text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Despite being thirty years old, lattice QCD is only just coming of age as a method for calculating hadronic masses and matrix elements from first principles. Such calculations are sorely needed, particularly by the $`B`$ factory programme attempting to determine the elements of the CKM matrix which couples quark flavours via the weak interaction and allows for CP violation in the Standard Model.

In this review I will describe how and where calculations in lattice QCD are needed by experiment, avoiding technical details. I will then discuss the current status of the field including new results in which the systematic errors of lattice QCD are reduced below the few percent level for the first time. The prospects for the future in the light of thesei results are very encouraging.

## 2 Lattice QCD Calculations

Lattice QCD calculations proceed by the discretisation of a 4-d box of space-time into a lattice. The QCD Lagrangian is then discretised onto that lattice. The spacing between the points of the lattice, $`a`$, is $``$ 0.1fm in current calculations and the length of a side of the box is $`L`$ 3.0fm. Thus our simulations can cover energy scales from $``$ 2 GeV down to $``$ 100 MeV.

The Feyman Path Integral is evaluated numerically in a two-stage process. In the first stage sets of gluon fields (‘configurations’) are created which are representative ‘vacuum snapshots’. In the second stage, quarks are allowed to propagate on these background gluon field and hadron correlators are calculated. The dependence of the correlators on lattice time is exponential. From the exponent the masses of hadrons of a particular $`J^{PC}`$ can be extracted, and from the amplitude, simple matrix elements .

QCD as a theory has a number of unknown parameters, which presumably make sense in some deeper theory. These parameters are the overall dimensionful scale of QCD and the bare quark masses. To make predictions, these parameters must be fixed from experiment. In lattice QCD we do this by using one hadron mass for each parameter. The quantity which is equivalent to the overall scale of QCD on the lattice is the lattice spacing. It is clearly important to use well-defined hadron masses in fixing the parameters i.e. the hadrons used should be stable ones (in QCD), well below decay thresholds. The obvious one to use to fix the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark masses (taken to be equal in lattice calculations to date) is $`m_\pi `$ and for the $`s`$ quark mass, $`m_K`$. Other choices are sometimes made, however. In addition it is a good idea to set the scale using a quantity which is well-known experimentally but which is not sensitive to the quark masses, to save an iterative fixing procedure. Radial or orbital splittings in charmonium or bottomonium are optimal for this.

Lattice calculations are hard and very time-consuming. Progress has occurred in the last thirty years through gains in computer power but also, often more importantly, through gains in calculational efficiency and physical understanding. One particular area which revolutionised the field from the mid-1980s was the understanding of the origin of discretisation errors and their removal by improving the lattice QCD Lagrangian. Discretisation errors appear whenever equations are discretised and solved numerically. They manifest themselves as a dependence of the physical result on the unphysical lattice spacing. In lattice QCD, as elsewhere, they are corrected by the adoption of a higher order discretisation scheme. The complication in a quantum field theory like QCD is the presence of radiative corrections to the coefficients in the higher order scheme which must be determined.

Physical understanding of heavy quark physics on the lattice has also made a huge difference to the feasibility of calculating matrix elements relevant to the $`B`$ factory programme on the lattice. The use of non-relativistic effective theories requires the lattice to handle only scales appropriate to the physics of the non-relativistic bound states and not the (large) scale associated with the $`b`$ quark mass. A very fine lattice would be needed to cover an energy scale of 5 GeV and this is currently impossibly as would also be very wasteful. With the use of non-relativistic effective theories, heavy quark physics is one of the areas where lattice QCD can now make most impact.

One area which has remained problematic, but which this year’s results have addressed successfully, is the handling of light quarks on the lattice. In particular the problem is that of how to include the dynamical (sea) $`u/d/s`$ quark pairs that appear as a result of energy fluctuations in the vacuum. We can safely ignore $`b/c/t`$ quarks in the vacuum because they are so heavy, but we know that light quark pairs have significant effects, for example in screening the running of the coupling constant and in generating Zweig-allowed decay modes for unstable mesons.

The inclusion of dynamical quarks is numerically very expensive, particularly as the quark mass is reduced towards the small values which we know the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks have. There are several technical issues associated with discretising the quark action on the lattice and this has led to a number of different formalisms for handling quarks. The different formalisms have different levels of discretisation errors which can be improved as above, but also handle the chiral symmetry of QCD in different ways. Some formalisms are much faster to simulate with than others, but all require supercomputers to include dynamical quarks.

Many calculations even today use the ‘quenched approximation’ in which the light quark pairs are ignored. Results then suffer from a systematic error of $`𝒪`$(20%). A serious problem with the quenched approximation is the lack of internal consistency which means that the results depend on the hadrons that were used to fix the parameters of QCD. Thus it is not even possible to define a result as the result in quenched QCD, but only the result given a particular method of fixing the parameters. This ambiguity plagues the lattice literature.

Other calculations have included 2 flavours of degenerate dynamical quarks, i.e. $`u`$ and $`d`$, but with masses much larger than the physical ones. This has led to some improvements over the results in the quenched approximation but these improvements have often been hard to quantify because of remaining large systematic errors. Results must be extrapolated to the physical $`u/d`$ quark mass and chiral perturbation theory is a good tool for this. However, chiral perturbation theory only works well if the $`u/d`$ quark mass is light enough and, for errors at the few percent level, this means less than $`m_s/2`$. This has been impossible to achieve in most calculations.

### 2.1 Unquenching Lattice QCD

Real QCD has only one set of parameters, so results should be unambiguous and independent of which (sensible) hadron masses were used to fix the parameters. Once the parameters have been fixed using a particular set of hadron masses, then other quantities calculated as predictions of QCD should agree with experiment.

This happy state of affairs has now been reached with new calculations from the MILC/ HPQCD/FNAL/UKQCD collaborations that include $`2(u/d)+1(s)`$ dynamical quarks in the vacuum and with the $`u/d`$ quark mass taking a range of values from $`m_s/2`$ down to $`m_s/8`$. These are much lighter $`u/d`$ masses than before and this explains the qualitative change in the outcome of the calculation. Chiral extrapolations down to the physical $`u/d`$ quark mass can now be done without large uncertainties in the extrapolated results .

The major development has been the use of the improved staggered formalism for quarks in lattice QCD. This formalism allows for much faster numerical simulations so that light $`u/d`$ masses can be reached and $`s`$ quarks can also be included. A theoretical caveat is that a single staggered quark field generates 4 species, or ‘tastes’, of quark. When the dynamical quarks are included in the QCD action through the quark determinant, the fourth root of the determinant must then be taken. Although this is straightforward numerically, it leaves some theoretical uneasiness and so careful testing is necessary. The results above certainly confirm that no problems show up across a wide range of simple quantities.

Figure 1 shows the results for lattice QCD divided by experiment for a range of quantities from light mesons and baryons to heavy-light and heavyonium systems. The scale of QCD (lattice spacing) was fixed using the radial excitation energy in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ system ($`M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{})M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$) and the quark masses were fixed using $`m_\pi `$, $`m_K`$, $`m_{D_s}`$, $`m_\psi `$ and $`m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. The two plots contrast the situation in the quenched approximation ($`n_f`$ flavours of dynamical quarks = 0) with the new unquenched results ($`n_f=3`$) for 9 other well-defined quantities. The new unquenched results show agreement with experiment for all the quantities. This also demonstrates, as described above, that fixing the scale and quark masses is unambiguous since using any of the 9 quantities shown here instead of the ones used (and not plotted) would have reproduced the same results. This is clearly an enormous improvement over the situation in the quenched approximation, and shows that accurate results from lattice QCD should now be possible.

### 2.2 Lattice input to the Unitarity Triangle

One of the key places where lattice QCD input is needed is in (over-)constraining the unitarity triangle derived from the CKM matrix. Figure 2 shows the current status with error bars . The sides of the triangle constrained to the dark and medium/light circles are given by $`B`$ semi-leptonic decay and mixing rates respectively. These rates are given by a weak interaction part which contains the CKM element and the matrix element between $`B`$ mesons or between the $`B`$ meson and the vacuum of a weak current. This latter part must be calculated in lattice QCD. The attempt to pin down the vertex of the unitarity triangle will be limited by theoretical errors on the matrix elements unless lattice QCD calculations with few % errors can be achieved. The lattice errors will only be reliable if they are checked against other quantities well-known experimentally, for example in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ physics. Hence the importance of covering all sectors of the theory, as in Fig. 1 above.

## 3 Lattice Results for $`B_B`$ and $`f_B`$

Useful recent reviews of lattice QCD with an emphasis on heavy quark physics are given in . I will concentrate here on the lattice calculation of the matrix element for the mixing of neutral $`B`$ mesons since that has most recent progress. $`B`$ mixing proceeds through the ‘box’ diagram of Fig. 3. On the lattice we do not simulate $`W`$ bosons or $`t`$ quarks so these are integrated out to give the matrix element of a 4-quark operator of the effective weak Hamiltonian. This is parameterised in terms of a ‘bag parameter’, $`B_B`$, according to:

$$\overline{B}_q|(\overline{b}q)_{VA}(\overline{b}q)_{VA}|B_q=\frac{8}{3}M_{B_q}^2f_{B_q}^2B_{B_q}.$$
(1)
$`f_{B_q}`$ is the decay constant, which is related to the decay rate for the (charged) $`B`$ meson to decay, via a $`W`$, entirely to leptons. The motivation for separating out this matrix element is clear from Fig. 3. If we cut the right-hand diagram in half, each piece is equivalent to the leptonic decay of a $`B`$ (ignoring the distinction between charged and neutral $`B`$s).

$`f_B`$ and $`B_B`$ are normally calculated separately on the lattice. Both are required for the mixing matrix element to be combined with experimental results on neutral $`B`$ oscillations. Once mixing of $`B_s`$ mesons has been observed, useful quantities will be the ratios of $`f_B`$ and $`B_B`$ for $`B_s`$ divided by the corresponding quantity for $`B_d`$. The required renormalisation of lattice matrix elements to match a continuum renormalisation scheme cancels in this ratio so that it should be more accurately calculated on the lattice than either number individually.

$`B_B`$ has been calculated so far in the quenched approximation and with 2 flavours of dynamical quarks with masses above $`m_s/2`$ by the JLQCD collaboration . It is a dimensionless quantity so not directly sensitive to the ambiguities of fixing the scale in the quenched approximation. It also seems to be very insensitive to the mass of the light quark in the $`B`$ meson, supported by chiral perturbation theory which has a very small coefficient for the dependence of $`B_{B_d}`$ on the logarithm of the $`d`$ quark mass. JLQCD quote 1.02(2)(+6-2) for the ratio $`B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}`$. It seems likely then that results for $`B_B`$ will not change markedly on including a more realistic dynamical quark content although this calculation has yet to be done, and could surprise us.

The calculation of $`f_B`$ is a different picture and recently has become rather controversial. It had generally been assumed, without very good justification, that the ratio of $`f_{B_s}/f_{B_d}`$ would also not change significantly between quenched and unquenched results. The sensitivity to ambiguities in the lattice spacing determination in the quenched approximation do cancel out. However, the ratio is still sensitive to the difference between the $`s`$ quark and the $`d`$ quark in the different $`B`$ mesons. Chiral perturbation theory also expects $`f_{B_d}`$ to exhibit a significant logarithmic dependence on $`m_d`$. The coefficient of the ‘chiral logarithm’ contains $`(1+3g^2)`$ where $`g`$ is the $`BB^{}\pi `$ coupling, thought to take a value $`g^2`$ 0.35. All of these features mean that it is important to calculate this ratio using a realistic QCD vacuum and using a light $`u/d`$ quark mass for which chiral extrapolations can be done reliably.

JLQCD results  on the same configurations as above yield a ratio of 1.13(3)(+13-2). This is obtained from a linear extrapolation from $`m_{u/d}>m_s/2`$ down to the physical point. The large positive error bar allows for the possibilities of chiral logarithms, but no curvature is seen in the calculated results at the large light quark masses used.

Results on configurations with 2+1 flavours of dynamical improved staggered quarks are shown in Fig. 4 . The $`u/d`$ quark masses extend down to well below $`m_s/2`$. Although the statistical errors at the lightest $`m_{u/d}`$ mass are still large, and fits to the full chiral perturbation theory formula including chiral logarithms have yet to be done, the results indicate a ratio significantly larger than 1.13. Once the physical ratio has been determined precisely it will be important input to CKM fits. A larger value will increase the average radius of the medium shaded circle in Fig. 2; a more precise value will reduce the width of the medium shaded band.

## 4 Conclusions

The impact of lattice QCD calculations has been hindered by the difficulty of including a realistic QCD vacuum. This has led to an unacceptable level of systematic error for the results needed by experimentalists, such as participating at $`B`$ factories. New results this year look set to herald a brighter future in which few percent errors are at last obtainable from lattice QCD and we will be able to provide key input to the determination of the CKM matrix.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to my collaborators for many discussions and to PPARC for a senior fellowship.


format: text

text:
# Six years of ScoX-1 monitoring with BeppoSAX Wide Field Cameras

## 1 Introduction

Sco X-1 is a low mass X-ray binary (LMXB), is the brightest extrasolar X-ray source in the sky and was discovered by R. Giacconi and collaborators in the seminal X-ray rocket experiment of June 1962. Neutron star LMXB are divided into two classes based upon the different morphology of their tracks in color-color diagrams (CD). The three branches of Z tracks are named Horizontal (HB), Normal (NB) and Flaring (FB), while atoll sources are characterized by an “island” and a “banana” state . Track morphology is due to spectral variations on timescales of weeks, days or hours. In the case of ScoX-1, the complete Z track is generally traced out in a few hours to a day. Such variations are interpreted as an accretion sequence , where the mass accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$ is assumed to change along the track (see however ). Secular shifts and shape changes of the Z track were reported for several Z sources such as CygX-2 , whose shifts were interpreted in terms of occultation of the emitting region by a precessing accretion disk, or very recently for LMC X-2 , in which secular shifts of 2.5-10% are seen. Conversely significant secular variations in the Z track of ScoX-1 were never observed . However an inclination of 45 deg and a variable disk thickness could produce the same effect, besides reducing the HB extent, as discussed in .

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

We present 54 BeppoSAX/WFC  observations of the Z source ScoX-1 extracted from the BeppoSAX public archive. WFC are coded mask  cameras with 40ox40o total field of view (FOV). Data reduction was performed with the WFC software release 204.204.02. To analyze ScoX-1 spectral variability we define five energy bands: 2.0-3.5 keV; 3.5-6.4 keV; 6.4-9.5 keV; 9.5-16.4 keV; 1.7-19.1 keV, and two colors. The soft color is the ratio of the 3.5-6.4 keV band to the 2.0-3.5 keV band and hard color is the ratios of the 9.5-16.4 keV band to the 6.4-9.5 keV band. Colors are built from light curves with a 300 s time binning.

The response of each WFC changed during the six year satellite lifetime and is also a function of the source position in the FOV. In order to study colors and intensity variations we must scale the observed count rates to common position and epoch, that we chose to be the central quadrant of WFC1 at January 2002. The scaling was performed by using ratios of the expected count rates in the above defined energy bands. Count rates were obtained by convolving a model spectrum with the response matrix corresponding to the relevant position in the FOV and epoch. The model spectrum was chosen as close as possible to that of the source to be analyzed.

To test this procedure we studied colors and intensity of the Crab Nebula, assumed to be a steady X-ray source, in more than 100 observations in which the source was observed at different off-axis angles. While we did not find any trend with time we found a residual trend with the off-axis angle in both colors and intensity (Fig.1). An empirical correction for this trend is extimated through a least square fit. The deviations at off-axis angles of 10 and 20 deg are 3.6% and 7% for the hard color, 1.1% and 2.2% for the soft color, 6.5% and 13% for the intensity. Since the soft color deviation is always smaller than the statistical error we decided not to correct this color. The corrected CD for all Crab Nebula observations in both cameras are reported in Fig.2, the data from the two camera overlap. The spread in both colors is consistent with a gaussian distribution due to data errors and the mean hard color and soft color and their standard deviations are 0.89(0.02) and 1.32(0.02), respectively. The same off-axis angle corrections were applied to ScoX-1 hard color and intensity. ScoX-1 count rates were scaled to a common position and epoch by assuming a black body plus a Comptonization model (Xspec compTT model) with spherical geometry. Model parameter values were fixed to represent a tipical ScoX-1 spectrum at the transition point from NB to FB (hereafter vertex): BB \[ kT = 1.35 keV, fl2-10 = 0.97$`10^7`$ ergs/cm-2s-1\]; COMPTT \[ TO = 0.36 keV, kT = 3.2 keV, $`\tau `$ = 10, fl2-10 = 1.38$`10^7`$ ergs/cm-2s-1\]. The Galactic column density was set to the value 3$``$1021 cm-2 as in . We will give a more detailed description of corrections in .

## 3 Results

The light curve of the 1.7-19.1 keV count rate in each WFC observation is shown in Fig.3. Points of count rate $`>`$ 27.5 come from observations covering the FB only, which is far more luminous than other branches. Conversely other points represent averages over different branches. Observations last from 10 ks to 160 ks and the net exposure is usually 30%-40% of the duration. To compare observations we divided the data in 9 CD according to the date \[1996-97, 1998-99, 2000-01\] and to the off-axis angle \[5-14 deg, 14-17deg and 17-20 deg\]. Most observations have vertices at colors about soft=1.5, hard=0.47 and FB passing through soft=1.8, hard=0.54, see e.g. observations 00001061 in Fig.4a, 20947008 in Fig.4b, 20143001 in Fig.4d, and all observations in Fig.4h. This we call the more common state. However we note some exceptions: observation 20274001 in Fig.4a reaches very low values in both soft color and hard color, its vertex and FB colors are about 6-8% lower than the common state location of NB/FB branches; in Fig.4b the vertex and NB of observation 60539002 locate at colors lower by about 4% compared with the common state location. These shifts indicate secular variations of the track location on timescales of months to years.

Moreover in Fig.4d the lowest points of observations 00001054 and 00001076 lie below the common state vertex location by about 5% in soft color and 13% in hard color. These observations are part of the only available nearly continuous monitoring of ScoX-1 that lasts more than 160 ks, from September 13 to 17 in 1996. These observations are plotted on different panels because of their different off-axis angles; we checked that the scaling procedure and off-axis angle correction work well by reporting monitoring observations at different off-axis angles on a same plot and verifying that they build up at least three complete Z pattern consistently. These Z tracks show a maximum shift of 13% in soft color and 6% in hard color among them, suggesting that the track location can also vary on timescales of days. In Fig.4g and Fig.4h the point spread is wide because errors are larger at these off-axis angles, but the general finding of a common state holds. In Fig.4i the superposition of all observations is shifted to slightly lower values of hard color. Finally we notice that observation 613150011 in Fig.4c is peculiar, tracing out the HB and NB but never reaching the FB though the duration is about 160 ksec. Note that in other long observations, such as observation 20274001 in Fig.4a, the source moves from HB to the FB and back at least twice on a comparable time.

## 4  Conclusions

Analysis of ScoX-1 CD, spanning over the six years of BeppoSAX lifetime, show that most of the time the track covers the same position. However there are few noticeable exceptions. The most evident is a shift of the vertex and FB positions towards soft color and hard color 6-13% lower than the more common position. This shifts are observed on timescales of years or even months. Moreover we find indications that shifts appear also on shorter timescale (days). Detailed analysis is in progress to confirm this latter point.


text:
# The Markus-Yamabe Conjecture for differentiable vector fields of ℝ².

## Abstract.

(a) Let $`X:^2^2`$ be a differentiable map (not necessarily $`C^1`$) and let $`\mathrm{Spec}(X)`$ be the set of (complex) eigenvalues of the derivative $`DX_p`$ when $`p`$ varies in $`^2`$. If, for some $`ϵ>0`$, $`\mathrm{Spec}(X)[0,ϵ)=\mathrm{}`$ then $`X`$ is injective.

(b) Let $`X:^2^2`$ be a differentiable vector field such that $`X(0)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Spec}(X)\{z:\mathrm{}(z)<0\}.`$ Then, for all $`p^2,`$ there is a unique positive trajectory starting at $`p;`$ moreover the $`\omega `$limit set of $`p`$ is equal to $`\{0\}.`$


text:
# Periodic Optical Outbursts from the Be/Neutron Star Binary AX J0049.4-73231footnote 11footnote 1This paper utilizes public domain data obtained by the MACHO Project, jointly funded by the US Department of Energy through the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48, by the National Science Foundation through the Center for Particle Astrophysics of the University of California under coopertative agreement AST-8809616, and by the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatory, part of the Australian National University.

## 1 Introduction

Numerous X-ray pulsars have been found in the Magellanic Clouds, many of which are associated with binary systems containing a Be star and a neutron star (e.g. Yokogawa et al. 2000, Yokogawa et al. 2003, Haberl & Sasaki 2000, and references therein). Corbet (1984) presented evidence that a relationship exists between the neutron star spin period and the orbital period in these systems. This was further substantiated by Waters & van Kerkwijk (1989) who explained the correlation in terms of the equilibrium spin period of the pulsar as a result of the slow equatorial winds from the Be star. Subsequent data have further strengthened this spin/orbit correlation (e.g. see Fig. 6 by in’t Zand et al. 2001).

ASCA observations by Yokogawa et al. (2000) showed that AX J0049.4$``$7323 has an unusually long pulse period (755.5 s), making it the slowest known rotator among the X-ray pulsars in the SMC. Hence, one expects that the system to have a long orbital period, based on Corbet’s results from other Be/neutron star systems. Using photometric data from the MACHO and OGLE-II Projects, we have identified what we believe to be the orbital period of $``$394 days for AX J0049.4$``$7323, based on recurrent optical outbursts.

From optical observations, Edge & Coe (2003) identified AX J0049.4$``$7323 with a Be star which showed a double peaked H$`\alpha `$ emission profile at the time of their observations. They give the magnitude and color of the system as $`V`$=14.99 and $`BV`$=0.05, but they did not address the question of the orbital period or light variability. Using MACHO and OGLE-II data we have investigated the light curve of this Be star and found what we propose to be the orbital period as well as quasi-periodic variability between outbursts.

## 2 Analysis of Optical Data from the MACHO and OGLE-II Projects

The interactive MACHO Project light curve browser222 http://www.macho.mcmaster.ca/Data/MachoData.html was used to extract instrumental magnitudes for AX J0049.4$``$7323. Data on this system are available for $``$7.4 years from MJD 48855 through MJD 51546. The MACHO website displays light curves called “blue” and “red,” but after using of the transformation equations given by Alcock et al. (1999), the colors are close to $`V`$ and $`R`$, respectively. Here, we refer to these bands as $`V_{MAC}`$ and $`R_{MAC}`$, as we have done in previous papers using MACHO data.

$`I`$ magnitudes for this system are also available in the OGLE-II database333http://bulge.princeton.edu/$``$ogle/dia/ where this object is designated as OGLE004942.00$``$732314.2 in the “difference image analysis” of SMC variable stars. $`I`$ magnitudes are given for dates from 1997 January through 2000 July (MJD 50466 – 51756), with the data partially overlapping in time the last portion of the MACHO observations.

### 2.1 The 394-day Outburst Cycle

In Figure 1 we plot the MACHO and OGLE-II light curves for AX J0049.4$``$7323 in $`V_{MAC}`$, $`R_{MAC}`$, and $`I`$. It is clear, especially in the $`R_{MAC}`$ data, that outbursts up to $``$0.3 mag occur regularly. The outbursts have been labeled A through F, so that it is possible to refer to them in the text. The amplitude of the outbursts varies, and since their duration is short, not all outbursts have necessarily been observed at maximum light. In the OGLE-II data, only the last three outbursts were covered, and outburst D was first observed after its start in the other two colors, so its time of maximum is not well determined.

Figure 2 displays an expanded light curve of outburst F in $`V_{MAC}`$, $`R_{MAC}`$, $`I`$, and the color curve, $`V_{MAC}R_{MAC}`$. In all colors the outburst shows a rapid rise and a more gradual decline. The amplitude is greater at longer wavelengths, implying the system as a whole reddens during the outburst, as is shown in the bottom panel of this figure. In Figure 3 we plot $`R_{MAC}`$ light curves and $`V_{MAC}R_{MAC}`$ color curves for outbursts B through E. One can see that both the amplitude and duration of the outbursts vary. During most outbursts the color of the system reddens slightly, suggesting that the brightened region was cooler than the Be star itself. Typically, the equatorial disks surrounding Be stars are cooler than the stars themselves (McGowan & Charles 2002), so we expect that a region in the disk has brightened.

Using the MACHO data for outbursts C through F, we find the recurrence time to be 394.3$`\pm `$2.3 days. Outburst A is questionable, since it was only observed by a single point in $`R_{MAC}`$ (with a large error) and missed in $`V_{MAC}`$. Using outbursts A through F in $`R_{MAC}`$, we find a period of 393.0 days. Similarly, from $`V_{MAC}`$ data for outbursts B through F we derive a period of 394.5 days. We adopt 394 days as a mean period, noting that for some outbursts the time of peak brightness was not well determined. The OGLE-II data are in good agreement with this value, even though only one outburst (F) was fully observed.

The regularity of these outbursts suggests that this 394-day period is likely to be the orbital period of AX J0049.4$``$7323. Placing this system on the “Corbet diagram” (pulse period vs. orbital period) given in Fig. 6 by in’t Zand et al. (2001), we see a very good fit at the extreme upper end of the relationship for Be-star X-ray systems. Hence, 394 days is very likely the orbital period. Since these systems typically have eccentric orbits, a possible interpretation is that the outbursts occur when the neutron star enters the extended equatorial disk (at or near periastron passage) surrounding the Be star. Variations in the amplitude and onset of the outbursts may depend on the density and extent of the disk at the time the neutron star plunges into the disk.

Similar outburst behavior is already known in several other Be/neutron star binaries. The most noted case is A0538$``$66 in the LMC, whose orbital eccentricity in its 16.6-day period is estimated to be $`e0.7`$ (e.g. Charles et al. 1983, Hutchings et al. 1985). During periastron passage, this system brightens by as much as 2 mag, although there is considerable variation in amplitude of the outbursts (e.g. Alcock et al. 2001). Several other Be/neutron star binaries are known to show smaller periodic outbursts which are thought to occur near periastron, although there have been no direct measurements of their orbital eccentricities. These include RX J0520.5$``$6921 (Coe et al. 2001) and RX J0058.2$``$7231 (Schmidtke et al. 2003), with orbital periods near 24 and 60 days, respectively. Both show outburst amplitudes of $``$0.05 mag as well as reddening of the system during the outburst, as is seen here for AX J0049.4$``$7323.

### 2.2 Quasi-Periodic Variability between Outbursts

In addition to the regular outburst cycle, we have examined the photometry between outbursts to see if there was any periodic behavior. We first looked at Segment 3 which shows a relatively constant mean magnitude (see Fig. 1). We pre-whitened the data by subtracting a linear trend to produce residuals designated as $`R^{}`$. Using the method described by Horne & Baliunas (1986), we carried out an analysis of the power spectrum over a large range of frequencies. There is a relatively strong signal at P=10.69 days (labeled ‘f’) and a weaker one at its alias periods, 1.1 days (labeled ‘1$``$f’). A similar analysis of $`V_{MAC}`$ data for the same time span yields a primary period at 10.61 days. Both colors show a sinusoidal light curve with a full amplitude of $``$0.03 mag during this segment.

We then analyzed the other numbered segments in all available colors. Each segment was detrended using either a linear or quadratic fit prior to calculating the periodograms. Strong peaks are present in the periodograms for Segments 2, 4, and 5, with mean periods of 10.89, 10.86, and 11.35 days, respectively. The power spectra for Segments 2 – 5 are shown in the bottom panel of Figure 4. One can see that the periods with the most power in Segments 2 and 4 differ from those found for Segments 3 and 5. Even for Segment 1, which shows an overall downward trend in brightness, there is a weak peak at 10.37 days in the $`R^{}`$ data. Segment 6, which is only well represented in $`I`$, shows a peak at 11.42 days.

In Figure 5 we plot the phased $`R^{}`$ light curves for Segments 2 and 3, folded on their individual 11-day periods. Although the amplitude of the folded curves varies substantially between segments, there is no dependence on either period or mean brightness.

We also searched for coherent changes in $`V_{MAC}R_{MAC}`$ color at periods similar to those present in the individual bandpasses, but found none. Except for the reddening during outbursts, the system’s color remained remarkably constant after MJD 49600. The mean value ranged from $`V_{MAC}R_{MAC}`$ = 0.14$`\pm `$0.03 in Segment 2 to 0.15$`\pm `$0.03 in Segment 4. Prior to MJD 49600, however, small changes in color were observed. The system was bluest at the beginning of the MACHO observing, with $`V_{MAC}R_{MAC}0.12`$, and then reddened slightly to $`V_{MAC}R_{MAC}0.17`$ during the shallow dip that preceded outburst A (see Fig. 1).

There is no unique short period which fits all segments simultaneously. It appears that each segment has a quasi-periodicity near 11 days. Since it is likely that the 394-day outbursts are due to some disturbance in the equatorial disk during each orbit, then how would this be manifest after the outburst? We note that $``$11 days is about the timescale for the rotation of the outer portion of a 10R disk. Hence, the period found following an outburst may be due to the rotation of the excited region where the neutron star penetrated the disk and our changing view of it. Variations of $``$5% in the disk radius, and hence its outer rotation period, could easily be expected. Longer periods would indicate a greater equatorial disk radius.

Because the MACHO data are taken at approximately one day intervals, we cannot rule out that the true periodicity is at the shorter, alias period near 1.1 days (labeled ‘1$``$f’ in Figure 4)). Percy et al. (2002) have shown that some Be stars exhibit low-amplitude variations with timescales of the order of 0.3 to 2 days due to nonradial pulsations or rotation. However, this alternate interpretation seems unlikely since such a period would not be expected to vary substantially from one segment to another. It is more reasonable to associate variations in the periodicity with changes in the disk, and hence the $``$11-day period is the primary one.

## 3 Summary

We have shown that AX J0049.4$``$7323 exhibits small, recurrent optical outbursts with a period of $``$394 days. This period is identified with the orbital period of the system and may be caused by the interaction of the neutron star with the equatorial disk of the Be star during periastron passage. During the outbursts, the system’s color becomes redder, consistent with a brightening in the disk.

In addition, between outbursts the system displays color-independent, quasi-periodic variability, with a timescale of $``$11 days. We tentatively suggest that this behavior may result from the observer’s changing view of the disturbed region in the equatorial disk as it rotates around the Be star.

We thank the referee, Dr. Malcolm Coe, for a helpful report.


text:
# Valence Bond Solids for Quantum Computation

## Abstract

Cluster states are entangled multipartite states which enable to do universal quantum computation with local measurements only. We show that these states have a very simple interpretation in terms of valence bond solids, which allows to understand their entanglement properties in a transparent way. This allows to bridge the gap between the differences of the measurement-based proposals for quantum computing, and we will discuss several features and possible extensions.

The concept of teleportation tele  plays a crucial role in the understanding of entangled quantum systems. It does not only allow us to use entangled states as perfect quantum channels, but also to implement non-local unitary operations nielsenchuang . Based on this idea it was shown that universal quantum computation can be achieved if one can prepare a separable initial state and implement joint two-qubit measurements gottesman ; KLM ; niel ; leung . In the same spirit, but somehow orthogonal to these schemes, Raussendorf and Briegel Raussendorf  showed that universal quantum computation is possible by doing local measurements on the qubits in a highly entangled so–called cluster state Briegel . These studies highlighted the central role of entanglement for quantum computation Jozsa ; Vidal . However, the structure of general multiparticle entanglement is, for the moment being, still very poorly understood, and it is somehow mysterious that the cluster states enable for universal quantum computation. In this note, we show that the structure of entanglement in cluster states is particularly simple and can be well understood by looking at it as a so–called valence bond solid with only nearest-neighbor bonds. This enables us to show that the one-way computer Raussendorf  essentially works in an equivalent way as the other measurement-based proposals for quantum computation.

Let us start by recalling how universal quantum computation can be performed using measurements only on a collection of maximally entangled states of 2 qubits. Schematically, we will present the logical qubits as the leftmost particles. Logical gates can be implemented by introducing extra pairs of maximally entangled states $`|H=|00+|01+|10|11`$ of two qubits (every other maximally entangled would also be good), and doing Bell measurements on halves of these $`|H`$ and the logical qubits. The new logical qubits are now in the other parts of the maximally entangled state. It is well known that a universal set of gates 111Note that universal quantum computation can be achieved by only implementing gates between neighboring qubits. is given by arbitrary local unitary transformations and the phase gate $`U_{ph}=|0000|+|0101|+|1010||1111|`$. A local unitary transformation $`U`$ on qubit $`i`$ can be implemented by doing a Bell measurement in the basis

$$|\alpha =(U^{}\sigma _\alpha 𝟙)|,\alpha =\mathrm{𝟘},\mathrm{𝟙},\mathrm{𝟚},\mathrm{𝟛}$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _\alpha `$ denote the Pauli matrices (including $`\sigma _0=𝟙`$); see Figure 1A. This implements the unitary gate $`\sigma _\alpha U`$ which is $`U`$ up to an extra multiplication with a Pauli operator ($`\alpha `$ is conditioned by the measurement outcome); this extra Pauli operator however does not harm 222The extra left multiplication with Pauli operators does not harm: a later 1-qubit operation $`V`$ can be chosen to be conditioned on the outcome (i.e. implementing $`V\sigma _\alpha `$ instead of $`V`$). Furthermore, right multiplication of the 2-qubit phase gate $`U_{ph}`$ with Pauli operators is equivalent to left multiplication of it with different ones. Therefore the extra Pauli operators can be pushed through the quantum circuit without affecting the computation.. Similarly, the phase gate $`U_{ph}`$ can be implemented by adding three extra pairs of maximally entangled states $`|H`$ as depicted in Figure 1B. Suppose two three-qubit measurements are done (see Fig. 1B) in the complete bases

$$\{|\alpha \}=\{|\beta \}=(\sigma _x)^i(\sigma _x)^j𝟙(|\mathrm{𝟘}|\mathrm{𝟘}|\mathrm{𝟘}\pm |\mathrm{𝟙}|\mathrm{𝟙}|\mathrm{𝟙})$$
(2)
with $`i,j\{0,1\}`$ and $`|\pm =(|0\pm |1)/\sqrt{2}`$. It can readily be checked that this implements the gate $`(HH)U_{ph}`$ with $`H`$ the Hadamard gate $`H=|+0|+|1|`$, up to a harmless extra multiplication with Pauli operators. Together with the possibility of implementing local unitaries, this proves that universal quantum computation can be done by doing only Bell measurements on two or three qubits.

Let us summarize the three ingredients needed for being able to implement quantum computing along the lines sketched: 1/ it must be possible to create ancillary singlets; 2/ two- and three-qubit measurements of the form (1,2) can be implemented between halves of these extra singlets and the logical qubits.

Inspired by the AKLT-valence bond solids (VBS) AKLT ; fannes ; Michelangelo , playing a central role in condensed matter physics, it is now interesting to investigate whether it is possible to interpret the two (or three) qubits on which the measurements have to be implemented as virtual qubits representing one physical qubit. As will become clear, this will exactly lead to the concept of the one-way computer Raussendorf . As depicted in Figure 2, VBS are constructed by distributing singlets $`|H`$ made from virtual qubits between different sites, followed by a local projection of the virtual qubits on a smaller dimensional subspace $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ encoding the physical qubit. In the case of the 2-D lattice in Figure 2 e.g., the 4 qubits can be projected on a one qubit subspace by the operator $`P_4=|\stackrel{~}{0}0000|+|\stackrel{~}{1}1111|`$ (here 4 specifies that there are 4 virtual qubits; $`P_n`$ is defined as $`P_n=|\stackrel{~}{0}00\mathrm{}0|+|\stackrel{~}{1}11\mathrm{}1|`$ with $`n`$ virtual qubits). The idea is thus to interpret one of the virtual qubits as the logical one, and the other virtual ones as the ones enabling teleportation.

Let us see whether the two listed requirements for measurement based quantum computation can be fulfilled.

1/ Consider the VBS of Figure 2. To implement a virtual 2-qubit (3-qubit) measurement, we want that the physical qubit is only made up of 2 (3) virtual qubits (on which we want to implement a Bell measurement), and hence that 2 (1) virtual qubit(s) effectively disappear. Suppose the physical qubit (Hilbert space $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$) is obtained by projecting the virtual ones by the projector $`P_4=|\stackrel{~}{0}0000|+|\stackrel{~}{1}1111|`$. Measuring 2 (1) neighboring physical qubit(s) in the $`|\stackrel{~}{0},|\stackrel{~}{1}`$-basis effectively replaces 2 (1) virtual qubit(s) with $`|+`$ or $`|`$ depending on the measurement outcome. But it holds that $`P_4|+=P_3|\stackrel{~}{0}000|+|\stackrel{~}{1}111|`$ and $`P_3|=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_zP_3`$, and similarly $`P_3|+=P_2`$. Therefore the bonds in a VBS can be broken at will by measuring neighboring physical qubits, the virtual qubits effectively disappear and the projector $`P_n`$ changes into $`P_{n1}`$.

2/ Let us now investigate whether virtual measurements such as (1,meas2) can be implemented by local measurements on physical qubits. This will be possible if the projector $`P_n`$ has full support on a subset of rays corresponding to these multiqubit measurements. Clearly, this is the case for the phase gate if the projector is $`P_3`$, as a measurement in the physical basis $`|\stackrel{~}{0}\pm |\stackrel{~}{1}`$ effectively corresponds to the measurement of the virtual qubits in the basis $`|000\pm |111`$ which belongs to the optimal basis (2). In the case of the single qubit gates, things are a bit more subtle. Suppose the projector is $`P_2`$. Only measurements in bases of the form $`|\stackrel{~}{0}\pm \mathrm{exp}(i\xi )|\stackrel{~}{1}`$ correspond to Bell measurements, and its effect is to implement the unitary

$$U=(\sigma _x)^k\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{exp}(i\xi )\\ 1& \mathrm{exp}(i\xi )\end{array}\right)$$

on the (virtual) logical qubit ($`k=0,1`$ depending on the measurement outcome). It can however easily be checked that a sequence of 4 such unitaries can generate every specified unitary $`SU(2)`$ 333See e.g. the way 1-qubit unitary gates are implemented in the one-way computer Raussendorf . (this again holds up to left multiplication with Pauli matrices). Therefore the second requirement is also fulfilled.

By measuring the qubits from left to right on a lattice, the (virtual) logical qubits travel from left to right, yielding quantum computation using single-qubit measurements only. This shows that 2-D valence bond solids can be used to do a quantum computation. This model of computation exactly coincides with the one-way computer of Rausendorf and Briegel; indeed, we will next show that the cluster state is exactly the VBS used in the above construction.

The cluster states are a subset of the so–called stabilizer states gott96 , which are defined by specifying a complete set of commuting observables $`O_i`$, where each $`O_i`$ is a tensor product of the Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^0=𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma ^𝕩,\sigma ^𝕪,\sigma ^𝕫`$. The stabilizer states are the common eigenstates of these operators. Let us show that any stabilizer state can be interpreted as a valence bond state. Stabilizer states can efficiently be prepared from a completely separable state by applying appropriate 2-qubit unitary operations to it (see e.g. NC ). The reason that stabilizer states are very simple and manageable to work with is due to the fact all these 2-qubit unitary operations can be chosen to commute with each other. This can readily be seen by looking at the normal form for stabilizer states gotthesis , and then making use of properties of Pauli operators such as $`U(\sigma ^x\sigma ^z)U^{}=\sigma ^xI`$ with $`U=\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1]`$ to diagonalize all operators $`O_i`$. The trick is now to implement these commuting 2-qubit unitary transformations by a teleportation-like principle that consists of adding virtual singlets, and then doing appropriate projections nielsenchuang ; cirac . More specifically, consider the two qubits $`1`$ and $`2`$ in Figure 3; an extra singlet $`|H_{\overline{1}\overline{2}}`$ is added, and then any unitary transformation between $`1`$ and $`2`$ can be simulated by projecting the two-qubit spaces labelled by $`1,\overline{1}`$ ($`2,\overline{2}`$) onto the qubits $`1`$ ($`2`$ with appropriate projectors $`P_1`$ ($`P_2`$ ($`P_1,P_2`$ are $`2\times 4`$ matrices). Iterating this scheme, one readily sees that every stabilizer state can be interpreted as a VBS, possibly with bonds extending over all sites 444It would be interesting in this respect to find a normal form for stabilizer states that minimizes this number of bonds. This however seems to be a difficult problem nor .. In the case of the cluster states however, only unitaries between the nearest neighbors have to be implemented, and hence a simple VBS as depicted in Figure 2 is obtained.

As an example, let us explicitly construct the valence bond states corresponding to arbitrary cluster states 555The construction given also works for the set of so–called graph states Schlingemann , which is, up to local unitaries, equivalent to the set of stabilizer states.. To each cluster state, one can associate a graph parameterized by its adjacency matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The number of qubits on each site in the VBS is of course equal to the number of bonds of the given site, and is equal to the number of vertices emanating from a given physical qubit. The bonds are maximally entangled states $`|H=|00+|01+|10|11`$, and the projectors on each site are all of the form $`P=|\stackrel{~}{0}00\mathrm{}0|+|\stackrel{~}{1}11\mathrm{}1|`$. This simple construction describes all possible cluster states.

This VBS interpretation of cluster states makes their nice and appealing properties very explicit. The fact that e.g. a singlet can be created between two arbitrary qubits by doing appropriate local measurement on the other ones can readily be understood by the concept of entanglement swapping swapping . The entropy of a block of spins can readily be seen to be given by the number of bonds emanating from it (i.e. proportional to the area of the surface of the block). The fact that the sensitivity to noise of a cluster state does not scale with the number of (physical) qubits dur1 , is of due to the fact that it is effectively made up by *local* singlet pairs. This insight also enables to construct distillation protocols for cluster states by translating bipartite distillation protocols to the valence bond picture dur2 .

On the other hand, the description of valence bond states in terms of stabilizer states is also interesting from the point a view of condensed matter theory. It is e.g. well-known that operations of the Clifford group acting on a stabilizer state can easily be simulated efficiently classically. This implies that evolutions generated by the Clifford group on VBS-states can be simulated efficiently, and correlation functions of products of Pauli operators can easily calculated. On the other hand, the possibility to do quantum computation with VBS using local measurements only proves that the complexity-class for calculating general expectation values on 2-D VBS is the same as the complexity class of quantum computating.

The present study also opens the question whether there exist ground states of (gapped) Hamiltonians involving only 2-body short-range interactions on a lattice that would enable to implement the presented measurement scheme (this is not the case for cluster states). Such 2-D Valence Bond Solids indeed exist for higher spins (e.g. spin $`3/2`$), and it is trivial do devise a toy model for which this holds. Consider e.g. a hexagonal lattice with spin-$`7/2`$ particles at each vertex. To each particle corresponds a $`8`$-dimensional Hilbert space, which we can interpret as a system of $`3`$ qubits. We associate each outgoing edge to one of these qubits, and associate the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{S}+3𝟙`$ to two of these qubits connected by an edge. One readily sees that the ground state on such a hexagonal lattice with this 2-body local Hamiltonian will be unique, and that the teleportation scheme can be implemented perfectly on it. Note that the cluster state is very similar to that construction, but there the $`3`$ qubits are interpreted as virtual qubits and a smart projection was used to reduce the dimension of the effective Hilbert space.

More interestingly, the trick used to implement 2-qubit unitary gates by introducing a virtual singlet followed by a projection - this is the way cluster states can be generated from completely separable ones - can also be extended to the case where the unitaries do not commute with each other. Indeed, the cluster state can be made in the lab if an Ising interaction can be implemented on neighboring qubits Bloch . However, in some experimental setups, it is not always possible to implement such commuting gates, as is the case e.g. for quantum dots loss : here one is essentially restricted to implement 2-qubit gates generated by the Heisenberg interaction, which certainly do not commute when acting on neighboring spins. However, if one can apply these unitary gates sequentially (i.e. one has control over the sites on which one implements the gate), then it is also possible to construct valence bond solids that are suitable for quantum computation.

The present results also prove that the valence bond solid picture is very useful for understanding multipartite entanglement. Indeed, VBS are particularly interesting from the point a view of quantum information theory, as the simple and elegant tools developed for bipartite quantum systems can be applied to it (see e.g. Michelangelo ). Moreover, one can readily see that the VBS form a dense subset of all possible quantum states if one allows the bonds to extend beyond nearest neighbors, if the singlets are replaced by higher dimensional maximally entangled states and if the projectors can be chosen arbitrary (e.g. in the case of 3 qubits, every state can be made by considering 2 singlets and projecting 2 qubits of them onto a qubit space Miyake ). It would be very interesting to develop a general theory of multiparticle entanglement based on this VBS-picture, where one could construct entanglement measures that quantify the valence bond resources needed to describe the state. This will be reported elsewhere.

In conclusion, we have identified the entanglement properties of the cluster states that are responsible for the possibility of universal quantum computation. The main insight was given by the fact that the structure of entanglement in these states is essentially bipartite and can be understood in terms of valence bonds. This allowed to prove the equivalence of the one-way computer with teleportation-based computation schemes, and to clarify the special features of the cluster states.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge M. Martín–Delgado for interesting discussions about VBS.


text:
# Time uncertainty in quantum gravitational systems

## Abstract

It is generally argued that the combined effect of the Heisenberg principle and general relativity leads to a minimum time uncertainty. Most of the analyses supporting this conclusion are based on a perturbative approach to quantization. We consider a simple family of gravitational models, including the Einstein-Rosen waves, in which the (nonlinearized) inclusion of gravity changes the normalization of time translations by a monotonic energy-dependent factor. In these circumstances, it is shown that a maximum time resolution emerges nonperturbatively only if the total energy is bounded. Perturbatively, however, there always exists a minimum uncertainty in the physical time.

Given a quantum state, one can track the passage of time by analyzing the evolution of probability distributions of observables GP . However, for every observable, there is a characteristic time that places a limit on the ability to detect the evolution. This characteristic time can be estimated as the ratio between the root-mean-square (rms) deviation of the observable and the (absolute value of the) time derivative of its expectation value. In conservative systems, the noncommutativity of quantum mechanics implies that, for all explicitly time-independent observables, this characteristic time is greater or equal than $`\mathrm{}/2`$ divided by the rms deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ of the energy GP . As a consequence, any measurement of time has an intrinsic uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ that satisfies the so-called fourth Heisenberg relation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }H\mathrm{}/2`$. For eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, the probability distributions are stationary. To increase the time sensitivity, one must allow for states with a larger and larger energy uncertainty. A perfect time resolution can be reached only when the energy is completely delocalized.

The discussion gets much more involved when general relativity enters the scene. It is commonly accepted that the above quantum mechanical description should be valid in the low-energy regime, or around a background that provides the fundamental state. However, higher-order corrections in this approximation should become important when one considers states with large energy fluctuations, necessary for a good time resolution. Indeed, several arguments indicate that a minimum time structure appears when one includes at least the next-to-leading order contribution to the time uncertainty Luis ; Pad .

A way to understand this phenomenon is by the back reaction caused by the energy of the quantum system. In general relativity, this energy curves the spacetime. If the physical time is defined in terms of a unit (asymptotic) timelike Killing vector, the presence of additional energy around the background modifies the normalization of this vector and hence the definition of time. Since this modification depends on the amount of extra energy, quantum uncertainties in the energy give rise to time uncertainties Luis . This mechanism prevents one from attaining the limit of infinite time resolution by increasing the energy fluctuations unless the contributions to the time uncertainty arising from quantum mechanics and general relativity are correlated in a very specific manner.

There exists a certain similarity between these arguments and those supporting the existence of a minimum time (or length) in the string Luis ; ACV ; GKP . The spacetime uncertainty resulting from scattering processes in string perturbation theory ACV  can be understood as produced by the independent fluctuations of the two worldsheet directions GKP . These fluctuations are given by two dual extremal lengths, whose product never vanishes. In fact, the uncertainty in the time direction of the worldsheet is proportional to that in the time-of-flight measurement of the momentum, which increases when one improves the resolution in the spatial direction GKP .

This line of reasoning has led to different proposals for the minimum time uncertainty that one should expect in gravitational systems Pad ; AC ; NgVD . The simplest proposal is an uncertainty of Planck order Luis ; Pad . Assuming random fluctuations at the Planck scale, an uncertainty that increases with the square root of time has also been suggested AC . The same behavior was found by Salecker and Wigner (SW) by analyzing a device acting as a clock, with initial position and momentum rms deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ and mass $`m`$ SW . Again, as time passes, the position uncertainty receives an energy correction SW ; SWCr , namely $`[\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)]^2=[\mathrm{\Delta }x]^2+[t\mathrm{\Delta }p/m]^2`$. The Heisenberg principle implies then that the minimum of the time uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)`$ (with $`c=1`$) is proportional to $`\sqrt{t}`$ AC ; SW ; AC2 .

Although these proposals are not free of controversy SWCr ; SWM , they have originated an increasing interest for the consequences that a minimum time uncertainty of quantum gravitational nature could have in astrophysics NgVD ; ACW ; LH . For instance, it has been proposed that this uncertainty might cause a distinctive displacement noise in gravitational wave interferometers AC ; ACW . Another effect would be the loss of phase coherence in the radiation emitted by distant astrophysical sources, which would prevent the formation of diffraction patterns LH ; RTG . This last suggestion has received several criticisms AsCr .

These predictions are sometimes regarded as observational tests of the time uncertainty in quantum gravity. However, they are deduced in fact under stronger hypotheses, which imply a foamy spacetime. Thus, for gravitational wave detectors a fuzzy concept of distance is assumed AC . On the other hand, the light coming from extragalactic objects suffers a significant loss of phase only if there exist spacetime fluctuations which induce random phase variations along the propagation path RTG .

The extent to which a minimum time uncertainty leads to testable consequences is obscured by the use of descriptions that are mainly phenomenological, rather than obtained from a consistent quantization in the presence of gravity. Moreover, most of the results that support the existence of a minimum time structure are based on qualitative analyses that involve perturbative corrections Luis , but not on complete quantizations of gravitational models. It is hence far from clear whether the conclusions about a minimum uncertainty can be maintained in a nonperturbative quantization. With this motivation in mind, we will study a very specific kind of models whose quantization can be achieved both in a low-energy or perturbative scheme and by taking gravity into full account.

We consider a dynamical system that, around a certain background or in a certain approximation, can be described by a time-independent Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ with associated time parameter $`T`$. We assume that this system admits a straightforward quantization. The quantum evolution of any explicitly time-independent observable $`A`$ is dictated by the Heisenberg equation $`i\mathrm{}_TA=[A,H_0]`$. For simplicity, we also suppose that the spectrum of $`H_0`$ is positive and unbounded, with a nondegenerate fundamental state. At this stage, we let general relativity come into play in a fully nonperturbative way. Our basic hypothesis, inspired by our introductory comments, is that the main effect of plugging in gravity is changing the normalization of the (asymptotic) time translations by an energy-dependent factor. Since the physical time $`t`$ must be normalized to the unity, we arrive at a relation of the form $`t=TV(H_0E_P^1)`$, where $`V`$ is a function on $`IR^+`$ and $`E_P`$ is a constant energy that can be viewed as a sort of Planck energy for the system.

Since normalization factors are always positive, the function $`V`$ has to be greater than zero. In addition, to recover $`T`$ as the time coordinate in the low-energy or perturbative limit in which $`H_0E_P^1`$ vanishes, we must have $`V(0)=1`$. Finally, we introduce the assumptions that $`V`$ be monotonic and sufficiently smooth to avoid technical complications.

Remarkably, one can construct a consistent quantization of the system in general relativity starting from the quantization that describes the evolution in the time $`T`$ with Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ BMV . The Hilbert spaces of quantum states on the initial $`t=0`$ and $`T=0`$ sections can be identified. Besides, one can check that the evolution in the physical time $`t`$ is generated (at least classically) by the Hamiltonian $`H=E_PF(H_0E_P^1)`$, where the function $`F`$ is a primitive of $`1/V`$. As an operator, $`H`$ can be defined from $`H_0`$ by means of the spectral theorem. The explicitly time-independent observables satisfy now the equation $`i\mathrm{}_tA=[A,H]`$. We choose $`F(0)=0`$, so that the ground state energy vanishes also in the presence of gravity. Since $`F^{}(x)=1/V(x)>0`$ (because $`V`$ is positive and smooth), the spectrum of $`H`$ is hence nonnegative. Apart from a factor $`E_P`$, this spectrum coincides with the image under $`F`$ of that of $`H_0E_P^1`$.

From now on, we will refer to the quantizations with Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and $`H`$, respectively, as the perturbative and nonperturbative quantizations. As a motivation for this terminology, note that, since $`H=E_PF(H_0E_P^1)`$ and $`F(0)=0`$, one can think of the perturbative approach as the analysis in the limit $`E_P^10`$, in agreement with our previous comments. It can be seen that this analysis reproduces as well the low-energy behavior $`H_00`$.

One can doubt that a model of this type may represent a realistic situation in general relativity. However, there is at least one known example: the Einstein-Rosen (ER) waves. These cylindrical gravitational waves are classically equivalent to a massless, axisymmetric scalar field coupled to gravity in three dimensions AP . In linearized gravity, the corresponding three-dimensional reduction of the metric (in a suitable gauge) is purely Minkowskian, and the dynamics in this Minkowskian time $`T`$ is generated by the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ of the free, massless scalar field BMV . Moreover, the time translations $`_T`$ are asymptotically unit even from the perspective of the four-dimensional metric. In cylindrical general relativity without any linearization, on the other hand, the metric in three dimensions is not Minkowskian anymore and the physical time $`t`$, properly normalized at infinity (both from the three and four-dimensional viewpoints), differs from that of the Minkowski background by a factor that depends on the energy of the free field, $`H_0`$ BMV .

Explicitly, $`t=Te^{4G_3H_0}`$ for ER waves, where the inverse energy $`G_3`$ denotes the gravitational constant per unit length in the direction of the axis or, equivalently, the effective Newton constant in three-dimensions BMV ; AP . With our notation, we then have $`V(x)=e^{4x}`$ and $`E_P=1/G_3`$. The primitive of $`1/V`$ is $`F(x)=(1e^{4x})/4`$ and the Hamiltonian $`H`$ in the nonlinear theory is $`4G_3H=1e^{4G_3H_0}`$. Thus, the physical energy ranges from zero to $`1/(4G_3)`$.

Let us study the uncertainty in the time $`t`$ in our family of models. The main observation, already pointed out in the analysis of ER waves AP , is that the physical time $`t`$ plays the role of evolution parameter in the nonperturbative quantization, whereas this role corresponds to the time $`T`$ in the perturbative case BMV . In this latter quantization, the physical time $`t=TV(H_0E_P^1)`$ is represented by a one-parameter family of operators. It seems natural to define $`V(H_0E_P^1)`$ in terms of the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ using the spectral theorem. The operator obtained in this way is positive, because so is the function $`V`$.

The uncertainty in the nonperturbative quantization is straightforward to analyze. Since the physical time is a dynamical parameter, the fourth Heisenberg relation applies, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }H\mathrm{}/2`$. In the light of this relation, we arrive at an unexpected conclusion. Namely, in the description of a fully nonperturbative observer, the existence of a minimum time uncertainty depends only on whether the rms deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ of the physical energy is or not bounded from above. Recalling that the spectrum of $`H_0`$ is unbounded and the definition of $`H`$, one can check that the largest that $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ may become is $`E_PF_{\mathrm{}}`$. Here, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the limit of $`F(x)`$ when $`x`$ tends to infinity. Therefore, a resolution limit exists in the nonperturbative model if and only if the range of $`F`$ is bounded. This happens to be the case for ER waves, where $`F_{\mathrm{}}=1/4`$, and so one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }t2\mathrm{}E_P^1=2\mathrm{}G_3`$. Nevertheless, in more general situations, nothing seems to prevent the range of $`F`$ to be the whole positive semiaxis. The uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ might then be decreased to zero by choosing a state with totally uncertain energy $`H`$.

We now turn to the perturbative approach. Given a quantum state, we can always measure on it the probability distribution of the perturbative energy $`H_0`$, which is stationary because the system is conservative. Via the spectral theorem, this distribution determines that of the operator $`V(H_0E_P^1)`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ the corresponding rms deviation. In order to evaluate the operator $`t`$, we still need to fix the value of the parameter $`T`$. As we have explained above, we can detect the passage of the time $`T`$ in the perturbative framework by examining the evolution of probability distributions of observables in our quantum state. This leads to a statistical measurement of the value of $`T`$, with a distribution $`\rho (T)`$ whose uncertainty must be at least of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{}/(2\mathrm{\Delta }H_0)`$, according to Heisenberg relation. Note that, in order to capture the intrinsic uncertainties of the system, we choose to evaluate $`T`$ employing indeed (different copies of) our state vector. Since the described measurements of the perturbative energy $`H_0`$ and $`T`$ are independent, our measurement procedure assigns to the physical time $`t`$ a probability distribution which is the product of those found for $`T`$ and $`V`$.

Remembering the stationarity of the energy, a straightforward calculation then shows

$`[\mathrm{\Delta }t]^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑T\rho (T)T^2V^2T_0^2V^2}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`T_0^2[\mathrm{\Delta }V]^2+V^2[\mathrm{\Delta }T]^2+[\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{\Delta }V]^2.`$
Here, $`T_0`$ is the mean value of $`T`$ obtained with the distribution $`\rho (T)`$, and $``$ denotes expectation value (which can be computed employing the spectral resolution of the identity and the probability distribution of $`H_0`$).

The above formula implies that the uncertainty in the physical time cannot vanish in the perturbative quantization. To prove this assertion notice that, in order that $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ vanishes, the three factors that appear in Eq. (1) must be zero. But, as soon as $`T_00`$, this can only occur if both $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ vanish, because $`V`$ is a positive operator. On the other hand, the spectrum of this operator is, by construction, the image of the spectrum of $`H_0E_P^1`$ under the function $`V(x)`$. With the assumption that this function be monotonic, the vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ guarantees that the analyzed state is an eigenvector of $`H_0`$. However, owing to the fourth Heisenberg relation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ may vanish only if the quantum state has an infinite uncertainty in the perturbative energy $`H_0`$. We thus arrive at a contradiction. Hence, the uncertainty in the physical time, as determined by an observer in the perturbative theory, must be strictly positive except perhaps at the initial time of the measurements.

It is instructive to analyze the consequences of Eq. (1) when one keeps only the first perturbative correction to the prediction of ordinary quantum mechanics. Expanding $`V(H_0E_P^1)`$ in powers of $`E_P^1`$ and using $`V(0)=1`$,

$$V(H_0E_P^1)=1+V^{}(0)H_0E_P^1+O(H_0E_P^1)^2.$$
(2)
We then obtain $`V=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=\mathrm{\Delta }H_0E_P^1|V^{}(0)|`$ at leading order. Substituting this in Eq. (1),

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }t]^2=\mathrm{\Delta }T^2+[\mathrm{\Delta }H_0]^2E_P^2|V^{}(0)|^2\left(T_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }T^2\right).$$
(3)
Remembering that $`\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{\Delta }H_0\mathrm{}/2`$ and following a line of reasoning similar to that employed to calculate the minimum uncertainty for the SW clock AC ; SW , one concludes

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }t]^2\frac{1}{4}|V^{}(0)|^2t_P^2+|V^{}(0)|t_PT_0,$$
(4)
where $`t_P=\mathrm{}E_P^1`$ can be understood as the Planck time. It is worth pointing out that the deduction of this equation is in fact formally independent of the supposition about the monotonicity of the function $`V`$.

Formula (4) has a striking resemblance with the kind of effective equation proposed in Ref. AC2  to describe the limitation on the measurability of distances. The first term on the right-hand side gives a constant uncertainty of the order of the Planck time $`t_P`$, and can be interpreted as a quantum uncertainty of pure gravitational origin, independent of the details of the state employed in the measurement process AC2 . The second contribution is an uncertainty of the order of $`\sqrt{t_PT_0}`$, which has the same time dependence that is found in SW devices or in random walk models of Planckian fluctuations AC ; SW . It can be regarded as originated by the quantum uncertainties that exist on the state used for the time measurements.

We have thus shown that, for the type of models under study, the fact that the physical time is represented as a one-parameter family of operators in the perturbative theory, together with the procedure by which these operators are measured, implies a nonvanishing minimum time uncertainty, lending in this sense confirmation to the perturbatively inspired analyses found in the literature Luis ; AC . On the other hand, in a purely nonperturbative quantization, the physical time can be assigned the role of a dynamical parameter whose uncertainty is restricted only by the standard Heisenberg relation. The time resolution can then be improved without limit if the physical Hamiltonian is unbounded.

Regarding the consequences on gravitational wave detectors and stellar interferometry ACW ; LH , our main remark is that the spacetime structure needs not be foamy in our models. Actually, the uncertainty in the physical time (4) emerges in the perturbative quantization just from two independent processes: the evaluation of $`T`$ and the measurements of the perturbative energy. In interferometric experiments like those considered here, moreover, an observer in the perturbative theory would register the superposition of two simultaneous signals at the same instant $`T`$ (which does not even need to be evaluated). Therefore, in our particular class of models, this observer ought not to experiment the kind of phenomena described in Refs. AC ; ACW ; NgVD ; LH ; RTG . Although a more detailed analysis and specification of the system is required for definite predictions, we hope that our discussion contributes to emphasize the relevance of the measurement procedure and the hypothesis about the foamy behavior of the spacetime (which was explicitly assumed in the above references).

Let us conclude with some general comments. The first one refers to the genuinely nonperturbative results of loop quantum gravity about geometric operators, e.g., the area. The spectrum of these operators is discrete area , leading to a noncontinuous spacetime picture at small scales. However, these results do not necessarily imply a minimum spacetime resolution. In fact, consecutive area eigenvalues are separated by a (square) distance that vanishes as one approaches the sector of infinite large areas, where an infinite resolution may be reached.

The other comment concerns the feasibility of our models. In Eq. (3) for the time uncertainty, the last term (proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }T^2`$) and the first one ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T^2`$) may be interpreted as contributions with a purely quantum gravitational origin and a standard quantum mechanical origin, respectively AC2 . The remaining term should then provide the leading gravitational correction emerging from the uncertainties on the state of the system. One would hence expect that the factor $`(E_P^1|V^{}(0)|T_0)^2`$ multiplying $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0^2`$ in this term were independent of the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$, since it must originate from general relativity. As a result, the associated energy $`E_P`$ should be independent of $`\mathrm{}`$. This is what actually occurs for ER waves, where $`E_P=1/G_3`$. But in more general systems that do not admit reduction to three dimensions, one expects $`E_P`$ to be given by the quantum gravitational Planck scale $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/G}`$, where $`G`$ is (the four-dimensional) Newton constant. In this case, one might argue that the fully nonlinear gravitational behavior will not lead to the simple kind of effects assumed in our models. Even so, the system may possess a scale that replaces $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/G}`$ in our discussion and does not vanish when $`\mathrm{}=0`$. An interesting possibility is the presence of a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It might then happen that the role of $`E_P`$ could be assigned to $`1/\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|G^2}`$ under certain circumstances.

The authors are grateful to A. Ashtekar, M. Varadarajan, and L. Garay for enlightening conversations. This work was supported by the Spanish MCYT projects BFM2002-04031-C02 and BFM2001-0213, and E.J.S.V. by a Spanish MEC grant.