text:
# Budker INP 2002-47 Interaction region for 𝛾𝛾,𝛾𝑒 collisions at linear colliders

## 1  Introduction

Linear colliders, LC, at the center of mass energy from 100 GeV up to several TeV will be one of the central instruments in experimental high energy physics in the next 2 to 3 decades. Four projects are being developed: NLC , TESLA , JLC , and CLIC . TESLA team has published in March 2001 the Technical Design of the superconductiing linear collider on the energy 90–800 GeV .

The unique feature of the $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders is the possibility to construct on its basis a Photon Collider using the process of the Compton backscattering of laser light off the high energy electrons . This option is considered now for all linear colliders projects: NLC ; TESLA ; JLC ; CLIC .

In the following we discuss the physics programme, possible laser and optical schemes, the expected $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e luminosities and some other interaction region aspects. Examples are given mostly for the photon collider at TESLA, other projects are also discussed where they have principle differences.

The basic scheme of the Photon Collider is shown in Fig. 1. Discussion of the photon collider scheme and basic principles can be found elsewhere .

Let us remind main features of photon colliders. The maximum energy of the scattered photons is

$$\omega _m=\frac{x}{x+1}E_0;x\frac{4E_0\omega _0}{m^2c^4}15.3\left[\frac{E_0}{\text{ TeV}}\right]\left[\frac{\omega _0}{\text{ eV}}\right]=19\left[\frac{E_0}{\text{ TeV}}\right]\left[\frac{\text{ }\mu \text{m}}{\lambda }\right],$$
(1)
where $`E_0`$ is the electron beam energy and $`\omega _0`$ the energy of the laser photon. For example, for $`E_0=250\text{ GeV}`$, $`\omega _0=1.17\text{ eV}`$ ($`\lambda =1.06\text{ }\mu \text{m}`$) (powerful solid state lasers) we obtain $`x=4.5`$ and $`\omega _m=0.82E_0=205\text{ GeV}`$ (it will be somewhat lower due to nonlinear effects in Compton scattering.

The value $`x4.8`$ is a good choice for photon colliders, because for $`x>4.8`$ the produced high energy photons create QED e+e- pairs in collision with the laser photons, and as result the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity is reduced . Hence, the maximum center of mass system energy in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions is about 80%, and in $`\gamma `$e collisions 90% of that in e+e- collisions. If for some study lower photon energies are needed, one can use the same laser and decrease the electron beam energy. The same laser with $`\lambda 1\text{ }\mu \text{m}`$ can be used for all TESLA energies. At $`2E_0=800\text{ GeV}`$ the parameter $`x7`$, which is larger than 4.8. But nonlinear effects at the conversion region effectively increase the threshold for e+e- production, so that e+e- production is significantly reduced .

The luminosity distribution in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions has a high energy peak and a low energy part. The peak has a width at half maximum of about 15%. The photons in the peak can have a high degree of circular polarization. This peak region is the most useful for experimentation. When comparing event rates in $`\gamma \gamma `$ and e+e- collisions usually we use the value of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity in this peak region $`z>0.8z_m`$ where $`z=W_{\gamma \gamma }/2E_0`$.

The energy spectrum of high energy photons becomes most peaked if the initial electrons are longitudinally polarized and the laser photons are circularly polarized. This gives almost a factor of 3–4 increase of the luminosity in the high energy peak. The average degree of the circular polarization of the photons within the high-energy peak amounts to 90–95%. The sign of the polarization can easily be changed by changing the signs of electron and laser polarizations.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity in the high energy luminosity peak for TESLA is just proportional to the geometric luminosity $`L_{geom}`$ of the electron beams: $`L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_m)0.1L_{geom}`$. The latter can be made larger for $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions than the e+e- luminosity because beamstrahlung and beam repulsion are absent for photon beams. It is achieved using beams with smallest possible emittances and stronger beam focusing in the horizontal plane (in e+e- collisions beams should be flat due to beamstrahlung). For current TESLA parameters  (see details in Section 3)

$$L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_m)\frac{1}{3}L_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}.$$
(2)
Approximately similar luminosities are expected in $`\gamma `$e collisions. Typical cross sections in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions are about one order of magnitude higher than those in e+e- collisions therefore the number of interesting events at photon colliders will be similar of even higher than in e+e- collisions.

## 2 Physics motivation

The physics potential of the Photon Collider is very rich and complements in an essential way the physics program of the e+e- mode. A few examples:

* In $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, resonances with $`C=+`$ are produced as single resonances. The effective cross section of the $`h^0`$ production at photon colliders is even higher that in e+e- collisions . One of the most important examples is the Higgs boson. The precise knowledge of its two–photon width is of particular importance. It is sensitive to heavy virtual charged particles. Supersymmetry predicts three neutral Higgs bosons. Photon colliders can produce the heavy neutral Higgs bosons with masses about 1.5 times higher than in e+e- collisions at the same collider (because heavy Higgs bosons $`A^0`$ and $`H^0`$ have almost equal masses and in e+e- collisions are produced in pairs).
* A $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider can produce pairs of any charged particles (charged Higgs, supersymmetric particles etc.) with a cross section about one order of magnitude higher than those in e+e- collisions (see graphs elsewhere . Moreover, the cross sections depend in a different form on various physical parameters. The polarization of the photon beams and the large cross sections allow to obtain valuable information on these particles and their interactions.
* At a $`\gamma `$e collider charged particles can be produced with masses higher than in pair production of e+e- collisions (like a new $`W^{}`$ boson and a neutrino or a supersymmetric scalar electron plus a neutralino).
* Photon colliders offer unique possibilities for measuring the $`\gamma \gamma `$ fusion of hadrons for probing the hadronic structure of the photon.

A short list of physics processes for the photon collider is presented in Table 1 . More detail consideration of the physics program at photon colliders can be found elsewhere .

## 3 Luminosities at photon colliders

### 3.1 The collision scheme, crab–crossing

The basic scheme for photon colliders is shown in Fig. 1. The distance between the conversion point (CP) and the IP, $`b`$, is chosen from the relation $`b\gamma \sigma _y`$, so that the size of the photon beam at the IP has equal contributions from the electron beam size and the angular spread from Compton scattering. At TESLA $`\sigma _y4\text{ nm}`$ gives $`b2\text{ mm}`$ at $`2E_0=500\text{ GeV}`$. Larger $`b`$ values lead to a decrease of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity. For smaller $`b`$ values the high energy luminosity increases only a little while the low–energy photons give a larger contribution to the luminosity (which is not useful for the experiment but causes additional backgrounds).

The removal of the disrupted beams can best be done using the crab-crossing scheme Fig. 1, which is foreseen in the NLC and JLC projects for e+e- collisions. Due to the collision angle the outgoing disrupted beams travel outside the final quads. The value of the crab–crossing angle is determined by the disruption angles and the final quad design (diameter of the quad and its distance from the IP). Simulation shows that for TESLA the maximum disruption angle is about 10–12 mrad. Above this angle the total energy of particles in disrupted beams is smaller than from unremovable e+e- pairs backgrounds. In the present TESLA design $`\alpha _c=34\text{ mrad}`$.

### 3.2 Collision effects, ultimate luminosities

At first sight, one may think that there are no collision effects in $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e collisions because at least one of the beams is neutral. This is not correct because during the beam collision electrons and photons are influenced by the field of the opposite electron beam, which leads to the following effects :

$``$ in $`\gamma \gamma `$: conversion of photons into e+e- pairs (coherent pair creation);

$``$ in $`\gamma `$e: coherent pair creation; beamstrahlung; beam displacement.

Beam collision effects in e+e- and $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e collisions are different. In particular, in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions there are no beamstrahlung or beam instabilities which limit the horizontal beam size in e+e- collisions on the level 550 (350) nm for TESLA (NLC/JLC). Therefore, it was of interest to study limitations of the luminosity at photon colliders due to beam collision effects. The simulation, which include all collision effects, was done for the TESLA beams and the horizontal size of the electron beams was varied. The results are the following (see graphs in ): all curves for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity follow their natural behavior (as without collision effects): $`L1/\sigma _x`$ at least down to $`\sigma _x=10\text{ nm}`$ (smaller values were not considered because too small horizontal sizes may introduce problems with the crab–crossing scheme). The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity (in the high energy part) can reach the value $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1. Note that while in e+e- collisions $`\sigma _x500\text{ nm}`$, in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions the attainable $`\sigma _x`$ with the planned injector (damping ring) is about $`100\text{ nm}`$. In $`\gamma `$e collisions the luminosity at small $`\sigma _x`$ is lower than follows from the geometric scaling due to beamstrahlung and displacement of the electron beam during the beam collision. Its maximum value (high energy part) is about (2–3)$`10^{34}`$  cm-2s-1. Corresponding numbers and curves for NLC/JLC beam parameters can be found in .

So, we can conclude that for $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at c.m.s. energies below about one TeV one can use beams with $`\sigma _x`$ much smaller than in e+e- collisions. As a result, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity in the high energy peak can be, in principle, several times higher than the e+e- luminosity. Contrary to e+e- collisions, where the luminosity is determined by unremovable beam-beam collision effects, at photon colliders the achievable $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity is limited only by technical problems in obtaining beams with small transverse sizes.

### 3.3 $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e luminosities at TESLA

Attainable $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity depends strongly on the emittances of the electron beams. There are two methods of production low–emittance electron beams: damping rings and low–emittance RF–photo–guns (without damping rings). The second option is promising, but at the moment there are no such photo–guns producing polarized electron beams. Polarization of electron beams is very desirable for photon colliders. So, there is only one choice now — damping rings. Especially for a photon collider the possibility of decreasing the beam emittances at the TESLA damping ring has been studied  and it was found that the horizontal emittance can be reduced down to $`ϵ_{nx}=2.5\times 10^6`$ m.

The luminosity also depends on the $`\beta `$–functions at the interaction points: $`L1/\sqrt{\beta _x\beta _y}`$. The vertical $`\beta _y`$ is usually chosen close to the bunch length $`\sigma _z`$ (this is the design for e+e- collisions and can also be realized for $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions). Some questions remain about the minimum horizontal $`\beta `$–function. For e+e- collisions, $`\beta _x15\text{ mm}`$ which is larger than the bunch length $`\sigma _z=0.3\text{ mm}`$, because beams in e+e- collisions must be flat to reduce beamstrahlung. In $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, $`\beta _x`$ could be about $`1\text{ mm}`$ (or even somewhat smaller). There are two fundamental limitations: the beam length and the Oide effects (radiation in final quads). The latter is not important for the beam parameters considered. There is also a certain problem with the angular spread of the synchrotron radiation emitted in the final quads. But, for the photon collider the crab–crossing scheme will be used and in this case there is sufficient clearance for the removal of the disrupted beams and synchrotron radiation. Studies of the existing scheme for the TESLA final focus have shown  that chromo–geometric aberrations dominate at $`\beta 6\text{ mm}`$. Fortunately, a new scheme for the final focus system proposed at SLAC  (see also graphs in ) allows to obtain $`\beta _x1.5\text{ mm}`$ with small aberrations and further optimization is possible.

The parameters of the photon collider at TESLA for $`2E_0=`$ 200, 500 and 800 GeV are presented in Table 2. For comparison the e+e- luminosity at TESLA is also included. It is assumed that the electron beams have 85% longitudinal polarization and that the laser photons have 100% circular polarization. The thickness of the laser target is one Compton scattering length for $`2E_0=`$ 500 and 800 GeV and 1.35 scattering length for $`2E_0=`$ 200 GeV, so that $`k^2`$ 0.4 and 0.55, respectively ($`k`$ is the $`e\gamma `$ conversion coefficient). The laser wave length is 1.06 $`\mu `$m for all energies. The distance between conversion and interaction points is $`b=\gamma \sigma _y`$ for $`2E_0=500`$ and 800 GeV and $`b=2\gamma \sigma _y`$ for $`2E_0=200`$ GeV. Simulation results presented below include nonlinear effects in the Compton scattering . Corresponding parameters $`\xi ^2=0.15,0.2,0.4`$ for $`2E_0=200,500,800`$ GeV, respectively.

From Table 2 one can see that for the same energy $`L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_m)(1/3)L_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}.`$

Simultaneously with $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions there are also $`\gamma `$e collisions with somewhat lower luminosity, so one can study both types of collisions simultaneously. Residual electron-electron luminosity is very small due to the beam repulsion.

The normalized $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity spectra for $`2E_0=500`$ GeV and 800, 200 GeV are shown in Fig. 2. The luminosity spectra are decomposed in two parts: with the total helicity 0 and 2. Fig. 2 shows also luminosity spectra with additional cuts on the longitudinal momentum of the produced system, which suppress the low energy luminosity to a low level. In the case of two jets one can restrict the longitudinal momentum using the acollinearity angle between jets ($`Hb\overline{b},\tau \tau `$, etc.).

For the Higgs the production rate is proportional to $`dL_0/dW_{\gamma \gamma }`$ at $`W_{\gamma \gamma }=M_h`$. For the case considered, $`M_h120\text{ GeV}`$, and $`x=1.8`$, $`dL_0/dW_{\gamma \gamma }=1.7\times 10^{32}\text{ cm}\text{-2}\text{s}\text{-1}/\text{ GeV}.`$ Note that the corresponding peak luminosity for NLC at the time of Snowmass2001 was 7 times smaller and more recent revised number is 2.8 times smaller . In turn, TESLA also has large resources for further improvement of the luminosity. It will be more clear after detailed optimization of the final focus system.

The normalized $`\gamma `$e luminosity spectra for $`2E_0=500`$  GeV and parameters from Table 2 are shown in Fig. 3-left. For dedicated $`\gamma `$e experiments one can convert only one electron beam, increase the distance between the conversion and the interaction points and obtain the $`\gamma `$e luminosity spectrum with suppressed low energy part, Fig. 3-right.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity distributions, including their polarization characteristics, can be measured using processes $`\gamma \gamma l^+l^{}`$ ($`l=e`$, $`\mu `$. For measurement of $`\gamma `$e one can use the processes $`\gamma `$e$`\gamma `$, $`\gamma \text{e}\text{e}\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}(\text{e}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$  and $`\gamma \text{e}eZ^0`$.

## 4 Lasers-Optics

A key element of photon colliders is a powerful laser system which is used for the $`e\gamma `$ conversion. The required parameters and possible schemes of lasers are discussed below.

### 4.1 Requirements for lasers

There are two main parameters characterizing Compton scattering: $`x`$ defined by Eq.1 and $`\xi ^2=e^2\overline{B^2}\mathrm{}^2/(m^2c^2\omega _0^2)=2n_\gamma r_e^2\lambda /\alpha `$ characterizing nonlinear effects in Compton scattering. At $`\xi ^21`$ the electron scatters on one laser photon, at $`\xi ^21`$ – on several. With grows of $`\xi ^2`$ the spectrum becomes wider and is shifted to lower energies , therefore it is preferable to have $`\xi ^2<<1`$. However, decrease of $`\xi ^2`$ in the conversion leads inevitably to the increase of the required laser flash energy. For TESLA project we assume $`\xi ^2=0.15,\mathrm{0.3.0.4}`$ for $`2E_0=200,500,800`$ GeV when change of the luminosity spectra is still acceptable.

Another (now “good”) consequence of the nonlinear effects is the shift of the threshold for e+e- pair creation in collision of laser and high energy photons. Instead of $`x4.8`$  for the linear Compton it is $`x_{th}=4.8(1+\xi ^2)`$. For the maximum TESLA energy $`2E_0=800`$ GeV and laser wavelength 1.06$`\mu `$m $`x7.2`$. For this energy we assume $`\xi ^2=0.4`$ and $`x_{th}6.7`$. As result, pair creation is practically absent and we can use the same laser in the whole TESLA energy region.

For optimization of conversion efficiency we have performed simulation asuming that the final focusing mirrors are situated outside the electron beams (without holes in mirrors for electron beams). The tilte of beams due to the crab crossing angle was taken into account. The result of the simulation  of the conversion probability for the electron bunch length $`\sigma _z=0.3\text{ mm}`$, $`\lambda =1.06\text{ }\mu \text{m}`$, $`x=4.8`$ as a function of the Rayleigh length $`Z_R`$ for various flash energies and values of the parameter $`\xi ^2`$ can be found elsewhere .

In order to obtain a conversion probability of $`k63\%`$ at all TESLA energies a laser with the following parameters is required:

| Flash energy | A $`5`$ J |
| --- | --- |
| Rayleigh length | $`Z_R0.4`$ mm |
| Duration | $`\tau (rms)1.5`$ ps |
| Repetition rate | TESLA collision rate, $`\nu 14`$ kHz |
| Average power | $`P140`$ kW (for one pass collisions) |
| Wavelength | $`\lambda 1`$ $`\mu `$m (for all energies). |

For NLC/JLC colliders the electron bunch is shorter by a factor of two. Calculations show that for similar assumptions (laser optics is outside the electron beams) the required flash energy is 3.3 J and it is about 1.75 J for the case head-on collisions (mirrors with the holes) which is considered for these projects.

Main difference for lasers between TESLA and NLC projects is connected with structures of electron bunch trains, see Fig.4. At superconducting TESLA the distance between bunches is 100 times larger which leads to different possible approaches for laser schemes.

### 4.2 Laser schemes

All parameters for lasers are reasonable for exception of the repetition rate (average power). To overcome the “repetition rate” problem it is quite natural to consider a laser system where one laser bunch is used for the $`e\gamma `$ conversion many times. Two ways of multiple use of one laser pulse are considered for the Photon Collider at TESLA: an optical storage ring and an external optical cavity.

In the first scheme , each laser bunch is used for the $`e\gamma `$ conversion about 12 times. The laser pulse is sent to the interaction region where it is trapped in an optical storage ring. This can be done using Pockels cells (P), thin film polarizers (TFP) and 1/4-wavelength plates ($`\lambda /4`$). The maximum number of cycles is determined by reflection coefficients of mirrors and attenuation in the Pockels cell.

In the second scheme , an “external” optical cavity is used. Using a train of low energy laser pulses one can create in the “external” cavity (with one mirror having small transmission) an optical pulse with an energy higher than in a laser pulse by a factor Q (cavity quality factor) and this pulse collides with electron bunches many times. As result the required laser power can be lower than in the one-pass case by factor of 50–100. Recently, I.Will  has suggested to place the final focusing mirrors outside the detector and added an “active” mirror to the optical cavity which should compensate attenuation of the laser pulse. Initial 5 J pulse in the cavity is created using a train of specially prepared pulses from the external laser (about 200 pulses, 0.05 J, 3 ps long, with frequencies matched to the cavity). Then this pulse is circulating in the optical ring cavity and losses of its intensity are compensated by an active mirror. Schematically this approach is illustrated in Fig.5. The optical scheme includes also (not shown) movable mirrors, adaptive optics, fast feedback. There are many questions to this scheme which need further study.

For NLC/JLC the train is short and the distance between electron bunches is only 2.8 ns therefore exploiting of the optical cavity is not effective. Small distance between electron bunches makes also a problem for combining pulses from several lasers to one train using Pockels cells. Current solution is the following. The laser system is based on about Mercury diode pumped lasers ($`\lambda 1\text{ }\mu \text{m}`$ (Yb:S-FAP)) developed for the fusion program. The laser produces 100-200 J, several ns long pulses with 10 Hz rep. rate. Each pulse is split using semitransparent mirrors into 96 pulses with 2.8 ns delays and which then are compressed down to 2 ps using grating pairs. In this way one Mercury pulse is sufficient for production of one $`96\times 1.5`$ J pulse train for NLC photon collider. Twelve such lasers working sequentially are needed to provide 120 Hz rep. rate. The estimated cost of such laser “plant” according to the report at Snowmass2001 is of the order of 200 M$ .

This approach does not look optimum because only one Mercury laser of twelve is used in a given moment. This means, for example, that one need 12 independent diode-pumping systems which are very costly. It seems more reasonable to use about 5 special $``$30 J lasers which work in parallel with 120 Hz rep. rate. Each 30 J pulse is split in the same way as in  to twenty 1.5 J pulses, ten with vertical and ten with horizontal direction of linear polarization. Subtrains with equal polarization from all lasers are combined using Pockels cells and two long trains with perpendicular polarizations can be joined to one train using a thin film polarizer. Note that in this case the required switching time for Pockels cells is 33 ns which looks possible. The number of lasers and corresponding switching times can be optimized.

The optical system inside the detector for one NLC approach is shown in Fig.6 . It is one pass laser scheme. The final focusing mirrors of 38 cm diameter are situated at the distance 4 m from the IP. The mirror has a hole with 15 cm diameter for incoming beams and outgoing disrupted beams.

Development of laser technologies is being driven by several large programs, such as inertial fusion. This is a fortunate situation for photon colliders as we may benefit from the laser technology developments of the last $`10`$$`15`$ years which cost hundreds M$ per year. In the last decade the technique of short pulse powerful solid state lasers made an impressive step and has reached petawatt ($`10^{15}`$) power levels and few femtosecond durations. Obtaining few joule pulses of picosecond duration is not a problem using modern laser techniques. The wave length of the most powerful lasers about 1$`\mu `$m which is just optimum for the TESLA Photon Collider.

## 5 Other experimental issues

### 5.1 Backgrounds

Photon colliders have one very specific background problem. High energy photon beams are produced just inside the detector. After the $`e\gamma `$ conversion the electron beams have a very broad spectrum, $`E(0.021)E_0`$, and an angular spread of about 10 mrad which is due to deflection of the low energy particles by the opposing electron beam. In the case of head-on beam collisions large fraction of the beam would hit the final quadrupoles and produce enormous backgrounds in the detector. This problem is solved by using crab-crossing scheme of beam collisions . The maximum disruption angle for TESLA photon collider is about 12 mrad . In the present design the crab-crossing angle in the photon collider IP is 34 mrad. These values put restriction on possible quadrupole design.

Other backgrounds are e+e- pairs and hadrons produced in beams collisions. Consideration of these and some other backgrounds can be found elsewhere . QED background at photon colliders are very similar to e+e- collsions (or even smaller due to the large crab crossing angle and exit hole for disrupted beams. Strong longitudinal detector magnetic field confines low energy e+e- pairs near the collider axis and considerably reduce backgrounds in the vertex detector.

Some problem presents a hadronic background. The effective average rate of the reaction $`\gamma \gamma hadrons`$ is about one event per bunch collisions. It can lead to some worsening of the resolution for jets at low angles .

## 6 Conclusion

As the ECFA Panel in Europe and the Snowmass Study and the HEPAP panel in US have recommended the linear collider on the energy about 500 GeV as the next large HEP project (Asian physicists have also similar plans), it is very likely that in about one decade physicists will get a new very powerful instrument for study of matter: e+e-, $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e, e-e- collider.

The photon collider with $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e collisions is very natural and technically feasible option for linear colliders. The physics potential of the photon collider is very rich and give information complementary to that in e+e- collisions. The next step in development of the photon collider, designing the second interaction region and detector needs active participation of experimentalists, detector physicists.

The work has been partially supported by the INTAS 00-00679 grant.


format: text

text:
# Areal TheoryBased on a talk given at the “Coral Gables” conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 12 December 2001. © American Institute of Physics, http://proceedings.aip.org/proceedings/ #624: Coral Gables Conference on Cosmology and Elementary Particle Physics; B. N. Kursunoglu, Editor.

## Abstract

New features are described for models with multi-particle area-dependent potentials, in any number of dimensions. The corresponding many-body field theories are investigated for classical configurations. Some explicit solutions are given, and some conjectures are made about chaos in such field theories.

Area-dependent potentials, $`V\left(A=𝐫_1𝐫_2\right)`$, or their mathematical equivalents, appear in several physical problems of contemporary interest. Notable among these problems are Yang-Mills theory (especially for spatially homogeneous configurations, with only time dependence) , extended supersymmetric field theories with (pseudo)scalar self-interactions , and more recently, membrane models . In the last century, Feynman  even assigned to students an exercise involving such potentials: Show the energy spectrum for a quantized areal potential model is discrete and quantum particles cannot escape from such a potential, even though the spectrum for the classical model is continuous and classical particles can escape along special trajectories for which $`A=0`$. Many of us pondered this problem over the intervening years, especially in the field theory context . Meanwhile, Barry Simon worked out five or six solutions to Feynman’s exercise and published them .

Classically, such potential models are interesting insofar as they may provide simple examples of chaotic systems . While there are special trajectories for which the motion is quite regular, including those for which particles can escape (such as straight line, free particle motion), for most trajectories this is not the case. The current consensus is such models are not integrable in the Liouville sense, and do not admit the construction of a Lax pair. Is this really so?

Quantum mechanically, there are obviously more interesting questions to ask about such potential models than simply whether the energy spectrum is discrete. In particular, just what *is* that discrete spectrum? Is the quantized model, or some simple variant of it, completely integrable , even if the classical is not? Do quantum effects sufficiently ameliorate any chaotic classical trajectories  to permit closed-form solutions for the wave functions, or exotic but useful forms  for the propagator?

With these questions in mind, I will describe in this talk111In the actual talk, I began with a simple model of $`N`$ distinguishable point particles on the plane, with $`V=A`$. This is based on work in collaboration with Alexios Polychronakos and Cosmas Zachos . We have completely understood this model’s classical and quantum properties. Since the potential is quadratic, this is not very difficult to do, in principle, but nevertheless it was necessary to develop an efficient formalism to handle an arbitrary number of particles. We have done this using so-called cyclotomic coordinates that have previously been used to analyze toroidal membrane dynamics . I view the analysis of this $`V=A`$ model as a precursor to point particle models with $`V=A^2`$. These latter models are much more interesting, but are not so easy to solve. While I have made a modicum of progress in an unfinished attempt to construct a Lax pair for certain variants of $`V=A^2`$ models, in the point particle approach , I will not discuss this here. Instead, I will shift from point particle models to field theories. some new features of models with area-dependent potentials. As non-relativistic many-body field theories, I believe that area-dependent models are very interesting. I will argue this beginning with the classical field versions. I explicitly solve these for some special configurations, and then investigate general situations. The classical field theory problem always reduces to solving the linear Schrödinger equation in a self-consistent effective potential. In general, the effective potential for the $`V=A`$ model is anisotropic and linear, while for the $`V=A^2`$ model it is anisotropic and quadratic. In both cases the effective potential is determined from the initial data by a closed set of coupled time-dependent equations. I will analyze these equations, especially for the case of spherically symmetric particle density, and I will solve them in that special situation. However, I have not completely solved the area-dependent models for general, anisotropic initial data. Much more work is needed for the $`V=A^2`$ model. Additional work is also needed to construct the quantum versions of these field theories. These particular models seem to be ripe for exploration using deformation quantization  and ideas from non-commutative geometry .

To begin, we construct a many-body field theory on the plane with a three-body potential that is just the *signed* area of the three-body triangle (*not* the absolute value of the area). We take a collection of *three types of non-identical particles*, i.e. three particle “species”, each represented by its own local field $`\psi _a`$ , $`a=1,2,3`$. In this case, the Hamiltonian has no lower bound for configurations with large but negative $`A`$, so the model is reminiscent of a linear potential single-particle QM. (Actually there is more than reminiscing going on here as we shall soon see.) Explicitly, we define a multi-particle configuration by the field theory Lagrangian

$$L=\underset{a=1,2,3}{}i\left(d𝐫\right)\psi _a^{}\left(𝐫\right)\frac{}{t}\psi _a\left(𝐫\right)H.$$

It should be understood that all the fields also depend on a common time, $`t`$, but usually we will not explicitly indicate this. We then use the obvious symmetrical Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=\left(d𝐫\right){\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2,3}{}}\psi _a^{}\left(𝐫\right)\left[\frac{^2}{2m}\right]\psi _a\left(𝐫\right)`$
$`+k\left(d𝐫_1\right)\left(d𝐫_2\right)\left(d𝐫_3\right)A(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)\left|\psi _1\left(𝐫_1\right)\psi _2\left(𝐫_2\right)\psi _3\left(𝐫_3\right)\right|^2`$
involving $`A`$, (twice) the area of the triangle formed by the three particles.

$$A(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)=𝐫_1𝐫_2+𝐫_2𝐫_3+𝐫_3𝐫_1.$$

This may be rewritten (exactly) as

$$H=\underset{a=1,2,3}{}\left(d𝐫\right)\psi _a^{}\left(𝐫\right)\left[\frac{^2}{2m}\right]\psi _a\left(𝐫\right)+\frac{1}{3}\underset{a=1,2,3}{}\left(d𝐫\right)\left(S_a\left[\psi \right]+𝐕_a\left[\psi \right]𝐫\right)\left|\psi _a\left(𝐫\right)\right|^2$$

where we have introduced the combinations $`S_a\left[\psi \right]+𝐕_a\left[\psi \right]𝐫`$ for $`a=1,2,3`$ to serve as *effective potentials* for the three fields. These effective potentials are defined in terms of the fields as

$`V_a^i\left[\psi \right]`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}k\epsilon ^{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{b,c=1,2,3}{}}\epsilon ^{abc}{\displaystyle \left(d𝐫_2\right)\left(d𝐫_3\right)\left(𝐫_2𝐫_3\right)^j\left|\psi _b\left(𝐫_2\right)\psi _c\left(𝐫_3\right)\right|^2}`$
$`S_a\left[\psi \right]`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}k\epsilon ^{abc}{\displaystyle \left(d𝐫_2\right)\left(d𝐫_3\right)\left(𝐫_2𝐫_3\right)\left|\psi _b\left(𝐫_2\right)\psi _c\left(𝐫_3\right)\right|^2}`$
Note that $`S_a`$ and $`𝐕_a`$ do *not* depend on $`\psi _a`$ but *do* depend on the other two field configurations, $`\psi _{ba}`$. Further observe that $`S_a\left[\psi \right]=0`$ if *either* of the two $`\psi `$’s involved are of definite parity (either even or odd functions of $`𝐫`$), and $`V_a^i\left[\psi \right]=0`$ if *both* of the two $`\psi `$’s involved are of definite parity. Thus the special configurations where all three species have definite parity reduce to free fields! Again, this is a model on the plane, so each species coordinate $`𝐫_a`$ is a two-vector. To construct a potential linear in the signed area in higher dimensions, we would need to take an inner product of $`A(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)`$ with some constant $`2`$-form.

Like the point-particle theory in , this classical field theory is always *solvable*, even in the general situation when all the fields do *not* have definite parity. Unlike , we work in real coordinates here. The field equations in terms of the effective potentials are then:

$$i\frac{}{t}\psi _a(𝐫,t)+\frac{1}{2m}^2\psi _a(𝐫,t)=\left(S_a\left[\psi \right]+𝐕_a[\psi ]𝐫\right)\psi _a(𝐫,t)\text{ no sum }a\text{.}$$

For each species we have just Schrödinger’s equation with a linear (in $`r^i`$) potential, albeit a non-isotropic linear potential, in general, with non-constant (in $`t`$) configuration-dependent coefficients. From the above definitions we obtain

$$S_a\left[\psi \right]=\frac{1}{2}k\underset{\begin{array}{c}b,c=1,2,3\\ i,j=1,2\end{array}}{}\epsilon ^{ij}\epsilon ^{abc}N_bR_b^iN_cR_c^j,V_a^i\left[\psi \right]=k\underset{\begin{array}{c}b,c=1,2,3\\ j=1,2\end{array}}{}\epsilon ^{ij}\epsilon ^{abc}N_bR_b^jN_c$$

$`N_aR_a^j`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(d𝐫\right)r^j\left|\psi _a(𝐫,t)\right|^2},N_aP_a^ji{\displaystyle \left(d𝐫\right)\psi _a^{}(𝐫,t)\stackrel{}{}^j\psi _a(𝐫,t)},`$
$`N_a`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(d𝐫\right)\left|\psi _a(𝐫,t)\right|^2},`$
with no sum over $`a`$ in any of these. While these are indeed configuration-dependent coefficients, the implicit field dependence of the coefficients is completely tractable. From the field equations, the coefficients in the effective potential obey simple first order time-derivative equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}N_a`$ $`=0,{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}R_a^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}P_a^k,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}P_a^j`$ $`=2V_a^j=2k\epsilon ^{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{b,c=1,2,3}{}}\epsilon ^{abc}N_bN_cR_b^j,{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2,3}{}}N_aP_a^j\right)=0.`$
The last equation represents conservation of the system’s total momentum, while the next to last equation shows that the individual particle species momenta are not separately conserved, in general.

These first order equations combine to yield linear second order equations with *constant* coefficients for any given initial data (hence easily solved).

$$m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}R_a^i=k\underset{j,b}{}M_{\left(ia\right)\left(jb\right)}R_b^j,M_{\left(ia\right)\left(jb\right)}=\epsilon ^{ij}\underset{c=1,2,3}{}\epsilon ^{acb}N_cN_b\text{ (no sum }b\text{) .}$$

The time-*in*dependent eigenvalues of $`M`$ are $`0`$ and $`\pm \sqrt{N_1N_2N_3}\sqrt{N_1+N_2+N_3}`$, with each of these three possibilities occurring twice. (Note how the three point-particle mechanics eigenvalues in  are obtained by setting all the $`N`$’s equal to one.) Therefore the $`R`$’s, and hence all the terms in the effective potentials, can be solved for in terms of the initial data. The three independent classes of solutions for the $`R`$’s, corresponding to the three eigenvalues of $`M,`$ are functions linear in $`t`$, real exponentials, and oscillations. The time dependencies of the terms in the effective potential then follow from their expression in terms of the $`R`$’s. Finally, to complete the solution, the linear Schrödinger equations for the individual fields must be solved using the solutions for the effective potentials.

I believe, and assert without proof, that this last step can always be carried out, although there is some possibility of unusual behavior for the fields because the potential terms in the Schrödinger equation are combinations of polynomials and complex exponentials in $`t`$. Technically, I cannot rigorously rule out some sort of chaotic behavior in the phases of the fields, yet, but since the behavior of all the field bilinears is so deterministic, including those involving spatial derivatives, my current opinion is that chaotic behavior in the fields, if any, must be limited to only time-dependent phases and is completely innocuous. (I would devote more time to this issue, but once again, I view this model as just a warm-up exercise for the $`A^2`$ model presented below.) I leave it to the reader to compare the above system of equations to those of the standard isotropic oscillator .

For consistency with the treatment of the point-particle case in , and to warm the hearts of conformal field theorists, the above analysis should perhaps be re-done using complex coordinates. Also, a generalization to a polygon area potential, involving $`N`$ types of particles and $`A(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)=𝐫_1𝐫_2+𝐫_2𝐫_3+\mathrm{}+𝐫_N𝐫_1`$, is straightforward. An elegant touch would be to introduce a tensor $`E^{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}`$ on the particle type such that the combination $`A(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)E^{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}`$ is symmetric under any pair interchange $`𝐫_i,a_i𝐫_j,a_j`$. Again the most streamlined way to do this on the plane is to work with complex coordinates, as was the case in the point-particle situation.

We next construct an area-squared field theory, where the potential is $`A^2`$, a quartic function of field coordinates. This can be incorporated into a many-body field theory with only a single complex field $`\psi `$ in any number of spatial dimensions $`n`$. The Hamiltonian for the model is

$`H[\psi ]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle d^ns_i\overline{\psi }_i\psi }`$
$`+\frac{1}{3}k{\displaystyle d^ns_1d^ns_2d^ns_3\left|\psi \left(s_1\right)\right|^2\left|\psi \left(s_2\right)\right|^2\left|\psi \left(s_3\right)\right|^2\left[s_{12}^2s_{23}^2\left(s_{12}s_{23}\right)^2\right]}`$
where $`𝐬_{ab}𝐬_a𝐬_b`$ for each $`ab`$ pair of the identical particles’ coordinate vectors. The equations of motion from $`L\left[\psi \right]=d^nsi\overline{\psi }_t\psi H[\psi ]`$ are

$$i_t\psi \left(r\right)+\frac{1}{2m}^2\psi \left(r\right)=V\left[\psi \right]\left(r\right)\psi \left(r\right)$$

In this case the effective potential corresponds to a non-isotropic oscillator

$`V\left[\psi \right]\left(r\right)`$ $`=k{\displaystyle d^ns_2d^ns_3\left|\psi \left(s_2\right)\right|^2\left|\psi \left(s_3\right)\right|^2\left[s_{12}^2s_{23}^2\left(s_{12}s_{23}\right)^2\right]}|_{s_1=r}`$
$`=K_{ij}r^ir^j+B_ir^i+Z=K_{ij}\left(r^ir^j2R^ir^j\right)+Z`$
$`=K_{ij}\left(r^iR^i\right)\left(r^jR^j\right)+ZK_{ij}R^iR^j`$
with the definitions and relations

$`K_{ij}`$ $`k{\displaystyle d^ns_2d^ns_3\left|\psi \left(s_2\right)\right|^2\left|\psi \left(s_3\right)\right|^2\left(\delta ^{ij}s_{23}^2s_{23}^is_{23}^j\right)}`$
$`=2kN^2\left(\left(SR^2\right)\delta _{ij}\left(S_{ij}R_iR_j\right)\right)`$
$`B_i`$ $`2k{\displaystyle d^ns_2d^ns_3\left|\psi \left(s_2\right)\right|^2\left|\psi \left(s_3\right)\right|^2\left(s_2^is_{23}^2s_{23}^is_2s_{23}\right)}`$
$`=4kN^2\left(S_{ij}R_jSR_i\right)=2K_{ij}R_j`$
$$Zkd^ns_2d^ns_3\left|\psi \left(s_2\right)\right|^2\left|\psi \left(s_3\right)\right|^2\left(s_2^2s_3^2\left(s_2s_3\right)^2\right)=kN^2\left(S^2S_{ij}S_{ji}\right)$$

$`N`$ $`d^ns\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2,R_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}d^nss_i\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2,P_i\left[\psi \right]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N}}d^ns\left(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{_i}\psi \right),`$
$`S_{ij}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}d^nss_is_j\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2,S={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_{jj},K_{ij}=2kN^2\left(S\delta _{ij}S_{ij}\right).`$
Note that everything in $`V\left[\psi \right]`$ factorizes into integrals of bilinear densities. Actually, this is not too surprising given the polynomial character and factorized form of the terms of the three-body potential. So the effective potential for the area2 model becomes

$`V\left[\psi \right]\left(r\right)`$ $`=2kN^2\left[S\left(rR\right)^2S_{ij}\left(r^iR^i\right)\left(r^jR^j\right)\right]+2kN^2\left(S_{ij}R^iR^jSR^2\right)`$
$`+kN^2\left(S^2S_{ij}S_{ij}\right)2kN^2\left(R^2r^2\left(rR\right)^2\right)`$
As already noted, this is a non-isotropic quadratic potential. Note the presence of the last term $`R^2r^2\left(rR\right)^2=\left(𝐫𝐑\right)^2`$ which is the squared area of the parallelogram formed from $`r`$ and $`R`$. The negative coefficient of this term and the potential instability it would produce for large $`rR`$ are completely offset by the additional presence of $`2kN^2Sr^2`$ in the effective potential, along with the standard inequality $`SR^2`$. Also note that $`V`$ is non-zero only through the field spreading out around the center of mass location. Were $`\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2`$ a delta-function at $`R`$, all coefficients would vanish in $`V`$.

Also note the absence of *nontrivial* “zero modes” for the quadratic part of $`V`$ (i.e. those zero-modes that would persist even in the CM frame, and not those associated with the free translation of the CM). This is straightforward to see, even though for the field coordinates alone $`det\left(s_is_j\right)=0=det\left(s^2\delta _{ij}s_is_j\right)`$, and so these coordinate matrices have zero eigenvalues. However, $`detSdetS`$ just as $`x^2x^2`$. In fact $`det\left(S\delta _{ij}S_{ij}\right)=\frac{1}{N^n}detd^ns\left(s^2\delta _{ij}s_is_j\right)\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^20`$. Moreover, in the CM $`detK>0`$ *and all the eigenvalues of* $`K_{ij}`$ *are greater than zero*. Or equivalently, all the eigenvalues of $`S\delta _{ij}S_{ij}`$ are positive. Proof: For any real vector $`v`$, we have $`v_i\left(S\delta _{ij}S_{ij}\right)v_j=\frac{1}{N}d^ns\left(s^2v^2\left(sv\right)^2\right)\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2`$. But the integrand is non-negative by the Schwarz inequality $`s^2v^2\left(sv\right)^20`$. Thus any eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of $`K_{ij}`$ is non-negative, $`\lambda 0`$. Now to rule out the case where any eigenvalue vanishes in the CM, we note the Schwarz inequality is only an equality $`s^2v^2\left(sv\right)^2=0`$ if $`s_iv_i`$. Therefore the only way to have a zero eigenvalue is to have the full integrand $`\left(s^2v^2\left(sv\right)^2\right)\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2`$ restricted to a line where $`s_iv_i`$. Forget that! There is always some transverse spread in $`\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2`$. Any reasonable wave function (or classical field) in $`n2`$ dimensions does not have support just on a line. So $`V\left[\psi \right]\left(r\right)`$ always has a quadratic $`r^2`$ part and therefore the field is always localized around the CM. Or, perhaps more physically, all the particles are bound by the effective potential to the CM.

For solutions the energy is

$$H[\psi ]=\frac{1}{8m}NT+kN^3\left(𝒮^2𝒮_{ij}𝒮_{ij}\right)$$

using $`𝒮_{ij}=S_{ij}R_iR_j,𝒮=𝒮_{jj},T=T_{jj},`$ with the stress-tensor defined as

$$T_{ij}\left[\psi \right]\frac{1}{N}d^ns\left(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{_i}\stackrel{}{_j}\psi \right)=\frac{4}{N}d^ns\left(\overline{\psi }_i_j\psi \right)$$

Now what is the time-dependence of the three effective potential coefficients $`K_{ij},B_i,`$and $`Z`$? Or rather, what is the time-dependence of the quantities that compose them? Obviously, $`N,`$ $`R_i,`$ and $`P_i`$ obey the equations

$$\frac{d}{dt}N=0,\frac{d}{dt}P_i=0,\frac{d}{dt}R_i=\frac{1}{2m}P_i$$

with the solutions

$$N\left(t\right)=N_0N,P_i\left(t\right)=P_{0i}P_i,R_i\left(t\right)=R_{0i}+\frac{1}{2m}P_it$$

But what about $`S_{ij}`$? With the definition (note that $`Q_{ij}Q_{ji}`$)

$$Q_{ij}\left[\psi \right]\frac{i}{N}d^nss_i\left(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{_j}\psi \right)=\frac{2i}{N}d^nss_i\left(\overline{\psi }_j\psi \right)i\delta _{ij}$$

we find

$$\frac{d}{dt}S_{ij}=\frac{1}{2m}\left(Q_{ij}+Q_{ji}\right)$$

So we must include $`Q_{ij}`$ into the mix of differential equations. It’s time derivative is

$$\frac{d}{dt}Q_{ij}=\frac{1}{2m}T_{ij}4S_{ik}K_{kj}2R_iB_j$$

where $`T_{ij}\left[\psi \right]`$ is the previous stress-tensor. We are one step away from closing the system. We just need the final time derivative

$$\frac{d}{dt}T_{ij}=4\left(K_{ik}Q_{kj}+K_{jk}Q_{ki}\right)2P_iB_j2P_jB_i$$

The system of equations is now closed. The problem then is to solve these equations to obtain $`S_{ij}`$ and hence the effective potential in terms of the initial field configuration . Note that only the symmetric tensor part of $`Q_{ij}`$ varies with time.

Let’s break down the tensors into somewhat more traditional combinations. The symmetric and antisymmetric parts of $`Q_{ij}`$ are (almost) familiar from rotations and (at least when traced) coordinate rescaling.

$$J_{ij}=Q_{ij}Q_{ji},D_{ij}=Q_{ij}+Q_{ji}$$

These nicely occur above with their values for (or about) the CM removed. Thus define

$$𝒟_{ij}=D_{ij}\left(R_iP_j+R_jP_i\right),𝒥_{ij}=J_{ij}\left(R_iP_jR_jP_i\right)$$

Similarly remove from the quadrupole and stress tensors the CM coordinate and momentum dyads.

$$𝒮_{ij}=S_{ij}R_iR_j,𝒯_{ij}=T_{ij}P_iP_j$$

Incorporating momentum and angular momentum conservation, i.e. $`B_i=2K_{ij}R^j`$ and $`K_{ik}S_{kj}R_jK_{ik}R^k=K_{jk}S_{ki}R_iK_{jk}R^k`$ (just a matrix commutator,$`[𝒮,K]_{ij}=0`$), the time evolution equations are then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒮_{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}𝒟_{ij},{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}N=0,{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒥_{ij}=0`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒟_{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}𝒯_{ij}4𝒮_{ik}K_{kj}4𝒮_{jk}K_{ki}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}𝒯_{ij}4\{𝒮,K\}_{ij}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒯_{ij}`$ $`=2K_{ik}\left(𝒟_{kj}+𝒥_{kj}\right)2K_{jk}\left(𝒟_{ki}+𝒥_{ki}\right)=2\{K,𝒟\}_{ij}2[K,𝒥]_{ij}`$
where now $`K_{ij}=2kN^2\left(𝒮\delta _{ij}𝒮_{ij}\right)`$. Anyone skilled in the black arts of nuclear physics should feel comfortable with equations of this sort.

An invariant arises from taking traces. Thus

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(tr𝒯_{ij}+8mkN^2\left(𝒮^2tr𝒮_{ij}^2\right)\right)=0.$$

Now, this is essentially just the energy in the center-of-mass.

$$P^2+tr𝒯_{ij}+8mkN^2\left(𝒮^2tr𝒮_{ij}^2\right)=trT_{ij}+8mkN^2\left(𝒮^2tr𝒮_{ij}^2\right)=8mH[\psi ]/N$$

where

$$H[\psi ]=\frac{1}{8m}NT+kN^3\left(𝒮^2𝒮_{ij}𝒮_{ij}\right).$$

As a special situation, but really without loss of generality, consider co-moving with the system in the CM, where $`R_i=0=P_i`$. Then the effective potential coefficients reduce to

$$K_{ij}=2kN^2\left(𝒮\delta _{ij}𝒮_{ij}\right),B_i=0,Z=kN^2\left(𝒮^2𝒮_{ij}𝒮_{ij}\right)$$

with the $`𝒮_{ij},𝒟_{ij},`$ and $`𝒯_{ij}`$ time derivatives unchanged in form. (Note in the CM $`S_{ij}=𝒮_{ij},D_{ij}=𝒟_{ij},`$ and $`T_{ij}=𝒯_{ij}`$.)

For now, I cannot solve the non-isotropic equations (1). Perhaps closed-form solutions can be obtained in various limiting situations, but most probably the system is chaotic for general initial data222Since giving this talk, extensive numerical investigations have shown that the model is indeed chaotic for general initial data .. Nevertheless, I can solve exactly a further specialization, which *is* with loss of generality. Suppose the various densities are actually isotropic about the CM. Then we have

$`𝒟_{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}𝒟\delta _{ij},𝒮_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}𝒮\delta _{ij},𝒯_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}𝒯\delta _{ij},K_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}K\delta _{ij}=2kN^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n}}\right)𝒮\delta _{ij}`$
$`K`$ $`=2kN^2\left(n1\right)𝒮,Z=kN^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n}}\right)𝒮^2`$
and the time derivatives are $`\frac{d}{dt}K_{ij}=2kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)\frac{1}{2m}𝒟\delta _{ij}`$, etc. These may all be traced now w.l.o.g. to yield

$$\frac{d}{dt}K=\frac{1}{m}kN^2\left(n1\right)𝒟,\frac{d}{dt}Z=\frac{1}{m}kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮𝒟,\frac{d}{dt}𝒮=\frac{1}{2m}𝒟,$$

and the remaining equations

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒟=\frac{1}{m}𝒯16kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮^2,\frac{d}{dt}𝒯=8kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮𝒟$$

Using $`\frac{d}{dt}𝒮=\frac{1}{2m}𝒟`$ the $`𝒯`$ equation becomes $`\frac{d}{dt}𝒯=8mkN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)\frac{d}{dt}𝒮^2`$ which integrates immediately to

$$𝒯\left(t\right)=𝒯_0+8mkN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)\left(𝒮_0^2𝒮\left(t\right)^2\right)$$

Inserting this into the $`𝒟`$ equation and using $`\frac{d}{dt}𝒮=\frac{1}{2m}𝒟`$ once again, we have a second-order equation for $`𝒮`$.

$$2m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}𝒮=\frac{1}{m}𝒯_0+8kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮_0^224kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮^2$$

Thus $`𝒮`$ alone evolves as a nonlinear oscillator subject to a cubic self-interaction. That is, the effective potential governing the time evolution of $`𝒮`$ is $`𝒱\left(𝒮\right)=a𝒮^3b𝒮`$, where the constant, initial-data-dependent coefficients are $`a=8kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right),`$ $`b=\frac{1}{m}𝒯_0+8kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮_0^2`$, and are both positive. So the potential has a local minimum/maximum at $`3a𝒮^2=b`$ or $`𝒮_{\mathrm{min}/\mathrm{max}}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{b}{3a}}`$, hence

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{min}/\mathrm{max}}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}𝒮_0^2+\frac{1}{24mkN^2}\left(\frac{n}{n1}\right)𝒯_0}$$

Only the local minimum here is physical. Recall that we are in the CM, so that $`D=𝒟`$, $`T=𝒯`$, and most importantly the inequality $`𝒮=S\frac{1}{N}d^nss^2\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^20,`$so we see that physically $`𝒮`$ is constrained to be positive (and $`𝒮=0`$ only for $`\left|\psi \left(s\right)\right|^2`$ ultra-localized at the origin, like a delta-function $`\mathrm{}`$ a collapse/condensation of the matter field).

Is it possible that we encounter singularities here, in a finite time? By it’s definition we are constrained to have $`S0`$, but for “special” initial data, perhaps the equation evolves $`S`$ to zero, the boundary of the unphysical $`S<0`$ region, hence the matter field would collapse to the origin. After all, the equation for $`S`$ is that of a nonlinear “cubic” oscillator. Do we have here a baby version of black-hole physics?

The answer is no, $`S=0`$ is never achieved, as we now explain. The effective potential for $`𝒮`$ will require $`𝒮>0`$ to be true *for all times* if and only if $`𝒮_0>0`$ and $`\left(𝒮\right)<0`$, where $``$ is the conserved *effective energy* for $`𝒮`$.

$$\left(𝒮\right)m\left(\frac{d}{dt}𝒮\right)^2+𝒱\left(𝒮\right)=_0$$

$$_0=\frac{1}{4m}𝒟_0^2+8kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮_0^3\left(\frac{1}{m}𝒯_0+8kN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮_0^2\right)𝒮_0=\frac{1}{4m}\left(𝒟_0^24𝒯_0𝒮_0\right)$$

Consider the two terms on the RHS of this last expression. The standard QM uncertainty relation (basically the Schwarz inequality) for any two hermitean operators $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$, assuming $`𝐚=0=𝐛`$, is $`𝐚^2𝐛^2\frac{i}{2}\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}\mathrm{𝐛𝐚}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}+\mathrm{𝐛𝐚}\right)^2`$. Each of the two terms on the RHS of the inequality are positive. Usually we discard the second of these RHS terms and keep the first, especially in the case for canonically conjugate variables with $`\mathrm{𝐱𝐩}\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}=i\mathrm{}`$. But we could equally well discard the first RHS term to obtain$`𝐚^2𝐛^2\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}+\mathrm{𝐛𝐚}\right)^20`$. This is a strict inequality for conjugate variables. Applying this to the situation at hand we conclude $`4𝒯𝒮𝒟^2>0`$. Hence the cubic oscillator system above is always bound to the stable minimum, with $`<0`$. This is what we wanted to show.

We will discuss static solutions in more detail below. For now, we note that these are possible if we are at the local minimum of $`𝒱\left(𝒮\right)`$ with $`𝒟=0`$, where we require

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{min}}=𝒮_0=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}𝒮_0^2+\frac{1}{24mkN^2}\left(\frac{n}{n1}\right)𝒯_0},\text{or}𝒯_0=16mkN^2\left(\frac{n1}{n}\right)𝒮_0^2,$$

as well as $`𝒟_0=0`$, of course. The fields themselves may be worked out explicitly in this case and are nothing but Gaussians.

Even in the non-static case the conserved energy for $`𝒮`$ reduces it’s determination to quadrature and allows us to solve for the $`𝒮`$ motion in textbook fashion.

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒮=\pm \sqrt{\left(_0𝒱\left(𝒮\right)\right)/m}$$

$$\pm \frac{t}{\sqrt{m}}=_{𝒮_0}^{𝒮\left(t\right)}\frac{d𝒮}{\sqrt{_0𝒱\left(𝒮\right)}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}_{𝒮_0}^{𝒮\left(t\right)}\frac{d𝒮}{\sqrt{\left(𝒮_{hi}𝒮\right)\left(𝒮𝒮_{mid}\right)\left(𝒮𝒮_{lo}\right)}}$$

where for $`_0<0`$, $`\{𝒮_{lo},𝒮_{mid},𝒮_{hi}\}`$ are the three distinct zeroes of the cubic $`_0+b𝒮a𝒮^3`$ with $`𝒮_{lo}<0<𝒮_{mid}𝒮\left(t\right)𝒮_{hi}`$. The RHS here is an elliptic integral.

$$_{𝒮_{mid}}^{𝒮\left(t\right)}\frac{\sqrt{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{lo}}dS}{\sqrt{4\left(𝒮_{hi}S\right)\left(S𝒮_{mid}\right)\left(S𝒮_{lo}\right)}}=K\left(\sqrt{\frac{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{mid}}{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{lo}}}\right)F(\sqrt{\frac{𝒮_{hi}𝒮\left(t\right)}{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{mid}}},\sqrt{\frac{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{mid}}{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{lo}}})$$

$`K`$ and $`F`$ are the standard elliptic integrals, with $`F(1,z)=K\left(z\right)`$, and $`F(0,z)=0`$. Thus $`𝒮\left(t\right)`$ is an elliptic function. The solution oscillates between the distinct turning points $`𝒮_{mid}𝒮\left(t\right)𝒮_{hi}`$ with period

$$\frac{1}{2}t_{period}=\sqrt{\frac{m}{a}}_{𝒮_{mid}}^{𝒮_{hi}}\frac{d𝒮}{\sqrt{\left(𝒮_{hi}𝒮\right)\left(𝒮𝒮_{mid}\right)\left(𝒮𝒮_{lo}\right)}}=\sqrt{\frac{4m}{a\left(𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{lo}\right)}}K\left(\sqrt{\frac{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{mid}}{𝒮_{hi}𝒮_{lo}}}\right)$$

We may extend the analysis to higher dimensions for models with potentials depending on higher multi-particle coordinate forms. Assume a ($`d+1`$)-body potential $`U`$ in $`nd`$ dimensions which is a ($`d`$-form)2. That is

$$F(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3,\mathrm{},𝐫_d,𝐫_{d+1})=(𝐫_1𝐫_2)(𝐫_2𝐫_3)\mathrm{}(𝐫_d𝐫_{d+1})$$

$`U(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_{d+1})`$ $`=kF^2(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_{d+1})`$
$`=k\delta _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_d}^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_d}𝐫_{12}^{i_1}𝐫_{12}^{j_1}𝐫_{23}^{i_2}𝐫_{23}^{j_2}𝐫_{34}^{i_3}𝐫_{34}^{j_3}\mathrm{}𝐫_{dd+1}^{i_d}𝐫_{dd+1}^{j_d}`$
$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \left(d𝐫\right)\psi ^{}\left(𝐫\right)\left[\frac{1}{2m}^2\right]\psi \left(𝐫\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}{\displaystyle \int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_1\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)U(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_{d+1})\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\psi \left(𝐫_1\right)\right|^2}`$
with $`\int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_2\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)U(𝐫,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_{d+1})\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\right|^2\psi \left(𝐫\right)`$ in the field equation.

If we assume spherically symmetric fields we always obtain from this isotropic harmonic effective potentials.

$`{\displaystyle \int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_2\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)U(𝐫,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_{d+1})\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\right|^2}`$
$`=k\left(n1\right)\left(n2\right)\mathrm{}\left(nd+1\right)\left(dM_0r^2+M_2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{n}}\right)^{d1}`$
where $`M_k\left(d𝐫\right)\left(𝐫^2\right)^{k/2}\left|\psi \left(r\right)\right|^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_n_0^{\mathrm{}}\left|\psi \right|^2r^{k+n1}𝑑r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=2\pi ^{n/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n/2\right)`$. As usual the interpretation (at least in the quantum theory) is that $`NM_0`$ is the total number of particles. Thus the field equation for such spherically symmetric solutions becomes

$$i\frac{}{t}\psi \left(r\right)+\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\psi \left(r\right)+\frac{n1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\psi \left(r\right)\right)=\frac{M_2^{d1}\left(n1\right)!}{n^{d1}\left(nd\right)!}\left(dM_0r^2+M_2\right)k\psi \left(r\right).$$

For a Gaussian ansatz, $`\psi (𝐫,t)=C\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}c𝐫^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(iEt\right)`$, this field equation reduces to

$$E+\frac{1}{2m}\left(c^2r^2nc\right)=k\frac{\left(n1\right)!}{\left(nd\right)!}\left(\frac{N}{2c}\right)^{d1}\left(dNr^2+\frac{nN}{2c}\right)$$

and so we have a solution provided

$$\frac{1}{2m}c^{d+1}=k\frac{\left(n1\right)!}{\left(nd\right)!}N^d\frac{d}{2^{d1}},E=\frac{nc}{2m}\left(1+\frac{1}{2d}\right)$$

The $`E`$ above is almost, but not quite, the energy per particle. That is, the value of $`H`$, the total energy, is almost but not quite $`EN`$ for the spherically symmetric solution. For the Gaussian ansatz

$$H=\frac{ncN}{4m}\left(1+\frac{1}{d}\right)$$

The above suggests what to do also in the situation where $`\psi `$ is not necessarily spherically symmetric. For any $`U(𝐫,𝐫_2,𝐫_3\mathrm{},𝐫_d,𝐫_{d+1})`$ which is a quadratic form in the components of $`𝐫`$ we may write quite generally

$$Z+𝐫^iB_i+𝐫^i𝐫^jK_{ij}=\int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_2\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)U(𝐫,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_{d+1})\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\right|^2.$$

This is true for the case at hand. $`U(𝐫,𝐫_2,𝐫_3\mathrm{},𝐫_d,𝐫_{d+1})`$ is a quadratic form in the components of $`𝐫`$ (as well as quadratic in all the other individual $`𝐫_a`$) even though it is of order $`2d`$ altogether. Hence

$$K_{ij}=k\delta _{jj_2\mathrm{}j_d}^{ii_2\mathrm{}i_d}\int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_2\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)𝐫_{23}^{i_2}𝐫_{23}^{j_2}\mathrm{}𝐫_{dd+1}^{i_d}𝐫_{dd+1}^{j_d}\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\right|^2$$

$$B_i=2k\delta _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_d}^{ii_2\mathrm{}i_d}\int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_2\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)𝐫_2^{j_1}𝐫_{23}^{i_2}𝐫_{23}^{j_2}\mathrm{}𝐫_{dd+1}^{i_d}𝐫_{dd+1}^{j_d}\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\right|^2$$

$$Z=k\delta _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_d}^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_d}\int \cdots \int \left(d𝐫_2\right)\mathrm{}\left(d𝐫_{d+1}\right)𝐫_2^{i_1}𝐫_2^{j_1}𝐫_{23}^{i_2}𝐫_{23}^{j_2}\mathrm{}𝐫_{dd+1}^{i_d}𝐫_{dd+1}^{j_d}\left|\psi \left(𝐫_{d+1}\right)\mathrm{}\psi \left(𝐫_2\right)\right|^2$$

It is now straightforward to use the field equations

$$i\frac{}{t}\psi \left(𝐫\right)+\frac{1}{2m}^2\psi \left(𝐫\right)=\left(Z+𝐫^iB_i+𝐫^i𝐫^jK_{ij}\right)\psi \left(𝐫\right)$$

to determine a closed set of time-derivative equations obeyed by the coefficients in the effective potential. Once these are solved, either in special situations or perhaps more generally, then the field equation itself is to be solved using the time-dependence determined for the coefficients, in a self-consistent way. Sounds easy, even if it is not in practice, but perhaps the resulting non-isotropic equations can always be solved in closed form in some limit, such as large $`n`$.

There was neither enough time in the talk nor enough space in this written version to discuss either the supersymmetric extensions of these models or their quantization using deformation methods . These subjects will be treated elsewhere.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by NSF Award 0073390 and by US Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, Contract W-31-109-ENG-38. I thank Cosmas Zachos and the Particle Theory Group at Argonne National Laboratory for their hospitality in the summer of 2001 during which a portion of this research was completed.


text:
# Quantum games with a multi-slit electron diffraction setup

## 1 Introduction

Quantum games has become the subject of many recent interesting papers . Meyer, in a seminal work , presented the idea of playing a sequential quantum game with unitary manipulation of a qubit. Shortly afterwards Eisert, Wilkens, and Lewenstein  aroused a lot of interest in quantum games by showing that the dilemma in the famous classical game of Prisoners’ Dilemma (PD) can disappear when the game is played with quantum mechanical maneuvers consisting of local and unitary manipulation of a pair of maximally entangled qubits. Much of the later analysis of quantum games consists of exploiting the popular resource of quantum information, i.e. the entanglement, in many different proposed setups. Many authors have made their valuable contributions by providing many interesting scenarios for quantum games . Unitary manipulation of entangled systems of qubits is one of the favorite general concept to play a quantum game . Though it is shown that entanglement may not be essential for a quantum game  but it continues to play its role as a resource. A noticeably greater attention paid to many suggestions exploiting entanglement for quantum games can be traced back to the exciting and counter-intuitive properties of this phenomenon, as well as to its recent active and detailed investigation in quantum information theory .

Unitary manipulation of entangled qubits to play matrix games is indeed an interesting concept giving new dimensions to the classical game theory. But it doesn’t forbid the use of other quantum mechanical effects to play other ‘quantum forms’ of the matrix games—games for which extensive classical analysis is already found in literature . A look at the Eisert et al.’s idea  makes apparent some of its similarities to the well known Young’s double-slit apparatus . Simultaneous and local unitary manipulation of a maximally entangled two-qubit quantum state and its later measurement is the essential feature of Eisert et al.’s idea. In Young’s double-slit case, however, a coherent light passes through two slits to form a diffraction pattern on a screen facing the slits. Similarity between these setups becomes noticeable if one draws a kind of comparison between the properties of entanglement and coherence, players’ moves and the process of opening or closing the slits, wavefunction-collapsing measurement and the appearance of the diffraction pattern, in the setups of Eisert et al. and Young respectively. This comparison in its turn asks for some quantum feature that can be exploited to give some new dimension to a matrix game when played using a Young’s double-slit like apparatus. In Eisert et al.’s setup this quantum feature is obviously the entanglement. In Young’s apparatus this feature can be, for example, the association of well known wave-like properties to material objects like electrons, producing a diffraction pattern on a screen.

Historically speaking the De Broglie’s original idea , that travelling material particles have waves associated with them, was undoubtedly the key concept behind the development of quantum physics in early part of the twentieth century. Soon afterwards Davisson and Germer  verified the idea in their experimental demonstration of the diffraction of electrons by crystals. In De Broglie’s argument a travelling electron with momentum $`p`$ has an associated wave of wavelength $`\lambda =h/p`$, where $`h`$ is the Plank’s constant. To make $`\lambda `$ a measurable quantity, under normal laboratory conditions, the momentum $`p`$ should have similar order of magnitude as $`h`$. It shows why it is very hard to detect waves associated with macroscopic objects. Our motivation is to take the quantum feature, that associates wave-like properties with micro objects, as a resource that can be used to play a quantum game. Such a quantum game can be realized using an apparatus consisting of travelling electrons, multiple slits intercepting them, and a resulting diffraction pattern. In this setup a player’s choice of a ‘pure strategy’ will consist of opening or closing slits at his/her disposal. Suppose the apparatus is adjusted such that when $`\lambda `$ approaches zero the classical game is reproduced. It can then be argued that because an observation of a value of $`\lambda `$ quite away from zero is entirely a quantum feature, therefore, the resulting different payoffs for the players correspond to a quantum form of the classical game. In this setup the players’ payoffs are to be found from the diffraction pattern formed on the screen. We show the possibility of finding a value for $`\lambda `$ that makes appear a non-classical equilibrium in the PD game when the players play only the pure strategies. The classical game remains a subset of its quantum version because with $`\lambda `$ approaching zero the classical game is reproduced.

## 2 Playing quantum games with a diffraction apparatus

Eisert et al.’s first investigation of quantum Prisoners’ Dilemma (PD)  has provided much of the later motivation for a systematic study of quantum games. The classical game of PD, in its general form, can be represented by the matrix in the fig.(1).

Our motivation to play a quantum form of PD game, without using the phenomenon of entanglement, derives from Feynman’s excellent exposition  of quantum behavior of atomic objects. He describes and compares the diffraction patterns—in two similar imaginary, but experimentally realizable, setups—consisting of bullets and electrons passing through a wall with two slits. Feynman describes a well known quantum property—associating waves to all material particles—to distinguish the diffraction patterns of bullets and electrons. The disappearance of a pattern for the bullets is then explained as due to tiny wavelengths of the associated waves, such that the pattern becomes very fine, and with a detector of finite size one can not distinguish the separate maxima and minima. We asked why not to play a game, in the Feynman’s imaginary experimental setup, such that one gets the classical game when, in Feynman’s words, bullets are fired and a quantum game correspond when electrons replace the bullets. The experimental setup shown in the fig.(2) illustrates the point.

We now select the famous classical PD game to be played in this setup. To make the classical game imbedded in its quantum version the positive coefficients $`p,r,s,`$ and $`t`$, appearing in the matrix representation of the game, are translated into the distances between the slits. Each player is in control of two slits such that his/her strategy consists of opening one of the slits and closing the other. For example, if Alice decides to cooperate then she would open the slit $`C`$ and close $`D`$. Because Bob has a similar choice, therefore, every possible move by the players leads to opening of two slits and closure of the other two, with the separation between the two open slits depending on the moves of the players. It will happen when only the so-called ‘pure-strategies’ can be played by the players, which in the present setup means to open a slit and close the other. Now, at the final stage of the game, the action of the arbiter—who is responsible for computing the payoffs when the players have made their moves—consists of measuring the distance between two peaks of the diffraction pattern. This peak-to-peak distance is known to be $`\lambda /d`$ , where $`d`$ is the separation between the open sits and $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength associated with the bombarded material objects, like electrons. The payoffs for the players are the functions of $`\lambda /d`$ and it, then, explains the utility of translating the coefficients of the matrix of the classical game into separations $`d`$ between the slits. When bullets are fired, which means here the particles become heavier and corresponding $`\lambda `$ is very nearly zero, the payoffs become classical and depend only on $`d`$ i.e. the separation between the slits. A payoff representation in terms of $`\lambda /d`$ contains both the classical and quantum aspects of the matrix game played in this setup.

For PD the payoffs are symmetric for the players and a single equation can describe the payoffs to both the players when their strategies are known. A usual way to express it is to write $`P(s_1,s_2)`$ for the payoff to the $`s_1`$-player against the $`s_2`$-player. Such a single equation representation is usually used in evolutionary games  consisting of symmetric bimatrix conflicts. The $`s_1`$-player is referred to as the ‘focal’ player and the $`s_2`$-player as just the ‘other’ player. The PD is one such example for which a single payoff equation can capture the essence of the idea of a symmetric Nash equilibrium (NE). The strategy $`s^{}`$ is symmetric NE if

$$P(s^{},s^{})P(s,s^{})0,\text{ for all }ss^{}$$
(1)
saying that the focal player can not be better off by diverging away from $`s^{}`$. Because the setup of the fig.(2) involves only the coefficients in the classical payoff matrix corresponding to the first player, therefore, finding a symmetric NE with eq.(1) becomes possible immediately when the first player is taken as focal. It also shows why writing payoff as $`P(s_1,s_2)`$ is relevant to setup of the fig.(2). For example, classically the strategy of defection $`D`$ comes out as a symmetric NE because $`P(D,D)P(C,D)=(ps)>0`$, when the players’ moves consist of the pure strategies only.

In the setup of the fig.(2), for every pure strategy move the players have option to make, a unique separation $`d`$ between the slits is obtained that can have four possible values i.e. $`p,r,s`$ or $`t`$. Classically $`P(C,C)=r`$, $`P(C,D)=s`$, $`P(D,C)=t`$, and $`P(D,D)=p`$. It can be noticed in the fig.(2) that the classical payoff to the focal player against the other can be equated to the separation between the two open slits $`d`$.

Now assume that the arbiter uses the following payoff equation, instead of simply $`P(s_1,s_2)=d`$.

$$P(s_1,s_2)=d+k(\lambda /d)$$
(2)
where $`k`$ is a positive constant that can be called a scaling factor. $`P(s_1,s_2)`$, obviously, reduces to its classical counterpart when $`\lambda `$ is very nearly zero. Suppose the strategy of cooperation $`C`$ is a symmetric NE then

$$P(C,C)P(D,C)=\left\{k\lambda (1/r1/t)(tr)\right\}0$$
(3)
It requires $`\lambda rt/k`$. For electrons of mass $`m`$ travelling with velocity $`v`$ it gives $`v(kh/mrt).`$ Supposing $`r`$ and $`t`$ are both non zero, the arbiter’s problem consists of finding an appropriate value for the scaling factor $`k`$ for which $`v`$ comes in a reasonable range from experimental point of view. When the electrons have a $`\lambda rt/k`$ the strategy of cooperation becomes a symmetric NE and each player gets a payoff $`r+k\lambda /r`$. Similarly when the pure strategy of defection is a symmetric NE in the quantum game

$$P(D,D)P(C,D)=\left\{k\lambda (1/s1/p)+(ps)\right\}0$$
(4)
It requires $`\lambda sp/k`$. After the scaling factor $`k`$ is determined the wavelength $`\lambda `$ decides which pure strategy should be a symmetric NE. Two ranges for $`\lambda `$ are, therefore, indicated i.e. $`\lambda sp/k`$ and $`\lambda rt/k`$. Defection and cooperation come up as symmetric NE for these ranges, respectively. Because the constants $`t,r,p,s`$ and $`k`$ are all positive the classical game is in the earlier range of $`\lambda `$. Non-classical equilibrium of cooperation shows itself in the later range of $`\lambda `$.

Du et al.’s recent analysis  of the quantum PD, with players’ access to Eisert’s set of two-parameter set of unitary operators, has shown an intriguing structure in the game as a function of the amount of entanglement. The game turns into classical with the amount of entanglement becoming zero. In the setup of fig.(2) the quantity $`\lambda `$ behaves in similar way like the amount of entanglement in Du et al.’s analysis . But the present setup, to play a quantum game, is devoid of the notion of entanglement and relies instead on a very different quantum aspect, which is as much quantum in nature as the phenomenon of entanglement for qubit systems. There is however a difference, to be noticed, between the setups of Eisert et al. and of the fig.(2). Players’ actions in Eisert et al.’s setup are very much quantum mechanical in nature in that they make moves with operators from the quantum world. In the present setup, on the contrary, the players’ actions are entirely classical consisting of opening or closing slits. It is similar to the players’ actions in Marinatto and Weber’s idea  of playing a quantum form of the matrix game of the battle of sexes. In this scheme players possess quantum operators but they apply those on an initial quantum state with classical probabilities, so that the players’ moves can be considered classical as well. A transition to the classical game is obtained by unentangling the initial state. It can be observed that, apart from the pioneering work of Eisert et al., the setup of fig.(2) is also motivated, to an almost equal extent, by the Marinatto and Weber’s idea  of playing a quantum version of a matrix game.

## 3 Concluding remarks

In many of the earlier suggested setups some appropriate measure of entanglement for a qubit system is introduced. The quantum version of the game reduces to classical when the measure becomes zero. Instead of the entanglement we introduce another resource from quantum physics, i.e. the association of waves with travelling material objects like electrons, to show how it can lead to a non-classical equilibrium in the PD game. With associating wavelength approaching zero the quantum aspect disappears and the classical game is reproduced. Like entanglement the association of waves with particles is a purely quantum phenomenon rightly considered a cornerstone of the quantum theory, though less esoteric because of its earlier discovery. We suggest its exploitation as another resource to play quantum games.


text:
# David Gale’s Subset Take-away Game

## 1. The reduction technique

We should first mention that while the game can be thought of geometrically, it is still a combinatorial game in the sense that the choice of triangulation matters. For example, the simplicial complexes

are different triangulations of the same space, but the first is a first player win, while the second is a second player win. A winning move in the first game is to erase the vertex 3, leaving

$$\text{ },$$

which is a second player win by symmetry. In the second game, the second player responds to the first according to the following strategy:

$$512331\text{ or }212351323.$$

Now, despite the fact that the game seems to have little to do with topology, Keith Orpen suggested that we think about suspension since the conjecture deals with spheres, and the suspension of a $`k`$-sphere is a $`(k+1)`$-sphere. If $`X`$ is a collection of subsets of $`A`$ which form a simplicial complex, then the suspension $`\mathrm{susp}X`$ of $`X`$ is the simplicial complex consisting of the following subsets of $`A\{x,y\}`$, where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are new vertices: $`\mathrm{susp}X`$ contains the sets in $`X`$, the sets $`a\{x\}`$ and $`a\{y\}`$ for each set $`a`$ in $`X`$, and the sets $`\{x\}`$ and $`\{y\}`$. For example, the suspension of the interval is a diamond:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\\ X\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\\ \mathrm{susp}X\text{ .}\end{array}$$

It turns out that $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{susp}X`$ always have the same win/loss value, and so a position of the form $`\mathrm{susp}X`$ can be *reduced*. However, if $`X`$ is the $`k`$-sphere triangulated as the boundary of the $`(k+1)`$-simplex, then $`\mathrm{susp}X`$ is topologically a $`(k+1)`$-sphere but is *not* triangulated as the boundary of the $`(k+2)`$-simplex. Therefore this reduction can’t be used directly to attack the conjecture.

There is a more general type of reduction that is possible. We say that a pair $`(x,y)`$ of vertices in a simplicial complex $`X`$ is a binary star if

* there is no edge connecting $`x`$ and $`y`$ (*i.e.,* $`\{x,y\}`$ is not present),
* for each set $`a`$ in $`X`$, if $`a`$ contains $`x`$ then there is a set $`b`$ which is the same as $`a`$ except that it contains $`y`$ in place of $`x`$, and
* the same as the previous item with $`x`$ and $`y`$ interchanged.

When this is the case, the vertices $`x`$ and $`y`$ can be removed (along with the simplices containing them) without changing who wins. Indeed, if player A can win in the reduced game, then this player can win in the larger game by using the following strategy: when B makes a move involving $`x`$ or $`y`$, A makes the corresponding move with $`x`$ and $`y`$ interchanged; when B makes a move not involving $`x`$ or $`y`$, A replies with the winning response in the reduced game.

Here’s an example of the power of binary star reduction. Consider the starting position when $`A=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. If an edge is removed, then its endpoints form a binary star in the resulting position. Performing reduction produces a (filled in) $`(n3)`$-simplex. It is easy to see that this position is a first player win, since the first player can “pass” by removing the interior if no other move wins, thereby leaving the second player with a losing position. Thus we have proved that choosing an edge from the starting position is a losing move.

Similarly, one can show that moves of size $`1`$, $`n2`$ and $`n1`$ are all bad in the standard starting position of size $`n`$, assuming Gale’s conjecture for smaller starting positions. (By a move of size $`1`$ we mean a vertex, etc.) When $`n=5`$ these are the only moves available, so Gale’s conjecture holds in this case. A reader who verified this without binary star reduction will realize how much effort we have saved. When $`n=6`$ we only have to analyze the situation after playing a move of size $`3`$. Based on our experience with smaller games we guessed that the complementary set is a winning response, and the computer verified this. In this way we verified Gale’s conjecture for $`n=6`$ and were led to the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 2.

A winning response to an opening move is to play the complementary move.

## 2. A counterexample

The game

is clearly a first player win. Also, each of the games homeomorphic to the 1-simplex, namely

$$\text{ },\text{ },\text{ },\mathrm{}$$

is a first player win since the first player can choose the central simplex and then play by symmetry. One might hope that any triangulation of the $`k`$-simplex is a first player win. (Indeed, this implies Gale’s conjecture.) However, the following is a counterexample:

$$\text{ }.$$

This triangulation of the 2-simplex is a second player win. Notice that by adding the 2-simplex 167 to the above picture, one gets a triangulation of the 2-sphere which is a first player win. We wonder whether there are simpler triangulations of the 2-simplex and the 2-sphere that have these win/loss values.

This version has been updated compared to the published version:

The published version appeared in *American Mathematical Monthly* 104 (1997), 762–766. Since then, the following changes have been made:

* In the proof that choosing an edge is a losing move, “$`(n2)`$-simplex” has been corrected to “$`(n3)`$-simplex”.
* The reference to  has been updated.
* Minor formatting changes have been made.

The contact information is out of date. For questions and comments, contact Dan Christensen at jdc@uwo.ca.


text:
# VLT spectra of the companion candidate Cha H𝛼 5/cc 1

## 1. Introduction

Twelve M6- to M8-type objects called Cha H$`\alpha `$ 1 to 12 were found in deep infrared, H$`\alpha `$, and X-ray surveys (Comerón et al. 2000). To search for faint visual companions around these bona-fide and candidate brown dwarfs, we have taken deep images with HST WFPC2 (R, I, H$`\alpha `$), VLT FORS1 (VRI), and NTT SofI (JHKs) and detected one particulary promising companion candidate: Cha H$`\alpha `$ 5/cc 1, a companion candidate 1.5 arc sec off Cha H$`\alpha `$ 1, is 3.8 to 4.7 mag fainter than the primary and its colors are consistent with an early- to mid-L spectral type. Assuming the same distance, absorption, and age as for the primary, the faint object would have a mass of 3 to 15 Jupiters according to Burrows et al. (1997) and Chabrier & Baraffe (2000) models. The probability for this companion candidate to be an unrelated fore- or background object is $`0.7\%`$, its VRIJHK colors are marginally consistent with a strongly reddened background K giant. These results are published in Neuhäuser et al. (2002).

Even with the best currently achievable astrometric precision (few mas), we would have to wait several years for checking whether this visual pair is a common proper motion pair. Alternativelly, and faster, one can check by spectroscopy whether the faint companion candidate is either an L-type companion or a reddened K-type background giant.

## 2. Observations

Spectra were taken with ISAAC and FORS1 at the VLT in early 2002.

The H- and K-band spectra show that the companion candidate is as red as concluded before from its VRIJHK colors. However, in the K-band spectrum of the companion candidate, the sharp drop of the quasi-continuum at $`2.3\mu m`$ due to CO lines is not present. This drop and the CO lines can be seen in the spectrum of Cha H$`\alpha `$ 5, but should be even stronger in an L-type object.

In the optical spectrum, the three CaII lines at 8661.7, 8541.7, and 8497.6 Å, which are typical for K stars, but are not present in L-dwarfs, are detected. Also, the typical features of L-dwarfs, like K, Rb, Cs, FeH, and CrH lines are not detected. In Fig. 1, we compare the companion candidate’s spectrum with a typical K-type giant star showing the similarities in absorption lines and their relative strength (companion candidate not corrected for strong reddening).

From the previous imaging data, we concluded that the companion candidate is either an unabsorbed L-type companion or a reddened K-type background giant, with the former alternative being much more likely ($`99.3\%`$). From the follow-up spectra, we conclude that this candidate is a background star, probably a K-type giant.

## References

Burrows A., Marley M., Hubbard W.B., et al., 1997, ApJ 491, 856

Chabrier G. & Baraffe I., 2000, ARA&A 38, 337

Comerón F., Neuhäuser R. & Kaas A.A., 2000, A&A 359, 269

Neuhäuser R., Brandner W., Alves J., Joergens V., Comerón F., 2002, A&A 384, 999