text:
# Quantum cloning with an optical fiber amplifier

## Abstract

It has been shown theoretically that a light amplifier working on the physical principle of stimulated emission should achieve optimal quantum cloning of the polarization state of light. We demonstrate close-to-optimal universal quantum cloning of polarization in a standard fiber amplifier for telecom wavelengths. For cloning $`12`$ we find a fidelity of 0.82, the optimal value being $`\frac{5}{6}=0.83`$.

Classical information can be copied at will. Not so for the information content of a quantum state: one cannot devise a process that takes $`N`$ copies of an arbitrary quantum state as an input, and produces $`M>N`$ copies of the same quantum state deterministically. This is the content of the no-cloning theorem of quantum mechanics , which is at the heart of quantum information theory (in particular, it guarantees the security of quantum cryptography). To go beyond this no-go theorem, one can weaken the requirements, and ask that the $`M`$ copies are not identical to the input state, but as close as possible to it . The physical device that performs this operation is called quantum cloning machine. A device that copies equally well all the possible input states is called universal quantum cloning machines (UQCM).

In the recent years, communication through optical fibers has become widespread, and everybody knows that a light signal can be amplified. But light can (should) be described quantum-mechanically, therefore the standard amplification devices used in telecom cannot beat the no-cloning theorem.

It is not difficult to understand why some noise will always be produced by the amplifier: the amplification of light is achieved through stimulated emission, and it is well-known that in this case spontaneous emission will always be present as well. But it has been noticed recently  that the amplification based on stimulated emission leads to optimal cloning. To see this, describe the amplifier as an ensemble of atoms initially in the excited state, that can emit photons polarized either along any direction with equal cross-section. The atoms are irradiated with a photon of the suitable energy, polarized along a direction $`V`$. At the exit of the amplifier, we select the cases in which one and only one additional photon has been emitted, and analyze the output in the $`(H,V)`$ basis. If $`p`$ is the probability that the additional photon is polarized along $`H`$ (spontaneous emission), then the probability that the additional photon is polarized along $`V`$ is $`2p`$ because of stimulated emission. Now, if we pick one photon of the output at random, the probability of this photon to be in the same state as the input photon (namely $`V`$) is called fidelity of the cloner. In the case that we are considering, the fidelity is $`\frac{5}{6}`$, which is indeed the optimal fidelity for a $`12`$ universal cloning machine . This easy reasoning has been extended to any amplification process $`NM`$ in Ref. ; we re-derive the main results below.

According to this theoretical prediction, an amplifier whose gain is independent of the polarization is a UQCM for the polarization states of photons. Amplification through parametric down-conversion has been considered . In this Letter, we demonstrate an amplification in an Er-doped fiber that is very close to optimal cloning.

We begin by reviewing some theoretical elements on cloning and amplification, while stressing the links with our experiment. The setup itself and the results are described in detail in the second half of the Letter.

Cloning of polarization states. An experiment to demonstrate universal cloning of polarization states consists of three blocks (fig. 1): the preparation, the amplification (cloning) and the analysis. The source prepares $`N`$ photons in the same polarization mode, say $`V`$. The photons are sent into the amplifier, supposed to be non-birefringent to ensure that any input polarization is amplified in the same way (universal cloning). Suppose that at the output of the amplifier one selects the events in which exactly $`M>N`$ photons have been produced. According to the no-cloning theorem, it is impossible that all $`M`$ photons are deterministically in the state $`V`$: some of the photons at the output have been produced in the orthogonal mode $`H`$ because of spontaneous emission, and will consequently be reflected at the polarizing beam splitter (PBS). Thus the process $`NM`$ is characterized by the probabilities $`p_M(k|N)`$ that the $`M`$ output photons are distributed as: $`N+k`$ photons in the mode $`V`$, and $`MNk`$ photons in the orthogonal mode $`H`$, with $`0kMN`$:

$`p_M(k|N)`$ $``$ $`\text{Prob}[(N+k)_V,(MNk)_H|N_V,0_H].`$ (1)
We normalize these probabilities so that $`_kp_M(k|N)=P(M|N)`$, the probability of the process $`NM`$. The fidelity of the process is defined as the fraction of photons that are found in the same mode as the input:

$`_{NM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N+\overline{k}_{NM}}{M}}`$ (2)
with $`\overline{k}_{NM}=_{k=0}^{MN}k\frac{p_M(k|N)}{P(M|N)}`$. If the amplification process is based on stimulated emission with no absorption, then all the $`p_M(k|N)`$ are proportional to the probability of the spontaneous emission $`p_M(0|N)`$ through the binomial factor

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_M(k|N)}{p_M(0|N)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(N+k)!}{N!k!}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}kMN.`$ (3)
Inserting these probabilities into (2), one recovers exactly the optimal fidelity for a cloning $`NM`$ :

$`_{NM}^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{MN+M+N}{M(N+2)}}.`$ (4)
Note that this result is independent of $`P(M|N)`$ or $`p_M(0|N)`$: these quantities are in general difficult to calculate, which means that one doesn’t know how frequent the process $`NM`$ is (see  for estimates in some limiting cases). Nevertheless, each process that takes place would show the optimal fidelity if it could be isolated from the other processes.

Photon statistics. The two-dimensional quantum degree of freedom (qubit) that we want to clone is the polarization of photons. More precisely, one qubit corresponds to one photon per mode. Our source does not produce a Fock state of $`N`$ photons, but a continuous light signal, with weak power $`P_{in}`$. Its spectral density is centered at the frequency $`\nu `$ and has a width width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. In this context, the concept of photon is introduced as the energy quantum: writing $`P_{in}=\mu _{in}h\nu /\tau _c`$, with $`\tau _c\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^1`$ the coherence time, we see that the input power corresponds to an average of $`\mu _{in}`$ photons per spatio-temporal mode, that is per coherence time. Our source produces states of $`n`$ photons, this number being statistically distributed with a distribution $`p(n)`$, with average $`_nnp(n)=\mu _{in}`$. In principle, one could then use a fast photon detector to count the number of photons per time-modes, but this is not possible in practice for the coherence time used in our experiment. However, a measurement of the intensity is a direct way of measuring the mean values of the photon statistics.

The input light is polarized along a direction that we label $`V`$. After the amplification stage, the PBS allows the measurement of the intensities in each polarization mode, that is the mean numbers of photons $`\mu _V`$ and $`\mu _H`$. The fidelity is defined as above: the fraction of photons that is found in the same polarization mode as the input light, that is

$`\overline{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _V}{\mu _{out}}},`$ with $`\mu _{out}=\mu _V+\mu _H.`$ (5)
In other words, we are performing an experiment on light amplification in the weak intensity regime. Can one extract information about the underlying quantum cloning processes from such a measurement?

A great insight is gained by describing our experiment with a semi-classical theory of light amplification. Since we measure only mean intensities, we can simply take eq. (14) in the seminal paper by Shimoda et al. , and write it in our notations for each of the modes $`V`$ and $`H`$:

$`\mu _V=G\mu _{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q}}(G1)`$ $`,`$ $`\mu _H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q}}(G1).`$ (6)
The two parameters $`G`$ and $`Q`$ are not independent, but are determined by the microscopic details of the process. $`G`$ is the gain due to stimulated emission ; $`Q`$ can be used as a figure of merit for the UQCM. In fact: $`Q=1`$ means no absorption, in which case we know (see above and ) that all underlying processes have the optimal fidelity. When $`Q=0`$, the absorption compensates exactly the emission; in this case, we have also $`G=1`$. This means that the gains and losses in the amplifier compensate each other, and all the additional intensity $`\mu _{out}\mu _{in}`$ comes from spontaneous emission. This is obviously the worst possible cloning machine .

The formulas (6) relate the gain $`G`$ to $`Q`$, $`\mu _{in}`$ and $`\mu _{out}`$ as $`G=(Q\mu _{out}+2)/(Q\mu _{in}+2)`$. Inserting this into the fidelity (5), we obtain

$`\overline{}_{\mu _{in}\mu _{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mu _{out}\mu _{in}+\mu _{out}+\mu _{in}}{Q\mu _{out}\mu _{in}+2\mu _{out}}}`$ (7)
Note that for $`Q=1`$ the r.h.s. is formally the same as the optimal fidelity $`_{\mu _{in}\mu _{out}}^{opt}`$ (4), but here $`\mu _{in}`$ and $`\mu _{out}`$ need not be integers. For instance, if $`Q=1`$, $`G=\frac{4}{3}`$ and $`\mu _{in}=1`$, we have $`\mu _{out}=2`$ and $`\overline{}_{\mu _{in}\mu _{out}}=\frac{5}{6}=_{12}^{opt}`$. In conclusion: in the absence of absorption, the mean fidelity is the optimal fidelity for the mean numbers of photons. This somewhat astonishing result is a new manifestation of the deep link between the classical and the quantum description of light that has been stressed in a recent historical review of laser physics .

The setup. We proceed to the detailed description of the experimental setup. In the scheme (fig. 2), one recognizes the realization of each of the three blocks: preparation, amplification and analysis.

To prepare the polarized photons, we use a source of unpolarized light  followed by a linear polarizer that achieves an extinction ratio of about 21dB between the two orthogonal polarizations. An adjustable attenuator is then used in order to tune the power. This attenuator is also useful to prevent the light coming from the amplifier to be back-reflected into the circuit, which would create a hardly controllable ghost signal.

The spectrum of the source is wide; a band-pass tunable filter can be used to reduce the spectral width to the desired value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ around the working wavelength $`\frac{c}{\nu }1550`$nm. This tunable filter is actually placed after the amplifier so that both the signal and the amplified light are filtered through it. This is not a nuisance since the light at different wavelengths does not disturb the process of amplification (this is because we inject a very low power compared to the saturation level of the amplifier). The filter sets the width of the optical mode $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, thus defining the power corresponding to one photon per mode.

The second block of the setup is the amplifier (the cloning machine), which consists of a few tens of centimeters of pumped Erbium-doped fiber (EDF). We note that a commercial amplifier (consisting of meters of EDF) would not be suitable for our experiment, since it is optimized to achieve a gain much higher than the ones we want. The pump is a 980nm laser with output power 120mW, thus making the fiber an inverted medium capable of amplifying a signal around 1550nm. The pumping is done backward with respect to the signal in order to limit residual pump at the output. Since the pump and the signal have different wavelengths, the separation of the signal from the pump is done by wavelength division multiplexers (WDM) at both ends of the EDF. The WDM between the source and the EDF is used to avoid pump light to disturb or destroy the source apparatus. At the other end of the EDF we put two WDMs, the second one acting as a filter for the light which is back-reflected from the first one.

The third block is the analyzer. It consists of an adjustable linear polarizer, together with a polarization controller and a single power-meter. With the polarization controller, one can align the setup so that on of the axes of the adjustable polarizer corresponds to the polarization of the input signal, while the orthogonal mode is the ”noise”.

Measurement protocol and results. Before starting the experiment, one must optimize the working wavelength, align the analyzer, and determine the losses in the circuit in order to calibrate the measurement of $`\mu _{in}`$ and $`\mu _{out}`$.

The working wavelength is chosen with the tunable pass-band filter, with a width in wavelength of about 1nm. It is determined experimentally at 1555nm by searching, within the range of the filter, the best emission-over-absorption ratio, i.e. the wavelength where the absorption is minimized but the gain is not zero. The alignment of the polarization controller in the analyzer is performed by generating a signal at the source but leaving the pump off.

The losses in the circuit must be determined precisly because the relevant experimental quantities to demonstrate cloning are the power at the entry of the EDF, giving $`\mu _{in}`$, and the power corresponding to each polarization mode at the exit of the EDF, giving $`\mu _V`$ and $`\mu _H`$. The polarization-dependent loss of the whole circuit is due mainly to the filter; we measure it using the fluorescence of the pumped EDF without signal — by the way, this light is found to be totally depolarized, meaning that all the polarizations will be cloned equally well as desired. The losses in the analyzing block, including the two WDMs, are measured using a tunable laser to avoid measuring losses due to the reduction of the spectral width. We note that the fidelity $`\overline{}`$ calculated using (5) does not depend on the losses nor on the error on the losses, because these are multiplicative factors that cancel out in the division. Thus the estimation of $`\overline{}`$ can be made with high precision.

The power at the entry of the EDF is calibrated using the signal from the source, with the adjustable attenuator set to a reference value, and of course without pumping the EDF. At the analysis power-meter, we measure the power corresponding to the spectrum-window defined by the filter, from which we must deduce the losses in the output circuit and inside the fiber. For this calibration the absorption inside the EDF itself must be precisely determined. We found an attenuation of 0.25dB. With this procedure, we know the value of $`\mu _{in}`$ corresponding to each position of the adjustable attenuator.

For the experiment, the pump is turned on. The input power is scanned using the adjustable attenuator. For each mean power $`\mu _{in}`$ in the input, the mean power corresponding to $`\mu _V`$ (resp. $`\mu _H`$) is determined by reading the value at the power-meter when the polarizer is aligned along the input state (resp. its orthogonal state), and deducing only the losses of the analyzing block.

The length and the doping of the EDF have been chosen in order to achieve the desired gain at the working wavelength. The measurements presented here where made on a commercial EDF (INO Er103), 37cm long. With these values, we have a mean number of photons in the output $`\mu _{out}1.94`$ for a mean number of photons in the input $`\mu _{in}1`$.

The experimental results are shown in fig. 3. In the inset, we show that a linear relation holds between $`\mu _{out}`$ and $`\mu _{in}`$ for all the input powers, in agreement with formulas (6). From our data, we extract the values of the two parameters $`G`$ and $`Q`$. We find $`G=1.3`$ and $`Q=0.8`$.

In the main part of the figure, we show the data for the fidelity calculated from (5), as a function of the mean number of photons in the input. The solid line correspond to eq. (7) with $`Q=0.8`$. The dotted lines correspond respectively to the optimal cloner ($`Q=1`$, upper line) and the worst cloner ($`Q=0`$, lower line). The experimental curve is clearly close to the optimal cloner, which confirms that $`Q`$, the parameter describing the absorption in the amplifier, is indeed a good figure of merit.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated close-to-optimal quantum cloning of the polarization state of light using a standard fiber amplifier working on the physical principle of stimulated emission. Since the amplifier is not birefringent, it acts as a universal cloning machine. On the side of application: An universal cloner is the optimal device for an eavesdropper to attack the six-state protocol of quantum cryptography , while a better strategy can be chosen to attack the four-state protocol . The results of this Letter show that the physical realization of this device is not a very hard step; it will however be much harder for Eve to store the photons and wait for Alice and Bob to reveal the bases . On the fundamental side, we like to conclude by stressing again the discussion about eq. (7). Quantum cloning could have been noticed and measured in the early days of laser physics; but it was not, because the notion of information was not yet central in science and consequently the quantum community was not aware of the fundamental role of the concept of (im)possible copying.


format: text

text:
# Entangled Quantum Networks

## I INTRODUCTION

Quantum computing promises NC1  to make a breakthrough in the capacity of computers to hold numbers and in the speed of processing on account of the entanglement of states. As neural networks can be conceived as dedicated hardware which can also process information for pattern recognition and other AI tasks, including associating specific memories with its internal dynamism, for later recovery or usage, quantum neural networks are also candidates for exhaustive study. However, this problem of transition to quantum neural nets may best be approached in stages, on account of the complications that different attributes of a quantized system bring about. The evolution of a semiclassical neural network model with an action-potential-like quantum interaction that triggers classical nodes in a stochastic manner have previously been simulated and the results agree in part with classical integrate-and-fire models while gaining some new features from the quantum characteristics of the system FS1 . A quantum neural network with nearest neighbor nodes connected by c-NOT gates, as might be expected to be present in a quantum computer, have also been studied FS2 . However, in both these investigations complete entanglement of all the nodes of the system have not been attempted; each qubit has been measured independent of the others, though in the latter work the interaction proceeded by unitary quantum c-NOT gates between nearest neighbor nodes. The neglect of entanglement of the whole lattice was unavoidable in these case-studies, as the concentration was on the origin and pattern of periodicity of the dynamics of the networks, which required a fairly large number of nodes, and it is virtually impossible to do simulation experiments with the corresponding huge number of completely entangled states of the system. We now present some results with a more complex model of a completely entangled quantum network on a computable scale. The simplest nontrivial net with a small number of nodes and symmetrical boundary conditions is constructed and results of computer simulations are found. It is seen that with normal c-NOT gates we need considerably more computing time than with a modified $`c^{}NOT`$ form of the gates. We also show why a quantum system in general cannot develop any dynamic periodicity which is often seen in classical models achieving phase-locking of the nodes after passing through an aperiodic regime. We then show how ab initio periodicity may be introduced by hand.

## II  AN ENTANGLED QUANTUM NETWORK MODEL

We take a $`nXn`$ lattice with usual periodic boundary conditions, so that it can effectively mimic a bigger lattice in some respects. So we have $`N=nXn`$ independent nodes, each a quantum qubit, e.g. a spin-1/2 object. We connect each node to its neighbor through c-NOT gates. We are adopting this simple scheme to see how such a system with no pre-design for any specific purpose would behave under different inputs. In other words, we want to investigate the robustness of the input in a symmetric quantum system that treats all inputs equally and also allows maximal entanglement regardless of input.

The state of the system at any instant can be represented by

$$|\psi =\underset{I}{}a_I|\psi _I$$
(1)
where the complete set of unentangled product basis states includes all the possible combinations of the type

$$|q_1q_2\mathrm{}.q_N$$
(2)
where $`N=n^2`$

and each of the qubits can be either in state $`|1`$ or in state $`|0`$.

So, initially we may have a pure state with only one $`a_I=1`$, and all others zero, but as the entanglement proceeds through the c-NOT gates between the nodes, we expect that all or a subclass of states may become entangled. We can of course also choose an entangled initial state, by choosing a non-factorizable superposition of the product states.

We have to consider the effect of each gate at each time step on every $`a_I`$. The c-NOT gate flips the controlled qubit if the controlling qubit is in state $`|1`$, while it does nothing if the controller is in state $`|0`$. The controller node is unchanged.

Hence, during simulation we can take each node in turn and consider the effect on all $`a_I`$ as the neighbors of this node act on this node. The procedure is similar to that described in the earlier unentangled version.

As in the previous case, we first do the flipping in a continuous manner by choosing for each time step dt the transition submatrix for a small change

$`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(iϵ\sigma _1dt)\end{array}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& iϵdt\\ 0& 0& iϵdt& 1\end{array}\right]`$ (9)
However, in the previous work, because the nodes remained unentangled and the only effect of the gate was simply to flip each node independently, the state space consisted of only $`2n^2`$ components (i.e. polynomial in $`n`$), in contrast to the exponential number in the entangled case. It is not possible to handle a large lattice like $`40X40`$ in this case. In this work we have considered the smallest nontrivial lattice, i.e. a $`3X3`$ lattice. As we have remarked earlier, because of periodic boundary conditions, this is in some limited respects equivalent to an infinite lattice. Even for a $`4X4`$ lattice, there are now $`216`$ product states to upgrade at each step, which is not computationally economic with a classical computer

To optimize computing time we have first linearized the $`2d`$ label of each qubit $`(i,j)`$ to a single $`1d`$ label by choosing a sequence, and then we have constructed our label $`I`$ (stated above) by simply taking the sum:

$$I=\underset{i}{}2^i$$
(10)
where the sum is over only those qubits for which the state is $`|1`$ and $`i`$ is the linear sequential position label of the qubit (0 to N). This permits ascertaining the state of any qubit in a particular position $`i`$ with a single bitwise AND (&) operation and speeds up the simulation process. This also permits putting on any initial state, pure or entangled, by choosing the right combination of $`I`$’s.

## III PERIODIC AND APERIODIC REGIMES

Before we do our simulations, let us point out a behavior we can anticipate from purely theoretical considerations for any quantum net on which a particular sequence of unitary operators work repeatedly.

Lemma: It is not possible by a repeated sequence of unitary operators to move any system from an aperiodic regime to a periodic one.

Proof: The product of any given sequence unitary operators $`U_i`$ is equivalent to a single unitary operator, say $`U`$.

Let $`|i`$ be a vector in the orbit of $`U`$ in the periodic regime. Now if we operate on $`|i`$ by

$`U^{}=U^1`$ (11)
$`U^1|i=|j`$
where $`|j`$ must be on the orbit. On the other hand if the state was reached from the aperiodic regime, then we must also have, with the same inverse operation, a transition to a state in the aperiodic regime. This is not possible, because $`U`$ and its inverse are both linear operators and must give unique results whichever state they operate on.

Hence we would not expect any transition to a periodic system in our simulation.

## IV SIMULATION RESULTS AND A MODIFIED GATE

For a $`3X3`$ lattice there is only one interior point. So if we initially excite the whole periphery we have initially

$$a_{495}=1.0$$
(12)
As

$$495=111101111_2$$
(13)
To ascertain the importance of unitarity in these simulations we first deliberately used a nonunitary series of operations with $`ϵ`$ imaginary. Our simulations show that even if we begin with a pure state, the nodes get entangled quickly after only a few steps, but after a sufficiently long time the system degenerates to a uniform state with all $`a_i=1/\sqrt{N}`$.

This seems to be because the operator A above, which tries to form a continuous c-NOT gate in place of the unitary discrete one:

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \sigma _1\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
using the imaginary parameter $`ϵ`$, becomes a nonunitary one. Hence, unlike a unitary c-NOT operator, this discrete version with an imaginary parameter does not have all eigenvalues of modulus 1. What is happening here is the emergence of the eigenstate corresponding to the highest eigenvalue, as is usually the case for multiple operations of a nonunitary operator. However, since the full matrix even for the $`3X3`$ net must be $`512X512`$, we cannot check it computationally or analytically. One can argue from symmetry that the highest eigenstate must be the symmetric one, though we are not aware of any mathematical theorem that justifies this hypothesis.

To keep the computational expenses minimal, we shall adhere to real matrices. We next try to construct the infinitesimal form of a unitary matrix representation with a $`c^{}NOT`$ gate which is defined as a quantum gate that reverses the phases of the flipped infinitesimal changed coefficients:

$`U=\mathrm{exp}(iHdt)=1+iϵdt\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \sigma _2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& ϵdt\\ 0& 0& ϵdt& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (21)
where $`H`$ is a hermitian Hamiltonian, making $`U`$ unitary.

We first try some pure initial states and note the biggest components after $`1000`$ time loops.

$$|270.71(|27)+0.21(|11+|19+|25+|26)$$
(22)
where we have omitted the smaller order terms.

We notice immediately that the initial state has retained its dominance even after $`1000`$ time steps, and also that the next to leading states are separated from it by just a single $`1`$ in a neighboring qubit.

For another single state $`|17=|1+16`$ i.e. the one with only a corner and the middle qubit of the lattice initially excited, the final state is (highest amplitude terms):

$$|170.27(|27)+0.23(|19+|25)$$
(23)
We note that this time the original state has disappeared from the list of dominant states finally, but the terms now dominating do not have a clear choice, and with the AND operation on the bits of the dominating ones we get back the initial $`|17`$ !

$$(10001)=(11011)\&(1011)\&(1101)$$
(24)
## V  CREATION AND DETECTION OF ENTANGLED INPUT STATES

In the simulation above we have assumed that the system acquired an entangled state as input. Rabitz et al SR1  have presented a method of obtaining superposition of states from a ground state in a molecular system. In a similar spirit we here indicate how it may be possible to get arbitrary combinations of states in our model in a general quantum network. Let us consider a matrix, which we call an ”extended unitary matrix”, as given below:

$$U(R,x^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R& b|x^{}n+1|\\ 0& |n+1n+1|\end{array}\right)$$
(25)
with the normalization

$$|a|^2+|b|^2=1$$
(26)
This operator matrix acts on the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional basis with the last vector $`|n+1`$ an auxiliary vector not related to the $`n`$-dimensional entangled vector space.

Then, given any state $`|x`$, we get the normalized new state

$$|x^{\prime \prime }=aR|x+b|x^{}$$
(27)
with $`R`$ a $`nXn`$ unitary operator restricted to giving a vector orthogonal to the new vector $`|x^{}`$ to be superposed. Of course in the simplest cases we can choose $`R`$ to be just the unit operator, and the constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be chosen to be . Obviously this generalized unitary operator in the extended $`(n+1)`$-dimensional vector space separately maintains the length of the $`n`$-dimensional vector of the active system and the single auxiliary vector, which may be an additional dummy component of the system.

It is well-known that a complete set of gates, e.g. c-NOT gates, phase gates and Hadamard gates, can BA1  simulate any unitary operator. One can trivially extend the arguments to produce our extended unitary operator with such gates too. So a physical realization is not, at least in theory, an insurmountable problem.

The entangled states, despite being superpositions, are pure states. Hence, in principle, the detection of the entangled states is no more complicated than that of single states in the usual basis of the product basis of single spins, provided we rotate the basis to a one that has the chosen vector as a basis vector. One can then use Grover’s search procedure GO1  to detect the presence of any particular state. Alternatively, we can determine filtering matrices that perform the same operation directly in the original basis by adapting the sign-reversing and diffusion matrices of Grover for the superposed state taking the appropriate linear transformations. The detection process in quantum computation is of course only stochastic, as originally proposed by Deutsch DE1 .

## VI  CONCLUSIONS

We see that a network of qubits which is allowed to get completely entangled through an arbitrarily constructed simple nearest neighbor interactions through quantum $`c^{}NOT`$ gates, does indeed do so in general, with a smearing of the excitation from the initially excited nodes to its neighbors, as expected. However, the memory of the initial state seems to be preserved in nontrivial ways depending on whether it is a pure initial state or an entangled one. The method of back-projection to the initial state is fairly simple. It would be interesting to see how entanglement with low noise can be filtered out in this system. It might also be interesting to investigate if a quantum net can serve as a filter separating entangled and separable states, by criteria similar to or different from those proposed recently by Doherty et al .

We have shown that unlike a classical network which may often produce phase locking among its nodes and make a transition from an aperiodic regime to a periodic one, a quantum system operated on repeatedly by the same sequence of unitary operators cannot make such a transition, but must always remain in the aperiodic or the periodic regime.

We have indicated that periodic dynamic behavior may be injected into the system at will by choosing the right operator, i.e. a suitable unitary operator that rotates some or all states with time. This may be achieved by choosing the appropriate connectivity among the nodes, which remains to be studied in detail. By giving certain subclasses of the set of states an identical period, it may become possible to use such a net for pattern identification over a huge data base created by the entire set of separable and entangled states. The advantage over a classical system remains the great expansion of the basis in using entangled qubits in place of independent classical binary registers.

The author would like to thank Todd Brun of the Institute for Advanced Study for useful discussions.


text:
# Graphical and Kinematical Approach to Cosmological Horizons

## 1  Introduction

The difficulty to make compatible string theory with accelerating cosmologies has been studied in references  and . The de Sitter (dS) universe driven by a positive cosmological term, as well as quintessence dominated universes, posses event horizons; as a consequence two physical systems can only be separated a finite distance, the distance of the event horizon; then spatially asymptotic states cannot exist and the S-matrix of interactions is not well defined.

This fact contrasts with our understanding of string theory; such a theory can be formulated only perturbatively where the initial asymptotically free states (strings) interact giving rise to a description of the final asymptotically free states in terms of an S-matrix. This is the case for an asymptotically flat background; if the geometry is asymptotically anti-dS the asymptotic states are realized on the conformal theory on the boundary, following Maldacena’s conjecture  444For the dS case an analogous dictionary has been proposed by Strominger  (see also ).. In general, gravitational backgrounds with horizons are not compatible with a Hilbert space of infinite dimension like the Hilbert space of string theory; in fact when gravity is present the number of degrees of freedom that a system can support is proportional to the area of the system according to the holographic principle  ; the event horizon, when present, is a natural place to project the relevant degrees of freedom living on the bulk.

This theoretical difficulty contrasts with observations  that, if confirmed, will prove that the observable universe accelerates. Due to the attractive nature of the gravitational force for ordinary matter these observations are compatible only with a positive cosmological term, or with a sort of matter with negative pressure termed quintessence, that can be associated to the vacuum energy for an unstable scalar field evolving towards the minimum of its potential; this sort of tachyonic instability can generate a vacuum energy with negative pressure, a limit of which being the dS solution.

Assuming an equation of state for the matter of the type $`p=w\rho `$, it can be shown that for an accelerating universe the range of $`w`$ is $`1w<1/3`$. For a Friedman Robertson Walker (FRW) universe dominated by quintessence, $`w`$ is bounded by the previous values. $`w=1`$ corresponds to a positive cosmological constant ($`\rho =p`$) and the subsequent geometry is the dS one. In  and  the formation of event horizons for the previous values of $`w`$ has been studied showing that it is difficult to avoid them and, although the observational data can be explained, it is not compatible with the string/M theory by the reasons commented above.

In spite that for positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as well as for quintessence matter, the models of the universe both have event horizons, they are different. In the case of quintessence the horizon geometry is a cone with a singularity on the apex signaling the big bang singularity, the topology being $`𝐒^2\times 𝐑^+(time)`$. The dS horizon geometry however is a cylinder, $`𝐒^2\times 𝐑(time)`$, without the singularity in $`t=0`$, and the distance to the horizon is constant and equal to $`\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ so that the spatial limitation is constant during the cosmological time. However, the proper distance to the horizon for a quintessence dominated universe opens up with the cosmic time, being zero at the big bang and growing linearly as the time elapses; the angle of the vertex of the horizon cone depends on the value of $`w`$.

In the present research we study the presence of event horizons in a generic way for metrics of the Robertson Walker (RW) type (spatially isotropic). In order to locate them we use a graphic representation that does not make use of the Penrose diagrams and where the distances on the graphics are physical distances (proper or coordinates); concretely we represent the successive light cones of a fiducial observer comoving with the cosmic fluid, that we place in the origin, as well as the world lines of galaxies 555The term galaxy is used freely illustrating an emitter of light; we really refer to a comoving dust element, or a geometric point. without peculiar velocity, that serve as fixed coordinate distance lines. Another useful geometric element is the locus of comoving matter points that have a given, fixed proper velocity with respect to the fiducial observer as a function of cosmic time (*iso-velocity lines*). This graphical representation is in some sense complementary to the conformal mappings that give rise to the Penrose diagrams, and has been used previously  with the aim of clarifying the concept of particle horizons, putting explicitly the presence of superluminal velocities between different comoving matter points of the fluid . The velocity of any object, *locally* must be smaller than $`c`$, the velocity of light in vacuo (locally, by the equivalence principle, the theory of special relativity applies), but for separated points, a non local measure, it is the theory of general relativity that governs the phenomena.

For the explicit and exact location of the event horizon in a homogeneous expanding cosmological model we need the explicit form of the scale factor $`R(t)`$ generally deduced from the dynamic equations. But only with a basic information about the scale factor -without its explicit form- and by means of the three kinematical tools previously commented -past light cones, world line of galaxies and isovelocity lines-, can we determine the existence or not of event horizons. We find that the decelerating cosmological models do not have event horizon. However we also find a particular family of accelerated cosmological models that neither have event horizon. Also we are able to give an approximate expression that asymptotes the event horizon with increasing cosmological time. The criteria that we will use to define the location of event horizons are associated with the history of a photon emitted by the galaxy towards the fiducial observer placed at the origin: when by its travel the photon goes over cosmic regions with increasing proper velocities with respect to the observer, then the emitted photon would never arrive to the origin; in this case the galaxy is placed beyond the event horizon. On the contrary, if in its path the photon enters regions where the fluid velocity decreases (always with respect to the origin) the photon sooner or later hits the origin. In the border we encounter the horizon (with respect to the observer) that is placed where a emitted photon has a trajectory on constant cosmic fluid proper velocities (with respect to the observer). We emphasize that no reference is made to the velocity of the source, that is arbitrary; also we do not prejudge the accelerated or decelerated character of the universe.

The article is organized in five parts. We begin with the present introduction. In the second part we discuss the graphical representation method and we apply it to the quintessence and the dS cases. In the third part we work in a generic cosmological setup and then we obtain general results about event horizons. Finally we present our conclusions. In a mathematical appendix we develop the argument of the main result.

## 2 Graphical Emergence of Horizons

In this section we begin by introducing the expressions that would be used along the article as well as the notation (that otherwise will be standard); then we use them to study the event horizons for dS and quintessence universes.

The RW geometry is characterized by the line element

$$ds^2=dt^2+R^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the line element for the two dimensional unit sphere $`𝐒^2`$ and $`k=\pm 1,0`$ is the spatial curvature. The coordinates are comoving with the cosmic fluid; in particular $`t`$ is the cosmic time. The velocity of light is $`c=1`$. Due to the isotropy of the geometry (in accordance with the cosmological principle) the origin is a generic point and we can fix one direction (fixing the polar angles) without loss of generality; the metric takes then the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+R^2(t)\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2},$$
(2)
where each point of the plane $`tr`$ must be considered as a sphere of radius $`R(t)r`$. Instead of using the radial coordinate $`r`$, the events can be coordinated using the proper distance to the origin $`r=0`$ for a given time $`t`$; that is taking $`dt=0`$ in (2) $`D(t,r)=R(t)_0^r\frac{dr^{}}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}`$; differentiating we have

$$\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}=\frac{dD}{R}\frac{D}{R^2}\dot{R}dt;$$
(3)
substituting in (2) gives

$$ds^2=dt^2+\left(dDD\frac{\dot{R}}{R}dt\right)^2.$$
(4)
Each point in the plane $`tD`$ continues to be a sphere of radius $`D`$.

Let us remember the three ingredients we will use to fix the event horizons:

1. The locus of the ingoing null geodesics (NGs) expressed in proper distance. Concretely the past light-cone of a fiducial observer that we will place at the origin $`r=0`$.
2. The world line of test galaxies without peculiar velocity and its proper distance to the observer (its coordinate distance $`r`$ will be constant).
3. The proper distance to the origin, as a function of cosmic time, for the galaxies that move with a fixed proper velocity with respect to the observer: isovelocity lines. This last concept will be developed in the next section.

In order to determine the NGs and consequently the causal structure of the geometry we put $`ds^2=0`$ in (4), yielding

$$\frac{dD}{dt}=D\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\pm c;$$
(5)
here we put explicitly $`c`$, the light velocity. $`D`$ measures the proper distance to the origin for a photon emitted by a galaxy with a given initial coordinates. There are two contributions to the velocity of the photon with respect to the observer in the origin: $`\pm c`$ is the local velocity of light with respect to the geometrical background; locally, as a consequence of the equivalence principle, the geometry is minkowskian and are valid the postulates of the theory of special relativity; the photon moves with constant velocity $`c`$ respect to the surrounding matter, $`c`$ being an upper bound; the two signs of the second term of (5) corresponds to the two possible directions away ($`+`$) or towards ($``$) the origin. The term $`H(t)D`$ ($`H=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}`$ is the Hubble constant) represents the photon dragging as a consequence of the variation of the geometry with time; the space-time geometry is not flat and special relativity does not apply, but the general one. (5) shows that the photon velocity with respect to the origin can take arbitrary values 666In (5) we recover the newtonian sum of velocities; this is a signal that the motion of comoving (without proper velocities) galaxies is due to the expansion of the space, not a motion *on the space*. See .; the arbitrariness is encoded in the functional form of the scale factor $`R(t)`$ that depends on the way the geometry is governed by its coupling with matter (ordinary or vacuum energy).

The relation (5) is purely geometric. To obtain the causal structure of the space time explicitly we need to know the nature of the matter that couples to the geometry. We suppose that the substratum is an ideal fluid characterized by the equation of state $`p=w\rho `$. We restrict ourselves to the spatially flat case $`k=0`$ that seems to fit well with the observations . Then the Einstein equations in the FRW form are

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3},$$
(6)
$$\dot{\rho }+3H(\rho +p)=0.$$
(7)
The equation of continuity (7) is independent of the constant curvature of the spatial sections. Using the equation of state we can integrate it and obtain the dependence of the density with the scale factor; for $`\omega `$ constant we obtain

$$\rho \frac{1}{R^{3(1+\omega )}}.$$
(8)
The two FRW equations can be recast, integrating (6) with the aid of (8) and differentiating (6) with respect to $`t`$, with the following result

$$R(t)=R(t_0)\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}},$$
(9)
$$\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}(1+3\omega )\rho .$$
(10)
The Hubble constant is

$$H(t)=\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )t}.$$
(11)
We observe that for $`\omega =1`$ the power law dependence of the scale factor (9) breaks down; in fact for $`p=\rho `$ the fluid is equivalent to the presence of a positive cosmological constant and the appropriate model is the dS universe with an exponential expansion. The equation (10) proves that for $`w<\frac{1}{3}`$ the expansion ($`\dot{R}>0`$) is accelerating ($`\ddot{R}>0`$). The range $`1<\omega <\frac{1}{3}`$ characterizes the quintessence.

To obtain the possible cosmological horizons the usual way to proceed is the following. Given the matter that fills the universe, the $`\omega `$ that can depend on the cosmic time, we solve the equations (6) and (10), and obtain the explicit solution for the scale factor $`R(t)`$. Using the NGs of the metric (2) we determine the space-time regions that will never be observed and the proper distance to the event horizon as a function of $`t`$:

$$D_{Hor}(t)=R(t)r_{Hor}(t)=R(t)_t^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt^{}}{R(t^{})}.$$
(12)
In order to determine the cosmological event horizons we use a slightly different method. First, we obtain from the metric (given the explicit function $`R(t)`$) the family of ingoing NGs that reach $`r=0`$ when $`t=t_0`$, i.e. the family of past light cones for an observer at $`r=0`$. We represent graphically this family of ingoing NGs using proper distances to coordinate them; then we observe an accumulation of past light cones towards a limiting one that will trace the event horizon. Beyond this limit the ingoing NG will never reach $`r=0`$ and then those space-time region would never be observed. In the following subsections we apply this procedure to the accelerating models, FRW dominated for quintessence and dS, for the flat spatial case.

### 2.1 The case of quintessence

We integrate the NG differential equation (5) for the quintessence dominated universe. Using the value of the Hubble constant (11) we can write

$$D(t)=\pm \frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t+Kt^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}},$$
(13)
where $`K`$ is an integration constant; forcing the light trajectory to be at a proper distance $`D_0`$ from the origin when the cosmic time is $`t_0`$ results in

$$D(t)=\pm \frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t+\left[D_0\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t_0\right]\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}}.$$
(14)
In this way we construct the two families of NGs, one with growing $`D`$ and the other with decreasing $`D`$. $`D(t)`$ according to (14) is the light cone for each point of the manifold $`(D_0,t_0)`$. The families (14) determine the causal structure of the universe.

The past light cone for the origin $`r=0(D=0)`$ at time $`t_0`$ is given by

$$D(t)=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t_0\left[\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}}\frac{t}{t_0}\right].$$
(15)
Taking the derivative of the previous expression with respect to the cosmic time gives us the slope of the past light cone

$$\dot{D}(t)=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }\left[\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{1+3\omega }{3(1+\omega )}}1\right];$$
(16)
we see that $`\dot{D}(t)`$ is a decreasing function of $`t`$, its maximum value occurs for $`t=0`$; because $`\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }`$ is positive for $`1<\omega <\frac{1}{3}`$ the slope of the light cone at the initial time is finite and is

$$\dot{D}(t=0,t_0)=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }>0.$$
(17)
This means that the events that can influence the observer placed at the origin are limited to the cone with apex in the big bang and with an angle $`\mathrm{tan}^1[\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }]`$.

To determine the event horizon we must compare the past light cone of the origin with the world lines of the galaxies. The recession of a galaxy that in $`t_0`$ is placed at $`D_0`$ is described by

$$D(t)=D_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}}.$$
(18)
$`\omega =\frac{1}{3}`$ separates two regimes with different concavity for $`D(t)`$ reflecting the accelerated/decelerated behavior of matter. The derivative of (18) with $`t`$ is $`\dot{D}(t)t^{\frac{1+3\omega }{3(1+\omega )}}`$; this derivative at the origin is zero for the quintessence but diverges for $`\omega >\frac{1}{3}`$; the big bang for the quintessence is not big nor bang, however the quintessence density diverges for $`t0`$ as $`t^2`$. Now, it is clear that every pair of galaxies has been causally connected in the beginning of the expansion; also it is clear that the same pair of galaxies would be causally disconnected when one of them crosses the event horizon of the other. The horizon grows linearly with the cosmic time according to

$$D_{Hor}(t)=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t.$$
(19)
For ordinary matter $`1/3\omega 1`$, $`D_{Hor}=\mathrm{}`$. We can use (15) to study the future light cone; taking $`t_0=0`$ and changing sign we obtain the spatial extension of the future light cone from the big bang i.e. the particle horizon, so that for ordinary matter,

$$D_{PH}(t)=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t,$$
(20)
and for quintessence ($`1<\omega <\frac{1}{3}`$), $`D_{PH}=\mathrm{}`$; particle and event horizons play a dual role (see Table 1).

In Fig. 1 we show the world line for an arbitrary galaxy together with the past light cones of an observer placed at the origin; in this way we visualize the event horizon which is also shown. Beyond this limit all the ingoing NGs never reach $`D=0`$ and so we will never observe at $`D=0`$ the events covered by this NG. We have also depicted the same functions for ordinary matter ($`\omega >\frac{1}{3}`$) in Fig. 2. Here the expansion is decelerated and as a consequence the slope of the past light cone at the initial time diverges; we need an infinite amount of kinetic energy to overcome the (also infinite) amount of gravitational attraction; the world line of a generic galaxy, having now contrary concavity to the quintessence, will intercept unavoidably the past light cone of the observer.

### 2.2 The case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$.

The same reasoning can be done for the case of a positive cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) dominated universe. The dS model corresponds to an equation of state $`p=\rho `$ ($`\omega =1`$). For the FRW equations (6) and (7) it follows than the scale factor goes exponentially with time $`R(t)=R_0e^{\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}`$, and the continuity equation shows manifestly the constancy of the vacuum energy $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$. $`R_0`$ is an arbitrary scale factor for $`t=0`$ because the model, possessing an exponential expansion, is self similar. The Hubble constant is in this case truly constant $`H=\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}`$ and the model is in agreement with the perfect cosmological principle.

To obtain the causal structure we need to know the past light cone of a generic observer as well as the world line of the galaxies 777The galaxies are test particles or geometric tracers; we suppose that all the energetic contribution is due to the cosmological term.. Again we make use of the proper metric (4) and integrating the NGs we arrive to

$$D(t)=e^{Ht_0}\left(D_0\frac{1}{H}\right)e^{Ht}\pm \frac{1}{H}.$$
(21)
The previous expression is the light cone for an event placed at the point $`(t_0,D_0)`$; taking the origin $`D_0=0`$ $`(r_0=0)`$ at $`t=t_0`$ as our fiducial observer we see that such an event can be influenced by the events inside the region

$$D(t)=\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left(1e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}(tt_0)}\right),$$
(22)
where obviously $`t<t_0`$. One observes that the past light cone never extends to distances greater than $`\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$. The world lines of galaxies have the form

$$D(t)=D_0e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}(tt_0)},$$
(23)
and in a finite cosmic time overtake proper distances with respect to the origin higher than $`\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$. The proper distance $`\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ is the event horizon for the observer placed at the origin and consequently for any observer. The geometry of the event horizon for the dS universe is cylindrical in front to the conical geometry for the quintessence dominated universe. In Fig. 1 we show the dS model with its causal structure; we plot the successive past light cones from $`D=0`$. A typical galaxy world line crossing the isovelocity lines has also been included.

## 3 General results. The Asymptotic Horizon

In this part we give a general criterion to place an event (the emission of a photon by a galaxy) beyond or below the possible event horizon of a generic observer. We analyze the recession velocity of the regions traversed by the photon emitted by the galaxy towards the observer at the origin. If this cosmic velocity increases we affirm that the photon never reaches the origin and the photon emitter galaxy is hidden by the horizon; because the local velocity with respect to the cosmic fluid is bounded by $`1`$, the same result happens for any other carrier of information leaving the galaxy. On the contrary, if the photon’s path goes over cosmic regions with decreasing proper velocities with respect to the observer, the light sooner or later will overtake the origin; the emitter is causally connected with the origin. The event horizon is the border between the two previous situations.

### 3.1 Generic Cosmological Models

We are dealing with cosmologies described by a Robertson-Walker geometry characterized by the scale factor $`R(t)`$ and the curvature that we take null $`(k=0)`$. We can obtain valuable information by kinematic as well as geometric arguments deduced for the metric independently of the dynamics, that is, the particular way the geometry couples to matter via the Einstein-Friedman equations. To this end we remember some well known expressions that will fix notation.

The elements of the cosmic fluid are comoving and so the spatial coordinates $`r`$ are constant. All the spatial points being equivalent, we take the origin as the reference point. The proper distance of a particle with coordinate $`r`$, that at time $`t_0`$ is at proper distance $`D_0`$, is $`D_r(t)=rR(t)=D_0R(t)/R(t_0)`$. From this we obtain the Hubble law which can be rewritten and reinterpreted as an *isovelocity law*

$$D_v(t)=v\frac{R(t)}{\dot{R}(t)},$$
(24)
which is the proper distance to the origin of fluid points, with constant proper velocity $`v`$, as a function of time.

Using (24) we can identify the space-time points where the recession velocity of the galaxies with respect to the origin is $`1`$; locally the special relativity governs the phenomena and the light velocity with respect to the galaxies is also $`1`$; consequently, the photons emitted by such galaxies towards us have zero velocity with respect to the origin; this fact translates in the development of a maximum for the NGs in such points. The locus where this maxima appears for $`k=0`$ 888For a very interesting discussion about the implications of $`k=\pm 1`$ and the kinematical/dynamical character of the cosmological lens effect see  defines the *apparent horizon* and matches the isovelocity line for $`v=1`$; this defines the Hubble distance $`D_{Hub}=\frac{R}{\dot{R}}`$. The apparent horizon has been proposed as a holographic screen to realize the holographic principle in cosmology   and shares many properties with the black hole horizon, as the locus of trapped surfaces.

The evolution of the NGs that we have previously identified from the metric (5) can also be obtained imposing that the velocity of the NG with respect to the galaxies that it crosses equals $`\pm c`$; using the Hubble law (24) we obtain the velocity of the NGs with respect to us:

$$\dot{D}_n(t)=\dot{D}_r(t)\pm 1=D_n(t)\frac{\dot{R}(t)}{R(t)}\pm 1,$$
(25)
where $`D_n(t)`$ is the proper distance to the NG. The ingoing NGs that meet the origin at $`t_0`$ can also be obtained by direct integration of the metric (2),

$$D_n(r=0,t_0)(t)=R(t)_t^{t_0}\frac{dt^{}}{R(t^{})},$$
(26)
and describes the universe we see at $`t_0`$; however we need the function $`R(t)`$ given by the dynamics to obtain its explicit form. The NG that traverses the point $`(D_0,t_0)`$ can be obtained, using the homogeneity hypothesis, by summing the distance between the galaxy and the origin with the distance between the photon and the galaxy

$$D_n(D_0,t_0)(t)=D_0\frac{R(t)}{R(t_0)}+D_n(0,t_0)(t).$$
(27)
It is easy to verify that (27) satisfies the geodesic condition (25).

In the previous section we have obtained the event horizon identifying the space-time regions that never can be reached by an ingoing null geodesic; the term *never* implicitly means to take the limit $`t_0\mathrm{}`$; then we need to know the behavior of the function $`R(t)`$ for all time and consequently the dynamics. The expression for the event horizon in terms of the scale factor is given by (12). This function represents the temporal evolution of the ingoing NG frontier between photons observed (reaching $`D=0`$) and the unobserved ones $`(D\mathrm{})`$.

### 3.2 The Asymptotic Horizon

Without recourse to the dynamics and therefore valid for a variety of cosmological models we can study the points where the NGs change its concavity by differentiating (25), with the result

$$\ddot{D}_n=\frac{D_n\ddot{R}\dot{R}}{R}=0D_{AsH}=\pm \frac{\dot{R}}{\ddot{R}},$$
(28)
where the positive sign for $`D_{AsH}`$ corresponds to ingoing geodesics; $`D_{AsH}`$ refers to the *asymptotic horizon*. We will show that the event horizons of any cosmological model, will converge, in the future infinity, with the asymptotic horizon previously defined. The rigorous demonstration is left to the appendix, and here we merely argue its plausibility.

If the cosmological model is of the FRW (quintessence) or dS type it is easy to prove that the asymptotic horizon and the event horizon coincides for all time. For the FRW models, the scale factor is given by (9); then the value of $`D_{AsH}`$ as defined in (28) is $`D_{AsH}=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }t`$; this matches the value of the event horizon (19) for all time. For the case of a cosmological constant driven universe the scale factor goes as $`R=R_0e^{t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}}`$; the asymptotic horizon is placed at $`D_{AsH}=\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ which is the distance to the event horizon independent of the cosmic time.

In any other expanding accelerating model a part of the NGs crosses the asymptotic horizon at least once; let us follow them for the last time they traverse the asymptotic horizon. This can be done in two different ways, namely:

* *inside-outside*. This is the usual case (see Fig. 3 left). The relevant part of the bundle of NGs comes from the inside region of the asymptotic horizon $`(D_n<D_{AsH},\ddot{D}_n<0)`$ and part of them goes outside $`(D_n>D_{AsH},\ddot{D}_n>0)`$. All the NGs outside the asymptotic horizon increases the distance to the origin without limit. The event horizon will be traced by the NG that approaches the asymptotic horizon from inside but without crossing it; this will be the NG always below the asymptotic horizon without maximum. In this case $`D_{Hor}<D_{AsH}`$ and $`\ddot{D}_{Hor}<0`$.
* *outside-inside*. The part of the bundle of NGs we are interested (see Fig. 3 right), advances as the cosmic time elapses in the outside part of the asymptotic horizon $`(D_n>D_{AsH},\ddot{D}_n>0)`$; part of the bundle will traverse it and enters the inside part $`(D_n<D_{AsH},\ddot{D}_n<0)`$. Then they reach a maximum distance to the origin and after this, approaches $`D=0`$ until they meet the origin and are observed. The horizon is defined by the NG that approaches progressively the asymptotic horizon from the outside part but without traversing it. In that case $`D_{Hor}>D_{AsH}`$ and $`\ddot{D}_{Hor}>0`$.

The two situations previously described are the more general ones. The proof is left to the mathematical appendix.

There is a relation between the deceleration parameter $`q=\frac{\ddot{R}R}{\dot{R}^2}`$ and $`D_{AsH}`$ namely

$$q=\frac{D_{Hub}}{D_{AsH}};$$
(29)
it is easy to show that

$$\dot{D}_{Hub}=1+q;$$
(30)
now, if $`\ddot{R}>0`$ ($`D_{AsH}>0`$) then $`q<0`$; if $`D_{Hub}<D_{AsH}`$ then $`q(1,0)`$ and using (30) it follows that $`\dot{D}_{Hub}>0`$; more concretely $`\dot{D}_{Hub}(0,1)`$.

Let us discuss when $`D_{Hub}<D_{AsH}`$ and the previous arguments applies. In general the ingoing geodesics have maxima that force them to converge until they are observed. The maxima are localized on $`D_{Hub}`$ and being maxima $`\ddot{D}_n<0`$. In the accelerating models, because at $`D_{AsH}`$ there is a change of concavity for the NGs, $`D_{Hub}`$ must be below the asymptotic horizon. Nevertheless, due to changes of the sign of the acceleration it is possible that $`D_{Hub}>D_{AsH}`$; this would causes the existence of minima in the NGs. It is easy to prove that the presence of minima in the NGs implies the violation of the dominant energy condition . For an equation of state of the type $`p=\omega \rho `$, we have with the use of the Friedman equations (6) and (10),

$$q=\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}\frac{1}{H^2}=\frac{1+3\omega }{2}.$$
(31)
If the deceleration parameter is smaller than $`1`$ (which is the condition for the presence of minima in the NGs) then $`\omega <1`$, violating the dominant energy condition. So, for an expanding model, we will consider the realistic assumption $`\dot{D}_{Hub}>0`$.

### 3.3 No-horizon Universes

We can now prove using kinematical arguments the following statement:  *Universes with a final expansive decelerating epoch do not have event horizons*. If $`\ddot{R}<0`$ then $`\dot{R}`$ is a decreasing function, so $`lim_t\mathrm{}\dot{R}=a<\mathrm{}`$; then for later times $`t>t_c`$ there exist $`\stackrel{~}{a}>a`$ so that the scale factor has an upper bound $`\stackrel{~}{a}t>R(t)`$; the distance to the horizon diverges

$$D_{Hor}(t)=R(t)_t^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt^{}}{R(t^{})}>R(t)_{t_c}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt^{}}{\stackrel{~}{a}t^{}}\mathrm{}.$$
(32)
We have shown that the necessary condition for the emergence of cosmological horizons in expansive universes is that they have to be accelerated at their final epoch. Then $`D_{AsH}>0`$ and so the emergence of event horizons imply the concavity change of some of the NGs 999Unless the asymptotic horizon coincides with the event horizon for all times, which is the case of quintessence and dS models. (the NGs that intersect $`D_{AsH}`$). But not all the accelerating universes have event horizon; if $`\dot{R}(t)0`$ and $`lim_t\mathrm{}\ddot{R}=0^+`$, although $`\ddot{R}(t)>0`$ for all $`t`$, *all* the NGs intersect $`D_{AsH}`$ from outside to inside and finally reach $`r=0`$. The demonstration of this last statement is identical to the previous one. Again, we can bound from above the scale factor with a linear function of $`t`$ and proceed as in (32). It is easy to prove also that this family of universes verify $`lim_t\mathrm{}\dot{D}_{Hub}=1^{}`$ and that $`lim_t\mathrm{}\dot{D}_{AsH}=\mathrm{}`$ (see (41) in the Appendix). There is an infinity of functions obeying this condition and it is possible to study (with the dynamical equations) the relation between the equation of state, that is the value of $`\omega (t)`$, and the functional form of the scale factor (work in progress).

### 3.4 Kinematical deduction of the event horizons for FRW and dS universes

Let us follow the path for a photon emitted by a galaxy in order to see if it can reach the origin and can be observed or not. If the velocity of the galaxy is bigger than $`1`$ the photon will travel to us with negative velocity and will go away. If the universe is accelerating, the photon in its travel traverses regions with higher fluid velocity and its relative proper velocity with respect to the origin grows. The first statement is true; the second false, because the photon evolves also in the temporal direction, and in this direction the velocity of the galaxies always decreases; this can be seen differentiating the Hubble law $`v(t)=D/D_{Hub}`$ for fixed $`D`$

$$\frac{v}{t}=D\frac{\dot{D}_{Hub}}{D_{Hub}^2}<0,$$
(33)
because $`\dot{D}_{Hub}>0`$; in fact $`\dot{D}_{Hub}(0,1)`$ in the accelerating epochs 101010This arguments can be used to clarify the issues of the *chained galaxy* paradox ..

We see that the final history of the photon depends on the way the galaxy recession velocity field is distributed. This is described by the isovelocity bundle (24); therefore, if the evolution of the photon traverses the isovelocity lines towards growing values then this photon goes away from the origin with increasing relative velocity being *probable* it will never return to $`r=0`$; and vice versa. In the first case $`\ddot{D}_n>0`$, in the other case $`\ddot{D}_n<0`$.

The *probable* horizon will be placed where $`\ddot{D}_n=0`$, and we have seen that such points are localized by the function $`D_{AsH}(t)`$ (28). What happens in $`D_{AsH}`$ is that a NG ceases to traverse the isovelocity lines in the increasing (decreasing) sense, during some instants is parallel to one of them and finishes traversing the bundle in the decreasing (increasing) direction. The positive sign for $`D_{AsH}`$ and consequently the existence of this *probable* horizon implies an accelerating universe111111We do not consider the decelerated contracting universes where also $`D_{AsH}>0`$.. This horizon is *probable* and not *sure*; it can happens that a NG exploring regions of growing recession velocities, and that we suspect to be unobservable, in a given time crosses the line $`D_{AsH}`$ and by changing its concavity begins to travel regions characterized by decreasing recession velocities respect to the origin arriving at the end to $`r=0`$. To avoid this situation and in this way to confirm that the *probable* horizon is the *sure* horizon, we must be certain than each of the NGs cannot change concavity. This does not means that all of them have the same concavity because in this case $`D_{AsH}<0`$. The situation we consider corresponds to two families of NGs with different concavities separated by a lineal NG that forms the border between them and that matches $`D_{AsH}`$.

What cosmological model verifies than $`D_{AsH}`$ is the locus of an ingoing NG? If this condition is satisfied we can affirm that $`D_{AsH}`$ is the event horizon of such models of the universe. If $`D_{AsH}`$ is an ingoing NG by no means will be traversed by any other one (the NGs form a bundle that only at the singular points like the Big Bang can meet). As a consequence the rest of the NGs have a definite and invariable concavity; $`D_{AsH}`$ will be then linear $`D_{AsH}=at+b`$. We appreciate two possibilities:

* Case $`a0`$. Introducing $`D_{AsH}`$ in the geodesic equation (25) we obtain

$$\frac{a+1}{at+b}=\frac{\dot{R}(t)}{R(t)}R(t)=R_0t^{1+\frac{1}{a}},$$
(34)
where we impose $`R(0)=0(b=0)`$. We have obtained a FRW solution with the temporal power given in terms of the slope $`a`$ of the event horizon instead of the parameter of the equation of state $`\omega =p/\rho `$. The slope of the event horizon is then

$$a=\frac{3(1+\omega )}{1+3\omega }.$$
(35)
* Case $`a=0b0`$. Substituting the value of $`D_{AsH}`$ into (25) it follows

$$\frac{1}{b}=\frac{\dot{R}(t)}{R(t)}R(t)=R_0e^{t/b}.$$
(36)
In this case we obtain a dS universe with $`b`$, the distance to the horizon, related with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ according to

$$b=\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(37)

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

The coordinates used in this work in order to describe the causal structure of RW cosmological scenarios are not the usual ones; we have used proper distances to comoving observers as coordinates to represent the light ray paths and we have been able to extract the event horizons of the models studied in this way. The standard method used to obtain the causal structure is to bring the infinities at a finite coordinate value making use of a conformal transformation of the metric; the light cones in the new metric are the same as in the original one, but we pay the price that the proper distances are highly distorted.

The physical position of the event horizon is important due to the holographic principle. The area of the horizon at a given time bounds the entropy of the universe at this time by the projection of the inside degrees of freedom onto the horizon by an holographic prescription; the way in which this projection is made will give important insights on the nature of the way gravity must be consistent with the quantum world; we hope our physical coordinates complement the conformal ones to improve the understanding of the causal structure of the cosmological models.

We emphasize that our analysis has been made, in the main part of this work, using only the kinematics inferred for the line element of the RW model and as a consequence our results are valid for different dynamical scenarios; we require only the agreement with the cosmological principle for the energy momentum tensor that couples to the geometry. In this way we have shown that expanding universes with a final decelerating epoch do not have event horizons. We have introduced the concept of asymptotic horizon as the locus where the NGs change concavity and we have proved that for an expanding cosmological model, if it is accelerating, its future horizon converges with the asymptotic horizon. For universes with constant concavity light rays the asymptotic horizon matches the event horizon for all times; this is the case for the FRW quintessence dominated universe and for the dS model.

The fact that we have an expression for the asymptotic distance of the event horizon can be useful in view of the holographic conjecture; the event horizon is the natural place where the degrees of freedom in the bulk are projected, and its area is a measure of the entropy of the system; asymptotically the area of the horizon is then an absolute upper bound on the number of degrees of freedom of the universe and is given by the area of the asymptotic horizon.

We would like to comment also the teleological nature of the horizon. We cannot be sure at a given time if a model has event horizons or not; this question depends on the scale factor for all the times and specifically on the value the scale factor takes asymptotically. What we can only do is to extrapolate our local knowledge to all future times and extract the consequences. The horizon is a fragile concept as that of the black hole; in this last case the horizon disappears as time evolves but due to Hawking evaporation; in the cosmological case the *probable* horizon can be diluted but now due to kinematic arguments. Can this two processes be related?

To finish, let us remember that the origin of this research was motivated by the conflict among the accelerating cosmologies and string theory; the observation that the actual universe is accelerated and probably will continue this regime forever, forbids the existence of physical states separated an infinite distance in an operational sense; that is we cannot make measures on two states which distance is greater than the horizon; however an S-matrix description requires asymptotic accessible states. On the other hand we have been able to identify an accelerating model without event horizon. We hope this work can help to resolve this challenge.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we demonstrate the following statement:

> *The event horizon of any RW cosmological model, regardless of the dynamical theory in which is based, converges to the asymptotic horizon coinciding both at the future infinity.*

We will show that asymptotically the intersection angle between the NGs that traverse the asymptotic horizon and the proper asymptotic horizon tend to zero. In this way we can affirm that the asymptotic horizon tends to coincide with a NG; this limiting NG will be the event horizon. First we calculate the slope of the NG when it intersects the asymptotic horizon; introducing $`D_{AsH}`$ in (25) and using (29) and (30):

$$\dot{D}_n_{AsH}=\frac{D_{Hub}}{D_{AsH}}1=\frac{1q}{q}=\frac{\dot{D}_{Hub}}{1\dot{D}_{Hub}}.$$
(38)
Then we show that the previous expression for large times is equal to the slope of the asymptotic horizon ($`\dot{D}_n_{AsH}=\dot{D}_{AsH}`$). We do this for the different values that takes the slope of the Hubble distance at infinite time; we define $`llim_t\mathrm{}\dot{D}_{Hub}`$. Because the universe is accelerating $`0l1`$. We study the following cases.

$`l=0`$ and $`D_{Hub}H<\mathrm{}`$ (*Horizontal Asymptote*).

Using (38) we have $`\dot{D}_n_{AsH}0`$; then we have $`q=1`$ at late times and

$$D_{AsH}D_{Hub}D_{AsH}H\dot{D}_{AsH}0.$$
(39)
Examples of this behavior are finally dS dominated models (final exponential grow). See Fig. 3 left.

$`l=0`$ and $`D_{Hub}\mathrm{}`$ (*Parabolic grow*).

Again $`\dot{D}_n_{AsH}0`$. Now, because $`D_{AsH}>D_{Hub}`$, $`D_{AsH}\mathrm{}`$; so together with (29) and (30) we use the l’Hôpital theorem. We find a solution identical to the previous one

$$\frac{D_{Hub}}{D_{AsH}}1\frac{\dot{D}_{Hub}}{\dot{D}_{AsH}}1\dot{D}_{AsH}0.$$
(40)
We don’t know any simple realistic model obeying this behavior.

$`l(0,1)`$ (*Oblique Asymptote*).

Also with (29) and (30) and the l’Hôpital theorem we find

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{D_{AsH}}{D_{Hub}}=\frac{1}{1l}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\dot{D}_{AsH}=\frac{l}{1l},$$
(41)
which exactly corresponds to the limit of (38). In this case $`D_{Hub}`$ and $`D_{AsH}`$ tend to a linear function. Examples of this behavior are finally FRW quintessence dominated models (final potential grow). See Fig. 3 right.

$`l=1`$ (*Limiting Oblique Asymptote*).

This case corresponds to an acceleration tending to zero from above and it has been shown that there are not event horizons (see subsection 3.3). With (41) we find that now $`\dot{D}_{AsH}`$ diverges and so $`D_{AsH}`$ has no asymptote. Examples of this behaviour are finally FRW models with $`\omega \frac{1}{3}^{}`$ (final linear grow). See Fig. 4.

We have covered all the possible finally accelerated scenarios and therefore we have completed our demonstration.

The Table 2 resume our classification including the decelerated universes (E and F) and an exotic accelerated universe (Sub A).

Finally we want to comment an interesting property. It can be shown that if the event horizon has an asymptote, then it is the unique NG having an asymptote. The rest of the NGs reconverge or recede without asymptote. Using the l’Hôpital heorem in the NG equation (25) we found that if $`lim\dot{D}_n\mathrm{}`$ then

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\dot{D}_n=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\dot{D}_n}{\dot{D}_{Hub}}1\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\dot{D}_n=\frac{l}{1l}(0,\mathrm{})$$
(42)
which is identical to (41) and can be easily extrapolated to (39). So, for the cases A and C we can prescribe this rule: *the event horizon is the unique NG having an asymptote and the asymptotic horizon has exactly the same asymptote*. This property could be used for a better delimitation of the event horizons by means of the Legendre’s transformation which relates a mathematical function to its family of tangent straight lines.

## Acknowledgements

We have benefit for useful discussions with L. Bell and I. Shapiro. This work was supported by MCYT (Spain), grant FPA2000-1252.


text:
# Status of the 𝑩^𝟎_(𝒔)-𝑩̄^𝟎_(𝒔) mixingfrom QCD spectral sum Rules 11footnote 1Talk presented at the 1st High-Energy Physics Madagascar International Conference Series (HEP-MAD’01), 27th sept-5th Oct. 2001, Antananarivo.

## Status of the $`𝑩_{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝑩}_{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing
from QCD spectral sum Rules 111Talk presented at the 1st High-Energy Physics Madagascar International Conference Series (HEP-MAD’01), 27th sept-5th Oct. 2001, Antananarivo.

Stephan Narison
Laboratoire de Physique Mathématique
Université de Montpellier II
Place Eugène Bataillon
34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05, France
Email: qcd@lpm.univ-montp2.fr
Abstract

In this talk, I present new results  obtained from QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR), on the bag constant parameters entering in the analysis of the $`B_{(s)}^0`$-$`\overline{B}_{(s)}^0`$ mass-differences. Taking the average of the results from the Laplace and moment sum rules, one obtains to order $`\alpha _s`$: $`f_B\sqrt{\widehat{B}_B}(228\pm 61)\mathrm{MeV},f_{B_s}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_s}}/f_B\sqrt{\widehat{B}_B}1.18\pm 0.03`$, in units where $`f_\pi =130.7`$ MeV. Combined with the experimental data on the mass-differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$, one obtains the constraint on the CKM weak mixing angle: $`|V_{ts}/V_{td}|^220.2(1.3)`$. Alternatively, using the weak mixing angle from the analysis of the unitarity triangle and the data on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$, one predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s=18.3(2.1)ps^1`$ in agreement with the present experimental lower bound and within the reach of Tevatron 2.

## 1 Introduction

$`B_{(s)}^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_{(s)}^0`$ are not eigenstates of the weak hamiltonian, such that their oscillation frequency is gouverned by their mass-difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_q`$. The measurement by the UA1 collaboration  of a large value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ was the first indication of a heavy top-quark mass. In the SM, the mass-difference is approximately given by :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{4\pi ^2}}M_W^2|V_{tq}V_{tb}^{}|^2S_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}\right)\eta _BC_B(\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_{B_q}}}\overline{B}_q^0|𝒪_q(\nu )|B_q^0`$ (1)
where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ local operator $`𝒪_q`$ is defined as:

$$𝒪_q(x)(\overline{b}\gamma _\mu Lq)(\overline{b}\gamma _\mu Lq),$$
(2)
with: $`L(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and $`qd,s,`$; $`S_0,\eta _B`$ and $`C_B(\nu )`$ are short distance quantities and Wilson coefficients which are calculable perturbatively, while the matrix element $`\overline{B}_q^0|𝒪_q|B_q^0`$ requires non-perturbative QCD calculations, and is usually parametrized for $`SU(N)_c`$ colours as:

$$\overline{B}_q^0|𝒪_q|B_q^0=N_c\left(1+\frac{1}{N_c}\right)f_{B_q}^2M_{B_q}^2B_{B_q}.$$
(3)
$`f_{B_q}`$ is the $`B_q`$ decay constant normalized as $`f_\pi =92.4`$ MeV, and $`B_{B_q}`$ is the so-called bag parameter which is $`B_{B_q}1`$ if one uses a vacuum saturation of the matrix element. From Eq. (1), it is clear that the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ provides the one of the CKM mixing angle $`|V_{td}|`$ if one uses $`|V_{tb}|1`$. One can also extract this quantity from the ratio:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }M_d}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_d}}{M_{B_s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{B}_s^0|𝒪_s|B_s^0}{\overline{B}_d^0|𝒪_d|B_d^0}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_d}}{M_{B_s}}}\xi ^2,`$ (4)
since in the SM with three generations and unitarity constraints, $`|V_{ts}||V_{cb}|`$. Here:

$$\xi \sqrt{\frac{g_s}{g_d}}\frac{f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}}{f_B\sqrt{B_B}}.$$
(5)
The great advantage of Eq. (4) compared with the former relation in Eq. (1) is that in the ratio, different systematics in the evaluation of the matrix element tends to cancel out, thus providing a more accurate prediction. However, unlike $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d=0.473(17)ps^1`$, which is measured with a good precision , the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ is an experimental challenge due to the rapid oscillation of the $`B_s^0`$-$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ system. At present, only a lower bound of 13.1 $`ps^1`$ is available at the 95% CL from experiments , but this bound already provides a strong constraint on $`|V_{td}|`$.

## 2 Two-point function sum rule

Ref.  has extended the analysis of the $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ systems of , using two-point correlator of the four-quark operators into the analysis of the quantity $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ which gouverns the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mass difference. The two-point correlator defined as:

$$\psi _H(q^2)id^4xe^{iqx}0|𝒯𝒪_q(x)\left(𝒪_q(0)\right)^{}|0,$$
(6)
is built from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ weak operator defined in Eq. (2). The corresponding Laplace (resp. moment) sum rules are:

$$(\tau )=_{4M_B^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^{t\tau }\mathrm{Im}\psi _H(t),_n=_{4M_B^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^n\mathrm{Im}\psi _H(t),$$
(7)
The two-point function approach is very convenient due to its simple analytic properties which is not the case of approach based on three-point functions 222For detailed criticisms, see .. However, it involves non-trivial QCD calculations which become technically complicated when one includes the contributions of radiative corrections due to non-factorizable diagrams. These perturbative radiative corrections due to factorizable and non-factorizable diagrams have been already computed in  (referred as NP), where it has been found that the factorizable corrections are large while the non-factorizable ones are negligibly small. NP analysis has confirmed the estimate in  from lowest order calculations, where under some assumptions on the contributions of higher mass resonances to the spectral function, the value of the bag parameter $`B_B`$ has been found to be:

$$B_{B_d}(4m_b^2)(1\pm 0.15).$$
(8)
This value is comparable with the one $`B_{B_d}=1`$ from the vacuum saturation estimate, which is expected to be a quite good approximation due to the relative high-scale of the $`B`$-meson mass. Equivalently, the corresponding RGI quantity is:

$$\widehat{B}_{B_d}(1.5\pm 0.2)$$
(9)
where we have used the relation:

$`B_{B_q}(\nu )=\widehat{B}_{B_q}\alpha _s^{\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _1}}\left\{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{5165}{12696}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)\right\},`$ (10)
with $`\gamma _0=1`$ is the anomalous dimension of the operator $`𝒪_q`$ and $`\beta _1=23/6`$ for 5 flavours. The NLO corrections have been obtained in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme . We have also used, to this order, the value :

$$\overline{m}_b(m_b)=(4.24\pm 0.06)\mathrm{GeV},$$
(11)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=(250\pm 50)\mathrm{MeV}`$ . In a forthcoming paper , we study (for the first time), from the QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR) method, the $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects on the ratio: $`\xi `$ defined previously in Eq. (5), where a similar analysis of the ratios of the decay constants has given the values :

$$\frac{f_{D_s}}{f_D}1.15\pm 0.04,\frac{f_{B_s}}{f_B}1.16\pm 0.04.$$
(12)
We also improve the previous result on $`B_{B_d}`$ by the inclusion of the $`B^{}B^{}`$ resonances into the spectral function.

## 3 Results and implications on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$

We deduce by taking the average from the moments and Laplace sum rules results :

$$\xi \frac{f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}}{f_B\sqrt{B_B}}1.18\pm 0.03,f_B\sqrt{\widehat{B}_B}(228\pm 61)\mathrm{MeV},$$
(13)
in units where $`f_\pi =130.7`$ MeV. As expected, we have smaller errors for the ratio $`\xi `$ due to the cancellation of the systematics, while for $`f_B\sqrt{\widehat{B}_B}`$, the error comes mainly and equally from the pole mass $`M_b`$ and the truncation of the PT series where we have estimated the strength of the $`\alpha _s^2`$ contribution assuming a geometric growth of the PT coefficients. These results can be compared with different lattice and phenomenological determinations given in . By comparing the ratio with the one of $`f_{B_s}/f_{B_d}`$ in Eq. (12) 333One can notice that similar strengths of the $`SU(3)`$ breakings have been obtained for the $`BK^{}\gamma `$ and $`BKl\nu `$ form factors ., one can conclude (to a good approximation) that:

$$\widehat{B}_{B_s}\widehat{B}_{B_d}(1.41\pm 0.33)B_{B_{d,s}}(4m_b^2)(0.94\pm 0.22),$$
(14)
indicating a negligible $`SU(3)`$ breaking for the bag parameter. For a consistency, we have used the estimate to order $`\alpha _s`$ :

$$f_B(1.47\pm 0.10)f_\pi ,$$
(15)
and we have assumed that the error from $`f_B`$ compensates the one in Eq. (13). The result is in excellent agreement with the previous result of  in Eqs (8) and (9). Using the experimental values:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ $`=`$ $`0.472(17)ps^1,\mathrm{\Delta }M_s13.1ps^1(95\%\mathrm{CL}),`$ (16)
one can deduce from Eq. (4):

$$\rho _{sd}\left|\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}\right|^220.2(1.3).$$
(17)
Alternatively, using: $`\rho _{sd}28.4(2.9)`$ obtained by using the Wolfenstein parameters determined in , we deduce:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_s18.4(2.1)ps^1,$$
(18)
in good agreement with the present experimental lower bound and within the reach of Tevatron run 2 experiments.

## 4 Conclusions

We have applied QCD spectral sum rules for extracting (for the first time) the $`SU(3)`$ breaking parameter in Eq. (13). The phenomenological consequences of our results for the $`B_{d,s}^0`$-$`\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mass-differences and CKM mixing angle have been discussed. An extension of this work to the study of the $`B_{s,d}^0\overline{B}_{s,d}^0`$ width difference is in progress .

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank my collaborators Kaoru Hagiwara and Daisuke Nomura.