text:
# References

A tentative new approach to the Schrödinger cat problem

Bernard d’Espagnat
Laboratoire de Physique Théorique
Unité Mixte de Recherche UMR 8627 - CNRS
Université de Paris XI, Bâtiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France

## Abstract

Though scientifically unconvincing, the Broglie-Bohm model has the virtue of reproducing the observational predictions of quantum mechanics while being conceptually crystal-clear. Hence, even if we do not believe in it, we may find it useful in suggesting ways of removing conceptual difficulties. This procedure is here applied to the Schrödinger cat riddle (in its Wigner version). The outcome yields tentative views on the relationship between mentality and physical reality.

Submitted to Physics Letters A

What is it that quantum mechanics describes? Is it “man-independent reality” or “communicable human experience”? Philosophers have ready-made, but conflicting, answers to this. Physicists have access to more factual elements of appreciation. But even with their help, the answer is not very clear. Many of us still consider that the ultimate purpose of physics can only be to “lift the veil of the appearances” and describe reality as it really is. However it is well known that to render the quantum formalism ontologically interpretable requires either altering it in more or less ad hoc ways (plugging in nonlinear terms in the Schrödinger equation) or assuming explicitly that hidden variables exist. And, for well-known reasons, both procedures are somewhat unpalatable. In view of this, a number of physicists tend to implicitly endorse a purely instrumentalist conception of physics. This approach in no way amounts to rejecting as meaningless the notion of a basic man-independent reality, as pure idealist thinkers do. It consists in observing that, whatever this entity “really is”, presumably it differs even more than previously thought from what it looks like. And that, consequently, the more secure standpoint is not to take sides, in an a priori manner, on the question whether or not it should be pictured and, if yes, how it should be. Incidentally, note in this respect that, within this standpoint, the completeness assumption should not be bluntly stated as “hidden variables do not exist”, since this is a metaphysical hypothesis, even though a negative one. Following Stapp , it should be expressed as the assumption that “no theoretical construction can yield experimentally verifiable predictions about atomic phenomena that cannot be extracted from a quantum theoretical description”. This leaves open the possibility that hidden variables exist, provided that they should be “really hidden”. Otherwise said, as here understood the instrumentalist conception is still quite general. For example, it is compatible with both pure antirealism and Bohm’s ideas, especially when the latter are expressed via the conception of a real implicit order, differing very much from the explicit one, that reflects but the appearance of reality.

As a consequence of the fact that it postulates so little, the instrumentalist conception has considerable advantages. In particular, it was recently stressed in these columns  that it is essentially within its framework that decoherence can truly be said to solve the quantum measurement problem. This, of course, is a considerable advantage. However, it remains true that the instrumentalist conception also raises questions. One of them concerns our final perception of objects (see e.g. , Appendix and the there given references) and is of a very much philosophical nature111It is well known that, by itself, decoherence does not unambiguously produce localization. In the instrumentalist conception, to account for what is observed it is necessary to assume, in addition, that locality is an a priori mode of human sensibility, much as Kant assumed space to be one.. It is not to be debated here. But it is not the only one. Actually, the fact of considering the quantum formalism as merely being a set of observational predictive rules gives rise to another conceptual riddle. And indeed what is claimed in the present article is that an analysis of the latter sets us on the path of a conjecture that seems worthy of attention.

The riddle in question is one of self-consistency and has to do with “consciousness” or “mentality”. Schrödinger approached it when he proposed replacing the measuring apparatus by a cat, for a cat, presumably, has a consciousness of some sort. Wigner  approached it even more when he substituted a friend of him for the cat, for a friend surely is conscious. To explain what it consists of, let us consider a measurement performed on a system $`Q`$ not lying in an eigenstate of the measured observable, $`A`$. Let then $`S`$ be the system composed of $`Q`$, the pointer and the environment ($`S`$ being considered after the measurement has taken place), and let us explicitly include Wigner’s friend – together with his mind of course – within $`S`$. For simplicity sake we may assume that observable $`A`$ has a discrete spectrum. Within a statistical ensemble $`E`$ of such $`S`$’s, each one of the friends then sees “his” pointer lying in a graduation interval corresponding to one definite eigenvalue of $`A`$. In this respect, his knowledge is not – so it seems – qualitatively different from the one that an external observer having observed the pointer would have. Apparently, we are therefore forced to consider that $`E`$ is a (proper) mixture of $`S`$ systems on each of which a measurement of $`A`$ has been performed. However, it is well known that among the predictions yielded by the density operator attached to such a mixture and that are verifiable in principle (assuming the availability of arbitrary large and complex instruments, arbitrary long measurement times etc) there are some that are incompatible with those directly following from our starting assumption, according to which, before the measurement, $`Q`$ was not in an eigenstate of $`A`$ (see  or ). In other words, we fall back here on the well-known difficulty of quantum measurement theory. As explained in , decoherence theory removes this difficulty as long as the measuring instruments are considered as inanimate and the ultimate act of observing is attributed to an impersonal and collective WE, thought of as looking down, so to speak, upon the physical world. But, as we see, the riddle reappears as soon as we take up a more down-to-earth view on the problem, as Wigner invites us to do.

Now, when faced with problems such as this one – that are neither mathematical nor purely physical but conceptual – we, physicists, feel somewhat at a loss until we find some similarity between them and problems that are, to us, more familiar. In this respect, the old Louis de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable model (with pilot wave or quantum potential) may be of help. Not that we should necessarily believe it is true. Many arguments (e.g. those described in detail in  and ) speak against it. But it does reproduce all the observational quantum mechanical predictions; it yields, to the quantum measurement problem, a solution differing from the above one but fully consistent as well222In it, the representative point is, right from the start, determined to proceed into one or the other of the sectors of configuration space corresponding to the possible pointer positions.; and it has the great advantage of being conceptually crystal-clear. It can therefore be used as a theoretical laboratory. If, within it, it proves possible to take explicitly into account the (undeniable!) fact that Wigner s friend is conscious, it is conceivable that the basic idea underlying this solution can be extended, outside the model, to the general theory. Incidentally, note that in the model the above-mentioned difference between implicit and explicit order of course holds. The implicit order concerns the hidden variables that, together with the nonlocal pilot-wave, compose man-independent reality. The explicit order is the order that is manifest in the appearances that compose the set of the observed phenomena, alias empirical reality.

According to the model, within a Young-type thought-experiment with two slits the particle is driven by a pilot-wave that passes through both slits at once; and this has the consequence that, in the model, while each particle passes through but one slit, fringes nevertheless appear. We can therefore say that, in the model, the particle is at any time at some well-defined place even though it takes part in a typically quantum phenomenon. In this respect it resembles the friend in Wigner s parable, who is at any time in some well-defined state of consciousness while he also is taking part in a quantum phenomenon. To strengthen the analogy it is then appropriate that, in the model, we should attribute to the particle some kind of a mentality (or, say, protomentality, the physical nature of which needs not be specified in detail). Within the experiment in question, each one of the involved particles then “observes” that, at a certain time, it passes through one, well specified, slit. This is an internal state of consciousness of the particle and since, in the model, the particle position is an element of man-independent reality, this internal state of consciousness has also to be considered as being an element of man-independent reality. For the particle this internal state of consciousness has no predictive power, since what will happen to the said particle is entirely governed by the pilot wave.

Now, it is often, and quite rightly, said that the very fact of knowing through which slit the particle passes prevents the fringes from being formed. At first sight this might seem to constitute a valid objection against any idea of attributing a state of consciousness to the particles. And in fact, so it would be if we assumed that the particle could communicate its knowledge to the world at large. So let us assume that it can’t; that, at least as far as particles and other micro-systems are concerned, “internal states of consciousness” are really private (such an idea is quite in agreement with the fact that, in the model, the “consciousness state” in question is a “hidden variable” just as the position itself, since hidden variables do not act on the pilot wave). This being the case, an external observer $`O`$, even if we assume he knows of the existence of such internal states of consciousness, must not take this existence into account when predicting what will be observed. He therefore predicts the fringes will appear, in conformity with experiment.

On the other hand, imagining a category of states of consciousness that would always remain totally hidden would obviously be quite pointless. Hence, we should ask whether circumstances exist in which statements bearing on such “interior” states may, after all, have some relationship with the public domain of shared experience (while remembering of course that this domain is the one of the explicit order, that is, in the model, the one of “appearances that are the same for everybody”). Now, decoherence helps us here. For, in the Young-type experiment, call $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ the partial wave functions issuing from slits 1 and 2 respectively, and suppose we replace the micro particles by corpuscles that are appreciably larger and whose interaction with the environment is, consequently, not negligible. The fringes then fade and, when the corpuscles are macroscopic enough, they practically disappear. For the purpose of predicting outcomes of future observations, the ensemble of the involved corpuscles can then be treated as a mixture of two “pure cases” described by the wave functions $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$. Now $`\psi _1`$ ($`\psi _2`$) is just the wave function that an observer would attribute to a set of corpuscles known to have passed through slit 1 (2). This shows that, in such circumstances, the internal state of consciousness of the corpuscles passing through one particular slit may indeed be considered without harm as having the intersubjective predictive role normally attributed, in quantum mechanics, to pieces of knowledge obtained from measurements. Incidentally, note that this reasoning is fully consistent with the Broglie-Bohm model since, as far as mere predictions are concerned, this model yields the same ones as non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

If we now turn back to the Wigner friend problem and still consider it within the Broglie-Bohm model, we find that the foregoing views can quite naturally be fitted to it. Indeed, for the same reasons as above, we can assume without inconsistency that $`S`$ has an internal state of consciousness as long as we do not attribute predictive power to it, and we can also relax somewhat this condition when we take into account the fact that $`S`$ is macroscopic and interacts therefore with its environment. In fact, for the purpose of predicting what will practically be observed, (forgetting about measurements that are conceivable only in principle) an ensemble $`E`$ of thus prepared $`S`$’s can be treated as a mixture, for decoherence is at work. And – just as above – the quantum states composing this mixture are the ones that the various possible internal states of consciousness of the friends would generate if these consciousness states were viewed as predictive. Hence, within the “set of observational predictive rules” that quantum mechanics merely is (in our instrumentalist approach), these internal states of consciousness can be considered as representing elements of empirical reality. More precisely they can be viewed as coinciding in nature with the predictive states of consciousness that we refer to when we state that such and such a measurement outcome has been observed.

This being the case, we can now revert to the general theory. We can consider the Broglie-Bohm model as just being one conceivable description of man-independent reality, drop the assumption that it does picture it as it really is, but, still, try to make good use of the suggestion this model provided us with. Clearly, the essential element in the latter is the notion of internal states of consciousness. In the model such “states”, existing at the elementary level, are, as we noted, elements of man-independent reality, and this is a feature that definitely should be kept. In the general case they, correspondingly, are devoid of any predictive power, either internal (for the systems themselves) or external (to the public at large, knowing they exist makes no difference). Hence, in a Young-type experiment, their existence is fully compatible with the building up of the fringes.

On the other hand, it is also true that, in a Young-type experiment supposedly made with macroscopic “thinking corpuscles”, the latter could, because of decoherence, make use of a wave function matched to their internal states of consciousness in order to predict their own future behavior. And so can, of course the friends in a Wigner-friends type of setting. Moreover, still because of decoherence, in both cases the external observer $`O`$ makes no false prediction if, for the purpose of calculating what he will observe when making practically feasible measurements, he chooses to take the existence of the said states of consciousness seriously into account.

To sum up, within this conception it is considered that even microsystems can be endowed with “internal states of consciousness” (or “protoconsciousness”, whatever this may be) that are elements of a basic, not publicly accessible, reality, rather than of empirical reality. In other words, they are hidden (remember we left open the possibility that hidden variables should exist, provided that they should be “really hidden”). It is only when the involved systems become macroscopic enough for their interaction with the environment to be appreciable that these internal states of consciousness obtain some degree of public significance. This means that they gain predictive power. It then turns out that the impressions they predict can usually be described in a realist language, that is, as if they referred to objects existing per se. The set of such intersubjective appearances is what is called here “empirical reality”. It is thus meaningful to speak of a kind of “co-emergence” of “public” states of consciousness on the one side and empirical reality on the other side, out of a “man-independent reality” that, itself, lies beyond our intersubjective describing abilities.

Discussion

It goes without saying that the conception of the relationships between mind and reality we arrived at is extremely sketchy and speculative. In spite of this, it is interesting to note that, surprisingly enough, it shows quite a definite similarity with Whitehead’s views: For indeed the notion of internal states of consciousness is quite akin to the ones of “prehensions” and “occasions of experience” that, in Whitehead’s philosophy, play a basic role even at the elementary particle level.

In this, it is quite at variance with the “received view”, according to which only things with highly complex structures have consciousness. This received view considers consciousness as being, somehow, an attribute of such things. This means, it implicitly postulates that our “theory of things in general” (physics) should be ontologically interpretable, for if things are mere “phenomena”, that is, “appearances to consciousness”, how could consciousness be an attribute of things? Now, there does exist ontologically interpretable models and it may well be, after all, that one or another of them is right. And since these models yield an elementary solution to the Wigner friend riddle333In the spontaneous collapse models, for instance, the collapse spontaneously taking place in $`S`$ has the effect that even measurements made on systems involving the environment could not – not even in principle! – be inconsistent with the predictions yielded by the view that the $`S`$’s are in eigenstates of $`A`$, as Wigner s friend sees them to be. a supporter of any one of them is fully entitled to claim that this “received view” constitutes the most reasonable way of introducing consciousness into our picture of the World. The approach described in this article can thus be of interest only to the physicists who, as explained here in the beginning, are reluctant to adhere to any one of these models and therefore explicitly or implicitly take up an instrumentalist standpoint.

It is suggested here that, for them, this interest is twofold. The first interest may be labeled “technical”. It consists in that the instrumentalist conception was shown above to be free from the “remaining”444“Remaining”, even after it has been checked that, due to decoherence, the quantum measurement theory is free from contradiction as long as the various parts of the measuring instruments are considered inanimate. lack of self-consistency of which it seemed to suffer in connection with the Wigner friend riddle and the consciousness of the said friend555Admittedly, we knew a priori that this difficulty is only an apparent one. The reason is that the Broglie-Bohm model exactly reproduces all the experimentally verifiable predictions of non relativistic quantum mechanics and is thus a concrete example of how we could consistently imagine that the predictions constituting the instrumentalist conception get materialized. The fact that this model does remove the difficulty (see note 2) then shows that, within the instrumentalist conception, the difficulty in question can somehow be overcome. But of course it is still nicer to know how it can be.. The second one is of a more general nature. It is related to the importance of the role that the notion of consciousness – more precisely, that of “getting aware” – has taken up both in quantum physics (due to the intersubjective character of the Born rule) and in the XXth century epistemology (to the extent that the latter adopted Schlick’s axiom that the meaning of a statement boils down to its method of verification: for any verification procedure ultimately supposes the existence of some conscious verifier). When a theory thus imparts a key role to a given concept and, at the same time, leave this concept unanalyzed and hazy, this is certainly a weakness it has. The content of the present article may be viewed as a step in the direction of curing this weakness. Up to now, neurobiological and philosophical investigations with the same end were essentially carried out within a purely classical representation of the World. While such a procedure can be justified on the basis of significant arguments, it remains that within an (explicit or implicit) purely instrumentalist approach it is open to criticism since (to repeat) it is objectionable to claim, as pure instrumentalist scientists sometimes tend to do, both that consciousness is a property of things and that, ultimately, things are mere appearances… to consciousness. By making internal states of consciousness elements of basic reality, by distinguishing them from the communicable states of consciousness (which belong to empirical reality) and by linking these two notions together (in the case of macro-systems) with the help of decoherence, the conception here arrived at removes the very basis of this criticism and, at the same time, provides us with a not totally hazy picture of consciousness. It may therefore be worth considering.


format: text

text:
# Requirements for compatibility between local and multipartite quantum states

## 1 Introduction and main results

Consider a system consisting of $`n`$ quantum particles and denote $`^{(i)}`$ a Hilbert space of states of the $`i`$-th particle. A state of the whole system can be most exhaustively described by a vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the Hilbert space

$$=^{(1)}\mathrm{}^{(n)}$$

(a pure state). However, sometimes we need not such a detailed description. For example if we are interested only in expectation values of one-particle observables, it is sufficient to keep track of just $`n`$ reduced density matrices $`\rho ^{(1)}=tr_{i1}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|),\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)}=tr_{in}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$ describing the states of the individual particles (here the subscript $`i`$ shows the particles to be traced out). This is some kind of mean field description because we completely ignore all types of correlations (both quantum and classical) between the different particles.

An arbitrary collection of $`n`$ density matrices $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$ will be referred to as a mean field state. Naturally, some mean field states can not be represented as partial traces of any pure state. For example let us take $`n=2`$ and $`^{(1)}=^{(2)}`$. From the Schmidt decomposition we learn that the density matrices $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ arising from a pure state must share the same set of the eigenvalues. If this is not the case, we can say that a mean field state $`(\rho ^{(1)},\rho ^{(2)})`$ is not compatible with a pure multipartite state. Conversely, if the eigenvalues of $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ match, we can always find a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`\rho ^{(1)}=tr_2(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$ and $`\rho ^{(2)}=tr_1(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$.

The main purpose of this paper is to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for compatibility between mean field states and multipartite pure states in the case of three or more particles where Shmidt decomposition can not be applied. For any Hilbert space $`𝒮`$ denote $`D(𝒮)`$ a set of all Hermitian, non-negative operators with unital trace (a set of density matrices). Now we can formulate our first problem.

Problem 1. Given a multipartite system $`=^{(1)}\mathrm{}^{(n)}`$, find a set of all mean field states $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$, $`\rho ^{(1)}D(^{(1)}),\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)}D(^{(n)})`$ which are compatible with at least one multipartite pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Let us denote the set to be found $`M_{pure}`$. Its formal definition is

$$M_{pure}=\{(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)}):\rho ^{(i)}=tr_{ji}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|),|\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }=1\}.$$

The compatibility problem may be generalized to the case when a state of the whole system is a mixed one with a specified set of the eigenvalues. Denote $`eig(\rho )`$ a string of eigenvalues of an operator $`\rho `$ (to avoid ambiguity, let us agree that the eigenvalues are arranged in the decreasing order). Denote also $`D(𝒮,\lambda )=\{\rho D(𝒮):eig(\rho )=\lambda \}`$ a set of density matrices with a specified spectrum $`\lambda `$. Our second problem is following.

Problem 2. Given a multipartite system $`=^{(1)}\mathrm{}^{(n)}`$ and a string of eigenvalues $`\lambda `$, find a set of all mean field states $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$, $`\rho ^{(1)}D(^{(1)}),\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)}D(^{(n)})`$ which are compatible with at least one multipartite mixed state $`\rho D(,\lambda )`$.

Let us denote the set to be found $`M(\lambda )`$. Its formal definition is

$$M(\lambda )=\{(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)}):\rho ^{(i)}=tr_{ji}(\rho ),\rho D(,\lambda )\}.$$

The Problem 2 can be reduced to the Problem 1 by introducing one additional particle (ancilla) with a space of states $``$. One suffices to find the set $`M_{pure}`$ for the extended system and then find the subset of $`M_{pure}`$ corresponding to the fixed eigenvalues of the ancilla. In that sense the two problems are equivalent.

The solution of the Problem 1 for an arbitrary $`n`$ is known only for the simplest case $`^{(i)}=^2`$ for all $`i`$, see . This is a system of $`n`$ spins $`\frac{1}{2}`$ or, equivalently, of $`n`$ qubits. Let $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$ be an arbitrary mean field state of the system. Denote $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ the lowest eigenvalue of $`i`$-th qubit’s density matrix $`\rho ^{(i)}`$. By definition, $`\lambda ^{(i)}[0,\frac{1}{2}]`$. Then $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})M_{pure}`$ if and only if for each $`i`$ in the range $`1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ one has

$$\lambda ^{(i)}\underset{ji}{}\lambda ^{(j)}.$$
(1)
For instance, if $`n=2`$, one gets: $`\lambda ^{(1)}\lambda ^{(2)}`$, $`\lambda ^{(2)}\lambda ^{(1)}`$, that is $`\lambda ^{(1)}=\lambda ^{(2)}`$ as it should be. For $`n=3`$ one gets the triangle inequalities: $`\lambda ^{(1)}\lambda ^{(2)}+\lambda ^{(3)}`$, $`\lambda ^{(2)}\lambda ^{(3)}+\lambda ^{(1)}`$, $`\lambda ^{(3)}\lambda ^{(1)}+\lambda ^{(2)}`$. For real spin systems, such as magnetics, we have $`n1`$ and the inequalities (1) impose practically no restrictions on the mean field states. However these inequalities may be important in quantum information theory, in particular in the study of multipartite analogs of the Schmidt decomposition  and polynomial invariants under local unitary transformations . In Section 2 we describe an alternative proof of (1) obtained independently from the work .

We have solved the Problem 2 only for a bipartite system and only in the simplest case $`^{(1)}=^{(2)}=^2`$. This is a system of two qubits. Let us label the qubits by letters A and B. Consider an arbitrary mean field state $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)`$. Denote $`\lambda ^A`$ and $`\lambda ^B`$ the lowest eigenvalues of the density matrices $`\rho ^A`$ and $`\rho ^B`$. By definition, $`\lambda ^A,\lambda ^B[0,\frac{1}{2}]`$. Let $`\lambda =\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4\}`$ be an arbitrary string of real non-negative numbers, such that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4`$ and $`_{i=1}^4\lambda _i=1`$. In Section 3 we will show that $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)M(\lambda )`$ if and only if

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \lambda ^A& & \lambda _4+\lambda _3,\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda ^B& & \lambda _4+\lambda _3,\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda ^A+\lambda ^B& & 2\lambda _4+\lambda _3+\lambda _2,\hfill \\ \hfill |\lambda ^A\lambda ^B|& & \mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
This result also provides a solution of the Problem 1 for $`n=3`$ with $`^{(1)}=^{(2)}=^2`$ and $`^{(3)}=^4`$.

Although we can not attack the Problem 2 in the general case, we can solve its simplified version, namely find the convex envelope  of the set $`M(\lambda )`$:

$$Conv(M(\lambda ))=\{(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)}):\rho ^{(i)}=tr_{ji}(\rho ),\rho Conv(D(,\lambda ))\},$$

where $`Conv(D(,\lambda ))`$ is the convex envelope of the set $`D(,\lambda )`$. By definition, any density matrix $`\rho Conv(D(,\lambda ))`$ can be represented as $`\rho =_\alpha p_\alpha U_\alpha \rho _0U_\alpha ^{}`$ for some probabilities $`p_\alpha 0`$, $`_\alpha p_\alpha =1`$, unitary operators $`U_\alpha `$ and some density matrix $`\rho _0D(,\lambda )`$. The set $`Conv(D(,\lambda ))`$ is important for example for description of interaction between the system and the classical environment.

The simplified Problem 2 is considered in Section 4. We show that it can be reduced to the analogous classical problem concerning multipartite probability distributions. To describe this reduction, let us consider as an example a bipartite system of Alice and Bob, $`=^A^B`$. Let $`\lambda _j^A`$ be the $`j`$-th element of the string $`eig(\rho ^A)`$ and $`\lambda _j^B`$ be the $`j`$-th element of the string $`eig(\rho ^B)`$ (one can order the eigenvalues by an arbitrary way; this ambiguity will not affect the answer). Let $`d^A`$ and $`d^B`$ be the dimensions of the Hilbert spaces $`^A`$ and $`^B`$. For any bipartite probability distribution $`p^{AB}(i,j)`$ of integer variables $`i[1,d^A]`$ and $`j[1,d^B]`$ denote $`p^{AB}`$ a string of $`d^Ad^B`$ probabilities $`p^{AB}(1,1),`$ $`\mathrm{},p^{AB}(1,d^B),`$ $`\mathrm{}p^{AB}(d^A,1),`$ $`\mathrm{},p^{AB}(d^A,d^B)`$ ordered by an arbitrary way (this ambiguity will not affect the answer). In Section 4 we will show that

$$Conv(M(\lambda ))=\{(\rho ^A,\rho ^B):\lambda _i^A=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d^B}{}}p^{AB}(i,j),\lambda _j^B=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^A}{}}p^{AB}(i,j),p^{AB}\lambda \},$$
(3)
where $`p^{AB}\lambda `$ means that the string $`p^{AB}`$ is majorized by the string $`\lambda `$ (the majorization relation is briefly discussed in Section 4). A set of probability distributions $`p^{AB}(i,j)`$ satisfying $`p^{AB}\lambda `$ is known to be a convex one, and a probability distribution $`p^{AB}(i,j)`$ is an extremal point if and only if $`p^{AB}=\lambda `$ up to some permutation of the elements. This set of probability distributions is thus a classical analogue of $`Conv(D(,\lambda ))`$. The generalization of equality (3) to the case of three or more parties is straightforward.

## 2 Mean field states for arrays of qubits.

In this section we consider a multipartite system consisting of qubits (spins $`\frac{1}{2}`$) and prove the equality (1). Let $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$ be an arbitrary mean field state of $`n`$ qubit system. By appropriate unitary local operators we can always bring the matrices $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ to the standard form

$$\rho ^{(i)}=\lambda ^{(i)}|11|+(1\lambda ^{(i)})|00|,i[1,n],$$
(4)
where $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ is the lowest eigenvalue of $`\rho ^{(i)}`$, that is $`\lambda ^{(i)}[0,\frac{1}{2}]`$. The proof of (1) consists of two parts.

(a) Suppose that $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})M_{pure}`$, i.e. $`\rho ^{(i)}=tr_{ji}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$ for some pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(^2)^n`$. Let us prove, for example, the inequality $`\lambda ^{(n)}_{j=1}^{n1}\lambda ^{(j)}`$. If $`n`$-qubit system is described by the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the qubits $`1,\mathrm{},n1`$ alone are described by the density matrix

$$\rho =tr_n(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|).$$
(5)
Taking into account (4) we can write

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\lambda ^{(j)}=\mathrm{\Psi }|\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_1[j]|\mathrm{\Psi }=tr(\rho (\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_1[j])),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1=|11|`$ is a one-qubit projector and the designation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1[j]`$ means that the operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ is applied to the $`j`$-th qubit. Note that the operator $`_{j=1}^{n1}\mathrm{\Pi }_1[j]`$ is diagonal in the standard qubit basis and counts a number of $`1`$’s in a basis vector. Its only zero eigenvalue corresponds to the state $`|00\mathrm{}0`$. For that reason we will introduce an auxiliary operator

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_1[j]+|00\mathrm{}000\mathrm{}0|$$
(7)
Clearly, all eigenvalues of $`H`$ are greater or equal to unity, i.e. $`HI`$. As the whole $`n`$-qubit system is described by the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the positive eigenvalues of the density matrices $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{(n)}`$ coincide. In particular the highest eigenvalue of $`\rho `$ is equal to the highest eigenvalue of $`\rho ^{(n)}`$ which is $`1\lambda ^{(n)}`$. It means that $`\psi |\rho |\psi (1\lambda ^{(n)})\psi |\psi `$ for any $`|\psi (^2)^{n1}`$. Thus we conclude that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\lambda ^{(j)}=tr(\rho H)00\mathrm{}0|\rho |00\mathrm{}0tr(\rho )(1\lambda ^{(n)})=\lambda ^{(n)},$$
(8)
which is the desired inequality.

(b) We should prove that any mean field state satisfying the inequalities (1) does arise from some $`n`$-qubit pure state. Obviously one and the same mean field state can arise from many pure states, so we have some freedom in choosing them. We will consider only even pure states (EPS) which are the states of the following form:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n}{}c_x|x,x=(x_1\mathrm{}x_n),x_i\{0,1\}.$$
(9)
Here $`\mathrm{B}_{even}^n`$ is a set of all binary strings with the even number of $`1`$’s. The EPS’s span the linear subspace of dimension $`2^{n1}`$.

For any choice of the amplitudes $`c_x`$ in (9) the reduced density matrices $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ are diagonal in the $`\{|0,|1\}`$ basis and look as

$$\rho ^{(i)}=(\underset{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n:x_i=0}{}|c_x|^2)|00|+(\underset{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n:x_i=1}{}|c_x|^2)|11|,i[1,n].$$
(10)
Thus to guarantee that the matrices $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ have the standard form (4) we should only require that

$$0|\rho ^{(i)}|01|\rho ^{(i)}|1,i[1,n].$$
(11)
Besides, the set of all mean field states which arise from the EPS’s is a convex one. Indeed, if we take an arbitrary pair of mean field states $`(\rho _0^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho _0^{(n)})`$ and $`(\rho _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho _1^{(n)})`$ such that

$$\rho _0^{(i)}=tr_{ji}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|)\mathrm{and}\rho _1^{(i)}=tr_{ji}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|),i[1,n],$$

for some EPS’s

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\underset{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n}{}c_{x,0}|x\mathrm{and}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\underset{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n}{}c_{x,1}|x,$$

then for any $`t[0,1]`$ we can realize the linear combination $`(1t)(\rho _0^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho _0^{(n)})+t(\rho _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho _1^{(n)})`$ by the EPS

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_t=\underset{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n}{}\sqrt{(1t)|c_{x,0}|^2+t|c_{x,1}|^2}|x.$$

Consequently a set of all mean filed states which arise from EPS’s and satisfy the additional requirements (11) is also a convex one.

The mean field state written in the standard form (4) can be identified with a real vector $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }^n`$ defined as $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }=(\lambda ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\lambda ^{(n)})`$. The previous statement can be rephrased by saying that the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ arising from EPS’s constitute some convex subset in $`^n`$ which we will denote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}`$. By definition, $`0\lambda ^{(i)}\frac{1}{2}`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}`$ is a convex subset of the $`n`$-dimensional cube $`I`$ with the edge length $`1/2`$. Denote $`V`$ the set of all $`2^n`$ vertices of $`I`$, i.e. the vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}=(ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n)`$, $`ϵ\{0,1/2\}`$. There are exactly $`n`$ vertices $`\stackrel{}{v}V`$ which violate the inequalities (1). These are the vertices containing exactly one $`1/2`$ component. All other $`2^nn`$ vertices satisfy (1) and contain either zero or greater than one $`1/2`$ components. It will be convenient to introduce a special designation to distinguish the vertices of the last type:

$$V^{}=\{\stackrel{}{v}V:\stackrel{}{v}=(ϵ_1\mathrm{}ϵ_n),ϵ_i\underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}ϵ_j,ϵ_i\{0,\frac{1}{2}\},i[1,n]\}.$$
(12)
We claim that any vector from $`V^{}`$ can be realized by an EPS, i.e. $`V^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}`$. Indeed, the vectors

$$(0\mathrm{}0),(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0\mathrm{}0),(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0\mathrm{}0),\mathrm{}(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2})V^{}$$

can be realized by the EPS’s as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (0\mathrm{}0)& :& |\mathrm{\Psi }=|0\mathrm{}0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill (\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0\mathrm{}0)& :& |\mathrm{\Psi }=2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|00+|11)|0\mathrm{}0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill (\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0\mathrm{}0)& :& |\mathrm{\Psi }=2^1(|000+|011+|101+|110)|0\mathrm{}0,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ \hfill (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2})& :& |\mathrm{\Psi }=2^{\frac{n1}{2}}_{x\mathrm{B}_{even}^n}|x.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
All other vectors from $`V^{}`$ can be realized by EPS’s applying appropriate qubit permutations to the states listed above. We know that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}`$ is a convex set, so that any vector from the convex envelope $`Conv(V^{})`$ also can be realized by an EPS, i.e. $`Conv(V^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}`$. To conclude the proof we will need a simple geometrical lemma which claims that the set $`Conv(V^{})`$ coincides with those part of the cube $`I`$ which is specified by the inequalities (1):

$$Conv(V^{})=\{\stackrel{}{\lambda }I:\lambda ^{(i)}\underset{ji}{}\lambda ^{(j)},i[1,n]\}.$$
(14)
We encourage the reader to verify this statement for $`n=2,3`$ by drawing a picture. The proof of (14) for an arbitrary $`n`$ is given in the Appendix A. Thus for any $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }I`$ such that $`\lambda ^{(i)}_{ji}\lambda ^{(j)}`$, $`i[1,n]`$ we have proven that $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }Conv(V^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}`$, so that $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ can be realized by the EPS. It means that any mean field state satisfying (1) can be realized by some $`n`$-qubit pure state.

Note that (14) implies also a converse inclusion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}Conv(V^{})`$ because we already know that inequalities (1) are necessary for compatibility of the mean field state with a pure state. It means that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EPS}=Conv(V^{})`$.

## 3 Mean field states for two qubits

In this section we consider a bipartite system composed of two qubits and prove that the inequalities (2) are necessary for compatibility of a mean field state $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)`$ with at least one mixed state from $`D(^4,\lambda )`$. A proof that (2) is also a sufficient condition for compatibility is placed in Appendix B.

The combinations of $`\lambda _i`$’s standing in the righthand sides of the inequalities (2) can be easily found if we consider two classical bits and joint probability distributions of two bits with the specified set of probabilities $`\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4\}`$ which can be arbitrarily assigned to the events 00, 01, 10, and 11 (this is a classical analog of the set $`D(^4,\lambda )`$). Generally there are $`4!`$ such distributions. In this case the reduced density matrices $`\rho ^A`$, $`\rho ^B`$ become the partial one-bit probability distributions and $`\lambda ^A`$, $`\lambda ^B`$ become the minimal values of $`\rho ^A`$, $`\rho ^B`$. In these settings the inequalities (2) are the best estimates on the quantities $`\lambda ^A`$, $`\lambda ^B`$, $`\lambda ^A+\lambda ^B`$, and $`|\lambda ^A\lambda ^B|`$ as can be explicitly verified. The nontrivial result is that this estimates also hold in the quantum case and the set $`M(\lambda )`$ is completely specified by them.

As we will see below, the strict proof of the inequality $`|\lambda ^A\lambda ^B|\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\}`$ is rather formidable. However in one particular case it can be proved without any calculations. Suppose that the minimum here is zero, i.e. $`\lambda _1=\lambda _3`$ or $`\lambda _2=\lambda _4`$. Then the spectrum $`\lambda `$ involves an eigenvalue which is degenerated with multiplicity three or four. In this case we can represent any density matrix $`\rho D(^4,\lambda )`$ as a linear combination of the identity operator and a projector on some pure state. Obviously the term proportional to identity operator just shifts the spectrums of $`\rho ^A`$ and $`\rho ^B`$ by the same constant. So it doesn’t contribute to the combination $`\lambda ^A\lambda ^B`$. The term proportional to a projector on a pure state produces the reduced density matrices $`\rho ^A`$ and $`\rho ^B`$ with the same spectrum according to the Schmidt theorem. So we conclude that $`\lambda ^A=\lambda ^B`$.

Suppose that $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)M(\lambda )`$, i.e. $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$, $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$ for some $`\rho D(^4,\lambda )`$. We should prove that $`\lambda ^A`$, $`\lambda ^B`$, and $`\lambda `$ satisfy four inequalities (2). Let us represent the matrices $`\rho ^A`$, $`\rho ^B`$ as

$$\rho ^A=\lambda ^A\mathrm{\Pi }^A+(1\lambda ^A)(I\mathrm{\Pi }^A),\rho ^B=\lambda ^B\mathrm{\Pi }^B+(1\lambda ^B)(I\mathrm{\Pi }^B),$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^A`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^B`$ are the projectors on the eigenstates of $`\rho ^A`$, $`\rho ^B`$ with the lowest eigenvalue, so that $`\lambda ^A=tr(\rho \mathrm{\Pi }^A[A])`$, $`\lambda ^B=tr(\rho \mathrm{\Pi }^B[B])`$. As usual the qubit acted on by one-qubit operator is indicated in the square brackets.

Suppose now that $`O`$ is an arbitrary two-qubit hermitian operator with the eigenvalues $`O_1O_2O_3O_4`$. We claim that

$$\underset{\eta D(^4,\lambda )}{inf}tr(O\eta )=\lambda _1O_4+\lambda _2O_3+\lambda _3O_2+\lambda _4O_1.$$
(16)
To verify this statement one can consider the variation $`\delta \eta =i[h,\eta ]`$ where $`h^{}=h`$ is an arbitrary infinitesimal hermitian operator. This variation is obviously consistent with the constraint $`\eta D(^4,\lambda )`$. Suppose that the minimum in (16) is achieved at the matrix $`\eta ^{}D(^4,\lambda )`$. Then we have

$$\delta tr(O\eta ^{})=itr(O[h,\eta ^{}])=itr(h[\eta ^{},O])=0$$
(17)
for any $`h`$. It means that $`[\eta ^{},O]=0`$ so that $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`O`$ are diagonal in the same basis. Therefore there is a permutation $`\sigma S_4`$ such that

$$tr(O\eta ^{})=\lambda _1O_{\sigma (4)}+\lambda _2O_{\sigma (3)}+\lambda _3O_{\sigma (2)}+\lambda _4O_{\sigma (1)}.$$
(18)
It is easy to verify that the optimal permutation is always $`\sigma (i)=i`$ and thus the equality (16) is proven.

Let us substitute $`O=\mathrm{\Pi }^A[A]`$ into the equality (16). In this case we have $`\{O_1,O_2,O_3,O_4\}=\{1,1,0,0\}`$ and thus

$$\lambda ^A=tr(\rho \mathrm{\Pi }^A[A])\underset{\eta D(^4,\lambda )}{inf}tr(\eta \mathrm{\Pi }^A[A])=\lambda _4+\lambda _3.$$
(19)
By the same way substituting $`O=\mathrm{\Pi }^B[B]`$ and $`O=\mathrm{\Pi }^A[A]+\mathrm{\Pi }^B[B]`$ into (16) we get the inequalities $`\lambda ^B\lambda _4+\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda ^A+\lambda ^B2\lambda _4+\lambda _2+\lambda _3`$.

Unfortunately the last inequality of (2), that is

$$|\lambda ^A\lambda ^B|\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\},$$
(20)
can not be proved using the same idea (the analogous method allows to get the estimate $`|\lambda ^A\lambda ^B|\lambda _1\lambda _4`$ which is too weak). The proof of (20) presented below is a bit formidable.

Let us define polarization vectors for the qubits A and B:

$$a^\alpha [\eta ]=tr(\sigma ^\alpha [A]\eta ),b^\alpha [\eta ]=tr(\sigma ^\alpha [B]\eta ),$$
(21)
where $`\sigma ^x`$, $`\sigma ^y`$, $`\sigma ^z`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`\eta D(^4)`$ is an arbitrary density matrix. Denote also $`a=\sqrt{a^\alpha a^\alpha }`$ and $`b=\sqrt{b^\alpha b^\alpha }`$ the absolute magnitudes of the polarization vectors. We can express the eigenvalues $`\lambda ^A`$ and $`\lambda ^B`$ in terms of polarizations as $`\lambda ^A=\frac{1}{2}(1a[\rho ])`$ and $`\lambda ^B=\frac{1}{2}(1b[\rho ])`$. Introduce a functional

$$F[\eta ]=b[\eta ]a[\eta ],\eta D(^4),$$
(22)
such that $`|\lambda ^A\lambda ^B|=\frac{1}{2}|F[\rho ]|`$. The inequality (20) is equivalent to the following one:

$$\underset{\eta D(^4,\lambda )}{sup}F[\eta ]2\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\}$$
(23)
Note that an application of the qubit swap transformation changes the sign of $`F`$ and doesn’t changes the eigenvalues of $`\eta `$ so the supremum (23) can not be negative. Let $`\eta ^{}D(^4,\lambda )`$ be some density matrix at which this supremum is achieved (may be it is not unique). Consider the variation $`\delta \eta =i[h,\eta ^{}]`$ where $`h^{}=h`$ is an arbitrary infinitesimal hermitian operator. This variation is consistent with the constraint $`\eta D(^4,\lambda )`$. We must require that $`\delta F[\eta ^{}]=0`$.

Suppose first that both polarization vectors $`a^\alpha a^\alpha [\eta ^{}]`$ and $`b^\alpha b^\alpha [\eta ^{}]`$ are non-zero. Denote $`\widehat{a}^\alpha =a^\alpha /a`$ and $`\widehat{b}^\alpha =b^\alpha /b`$ the normalized polarization vectors. The equation $`\delta F[\eta ^{}]=0`$ then can be written as

$$tr(h[\eta ^{},\widehat{a}^\alpha \sigma ^\alpha [A]\widehat{b}^\alpha \sigma ^\alpha [B]])=0.$$
(24)
As $`h`$ may be an arbitrary hermitian operator we conclude that

$$\widehat{a}^\alpha [\sigma ^\alpha [A],\eta ^{}]=\widehat{b}^\alpha [\sigma ^\alpha [B],\eta ^{}].$$
(25)
Let us parameterize the density matrix $`\eta ^{}`$ as follows:

$$\eta ^{}=\frac{1}{4}(I+a^\alpha \sigma ^\alpha [A]+b^\alpha \sigma ^\alpha [B]+A_{\alpha ,\beta }\sigma ^\alpha [A]\sigma ^\beta [B]),$$
(26)
where $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is some 3x3 real matrix. Using the commutators $`[\sigma ^\alpha ,\sigma ^\beta ]=2iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\sigma ^\gamma `$ we can transform the equation (25) into

$$\widehat{a}^\gamma A_{\delta ,\alpha }ϵ^{\gamma \delta \beta }=\widehat{b}^\gamma A_{\beta ,\delta }ϵ^{\gamma \delta \alpha }.$$
(27)
As the functional $`F[\eta ]`$ is invariant under one-qubit unitary transformations, we can assume that both qubits are polarized along $`z`$-axis, i.e. $`\widehat{a}=\widehat{b}=(0,0,1)`$. Under this assumption one can easily check that the most common solution of the equation (27) looks as

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}s& t& 0\\ t& s& 0\\ 0& 0& r\end{array}\right]$$
(28)
for some real numbers $`s,t,r`$. Substituting it into (26) we can represent the matrix $`\eta ^{}`$ in the basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$ of $`^4`$ as follows

$$\eta ^{}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1+a+b+r& 0& 0& \overline{z}\\ 0& 1+abr& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1a+br& 0\\ z& 0& 0& 1ab+r\end{array}\right],$$
(29)
where $`z=2(s+it)`$. Note that $`\eta ^{}`$ is a block diagonal matrix so its eigenvalues $`\{\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{},\lambda _3^{},\lambda _4^{}\}`$ can be easily found:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \lambda _1^{}& =& \frac{1}{4}(1+abr),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \lambda _2^{}& =& \frac{1}{4}(1a+br),\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \lambda _3^{}& =& \frac{1}{4}(1+r+\sqrt{(a+b)^2+|z|^2}),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \lambda _4^{}& =& \frac{1}{4}(1+r\sqrt{(a+b)^2+|z|^2}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
Recall that $`\eta ^{}D(^4,\lambda )`$ so that the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i^{}`$ coincide up to some permutation with the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$. Although this permutation somehow depends upon $`a,b,r,z`$ (recall that the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ are ordered in decreasing way) we need not to consider all possible cases. Instead we can notice that

$$\underset{\sigma S^4}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{min}\{|\lambda _{\sigma (1)}\lambda _{\sigma (3)}|,|\lambda _{\sigma (2)}\lambda _{\sigma (4)}|\}=\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\},$$
(31)
where the maximum is taken over all permutations of four elements. Note also that the lefthand side is invariant under the substitution $`\lambda _i\lambda _i^{}`$. Thus we conclude that

$$\mathrm{min}\{|\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}|,|\lambda _3^{}\lambda _4^{}|\}\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\}.$$
(32)
Taking $`\lambda _i^{}`$ from the table (30) we arrive to the inequality

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}\{|ab|,\sqrt{(a+b)^2+|z|^2}\}\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\}.$$
(33)
The minimum in the lefthand side is equal to $`|ab|`$ regardless of the parameter $`z`$. Consequently

$$ba2\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1\lambda _3,\lambda _2\lambda _4\},$$
(34)
which proves the inequality (23).

Suppose now that at the supremum of $`F[\eta ]`$ one of the polarization vectors becomes zero. The only non-trivial situation is $`a^\alpha [\eta ^{}]=0`$. In this case the requirement $`\delta F[\eta ^{}]=0`$ under the variation $`\delta \eta =i[h,\eta ^{}]`$ implies that $`\delta a^\alpha [\eta ^{}]=0`$ for all three components $`\alpha `$. By analogy with (25) this requirement implies that

$$[\sigma ^\alpha [A],\eta ^{}]=0,\alpha =x,y,z.$$
(35)
It means that $`\eta ^{}`$ commutes with any operator acting only on the qubit A. This is possible only if $`\eta ^{}`$ has the form $`\eta ^{}=(I/2)\eta ^B`$ for some one-qubit density matrix $`\eta ^B`$. Thus the eigenvalues of $`\eta ^{}`$ are

$$\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\frac{1}{4}(1+b),\lambda _3=\lambda _4=\frac{1}{4}(1b).$$
(36)
Note that $`\eta ^{}D(^4,\lambda )`$ only if $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3=\lambda _4`$ so the considered situation is not a generic one. Nevertheless we have $`F[\eta ^{}]=b=2(\lambda _1\lambda _3)=2(\lambda _2\lambda _4)`$ so that the estimate (23) is valid in this case also.

## 4 Connection with multipartite probability distributions

In this section we consider a bipartite system with local Hilbert spaces $`^A`$ and $`^B`$ of arbitrary dimensions. We show that a set

$$Conv(M(\lambda ))=\{(\rho ^A,\rho ^B):\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho ),\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho ),\rho Conv(D(,\lambda ))\}$$
(37)
can be described in terms of multipartite probability distributions according to (3). The restriction that the system is bipartite is not essential and is needed only to simplify the designations. Using the arguments presented below, one can easily formulate and prove a multipartite analogue of (3). We start by collecting all relevant facts concerning the majorization relation.

Consider arbitrary strings of non-negative real numbers $`p=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_d)`$ and $`q=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_d)`$ such that $`_{i=1}^dp_i=_{i=1}^dq_i=1`$. Let us arrange the elements of $`p`$ and $`q`$ in decreasing order. Denote $`p_i^{}`$ the $`i`$-th element of $`p`$ from above and $`q_i^{}`$ the $`i`$-th element of $`q`$ from above, such that $`p_1^{}p_2^{}\mathrm{}p_d^{}`$ and $`q_1^{}q_2^{}\mathrm{}q_d^{}`$. The string $`p`$ is said to be majorized by the string $`q`$, if for each $`k`$ in the range $`1,\mathrm{},d1`$ we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_i^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_i^{}.$$
(38)
This relation is denoted as $`pq`$. We will need three well known facts given below:

(i) $`pq`$ if and only if $`p_i=_{\sigma S_d}t_\sigma q_{\sigma (i)}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, where $`S_d`$ is the symmetric group, $`\sigma S_d`$ is a permutation of $`d`$ elements, $`t_\sigma 0`$ and $`_{\sigma S_d}t_\sigma =1`$. The existence of such decomposition is guaranteed by Birkhoff and von Neumann decomposition of a doubly stochastic matrix into a convex combination of permutation matrices.

(ii) Let $`𝒮`$ be an arbitrary Hilbert space. Consider any pair of density matrices $`\rho ,\eta D(𝒮)`$. Then $`eig(\rho )eig(\eta )`$ if and only if $`\rho =_\alpha t_\alpha U_\alpha \eta U_\alpha ^{}`$, where $`U_\alpha `$ are some unitary operators on $`𝒮`$, $`t_\alpha 0`$ and $`_\alpha t_\alpha =1`$, see .

(iii) Let $`𝒮`$ be an arbitrary Hilbert space. For any $`\rho D(𝒮)`$ and for any orthonormal basis in $`𝒮`$, the string of diagonal elements of $`\rho `$ is majorized by the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$, i.e. $`diag(\rho )eig(\rho )`$.

Note that according to the property (ii), the requirement $`\rho Conv(D(,\lambda ))`$ is equivalent to $`\rho D()`$ and $`eig(\rho )\lambda `$, so we can rewrite (37) as

$$Conv(M(\lambda ))=\{(\rho ^A,\rho ^B):\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho ),\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho ),\rho D(),eig(\rho )\lambda \}.$$
(39)
Now we are ready to prove the result (3). The proof consists of two parts.
(a) Let $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)`$ be an arbitrary mean field state such that

$$\lambda _i^A=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d^B}{}}p^{AB}(i,j),\lambda _j^B=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^A}{}}p^{AB}(i,j),$$
(40)
for some bipartite probability distribution $`p^{AB}(i,j)`$ satisfying $`p^{AB}\lambda `$. Consider the eigenvectors decomposition of the density matrices $`\rho ^A`$ and $`\rho ^B`$:

$$\rho ^A=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^A}{}}\lambda _i^A|i_Ai_A|,\rho ^B=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d^B}{}}\lambda _j^B|j_Bj_B|,$$
(41)
where $`|i_A^A`$, $`|j_B^B`$. Define a bipartite density matrix $`\rho D()`$ according to

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^A}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d^B}{}}p^{AB}(i,j)|i_Ai_A||j_Bj_B|.$$
(42)
By definition, $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$, $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$, and $`eig(\rho )=p^{AB}\lambda `$, so that $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)Conv(M(\lambda ))`$, see (39).
(b) Now suppose that $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)Conv(M(\lambda ))`$, i.e. that $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$, $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$ for some $`\rho D()`$ such that $`eig(\rho )\lambda `$, see (39). Consider the eigenvectors decomposition (41) and define a bipartite probability distribution $`p^{AB}(i,j)`$ according to

$$p^{AB}(i,j)=i_A,j_B|\rho |i_A,j_B,i[1,d^A],j[1,d^B].$$
(43)
Clearly, this probability distribution satisfies the requirements (40). By definition, in the basis $`\{|i_A,j_B\}_{i,j}`$ we have $`p^{AB}=diag(\rho )`$, so the property (iii) tells us that $`p^{AB}eig(\rho )`$. Summarizing, we have: $`p^{AB}eig(\rho )\lambda `$. Transitivity of majorization relation implies that $`p^{AB}\lambda `$. This completes the proof of the equality (3).

For an arbitrary string of eigenvalues $`\lambda `$, let us denote $`P(\lambda )`$ the set of all bipartite probability distributions $`p^{AB}(i,j)`$ such that $`p^{AB}=\lambda `$ up to some permutation. The set $`P(\lambda )`$ is a classical analogue of the set $`D(,\lambda )`$. The property (i) tells us that $`p^{AB}\lambda `$ if and only if $`p^{AB}Conv(P(\lambda ))`$. Thus the reduction of the Problem 3 to the analogous classical problem corresponds to the substitutions $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)(\lambda _i^A,\lambda _j^B)`$, $`\rho p^{AB}(i,j)`$, $`D(,\lambda )P(\lambda )`$. The partial traces corresponds to taking the average over one variable.

The inclusion $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})Conv(M(\lambda ))`$ may be regarded as a necessary condition for inclusion $`(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})M(\lambda )`$. It provides us some knowledge about the sets $`M(\lambda )`$ and $`M_{pure}`$ for an arbitrary multipartite system. For example consider a system of three particles A,B, and C. Let $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B,\rho ^C)`$ be an arbitrary mean field state. The requirements

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (\rho ^A,\rho ^B)& & Conv(M(eig(\rho ^C))),\hfill \\ \hfill (\rho ^B,\rho ^C)& & Conv(M(eig(\rho ^A))),\hfill \\ \hfill (\rho ^C,\rho ^A)& & Conv(M(eig(\rho ^B)))\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
are necessary for inclusion $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B,\rho ^C)M_{pure}`$. If A,B, and C are the qubits, one can check that these requirements are also sufficient. Meanwhile if $`^A=^B=^2`$ and $`^C=^4`$, one can build an explicit example which shows that they are not sufficient. Indeed, take $`eig(\rho ^A)=\{0.6,0.4\}`$, $`eig(\rho ^B)=\{0.5,0.5\}`$, and $`eig(\rho ^C)=\{0.3,0.3,0.3,0.1\}`$. One can verify that $`eig(\rho ^A\rho ^B)eig(\rho ^C)`$, $`eig(\rho ^B\rho ^C)eig(\rho ^A)`$, and $`eig(\rho ^C\rho ^A)eig(\rho ^B)`$, so that (44) are satisfied. However $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B,\rho ^C)M_{pure}`$ because there is another necessary requirement which is violated by this mean field state, see Section 3.

## 5 Conclusions

We found the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a collection of density matrices (a mean field state) can be produced by the partial trace operations from a multipartite pure state for the system of $`n`$ qubits and for the system $`^2^2^4`$. These conditions may be described by linear inequalities on the eigenvalues of local density matrices. We also found the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a mean field state can be produced by the partial trace operations from a multipartite mixed state whose eigenvalues are majorized by a given real vector.

## 6 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank David DiVincenzo and Alexei Kitaev for advices on majorization technique. I am also very grateful to Alexei Kitaev for thoroughly reading the manuscript and for many suggestions which helped to improve the paper. This work was supported by NWO-Russia collaboration program.

## 7 Appendix A

The purpose of this section is to prove the equality (14). Denote $`\widehat{I}`$ the subset of the cube $`I`$ which is specified by the inequalities (1), i.e.

$$\widehat{I}=\{\stackrel{}{\lambda }^n:\lambda ^{(i)}\underset{ji}{}\lambda ^{(j)},0\lambda ^{(i)}\frac{1}{2},i[1,n]\}.$$
(45)
Clearly $`I`$ is a convex set. The extremal point of $`\widehat{I}`$ is a vector $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }\widehat{I}`$ for which some $`mn`$ of the inequalities (45) specifying $`\widehat{I}`$ become the equalities and the corresponding system of $`m`$ equations has a unique solution (thus having a rank $`n`$). Let us prove that if $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }\widehat{I}`$ is an extremal point of $`\widehat{I}`$, then $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }V^{}`$. Because any convex set is a convex envelope of its extremal points, it will imply that $`\widehat{I}Conv(V^{})`$.

To each extremal point $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }\widehat{I}`$ we can assign a pair of integers $`(p,q)`$ where $`p[0,n]`$ is the number of equalities $`\lambda ^{(i)}=_{ji}\lambda ^{(j)}`$ which are satisfied at $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ and $`q[0,n]`$ is the number of equalities $`\lambda ^{(i)}=0`$, $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}`$ which are satisfied at $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$. By definition $`p+qn`$ but we can assume that $`p+q=n`$ because at each extremal point there are only $`n`$ independent equations. Now we are ready to list all extremal points of $`\widehat{I}`$ and check that they all belong to $`V^{}`$.

(a) The extremal points of the type $`(p,np)`$, $`p3`$
We have the equalities $`\lambda ^{(i)}=_{ji}\lambda ^{(j)}`$, $`\lambda ^{(k)}=_{jk}\lambda ^{(j)}`$, $`\lambda ^{(l)}=_{jl}\lambda ^{(j)}`$ for some $`ikl`$. They are compatible with the inequalities $`\lambda _j0`$, $`j[1,n]`$ only if $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }=(0\mathrm{}0)`$.

(b) The extremal points of the type $`(2,n2)`$.
The equalities $`\lambda ^{(i)}=_{ji}\lambda ^{(j)}`$, $`\lambda ^{(k)}=_{jk}\lambda ^{(j)}`$ and the inequalities $`\lambda _j0`$, $`j[1,n]`$ are compatible only if $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\lambda ^{(k)}`$ and $`\lambda ^{(j)}=0`$ for $`ji`$ or $`jk`$. Thus we have either $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\lambda ^{(k)}=0`$ or $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\lambda ^{(k)}=\frac{1}{2}`$. The extremal points of both types belongs to $`V^{}`$.

(c) The extremal points of the type $`(1,n1)`$.
Suppose that $`\lambda ^{(i)}=_{ji}\lambda ^{(j)}`$ for some $`i[1,n]`$. If we choose the equality $`\lambda ^{(i)}=0`$ then $`\lambda ^{(j)}=0`$ for all $`ji`$. If we choose the equality $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}`$ then we must choose $`\lambda ^{(k)}=\frac{1}{2}`$ for some $`ki`$ and $`\lambda ^{(j)}=0`$ for $`ji`$ and $`jk`$. If we do not choose neither $`\lambda ^{(i)}=0`$ nor $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}`$ then for each $`ji`$ we must choose either $`\lambda ^{(j)}=0`$ or $`\lambda ^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2}`$. This choice is compatible with the equality $`\lambda ^{(i)}=_{ji}\lambda ^{(j)}`$ only if $`\lambda ^{(i)}=0`$ or $`\lambda ^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}`$. In all these cases we arrive to the extremal points which have been already listed in (a) or (b).

(d) The extremal points of the type $`(0,n)`$.
The extremal point of this type is a vertex of the cube $`I`$ which satisfies the inequalities (1). According to definition (12) any point of this type belongs to $`V^{}`$.

So all extremal points of $`\widehat{I}`$ belong to $`V^{}`$ and thus $`\widehat{I}Conv(V^{})`$. The inclusion $`Conv(V^{})\widehat{I}`$ is obvious because $`V^{}\widehat{I}`$ and $`\widehat{I}`$ is a convex set. Thus the equality $`\widehat{I}=Conv(V^{})`$ is proven.

## 8 Appendix B

In this section we show that if a mean field state of two qubits $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)`$ satisfies the inequalities (2) for some eigenvalue string $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4)`$, then it can be represented as $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$, $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$ for some two qubit density matrix $`\rho D(^4,\lambda )`$, i.e. that $`(\rho ^A,\rho ^B)M(\lambda )`$. It is convenient to draw a region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by the inequalities (2) on the plane $`(\lambda ^A,\lambda ^B)`$ for a fixed string $`\lambda `$, see FIG. 1.

We will describe the desired matrix $`\rho D(^4,\lambda )`$ explicitly for each point inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is sufficient to consider only the case $`\lambda ^A\lambda ^B`$ because the constraint $`\rho D(^4,\lambda )`$ is invariant under the permutation of the qubits. Also we will assume that $`\lambda _1\lambda _3\lambda _2\lambda _4`$. The opposite case may be investigated similarly. We will describe three independent families of the density matrices $`\rho D(^4,\lambda )`$ corresponding to three triangles OCD, OAB, and OBC on FIG. 1. Let us define two qubit states

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }_1& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1\alpha }|0,0+\sqrt{1+\alpha }|1,1\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }_2& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1+\alpha }|0,0\sqrt{1\alpha }|1,1\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }_3& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1\beta }|0,1+\sqrt{1+\beta }|1,0\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }_4& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1+\beta }|0,1\sqrt{1\beta }|1,0\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
For any parameters $`\alpha ,\beta [1,1]`$ this is an orthonormal basis in $`^4`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_j=\delta _{i,j}`$. Consider the density matrix

$$\rho =\lambda _1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|+\lambda _2|\mathrm{\Psi }_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4|+\lambda _3|\mathrm{\Psi }_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3|+\lambda _4|\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2|D(^4,\lambda ).$$
(47)
The reduced density matrices $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$ and $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$ have the lowest eigenvalues

$$\lambda ^A=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\left|\alpha (\lambda _1\lambda _4)\beta (\lambda _2\lambda _3)\right|\right\},\lambda ^B=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\left|\alpha (\lambda _1\lambda _4)+\beta (\lambda _2\lambda _3)\right|\right\}.$$
(48)
One can easily verify that the region of parameters $`0\alpha 1`$, $`0\beta \alpha `$ is mapped to the triangle OCD on FIG. 1. Next consider the density matrix

$$\rho =\lambda _1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|+\lambda _2|\mathrm{\Psi }_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4|+\lambda _3|\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2|+\lambda _4|\mathrm{\Psi }_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3|D(^4,\lambda ).$$
(49)
The reduced density matrices $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$ and $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$ have the lowest eigenvalues

$$\lambda ^A=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\left|\alpha (\lambda _1\lambda _3)\beta (\lambda _2\lambda _4)\right|\right\},\lambda ^B=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\left|\alpha (\lambda _1\lambda _3)+\beta (\lambda _2\lambda _4)\right|\right\}.$$
(50)
One can easily verify that the region of parameters $`0\beta 1`$, $`\frac{\lambda _2\lambda _4}{\lambda _1\lambda _3}\beta \alpha \beta `$ is mapped to the triangle OAB on FIG. 1. Now let us define two qubit states

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1\alpha }|0,0+\sqrt{1+\alpha }|1,1\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1+\alpha }|\varphi _0,0\sqrt{1\alpha }|M_1,1\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1\alpha }|\varphi _0,1+\sqrt{1+\alpha }|\varphi _1,0\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4& =& 2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1+\alpha }|0,1\sqrt{1\alpha }|1,0\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
where $`|\varphi _0=\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\phi }{2})|0+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\phi }{2})|1`$ and $`|\varphi _1=\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\phi }{2})|0+\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\phi }{2})|1`$. For any parameters $`\alpha [1,1]`$ and $`\phi [0,\pi ]`$ this is an orthonormal basis in $`^4`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j=\delta _{i,j}`$. Consider the density matrix

$$\rho =\lambda _1|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1|+\lambda _2|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4|+\lambda _3|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3|+\lambda _4|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2|D(^4,\lambda ).$$
(52)
The reduced density matrices $`\rho ^A=tr_B(\rho )`$ and $`\rho ^B=tr_A(\rho )`$ have the lowest eigenvalues

$$\lambda ^A=\frac{1}{2}\left(1|\alpha |\sqrt{\lambda _{12}^2+\lambda _{34}^2+2\lambda _{12}\lambda _{34}\mathrm{cos}\phi }\right),\lambda ^B=\frac{1}{2}\left[1|\alpha |(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4)\right],$$
(53)
where $`\lambda _{12}=\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _{34}=\lambda _3\lambda _4`$. One can easily verify that the region of parameters $`0\alpha 1`$, $`0\phi \pi `$ is mapped to the triangle OBC on FIG. 1. Our goal is achieved.


text:
# A NEW CLUE TO THE TRANSITION MECHANISM BETWEEN OPTICAL HIGH AND LOW STATES OF THE SUPERSOFT X-RAY SOURCE RX J0513.9-6951, IMPLIED FROM THE RECURRENT NOVA CI AQUILAE 2000 OUTBURST MODEL

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) supersoft X-ray source RX J0513.9$``$6951 (hereafter RX J0513) shows a prominent recurrency of optical high and low states with quasi-regular intervals ($`120`$ days high and $`40`$ days low states). Copious supersoft X-rays were detected only in the optical low states (e.g., Schaeidt et al., 1993). The transition mechanism between high and low states have not been fully elucidated yet, although a few ideas were proposed (see, e.g., Reinsch et al., 2000, for recent progress). We have found a new clue to this transition mechanism from modeling of the recurrent nova CI Aquilae.

CI Aql erupted in 2000 April has been densely observed in various optical bands (e.g., Hachisu, Kato, & Schaefer, 2002; Kiss et al., 2001; Lederle & Kimeswenger, 2002; Matsumoto et al., 2001; Schmeja, Armsdorfer, & Kimeswenger, 2000) and in X-ray bands (Greiner & DiStefano, 2002). It reached the optical maximum ($`V9`$ mag) on 2000 May 5. The visual brightness quickly decreased to $`V13.5`$ in about 50 days. Then, it stays at $`V14`$ for about 150 days, i.e., a plateau phase.

Matsumoto et al. (2001) reported a sharp $`2`$ mag drop of $`R_c`$-magnitude on 2000 November 23, about 200 days after the optical maximum, and Kiyota (2001, VSNET archives, http://vsnet.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/) also observed a $`2`$ mag drop of $`I_c`$-magnitude around the same day as Matsumoto et al.’s (2001) observation (see, e.g., Hachisu et al., 2002). Shortly after this drop, both the $`R_c`$\- and $`I_c`$-magnitudes recovered by $`1`$ mag but stayed at $`1`$ mag below the level before the drop. Hachisu & Kato (2001a) and Hachisu et al. (2002) attributed this drop to cessation of massive winds by calculating time-evolution of optically thick winds on a $`1.2M_{\mathrm{}}`$ white dwarf (WD).

The above feature of CI Aql light curve reminds us the optical high-to-low transition of RX J0513. In this paper, we try to reproduce the sharp drop in the optical light curves, both for CI Aql and RX J0513, by the same mechanism. In §2, our numerical method and models for the CI Aql 2000 outburst are briefly introduced and summarized. The numerical results for the CI Aql 2000 outburst are given in §3. We try to reproduce the transition between high and low states of RX J0513 in §4. Discussion follows in §5.

## 2 BASIC MODEL OF CI AQUILAE 2000 OUTBURST

The mid plateau phase is a common feature among the U Sco subclass of the recurrent nova class, to which both U Sco and CI Aql belong. The plateau phase is well explained by the contribution of an irradiated disk (e.g., Hachisu et al., 2000). The presence of the disk in outburst was observationally confirmed by Thoroughgood et al. (2001).

Our binary model is illustrated in Figure 1, which consists of a main-sequence star (MS) filling its Roche lobe, a WD photosphere, and a disk around the WD. A circular orbit is assumed. We also assume that the surfaces of the WD, the companion, and the disk emit photons as a blackbody at a local temperature which varies with position. We assume an axi-symmetric accretion disk with the size and thickness of

$$R_{\mathrm{disk}}=\alpha R_1^{},$$
(1)
and

$$h=\beta R_{\mathrm{disk}}\left(\frac{\varpi }{R_{\mathrm{disk}}}\right)^\nu ,$$
(2)
where $`R_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ is the outer edge of the optically thick part of the accretion disk, $`R_1^{}`$ is the effective radius of the inner critical Roche lobe for the WD component, $`h`$ is the height of the surface from the equatorial plane, and $`\varpi `$ is the distance from the symmetry axis. Here, we adopt $`\nu =1`$ during the strong wind phase, but $`\nu =2`$ when rapid mass accretion resumes after the optically thick wind stops, to mimic the flaring-up disk by spray (e.g., Schandl, Meyer-Hofmeister, & Meyer, 1997). The other two parameters of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are determined by light curve fittings.

We have used the same parameters as those in Hachisu et al. (2002) unless otherwise specified. The mass of the white dwarf was determined to be $`1.2\pm 0.05M_{\mathrm{}}`$ by Hachisu & Kato (2001a). The mass and temperature of the companion star were estimated to be $`1.5M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 7,300 K (see, e.g., Hachisu & Kato, 2001b, for the present evolutional status) from the light curve fitting of the orbital modulations in the 2000 outburst (Hachisu et al., 2002; Lederle & Kimeswenger, 2002). The inclination angle is a free parameter, which is redetermined from our light curve fitting.

Time evolution of the photospheric radius and temperature of the WD are calculated from Kato & Hachisu’s (1994) optically thick wind solutions (see Hachisu & Kato, 2001b, for more details of the numerical methods). When the photospheric radius shrinks smaller than the binary size, the irradiation effects both of the disk and of the companion become important (see, e.g., Fig. 2 of Hachisu et al., 2000, for such an example).

## 3 WHAT WE LEARNED FROM CI AQUILAE

Orbital modulations during the plateau phase have been reported by Matsumoto et al. (2001). Their $`R_c`$ light curve data show a scatter of $`0.10.2`$ mag so that we average them into 36 phase bins as shown in Figure 2. No secondary eclipses were observed in contrast to the later phase orbital light curves (Lederle & Kimeswenger, 2002). To fit these orbital modulations as well as the entire evolution of $`R_c`$-magnitude, we have calculated light curves with various parameters ($`\alpha `$ is changed by 0.1 steps, $`\beta `$ by 0.05 steps, and the inclination angle $`i`$ by 1$`\mathrm{°}`$ steps). The best fit model is shown in Figure 2, i.e., $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(2.0,0.05)`$ and $`i=69\mathrm{°}`$.

Here we plot two identical orbital modulations, but one is shifted by 0.36 mag down. The brighter one corresponds to the earlier stage on 2000 July 17 while the fainter one does to that on 2000 October 1. To reproduce the light curves with no secondary eclipses, we need both (1) large (area) irradiation effect to reproduce the brightness, and (2) bright sources other than the companion to eliminate the secondary eclipse. Then, we assumed that (a) the outer edge of an optically thick disk extends up to almost the orbital separation as illustrated in Figure 1a, and that (b) the WD photosphere is as large as $`R_{\mathrm{WD},\mathrm{ph}}0.35R_{\mathrm{}}`$ on July 17 and $`R_{\mathrm{WD},\mathrm{ph}}0.15R_{\mathrm{}}`$ on October 1 if the other conditions are the same between these two epochs. Any light sources other than the disk or the companion are unlikely to contribute to the $`R_c`$-magnitude because the strong wind blows up off nebulosities around. This large extension of the disk naturally explains evident lack of secondary minima. The width of sharp eclipse minima, $`0.050.1`$ orbital phase, is caused by the partial occultation of the WD photosphere. These large photospheric radii ($`R_{\mathrm{WD},\mathrm{ph}}0.350.15R_{\mathrm{}}`$ from July 17 to October 1) are very consistent with our theoretical model because WDs blow a wind when $`R_{\mathrm{WD},\mathrm{ph}}>0.085R_{\mathrm{}}`$ (e.g., Kato & Hachisu, 1994; Hachisu & Kato, 2001b; Hachisu et al., 2002).

The effect of a larger inclination angle is canceled out by the effect of a larger radius of the disk. For example, a combination of the inclination angle $`i=74\mathrm{°}`$ and the disk of $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(3.0,0.05)`$ can also reproduce the light curve modulations (dashed line) as shown in Figure 2. Its eclipse dip seems to be too deep to be compatible with the observation. However, the total amplitude of the modulations is $`0.8`$ mag (see Fig. 4 of Matsumoto et al., 2001, for the original observation) and still consistent. Here we adopted a set of $`i=74\mathrm{°}`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(3.0,0.05)`$. In both $`i=69\mathrm{°}`$ and $`i=74\mathrm{°}`$ cases, the secondary occults only a part of the disk. This is, however, enough to make a orbital modulation observed because the central part of the disk is much brighter than the outer part.

The velocities of winds calculated are as fast as $`10001500`$ km s-1 (e.g., Kato & Hachisu, 1994) and the wind mass loss rate is as large as $`10^610^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 (e.g., Hachisu & Kato, 2001b). Observationally much faster wind velocities are reported, for example, $`20002500`$ km s-1 in CI Aql (see, e.g., Kiss et al., 2001). Such a strong wind affects the surface of the accretion disk. Because of a large velocity difference between the wind and the disk surface, it certainly drives the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the interface. Only the very surface layer of the disk is dragged away outward with the velocity at least several hundred km s-1 like a free stream moving outward. This surface free stream is optically thick near the original disk but becomes optically thin somewhere outside because of geometrical dilution effect. We regard the transition place from optically thick to thin as the edge of the extended disk.

It should be noted that a high density part of the disk is hardly changed by this relatively tenuous surface free stream and still resides within its Roche lobe because the internal density of the disk is much denser than that of the WD wind. The wind mass loss rate is about $`1\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 and its velocity is $`1000`$ km s-1, so that the density of the wind is estimated from the continuity ($`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}=4\pi r^2\rho v`$) to be about $`10^{11}`$g cm3 at the distance of $`1R_{\mathrm{}}`$ from the center of the WD. On the other hand, the density of the standard accretion disk is about $`1\times 10^3`$g cm3 at the same radius. Here, we assume the standard accretion disk model (Shakura & Sunyaev, 1973) with a mass accretion rate of $`1\times 10^7M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1.

After the wind stops, the photospheric radius of the WD quickly shrinks in the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale of the envelope, i.e.,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{KH}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{env},\mathrm{thermal}}}{L}\frac{2.3\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}}{2\times 10^{38}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1}13\mathrm{days},$$
(3)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{KH}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{env},\mathrm{thermal}}`$ are the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale and the thermal energy of the WD envelope, respectively, and $`L`$ is the luminosity of the WD. Here, we adopt a typical thermal energy of the WD envelope from our solutions. It takes 20 days from $`R_{\mathrm{WD},\mathrm{ph}}=0.085R_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`0.04R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and takes another 20 days from $`0.04R_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`0.02R_{\mathrm{}}`$ from our wind solutions and evolution models. The disk edge of optically thick part shrinks to a normal size of $`0.70.8`$ times the Roche lobe radius as observed in the supersoft X-ray sources (e.g., Hachisu et al., 2002; Lederle & Kimeswenger, 2002). This may occur in several dynamical timescales, i.e., a few to several days. Here, we adopt 10 days, i.e., the transition from configuration (a) to (b) in Figure 1. We adopt $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(0.8,0.05)`$ for configuration (b). Then, the mass transfer rate from the MS to the WD increases to make a spray around the accretion disk as seen in luminous supersoft X-ray sources. This can be mimicked by a flaring edge of the accretion disk, i.e., configuration (c) in Figure 1 (see, e.g., Hachisu et al., 2002; Lederle & Kimeswenger, 2002, for light curves and flaring-up disk models after the wind stops). We adopt $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(0.8,0.3)`$. It also takes several dynamical timescales. Here we take $`1020`$ days for the formation time of the spray. Thus, we are able to reproduce a sharp $`2`$ mag drop around 2000 November 23 and the ensuing $`1`$ mag recovery soon after the drop, as shown in Figure 3. A similar transition was observed in the U Sco 1999 outburst on HJD 2,451,244 just before the detection of supersoft X-rays (see Fig. 2 of Hachisu et al., 2000; Kahabka et al., 1999).

## 4 LMC supersoft X-ray source RX J0513.9$``$6951

The LMC supersoft X-ray source RX J0513.9$``$6951 shows regular transitions between $`60120`$ days optical high (X-ray off) and $`3040`$ days optical low (X-ray on) state. The X-ray off/optical high state was understood by a large expansion of the WD photosphere, which is triggered by an increase in the mass transfer rate onto the WD (e.g., Meyer-Hofmeister et al., 1997; Pakull et al., 1993; Reinsch et al., 1996, 2000; Southwell et al., 1996). When the WD envelope expands, an optically thick wind begins to blow. As we already know in CI Aql, the sharp drop of $`V`$-mag is naturally explained by cessation of the wind. Our scenario is as follows:

1. We assume the metallicity of $`Z=0.004`$ and hydrogen content of $`X=0.7`$ for the envelope of the WD in RX J0513 since the LMC metallicity is reported to be about a third of the solar metallicity.
2. We have directly calculated the duration of the wind phase and the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale on massive WDs of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.35, 1.36, 1.37, and $`1.377M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (see also Hachisu & Kato, 2001b, for wind solutions). The $`1.3M_{\mathrm{}}`$ WD model gives us a reasonable wind timescale of $`\tau _{\mathrm{wind}}120`$ days and a Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale of $`\tau _{\mathrm{KH}}13`$ days.
3. We use the ephemeris revised by Cowley et al. (2002). The inclination angle is not known but suggested to be low. Here we adopt $`i=10\mathrm{°}`$. The light curve is not so different among $`i=0\mathrm{°}20\mathrm{°}`$. The calculated light curve is plotted in Figure 4, which is made by connecting brightness at the orbital phase 0.4 (phase 0.0 is the minimum of the light curve modulation). The mass ratio of $`q=M_{\mathrm{MS}}/M_{\mathrm{WD}}=2`$ is assumed because a high mass transfer rate of $`10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 is suggested (e.g. Southwell et al., 1996). The non-irradiated surface temperature of the lobe-filling MS companion is assumed to be 13,000 K (e.g., Fagotto et al., 1994).
4. We assume the original mass transfer rate of $`2\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 as a reasonable value of thermally unstable mass transfer for $`q=2`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{MS}}=2.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$. This value is realized whenever the wind does not suppress the mass transfer. So, we start a rapid mass accretion to the WD at the rate of $`2\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 (denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$-mark in Fig. 4). The WD envelope gradually expands and eventually blows a wind (see the mid and bottom panels of Fig. 4). This causes a quick rise of $`V`$-mag. Here we assume the disk expansion of $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(3.0,0.05)`$ in the wind phase. It takes a few to several dynamical timescales. We adopt 3 days. The massive winds having the rate of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}1\times 10^81\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 certainly absorb supersoft X-rays (e.g., Southwell et al., 1996).
5. This rapid mass accretion is suppressed by the strong wind, because the wind hits and then strips-off the very surface layer of the MS companion (see Hachisu et al., 1999a, for a description of the stripping effect by winds). We stop the rapid mass accretion when the wind mass loss rate increases and the mass-stripping rate overcomes the mass transfer rate of $`2\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1. This happens when the WD photosphere expands to the value shown in Figure 4 ($``$-mark). However, we still keep a low rate ($`1\times 10^7M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1) during the period of draining of the disk (a few times viscous timescale of the disk $`4060`$ days, e.g., Reinsch et al., 2000) even after the rapid mass accretion stops.
6. When the optically thick winds stops ($``$-mark), we expect copious supersoft X-rays as observed in the U Sco 1999 outburst (Kahabka et al., 1999). Then the photosphere of the WD shrinks from $`0.087R_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`T_{\mathrm{ph}}=280,000`$ K) to $`0.038R_{\mathrm{}}`$ (430,000 K) in $`20`$ days. The photospheric temperature is consistent with the blackbody fitted temperatures ($`3040`$ eV) of the supersoft X-rays (e.g., Schaeidt et al., 1993) as shown in Figure 4. The disk shrinks to a normal size of $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(0.8,0.05)`$ in a week and then the edge of the disk begins to flare up, i.e., $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(0.8,0.1)`$ in another week, as described in §3.
7. Rapid mass accretion to the WD resumes ($`\mathrm{}`$-mark) $`20`$ days after the wind stops. We expect that the mass transfer rate gradually increases just after the wind stops but it takes $`1020`$ days to reach the WD surface. This timescale may be regarded as a viscous timescale of the accretion disk (Reinsch et al., 2000). Then, the photospheric radius of the white dwarf expands in $`20`$ days and eventually blows winds. Then, go to 4 and repeat the cycle.

Here we assume the apparent distance modulus of $`(mM)_V=18.25`$(intrinsic)$`+0.4`$(absorption)$`=18.65`$ to RX J0513. The calculated color of $`(BV)_c=0.26`$ is roughly consistent with the observational color of $`(BV)_o0.14\pm 0.04`$ (Pakull et al., 1993), $`(BV)_o0.112\pm 0.012`$ (Cowley et al., 1993), or $`(BV)_o0.04`$ (Cowley et al., 2002) for the color excess of $`E(BV)0.13`$ (Gänsicke et al., 1998).

## 5 DISCUSSION

Thus, we are able to reproduce the transition between the optical high and low states of RX J0513 as shown in Figure 4. Our new model is essentially different from the previous expansion/contraction models of the white dwarf photosphere in the following sense: The emergence/decay timescale of the observed supersoft X-rays is as short as one or two days (Reinsch et al., 2000). This short timescale cannot be explained by the expansion/contraction of the envelope. We have calculated the timescales of photospheric contraction based on our WD envelope model (Kato & Hachisu, 1994) and show them in Figure 5 against the WD mass. The contraction timescale depends on the envelope mass of the WD and it is shortest just after the optically thick wind stops as shown in Figure 4. In this phase, the timescale of contraction by a factor of four is about three times the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale. It is clear that the timescale of contraction by a factor of four cannot be shorter than six days even if the WD mass is very close to the Chandrasekhar mass. We may conclude that only the expansion/contraction model of the white dwarf photosphere cannot reproduce a very short timescale of X-ray on/off. We need another mechanism.

On the contrary, optically thick winds completely obscure supersoft X-rays within one day after it starts. The wind mass loss rate increases from zero to $`2\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 in a day when it starts, or it decreases from $`1\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 to zero in a day when it ceases, as easily seen from Figure 4. This wind mass loss rate of $`1\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 is large enough to absorb supersoft X-rays (see, e.g., discussion of Southwell et al., 1996).

In the scenario proposed by Hachisu et al. (1999a, b), all the progenitor systems of Type Ia supernovae once experience the optically thick wind phase during their way to Type Ia supernova. RX J0513 may be an example for such a wind phase. We have calculated the efficiency of mass accretion to be about 35% for the case of Figure 4. The other 65% is blown in the wind or stripped off from the companion surface and eventually lost from the binary system. Assuming this efficiency being kept, we can expect that the white dwarf in RX J0513.9$``$6951 will explode as a Type Ia supernova after about $`0.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is transferred even when the WD mass is $`1.2M_{\mathrm{}}`$.

We thank K. Matsumoto for providing us machine readable data sets of the CI Aql 2000 outburst. We are also greatly indebted to F. Meyer and Emi Meyer-Hofmeister for stimulating us to work on RX J0513.9$``$6951 during our stay at the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics. This research has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (11640226) of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.