format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has been shown that there exist a continuum of stable and unstable monopole and dyon solutions in the Einstein-Yang-Mills theory in the asymptotically anti-de Sitter (AdS) space. They generalize a discrete family of unstable particle-like solutions in the asymptotically Minkowski or de Sitter space. Similarly, black hole solutions exist with discrete values of magnetic charges in the asymptotically flat or de Sitter space, and with continuous values of non-abelian electric and magnetic charges in the asymptotically AdS space.

Monopole and dyon solutions are characterized by their mass and non-Abelian magnetic/electric charges. The spectrum defines the moduli space of the solutions, which varies with the consmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and the gauge and gravitational coupling constants ($`e`$ and $`G`$). The spectrum consists of infinitely many discrete points for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, whereas it has a finite number of continuous branches for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. When the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ approaches zero, an already-exsiting branch of monopole and dyon solutions collapses to a single point in the moduli space. At the same time new branches of solutions emerge. A fractal structure in the moduli space has been observed.

In this paper we derive a scaling law for the mass spectrum of the solutions with respect to their magnetic and electric charges ($`Q_M`$ and $`Q_E`$), the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(<0)`$, and the ratio of the gravitational constant to the gauge coupling constant $`v4\pi G/e^2`$. Some of the results in  indicate that the mass of monopoles and dyons is expressed in terms of a universal function $`f(Q_M,Q_E)`$. We shall show that this follows from the factorization property of the solutions and that $`f(Q_M,Q_E)`$ is determined by the monopole and dyon solutions in the fixed AdS background metric.

AdS spacetime has many special properties. In some models it accommodates the holographic principle; the information on the boundary of the space determines physics in the bulk. We shall see a trace of this property in the classical Einstein-Yang-Mills theory. The existence of stable monopole and dyon solutions in the asymptotically AdS space seems tightly connected to boundary data on non-Abelian charges, though more thorough investigation is necessary.

## 2 Monopoles and dyons

There exist static, spherically symmetric monopole and dyon solutions in the Einstein-Yang-Mills theory. The action of the system is

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{16\pi G}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{1}{4}F^{a\mu \nu }F_{}^{a}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\right].$$
(1)
The Einstein and Yang-Mills equations are given by

$`R^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\mu \nu }(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })=8\pi GT^{\mu \nu }`$ (2)
$`F_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}+e[A_\mu ,F^{\mu \nu }]=0.`$ (3)
The metric of spacetime is given by

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{H}{p^2}}dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{H}}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)`$ (4)
$`H=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}r^2`$ (5)
where $`H`$, $`p`$, and $`m`$ depend on $`r`$ only. $`m(r)/G`$ represents a total mass contained inside $`r`$ in the $`c=1`$ unit. (Numerical values below are given in the $`c=\mathrm{}=G=1`$ unit.) The $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills fields take

$$A^{(0)}=\frac{\tau ^j}{2e}\left\{u(r)\frac{x_j}{r}dtϵ_{jkl}\frac{1w(r)}{r^2}x_kdx_l\right\}$$
(6)
in the Cartesian coordinates ($`x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=r^2`$). The gauge coupling constant is denoted as $`e`$. With these ansatz (5) and (6) the Einstein and Yang-Mills equations (3) reduce to

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{p}}w^{}\right)^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{H}}u^2w{\displaystyle \frac{w}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1w^2)}{r^2}}`$ (7)
$`\left(r^2pu^{}\right)^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2p}{H}}w^2u`$ (8)
$`m^{}=v\left[H(w^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(1w^2)^2}{2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2p^2(u^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2w^2p^2}{H}}\right]`$ (9)
$`p^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2v}{r}}p\left[(w^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2w^2p^2}{H^2}}\right]`$ (10)
with the boundary conditions $`u=m=0`$ and $`w=p=1`$ at the origin. The set of the equations contains two parameters, the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the ratio of the gravitational constant to the gauge coupling constant $`v=4\pi G/e^2`$.

There are soliton-type solutions with finite masses. There are infinitely many conserved, gauge-covariant charges. In the spherically symmetric case the nonvanishing charges of importance are

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_E\\ Q_M\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑S_k\sqrt{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\begin{array}{c}F^{k0}\\ \stackrel{~}{F}^{k0}\end{array}\right)\frac{x^j\tau ^j}{r}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1p_{\mathrm{}}\\ 1w_{\mathrm{}}^2\end{array}\right).`$ (12)
where $`u_1`$, $`p_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$ are defined by the asymptotic expansion $`uu_{\mathrm{}}+(u_1/r)+\mathrm{}`$ etc. Each solution is specified by its mass (multiplied by $`G`$), $`M=m(\mathrm{})`$, non-Abelian electric and magnetic charges, $`Q_E`$ and $`Q_M`$, and the number, $`n`$, of the nodes of $`w(r)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ the spectrum of the solutions is discrete, $`u(r)=0`$ ($`Q_E=0`$), $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, and all solutions are unstable. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ the spectrum is completely different. It is continuous. For each $`n`$ ($`=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) there are a family of solutions with continuous values of $`Q_E`$ and $`Q_M`$. In particular, the nodeless solutions ($`n=0`$) are stable. In the moduli space of the solutions, $`M`$ of a particular point (solution) is a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`v`$, $`n`$, $`Q_E`$, and $`Q_M`$. $`M`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`v`$ have dimensions of (length), (length)-2, and (length)2, respectively, whereas $`n`$, $`Q_E`$, and $`Q_M`$ are dimensionless. We show that $`M`$ is expressed in terms of a universal function of $`Q_E`$ and $`Q_M`$ up to an overall factor.

## 3 Solutions in the fixed AdS background metric

To understand why stable solutions exist only in the asymptotically AdS space ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$), we consider soliton solutions in the fixed AdS background metric, setting $`p=1`$ and $`H=1\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3`$ in Eqs. (7) and (8) and on the r.h.s. of Eq. (9). Introduce $`x=(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|/3)^{1/2}r`$ and $`\widehat{u}=(3/|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)^{1/2}u`$. Then Eqs. (7), (8), and (9) become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left\{(1+x^2){\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dx}}\right\}={\displaystyle \frac{w(1w^2)}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{u}^2w}{1+x^2}}`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left\{x^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{u}}{dx}}\right\}={\displaystyle \frac{2w^2\widehat{u}}{1+x^2}}`$ (14)
and

$$\frac{dm}{dx}=v\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{3}}\left\{(1+x^2)\left(\frac{dw}{dx}\right)^2+\frac{(1w^2)^2}{2x^2}+\frac{x^2}{2}\left(\frac{d\widehat{u}}{dx}\right)^2+\frac{\widehat{u}^2w^2}{1+x^2}\right\}.$$
(15)
The equations for $`\widehat{u}(x)`$ and $`w(x)`$ do not involve either $`v`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The charges of the solutions are

$$Q_M=1w_{\mathrm{}}^2,Q_E=x^2\frac{d\widehat{u}}{dx}|_{x=\mathrm{}}.$$
(16)
Hence a family of the solutions in the fixed AdS background metric satisfy

$`w(r;\mathrm{\Lambda },w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)^{\mathrm{AdS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{\mathrm{AdS}}(x;w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)`$ (17)
$`u(r;\mathrm{\Lambda },w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)^{\mathrm{AdS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{3}}}\stackrel{~}{u}^{\mathrm{AdS}}(x;w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E).`$ (18)
Here $`\{\stackrel{~}{w}^{\mathrm{AdS}}(r),\stackrel{~}{u}^{\mathrm{AdS}}(r)\}`$ represents a solution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3`$. Further $`dm/dx`$ is expressed in terms of $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`w`$ with an overall factor $`v(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|/3)^{1/2}`$, which implies that

$`m(r;\mathrm{\Lambda },v,w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)^{\mathrm{AdS}}=v\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{3}}}\stackrel{~}{m}^{\mathrm{AdS}}(x;w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)`$ (19)
$`M^{\mathrm{AdS}}=m^{\mathrm{AdS}}|_{r=\mathrm{}}=v\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}f(Q_M,Q_E),`$ (20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{\mathrm{AdS}}(r)`$ is the mass function for $`v=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3`$. $`f(Q_M,Q_E)`$ defines a universal scaling function as we shall see below. Note that $`f`$ is a double-valued function of $`Q_M`$ as $`Q_M=1w_{\mathrm{}}^2`$.

The size of the solutions also scales. One definition of the size, $`\mathrm{}`$, of a solution is given in terms of $`m(r)`$ by $`m(\mathrm{})=0.5m(\mathrm{})`$, where we have arbitrarily taken a size-factor $`0.5`$. It immediately follows

$$\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{AdS}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}h(Q_M,Q_E).$$
(21)
Typical solutions are depicted in fig. 1. Both $`w(x)`$ and $`\widehat{u}(x)`$ monotonically decrease or increase. The solutions have at most one node in $`w(r)`$. The most of the energy of each solution is localized in $`x<10`$.

There is a special solution

$`\widehat{u}=0,w={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}}`$ (22)
for which $`Q_E=0`$, $`Q_M=1`$, and $`M=(\sqrt{3}\pi /8)v|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}`$. $`Q_M=1`$ corresponds to the same quantized magnetic charge as for the ’t Hooft and Polyakov monopole.

Further, $`w^{\mathrm{AdS}}1`$ and $`m^{\mathrm{AdS}}0`$ for $`x<0.1`$. It is also numerically confirmed that

$$\mathrm{Max}_r\frac{2m^{\mathrm{AdS}}}{r}\frac{1}{1(\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3)}\{\begin{array}{cc}0.03(v|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)^{1/2}M^{1/2}|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/4}\hfill & \text{for }w_{\mathrm{}}>1\hfill \\ 0.1M|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}\hfill & \text{for }w_{\mathrm{}}<1\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
for monopole solutions. As far as $`v|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ and $`M|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}`$ are small enough, corrections to the metric may be ignored, and the solution in the fixed AdS background metric gives a good approximation to a solution in the EYM theory. ($`p(r)1`$ for those solutions.)

## 4 Factorization

Let us turn to the EYM solutions in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case. Set $`u=0`$. Expressed in terms of $`y=r/\sqrt{v}`$, $`H=1(2\overline{m}/y)`$ and $`\overline{m}=m/\sqrt{v}`$, Eqs. (7), (9), and (10) contain no parameter;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dy}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{w}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1w^2)}{y^2}}`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{m}}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{(1w^2)^2}{2y^2}}+H\left({\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dy}}\right)^2`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{2p}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dy}}\right)^2`$ (26)
Solutions $`\{w,p,\overline{m}\}`$ are functions of $`y`$ only. In each solution $`w(r)`$ crosses the axis $`n`$ times ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$), and approaches $`(1)^n`$ asymptotically. A physical mass is given by $`M/G`$, or $`\overline{m}(\mathrm{})\sqrt{v}/G=\overline{m}(\mathrm{})M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{\alpha }`$ where $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$ and $`G=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$. The mass of the $`n`$-th Bartnik-McKinnon solution is

$$(\mathrm{mass})_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(v)=\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{\sqrt{\alpha }}e_n(n=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$
(27)
$`e_n=M_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}|_{v=1}`$ is numerically given by $`(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{})=(0.8286,0.9713,\mathrm{})`$. For $`n1`$, $`e_n11.081e^{\pi n/\sqrt{3}}`$. $`w_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r)`$, $`p_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r)`$, and $`m_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r)`$ of the $`n`$-th solution reach their asymptotic values at $`ra_n\sqrt{v}`$ where $`a_n10^n`$. The size of the Bartnik-McKinnon solutions is characterized by $`\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}a_n\sqrt{v}`$.

Monopole and dyon solutions in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ are labeled by $`(n,v,\mathrm{\Lambda },w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)`$. The index $`n`$ runs over 0, 1, 2, $`\mathrm{}`$. We would like to show that for $`\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}1`$, the Einstein-Yang-Mills monopole solutions are well approximated by

$`w_n=w_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r;v)w^{\mathrm{AdS}}(r;\mathrm{\Lambda },(1)^nw_{\mathrm{}},Q_E),`$ (28)
$`u_n=u^{\mathrm{AdS}}(r;\mathrm{\Lambda },(1)^nw_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)/p_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(\mathrm{};v),`$ (29)
$`p_n=p_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r;v),`$ (30)
$`m_n=m_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r;v)+m^{\mathrm{AdS}}(r;\mathrm{\Lambda },(1)^nw_{\mathrm{}},Q_E,v),`$ (31)
where it has been understood that $`w_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r;v)=p_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r;v)=1`$ and $`m_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(r;v)=0`$. First, the solution in the fixed AdS metric approximately solves the EYM equations for $`n=0`$, as remarked above.

Secondly, for $`n1`$ we consider two regions; \[I\] $`r<0.1(3/|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)^{1/2}`$ and \[II\] $`r>a_n\sqrt{v}`$. The two regions overlap with each other if $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|v<0.03a_n^2`$. In the region I, $`w^{\mathrm{AdS}}1`$, $`m^{\mathrm{AdS}}0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/31`$ so that the solution is well approximated by that in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case, provided $`u^2`$ is sufficiently small. In the region II, $`w_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(1)^n`$, $`p_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}p_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}|_{r=\mathrm{}}`$, and $`m_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}\sqrt{v}e_n`$. In Eqs. (7) - (10) the value of constant $`p`$ is irrelevant with $`pu`$ substituted by $`u`$. $`H`$ is approximated by $`H=1\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3`$ as $`m_n^{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}/r<1/a_n1`$. Hence the solutions are given by those in the fixed AdS background metric with $`w`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ given by $`(1)^nw_{\mathrm{}}`$. The solutions in the asymptotically AdS space are obtained by dressing solutions in the fixed-AdS background metric to the Bartnik-McKinnon solutions in the asymptotically flat space, as expressed in (31).

The factorization property of the solutions, (31), is confirmed by numerical evaluation of the solutions. In fig. 2, $`w(r)`$ of the monopole solutions at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^4,10^5`$ and $`v=1`$ with various $`w_{\mathrm{}}=3,0,1,3`$ are depicted. For $`r<10`$ these solutions are well approximated by the first Bartnik-McKinnon solution at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. For larger $`r`$ the solutions are essentially given by $`w^{\mathrm{AdS}}(x;\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,w_{\mathrm{}})`$.

## 5 Scaling

A scaling law follows from the factorization property. From (20) and (31)

$$\frac{M_n(v,\mathrm{\Lambda },w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)\sqrt{v}e_n}{v\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}=f(Q_M,Q_E)$$
(32)
the r.h.s. of which is independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`v`$, and also of $`n`$. The scaling law is valid for $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|v<0.03a_n^2`$ and small $`|Q_E|`$.

In fig. 3 numerical data of monopole solutions for the lowest ($`n=0`$) and second ($`n=1`$) branches is depicted. It is seen that all data for $`v|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<0.01`$ falls on the universal function $`f(Q_M,0)`$ for $`n=0`$, and for $`v|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<0.0001`$ for $`n=1`$. It follows from (32) that the mass is given by

$$(\mathrm{mass})_n(v,\mathrm{\Lambda },w_{\mathrm{}},Q_E)=\frac{e_n}{\sqrt{\alpha }}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}+\frac{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}{\alpha }f(Q_M,Q_E).$$
(33)
In the lowest branch the magnitude of the mass is determined by $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}/\alpha `$, whereas in the higher branches it is given by $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{\alpha }`$.

The size of a monopole or dyon is essentially the same as that of the solution in the fixed AdS background metric, as the dressed fields cover the inside Bartnik-McKinnon core. $`h(Q_M,0)`$ in (21) is depicted in fig. 4.

As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(<0)`$ approaches 0, the branch in the $`Q_M`$-$`M`$ plane collapses to a flat line $`M=\sqrt{v}e_n`$. The size of the solutions grows as $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}`$ so that Bartnik-McKinnon solutions with higher $`n`$ can be accommodated inside the AdS solutions, allowing more solutions in higher branches. This explains the phenomenon observed in ref. . In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ limit only solutions with $`Q_M=0`$ survive.

## 6 Summary

In this paper we have examined monopole-dyon solutions in the Einstein-Yang-Mills theory in the asymptotically AdS space. The monopole and dyon solutions in the lowest branch ($`n=0`$) are essentially the solutions in the fixed AdS background metric. The solutions in the higher branches ($`n>0`$) are obtained by dressing monopole and dyon solutions in the fixed AdS background metric around the Bartnik-McKinnon solutions in the asymptotically flat space. As all Bartnik-McKinnon solutions are unstable, the monopole and dyon solutions in the higher branches are unstable, whereas the nodeless solutions are stable against small perturbations.

Because of the factorization property of the solutions there arises a scaling law in the mass of the solutions when regarded as a function of $`e`$, $`G`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`Q_M`$ and $`Q_E`$. Up to an overall factor it scales to a universal function $`f(Q_M,Q_E)`$ determined by the solutions in the fixed AdS metric. The factorization/dressing mechanism is expected to apply for black hole solutions as well.

In quantum theory $`Q_M`$ and $`Q_E`$ are expected to be quantized. Solutions with minimal $`|Q_M|`$ or $`|Q_E|`$ must be absolutely stable. The stable solutions discussed in the present paper are, in nature, non-topological solitons. They exist only with gravitational force. In this sense they may be called gravitational solitons.


text:
# References

Quantum Groups, $`q`$-Dynamics and Rajaji

R. P. Malik *** E-mail: malik@boson.bose.res.in   Talk given in the “Rajaji Symposium” (22nd Feb 2001) held at The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras (India) to honour Prof. G. Rajasekaran on the occasion of his 65th birth anniversary.

S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,

Block-JD, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Calcutta-700 098, India

Abstract: We sketch briefly the essentials of the quantum groups and their application to the dynamics of a $`q`$-deformed simple harmonic oscillator moving on a quantum line, defined in the $`q`$-deformed cotangent (momentum phase) space. In this endeavour, the quantum group $`GL_{qp}(2)`$\- and the conventional rotational invariances are respected together. During the course of this discussion, we touch upon Rajaji’s personality as a critical physicist and a bold and adventurous man of mathematical physics.
———————————————

The basic idea behind the concept of “deformation” in theoretical physics is quite old one. In fact, the two most successful and well-tested theories of 20th century, namely; the quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity, can be thought of as the “deformed” versions of their “undeformed” counterparts: the classical mechanics and the Galilean relativity. The deformation parameters in these theories are supposed to be the Planck constant ($`\mathrm{}`$) and the speed of light ($`c`$)  respectively (which turn out to be the two fundamental constants of nature). In the limit when $`\mathrm{}0`$ and $`c\mathrm{}`$, we get back the corresponding “undeformed” physical theories. Long time ago, it was proposed that space-time might become noncommutative \[3-5\] if we probe the deeper structure of matter with energies much higher than the typical scale of energy for quantum mechanics. Nearly a couple of decades ago, this idea got a shot in its arms in the context of inverse scattering method (and Yang-Baxter equations) applied to the integrable systems  and it was conjectured that the deformation of groups based on the quasi-triangular Hopf algebras  together with the ideas of noncommutative geometry  might provide a “fundamental length” ($`l_p`$) in the context of space-time quantization. This will complete the trio (i.e. $`\mathrm{},c,l_p`$) of fundamental constants of nature and will, thereby, enable us to express physical quantities in terms of these natural units. Recently, there has been an upsurge of interest in the noncommutative spaces  in the context of branes in string theory and matrix model of M-theory. However, we shall discuss here some aspects of noncommutativity associated with the space-time structure in the framework of quantum groups alone and will not touch upon the noncommutativity associated with the string/M-theory.

Let us begin with a $`q`$-deformation (where $`q`$ is a dimensionless quantity), introduced as a noncommutativity parameter for the spacetime coordinates in the $`D`$\- dimensional flat Minkowski (configuration) manifold, as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x_\mu x_\nu =qx_\nu x_\mu ,(\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,\mathrm{}..D1).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(1)`$
It can be checked that (1) is invariant under the Lorentz boost transformations iff $`\mu <\nu `$. Moreover, if we reduce (1) to a two dimensional “quantum plane” in space (i.e. $`\mu =1,\nu =2`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}xy=qyx,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2)`$
we see that the conventional rotational invariance for a two dimensional “undeformed” plane is violated. In some sense, the homogeneity and isotropy of space-time becomes questionable because of the loss of these two conventional invariances. In the limit $`q1`$, the “quantum plane” reduces to an ordinary plane with its rotational symmetry intact.

It was a challenging problem to develop a consistent $`q`$-deformed dynamics where conventional invariances were respected. In this context, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation of a $`q`$-deformed dynamics was considered in the tangent and cotangent spaces, defined over 2D $`q`$-deformed configuration space (corresponding to the definition (2)) . In this approach, however, the conventional rotational invariance was lost and the status of a one-dimensional physical system was not clear. On the positive side of this approach, a rigorous $`GL_{qp}(2)`$ invariant differential calculus was developed and then it was applied to the construction of a consistent $`q`$-dynamics. In another interesting attempt, a $`q`$-deformation was introduced in the Heisenberg algebra . As a result, it was impossible to maintain the Hermiticity property of the phase variables together. This led to the introduction of a new coordinate variable in the algebra. Consequently, a single point particle was forced to move on two trajectories at a given value of the evolution parameter for $`q1`$ (which was not found to be a physically interesting feature). In an altogether different approach, a $`q`$-deformation was introduced in the cotangent (momentum phase) space defined over a one-dimensional configuration manifold . In this endeavour, a “quantum-line” was defined in the 2D cotangent manifold as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x(t)\pi (t)=q\pi (t)x(t),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3)`$
where $`t`$ is a commuting real evolution parameter and $`x(t)`$ and $`\pi (t)`$ are the phase space variables. In relation (3), the conventional rotational invariance is maintained because a rotation does not mix a coordinate with its momentum. However, a rigorous differential calculus was not developed in this approach and dynamics was discussed by exploiting the on-shell conditions alone. It was also required that the solutions to equations of motion should be such that the quantum-line (3) is satisfied for all values of the evolution parameter. This way of deformation was generalized to the multi-dimensional systems \[13-15\]

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x_\mu x_\nu =x_\nu x_\mu ,\pi _\mu \pi _\nu =\pi _\nu \pi _\mu ,x_\mu \pi _\nu =q\pi _\nu x_\mu ,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4)`$
and the dynamics of (non)relativistic systems was discussed by exploiting the on-shell conditions only. Prof. G. Rajasekaran (popularly known as “Rajaji” in the physics community of India) is blessed with a very critical mind. Not only he is critical about others’ work, he is self-critical too. In fact, he was very much critical about these relations in Eq. (4) and argued that there must be some quantum group symmetry behind this choice of relations. His criticism spurred our interest in this problem a great deal. As a result, we were able to find that, under the following transformations for the pair(s) of phase variable(s): $`(x_0,\pi _0),(x_1,\pi _1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..(x_{D1},\pi _{D1})`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & x_\mu Ax_\mu +B\pi _\mu ,\hfill \\ & & \pi _\mu Cx_\mu +D\pi _\mu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5)`$
where $`A,B,C,D`$ are the elements of a $`2\times 2`$ matrix belonging to the quantum group $`GL_{qp}(2)`$ and obeying the braiding relations in rows and columns (with $`q,p𝒞/\{0\}`$) as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & AB=pBA,AC=qCA,BC=(q/p)CB,BD=qDB,\hfill \\ & & CD=pDC,ADDA=(pq^1)BC=(qp^1)CB,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6a)`$
the relations (4) remain invariant for any arbitrary ordering of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ if the parameters of the group are restricted to obey $`pq=1`$. In fact, relations (4) respect the conventional Lorentz invariance as well as the quantum group $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & AB=q^1BA,AC=qCA,BC=q^2CB,\hfill \\ & & BD=qDB,CD=q^1DC,AD=DA,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6b)`$
invariance together if we assume the commutativity of elements $`A,B,C,D`$ of the above quantum group with the phase variables $`x_\mu `$ and $`\pi _\mu `$. It will be noticed that the relationship (6b) has been derived from (6a) for $`pq=1`$ (and $`GL_{q,q^1}(2)GL_q(2)`$). In fact, relations (4) and symmetry transformations (6a,6b) were exploited for the discussion of a consistent $`q`$-dynamics for some physical systems in the multi-dimensional phase space .

To develop a consistent $`q`$-dynamics in the 2D phase space for a one dimensional simple harmonic oscillator (1D-SHO), we shall exploit the definition of a quantum-line (3) in the phase space. This relationship remains invariant under the conventional rotations as well as the following quantum group symmetry transformations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ \pi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ \pi \end{array}\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(7)`$
where $`A,B,C,D`$ are the elements of the quantum group $`GL_{qp}(2)`$ that obey relations (6a). It will be noticed that the quantum-line (3) is also invariant under transformations corresponding to the quantum group $`GL_q(2)`$ which is endowed with elements ($`A,B,C,D)`$ that obey relations (6a) for $`q=p`$ . In fact, both these quantum groups possess identity, inverse, closure property and associativity under the binary operation $`()`$ as the matrix multiplication. However, these quantum groups form what are known as pseudo-groups. To elaborate this point, let us examine the group properties of the simpler group $`GL_q(2)`$. The identity element ($`I`$) of this group can be defined from its typical general element ($`T`$) as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)GL_q(2),\text{and}T_{ij}\delta _{ij}I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
for $`A=D=1`$ and $`B=C=0`$. The determinant of $`T`$ ($`detT`$) turns out to be the central for this group in the sense that it commutes with all the elements ($`A,B,C,D`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & detT=ADqBC=DAq^1CB,\hfill \\ & & (detT)(A,B,C,D)=(A,B,C,D)(detT),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(9)`$
as can be seen from the $`q`$-commutation relations of elements $`A,B,C,D`$ belonging to the quantum group $`GL_q(2)`$. Now the inverse of $`T`$ can be defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T^1=\frac{1}{ADqBC}\left(\begin{array}{cc}D& q^1B\\ qC& A\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{DAq^1CB}\left(\begin{array}{cc}D& q^1B\\ qC& A\end{array}\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(10)`$
because $`TT^1=T^1T=I`$. The closure property ($`TT^{}=T^{\prime \prime }`$), under matrix multiplication, can be seen by taking two matrices $`T`$ and $`T^{}GL_q(2)`$ and demonstrating

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{}& B^{}\\ C^{}& D^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{\prime \prime }& B^{\prime \prime }\\ C^{\prime \prime }& D^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)GL_q(2),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(11)`$
where it is assumed that elements of the above two matrices, belonging to the quantum group $`GL_q(2)`$, commute among themselves (i.e., $`[T_{ij},T_{kl}^{}]=0`$). Exploiting the closure property, it can be checked that the associativity property is also satisfied, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T\left(T^{}T^{\prime \prime }\right)=\left(TT^{}\right)T^{\prime \prime }.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(12)`$
The requirement that $`[T_{ij},T_{kl}^{}]=0`$, entails upon quantum group (e.g. $`GL_q(2)`$) to be a pseudo-group. This is because of the fact that: (i) the elements of the product $`T^2=TT`$ do not belong to the quantum group (e.g. $`GL_q(2)`$), and (ii) the condition $`[T_{ij},T_{kl}^{}]=0`$ is not taken into account while defining the inverse matrix $`(T^1)`$ where the elements of $`T^1`$ and $`T`$ are taken to be non-commuting in the proof: $`TT^1=T^1T=I`$.

In our work , a consistent $`q`$-dynamics was developed where conventional rotational (and/or Lorentz) symmetry invariance, together with a quantum group symmetry invariance, was maintained. A $`GL_{qp}(2)`$ invariant differential calculus, consistent with the Yang-Baxter equations, was developed in 2D (momentum) phase space and then it was applied for the discussion of dynamics of some physical systems. As an example here, we begin with the following Lagrangian for the 1D-SHO

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L=P\dot{x}^2Qx^2,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\dot{x},x`$ are the velocity and position variables (with $`x\dot{x}=pq\dot{x}x`$) and $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are the parameters which are, in general, non-commutative. A general discussion for the least action principle leads to the definition and derivation of the canonical momentum ($`\pi `$) and the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion (EOM) as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi =\frac{1}{p}\frac{L}{\dot{x}},\dot{\pi }=\frac{1}{p}\frac{L}{x}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(14)`$
The differential calculus (with $`dx=\dot{x}dt,d\pi =\dot{\pi }dt`$ where $`t`$ is a real commuting evolution parameter) leads to the derivation of the following basic relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & x\pi =q\pi x,\dot{x}\dot{\pi }=q\dot{\pi }\dot{x},\pi \dot{x}=p\dot{x}\pi ,\hfill \\ & & \pi \dot{\pi }=pq\dot{\pi }\pi ,x\dot{\pi }=q\dot{\pi }x+(pq1)\dot{x}\pi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
which restrict any arbitrary general Lagrangian ($`L(x,\dot{x})`$) to satisfy

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & x\frac{L}{\dot{x}}=q\frac{L}{\dot{x}}x,\dot{x}\frac{L}{x}=q\frac{L}{x}\dot{x},\frac{L}{\dot{x}}\dot{x}=p\frac{L}{\dot{x}}\dot{x},\hfill \\ & & \frac{L}{\dot{x}}\frac{L}{x}=pq\frac{L}{x}\frac{L}{\dot{x}},x\frac{L}{x}=q\frac{L}{x}x+(pq1)\dot{x}\frac{L}{\dot{x}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(16)`$
We demand that the Lagrangian (13) should satisfy all the basic conditions listed in (16). As it turns out, there are two interesting sectors of dynamics for 1D-SHO, described by (13). These are: (i) when the parameters of deformations are restricted to satisfy $`pq=1`$, and (ii) when $`pq1`$ for the discussion of solutions to EOM. For the former case, consistent with the differential calculus , we obtain the following $`q`$-commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x\dot{x}=\dot{x}x,PQ=QP,\xi P=qP\xi ,\xi Q=qQ\xi ,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(17)`$
where $`\xi `$ stands for $`x,\dot{x}`$ (i.e. $`\xi =x,\dot{x})`$. Exploiting these relations, we obtain the following EOM for the system under consideration

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\ddot{x}=P^1Qx\omega ^2x,(\omega ^2=P^1Q),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(18)`$
which has its solution, at any arbitrary value of the evolution parameter $`t`$, as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x(t)=e^{i\omega t}A+e^{i\omega t}B,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(19)`$
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the non-commuting constants which can be fixed in terms of the initial conditions of the dynamics, as given below

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A=\frac{1}{2}\left[x(0)+\omega ^1\dot{x}(0)\right],B=\frac{1}{2}\left[x(0)\omega ^1\dot{x}(0)\right].\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(20)`$
The consistency requirements of $`GL_{qp}(2)`$ invariant differential calculus  vis-a-vis relations (17) and (20), lead to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}AB=BA,B\omega =\omega B,A\omega =\omega A,x\omega =\omega x,\dot{x}\omega =\omega \dot{x}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(21)`$
Furthermore, it can be checked that all the $`q`$-commutation relations  among $`x,\pi ,\dot{x},\dot{\pi }`$ are satisfied at any arbitrary value of $`t`$. Thus, we have a completely consistent dynamics in a noncommutative phase space for $`pq=1`$. We have paid a price, however. As it has turned out, all the variables (i.e. $`A,B,\omega ,x(0),\dot{x}(0)`$), present in the solution $`x(t)`$, are commutative in nature like we have in conventional classical mechanics. Thus, in some sense, the nature of this dynamics is trivial. In other words, as far as the evolution of the system is concerned, we do not see the effect of $`q`$-deformation (or noncommutativity) on the dynamics.

This is the point where boldness and adventure of “Rajaji” (as a mathematical physicist) came to the fore. He argued that we must find out a non-trivial solution to the equation of motion where parameters of the deformation are not restricted to unity (i.e, $`pq1`$). Thus, let us consider this non-trivial sector of dynamics for 1D-SHO. The Lagrangian (13) satisfies all but one relations in (16)  with the following $`q`$-commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}PQ=QP,\xi Q=pq^2Q\xi ,P\xi =p\xi P,(\xi =x,\dot{x}).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(22)`$
The problematic relation of (16) (the last one!) forces us to require:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(pq1)\left(Qx^2pqP\dot{x}^2\right)=0,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(23)`$
which emerges from the basic condition: $`x\dot{\pi }=q\dot{\pi }x+(pq1)\dot{x}\pi `$ of Eq. (15). The EOM for the system in this sector (where $`pq1`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\ddot{x}=\frac{1}{p^2q^2}P^1Qx\omega ^2x,(\omega ^2=\frac{1}{p^2q^2}P^1Q),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(24)`$
has the following general solution in terms of constants $`A,B`$ and $`\omega `$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x(t)=e^{i\omega t}A+e^{i\omega t}B.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(25)`$
However, the restriction (23) is satisfied if and only if: either $`A=0`$ or $`B=0`$. With the expression for $`A`$ and $`B`$, given in (20), this leads to the restriction: $`\dot{x}(0)=\pm \omega x(0)`$. Now the general form of the exponential evolution for the 1D-SHO is either

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x(t)=e^{i\omega t}A,\text{with}A\omega =pq\omega A,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(26)`$
or,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x(t)=e^{i\omega t}B,\text{with}B\omega =pq\omega B.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(27)`$
As a consequence, the dynamics for $`pq1`$ does not evolve in the 2D (velocity) phase space but degenerates into a restricted 1D region. In this region, both the restrictions: $`\dot{x}(t)=\pm \omega x(t)`$ and $`Qx^2=pqP\dot{x}^2`$ are satisfied for all values of the evolution parameter $`t`$. In fact, it can be checked that the evolution of the system, described by Eq. (26) and/or Eq.(27), is such that these conditions are very precisely satisfied.

It will be noticed that, unlike the dynamical sector for $`pq=1`$, here the constants $`\omega `$ and $`A`$ (or $`B`$) do not commute with each-other and still there exists a consistent “time” evolution for the system, albeit a restricted one. In fact, as a result of the $`q`$-deformation, the evolution of the 1D-SHO is strictly on a 1D “quantum-line” even-though the whole (velocity) phase space is allowed for its evolution  The discussion of dynamics in the cotangent (momentum phase) space has been carried out in the Hamiltonian formulation as well .. This new feature is completely different from the discussion of a 1D-SHO in the framework of classical mechanics. It will be a nice idea to discuss the supersymmetric version of this system in the framework of $`q`$-deformed dynamics. It will be very interesting to explore the possibility of $`\mathrm{}`$-deformation over $`q`$-deformation and look for the new aspects of dynamics when $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ both are present.


text:
# Spectral decomposition of Bell’s operators for qubits

## 1 Introduction

There is a huge literature about the topic of Bell’s inequalities. For the sake of this introduction, we briefly recall some well-known ideas, using the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality . For each choice of four numbers $`a_1,a_1^{},a_2,a_2^{}\{1,+1\}`$, the quantity $`S=\frac{1}{2}(a_2+a_2^{})a_1+\frac{1}{2}(a_2a_2^{})a_1^{}`$ can take only the values +1 or -1. Therefore, if the four numbers are considered as realization of random variables, the expectation of $`S`$ will certainly depend on the distribution of the variables but must satisfy $`|E(S)|1`$. These are ”trivial mathematics”. But if one turns to quantum mechanics (QM), then this inequality can be violated. Indeed, consider that $`a`$ is $`+1`$ if, as a result of a measurement, a spin is found along the direction $`+𝐚`$, and $`a`$ is $`1`$ if the spin is found along the direction $`𝐚`$. This is achieved by replacing $`a`$ by the operator $`𝐚\sigma \sigma _a`$. Using this prescription for $`a_1`$, $`a_1^{}`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_2^{}`$ we find that $`S`$ is the expectation value of the ”Bell operator”

$$B_2(𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏}^{},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma _{a_2}+\sigma _{a_2^{}}\right)\sigma _{a_1}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma _{a_2}\sigma _{a_2^{}}\right)\sigma _{a_1^{}}$$
(1)
where $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏}^{},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$ are unit vectors that will be referred to as the ”parameters” of the Bell operator. It is well-known that for some choices of the parameters the highest eigenvalue of $`B_2`$ can be higher than 1: there exist some states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that violate the inequality $`|B_2_\mathrm{\Psi }|=|E(S)|1`$. ”Trivial mathematics” fail whenever $`[\sigma _{a_k},\sigma _{a_k^{}}]0`$, that is whenever $`𝐚_𝐤\pm 𝐚_𝐤^{}`$: in this case the ”random variables” $`a_k`$ and $`a_k^{}`$ cannot have simultaneously a precise value.

The first Bell’s inequalities were derived for two two-level systems (hereafter referred to as ”qubits”). Generalizations of the Bell’s inequalities have been proposed along the following lines: (i) bipartite inequalities for two n-level quantum systems ; (ii) bipartite inequalities using more than two parameters per system $`a_1`$, $`a_1^{}`$, $`a_1^{\prime \prime }`$,… ; (iii) multipartite inequalities, that is, inequalities involving more than two quantum systems .

In this paper, we consider inequalities involving an arbitrary number of qubits using two observables per qubit (the observables are obviously dichotomic). This family of inequalities has been studied in great detail independently by Werner and Wolf  and by Zukowski and Brukner . Our present contribution consists in exhibiting explicitly the spectral decomposition of the Bell’s operators (section 2). Section 3 presents applications of this result.

## 2 Spectral decomposition of Bell operators

### 2.1 Inequalities for two observables

Consider a quantum system composed of $`n`$ qubits, that is a system described by the Hilbert space $`\left(\text{}^2\right)^n`$. For each qubit $`k`$, we define two observables $`A_k(0)=\sigma _{a_k}`$ and $`A_k(1)=\sigma _{a_k^{}}`$, with $`𝐚_𝐤`$ and $`𝐚_𝐤^{}`$ two vectors on the unit sphere. The set $`\{𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏}^{},\mathrm{}𝐚_𝐧,𝐚_𝐧^{}\}`$ of the $`2n`$ unit vectors is written $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$. Up to normalization, any n-qubit Bell inequality111From now onwards, expressions like ”all inequalities” mean ”all inequalities involving two observables per qubit”. can be written as $`_n(\underset{¯}{𝐚})1`$ for a given Bell operator $`_n`$. The form of the Bell operator is a polynomial

$`_n(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s\{0,1\}^n}{}}\beta (s){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}A_k(s_k).`$ (2)
The coefficients $`\beta (s)`$ are rather arbitrary, provided that $`_n1`$ is satisfied for all product states.

Of course, not every polynomial of the form (2) defines a good inequality; in the worst cases, e.g. when the polynomial is simply $`\sigma _{a_1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{a_n}`$, one will find $`_n1`$ for all states. The complete classification of all inequalities is due to Werner and Wolf . A special role is played by the Mermin-Klyshko (MK) inequalities , whose corresponding Bell operator is defined recursively as

$`B_n(\underset{¯}{𝐚})B_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{a_n}+\sigma _{a_n^{}})B_{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{a_n}\sigma _{a_n^{}})B_{n1}^{}`$ (3)
where $`B_n^{}`$ is obtained from $`B_n`$ by exchanging all the $`𝐚_k`$ and $`𝐚_k^{}`$. In particular, $`B_2`$ is given by the CHSH inequality; $`B_3`$ is the operator that corresponds to the so-called Mermin’s inequality . For MK inequalities, the violation allowed by QM is $`B_n=2^{(n1)/2}`$; no other inequality with two observables per qubit can reach such a violation . More results on these operators are given in Appendices A and B.

### 2.2 Spectral decomposition: statement of the theorem

We want to characterize the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the Bell operator $`_n`$ defined in (2), for a given set of $`2n`$ unit vectors $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$. For this purpose, we can suppose without any loss of generality that all the unit vectors in $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ lie in the $`(x,y)`$ plane; physically, this amounts to say that the axes $`x,y,z`$ can be defined independently for each qubit. We will show the following

###### Theorem 1

Let $`_n`$ given by (2), with $`𝐚_𝐤=\mathrm{cos}\alpha _k𝐞_𝐱+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _k𝐞_𝐲`$ and $`𝐚_𝐤^{}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha _k^{}𝐞_𝐱+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _k^{}𝐞_𝐲`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Let $`|0`$, resp. $`|1`$, be the eigenvector of $`\sigma _z`$ for the eigenvalue $`+1`$, resp. $`1`$. Finally, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)\{0,1\}^n`$ be a configuration of $`n`$ zeros or ones, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(\overline{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\omega }_n)`$ with $`\overline{\omega }_k=1\omega _k`$ the complementary configuration. Then:

1. The $`2^n`$ n-qubit GHZ states, labeled by the configurations $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, defined by:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e^{i\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }}|\mathrm{\Omega }+|\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)`$ (4)
form a basis of eigenvectors of $`_n`$ for some $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }=\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$.
2. The parameter $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }=\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$ and the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }=\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$ are calculated from a complex number $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{if }\mathrm{arg}f_\mathrm{\Omega }[0,\pi [\hfill & \text{then:}\hfill & \theta _\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{arg}f_\mathrm{\Omega }\pi ,\hfill & \lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }=|f_\mathrm{\Omega }|;\hfill \\ \text{if }\mathrm{arg}f_\mathrm{\Omega }[\pi ,2\pi [\hfill & \text{then:}\hfill & \theta _\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{arg}f_\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill & \lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }=|f_\mathrm{\Omega }|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The complex number $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$ is obtained as follows: take $`_n`$, and for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ replace the operator $`\sigma _{a_k}`$ by the complex number $`e^{i\alpha _k}`$ if $`\omega _k=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, or by the complex number $`e^{i\alpha _k}`$ if $`\omega _k=1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; and the analog replacement for $`\sigma _{a_k^{}}`$.

About statement 1: It was noticed in  (V, D) that GHZ states are the states that maximally violate any inequality. This is an immediate corollary of statement 1, since for any matrix $`M`$ it holds that $`\mathrm{max}_vv|M|v/v|v`$ is the maximal eigenvalue, obtained if and only if $`v`$ is the eigenvector associated to that eigenvalue.

About statement 2: The definition of $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$ may seem cumbersome, but a single example will clarify it. Take the CHSH operator is given by (1). Then $`f_{00}=\frac{1}{2}(e^{i\alpha _2}+e^{i\alpha _2^{}})e^{i\alpha _1}+\frac{1}{2}(e^{i\alpha _2}e^{i\alpha _2^{}})e^{i\alpha _1^{}}`$; $`f_{01}`$ is obtained by replacing $`e^{i\alpha _2}`$ and $`e^{i\alpha _2^{}}`$ by their conjugates; $`f_{10}=f_{01}^{}`$ and $`f_{11}=f_{00}^{}`$, with $`z^{}`$ the conjugate of $`z`$.

The proof of the theorem is given in two steps. In the first step, we take advantage of a remarkable symmetry of the Bell operators to guess the basis (4); in the second step, direct calculation allows to get the announced explicit results (5).

### 2.3 First step

For a given rotation matrix $`RSO(3)`$, it is well-known that one can find $`USU(2)`$ such that $`U𝐚\sigma U^1=(R𝐚)\sigma `$. In particular, one can find $`U`$ such that $`U\sigma _aU^1=\sigma _a=\sigma _a`$. Since we are considering that all the parameters $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ lie in the plane $`(x,y)`$, the rotation that brings $`𝐚`$ on $`𝐚`$ is a rotation by $`\pi `$ around the $`z`$-axis, so that the corresponding unitary operation is $`U\sigma _z`$ (equality up to an arbitrary phase). We introduce the notation $`U[k]=\text{1}\text{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _z\mathrm{}\text{1}\text{1}`$, where the rotation is applied on the $`k`$-th qubit. Note that $`[U[k],U[l]]=0`$ for all $`k`$ and $`l`$. Since $`_n`$ is a sum of terms like $`\sigma _{a_1}\sigma _{a_2^{}}\mathrm{}\sigma _{a_n}`$, we have manifestly:

$`U[k]_nU[k]^1=_n`$ $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ (6)
$`U[k]U[l]_nU[k]^1U[l]^1=_n`$ $`k,l\{1,\mathrm{},n\}.`$ (7)
These conditions depend critically on the assumption that the Bell operator is dichotomic: if we had three or more vectors for a qubit, we could not ensure that they lie in a plane. Condition (6) says that $`_n`$ and $`_n`$ are linked by a unitary operation, whence the following:

###### Lemma 1

If $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`_n`$ associated to $`|\psi `$, then $`\lambda `$ is also an eigenvalue of $`_n`$. The vector $`U[k]|\psi `$ is eigenvector of $`_n`$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, for all $`k`$.

The symmetries (6) and (7) of $`_n`$ suggest to look for vectors satisfying

$`U[k]|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`kn;`$ (8)
$`U[k]U[l]|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=e^{i\gamma _{kl}}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`k,ln`$ (9)
as good candidates for the eigenstates of $`_n`$ — they would be the unique candidates if none of the eigenvalues of $`_n`$ were degenerate, but this is generally not the case (see Appendix B). Let $`|0`$ (resp. $`|1`$) be the eigenstate of $`\sigma _z`$ for the eigenvalue +1 (resp. -1). We decompose the n-qubit state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the basis of the product states of $`|0`$s and $`|1`$s: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{\mathrm{\Omega }\{0,1\}^n}c_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We use condition (9) first:

$`U[k]U[l]|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}(1)^{\omega _k+\omega _l}c_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{(\text{9})}{=}e^{i\gamma _{kl}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}c_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }k,l`$ (10)
$``$ $`\left[e^{i\pi (\omega _k+\omega _l)}e^{i\gamma _{kl}}\right]c_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\mathrm{\Omega }\{0,1\}^n\text{ and }k,ln.`$
Now suppose $`c_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$: this implies, modulo $`2\pi `$:

$`\gamma _{kl}=\pi (\omega _k+\omega _l)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \omega _k=\omega _l\hfill \\ \pi \hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \omega _k\omega _l\hfill \end{array}.`$ (13)
That is, the choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which $`c_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ determines completely the sequence of the $`\gamma _{kl}`$. Now, it is evident from (13) that only $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ gives exactly the same sequence as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus (10) means that once we have chosen $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which $`c_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, then $`c_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=0`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega },\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. We turn now to condition (8), that, with $`U[k]|\mathrm{\Psi }=_\mathrm{\Omega }(1)^{\omega _k}c_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, reads:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }|U[k]\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}(1)^{\omega _k}|c_\mathrm{\Omega }|^2\stackrel{(\text{8})}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}k.`$ (14)
But we have proved just above that the states we are interested in are such that only $`c_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`c_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ can be different from zero. Thus (14) becomes $`(1)^{\omega _k}(|c_\mathrm{\Omega }|^2|c_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}|^2)=0`$, that is $`|c_\mathrm{\Omega }|=|c_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}|`$. We have then proved that a n-qubit state satisfies both (8) and (9) if and only if it is of the form (4) for a given $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{0,1\}^n`$. Thus we have $`2^n`$ states, each labeled by one configuration $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The orthogonality requirement $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega })|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}`$ is trivial but for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$: in this case, we must require $`\theta _{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=\pi \theta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This concludes the first step of the proof. Just two remarks before turning to the second step:

Remark 1: The state built on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is entirely determined by the state built on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ through

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(\theta _{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}})|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }+\pi )U[k]|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(15)
The first equality follows from the requirement $`\theta _{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=\pi \theta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by extracting $`\theta _{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ as a global phase. As for the second equality:

$`U[k]|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e^{i\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }}(1)^{\omega _k}|\mathrm{\Omega }+(1)^{\overline{\omega }_k}|\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }}(1)^{\omega _k}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }}|\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e^{i(\pi \theta _\mathrm{\Omega })}|\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}+|\mathrm{\Omega }\right).`$
Thus, another recipe to build a basis of states of the form (4) is the following: (i) for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such as (say) $`\omega _1=0`$, choose $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and build the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Omega },\theta _\mathrm{\Omega })`$; (ii) apply $`U[k]`$ to each of these states (or change $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }+\pi `$) to complete the set.

Remark 2: The two states built from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$, namely $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^{i\theta }|0\mathrm{}0\pm |1\mathrm{}1\right)`$, are the only ones for which the $`\gamma _{kl}`$ are independent of $`k`$ and $`l`$ — and are actually 0, with our choice of phases $`U[k]=\sigma _z[k]`$.

### 2.4 Second step

We must show that the states of the form (4) form a basis of eigenstates of $`_n(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$, that is

$$_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega })=\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(16)
with $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }=\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }=\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$. Actually, we have to solve (16) only for the state built on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}(\theta _{\mathrm{\Omega }_0})|\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e^{i\theta }|0\mathrm{}0+|1\mathrm{}1\right).`$
This is so, because one can exchange $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ by applying a unitary operation, here $`\sigma _x`$. Therefore by application of $`\sigma _x`$ to the suitable qubits we can always transform any $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}`$. Once we have the results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ follow by taking the qubits $`k`$ for which $`\omega _k=1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and replacing $`\sigma _{a_k}`$ by $`\sigma _x\sigma _{a_k}\sigma _x`$, that is, replacing $`(a_k)_y=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _k`$ by $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _k`$, and the same for $`\sigma _{a_k^{}}`$. So the eigenvalue problem is reduced to the problem of finding $`\lambda `$ and $`\theta `$ satisfying

$`_n\left(e^{i\theta }|0\mathrm{}0+|1\mathrm{}1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \left(e^{i\theta }|0\mathrm{}0+|1\mathrm{}1\right).`$ (17)
Consider now one of the terms in (2), say $`\sigma _{a_1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{a_n}`$: a standard calculation gives

$`\sigma _{a_1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{a_n}\left(e^{i\theta }|0\mathrm{}0+|1\mathrm{}1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}e^{i\alpha _k}\right)|1\mathrm{}1+\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}e^{i\alpha _k}\right)|0\mathrm{}0.`$
Consequently the eigenvalue problem (17) gives

$`_n|\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e^{i\theta }f|1\mathrm{}1+f^{}|0\mathrm{}0\right)=\lambda |\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )`$ $``$ $`e^{i\theta }f=\lambda `$ (18)
with $`f(\underset{¯}{𝐚})=\left(_s\beta (s)_ke^{i\alpha _k(s_k)}\right)`$ — for ease of notation, we wrote $`\alpha _k(0)`$ for $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\alpha _k(1)`$ for $`\alpha _k^{}`$. The proof of Theorem 1 is virtually concluded. The solution (5) follows by settling a matter of convention, since condition (18) can be written as $`|f|e^{i(\theta +\mathrm{arg}(f))}=\lambda `$ or as $`|f|e^{i(\theta +\mathrm{arg}(f)+\pi )}=\lambda `$; in other words, a convention on $`\theta `$ fixes the sign of $`\lambda `$ — this is nothing but the manifestation of (15). We choose as a convention that $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }[0,\pi [`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; this convention is consistent with $`\theta _{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=\pi \theta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## 3 Applications and perspectives

### 3.1 On some non-maximally entangled states

In this section we study the violation of MK inequalities for a family of N-qubit states that clearly exhibit N-qubit entanglement. These states are

$`|\psi _N(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi |0^N+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |1^N,`$ (19)
where we adopt the notation $`|0^N=|0\mathrm{}0`$; by convention, we choose $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi 0`$ i.e. $`\varphi [0,\frac{\pi }{4}]`$.

In the case $`N=2`$, using Schmidt’s decomposition every pure state can be written in the form $`|\psi (\varphi )=\mathrm{cos}\varphi |00+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |11`$. It is well-known that the CHSH inequality is violated by all pure entangled states ; in fact, using Horodeckis’ theorem  one can calculate explicitly that $`S_2=\mathrm{max}_{\underset{¯}{a}}B_2(\underset{¯}{𝐚})_{\psi (\varphi )}=\sqrt{1+\mathrm{sin}^22\varphi }`$, which is bigger than 1 unless $`\varphi =0`$. It is interesting to re-derive this result starting from the spectral decomposition of $`B_2`$. Consider the Bell states: $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\pm |11)`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_z^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01\pm |10)`$. $`|\psi (\varphi )`$ is a linear combination of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^{}`$. If we take the unit vectors $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ in the $`(x,y)`$ plane, then $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^{}`$ must be associated to opposite eigenvalues. But $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^+=|\mathrm{\Phi }_x^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^+=|\mathrm{\Psi }_x^+`$: therefore, by taking the unitary vectors in the $`(y,z)`$ plane, we can construct $`B_2`$ as

$$B_2=\lambda _1(P_{\mathrm{\Phi }_x^+}P_{\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{}})+\lambda _2(P_{\mathrm{\Psi }_x^+}P_{\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}})=\lambda _1(P_{\mathrm{\Phi }_z^+}P_{\mathrm{\Psi }_z^+})+\lambda _2(P_{\mathrm{\Phi }_z^{}}P_{\mathrm{\Psi }_z^{}}).$$

This way, the two vectors that have a non-zero overlap with $`|\psi (\varphi )`$ are associated to the positive eigenvalues. The calculation of $`S_2`$ is not difficult, using the fact that $`\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2=2`$ (see Lemma 3 of Appendix A) and the standard maximization

$`\underset{\chi }{\mathrm{max}}(A\mathrm{cos}\chi +B\mathrm{sin}\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{A^2+B^2}.`$ (20)
We find indeed Horodecki’s value. Thus, to obtain this maximal violation of CHSH we took advantage of the possibility of choosing the Bell states that are orthogonal to $`|\psi (\varphi )`$ as the states associated to the negative eigenvalues of $`B_2`$. Now, this is precisely a characteristic of two-qubit maximally entangled states that does not generalize to three or more qubits. In fact, it is well-known and easily verified that N-qubit GHZ states take the form $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0^N+|1^N)`$ only in one basis (up to trivial relabelling). Therefore, for $`N>2`$, if we build $`_N`$ such that $`|\text{GHZ}_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0^N+|1^N)`$ is associated to the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, then necessarily $`|\text{GHZ}_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0^N|1^N)`$ will be associated to $`\lambda `$.

We now consider $`S_N=\mathrm{max}_{\underset{¯}{a}}B_N(\underset{¯}{𝐚})_{\psi _N(\varphi )}`$, with $`B_N`$ a MK Bell operator, for arbitrary $`N3`$. Using $`1^N|B_N|1^N=(1)^N0^N|B_N|0^N`$ we have

$`B_N(\underset{¯}{𝐚})_{\psi _N(\varphi )}`$ $`=`$ $`f_N(\varphi )0^N|B_N(\underset{¯}{𝐚})|0^N+\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \text{Re}(1^N|B_N(\underset{¯}{𝐚})|0^N)`$ (21)
where $`f_N(\varphi )=[\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +(1)^N\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ]`$, that is 1 for $`N`$ even and $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi `$ for $`N`$ odd. The maximization of (21) over all possible choices of $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ is not evident for the following reason. We know that there are sets $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ that saturate the bound $`\text{Re}(1^N|B_N|0^N)=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}`$; but for these we find $`0^N|B_N|0^N=0`$. Similarly, the sets $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ that saturate the bound $`0^N|B_N|0^N=1`$ give $`\text{Re}(1^N|B_N|0^N)=0`$. Let us try to guess the maximum of (21) using the insight provided by the spectral decomposition of $`B_N`$ discussed in section 2 above. A natural first guess would be $`B_N=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\left(P_{\text{GHZ}_+}P_{\text{GHZ}_{}}\right)`$, that is $`\text{Re}(1^N|B_N|0^N)=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}`$. This choice gives $`S_N^{(g)}(\varphi )=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi `$. Numerical evidence suggests that this is indeed the maximum of (21) whenever $`S_N(\varphi )1`$. This provides a criterion for violation of MK inequalities:

$`S_N(\varphi )>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi >\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{N1}{2}}`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}N=3,4,5:\hfill & \text{numerically verified}\hfill \\ N>5:\hfill & \text{conjectured}\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (24)
Thus there exist pure entangled states that do not violate the MK inequality. Let’s define $`\varphi _N`$ as the value of $`\varphi `$ at which $`|\psi _N(\varphi )`$ ceases to violate the MK inequality: we have $`\varphi _2=0`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _N=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}`$ for $`N3`$, within the validity of (24). There is a clear discontinuity in the behaviour of $`\varphi _N`$ between $`N=2`$ and $`N=3`$, as illustrated in figure 1: $`\varphi _N`$ jumps from 0 for $`N=2`$ to $`\frac{\pi }{12}`$ for $`N=3`$, then starts decreasing again for higher $`N`$. This analysis suggests that the MK inequalities, and more generally the family of Bell’s inequalities with two observables per qubit, may not be the ”natural” generalization of the CHSH inequality to more than two qubits. Whether a more suitable inequality exists is an open question.

To conclude this section, let us briefly come back to the problem of maximizing (21). The guess $`S_N^{(g)}(\varphi )=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi `$ cannot be correct for all $`\varphi `$: in fact, in the limit of small $`\varphi `$’s, $`|\psi _N(\varphi )`$ approaches $`|0^N`$ and therefore $`S(\varphi )`$ should converge to 1. To avoid this problem, we modify slightly our guess to have

$`S_N^{(g)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}[2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ,f_N(\varphi )].`$ (25)
Obviously $`S_NS_N^{(g)}`$, since we know that $`S_N^{(g)}`$ can be reached. Numerical estimates for $`N=3,4,5`$ prove that this guess is extremely good. Actually, for $`N=4,5`$ we found $`S_N(\varphi )=S_N^{(g)}(\varphi )`$ for all $`\varphi `$ to within the accuracy of the calculation; for $`N=3`$, the same holds for all $`\varphi `$ but a small range of values around $`\overline{\varphi }`$ defined by $`2\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\varphi }=\mathrm{cos}2\overline{\varphi }`$ (the maximal difference is $`S_3S_3^{(g)}0.002`$).

### 3.2 Bounds on the violation of Mermin’s inequality

As a second application, we show how the knowledge of the spectral decomposition of Bell operators provides bounds to estimate the violation of Mermin’s inequality for any three-qubit state $`\rho `$. Some results are similar to those found independently by Zukowski and Brukner .

We consider a three-qubit Bell operator $`_3(\underset{¯}{𝐚})`$. According to Theorem 1 one can always find a basis such that its eight eigenstates are $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,8}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{000}(0,\pi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000\pm |111)`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,7}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{001}(0,\pi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|001\pm |110)`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{3,6}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{010}(0,\pi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|010\pm |101)`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{4,5}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{011}(0,\pi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|011\pm |100)`$. Note that the four angles $`\theta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that are unconstrained can be chosen to be 0 without loss of generality, since this amounts to a redefinition of the global phases of $`|0_A`$, $`|0_B`$ etc. Consequently in this basis

$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1(P_1P_8)+\lambda _2(P_2P_7)+\lambda _3(P_3P_6)+\lambda _4(P_4P_5)=`$
$`=`$ $`\mu _{++++}\sigma _{xxx}+\mu _{++}\sigma _{xyy}+\mu _{++}\sigma _{yxy}+\mu _{++}\sigma _{yyx}`$
with $`\sigma _{xxx}=\sigma _x\sigma _x\sigma _x`$ etc., and with $`\mu _{s_1s_2s_3s_4}=\frac{1}{4}(s_1\lambda _1+s_2\lambda _2+s_3\lambda _3+s_4\lambda _4)`$. For a given three-qubit state $`\rho `$

$`\text{Tr}(_3\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{++++}t_{xxx}+\mu _{++}t_{xyy}+\mu _{++}t_{yxy}+\mu _{++}t_{yyx}`$ (26)
with the standard notation $`t_{xxx}=\text{Tr}(\rho \sigma _{xxx})`$ etc. Our final purpose is to estimate $`S_\rho =\mathrm{max}_{\underset{¯}{a}}\text{Tr}(_3\rho )`$ for any $`\rho `$. If $`\rho `$ is given, one must find both the good eigenvectors and the good eigenvalues of $`_3`$. The optimization of the eigenvalues is performed by varying the parameters $`\mu `$; we discuss it in the next paragraph for the Mermin’s operator $`B_3`$. To optimize the eigenvectors means to define the axes $`x`$ and $`y`$ for each qubit. Note that when the basis of eigenvectors is optimized only four number $`t_{ijk}`$ will come into play, thus sharpening the condition obtained by Zukowski and Brukner  that involved eight of these numbers.

While the system of eigenvectors is the same for all Bell operators of the form (2), the eigenvalues and their properties obviously depend on the operator that is considered. We restrict our discussion to the Mermin operator $`B_3`$ given by (3). It can then be shown that the eigenvalues must satisfy

$`\text{Tr}(B_3^2)`$ $`=`$ $`8`$ (27)
(see Lemma 3 in Appendix A). This leads to $`\mu _{++++}^2+\mu _{++}^2+\mu _{++}^2+\mu _{++}^2=1`$. Therefore, we can let $`\mu _{++++}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`\mu _{++}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`\mu _{++}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ and $`\mu _{++}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$, and maximize over $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. By using thrice the maximization (20) we find

$`S_\rho `$ $``$ $`S_\rho ^+=\underset{\{x,y\}}{\mathrm{max}}\sqrt{t_{xxx}^2+t_{xyy}^2+t_{yxy}^2+t_{yyx}^2}.`$ (28)
This bound would in fact be exact if there were no constraint on the eigenvalues other than (27). However, starting from the eigenvalues as they are given in statement 2 of Theorem 1, one finds by inspection that the eigenvalues are bound to fulfill some other conditions, like $`\frac{(\lambda _3^2+\lambda _1^22)(\lambda _3^2+\lambda _4^22)}{(\lambda _3^2+\lambda _2^22)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha _1\alpha _1^{})`$. To see that such a condition is indeed an additional constraint, choose $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=1`$, which is of course a possible choice. The rhs is bounded by 2, thus for the lhs not to diverge we must also have (say) $`\lambda _4=1`$; but then the condition (27) forces $`\lambda _1=1`$ too. In conclusion, if two eigenvalues are equal to 1, all the eigenvalues must be equal to 1.

Since such constraints are not easy to handle, it is interesting to provide a lower bound on $`S_\rho `$. A non-trivial one is obtained by simply choosing one possible realization of the eigenvalues, namely $`\lambda _1=\pm 2`$, which due to (27) implies $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=\lambda _4=0`$. This gives

$`S_\rho `$ $``$ $`S_\rho ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{\{x,y\}}{\mathrm{max}}\left|t_{xxx}t_{xyy}t_{yxy}t_{yyx}\right|.`$ (29)
In most cases, we still have to rely on a computer program to calculate bounds (28) and (29). For these bounds, the optimization bears on nine parameters (for each qubit, two parameters define the $`(x,y)`$ plane and a third one fixes the axes in the plane); while a direct optimization of $`B_3`$ bears on twelve parameters (two unit vectors per qubit).

Let’s conclude by a discussion of the quality of the bounds (28) and (29), based on some examples. Consider first the family of states $`|\psi _3(\varphi )`$ (19). From $`\varphi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ down to $`\varphi \frac{\pi }{10}`$ we find $`S^{}=S=S^+=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi `$. For smaller values of $`\varphi `$: (i) $`S^{}=\mathrm{max}(2\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$; that is, $`S^{}`$ corresponds to $`S_3^{(g)}`$ defined in (25). (ii) As we discussed above, the exact value $`S`$ essentially follows $`S^{}`$, but for small deviations. (iii) The upper bound $`S^+`$ increases again, from $`S^+(\frac{\pi }{10})1.175`$ up to $`S^+(0)=\sqrt{2}`$. Thus this bound turns out to be too rough in the region $`\varphi \frac{\pi }{12}`$, where $`|\psi _3(\varphi )`$ ceases to violate Mermin’s inequality.

In table 1 we give $`S_\rho `$ and the bounds $`S_\rho ^+`$ and $`S_\rho ^{}`$ for some other states. All the possible cases $`S^{}=S<S^+`$, $`S^{}<S=S^+`$ and $`S^{}<S<S^+`$ are present. On all these examples, we see that at least one bound is very close, if not identical, to the exact value.

## 4 Conclusion

Bell’s inequalities for systems of more than two qubits are the object of renewed interest, motivated by the fact that entanglement between more than two quantum systems is becoming experimentally feasible. A link between Bell’s inequalities and the security of quantum communication protocols has also been stressed recently .

Here we focused on inequalities obtained by measuring two observables per qubit, and we gave the spectral decomposition of the corresponding operators. With this tools, we studied the violation of Mermin-Klyshko inequalities for some states that exhibit N-qubit entanglement. We proved numerically for $`N=3,4,5`$, and we conjectured for all $`N`$, that there exist pure entangled states that do not violate these inequalities.

We acknowledge financial support from the Swiss FNRS and the Swiss OFES within the European project EQUIP (IST-1999-11053).

## Appendix A: Relationships between $`B_n`$ and $`B_n^{}`$

We derive in this Appendix some properties of the MK operators $`B_n`$ and $`B_n^{}`$ that were not discussed in previous publications . Lemma 2 was demonstrated independently, and with different mathematical tools, in .

###### Lemma 2

$`B_n^2=B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ for all $`n`$.

Proof: From (3) we have

$`B_n^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+𝐚_n𝐚_n^{})\text{1}\text{1}B_{n1}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1𝐚_n𝐚_n^{})\text{1}\text{1}B_{}^{}{}_{n1}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _{a_na_n^{}}[B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}].`$ (30)
$`B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ is obtained by exchanging the primed with the non-primed objects. Therefore

$`B_n^2B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐚_n𝐚_n^{}\left(B_{n1}^2B_{}^{}{}_{n1}{}^{2}\right)\left(B_2^2B_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$
since it can be calculated explicitly that $`B_2^2=B_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\text{1}\text{1}+\sigma _{a_2a_2^{}}\sigma _{a_1a_1^{}}`$. $``$

###### Lemma 3

The explicit expressions for $`B_n^2`$ and for the commutator $`[B_n,B_n^{}]`$ are given respectively by (33) and (34). The anticommutator is $`\{B_n,B_n^{}\}=2(𝐚_n𝐚_n^{})\mathrm{}(𝐚_1𝐚_1^{})\text{1}\text{1}`$. As a corollary, note that $`\text{Tr}(B_n^2)=2^n`$.

Proof: Lemma 2 allows us to rewrite (30) as

$`B_n^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{1}\text{1}B_{n1}^2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _{a_na_n^{}}[B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}].`$ (31)
Another standard calculation from (3) leads to

$`[B_n,B_n^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\text{1}\text{1}[B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}]+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\sigma _{a_na_n^{}}B_{n1}^2.`$ (32)
The structure of these two equations can be best seen by introducing the notations $`B_n^2P_n`$, $`[B_n,B_n^{}]2iQ_n`$ and $`\sigma _{a_na_n^{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. We have then

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}P_n\hfill & =& \text{1}\text{1}P_{n1}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_nQ_{n1}\hfill \\ Q_n\hfill & =& \text{1}\text{1}Q_{n1}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_nP_{n1}\hfill \end{array}.$$

The recursive solution is a matter of patience. Using $`P_2=\text{1}\text{1}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`Q_2=\text{1}\text{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\text{1}\text{1}`$ we find

$`B_n^2=B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{1}\text{1}_{2^n}+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\sigma _{a_ia_i^{}}\sigma _{a_ja_j^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j<k<l}{}}\sigma _{a_ia_i^{}}\sigma _{a_ja_j^{}}\sigma _{a_ka_k^{}}\sigma _{a_la_l^{}}+\mathrm{}`$ (33)
$`[B_n,B_n^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2i\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _{a_ia_i^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j<k}{}}\sigma _{a_ia_i^{}}\sigma _{a_ja_j^{}}\sigma _{a_ka_k^{}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (34)
where the dots indicate the sums over all products of an even, resp. an odd, number of $`\sigma _{a_ia_i^{}}`$.

Finally, the anticommutator is also found through a direct calculation from (3):

$`\{B_n,B_n^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2(\text{1}\text{1}+\{\sigma _{a_n},\sigma _{a_n^{}}\}\{B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}\})2(\text{1}\text{1}\{\sigma _{a_n},\sigma _{a_n^{}}\}\{B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}\})+`$
$`+\{\sigma _{a_n}+\sigma _{a_n^{}},\sigma _{a_n}\sigma _{a_n^{}}\}\underset{=0}{\underset{}{\left(B_{n1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}B_{n1}^2\right)}})=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\sigma _{a_n},\sigma _{a_n^{}}\}\{B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}\}=(𝐚_n𝐚_n^{})\text{1}\text{1}\{B_{n1},B_{n1}^{}\}.`$
The conclusion follows from $`\{B_2,B_2^{}\}=2(𝐚_2𝐚_2^{})(𝐚_1𝐚_1^{})\text{1}\text{1}_4`$. $``$

## Appendix B: Some results about the maximal eigenvalue

In the main text we exhibited a set of eigenvectors of $`B_n`$ that have a remarkable symmetry. But this set would lose much of its interest if all eigenvalues were degenerate. Here we show that at least in one case (which is an interesting one) we can be sure that there are non-degenerate eigenvalues.

Let’s first sort the eigenvalues of $`B_n`$ in decreasing order: $`\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _{2^n}`$. By virtue of lemma 1, $`\lambda _k=\lambda _{2^nk+1}`$. In particular, $`\text{Tr}(B_n^2)=2(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{2^{n1}}^2)`$. On the other side, we have noticed in lemma 3 that $`\text{Tr}(B_n^2)=2^n`$, whence

$$\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{2^{n1}}^2=2^{n1}.$$
(35)
In particular, if $`\lambda _1=2^{\frac{n1}{2}}`$, then all the other eigenvalues (except of course $`\lambda _1`$) are zero. In general, $`\lambda _11`$, where the equality holds only in the ”classical” case $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{2^{n1}}=\lambda _{2^{n1}+1}=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{2^n}=1`$. Equality (35) implies

$$\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{n1},$$
(36)
whence the following:

###### Lemma 4

let $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ be the two greatest eigenvalues of $`B_n`$. If $`\lambda _1>2^{\frac{n}{2}1}`$, then it is non-degenerate, and moreover $`\lambda _2<2^{\frac{n}{2}1}`$.

Now, if $`\rho `$ is a n-qubit state exhibiting m-party entanglement, $`mn`$, it can be shown that $`B_n_\rho 2^{(m1)/2}`$ . Thus $`\lambda _1>2^{\frac{n}{2}1}`$ for $`B_n`$ means that we have a n-qubit violation. So our last lemma reads: if the parameters $`\underset{¯}{𝐚}`$ of $`B_n`$ are such that a n-qubit violation is possible, the maximal eigenvalue of $`B_n`$ is non-degenerate. Actually we can prove even more:

###### Lemma 5

If $`\lambda _1>2^{\frac{n}{2}1}`$, one cannot find two orthogonal states that both satisfy the condition

$$B_n_\psi >2^{\frac{n}{2}1}.$$
(37)
Due to lemma 1, the same holds for the condition $`B_n_\psi <2^{\frac{n}{2}1}`$.

To prove this lemma, we determine a necessary conditions for a state $`|\psi `$ to satisfy (37). Let’s decompose $`|\psi `$ on the basis of the eigenvectors of $`B_n`$: $`|\psi =_{k=1}^{2^n}\sqrt{p_i}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ is an eigenvector of $`B_n`$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda _i`$. With these notations

$`\psi |B_n|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}}p_i\lambda _i`$ $``$ $`p_1\lambda _1+(1p_1)\lambda _2.`$
Therefore if $`p_1\lambda _1+(1p_1)\lambda _22^{n/21}`$, the requirement (37) cannot be satisfied. In other terms, a necessary condition for (37) to be satisfied is

$`p_1>{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{n}{2}1}\lambda _2}{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1\mu _2}{\mu _1\mu _2}}\overline{p}`$ (38)
(we introduced the notation $`2^{n/21}\mu _i=\lambda _i`$ in order to show that $`\overline{p}`$ does not depend explicitly on the number of qubits $`n`$). It can be shown using (36) that $`\frac{1}{2}<\overline{p}1`$. The limiting case $`\overline{p}=1`$ corresponds to $`\lambda _1=2^{n/21}`$, in which case of course (37) cannot be satisfied. The roughest criterion that we can state is therefore the following: given $`B_n`$ such that $`\lambda _1>2^{n/21}`$, a state $`|\psi `$ cannot satisfy (37) if $`p_1=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\psi \right|^2\frac{1}{2}`$. This criterion is enough to conclude the proof of lemma 5.


text:
# Kinetic decoupling of neutralino dark matter

## I Introduction

Neutralinos provide perhaps the most promising candidate for the mysterious dark matter in galactic halos (see, e.g., Refs.  for reviews). Such particles would have existed in thermal equilibrium in the early Universe when the temperature exceeded the mass of the particle. However, as the temperature drops below the mass, the rate of the production and destruction reactions that maintain the equilibrium density become smaller than the expansion rate. At this point, annihilations cease, and a relic population of neutralinos remains. The calculation of this relic density is straightforward, and to a first approximation, the relic density is fixed by the cross section for neutralino annihilation to lighter standard-model particles. The cross section required for the critical density is $`10^{37}`$ cm2, coincidentally within a few orders of magnitude of the neutralino annihilation cross section in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model.

After freezeout (i.e., after they fall out of chemical equilibrium) neutralinos may still continue scattering elastically from other particles in the primordial plasma, and thus remain in chemical equilibrium. In an interesting recent paper , Bœhm et al. pointed out that if these particles remain in kinetic equilibrium until a temperature $`T0.1`$ keV, at which point the mass enclosed in a Hubble volume is comparable to that of a dwarf galaxy, then collisional damping due to elastic scattering of neutrinos and/or photons from neutralinos could erase structure on such scales and thus help resolve the discrepancy between the predicted and observed substructure in Galactic halos. They also argued briefly that supersymmetric dark-matter candidates may have the required neutralino-photon and/or neutralino-neutrino cross sections.

When heavy neutrinos were first considered as cold dark matter candidates, Gunn et al.  showed that they would fall out of kinetic equilibrium shortly after their annihilation freezes out. Later, Schmid et al.  estimated the decoupling temperature of neutralino-neutrino interaction. In this paper we consider the process of kinetic decoupling of neutralinos in more detail. We calculate the cross sections for elastic scattering of neutrinos and photons from neutralinos, and for completeness, we consider the elastic scattering of neutralinos from other particles as well. We show that the estimates for neutrino-neutralino and photon-neutralino scattering used by Bœhm et al. neglect important kinematic effects, and thus hugely overestimate these cross sections. We show that neutralinos are more likely to undergo kinetic freezeout much earlier, at temperatures between an MeV and a GeV, rather than a keV. Thus, although Bœhm et al.’s mechanism for collisional damping may be applicable to more general dark-matter candidates, it is unlikely to be relevant to the most promising supersymmetric dark-matter candidates.

In the next Section we briefly review the cross sections required for the Bœhm et al. collisional damping. In Section III, we calculate the cross section for neutralino-photon scattering. In Section IV, we move on to the neutralino-neutrino cross section. We consider elastic scattering of neutralinos from other species in Section V, and we conclude in Section VI.

## II REQUIRED CROSS SECTIONS

In the standard scenario, neutrinos undergo chemical decoupling at a temperature of an MeV and their kinetic decoupling follows shortly thereafter. Now suppose that the neutrino has a nonzero elastic-scattering cross section with the dark-matter particle $`\chi `$. This elastic scattering will keep the dark-matter particles in kinetic equilibrium until the rate at which neutrinos scatter from a given dark-matter particle becomes comparable to the expansion rate. The scattering rate is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=n_\nu \sigma _{\nu \chi }c`$, where $`n_\nu `$ is the number density of neutrinos and $`\sigma _{\nu \chi }`$ is the neutrino–dark-matter elastic-scattering cross section. The Hubble expansion rate is $`H=1.66g_{}^{1/2}T^2/m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, where $`g_{}=3.36`$ is the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom at a temperature $`T`$keV, and $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{19}`$ GeV is the Planck mass. The temperature at which the Hubble volume encloses a baryonic mass $`M_b`$ is

$$T=0.15\mathrm{keV}(M_b/10^9M_{})^{1/3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2/0.02)^{1/3},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is the baryon density, $`h`$ is the present Hubble parameter in units of 100 km sec-1 Mpc-1. Setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=H`$, at $`T0.1`$ keV, we find that the cross section required to erase structure on $`10^9M_{}`$ scales is $`\sigma _{\nu \chi }10^{40}`$ cm2, which recovers the estimate of Bœhm et al. Similar arguments for scattering from photons lead Bœhm et al. to estimate a dark-matter–photon cross section of $`10^{38}`$ cm2 for collisional damping via photon scattering.

In fact, we believe that Bœhm et al. may have underestimated the required cross section by several orders of magnitude. The cold-dark-matter particles are non-relativistic, so even if neutrino and photon scattering keep them in kinetic equilibrium, they could hardly move far enough to smooth out fluctuations in the dark-matter density. For collisional damping to work, the motion of photons and neutrinos must be affected. Indeed, this is how collisional damping works in the case of baryons (Silk damping) in which density perturbations are smoothed on scales small compared with the photon diffusion length. If it is in fact the neutrinos (or photons) that are responsible for collisional damping with neutralino-neutrino scattering, then the appropriate reaction rate to equate to the Hubble length is the rate at which a given neutrino scatters from a neutralino, rather than vice versa. In this case, the required neutrino–dark-matter cross section must be larger by the ratio of the neutrino number density to the dark-matter number density, and this factor is $`5\times 10^7(m_\chi /\mathrm{GeV})`$, where $`m_\chi `$ is the dark-matter-particle mass.

## III Neutralino-photon scattering

The cross section for annihilation of two neutralinos to two photons has been calculated by a number of authors (e.g., Refs. ). Annihilation can proceed, e.g., through a Feynman diagram such as that shown in Fig. 1, but there are also many other diagrams that can contribute. The value of the annihilation cross section depends on a number of supersymmetric couplings and sparticle masses, and it may span a range of several orders of magnitude. In some regions of the plausible supersymmetric parameter space, it can indeed be as large as $`10^{38}`$ cm2 .

The diagrams for elastic scattering of photons from neutralinos are related to these by crossing symmetry, and this led Bœhm et al. to speculate that the elastic-scattering cross sections could also be as large as $`10^{38}`$ cm2. This, however, neglects a dramatic suppression of the elastic-scattering cross section that arises from the spinor structure of the amplitude.

The amplitude for either process can be written,

$$𝒜=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }k^\mu k^\nu ϵ^\rho ϵ^\sigma \overline{𝒜},$$
(2)
where $`k^\mu `$ and $`k^\nu `$ are the four-momenta of the photons and $`ϵ^\rho `$ and $`ϵ^\sigma `$ are their polarization four-vectors and $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the completely antisymmetric tensor. The reduced amplitude $`\overline{𝒜}`$ depends on the particle masses and couplings in the diagram loops. Its value for annihilation will differ from that for elastic scattering by factors of order unity, but not by many orders of magnitude. For the annihilation process, the four-momenta will be equal to $`m_\chi `$, while for elastic scattering, they will be equal to the photon energy. Thus, neglecting the small difference in $`\overline{𝒜}`$, we see that the factors of $`k`$ in the amplitude will lead to a reduction by a factor $`(E_\gamma /m_\chi )^4`$ of the elastic-scattering cross section relative to that for annihilation. For $`E_\gamma 0.1`$ keV and a neutralino mass $`m_\chi 100`$ GeV, this suppression is $`10^{36}`$. More precisely, the annihilation cross section is

$$\sigma _{\chi \chi \gamma \gamma }=\frac{\alpha ^2m_\chi ^2}{16\pi ^3}|\overline{𝒜}|^2,$$
(3)
while the elastic-scattering cross section is

$$\sigma _{\chi \gamma \chi \gamma }=\frac{\alpha ^2}{3\pi ^2m_\chi ^2}E_\gamma ^4|\overline{𝒜}|^2.$$
(4)
We have calculated this cross section for a number of supersymmetric models using a modified version of the code neutdriver . For a range of typical supersymmetric parameters and a photon energy of 100 eV, we find $`10^{79}\mathrm{cm}^2<\sigma <10^{73}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. We thus conclude that elastic neutralino-photon scattering will play no role in maintaining kinetic equilibrium of neutralinos, nor of scattering photons from neutralinos.

## IV Neutralino-neutrino scattering

The neutrino-neutralino differential scattering cross section is given by

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)=\frac{||^2}{64\pi ^2m_\chi ^2},$$
(5)
where

$$=_s+_t+_u$$
(6)
is the scattering amplitude. The Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig. 2 (we have omitted Higgs-boson-exchange diagrams since the Yukawa coupling of the Higgs boson is zero in the limit of zero neutrino mass). These are given by***For Feynman rules of Majorana fermions, see, e.g., Ref.

$`_s`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^2}{sm_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2}}\overline{u}_4P_RC\overline{u}_3^Tu_1^TC^1P_Lu_2,`$ (7)
$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _w}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_Z^2}}\overline{u}_4\gamma ^\mu P_Lu_2`$ (9)
$`\overline{u}_3\gamma _\mu \left(O_{00L}^{\prime \prime }P_L+O_{00R}^{\prime \prime }P_R\right)u_1,`$
$`_u`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^2}{um_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2}}\overline{u}_4P_Ru_1\overline{u}_3P_Lu_2,`$ (10)
where $`i,j`$ are the flavor indices of the neutrino and sneutrino, respectively; $`P_L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and $`P_R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$; $`X_{\nu ij0}^{}`$ is the neutralino-sneutrino-neutrino coupling (given in Ref. ); and $`O_{00R}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`O_{00L}^{\prime \prime }`$ are neutralino-$`Z^0`$ couplings (also given in Ref. ). The superscript $`T`$ denotes the transpose of the matrix, and $`C`$ is the charge-conjugation matrix. Then,

$`||^2`$ $`=`$ $`|_s|^2+|_t|^2+|_u|^2`$ (12)
$`+2\mathrm{}\left(_s_t^{}+_s_u^{}+_t_u^{}\right).`$
The various terms are given

$`|_s|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^4}{(sm_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2)^2}}(p_1p_2)(p_3p_4),`$ (13)
$`|_t|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^4}{\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _w(tm_Z^2)^2}}`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`[|O_{00L}^{\prime \prime }|^2(p_1p_2)(p_3p_4)+|O_{00R}^{\prime \prime }|^2(p_1p_4)(p_2p_3)`$ (16)
$`O_{00L}^{\prime \prime }O_{00R}^{\prime \prime }m_\chi ^2(p_2p_4)],`$
$`|_u|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^4}{(um_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2)^2}}(p_1p_4)(p_2p_3),`$ (17)
$`_s_t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _w}}{\displaystyle \frac{|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^2}{sm_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2}}`$ (19)
$`\times \left[2O_{00L}^{\prime \prime }(p_1p_2)(p_3p_4)O_{00R}^{\prime \prime }m_\chi ^2(p_2p_4)\right],`$
$`_s_u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^4}{(sm_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2)}}m_\chi ^2(p_2p_4),`$ (20)
$`_t_u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _w}}{\displaystyle \frac{|X_{\nu ij0}^{}|^2}{(tm_Z^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2)}}`$ (22)
$`\times \left[2O_{00R}^{\prime \prime }(p_1p_4)(p_2p_3)O_{00L}^{\prime \prime }m_\chi ^2(p_2p_4)\right].`$
In the limit $`m_\chi E_\nu `$, we have

$$sm_\chi ^2,t2(p_2p_4),um_\chi ^2,$$
(23)
and

$`(p_1p_2)(p_2p_3)m_\chi E_\nu ,`$ (24)
$`(p_1p_4)(p_3p_4)m_\chi E_\nu ,`$ (25)
$`(p_2p_4)E_\nu ^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ).`$ (26)
We thus see that for $`m_\chi E_\nu `$, the square of the matrix element, and thus the cross section, are proportional to $`(E_\nu /m_\chi )^2`$, and so they are enormously suppressed as the neutrinos cool. The cross section is thus, schematically,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}(\mathrm{couplings})^2(E_\nu ^2/m_\chi ^4),$$
(27)
and should be at most (for couplings of order unity) $`10^{46}`$ cm2. A survey of the supersymmetric parameter space shows that when realistic couplings are included, the typical cross section is more like $`10^{53}`$ cm2. The cross section can be enhanced if the sneutrino mass is nearly degenerate with the neutralino mass in which case there can be an $`s`$\- or $`u`$-channel resonance. However, the sneutrino would have to be extraordinarily close in mass to the neutralino, and there is no reason why this should be so in supersymmetric models.

## V Kinetic Decoupling More Generally

More generically, the annihilation cross section should be,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}(\mathrm{couplings})^2/m_\chi ^2,$$
(28)
and this must be $`10^{38}`$ cm2 if the neutralino is to be the dark matter. This refers to the cross section for annihilation to light quarks, leptons, and neutrinos. The elastic-scattering cross section will be related to this by crossing symmetry, but with the correct kinematic factor, we obtain an elastic cross section like Eq. (27) (but with $`E_\nu `$ replaced more generally by the light-fermion energy). The rate at which a given neutralino will scatter from these light particles will be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}n_f\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}`$, where $`n_fT^3`$ is the light-particle density, $`T`$ is the temperature, and at this temperature, the elastic-scattering cross section will be $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}10^{37}\mathrm{cm}^2(T/m_\chi )^2`$. Equating this elastic-scattering rate to the expansion rate, $`HT^2/m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, we find that neutralinos should undergo kinetic decoupling at

$$T_{\mathrm{kin}\mathrm{dec}}\mathrm{MeV}(m_\chi /\mathrm{GeV})^{2/3}.$$
(29)
Thus, after the neutralino freezes out at a temperature $`Tm_\chi /20`$, it will remain in kinetic equilibrium with the plasma and then undergo kinetic decoupling shortly thereafter. For neutralino masses $`10\mathrm{GeV}m_\chi 1000\mathrm{GeV}`$, this takes place well before neutrino decoupling and electron-positron annihilation.

At temperatures $`T100`$ MeV, the baryons will be in the form of neutrons and protons, and shortly thereafter, 25% of the mass will be bound up in helium nuclei. The neutralino-nucleon cross section required to maintain neutralino kinetic equilibrium at a temperature $`T`$MeV is roughly $`10^{35}`$ cm2. This cross section is extremely high for supersymmetric models (typical cross sections are $`10^{43}`$ cm2), and is in fact ruled out by null searches for energetic neutrinos from WIMP annihilation in the Sun and Earth.

## VI Conclusions

We have shown that the cross sections for elastic scattering of neutrinos and photons from neutralinos are far too small to keep neutralinos in kinetic equilibrium until $`T10100`$ eV, when the Hubble length encloses dwarf-galaxy masses. Moreover, the cross sections required for collisional damping may be ten orders of magnitude bigger, in which case neutrino and photon elastic scattering are that much further from being able to provide collisional damping on these scales. Therefore, elastic scattering of neutralinos from neutrinos or photons cannot erase structure on sub-galactic scales.

We have moreover argued that neutralinos should generically decouple kinetically from the primordial plasma shortly after they cease annihilating, above temperatures $`T`$MeV (at which time a Hubble volume encloses no more than a solar mass of baryons). Neutralinos will thereafter act as collisionless cold dark matter and thus be incapable of altering the power spectrum on scales relevant for galaxy and large-scale-structure formation.

###### Acknowledgements.

X.C. acknowledges the hospitality of the TAPIR group at Caltech where part of this work was completed. X.C. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40690. M.K. was supported by the DoE under DE-FG03-92-ER40701, the NSF under AST-0096023, and NASA under NAG5-8506. X.Z. was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under grant No. NKBRSF G19990754. Note added to proof: Shortly after the publication of our preprint, another paper  which also discussed kinetic decoupling of cold dark matter came out.