text:
# Can quantum imaging be classically simulated?

(24 February, 2003)

## Abstract

Quantum imaging has been demonstrated since 1995 by using entangled photon pairs. The physics community named these experiments “ghost image”, “quantum crypto-FAX”, “ghost interference”, etc. Recently, Bennink et al simulated the “ghost” imaging experiment by two co-rotating k-vector correlated lasers. Did the classical simulation simulate the quantum aspect of the “ghost” image? We wish to provide an answer. In fact, the simulation is very similar to a historical model of local realism. The goal of this article is to clarify the different physics behind the two types of experiments and address the fundamental issues of quantum theory that EPR was concerned with since 1935.

A series of nonlocal quantum imaging experiments have been realized, since 1995, using entangled photon pairs generated in spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) Ghost\_d ,Ghost\_i , Popper\_exp . The physics community named them “ghost image”, “quantum crypto-FAX”, “ghost interference”, etc. Those experiments have demonstrated the peculiar behavior of entangled states. The insertion of an optical element, mask or single-double-multi-slit in the arm in which one of the entangled photon propagates, allows observing either an image (in the position defined by two-photon Gaussian thin lens equation Ghost\_i ) or the Fourier transform of the object (in the far field zone Ghost\_d ) when joint detections of the pair are registered. However, neither of the single detections in either arm is able to reconstruct the image or to give the Fourier transform of the object. This effect has later been used in a two-photon Young’s interference-diffraction experiment to demonstrate the working principle of quantum lithography lithography , Dowling . By measuring the interference-diffraction pattern on the Fourier transform plane, we showed that the spatial resolution of a two-photon image could be improved by a factor of 2, beyond the diffraction limit. In fact, a two-photon entangled state at wavelength $`\lambda `$ produces a Fourier transform pattern equivalent to the one given by classical light (single photon) at wavelength $`\lambda /2`$. This effect was well explained by considering the entangled nature of the photon pair, i.e., the coherent superposition of the two-photon amplitudes.

Recently, Bennink et al. simulated the “ghost” imaging experiment using two classically k-vector correlated pulses emitted by co-rotating lasers Bennink . An object is inserted in the arm in which one of the pulses propagates while the other pulse propagates freely in a separate arm; by recording coincidences between pulses of each pair, shot by shot, this experiment has also reconstructed an “image” of the object in the joint detections.

Has the recent classical experiment simulated the quantum aspects of the “ghost” image? We wish to provide an answer in this article by analyzing and comparing the “ghost” image experiment with its recent classical simulation. In fact, the simulation is very close to a historical model of local realism for an entangled two-particle system. Our goal is to clarify the very different physics behind the two types of experiments and address the fundamental issues of quantum theory that Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen was concerned with since 1935 EPR . In addition, important practical advantages of quantum imaging will be emphasized.

To compare two-photon “ghost” imaging with its classical simulation, let us consider the “unfolded” version of both the “ghost” image experiment, as realized in Ref. Ghost\_i , and its classical simulation, as realized in Ref. Bennink . The schematic experimental diagrams are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively.

In the quantum two-photon imaging experiment a pair of signal-idler photon is generated in the process of SPDC inside a nonlinear crystal (BBO). The state of the signal-idler pair can be calculated by the first order perturbation theory and has the form Klyshko :

$$\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝑑𝐤_i,d𝐤_s\delta (𝐤_s+𝐤_i𝐤_p)\delta (\omega _s+\omega _i\omega _p)\\ a_s^{}(𝐤_s)a_i^{}(𝐤_i)0\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\omega _j`$, $`𝐤_𝐣`$ ($`j=s,i,p`$) are the frequency and wavevector of the signal, idler and pump, respectively, and $`a_s^{}`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are the creation operators for the signal and idler photons, respectively. The energy and momentum for neither signal nor idler photon is defined. However, the energy-energy and momentum-momentum correlations of the pair are defined with certainty, as expressed by the delta functions, which are technically called phase matching conditions:

$$\omega _s+\omega _i=\omega _p,𝐤_s+𝐤_i=𝐤_p,$$
(2)
In the degenerate case, $`\omega _s=\omega _i`$, the transverse wave vector phase matching requires the signal and idler belonging to one pair to be emitted at equal, yet opposite, angles relative to the pump. In other words, the propagation direction for either photon may have a great uncertainty, but the correlation of the emission angle is determined with certainty. This then allows for a simple pictorial viewing of the experiment in terms of “usual” geometric optics, treating the SPDC crystal as a “mirror”. This concept has been simplified in Fig. 1 by drawing straight lines representing the probability amplitudes, or the quantum “pathways”, associated with a signal-idler pair. Note that: 1) each straight line represents a two-photon amplitude, defining a possible special momentum-momentum correlation with a defined propagation direction of the signal-idler pair; 2) all the two-photon amplitudes belong to one pair of signal-idler photon, they exist simultaneously and are indistinguishable. The insertion of an optical lens (“imaging lens” in Fig. 1) in the signal side allows the two-photon amplitudes to make an image of the object on the idler side. The image appears in coincidence measurement between $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, while single counts on $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are both constant. The location of the object plane and the image plane is defined by the two-photon Gaussian thin lens equation: $`1/f=1/S_i+1/S_o`$, with $`f`$, $`S_i`$ and $`S_o`$ as defined in Fig. 1. Indeed, from the geometric point of view, the image and object are related by a precise point-to-point correspondence, which represents the position-position correlation of the pair. In principle, the entire image of the entire object is formed by the two-photon probability amplitudes of one pair. All the two-photon amplitudes that end on the object plane and the image plane are indistinguishable, which allows the image to be coherent. The quantum image is then very special: (1) it is useful for some cryptography-type applications; (2) it may be sub-diffraction limited, since its spatial resolution is determined by the superposition of the two-photon amplitudes.

On the other hand, the classical simulation represented in Fig. 2, employs two co-rotating k-vector correlated laser beams (pulses), each of them pointing in a well defined direction. The pulses “know” where to go in the course of their propagation. Each pair of pulses can be focalized at a defined point on the object and the “image” plane with the help of lenses $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$, respectively. Consequently, a point on the object plane is projected onto the “image” plane at the CCD camera by recording “coincidences” shot by shot. This shot by shot, point-to-point projection works like a “two way” “Chinese shadow”. It should be emphasized that one pair of laser pulses can project only one point and each projection event is well distinguishable from the others. Consequently, the result of this experiment is a collective projection. The spatial resolution of the projection is determined by the spot size of the laser beam on the object and “image” plane. The use of lenses $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ is for reducing the spot size of the laser beam. In principle, $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are not necessary for the projection to be realized. There is no general lens-image equation to satisfy: the “image” plane is independent of the object plane and is fixed only by the position of $`L_2`$, which can be inserted everywhere on the right side. As a matter of fact, two correlated guns could give the same result.

It is clear at this point that the two-photon “ghost” image experiment works as a coherent imaging system (Fig. 1) while the classical simulation works as a shot by shot, point-to-point projector (Fig. 2).

In the above picture of two-photon entanglement, the entangled two-photon state of SPDC and the two-photon probability amplitudes play the fundamental role. Indeed, to simulate the quantum aspect, one needs to simulate the coherent superposition of the two-photon amplitudes. In principle, the simulation should produce the entire object-image point-to-point correlation with one pair of laser pulses instead of shot-by-shot.

We may have to answer the following questions: Are we sure the above picture of quantum entanglement is physically true? And since in both experiment the final result is obtained by counting coincidences between either two-photon or two pulses, are we sure the real physical process in the measurement of the“ghost” image is not the same as in the classical simulation? In fact, the picture of quantum entanglement has never been accepted by local realism. Since 1935, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen EPR  were seriously concerned with the physics of entangled two-particle system and questioned it. The “ghost” image appears as a “nonlocal” effect, which EPR EPR  consider as an absurd “action-at-a-distance”; they reject this idea and conclude that when the pair is created it has to be predetermined for it “where to go”, just like in the classical simulation.

We will try to answer the above questions in the following way: (1) confirm that, in the two-photon image-type experiment, the two-photon probability amplitudes play the fundamental role; (2) show that, the classical simulation can never simulate the two-photon probability amplitudes and their coherent superposition; (3) demonstrate an unique advantage of two-photon coherent imaging, which, in principle, can never be realized by classical simulations.

Is it true that the two-photon probability amplitudes play the fundamental role? One may find the answer studying the spatial resolution of the “ghost” image. The spatial resolution of an image, assuming the use of perfect lenses, is basically determined by diffraction or equivalently by the uncertainty relations Feynman . If one could show that the diffraction effect in a two-photon imaging type experiment is due to the superposition of the two-photon amplitudes, it would be possible to conclude that the two-photon amplitudes are also responsible for the formation of the image itself. In order to study the spatial resolution of an image it may be easier to move our attention from the image plane to the Fourier transform plane of the object. The sister experiment of the “ghost” image, which received the name of “ghost interference” Ghost\_d , may serve this purpose. The experimental setup was very similar to the “ghost” image experiment and used the same two-photon source of entangled state (SPDC). Fig. 3a is an unfolded version of the schematic experimental setup. A Young’s double-slit serves as a “complicated pattern” - the object. The measurement was done by counting coincidences in the far-field-zone to study the two-photon Fourier transform of the double-slit.

The experimental result is very surprising from the viewpoint of classical physics. There is no interference pattern behind the double-slit. However, the joint detections reproduce an interference-diffraction pattern when detector $`D_2`$ is scanned across the idler beam while $`D_1`$ is fixed. The lack of first order interference is due to the poor spatial coherence of the signal beam, i.e., the diverging angle of the beam for a given wavelength $`\lambda `$ is greater then $`\lambda /d`$ where $`d`$ is the spacing between the double-slit. The two-photon interference-diffraction pattern is predicted by quantum entanglement theory and the prediction agrees with the experimental result. The interference-diffraction pattern which appears measuring coincidences is:

$$R_c(x_2)sinc^2(x_2\pi a/\lambda z_2)\mathrm{cos}^2(x_2\pi d/\lambda z_2)$$
(3)
where $`a`$ is the slit width, $`\lambda `$ is the central wavelength of signal and idler, $`x_2`$ is the coordinate of detector $`D_2`$. This is a standard Young’s double slit interference-diffraction pattern, except for the fact that $`z_2`$ is the distance from the double-slit, back to the SPDC crystal, and then forward to the scanning detector $`D_2`$ (in analogy to the definition of $`S_i`$ in the “ghost” image). It is straightforward to calculate the pattern of Eq. 3 from the entangled two-photon state of SPDC. To simplify the discussion, let us consider the interference first. The probability of joint detections is proportional to the norm squared of $`<0|E_1^+E_2^+|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$, where $`E_1^+`$ and $`E_2^+`$ are the field operators at detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, respectively. As schematically represented by the straight lines in Fig. 3a, only the two-photon amplitudes that pass through the double-slit can give rise to coincidences. So we may write $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ as a simplified version of the general SPDC state (eq. 1), considering only the four mode state vector:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\epsilon [a_s^{}a_i^{}+b_s^{}b_i^{}]0,$$
(4)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a constant, $`a_j^{}`$ ($`b_j^{}`$) is the photon creation operator for the upper (lower) mode in Fig. 3a ($`j=s,i`$). Substituting the field operators and the state vector into $`<0|E_1^+E_2^+|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$, the probability of joint detections is then given by the cosine function in Eq. 3. The diffraction pattern can be calculated by integrating the many two-photon amplitudes over the slit width ($`a/2<x<a/2`$). The interference-diffraction is the result of the coherent superposition of the two-photon amplitudes of a signal-idler pair. The straight lines in Fig. 3a are responsible for the two-photon Fourier transform of the double-slit aperture function, and consequently, for the formation of the image in Fig. 1.

Can the two-photon “ghost” interference-diffraction be simulated classically? Let us try two different approaches.

First, assume one can find a way to simulate the two amplitudes of Fig. 3a, for example by means of two pairs of laser pulses, as depicted in Fig. 3b. Pulse A passes the upper slit and the lower slit in two different shots, similarly to the “shot-by-shot” operation in ref. Bennink . It is clear that there will be no interference, not even in principle. The “upper shot” and the “lower shot” are well distinguishable. What about diffraction? Pulse A itself will experience diffraction when passing the upper and the lower slit separately. In the single counts on $`D_1`$ there will be two diffraction patterns shadowing each other. However, these diffraction patterns have nothing to do with pulse B. The Fourier transform of the double-slit function is done only by laser pulse A. This is fundamentally different from the two-photon “ghost” interference-diffraction.

The second approach is illustrated in Fig. 3c. Laser beam A covers both the upper and the lower slit. In this case, one shot of laser pulse A will make a first order standard Young’s interference-diffraction pattern. Again, it has nothing to do with laser pulse B.

Unless the two-photon amplitudes and the two-photon entangled state are simulated, it is impossible to obtain the two-photon Fourier transform of the double-silt.

An unique advantage of using two-photon entangled states for imaging is the improvement of the image spatial resolution, even beyond the diffraction limit. This is a hot topic of quantum lithography. Recently, we have realized a Young’s double slit experiment to demonstrate the working principle of quantum lithography lithography .

The philosophy of our experiment is to show that the N-photon Fourier transform of an object at wavelength $`\lambda `$ is equivalent to the Fourier transform obtained using classical light at wavelength $`\lambda /N`$. This would prove that the spatial resolution of the reduced-size image obtained by a second set of lenses would be N times better. Fig. 4a is the unfolded version of the simplified experimental setup. In our experiment, a Young’s double-slit played the role of the “complicated” pattern. By using two-photon entangled states emitted from SPDC under certain experimental conditions, we found that the two-photon double-slit interference-diffraction pattern, in the far field zone, has modulation period of the spatial interference smaller, and width of the diffraction pattern narrower, both by a factor of two, than those of the classical case. This means that the Fourier transform for the entangled two-photon light at wavelength $`\lambda `$ is equivalent to the one obtained using classical light at $`\lambda /2`$, instead of $`\lambda `$. The physics and the mathematics are similar to those of the “ghost” interference experiment. Indeed, under certain experimental conditions, we managed to have the two-photon amplitudes always passing through one slit (upper or lower), as depicted in Fig. 4a. The two-photon interference-diffraction is calculated as superposition (integration) of those two-photon amplitudes over the double slit, which is:

$$P(x)\mathrm{sinc}^2[(2\pi a/\lambda )x/z]\mathrm{cos}^2[(2\pi d/\lambda )x/z],$$
(5)
where $`z`$ is the distance between the slit and the “two-photon” detector, and $`x`$ ($`x=x_1=x_2`$) is the coordinate of the “two-photon” detector measured from the center of the pattern.

What happens if one replaces the two-photon source (SPDC) by a pair of k-vector correlated laser beams, as Bennink et al. did in Ref. Bennink ? The situation is shown in Fig. 4b,c. It is easy to see that each laser beam, independently, may produce a “classical” Fourier transform of the slit. As a consequence, on the image plane, the final image would be a “product” of the two. And since each one of them, separately, must be subject to the classical diffraction limit, the final image (obtained by joint detections) must also be subject to it. The classical simulations cannot improve the spatial resolution of an image beyond the diffraction limit. It would really be a violation of the uncertainty principle if it did.

Conclusion: quantum imaging experiments have explored the very special physics of multi-particle entanglement. The multi-particle probability amplitudes play the fundamental role in quantum imaging. In general, they do not have a classical analogous and, consequently, cannot be simulated classically. The coherent superposition of the multi-particle amplitudes result in effects which are unacceptable by classical physics. An interesting alternative demonstration of the quantum character of entangled imaging has been recently proposed in Gatti . Feynman used to consider the superposition principle as the only mystery of quantum mechanics Feynman . Indeed, in an quantum entangled system, superposition takes place in a special form: it is the superposition of multi-particle amplitudes. One of the consequences of quantum superposition is the effect of sub-diffraction (or super-resolution). As Feynman pointed out in his Lectures Feynman  the effect of diffraction reflects the same physics contained in the uncertainty principle Popper\_exp . It follows that the uncertainty relations, as EPR EPR  and Popper Popper  argued in 1935, may serve as another standard, besides Bell inequality Bell , for distinguishing quantum from classical physics.

The authors thank M.H. Rubin for helpful discussions. This work was supported, in part, by ONR and NSF.


format: text

text:
# 1 Scaling function Ψ(𝑣) of the spin-spin correlator at the Lifshitz point in the 3𝐷 ANNNI model. The main plot the scaling of selected data for several values of 𝑟_⟂ is shown. In the inset, the full set of numerical data (gray points) is compared to the solution of eq. (). The data are from [].

Scale invariance is a central notion of modern theories of critical and collective phenomena. We are interested in systems with strongly anisotropic or dynamical criticality. In these systems, two-point functions satisfy the scaling form

$$G(t,𝒓)=b^{2x}G(b^\theta t,b𝒓)=t^{2x/\theta }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(rt^{1/\theta }\right)=r^{2x}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(tr^\theta \right)$$
(1)
where $`t`$ stands for ‘temporal’ and $`𝒓`$ for ‘spatial’ coordinates, $`x`$ is a scaling dimension, $`\theta `$ the anisotropy exponent (when $`t`$ corresponds to physical time, $`\theta =z`$ is called the dynamical exponent) and $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are scaling functions. Physical realizations of this are numerous, see  and references therein. For isotropic critical systems, $`\theta =1`$ and the ‘temporal’ variable $`t`$ becomes just another coordinate. It is well-known that in this case, scale invariance (1) with a constant rescaling factor $`b`$ can be replaced by the larger group of conformal transformations $`b=b(t,𝒓)`$ such that angles are preserved. It turns out that in the case of one space and one time dimensions, conformal invariance becomes an important dynamical symmetry from which many physically relevant conclusions can be drawn .

Given the remarkable success of conformal invariance descriptions of equilibrium phase transitions, one may wonder whether similar extensions of scale invariance also exist when $`\theta 1`$. Indeed, for $`\theta =2`$ the analogue of the conformal group is known to be the Schrödinger group  (and apparently already known to Lie). While applications of the Schrödinger group as dynamical space-time symmetry are known , we are interested here in the more general case when $`\theta 1,2`$. We shall first describe the construction of these local scale transformations, show that they act as a dynamical symmetry, then derive the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and finally comment upon some physical applications. For the sake of concisenes, we shall present the main results formally as propositions. For details we refer the reader to .

The defining axioms of our notion of local scale invariance from which our results will be derived, are as follows (for simplicity, in $`d=1`$ space dimensions).

1. We seek space-time transformations with infinitesimal generators $`X_n`$, such that time undergoes a Möbius transformation

$$tt^{}=\frac{\alpha t+\beta }{\gamma t+\delta };\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1$$
(2)
and we require that even after the action on the space coordinates is included, the commutation relations $`[X_n,X_m]=(nm)X_{n+m}`$ remain valid. This is motivated from the fact that this condition is satisfied for both conformal and Schrödinger invariance.
2. The generator $`X_0`$ of scale transformations is $`X_0=t_t\theta ^1r_rx/\theta `$ with a scaling dimension $`x`$. Similarly, the generator of time translations is $`X_1=_t`$.
3. Spatial translation invariance is required.
4. Since the Schrödinger group acts on wave functions through a projective representation, generalizations thereof should be expected to occur in the general case. Such extra terms will be called mass terms. Similarly, extra terms coming from the scaling dimensions should be present.
5. The generators when applied to a two-point function should yield a finite number of independent conditions, i.e. of the form $`X_nG=0`$.

Proposition 1: Consider the generators

$$X_n=t^{n+1}_t\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ k+1\end{array}\right)A_{k0}r^{\theta k+1}t^{nk}_r\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ k+1\end{array}\right)B_{k0}r^{\theta k}t^{nk}$$
(3)
where the coefficients $`A_{k0}`$ and $`B_{k0}`$ are given by the recurrences $`A_{n+1,0}=\theta A_{n0}A_{10}`$, $`B_{n+1,0}=\frac{\theta }{n1}\left(nB_{n0}A_{10}A_{n0}B_{10}\right)`$ for $`n2`$ where $`A_{00}=1/\theta `$, $`B_{00}=x/\theta `$ and in addition one of the following conditions holds: (a) $`A_{20}=\theta A_{10}^2`$ (b) $`A_{10}=A_{20}=0`$ (c) $`A_{20}=B_{20}=0`$ (d) $`A_{10}=B_{10}=0`$. These are the most general linear first-order operators in $`_t`$ and $`_r`$ consistent with the above axioms 1. and 2. and which satisfy the commutation relations $`[X_n,X_n^{}]=(nn^{})X_{n+n^{}}`$ for all $`n,n^{}`$.

Closed but lengthy expressions of the $`X_n`$ for all $`n`$ are known . In order to include space translations, we set $`\theta =2/N`$ and use the short-hand $`X_n=t^{n+1}_ta_n_rb_n`$. We then define

$$Y_m=Y_{kN/2}=\frac{2}{N(k+1)}\left(\frac{a_k(t,r)}{r}_r+\frac{b_k(t,r)}{r}\right)$$
(4)
where $`m=\frac{N}{2}+k`$ and $`k`$ is an integer. Clearly, $`Y_{N/2}=_r`$ generates space translations.

Proposition 2: The generators $`X_n`$ and $`Y_m`$ defined in eqs. (3,4) satisfy the commutation relations

$$[X_n,X_n^{}]=(nn^{})X_{n+n^{}},[X_n,Y_m]=\left(n\frac{N}{2}m\right)Y_{n+m}$$
(5)
in one of the following three cases: (i) $`B_{10}`$ arbitrary, $`A_{10}=A_{20}=B_{20}=0`$ and $`N`$ arbitrary. (ii) $`B_{10}`$ and $`B_{20}`$ arbitrary, $`A_{10}=A_{20}=0`$ and $`N=1`$. (iii) $`A_{10}`$ and $`B_{10}`$ arbitrary, $`A_{20}=A_{10}^2`$, $`B_{20}=\frac{3}{2}A_{10}B_{10}`$ and $`N=2`$.

In each case, the generators depend on two free parameters. The physical interpretation of the free constants $`A_{10},A_{20},B_{10},B_{20}`$ is still open. In the cases (ii) and (iii), the generators close into a Lie algebra, see  for details. For case (i), a closed Lie algebra exists if $`B_{10}=0`$.

Turning to the mass terms, we now restrict to the projective transformations in time, because we shall only need those in the applications later. It is enough to give merely the ‘special’ generator $`X_1`$ which reads for $`B_{10}=0`$ as follows

$$X_1=t^2_tNtr_rNxt\alpha r^2_t^{N1}\beta r^2_r^{2(N1)/N}\gamma _r^{2(N1)/N}r^2$$
(6)
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are free parameters (the cases (ii,iii) of Prop. 2 do not give anything new). Furthermore, it turns out that the relation $`[X_1,Y_{N/2}]=0`$ for $`N`$ integer is only satisfied in one of the two cases (I) $`\beta =\gamma =0`$ which we call Type I and (II) $`\alpha =0`$ which we call Type II. In both cases, all generators can be obtained by repeated commutators of $`X_1=_t`$, $`Y_{N/2}=_r`$ and $`X_1`$, using (5). Commutators between two generators $`Y_m`$ are non-trivial and in general only close on certain ‘physical’ states. One might call such a structure a weak Lie algebra. These results depend on the construction  of commuting fractional derivatives satisfying the rules $`_r^{a+b}=_r^a_r^b`$ and $`[_r^a,r]=a_r^{a1}`$ (the standard Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative is not commutative, see e.g. ).

For $`N=1`$, the generators of both Type I and Type II reduce to those of the Schrödinger group. For $`N=2`$, Type I reproduces the well-known generators of $`2D`$ conformal invariance (without central charge) and Type II gives another infinite-dimensional group whose Lie algebra is isomorphic to the one of $`2D`$ conformal invariance .

Dynamical symmetries can now be discussed as follows, by calculating the commutator of the ‘Schrödinger-operator’ $`𝒮`$ with $`X_1`$. We take $`d=1`$ and $`B_{10}=0`$ for simplicity.

Proposition 3: The realization of Type I sends any solution $`\psi (t,r)`$ with scaling dimension $`x=1/2(N1)/N`$ of the differential equation

$$𝒮\psi (t,𝒓)=\left(\alpha _t^N+\left(\frac{N}{2}\right)^2_r^2\right)\psi (t,r)=0$$
(7)
into another solution of the same equation.

Proposition 4: The realization of Type II sends any solution $`\psi (t,r)`$ with scaling dimension $`x=(\theta 1)/2+(2\theta )\gamma /(\beta +\gamma )`$ of the differential equation

$$𝒮\psi (t,r)=\left((\beta +\gamma )_t+\frac{1}{\theta ^2}_r^\theta \right)\psi (t,r)=0$$
(8)
into another solution of the same equation.

In both cases, $`𝒮`$ is a Casimir operator of the ‘Galilei’-subalgebra generated from $`X_1,Y_{N/2}`$ and the generalized Galilei-transformation $`Y_{N/2+1}`$. The equations (7,8) can be seen as equations of motion of certain free field theories, where $`x`$ is the scaling dimension of that free field $`\psi `$. These free field theories are non-local, unless $`N`$ or $`\theta `$ are integers, respectively.

From a physical point of view, these wave equations suggest that the applications of Types I and II are very different. Indeed, eq. (7) is typical for equilibrium systems with a scaling anisotropy introduced through competing uniaxial interactions. Paradigmatic cases of this are so-called Lifshitz points which occur for example in magnetic systems when an ordered ferromagnetic, a disordered paramagnetic and an incommensurate phase meet (see  for a recent review). On the other hand, eq. (8) is reminiscent of a Langevin equation which may describe the temporal evolution of a physical system, with a dynamical exponent $`z=\theta `$. In any case, causality requirements can only be met by an evolution equation of first order in $`_t`$.

Next, we find the scaling functions $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in eq. (1) from the assumption that $`G`$ transforms covariantly under local scale transformations.

Proposition 5: Local scale invariance implies that for Type I, the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ must satisfy

$$\left(\alpha _v^{N1}v^2_vNx\right)\mathrm{\Omega }(v)=0$$
(9)
together with the boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}v^{Nx}`$ for $`v\mathrm{}`$. For Type II, we have

$$\left(_u+\theta (\beta +\gamma )u_u^{2z}+2\theta (2z)\gamma _u^{1z}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=0$$
(10)
with the boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}u^{2x}`$ for $`u\mathrm{}`$.

Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,\mathrm{}}`$ are constants. The ratio $`\beta /\gamma `$ turns out to be universal and related to $`x`$. From the linear differential equations (9,10) the scaling functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)`$ can be found explicitly using standard methods .

Given these explicit results, the idea of local scale invariance can be tested in specific models. Indeed, the predictions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ coming from Type I with $`N=4`$ nicely agree with cluster Monte Carlo data  for the spin-spin and energy-energy correlators of the $`3D`$ ANNNI model at its Lifshitz point. Extensive simulations led to a considerable improvement in the precision of the estimation of the location of the Lifshitz point and the Lifshitz point exponents $`\alpha _L=0.18(2),\beta _L=0.238(5),\gamma _L=1.36(3)`$, respectively, of the specific heat, the magnetization and the susceptibility were obtained . These values are in good agreement with the results of a careful two-loop study of the ANNNI model within renormalized field theory . In figure 1, we show the scaling function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(v):=v^\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ of the spin-spin correlator. Here $`\zeta =(2/\theta )(d_{}+\theta )/(2+\gamma _L/\beta _L)`$, where $`d_{}=2`$ is the number of transverse dimensions without competing terms and $`\theta 1/2`$ within the numerical accuray of the data (see  for a fuller discussion of this point). Clearly, the data agree with the prediction of local scale invariance.

On the other hand, the predictions of Type II have been tested extensively in the context of ageing ferromagnetic spin systems to which we turn now.

Consider a ferromagnetic spin system (e.g. an Ising model) prepared in a high-temperature initial state and then quenched to some temperature $`T`$ at or below the critical temperature $`T_c`$. Then the system is left to evolve freely (for recent reviews, see ). It turns out that clusters of a typical time-dependent size $`L(t)t^{1/z}`$ form and grow, where $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent. Furthermore, two-time observables such as the response function $`R(t,s;𝒓𝒓^{})=\delta \sigma _𝒓(t)/\delta h_𝒓^{}(s)`$ depend on both $`t`$ and $`s`$, where $`\sigma _𝒓`$ is a spin variable and $`h_𝒓^{}`$ the conjugate magnetic field. This breaking of time-translation invariance is called ageing. We are mainly interested in the autoresponse function $`R(t,s)=R(t,s;\mathrm{𝟎})`$. One finds a dynamic scaling behaviour $`R(t,s)s^{1a}f_R(t/s)`$ with $`f_R(x)x^{\lambda _R/z}`$ for $`x1`$ and where $`\lambda _R`$ and $`a`$ are exponents to be determined.

In order to apply local scale invariance to this problem, we must take into account that time translation invariance does not hold. The simplest way to do this is to remark that the Type II-subalgebra spanned by $`X_0,X_1`$ and the $`Y_m`$ leaves the initial line $`t=0`$ invariant, see (6). Therefore the autoresponse function $`R(t,s)`$ is fixed by the two covariance conditions $`X_0R=X_1R=0`$.

Proposition 6: For a statistical non-equilibrium system which satisfies local scale invariance the autoresponse function $`R(t,s)`$ takes the form

$$R(t,s)=r_0\left(t/s\right)^{1+a\lambda _R/z}\left(ts\right)^{1a},t>s$$
(11)
where $`a`$ and $`\lambda _R/z`$ are non-equilibrium exponents and $`r_0`$ is a normalization constant.

The functional form of $`R`$ is completely fixed once the exponents $`a`$ and $`\lambda _R/z`$ are known. Similarly, $`R(t,s;𝒓)=R(t,s)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(r(ts)^{1/z}\right)`$ gives the spatio-temporal response, with the scaling function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)`$ determined by (10) .

The reader might wonder whether invariance under the special transformation generated by $`X_1`$ actually holds in spite of the absence of time translation invariance. An answer to this question can be given  for ageing systems below criticality, where $`z=2`$ for a non-conserved order parameter. In this case, the fluctuations in the system merely come from the disordered initial conditions and the presence of these must be taken into account when considering the transformation of the effective action $`S`$ (in the context of Martin-Siggia-Rose theory, see e.g.  and refs therein).

Proposition 7:  Consider an ageing system described by a local action $`S`$ and which is invariant under spatial translations, phase shifts, Galilei transformations and dilatations with $`z=2`$. Then $`\delta S=0`$ under the action of the special Schrödinger transformation $`X_1`$.

A quantitative test of the prediction (11) is best carried out through the consideration of an integrated response function, such as the thermoremanent magnetization $`M_{\mathrm{TRM}}(t,s)=h_0^sduR(t,u)`$, where the system is quenched in a small magnetic field $`h`$ which is turned off after the waiting time $`s`$ has elapsed. The magnetization is then measured at a later time $`t`$. One has the following scaling form for $`s`$ large

$$M_{\mathrm{TRM}}(t,s)/h=r_0s^af_M(t/s)+r_1s^{\lambda _R/z}g_M(t/s)$$
(12)
Local scale invariance furnishes, via (11), explicit predictions for the scaling functions $`f_M(x)`$ and $`g_M(x)`$  where $`r_{0,1}`$ are normalization constants. In concrete systems such as the $`2D`$ Glauber-Ising model where exponents $`a=1/z=1/2`$ and $`\lambda _R/z0.60.8`$, the two terms are often of the same order of magnitude and one might expect to find a strong cross-over behaviour in the scaling of $`M_{\mathrm{TRM}}`$.

We now illustrate this crossover explictly. In the left and middle panel of figure 2 , we display $`M_{\mathrm{TRM}}(t,s)`$ as a function of the waiting time $`s`$ for the the kinetic $`3D`$ spherical model with a non-conserved order parameter, for two values of the initial magnetization $`M_0`$. Here, the full curve gives the exact solution of the Langevin equation, the dash-dotted line gives the asymptotic scaling according to (12) and the dotted and dashed lines give the individual contributions. The cross-over between a contribution $`s^{\lambda _R/z}`$ for $`s`$ small and a contribution $`s^a`$ for $`s`$ large is clearly seen. In the right panel of figure 2, analogous data for the $`2D`$ Glauber-Ising model are shown. The full curves are the predictions of local scale invariance where the constants $`r_{0,1}`$ were fixed using the data for $`x=3`$. Then, for any different value of $`x`$, a definite prediction without any free parameter at all is obtained. We compare this with data for $`x=5`$ and $`x=7`$ and find a nice agreement. We point out that our data disagree with a recent suggestion  that the exponent $`a=1/4`$ in the $`2D`$ Glauber-Ising model at $`T<T_c`$.

The prediction (11) for the autoresponse has been confirmed in several physically distinct systems undergoing ageing, see  and references therein. As an example, we show data from the $`3D`$ Glauber-Ising model, both below and at criticality, in figure 3. The expected scaling behaviour $`M_{\mathrm{TRM}}(t,s)/h=s^a\rho (t/s)`$ is well realized and the form of $`\rho (x)`$ agrees nicely with local scale invariance, where the values of $`a`$ and of $`\lambda _R/z`$ were taken from the literature, see  and references therein. These confirmations (which do go beyond free field theory) suggest that (11) should hold independently of (i) the value of the dynamical exponent $`z`$ (ii) the spatial dimensionality $`d>1`$ (iii) the numbers of components of the order parameter and the global symmetry group (iv) the spatial range of the interactions (v) the presence of spatially long-range initial correlations (vi) the value of the temperature $`T`$ (vii) the presence of weak disorder. Very recently, the space-time response functions $`R(t,s;𝒓)`$ were calculated in the $`2D`$ and $`3D`$ Glauber-Ising model after a quench to below the critical point. Our results agree perfectly with the prediction of local scale invariance with $`z=2`$ .333A recent two-loop calculation  in the kinetic O($`N`$)-model at criticality recovers (11), up to a small correction. A detailed discussion will be given elsewhere.

Summarizing, we have shown that local scale transformations exist for any value of $`z`$ or $`\theta `$, act as dynamical symmetries of certain non-local free field theories and appear to be realized as space-time symmetries in some strongly anisotropic critical systems of physical interest. We also showed how the theory of local scale invariance may be applied to resolve standing questions in ageing phenomena.

It is a pleasure to thank M. Pleimling for a yearlong fruitful collaboration, C. Godrèche, J.-M. Luck, M. Paeßens, A. Picone and J. Unterberger for their collaboration on the work described here and P. Calabrese, H.W. Diehl, A. Gambassi and M. Shpot for useful discussions or correspondence. This work was supported by CINES Montpellier (projet pmn2095) and the Bayerisch-Französisches Hochschulzentrum (BFHZ).


text:
# Discovery of a New Nearby Star

## 1 Introduction

Proper motion surveys have historically revealed a large fraction of our nearest stellar neighbors. The usual method is to search plate pairs typically taken a decade or more apart for relative displacements. However, stars with large proper motions can get lost in the background. The SkyMorph database of NEAT \[Near Earth Asteroid Tracking\] (Pravdo et al., 1999) data is ideally suited to search for such objects. NEAT is a NASA-funded project intended to perform a comprehensive survey of near-earth asteroids. Beginning in 1995, several dedicated telescopes have been employed to repeatedly take CCD exposures of the sky mostly in the region within $`\pm 25^{}`$ of the celestial equator (excluding galactic latitudes \< $`20^{}`$). The instantaneous fields-of-view have varied over the years with telescope and CCD camera, but generally covered areas of 2-3 deg2. Our survey, thus far, has included data from May 1996 - Dec 2001 from two 1-m telescopes located on Maui. The total sky coverage is $`10000`$ deg2, and within the region of coverage there are typically 20 exposures at any given point. The revisit time ranges from hours to years. With such a large number of exposures over a $`6`$ yr period, the Skymorph database is an ideal place to search for objects with very large proper motion.

## 2 Observations

We have searched the Skymorph database for objects with unfiltered CCD magnitudes in the range 11.0-18.0 having proper motions \> 0.25 arcsec/yr. Candidate objects were visually confirmed by comparison with Digital Sky Survey images using the overlay feature of the SkyView Program (McGlynn, Scollick and White, 1996). A total of 3154 objects were found of which 63 had proper motions \> 1.0 arcsec/yr. $`400`$ of these objects are previously uncatalogued, and a paper on these is in preparation (Pravdo, 2003). The HPMS had the largest proper motion of all the detected objects: $`5.06\pm 0.03`$ arcsec/yr. To further refine the HPMS proper motion determination we have included additional observations from the USNO A2.0 Catalogue (Monet, 1998) and the 2nd Guide Star Catalogue(Morrison and McLean, 2001). The measured parameters of our fast-moving star are given in Table 1. We derive from our observations a tangential velocity of $`52.9\pm 11.7`$ km/s. This is consistent with the velocity dispersion of main sequence red dwarfs of $`50`$ km/s (Binney and Merrifield, 1991).

Figure 1 shows the motion of HPMS across the sky with images from the Palomar Sky Surveys and SkyMorph. The parallax was estimated by fitting the position of HPMS on 43 SkyMorph images (many averaged in sets of three) taken from Julian Dates 2450779-2452498 (November 26, 1997- August 11, 2002) to a reference frame defined by 12 nearby stars in the field. Since the HPMS is quite red, a significant correction for differential chromatic refraction (DCR) was required. The DCR correction was both estimated from first principles and fit to the data taken over one night with varying hour angles. We chose a value for the DCR correction that minimized the scatter in the position on single nights. Figure 2 shows the result of the fit to parallax of the HPMS position with the NOVAS (Kaplan et al., 1989) model for proper motion and parallax. The result for the parallax is $`0.43\pm 0.13`$ arcsec. The 1-sigma error is larger than we would like because the camera pixel sizes in the measurements, 1 and 1.4 arcsec, are not ideal for this purpose. More precise observations with cameras designed for this purpose are underway.

A spectrum of the HPMS taken on 11 July, 2002 using the Apache Point 2.5 m telescope is shown Figure. 3. For comparison the spectra of the M6.5 V star GJ1111 and the M8 V star VB10 are also shown. The match to GJ1111 is good. We identify the HPMS as a main-sequence dwarf with spectral type M6.5 V based upon detailed examination of the CaH2 ($`\lambda `$7042-7046, $`\lambda `$6814-6846), CaH3 ($`\lambda `$7042-7046, $`\lambda `$6960-6990), and TiO5 ($`\lambda `$7042-7046, $`\lambda `$7126-7135) spectral features (Reid, Hawley and Gizis, 1995). The relative strengths of the CaH and TiO bands show no evidence that the star is significantly metal-poor.

The HPMS was observed photometrically on the night of 7 August, 2002 at the JPL Table Mountain Observatory 0.6-meter telescope using broad band UBVRI Bessel filters and the facility CCD imaging system. Multiple UBVRI exposures of 15 Landolt (1992) stars ranging in color and air mass were also measured. With this data both linear and color-corrected extinction curves for each filter were computed. The nominal extinction coefficients and small ($`1`$ mMag) color coefficients indicated a good photometric night. The color-corrected extinction curves were used to compute the measured magnitudes listed in Table 1.

The HPMS is also in the soon-to-be-released 2MASS all-sky point source catalog \[2MASS J02530084+1652532\] (Kirkpatrick, 2002), with magnitudes of J = $`8.39\pm 0.03`$, H = $`7.88\pm 0.04`$ and Ks = $`7.59\pm 0.05`$. The photometric measurements are summarized in Table 1. Combining these data with the trigonometric parallax given above allows estimation of the absolute magnitude. Despite the strong spectroscopic similarity to GJ 1111, the derived values are significantly fainter. For example, we derive MJ= $`11.58\pm 0.35`$ for the HPMS, as compared with MJ = $`10.40\pm 0.03`$ for GJ 1111. If our trigonometric parallax is accurate, then the HPMS is underluminous relative to a normal M6.5 disk dwarf by $`1.2\pm 0.7`$ magnitudes. This result might be expected for an extreme metal-poor subdwarf, such as LHS 1826 (Gizis and Reid, 1997), but, as noted above, there is no indication that HPMS is metal-poor. If the star has the same effective temperature as GJ 1111, then the low luminosity implies that the HPMS has a radius only 60% that of GJ 1111, or $`0.68`$ RJupiter, violating electron degeneracy.

Given these results, we have estimated a spectrophotometric parallax for the HPMS. Dahn, et al. (2002) have shown that spectral type is well correlated with MJ for ultra-cool dwarfs. Using their linear relation, we derive MJ= $`10.59\pm 0.25`$, corresponding to a distance of $`3.6\pm 0.4`$ parsecs. At this distance, which is almost identical to that of GJ 1111, HPMS is the 17th nearest system (and 27th nearest star) to the Sun.

## 3 Conclusions

Table 2 summarizes the properties of the 10 nearest known stars including distances and proper motions. Given our parallax value, the HPMS ranks 3rd in distance among stellar systems (or 5th among individual objects) and 8th in proper motion. (We emphasize again that the parallax value is preliminary and that the distance ranking could change.). In the visual band it is the faintest star in the list, which is part of the reason it was not discovered in previous surveys. Since the NEAT survey has only covered the region $`\pm 25^{}`$ in declination it is entirely possible that other faint nearby objects remain to be discovered.

We thank D. Kirkpatrick for his reduction of the HPMS 2MASS data. We also thank N. Zacharias, S. Levine, and C. Dahn for useful discussions. This research was performed in part by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The results presented in this paper are based in part on data obtained using the NASA-JPL camera at the Oschin Telescope, Palomar Observatory, California Institute of Technology. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. SkyMorph is funded by NASA’s Applied Information Systems Program.


text:
# Quantum teleportation using three-particle entanglement

## Abstract

We investigate the teleportation of a quantum state using a three-particle entangled W state. We compare and contrast our results with those in Ref.Karlsson  where a three-particle entangled GHZ state was used. The effects of white noise on the average teleportation fidelities are also studied.

The linearity of quantum mechanics allows building of superposition states of composite system that cannot be written as products of states of each subsystem. Such states are called entangled. States which are not entangled are referred to as separable states. An entangled composite system gives rise to nonlocal correlation between its subsystems that does not exist classically. This nonlocal property enables the uses of local quantum operations and classical communication to transmit information with advantages no classical communication protocol can offer. The understanding of entanglement is thus at the very heart of quantum information theory Nielsen . In recent years, three-particle entangled states have been investigated by a number of authors Vidal ; Dur ; Acin ; Andrianov ; Rajagopal . They have also been shown to have advantages over the two-particle Bell states in their application to dense coding Wiesner ; Hao , teleportation Bennett ; Karlsson , and cloning Buzek ; Ekert .

In Refs. Vidal ; Dur , Dur et al. pointed out that the three-particle entangled GHZ state Greenberger , while maximally entangled, is not robust in that if one of the three particles is traced out, the remaining two-particle system is not entangled as measured by several criteria. On the other hand, another three-particle entangled W state Zeilinger , which is inequivalent to the GHZ state under stochastic local operations and classical communication, is robust in that it remains entangled even after any one of the three particles is traced out. More recently, Sen et al. Dagomir  showed that $`N`$-particle entangled W states, for $`N>10`$, lead to more “robust” (against white noise admixture) violations of local realism, than $`N`$-particle entangled GHZ states. The GHZ and W states thus exhibit very different properties when subjected to physical processes like state loss, or white noise. In Ref.Karlsson , A. Karlsson and M. Bourennane demonstrated teleportation of a quantum state using three-particle GHZ state. In this paper, we review the Karlsson-Bourennane quantum teleportation scheme Karlsson , recasting it in the language of density operators and quantum operations. We then study the consequences of replacing the three-particle GHZ state in their scheme with a three-particle W state. Finally, we investigate how the presence of white noise affects the teleportation capability of the three-particle GHZ and W states. We conclude with some remarks on future research.

We begin with a review of the quantum teleportation protocol $`P_0`$ of A. Karlsson and M. Bourennane Karlsson . It involves a sender, Alice, an accomplice, Cindy, and a receiver, Bob. Alice is in possession of two two-level quantum systems, the input system 1, and another system 2 maximally entangled with both a third two-level system 3 in Cindy’s possession, and a fourth two-level target system 4 in Bob’s possession (i.e. a three-particle entangled GHZ state). Initially the composite system 1234 is prepared in a state with density operator

$$\sigma _{1234}^{total}=\pi _1\chi _{234}^{GHZ}$$

where

$$\pi _1=|\psi _1\psi |,|\psi _1=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|0_1+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|1_1,$$
(1)
$`0\theta \pi ,0\varphi 2\pi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles respectively, and

$$\chi _{234}^{GHZ}=|GHZ_{234}GHZ|,|GHZ_{234}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000_{234}+|111_{234}).$$
(2)
Here, we use $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ to denote an orthonormal set of basis states for each two-level system. To teleport the input state $`\pi _1`$ to Bob’s target system 4, Alice performs a joint Bell basis measurement on systems 1 and 2, described by operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^jI_{34}`$, $`I_{34}`$ is the identity operator on the composite subsystem 34, $`j`$ labels the outcome of the measurement,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^1=|\mathrm{\Phi }^+_{12}\mathrm{\Phi }^+|,\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^2=|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_{12}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|,\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^3=|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{12}\mathrm{\Psi }^+|,\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^4=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{12}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|,$$
(3)
where

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm _{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00_{12}\pm |11_{12}),$$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm _{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01_{12}\pm |10_{12})$$

are the Bell states. If Alice’s measurement has outcome $`j`$, she broadcasts Explanation1  her measurement result (two-bit) to Cindy and Bob via a classical channel. The joint state of Cindy’s system 3 and Bob’s target system 4 conditioned on Alice’s measurement result $`j`$ is given by

$$\rho _{34}^j=\frac{1}{p_j}\mathrm{tr}_{12}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^jI_{34})(\pi _1\chi _{234}^{GHZ})],$$
(4)
where

$$p_j=\mathrm{tr}_{1234}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^jI_{34})(\pi _1\chi _{234}^{GHZ})].$$
(5)
Substituting Eq.(1) to Eq.(3) into Eq.(5) yields $`p_1=p_2=p_3=p_4=\frac{1}{4}`$. Next, Cindy performs a von Neumann measurement on system 3, described by operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^kI_4`$, $`I_4`$ is the identity operator on subsystem 4, $`k`$ labels the outcome of the measurement,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_3^1=|\mu ^+_3\mu ^+|,\mathrm{\Pi }_3^2=|\mu ^{}_3\mu ^{}|,$$

$$|\mu ^+_3=\mathrm{sin}\nu |0_3+\mathrm{cos}\nu |1_3,$$

$$|\mu ^{}_3=\mathrm{cos}\nu |0_3\mathrm{sin}\nu |1_3,$$
(6)
$`0\nu \frac{\pi }{2}`$. If Cindy’s measurement has outcome $`k`$, she communicates her measurement result (one-bit) to Bob via a classical channel. The state of Bob’s target system 4 conditioned on Cindy’s measurement result $`k`$ is given by

$$\rho _4^{jk}=\frac{1}{q_{jk}}\mathrm{tr}_3[(\mathrm{\Pi }_3^kI_4)\rho _{34}^j]$$
(7)
where

$$q_{jk}=\mathrm{tr}_{34}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_3^kI_4)\rho _{34}^j].$$
(8)
Substituting results from Eq.(4) and Eq.(6) into Eq.(8), we obtain

$$q_{11}=q_{21}=q_{32}=q_{42}=\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\nu ,$$

$$q_{12}=q_{22}=q_{31}=q_{41}=\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\nu .$$
(9)
For Bob to successfully complete the teleportation protocol, he performs a $`j`$\- and $`k`$-dependent unitary operation $`U_4^{jk}`$ on system 4 (see Table I) such that

$$\tau _4^{jk}=U_4^{jk}\rho _4^{jk}U_4^{jk},$$
(10)
where $`U^{jk}`$ could either be the identity matrix or one of the Pauli matrices:

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

The success of the teleportation scheme can be measured by the fidelity Jozsa  between the input state $`\pi _{in}`$ and the output state $`\tau _{out}^{jk}`$, averaged over all possible Alice’s and Cindy’s measurement outcomes, $`j`$ and $`k`$ respectively, and over an isotropic distribution of input states $`\pi _{in}`$:

$$F=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^\pi _0^{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_j\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}q_{jk}F^{jk}$$
(11)
where

$$F^{jk}\mathrm{tr}(\tau _{out}^{jk}\pi _{in}).$$
(12)
It follows from Eq.(1) and results from Eq.(10) that

$$F^{11}=F^{21}=F^{32}=F^{42}=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\nu +\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\nu )^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\nu },$$

$$F^{12}=F^{22}=F^{31}=F^{41}=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\nu +\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\nu )^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\nu }.$$
(13)
Substituting results from Eq.(5), Eq.(9) and Eq.(13) into Eq.(11) gives

$$F=\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}2\nu .$$
(14)
The average teleportation fidelity $`F`$ is thus dependent on Cindy’s von Neumann measurement on system 3, specified by $`\nu `$. When $`\nu =\frac{\pi }{4}`$, $`F^{jk}=1`$ for all $`j`$ and $`k`$, and we have $`F=1`$.

Now, we again consider the quantum teleportation protocol $`P_0`$ of A. Karlsson and M. Bourennane Karlsson , but instead of Alice, Cindy and Bob sharing a three-particle entangled GHZ state, they share a three-particle entangled W state. That is, the initial composite system 1234 is prepared in a state with density operator

$$\sigma _{1234}^{total}=\pi _1\chi _{234}^W$$

where

$$\chi _{234}^W=|W_{234}W|,|W_{234}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|001_{234}+|010_{234}+|100_{234}).$$
(15)
Consequently, the joint state of Cindy’s system 3 and Bob’s target system 4 conditioned on Alice’s measurement result $`j`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{34}^j=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}_j}\mathrm{tr}_{12}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^jI_3)(\pi _1\chi _{234}^W)],$$
(16)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_j=\mathrm{tr}_{1234}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^jI_3)(\pi _1\chi _{234}^W)].$$
(17)
Substituting Eq.(1), Eq.(3) and Eq.(15) into Eq.(17) yields

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_1=\stackrel{~}{p}_2=\frac{1}{6}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_3=\stackrel{~}{p}_4=\frac{1}{6}(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}).$$
(18)
And, the state of Bob’s target system 4 conditioned on Cindy’s measurement result $`k`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_4^{jk}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}_{jk}}\mathrm{tr}_3[(\mathrm{\Pi }_3^kI_4)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{34}^j]$$
(19)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{jk}=\mathrm{tr}_{34}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_3^kI_4)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{34}^j].$$
(20)
Substituting Eq.(6) and results from Eq.(16) into Eq.(20) yields

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{11}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{12}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{21}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{22}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{31}=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{32}=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{41}=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{42}=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }{2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})}.$$
(21)
Bob then performs a $`j`$\- and $`k`$\- dependent unitary operation $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{jk}`$ on system 4 (see Table II) such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }_4^{jk}=\stackrel{~}{U}_4^{jk}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_4^{jk}\stackrel{~}{U}_4^{jk}.$$
(22)
The fidelity Jozsa  between the input state $`\pi _{in}`$ and the output state $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{out}^{jk}`$, averaged over all possible Alice’s and Cindy’s measurement outcomes, $`j`$ and $`k`$ respectively, and over an isotropic distribution of input states $`\pi _{in}`$ is therefore

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^\pi _0^{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\stackrel{~}{p}_j\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\stackrel{~}{q}_{jk}\stackrel{~}{F}^{jk}$$
(23)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{jk}\mathrm{tr}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{out}^{jk}\pi _{in}).$$
(24)
It follows from Eq.(1) and results from Eq.(22) that

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{11}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +2\mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{12}=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{21}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +2\mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{22}=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{31}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +2\mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{32}=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{41}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +2\mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{42}=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\nu }{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}2\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\nu }.$$
(25)
Substituting Eq.(18), Eq.(21) and Eq.(25) into Eq.(23) gives

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^\pi _0^{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi \frac{2}{3}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})=\frac{7}{9}>\frac{2}{3},$$
(26)
which is better than any classical communication protocol Bennett ; Popescu ; Horodecki . The average teleportation fidelity $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is therefore, in contrast to Eq.(14), independent of Cindy’s von Neumann measurement on system 3. This is consistent with Table II, where we observe that Bob’s necessary unitary operation $`\stackrel{~}{U}_4^{jk}`$ on system 4 depends only on Alice’s measurement result $`j`$. In fact, the same average teleportation fidelity can be obtained for both outputs at target systems 3 and 4, in a different teleportation protocol $`P_1`$, where Cindy plays the same receiver role as Bob:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_s=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^\pi _0^{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\stackrel{~}{p}_j\stackrel{~}{F}_s^j$$
(27)
where $`s=3`$ or 4, and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_j`$ are as given in Eq.(18),

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_s^j\mathrm{tr}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{out}^{j(s)}\pi _{in}),\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{j(s)}=\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{U}^j(\mathrm{tr}_4\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{34}^j)\stackrel{~}{U}^j\mathrm{if}s=3,\\ \stackrel{~}{U}^j(\mathrm{tr}_3\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{34}^j)\stackrel{~}{U}^j\mathrm{if}s=4\end{array}$$
(28)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{34}^j`$ given by Eq.(16), and $`\stackrel{~}{U}^j`$ as in Table III. Substituting Eq.(1) and results from Eq.(16) into Eq.(28) yields

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_3^1=\stackrel{~}{F}_4^1=\stackrel{~}{F}_3^2=\stackrel{~}{F}_4^2=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_3^3=\stackrel{~}{F}_4^3=\stackrel{~}{F}_3^4=\stackrel{~}{F}_4^4=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}.$$
(29)
It therefore follows from Eq.(18) and Eq.(29) that

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_3=\stackrel{~}{F}_4=\frac{7}{9}.$$
(30)
This is in contrast to the average teleportation fidelity of $`P_1`$ using a three-particle entangled GHZ state instead Karlsson , where

$$F_3=F_4=\frac{2}{3}.$$

However, we have to point out that generalizing the new protocol $`P_1`$ to one involving an $`N`$-particle entangled W state:

$$\chi _{2\mathrm{}N+1}^W=|W_{2\mathrm{}N+1}W|,$$

$$|W_{2\mathrm{}N+1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(|0\mathrm{}01_{2\mathrm{}N+1}+|0\mathrm{}010_{2\mathrm{}N+1}+\mathrm{}+|10\mathrm{}0_{2\mathrm{}N+1})$$
(31)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{j(s)}=\stackrel{~}{U}^j(\mathrm{tr}_{3\mathrm{}s1\widehat{s}s+1\mathrm{}N+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{3\mathrm{}N+1}^j)\stackrel{~}{U}^j,s=3,\mathrm{},N+1,$$
(32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}^j`$ are as given in Table III,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{3\mathrm{}N+1}^j=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}_j}\mathrm{tr}_{12}[(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^jI_{3\mathrm{}N+1})(\pi _1\chi _{23\mathrm{}N+1}^W)],$$

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_1=\stackrel{~}{p}_2=\frac{1}{2N}[1+(N2)\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}],$$

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_3=\stackrel{~}{p}_4=\frac{1}{2N}[1+(N2)\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}],$$
(33)
which give via Eq.(28),

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_s^1=\stackrel{~}{F}_s^2=\frac{1+(N2)\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}{1+(N2)\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_s^3=\stackrel{~}{F}_s^4=\frac{1+(N2)\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}{1+(N2)\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}$$
(34)
and therefore,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_s=\frac{N+4}{3N}.$$
(35)
It is clear from Eq.(35) that $`\stackrel{~}{F}_s\frac{2}{3}`$ for $`N4`$. This is consistent with the picture that in such a scheme as $`P_1`$, the information encoded in $`\pi _{in}`$ is evenly distributed among the receivers, and is “spread even thinner” with an increasing number of such receivers. Naturally, we would expect the average teleportation fidelity to deteriorate, in agreement with the no-cloning theorem Zurek . So, if one wishes to have an output state with an average fidelity greater than $`\frac{2}{3}`$, one would have to modify $`P_1`$ such that it involves less number of receivers. Therefore, measurement of the sort in $`P_0`$ is necessary Illustration . As a matter of fact, Cindy’s measurement in $`P_0`$ does allow Bob to obtain a perfect copy of the input state, albeit only probabilistically. For instance, when Alice’s measurement result is $`j=1`$, Cindy could perform a von Neumann measurement on system 3 with $`\nu =\frac{\pi }{2}`$, then with probability, Eq.(21),

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{11}=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}$$

Bob could receive a perfect copy with $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{11}=1`$.

Finally, we study the effects on the average fidelity of the Karlsson-Bourennane teleportation protocol $`P_0`$ Karlsson  due to the presence of white noise. We want to compare the effect on the three-particle GHZ state with that on the three-particle W state. To this end, we consider

$$\widehat{\chi }_{234}^{GHZ}=w\chi _{234}^{GHZ}+(1w)\frac{1}{8}I_{234},$$
(36)
and

$$\widehat{\chi }_{234}^W=w\chi _{234}^W+(1w)\frac{1}{8}I_{234},$$
(37)
where $`0w1`$ is called visibility in Ref.Dagomir . It defines to what extent the quantum processes associated with $`\chi _{234}^{GHZ}`$ $`(\chi _{234}^W)`$ are visible in those given by $`\widehat{\chi }_{234}^{GHZ}`$ $`(\widehat{\chi }_{234}^W)`$. If $`w=0`$, no trace is left of these $`\chi _{234}^{GHZ}`$ $`(\chi _{234}^W)`$ generated processes, and if $`w=1`$, we have the full visibility, not affected by any noise. Relpacing $`\chi _{234}^{GHZ}`$ in Eq.(4) and $`\chi _{234}^W`$ in Eq.(16) with Eq.(36) and Eq.(37) respectively, and going through essentially the same calculations, we obtain for the three-particle GHZ state,

$$F=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1+2\mathrm{sin}2\nu }{6}\frac{1+2\mathrm{sin}2\nu }{6}(1w),$$
(38)
and for the three-particle W state,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{7}{9}\frac{5}{18}(1w).$$
(39)
Once again, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is independent of Cindy’s measurement on system 3, and it decreases at a constant rate with resepct to $`(1w)`$. More interestingly, the rate of decrease of $`F`$ with respect to $`(1w)`$ depends on Cindy’s measurement on system 3, specified by $`\nu `$. $`F`$ decreases at a higher rate when Cindy’s measurement yields a higher $`F`$.

In conclusion, we recast the teleportation scheme $`P_0`$ of A. Karlsson and M. Bourennane Karlsson  in the language of density operators and quantum operations. This allows us to investigate the consequences of replacing the three-particle GHZ state in their original scheme with a three-particle W state. We compare and contrast our results with theirs. We are also able to study the effects of white noise on the average teleportation fidelity. However, it is not clear if $`P_0`$ (or $`P_1`$) is optimal, i.e., if there exist more general completely positive maps rather than the unitary operators $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{jk}`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{U}^j`$), which could yield a higher average teleportation fidelity. It would also be interesting to see how the average fidelities would change when the GHZ and W states are being subjected to other types of noise.

The author thanks Yuri Suhov and Andrew Skeen for useful discussions. This publication is an output from project activity funded by The Cambridge MIT Institute Limited (“CMI”). CMI is funded in part by the United Kingdom Government. The activity was carried out for CMI by the University of Cambridge and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. CMI can accept no responsibility for any information provided or views expressed.


text:
# Excitonic instability in two-dimensional degenerate semimetals

## Abstract

We study the possibility of excitonic pairing in layered degenerate semimetals such as graphite, where the electron density of states almost vanishes at the Fermi level and, therefore, the Coulomb interactions remain essentially unscreened. By focusing on the Dirac-like low-energy electron excitations and numerically solving a non-linear gap equation for the order parameter, we obtain a critical value of the Coulomb coupling and establish the Kosterlitz-Thouless-like nature of a putative semimetal-to-excitonic insulator transition.

In layered graphite, a poor screening of the Coulomb interaction sets the stage for a novel form of excitonic instability resulting in the opening of a gap in the quasi-two-dimensional electronic spectrum and manifesting itself through the onset of an insulating charge density wave .

It was also argued in Ref. that the pseudo-relativistic kinematics of the Dirac-like electronic excitations in a single sheet of graphite allows one to draw a formal parallel with the phenomenon of chiral symmetry breaking (CSB) that has long been studied in the context of the three-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics ($`QED_{2+1}`$) and other relativistic fermion theories.

In the case of $`QED_{2+1}`$, a zero temperature CSB transition was predicted to occur for a sufficiently small ($`N<N_c`$) number of fermion species, regardless of the interaction strength , while the short-ranged Higgs-Yukawa (HY) four-fermion interactions can drive this transition for any $`N`$, provided that the HY coupling is strong enough .

The CSB scenario has recently become a common theme of several $`QED_{2+1}`$-like descriptions of the pseudogap phase in underdoped cuprates . In this regard, some authors  cited the original estimates of the critical number of fermions $`N_c^{(0)}3.24`$  to support the conjecture that the inherent spin density wave instability of the $`d`$-wave symmetrical pseudogap state can be readily described by the conventional $`QED_{2+1}`$ theory with $`N=2`$ species of the Dirac-like nodal quasiparticles.

However, the mounting analytical  and numerical  evidence indicating that in the conventional $`QED_{2+1}`$ the actual critical number of flavors $`N_c`$ may be less than two seems to suggest otherwise and calls for a need to further modify the minimal $`QED_{2+1}`$ theory of the pseudogap phase (possibly, beyond recognition).

The implications of the results of Refs. made other groups  emphasize a potential importance of additional four-fermion couplings and/or anisotropic quasiparticle dispersion (in high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, the quasiparticle velocity is strongly dependent on the direction, $`v_1/v_21020`$), whose systematic account has yet to be done. It has been recently argued, however, that $`N_c`$ may not be affected by the dispersion anisotropy at all , thus implying that the four-fermion couplings (which are absent in the conventional $`QED_{2+1}`$) may indeed play a crucial role in the theory of the pseudogap-to-antiferromagnet transition in underdoped cuprates.

In the problem of the conjectured excitonic instability in graphite, the non-relativistic nature of the Coulomb interaction further invalidates any naive attempts to make use of the results pertaining solely to the relativistically invariant systems. Nevertheless, the earlier work on the subject has already provided for some analytical evidence that the excitonic transition may indeed occur for a sufficiently strong Coulomb coupling .

It was also predicted  that a magnetic field normal to the layers might further facilitate the formation of excitonic insulator, which would then be reminiscent of the phenomenon of magnetic catalysis introduced in the abstract field-theoretical setting . This scenario was discussed  in connection with the recent reports of a magnetic field-induced insulating behavior in highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) .

In the present paper, we numerically solve the gap equation for the excitonic order parameter derived in Refs., thus putting to the test some of the predictions made in the earlier analytical work on the subject.

We start out by reviewing the derivation of the gap equation. In the vicinity of the two (in the absence of a lattice strain, exactly degenerate and labeled as $`i=1,2`$) conical $`K`$-points of the 2D Brillouin zone of graphite, the low-energy excitations of the valence and the conduction bands with a linear dispersion $`E_k=\pm v_Fk`$ where $`v_F2\times 10^6m/s`$ can be described as two-component (Weyl) spinors $`\psi _{i\sigma }`$, of which there are $`N`$ different species with the spin index $`\sigma =1,\mathrm{},N`$ .

Provided that the Zeeman coupling to an external magnetic field is much weaker than the orbital (diamagnetic) term, the number of fermion species in graphite is $`N=2`$, and the dimensionless Coulomb coupling $`g=2\pi e^2/ϵv_F`$ with the dielectric constant $`ϵ2.8`$ appears to be the only relevant parameter.

However, in a strong in-plane field, the Zeeman splitting between the spin-up and spin-down bands, while having no effect on the electron orbital motion, reduces the number of fermions down to $`N=1`$, which prompts one to treat $`N`$ as yet another (to a certain extent) adjustable parameter.

The pair of spinors $`\psi _{i\sigma }`$ can be further combined into a single bi-spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma =(\psi _{1\sigma },\psi _{2\sigma })`$, thereby allowing one to use the Dirac-like representation for a kinetic energy of the two-dimensional electrons in a single layer of graphite

$$H_K=iv_F\underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{N}{}}_𝐫\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (\widehat{\gamma }_1_x+\widehat{\gamma }_2_y)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma $$
(1)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma =\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0`$ and the $`4\times 4`$ (reducible) representation of the $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\widehat{\gamma }_{0,1,2}=(\tau _3,i\tau _2,i\tau _1)\tau _3`$ satisfying the anticommutation relations $`\{\widehat{\gamma }_\mu ,\widehat{\gamma }_\nu \}=2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{g}(1,1,1)`$ is constructed in terms of the Pauli triplet $`\tau _{1,2,3}`$.

Accordingly, the Coulomb interaction term in the Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H_C=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (𝐫)\widehat{\gamma }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (𝐫)\frac{g}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\gamma }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})$$
(2)
Both Eqs.(1) and (2) remain invariant under arbitrary $`U(2N)`$ rotations of the $`2N`$-component vector $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\sigma },\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\sigma })`$ composed of the chiral $`(L,R)`$ parts of the Dirac fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ defined as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(L,R)\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}\pm \widehat{\gamma }_5)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ where the matrix $`\widehat{\gamma }_5=\mathrm{𝟏}\tau _2`$ anticommutes with any $`\widehat{\gamma }_\mu `$.

In the relativistic theories of Refs., the standard CSB pattern $`U(2N)U(N)U(N)`$ is signaled by the development of a singlet order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(𝐫)=<_\sigma ^N\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (𝐫)>`$, which is the type of excitonic pairing that we focus upon below.

The standard Dyson-Schwinger equation for the Dirac propagator reads (hereafter $`p_\mu =(ϵ,𝐩)`$)

$`\widehat{G}^1(\omega ,𝐩)=\widehat{G}_0^1(\omega ,𝐩)`$ (3)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}V(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega ,𝐤𝐩)\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐤)\widehat{\gamma }_0}`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{G}_0(\omega ,𝐩)=\widehat{\gamma }_\mu p_\mu /p^2`$ is the bare propagator of the gapless Dirac fermions and the renormalized Coulomb interaction

$$V(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)=\frac{g}{𝐪+Ng\chi (\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)}$$
(5)
is modified, as compared to its bare form, by to the fermion polarization $`\chi (\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)`$.

Being primarily concerned with the possibility of a spontaneous gapping of the conical spectrum, we search for a solution to Eq.(4) in the form $`\widehat{G}(p)=(\widehat{\gamma }_\mu p_\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }(p))^1`$, while neglecting both the vertex and the fermion wave function renormalization. On the basis of the experience gained from the relativistic theories , one might expect that, albeit being capable of affecting such practically important details as the value of the critical coupling $`g_c(N)`$, the latter do not alter the very existence of a solution (or a lack thereof).

Proceeding along the lines of the previous numerical analyses of the finite temperature version of $`QED_{2+1}`$ , below we focus on the momentum dependence of the static $`(\omega =0)`$ component of the order parameter. To this end, we neglect all but the $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ harmonics of the effective interaction (4) which, as shown in Refs., suffices for determining the critical conditions for the emergent CSB order. In the case of interest, this static approximation appears to be even better justified, since the Lorentz invariance is broken already at zero temperature.

The static component of the finite-temperature fermion polarization can, in turn, be approximated by the expression

$$\chi (0,𝐪)=\frac{1}{8}\left(\left|𝐪\right|+\frac{T}{C}\mathrm{exp}\left(C\frac{\left|𝐪\right|}{T}\right)\right).$$
(6)
which, for $`C=\pi /16\mathrm{ln}2`$, provides an up to a few percent accurate interpolation between the two opposite limits: $`v_F𝐪T`$ where Eq.(6) agrees with the zero-temperature result, $`\chi (0,𝐪)|𝐪|`$, and $`v_F𝐪T`$ where it accounts for thermal screening, $`\chi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})T`$ .

Taking the sum over the Matsubara frequencies in Eq.(3), we then arrive at the gap equation derived in Refs. (hereafter we use the units $`v=\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)=\frac{d^2𝐤}{8\pi ^2}V(0,𝐤𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)\frac{\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\sqrt{𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)^2}}{2T}}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)^2}}$$
(7)
This form of the gap equation is more familiar in condensed matter-related applications where the gap is routinely considered to be a function of momentum but not energy, consistent with our use of the static approximation.

In fact, even a partial account of the momentum and/or energy dependence of the gap function goes well beyond the customary BCS-like (constant) solution for the gap. In the case of short-ranged repulsive interactions, a BCS-like solution of the analog of Eq.(6) was recently discussed in conjunction with the conjectured excitonic instability in hexaborides . By contrast, in a degenerate semimetal such as graphite the strong momentum dependence of the unscreened Coulomb interaction rules out a constant solution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BCS}(𝐩)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$) altogether.

In Fig.1, we present the results of our numerical solution to Eq.(7) for $`N=1`$ and several different temperatures. As a function of momentum, the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)`$ levels off at $`𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$, in accord with the approximate analytical solution of Refs. where Eq.(7) was substituted with a differential equation complemented by the boundary conditions $`d\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)/d𝐩|_{𝐩=0}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)+𝐩d\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)/d𝐩|_{𝐩=\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the upper momentum cutoff given by the maximum span of the Brillouin zone.

The functional dependence of the solution for $`N=2`$ is similar to the $`N=1`$ case, apart from the overall suppression by roughly two orders of magnitude (see Fig.2).

In the strong coupling zero-temperature ($`g\mathrm{}`$ and $`T0`$) limit, the $`N`$-dependence of the zero-momentum gap shown in Fig.3 can be well fitted with the formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=1.2v_F\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(1.7\pi /\sqrt{N_c^{\mathrm{}}/N1}\right)$$
(8)
which manifests the Kosterlitz-Thouless nature of the excitonic transition that occurs at $`T=0`$ and $`N_c^{\mathrm{}}N_c(g=\mathrm{})2.6`$, in agreement with the predictions made in Refs..

In Fig.4, we present the $`N`$-dependence of the critical coupling $`g_c(N)`$. For $`N=2`$, our numerical result $`g_c(N=2)7`$ differs by a factor of two from that obtained analytically in Ref., although the agreement improves for smaller $`N`$.

Notably, the relevant values of $`g_c`$ are rather large, which indicates that any weak-coupling approach would be utterly inadequate for the problem in question.

Even with the possible caveat that the gap equation tends to systematically underestimate the critical strength of the repulsive interactions , the above values compare favorably with the estimates $`g510`$ obtained for the HOPG samples of Ref..

For any $`N`$, the zero-momentum gap attains its maximum value $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)10^4v_F\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`g\mathrm{}`$. Using the parameters of the HOPG band structure, we estimate the maximal possible gap at $`N=2`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)30K`$, which turns out to be small compared to the typical Fermi energy $`E_F250K`$ in HOPG . The latter characterizes the actual (as opposed to the idealized point-like) Fermi surface of graphite which represents a combined effect of inter-layer hopping, finite doping, and/or disorder.

At this point, it remains unknown to what extent the above factors can modify Eq.(6) derived for a clean two-dimensional sheet of undoped graphite. On the other hand, in a layered system the propensity towards excitonic pairing is further strengthened by the inter-layer Coulomb repulsion, which, considering the fact that $`g>1`$, might be even more important than the finite $`E_F`$ .

To this end, it is worth mentioning that the singlet excitonic order parameter is directly related to the electron density imbalance between the $`A`$ and $`B`$ sublattices of the bi-partite hexagonal lattice: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(𝐩=\mathrm{𝟎},𝐫)=_{\sigma =1,2}<\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (𝐫)>=_{i\sigma =1,2}(\delta _{𝐫,A}<\psi _{i\sigma }^{}(A)\psi _{i\sigma }(A)>\delta _{𝐫,B}<\psi _{i\sigma }^{}(B)\psi _{i\sigma }(B)>)`$.

In a multi-layer system stacked in the staggered ($`AB`$) configuration, the inter-layer Coulomb repulsion favors spontaneous depletion (respectively, pile-up) of the electron density on a sublattice formed by the carbon atoms above and below the centers (respectively, corners) of the hexagons in adjacent layers. The resulting commensurate charge density wave alternates between the layers, thereby keeping the electrons in the adjacent layers as far apart as possible and nudging the system closer to the excitonic instability.

In order to decide on the ultimate outcome of the competition between the frustrating effect of the extended Fermi surface and the strong (yet, non-singular, unlike Eq.(2)) inter-layer Coulomb repulsion, the present analysis has to be further refined by incorporating the above factors through, e.g., a non-linear fermion dispersion and effective four-fermion terms .

Although, thus far, we were only interested in the possibility of singlet pairing, for $`N=2`$ and in the leading Coulomb approximation (small transferred momenta) the formation of a triplet order parameter appears to be just as likely. In fact, similar to the case of the short-ranged repulsion discussed in Refs., the excitonic ground state possesses a degeneracy with respect to arbitrary $`SU(4)`$ rotations of the four-dimensional complex vector composed of the singlet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ and the triplet $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_t=_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=1,2}<\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma \stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}>`$ order parameters.

This approximate degeneracy gets lifted upon including the (so far, neglected) short-ranged Coulomb exchange interactions which cause transitions between the conduction and valence bands . Alongside the Zeeman coupling, the latter favor the triplet order parameter, thus enforcing the Hund’s rule.

It is also conceivable that, with increasing doping, the triplet excitonic insulator can give way to an itinerant ferromagnetic metal. The interest in this scenario which had been previously discussed only in the case of the three-dimensional non-degenerate semimetals was bolstered by the discovery of a weak ($`0.07\mu _B`$ per carrier), yet robust ($`T_c6001000K`$), ferromagnetism in hexaborides .

However, more recent experimental studies of hexaborides  have indicated the presence of a large spectral gap which seems to rule out the excitonic mechanism, thus putting graphite in a rather unique position of the best currently known candidate for excitonic ferromagnet. This possibility appears to be particularly intriguing in the light of the reports of a comparably weak ($`0.1\mu _B`$ per carrier) magnetization observed in HOPG samples at room temperatures .

The conditions for the emergence of excitonic ferromagnetism and the putative global phase diagram of graphite will be discussed at a greater length in our future work .

To summarize, in the present paper we obtained a numerical solution to the gap equation describing the conjectured excitonic transition in two-dimensional semimetals such as graphite. From our solution, we inferred the minimal necessary strength of the Coulomb coupling $`g_c`$ and the largest possible number of fermion species $`N_c^{\mathrm{}}`$ for which this Kosterlitz-Thouless-type transition may occur at zero temperature. Although this analysis was carried out for a single undoped layer, we believe that our predictions for the existence of a critical Coulomb coupling, momentum dependence of the gap function, and the nature of the excitonic transition should remain robust upon including further complicating factors such as inter-layer coupling, doping, and disorder.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the North Carolina Supercomputing Center for providing access to their computing facilities. This research was supported by the NSF under Grant DMR-0071362.