text:
# Evolution of the Density Contrast with Particle Production in a Gauge-Invariant Formalism

## 1 Introduction

The mathematical theory of perturbations in homogeneous, isotropic models has been worked over many times in the literature -. Nevertheless, troubling questions still remain about the physical interpretation of density perturbations at early times when the perturbation is larger than the particle horizon, which will here mean when the time for light to travel a characteristic wavelength of the perturbation is larger than the instantaneous expansion time. These questions are particularly relevant to attempt to explain the origin of perturbations which eventually give rise to galaxy formation.

The study of perturbations of an expanding universe would appear to be hopelessly gauge dependent. However, Bardeen  gave an important contribution to define perturbations that are gauge invariant non-geometrical quantities defined with respect to a particular chart. Thus a gauge-independent theory of cosmological perturbations is possible. However, Bardeen’s paper is difficult to understand and to apply.

Ellis and Bruni  gave an alternative approach to gauge invariant cosmological perturbations with basic variables more closely related to the physical quantities. They look for variables which vanish in the background. Quantities of this kind are always gauge independents. The gauge invariant key variable is the comoving fractional spatial gradient of the energy density.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss an approach to cosmological perturbations which are thermodynamically oriented gauge-invariant description of scalar cosmological perturbations around a flat homogeneous universe with particle production. All basic variables have their physical meaning on “comoving hyper-surfaces” , orthogonal to the matter world lines. Thermodynamic perturbations relations in Minkowski space-time turn-out to be valid in the expanding universe, provided all perturbed quantities are replaced by their gauge-invariant counterparts.

The characteristic feature of this model is the use of an explicit phenomenological balance law for the particle number with a non-zero source term together with the equation for the cosmic scale factor in a perfect fluid cosmology that includes a pressure creation that behaves like a viscous pressure, responsible for the particle production.

## 2 Open system thermodynamics

In the presence of matter creation, the appropriate analysis is performed in the context of thermodynamics of open systems . This consideration leads to an extension of thermodynamics as associated with cosmology to reinterpretation in Einstein’s equations of the matter stress energy tensor. In the case of adiabatic transformation, the thermodynamical energy conservation leads to

$$d(\rho V)+P_{th}dV\frac{Ed(nV)}{n}=0,$$
(1)
where $`n=\frac{N}{V}`$ is the particle number density and $`E=\rho +P_{th}`$ is the enthalpy per unit volume. $`N`$ is the particle number and $`P_{th}`$ is the thermodynamical pressure. In such a transformation, the “heat” received by the system is due entirely to the change of the number of particles. In our cosmological context, this change is due to the transfer of energy from gravitational field. Hence, the creation of matter acts as a source of internal energy.

The cosmic medium will be described by the energy momentum tensor

$$T^{\alpha \beta }=ϵu^\alpha u^\beta +Ph^{\alpha \beta },$$
(2)
where $`ϵ`$ is the energy-density, $`h^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the projection tensor and $`u^\alpha `$ is the four-velocity. $`P`$ is the total pressure that includes the thermodynamical pressure and the creation pressure , namely,

$$P=P_{th}+\stackrel{~}{P}.$$
(3)
The creation process will be considered adiabatic, which here means a constant entropy per particle. Under this condition the equilibrium entropy per particle does not change as it does in dissipative process. Instead, one can associate a “viscous pressure” to the particle production source, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{P}=\frac{\left(\rho +P_{\mathrm{𝑡ℎ}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }}{n\theta },$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the rate of particle production.

Einstein’s field equations imply the equations of motion

$$h_\beta ^\alpha T_{;\gamma }^{\gamma \beta }=0,$$
(5)
and the energy balance

$$u_\beta T_{;\alpha }^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(6)
Additionally, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the only particle number variations admitted are such that

$$\dot{n}+n\theta =\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(7)
The general problem is split into a zeroth-order background universe and first order perturbation about this background. The zeroth-order is assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic and spatially flat. The corresponding line element is

$$ds^2=dt^2+R(t)^2\gamma _{ab}dx^adx^b,$$
(8)
with the cosmic scale factor $`R(t)`$ as the only relevant metric quantity. Consequently, Einstein’s field equations reduce to

$`3({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}})^2=ϵ`$ (9)
$`2({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}})^{}=(ϵ+P).`$ (10)
The dot denotes the derivative with respect to time. The surfaces $`t=const.`$ are the space like surfaces of constant curvature and $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is the 3-space metric. Consequently, the energy balance equation (6) becomes

$$\dot{ϵ}=3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(ϵ+P).$$
(11)
Considering the particle number density and the temperature as are our basic variables we can infer the state equations

$`P_{th}=P_{th}(n,T)`$ (12)
$`ϵ=ϵ(n,T)`$ (13)
$`\sigma =\sigma (n,T),`$ (14)
where $`\sigma `$ is the entropy per particle. Making use of Gibbs relation and equation (14), it is straightforward to find the general relation

$$\frac{ϵ}{n}=\frac{ϵ+P_{th}}{n}\frac{T}{n}\frac{P_{th}}{T}.$$
(15)
Equation for evolution of the temperature is calculated considering relations (11) and (15), namely

$$\dot{T}=(\frac{ϵ}{T})^1\{3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(\stackrel{~}{P}+\frac{P_{th}}{T}T)+\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{ϵ+P_{th}}{n}\frac{T}{n}\frac{P_{th}}{T})\}.$$
(16)
We can define the expression for the sound velocity as:

$$v_s^2=\frac{P_{th}}{ϵ}$$

that can be reformulated using equation (15):

$$v_s^2=\frac{n}{ϵ+P_{th}}\frac{P_{th}}{n}+\frac{T[\frac{P_{th}}{T}]^2}{(ϵ+P_{th})\frac{ϵ}{T}}.$$
(17)
Taking into account the relation

$$\dot{P_{th}}=\frac{P_{th}}{n}\dot{n}+\frac{P_{th}}{T}\dot{T}$$

and equations (7), (16) and (17), evolution of the pressure reads

$`\dot{P_{th}}`$ $`=3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}(ϵ+P_{th})\{v_s^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{P}}{ϵ+P_{th}}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{n}}(ϵ+P_{th})`$ (18)
$`\{`$ $`v_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}}\}.`$ (19)
Finally the time evolution of the entropy density can be found by using Gibbs relation and equations (7) and (16), namely

$$nT\dot{\sigma }=\frac{ϵ+P_{th}}{n}\{3n\frac{\dot{R}}{R}z\mathrm{\Psi }\}$$
(20)
where

$$z=\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}}{ϵ+P_{th}}.$$
(21)
This relation provides a direct connection between the particle production rate and the expansion of the Universe. Considering the process as adiabatic together with (7) yields

$$z=\frac{\frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\theta }.$$
(22)
We sum up this section by writing the time evolution of the particle density, temperature, energy density and pressure in the adiabatic case, it is done by using (7), (16) and (19)

$`\dot{n}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}(1z),`$ (23)
$`\dot{T}==3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}T({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}}),`$ (24)
$`\dot{ϵ}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}(ϵ+P),`$ (25)
$`\dot{P_{th}}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}(ϵ+P)v_s^2.`$ (26)
## 3 The perturbative equations

We write the metric as

$$ds^2=(g_{\alpha \beta }+\delta g_{\alpha \beta })dx^\alpha dx^\beta ,$$
(27)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the background metric tensor and

$`\delta g_{ab}=A\delta _{ab}+B_{,ab},`$ (28)
$`\delta g_{a4}=F_{,4},`$ (29)
$`\delta g_{44}=E.`$ (30)
The quantities $`A,B,F`$ e $`E`$ are space and time dependent scalars hence we are interested in scalar perturbations.

From normalization condition, $`u_\mu u^\mu =1`$ and the line element (29) the four velocity in first order is given by

$`\widehat{u_4}=\widehat{u^4}={\displaystyle \frac{R^2E}{2}},`$ (31)
$`R^2\widehat{u^a}+R^2F_{,a}=\widehat{u_a}v_{,a},`$ (32)
where the hat indicates a perturbative quantities. Perturbing to first order the equation which gives the conservation of particle density $`(nu^\alpha )_{;\alpha }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the result is

$$(\frac{\widehat{n}}{n})^{}+R^2vF+\frac{\dot{f}}{2}=\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{n}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{n}(\frac{\widehat{n}}{n}+\frac{R^2E}{2}).$$
(33)
The energy balance and momentum balance equations to first order are respectively:

$`\dot{\widehat{ϵ}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}(\widehat{ϵ}+\widehat{P})+(R^2v+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{2}}F)(ϵ+P)=0,`$ (34)
$`\widehat{P}_{,\mu }+\dot{P}v_{,\mu }+(ϵ+P)\dot{v_{,\mu }}R^2{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ+P}{2}}E_{,\mu }=0.`$ (35)
To complete the set of basic equations we need to linearize field equations, namely :

$$\widehat{G}_4^4=R^2A\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\dot{f}+2\frac{\dot{R}}{R}F3\dot{R}^2E=\widehat{ϵ},$$
(36)
$`\widehat{G}_{4\alpha }`$ $`=\dot{A}_{,\alpha }R\dot{R}E_{,\alpha }(\dot{R}^2+2R\ddot{R})F_{,\alpha }`$
$`=`$ $`(ϵ+P)v_{,\alpha }+R^2PF_{,\alpha }.`$
## 4 Density contrast evolution equation

Variables representing perturbations introduced in the preceding section modify their values under gauge transformations. In the linear perturbation theory it is necessary only to consider infinitesimal transformation, namely

$$x^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =x^\alpha \xi ^\alpha .$$
(38)
Zimdahl shows in his work  how to describe cosmological perturbations thermodynamically oriented by suitable quantities which are invariant under transformations (40). These objects have an obvious physical meaning and obey reasonable equations. The behavior of scalars under transformation (40) follow

$$S^{^{}}(x)S(x)=\xi ^nS_{,n}.$$
(39)
Therefore the scalar quantities of the preceding section transform as

$`A^{^{}}=A+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}\xi ^0`$ (40)
$`B^{^{}}=B+2R^2\xi `$ (41)
$`F^{^{}}=F+R^2\xi ^0+(R^2\xi )_{,0}`$ (42)
$`E^{^{}}=E2R^2\xi _0^0`$ (43)
$`v^{^{}}=v\xi ^0`$ (44)
$`\widehat{n}^{^{}}=\widehat{n}3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}n\xi ^0(1z)`$ (45)
$`\widehat{T}^{^{}}=\widehat{T}3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}n\xi ^0T({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{Th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}})(1z).`$ (46)
The basic variables that we shall take are

$$s=\frac{\widehat{n}}{n}3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}v(1z)$$
(47)
and

$$r=\frac{\widehat{T}}{T}3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}v\frac{\frac{P_{th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}(1z).$$
(48)
A gauge invariant gravitational field variable from the point of view of the matter  is:

$$q=\frac{3}{2}A+3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}v.$$
(49)
It will turn out that the variables $`q`$ , $`r`$ and $`s`$ are sufficient for the gauge-invariant description of the system of perturbation equations of the preceding section.

The energy density perturbation and pressure perturbation are gauge invariantly characterized by:

$`\widehat{ϵ}_c=\widehat{ϵ}3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}v(ϵ+\stackrel{~}{P})`$ (50)
$`\widehat{P}_c=\widehat{P}_{th}3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}v(ϵ+\stackrel{~}{P})v_s^2.`$ (51)
We can re-write the equation (49) by using (50):

$$\widehat{ϵ}_c=(ϵ+P_{th})s+Ta,$$
(52)
where

$$a=\frac{ϵ}{T}r\frac{P_{th}}{T}s.$$
(53)
Introducing the gauge invariant variables, the particle number balance (35) may be written as

$`\dot{s}`$ $`+(1z)\dot{q}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}_c}{ϵ+P_{th}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{3\dot{R}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{R^2}}q`$
$`+`$ $`9{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}^2}{R^2}}z(1z)v(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}})3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}v\dot{z}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}zs={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{n}}.`$
To find the last result it is necessary to use the perturbative field equations (38), (39), the field equation

$$(\frac{\dot{R}}{R})^{}=\frac{3}{2}H^2\gamma (1z)$$
(55)
and assumes the spatial dependence $`e^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐤}𝐫}`$ with constant comoving wavector $`k`$ for all first-order quantities.

When equation (56) is used into the energy balance (36) and the pressure balance (37), they become respectively

$$\frac{(aR^3)^{}TR^3}{ϵ+P_{th}}+\frac{zk^2q}{3R\dot{R}}+\frac{\widehat{\psi }}{n}=3Hz\frac{\widehat{P_{th}}\frac{\gamma }{2}ϵ}{ϵ+P_{th}}\frac{3H\widehat{\stackrel{~}{P}}}{ϵ+P_{th}}$$
(56)
and

$`sv_s^2`$ $`v\dot{z}+3Hz(1z)v(1+v_s^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{P}}}{ϵ+P_{th}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{3\dot{R}}}\dot{q}(1z)`$
$`+`$ $`T{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{ϵ+P_{th}}}=0.`$
Substituting equation (59) into (56) it becomes

$`\dot{s}`$ $`3Hsv_s^2+9H^2z(1z)v({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}v_s^2){\displaystyle \frac{3H\widehat{\stackrel{~}{P}}}{ϵ+P_{th}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3HT}{ϵ+P_{th}}}a{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{th}}{T}}{\frac{ϵ}{T}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma H{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ_c}}{ϵ+P_{th}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2q}{3R\dot{R}}}+3Hzs={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{n}}.`$
Equation (60) can be written in terms of gauge invariant variables using equation (55), namely:

$`\dot{s}`$ $`3H{\displaystyle \frac{1z}{ϵ+P_{th}}}(\widehat{P_c}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\widehat{ϵ}_c)(1z){\displaystyle \frac{k^2q}{3R\dot{R}}}`$
$`+`$ $`3Hzs={\displaystyle \frac{T}{ϵ+P_{th}R^3}}(R^3a)^{}.`$
We next focus our attention on the adiabatic case that is equivalent to consider $`a=0`$ , consequently equation (61) assumes the form

$$\dot{s}3H(1z)(v_s^2\frac{\gamma }{2})s(1z)\frac{k^2q}{3R\dot{R}}+3Hzs=0$$
(60)
where the variable $`s`$ is given by

$$s=\frac{\widehat{ϵ}}{ϵ+P_{th}}.$$
(61)
A straightforward manipulation of equation (62) gives

$`\ddot{s}`$ $`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\{H(1z)(2v_s^2\gamma )\}+3Hz+({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{R}}{\dot{R}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{z}}{1z}}\}\dot{s}`$
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\{H(1z)(2v_s^2\gamma )\}^{}+3(Hz)^{}+\{3{\displaystyle \frac{Hz}{1z}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(2v_s^2\gamma )\}\{(1z)({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{R}}{\dot{R}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}})+\dot{z}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{R^2}}z\}s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{R^2}}v\dot{z}=0.`$
This equation governs the behavior of the gauge invariant variable $`s`$ that is proportional to the density contrast, in an universe with particle production at the expenses of the gravitational field.

We recover the well known time evolution for the density contrast when the particle production is absent, namely

$$\ddot{s}+\frac{4}{3t}\dot{s}\frac{2}{3t^2}s=0,$$
(63)
where the scale factor of the background, $`Rt^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ were used.

## 5 Cosmological environment for particle production

To integrate equation (64) the scale factor $`R(t)`$ must be specified. This is done when the source of the particle production $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is chosen.

Next, we study the time evolution for the perturbation of the matter density taking the source of the particle production given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }=3n\beta H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha H^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$. Our purpose is to obtain the conditions for the reach of the non-linear regime in a “viscous universe” with particle production.

### 5.1 Source proportional to the product of the Hubble function and the particle number density

Lima et al.  gave a reasonable justification to pick up $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=3n\beta H`$ , where $`\beta `$ is a positive constant . We can provide explicit solution for the time dependence of the expansion factor in the presence of particle creation by using the continuity equation

$$\dot{n}+3Hn=\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(64)
state equation

$$P_{th}=(\nu 1)\rho $$
(65)
and the field equation

$$R\ddot{R}+\mathrm{\Delta }(k+\dot{R^2)}=0,$$
(66)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{3}{2}\nu (1\beta )1.$$
(67)
We obtain, taking $`\kappa =0`$ and $`\beta 1`$ :

$$R=R_0(\frac{t}{t_0})^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}.$$
(68)
The subscript $`0`$ alludes to present time. Note that for $`\beta =1`$ the dominant energy condition is violated .

Substituting the scale factor (70) and the respective source of particle production in equation (64), we obtain

$$\ddot{s}+C_1\dot{s}C_0s=0,$$
(69)
where

$$C_1=\frac{2(3\beta +2)}{3\nu (1\beta )t}$$
(70)
and

$$C_0=\frac{2}{t^2}\frac{4}{3\nu (\beta 1)^2t^2}\{3\beta ^21+4\beta \frac{4\beta }{\nu }\}.$$
(71)
To solve equation (71) we neglect terms that contain the sound velocity and consider the limit of the large wavelengths. Solutions for equation (71) are

$`s_{}(t)=C_1t^{1+\frac{2\beta }{\nu (\beta 1)}}`$ (72)
$`s_+(t)=C_2t^{\frac{4}{3\nu (\beta 1)}+2}.`$ (73)
In the absence of particle production, $`\beta =0`$, relations (74) and (75) become the usual density contrast for Friedmann models without creation . Although the decreasing mode can be important in some circumstances, we shall hereafter mainly deal only with the increasing mode. It is responsible for the formation of cosmic structure in the gravitational stability picture. Taking into account the decreasing mode the universe would not have been homogeneous in the past. Besides, a growing mode that starts to grow just after the end of radiation era, Peebles argued that the contribution of decaying solution must be negligible .

It is possible for the large perturbations that we see today to have grown from the small perturbation present in decoupling time. Typically we have$`(\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho })_{dec}<(10^210^3)`$ .

We compare the reach of the non-linear regime for open system cosmology with the same quantity for standard model, using the quotient given by:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{\delta _{+c}}{\delta _{+F}},$$
(74)
where the coefficient $`F`$ refers to the Friedmann model and $`c`$ is relative to the model with particle production. In usual Friedmann universe the reach of the non linear regime of the density contrast is realized in a relative recent time, comparing with the age for the universe. Consequently, a cosmological model with better characteristics to represent the universe must be satisfied if $`\mathrm{\Theta }>1`$. Taking into account the growing mode (75) and the condition (76) they imply that $`\beta <0`$, for $`\nu =1`$. Then we conclude that the respective cosmological model to the source $`\mathrm{\Psi }=3n\beta H`$ does not give a better results than the usual FRW model, since that for negative values for $`\beta `$, the second law of thermodynamics is violated.

### 5.2 Source proportional to the $`H^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$

The source $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha H^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$ is a natural generalization of the Prigogine’s work  for any value of $`\nu `$, excepted zero, where $`\nu `$ is a parameter of the state equation (67).

The field equations for the homogeneous and isotropic space time when particle production is taking into account can be written as:

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{k}}H^2,`$ (75)
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{n}}{n}}(\rho +P_{th}).`$ (76)
Using the state equation (67), the above field equations and the considered source we find for the scale factor:

$$R(t)=\{1+a(e^{bt}1)\}^{\frac{2}{3\nu }},$$
(77)
where

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\alpha }}n_0^{\frac{\nu }{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{kM}{3}})^{\frac{1}{3}},`$ (78)
$`b={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \nu }{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{kM}{3}})^{\frac{1}{\nu }}.`$ (79)
The initial particle number density is denoted by $`n_0`$ and $`M`$ is the mass of the particle produced.

Substituting the scale factor in equation (64) and changing the variable of the coordinate system using the following transformation

$$\xi =ae^{bt},$$
(80)
we find:

$`\xi ^2s(t)^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`+\xi (1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\nu }})\{6+3\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi }{\xi +1a}}\}s(t)^{^{}}+\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3(\xi +1a)}}`$
$`[3(a1)`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi }{\nu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi }{\nu }}4{\displaystyle \frac{a1}{\nu }}]+4{\displaystyle \frac{(a1)^2}{3\nu (\xi +1a)^2}}\}s(t)=0.`$
The derivatives are now taking in relation to the variable $`\xi `$. The solution of last equation is given by the hypergeometric functions:

$`s(\xi )`$ $`=\{C_1F_1(h1,h2,h3;{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{a1}})+C_2F_2(h4,h5,h6;{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{a1}})`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{a1}})^{1h4}`$ $`\}\xi ^{\frac{3\nu ^2+2+6\nu h1^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2\nu }}(\xi +a1)^{\frac{4+9\nu h2^{\frac{1}{2}}}{6\nu }}.`$
where:

$`h_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\nu }}\{3\nu +\sqrt{1080\nu ^2+540\nu ^3+528\nu +81\nu ^4+4}`$
$`+`$ $`3\sqrt{9\nu ^4+56\nu ^2+36\nu ^3+4+8\nu }+\sqrt{16+24\nu +81\nu ^2}\}`$
$`h_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\nu }}\{3\nu \sqrt{1080\nu ^2+540\nu ^3+528\nu +81\nu ^4+4}`$
$`+`$ $`3\sqrt{9\nu ^4+56\nu ^2+36\nu ^3+4+8\nu }+\sqrt{16+24\nu +81\nu ^2}\}`$
$$h_3=\frac{\nu +\sqrt{9\nu ^4+56\nu ^2+36\nu ^3+4+8\nu }}{\nu }$$
(85)
$`h_4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\nu }}\{3\nu \sqrt{1080\nu ^2+540\nu ^3+528\nu +81\nu ^4+4}`$
$``$ $`3\sqrt{9\nu ^4+56\nu ^2+36\nu ^3+4+8\nu }+\sqrt{16+24\nu +81\nu ^2}\}`$
$`h_5`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\nu }}\{3\nu \sqrt{1080\nu ^2+540\nu ^3+528\nu +81\nu ^4+4}`$
$``$ $`3\sqrt{9\nu ^4+56\nu ^2+36\nu ^3+4+8\nu }`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{16+24\nu +81\nu ^2}\}`$
$$h_6=\nu \frac{\sqrt{9\nu ^4+56\nu ^2+36\nu ^3+4+8\nu }}{\nu }.$$
(88)
The coefficients of the hypergeometrics usually obey the following relations:

$`h_4=h_2+1h_3,`$ (89)
$`h5=h_1+1h_3.`$ (90)
These conditions are valid for any value of $`\nu `$. A third condition

$$h_3=2h_6.$$
(91)
is valid only for $`\nu =1`$. By inspecting the argument of the hypergeometric function, one is convinced very quickly that no easy analytical solution is possible. In order to get an insight about the behavior of the evolution of the density contrast, we consider the constant $`a1`$, consequently:

$$\xi \xi 1+a.$$
(92)
Then, the equation (83) assumes the form:

$$\xi ^2s(\xi )^{^{\prime \prime }}+\xi (1+\frac{1}{3\nu })(10+3\nu )s(\xi )^{^{}}+2\frac{4+3\nu }{3\nu ^2}s(\xi )=0.$$
(93)
Solution of the last equation is given by:

$$s(\xi )=C_1\xi ^{w1w2}+C_2\xi ^{w1+w2}$$
(94)
where

$$w1=\frac{9\nu ^2+10+30\nu }{6\nu }$$
(95)
and

$$w2=\frac{\sqrt{81\nu ^4+1080\nu ^2+540\nu ^3+4+528\nu }}{6\nu }$$
(96)
When $`t0`$, then $`\xi 1`$. So using the initial condition $`s(0)=0`$, the integration constants must obey the relation $`C_1=C_2`$. For mathematical convenience we take $`C_1=\frac{3}{2}`$ .

Taking the solution for $`s`$, considering the parameter $`\tau =bt`$ and $`\nu =1`$, the anisotropy of density contrast correspondent to the anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation of the microwaves ($`s<10^3`$)  will occur in the interval

$$\tau _d<4.1\times 10^5,$$
(97)
for $`\nu =1`$. When $`\tau `$ assumes the value

$$\tau _l7.3\times 10^2,$$
(98)
the density contrast reaches the non linear regime. Now if we take $`t`$ instead of $`\tau `$ and considering that the anisotropy of CMBR occurs at $`10^6`$ years, then the structure formation occurs at

$$t<1.8\times 10^9ys.$$
(99)
The density contrast in the FRW standard model reach the non-linear regime at $`t<3.16\times 10^9ys`$, consequently in open system cosmology, for the source considered, the structures at large scale appeared in the universe more soon than in the standard model.

## 6 Conclusions

We obtain the evolution equation for the density contrast with respective solutions in the open system cosmology (OSC).

According to our results one may say that the OSC is an alternative model to describe the universe. The inclusion of the creation parameters indicates an older universe  and furnishes a negative pressure that accelerate the expansion of the universe, according the recent results obtained by the observations of the supernova. We analyze the conditions imposed on the creation parameters considering the reach of the non-linear regime of the growing mode in a suitable time. The reach of the non-linear regime in the standard model occurs in a more recent time than in the open system cosmology, considering the source of particle production given by $`H^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$.


format: text

text:
# “Fuzzy” stochastic resonance: robustness against noise tuning due to non Gaussian noises

## Abstract

We have analyzed the phenomenon of stochastic resonance in a system driven by non Gaussian noises. We have considered both white and colored noises. In the latter case we have obtained a consistent Markovian approximation that enables us to get quasi-analytical results for the signal-to-noise ratio. As the system departs from Gaussian behavior, our main findings are: an enhancement of the response together with a marked robustness against noise tuning. These remarkable findings are supported by extensive numerical simulations. We also discuss the relation with some experiments in sensory systems.

Stochastic resonance (SR) has attracted considerable interest due, among other aspects, to its potential technological applications for optimizing the response to weak external signals in nonlinear dynamical systems, as well as to its connection with some biological mechanisms. There is a wealth of papers, conference proceedings and reviews on this subject, Ref.  being the most recent and complete one, showing the large number of applications in science and technology, ranging from paleoclimatology , to electronic circuits , lasers , chemical systems , and the connection with some situations of biological interest (noise-induced information flow in sensory neurons in living systems, influence in ion-channel gating, in visual perception or in the human blood pressure regulatory system) . Recent works have shown a tendency, determined by the possible technological applications, pointing towards achieving an enhancement of the system response (by means of the coupling of several SR units in what conforms an extended medium ), or analyzing the possibility of making the system response less dependent on a fine tuning of the noise intensity , as well as different ways to control the phenomenon .

A majority of studies on SR have been made on bistable one-dimensional double-well systems, and in almost all cases, with very few exceptions , the noises are assumed to be Gaussian. However, some experimental results in sensory systems, particularly for one kind of crayfish  as well as recent results for rat skin , offer strong indications that the noise source in these systems could be non Gaussian.

In this letter we analyze the case of SR when the noise source is non Gaussian. We start sketching the study of a particular class of Langevin equations having non Gaussian stationary distribution functions , a work based on the generalized thermostatistics proposed by Tsallis  which has been successfully applied to a wide variety of physical systems . We consider the following problem

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`f(x,t)+g(x)\eta (t)`$ (1)
$`\dot{\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}V_q(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}\xi (t)`$ (2)
where $`\xi (t)`$ is a Gaussian white noise of zero mean and correlation $`\xi (t)\xi (t^{})=2D\delta (tt^{})`$, and $`V_q(\eta )`$ is given by

$$V_q(\eta )=\frac{1}{\beta (q1)}\mathrm{ln}[1+\beta (q1)\frac{\eta ^2}{2}],$$
(3)
where $`\beta =\frac{\tau }{D}`$. The function $`f(x,t)`$ is derived from a potential $`U(x,t)`$, consisting of a double well potential and a linear term modulated by $`S(t)=F\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$ ($`f(x,t)=\frac{U}{x}=U_0^{}+S(t)`$). For $`F=0`$ this problem corresponds to the case of diffusion in a potential $`U_0(x)`$, induced by $`\eta `$, a colored non-Gaussian noise. The stationary probability distribution for the random variable $`\eta `$ is given by $`P_q^{st}(\eta )=Z_q^1\left[1+\beta (q1)\frac{\eta ^2}{2}\right]^{\frac{1}{q1}}`$ where $`Z_q`$ is the normalization factor. Clearly, when $`q1`$ we recover the limit of $`\eta `$ being a Gaussian colored noise (Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process). For $`q<1`$ the above distribution cuts-off the values of the $`\eta `$ process to $`\eta <[(1q)\frac{\beta }{2}]^{1/2}`$. It is easy to show that the stationary mean value and variance are given, respectively, by $`\eta =0`$ and $`\eta ^2=[\beta (53q)]^1`$, the latter diverging for all $`q5/3`$.

Applying the path-integral formalism to the Langevin equations given by Eqs. (1-2), and making an adiabatic-like elimination procedure  it is possible to arrive at an effective Markovian approximation. The specific details are shown elsewhere . Such an approximation yields the following Fokker–Planck equation (FPE) for the evolution of the probability $`P(x,t)`$

$$_tP(x,t)=_x[A(x)P(x,t)]+\frac{1}{2}_x^2[B(x)P(x,t)].$$
(4)
Where

$$A(x)=\frac{U_0^{}}{\left(\frac{1\frac{\tau }{2D}(q1)U_0^{}^2}{1+\frac{\tau }{2D}(q1)U_0^{}^2}\right)+\tau U_0^{\prime \prime }[1+\frac{\tau }{2D}(q1)U_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]}$$
(5)
and

$$B(x)=D\left(\frac{[1+\frac{\tau }{2D}(q1)U_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]^2}{\tau U_0^{\prime \prime }[1+\frac{\tau }{2D}(q1)U_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]^2+[1\frac{\tau }{2D}(q1)U_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]}\right)^2.$$
(6)
The stationary distribution of the FPE in Eq. (4) is thus

$$P^{st}(x)=\frac{𝒩}{B(x)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]$$
(7)
where $`𝒩`$ is the normalization factor, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=2^x\frac{A(x^{})}{B(x^{})}𝑑x^{}.$$
(8)
The indicated FPE and its associated stationary distribution enable us to obtain the mean-first-passage-time (MFPT) through a Kramers like approximation . This quantity is the necessary ingredient to work within the two-state model (TST) . The MFPT to reach $`x=x_0`$ starting from $`x=a`$ can be obtained from

$$T(x_0)=_a^{x_0}𝑑y\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Phi }(y)}_{\mathrm{}}^y𝑑zB(z)^1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Phi }(z)},$$
(9)
We focus on polynomial-like forms for the potential, adopting

$$U(x)=\frac{x^4}{4}\frac{x^2}{2}+S(t)x,$$
(10)
setting $`S(t)=F\mathrm{cos}(\omega t),`$ and assuming that $`\omega ^1`$ is large compared to the characteristic relaxation times in both wells.

We follow the standard TST approach  in order to obtain $`R`$, the signal to noise ratio (SNR). In our case the result for $`R`$, defined as the ratio of the strength of the output signal to the broadband noise output evaluated at the signal frequency, is

$$R=\frac{F^2\pi }{2T^3}\left[\frac{dT}{dS(t)}\right]^2|_{S(t)=0}.$$
(11)
with $`S(t)`$ the applied signal.

We present the results for the SNR obtained evaluating Eq. (11). In Fig. 1a we depict the SNR vs. the noise intensity $`D_c`$, for a fixed value of the time correlation $`\tau `$ and various $`q`$, while Fig. 1b shows the equivalent plot for a fixed value of $`q`$ and several values of $`\tau `$. However, $`D_c`$ the noise intensity of the non Gaussian process is related to the Gaussian white noise $`D`$ through the scaling $`D_C=D[53q]^1`$, that was the scaling we used. In the former case the general trend is that the maximum of the SNR curve increases when $`q<1`$, i.e. when the system departs from the Gaussian behavior. In the latter case the general trend agrees with the results for colored Gaussian noises , where it was shown that the increase of the correlation time induces a decrease of the maximum of SNR as well as its shift towards larger values of the noise intensity. The latter fact is a consequence of the suppression of the switching rate with increasing $`\tau `$. Both qualitative trends are confirmed by extensive numerical simulations of the system in Eqs. (1-2), which has been numerically integrated using a stochastic Runge-Kutta-type method . The results were obtained averaging over $`2000`$ trajectories ($`5000`$ trajectories for $`\tau =0`$). Fig. 2a shows the simulation results for the same situation and parameters indicated in Fig. 1a. Here, in addition to the increase of the maximum of the SNR curve for values of $`q<1`$, we also found another remarkable aspect that is not reproduced or predicted by our effective Markovian approximation. It is the fact that the maximum of the SNR curve flattens for lower values of $`q`$, indicating that the system, when departing from Gaussian behavior, requires a less fine tuning of the noise intensity in order to maximize its response to a weak external signal. Fig. 2b shows the simulation results for the same situation and parameters indicated in Fig. 1b. Again we found an agreement with the general behavior found for colored Gaussian noises .

In order to compare with some experiments where the need to use non-Gaussian noises has been suggested, we consider the results obtained for a crayfish in Ref.. A qualitative comparison of our results in Figs. 1 and 2 with those given there shows that the agreement between theory and experiment does indeed improve by the use of non-Gaussian noises corresponding to $`q<1`$. However, it is known that rather than applying our simple one-variable model, to the crayfish neural system under consideration it is better to use the celebrated FitzHugh-Nagumo one. In the same way as in Ref., we define the model system through the set of equations

$`\tau _v\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`v(v0.5)(1v)w,`$ (12)
$`\tau _w\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`vw+ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)+\eta (t),`$ (13)
where $`v(t)`$ is the variable associated to the action potential (in an activator-inhibitor model, it corresponds to the activator variable), and $`w(t)`$ is the recovery (inhibitor) variable. The characteristic times for such variables are, respectively, $`\tau _v`$ and $`\tau _w`$. The recovery variable is submitted to a periodic signal (whose (small) amplitude we denote by $`ϵ`$ and its frequency by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and a noise source $`\eta (t)`$. This random variable, now chosen as white (that is with $`\tau =0`$), is distributed accordingly to the stationary pdf of Eq. (2). We have integrated numerically Eqs. (13) using a stochastic Runge-Kutta-type method with a time step of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1\text{ms}`$.

The time series $`v(t)`$ was converted into a spike train (mimicking what happens in the nervous system). One spike occurs when $`v(t)`$ exceeds the threshold potential $`b_c`$. Each spike was modeled as a square wave of height $`V_s=1\text{V}`$, and duration $`t_s=3\text{ms}`$. It is not possible to have two successive spikes with a lag smaller than $`t_s`$. The SNR was evaluated following the usual procedure on this modified signal.

Along all the simulations, we fixed $`\tau _v=10^5\text{s}`$ and $`\tau _w=10^2\text{s}`$. While we considered the signal as having frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=55\text{Hz}`$ and amplitude $`ϵ=0.03\text{V}`$. All these values agree with those from Ref. , however their results are a particular case of ours, i.e. $`q=1`$, for the noise source.

We have compared our simulations for $`R`$, the SNR, as a function of noise standard deviation for different values of $`q`$ and $`b_c`$, the threshold potential, with the experimental data in . Here again we have scaled the noise intensity according to $`D_n=D[53q]^1`$, where $`D_n`$ is the intensity of the Non Gaussian noise while $`D`$corresponds to the pdf parameter. Figure 3 shows the results obtained for $`b_c=0.18\text{V}`$. We see that the (Gaussian) case $`q=1`$ underestimates the measured SNR values for the whole range of noise intensities, while $`q=0.75`$ exhibits an overestimation for large noise values. However, if we adopt $`q=0.47`$ the system exhibits a nice agreement with experimental data both near the SNR peak and for large values of noise. When the threshold value is fixed at $`b_c=0.15\text{V}`$ as in  (results not shown here), the case $`q=1`$ corresponds exactly to the theoretical fit in . From the comparison with $`q1`$ it becomes apparent that, although the fit is acceptable near the $`R`$ maximum, for large noise intensities the $`q=1`$ case underestimate the values of $`R`$. By setting $`q=0.75`$, we find a much better fit even in the region of large noises, and when $`q=0.30`$ and for large values of the noise standard deviation, the results exhibit values above the measured ones.

It it worth remarking here that the experimental behavior in the low noise limit is not reproduced by any model. This is due to the spontaneous firing of neurons in the real crayfish neural system .

Summarizing, motivated by some experimental results in sensory systems , we have analyzed the problem of SR when the noise source is non Gaussian. We have chosen a non Gaussian noise source (white or colored) with a probability distribution based on the generalized thermostatistics . In the colored case and making use of a path integral approach, we have obtained an effective Markovian approximation that allows us to get some analytical results. In addition, we have performed exhaustive numerical simulations. Even though the agreement between theory and numerical simulations is only partial and qualitative, the effective Markovian approximation turns out to be extremely useful to predict (qualitatively) general trends in the behavior of the system under study.

Our numerical and theoretical results indicate that: (i) for a fixed value of $`\tau `$, the maximum value of the SNR increases with decreasing $`q`$; (ii) for a given value of $`q`$, the optimal noise intensity (that one maximizing SNR) decreases with $`q`$ and its value is approximately independent of $`\tau `$; (iii) for a fixed value of the noise intensity, the optimal value of $`q`$ is independent of $`\tau `$ and in general it turns out that $`q1`$.

As we depart from Gaussian behavior (with $`q<1`$), the SNR shows two main aspects: firstly its maximum as a function of the noise intensity increases, secondly it becomes less dependent on the precise value of the noise intensity. Both aspects are of great relevance for technological applications . However, as was indicated in Ref. , non Gaussian noises could be an intrinsic characteristic in biological systems, particularly in sensory systems . In addition to the increase in the response (SNR), the reduction in the need of tuning a precise value of the noise intensity is of particular relevance both in technology and in order to understand how a biological system can exploit this phenomenon. As an example of this, simulations of a FHN model with non Gaussian noise shows a behavior in better agreement with the experimental results in a crayfish sensory system than simulations made with a Gaussian noise source. The present results indicate that the noise model used here offers an adequate framework to analyze such a problem.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank C. Tsallis for useful discussions and V. Grunfeld for a revision of the manuscript. HSW acknowledges support from CONICET, Argentine agency. RT acknowledges financial support from DGES, project numbers BFM2000-1108 and PB97-0141-C02-01.

Theoretical value of the SNR, $`R`$, vs. the noise intensity $`D`$, for: (a) $`\tau =0.1`$ and the following values of $`q=0.25,0.75,1.0,1.25`$ (continuous line, from top to bottom). (b) $`q=0.75`$ and the following values of $`\tau =0.25,0.75,1.5`$ (broken line from top to bottom). We adopted $`F=0.1`$ and $`\omega =0.1`$.

Simulation results of the SNR, $`R`$, vs. the noise intensity $`D`$, for (a) $`\tau =0.1`$ and the following values of $`q=0.25,0.75,1.0,1.25`$ (from top to bottom). (b) $`q=0.75`$ and the following values of $`\tau =0.25,0.75,1.5`$ (from top to bottom). We adopted $`F=0.1`$ and $`\omega =0.1`$.

The SNR, $`R`$, for the FHN model is plotted as a function of $`\sqrt{2D}`$ (the noise standard deviation). The different curves show the results for different $`q`$values: $`q=1`$ ($``$), $`q=0.75`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$), $`q=0.47`$ ($``$). In all the cases we fixed $`b_c=0.18\text{V}`$, simulation results are compared with the experimental data ($`\mathrm{}`$).


text:
# The ideal trefoil knot

## 1 Introduction

Finding the best way of packing a tube within a box seems to be rather a gardening than a scientific problem. However, the optimal single helix, discovered in a computer simulation study of this problem,  and , proves to be ubiquitous in many proteins as their $`\alpha `$-helical parts. It seems, as suggested in , that also the closely packed double helix appearing in the process of twisting two ropes together  have been already discovered and applied by nature. Laboratory experiments allow one to observe in the real time how the optimal helices are formed in various systems e.g. the bacterial flagellas  or phospholipid membranes .

Both processes, of packing the ropes and twisting them together, occur simultaneously when a knot tied on a rope becomes tightened. The problem of finding the most tight, least rope consuming conformations of knots was independently posed and indicated as essential by different authors; for references see . Knots in such optimal, most tight conformations are often called ideal, a term proposed by Simon , and introduced into the literature by Stasiak . Ideal conformations minimize the value of the size-invariant variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=L/D`$, where $`L`$ and $`D`$ are, respectively, the length and the diameter of the perfect rope (defined below) on which the knot is tied. The only knot whose ideal conformation is known at present is the trivial knot (unknot). See Fig.1.

Its length in the ideal, circular conformation equals $`\pi D`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi `$. Finding the ideal conformation of a nontrivial knot is a nontrivial task. Initiated a few years ago search for the ideal conformations of nontrivial knots continues.

One of the algorithms used in the search is SONO (Shrink-On-No-Overlaps). SONO simulates a process in which the rope, on which a knot is tied, slowly shrinks. The rope is allowed to shrink only when no overlaps of the rope with itself are detected within the knot. When such overlaps occur, SONO modifies the knot conformation to remove them. If this is no more possible, the process ends. Unfortunately, ending of the tightening process does not mean that the ideal conformation of a given knot was found. The tightening process could have stopped also because a local minimum of the thickness energy was entered. The possibility that there exists a different, less rope consuming conformation, cannot be excluded.

SONO has been used in the search of ideal conformations of both prime and composite knots. Parameters of the least rope consuming conformations found by the algorithm were listed in  and . In a few cases, SONO managed to find better conformations than the simulated annealing procedure . However, for the most simple knots, in particular, the trefoil knot, the simulated annealing and SONO provided identical results; the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values are identical within experimental errors. It seems obvious, that no better conformations of the knot exist. We feel obliged to emphasize, however, that it is only an intuitively obvious conclusion - no formal proofs have been provided so far. As indicated in , we are in a situation similar to that, which lasted in the problem of the best packing of spheres for 400 years. That the face centered cubic and hexagonal close packed lattices were among the structures which minimize the volume occupied by closely packed hard spheres seemed to be obvious since the times of Kepler, however the formal proof of the conjecture was provided but a few years ago . Waiting for the formal proofs that what we have observed in the knot tightening numerical experiments is the ideal conformation of the trefoil, seems to be a too cautious attitude. Thus, after a few years of experimenting, we decided to present the best, least rope consuming conformation of the trefoil knot we managed to find. We compare it with the most tight conformation of the knot which can be found within the analytically defined family of torus knots. In particular, we describe the qualitative change in the set of self-contacts which takes place within the trefoil knot during the tightening process. We believe that some of the features of the self-contact set we have found may be present also in ideal conformations of other knot types.

An alternative method of searching for the most tight conformations of knots consists in inflating the rope on which the knot has been tied In such a process the length of the rope is kept fixed. The maximum radius to which the rope in a given conformation of a knot can be inflated is closely related with the injectivity radius considered in detail by Rawdon .

## 2 The perfect rope

It is the aim of the computer simulations we perform to simulate the tightening process of knots tied on the perfect rope: perfectly flexible, but at the same time perfectly hard in its circular cross-section. The surface of the perfect rope can be seen as the union of all circles centered on and perpendicular to the knot axis $`C`$. See Fig.2.

We assume that $`C`$ is smooth and simple, i.e. self-avoiding, what guaranties that at each of its points $`𝐫`$ the tangent vectors $`\tau (𝐫),`$ and thus the circular cross-section, are well defined. The surface remains smooth as long as:

A. the local curvature radius $`r_\kappa `$ of the knot axis is nowhere smaller than $`D/2`$,

B. the minimum distance of closest approach $`d_{}`$ is nowhere smaller then $`D/2`$ .

The minimum distance of closest approach $`d_{}`$, known also as the doubly critical self-distance, see , is defined in , as the smallest distance between all pairs of points $`(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ on the knot axis, having the property, that the vector $`(𝐫_2𝐫_1)`$ joining them is orthogonal to the tangent vectors $`\tau (𝐫_1),\tau (𝐫_2)`$ located at the points:

$$d_{}(C)=\underset{𝐫_1,𝐫_2C}{\mathrm{min}}\{|𝐫_2𝐫_1|:\tau (𝐫_1)(𝐫_2𝐫_1),\tau (𝐫_2)(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\}$$
(1)
As shown by Gonzalez and Maddocks , the two conditions can be gathered into a single one providing that the notion of the global curvature radius $`\rho _G`$ is introduced:

$$\rho _G(𝐫_1)=\underset{𝐫_1𝐫_2𝐫_3𝐫_1}{\underset{𝐫_2,𝐫_3C}{\mathrm{min}}}\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)$$
(2)
where, $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)`$ is the radius of the unique circle (the circumcircle) which passes through all of the three points: $`𝐫_1,𝐫_2`$ and $`𝐫_3`$. Using the notion of the global curvature, the condition which guaranties smoothness of the knot surface can be reformulated as follows:

C. the global curvature radius $`\rho _G`$ of the knot axis is nowhere smaller than $`D/2`$.

Analysis of the conformations produced by the SONO algorithm proves that conditions A and B, (and C) are fulfilled.

## 3 Parametrically tied trefoil knot

The trefoil knot can be tied on the surface of a torus. See Fig.3

Consider the set of 3 periodic functions:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`[R+r\mathrm{cos}(2\nu _1\pi t)]sin(2\nu _2\pi t)`$ (3)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`[R+r\mathrm{cos}(2\nu _1\pi t)]cos(2\nu _2\pi t)`$ (4)
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}(2\nu _1\pi t)`$ (5)
The trajectory determined by equations 3, 4 and 5 becomes closed as $`t`$ spans a unit interval. For the sake of simplicity we shall consider the $`[0,1)`$ interval. For all relatively prime integer values of $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$ equations 3, 4 and 5 define self-avoiding closed curves located on the surface of a torus. $`R`$ denotes here the radius of the circle determining the central axis of the torus while $`r`$ denotes the radius of its circular cross-sections. For the trefoil knot, frequencies $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$ equal $`2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. In what follows we consider knots tied on a rope; trajectories defined by equations 3, 4 and 5 determine position of its axis.

The $`(\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ and the $`(\nu _2,\nu _1)`$ torus knots are ambient isotopic, i.e. they can be transformed one into another without cutting the rope on which they are tied . As shown previously, the $`(2,3)`$ version of the trefoil is less rope consuming . Thus, the $`(3,2)`$ version will not be discussed below.

Assume that the trefoil knot whose axis is defined by equations 3, 4 and 5 is tied on a rope of diameter $`D=1`$. In what follows we shall refer to it as the parametrically tied trefoil (PTT) knot. In such a case, radius $`r`$ of the torus on which the axis of knot is located, cannot be smaller than $`1/2`$ ; below this value overlaps of the rope with itself will certainly appear; at $`r=1/2`$ the rope remains in a continuous self-contact along the torus axis. To keep the self-contacts we assume in what follows that $`r=1/2`$. To check, if the knot is free of overlaps in other regions, one can analyze the map of its internal distances. Let $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ be two values of the parameter $`t`$, both located in the $`[0,1)`$ interval. Let $`(x_1,y_1,z_1)`$ and $`(x_2,y_2,z_2)`$ be the coordinates of two points indicated within the knot axis by $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, respectively. Let $`d(t_1,t_2)`$ be the Euclidean distance between the points:

$$d(t_1,t_2)=\sqrt{(x_2x_1)^2+(y_2y_1)^2+(z_2z_1)^2}$$
(6)
The map of the function, see Fig.4 displays a mirror symmetry induced by the equality $`d(t_1,t_2)=d(t_2,t_1)`$.

Looking for possible overlaps within the knot one looks for regions within the internal distances landscape, where $`d(t_1,t_2)<1`$. The most visible depression within the landscape of the interknot distances is located around the diagonal where $`t_1=t_2`$. As easy to see, $`d(t_1,t_2)=0`$ along the line, but for obvious reasons this does not implies any overlaps within the knot.

Another valley within which $`d(t_1,t_2)`$ may go down to the critical $`1`$ value is localized in the vicinity of lines defined by equality $`|t_2t_1|=1/2`$. To see, if in the vicinity of the lines the height really drops to or even below 1, we plotted the map of the $`d(t_1,t_2)`$ function in such a manner, that regions lying below the arbitrarily chosen $`1.005`$ level were cut off.

As seen in Fig.5 there are four such regions within the PTT knot: one in the shape of a sinusoidal band and three in shapes of almost circular patches. The band contains in its middle the mentioned above continuous line of self-contacts points; it is the axis of the torus on which the knot is tied. The circular patches contain 3 additional contact points; when $`R`$ becomes too small, overlaps appear around the points. Numerical analysis we performed reveals that (with the 5 decimal digits accuracy we applied) the overlaps occurring within these regions vanish above $`R=1.1158`$. For $`R=1.1159`$ the distance between the closest points located within these regions of the knot equals $`0.9999`$. For $`R=1.1158`$ the distance is equal $`1.0000`$. Where, within the PTT knot the self-contact points are located is shown in Fig.6

## 4 SONO tied trefoil knot

Considerations presented above indicated the value of $`R`$, at which the PTT knot reaches its most tight conformation. The length $`L_t`$ of the rope engaged in this conformation of the trefoil knot equals $`17.0883`$. Can one tie the trefoil knot using a shorter piece of the rope? Theoretical considerations indicate that this possibility cannot be excluded. As proven in  the piece of rope used to tie the trefoil knot cannot be shorter than $`Lm=(2+\sqrt{2})\pi 10.72`$. Such a location of this lower limit leaves a lot of place for a possible further tightening of the knot. Application of SONO reveals that the tightening is possible providing the conformation of the knot is allowed to leave the subspace of the parametrically tied torus conformations. This happens spontaneously in numerical simulations in which the most tight PTT knot is supplied to SONO as the initial conformation. SONO algorithm manages to make it shorter. In the simulations we performed, SONO reduced the length of the knot by about 4% to $`L_{exp}=16.38`$. The discrete representation of the knot used in the simulations contained $`N=327`$ nodes. Below we describe the final conformation. For the sake of simplicity we shall refer to trefoil knots processed by the SONO algorithm as the SONO tied trefoil (STT) knots.

The differences in the conformation of the most tight conformations of the PTT and STT knots is a subtle one. The essential difference lies in the structure of the sets of their self-contact points. As mentioned above, the circular line of self-contact points present in the family of the PTT knots stays intact as $`R`$ is changed within the family. Tightening of a PTT knot achieved by decreasing the radius $`R`$ of the torus stops when additional discrete points of contacts appear at three locations within the knot. This happens as $`R`$ becomes equal $`1.1158`$. Further tightening of the knot within the family of PTT knots is not possible, it becomes possible within the family of the STT knots.

During the tightening process carried out by SONO, the set of the self-contact points undergoes both qualitative and quantitative changes. First of all, the line of contacts present in the PTT knot changes its shape becoming distinctly non-circular. Secondly, the three contact points give birth to pieces of new line of self-contacts. Unexpectedly, the new pieces do not connect into a new line, wiggling around and crossing the old line, but they are mounted into the old line in such a manner, that a single, self-avoiding and knotted line of self-contacts is created. That this is the case was revealed by a precise analysis of the interknot distances function. A map covering the interknot distances only within the very thin $`[1.00000,1.00002]`$ interval shows two separated lines, see Fig.7, corresponding to a single, self-avoiding and knotted line of contact.

In addition to the line, a set of three points of self-contacts is formed. The points are located at places where the line of self-contacts becomes almost tangent to itself. The self-contact line runs twice around the knot. As a result, each of the circular cross-sections of the rope stays here in touch with another two such sections. The close packed structure formed in such a manner is much more stable than the structure of the most tight PTT knot, where single contacts were predominant. Let us note, that figure 1e presented in ref.  a similar self-contact line structure can be seen. Unfortunately, inspecting the figure one cannot see, if the ”self-contact spikes” shown there form a single, self-avoiding, knotted or a double, crossing itself line. The problem was not discussed in the text. Let us emphasize, however, that the difference between the two possibilities is confined to a zero-measure set.

## 5 Discussion

Ideal knots are objects of which very little is known still. The only knot whose ideal conformation is known rigorously is the unknot. Its ideal conformation, a circle of a radius identical with the radius of the rope on which it is tied, can be conveniently described parametrically. The set of the self-contact points is here limited to a single point: the center of the circle. All circular sections of the rope meet at this point. The maximum local curvature and the minimum double critical self-distance limiting conditions are simultaneously met.

The situation in the case of the trefoil knot, the simplest non-trivial prime knot, is radically different. Here the most tight parametrically defined conformation proves to be not ideal. As demonstrated by the present authors, it can be tightened more with the use of the SONO algorithm. The set of the self-contact points becomes rebuilt during the tightening process. Its topology becomes different. In the case the PPT knot the set of the self-contact points consists of acircle and 3 separated points. As the numerical experiments we performed suggest, in the case of the STT knot, the set of the self-contact points turns unexpectedly into a single line. Which the structure of the set of self contact points in other prime knots is, remains an open question.

Acknowledgment PP thanks Andrzej Stasiak, John Maddocs, Robert Kusner, Kenneth Millet, Jason Cantarella and Eric Rawdon for helpful discussions. This work was carried out under Project KBN 5 PO3B 01220.


text:
# On the Nonlocality of the Quantum Channel in the Standard Teleportation Protocol

## I Introduction

It is well-known that the quantum correlations predicted by pure entangled states violate Bell-CHSH inequalities  and, therefore, cannot be recovered by any local hidden variables model. Yet these same correlations cannot by themselves be used to transmit information between the locations of the entangled systems. This has sometimes been taken to suggest that quantum correlations are not inherently ‘nonlocal’, but simply ‘nonclassical’. On the other hand, it is a striking fact that quantum correlations *can* used, as in quantum teleportation, to increase the information carrying capacity of a classical channel. This new operational manifestation of quantum entanglement invites a deeper analysis of the extent to which the quantum teleportation process itself can be modelled classically, and what role, if any, nonlocality must play in explaining the success of teleportation.

The standard quantum teleportation protocol runs as follows . Consider three qubit systems 1, 2, and 3, fix an arbitrary direction in space to define the $`z`$-direction for each qubit, and let $`|`$ and $`|`$ denote the eigenstates of $`\sigma _z`$. We can imagine that all three qubits are initially in the possession of someone named Clare, who follows the instructions of Alice and Bob to prepare qubits $`2+3`$ in a quantum channel state given by some density operator $`D`$ of their choice, and prepares qubit $`1`$ in a pure state $`|\varphi `$, unknown to Alice or Bob. Clare then feeds qubits $`2`$ and $`3`$ to Alice and Bob, respectively, to use as their “quantum channel”, and Clare passes qubit $`1`$ to Alice so that she can teleport its unknown state to Bob. To execute the protocol, Alice measures the “Bell operator” on qubits $`1+2`$, which has eigenstates :

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`1/\sqrt{2}(||\pm ||),`$ (1)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`1/\sqrt{2}(||\pm ||),`$ (2)
and she obtains one of four results $`n=1,\mathrm{},4`$ corresponding to the eigenstates above, with probabilities $`p_n`$. For each outcome $`n`$, Alice then sends classical information, via (say) a normal telephone call, instructing Bob to perform a corresponding unitary transformation $`U_n`$ on his qubit $`3`$. Having followed Alice’s instructions, Bob’s qubit will be left in one of four states $`D_n`$.

If the quantum channel state $`D`$ is a maximally entangled pure state, the unitaries $`U_n`$ can always be chosen so that no matter what Alice’s Bell operator measurement outcome, Bob will have prepared his particle by the completion of the protocol in exactly the same state $`D_n=|\varphi \varphi |`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},4`$) as the state of qubit $`1`$ that Alice teleported. For example, when $`D`$ is the singlet state, qubit 3 has an equal probability of being in one of the four states $`|\varphi \varphi |`$, $`\sigma _x|\varphi \varphi |\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y|\varphi \varphi |\sigma _y`$, $`\sigma _z|\varphi \varphi |\sigma _z`$, so that Bob’s performing, respectively, one of the four unitary transformations

$`U_1=I(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}),`$ $`U_2=\sigma _x(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}),`$ (3)
$`U_3=\sigma _y(|\mathrm{\Phi }_+),`$ $`U_4=\sigma _z(|\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$ (4)
suffices for perfect teleportation.

For a mixed and/or non-maximally entangled quantum channel state $`D`$, perfect teleportation of an unknown state cannot be achieved (cf., e.g., ). However, one can introduce a natural measure of success for any fixed “strategy” $`nU_n`$ of associating unitary operators $`U_n`$ with Alice’s Bell operator outcomes. This measure is the fidelity $`_{\{U_n\}}(D)`$ of transmission to Bob, given by the uniform average, over all possible unknown states $`|\varphi `$, of the quantity $`_{n=1}^4p_nTr(D_n|\varphi \varphi |)`$ ,. Taking the supremum of $`_{\{U_n\}}(D)`$ over all possible strategies for associating unitary operators $`U_n`$ with Alice’s Bell operator outcomes, one obtains a number, $`_{max}(D)`$, representing the maximum achievable fidelity of teleportation for a given fixed quantum channel state $`D`$ . A density matrix $`D`$ is then regarded as useful for nonclassical teleportation just in case $`_{max}(D)>2/3`$, where $`2/3`$ is the maximum achievable fidelity without the quantum channel, or when a classical channel is substituted in its place ,.

Let us return, for the moment, to the case of perfect teleportation, where $`D`$ is a maximally entangled pure state and $`_{max}(D)=1`$. The striking thing is that Alice only directly communicates to Bob two classical bits of information when she conveys to him one of the four integers $`n=1,\mathrm{},4`$. (We assume, as usual, that they have agreed in advance on a strategy $`nU_n`$.) Indeed, one might think that Bob’s sure-fire reconstruction of the unknown state $`|\varphi `$ as a state of his qubit $`3`$ entails that he must (somehow) have actually received a *full qubit’s worth* of information (i.e., the information contained in specifying the two of infinitely many possible real numbers needed to fix the normalized expansion coefficients of the state $`|\varphi `$). A natural, though perhaps naive, explanation would be that the correlations inherent in a maximally entangled pure state carry the extra information to Bob instantaneously and nonlocally when that state “collapses” as a result of Alice’s Bell operator measurement. Indeed, the view that the quantum channel itself carries some share of the net information received by Bob appears to have been favoured by the inventors of teleportation (, p. 1896; cf. also , p. 797), and is the springboard for a number of different explanations of teleportation from the point of view of particular interpretations of quantum theory (). There are sceptics, however, who have challenged the view that perfect teleportation requires nonlocal information transfer of any sort (). Moreover, one should bear in mind that the information about the unknown state $`|\varphi `$ “carried” by Bob’s qubit at the completion of a *single* run of the protocol is not actually *accessible* to him, since it is well-known that there is no way for him to discern the quantum-mechanical state of a single system.

In the case of explaining imperfect nonclassical teleportation, where $`1>_{max}(D)>2/3`$, the situation is more complicated, and appears to favour the sceptics. While $`D`$ must still be entangled (i.e., not a convex combination of product states of $`2+3`$), $`D`$ can still satisfy all Bell-CHSH inequalities

$$|\overline{\sigma }_1\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _2\right)+\overline{\sigma }_2\left(\sigma _1\sigma _2\right)_D|2,$$
(5)
where the $`\overline{\sigma }`$’s and $`\sigma `$’s denote arbitrary spin observables of qubits $`2`$ and $`3`$, respectively, and $`_D`$ denotes expectation value in the state $`D`$. More precisely, if we let $`\beta (D)[2,2\sqrt{2}]`$ be the maximum over all Bell-CHSH expressions of the above form, then $`_{max}(D)>2/3`$ does not imply $`\beta (D)>2`$, even though the converse implication does hold . So nonclassical teleportation is possible even in the absence of an independent argument for the nonlocality of the quantum channel state via Bell’s theorem. Notwithstanding this, one could adopt the view that the condition $`_{max}(D)>2/3`$ *itself* should be viewed as sufficient for thinking of the channel state $`D`$ as nonlocal (cf. , p. 799). However, the sceptic is likely to point out that this gives further support to his view that nonclassical teleportation can occur without the involvement of nonlocality (cf. , p. 6).

All parties to this discussion are agreed that good teleportation is made possible by the fact that the correlations of an entangled quantum channel state $`D`$ are nonclassical. They only diverge on the question of whether or not the standard teleportation protocol necessarily involves nonlocality. Recently, Żukowski  has made an interesting attempt to force this issue of nonlocality by asking an extremely relevant question: Can the correlations of $`D`$ that are actually involved in the standard teleportation protocol be recovered in a local hidden variables model? Żukowski attacks this question by making a novel use of a Bell-CHSH inequality, which we explain in the next section. The two sections following, Sections III and IV, investigate the connection between a generalized form of Żukowski’s teleportation inequality and the standard Bell-CHSH inequality for the channel state. In particular, we show that a violation of the former implies that the channel state satisfies $`\beta (D)>2`$, but that $`\beta (D)>2`$ does *not* imply a violation of even our generalized form of Żukowski’s teleportation inequality. However, in Section V we show that such a violation occurs whenever the fidelity $`_{st}(D)>2/3(1+1/2\sqrt{2}).90`$, where $`_{st}`$ is the fidelity associated with the *standard* choice for Bob’s unitary operators given in (4). The implications of these results for the interpretation of quantum teleportation as nonlocal are discussed in Section VI.

## II Żukowski’s Argument Simplified

In effect, Żukowski considers the following pair of $`\pm 1`$-valued functions of Alice’s Bell operator:

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|+|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|`$ (7)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+\mathrm{\Psi }_+||\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+|,`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+\mathrm{\Psi }_+|+|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|`$ (9)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}||\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+|.`$
The operator $`A_1`$ ($`A_2)`$ coincides with the observable that represents the first (second) component of the vector observable $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ introduced by Żukowski (, Eqn. (12)). It is easy to see that the information obtained in a joint measurement of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ on qubits $`1+2`$ is equivalent to the information one would obtain through a single Bell operator measurement. So we can equally well think of Alice as jointly measuring the observables $`A_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) in her attempt to teleport the unknown state to Bob.

Now take $`D`$ to be the maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+|`$, consider two alternative unknown states given by

$`|\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|),`$ (10)
$`|\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+i|),`$ (11)
and consider the following two alternative spin components of qubit $`3`$,

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi /4}||+e^{i\pi /4}||,`$ (12)
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi /4}||+e^{i\pi /4}||.`$ (13)
(It is easily checked that the choices in (10)–(13) correspond to the choices Żukowski (, p. 2) makes for the parameters he labels as $`\beta ,\varphi ,\beta ^{},\varphi ^{}`$.) Żukowski shows that the following Bell-CHSH-type inequality

$$\left|\begin{array}{c}A_1\sigma _1_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}+A_1\sigma _2_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}\\ +A_2\sigma _1_{|\varphi _2\varphi _2|D}A_2\sigma _2_{|\varphi _2\varphi _2|D}\end{array}\right|2,$$
(14)
which we henceforth for convenience call a “Bell teleportation inequality”, is violated by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. Żukowski appears to interpret this violation as signifying that the quantum component of a perfect teleportation process involving the maximally entangled state $`D=|\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+|`$ must be nonlocal.

This interpretation is not without plausibility. The idea is that to assess the nonlocality of $`D`$ qua the quantum component of Alice’s teleportation process, we should continue to have Alice measure the Bell operator but drop the classical channel, her phone call, from consideration. Although this frustrates any attempt to complete the process by Bob performing an appropriate unitary transformation on his qubit, it does not preclude asking whether what remains of the process can be modelled by a local hidden variables theory for any conceivable unknown state. One can imagine, then, that after preparing the quantum channel state, Clare randomly feeds to Alice one of two unknown states $`|\varphi _j`$, and makes a covert agreement with Bob that he should simply ignore all of Alice’s phone calls and randomly measure one of two spin components $`\sigma _j`$ on his qubit. After many measurement trials, Clare and Bob then reveal their charade to Alice, who grudgingly agrees to combine the information from her Bell operator outcomes with their information to see whether the Bell teleportation inequality (14) is violated. When they find that it *is* violated, the standard argument for Bell’s theorem (cf. , Eqns. (16),(17)) shows that no hidden variables model according to which: (i) Alice’s and Bob’s measurement outcomes are statistically independent at the level of the hidden variables; (ii) Alice’s outcomes are independent of the spin component Bob measures; and (iii) *Bob’s outcomes are independent of the unknown state Alice attempts to teleport*, can possibly account for the observed correlations.

Right after pointing out that inequality (14) is violated in the state $`D=|\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+|`$, Żukowski remarks:

> It is an interesting fact, that needs further investigation, that the Bell inequality presented here is violated by the same factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ as the CHSH inequality for the usual Bell theorem involving a pair of particles in a maximally entangled state. This may imply that the quantum component of the teleportation process cannot be described in a local and realistic way, as long as the initial state of $`B`$ \[$`2`$\] and $`C`$ \[$`3`$\] admits no such model (, p. 3).

Żukowski’s conjecture appears to be that if the channel state violates any local hidden variables theory inequality, perhaps even collective measurement ones, then the correlations involved in the quantum component of teleportation will also violate a local hidden variables theory inequality. If this is indeed the conjecture, it would be difficult to decide, since we would need to take into account all possible local hidden variables theories inequalities for all possible measurement protocols on the channel particles alone and determine whether a violation of any such inequality suffices to prevent the recovery, within a local hidden variables model, of the correlations of the channel state that are exploited in the teleportation process. Consequently, we narrow our focus to the standard Bell-CHSH inequality for the channel state and a generalized form of (14)’s Bell teleportation inequality for qubits 1–3 where the observables $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are allowed to be *any* bivalent functions of Alice’s Bell operator.

## III Violation of a Bell teleportation inequality implies violation of a Bell-CHSH inequality by the channel state

We first generalize Żukowski’s scheme to include a wider class of observables compatible with Alice’s Bell operator, by letting $`A_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) be *any* pair of self-adjoint unitary ‘spin’ operators that are each bivalent functions of her Bell operator. Thus,

$`A_j`$ $`=`$ $`a_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_+\mathrm{\Psi }_+\left|+b_j\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|`$ (16)
$`+c_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+\left|+d_j\right|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|,j=1,2,`$
where $`a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j=\pm 1`$. Now fix, once and for all, the channel state density operator $`D`$. By analogy with $`\beta (D)`$, define the number $`\tau (D)`$ to be the maximum of the Bell teleportation expression

$$\left|\begin{array}{c}A_1\sigma _1_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}+A_1\sigma _2_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}\\ +A_2\sigma _1_{|\varphi _2\varphi _2|D}A_2\sigma _2_{|\varphi _2\varphi _2|D}\end{array}\right|$$
(17)
over all choices of the unknown state vectors $`|\varphi _j`$ and all choices of the bivalent Bell operator functions $`A_j`$, i.e., all $`\pm 1`$ choices for the numbers $`a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j`$.

Notice that, since there is a unitary operator $`U`$ on the state space of qubit $`1`$ mapping $`|\varphi _2`$ to $`|\varphi _1`$, (17) equals

$$\left|A_1(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)+(UA_2U^1)(\sigma _1\sigma _2)_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}\right|,$$
(18)
which is just the absolute value of the expectation value of a Bell-CHSH operator on the bipartite system $`(1+2)+3`$. Thus, necessarily, $`\tau (D)[2,2\sqrt{2}]`$. Note also that if the unknown states $`|\varphi _1`$ and $`|\varphi _2`$ are compatible (i.e., either the same up to an irrelevant phase or orthogonal), then $`U`$ can always be chosen so that $`UA_2U^1`$ is again a bivalent function of the Bell operator. This is most easily seen when $`|\varphi _1=|`$ and $`|\varphi _2=|`$, in which case the unitary that simply permutes these two $`z`$-eigenstates maps the four Bell operator eigenspaces into each other. (The general case can be reduced to this one by first applying a unitary transformation to the unknown states to bring them in line with the $`z`$-basis.) Thus, when the two alternative unknown states are compatible, $`[A_1,UA_2U^1]=0`$. In that case, it follows that expression (18), and thus (17), cannot exceed 2, and the corresponding Bell teleportation inequality cannot be violated. This is to be expected, since it is known  that perfect teleportation of any collection of mutually compatible unknown states can be achieved with a separable channel state (all of whose correlations, including those involved in the teleportation, can be modelled by a local hidden variables theory).

It is not difficult to show that $`\tau (D)=\beta (D)=2\sqrt{2}`$ if and only if $`D`$ is a maximally entangled pure state (by using the fact that any maximally entangled state is related to Żukowski’s choice $`D=|\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+|`$ by a unitary operator on Bob’s qubit). We now concentrate on proving, quite generally, that $`\beta (D)\tau (D)`$.

If $`\tau (D)=2`$ the claim is trivial, so we suppose $`\tau (D)>2`$. Thus, there are unknown states $`|\varphi _j`$ of qubit 1, bivalent Bell operator functions $`A_j`$, and spin components $`\sigma _j`$ of qubit 3 such that

$`\left|\begin{array}{c}A_1\sigma _1_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}+A_1\sigma _2_{|\varphi _1\varphi _1|D}\\ +A_2\sigma _1_{|\varphi _2\varphi _2|D}A_2\sigma _2_{|\varphi _2\varphi _2|D}\end{array}\right|`$ (21)
$`=\tau (D)>2.`$ (22)
Consider the pair of self-adjoint operators $`X_j`$ on qubit 2’s state space defined via the following matrix elements in the $`\sigma _z`$ eigenbasis:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _j\left|\left|A_j\right|\varphi _j\right|\hfill & \varphi _j\left|\left|A_j\right|\varphi _j\right|\hfill \\ \varphi _j\left|\left|A_j\right|\varphi _j\right|\hfill & \varphi _j\left|\left|A_j\right|\varphi _j\right|\hfill \end{array}\right),j=1,2.$$
(23)
Since each $`A_j`$ is self-adjoint, the matrices in (23) are self-adjoint; thus each $`X_j`$ is self-adjoint as well. By linearity, (23) implies:

$$v\left|X_j\right|w=\varphi _j\left|v\left|A_j\right|\varphi _j\right|w,j=1,2,$$
(24)
for all qubit 2 vectors $`|v,|w`$. In particular, when we set both $`|v`$ and $`|w`$ equal to any unit eigenvector of $`X_j`$ with corresponding eigenvalue $`\mu _j`$, it follows that $`\left|\mu _j\right|`$ $`A_j=1`$. Thus each $`X_j`$ is a self-adjoint contraction, i.e., satisfies $`X_j1`$.

Next, multiplying both sides of (24) by $`x\left|\sigma _l\right|y,`$ with $`|x,|y`$ arbitrary qubit 3 vectors, we obtain

$`v\left|x\left|X_j\sigma _l\right|w\right|y`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _j\left|v\left|x\left|A_j\sigma _l\right|\varphi _j\right|w\right|y,j,l=1,2.`$ (26)
Now, since $`D`$ is Hermitian, $`D=_{k=1}^4\lambda _k|e_ke_k|`$, where the $`\{e_k\}`$ form an orthonormal basis for the 2+3 space. Since product vectors span this space, (26) implies by linearity

$`e_k\left|X_j\sigma _l\right|e_k=\varphi _j\left|e_k\left|A_j\sigma _l\right|\varphi _j\right|e_k`$ (27)
$`k=1,\mathrm{},4;j,l=1,2.`$ (28)
Multiplying both sides of (28) by $`\lambda _k`$ and summing over $`k`$ results in:

$$X_j\sigma _l_D=A_j\sigma _l_{|\varphi _j\varphi _j|D}j,l=1,2.$$
(29)
Combining this with (22) yields

$$\left|\begin{array}{c}X_1\sigma _1_D+X_1\sigma _2_D\\ +X_2\sigma _1_DX_2\sigma _2_D\end{array}\right|=\tau (D)>2.$$
(30)
Finally note that, although the $`X_j`$ are in general only self-adjoint contractions, convexity arguments  show that if a bipartite state (here, our channel state $`D`$) violates a Bell-CHSH-type inequality with respect to self-adjoint contractions (as in (30)), then that state also violates, by at least the same amount, a standard Bell-CHSH inequality with respect to observables all of which are self-adjoint unitary spin components. This completes the proof that $`\beta (D)\tau (D)`$.

An immediate corollary of this result is that there are channel states that permit nonclassical teleportation yet violate no Bell teleportation inequality. For example, consider the ‘Werner state’

$$D_W=\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\frac{1}{4}II+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|.$$
(31)
Since spin operators, and hence Bell-CHSH operators, are traceless,

$`\beta (D_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\beta (|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|)`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}2\sqrt{2}=2\tau (D_W),`$ (33)
which forces $`\tau (D_W)=2`$. On the other hand, the teleportation fidelity of $`D_W`$ relative to the standard choice of Bob’s unitary operators (which, in fact, gives the maximum achievable fidelity) is

$`_{st}(D_W)`$ $`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\times 1`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{2}2}{8}})>{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}.`$ (35)
## IV A channel state Bell-CHSH violation does not imply a violation of a Bell teleportation inequality.

We now exhibit a family of channel states $`D`$ for which the converse inequality $`\tau (D)\beta (D)`$ fails; indeed, for which $`\beta (D)>2`$ while $`\tau (D)=2`$. It follows that if one were to interpret Żukowski’s conjecture (discussed in Section II) to be that a channel state Bell-CHSH violation implies a violation of his original inequality, then this particular conjecture is false.

By the reasoning in the previous section which led to Eqn. (30), we know that the maximum Bell teleportation violation given a channel state $`D`$ is attained by an expression of the form $`|Z_D|`$ where

$$Z=X_1\sigma _1+X_1\sigma _2+X_2\sigma _1X_2\sigma _2,$$
(36)
and the self-adjoint contractions $`X_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) have matrix elements given by (23). We may calculate these matrix elements explicitly by parameterizing the two alternative teleported states as

$$|\varphi _j=\mathrm{sin}\theta _j|+\mathrm{cos}\theta _je^{i\vartheta _j}|,\theta _j,\vartheta _j[0,2\pi ).$$
(37)
An elementary but tedious calculation then shows

$`X_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(a_j+b_j+c_j+d_j)I`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(a_jb_j+c_jd_j)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _j\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _j\sigma _x`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(a_j+d_jb_jc_j)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _j\mathrm{sin}\vartheta _j\sigma _y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(a_j+b_jc_jd_j)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _j\sigma _z,`$
where the numbers $`a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j=\pm 1`$ correspond to the different choices that can be made for the bivalent functions $`A_j`$ of Alice’s Bell operator. The value of $`\tau (D)`$ is, therefore, given by

$$\tau (D)=\underset{\theta _j,\vartheta _j[0,2\pi );a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j=\pm 1;\sigma _j}{\mathrm{max}}|Z_D|.$$
(42)
Consider, now, the two parameter family of channel density operators given by

$$D_{\lambda ,\alpha }=(1\lambda )\frac{1}{4}II+\lambda |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |,\lambda ,\alpha [0,1],$$
(43)
where

$$|\psi _\alpha =\alpha |+|++\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}||_,$$
(44)
$$|\pm =\frac{1\pm \sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{2(3\pm \sqrt{3})}}|+\frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2(3\pm \sqrt{3})}}|.$$
(45)
For later reference, note that

$$\psi _\alpha |I\sigma _n|\psi _\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(2\alpha ^21),n=x,y,z,$$
(46)
$`\psi _\alpha |\sigma _m\sigma _n|\psi _\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1+4\alpha \sqrt{1\alpha ^2}),`$ (47)
$`(m,n)=(x,y),(y,x),(z,z),`$ (48)
$`\psi _\alpha |\sigma _m\sigma _m|\psi _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\psi _\alpha |\sigma _m\sigma _z|\psi _\alpha `$ (49)
$`=`$ $`\psi _\alpha |\sigma _z\sigma _m|\psi _\alpha `$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(12\alpha \sqrt{1\alpha ^2}),m=x,y.`$ (51)
Since spin operators are traceless, the corresponding expectation values in the state $`D_{\lambda ,\alpha }`$ are obtained by multiplying each of the above values by $`\lambda `$.

Again, because spin operators are traceless, the first maximally mixed component of $`D_{\lambda ,\alpha }`$ does not contribute to any Bell-CHSH operator average; hence $`\beta (D_{\lambda ,\alpha })>2`$ just in case $`\lambda \beta (|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |)>2`$. It can be shown that

$$\beta (|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |)=2\sqrt{1+4\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)},$$
(52)
thus the condition for $`\beta (D_{\lambda ,\alpha })>2`$ is simply

$$\lambda \sqrt{1+4\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)}>1,\lambda ,\alpha [0,1].$$
(53)
We now determine two additional conditions on $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$, *consistent* with (53), which together are sufficient for $`\tau (D_{\lambda ,\alpha })=2`$.

The set of 16 possible value assignments to the numbers $`a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j`$ can be divided into three relevant classes. Class I: All assignments for which both $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ involve two value assignments of both signs (for example, the two value assignments $`a_j=b_j=c_j=d_j=1`$, where $`j=1,2`$). Class II: All assignments for which exactly one of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ involve two value assignments of both signs and the other involves three values assignments of one sign (for example, $`a_1=b_1=c_1=d_1=1`$ and $`a_2=b_2=c_2=d_2=1`$). Class III: All assignments for which both $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ involve exactly three values assignments of one sign (for example, the value assignments $`a_j=b_j=c_j=d_j=1`$). Note that whenever $`a_j=b_j=c_j=d_j`$ for at least one value of $`j`$—i.e., whenever either $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ is multiple of the identity—no violation is possible, thus such assignments can be ignored.

Class I: Following , we introduce the new spin operators

$$\widehat{\sigma }_1=\frac{\sigma _1+\sigma _2}{2\mathrm{cos}\xi },\widehat{\sigma }_2=\frac{\sigma _1\sigma _2}{2\mathrm{sin}\xi },$$
(54)
so that (36) becomes

$$Z=2(X_1\widehat{\sigma }_1)\mathrm{cos}\xi +2(X_2\widehat{\sigma }_2)\mathrm{sin}\xi .$$
(55)
Using the fact that, whenever $`M,N`$, $`M\mathrm{cos}\xi +N\mathrm{sin}\xi \sqrt{M^2+N^2}`$, we have

$$|Z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|2\sqrt{X_1\widehat{\sigma }_1_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2+X_2\widehat{\sigma }_2_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2}.$$
(56)
Using similar reasoning,

$$X_j\widehat{\sigma }_j_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}\sqrt{\underset{n=x,y,z}{}X_j\sigma _n_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2},j=1,2,$$
(57)
therefore

$$|Z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|2\sqrt{\underset{n=x,y,z;j=1,2}{}X_j\sigma _n_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2}.$$
(58)
Assuming a Class I value assignment to the numbers $`a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j`$, each self-adjoint contraction in (41) has the form $`X_j=r_j\sigma _{m_j}`$ where $`r_j[1,1]`$ and $`m_j=x,y,z`$. Since $`|Z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|`$ cannot exceed the classical bound $`2`$ when $`[X_1,X_2]=0`$, we need only consider the three cases where $`m_1m_2`$, i.e.,

$`X_1=r_1\sigma _x,`$ $`X_2=r_2\sigma _y,`$ (59)
$`X_1=r_1\sigma _y,`$ $`X_2=r_2\sigma _z,`$ (60)
$`X_1=r_1\sigma _x,`$ $`X_2=r_2\sigma _z,`$ (61)
and the other three cases obtained by interchanging 1 and 2. For the first case, substitution into inequality (58) and using the expectation values given in (48) and (50), we find

$`|Z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{3}}\sqrt{(r_1^2+r_2^2)(3+24\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2))}`$ (62)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}\lambda }{\sqrt{3}}}\sqrt{1+8\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)}.`$ (63)
The other two cases in (59) yield the same inequality (63), as do the cases obtained by interchanging 1 and 2 (which leaves the right-hand side of inequality (58) unchanged). Thus, a sufficient condition for no Class I value assignment to yield a violation of a Bell teleportation inequality is

$$\lambda \sqrt{2/3\left(1+8\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)\right)}1.$$
(64)
Class II: In this case, we can see from (41) that exactly one of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ takes the form $`r\sigma _m`$, where $`m=x,y,z`$ and $`r[1,1]`$, while the other is of the form $`\pm I/2+\sigma /2`$ where $`\sigma `$ is a spin-1/2 operator. Thus,

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`r\sigma _m\left(\sigma _2+\overline{\sigma }_2\right)+1/2(\sigma \pm I)\left(\sigma _1\overline{\sigma }_2\right)`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`\pm I(\sigma _1\overline{\sigma }_2)/2+r\sigma _m(\sigma _1+\overline{\sigma }_2)/2+B^{}/2,`$ (66)
where $`\overline{\sigma }_2=\pm \sigma _2`$ and $`B^{}`$ is a Bell-CHSH-type operator constructed out of self-adjoint contractions that are not necessarily unitary (unless $`r=\pm 1`$). Transforming the spin operators $`(\sigma _1,\overline{\sigma }_2)(\widehat{\sigma }_1,\widehat{\sigma }_2)`$ via Eqns. (54), and substituting into Eqn. (65) yields

$$Z=\pm (I\widehat{\sigma }_2)\mathrm{sin}\xi +r(\sigma _m\widehat{\sigma }_1)\mathrm{cos}\xi +B^{}/2.$$
(67)
Therefore,

$`|Z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|`$ (68)
$``$ $`|\pm I\widehat{\sigma }_2_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\xi `$ (69)
$`+r\sigma _m\widehat{\sigma }_1_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}\mathrm{cos}\xi |+1/2|B^{}_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|`$ (70)
$``$ $`\sqrt{I\widehat{\sigma }_2_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2+r^2\sigma _m\widehat{\sigma _1}_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2}`$ (71)
$`+1/2|B^{}_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|.`$ (72)
¿From (52) it follows that

$$|B^{}_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|2\lambda \sqrt{1+4\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)}$$
(73)
and, clearly,

$$r^2\sigma _m\widehat{\sigma }_1_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2=\lambda ^2r^2\sigma _m\widehat{\sigma }_1_{|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |}\lambda ^2.$$
(74)
Moreover,

$`I\widehat{\sigma }_2_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2`$ (75)
$``$ $`I\sigma _x_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2+I\sigma _y_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2+I\sigma _z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}^2`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(2\alpha ^21)^2,`$ (77)
using Eqn. (46) for the last equality. Upon substitution of these last three inequalities back into inequality (71), we obtain

$`|Z_{D_{\lambda ,\alpha }}|`$ $``$ $`\lambda (\sqrt{2(12\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2))}`$ (79)
$`+\sqrt{1+4\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)}).`$
Thus, a sufficient condition for no Class II value assignment to yield a violation of a Bell teleportation inequality is

$$\lambda \left(\sqrt{2(12\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2))}+\sqrt{1+4\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)}\right)2.$$
(80)
Class III: In this case, $`Z`$ takes the form $`I\sigma +B/2`$ where $`\sigma `$ is a spin-operator and $`B`$ a standard Bell-CHSH operator. Note that this is just a special case of the Class II expression for $`Z`$ in Eqn. (67), taking the $`\pm `$ sign to be $`+`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_2=\sigma `$, $`\xi =\pi /2`$, and $`B^{}=B`$. Thus inequality (80) is also sufficient for no Class III value assignment to yield a violation of a Bell teleportation inequality.

Combining our results for each class, we see that $`\beta (D_{\lambda ,\alpha })>2`$ while $`\tau (D_{\lambda ,\alpha })=2`$ if and only if $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$ satisfy conditions (53), (64) and (80). The family of channel density operators satisfying these conditions is indeed nonempty. For example, the conditions are satisfied by taking $`\lambda =\sqrt{3/5}.77`$ and $`\alpha =\sqrt{3}/2.87`$, and in that case we have $`\beta (D_{\sqrt{3/5},\sqrt{3}/2})=2\sqrt{21/20}2.05`$. Note, also, that choosing $`\lambda =1`$ does *not* satisfy the conditions, nor does choosing $`\alpha ^2(1\alpha ^2)=1/4`$. Thus no channel density operator in the family is pure, and the pure entangled component $`|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |`$ of $`D_{\lambda ,\alpha }`$ is never maximally entangled. Finally, since $`\beta (D)>2`$ implies $`_{max}(D)>2/3`$ , each density operator in the family supplies another example of a state that permits nonclassical teleportation without violating any Bell teleportation inequality.

## V Fidelity values that imply a violation of a Bell teleportation inequality.

In light of our previous results, it is natural to ask what values of the fidelity are sufficient for the quantum correlations in the standard teleportation protocol *not* to admit a local hidden variables explanation. We shall show in this section that $`_{st}(D)>2/3(1+1/2\sqrt{2}).90`$ implies $`\tau (D)>2`$.

It is known  that for any Bell-CHSH operator $`B`$,

$$B_D=𝐚T(D)(𝐛+𝐛^{})+𝐚^{}T(D)(𝐛𝐛^{})$$
(81)
where $`𝐚,𝐚^{},𝐛`$ and $`𝐛^{}`$ are unit vectors in $`^3`$ defining the four spin operators that occur in $`B`$, and the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`T(D)`$ has components

$$T_{mn}(D)=\text{Tr}[D(\sigma _m\sigma _n)],m,n=x,y,z,$$
(82)
encoding the inter-particle correlations in state $`D`$. Setting $`𝐚=𝐱`$, $`𝐚^{}=𝐲`$, $`𝐛=(𝐱+𝐲)/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`𝐛^{}=(𝐱𝐲)/\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain

$`B_D`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _x\sigma _b+\sigma _x\sigma _b^{}+\sigma _y\sigma _b\sigma _y\sigma _b^{}_D`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(T_{xx}(D)+T_{yy}(D)).`$ (84)
Now choose the operators $`A_j`$ in Eqn. (16) that correspond to $`a_1=c_1=b_1=d_1=+1`$ and $`a_2=d_2=b_2=c_2=+1`$, and the unknown states $`|\varphi _j`$ in (37) that correspond to $`\theta _1=\pi /4`$, $`\vartheta _1=0`$, $`\theta _2=\pi /4`$, and $`\vartheta _2=\pi /4`$. Substituting these values into (41), we obtain $`X_1=\sigma _x`$ and $`X_2=\sigma _y`$. Hence the Bell-CHSH operator $`B`$ in (84) has the form of a $`Z`$ operator as given in (36), and $`|B_D|`$ provides a lower bound for $`\tau (D)`$, i.e.,

$$\tau (D)\sqrt{2}|T_{xx}(D)+T_{yy}(D)|.$$
(85)
(As check on the correctness of this bound, note from (50), that it falls below 2 when $`D=D_{.77,.87}`$, as it must.)

It can be shown quite generally that

$$_{st}(D)=\frac{1}{8}\underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}(1+\frac{1}{3}\text{Tr}[T_n^{}T(D)O_n])$$
(86)
where

$`T_1=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ $`T_2=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ (87)
$`T_3=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ $`T_4=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ (88)
and the matrices $`\{O_n\}`$ are determined by the standard choice for Bob’s unitary operations in (4) via the requirement that $`U_n(𝐛\sigma )U_n^1=(O_n^{}𝐛)\sigma `$ for all $`𝐛^3`$. Calculating out these latter matrices explicitly yields

$`O_1=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ $`O_2=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ (89)
$`O_3=\text{diag}(1,1,1),`$ $`O_4=\text{diag}(1,1,1).`$ (90)
(For example, for $`n=2`$, $`U_2=\sigma _x`$, and, using the fact that $`\sigma _x^2=I`$ and orthogonal spin components anti-commute,

$`\sigma _x(𝐛\sigma )\sigma _x`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _x(b_x\sigma _x+b_y\sigma _y+b_z\sigma _z)\sigma _x`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`b_x\sigma _xb_y\sigma _yb_z\sigma _z`$ (92)
$`=`$ $`(O_2^{}𝐛)_x\sigma _x+(O_2^{}𝐛)_y\sigma _y+(O_2^{}𝐛)_z\sigma _z,`$ (93)
which implies $`O_2=\text{diag}(1,1,1)`$.) Plugging all the matrices $`\{T_n\}`$ and $`\{O_n\}`$ back into (86) gives

$$_{st}(D)=1/21/6(T_{xx}(D)+T_{yy}(D)+T_{zz}(D)).$$
(94)
Finally, combining (85) with Eqn. (94), we have

$$\tau (D)\sqrt{2}|T_{zz}(D)+6_{st}(D)3|.$$
(95)
Assuming $`_{st}(D)>2/3(1+1/2\sqrt{2})=2/3+\sqrt{2}/6`$, and noting that $`T_{zz}(D)1`$, it follows that

$`\sqrt{2}(T_{zz}(D)+6_{st}(D)3)`$ (96)
$`>`$ $`\sqrt{2}(1+4+\sqrt{2}3)=2,`$ (97)
and therefore $`\tau (D)>2`$, as claimed. Note that we have made no attempt to find the minimum value for $`_{st}(D)`$ that implies $`\tau (D)>2`$. However, for the Werner state in (31), we know that $`_{st}(D_W)=2/3(1+(3\sqrt{2}2)/8).85`$, yet $`\tau (D_W)=2`$; so our bound of $`.90`$ cannot be decreased below $`.85`$.

## VI Discussion

We have compared a new class of “Bell teleportation inequalities”—our generalization of Żukowski’s inequality—to the well-known class of Bell-CHSH inequalities for the particle pair that makes up the quantum channel of a standard teleportation process. We found that while a Bell teleportation inequality cannot be violated unless the channel state already violates a Bell-CHSH inequality, the latter is no guarantee that the correlations of the channel state actually involved in the teleportation process will violate a Bell teleportation inequality. This suggests that it is generally *easier* for a local hidden variables theory to simulate teleportation than to simulate the results of a standard Bell correlation experiment on the channel particles alone. Moreover, if one were to interpret Żukowski’s conjecture (discussed in Section II) to be that a channel state Bell-CHSH violation implies a violation of his original inequality, then we have shown this particular conjecture to be false.

Our results also contribute to the larger debate (discussed in our introduction) over the role that nonlocality plays in teleportation. We showed that a Bell teleportation inequality is always violated when the fidelity of transmission in the standard teleportation protocol exceeds the classical limit of $`2/3`$ by a factor of $`1+1/2\sqrt{2}`$. If one accepts that the violation of an inequality to which any local hidden variables theory is committed implies the presence of nonlocality, it follows that standard teleportation with a fidelity exceeding $`2/3(1+1/2\sqrt{2}).90`$ cannot occur without the involvement of nonlocality. On the other hand, our results suggest the existence of a range $`(.67,.90)`$ of *nonclassical* values of the fidelity for which a local hidden variables theory of the teleportation process may be possible. Thus, the ability of an entangled channel state, such as $`D_W`$ or $`D_{.77,.87}`$, to permit nonclassical teleportation cannot by itself suffice for concluding that the channel state itself, or the teleportation it facilitates, is nonlocal; attention must also be paid to the magnitude of the fidelity achievable using the state.

Our tentative conclusion that local hidden variables models of quantum teleportation may exist for nonclassical fidelities up to $`0.90`$ is compatible with Gisin’s  demonstration that the *end results* of quantum teleportation can be classically simulated up to a fidelity of $`0.87`$. However, this comparison should not be given too much weight because Gisin’s simulation has little to do with what actually goes on in the standard quantum teleportation protocol. In his simulation, Alice does not measure any Bell operator on qubits 1+2. Rather, it is assumed that she has full knowledge of the ‘unknown’ state’s expansion coefficients, and her task is simply to classically communicate to Bob as much information as she can about these coefficients by using only 2 bits. While it is certainly of interest to study how well teleportation can be achieved classically using various protocols different from the standard quantum protocol (see also ), we have confined ourselves in this paper to the possibility of local classical explanations of the latter only. While we have reached a negative conclusion for fidelities exceeding $`.90`$, our results strongly suggest a positive answer for fidelities in the range $`(.67,.90)`$.

Acknowledgements

DTP acknowledges the support of a Graduate School Research Travelling Award from the University of Queensland and thanks the Department of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh for its hospitality. We would also like to thank Peter Drummond, Gerard Milburn, and William Munro for helpful discussion.