text:
# Tunneling into 1D and quasi-1D conductors and Luttinger-liquid behavior

## 1 Introduction

One-dimensional and quasi-one-dimensional electron systems are attracting attention of theorists and experimentalists many years. From theorists’ point of view they are interesting since in a number of cases one can obtain exact solutions for them taking into account many-body interactions without using the perturbation theory. Theoretically it has been well established that in a 1D elctron gas with arbitrarily weak interaction Landau’s Fermi liquid (FL) theory breaks down, and the system is expected to behave as a Luttinger liquid (LL). The most important feature of the Luttinger liquid, in contrast to FL, is an absence of the fermion quasiparticle branch at low energies: excited states of the system must be described by the boson excitations which correspond to many-body electron states with a huge number of the electron-hole pairs (see, e.g., a recent review  and references therein). This should have a pronounced effect on the tunneling into a LL conductor: the $`IV`$ curve of a tunnel junction between a normal FL and a LL conductor is expected to be non-ohmic described by a power law with an exponent depending on interaction strength.

Experimental evidences for LL behavior have been reported in quantum wires , and single walled  and multiwalled  carbon nanotubes. However, it is not completely clear, to what extent these experimental evidences may be considered as an unambiguous proof of the LL behavior. Measurements of $`IV`$ curves for single walled  and multiwalled  carbon nanotubes have revealed a deviation from the LL behavior at high voltages. In Ref.  they observed a crossover from a non-ohmic $`IV`$ curve to Ohm’s law with a Coulomb-blockade offset determined by the capacitance of the junction between a 3D metallic lead and a nanotube. This crossover is predicted by the theory of the Coulomb blockade in a junction between normal FL conductors . A crucial role in this theory belongs to the environment effect, which depends on the ratio of the real part of the circuit impedance to the quantum resistance $`R_K=h/e^226`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The environment effect originates from the Nyquist-Johnson noise in an electric circuit. The noise results in fluctuations of the phase at the junction, which can suppress the Coulomb blockade. Further we call this approach the environment quantum fluctuation (EQF) theory.

The existing LL theory for tunneling takes into account accurately the Coulomb interaction inside the LL liquid conductor, but ignores the Coulomb energy of the junction charge, which is defined by the junction capacitance $`C_T`$. The fact that the junction Coulomb energy $`e^2/C_T`$ important not only at low voltages, as widely known , but also at high voltages, means that the high-voltage part of the tunnel-junction $`IV`$ is a bad probe of bulk properties of nanotubes, and one should look for evidences of LL behavior mostly at intermediate voltages characterized by the power-law $`IV`$ curve. However, both EQF and LL pictures predict a power-law dependence, and a serious problem arises, how, and whether it is possible at all, to discriminate these two pictures. This is the problem that the present paper addresses.

Section 2 reminds the basic ideas of the EQF theory and defines the power-law exponents for the tunnel conductance and the function $`P(E)`$, which determines a probability of the transfer of the energy $`E`$ to the environment. In Sec. 3 the results of the LL theory are discussed and compared with predictions of the EQF theory for an one-channel 1D conductor with spinless electrons. Section 4 considers the same questions, but for a quasi-1D conductor with many channels. The results of the analysis are summarized in the concluding Sec. 5.

## 2 The Coulomb blockade and the environment quantum fluctuation (EQF) theory

We restrict our discussions by zero temperature. The standard tunneling theory based on the tunneling hamiltonian and the quantum-mechanical Golden Rule gives the following expression for the current through the junction:

$$I=\frac{1}{eR_T}_0^{eV}𝑑E_1_0^{eV}\rho (E_2)𝑑E_2\delta (E_1E_2).$$
(1)
Here $`\rho (E)`$ is the relative density of the state for the right conductor normalized to the constant DOS of the normal Fermi-liquid, the latter being included into the definition of the junction conductance $`1/R_T`$. The left conductor is supposed to be always a FL conductor and the relative DOS for him is unity. If the right conductor is also a FL conductor then $`\rho (E)=1`$, and the $`IV`$ curve is exactly ohmic.

The EQF theory  assunes that both conductors, which form a junction, are 3D FL conductors, i.e., $`\rho (E)=1`$, but takes into account fluctuations in the electric circuit (the Nyquist-Johnson noise). This results in the fluctuation of the phase of the tunnelling hamiltonian. Therefore the delta-function in Eq. (1) should be replaced by the function which is a Fourier transform of the phase correlator:

$$P(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{iEt/\mathrm{}}e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t)}e^{i\widehat{\phi }(0)},$$
(2)
and Eq. (1) becomes

$$I=\frac{1}{eR_T}_0^{eV}𝑑E_1_0^{eV}𝑑E_2P(E_1E_2)=\frac{1}{eR_T}_0^{eV}𝑑E(eVE)P(E).$$
(3)
The phase $`\phi `$ is connected with the voltage $`V`$ across the junction by the Josephson relation

$$\mathrm{}\frac{d\phi }{dt}=eV.$$
(4)
Since the phase $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is an operator conjugate to the operator of the electron number, the operator $`e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t)}`$ is a creation operator of the electron in the circuit at the moment $`t`$; or, more exactly, since $`\phi `$ is the phase difference across the junction, an operator of the electron annihilation in the left conductor and electron creation in the right conductor. The correlator in Eq. (2) may be presented as

$$e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t)}e^{i\widehat{\phi }(0)}=e^{J(t)},$$
(5)
where at $`T=0`$ the correlator $`J(t)`$ is

$$J(t)=[\widehat{\phi }(t)\widehat{\phi }(0)]\widehat{\phi }(0)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{\text{Re}Z(\omega )}{R_K}\left(e^{i\omega t}1\right).$$
(6)
This relation is a direct consequence of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, which connects the correlator of a “coordinate” with a linear response to a conjugate “force”. A conjugate “force” for the “coordinate” $`\phi `$ is $`\mathrm{}I/e`$, and because of the Josephson relation (4), the imaginary part of the response is proportional to the real part of the impedance $`Z(\omega )=V(\omega )/I(\omega )`$: $`\text{Im}\{e\phi (\omega )/\mathrm{}I(\omega )\}=\text{Re}\{e^2Z(\omega )/\mathrm{}^2\omega \}`$.

The function $`P(E)`$ gives probability of the excitation of the environment mode after the electron tunneling. In the case of low-impedance environment ($`\text{Re}Z/R_K0`$) this probability is neglible and $`P(E)`$ function reduces to the delta-function $`\delta (E)`$. This means that the environment fluctuations eliminate the Coulomb blockade. In the opposite limit of the high-impedance environment ($`\text{Re}Z/R_K\mathrm{}`$) the function $`P(E)`$ becomes $`P(E)=\delta (EE_c)`$, where $`E_c=e^2/2C_T`$ is the Coulomb energy of the junction. The $`IV`$ curve of the junction in this case has a voltage offset $`e/2C_T`$, which is a manifestation of the Coulomb blockade. For finite $`\text{Re}Z/R_K`$ at $`E`$ much smaller than the Coulomb energy, $`P(E)`$ is a power-law function:

$$P(E)\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{E\tau }{\mathrm{}}\right)^{\alpha _E1},$$
(7)
where

$$\alpha _E=\frac{2\text{Re}Z(0)}{R_K},$$
(8)
and $`\tau =\text{Re}Z(0)C_T`$ is the relaxation time in the effective electric circuit.

At zero temperature the probability $`P(E)`$ determines the second derivative of the $`IV`$ curve:

$$\frac{d^2I}{dV^2}=\frac{e}{R_T}P(eV).$$
(9)
Thus the exponent $`\beta _E`$ of the conductance $`dI/dVV^{\beta _E}`$ is equal to $`\alpha _E`$.

In the limit of $`EE_c`$, $`P(E)`$ is a decreasing function of $`E`$ :

$$P(E)=\frac{2}{E}\frac{\text{Re}Z(E/\mathrm{})}{R_K}.$$
(10)
Phase fluctuations at the junction are determined by the impedance of the effective electric circuit, which includes the capacitance of the junction , i.e.

$$\frac{1}{Z(\omega )}=i\omega C_T+\frac{1}{Z_0(\omega )},$$
(11)
where $`Z_0(\omega )`$ is the impedance of the circuit connected to the junction. For a pure ohmic environment, $`Z_0=R`$, the exponent $`\alpha _E=2R/R_K`$ determines also the $`IV`$ curve and high voltages $`Ve/C_T,\mathrm{}/e\tau `$. High voltages probe the high-frequency impedance $`Z(\omega )`$. At the relevant high frequency $`\omega =eV/\mathrm{}`$, the junction capacitance $`C_T`$ short circuits the impedance, and the $`IV`$ curve is obtained using Eqs. (3), (10), and (11):

$$I\frac{1}{R_T}\left[V\frac{e}{2C_T}+\frac{\alpha _E}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{e}{2C_T}\right)^2\frac{1}{V}\right].$$
(12)
This high-voltage asymptotics, characterized by the Coulomb offset $`e/2C_T`$ and the “tail” voltage $`1/V`$ was experimentally studied and discussed by Wahlgren et al., and Penttilä et al. within the horizon picture .

For comparison with the LL theory important is the case of an infinite transmission $`LC`$ line with the real impedance $`Z_0=\sqrt{l_l/c_l}`$, where $`l_l`$ and $`c_l`$ are the line inductance and the line capacitance per unit length. Then $`\alpha _E=2Z_0/R_K`$. A conductor can be treated as an infinite $`LC`$ line, if its total ohmic resistance is much higher then the impedance $`\sqrt{l_l/c_l}`$, but does not exceed, nevertheless, its total inductive resistance $`\omega l_l`$, where $``$ is the transmission line length.

## 3 Tunneling into an one-channel 1D conductor (spinless electrons)

### 3.1 Tunneling in the Luttinger-liquid (LL) theory

For the sake of simplicity we start from the one-channel case of spinless electrons. In the LL theory the environment effects are absent, and we must return to Eq. (1), which after one integration is:

$$I=\frac{1}{eR_T}_0^{eV}𝑑E\rho (E)𝑑E.$$
(13)
Because of the electron-electron interaction the relative DOS $`\rho (E)`$ essentially different from unity. It is determined by the Fourier transform of the electron Green function $`\widehat{\psi }(x,t)\psi ^{}(x,0)`$, which is determined by the boson degrees of freedom. For the end contact $`\rho (E)`$ is given by the relation very similar to Eq. (7) :

$$\rho (E)\left(\frac{E\tau _c}{\mathrm{}}\right)^{\alpha _L1},$$
(14)
where

$$\alpha _L=\frac{v_{pl}}{v_F}$$
(15)
is the interaction parameter for the one-channel Luttinger liquid (spinless fermions), $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, and

$$v_{pl}=\sqrt{v_F^2+\frac{2e^2v_F}{\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r_g}{r_0}}$$
(16)
is the velocity of the boson collective mode in the Luttinger liquid with the long-range Coulomb interaction. Here $`v_F=\pi \mathrm{}n_1/m^{}`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`n_1`$ is the 1D electron density per unit wire length, $`m^{}`$ is the effective electron mass, $`r_0`$ is the radius of the wire and $`r_g`$ is the distance from the metallic ground. The boson mode is nothing else but an 1D plasmon mode $`\omega =v_{pl}k`$. For small $`\alpha _L1`$ the correction to the constant Fermi-liquid DOS is small: $`\rho (E)1+(\alpha _L1)\mathrm{ln}(E\tau _c/\mathrm{})`$. This correction can be obtained from the theory of Altshuler and Aronov  using the perturbation theory.

The DOS $`\rho (E)`$ determines the first derivative of the $`IV`$ cirve (conductance):

$$\frac{dI}{dV}=\frac{1}{R_T}\rho (eV).$$
(17)
Thus the exponent of the conductance $`V^{\beta _L}`$ is $`\beta _L=\alpha _L1`$.

Fisher and Glazman  chose the cut-off time $`\tau _c`$ in Eq. (14) to be of order of the inverse Fermi energy. Another possible cut-off is related to the wave vector $`k_c`$ at which the Coulomb interaction becomes weak . According to Eq. (16) it is the inverse size of the 1D wire (nanotube): $`k_c1/r_0`$. Then the cut-off time in Eq. (14) is $`\tau _cr_0/v_F`$. This cut-off is more relevant if the wire radius $`r_0`$ is essentially larger then the inverse Fermi wave vector.

### 3.2 Comparison the EQF and LL theories

Let us discuss similarity between the DOS $`\rho (E)`$ in the LL theory and the function $`P(E)`$ in the EQF theory. The former is defined as a Fourier transform of the averaged operator product $`\widehat{\psi }(x,t)\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,0)`$ , and the latter is a Fourier transform of the correlator $`e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t)}e^{i\widehat{\phi }(0)}`$. Both the operators $`e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t)}`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)`$ are creation operators of a single charge $`e`$. One should expect then similar functional dependencies for $`\rho (E)`$ and $`P(E)`$. This takes place when the voltage at the junction is less than the Coulomb gap $`e/C_T`$.

Indeed, the exponents $`\alpha _E`$ and $`\alpha _L`$ for the power laws predicted by the EQF theory, Eq. (8), and by the LL theory, Eq. (15), coincide, if one interprets the 1D plasmon mode as a wave along the lossless $`LC`$ transmission line formed by a 1D conductor and a metallic ground. The capacitance per unit length of the transmission line is $`c_l=1/(2\mathrm{ln}r_g/r_0)`$, and the inductance per unit length is determined by the kinetic energy of electrons, i.e., is a kinetic inductance $`l_l=m^{}/(e^2n_1)=R_K/2v_F`$, which essentially exceeds the geometric inductance $`\mathrm{ln}(r_g/r_0)/c^2`$ because of low electron 1D density $`n_1`$ in 1D wires, compared to the density $`nS`$ in 3D wires with 3D density $`n`$ and the cross-section area $`S`$. The transmission line with these parameters supports the sound-like wave with the velocity $`1/\sqrt{l_lc_l}`$ which coincides with the plasmon velocity $`v_{pl}`$ given by Eq. (16) in the limit of very strong Coulomb interaction $`v_{pl}v_F`$. Using the impedance $`Z=\sqrt{l_l/c_l}=l_lv_{pl}`$ of the infinite $`LC`$ transmission line, Eq. (8) for $`\alpha _E`$ becomes identical to Eq. (15) for $`\alpha _L`$ in this limit.

But in fact similarity between $`\rho (E)`$ and $`P(E)`$ is not restricted by the limit of strong Coulomb interaction $`v_{pl}v_F`$. One can obtain the full expression for the plasmon velocity, Eq. (16), by taking into account the compressibility of the neutral Fermi gas in the derivation of the plasmon mode. Namely, equation of electron motion should be:

$$\frac{I}{t}=\frac{e^2n_1}{m}E_zc_s^2q.$$
(18)
In the 3D case this yields the spectrum of the 3D plasma waves with the dispersion: $`\omega ^2=\omega _{pl}^2+c_s^2k^2`$. Here $`c_s`$ is the sound velocity, $`q`$ is the charge per unit wire length, and $`E_z=\varphi `$ is the electric field along the wire. For the 1D Fermi gas $`c_s=v_F`$, $`\varphi =2q\mathrm{ln}(r_g/r_0)`$, and Eq. (18) together with the continuity equation

$$\frac{q}{t}+I=0$$
(19)
yield the sound-like spectrum with the velocity given by Eq. (16). In order to take into account the compressibility of the neutral Fermi gas, the voltage $`V`$ across the junction in the Josephson relation Eq. (4) should be defined as a difference of the electrochemical potential across the junction:

$$V=\varphi _1\varphi _2+\frac{\mu _1\mu _2}{e}.$$
(20)
Earlier the EQF theory  took into account only the electric potential difference $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$, but neglected the chemical potential difference $`\mu _1\mu _2`$. This is usually well justified for 3D metals, but not for nanotubes. The effect of the neutral-gas compressibility on the plasmon velocity and the impedance can be incorporated by introducing a renormalized capacitance of the line,

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{c}}=\frac{1}{c_l}+\frac{1}{c_0},\frac{1}{c_0}=\frac{1}{e^2}\frac{\mu }{n}=\frac{R_Kv_F}{2}.$$
(21)
While the geometric capacitance $`c_l`$ is related to the energy of the electric field between the wire and the metallic ground, the capacitance $`c_0`$ is related to the kinetic energy of the electron Fermi sea. Then the impedance for an infinite transmission line formed by a 1D wire is:

$$Z=\frac{V}{I}=\sqrt{\frac{l_l}{\stackrel{~}{c}}}=l_lv_{pl}=\sqrt{\frac{l_l}{c_l}+\frac{R_K^2}{4}}=\frac{R_K}{2}\frac{v_{pl}}{v_F}.$$
(22)
Finally we obtain that the probability $`P(E)`$ at $`E<\mathrm{}/\tau `$ is described by the same power law as the DOS $`\rho (E)`$ in the LL theory: $`\alpha _E=\alpha _L`$. Thus both the EQF and the LL theory predict a suppression of conductance, but physical reasons for it look different. In the LL picture the current is suppressed because there are no single electron quasiparticles, and the charge is transported by bosonic modes (plasmons). In the Coulomb blockaded normal junction between 3D wires single-electron states are available, but at low voltage bias the tunneling electron has not enough energy to get into them.

Equation (22) shows that the impedance of a wire has a quantum limit like the d.c. resistance of a ballistic conductor. But the “quantum impedance” $`R_K/2`$ is two times smaller than the quantum resistance $`R_K`$ found by Landauer for one channel (spinless electrons) . This is because the d.c. energy dissipation is related to two contacts, whereas the quantum impedance presents losses at one contact. Another difference is that d.c. energy dissipation takes place in massive electrodes, which supply a current to a ballistic conductor . But a.c. energy dissipation given by the quantum impedance occurs inside the wire. Indeed, in order to be considered as an infinite transmission line (see discussion in the end of Sec. 2), the wire must have a small but finite ohmic resistance, which is able to suppress reflection of plasmons from another end of the wire (plasmon resonances).

Since $`P(E)`$ is connected with the second derivative of the $`IV`$ curve and $`\rho (E)`$ is connected with the first derivative, the exponents for the conductance, $`\beta _E=\alpha _E`$ and $`\beta _L=\alpha _L1`$, differ by unity. In the limit of the weak Coulomb interaction inside the conductor ($`\alpha _E=\alpha _L=v_{pl}/v_F1`$) the difference is most pronounced: the LL theory predicts an ohmic $`IV`$ curve, whereas the EQF theory predicts the Coulomb blockade regime with the power law $`IV^2`$, if $`Ve/C_T`$. This so-called “weak-Coulomb-interaction” limit is valid at the condition that $`v_F\mathrm{ln}(r_g/r_0)/R_K`$.

## 4 Tunneling into a multichannel quasi-1D conductor

One may expect that the difference between the EQF and the LL predictions should vanish if a number of channels (electron modes) grows. This was confirmed by the work of Matveev and Glazman. But some features of this crossover remain unclear. Matveev and Glazman have shown that in the limit of a large number of channels both theories predict the same power law for conductance: $`\beta _E=\beta _L`$. But this means that the exponents $`\alpha _E`$ and $`\alpha _L`$ for $`P(E)`$ in the EQF theory and for $`\rho (E)`$ in the LL theory differ by 1, in contrast to the one-channel case, in which the exponents for $`\rho (E)`$ and for $`P(E)`$ coincide, but the exponents for conductance are different. On the other hand, due to reasons explained in the previous section, $`\rho (E)`$ and $`P(E)`$ should have the same functional dependence on $`E`$ at small energies.

For further discussion of this problem, I rederive the result of Matveev and Glazman in terms of the transmission-line modes. A quantum wire with $`N`$ electron channels can be considered as a collection of $`N`$ parallel transmission lines. We assume that the electrostatic energy in this circuit is

$$E_{el}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{q_i^2}{2c_i}+\frac{1}{2c_l}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}q_i\right)^2,$$
(23)
where $`c_l=1/(2\mathrm{ln}r_g/r_0)`$ is the capacitance per unit length between each channel and the ground, and the capacitances $`c_i`$ are related with the electron kinetic energies, which can be different for various channels in general. The voltages, which are defined as electrochemical potentials with respect to the ground, are:

$$V_i=\frac{E_{el}}{q_i}=\frac{q_i}{c_i}+\frac{1}{c_l}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}q_j.$$
(24)
Using the continuity equations,

$$\frac{q_i}{t}+\frac{I_i}{x}=0,$$
(25)
and the equations of motion for electrons in all channels,

$$l_i\frac{I_i}{t}=\frac{V_i}{x},$$
(26)
we obtain $`N`$ equations for charge densities $`q_i`$. Here $`l_i`$ is the inductance per unit length of the $`i`$th channel. For the plane wave solutions $`q_ie^{ikxi\omega t}`$, these $`N`$ equations are:

$$s^2l_iq_i=\frac{q_i}{c_i}+\frac{1}{c_l}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}q_j,$$
(27)
where $`s=\omega /k`$ is the velocity of the sound-like modes. Equations (27) are identical to Eqs. (11) of Matveev and Glazman . In terms of parameters, used by Matveev and Glazman, the interaction potential $`V`$ and the Fermi velocity $`v_i`$ of the $`i`$th channel, the inductance and the Fermi velocity of the $`i`$th channel are $`l_i=c_lV/v_i`$ and $`v_i=1\sqrt{l_ic_i}`$.

One must find $`N`$ eigenmodes of the system. Further we assume that all channels are identical: $`c_i=c_0`$, $`l_i=l_l`$. Then there are only two eigenvalues:

$$s_1^2=\frac{1}{l_lc_0}+\frac{N}{l_lc_l}$$
(28)
and $`s_2^2=1/l_lc_0`$, which is $`(N1)`$-degenerate. The first eigenvector is $`q_i^{(1)}1`$. This is a plasmon mode, in which the total charge $`_{j=1}^Nq_j`$ oscillates and the velocity $`s_1`$ is the plasmon velocity $`v_{pl}`$. The other $`N1`$ modes are neutral, and therefore their velocity $`s_2`$ coincides with the Fermi velocity $`v_F=1/\sqrt{l_lc_0}`$. The $`N1`$ eigenvectors for the eigenvalue $`s_2^2`$ can be chosen as ($`j1`$)

$$q_i^{(j)}\delta _{ij}\frac{1}{N}.$$
(29)
Now we want to calculate the impedance. In the $`N`$-channel system the impedance is a matrix: $`Z_{ij}=V_i/I_j`$. In order to find it, one must calculate voltages $`V_i`$ of various channels assuming that the current is present only in the $`j`$th channel. The densities of state for various channels, which are considered in the LL model, are associated with the diagonal elements of the impedance matrix. In our case all channels are equivalent, and one can calculate the impedance $`Z_{11}`$ for the first channel. One should find a superposition of $`N`$ eigenvectors, which determines the charge

$$q_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_jq_i^{(j)}=A_1+A_i(1\delta _{1i})\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}A_j,$$
(30)
the current

$$I_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_js_jq_i^{(j)},$$
(31)
and the voltage

$$V_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_jl_ls_j^2q_i^{(j)}$$
(32)
in any channel. The coefficients $`A_j`$, which define the superposition, should be found from the conditions that the total current comes only into the 1st channel. The condition for the 1st channel is:

$$I=A_1s_1\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{A_js_2}{N}.$$
(33)
For the other $`N1`$ channels ($`i1`$):

$$0=A_1s_1+A_is_2\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{A_js_2}{N}.$$
(34)
This system of equations has a solution: $`A_1=I/Ns_1`$ and for $`i1`$ $`A_i=I/s_2`$. Now the voltage at the first channel is:

$$V_1=l_lI\left(A_1s_1^2\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{A_js_2^2}{N}\right)=l_lI\left(\frac{1}{N}s_1+\frac{N1}{N}s_2\right).$$
(35)
Finally the impedance is

$$Z_{11}=\frac{V_1}{I}=\frac{1}{N}\sqrt{\frac{l_l}{c_0}+\frac{Nl_l}{c_l}}+\frac{N1}{N}\sqrt{\frac{l_l}{c_0}}=\sqrt{\frac{R_K^2}{4N^2}+\frac{l_l}{Nc_l}}+\frac{N1}{N}\frac{R_K}{2}.$$
(36)
The “electric” part of this impedance, $`\sqrt{l_l/Nc_l}`$, is related to a simple fact that the inductance of $`N`$ parallel transmission lines is in $`N`$ times less than the inductance $`l_l`$ of one transmission line.

In terms of the impedance $`Z_{11}`$ the exponent $`\alpha _L`$ is

$$\alpha _L=\frac{2Z_{11}}{R_K}=\frac{1}{N}\frac{v_{pl}}{v_F}+\frac{N1}{N}.$$
(37)
One can compare it with the EQF exponent for a multichannel system:

$$\alpha _E=\frac{2Z}{R_K}=\frac{1}{N}\frac{v_{pl}}{v_F}.$$
(38)
This directly follows from the one-channel value, bearing in mind that the multichannel impedance is an impedance of $`N`$ parallel transmission lines. Thus the exponents $`\alpha _L`$ and $`\alpha _E`$ are connected with the impedances by the same relations, which follow from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, but the impedances are different in the EQF and the LL approaches. The EQF theory ignores the neutral modes, which are important in the LL approach. In order to obtain the EQF impedance one should assume that the current $`I`$ is distributed uniformly between channels, and therefore the neutral modes are not excited. On the other hand, the EQF approach takes into account the single-particle excitations, which are absent in the LL approach, but the neutral modes play the same role, and eventually the exponents for conductance are the same for multichannel conductors.

The LL and EQF conductance exponents, which follow from Eqs. (37) and (38), are very close each other for a large number $`N`$ of channels:

$$\beta _L=\alpha _L1=\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{v_{pl}}{v_F}1\right),\beta _E=\alpha _E=\frac{1}{N}\frac{v_{pl}}{v_F}.$$
(39)
However, the EQF theory predicts the conductance exponent, which is similar to that in the LL theory, only in the Coulomb blockade regime $`Ve/C_T`$. At higher voltages the junction capacitance $`C_T`$ shunts the environment impedance, and the $`IV`$ curve is given by the asymptotic expression Eq. (12). This corresponds to constant conductance: $`\beta _E=\alpha _E=0`$. If in analogy with the EQF theory one tries to introduce the capacitance $`C_T`$ into the effective circuit in the LL picture, this yields a dramatically different result. The capacitance $`C_T`$ short circuits the impedance $`Z_{11}`$, like in the EQF picture, and $`\alpha _L0`$. But now the conductance exponent $`\beta _L1`$, and the LL theory predicts the voltage-independent current at high voltages. This contradicts to experiment , and it is unclear what is a proper way to take into account the junction Coulomb energy in the LL theory.

## 5 Discussion and summary

The analysis has shown that despite a conceptual difference between the EQF and the LL approaches, their predictions for the power law exponents of the conductance are the same for multichannel conductors. Therefore one cannot discriminate between two approaches in studying the power law exponents for a quasi-1D conductor with a large number of conduction channels.

This means that it is difficult to detect the LL behavior in multiwall nanotubes. For single-wall nanotubes the difference between the LL and EQF predictions is more pronounced, but also not very large. Every nanotube wall has four channels (two due to spin, and two due to two bands). This means that for a single-wall nanotube the difference between the conductance exponents $`\beta _E`$ and $`\beta _L`$ is only 0.25 for the same ratio $`v_{pl}/v_F`$. In order to reveal this difference and thus to discriminate between two pictures, it would be useful to measure not only the $`IV`$ curve, but also the plasmon velocity for the same nanotube using contactless methods.

Luttinger liquid is a well established and irrefutable concept of the condensed-matter physics, which has been confirmed by many years of theoretical studies. However, its experimental verification remains to be a challenging problem, which requires further efforts both in experiment and theory.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is a result of collaboration with the Nanogroup of Low Temperature Laboratory of Helsinki University of Technology. I thank Pertti Hakonen and Mikko Paalanen for a stimulating interest to this work and numereous discussions. I also appreciate very much discussions of results with Boris Altshuler, David Haviland, and Nils Schopohl during the present symposium on Ultra Low Energy Physics. The work was supported by the Academy of Finland, by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and by the Large Scale Installation Program ULTI-3 of the European Union.


format: text

text:
# Compressibility of Mixed-State Signals

## Abstract

We present a formula that determines the optimal number of qubits per message that allows asymptotically faithful compression of the quantum information carried by an ensemble of mixed states. The set of mixed states determines a decomposition of the Hilbert space into the redundant part and the irreducible part. After removing the redundancy, the optimal compression rate is shown to be given by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced ensemble.

Consider a source that generates a message $`i`$ with probability $`p_i`$. Sequences of the messages independently drawn from this source can be compressed into sequences of bits and decompressed back to the original sequences of messages. The necessary and sufficient number of bits per message allowing asymptotically faithful compression and decompression is given by the Shannon entropy $`S=_ip_i\mathrm{log}_2p_i`$. This result, called the noiseless coding theorem , is one of the core results of the classical information theory. The quantum analogue of this theorem, which will naturally form a basis of quantum information theory, was first considered by Schumacher . In this quantum data compression, the source emits a system in a quantum state $`\rho _i`$ with probability $`p_i`$, and sequences of the systems emitted from this source are assumed to be compressed into qubits. It was shown  that when all $`\rho _i`$ are pure, the least number of qubits allowing asymptotically faithful recovery of the original states is given by the von Neumann entropy $`S(\rho )=\text{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}_2\rho `$ of the density operator of the ensemble $`\rho =_ip_i\rho _i`$. When {$`\rho _i`$} includes mixed states, the problem is still open. Since compression schemes applicable to the pure-state signals can also be successfully used for the mixed-state cases , the optimal compression rate $`I_\mathrm{p}`$ is bounded from above by the von Neumann entropy, namely, $`I_\mathrm{p}S(\rho )`$. It has also been proved  that the Levitin-Holevo function , $`I_{\mathrm{LH}}=S(\rho )_ip_iS(\rho _i)`$, is a lower bound for $`I_\mathrm{p}`$, namely, $`I_{\mathrm{LH}}I_\mathrm{p}`$.

The aim of this Letter is to identify the optimal compression rate for the mixed-state ensemble $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$. We first introduce a function $`I_\mathrm{R}()`$ that is given as the von Neumann entropy of a reduced ensemble $`_\mathrm{R}=\{p_i,\sigma _i\}`$. The ensemble $`_\mathrm{R}`$ is derived from $``$ by stripping off the redundant parts. Then we prove that $`I_\mathrm{R}()`$ is equal to the optimal compression rate $`I_\mathrm{p}`$.

The problem considered here is formulated as follows. Suppose that the source produces the ensemble $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$, namely, it emits a system in a quantum state $`\rho _i`$ with probability $`p_i`$. Using this source $`N`$ times, we obtain a state $`\rho _\lambda ^N\rho _{i_1}\mathrm{}\rho _{i_N}`$ acting on a Hilbert space $`^N_1\mathrm{}_N`$ with probability $`p_\lambda ^N=p_{i_1}\mathrm{}p_{i_N}`$, where $`\lambda `$ represents a set of indexes $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_N\}`$. We assume that the dimension $`d`$ of each space $`_n`$ is finite. Now $`^N`$ is given to Alice, who compresses the signal $`\rho _\lambda ^N`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\lambda `$ acting on a Hilbert space $`_\mathrm{C}`$ with a dimension usually smaller than $`Nd`$. This process is generally written by a quantum operation (linear completely positive trace-preserving map) $`\rho _\lambda ^N\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}(\rho _\lambda ^N)`$. The operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$ since only the systems $`^N`$ are given to Alice and no additional information on $`\lambda `$ is available. The coded signal $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\lambda `$ is passed on to Bob through a noiseless channel, and he decompresses the signal by a quantum operation $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\lambda \rho _\lambda ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B}(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\lambda )`$, where $`\rho _\lambda ^{}`$ acts on $`^N`$. To measure the quality of the whole process $`\rho _\lambda ^N\rho _\lambda ^{}`$, we use the fidelity $`F`$  given by $`F(\rho ,\sigma )[\text{Tr}\sqrt{\rho ^{1/2}\sigma \rho ^{1/2}}]^2`$. The quality of a compression scheme specified by $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$ for the ensemble $``$ is given by the average fidelity

$$\overline{F}\underset{\lambda }{}p_\lambda F(\rho _\lambda ^N,\rho _\lambda ^{}).$$
(1)
Now, for a fixed source $``$, consider a sequence of compression schemes $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}^{(N)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B}^{(N)})`$ with increasing $`N`$. When $`lim_N\mathrm{}\overline{F}=1`$, the sequence gives asymptotically faithful compression of $``$. Such sequences are called protocols . For a given protocol $`P`$, the quantity $`R(P)`$ characterizing the asymptotic degree of compression is defined through the size of $`_\mathrm{C}`$ measured in the number of qubits, namely,

$$R(P)\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{C})/N.$$
(2)
Then, the optimal compression rate $`I_\mathrm{p}()`$ for the ensemble $``$ is formally defined as

$$I_\mathrm{p}()\underset{P}{inf}R(P).$$
(3)
This means that for arbitrary small $`\delta >0`$, asymptotically faithful compression is possible if $`I_\mathrm{p}+\delta `$ qubits per message is given, and it is impossible if $`I_\mathrm{p}\delta `$ qubits per message is given.

A useful tool used for stripping off the redundant part in $``$ and deriving the formula for $`I_\mathrm{p}()`$ below is the theory  that characterizes the quantum operations which preserves a set of states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ (maps $`\rho _i`$ to $`\rho _i`$) acting on a Hilbert space $``$. To state the results of this theory, it is convenient to express quantum operations in unitary representation, namely, by unitary operations $`U`$ acting on the combined space $`_\mathrm{E}`$, where $`_\mathrm{E}`$ represents an auxiliary system initially prepared in a standard pure state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$. Then, it was shown  that, given $`\{\rho _i\}`$, we can find a decomposition of $`_\mathrm{A}`$ defined as the support of $`_i\rho _i`$ ($`_\mathrm{A}`$ is generally a subspace of $``$) written as

$$_\mathrm{A}=\underset{l}{}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(4)
in such a way that any $`U`$ preserving $`\{\rho _i\}`$ is expressed in the following form

$$U(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})=\underset{l}{}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}U_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}),$$
(5)
where $`U_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}`$ are unitary operators acting on the combined space $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}_\mathrm{E}`$. Under this decomposition, $`\rho _i`$ is written as

$$\rho _i=\underset{l}{}q^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(6)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ are normalized density operators acting on $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ and $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$, respectively, and $`q^{(i,l)}`$ is the probability for the state to be in the subspace $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. $`\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ is independent of $`i`$, and $`\{\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(1,l)},\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(2,l)},\mathrm{}\}`$ cannot be expressed in a simultaneously block-diagonalized form. An explicit procedure to obtain this particular decomposition is also given in .

The form of Eq. (6) implies that the spaces $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ are redundant in the ensemble $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$. Consider the states $`\sigma _i_lq^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$ in which the redundancy has been removed, and let $`_\mathrm{R}\{p_i,\sigma _i\}`$ be the corresponding ensemble. The von Neumann entropy of $`_\mathrm{R}`$ can be regarded as a function of the ensemble $``$, denoted as $`I_\mathrm{R}()`$, since the decomposition (6) is determined by the set $`\{\rho _i\}`$. What we prove below is that the optimal compression rate $`I_\mathrm{p}()`$ is given by the function $`I_\mathrm{R}()`$.

We begin the proof by noting that the two ensembles $``$ and $`_\mathrm{R}`$ are completely interchangeable, namely, there exist quantum operations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \sigma }`$ that satisfy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho }(\rho _\lambda ^N)=\sigma _\lambda ^N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \sigma }(\sigma _\lambda ^N)=\rho _\lambda ^N`$. If a compression scheme $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$ for $`\rho _\lambda ^N`$ is given, we can compose a compression scheme $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$ for $`\sigma _\lambda ^N`$. Since the fidelity does not decrease under a quantum operation , we have the inequality $`F(\rho _\lambda ^N,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}(\rho _\lambda ^N))F(\sigma _\lambda ^N,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \sigma }(\sigma _\lambda ^N))`$. Hence the composed scheme always has a better or equal average fidelity. This implies that if a protocol for $``$ with an asymptotic degree of compression $`R`$ is given, we can compose a protocol for $`_\mathrm{R}`$ with the same degree $`R`$ . Consequently, we have $`I_\mathrm{p}()I_\mathrm{p}(_\mathrm{R})`$. Since a similar argument can be made with $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ interchanged, we obtain the equality

$$I_\mathrm{p}()=I_\mathrm{p}(_\mathrm{R}).$$
(7)
Now it is suffice to consider the cases where $`\{\rho _i\}`$ have no redundancy, namely, $`\sigma _i=\rho _i`$ and $`_\mathrm{R}=`$, and we will prove the relation $`I_\mathrm{p}()=S(\rho )`$ in these cases. Since we already have the inequality $`I_\mathrm{p}()S(\rho )`$, what we need is the opposite inequality, $`I_\mathrm{p}()S(\rho )`$. We will give a sketch of the proof first.

In a compression-decompression scheme $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$, the state eventually evolves as $`\rho _\lambda ^N\rho _\lambda ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _\lambda ^N)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A}`$. In this process, the marginal state in the first system ($`_1`$) evolves from $`\rho _{i_1}`$ to $`\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}(\rho _\lambda ^{})`$. This evolution can be regarded as a result of a quantum operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, defined as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\rho _i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle p_{i_2}\mathrm{}p_{i_N}\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _i\rho _{i_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{i_N})}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _i\rho \mathrm{}\rho ).`$ (9)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is determined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the total density operators ($`\rho `$) of the initial state ensembles of the other $`N1`$ systems. In a protocol, a scheme $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$ for large $`N`$ is nearly perfect. For this scheme, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ will almost preserve the states $`\{\rho _i\}`$. The decomposition (4) for $`\{\rho _i\}`$ satisfying $`\rho _i=\sigma _i`$ can be simplified as $`_\mathrm{A}=_l_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ since $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ is a one-dimensional space. Correspondingly, the requirement (5) for preserving $`\{\rho _i\}`$ can be written as

$$U(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})=\underset{l}{}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}U_\mathrm{E}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E},$$
(10)
where $`U_\mathrm{E}^{(l)}`$ are unitary operators acting on $`_\mathrm{E}`$. The operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, which nearly preserves $`\{\rho _i\}`$, should thus be approximately written in the form (10). Next, take a diagonalization of the total density operator, $`\rho =_{ls}p_{l,s}|l,sl,s|`$, in such a way that for a fixed $`l`$, the set $`\{|l,s\}`$ forms a basis of $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$. Let us consider an ensemble $`_{}\{p_{l,s},\rho _{l,s}|l,sl,s|\}`$ composed of orthogonal pure states. If we replace the source from $``$ to $`_{}`$ in the scheme $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$, the operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ does not change because the total density operator is identical for the two ensembles. Then, the error in the transmission of $`|l,s`$ will be small since the operation of the form (10) preserves $`\{|l,s\}`$. This means that by a projection measurement in the basis $`\{|l,s\}`$, classical information close to $`NS(\rho )`$ bits can be sent through the channel $`_\mathrm{C}`$. This implies $`\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{C}NS(\rho )`$. Combined with the definitions (2) and (3), we have $`I_\mathrm{p}()S(\rho )`$.

The strict proof is given by clarifying the meaning of ‘nearly’ in the above sketch, by introducing several measures ($`f`$ and $`g`$ below) characterizing the nearness. In unitary representation, any quantum operation for the system $`_1`$ can be represented by a unitary operator $`U`$ in $`d+d^2n`$ dimension , acting on the combined space of $`_1`$ and an auxiliary system $`_\mathrm{E}`$ with dimension $`d^2`$. Let us introduce two nonnegative continuous functions $`f,g:U(n)R`$ that measure how $`UU(n)`$ is close to the form (10). The first one is defined as $`f(U)1_ip_iF(\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _i))`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _i)\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}[U(\rho _i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})U^{}]`$. Since $`f(U)=0`$ iff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _i)=\rho _i`$ for all $`i`$, $`f^1(0)`$ is equal to the set of $`U`$ that can be expressed in the form (10). The other measure is related to the average error probability of the transmission of $`_{}`$, defined as $`p_\mathrm{e}1_{l,s}p_{l,s}\text{Tr}(\rho _{l,s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _{l,s}))`$. For later convenience, we use the function $`g(U)`$ defined through $`p_\mathrm{e}`$, namely, $`g(U)H(p_\mathrm{e})+p_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{log}_2(d1)`$ with $`H(p)p\mathrm{log}_2p(1p)\mathrm{log}_2(1p)`$. Since the form (10) preserves $`\{\rho _{l,s}\}`$, $`g(U)`$ is zero for any $`Uf^1(0)`$. An important relation between the two measures is that if $`g`$ is away from zero, $`f`$ must also be away from zero. This is proved as follows. Let us define the set $`\overline{X}_\delta \{U|g(U)\delta \}`$ for arbitrary $`\delta >0`$. Since $`g`$ is continuous, $`\overline{X}_\delta `$ is a closed subset of $`U(n)`$. Since $`U(n)`$ is compact and $`f`$ is continuous, the image $`f(\overline{X}_\delta )`$ is closed in $`R`$. $`\overline{X}_\delta f^1(0)=\mathrm{}`$ implies that $`0f(\overline{X}_\delta )`$. Therefore, $`f(\overline{X}_\delta )`$ has its minimum $`\eta (\delta )>0`$. This result will be used to derive the inequality (14) below. Note that the functional dependence of $`\eta `$ on $`\delta `$ is determined by $``$, and is independent of $`N`$.

Next, we consider the transmission of classical variable $`\{(l,s)\}`$ through the source $`_{}`$ and the scheme $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{B})`$. Let $`X_k(k=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ be independent random (vector) variables with $`\text{Pr}\{X_k=(l,s)\}=p_{l,s}`$, and $`X\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_N\}`$. Suppose that the value of $`X_k`$ is encoded to the state $`|l,s`$ in the system $`_k`$, the compression-decompression scheme is applied to combined system $`^N`$, and finally the state in each $`_k`$ is measured by the projection to the basis $`|l,s`$, producing a result $`Y_k`$. The transmitted data is represented by $`Y\{Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_N\}`$. The quantum operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ on each system $`_k`$ can be written in a similar form as (9). Let us take a unitary representation $`U_kU(n)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$. A lower bound for the mutual information $`I(X;Y)H(X)H(X|Y)`$ in this example is obtained as follows. Since $`X_k`$ are independent, we have $`H(X)=_kH(X_k)=NS(\rho )`$. From the general properties of entropy, we obtain the following inequalities : $`g(U_k)H(X_k|Y_k)`$ (Fano’s inequality), $`H(X_k|Y_k)H(X_k|Y)`$ (conditioning reduces entropy), and $`_kH(X_k|Y)H(X|Y)`$ (independence bound on entropy). Combining these, we have $`I(X;Y)NS(\rho )_kg(U_k)`$. On the other hand, $`I(X;Y)`$ cannot exceed the capacity of the channel $`_\mathrm{C}`$, namely, $`\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{C}I(X;Y)`$. We thus arrive at the relation

$$\underset{k}{}g(U_k)/NS(\rho )(\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{C})/N.$$
(11)
Now let us suppose that the number of available qubits per message is smaller than $`S(\rho )`$, namely, $`(\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{C})/N=S(\rho )\delta `$ with $`\delta >0`$. Since the numbering of the systems $`_k`$ is arbitrary, we can generally assume that $`g(U_1)`$ is not smaller than any other $`g(U_k)`$. Then, from the relation (11) we have $`g(U_1)\delta `$, or equivalently, $`U_1\overline{X}_\delta `$. As shown above, this implies $`f(U_1)=1_ip_iF(\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\rho _i))\eta (\delta )>0`$. From the properties of the fidelity function $`F`$, we obtain

$`\overline{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}p_\lambda ^NF(\rho _\lambda ^N,\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _\lambda ^N))`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}p_\lambda ^NF(\rho _{i_1},\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _{i_1}\rho _{i_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{i_N}))`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_iF(\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\rho _i))1\eta (\delta )`$ (14)
since the fidelity does not decrease under partial trace (the first inequality) and $`F(\sigma ,\rho )`$ is convex as a function of $`\rho `$ (the second). The average fidelity of the compression-decompression scheme never exceeds $`1\eta (\delta )<1`$ for any $`N`$, where $`\eta (\delta )`$ is independent of $`N`$. This means that no protocols exist that satisfy $`R(P)=S(\rho )\delta `$. Hence $`I_\mathrm{p}()S(\rho )`$. Combined with the opposite inequality $`I_\mathrm{p}()S(\rho )`$, we obtain $`I_\mathrm{p}()=S(\rho )`$ for the ensemble $``$ satisfying $`=_\mathrm{R}`$. Together with Eq. (7), we obtain the formula for general $``$,

$$I_\mathrm{p}()=I_\mathrm{R}(),$$
(15)
which is the main result of this Letter. For convenience, we repeat the definition of the function $`I_\mathrm{R}()`$: From $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$, determine $`_\mathrm{R}=\{p_i,\sigma _i\}`$ through the decomposition (6). Then, $`I_\mathrm{R}=S(\sigma )`$ with $`\sigma =_ip_i\sigma _i`$.

The protocols we considered above is asymptotically reversible, namely, Bob is required to asymptotically reproduce everything that was given to Alice. Bob can thus compress the reproduced signals again with the same degree of compression. This class of protocols is called blind protocols, and the obtained bound $`I_\mathrm{p}`$ is called passive information . In another scenario, not only the system $`^N`$ but also the identity of the state $`\rho _\lambda ^N`$, namely, the index $`\lambda `$ is disclosed to Alice. Bob still has to decompress the signal without additional knowledge of $`\lambda `$. This class of protocols is called visible protocols, and the corresponding optimal compression rate is called effective information $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ . This scheme is irreversible and cannot be repeated, but the compression rate $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ may be better than $`I_\mathrm{p}`$. The difference $`I_\mathrm{d}I_\mathrm{p}I_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is called information defect. For an ensemble of pure states, it was shown that the information defect is zero . While the identity of $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is still an open question, the derived form of $`I_\mathrm{p}`$ assures the presence of nonzero information defect for an ensemble of mixed states, which can be shown as follows. In the second scenario, Alice can compress the classical value $`\lambda `$ into the length of Shannon entropy, and send it directly to Bob. This indicates $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}_ip_i\mathrm{log}_2p_i`$. For example, if $`p_1=p_2=1/2`$, $`I_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$. On the other hand, by allowing the dimension $`d`$ large, we can find examples of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ with arbitrarily large $`I_\mathrm{p}`$, according to the result (15).

Finally, we would like to raise several problems which is worthy of future investigation. What we have proved in this Letter corresponds to the so-called the weak converse of Shannon’s noiseless coding theorem, namely, if $`I_\mathrm{p}\delta `$ qubits are available per system, the fidelity cannot reach unity in $`N\mathrm{}`$. For classical or pure-state ensembles, the strong converse holds, namely, the fidelity goes to zero when $`N\mathrm{}`$. Whether this statement holds for mixed-state cases or not is an important open question. In the proof of the main result, we utilized the observation that any protocols for an mixed-state ensemble $``$ with no redundancy ($`=_\mathrm{R}`$) can be used to transmit the ‘purified’ ensemble $`_{}`$ with errors asymptotically negligible per message. The requirement ($`\overline{F}1`$) for the compression protocols for $`_{}`$ is more stringent, namely, the total errors for the whole $`N`$ messages must be negligible. Whether the protocols for $``$ always works as compression protocols for $`_{}`$ or not is another open question.

In summary, we derived the formula for the optimal compression rate (passive information) for a general mixed-state ensemble $`\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$. This will give a measure of how much information is stored in the ensemble of quantum states in terms of qubits. We have also shown the presence of nonzero information defect, namely, there are cases where knowing the identity of states gives more efficient compression.

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (Grant No. 12740243) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (Grant No. 12440111) by Japan Society of the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Understanding Color Confinement

## 1 Introduction

Confinement of color in QCD means absence of colored particles in asymptotic states.

Very stringent experimental evidence exists for confinement. In the standard cosmological model the expectation for the relative abundance of quarks to nucleons $`n_q/n_p`$ is, in the absence of confinement, $`\frac{n_q}{n_p}10^{12}`$. Millikan like experiments trying to detect fractionally charged particles do not see any and give an upper limit $`\frac{n_q}{n_p}10^{27}`$ corresponding to the analysis of $`1`$g of matter.

A factor $`10^{15}`$ is too small to be explained in terms of small parameters. Confinement is most likely an absolute property, to be explained in terms of symmetry, like superconductivity. This will be the first prejudice that we adopt in our analysis.

The second prejudice will be that the mechanism of confinement has to be independent of the number of colors $`N_c`$ ($`N_c=3`$ in QCD) and of the number $`N_f`$ of light flavours ($`N_f<N_c`$). This assumption is based on the idea that the limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, at $`\lambda =g^2N_c`$ fixed of $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory is smooth: $`1/N_c`$ is a good expansion parameter, and $`1/3`$ does not differ too much from 0. Evidence for that comes from lattice simulations, which confirm the explanation of the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass and the solution of the $`U(1)`$ problem in terms of topological susceptibility. Moreover the quenched approximation (no quark loops) proves to be correct within $`10\%`$, supporting the idea that quarks loops are non leading in $`1/N_c`$.

## 2 Duality: order and disorder

Duality is a deep concept in statistical mechanics and quantum field theory. It applies to systems admitting field configuration with non trivial topology. Such systems can be given two complementary and equivalent descriptions:

* a direct description in terms of the fundamental fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which works in the weak coupling regime ($`g1`$), or ordered phase. The symmetry of the ground state is described by the vev of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which are called order parameters. Topological configurations $`\mu `$ are non local in this description.
* A dual description, which works in the strong coupling regime ($`g>1`$), or disordered phase. The topological excitations $`\mu `$ are local, their vev’s $`\mu `$ (disorder parameters) identify the symmetry of the ground state and the original fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are now nonlocal excitations. In the dual description the coupling constant $`g_D`$ is related to $`g`$ by the relation $`g_D1/g`$. Duality maps the strong coupling regime of the direct description into the weak coupling of the dual and viceversa.

Examples of systems with dual behaviour are the 2d Ising model, the first where the idea of duality was tested; supersymmetric QCD with $`N=2`$, in which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mu `$ are fields with electric and magnetic charge; liquid $`He_4`$ where the dual excitations are vortices, Heisenberg magnet, where the dual excitations are Weiss domains; $`U(1)`$ compact gauge theory, where $`\mu `$ are monopoles.

Finite temperature QCD is the euclidean version on an imaginary time interval $`0,1/T`$, with $`T`$ the temperature; due to asymptotic freedom high temperature (quark gluon plasma) corresponds to weak coupling (ordered phase), low temperature (confined phase) to strong coupling (disordered phase). To explain confinement in terms of symmetry we have to understand strong coupling symmetry, or $`\mu `$ the disorder parameters in the language of duality.

## 3 Topological configurations in QCD

The natural topology in 3d is related to the mapping of the sphere $`S_2`$ at spatial infinity on a group. A mapping $`S_2SU(2)/Z_2`$ has monopoles as topological configurations $`\mu `$. For $`SU(N)`$ the corresponding mapping is $`S_2SU(N)/SU(p)SU(Np)U(1)`$

If $`\mu `$ carries magnetic charge $`\mu 0`$ signals condensation of magnetic charges, or dual superconductivity. Confinement follows by dual Meissner effect, the chromoelectric field between quarks being confined into Abrikosov flux tubes, with energy proportional to the distance.

An alternative approach is inspired by a $`2+1`$ dimensional version of QCD: the space is 2d and the mapping is from $`S_1`$, the circle at spatial infinity. The natural topological configuration is a vortex, and vortices are expected to condense in the disordered phase. It is not clear how to translate this phenomenon in the realistic case of $`3+1`$ dimensions. Instead of the symmetry of the vacuum the idea of vortex enters in the algebra of the operators $`W(C)`$, the creator of a Wilson loop, and $`B(C)`$, the creator of a dual loop:

$$B(C)W(C^{})=W(C^{})B(C)e^{i\frac{n_{CC^{}}}{N}2\pi }$$
(1)
$`C`$, $`C^{}`$ being closed lines, and $`n_{CC^{}}`$ their winding number. Eq.(1) implies that whenever $`W(C)`$ obeys the area law at large extensions, $`B(C)`$ obeys the perimeter law and viceversa.

Monopoles are identified by a procedure known as abelian projection, which in the simple case of $`SU(2)`$ works as follows. Ler $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}/|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}|`$ be the orientation of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in color space: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is defined everywhere except at zeros of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. A field strength can be defined

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{G}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{g}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(D_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}D_\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})$$
(2)
with $`\stackrel{}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ the usual gauge field strength and $`D_\mu `$ the covariant derivative. Both terms in eq.(2) are gauge invariant, and they are chosen in such a way that bilinear terms in $`A_\mu A_\nu `$ cancel. By simple algebra

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )\frac{1}{g}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})$$
(3)
In the gauge in which $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=`$ const. the second term drops and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is an abelian field. By defining $`j_\mu ^M=_\nu F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, with $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$, $`_\mu j_\mu ^M`$ is identically zero, and a conserved magnetic charge exists. This happens for any choice of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. There exist a huge infinity of conserved magnetic charges: it is not clear if they are independent from each other. One can investigate if they condense in the vacuum by constructing an operator $`\mu `$ which has nonzero magnetic charge, and by measuring its vev $`\mu `$. If $`\mu 0`$ in the confined phase and tends to zero at the deconfining transition, dual superconductivity is at work and $`\mu `$ is a disorder parameter for confinement. In formulae this means $`\mu 0`$ $`T<T_c`$ and

$$\mu (T)\underset{TT_c^{}}{}(1\frac{T}{T_c})^\delta \beta =\frac{2N}{g^2}$$
(4)
In a lattice $`(1\frac{T}{T_c})(\beta _c\beta )`$. It proves more convenient to measure $`\rho =\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}\mu `$.

A behaviour like (4) corresponds to a negative peak in $`\rho `$ at $`\beta _c`$, which becomes sharper and sharper as the spatial volume increases. A finite size scaling analysis allows to reach the infinite volume limit, and determines the value of $`\beta _c`$ and of the critical exponents of the correlation length and of $`\mu `$ itself, $`\delta `$. A typical behaviour is shown in Fig.1.

The net result of the investigation is that there is condensation of monopoles in all the abelian projections. Dual superconductivity is at work and confinement does indeed stem from a symmetry. The mechanism is the same in presence of fermions, in agreement with the ideas of $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. The dual excitations which should describe the disordered phase, must have nonzero magnetic charge in all the abelian projections.

Vortices can also give hints to identify the dual fields. A consequence of the algebra (1) is that the dual Polyakov line $`B(C_{\mathrm{}})`$ corresponding to a path $`C`$ which is a stright line in space going from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ with periodic b.c., should play the dual role of the analogous Wilson loop (the Polyakov line) going from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ along the time axis. This is indeed what happens. What is very suggestive for further investigations is that the behaviour of $`B(C_{\mathrm{}})`$ across the phase transition is identical to that of $`\mu `$, the disorder parameter of monopole consensation (Fig.2).

## 4 Conclusions

Confinement is indeed related to symmetry of the vacuum: the same symmetry indipendent of the presence of dinamical quarks. Magnetic symmetry is broken in all abelian projections. Dual excitations must have non zero magnetic charge in all of them. The dual Polyakov line is also a good disorder parameter, and pratically equal to the one defined in terms of monopoles.

It is not yet clear what exactly the dual excitations are.


text:
# Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with respect to v/c (the third method of measuring the speed of ”aether wind”)

## I Two variants of aether wind’s detector

As is known Demjanov ; Demjanov rus  there is no fringe shift in evacuated Michelson interferometer. Thus, this mode of the device is not fit to detect ”aether wind”. Michelson interferometer becomes sensitive to ”aether wind” when using in it as light’s carrier an optical medium with refractive index $`n>1`$ Demjanov rus ; Demjanov . If light passes always in a single medium the interference fringe shift $`X_m`$ appears to be proportional to square of the velocity $`\upsilon `$ of the interferometer relative to aether: $`X_m(\upsilon /c)^2`$, where $`\upsilon c`$. Here the allowance for Lorentz contraction of the interferometer’s longitudinal arm is vital.

Below I report results of the experiment on Michelson interferometer configured in such a way that light runs consecutively via two different optical media $``$ it goes at first through one medium and then returns back through other medium. In this case the fringe shift proves to be proportional to $`\upsilon /c`$ where $`\upsilon c`$. So, the two-media-mode device is more sensible to ”aether wind”. Besides, in the interferometer of the first order the contribution of relativistic factor into the fringe shift, being quadratic with respect to $`\upsilon /c`$, can be neglected as small quantity.

## II Two-media detector of aether wind

The device in question is a common rotary cross-like interferometer (Fig.1). Light firstly splits by the half-transparent plate into two orthogonal beams. Further each beam goes to rebounding mirrors through the optical medium having dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon _1`$ and then returns in the medium having dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon _2`$. Media are separated in space by minor displacement of return containers. The respective shear of light’s beams is secured by means of two mirrors. Thus, returning rays meet in the point laying at another semi-transparent plate that is angled at $`45^{}`$ just as the splitting plate. The space separation from the incoming beam of the light outgoing to the interference screen (1 on Fig.1) brings down parasitic noise as compared with usual construction of the second order interferometer. Next, collected on the plate 1 (Fig.1) rays are projected by the telescopic objective 2 on the screen of the vidicon 3 and then transmitted by the TV camera on the screen of the kinescope 7.

## III Computing aether wind velocity from interference fringe shift

The interference fringe shift is proportional to difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ of round-trip times according to

$$X_m=c\frac{X_o}{\lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(1)
where $`X_o`$ is the bandwidth and $`\lambda `$ the wavelength. By virtue of (1) we may reason in terms of time intervals $`t`$.

The speed of light $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ in the moving with velocity $`\upsilon >0`$ optical medium is given by Fresnel formula

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_\pm ^{}=\frac{c}{n}\pm \upsilon (1\frac{1}{n^2})=\frac{c}{\sqrt{\epsilon }}\pm \upsilon \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\epsilon }$$
(2)
as measured in the reference frame of the moving medium. Here $`n`$ is the refractive index and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon =n^21`$ the contribution of particles into the dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon =n^2`$ of the optical medium.

From (2) we have for the round-trip time $`t_{}`$ in the direction of interferometer arm parallel to $`\upsilon `$

$$t_{}=\frac{l^{}}{\stackrel{~}{c}_+^{}}+\frac{l^{}}{\stackrel{~}{c}_{}^{}}=\frac{l^{}}{c/\sqrt{\epsilon }_1+\upsilon \mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _1/\epsilon _1}+\frac{l^{}}{c/\sqrt{\epsilon }_2\upsilon \mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _2/\epsilon _2}\frac{l}{c}\left[\sqrt{\epsilon }_1+\sqrt{\epsilon }_2+\frac{\upsilon }{c}(\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _1\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _2)\right]$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon _1`$ is the dielectric permittivity of the forward medium, and $`\epsilon _2`$ that of the return medium. In deriving (3) terms with $`(\upsilon /c)^2`$ were discarded.

We have for the round-trip time in the orthogonal direction

$$t_{}=\frac{l}{\sqrt{(c/n_1)^2+\upsilon ^2}}+\frac{l}{\sqrt{(c/n_2)^2+\upsilon ^2}}\frac{l}{c}(\sqrt{\epsilon }_1+\sqrt{\epsilon }_2)$$
(4)
where again terms with $`(\upsilon /c)^2`$ were neglected.

Subtracting (3) from (4) gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{}t_{}\frac{\upsilon }{c}\frac{l}{c}(\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _1\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _2)=\frac{\upsilon }{c}\frac{l}{c}(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2).$$
(5)
Formula (5) shows that the difference of round-trip times depends on the difference of the contribution of particles into dielectric permittivities of two light carrying media.

## IV Measuring interference fringe shift

Fig.2 shows the measured amplitude $`A_m`$ of the harmonic component of the interference fringe shift as a function of local time $`t_{local}`$ at the attitude of Obninsk. Measurements covered 24 hours of the day and night. The light’s carriers were: in the forward direction carbon bisulfide (CS2) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _1=0.0036`$, and on the return path the air at normal pressure, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _1=0.0006`$. The right scale of ordinates shows values of the aether wind velocity $`\upsilon _{hor.}A_m`$ km/s. The dependence $`\upsilon (t_{local})`$ agrees well with that obtained on the interferometer of second order with respect to $`\upsilon /c`$ Demjanov rus ; Demjanov .

According to (5) the first order device is $`(\upsilon /c)^11000`$ times more sensitive than the interferometer of the second order with respect to $`\upsilon /c`$. This enabled me to use a relatively small arms $`l=0.2`$ m.

Fig.3 shows the dependence of the interference fringe shift $`X_m`$ on the difference $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2`$ between dielectric permittivities of light’s carriers. As we see, $`X_m`$ linearly grows from $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2=0`$ to $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2=1`$. By (5) the sensitivity can be enhanced in $`10^5`$ times (100 times due to $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2`$ and 1000 times due to $`\upsilon /c`$). So that the measuring can be performed at microwaves, i.e. $`10^5`$ times greater wavelengths than in optics. The microwave experiment was made using the CaTiO3 ferroelectric guide, $`\epsilon =255`$, at $`\lambda =10`$ cm by the direct measurement of the phase difference. The converted to $`X_m`$ magnitude lies exactly on the continuation of the line 1 in Fig.3 Demjanov rus .

## V Conclusion

Thus the reality of the first order with respect to $`\upsilon /c`$ Michelson interferometer is experimentally demonstrated. Experiments show that the shift of the interference fringe occurs in optical media and is absent in vacuum. The first order interferometer is $`(\upsilon /c)^11000`$ times more sensitive to aether wind than the second order Michelson interferometer. The first order interferometer shows the ratio signal/noise $`100`$ all round the clock. Such the resolving power and stability of measurements at any time of day and night and any season attests confidently the presence of the absolute reference frame with the Earth moving relative to it with the velocity that is above 480 km/s.

Earlier the same estimation of the ”aether wind” velocity has been obtained on Michelson interferometer by two methods Demjanov exp  operating at second order effects with respect to $`\upsilon /c`$ Demjanov . It was the historically first method that took into account parameters of optical medium specially used as a light’s carrier. The content presented here is actually a third method of experimental measuring the velocity of ”aether wind” via the shift of interference fringe at the transverse beams interferometer $``$ the method operating at first order effects with respect to $`\upsilon /c`$ due to use of two optical media as light’s carriers.

Thus, kinetic evidences for existence of luminiferous aether are to this time provided by three phase interferometry techniques, two operating at second order effects and third one, described in the present report, at the first order one.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to Dr V.P.Dmitriyev for valuable comments, fruitful discussion and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.


text:
# Lattice calculation of medium effects at short and long distances

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The perturbative description of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) breaks down even at very high temperatures . The reason for this is the generation of different length (time) scales at finite temperature. At high temperatures ($`T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) the gauge coupling constant is small $`g1`$ and well separated length scales exist: $`1/T1/(gT)1/(g^2T)`$. For such high temperatures the region of applicability of the perturbation theory is established. While for distances smaller than $`1/T`$ the ordinary perturbation theory should be applicable, at distances smaller than $`1/gT`$ the hard thermal loop resummed perturbation theory  should be applied. For distances larger than $`1/g^2T`$, however, perturbation theory is no longer valid . For interesting temperatures up to a few times $`T_c`$, however, $`g>1`$ and it is not clear up to which distances (times) the perturbation theory is applicable. At short distances $`rT^1`$ one expects that medium effects are not important. For such small distances one should also expect the ordinary perturbation theory to be viable, because at zero temperature perturbation theory works at short distances. Naturally the question arises: at what distances the medium effects become important and up to which distance perturbation theory is applicable? In the present work we try to answer these questions by studying the heavy quark potential and temporal quark and gluon propagators in Coulomb gauge.

## 2 THE HEAVY QUARK POTENTIAL

We consider the color averaged heavy quark potential defined by

$$V(R,T)=T\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{<L(\stackrel{}{R})L^{}(0)>}{|<L>|^2}\right].$$
(1)
Here $`L(\stackrel{}{R})=\mathrm{Tr}_{x_0=0}^{N_\tau 1}U_0(\stackrel{}{R},x_0)`$ is the Polyakov loop ($`N_\tau `$ is the temporal extent of the lattice). So far most studies have concentrated on the long distance behavior of the heavy quark potential ($`RT>1`$). For the physics of heavy quarkonia at finite temperature, however, it is important to know the potential for $`RT<1`$. In order to explore the short distance behavior of the heavy quark potential we performed simulations on $`64^3\times 16`$ lattices with the standard Wilson action at two different temperatures $`T=1.5T_c`$ and $`T=3T_c`$, as well as on $`32^3\times 8`$ lattices with a tree level Symanzik improved action for $`T/T_c=1.05,1.14,1.23,1.50,3.0,6.0,12.0`$. The color averaged potential111 We stick here to the commonly used notion of a potential, although for $`T>0`$ one actually calculates the heavy quark free energy. is related to the singlet ($`V_1`$)and octet ($`V_8`$) heavy quark potentials by the well-known formula

$$V(R,T)=T\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{V_1(R)}{T})+\frac{8}{9}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{V_8(R)}{T})).$$
(2)
At very short distances $`RT1`$ one would expect that the singlet and octet potentials are given by their perturbative zero temperature expressions $`V_i=c_i\alpha /R`$, with $`c_1=4/3`$ for the singlet and $`c_8=+1/6`$ for the octet case. Thus for small distances one would expect $`V(R,T)1/R`$. Expanding Eq. (2) up to $`\alpha ^2`$ one recovers the well known perturbative result for the color averaged potential $`V(R,T)/T=\alpha ^2/(3RT)^2`$ . We note, however, that the expansion of Eq. (2) couples the perturbative expansion to the high temperature expansion and therefore the above formula is obviously not valid at very short distances where $`|V_i/T|1`$. Motivated by the leading order perturbative result we define an effective coupling $`\alpha _{eff}^2(R,T)=9V(R,T)T[1/R]^2`$. Here $`[1/R]`$ denotes the lattice Coulomb potential. Our results on $`\alpha _{eff}(R,T)`$ are summarized in Fig. 1a. One can see that there is a narrow region in $`RT`$ where $`\alpha _{eff}`$ is approximately constant as one would expect from the leading order perturbative result. We also note that in this region of $`RT`$ $`\alpha _{eff}(R,T)`$ decreases with temperature as one would expect for the running coupling constant. For temperatures $`T1.5T_c`$ the effective coupling seems to decrease at small distances $`RT<0.2`$ which may imply that in this region the potential behaves like $`1/R`$ according to the arguments given above. For higher temperatures the $`1/R`$ behavior sets in at smaller distances because the coupling $`\alpha `$ is smaller and the high temperature expansion works well even at shorter distances. This probably is the reason that this behavior so far is not seen in our data for $`T3T_c`$ which are restricted by the lattice spacing $`a=0.0625T^1`$ for $`N_\tau =16`$ and $`0.125T^1`$ for $`N_\tau =8`$. For distances $`RT>0.3`$ the effective coupling decreases with increasing $`RT`$ which implies the onset of screening. Thus we can distinguish three different regions of $`RT`$ which are characterized by qualitatively different behavior of $`V(R,T)`$: the ”true” short distance region where $`V1/R`$, the intermediate perturbative region $`V=\alpha ^2/(3RT)^2`$ and the ”large” distance region where screening sets in.

We note that for the lowest temperature $`T=1.05T_c`$ the behavior of $`V(R,T)`$ is compatible with $`1/R^2`$ for $`RT>0.3`$ which may imply that the effect of screening is very small. To quantify the effects of screening at higher temperatures it is useful to define an effective screening mass $`\mu _{eff}(R,T)=\mathrm{ln}(9V(R,T)[1/R]^2/\alpha ^2(T))/R`$ with $`\alpha (T)=\alpha _{eff}(R=0.125T^1,T)`$. The behavior of $`\mu _{eff}(R,T)`$ as function of $`R`$ is shown in Fig. 1b. As one can see from the figure the effective screening masses increase with increasing distance but up to distances $`RT=1.5`$ do not reach a plateau which can be identified with the true screening mass. In fact this behavior of the effective screening masses could be explained qualitatively in perturbation theory if one takes into account the momentum dependence of the gluon self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(k)`$ . Note that the local screening masses in Fig. 1b are always smaller than screening masses extracted from the large distance behavior of the heavy quark potential in  $`\mu 3T`$. They are also smaller than the perturbative Debye screening mass $`g(T)T`$ if $`g`$ is defined by $`g(T)=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _{eff}(R=0.125T^1,T)}`$. We thus conclude that the color averaged heavy quark potential has a complex structure for interesting distances, $`RT<1`$, and temperatures a few times $`T_c`$.

## 3 THE TEMPORAL QUARK AND GLUON PROPAGATORS

The temporal quark and gluon propagators are related to properties of quasi-particles in the QGP. In fact, in hard thermal loop (HTL) approximation these propagators are dominated by quasi-particle poles. . The quasi-particle picture of QGP finds application in resummed perturbative calculations of different thermodynamic quantities . We have performed simulations in quenched QCD with Wilson fermions on a $`64^3\times 16`$ lattice at $`T=3T_c`$. We have used the standard Wilson action for the gauge fields and an $`O(a)`$ improved fermion action (clover action). We have calculated the quark and gluon propagator $`D_i(\tau ,p)`$ ($`i=q,g`$) in mixed $`(\tau ,p)`$ representation ( here $`p`$ is the absolute value of the spatial momentum ).

The propagator in this mixed representation can be related to the spectral function by $`D_i(\tau ,p)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \rho (\omega ,p)\mathrm{exp}(\omega \tau )/(1\pm \mathrm{exp}(\omega \tau ))`$. Here ($`i=q,g`$) and $`+()`$ correspond to the case of quarks (gluons). From the Monte-Carlo data for $`D_i(\tau ,p)`$ we can extract the spectral functions $`\rho (\omega ,p)`$ with the help of the Maximal Entropy Method (MEM) . Since the quark and gluon propagator are gauge dependent quantities one has to fix a gauge. We have fixed the Coulomb gauge because in this gauge $`\rho (\omega ,p)`$ is positive which is necessary for MEM. The peaks of the spectral function $`\rho (\omega ,p)`$ define the dispersion relation $`\omega (p)`$ which is expected to be gauge invariant. Since the smallest non-zero momentum $`p_{min}=1.57T`$ is relatively large no detailed information about the properties of collective excitations like the longitudinal excitation in the gluon sector or the plasmino excitation in quark sector can be provided (these excitations exist only in the small momentum region ). Here we will not extract the spectral function but postpone that for future publications. Instead we compare our data for temporal quark and gluon propagators with the predictions of perturbation theory in HTL approximation. In Fig. 2a we show our results for the transverse gluon propagator $`D_g^T(\tau ,p)`$ at momenta calculated on 40 gauge fixed configurations. We also show there the prediction of the HTL approximation using a coupling constant $`g1.6`$ suggested by the short distance behavior of the heavy-quark potential. As one can see from the figure the data disagree substantially with the HTL prediction even at momenta $`p=3.14T`$. We note that corrections to the HTL approximation will not resolve this discrepancy since they lead to smaller $`\omega (p)`$ values shifting the propagator to values larger than the HTL result .

The quark propagator in mixed representation can be written as $`D_q(\tau ,p)=\gamma _0F(\tau ,p)+\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{n}G(\tau ,p)+H(\tau ,p)`$ with $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{p}/p`$. In the chiral limit ($`m_q=0`$) $`H(\tau ,p)=0`$. For the value of the hopping parameter $`\kappa =0.1339`$ (which corresponds to the quark mass close to the chiral limit) used in our simulation we have found $`H(\tau ,p)`$ to be zero within the statistical accuracy reached in our simulations. In Fig. 2b we show our results for $`F(\tau ,p)`$ calculated on 40 configurations and compared with predictions of the HTL approximation. As in the case of the gluon propagator we find large deviations from the HTL predictions. The situation is similar for $`G(\tau ,p)`$. We have found that there is no choice of $`g`$ which can provide agreement between lattice results and HTL. We thus conclude that at $`T=3T_c`$ medium effects in temporal quark and gluon propagators are stronger than suggested by HTL perturbation theory.