text:
# 1 Possible localized positions of neutrinos and the triplet Higgs with two extra dimensions.

Majorana neutrinos with split fermions in extra dimensions

H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus  and U. Sarkar†,‡
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, P.O. 10 39 80, D-69029 Heidelberg, Germany

Physics Department, Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan 731 235, India

## Abstract

We propose new solutions to the neutrino mass problem in theories with large extra dimensions in a thick wall scenario. It has recently been argued that our 3-brane could be a thick wall at the boundary of the bulk. The gauge bosons and the Higgs scalars have an almost flat profile on this wall, while fermions could have localized profile with left-handed and right-handed components displaced with respect to each other. We point out that with split fermions it is possible to generate Majorana neutrino masses contributing to the neutrinoless double beta decay. The almost degenerate neutrinos can also come out naturally in this case. Unlike other models of neutrino masses in extra dimensions there are no bulk fields in this scenario.

The recent developments in theories with extra dimensions have changed our conventional idea about physics beyond the standard model . In usual theories the weakness of gravity is attributed to the very small coupling of the gravitational interaction. This leads to the very high Planck scale where gravity could become strong and could then influence the standard model. In theories with large extra dimensions one assumes that there are extra dimensions in which gravity propagates, whereas the ordinary standard model particles live in a 4-dimensional wall at the boundary of the extra dimensions. Then the gravitational interaction strength in the bulk could be strong and the overlap of the graviton wave function in our 3-brane at the boundary makes gravity weak in our world. This would then allow a very low fundamental scale of about TeV replacing the effective Planck scale in the theory.

The main advantage of these theories with extra dimensions and TeV scale gravity is that there is no gauge hierarchy problem, but there is new problem of absence of any large scale. The smallness of neutrino mass is usually attributed to the large lepton number violating scale. But there is no large scale in the theories with extra dimensions, so these mechanisms can not be used. Consider the effective 4-dimensional operator in the standard model, which gives mass to the neutrinos

$$𝒪_{eff}=\frac{f_{ij}}{M_{L/}}\mathrm{}_{iL}\mathrm{}_{jL}\varphi \varphi .$$
(1)
Since the highest scale in the theory of extra dimensions is the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$, which is of the order of TeV, the effective neutrino mass comes out to be fairly large now, unless we can make the effective coupling constant $`f_{ij}`$ to be small.

There are several solutions to this problem, proposed with the same philosophy to make the coupling small . In theories with extra dimensions all standard model particles reside in the four-dimensional wall. Gravity now propagates in the higher-dimensional space and the overlap of the wave function of the gravitons with the four-dimensional wall is very small. So, the gravity coupling to matter in our world is suppressed by the volume of the extra dimensions. Similar to gravity if there are some bulk particles which move in all dimensions (which constitute the bulk of space in the extra dimensions as compared to our wall which is confined only at one end), their overlap in our brane would be small and that can give a small neutrino mass in our brane . This gives a Dirac mass to the neutrinos. In another scenario lepton number is broken in another distant brane, or in the bulk, which is then conveyed to our brane by a bulk scalar field . The profile of the bulk scalar then can give a small effective coupling constant.

Recently it has been suggested that to solve the fermion mass hierarchy one could consider a thick wall scenario, in which the left and right-handed components are localized at different points with small overlap in the thick wall . Our 3-brane now has a spread (unlike other models where our 3-brane is confined to one point in the extra dimensions) in the extra dimensions. The gauge and the Higgs bosons can propagate anywhere within this thick brane and they have an almost constant profile in our brane. Only outside this thick wall their profile falls off exponentially. However, within this thick wall the fermions are confined at different points with definite profiles. The overlap of the different fields in any interaction then gives the hierarchical Yukawa couplings .

We extend this scenario to explain the smallness of the neutrino mass and show that tiny Majorana neutrino masses come out naturally from this scenario. We do not require any bulk fields to make the neutrino mass small. In the present scenario we break lepton number in our brane at the fundamental scale, but because of the small overlap of wave functions of the required fields with each other the effective coupling constant $`f_{ij}`$ comes out to be very small naturally.

The thick wall scenario was proposed to solve the problem of hierarchy of fermion masses . The fermions are localized at different points in the higher-dimensional space. This can come from string theory depending on the construction of the p-branes, but there is also a field-theoretical realization of this idea. Consider a five-dimensional example, with $`z=\{x,y\}`$ and $`y`$ as the coordinate of the fifth dimension, in which a five-dimensional fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and a scalar $`𝒮`$ couple through a Yukawa coupling term $`d^5z𝒮\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. If the scalar field has a position-dependent vacuum expectation value, which changes sign at a point $`y_0`$ in the extra dimension, then the fermion will be localized at $`y_0`$ with a Gaussian profile in the extra dimension centered around $`y_0`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=Ae^{\mu ^2(yy_0)^2}\psi (x),$$
(2)
where $`\psi `$ is a normalized four-dimensional massless left-handed fermion, $`A=(2\mu ^2/\pi )^{1/4}`$ is the normalization and $`\mu =\sqrt{<𝒮>/2}`$ is related to the slope of the scalar field profile. $`y_0=0`$ for a massless five-dimensional field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, but when a mass term is added for a particular fermion field $`d^5zM_i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, that field is localized at $`y_0=y_i=M_i/2\mu ^2`$.

A generic five-dimensional Yukawa interaction now gives

$$_Y=d^5z\sqrt{L}\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j=d^4x\lambda \overline{\psi }_i\psi _j\varphi ,$$
(3)
where $`L`$ is the domain wall width and the effective four-dimensional Yukawa coupling constant comes out to be

$$\lambda =𝑑y\kappa Ae^{\mu ^2(yy_i)^2}Ae^{\mu ^2(yy_j)^2}=\kappa e^{\mu ^2(y_iy_j)^2/2}.$$
(4)
In general, $`\kappa `$ could depend on the indices $`i,j`$, but for purpose of simplification it is assumed that there is only one constant. $`\varphi `$ is the standard model Higgs doublet contained in the five-dimensional scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The Gaussian width $`\mu ^1`$ has to be much larger than the wall thickness $`L`$ for this mechanism to work, but for the field theoretic description to work there is a limit $`\mu ^2L<M_{}`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental scale in the problem. Combining with other constraints, the requirement that the Yukawa coupling to be perturbative at $`M_{}`$ now gives

$$\mu <M_{}<1000L^1\mathrm{and}L^1<\mu <30L^1.$$
(5)
Constraints from flavor changing neutral currents mediated by the Kaluza-Klein gauge bosons constrain the wall thickness $`L^1100`$ TeV.

Let us now consider the neutrino sector. Although the neutrino masses were discussed in the context of thick wall scenarios , our proposed mechanisms differ from them. Here we do not require any bulk particles and the neutrinos get a lepton number violating Majorana mass. Moreover, in this scenario the neutrino masses could be almost degenerate, so that they can contribute to the dark matter of the universe and also explain the neutrinoless double beta decay . In other models of neutrino masses in extra dimensions there is no natural mechanism to explain the almost degenerate neutrinos. Even in ordinary theories it is difficult to accomodate an almost degenerate Majorana neutrino naturally. Starting from a grand unified theory and if one evolves the Yukawa couplings in supersymmetric models, it becomes difficult to maintain the degeneracy . First we propose two different possibilities, each of which has some difficulties. Then we consider a more general model combining both the mechanisms, which has several interesting features.

First we introduce only right-handed neutrinos for three generations $`N_{\alpha R}`$, $`\alpha =1,2,3`$, which are singlets under the standard model gauge group. We then allow all possible renormalizable interactions consistent with the standard model gauge symmetry. The Majorana mass term of the right-handed neutrinos will then violate lepton number and set the scale of lepton number violation. The interactions of the right-handed neutrinos are given by

$$_N=M_{N\alpha \beta }N_{\alpha R}N_{\beta R}+h_{i\alpha }\overline{l}_{iL}N_{\alpha R}\varphi ,$$
(6)
where $`l_{iL}`$ is the left-handed lepton doublet and the Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrinos violate lepton number $`M_N=M_{L/}`$. We have written this interaction in terms of four-dimensional fields. The fifth dimension has been integrated out to get these effective coupling constants $`h_{i\alpha }`$ and the Majorana mass term $`M_{N\alpha \beta }`$. At this stage, this is exactly similar to the usual see-saw mechanism of neutrino masses .

Since any lepton number violating effective interactions of the left-handed scalars can originate only from these two interactions, the lepton number violating mass scale ($`M_{L/}`$) in equation (1) should be given by $`M_N`$ and the coefficients $`f_{ij}`$ should be determined by $`h_{i\alpha }`$. So, although the Majorana mass term of $`N_R`$ would allow the effective lepton number violating operator (1) with very little suppression from the scale of lepton number violation $`M_{L/}<M_{}`$, the effective coupling now could be very small.

The above mentioned effective four-dimensional interactions come from five-dimensional terms in the Lagrangian

$$_{Yuk}=d^5z\left[M_5\mathrm{\Psi }_{N\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_{N\beta }+\sqrt{L}\kappa \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{li}\mathrm{\Psi }_{N\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }\right],$$
(7)
so that

$`M_{N\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`M_5\mathrm{exp}\left[\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(y_{N\alpha }y_{N\beta })^2}{2}}\right],`$
$`h_{i\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mathrm{exp}\left[\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(y_{li}y_{N\alpha })^2}{2}}\right].`$ (8)
The diagonal elements of $`M_N`$ are all the same and equal to $`M_5`$. The right-handed neutrinos could be separated in space so that the mass matrix is diagonal and given by an identity matrix. But in general they could be neighbours and the mass degeneracy could be broken. We demonstrate this with an example.

Consider the charged lepton mass matrix to be diagonal. Then the required mass hierarchy could be achieved with the configuration of the left-handed lepton doublets $`l_i`$ and the right-handed charged leptons $`e_i`$ given by (similar to ref. )

$$l_i=\mu ^1\left(\begin{array}{c}12\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right);\mathrm{and}e_i=\mu ^1\left(\begin{array}{c}6.87\\ 3.95\\ 4.15\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
We further assume that the multiplets of the same $`SU(2)_L`$ representations to be located at the same place in the fifth dimension. Then both $`e_{iL}^{}`$ and $`\nu _{iL}`$ (contained in $`l_i`$) will be located at the same place with the same profile, and the configurations of $`\nu _{iL}`$ are the same as given for $`l_i`$. If the right-handed neutrinos are now localized at

$$N_\alpha =\mu ^1\left(\begin{array}{c}7.2\\ 5\\ 4.8\end{array}\right),$$

the Yukawa couplings and the right-handed Majorana mass matrix will be given by

$$h_{i\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.093& 5.7\times 10^7& 1.3\times 10^7\\ 5.7\times 10^7& 0.093& 0.248\\ 3.2\times 10^{10}& 3.8\times 10^4& 0.0012\end{array}\right)$$

and

$$M_{N\alpha \beta }=M_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0.135& 0.0059\\ 0.135& 1& 0.486\\ 0.0059& 0.486& 1\end{array}\right),$$

where $`M_0=M_{L/}<M_{}`$ is the scale of lepton number violation. In this example we considered $`M_010^6`$ GeV. The eigenvalues of the left-handed neutrino mass matrix

$$m_{ij}^\nu =\frac{h_{i\alpha }h_{j\beta }^T<\varphi >^2}{M_{N\alpha \beta }}$$
(10)
come out to be $`10^9`$ eV, $`0.0062`$ eV and $`0.065`$ eV, which are the masses required to explain the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and the large mixing angle solution of the solar neutrinos. The correct mixing angles come out only when the charged lepton mass matrix is not diagonal or the neutrinos are spread over more than one extra dimension.

We now consider another possibility of Majorana neutrino mass generation in the thick wall scenario. Instead of a right-handed neutrino we now introduce a triplet Higgs scalar in the theory . The interactions of the five-dimensional triplet Higgs scalar ($`\mathrm{\Xi }(z)`$) now violate lepton number explicitly

$$_\mathrm{\Xi }=d^5z\left[\sqrt{L}\kappa _l\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{li}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lj}+\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+M_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }\right].$$
(11)
From these interactions we can derive the four-dimensional effective interactions

$$_\xi =d^4x\left[f_{ij}\xi \psi _{li}\psi _{lj}+\mu _\xi \xi ^{}\varphi \varphi +M_\xi \xi ^{}\xi \right].$$
(12)
This gives a Majorana neutrino mass to the left-handed neutrinos

$$m_{ij}^\nu =f_{ij}\mu _\xi \frac{<\varphi >^2}{M_\xi ^2}.$$
(13)
The effective four-dimensional Yukawa coupling constant $`f_{ij}`$ is given by

$`f_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y\kappa _le^{\mu ^2(yy_\xi )^2}e^{\mu ^2(yy_i)^2}e^{\mu ^2(yy_j)^2}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\kappa _l\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2}}(y_iy_j)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu ^2\left(y_0{\displaystyle \frac{y_i+y_j}{2}}\right)^2\right].`$
$`y_i`$ and $`y_j`$ are the positions at which the leptons are localized and $`y_0`$ is the point in the fifth dimension where the triplet Higgs is localized. The first term gives a suppression depending on the separation of the two neutrinos, while the second term gives a suppression depending on the average separation of the neutrinos compared to the triplet scalar. For the diagonal elements, the first term is identity, while for the off-diagonal elements they are almost zero. So, in the basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, all the off-diagonal elements vanish and the neutrino mass matrix always comes out to be diagonal. Since the standard model Higgs doublet has a spread over the entire thick wall, it has complete overlap with the triplet Higgs scalar and there is no suppression for the other coupling $`\mu _\xi `$. The lepton number violating scale is now given by $`M_{L/}=M_\xi \mu _\xi <M_{}`$.

So in the thick wall scenario only with a triplet Higgs scalar, it is not possible to get a neutrino mass matrix with the required mixing in the flavor basis. However, an interesting case may emerge when we include both the triplet Higgs scalar and the right-handed neutrinos . We shall also assume two extra dimensions, which is anyway required for satisfactory quark mass matrices. Then we consider the possible localized positions of the left-handed and right-handed neutrinos and the triplet Higgs, as shown in figure 1.

The positions of the left-handed neutrinos are determined by the charged lepton mass hierarchy and the possible pattern of the mass matrix. We thus present a scenario of diagonal charged lepton mass matrix. The Higgs doublet $`\varphi `$ is spread over the entire thick brane and all fields have the same overlap with the Higgs. There will be very little suppression due to the volume of the Higgs profile $`L`$ in the extra dimension, but that is the same for all the fields and may be absorbed in the definition of the higher-dimensional coupling constant.

The triplet Higgs now has equal average distance from all the three generations of left-handed neutrinos. As a result, the contributions to the diagonal elements of the Majorana mass matrix of the left-handed neutrinos are equal. On the other hand, in the basis in which the charged leptons are diagonal, the Majorana mass matrix generated by the triplet Higgs is also diagonal. So, we have an exactly degenerate diagonal mass spectrum for the neutrinos coming from the triplet Higgs. If we now assume that the lepton number violating scale is around $`M_{L/}10^6`$ GeV, then a separation between the mean location of the triplet Higgs to the mean location of the left-handed neutrinos of $`5.35\mu ^1`$ would give a neutrino mass matrix

$$m_{\xi ij}^\nu =(0.4\mathrm{eV})\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
in a basis in which the charged leptons are diagonal. We assumed that the separation of the left-handed neutrinos is determined by the charged lepton mass hierarchy as discussed earlier.

The right-handed neutrino mass matrix will now be most general. The mixing angle comes out as required for suitable choice of the distances in this two-dimensional plane. There is only one restriction that a hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum is only possible numerically, once the left-handed neutrino locations are determined to get the hierarchy of the charged lepton mass matrix. One possible neutrino mass matrix which could emerge in this scenario is given by

$$m_{Nij}^\nu =(0.025\mathrm{eV})\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.00004& 0.005& 0.01\\ 0.005& 1.0& 0.9\\ 0.01& 0.9& 1.0\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
This can explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies. This mass matrix predicts an almost maximal mixing with mass squared difference of $`0.002`$ eV2 to explain the atmospheric neutrinos. A mass squared difference of $`6\times 10^6`$ eV2 with a mixing angle of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 5\times 10^3`$ solves the solar neutrino problem with the small mixing angle solution.

A more interesting scenario emerges when the see-saw and the triplet Higgs scenarios are combined. In this case an almost degenerate neutrino comes out naturally. It would then be possible to explain the recent observation of the neutrinoless double beta decay  by this hybrid model. In this case the neutrino mass matrix becomes,

$$m_{ij}^\nu =m_{\xi ij}^\nu +\stackrel{~}{m}_{Nij}^\nu ,$$
(17)
where $`m_{\xi ij}^\nu `$ is given by equation (15). We now require a different see-saw contribution than the one given for the hierarchical neutrino mass scheme. In this case it is not possible to obtain the small mixing angle solution to the solar neutrino problem. With two extra dimensions, it is possible to get a mass matrix of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{Nij}^\nu =(0.0012\mathrm{eV})\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.1& 1& 1\\ 1& a& 1\\ 1& 1& a\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where $`a<0.05`$. The complete neutrino mass matrix given by equation (17) then gives almost degenerate mass matrix, with all the masses to be about 0.4 eV. This can explain the neutrinoless double beta decay and can contribute to the hot component of the dark matter of the universe. A mass squared difference between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ of $`2.8\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ with maximal mixing solves the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. The mass difference between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ comes out (for $`a=0`$) to be $`6\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ with mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 0.56`$, which can provide the large mixing angle MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem.

In summary, we proposed models of neutrino masses in a thick wall scenario in which the left-handed and right-handed components have split identity. While the model with a right-handed neutrino can explain the neutrino oscillation experiments, the model with triplet Higgs can give only a diagonal neutrino mass matrix. Combining the two with two extra dimensions, it is possible to obtain an almost degenerate neutrino mass matrix naturally, which can explain the solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos, and also contribute to the dark matter of the universe and explain the neutrinoless double beta decay.

Acknowledgement

One of us (U.S.) thanks Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Unspeakable quantum information

## 1 Formulation of the problem

The role of a dictionary is to define unknown words by means of known ones. However there are terms, like left or right, which cannot be explained in this way. In the absence of a formal definition, material objects must be used to illustrate these terms: for example, we may say that the human liver is on the right side. Likewise, the sign of helicity may be referred to the DNA structure, or to the properties of weak interactions.

Here we consider some cases where information cannot be explained verbally. The simplest one is when the emitter (conventionally called Alice) wants to indicate to the receiver (Bob) a direction in space. If they have a common coordinate system to which they can refer, or if they can create one by observing distant fixed stars, Alice simply communicates to Bob the components of a unit vector $`𝒏`$ along that direction, or its spherical coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. But if no common coordinate system has been established, all she can do is to send a real physical object, such as a gyroscope, whose orientation is deemed stable.

## 2 Quantum transmission of a spatial direction

In the quantum world, the role of the gyroscope is played by a system with large spin. For example, Alice can send angular momentum eigenstates satisfying $`𝒏\mathbf{}𝑱|\psi =j|\psi `$. This is essentially the solution proposed by Massar and Popescu  who took $`N`$ parallel spins, polarized along $`𝒏`$. The fidelity of the transmission is usually defined as

$$F=\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi /2)=(1+\mathrm{cos}\chi )/2,$$
(1)
where $`\chi `$ is the angle between the true $`𝒏`$ and the direction indicated by Bob’s measurement. The physical meaning of $`F`$ is that $`1F=\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi /2)`$ is the mean square error of the measurement, if the error is defined as $`\mathrm{sin}(\chi /2)`$ The experimenter’s aim, minimizing the mean square error, is the same as maximizing fidelity. We can of course define “error” in a different way, and then fidelity becomes a different function of $`\chi `$ and optimization leads to different results . Here, we shall take Eq. (1) as the definition of fidelity.

Massar and Popescu showed that for parallel spins, $`1F=1/(N+2)`$. It then came as a surprise that for $`N=2`$, parallel spins were not the optimal signal, and a slightly higher fidelity resulted from the use of opposite spins . The intuitive reason given for this result was the use of a larger Hilbert space (four dimensions instead of three). This raises the question what is the most efficient signal state for $`N`$ spins, whose Hilbert space has $`2^N`$ dimensions. Will $`F`$ approach 1 exponentially? Actually, the optimal result is a quadratic approach, as shown below.

Our first task is to devise Bob’s measuring method, whose mathematical representation is a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) . For any unit vector $`𝒏`$, not necessarily Alice’s direction, let $`|j,m(𝒏)|j,m(\theta ,\varphi )`$ denote the coherent angular momentum state  that satisfies

$$𝑱^2|j,m(𝒏)=j(j+1)|j,m(𝒏),$$
(2)
and

$$𝒏\mathbf{}𝑱|j,m(𝒏)=m|j,m(𝒏).$$
(3)
We then have

$$(2j+1)d_{\theta \varphi }|j,m(\theta ,\varphi )j,m(\theta ,\varphi )|=\text{1l}_j,$$
(4)
where

$$d_{\theta \varphi }:=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi /4\pi ,$$
(5)
and $`\text{1l}_j`$ is the projection operator over the $`(2j+1)`$-dimensional subspace spanned by the vectors $`|j,m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. If $`N=2`$, so that $`j`$ is 0 or 1, the two resulting subspaces span the whole 4-dimensional Hilbert space. For higher $`N`$, all the rotation group representations with $`j<N/2`$ occur more than once. We then have, if we take each $`j`$ only once, from 0 or $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`N/2`$,

$$(2j+1)=\frac{(N+2)^2}{4}\text{or}\frac{(N+1)(N+3)}{4},$$
(6)
for even or odd $`N`$, respectively. For large $`N`$, the dimensionality of the accessible Hilbert space tends to $`N^2/4`$, and this appears to be the reason that the optimal result for $`1F`$ is quadratic in $`N`$, not exponential.

We now turn to the construction of Bob’s POVM . Let $`\rho `$ denote the initial state of the physical system that is measured. All these input states span a subspace of Hilbert space. Let 1l denote the projection operator on that subspace. A POVM is a set of positive operators $`E_\mu `$ which sum up to 1l. The index $`\mu `$ is just a label for the outcome of the measuring process. The probability of outcome $`\mu `$ is $`\text{tr}(\rho E_\mu )`$. In the present case, $`\mu `$ stands for the pair of angles $`\theta \varphi `$ that are indicated by Bob’s measurement. If we want a high accuracy, these output angles should have many different values, spread over the unit sphere . For example, the components of a continuous POVM, as in Eq. (4), are given by

$$E_{\theta \varphi }=(2j+1)d_{\theta \varphi }|j,m(\theta ,\varphi )j,m(\theta ,\varphi )|.$$
(7)
Such a POVM with $`m=j`$ corresponds to the method of Massar and Popescu . The choice $`m=j`$ is not optimal. As shown by Gisin and Popescu  for the case $`N=2`$, signal states with opposite spins give a higher fidelity. With our present notations, these states are $`(|0,0+|1,0(𝒏))/\sqrt{2}`$. They involve two values of $`j`$, but a single value of $`m`$, namely 0.

One possibility to include several values of $`j`$ in a POVM is to take a sum of expressions like (4). This brings no advantage, because a convex combination of POVMs cannot yield more information than the best one of them . Optimal POVM components are usually assumed to have rank one. In the present case, each one of them should include all relevant $`j`$:

$$E_{\theta \varphi }:=d_{\theta \varphi }|\theta ,\varphi \theta ,\varphi |,$$
(8)
where

$$|\theta ,\varphi :=\underset{j=m}{\overset{N/2}{}}\sqrt{2j+1}|j,m(\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(9)
To verify that this is indeed a POVM, we note that in $`E_{\theta \varphi }`$ there are diagonal terms $`(2j+1)|j,m(\theta ,\varphi )j,m(\theta ,\varphi )|`$, which give $`\text{1l}_j`$, owing to Eq. (4). The off-diagonal terms with $`j_1j_2`$ vanish, as can be seen by taking their matrix elements between $`j_1,m_1|`$ and $`|j_2,m_2`$ in the standard basis where $`J_z`$ is diagonal. We have

$$j_2,m(\theta ,\varphi )|j_2,m_2=𝒟_{mm_2}^{(j_2)}(\psi \theta \varphi ),$$
(10)
with a similar (complex conjugate) expression for $`j_1,m_1|j_1,m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. The rotation matrices $`𝒟`$ are explicitly given by

$$𝒟_{mm_2}^{(j_2)}(\psi \theta \varphi )=e^{im\psi }d_{mm_2}^{(j_2)}(\theta )e^{im_2\varphi },$$
(11)
where the Euler angle $`\psi `$ is related to an arbitrary phase which is implicit in the definition of $`|j,m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. Note that a single value of $`m`$ occurs in all the components of the vectors $`|\theta ,\varphi `$ in Eq. (9), so that the undefined phases $`e^{\pm im\psi }`$ mutually cancel. It then follows from Eq. (4.6.1) of Edmonds  that all the off-diagonal matrix elements of $`E_{\theta \varphi }`$ vanish, so that we indeed have a POVM .

While Bob’s optimal POVM is essentially unique in the Hilbert space that we have chosen, Alice’s signal state, which is

$$|A=\underset{j=m}{\overset{N/2}{}}c_j|j,m(𝒏),$$
(12)
contains unknown coefficients $`c_j`$. The latter are normalized,

$$\underset{j=m}{\overset{N/2}{}}|c_j|^2=1,$$
(13)
but still have to be optimized.

The probability of detection of the pair of angles $`\theta \varphi `$, indicated by the POVM component $`E_{\theta \varphi }`$, is

$$A|E_{\theta \varphi }|A=d_{\theta \varphi }\left|\underset{j=m}{\overset{N/2}{}}c_j\sqrt{2j+1}j,m(\theta ,\varphi )|j,m(𝒏)\right|^2.$$
(14)
We have

$$j,m(\theta ,\varphi )|j,m(𝒏)=e^{i\eta }d_{mm}^{(j)}(\chi ),$$
(15)
where $`\chi `$ is the angle between the directions $`𝒏`$ and $`\theta \varphi `$, and the phase $`e^{i\eta }`$ is related to the arbitrary phases which are implicit in the definitions of the state vectors in (15). The important point is that $`e^{i\eta }`$ does not depend on $`j`$ and therefore is eliminated when we take the absolute value of the sum in Eq. (14). Explicitly, we have

$$d_{mm}^{(j)}(\chi )=\mathrm{cos}^{2m}(\chi /2)P_{jm}^{(0,2m)}(\mathrm{cos}\chi ),$$
(16)
where $`P_n^{(a,b)}(x)`$ is a Jacobi polynomial . We shall write $`x=\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ for brevity, so that the fidelity is

$$F=(1+x)/2.$$
(17)
Our problem is to find the coefficients $`c_j`$ that maximize $`x`$. Owing to rotational symmetry, we can assume that Alice’s direction $`𝒏`$ points toward the $`z`$-axis, so that $`d_{\theta \varphi }`$ can be replaced by $`dx/2`$ after having performed the integration over $`\varphi `$. We thus obtain

$$x=\frac{1}{2}_1^1x𝑑x\left|\underset{j=m}{\overset{N/2}{}}c_j\sqrt{2j+1}\left(\frac{1+x}{2}\right)^mP_{jm}^{(0,2m)}(x)\right|^2.$$
(18)
This integral can be evaluated explicitly by using the orthogonality and recurrence relations for Jacobi polynomials . The result is

$$x=\underset{j,k}{}c_j^{}c_kA_{jk},$$
(19)
where $`A_{jk}`$ is a real symmetric matrix, whose only nonvanishing elements are

$$A_{jj}=m^2/[j(j+1)],$$
(20)
and

$$A_{j,j1}=A_{j1,j}=(j^2m^2)/j\sqrt{4j^21}.$$
(21)
The optimal coefficients $`c_j`$ are the components of the eigenvector of $`A_{jk}`$ that corresponds to the largest eigenvalue, and the latter is $`x`$ itself. For $`m=0`$ (which is the optimal choice) and large $`N`$, we find that

$$1F[2.4048/(N+3)]^2,$$
(22)
where the numerator is the first zero of the Bessel function $`J_0`$. The right hand side ought to be compared to the result of Massar and Popescu , which was $`1/(N+2)`$. A detailed comparison of both methods is illustrated by the figure which appears in a previous article .

## 3 Transmission of a Cartesiam frame

Next, we consider the quantum transmission of a complete Cartesian frame. If many spins are available, a simple possibility would be for Alice to use half of them for indicating her $`x`$ axis and the other half for her $`y`$ axis. However, the two directions found by Bob may not then be exactly perpendicular, because separate transmissions have independent errors due to limited angular resolution. Some adjustment will be needed to obtain Bob’s best estimates for the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes, before he can infer from them his guess of Alice’s $`z`$ direction. This method is not optimal, and it is obviously not possible to proceed in this way if a single quantum messenger is available. Here we shall show how a single hydrogen atom (formally, a spinless particle in a Coulomb potential) can transmit a complete frame.

Consider the $`n`$-th energy level of that atom (a Rydberg state). Its degeneracy is $`d=n^2`$ because the total angular momentum may take values $`j=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, and for each one of them $`m=j,\mathrm{},j`$. Alice indicates her $`xyz`$ axes by sending the atom in a state

$$|A=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}a_{jm}|j,m,$$
(23)
with normalized coefficients $`a_{jm}`$ that will be specified below. Bob then performs a covariant measurement  in order to evaluate the Euler angles $`\psi \theta \varphi `$ that would rotate his own $`xyz`$ axes into a position parallel to Alice’s axes. Bob’s detectors (ideally, there is an infinite number of them ) have labels $`\psi \theta \varphi `$ and the mathematical representation of his apparatus is as usual a POVM. In the present case, we have a resolution of identity by a set of positive operators:

$$d_{\psi \theta \varphi }E(\psi \theta \varphi )=\text{1l},$$
(24)
where $`d_{\psi \theta \varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi d\theta d\varphi /8\pi ^2`$ is the $`SO(3)`$ Haar measure for Euler angles , and $`E(\psi \theta \varphi )=|\psi \theta \varphi \psi \theta \varphi |`$. The vectors $`|\psi \theta \varphi `$ will be specified below. The probability that the detector labelled $`\psi \theta \varphi `$ is excited is given by

$$P(\psi \theta \varphi )=A|d_{\psi \theta \varphi }E(\psi \theta \varphi )|A=d_{\psi \theta \varphi }|A|\psi \theta \varphi |^2.$$
(25)
Our task is to construct vectors $`|\psi \theta \varphi `$ such that Eq. (24) is satisfied (that is, the probabilities sum up to one) and Bob’s expected error is minimal.

Generalizing the method of the preceding section, we define a fiducial vector for Bob,

$$|B=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\sqrt{2j+1}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}b_{jm}|j,m,$$
(26)
where the coefficients $`b_{jm}`$ are normalized for each $`j`$ separately:

$$\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|b_{jm}|^2=1j.$$
(27)
For the preceding problem, a single value of $`m`$ was used; here we need all the values. Note that Eq. (23) was written with Alice’s notations ($`m`$ is the angular momentum along her $`z`$ axis), while Eq. (26) is written with Bob’s notations ($`m`$ refers to his $`z`$ axis). This issue will be dealt with later.

We now define

$$|\psi \theta \varphi =U(\psi \theta \varphi )|B,$$
(28)
where $`U(\psi \theta \varphi )`$ is the unitary operator for a rotation by Euler angles $`\psi \theta \varphi `$. Note that since $`|B`$ is a direct sum of vectors, one for each value of $`j`$, then likewise $`U(\psi \theta \varphi )`$ is a direct sum with one term for each irreducible representation,

$$U(\psi \theta \varphi )=\underset{j}{}𝒟^{(j)}(\psi \theta \varphi ),$$
(29)
where the $`𝒟^{(j)}(\psi \theta \varphi )`$ are the usual irreducible unitary rotation matrices . To prove that Eq. (24) is satified, we note that its left hand side is invariant if multiplied by $`U(\mu \nu \rho )`$ on the left and $`U(\mu \nu \rho )^{}`$ on the right, for any arbitrary Euler angles $`\mu \nu \rho `$ (because these unitary matrices represent group elements and therefore have the group multiplication properties) . It then follows from a generalization of Schur’s lemma  that the left hand side of (24) is a direct sum of unit matrices, owing to the presence of the factor $`(2j+1)`$ which is the dimensionality of the corresponding irreducible representation. Therefore Eq. (24) is satisfied.

The detection probability in Eq. (25) can thus be written as $`P(\psi \theta \varphi )=d_{\psi \theta \varphi }|A|U(\psi \theta \varphi )|B|^2.`$ To compute this expression explicitly, we must use consistent notations for $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ — recall that Eq. (23) was written in Alice’s basis, and Eq. (26) in Bob’s basis. It is easier to rewrite Alice’s vector $`|A`$ in Bob’s language. For this we have to introduce the Euler angles $`\xi \eta \zeta `$ that rotate Bob’s $`xyz`$ axes into Alice’s axes (that is, $`\xi \eta \zeta `$ are the true, but unknown values of the angles $`\psi \theta \varphi `$ sought by Bob). The unitary matrix $`U(\xi \eta \zeta )`$ represents an active transformation of Bob’s vectors into Alice’s. Therefore, $`U(\xi \eta \zeta )^{}`$ is the passive transformation  from Bob’s notations to those of Alice, and $`U(\xi \eta \zeta )`$ is the corresponding transformation from Alice’s notations to Bob’s. Written in Bob’s notations, Alice’s vector $`|A`$ becomes $`U(\xi \eta \zeta )|A`$ so that, in Eq. (25), $`A|`$ becomes $`A|U(\xi \eta \zeta )^{}`$. Let us therefore define

$$U(\alpha \beta \gamma )=U(\xi \eta \zeta )^{}U(\psi \theta \varphi ).$$
(30)
The Euler angles $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$ have the effect of rotating Bob’s Cartesian frame into his estimate of Alice’s frame, and then rotating back the result by the true rotation from Alice’s to Bob’s frame. That is, the angles $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$ indicate Bob’s measurement error. The probability of that error is

$$P(\alpha \beta \gamma )=d_{\alpha \beta \gamma }|A|U(\alpha \beta \gamma )|B|^2,$$
(31)
where $`d_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\mathrm{sin}\beta d\alpha d\beta d\gamma /8\pi ^2`$. Note that in the above equation $`|A`$ is written with Alice’s notations as in (23), and $`|B`$ with Bob’s notations as in (26).

Of course Bob cannot know the values of $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$. His measurement only yields some value for $`\psi \theta \varphi `$. The following calculation that employs $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$ has the sole purpose of estimating the expected accuracy of the transmission (which does not depend on the result $`\psi \theta \varphi `$ owing to rotational symmetry).

We must now choose a suitable quantitative criterion for that accuracy. When a single direction is considered, it is convenient to define the error  as $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega /2)`$, where $`\omega `$ is the angle between the true direction and the one estimated by Bob. The mean square error is

$$\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega /2)=(1\mathrm{cos}\omega )/2=1F,$$
(32)
where $`F`$ is the fidelity, as defined above. When we consider a Cartesian frame, we likewise define fidelities for each axis. Note that $`\mathrm{cos}\omega _k`$ (for the $`k`$-th axis) is given by the corresponding diagonal element of the orthogonal (classical) rotation matrix. Explicitly, we have

$$\mathrm{cos}\omega _z=\mathrm{cos}\beta ,$$
(33)
and

$$\mathrm{cos}\omega _x+\mathrm{cos}\omega _y=(1+\mathrm{cos}\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\gamma ),$$
(34)
whence, by Euler’s theorem,

$$\mathrm{cos}\omega _x+\mathrm{cos}\omega _y+\mathrm{cos}\omega _z=1+2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a simple physical meaning: it is the angle for carrying one frame into the other by a single rotation.

The expectation values of the above expressions are obtained with the help of Eq. (31):

$$f(\alpha \beta \gamma )=d_{\alpha \beta \gamma }|A|U(\alpha \beta \gamma )|B|^2f(\alpha \beta \gamma ),$$
(36)
where, explicitly,

$$A|U(\alpha \beta \gamma )|B=\underset{j,m,r}{}a_{jm}^{}b_{jr}j,m|𝒟^{(j)}(\alpha \beta \gamma )|j,r.$$
(37)
The unitary irreducible rotation matrices $`𝒟^{(j)}(\alpha \beta \gamma )`$ have components

$$j,m|𝒟^{(j)}(\alpha \beta \gamma )|j,r=e^{i(m\alpha +r\gamma )}d_{mr}^{(j)}(\beta ),$$
(38)
where the $`d_{mr}^{(j)}(\beta )`$ can be expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials. Collecting all these terms, we finally obtain, after many tedious analytical integrations over products of Jacobi polynomials ,

$$f(\alpha \beta \gamma )=f_{jkmnrs}a_{jm}^{}b_{jr}a_{kn}b_{ks}^{},$$
(39)
where the numerical coefficients $`f_{jkmnrs}`$ depend on our choice of $`f(\alpha \beta \gamma )`$ in Eqs. (3335). The problem is to optimize the components $`a_{jm}`$ (normalized to 1), and $`b_{jm}`$ satisfying the constraints (27), so as to maximize the above expression. For further use, it is convenient to define a matrix

$$M_{jm,kn}=\underset{r,s}{}f_{jkmnrs}b_{jr}b_{ks}^{},$$
(40)
so that

$$f(\alpha \beta \gamma )=M_{jm,kn}a_{jm}^{}a_{kn}=A|M|A.$$
(41)
First consider a simple case: to transfer only the $`z`$ axis, we wish to maximize $`\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. An explicit calculation yields

$$f_{jkmnrs}=\delta _{mn}\delta _{rs}g_{jk}.$$
(42)
The matrix $`g_{jk}`$ which is defined by the above equation has nonvanishing elements

$$g_{jj}=ns/[j(j+1)],$$
(43)
and

$$g_{j,j1}=g_{j1,j}=\frac{1}{j}\sqrt{\frac{(j^2n^2)(j^2s^2)}{4j^21}}.$$
(44)
The $`\delta _{mn}`$ term in (42) implies that, for any choice of Bob’s fiducial vector $`|B`$, the matrix $`M`$ in (41) is block-diagonal, with one block for each value of $`m`$. The optimization of Alice’s signal results from the highest eigenvalue of that matrix. This is the highest eigenvalue of one of the blocks, so that a single value of $`m`$ is actually needed. A similar (slightly more complicated) argument applies if Alice’s vector is given and we optimize Bob’s fiducial vector. This result proves the correctness of the intuitive assumption that was made in our solution of the first problem, for which a single value of $`m`$ was used. It was then found that when $`m=0`$ (the optimal value) the expected error asymptotically behaves as $`1.446/d`$, where $`d`$ is the effective number of Hilbert space dimensions. In the present case, $`d=(j_{\mathrm{max}}+1)^2`$, which is the degeneracy of the $`n`$-th energy level.

If we want to transfer two axes, we use Eq. (34) and calculate the matrix elements for $`(1+\mathrm{cos}\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\gamma )`$. (It is curious that they are simpler than those for $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\gamma )`$ alone.) We obtain

$$f_{jkmnrs}=\delta _{m,n1}\delta _{r,s1}h_{jk}+\delta _{n,m1}\delta _{s,r1}h_{kj},$$
(45)
where the nonvanishing elements of $`h_{jk}`$ are

$`h_{jj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(jn+1)(j+n)(js+1)(j+s)]^{1/2}}{2j(j+1)}},`$ (46)
$`h_{j,j1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(jn+1)(jn)(js+1)(js)]^{1/2}}{2j(4j^21)^{1/2}}},`$ (47)
$`h_{j1,j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(j+n1)(j+n)(j+s1)(j+s)]^{1/2}}{2j(4j^21)^{1/2}}}.`$ (48)
Note that the $`h_{jk}`$ matrix, whose elements depend on $`n`$ and $`s`$, is not symmetric (while $`g_{jk}`$ was). This is because it comes from the operator $`e^{i(\alpha +\gamma )}`$ which is not Hermitian. However the two terms of (45) together, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\gamma )`$, have all the symmetries required by the other terms $`a_{jm}^{}b_{jr}a_{kn}b_{ks}^{}`$ in Eq. (39). Finally, if we wish to optimize directly the three Cartesian axes (without losing accuracy by inferring $`z`$ from the approximate knowledge of $`x`$ and $`y`$) we use all the terms of (35), that is, both those of (42) and of (45).

It now remains to find the vectors $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ that minimize the transmission error. For small values of $`j`$, we used Powell’s method  without imposing any restrictions on $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ other than their normalization conditions. As intuitively expected, we found that the optimal vectors satisfy

$$b_{jm}=a_{jm}\left(\underset{n}{}|a_{jn}|^2\right)^{1/2},j.$$
(49)
This means that Bob’s vector should look as much as possible as Alice’s signal, subject to the restrictions imposed by the constraint (27).

Taking this property for granted is the key to a more efficient optimization method, as follows: assume any $`b_{jm}`$, so that the bilinear form (40) is known. Find its highest eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector $`a_{jm}`$. From the latter, get new components $`b_{jm}`$ by means of (49), and repeat the process until it converges (actually, a few iterations are enough). Quantitative results are displayed in the figure of a preceding article . That figure shows that there is little advantage in optimizing only two axes, if for any reason the third axis is deemed less important. If the three axes are simultaneously optimized, it can be shown  that the mean square error tends asymptotically to $`1/\sqrt{d}`$.

It is not surprising that this result is weaker than the one for a single axis, which was $`1.446/d`$. The obvious reason is that we are now transmitting a three-dimensional rotation operation that can be applied to any number of directions, not only to three orthogonal axes. Indeed, consider any set of unit vectors $`𝐞_m^\mu `$, where $`m=1,2,3`$, and $`\mu `$ is a label for identifying the vectors. Let $`w_\mu `$ be a positive weight factor attached to each vector, indicating its importance. Let $`R(\alpha \beta \gamma )`$ be the classical orthogonal rotation matrix  for Euler angles $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$. Then the cosine of the angle between Bob’s estimate of $`𝐞_m^\mu `$ and the true direction of that vector is

$$\mathrm{cos}\omega _\mu =\underset{m,n}{}R_{mn}(\alpha \beta \gamma )𝐞_m^\mu 𝐞_n^\mu .$$
(50)
With the same notations as before, we have

$$f(\alpha \beta \gamma )=\underset{\mu }{}w_\mu \mathrm{cos}\omega _\mu =\underset{m,n}{}R_{mn}(\alpha \beta \gamma )C_{mn},$$
(51)
where

$$C_{mn}=\underset{\mu }{}w_\mu 𝐞_m^\mu 𝐞_n^\mu .$$
(52)
This is a positive matrix which depends only on the geometry of the set of vectors whose transmission is requested. We can now diagonalize $`C_{mn}`$ and write it in terms of three orthogonal vectors, possibly with different weights. Therefore, no essentially new features follow from considering more than three directions.

Finally, we note that all the above calculations, as well as those in preceding works, assume that Alice and Bob have coordinate frames with the same chirality (this can be checked locally by using weak interactions). If the chiralities are opposite, then all the directions inferred by Bob should be reversed (because directions are polar vectors while spins are axial vectors).

In summary, we have shown that a single structureless quantum system (a point mass in a Coulomb potential) can transfer information on the orientation of a Cartesian coordinate system with arbitrary accuracy. At first sight, this conclusion seems surprising. No spherically symmetric classical object can achieve this result. Only those having an asymmetric internal structure, such as an asymmetric rigid body, can reliably transmit a Cartesian frame. However, a classical Kepler orbit has two vectorial constants of the motion: the angular momentum and the Lenz vector . The Hamiltonian itself is spherically symmetric, but each elliptic orbit (each solution of the equations of motion) defines a unique Cartesian coordinate system. From the correspondence principle which is valid for large quantum numbers, we expect that there are sets of coefficients $`a_{jn}`$ such that the wave function is concentrated in the vicinity of a classical elliptic orbit, and thereby defines a Cartesian system. This problem is under current investigation.

## 4 Covariant quantum measurements may not be optimal

In the preceding section, we discussed the transmission of a complete Cartesian frame by a single quantum messenger, namely a hydrogen atom (formally, a spinless particle in a Coulomb potential). A similar calculation was done by Bagan, Baig, and Muñoz-Tapia  (hereafter BBM), who were able to reach much higher values of $`j`$ by sophisticated analytical methods. There is an essential difference between our work and that of BBM. We considered a single system, while BBM took $`N`$ spins, and one irreducible representation for each value $`j`$ of the total angular momentum. The maximum value is $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=N/2`$, and then the mathematics are the same as for our Rydberg state, with $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=n1`$. However, as explained above, if there are $`N`$ spins that can be sent independently, there is a better method. Alice can use half of them to indicate one axis, and the other half for another axis. This method is far more accurate, especially if $`N`$ is large. From Eq. (22), the mean square error for each axis is $`5.783/(N/2)^2=23.13/N^2`$, rather than $`4/3N`$ which is the result with the method used by BBM . Similar results hold even for low values of $`N`$. Why is there such a discrepancy?

In all the works that were mentioned above, and in many other similar ones, it was assumed that Holevo’s method of covariant measurements  gave optimal results. That method considers the case where Alice’s signals are the orbit of a group $`𝒢`$, with elements $`g`$. Namely, if $`|A`$ is one of the signals, the others are $`|A_g=U(g)|A`$, where $`U(g)`$ is a unitary representation of the group element $`g`$. The problem is to find optimal quantum states for Alice’s signals and Bob’s detectors. Originally, Holevo considered only irreducible representations. Now we know that in some cases reducible representations are preferable . However one then never needs to use more than one copy of each irreducible representation in the reducible one.

We now turn our attention to Bob. The mathematical representation of his apparatus is as always a POVM, namely a resolution of identity by a set of positive operators:

$$\underset{h}{}E_h=\text{1l},$$
(53)
where the label $`h`$ indicates the outcome of Bob’s experiment. In the case of covariant measurements, the labels $`h`$ run over all the elements of the group $`𝒢`$ (with a suitable adjustment of the notation in the case of continuous groups). Then the probability that Bob’s apparatus indicates group element $`h`$ when Alice sent a signal $`|A_g`$ is

$$P(h|g)=A_g|E_h|A_g.$$
(54)
The method of covariant measurements further assumes that $`E_h`$ can be written as

$$E_h=|B_hB_h|,$$
(55)
where

$$|B_h=U(h)|B.$$
(56)
Here, $`|B`$ is a fiducial vector for Bob (which has to be optimized) and $`U(h)`$ is a representation (possibly a direct sum of irreducible representations) of the same group $`𝒢`$ that Alice is using.

All this seems quite reasonable (and this indeed usually works well) but, as the above example shows, this may not be the optimal method. In the above example, Alice’s signals $`|A_g`$, for all possible positions of her axes, are $`SO(3)`$ rotations of a fiducial state $`|A`$ with $`j=0,\mathrm{},n1`$. On the other hand Bob uses two separate POVMs, each one testing only one half of the spins. Each one of these POVMs also involves $`SO(3)`$, but with lower values of the maximal $`j`$. Further discussion of this topic will appear in a forthcoming publication .

Work by AP was supported by the Gerard Swope Fund and the Fund for Encouragement of Research. PFS was supported by a grant from the Technion Graduate School.

References


text:
# Spin polarization contrast observed in GaAs by force-detected nuclear magnetic resonance

## Abstract

We applied the recently developed technique of force-detected nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to observe 71Ga, 69Ga, and 75As in GaAs. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation time is 21$`\pm `$5 min for 69Ga at $`5`$ K and 4.6 Tesla. We have exploited this long relaxation time to first create and then observe spatially varying nuclear spin polarization within the sample, demonstrating a new form of contrast for magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM). Such nuclear spin contrast could be used to indirectly image electron spin polarization in GaAs-based spintronic devices.

Due to its long spin coherence lifetime and scattering length, GaAs has received attention as a potential material for spintronic devices that exploit the spin degree of freedom of the electron. For example, B. Jonker et al. have demonstrated a scheme for the injection of spin-polarized carriers into GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures via an epitaxial layer of magnetic ZnMnSe. A technique that can image the electron spin polarization at any arbitrary point in the device would be very useful for determining whether spin flips are occurring at an interface or in the bulk material. Short device transit times make direct imaging of the electron polarization difficult. However, dynamic nuclear polarization provides an indirect route to the time-averaged electron polarization. In dynamic nuclear polarization, carriers become trapped on defects and transfer their polarization to nearby nuclei via the hyperfine interaction. The induced nonequilibrium polarization of the nuclear lattice persists for minutes, so it could be measured by a magnetic resonance imaging technique with adequate sensitivity and resolution, such as MRFM, a scanned probe microscopy based on force-detected magnetic resonance.

In this letter, we demonstrate the first steps towards indirect electron polarization imaging using force-detected NMR. We create and then observe nuclear spin polarization contrast in GaAs. Figure 1 shows force-detected NMR observations of 71Ga, 69Ga, and 75As, increasing the number of observed isotopes from four (1H, 19F, 59Co, 23Na) to seven. Further, this demonstrates the observation of multiple isotopes within a single sample using force-detected NMR techniques. In addition, we used off resonance cantilever excitation, which allows the measurement of nuclear isotopes with small gyromagnetic ratio, $`\gamma `$, without requiring large radio frequency (RF) magnetic fields.

In force-detected NMR, the sample is mounted on a micro-cantilever in an applied magnetic field with a magnetic field gradient arising from a nearby magnetic particle. The field gradient exerts a force on the magnetized sample. The magnetization of a particular nuclear isotope is isolated by using adiabatic rapid passage (ARP) to cyclically invert its magnetic moment at a frequency $`f_{ARP}`$. The signal appears as a driven cantilever oscillation. The magnetic field gradient restricts the NMR resonance to a sensitive slice of the sample, so magnetic resonance imaging is possible.

The sample and cantilever form a mechanical resonator with resonance frequency $`f_c`$ and quality factor $`Q`$. The amplitude $`A`$ of the cantilever response depends on $`f_{ARP}`$ and the amplitude $`F`$ of the driving force. For $`f_{ARP}f_c`$, the cantilever response is essentially the zero frequency response, $`A=F/k`$, where $`k`$ is the spring constant of the cantilever. When driven on resonance, the cantilever response is enhanced by a factor of $`Q`$. Well-understood restrictions limit the frequency at which spins can be flipped by ARP. In particular,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\left(\gamma B_1\right)^2}{4f_{ARP}}$$
(1)
where $`\gamma `$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the amplitude of the frequency modulation of the radio frequency (RF) magnetic field $`B_1`$. On resonance excitation of the cantilever ($`f_{ARP}=f_c`$) can require a large RF field $`B_1`$ if $`\gamma `$ is small. Our experiment demonstrates the utility of off resonance cantilever excitation ($`f_{ARP}<f_c`$). By eliminating the need to satisfy the adiabatic rapid passage condition at the cantilever resonance frequency, we reduced our required RF magnetic field by almost a factor of 8 (and thus reduced our RF power needs by a factor of 60!)

Our sample is a 3 $`\mu `$m epilayer of GaAs, doped at 0.6x1018 cm-3 Si and 2.0x1018 cm-3 Be, grown on a AlAs lift-off layer and released using HF. A hand-cleaved irregular rectangle of this material ($``$210 $`\mu `$m x 150 $`\mu `$m) is attached to the cantilever (k $``$ 0.05 N/m) using silver-filled epoxy. The cantilever is coated with 0.2 $`\mu `$m of Au on each side to enhance thermal conductivity. The loaded cantilever has $`f_c=1.034`$ kHz and $`Q=154`$ at 5 K in the presence of He exchange gas. The cryostat and detection electronics are described in Ref. 15. The magnetic gradient source is a 250 $`\mu `$m diameter Fe cylinder positioned $`35`$ $`\mu `$m from the sample. Because the sample is thin, the sensitive slices are circular arcs that increase in radius with applied magnetic field at fixed RF frequency as shown in Fig. 2(a).

A tuned and matched 1 1/2 turn, 710 $`\mu `$m diameter coil generates the 4 gauss transverse RF magnetic field. The RF waveform is generated by a Hewlett-Packard model HP8642B source driven by a $`f_{ARP}=16.6`$ Hz triangle wave frequency modulation, with subsequent amplification. The triangle wave is offset such that only positive frequency deviations up to 88 kHz (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }=44`$ kHz) are obtained. The motion of the cantilever is detected by a temperature-tuned fiber optic interferometer with the fiber rigidly epoxied to the cantilever support. The signal is demodulated with a lock-in amplifier referenced to the frequency modulation signal.

Figure 1 displays a force-detected NMR spectrum of our sample observed by sweeping the applied magnetic field at a fixed RF center frequency of 51.56 MHz. All three isotopes are clearly resolved with cantilever displacements of $`1.3`$ picometers. The large width of the NMR peaks represents the spatial extent of the sample. As illustrated in Fig. 2(a), each point in the NMR line of each isotope represents the signal from a ring of the sample. On the axis of the cylindrical iron magnet, the magnetic field is strongest, which means the applied external magnetic field required for magnetic resonance is less. Thus, the points at lower applied magnetic field represent the sample near the center of the magnet.

Using the observed maximum offset of the signal (0.8 Tesla) from the nominal resonance fields and the saturation magnetization for iron (2.18 Tesla), we can calculate the magnetic field gradient and the geometry of the sensitive slice. As an example, for the region shown in Fig. 2(a), the volume of a typical sensitive slice is 870 $`\mu `$m3 with a magnetic field gradient of 8600 T/m. Using thermal polarization of 69Ga at 5 K gives an estimated 3.4 pm cantilever excitation over the 10 second lock-in integration period. Analysis of 75As and 71Ga gives similar results. Our experimental signal is $`2.5`$ times smaller than this estimate. Recent tests have suggested that RF noise may still be a problem.

In our 0.1 Hz bandwidth, we observe 0.2 pm rms cantilever noise. Assuming a frequency independent force spectral power density, the root mean square thermal excitation of the cantilever in a given narrow bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ well below resonance,

$$x_{\mathrm{rms},\mathrm{thermal}}=\left(\frac{2k_BT\mathrm{\Delta }f}{\pi kf_cQ}\right)^{1/2}$$
(2)
is smaller than the on resonance thermal noise by a factor of $`Q`$. Interestingly, the observed signal is also a factor of $`Q`$ smaller in the low frequency regime relative to an on resonance excitation, so the thermal signal-to-noise ratio is independent of $`f_{ARP}`$. Using equation (2) we estimate $`x_{\mathrm{rms},\mathrm{thermal}}=0.02`$ pm. Currently, our noise is dominated by the interferometer electronics.

By averaging lock-in traces, we were able to see the time dependent decay, $`\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _m)`$, of the nuclear magnetization when cyclically flipped by our ARP sequence. The observed $`\tau _m`$ values are 7 s for 75As (applied fields 6.28 to 6.44 Tesla), 20 s for 69Ga (4.28 to 4.44 Tesla), and 30 s for 71Ga (3.26 to 3.42 Tesla) for the data displayed in Fig. 1. In our experiment, the driven relaxation time of the nuclear magnetization depends on the adiabatic condition for the spin flips (Eq. 1). Larger $`\gamma `$ and $`B_1`$ and smaller $`f_{ARP}`$ increase the relaxation time, $`\tau _m`$.

For future work, we are interested in the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation time, $`T_1`$, of our sample. To determine $`T_1`$ for 69Ga, we destroyed the magnetization by applying our ARP sequence for 5 $`\tau _m`$, and then allowed it to recover at an applied field of 4.0 T (total field 4.5 to 4.7 T) for a range of delay times before observing the NMR signal. Fitting the data to a single exponential gives $`T_1=21\pm 5`$ min, in agreement with previously published results.

The relatively long $`T_1`$ of GaAs at low temperatures allows us to create and then measure spin polarization contrast in the sample before the spins relax back to thermal equilibrium. Figure 2(b) shows an example of spin polarization contrast created by using a single ARP sweep to invert the nuclear polarization in all but a narrow slice of the sample. In the applied field range 4.39 to 4.45 Tesla, the 69Ga spin polarization is still aligned with the magnetic field. Outside of this field range, the force signal is negative relative to the thermal signal, indicating that the magnetization has been flipped to point opposite to the applied magnetic field. Figure 2(a) illustrates the spatial dependence of the corresponding spin polarization contrast in the sample. This data demonstrates conclusively that cycling spins by ARP in one volume of the sample does not disturb the polarization in nearby out of resonance sample volumes, an important consideration for efficient imaging of nonequilibrium nuclear polarization.

In conclusion, we applied force-detected NMR techniques to GaAs, demonstrating force-detection of spin polarization contrast. A spin-lattice relaxation time of 21$`\pm `$5 min was observed for 69Ga. This work significantly increases the total number of isotopes observed and reported in the force-detected NMR literature. We used off cantilever resonance force-detected NMR, which allows the measurement of nuclei with small $`\gamma `$ at reasonable RF fields. In fact, 75As has the smallest $`\gamma `$ measured by force-detected NMR to date.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Microelectronics Research Collaboration Program, Grant No. DAAL01-95-2-3530, the DARPA Defense Science Office, and the U.S. Military Academy/Army Research Laboratory Faculty Research Program. The sample was grown and processed by Peter Newman and Monica Taysing-Lara. We would like to thank John A. Marohn, James G. Kempf, and Daniel Weitekamp for many helpful discussions and suggestions.


text:
# 1 The spectral function of the 𝜌 meson in Quantum Hadrodynamics (QHD).

Low Mass Dileptons from Pb+Au Collisions at 158 AGeV
Sourav Sarkara, Jan-e Alamb,111Present Address: Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta 700 064, India. and T. Hatsudab

aVariable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700 064
bPhysics Department, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan

## Abstract

The medium modification of vector meson properties in hot/dense hadronic matter and its role in explaining the CERES/NA45 dilepton data at different centralities are discussed.

Relativistic nuclear collisions are expected to produce extreme conditions of temperature and/or baryon density conducive for the liberation of bound colour charges resulting in the formation of quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Spontaneously broken chiral symmetry is also expected to be restored. These phenomena constitute a massive restructuring of the QCD vacuum and is likely to affect the spectral properties of hadrons which are in fact excitations of the vacuum. Electromagnetic probes can be effectively used to study changes in hadronic properties in hot/dense medium because of their minimal final state interactions. The dilepton spectra in particular, exhibits a resonant structure which, in the low mass regime includes the $`\rho `$ and the $`\omega `$ mesons. The spectral modifications of these vector mesons would be clearly revealed in the invariant mass spectra of the dileptons through the shift of the resonant peaks.

We have seen earlier  that the WA98 photon spectra from Pb+Pb collisions at the CERN SPS can be explained by either of the two scenarios of relativistic nuclear collision : (a) A +A $``$QGP$``$Mixed Phase$``$Hadronic Phase or (b) A + A $``$Hadronic Matter; with downward shift of vector meson masses and initial temperature $`200`$ MeV. Our aim now is to check whether the same scenario can explain the dilepton data obtained in Pb+Au collisions at SPS by the CERES/NA45 Collaboration . The possible sources in the low mass region are the dileptons coming from the decays of hadrons at freeze-out and from the in-medium propagation and decay of vector mesons. The data shows a significant enhancement in the mass region 0.3 to 0.6 GeV which can be explained  by a substantial negative shift of the mass of vector mesons (the $`\rho `$ meson in particular) in the thermal medium. A large broadening of the $`\rho `$ meson spectral function due to scattering off baryons can also explain this enhancement  though the photon yield is seen to be insensitive to such a broadening .

A substantial volume of literature has been devoted to the issue of temperature and/or density dependence of hadrons within various models . The effects of the thermal shift of the hadronic spectral functions on both photon and dilepton emission have been considered in Ref.  for an exhaustive set of models. An appreciable change in the space-time integrated yield of electromagnetic probes was observed for universal scaling  and Quantum Hadrodynamic (QHD) model  and we will consider only these in the present discussion.

Let us now briefly recapitulate the main equations relevant for evaluating dilepton emission from a thermal source. The emission rate of dileptons can be expressed in terms of the imaginary part of the retarded electromagnetic current correlation function as

$$\frac{dR}{d^4p}=\frac{\alpha }{12\pi ^4p^2}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Im}W_{\mu \nu }^R(p)\left(1+\frac{2m_l^2}{p^2}\right)\sqrt{1\frac{4m_l^2}{p^2}}f_{BE}(E,T)$$
(1)
where $`m_l`$ is the lepton mass.

In the QGP, the dominant channel for dilepton productions is quark-antiquark annihilation. The rate for this process is obtained from the lowest order diagram contributing to the current correlator $`W^{\mu \nu }`$. In order to obtain the rate of dilepton emission from hadronic matter ($`\rho /\omega l^+l^{}`$) from Eq. (1) the electromagnetic current correlator is expressed in terms of the effective propagator of the vector particle in the thermal medium using vector meson dominance (VMD) so as to obtain

$`\mathrm{Im}W_{\mu \mu }^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi e^2m_V^4}{g_V^2}}(2\rho _T^V+\rho _L^V);\mathrm{with}`$
$`\rho _{T(L)}^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{T(L)}^V}{(p^2m_V^2+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{T(L)}^V)^2+(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{T(L)}^V)^2}}\right]`$ (2)
where $`\rho _{T(L)}^V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{T(L)}^V`$ are respectively the transverse (longitudinal) parts of the retarded spectral function and self-energy of vector mesons arising out of interaction with excitations in the medium. The transverse and longitudinal components of the spectral function of the $`\rho `$ with interactions from the QHD model is shown in Fig. 1. The downward shift of the first peak of the spectral function with increasing density $`n_B`$ and temperature $`T`$ can be almost entirely attributed to the $`\overline{N}N`$ polarisation of $`\rho `$ in the modified Dirac sea. The narrowing down of the width with increasing $`T`$ and $`n_B`$ is due to the reduction of the phase space for the process, $`\rho \pi \pi `$ resulting from the decrease in the $`\rho `$ mass. The second peak in the spectral function is due to the $`\overline{N}N`$ threshold of the off-shell $`\rho `$ which has negligible effects on the dilepton yield. For a discussion on the $`\rho `$ spectral function in the scaling scenario see Ref. .

The observed dilepton spectrum originating from an expanding matter can be obtained by convoluting the static rates given above with the expansion dynamics. This is done using boost invariant relativistic hydrodynamics. For the QGP sector we use the bag model equation of state with two flavour degrees of freedom. The hadronic phase is taken to consist of $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\eta `$ and $`a_1`$ mesons and nucleons. The medium effects enter through the effective masses in the expressions for energy density and pressure. The entropy density is then parametrized as,

$$s_H=\frac{ϵ_H+P_H}{T}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}a_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)T^3=4\frac{\pi ^2}{90}g_{\mathrm{eff}}(m^{},T)T^3$$
(3)
where $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective statistical degeneracy through which medium effects enter into the expansion dynamics of the system. The velocity of sound consequently becomes a function of $`T`$ and differs substantially from its value corresponding to an ideal gas ($`1/\sqrt{3}`$). When the system is produced in the QGP phase, $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is replaced by $`g_{QGP}`$ which for two quark flavours is 37. Note that the value of the initial temperature of a hot hadronic gas also depends on $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The freeze-out temperature $`T_F`$ is taken as 120 MeV.

We now compare the results of our calculation with the dilepton spectra obtained by the CERES/NA45 Collaboration in Fig. 2. The upper panel (a) contains the results for $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$=250 where we have considered a hadronic gas scenario as well as a deconfined initial state with $`T_i=180`$ MeV which evolves into a hadronic gas via a mixed phase. The observed enhancement of the dilepton yield around $`M0.30.6`$ GeV can be reproduced with a QGP initial state once the variation of vector meson masses in the mixed and the hadronic phases are taken into account (solid line). The data is also reproduced by a hadronic initial state with $`T_i=190`$ MeV in the universal mass variation scenario (dashed line). The shift of the $`\rho `$-peak in the dilepton spectra towards lower invariant mass $`M`$ is more for the universal scaling scenario compared to QHD model (long dashed line) indicating a stronger medium effect in the former case. The dilepton spectra for $`dN_{ch}/d\eta =350`$ is shown in the lower panel (b) of Fig. 2. Calculations with an hadronic initial state and universal scaling of hadronic masses with temperature (dashed line) describes the data reasonably well. The initial temperature in this case is $``$ 195 MeV. We have seen that with the temperature dependent mass from QHD model the low mass enhancement of the experimental yield cannot be reproduced (curve not shown). A good description of the data can also be obtained by taking $`T_i=200`$ MeV with QGP initial state for $`T_c=190`$ MeV (solid line). For comparison, we show the results due to a large broadening of the $`\rho `$ spectral function in the medium (dash-dotted line). The broadening of $`\rho `$ is modelled by assuming the temperature dependent width as : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (T)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (0)/(1T^2/T_c^2)`$. In all the cases background due to hadron decays (dotted line) are added to the thermal yields.

In summary, we have evaluated the low mass dilepton yield in Pb + Au collisions at CERN SPS energies with different initial conditions for two values of the charge multiplicity. The effects of the variation of hadronic masses on the dilepton yield have been considered both in the cross section as well as in the equation of state. It is observed that the data can be described by both QGP and hadronic initial states with an initial temperature $``$ 200 MeV which is very much in agreement with our conclusion from the analysis of the WA98 photon data . We have assumed $`\tau _i=1`$ fm/c at SPS energies, which may be considered as the lower limit of this quantity because the time taken by the nuclei to pass through each other in the CM system is $``$ 1 fm/c at SPS energies and the thermal system can be formed after this time has elapsed.

Acknowledgement: J.A. is grateful to the JSPS and the University of Tokyo for their hospitality.