text:
# Fast Elliptic Curve Arithmetic and Improved Weil Pairing Evaluation

## 1. Introduction

This paper presents an algorithm which can speed scalar multiplication on a general elliptic curve, by doing some arithmetic differently. Scalar multiplication on elliptic curves is used by cryptosystems and signature schemes based on elliptic curves. Our algorithm saves an estimated $`3.8\%`$ to $`8.5\%`$ of the time to perform a scalar multiplication on a general elliptic curve, when compared to the best-known general methods. This savings is important because the ratio of security level to computation time and power required by a system is an important factor when determining whether a system will be used in a particular context.

Our main achievement eliminates a field multiplication whenever we are given two points $`P`$, $`Q`$ on an elliptic curve and need $`2P+Q`$ (or $`2PQ`$) but not the intermediate results $`2P`$ and $`P+Q`$. This sequence of operations occurs many times when, for example, left-to-right binary scalar multiplication is used with a fixed or sliding window size.

Some algorithms for simultaneous multiple scalar multiplication alternate doubling and addition steps, such as when computing $`k_1P_1+k_2P_2+k_3P_3`$ from given points $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, and $`P_3`$. Such algorithms can use our improvement directly. We give applications of our technique to the Elliptic Curve Method for factoring and to speeding the evaluation of the Weil and Tate Pairings.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives some background on elliptic curves. Section 3 gives a detailed version of our algorithm. Section 4 estimates our savings compared to ordinary left-to-right scalar multiplication with windowing. Section 5 illustrates the improvement achieved with an example. It also describes applications to simultaneous multiple scalar multiplication and the Elliptic Curve Method for factoring. Section 6 adapts our technique to the Weil and Tate pairing algorithms. Appendix A gives the pseudocode for implementing the improvement, including abnormal cases.

## 2. Background

Elliptic curves are used for several kinds of cryptosystems, including key exchange protocols and digital signature algorithms \[IEEE\]. If $`q`$ is a prime or prime power, we let $`𝔽_q`$ denote the field with $`q`$ elements. When $`\mathrm{gcd}(q,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6})=1`$, an elliptic curve over the field $`𝔽_q`$ is given by an equation of the form

$$E_{\text{simple}}:y^2=x^3+ax+b$$

with $`a,b`$ in $`𝔽_q`$ and $`4a^3+27b^20`$. (See \[Silverman, p. 48\].)

A more general curve equation, valid over a field of any characteristic, is considered in Appendix A. The general curve equation subsumes the case

$$E_2:y^2+xy=x^3+ax^2+b$$

with $`a,b`$ in $`𝔽_q`$ and $`b0`$, which is used over fields of characteristic 2.

In all cases the group used when implementing the cryptosystem is the group of points on the curve over $`𝔽_q`$. If represented in affine coordinates, the points have the form: $`(x,y)`$, where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are in $`𝔽_q`$ and they satisfy the equation of the curve, as well as a distinguished point $`𝐎`$ (called the point at infinity) which acts as the identity for the group law. Throughout this paper we work with affine coordinates for the points on the curve.

Points are added using a geometric group law which can be expressed algebraically through rational functions involving $`x`$ and $`y`$. Whenever two points are added, forming $`P+Q`$, or a point is doubled, forming $`2P`$, these formulae are evaluated at the cost of some number of multiplications, squarings, and divisions in the field. For example, using $`E_{\text{simple}}`$, to double a point in affine coordinates costs $`1`$ multiplication, $`2`$ squarings, and $`1`$ division in the field, not counting multiplication by $`2`$ or $`3`$ \[BSS, p. 58\]. To add two distinct points in affine coordinates costs $`1`$ multiplication, $`1`$ squaring, and $`1`$ division in the field. Performing a doubling and an addition $`2P+Q`$ costs $`2`$ multiplications, $`3`$ squarings and $`2`$ divisions if the points are added as $`(P+P)+Q`$, i.e., first double $`P`$ and then add $`Q`$.

## 3. The Algorithm

Our algorithm performs a doubling and an addition, $`2P+Q`$, on an elliptic curve $`E_{\text{simple}}`$ using only $`1`$ multiplication, $`2`$ squarings, and $`2`$ divisions (plus an extra squaring when $`P=Q`$). This is achieved as follows: to form $`2P+Q`$, where $`P=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`Q=(x_2,y_2)`$, we first find $`(P+Q)`$, except we omit its $`y`$-coordinate, because we will not need that for the next stage. This saves a field multiplication. Next we form $`(P+Q)+P`$. So we have done two point additions and saved one multiplication. This trick also works when $`P=Q`$, i.e., when tripling a point. One additional squaring is saved when $`PQ`$ because then the order of our operations avoids a point doubling.

Elliptic curve cryptosystems require multiplying a point $`P`$ by a large number $`k`$. If we write $`k`$ in binary form and compute $`kP`$ using the left-to-right method of binary scalar multiplication, we can apply our trick at each stage of the partial computations.

Efficient algorithms for group scalar multiplication have a long history (see \[Knuth\] and \[Gordon1998\]), and optimal scalar multiplication routines typically use a combination of the left-to-right or right-to-left $`m`$-ary methods with sliding windows, addition-subtraction chains, signed representations, etc. Our procedure can be used on top of these methods for $`m=2`$ to obtain a savings of up to $`8.5\%`$ of the total cost of the scalar multiplication for curves over large prime fields, depending upon the window size and form which is used. This is described in detail in Section 4.

### 3.1. Detailed Description of the Algorithm

Here are the detailed formulae for our procedure when the curve has the form $`E_{\text{simple}}`$ and all the points are distinct, none equal to $`𝐎`$. Appendix A gives details for all characteristics. That appendix also covers special cases, where an input or an intermediate result is the point at infinity.

Suppose $`P=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`Q=(x_2,y_2)`$ are distinct points on $`E_{\text{simple}}`$, and $`x_1x_2`$. The point $`P+Q`$ will have coordinates $`(x_3,y_3)`$, where

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`(y_2y_1)/(x_2x_1),`$
$`x_3`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1^2x_1x_2,\text{ and}`$
$`y_3`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1x_3)\lambda _1y_1.`$
Now suppose we want to add $`(P+Q)`$ to $`P`$. We must add $`(x_1,y_1)`$ to $`(x_3,y_3)`$ using the above rule. Assume $`x_3x_1`$. The result has coordinates $`(x_4,y_4)`$, where

$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`(y_3y_1)/(x_3x_1),`$
$`x_4`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _2^2x_1x_3,\text{ and}`$
$`y_4`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1x_4)\lambda _2y_1.`$
We can omit the $`y_3`$ computation, because it is used only in the computation of $`\lambda _2`$, which can be computed without knowing $`y_3`$ as follows:

$$\lambda _2=\lambda _12y_1/(x_3x_1).$$

Omitting the $`y_3`$ computation saves a field multiplication. Each $`\lambda _2`$ formula requires a field division, so the overall saving is this field multiplication.

This trick can also be applied to save one multiplication when computing $`3P`$, the triple of a point $`P𝐎`$, where the $`\lambda _2`$ computation will need the slope of a line through two distinct points $`2P`$ and $`P`$.

This trick can be used twice to save $`2`$ multiplications when computing $`3P+Q=((P+Q)+P)+P`$. Thus $`3P+Q`$ can be computed using $`1`$ multiplication, $`3`$ squarings, and $`3`$ divisions. Such a sequence of operations would be performed repeatedly if a multiplier were written in ternary form and left-to-right scalar multiplication were used. Ternary representation performs worse than binary representation for large random multipliers $`k`$, but the operation of triple and add might be useful in another context.

A similar trick works for elliptic curve arithmetic in characteristic 2, as is shown in the pseudocode in Appendix A.

Table 1 summarizes the costs of some operations on $`E_{\text{simple}}`$.

## 4. Comparison to Conventional Scalar Multiplication

In this section we analyze the performance of our algorithm compared to conventional left-to-right scalar multiplication. We will refer to adding two distinct points on the curve $`E`$ as elliptic curve addition, and to adding a point to itself as elliptic curve doubling. Suppose we would like to compute $`kP_0`$ given $`k`$ and $`P_0`$, where the exponent $`k`$ has $`n`$ bits and $`n`$ is at least $`160`$.

Assume that the relative costs of field operations are $`1`$ unit per squaring or general multiplication and $`\alpha `$ units per inversion. \[BSS, p. 72\] assumes that the cost of an inversion is between $`3`$ and $`10`$ multiplications. In some implementations the relative cost of an inversion depends on the size of the underlying field. Our own timings on a Pentium II give a ratio of 3.8 for a $`160`$-bit prime field and 4.8 for a $`256`$-bit prime field when not using Montgomery multiplication. Some hardware implementations for fast execution of inversion in binary fields yield inversion/multiplication ratios of $`4.18`$ for $`160`$-bit exponents and $`6.23`$ for $`256`$-bit exponents \[KoçSav2002\].

The straightforward left-to-right binary method needs about $`n`$ elliptic curve doublings. If the window size is one, then for every $`1`$-bit in the binary representation, we perform an elliptic curve doubling followed directly by an elliptic curve addition. Suppose about half of the bits in the binary representation of $`k`$ are $`1`$’s. Then forming $`kP`$ consists of performing $`n`$ elliptic curve doublings and $`n/2`$ elliptic curve additions.

In general, independent of the window size, the number of elliptic curve doublings to be performed will be about $`n`$ asymptotically, whereas the number of elliptic curve additions to be performed will depend on the window size. Define the value $`0<\epsilon <1`$ for a given window size to be such that the number of elliptic curve additions to be performed is $`\epsilon n`$ on average. For example with window size 1, $`\epsilon `$ is $`1/2`$.

If we fix a window size and its corresponding $`\epsilon `$, then the conventional algorithm for scalar multiplication needs about $`2n+\epsilon n`$ field squarings, $`n+\epsilon n`$ field general multiplications, and $`n+\epsilon n`$ field divisions. If one inversion costs $`\alpha `$ multiplications, then the cost of a division is ($`\alpha +1`$) multiplications. So the overall cost in field multiplications is

$$(2n+\epsilon n)+(n+\epsilon n)+(\alpha +1)(n+\epsilon n)=(4+\alpha )n+(3+\alpha )\epsilon n.$$

Now we analyze the percentage savings obtained by our algorithm, not including precomputation costs. The above computation includes $`\epsilon n`$ sub-computations of the form $`2P_1+P_2`$. Writing each as $`P_1+(P_1+P_2)`$ saves one squaring per sub-computation, reducing the overall cost to $`(4+\alpha )n+(2+\alpha )\epsilon n`$. The technique in Section 3 saves another multiplication per sub-computation, dropping the overall cost to $`(4+\alpha )n+(1+\alpha )\epsilon n`$. This means we get a savings of

$$2\epsilon /((4+\alpha )+(3+\alpha )\epsilon ).$$

When the window size is $`1`$ and the inversion/multiplication ratio $`\alpha `$ is assumed to be $`4.18`$, this gives a savings of 8.5%. When $`\alpha `$ is assumed to be $`6.23`$, we still obtain a savings of $`6.7\%`$. When the window size is $`2`$ and $`2P`$ and $`3P`$ have been precomputed, we find that $`\epsilon =3/8`$. So when $`\alpha `$ is $`4.18`$, we get a savings of 6.9%, and when $`\alpha `$ is $`6.23`$, we still obtain a savings of $`5.5\%`$. Similarly if the window size is $`4`$, and we have precomputed small multiples of $`P`$, we still achieve a savings of $`3.8\%`$ to $`4.8\%`$, depending on $`\alpha `$.

Another possibility is using addition/subtraction chains and higher-radix methods. The binary method described in \[IEEE, section A.10.3\] utilizes addition/subtraction chains and does about $`2n/3`$ doublings and $`n/3`$ double-adds (or double-subtracts), so $`\epsilon =1/3`$ in this case. (See \[Gordon1998, section 2.3\] for an explanation of how we obtain $`\epsilon =1/3`$ in this case.) With $`\alpha =4.18`$, we get a $`6.3\%`$ improvement.

Scalar multiplication algorithms that use addition/subtraction chains as well as sliding window size may have lower $`\epsilon `$, but we still obtain at least a $`4.2\%`$ savings if $`\epsilon >0.2`$ and $`\alpha =4.18`$.

\[SaSa2001, Section 3.3\] presents some possible trade-offs arising from different inversion/multiplication ratios. We discuss this further in Section 5.3.

## 5. Examples and Applications

### 5.1. Left-to-Right Binary Scalar Multiplication

Suppose we would like to compute $`1133044P=(100010100100111110100)_2P`$ with left-to-right binary method. We will do this twice, the standard way and the new way. For each method, we assume that $`3P`$ has been precomputed. The next table compares the number of operations needed ($`a=`$ point additions, $`d=`$ point doublings, $`div=`$ field divisions, $`s=`$ field squarings, $`m=`$ field multiplies):

Standard Improved
$`1133044P`$ $`=4(283261P)`$ $`2d`$ $`2d`$
$`283261P`$ $`=128(2213P)3P`$ $`7d+1a`$ $`6d+2a(\text{save }1m)`$
$`2213P`$ $`=8(277P)3P`$ $`3d+1a`$ $`2d+2a(\text{save }1m)`$
$`277P`$ $`=8(35P)3P`$ $`3d+1a`$ $`2d+2a(\text{save }1m)`$
$`35P`$ $`=8(4P)+3P`$ $`3d+1a`$ $`2d+2a(\text{save }1m)`$
$`4P`$ $`=P+3P`$ $`1a`$ $`1a`$
Total: $`23div+41s+23m`$ $`23div+37s+19m`$
This saves 4 squarings and 4 multiplications. Estimating the division cost at about 5 multiplications, this savings translates to about $`4.47\%`$.

### 5.2. Simultaneous Multiple Scalar Multiplication

Another use of our elliptic curve double-add technique is multiple scalar multiplication, such as $`k_1P_1+k_2P_2+k_3P_3`$, where the multipliers $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$, and $`k_3`$ have approximately the same length. One algorithm creates an $`8`$-entry table with

$$𝐎,P_1,P_2,P_2+P_1,P_3,P_3+P_1,P_3+P_2,P_3+P_2+P_1.$$

Subsequently it uses one elliptic curve doubling followed by the addition of a table entry, for each multiplier bit \[Möller2001\]. About $`7/8`$ of the doublings are followed by an addition other than $`𝐎`$.

To form $`29P_1+44P_2`$, for example, write the multipliers in binary form: $`(011101)_2`$ and $`(101100)_2`$. Scanning these left-to-right, the steps are

| Bits | Table entry | Action |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`0,1`$ | $`P_2`$ | $`T:=P_2`$ |
| $`1,0`$ | $`P_1`$ | $`T:=2T+P_1=P_1+2P_2`$ |
| $`1,1`$ | $`P_1+P_2`$ | $`T:=2T+(P_1+P_2)=3P_1+5P_2`$ |
| $`1,1`$ | $`P_1+P_2`$ | $`T:=2T+(P_1+P_2)=7P_1+11P_2`$ |
| $`0,0`$ | $`𝐎`$ | $`T:=2T=14P_1+22P_2`$ |
| $`1,0`$ | $`P_1`$ | $`T:=2T+P_1=29P_1+44P_2`$ |

There is one elliptic curve addition $`(P_1+P_2)`$ to construct the four-entry table, four doublings immediately followed by an addition, and one doubling without an addition. While doing $`10`$ elliptic curve operations, our technique is used four times. Doing the multipliers separately, say by the addition-subtraction chains

$$1,2,4,8,7,14,28,29\text{and}1,2,4,6,12,24,48,44$$

takes seven elliptic curve operations per chain, plus a final add ($`15`$ total).

### 5.3. Elliptic Curve Method of Factorization

The Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) of factoring a composite integer $`N`$ chooses an elliptic curve $`E`$ with coefficients modulo $`N`$. ECM multiplies an initial point $`P_0`$ on $`E`$ by a large integer $`k`$, working in the ring $`/N`$ rather than over a field. ECM may encounter a zero divisor while trying to invert a nonzero integer, but that is good, because it leads to a factorization of $`N`$. ECM uses only the $`x`$-coordinate of $`kP_0`$.

\[Mont1987, pp. 260ff\] proposes a parameterization, $`By^2=x^3+Ax^2+x`$, which uses no inversions during a scalar multiplication and omits the $`y`$-coordinate of the result. Its associated costs for computing the $`x`$-coordinate are

| $`P+Q`$ from $`P`$, $`Q`$, $`PQ`$ | 2 squarings, 4 multiplications |
| --- | --- |
| $`2P`$ from $`P`$ | 2 squarings, 3 multiplications |

To form $`kP`$ from $`P`$ for a large $`n`$-bit integer $`k`$, this method uses about $`4n`$ squarings and $`7n`$ multiplications, working from the binary representation of $`k`$. Some variations \[MontLucas\] use fewer steps but are harder to program.

In contrast, using our technique and the method in \[IEEE, section A.10.3\], we do about $`2n/3`$ doublings and $`n/3`$ double-adds (or double-subtracts). By Table 1, the estimated cost of $`kP`$ is $`2n`$ squarings, $`n`$ multiplications and $`4n/3`$ divisions.

The new technique is superior if $`4n/3`$ divisions cost less than $`2n`$ squarings and $`6n`$ multiplications. A division can be implemented as an inversion plus a multiplication, so the new technique is superior if an inversion is cheaper than 1.5 squarings and 3.5 multiplications.

\[Mont1987\] observes that one may trade two independent inversions for one inversion and three multiplications, using $`x^1=y(xy)^1`$ and $`y^1=(xy)^1x`$. When using many curves to (simultaneously) tackle the same composite integer, the asymptotic cost per inversion drops to 3 multiplications.

## 6. Application to Weil and Tate Pairings

The Weil and Tate pairings are becoming important for public-key cryptography \[Joux2002\]. The algorithms for these pairings construct rational functions with a prescribed pattern of poles and zeroes. An appendix to \[BoFr2001\] describes Miller’s algorithm for computing the Weil pairing on an elliptic curve in detail.

Fix an integer $`m>0`$ and an $`m`$-torsion point $`P`$ on an elliptic curve $`E`$. Let $`f_1`$ be any nonzero field element. For an integer $`c>1`$, let $`f_c`$ be a function on $`E`$ with a $`c`$-fold zero at $`P`$, a simple pole at $`cP`$, a pole of order $`c1`$ at $`𝐎`$, and no other zeroes or poles. When $`c=m`$, this means that $`f_m`$ has an $`m`$-fold zero at $`P`$ and a pole of order $`m`$ at $`𝐎`$. Corollary 3.5 on page 67 of \[Silverman\] asserts that such a function exists. This $`f_c`$ is unique up to a nonzero multiplicative scalar. Although $`f_c`$ depends on $`P`$, we omit the extra subscript $`P`$.

The Tate pairing evaluates a quotient of the form $`f_m(Q_1)/f_m(Q_2)`$ for two points $`Q_1,Q_2`$ on $`E`$ (see, for example, \[BKLS2002\]). (The Weil pairing has four such computations.) Such evaluations can be done iteratively using an addition/subtraction chain for $`m`$, once we know how to construct $`f_{b+c}`$ and $`f_{bc}`$ from $`(f_b,bP)`$ and $`(f_c,cP)`$. Let $`g_{b,c}`$ be the line passing through the points $`bP`$ and $`cP`$. When $`bP=cP`$, this is the tangent line to $`E`$ at $`bP`$. Let $`g_{b+c}`$ be the vertical line through $`(b+c)P`$ and $`(b+c)P`$. Then we have the useful formulae

$$f_{b+c}=f_bf_c\frac{g_{b,c}}{g_{b+c}}\text{and}f_{bc}=\frac{f_bg_b}{f_cg_{b,c}}.$$

Denote $`h_b=f_b(Q_1)/f_b(Q_2)`$ for each integer $`b`$. Although $`f_b`$ was defined only up to a multiplicative constant, $`h_b`$ is well-defined. We have

(1)
$$h_{b+c}=h_bh_c\frac{g_{b,c}(Q_1)g_{b+c}(Q_2)}{g_{b,c}(Q_2)g_{b+c}(Q_1)}\text{and}h_{bc}=\frac{h_bg_b(Q_1)g_{b,c}(Q_2)}{h_cg_b(Q_2)g_{b,c}(Q_1)}.$$

So far in the literature, only the $`f_{b+c}`$ formula appears, but the $`f_{bc}`$ formula is useful if using addition/subtraction chains. The addition/subtraction chain iteratively builds $`h_m`$ along with $`mP`$.

### 6.1. Using the Double-Add Trick with Parabolas

We now describe an improved method for obtaining $`(h_{2b+c},(2b+c)P)`$ given $`(h_b,bP)`$ and $`(h_c,cP)`$. The version of Miller’s algorithm described in \[BKLS2002\] uses a left-to-right binary method with window size one. That method would first compute $`(h_{2b},2bP)`$ and later $`(h_{2b+c},(2b+c)P)`$. We propose to compute $`(h_{2b+c},(2b+c)P)`$ directly, producing only the $`x`$-coordinate of the intermediate point $`bP+cP`$. To combine the two steps, we construct a parabola through the points $`bP`$, $`bP`$, $`cP`$, $`2bPcP`$.

To form $`f_{2b+c}`$, we form $`f_{b+c}`$ and $`f_{b+c+b}`$. The latter can be expressed as

$$f_{2b+c}=f_{b+c}\frac{f_bg_{b+c,b}}{g_{2b+c}}=\frac{f_bf_cg_{b,c}}{g_{b+c}}\frac{f_bg_{b+c,b}}{g_{2b+c}}=\frac{f_bf_cf_b}{g_{2b+c}}\frac{g_{b,c}g_{b+c,b}}{g_{b+c}}.$$

We replace $`(g_{b,c}g_{b+c,b})/g_{b+c}`$ by the parabola, whose formula is given below. Evaluate the formula for $`f_{2b+c}`$ at $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ to get a formula for $`h_{2b+c}`$.

### 6.2. Equation for Parabola Through Points

If $`R`$ and $`S`$ are points on an elliptic curve $`E`$, then there is a (possibly degenerate) parabolic equation passing through $`R`$ twice (i.e., tangent at $`R`$) and also passing through $`S`$ and $`2RS`$. Using the notations $`R=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`S=(x_2,y_2)`$ with $`R+S=(x_3,y_3)`$ and $`2R+S=(x_4,y_4)`$, a formula for this parabola is

(2)
$$\frac{(y+y_3\lambda _1(xx_3))(yy_3\lambda _2(xx_3))}{xx_3}.$$

The left half of the numerator of (2) is a line passing through $`R`$, $`S`$, and $`RS`$ whose slope is $`\lambda _1`$. The right half of the numerator is a line passing through $`R+S`$, $`R`$, and $`2RS`$, whose slope is $`\lambda _2`$. The denominator is a (vertical) line through $`R+S`$ and $`RS`$. The quotient has zeros at $`R`$, $`R`$, $`S`$, $`2RS`$ and a pole of order four at $`𝐎`$.

We simplify (2) by expanding it in powers of $`xx_3`$. Use the equation for $`E`$ to eliminate references to $`y^2`$ and $`y_3^2`$.

(3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{y^2y_3^2}{xx_3}\lambda _1(yy_3)\lambda _2(y+y_3)+\lambda _1\lambda _2(xx_3)\hfill \\ & =x^2+xx_3+x_3^2+a+\lambda _1\lambda _2(xx_3)\lambda _1(yy_3)\lambda _2(y+y_3)\hfill \\ & =x^2+(x_3+\lambda _1\lambda _2)x(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)y+\text{constant}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Knowing that (3) passes through $`R=(x_1,y_1)`$, one formula for the parabola is

(4) $`(xx_1)(x+x_1+x_3+\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)(yy_1).`$
In the previous section we can now replace $`(g_{b,c}g_{b+c,b})/g_{b+c}`$ by the parabola (4) with $`R=bP`$ and $`S=cP`$.

Formula (4) for the parabola does not reference $`y_3`$ and is never identically zero since its $`x^2`$ coefficient is $`1`$. Appendix A gives a formula for this parabola in degenerate cases, as well as for a more general curve.

### 6.3. Savings

We claim the pairing algorithm needs less effort to evaluate a parabola at a point than to evaluate lines and take their product at that point. The parabola does not reference $`y_3`$, so we can omit the $`y`$-coordinate of $`bP+cP`$ and can use the double-add trick.

Here is a precise analysis of the savings we obtain by using the parabola when computing the Tate pairing. Again assume that we use the binary method in \[IEEE, section A.10.3\] to form $`mP`$, where $`m`$ has $`n`$ bits. (It does $`2n/3`$ doublings and $`n/3`$ double-adds or double-subtracts.) We manipulate the numerator and denominator of $`h_j`$ separately, doing one division $`h_j=h_{\text{num},j}/h_{\text{denom},j}`$ at the very end.

Analysis of doubling step: The analysis of the doubling step is the same in the standard and in the new algorithms. Suppose we want to compute $`(h_{2b},2bP)`$ from $`(h_b,bP)`$. We need an elliptic curve doubling to compute $`2(bP)`$, after which we apply (1). If $`bP=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`2bP=(x_4,y_4)`$ then

(5)
$$\frac{g_{b,b}}{g_{2b}}=\frac{yy_1\lambda _1(xx_1)}{xx_4}.$$

The doubling (including $`\lambda _1`$ computation) costs 3 multiplications and a division. Evaluating (5) at $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ (as fractions) costs 2 multiplications. Multiplying four fractions in (1) costs $`6`$ multiplications. The net cost is $`3+2+6=11`$ field multiplications (or squarings) and a field division.

Analysis of double-add step: The standard algorithm performs one doubling followed by an addition to compute $`(h_{2b+c},(2b+c)P)`$ from $`(h_b,bP)`$ and $`(h_c,cP)`$. Similar to the above analysis we can compute the cost as $`21`$ field multiplications and $`2`$ divisions. \[The cost would be one fewer multiplication if one does two elliptic curve additions: $`(2b+c)P=(bP+cP)+bP`$.\]

The new algorithm does one elliptic curve double-add operation. It costs only one multiplication to construct the coefficients of the parabola (4), because we computed $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ while forming $`(2b+c)P`$. Evaluating the parabola (and the vertical line $`g_{2b+c}`$) twice costs four multiplications. Multiplying five fractions costs another $`8`$ multiplications. The total cost is $`3+1+4+8=16`$ field multiplications and $`2`$ field divisions.

Total savings: Estimating a division as $`5.18`$ multiplications, the standard algorithm for $`(h_m,mP)`$ takes $`(16.182n/3)+(31.36n/3)=(21.24)n`$ steps, compared to $`(16.182n/3)+(26.36n/3)=19.57n`$ steps for the new method, a $`7.8\%`$ improvement. A Weil pairing algorithm using the parabola will also save $`7.8\%`$ over Miller’s algorithm, because we can view the Weil pairing as “two applications of the Tate pairing”, each saving $`7.8\%`$.

Sometimes (e.g., \[BLS2001\]) one does multiple Tate pairings with $`P`$ fixed but varying $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$. If one has precomputed all coefficients of the lines and parabolas, then the costs of evaluation are 8 multiplications per doubling step or addition step, and 12 multiplications per combined double-add step. The overall costs are $`32n/3`$ multiplications per evaluation with the traditional method and $`28n/3`$ multiplications with the parabolas, a $`12.5\%`$ improvement.

## Appendix A Pseudocode

The general Weierstrass form for the equation of an elliptic curve is:

(6)
$$E:y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6,$$

subject to the condition that the coefficients $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$, $`a_4`$, $`a_6`$ satisfy a certain inequality to prevent singularity \[Silverman, p. 46\]. The negative of a point $`P=(x_1,y_1)`$ on (6) is $`P=(x_1,a_1x_3a_3y_1)`$. \[This seems to require a multiplication $`a_1x_3`$, but in practice $`a_1`$ is 0 or 1.\] If $`P=(x_1,y_1)`$ is a finite point on (6), then the tangent line at $`P`$ has slope

(7)
$$\lambda _1=\frac{3x_1^2+2a_2x_1+a_4a_1y_1}{2y_1+a_1x_1+a_3}.$$

Figure 1 gives the pseudocode for implementing the savings for an elliptic curve of this general form. Given two points $`P=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`Q=(x_2,y_2)`$ on $`E`$, it describes how to compute $`2P+Q`$ as well as the equation for a (possibly degenerate) parabola through $`P`$, $`P`$, $`Q`$, and $`(2P+Q)`$.

Often the curve coefficients in (6) are chosen to simplify (7) — the precise choices depend on the field. For example, it is common in characteristic 2 \[IEEE, p. 115\] to choose $`a_1=1`$ and $`a_3=a_4=0`$, in which case (7) simplifies to $`\lambda _1=x_1+y_1/x_1`$. Figure 1. Algorithm for computing $`2P+Q`$ and the equation for a parabola through $`P`$, $`P`$, $`Q`$, and $`(2P+Q)`$, where $`P=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`Q=(x_2,y_2)`$.

if ($`P=𝐎`$) then
elseif ($`Q=𝐎`$) then
elsebla$`\text{parabola}=1`$;
elseelse
elsebla$`\text{parabola}=xx_2`$;
elseend if
elsereturn $`Q`$;
else if ($`Q=𝐎`$) then
elseif (denominator of (7) is zero) then
elsebla$`\text{parabola}=xx_1`$;
elseblareturn $`𝐎`$;
elseend if
elseGet tangent slope $`\lambda _1`$ from (7);
else$`\text{parabola}=yy_1\lambda _1(xx_1)`$;
else$`x_3=\lambda _1(\lambda _1+a_1)a_22x_1`$;
else$`y_3=\lambda _1(x_1x_3)a_1x_3a_3y_1`$;
elsereturn $`(x_3,y_3)`$;
else
elseif ($`x_1x_2`$) then
elsebla$`\lambda _1=(y_1y_2)/(x_1x_2)`$; /\* slope of line through $`P`$, $`Q`$. \*/
elseelse if ($`y_1y_2`$ OR denominator of (7) is zero) then
elsebla$`\text{parabola}=(xx_1)^2`$;
elseblareturn $`P`$; /\* $`P`$ and $`Q`$ must be negatives, so $`2P+Q=P`$.\*/
elseelse
elseblaGet tangent slope $`\lambda _1`$ from (7);
elseend if
else$`x_3=\lambda _1(\lambda _1+a_1)a_2x_1x_2`$;
elseblah /\* Think $`y_3=\lambda _1(x_1x_3)a_1x_3a_3y_1`$. \*/
elseif ($`x_3=x_1`$) then
elsebla$`\text{parabola}=yy_1\lambda _1(xx_1)`$;
elseblareturn $`𝐎`$; /\* $`P+Q`$ and $`P`$ are negatives. \*/
elseend if /\* Think $`\lambda _2=(y_1y_3)/(x_1x_3)`$ \*/
else$`\lambda _2=(a_1x_3+a_3+2y_1)/(x_1x_3)\lambda _1`$;
else$`x_4=\lambda _2(\lambda _2+a_1)a_2x_1x_3`$;
else$`y_4=\lambda _2(x_1x_4)a_1x_4a_3y_1`$;
else$`\text{parabola}=(xx_1)(xx_4+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2+a_1)\lambda _2)(\lambda _1+\lambda _2+a_1)(yy_1)`$;
elsereturn $`(x_4,y_4)`$;
end if


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been a revival of interest in the topic dealing with the terrestrial test of the equivalence principle of Einstein’s general relativity at a classical level . The works focus mainly on the phenomena of various types of couplings such as the classical spin-spin, spin-orbital or spin-gravitational couplings . On the other hand, investigations of the gravitational effects on the quantum phenomena are expected to provide informations that could be useful not only for testing the equivalence principle at a quantum level but also for the development of a full theory of quantum gravity . For instance, a semiclassical treatment reveals that quantum uncertainty in the source variables induces uncertainties in the metric components of gravity in a specific manner . Another important phenomenon is the neutrino flavor oscillation induced by gravity \[5-8\] or by the recoil from virtual D-branes . A different kind of theoretical approach in the calculations of the phase of quantum particles, neutrinos included, has yielded a very interesting result: The Dirac spin 1/2 particle has the exact covariant Stodolsky  phase $`S/\mathrm{}=(1/\mathrm{})p_\mu 𝑑x^\mu `$ in a static gravity field . Some of these investigations could provide appropriate theoretical backgrounds in the atmospheric neutrino experiments , or in the observations involving $`\gamma `$-ray bursts .

Recent interests also include the study of quantum interference fringes for thermal neutrons traveling along two different paths . The interference with itself of the de Broglie wave associated with an ensemble of particles allows us to predict, via Huygen’s principle, the motion of the wave. The presence of an external field modifies the motion and useful information about it could be gathered if one knows how the external field causes a shift in the interference fringes. A classic example is the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) fringe shift which provides information as to how the motion of electrons are modified in the presence of a magnetic potential . The AB effect predicts the same gauge invariant fringe shift, viz. $`\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c_0}A_\mu 𝑑x^\mu `$ between the interfering beams both in special relativistic and nonrelativistic theories, where $`A_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic 4-potential, $`e`$ is the electronic charge, $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant and $`c_0`$ is the light speed in vacuum. However, the situation becomes more complicated, both experimentally and theoretically, when one introduces gravity and rotation. On the experimental side, the developments in the matterwave interferometry have shown a greater promise (over photon interferometry) in the measurements of the influences on the fringe shifts due to Earth’s gravity and rotation. The neutron interferometry of the earlier experiments by Colella, Overhauser and Werner (COW experiment) and an improved configuration of the later experiment by Werner, Staudenmann and Colella (WSC experiment)  provide information about the effects of Earth’s gravity and Coriolis force on the fringe shift at a classical, that is, non-general relativistic level.

On the theoretical side, a special relativistic treatment of the quantum fringe shift for thermal neutrons has been proposed by Anandan . However, the effects of gravity and rotation are still considered as separate components while using special relativistic expressions for energy and momentum. On the other hand, a more comprehensive analysis involving gravity and inertial forces requires the unified framework of general relativity that combines those forces into a single geometrical framework. The special relativistic effects should then follow as a limiting case. The current literature seems to still lack such a unified approach. This has been noted in a recent investigation by Zhang and Beesham . However, they consider only Schwarzschild gravity and consequently the relativistic or the Coriolis parts do not appear in their formulation.

In this paper, adopting a new approach developed in a series of recent papers , we wish to work out the exact general relativistic equation of the quantum fringe shift for thermal neutrons. A “Coriolis” force appears naturally in the exact form of the geodesic equation. This gives rise to a gravitational analog of the quantum AB effect. The curved spacetime contributions to the special relativistic and Coriolis effects on the fringe shift are displayed. As an immediate corollary, it is argued that the measurements of these contributions would establish the validity or otherwise of the equivalence principle at a quantum level. For illustrations, we calculate the first order gravitational contributions coming from the Kerr metric of general relativity and the Kerr-Sen metric of heterotic string theory . The latter will enable us to also envisage the string effects.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.II, for ready reference, Anandan’s special relativistic (SR) approach is summarized. In order to be reasonably exhaustive, we enumerate, in Sec.III, the salient features of the present approach leading to an appropriate form of the geodesic equation. In Sec.IV, the general relativistic equation for the quantum fringe shift is proposed. Two examples are considered in Sec.V, while some concluding remarks are given in Sec.VI.

## 2 Special relativistic quantum phase shift

In the literature, there exist several deductions of the individual parts of the special relativistic contributions to quantum phase shift . However, using intuitive arguments, Anandan  proposed a general formula for the quantum phase shift based on a correspondence between the fringe shift and the classical special relativistic equations of motion. This remarkable general formula at once gives rise to all the above individual components. Consider two de Broglie wavelets originating at A and interfering at B, one traveling along ADB and the other along ACB, the plane ADBC being fixed to Earth and aligned vertically (Fig.1). The vertical direction is determined by the resultant of gravity and the centrifugal force of Earth. In the absence of any external forces, BD=BC and we take CD = $`d`$ , and AB = $`l`$. The external field causes a shift in the position of B. Let $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ be the velocity of the classical particle and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}`$ be the change in the tranverse velocity in the plane of interference. Then,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{SR}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }d\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{v}}{\stackrel{~}{v}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }d}{\stackrel{~}{v}}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{v}_{}}{dt}\frac{l}{\stackrel{~}{v}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}A}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{v}^2}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{v}_{}}{dt}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }mAd\stackrel{~}{v}_{}/dt}{\stackrel{~}{v}\mathrm{}},$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\left(1\stackrel{~}{v}^2/c_0^2\right)^{1/2}`$, $`A=ld`$ is the planar area (assumed small) enclosed by the two paths of interfering beams, $`m`$ is the neutron mass, $`\stackrel{~}{p}(=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$ is the momentum in flat space, and $`d\stackrel{~}{v}_{}/dt`$ is the transverse component of acceleration in the vertical direction in the plane ADBC. (We have made a slight change in the notation, that is, added a tilde for flat space quantities, in order to be consistent with our later equations.) The formula (1) exhibits a general correspondence between the quantum phase shift and the classical equation of motion.

The following cases were considered: (i) A particle with charge $`e`$ moving in a magnetic field $`B`$. Then, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }d\stackrel{~}{v}_{}/dt=eB\stackrel{~}{v}/m`$, which, when used in Eq.(1), immediately yields the AB effect, viz.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{AB}=eBA/\mathrm{}.$$
$`(2)`$
(ii) A spinless particle of mass $`m`$ in a gravitational field, $`d\stackrel{~}{v}_{}/dt=g`$ where $`g`$ is the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the Earth. Using the expression for the relativistic momentum $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2=1+\stackrel{~}{p}^2/m^2c_0^2`$ and the de Broglie relation $`\stackrel{~}{p}=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, one obtains from Eq.(1), the following result:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _g=gAm^2/\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }gA\stackrel{~}{\kappa }/c_0^2.$$
$`(3)`$
The COW experiment was accurate enough to measure the first quantum term, but not the second, that is, the so called relativistic term. It may be mentioned here that the term $`gAm^2/\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ could also be derived by an analysis involving the motion of neutrons along radial and cross radial directions . However, the advantage of Anandan’s approach, which we adopt in this paper, is that it offers a simpler alternative and yet leads to more results than just this term, as we can see in this section. (iii) A particle moving in the Coriolis force field of Earth so that, to first order in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`d\stackrel{~}{v}_{}/dt=2\left|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{v}}\right|=2\mathrm{\Omega }_n\stackrel{~}{v}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ is the component of Earth’s angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ normal to the apparatus. Using the Planck-Einstein law $`E/c_0=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }=mc_0\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, one finds from Eq.(1) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{cor}=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\omega }A\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{c_0}$$
$`(4)`$
The WSC experiment has tested this effect to within a good accuracy. (iv) This effect comes from the coupling of particle’s spin to the background curvature. Again using (1) together with the Mathisson-Papapetrou force , the shift comes out to be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{s.c.}=\frac{\mathrm{}GMA\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{mc_0^3R^3},$$
$`(5)`$
where $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $`M`$ is Earth’s mass and $`R`$ is the distance from the center. This effect is too tiny to be measurable at present and we do not discuss it here. With all the above in view, we proceed to familiarize the readers with the salient features of our approach in the next section.

## 3 The approach: Basic equations

The basic idea of the method is to introduce the idea of an optical-mechanical analogy in general relativity . The analogy provides an excellent tool that enables one to visualize the problems of geometrical optics as problems of classical mechanics and vice versa. The first step is to find out an optical refractive index $`n`$ that is formally equivalent to the geometrized gravity field. This step in itself is not new. In the study of optical propagation in a gravity field, this index has been used in the literature albeit in an approximate form. For instance, the index equivalent to the exterior Schwarzschild field is usually taken to be $`n1+2MG/rc_0^2`$, where $`M`$ is the central gravitating mass. In our approach, however, we consider the exact expression shown below.

Consider a static, spherically symmetric, but not necessarily vacuum, solution of general relativity written in isotropic coordinates

$$ds^2=h(\stackrel{}{r})c_0^2dt^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\stackrel{}{r})\left|d\stackrel{}{r}\right|^2,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{r}(x,y,z)`$ or $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$, and $`h,\mathrm{\Phi }`$ could be the solution of Einstein’s field equations. Many metrics of physical interest can be put into this isotropic form. The coordinate speed of light $`c(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is determined by the condition that the geodesic be null $`\left(ds^2=0\right)`$:

$$c(\stackrel{}{r})=\left|\frac{d\stackrel{}{r}}{dt}\right|=c_0\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{h},$$
$`(7)`$
which immediately provides an effective index of refraction for light in the gravitational field given by

$$n(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{h}}.$$
$`(8)`$
As the next step, we point out that the concept of the optical mechanical analogy can be used to recast the geodesic equation for both massive and massless particles into a single, exact Newtonian “F=ma” type of equation given by

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{dA^2}=\stackrel{}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}N^2c_0^2\right),N(\stackrel{}{r})=n(\stackrel{}{r})\sqrt{1\frac{m^2c_0^4h}{E_0^2}},dA=\frac{dt}{n^2},$$
$`(9)`$
where $`m`$ is the rest mass of the particle, $`E_0`$ is the conserved total energy, $`\stackrel{}{}`$ is the gradient operator. All the standard geodesic equations in Schwarzschild gravity including some new insights in cosmology follow from the above equation . This remarkably simple feature of the geodesic equations is brought about by the use of the stepping parameter $`A`$, first introduced by Evans and Rosenquist . Eqs. (9) provide an easy way to introduce quantum relations so that the geodesic motion of a particle can be interpreted as motion of de Broglie matter waves in a dispersive medium with an effective index of refraction $`N(\stackrel{}{r},\lambda )=n(\stackrel{}{r})/\sqrt{1+(\lambda /\lambda _c)^2}`$ where $`\lambda _c`$ is the Compton wavelength given by $`\lambda _c=2\pi \mathrm{}/mc_0`$ and $`\lambda =\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ is the physical wavelength measured in a gravity field. This interpretation allows us to extend in a straightforward manner the classical optical-mechanical analogy into the quantum regime.

Alsing  has subsequently extended the method to broader class of metrics in general relativity and this work is going to provide the basic foundation of what follows. Consider the most general form of the metric given by

$$ds^2=g_{00}c_0^2dt^2+2g_{0i}c_0dtdx^i+g_{ij}dx^idx^j,i,j=1,2,3,$$
$`(10)`$
Define the proper time $`d\tau `$ , proper length $`dl`$ and the velocity $`v`$ measured with respect to this proper time as

$$v^i=\frac{dx^i}{d\tau },$$
$`(11)`$
$$\frac{ds}{c_0}|_{v=0}=d\tau =\frac{\sqrt{h}}{c_0}(c_0dtg_idx^i),g_{00}=h,$$
$`(12)`$
$$dl^2=\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j=\left(g_{ij}+\frac{g_{0i}g_{0j}}{g_{00}}\right)dx^idx^j,v^2=\gamma _{ij}v^iv^j,$$
$`(13)`$
$$g_i=\frac{g_{0i}}{g_{00}},g^i=\gamma ^{ij}g_j=g^{0i}.$$
$`(14)`$
The $`g_i`$ and the proper velocity $`v_i`$ are vectors defined in the 3-space characterized by the metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$, which is used to raise or lower the indices of these 3-vectors. Now, the metric (10) can be rewritten as

$$ds^2=h(c_0dtg_idx^i)^2\left(1v^2/c_0^2\right).$$
$`(15)`$
The conserved energy $`E`$ is given by

$$E=mc_0^2g_{0\alpha }\frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}=\frac{mc_0^2\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{1v^2/c_0^2}},\alpha =0,1,2,3.$$
$`(16)`$
The variational principle for the geodesics following from Eq.(15) is given by

$$\delta \underset{\stackrel{}{x}_1,t_1}{\overset{\stackrel{}{x}_2,t_2}{}}mc_0𝑑s=\delta \underset{\stackrel{}{x}_1,t_1}{\overset{\stackrel{}{x}_2,t_2}{}}L𝑑t=\delta \underset{\stackrel{}{x}_1,t_1}{\overset{\stackrel{}{x}_2,t_2}{}}mc_0^2\sqrt{h(\stackrel{}{r})}\sqrt{1v^2(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{~}{v})/c_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{~}{v})𝑑t=0,$$
$`(17)`$
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }=1\frac{g_i\stackrel{~}{v}^i}{c_0},\stackrel{~}{v}^i=\frac{dx^i}{dt},v^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}^i}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\sqrt{h}}.$$
$`(18)`$
Henceforth, unless specifically restored, we take $`G=c_0=1`$. From the Lagrangian $`L`$, let us find the momenta conjugate to $`\stackrel{~}{v}^i`$. This is given by

$$\frac{L}{\stackrel{~}{v}^i}=E\left(g_i+\frac{v_i}{\sqrt{h}}\right).$$
$`(19)`$
Since the vectors $`g_i`$ and $`v_i`$ are defined in a space with the metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$, we can identify the right hand side of the Eq.(19) as a vector in the same 3-space. Let us call it the momentum 3-vector

$$p_iE\left(g_i+\frac{v_i}{\sqrt{h}}\right).$$
$`(20)`$
It can also be verified that $`H=\frac{L}{\stackrel{~}{v}^i}\stackrel{~}{v}^iLp_i\stackrel{~}{v}^iL=E`$, which is a constant along the trajectory of a particle as stated in Eq.(16). Hence, it is possible to introduce Maupertuis principle $`\delta \underset{\stackrel{}{x}_1}{\overset{\stackrel{}{x}_2}{}}p_i\stackrel{~}{v}^i𝑑t=0`$. Assuming further that the spatial part of the metric could be written in an isotropic form $`dl=dl_E/\mathrm{\Phi },dl_E=\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,\gamma _{ij}=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, we get $`v^2=n^2\stackrel{~}{v}^2/\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2`$, and the Maupertuis variational principle yields, after some manipulations introducing the parameter $`A`$, the geodesic equation in the form

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{dA^2}=\stackrel{}{}\left(\frac{n^2v^2}{2}\right)+\frac{d\stackrel{}{r}}{dA}\times (\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{g}),$$
$`(21)`$
$$dA=n^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }dt,$$
$`(22)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{g}(g_i)`$. This Newtonian form of the geodesic equation, valid for both massless and massive particles, has been obtained under the only assumption that the spatial part of the metric could be written in an isotropic form. On eliminating $`A`$ from Eqs.(21) and (22), we can find the rotational contributions to the well known Schwarzschild orbits for light and planets .

Equation similar to Eq.(21) has actually been derived in the literature , but only under the assumptions of small velocity and weak gravity. On the other hand, the novelty of the above set of equations \[Eq.(21), (22)\] is that they are exact and that they hold for all velocities as well as in strong gravity fields. The Eq.(21) admits an immediate interpretation as describing the motion of a particle in a “potential” $`(1/2)n^2v^2`$ and subjected to a “Coriolis” force $`\frac{d\stackrel{}{r}}{dA}\times (\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{g})`$, which would appear, for instance, in the absence of gravity $`(n=1,h=1)`$ in a coordinate system rotating with angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(1/2)(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{g})`$. Another advantage is that Eq.(21) is expressed in terms of the velocity measured in proper time in a rotating field and this is exactly the velocity of the quantum particle measured by an observer comoving with the interferometer.

## 4 General relativistic effect on the fringe shift

Our approach indicates that it is possible to simulate the quantum interference in Earth’s gravity as an experiment in a rotating medium described by $`n`$ and other quantities that take care of the nonlinearities. In order to find a general relativistic version of Eq.(1), we should express the relevant quantities in terms of their proper values, recalling that in a gravity field, one is able to measure only proper, and not coordinate, quantities. We make the reasonable assumption that $`n,h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ do not vary appreciably over the dimensions of the apparatus (a few square centimeters). From Eq.(12), we get

$$d\tau =\stackrel{~}{\beta }\sqrt{h}dt,$$
$`(23)`$
and defining $`d^2\stackrel{}{r}/d\tau ^2d\stackrel{}{v}_{}/d\tau `$, we can write, using Eqs.(21) and (22), the transverse component of the proper acceleration as

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{d\tau }=\left(\frac{1}{2n^2h}\right)\stackrel{}{}\left(v^2\right)+\left(\frac{2}{n^2\sqrt{h}}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right),$$
$`(24)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{g}\right)`$. Further, noting that $`p^2=p_ip^i=\gamma _{ij}p^ip^j`$, and introducing quantum relations, we have, from Eqs.(20) and (16), respectively,

$$p=\left[\frac{m\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{1v^2}}\right]\left[\frac{v^2}{h}+\frac{2g_iv^i}{\sqrt{h}}+g_ig^i\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathrm{}\kappa ,$$
$`(25)`$
$$E=\frac{m\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{1v^2}}=\mathrm{}\omega .$$
$`(26)`$
Reasoning along the lines similar to those in Ref., and using Eqs.(24) and (25), we can write, under the assumption stated above, the general relativistic version of Eq.(1) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{GR}=\left(\frac{dv_{}}{d\tau }\right)\left(\frac{pA}{\mathrm{}v^2}\right)=\left[\left(\frac{1}{2n^2h}\right)\frac{d}{dr}\left(v^2\right)+\left(\frac{2}{n^2\sqrt{h}}\right)\left|\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right|\right]\left(\frac{pA}{\mathrm{}v^2}\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2,$$
$`(27)`$
in which $`dv_{}/d\tau (d^2r/d\tau ^2rd\phi /d\tau )`$ is the radial component of acceleration. The rotational effects are represented by $`g_i`$ (through $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$), which occur in $`v^i`$ \[Eq.(18)\], $`p`$ \[Eq.(25)\] and, of course, in the Coriolis term $`\left|\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right|`$. Strictly speaking, even the area $`A`$ above would no longer be planar in the gravity field. But considering the miniscule dimension of the apparatus in a weak gravity field on the surface of the Earth, we may disregard its departure from planarity in the practical computations. The equation (27) for the quantum fringe shift is the main proposition in our paper.

If one considers, as is done in Ref., that gravity is given by the Newtonian law $`\stackrel{~}{v}^2=\left|d\stackrel{}{r}/dt\right|^2=2M/r`$ in an otherwise flat space $`(n=1,h=1)`$ and that the rotational effects are contained exclusively in the classical Coriolis term so that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=1`$, then one has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{SR}=\left[g+2\left|\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{v}}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right|\right]\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}A}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{v}^2}\right),$$
$`(28)`$
where

$$g=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dr}(\stackrel{~}{v}^2)=M/R^2.$$
$`(29)`$
One can see how beautifully the effects of gravity and rotation, usually considered as separate components in the literature \[cases (ii) and (iii) in Sec.2\] , are synthesized into a single equation.

In order to further explore the nature of Eq.(21), we note that Sakurai  presented an interesting derivation of the phase shift induced by Earth’s rotation given by Eq.(4). It shows that the effect of Coriolis force can be transcribed as an AB-type effect. This transcription finds a natural place in our approach. It was already stated in the previous section that Eq.(21) exhibits a “Coriolis” type force. The equation can alternatively be regarded as a “Lorentz” force equation for the motion of a classical particle with charge to mass ratio $`q/m`$ in a static classical electromagnetic field. By scaling the stepping parameter $`A`$ to a variable having the dimension of time $`t^{}`$, and identifying the scalar potential $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=(1/2)n^2v^2(q/m)^1`$ and the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})=\stackrel{}{g}(q/m)^1`$, we have from the four potential $`A^\mu =(\psi ,\stackrel{}{A})`$, the electric and magnetic fields as

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{\stackrel{}{A}}{t^{}}\stackrel{}{}\psi ,\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}.$$
$`(30)`$
The last equation can be rewritten as $`q\stackrel{}{B}=2m\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(1/2)(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{g})`$ is the rotational velocity of the Earth with respect to distant stars \[see Eq.(34) in the next section\]. Now, it is well known that the AB phase difference in the interference region is proportional to the magnetic flux enclosed by the two paths as in Fig.1 and is given by the line integral over the two routes:

$$\varphi _{ADB}\varphi _{ACB}=\left(q/\mathrm{}\right)\stackrel{}{A}.d\stackrel{}{l}=\left(q/\mathrm{}\right)\stackrel{}{B}𝑑\stackrel{}{\sigma }.$$
$`(31)`$
Putting the value for $`q\stackrel{}{B}`$ in the above, we get $`\varphi _{ADB}\varphi _{ACB}=\left(2m/\mathrm{}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, where $`d\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the oriented area $`A`$ of the parallelogram ADBC. Using the Planck-Einstein law, we get just the expression (4), but with the difference that our $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is completely determined by the metric 3-vector $`\stackrel{}{g}`$. It thus follows that the gravitational analog of the AB fringe shift is already embedded into the exact Eq.(21), thereby strengthening the weak field, low velocity analysis in Ref. . One may also regard the fringe shift due to the Coriolis term as somewhat analogous to the quantized version of the Sagnac effect without the particle mass term .

## 5 Examples

(a) The Kerr solution

We shall first consider the Kerr solution although, probably, it does not adequately represent any realistic rotating source due to quadrupole considerations. Nonetheless, we can have an idea as to how the corrections appear in different terms. Since the apparatus is situated on the surface of the Earth, we can take the metric to lowest order in $`M/r`$ and fixing the apparatus on the equator ($`\psi =\pi /2`$, Fig.1), we have:

$$d\tau ^2|_{\theta =\pi /2,M/r<<1}\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)\left[dt+\frac{2Ma}{r}d\phi \right]^2\left(1+\frac{2M}{r}\right)\left[dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2\right],$$
$`(32)`$
where $`r`$ is the isotropic radial variable, $`JMa`$ is the Earth’s angular momentum. Then one has the following expressions:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }1M/r,h12M/r,n1+2M/r,g_\phi 2Ma/r,$$
$`(33)`$
$$\left|\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{g}\right|=r^1\frac{dg_\phi }{dr}=\frac{2Ma}{r^3}=2\left|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right|.$$
$`(34)`$
Assuming the velocity of the particle to be $`v_0`$ in the asymptotic region where $`h=1`$, we have $`E/m=E^{}=1/\sqrt{1v_0^2}`$, and using the expression for $`E`$ \[Eq.(16)\], we find

$$v^2=1h(1v_0^2).$$
$`(35)`$
Since, to first order, $`h12M/r`$, we have, on Earth’s surface,

$$\left(1/2\right)d(v^2)/dr=g\left(1v_0^2\right).$$
$`(36)`$
Here we encounter a situation that reminds us of the statements of Cardall and Fuller : It is not possible to extract the pure gravitational field $`g`$ in the locally inertial frame; there also appears a contribution $`gv_0^2`$ in Eq.(36) coming in from the asymptotic region. However, under the low velocity approximation, we can disregard this extra term for practical computations and take the usual Newtonian equation (29) so that

$$v\stackrel{~}{v}=\sqrt{2M/r}.$$
$`(37)`$
Let us assess the terms, to lowest order, appearing in the second square bracket in Eq.(25). An analysis of the orbits of Eq.(21) suggests that , $`\stackrel{~}{v}^\phi =d\phi /dt2Ma/r^3`$, so that we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }=1g_i\stackrel{~}{v}^i=1g_\phi \stackrel{~}{v}^\phi 1+4J^2/r^4,$$
$`(38)`$
$$\frac{2g_iv^i}{\sqrt{h}}2\left(1+\frac{M}{r}\right)\left[\frac{g_\phi \stackrel{~}{v}^\phi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\right]8\left(1+\frac{M}{r}\right)\frac{J^2}{r^4},$$
$`(39)`$
$$g_ig^i=g_\phi g^\phi =\left(\frac{2Ma}{r}\right)g^{0\phi }\frac{4J^2}{r^4}.$$
$`(40)`$
Therefore, to first order $`(1/r)`$, the last two terms in the second square bracket in the expression for $`p`$ do not contribute, and hence, we may write, using Eq.(37): $`p\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{m\stackrel{~}{v}}{\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{v}^2}}=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. Together with the expression $`hn^2=\mathrm{\Phi }^21+2M/r`$, and using the identity, $`1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{m^2}=\frac{1}{1\stackrel{~}{v}^2}`$, we get from Eq.(27), the effects of only static gravity in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1=\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(\frac{gAm^2}{\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(gA\stackrel{~}{\kappa }/c_0^2\right).$$
$`(41)`$
The rotational effect is then contained only in the Coriolis term $`\left|\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right|`$ with $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ determined by the metric coefficients. Writing $`E=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\sqrt{h}`$ and using it in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2`$, we find that the term is modified also by the same factor

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2=\mathrm{\Phi }^2(2A\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_n/c_0).$$
$`(42)`$
Using the approximate dispersion relation

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2=\left(\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1\stackrel{~}{v}^2}\right)\left(h\stackrel{~}{v}^2\right),$$
$`(43)`$
we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2=\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_nAm}{\mathrm{}}\right)+\mathrm{small}\mathrm{relativistic}\mathrm{terms}O(c_0^2).$$
$`(44)`$
Note that velocity dependent dispersion relations similar to Eq.(43), or more generally to the one following from the Eqs.(25) and (26), occur also in other works, although in different contexts . With the expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ given in Eq.(33), we easily see the first order corrections to respective special relativistic effects. The importance of the correction factors will be pointed out in the last section.

(b) The string theory

Low energy effective field theory describing heterotic string theory also produces rotating black hole solutions. A classical exact solution has been found by Sen  which we refer to here as the Kerr-Sen solution. The Kerr-Sen metric in the Einstein frame closely resembles the familiar Kerr solution in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates :

$$d\tau ^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{\rho }\right)dt^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{d\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+d\theta ^2\right)\left[\rho \left(\rho +\xi \right)+a^2+\frac{2M\rho a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta d\phi ^2$$

$$+\frac{4M\rho a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}dtd\phi ,$$
$`(45)`$
where the dilatonic field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the electromagnetic potentials $`A_t,A_\varphi `$ and the tensor gauge potential $`B_{t\varphi }`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\rho ^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right],A_\phi =\frac{2\sqrt{2}a\rho Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }},A_t=\frac{2\sqrt{2}\rho Q}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},B_{t\phi }=\frac{a\rho Q^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{M\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\rho (\rho +\xi )+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,\mathrm{\Delta }=\rho (\rho +\xi )+a^22M\rho ,\xi =Q^2/M.$$
$`(46)`$
The metric describes a black hole with mass $`M`$, dilatonic charge $`Q`$, angular momentum $`aM`$, and magnetic dipole moment $`aQ`$ The quantity $`\xi `$ has the dimension of length. For $`Q=0`$ the metric reduces to the Kerr solution of general relativity and for $`a=0`$ it reduces to the Gibbons-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger (GGHS) black hole solution  with the redefinition $`\rho \rho \xi `$.

Under the weak field approximation as in (a), we have, in the equatorial plane,

$$d\tau ^2|_{\theta =\pi /2,M/(\rho +\xi )<<1}\left(1\frac{2M}{\rho +\xi }\right)\left[dt+\frac{2Ma}{\rho +\xi }d\phi \right]^2\left(1+\frac{2M}{\rho +\xi }\right)d\rho ^2\rho (\rho +\xi )d\phi ^2.$$
$`(47)`$
Under the reasonable assumption that $`\xi <<\rho `$, we can write $`\rho (\rho +\xi )(\rho +\xi )^2`$. In this case, we can adopt the isotropic radial variable $`r`$ related to the standard variable $`\rho `$ via $`r=(\rho +\xi )e^{M/(\rho +\xi )}`$ and retaining terms in lowest order in $`M/(\rho +\xi )`$, we have $`r\rho +\xi M.`$ The metric for large $`r`$ then has the form

$$d\tau ^2|_{\theta =\pi /2,M/(r+\xi )<<1}\left(1\frac{2M}{r+\xi }\right)\left[dt+\frac{2Ma}{r+\xi }d\phi \right]^2\left(1+\frac{2M}{r+\xi }\right)\left[dr^2+(r+\xi )^2d\phi ^2\right].$$
$`(48)`$
This has exactly the same form as Eq.(32) under the identification $`rr+\xi `$ and all the calculations in (a) can be carried out in a similar manner. We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^21\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{2M(\xi +M)}{r^2},$$
$`(49)`$
which indicates that the effect of the dilaton $`\xi `$ appears only in the order $`O\left(r^2\right)`$ and its measurement appears to be beyond the present capabilities.

## 6 Concluding remarks

Our analysis above is primarily intended to fill a gap in the literature pointed out recently by Zhang and Beesham . The proposed Eq.(27), together with inputs from Eqs.(24)-(26), constitute the desired unified, covariant version of the quantum fringe shift for thermal neutrons. Generally, the equations exhibit both the effects of gravity and rotation in an inseparable manner. Apart from this, the present work has a bearing on the (weak) principle of equivalence. If a viable theory of quantum gravity has to be formulated, the validity of this principle must be tested even at a quantum mechanical level. Anandan  suggested a method which involves carrying out the experiment with the interferometer at a distance $`r`$ from the axis of rotation of a turntable. If the principle is valid quantum mechanically, one should obtain the phase shift Eq.(3) with $`g=\mathrm{\Omega }^2r`$. On the other hand from the classical point of view, it is well known that the principle is embedded in Einstein’s theory of general relativity in the form of geodesic equations which follow from the Bianchi identities. Hence, a natural question arises if we can write the geodesic equation in a form that at once reveals the effect of gravity and rotation on the quantum fringe shift while, at the same time, leads to corresponding special relativistic results in the limit. Our analysis above shows that it is indeed possible and a unified expression for the general relativistic quantum fringe shift was proposed. Thus, a test of the principle in the quantum regime involves looking for general relativistic correction terms in an interferometric experiment. It does no longer seem necessary to regard the equivalence principle as a mere equality of Newtonian forces, viz., $`g=\mathrm{\Omega }^2r`$, since general relativity encapsules something more in its nonlinearities than just this. As an aside, an interesting analogy between the Coriolis and the AB effect has been pointed out.

We considered two examples, one from general relativity and the other from string theory. With an eye to practical feasibilities, we had worked out only the first order corrections, viz., $`\frac{2MG}{Rc_0^2}\left(\frac{gAm^2}{\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}\right),\frac{2MG}{Rc_0^2}\left(\frac{gA\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}{c_0^2}\right),`$ and $`\frac{2MG}{Rc_0^2}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_nAm}{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ to the respective special relativistic terms measured in the COW or WSC-type experiments. In this approximation, one has to be content with the metric rotational contribution being represented only by the angular velocity part $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. This is a bit unfortunate but seems inescapable. The corrections are quite consistent from an intuitive point of view as well, although they arose here from a reasonably exact equation (27). Since, on the surface of the Earth, $`2MG/Rc_0^210^9`$, measurements of these corrections in an Earth bound configuration require a sensitivity at least of the order of $`10^9`$ times more than what the present setup offers . The string contributions appear only in the second order in the form $`2Q^2/R^2`$ and multiplying it with special relativistic terms, one obtains extremely tiny corrections that look fairly out of question at present .

As a final comment, we wish to point out that the validity of the principle of equivalence for charged particles still appears to be a debatable issue . At a fundamental level, the issue relates to the question as to how the (radiation) energy is to be defined: Is it a conserved quantity associated with Lorentz boosts in Minkowski space  or with the Killing symmetry of time translations ? The resolution of this question has a deep relevance to whether the breakdown of Lorentz invariance could be interpreted as a violation of the principle of equivalence, although an affirmative interpretation is commonly adopted in the literature . These issues will be addressed in a future communication.

Acknowledgments One of us (KKN) wishes to thank the Director, Professor Ouyang Zhong Can, for providing hospitality and excellent working facilities at ITP, CAS. Useful discussions with Professor Han Ying Guo, Professor Ming Yu, both at ITP, and Dr. A. Bhadra are gratefully acknowledged. Sun Liqun is thanked for technical assistance. The work was in part supported by the TWAS-UNESCO visiting associateship program of ICTP, Italy, and also by NNSFC under Grant Nos. 10175070 and 10047004, as well as by NKBRSF G19990754.


text:
# Permanent current from non-commutative spin algebra

## Abstract

We show that a spontaneous electric current is induced in a nano-scale conducting ring just by putting three ferromagnets. The current is a direct consequence of the non-commutativity of the spin algebra, and is proportional to the non-coplanarity (chirality) of the magnetization vectors. The spontaneous current gives a natural explanation to the chirality-driven anomalous Hall effect.

Persistent (permanent) current in metallic rings is an equilibrium current which can be induced when the time-reversal symmetry is broken Byers61 . Such a current is expected in the presence of a magnetic flux through a normal ring Buttiker83 ; Cheung89  and was indeed detected experimentally Levy90 ; Chandrasekhar91 ; Mailly93 . The effect is due to a U(1) phase factor attached by the flux to the electron wave function. Here we show theoretically that a permanent current is induced in a conducting normal ring just by attaching three ferromagnets, without magnetic flux through the ring. This surprising effect can be seen in nano-scales at low temperatures. The key here is the non-commutativity of the SU(2) spin algebra, which breaks the time-reversal symmetry, and leads, in the presence of electron coherence, to a permanent electron current. Such a system would be utilized in spin polarized transport Prinz98  or in quantum computers as a new kind of logic gates Feynman82 .

The electron has spin 1/2 (i.e., has two components), and the spin obeys SU(2) algebra. The algebra is represented by three $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i`$ ($`i=x,y,z`$) satisfying the commutation relation

$$[\sigma _i,\sigma _j]=2iϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k,$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor with $`ϵ_{xyz}=1`$. When a conduction electron in a conductor is scattered by some magnetic object, the electron wave function is multiplied by an amplitude $`A(𝐧)=\alpha e^{i\beta 𝐧𝝈}`$, which is generally spin-dependent and is represented by a 2$`\times `$2 matrix in spin space. Here $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are complex numbers and $`𝐧`$ is a three-component unit vector characterizing the scattering object (such as the magnetization direction). We consider in this paper only classical, static scattering objects, and assume $`𝐧`$’s are constant vectors.

Let us consider two successive scattering events represented by $`A(𝐧_1)`$ and $`A(𝐧_2)`$ (Fig.1). Due to the non-commutativity of $`\sigma _i`$, the amplitude depends on the order of the scattering event; $`A(𝐧_1)A(𝐧_2)A(𝐧_2)A(𝐧_1)`$ in general. Various features in spin transport, which is under intensive pursuit recently Stiles02 ; Brataas01 , arise from this non-commutativity. It, however, does not affect the charge transport, since the charge is given as a sum of the two spin components (denoted by tr), and $`\mathrm{tr}[A(𝐧_1)A(𝐧_2)]\mathrm{tr}[A(𝐧_2)A(𝐧_1)]=0`$. Anomaly in the charge transport arises at the third order. We have, by virtue of Eq.1 and the relation $`\mathrm{tr}[\sigma _i\sigma _j]=2\delta _{ij}`$,

$$\mathrm{tr}[A(𝐧_1)A(𝐧_2)A(𝐧_3)]\mathrm{tr}[A(𝐧_3)A(𝐧_2)A(𝐧_1)]=4\alpha ^3\mathrm{sin}^3\beta 𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)iC_{123},$$
(2)
where the cross denotes the vector product, i.e., $`𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)=_{ijk}ϵ_{ijk}n_1^in_2^jn_3^k`$. This relation indicates that in the presence of fixed $`𝐧_i`$’s with $`𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)0`$, the symmetry under time-reversal (more appropriately, reversal of motion) is generally broken in the charge transport. In fact, relation (2) indicates that the contribution from one path, $`xX_1X_2X_3x`$ (Fig.1a), and its (time-) reversed one, $`xX_3X_2X_1x`$ (Fig.1b), are not equal, and this difference results in a spontaneous electron motion in a direction specified by the sign of $`C_{123}`$, namely, a permanent current. What is essential here is the non-commutativity of the SU(2) algebra. In fact, $`C_{123}`$ vanishes if all $`𝐧_i`$’s lie in a plane, in which case the algebra is reduced to a commutative U(1) algebra. The degree of the symmetry breaking, $`𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)`$, is given by the non-coplanarity, often called spin chirality (Fig.2).

The spontaneous current above would be realized on a small conducting ring with three ferromagnets with different magnetization direction, $`𝐧_1`$, $`𝐧_2`$ and $`𝐧_3`$. The ferromagnets may be attached to the ring (Fig.3a), or embedded in the ring (Fig.3b), both being within the reach of present experimental technique. In either case, the electron in a ring feels an effective spin polarization when it goes through the region ($`F_i`$) affected by the ferromagnets, and the effect will be modeled by the exchange (spin-dependent) potential, $`V(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }𝐧_i𝝈`$ for $`xF_i`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents the effective exchange field. The equilibrium charge current in the ring is calculated from $`j(x)=\frac{\mathrm{}e}{2m}\mathrm{Im}(_x_x^{})\mathrm{tr}G(x,x^{},\tau =0)|_{x^{}=x}`$, where $`G(x,x^{},\tau )<Tc(x,\tau )c^{}(x^{},0)>`$ is the thermal Green function, $`e,m,c`$ being the charge, the mass, the annihilation operator of electrons, respectively. $`G(x,x^{},\tau )`$ is calculated perturbatively from the Dyson equation, $`G=g+gVG`$, where $`g`$ represents free Green function. As is seen from eq. (2), possible finite current arises at the third order in $`V`$. By summing the contribution of the two paths, $`xX_1X_2X_3x`$ and the reversed one, we have $`j(x)=\frac{\mathrm{}e}{m}B(x)\mathrm{Re}C_{123}`$. Here $`C_{123}`$ is defined by eq. (2) with $`\alpha =i\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\beta =\pi /2`$, and

$$B(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_{X_iF_i}𝑑X_i\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }f(\omega )_{X_0}\mathrm{Im}[g_{01}g_{12}g_{23}g_{34}]|_{X_4=X_0=x}$$
(3)
describes the electron propagation through the ring, which is common to both paths. In Eq.3, $`f(\omega )`$ is the Fermi distribution function and $`g_{ij}=g^r(X_iX_j,\omega )`$ is the retarded Green’s function of free electrons. Approximating the transport along the ring as one-dimensional and neglecting multiple circulation, we have $`g^r(x,\omega )i\pi (D/L)e^{ik_F|x|}`$, where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wavenumber, $`D`$ the density of states ($`1/ϵ_F`$ ; $`ϵ_F=\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$ being Fermi energy), and $`L`$ the length of the ring perimeter. The final result is given by

$$j=2e\frac{v_F}{L}\mathrm{cos}(k_FL)\left(\frac{J}{ϵ_F}\right)^3𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3),$$
(4)
at zero temperature. Here $`J\pi W\mathrm{\Delta }/L`$ with $`W`$ being the width of the ferromagnets, and $`v_F=\mathrm{}k_F/m`$ is the Fermi velocity.

The current is thus induced by the spin chirality $`𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)`$ of the ferromagnets. This quantity reduces to the Pontryagin index (density) for the case of smoothly varying field $`𝐧(x)`$ Fradkin91 , which is also interpreted as Berry phase Berry84  of the spin. The effect of spin Berry phase on the electron transport has so far been investigated in the limit of strong coupling to $`𝐧(x)`$ where the electron spin adiabatically follows $`𝐧(x)`$ Loss90 ; Ye99 . In contrast, the present result (4) is obtained in the opposite limit; we have treated the coupling to $`𝐧`$ perturbatively (weak coupling) and made no assumption of smoothness on $`𝐧(x)`$. To see the relation between the two approaches, we follow the reasoning used in ref.Loss90 . We write the Hamiltonian of our system in a general form using a spatially varying polarization $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐱`$ as $`H=_𝐱\left[\frac{1}{2m}|c_𝐱|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐱𝐧_𝐱(c^{}𝝈c)_𝐱\right]`$ and move on to a gauge transformed frame, $`\stackrel{~}{c_𝐱}U_𝐱c_𝐱`$, with $`U_𝐱=𝐌_𝐱𝝈`$. Here $`𝐌_𝐱=(\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2})`$, and $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the polar coordinate of $`𝐧_𝐱`$. The Hamiltonian is then written as $`H=_𝐱\left[\frac{1}{2m}|(+i𝐀)\stackrel{~}{c}|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐱\stackrel{~}{c}^{}\sigma _z\stackrel{~}{c}\right]`$, where $`𝐀iU^{}U`$ is an SU(2) gauge field. In the adiabatic limit (infinitely large and uniform $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐱`$) on one hand, only the majority spin channel (denoted by $`+`$) becomes relevant and hence the gauge field reduces to a U(1) field, $`𝐚𝐀_{++}`$ ($`++`$-component of $`𝐀`$). Thus the new electron, $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, subject to a U(1) magnetic field ($`\times 𝐚`$), exhibits a persistent current. In the present weakly coupled case on the other hand, both of the two spin channels in $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ are relevant and so off-diagonal components and SU(2) nature of $`𝐀`$ become essential. Finite and spatially varying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐱`$ complicates the problem further. Thus, within the adiabatic scheme, the appearance of persistent current in the perturbative regime is not obvious. Our result indicates that even in the perturbative regime, the electron feels an analog of spin Berry phase and the transport is modified.

The spontaneous current considered here is due to the memory during successive scattering events, and the electron coherence over the system is essential. The current diminishes as the temperature and/or the ring size are increased, as in the conventional persistent current due to the external magnetic flux Cheung89 . The present current is also an equilibrium current, which cannot be measured by electrical means. At present it can only be measured by detecting its magnetic moment. The conventional persistent current was observed on a single ring of gold Chandrasekhar91  and of GaAs-AlGaAs Mailly93 . Compared to the conventional one, the persistent current proposed in this paper will be smaller in magnitude by a factor of $`(J/ϵ_F)^3`$. Careful extraction of the magnetic signal due to the persistent current from those of ferromagnets will also be required in the present case. This may be carried out by fixing one of the magnetizations, say, $`𝐧_1`$, perpendicularly to the plane containing the ring, keeping $`𝐧_2`$ and $`𝐧_3`$ in the plane. By changing the mutual angle between $`𝐧_2`$ and $`𝐧_3`$ in the plane, the spin chirality is controlled without affecting the perpendicular component of the magnetic moment. Measurement on many rings on a ferromagnetic network will be effective in amplifying the signal. (Total signal from $`N`$ rings grows by a factor $`\sqrt{N}`$ even in the worst case where the sign of the current, represented by $`\mathrm{cos}k_FL`$, is random.)

The phenomenon predicted here is not restricted to artificial nano-structures, but will be present rather generally in metallic frustrated spin systems such as pyrochlore ferromagnets and spin glasses, where finite spin chirality is often realized Taguchi01 ; Kawamura92 . The spin chirality was recently pointed out Ye99 , in the adiabatic limit, to be the origin of the peculiar anomalous Hall effect observed in experiments Taguchi01 . The present chirality-driven persistent current affords an intuitive interpretation to it. The circulating current starts to drift when the electric field is applied, in the direction perpendicular to the electric field (Fig.4), just as in the normal Hall effect. With the frequency of the circulating motion, read from Eq.4 as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{2\pi v_F}{L}\left(\frac{J}{ϵ_F}\right)^3𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)`$, we may estimate the Hall conductivity by $`\sigma _{xy}=\sigma _0\mathrm{\Omega }\tau `$ Kittel86 . Here $`\sigma _0`$ is the classical (Boltzmann) conductivity, $`\tau `$ is the elastic lifetime, and the dirty case $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau 1`$ is assumed. If the spin chirality is located uniformly on every triangle of size of inter-atomic distance (i.e., $`𝐧_1(𝐧_2\times 𝐧_3)=\chi _0`$ and $`L1/k_F`$), we have $`\sigma _{xy}/\sigma _0\chi _0J^3\tau /ϵ_F^2`$. This result agrees with the one obtained based on the linear response theory TK02 .

To summarize, we have shown that a spin chirality generally accompanies a permanent electric current. This effect is a direct consequence of the spin SU(2) algebra.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Inoue, H. Akai, H. Fukuyama and T. Ono for discussion. G.T. thanks the Mitsubishi foundation for financial support.


text:
# Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders

## 1 Introduction

At the LHC, gluon fusion will be the most important mechanism for Higgs boson production and discovery for masses below $`700`$ GeV. The discovery of the Higgs boson and the subsequent study of its properties therefore relies on a solid theoretical understanding of the gluon fusion production mechanism. Unfortunately, next-to-leading order (NLO) studies  of inclusive Higgs production do not provide this solid understanding. The NLO corrections are so large (of order $`70100`$%) that one cannot assume that they provide a reliable estimate of the total cross section. The unsettled nature of such an important signal clearly calls for a renewed effort to bring this process under control.

Earlier this year, we computed the full NNLO corrections to the hadronic cross section for Higgs boson production  as an expansion about the threshold region. The expansion was carried out to very high ($`18`$th!) order so that any uncertainty due to uncalculated higher terms would be very small. Very recently, this calculation has been confirmed by an exact NNLO calculation of the partonic cross section . Shortly before this conference began, we extended our calculation of the expansion to sufficiently high order as to allow us to invert the series and obtain the exact result for the hadronic cross section. In addition, we have used the same methods to compute the NNLO corrections to pseudo-scalar Higgs production, for which we present preliminary results .

## 2 The Calculation

In the limit that all quark masses except that of the top quark vanish, gluons couple to Higgs only via top quark loops. This coupling can be approximated by an effective Lagrangian  corresponding to the limit $`m_t\mathrm{}`$, which is valid for a large range of $`M_H`$, including the currently favored region between 100 and 200 GeV. The effective Lagrangian is

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{H}{4v}C_1(\alpha _s)G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the gluon field strength tensor, $`H`$ is the Higgs field, $`v246`$ GeV is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field and $`C_1(\alpha _s)`$ is the Wilson coefficient, which for this calculation we need to order $`(\alpha _s^3)`$ .

For the pseudo-scalar Higgs, we again assume that gluon fusion through top-quark loops is the dominant production mechanism. This assumption is not valid in all models, especially when the ratio of vacuum expectation values is large. The effective Lagrangian for pseudo-scalar production is

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _{Agg}=g_t\frac{A}{v}\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_1\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_1+\stackrel{~}{C}_2\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_2\right],\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{𝒪}_1=G_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}^{a,\mu \nu },\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_2=_\mu \left(\underset{q}{}\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is the pseudo-scalar Higgs field, $`g_t`$ is a model-dependent coupling constant and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the dual of the field strength tensor:

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a=ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }G^{a,\alpha \beta }.\end{array}$$
(3)
The calculation breaks down into four contributions: virtual corrections to two loops, single-real-emission to one loop, double-real-emission at tree-level and mass factorization. The virtual, single-real and mass factorization terms are computed exactly in closed analytic form. The double-real contribution is by far the hardest part of the calculation because of the complicated phase space integrals. We have computed this contribution by expanding the phase space integration about the threshold limit, where the partonic center-of-mass energy is close to the Higgs mass ($`M_H^2/\widehat{s}x1`$). Because Higgs production is dominated by threshold corrections, the series expansion converges quite rapidly. So, we compute double-real-emission, and thus the partonic cross section, as an expansion in $`(1x)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$. Note that if all coefficients are computed, this is an exact expression. In fact, one can obtain the exact result for the partonic cross section from a finite number of terms.

## 3 Inverting the series

If one were to know the basis functions that make up the exact result and one could expand the series out to enough terms, one could invert the series, mapping it onto the basis functions. One can obtain a reasonable ansatz for the basis functions by examining the result for Drell-Yan production . Using polylogagrithm identities  this result can be expressed in terms of functions which are analytic in $`(1x)`$ and powers of $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ times functions which are analytic in $`(1x)`$. Each of these basis functions can be multiplied by a pre-factor. Again using the Drell-Yan result as a guide and knowledge of the gluon splitting function, one can make an ansatz of the possible pre-factors. The ansätze for pre-factors and basis functions are shown in Table 1.

One sees that there are $`7`$ pre-factors and $`14`$ functions meaning that if one can expand the series result out to $`98`$ terms, one can map the result onto these $`98`$ functions. The mapping can be verified by computing still higher terms and comparing to the expansion of the mapped functions. To carry out this program, we have computed the double-real radiation terms out to order $`(1x)^{100}`$. Since the series starts at order $`(1x)^1`$, this gives us $`102`$ terms.

It turns out that the $`1/x`$ pre-factor never occurs in the cross section (in Ref.  it appears in the Drell-Yan correction term, not the Drell-Yan cross section) and the last two basis functions, $`Li_3((1x)/(1+x))`$ and $`Li_3((1x)/(1+x))`$ always occur together as the difference. Thus, after the fact, we see that $`78`$ terms would have sufficed to determine the functional form. The additional $`24`$ terms significantly over-determine the system and provide a strong verification of the result. In addition, we have compared our result with that recently reported in Ref.  using a completely independent method, and find exact agreement.

## 4 Hadronic Results

In Ref. , the partonic cross section was computed using a series expansion out to order $`(1x)^{16}`$. The difference between using that series expansion and the exact calculation is quite small (less than $`1\%`$) as one would expect. In light of the intrinsic uncertainty due to scale dependence of order $`\pm 10\%`$, this difference is completely negligible. The convergence of the series for scalar Higgs production is shown in Fig. 1. Preliminary results for pseudo-scalar Higgs production is shown in Fig. 2

We obtain our hadronic results by folding the partonic cross section with appropriate parton distribution functions (PDFs). We use approximate NNLO parton distribution functions  based on an approximation of the evolution equation .