text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative quantum spheres were first studied by Podles  by considering a one-parameter family of quantum homogeneous spaces for the standard $`q`$-deformed quantum group $`SL_q(2)`$. Exterior algebras of differential forms on these $`q`$-deformed quantum spaces were investigated , and classification of covariant differential calculi on Podles quantum $`q`$-spheres was obtained . Orthogonal bases for the algebra of functions on Podles quantum $`q`$-spheres were determined  in terms of the big $`q`$-Jacobi polynomials. An elegant description of the $`q`$-spherical functions was obtained  by considering left and right invariances in the infinitesimal sense with respect to twisted primitive elements of the $`q`$-deformed universal enveloping algebra $`U_q(sl(2))`$.

On the other hand it is well-known that the Lie group $`SL(2)`$ admits  two distinct quantum group deformations with central quantum determinant: the standard $`q`$-deformation $`Fun_q(SL(2))`$ and the Jordanian deformation $`Fun_h(SL(2))`$ . On the quantum algebra level, the Jordanian deformation $`U_h(sl(2))`$ of the corresponding classical enveloping algebra was constructed . The differential calculas on the Jordanian $`h`$-deformed quantum plane was investigated , and the classification of the bicovariant diffential calculi on the Jordanian function algebra $`Fun_h(SL(2))`$ was obtained . Using a contraction technique developed earlier ,, a general recipe for obtaining the finite dimensional group-like elements $`𝒯_h^{(j)}`$ of the function algebra $`Fun_h(SL(2))`$ was described in .

In the present work our starting point is the explicit construction of the matrix $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ obtained in . Investigating the left (right) coaction of $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ on quantum spaces with three noncommuting generators we obtain a one parameter family of algebras invariant under the coaction. These invariant quantum spaces may be regarded as Jordanian deformation of the two-dimensional spheres. We demonostrate that at the algebraic level there exist an invertible map between the quantum spaces invariant under the left and the right coactions of the function algebra $`Fun_h(SL(2))`$ respectively. Moreover, the quantum spaces may be realized as the subalgebras of the function algebra $`Fun_h(SL(2))`$. Lastly, following , the above embedding may be obtained by using the infinitesimal invariance of the generating elements with respect to a corresponding twisted primitive element of the dual Jordanian enveloping algebra $`U_h(sl(2))`$.

A motivation for the present work is the recent interest in formulating field theory on noncommutative spaces, both from the point of view of finding new insights into the renormalization problem -; and the realization that such noncommutative spaces are induced by certain sectors of string theory, particularly open strings ending on $`D`$-branes with a background $`B`$ field -. We, therefore, expect exploration of new noncommutative spaces to be fruitful.

## 2 The left and the right coactions of the $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ matrix

The defining relations for the Jordanian deformed $`U_h(sl(2))`$ algebra read

$`[H,T^{\pm 1}]=T^{\pm 2}1,`$
$`[H,Y]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Y(T+T^1)+(T+T^1)Y),`$
$`[T^{\pm 1},Y]=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}(HT^{\pm 1}+T^{\pm 1}H).`$ (2.1)
The corresponding coproduct $`()`$, counit $`(\epsilon )`$ and the antipode $`(S)`$ maps are given by

$`(T^{\pm 1})=T^{\pm 1}T^{\pm 1},(Y)=YT+T^1Y,(H)=HT+T^1H,`$
$`\epsilon (T^{\pm 1})=1,\epsilon (Y)=\epsilon (H)=0,`$
$`S(T^{\pm 1})=T^1,S(Y)=TYT^1,S(H)=THT^1.`$ (2.2)
The dual Jordanian function algebra $`Fun_h(SL(2))`$ is generated by the elements of the matrix $`𝒯_h^{(j=\frac{1}{2})}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$, obeying the relations

$`[a,b]=h\left(a^21\right),[a,c]=hc^2,`$
$`[b,d]=h\left(d^21\right),[c,d]=hc^2,`$
$`[a,d]=hachdc,[b,c]=hachcd,`$ (2.3)
where the central determinant $`D=adbchac`$ satisfies the condition

$$D=1.$$
(2.4)
The coalgebraic properties for the generating elements $`(a,b,c,d)`$ may be summarized as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\dot{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right),`$ (2.11)
$`\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (2.16)
$`S\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}dhc& b+h(ad)+h^2c\\ c& a+hc\end{array}\right).`$ (2.21)
A recipe based on a contraction procedure has been provided in  for obtaining arbitrary finite dimensional group-like elements $`𝒯_h^{(j)}`$ of the $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ algebra. These $`𝒯_h^{(j)}`$ matrices may be regarded as the finite dimensional representations of the dual form between the Jordanian Hopf algebras $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ and $`U_h(sl(2))`$. Using the determinantal condition (2.4), here we reproduce the explicit determination of the $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ obtained in :

$$𝒯_h^{(j=1)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2+\frac{1}{4}h^2c^2& 2abha^2+h+\frac{1}{2}h^2cd& 2b^2\frac{3}{2}h^2a^2+\frac{1}{2}h^2d^2\\ & \frac{1}{4}h^3c^2& +h^2\frac{3}{8}h^4c^2\\ & & \\ ac+\frac{1}{2}hc^2& 1+2bc+hac+hcd& 2bd+hd^2h\frac{3}{2}h^2ac\\ & \frac{1}{2}h^2c^2& \frac{3}{4}h^3c^2\\ & & \\ \frac{1}{2}c^2& cd\frac{1}{2}hc^2& d^2\frac{3}{4}h^2c^2\end{array}\right).$$
(2.22)
The group-like property of the Jordanian monodromy matrix $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ is manifest in its coproduct relation

$$\left(𝒯_h^{(j=1)}\right)=𝒯_h^{(j=1)}\stackrel{}{\dot{}}𝒯_h^{(j=1)}.$$
(2.23)
We define a left coaction $`\varphi _𝖫`$ acting on the generators of a quantum space $`\left(𝗑_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}\right)`$ by the relation

$$\varphi _𝖫(𝗑_𝗂)=\underset{𝗃=\mathrm{𝟣}}{\overset{\mathrm{𝟣}}{}}\left(𝒯_h^{(j=1)}\right)_{𝗂𝗃}𝗑_𝗃\text{for}𝗂=(\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}).$$
(2.24)
As a consequence of the coproduct property (2.23) the coaction $`\varphi _𝖫`$ satisfies the identity

$$(\text{id}\varphi _𝖫)\varphi _𝖫(𝗑_𝗂)=(\text{id})\varphi _𝖫(𝗑_𝗂)\text{for}𝗂=(\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}).$$
(2.25)
For two complex numbers $`(k,\beta )`$, where $`\beta 0`$, we denote by $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ the algebra with the noncommuting generators $`\left(𝗑_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}\right)`$ obeying the defining relations:

$`𝗑_{\mathrm{𝟢}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}+8h^2𝗑_{\mathrm{𝟣}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8kh^2𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ,`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}+h𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}+3h𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}h^2𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}`$
$`6h^3𝗑_{\mathrm{𝟣}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4kh𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}4kh^2𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}6kh^3𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}+2h𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}+2h𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}+4kh𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}+4h𝗑_{\mathrm{𝟣}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4kh𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.26)
The coaction $`\varphi _𝖫`$ defined by (2.24) preserves the relations (2.26) and is an algebra homomorphism. The homomorphism $`\varphi _𝖫:𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ endows the algebra $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ with the structure of a left $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ comodule.

In a similar way a right coaction $`\varphi _𝖱`$ acting on the generating elements $`(𝗒_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣})`$ of a right quantum space for the funtion algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ may be defined as

$$\varphi _𝖱(𝗒_𝗂)=\underset{𝗃=\mathrm{𝟣}}{\overset{\mathrm{𝟣}}{}}𝗒_𝗃\left(𝒯_h^{(j=1)}\right)_{𝗃𝗂}\text{for}𝗂=(\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}).$$
(2.27)
The group-like coproduct property (2.23) now requires the right coaction $`\varphi _𝖱`$ to satisfy the identity:

$$(\varphi _𝖱\text{id})\varphi _𝖱(𝗒_𝗂)=(\text{id})\varphi _𝖱(𝗒_𝗂)\text{for}𝗂=(\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}).$$
(2.28)
The noncommuting generating elements $`(𝗒_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣})`$ of the right quantum space furnish the algebra $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ defined by the relations

$`𝗒_{\mathrm{𝟢}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}+4h^2𝗒_{\mathrm{𝟣}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}8k^{}h^2𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^{},`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}4h𝗒_{\mathrm{𝟣}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4k^{}h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}2h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}2h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}+4k^{}h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}3h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^2𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}h^2𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$
$`2h^3𝗒_{\mathrm{𝟣}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4k^{}h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}+4k^{}h^2𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}+2k^{}h^3𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.29)
The parameters $`(k^{},\beta ^{})`$, where $`\beta ^{}0`$, may be in general distinct from the parameters $`(k,\beta )`$ introduced in (2.26). The defining relations (2.29) are preserved under the coaction (2.27), which acts as an algebra homomorphism mapping $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}Fun_h(SL(2))`$. The left and the right quantum spaces $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ defined by the relations (2.26) and (2.29) respectively, may be mapped to each other at the algebraic level. We will discuss these mappings at the end of the present section.

Under the scaling of the generators $`𝗑_𝗂𝖼^1𝗑_𝗂`$, it follows from (2.26) that the defining relations of $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ go into that of $`𝒳_{(h;𝖼k,𝖼^2\beta )}`$. Consequently these quantum spaces are isomorphic to each other for any complex number $`𝖼0`$. All of these equivalent quantum spaces may be referred to as left spheres. Using this isomorphism we may remove one superfluous parameter of the quantum space $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$. Similar argument holds for the right quantum space $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ defined by the relations (2.29). The scaling freedom may again be utilized to eliminate one redundant parameter in $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$.

The algebras $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ may be realized by embedding them in the function algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$. The generating elements of the $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ algebra may be represented using the linear combinations of the matrix elements of the monodromy matrix $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ given in (2.22):

$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`k\left(a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^2c^2\right)+\rho \left(2abha^2+h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2cd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^3c^2\right)`$
$`k\left(2b^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^2a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2d^2+h^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}h^4c^2\right),`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ $`=`$ $`k\left(ac+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hc^2\right)+\rho \left(1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}bc+hac+hcd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2c^2\right)`$
$`k\left(2bd+hd^2h{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^2ac{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}h^3c^2\right),`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}kc^2+\rho \left(cd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hc^2\right)k\left(d^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}h^2c^2\right).`$ (2.30)
The representation (2.30) satisfies the defining relations (2.26). The paramater $`\beta `$ is now given by

$$\beta =\rho ^2+2k^2.$$
(2.31)
The representation (2.30) is particularly simple if we select previously mentioned scaling parameter $`𝖼=\rho ^1`$ and consider the limiting value $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ for a finite value of $`k`$. The consequent algebra $`𝒳_{(h;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},1)}`$ has an embedding in the function algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ à la (2.30) as follows:

$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`2abha^2+h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2cd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^3c^2`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}bc+hac+hcd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2c^2`$
$`𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`cd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hc^2.`$ (2.32)
The group-like coproduct property (2.23) may be used to prove the following coproduct structure for the embedding (2.30)

$$\left(𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}\right)Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}.$$
(2.33)
Similarly the generators $`(𝗒_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣})`$ of the right quantum space $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ may also be represented as linear combinations of the matrix elements of the group-like construct $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ given in (2.22). The embedding is implemented as follows:

$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\left(a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^2c^2\right)+\rho ^{}\left(ac+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hc^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^{}c^2,`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\left(2abha^2+h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2cd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^3c^2\right)`$
$`+\rho ^{}\left(1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}bc+hac+hcd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2c^2\right)k^{}\left(cd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hc^2\right),`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\left(2b^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^2a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2d^2+h^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}h^4c^2\right)`$ (2.34)
$`+\rho ^{}\left(2bd+hd^2h{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^2ac{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}h^3c^2\right)k^{}\left(d^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}h^2c^2\right).`$
The representation (2.34) obeys the defining algebraic properties (2.29), and yields the following value of the parameter $`\beta ^{}`$:

$$\beta ^{}=\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}+2(12h^2)k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}.$$
(2.35)
The scaling argument made earlier in the context of the left sphere $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ may also be used here exactly similarly to investigate the $`\rho ^{}\mathrm{}`$ limit for a finite value of $`k^{}`$. The representation of the relevant space $`𝒴_{(h;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},1)}`$ in this limit reads:

$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`ac+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hc^2,`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}bc+hac+hcd{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2c^2,`$
$`𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ $`=`$ $`2bd+hd^2h{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^2ac{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}h^3c^2.`$ (2.36)
For the embedding (2.34) we can also obtain from (2.23) the coproduct structure of the $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$

$$\left(𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}\right)𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right).$$
(2.37)
The quantum spaces $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ are isomorphic to each other in the sense that an invertible map exists so that the defining properties (2.26) and (2.29) of the algebras $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ respectively are transformed to each other. The map $`\pi `$ reads

$`\pi (𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣})=𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣}+2h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}+4h^2𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣},\pi (𝗑_\mathrm{𝟢})=𝗒_\mathrm{𝟢}+2h𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣},\pi (𝗑_\mathrm{𝟣})=𝗒_\mathrm{𝟣},`$
$`\pi (k)=k^{},\pi (\beta )=\beta ^{}.`$ (2.38)
The inverse of the map (2.38) may be readily expressed.

## 3 An infinitesimal characterization of the Jordanian quantum sphere

In this section we give a description of the embedding of the algebras $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^{})}`$ in the function algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$, as obtained in (2.30) and (2.34) respectively, by using the infinitesimal invariance of the genarating elements with respect to the appropriate twisted primitive elements of the corresponding dual universal enveloping algebra $`U_h(sl(2))`$. This approach was first developed by Koornwinder  in the context of the Podles quantum sphere  for the standard $`q`$-deformed function algebra $`Fun_q\left(SL(2)\right)`$. For our purpose, we first recall certain definitions  regarding dual Hopf algebras.

Two Hopf algebras $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒜`$ are said to be in duality if there is a doubly nondegenerate bilinear form $`(𝗎,𝖺)𝗎,𝖺`$ such that for $`(𝗎,𝗏)𝒰,(𝖺,𝖻)𝒜`$ we have

$`(𝗎),𝖺𝖻=𝗎,\mathrm{𝖺𝖻},𝗎𝗏,(a)=\mathrm{𝗎𝗏},𝖺,`$
$`1_𝒰,𝖺=\epsilon _𝒜(𝖺),𝗎,1_𝒜=\epsilon _𝒰(𝗎),S(𝗎),𝖺=𝗎,S(𝖺).`$ (3.1)
Instead of $`𝗎,𝖺`$ we will also write $`𝗎(𝖺)`$ or $`𝖺(𝗎)`$. An element $`𝗎`$ of the Hopf algebra $`𝒰`$ is called twisted primitive with respect to a group-like element $`𝗀`$ of $`𝒰`$ if

$$(𝗎)=𝗎𝗀+𝗀^\mathrm{𝟣}𝗎,\epsilon (𝗎)=0,S(𝗎)=\mathrm{𝗀𝗎𝗀}^\mathrm{𝟣}.$$
(3.2)
These twisted primitive elements play a key role in our present argument. For the elements $`𝗎𝒰`$ and $`𝖺𝒜`$, where $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒜`$ are Hopf algebras in duality, we define elements $`𝖺.𝗎`$ and $`𝗎.𝖺`$ of $`𝒜`$ by

$$𝗎.𝖺=(\text{id}𝗎)\left((𝖺)\right),𝖺.𝗎=(𝗎\text{id})\left((𝖺)\right).$$
(3.3)
The operations defined in (3.3) are left, respectively, right algebra actions of $`𝒰`$ of $`𝒜`$. Assuming the standard notation

$$(𝗎)=\underset{(𝗎)}{}𝗎_{(\mathrm{𝟣})}𝗎_{(\mathrm{𝟤})},$$
(3.4)
we now obtain

$$𝗎.(\mathrm{𝖺𝖻})=\underset{(𝗎)}{}(𝗎_{(\mathrm{𝟣})}.𝖺)(𝗎_{(\mathrm{𝟤})}.𝖻),(\mathrm{𝖺𝖻}).𝗎=\underset{(𝗎)}{}(𝖺.𝗎_{(\mathrm{𝟣})})(𝖻.𝗎_{(\mathrm{𝟤})})$$
(3.5)
for the elements $`𝗎𝒰`$ and $`(𝖺,𝖻)𝒜`$. We call an element $`𝖺𝒜`$ left (right) invariant with respect to an element $`𝗎𝒰`$ if we have $`𝗎.𝖺=\epsilon (𝗎)𝖺`$, respectively, $`𝖺.𝗎=\epsilon (𝗎)𝖺`$. The unit element of $`𝒜`$ is bi-invariant with respect to all $`𝗎𝒰`$. If $`𝗎`$ is a twisted primitive element, then $`\epsilon (𝗎)=0`$, and it follows from (3.5)

$`𝗎.𝖺=0\text{and}𝗎.𝖻=0𝗎.(\mathrm{𝖺𝖻})=0,`$
$`𝖺.𝗎=0\text{and}𝖻.𝗎=0(\mathrm{𝖺𝖻}).𝗎=0.`$ (3.6)
As evidenced from (3.6) the left (right) invariant elements of $`𝒜`$ with respect to some twisted primitive element of $`𝒰`$ form a unital subalgebra of $`𝒜`$.

In our context, the Jordanian Hopf algebras $`U_h(sl(2))`$ and $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ are in duality with the following pairing of the generators:

$`T^{\pm 1},\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \pm h\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),Y,\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (3.15)
$`H,\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (3.20)
From the coalgebraic structure (2.2) of the Hopf algebra $`U_h(sl(2))`$ we see that any linear combination of $`(TT^1),Y`$ and $`H`$ is twisted primitive with respect to the group-like element $`T`$ of the universal enveloping algebra $`U_h(sl(2))`$. The embedding of the algebras $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^)}`$ in the function algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ may now be naturally obtained using the previously described invariance properties with respect to these twisted primitive elements. The generators $`\left(𝗑_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}\right)`$ of the algebra $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ are left invariant with respect to a twisted primitive element of the dual algebra $`U_h(sl(2))`$:

$$𝒫_{}.𝗑_𝗃=0\text{for}𝗃=(\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}),$$
(3.21)
where

$$𝒫_{}=k\rho ^1\left(1+\frac{3}{2}h^2\right)\left(\frac{TT^1}{2h}\right)H+2k\rho ^1Y.$$
(3.22)
Similarly the generators $`\left(𝗒_𝗂|𝗂=\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}\right)`$ of the algebra $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^)}`$ are right invariant with respsect to another twisted primitive element $`𝒫_{}`$ of the $`U_h(sl(2))`$ algebra. This leads to an embedding of the $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^)}`$ algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$. The above condition of right invarinnce reads

$$𝗒_𝗃.𝒫_{}=0\text{for}𝗃=(\mathrm{𝟣},\mathrm{𝟢},\mathrm{𝟣}),$$
(3.23)
where the corresponding twisted primitive element is

$$𝒫_{}=k^{}\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(1\frac{1}{2}h^2\right)\left(\frac{TT^1}{2h}\right)H+2k^{}\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Y.$$
(3.24)
It is interesting to point out that the twisted primitive elements $`𝒫_{}`$ and $`𝒫_{}`$ implementing the left and the right invariances of the algebras $`𝒳_{(h;k,\beta )}`$ and $`𝒴_{(h;k^{},\beta ^)}`$ respectively, are , in general,distinct. Except of the special values of the parameters $`k\rho ^10`$, $`k^{}\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}0`$, the elements $`𝒫_{}`$ and $`𝒫_{}`$ defined by (3.22) and (3.24) respectively, differ for a nonzero value of the deformation parameter $`h`$. These twisted primitives, however, become identical in the $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho ^{}\mathrm{}`$ limits discussed earlier in the context of equations (2.32) and (2.36) respectively. In these limits we obtain

$$\left(𝒫_{}\right)_\rho \mathrm{}H,\left(𝒫_{}\right)_\rho ^{}\mathrm{}H.$$
(3.25)
## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have constructed a one parameter family of algebras invariant under the left (right) coactions of the group-like elements $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ of the Jordanian function algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$. These algebras may be regarded as Jordanian quantization of the two-dimensional spheres. Algebraically, an invertible map exist between the quantum spaces invariant under the left and the right coactions of the $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ matrix. The embedding of these algebras in the function algebra $`Fun_h\left(SL(2)\right)`$ may be understood as an infinitesimal invariance of the generating elements of these algebras with respect to the appropriate twisted primitive elements of the Jordanian enveloping algebra $`U_h(sl(2))`$. It is interesting to point out that , unlike the standard $`q`$-deformed case , in the present Jordanian example the twisted primitive elements $`𝒫_{}`$ and $`𝒫_{}`$ associated with the spaces invariant under the left and the coactions of the $`𝒯_h^{(j=1)}`$ matrix respectively, are distinct except for special values of the parameters.

As applications and further extensions of the present work, we wish consider the followings. The classification of the differential calculi on the Jordanian deformed sphere may be obtained. We will present the results elsewhere. In another development, the authors of the Ref.  considered the invariant propagator of the $`h`$-deformed Laplacian on the $`h`$-deformed Lobachevski plane. Now this propagator may be studied on the Jordanian spherical spaces. Lastly, we have recently constructed  a Jordanian deformed quasi-Hopf enveloping algebra satisfying a shifted Yang-Baxter equation. The present problem may be investigated in the framework of Jordanian quasi-Hopf function algebra.

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank Amitabha Chakrabarti for fruitful correspondence.


format: text

text:
# The Evolution of Relativistic Binary Progenitor Systems

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Two of the four known High Mass Binary Pulsar systems, (HMBP’s) – PSR B1913+16 (Hulse & Taylor, 1975) and PSR B1534+12 (Wolszczan, 1990) – have short orbital periods ($``$ 10 hours). Such systems, upon their eventual mergers, are considered to be important sources of gravitational wave radiation which may be measured by the next generation of detectors. As a result, it becomes desirable to understand the evolutionary processes that lead to their formation. Note that we do not consider PSR B2127+11C (Prince et al., 1991) which resides in the globular cluster, M15: globular cluster sources may have completely different evolution mechanisms which are dominated by dynamical interactions.

The link between relativistic binaries and their original O/B main- sequence progenitor systems are believed to be wide High Mass X-Ray Binaries (or Be/HMXB’s). The standard evolutionary scenario following the X-Ray phase (Bhattacharya & Van den Heuvel, 1991; Van den Heuvel & Van Paradijs, 1993) predicts that the neutron star enters the hydrogen envelope of its giant companion. Common Envelope (CE) evolution ensues as the compact object spirals in, creating dynamical friction and ultimately expelling the envelope. The orbit is then tightened, leaving a helium star, neutron star binary. However, Chevalier (1993) showed that a neutron star in CE evolution would likely form a black hole. Brown (1995a) confirmed this scenario, showing that hypercritical accretion forces $`1M_{\mathrm{}}`$ onto the neutron star, sufficient to form a black hole.

Brown’s alternate scenario for the formation of relativistic binaries involves, instead, a double helium star binary (Brown, 1995a; Wettig & Brown, 1996). If the progenitor O/B supergiants (ZAMS mass $`24M_{\mathrm{}}`$) are initially very close in mass (within four percent), the two stars will burn helium at the same time. Thus it is possible for the neutron star to avoid moving through the envelope of the secondary. Although CE evolution takes place, it does so with two helium stars. Furthermore, a natural explanation is given as to why the pulsar, which gains mass by accretion, is the heavier star in the binary. Such a result is supported by observations. Notice that either scenario leads to a neutron star, helium star binary as an intermediate stage. Thus, the evolutionary scenario discussed here is generally applicable.

The pulsar born into such a binary is Crab-like with a strong magnetic field $`310\times 10^{12}`$ Gauss, and a short spin period, 30–50 ms. Small orbital separations (1–3 R) and strong helium star winds ensure heavy accretion onto the neutron star, causing its magnetic field to lower two orders of magnitude and spinning it up further. Competing with wind-fed accretion is the so-called “propeller effect.” This mechanism exerts a spin-down torque on rapidly rotating neutron stars as material is prevented from accreting. We shall see that such a scenario is, indeed, consistent with observations of relativistic binaries such as PSR 1913+16. Note that diminished magnetic field strengths lengthen the observable lifetime of a pulsar $`(\tau =P^2/2B^2)`$. Thus, an “observability premium” is given to recycled pulsars.

In §2, we discuss our model of the evolution of a helium star and neutron star in a close binary. Particularly, we examine how the spin period and magnetic field of the neutron star as well as the orbital separation of the system change with time. Since many parameters are involved, an analytic solution is not readily available. Instead, in §3, we discuss results of a computer code which was set up to analyze the model. Additionally, since initial conditions are not well understood, we also discuss the effect of variation of parameters on possible outcomes. It is determined that the final outcome of the binary evolution strongly depends on such parameters (particularly initial orbital separation and helium star mass) and, furthermore, the number of systems which would lead to an observable, recycled pulsar is highly constrained.

## 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL

It has been shown (Langer, 1989; Woosley et al., 1993) that when a helium star loses matter from an enhanced stellar wind, the mass-loss rate is dependent on its total mass. Furthermore, it is assumed that when very massive helium stars explode in a supernova, there is a tendency to dissociate the binary. As we are solely interested in modeling progenitors to relativistic binaries, we consider, as a first approximation, the lower-bound mass limits from Woosley et al. (1993), i.e. $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}=5\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1\left(\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{He}}/\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}\right)^{2.6}`$.

However, it has recently been argued (Brown et al., 2001) that this rate is too high by a factor of 2–3. This is supported by polarization measurements of Thomson scattering in helium stars as well as the observed scaling of mass-loss rates with orbital period changes (St.-Louis et al., 1993; Moffat & Robert, 1994). Using polarization measurements of V444 Cygni, $`(M_{\mathrm{He}}=9.3M_{\mathrm{}})`$ St.-Louis et al. (1993) found $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}=0.75\times 10^5M_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. (Note that they use a slightly different value for the terminal wind velocity. See eq. ) Extrapolating this rate to all helium star masses and assuming the same scaling as in Woosley et al., we therefore find:

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}=\left(2.5\times 10^8\frac{M_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{yr}}\right)\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{2.6}$$
(1)
The helium star nuclear burning lifetime is also dependent on its total mass. In an approximation to evolutionary calculations made by Paczyński (1971) and Habets (1986), Pols et al. (1991) estimate a functional form for helium star lifetimes as

$$T_{\mathrm{He}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1.148\times 10^7\mathrm{yr})\left(\frac{\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{1.6},\hfill & 1.6<M/M_{\mathrm{}}<4.8\hfill \\ (2.37\times 10^6\mathrm{yr})\left(\frac{\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{0.6},\hfill & M/M_{\mathrm{}}>4.8\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Habets (1986) has shown that helium stars with $`M2.2M_{\mathrm{}}`$ become white dwarfs and, thus, are not considered here. Also note that, as we assume the progenitor to our model to be a double helium star binary, we only use half of the total helium star lifetime, given by equation (2), in our calculations.

We then look to the question of how much of the ejected helium star matter is actually accreted onto its compact companion ($`M_\mathrm{x}`$). The captured mass rate, $`f_\mathrm{c}`$, is defined as the fraction of mass captured by the neutron star’s gravitational field and is given by $`f_\mathrm{c}`$ = $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}`$ where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ is the mass capture rate. Note that, as $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}`$ is negative, $`f_\mathrm{c}`$ is always greater than or equal to zero. Similarly, the accreted mass fraction, $`f_\mathrm{a}`$ is given by the fraction of mass transferred that is actually accreted onto the surface of the compact star. Here, $`f_\mathrm{a}`$ = $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{x}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}`$. As matter can not be accreted faster than the Eddington limit, we define $`f_\mathrm{a}`$ = 1 if $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}<\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ but $`f_\mathrm{a}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ for super-Eddington transfers. In sum, we see:

$$\dot{M}_\mathrm{x}=f_\mathrm{c}f_\mathrm{a}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}$$
(3)
Alternatively, one may define the parameter $`\alpha `$ as the total fraction of matter that is lost from the system. In that case, $`\alpha =1f_\mathrm{c}f_\mathrm{a}`$.

Assuming a standard Keplerian orbit with binary separation, $`a`$, the neutron star moves relative to the helium star with a circular orbital velocity

$$v_\mathrm{x}=\left(\frac{G(M_{\mathrm{He}}+M_\mathrm{x})}{a}\right)^{1/2}$$
(4)
In an approximation to numerical work done by Habets (1986) we estimate that the helium star wind velocity at the position of the neutron star obeys the relation given by,

$$v_\mathrm{w}=v_{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{R_{\mathrm{He}}}{a}\right)$$
(5)
where the helium star radius is given by $`R_{\mathrm{He}}/R_{\mathrm{}}=0.22(M_{\mathrm{He}}/M_{\mathrm{}})^{0.6}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}2000`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>. Generally, the helium stellar wind will move out radially, orthogonal to $`v_\mathrm{x}`$, so that the pulsar experiences the wind moving at a relative velocity of $`v_\mathrm{r}=(v_\mathrm{w}^2+v_\mathrm{x}^2)^{1/2}.`$

Adopting the standard accretion mechanism (Bondi, 1952), we assume incoming matter gets captured near the so-called *accretion radius*, $`R_\mathrm{g}`$. This is defined as the point where the wind velocity (relative to the neutron star) is equal to the escape velocity of infalling matter. Thus,

$$R_\mathrm{g}=\frac{2GM_\mathrm{x}}{v_\mathrm{r}^2}$$
(6)
It should be noted that Bondi (1952) defines the accretion radius as $`R_\mathrm{g}=2GM_\mathrm{x}/(v_\mathrm{r}^2+c_\mathrm{s}^2)`$, where $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ represents the speed of sound in the plasma. However, for the parameters of this model, this may be considered negligible and ignored.

Finally, we can use geometry to estimate the captured mass fraction, $`f_\mathrm{c}`$. We determine it to be the fraction of a sphere of radius, $`a`$, which occupies the area enclosed by the accretion radius of the neutron star, i.e. $`f_\mathrm{c}=\pi R_\mathrm{g}^2/4\pi a^2`$. With equation (6), this becomes:

$$f_\mathrm{c}=\frac{G^2M_\mathrm{x}^2}{a^2\left(v_\mathrm{x}^2+v_\mathrm{w}^2\right)^2}$$
(7)
### 2.1 Orbital Evolution

In order to determine how the orbital separation changes with time, one needs to model how angular momentum is transferred in the binary. Neglecting spin angular momentum and assuming circular Keplerian orbits one finds $`J_{\mathrm{orb}}=\mu a^2\omega `$ where $`\omega =\sqrt{G(M_\mathrm{x}+M_{\mathrm{He}})/a^3}`$ and $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass. Recalling that $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{x}=(\alpha 1)\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}`$ and differentiating, one can easily show

$$\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{2\dot{J_{\mathrm{orb}}}}{J_{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{2\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_{\mathrm{He}}}\left[1+(\alpha 1)\frac{M_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_\mathrm{x}}\frac{\alpha }{2}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_\mathrm{x}+M_{\mathrm{He}}}\right)\right]$$
(8)
Since matter is being lost from the system, it is clear that total angular momentum will not be conserved. It is then necessary to make some assumptions about how angular momentum is transferred from one star to another. Reasonably, one could expect that the actual mass being passed from the helium star to the neutron star (i.e. $`f_\mathrm{c}`$ $`dM_{\mathrm{He}}`$) is transferred conservatively. We then assume that the fraction $`(1f_\mathrm{c})dM_{\mathrm{He}}`$ will leave the system with the specific angular momentum of the helium star, $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{He}}`$. Thus dJ$`{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}=(1f_\mathrm{c})`$ $`dM_{\mathrm{He}}\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{He}}=(1f_\mathrm{c})`$ $`dM_{\mathrm{He}}(M_\mathrm{x}/M_{\mathrm{tot}})^2a^2\omega `$. Similarly, we expect that $`f_\mathrm{c}(1f_\mathrm{a})dM_{\mathrm{He}}`$ leaves the system with the specific angular momentum of the neutron star, dJ$`{}_{\mathrm{f}}{}^{}=f_\mathrm{c}(1f_\mathrm{a})`$ $`dM_{\mathrm{He}}(M_{\mathrm{He}}/M_{\mathrm{tot}})^2a^2\omega `$. Together, these assumptions yield a differential equation for the orbital angular momentum of the system, $`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{orb}}=\dot{J}_\mathrm{i}+\dot{J}_\mathrm{f}`$,

$$\frac{\dot{J}_{\mathrm{orb}}}{J_{\mathrm{orb}}}=\frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_\mathrm{x}+M_{\mathrm{He}}}\left[(1f_\mathrm{c})\frac{M_\mathrm{x}}{M_{\mathrm{He}}}+f_\mathrm{c}(1f_\mathrm{a})\frac{M_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_\mathrm{x}}\right]$$
(9)
Defining the mass ratio, $`qM_x/M_{He}`$, and combining equations (8) and (9), we find

$$\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{\dot{q}\left[qf_c(22q^2+f_\mathrm{a}q)\right]}{[q+f_\mathrm{c}f_\mathrm{a}]q(1+q)}$$
(10)
### 2.2 Emitter Phase

Initially, the newborn pulsar is characterized by a rapid spin (P= 30 $``$ 50 ms.) and a strong dipole magnetic field ($`B_\mathrm{s}35\times 10^{12}`$ G). Such enhanced dipole radiation pressure might be sufficient to keep the wind plasma from being accreted onto the neutron star. In this phase the compact star will behave like an isolated radio pulsar, spinning down with time as rotational kinetic energy is converted to dipole radiation energy. Such systems have been extensively studied (Gunn & Ostriker, 1969; Goldreich & Julian, 1969) and we model dipole radiation pressure for a neutron star of radius $`R_\mathrm{x}`$ and spin period, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as

$$P_{\mathrm{rad}}(r)=\frac{L}{4\pi r^2c}=\frac{B^2R_\mathrm{x}^6\mathrm{\Omega }^4}{24\pi r^2c^4}$$
(11)
The *stopping radius*, $`R_\mathrm{s}`$, is defined as the point where dipole radiation pressure is sufficient to balance wind pressure from the helium star (Urpin et al., 1997). If the stopping radius is *less* than the accretion radius, then the neutron star will behave like an isolated emitter, spinning down via the Gunn-Ostriker mechanism. However, if $`R_\mathrm{g}>R_\mathrm{s}`$, then it is possible for the pulsar to accrete. We estimate wind pressure to be given by $`P_\mathrm{w}\rho _\mathrm{w}v_\mathrm{w}^2`$ where $`\rho _\mathrm{w}`$, the plasma density, is approximately given by $`\rho _\mathrm{w}|\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}|/4\pi a^2v_\mathrm{w}`$. Finally, setting $`P_\mathrm{w}=P_{\mathrm{rad}}(R_\mathrm{s})`$, we get an expression for the stopping radius

$$R_\mathrm{s}=\sqrt{\frac{B^2R_\mathrm{x}^6a^2\mathrm{\Omega }^4}{6c^4|\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}|v_\mathrm{w}}}$$
(12)
Note that as no accretion may take place at this point($`f_\mathrm{c}=f_\mathrm{a}=0`$), the pulsar magnetic field will remain constant (see eq. ). The spin period, $`P=2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will increase according to the standard relation (Gunn & Ostriker, 1969)

$$P\dot{P}=\left(\frac{16\pi ^2R_\mathrm{x}^6}{3Ic^3}\right)B^2$$
(13)
Here, I $`=k^2MR^2`$ represents the moment of inertia of the neutron star with $`k^20.4`$ (Prakash et al., 2000).

### 2.3 The Propeller Phase

According to equation (12), the stopping radius is proportional to the inverse square of the period. Thus, over a relatively short amount of time, the pulsar will spin down sufficiently such that accreting matter may interact with the magnetosphere of the neutron star. Recall this occurs at the point where the stopping radius falls inside the accretion radius.

We assume, for simplicity, that the magnetospheric boundary of the neutron star is defined where the ram pressure of infalling matter is balanced by the neutron star’s magnetic dipole pressure (Lamb, Pethick & Pines, 1973) Assuming spherical inflow (but see Ghosh & Lamb, 1979a,b), the magnetospheric radius is, thus:

$$R_m=\left(\frac{B^4R_\mathrm{x}^{12}}{8GM_\mathrm{x}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}^2}\right)^{1/7}$$
(14)
Once matter couples to the neutron star’s magnetic field, the interaction’s effect on the overall spin evolution depends on the balance between centrifugal and gravitational accelerations. If the pulsar rotation is, initially, too fast, the neutron star will eject infalling plasma, propelling it away tangentially while simultaneously losing angular momentum in the process. This “propeller” effect (Pringle & Rees, 1972; Illarionov & Sunyaev, 1975) can be parameterized by a *fastness parameter*, $`\omega _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}(R_\mathrm{m})`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}(R_\mathrm{m})=\sqrt{GM_\mathrm{x}R_\mathrm{m}}`$, is the Keplerian angular velocity at the magnetospheric boundary. Clearly, for a fastness parameter greater than unity, the propeller mechanism is initiated.

The resulting angular momentum loss (and associated increase in spin period) can be represented by a propeller torque, $`N_{\mathrm{prop}}^\mathrm{J}=I\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}R_\mathrm{m}v_{\mathrm{esc}}(R_\mathrm{m})=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}\sqrt{2GM_\mathrm{x}R_\mathrm{m}}`$. Consequently, the spin-rate decreases according to the relation:

$$\frac{\dot{P}}{P^2}=\frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}}{2\pi I}\sqrt{2GM_\mathrm{x}R_\mathrm{m}}$$
(15)
It is instructive to note that it is also possible to use energy methods to determine the propeller torque. Over time, rotational kinetic energy of the neutron star will be transmitted through shocks to the wind plasma falling near the magnetospheric boundary (Fabian, 1975). Consequently, this gas will heat up and be dispersed when it attains escape velocity $`(VV_{\mathrm{esc}}=\sqrt{2GM_\mathrm{x}/R_\mathrm{m}})`$. Thus we find, $`\dot{E}=I\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=1/2\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}V_{\mathrm{esc}}^2=GM_\mathrm{x}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}/R_\mathrm{m}`$. Hence, $`N_{\mathrm{prop}}^\mathrm{E}=I\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=GM_\mathrm{x}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}/R_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }=[GM_\mathrm{x}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}/R_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}(R_\mathrm{m})]\omega _\mathrm{s}^1.`$

Upon examination of the two possible propeller torques, we see

$$N_{\mathrm{prop}}^\mathrm{E}=\frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cap}}}{\omega _\mathrm{s}}\sqrt{GM_\mathrm{x}R_\mathrm{m}}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{prop}}^\mathrm{J}}{\sqrt{2}\omega _\mathrm{s}}$$
(16)
Thus, for extremely fast rotators, it is much more difficult for an energy propeller to change the spin period of the neutron star significantly. The reality of the magnetospheric interaction is very complex, so it is hard to say which mechanism is inherently more accurate. Therefore, we use both the energy and angular momentum propellers and compare results.

### 2.4 Accretion

For fastness parameter less than unity, co-rotating matter is able to accrete to the surface of the neutron star. At this point, as the helium star wind carries angular momentum, we expect the pulsar spin period to decrease over time. Thus, the pulsar is said to be *recycled*.

It is not initially clear whether spherical or disk accretion will dominate over the course of the helium star burning time. Shapiro & Teukolsky (1983) argue that if the intrinsic angular momentum per unit mass of accreted gas, $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, exceeds the specific angular momentum of an element in a circular Keplerian orbit near the magnetospheric radius, $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{Kep}}(R_\mathrm{m})=\sqrt{GM_\mathrm{x}R_\mathrm{m}}`$, then disk accretion will dominate. Otherwise, we may treat the mass-transfer as being (nearly) spherical. Thus, the necessary prerequisite for a disk to form is $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{acc}}\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ where it may be shown (Shapiro & Teukolsky, 1983), $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{acc}}=(1/2a)v_\mathrm{x}R_\mathrm{g}`$ and $`v_\mathrm{x}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{g}`$ are given by equations (4) and (6) respectively.

It then becomes desirable to include the effects of magnetic torques within the disk on the overall spin-rate (viscous torques may be ignored here). This complex problem was first discussed by Ghosh & Lamb (1979a,b) where they found that for slow rotators ($`\omega _\mathrm{s}1)`$ magnetic coupling may enhance spin-up torques by as much as forty percent. For $`\omega _\mathrm{s}1`$, the opposite is true and magnetic effects might actually *oppose* the spin-up. Following Ghosh & Lamb, we define, for disk accretion, $`N_{\mathrm{acc}}=n(\omega _\mathrm{s})\dot{M}_\mathrm{x}\widehat{ȷ}(R_\mathrm{m})`$ where the dimensionless coefficient, valid for $`0\omega _\mathrm{s}0.9`$, is given by

$$n(\omega _\mathrm{s})\frac{1.39\left\{1\omega _\mathrm{s}\left[4.03\left(1\omega _\mathrm{s}\right)^{0.173}0.878\right]\right\}}{\left(1\omega _\mathrm{s}\right)}$$
(17)
Next, we discuss the evolution of the neutron star’s magnetic field. Recent observations and analyses seem to strongly indicate that mass accretion in binary systems is directly correlated with magnetic field decay in neutron stars (but see Wijers, 1997) . Although there exist many possible accounts of physical mechanisms that would explain this phenomenon (Konar & Bhattacharya, 1997), here we rely on the empirical model of Shibazaki et al. (1989) and leave a more detailed analysis of accretion driven magnetic field decay for later work. For typical initial values of dipole magnetic field strengths, i.e. $`B_{12}110`$, it was determined that one can make the following empirical approximation to magnetic field evolution:

$$B(t)=\frac{B_0}{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{x}}{M_\mathrm{s}}}$$
(18)
Here, $`M_\mathrm{s}12.5\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a typical scaling parameter. This parameter has been set to qualitatively agree with the observed magnetic fields of Low Mass X-Ray Binaries. Over their lifetimes, LMXB’s can accrete up to $`0.1M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and have typical magnetic fields on the order of $`5\times 10^8`$ Gauss. Assuming an initial field strength of $`B_05\times 10^{12}`$ G, we see that equation (18) roughly gives the desired result.

### 2.5 Valving and Equilibrium

As we have shown, the line of demarcation between spin-up (propeller effect) and spin-down (accretion) phases of evolution is parameterized by the fastness parameter, $`\omega _s`$. For a very fast rotator, $`\omega _s1`$ and the spin period increases with time as the magnetic field remains constant. However, as the neutron star spins down, matter co-rotating with the neutron star at the so-called *co-rotation radius*, $`R_\mathrm{c}`$, will spin down as well and $`R_\mathrm{c}P^{2/3}`$. As the propeller phase continues, the co-rotation radius will increase until it is finally greater than the magnetopsheric radius, given by equation (14). At this point, the neutron star will allow co-rotating matter to fall to its surface and the accretion phase begins.

However, once accreting, the magnetic field begins to decay. By equations (14) and (18), we see that $`R_\mathrm{m}`$ is, roughly, a monotonically decreasing function of time and as accretion continues, the magnetospheric radius diminishes, possibly allowing the propeller phase to resume.

In sum, we expect a kind of oscillation or “valving” to occur between accretion and propeller phases of the neutron star’s evolution, until equilibrium is restored. For spherical mass transfer at equilibrium the co-rotation radius should coincide with the magnetospheric boundary. In this case, one can estimate the equilibrium spin period of the neutron star:

$$P_{\mathrm{eq}}=\left(17.3\mathrm{ms}\right)\left(\frac{\dot{M}_\mathrm{x}}{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}}\right)^{3/7}B_{10}^{6/7}R_6^{18/7}\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{x}}{M_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{5/7}$$
(19)
So, for a canonical neutron star accreting spherically at the Eddington limit, $`P_{\mathrm{eq}}=(13.6\mathrm{ms})\mathrm{B}_{10}^{6/7}`$. As the magnetic field is brought down with each cycle of accretion, $`P_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is brought down as well.

The equilibrium point for disk accretion is generally more complicated. Upon examination of the Ghosh and Lamb function, (eq. ), we find that $`n(\omega _\mathrm{s})`$ is undefined for $`\omega _\mathrm{s}=1`$. In this case, we define the critical ratio, $`\omega _\mathrm{c}0.5050`$. Since $`n(\omega _\mathrm{c})1`$ and for all $`\omega _\mathrm{s}\omega \mathrm{c}`$ magnetic torques are sufficient to force the neutron star to spin down, we *define* $`\omega _\mathrm{s}=\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ as the turnover from a propeller to an accretor. I.e., we define all $`n(\omega _\mathrm{s}\omega \mathrm{c})=1.`$

In conclusion, the overall effect of the evolution, over the total helium burning time, is expected to result in (a) lowering the neutron star magnetic field, (b) spinning the pulsar up to or near the millisecond range, and (c) a slight widening of the orbit.

## 3 RESULTS OF THE NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS

As discussed in the introduction, and expanded on in the previous section, there are several parameters that need to be accounted for in order to evolve the binary system with time. We are, thus, led to several coupled differential equations for which there is no analytic solution. Instead, we now discuss the results of a computer code set up to analyze the model.

At each time step within the total helium burning time (eq. ), the stopping radius, accretion radius, magnetospheric radius and fastness parameter were calculated in order to determine the predominant phase of the evolution (i.e. emitter, propeller or accretor). The differential equations of §2 were then solved numerically, using a simple Euler scheme, and the calculated parameters were appropriately updated.

Initial conditions such as stellar masses, neutron star spin period, magnetic field strength and orbital separation for relativistic binary progenitors are largely unknown so the simulation was run for a wide range of values. Specifically, the initial helium star mass was varied in the range $`2.2M_{\mathrm{}}M_{\mathrm{He}}15M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Helium stars with masses below the lower limit tend to evolve into white dwarfs (Habets, 1986) whereas stars with masses far above $`15M_{\mathrm{}}`$, will dissociate the binary upon supernova. Neither possibility would lead to relativistic binary systems. It has been shown (Brown et al., 2001) that due to their strong stellar wind, naked helium stars in this mass range generally end their lives as neutron stars and not as black holes. Similarly, as we are interested in the progenitors of close binaries, the initial orbital separation was chosen to have the (somewhat arbitrary) maximum value of $`10R_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The criterion determining the minimum orbital separation was defined such that the helium star stay within its Roche lobe, i.e. $`R_\mathrm{L}<R_{\mathrm{He}}`$. If a helium star were allowed to expand beyond its Roche lobe, unstable mass-transfer would commence. Such a scenario would generally not lead to the formation of a HMBP and is, thus, excluded. Eggleton (1983) has shown that for a mass-ratio, $`q`$, (eq. ) the Roche-lobe radius of a star is given by

$$\frac{R_\mathrm{L}}{a}=\frac{0.49}{0.6+q^{2/3}\mathrm{ln}(1+q^{1/3})}f(q)$$
(20)
By equation (20), we see that $`a_{\mathrm{min}}=R_{\mathrm{He}}/f(q)`$ and is, therefore, a function of helium star mass. Since $`R_{\mathrm{He}}/R_{\mathrm{}}=0.22(M_{\mathrm{He}}/M_{\mathrm{}})^{0.6}`$, $`a_{\mathrm{min}}(2.2M_{\mathrm{}})=0.8435R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{min}}(15M_{\mathrm{}})=1.914R_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The initial properties of the nascent neutron star were constrained to a somewhat smaller range with the Crab pulsar (PSR 0531-21) taken as a prototype for our model. Canonical values were given for neutron star masses, radii and moments of inertia ($`1.4M_{\mathrm{}},10^6`$ cm,$`10^{45}`$ g-cm<sup>2</sup> respectively). Initial spin periods ranged from 30 – 50 ms. and initial dipole field strengths varied on the order $`110\times 10^{12}`$ Gauss.

Several plots of the time evolution of spin period and magnetic field under various conditions follow and certain general trends are evident. A sharp rise in spin period with time (with no corresponding change in magnetic field) indicates that the primary factor dominating the evolution is the propeller effect. However, when the spin period lengthens to some critical value, the propeller mechanism gives way to accretion. At this point, the period and magnetic field strength both decrease with time.

For sufficiently large initial binary separations and/or low helium star masses, accretion may not occur at all during the total helium burning time. In such a case, the dipole field of the neutron star remains constant and its overall spin period actually *increases* with time, due to the propeller effect and electromagnetic spindown. Many times, this spin-down is sufficiently large to put the neutron star in the pulsar graveyard.

Figure 1 examines the time evolution of the pulsar spin period and magnetic field for both the energy and angular momentum propellers (see §2.3) under typical conditions. Inital parameters are given by $`M_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}=4.0M_{\mathrm{}},B_i=5.0\times 10^{12}`$Gauss, $`P_\mathrm{i}=50.0`$ ms, and $`a_\mathrm{i}=1.50R_{\mathrm{}}`$. The total helium burning time is calculated, using equation (2), to be $`6.246\times 10^5`$ years.

Clearly, the final results and overall evolution are sensitively dependent on the type of propeller mechanism used. For the case of the angular momentum propeller, the neutron star quickly enters the accretion phase at $`t=2.42\times 10^4`$ years. Consequently, it ends up with a short final period ($`99.74`$ ms) and low magnetic field strength ($`4.169\times 10^{10}`$ G$`)`$. Thus, the given initial conditions, coupled with the J-propeller mechanism, is sufficient to recycle the pulsar.

Things are quite different for the energy propeller, however. From Figure 1, we see the neutron star never accretes at all and the magnetic field remains constant throughout the evolution. Weak torquing inhibits the rapid spin-down seen for the J-propeller. Instead, the period remains roughly constant with $`P_\mathrm{f}=121.1`$ ms. Additionally, we see that, although the angular momentum propeller reaches a period close to the equilibrium period (eq. ) early in its evolution $`(4\times 10^5`$ years$`)`$, the E-propeller never does.

For both cases, the helium star loses 0.4848 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ by a steady wind and, as anticipated, most of this mass is lost. The neutron star accretes $`1.494\times 10^3M_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the J-propeller while mass transfer is completely non-conservative for the E-propeller. Note that for this low-mass helium star, mass-capture is always sub-Eddington and $`f_\mathrm{a}=1`$ for all time. Finally, we see that the type of propeller mechanism has little effect on the widening of the orbit ($`a_\mathrm{f}=1.644R_{\mathrm{}},1.645R_{\mathrm{}}`$ respective$`)`$.

Figure 2 illustrates the case where a low-mass helium star ($`3M_{\mathrm{}}`$) is in a relatively wide orbit ($`a_\mathrm{i}=8R_{\mathrm{}}`$). The initial properties of the neutron star are otherwise identical to the previous case. Here we see that accretion does not set in until $`t5.7\times 10^5`$ years for the angular momentum propeller while the energy propeller, again, does not accrete at all over the total evolution time of $`9.897\times 10^5`$ years.

For the first phase of the evolution, the weak wind of the helium star is insufficient to push past the stopping radius of the neutron star. The pulsar acts like an emitter, spinning down electromagnetically. Then at $`t4.9\times 10^4`$ years, the concavity of the curve in the P vs. T diagram changes. At this point the neutron star has spun down sufficiently for the helium star wind to begin to interact with its magnetosphere. However, the pulsar is still a fast rotator and the propeller phase commences.

The type of propeller mechanism determines the next stage of the binary’s evolution. For the case of the angular momentum propeller, the neutron star rapidly spins down to a maximum pulse period greater than 43 seconds. At $`t=5.65\times 10^5`$ years, accretion finally begins but equilibrium is never achieved. Only $`9.880\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is actually accreted to the surface $`(\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{He}}=0.3636M_{\mathrm{}})`$ and the final spin period and magnetic field strength of the neutron star are 33.14 seconds and $`2.798\times 10^{12}`$ Gauss respective. Clearly the pulsar has entered the graveyard and this system would not be observed as a relativistic binary.

Once again, for the energy propeller, weak torquing prevents significant changes in the spin period and, although the neutron star never accretes at all (magnetic field remains unchanged), the final spin period is 298.9 ms. As a result, the neutron star can be observed as a radio pulsar (yet it is clearly not recycled). For both scenarios, the final orbital separation is $`8.720R_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Finally, we examine the case where a massive helium star lies in a close orbit with a neutron star. In this case we expect there to be heavy accretion and recycling. In particular, consider a $`12M_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star in orbit with a canonical neutron star ($`P_\mathrm{i}=50`$ ms, $`B_\mathrm{i}=5\times 10^{12}`$ G) with an initial binary separation of $`3.0R_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Figure 3 illustrates the resulting evolution of spin and magnetic fields for the angular momentum propeller. We see there is, indeed, heavy accretion and after a sharp propeller cycle, equilibrium is achieved at $`P_\mathrm{f}=60.41`$ ms. Additionally, the neutron star accretes $`2.086\times 10^3M_{\mathrm{}}`$ which is sufficient to bring the field down to $`2.993\times 10^{10}`$ Gauss in a time of $`2.668\times 10^5`$ years. The final orbital separation is $`3.833R_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Mass transfer is spherical throughout the evolution and, due to the high initial mass of the helium star, wind loss is super-Eddington until $`t=2.54\times 10^5`$ years. The minimum period of 59.35 ms occurs near $`t2.1\times 10^5`$ years where steady accretion gives way to valving. At this point, the period slowly increases and closely tracks the (time-dependent) equilibrium period.

The energy propeller again prohibits accretion onto the neutron star. Through electromagnetic spindown and propeller torque, the pulsar gradually increases its spin to a final period of 83.71 ms. All of the helium star wind matter ($`2.944M_{\mathrm{}}`$) is lost while the magnetic field remains constant.

For sufficiently heavy accretion, it is possible that slight changes in initial orbital separation may result in significant differences in the neutron star’s spin period evolution. Consider the case of a $`10M_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star in orbit about a neutron star with initial magnetic field $`7.5\times 10^{12}`$ G, and initial spin period $`35`$ ms. Assume an angular momentum propeller effect only. Figure 4 shows the resulting time evolution for $`a_\mathrm{i}=1.95R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`2.05R_{\mathrm{}}`$ respectively. We find that the binary in the closer initial orbit actually has a *longer* final spin period. Such a result seems counterintuitive and needs to be examined more closely.

When $`a_\mathrm{i}=2.05R_{\mathrm{}}`$, accretion is spherical throughout the mass transfer phase, lasting from $`t=6.1\times 10^3`$ years until the time of the helium star’s supernova at $`t=2.98\times 10^5`$ years. The final, equilibrium spin period is 48.4 ms. However, for the case when $`a_\mathrm{i}=1.95R_{\mathrm{}}`$, accretion changes from disk-type to spherical. The short, initial, electromagnetic spin-down phase is nearly identical for both cases, as is the initial propeller phase. Then, at $`t5.6\times 10^3`$ yr, spherical accretion begins. This continues, uninterrupted until $`t4.2\times 10^4`$ years. At this point, a second, smaller, propeller phase begins and continues until $`t=4.25\times 10^4`$ years. Valving and disk accretion sets in at this time, allowing the spin period to gradually decrease with time. Finally, at $`t=2.46\times 10^5`$ years, $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ falls below $`\widehat{ȷ}_{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ and spherical accretion commences again. This results in a much faster drop in spin-period with time. The neutron star spherically accretes until the helium star supernova and the final spin period for this case is 55.0 ms.

## 4 DISCUSSION

Next we examine the results of a contour plot which parameterizes the final spin period and magnetic field as functions of initial orbital separation and helium star mass. Standard initial values were again chosen for the neutron star with $`M_{\mathrm{x},\mathrm{i}}=1.4M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`B_\mathrm{i}=5\times 10^{12}`$ G, and $`P_\mathrm{i}=50`$ms. As discussed in §3, the initial helium star mass range is $`2.2M_{\mathrm{}}M_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}15M_{\mathrm{}}`$ whereas the initial orbital separation varied in the range $`a_{\mathrm{min}}a_\mathrm{i}10R_{\mathrm{}}`$. Here, $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is defined to be $`R_{\mathrm{He}}/f(q)`$ (eq. ). The output of the contour plots representing the angular momentum propeller and energy propeller appear in figures five and six, respectively.

From the slope of the contours in Figure 5a, it is clear that, for close orbits, the final spin period most strongly depends on the initial orbital separation, and less on the helium star mass. However, for wider (initial) orbits, both parameters play an important role on the final outcome.

If neutron stars act as angular momentum propellers, then for any orbit with initial separation greater than $`6R_{\mathrm{}}`$, the pulsar will not only be unrecycled but it will sit in the graveyard as well. Therefore, there is a strong constraint placed on progenitors of relativistic binary pulsars such as 1913+16.

Recall that pulsar spin-down times are proportional to $`P^2/B^2`$. Thus, one expects an “observability premium” for low-field, fast rotators. I.e., due to longer lifetimes outside the graveyard, one should expect to observe a higher proportion of such systems. Indeed this is true of the two relativistic binaries (three including 2127+11C). It seems that, upon examination of figure 5a, that in order to bring the field below $`5\times 10^{10}`$ Gauss $`(0.01B_\mathrm{i})`$, the initial binary separation must be a *maximum* of $`4R_{\mathrm{}}`$. Additionally, if one wishes to observe a system with spin periods on the order of 50 ms, even closer orbits are necessary, with $`a_023R_{\mathrm{}}`$. And this is only true for the most massive of helium stars, i.e. those with $`M_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}>8M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Thus for angular momentum type propellers, we conclude that only a minute portion of the overall parameter space represented in figure four will produce relativistic binary pulsars such as PSR’s 1913+16 and 1534+12.

The parameter space of final outcomes is much more highly constrained for the energy propeller (figures 6a,6b) than for the angular momentum propeller. It seems, from examining the spin period contour plot in figure 6a that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a neutron star to spin down into the graveyard by the E-propeller mechanism. Even in the weak-wind, wide orbit limit, $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ never rises much higher than $`0.5`$ seconds. At the other extreme, we find that it is also very difficult to force the neutron star to accrete at all for this scenario. Figure 6b shows that mass transfer, parameterized by magnetic field decay, occupies only a tiny portion of M-a space.

From equation (16), we see that the propeller torque is inversely proportional to the fastness parameter. Thus, unlike the J-propeller, fast rotators are unable to easily change their spin period. Thus, one may conclude that the energy propeller is highly inefficient at recycling pulsars.

This characteristic becomes a significant factor in determining whether an E-propeller will accrete at all or not. As with the J-propeller, slightly changing the initial conditions (particularly the initial orbital separation) may make a profound difference in the final outcome of the pulsar’s evolution (although, for different reasons). The result of this condition is the dense band of contours near the $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$ line in figure 6a.

For a specific example of why this occurs, consider a $`6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star orbiting a neutron star with initial parameters $`B_\mathrm{i}=4\times 10^{12}`$ G and $`P_\mathrm{i}=70`$ ms. Figure 7a shows a plot of final spin period as a function of initial separation in the range $`a_{\mathrm{min}}=1.27R_{\mathrm{}}a_\mathrm{i}2.5R_{\mathrm{}}`$. A sharp peak exists at the point, $`a_\mathrm{i}=1.567R_{\mathrm{}}`$. Here, $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ reaches a maximum value of 3.063 seconds. For $`a_\mathrm{i}>1.6R_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ falls dramatically to a level of about $`85`$ ms at $`a_\mathrm{i}=2.1R_{\mathrm{}}`$. At this point there is a much more gradual increase in final spin period with increasing separation.

What causes the sudden shift in final spin period? As figure 7b shows, a slight change in initial orbital separation will have an effect on the fastness parameter and, thus, the overall evolution of the propeller phase. Here, we examine the time evolution of the spin period for the three different initial orbital separations – $`1.525R_{\mathrm{}},1.565R_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`1.605R_{\mathrm{}}`$. As the initial orbital separation increases, the propeller torque will decrease by a small amount and, as a result, it takes longer for the neutron star to reach its maximum period. For $`a_\mathrm{i}=1.525R_{\mathrm{}}`$, the spin period reaches a maximum of 3.09 seconds at $`t=3.43\times 10^5`$ years. Afterwards, the accretion phase begins and continues until the end of the helium star lifetime at $`4.044\times 10^5`$ y. where $`P_\mathrm{f}=177.7`$ ms. A relatively long accretion phase allows the magnetic field to decay to a final value of $`1.358\times 10^{11}`$ G. So, we see a slightly recycled neutron star for the given initial conditions.

Changing the initial separation to $`1.565R_{\mathrm{}}`$ increases the fastness parameter and, consequently, decreases the propeller torque. Now the peak does not occur until nearly the end of the evolution $`(t=4.03\times 10^5`$ years$`)`$. As there is little time for the accretion phase, the magnetic field does not change much $`(B_\mathrm{f}=2.6\times 10^{12}`$ G$`)`$ and the final spin period is 2.33 seconds. Thus, the pulsar winds up in the graveyard and is not observable. Finally, by increasing the initial separation to $`1.605R_{\mathrm{}}`$ we can completely eliminate the accretion phase altogether. Here, the pulsar peak never occurs and the neutron star can not be recycled. The magnetic field remains constant throughout the evolution $`(P_\mathrm{f}=234.9`$ ms$`)`$.

Next we consider the case of PSR J1518+4904 (Nice et al., 1996). Of all four known HMBP’s, this one is the most recycled $`(P=40.94`$ ms, $`\mathrm{log}B=9.1)`$. However, it resides in a relatively wide binary with an orbital period of $`8.634`$ days $`(a25R_{\mathrm{}})`$. Unfortunately, our model can not account for such properties.

From figure 5a (J-propeller), we see that if $`a_\mathrm{i}>6R_{\mathrm{}}`$, the pulsar is destined to end up in the graveyard. Even for the most massive helium star companions, the neutron star will never accrete and, instead, a large propeller torque will sharply increase its spin period. Such a trend diminishes for $`a_\mathrm{i}10R_{\mathrm{}}`$ since, for very wide binaries, $`R_\mathrm{g}>R_\mathrm{s}`$ for most (if not all) of the evolution. The helium star wind is too weak to interact with the neutron star’s magnetosphere at such separations, and the pulsar spins down by the Gunn-Ostriker mechanism. Thus, we would expect that J1518+4904 would not be observable nor would it undergo magnetic field decay.

Although the evolutionary history of PSR 1518+4904 is unknown, it is clear that our model does not account for all possibilities. We, therefore, must assume its evolution was different than the other HMBP’s. One possible evolutionary scenario which may account for the observed properties of 1518+4904 is reverse case C mass-transfer (Kippenhahn & Weigert, 1967). As low-mass helium stars tend to have significantly extended envelopes (Habets, 1986), even an initially wide binary may undergo sufficient mass-transfer to initiate recycling during the helium shell-burning stage. Assuming the neutron star survived the resulting spiral-in phase, it may be possible to end up with a recycled pulsar in a wide binary. Thus, we find that two possible improvements to our current model would be an accurate treatment of case C mass-transfer and a more detailed physical model of magnetic field decay.

## 5 CONCLUSION

Relativistic binary pulsars, such as B1534+12 and B1913+16 are characterized by having close orbits $`(a3R_{\mathrm{}})`$, with recycled pulse periods and magnetic fields $`(P3060`$ ms, $`\mathrm{log}B10)`$. A single case of a wide HMBP (B1518+4904) exists. We do not consider PSR 2127+11C as it resides in the globular cluster, M15 and may have a different evolutionary history.

We assume wind-fed mass transfer is responsible for recycling the observable neutron star in a HMBP. In lieu of a more detailed physical mechanism, we use the empirical model of Shibazaki et al. (1989) to account for magnetic field decay. Such a model assumes changes in the pulsar magnetic field are proportional to the amount of of mass accreted to its surface.

We find that for close initial orbits $`(a_\mathrm{i}23R_{\mathrm{}})`$ and an initial helium star mass in the range $`8M_{\mathrm{}}M_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}15M_{\mathrm{}}`$, we are able to reproduce the observed spin periods, orbital separations, and magnetic fields for HMBP’s 1913+16 and 1534+12. Brown et al. (2001) find that helium stars in this mass range will generally end their lives as neutron stars. Whereas such high mass He stars are relatively rare, they do not undergo a significant red giant phase during helium shell burning. Such a phase would, in fact, make it more difficult to form a binary pulsar for the less massive systems because reverse case C mass-transfer would generally lead to the formation of a black hole (Fryer & Kalogera, 1997). Finally, we note that with such a high initial helium star mass, a kick velocity upon supernova would be required if the system is to remain bound. This is consistent with earlier calculations made by Burrows & Woosley (1986).

Our model was unable to account for the properties of PSR 1518+4904 and we speculate that another mechanism such as reverse case C mass-transfer is responsible for its properties.

Cycles of accretion coupled with the propeller effect allow the neutron star to come to be recycled in a time consistent with helium star nuclear lifetimes. Of the two possible propeller mechanisms proposed, only the angular momentum propeller is efficient at recycling the HMBP progenitors to observed properties.

As pulsar lifetimes are inversely proportional to their magnetic fields $`(\tau P^2/B^2)`$, recycling and magnetic field-decay lengthen the observable lifetime for a neutron star. Thus, an “observability premium” is introduced for relativistic binary pulsars. It is, furthermore, discovered that the final outcome of the binary evolution strongly depends on initial conditions (particularly $`M_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}`$ and $`a_\mathrm{i})`$. Thus, the number of possible observable systems are constrained to a small region of the overall parameter space of initial conditions.

We wish to thank Thomas Tauris for many useful discussions. This work is partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant no. DE-FG02-88ER40388.


text:
# Control of Non-Resonant Effects in a Nuclear Spin Quantum Computer with a Large Number of Qubits

## Introduction

Several proposals for scalable solid-state quantum computers have been recently published . The simulation of quantum information processing with a large number of qubits will be necessary to test these computers. We show in this paper how to implement the Control Not (CN) gate between remote qubits in a spin chain using a sequence of electromagnetic pulses. The errors generated by non-resonant effects are estimated analytically and computed numerically. We give the probability of error as a function of the Rabi frequency and the number of qubits.

The two-level approximation for an individual transition used in this paper for analysis of the system (see also Ref. ) allows one to simulate the quantum dynamics in a system with an enormous number ($`2^L`$, where $`L`$ is the number of qubits) of quantum states. This technique is based on selection of states generated as a result of the resonant or near-resonant transitions, while other transitions are neglected.

In Sec. I we give the Hamiltonian of the nuclear spin quantum computer. In Sec. II we use the resonance approximation to show that each quantum state interacts resonantly only with a single state. This allows us to decrease from exponential in $`L`$ to polynomial in $`L`$ the number of differential equations in the system. In Sec. III we use the solution of the problem in the resonance approximation to estimate error probabilities in the implementation of a CN gate caused by finite detuning from exact resonance.

## I Dynamics of the spin chain

We consider a chain of identical nuclear spins placed in a nonuniform high external magnetic field $`B`$, with a uniform gradient. The nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) frequency for the $`k`$th spin is $`\omega _k=\gamma _nB_k`$, where $`\gamma _n`$ is the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio and $`B_k`$ is the $`z`$-component of the magnetic field at the location of the $`k`$th spin. The gradient of the magnetic field (in the direction of the chain) provides a shift of $`\omega _k`$ by the value $`\delta \omega `$ between the neighboring spins. (For the physical parameters see Ref. .)

The Hamiltonian of the spin chain in an external radio-frequency (rf) field is,

$$H_n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{L1}{}}\omega _kI_k^z2J\underset{k=0}{\overset{L1}{}}I_k^zI_{k+1}^z+V_n=H_0+V_n,$$
(1)
where $`J`$ is the Ising interaction constant and $`I_k^z`$ is the operator of the $`z`$-component of spin $`1/2`$. The operator, $`V_n`$, describing the interaction of spins with the rf pulses, can be written in the form,  $`V_n=(\mathrm{\Omega }_n/2)_{k=0}^{L1}[I_k^{}\mathrm{exp}(i(\nu _nt+\phi _n)+I_k^+\mathrm{exp}(i\nu _nt+`$
$`\phi _n)],`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, $`\nu _n`$ and $`\phi _n`$ are the Rabi frequency, the frequency and the phase of the $`n`$th pulse; $`I_k^\pm =I_k^x\pm I_k^y`$. Each quantum state of the spin chain can be described as a superposition of eigenstates of $`H_0`$, for example, $`|00\mathrm{}00,|00\mathrm{}01,`$ and so on, where the state $`|\mathrm{}0_k\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the direction of the $`k`$th nuclear spin along the direction of the magnetic field (spin up), and the state $`|\mathrm{}1_k\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the spin being in the opposite direction (spin down). The wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, of the spin chain can be written in the interaction representation as a linear combination of the individual states, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=_pC_p(t)|p\mathrm{exp}(iE_pt),`$ where $`E_p`$ is the energy of the state $`|p`$. The contribution of each quantum state to the wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, is given by the coefficient $`C_p(t)`$. The quantity $`|C_p(t)|^2`$ is the probability of finding the spin chain in the state $`|p`$ at time $`t`$.

The Schrödinger equation for the coefficients $`C_p(t)`$ has the form (we put $`\phi _n=0`$), $`i\dot{C}_p(t)=_{m=0}^{2^L1}V_{pm}^n\mathrm{exp}[i(E_pE_m)t+ir_{pm}\nu _nt]C_m(t),`$ where $`r_{pm}=1`$ for $`E_p>E_m`$ and $`E_p<E_m`$, respectively. $`V_{pm}^n=\mathrm{\Omega }_n/2`$ for the states $`|p`$ and $`|m`$ connected by a single-spin transition. $`V_{pm}^n=0`$ for all other states.

## II The approximate solution

The Schrödinger equation can be numerically integrated only for a spin chain with small enough number of spins since the number of states increases exponentially with $`L`$. The problem can be simplified when the Rabi frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, is much less than the difference, $`\delta \omega `$, between the NMR frequencies of the neighboring spins, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n\delta \omega `$. Suppose that a pulse is resonant with the $`k`$th spin in the chain, $`\nu _n\omega _k`$. Then one can admit that this pulse affects in some approximation only the $`k`$th spin in the chain and does not interact with other spins. In this case, only the term with the energy $`E_m^{}E_p+\nu _n`$ effectively contributes to the right-hand side of the Schrödinger equation, so that the states $`|m^{}`$ and $`|p`$ are connected by a single-spin flip of the $`k`$th spin. In this case, we reduce the Schrödinger equation to the set of two differential equations,

$$i\dot{C}_m(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{2}\mathrm{exp}[i(E_pE_m\nu _nt]C_m(t),$$

$$i\dot{C}_p(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{2}\mathrm{exp}[i(E_pE_m\nu _nt]C_p(t),$$
(2)
where $`E_p>E_m`$, and $`|p`$ and $`|m`$ are two stationary states which are connected by a single-spin transition of the $`k`$th spin, $`\nu _n\omega _k`$.

The solution of Eq. (2), for initial conditions, $`C_m(t_{n1})=1,C_p(t_{n1})=0`$, after the action of the $`n`$th pulse has the form,

$$C_m(t_n)=\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\lambda _n\tau _n/2\right)+i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n}{\lambda _n}\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda _n\tau _n/2\right)\right]e^{\left(\frac{i\tau _n\mathrm{\Delta }_n}{2}\right)},$$

$$C_p(t_n)=i\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{\lambda _n}\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda _n\tau _n/2\right)e^{\left(it_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_n+i\frac{\tau _n\mathrm{\Delta }_n}{2}\right)},$$
(3)
where $`t_{n1}`$ and $`t_n`$ are the beginning and the and of the $`n`$th pulse, $`\tau _n`$ is the duration of the $`n`$th pulse, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=E_pE_m\nu _n`$ (we do not indicate the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ on the indices $`p`$ and $`m`$), $`\lambda _n=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2}`$ is the precession frequency in the frame rotating with the frequency $`\nu _n`$. Suppose that at $`t_{n1}`$ the system was in the state $`|m`$. In the case of the exact resonance ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=0`$) and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n\tau _n=\pi `$ (a $`\pi `$ pulse) Eqs. (3) describe the resonant transition from the state $`|m`$ to the state $`|p`$. If the frequency of the next pulse also satisfies the resonance condition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n+1}=E_lE_p\nu _{n+1}=0`$, then the system with probability equal to unity will transform to the state $`|l`$, and so on.

## III Errors in creation of entangled state for remote qubits

The advantages given by the two-level approximation described above are obvious: (a) we solve the problem by using the discrete map (3) instead of integrating differential equations; (b) we can consider only the states with large enough probabilities and neglect all other states in a controlled way; (c) we can estimate errors caused by non-resonant effects and minimize them by choosing optimal parameters.

In this paper we will estimate the error in implementation of a unitary operation for remote qubits (which is a particular case of the well-known Control-Not (CN) gate) using a sequence of $`\pi `$-pulses. This CN gate is defined as the unitary operator, $`U`$, with the following properties:

$$U|0_{L1}0_{L2}\mathrm{}0_10_0=e^{i\phi _1}|0_{L1}0_{L2}\mathrm{}0_10_0,$$
(5)
$$U|1_{L1}0_{L2}\mathrm{}0_10_0=e^{i\phi _2}|1_{L1}0_{L2}\mathrm{}0_11_0,$$
(6)
where $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ are known phases. The target qubit ($`0`$) should change its state only when the control qubit ($`L1`$) is in the state $`|1`$. The operator, $`U`$, can be used to create an entangled state for remote qubits: $`U(\alpha |0_{L1}\mathrm{}0_0+\beta |1_{L1}\mathrm{}0_0)=\alpha e^{\phi _1}|0_{L1}\mathrm{}0_0+\beta e^{\phi _2}|1_{L1}\mathrm{}1_0`$. To accomplish the (4b) operation in the system described by the Hamiltonian (1), we choose a sequence of $`\pi `$-pulses with resonant frequencies (for which all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=0`$). In this case, the state $`|10\mathrm{}00`$ transforms to the state $`|10\mathrm{}01`$, with probability equal to unity, by the following scheme: $`|1000\mathrm{}0|1100\mathrm{}0|1110\mathrm{}0`$ $`|1010\mathrm{}0|1011\mathrm{}0|1001\mathrm{}0`$ $`\mathrm{}|100\mathrm{}11|100\mathrm{}01.`$ The sequence of pulses which realizes this protocol has the following form: $`\nu _1=\omega _{2L2}`$, $`\nu _2=\omega _{2L3}`$, $`\nu _3=\omega _{2L2}2J`$, $`\nu _{2L4}=\omega _6`$, …, $`\nu _{2L4}=\omega _0J`$, $`\nu _{2L3}=\omega _1`$. If we apply the same protocol to the state $`|00\mathrm{}00`$, then with some probability the system will remain in this state because all transitions are non-resonant with the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\pm J,\pm 2J`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n0`$ these non-resonant transitions have the probabilities (see Eq. (3)),

$$\epsilon _n=(\mathrm{\Omega }_n/\lambda _n)^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\lambda _n\tau _n/2).$$
(7)
In this paper we study the errors generated during the operation (5) under the condition that the transitions in Eq. (6) are resonant. The operator $`U`$ in Eqs. (5) and (6) can be written as a product, $`U=U_{2L3}U_{2L4}\mathrm{}U_2U_1`$, of operators of individual pulses $`U_n`$, where $`n=1,,2,\mathrm{},2L3`$. We take the Rabi frequency to be the same, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, for all pulses. Then the error, $`\epsilon _n`$, generated by the $`n`$th pulse is defined only by the detuning, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$. The values of detuning, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|`$, are the same for all pulses, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|=J`$, except for the third pulse, where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_3|=2J`$. We denote $`\epsilon _n\epsilon `$ for $`n3`$ and $`\epsilon _{n=3}\epsilon ^{}`$.

Each unwanted state generated by the $`n`$th pulse can produce other unwanted states under the action of the other $`(n+m)`$ pulses. This causes the generation of a hierarchy of different states. Instead of one ground state, which should be the result of (4a), we generate a series of different unwanted states.

Since the dynamics is generated by the discrete map (3), probability of error can be estimated analytically. Suppose that we can measure only the states with probability $`PP_0`$, where $`P_0`$ can be defined by the experimental conditions. Then, if $`\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}<\epsilon _1=P_0`$, we shall not find in the system any unwanted states and the CN gate is realized with probability equal to unity. In Fig. 1, we plot $`\epsilon `$ (solid line) and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ (dotted line) as functions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We suppose that $`\epsilon _1=P_0=10^6`$. One can see from Fig. 1 that $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are less than $`\epsilon _1`$ only in very narrow regions of the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|/\sqrt{4k^21}`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ ). Hence, high precision is required to implement the CN gate, (5), (6), without error.

Let us consider now in detail the case of arbitrary $`\epsilon `$: $`0\epsilon 1`$, and explain how the errors can be estimated analytically in the operation (5). The first pulse $`U_1`$ generates one unwanted state $`U_1|0000\mathrm{}0|0100\mathrm{}0`$ with the probability $`\epsilon `$. The probability to remain in the ground state is $`1\epsilon `$. The second pulse, $`U_2`$, generates an additional unwanted state from the ground state, $`U_2|0000\mathrm{}0|0010\mathrm{}0`$, with probability $`\epsilon (1\epsilon )`$, and transforms the state $`|0100\mathrm{}0`$ to the state $`|0110\mathrm{}0`$ without generating additional states, since the second pulse is resonant to this transition. The probability of remaining in the ground state is now $`(1\epsilon )^2`$. The total number of states after the action of two pulses is three. The probabilities of all generated states after the action of the $`U_3`$ pulse are:

| $`|0000\mathrm{}0`$: | $`(1\epsilon )^2(1\epsilon ^{})`$, |
| --- | --- |
| $`|0100\mathrm{}0`$: | $`\epsilon ^{}(1\epsilon )^2`$, |
| $`|0010\mathrm{}0`$: | $`\epsilon (1\epsilon +\epsilon ^2)`$, |
| $`|0110\mathrm{}0`$: | $`\epsilon (1\epsilon ^2)`$. |

(Note, that above expressions can be considered only as estimates because we estimated probabilities instead of complex amplitudes.) One can continue to calculate the states generated by subsequent pulses and estimate their probabilities in a similar way. However, for $`\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}1`$, one can omit the contribution from the higher order terms in $`\epsilon `$, and neglect the states with the probabilities less than $`P_0`$.

Suppose, that $`\epsilon ^{}\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon _1<\epsilon <\epsilon _2\sqrt{P_0}`$. In this case, each pulse generates only one unwanted state from the ground state. Then, only

$$N_1(L)=2L3$$
(8)
unwanted states will be generated with probabilities (with the accuracy up to $`\epsilon ^2`$) $`\epsilon `$, $`\epsilon (1\epsilon )`$, $`\epsilon (12\epsilon )`$, …, $`\epsilon (1(2L4)\epsilon )`$. After the action of $`2L3`$ pulses there are $`L1`$ unwanted states of the form,

$$|011\mathrm{}11,|0011\mathrm{}11,\mathrm{},|00\mathrm{}011,|00\mathrm{}01,$$
(9)
with the target spin in the state $`|1`$, and $`L2`$ unwanted states of the form,

$$|011\mathrm{}110,|0011\mathrm{}110,\mathrm{},|00\mathrm{}010,$$
(10)
with the target spin in the state $`|0`$. As one can see from Eqs. (9) and (10), already in the first order of $`\epsilon `$ many states have correlated error with many qubits in excited states. The estimate of the total probability of unwanted states is

$$P_1()=\epsilon \underset{n=0}{\overset{2L4}{}}(1n\epsilon )\left(1\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(11)
where $`=(2L3)\epsilon `$.

The probability of unwanted effect of finding a target qubit in the state $`|1`$ while the control qubit is in the state $`|0`$ (i.e. the probability of the process $`U|0\mathrm{}0|0\mathrm{}1`$) is,

$$𝒫_1(\epsilon )=\epsilon +\epsilon \underset{n=0}{\overset{L3}{}}(1(2n+1)\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(L2)\epsilon `$.

In Figs. 2 (a), (b) we plot the probabilities, $`P_1`$ and $`𝒫_1`$, as functions of the number of spins, $`L`$, in the chain, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.0906`$, so that $`\epsilon _1<\epsilon (\mathrm{\Omega })=4.78\times 10^5<\epsilon _2=10^3`$ ($`\epsilon ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })=3.23\times 10^5`$). The number of unwanted states in our calculations was exactly equal to $`N_1`$ in Eq. (8). From Figs. 2 (a) and (b) one can see that the analytical estimates agree with the results of numerical calculations.

In a similar way one can calculate the probabilities of unwanted states for the case $`\epsilon _2<\epsilon <\epsilon _3(P_0)^{1/3}`$. In this situation one should take into account states with the probabilities up to $`\epsilon ^2`$. Each of these states is generated as a result of two successive non-resonant processes. However, since the ground state generates only unwanted states with the probabilities of order $`\epsilon `$, the total probability of unwanted states will be given again by Eq. (11). But the number of generated states increases and at the condition, $`\epsilon _2<\epsilon <\epsilon _3`$, it is proportional to $`L^2`$.

In Fig. 3 we compare the numerical results with the analytical estimates for the total probability of unwanted states given by Eq. (11) when the value $`\epsilon `$ is relatively large. From Fig. 3 one can see that formula (11) correctly describes the behavior of the system for large value of $`\epsilon `$. When $`L`$ becomes large enough, one should also include into consideration in Eq. (11) the terms of order $`(L\epsilon )^3`$.

The probabilities of unwanted states are shown in Figs. 4 (a) and (b) in two different scales. Two types of states are clearly seen. The states in Fig. 4 (a) are generated as a result of one non-resonant transition, so the probabilities of these states are proportional to $`\epsilon `$. On the other hand, the states in Fig. 4 (b) are generated by two successive non-resonant transitions, and they have the probabilities of the order $`\epsilon ^2`$.

## IV Conclusion

We have demonstrated how one can simulate a simple logic operation for a large number of qubits. We analyzed the probability of correlated errors in the implementation of a CN gate between remote qubits in a spin chain with a large number of qubits. In the limit when the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is much less than the difference between the NMR frequencies of neighboring spins, it is shown that the probability of error, $`P`$, is mainly defined by the small parameter $`\epsilon `$ defined by (5) and by the number of qubits in the spin chain. It is demonstrated that at definite values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the value of $`\epsilon `$ is small and there is no correlated error in the implementation of the CN gate. The total probability of unwanted states at other values of $`\epsilon `$ is estimated analytically and computed numerically.

Since the Hamiltonian of the system only allows transitions between the states connected by a single spin transformation, and because the electromagnetic field interacts resonantly only with one spin in the spin chain, the probability of error cannot accumulate in a definite single unwanted state. The probability of each unwanted state is always less than the value of the small parameter of the problem $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The considered approach can be useful for experimental testing of scalable solid-state quantum computers.

The paper was supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) under contract W-7405-ENG-36 and by the National Security Agency (NSA), and by the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA).


text:
# Untitled Document

Geometrisation of electromagnetic field and topological interpretation of quantum formalism

O.A.Olkhov

N.N.Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia, E-mail: olkhov@center.chph.ras.ru

All numerous attempts of the electromagnetic field geometrisation were based on concept ”particle-field” (pointlike sources and extended field; see for example \[1-3\]). But we had recently shown that the free Dirac field can be considered as a curved nonorientable closed connected time-space 4-manifold . Its fundamental group consists of four global gliding symmetries and the Minkowski space appears as the manifold universal covering space. Taking this into account we now suggest a new approach to the electromagnetic field geometrisation and this approach inevitably means a new topological interpretation of the quantum mechanics mathematical formalism.

Namely, we suppose that interacting Dirac and Maxwell fields can be considered as a single closed connected curved 4-manifold. Its fundamental group consists of four local gliding symmetries and its covering space has a more complex curved structure. Electric and magnetic fields appear within such approach as components of the curvature tensor of the manifold covering space and the Dirac spinors appear as basic functions of the manifold fundamental group representation.

Above concept differs from the one of general theory of relativity by two main points: we geometrise not only the field but we also geometrise the field sources and we represent the field and the sources not as a curved riemannian 4-space but as a 4-manifold.

We start with the known equations for interecting clasical electromagnetic and electron-positron fields

$$i\gamma _1(\frac{}{x_1}+ieA_1)\psi \underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{4}{}}i\gamma _\alpha (\frac{}{x_\alpha }+ieA_\alpha )\psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(1)`$
$$F_{kl}=\frac{A_k}{x_l}\frac{A_l}{x_k},$$
$`(2)`$
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{F_{ik}}{x_i}=j_k,j_k=e\psi \gamma _1\gamma _k\psi .$$
$`(3)`$
Here $`\mathrm{}=c=1,x_1=t,x_2=x,x_3=y,x_4=z,F_{kl}`$-tensor of electric and magnetic fielfs, $`A_k4`$-potential, $`\gamma _k`$-Dirac matrices, $`\psi `$\- Dirac spinor, $`m`$ and $`e`$-mass and charge of an electron.

It is shown that in (1) the expression $`_k=/x_k+ieA_k`$ can be considered as the translation group generator into a conformal pseudoeuclidean 4-space and $`ieA_k`$ appear within such approach as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ —the contraction of a riemannian connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^q`$ of this space

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\underset{p}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^p.$$

Multiplied by the reflection operators $`\gamma _k`$  the $`_k`$ gives the representation of a local gliding symmetry group in this space with the Dirac spinors as basic vecors of the represetation. All this gives the opportunity to interpret (1) as the metric relation for a closed connected nonorietable topological 4-manifold with the local gliding symmetry group as its fundamental group and with a conformal pseudoeuclidean space as its universal covering space (two-dimentional analog of such manifold is the combination of a torus and the Klein bottle ).

Now we use a relation between a riemannian connection and a riemannian curvature tenor $`R_{lk,i}^q`$

$$R_{lk,i}^q=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{li}^q}{x_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^q}{x_l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{li}^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^p.$$

After contraction over $`q`$ and $`l`$ we obtain

$$R_{ik}^o=\underset{q}{}R_{ik,q}^q=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{x_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}{x_i}.$$
$`(4)`$
By comparison (2) and (4) we can write down the equations (1-3) using only geometrical notations

$$i\gamma _1_1\psi \underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{4}{}}i\gamma _\alpha _\alpha \psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(5)`$
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{R_{ik}^o}{x_i}=j_k,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`R_{ik}^o`$ has the form (4).

Finally, we have the following geometrical interpretation of electromagnetic field.

1. Electromagnetic field and its sources (electron-positron field) can be considered as a single 4-manifold which fundamental group is generated by four local gliding symmetries.
2. Universal covering space of this manifold is the conformal pseudoeuclidean space.
3. The 4-potentials $`A_k`$ is defined by the connections of this space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ ($`ieA_k=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$).
4. The electric and magnetic field components are defined by the components of the covering space curvature tensor $`R_{ik}`$ ($`ieF_{ik}=R_{ik}`$).
5. The Dirac spinors appear as basic functions for the manifold fundamental group representation.

One comment in conclusion. We see that replacing a ”wave-particle” by a space-time manifold does not mean ”more determinism” for the quantum object description. And we also see that the above topological approach does not introduce any hidden variables and does not therefore contradict the Bell and von Neumann theorems .

1. Weyl H. Gravitation und Electrizitat. Berlin, Sitzber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss, 1918
2. Konopleva N.P., Sokolic H.A., Nucl.Phys. 1965. V.72. P.667
3. Daniel M., Viallet C.M., Rev.Mod,Phys. 1980. V.52. P.175
4. Olkhov O.A., e-print quant-ph/0101137, in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology, Lake Tahoe, California, 10-16 December 1999. Singapure-New Jersey- Hong Kong.: World Scientific, 2000, P.160.
5. Schweber S., An introduction to relativistic quantum field theory, Row, Peterson and Co., Evanstone, Ill., Elmford, N.Y. 1961
6. Coxeter H.S.M., Introduction to geometry, John Willey and Sons, Inc., N.Y.-London, 1961.
7. Dirac P.A.M., General theory of relativity, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.- Sydney-Toronto, 1975
8. Bell I.S., Rev.Mod.Phys. 1966. V.38. P.447
9. von J.V.Neumann., Mathematische grundlagen der quantenmechanik, Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932.