format: text

text:
# References

There has been significant progress in recent years towards understanding the hadron structure in the high-density regime at small $`x`$, which is the regime relevant for high-energy scattering. As $`x`$ decreases, the gluon density in the hadron wavefunction grows faster than the quark density , giving rise to a multiparticle gluonic state with high occupation numbers. In this high density environment, important non-linear phenomena are expected, which should eventually lead to saturation , that is, to a limitation of the maximum gluon density per unit of phase-space. Linear evolution equations like BFKL  do not take into account the rescattering among the produced gluons, and predict an exponential growth of the gluon distribution with $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$. This leads to cross sections which in the high-energy limit violate the Froissart unitarity bound. If parton distributions saturate, then there is a natural resolution to this unitarity problem.

Non-linear generalizations of the BFKL equation have been recently proposed within different approaches, with results which appear to be consistent with each other . By using the operator expansion for high-energy scattering in QCD, Balitsky has derived a set of coupled equations for the evolution of Wilson-line operators . This is an infinite hierarchy of coupled equations for $`n`$-point operators, which however decouple in the large $`N`$ limit, with $`N`$ the number of colors. In this limit, the equation satisfied by the 2-point function has been independently derived by Kovchegov  within the dipole model of Mueller . Solutions to Kovchegov’s equation have been investigated in Refs. . In a recent paper , Weigert has shown that Balitsky’s equations can be summarized as a functional evolution equation for the generating functional of the Wilson line operators. Together with Leonidov, we have subsequently shown  that this is precisely the renormalization group equation (RGE) which governs the quantum evolution of the effective theory for the Color Glass Condensate (CGC) .

In the description of saturation, a natural intrinsic momentum scale appears, the saturation momentum $`Q_s`$ . This is the scale below which the non-linear effects are expected to slow down and eventually saturate the increase of the gluon density with $`1/k_{}^2`$, where $`k_{}`$ is the gluon transverse momentum444Throughout, we consider the hadron in its infinite momentum frame, and use light-cone vector notations, $`v^\mu =(v^+,v^{},𝐯_{})`$, with $`v^+(1/\sqrt{2})(v^0+v^3)`$, $`v^{}(1/\sqrt{2})(v^0v^3)`$, and $`𝐯_{}(v^1,v^2)`$. In these notations, the hadron four-momentum reads $`P^\mu =(P^+,0,0_{})`$, with $`P^+\mathrm{}`$.. In this paper, we shall find approximate solutions to the RGE for the CGC in two limits: at large momenta $`k_{}Q_s`$, and at small momenta $`k_{}Q_s`$, where $`k_{}`$ is the momentum scale at which we compute correlation functions. ($`a`$) In the first case, our results reproduce the Gaussian Ansatz for the “effective action” (strictly speaking, a probability distribution for a classical color source; see below) which has been postulated in the McLerran-Venugopalan (MV) model . We shall find improvements over the previous discussions of this model  in the sense of including the quantum evolution of the width of the Gaussian and properly treating the transverse non-locality. We shall also clarify the limits of validity of this model, and show that it does not apply at low momenta $`k_{}<Q_s`$, which is the interesting regime for saturation. ($`b`$) In the second case, at $`k_{}Q_s`$, our approximate solution is still a Gaussian, but with a different structure. It is scale-invariant and universal (up to logarithmic corrections which enter via the matching with the solution in the high-momentum regime), and has the right properties to describe gluon saturation. The associated gluon density increases only logarithmically with $`1/k_{}^2`$, a result formally similar to that obtained in the classical MV model , but which here arises in a quite different way: The non-linear effects leading to saturation are encoded in the quantum evolution, and not in the solution to the classical equations of motion. Our results appear to be consistent with other recent analyses of the non-linear gluon evolution .

In the MV model , gluon correlation functions at small $`x`$ are obtained as classical correlations within the stochastic Yang-Mills theory with the following equation of motion

$`(D_\nu F^{\nu \mu })_a(x)=\delta ^{\mu +}\rho _a(x),`$ (1)
where $`\rho _a(x)`$ is the effective color charge density at the “soft” scale $`k^+xP^+`$ due to the “fast” partons with longitudinal momenta $`p^+k^+`$. Because of this separation of scales, the source is time-independent and localized near the light-cone, within a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}<1/k^+`$. It is furthermore a random quantity whose spatial correlators can be summarized as a gauge-invariant weight function $`W_\tau [\rho ]`$, which is the probability for having a color charge distribution with density $`\rho _a(\stackrel{}{x})`$ (with $`\stackrel{}{x}(x^{},𝐱_{})`$). We have introduced here the momentum-space rapidity $`\tau \mathrm{ln}(P^+/k^+)=\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ to indicate the dependence of the weight function upon the soft scale $`k^+`$.

Thus, equal-time gluon correlation functions at the scale $`k^+=xP^+`$ are obtained as:

$`A_a^i(x^+,\stackrel{}{x})A_b^j(x^+,\stackrel{}{y})\mathrm{}_\tau ={\displaystyle 𝒟\rho W_\tau [\rho ]𝒜_a^i(\stackrel{}{x})𝒜_b^j(\stackrel{}{y})\mathrm{}},`$ (2)
where $`𝒜_a^i𝒜_a^i[\rho ]`$ is the solution to eq. (1) in the light-cone (LC) gauge $`A_a^+=0`$, which is the gauge which allows for the most direct contact with the gauge-invariant physical quantities . For instance, the gluon distribution function is obtained as

$`xG(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(Q^2k_{}^2)|_a^{+i}(\stackrel{}{k})|^2_\tau },`$ (3)
where $`_a^{+i}=^+𝒜_a^i`$ is the classical electric field, and $`\stackrel{}{k}(k^+,𝐤_{})`$ with $`k^+=xP^+=P^+\mathrm{e}^\tau `$. However, to have explicit expressions for these classical fields, it is preferable to express the LC-gauge solution $`𝒜_a^i[\rho ]`$ in terms of color source $`\rho `$ in the covariant gauge $`^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =0`$ (COV-gauge). One then obtains (with $`\rho \rho _aT^a`$, etc.):

$`𝒜^i(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}U(\stackrel{}{x})^iU^{}(\stackrel{}{x}),`$
$`U^{}(x^{},x_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x^{}}𝑑z^{}\alpha (z^{},x_{})\right\},`$
$`_{}^2\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (\stackrel{}{x}),`$ (4)
where $`\rho _a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_a^\mu =\delta ^{\mu +}\alpha _a`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_a^{+i}=^i\alpha _a`$ are respectively the color source, the vector potential, and the electric field in the COV-gauge. In the saturation regime, the source and the fields are strong, $`𝒜^i\rho 1/g`$, and the classical problem is fully non-linear.

The source $`\rho _a`$ and the associated weight function $`W_\tau [\rho ]`$ are constructed in perturbation theory, by integrating out the fast quantum gluons in layers of $`p^+`$ to leading order in $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$, but to all orders in the strong background fields $`𝒜^i`$ generated at the previous steps . With the gauge-fixing prescriptions advocated in Refs. , this implies that the source $`\rho _a(\stackrel{}{x})`$ has support only at positive $`x^{}`$, with $`x_0^{}<x^{}<1/k^+`$, where $`x_0^{}1/P^+`$ is the Lorentz-contracted longitudinal size of the hadron. By introducing the space-time rapidity $`\mathrm{y}\mathrm{ln}(x^{}/x_0^{})`$ and recalling that $`1/k^+=1/(xP^+)=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\tau `$, we conclude that $`\rho _a`$ has support at $`0\mathrm{y}\tau `$.

The evolution of the weight function $`W_\tau [\rho ]`$ with increasing $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ is described by a functional renormalization group equation originally proposed by Jalilian-Marian, Kovner, Leonidov and Weigert  and explicitely constructed in Refs.  (see also Refs. ). It acquires its simplest form when written as an equation for $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$ (recall that $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$ are linearly related, cf. eq. (S0.Ex1)), in which case it reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_\tau [\alpha ]}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`HW_\tau ,`$ (5)
with the following, positive definite, Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z_{}}{2\pi }J_a^i(z_{})J_a^i(z_{})},`$
$`J_a^i(z_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_{}}{2\pi }\frac{z^ix^i}{(z_{}x_{})^2}(1V_z^{}V_x)_{ab}\frac{i\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(x_{})}}.`$ (6)
This is the same Hamiltonian which generates Balitsky’s evolution equations, as rewritten in functional form by Weigert ; this establishes the equivalence between the approaches of Refs.  and .

In the equations above,

$`V_x^{}V^{}(x_{})U^{}(x^{}=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\tau ,x_{}),\alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})\alpha ^a(x^{}=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\tau ,x_{}),`$ (7)
are the Wilson line and the COV-gauge “Coulomb” field in eq. (S0.Ex1) evaluated at $`x^{}=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\tau =1/k^+`$, which is the largest longitudinal coordinate for the color source at the scale $`k^+=P^+\mathrm{e}^\tau `$. Thus, the functional derivatives in eqs. (5)–(S0.Ex3) are to be taken with respect to the color field in the highest bin of (space-time) rapidity $`\tau \mathrm{y}\tau +d\tau `$, where the quantum corrections are located. This suggests a space-time picture of the quantum evolution where the momentum rapidity $`\tau `$ and the space-time rapidity y are interrelated: The classical source

$`\rho _\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})\rho ^a(x^{}=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{y},x_{})`$ (8)
is constructed in layers of space-time rapidity, with the contribution in the rapidity bin $`(\mathrm{y},\mathrm{y}+d\mathrm{y})`$ obtained by integrating out the quantum gluons with longitudinal momenta in the momentum-rapidity bin $`(\tau ,\tau +d\tau )`$ with $`\tau =\mathrm{y}`$. This relation will become explicit in the solutions to the RGE to be found below.

Eq. (5) is a functional Fokker-Planck equation with “time” $`\tau `$. It depicts the quantum evolution towards small $`x`$ as the diffusion of the probability density $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$ in the functional space spanned by $`\alpha _a(x^{},x_{})`$. Since the r.h.s. of this equation can be written as a total derivative with respect to $`\alpha `$ , the correct normalization:

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟\alpha W_\tau [\alpha ]}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},`$ (9)
is automatically preserved by this evolution. In the weak field limit, where the Wilson lines can be expanded to lowest order in $`\alpha `$, eqs. (5)–(S0.Ex3) reproduce the BFKL equation for the charge-charge correlator $`\rho (k_{})\rho (k_{})`$ . In the strong field regime $`\alpha 1/g`$ specific to saturation, eq. (5) is equivalent to an infinite hierarchy of coupled evolution equations for the correlators of $`\alpha `$. In what follows, we shall not study these coupled equations, but rather attempt to solve directly the functional RGE (5) in some limiting cases. More details will be presented somewhere else .

As announced in the introduction, we shall find approximate solutions to eq. (5) in two different kinematical regimes: $`k_{}Q_s(\tau )`$ and $`k_{}Q_s(\tau )`$, where $`k_{}`$ is the transverse momentum at which we measure the correlation functions (i.e., the transverse resolution of the external probe), while $`Q_s(\tau )`$ (“the saturation momentum”) is an intrinsic momentum scale which is introduced by the initial conditions (note that there is no explicit scale in the evolution equation (5)–(S0.Ex3)) and which increases with $`\tau `$. No attempt will be made to describe the intermediate behaviour at $`k_{}Q_s`$, and thus the onset of saturation. Because of that, the saturation scale itself will be not exactly determined, but only estimated via a study of the onset of non-linearity in the high momentum regime.

a) The high momentum regime. As we shall shortly discover, at least within the approximations to be considered here, it is the same scale $`Q_s`$ which controls both the transverse correlation length in the problem, and the onset of the non-linear regime. That is, the typical variation scale for the Wilson line $`V(x_{})`$ is $`1/Q_s`$, and the non-linear effects become important at transverse momenta of order $`Q_s`$ or less. Thus, as long as we are probing the system on a much shorter resolution scale, corresponding to some external momentum $`k_{}Q_s`$, we can neglect the non-linear effects and perform a short-distance expansion in the Hamiltonian (S0.Ex3) :

$`1V_z^{}V_x(z^jx^j)(^jV^{})_xV_xig(z^jx^j)^j\alpha (x_{}),`$ (10)
where (with $`x_\tau ^{}x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\tau `$)

$`\alpha ^a(x_{}){\displaystyle _{x_0^{}}^{x_\tau ^{}}}𝑑x^{}\alpha ^a(x^{},x_{})={\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑\mathrm{y}\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{}),`$ (11)
is the effective Coulomb field in the transverse plane, and we have introduced, for further convenience, the notation $`\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})x^{}\alpha ^a(x^{},x_{})`$ for $`x^{}=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{y}`$.

With these approximations, and after simple manipulations to be detailed in Ref. , the Hamiltonian (S0.Ex3) is brought into the following form:

$`H{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x_{}d^2y_{}x_{}|\frac{1}{_{}^4}|y_{}^i\alpha ^{ab}(x_{})\frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(x_{})}^i\alpha ^{ac}(y_{})\frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^c(y_{})}}.`$ (12)
The RGE associated to this Hamiltonian is still non-linear, and we have not been able to solve it exactly. To make progress, we perform a mean field approximation in which we replace, within eq. (12),

$`^i\alpha ^{ab}(x_{})^i\alpha ^{ac}(y_{})^i\alpha ^{ab}(x_{})^i\alpha ^{ac}(y_{})_\tau N\delta ^{bc}_x^2\xi _\tau (x_{}y_{}),`$ (13)
where the expectation value in the r.h.s. is defined as in eq. (2), and we have assumed homogeneity in the transverse plane, for simplicity. (The color structure in the r.h.s. follows from gauge invariance.) With this approximation, the RGE is linear and can be solved by a Gaussian weight function. The correlation function $`\xi _\tau `$ in eq. (13) can be then computed in terms of the width of this Gaussian, which, as we shall see, entails a self-consistency condition describing the evolution of the width with $`\tau `$.

Specifically, we have to solve the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_\tau [\alpha ]}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2x_{}d^2y_{}𝒟_\tau (x_{}y_{})\frac{\delta ^2W_\tau [\alpha ]}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(y_{})}},`$
$`𝒟_\tau (x_{}y_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{\pi }}x_{}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}^4}}|y_{}\xi _\tau (x_{}y_{}),`$ (14)
or, in momentum space,

$`𝒟_\tau (k_{})={\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{p_{}^2}{(k_{}p_{})^4}\xi _\tau (p_{})}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_{}^4}}{\displaystyle ^k_{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}p_{}^2\xi _\tau (p_{}),`$ (15)
where in writing the approximate equality we have used the fact that $`k_{}`$ is the hard external momentum, while $`p_{}`$ is relatively soft, $`p_{}Q_sk_{}`$. Since $`k_{}^2\alpha _\tau (k_{})=\rho _\tau (k_{})`$, cf. eq. (S0.Ex1), the Hamiltonian in eq. (S0.Ex4) is finally rewritten as (with $`\alpha _s=g^2/4\pi `$):

$`H_{\mathrm{high}k_{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}𝒢_\tau (k_{})\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \rho _\tau ^a(k_{})\delta \rho _\tau ^a(k_{})}},`$
$`𝒢_\tau (k_{})`$ $``$ $`4\alpha _sN{\displaystyle ^k_{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}p_{}^2\xi _\tau (p_{}).`$ (16)
Thus, in this high-momentum regime, the solution to the RGE is most naturally written as a Gaussian in $`\rho _a(\stackrel{}{x})`$. The only subtle point about this solution refers to its longitudinal structure. To understand this structure, note that the two functional derivatives in eq. (S0.Ex5) act at the same point $`x^{}`$, namely at $`x^{}=x_\tau ^{}x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\tau `$. This implies that the correlations generated by the RGE are local in $`x^{}`$. We thus search for a solution $`W_\tau [\rho ]`$ of the form555The initial condition for the solution will be discussed in Ref. .:

$`W_\tau [\rho ]=𝒩_\tau \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\mathrm{y}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{y}^a(k_{})\lambda _\tau ^1(\mathrm{y},k_{})\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{y}^a(k_{})}\right\},`$ (17)
where we have used the space-time rapidity y to indicate the $`x^{}`$–dependence of the various functions and defined $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})x^{}\rho ^a(x^{},x_{})`$ for $`x^{}=x_0^{}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{y}`$. The integration over y in eq. (17) runs effectively up to $`\tau `$, but the upper integration limit is conveniently absorbed in the support of the kernel $`\lambda _\tau ^1(\mathrm{y},k_{})`$ (see eq. (20) below). The overall factor $`𝒩_\tau `$ follows from the normalization condition (9) as (up to some irrelevant, $`\tau `$-independent, factor):

$`𝒩_\tau =[\mathrm{det}\lambda _\tau (\mathrm{y},k_{})]^{1/2}={\displaystyle \underset{k_{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{y}}{}}[\lambda _\tau (\mathrm{y},k_{})]^{(N^21)/2},`$ (18)
where in writing the second equality we have considered a lattice version of the 3-dimensional configuration space, with discrete points $`k_{}`$ and y.

It is now straightforward to verify that the functional (17) satisfies the RGE associated to $`H_{\mathrm{high}k_{}}`$ provided the width $`\lambda _\tau (\mathrm{y},k_{})`$ obeys the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau (\mathrm{y},k_{})}{\tau }}=\delta (\tau \mathrm{y})𝒢_\tau (k_{}),`$ (19)
which shows that the evolution of the width with the momentum-space rapidity $`\tau `$ takes place at the space-time rapidity y$`=\tau `$, that is, at the end point of the color charge distribution at the previous step. The solution to eq. (19) is immediate:

$`\lambda _\tau (\mathrm{y},k_{})=\theta (\tau \mathrm{y})𝒢_\mathrm{y}(k_{}).`$ (20)
This gives the following 2-point function for the color charge:

$`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{y}^{}^b(y_{})_\tau =\delta ^{ab}\delta (\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}^{})\theta (\tau \mathrm{y})𝒢_\mathrm{y}(x_{}y_{}).`$ (21)
Note that, for $`\mathrm{y}<\tau `$, the correlation function $`𝒢_\mathrm{y}(x_{}y_{})`$ is independent of $`\tau `$, since determined uniquely by the quantum evolution up to the momentum rapidity y (via eq. (25) below).

According to eqs. (17) and (20), the width of the Gaussian is the inverse of a $`\theta `$-function, which means that the weight function $`W_\tau [\rho ]`$ is identically zero for all the functions $`\rho _\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})`$ having support at rapidities $`\mathrm{y}>\tau `$. Thus, in the functional integral (2) one can freely integrate over all the functions $`\rho _\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})`$, without any restriction on their support (other than $`\mathrm{y}>0`$); the restriction to $`\mathrm{y}<\tau `$ will be automatically taken care of by the weight function.

At this point, one should recall that the correlation function $`\xi _\tau `$, eq. (13), and thus the function $`𝒢_\tau (k_{})`$ in eq. (S0.Ex5), are expectation values with the weight function (17), and thus functionals of $`\lambda _\tau `$. Thus, eqs. (19) or (20) are really self-consistency conditions, to be made explicit now. To this aim, it is convenient to integrate eq. (19) over $`\mathrm{y}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\tau (k_{}^2)}{\tau }}=𝒢_\tau (k_{}),`$ (22)
and thus obtain an evolution equation for the quantity

$`\mu _\tau (k_{}^2){\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{y}\lambda _\tau (\mathrm{y},k_{})},`$ (23)
which, in the present weak field regime, is the unintegrated gluon distribution. To see this, note that, to lowest order in $`\rho `$, $`_a^{+j}i(k^j/k_{}^2)\rho _a`$, so eq. (3) becomes

$`xG(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle ^Q}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(Q^2k_{}^2)}{k_{}^2}}|\rho _a(\stackrel{}{k})|^2_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{(N^21)R^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2}{k_{}^2}}\mu _\tau (k_{}^2),`$ (24)
where $`R`$ is the hadron radius, and we have also used eqs. (21) and (23).

From eqs. (13) and (21)–(23), one obtains $`\xi _\tau (p_{})=(1/p_{}^4)\mu _\tau (p_{}^2)`$, which, together with eqs. (S0.Ex5) and (22), provides an evolution equation for $`\mu _\tau (k_{}^2)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\tau (k_{}^2)}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}^2}{p_{}^2}}\mu _\tau (p_{}^2).`$ (25)
By also using eq. (24), this can be recognized as the evolution equation for the gluon distribution function in the double logarithmic approximation (DLA)  :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau \mathrm{ln}Q^2}}xG(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN}{\pi }}xG(x,Q^2).`$ (26)
Given the approximations that we have performed, this is indeed the expected limit of the evolution equation . The solution to eq. (26) is well known  : if one holds $`\alpha _s`$ fixed (independent of $`Q^2`$), the solution grows like:

$`xG(x,Q^2)\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN}{\pi }}\tau \mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_0^2)}\right\}.`$ (27)
For our purposes here, what really matters is that the initial condition to eq. (25) introduces a momentum scale in the problem, while there was no such a scale in the RGE by itself. For instance, in a simple valence-quark model, which should be a reasonable approximation near $`x1`$ (or $`\tau 0`$), one has  (with $`C_F=(N^21)/2N`$)

$`xG(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sNC_F}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}}\mathrm{for}x1,`$ (28)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$ enters naturally as an infrared cutoff when taking into account the over all color neutrality of the hadron on scale sizes of order $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ . Thus, for $`\tau 0`$,

$`\mu _0(k_{}^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _s/R^2,`$ (29)
which for a proton is a relatively small momentum scale to start with, but which at low $`x`$ is enhanced by the quantum evolution described by eq. (25).

When $`\tau `$, and therefore $`\mu _\tau `$, are sufficiently large, the fluctuations of the color field described by eq. (17) become large as well, and the non-linear effects start to play a role. To study the onset of non-linearity, and verify the approximations performed in eq. (10), it is useful to consider the 2-point function $`V_x^{}V_y_\tau `$. This is easily computed by expanding the path-ordered exponentials within the Wilson lines, performing the contractions of the fields $`\alpha `$ with the help of (cf. eqs. (21) and (22))

$`\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^{}^b(y_{})_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}\delta (\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}^{})\theta (\tau \mathrm{y})\gamma _\mathrm{y}(x_{}y_{}),`$ (30)
$`\gamma _\tau (p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_{}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\tau (p_{}^2)}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _\tau (p_{})}{\tau }},`$ (31)
and then recognizing the result as the expansion of an ordinary exponential. (See Refs.  for similar calculations.) The final result can be written as:

$`V^{}(x_{})V(0_{})_\tau =\mathrm{exp}\left\{g^2N{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑\mathrm{y}\left[\gamma _\mathrm{y}(0_{})\gamma _\mathrm{y}(x_{})\right]\right\}=\mathrm{e}^{g^2N[\xi _\tau (0_{})\xi _\tau (x_{})]},`$ (32)
with

$`\xi _\tau (0_{})\xi _\tau (x_{})={\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mu _\tau (p_{}^2)}{p_{}^4}\left[1\mathrm{e}^{ip_{}x_{}}\right]}.`$ (33)
Since $`\mu _\tau (p_{}^2)`$ is rather slowly varying as a function of $`p_{}`$, the integral in eq. (33) is dominated by small momenta $`p_{}^21/x_{}^2`$, where we can approximate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{p_{}^4}\left[1\mathrm{e}^{ip_{}x_{}}\right]}{\displaystyle ^{1/x_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_{}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{}x_{})^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{}^2}{16\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}}.`$ (34)
By performing a similar approximation on eq. (33), one obtains:

$`V^{}(x_{})V(0_{})_\tau \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN}{4}}x_{}^2{\displaystyle ^{1/x_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}^2}{p_{}^2}}\mu _\tau (p_{}^2)\right\}.`$ (35)
By inspection of this equation, it should be clear that, as anticipated, it is the same scale $`Q_s^21/x_{}^2`$ which controls both the non-locality and the onset on non-linearity: this is the scale for which the exponent in eq. (35) is of order 1. This implies the following estimate (actually, an equation) for the saturation scale:

$`Q_s^2(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN}{4}}{\displaystyle ^{Q_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}^2}{p_{}^2}}\mu _\tau (p_{}^2).`$ (36)
For $`k_{}Q_s`$, the approximations in eq. (10) are justified, and the Gaussian (17) is the correct solution to the RGE within the mean field approximation. But this solution cannot be extended at low momenta $`k_{}<Q_s`$. This shows the inconsistency of some previous calculations within the classical MV model, where the Gaussian weight function (17) has been used at all momenta, including in the saturation regime .

For later reference, it is useful to combine eqs. (36), (24) and (27) to obtain an estimate for the $`\tau `$-dependence of $`Q_s`$ in the DLA (with $`\overline{\alpha }_s\alpha _sN/\pi `$) :

$`Q_s^2(\tau )xG(x,Q_s^2)\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\tau \mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2/Q_0^2)}\right\},\mathrm{or}Q_s^2(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\overline{\alpha }_s\tau }.`$ (37)
b) The low momentum regime. We now turn to the more interesting regime at small momenta, $`k_{}Q_s(\tau )`$, when the hadron is probed over distances large compared to the correlation length $`1/Q_s(\tau )`$ (but still small as compared to $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$). In addition to being relatively rapidly varying, the electric fields in this regime are also expected to have large amplitudes, of order $`1/g`$ (see eq. (51) below). In this regime, operators like $`V_z^{}V_x`$ are rapidly averaging to zero. Thus, in a first approximation, we shall simply ignore all the Wilson lines in the Hamiltonian (S0.Ex3). We shall verify a posteriori that this is a consistent approximation, by computing the expectation value $`V_x^{}V_y_\tau `$ with the resulting weight function. This approximation will be further justified in .

In this “random phase approximation” (RPA), the Hamiltonian reads simply:

$`H_{\mathrm{low}k_{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x_{}d^2y_{}x_{}|\frac{1}{_{}^2}|y_{}\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(y_{})}},`$ (38)
and does not involve the coupling constant at all. Thus, this is formally like a free theory, although it has been obtained in a strong field regime where $`g\alpha 1`$. In fact, this is not really a free theory, since the classical fields whose correlators are needed are highly non-linear functionals of $`g\alpha `$, cf. eq. (S0.Ex1). However, as we shall shortly see, these classical non-linear effects are not essential for getting saturation.

To determine the weight function $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$, one has to integrate the RGE (5) over all rapidities $`\tau ^{}`$ with $`0\tau ^{}\tau `$. Clearly, the RPA leading to the Hamiltonian (38), which requires $`k_{}Q_s(\tau ^{})`$, is not appropriate for all such intermediate $`\tau ^{}`$. Let $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$ be the rapidity at which the saturation momentum becomes equal to the external momentum666We are grateful to Al Mueller for pointing us the importance of the separation scale $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$. :

$`Q_s^2(\overline{\tau }(k_{}))=k_{}^2.`$ (39)
Then eq. (38) applies at $`\tau ^{}>\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$, while for $`0\tau ^{}\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$ we are rather in the high-momentum regime. This suggests the following approximation:

$`W_\tau [\alpha ]W_{\overline{\tau }}^{\mathrm{high}}[\alpha ]W_{\overline{\tau }\tau }^{\mathrm{low}}[\alpha ],`$ (40)
where $`W_{\overline{\tau }}^{\mathrm{high}}[\alpha ]`$ is the weight function in the high-momentum regime, eq. (17), evaluated at $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$ (this is the initial condition for the evolution described by $`H_{\mathrm{low}k_{}}`$), and $`W_{\overline{\tau }\tau }^{\mathrm{low}}[\alpha ]`$ is obtained by integrating the RGE with Hamiltonian (38) from $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$ up to $`\tau `$.

A crude estimate for the separation scale $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$ can be obtained by using the solution in the high-momentum regime. Eq. (37) implies $`Q_s^2(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{c\overline{\alpha }_s\tau }`$, where $`c=4`$ in the DLA but will be kept here as a free parameter, to partially account for our ignorance of the true dynamics at $`k_{}Q_s`$. This, together with eq. (39), implies

$`\tau \overline{\tau }(k_{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c\overline{\alpha }_s}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_s^2(\tau )}{k_{}^2}},`$ (41)
which shows that, when $`k_{}Q_s(\tau )`$, we have also $`\tau \overline{\tau }(k_{})`$. Physically interesting correlation functions like the gluon distribution (3) involve generally an integral over all rapidities $`0\mathrm{y}\tau `$. In the regime $`\tau \overline{\tau }(k_{})`$, the dominant contributions to such correlations come from the interval $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})\mathrm{y}\tau `$, and are thus determined by the piece $`W_{\overline{\tau }\tau }^{\mathrm{low}}[\alpha ]`$ of the weight function (40). Given the simplicity of the Hamiltonian (38), this is easily obtained as  :

$`W_{\overline{\tau }\tau }^{\mathrm{low}}[\alpha ]=𝒩_\tau \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\overline{\tau }(k_{})}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\mathrm{y}{\displaystyle d^2x_{}^i\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})\zeta _\tau ^1(\mathrm{y})^i\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})}\right\},`$ (42)
with the following width:

$`\zeta _\tau (\mathrm{y})=(1/\pi )\theta (\tau \mathrm{y}).`$ (43)
This implies (for $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})\mathrm{y},\mathrm{y}^{}\tau `$)

$`\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^{}^b(y_{})_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`(1/\pi )\delta ^{ab}\delta (\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}^{})x_{}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}^2}}|y_{},`$ (44)
$`^i\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^a(x_{})^i\widehat{\alpha }_\mathrm{y}^{}^b(y_{})_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`(1/\pi )\delta ^{ab}\delta (\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}^{})\delta ^{(2)}(x_{}y_{}),`$ (45)
showing that the probability distribution for the COV-gauge electric field $`\stackrel{~}{}^{+i}=^i\alpha `$ is local and homogeneous both in the transverse space and in space-time rapidity (within the interval $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})\mathrm{y}\tau `$). This is consistent with our assumption that transverse correlations in the system are over a typical scale $`1/Q_s`$, and thus cannot be resolved when the hadron is probed with a much lower resolution. But this also shows that the transverse $`\delta `$-function in eq. (45) must be taken with a grain of salt: this is really delocalized over the correlation length $`1/Q_s(\mathrm{y})`$.

It is now possible to compute the gluon distribution function in this low momentum regime. Since the fields are strong, we have to use the fully non-linear expression for the classical field in eq. (S0.Ex1). Eq. (3) involves the following 2-point function:

$`_a^{+i}(k^+,x_{})_a^{+i}(k^+,y_{})_\tau ={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑y^{}\mathrm{e}^{ik^+(x^{}y^{})}_a^{+i}(x^{},x_{})_a^{+i}(y^{},y_{})_\tau },`$ (46)
which we compute as follows:

$`_a^{+i}(\stackrel{}{x})_a^{+i}(\stackrel{}{y})_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\left(U_{ab}^{}^i\alpha ^b\right)_\stackrel{}{x}\left(U_{ac}^{}^i\alpha ^c\right)_\stackrel{}{y}_\tau `$ (47)
$`=`$ $`^i\alpha ^b(\stackrel{}{x})^i\alpha ^c(\stackrel{}{y})_\tau U_{ab}^{}(\stackrel{}{x})U_{ca}(\stackrel{}{y})_\tau ,`$
where, as indicated in the second line, the two COV-gauge electric fields $`^i\alpha `$ can be contracted only together (mainly because of the path ordering in the Wilson lines, which forbids other contractions ). By also using eq. (45), one obtains:

$`_a^{+i}(k^+,x_{})_a^{+i}(k^+,y_{})_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\overline{\tau }(k_{})}^\tau }𝑑\mathrm{y}\delta ^{(2)}(x_{}y_{})U_\mathrm{y}^{}(x_{})U_\mathrm{y}(y_{})_\tau .`$ (48)
The transverse $`\delta `$-function in the r.h.s. of eq. (48) imposes $`x_{}=y_{}`$, and therefore $`U_\mathrm{y}^{}U_\mathrm{y}1`$. More precisely, this $`\delta `$-function is spread over a distance $`|x_{}y_{}|1/Q_s(\mathrm{y})`$, which is precisely the correlation length for the 2-point function $`U_\mathrm{y}^{}(x_{})U_\mathrm{y}(y_{})`$. Over such a distance, the latter decreases by a factor $`b`$, with $`b>1`$ but not much larger (typically, $`be`$). We thus obtain:

$`_a^{+i}(k^+,x_{})_a^{+i}(k^+,y_{})_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{\pi b}}\delta ^{(2)}(x_{}y_{})\left(\tau \overline{\tau }(k_{})\right).`$ (49)
Up to the global factor $`1/b`$, this is the same result that would have been obtained in the linearized, or weak field, approximation $`_a^{+i}^i\alpha _a`$. All the non-linear effects — which were a priori encoded in the 2-point function of the Wilson lines — have dropped out from the gluon distribution because of the locality of the propagator (45).

By using eqs. (3) and (49), one can compute the number of gluons per unit of transverse phase space in this low-momentum regime. One obtains ($`b_{}`$ is the impact parameter) :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2(xG)}{d^2k_{}d^2b_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_{}}{4\pi ^3}\mathrm{e}^{ik_{}x_{}}_a^{+i}(k^+,x_{})_a^{+i}(k^+,0_{})_\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{4\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\left(\tau \overline{\tau }(k_{})\right),`$ (50)
or, after also using eq. (41),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2(xG)}{d^2k_{}d^2b_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{4\pi ^4a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\alpha }_s}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_s^2(\tau )}{k_{}^2}},`$ (51)
where the two unknown constants $`b`$ and $`c`$ have been combined into $`a=bc`$.

Eq. (51) is one of the main results in this paper. It shows marginal saturation (when $`k_{}^2`$ decreases, the gluon density still increases, but only logarithmically), and is consistent with the unitarity bounds: at fixed $`k_{}^2`$, the gluon density increases only linearly with $`\tau `$ (this is most obvious on eq. (50)), and so does also the associated distribution function $`xG(x,Q^2)`$ for $`Q^2Q_s^2`$. The latter is easily obtained from eq. (51) as (with $`d^2b_{}=\pi R^2`$):

$`xG(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{4\pi ^2a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\alpha }_s}}R^2Q^2\left[\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2(\tau )/Q^2)+1\right]`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{4\pi aN}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _s}}R^2Q^2\left[c\overline{\alpha }_s(\tau \overline{\tau }(Q))+1\right].`$
If extrapolated up to $`QQ_s`$, this agrees quite well with the corresponding extrapolation of the gluon distribution at high momenta, as given by eqs. (24) and (36).

According to eq. (51), the gluon density at saturation is of order $`1/\alpha _s`$, which corresponds to color fields as strong as $`^{+i}1/g`$. Still, as the above analysis clearly shows, the non-linear effects leading to saturation are not those in the classical field, but rather those in the quantum evolution, which led to the local weight function (42). In other terms, the saturation is built-in in the effective action at low momenta. In this respect, our conclusions differ from those in Refs. , although the final results found there for the gluon density are formally similar to our eq. (51).

On the other hand, our results here are consistent with some recent analyses of the non-linear gluon evolution by Mueller  and Levin and Tuchin . In Ref. , Levin and Tuchin have obtained exact, semi-analytic, solutions to the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation for $`V^{}(x_{})V(y_{})_\tau `$ , and then used these solutions to estimate the gluon distribution function. Their result is consistent with our eq. (52) provided one takes $`c=4`$, which coincides with the prediction of the (a priori, crude) DLA (cf. eq. (37)).

As a check of the self-consistency of the RPA, let us compute the 2-point function $`V^{}(x_{})V(0_{})_\tau `$ for $`x_{}^2=1/k_{}^21/Q_s^2(\tau )`$. This is again given by eq. (32) where the integral over y is now decomposed into two pieces: $`0<\mathrm{y}<\overline{\tau }(x_{})`$ and $`\overline{\tau }(x_{})<\mathrm{y}<\tau `$, with $`\overline{\tau }(x_{})\overline{\tau }(k_{}^2=1/x_{}^2)`$ (cf. eq. (39)). The first rapidity interval gives an attenuation factor $`be`$, while in the second interval we can use the propagator $`\gamma _\mathrm{y}(x_{}y_{})`$ from eq. (44). This gives:

$`\gamma _\mathrm{y}(0_{})\gamma _\mathrm{y}(x_{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{p_{}^2}\left[1\mathrm{e}^{ip_{}x_{}}\right]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(Q_s^2(\mathrm{y})x_{}^2\right),`$ (53)
where the scale $`Q_s(\mathrm{y})`$ has been introduced to cut off an ultraviolet divergence. It can be shown , via an analysis of the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation, that this is indeed the natural UV cutoff introduced by non-linear effects. Since (cf. eq. (41)):

$`\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2(\mathrm{y})x_{}^2)=c\overline{\alpha }_s(\mathrm{y}\overline{\tau }(x_{})),`$ (54)
we finally obtain:

$`V^{}(x_{})V(0_{})_\tau `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{c\overline{\alpha }_s^2{\displaystyle _{\overline{\tau }(x_{})}^\tau }𝑑\mathrm{y}(\mathrm{y}\overline{\tau }(x_{}))\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{(c/2)\overline{\alpha }_s^2(\tau \overline{\tau }(x_{}))^2\right\}`$ (55)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}\left[\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2(\tau )x_{}^2)\right]^2\right\}.`$
Once again, this coincides with the corresponding result in  provided one takes $`c=4`$. Eq. (55) shows that the correlator of the Wilson lines is rapidly decreasing when $`Q_s^2(\tau )x_{}^21`$, so that the RPA is indeed justified, at least as a mean field approximation.

Note finally that, in contrast to the weight function at high momenta, eq. (17), the width of the Gaussian in eq. (42) does not involve any mass scale. Thus, the weight function at low momenta is scale invariant and universal (in the sense of being insensitive to the initial conditions, and therefore the same for all hadrons). These properties transmit to the correlation functions computed with this weight function, up to logarithmic corrections which enter via the lower rapidity limit $`\overline{\tau }(k_{})`$ (which depends logarithmically on $`k_{}^2`$) and via the ultraviolet cutoff $`Q_s(\tau )`$. Thus, the correlation functions at saturation are functions of $`\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2(\tau )/k_{}^2)`$, as manifest on eqs. (51) and (55).

To conclude, in this paper we have constructed approximate solutions to the RGE for the Color Glass Condensate valid at either large, or small, $`k_{}`$ momenta. In both limits, we have used a mean field approximation. There is no difficulty of principle for using a mean field approximation in more general cases, since this inevitably leads to a Gaussian form for the functional $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$. For strong fields, the width of this Gaussian will satisfy a non-linear evolution equation, which in the high-momentum regime can be shown  to be consistent with a previous result by Mueller and Qiu . Beyond the mean field, we would like to be able to understand the limitations of the mean field approximations and perhaps to fully solve the renormalization group equation.

Acknowledgements

One of us (E.I.) gratefully acknowledge illuminating discussions with Al Mueller and Yuri Dokshitzer which allowed us to clarify some aspects of the solution in the saturation regime. We equally thank Ian Balitsky, Jean-Paul Blaizot, Mikhail Braun and Eugene Levin for useful conversations and/or correspondence.

This manuscript has been authorized under Contract No. DE-AC02-98H10886 with the U. S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Horizontal Branch Models as a Test of Mixing on the RGB

## 1. Introduction

The abundance anomalies in C, N, O, Na and Al found in red-giant stars in GCs are often attributed in part to the rotationally driven mixing of nucleosynthesized material from the vicinity of the hydrogen shell out to the stellar surface (Kraft 1994). It has been frequently suggested that such mixing and rotation might impact the subsequent HB evolution particularly in regard to the 2nd parameter effect. Perhaps the best evidence for this possibility comes from the 2nd parameter clusters M3 and M13. In M13 one finds evidence for extensive mixing on the RGB, high HB rotation velocities and a very blue HB morphology, while in M3 there is less mixing on the RGB, lower HB rotation velocities and a redder HB morphology.

How would rotation and mixing affect a star’s evolution? Since rotation delays the helium flash at the tip of the RGB, it would lead to a larger helium-core mass and greater mass loss. Consequently a rotating star would be both bluer and brighter on the HB than its non-rotating counterpart. In the case of mixing one must distinguish between “shallow” mixing, which does not penetrate into the hydrogen shell, and “deep” mixing, which does. “Shallow” mixing would have little, if any, effect on the HB. In contrast, “deep” mixing into the shell would increase the envelope helium abundance as well as the luminosity (and hence mass loss) at the tip of the RGB. The net effect of both rotation and “deep” mixing is to produce a bluer and brighter HB morphology.

## 2. New Results

Rich et al. (1997) discovered that the HBs in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 possess prominent blue extensions not found in other metal-rich GCs. Quite remarkably, these HBs also slope upward with decreasing $`BV`$ from the red clump to the top of the blue tail. Using canonical HB models, Sweigart & Catelan (1998, hereafter SC98) demonstrated that differences in age or mass loss along the RGB - two popular 2nd parameter candidates - cannot explain the HB morphology of these GCs. However, SC98 did find that deep mixing and rotation could produce upward sloping HBs similar to those observed in these clusters.

One scenario not considered by SC98 was a spread in metallicity within NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, a possibility first raised by Piotto et al. (1997). In order to explore this scenario in detail, we have evolved sequences from the main sequence through the HB phase for a range in \[Fe/H\] from $``$0.5 (the approximate metallicity of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441) to $``$2.3. For simplicity we assume that all models are coeval and that the Reimers mass loss parameter $`\eta _\mathrm{R}`$ is the same for all \[Fe/H\]. As shown in Figure 1, the zero-age HB (ZAHB) for these variable metallicity tracks is about 0.4 mag brighter than the canonical ZAHB for \[Fe/H\] = $``$0.5 at the top of the blue tail. When translated into the observational ($`V`$, $`BV`$) plane, we would expect the HB defined by the tracks in Figure 1 to slope upward by about the amount observed in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. These results suggest that NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 might be metal-rich analogues of $`\omega `$ Cen, the only other GC known to contain a spread in metallicity.

Blue HB stars in the temperature range $`4.3>\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.0}`$ generally have lower surface gravities than predicted by canonical models when their spectra are analyzed using stellar atmospheres with the cluster metallicity. Deep mixing was initially suggested as a possible explanation for this low gravity offset. However, it is now known that radiative levitation of heavy elements can increase \[Fe/H\] in the atmospheres of these stars to solar or super solar values. Most of the low gravity problem disappears when these stars are analyzed with metal-rich atmospheres (Moehler et al. 2000).

A number of interesting phenomena occur in HB stars around a temperature of $`11,000`$ K including the onset of radiative levitation, a shift to lower surface gravities, a drop in rotation velocities, a jump in the Strömgren u magnitudes, and in some GCs a gap in the HB distribution. These phenomena may be related to the disappearance of surface convection and hence to the formation of a more stable stellar atmosphere. As illustrated in Figure 2, HB stars cooler than log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.8}`$

have deep convective envelopes. Hotter than this temperature, the envelope convection breaks into distinct shells associated with the ionization of H and He. Note that the surface convection disappears at $`11,000`$ K.

## References

Kraft, R. P. 1994, PASP, 106, 553

Moehler, S., Sweigart, A., Landsman, W., & Heber, U. 2000, A&A, 360, 120

Piotto, G., et al. 1997, in Advances in Stellar Evolution, ed. R. T. Rood & A. Renzini (Cambridge: CUP), 84

Rich, R. M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 484, L25

Sweigart, A. V., & Catelan, M. 1998, ApJ, 501, L63 (SC98)


text:
# DAMTP-2001-27 Implications of Teleportation for Nonlocality

## I introduction

Quantum ‘teleportation’, first introduced in , is a quantum mechanical scheme that allows one participant (Alice) to transmit a quantum state in her possession to another participant (Bob). In the original version, it is a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ state that is sent and the only resources required are a shared singlet and the capacity for Alice to send two classical bits to Bob. In this case, Bob ends up with a state identical with the one Alice begins with. The state in Alice’s possession is randomized, so there is no contradiction with the no-cloning theorem . A notable feature of the scheme is that it works even when Alice has no knowledge of the state she is sending.

Briefly, the procedure described in  (hereafter referred to as ‘the standard scheme’) works as follows. Let the state Alice wants to teleport be $`|\chi `$ and the shared state have density matrix $`\rho `$. Alice performs a joint measurement on her half of $`\rho `$ and $`|\chi `$. The measurement projects onto the Bell basis. Alice sends two classical bits to Bob informing him of which of the four possible outcomes she got. Bob then performs a corresponding unitary transformation. If $`\rho `$ is maximally entangled then these four unitary transformations can be chosen such that the state Bob ends up with is identical with $`|\chi `$.

If $`\rho `$ is not maximally entangled then typically, Bob will end up with something that is not identical with $`|\chi `$. Suppose that at the end Bob is in possession of a state whose density matrix is $`M`$. The ‘fidelity’ of the teleportation is defined as $`\chi |M|\chi `$. In general, the fidelity will depend on $`|\chi `$ but we can define an average fidelity by averaging over all possible values of $`|\chi `$. This average is often referred to as ‘the’ fidelity for a particular teleportation scheme and shared state.

In Vaidman’s view , quantum teleportation is so called because it involves the transfer of an ‘object’ from one place to another without it ever being located in the intervening space. He troubles to argue that ‘teleportation’ is indeed an appropriate name for this process. This might already lead us to entertain rather vague notions that teleportation must be intrinsically connected with another idea, viz., ‘nonlocality’. In particular, in the case in which the fidelity is $`1`$ (corresponding to perfect teleportation), it seems intuitively obvious that some sort of ‘nonlocality’ is at work.

The purpose of this study is to investigate this idea in more detail (other studies have been undertaken in a similar spirit by Gisin , Zukowski , Hardy  and Cerf et al ). First, in Sec. II, we define more precisely what we mean by ‘nonlocal’ - broadly speaking, we take it to mean ‘not simulable by local hidden variables’. In the literature now, nonlocal is often used simply to mean entangled. We emphasize that it is the relation between teleportation and nonlocality in our sense that we shall investigate. In Sec. III, we discuss results of Hardy’s  which show that teleportation and nonlocality are conceptually distinct and which give us an idea of how local hidden variables might simulate a teleportation procedure. This leaves open the question of whether teleportation and nonlocality are physically distinct - this is the question that we turn to in Sec. IV. Here, we adopt an approach similar to that of Zukowski  and derive an inequality, the violation of which shows that perfect teleportation using a singlet implies nonlocality. In Sec. VI we consider teleportation using ‘Werner states’ instead of pure singlets. We extend Werner’s original local hidden variable model in order to simulate a teleportation scenario with local hidden variables. We also consider how high the teleportation fidelity can be before teleportation using a Werner state violates our inequality and therefore implies nonlocality. Finally, in Sec. VII, we comment on a result of Gisin’s that he claims has relevance to teleportation and nonlocality. We suggest that his interpretation of his result is slightly misleading but that the result is still interesting if interpreted differently.

## II What We Mean by ‘Nonlocality’

We would do well at the outset to specify precisely what we mean by nonlocality. Broadly, we take it to mean nonsimulablility by local hidden variables (but see the end of this section for a qualification). Consider a bipartite state $`\rho `$ acting on $`_A_B`$. The two subsystems are spatially separated, one being in the possession of an observer Alice and the other being in the possession of an observer Bob. Alice performs a measurement $`A`$ on her subsystem while Bob performs a measurement $`B`$ on his; these measurements occur at spacelike separation from one another. This procedure is repeated with a new system in the state $`\rho `$ each time. We refer to this as a ‘Bell-type experiment’. If measurement $`A`$ has an outcome $`a_i`$ and measurement $`B`$ has an outcome $`b_j`$, then a hidden variable model supposes that the probability of getting these two outcomes can be given in the form

$$\mathrm{Pr}(a_i,b_j|A,B,\rho )=𝑑\lambda \omega ^\rho (\lambda )\mathrm{Pr}(a_i,b_j|A,B,\lambda ),$$
(1)
where $`\omega ^\rho (\lambda )`$ is some distribution over a space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of hidden states $`\lambda `$. A local hidden variable model imposes the additional constraint

$$\mathrm{Pr}(a_i,b_j|A,B,\lambda )=\mathrm{Pr}(a_i|A,\lambda )\mathrm{Pr}(b_j|B,\lambda ).$$
(2)
It was Bell who first discovered that some quantum states are nonlocal . He derived an inequality involving the probabilities of measurement outcomes that must be satisfied by any local hidden variable model. He then showed that the quantum mechanical predictions for two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles in a singlet state violate this inequality. Different versions of Bell’s inequality were derived in . We refer to these as the Clauser-Horne (CH) inequality and the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, respectively.

These results have since been generalized. In , Peres considers experimental scenarios in which Alice and Bob each choose from an arbitrary finite number of possible measurements to perform, where each measurement has an arbitrary finite number of possible outcomes. Peres shows how to construct a list of inequalities, the idea being that if the outcomes can be simulated with a local hidden variable model then all the inequalities must be satisfied. He gives both a graphical method for the easy construction of these inequalities and an algorithm that produces a complete set - complete meaning that the satisfaction of all the inequalities is sufficient for the existence of a local hidden variable model for the particular experimental scenario considered. We refer to these inequalities as ‘Bell-type inequalities’.

Both the formalism developed by Peres and that of Eqs. (1) and (2) above apply only to a scenario in which Alice and Bob each perform a single measurement on each run of the experiment. In a more complicated scenario, Alice and Bob might perform a sequence of measurements. In , Popescu gives examples of states for which nonlocality can be revealed in this manner even though local hidden variable models exist for single measurements that satisfy Eqs. (1) and (2) - he calls this ‘hidden nonlocality’ (we discuss this briefly again in Sec. V). A new formalism would be needed to explain what is meant by a local hidden variable model here and what conditions would have to be violated for the nonexistence of such a model (see ,e.g., ). We do not discuss this further. In what follows, we refrain from calling a state ‘local’ unless it is completely local, i.e., has no hidden nonlocality (and indeed does not display what Teufel et al. call ‘deeply hidden nonlocality’ ). We may, however, speak of a state having a ‘local hidden variable model’, meaning only a model that satisfies Eqs. (1) and (2) - such a state may still have hidden nonlocality.

Note that in all of this we have been considering only measurements performed separately on each particle pair. In some cases, nonlocality may be revealed if Alice and Bob are allowed collective measurements on several particle pairs at once, even though the state would be local if this possibility were not allowed. We choose to ignore this possibility when classifying states as local or nonlocal - one could argue that, if collective measurements on $`n`$ copies of a state $`\rho `$ are needed to reveal nonlocality, then it is the state $`\rho ^n`$ that is nonlocal rather than $`\rho `$.

## III Conceptually vs Physically Distinct

In , Hardy shows that teleportation and nonlocality are conceptually distinct. ‘Conceptually distinct’ means that we ought to be able to imagine a scenario (not necessarily one complying with known physical laws but one that is at least logically consistent) in which perfect teleportation is realizable while locality is demonstrably preserved. Hardy constructs just such a scenario in the form of a toy theory which allows for notions of systems, states, measurements, a no-cloning theorem and teleportation. It is also demonstrably local. Note that this is separate from the question of whether teleportation and nonlocality are physically distinct - in other words, it still may be the case that teleportation in quantum mechanics implies nonlocality.

In fact, Hardy gives two reasons why we might think that nonlocality is implied by quantum teleportation. The second reason he gives is that entanglement can be teleported in quantum mechanics. In other words if Alice and Bob share particles $`C`$ and $`D`$ in a singlet state, while Alice has particles $`A`$ and $`B`$ in her possession in some entangled state $`|\psi _{AB}`$, then Alice can teleport particle $`B`$ to Bob so that at the end of the protocol $`A`$ and $`D`$ are in the state $`|\psi _{AD}`$. (This works essentially because teleportation is a linear operation applied to particle $`B`$ .) It is then possible to obtain a violation of Bell’s inequalities by performing measurements on $`A`$ and $`D`$. However Hardy also responds to this point:

> “We cannot necessarily assert on the basis of this fact that nonlocality plays a role in quantum teleportation. It is possible that the extra information which establishes the nonlocal correlations is only transmitted in the process of measuring the quantities in Bell’s inequalities, and is not transmitted in the teleportation process.”

In recognition of this sense that the subsequent testing of entanglement that has been teleported is not part of the teleportation process itself, we will hereafter ignore the possibility of teleporting entanglement. We will consider teleportation of a single state, not entangled with any others, and the question of when this might imply nonlocality.

In giving his first reason why teleportation might imply nonlocality, Hardy notes, following Bennett, that:

> “the amount of information needed to specify a general qubit is much greater than the two bits of information which is classically communicated during quantum teleportation. One might speculate that when a qubit is teleported, the extra information is being carried by the nonlocal properties of the entangled state.”

As well as making this point, however, Hardy also has a response:

> “On the other hand, it is not possible to extract more classical information from a qubit than the two classical bits communicated during teleportation and so there must remain questions about the reality of the quantum information apparently transmitted during teleportation.”

These two quotations, then, provide us with a motivation for a detailed investigation of the relationship between teleportation and nonlocality in quantum mechanics. This is undertaken in the next section. We adopt an approach similar to that of Zukowski . We derive a Bell-type inequality and show that it is violated in the case of teleportation using a shared singlet and the standard scheme.

First, however, Hardy’s toy theory is interesting because it provides some insight into how hidden variables might be able to describe a teleportation process, so it is worth examining a few of the details. A particle in Hardy’s theory exists in one of four states, labelled $`0`$,$`1`$,$`2`$ and $`3`$. The states are ‘hidden’ states because there is no measurement that will determine the state of a particle unambiguously and we cannot prepare a particle with an unambiguous state. We write the state of two particles as a vector $`(x_1,x_2)`$, where $`x_1,x_2\{0,1,2,3\}`$. Two particles may be correlated - for example, we can prepare them in such a way that their state is given by 25% chance of $`(0,0)`$, 25% chance of $`(1,1)`$, 25% chance of $`(2,2)`$ and 25% chance of $`(3,3)`$.

This is the preparation used to perform teleportation and is clearly analogous to the maximally entangled quantum state used in the standard quantum mechanical scheme (except, of course, it has none of the nonlocal properties possessed by a maximally entangled quantum state). Suppose Alice and Bob share two particles, called particles $`2`$ and $`3`$, which have been prepared in this way. Suppose that Alice also has another particle, particle $`1`$, in an unknown state, which she wishes to teleport to Bob. Alice can perform a joint measurement on particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ which can be characterized by four possible outcomes:

$$\begin{array}{cc}B_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 1\\ 2& 2\\ 3& 3\end{array}\right)& B_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 3\\ 1& 0\\ 2& 1\\ 3& 2\end{array}\right)\\ & \\ B_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2\\ 1& 3\\ 2& 0\\ 3& 1\end{array}\right)& B_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 2\\ 2& 3\\ 3& 0\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$

The notation means that if outcome $`B_0`$ was obtained, for example, then the initial state of the two particles was either $`(0,0)`$, $`(1,1)`$, $`(2,2)`$ or $`(3,3)`$. Any possible initial state of the two particles leads to a unique measurement outcome. After the measurement, if outcome $`B_0`$ was obtained, then the state of the two particles is one of these four with equal probabilities i.e., measurement disturbs the system (this leads to a proof of a no-cloning theorem). The measurement described here is clearly analogous to to the Bell-measurement used in the quantum mechanical standard scheme.

Alice now uses two classical bits to inform Bob of her measurement outcome. If $`x_3`$ is the initial state of particle $`3`$ and $`x_1`$ the initial state of particle $`1`$, Bob now knows the value of $`i=(x_3x_1)\mathrm{mod}4`$. Bob can perform an operation on particle $`3`$ given by $`U_i:x_3(x_3i)\mathrm{mod}4`$. These operations are analogous to the unitary operations of quantum mechanics. Teleportation has now been successfully completed - the final state of particle $`3`$ is identical with the initial state of particle $`1`$.

We can take a step back and ask: how exactly has this teleportation been accomplished? No individual particle has been transmitted from Alice to Bob (apart from in the preparatory stages and those used to transmit classical bits). Rather, correlations between hidden states have been used to ensure that the final state of the particle in Bob’s possession is identical with the intial state of the particle that Alice teleported. Although Alice in this theory is unable to determine the state of a particle directly, it turns out that she is able to do a measurement that tells her the difference between the states of particles $`1`$ and $`2`$. The correlations between the hidden states ensure that particle $`3`$ is initially in the same state as particle $`2`$ and Bob is then able to perform an operation on particle $`3`$ to make up the difference.

It is clear that this model works in the way it does only because there are only four different states that a particle can be in - this corresponds to the fact that Alice sends two classical bits. In this sense it is artificial and it is not miraculous that it works. It is, however, quite adequate to establish Hardy’s claim that teleportation and nonlocality are conceptually distinct. In subsequent sections we turn to consider whether, or in what circumstances, teleportation in quantum mechanics could be effected by making use of correlations between hidden variables in a similar manner.

## IV Teleportation and Nonlocality

Consider the standard scheme for quantum mechanical teleportation. Alice’s first action is to perform a joint measurement on her half of the shared system and the system she wishes to teleport. The measurement projects onto the Bell basis. There is another way of looking at this measurement (described in ). Recall that the most general type of quantum measurement corresponds to a positive operator valued decomposition of the identity . We call such a measurement a POV measurement. In the special case that the measurement corresponds to a projective decomposition of the identity, we refer to it as a projective measurement. A POV measurement on some system can always be realized by attaching an ancilla and performing a projective measurement on the combined system . Conversely, any joint projective measurement performed on the system and ancilla can be thought of as a POV measurement on just the system. This is exactly what is happening in the case of teleportation - we regard Alice’s half of the shared state as the system and the state being teleported as the ancilla. If the state being teleported is $`|\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)`$, then Alice is performing a POV measurement on her half of $`\rho `$, the shared state, with elements as follows:

POV element Bell outcome  Bob’s state,     if $`\rho =`$ singlet    $`A_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|b|^2& ab^{}\\ a^{}b& |a|^2\end{array}\right)`$ $`|\psi _{}`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)`$  $`A_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|b|^2& ab^{}\\ a^{}b& |a|^2\end{array}\right)`$ $`|\psi _+`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)`$  $`A_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|a|^2& a^{}b\\ ab^{}& |b|^2\end{array}\right)`$ $`|\varphi _{}`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ a\end{array}\right)`$  $`A_3=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|a|^2& a^{}b\\ ab^{}& |b|^2\end{array}\right)`$ $`|\varphi _+`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ a\end{array}\right)`$

The first column shows the POV element, the second the corresponding outcome if Alice’s measurement is regarded as a projection onto the Bell basis and the third the state that Bob ends up with (before he does any unitary transformation) assuming that $`\rho `$ is a singlet.

Now suppose that the teleportation procedure is repeated many times but with a modification: Bob does not bother performing unitary transformations. Instead, he wishes to determine how close the states he receives are to those being teleported (he can always take into account the fact that he *would* have performed a unitary transformation had he waited for the two classical bits). Bob does this by performing ordinary projective measurements. He performs them at spacelike separation from Alice’s POV (or Bell basis) measurements. Also suppose that Alice does not know each time which state she is teleporting. *Someone* knows which states are being teleported by Alice and she can be called Clare. From the table above, it is clear that Alice is actually performing a four-element POV measurement each time and *which* measurement she is performing is determined by $`|\chi `$ (that is, by the values of $`a`$ and $`b`$). We have now reduced the standard teleportation scenario to a typical experimental scenario for testing locality via Bell inequalities. On each run of the experiment, Alice performs one of a selection of incompatible measurements (although it is Clare who makes the choice for her) and so does Bob. After many runs, Alice and Bob can get together and, with Clare’s help, see how their results are correlated. The point is that, if the teleportation is being carried out with high fidelity, then Bob’s results will be strongly correlated with Alice’s and we can expect that some Bell-type inequality will be violated. If no Bell-type inequality is violated then we can say that the whole procedure could have been simulated with a local hidden variable model and that no nonlocality is therefore being exhibited. The task now is to derive a Bell-type inequality pertaining to the teleportation scenario and investigate when it might be violated.

In order to look for a Bell-type inequality that may be violated, we impose some restrictions. Suppose that Alice only ever teleports one of two possible states, fed to her randomly by Clare. This means that in the terms of the analysis above, Alice is always performing one from a choice of two possible POV measurements, each of which has four possible outcomes. We restrict Bob to a choice of two possible projective measurements, each of which has two possible outcomes. If a joint outcome includes both Alice’s and Bob’s outcomes, then there are $`(4+4)\times (2+2)=32`$ possible joint outcomes. As discussed in Sec. II, Peres shows how to construct Bell-type inequalities pertaining to this scenario in . Unfortunately, there are a very large number of such inequalities (the number increases very rapidly with the number of joint outcomes) and it is hard to know where to start looking if we want to find one that is violated. For this reason, we impose another restriction. Suppose that, although Alice’s measurements each have four distinct outcomes, we group them into pairs, so that, for example, $`A_0`$ or $`A_2`$ counts as outcome 1 and $`A_1`$ or $`A_3`$ counts as outcome 2. We then have that Alice has a choice of two measurements, each with two possible outcomes and so does Bob. This means that we can apply the well known Clauser-Horne inequality  (or something equivalent to it) directly to this case.

First, some terminology. Alice performs one of two measurements, which we label $`T`$ and $`U`$. Alice performing measurement $`T`$ corresponds to Clare giving her a state $`|\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)`$ to teleport. Alice performing measurement $`U`$, on the other hand, corresponds to Clare giving her a state $`|\chi ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}a^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)`$ to teleport. Measurement $`T`$ has two outcomes, labelled $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$. Outcome $`t`$ corresponds to Alice getting $`A_0`$ or $`A_2`$ in her measurement. Outcome $`\overline{t}`$ corresponds to her getting $`A_1`$ or $`A_3`$. Similarly, measurement $`U`$ has two outcomes, $`u`$ and $`\overline{u}`$. $`u`$ corresponds to outcome $`A_0`$ or $`A_3`$ while $`\overline{u}`$ corresponds to $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$. Note how the grouping of four possible outcomes into pairs is done differently according to which measurement Alice is performing. It turns out that unless we do it like this we do not get an inequality that is violated.

Bob’s two measurements are denoted $`R`$ and $`S`$, with outcomes $`r`$,$`\overline{r}`$,$`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$. $`R`$ and $`S`$ can correspond to spin measurements in different directions, $`r`$ and $`s`$ to spin up results and $`\overline{r}`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ to spin down results.

The inequality we use is

$$0\mathrm{Pr}(t,\overline{s})+\mathrm{Pr}(\overline{u},r)+\mathrm{Pr}(u,s)\mathrm{Pr}(t,r)1.$$
(3)
Here, $`\mathrm{Pr}(t,r)`$ represents the probability of Alice obtaining outcome $`t`$ and Bob obtaining outcome $`r`$ in one run (given that Alice performs measurement $`T`$ and Bob measurement $`R`$). This is seen to be equivalent to the Clauser-Horne inequality by adding and subtracting $`\mathrm{Pr}(t,s)+\mathrm{Pr}(u,r)`$, leaving

$`0\mathrm{Pr}(t)+`$ $`\mathrm{Pr}(r)+\mathrm{Pr}(u,s)`$
$`\mathrm{Pr}(t,s)\mathrm{Pr}(u,r)\mathrm{Pr}(t,r)1,`$
where $`\mathrm{Pr}(t)`$ is the probability of Alice getting outcome $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{Pr}(r)`$ the probability of Bob getting outcome $`r`$.

Now we substitute some values to show that this inequality can be violated for teleportation using a singlet. Using the standard rule for obtaining probabilities in quantum mechanics, we get

$$\mathrm{Pr}(t,r)=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (A_0+A_2)P],$$

where $`P`$ is the projection operator corresponding to outcome $`r`$. We get similar expressions for the other outcomes. If $`\rho `$ is a singlet, this gives

$$0\frac{1}{4}(2c(r_x+s_x)+d(r_ys_y))1,$$
(4)
where $`c=ab^{}+a^{}b`$ and $`d=i(a^{}b^{}a^{}b^{})`$. We also have that $`(r_x,r_y,r_z)=\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the direction of spin measurement $`R`$ and $`(s_x,s_y,s_z)=\stackrel{}{s}`$ is the direction of spin measurement $`S`$. If we set

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}a^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\end{array}\right),$$

$$\stackrel{}{r}=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0),\stackrel{}{s}=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0),$$

then Eq. (4), and therefore Eq. (3), is violated (we get $`\frac{1}{4}(2c(r_x+s_x)+d(r_ys_y))=(1\sqrt{2})/20.21<0`$). This corresponds to Alice teleporting one of two states - either spin-up along the x-axis or spin-up along the y-axis. Bob is performing one of two possible spin measurements, oriented in the xy-plane at $`\pm 45^0`$ to the x-axis.

Thus we see that perfect teleportation using the standard scheme does imply nonlocality. In the next section, we introduce ‘Werner states’ and in Sec. VI, we investigate when teleportation using a Werner state might imply nonlocality.

## V Werner states

The ‘Werner states’ were first introduced by Werner in . They are states in $`_d_d`$, where $`_d`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space, which consist of a mixture of an entangled pure state in $`d\times d`$ dimensions and rotationally symmetric noise represented by the identity. The $`d`$-dimensional Werner state is given by

$`W_d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^3}}I+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{d^2}}P^{anti},`$

where $`P^{anti}`$ projects onto the totally antisymmetric subspace of the product space and $`I`$ is the identity acting on the product space. In his original paper, Werner writes this as

$`W_d={\displaystyle \frac{1+d}{d^3}}I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^3}}V,`$

where $`V`$ is the operator which, acting on any two particle product state $`|\varphi |\psi `$, ‘swaps’ it to give $`|\psi |\varphi `$. (Note that $`P^{anti}=(1V)/2`$.)

In particular, the two-dimensional Werner state is given by

$`W_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P^s,`$

where $`P^s`$ is the projector onto the singlet state.

In , Werner introduces a local hidden variable model for these states. We assume that Alice and Bob share a supply of $`d`$-dimensional Werner states and that both perform a single projective measurement on each run of a Bell-type experiment. Briefly, the model works as follows. Any given pair of particles is assigned a hidden state $`|\lambda `$. $`|\lambda `$ is a vector of unit magnitude in $`d`$-dimensional complex space. We define a measure $`\omega (\lambda )d\lambda `$ over the possible values of $`|\lambda `$ which is unchanged under $`U(d)`$ rotations. This gives us the distribution of $`|\lambda `$ values obtained over many runs of the experiment. Suppose Alice performs a measurement $`A`$ with possible outcomes $`a_k`$ and Bob a measurement $`B`$ with possible outcomes $`b_l`$. (We assume that both Alice’s and Bob’s measurements are maximal projective measurements - see  for how to extend the model, fairly trivially, to nonmaximal projective measurements.) We have that the probability of obtaining the particular outcomes $`a_i`$ and $`b_j`$ is

$`\mathrm{Pr}(a_i,b_j|A,B)={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \omega (\lambda )\mathrm{Pr}(a_i|A,\lambda )\mathrm{Pr}(b_j|B,\lambda )}.`$

We also have:

$`\mathrm{Pr}(a_i|A,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{if}\lambda |P_{a_i}|\lambda <\lambda |P_{a_i^{}}|\lambda i^{}i`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`0\mathrm{otherwise},`$ (6)
and

$$\mathrm{Pr}(b_j|B,\lambda )=\lambda |P_{b_j}|\lambda ,$$
(7)
where $`P_{a_k}`$ and $`P_{b_l}`$ are the projection operators corresponding to measurement outcomes $`a_k`$ and $`b_l`$. It is then reasonably easy to show that $`\mathrm{Pr}(a_i,b_j|A,B)=\mathrm{Tr}[W_dP_{a_i}P_{b_j}]`$, which is the required quantum probability (see both Werner’s original paper  and Mermin ).

It is significant that the Werner states are mixed, entangled states. It might seem surprising that entangled states can have a local hidden variable model, especially in the light of a result that says that all entangled pure states are nonlocal . The story became more complicated when Popescu showed that the $`d`$-dimensional Werner states exhibit the ‘hidden nonlocality’ we spoke of earlier, provided $`d5`$ . By this we mean that for these states, nonlocality can be revealed if Alice and Bob each perform a sequence of two projective measurements on each run of the experiment - note that the local hidden variable model above only predicts the results for single projective measurements. (More precisely, the only way in which a local theory could account for the results of the sequential measurments would be for the outcome of Alice’s first measurement to be causally related to the choice of which measurement to perform for her second measurement - presumably this is something that a sensible theory should disallow if Alice is a free observer.) Whether an alternative scheme might show that the Werner states with $`d4`$ have hidden nonlocality or whether the use of POV measurements might show these states to be nonlocal are open questions.

Rather than consider these questions here, we wish to restrict attention to the two-dimensional case but generalize slightly so that we consider states of the form

$`W_2^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{4}}I+\alpha P^s.`$

This corresponds to Werner’s original state in two-dimensions when $`\alpha =1/2`$. It is entangled if $`\alpha >1/3`$. Note that it follows trivially from Werner’s local hidden variable model for the $`\alpha =1/2`$ case that there also exists a local hidden variable model (for single projective measurements) for any $`\alpha <1/2`$. Rather than consider in full generality which of these states may be local or nonlocal, in the next section we consider what teleportation using Werner states might tell us about nonlocality.

## VI Werner States and Teleportation

### A Local Hidden Variable Models

It has sometimes been argued that the state $`W_2^{\alpha =1/2}`$, to which Werner’s original local hidden variable model applies, must be nonlocal in some sense because, if used for teleportation, the fidelity achieved is $`\frac{3}{4}`$ which is greater than the ‘classical limit’ of $`\frac{2}{3}`$ (see, e.g., Popescu). This ‘classical limit’ is obtained as follows. It is in fact the best fidelity that can be obtained when Alice and Bob do not share any entangled quantum state and Alice does not know what state she is teleporting. Fidelity $`\frac{2}{3}`$ is achieved by Alice performing a measurement of spin along the z-axis on her particle and communicating the result to Bob classically. Bob then prepares a state that is correspondingly spin up or down along the z-axis. From here on, we refer to teleportation that works when Alice is ignorant of the state she is teleporting as ‘unknown-state teleportation’ (this includes, for example, the standard scheme) and teleportation that requires Alice to know the state she is teleporting as ‘known-state teleportation’. We can say, then, that unknown-state teleportation with fidelity $`>\frac{2}{3}`$ requires Alice and Bob to share an entangled quantum state. Popescu  describes any instance of unknown-state teleportation with fidelity $`>\frac{2}{3}`$ as a type of ‘nonlocality’ (presumably in view of the fact that shared entanglement is required). He is well aware, however, that this would not necessarily imply violation of a Bell-type inequality and notes therefore that there are two types of ‘nonlocality’ which are “inequivalent”. In the context of our investigation we prefer to reserve the term ‘nonlocality’ strictly for nonsimulability by a local hidden variable model, as explained in Sec. II. We can say simply that unknown-state teleportation with fidelity $`>\frac{2}{3}`$ demonstrates that entanglement is present. The question of whether the $`W_2^{\alpha =1/2}`$ state might have hidden nonlocality or nonlocality that can be revealed by POV measurements remains open - what we wish to argue here is that its ability to teleport with fidelity $`\frac{3}{4}`$ does not bear on this question.

We do this via a simple modification of Werner’s hidden variable model. Consider the ‘teleportation’ scenario above in which Bob does not bother waiting for Alice’s two classical bits or performing a unitary transformation but instead performs a measurement of some kind. If we can provide a local hidden variable model for this scenario, then we have effectively described teleportation of fidelity $`\frac{3}{4}`$ using local hidden variables (even though $`\frac{3}{4}`$ is greater than the ‘classical limit’).

Werner’s original model does not immediately apply because it applies to projective measurements on the Werner state only. Here, Alice is performing a Bell-basis measurement on her half of the shared Werner state and the state to be teleported. As described above, however, for our purposes we can regard this as a POV measurement on Alice’s half of the shared state alone. Our aim is to adapt Werner’s model so that we recover the correct quantum mechanical predictions for POV measurements performed on Alice’s half of the shared state at spacelike separation from projective measurements performed on Bob’s half. We can do this as follows. Suppose that Alice performs an arbitrary POV measurement $`A`$, with elements $`A_m`$ such that $`_mA_m=I`$. Then, for a particular outcome $`A_n`$, we can define

$$\mathrm{Pr}(A_n|A,\lambda )=\lambda |A_n|\lambda ,$$
(8)
where on the right-hand side (RHS), $`A_n`$ represents a positive operator and on the LHS the corresponding experimental outcome.

If we assume that Werner’s original model works, it is easy to show that this modified model works for an arbitrary POV measurement performed by Alice. If a spectral decomposition of $`A_n`$ is given by $`A_n=_iq_i^nQ_i^n`$, where $`0q_i^n1`$ and $`Q_i^n`$ is a projector, then

$`\mathrm{Pr}(A_n,b_j|A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \omega (\lambda )\mathrm{Pr}(A_n|A,\lambda )\mathrm{Pr}(b_j|B,\lambda )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \omega (\lambda )\lambda |A_n|\lambda \mathrm{Pr}(b_j|B,\lambda )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i^n{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \omega (\lambda )\lambda |Q_i^n|\lambda \mathrm{Pr}(b_j|B,\lambda )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i^n\mathrm{Tr}[W_2^{\alpha =1/2}Q_i^nP_{b_j}]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[W_2^{\alpha =1/2}A_nP_{b_j}],`$
which is the required result. We got from the third line to the fourth line by assuming that Werner’s original model for projective measurements works.

Incidently, the model can also easily be extended to include the case where Bob peforms a POV measurement provided Bob’s POV elements commute pairwise. In this case, there exists a single basis in terms of which we can write down the spectral decomposition of all of Bob’s POV elements. Suppose $`B_n^{}=_jq_j^n^{}Q_j`$ where the $`Q_j`$ are the projectors onto the elements of this basis (and the point is that they are independent of $`n^{}`$). If a projective measurement corresponding to a decomposition of the identity $`_jQ_j=I`$ is performed, Werner’s orignal model gives us the outcome probabilities via rule (5). For now, we abuse notation slightly and write these outcome probabilities as $`\mathrm{Pr}(Q_j|\lambda )`$. We can define the outcome probabilities for Bob’s POV measurement as:

$$\mathrm{Pr}(B_n^{}|B,\lambda )=\underset{j}{}q_j^n^{}\mathrm{Pr}(Q_j|\lambda ).$$
(9)
Reasoning similar to that above for the extension on Alice’s side shows that this will reproduce the correct quantum mechanical probabilities.

As mentioned above, to our knowledge, no one has yet constructed a local hidden variable model for $`W_2^{\alpha =1/2}`$ which correctly reproduces the quantum mechanical probabilities for arbitrary POV measurements on both Alice’s and Bob’s sides. What we have here is quite adequate for simulation of our modified teleportation scenario provided Bob is not allowed arbitrary POV measurements. It seems unlikely that allowing Bob this freedom would reveal nonlocality where there was none before, but we cannot claim to have ruled this out. Thus we conclude that with this slight qualification, the ability of the $`W_2^{\alpha =1/2}`$ state to teleport with fidelity $`\frac{3}{4}`$ does not betoken nonlocality.

In the next section we consider Werner states with general $`\alpha `$. We use the Bell-type inequality derived in Sec. IV to investigate when imperfect teleportation using Werner states might imply nonlocality.

### B When does Teleportation Imply Nonlocality?

In this section we use all the same notation as in Sec. IV. Consider again our Bell-type inequality (3):

$`0\mathrm{Pr}(t,\overline{s})+\mathrm{Pr}(\overline{u},r)+\mathrm{Pr}(u,s)\mathrm{Pr}(t,r)1.`$

If Alice’s and Bob’s shared state is $`\rho =\alpha P^s+[(1\alpha )/4]I`$, then we get

$`0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\alpha (c(r_x+s_x)+d(r_ys_y)))1,`$

again with $`c=ab^{}+a^{}b`$ and $`d=i(a^{}b^{}a^{}b^{})`$. If, as before, we set

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}a^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\end{array}\right),`$

$`\stackrel{}{r}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0),\stackrel{}{s}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0),`$

then we have a violation if

$`\alpha >{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$

Thus teleportation using the standard scheme and a Werner state with  $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$  implies nonlocality. This of course implies that these states are nonlocal.

In fact, it is precisely the Werner states with $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$ that violate the ordinary CHSH inequality  for a suitable choice of projective measurements, so we did not need to consider teleportation or derive this inequality merely to find out that these states are nonlocal. That they violate the CHSH inequality can be shown using a result of the Horodeckis’  as follows. Any density matrix operating on $`_2_2`$ can be written as:

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(II+V_i^1\sigma _iI+V_i^2I\sigma _i+T_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\right),`$

where the $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli $`\sigma `$ matrices, $`V_i^1`$ and $`V_i^2`$ are real three-dimensional vectors, $`T_{ij}`$ is a real $`3\times 3`$ matrix and repeated indices are summed over. (Note that there are other conditions which $`\stackrel{}{V^1}`$, $`\stackrel{}{V^2}`$ and $`T`$ must satisfy for $`\rho `$ to be a genuine density matrix). The Horodeckis show that $`\rho `$ violates the CHSH inequality for some choice of measurements for Alice and Bob if and only if $`t_1+t_2>1`$, where $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are the largest two eigenvalues of $`T^TT`$.

It is easy to show that, in order to write a generalized 2-dimensional Werner state in this form, we set

$`\stackrel{}{V^1}=0,\stackrel{}{V^2}=0\mathrm{and}T_{ij}=\alpha \delta _{ij}`$

to get

$`W_2^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(II\alpha \delta _{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\right).`$

This state violates the CHSH inequality if and only if $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$, as claimed.

What we have shown in this section, then, is not just that the Werner states with $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$ are nonlocal - we already knew this from . We have shown in addition that consideration of teleportation using these states can also reveal them as nonlocal. This can be regarded as in keeping with a conjecture made by Zukowski who suggests that

> “the quantum component of the teleportation process cannot be described in a local and realistic way as long as the initial \[shared\] state…neither admits such models.”

To summarize, we have a local hidden variable model to describe teleportation using any Werner state with $`\alpha 1/2`$ (with the slight caveat that we have not included the case in which Bob performs arbitrary POV measurements on the state that he receives). We have also shown that teleportation with the standard scheme and a Werner state with $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$ does imply nonlocality. States with $`1/2<\alpha 1/\sqrt{2}`$ do not violate the CHSH inequality for any choice of projective measurements but apart from this, questions about their locality remain open. When used for teleportation, they do not violate our inequality but might violate some other inequality.

Note that a state with $`\alpha `$ just greater than $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ will teleport with a fidelity just greater than $`1/2(1+1/\sqrt{2})0.85`$. The teleportation procedure will involve nonlocality even though this value for the fidelity is below a bound derived by Gisin, which is $`0.87`$ . We discuss this further in Sec. VII.

Our investigation has been resticted to teleportation using Werner states and the standard scheme. It might be interesting to try to extend these results and find something more general of the form: unknown-state teleportation implies nonlocality if the fidelity is $`F`$ or higher and can otherwise be described using a local hidden variable model. It may well be, however, that there is no such result to be found. There could exist two states $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ and two teleportation schemes, which teleport with fidelities $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ such that teleportation with $`\rho `$ implies nonlocality while teleportation with $`\rho ^{}`$ does not even though $`F<F^{}`$.

## VII Gisin’s Result

Before concluding we would like to comment on a result of Gisin’s which he claims has relevance to teleportation and nonlocality . Gisin derives a value for teleportation fidelity that is given by

$$F=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{2}}{\pi }0.87.$$

He describes this as an “upper bound for the fidelity of quantum teleportation explainable by local hidden variables”. The value of $`F`$ is derived as follows.

First Gisin notes that the shared state, $`D`$, must be local, and “hence useless for teleportation”. Then, “within the local hidden variable paradigm, Alice could measure the state $`\psi _{Alice}`$ in the classical sense of ‘measuring’: finding out what the state $`\psi _{Alice}`$ is.” Here, $`\psi _{Alice}`$ is the state that Alice is teleporting (which we earlier called $`|\chi `$). In the light of this, to derive the value for $`F`$ above, we assume that Alice and Bob share nothing, that Alice knows the quantum state she is trying to teleport and that Alice sends two classical bits to Bob. The best they can do is to divide the surface of the Bloch sphere into four regions. Alice uses the two classical bits to let Bob know which region the state she is teleporting lies in. Bob then prepares a state in the centre of this region. The optimal way of doing this is to inscribe a regular tetrahedron in the Bloch sphere. The areas of the surface of the sphere subtended by the faces of the tetrahedron are the four regions used. Calculation then gives the average fidelity obtained as $`F`$ above.

We feel that the description of $`F`$ as an “upper bound for the fidelity of quantum teleportation explainable by local hidden variables” is slightly misleading. On the assumption that ‘explainable’ here can be replaced with ‘simulable’, the fidelity ‘explainable’ by local hidden variables rather depends on what is to count as a simulation of a quantum teleportation procedure. Under our and Zukowski’s approach, we are happy if a local theory can predict the results of Alice’s Bell measurement and of a spacelike-separated measurement made by Bob (for a completely different approach which is equally interesting, see ). Using our and Zukowski’s approach, we found that the ability of the state $`W_2^{\alpha =1/2}`$ to teleport with fidelity $`\frac{3}{4}`$ does not betoken any form of nonlocality. On the other hand, the fact that under the standard scheme, a state $`W_2^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha `$ just greater than $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ teleports with fidelity just greater than $`1/2(1+1/\sqrt{2})0.85`$ does betoken nonlocality. This is despite the value of $`0.85`$ being below Gisin’s bound. It is true that, if Alice knows the state she is trying to teleport, then she can do better than this using only local means - this is what Gisin’s result shows. If Alice does not know the state she wants to teleport, however, then the standard teleportation scheme is the best she can do and this will involve nonlocality. (Note that the standard scheme is indeed the optimal scheme for unknown-state teleportation using a Werner state; see, e.g., ).

In addition, there is no reason why teleportation with a fidelity greater than Gisin’s bound should not be simulable by local hidden variables in some cases. The key here is that hidden variable theories are surely only required to reproduce probabilities for measurement results. In other words a hidden variable model need not specify an actual quantum state to be received by Bob on each run of the experiment - we must assume that Bob does some kind of measurement and it is only the outcome of this measurement that must be predicted by the model. So it is not quite correct to say that a shared state that is local must be “useless for teleportation”. The local correlations may be useful in helping Alice and Bob achieve correlated measurement results.

At the least, we feel that Gisin’s result is less genuinely to do with locality than our own or Zukowski’s  or those of Cerf et al. . This does not mean that Gisin’s result is uninteresting, however. Interpreted as the best fidelity achievable when Alice and Bob share nothing at the start of the protocol, and Alice knows the state she is trying to teleport and is limited to the sending of two classical bits, it is correct. It can be contrasted with the value of $`\frac{2}{3}`$ for the fidelity which is the best Alice and Bob can do when they share nothing at the start of the protocol and Alice does not know the state she is trying to teleport.

Gisin’s result is also useful. In the case that Alice and Bob share a nonmaximally entangled quantum state, they cannot achieve unit fidelity. Gisin’s result shows that if Alice knows the state she is trying to teleport, is limited to the sending of two classical bits to Bob and the best fidelity achievable with a quantum scheme is $`<F0.87`$, then they may as well not bother using the shared quantum state. They would do better to use the purely classical scheme above.

## VIII Conclusion

Perfect teleportation (i.e., teleportation with unit fidelity) initially seems paradoxical because only two classical bits are sent yet Bob ends up with a quantum system in a state identical with the state of Alice’s input system - and it would take an infinite amount of classical information to specify precisely a quantum state. It is concluded (rather vaguely) that some sort of nonlocality must be involved - the extra ‘information’ must be transmitted nonlocally. Vaidman argues that, correctly interpreted, quantum teleportation involves the transfer of an ‘object’ from one place to another without it ever being located in the intervening space . This also sounds vaguely paradoxical and might suggest nonlocality (although Vaidman himself is more concerned to reconcile this view of teleportation with his own belief in a many-worlds type interpretation of quantum mechanics). Rather than adopt either of these two viewpoints, we are more inclined to dissolve these paradoxes (at least partially) by sharing Hardy’s doubts concerning the reality of the ‘information’ apparently transmitted during teleportation (see the quotations in Sec. III). We suggest that the paradox is resolved if we consider a quantum state as being a description of an ensemble of systems, rather than a single system - Bob can identify the state and any information contained therein by performing measurements on the whole ensemble. But to teleport the whole ensemble, Alice does indeed send an infinite number of classical bits.

Having said this, teleportation might still involve nonlocality. If we define nonlocality to mean nonsimulability by local hidden variables, then to speak meaningfully of teleportation being local or nonlocal we must have Bob performing a measurement of some sort on the state that he receives (because hidden variable models are required only to reproduce the results of measurements). Bob’s measurement is at spacelike separation from Alice’s. We can speak of the teleportation as being nonlocal if Bob’s results are correlated with Alice’s in a way that cannot be simulated with a local model.

In investigating this, we have considered perfect teleportation using a singlet, derived an appropriate Bell-type inequality and shown that it is violated. So perfect teleportation is nonlocal. We have also considered teleportation using Werner states, of the form $`\rho =\alpha P^s+[(1\alpha )/4]I`$. Using the same inequality, we found that the teleportation is nonlocal precisely for those Werner states that violate the CHSH inequality, i.e., those with $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$. These teleport with fidelity $`F>1/2(1+1/\sqrt{2})0.85`$. We also extended Werner’s local hidden variable model for the $`\alpha =1/2`$ states to give a local model describing teleportation using these states (the fidelity of which is $`\frac{3}{4}`$). We concluded that the ability to teleport with fidelity $`\frac{3}{4}`$ does not confer nonlocality in this case, with the qualification that we have not allowed Bob arbitrary POV measurements.

Broadly speaking, the status of the (two-dimensional) Werner states with respect to locality remains unknown. Teleportation shows that those with $`\alpha >1/\sqrt{2}`$ are nonlocal - but we already knew this. Teleportation using the $`\alpha =1/2`$ state can be simulated locally - but the state may still have a hidden nonlocality to be revealed by other means. We do not know whether (unknown-state) teleportation using the $`1/2<\alpha 1/\sqrt{2}`$ states can be simulated locally or not, or whether they might have nonlocality to be revealed by other means.

Related independent results have been very recently circulated by Clifton and Pope .

Note added. An LHV model allowing for POV measurements on Bob’s side has recently been constructed for the $`\alpha =5/12`$ state, which teleports with fidelity 17/24 . Thus we can simulate teleportation with fidelity 17/24 without the qualification that Bob is restricted to projective measurements.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Trinity College, Cambridge for support, CERN for hospitality and to the European grant EQUIP for partial support. I am also indebted to Adrian Kent for much assistance with this work.