text:
# Additivity for unital qubit channels.

## 1 Introduction and statement of results

There are several outstanding conjectures concerning product channels. These all involve the question of finding the “best” state or set of states to transmit through a product channel, using some measure of performance at the output to determine “best”. In this paper we will consider three well-known measures of performance: the maximal non-commutative $`p`$-norm of an output state (this was introduced by Amosov, Holevo and Werner , who called it the ‘maximal output purity’ of the channel); the minimal entropy of an output state; and the Holevo quantity $`\chi ^{}`$, which is a measure of the channel’s capacity for transmitting classical information. An obvious candidate for the “best” set of states in each case is constructed by taking the product of the corresponding best states for the individual channels. For the three performance measures described above, the outstanding conjecture is that this procedure indeed produces the optimal state. That is, the “best” states to send through the channel are always product states – there is no advantage in using entangled states. This predicts that the maximal $`p`$-norm is multiplicative for product channels, and that the minimal entropy and Holevo quantity are additive. At this time, it seems fair to say that there is no good understanding of why these conjectures should be true (or even whether they are true in every case).

The conjectures have been verified numerically for products of low dimensional channels. However numerical testing becomes difficult when the dimensions of the state spaces are large. In part, this is because the allowed input states for the product channel include all entangled states in addition to the product states. So it seems to be necessary to develop an analytical method to investigate the conjectures, and that is the overall goal of the work reported in this paper.

Recall that a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on a Hilbert space $``$ is a completely positive, trace-preserving map on the algebra of observables on $``$. When $`=𝐂^2`$ we will call $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a qubit channel. Qubit channels play an important role in quantum information theory, because many applications involve the manipulation and entanglement of qubit states. If the channel satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }(I)=I`$, so that it maps the identity to itself, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a unital channel. Examples of unital qubit channels are the depolarizing channel, the phase-damping channel, and the two-Pauli channel of Bennett, Fuchs and Smolin . The unital qubit channels provide a very useful laboratory for testing analytical approaches to the conjectures. This is because they are parametrized by three real numbers (up to unitary equivalence), and the geometry of this set of parameters is well understood. In this paper we will use detailed properties of this class of channels to derive some new bounds which lead to proofs of the conjectures in some special cases. Hopefully these results will provide clues about how to proceed in the general case.

The results in this paper concern product channels $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a unital qubit channel, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is completely arbitrary. For such channels we are able to establish the conjectures described above, namely that the three performance measures are optimized on product states of the channel. The main ingredient in the proof is a new inequality for the $`p`$-norm of an output state from the half-noisy channel $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The proof of this bound uses details of the classification of unital qubit channels , and does not obviously extend to other classes of channels. In essence, it uses convexity and symmetry arguments to reduce the bound to the case of the phase-damping channel. The phase-damping channel (defined below in (10)) is a one-parameter family of unital channels $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ which has been used as a model for decoherence in a two-state system. The proof of the bound for the channel $`I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ is based on a result of Epstein  concerning concavity of a certain trace function. The bound for the half-noisy channel $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is then enough to prove our results for the product channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Before stating precisely our results we review the three performance measures for a channel that are used here. First, for any $`p1`$ the maximal $`p`$-norm of the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined by

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\rho }{sup}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )_p,`$ (1)
where the $`sup`$ runs over states and where the $`p`$-norm of a positive matrix $`A`$ is defined by

$`A_p=\left(\mathrm{Tr}A^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}`$ (2)
Second, the minimal entropy of the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined by

$`S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\rho }{inf}S(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ))`$ (3)
where $`S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$ is the von Neumann entropy of the state $`\rho `$.

Third, the Holevo capacity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined by

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\pi ,\rho }{sup}\left[S\left({\displaystyle \pi _i\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i)}\right){\displaystyle \pi _iS(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i))}\right],`$ (4)
where the $`sup`$ runs over all probability distributions $`\{\pi _i\}`$ and collections of states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ on $``$.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a unital qubit channel. Then for any channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }),\text{for any}p1`$ (5)
$`S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Omega })+S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (6)
$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (7)
Remark 1. Results related to Theorem 1 have been proven before. Several authors have proven the results for the half-noisy channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }I`$ , , . Holevo proved (7) when both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are QC or CQ channels . In , (5), (6) and (7) were proven for any channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is either a QC or CQ channel. Bruss et al proved (7) when both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are depolarizing qubit channels . Amosov and Holevo proved (5) for integer values of $`p`$ when both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are products of depolarizing channels . King and Ruskai presented strong evidence for (7) when both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are unital qubit channels . In  it was shown that (5) holds for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when $`p`$ is integer and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a unital qubit map, or when $`p=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is any qubit map.

Remark 2. The well-known Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland theorem ,  shows that $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is the best rate for transmission of classical information through the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ when product states are used at the input (and possibly entangled measurements are used at the output). As a consequence, the ultimate capacity of a quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for faithful transmission of classical information (without prior entanglement) is given by

$`C_{\mathrm{ult}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^n)`$ (8)
It follows from (7) that for any unital qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ this ultimate capacity is

$`C_{\mathrm{ult}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (9)
As mentioned in the introduction, our proof uses a new bound for the phase-damping channel $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$. This one-parameter family of unital qubit channels is defined as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (r)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \left(\begin{array}{cc}r_{11}& r_{12}\\ r_{21}& r_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_{11}& \lambda r_{12}\\ \lambda r_{21}& r_{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
where $`1\lambda 1`$. So $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ reduces the off-diagonal entries of $`r`$ and leaves unchanged the diagonal entries. In order to state our new bound, let $`\rho `$ be a state on $`𝐂^K𝐂^2`$ for some $`K`$. Then $`\rho `$ can be written in the form

$`\rho =XI+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Y_i\sigma _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X+Y_3& Y_1iY_2\\ Y_1+iY_2& XY_3\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
where $`X,Y_i`$ are $`K\times K`$ matrices, with $`\text{Tr}X=1/2`$. Also the positivity of $`\rho `$ implies that

$`X+Y_30,XY_30`$ (12)
It follows from (10) that

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda )(\rho )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X+Y_3& \lambda (Y_1iY_2)\\ \lambda (Y_1+iY_2)& XY_3\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
Define

$`m_p(x)=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{2}}\right)^p+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1x}{2}}\right)^p\right]^{1/p}`$ (14)
###### Theorem 2

Let $`\rho `$ be a state on $`𝐂^K𝐂^2`$ written in the form (11), and let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ be the phase-damping channel defined in (10). Then for all $`p1`$

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda )(\rho )_p2m_p(\lambda )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left(X+Y_3\right)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left(XY_3\right)^p\right]^{1/p}`$ (15)
Notice that setting $`\lambda =0`$ in (13) gives

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0)(\rho )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X+Y_3& 0\\ 0& XY_3\end{array}\right)`$ (16)
and that setting $`x=0`$ in (14) gives $`m_p(0)=2^{1+1/p}`$. Therefore the bound (15) can be re-stated as follows:

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda )(\rho )_pm_p(0)^1m_p(\lambda )(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0)(\rho )_p`$ (17)
We will use detailed knowledge of the set of unital qubit maps, together with convexity and symmetry arguments, to derive a bound similar to (17) for the half-noisy channel $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is any unital qubit channel. This bound is the content of Theorem 3 below. The bound will involve states of the form $`(IU)\rho (IU^{})`$ where $`U`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ unitary matrix. Using the notation in (11), this can be written in $`2\times 2`$ block form as

$`(IU)\rho (IU^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X+Y& Z\\ Z^{}& XY\end{array}\right)`$ (18)
where $`Y`$ is some linear combination of the three matrices $`Y_1,Y_2,Y_3`$. A key part of the theorem is that the unitary matrices $`U`$ that appear in the bound can be chosen so that $`\text{Tr}Y=0`$ in (18). If we define $`r=\text{Tr}_1\rho `$ to be the $`2\times 2`$ reduced density matrix of $`\rho `$, then this condition can be written as

$`\text{Tr}(\sigma _3UrU^{})=0`$ (19)
###### Theorem 3

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a unital qubit channel. Let $`\rho `$ be a state on $`𝐂^K𝐂^2`$, and let $`r=\text{Tr}_1\rho `$ be its reduced density matrix. Then there exist (i) an integer $`N1`$, (ii) positive numbers $`\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_N\}`$ satisfying $`c_i=1`$, and (iii) unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_N`$ satisfying $`\text{Tr}\left(\sigma _3U_irU_i^{}\right)=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, such that for all $`p1`$

$`||(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho ))||_pm_p(0)^1\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }){\displaystyle }_{i=1}^Nc_i||(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0\left)\right((IU_i)\rho (IU_i^{}))||_p`$ (20)
## 2 Proof of Theorem 1

We will assume in this section that Theorem 3 holds, and use it to deduce Theorem 1. The proof of Theorem 3 appears in the next section.

First we prove the multiplicativity of the $`p`$-norm. It is sufficient to prove that for any state $`\tau `$,

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (21)
since the inequality in the other direction follows trivially by restricting to product states. Let

$`\rho =(\mathrm{\Omega }I)(\tau )`$ (22)
so that

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )=(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho )`$ (23)
We use the same notation as in (11), and write

$`\tau =AI+{\displaystyle B_i\sigma _i},\rho =XI+{\displaystyle Y_i\sigma _i}`$ (24)
It follows that $`X=\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ and $`Y_i=\mathrm{\Omega }(B_i)`$. Suppose that one of the states appearing inside the sum on the right side of (20) is

$`(IU)\rho (IU^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X+Y& Z\\ Z^{}& XY\end{array}\right)`$ (25)
where $`Y`$ is some linear combination of the matrices $`Y_1,Y_2,Y_3`$ in (24). The positivity of the left side of (25) implies that $`X\pm Y0`$, and the condition $`\text{Tr}(\sigma _3UrU^{})=0`$ from Theorem 3 means that

$`\text{Tr}Y=0`$ (26)
The relation (22) implies that

$`X+Y=\mathrm{\Omega }(A+B)`$ (27)
where $`B`$ is the same linear combination of the matrices $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$ in (24). Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is trace-preserving, it follows from (26) that

$`\text{Tr}B=0`$ (28)
Since $`\tau `$ in (24) is a state, it follows that $`\text{Tr}A=1/2`$, and therefore (28) implies that we can define the two states

$`\alpha =2(A+B),\beta =2(AB)`$ (29)
Hence applying $`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0)`$ to (25) and using (23) gives

$`\left(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right)\left((IU)\rho (IU^{})\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Omega }(\beta )\end{array}\right)`$ (30)
Therefore the term on the right side of (20) corresponding to the state (25) is equal to

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0)\left((IU)\rho (IU^{})\right)_p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )^p+\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta )^p\right]^{1/p}`$ (31)
The definition of the $`p`$-norm of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that

$`\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )^p\left(\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\right)^p,\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta )^p\left(\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\right)^p`$ (32)
Hence (31) yields the bound

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0)((IU)\rho (IU^{}))_p2^{1+1/p}\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })=m_p(0)\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (33)
We can repeat the same argument for all terms on the right side of (20), leading to the bound

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho )_pm_p(0)^1\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_i\left[m_p(0)\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\right]=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (34)
Combining (34) with (23) establishes the bound (21), and hence proves (5).

Turning now to the minimal entropy equality (6), this follows immediately from (5) by taking the derivative at $`p=1`$, since from the easily established relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}\left(\rho _p\right)_{p=1}=S(\rho )`$ (35)
it follows that for any channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}\left(\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\right)_{p=1}=S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (36)
Next we turn to the additivity of the Holevo capacity (4). To establish this we use the representation of Ohya, Petz and Watanabe  and Schumacher-Westmoreland , and follow the method described in . Denote the relative entropy of states $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ by

$`S(\rho |\omega )=\text{Tr}\rho (\mathrm{log}\rho \mathrm{log}\omega )`$ (37)
Then the OPWSW representation is

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\rho }{inf}\underset{\omega }{sup}S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )|\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho )\right)`$ (38)
The state that achieves the infimum in (38) is the optimal average output state from the channel, and we denote this by $`\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a unital qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the optimal output state is

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I,`$ (39)
and hence it follows that

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\omega }{sup}\left(S(\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ))+\mathrm{log}2\right)=\mathrm{log}2S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (40)
Our goal is to show that

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (41)
(the inequality in the other direction is trivial). From (38) it follows that

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })\underset{\tau }{sup}S((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (42)
and hence to prove (41) it is sufficient to prove that for any state $`\tau `$,

$`S((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (43)
Denote the reduced density matrix of $`\tau `$ by

$`\omega =\text{Tr}_2(\tau ),`$ (44)
where $`\text{Tr}_2`$ is the trace over the second factor. Using (39) and (40) reduces (43) to the inequality

$`S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })S((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau ))\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )\mathrm{log}(\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (45)
In order to establish (45) we will take the limit $`p1`$ in the inequality (20). Following the notation of (29) and (30), and recalling (22), the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ term on the right side of (20) can be written as

$`\left(I\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right)\left((IU_i)\rho (IU_i^{})\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ^{(i)})& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^{(i)})\end{array}\right)`$ (46)
where $`\alpha ^{(i)}`$ and $`\beta ^{(i)}`$ are states satisfying

$`\alpha ^{(i)}+\beta ^{(i)}=4A=2\omega `$ (47)
Then the inequality (20) can be written

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ^{(i)})\right)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^{(i)})\right)^p\right]^{1/p}`$ (48)
This becomes an equality at $`p=1`$, hence taking the derivative at $`p=1`$ and using (35) and (36) gives the bound

$`S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )\right)S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ^{(i)})\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^{(i)})\right)\right]`$ (49)
Comparing with the left side of (45) it is sufficient to prove

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ^{(i)})\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^{(i)})\right)\right]\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )\mathrm{log}(\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (50)
Using the relation (47) and the condition $`c_i=1`$ gives

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^{(i)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta ^{(i)}\right]`$ (51)
Hence the left side of (50) is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ^{(i)})|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S(\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^{(i)})|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })\right]`$ (52)
Now since $`\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the optimal output state for the channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it is also the state which achieves the infimum in the OPWSW representation (38). Hence (38) implies

$`S(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ^{(i)})|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (53)
$`S(\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^{(i)})|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$
Substituting into (52) establishes (50), and hence the inequality (41), which proves the result.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 3

Theorem 3 follows by combining Theorem 2 with symmetry and convexity arguments. We present the latter in this section, and postpone the proof of Theorem 2 to the next section.

Our symmetry and convexity arguments use the classification of unital qubit maps which was developed in , and which we now review. Any unital qubit map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be represented by a real $`3\times 3`$ matrix with respect to the basis $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices. In  it was explained that by using independent unitary transformations in its domain and range, this matrix can be put into the following diagonal form:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right)`$ (54)
The diagonal entries satisfy $`|\lambda _i|1`$, as well as other conditions implied by complete positivity (these are described below). The quantities $`\nu _p`$, $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\chi ^{}`$ are invariant under permutations of the coordinates. They are also unchanged if the signs of any two of the parameters $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ are simultaneously flipped, as this is implemented by a unitary transformation in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (for example, conjugation by $`\sigma _1`$ in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ switches the signs of $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ without any other changes). So without loss of generality we will assume henceforth that the parameters satisfy

$`1\lambda _3\mathrm{max}(|\lambda _1|,|\lambda _2|)`$ (55)
We will say that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in standard form if it is diagonal in the basis $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$ and its diagonal entries satisfy (55).

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in standard form, and let

$`\lambda =\lambda _3=\mathrm{max}(|\lambda _i|)`$ (56)
Recall the definition (14). Then it is an easy calculation to show that

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })=m_p(\lambda )`$ (57)
For any unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`U`$ we define the qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_U`$ to be conjugation by the matrix $`U`$, so it acts on a qubit state $`r`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_U(r)=UrU^{}`$ (58)
###### Lemma 4

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a unital qubit map in standard form, and let $`\lambda =\lambda _3=\mathrm{max}(|\lambda _i|)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a convex combination of channels of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_i}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{U_i}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ is the phase-damping channel (10) and $`W_i,U_i`$ are unitary matrices. Furthermore, let $`r`$ be any qubit state. Then the unitary matrices $`\{U_i\}`$ can be chosen so that for each $`i`$,

$`\text{Tr}\sigma _3(U_irU_i^{})=0`$ (59)
Before proving this lemma, we use it to deduce Theorem 3. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a unital qubit channel, and let $`\rho `$ be a state on $`𝐂^K𝐂^2`$. Let $`r=\text{Tr}_1(\rho )`$ be the $`2\times 2`$ reduced density matrix of $`\rho `$. Lemma 4 implies that there are constants $`c_i0`$ with $`c_i=1`$, such that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_i}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{U_i}`$ (60)
and where the unitary matrices $`\{U_i\}`$ can be chosen so that condition (59) is satisfied for this matrix $`r`$. Using these same unitary matrices $`W_i,U_i`$ and constants $`c_i`$ we can write

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i(IW_i)(I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda )\left(\rho ^{(i)}\right)(IW_i^{})`$ (61)
where we have defined

$`\rho ^{(i)}=(IU_i)\rho (IU_i^{})`$ (62)
From (61) we deduce

$`||(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho ))||_p{\displaystyle }_{i=1}^Nc_i||(I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \left)\right(\rho ^{(i)})||_p`$ (63)
Applying Theorem 2 in the form (17) immediately gives the statement of Theorem 3.

Now we present the proof of Lemma 4. As was shown in  (and also in ), the allowed diagonal entries of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (54) lie in the tetrahedron with corners at the points

$`(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)`$ (64)
For fixed $`\lambda `$, the cross-section of this tetrahedron at height $`\lambda _3=\lambda `$ is a rectangle with corners at the four points

$`(1,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,1,\lambda ),(1,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,1,\lambda )`$ (65)
It follows that if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in standard form with $`\lambda =\lambda _3=\mathrm{max}|\lambda _i|`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a convex combination of the four maps corresponding to these corners. Furthermore each of these maps is unitarily equivalent to the phase-damping channel $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ (10). For example, the first map in (65) acts on a state by

$`r=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x+y_3& y_1iy_2\\ y_1+iy_2& xy_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}x+\lambda y_3& y_1i\lambda y_2\\ y_1+i\lambda y_2& x\lambda y_3\end{array}\right),`$ (66)
and this same action can be written as

$`rV^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (VrV^{})V`$ (67)
where $`V`$ is the unitary matrix $`V=\mathrm{exp}[i(\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3)/\sqrt{3}]`$. This unitary map permutes the coordinates, that is

$`V\sigma _1V^{}=\sigma _3,V\sigma _2V^{}=\sigma _1,V\sigma _3V^{}=\sigma _2,`$ (68)
and so the composition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ reproduces the action of (66). This establishes the first claim in Lemma 4.

In order to derive the condition (59) we must look more closely at the constraints on the unital maps. As was shown in , the condition (55), namely $`\lambda =\lambda _3=\mathrm{max}(|\lambda _i|)`$, selects a convex subset of the cross-section of the rectangle (65). For $`1/3\lambda 1`$ this subset is the convex hull of the six points

$`(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ),(2\lambda 1,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,2\lambda 1,\lambda ),`$ (69)
$`(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ),(12\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,12\lambda ,\lambda ),`$ (70)
and for $`0\lambda 1/3`$ this subset is the convex hull of the four points

$`(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ),(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda )`$ (71)
Hence it is enough to establish (59) for the corner maps in (69) and (71). Furthermore, the last three maps in (69) can be transformed into the first three by a unitary conjugation in the domain, and the second and third maps are related by a permutation of coordinates, so it is sufficient to consider just the first two maps in (69). Similarly it is sufficient to consider just the first two maps in (71).

The key idea now is to use the additional symmetry of the corner maps (69) and (71) to arrange for the condition (59) to be satisfied. Consider the map corresponding to the first corner $`(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda )`$ in (69). This is the well-known depolarizing channel $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$, and the symmetry of this map implies that for any state $`r`$ and any unitary matrix $`U`$,

$`U\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (r)U^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (UrU^{})`$ (72)
The idea now is to choose $`U`$ to diagonalize $`r`$. That is, choose $`U`$ so that

$`UrU^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}+y& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}y\end{array}\right)`$ (73)
where $`|y|1/2`$. This means in particular that

$`\text{Tr}\sigma _1(UrU^{})=\text{Tr}\sigma _2(UrU^{})=0`$ (74)
It follows that we can write

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (r)=U^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (UrU^{})U`$ (75)
Now we write $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ as a convex combination of the four corners (65) (this can be done in many ways, the precise choice does not matter). Having done this, it is enough to establish Lemma 4 for each of these four corner maps applied to the state $`UrU^{}`$. For example, the first map in (65) acts according to (67), and so when applied to the state $`UrU^{}`$ it gives

$`V^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (VUrU^{}V^{})V`$ (76)
The action of $`V`$ in (68) together with (74) imply that

$`\text{Tr}\sigma _3(VUrU^{}V^{})=\text{Tr}\sigma _1(UrU^{})=0`$ (77)
Hence the condition (59) is satisfied for this term. The other three corners in (64) produce similar expressions, and so we have written $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (r)`$ as a convex combination of terms of the form $`W_i\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (U_irU_i^{})W_i^{}`$ with $`\text{Tr}\sigma _3(U_irU_i^{})=0`$, which establishes (59) for the depolarizing channel.

The map corresponding to the second corner in (69), namely $`(2\lambda 1,\lambda ,\lambda )`$, is the two-Pauli channel of Bennett, Fuchs and Smolin . The analysis for this channel follows the same lines as for the depolarizing channel, so we just explain the steps here. First, given a state $`r`$, use the $`yz`$ symmetry of the channel to ‘pull through’ a unitary transformation $`\mathrm{exp}[i\theta \sigma _1]`$ onto $`r`$ (in the same way as for the depolarizing channel in (72)), and choose $`\theta `$ so that the resulting state $`r^{}`$ satisfies

$`\text{Tr}\sigma _2r^{}=0`$ (78)
Next, write the channel $`(2\lambda 1,\lambda ,\lambda )`$ as a convex combination of $`(\lambda ,1,\lambda )`$ and $`(\lambda ,12\lambda ,\lambda )`$ (recall that $`1/3\lambda 1`$ so that the latter is within the tetrahedron of unital maps (64)). The first map $`(\lambda ,1,\lambda )`$ is one of the corners (65), and it is applied to the state $`r^{}`$ which satisfies (78), hence by a unitary transformation which permutes $`\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3`$ we can rewrite it as the action of the phase-damping channel on a state satisfying (59). The second channel $`(\lambda ,12\lambda ,\lambda )`$ is unitarily equivalent to $`(\lambda ,2\lambda 1,\lambda )`$, which is again a two-Pauli channel. Using the symmetry of this channel, we can pull through a unitary transformation $`\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi \sigma _2]`$ onto the state $`r^{}`$. This does not affect the condition (78), and so by choosing $`\varphi `$ correctly the resulting state $`r^{\prime \prime }`$ satisfies

$`\text{Tr}\sigma _1r^{\prime \prime }=\text{Tr}\sigma _2r^{\prime \prime }=0`$ (79)
Now we can write the channel $`(\lambda ,2\lambda 1,\lambda )`$ as a convex combination of the four corners (65), and repeat the argument for the depolarizing channel, concluding that each of these corner maps acting on $`r^{\prime \prime }`$ is unitarily equivalent to the phase-damping channel acting on a state satisfying (59). This establishes the result for the two-Pauli channel.

Finally consider the case $`1/3\lambda 0`$, where the corner maps are (71). The first map is the depolarizing channel $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$, which was done above. The second map is unitarily equivalent to the depolarizing channel $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$, and so this is also done.

## 4 Proof of Theorem 2

This theorem is a variant of the bound obtained by Lieb and Ruskai, which appeared as an Appendix in the paper , and it can be proved by the same method. That method uses the Lieb-Thirring bound , which in turn was proved using one of Epstein’s concavity results . Since Theorem 2 can be obtained directly from Epstein’s result, we present that argument here.

Let $`\rho `$ be a matrix of the form (11). The condition that $`\rho `$ be positive means that $`Y_1iY_2=\sqrt{X+Y_3}R\sqrt{XY_3}`$ where $`R`$ is a contraction. Every contraction is a convex combination of unitaries, so it is sufficient to assume that

$`Y_1iY_2=\sqrt{X+Y_3}V\sqrt{XY_3},VV^{}=I`$ (80)
We have the factorization

$`(I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda )(\rho )=F^{1/2}GF^{1/2}`$ (81)
where

$`F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X+Y_3& 0\\ 0& XY_3\end{array}\right),G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \lambda V\\ \lambda V^{}& I\end{array}\right)`$ (82)
From the identity

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \lambda V\\ \lambda V^{}& I\end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1+\lambda )I& 0\\ 0& (1\lambda )I\end{array}\right)U^{},`$ (83)
where

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& V\\ V^{}& I\end{array}\right),UU^{}=I,`$ (84)
it follows that for all $`p1`$

$`G^p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha I& \beta V\\ \beta V^{}& \alpha I\end{array}\right)`$ (85)
with

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1+\lambda )^p+(1\lambda )^p],\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1+\lambda )^p(1\lambda )^p]`$ (86)
We can write

$`\text{Tr}\left((I\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda )(\rho )\right)^p=\text{Tr}\left(F^{1/2}(G^p)^{1/p}F^{1/2}\right)^p`$ (87)
Now we use Epstein’s concavity result , which states that for any positive matrix $`B`$ and any $`p1`$, the map

$`A\text{Tr}\left(B(A)^{1/p}B\right)^p`$ (88)
is concave on the set of positive matrices. (In fact Epstein states the result only for integer values of $`p`$, but his proof applies to all real values $`p1`$). The left side of (87) is an even function of $`\lambda `$, and therefore the right side is unchanged if $`\beta `$ is replaced by $`\beta `$ in (85). Also note that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha I& \beta V\\ \beta V^{}& \alpha I\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha I& \beta V\\ \beta V^{}& \alpha I\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha I& 0\\ 0& \alpha I\end{array}\right)`$ (89)
Therefore the concavity result (88) implies that the right side of (87) is bounded above by its value when $`\beta `$ is set equal to zero in (85). Furthermore when $`\beta =0`$, the right side of (87) becomes

$`\text{Tr}\left(F^{1/2}\left(\alpha I\right)^{1/p}F^{1/2}\right)^p=\alpha \text{Tr}F^p=2\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left(X+Y_3\right)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left(XY_3\right)^p\right]`$ (90)
Comparing with (14) we see that $`2\alpha =2^pm_p(\lambda )^p`$, and this proves the theorem.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to M. B. Ruskai for helpful discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Security of EPR-based Quantum Cryptography against Incoherent Symmetric Attacks

## Abstract

We investigate a new strategy for incoherent eavesdropping in Ekert’s entanglement based quantum key distribution protocol. We show that under certain assumptions of symmetry the effectiveness of this strategy reduces to that of the original single qubit protocol of Bennett and Brassard.

Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) employs quantum features such as the uncertainty principle and quantum correlations to provide for unconditionally secure communications . In classical cryptography no mechanism is known for unconditionally secure key distribution. The importance of QKD protocols within cryptography is paramount as they allow for the practical implementation of unconditionally secure cryptographic algorithms such as the one time pad .

A quantum cryptographic system can be thought to be constructed of two main parts; firstly the underlying quantum key distribution protocol securely establishes a common key between Alice and Bob, and secondly the message is simply encrypted with the established key, and transmitted. Theoretical models for quantum key distribution protocols based on the uncertainty principle have been analysed by Bennett and Brassard (BB$`84`$)  and models based on quantum correlations have been proposed by Ekert (E$`91`$) .

Eavesdropping can be considered as the interception of a transmission between Alice and Bob by an eavesdropper (Eve) and then the application of an appropriate measurement to extract information. Regardless of the difficulty of interception of the message, in principle any classical channel can always be passively monitored, without the legitimate users being aware that any eavesdropping has taken place. This is not so for quantum channels. Any measurement disturbs the transmitted state and hence can be detected by Alice and Bob. This leads to a trade-off between the amount of information that Eve can acquire about the transmission and the degree to which she disturbs it and hence can be detected .

In this paper we present an incoherent eavesdropping strategy for E$`91`$. The E$`91`$ protocol can be presented in four main stages:

* Entangled photons are distributed to Alice and Bob who measure them randomly choosing between two fixed measurement basis. This state is such that in the absence of noise or eavesdropping Alice and Bob’s measurement results are the same if they choose the same basis;
* Alice and Bob communicate classically their choice of basis for all pairs and discard all measurement results where different basis were used;
* A subset of the remaining measurement results is publicly compared and used to determine the error rate (i.e. where Alice’s and Bob’s outcomes do not coincide). This error rate is assumed to be due to Eve;
* Finally, if the error rate is below a certain acceptable threshold, then the remaining undisclosed outcomes are employed as the key. Otherwise, the outcomes are discarded and the whole process is repeated.

In our eavesdropping strategy we assume that Eve prepares both photons of the entangled pair before they are transmitted to Alice and Bob. We do not analyse the most general attack of this type, but instead focus on a simpler symmetric attack.

We adopt a conservative view in which Eve prepares a pair of photons in an arbitrary state, possibly entangled with other quantum systems. These auxiliary quantum systems are known as a probe. Without loss of generality , the initial joint state of the photon pair and the probe can be assumed to be a pure state $`|\psi `$ of the following form:

$$|\psi =\underset{\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}}{}|_{\alpha ,\beta }|\alpha _+|\beta _+,$$
(1)
where $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_+,|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+\}`$ is a basis for the polarisation state of a single photon. The states $`|\alpha _+`$ and $`|\beta _+`$ refer to Alice and Bob’s respective photon states. The kets for Eve’s probe $`|_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ are not necessarily normalised or orthogonal. The only condition on these vectors is the overall normalisation of $`|\psi `$, leading to:

$$\underset{\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}}{}_{\alpha ,\beta }|_{\alpha ,\beta }=1.$$
(2)
If we assume that Alice controls the EPR source, then the security of the above E$`91`$ scheme is equivalent to the security of BB$`84`$ protocol . This is because Alice first generates an entangled pair locally, keeps one photon and sends the other to Bob. Therefore only one photon can be intercepted and measured by Eve which is thus analogous to BB$`84`$.

Notice that if Eve is limited only to eavesdropping on the quantum channel between the source and Bob, her eavesdropping can be described without loss of generality as an unitary interaction between Bob’s photon and Eve’s probe:

$`|F|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_+`$ $``$ $`|F_{00}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_++|F_{01}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+,`$ (3)
$`|F|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+`$ $``$ $`|F_{10}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_++|F_{11}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+,`$ (4)
where $`|F`$ is the initial state of Eve’s probe, and the $`|F_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ are again not necessarily normalised or orthogonal, but obey the unitarity conditions:

$`F_{00}|F_{00}+F_{01}|F_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (5)
$`F_{10}|F_{10}+F_{11}|F_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (6)
$`F_{00}|F_{10}+F_{01}|F_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (7)
The resulting global state of the pair and the probe is:

$$|\psi ^{}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}}{}\frac{|F_{\alpha ,\beta }}{\sqrt{2}}|\alpha _+|\beta _+.$$
(8)
However, because of the unitarity conditions (Eqn. (5,6,7)), the global state obtained by Eve when she is only accessing one of the photons is not as general as the state she can obtain when she can access both as in Eqn. (1). Therefore this proves that the eavesdropping strategy in which Eve controls the source (i.e. both photons) is potentially stronger than the strategy in which she is allowed to eavesdrop on only one photon.

We now turn our attention to a symmetric subclass of incoherent attacks against E$`91`$ in which Eve controls the source. We derive the probability that Eve guesses Alice’s bit correctly as a function of the error probability that Alice and Bob can estimate from comparing a fraction of the key bits they obtain.

Let $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_+,|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+\}`$ be a basis for the polarisation state of a single photon. We define its conjugate basis $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_\times ,|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_\times \}`$ by $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_\times =(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_++|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_\times =(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$. For any $`b\{+,\times \}`$ we use the shorthand notation $`|\alpha \beta _b`$ for the state of a pair of photons in which Alice’s photon is in state $`|\alpha _b`$ and Bob’s photon in the state $`|\beta _b`$. We define the Bell basis $`\{|\underset{¯}{0},|\underset{¯}{1},|\underset{¯}{2},|\underset{¯}{3}\}`$ for the pair of photons Alice and Bob receive by $`|\underset{¯}{0}=(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}_++|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|\underset{¯}{1}=(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}_+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|\underset{¯}{2}=(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}_++|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`|\underset{¯}{3}=(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}_+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$. In the most general incoherent attack, Eve prepares two single photons and a probe in any pure state $`|\psi =_{c=0}^3|E_c|\underset{¯}{c}`$, where for simplicity we use the Bell basis. The kets for the probe, $`|E_c`$ as previously mentioned are not necessarily normalised or orthogonal, but nevertheless have to obey the overall normalisation relation $`_{c=0}^3E_c|E_c=1`$. It is straightforward to check that

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|E_0+|E_1}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}_++{\displaystyle \frac{|E_2+|E_3}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}_+`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{|E_2|E_3}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_++{\displaystyle \frac{|E_0|E_1}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}_+`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|E_0+|E_2}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}_\times +{\displaystyle \frac{|E_1|E_3}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}_\times `$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{|E_1+|E_3}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_\times +{\displaystyle \frac{|E_0|E_2}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}_\times .`$
Eve sends each of the photons to Alice and Bob. After public communication between Alice and Bob, Eve then performs any measurement on her probe. We say that an incoherent attack is furthermore *symmetric* if and only if for any common choice of basis, the probability distribution of Alice’s bit is uniform irrespective of whether or not Alice and Bob share the same bit value.

Given that Eve is restricted to performing an incoherent symmetric attack, the above condition requires that $`\mathrm{Pr}(\alpha =0,\beta =0|\text{ basis }b)=\mathrm{Pr}(\alpha =1,\beta =1|\text{ basis }b)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pr}(\alpha =0,\beta =1|\text{ basis }b)=\mathrm{Pr}(\alpha =1,\beta =0|\text{ basis }b)`$ for any choice of basis $`b`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{}E_0|E_1=\mathrm{}E_2|E_3=\mathrm{}E_0|E_2=\mathrm{}E_1|E_3=0`$.

The probability that Alice and Bob fail to share the same bit value given that they have chosen the same basis $`b\{+,\times \}`$ reads:

$`ϵ_b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[\text{1}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}_b{}_{b}{}^{}01|+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_{b}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}10|)|\psi \psi |]`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}z+t& \text{ if }b=+,\hfill \\ y+t& \text{ if }b=\times \hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
where the identity operator acts on the Hilbert space of the probe and where we have used the shorthand notation $`x=E_0|E_0`$, $`y=E_1|E_1`$, $`z=E_2|E_2`$ and $`t=E_3|E_3`$.

We assume that, after public discussion between Alice and Bob, Eve is aware of their chosen basis, and whether or not their measurements yielded the same bit value. From this data Eve’s objective is to guess Alice’s bit value $`\alpha `$. Assuming that Alice and Bob chose the basis $`b=+`$ and that their measurement returned the same bit value, we see from Eqn. (10) that Eve has to find out whether her probe is in the state $`\frac{|E_0+|E_1}{\sqrt{x+y}}`$, corresponding to $`\alpha =0`$ or in the state $`\frac{|E_0|E_1}{\sqrt{x+y}}`$ corresponding to $`\alpha =1`$. Given a quantum system that is equally likely to be in either the state $`|\eta `$ or $`|\chi `$, it is known that the optimal probability of guessing this state correctly is $`P_c=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1|\eta |\chi |^2}`$ . In our case, Eve’s probability of guessing correctly is:

$$P_{c|\text{share},b=+}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{xy}{x+y}\right)^2}.$$
(17)
If Alice and Bob chose the basis $`b=+`$, but that their measurements returned different bit values, Eve has to find out whether her probe is in the state $`\frac{|E_2+|E_3}{\sqrt{y+z}}`$ or $`\frac{|E_2|E_3}{\sqrt{y+z}}`$. Eve’s probability of guessing correctly is now:

$$P_{c|\text{not share},b=+}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{zt}{z+t}\right)^2}.$$
(18)
Similar calculations in the conjugate basis give:

$`P_{c|\text{share},b=\times }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{xz}{x+z}}\right)^2}\text{ and,}`$ (19)
$`P_{c|\text{not share},b=\times }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{yt}{y+t}}\right)^2}.`$ (20)
Given that the choice of the basis $`b`$ is uniformly distributed, the marginal probability that Eve guesses Alice’s bit correctly is:

$`P_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ_+}{2}}P_{c|\text{share},b=+}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_+}{2}}P_{c|\text{not share},b=+}`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ_\times }{2}}P_{c|\text{share},b=\times }+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\times }{2}}P_{c|\text{not share},b=\times }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{xy}+\sqrt{zt}+\sqrt{xz}+\sqrt{yt}\right)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{1ϵ_+x}+\sqrt{1ϵ_\times x}\right)`$ (25)
$`\times \left(\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{x+ϵ_++ϵ_\times 1}\right),`$
where we have used the normalisation condition $`x+y+z+t=1`$. Since $`y`$, $`z`$ and $`t`$ are non negative numbers, the domain for $`x`$ is $`[1ϵ_+ϵ_\times ,1\mathrm{max}(ϵ_+,ϵ_\times )]`$.

Now given the average error probability $`\overline{ϵ}=\frac{ϵ_++ϵ_\times }{2}`$, the above probability of a correct guess is maximal when $`ϵ_+=ϵ_\times =\overline{ϵ}`$. In other words, given the average error probability, the eavesdropping strategy that maximises the average probability of correct guess is the one for which the error probability is independent of the choice of basis. The resulting probability of correct guess:

$$P_c=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{1\overline{ϵ}x}\left(\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{2\overline{ϵ}+x1}\right)$$
(26)
reaches its maximum for $`x=12\overline{ϵ}+\overline{ϵ}^2`$ at which point:

$$P_c=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\overline{ϵ}(1\overline{ϵ})}.$$
(27)
The above formula is identical to the formula obtained by Cirac and Gisin  in their study of the security of BB$`84`$ against a class of incoherent attacks with similar conditions for symmetry (see Fig. 1). The fact that our incoherent symmetric eavesdropping strategy has effectively the same power as the BB$`84`$ incoherent symmetric eavesdropping strategy is surprising. This is particularly so given that the maximally entangled state $`|00_++|11_+`$ has the following interesting property:

$$AI(|00_++|11_+)=IA^T(|00_++|11_+),$$
(28)
where $`A`$ is any operator. This implies that any operation on one qubit can be executed remotely by performing the transpose of that operation on the other qubit, providing that the state of the two qubits is maximally entangled. In spite of this, there is no operator $`C`$ such that

$$AB(|00_++|11_+)=IC(|00_++|11_+),$$
(29)
which is why the two qubit attack is strictly more general than the single qubit attack. This is of course because the operation represented by $`B`$ will in general result in a non-maximally entangled state which no longer has the property of remote execution of operations.

Note that the above result can also be expressed as a trade-off between the error rate and the mutual information obtained by Eve about the nature of the state communicated by Alice to Bob. In this case we have a situation equivalent to a binary symmetric channel so that the mutual information is the capacity of that channel and is given by

$$I=1+P_c\mathrm{log}P_c+(1P_c)\mathrm{log}(1P_c).$$
(30)
As before, the greater the mutual information gained by Eve the greater the (detectable) error rate induced in the communication.

In this paper we have analysed a symmetric incoherent eavesdropping strategy in E$`91`$ quantum key distribution protocol. We have assumed that Eve controls preparation of the entangled photons. In spite of this, we have found that there is no benefit for the purpose of eavesdropping when compared to symmetric incoherent eavesdropping in BB$`84`$. We hope that this stimulates further investigation into entanglement based quantum cryptography.

This work was supported in part by the European TMR Research Network ERP-4061PL95-1412, Hewlett Packard and Elsag plc. We gratefully acknowledge intersting discussion with Hans Briegel, Artur Ekert, Norbert Lütkenhaus and Dominic Mayers.


text:
# WHY CANONICAL DISKS CANNOT PRODUCE ADVECTION DOMINATED FLOWS

## 1 Introduction

Recently, the need to explain black hole candidate spectra and the low luminosity of some galactic nuclei, supposed to contain a black hole, prompted more attention to advective accretion disk models (Narayan and Yi, 1995) The basic idea is that the gravitational energy content doesn’t go into local radiation emission as in standard thin and cool keplerian disks (let us call SSD) (Shakura and Sunyaev, 1973), but goes into heating and into radial motion. Therefore a new class of disks has been proposed: ADAF (Advection Dominated Accretion Disks). These disk models take into account the advection and pressure terms in the fluid-dynamics equations. Indeed, exact solutions of accretion flows (including viscosity, but only for isothermal cases) have been found years ago by S. Chakrabarti (1990). Literature has been enriched by many kinds of such advective disks with different physical properties, see Bisnovatyi-Kogan (1999) for an extensive review. We will examine the very simple ADAF models initially proposed (Narayan and Yi 1995; Narayan, Kato and Honma, 1997; Igumeshev, Abramowicz and Novikov, 1998; Dullemond and Turolla,1998; Lu, Gu and Yuan, 1999), i.e. the ones without any cooling. As stated by the authors, although this model may appear very crude, it contains the basic ingredients: the role of pressure gradient and of the advection term. Analytical solutions have been obtained only for the self similar case (Narayan and Yi, 1995), but this approximation is not tenable for the case of BH accretion, since all standard ADAF solutions rely on the conditions at the sonic point, which is close to the BH.

Other solutions have been typically obtained with numerical integration of the steady state equations. The most used technique is the relaxation method with boundary conditions given by ’reasonable’ physical approximations. In all works it is under laying the meaningful but ’a priori’ idea that necessarily the ADAF must spring out of a canonical disk. So all the numerical procedures compel the solutions to fit the standard kepler disk. It is worthwhile to add that it is well known that the relaxations methods can relax onto unphysical solutions.

A simple energy consideration gives a cutting argument against the possible smooth convergence of ADAF to SSD disks. The fact that self similar solution by Narayan and Yi cannot be automatically connected to cold thin disks has already been indicated by Kato and Nakamura (1998). Here we point out that even the more sophisticated (not self similar) ADAF cannot have an asymptotic approach to the SSD models. We conclude that, possibly, standard ’plain’ ADAF models are ’numerically forced’ solutions and the claimed asymptotic approach to a keplerian disk is not demonstrated.

## 2 Basic equations

In the ’plain’ ADAF model it is assumed that it doesn’t contain any diffusive term and the cooling processes are irrelevant, as occurring on timescales much longer than the advection fall time. No heat conduction is considered as in Narayan and Yi (1995), Narayan, Kato and Honma (1997), Dullemond and Turolla (1998). Then the basic equations are the ones given by classical viscous fluid dynamics. We adopt newtonian physics and the black hole force on the fluid can be derived from the appropriate Paczyński and Wiita potential (1980). This is also a standard procedure in many papers. On the other hand the classical approach makes more clear the basic physical point without inessential complications due to an exact relativistic treatment.

Therefore an exact disk solution has to obey the following equations:

Mass conservation

$$\stackrel{.}{M}=r\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r=const$$

Radial momentum equation

$$v_r\frac{dv_r}{dr}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }}{dr}G\frac{M_{}}{\left(rr_g\right)^2}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{r^3}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are the vertically integrated density and pressure,

Stress definition

$$\tau _{r\varphi }=\eta r\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{r}$$

where $`\eta =\alpha \rho aZ_{disk}`$ with $`a=\sqrt{\gamma \frac{P}{\rho }}`$ is the sound speed,

Angular momentum equation

$$\frac{\rho v_r}{r}\frac{d\lambda }{dr}=\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{}{r}\left(r^2\tau _{r\varphi }\right)$$

that leads to

$$\stackrel{.}{M}\lambda =4\pi r^2\tau _{r\varphi }+\stackrel{.}{J}$$

Vertical equilibrium gives the disk thickness

$$Z_{disk}=\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Omega }_k}$$

Energy equation

$$\frac{d\epsilon }{dt}=v_r\frac{d\epsilon }{dr}=\frac{P}{\rho }\frac{1}{r}\frac{d\left(rv_r\right)}{dr}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\rho }$$

with $`\epsilon `$ thermal energy per unit mass, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the dissipation function given by : $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\left(\tau _{r\varphi }\right)^2}{\eta }`$ .

Equation of state

$$P=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho \epsilon $$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is the keplerian angular velocity, all other terms have their standard meaning accepted in the referenced papers.

## 3 Boundary conditions

With the help of the energy equation, that will be discussed in the next section, our problem is reduced to solve a set of 3 algebraic equations (vertical equilibrium, mass, energy) and two differential equations (radial momentum and angular momentum). The existence of sonic points, requiring the continuity of the variables and of the speed derivatives, links these boundary conditions. In particular, once the sonic point is determined, then also the derivative of the radial speed at that point is fixed. The derivation of the analytical formula of $`\frac{V_r}{r}`$ at the sonic point is algebraically complicated but straighforward. The usual assumption $`\frac{\lambda }{r}=0`$ at the sonic point is reasonable only for sonic point close to the BH and for low viscosities, and it is not true in general. Due to the different approaches to the numerical solutions (relaxation from fixed inner and outer points, standard Runge-Kutta integration from sonic point) there is no consensus on the exactness of the adopted boundary conditions. Our solutions are computed integrating the equations starting from the sonic point with the appropriate analytical derivative values calculated by the De L’Hopital rule. Artemova et al. (2001) using a similar treatment of the sonic point conditions have obtained subkeplerian flows starting from canonical disks. However their results don’t disprove our conclusions, since they refer to disks obtained taking into account radiation transfer and using different viscosity prescriptions. Apart any further consideration on boundary conditions, we show that some crucial conditions are imposed by the energy equation.

## 4  The energy argument

An interesting point, apparently not exploited in ADAF context, although appearing in many papers ( Hoshi 1984, Honma 1996) is the fact that it is possible to have a constant energy property, reformulating the energy equation in the floowing way.

$$div[\rho 𝐯(\frac{1}{2}𝐯^2+\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)+h)𝐯:𝐓]=0$$

$`h=\frac{P}{\rho }+\epsilon `$ is the enthalpy, T  is the stress tensor.

This expression, after insertion of the stress definition, integrating over Z, and using the mass conservation equation, in general gives the following relationship, even in the differential form of the viscosity tensor:

$$\frac{1}{2}v_r^2G\frac{M_{}}{\left(rr_g\right)}+\frac{a^2}{\left(\gamma 1\right)}\frac{\lambda ^2}{2r^2}+\frac{\lambda \lambda _e}{r^2}=\frac{const}{\stackrel{}{M}}$$

$`\lambda _e`$ is the angular momentum at the inner edge of the disk, usually set equal to the value corresponding to the last stable orbit around the Black Hole.

The energy equation is valid over the whole ADAF solution up to the eventual crossing point with the keplerian disk. A smooth transition between ADAF and SSD disk requires a continuous smooth limit of the ADAF quantities to the SSD quantities: temperature, radial speed, density, etc.;

What is crucial in this formula is that, at the crossing point of the solutions, where the angular momentum is keplerian, the following relation is obviously valid

$$\frac{\lambda _k^2}{2r^2}\frac{\lambda _k\lambda _e}{r^2}$$

since it is reasonable and common to choose $`\lambda _e\lambda _k`$. Now, if the ADAF solution has to smoothly match a standard keplerian disk at a radial distance far from the BH $`\left(rr_g\right)`$ , we can substitute $`\lambda `$ with $`\lambda _k`$; another reasonable and usual assumption is that at the match point the flow be subsonic (Igumenshchev et al., 1998).

Therefore at the crossing point $`r_+`$ we must have :

$$\frac{a^2}{\left(\gamma 1\right)}=K+\frac{GM_{}}{r_+}+\frac{\lambda _k^2}{2r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=K+\frac{3}{2}\frac{GM_{}}{r_+}$$

Now, requiring that the energy constant be of the same (or of the same order) of the energy per unit mass of a standard keplerian disk, i.e. $`K=\frac{1}{2}\frac{GM_{}}{r}`$ , we have :

$$\frac{a^2}{\left(\gamma 1\right)}=\frac{GM_{}}{r_+}$$

$`\frac{GM_{}}{r_+}`$ corresponds to the virial temperature , much larger than the standard temperature of a canonical thin keplerian disk. We have a strong inconsistency: the ADAF temperature, at the matching point, is always much larger than the canonical keplerian disk temperature (Frank, King and Raine 1992).

Indeed Lu et al. (1999) use our same numerical approach (i.e. starting from sonic point) and apparently they find cases with a smooth convergence from ADAF to SSD; but it is worth nothing that their parameter space, corresponding to Narayan ADAF model, has zero measure. Those configurations lie on a line in their parameter space $`R_s`$ , $`\lambda _e`$. Therefore they can be obtained only for a single $`\lambda _e`$ if the sonic point is given.

## 5 Solutions

We performed several integrations using the direct method, starting from the sonic point inwards and outwards. Figure 1. shows the result of the Runge-Kutta integration of our equations. It is plotted the angular momentum per unit mass versus the radial distance for $`\alpha =`$0.005, 0.01, 0.02. As the viscosity increases the angular momentum crosses the keplerian angular momentum at distances closer to the BH. Figure 2. shows the sound speed and the Mach number for the same $`\alpha `$ values. The sound speed at the crossing point doesn’t go to extremely low values. The values we obtain are exactly the ones predicted by the energy equation and go to a finite limit at a finite radius located beyond the keplerian crossing point. The angular momentum of ADAF solutions crosses the kepler angular momentum value in a non smooth way. The exact solution continues beyond that point and stops at a larger distance with disk conditions (temperature, density, radial speed) not corresponding to the canonical keplerian disk. Our correct ADAF solutions are ’per se’ standing solutions. This kind of solutions is a particular case of the more general solutions drawn by Chakrabarti and Titarchuck (1995) and Chakrabarti (1996), who explored a more general case including an ’ad hoc’ cooling treatment. We add a further comment on the shock or no shock solutions, since many authors consider the Chakrabarti solutions untenable as the shock he finds had not been confirmed by their calculations. As has been pointed out in early works (Liang and Thompson, 1980) there are many sonic points in the flow solutions. The flow on a black hole has no rigid surface and shock occurs only in solutions passing through the outer sonic point as clearly demonstrated by Chakrabarti (1990) and Chakrabarti and Molteni (1993). All the ADAF solutions we are discussing pass through the inner sonic point, so it is quite obvious that no shock can occur in these branches: the flow is supersonic only after the sonic point which is close to the black hole horizon. Lanzafame et al. (1998) tested these solutions with a time dependent code and found that these solutions are stable, while the standard ADAF solutions have been demonstrated unstable by numerical simulations (Igumenshchev and Abramovicz, 1996).

## 6 Conclusions

We conclude that plain ADAF solutions that don’t respect the full set of sonic point conditions, including derivatives at sonic point, are incorrect. However, since ADAF models seem to offer explanation of relevant phenomena, to account for their existence, and in particular for the formation of a hot comptonizing corona, we propose that a subkeplerian thin flow is existing by itself, superposed to the standard keplerian disk. In accretion occurring in Active Galactic Nuclei this subkeplerian flows could easily come from the star cluster, that is known to have a very slow average rotation (Ho, 1999). In low mass binary system this subkepler flow could come from a wind induced by the high energy radiation impinging on the normal star surface, or from gas recirculating in the binary potential well (Bisikalo et al., 1998). We are also testing the hypothesis that a physically motivated change in Z of the viscosity prescription can lead to differentially rotating flows.


text:
# Who is the Inflaton?11footnote 1Talk given at the Corfu School and Workshop of Theoretical Physics 2001

### Introduction

In addition to all else, the major scientific revolutions of the 20th century, quantum mechanics and relativity, have made it possible to envision cosmogenesis on a rational basis. Moreover, the theoretical approach that is envisioned has the potentiality (which has at present to some extent been realized), of making contact with present day cosmological observations.

The full awareness of this potentiality came in the late 70’s and early 80’s. It was first pointed out  that gravity together with the quantum theory of matter allowed for the creation of matter ex nihilo. At the same time it was shown that creation of matter at a constant rate gave rise to an exponential expansion of the scale factor , now called inflation and that this cured the perplexing problems of causality  and flatness  posed by the Friedman Robertson Walker adiabatic expansion. A glance at Figure 1 is sufficient to give one a rough appreciation of the causality problem and how one envisions its solution in terms of creation i.e. cosmogenesis.

Now one gathers information contained within the backward light cone as drawn. At big bang time $`\left(t_B\right)`$, this backward extrapolation ceases to make sense, if the space-like surface at $`t=t_B`$ contains $`1`$ degree of freedom per planckian cell. There must be at least $`10^{90}`$ such cells since this is the number of degrees of freedom present within the horizon now, and this number is conserved during the adiabatic expansion (to $`𝒪(1)`$). Though on the way from $`t_B`$ to now there is some contact among the degrees of freedom due to scattering, this is far from enough to account for the observed homogeneity of the CMBR or galaxy distribution (see  chapter 8 for details). Therefore the homogeneity required at $`t=t_B`$ should result from a prior cause. It is postulated that there is a germ, $`G`$, from which energy is created and that the region, which contains this energy, expands exponentially. This will be realized in the time interval between $`G`$ and $`t_B`$ if the energy density remains approximately constant within the region where the energy is created. This is inflation.

An approach similar to that of  was also suggested during this early period which was based on vacuum energy in the form of the trace anomaly . Whereas these early attempts were based essentially on production of kinetic energy, be it in the form of particles , black holes  or zero point energy , a new tactic was introduced in the early 80’s which relied on potential energy. The first idea in this vein was latent heat released in a first order phase transition . It was postulated that the universe cooled down from a prior state of high temperature whereupon at some point the matter contained within would condense. But it was recognized at once  that this approach could not work. The condensed phase would be delivered in bubbles which would be swept out by the expansion too fast to allow for their coalescence. In addition I find that such a scenario would be epistemologically dissatisfying. If one is out to solve the causality problem, then one would hope that the cause in question is the cause of the universe i.e. one would like cosmogenesis and inflation to go together. To push the ultimate problem further backwards in time is, in a sense, to escape the problem. But this is merely my subjective opinion.

Fortunately, this approach could be modified through the invention of “slow roll” mechanisms . This removed the problem of non coalescence of bubbles since there would be time enough. Moreover in Linde’s hands  chaotic inflation came into being. We shall not here enter into details of how Linde envisages fluctuations within fluctuations, but simply give that part of the idea which we shall adopt in the foregoing. (We also refer the reader to  for further consideration of this question of fractalizing the fluctuation). The point of view we shall take here is that there is a state of rest in which there is no universe. But because of quantum mechanics the “stuff” in this space fluctuates. The stuff is complicated in its nature. Only at the long distance scale (and here we adopt the traditional point of view that the only fundamental scale is planckian) does usual field theory apply. The short distance scale is described by a “planckian soup”, the present great unknown of physics. It may involve higher dimensions and/or non-commutative geometry and/or strings and/or black hole fluctuations and/or… Whatever, we shall only suppose that it is described by a density or, if one wishes, a scale which is planckian. The abovementioned state of rest is interpreted variationally. The mean density in this state is postulated to be the state of minimum energy density in which there is no expansion of the scale factor in the metric that describes this state. We shall postulate that this space time is flat i.e. $`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ being the energy momentum tensor of everything.222François Englert has suggested to me that I could well let up on my stringent assumptions and introduce a small fundamental cosmological constant to describe this state. This would not do injustice to the sequel. For the novice I conform to what is most simple and most natural (perhaps ?).

This quiescent state of things is conceived as metastable. Fluctuations that are small both in amplitude and extension will regress and leave no permanent effects. But now comes this wonderous conjunction of quantum mechanics and relativity.

In the hamiltonian formulation of general relativity, the total energy density of gravity + matter sums to zero.

Instrumental in the realization of this fact is that the kinetic energy carried by the motion of the scale factor, $`a`$, is negative (i.e. in the hamiltonian density there is a term in $`\left(H^2\right)`$ where $`H`$ is the Hubble constant: $`H=\left(\dot{a}/a\right)`$, where dot is derivative with respect to proper time). Thus the positive energy density of a fluctuation of matter density is necessarily accompanied by $`H0`$, so as to keep the energy density equal to zero. This constraint is strict; even in the future when fundamental theory will relegate the Einsteinian theory of gravity to successful long scale phenomenology it will probably survive. It is due to the invariance of the total action against reparametrezation of the temporal coordinate and one would be loath to give up such a fundamental principle in whatever guise it will express itself in future theory.

It is herein that opens the possibility of permanent effects of a fluctuation. If this latter is large enough in amplitude (to allow for a systematic temporal development) and in extension (so as to render spatial gradients sufficiently small in energy as compared to the total energy of the fluctuation) then it will be seized upon by the scale factor and will expand exponentially immediately after its formation. After a while the fluctuation will nevertheless regress and one postulates its energy is converted to ordinary quanta whereupon the entropy so produced remains constant and FRW adiabatic expansion ensues.

At the present time, the formal development of the above scenario is executed in terms of a scalar field. All the aforementioned concepts fall neatly into this development and furthermore, detailed quantitative analysis has shown that it is possible to account for presently observed density fluctuations both of the anisotropy of the CMBR and the distribution of galaxies. For details see , chapter 8, and the lectures of Lazarides at this summer school and workshop at Corfu 2001.

It is my purpose here to dwell on the possible nature of this fundamental fluctuation, often called the ”inflaton” field albeit in highly speculative fashion. Who is he, this inflaton ?

My inspiration has been in great measure drawn from the experience that has been garnered from the theory of black hole physics over the past decades and which finds it expression, in the 2-fluid phenomenology that has been developed in recent years .

### The Cosmological Fluid vs its Material Counterpart

The theory of Hawking evaporation  from black holes, (and we take as the simplest example s-wave emission form Schwarzchild black holes) encounters the transplanckian problem. In the original version of the theory, Hawking studied free field propagation in the background Schwarzchild metric. He showed that a vacuum fluctuation in the vicinity of the horizon, as it propagates towards spatial infinity, is possessed of an amplitude which in part becomes that of a physical on massshell quantum due to the changing metric it experiences in its voyage. The distribution of these quanta is thermal, at least for frequencies of the order of or larger than the inverse horizon distance $`m_{pl}^2/M`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the black hole. In the derivation of this remarkable phenomenon one appeals to configurations of fields which are localized to within fantastically small distances of the horizon $`\mathrm{\Delta }rMe^{\alpha M}`$ (where $`\alpha =𝒪(1)`$). Here and from now on we work in planckian units $`m_{pl}=1`$. Correspondingly the energies involved in such configurations are $`M^1e^{\alpha M}`$ and this, for a macroscopic black hole where $`M10^{60}`$, is ridiculously large.

Since gravitational interaction grows with the product of the energies of the interacting entities it is seen that the modes which contribute to Hawking radiation interact extremely strongly in the regions from whence they come in order to deliver their asymptotic flux. Therefore the picture of free mode propagation breaks down. Unruh  has shown nevertheless that this does not kill the effect. All that one requires is a condition that had been previously proposed by Jacobson , to wit : at some finite distance from the horizon one still has vacuum conditions. A likely distance is $`O\left(1\right)`$ i.e. $`m_{pl}^1`$ . Unruh showed that if one tinkered with the dispersion relation, $`\omega \left(k\right)`$, in a manner similar to that of phonons in fluids where $`\omega `$ cuts off at $`k=\left(\text{interparticle distance}\right)^1`$, then Jacobson’s condition is met i.e. Hawking radiation is robust. Unruh’s analysis was numerical, but it has also been demonstrated analytically .

Since then, other models have been proposed, one based on a deformed commutator  and another which takes into account scattering between incoming and outgoing modes . In these latter cases backward extrapolation of the emitted Hawking quantum results in its disappearance once it enters into a region which is localized around the horizon, which one supposes is given on the planckian scale (at least in ; in  this specification is more complicated). In both cases Hawking steady state radiation in asymptotia is maintained whereupon the picture emerges that the quanta boil off from a horizon region, i.e. there is some kind of planckian soup which serves as a reservoir of “cisplanckian” quanta.

All of this to motivate a two-fluid picture of space-time and the matter in it, wherein the large length scale physics is described by conventional field theory, modes (and their interactions) which propagate in a fluid which describes the physics at small length scale. The scale at which the dichotomy takes place is the cut-off of modes, hence proportional to $`n^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ where $`n`$ is a parameter which describes the density of modes. We expect $`n=𝒪\left(m_{pl}^3\right)`$.

Our experience in black hole physics has emboldened us to take this picture seriously. Hawking radiation is, in no small measure, as solid as thermodynamics (for the eternal black hole this statement is based on the periodic structure of Green’s functions in imaginary time in Schwarzchild coordinates in the region of space-time where this description is appropriate. It is also a necessary concomitant to the elimination of unphysical singularities in $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ in the region of the horizon). We know that the mode picture must fail once we reach planckian scales owing to mode-mode interactions so that beyond that scale, strong interaction physics take over. And this we do not how to formulate. But the one acid test where quantum field theory is confronted with strong effects of gravity, the black hole, has taught us that we can account correctly for a phenomenom which is solidly established, Hawking emission, using this cut-off low momentum sector whilst remaining non committal concerning the nature of the planckian soup. And further from  and , this soup serves as reservoir for the low momentum modes.

What does this have to do about the inflaton and the primordial cosmogenetic germ? The answer lies in quantum mechanics. The collective variable, $`n`$, appears in our description of the wave function of everything. Therefore it fluctuates. Moreover it fluctuates locally. It is a field $`n=n(x,t)`$. Our proposition is that at least one piece of the physics that is described phenomenologically by an inflaton field is the fluctuation of $`n`$. There may be more to the inflaton than $`n`$ alone, due to the dynamics of matter. For example supersymmetry and its breaking may have important physical repercussions on how $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ fluctuates. But, given our present appreciation of gravity in its quantum context, fluctuations of $`n`$ are inevitable. Whether this is ultimately determinant, (i.e. whether the fluctuation of $`n`$ is the germ) is a quantitative question which requires further research. In the foregoing paragraphs I shall simply indicate that the fluctuation of $`n`$ has the qualitative attributes that one attributes to the inflaton field. Hopefully more quantitative support (or negation) will emerge in subsequent work.

One very important question is that of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. I am assuming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ in the initial quiescent universeless state (at least in the region of space-time that holds our universe). I am therefore waiving the interesting problem posed by the existence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ now, which appears to the same order of magnitude of the present energy density $`10^{122}m_{pl}^4`$. This seems more like a tuning problem than the fundamental issue we are facing here where by all rights one might have expected $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_{pl}^4`$ .

The answer to why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ at the beginning may be presumed to be hidden in the variational principle which fixes $`n`$ i.e. in the quiescent state one has $`ϵ/n|{}_{n=n}{}^{}=0`$ where $`ϵ`$ the mean energy density. One must find out why $`ϵ\left(n=n\right)=0`$.

The question is nigh to impossible to answer. This is because the energy of space-time in this 2 fluid picture takes the form

$$ϵ\left(n\right)=ϵ_{mode}\left(n\right)+ϵ_{soup}\left(n\right)+\text{(interactions between soup and modes)}$$
(1)
We only know something about $`ϵ_{mode}\left(n\right)`$ e.g. the zero point contribution is $`n^{\frac{4}{3}}`$. Of all the rest we are ignorant.

There are two points of view which one can adopt in setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. One is the time honored procedure of blind substraction. This can be couched in somewhat more elegant terms as a sort of Aristotelian principle of absolute rest, to wit: gravity does not respond to the configuration of fields which is at the rock bottom of $`ϵ\left(n\right)`$. It only responds to the fluctuations i.e. to $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\left(n\right)=ϵ\left(n\right)ϵ\left(n\right)`$ where $`ϵ\left(n\right)`$ is the value of $`ϵ\left(n\right)`$ at its minimum.

The alternative possibility is that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is a principle, say as fundamental as the principle of equivalence. This would fix $`ϵ\left(n\right)=0`$. The implication is that there is a balancing out of parameters which appear in the various terms of (1), which arranges things just so. (Using foam models it is easy to make such constructions, but they are on no more nor less fundamental grounds that the more usual ad hoc subtraction).

Be that as it may, an expansion about $`n`$ leads to

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\left(n\right)\frac{1}{2}B\left(\delta n\right)^2$$
(2)
where $`\delta n=nn`$ ; $`B=^2ϵ/n^2|_{n=n}`$

An important point is to realize the difference in consequences of (2) when one compares the cosmological fluid to a stable material fluid where (2) would also apply (say to a superfluid at zero temperature). The difference lies in the conservation of the elements (atoms) which make up the latter and their non conservation in the former. (For example, in the naive model of foam made up of instantons, in virtue of the very word, these entities come and go).

At this point, it is meet to set out an important caveat. It has been argued in  that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ in virtue of stability. This argument is insufficient because it is based on conservation of the number of atoms. It is worth setting out the argument since it then allows one to appreciate why density fluctuations are massless in the case of material liquids, but massy in the cosmological case.

Consider a superfluid at zero temperature. It is stable i.e.

$$p=\left(E/V\right)_{N,T=0}=0$$
(3)
An observer inside the fluid uses the grand ensemble to describe his physics i.e. within the volume, $`V`$, which is within his scope of observation, particles come and go and this is accounted for by making use of the energy in $`V`$ which we will denote by $`\stackrel{~}{E}\left(V\right)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{E}\left(V\right)=E\left(V\right)\mu N$$
(4)
where $`N`$ is the average value of $`N`$ in $`V`$ and $`\mu `$ = chemical potential ; $`\mu =\left(G/N\right)_{p,T}`$ and at $`T=0`$, $`G=E+pV`$. Also since $`p=0`$ in virtue of stability we have $`G=E`$, whence

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{E}/V=ϵ\mu n=0$$
(5)
The conditions $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=p=0`$ are translated into zero cosmological constant.

The argument is not applicable to the cosmological fluid since $`N`$ is not conserved whence $`/V|_N`$ is not a physical variation. Rather $`p=dE/dV`$ at $`T=0`$ i.e. as $`V`$ varies, $`N`$ can vary with it to keep the density $`n`$ (whose average is $`N/V`$) at its optimal value. In other words, as $`V`$ varies particles can pop in and out of the vacuum so as to keep $`N/V`$ fixed. Therefore stability does not imply $`p=0`$.

The true variational principle in this case is

$$\mu =\left(E/N\right)_V=0$$
(6)
One is generally led to believe that $`\mu =0`$ when number is not conserved is a negative statement. If you don’t need it then it is zero. In the present case, this is also true, but it is a more powerful statement than usual in that (6) fixes the density to be optimal. It also implies $`ϵ/n|{}_{n=n}{}^{}=0`$. And this is a far cry from $`ϵ\left(n=n\right)=0`$.

What (6) does imply is that the mean energy of the ground state of the cosmological fluid is delivered in the form of a cosmological constant. Indeed

$$\mu =ϵ+p=0$$
(7)
means $`p=ϵ`$. In general relativity this means $`T_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }`$ where in this case $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is flat. But, to repeat, one must further to prove $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and this is a great problem which continues to be vexing.

Let us now continue with (2) and show that it invites the proposition that $`\delta n`$ is a massy scalar field which describes density fluctuations in the cosmological fluid, hence having the property that one associates with the inflaton. The physics, once more, is brought out by comparison with the material fluid.

Because $`N`$ is conserved in the material fluid density fluctuations have no zero Fourier component. Thus there must be no physical manifestation of the $`k=0`$ component of $`\delta n(r,t)`$, whence $`\omega \left(k=0\right)=0`$. If this is the terminal point of a continuous spectrum than the mass of the field $`\delta n(r,t)`$ is zero. The way this is realized is to compute the pressure gradient that is induced by a density gradient $`p=Bn`$. This pressure gradient causes acceleration of the fluid element (i.e. temporal variations in the fluid current $`j`$). Using the equation of continuity, $`n/t+j=0`$, then straightforwardly one produces the wave equation for sound with $`\omega ^2\left(k\right)Bk^2`$.

What is important is that all the energy of a fluctuation is in the spatial gradients plus the acceleration that these induce in the form of kinetic energy i.e. $`E(n)^2+\frac{1}{c^2}\dot{n}^2`$ for small fluctuations where $`c`$ is the velocity of sound, $`c\sqrt{B/m}`$.

Now consider the cosmological fluid. Here the $`k=0`$ component does exist. Thus one can have a fluctuation profile which looks like Figure 2.

This is the form one is talking about in inflation and indeed it is how one thinks about the germ. And there is no reason in the world why such fluctuations of $`n`$ should not exist. In addition to the usual energy lodged in gradient terms as in regions $`A`$, there is present a flat region $`B`$ where the gradient vanishes or is small. Nevertheless its energy exists. It is pulled out of the quiescent configuration because absolute quiescence is not a quantum concept; $`\left[ϵ\left(n\right)ϵ\left(n\right)\right]0`$ can come about by changing the density of modes and or soup in a region without recourse to $`n0`$ in that region. Thus the term $`\frac{1}{2}B\left(\delta n\right)^2`$ can and does contribute to $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2`$ where $`\phi `$ and $`m`$ are a scalar field (the inflaton) and its mass.

Of course gradients will exist in any finite size fluctuation and they will carry energy. On grounds of covariance their action will be proportional to $`g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi `$. To calculate the relative weights of these kinetic terms as compared to the potential term is a dynamical problem which must be addressed.

To assert that the inflaton is $`\delta n`$ is premature. Various models must be tested to see if the parameters one comes by are acceptable. But it is fairly clear that whatever the inflaton turns out to be, the fluctuation of the fundamental “stuff” which we now contemplate as the point of departure for the formulation of quantum gravity must play some rôle. It may be one element of a highly complex process involving any one of the number of candidates presently considered at the foundation of matter and gravity, or for all we know it may be the whole story.

We close this rather unsatisfactory speculative discourse with some additional remarks.

1) Since $`n`$ is proportional to the density of modes (essentially $`n^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ is the cut-off), fluctuations of $`n`$ will cause not only fluctuations of mode density. Some of these fluctuations will end up as those which one calls upon to account for present fluctuations of the CMBR and structure. Another part will cause the production of quanta due to the nonadiabatic variation $`\left(\delta \dot{n}0\right)`$. Since $`\delta n`$ regresses, one obtains particle production. This is in analogy to production of phonons induced by the finite rate of change of density in a solid. Once more details are required to see if this is the source of the entropy we observe.

2) One must not lose sight of alternatives to the inflaton scenario. Hawking has investigated black hole pair fluctuations in vacuum. It is not impossible that there are rare abundant coherent fluctuations which will be seized upon by the scale factor and which will inflate just as the fluctuation of $`\phi `$ inflates. This is but one example. To be sure the scenario of chaotic inflation has to some extent “won its spurs”. But fundamental cosmology is essentially speculative in character. Any argument that works is an argument of sufficiency, not of necessity. So I conclude, it is too easy to be complacent. We are probably going to meet no end of surprises before we can reach some consensus of opinion on just what it is that is responsible for the birth of our universe.

## 1 Added note

After the completion of this text, I analyzed somewhat further the potential energy of the fluctuations of the mode density by separating it into two parts:

1. the “acoustic” contribution generated by pressure gradients wherein total number is conserved,

2. a source term occasioned by exchange of a degree of freedom between the “planckian soup” and the “vapor of modes”.

When the soup is modeled by a collection of black holes (or, in general, entities with horizons), then the source generates an inflaton mass of order of magnitude

$$\mu ^2\mathrm{exp}(|\mathrm{\Delta }S|)m_{Pl}^2$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ is the entropy change of the black hole that is induced by the exchange. For Schwarzschild black holes this is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=8\pi M\overline{\omega }`$, $`M=`$ mass of the black hole, $`\overline{\omega }=`$ mean energy of modes. One expects both $`M`$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$ to be $`𝒪(m_{pl})`$ whereupon one finds $`\mu =𝒪(10^5)m_{pl})`$. This is the order of magnitude required by the analysis of present day cosmic fluctuations. N.B.: The above estimate is very crude and can easily change by several orders of magnitude due to its sensitivity on $`M`$.


text:
# ON A SCALAR THEORY OF GRAVITATION

Our motivation was to extend the Lorentz-Poincaré ether theory so that it could describe gravitation. The latter theory consists in assuming that Maxwell’s equations are valid in some fundamental inertial frame or ”ether,” and that each material object that moves through the ether undergoes a Lorentz contraction. This is physically equivalent to Einstein’s special relativity (SR),  but it differs from standard SR at the meta-physical (interpretation) level.  The construction of the scalar theory is based on a tentative concept of physical vacuum as a space-filling perfect fluid, or ”micro-ether.” This concept leads to a definite set of equations: it is this set that should be assessed from the predictions it leads to, and from the comparison of these predictions with experimental data. According to that concept, material particles would be organized flows in that fluid, such as vortices, thus each particle would occupy some bounded domain in the fluid. The gravitational force is interpreted as resulting from the forces exerted on any such ”particle” (domain), due to the spatial variation of the fluid pressure over macroscopic distances. This leads to define a gravity acceleration vector as follows:

$$𝗀=\frac{gradp_e}{\rho _e},$$
(1)
where $`p_e`$ and $`\rho _e=\rho _e(p_e)`$ are the macroscopic fields of pressure and density in the imagined fluid (micro-ether). Note that this equation implies that $`p_e`$ and $`\rho _e`$ decrease towards the gravitational attraction. The preferred reference frame of the theory is that one which is obtained by averaging the velocity field of the micro-ether over a very large scale. An equation for the scalar gravitational field $`p_e`$ (or equivalently the field $`\rho _e`$) follows from the requirement that Newtonian gravity should be recovered if the micro-ether were an incompressible fluid, and from the analysis of acoustic-like oscillations of the field $`p_e`$ However, in this ether theory, an ”absolute” version of Einstein’s equivalence principle occurs naturally.  It leads to stating the following assumption (A): When a gravitational field is present, i.e. in the case of a non-uniform field $`p_e`$, any material object is contracted, only in the direction of the field $`𝗀`$, in the ratio $`\beta =\rho _e/\rho _e^{\mathrm{}}`$, (where $`\rho _e^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the value of $`\rho _e`$ ”outside the gravitational field,” i.e. in fact the upper bound of $`\rho _e`$ over the whole space), and the period $`T`$ of any clock is dilated in the corresponding ratio, i.e., it becomes $`T/\beta `$. Due to this assumption, the Euclidean ”background” metric $`g^0`$ is different from the physical space metric $`g`$, which is a Riemannian one, and the physical, local time $`t_x`$ differs from the ”absolute time” $`t`$ in the following way:

$$\frac{dt_x}{dt}=\beta (t,x),\frac{}{t_x}=\frac{1}{\beta (t,x)}\frac{}{t}.$$
(2)
(Here $`x`$ is the spatial position in the preferred reference frame.) Moreover, SR leads to assuming the relation $`p_e=c^2\rho _e`$. Accounting for this and for Eq. (2), the (preferred-frame) equation for the scalar gravitational field is finally stated in terms of the physical space metric and local time, thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_gp_e\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2p_e}{t_x^2}=4\pi G\sigma \rho _e,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma `$ is the mass-energy density.  More precisely, $`\sigma `$ is defined as the $`T^{00}`$ component of the energy-momentum tensor of matter and nongravitational fields T, when the time coordinate is $`x^0=ct`$ with $`t`$ the absolute time, and in any spatial coordinates that are adapted to the preferred reference frame.  Motion of any test particle is governed by an extension of that form of Newton’s second law which is valid for SR. This extension involves the gravity acceleration vector $`𝗀`$, and the velocity-dependent mass of SR, containing the Lorentz factor as a multiplying factor- the velocity being measured with physical standards affected by gravitation as stated in assumption (A) above.  The extension can be used for a dust continuum (non-interacting matter), it leads then  to the following (preferred-frame) equation:

$$T_{\mu ;\nu }^\nu =b_\mu ,b_0\frac{1}{2}g_{jk,0}T^{jk},b_i\frac{1}{2}g_{ik,0}T^{0k}.$$
(4)
(Semicolon means covariant derivative associated with the physical space-time metric $`\gamma `$; indices are raised or lowered using also metric $`\gamma `$.) Because gravitation is universal, Eq. (4) is assumed valid for any kind of continuous medium. Thus it allows, in particular, to define the gravitational modification of Maxwell’s equations in the theory.  This modification is consistent  with photon dynamics as governed by the extended form of Newton’s 2nd law. Observational status of the theory: the same gravitational effects on photons as in GR are predicted at the post-Newtonian approximation (PNA).  An asymptotic PNA has been developed, allowing to build a consistent celestial mechanics in the theory.  The cosmic acceleration is predicted and nonsingular cosmological models are obtained.