text:
# Universalization as a physical guiding principle

## I The Newtonian World

In the classical Newtonian World, we have the absolute $`3`$-space and the absolute $`1`$-time with space having the Euclidean flat metric. Then there are the three laws of motion governing motion of particles. The laws however apply only to massive particles. That is massless particles cannot be accommodated in the Newtonian mechanics. If such particles exist in nature, they would ask for new mechanics. The characteristic of such a particle is that it can’t exist at rest in any frame because its mass is zero. It should be moving relative to all observers and its speed must be the limiting speed. No observer can attain this speed else it could have it at rest. That is, its speed must be the same constant for all observers and hence it is a universal constant.

On the other hand we also know in the Newtonian framework that light always moves in a straight line in all directions. The straight line motion is indicative of constant speed. Not quite, there could occur accelerated motion in straight line for force acting along the line of motion. Since light moves straight in all directions, this possibility is also ruled out because there cannot exist a force acting in all directions. We are thus forced to conclude that either Newton’s laws of motion do not apply to light or its speed must be constant. This constant should be the same for all observers because light moves in a straight line for all observers. That is, light’s speed must also be a universal constant.

It is Maxwell’s electrodynamics which establishes that massless particles do in fact exist in nature. Photons, particles of light, are indeed massless. We should thus have a new mechanics which incorporates massless particles as well in its fold. That is to incorporate a universal constant speed. It is the universality of laws of motion which asks for a new mechanics respecting universal character of the speed of light.

Under Newton’s law of gravitation, all massive particles attract each other by the inverse square law and again there is no prescription for zero mass particles. That is, it does not incorporate massless particles in the gravitational interaction. Gravity is on the other hand a universal force as it links to all particles and “pulls” them all with the same acceleration irrespective of their mass and constitution. Linking of gravity is universal and hence it must also link to massless particles which however could not be accomplished in the Newtonian theory. Thus universality of the gravitational force asks for a new theory of gravitation.

The most fundamental universal entities are space and time and hence any universal property must always be expressible as a property of space and time. Even in the Newtonian mechanics, free particles move in straight lines which are geodesics (shortest distance or autoparallel curves) of the $`3`$-Euclidean space. The geodetic motion is a universal property of free particles, their motion does not depend upon the specific particle parameters. Also the motion under gravity is independent of mass of the particle. It indicates that a full realization of the universal character of gravitation would ask for its becoming a property of space and time. That is in a new theory, gravitation must cease to be an external field but instead be completely synthesized in the space-time geometry.

The guiding principle that thus emerges is that a universal property must always be expressible as a property of spacetime.

## II The Relativistic World

The universalization of the Newtonian mechanics which includes massless particles (which is in turn equivalent to incorporation of a limiting universal invariant speed) naturally leads to the new relativistic mechanics, special relativity (SR). It synthesizes space and time into a $`4`$-dimensional spacetime manifold having the flat Minkowski geometry. The universality of invariant light’s speed gets synthesized in the definition of spacetime geometry specified by the Minkowski metric.

The next question is of universality of gravitational field. Like the laws of mechanics are universal (and thus must apply to all particles), so must be the case for gravity. It is universal and hence must act on all particles including particles of zero mass. The massless particles always have fixed speed relative to all observers. Within the Newtonian framework, action of force should in general change particle’s speed but that can’t happen for massless photons. We are thus faced with the real contradiction which can only be resolved by doing something very drastic and unusual. What is really required is that photon path like other particles path should instead of going straight bend toward the gravitating body as it grazes past it. This could happen without changing photon’s speed only if gravitational field due to the body must bend space around it. That is gravity bends/curves the space around a gravitating body. Since space and time have already been synthesized, gravitational filed must hence curve spacetime. We thus come to a very revolutionary conclusion that universality of gravitation demands that it could honestly be described by nothing else but the curvature of spacetime.

Thus universality of gravitation does not let spacetime remain inert background but instead impregnates it with dynamics, a unique and distinguishing property. It then ceases to be an external field and is fully integrated into the geometry of spacetime and motion under gravity would now be given by the free geodetic motion relative to the curved geometry of spacetime. The equation of motion for gravitational field does not have to be specified from outside but should by itself follow from the curvature of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is given by the Riemann curvature tensor which satisfies the Bianchi differential identity. The contraction of which yields the second rank symmetric tensor, constructed from the Ricci tensor, having vanishing divergence. That is,

$$_bG^{ab}=0$$
(1)
where

$$G_{ab}=R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ab}.$$
(2)
The above equation implies

$$G_{ab}=\kappa T_{ab}\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}$$
(3)
with

$$_bT^{ab}=0$$
(4)
where $`T_{ab}`$ is a symmetric tensor, and $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are constants. The demand that it should in the first approximation reduce to the Newtonian equation for gravitation will require $`T_{ab}`$ to represent the energy momentum tensor for matter and $`\kappa =8\pi G/c^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being negligible at the stellar scale. This is the Einsteinian equation for gravitational field, general relativity (GR).

Note that the constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ enters into the equation naturally. It was first introduced by Einstein in an ad-hoc manner to have a physically acceptable static model of the Universe and was subsequently withdrawn when Friedmann found the non-static model with acceptable physical properties. This kind of birth gave it the name cosmological constant studded with ambiguity and arbitrariness about its existence. We would however like to maintain that it appears in the equation as naturally as the stress tensor $`T_{ab}`$ and hence should be considered on the same footing. What its value is to be determined by observations.

Let us imagine, had Einstein followed the path we have done above, he would have concluded that space free of all removable matter/energy ($`T_{ab}=0`$) is indeed endowed with non-trivial dynamics given by the stress tensor, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}`$. This is precisely the stress tensor of virtual particles produced by the quantum fluctuations of vacuum . He would have then anticipated that vacuum may have non-trivial quantum properties and its energy momentum is given by the new constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ comes in naturally as the measure of vacuum, a new constant of the Einsteinian gravity, a purely of general relativistic entity. This would have been a new prediction. Instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the greatest blunder of his life, it should have really been a profound prediction anticipating the quantum aspects of vacuum and its gravitational interaction. This all happens simply because Einstein’s equation refers to the spacetime in its entirety. Hence whatever happens or could happen in spacetime must be contained in the equation. Since spacetime is all inclusive, nothing could be shielded from it. It is again the reflection of the universality of gravitation and spacetime.

## III Another View Of Gravity

Let us envision that all particles massive as well as massless share a universal interaction without reference to gravity. That would imply that the interaction has to be long range and it can not be shielded or removed globally. Since it is shared by massless particles as well, the equation of motion describing motion under it would have to be free of mass of the particle. That would mean that it could however be removed locally because all particles in the local neighborhood would follow the same path. Then the interaction in question could only be removed locally but not globally. There could thus exist only local inertial frames (LIFs) but no global inertial frame (GIF).

The non-existence of GIF and existence of only LIFs imply that spacetime has to be curved with its curvature being given by the Riemann curvature tensor. Once we have hit upon the Riemann curvature, we could follow the above line of derivation to get to the equation (3). This is now the equation of motion for the universal field. It is a second order non linear differential equation in the metric potentials, $`g_{ab}`$, and thus on the right it should have the source for the field. The second rank symmetric tensor $`T_{ab}`$ should then describe the source of the field. Since the interaction is universal, its source should be the property which is shared by all particles. That could only be energy of particles, and hence $`T_{ab}`$ should represent energy momentum tensor of matter. Then the equation becomes the Einstein equation for gravitational field which we have derived simply by using the universal character of the interaction. The envisioned universal interaction could therefore be nothing other than gravitation. This is quite remarkable that the universality property of interaction uniquely singles out gravity. That means gravitation is the unique universal field in the classical framework.

Another example of a dynamical property determining dynamics of force is Bertrand’s theorem for central forces in classical mechanics . The demand of existence of closed orbits picks out two force laws, Hooke’s law giving simple harmonic motion and the inverse square law. Further the demand of long range would then single out the latter. Here we refer to the most general property of universality of force which not only determines the dynamics of the force completely and uniquely but it does so in a very extraordinary manner by making the spacetime itself dynamic . This happens because a universal feature could only be answered through a universal entity, spacetime. Since universality refers to a force, hence the answering universal agency must endow the dynamics of the force.

## IV Yet Another View

Gravity is a classical field and hence it is a valid question to ask for its charge/source and the answer is matter/energy in any form. Non gravitational matter/energy is always positive which means it has only one kind of polarity and hence it can never vanish. That is a body can never be gravitationally neutral. From a classical standpoint, a body which is not charge neutral cannot be stable for it must keep on accreting until it neutralizes. For gravity, this can’t happen for any further accretion leads to increasing rather than neutralizing charge. The only way this situation could be made sensible is that gravitational field energy must possess charge and it should have opposite polarity than that of non gravitational energy. That is why gravitational field energy must be negative and hence the field attractive. The field energy is however not localizable and therefore there is inherent ambiguity in its definition and that is why there exist several expressions for it in the literature . Each of them brings out some aspect or the other. The main cause of ambiguity is the nonlocal or quasilocal character of gravitational field energy.

If we want to include gravitational field energy as a source, we have, rather than the usual Laplace equation for empty space, the Poisson equation with the field energy density on the right hand side. Its solution would now violate the inverse square law which is required by the conservation of charge for a spherically symmetric source. We thus end up in a contradiction similar to light’s propagation in gravitational field. That is, we shouldn’t violate the celebrated inverse square law and yet the contribution of gravitational field energy should be included. We have considered the equation relative to a fixed flat spacetime. Could it happen that if we curve the space, its curvature could account for the field energy contribution leaving the good old Laplace equation undisturbed and thereby the inverse square law.

The only possible way out of the contradiction is again that gravity must curve space (spacetime) and it can only be described by its curvature. As before then the Einstein equation would follow.

In a simple minded fashion, we can argue as follows. Let $`M_0`$ be the bare non gravitational mass of a particle as measured at infinity with vanishing gravitational field energy. At any finite radius, $`R`$, in addition it would also have gravitational field energy, and so we write

$$M(R)=M_0M^2/2R$$
(5)
which when solved for $`M(R)`$ gives

$$M(R)=R+\sqrt{r^2+2M_0R}$$
(6)
This shows that $`M(R)`$ vanishes as $`R0`$ and tends to $`M_0`$ at infinity. That means as $`R0`$, $`M_0`$ is completely eaten up by the negative gravitational field energy. If the particle has electric charge, there will remain residual mass proportional to electric charge due to electric field energy. This simple argument does indeed give the right result as obtained by the rigorous calculations . The critical point that emerges is the fact that when gravitational field energy is included with the total mass and not the bare mass participating in the interaction, the total mass remains always finite. Even when rigorous exact calculation is done, this feature remains true and hence it should lead to the same result.

The important point to note is that the rigorous consideration does not invalidate this critical point and hence the result obtained here, save for some matter of detail, would remain true and valid on sound physical consideration as well . This is not however the case for the escape velocity argument for black hole and nor for the equipartition between the Compton length and the Schwarzschild radius for the Planck length.

All this is because of the unique and bizarre property of gravitational field. Its charge is rather a very subtle issue. It is of two kinds; one localizable non gravitational energy while the other non localizable field energy. It is the former which is like electric charge we know about while the latter is completely new and unique to gravity. The latter could honestly be described only through the space curvature  and consequently gravitational field by spacetime curvature. Now the most pertinent question that arises is that non gravitational matter fields can be by prescription kept confined to, say $`3`$-space/brane, could we do the same to gravitational field? Could gravity remain confined to $`3`$-space or be free to propagate in higher dimensions as well? This is the question that refers to yet unexploited aspect of gravity.

The field equation for gravitation as derived above does not refer to any dimension of space and would hence be valid for all dimensions. It is a truly universal equation. In the equation, we can prescribe to confine the matter stress tensor, $`T_{ab}`$ to the $`3`$-brane but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ refers to vacuum which cannot obviously be confined to any dimension. Thus gravity can not be confined to any dimension instead it freely propagates in all dimensions. This is purely a classical argument without any reference to string theory which requires higher dimensions. We would like to argue that even from classical standpoint, gravity is indeed a higher dimensional interaction.

## V The Quantum World

We rode on light to come to the relativistic world from the classical world. Once again let us ride on light. We incorporated light in the mechanics by treating it as a zero mass particle. Light also propagates as a wave and its motion is determined by the wave vector. Anything that moves must carry energy and momentum which are described by the $`4`$-momentum vector, $`P_a`$. Thus a wave, which is fully characterized by a $`4`$-wave vector, $`k_a`$ should also have a $`4`$-momentum vector associated with it describing the energy and momentum it carries along. There cannot exist two independent $`4`$-vectors characterizing the motion of a wave. The only sensible thing that can then happen is that the two vectors be proportional, $`P_a=hk_a`$ which would then readily lead to the well-known relation, $`E=h\nu `$ relating wave’s frequency with the energy it carries. This should be universally true, giving the quantum law with $`h`$ being the universal constant which could be identified with the Planck’s constant.

The wave character of motion implies that it can not be localized in any frame. Non localizability essentially means uncertainty in simultaneous determination of the conjugate variables, position and momentum. In other way, it could be viewed that the process of determining one introduces uncertainty in the other. This happens because the energy required in the measurement process (probe’s energy) is not negligible compared to the particle’s energy. This phenomenon of uncertainty in determining the conjugate variables simultaneously should therefore be universal and true for all particles. We are thus led to the famous uncertainty relation, ($`\delta x^i\delta p^jh\delta ^{ij}`$), which is the key relation of the quantum world.

Interestingly, it is again the incorporation of light as a zero mass particle or a wave in the mechanics that leads to the basic quantum principle and consequently to the quantum world. The quantum principle is universal and hence according to our general belief and the guiding principle, it should be expressible as a property of spacetime. This has unfortunately not happened despite the quantum theory being over 100 years old. Unlike SR and GR, quantum theory is not complete and I would believe that the completion would come about only when the quantum principle is expressed as a property of spacetime structure. We shall pick up the thread of incompleteness in the next section while looking beyond.

## VI And Beyond

We have so far employed the principle of universalization to chart the passage from Newton to Einstein. The key to this course was the existence of zero mass particles in the nature. Their incorporation in mechanics led to SR and their interaction with gravity led to GR. This is how we come to the relativistic world from the classical world. Now comes the question of going “beyond”. Does there still remain some unexploited aspect of universalization which could be tapped to go beyond? The distinguishing feature of the relativistic world is its anchoring on the most fundamental structure - spacetime. SR binds space and time while GR impregnates it with dynamics of gravitational field. Gravity ceases to be a force as it is completely synthesized in the spacetime geometry which now becomes a physical entity like any other force. On this line of approach, it seems quite clear that the way beyond could only come about by exploiting some aspect of spacetime which has so far remained untapped.

So far we have taken spacetime to be a 4-dimensional continuum which is commutative;i.e. the commutator $`[x^i,x^j]=0`$. The commutativity and dimensionality of spacetime are yet free and we should keep our mind open about them.

Universalization always lead to enlargement of the existing framework. For example, inclusion of light’s interaction with gravity lead to the fact that spacetime has to be curved - a passage from flat to curved. In our exploration of “beyond” is to identify the contradiction and then attempt to guess the extrapolation required to resolve the issue.

### A Gravitational world

In the Einsteinian world, spacetime is a $`(3+1)`$-dimensional manifold and the presence of matter/energy curves it and impregnates it with dynamics of gravitational field. The equation that follows from the curvature of spacetime has no reference to the dimension of spacetime and hence is truly valid in all dimensions. Secondly on the right of this equation, there are two terms, one the stress tensor for non gravitational matter fields and the other is the constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which characterizes vacuum - empty space. The former could be confined by prescription to a particular dimension, say $`3`$-brane but the latter is vacuum which cannot be kept confined to any dimension. That is,the gravitational field is however free to propagate in all higher dimensions even when the matter fields are confined to a $`3`$-brane. Gravity is thus truly a higher dimensional interaction and this conclusion follows from purely a classical consideration without reference to string theory .

Let us work up yet another argument for higher dimensions. A dynamics of a physical field cannot be fully determined unless the proper boundary conditions are prescribed. The dynamics of gravitational field is described by the curvature of $`3`$-brane, that is the $`3`$-space should have the proper boundary condition. What could that be? For matter fields confined to 3-brane, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vacuum in the higher dimensional bulk space would define the proper boundary condition. The curvatures of the two spacetimes would be related by the well-known Gauss-Codazi equation. For the matter confined to $`3`$-space ($`3`$-brane), bulk spacetime would be $`5`$-dimensional and the source for curvature in extra dimension is only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The universe we live in could be thought of as hypersurface or domain wall in the bulk spacetime. Since the matter is assumed to be confined on the 3-space, gravitational field which would propagate in the bulk as well would have $`Z_2`$-symmetry in the extra dimension.

The picture that emerges is similar to the braneworld gravity . The Gauss - Codazi equation connects the curvature tensors of bulk and brane spacetimes while the Israel junction conditions  connect the brane extrinsic curvature with the brane tension and stress tensor. From this results an effective modified Einstein equation on the brane  while the bulk satisfies the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-vacuum equation (we would not here write the equation and the boundary conditions etc.). The equation on the brane is not closed because it has both local and non-local parts. The former arise from the brane stress tensor and its “square” while the latter from the projection of the bulk Weyl curvature onto the brane, which is trace-free and hence is called dark radiation. Further requiring that gravity though free to move in extra dimension should however remain localized (massless graviton to have ground state on the brane) to the brane where its source sits leads to the bulk $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, anti de Sitter spacetime  (it is a different matter that it is also motivated by the AdS-CFT correspondence). The Newtonian potential gets modified and it has an additional $`1/r^3`$ term. This is what filters down as the high energy correction to the Newtonian gravity. The question of localization of gravity has also been studied for the FRW brane cosmology and it requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the brane to be non-negative . If localization of gravity is taken as the determining factor for the FRW cosmology, non-negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a definite prediction of the braneworld gravity.

We would thus like to say that braneworld picture of gravitation naturally arises simply from the universal property. This is quite independent and separate motivation. It is the universality property which is responsible for gravity being a higher dimensional interaction. We have also enunciated an interesting and novel argument for the self interaction of gravitational field and it being attractive simply by demanding stability of a gravitating system.

### B Quantum gravitational world

In our discussion we have so far come across four physical constants, $`c,h,G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. All of them are different in character and signify different physical aspects. They are as follows:

$`c`$ is the most fundamental of the constants. Recently its six different aspects have been enunciated  showing its various avatars. The most profound amongst them is that it represents a symmetry of spacetime. It is a universal spacetime property. None of the others has this distinction.

$`h`$ is also represents a universal physical principle but like $`c`$ it has not yet been synthesized into the structure of spacetime. Anything that is universal should be expressible as a spacetime property. This is the main problem of the quantum theory and we yet have no clue about the solution.

$`G`$ is simply the coupling constant of spacetime geometry (gravitational field) with the non gravitational matter fields. It is really the measure of the universal aspect of matter fields which links to spacetime geometry. It is the coupling constant for the universal field in which all matter fields participate. The interaction does indeed become a property of spacetime and it is described by its curvature.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the new constant of the Einsteinian gravity. It is the measure of vacuum’s coupling to spacetime geometry. Vacuum is by definition universal and hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is indeed a new universal constant. Unlike all others, there prevails a profound ambiguity about its character as a true universal constant particularly because of the chequered history of its introduction and subsequent uncertain and ambiguous existence. In our derivation of the field equation for gravitation, it follows naturally and is in fact on the same footing as the stress tensor for matter field. It is indeed the stress tensor of vacuum. This is the new prediction of the Einsteinian gravity which anticipates the stress tensor of vacuum fluctuations.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is truly a measure of what could happen to vacuum. At the micro level it connects to the quantum fluctuations while at the large scale it defines the size of the Universe - rather it provides a closure to the Universe. It could be viewed as defining the underlying spacetime substratum as the matter free limit of the universe. The remarkable fact is that it is non trivial and has dynamics which is entirely described by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Dual role of things is quite characteristic of GR. For instance, gravitational potential in the Schwarzschild solution does the dual role of giving the Newtonian inverse square law as well as curving the space for photons to bend. How could $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is a pure GR creature, therefore escape this distinguishing feature? At one end it could be a measure of quantum vacuum fluctuations while at the other it could source the cosmic acceleration. Could it bind the smallest scale of the Universe with the largest and obtain a profound synthesis? This is the most intriguing and interesting question.

We therefore believe that any attempt to quantum theory of gravity must have to address to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in a non trivial manner because it is a true new constant of the relativistic gravity . On the other hand, almost all the attempts peg on the Planck length as the most fundamental quantity. The Planck length is a construct made out of the three constants and it does not follow from any theory or physical principle. Also note that the three constants that make the Planck length are all not on the same footing, for instance $`c`$ represents the Lorentz symmetry of spacetime while none other has such a fundamental claim. We would argue that a constant that truly follows from a theory should always have precedence over a construct and hence has to be first addressed.

The only physical argument being advanced for the Planck length is that it represents the equipartition between the Compton wave length and the Schwarzschild radius. All this presumes that the whole framework which defines these lengths remain valid at the energy which is 16 orders of magnitude higher than anything we have known so far. This comparison is supposed to be done against a fixed background, how could that remain valid at such a high energy - spacetime has to be curved at such high energy? This simplistic argument might give the right answer though based on wrong reasoning. We have the famous example of this kind. Laplace and Michell obtained the exact Schwarzschild radius by computing the escape velocity for a photon. We all know that it is wrong.

Let me add one more to this kind of tentative consideration by comparing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the Schwarzschild radius and we obtain the mass scale, $`c^2/G\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of the order of $`10^{57}`$ grams equivalent to $`10^{80}`$ nucleons, the total mass of the Universe. In the relativistic world, we have the three constants which yield to this measure of mass. This is a valid scale of the relativistic framework.

My objection to these considerations is not only because they are tentative and based on invalid premise but more so because they blind one from the real insight. If you accept the escape velocity argument for photon, it closes the inquiry as there is nothing further to inquire into. While its non acceptance should have raised the question whose solution would have naturally ended up in a new theory of gravity, GR. To me the Planck length should have the similar kind of blinding effect and it is perhaps hiding the crucial question leading to a correct theory of quantum gravity.

Let us again follow our natural lead of identifying the contradiction in the existing framework and then seeking its resolution by enlarging the framework. For quantum gravity, the contradiction is, matter, which produces gravity, has at high energy quantum behaviour while the spacetime which describes gravity is inherently continuum. Thus arises the contradiction. How do we bypass it?

Going by our earlier experience, we recall that for accommodating light’s motion in mechanics we had to bind space and time into a synthetic whole spacetime, and for light to feel gravity we had to curve spacetime. Now what could we do to spacetime to accommodate quantum behaviour of matter which curves it? We had so far not altered the basic structure of space and time, and have always managed by adding a new property. Could we still invoke some new property of spacetime which lets us resolve the contradiction? What is required is to make spacetime curvature discrete. Could curvature be made quantum yet specetime retaining its continuum character? This is the first question. If yes, that would indeed be very good and comfortable. Otherwise we are left with no other option but to make spacetime itself quantum which would obviously be a very formidable task. The loop quantum gravity precisely does that .

Frankly I am totally confused here.

Let us note that the equation for gravitational field has as we have obtained two components on the right, one stress energy tensor of matter and the other of vacuum. The former certainly has the quantum structure at high energy while this will not be the case for the latter. Secondly, the former could be confined to a given dimension, say the 3-brane, while the latter cannot be and hence we have to consider gravity as essentially a higher dimensional field. When we are attempting to quantize gravity, we are in totally new and unfamiliar territory. So far we have done quantization of fields and matter against a fixed spacetime background. Now we have to quantize spacetime against itself. If this is not crazy, it is certainly quite strange and bizarre. Now we have an added new feature that the higher dimensional vacuum would continue to have the continuum structure. Could it then happen that we should consider quantization of gravity (curvature of 3-brane) in the continuum spacetime of higher dimensional vacuum (anti/de Sitter) spacetime. I am not sure how to implement it but it certainly opens up a new window which is in line with what we have done earlier.

Another way of looking at quantization is to ask for synthesis of $`h`$ with the spacetime structure. This is because quantum principle is universal and hence it must be expressible like $`c`$ as a property of spacetime. This will render quantum theory complete on par with the relativity theories, SR and GR. The main feature of the quantum framework is non localizability leading to non locality. Note that incorporation of higher dimensional feature of gravity would naturally lead, as in the braneworld gravity, to non local effects. Perhaps it is this non locality which could be exploited or synthesized with the quantization procedure. Could this make space non commutative which may facilitate quantum behaviour? Howsoever crazy may it all look yet, since we are faced with the most formidable and complex problem, no stone should be left unturned. It may therefore happen that synthesis of $`h`$ into spacetime also requires $`G`$ along. That is quantum principle could not be synthesized into spacetime alone but it requires gravity along as an inseparable partner. In other words, the quantum theory cannot be completed in flat spacetime, spacetime has necessarily to be dynamic and hence curved. This seems quite natural for the synthesis being sought could only occur at very high energy where spacetime has to be dynamic and curved.

Theory of quantum gravity/spacetime is therefore required for completion of quantum theory as well and which would have to include gravity along.

So far almost all the attempts to quantum gravity have been anchored on the Planck length. In the string theory, quantization is done in higher dimensional flat space and GR together with other fields appear as the low energy effective theory in $`4`$ dimensions. We would rather argue that higher dimensions cannot be flat, they should at least contain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hence string theory should manipulate at least the anti-de Sitter space. The background dependence of the programme is being recognized as one of the major weaknesses of the string theory approach. On the other hand the loop quantum gravity programme does however deal with curved spacetime but restricted to $`4`$-dimensions . We believe that this programme should in some manner have to be supplemented to incorporate higher dimensional nature of gravity.

So far the two main approaches to quantum gravity have remained quite separate and distant from each-other. It is perhaps time that the two should tend to converge. They perhaps address the complimentary aspects of gravity in their framework and asymptotically we should be able to understand the relation between them.

Going by our adherence to universalization and its proper expression in spacetime property as the abiding guiding principle, we argue that gravity is intrinsically higher dimensional field as much as it could only be described by curvature of spacetime. While its basic source, matter fields can remain confined to $`3`$-brane but the field can propagate off the brane. The dynamics of the field in bulk is solely determined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and spacetime there can continue to have the usual continuum character. It has to be quantum on the brane. As shown for the braneworld gravity, the field on the brane has non local aspect. Non locality is a distinguishing feature of quantum theory. Could this incorporation of non locality on the brane facilitate quantization of gravity? On the face of it, this approach would actively involve both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`h`$ along with of course $`c`$ and $`G`$. This is precisely what we had asked for that both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`h`$ should be involved in quantum gravity. The only other aspect of spacetime which remains still free is commutativity. We could bring in non commutativity if required. This is just a suggestion which is prompted by our general principle of universalization which has so far been reliable and insightful.

In the above I have argued hopefully convincingly the following points:

(a) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not only a true new constant of the relativistic gravity but is the measure of the dynamics of vacuum and which cannot be confined to any specific dimension.

(b) We have also shown that gravity is the unique universal field. We have derived the Einstein equation simply appealing to the universal character of the field.

(c) In an innovative way we have shown why gravity is attractive and is inherently higher dimensional and could only be described by the curvature of spacetime.

(d) It is the completion of the quantum theory which naturally asks for a quantum theory of spacetime and hence of quantum gravity. The synthesis of quantum with spacetime could only occur when gravity is also included. That is spacetime can attain quantum structure only at high energy which would necessarily render spacetime dynamic. For gravity, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is unshakable and hence quantum gravity has to in some way involve both $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

(e) We make a new proposal which takes into account higher dimensional character of gravity and also the fact that vacuum part (bulk spacetime) could continue to have the continuum structure. Synthesizing this with the quantum character of the $`3`$-brane space is the challenge. This approach would involve both $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ quite naturally. This is the feature which we had set out for a theory of quantum gravity.

I hope that the above discussion would perhaps open up a new perspective and insight which may turn out to be illuminating.

Acknowledgment: This perspective has evolved over a period of time and I was set on pooling together all my thoughts in a coherent manner while preparing for the two lectures  and hence the organizers of these two events deserve my thanks. I would also like to thank Parampreet Singh and Mohamad Sami for acting as a good sounding board.


format: text

text:
# Beating quantum limits in interferometers with quantum locking of mirrors

## 1 Introduction

Quantum fluctuations of light play an important role in the sensitivity limits of optical measurements such as interferometric measurements considered for gravitational-wave detection . A gravitational wave induces a differential variation of the optical pathes in the two arms of a Michelson interferometer. The detection of the phase difference between the two optical pathes is ultimately limited by the quantum noises of light: the phase fluctuations of the incident laser beam introduce noise in the measurement whereas radiation pressure of light induces unwanted mirrors displacements. Due to the Heisenberg’s inequality, both noises are conjugate and lead to the so-called standard quantum limit for the sensitivity of the measurement when coherent states of light are used .

Potential applications of squeezed states to overcome this limit have motivated a large number of works in quantum optics. The injection of a squeezed state in the unused port of the interferometer can improve the sensitivity of the measurement . Another possibility is to take advantage of the quantum effects of radiation pressure in the interferometer to perform a quantum nondemolition measurement . Since radiation pressure effects are frequency dependent, a main issue is to find simple schemes which improve the sensitivity over a wide frequency band . Another issue is to precisely examine the constraints imposed to the interferometer by the use of such quantum techniques. Losses in particular may have drastic effects on the sensitivity improvement.

An alternative approach consists in using feedback mechanisms working in the quantum regime. This technique has been proposed to generate squeezed states  or to perform quantum nondemolition measurements , and experimentally demonstrated on laser oscillators  and twin beams . Active controls are also widely used in the classical regime as for example in cold-damped mechanical systems . Cold damping is able to reduce the mechanical thermal displacements of a mirror , and it may in principle be used to reduce the displacement noises in a quantum regime, down to the zero-point quantum fluctuations of the mirror .

We discuss in this paper the possibility to increase the sensitivity in interferometers by reducing radiation pressure effects with such a feedback mechanism. We propose to use a compact optomechanical sensor made of a high-finesse cavity to measure the mirror displacements induced by radiation pressure. The information is fed back to the mirror in order to lock its position at the quantum level. We show that the sensor sensitivity is transferred to the interferometric measurement, resulting in a reduction of the back-action noise associated with the radiation pressure in the interferometer .

We present in section 2 the main characteristics of the quantum noises in an interferometric measurement. Section 3 is devoted to the active control of a mirror and to the resulting reduction of back-action noise in the interferometer. As shown in section 4, it is possible to completely suppress back-action noise if the optomechanical sensor performs a quantum nondemolition measurement of the mirror motion . We finally study in section 5 the control of the whole Fabry-Perot cavity in each interferometer arms with a single optomechanical sensor. We show that the information provided by the measurement allows one to lock the cavity length in such a way that it is no longer sensitive to radiation-pressure effects.

## 2 Quantum limits in interferometric measurements

A gravitational-wave interferometer is based on a Michelson interferometer with kilometric arms and Fabry-Perot cavities inserted in each arm . A gravitational wave induces a length variation of the cavities and is detected as a change in the interference fringes at the output of the interferometer. As long as we are concerned with quantum and mirror-induced noises, the interferometer is equivalent to a simpler scheme consisting in a single resonant optical cavity, as shown in figure 1, which actually corresponds to one interferometer arm. A variation of the cavity length changes the optical path followed by the intracavity field and induces a phase shift of the reflected field which can be detected by an homodyne detection.

To study the effects of quantum fluctuations of light, we describe the fields by a complex mean amplitude $`\alpha `$ and quantum annihilation operators $`a\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]`$ at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We define any quadrature $`a_\theta `$ of the field as

$$a_\theta \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]=e^{i\theta }a\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+e^{i\theta }a^{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].$$
(1)
For a lossless single-ended cavity resonant with the laser field, the input-output relations for the fields can be written in a simple way. The reflected mean field $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{out}}`$ is equal to the incident mean field $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ and both can be taken as real. The amplitude and phase quadratures of the fields then correspond to the quadratures $`a_0`$ and $`a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$, respectively aligned and orthogonal to the mean field. Assuming the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of interest smaller than the cavity bandwidth, the input-output relations for the field fluctuations are given by ,

$`a_0^{\mathrm{out}}=a_0^{\mathrm{in}},`$ (2)
$`a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{out}}=a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}+2\xi _\mathrm{a}X,`$ (3)
where $`X`$ is the cavity length variation and $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ is an optomechanical parameter related to the intracavity mean field $`\alpha `$, the cavity finesse $`_\mathrm{a}`$, and the optical wavelength $`\lambda `$,

$$\xi _\mathrm{a}=\frac{4\pi }{\lambda }\alpha \sqrt{2_\mathrm{a}/\pi }.$$
(4)
Equations (2) and (3) show that the reflected fluctuations reproduce the incident ones, but the phase quadrature is also sensitive to the cavity length variation $`X`$. Neglecting any mirror displacement, this variation corresponds to the length change $`X_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ due to the gravitational wave. The sensitivity of the measurement is only limited by the incident phase noise $`a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}`$. For a coherent incident field, quantum fluctuations are characterized by a noise spectrum equal to $`1`$ for any quadrature. One thus expects to be able to detect length variations small compared to the optical wavelength $`\lambda `$ by using large values of the optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$, that is for a high-finesse cavity and an intense incident beam.

Mirror displacements also limit the sensitivity of the measurement. In the following we focus on the displacements of a single mirror of the cavity, namely, the end mirror $`m`$ in figure 1. The cavity length variation $`X`$ in (3) is then the sum of the signal $`X_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ and the displacement $`X_\mathrm{m}`$ of mirror $`m`$, which corresponds to the back-action noise due to radiation pressure, and to classical noises such as seismic or thermal fluctuations. Its Fourier component at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is related to the applied forces by ,

$$i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_0^{\mathrm{in}}+F_\mathrm{m},$$
(5)
where $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ is the mechanical impedance of the mirror. The first force is the radiation pressure of the intracavity field, expressed in terms of the incident intensity fluctuations $`a_0^{\mathrm{in}}`$. The second force $`F_\mathrm{m}`$ represents the classical coupling with the environment.

The information provided by the phase of the reflected field is described by an estimator $`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ of the measurement which is obtained through a normalization of the output phase (3) as a displacement. It appears as the sum of the signal and extra noise terms,

$$\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}=\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{out}}=X_{\mathrm{sig}}+\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}+X_\mathrm{m}.$$
(6)
The sensitivity is limited by an equivalent input noise equal to the noises added in the estimator. Since all these noises are uncorrelated for an incident coherent light, the equivalent input noise spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}}+\sigma _{X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{m}},`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left|Z_\mathrm{m}\right|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{F_\mathrm{m}F_\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left|Z_\mathrm{m}\right|^2}},`$ (8)
where $`\sigma _{X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{m}}`$ and $`\sigma _{F_\mathrm{m}F_\mathrm{m}}`$ are the noise spectra of the displacement $`X_\mathrm{m}`$ and of the classical force $`F_\mathrm{m}`$. The first term in (8) is the measurement error due to the incident phase noise, the second term the back-action noise due to radiation pressure, and the last one the classical noise. Curve a in figure 3 shows the quantum-limited sensitivity obtained by neglecting this last term, and considering a suspended mirror for which the impedance reduces to

$$Z_\mathrm{m}i\mathrm{\Omega }M_\mathrm{m},$$
(9)
where $`M_\mathrm{m}`$ is the mirror mass. Radiation pressure is dominant at low frequency with a $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }^4`$ dependence of the noise power spectrum, whereas phase noise is dominant at high frequency with a flat frequency dependence, at least for frequencies smaller than the cavity bandwidth. Curve b is the so-called standard quantum limit which corresponds to the minimum noise reachable at a given frequency by varying the optomechanical coupling $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$. For a given value of $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$, the sensitivity is optimal at only one frequency defined as,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{a}^{\mathrm{SQL}}=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}^2/M_\mathrm{m}}.$$
(10)
Squeezed states may change this behavior. Equations (5) and (6) show that the input noise is related to a specific combination of the incident intensity and phase quadratures. For a suspended mirror it is proportional to a particular incident quadrature $`a_\theta ^{\mathrm{in}}`$, with an angle $`\theta `$ defined by,

$`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\mathrm{sig}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}\mathrm{sin}\theta }}a_\theta ^{\mathrm{in}},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{cot}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{a}^{\mathrm{SQL}}/\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^2.`$ (12)
The sensitivity of the measurement is then improved by using an incident squeezed state for which the noise of this quadrature is reduced . Note that the optimal angle $`\theta `$ is frequency dependent so that the squeezing angle must vary with frequency. This can be done by sending a squeezed state with a constant squeezing angle in a detuned cavity .

Another possibility to improve the sensitivity is to take advantage of the self phase-modulation induced by radiation pressure to perform a back-action evading measurement. Instead of detecting the output phase quadrature, we measure an other quadrature $`a_\theta ^{\mathrm{out}}`$. According to equations (2) and (3), the input-output relation for this quadrature is given by,

$$\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}\mathrm{sin}\theta }a_\theta ^{\mathrm{out}}=\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}+X_{\mathrm{sig}}+X_\mathrm{m}+\frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_0^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(13)
In the case of a suspended mirror, the two last terms cancel out for the particular quadrature angle given by (12). Radiation-pressure effects associated with the motion of mirror $`m`$ then disappear in the measurement and the sensitivity is only limited by the phase noise \[first term in (13)\]. As in the case of the injection of squeezed state, beating the standard quantum limit over a wide bandwidth requires to adapt the detected quadrature to the frequency dependence of radiation-pressure effects . This can be done by sending the reflected field in properly optimized detuned cavities.

In both cases, the sensitivity improvement strongly depends on the quantum properties of the optomechanical coupling between the light and the suspended mirror. It is in particular necessary to avoid losses in the interferometric measurement.

## 3 Quantum locking of a mirror

Figure 2 shows the scheme used to perform a quantum locking of mirror $`m`$. The mirror motion is monitored by another cavity made of the mirror $`m`$ itself and a reference mirror $`r`$. The information is fed back to the mirror in order to control its displacements. The field $`b`$ in this control cavity obeys equations similar to the ones of field $`a`$, except for the cavity length variation now equal to the relative displacement $`X_\mathrm{r}X_\mathrm{m}`$ between the two mirrors. According to equations (2) and (3), the phase of the reflected field provides an estimator $`\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}`$ for the motion of mirror $`m`$, with a sensitivity limited by the incident phase noise and the motion of mirror $`r`$,

$$\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}=\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{out}}=X_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}X_\mathrm{r},$$
(14)
where $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ is the optomechanical parameter for the control cavity.

The mirror $`m`$ is submitted to a feedback force proportional to this estimator. One has also to take into account the radiation pressures from both cavities, so that the motions of mirrors $`m`$ and $`r`$ are given by,

$`i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{m}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_0^{\mathrm{in}}+F_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_0^{\mathrm{in}}+i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m},`$ (15)
$`i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_\mathrm{r}X_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_0^{\mathrm{in}}+F_\mathrm{r},`$ (16)
where $`F_\mathrm{r}`$ represents the classical noise of mirror $`r`$ and $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ is the transfer function of the feedback loop. The resulting motion of mirror $`m`$ is obtained from equations (14) and (15),

$$i\mathrm{\Omega }\left(Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\right)X_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_0^{\mathrm{in}}+F_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_0^{\mathrm{in}}i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\left(X_\mathrm{r}+\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}\right).$$
(17)
The control changes the response of mirror $`m`$ by adding a feedback-induced impedance $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ to the mechanical impedance $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$. For a large feedback gain, the effective impedance is increased and the mirror displacements are reduced. The control also contaminates the mirror motion by the noises in the control cavity \[last terms in (17)\].

We first examine the effect of the control on classical noise, neglecting all the quantum noises. According to equations (16) and (17), the resulting motion of mirror $`m`$ is given by,

$$i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{m}\frac{Z_\mathrm{m}F_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}F_\mathrm{r}}{Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}},$$
(18)
where we have assumed for simplicity the two mirrors identical so that $`Z_\mathrm{r}=Z_\mathrm{m}`$. As the feedback gain increases, the classical force $`F_\mathrm{m}`$ applied on mirror $`m`$ is replaced by the force $`F_\mathrm{r}`$ acting on mirror $`r`$, which can be less noisy if the reference mirror is less coupled to its environment. From the expression (7) of the equivalent input noise $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$, the classical noise in the interferometric measurement is reduced down to the displacement noise of mirror $`r`$. In other words, the control locks the motion of mirror $`m`$ to the one of the reference mirror $`r`$, leading to a transfer of noise from the sensor measurement to the interferometric one.

A similar transfer of sensitivity occurs at the quantum level. For a very large feedback gain ($`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\mathrm{}`$), only the last term in (17) is significant, and one gets

$$X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{r}+\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(19)
The motion of mirror $`m`$ no longer depends on the radiation pressure in the interferometric measurement. Apart from the phase noise of beam $`b`$, the mirror $`m`$ is locked at the quantum level on the reference mirror $`r`$. Its displacement noise reproduces the quantum noises in the sensor measurement, and the resulting sensitivity for the interferometric measurement, deduced from (7) and (16), is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}+\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left|Z_\mathrm{r}\right|^2}.$$
(20)
The two last terms in this equation correspond to the equivalent input noise for the sensor measurement \[compare to equation (8) with $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ replaced by $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$, and $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ by $`Z_\mathrm{r}`$\]. This quantum transfer of noises is shown in curve c of figure 3, obtained with an optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ equal to $`\xi _\mathrm{a}/5`$. Since the sensor measurement is less sensitive than the interferometric one ($`\xi _\mathrm{b}<\xi _\mathrm{a}`$), radiation-pressure effects of beam $`b`$ are smaller than the ones of beam $`a`$. At low frequency where these effects are dominant, the mirror $`m`$ reproduces the motion of the reference mirror, leading to a clear reduction of noise.

At high frequency, the sensitivity is contaminated by the phase noise in the sensor measurement. This can easily be improved by using a frequency-dependent feedback gain in such a way that the control is efficient at low frequency whereas it plays no significant role at high frequency. Curve d of figure 3 shows the result obtained by an optimization of the feedback gain at every frequency. One gets a very clear noise reduction at low frequency while the sensitivity at high frequency is preserved.

## 4 Back-action cancellation

The quantum locking presented in the previous section cancels the radiation-pressure effects in the interferometer, replacing them by the less noisy effects in the sensor measurement. It is possible to completely suppress the back-action noise in the sensor measurement by using the quantum optics techniques presented in section 2, such as the injection of squeezed states  or the optimization of the detected quadrature . Using these techniques in the sensor measurement rather than in the interferometer itself presents the advantage that all the necessary adaptations has to be made on the sensor and not on the interferometer.

As in the case of the optimization of the detected quadrature for the free interferometer \[equation (13)\], measuring a quadrature $`b_\theta ^{\mathrm{out}}`$ different from the phase quadrature changes the estimator $`\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}`$ by adding a term proportional to the incident intensity fluctuations $`b_0^{\mathrm{in}}`$,

$$\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}=\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}\mathrm{sin}\theta }b_\theta ^{\mathrm{out}}=X_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}X_\mathrm{r}\frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_0^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(21)
Different optimizations of the detected quadrature are possible. Since both mirror motions $`X_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`X_\mathrm{r}`$ depend on radiation pressure in the sensor cavity, one can eliminate the whole contribution or only the contribution due to the reference mirror. Considering two identical and suspended mirrors, the second solution is simpler since it corresponds to an angle $`\theta `$ given by an equation similar to (12) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{a}^{\mathrm{SQL}}`$ replaced by the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{SQL}}`$ defined as in (10). This angle is experimentally accessible by sending the field in a single detuned cavity . It furthermore corresponds to a back-action evading measurement of the motion of mirror $`m`$ by the sensor cavity. Neglecting the classical noise in the motion (16) of the reference mirror, the estimator $`\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}`$ of the sensor measurement indeed reduces for this value of $`\theta `$ to,

$$\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}=X_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(22)
As compared to the standard detection scheme \[equation (14)\], the measurement is no longer sensitive to radiation-pressure effects in the sensor. Its sensitivity is only limited by the incident phase noise which can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the optomechanical coupling $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$. For an infinite feedback gain, the control freezes the motion of mirror $`m`$ down to a limit associated with the phase noise,

$$X_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}},$$
(23)
and the resulting sensitivity for the interferometric measurement is deduced from (7),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}+\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}.$$
(24)
The sensitivity reduces to the sum of phase noises of both cavities. Curve e of figure 3 shows the sensitivity obtained with an optimized feedback gain. Radiation-pressure effects are completely suppressed, resulting in a sensitivity only limited by the phase noises and almost flat over the whole frequency band.

An essential feature of the active control is to be decoupled from other optimizations of the interferometer. Losses in the interferometer usually have a drastic effect on the noise reduction obtained by quantum optics techniques . Quantum locking, however, is insensitive to such losses and they have no effect on the sensitivity improvement obtained with this technique. We have actually made no assumption on the exact motion of mirror $`m`$. The back-action cancellation in the sensor measurement and the quantum locking of the mirror do not depend on the optomechanical coupling between the mirror and the light in the interferometer. Imperfections in the interferometer thus do not affect the control.

As usual in quantum optics, losses must be avoided in the optomechanical sensor. Curve f in figure 3 shows the sensitivity obtained with 1% loss in the control cavity . In contrast to the lossless case (curve e), back-action cancellation is no longer perfect. One however still has a very large reduction of radiation-pressure noise as compared to the free interferometer.

## 5 Quantum locking of a cavity

The input mirror of the interferometric cavity (mirror $`i`$ in figure 4) moves as well in response to radiation pressure and a complete control of the interferometric measurement would require a local control of each mirror of the cavity. We show in this section that a single control mechanism can lock the cavity at the quantum level .

Taking into account the motion of mirror $`i`$, the estimator of the interferometric measurement now depends on the differential motion between mirrors $`m`$ and $`i`$, and equation (6) is modified to

$$\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}=X_{\mathrm{sig}}+\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}+X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{i}.$$
(25)
As shown in figure 4, the principle of the locking is to use the information provided by the sensor measurement to apply a feedforward force to the input mirror $`i`$, in such a way that its motion follows the one of mirror $`m`$. The key point is that the sensor gives access to the differential motion $`X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{i}`$ between mirrors $`m`$ and $`i`$, for an appropriate choice of the detected quadrature. Neglecting the classical noise, the motion of mirror $`i`$ without feedback is indeed related to the radiation pressure in the interferometric cavity,

$$i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_\mathrm{i}X_\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_0^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(26)
Equations (15), (16) and (26) show that the total radiation-pressure force exerted on the system composed of the three mirrors is equal to zero. The motions of the three mirrors are not independent and one gets,

$$Z_\mathrm{i}X_\mathrm{i}+Z_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{m}+Z_\mathrm{r}X_\mathrm{r}=0.$$
(27)
In the case of identical and suspended mirrors, the sum of the three displacements cancels out. We then detect a quadrature $`b_\theta ^{\mathrm{out}}`$ at the output of the sensor cavity with an angle $`\theta `$ defined by

$$\mathrm{cot}\theta =\frac{3}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{SQL}}/\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^2.$$
(28)
As in the previous section, this quadrature is obtained by sending the field $`b^{\mathrm{out}}`$ in a properly detuned cavity . According to (21), the estimator of the sensor measurement is given by

$$\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}=X_\mathrm{m}+\frac{1}{2}X_\mathrm{r}\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{i}\right)\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}},$$
(29)
where we have used the relation $`X_\mathrm{r}=X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{i}`$. Apart from the phase noise of beam $`b`$, the sensor measures the differential motion $`X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{i}`$.

The quantum locking is obtained by applying a feedforward force $`i\mathrm{\Omega }Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}`$ to mirror $`i`$, with a feedforward gain $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ equal to 2. This force induces a displacement of mirror $`i`$ by a quantity $`2\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}`$, and its resulting motion is given by,

$$X_\mathrm{i}X_\mathrm{i}+2\widehat{X}_\mathrm{m}=X_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(30)
The mirror $`i`$ is then locked on the mirror $`m`$. The differential motion $`X_\mathrm{m}X_\mathrm{i}`$ no longer depends on radiation pressure and the sensitivity of the measurement, deduced from (25), reduces to the phase noises,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}=\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}+\frac{1}{\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}.$$
(31)
For an optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ larger than $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$, the sensitivity is only limited by the phase noise $`1/4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2`$ in the interferometer. Radiation-pressure effects are completely suppressed.

Although this quantum locking is not a local control as in the previous sections, an important feature is that it is still insensitive to losses in the interferometer. As a matter of fact, we have made no assumption on the radiation pressure in the interferometer, except that both mirrors $`i`$ and $`m`$ are submitted to the same force \[equations (15) and (26)\]. Losses in a gravitational-wave interferometer are mainly due to imperfections on the mirrors, but the propagation between the two mirrors usually is lossless. Radiation pressures exerted on each mirror are the sum of the radiation pressures of the incoming and outgoing fields, and they are the same on both mirrors whatever the mirror losses are. Relation (27) and the principle of the quantum locking are then valid even in presence of losses in the interferometer.

## 6 Conclusion

The active control studied in this paper is based on a local optomechanical sensor which measures the position fluctuations of the mirror and locks its position with respect to a reference mirror. The main characteristic of the sensor is its sensitivity, defined by an optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ which depends on the cavity finesse and the light power. Quantum locking is efficient when the optomechanical parameter of the sensor is of the same order as the one of the interferometer. This seems easy to achieve with currently available technology . Taking for example the parameters of the Virgo interferometer ($`15`$ $`kW`$ light power in each Fabry-Perot arms with a global finesse of $`600`$ ), this condition corresponds to a sensor of finesse $`10^5`$ with an intracavity light power of $`90`$ $`W`$, that is an incident light power of $`1.5`$ $`mW`$ only. Due to the high finesse of the cavity, the same sensitivity is reached for the sensor than for the interferometer itself, while the intracavity and incident light powers are much smaller.

This technique is useful to reduce classical noise such as thermal fluctuations, as long as the reference mirror of the sensor cavity is less noisy than the mirror of the interferometer. This has already been experimentally demonstrated for the thermal noise of internal acoustic modes of a mirror . In this case, only the cooled mirror is resonant at frequency of interest and thermal noise reduction as large as 1000 have been obtained . This technique may be of some help for cryogenic gravitational-wave interferometers. A major issue is the heat generation due to the absorption of the high-power light in the interferometer, which prevents from cooling to very low temperatures . Since the light in the sensor is much less intense, a low temperature can be reached for the reference mirror by passive cryogenic cooling, and transferred to the interferometer mirror by active control. Concerning the internal thermal noise of mirrors, however, the sensor cavity must detect the noise as it is seen by the interferometric measurement. The optical waist in the sensor cavity must be adapted to the one in the interferometer, requiring to develop high-finesse cavities with large effective waists .

We have shown that a local control of mirrors allows one to efficiently reduce the quantum effects of radiation pressure in an interferometric measurement. The back-action noise is completely suppressed by using an optimized detection strategy. The sensitivity is thus greatly improved in the low-frequency domain where radiation-pressure effects are dominant, without alteration in the high-frequency domain where phase noise prevails.

In a practical implementation, the complete control of a gravitational-wave interferometer would require the use of optomechanical sensors for each sensitive mirrors, that is the four mirrors of the Fabry-Perot cavities in the interferometer arms. We have shown that a single control mechanism can lock the whole cavity at the quantum level. Adjusting the detected quadrature, an optomechanical sensor placed near the end mirror of the cavity can monitor the cavity length variations induced by radiation pressure. The information is then fed back to the front mirror in order to suppress radiation-pressure effects in the interferometric measurement.

Finally note that it is also possible to perform a correction of the signal delivered by the interferometer rather than to control the mirror motion. In that case, the optomechanical sensor detects the radiation-pressure effects in the interferometer, and the information is numerically subtracted from the result of the interferometric measurement. As long as the effect of the mirror motions on the output of the interferometer is known with a sufficient accuracy, the two techniques are in principle equivalent.

These results show that active control is a powerful technique to reduce quantum noise. An essential characteristic of this approach is to be decoupled from other optimizations of the interferometer. As usual in quantum optics, losses must be avoided in the optomechanical sensor. Quantum locking, however, is insensitive to imperfections in the interferometer. All the necessary adaptations has to be made on the control measurement, but the quantum locking does not induce any additional constraint on the interferometer.

We thank Adalberto Giazotto and Giancarlo Cella for fruitful discussions.

## References


text:
# Borel-fixed ideals and reduction number

## Introduction

Let $`A`$ be a standard graded algebra over an infinite field $`k`$. An ideal $`𝔮=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_s)`$, where $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_s`$ are linear forms of $`A`$, is called an $`s`$-reduction of $`A`$ if $`𝔮_t=A_t`$ for $`t`$ large enough. The reduction number of $`A`$ with respect to $`𝔮`$, written as $`r_𝔮(A)`$, is the minimum number $`r`$ such that $`𝔮_{r+1}=A_{r+1}`$. The $`s`$-reduction number of $`A`$ is defined as

$$r_s(A):=\mathrm{min}\{r_𝔮(A)|𝔮=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_s)\text{ is a reduction of }A\}.$$

Let $`d=dimA`$. It is well-known that a reduction $`𝔮`$ of $`A`$ is minimal with respect to inclusion if and only if $`𝔮`$ can be generated by $`d`$ elements. In this case, $`k[z_1,\mathrm{},z_d]A`$ is a Noether normalization of $`A`$ and the reduction number $`r_𝔮(A)`$ is the maximum degree of the generators of $`A`$ as a graded $`k[z_1,\mathrm{},z_d]`$-module \[V1\]. For short, we set $`r(A)=r_d(A)`$. The reduction number $`r(A)`$ can be used as a measure for the complexity of $`A`$. For instance, we can relate $`r(A)`$ to other important invariants of $`A`$ such that the degree, the arithmetic degree and the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity (see \[T1\], \[V1\], \[V2\]).

Let $`I`$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal in a polynomial ring $`R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. It is shown recently in \[C\] and \[T3\] (see also \[BH\]) that $`r(R/I)r(R/\mathrm{in}(I))`$, where $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ denotes the initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to a given term order. In particular, we have $`r(R/I)=r(R/\mathrm{gin}(I))`$, where $`\mathrm{gin}(I)`$ denotes the generic initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order \[T2\]. Since generic initial ideals are Borel-fixed (see the definition in Section 1), we may restrict the study on the reduction number to that of Borel-fixed ideals. If $`\mathrm{char}(k)=0`$, Borel-fixed ideals are characterized by the so-called strong stability which gives information on their monomials \[BaS\]. Similar characterizations can be established for the positive characteristic cases \[P\]. But these characterizations are not good enough for certain problems. For instance, Conca \[C\] has raised the question whether $`r(R/I)r(R/I^{lex})`$, where $`I^{lex}`$ denotes the unique lex-segment ideal whose Hilbert function is equal to that of $`I`$. He solved this question for $`\mathrm{char}(k)=0`$ by using the strong stability, but his proof does not work for the positive characteristic cases.

The aim of this paper is to study the relationship between the $`s`$-reduction number and Borel-fixed ideals in all characteristics. By definition, Borel-fixed ideals are closed under certain specializations which is similar to the strong stability. Using this property we show that the reduction numbers of $`s`$-reductions of the quotient ring of a Borel-fixed ideal are attained by $`s`$-reductions generated by variables (Theorem 1.2). This gives a pratical way to compute the $`s`$-reduction number. We will also estimate the number of monomials which can be specialized to a given monomial in the above sense (Theorem 1.7). As a consequence, we obtain a combinatorial version of the well-known Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem which estimates the $`s`$-reduction number by means of the Hilbert function (Corollary 1.9 and Theorem 2.1). Furthermore, we show that the bound of Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem is attained by the $`s`$-reduction number when $`I`$ is a lex-segment monomial ideal (Theorem 2.4). These results help solve Conca’s question for all characteristics in a more general setting, namely, that $`r_s(R/I)r_s(R/I^{lex})`$. Finally, since $`r(R/I^{lex})`$ is extremal in the class of ideals with a given Hilbert function, we will estimate $`r(R/I^{lex})`$ in terms of some standard invariants of $`I`$. We shall see that $`r(R/I^{lex})`$ is bounded exponentially by $`r(R/I)`$ (Theorem 2.7).

Thoughout this paper, if $`QR`$ is an ideal which generates a reduction of $`R/I`$, then we will denote its reduction number by $`r_Q(R/I)`$.

## 1. Borel-fixed ideals

Let $`I`$ be a monomial ideal of the polynomial ring $`R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let $``$ denote the Borel subgroup of GL$`(n,k)`$ which consists of the upper triangular invertible matrices. Then $`I`$ is called a Borel-fixed ideal if for all $`g`$, $`g(I)=I`$. We say that a monomial $`x^B`$ is a Borel specialization of a monomial $`x^A`$ if $`x^B`$ can be obtained from $`x^A`$ by replacing every variable $`x_i`$ of $`x^A`$ by a variable $`x_{j_i}`$ with $`j_ii`$. The name comes from the simple fact that any Borel-fixed monomial ideal is closed under Borel specialization.

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`I`$ be a Borel-fixed monomial ideal. If $`I`$ contains $`x^A`$ then $`I`$ contains any Borel specialization of $`x^A`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`x^B`$ be a monomial obtained from $`x^A`$ by replacing each variable $`x_i`$ by a variable $`x_{j_i}`$ with $`j_ii`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Let $`g`$ be the element of the Borel group $``$ defined by the linear transformation

$$g(x_i)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}x_i\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & j_i=i,\hfill \\ x_i+x_{j_i}\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & j_ii.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`x^B`$ is a monomial of $`g(x^A)`$. Since $`g(I)=I`$, this implies $`x^BI`$. ∎

Let $`d=dimR/I`$. If $`I`$ is a Borel-fixed ideal, every associated prime ideals of $`I`$ has the form $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i)`$ for $`ind`$ (see e.g. \[Ei, Corollary 15.25\]). From this it follows that $`s`$ variables of $`R`$ generate an $`s`$-reduction of $`R/I`$ if and only if they are of the form $`x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}},x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{sd}nd`$. It is clear that $`r_{(x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}},x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)`$ is the least integer $`r`$ such that all monomials of degree $`r+1`$ in the remained variables are contained in $`I`$. The following result shows that the computation of the reduction numbers of all $`s`$-reductions of $`R/I`$ can be reduced to the above class of $`s`$-reductions.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`I`$ be a Borel-fixed ideal and $`sd=dimR/I`$. Then

(i) For every $`s`$-reduction $`𝔮`$ of $`R/I`$, there exist variables $`x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}}`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{sd}nd`$ such that

$$r_𝔮(R/I)=r_{(x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}},x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I).$$

(ii) $`r_s(R/I)=r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_s`$ be linear forms of $`R`$ which generates $`𝔮`$ in $`R/I`$. Without restriction we may assume that

$$y_i=a_{i1}x_1+a_{i2}x_2+\mathrm{}+a_{it_i}x_{t_i}(i=1,\mathrm{},s)$$

with $`a_{it_i}0`$ for different indices $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_s`$. Let $`g`$ be the element of the Borel group $``$ defined by the linear transformation

$$g(x_j)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}x_j\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & j\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_s\},\hfill \\ y_i\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & j=t_i,1is.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`g((x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s}))=g((y_1,\mathrm{},y_s))`$. Since $`g(I)=I`$, this implies that $`x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s}`$ generate an $`s`$-reduction of $`R/I`$ with

$$r_𝔮(R/I)=r_{(x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s})}(R/I).$$

As observed before, $`x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s}`$ must be of the form $`x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}},x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{sd}nd`$. This proves (i).

To prove (ii) choose $`𝔮`$ such that $`r_s(R/I)=r_𝔮(R/I)`$. By (i) there exist variables $`x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s}`$ such that $`r_𝔮(R/I)=r_{(x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s})}(R/I).`$ Note that $`r_{(x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s})}(R/I)`$ is the least integer $`r`$ such that all monomials of degree $`r+1`$ in the remaining variables are contained in $`I`$ and that all monomials of degree $`r+1`$ in $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ns}`$ are their Borel specializations. By Lemma 1.1, the latter monomials are contained in $`I`$, too. This implies

$$r_{(x_{t_1},\mathrm{},x_{t_s})}(R/I)r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)r_s(R/I).$$

So we conclude that $`r_s(R/I)=r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)`$. ∎

The case $`s=d`$ of Theorem 1.2 was already proved by Bresinsky and Hoa \[BH, Theorem 11\]. They showed that all minimal reductions of $`R/I`$ have the same reduction number. But their arguments can not be extended to the general case. By Theorem 1.2 (i), there are at most $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nd}{sd}\right)`$ different reduction numbers for the $`s`$-reductions. This number $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nd}{sd}\right)`$ can be attained if char$`(k)>0`$. This displays a different behaviour than in the case $`s=d`$.

###### Example 1.3.

Assume that $`\mathrm{char}(k)=p`$. Let $`ds<n`$ and $`1<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_{nd}`$ be integers. Then

$$I=(x_1^{p^{a_1}},\mathrm{},x_{ns}^{p^{a_{nd}}})R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]$$

is a Borel-fixed ideal. For the $`s`$-reduction $`Q=(x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}},x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$ of $`R/I`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{sd}nd`$ we have

$$r_Q(R/I)=p^{a_{j_1}}+\mathrm{}+p^{a_{j_{ns}}}n+s,$$

where $`\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_{ns}\}=\{1,\mathrm{},nd\}\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_{sd}\}`$. Hence the $`s`$-reductions of $`R/I`$ have exactly $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nd}{sd}\right)`$ different reduction numbers. Moreover, we have

$$r_s(R/I)=p^{a_1}+\mathrm{}+p^{a_{ns}}n+s.$$

If $`\mathrm{char}(k)=0`$, Borel-fixed ideals are characterized by a closed property stronger than that of Borel specialization. Recall that a monomial ideal $`I`$ is called strongly stable if whenever $`x^AI`$ and $`x^A`$ is divided by $`x_i`$, then $`x^Ax_j/x_iI`$ for all $`ji`$. Any strongly stable monomial ideal is Borel-fixed. The converse holds if $`\mathrm{char}(k)=0`$ \[BaS, Proposition 2.7\]. In this case we can easily compute the reduction number of $`R/I`$ by the following result.

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`I`$ be a strongly stable monomial ideal. For any $`sdimR/I`$ we have

$$r_s(R/I)=\mathrm{min}\{t|x_{ns}^{t+1}I\}.$$

###### Proof.

By Theorem 1.2 (ii) we have to prove that

$$r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)=\mathrm{min}\{t|x_{ns}^{t+1}I\}.$$

Hence, it is sufficient to show that if $`x_{ns}^{t+1}I`$ then all monomials of degree $`t+1`$ in $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ns}`$ are contained in $`I`$. But this follows from the strong stability of $`I`$. ∎

Example 1.3 shows that Lemma 1.4 does not hold if $`I`$ is not strongly stable.

If char$`(k)=0`$, the number of possible reduction numbers for the $`s`$-reductions of $`R/I`$ is much smaller than in the case char$`(k)>0`$. In fact, for any $`s`$-reduction $`Q=(x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_{sd}},x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{sd}nd`$, we can show similarly as above that

$$r_Q(R/I)=\mathrm{min}\{t|x_{j_{ns}}^{t+1}I\},$$

where $`j_{ns}`$ is the largest index outside the set $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_{sd},nd+1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Since there at most $`sd+1`$ such indices, Theorem 1.2 (i) shows that there are at most $`sd+1`$ different reduction numbers for the $`s`$-reductions.

###### Example 1.5.

Let $`I`$ be the ideal generated by all monomials bigger or equal a monomial in the list $`x_1^{a_1},\mathrm{},x_{nd}^{a_{nd}}`$ with respect to the graded lexicographic order, where $`1<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_{nd}`$. It is easy to see that this ideal is strongly stable and the $`s`$-reductions of $`R/I`$ have exactly $`sd+1`$ different reduction numbers.

The set of all monomials which can be Borel-specialized to $`x^A`$ will be denoted by $`P(x^A)`$. If we can estimate the cardinality $`|P(x^A)|`$ of $`P(x^A)`$, we can decide when $`x^AI`$, depending on the behavior of the Hilbert function of $`I`$.

###### Lemma 1.6.

Let $`I`$ be a Borel-fixed ideal. Assume that $`dim_k(R/I)_t<|P(x^A)|`$ for $`t=\mathrm{deg}x^A`$. Then $`x^AI`$.

###### Proof.

If $`x^AI`$, then $`P(x^A)I=\mathrm{}`$ by Lemma 1.1. Since $`P(x^A)`$ consists of monomials of degree $`t`$, this implies $`dim_k(R/I)_t|P(x^A)|`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Theorem 1.7.

Suppose $`x^A=x_{i_1}^{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}^{\alpha _{i_s}}`$ with $`\alpha _{i_1},\mathrm{},\alpha _{i_s}>0`$, $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_sn`$. Put $`i_{s+1}=n+1`$. Then

$$|P(x^A)|\underset{t=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t1}{i_{t+1}i_t1}\right)s+1.$$

###### Proof.

The cases $`n=0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}x^A=0`$ are trivial because $`x^A=1`$. Assume that $`n1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}x^A>0`$.

If $`i_s=n`$, we let $`x^B=x_{i_1}^{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_{s1}}^{\alpha _{i_{s1}}}`$ and consider $`x^B`$ as a monomial in the polynomial ring $`S=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$. Any monomial of $`P(x^A)`$ is the product of a monomial of $`P(x^B)S`$ with $`x_n^{\alpha _n}`$. The converse also holds. Hence $`|P(x^A)|=|P(x^B)S|`$. Using induction on $`n`$ we may assume that

$$|P(x^B)S|\underset{t=1}{\overset{s1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t1}{i_{t+1}i_t1}\right)(s1)+1.$$

Since $`i_{s+1}=n+1=i_s+1`$, we have

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_s}+i_{s+1}i_s1}{i_{s+1}i_s1}\right)=1.$$

So we get

$$|P(x^A)|=|P(x^B)S|\underset{t=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t1}{i_{t+1}i_t1}\right)s+1.$$

If $`i_s<n`$, we divide $`P(A)`$ into two disjunct parts $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. The first part $`P_1`$ consists of monomials divided by $`x_{i_1}`$, and the second part $`P_2`$ consists of monomials not divided by $`x_{i_1}`$. Set $`x^C=x_{i_1}^{\alpha _11}x_{i_2}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}^{\alpha _s}`$. Every monomial of $`P_1`$ is the product of $`x_{i_1}`$ with a monomial of $`P(x^C)`$. The converse also holds. Hence $`|P_1|=|P(x^C)|`$. Using induction on $`\mathrm{deg}(x^A)`$ we may assume that

$`|P(x^C)|`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{s}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t2}{i_{t+1}i_t1}}\right)s+1`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_s}+i_{s+1}i_s2}{i_{s+1}i_s1}}\right)`$
Note that the sum should starts from $`t=2`$ to $`s`$ if $`a_{i_1}=1`$. In this case, the above formula holds because $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}2}{\alpha _{i_1}+i_2i_11}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_2i_11}{0}\right)=1`$. To estimate $`|P_2|`$ let $`x^D=x_{i_1+1}^{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_s+1}^{\alpha _{i_s}}`$. It is obvious that every monomial of $`P(x^D)`$ does not contain $`x_{i_1}`$ and can be Borel-specialized to $`x^A`$. Therefore, $`P(x^D)`$ is contained in $`P_2`$. Using induction on $`i_s`$ we may assume that

$`|P(x^D)|`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t1}{i_{t+1}i_t1}}\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_s}+i_{s+1}i_s2}{i_{s+1}i_s2}}\right)s+1.`$
Summing up we obtain

$`|P|=`$ $`|P_1|+|P_2||P(x^C)|+|P(x^D)|`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_s}+i_{s+1}i_s2}{i_{s+1}i_s1}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t1}{i_{t+1}i_t1}}\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_s}+i_{s+1}i_s2}{i_{s+1}i_s2}}\right)s+1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{s}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_t}+i_{t+1}i_t1}{i_{t+1}i_t1}}\right)s+1.`$
The bound of Theorem 1.7 is far from being the best possible as one can realize from the proof. However, it is sharp in many cases.

###### Example 1.8.

If $`R=k[x_1,x_2,x_3]`$ we have $`P(x_1x_3)=\{x_1x_3,x_2x_3\}.`$ Hence

$$|P(x_1x_3)|=2=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{31+11}{1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{43+11}{1}\right)2+1.$$

An interesting application of Theorem 1.7 is the following bound for the reduction number.

###### Corollary 1.9.

Let $`I`$ be a Borel-fixed monomial ideal. Assume that

$$dim_k(R/I)_t<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)$$

for some integers $`s,t1`$. Then $`x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$ generates a reduction of $`R/I`$ with

$$r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)t1.$$

###### Proof.

We have to show that the ideal $`(I,x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$ contains every monomial $`x^A`$ of degree $`t`$ in $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ns}`$. If we write $`x^A=x_{i_1}^{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}^{\alpha _{i_s}}`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_sns`$ and $`\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_s}=t`$, then Theorem 1.7 gives

$$|P(x^A)|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ni_s+t}{t}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)>|P(x^A)|.$$

By Lemma 1.6, this implies $`x^AI`$. ∎

## 2. Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem

Let $`R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial ring over an infinite field $`k`$ of arbitrary characteristic. In this section we will deal with the reduction number of $`R/I`$ for an arbitrary homogeneous ideal $`I`$. Let us first recall the following theorem of Eakin and Sathaye.

###### Theorem 2.1.

\[EaS, Theorem 1\] Let $`I`$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal in $`R`$. Assume that

$$dim_k(R/I)_t<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)$$

for some integers $`s,t1`$. Choose $`s`$ generic linear forms $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_s`$, that is in a non-empty open subset of the parameter space of $`s`$ linear forms of $`R`$. Then $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_s`$ generates a reduction of $`R/I`$ with

$$r_{(y_1,\mathrm{},y_s)}(R/I)t1.$$

Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem provides an efficient way to estimate the reduction number \[V2\]. We shall see that Corollary 1.9 (though formulated for Borel-fixed ideals and a fixed reduction) is equivalent to Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem. For that we need the following observations.

First, the reduction number of a reduction generated by generic elements is the smallest one among reductions generated by the same number of generators.

###### Lemma 2.2.

For every integer $`sdimR/I`$ choose $`s`$ generic linear forms $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_s`$ in $`R`$. Then $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_s`$ generates a reduction of $`R/I`$ with

$$r_{(y_1,\mathrm{},y_s)}(R/I)=r_s(R/I).$$

###### Proof.

The statement was already proved for the case $`s=dimR`$ in \[T2, Lemma 4.2\]. The proof for arbitrary $`sdimR`$ is similar, hence we omit it. ∎

Secondly, the smallest reduction number does not change when passing to any generic initial ideal.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`\mathrm{gin}(I)`$ denote the generic initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order. For every integer $`sdimR/I`$ we have

$$r_s(S/I)=r_s(S/\mathrm{gin}(I)).$$

###### Proof.

The statement was already proved for the case $`s=dimR`$ in \[T2, Theorem 4.3\]. The case of arbitrary $`sdimR/I`$ can be proved in the same manner (though not trivial). ∎

Now we are able to show that Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem can be deduced from Corollary 1.9. Since the proof relies only on properties of Gröbner basis and Borel-fixed ideals, it can be viewed as a combinatorial proof.

Combinatorial proof of Theorem 2.1. By Lemma 2.2, we have to show that $`r_s(R/I)t1`$. Let $`\mathrm{gin}(I)`$ denote the generic initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order. From the theory of Gröbner bases we know that $`\mathrm{gin}(I)`$ is a Borel-fixed monomial ideal with $`dim_k(R/\mathrm{gin}(I))_t=dim_k(R/I)_t`$ (see e.g. \[Ei\]). By Corollary 1.9, the assumption $`dim_k(R/I)_t<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)`$ implies

$$r_s(R/\mathrm{gin}(I))r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/\mathrm{gin}(I))t1.$$

Now, we only need to apply Theorem 2.3 to get back to $`r_s(R/I)`$. ∎

On the other hand, Corollary 1.9 can be deduced from Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem because according to Theorem 1.2 (ii) and Lemma 2.2 we have

$$r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)=r_s(R/I)=r_{(y_1,\mathrm{},y_s)}(R/I)$$

for any Borel-fixed ideal $`I`$.

We shall see that the bound of Eakin-Sathaye’s theorem is attained exactly by lex-segment ideals. Recall that a lex-segment ideal is a monomial ideal $`I`$ such that if $`x^AI`$ then $`x^BI`$ for any monomial $`x^Bx^A`$ with respect to the lexicographic term order. It is easy to see that lex-segment ideals are strongly stable.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`I`$ be a lex-segment ideal. Then

$$r_s(R/I)=\mathrm{min}\left\{t|dim_k(R/I)_t<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)\right\}1.$$

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 we have $`r_s(R/I)r1`$, where

$$r:=\mathrm{min}\left\{t|dim_k(R/I)_t<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)\right\}.$$

It remains to show that $`r_s(R/I)r1`$. Assume to the contrary that $`r_s(R/I)<r1`$. By Theorem 1.2 (ii) we have $`r_{(x_{ns+1},\mathrm{},x_n)}(R/I)=r_s(R/I)<r1.`$ Using Lemma 1.4 we can deduce that $`x_{ns}^{r1}I`$. By the definition of a lex-segment ideal, this implies that every monomial of degree $`r1`$ which involves one of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ns1}`$ is contained in $`I`$. Equivalently, the monomials of degree $`r1`$ not contained in $`I`$ involve only the $`s+1`$ variables $`x_{ns},\mathrm{},x_n`$. Since $`x_{ns}^{r1}I`$, this implies

$$dim_k(R/I)_{r1}<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+r1}{r1}\right).$$

This contradicts to the definition of $`r`$. ∎

Given a homogeneous ideal $`I`$ in $`R`$, we denote by $`I^{lex}`$ the unique lex-segment ideal whose Hilbert function is equal to that of $`I`$. It is well-known that the Betti numbers of $`R/I^{lex}`$ are extremal in the class of ideals with a given Hilbert function \[Bi\], \[H\], \[P\]. If char$`(k)=0`$, Conca showed that the reduction number $`r(R/I^{lex})`$ is extremal in this sense \[C, Proposition 10\]. He raised the question whether this result holds for all characteristics. The following result will settle Conca’s question in the affirmative.

###### Corollary 2.5.

Let $`I`$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal in $`R`$ and $`sdimR/I`$. Then

$$r_s(R/I)r_s(R/I^{lex}).$$

###### Proof.

According to Theorem 2.4 we have

$$r_s(R/I^{lex})=\mathrm{min}\left\{t|dim_k(R/I)_t<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+t}{t}\right)\right\}1.$$

By Theorem 2.1, this implies $`r_s(R/I)r_s(R/I^{lex})`$. ∎

By Corollary 2.5, $`r(R/I^{lex})`$ is extremal in the class of ideals with a given Hilbert function. So it is of interest to estimate $`r(R/I^{lex})`$ in terms of other invariants of $`I`$.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`I`$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal in $`R`$ and $`d=dimR/I1`$. Let $`Q`$ be an ideal generated by $`d`$ linear forms of $`R`$ which forms a reduction in $`R/I`$. Put $`e=\mathrm{}(R/Q+I)`$. Then

$$r(R/I^{lex})d(e2)+1.$$

###### Proof.

By \[RVV, Theorem 2.2\] we know that

$$dim_k(R/I)_t(e1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t+d2}{d1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t+d1}{d1}\right).$$

For $`t=d(e2)+2`$ we have

$$(e1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ded}{d1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ded+1}{d1}\right)<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ded+2}{d}\right).$$

Hence the conclusion follows from Theorem 2.4. ∎

We would like to point out that a bound for $`r(R/I)`$ in terms of $`e`$ should be smaller. In fact, we always have

$$r(R/I)r_Q(R/I)\mathrm{}(R/Q+I)1=e1.$$

If $`R/I`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring, $`e`$ is equal to the degree (multiplicity) of $`I`$. If $`R/I`$ is not a Cohen-Macaulay ring, we may replace $`e`$ by the extended (cohomological) degree of $`I`$ introduced in \[DGV\].

###### Theorem 2.7.

Let $`I`$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal in $`R`$ and $`d=dimR/I1`$. Let $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_s`$ be the degrees of the minimal homogeneous generators of $`I`$. Then

(i) $`r(R/I^{lex})d\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r(R/I)+nd}{nd}}\right)2\right]+1`$,

(ii) $`r(R/I^{lex})d(a_1\mathrm{}a_{nd}2)+1`$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may assume that $`Q=(x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$ forms a minimal reduction of $`R/I`$ with $`r_Q(R/I)=r(R/I)`$. Since $`R_t=(Q+I)_t`$ for $`tr(R/I)+1`$, we have

$`\mathrm{}(R/Q+I)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{r(R/I)}{}}}dim_k(R/Q+I)_t`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{r(R/I)}{}}}dim_k(R/Q)_t=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r(R/I)+nd}{nd}}\right).`$
Hence (i) follows from Lemma 2.6. To prove (ii) we put $`R^{}=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{nd}]`$ and $`I^{}=(I+Q)R^{}`$. Then $`I^{}`$ is generated by forms of degrees $`a_1^{}a_1,a_2^{}a_2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}(R/Q+I)=\mathrm{}(R^{}/I^{})`$. By \[Bri\] we can choose a regular sequence $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{nd}`$ in $`I^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(f_i)=a_i^{},i=1,\mathrm{},nd`$. It is well-known that $`\mathrm{}(R^{}/(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{nd}))=a_1\mathrm{}a_{nd}`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{}(R/Q+I)a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_{nd}^{}a_1\mathrm{}a_{nd}.$$

Thus, (ii) follows from Lemma 2.6. ∎

Finally we give some examples which show that the bounds of Theorem 2.7 are sharp.

###### Example 2.8.

Let $`I=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{nd})^2`$. It is easy to see that $`r(R/I)=1`$ and

$$dim_k(R/I)_t=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+t1}{d1}\right)+(nd)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+t2}{d1}\right)$$

for all $`t1`$. By Theorem 2.4 we have

$`r(R/I^{lex})`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{t;\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+t1}{d1}}\right)+(nd)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+t2}{d1}}\right)<\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+t}{d}}\right)\}1`$
$`=d(nd1)+1.`$
This is exactly the bound (i) of Theorem 2.7.

###### Example 2.9.

Consider the one-dimensional ideal $`I=(x_1^a)R=k[x_1,x_2],a1.`$ We have $`dim_k(R/I)_t=a`$ for all $`ta1`$. Hence Theorem 2.4 gives

$$r(R/I^{lex})=\mathrm{min}\{t|a<t+1\}1=a1.$$

This shows that the bound (ii) of Theorem 2.7 is sharp.

## References

\[BaS\] D. Bayer and M. Stillman, A criterion for detecting $`m`$-regularity, Invent. Math. 87 (1987), 1-11.

\[Bi\] A. Bigatti, Upper bounds for the Betti numbers of a given Hilbert function, Comm. Algebra 21 (7) (1993), 2317-2334.

\[BrH\] H. Bresinsky and L. T. Hoa, On the reduction number of some graded algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1999), 1257-1263.

\[Bri\] J. Briançon, Sur le degré des relations entre polynômes, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 297 (1983), 553-556.

\[C\] A. Conca, Reduction numbers and initial ideals, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear.

\[DGV\] L.R. Doering, T. Gunston and W. Vasconcelos, Cohomological degrees and Hilbert functions of graded modules, Amer. J. Math. 120 (1998), 493–504.

\[EaS\] P. Eakin and A. Sathaye, Prestable ideals, J. Algebra 41 (1976), 439-454.

\[Ei\] D. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a viewpoint toward Algebraic Geometry, Springer, 1994.

\[H\] H. Hulett, Maximum Betti numbers of homogeneous ideals with a given Hilbert function, Comm. Algebra 21 (7) (1993), 2335-2350.

\[NR\] D. G. Northcott and D. Rees, Reductions of ideals in local rings, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 50 (1954), 145-158.

\[P\] K. Pardue, Maximal minimal resolutions, Illinois J. Math. 40 (4) (1996), 564-585.

\[RVV\] M. E. Rossi, G. Valla, and W. Vasconcelos, Maximal Hilbert functions, Results in Math. 39 (2001) 99-114.

\[T1\] N. V. Trung, Reduction exponent and degree bound for the defining equations of graded rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 101 (1987), 229-236.

\[T2\] N. V. Trung, Gröbner bases, local cohomology and reduction number, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 (1) (2001), 9-18.

\[T3\] N. V. Trung, Constructive characterization of the reduction numbers, Compositio Math., to appear.

\[V1\] W. Vasconcelos, The reduction number of an algebra, Compositio Math. 106 (1996), 189-197.

\[V2\] W. Vasconcelos, Reduction numbers of ideals, J. Algebra 216 (1999), 652-664.