically show the security against Alice’s entanglement attacks. In entanglement attacks, she does not send a separate state but sends qubits that are entangled with some other qubits she preserves. If she can change Bob’s state $`\rho _B`$ as she likes, she can always win. The basic idea is that she cannot do so even in entanglement attacks. Instead, by appropriately choosing her measurement, Alice can generate at Bob’s site any ensemble $`\{p_i,|ii|\}`$ satisfying $`_ip_i|ii|=\rho _B`$ (the theorem of Hughston, Jozsa, and Wootters) . Let $`\rho _B=(1/2)(\mathrm{𝟏}+\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. Since $`\rho _B=_ip_i|ii|`$ and $`|ii|=(1/2)(\mathrm{𝟏}+\widehat{r}_i\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ where $`\widehat{r}_i`$ is the corresponding Bloch vector, we have $`(1/2)(\mathrm{𝟏}+\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma })=(1/2)(\mathrm{𝟏}+[_ip_i\widehat{r}_i]\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ and thus

$$\widehat{r}=\underset{i}{}p_i\widehat{r}_i.$$
(7)
Therefore, for a given $`\rho _B`$ whose Bloch vector is $`\widehat{r}`$, Alice can prepare at Bob’s site any mixture $`\{p_i,|ii|\}`$ as long as its Bloch vectors $`\widehat{r}_i`$ satisfy Eq. (7). However, if Alice always performs a given measurement, the entanglement attacks reduce to the nonentanglement attacks: The outcomes of measurements on entangled pairs do not depend on the temporal order of the two participants’ measurements. So we can confine ourselves to the case where Alice measures first. Then the attack reduces to a nonentanglement attack where Alice generates $`|i`$ with probability $`p_i`$. The only thing that Alice can do to utilize the entanglement is to choose her measurements according to Bob’s announced guesses. However, the checking steps also prevent Alice from increasing her gain: She must choose the measurement that gives some mixture $`\{p_i,|ii|\}`$ at Bob’s site such that each $`\widehat{r}_i`$ is the same as one of the Bloch vectors of the three nonorthogonal states $`|\alpha `$. This is because any vector $`\widehat{r}_i`$ that deviates from those of the $`|\alpha `$’s will decrease Alice’s gain due to the checking steps, involving a negative term containing $`rR`$. Therefore, Alice has no freedom in the choice of measurements but a given choice. Thus the attack reduces to nonentanglement attacks for the reasons noted above.

## IV discussion and conclusion

Let us discuss the advantage of the proposed scheme. The problem of quantum gambling schemes is that Alice can claim that the error is due to noise or decoherence in the quantum channel, whenever it is checked and thus she must pay $`R`$ to Bob. This problem cannot be clearly solved even if quantum error correcting codes  are successfully implemented because a small amount of error always remains. The solution to this problem is that Bob aborts the whole protocol if the error rate claimed by Alice is greater than the expected residual error rate. However, Bob should actually accept his loss which amounts to the product of the number of errors and $`R`$, until data for a sufficient number of errors accumulate. Thus it is hard for Bob to do so when $`R`$ is too large. However, in the previous schemes (proposed scheme), we have that $`R1/\delta ^2`$ ($`R1/\delta `$), namely, for a given bias the value of $`R`$ of the proposed scheme is less than that of the previous schemes by a factor of $`1/\delta `$. Therefore we can say that the proposed scheme is more practical than previous ones.

In conclusion, we provided a quantum gambling protocol using three (symmetric) nonorthogonal states. We showed that the proposed scheme is secure against nonentanglement attacks. The security of the proposed scheme against entanglement attacks was shown heuristically. The advantage of the proposed scheme over previous ones is that the bias $`\delta `$ is proportional to $`1/R`$. We discussed its practical advantage.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to Professor Hiroshi Imai and the Japan Science Technology Corporation for financial support. We are also very grateful to Dr. Alberto Carlini for helpful discussions.