format: text

text:
# Multiplicative McKay correspondence in the symplectic case

## Introduction

McKay correspondence as a subject appeared approximately twenty-five years ago; for an excellent overview we refer the reader to M. Reid’s Bourbaki talk \[R2\]. The basic setup is the following. Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional complex vector space, and let $`GSL(V)`$ be a finite subgroup which acts on $`V`$ preserving the volume. The quotient $`Y=V/G`$ is a singular algebraic variety with trivial canonical bundle. Assume given a smooth projective resolution $`XY`$ which is crepant — in other words, such that the canonical bundle $`K_X`$ is trivial. What can one say about the topological invariants of $`X`$, starting from the combinatorics of the $`G`$-action on $`V`$? Somewhat surprisingly, it turns out that one can actually say quite a lot. This is, roughly speaking, what is called the McKay correspondence.

For some time, all the research concentrated on the case of $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V=2`$ (in particular, this was the case with the original paper \[McK\] of J. McKay which gave name to the whole subject). An important breakthrough was achieved in \[R1\]. Drawing on the case of $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V=2`$, well-understood by that time, and also on some physics papers and on previous work in $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}3`$, M. Reid has proposed several conjectures for vector spaces of arbitrary dimension. Essentially, he predicted what the homology $`H_{\text{}}(X,)`$, the cohomology $`H^{\text{}}(X,)`$ and the $`K`$-theory $`K_0(X)`$ should be, and gave some pointers to possible proofs.

There has been considerable progress since then, and it mostly concentrated on two areas. Firstly, most of the conjectures in \[R1\] have been proved (\[Bat\], \[DL\]) by applying M. Kontsevich’s method of motivic integration. Secondly, W. Chen and Y. Ruan \[CR\] have introduced a new invariant for the pair $`V,GSL(V)`$ called the orbifold cohomology algebra $`H_{orb}([V/G])`$. As a vector space, this ring coincides with what McKay correspondence predict must be $`H^{\text{}}(X)`$. However, and this is the new ingredient, it also carries a structure of a commutative algebra. A natural question, then, would be to take a crepant resolution $`XV/G`$ and to compare the multiplication $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G])`$ with the standard multiplication in $`H^{\text{}}(X)`$.

Unfortunately, the only general technique in McKay correspondence, — that of motivic integration, — does not seem to apply to this problem. And on the other hand, in the general case it is not even expected that the two multiplicative structures in $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G])H^{\text{}}(X)`$ are the same (see \[Ru2\] for precise conjectures). In order to get results, one has to restrict generality in some way.

The particular case that we will consider in this paper is that of symplectic vector spaces — we will assume that the vector space $`V`$ is equiped with a non-degenerate skew-symmetric form, and that the finite group $`GSp(V)SL(V)`$ preserves not only the volume, but also the symplectic form.

In this case, there are several simplifications. Firstly, the additive McKay correspondence can be established explicitly, without recourse to the motivic integration techniques (\[Ka2\]). One also gets a basis in cohomology given by classes of explicit algebraic cycles. Secondly, the orbifold cohomology space and the orbifold cohomology algebra are much easier to describe than in the general case. However, the most important simplification is that the multiplication in $`H^{\text{}}(X,)`$ is known at least in one particular example — one takes $`V=^{2n}`$, one takes $`G`$ to be the symmetric group on $`n`$ letters, and one takes $`XV/G`$ to be the Hilbert scheme of subschemes in $`^2`$ of dimension $`0`$ and length $`n`$. In fact, the multiplicative structure in $`H^{\text{}}(X,)`$ has been discovered indepedently in \[LS\] and \[V\] (see also \[LQW\]) without any reference to the general orbifold cohomology construction of \[CR\]. It is only later that it was realized that the cohomology algebras are one and the same. Y. Ruan \[Ru1\] has conjectured that this should always be true in the symplectic case, no matter what particular crepant resolution one takes.

The goal of this paper is to present a result proved recently by the author together with V. Ginzburg. The result, which is \[GK, Theorem 1.2\], establishes the Ruan conjecture: we prove that in the symplectic case, the cohomology $`H^{\text{}}(X,)`$ of any crepant resolution $`XV/G`$ coincides with the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology algebra $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$.

Unfortunately, our task is made quite difficult by the nature of the proof. The proof is really quite roundabout, and it relies heavily on earlier results obtained in other papers and/or by other authors. The identification $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)H^{\text{}}(X,)`$ is split into a series of algebra isomorphisms most of which have been known before. Only some isomorphisms in the middle still need proving — and the things isomorphic are really quite far removed from either $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G])`$ or $`H^{\text{}}(X)`$. The upshot is that there is very little in \[GK\] which has to do with actual multiplication in cohomology, be it orbifold cohomology or the usual one. For that matter, more than half of the paper is taken with hardcore deformation theory, and it even has nothing to do with symplectic quotient singularities or crepant resulutions. This makes \[GK\] hard to read for people not familiar with the field.

Faced with this difficulty, we have adopted a solution which is somewhat radical – we hope that it is justified, if not by pedagogical reasons, then at least by its comparative novelty. There is an alternative prove of \[GK, Theorem 1.2\] which is shorter, more conceptual and more to the point. However, it needs some intermediate results that are presently not known. Worse than that, some of them might not even be true. Nevertheless, it is this fake “proof” that we will present in this paper. By this, we hope to achieve two goals: firstly, we show the main ideas behind the real proof without bothering with making them work, secondly, we motivate the introduction of some techniques, such as Hochschild cohomology, which a priori would seem quite foreign to the subject. Then in the last section, we describe how the actual proof in \[GK\] works — what additional ingredients one has to add to the brew so that all the “fake” statements of earlier sections become theorems.

Therefore this paper should very much be thought of as an exposition — very little, if anything, will be actually proved. We hope that at least, it will make a passable read.

### Acknowledgements.

This is a write-up of my talk at the Atelier sur les structures algébriques et espaces de modules which took place at the University of Montreal in July 2003. I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to this great conference and for giving me the opportunity to present our results. The hospitality of the University of Montreal was also of highest standard and is gratefully acknowledged.

## 1 Orbifold cohomology algebra

We start with combinatorics. Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional complex vector space. Let $`g:VV`$ be an automorphism of $`V`$ of some finite order $`r`$. Then $`V`$ can be decomposed into $`g`$-eigenspaces, $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_k`$, where $`g`$ acts on $`V_i`$ by multiplication by $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}a_i/r)`$ for some integer $`a_i`$, $`0a_i<r`$. Denote by $`m_i=\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V_i`$ the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}a_i/r)`$. By the age of the automorphism $`g`$ one understands the sum

$$\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g=\underset{1ik}{}m_i\frac{a_i}{r}.$$

The age is a priori a rational number. However, the automorphism $`g`$ acts on $`detV`$ by $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g)`$. Therefore if $`g`$ preserves the volume on $`V`$, its age is actually an integer. It is obviously invariant under conjugation.

Assume given a finite subgroup $`GSL(V)`$, and let $`\overline{G}`$ denote the set of conjugacy classes of elements in $`G`$. By the orbifold cohomology space $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$ we will understand the graded vector space defined by

$$H_{orb}^k([V/G],)=\underset{g\overline{G},k=2\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g}{}g.$$

In other words, $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$ is generated by conjugacy classes $`g\overline{G}`$, each placed in degree $`2\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g`$, and the odd part of $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$ is trivial. One can also define a bigger space $`H_G^{\text{}}(V,)`$ by

$$H_G^k(V,)=\underset{gG,k=2\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g}{}g.$$

In other words, $`H_G^{\text{}}(V,)`$ is just the vector space $`[G]`$ spanned by the group $`G`$ and graded by twice the age. The group $`G`$ acts on $`H_G^{\text{}}(V,)`$ by conjugation, and $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$ is naturally identified with the subspace of $`G`$-invariant vectors in $`H_G^{\text{}}(V,)`$.

To define a multiplication on $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$ – we follow the exposition of \[CR\] given in \[FG\] – one defines a $`G`$-invariant multiplication on the bigger space $`H_G^{\text{}}(V,)`$. This is given in the basis numbered by $`gG`$ by

$$g_1g_2=c(g_1,g_2)g_1g_2,$$

where $`c(g_1,g_2)=1`$ if $`\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_1+\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_2=\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}(g_1g_2)`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. It is extremely non-trivial to prove that this really defines an associative multiplication on $`H_G^{\text{}}(V,)`$. Once one has proved this, one descends to the subspace $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$ of $`G`$-invariant vectors, and observes that the multiplication becomes not only associative, but also commutative.

Assume now that the vector space $`V`$ is equipped with a non-degenerate skew-symmetric form $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^2V^{}`$ and that $`GSp(V)`$ preserves $`\omega `$. Then the orbifold cohomology algebra is much easier to describe.

###### Lemma 1.1

For every element $`gGSp(V)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^g,$$

where $`V^gV`$ is the subspace of $`g`$-invariant vectors. Moreover, define an increasing filtration $`F_{\text{}}[G]`$ on the group algebra $`[G]`$ by

$$F_k[G]=\underset{gG,\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^gk}{}g.$$

Then this filtration is compatible with the group algebra multiplication, and we have

$$H_G^{\text{}}(V,)\mathrm{𝗀𝗋}^F[G].$$

The orbifold cohomology algebra $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)=H_G^{\text{}}(V,)^G`$ is then isomorphic to $`\mathrm{𝗀𝗋}^F𝖹(G)`$, where $`𝖹(G)=[G]^G`$ is the center of the group algebra $`[G]`$.

###### Proof.

Take an element $`gG`$ and consider the associated eigenspace decomposition $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_k`$. Since $`VV^{}`$ as a $`G`$-module, for every $`a_i`$ with $`0<a_i<r`$, the associated multiplicity $`m_i`$ must be the same as the multiplicity associated to $`ra_i`$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g=\underset{1ik}{}m_i\frac{a_i}{r}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{1ik,a_i0}{}m_i\left(\frac{a_i}{r}+\frac{ra_i}{r}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^g.$$

If we have two elements $`g_1,g_2G`$, then

$$V^{g_1}V^{g_2}V^{g_1g_2}.$$

Since for every two vector subspaces $`V_1,V_2V`$ we have $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V_1V_2\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V_1+\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V_2`$, this implies that

$$\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_1g_2\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_1+\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_2.$$

This proves that the filtration is indeed multiplicative. The last claim follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

We note that the equality $`\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_1g_2=\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_1+\mathrm{𝖺𝗀𝖾}g_2`$ is achieved if two things hold: (1) the subspaces $`V^{g_1}`$ and $`V^{g_2}`$ intersect transversaly, and (2) we have $`V^{g_1g_2}=V^{g_1}V^{g_2}`$ (in general, the left-hand side might be strictly bigger). However, (1) is enough.

###### Lemma 1.2 (\[GK, Lemma 1.7\])

Let $`V`$ be a vector space equipped with a non-degenerate skew-symmetric form $`\omega `$, and let $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ be two symplectic automorphisms of the vector space $`V`$. If $`V^{g_1}`$ and $`V^{g_2}`$ intersect transversally, then $`V^{g_1g_2}=V^{g_1}V^{g_2}`$.

###### Proof.

We will not need really this claim, but the proof is so simple, we could not resist reproducing it here. It is easy to see that for any symplectic automorphism $`gSp(V)`$, we have a decomposition $`V=V^g\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}(\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}g)`$ which is orthogonal with respect to $`\omega `$. Now, for any $`vV^{g_1g_2}`$ we have $`g_2v=g_1^1v`$, which implies

$$(g_2\mathrm{𝗂𝖽})v=(g_1^1\mathrm{𝗂𝖽})v.$$

Both $`g_1^1`$ and $`g_2`$ are symplectic, therefore the left-hand side is orthogonal to $`V^{g_2}`$, and the right-hand side is orthogonal to $`V^{g_1^1}=V^{g_1}`$. Being equal, they both must be orthogonal to $`V^{g_1}+V^{g_2}=V`$. We conclude that indeed $`g_2v=g_1^1v=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Overview of the statements

We will now formulate the main claims of McKay correspondence. Firstly, there is the original cohomological McKay correspondence conjectured in \[R1\] and proved in \[Bat\], \[DL\].

###### Theorem 2.1 (\[Bat\], \[DL\])

Let $`V`$ be a vector space, let $`GSL(V)`$ be a finite subgroup, and let $`XV/G`$ be a crepant resolution of the quotient $`V/G`$. Then there exists a graded vector space isomorphism

$$H^{\text{}}(X,)H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],).$$

The following has also been conjectured in \[R1\].

###### Corollary 2.2

In the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, there exists an isomorphism

$$K_G^0(V)K^0(X)$$

between the $`K^0`$-group of $`X`$ and the $`G`$-equivariant $`K^0`$-group of $`V`$.

To derive this from Theorem 2.1, it suffices to construct a Chern character which would identify $`K_G^0(V)`$ with $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$; this can be easily done by direct inspection (it is well-known that $`K_G^0(V)`$ coincides with $`K_G^0`$ of a point, and the latter group is just the space of class functions on the group $`G`$). Alternatively, one can use the very nice general theory of Chern character and Riemann-Roch Theorem for orbifolds developed by B. Toen in \[T\].

However, one could also imagine a different proof of Corollary 2.2, and it is for this reason that the statement was given separately in \[R1\]. Namely, one has the following generalization.

###### Conjecture 2.3

In the assumtions of Theorem 2.1, there exists an equivalence

$$𝒟_{coh}^b(X)D_G^b(V)$$

between the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$ and the bounded derived category of $`G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $`V`$.

So far, this remains a conjecture except in the case $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V=2`$ (see \[KaVa\]) and the case $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V=3`$, where a very elegant and unexpected proof was given recently in \[BKR\]. Unfortunately, the methods of \[BKR\] do not seem to apply in higher dimensions.

Finally, here is \[GK, Theorem 1.2\].

###### Theorem 2.4 (\[GK, Theorem 1.2\])

In the notation and assumptions of Theorem 2.1, assume in addition that $`V`$ carries a non-degenerate skew-linear form $`\omega `$ preserved by $`G`$. Then there exists a multiplicative isomorphism

(2.1)
$$H^{\text{}}(X,)H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],).$$

As we have noted in the Introduction, this has been proved independently and simultaneously in \[V\] and \[LS\] (see also \[LQW\]) for the case $`V=^{2n}`$, $`G=S_n`$ is the symmetric group on $`n`$ letters, $`X=\mathrm{𝖧𝗂𝗅𝖻}^{[n]}(^2)`$ is the Hilbert scheme of subschemes in $`^2`$ of dimension $`0`$ and length $`n`$. W. Wang with co-authors were also able to treat the so-called wreath product case: $`V=^{2n}`$, $`G`$ is the semidirect product of $`S_n`$ with the $`n`$-fold product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^n`$ of a fixed finite subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SL(2,)`$, the resolution $`X`$ is obtained by taking a smooth resolution $`X_0^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and considering $`X=\mathrm{𝖧𝗂𝗅𝖻}^{[n]}(X_0)`$.

Note that Theorem 2.4 in fact works for cohomology with coefficients in $``$. In the symplectic case, there is an alterntive proof of this theorem \[Ka2\] which also works over $``$. In fact, in the Hilbert scheme case the multiplicative isomorphism 2.1 holds over $``$ and even over $``$ (possibly after one makes certain sign changes in the definition of the orbifold cohomology — over $``$, any sign changes become irrelevant). The methods of \[GK\], however, very decidedly work only over $``$. It would be interesting to try to use the methods of \[Ka2\] to check Theorem 2.4 over $``$. However, W. Wang informed me that this might be hopeless — his computations in the wreath product case show that 2.1 probably does not hold for cohomology with coefficents in $``$. Y. Ruan \[Ru2\] also states his conjecture only over $``$.

## 3 Orbifold cohomology as Hochschild cohomology

Our starting point in proving Theorem 2.4 is the following observation: there is one place in mathematics where the algebra $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G])\mathrm{𝗀𝗋}^F𝖹(G)`$ appeared before. This is the computation by M.S. Alvarez \[Al\] of the Hochschild cohomology of the so-called cross-product algebra. Let us expain this point, starting from the definitions. We give very few references in the next two Subsections since the subject is well-represented in the literature; the reader is referred to, for instanece, a comprehensive overview given in \[L\]. For everything related to qunatizations, please see \[Ko\].

### 3.1 Recollection on Hochschild cohomology

Let $`A`$ be a finitely-generated commutative algebra over $``$, and let $`B`$ be an flat associative algebra over $`A`$. Recall that an $`B`$-bimodule $`M`$ is an $`A`$-module equipped with two commuting $`B`$-module structures, one left and the other right. Equivalently, $`M`$ is a left $`B_AB^{op}`$-module, where $`B^{op}`$ denotes the opposite algebra. All $`B`$-bimodules form an abelian category. The algebra $`B`$ itself is tautologically a $`B`$-bimodule. For any $`B`$-bimodule $`M`$, one defines the Hochschild cohomology groups $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B,M)`$ with coefficients in $`M`$ by

$$HH_A^{\text{}}(B,M)=\mathrm{Ext}_{B_AB^{op}}^{\text{}}(B,M).$$

The Hochschild cohomology groups $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B,B)`$ with coefficients in the tautological module $`B`$ are denoted simply $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B)`$ and called the Hochschild cohomology groups of the algebra $`B`$.

This notion immediately generalizes to the case of sheaves of algebras. Namely, if $`X`$ is a topological space equipped with a sheaf $`𝒪`$ of flat associative $`A`$-algebras, then by definition

$$HH_A^{\text{}}(X)=\mathrm{Ext}_{X\times X^{op}}^{\text{}}(𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta },𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

where $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-groups are taken in the category of sheaves of $`𝒪𝒪^{op}`$-modules on $`X\times X`$, and $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the tautological sheaf supported on the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }X\times X`$. In particular, in this way one defines Hochschild cohomology of flat scheme over $`\mathrm{Spec}A`$. Even further, one can define Hochschild cohomology of an arbitraty abelian $`A`$-linear category, and the resulting groups are dervied Morita-invariant – this means that if two $`A`$-linear abelian categories have equivalent derived categories, then their Hochschild cohomology groups are naturally isomorphic.

Hochschild cohomology $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B)`$ carries two natural algebraic structures. The first one is the multiplication given by the Yoneda multiplication in the $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-groups. The second one is a Lie bracket $`\{,\}`$ of degree $`1`$ called the Gertsenhaber bracket. It is not at all obvious from the definition, but it exists nevertheless; moreover, the bracket and the multiplication together form a so-called Gerstenhaber algebra. We do not list the axioms here because we will not need them. We only remark that one of them says that the Yoneda multiplication is commutative.

In the case when the algebra $`B`$ is commutative, finitely generated and smooth over $`A`$, the Hochschild cohomology $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B)`$ has been computed in the classic paper \[HKR\]. The answer is

$$HH_A^{\text{}}(B)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_A^{\text{}}𝒯(B/A),$$

the exterior algebra generated by the module $`𝒯(B/A)`$ of $`A`$-linear derivations $`\delta :BB`$. In other words, Hochshchild cohomology classes are the same as polyvector fields on $`B/A`$. The multiplication is just the exterior algebra multiplication, and the Gerstenhaber bracket is the so-called Schouten bracket of polyvector fields. This result gives rise to a useful modification of the Hochschild cohomology known as Poisson cohomology. Recall that a Poisson structre on $`B`$ over $`A`$ is given by an $`A`$-linear Lie bracket $`\{,\}:B_ABB`$ which is a derivation with respect to the multiplication in $`B`$. Equivalently, a Poisson structure is given by bivector field $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_A^2𝒯(B/A)`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\}=0`$ with respect to the Schouten bracket (the Poisson bracket is then $`\{f,g\}=\mathrm{\Theta },dfdg`$). In the Hochschild cohomology language, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ becomes a class in $`HH_A^2(B)`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\}=0`$ with respect to the Gerstenhaber bracket. Given such a class, one can introduce a map $`\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }:HH_A^{\text{}}(B)HH_A^{\text{}+1}(B)`$ by setting

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }(a)=\{\mathrm{\Theta },a\}.$$

This has been done by J.-L. Brylinski \[Br\]. It follows from the axioms of the Gerstenhaber algebra, – or equivalently, from the properties of the Schouten bracket, – that $`\{\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\}=0`$ implies $`\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }^2=0`$, and that $`\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a derivation with respect to the multiplication in $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B)`$. Therefore we obtain a differential-graded algebra $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B),\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Its cohomology groups are denoted by $`HP_A^{\text{}}(B)`$ and called the Poisson cohomology groups of the Poisson algebra $`B/A`$.

We note that this definition makes sense for any $`B`$, not only for a smooth and commutative one. If $`B`$ is not commutative, it no longer makes sense to speak of a Poisson structure on $`B`$. Nevertheless, for any $`\mathrm{\Theta }HH_A^2(B)`$ with $`\{\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\}=0`$ we do have the differential-graded algebra $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B),\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }`$. We will denote its cohomology groups by $`HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(B)`$ and call them the twisted Hochschild cohomology groups. Note that in the case when $`B`$ is commutative but not smooth, the notion of a Poisson structure on $`B`$ is still well-defined. There also exists a natural notion of Poisson cohomology groups $`HP_A^{\text{}}(B)`$; however, this notion is more complicated, and the groups themselves in general do not coincide with the twisted Hochschild cohomology groups $`HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(B)`$ (a large part of \[GK, Appendix\] is devoted to a detailed investigation of these phenomena).

### 3.2 Recollection on quantizations.

One situation where twisted Hochschild cohomology occurs naturally is the following one. Let $`B`$ be an associative algebra over $``$. Take $`A=[h]`$, the algebra of polynomials in one variable which we denote by $`h`$, and let $`B_h`$ be a flat associative $`A`$-algebra such that $`B_h/hB`$ – in other words, $`B_h`$ is a one-parameter deformation of the algebra $`B`$. Then the deformation theory associates a Hochschild cohomology class $`\mathrm{\Theta }HH_{}^2(B)`$ to the family $`B_h`$. One can compute the Hochschild cohomology $`HH_A^{\text{}}(B_h)`$ by using the spectral sequence associated to the $`h`$-adic filtration. The term $`E^1`$ of this spectral sequence coincides with $`HH_{}^{\text{}}(B)_{}A`$, and the differential is given by $`\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (in particular, we have $`\{\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }\}=0`$). Thus the term $`E^2`$ of the spectral sequence coincides (for dimensional reasons, only modulo $`h`$-torsion) with the twisted Hochschild cohomology groups $`HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(B)_{}A`$.

If the algebra $`B`$ is commutative, then the class $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ induces a Poisson structure on $`B`$. The Poisson bracket on $`B`$ is given by

$$\{f,g\}=\frac{1}{h}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{f}\right)modh^2,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are arbitrary elements in $`B_h`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{f}=fmodh`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}=gmodh`$. The algebra $`B_h`$ is then said to be a quantization of the Poisson algebra $`B`$.

We will need a particular case of these general constructions, namely, the case when the commutative algebra $`B`$ is smooth and symplectic – in other words, the skew-symmetric $`A`$-bilinear pairing $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(B)_B\mathrm{\Omega }^1(B)B`$ on the cotangent module $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(B)`$ given by Poisson bivector $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝒯(B)`$ is non-degenerate. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ induces an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(B)𝒯(B)`$, and one can identify the modules $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\text{}}𝒯(B)`$ of polyvector fields on $`B`$ with the modules $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}}(B)`$ of differential forms on $`\mathrm{Spec}B`$. Under this identification, – and this one of the important results of \[Br\], – the Poisson differential $`\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\text{}}𝒯(B)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\text{}+1}𝒯(B)`$ becomes the de Rham differential $`d:\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}}(B)\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}+1}(B)`$. Therefore the Poisson cohomology $`HP^{\text{}}(B)`$ concides with the de Rham cohomology $`H_{DR}^{\text{}}(\mathrm{Spec}B)`$.

The simplest example of a smooth symplectic algebra is the algebra $`B=S^{\text{}}(V)`$ of polynomials on a symplectic vector space $`V`$ with symplectic form $`\omega `$. Then $`HP^k(B)=H_{DR}^k(V)`$ is $``$ for $`k=0`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. The algebra $`S^{\text{}}(V)`$ has a standard qunatization $`W_h`$ known as the Weyl algebra; it is the associative algebra over $`A=[h]`$ generated by $`V`$ modulo the relations

$$vwwv=h\omega (v,w)$$

for all $`v,wV`$. Specializing to $`h=1`$, we get the Weyl algebra $`W=W_h/(h1)`$. If $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V=2n`$, then $`W`$ is non-canonically isomorphic to the algebra of differentail operators on the affine space $`𝔸^n`$. Since $`HP^k(B)=0`$ for $`k1`$, the $`h`$-adic spectral sequence for $`HH_A^{\text{}}(W_h)`$ degenerates. We deduce that $`HH^0(W)=`$ and $`HH^k(W)=0`$ for $`k1`$.

### 3.3 Computation for the smash-product algebra.

For any associative algebra $`A`$ equipped with an action of a finite group $`G`$, introduce the smash-product algebra $`A\mathrm{\#}G`$ in the following way: $`A\mathrm{\#}G=A_{}[G]`$ as a vector space, and we have

$$(a_1g_1)(a_2g_2)=a_1(a_2^g)g_1g_2$$

for all $`a_1,a_2A`$ and $`g_1,g_2G`$. In particular, given a symplectic vector space $`V`$ and a finite subgroup $`GSp(V)`$, we can form the smash-product $`W\mathrm{\#}G`$, where $`W`$ is the Weyl algebra ssociated to $`V`$. In \[Al\], M.S. Alvarez has proved the following.

###### Theorem 3.1 (\[Al\])

The Hochschild cohomology algebra $`HH^{\text{}}(W\mathrm{\#}G)`$ is isomorphic

$$HH^{\text{}}(W\mathrm{\#}G)\mathrm{𝗀𝗋}^F𝖹(G)$$

to the associated graded $`\mathrm{𝗀𝗋}^F𝖹(G)`$ of the center $`𝖹(G)`$ of the group algebra $`[G]`$ with respect to the filtration introduces in Lemma 1.1.

This Theorem is our main motivation for Theorem 2.4. Its proof, of which we will only present a sketch, is based on an earlier result of \[AFLS\], where $`HH^{\text{}}(W\mathrm{\#}G)`$ has been computed as a graded vector space. For simplicity, we will first do this compuation with $`W`$ replaced by the commutative polynomial algebra $`B=S^{\text{}}(V)`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

Consider the smash-product algebra $`B\mathrm{\#}G`$. Then there exist an isomorphism

(3.1)
$$HH^{\text{}}(B\mathrm{\#}G)=\left(\underset{gG}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}}(V^g)[\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^g]\right)^G,$$

where for any $`gG`$ we denote by $`V^gV`$ the subspace of $`g`$-invariant vectors in $`V`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^k(V^g)`$ is the space of differential forms of degree $`k`$ on the vector space $`V^g`$.

###### Sketch of the proof..

Since the group $`G`$ is finite, and our base field $``$ is of characteristic $`0`$, the group $`G`$ has no cohomology. Therefore we have

$`HH^{\text{}}(B\mathrm{\#}G)`$ $`=\mathrm{Ext}_{B\mathrm{\#}G\mathrm{𝖻𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖽}}^{\text{}}(B\mathrm{\#}G,B\mathrm{\#}G)`$
$`=\left(\mathrm{Ext}_{B\mathrm{𝖻𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖽}}^{\text{}}(B,B\mathrm{\#}G)\right)^G`$
$`=\left(HH^{\text{}}(B,B\mathrm{\#}G)\right)^G`$
The $`B`$-bimodule $`B\mathrm{\#}G`$ can be decomposed

$$B\mathrm{\#}G=\underset{gG}{}B^g,$$

where $`B^g`$ is $`B`$ with the standard right $`B`$-module structure, and with the left $`B`$-module structure twisted by the action of $`gG`$.

Geometrically, finitely-generated $`B`$-bimodules are coherent sheaves on $`V\times V=\mathrm{Spec}(B_{}B^{op})`$; then $`B^g`$ is the just the structure sheaf of the graph $`\mathrm{𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗁}gV\times V`$ of the map $`g:VV`$. In particular, $`B=B^{\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}}`$ itself is the structure sheaf of the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }V\times V`$. To prove the Lemma, it remains to show that

$$HH^{\text{}}(B,B^g)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}}[V^g][\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^g].$$

This is immediate. Indeed, $`V^g=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗁}g`$, and $`V^g`$ is a symplectic vector space. One computes $`HH^{\text{}}(B,B^g)`$ by the local-to-global spectral sequence on $`V\times V`$, and then identifies polyvector fields on $`V^g`$ with the differential forms by means of the symplectic structure. $`\mathrm{}`$

To deduce Theorem 3.1, one first uses the $`h`$-adic spectral sequence to compute $`HH^{\text{}}(W\mathrm{\#}G)`$ as a vector space. At the term $`E^2`$, we have the twisted Hochschild cohomology groups $`HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(B^g)`$. One observes immediately that the differential $`\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }`$ coincides with the de Rham differential on $`V^g`$, so that $`HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(B,B^g)=H_{DR}^{\text{}}(V^g)[\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^g]`$. The spectral sequence degenerates at $`E^2`$ (for instance, because all the non-trivial classes in $`E^2`$ have even degrees). We deduce

$$HH^{\text{}}(W\mathrm{\#}G)=\left(\underset{gG}{}[\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗆}V^g]\right)^G,$$

which is exactly 3.1. The multiplicative structure is not easy to see from the spectral seqeunce. To see it, it is simpler to represent the classes generating $`HH^{\text{}}(W\mathrm{\#}G)`$ by explicit differential forms $`\omega _g`$ (this can be made even more precise and explicit if one uses the Koszul complex for the vector space $`V`$ to resolve $`B`$ as a $`B`$-module and compute $`HH^{\text{}}(B,B^g)`$). Then one immediately checks that for every $`g.hG`$, we have $`\omega _g\omega _h=\omega _{gh}`$ if $`V^g,V^hV`$ intersect transversally, and $`\omega _g\omega _h=0`$ otherwise. By Lemma 1.2, this is exactly the multiplicative structure in $`\mathrm{𝗀𝗋}^F𝖹(G)`$. Note that in fact the same algebra appears as the twisted Hochschild cohomology algebra $`HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(S^{\text{}}(V)\mathrm{\#}G)`$.

## 4 The proofs.

### 4.1 A proof.

We will now present what ought to be the proof of Theorem 2.4. It will only take half a page.

Let $`V`$ be a symplectic vector space, let $`GSp(V)`$ be a finite subgroup, and let $`XV/G`$ be a crepant resolution of singularities of the quotient $`V/G`$. Since the symplectic form on $`V`$ is $`G`$-invariant, it descends to a symplectic form on the smooth part of the quotient $`V/G`$. This form then extends to a closed non-degenerate $`2`$-form on the resolution $`X`$ (see e.g. \[Ka1\]). Therefore the variety $`X`$ is equipped with a natural Poisson structure $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and we can compute its de Rham cohomology by comparison with the Poisson cohomology. We then have the isomorphisms

(4.1)
$$H_{DR}^{\text{}}(X)HP^{\text{}}(X)HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(X).$$

Now, assume that Conjecture 2.3 is true. Note that the category of $`G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $`V`$ is equivalent to the category of finitely-generated modules over the smash-product algebra $`B\mathrm{\#}G=S^{\text{}}(V)\mathrm{\#}G`$. Since the Hochschild cohomology is dervied Morita-invariant, we have

(4.2)
$$H_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(X)HH_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\text{}}(B\mathrm{\#}G).$$

This finishes the proof: indeed, by Theorem 3.1 (or rather, by its proof) we have $`HH_\theta ^{\text{}}(B\mathrm{\#}G)H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$.

### 4.2 A debunking.

Having given a proof of Theorem 2.4, we will now demolish it.

The most obvious problem with the proof is its reliance on Conjecture 2.3. However, this is not so serious. By a stroke of luck, there exists an approach to this conjecture, which is now under investigation (and the provisonary reference for this is \[BK\]). The author is reasonably certain that in the nearest future Conjecture 2.3 will be proved; hopefully this will happen by the time the present volume is out of print.

Unfortunately, our fake proof of Theorem 2.4 also has many other flaws, and we will now enumerate those.

1. We have used isomorphisms 4.1 in spite of the fact that the manifold $`X`$ is not affine.

This causes two problems. Firstly, the terms in 4.1 might not be defined for non-affine $`X`$. As we have explained, the definition of the algebra $`HH^{\text{}}(X)`$ does not require $`X`$ to be affine. To define the twisted version, however, we also need the Gerstenhaber bracket. This is possible to define, too: essentially, the Hochschild cohomology algebra $`HH^{\text{}}(X)`$ can be obtained as the hypercohomology of a certain complex of sheaves on $`X`$, this complex carries the structure of a Gerstenhaber algebra, the standard homotopy techniques as in e.g. \[HS\] give a homotopy Gerstenhaber algebra on $`HH^{\text{}}(X)`$, and this is equivalent to a usual Gerstenhaber algebra structure by Kontsevich formality (for this point, we would recommend to consult \[H\] and references therein). This is really quite roundabout, one certainly would prefer a more direct approach. This is currently the topic of active research. At least one approach has been suggested recently in \[RZ\], \[Ke2\].

Secondly, even assuming that all the algebras in 4.1 are well-defined, they might not be isomorphic when $`X`$ is not affine. And this is exactly what happens, unfortunately: the Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg isomorphism $`HH^{\text{}}(X)H^{\text{}}(X,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\text{}}𝒯(X))`$ holds for non-affine varieties, but it is not compatible with the Gerstenhaber algebra structure.

It is probably true that this isomorphism can be corrected in a certain precise way so that it becomes multiplicative – this has been claimed without proof in the last part of \[Ko\], and has been the subject of much research (I do not feel competent enough to provide an exact reference, except for saying that for compact $`X`$ the problem has been definitely completely solved by A. Caldararu \[C2\]). However, whether this isomorphism is also compatible with the Gerstenhaber bracket is anyone’s guess.
2. We have used the derived Morita-invariance of Hochschild homology in 4.2 without any justification.

The derived Morita-invariance property for Hochschild homology has been proved several years ago by B. Keller, see \[Ke1\]. The invariance of cohomology is much simpler. It is so simple that again, I have not been able to track a reference. It might be that no one was diligent enough to write the proof down. For compact $`X`$ (and derived equivalences of Fourier-Mukai type) everything has been recently written down very carefully by A. Caldararu \[C1\] (as the foundation for his main results). But again, the question of the Gerstenhaber bracket seems to be open. Quite recently (two weeks ago, at the time of the writing) B. Keller has published a preprint \[Ke2\] where this question might be solved; unfortunately, my lack of real expertise in the subject forces me to reserve judgement at this time.
3. We have tacitly assummed that the twisting cocycle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`B\mathrm{\#}G`$ obtained from $`X`$ is the same as the standard cocycle obtained by descent from the symplectic form on $`V`$.

This should be fairly easy to check, once the Morita-invariance has been solidly established. Unfortunately, we cannot even start this checking before we know exactly how the isomorphism 4.2 works.

### 4.3 How the real proof works.

We will now describe, very briefly and sketchily, the main stages of the real proof of Theorem 2.4 given in \[GK\] (a somewhat more detailed description can be found in \[GK, Introduction\]). The main idea is the following: all the difficulties appear because we need to work with a non-affine variety $`X`$. Things would be much simpler if one could deform everything so that the manifold in question becomes affine.

On the resolution side of the picture, a reasonably good deformation theory for smooth non-compact symplectic varieties has been developed in \[KaVe\]. In parituclar, it can be applied to a crepant resolution $`XV/G`$. The result is a smooth family $`\stackrel{~}{X}/B`$ parametrized by the affine space $`B=H_{DR}^2(X)`$. The approach in \[KaVe\] only gives a formal deformation; however, there is a natural $`^{}`$-action on $`V/G`$ and on $`X`$ which allows one to spread out the deformation to the whole $`B`$. The de Rham cohomology $`H_{DR}^{\text{}}(\stackrel{~}{X}_b)`$ of the fiber $`\stackrel{~}{X}_b`$ is the same for every point $`bB`$. The deformation $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ also induces a deformation $`\stackrel{~}{Y}/B`$ of the quotient $`Y=V/G`$, which is affine. The map $`XV/G`$ extends to a map $`\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, and the extended map is one-to-one over a generic point $`bB`$. Consequently, for generic $`bB`$ the variety $`\stackrel{~}{X}_b=\stackrel{~}{Y}_b`$ is simultaneously smooth (being part of $`\stackrel{~}{X}/B`$) and affine (being part of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}/B`$).

On the smash-product side, a very nice deformation $`H_{t,c}`$ of the smash-product algebra $`S^{\text{}}(V)\mathrm{\#}G`$ has been constructed and studied in some detail in \[EG\]. The parameter space for this deformation is the product of an affine line with coordinate $`t`$ and an affine space $`C`$ of $`G`$-invariant functions on the set $`SG`$ of elements $`gG`$ of age $`1`$ (these elements are also known as symplectic reflections). The deformation in the $`t`$-direction is entirely non-commutative; in particular, it incorporates the Weyl algebra deformation $`W_h\mathrm{\#}G`$. The deformation $`H_{0,c}`$, while still non-commutative, is closer to the commutative world – namely, the center $`Z_c`$ of the algebra $`H_{0,c}`$ gives a flat deformation of the center $`Z_0S^{\text{}}(V)\mathrm{\#}G`$. The latter is obviously just the subalgebra of $`G`$-invariant polynomials in $`S^{\text{}}(V)`$ – in other words, the algebra of algebraic functions on the quotient $`V/G`$.

Moreover, the algebras $`Z_c`$ carry a natural Poisson structure (which is essentially obtained from the additional deformation in the $`t`$-direction), and all of the steps of our fake proof have been solidly established in \[EG\] for the affine variety $`\mathrm{Spec}Z_c`$. In particular, Conjecture 2.3 becomes a proposition which claims that the algebra $`H_{0,c}`$ is Morita-equivalent to its center $`Z_c`$. Some of the claims – including this Morita-equivalence – require one to know a priori that $`\mathrm{Spec}Z_c`$ is smooth. If this is known, then the de Rham cohomology $`H_{DR}^{\text{}}(\mathrm{Spec}Z_c)`$ has been computed in \[EG\], and the answer is $`H_{orb}^{\text{}}([V/G],)`$.

These two deformation were the starting point for \[GK\]. We note that by the additive McKay correspondence, the base spaces $`B=H_{DR}^2(X)`$ and $`C`$ are canonically identified. One might hope to identify the deformations $`\mathrm{Spec}Z_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}/B`$. Then one deduces that $`\mathrm{Spec}Z_c`$ is smooth for generic $`cC`$, and applies \[EG\] to compute its cohomology.

Unfortunately, we were not able to prove that such an identification exists, and we had to settle for less. Namely, we prove that $`\stackrel{~}{Y}/B`$ gives a versal deformation of the quotient $`Y=V/G`$ in the class of affine Poisson schemes. In other words, a fiber of any Poisson deformation also occurs as a fiber of the deformation $`Z_c`$, but possibly in a non-unique way. In fact, there exists a universal deformation, too, and its base $`S`$ is also a smooth affine space of dimension $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}S=\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}B=\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}C`$. However, the classifying maps $`BS`$, $`CS`$ of the deformations $`\stackrel{~}{Y}/B`$ and $`Z_c/C`$ are ramified covers.

The model for this situation is the case when $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}V=2`$; then the subgroups $`GSp(V)=SL(2,)`$ are classified by simple Lie algebras $`𝔤`$ of types $`A`$, $`D`$, $`E`$, both the space $`B`$ and the space $`C`$ are naturally identified with a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥𝔤`$, and the space $`S`$ is the quotient $`𝔥/W`$ of the Cartan algebra $`𝔥`$ by the Weyl group $`W`$. We expect that the picture in higher dimension is similar, – in particular, there should exist a natural identification $`B=C`$. But we are not able to make a precise conjecture at this time.

Be that as it may, what we can prove, eventually, is that every fiber $`\mathrm{Spec}Z_c`$ of the deformation $`Z_c`$ occurs as a fiber $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_b`$ of the deformation $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, and $`b`$ is generic when $`c`$ is generic. This shows that $`\mathrm{Spec}Z_c`$ is smooth for generic $`c`$ and that

$$H_{DR}^{\text{}}(\mathrm{Spec}Z_c)H_{DR}^{\text{}}(\stackrel{~}{Y}_b)H_{DR}^{\text{}}(\stackrel{~}{X}_b)H_{DR}^{\text{}}(X).$$

We then invoke \[EG\] to compute the left-hand side and prove Theorem 2.4.

The only new ingredient in \[GK\] as compared to \[KaVe\] and \[EG\] is a deformation theory for Poisson algebras which is developed far enough to prove the versality of the deformation $`\stackrel{~}{Y}/B`$.

###### Remark 4.1

To conclude the paper, we would like to note that the idea to relate orbifold cohomology to something in the Hochschild cohomology world has been introduced by V. Baranovsky \[Bar\]. He works in full generality – an arbitrary Calabi-Yau quotient $`V/G`$ – but he used cyclic (or Hochschild) homology, not Hochschild cohomology. It is certainly a more natural approach. Unfortunately, the homology groups do not carry a multiplicative structure. To try to rectify this, one may attempt to identify Hochschild homology and Hochschild cohomology by cupping a cohomology class with the volume form. However, this is not what we do. Our proof also contain a hidden identification $`HH_{\text{}}HH^{\text{}}`$, but the identification uses the symplectic form. On the level of polyvector fields, we use the isomorphism $`𝒯(X)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)`$ – not the isomorphism $`𝒯(X)\mathrm{\Omega }^{2\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗆}X1}(X)`$ obtained by cupping with the volume form.

Steklov Math Institute
Moscow, USSR

E-mail address: kaledin@mccme.ru


text:
# Generation of highly non-classical 𝑛-photon polarization states by super-bunching at a photon bottleneck

## I introduction

The creation of highly non-classical states is one of the fundamental challenges in quantum optics. In particular, multi-photon entanglement and superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states (commonly referred to as cat states, after Schrödinger’s famous cat paradox Sch35 ) may be very useful as resources for optical quantum information processes such as teleportation, cloning, or quantum computation Mur00 ; Loo00 ; Mur99 ; Got99 ; Ral03 ; Bar03 . Recently, it has been shown that multi-photon entanglement can indeed be created and manipulated using only single photon sources, beam splitters, and post-selection based on precise photon detection Kni01 ; Ral01 ; Hof02a ; Ral02 ; Pit03 ; Hof02b ; Zou02 ; Fiu03 . In previous investigations, these methods have been applied to photonic qubits, where the goal was to obtain exactly one photon per spatial mode. In order to achieve this kind of output , it is necessary to discard the cases where several photons bunch up in a single spatial mode as unwanted errors. However, it is also possible to specifically select cases where several photons bunch up in the same mode. In particular, this method has been used to propose the generation of spatial mode entanglement Kok02 ; Fiu02 .

In the following, a related proposal is presented for the generation of highly non-classical polarization states. It is shown that a coherent superposition of two oppositely polarized $`n`$-photon polarization states can be obtained by transmitting $`n`$ independently generated photons with homogeneously distributed polarizations into a single spatial mode. For large photon numbers, this $`n`$-photon polarization state has the non-classical statistical properties of a cat state, since the superposition is between two well separated regions of the Poincare sphere Lui02  and the two polarization states can be distinguished by measuring only a few photons. On the other hand, highly non-classical interference effects between the two components of the superposition will be observable in the polarization statistics of the Stokes vector components orthogonal to the polarization along which the superposition is prepared Hof03 .

Once a cat-state superposition of polarization states is realized in single mode, it is also possible to generate the corresponding multi-particle entangled state by redistributing the photons into separate channels, effectively transforming the local state of $`n`$ photons in one spatial mode into an entangled state of $`n`$ photons in $`n`$ spatial modes. In the present proposal, the photons are then transferred from $`n`$ input modes to $`n`$ output modes through a single mode bottleneck. The quantum interference effects associated with the bosonic nature of photons leads to a super-bunching effect in the polarization, resulting in maximal $`n`$-photon entanglement in the output. It is thus possible to realize a strong interaction between an arbitrarily large number of photons by temporarily bunching them into a single mode channel. The super-bunching effect at a photon bottleneck may therefore be a useful tool in the realization of a wide range of multi-photon quantum operations.

## II The super-bunching effect

The bunching effect used to obtain the non-classical polarization state can be understood by considering the analogy with two photon bunching. If a horizontally polarized photon and a vertically polarized photon are transmitted into the same spatial mode, their circular polarizations will always be the same - either both right polarized, or both left polarized. Quantum interference removes the component with different circular polarizations. This effect can be generalized to $`n`$ photons by choosing a homogeneous distribution of linear polarization angles. The quantum interference between the different linear single photon polarizations then removes all components of the circular polarization, except for the two components where all photons have the same circular polarization. However, quantum coherence between the two maximally polarized cases is preserved since the bunching effect does not distinguish between right or left circular polarization.

The validity of this argument can be verified by defining the following $`n`$-photon input state,

$$\psi _{\text{in}}=2^{(n/2)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\widehat{a}_R^{}(l)+\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{2\pi }{n}l]\widehat{a}_L^{}(l)\right)\text{vac.},$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{a}_R^{}(l)`$ and $`\widehat{a}_L^{}(l)`$ are the creation operators of right and left circular polarization in the spatial mode $`l`$. The rotation of the linear polarization in the input ports $`l`$ is thus represented by the phases of $`2\pi l/n`$ in the superposition of the circular polarization components. Linear optics can then be used to transfer all $`n`$ input modes in a single mode output port described by

$`\widehat{b}_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\widehat{a}_R(l)`$
$`\widehat{b}_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\widehat{a}_L(l).`$ (2)
Each input mode $`\widehat{a}_{R/L}(l)`$ thus contributes equally to the correspondingly polarized output mode $`\widehat{b}_{R/L}`$. Photon losses to output modes other than $`\widehat{b}_{R/L}`$ can be avoided by post-selection using high quantum efficiency photon detectors in all unused output ports. If any photon losses are detected, the output is discarded. This post-selection procedure can then be represented by a projection operator $`\widehat{P}`$. The non-normalized post-selected output state then reads

$`\psi _{\text{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}\psi _{\text{in}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`(2n)^{n/2}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(\widehat{b}_R^{}+\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n}}l]\widehat{b}_L^{}\right)\text{vac.}.`$
Since the post-selection condition represented by $`\widehat{P}`$ has made the photons from different input ports indistinguishable in the output, the terms with the same overall number of right and left circular polarized photons now interfere with each other. Because all sums over varying phase factors $`\mathrm{exp}[i2\pi l/n]`$ are zero, the only two remaining terms in the output are the component with only right circular polarized photons and the component with only left circular polarized photons,

$`\psi _{\text{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2n)^{n/2}\left(\left(\widehat{b}_R^{}\right)^n+\mathrm{exp}[i\pi (n1)]\left(\widehat{b}_L^{}\right)^n\right)\text{vac.}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(2n)^n}}}\left(n;0(1)^n0;n\right),`$
where the final result is expressed in the photon number basis of the right and left circular polarization modes in the output. Note that the elimination of all other components of circular polarization can also be justified by a symmetry argument. Since the distribution of input polarizations has an $`n`$-fold symmetry with respect to rotations of the Stokes vector around the circular polarization axis (or a $`(2n)`$-fold rotation symmetry of the linear polarization), and since the operations applied are not sensitive to the polarization at all, the output state must also have this $`n`$-fold symmetry. However, any coherent superposition of the maximally polarized states $`n;0`$ and $`0;n`$ with other polarization states would reduce this symmetry Hof03 . Therefore, the cat-state superposition of $`n;0`$ and $`0;n`$ is the only possible output state that preserves the $`n`$-fold symmetry of the input.

In post-selection methods, the difficulty of generating highly non-classical states is directly reflected in the probability of obtaining the post-selection condition that indicates a successful generation of the target state. In the present case, this condition is given by the probability that no photons are detected in any spatial modes other than the output modes $`\widehat{b}_{R/L}`$. The probability of success for this post-selection procedure is given by

$$p(n)=\psi _{\text{out}}\psi _{\text{out}}=\frac{2n!}{(2n)^n}.$$
(5)
Since the probability of finding all photons in the same spatial output mode rapidly decreases with photon number, the efficiency of generating highly non-classical superpositions is very low. However, the probability of success is still significantly higher than the probability of finding all of $`n`$ independent particles in the output channel. For example, the probability of finding three photons in the output is $`p(3)=1/18`$. For three independent particles, the chance of finding all three in the output channel would be only $`(1/3)^3=1/27`$. This enhancement of the post-selection probability increases with increasing photon number and may thus be helpful in the suppression of errors caused by imperfect mode matching between the input photons (see below).

Figure 1 shows an example of an optical setup to generate a cat state superposition of four photon polarization. The cascade setup shown can easily be generalized to arbitrary photon numbers. Each input photon is generated by a single photon source with a well defined linear polarization, as indicated in the figure. The post-selection condition is that no photons are detected in the three detectors set up at the empty output ports. Note that it would also be sufficient to post-select the arrival of all four photons at detectors in the output. This may be useful to avoid errors due to the limited quantum efficiencies of the detectors, although it might restrict the possibilities of further quantum operations on the output.

## III Polarization statistics of the output state

The polarization statistics of the output can be characterized by the Stokes parameters, defined as the photon number difference between a pair of orthogonal polarizations. The properties of the quantized Stokes parameters then correspond to the properties of the spin components of a spin-$`n/2`$ system Hof03 . The quantum statistics of four photon polarization thus corresponds to a spin-2 system, and the five possible photon distributions between any two orthogonal polarizations correspond to the five eigenvalues of the respective spin component.

The most impressive feature of the super-bunching effect is the accumulation of all photons in the two states with maximal circular polarization, given by the circular polarization statistics $`p_{RL}(n_R,n_L)`$,

$`p_{RL}(4;0)`$ $`=`$ $`1/2`$
$`p_{RL}(3;1)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`p_{RL}(2;2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`p_{RL}(1;3)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`p_{RL}(0;4)`$ $`=`$ $`1/2.`$ (6)
However, the observation of this bunching effect around $`n_Rn_L=\pm 4`$ does not indicate coherence between the two components. To distinguish the quantum superposition from a statistical mixture, it is necessary to consider the linear polarization statistics. These can be obtained from the coherent overlap of the two components $`4R`$ and $`4L`$ with the basis states of a linear polarization measurement rotated by an angle of $`\varphi `$ relative to the horizontal and vertical polarization axes, where the individual basis states are defined by the photon number difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\varphi )`$ between the two orthogonal polarizations,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }n=+44R\hfill & =& \hfill 1/4\mathrm{exp}[i4\varphi ],& & \mathrm{\Delta }n=+44L\hfill & =& \hfill 1/4\mathrm{exp}[+i4\varphi ],\\ \mathrm{\Delta }n=+24R\hfill & =& \hfill 1/2\mathrm{exp}[i4\varphi ],& & \mathrm{\Delta }n=+24L\hfill & =& \hfill 1/2\mathrm{exp}[+i4\varphi ],\\ \mathrm{\Delta }n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}4R\hfill & =& \hfill \sqrt{6}/4\mathrm{exp}[i4\varphi ],& & \mathrm{\Delta }n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}4L\hfill & =& \hfill \sqrt{6}/4\mathrm{exp}[+i4\varphi ],\\ \mathrm{\Delta }n=24R\hfill & =& \hfill 1/2\mathrm{exp}[i4\varphi ],& & \mathrm{\Delta }n=24L\hfill & =& \hfill 1/2\mathrm{exp}[+i4\varphi ],\\ \mathrm{\Delta }n=44R\hfill & =& \hfill 1/4\mathrm{exp}[i4\varphi ],& & \mathrm{\Delta }n=44L\hfill & =& \hfill 1/4\mathrm{exp}[+i4\varphi ].\end{array}$$
(7)
As the linear polarization is rotated, the interference terms in the photon number distribution thus oscillate with a periodicity of $`8\varphi `$,

$`p_\varphi (+4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[8\varphi ]\right),`$
$`p_\varphi (+2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{16}}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}[8\varphi ]\right),`$
$`p_\varphi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{16}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[8\varphi ]\right),`$
$`p_\varphi (2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{16}}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}[8\varphi ]\right),`$
$`p_\varphi (4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[8\varphi ]\right).`$ (8)
Figure 2 shows the characteristic polarization statistics of the super-bunched superposition state. Fig. 2 (a) shows the super-bunching effect in the circular polarization statistics, fig. 2 (b) to (d) show the linear polarization statistics for polarization angles of $`\varphi =0`$, $`\varphi =\pi /8`$, and $`\varphi =\pi /16`$, respectively. Note that the polarization angles are defined relative to the four input polarizations, that is, the sensitivity of the output statistics to the linear polarization direction originates from the anisotropy caused by the selection of a specific set of input polarizations. Specifically, the polarization statistics of linear polarizations that coincide with one of the input polarizations ($`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi /4`$) always have exactly three photons in one polarization and one in the other ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\varphi )=\pm 2`$), as can be seen in fig. 2 (b). This distribution of photons can be understood as a combination of the preservation of the input polarization (one input photon in each of the two observed output polarization) and the conventional bunching effect between the remaining two photons, which adds exactly two photons to either one of the two output polarizations. On the other hand, the polarization statistics of linear polarizations that are exactly halfway between two of the input polarizations ($`\varphi =\pi /8`$ and $`\varphi =3\pi /8`$) are clearly dominated by the 75% probability of finding equal numbers of photons in both polarizations ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\varphi )=0`$), as can be seen in fig. 2 (d). In this case, the complete absence of photon distributions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(\varphi )=\pm 2`$ indicates a strong quantum interference effect between the circular polarization components. The linear polarization statistics that would also be expected for the maximally right or left polarized states $`4R`$ or $`4L`$ are obtained at angles of $`\varphi =\pi /16`$, $`\varphi =3\pi /16`$, etc., as shown in fig. 2 (c). These statistics correspond to the binomial distribution expected if each photon had a random linear polarization. The deviations from this binomial distribution thus show that the polarization statistics cannot be explained in terms of a simple combination of individual photon polarizations.

## IV Effects of mode matching errors

Experimentally, the super-bunching effect requires that all input photons can be matched into the same mode at the beam splitters. Therefore, the most likely source of errors is an imperfect mode matching at one of the input ports. Since the effect of such errors is quite different from the decoherence effects normally expected in spin systems, it may be of interest to investigate the polarization statistics associated with a mode matching error in more detail.

The characteristics of a mode matching error can be obtained by assuming that one of the photons is in a different mode from the other three. The output polarization state is then a product state of a three photon state with modified bunching effects and a single photon state with the unchanged input polarization. If the mismatched photon is horizontally polarized (represented by the contribution with $`l=0`$ in equation (1)), the output state of the remaining three photons is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_R^{}+i\widehat{a}_L^{})(\widehat{a}_R^{}\widehat{a}_L^{})(\widehat{a}_R^{}i\widehat{a}_L^{})\text{vac.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{16}}3;0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}2;1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}1;2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{16}}0;3.`$ (9)
Note that the circular polarization statistics of this state is independent of the linear polarization of the mismatched photon. Therefore, all mode matching errors modify the circular polarization in the same way. However, the loss of symmetry will be apparent in the linear polarization statistics.

The total output state is obtained as a product state of the bunched three photon state given by equation (9) and the single horizontally polarized photon transmitted to the output port with a probability of $`1/4`$. In the circular polarization basis, this product state of three photon and one photon polarization in the output reads

$`\psi _{31}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\sqrt{2}}}\left(\sqrt{3}3;02;1+1;2\sqrt{3}0;3\right)\left(1;0+0;1\right).`$ (10)
The total amplitude of this state describes the post-selection probability. It is interesting to compare this probability to the perfectly mode matched four photon post selection probability $`p(4)`$,

$$\psi _{31}\psi _{31}=\frac{1}{128}=\frac{2}{3}p(4).$$
(11)
The mode mismatch thus reduces the post-selection probability for the four photons from $`3/256`$ to $`2/256`$. Experimentally, this dependence of successful post-selection on mode matching could be observed by varying the delay time of one of the input photons, thus varying the phase matching artificially San04 . It is then possible to evaluate the mode matching from the rates of coincidence counts obtained in the experiment.

The statistics of circular polarization obtained from a single photon mismatch error corresponding to the output state $`\psi _{31}`$ reads

$`p_{31}(4;0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}`$
$`p_{31}(3;1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{16}}`$
$`p_{31}(2;2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16}}`$
$`p_{31}(1;3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{16}}`$
$`p_{31}(0;4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}.`$ (12)
This distribution sharply contrasts the bunching effect of the perfectly mode matched case given by equation (III). The main effect of the mode matching error is thus to destroy the bunching effect, while the coherence between the circularly polarized components, which corresponds to the linear polarization statistics, is affected much less.

To evaluate the effects of the mode mismatch on the linear polarization components, it is useful to transform the output state into the horizontal and vertical basis states ($`\varphi =0`$). In this basis, the state reads

$`\psi _{31}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{2}}}\left(\sqrt{3}3V2H;1V\right)1H.`$ (13)
The horizontal/vertical polarization statistics thus still includes only the two components with $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=\pm 2`$, corresponding to three photons in one polarization and one in the other. The only change compared to the statistics for $`\varphi =0`$ given in equation (III) is that the vertically polarized output is preferred.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the polarization statistics for the one photon mode mismatch with the perfectly mode matched four photon output. Note that the changed post selection probability has been taken into account, so that the sum over all probabilities shown is 1.5 times higher for the perfectly mode matched case. Most importantly, mode matching errors have more impact on the circular polarization statistics than on the linear polarization statistics which depends on coherence between the circular polarization eigenstates. The errors expected in the generation of a superposition state of $`4R`$ and $`4L`$ by superbunching are therefore quite different from the decoherence effects normally associated with cat-state superpositions. In the case of a small mode matching error probability $`ϵ`$, the expected circular polarization distribution can be derived by mixing the ideal distribution of equation (III) with the error distribution given in equation (IV). Taking the different post-selection probabilities into account, this distribution is given by

$$p_{\text{error}}(n;4n)=\frac{3}{256}(1ϵ)p_{RL}(n;4n)+\frac{1}{128}ϵp_{31}(n;4n).$$
(14)
It is thus possible to estimate the mode matching error from the experimental data obtained in measurements of the circular polarization output.

## V Generation of multi-particle entanglement

Once a highly non-classical $`n`$-photon polarization state is generated in single mode, this state can be converted into an $`n`$-particle entangled state by distributing the photons into $`n`$ separate channels. It is then possible to apply the criteria for entanglement verification to quantify the non-classical features of the polarization statistics.

Figure 4 illustrates a possible setup for the generation of four photon entanglement using a photon bottleneck. In this setup, it is necessary to post-select the output by detecting exactly one photon in each output channel using polarization sensitive detectors. The redistribution of the photons into separate channels thus makes the output condition symmetric to the input condition and the operation of the photon bottleneck can be interpreted as a collective four photon interaction. In the absence of errors, the output state of this interaction is the GHZ-state,

$$\text{GHZ}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(RRRRLLLL\right).$$
(15)
Such four photon GHZ-states have recently been generated by using entangled pairs generated in downconversion as input Pan01 ; Eib03 ; Zha03 . The photon bottleneck provides an alternative method of generating the same type of multi-particle entanglement from previously unentangled input photons.

The analysis of mode matching errors given above can now be applied to determine the condition for successful entanglement generation. Genuine $`n`$-particle entanglement can be verified by the condition Guh03

$$\frac{\text{GHZ}\widehat{\rho }_{\text{out}}\text{GHZ}}{\text{Tr}\left\{\widehat{\rho }_{\text{out}}\right\}}\frac{1}{2}.$$
(16)
Using the results of equations (10) and (11), it is possible to quantify the reduction in multi-particle entanglement caused by a mode matching error as follows,

$$\frac{|\text{GHZ}\psi _{31}|^2}{\psi _{31}\psi _{31}}=\frac{3}{8}.$$
(17)
The overall reduction for small mode matching error probabilities $`ϵ`$ can then be determined using the different post-selection probabilites as

$$\frac{\text{GHZ}\widehat{\rho }_{\text{out}}\text{GHZ}}{\text{Tr}\left\{\widehat{\rho }_{\text{out}}\right\}}=\frac{129ϵ}{124ϵ}1\frac{5}{12}ϵ.$$
(18)
For example, even if each of the four input channels contributes a mode matching error of 5%, for a total error probability of about 20% ($`ϵ0.2`$), the GHZ contribution would only be reduced by about 8.3 %. The generation of multi-particle entanglement using a photon bottleneck thus appears to be very robust against typical mode matching errors.

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion, it has been shown that a highly non-classical superposition state of oppositely polarized $`n`$-photon states can be generated by post-selecting the transmission of $`n`$ independently generated photons into a single spatial mode. No initial entanglement is needed, and the post-selection conditions only require zero detection events. In principle, the method can be applied to any number of photons. It can be used to generate cat-like superpositions in the polarization statistics of single mode $`n`$-photon states, or to obtain GHZ-type $`n`$-photon entanglement. The error analysis suggests that the non-classical correlations that can be generated by this method are sufficiently robust with regard to experimental imperfections. The photon bottleneck setup presented in this paper may therefore provide a useful tool for the generation and control of non-classical states of light.


text:
# Untitled Document

ELOISE HAMANN

Department of Mathematics, San Jose State University,

San Jose, Ca 95192-0103

hamann@mathcs.sjsu.edu

The withdrawn paper gives an example of a differential domain with no new constants in its quotient field with an infinite number of height two differential prime ideals and exactly one height one differential prime ideal, but the claim that the intersection of the height two prime ideals is zero is wrong. The intersection contains the height one prime differential ideal.


text:
# Adiabatic Heavy Ion Fusion Potentials for Fusion at Deep Sub-barrier Energies

## Abstract

It is shown that the energy (E) and angular momentum (L) dependent barrier penetration model ( ELDBPM ) provides a consistent description of the unusual behaviour of fusion cross sections at extreme sub-barrier energies reported recently. The adiabatic limit of fusion barriers derived from experimental data are consistent with the adiabatic fusion barriers given by modified Wilzynska-Wilzynski prescription. Using the ELDBPM , the fusion barrier systematics has been obtained for a wide range of heavy ion systems. For some systems, the barrier parameters Rb and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ are anomalously smaller than the predictions of known empirical prescriptions.

Heavy ions fusion, Fusion barrier systematics, Energy dependent barrier, Adiabatic and Sudden barriers, Fusion Slope function.

Heavy ions fusion has been under intense investigation over the last two decades. Heavy ions fusion populates compound system at high excitation energies and angular momenta, providing a tool to study the nucleus at extreme conditions. It also opens up a new channel to generate nuclei far away from stability line, populate the super heavy nuclei near the island of stability. Further, the fusion of heavy ions at sub Coulomb barrier energies exhibited anomalously large enhancements over the model estimates based on tunneling of the entrance channel Coulomb barrier. This enhancement has been understood to be arising due to the strong coupling of structure of the fusing nuclei and the reaction dynamics cc . The effects couplings of nuclear structure on fusion has been clearly brought out in the experimental studies of the fusion barrier distributions mdasgrev  and see the references in mdasgrev . These dynamical aspects of heavy ion reactions are successfully explained by the coupled reaction channels ( CRC ) formalism, by a simultaneous solution to all the reaction channels as in ijt1 . Nuclear fusion at extreme sub-barrier energies has been revisited recently ninisub ; hagino1 . Jiang et. al. ninisub  have reported unexpected behaviour of fusion cross sections at extreme sub-barrier energies. The Wong model results fail to reproduce the data at these low energies. They have observed that the logarithmic slope ($`L(E)=\frac{dln(E\sigma )}{dE}`$) increases with decrease of energy in contrast to a constant value expected at the deep sub-barrier energies. Hagino et. al., hagino1  have pointed out that the failure of the Wong model analysis to explain the unexpected behaviour of fusion cross sections shown by Jiang et. al., ninisub  is partly due to the parabolic shape of the fusion barrier assumed in the Wong model. Further, Hagino et. al., hagino1  noted that the increase in logarithmic slope with decreasing energy is consistent with the large diffuseness parameter required to fit the recent high precision fusion data. In the present work, we have investigated the unusual behaviour of fusion at deep sub-barrier energies and also the systematics of adiabatic limit of fusion barriers in terms of the energy ($`E`$) and angular momentum ($`L`$) dependent barrier penetration model ( ELDBPM ) eldbpm .

Owing to complexity of the CRC calculations, phenomenological models are needed to gain physical insight of the reaction mechanism. The effective potentials derived from the CRC method provide an important bridge between the microscopic CRC calculations and the macroscopic models. It has been shown that the CRC fusion cross sections and the spin distributions imply an effective fusion barrier that depends on both $`E`$ and $`L`$ through effective radial kinetic energy defined (see Eq. 2.) as $`ϵ=EE_{rot}`$ eldbpm . Analysis of experimental data using $`ϵ`$ dependent barrier showed two distinct limits for the effective fusion potentials. At high energies (above $`E_2`$) well above uncoupled elastic channel barrier, fusion occurs by transmission through a single constant barrier known as sudden fusion barrier ($`V_2`$). As the energy decreases and/or the angular momentum increases, the effective fusion barrier decreases linearly with $`ϵ`$ until a lower energy ($`E_1`$) is reached. At this lower limit called adiabatic limit, fusion occurs by tunneling through a constant barrier known as adiabatic fusion barrier ($`V_1`$) eldbpm ; edbpm . This simple effective fusion barrier model was first proposed in edbpm , based on the neck degree of freedom in heavy ion fusion. The two dimensional potential energy landscape as a function of relative separation and neck degree exhibits two distinct regions edbpm . At high energies, the colliding nuclei in the entrance channel fuse by passage over the relative Coulomb barrier in the radial space. As the energy is lowered the fusing system finds an alternate competing path for fusion by means of neck formation. Thus the neck formation facilitates the fusion in a dynamic way, which otherwise has to fuse by passage through the one dimensional barrier. At very low energies, the effects of neck opening saturate and system fuses by transmission through a lowered (constant) barrier. The effective fusion barrier (Veff), the transmission factor for fusion ($`T_l`$), the fusion cross section ($`\sigma _f`$), the mean square fusion spin ($`<L^2>`$) values and the fusion slope values ($`L(E)`$) using the ELDBPM eldbpm  are,

$`V_{eff}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`V_2\text{for}ϵE_2`$
$`V_{eff}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ϵ+\beta \text{for}E_1ϵE_2`$
$`V_{eff}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`V_1\text{for}ϵE_1`$ (1)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`EE_{rot}\text{where}E_{rot}={\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu R_b^2}}`$ (2)
$`\sigma _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}(2l+1)T_l(E)`$ (3)
$`T_l(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}\omega }}(V_{eff}ϵ)\right)\right]^1`$ (4)
$`\sigma _f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\sigma _l\text{and}L^2={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}l(l+1)\sigma _l/\sigma _f`$ (5)
$`L(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}(\sigma E)}{dE}}`$ (6)
In Eq. (1), $`\alpha =(V_2V_1)/(E_2E_1)`$ and $`\beta =\alpha E_1+V_1`$. This simple model for fusion consists of all the physical ingredients of the CRC calculations eldbpm . Further, the results of EDBPM with L-independent barriers edbpm  can be obtained by substituting Ecm in place of $`ϵ`$ dependence of Veff. In the following, both ELDBPM and EDBPM will be used to understand the heavy ion fusion systematics. In the above equations, the quantities $`R_b`$, and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ are in general taken independent of energy. However, these quantities may be different at the sudden and adiabatic limits. The sudden limit of the barrier is generally around the one dimensional fusion barrier, as prescribed by Vaz et. al., vaz  ( see Eq. 7). The contact radius ($`R_{con}`$) is the distance between two touching spheres evaluated by using $`r_0`$=1.233fm.

$`R_{sud}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{of}(A_p^{1/3}+A_t^{1/3})`$
$`r_{ef}`$ $`=`$ $`2.29510.2966\mathrm{log}_{10}(Z_pZ_t)`$
$`r_{of}`$ $`=`$ $`2.05130.2455\mathrm{log}_{10}(Z_pZ_t)`$
$`V_{sud}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_pZ_te^2}{r_{ef}(A_p^{1/3}+A_t^{1/3})}}`$ (7)
Wilzynsky and Wilzynska showed that the adiabatic limit of the fusion barrier can be obtained in terms of the ground state masses of the fusing nuclei and the fused system wilz1 . In this prescription, the depth of the nucleus-nucleus (NN) potential in the adiabatic limit is given by the potential of the compound nucleus calculated with respect to the potential energy of the two separated incident nuclei of entrance channel with their Coulomb energy ($`C_0`$ in MeV) subtracted. Thus, the depth $`V_0`$ (in MeV) of a Woods-Saxon form of the NN potential in the adiabatic limit is given by, $`V_0=\left(M_p+M_tM_{cn}\right)c^2+C_0`$. Recently, Wilzynska and Wilzynsky modified the above prescription by considering shell correction term for the compound nucleus wilz2 . The shell correction energy (Scn) is taken from the Moller and Nix et. al., moller . In general, this term is found to lower the adiabatic barriers. As mentioned in wilz2 , this shell correction term is necessary because it produces only a local dip in the flat landscape of the nuclear potential energy for the equilibrium shapes. The diffuseness parameter ($`a_0`$) of the potential can be determined by matching the first derivative of the NN potential (i.e., NN force) to that of the proximity potential at the contact distance $`R_0`$=$`R_p+R_t`$. A correlation between the adiabatic barriers and the fusion energy thresholds was shown in wilz2  over a wide range of heavy ion systems. This fusion threshold energy is defined as the energy at which measured fusion cross section is equal to the s-wave absorption cross section.

$`V_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_p+M_tM_{cn}\right)c^2+C_0+S_{cn}`$ (8)
$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.7054\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_{cn}^2}{A_{cn}^{1/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_p^2}{A_p^{1/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_t^2}{A_t^{1/3}}}\right)`$ (9)
$`V_{NN}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{1+exp(\frac{rR_0}{a_0})}}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_{NN}}{dr}}|_{r=R_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{a_0}}=16\pi \gamma {\displaystyle \frac{R_pR_t}{R_p+R_t}}`$ (11)
In the above equations, $`\gamma `$ is the surface tension coefficient, $`r_0`$ is the radius parameter. In wilz1 ; wilz2 , these are taken to be $`\gamma =0.9516\left[11.7826\left(\frac{NZ}{A}\right)^2\right]MeV/fm^2`$, $`r_0`$=1.15fm. The adiabatic barriers obtained from the prescription of wilz2  using these $`\gamma `$ and $`r_0`$ are shown in the Table 1 in second column (Vad) for various systems listed in column 1. The corresponding barrier radius ($`R_b`$), barrier curvature ($`\mathrm{}\omega `$) and the potential diffuseness at adiabatic limit are given in Table in columns 3 to 5. The diffuseness parameter of NN potential turns out be around 0.90-1.20 fm as shown in the Table. Such larger diffuseness values, reported in some of the fusion studies mdasgrev , arise naturally in the prescription of adiabatic barriers. In order to verify this empirical prescription of wilz2 , it is necessary to determine the adiabatic fusion barriers using experimental data. Further, the shell correction prescription needs to the examined in detail by studying the isotopic dependence of adiabatic barriers. Therefore, we have derived the adiabatic barriers using the ELDBPM fits to the experimental fusion data of some heavy ion systems with ZpZt values ranging from 400 to 1100.

The best fit parameters of ELDBPM, E2,V2,E1,V1,Rb,$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the $`\chi ^2`$ values of fits are listed in columns 10 to 16 of Table. The resulting fits to fusion excitation functions are shown in Figure 1, with solid curves and the experimental data by symbols for the 26 systems considered in this work. The experimental data for these systems are taken from sisni ; szr ; arsnsm ; tizrnb ; ninisub ; nini5858 ; nini ; nimo ; krge . The V1 values listed in the Table in column 13 are the adiabatic barriers derived from the experimental data for all these cases. These V1 values do not agree with the adiabatic barriers given in column 2 of Table and therefore, the prescription of wilz2  under predicts the V1 values. It is observed that the values of $`r_0`$ and $`\gamma `$ of wilz2  are different from the values used in compilations of Moller et. al., moller , where $`\gamma =1.25\left[12.3\left(\frac{NZ}{A}\right)^2\right]MeV/fm^2`$ based on $`r_0=1.16fm`$. Therefore, we have taken these values of $`r_0`$ and $`\gamma `$ consistent with nuclear data compilations. The ground state masses and shell correction energy are also taken from moller . The resulting empirical adiabatic barrier parameters Vad, $`R_b`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the diffuseness are listed in the columns 6-9 of the Table. 1. These Vad values are very close to the $`V_1`$ values of column 13. The isotopic variation for a given ZpZt are grouped together and are separated by a horizontal line in the Table. The isotopic dependence of the adiabatic barriers is very well reproduced in the present work. The diffuseness parameters are in the range of 0.65-0.9fm as shown in 9th column of Table, in contrast to the diffuseness values of wilz2  (see column 5). The effective diffuseness of the NN potential in the adiabatic limit is reduced by our choice of the surface tension parameter, leading to correct adiabatic barriers svs1 . Consequently, the $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ values in the adiabatic limit are slightly larger than those of wilz2  (columns 8 and 4 of Table.)

Figure 2(a) shows the ELDBPM fits to fusion cross sections for the 58Ni+58Ni system in solid curves. The experimental data of nini5858 ; ninisub  is shown by circles, showing the good quality of the model fits. In Figure 2(b) we show the ELDBPM fits to the fusion excitation function of 60Ni+89Y. The fusion of this system has been shown to exhibit anomalously steeper fall in deep sub barrier region as compared to Wong’s model estimates and coupled channels method. It can be seen that in the ELDBPM, the cross section at deep sub-barrier region is reproduced. The best fit values are respectively Rb=8.75fm and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$=2.75MeV for 58Ni+58Ni system and Rb=8.0fm and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$=2.50MeV for 60Ni+89Y. These values are lower than the values predicted by the prescription of wilz2  for these two systems (see Table).

We have calculated the exponential slope parameter given by Eq. 6. The slope values $`L(E)`$ for these two systems are shown in Figs.2(c,d). The experimental slope values are well reproduced in the present work as shown in figure, except at the lowest energies. These maximum slope values could not be reproduced, in spite of using very low value $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ (=2.5MeV). Exact WKB transmission in place of transmission through parabolic barrier would tend to increase the theoretical model values of slope at low energy, as shown in hagino1 .

The percentage deviations of adiabatic barrier heights ($`V_1`$) derived in the present work as compared to the modified prescription of wilz2  have been calculated for the systems shown in Table. The percentage deviations of sudden barrier heights ($`V_2`$) are compared to the phenomenological formulae given by Vaz et. al., vaz . These are shown in (left side of) Figures 3(a,b) as a function of ZpZt, which is a measure of heavyness of the system. As shown in Figure 3(a), the deviations of $`V_1`$ for all these systems are within $`2\%`$, where as the deviations of $`V_2`$ are upto $`6\%`$. The solid line drawn in the figures shows general trend of ZpZt dependence of these deviations, obtained by a 2nd order polynomial fit.

The optimised $`R_b`$ values that fit the fusion data of Fig. 1 are listed in column 14 of the Table. These values have been plotted in Figure 3(c) (left part) as a function of ZpZt. For a comparison, the adiabatic barrier radii, the sudden values as given by Vaz et. al., vaz  and the contact radii ($`R_{con}`$) are shown by different symbols. For some systems, the required Rb values are much smaller than the sudden, adiabatic and contact radii values. The solid and dashed curves are polynomial fits to data showing general trends. It should be noted that the ELDBPM parameters listed in Table are a result of a uniform procedure applied to all systems. Further, the Rb and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ values are independent of energy and angular momentum and therefore they are effective parameters. These parameters also should be varied between their sudden and adiabatic limit values in an $`ϵ`$ dependent way, similar to effective barrier of Eq. (1). Such an implicit E and L dependence of $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ mimics the true WKB transmission.

Similar analysis was performed using EDBPM method where the effective fusion barrier depends only on Ecm and hence without L-dependence. The results of fusion barrier systematics in EDBPM analysis are shown in right panel of Fig.3. The fits to fusion excitation functions and resulting fusion slope values of EDBPM are very similar to the those in Figs. (1,2).

As shown in Fig.3(c), the values of Rb derived in the present work are smaller than the values expected from high energy systematics given by Vaz et. al.,. In order to understand this behaviour, we have analysed the high energy fusion data of a few systems by a one dimensional BPM. We performed a three parameter fit to above barrier fusion data by optimising Vb,Rb and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. For some systems like 36S+58Ni, the Rb values turn out to be smaller. For the 58Ni+58Ni this procedure yields a slightly higher value than the ELDBPM values (listed in table). In the high energy region above E2, fusion can be obtained by $`\sigma _f=\pi R_b^2(1V_b/E)`$. Therefore, the smallness of Rb is a requirement of the high energy fusion cross sections for some of the systems.

The $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ values are important for deep sub barrier data and are closer to the empirical adiabatic values listed in Table. The smallness of $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is system dependent, especially as shown for the cases of 36S+58Ni and 58Ni+58Ni, where fusion data extends to deep sub barrier region. The optimised $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ values the Ar+Sm systems are around 5MeV (see Table). Though these systems have ZpZt values similar to Ni+Y system, the barrier curvatures are very different. These observations may be understood based on neck degree of freedom for fusion. In the macroscopic picture, fusion occurs by both the barrier penetration in radial space and neck opening. The barrier curvature depends on the reduced mass. The mass tensor is a complex quantity and depends on size of the system as well as structural details of the colliding nuclei. The neck formation is more favourable for heavier systems and the mass tensor is smaller, resulting in larger $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ values. Often, neutron flow is also considered to be a classical analogue of neck opening. Consequently, the $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ can be larger even for a light system, whenever neutron flow is favoured.

In order to confirm the anomalous small values of Rb and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, study of systematics of fusion at high energy is very important. Therefore, we used the program CCFUS ccfus  to fit the high energy fusion data without any couplings. The parameter dV of CCFUS is adjusted to fit the cross sections above 100mb for each system (except for Kr+Ge systems which could not be reproduced). The resulting barrier height, Rb and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the dV values used are listed in the Table in the last four columns. It can be seen that this high energy systematics from CCFUS also yields smaller Rb and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ values. However, the barrier heights obtained by this procedure represent the uncoupled entrance channel barriers. In the coupled channels method cc , these high energy barriers are also modified by the couplings.

Acknowledgements
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with B. K. Nayak, R. G. Thomas, P. K. Sahu and K. Mahata.

Conclusion

The fusion cross sections from well above barrier to extreme sub-barrier energies have been analysed using the energy (E) and angular momentum (L) dependent barrier penetration model ( ELDBPM ). From this analysis, the adiabatic limits of fusion barriers have been determined for a wide range of heavy ion systems. The empirical prescription of Wilzynska and Wilzynski has been used with modified radius parameter and surface tension coefficient values consistent with the parameterization of the nuclear masses. The adiabatic fusion barriers calculated from this prescription are in good agreement with the adiabatic barriers deduced from ELDBPM fits to fusion data. The nuclear potential diffuseness is larger at adiabatic limit, resulting in a lower $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ leading to increase of ”logarithmic slope” observed at energies well below the barrier. The effective fusion barrier radius and curvature values are anomalously smaller than the predictions of known empirical prescriptions. A detailed comparison of the systematics of fusion barrier with and without L-dependence has been presented.


text:
# On the anomalous extreme ultraviolet emission lines in helium-hydrogen plasma

## Abstract

The idea of photonic de Broglie waves is discussed in the context of recent obsrved lines in the helium-hydrogen plasma.

The reported observations 1  of new emission lines in the helium-hydrogen (98-2 %) plasmas have been given a simple explanation in 2  . The reported observations show sharp emission lines with the energies satisfying empirical relations given by

$$E_e=13.6n\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{where}\mathrm{n}=1,2,3,7,9$$
(1)
$$E_e=13.6n21.21\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{where}\mathrm{n}=4,6,8$$
(2)
Let us note that the ground state energy level of hydrogen is -13.6 eV, and this immediately hints at intriguing physics if the observations are correct. In view of the doubtful nature of ’exotic’ observations in recent years in the so-called cutting-edge research,we must be skeptical of this report unless independent experiments by other groups verify the observations. Assuming the correctness of the reported emission lines, let us see if Sathyamurthy 2  offers any explanation. He says that, ’if there are several H atom recombinations taking place simultaneously, under favourable circumstances, there could be emissions corresponding to integral multiples of 13.6 eV..’ Obviously this does not amount to any physical interpretation, and one does not know what it means to say ’several atom recombinations’.

Is there some possible mechanism to explain the observations if these are true? Let us explore the hypothesis of photonic de Broglie waves 3  in this context. Jacobson et al in 3  propose that an ensemble of photons in quantum optics could be considered as a Bose condensate with de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda /N`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, and $`N`$ the average number of the constituent photons. To give a simple derivation,let us consider N photons with frequency $`\nu `$ ,then the total energy $`Nh\nu `$ can be used to obtain the momentum of the condensate

$$p=Nh\nu /c$$
(3)
The de Broglie wavelength is

$$\lambda _b=\frac{h}{p}=\frac{\lambda }{N}$$
(4)
The idea that N photons with frequency $`\nu `$ could behave as a single entity with frequency $`N\nu `$ seems strange,and in the literature counterintuitiveness of quantum mechanics is invoked.Experiments on biphoton interference and quantum entanglement have been of active areas of research besides the geometrical phases for such photon pairs 4 .

Let us assume that helium is instrumental in creating cavities where photonic condensates could form for the photons with energy 13.6 eV. One could then explain relation(1). Following our work on geometrical phase 4  we argue that spin plays an important role in the condensate i.e. even numbers give spinless state and odd number of photons give spin one state.The difference between relations (1) and (2) is that in the former we have odd n (excepting 2) while in (2) it is even. Here Sathyamurthy’s suggestion that photon condensate gets inelastically scattered from helium seems useful. He confines only to energy conservation,however the angular momentum and parity selection rules have to be properly incorporated in a fuller discussion.

If the condensate mechanism is correct one can look for its verification using the Mach-Zehnder interferometer as is proposed by Ryff and Ribeiro in 4 .Here the source beam should be the emission radiation from the plasma,and the interference pattern has to be contrasted with the independent source at this frequency.

Obviously the idea of photonic de Broglie waves is speculative,and in spite of intense work in quantum optics the problems at fundamental level lack understanding. A radically new approach envisages photon as a composite structure and a number of photons could coalesce to create photo-balls that behave as photons 5 . This approach also desreves attention.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Prof. Y. Singh, Physics Department,BHU Varanasi for drawing my attention to Ref. 2, and for a lively discussion on this problem.


text:
# The group of fractions of a torsion free lcm monoid is torsion free

## Abstract.

We improve and shorten the argument given in  (this journal, vol. 210 (1998) pp 291–297). In particular, the fact that Artin braid groups are torsion free now follows from Garside’s results almost immediately.

An algebraic proof of the fact that Artin braid groups are torsion free was given in . The aim of this note is to observe that the proof of , which uses group presentations and words, is unnecessarily complicated and requires needless hypotheses. A shorter and better argument can be given that uses elementary properties of the lcm operation only.

For $`x,y`$ in a monoid $`M`$, we say that $`y`$ is a right multiple of $`x`$ if $`y=xz`$ holds for some $`z`$ in $`M`$; we say that $`z`$ is a right least common multiple, or right lcm, of $`x`$ and $`y`$ if $`z`$ is a right multiple of $`x`$ and $`y`$ and any common right multiple of $`x`$ and $`y`$ is a right multiple of $`z`$. The result we prove here is:

###### Proposition 1.

Assume that $`G`$ is a group and $`M`$ is a submonoid of $`G`$ such that $`M`$ generates $`G`$ and, in $`M`$, any two elements admit a right lcm. Then the torsion elements of $`G`$ are the elements $`xtx^1`$ with $`x`$ in $`M`$ and $`t`$ a torsion element of $`M`$.

###### Corollary 2.

Under the previous hypotheses, $`G`$ is torsion free if and only if $`M`$ is torsion free. In particular, a sufficient condition for $`G`$ to be torsion free is that $`M`$ contains no invertible element but $`1`$.

In comparison with , the current result eliminates a useless Noetherianity hypothesis. In this way, the result directly extends the standard result that a left-orderable group is torsion free. Indeed, if $`<`$ is a linear ordering on $`G`$ that is compatible with left multiplication, the submonoid defined by $`M=\{xG;x1\}`$ is eligible for Corollary 2, as, in $`M`$, the element $`sup(x,y)`$ is a right lcm of $`x`$ and $`y`$.

The above results apply to Artin’s braid group $`B_n`$, as, according to Garside’s theory, the submonoid $`B_n^+`$ admits unique right lcm’s. Alternatively, one could also use the dual monoid of , or some more exotic monoids. Artin–Tits groups of finite Coxeter type, and, more generally, all Garside groups  are eligible, as well as, for instance, Richard Thompson’s group $`F`$ . All lattice-ordered groups of  also are eligible, but, then, the result is trivial: the point is that, here, we only assume one-sided compatibility between multiplication and ordering.

In order to prove Proposition 1, we begin with two simple observations about lcm’s. First, a right lcm need not be unique, but the set, here denoted $`\mathrm{LCM}(x,y)`$, of all right lcm’s of two elements $`x,y`$ is easily described:

###### Lemma 3.

Assume that $`M`$ is a left cancellative monoid, and $`z`$ is a right lcm of two elements $`x,y`$ of $`M`$. Then $`\mathrm{LCM}(x,y)`$ consists of all elements of the form $`zu`$ with $`u`$ an invertible element of $`M`$.

###### Proof.

If $`u`$ is invertible in $`M`$, the element $`zu`$ is a right multiple of $`x`$ and $`y`$, and $`z`$ is a right multiple of $`zu`$, so $`zu`$ is a right lcm of $`x`$ and $`y`$. Conversely, let $`z^{}`$ be an arbitrary right lcm of $`x`$ and $`y`$. There must exist $`u,u^{}`$ satisfying $`z^{}=zu`$ and $`z=z^{}u^{}`$, hence $`z=zuu^{}`$ and $`z^{}=z^{}u^{}u`$, and we deduce $`uu^{}=u^{}u=1`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.

Assume that $`M`$ is a left cancellative monoid, and that, in $`M`$, we have $`xy_1^{}=y_1x^{}\mathrm{LCM}(x,y_1)`$ and $`x^{}y_2^{}=y_2x^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{LCM}(x^{},y_2)`$. Then we have $`xy_1^{}y_2^{}=y_1y_2x^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{LCM}(x,y_1y_2)`$.

###### Proof.

First we have $`xy_1^{}y_2^{}=y_1x^{}y_2^{}=y_1y_2x^{\prime \prime }`$, so this element is a common right multiple of $`x`$ and $`y_1y_2`$. Assume that $`z`$ is a right multiple of $`x`$ and of $`y_1y_2`$, say $`z=y_1y_2z^{}`$. Then $`z`$ is a right multiple of $`x`$ and $`y_1`$, hence of $`y_1x^{}`$, say $`z=y_1x^{}z^{\prime \prime }`$. Cancelling $`y_1`$ on the left, we obtain $`y_2z^{}=x^{}z^{\prime \prime }`$, so $`y_2z^{}`$ is a right multiple of $`y_2x^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`z`$ is a right multiple of $`y_1y_2x^{\prime \prime }`$. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 1.

The condition is obviously sufficient and the only problem is to prove that it is necessary. As $`M`$ is a submonoid of a group, it admits cancellation, and, as any two elements of $`M`$ admit a common right multiple, $`M`$ satisfies the Ore conditions on the right, and $`G`$ is a group of right fractions of $`M`$. Let $`z`$ be an arbitrary element of $`G`$. Write $`z=x_1y_1^1`$ with $`x_1,y_1`$ in $`M`$, and, inductively, choose $`x_2,y_2,x_3,y_3,\mathrm{}`$ in $`M`$ satisfying $`x_iy_{i+1}=y_ix_{i+1}\mathrm{LCM}(x_i,y_i)`$. We claim that, for all positive $`k,\mathrm{}`$, we have

(1)
$$x_1\mathrm{}x_ky_{k+1}\mathrm{}y_{k+\mathrm{}}=y_1\mathrm{}y_{\mathrm{}}x_{\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{}x_{\mathrm{}+k}\mathrm{LCM}(x_1\mathrm{}x_k,y_1\mathrm{}y_{\mathrm{}}),$$

(2)
$$z=(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)(x_{k+1}y_{k+1}^1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)^1,$$

(3)
$$z^k=(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)(y_1\mathrm{}y_k)^1.$$

Indeed, (1) follows from Lemma 4 inductively; for (2) and (3), for each $`i`$, we have $`y_i^1x_i=x_{i+1}y_{i+1}^1`$ by construction, and we deduce

$`zx_1\mathrm{}x_k`$ $`=(x_1y_1^1)x_1\mathrm{}x_k=x_1(x_2y_2^1)x_2\mathrm{}x_k=\mathrm{}=x_1\mathrm{}x_k(x_{k+1}y_{k+1}^1),`$
$`z^ky_1\mathrm{}y_k`$ $`=(x_1y_1^1)^ky_1\mathrm{}y_k=x_1(y_1^1x_1)^{k1}y_2\mathrm{}y_k=x_1(x_2y_2^1)^{k1}y_2\mathrm{}y_k`$
$`=x_1x_2(y_2^1x_2)^{k2}y_3\mathrm{}y_k=x_1x_2(x_3y_3^1)^{k2}y_3\mathrm{}y_k=\mathrm{}=x_1\mathrm{}x_k.`$
Now assume $`z^p=1`$, and let $`t=x_{p+1}y_{p+1}^1`$. By (2), we have $`z=xtx^1`$ with $`x=x_1\mathrm{}x_pM`$. Relation (3) implies

(4)
$$x_1\mathrm{}x_p=y_1\mathrm{}y_p\mathrm{LCM}(x_1\mathrm{}x_p,y_1\mathrm{}y_p).$$

Comparing Relations (1)—with $`k=\mathrm{}=p`$—and (4), we deduce from Lemma 3 that $`y_{p+1}\mathrm{}y_{2p}`$, hence $`y_{p+1}`$ as well, is invertible in $`M`$. Therefore $`t`$ belongs to $`M`$, and, as $`z`$ and $`t`$ are conjugates, $`z^p=1`$ implies $`t^p=1`$. ∎

In lattice-ordered groups, the next result after torsion freeness is that $`x^p=y^p`$ implies that $`x`$ and $`y`$ are conjugate. This result does not extend to our current framework: the group $`x,y;x^2=y^2`$ satisfies all hypotheses of Proposition 1 but $`x`$ and $`y`$ are not conjugate there.