text:
# Mass and Charge in Brane-World and Non-Compact Kaluza-Klein Theories in 5 Dim

## 1 Introduction

Because of the cylindricity condition, in classical or compactified Kaluza-Klein theory, the “new” physics predicted by the five-dimensional equations, resides completely in the four potentials of electromagnetism $`A_\mu `$ and the scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The $`4D`$ part of the five-dimensional equations can be manipulated to reproduce the four-dimensional physics with some new terms, or corrections. If the electromagnetic potentials are absent and the scalar field is constant, then these new terms vanish identically.

However, the cylindricity condition is not required, nor, in general, sustained. The possibility that our world might contain more than four non-compact dimensions has attracted the interest of a great number of researchers.

In higher-dimensional gravity theories, inspired by string theories, instead of cylindricity the matter fields are assumed to be confined to our $`4D`$ spacetime, which is modeled as a singular hypersurface or “brane” embedded in a larger $`(4+d)`$ world. In these theories gravity is a multidimensional interaction that can propagate in the extra $`d`$ dimensions as well -. In the RS scenario, for $`d=1`$, the usual general relativity in $`4D`$ can be recovered even when the extra dimension is infinite in size -.

In space-time-matter theory (STM), inspired by the unification of matter and geometry, instead of cylindricity the matter fields in our $`4D`$ spacetime are assumed to be “induced” or derived from pure geometry in five dimensions -. Our $`4D`$ spacetime can, in principle, be any four-dimensional hypersurface orthogonal to the extra dimension, not necessarily a singular one -.

The existence of a large extra dimension is intriguing and provides a wealth of new physics, even in the absence of electromagnetic field and constant scalar potential. This is illustrated by the effective equations for gravity in $`4D`$, which predict five-dimensional local and non-local corrections to the usual general relativity in $`4D`$ -. Also, the geodesic equation for test particles in $`5D`$ predicts an effective four-dimensional equation of motion with an extra non-gravitational force -. This force, called sometimes “fifth” force, has a component that is a direct consequence of the variation of the rest mass of test particles, induced by the large extra dimension.

In this work we study in more detail the effects of a large extra dimension on the rest mass and electric charge of test particles. The possibility that these quantities might be variable has important implications for the foundations of physics because variable mass and/or charge imply time-varying Thomson cross section $`\sigma =(8\pi /3)(q_e^2/m_0c^2)^2`$ for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a particle of charge $`q_e`$ and mass $`m_0`$. Also the variation of electric charge $`q_e`$ implies the variation of the electromagnetic fine structure “constant” $`\alpha _{em}=q_e^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$. The latter has attracted considerable attention in view of the recent observational evidence that $`\alpha _{em}`$ might vary over cosmological time scales -. This, of course, requires the time variation of at least one of the “constants” ($`q_e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$). However, recently a number of theories attribute the variation of the fine structure constant to changes in the fundamental electron charge and preserve $`c`$ (Lorentz invariance) and $`\mathrm{}`$ as constants -.

We have other theoretical motivations for this study. Namely, that in compactified Kaluza-Klein theory, with the imposition of the so-called cylinder condition, the electric charge is strictly constant. Therefore, we would like to see whether a large extra dimension would once more give new physics and change the classical scenario.

Besides, we have some technical motivations. Firstly, previous results regarding the variation of rest mass of test particles were obtained from the analysis of the geodesic equation -, -. However, the mass of the test particle appears nowhere in this equation. Secondly, the interpretation of the rest mass in terms of the extra coordinate, based on the geodesic equation, seems to depend heavily on the choice of system of coordinates and the choice of parameter used to characterize the motion , , .

What we propose here is to define the properties of test particles, as measured by an observer in $`4D`$, through the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, instead of the geodesic one.

This approach has several advantages. From a physical viewpoint, it provides a clear and invariant definition of rest mass, without the problems associated with the parameter used along the motion. In addition the electromagnetic field can be easily incorporated in the discussion. From a mathematical viewpoint, this is due to the fact that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is a scalar equation. We thus avoid the complications associated with the $`(4+1)`$ “splitting ” of the $`5D`$ geodesic equation111It might be worth mentioning that, the $`(4+1)`$ splitting of the five-dimensional equations with non vanishing electromagnetic potentials, is definitely more involved in the case of a large extra dimension than in the classical case with compact extra dimensions , ..

In this work we obtain the general expression for the change of the rest mass of a test particle, as perceived by an observer in $`4D`$. It includes the combined effects from a large extra dimension, and those from the electromagnetic and scalar potentials.

We also show that the fifth component of the momentum, which in $`4D`$ can be identified with the electric charge of the test particle, changes along the motion. This effect has no counterpart in classical theory, where the charge is strictly constant. Thus, a large extra dimension leads naturally to a variation of the fine structure constant. For the case where $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are taken to be constants, we present the equation for the relative variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$.

The conservation equation for mass and charge, as well as the relationship in their variation, is also discussed.

## 2 The Formalism

In this section we give a brief review of the Kaluza-Klein equations in terms of local basis vectors, which are used to project five-dimensional quantities onto spacetime. The projection of the five-momentum on $`4D`$ provides the correct definition for the rest mass. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation in $`4D`$ suggests we interpret the extra component of the five-momentum as the electric charge of the test particle. Finally, a conservation equation for the mass and charge follows from the five-dimensional Hamilton-Jacobi.

### 2.1 Line element in Kaluza-Klein theory

We will consider a general five-dimensional manifold with coordinates $`\xi ^A`$ $`(A=0,1,2,3,4)`$ and metric tensor $`\gamma _{AB}(\xi ^C)`$. The $`5D`$ interval is then given by

$$d𝒮^2=\gamma _{AB}d\xi ^Ad\xi ^B.$$
(1)
We assume that the $`5D`$ manifold in (1) allows us to construct, a four-dimensional hypersurface that can be identified with our $`4D`$ space-time. In this hypersurface we can introduce an arbitrary set of coordinates $`x^\mu `$ $`(\mu =0,1,2,3)`$, which are functions of $`\xi ^A`$,

$$x^\mu =x^\mu (\xi ^0,\xi ^1,\xi ^2,\xi ^3,\xi ^4).$$
(2)
The simplest choice is the “coordinate frame”, where the first four coordinates $`\xi ^\mu `$ are assumed to be the coordinates of spacetime

$$x^\mu =\xi ^\mu .$$
(3)
The corresponding spacetime basis vectors, $`\widehat{e}_A^{(\mu )}=x^\mu /\xi ^A`$, are

$`\widehat{e}_A^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1,0,0,0,0),`$
$`\widehat{e}_A^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,0,0,0),`$
$`\widehat{e}_A^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,1,0,0),`$
$`\widehat{e}_A^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1,0).`$ (4)
The vector $`\psi ^A`$, orthogonal to spacetime is given by

$$\psi ^A=(0,0,0,0,\mathrm{\Phi }^1),$$
(5)
where we have set $`\gamma _{44}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, so that $`\gamma _{AB}\psi ^A\psi ^B=ϵ`$. The factor $`ϵ`$ is taken to be $`+1`$ or $`1`$ depending on whether the extra dimension is timelike or spacelike, respectively. Denoting $`\gamma _{\mu 4}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2A_\mu `$, the associated basis vectors $`\widehat{e}_{(\mu )}^A`$ are given by,

$`\widehat{e}_{(0)}^A`$ $`=`$ $`(1,0,0,0,A_0),`$
$`\widehat{e}_{(1)}^A`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,0,0,A_1),`$
$`\widehat{e}_{(2)}^A`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,1,0,A_2),`$
$`\widehat{e}_{(3)}^A`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1,A_3).`$ (6)
They satisfy $`\widehat{e}_A^{(\mu )}\widehat{e}_{(\nu )}^A=\delta _\nu ^\mu `$ and $`\psi _A\widehat{e}_\mu ^A=0`$. Also

$$\psi _A=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }(A_0,A_1,A_2,A_3,1).$$
(7)
With this choice, spacetime displacements are $`dx^\mu =\widehat{e}_A^{(\mu )}d\xi ^A=d\xi ^\mu `$, while displacements orthogonal to spacetime, which we will denote as $`dx^4`$, are given by

$$dx^4=\psi _Ad\xi ^A=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }(d\xi ^4+A_\mu dx^\mu ).$$
(8)
Since $`d\xi ^A=\widehat{e}_{(\mu )}^Adx^\mu +ϵ\psi ^Adx^4`$, the notation becomes more symmetrical in terms of the vector $`\widehat{e}_{(4)}^A=ϵ\psi ^A`$, $`\widehat{e}_A^{(4)}=\psi _A`$. Thus, $`dx^M=\widehat{e}_A^{(M)}d\xi ^A`$, $`d\xi ^B=\widehat{e}_{(C)}^Bdx^C`$ and the five-dimensional metric, in the local frame, becomes

$$\widehat{g}_{AB}=\widehat{e}_{(A)}^C\widehat{e}_{(B)}^D\gamma _{CD}.$$
(9)
Conversely, $`\gamma _{AB}=\widehat{e}_A^{(M)}\widehat{e}_B^{(N)}\widehat{g}_{MN}`$. Therefore, the line element (1) takes the well known form

$`d𝒮^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(d\xi ^4+A_\mu dx^\mu \right)^2=ds^2+ϵ(dx^4)^2,`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2A_\mu A_\nu ,`$ (10)
where $`ds`$ is the four-dimensional interval. We note that the interpretation of the four-vector $`A_\mu `$ strongly relies on the signature of the extra dimension. If it is spacelike, ($`ϵ=1`$), then $`A_\mu `$ can be interpreted as the usual four-potential of electromagnetism. If it is timelike, ($`ϵ=+1`$), this interpretation fails because we would have the wrong sign for the energy-momentum tensor of electromagnetism.

### 2.2 The Hamilton-Jacobi equation

#### 2.2.1 General case

The momentum $`P^A`$ of a test particle in a five-dimensional world is defined in the usual way, namely,

$$P^A=M_{(5)}U^A,$$
(11)
where $`U^A=d\xi ^A/d𝒮`$ is the $`5D`$-velocity, and $`M_{(5)}`$ is the $`5D`$ “mass” of the particle. Thus,

$$\gamma _{AB}P^AP^B=M_{(5)}^2$$
(12)
If $`S`$ denotes the action as a function of coordinates, then substituting $`S/\xi ^A`$ for $`P_A`$, we obtain the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a test particle in $`5D`$

$$\gamma ^{AB}\left(\frac{S}{\xi ^A}\right)\left(\frac{S}{\xi ^B}\right)=M_{(5)}^2,$$
(13)
The four-dimensional momentum $`P_{(\mu )}`$ is the projection of the five-dimensional quantity $`P_A`$ onto the $`4D`$ spacetime, viz.,

$$P_{(\mu )}=\widehat{e}_{(\mu )}^AP_A=\widehat{e}_{(\mu )}^A\frac{S}{\xi ^A}.$$
(14)
With this definition, $`P_{(\mu )}`$ is invariant under arbitrary transformations of coordinates $`\xi ^A=\xi ^A(\overline{\xi }^C)`$ in $`5D`$, and behaves as a four-dimensional vector under $`4D`$ transformations $`x^\mu =x^\mu (\overline{x}^\lambda )`$. In addition, $`m_0`$, the effective rest mass measured by an observer in $`4D`$, is invariantly defined as

$$g^{\mu \nu }P_{(\mu )}P_{(\nu )}=m_0^2.$$
(15)
This definition is entirely free of the problems mentioned in the introduction. Namely, the rest mass (15) is independent on the particular set of coordinates and the choice of parameter used to characterize the motion.

From (9), it follows that $`\gamma ^{AB}=\widehat{e}_{(M)}^A\widehat{e}_{(N)}^B\widehat{g}^{MN}`$. Using this in (13) we obtain

$$g^{\mu \nu }\left(\widehat{e}_{(\mu )}^A\frac{S}{\xi ^A}\right)\left(\widehat{e}_{(\nu )}^B\frac{S}{\xi ^B}\right)+ϵ\widehat{e}_{(4)}^A\widehat{e}_{(4)}^B\frac{S}{\xi ^A}\frac{S}{\xi ^B}=M_{(5)}^2$$
(16)
Now the substitution of (14) and (15) into (16) yields

$$m_0^2+ϵ\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}=M_{(5)}^2,$$
(17)
where we have used the notation

$$q=P_4=\frac{S}{y}.$$
(18)
Here, and in the remainder of this note, we use $`y`$ instead of $`\xi ^4`$, namely $`y=\xi ^4`$. From (2.1), (11) and (18) it follows that

$$q=\frac{M_{(5)}\mathrm{\Phi }u^4}{\sqrt{1+ϵ(u^4)^2}},$$
(19)
where

$$u^4=\frac{dx^4}{ds}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{dy}{ds}+A_\mu u^\mu \right).$$
(20)
In order to avoid misunderstanding, we stress the fact that $`u^4`$ is not a part of the four-velocity vector, which is $`u^\mu =dx^\mu /ds`$. Since the displacement orthogonal to spacetime is given by $`dx^4=\widehat{e}_A^{(4)}d\xi ^A`$ (not by $`dy=d\xi ^4`$), it follows that $`u^4`$ characterizes the velocity, of a test particle moving in the bulk metric, orthogonal to spacetime.

A simple expression relating $`m_0`$, the effective rest mass in $`4D`$, and $`M_{(5)}`$ can be obtained by substituting (19) into (17), namely,

$$m_0=\frac{M_{(5)}}{\sqrt{1+ϵ(u^4)^2}}.$$
(21)
It shows that the rest mass of a particle, perceived by an observer in $`4D`$, varies as a result of the five-dimensional motion along the extra direction. This is similar to $`m=m_0/\sqrt{1v^2}`$, for the change of mass due the motion in space. From (19) and (21) we get

$$q=m_0\mathrm{\Phi }u^4.$$
(22)
In the case where $`M_{(5)}0`$, equations (17) and (22) constitute a set of two linearly independent equations. They form the basis for our discussion in the next section.

#### 2.2.2 Massless particles in $`5D`$

The motion of massless particles is along isotropic geodesics. Since for such geodesics $`d𝒮=0`$, from (2.1) it follows that

$$ds^2=ϵ(dx^4)^2.$$
(23)
Particles with real mass (instead of imaginary mass) follow timelike geodesics, for which $`ds^2>0`$. Thus, in the case of a spacelike extra dimension, there are two physical possibilities:

(i) If the particle has non-vanishing motion perpendicular to spacetime, then a massless particle moving in $`5D`$ is perceived as a massive particle by an observer in $`4D`$.

(ii) If the motion in $`5D`$ is longitudinal to spacetime ($`dx^4=0`$), then $`ds=0`$ indicating that a massless particle in $`5D`$, is observed as massless particle in $`4D`$.

In the case of a timelike extra dimension, from $`m_0^2+q^2/\mathrm{\Phi }^2=0`$ it follows that there is only one physical possibility, viz., $`m_0=q=0`$.

The equation of motion for massless particles is the Eikonal equation, which differs form the one of Hamilton-Jacobi in that, in the right hand side of (13) we set $`M_{(5)}=0`$. Also, in (11) the derivatives $`M_{(5)}d/d𝒮`$ ought to be replaced by $`d/d\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the parameter along the null geodesic . The effective rest mass in $`4D`$ is still defined by (15), and (17) yields ($`ϵ=1`$)

$$q=\pm m_0\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(24)
which is the same as in (22), if we notice from (23) that now $`u^4=\pm 1`$.

### 2.3 Interpretation of $`q`$

For the physical interpretation of the fifth component of $`P_A`$, or shorter of $`q`$, we note that in the coordinate frame (2.1), the four-momentum (14) becomes

$$P_{(\mu )}=\frac{S}{x^\mu }+A_\mu \frac{S}{y}.$$
(25)
Then, the explicit form of (15), in the coordinate frame, is as follows

$$g^{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{S}{x^\mu }A_\mu \frac{S}{y}\right)\left(\frac{S}{x^\nu }A_\nu \frac{S}{y}\right)=m_0^2.$$
(26)
For a spacelike extra dimension, $`A_\mu `$ can be interpreted as the electromagnetic potential. On the other hand, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a particle with electric charge $`q_e`$ moving in an electromagnetic field is

$$g^{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{S}{x^\mu }+q_eA_\mu \right)\left(\frac{S}{x^\nu }+q_eA_\nu \right)=m_0^2.$$
(27)
The comparison of the last two equations suggests, that for $`ϵ=1`$, we identify $`P_4=S/y`$ with the electric charge of the test particle, viz.,

$$q=q_e.$$
(28)
Thus, the motion of a test particle in the background metric, along the spacelike extra dimension, is perceived by an observer in $`4D`$ as the electric charge. This interpretation is possible because, $`q=P_4`$ and $`q_e`$ remain invariant in all frames of reference in $`4D`$, i.e., they are scalars under arbitrary coordinate transformations in spacetime.

From (22), or from (24) for massless $`5D`$ particles, it follows that the electric charge $`q_e`$ is proportional to the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which varies in space and time. Note that the charges of all particle species vary in the same way (so that, for example, atoms can remain always neutral -). This is similar to the assumption made in cosmologies with varying $`q_e`$ -, .

In the case of a timelike extra dimension the interpretation of $`P_4`$ in terms of four-dimensional physics is not so clear. However, there are exact solutions of the field equations of $`5D`$ relativity, with good physical properties and a timelike extra dimension, for which the above interpretation seems to be applicable, with no contradictions .

## 3 Effects of Large Extra Dimensions

In this section we find the general equations for the change of $`m_0`$ and $`q`$, in the presence of an electromagnetic field and scalar potential. We present the expression for the relative variation of the fine structure constant $`\alpha _{em}`$, corresponding to the case where $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are taken to be constants. Next, we consider the $`5D`$ metric in gaussian normal coordinates, which allows us to isolate the effects produced by a large extra coordinate, from those induced by the electromagnetic and scalar fields. Finally, we discuss the relationship between the changes of $`m_0`$ and $`q`$.

### 3.1 Variation of $`m_0`$ and $`q`$

In order to find out whether the values of $`q`$ and $`m_0`$ of a test particle are affected by a large extra dimension, we should find $`dq/ds`$ and $`dm_0/ds`$.

First, we consider the motion of a massive $`5D`$-test particle moving in an arbitrary five-dimensional background metric. If $`M_{(5)}0`$, then the equations (17) and (22) are linearly independent. Thus taking derivatives we find

$$\frac{dq}{ds}=m_0\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\frac{1}{[1+ϵ(u^4)^2]}\frac{du^4}{ds}+\frac{u^4}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{ds}\right],$$
(29)
$$\frac{dm_0}{ds}=\frac{ϵq}{\mathrm{\Phi }[1+ϵ(u^4)^2]}\frac{du^4}{ds},$$
(30)
We now need the expression for $`du^4/ds`$. It is given by equation (82) in Ref. , namely

$$\frac{1}{[1+ϵ(u^4)^2]}\frac{du^4}{ds}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}\right)u^\mu u^\nu +\left(\frac{A_\mu }{y}+\frac{A_\mu }{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\mu }\right)u^\mu u^4,$$
(31)
Substituting we get

$$\frac{dq}{ds}=\frac{1}{2}m_0u^\mu u^\nu \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}+qu^\mu \frac{A_\mu }{y}+ϵ\frac{q^2}{m_0\mathrm{\Phi }^3}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}.$$
(32)
Also,

$$\frac{dm_0}{ds}=ϵ\frac{q^2}{m_0\mathrm{\Phi }^3}u^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\mu }ϵ\frac{q}{2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}u^\mu u^\nu \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}ϵ\frac{q^2}{m_0\mathrm{\Phi }^2}u^\mu \left(\frac{A_\mu }{y}+\frac{A_\mu }{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}\right).$$
(33)
It is important to mention that the above expressions, (32) and (33), are invariant under the set of “gauge” transformations

$`x^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x}^\mu ,`$
$`y^4`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{y}^4+f(\overline{x}^0,\overline{x}^1,\overline{x}^2,\overline{x}^3),`$ (34)
that keep the shape of the line element (2.1) invariant.

Let us immediately notice that, in the case of “classical” Kaluza-Klein theory, we recover some well know results. If the extra dimension is compactified, that is, if there is no dependence on the extra coordinate, then from (32) it follows that $`q`$ (or $`P_4`$) is strictly constant. On the other hand (33) can be easily integrated to recover (17). Which implies that the rest mass varies as $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. In particular, if there is no scalar field, then $`m_0`$ is also a constant of motion.

In any other situation where the extra dimension is large, or non-compactified, it follows from (32) that $`q=P_4`$ will change along the trajectory of the particle. This is a totally new feature. It was missed in classical versions of Kaluza-Klein theory because of the imposition of the so-called cylinder condition. When this condition is dropped, both parameters, $`q`$ and $`m_0`$, will change along the trajectory.

If the quantity $`q`$ can be identified with the electric charge $`q_e`$, then the electric charge and rest mass are not conserved separately. The conserved quantity along the motion of the particle, is now the combination $`m_0^2+ϵq_e^2/\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$.

Second, we consider massless test particles moving in $`5D`$. For $`ϵ=+1`$, such particles are observed in $`4D`$ as the motion of massless particles with $`q=0`$. If the extra dimension is spacelike, then it follows from (24) that massless $`5D`$-particles are observed in $`4D`$ as having effective rest mass $`m_0=|q|/\mathrm{\Phi }`$. If $`q=0`$, the motion observed in $`4D`$ is along isotropic geodesics ($`ds=0`$) in spacetime.

At this point one could ask, how can that be? If $`M_{(5)}=0`$, where does the observed effective rest mass come from? In answering this question the identification of $`q`$ with the electric charge is helpful. With this interpretation, the observer in $`4D`$ perceives the effective rest mass $`m_0`$ as being totally of electromagnetic origin, in the usual classical sense that setting $`q_e=0`$ requires $`m_0=0`$ -.

### 3.2 Variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$

If we assume that the speed of light $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are constants, then the variation of the fine-structure constant $`\alpha _{em}`$ is a consequence of the variation of electric charge. With the interpretation $`q=q_e`$, the change of $`\alpha _{em}`$, in explicit form, can be written as

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}}\frac{d\alpha _{em}}{ds}=ϵ\left(\frac{dy}{ds}+A_\lambda u^\lambda \right)^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2u^\mu u^\nu \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}+2u^\mu \frac{A_\mu }{y}+2\left(\frac{dy}{ds}+A_\lambda u^\lambda \right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y},$$
(35)
evaluated along the trajectory of the particle. Notice that only derivatives with respect to the extra variable appear in this equation, there are no derivatives with respect to the spacetime coordinates. Thus, a large extra dimension leads naturally to a variation of the fine structure constant.

For the Thomson cross section $`\sigma `$ we have

$$\frac{1}{2\sigma }\frac{d\sigma }{ds}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}}\frac{d\alpha _{em}}{ds}\frac{1}{m_0}\frac{dm_0}{ds}.$$
(36)
There is no need to write its explicit expression. It is clear that $`\sigma `$ changes even in the case of compactified extra dimension.

### 3.3 Relationship between the variation of $`q`$ and $`m_0`$

Equations (32) and (33) are quite complicated and it is difficult to see from them if there is any connection between $`dq/ds`$ and $`dm_0/ds`$. With this in mind, let us consider the class of simplified metrics

$$d𝒮^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,y)dx^\mu dx^\nu +ϵdy^2,$$
(37)
which are popular in brane-world as well as in space-time-matter theories. They allow us to isolate the effects of the large extra dimension, without the details induced by the electromagnetic and scalar field. For these metrics, (32) and (33) reduce to

$$\frac{dq}{ds}=\frac{1}{2}m_0u^\mu u^\nu \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y},$$
(38)
and

$$\frac{dm_0}{ds}=ϵ\frac{1}{2}qu^\mu u^\nu \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}.$$
(39)
Using (20) and (22), this equation can be written as

$$\frac{1}{m_0}\frac{dm_0}{ds}=\frac{1}{2}u^\mu u^\nu \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}\frac{dy}{ds}.$$
(40)
The effects of a large extra dimension on $`q=P_4`$ and $`m_0`$ are closely related to the extra (or fifth) force on test particles. They are proportional to the first derivatives of the metric with respect to the extra, non-compactified coordinate -. Indeed, although there is some controversy in the literature, this extra force is given by

$$f^\sigma =[u^\sigma u^\lambda g^{\sigma \lambda }]u^\rho \frac{g_{\lambda \rho }}{y}\frac{dy}{ds}.$$
(41)
On the other hand, the expression (40) is identical to the one obtained, from different considerations , in the discussion of a component of the fifth force that is parallel to the four-velocity of the test particle (in that discussion (41) would be the perpendicular component).

Let us now introduce the parameter $`w`$ as

$$w=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}u^\mu u^\nu \right)𝑑s.$$
(42)
Equations (38) and (39) become

$$\frac{dq}{dw}=m_0,$$
(43)
and

$$\frac{dm_0}{dw}=ϵq.$$
(44)
With this parameterization, $`q`$ and $`m_0`$ behave as “conjugate coordinates”, satisfying the equations

$$\frac{d^2q}{dw^2}+ϵq=0,$$
(45)
and $`d^2m_0/dw^2+ϵm_0=0`$. These equations, with positive $`ϵ`$, remind of the mechanical harmonic motion. Within this analogy, $`q`$ would play the role of the displacement from equilibrium ($`q=0`$), $`m_0`$ the velocity, and $`d^2q/dw^2=ϵq`$ the “restoring” force. The first integral of (45) would give back the conservation equation (17), i.e., $`(dq/dw)^2=M_{(5)}^2q^2`$. Thus, $`q`$ would “oscillate” with amplitude $`M_{(5)}`$, viz.,

$$q=M_{(5)}\mathrm{sin}(w\overline{w}),$$
(46)
where $`\overline{w}`$ is a constant of integration. Similarly, for the rest mass

$$m_0=M_{(5)}\mathrm{cos}(w\overline{w}).$$
(47)
Now, for a spacelike ($`ϵ=1`$) large extra dimension, the mechanical analog would correspond to an elliptical motion

$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`M_{(5)}\mathrm{cosh}[w\overline{w}],`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`M_{(5)}\mathrm{sinh}[w\overline{w}].`$ (48)
The above analogy can be formally extended to test particles moving in an arbitrary $`5D`$ bulk metric, with non-vanishing electromagnetic potentials and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. Indeed, from (17) it follows that one can formally set

$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0)\stackrel{~}{q}\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0),`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0)+\stackrel{~}{q}\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0),`$ (49)
for $`ϵ=+1`$, and

$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0\mathrm{cosh}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0)+\stackrel{~}{q}\mathrm{sinh}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0),`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0\mathrm{sinh}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0)+\stackrel{~}{q}\mathrm{cosh}(\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{w}_0),`$ (50)
for $`ϵ=1`$, provided the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ is a solution of the equation

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{w}}{ds}=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{y}u^\mu u^\nu +\frac{q}{m_0}u^\mu \frac{A_\mu }{y}.$$
(51)
The constants $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0=m_0(\stackrel{~}{w}_0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q(\stackrel{~}{w}_0)`$ satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2+ϵ\stackrel{~}{q}^2=M_{(5)}^2`$. It is clear that the above simple mechanical analog is a unique consequence of the dependence of five-dimensional metrics on the extra coordinate. This is the theoretical framework in brane-world theories and STM.

At this point we notice that in a recent paper Wesson  discusses five-dimensional general relativity with two “times”, i.e., in spacetimes with an extra timelike dimension. For null geodesics in $`5D`$, using “canonical” coordinates he shows that the parameter $`l`$, which is related to the rest mass of test particles in $`4D`$, oscillates in a simple harmonic motion, similar to our equations (47) and (3.3). Therefore, our approach can be used to extend Wesson’s discussion to massive particles in $`5D`$, with the advantage that here we employ an invariant definition for the rest mass $`m_0`$.

We would like to finish this section with the following comment. Since the last term in (32) is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Phi }/y`$, the question may arise of whether the consideration of the metric

$$d𝒮^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )dx^\mu dx^\nu +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(y)dy^2,$$
(52)
would not induce a spurious variation of $`q`$. This question is similar to ask whether the energy would be conserved along the motion of a test particle in a spacetime with metric $`ds^2=g_{00}(t)dt^2+g_{ij}(x^1,x^2,x^3)dx^idx^j`$. The energy equation would be $`dP_0/ds=(m_0/2)(g_{00}/t)(dt/ds)^2`$. In this case, it is clear that the “no-conservation” of energy is not a result of any physical mechanism, but it is due to the bad choice of time coordinate. The same discussion can be applied for a charged test particle moving in the background metric (52). For this metric, Eq. (32) is equivalent to $`dP_4/d𝒮=dq/d𝒮=(M_{(5)}/2)(\gamma _{44}/y)(dy/d𝒮)^2`$. Once again, the “wrong” choice of coordinate $`y`$ leads to a spurious change of charge that can be eliminated by choosing a new coordinate $`d\overline{y}=\mathrm{\Phi }(y)dy`$.

## 4 Variation of charge and rest mass in a cosmological setting

The goal of this section is twofold. Firstly, to present a simple example that illustrates the usefulness of the Hamilton-Jacobi method for the invariant definition of rest mass. Secondly, to examine the variation of charge, rest mass, $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$ in a cosmological setting.

We will consider the motion of test particles in the background metric

$$d𝒮^2=y^2dt^2t^{2/\alpha }y^{2/(1\alpha )}[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)]\alpha ^2(1\alpha )^2t^2dy^2,$$
(53)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant, $`y`$ is the coordinate along the extra-dimension and $`t,r,\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the usual coordinates for a spacetime with spherically symmetric spatial sections. This is a solution to the five-dimensional Einstein field equations, with $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{AB}^{}=0`$.

In four-dimensions (on the hypersurfaces $`y=const.`$) this metric corresponds to the $`4D`$ Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models with flat $`3D`$ sections. The energy density $`\rho _{eff}`$ and pressure $`p_{eff}`$ of the effective $`4D`$ matter satisfy the equation of state

$$p_{eff}=n\rho _{eff},$$
(54)
where $`n=(2\alpha /31)`$. Thus for $`\alpha =2`$ we recover radiation, for $`\alpha =3/2`$ we recover dust, etc.

In spherically symmetric fields test particles move on a single “plane” passing through the center. We take this plane as the $`\theta =\pi /2`$ plane. Then, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, for the metric (53) is

$$\frac{1}{y^2}\left(\frac{S}{t}\right)^2\frac{1}{t^{2/\alpha }y^{2/(1\alpha )}}\left[\left(\frac{S}{r}\right)^2+\frac{1}{r^2}\left(\frac{S}{\varphi }\right)^2\right]\frac{(1\alpha )^2}{\alpha ^2t^2}\left(\frac{S}{y}\right)^2=M_{(5)}^2.$$
(55)
It is clear that the action separates as

$$S=S_1(t,y)+S_2(r)+L\varphi ,$$
(56)
where $`L`$ is the angular momentum. Thus, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{y^2}\left(\frac{S_1}{t}\right)^2\frac{k^2}{t^{2/\alpha }y^{2/(1\alpha )}}\frac{(1\alpha )^2}{\alpha ^2t^2}\left(\frac{S_1}{y}\right)^2=M_{(5)}^2,$$
(57)
and

$$\left(\frac{dS_2}{dr}\right)^2+\frac{L^2}{r^2}=k^20,$$
(58)
where $`k`$ is the separation constant. If it is zero, then the particle is commoving (or at rest) in the system of reference defined by (53).

In this case, the spacetime basis vectors (2.1) reduce to $`\widehat{e}_{(\mu )}^A=\delta _\mu ^A`$. Thus, from (14) and (15) we obtain the effective rest mass, as measured in $`4D`$, as follows

$$m_0^2=\frac{1}{y^2}\left(\frac{S_1}{t}\right)^2\frac{k^2}{t^{2/\alpha }y^{2/(1\alpha )}},$$
(59)
evaluated at the trajectory $`y=y(t)`$. We stress the fact that this expression is totally free of the ambiguities, induced by the choice of parameters used to characterize the motion in $`5D`$ and $`4D`$, typical of the approach where the equations of motion for test particles in $`4D`$ are obtained from the geodesic equation in $`5D`$.

The relative variation of $`m_0`$, for particles fixed in space $`u^\mu =\delta _0^\mu /y`$, is given by

$$\frac{1}{m_0}\frac{dm_0}{ds}=\frac{1}{y}\frac{dy}{ds}\left[1+\frac{\alpha ^2t}{(1\alpha )^2}\frac{dy}{ds}\right].$$
(60)
Also, for the fine structure constant we get

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}}\frac{d\alpha _{em}}{ds}=\frac{2(1\alpha ^2)^2}{\alpha ^2t^2y}\left(\frac{dy}{ds}\right)^1.$$
(61)
These quantities have to be evaluated along the particle’s worldline. The variation of $`\sigma `$ is then obtained from (36).

At this point, it is worth noticing that in the case where $`q=P_4=(S/y)=0`$, the equation of motion (57) requires $`y=const`$, and the effective rest mass observed in $`4D`$ is $`m_0=M_{(5)}`$. In other words a particle moving in $`5D`$ with no momentum in the extra direction, which is observed in $`4D`$ as the motion of a particle with no-electric charge, will be insensitive to the extra dimension. Interesting results appear when the $`5D`$ motion has nonzero $`P_4`$-component.

Let us now consider different physical scenarios allowed in (57)

### 4.1 Massive test particles: $`M_{(5)}0`$

In this case there are two possibilities. Either the particle is at rest ($`k=0`$), or it is somehow moving in spacetime ($`k0`$). In order to isolate the effects from the extra dimension, from the effects due to the motion in spacetime, we will consider $`k=0`$.

From (57) one can easily get

$$S_1(t,y)=\pm \frac{\alpha M_{(5)}}{\sqrt{2\alpha 1}}yt.$$
(62)
Consequently,

$$m_0=\frac{\alpha M_{(5)}}{\sqrt{2\alpha 1}},q=\pm m_0t.$$
(63)
Here the rest mass is constant, because of the mutual cancelation of the change induced by the term $`(g_{\mu \nu }/y)u^\mu u^\nu `$ and the change induced by the scalar field.

Now, using

$$P^A=M_{(5)}\frac{d\xi ^A}{d𝒮}=\gamma ^{AB}P_B=\gamma ^{AB}\frac{S}{\xi ^B},$$
(64)
we obtain

$$\frac{dt}{d𝒮}=\frac{\alpha }{y\sqrt{2\alpha 1}},$$
(65)
and

$$\frac{dy}{d𝒮}=\pm \frac{(1\alpha )}{t\sqrt{2\alpha 1}}.$$
(66)
From these expressions we evaluate $`dy/dt`$ and integrate to obtain

$$y=Dt^{(\alpha 1)/\alpha },$$
(67)
along the trajectory. Here $`D`$ is a constant of integration. The proper time $`\tau `$ along the trajectory is given by $`d\tau =y(t)dt`$. Thus, from (67), we get $`\tau t^{(2\alpha 1)/\alpha }`$. Consequently, in this case, $`m_0`$ is a constant and $`q\tau ^{\alpha /(2\alpha 1)}`$.

Since $`m_0`$ is constant here, it follows from (36) that the change of the Thomson cross section $`\sigma `$ is similar to that of $`\alpha _{em}`$, which is given by

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}}\frac{d\alpha _{em}}{d\tau }=\frac{2\alpha ^2}{(2\alpha 1)\tau }.$$
(68)
Models with $`\alpha <1`$ have inflationary equations of state. During the cosmological “constant” era evolution $`p_{eff}\rho _{eff}`$ ($`\alpha 0`$), $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$ decrease with the increase of $`\tau `$. Then, in the curvature era, and further in the radiation and dust dominated era $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$ grow as a power of $`\tau `$.

### 4.2 Massless test particles: $`M_{(5)}=0`$

In this case the trajectory in $`5D`$ is along isotropic geodesics. These are given by the Eikonal equation, which is formally obtained from the above formulae by setting $`M_{(5)}=0`$ in (57). According to the discussion in section 2.2.2, there are two different physical possibilities here. They are $`q0`$, or $`q=0`$.

#### 4.2.1 $`M_{(5)}=0`$, $`q0`$

For the same reason as above, we will consider $`k=0`$. Then, equation (57) separates and, we obtain

$$S_1=Ct^{\pm l}y^{\pm l\alpha /(1\alpha )},$$
(69)
where $`C`$ is a constant of integration and $`l`$ is the separation constant. Now in (64) instead of the derivatives $`M_{(5)}d/d𝒮`$ we have to write derivatives $`d/d\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the parameter along the null geodesic. Thus, we find

$$\frac{dt}{d\lambda }=Clt^{(1\pm l)}y^{(2\pm l\alpha /(1\alpha ))},$$
(70)
and

$$\frac{dy}{d\lambda }=\pm Cl\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }t^{(2\pm l)}y^{(1\pm l\alpha /(1\alpha ))}.$$
(71)
From the above expressions we evaluate $`dy/dt`$ and integrate to obtain $`y=Dt^{(\alpha 1)/\alpha }`$. This is the same equation as in the massive case (67). However, in this case we find $`q`$ and $`m_0`$ as follows

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`A\alpha (1\alpha )^1t^{(1\alpha )/\alpha },`$
$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`At^{(12\alpha )/\alpha },`$ (72)
where $`A`$ is expressed through the other constants as $`A=ClD^{(1\pm l\alpha /(1\alpha ))}`$. Thus, here $`q\tau ^{(1\alpha )/(2\alpha 1)}`$ and $`m_0\tau ^1`$. Thus,

$$\frac{1}{\sigma }\frac{d\sigma }{d\tau }=\frac{2}{(2\alpha 1)\tau },\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}}\frac{d\alpha _{em}}{d\tau }=\frac{2(1\alpha )}{(2\alpha 1)\tau }.$$
(73)
Near the vacuum dominated era $`p_{eff}\rho _{eff}`$, $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$ decrease with the increase of $`\tau `$. In the quintessential epoch for which $`2\rho _{eff}/3<p_{eff}<\rho _{eff}/3`$ ($`1/2<\alpha <1`$), $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$ grow with time. In the very early universe ($`\alpha =3`$), radiation epoch ($`\alpha =2`$) and dust era ($`\alpha =3/2`$), $`\alpha _{em}`$ decreases and $`\sigma `$ increases as a power of the proper time $`\tau `$.

Hence there are very different possibilities for the change in $`\alpha _{em}`$ or $`q_e`$ depending on whether the test particles in $`5D`$ are assumed massive ($`M_{(5)}0`$) or massless ($`M_{(5)}=0`$). However, the Thomson cross section $`\sigma `$ has a similar behavior in both cases, except in the quintessential epoch.

#### 4.2.2 $`M_{(5)}=0`$, $`q=0`$

In this case the motion, as observed in $`4D`$, is lightlike and, therefore, $`k`$ must be different from zero. The left hand side in (59) is $`m_0=0`$. This equation is equivalent to $`k^\mu k_\mu =0`$, where $`k_\mu `$ is the $`4D`$ wave vector. Since $`P_4=0`$, it follows that $`y=const`$ along the motion. Therefore, the frequency $`\omega =S/t`$ of the “induced” photon is

$$\omega \tau ^{1/\alpha }.$$
(74)
For completeness, we mention that there is one more possibility left here. Namely the motion in $`5D`$ with $`d𝒮^2<0`$. In this case replacing $`M_{(5)}^2\overline{M}^2`$ we obtain the same expressions as in section 4.1, but with $`\overline{M}`$ instead of $`M_{(5)}`$ and $`\sqrt{12\alpha }`$ instead of $`\sqrt{2\alpha 1}`$. Thus, such a five-dimensional motion is interpreted by an observer in $`4D`$ as a test particle with positive effective rest mass. This is a pure consequence of the motion in $`5D`$ along the spacelike extra coordinate.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

We have given the general formula for the change of the rest mass of a test particle, as measured by an observer in $`4D`$. Equation (33) generalizes to an arbitrary five-dimensional metric the particular expression (40) for the metric in gaussian normal coordinates (37). The variation of rest mass is predicted in classical versions of compactified Kaluza-Klein theory with scalar field. The last three terms in (33) are the “corrections” induced by a large extra dimension.

However, the electric charge is strictly constant in compactified versions of Kaluza-Klein theory. This is because the cylinder condition requires the extra coordinate $`y`$ to be cyclic. Then, according to the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism, the action separates as $`S=S(x^\mu )qy`$, where $`q=P_4=S/y=const`$. When this condition is dropped, $`q=P_4`$ will vary along the trajectory according to (32). Thus, if $`q`$ is identified with the electric charge, then an observer in $`4D`$ will find “inconsistencies” with the law of conservation of charge in $`4D`$. In the present scenario the conserved quantity along the trajectory is the combination $`m_0^2+ϵq_e^2/\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$.

The variation of $`m_0`$ and $`q_e`$ has important implications in a wide variety of phenomena. In particular, in the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by charged particles, for which the cross section is proportional to $`q_e^4/m_0^2`$. Also in the variation of the fine structure constant $`\alpha _{em}`$, recently observed in the study of quasar absorption line spectra.

The discussion in section 4 shows how to obtain the rest mass and $`q`$ (or charge), as observed in $`4D`$, from the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism in $`5D`$. It also illustrates the different physical scenarios perceived by an observer in $`4D`$. We have seen that the effective $`4D`$ quantities depend not only on the motion in $`5D`$ but also on whether the $`5D`$ test particle is massive or massless. The results obtained for $`m_0`$, $`q_e`$, $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\sigma `$ are intended to be illustrative rather than experimental suggestions.

The question may arise of whether the predicted variation of rest mass and charge contradicts some well established assumptions in physics, like charge conservation. In our interpretation, the answer to this question is negative. Indeed, since the variation of these quantities takes place on cosmic timescales, they would not be observed directly in laboratory. This seems to be a general feature of constants in higher dimensional theories whose effective value in $`4D`$ may vary in time and space. This is similar to what happens in cosmological models that are free of singularities in $`5D`$, but singular when interpreted in $`4D`$ .

Our analysis also clarifies the $`4D`$ interpretation of null geodesics in $`5D`$. We have seen that such geodesics appear as timelike paths in $`4D`$ only if the following two conditions are met simultaneously: (i) the extra dimension is spacelike, and (ii) the particle in its five-dimensional motion has $`P_40`$ (or $`q0`$). Otherwise, a null geodesic in $`5D`$ is observed as a lightlike particle in $`4D`$.

We notice that in our discussion the underlying physics motivating the introduction of a large extra dimension was nowhere used. Neither, the physical meaning of the extra coordinate. Therefore, our results are applicable to brane-world models, STM, and other $`5D`$ theories with a large extra dimension222In STM and in the thick brane scenario the $`5D`$ manifold is smooth everywhere and there are no defects. In the RS2 brane-world scenario  our universe is a singular $`4D`$ hypersurface and the derivatives $`g_{\mu \nu }/y`$ are discontinuous, and change sign, through the brane. However, the discontinuity is not observed  and effective $`4D`$ equations can be obtained by taking mean values and applying Israel’s junction conditions through the brane . .

Thus, the possibility that our $`4D`$ universe is embedded in a higher dimensional bulk space, with more than four non-compact extra dimensions, should have major consequences for astrophysics and cosmology. The existence of an extra (fifth) force is one of them. Here we presented the variation of the fundamental electron charge. Elsewhere we discussed the variation of the gravitational coupling $`G`$ and the cosmological term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$ . In principle, these effects are observable, but theoretical predictions are model-dependent. Therefore, other $`5D`$ metrics have to be studied and tested experimentally for compatibility with observational data.


format: text

text:
# Scalable Ion Trap Quantum Computation with Pairwise Interactions Only

## I Introduction

Quantum computation is capable of cracking some hard problems of both classical computation and quantum physics Nielsen and Chuang (2000). However, it meets non-trivial difficulties on its way to physical implementation DiVincenzo (1995). One persisting source of troubles is decoherence, which smears out the results of the quantum computation, rendering them useless. One promising physical implementation for quantum computation that possesses relatively low decoherence is using trapped ions D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof (1998); J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller (1995). In this paper, we present an approach for doing quantum computation with trapped ions that allows one to use only pairwise interaction and stay in a Decoherence Free Subspace (DFS) G.M. Palma, K.-A. Suominen and A.K. Ekert (1996); Duan and Guo ; P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti (1997); Lidar et al. (1998). DFS are a subspace of states whose symmetry makes particular error operators act like the identity on the subspace.

For ion traps, an important source of errors is long wavelength fluctuating magnetic fields. For neighboring groups of ions such long wavelength magnetic fields act as a collective phase error. A DFS exists for the collective phase error which has been studied by several groups. G.M. Palma, K.-A. Suominen and A.K. Ekert (1996); P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti (1997); Kempe et al. (2001a). Experiments have demonstrated use of this for protection of two-qubit Kwiat et al. (2000); D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland (2001); Fortunato et al. (2002) and three-qubit systems Viola et al. (2001). Experimentally, Kielpinski et al. D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland (2001) demonstrated that these DFS are important in the context of ion traps, showing an increased phase coherence when one logical qubit is encoded into the DFS that is constructed from two physical qubits. Recently, Kielpinski et al. Kielpinski et al. (2002) have developed a method to perform computation on this DFS uses entangling operations between groups of both two and four physical qubits. A method to compute on a different DFS, one that protects the ion trap quantum computer from errors due to spontaneous emission, was devolped in Ref. Beige et al. (2002).

In this paper, we show a different way to perform universal computation on a collective dephasing DFS, using only entangling operations between two physical qubits. We explain how this could be done in linear ion traps using operations that have already been established. In Section II we briefly describe the physical system and then show how one can do universal computation using certain prepared encoded states and two Sorensen-Molmer-type gates Sorensen and Molmer (1999); Nielsen and Chuang (2000). In Section III, we will explain both why these gates are universal and why the encoded subspace is a DFS. In Section IV, we conclude with some remarks about the feasibility of such an approach compared to other schemes for universal quantum computation in ion traps.

## II Effective Exchange Interactions in Ion Traps

Our system is a string of $`N`$ two level ions in a linear ion trap J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller (1995); D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof (1998). In a linear trap the confinement in the radial direction is stronger than the confinement in the axial direction. For small displacements of the atoms one can treat the motion of the system as N coupled one-dimensional harmonic oscillators. Detailed calculations of the normal modes for a large number of atoms in experimentally realizable traps are now widely available D.F.V. James (1998). The scheme we outline below requires that each atom be individually addresed by a control laser.

Coupling between atoms is brought about by coupling the internal state of the ions to the motional mode of the string of ions. A variety of gates have been suggested to achieve this coupling J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller (1995); Sorensen and Molmer (1999); A. M. Childs, and I. L. Chuang (2001); Jonathan, Plenio, and Knight (2000). For our purposes, the coupling gate introduced by Sorensen and Molmer Sorensen and Molmer (1999) proves most useful.

The Sorensen-Molmer gate, described in Sorensen and Molmer (1999), couples two ions via a two photon process that virtually populates the excited motional modes of the ion string. We briefly summarize their scheme here. By applying two lasers of opposite detuning to two ions, $`i`$ and $`j`$, one creates the following effective Hamiltonian:

$$H_1=\frac{\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the on-resonant Rabi frequency of each atom, $`\eta `$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the detuning, and $`\sigma _x^i`$ is the Pauli spin operator $`x`$ on atom $`i`$. The Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\eta `$ is defined as the ration of the width of the zero point motion of the ion divided by the wavelength of applied field. In terms of the ion trap parameters, $`\eta =\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2NM\omega }}\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the trap, $`M`$ is the mass of the ion, $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the driving field, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the wavevector of the light and the axial direction of the trap D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof (1998).

By changing the phase of the incoming laser pulses by $`\pi /2`$, one can apply the slightly modified Hamiltonian,

$$H_2=\frac{\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j$$
(2)
Note that $`H_1`$and $`H_2`$ commute. Therefore, by applying $`H_1`$ followed by $`H_2`$ for equal times, one can perform the following unitary transformation

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{it\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j+\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j)\right]=\mathrm{exp}(itH^{ij}).$$
(3)
$`H^{ij}`$ is an example of an anisotropic Heisenberg exchange interaction (often referred to as the XY Hamiltonian). Previous work in our group DiVincenzo et al. (2000); Kempe et al. (2001a, b); Kempe and Whaley (2002); Vala and Whaley (2002) has shown that such two-body exchange Hamiltonians can be utilized to perform universal quantum computation on encoded qubits.

## III Encoded Universality in Ion Traps

### III.1 Universality of Anisotropic Exchange Interaction

It has recently been shown by Kempe et al. Kempe et al. (2001b); Kempe and Whaley (2002) that the anisotropic exchange (XY) interaction is sufficient to generate universal encoded single-qubit and two-qubit operations. In particular, these universal gates may be generated over encoded subspaces spanned by either of the following qutrit code states consisting of three physical qubits: $`C_I=\{|001,|010,|100\}`$ or $`C_{II}=\{|110,|101,|011\}`$. It has been shown that the anisotropic exchange interaction between two physical qubits within either of these encodings generates the full $`su(3)`$ algebra, and hence also the $`SU(3)`$ group, over the logical qutrits. Since $`SU(2)SU(3)`$, selecting a qubit out of the 3 qutrit states results in universal single qubit operations, as long as the full $`su(3)`$ algebra is preserved. In addition, encoded two-qubit operations have been shown to be efficiently generated from the anisotropic exchange interaction.Kempe and Whaley (2002); Vala and Whaley (2002).

### III.2 Encoded Space is a Decoherence Free Subspace

The encoded space we employ here is a Decoherence Free Subspace (DFS) with respect to collective dephasing. An operator corresponding to this error model is defined as $`S_z=_{k=1}^n\sigma _z^k`$, reflecting that all physical qubits of the computer simultaneously gather an identical random shift in the relative phase between their ground and excited level. We illustrate the DFS on a simple example of a logical qubit encoded into the states $`|01`$ and $`|10`$ of two physical qubits. Collective dephasing simultaneously shifts relative phase of each of the physical two-level systems as follows: $`|0|0`$, $`|1e^{i\varphi }|1`$. The logical qubit stays protected against collective dephasing because this phase shift becomes just an unimportant global phase identical for both logical qubit states. An important source of collective dephasing error in linear ion traps is long wavelength fluctuations in the ambient magnetic fields. Work by Kielpinski et. al D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland (2001); Kielpinski et al. (2002) shows that using the two qubit collective DFS states defined to protect against collective dephasing leads to an increased fidelity limited now only by the heating of the ion motional state. However the results of Kempe et al. Kempe et al. (2001b); Kempe and Whaley (2002) have shown that the anisotropic exchange interaction requires at least three qubits to serve as the logical qubit, with two posible qutrit codes ($`C_I`$ and $`C_{II}`$). Therefore, as indicated above, one needs to add a third ion in order to form a single logical qubit in the minimal encoding for the pairwise XY interaction.

The XY Hamiltonian $`H^{ij}`$ preserves the DFS and the qutrit codes. Within the DFS, the collective dephasing operator $`S_z`$ commutes with the operator algebra generated by the XY interaction Kempe et al. (2001a, b). Intuitively, all states from either codes are transformed identically if all their physical qubits are simultaneously phase shifted as described in the example above. The qutrit codes $`C_I`$ and $`C_{II}`$ preserve the total number of qubits in the excited level Vala and Whaley (2002). Consequently, they are invariant under collective dephasing, $`S_z`$.

The same properties with respect to the collective dephasing model are also valid for qubit encodings derived from qutrits Kempe and Whaley (2002). We illustrate this here on an example of the logical qubit encoded into the states $`|001`$ and $`|010`$. The relative phase between the code-words remains unchanged if all the physical qubits of value $`1`$ are simultaneously shifted by an arbitrary phase kick $`e^{i\varphi }`$ in the course of the collective dephasing process D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland (2001).

In the present case, we implement the XY interaction in steps, alternating the $`\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j`$ and $`\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j`$ operations. During this alternation, we could fall out of the DFS because the interactions $`\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j`$ and $`\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j`$ do not commute with the collective dephasing operator, $`S_z`$. This departure from the DFS can however be minimized by rapidly switching between the $`\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j`$ and $`\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j`$ Hamiltonians. This method of avoiding decoherence is similar to proposed bang-bang schemes Viola and Lloyd (1998). To illustrate this mechanism, we make a simple argument here to show why this is the case.

Assume we would like to apply the Hamiltonian $`H^{ij}`$ for a time T. One could imagine first applying $`\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j`$ for a time T then $`\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j`$ for a time T. Or one could apply both operators $`n`$ times, each for a time T/n:

$$\widehat{U}=e^{i(\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j+\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j)T}=(e^{i\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^jT/n}e^{i\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^jT/n})^n$$
(4)
Assuming only collective decoherence, a simple population model, described below, shows a radically improved decoherence time. Assume that the states outside of the DFS decay with some rate $`\gamma `$. We expect that the total decoherence will be proportional to the integral over time of $`\gamma `$ times the population outside of the DFS, $`P(t)`$. An overestimate would be to assume no decoherence and to simply integrate over the population outside of the DFS during our operation.

Let us examine the unitary operator $`\mathrm{exp}[i\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^jt]=\mathrm{cos}(t)𝐈+i\mathrm{sin}(t)\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j`$. If this operator was applied to a state in the DFS subspace, i.e. a qubit from either $`C_I`$ or $`C_{II}`$, the identity would of course preserve this codespace and the population that has left the codespace, $`p(t)`$, would then be proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2(t)`$. The integrated population from 0 to $`t`$ would then be proportional to $`\frac{t}{2}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}(2t)`$. Following this operator by the application of $`\mathrm{exp}[i\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^jt]`$ will return us completely to the subspace, and by symmetry leads to a total integrated population proportional to $`P(t)=t\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}(2t)`$.

Returning to Eq. , we see that by applying our operators for a time $`T/n`$, we can achieve a total integrated population proportional to $`nP(T/n)=T\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{sin}2T/n`$. For $`n`$ large compared to $`T`$, the decoherence is simply proportional to $`\frac{T^3}{3n^2}`$. Therefore, one expects a quadratic improvement in the fidelity with the number of steps, $`n`$, Fig. .

To test this simple model, we calculated the evolution of the density matrix assuming collective decoherence and a Hamiltonian that alternates $`n`$ times between $`\sigma _x^i\sigma _x^j`$ and $`\sigma _y^i\sigma _y^j`$. We then evaluated the fidelity, $`f=tr\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho _a}\rho _b\sqrt{\rho _a}}`$, between the evolved density matrix, $`\rho _b`$, and the expected density matrix resulting from direct application of the XY Hamiltonian, $`\rho _a`$. Fig.  shows that a fit of the operation error, $`1f`$, on a $`\pi `$ pulse as a function of $`n`$ shows a quadratic improvement, as predicted by our simple population model.

## IV Conclusion

We have presented a scheme for a universal ion trap quantum computation on Decoherence Free Subspaces using the Sorensen-Molmer two-body Hamiltonian. Rapid alternation of control pulses generates an effective two-body interaction which approximates the anisotropic exchange (XY) Hamiltonian. This ensures universal quantum computation over DFS protected qubits, as a result of the anisotropic exchange interaction universality properties over logical qubits encoded into three physical qubits Kempe et al. (2001b); Kempe and Whaley (2002); Vala and Whaley (2002). The decoherence time improves quadratically with the number of alterations, $`n`$, for a given total pulse duration $`T`$.

Our scheme is scalable when one assumes the array-based architecture proposed by Kielpinski et. al. Kielpinski et al. (2002). In that scheme single encoded qubits are held in individual traps. Pairs of encoded qubits are then moved into the same trap in order to perform two qubit operations. The advantage of such a scheme is that one can avoid the unfavorable scaling of the two qubit interaction strength as one puts more ions into the same trap. Furthermore, by encoding the ions into DFS, qubit coherences are protected when moving the ions from trap to trap.

There are several differences for the physical implementation of our scheme compared to Kielpinski et al. (2002). Our scheme requires one extra ion per logical qubit and each ion has to be individually addressed. Our operations take us out of the DFS, although this can be mitigated by the rapid alternation of pulses. The alternation of pulses results in only a linear increase in the total number of physical operations. An advantage of our scheme is that we use only two qubit entangling operations, whereas the proposal of Kielpinski et al. Kielpinski et al. (2002) requires four-qubit entangling operations. Two-qubit operations are inherently more robust to noise than four qubit entangling operations C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski; B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A. Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and C. Monroe (2000). One could imagine a hybrid proposal in which the qubits are stored in pairs of ions. Single qubit operations are performed using the standard scheme J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller (1995); D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland (2001); Kielpinski et al. (2002). Then when the qubits are brought together to do two qubit gates, two additional ions are placed in the trap allowing one to entangle the qubits only using two physical qubit operations as described here. This hybrid approach may offer greater flexibility.

## V Acknowledgements

The authors’ effort was sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Air Force Laboratory, Air Force Materiel Command, USAF, under agreement number F30602-01-2-0524. The work of KRB was also supported by the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation.


text:
# Breakdown of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem for fast superdiffusion

(March 18, 2024)

## Abstract

We study anomalous diffusion for one-dimensional systems described by a generalized Langevin equation. We show that superdiffusion can be classified in slow superdiffusion and fast superdiffusion. For fast superdiffusion we prove that the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem does not hold. We show as well that the asymptotic behavior of the response function is a stretched exponential for anomalous diffusion and an exponential only for normal diffusion.

Since its formulation, the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (FDT) has played a central roleKubo ; kubo2  in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (NESM). It reaches such an importance that a full formulation of NESM is given kubo2  based on it. In the last 30 years, fundamental concepts and methods have been developed Kubo -Lee3  and a large number of connections have been established (see ref. Lee2  and references therein). A necessary requirement for the FDT is that the time-dependent dynamical variables are well defined at equilibrium. The presence of far from equilibrium dynamics may lead to situations where the FDT does not hold, the aging process in spin-glass systems being a good example Parisi -Grigera .

Diffusion is one of the simplest processes by which a system reaches equilibrium. For normal diffusion, the process is so well known that it may be described by an equilibrium type distribution for the velocity and position of a particle. However, the strange kinetics of anomalous diffusion, intensively investigated in the last years Bouc -Oliveira , shows surprising results. Consequently, studying anomalous diffusion seems to be the best way to obtain the conditions of validity for the FDT.

In this letter, we present a straightforward proof of the inconsistency of the FDT for a certain class of superdiffusive processes described by a generalized Langevin equation (GLE). The use of the FDT allows us to classify two classes of superdiffusion. The first class, which we shall call slow superdiffusion, does obey the FDT; the second class, which we shall call fast superdiffusion, does not obey the FDT. The proof is simple and we discuss as well how the diffusive process leads to an equilibrium.

We shall start writing the GLE for an operator $`A`$ in the form Kubo ; Mori ; Lee2

$$\frac{dA(t)}{dt}=_0^t\mathrm{\Gamma }(tt^{})A(t^{})𝑑t^{}+F(t),$$
(1)
where $`F(t)`$ is a stochastic noise subject to the conditions $`F(t)=0`$, $`F(t)A(0)=0`$ and

$$C_F(t)=<F(t)F(0)>=<A^2>_{eq}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t).$$
(2)
Here $`C_F(t)`$ is the correlation function for $`F(t)`$ and the brackets $`<>`$ indicate thermal average. Eq. (2) is the famous Kubo FDT and it is quite general. In principle, the presence of the kernel $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ allows us to study a large number of correlated processes.

We may naively expect that, by Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), a system will be driven to an equilibrium , i.e.

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}<A^2(t)>=<A^2>_{eq}.$$
(3)
We shall see however that this is not always the case for superdiffusive dynamics. Let us define the variable

$$y(t)=_0^tA(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(4)
with asymptotic behavior

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}<y^2(t)>t^\mu .$$
(5)
For normal diffusion $`\mu =1`$, we have subdiffusion for $`\mu <1`$ and superdiffusion for $`\mu >1`$. Notice that if $`A(t)`$ is the momentum of a particle with unit mass, $`y(t)`$ is its position. Using Kubo’s definition of the diffusion constant we get Oliveira

$$D=\underset{z0}{lim}\frac{<A^2>_{eq}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)},$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)`$ is the Laplace transform of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$. A finite value of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)`$ corresponds to normal diffusion, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)=0`$ to superdiffusion and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)=\mathrm{}`$ to subdiffusion. Notice that

$$\gamma =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)𝑑t$$
(7)
plays the same role as the friction in the usual Langevin’s equation, i.e., GLE without memory.

Now we propose a solution for Eq. (1) as

$$A(t)=_0^tR(tt^{})F(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(8)
where we have set $`A(0)=0`$ and Srokowski1

$$\stackrel{~}{R}(z)=\frac{1}{z+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)}.$$
(9)
Squaring Eq. (8) and taking thermal average we obtain

$$<A^2(t)>=_0^t_0^tC_F(t^{}t^{\prime \prime })R(t^{})R(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }.$$
(10)
At this point, it is quite usual to perform numerical calculation Srokowski1 . From Eq. (1), we can get a self-consistent equation for $`R(t)`$ as

$$\frac{dR(t)}{dt}=_0^t\mathrm{\Gamma }(tt^{})R(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(11)
By using the FDT Eq.(2) and Eq.(11) we can exactly integrate Eq. (10) and obtain

$$<A^2(t)>=<A^2>_{eq}\lambda (t),$$
(12)
where

$$\lambda (t)=1R^2(t).$$
(13)
Notice now that Eq. (3) is satisfied if and only if

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\lambda (t)=\lambda ^{}=1,$$
(14)
or equivalently

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}R(t)=\underset{z0}{lim}z\stackrel{~}{R}(z)=0.$$
(15)
Equation (15) is the ergodic condition Lee3 . It is satisfied for normal diffusion and subdiffusion. Now for superdiffusive systems

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}R(t)=(1+b)^1,$$
(16)
where

$$b=\underset{z0}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)}{z}.$$
(17)
There are two distinct limits for $`b`$, which define two classes of superdiffusion. For the first class, $`b=\mathrm{}`$ and the system obeys the FDT. The second class has $`b\mathrm{}`$ and does violate the FDT. The first class we shall call slow superdiffusion (SSD) and the second class fast superdiffusion (FSD).

Consider now the asymptotic behavior for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)`$

$$\underset{z0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)=az^{\nu 1}.$$
(18)
For $`\nu <1`$ we have subdiffusion, for $`\nu =1`$ normal diffusion. For $`1<\nu <2`$ the process belongs to the SSD and, finally, for $`\nu 2`$ we have FSD. There is an obvious connection between $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$. Using Eq. (5) and the fact that $`lim_{z0}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)=lim_t\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1/t)`$ we get $`\nu =\mu `$ and consequently the FSD starts at $`\mu 2`$, i.e., the ballistic motion and beyond. It is interesting to note that Lee Lee3  proved the failure of ergodicity for the ballistic motion and now we showed that the FDT does not hold for this motion.

Now we test our analysis against simulations. Let us consider the function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\beta \left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(w_2t)}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(w_1t)}{t}\right],$$
(19)
where $`w_2>w_1`$. This function was chosen so that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)=0`$ for any $`w_10`$ . Thus, for $`w_1=0`$ we have normal diffusion and for any $`w_10`$ we have superdiffusion with $`\mu =2`$. If we let $`\beta =w_2/2`$ we get $`\lambda ^{}`$ as

$$\lambda ^{}=1\left(\frac{2w_1}{w_1+w_2}\right)^2.$$
(20)
Any value of $`\lambda ^{}`$ different from $`1`$ shows the inconsistency of the FDT in Eq. (2), because we start supposing the existence of an equilibrium value $`<A^2>_{eq}`$ and, after an infinite time, we end up with $`<A^2>_{eq}\lambda ^{}`$. No matter the $`<A^2>_{eq}`$ that we input in Eq. (2), we never reach it, except for the trivial null value.

Now we select $`A(t)=v(t)`$, the particle’s velocity, so that $`<v^2(t)>=<v^2>_{eq}\lambda (t)`$. We simulate the GLE for a set of $`10,000`$ particles starting at rest at the origin and using the memory in Eq. (19) with $`w_2=0.5`$ and different values of $`w_1`$. The results of these simulations are shown in Fig. 1, where we plot $`<v^2(t)>`$. We used the normalization $`<v^2>_{eq}=1`$, so that $`<v^2(t)>=\lambda (t)`$. Notice that $`\lambda (t)`$ does not reach a stationary value, rather it oscillates around a final average value $`\lambda _s`$. This value of $`\lambda _s`$ should be compared with $`\lambda ^{}`$ obtained from Eq. (20).

In Fig. 2 we plot $`\lambda ^{}`$ as a function of $`w_1`$ as in Eq.(20) with $`w_2=0.5`$. We also plot the final average values $`\lambda _s`$ obtained from simulations for different values of $`w_1`$. Note that simulations agree with theory and $`\lambda _s1`$ when $`w_10`$ .

For $`\mu >2`$, the FSD cannot be described by the methods we discussed here. Once the FDT does not work, the GLE and the FDT together predict results such as null dispersion for the dynamical variable, i.e. $`<A^2(t\mathrm{})>=0.`$ Moreover, the exponent $`\mu `$ can be put as $`\mu =2/D_F`$, where $`D_F`$ is the fractal dimension Ord . Consequently $`\mu >2`$ leads to $`D_F<1`$, which is not a full curve, but a set of points such as the Cantor set, and cannot represent a classical trajectory.

At first sight, the results presented here seem strange. Why does the FDT not work for the FSD? As we remarked before, $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (7) plays the same role as the usual friction in the Langevin Equation that yields $`R(t)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)`$ with a relaxation time $`\tau =\gamma ^1`$ for large times. For both SSD and FSD, $`\gamma ^1=\mathrm{}`$ and the system should not reach an equilibrium.

Now we address the previous question in another way: ”Why does the FDT work for the SSD? Is it really $`\tau =\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)^1`$ the relaxation time?”. In order to answer this question one needs to know the asymptotic behavior of $`R(t)`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. From Eq. (11) we may write

$$\mathrm{ln}R(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)_0^tR(t^{})𝑑t^{}t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z).$$
(21)
In the limit when $`t`$$`\mathrm{}`$ or, equivalently, $`z=1/t0`$, it is possible to eliminate the first term at the right of Eq. (21) by using

$$I=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)_0^tR(t^{})𝑑t^{}=\underset{z0}{lim}\frac{z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)}{z+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)}.$$
(22)
Notice that for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)=az^{\mu 1}`$ and $`\mu >0`$, $`I0`$ and we get the asymptotic behavior

$$\mathrm{ln}R(t)=t_0^t\mathrm{\Gamma }(t^{})𝑑t^{}=t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0).$$
(23)
The limit in Eq. (23) is quite clear for normal diffusion, where $`\gamma =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)`$ is finite, and for subdiffusion, where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)\mathrm{}`$. However, for superdiffusion one must look carefully since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)0`$. We use $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)`$ as in Eq (18) to obtain

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)=t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1/t)=at^{2\mu }.$$
(24)
We see that Eqs. (23) and (24) yield $`R(t\mathrm{})=0`$ only for $`\mu <2`$, what includes the subdiffusion, the normal diffusion and the SSD. For the FSD, $`\mu 2`$ and we shall use Eq. (16) to obtain the infinite limit. Thus, in this limit process, there is an infinite relaxation time $`\tau =\gamma ^1`$ for superdiffusion. However, this relaxation time can be seen only as a result of an evolution, which, for the SSD, is never of the same order of $`t`$ in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$. Consequently, for long times, the SSD presents a finite relaxation time. In short, the SSD has in common with normal diffusion and subdiffusion the fact that they have a finite relaxation time and obey the FDT.

Now we can look beyond the exponential aspect of the asymptotic solution Eq. (23) and use Eq. (24) to obtain

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}R(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right)^\beta \right],$$
(25)
where

$$\beta =2\mu .$$
(26)
For $`\mu 1`$, $`\tau =a^{1/\beta }`$ and for $`\mu =1`$, $`\tau =\gamma ^1=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)^1`$. The function Eq. (25) is a stretched exponential and we shall discuss that in detail below.

We have important results. First, we obtain a stretched exponential associated with anomalous diffusion, i. e. both subdiffusion and SSD. Also, we obtain the exponent $`\beta `$ directly, not by fitting nor simulations, with no reference to a specific system. Finally, we show that the relaxation time of the correlation function is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)^1`$ only for normal diffusion. For that case, the correlation function decays as an exponential. For subdiffusion and for SSD the relaxation time is associated with the coefficient of the main term of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)`$ in the limit when $`z0`$. Thus we can define a relaxation time for both normal and anomalous diffusion in the form

$$\tau =\underset{z0}{lim}\left[z^{1\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)\right]^{\frac{1}{\beta }}.$$
(27)
Notice that for $`\mu =\beta =1`$, $`\tau =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(0)^1`$ as expected for normal diffusion.

Let us discuss the very particular behavior of $`\mu =0`$, i.e. the “no diffusion at all” behavior. This can be easily obtained by the constant memory $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\omega _0^2`$, which yields for the friction force in Eq. (1) $`m\omega _0^2y`$. This is precisely an harmonic oscillator, which does not dissipate nor diffuse at all. For this system, we have $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)=\omega _0^2z^1`$, and $`R(t)`$ can be exactly solved as a $`cos(\omega _0t)`$ type behavior. As expected, $`R(t)`$ has no relaxation time. However, using $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)`$ on Eq.(27), we get $`\tau =\omega _0^1,`$ which is the time scale of the oscillation, i.e. the inverse of the frequency. Consequently, even in an extreme situation where we do not have a relaxation time, Eq. (27) yields the right time scale of the system.

The research on the striking universality properties of slow relaxation dynamics in glass Parisi ; Xia , supercooled liquids Xia , liquid crystal polymer Benmouna  and disordered vortex lattice in superconductors Bouchad2  has been driving great efforts in the last decades. A large and growing literature can been found where the non-exponential behavior (stretched exponentials) has been observed in correlation functions Xia ; Bouchad2 . Those have in common the fact that they are subject to an anomalous diffusion. Peyrard Peyrard  made a model for two-dimensional water and, by using Monte Carlo simulation, obtained the correlation function with an exponent $`0.3<\beta <0.6`$. When the temperature decreases, he suggests that $`\beta 1`$. Using his data in Eq.(26), we get $`\beta 0.75`$. It would be too naive to expect that our simple unidimensional, linear approach would describe all the range of complex structures. Nevertheless, it may bring an insight to guide us in such situations.

In conclusion, we discussed the stationary behavior for the mean square value of a dynamical variable $`A(t)`$ and noticed that the superdiffusive motion must be classified in slow superdiffusive (SSD) and fast superdiffusive (FSD). The FSD motion shows an inconsistency between the GLE and the FDT. The FSD has infinite relaxation time, and consequently never reaches equilibrium. This kind of superdiffusion in which $`<A^2(t)>t^\mu `$ with $`\mu 2`$ is common in hydrodynamical processes. It is not surprising that these processes will be far from equilibrium and violate the FDT. We pointed out here how it happens and precisely where the FDT breaks down. As we have already mentioned, spin glasses seem to be a rich field for studying these phenomena. Indeed experimental Grigera  and theoretical works Parisi ; Ricci  have been reported in this area, confirming the violation of the FDT. As well, the stretched exponential behavior found in noncrystaline material is connected here with anomalous diffusion. It would be very helpful if the exponent $`\mu `$ for those diffusive processes could be measured. Another related phenomenon is the anomalous reaction rate, which we expect to discuss soon. Although anomalous diffusion remains as a surprising phenomena, we hope that this work will help in the centennial effort to understand diffusion and the relation between fluctuation and dissipation. A generalization of the FDT to include the FSD is necessary, what will require a deeper understanding of systems far from equilibrium.

This work was supported by CAPES and CNPq - CTPETRO.


text:
# Superfluid Inhomogeneity and Microwave Absorption in Model High-Tc Superconductors

## 1 Introduction

The high-Tc superconductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ shows a remarkably strong absorption in the microwave regime, even far below $`T_c`$. In conventional, low-Tc, s-wave superconductors, there is no such background, because there is no absorption below the energy gap for pair excitations, $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. But in high-Tc materials, which are thought to have a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ order parameter, the gap vanishes in certain nodal $`k`$ directions. Hence, gapless nodal quasiparticles can be excited, and hence can absorb microwave radiation, at arbitrarily low temperatures. However, experiment suggests that this absorption is much stronger than expected from the quasiparticles alone.

In this paper, we show that such extra absorption can be produced if the superfluid density $`n(𝐱)`$ within the $`ab`$ plane is a function of position $`𝐱`$. Such spatial variation can be produced, e. g., by quenched disorder, or by charge density waves (e. g. stripes). The extra absorption is most likely in the microwave frequency range. A similar absorption was found by us in a previous paper, in which the inhomogeneity was described as static fluctuations in the Josephson coupling between superconducting grains.

## 2 Microwave Absorption in an Inhomogeneous Two-Dimensional Superfluid

We consider a two-fluid model of a superconductor in two dimensions, with local conductivity

$$\sigma (𝐱,\omega )=\sigma _{qp}(\omega )+\frac{iq^2n_s(\omega ,𝐱)}{m^{}\omega },$$
(1)
where $`q=2|e|`$ and $`m^{}`$ is twice the electron mass $`m_e`$. $`n_s(𝐱,\omega )`$ is assumed spatially varying, while $`\sigma _{qp}`$ is taken to be spatially uniform. We wish to calculate the complex effective conductivity $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$. $`\sigma _{qp}`$ might be a contribution from the nodal quasiparticles, while $`n_s`$ represents the perfect-conductivity response of the superconductor. It can be spatially varying because of the very short in-plane coherence length.

We employ the Kramers-Kronig relations satisfied by $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$, namely $`\sigma _{e1}(\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega ^{}\sigma _{e2}(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}𝑑\omega ^{}+\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`\sigma _{e2}=\frac{q^2n_{s,e}}{m^{}\omega }\frac{2\omega }{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\sigma _{e1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}𝑑\omega ^{}`$, where P means “principal part of,” $`\sigma _e=\sigma _{e1}+i\sigma _{e2}`$, and $`n_{s,e}`$ is the effective superfluid density \[the value of $`\frac{q^2n_{s,e}}{m^{}}`$ can be found from the residue of $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ at $`\omega =0`$\]. At very large frequencies $`\omega `$, the equation for $`\sigma _{e2}`$ becomes $`\sigma _{e2}\frac{q^2n_{s,e}}{m^{}\omega }+\frac{2}{\pi \omega }_0^{\mathrm{}}[\sigma _{e1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{\mathrm{}}]𝑑\omega ^{}`$.

### 2.1 Frequency-Independent $`\sigma _{qp}`$

If $`\sigma _{qp}(\omega )`$ is real and frequency-independent, then $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{qp}`$. Then at high frequencies, the local complex conductivity, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}+iq^2n_s(𝐱)/(m^{}\omega )`$, has only small spatial fluctuations. Then

$$\sigma _e\sigma _{av}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\delta \sigma )^2}{\sigma _{av}},$$
(2)
$`\delta \sigma (\omega ,𝐱)\sigma (\omega ,𝐱)\sigma _{av}(\omega )`$, where $`\sigma _{av}(\omega )=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}+iq^2n_{s,av}/(m^{}\omega )`$, $`\delta \sigma (\omega ,𝐱)=\sigma (\omega ,𝐱)\sigma _{av}(\omega )`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is a space average. Since only $`n_s`$, and not $`\sigma _{qp}`$, is fluctuating, this expression simplifies to

$$\sigma _e\sigma _{\mathrm{}}+\frac{iq^2n_{s,av}}{m^{}\omega }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(q^2/m^{})^2(\delta n_s)^2}{\omega ^2\sigma _{\mathrm{}}+iq^2\omega n_{s,av}/m^{}}.$$
(3)
At large $`\omega `$, the imaginary part of $`\sigma _e`$ to leading order in $`1/\omega `$ is simply $`\sigma _{e2}q^2n_{s,av}/(m^{}\omega )`$. Equating this expression to the right-hand side of the Kramers-Kronig expression for $`\sigma _{e2}`$, we finally obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\right]𝑑\omega ^{}=\frac{q^2\pi }{2m^{}}\left(n_{s,av}n_{s,e}\right)$$
(4)
If $`n_s(𝐱)`$ is spatially varying, the right-hand side is always positive, whence there will be an additional contribution to $`\sigma _{e1}(\omega )`$, beyond $`\sigma _{qp}`$.

At small $`\omega `$, eq. (3) implies $`\sigma _{e2}\frac{q^2n_{s,av}}{m^{}\omega }+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{q^2/m^{}(\delta n_s)^2}{\omega n_{s,av}}\right)`$, and thus $`n_{s,av}n_{s,e}\frac{q^2n_{s,av}}{m^{}}(\delta n_s)^2/(2n_{s,av}^2)`$. Then eq. (4) becomes

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\right]𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{q^2\pi n_{s,av}}{4m^{}}\frac{(\delta n_s)^2}{n_{s,av}^2}.$$
(5)
For fixed $`(\delta n_s)^2/n_{s,av}^2`$, this integral is proportional to $`n_{s,av}`$. That is, the extra integrated fluctuation contribution to $`\sigma _{e1}`$, is proportional to the average superfluid density. A similar result has been reported in experiments.

### 2.2 Drude $`\sigma _{qp}(\omega )`$

For a Drude $`\sigma _{qp}(\omega )=\sigma _0/(1i\omega \tau )`$, we can carry out a similar analysis. In the case of weak fluctuations in $`n_s`$, the result is

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`\left[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{qp,1}(\omega ^{})\right]d\omega ^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\left((q^2/m^{})^2(\delta n_s)^2\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2n_{s,av}/m^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2n_{s,av}/m^{}+\sigma _0/\tau }}\right).`$
In the limit $`\sigma _0/\tau q^2n_{s,av}/m^{}`$, this expression reduces to the right-hand side of eq. (5). Thus, in this regime, the extra spectral weight is indeed proportional to the average superfluid density $`n_{s,av}`$.

### 2.3 Tensor $`n_s`$

Next, we consider a tensor superfluid density, as would be expected in a superconducting layer containing quenched charge density waves such as a charge stripes. In this case, the ($`2\times 2`$) superfluid density tensor should have the form $`n_s^{\alpha \beta }(𝐱)=R^1(𝐱)n_s^dR(𝐱)`$, where $`n_s^d`$ is a diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrix with diagonal components $`n_{s,A}`$, $`n_{s,B}`$, and $`R(𝐱)`$ is a position-dependent $`2\times 2`$ rotation matrix. describing the relative orientation of the charge density wave or stripes. If the stripes have either of two orientations along the crystal axes of the layer, with equal probability, then the effective superfluid density $`n_{s,e}`$ will be a scalar.

The arguments of the previous subsections can readily be transferred to the tensor case. For a two-fluid model with a frequency-independent quasiparticle conductivity which has the same value $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ in both the $`A`$ and $`B`$ directions, the effective scalar conductivity $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ again satisfies Kramers-Kronig relations, and one again obtains the sum rule (4), where $`n_{s,av}`$ is now the rotational average of a diagonal element of $`n_{s;\alpha \beta }`$. If the principal axes of $`n_{s;\alpha \beta }`$ point with equal probability along the two symmetry directions of the CuO2 plane, as mentioned above, $`n_{s,av}=(n_{s,A}+n_{s,B})/2`$. Likewise, if the principal axes were to point in any direction in the plane with equal probability (a circumstance which seems unlikely for a stripe phase), then it can be shown that once again $`n_{s,av}=(n_{s,A}+n_{s,B})/2`$.

If the quasiparticle conductivity is frequency-dependent, then the analogous scalar results of the previous section continue to hold. For example, if $`\sigma _{qp,A}(\omega )=\sigma _{qp,B}(\omega )`$, then the extra spectral weight due to the superfluid inhomogeneity is again given by eq. (5) in the weak-inhomogeneity regime.

In the case of the stripe geometry, where the principal axes of the conductivity tensor take either of two perpendicular orientations with equal probability, $`n_{s,e}`$ is given by the duality result

$$n_{s,e}=\sqrt{n_{s,A}n_{s,B}}.$$
(7)
This form allows the extra spectral weight to be evaluated straightforwardly, given $`\sigma _{qp}(\omega )`$, without making the small fluctuation approximation.

## 3 Numerical Example

As a simple example, we consider a superconducting layer in which the conductivity has one of two possible values, $`\sigma _A(\omega )`$ or $`\sigma _B(\omega )`$ with equal probability, and we assume $`\sigma _{A,B}(\omega )=\sigma _{qp}(\omega )+\frac{q^2n_{s;A,B}}{m^{}\omega }`$, where we take $`n_{s,A}>n_{s,B}`$. This model would be suitable either for a layer with static scalar disorder, or for a model of stripe domains, as discussed above. We also write $`\sigma _{qp}=\sigma _0/(1i\omega \tau _{qp})`$, with $`\sigma _0=n_{qp}q^2\tau _{qp}/m^{}`$. We also assume $`n_{qp}=\alpha T`$ for $`T<T_c`$ or $`n_{qp}=\alpha T_c`$ for $`T>T_c`$, $`\tau _{qp}^1=\beta T`$, $`n_{s,A}=\gamma n_{s,0}`$, $`n_{s,B}=\gamma ^1n_{s,0}`$, where $`n_{s,0}(T)=n_{s,0}(0)\sqrt{12\alpha T/n_{s,0}(0)}`$, and $`\gamma `$ is a parameter describing the superfluid inhomogeneity (this form ensures that $`n_{s,av}\sqrt{n_{s,A}n_{s,B}}=n_{s,0}`$). Our choice of temperature dependence for $`n_{s,0}(T)`$ ensures that $`n_{s,0}`$ (i) decreases linearly with increasing temperature $`T`$ at small $`T`$, as observed experimentally; and (ii) vanishes at a critical temperature $`T_c`$ as $`\sqrt{T_cT}`$. The ingredients of this model are very similar to those of Ref. , and have a straightforward interpretation. First, $`n_{s,qp}`$ should be proportional to $`T`$ in a gapless $`d`$-wave superconductor, and hence $`n_{s,e}`$ should be depleted by the same amount and fall off linearly in $`T`$. We also assume that $`n_{s,A}`$ and $`n_{s,B}`$ individually are linear in $`T`$. The form $`1/\tau _{qp}=\beta T`$, where $`\beta `$ is another constant, has been observed for nodal quasiparticles in the superconducting states.

We compute $`\sigma _e`$ using Bruggeman effective-medium approximation (EMA), which gives $`(\sigma _A\sigma _e)/(\sigma _A+\sigma _e)+(\sigma _B\sigma _e)/(\sigma _B+\sigma _e)=0`$. The solution to this equation is simply $`\sigma _e=\sqrt{\sigma _A\sigma _B}`$. Fig. 1 shows the resulting $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ,T)`$ for several frequencies ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 THz, the range measured in Ref. . The parameters $`T_c`$, $`\sigma _0`$, $`n_{s,0}(0)`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ were taken from Ref., and we assumed $`\gamma =3`$. Also shown are $`_{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ,T)𝑑\omega `$ for $`\omega _{min}/(2\pi )=0.2`$THz and $`\omega _{max}/(2\pi )=0.8`$THz. Finally, we plot $`\sigma _{qp,1}(\omega ,T)`$ for these frequencies, as well as $`_{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}\sigma _{qp,1}𝑑\omega `$. Clearly, $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$ is considerably increased beyond the quasiparticle contribution, because of spatial fluctuations in the superfluid density.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that a superconducting layer with an inhomogeneous superfluid density will have an extra absorption not present in a homogeneous superconductor. The frequency integral of $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$ associated with this absorption is proportional to the superfluid density, in general agreement with experiments. We have also shown that this inhomogeneity, and hence the extra absorption seen in experiments, can arise from a stripe domain structure, as well as from random but isotropic disorder. Thus, we speculate that no such extra absorption should be observed in a high-Tc superconductor unless one of these two types of inhomogeneities are present (beyond that expected purely from nodal quasiparticle absorption).

## 5 Acknowledgments.

This work has been supported by NSF Grant DMR01-04987, and by the U.-S./Israel Binational Science Foundation.