text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Our present understanding of the universe is described in the framework of general relativity and cosmology. The densities of its components are related by :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(a)1=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}1}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{mat}a^1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{rel}a^2},$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor. This equation and current experimental results suggest and focus on a flat universe with the following parameters :

| Cosmological constant: | | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7\pm 0.1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Matter: |  | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{mat}=0.3\pm 0.1`$ |
|  | baryonic matter: | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.04\pm 0.01`$; including $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{vis}0.01`$ |
|  | cold dark matter: | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}=0.26\pm 0.1`$ |
| Relativistic components: | | $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{rel}0.05`$ |
|  | neutrinos: | $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 0.05`$ |
|  | photons: | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma =4.8_{0.9}^{+1.3}\times 10^5`$ |
| Hubble’s constant: | | $`hH_0/100\mathrm{km}^1\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1=0.72\pm 0.08`$ |

In the framework of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) , the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is typically the lightest of the neutralinos $`\chi _1(\chi ),\chi _2,\chi _3,\chi _4`$, the mass eigenstates of the neutral gauge and Higgs boson superpartners ($`\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{W^3},\stackrel{~}{H_d^0},\stackrel{~}{H_u^0}`$). In the rest of this paper, the LSP is thus assumed to be the lightest neutralino $`\chi _1`$ and is called more generically $`\chi `$. Assuming R-parity conservation ($`R(1)^{B+L+2S}`$), the neutralino is a good stable candidate for cold dark matter . In this context, all sparticles produced after the big-bang give a neutralino in their decay chain, leading to a relic bath of $`\chi `$ in the present universe. These neutralinos could be observed via direct detection ($`\chi `$ interaction with a nucleus of a detector), or indirect detection of their annihilation products ($`\nu `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{D}`$, $`e^+`$). We will mainly focus in this paper on $`\nu `$ indirect detection. The relic neutralinos are gravitationally captured by massive astrophysical bodies and accumulated at the centre of these objects by successive elastic scatterings on their nuclei. The captured neutralino population annihilates and gives rise to neutrino fluxes which could be detectable in neutrino telescopes like Amanda/Icecube, Antares, Baikal.

## 2 Neutralino in the CMSSM

In the MSSM, the mass matrix of neutralinos in the basis $`(i\stackrel{~}{B},i\stackrel{~}{W^3},\stackrel{~}{H_d^0},\stackrel{~}{H_u^0})`$ is

$$M_{\chi ,\chi _2,\chi _3,\chi _4}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W\\ 0& M_2& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W\\ m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& 0& \mu \\ m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ are mass term of $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gaugino fields, $`\mu `$ is the higgsino “mass” parameter and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =<H_u>/<H_d>`$ is the ratio of the neutral Higgs vacuum expection values. The neutralino composition is:

$$\chi =N_1\stackrel{~}{b}+N_2\stackrel{~}{W^3}+N_3\stackrel{~}{H_d^0}+N_4\stackrel{~}{H_u^0}$$
(3)
and we define its gaugino fraction as $`g_{frac}=|N_1|^2+|N_2|^2`$.

In this model, the introduction of soft terms in the Lagrangian breaks explicitly supersymmetry, leading to a low energy effective theory with 106 parameters. The MSSM is therefore not very predictive, and a non biased exploration of its parameter space is not possible. As a first step, we will therefore as usual concentrate on gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking in supergravity  inspired models, with Grand Unification of soft terms at $`E_{GUT}2.10^{16}`$ GeV parameterized by $`m_0`$ (common scalar mass), $`m_{1/2}`$ (common gaugino mass) and $`A_0`$ (common trilinear term). Together with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`sgn(\mu )`$, these define a 5 parameters constraint MSSM (CMSSM) or mSugra model , from which the 106 parameters can be deduced through renormalization group equations (RGE).

Due to the large top Yukawa coupling, renormalization group evolution can drive $`m_{H_u}^2|_{Q_{EWSB}}`$ and/or $`m_{H_d}^2|_{Q_{EWSB}}`$ to negative values, so that the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) originates purely in quantum corrections, which realizes radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. Minimization of the scalar potential at the electroweak breaking scale $`Q_{EWSB}`$ yields the condition:

$$\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2=\frac{m_{H_d}^2|_{Q_{EWSB}}m_{H_u}^2|_{Q_{EWSB}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}\mu ^2|_{Q_{EWSB}}\underset{\mathrm{tan}\beta 5}{}m_{H_u}^2|_{Q_{EWSB}}\mu ^2|_{Q_{EWSB}},$$
(4)
where usually $`Q_{EWSB}`$ is taken as $`\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}`$  to minimize one loop corrections.

Such mSugra models offer the theoretical advantage over generic MSSM models that problems such as Landau poles, charge and color breaking (CCB) minima are partially addressed when dealing with RGE.

In mSugra, the lightest neutralino can exhibit two different natures, depending on the input parameter values :

* an almost pure bino-like neutralino for low $`m_0`$, as the RGE drive $`M_1|_{Q_{EWSB}}0.41M_1|_{GUT}=0.41m_{1/2}<<|\mu |_{Q_{EWSB}}`$ and $`M_2|_{Q_{EWSB}}0.83M_1|_{GUT}=0.83m_{1/2}<<|\mu |_{Q_{EWSB}}`$;
* for $`m_01000`$ GeV, the neutralino picks up some higgsino mixing for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$ as the increase of $`m_0`$ drives $`m_{H_u}^2`$ to less negative values so that both $`|m_{H_u}^2|`$ and $`|\mu |`$ (via eq. 4) decrease. One can then have $`|\mu |_{Q_{EWSB}}M_1|_{Q_{EWSB}}`$ depending on $`m_{1/2}`$. When $`|\mu |`$ is too small, EWSB cannot be achieved.

In addition, the very low $`m_0`$ values can lead to models with tachyonic sfermions (low $`m_{1/2}`$) or a slepton LSP. These behaviors are shown on figure 1 in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane. The neutralino mass is $`0.4m_{1/2}`$ but is affected by low $`\mu `$ values at high $`m_0`$. Unless explicitly quoted we use $`m_t=174.3`$ GeV.

In this paper, the RGE, SUSY spectrum and potential minimization are derived using the SUSPECT program  version 2.005 which includes 2 loops RGE , the tadpole method to minimize the scalar potential  and all radiative corrections in the mass spectrum . The neutralino relic density, including $`\chi \chi ^+`$ and $`\chi \chi _2`$ coannihilations, and detection signals are calculated by the DarkSUSY (DS) package  111These calculations use a neutralino local density $`\rho _\chi =0.3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and a Maxwellian velocity distribution with $`v_0=220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ which correctly implements $`s`$-channel poles and thresholds . Our interface (available from nezri@in2p3.fr, submitted for inclusion in DS) shortcuts the DS spectrum recalculation, to comply with the SUSPECT spectra which have been checked  against SOFTSUSY .

## 3 Branching ratios in neutralino annihilation

The leading processes in neutralino annihilation at rest are shown in figure 2, where the last two processes are proportional to the higgsino/wino fraction of $`\chi `$ and $`\chi _i^{(+)}`$. In mSugra models, one can typically distinguish different regions of annihilation branching ratios in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane, for almost any values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta (5)`$ (see figure 3).

Above top thresholds: *i.e.* $`m_\chi m_{top}m_{1/2}400`$ GeV or slightly higher in the mixed higgsino region.

Region I: for low $`m_0`$ ($`<5001000`$ GeV), the neutralino is almost purely bino-like. Despite a tiny higgsino fraction, its annihilation via the $`Z`$ exchange amplitude, being proportional to the fermion mass, is surprisingly important in the top channel $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝑍}{}t\overline{t}(m_tm_\chi /m_Z^2)^2N_{3(4)}^2`$. Another potentially important annihilation process is $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$, whose amplitude $`|A_{b\overline{b}}^A|\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta m_b}{m_W}(\frac{m_\chi }{m_A})^2N_1N_{3(4)}`$ is strongly enhanced for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, both from the explicit dependence, and because $`m_A`$ decreases when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases. In the region of interest, their ratio $`|A_{t\overline{t}}^Z/A_{b\overline{b}}^A|`$ accordingly drops from $`2050`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ down to $`25`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$. Even taking the smaller $`t\overline{t}`$ phase space (a factor of $`0.7`$) and the other subleading $`b\overline{b}`$ processes into account, the $`b\overline{b}`$ domination thus calls for an explanation on figure 4 and even more on figure 13. The only way to account for this domination is to recall the opposite sign of the $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝑍}{}t\overline{t}`$ and $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{t}}{}t\overline{t}`$ amplitudes, thus allowing for a cancellation provided their order of magnitude match, which we checked analytically. The opposite happens for the annihilation into $`b\overline{b}`$: the $`Z`$, $`A`$ and sbottom exchange all add up, and from the behaviour of the non-negligible $`A_{b\overline{b}}^A`$ amplitude, we expect in the region I an important total annihilation cross section $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$ for high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Region II: when $`m_0`$ increases ($`<15002000`$ GeV), $`m_A`$ increases and, for intermediate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values, the $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ amplitude decreases. Since sfermion masses also increase, the $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{t}}{}t\overline{t}`$ channel no longer cancels $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝑍}{}t\overline{t}`$, which becomes the dominant process. However, for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ is enhanced and stays dominant. Globally, since all scalar masses have been increased by $`m_0`$, and the higgsino fraction is still small, the neutralino annihilation cross section $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$ is smaller than in region I.

Region III: increasing further $`m_0`$ ($`>20002500`$ GeV), for any value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, one finally approaches the mixed higgsino-bino region. The $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝑍}{}t\overline{t}`$ channel amplitude $`A_{t\overline{t}}^Z(\frac{m_tm_\chi }{m_Z^2})N_{3(4)}^2`$ then dominates all other processes, which are suppressed by the increase of scalar masses. So we are left with a $`t\overline{t}`$ region parallel to the highest higgsino fraction isocurves. The $`m_0`$ value separating this region from the previous $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ region depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. All in all, the neutralino annihilation cross section $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$ is strongly enhanced by $`Z`$ exchange near the no-EWSB boundary.

Between top and W/Z thresholds:

Region IV: since $`m_\chi <m_{top}`$, the neutralino annihilates almost only into $`b\overline{b}`$. Even if some $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{b}}{}b\overline{b}`$ occurs, the $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ amplitude is dominant.

Region V: increasing $`m_0`$ (and $`m_A`$), $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ remains dominant and this process is still quite efficient for high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ and $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝑍}{}b\overline{b}`$ both occur but their amplitudes are small and the total annihilation $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$ is not efficient.

Region VI: increasing further $`m_0`$ disfavours scalar exchange, but even small, the higgsino fraction allows $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\chi _i^+}{}W^+W^{}`$ and $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\chi _i}{}ZZ`$ to dominate and enhance the total annihilation cross section $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$. Again, the $`m_0`$ values delimiting the boundary with region V depend on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (via $`m_A`$).

Below W/Z thresholds:

Region VII: the dominant process is $`\chi \chi b\overline{b}`$ via $`A`$ and/or $`Z`$ exchange, depending on $`m_0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the higgsino fraction.

This analysis is illustrated on figures 4 and 13, showing the four most important branching ratios for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$ and $`10`$ (the omitted process $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}\tau \overline{\tau }`$ behaves as $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ but with a smaller amplitude due to the $`m_\tau /m_b`$ ratio).

It further offers a qualitative understanding of the relic density picture (figure 5). The annihilation is efficient for low values of $`m_0`$ (depending on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) and for a mixed neutralino along the no-EWSB boundary. This gives the “V” (or “U”) shape of the relic density profile for large (or small) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. According to the current cosmological parameter values, we take the neutralino as an interesting cold dark matter candidate if $`0.025<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$. Figure 5 also shows the region in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane excluded by the experimental constraints from the Particle Data Group 2000  implemented in DarkSusy, that we have updated with:
$`m_{\chi _1^+}>104`$ GeV; $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}>100`$ GeV for $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{l}^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>300`$ GeV; $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}>260`$ GeV for $`\stackrel{~}{q}=\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{s},\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and $`6\times 10^{10}<a_\mu (SUSY)<58\times 10^{10}`$ .

As noted in previous studies , the muon anomalous moment $`a_\mu `$and $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio constraints strongly favour $`\mu >0`$, to which we restrict in what follows. In figure 5, the grey tail at large $`m_0`$ is excluded by the chargino bound; it directly bites into the region relevant for neutrino indirect detection. Less relevant is the exclusion of small $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ values, which comes both from the Higgs mass limit and the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio, as calculated by default in DS. The range $`BR(bs\gamma )=14\times 10^4`$ chosen by default in Darksusy may seem too low in view of latest CLEO and Belle measurements . However the leading order calculation  implemented underestimates the SM value to $`2.4\times 10^4`$, while next to leading order corrections give $`3.6\times 10^4`$  so that this range should roughly correspond to $`2.25.2\times 10^4`$, excluding a bit more than the range $`25\times 10^4`$ chosen for instance in . We have checked that replacing the implemented Higgs limit  by an aggressive version of the latest limit  ($`m_h>114`$ GeV for all $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$) only excludes a few more points around ($`m_0=1000`$, $`m_{1/2}=150`$) where neutrino fluxes are beyond reach.

In mSugra, $`\chi \chi ^+`$ and $`\chi \chi _2`$ coannihilations (included in DS) happen only in the mixed neutralino region, decreasing further the relic density. $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ coannihilation happens for low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for which there is no mixed region. $`\chi \stackrel{~}{t}`$ coannihilation  happens for high values of $`A_0`$. In both cases, sfermion coannihilations (missing in DS) are relevant to lower the relic density in regions of large $`m_\chi `$, which as we will see, are beyond reach of indirect detection. We therefore do not expect their proper inclusion to change our conclusions.

## 4 Neutralino-proton cross section: capture rate and direct detection signals

Capture:
If present in the halo, relic neutralinos must accumulate in astrophysical bodies (of mass $`M_b`$) like the Sun or the Earth. The capture rate $`C`$ depends on the neutralino-quark elastic cross section: $`\sigma _{\chi q}`$. Neutralinos being Majorana particles, their vectorial interaction vanishes and the allowed interactions are scalar (via $`\chi q\stackrel{H,h}{}\chi q`$ in $`t`$ channel and $`\chi q\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}\chi q`$ in $`s`$ channel) and axial (via $`\chi q\stackrel{𝑍}{}\chi q`$ in $`t`$ channel and $`\chi q\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}\chi q`$ in $`s`$ channel). Depending on the spin content of the nuclei $`N`$ present in the body, scalar and/or axial interactions are involved. Roughly, $`C\frac{\rho _\chi }{v_\chi }_NM_bf_N\frac{\sigma _N}{m_\chi m_N}<v_{esc}^2>_NF(v_\chi ,v_{esc},m_\chi ,m_N)`$, where $`\rho _\chi ,v_\chi `$ are the local neutralino density and velocity, $`f_N`$ is the density of nucleus $`N`$ in the body, $`\sigma _N`$ the nucleus-neutralino elastic cross section, $`v_{esc}`$ the escape velocity and $`F`$ a suppression factor depending on masses and velocity mismatching. The neutralino capture is maximized for $`m_\chi m_N`$ as $`\frac{\sigma _N}{m_\chi m_N}\frac{m_r^2}{m_\chi m_N}\frac{m_\chi m_N}{(m_\chi +m_N)^2}`$, and is much more efficient in the Sun than in the Earth as $`M_{{\scriptscriptstyle }}>>M_{{\scriptscriptstyle }}`$.

For the Earth, scalar interactions dominate. By increasing $`m_0`$ from its low value region, sfermions and $`H`$ exchanges first decrease, and the cross-section rises again when approaching the mixed higgsino region (see figure 6a). The capture rate is resonant for $`m_\chi 56`$ GeV around the iron mass.

For the Sun, the spin of hydrogen allows for axial interaction, which are stronger due to the $`Z`$ coupling. The latter depends strongly on the neutralino higgsino fraction and is independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, so the cross-section follows the higgsino fraction isocurves as can be seen by comparing figure 6b and 1.

To summarize, due to the large solar mass and the spin dependent neutralino-quark cross section, the storage of neutralinos is much more efficient in the Sun than in the Earth.

Direct detection:
The elastic cross section of a neutralino on a nucleus also depends on $`\sigma _{\chi q}`$, the nucleus mass number $`A`$ and its spin content. Depending on the chosen nuclei target, current and future direct detection experiments are sensitive to the scalar coupling (CDMS (Ge) , Edelweiss (Ge) , Zeplin (Xe) ) or to the axial coupling (MACHe3 ($`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$) ). Comparison between experiment sensitivities and a set of mSugra models are shown on figure 9a.

## 5 Neutrino indirect detection

As $`\chi \chi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ is strongly suppressed by the tiny neutrino mass, neutrino fluxes come from decays of primary annihilation products, with a mean energy $`E_\nu \frac{m_\chi }{2}`$ to $`\frac{m_\chi }{3}`$. The most energetic spectra, called “hard” come from neutralino annihilations into $`WW`$, $`ZZ`$ and the less energetic, “soft”, ones comes from $`b\overline{b}`$ . Muon neutrinos give rise to muon fluxes by charged-current interactions in the Earth. As both the $`\nu `$ charged-current cross section on nuclei and the produced muon range are proportional to $`E_\nu `$, high energy neutrinos are easier to detect. Considering that the population of captured neutralinos has a velocity below the escape velocity, and therefore neglecting evaporation, the number $`N_\chi `$ of neutralinos in the centre of a massive astrophysical object depends on the balance between capture and annihilation rates: $`\dot{N_\chi }=CC_AN_\chi ^2`$, where $`C_A`$ is the total annihilation cross section $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$ times relative velocity per volume. The annihilation rate at a given time $`t`$ is then:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=\frac{1}{2}C_AN_\chi ^2=\frac{C}{2}\mathrm{tanh}^2\sqrt{CC_A}t$$
(5)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\frac{C}{2}=cste`$ when the neutralino population has reached equilibrium, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\frac{1}{2}C^2C_At^2`$ in the initial collection period (relevant in the Earth). So, when accretion is efficient, the annihilation rate does not depend on annihilation processes, but follows the capture rate $`C`$ and thus the neutralino-quark elastic cross section.

For the Sun, neutralinos do not reach complete equilibrium in the whole $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane studied, which contrasts with  based on Neutdriver  and different RGE, probably yielding lighter (pseudo-)scalars and lower $`\mu `$. We find that the annihilation is on average less efficient (as attested by our smaller region with an acceptable relic density), which results in a filling fraction $`\sqrt{CC_A}t_{{\scriptscriptstyle }}`$ smaller by a factor of 10 to 100. This has little effect on $`\nu (\mu )`$ fluxes for high $`m_0`$ or small $`m_{1/2}<600`$ GeV values, as equilibrium is nevertheless reached and fluxes follow essentially the higgsino fraction and the spin dependent $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{spin}`$ isocurves of figures 1a and 6. For low $`m_0`$ however, the equilibrium fluxes would drop with $`m_0`$ and $`C`$, but the smaller capture rate hinders equilibrium (e.g. $`\sqrt{CC_A}t_{{\scriptscriptstyle }}1`$ for $`m_0=500`$, $`m_{1/2}=800`$) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ feels the increasing annihilation cross-section. This effect is stronger for high $`m_{1/2}`$ values where the neutralinos are heavier and more bino-like, and where capture is smaller. The effect is also larger when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (and thus $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$) is low, as incomplete equilibrium makes $`\nu (\mu )`$ fluxes sensitive to $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$, making the $`W`$ and top thresholds more conspicuous.

For the Earth, neutralinos are not in equilibrium. Neutrino fluxes depend both on $`C^2`$ and annihilation, giving an enhancement in the low and high $`m_0`$ regions where fluxes are boosted by annihilation (see figure 6 and 8). Since $`M_{{\scriptscriptstyle }}<M_{{\scriptscriptstyle }}`$ and $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{scal}<\sigma _{\chi p}^{spin}`$, the capture rate and $`\nu `$ fluxes from the Earth are much smaller than from the Sun.

Comparing $`\nu `$ fluxes and $`\mu `$ fluxes, the $`\nu \mu `$ conversion factor increases with $`m_{1/2}`$ due to the increase of $`m_\chi `$ leading to more energetic neutrinos. This ratio also follows the annihilation final state regions described in section 3 above. Indeed, spectra from $`WW`$, $`ZZ`$ and to a lesser extent $`t\overline{t}`$ are more energetic than $`b\overline{b}`$ spectra, so neutrino conversion into muon is more efficient in the mixed bino-higgsino region above $`W`$ and top thresholds (see figure 7 and 8).

Comparison with indirect detection experiment sensitivities: Muon fluxes coming from neutralino annihilation in the Sun are shown in figure 9b. MSugra models predicting a good relic density of neutralinos give neutrino/muon fluxes which can be as high as the current experimental limits (Baksan , Macro , Super Kamiokande ). The $`0.1\mathrm{km}^2`$ Antares detector will explore further the interesting parameter space . Next generation neutrinos telescopes (Icecube, Antares $`\mathrm{km}^3`$) will be much more efficient to test such models, eg Icecube expected sensitivity $`10^2\mu \mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$ from the Sun .

Indirect vs Direct detection: a high neutralino-proton cross section is efficient in both direct and indirect detection (via capture). The large $`m_0`$ mixed higgsino-bino region pointed out in  favours both direct and indirect detection due to the enhancement of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\chi \chi }^A`$. Both enter in the indirect detection which is moreover favoured by the production of more energetic neutrinos in $`WW,ZZ`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ decays, leading to better conversion into muons (figure 10). This mixed region, which has a good relic density, is very attractive for neutrino indirect detection signal.

Hovewer, no current experiment is able to really test such models. Figure 11 shows the region of the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane which can be explored by future direct detection experiments and neutrino telescopes.

## 6 Variations

In this section, we discuss the robutness of the indirect detection picture described above, with respect to variations in Suspect 2.002 of 1) mSugra input parameters like $`A_0`$ or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, 2) experimental uncertainties on the top quark mass and 3) theoretical uncertainties on the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking $`Q_{EWSB}`$

$`𝐀_\mathrm{𝟎}`$: Varying $`A_0`$ away from $`0`$ does not change too much the analysis above. Annihilation branching ratio regions, as well as the no-EWSB boundary and slope can be slightly displaced. For moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 20`$, quite large and negative values of $`A_0`$ (*eg* $`800`$ GeV) can enhance $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ annihilation channel along the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ LSP region (*i.e.* low $`m_0`$) due to splitting in the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ mass matrix. For such values, the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\chi `$ coannihilation  could also affect the relic density, but in this region, neutrino fluxes are too small to be detected anyway (see figure 12). The same happens with the $`t\overline{t}`$ channel for $`400<m_{1/2}<600`$ and $`m_0<700(|A_0|)`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{t}\chi `$  coannihilation can also happen for $`A_02000`$ GeV, but the usual cosmologically interesting region is reduced (due to the negative squared mass arising in sfermion matrices at low $`m_0`$ and because the mixed region is pushed to higher values of $`m_0`$). In addition, this coannihilation region produces neutrino fluxes from the Sun around $`10^1\mu \mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$, too low to be detected. In view of the latest results on cosmological parameters, figure 12a shows models with $`0.03<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$ in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane for different values of $`A_0`$, as well as models giving $`\mu `$ fluxes from the Sun larger than $`10^2`$ (b) and $`10^3\mu \mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (c). Latter models are confined in the mixed higgsino-bino region. In addition, only those models with $`m_W<m_\chi <m_t`$ giving a hard spectrum of neutrinos via $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\chi _i^+}{}W^+W^{}`$ and $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\chi _i}{}ZZ`$ can simultaneously satisfy $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$, while yielding a high muon flux.

tan $`\beta `$: the branching ratio picture does not qualitatively change for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can add a $`\chi \chi t\overline{t}`$ region for low $`m_0`$ and open a $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\chi `$ coannihilation  region along the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ LSP region, but $`\mu `$ fluxes are small and such values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ reduce the mixed neutralino region which is the most interesting for indirect detection. As discussed previously, the boundaries of branching ratio regions move with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (compare figure 13 and 4). When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ grows, the cosmologically motivated region is wider due to the annihilation enhancement via $`A`$ exchange (in regions I/II and IV/V). Applying the conservative cut $`0.03<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$, all values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ provide interesting models for neutrino indirect detection (see figure 14). For too large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`b\overline{b}`$ region is extended and leads to soft neutrino spectra. In this case it becomes more difficult to conciliate a tighter limit on the relic density with current experimental sensitivities. Values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1035`$ give more models satisfying both relic density $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$ and high $`\nu /\mu `$fluxes.

EWSB scale: $`Q_{EWSB}`$ is the scale at which the running of the soft SUSY breaking terms is frozen and the minimization of the scalar potential is achieved. When the full potential is minimized within a multi-scale RG treatment, $`Q_{EWSB}`$ should not affect physics. Hovewer, the one-loop single scale effective potential does depend on $`Q_{EWSB}`$, and the tree-level relations (equation 4) only hold in terms of running parameters at $`Q_{EWSB}`$; if $`Q_{EWSB}`$ is chosen $`\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}`$ , the potential can be minimized pertubatively. Varying $`Q_{EWSB}`$ away from this value is therefore not physical, but gives a hint on the theoretical uncertainties associated with a single scale RG and potential minimization approach. When $`Q_{EWSB}`$ is lowered, the RG running drives $`\mu `$ to smaller values. This leads to a wider region of the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane where EWSB cannot be achieved. In the remaining allowed region, the lower values of $`\mu `$ slightly increases the higgsino fraction of the neutralino and the annihilation cross-section, giving more cosmologically acceptable models. Figure 15 and 16 show the relic density and $`\mu `$ fluxes from the Sun and the Earth in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane for $`Q_{EWSB}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}`$ and $`\frac{1}{5}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}`$. For $`Q_{EWSB}=\frac{1}{5}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}`$, one sees around $`m_0=m_{1/2}`$ the $`\chi \chi \stackrel{𝐴}{}b\overline{b}`$ $`s`$channel annihilation pole which would otherwise show up for higher values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`55`$ . It affects significantly the fluxes from the Earth, where capture and annihilation are not in equilibrium figure 16c. The higher higgsino fraction also enhances the elastic cross section $`\sigma _{\chi q}`$, but the stronger annihilation reduces the number of models which are both interesting from the cosmological point of view and in terms of Sun muon fluxes (figure 19c). As before, muon fluxes from the Earth are much too weak to be detected. Increasing $`Q_{EWSB}`$ leads to the opposite effect: higher values of $`|\mu |`$ and reduced cosmological favoured region.

Top mass: the current experimental value is $`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV . Our default choice up to now has been to adopt the central value. Lowering $`m_t`$ implies that the top Yukawa coupling $`Y_t`$ is smaller so that the RG decreasing of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ is less efficient and the region where EWSB does not occur is wider (see eq. 4, figure 17 and 18). Nevertheless the mixed higgsino region is larger favouring annihilation and capture, but there are no additional models combining a large $`\nu /\mu `$ flux with an acceptable relic density (figure 17, 18 and 19). Increasing the top mass leads to the opposite effect, which is less interesting for our study. It should also be noticed that varying $`Q_{EWSB}`$ and/or $`m_t`$ allows for heavier neutralino within the fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2`$ interval.

## 7 Conclusion

In this paper, we have analysed, within the framework of the constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (*a.k.a.* mSugra), the possible indirect detection of neutralino dark matter through the neutrinos produced by its annihilation in the Earth and the Sun. In particular, we have presented an original study of the relative weight of various annihilation channels crucial to indirect detection. Fixing the halo dark matter density to $`\rho _\chi =0.3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and allowing for the widest range of cosmological relic density $`0.03<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$, we find that a neutrino signal from the centre of the Earth is beyond reach of the present and even future neutrino telescopes.

For the larger Sun, we find that a neutrino signal may be found, but only in the large $`m_0`$ ”focus point” region  where the neutralino has a larger higgsino component which increases both neutralino-nucleon elastic scattering and neutralino annihilation cross-sections. Since in this region, both are related by $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel crossing (exactly above $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold and approximately below), any parameter change reducing the relic density inevitably increases the neutrino flux. When conversion into muons is taken into account with a 5 GeV threshold on the muon energy, the only models providing both a relevant (but rather low) relic density, and fluxes around the current indirect detection sensitivity ($`10^3\mu \mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$) are those with $`m_\chi <m_t`$ and $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\chi _i^+}{}W^+W^{}`$ or $`\chi \chi \stackrel{\chi _i}{}ZZ`$ as dominant annihilation processes. Relaxing the tight mSugra constraints in specific directions could favorise such channels . The next generation of neutrino telescopes (with a $`\mathrm{km}^3`$ size) will be much more efficient to probe mSugra models, especially for $`m_\chi >m_t`$. If a neutrino signal is found in this framework, then neutralino dark matter should also be accessible to future direct detection experiments, and a chargino with $`m_{\chi ^+}<350\mathrm{GeV}`$ should be found in accelerators.

To conclude, a comparison with previous related work is in order. Earlier studies  of neutralino indirect detection were performed in the unconstrained MSSM, where $`\mu `$ is a free parameter, and mixed neutralinos occur rather easily. Taking an mSugra slice in this huge parameter space obviously introduces many correlations, for instance between the neutrino flux and the relic density or $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{spin}`$ (and even $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{scal}`$). The effect of this slicing in the $`(m_\chi ,\sigma _{\chi p}^{scal})`$ plane was shown in  for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and in  for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Our figure 9 agrees with this last result, with the addition of the focus point region forming the upper-right cloud. We should note however that a comparison in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ plane is more difficult, specially at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, because of the theoretical uncertainties in the RGE used to translate these parameters into physical quantities. As an example, for a given value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the slope of the EWSB boundary decreases between , this work and . As another example, the strong annihilation via $`s`$-channel $`A,H_0`$ scalars appears above $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$ in  and , $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >35`$ in , and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >60`$ (or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$, $`Q_{EWSB}=\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}/5`$, see figure 16) in the present work using SUSPECT. Finally, we find a muon event rate compatible with , and larger than . Part of this difference comes from a higher threshold (25 GeV instead of our 5 GeV). The rest might be attributed to a high sensitivity in the renormalization group equations at large $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. It seems  that using SOFTSUSY  or SUSPECT  may be safer than ISASUGRA in this region.

Acknowledgement This work would not have started without the french ”GDR supersymetrie”. We gratefully thank Jean-Loic Kneur, Charling Tao, and the Antares Neutralino WG for help and stimulating discussions. We must also underline the acute reading and very constructive role of the referee in the final version of this article.


format: text

text:
# Gauge Invariant Monopoles in Lattice SU(2) Gluodynamics. ITEP-LAT-2002-04 MPI-PhT-2002-10

## Introduction

In this paper we implement the gauge invariant monopole construction  on the lattice. Since we use heavily the results of Ref.  let us recall first the essentials of the monopole definition in the continuum limit.

One starts with consideration of the fundamental Wilson loop $`W(T)`$, $`\frac{1}{2}TrW(T)=\mathrm{cos}\phi (T)`$ calculated on a closed contour $`𝒞(t)`$, $`t[0;T]`$. For a given $`W(t)`$ it is always possible to find a family of spin coherent states $`|\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$ such that

$$e^{i\phi (t)}|\stackrel{}{n}(t)=W(t)|\stackrel{}{n}(0),\stackrel{}{n}(T)=\stackrel{}{n}(0).$$
(1)
Eq. (1) naturally assigns the unique (up to the sign, see below) vector $`\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$ to each point on the contour $`𝒞`$. In terms of $`\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$ the phase angle $`\phi (T)`$ of the Wilson loop can be expressed as

$$\phi (T)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{4}\underset{S_𝒞}{}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n},$$
(2)
where $`S_𝒞`$ is an arbitrary surface spanned on $`𝒞`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ denotes the tangential to $`𝒞`$ components of the gauge potentials, $`A^a(t)=A_\mu ^a(x(t))\dot{x}_\mu (t)`$. As is clear from Eq. (1), the initial state $`|\stackrel{}{n}(0)`$ is an eigenstate of the full Wilson loop. Since $`W(T)`$ has two eigenstates $`|\pm \stackrel{}{n}(0)`$ (’spin up’ and ’spin down’), with the corresponding families $`\pm \stackrel{}{n}(t)`$ and phases $`\pm \phi (T)`$, there is a sign ambiguity in Eq. (1).

One considers next an arbitrary smooth closed surface $`S_{phys}^2`$ and covers it with a set of infinitesimal patches of area $`\delta \sigma _x`$. The phase evaluated on each patch is:

$$\delta \phi _x=\frac{1}{4}\{(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{A})+\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}\}\delta \sigma _x.$$
(3)
One can show that the usual assumption of the gauge fields continuity implies existence of a smooth field $`\stackrel{}{n}_xS_{phys}^2`$. Therefore it is legitimate to integrate Eq. (3) over the surface $`S_{phys}^2`$:

$$q=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{S_{phys}^2}{}\delta \phi =\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{S_{phys}^2}{}\{(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{A})+\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}\}\delta \sigma ,$$
(4)
and get a gauge invariant definition of the monopole charge contained inside $`S_{phys}^2`$. Note that for a smooth $`S_{phys}^2`$ and for continuous gauge fields the sign ambiguity mentioned above is not important. In fact, it reduces to the freedom to globally change the sign of $`\stackrel{}{n}S_{phys}^2`$ which in turn is equivalent to changing the sign of $`q`$, see Eq. (4).

One can show  that at the classical level it is the singular Wu-Yang monopole solution  which corresponds to a non-trivial $`q`$. In other words, Eq. (4) provides us with a gauge invariant topological definition of the Wu-Yang monopole which can be used at the quantum level as well. Moreover, the quantum generalization of the Wu-Yang monopole may look quite different from its classical counterpart. Indeed, the classical Wu-Yang solution is unstable . Thus, the semi-classical approximation would be inconsistent. However, the instability of the Wu-Yang solution implies only that monopoles (4) are irrelevant at short distances $`r\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. As far as the infrared region is concerned the dynamics of the monopoles (4) cannot be treated analytically (see also Ref. ). One concludes, therefore, that at the quantum level the field configurations with a non-trivial charge $`q`$ have little to do with the classical Wu-Yang solution both at short and large distances. Moreover, there seem to be no analytical tools to investigate their dynamics.

Below we discuss the monopole definition (4) on the lattice. Lattice implementation of the continuum ideas is not always straightforward. A particular example is provided by instantons: while in the continuum limit instantons are relatively simple objects, their lattice definition is technically much more involved . Still, in principle, one may try to interpolate the lattice gauge fields and apply the continuum ideas to the interpolated gauge potentials. A drawback of this approach is that the interpolation is always not unique.

Because of the lattice discretization one cannot completely avoid interpolations while implementing Eq. (4) on the lattice. However, our interpolation procedure is unique and not applied to the gauge fields themselves. Instead we interpolate the states $`|\stackrel{}{n}`$ in between neighboring lattice cells thus getting a continuous field $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ as required by Eq. (4). This enables us to construct integer valued conserved monopole currents on the lattice.

There are two disadvantages of our approach both of which we discuss in detail later:

i) The sign ambiguity mentioned above which is harmless in the continuum reemerges on the lattice in the form of an effective Ising model. In turn, the problem of finding the gauge invariant monopoles on the lattice becomes equivalent to finding the global minima of the corresponding Ising action, which is non-trivial because the model is frustrated. What is surprising, however, is that in the Maximal Abelian gauge the ground state of the Ising model is approximated very well, although we do not fix any particular gauge neither in our construction nor in the numerical simulations.

ii) The interpolation of spin states in between neighboring lattice cells enforces a change of the lattice geometry. Namely, one has to consider additional three dimensional cells on the lattice which can contain gauge invariant monopole charges. We argue below that these charges are pure lattice artifacts which disappear in the limit of infinitesimal lattice spacing. The artifact’s contribution to the physical observables must be carefully subtracted which is a non-trivial problem because of complicated lattice geometry and monopole-artifact mixing. Nevertheless, for simple quantities like monopole density the monopole-artifact separation turns possible. When this is done, the density of physical monopoles scales correctly towards the continuum limit.

## 1. ’Stokes Theorem’

Complexity of the lattice implementation of Eq. (4) might already be visualized from that equation itself. Indeed, the effective ’Higgs field’ $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is unusual since it is defined not on space-time points (lattice sites) but on elementary two-dimensional cells (plaquettes). Moreover, the field $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is defined  in terms of the field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ which itself is badly defined on the lattice. Indeed, in the continuum limit the Wilson loop calculated on a plaquette reduces to a particular component of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ regardless of the initial point from which we started evaluation of Wilson loop. But for a finite lattice spacing the Wilson loop depends drastically on the starting point. Because of this, the spin state which we would like to assign to a given plaquette also depends on the plaquette definition.

The situation becomes even worse if we consider a common link of two plaquettes. The spin states are to be constructed on each plaquette separately and they have nothing in common, in contrast with the continuum case. To get insight into the problem, let us consider an arbitrary contour $`𝒞_0`$ and dissect it in points $`A`$ and $`B`$ into two smaller pieces $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ (Fig. 1). The spin states are introduced for each contour via Eq. (1) taking for definiteness the ’spin up’ initial states. In this way one gets three different families $`\stackrel{}{n}_i(t)`$ associated with each contour $`𝒞_i`$. Suppose that we know the phases $`\phi _i`$ of the Wilson loops calculated on $`𝒞_i`$. What is the relation between them?

The answer may be found by considering the image of each contour under the map: $`\stackrel{}{n}_i:𝒞_i𝒞_i^{color}`$. Note that the two triples $`\{\stackrel{}{n}_i(A)\}`$, $`\{\stackrel{}{n}_i(B)\}`$, $`i=0,1,2`$ are distinguishable since the relative position of the vectors in each triple is gauge invariant. Moreover, there exists a simple interpretation of the original Wilson loops in terms of $`𝒞_i^{color}`$. Namely, $`W_i(t)`$ describes periodic motion of a point-like charged particle on $`S_{color}^2`$ since every closed path $`C_i^{color}`$ is associated with a unique phase factor. Therefore, in terms of $`C_i^{color}`$ the problem becomes essentially Abelian and one could have concluded that $`\phi _0`$ is equal to the sum of phases calculated on the pre-images of the closed paths I, II, …, VII (see Fig. 1). But there is a loophole in this argumentation: we do not know the $`SU(2)`$ matrices $`g_{ij}`$ which connect the points $`\stackrel{}{n}_i\stackrel{}{n}_j`$:

$$g_{ij}(A):\stackrel{}{n}_i(A)\stackrel{}{n}_j(A),g_{ij}(B):\stackrel{}{n}_i(B)\stackrel{}{n}_j(B)$$
(5)
and which are denoted by dashed lines on the Fig. 1. Clearly, $`g_{ij}`$ might be an arbitrary $`SU(2)`$ elements provided that Eq. (5) holds true.

Among various $`gSU(2)`$ which connect two given points $`\stackrel{}{n}_1,\stackrel{}{n}_2S_{color}^2`$, $`g|\stackrel{}{n}_1|\stackrel{}{n}_2`$ there is a special one. Namely, if $`g`$ describes the motion $`\stackrel{}{n}_1\stackrel{}{n}_2`$ along the shortest geodesic connecting $`\stackrel{}{n}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}_2`$ then $`g`$ is uniquely defined:

$$g=(\stackrel{}{n}_1\stackrel{}{n}_2)+i\sigma ^a[\stackrel{}{n}_1\times \stackrel{}{n}_2]^a.$$
(6)
We call it the geodesic matrix below. Moreover, for the geodesic matrices $`g_{ij}`$ the relation between the phases $`\phi _i`$ becomes extremely simple. Indeed, one can readily verify that in this case the phase angles associated with cells V, VI, VII are vanishing while for the the cells III, IV they are equal to the oriented areas of the spherical triangles $`\{\stackrel{}{n}_i(A)\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{}{n}_i(B)\}`$, respectively. Thus, we get the following simple equation which relates the phases of the Wilson loops:

$$\phi _0=\phi _1+\phi _2+\gamma (A)+\gamma (B),$$
(7)
$$\gamma (N)=\text{ oriented solid angle between }\stackrel{}{n}_0(N),\stackrel{}{n}_1(N),\stackrel{}{n}_2(N).$$

Note that we always implicitly assume $`\text{mod }2\pi `$ operation .

## 2. Single Plaquette Construction.

We start the construction of monopoles (4) on the lattice following the same strategy as in the continuum limit. Namely, the simplest object which we consider first is an elementary plaquette, see Fig. 2.

As is noted above for any finite lattice spacing the matrix $`U_p=U_1U_2U_3U_4`$ is to be treated as a large Wilson loop. In particular, it is impossible to assign a single well defined spin state to a given plaquette. On the other hand, the Eq. (1) is still valid and in fact directly applicable. Namely, one can calculate the eigenvector of the matrix $`U_p`$:

$$\stackrel{}{n}_0|U_p=e^{i\phi _p}\stackrel{}{n}_0|$$
(8)
and then propagate the initial state $`\stackrel{}{n}_0|`$ along the plaquette’s edges:

$$\stackrel{}{n}_k|U_k=e^{i\phi _k}\stackrel{}{n}_{k+1}|,k=0,\mathrm{},3,\stackrel{}{n}_4|=\stackrel{}{n}_0|.$$
(9)
In this way one gets four states $`\stackrel{}{n}_k|`$ sitting at the plaquette’s corners. Moreover, each $`\stackrel{}{n}_k|`$ is an eigenstate of the plaquette matrix calculated starting from point $`k`$, e.g. $`\stackrel{}{n}_1|U_1U_2U_3U_0\stackrel{}{n}_1|`$ etc. Therefore, the vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_k`$ are in a sense always parallel to the color magnetic field piercing the plaquette considered. Moreover, Eqs. (8,9) imply the following simple relation between the plaquette angle $`\phi _p`$ and phases $`\phi _i`$ associated with the corresponding links:

$$\phi _p=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\phi _k.$$
(10)
Note that we still have a freedom to choose an arbitrary sign of the initial state (8), the same as in the continuum limit. It is clear that the change $`\stackrel{}{n}_0\stackrel{}{n}_0`$ would also flip the signs of all other states: $`\stackrel{}{n}_k\stackrel{}{n}_k`$. Thus, it makes sense to speak about the sign associated with each plaquette. While only a single plaquette is considered the sign ambiguity is in fact irresolvable. Note also that for pure diagonal link matrices all vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_k`$ collapse to a single point on the $`S_{color}^2`$.

Next, consider a common link of two adjacent plaquettes, see Fig. 3. Since the spin states are constructed separately on each plaquette the states $`\stackrel{}{n}_1(A)`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}_2(A)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_1(B)`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}_2(B)`$ are quite different in general. It is important, however, that the products $`\stackrel{}{n}_1(A)\stackrel{}{n}_2(A)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_1(B)\stackrel{}{n}_2(B)`$ are gauge invariant. Moreover, in case of diagonal lattice gauge fields (or for a gauge copy of the diagonal configuration) we have

$$\stackrel{}{n}_1(A)\stackrel{}{n}_2(A)=\stackrel{}{n}_1(B)\stackrel{}{n}_2(B)=\pm 1,$$
(11)
depending on the relative sign of initial states chosen on each plaquette. Therefore, there is a natural way to fix the relative sign on $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ by the requirement that across the common link of two plaquettes the spins should be as smooth as possible. In fact, this approach is essentially the same as in the continuum limit. The only difference is that in the continuum we indeed do have a continuous distribution of spins while on the lattice the true smoothness of $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ is not possible. The only exception is a particular case $`|\stackrel{}{n}_1(A)\stackrel{}{n}_2(A)|=1`$ for which everything is in fact trivial.

Thus, on the lattice we inevitably have to interpolate the states $`\stackrel{}{n}_1(A)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_2(A)`$ by connecting them with an appropriate $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`g`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{n}_1|g\stackrel{}{n}_2|`$. As we have argued in the previous section there is a natural unique choice of $`g`$, namely the geodesic interpolation, Eq. (6). This choice is singled out, in particular, since only in this case we do not introduce additional fluxes in the intersection of two plaquettes: the Wilson loop calculated on 2-cell $`(\alpha \beta \gamma \delta )`$ is exactly unity no matter what the lattice gauge fields are.

## 3. Monopole Charge on 3D Cube.

The above construction allows to formulate the notion of the monopole charge for a single three-dimensional lattice cube. Namely, one has to apply the procedure of the previous section to all six plaquettes of a given cube, Fig. 4.

Let us briefly summarize the essential steps of the construction.

i) On each face $`\alpha =0,\mathrm{},5`$ of the cube one calculates the corresponding plaquette matrix $`U_\alpha `$ and then constructs four vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$ via Eq. (9) taking the initial state $`\stackrel{}{n}_{0,\alpha }`$ as an eigenstate of $`U_\alpha `$ with arbitrary sign.

ii) In order to get the smoothest distribution of $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$ on the cube boundary, one considers the following Ising-like action:

$$S=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}z_\alpha z_\beta \underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}_{j,\beta },$$
(12)
where dynamical variables are the signs $`z_\alpha =\pm 1`$ associated with each plaquette, the first sum is over all neighboring 2-cells in the cube’s boundary and the summation in $`i`$, $`j`$ indexes extends over all neighboring spins. The action (12) is minimized with respect to all signs $`z_\alpha `$ and, finally, for negative $`z_\alpha `$ the corresponding vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$ are inverted $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$. It is clear that the ground state of the Ising model (12) corresponds to the smoothest possible distribution of $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$. Moreover, for a single cube the ground state may be found exactly.

iii) Finally, the three vectors around each vertex of the cube are geodesically interpolated (dashed lines on Fig. 5). Note that the relative position of vectors in each triple, say $`(\stackrel{}{n}_{1,\beta }\stackrel{}{n}_{3,\gamma }\stackrel{}{n}_{0,\delta })`$ is gauge invariant and therefore the geodesic interpolation is a well defined prescription.

The magnetic charge contained in a given cube is proportional to the net outgoing magnetic flux, cf. Eq. (4). Namely, one sums up the phases $`\phi _i`$ associated via Eq. (8) with all two-dimensional cells on the boundary of the ’extended’ cube (Fig. 5, right). Note that due to the geodesic interpolation not all the 2-cells must be taken into account. For example, the flux emanating through the 2-cell $`(\stackrel{}{n}_{1,\beta },\stackrel{}{n}_{0,\beta },\stackrel{}{n}_{0,\gamma },\stackrel{}{n}_{3,\gamma })`$ is exactly zero. The final expression for the magnetic charge is therefore

$$q=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[\underset{plaq\alpha =0}{\overset{5}{}}\phi _\alpha +\underset{vertexv=0}{\overset{7}{}}\stackrel{~}{\phi }_v\right],$$
(13)
where $`\phi _\alpha `$ is the plaquette angle (8) and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_v`$ is the flux corresponding to the triangle (dashed lines) at vertex $`v`$ which in turn is equal to the oriented solid angle between vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$ at the triangle’s corners.

Eq. (13) has in fact a transparent meaning. The first term counts the flux emanating through the original lattice plaquettes and therefore it is the physical flux of the monopole. The second term is in a sense a correction due to the lattice coarseness. Indeed, there were two important requirements in the corresponding continuum construction : $`S_{phys}^2`$ should be smooth and $`\delta \phi _x`$ is to be calculated on an infinitesimal contour $`\delta 𝒞_x`$. In fact none of them is realized on the lattice since the lattice cube for sure cannot be considered as a smooth surface and the lattice plaquette is not infinitesimal in any sense. In fact the second term in Eq. (13) just accounts for these facts by plugging the holes between the neighboring vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$. Let us emphasize that the appearance of the additional contribution, Eq. (13), is entirely due to the lattice discretization. There are no similar term in the continuum expression (4).

However, there exists a particular case when the second contribution, Eq. (13), is zero. This happens when all the neighboring spins $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$ are aligned with each other. From Eq. (11) we conclude then that this corresponds to a pure Abelian configuration. Namely, there exists a particular gauge in which all the lattice gauge fields are diagonal. Moreover, Eq. (13) is then identical to the well known DeGrand–Toussaint definition of the Abelian monopole .

## 4. Effective Ising Model and Lattice Artifacts.

In this section we discuss some details of the above construction which are in fact crucial in the actual numerical implementations. For simplicity, we consider in this section three dimensional lattice only. Let us start from the Eq. (12) which encodes the way how to get the smoothest possible distribution of spins $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$. In fact, it is quite important to find the global minimum of the action (12). Indeed, let us consider an almost Abelian gauge fields configuration for which

$$n_{i,\alpha }^a\pm \delta ^{a3}i,\alpha .$$
(14)
Suppose that instead of the ground state of the model (12) we are considering a local minimum of the action (12). After performing the corresponding inversions $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$ for all the negative $`z_\alpha `$ we get a configuration of vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$ almost all of which satisfy $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\delta ^{a3}`$. But since the minimum is only local there are some negative spins as well. Evidently, Eq. (13) when applied for such $`\{\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\}`$ still produces a non zero charge which however has nothing to do with reality since the contribution comes mostly from the second term of Eq. (13).

Therefore, it is indeed important to find the true ground state of the model (12) before applying Eq. (13). One expects, however, that in the real simulations it is almost impossible to find the global minima since for non-Abelian gauge fields the model (12) is frustrated. Thus the concrete algorithm used to minimize (12) might be crucial.

As a matter of fact, the naive local minimization of (12) is doomed to produce unphysical results for the monopoles (13). One may try to improve the iterative minimization by preconditioning it with a particular gauge fixing of the original lattice gauge fields. In our numerical tests (see below) we have considered three particular gauge fixing prescriptions: minimal and center Landau and Maximal Abelian gauges which are defined via maximization of the following functionals

$$\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{2}TrU_l,\underset{l}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}TrU_l\right)^2,\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{2}TrU_l\sigma ^3U_l^+\sigma ^3,$$
(15)
respectively. Our finding is that the Maximal Abelian gauge is indeed greatly favored<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 See the next section for details on numerics. . Namely, when the lattice fields are first MAA gauge fixed then for each $`\alpha `$ it is sufficient to pick up the nearest to the north pole family $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$. The resulting distribution $`\{\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\}`$ almost exactly corresponds to the ground state of (12). For other gauges the result is less pronounced: although Landau gauge fixing improves the local minimization the resulting minimal value of (12) is considerably larger than in case of the Maximal Abelian gauge.

Let us note that in our numerical simulations none of the gauges (15) was used. Instead, we have applied a variant of the simulated annealing algorithm  to directly minimize the action (12). As one may expect the latter approach turns out to be superior to any kind of local minimization.

Let us turn now to another major problem of the lattice implementation of Eq. (4). Namely, one can see that Fig. 5 implies in fact a change of the lattice geometry since this construction being iterated for all 3-cubes produces ’extended’ cubes instead and introduces new three dimensional cells on the lattice. In particular, in the intersection of four cubes one gets the geometrical figure depicted on the Fig. 6 and a new 3-cell at each site of the original lattice, see Fig. 7.

Consider first the Fig. 6. For the plotted 3-cell the faces $`(a_ib_ic_id_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$ consist of the geodesic matrices while all others were in fact already discussed. Namely we have shown that fluxes piercing the cells $`(b_1b_2c_2c_1)`$, $`(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2)`$ etc. are exactly zero. Moreover, since there is the same matrix $`U`$ on each link $`(a_1a_2)`$, $`(b_1b_2)`$ etc. one concludes that the images of squares $`(a_ib_ic_id_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$ under the maps $`\stackrel{}{n}(a_i)`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}(b_i)`$ etc. are isomorphic. Due to the properties of the geodesic interpolation the fluxes piercing $`(a_1b_1c_1d_1)`$ and $`(a_2b_2c_2d_2)`$ are exactly the same.

The overall conclusion about Fig. 6 is as follows. The magnetic charge inside the plotted 3-cell is identical zero. Moreover, the flux which goes from this cell to the neighboring cubes is zero either. The whole flux propagates unmodified along the link of the original lattice from the face $`(a_1b_1c_1d_1)`$ to the face $`(a_2b_2c_2d_2)`$, see Fig. 6.

Turn now to the 3-cell on the Fig. 7. Its properties are easy to derive. Namely, at each vertex there is a corresponding vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},11`$. It is convenient to parameterize the vertices as $`(x;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu ;\widehat{\nu },d_\nu )(x;\widehat{\nu },d_\nu ;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu )`$, where $`\widehat{\mu }`$, $`\widehat{\nu }`$ are the unit vectors along the lattice axes and $`d_\mu `$, $`d_\nu `$ are the corresponding shift signs (see Fig. 7). Moreover, the pairs of vertices

$$(x;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu ;\widehat{\nu },d_\nu ),(x;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu ;\widehat{\lambda },d_\lambda )\mu ,\nu ,\lambda $$

are connected by a link which carries an $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`g`$ such that

$$g:\stackrel{}{n}(x;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu ;\widehat{\nu },d_\nu )\stackrel{}{n}(x;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu ;\widehat{\lambda },d_\lambda )$$

corresponds to the geodesic motion on $`S_{color}^2`$. Note that the relative position of all $`\stackrel{}{n}(x;\widehat{\mu },d_\mu ;\widehat{\nu },d_\nu )`$ is gauge invariant and therefore the construction of the 3-cell on the Fig. 7 is well defined.

From the above properties one concludes that fluxes emanating from the faces of the presented 3-cell are equal to the oriented solid angles between the corresponding vectors situated at the vertices of that face. Then it follows immediately that the magnetic charge inside this 3-cell is gauge invariant and in general non-zero. Thus, we get another type of monopoles which however live in the sites of original lattice contrary to the monopoles in Eq. (13), which belong to the dual lattice, as usual. In fact, there is another striking property of the monopoles on the Fig. 7. Namely, none of the fluxes which this monopole emanates enter the original Wilson action of the lattice gauge models. Therefore, naively this monopole costs no action at all.

One can readily convince oneself that the actionless monopoles are of the same origin as the second term in Eq. (13). They appear because of the violation on the lattice of the two major requirements of continuum theory (see the discussion after Eq. (13)). We conclude, therefore, that the actionless monopoles are intrinsic to the lattice formulation. They disappear only in the academic al limit of such small lattice spacing that one can indeed identify the lattice plaquette with a particular component of continuum $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. Of course, in this limit the above single cube construction is not applicable any longer and one has to consider the extended monopoles .

Thus, the actionless monopoles are in fact lattice artifacts which exist only because of the lattice discretization. When any physical observable is measured on the lattice the contribution of this objects must be carefully subtracted – the task which is quite non-trivial by itself. Indeed, even if $`D=3`$ and the lattice geometry is well understood (see Figs. 5-7) there seems to be no unique way to extract, e.g., density of the physical monopoles. In three dimensions the monopoles are point-like and one may naively expect that each artifact should form a small dipole-like structure either with ’physical’ monopole or with another artifact. But this expectation is in fact wrong since the flux emanating from each artifact is not suppressed by the action. Therefore, e.g., artifact-artifact chain might be arbitrarily prolongated.

In four dimensions the situation is even worse because of the complicated lattice geometry. The monopole currents are of course conserved, but the conservation takes place not on the hypercubical lattice. As a result the monopoles may freely propagate from 3-cubes to the sites and back on the original lattice. Thus, discrimination against the artifacts becomes ambiguous. Nevertheless in the next section we show that in $`D=4`$ the simplest ’brute-force’ approach works unexpectedly well for the monopole density.

We also would like to mention that there exists another view on the monopole-artifact mixing. Indeed, suppose for a while that the second term in Eq. (13) is zero. Then the monopole and artifact currents are separately conserved on the hypercubical dual and original lattices, respectively, and therefore there is no mixing between them. Thus it is the second term in Eq. (13) which mixes together the two types of magnetic charges.

Finally, let us note that there might be another way to fight against the artifacts on the lattice. Here we mean in particular a kind of blocking procedure which preserves the infrared properties of the theory while filtering out the ultraviolet noise. This might be helpful in approaching the limit of infinitesimal lattice spacing where the artifacts for sure disappear.

## 5. Results of Numerical Simulations.

In this section we describe the results of our numerical simulations of the four dimensional pure $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge model. We have noted already that it is in fact crucial to have a good approximation to the ground state of the model (12) which amounts to the ability to approximate the global minima of the corresponding action. We have considered three different types of minimization procedure, namely, the naive local minimization with and without gauge fixing preconditioning and a variant of the simulated annealing algorithm.

The gauges considered were described above, see Eq. (15), and each gauge was fixed by the iterative maximization of the corresponding functional. The gauge was considered fixed when all gauge rotation matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ become sufficiently small: $`1\frac{1}{2}Tr\mathrm{\Omega }_x<10^6`$. The simulated annealing algorithm which we used is the following. The action (12) was multiplied by a factor $`\gamma `$ (coupling constant) and then the quantum dynamics of variables $`\{z_\alpha \}`$ was simulated with the standard Metropolis algorithm. From the initial value $`\gamma 0.1`$ the coupling constant was moved towards $`\gamma =\mathrm{}`$ with steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma =0.1`$. Fifteen thermalization steps were performed for each $`\gamma `$ and the algorithm was stopped when the acceptance rate became smaller than 0.5%. After that on all plaquettes with $`z_\alpha =1`$ the corresponding $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$ were inverted $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }`$.

To monitor the quality of each algorithm we consider

$$\eta =\frac{1}{2}(1\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}_{j,\beta }),$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}_{i,\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}_{j,\beta }`$ is the gauge invariant scalar product of two neighboring vectors. The dependence $`\eta (\beta )`$ on $`12^4`$ lattice is presented on Fig. 8, where circles denote the local minimization without any preconditioning, while the local minimization with minimal Landau and Maximal Abelian gauge preconditioning are the squares and diamonds, respectively. Triangles are the results for the simulated annealing algorithm.

It should be noted that although the absolute values of $`\eta `$ varies slightly for various algorithms, the corresponding monopole densities differ by an order of magnitude. Note also that in the case of Maximal Abelian gauge preconditioning there was in fact no local minimization at all (see section 4). Nevertheless the $`\eta `$ values and monopole densities with MAA gauge are at least comparable with ones obtained via the simulated annealing.

Let us now turn to the physically interesting question about the monopole density. Fig. 9 represents the densities of artifacts (circles) and monopoles (squares) versus bare coupling constant $`\beta `$ on a $`14^4`$ lattice. In view of the above discussion of the monopole-artifact mixing it should not be a surprise that none of the graphs on Fig. 9 follows the renormalization group prediction

$$\rho _{lat}=\frac{\rho _{phys}}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\left[\frac{6\pi ^2}{11}\beta \right]^{153/121}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{9\pi ^2}{11}\beta \},$$
(17)
which is to be valid for physical monopoles. Moreover, Fig. 9 clearly confirms the actionless nature of artifacts since their density is almost constant in the whole range of $`\beta `$ considered.

As we have already discussed, the monopole-artifact separation is a priori not a well defined procedure at a finite lattice spacing. Nevertheless, it is amusing to note that in case of $`D=4`$ $`SU(2)`$ lattice gluodynamics the difference between the monopole and artifact densities follows Eq. (17) sharply, see Fig. 10. It seems so that in four dimensions and in the weak coupling regime artifacts do indeed form small dipoles with the monopoles living on the dual lattice. In this way one can explain the observed scaling behavior of $`\rho _{phys}=\rho _{monopoles}\rho _{artifacts}`$ although there are strictly speaking no rigorous arguments why $`\rho _{phys}`$ scales. Indeed, the monopole-artifact dipole picture is just an unproved assumption which, however, works unexpectedly well in $`D=4`$ $`SU(2)`$ LGT. The rigorous artifact separation is still an unresolved problem which is beyond the scope of the present publication.

Assuming that the above dipole picture is valid one can estimate the density of the physical monopoles in the continuum limit. As follows from Fig. 10, $`\mathrm{ln}\rho _{phys}/4\mathrm{\Lambda }^311.9`$ and using the numerical value of the string tension $`a\sqrt{\sigma }=0.1326`$ at $`\beta =2.6`$ (see, e.g. Ref ) one gets:

$$\rho _{phys}=(1.72\sqrt{\sigma })^3(760\text{ MeV })^3,$$
(18)
where the conventional value $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440\text{ MeV }`$ has been used.

## Conclusions

We have implemented the gauge invariant monopole charge definition in the $`SU(2)`$ lattice gluodynamics. The lattice implementation is of particular importance since there are no analytical approaches to the gauge invariant monopoles in the continuum limit. Indeed, the corresponding classical Wu-Yang solution is unstable. Our lattice construction is based on the continuum definition of the monopole charge proposed recently and in fact follows it as close as possible. In this way we were able to obtain integer valued conserved monopole currents.

As might be expected, the lattice formulation brings in a set of specific problems. One of them is the appearance of the effective Ising model. In fact, the gauge invariance of monopoles on the lattice crucially depends on our ability to find its ground state, which is a non-trivial task because the model is frustrated. But at least in principle this problem might be solved. Moreover, here we found a hint on the distinguished role of the Maximal Abelian gauge, which proved to be successful in the context of Abelian monopole confinement mechanism.

Another problem specific for the lattice is the emergence of the lattice artifacts. In more detail:

i) Artifacts are mixed up with physical monopoles. Thus it is necessary to subtract their contribution in order to get physical results. For simple quantities, like monopole density the artifact separation is indeed possible. Then the density of physical monopoles seems to scale correctly towards the continuum limit. However, it is not yet completely clear how to get rid of the artifacts in general case.

ii) Due to artifacts mixing the hypercubical geometry of the original lattice has to be changed. The monopole currents are still conserved, but the conservation takes place on a complicated lattice, the geometry of which is still not well understood. Probably the understanding of the lattice geometry will help to treat artifacts in a more rigorous way.

## Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge thankfully the fruitful discussions with V. Belavin, M.N. Chernodub, R. Hofmann, M.I. Polikarpov, L. Stodolsky and V.I. Zakharov. The work was partially supported by grants RFFI-02-02-17308, RFFI-0015-96786, INTAS-00-0011 and CRDF award RP1-2364-MO-02.


text:
# Practical creation and detection of polarization Bell states using parametric down-conversion

## I Introduction

The new science of quantum information builds on the recognition that entanglement, an essential but long underemphasized feature of quantum mechanics, can be a valuable resource. Many of the headline-grabbing quantum communication schemes (including quantum teleportation bennbrass ; zeil ; demartini , dense coding densetheory ; denseexp , and quantum cryptography cryptbennbrass ; cryptekert ) are based on the maximally-entangled two-particle quantum states called Bell states. Using the polarization states of a pair of photons in different spatial modes, the four Bell states are written as:

$`|\psi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|V_1|H_2\pm |H_1|V_2\right)`$
$`|\varphi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|H_1|H_2\pm |V_1|V_2\right),`$ (1)
where $`|H`$ and $`|V`$ describe horizontal- and vertical-polarization states, and the subscripts 1 and 2 are spatial mode labels. These four states form a complete, orthonormal basis for the polarization states of a pair of photons. In each Bell state, a given photon is completely unpolarized but perfectly correlated with the polarization of the other photon. Photon Bell states were produced in atomic cascades for the first tests of the nonlocal predictions of quantum mechanics clauserbell . Since that time, parametric down-conversion sources othersources ; steinberg ; kwiat1 ; kwiat2 ; shapiro  have replaced cascade souces due to their ease of use, high brightness, and the high-purity states they produce. However, down-conversion sources do not deterministically prepare photon Bell states, but rather states in which the Bell state component is in a coherent superposition with a dominant vacuum term; coincidence detection of photon pairs projects out only the two-photon component of the state.

While optical Bell state source technology has shown marked improvement, methods of distinguishing these states has proven a difficult challenge. Perhaps the most well-known example of why distinguishing Bell states is important comes from quantum teleportation. A general projective measurement is required for unconditional teleportation; experimental teleportation was originally limited to a maximum efficiency of 25% since only the singlet state, $`|\psi ^{},`$ could be distinguished from the triplet states zeil . The challenge for measuring Bell states stems from the requirement for a strong inter-particle interaction, which is usually nonexistent for photons. Without such a nonlinearity, only two of the four states can be distinguishedcircuits2 . It was realized that a strong enough optical nonlinearity, typically $`\chi ^{(3)}`$, could be used to mediate a photon-photon interaction. Unfortunately, even the nonlinearities of our best materials are far too weak. An experiment using standard nonlinear materials to demonstrate a scheme for unconditional teleportation was limited to extremely low efficiencies (on the order of 10<sup>-10</sup>) by the tiny nonlinearities involved shihtelep . Proposals for extending optical nonlinearities to the quantum level include schemes based on cavity QED qed , electromagnetically-induced transparency eit , photon-exchange interactions pei , and quantum interference techniques switch ; phase . Using the latter, we have recently demonstrated a conditional-phase switch phase  which is similar to the controlled-phase gate in quantum computation. In this work, we show how to apply the conditional-phase switch to the problem of Bell state detection. It should be noted that if recently published schemes for performing quantum computing with linear optics KLM ; otherlin  could be experimentally realized, then the problem of distinguishing all four Bell states could be performed without the need for strong optical nonlinearities. Theoretical work has also shown that if the Bell state is embedded appropriately in a higher-dimensional Hilbert space, all of the Bell states can be distinguished embedded .

Strong optical nonlinearities are desired so that one can construct a controlled-$`\pi `$, a specific case of the controlled-phase gate for photons. Such a gate and all one-qubit rotations form a universal set of gates for the more general problem of quantum computation – just as the NAND gate is universal for classical computation. The controlled-$`\pi `$ transformation cphiref  is described by:

$`|0_1|0_2`$ $``$ $`|0_1|0_2`$
$`|0_1|1_2`$ $``$ $`|0_1|1_2`$
$`|1_1|0_2`$ $``$ $`|1_1|0_2`$
$`|1_1|1_2`$ $``$ $`|1_1|1_2,`$ (2)
in which the two qubit states are $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ and the subscript is the qubit label. This transformation does nothing to the input state unless both qubits have a value of $`|1,`$ in which case it applies a phase-shift of $`\pi .`$ On the surface this transformation appears to do nothing since an overall phase in quantum mechanics is meaningless. However, it is clearly nontrivial when applied to superpositions of states.

The polarization of the photon makes an ideal two-level system for encoding a qubit largely due to its relative immunity to environmental decoherence. A large enough $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ nonlinearity could be used to effect the c-$`\pi `$ transformation on a pair of photons. Given a polarization-dependent $`\chi ^{(3)}`$, or through the use of polarizing beam-splitters, only photon pairs with, say, horizontal polarization would experience the nonlinear interaction and pick up the additional phase shift. Such a gate could then be incorporated into the optical implementation of the quantum circuits shown in Fig. 1a. and 2a. (similar circuits are discussed in circuits2 ; circuits ). The circuit in Fig. 1a. converts, through unitary transformation, a state in the rectilinear product state basis (i.e. $`|0_1|0_2,|0_1|1_2,|1_1|0_2,`$ and $`|1_1|1_2`$) to the Bell basis. The circuit in Fig. 2a. performs the opposite function converting a Bell state via unitary transformation to the rectilinear basis. In essence, these circuits allow for the creation and removal of entanglement between pairs of qubits. If the qubit states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ are encoded into the polarization states $`|H`$ and $`|V`$ in two different spatial modes 1 and 2, then an optical realization of the circuit in Fig. 2a. allows for the conversion of a photon pair in a Bell state to a rectilinear basis state. These four rectilinear basis states are easily distinguishable using the simple optical setup shown in Fig. 3. Thus, after passing the photon pair in a Bell state through the optical realization of the circuit in Fig. 2a., the subsequent detection of the rectilinear state is equivalent to determination of the Bell state.

The conditional-phase switch we propose is related to the controlled-phase gate of quantum computation and is described in the theory section of this work. The switching effect occurs in a $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ nonlinear material that is pumped by a strong, classical beam. This pump beam is capable of creating pairs of down-converted photon pairs into a pair of output modes. Pairs of photons, in a coherent superposition with the vacuum, pass through the crystal into those same output modes. It is the interference between the amplitudes for multiple paths leading to a photon pair that greatly enhances the effective nonlinearity; since the down-converted light is only created in pairs, the interference only affects the amplitude for photon pairs. However, since the switching effect is based on an interference effect, it is intrinsically dependent on the phase and amplitude of the incoming beams. This has two consequences. First, the switch requires an input which is in a coherent superposition with the vacuum. In this way, the input has the required *uncertain* number of photons, since photon number and phase are conjugate quantities. And second, the switch works as described only for states in the correct superposition with the vacuum, not a general input state. As we will show, these conditions do allow for one to distinguish between the four Bell states provided they are in the correct superposition with the vacuum. Nonetheless, the conditions are too stringent to allow for unconditional teleportation using this method.

First, we describe the effective nonlinearity. Then we show how the nonlinearity can be used to construct optical devices analogous to the quantum computation circuits shown in Fig. 1a. and Fig. 2a.

## II Theory

### II.1 Effective Nonlinearity

The general down-conversion state can be written as

$$|\psi =|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{cccc}|H_1|H_2\text{ }& |H_1|V_2\text{ }& |V_1|H_2\text{ }& |V_1|V_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where the part of the state describing photon pairs has been written as an inner product. The amplitudes for the polarization states $`|H_1|H_2`$, $`|H_1|V_2`$, $`|V_1|H_2`$, and $`|V_1|V_2`$ are $`\epsilon \alpha `$, $`\epsilon \beta ,`$ $`\epsilon \gamma `$, and $`\epsilon \delta `$, respectively. Again, the subscripts 1 and 2 describe two different spatial modes. Throughout this theory section, we adopt a 4-dimensional vector representation to describe the polarization state of the photon pairs. In this more compact notation, the general state is written

$$|\psi =|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
In both cases, we have suppressed the normalization factor for clarity, and for the discussion here we will restrict ourselves to the case where the probability of having a photon pair at any given time is small, i.e. $`\left|\epsilon \right|^21`$ (as is always the case in real down-conversion experiments).

The effective nonlinearity phase  can be described as follows. Modes 1 and 2 are of frequency $`\omega `$ and pass through a $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ nonlinear crystal that is simultaneously pumped by a strong classical laser beam of frequency $`2\omega `$ in mode p. The modes are so chosen such that the nonlinear crystal can create degenerate horizontally-polarized photon pairs in spatial modes 1 and 2 via spontaneous parametric down-conversion, as shown in Fig. 4. The nonlinear process is mediated by the interaction Hamiltonian,

$$=ga_{1,H}^{}a_{2,H}^{}a_{p,V}+g^{}a_{1,H}a_{2,H}a_{p,V}^{},$$
(5)
where g is the coupling constant and $`a_i^{()}`$ is the field annihilation (creation) operator for the $`i^{th}`$ mode, and the subscripts $`H`$ and $`V`$ are the polarizations of the relevant modes for the type-I phase-matching. The pump laser is intense enough that we treat it classically by replacing its field operators with c-number amplitudes, $`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta ^{}`$:

$$=g\zeta a_{1,H}^{}a_{2,H}^{}+g^{}\zeta ^{}a_{1,H}a_{2,H}.$$
(6)
Due to phase-matching constraints, the nonlinear crystal can only produce horizontally-polarized photon pairs. In the weak coupling regime, we can use first-order perturbation theory to propagate our state under the interaction to,

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{it}{\mathrm{}}}\right)|\psi `$ (7)
$`=`$ $`|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{it}{\mathrm{}}}g\zeta \left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \frac{it}{\mathrm{}}\frac{g\zeta }{\epsilon }\\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right).`$ (21)
To first order, this Hamiltonian simply creates an amplitude for a horizontally-polarized pair of photons. This new down-conversion amplitude interferes with the preexisting amplitude for the $`HH`$ term.

The transformation, as described here, does not appear unitary. This is due to a few approximations. We assume that the vacuum term in our state is unchanged, and neglect terms describing more that one pair of photons. These approximations are only valid in the relevant limit where $`\left|\epsilon \right|`$ $`1`$, where we can also suppress the normalization term for clarity. However, the exact propagator follows from a hermitian Hamiltonian and is of course unitary.

As was shown in the “railcross experiment” railcross  and in our subsequent work with photon pairs from coherent state inputs switch , interference between the amplitudes for existing pairs and for down-conversion can modulate the rate of pair production. Given the phase-matching scheme presented here, only the amplitude for $`HH`$ pairs is affected. Accompanying this modulation of the photon pair production rate is a shift in the phase of the horizontally-polarized photon pair term. The down-conversion crystal impresses a $`\pi `$ phase-shift on the $`HH`$ term if the down-conversion amplitude, $`itg\zeta /\mathrm{}`$ to be $`2\epsilon \alpha `$. To implement a tranformation analogous to the c-$`\pi `$ (Eq. 2) in the coincidence basis, this is the only condition that must be enforced; the values for the coefficients $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ are free. This condition takes the place of the more usual normalization condition on $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma ,`$ and $`\delta `$ to describe our state space. It can be enforced experimentally by controlling the amplitude and phase of the pump laser and/or the overall pair amplitude $`\epsilon `$. Unfortunately, this means that the gate cannot be utilized on arbitrary inputs without some prior information. Under these conditions, the crystal implements

$$|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right)|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right).$$
(22)
If horizontal polarization is used to represent a logical ‘0’, this performs a transformation analogous to a c-$`\pi `$ within the state space defined by our constraint on $`\alpha .`$ We do not use the conventional c-$`\pi `$ so that we can use the common convention for the Hadamard gate later on without the need for additional quantum gates. We will now describe how this operation can be used to perform Bell state creation under certain conditions.

### II.2 Bell state creation

The circuit in Fig. 1a. is capable of converting each rectilinear basis state to a different Bell state. To give a concrete example, we begin with the qubit pair in the state $`|0_1|0_2`$represented as the 4-vector

$$|\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
where the rows now contain the amplitudes for the states $`|0_1|0_2`$, $`|0_1|1_2`$, $`|1_1|0_2`$, and $`|1_1|1_2.`$ The circuit contains one-qubit Hadamard transformations which are defined by the 2$`\times `$2 matrix,

$$H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(24)
and the two-qubit c-$`\pi `$ gate whose operation has already been discussed. The circuit then takes the input state, $`|\psi `$, to the output state $`|\psi ^{}`$ given by

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_1I_2\right)\left(c\text{-}\pi \right)\left(H_1H_2\right)|\psi `$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (47)
This final state is the Bell state $`|\varphi ^+`$. Each different rectilinear state input will produce a different Bell state output through this circuit.

The conditional-phase operation can be incorporated into the optical device schematically represented in Fig. 1b that can perform a very similar transformation. Instead of using a state describing a pure photon pair as input, this device requires the input pair to be in a coherent superposition with the vacuum. As discussed previously, this is merely the output from a parametric down-conversion source (Eq. 3). Here we assume the coefficients are normalized according to $`\left|\alpha \right|^2+\left|\beta \right|^2+\left|\gamma \right|^2+\left|\delta \right|^2=1,`$ such that $`\left|\epsilon \right|^2`$ is the probability of a photon pair of any polarization being present. The photons have been created into spatial modes 1 and 2 by an initial down-conversion crystal (not shown) to serve as input to the optical device in Fig. 1b. Hadamard operations are accomplished via half-wave plates at 22.5 degrees, and the c-$`\pi `$ has been replaced by the conditional-phase switch. The intial state will evolve as follows through the device. The pair of Hadamard gates changes the general state, $`|\psi _1,`$ to $`|\psi _2`$,

$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_1H_2\right)|\psi _1`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right)`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta \\ \alpha \beta +\gamma \delta \\ \alpha +\beta \gamma \delta \\ \alpha \beta \gamma +\delta \end{array}\right).`$ (62)
This state passes through the conditional-phase shift, which is phase-matched to contribute an amplitude of $`\epsilon `$ for horizontally-polarized photon pairs. It will evolve to $`|\psi _3,`$

$`|\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta \\ \alpha \beta +\gamma \delta \\ \alpha +\beta \gamma \delta \\ \alpha \beta \gamma +\delta \end{array}\right)\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta 2\\ \alpha \beta +\gamma \delta \\ \alpha +\beta \gamma \delta \\ \alpha \beta \gamma +\delta \end{array}\right).`$ (76)
The final Hadamard gate acts only on mode 1, and converts $`|\psi _3`$ to the output state $`|\psi ^{}`$,

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_1I_2\right)|\psi _3`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta 2\\ \alpha \beta +\gamma \delta \\ \alpha +\beta \gamma \delta \\ \alpha \beta \gamma +\delta \end{array}\right)`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\beta 1\\ \alpha \beta \\ \gamma +\delta 1\\ \gamma \delta \end{array}\right).`$ (91)
If, for example, the input state to this device had only an amplitude for a horizontally-polarized photon pair (i.e. $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\beta ,\gamma ,\delta =0`$), then the output state would be,

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`|0\epsilon |\psi ^{}.`$ (97)
The other 3 possible rectilinear basis inputs would each evolve to a different Bell state in a coherent superposition with the vacuum state. The resulting transformations on four possible rectilinear input states are

$`|0+\epsilon |H_1|H_2`$ $``$ $`|0\epsilon |\psi ^{}`$
$`|0+\epsilon |H_1|V_2`$ $``$ $`|0\epsilon |\psi ^+`$
$`|0+\epsilon |V_1|H_2`$ $``$ $`|0\epsilon |\varphi ^{}`$
$`|0+\epsilon |V_1|V_2`$ $``$ $`|0\epsilon |\varphi ^+.`$ (98)
### II.3 Bell state detection

The method just described for creating polarization Bell states is much more experimentally difficult than the elegant methods of doing so in a cleverly-oriented crystal or crystal pair kwiat1 ; kwiat2 . What is unique about this method is that this device performs a one-to-one transformation between rectilinear basis states and Bell basis states. This device for creating the Bell states can, in fact, be run in reverse to distinguish between the four Bell states provided, again, that they are in a superposition with vacuum. Fig. 2a. shows a quantum circuit for transforming Bell states to the rectilinear basis, that is very similar in structure to the circuit shown in Fig. 1a. To give a concrete example, we can trace the evolution of the singlet state, $`|\varphi ^{}`$, through the device. The singlet state can be written in 4-vector notation as,

$$|\psi ^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(99)
The circuit transforms the input state to the output $`|\psi ^{}`$ in the following way,

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_1H_2\right)\left(c\text{-}\pi \right)\left(H_1I_2\right)|\varphi ^{}`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (122)
The output state is the product state $`|1_1|1_2`$.

The optical device that performs the analogous transformation is shown in Fig. 2b. The device, again, uses half-wave plates to implement the Hadamard transformations, and the conditional-phase switch which is set to contribute an amplitude of +$`\epsilon `$ for a horizontally-polarized photon pair. The input state to this device, $`|\psi _1,`$ is again described by the general down-conversion state,

$$|\psi _1=|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right).$$
(123)
This state passes through the polarization rotator in mode 1 and will evolve to the state $`|\psi _2`$,

$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_1I_2\right)|\psi _1`$ (124)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right)`$ (133)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\gamma \\ \beta +\delta \\ \alpha \gamma \\ \beta \delta \end{array}\right).`$ (138)
This state is subsequently passed through the conditional-phase switch where the pump laser is set to the appropriate amplitude and phase to add an amplitude of $`+\epsilon `$ for a vertically-polarized photon pair. The state evolves to $`|\psi _3`$ where

$`|\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\gamma \\ \beta +\delta \\ \alpha \gamma \\ \beta \delta \end{array}\right)+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (147)
$`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\gamma +\sqrt{2}\\ \beta +\delta \\ \alpha \gamma \\ \beta \delta \end{array}\right).`$ (152)
Finally, this state passes through a pair of half-wave plates. The final state, $`|\psi ^{}`$, is

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\gamma +\sqrt{2}\\ \beta +\delta \\ \alpha \gamma \\ \beta \delta \end{array}\right)`$ (161)
$`=`$ $`|0+\sqrt{2}\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\beta +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \alpha \beta +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \gamma +\delta +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \gamma \delta +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (166)
If, for example our input state has $`\alpha =\delta =1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\beta =\gamma =0`$ (i.e. the input is $`|0\epsilon |\varphi ^+`$ – one of the outputs of the previous device), then the output state would be,

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|0+\sqrt{2}\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ \sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)`$ (171)
$`=`$ $`|0+\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (176)
That is, the output contains only an amplitude for a photon pair in the product state $`|V_1|V_2`$. The results for all of the input states are simply stated:

$`|0\epsilon |\psi ^{}`$ $``$ $`|0+\epsilon |H_1|H_2`$
$`|0\epsilon |\psi ^+`$ $``$ $`|0+\epsilon |H_1|V_2`$
$`|0\epsilon |\varphi ^{}`$ $``$ $`|0+\epsilon |V_1|H_2`$
$`|0\epsilon |\varphi ^+`$ $``$ $`|0+\epsilon |V_1|V_2,`$ (177)
and are the inverse of the transformation the previous device performed.

In order to complete the measurement of the Bell state, the output of this device is passed through an optical device like the one in Fig. 3. The detection of a photon pair constitutes a successful measurement and will occur with probability $`\left|\epsilon \right|^2`$ – the probability of having a Bell state in our input state. This probability ignores issues of detector and path efficiency.

## III Discussion

We have proposed a way of implementing a transformation capable of converting the polarization state of a pair of photons from the rectilinear basis to the Bell state basis and vice versa provided the photon pairs are in a known coherent superposition with the vacuum. This transformation relies on a recently reported effective nonlinearity at the single-photon level phase . Requiring the photon pair to be in a superposition with the vacuum seems unusual, but this type of superposition exists in all down-conversion sources of entangled photons. It is only upon performing a photon-counting coincidence measurement that the maximally-entangled behaviour is projected out. While these down-conversion sources of Bell states exist and are practical in the lab, the creation mechanism does not suggest how one might try to measure those Bell states. In the device discussed here, the Bell state creator and Bell state analyzer look very similar. The creator can essentially be run in reverse to make the analyzer.

This device cannot be used for performing unconditional quantum teleportation. The device is only capable of distinguishing the four Bell states; it is not capable of performing a general projective measurement in the Bell basis. This is due to the conditional-phase shifter’s dependence on the magnitude and phase of the amplitude for the Bell state component in the input state; the gate does not operate properly on arbitrary superpositions of Bell states. Nevertheless, the device discussed herein constitutes a novel way of manipulating the degree of entanglement between a pair of photons, and may find a use in other quantum optics applications, such as dense coding densetheory ; denseexp . The ability to entangle and disentangle photon pairs is a crucial step toward building scalable all-optical quantum computers.

We would like to thank Andrew White and Ray Laflamme for valuable discussions. We are grateful for the financial support of Photonics Research Ontario, NSERC, and the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620-01-1-0468).

Fig. 1. a) A quantum circuit and b) its optical analogue for the creation of Bell states from product states. a) The quantum circuit acts on a pair of input modes 1 and 2. The circuit uses one-qubit Hadamard gates, and a two-qubit controlled-$`\pi `$ gate. This circuit performs a unitary transformation on the inputs and takes each of the four possible qubit product states to a different Bell state. b) The optical analogue of the quantum circuit. In the diagram, $`\lambda /2`$ are half-wave plates oreinted at 22.5 degrees and $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ is a nonlinear material. The device is capable of converting the state of a photon pair in a product state of polarization to one of the Bell states, provided that the input is in the correct superposition with the vacuum.

Fig. 2. a) A quantum circuit and b) its optical analogue for the conversion of Bell states to product states. a) This quantum circuit takes a pair of qubits in input modes 1 and 2 and performs a unitary transformation that will convert a Bell state to a product state. b) The optical analogue of the quantum circuit takes a photon pair in a Bell state to a rectilinear product state, provided the photon pair is in the correct superposition with the vacuum.

Fig. 3. An optical device for distinguishing rectlinear basis states. This simple device can distinguish between the product states for the polarization of a pair of photons $`|H_1|H_2`$, $`|H_1|V_2`$, $`|V_1|H_2`$, and $`|V_1|V_2`$, where the subscripts 1 and 2 are mode labels. The device consists of a pair of polarizing beam-splitters (PBS) and 4 photon counting detectors monitoring their outputs. For example, the detection of a photon at detector 1 and detector 4 corresponds to the state $`|H_1|V_2`$.

Fig. 4. Schematic for the conditional-phase switch. A strong, classical, laser in mode p, of frequency 2$`\omega `$, pumps a $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ nonlinear material such that it can create down-conversion pairs in modes 1 and 2. A pair of input beams, of frequency $`\omega `$, pass through the nonlinear material into modes 1 and 2. Interference between the multiple paths leading to photon pairs at the output can be used to introduce a large phase shift on the amplitude for a photon pair.