format: text

text:
# Quantum circuits for single-qubit measurements corresponding to platonic solids

## 1 Introduction

A key postulate of textbook quantum mechanics is the assumption that measurements correspond to self-adjoint operators $`A`$ in such a way that the probability of each possible measurement outcome or set of possible outcomes can be computed from the spectral projections of $`A`$. If the corresponding system Hilbert space is finite dimensional $`A`$ can be written as $`A=_j\lambda _jP_j`$ where $`P_j`$ is the projection on the eigenspace with eigenvalue $`\lambda _j`$. The probability of the outcome $`\lambda _j`$ is $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho P_j)`$ if the system is in a state with density matrix $`\rho `$. This type of measurement is called von-Neumann measurement, orthogonal measurement or projector-valued measurement.

Within the standard model of a quantum computer one can easily show that it is in principle possible to implement measurements for all self-adjoint operators $`A`$ acting on the Hilbert space $`(^2)^l`$, i.e., the state space of a quantum register with $`l`$ qubits. Since a universal quantum computer allows the implementation of each unitary transformation one could perform a unitary operation $`U`$ that diagonalizes $`A`$ with respect to the computational basis and measure with respect to this basis.

However, the description of measurements by self-adjoint operators is not general enough. Most general measurements are described by positive operator valued measures (POVMs). A POVM is defined as follows . Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the set of possible outcomes and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a sigma-algebra of measurable subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`𝒫`$ be the set of positive operators acting on the Hilbert space $``$. Then a POVM $`A`$ is a map $`A:\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒫,mA_m,`$ with the following properties:

1. For all countable families $`(m_j)`$ of mutually disjoint sets $`m_j`$ one has

$$A_{_jm_j}=\underset{j}{}A_{m_j},$$

where the infinite sum converges in the weak operator topology.
2. $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

The probability for obtaining an outcome in the set $`m`$ is given by $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho A_m)`$. When the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of possible outcomes is finite or countably infinite a POVM is uniquely given by a family $`(A_j)`$ of positive operators such that $`p_j=\mathrm{tr}(\rho A_j)`$ is the probability for obtaining the outcome $`j`$. We only consider POVMs with a finite set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of outcomes. Furthermore, the considered POVMs have the following properties:

1. The family $`(A_j)`$ describes a single-qubit measurement, i.e., the system Hilbert space is $`^2`$.
2. Each $`A_j`$ is a rank-one operator, i.e., $`A_j=|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|`$. The vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ have the same length. They are not necessarily normalized.
3. The operators $`A_j`$ correspond to symmetric points on the Bloch sphere. The symmetry groups are finite subgroups of $`SO(3)`$. The possible symmetry groups are the cyclic and dihedral groups and the symmetry groups of the platonic solids.

These properties show that we restrict our attention to a rather specific class of symmetric POVMs. The symmetry is fundamental in our constructions of the circuits implementing the POVMs. Specifically, we choose a cyclic subgroup of the symmetry group corresponding to a POVM. Under the action of the cyclic group the set of points on the Bloch sphere decomposes into several orbits. As shown in Section 4 POVMs given by a single orbit can easily be implemented by a discrete Fourier transform. Since we have several orbits we have to use additional gates besides the Fourier transform to implement the POVM. This explains why the discrete Fourier transform plays a central role in all constructed circuits.

The intention of this paper is to show how the symmetry of a POVM can be used to construct a simple circuit for implementing the POVM. To our knowledge, there are no considerations of the implementation of POVMs besides . The investigation of the implementation and its complexity is motivated by the fact that there are examples where generalized measurements can extract more information about an unknown quantum state than projector-valued measurements. Symmetric POVMs may, for instance, be interesting when we want to distinguish between symmetric states . Furthermore, POVMs may perform better than orthogonal measurements with respect to appropriate information criteria (e.g. mutual information  or the least square error ). Here we do neither consider these ”quality” criteria nor the post-measurement state. The post-measurement state may be relevant in order to understand information-disturbance trade-off relations .

In the next section we describe the basic principles for implementing arbitrary POVMs. In Section 3 we specify the correspondence of POVM operators to points on the Bloch sphere. Furthermore, we specify the symmetry of POVMs. In Sections 4 and 5 we consider the implementation of POVMs with a cyclic or dihedral symmetry group, respectively. These considerations are the basis of the implementations of POVMs corresponding to platonic solids. The implementation of these POVMs is discussed in Sections 610.

## 2 Orthogonal measurement of POVMs

In this section we briefly rephrase Neumark’s theorem describing the reduction of POVMs to orthogonal measurements . This theorem allows to implement POVMs by performing unitary transformations on the joint system consisting of the system to be measured and an ancilla register. The unitary transformations are followed by an orthogonal measurement in the computational basis.

Let $`(A_j)`$ with $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be a POVM with corresponding Hilbert space $`^d`$ where each $`A_j=|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|^{d\times d}`$ is a positive operator of rank one. Due to the properties of POVMs we have $`_jA_j=I_d`$ where $`I_d`$ denotes the identity matrix of size $`d`$. The choice of corresponding vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ is not unique since we can multiply each $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ with a phase factor that is physically irrelevant. It is therefore reasonable to choose the phase factors in such a way that the implementation of the POVM is simplified. Our constructions in Sections 4–10 implicitly make use of this. For $`n>d`$ the vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ cannot be mutually orthogonal. As a simple example we consider a system with Hilbert space $`^2`$ and the following vectors:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right),|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \omega \end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \omega ^2\end{array}\right).$$

Here is $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$ a third root of unity. We therefore have

$$A_1=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),A_2=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \omega ^2\\ \omega & 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}A_3=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \omega \\ \omega ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$

as POVM operators. In Section 4 we consider a generalization of this POVM.

Assuming orthogonal measurements as basic measurements, we have to extend the system by at least $`nd`$ dimensions to make a measurement with $`n`$ different measurement outcomes possible. In order to simplify notation, we consider the given system with $`d`$ dimensions as a subsystem of a system with $`n`$ dimensions. Since we are interested in quantum circuits we have to embed the system into a qubit register. This can be done by assuming that the POVM consists of $`n=2^l`$ operators. Note that this is no loss of generality since we can extend a given POVM by an appropriate number of zero operators $`A_j=0_d^{d\times d}`$ where $`0_d`$ denotes the zero matrix of size $`d`$. This extension does not change the probability distribution of the POVM since $`p_j=\mathrm{tr}(\rho 0_d)=0`$ for a zero operator $`A_j=0_d`$. In our example above we add the zero operator $`A_4=0_2`$ to the three POVM operators. We obtain a POVM that can be implemented on a register of two qubits.

The basic idea of Neumark’s theorem is to implement an orthogonal measurement $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_j)`$ on the extended system with $`n`$ dimensions that corresponds to the POVM $`(A_j)`$ in the sense that it reproduces the correct probabilities $`p_j`$. We now consider the construction of the orthogonal measurement $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_j)`$. Let $`\rho ^{d\times d}`$ be the density matrix of the state to be measured. Then the state of the extended system with $`n`$ dimensions can be written as $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho 0_{nd}^{n\times n}`$. When we write the vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ as columns of the matrix

$$M=\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_n\right)^{d\times n},$$

the operators $`\stackrel{~}{A}_j=|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j|^{n\times n}`$ are given by $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j=|\mathrm{\Psi }_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_j^n`$. The extended vectors $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j`$ are the columns of the matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1& \mathrm{}& |\mathrm{\Psi }_n\\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_1& \mathrm{}& |\mathrm{\Phi }_n\end{array}\right)^{n\times n},$$

that is an arbitrary unitary matrix containing $`M`$ as upper part of size $`d\times n`$. The extension of $`M`$ to a unitary matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is always possible since the rows of $`M`$ are orthonormal. This is guaranteed by the fact that each POVM $`(A_j)`$ satisfies $`_jA_j=I_d`$. The probability distribution $`\stackrel{~}{p}_j=\mathrm{tr}(\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{A}_j)`$ equals the distribution $`p_j`$ of the original POVM since

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_j=\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{A}_j\right)=\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(\rho 0_{nd}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|& |\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j|\\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|& |\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j|\end{array}\right)\right)=\mathrm{tr}\left(\rho A_j\right)=p_j.$$

In our example, we have

$$M=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 0\\ 1& \omega & \omega ^2& 0\end{array}\right)^{2\times 4}.$$

A possible unitary extension $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of this matrix is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 0\\ 1& \omega & \omega ^2& 0\\ 1& \omega ^2& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\end{array}\right)^{4\times 4}$$

leading to the vectors $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1=\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1,0)^T`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2=\sqrt{1/3}(1,\omega ,\omega ^2,0)^T`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3=\sqrt{1/3}(1,\omega ^2,\omega ,0)^T`$, and $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4=(0,0,0,1)^T`$. With the state $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho 0_2^{4\times 4}`$, for instance, we obtain the probability

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_2=\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _{11}& \rho _{12}& 0& 0\\ \rho _{21}& \rho _{22}& 0& 0\\ & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \omega ^2& \omega & 0\\ \omega & 1& \omega ^2& 0\\ \omega ^2& \omega & 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right)=\mathrm{tr}\left(\rho \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \omega ^2\\ \omega & 1\end{array}\right)\right)=p_2$$

for the second POVM operator. The probabilities for the other POVM operators are computed similarly.

The implementation of a POVM with corresponding matrix $`M`$ is obtained by the orthogonal measurement in the computational basis after performing the unitary transformation $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ on the system with initial state $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. This unitary operation maps the vector $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j=|\mathrm{\Psi }_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ to the computational basis vector $`|j`$. Therefore, the measurement in the computational basis after applying $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ corresponds to the measurement in the basis defined by the vectors $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j`$.

In summary, we are interested in constructing and implementing the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ for a given POVM corresponding to the matrix $`M`$. In the following sections the construction of the matrices $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is considered for symmetric POVMs besides the decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ into elementary (one- and two-qubit) gates. The symmetry leads to simple constructions and implementations based on Fourier transforms.

## 3 Symmetric POVMs on a single qubit

As described in the previous section, the basis of the orthogonal measurement of a POVM with corresponding matrix $`M`$ is the implementation of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$. $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a unitary extension of $`M`$. We can apply the algorithm in Section 4.5.1 of  to obtain a quantum circuit for $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$. The algorithm decomposes the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ into a product of two-level matrices that can be translated into a sequence of elementary gates, i.e., each gate operates on one or two qubits. In general, the constructed circuit for $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is of exponential size in the number $`n`$ of POVM operators. Intuitively, some symmetry properties of the considered POVMs may lead to algorithms constructing smaller circuits than the standard algorithm that works for arbitrary unitary matrices.

To specify the symmetry of POVMs on a single qubit using geometric concepts, we use the correspondence of POVMs to points on the Bloch sphere as already mentioned in the introduction. Usually, each point on the Bloch sphere is considered as a pure state. Specifically, a pure state $`\rho ^{2\times 2}`$ corresponds to the point $`(x,y,z)^T^3`$ on the Bloch sphere with

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{tr}(\sigma _x\rho )\\ \mathrm{tr}(\sigma _y\rho )\\ \mathrm{tr}(\sigma _z\rho )\end{array}\right)$$

where

$$\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{and}\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

denote the Pauli spin matrices. Conversely, the point $`(x,y,z)^T^3`$ on the Bloch sphere corresponds to the density matrix

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+z& xiy\\ x+iy& 1z\end{array}\right)^{2\times 2}.$$

For some special states the points on the Bloch sphere are shown in Figure

1. We now extend the Bloch sphere representation for states to a representation of POVM operators of rank one. Note that each pure state is a projection $`\rho =|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ of rank one. By rescaling a POVM operator $`A_j=|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|`$ to a density matrix we can identify $`A_j`$ with a point on the Bloch sphere using the correspondence for pure states.

A symmetry of a POVM can be defined by a symmetry of the corresponding points on the Bloch sphere. We are interested in POVMs with a finite symmetry group for the points on the Bloch sphere, i.e., we consider finite subgroups of $`SO(3)`$ . There are two infinite families of finite subgroups, namely the cyclic groups $`C_m`$ and the dihedral groups $`D_m`$ for $`m2`$ as symmetry groups of an $`m`$-sided regular polygon (with the special case $`m=2`$). Furthermore, we have the symmetry groups of the five platonic solids (tetrahedron, cube, octa-, dodeca-, and icosahedron). As a restriction for the latter symmetry groups, we assume the points on the Bloch sphere of a POVM to coincide with the vertices of the platonic solid corresponding to the symmetry group.

The vertices of the regular polygons and the platonic solids depend on the orientation of the polygons and platonic solids in the Bloch sphere. Each orientation leads to another POVM. In order to simplify the constructions in the following sections we choose specific orientations of the regular polygons and platonic solids. To obtain the implementation of a POVM corresponding to the same polygon or platonic solid with another orientation, it suffices to implement a single qubit operation on the qubit to be measured.

## 4 Cyclic groups

The simplest finite symmetry groups of points on the Bloch sphere are the cyclic groups. For a fixed $`m2`$ we consider the rotations of an $`m`$-sided regular polygon with a common axis perpendicular to the face of the polygon. The rotations form a group that is isomorphic to the group $`C_m=r`$ with $`r^m=1`$. The implementation of POVMs corresponding to a single orbit of points under the action of a cyclic symmetry group is the basis of all constructions in the following sections.

In principle, we can choose an arbitrary orientation of the polygon corresponding to the cyclic symmetry group. For simplification, we choose the face of the regular polygon to be perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis in the Bloch sphere. In other words, the $`z`$-axis is the common axis of the rotations. For instance, the $`5`$-sided regular polygon is shown in Figure 2.

The cyclic symmetry group of the polygon is generated by the $`2\pi /m`$ rotation about the $`z`$-axis. In the Hilbert space, this rotation of the Bloch sphere corresponds to the matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(1,\omega )^{2\times 2}`$ where $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/m)`$ is an $`m`$th complex root of unity. The diagonal form of the matrix is the reason for choosing the $`z`$-axis as common rotation axis. If we choose the vector $`(1,1)^T^2`$ and consider the orbit under the symmetry group then we get the vectors $`(1,\omega ^j)^T^2`$ for $`j\{0,\mathrm{},m1\}`$. Other vectors of the Bloch sphere do not lead to POVMs or to POVMs that correspond to a polygon with another rotation. The latter case is discussed at the end of the previous section. Due to the identity

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \omega ^j\end{array}\right)(1,\omega ^j)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \omega ^j\\ \omega ^j& 1\end{array}\right)=mI_2$$

the elements $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j=\sqrt{1/m}(1,\omega ^{j1})^T^2`$ for $`j\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ define a POVM with $`m=n`$ operators on a qubit. Therefore, the unitary matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{m\times m}`$ is a unitary extension of the matrix

$$M=\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& \omega & \mathrm{}& \omega ^{m1}\end{array}\right)^{2\times m}.$$

$`M`$ corresponds to the first two rows of the discrete Fourier matrix

$$F_m=\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\left(\omega ^{jk}\right)_{j,k=0}^{m1}^{m\times m}$$

of size $`m`$. Consequently, by considering the qubit to be measured as a subsystem of an $`m`$-dimensional system the implementation of the inverse Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=F_m^{}`$ leads to the probability distribution of the cyclic POVM on the qubit.

For the construction of a quantum circuit we have to embed the system of dimension $`m`$ into a register with $`l`$ qubits. The register must have $`r:=2^lm`$ dimensions. Following Section 2 we extend the cyclic POVM by an appropriate number of zero operators $`A_{m+1},\mathrm{},A_r=0_2^{2\times 2}`$. We therefore have

$$M=\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 1& \omega & \mathrm{}& \omega ^{m1}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)^{2\times r}.$$

A possible unitary extension $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of this matrix is given by $`\stackrel{~}{M}=F_mI_{rm}^{r\times r}`$ where $`I_{rm}`$ denotes the identity matrix of size $`rm`$. Consequently, on a qubit register the cyclic POVM corresponding to the $`m`$-sided regular polygon can be implemented by performing the operation $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=F_m^{}I_{rm}`$. The circuit for implementing the cyclic POVM is schematically shown in Figure 3. Note that the embedding $`\rho \rho 0_{rm}`$ corresponds to the use of initialized ancilla qubits.

The Fourier transform can be implemented efficiently if $`m`$ is a power of two . Furthermore, the embedding into a qubit register is straightforward since we do not need zero operators in this case. In summary, the cyclic POVM can be implemented efficiently on a qubit register if $`m`$ is a power of two. For instance, the quantum circuit for the implementation of the cyclic POVM is shown in Figure 3 for $`m=4`$. The circuit of $`F_4^{}`$ is the standard circuit for Fourier transforms . Note that the first permutation of the qubits can be removed when we change the order of the input.

## 5 Dihedral groups

The cyclic symmetry group of an $`m`$-sided regular polygon which we considered in the previous section is a subgroup of the dihedral group. The dihedral group consists of all rotations which map the $`m`$-sided regular polygon onto itself. In contrast to the cyclic group we allow the rotations to have different axes. For a fixed $`m2`$, the dihedral group is isomorphic to $`D_m=r,s`$ with $`r^m=1`$, $`s^2=1`$, and $`srs=r^1`$. In order to use the results for the cyclic groups, we consider the same orientation of the regular polygon as in the previous section, i.e., the face of the polygon is orthogonal to the $`z`$-axis. Furthermore, we assume that at least one vertex is an element of the $`x`$-axis. Due to this orientation, the element $`r`$ corresponds to the $`2\pi /m`$ rotation about the $`z`$-axis and the element $`s`$ corresponds to the $`\pi `$ rotation about the $`x`$-axis. In the Hilbert space these rotations correspond to the matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \omega \end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/m)`$ is a $`m`$th complex root of unity. We can define a projective representation of the group $`D_m`$ by mapping the element $`rD_m`$ to the first matrix and the element $`sD_m`$ to the second matrix.

We consider the orbit of a vector under the action of the dihedral group $`D_m`$. Let $`(\alpha ,\beta )^T^2`$ with $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$. Since a global phase factor of a vector is physically irrelevant we assume $`\alpha `$ without loss of generality. Under the action of the dihedral group the orbit contains the vectors $`(\alpha ,\beta \omega ^j)^T`$ and $`(\beta ,\alpha \omega ^j)^T`$ with $`j\{0,\mathrm{},m1\}`$. An example of the orbit is shown in Figure 4.

We have at most $`n=2m`$ vectors. In the following, we assume that the orbit contains $`2m`$ elements. If the orbit of $`D_m`$ contains less than $`2m`$ points we have either the case that all points are on the $`xy`$-plane (and the POVM consists of a single orbit under the group $`C_m`$) or we have only the two points $`(1,0)^T`$ and $`(0,1)^T`$ defining an orthogonal measurement. Since

$$\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega ^j\end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\overline{\beta }\omega ^j)+\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega ^j\end{array}\right)(\overline{\beta },\alpha \omega ^j)=mI_2,$$

we rescale $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with the factor $`\sqrt{1/m}`$ to obtain a POVM.

We now consider the implementation of the dihedral POVM. In order to analyze the structure, we do not consider the embedding of the constructed system into a qubit register in the first place. The orbit under the action of $`D_m`$ breaks into two orbits under the action of the subgroup $`C_m`$. The two orbits can be obtained by the action of $`C_m`$ on the vectors $`(\alpha ,\beta )^T`$ and $`(\beta ,\alpha )^T`$. Therefore, we expect to obtain implementations of the dihedral POVMs which are similar to the implementations in the previous section. With an appropriate order of the vectors we have the matrix

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \mathrm{}& \alpha & \beta & \beta & \mathrm{}& \beta \\ \beta & \beta \omega & \mathrm{}& \beta \omega ^{m1}& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{m1}\end{array}\right)^{2\times 2m}.$$

For even $`m`$, this matrix can be extended to the unitary matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \mathrm{}& \alpha & \beta & \beta & \mathrm{}& \beta \\ \alpha & \alpha \omega & \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{m1}& \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }\omega & \mathrm{}& \overline{\beta }\omega ^{m1}\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{2(m1)}& \beta & \beta \omega ^2& \mathrm{}& \beta \omega ^{2(m1)}\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega ^{m1}& \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{(m1)(m1)}& \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }\omega ^{m1}& \mathrm{}& \overline{\beta }\omega ^{(m1)(m1)}\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }& \mathrm{}& \overline{\beta }& \alpha & \alpha & \mathrm{}& \alpha \\ \beta & \beta \omega & \mathrm{}& \beta \omega ^{m1}& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{m1}\\ \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }\omega ^2& \mathrm{}& \overline{\beta }\omega ^{2(m1)}& \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{2(m1)}\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ \beta & \beta \omega ^{m1}& \mathrm{}& \beta \omega ^{(m1)(m1)}& \alpha & \alpha \omega ^{m1}& \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^{(m1)(m1)}\end{array}\right)$$

with a permutation matrix $`Q^{n\times n}`$ fixing the first row and mapping the $`(m+2)`$nd row to the second row. For odd $`m`$, the extended matrix is similar. We only have to write $`\beta \omega ^{(m1)j}`$ instead of $`\overline{\beta }\omega ^{(m1)j}`$ in the $`m`$th row. In the last row we write $`\overline{\beta }\omega ^{(m1)j}`$ and $`\alpha \omega ^{(m1)j}`$ instead of $`\beta \omega ^{(m1)j}`$ and $`\alpha \omega ^{(m1)j}`$, respectively. In order to simplify notation, we mainly consider the case of even $`m`$ in the following. The constructions for odd $`m`$ are similar.

We consider a decomposition of the matrix $`Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to obtain a decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. The matrix $`Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ can be multiplied with $`I_2F_m^{}`$ from the right leading to

$$T=\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{diag}(\alpha ,\alpha ,\alpha ,\mathrm{},\alpha ,\alpha )\hfill & \mathrm{diag}(+\beta ,\overline{\beta },+\beta ,\mathrm{},+\beta ,\overline{\beta })\hfill \\ \mathrm{diag}(\overline{\beta },\beta ,\overline{\beta },\mathrm{},\overline{\beta },\beta )\hfill & \mathrm{diag}(\alpha ,+\alpha ,\alpha ,\mathrm{},\alpha ,+\alpha )\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

We now embed the system with $`n=2m`$ dimensions into a qubit register. We consider a register with $`l`$ qubits where $`r:=2^ln`$. We replace the matrix $`T`$ with the matrix $`T_r`$ of the same structure but of size $`r`$. This is done by extending each of the four diagonal components to a diagonal matrix in $`^{(r/2)\times (r/2)}`$ while conserving the structure. For instance, the matrix

$$T=\sqrt{3}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha & & & \beta & & \\ & \alpha & & & \overline{\beta }& \\ & & \alpha & & & \beta \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ \overline{\beta }& & & \alpha & & \\ & \beta & & & \alpha & \\ & & \overline{\beta }& & & \alpha \end{array}\right)$$

is extended to the matrix

$$T_8=\sqrt{3}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & & & & \beta & & & \\ & \alpha & & & & \overline{\beta }& & \\ & & \alpha & & & & \beta & \\ & & & \alpha & & & & \overline{\beta }\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ \overline{\beta }& & & & \alpha & & & \\ & \beta & & & & \alpha & & \\ & & \overline{\beta }& & & & \alpha & \\ & & & \beta & & & & \alpha \end{array}\right).$$

Furthermore, in the factorization $`T=Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}(I_2F_m^{})`$ the matrix $`Q`$ is replaced by a permutation matrix $`Q_r^{r\times r}`$ that fixes the first row and maps the $`(r/2+2)`$nd row to the second row. In qubit notation, this permutation matrix can be described by $`|0\mathrm{}0|0\mathrm{}0`$ and $`|10\mathrm{}01|00\mathrm{}01`$. This permutation can be implemented by an XOR-gate on the first qubit controlled by the last qubit. Other implementations that satisfy the two constraints are also possible. The Fourier transform $`F_m`$ is replaced by $`F_mI_{r/2m}`$. In summary, we obtain a matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_r`$ that is defined by the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_r=Q_rT_r(I_2(F_mI_{r/2m}))^{r\times r}.$$
(1)
This matrix is a unitary extension of the matrix $`M`$ corresponding to the dihedral POVM with some zero operators as discussed in Section 2. Our example with $`T_8`$ leads to the matrix

$$Q_8^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_8=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & 0& \beta & \beta & \beta & 0\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& 0& \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }\omega & \overline{\beta }\omega ^2& 0\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \alpha \omega & 0& \beta & \beta \omega ^2& \beta \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\alpha & 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\overline{\beta }\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }& 0& \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & 0\\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& 0& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& 0\\ \overline{\beta }& \overline{\beta }\omega ^2& \overline{\beta }\omega & 0& \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \alpha \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\beta & 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\alpha \end{array}\right).$$

The matrix $`Q_8`$ maps the sixth row to the second row leading to the first two rows

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & 0& \beta & \beta & \beta & 0\\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& 0& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with two zero columns that do not change the POVM due to zero probability. For convenience, we shift the qubits according to the mapping $`|x_1\mathrm{}x_{l1}x_l|x_lx_1\mathrm{}x_{l1}`$. We denote this permutation by $`R`$. After this reordering of qubits the matrix $`T_r`$ takes the simple form

$$RT_rR^{}=AI_{r/4}:=\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \beta & 0& 0\\ \overline{\beta }& \alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha & \overline{\beta }\\ 0& 0& \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)I_{r/4}.$$

By combining this equation with Equation (1) we get the factorization

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_r^{}=(I_2(F_m^{}I_{r/2m}))R^{}(A^{}I_{r/4})RQ_r^{}.$$

Translating this equation into a quantum circuit, the decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_r`$ leads to the circuit scheme shown in Figure 5.

The operation $`A^{}`$ is decomposed as

$$A^{}=\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \beta & 0& 0\\ \overline{\beta }& \alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{1/m}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{1/m}\end{array}\right)\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{1/m}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{1/m}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha & \overline{\beta }\\ 0& 0& \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)$$

corresponding to the second and third gates from the left in Figure 5. We do not have to implement the permutation $`R`$ explicitly if the controlled one-qubit operations are applied to appropriate qubit pairs. The given circuit can be slightly simplified by merging the first two gates from the left to a single controlled gate with the operation

$$\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \overline{\beta }\\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)=\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\beta }& \alpha \\ \alpha & \beta \end{array}\right).$$

As discussed in the previous section the Fourier transform $`F_m`$ can be implemented with a polylogarithmical number of gates if $`m`$ is a power of two. Consequently, the dihedral POVM can be implemented efficiently in these cases.

## 6 Tetrahedron

The tetrahedron is the platonic solid with four faces. The symmetry group of the tetrahedron is isomorphic to the alternating group $`A_4`$. This group consists of the twelve permutations of four elements with positive signum. We consider the POVM corresponding to the vertices of the tetrahedron in the Bloch sphere. The tetrahedron is shown Figure 6.

For instance, the vertex $`1`$ is given by the vector $`(\sqrt{2/3},0,\sqrt{1/3})^T^3`$. The vertices of the tetrahedron correspond to the vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right)^2$$
(2)
with $`\alpha =\sqrt{(3+\sqrt{3})/6}`$ and $`\beta =\sqrt{(3\sqrt{3})/6}`$. The first pair of vectors corresponds to the vertices $`1`$ and $`2`$, the second pair corresponds to the vertices $`3`$ and $`4`$. Note the similarity of these vectors to the vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right).$$

These vectors result from the action of the dihedral group with $`m=2`$ as considered in previous section with the vector $`(\alpha ,\beta )^T`$. The factor $`i`$ in the second component of the last two vectors of Line (2) results from the $`\pi /2`$ rotation about the $`z`$-axis of the lower edge with vertices 3 and 4 relative to the upper edge with vertices 1 and 2. This rotation corresponds to the matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(1,i)^{2\times 2}`$. Due to the equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta )+\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta )+\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right)(\beta ,\alpha i)+\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right)(\beta ,\alpha i)=2I_2$$

we have the matrix

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta \\ \beta & \beta & \alpha i& \alpha i\end{array}\right)^{2\times 4}$$

with the rescaled elements $`\alpha =\sqrt{(3+\sqrt{3})/12}`$ and $`\beta =\sqrt{(3\sqrt{3})/12}`$. This matrix can be extended to the unitary matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta \\ \alpha & \alpha & \beta i& \beta i\\ & & & \\ \beta & \beta & \alpha & \alpha \\ \beta & \beta & \alpha i& \alpha i\end{array}\right)^{4\times 4}$$

acting on a register of two qubits with the permutation matrix

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)^{4\times 4}.$$

The matrix $`Q`$ can be implemented by an XOR-gate on the first qubit controlled by the second qubit. We consider the decomposition of $`Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to obtain a decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. After multiplying $`Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with $`(I_2F_2)^{4\times 4}`$ we have

$$Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}(I_2F_2)=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & 0& \beta & 0\\ 0& \alpha & 0& \beta i\\ & & & \\ \beta & 0& \alpha & 0\\ 0& \beta & 0& \alpha i\end{array}\right)^{4\times 4}$$

and after multiplying this matrix with $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,i)^{4\times 4}`$

from the right we have the equation

$$Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}(I_2F_2)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\end{array}\right)=\left(\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)I_2\right)^{4\times 4}.$$
(3)
The matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,i)`$ corresponds to a controlled phase gate $`\mathrm{diag}(1,i)`$ on the second qubit. Using Equation (3) we get the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=(I_2F_2)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\end{array}\right)\left(\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)I_2\right)Q^{}.$$

Consequently, the circuit in Figure 7 implements the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ for the POVM corresponding to the tetrahedron.

## 7 Cube

The POVM associated with a cube in the Bloch sphere is a special case of the dihedral POVMs considered in Section 5 with $`m=4`$. Nevertheless, we consider the implementation of the cubic POVM in this section since we can obtain a smaller circuit by using the special values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. As in Section 5 we rotate the cube in the Bloch sphere to obtain a face perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis. Furthermore, we can rotate the cube about this axis to get points corresponding to the vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta i\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta i\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right)^2$$

with $`\alpha =\sqrt{(3+\sqrt{3})/6}`$ and $`\beta =\sqrt{(3\sqrt{3})/6}`$. The first four vectors correspond to vertices 1–4 in Figure 8 and

the last four vectors correspond to vertices 5–8. For instance, the vertex $`1`$ corresponds to the Bloch point $`(\sqrt{2/3},0,\sqrt{1/3})^T^3`$. Note that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are real numbers. This allows us to use a more efficient construction than in Section 5. Since we have the equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta )+\mathrm{}+\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta i\end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta i)+\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right)(\beta ,\alpha )+\mathrm{}+\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha i\end{array}\right)(\beta ,\alpha i)=4I_2$$

the given vectors define a POVM when we rescale $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with $`1/2`$. The matrix $`M`$ corresponding to the POVM is given by

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta \\ \beta & \beta i& \beta & \beta i& \alpha & \alpha i& \alpha & \alpha i\end{array}\right)^{2\times 8}.$$

In contrast to the construction of the dihedral POVM we use the fact that for even $`m`$ the element $`1`$ is in the set $`\{1,\omega ,\mathrm{},\omega ^{m1}\}`$ where $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/m)`$ is an $`m`$-th complex root of unity. Therefore, we can reorder the vectors $`(\overline{\beta },\alpha \omega ^j)^T^2`$ considered in Section 5 to obtain a matrix $`M`$ with the partial row $`(\alpha ,\alpha \omega ,\mathrm{},\alpha \omega ^{m1})`$ instead of $`(\alpha ,\alpha \omega ,\mathrm{},\alpha \omega ^{m1})`$. This is besides $`\beta `$ the second reason that allows a more efficient construction compared to the construction for the dihedral POVM. Using the equation $`\beta =\overline{\beta }`$ we can extend $`M`$ to the unitary matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta \\ \alpha & \alpha i& \alpha & \alpha i& \beta & \beta i& \beta & \beta i\\ \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta \\ \alpha & \alpha i& \alpha & \alpha i& \beta & \beta i& \beta & \beta i\\ & & & & & & & \\ \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha \\ \beta & \beta i& \beta & \beta i& \alpha & \alpha i& \alpha & \alpha i\\ \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha \\ \beta & \beta i& \beta & \beta i& \alpha & \alpha i& \alpha & \alpha i\end{array}\right)$$

acting on a register of three qubits with a permutation $`Q`$ satisfying $`|000|000`$ and $`|101|001`$ in qubit notation. For instance, the permutation can be implemented by a single XOR-gate on the first qubit controlled by the third. We now consider the special structure of $`Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to obtain a decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$. More precisely, the matrix $`Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ can be written as the following tensor product

$$Q^{}\stackrel{~}{M}=\left(2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)F_4\right)^{8\times 8}.$$

This leads to the identity

$$\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=\left(2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)F_4^{}\right)Q^{}^{8\times 8}$$

defining the quantum circuit given in Figure 9.

Compared to the general circuit in Section 5 we are able to replace two controlled gates by a single uncontrolled gate.

## 8 Octahedron

The symmetry group of the octahedron is identical to the symmetry group of the cube since the octahedron is the dual polyhedron of the cube. The group is isomorphic to the symmetric group $`S_4`$. This group consists of all $`24`$ permutations of four elements. A simple implementation of the octahedral POVM can be obtained by the orientation of the octahedron as shown in Figure 10 where the upper face with vertices 1–3 and the lower face with vertices 4–6 are perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis. Vertex $`1`$ corresponds to the real vector $`(\sqrt{2/3},0,\sqrt{1/3})^T^3`$. The complex vectors corresponding to the points 1–6 are given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega ^2\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega ^2\end{array}\right)^2$$

where $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$ is a root of unity, $`\alpha =\sqrt{(3+\sqrt{3})/6}`$ and $`\beta =\sqrt{(3\sqrt{3})/6}`$. The first three vectors correspond to the upper three vertices 1–3 of the octahedron, the last three vectors to the lower three vertices 4–6. Despite the negative sign of the second component of the last three elements, these vectors are identical with the vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega ^2\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega ^2\end{array}\right)^2.$$

The latter vectors are obtained by the vector $`(\alpha ,\beta )^T`$ under the action of the dihedral group $`D_3`$ as discussed in Section 5. Similar to the factor $`i`$ in two vectors of the tetrahedral POVM in Section 6, the negative sign results from the $`\pi `$ rotation about the $`z`$-axis of the lower three vertices 4–6 relative to the upper three vertices 1–3. Since

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta )+\mathrm{}+\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega ^2\end{array}\right)(\beta ,\alpha \omega )=3I_2$$

we rescale $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with the factor $`\sqrt{1/3}`$ to obtain a POVM. Therefore, we have

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta \\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2\end{array}\right)^{2\times 6}.$$
(4)
As already discussed, we have the negative signs in Equation (4) because the lower face is rotated relatively to the upper face. This is different from the cubic POVM where we have to reorder the operators (compared to the dihedral case) in order to get the negative signs in the second component of the last four vectors. To see this, we write these components as $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha \omega `$, $`\alpha \omega ^2`$ and $`\alpha \omega ^3`$ with $`\omega =i`$ as in the dihedral case.

We now consider the extension of $`M`$ to a unitary matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. As in Section 5 we do not embed the system with six dimensions into a qubit register in the first place. The matrix $`M`$ corresponds to the first two rows of the matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta \\ \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \alpha \omega & \beta & \beta \omega ^2& \beta \omega \\ & & & & & \\ \beta & \beta & \beta & \alpha & \alpha & \alpha \\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2\\ \beta & \beta \omega ^2& \beta \omega & \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \alpha \omega \end{array}\right)$$

where $`Q`$ is a permutation matrix that fixes the first row and maps the fifth row to the second. Similar to the previous section, this matrix can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(\sqrt{3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)F_3\right)^{6\times 6}.$$
(5)
We now translate the decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ into a circuit. We have to embed the system with six dimensions into a qubit register with at least three qubits. This can be done by replacing the Fourier matrix $`F_3`$ in Equation (5) with $`F_3I_1`$ where $`I_1^{1\times 1}`$ denotes the identity matrix of size one. This replacement leads to the matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_8=Q_8\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & 0& \beta & \beta & \beta & 0\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& 0& \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& 0\\ \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \alpha \omega & 0& \beta & \beta \omega ^2& \beta \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\alpha & 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\beta \\ & & & & & & & \\ \beta & \beta & \beta & 0& \alpha & \alpha & \alpha & 0\\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& 0& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& 0\\ \beta & \beta \omega ^2& \beta \omega & 0& \alpha & \alpha \omega ^2& \alpha \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\beta & 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\alpha \end{array}\right)$$

where $`Q_8^{8\times 8}`$ is a permutation matrix that fixes the first row and maps the sixth

row to the second row. In qubit notation, these constraints are given by $`|000|000`$ and $`|101|001`$. For instance, this transformation can be implemented by an XOR-gate on the first qubit controlled by the last qubit. If we restrict $`\stackrel{~}{M}_8`$ to the first two rows we get the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & 0& \beta & \beta & \beta & 0\\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& 0& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& 0\end{array}\right)$$

corresponding to the desired POVM. The POVM operator corresponding to the fourth and eighth column is $`0_2^{2\times 2}`$ leading to a zero probability for all states $`\rho ^{2\times 2}`$. In summary, we have the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_8^{}=\left(\sqrt{3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)\left(F_3^{}I_1\right)\right)Q_8^{}$$

for the implementation of the octahedral POVM. This equation corresponds to the circuit shown in Figure 11.

## 9 Dodecahedron

The dodecahedron is the platonic solid with twelve faces and twenty vertices. The symmetry group of the dodecahedron is isomorphic to the alternating group $`A_5`$. This group contains the sixty permutations of five elements with positive signum. The dodecahedron is shown in Figure 12. The upper face with vertices 1–5 and the lower face with vertices 6–10 are perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis. The point

$$(\sqrt{\frac{102\sqrt{5}}{15}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\sqrt{\frac{5+2\sqrt{5}}{15}})^T^3$$

corresponds to vertex $`1`$. This orientation of the dodecahedron in the Bloch sphere leads to a simple construction of the dodecahedral POVM. With $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/5)`$, the points on the Bloch sphere correspond to the complex vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega ^j\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega ^j\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\ \delta \omega ^j\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \\ \gamma \omega ^j\end{array}\right)^2$$
(6)
where $`j\{0,\mathrm{},4\}`$. The vectors $`(\alpha ,\beta \omega ^j)^T`$ correspond to the points 1–5, the vectors $`(\beta ,\alpha \omega ^j)^T`$ to 6–10, the vectors $`(\gamma ,\delta \omega ^j)^T`$ to 11–15, and the vectors $`(\delta ,\gamma \omega ^j)^T`$ to the points 16–20. The parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,`$ and $`\delta `$ are defined as follows:

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{75+30\sqrt{5}}},\beta =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{75+30\sqrt{5}}}$$

and

$$\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{7530\sqrt{5}}},\delta =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{7530\sqrt{5}}}.$$

Due to the equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta )+\mathrm{}+\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \\ \gamma \omega ^4\end{array}\right)(\delta ,\gamma \omega ^4)=10I_2$$

we rescale the elements $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ with the factor $`\sqrt{1/10}`$ to obtain a POVM. In contrast to the constructions of Sections 58 the points on the Bloch sphere decompose into four different orbits under the rotation about the $`z`$-axis. Note that there are two pairs of orbits. In Line (6) the vectors $`(\alpha ,\beta \omega ^j)^T`$ and $`(\beta ,\alpha \omega ^j)^T`$ are similar to the vectors $`(\alpha ,\beta \omega ^j)^T`$ and $`(\beta ,\alpha \omega ^j)^T`$. The latter vectors are the orbit of $`(\alpha ,\beta )^T`$ under the dihedral group with $`m=5`$ as considered in Section 5. As in the previous section a $`\pi `$ rotation of one orbit relative to the other orbit causes the negative sign of the elements $`(\beta ,\alpha \omega ^j)^T`$. Analogously, the second orbit under $`D_5`$ is defined by the third and fourth type of vectors in Line (6). In summary, the vertices of the dodecahedron correspond to two orbits under the dihedral group $`D_5`$ with a $`\pi `$ rotation about the $`z`$-axis of some points on each orbit. Consequently, we can expect to use a similar construction as in the previous sections.

We now consider the construction of the circuit for implementing the dodecahedral POVM. For convenience, we do not embed the system into a qubit register in the first place. We have the matrix

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \mathrm{}& \alpha & \beta & \mathrm{}& \beta & \gamma & \mathrm{}& \gamma & \delta & \delta & \mathrm{}& \delta \\ \beta & \beta \omega & \mathrm{}& \beta \omega ^4& \alpha & \mathrm{}& \alpha \omega ^4& \delta & \mathrm{}& \delta \omega ^4& \gamma & \gamma \omega & \mathrm{}& \gamma \omega ^4\end{array}\right).$$

This matrix corresponds to the first and second row of the unitary matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ defined by the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(AF_5\right)^{20\times 20},$$
(7)
where $`Q^{20\times 20}`$ is a permutation matrix that fixes the first row and maps the seventh row to the second row. The matrix $`A`$ is defined by

$$A=\sqrt{5}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \beta & \gamma & \delta \\ \beta & \alpha & \delta & \gamma \\ \gamma & \delta & \alpha & \beta \\ \delta & \gamma & \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right).$$

Now, we want to embed the extended system into a register with five qubits. Similar to the construction for the octahedron in Section 8, we can do this by replacing the matrix $`F_5`$ in Equation (7) by the matrix $`(F_5I_3)^{8\times 8}`$ where $`I_3`$ denotes the identity matrix of size three. The matrix $`Q`$ is replaced by a permutation matrix $`Q_{32}^{32\times 32}`$ that satisfies $`|00000|00000`$ and $`|01001|00001`$ in the qubit notation. This permutation can be implemented by an XOR-operation on the second qubit controlled by the last qubit. In summary, the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{32}^{}`$ is defined by the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{32}^{}=\left(A^{}\left(F_5^{}I_3\right)\right)Q_{32}^{}.$$

The corresponding circuit is shown in Figure 13.

Note that the matrix $`A^{}`$ can be written as product $`A^{}=\left(I_2(\sigma _z)\right)\left(I_2B\right)R\left(I_2C\right)`$ with the matrices

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{}& u_+\\ u_+& u_{}\end{array}\right),C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_{}& v_+\\ v_+& v_{}\end{array}\right)$$

and constants

$$u_\pm =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\pm \sqrt{\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{24}}},v_\pm =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\pm \sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{5}1}{8\sqrt{5}}}}.$$

The matrix $`R`$ is the product

$$R=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{2}& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{2}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

In Figure 13, the latter two matrices correspond to the two operations on the first qubit which are controlled by the second qubit.

## 10 Icosahedron

The icosahedron is the dual polyhedron of the dodecahedron. Consequently, the symmetry groups of both platonic solids are identical. We assume the specific orientation of the icosahedron as shown in Figure 14 to obtain a simple construction of the icosahedral POVM. The upper face with vertices 1–3 and the lower face with vertices 4–6 are perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis. Vertex 1 is given by the vector

$$(\sqrt{\frac{102\sqrt{5}}{15}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\sqrt{\frac{5+2\sqrt{5}}{15}})^T^3.$$

The vertices of the icosahedron in the Bloch sphere correspond to the complex vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \omega ^j\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta \\ \alpha \omega ^j\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\ \delta \omega ^j\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \\ \gamma \omega ^j\end{array}\right)^2$$
(8)
with $`j\{0,1,2\}`$, $`\omega :=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$ and

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{75+30\sqrt{5}}},\beta =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{75+30\sqrt{5}}}$$

and

$$\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{7530\sqrt{5}}},\delta =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{30}\sqrt{7530\sqrt{5}}}.$$

The vectors in Line (8) with $`j=0`$ correspond to the vertices $`1`$, $`4`$, $`7`$ and $`10`$ in the given order. As in the case of the dodecahedron we have four orbits under the rotations about the $`z`$-axis. Therefore, we can expect that a similar construction as in the previous section is possible. Due to the identity

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right)(\alpha ,\beta )+\mathrm{}+\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \\ \gamma \omega ^4\end{array}\right)(\delta ,\gamma \omega ^4)=6I_2$$

we have the matrix

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}\alpha & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta & \gamma & \gamma & \gamma & \delta & \delta & \delta \\ \beta & \beta \omega & \beta \omega ^2& \alpha & \alpha \omega & \alpha \omega ^2& \delta & \delta \omega & \delta \omega ^2& \gamma & \gamma \omega & \gamma \omega ^2\end{array}\right),$$

where we rescale $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ with the factor $`\sqrt{1/6}`$. The matrix $`M`$ consists of the first and second row of the matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=Q\left(AF_3\right)^{12\times 12},$$
(9)
where $`Q^{12\times 12}`$ is a permutation matrix that fixes the first row and maps the fifth row to the second. Similar to the previous section, the matrix $`A`$ is given by

$$A=\sqrt{3}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \beta & \gamma & \delta \\ \beta & \alpha & \delta & \gamma \\ \gamma & \delta & \alpha & \beta \\ \delta & \gamma & \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right).$$

The embedding into a register with four qubits works analogously to the previous section. We replace $`F_3`$ in Equation (9) by $`(F_3I_1)^{4\times 4}`$ where $`I_1`$ denotes the identity matrix of size one. The matrix $`Q`$ is replaced by the matrix $`Q_{16}^{16\times 16}`$ that can be described as $`|0000|0000`$ and $`|0101|0001`$ in the qubit notation. This permutation can be implemented by an XOR-operation on the second qubit controlled by the last qubit. Therefore, Equation (9) translates into

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{16}^{}=\left(A^{}\left(F_3^{}I_1\right)\right)Q_{16}^{}.$$

The circuit corresponding to this decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{16}^{}`$ is given in Figure 15.

The matrix $`A^{}`$ can be translated into single- and two-qubit gates as shown in the previous section. In this translation we have to replace the constants $`u_\pm `$ and $`v_\pm `$ with

$$u_\pm =\frac{1}{10}\sqrt{50\pm 5\sqrt{10(5+\sqrt{5})}}\mathrm{and}v_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2\pm \sqrt{5/3}\sqrt{1/3}}.$$

## 11 Conclusions

We have shown that all POVMs given by the vertices of platonic solids can be implemented using a discrete Fourier transform and a few other operations. The algorithms use the symmetry of the POVMs. A common feature of all constructions is the partition of the POVM operators into orbits under the action of a cyclic group. Since the Fourier transform allows to implement POVMs associated with an orbit under a cyclic group it is an essential part of all circuits. For most POVMs corresponding to a platonic solid, a tensor product of a Fourier transform and a specific low-dimensional matrix is a central building block of the circuit. The low-dimensional matrix represents in some sense the relations between the orbits.

The implementation of non-symmetric POVMs seems to be a non-trivial task. It would, for instance, be interesting to know which POVMs can be implemented efficiently, i.e., with a number of elementary gates which grows only polynomially in the number $`n`$ of POVM-operators. For the symmetric POVMs considered in this paper the question of efficiency makes only sense for the cyclic and dihedral POVMs since the size of the other POVMs is fixed. For $`n=2^l`$ the complexity of the Fourier transform $`F_n`$ is only polynomial in $`l`$. Therefore, the complexity of the circuits for the cyclic and dihedral POVMs grows only polylogarithmically in $`n`$.

The question of the efficiency of read-out mechanisms for a single bit has no counterpart in classical computer science. Complexity issues in quantum information theory deal not necessarily with the complexity of computational problems. They are also interesting in the context of measurements or state preparation procedures. However, there are some connections between a complexity theory of these non-computational quantum control problems and computational problems . Connections between the complexity of POVM measurements and other complexity issues may be subject of further research.

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with M. Grassl and M. Rötteler. M. Rötteler brought the problem of implementing symmetric POVMs to our attention. This work was supported by grants of the BMBF project 01/BB01B.


text:
# BLACK HOLES, GALAXY FORMATION, AND THE 𝑀_BH-𝜎 RELATION

## 1 Introduction

It is now widely accepted that the centre of every galaxy contains a supermassive black hole. The close observational correlation (Ferrarese & Merritt, 2000; Gebhardt et al., 2000; Tremaine et al., 2002) between the mass $`M`$ of this hole and the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the host bulge strongly suggests a connection between the formation of the black hole and of the galaxy itself.

Recent XMM–Newton observations of bright quasars (Pounds et al., 2003a, b; Reeves et al., 2003) may offer a clue to this connection. These observations give strong evidence for intense outflows from the nucleus, with mass rates $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}1\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and velocity $`v0.1c`$, in the form of blueshifted X–ray absorption lines. Simple theory shows that the outflows are probably optically thick to electron scattering, with a photosphere of $`100`$ Schwarzschild radii, and driven by continuum radiation pressure. In all cases the outflow velocity is close to the escape velocity from the scattering photosphere. As a result the outflow momentum flux is comparable to that in the Eddington–limited radiation field, i.e.

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}v\frac{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}{c},$$
(1)
where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is the mass outflow rate and $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ the Eddington luminosity, while the mechanical energy flux is

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}v^2\frac{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}c^2}.$$
(2)
It appears that such outflows are a characteristic of super–Eddington accretion (King & Pounds, 2003). We know that most of the mass of the nuclear black holes is assembled by luminous accretion (Soltan 1982; Yu & Tremaine, 2002). It seems likely that the rate at which mass tries to flow in towards the central black hole in a galaxy is set by conditions far from the hole, for example by interactions or mergers with other galaxies. It is quite possible therefore that super–Eddington conditions prevail for most of the time that the central black hole mass is being built up.

This clearly has important implications for the host galaxy. Unlike luminous energy, a large fraction of a mechanical energy flux like (2) is likely to be absorbed within the galaxy, and must have a major effect. To reach its present mass the black hole in PG1211+143 could have accreted at a rate comparable to its current one for $`5\times 10^7`$ yr. During that time, an outflow like the observed one could have deposited almost $`10^{60}`$ erg in the host galaxy. This exceeds the binding energy $`10^{59}`$ erg of a bulge with $`10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`\sigma 300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

Accordingly it is appropriate to revisit some ideas presented by Silk and Rees (1998., henceforth SR98) and also considered by Haehnelt et al. (1998), Blandford (1999) and Fabian (1999). These authors envisage a situation in which the initial black holes formed with masses $`10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ before most of the stars. Accretion on to these black holes is assumed to produce outflow, which interacts with the surrounding gas. Without a detailed treatment of the outflow from a supercritically accreting black hole, SR98 used dimensional arguments to suggest a relation between $`M`$ and $`\sigma `$. However this still has a free parameter. Given the simple relation (1) one can now remove this freedom. The situation turns out to resemble a momentum–driven stellar wind bubble. Modelling this gives an $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sigma `$ relation devoid of free parameters, and remarkably close to the observed relation.

## 2 Black Hole Wind Bubbles

I follow SR98 in modelling a protogalaxy as an isothermal sphere of dark matter. If the gas fraction is $`f_g=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{baryon}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{matter}}0.16`$ (Spergel et al., 2003) its density is

$$\rho =\frac{f_g\sigma ^2}{2\pi Gr^2}$$
(3)
where $`\sigma `$ is assumed constant. The gas mass inside radius $`R`$ is

$$M(R)=4\pi _0^R\rho r^2dr=\frac{2f_g\sigma ^2R}{G}$$
(4)
I assume that mass flows towards the central black hole at some supercritical rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. The results of King & Pounds (2003) suggest that this will produce a quasi–spherical outflow with momentum flux given by (1). Note that this momentum rate is independent of the outflow rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{acc}}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ since the outflow velocity $`v`$ adjusts as $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ to maintain the relation (1) (King & Pounds, 2003).

The wind from the central black hole will sweep up the surrounding gas into a shell. As is well known from the theory of stellar wind bubbles (e.g. Lamers & Casinelli 1999) this shell is bounded by an inner shock where the wind velocity is thermalized, and an outer shock where the surrounding gas is heated and compressed by the wind. These two regions are separated by a contact discontinuity. The shell velocity depends on whether the shocked wind gas is able to cool (‘momentum–driven’ flow) or not (‘energy–driven’ flow). In the absence of a detailed treatment of a quasar wind, SR98 appear to have assumed the second case. In fact for the supercritical outflows envisaged here the first case is more likely, as the argument below shows.

## 3 Cooling the Wind Shock

The Compton cooling time of an electron of energy $`E`$ is

$$t_\mathrm{C}=\frac{3m_ec}{8\pi \sigma _\mathrm{T}U_{\mathrm{rad}}}\frac{m_ec^2}{E}$$
(5)
where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass and

$$U_{\mathrm{rad}}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}{4\pi R^2cb}$$
(6)
is the radiation density at distance $`R`$ from the black hole, and $`b1`$ allows for some collimation of the outflow. The electron energy $`E`$ in the postshock wind gas is $`9m_pv^2/16`$, where $`v`$ is the wind velocity and $`m_p`$ the proton mass. Combining this with the usual definition

$$L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\frac{4\pi GM_{\mathrm{BH}}c}{\kappa }$$
(7)
of the Eddington luminosity for black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ shows that

$$t_\mathrm{C}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{cR^2}{GM}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^2\left(\frac{c}{v}\right)^2b10^5R_{\mathrm{kpc}}^2\left(\frac{c}{v}\right)^2bM_8^1\mathrm{yr}$$
(8)
where $`R_{\mathrm{kpc}}`$ is $`R`$ measured in kpc and $`M_8=M_{\mathrm{BH}}/10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Clearly this is extremely short for small $`R`$, so the flow is efficiently cooled and thus momentum driven at least initially. I note that Ciotti & Ostriker (1997, 2001) emphasize the importance of Compton heating and cooling on quasar inflows and outflows.

The momentum–driven assumption breaks down once $`t_\mathrm{C}`$ becomes of order the flow time $`t_{\mathrm{flow}}=R/v_s`$ where $`v_s`$ is the shell velocity. We can use the momentum–driven shell velocity $`v_m`$ derived in eqn (14) below to estimate

$$t_{\mathrm{flow}}=8\times 10^6R_{\mathrm{kpc}}\sigma _{200}M_8^{1/2}\mathrm{yr}$$
(9)
where $`\sigma _{200}=\sigma /(200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)`$. The assumption of efficient cooling is valid out to a radius $`R_c`$ given by setting $`t_\mathrm{C}=t_{\mathrm{flow}}=1`$. We find a total swept–up mass

$$M(R_c)=1.9\times 10^{11}\sigma _{200}^3M_8^{1/2}\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2b^1\mathrm{M}_{}$$
(10)
at this point. Once the shell reaches radii larger than $`R_c`$ the shocked wind is no longer efficiently cooled, and its thermal pressure accelerates the shell of swept–up gas to a higher velocity $`v_e>v_m`$ (energy–driven flow) after a sound–crossing time $`R_c/v`$.

## 4 The $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sigma `$ relation

I now estimate the speed $`v_m`$ of the momentum–driven shell by the standard wind bubble argument. At sufficiently large radii $`R`$ the swept–up shell mass $`M(R)`$ is much larger than the wind mass, and the shell expands under the impinging wind ram pressure $`\rho v^2`$ (this characterizes momentum–driven flows; in an energy–driven flow the thermal pressure of the shocked wind gas is dominant, while in a supernova blast wave the momentum injection is instantaneous rather than continuous). The shell’s equation of motion is thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left[M(R)\dot{R}\right]=4\pi R^2\rho v^2=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}v=\frac{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}{c}$$
(11)
where we have used first the mass conservation equation for the quasar wind, and then (1) to simplify the rhs. Integrating this equation for $`\dot{R}`$ with the final form of the rhs gives

$$M(R)\dot{R}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}{c}t$$
(12)
where I have neglected the integration constant as $`M(R)`$ is dominated by swept–up mass at large $`t`$. Using (4) for $`M(R)`$ and integrating once more gives

$$R^2=\frac{GL_{\mathrm{Edd}}}{2f_g\sigma ^2c}t^2,$$
(13)
where again we may neglect the integration constant for large $`t`$. We see that in the snowplow phase the shell moves with constant velocity $`v_m=R/t`$, with

$$v_m^2=\frac{GL_{\mathrm{Edd}}}{2f_g\sigma ^2c}.$$
(14)
We note that this velocity is larger for higher $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, i.e. higher black hole mass. This solution holds if the shell is inside the cooling radius $`R_c`$; outside this radius the shell speed eventually increases to the energy–driven value $`v_e`$, which also grows with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$.

I now consider the growth of the black hole mass by accretion. Initially the mass is small, inflow is definitely supercritical, and even the energy–driven shell velocity would be smaller than the escape velocity $`\sigma `$. No mass is driven away, and accretion at a rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ can occur efficiently. However as the black hole grows, we eventually reach a situation in which $`v_e>\sigma >v_m`$. Further growth is now only possible until the shell reaches $`R_c`$, and then only until the point where $`v_m=\sigma `$. Thus given an adequate mass supply, e.g. through mergers, the final black hole mass is given by setting $`v_m=\sigma `$ in (14). Using (7) we find the relation

$$M_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{f_g}{2\pi }\frac{\kappa }{G^2}\sigma ^41.5\times 10^8\sigma _{200}^4\mathrm{M}_{}.$$
(15)
This is remarkably close to the observed relation (Tremaine et al., 2000).

Presumably most of the swept–up mass ends up as bulge stars, and we may tentatively identify $`M(R_c)`$ as an upper limit the bulge mass $`M_b`$ of the galaxy. Using (15) to eliminate $`\sigma _{200}`$ we get

$$M_{\mathrm{BH}}7\times 10^4M_8^{1/4}\left(\frac{c}{v}\right)^2bM_b.$$
(16)
If $`c/v`$ (determined by the ratio $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$) attains similar values at this point in most systems and the swept–up mass is close to $`M(R_c)`$ one gets a relation between black hole and bulge mass of the form $`M_bM_{\mathrm{BH}}^{1.25}`$. The relation is written instead in the form (16) to allow easy comparison with the correlation found by Magorrian et al. (1998). Evidently this is not as clear–cut a relation as that between $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and $`\sigma `$, and indeed the scatter in the observed relation is considerably larger.

## 5 Discussion

The $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sigma `$ relation given here has no free parameter. If the outflow velocity $`v`$ had been larger by an optical depth factor $`\tau >1`$ (i.e. most of the acceleration occurs below the photosphere) a factor $`1/\tau `$ would appear on the rhs. However this would require outflow velocities $`\tau (GM/R_{\mathrm{ph}})^{1/2}`$ larger by the same factor than those observed in supercritically accreting quasars.

The lack of freedom in (15) comes about because the physical situation envisaged by SR98 and also studied by Haehnelt et al., 1998) and Blandford (1999) can now be made more precise: the response of observed black hole systems to super–Eddington accretion appears to be an optically thick outflow driven by continuum radiation pressure. Fabian (1999) considers sub–Eddington accretion, but emphasizes the importance of the momentum of the outflow as opposed to its energy: it is this which leads to the $`\sigma ^4`$ dependence rather than $`\sigma ^5`$. Specifically, Fabian (1999) assumes a wind of speed $`v_w`$ with mechanical luminosity a fixed fraction $`a`$ of $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$. This produces a relation of the form (15) but with an extra factor $`v_w/ac`$ on the rhs; it therefore reduces to (15) if one assumes $`av_w/c`$. Parameters also appear in other derivations using different physics, such as the ambient conditions in the host galaxy (Adams, Graff & Richstone, 2001) or accretion of collisional dark matter (Ostriker, 2000).

The picture presented here invokes a largely spherical geometry for the ambient gas, except that the accreting matter must possess a small amount of angular momentum to define an accretion disc plane and thus a small solid angle where inflow rather than outflow occurs. It is therefore appropriate to the growth of a spheroid–black hole system. However once most of the gas lies in the plane of the galaxy the momentum–driven outflow considered here would not halt inflow. Evidently this means that accretion from this point on adds little mass to the hole.

If the derivation of the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sigma `$ relation given here is some approximation to reality, it implies that the central black holes in galaxies gain most of their mass in phases of super–Eddington inflow. As relatively few AGN are observed in such phases, these must either be obscured (cf Fabian, 1999) or at high redshift. It appears then that those quasars which are apparently now accreting at such rates (Pounds et al., 2003a,b; Reeves et al., 2003) are laggards in gaining mass. This idea agrees with the general picture that these objects – all narrow–line quasars – are super–Eddington because they have low black–hole masses, rather than unusually high mass inflow rates.

I thank Andy Fabian, Jim Pringle and James Binney for illuminating discussions, and the referee for a very helpful report. This work was carried out at the Center for Astrophysics, and I thank members of its staff, particularly Pepi Fabbiano and Martin Elvis, for stimulating discussions and warm hospitality. I gratefully acknowledge a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award.


text:
# Untitled Document

Noncommutative Inflation and the CMB Multipoles

Qing Guo Huang and Miao Li

Institute of Theoretical Physics

Academia Sinica, P.O. Box 2735

Beijing 100080

huangqg@itp.ac.cn

mli@itp.ac.cn

The first year results of WMAP tentatively indicate running of the spectral index as well as a deficit of power in the low multipoles in the CMB spectrum. The former can be rather easily understood in the noncommutative inflation model, and the latter, as we shall show in this paper, still appears to be an anomaly, even though the noncommutative inflation model already suppresses the low multipoles to a certain degree. By fitting the power spectrum, we determine the string scale to be $`l_s4\times 10^{29}`$cm.

August, 2003

The first year WMAP observations already provided us unprecedentedly accurate data on the CMB power spectrum, $`C_l`$ has been measured from multipoles $`l=2`$ to $`l600`$ . The observed temperature power spectrum is in striking agreement with the predictions of the inflationary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, and with observations made prior to WMAP.

Combined with other experiments, the data tentatively suggest a blue spectrum for low $`k`$, and a running spectral index. If true, it is quite hard to understand this within the framework of the usual field theoretic inflation models. We showed in a previous paper  that the running of the spectral index is rather easily understood in the noncommutative inflation model . This result was expanded and reanalyzed in .

The WMAP data also show anomalously small multipole moments compared to that predicted by the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ model \[1,,5\], confirming the observed results of COBE. The analysis in  suggest that the WMAP data favor a truncation at $`k_c3\times 10^4Mpc^1`$, thus favoring new physics, even though a model with $`k_c=0`$ is not strongly excluded. Many theorists have proposed various mechanisms to explain the suppression of the lower multipoles in the CMB power spectrum anisotropies \[6--13\]. For some earlier work and related work, see .

In the noncommutative inflation model with a power-law inflation, a macroscopic scale, resulting from a combination of two microscopic scales: the string scale and the scale governing the inflation, appears and is quite close to the current Hubble scale. This recommends itself as a possible indication of new phenomena appearing at this scale. We were motivated by this fact to investigate whether there is a relation between this scale and the suppression of low multipoles. Unfortunately, at least within this power law inflation, the noncommutative inflation cannot account for the suppression.

The low quadrupole seen by WMAP is suggestive of unsuspected new physics that plays a role at large angular scales, if it is not due to the cosmic variance. However, WMAP also hints that the standard assumption of an underlying spectrum described by a constant index $`n_s`$ may be too simplistic . In fact, the large values of $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ of WMAP rule out many models of inflation, this is a very welcome development indeed. Many authors have tried to explain the large running of the spectral index with different models in the last few months \[3,,17\]. Of course, only time will tell us whether the large running of the spectral index is not a fake.

We shall in this paper develop further the work \[2,,3\], we will determine the string scale by normalizing the power spectrum in the noncommutative power-law inflation model. Our result is $`l_s=3.86\times 10^{29}`$cm, slightly different from that in . We also try to fit the whole power spectrum, and find that the low multipoles are suppressed compared to inflation without noncommutative spacetime, but not enough to account for the data.

Spacetime is noncommutative in string/M theory , satisfying relation

$$txl_s^2,$$

where $`t`$ and $`x`$ are the physical time and space. It is still hard to realize manifestly this relation in string theory. On a general ground, if inflation probes physics at a scale close to string scale or a related scale, one expects that spacetime uncertainty must have effects in the CMB power spectrum .

The spacetime effects can be expressed by a new product, star product, replacing the usual algebraic product. This product does not affect the evolution of the homogeneous background. Let $`u_k`$ be the Fourier mode of the scalar perturbation. With certain assumptions, the authors of  arrived at the following action

$$S=V𝑑\eta d^3k\frac{1}{2}z_k^2(\eta )(u_k^{}u_k^{}k^2u_ku_k),$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill z_k^2(\eta )& =z(\eta )^2y_k^2(\eta ),y_k^2=(\beta _k^+\beta _k^{})^{\frac{1}{2}},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{d\eta }{d\tau }& =\left(\frac{\beta _k^{}}{\beta _k^+}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},\beta _k^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(a^{\pm 2}(\tau +ł_s^2k)+a^{\pm 2}(\tau l_s^2k)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a(\tau )`$ is the cosmic scale factor, the primes denote derivatives with respect to the modified conformal time $`\eta `$, as defined in the above equation, and $`z=a\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}`$. Finally, $`\tau `$ is the time appearing in the following metric

$$ds^2=a^2d\tau ^2+a^2d\stackrel{}{x}^2.$$

Note that the star product induces shifts $`\pm l_s^2k`$ in time, since $`1/k`$ is the uncertainty in space.

In this paper we investigate only the power-law inflation driven by a single scalar field with an exponential potential $`V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2/n}\varphi /M_p)`$. The scale factor reads $`a(t)=(\tau /l)^{\frac{n}{n+1}}=(\frac{t}{(n+1)l})^n`$, and the Hubble constant is $`H=n/t`$ so $`z=a\sqrt{2/n}M_p`$, where $`M_p`$ is the reduced Planck mass, $`l`$ is a parameter which we will determine by normalizing the amplitude of the power spectrum. The power spectrum of the scalar curvature perturbation is computed in  and reads

$$P(k)=\frac{k^2}{4\pi ^2z_k^2(\eta )}=\frac{n}{8\pi ^2}\frac{k^2l_p^2}{a^2(\tau )y^2(\tau ,k)},$$

where $`l_p=M_p^1`$, $`\tau =\tau (k)`$ is the time when the fluctuation mode $`k`$ crosses the Hubble radius or when the the fluctuation mode $`k`$ was created outside the Hubble radius.

In the noncommutative case, due to saturation of the spacetime uncertainty relation, a sufficiently IR mode k is generated outside the Hubble radius. As discussed in , when

$$k=l_s^1a_{eff},a_{eff}=(\beta _k^+/\beta _k^{})^{\frac{1}{4}},$$

the corresponding mode saturates the spacetime uncertainty, and was created outside the horizon. Thus, the creation time is determined by the above relation. This relation can hardly be exact, but for now we simply adopt it.

For large $`k`$, the crossing horizon time is defined through

$$\frac{z_k^{\prime \prime }}{z_k}=k^2,$$

generalizing the usual relation, the prime in the above equation denotes derivative with respect to $`\eta `$.

Denote the wave number satisfying both (1) and (1) by $`k_t`$, then we call $`k<k_t`$ an IR mode and $`k>k_t`$ a UV mode. As we shall see, numerically $`k_t`$ is quite close to $`H_0^1`$. Actually, it is slightly larger than $`H_0^1`$, so an IR mode just entered our horizon not long ago. This fact is quite suggestive, and may be related to the problem of the low multipole power.

The mode $`k`$ was generated outside the Hubble radius if $`k<k_t`$ and the creation time is

$$\tau (k)=kl_s^2\left(1+\left(\frac{k}{k_s}\right)^{2/n}\right)^{1/2},$$

where $`k_s=l_s^1(l_s/l)^n`$, and is related to $`k_c`$, see eq.(12). $`k_c`$ is another macroscopic scale , this length scale is much greater than the current Hubble scale. Both $`n`$ and $`k_c`$ were determined in  using the data of the spectral index and its running. $`l`$, on the other hand, can be determined only by normalizing the power spectrum, and is first done in .

If $`kk_s`$, we have

$$\tau (k)=kl_s^2\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{k}{k_s}\right)^{2/n}\right).$$

The power spectrum in this case becomes

$$P(k)=Ak^{\frac{4}{n+1}}\left(1\frac{5}{4}\frac{n}{n+1}\left(\frac{k}{k_s}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\right),$$

where

$$A=2^{\frac{n1}{n+1}}\frac{n}{8\pi ^2}\left(\frac{l}{ł_s}\right)^{\frac{4n}{n+1}}\left(\frac{l_p}{l_s}\right)^2l_s^{\frac{4}{n+1}}.$$

Equation (1) tells us that the spectral index is $`n_s=1+4/(n+1)`$, so in the very IR end we have a blue spectrum.

For a UV mode $`k>k_t`$ and $`kk_ck_s`$, where

$$k_c=\left(\frac{n(2n1)}{(n+1)^2}\right)^{\frac{n+1}{4}}k_s,$$

as defined in , we simply quote our previous results: the time when the fluctuation mode $`k`$ crosses the Hubble radius is

$$\tau (k)=l_s^2k\left(\frac{k}{k_c}\right)^{\frac{2}{n1}}\left(1+\frac{n(2n5)}{(n1)(2n1)}\left(\frac{k_c}{k}\right)^{\frac{4}{n1}}\right),$$

the power spectrum reads approximately

$$P(k)=Bk^{\frac{2}{n1}}\left(1\frac{4n^2(n2)(2n+1)}{(n+1)^2(n1)(2n1)}\left(\frac{k_c}{k}\right)^{\frac{4}{n1}}\right),$$

where

$$B=\left(\frac{n(2n1)}{(n+1)^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{n1}}\frac{n}{8\pi ^2}\left(\frac{l_p}{l}\right)^2l^{\frac{2}{n1}}.$$

Requiring $`P(k=0.05Mpc^1)Bk^{2/(n1)}2\times 10^9`$ for $`n=13.17`$ and $`k_c=1.65\times 10^5Mpc^1`$ (these values are from ), we obtain $`l1.19\times 10^{24}`$cm and $`l_s4.35\times 10^{29}`$cm . Our result on $`l_s`$ is one order of magnitude smaller than the one obtained in . The above result is obtained using our old results , we shall determine all these parameters using numerical method in the following, the result will be slightly different.

Here we notice that we expand the power spectrum for UV modes in terms $`\left(k_c/k\right)^{\frac{4}{n1}}`$ which equals 0.071 for $`k=0.05Mpc^1`$ and 0.21 for $`k=0.002Mpc^1`$. We can certainly trust the results for $`k=0.05Mpc^1`$. So in order to get better results for smaller $`k`$ and to fit the experimental data in general, we need to compute the power spectrum numerically.

In the numerical solution, we need to find the $`k_t`$ first. If a fluctuation mode $`k`$ was created inside the Hubble radius, the time $`\tau (k)`$ when it crossed the Hubble radius can be determined by

$$f(\tau ,k)=\frac{z_k^{\prime \prime }}{z_k}k^2=0,$$

here the primes denote derivative with respect to $`\eta `$. We already defined the critical $`k_t`$ above, it satisfies the above relation as well as (1). After determining $`k_t`$, we compute the power spectrum for the IR modes and the UV modes ($`k<k_t`$ and $`k>k_t`$) separately.

For the IR modes, using equation (1), we have

$$\frac{d\tau }{dk}=l_s^2\left(1+\frac{n+1}{n}\left(\frac{k}{k_s}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\right)\left(1+\left(\frac{k}{k_s}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

For the second case, using equation (1),

$$\frac{d\tau }{dk}=\frac{f(\tau ,k)/k}{f(\tau ,k)/\tau }.$$

This formula is too complex to be written down here. Armed with these formulas, the spectral index and its running can be expressed as

$$n_s=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}P(k)}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{k}{P(k)}\left(\frac{P(k)}{k}+\frac{d\tau }{dk}\frac{P(k)}{\tau }\right),$$

$$\frac{dn_s}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=k\left(\frac{n_s}{k}+\frac{d\tau }{dk}\frac{n_s}{\tau }\right),$$

where $`P(k)`$ has been given in equation (1).

There are three parameters ($`l`$, string scale $`l_s`$ and the power n) in the noncommutative power-law inflation. The main constraints from WMAP  are the amplitude of the power spectrum $`P_k(k=0.002Mpc^1)=2.09\times 10^9`$, the spectral index $`n_s(k=0.05Mpc^1)=0.93_{0.03}^{+0.02}`$, $`n_s(k=0.002Mpc^1)=1.20_{0.11}^{+0.12}`$, and the running of the spectral index $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k(k=0.05Mpc^1)=0.031_{0.017}^{+0.016}`$, $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k(k=0.002Mpc^1)=0.077_{0.052}^{+0.050}`$. We will not try to tune three parameters to best fit the experiments data. Rather, we fit the data by picking $`n=12`$, $`l=2.15\times 10^{24}`$cm and $`l_s=3.86\times 10^{29}`$cm. The critical wave number is then $`k_t=11.9\times 10^4Mpc^1`$ (slightly larger than $`H_0=4.6\times 10^4Mpc^1`$). We show the numerical results in Figure 1, 2 and 3. If we dial $`n`$ downward, the running of the spectral index becomes larger. The effects of noncommutative spacetime in a general inflation model will be discussed elsewhere, and it is found that one of the slow-roll parameter $`ϵ`$ and the noncommutative parameter control the running of the spectral index, a larger $`ϵ`$ results in a larger running.

Figure 1. $`P_k`$ is the amplitude of the power spectrum and k is the comoving mode.

Figure 2. $`n_s`$ is the spectral index and k is the comoving mode.

Figure 3. $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ is the running of the spectral index and k is the comoving mode.

¿From Figure 2 and 3, we read off

$$n_s=0.956,\frac{dn_s}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=0.0325\text{at}k=0.05Mpc^1;$$

and

$$n_s=1.093,\frac{dn_s}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=0.0632\text{at}k=0.002Mpc^1.$$

These results fall within the error bars of the WMAP data. One can certainly improve these results, but the main conclusion will not change: the noncommutative power-law inflation model can fit the tentative running spectral index data of WMAP, and the string scale so determined is about $`10^{29}`$cm, 4 order of magnitude larger than the Planck length.

Although it is not easy to explain the great difference between the Planck scale and the string scale in the perturbative string theory (the Planck scale is related to the string scale by $`l_p=l_s\sqrt{\alpha _{\text{GUT}}}/2`$ in the perturbative heterotic string theory), it is not hard to tune the string scale all the way up to $`10^{18}`$cm in type I compactifications and nonperturbative heterotic string theory. Although our result is rather tentative, it offers some promise to determine the string scale experimentally. Doubtlessly, further experimental data will bring forward more surprises, and hopefully consolidate the existing tentative results on the running spectral index.

Finally, our result on the CMB angular power spectrum is shown in Figure 4. We see that the noncommutative effects indeed suppresses the low multipoles, but not to the degree required by the WMAP results.

Figure 4. The CMB angular power spectrum of the spacetime noncommutative power-law inflation. The dashing line is our model and the green solid line is the Best fit P$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, P stands for power-law.

We emphasize that our analysis and results are different from those in  in some technical details.

The results presented here, as in  and , are exclusively on the noncommutative power-law inflation. A general analysis on noncommutative inflation based on the scheme of  will be presented elsewhere. Also, it would be interesting to study the general consequences of noncommutative spacetime for inflation without resorting to a definite scheme.

We conclude that the running of the spectral index of the CMB power spectrum may strongly indicate that new physics such as noncommutative spacetime in string theory operated during inflation, and that if the deficit of the power for low multipoles is true, still more new physics is required. We are eagerly waiting for new data from WMAP which may or may not consolidate both of these surprising features.

Acknowledgments. We would are grateful to Y. S. Piao and X. M. Zhang for useful discussions, especially to B. Feng for discussions and help in numerical calculation. This work was supported by a “Hundred People Project” grant of Academia Sinica and an outstanding young investigator award of NSF of China.

References

relax C. L. Bennett et al., Astrophys. J. 464, L1 (1996), astro-ph/9601067; C. L. Bennett et al., astro-ph/0302207; D. N. Spergel et al., astro-ph/0302209; L. Verde et al., astro-ph/0301218; H. V. Peris et al., astro-ph/0302225; E. Komatsu et al., astro-ph/0302223. relax R. Brandenberger, P. M. Ho, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 023517, hep-th/0203119. relax Q. G. Huang, Miao Li, JHEP 0306 (2003) 014, hep-th/0304203. relax S. Tsujikawa, R. Maartens and R. Brandenberger, astro-ph/0308169. relax P. Mukherjee, Y. Wang, astro-ph/0303211; S. L. Bridle, A. M. Lewis, J. Weller and G. Efstathiou, astro-ph/0302306; G. Efstathiou, astro-ph/0306431. relax G. Efstathiou, astro-ph/0303127. relax C. R. Contaldi, M. Peloso, L. Kofman and A. Linde, astro-ph/0303636. relax J. M. Cline, R. Crotty and Julien Lesgourgues, astro-ph/0304558. relax B. Feng, X. Zhang, astro-ph/0305020. relax S. DeDeo, R. R. Caldwell and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 103509. relax M. Fukuma, Y. Kono and A. Miwa, hep-th/0307029. relax A. D. Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga and A. Hamilton, astro-ph/0307282. relax A. Lasenby and C. Doran, astro-ph/0307311. relax Y.-P. Jing and L.-Z. Fang, astro-ph/9409072; J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 107303; E. Gaztanaga, J. Wagg, T. Multamaki, A. Montana and D.H.Hughes, astro-ph/0304178; M. Kesden, M. Kamionkowski and A. Cooray, astro-ph/0306597. relax T. Yoneya, in ” Wandering in the Fields ”, eds. K. Kawarabayashi, A. Ukawa ( World Scientific, 1987), p. 419; M. Li and T. Yoneya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1977) 1219, hep-th/9611072; T. Yoneya, Prog. Theor. Phys. 103, 1081 (2000), hep-th/0004074; J. Polchinski, ” String Theory ” volume 2. relax C-S. Chu, B. R. Greene and G. Shiu, hep-th/0011241; F. Lizzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele and M. Peloso, hep-th/0203099. relax B. Feng, M. Li, R. J. Zhang, X. Zhang, astro-ph/0302479; J. E. Lidsey and R. Tavakol, astro-ph/0304113; M. Kawasaki, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, hep-ph/0304161; L. Pogosian, S. H. H. Tye, I. Wasserman and M. Wyman, hep-th/0304188; E. Keski-Vakkuri, M. S. Sloth, hep-th/0306070; S. Cremonini, hep-th/0305244; K. I. Izawa, hep-ph/0305286; E. D. Grezia, G. Esposito, A. Funel, G. Mangano and G. Miele, gr-qc/0305050; D. J. H. Chung, G. Shiu, M. Trodden, astro-ph/0305193; M. Yamaguchi, J. Yokoyama, hep-ph/0307373.


text:
# 𝒫𝒯-Symmetric Quantum Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

A new approach to quantum theories was proposed in 1996 in the context of the so-called $`\delta `$-expansion . The idea was to study non-Hermitian theories which nevertheless possessed positive spectra. Parity symmetry $`𝒫`$ was broken in these theories, as well as time-reversal invariance $`𝒯`$. However, $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry was unbroken. In early papers we examined scalar field theories with interaction

$$_{\mathrm{i}nt}=g(\mathrm{i}\varphi )^N,$$
(1)
supersymmetric theories possessing the superpotential

$$𝒮=\mathrm{i}g(\mathrm{i}\varphi )^N,$$
(2)
and massless electrodynamics with an axial vector current

$$j_5^\mu =e\frac{1}{2}\psi \gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5\psi ,$$
(3)
as well as studied the Schwinger-Dyson equations for such theories as

$$L_{\mathrm{i}nt}=g\varphi ^4.$$
(4)
Many remarkable features were discovered in such investigations, such as perturbative parity violation, stability of eigenvalue conditions for coupling constants, and asymptotic freedom. The idea is essentially nonperturbative in concept, because the path integrals defining the theory, in general, must be defined as nontrivial contours in the complex plane.

However, most of what is known about $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric theories comes from examples in quantum mechanics, that is, $`d=1`$ quantum field theory. For example, it has been proved that the spectrum of

$$H=p^2+x^2(\mathrm{i}x)^\nu ,\nu 0,$$
(5)
is real and positive .

## 2 Unitarity

The most troubling aspect of $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric theories has been that of the apparent violation of unitarity. In a remarkable development last year it was discovered how to define a unitary norm, at least for quantum mechanical theories like that described by the Hamiltonian (5). Let $`\varphi _n`$ by the $`n`$th eigenfunction of $`H`$,

$$H\varphi _n(x)=E_n\varphi _n(x),$$
(6)
which is a differential equation imposed on a complex contour $`C`$. The eigenfunctions can be chosen to have eigenvalue 1 of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ operator:

$$𝒫𝒯\varphi _n(x)=\varphi _n(x).$$
(7)
The eigenfunctions are complete in the sense that

$$\underset{n}{}(1)^n\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y)=\delta (xy),$$
(8)
which means that the $`𝒫𝒯`$ inner product,

$$(f,g)_Cdx[𝒫𝒯f(x)]g(x),𝒫𝒯f(x)=f^{}(x),$$
(9)
(the complex conjugation is to be applied to quantities in the functional form, not to the coordinate $`x`$) defines a metric which is not definite:

$$(\varphi _n,\varphi _m)=(1)^n\delta _{mn}.$$
(10)
Because of the severe interpretational issues associated with an indefinite metric, it is fortunate that last year Bender, Brody, and Jones  discovered how to define a positive metric. In terms of the eigenfunctions, they defined a (dynamical) $`𝒞`$ operator:

$$𝒞(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y),$$
(11)
which has square unity:

$$dy𝒞(x,y)𝒞(y,z)=\delta (xz),$$
(12)
but is distinct from the parity operator:

$$𝒫(x,y)=\delta (x+y)=\underset{n}{}(1)^n\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y),$$
(13)
The positive-definite inner product is now defined by

$$f|g=_Cdx[𝒞𝒫𝒯f(x)]g(x).$$
(14)
This defines a nontrivial extension of quantum mechanics. Of course, the physical interpretation of $`𝒞`$ is far from clear.

## 3 Electrodynamics

The notation suggests that $`𝒞`$ is some sort of charge-conjugation operator. The place to examine such an idea would seem to be the fermion sector, since it was from the Dirac equation that the concept of antiparticles emerged. Consider the massless Dirac Lagrangian, written in term of the Majorana representation:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\psi \gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}}_\mu \psi .$$
(15)
The symmetry of $`\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu `$, combined with the antisymmetry of the derivative operator, requires that the Dirac field $`\psi `$ be a Grassmann variable.

There are thus two ways to introduce interactions. In either one, one starts from a global transformation that leaves the Dirac Lagrangian invariant:

$$\psi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta \lambda }\psi ,$$
(16)
where $`\lambda `$ is a constant, and $`\theta `$ is an antisymmetric matrix that commutes with $`\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu `$.

* The first choice is $`\theta =eq`$,

$$q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{i}\\ \mathrm{i}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
the antisymmetrical charge matrix, living in an independent two-dimensional space. When $`\lambda `$ is now promoted to a space-time dependent function, we are led to the usual current of electrodynamics:

$$j^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\psi \gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu eq\psi ,$$
(18)
because the gauge transformation of $`A_\mu `$, $`A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \lambda `$ in the interaction $`j^\mu A_\mu `$ cancels that of the free Lagrangian. It is the additional two-fold multiplicity of the Dirac field that corresponds to the presence of antiparticles.

Schwinger sharpened this argument. He insisted on the Euclidean postulate—that the extension of the theory to Euclidean space bear no memory of the original timelike direction—and showed therefore that every spin 1/2 particle must have a chargelike attribute .
* The second possibility is that $`\theta =e\gamma ^5`$; this leads to the axial-current interaction $`j_5^\mu A_\mu `$, with

$$j_5^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\psi \gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu e\gamma ^5\psi .$$
(19)
For a massless theory, such a current is conserved, barring anomalies, so we still have a consistent theory. This is the $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric QED referred to above. However, there is now no additional two-fold multiplicity of the Dirac field, and therefore, apparently, no antiparticles. We therefore suspect that referring to the dynamical $`𝒞`$ operator as charge conjugation may be misleading.

## 4 Discussion

It is not yet clear if there exists a consistent treatment of fermions in the $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric framework. The exploration of the Dirac equation, both at the classical and second-quantized level, promises to shed light on the connection of charge-conjugation, the $`𝒞`$ operator, and unitarity in this exciting extension of quantum mechanical ideas. I hope that this summary will provoke substantial developments. Further developments will be indicated in my contribution to the Workshop on Pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonians.

I thank the US Department of Energy for partial support of this research, and Qinghai Wang for extensive discussions at this Colloquium. I am grateful to the Organizers, particularly Cestmir Burdik, of this Colloquium for allowing me to present my work here.