text:
# Negative Resistance and Local Charge-Density-Wave Dynamics

## Abstract

Charge-density-wave dynamics is studied on a submicron length scale in NbSe3 and o-TaS3. Regions of negative absolute resistance are observed in the CDW sliding regime at sufficiently low temperatures. The origin of the negative resistance is attributed to the different forces that the deformed CDW and quasi-particles feel: the force on the CDW is merely caused by a difference of the electric potentials, while the quasi-particle current is governed by a difference of the electrochemical potentials.

A periodic modulation of the conduction electron density is commonly observed in low-dimensional conductors . This charge-density-wave (CDW) state is the ground state in various inorganic and organic materials with a chain-like structure, giving rise to remarkable electrical properties . A particularly interesting feature of the CDW is its collective transport mode, somewhat similar to superconductivity . Under an applied electric field, CDWs slide along the crystal, giving rise to a strongly nonlinear conductivity. Since even a small amount of disorder pins the CDWs, sliding occurs only when the applied electric field exceeds a certain threshold.

In metallic and superconducting devices, reduction of sizes has revealed a variety of new mesoscopic phenomena. For CDW conductors, the mesoscopic regime has only been studied for small transverse dimensions  because samples of (sub)micron sizes in the chain direction could not be fabricated in a controlled way. Consequently, many aspects of microscopic CDW dynamics are still unknown. Nevertheless, some first studies on a micron-scale revealed interesting mesoscopic features related to the CDW phase distribution . More recently, there have been attempts to fabricate artificial submicron CDW devices. Latyshev et al.  made antidot arrays and found indications that the current-conversion mechanism changes at the submicron scale. A similar conclusion has been drawn by Mantel et al. . In submicron CDW wires, they observed an unexplained size-effect for the phase-slip voltage if probe spacings are in the order of a few micron.

In this paper, we report on CDW dynamics on a (sub)micron scale. We present current-voltage characteristics ($`IV`$’s) recorded on high-quality NbSe3 and TaS3 crystals with probe spacings in the (sub)micron range (see the inset of Fig. 1). On these short length scales $`IV`$ curves appear to vary strongly from segment to segment. For some segments the absolute resistance may even become negative.

Experiments were carried out on single NbSe3 and o-TaS3 crystals with cross sections of 0.2 to 1 $`\mu `$m2. Both materials have a very anisotropic, chain-like structure . NbSe3 exhibits CDW transitions at $`T_{\mathrm{P1}}=145`$ K and $`T_{\mathrm{P2}}=59`$ K. At low temperatures a small portion of the conduction electrons remains uncondensed, providing a metallic single-particle channel. In contrast, in o-TaS3 all electrons condense into the CDW state. As a result, the linear resistance shows semiconducting behavior below the transition temperature of 220 K.

A common technique to contact small CDW whiskers consists of putting the crystals on top of metal probes that are evaporated on an insulating substrate. Then a droplet of glue (ethyl cellulose dissolved in ethyl acetate) is put on the CDW crystals to keep them fixed on the metal probes. In previous studies the smallest probe widths were on the order of 2 $`\mu `$m and their smallest separations were typically 10 $`\mu `$m. By using standard e-beam lithographic techniques, we have fabricated an array of gold wires that are 50 nm high and 100 nm wide. The smallest probe separation is 300 nm as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 1. It is important to note that to study microscopic CDW dynamics, our results show that both the probe width and separation must be sufficiently small.

Electrical contact between o-TaS3 and the gold wires has only been obtained after heating the crystals to 120-130 oC for several minutes to one hour . During this annealing step, sulfur that has accumulated at the surface oxidizes leaving behind a clean interface. For NbSe3, we heat the samples so that the thin crystals do not start floating in the glue solvent. When the substrate is heated to 80oC the solvent evaporates quickly, giving the crystals no opportunity to float.

A series of measurements has been performed to characterize the crystals. Cross sections ($`S`$) have been determined from measuring the resistance $`R`$ for segments with different separation $`L`$ at room temperature. Here, $`L`$ is defined as the distance between the middle of two voltage probes. We find that $`R`$ scales perfectly with $`L`$. Cross sections are then calculated using the literature values of the room-temperature resistivity: $`\rho =2`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mu `$m for NbSe3 and $`\rho =3`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mu `$m for o-TaS3. Another test involves the measurement of Shapiro steps when biasing the samples with both a dc and ac drive. At 120 K, we obtain complete mode locking for both crystals indicating their high quality. As expected, we find that the step-width scales linearly with frequency yielding sample cross sections that compare very well with the values obtained from the resistance measurements (within 7 %). Threshold fields ($`E_T`$’s) of the crystals also point at a good sample quality. At 120 K, $`E_T=0.58`$ V/cm for a NbSe3 crystal of $`S=0.2\mu `$m2 and $`E_T=1.23`$ V/cm for a TaS3 crystal of $`S=0.5\mu `$m2.

We have systematically studied $`IV`$ characteristics of all possible segments. We first discuss the results obtained on o-TaS3 crystals and show $`IV`$’s on micron-sized segments obtained in the normal four-probe configuration: Current is injected at the large gold pads (see Fig. 1) and various probe pairs measure the voltage between them. Measurements on o-TaS3 are performed in the temperature range of 94-220 K.

When $`L`$ is larger than about 10 $`\mu `$m, we always observe the expected behavior for CDWs as indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. 2a and b. On a micron scale, however, the shape of the $`IV`$ varies from segment to segment. Some small segments show the same nonlinear behavior as observed in the large segments. Other segments may yield an $`IV`$ that shows a negative differential resistance (NDR). Occasionally the absolute resistance may even become negative (see the positive current branch in Fig. 2a for $`I>3.5`$ $`\mu `$A), indicating that the moving CDW pumps charge carriers in the direction opposite to the applied field. A small adjacent segment exhibits an $`IV`$ curve that is less nonlinear and it appears to have a somewhat higher threshold (Fig. 2b). However, these differences average out when measuring on larger length scales and deviations between various $`I(E=V/L)`$-curves are small if $`L>10`$ $`\mu `$m.

Taking a closer look at the curves in Fig. 2a, one sees that the deviation ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$) from the expected $`IV`$ (dashed line) is proportional to $`I_{CDW}`$. We can express this deviation with a parameter $`\alpha `$ defined as $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }V/(R_0I_{CDW}`$), where $`R_0`$ is the linear resistance around $`V=0`$. From Fig. 2a, we find that $`\alpha 0.36`$ for the positive current branch and $`\alpha 0.2`$ for the negative current branch.

We have also recorded $`IV`$’s at different temperatures below the Peierls temperature of 220 K. At 200 K, we find no unusual behavior: all $`IV`$ characteristics can approximately be collapsed on one $`I(E)`$-curve. For the segment of which the 120 K data are shown in Fig. 2a, NDR sets in at 160 K with $`\alpha =0.17`$ and 0.11 for the positive and negative current branch respectively. As temperature decreases, N(D)R becomes more pronounced. For example, at 94 K, $`\alpha 0.96`$ for the positive current branch and $`\alpha 0.6`$ for the negative current branch. Situated 20 $`\mu `$m from this segment, another segment with $`L=0.8`$ $`\mu `$m also starts to develop N(D)R at temperatures below 100 K. Again the adjacent segments show less nonlinear behavior with a somewhat higher threshold field.

In total, we have studied four different o-TaS3 samples. All of them showed NDR in one or two segments, each time involving different probe pairs. A trend seems to be that the thinner the sample the more pronounced N(D)R shows up. We have found no indications of serious damage of the crystals (cracks) in the NR region when measuring the electrical properties. In all four samples, $`R_0`$ and $`E_T`$ scale with $`L`$ within error margins for all segments. We also measured the two-probe resistances between all probe pairs at several temperatures. Again no unusual features were found. The two-probe resistance is generally two orders of magnitude larger than the four-probe resistance. They only vary by a factor five from each other and no trend was observed for the probes that show NDR (e.g. no systematically lower contact resistance).

N(D)R has also been detected in two NbSe3 samples when measuring $`IV`$ curves on the micron scale. In one sample, the absolute resistance became negative. The conditions to find N(D)R in NbSe3 appear to be more stringent. We only observe it below the second Peierls transition ($`T_{\mathrm{P2}}`$) and in the close vicinity ($`1\mu `$m) of a current contact.

Summarizing our experimental results, we conclude that negative resistance (NR) has been observed in both o-TaS3 and NbSe3. In all cases it is a local effect occurring on a micron scale. In NbSe3, however, NR has only been observed close to a current contact, whereas in o-TaS3 it has been observed when current contacts are far away. Also, NR has only been observed in NbSe3 for $`T<T_{\mathrm{P2}}`$ and in o-TaS3 for $`T<160`$ K. The effect is more pronounced as the temperature is lowered indicating that the quasi-particle density (resistivity) plays a role in the observation of NR. Lastly, all $`IV`$’s are asymmetric with respect to interchanging the positive and negative current branches.

In early reports on CDW dynamics on macroscopic distances, NDR has also been observed in NbSe3 crystals  and in TaS3 . In contrast, for $`L>5`$ $`\mu `$m, we have never seen NDR in our four-terminal measurements. NDR has also been observed on large distances in partly irradiated CDW crystals by Latyshev et al. Their qualitative explanation involves strong CDW deformations in the strain profile near the boundary of the irradiated and non-irradiated part.

We are not aware of any measurement that shows NR in CDW samples and we believe that it is not related to the observations on NDR reported by other groups. The main reason for this is the local character of the NR in our samples. In the remainder of this paper, we provide a qualitative explanation for the observation of NR in CDWs.

The basic ingredient of our model is that the CDWs and the quasi-particles are driven by different forces. At low temperatures, when the quasi-particle density is much smaller then the density of the condensed electrons, the force exerted on the CDW is mostly related to a difference of the electric potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ . In contrast, the quasi-particle current is governed by a difference of the electrochemical potential, i.e., by the voltage drop $`V=U(x_1)U(x_2)`$.

Starting from the experimental data, we can draw the potential and current distributions along the sample defining the conditions for which NR can be observed. First of all, the slope, $`dU/dx`$, in the NR region is opposite to the mean slope of $`U(x)`$ along the sample (the solid line in Fig. 3a). The quasi-particle current $`I_q`$ is equal to $`\sigma _qdU/dx`$ with $`\sigma _q`$ is the linear conduction per unit length. It therefore also has a sign opposite to that in the rest of the sample (Fig. 3b). Since the total current, $`I=I_q+I_{CDW}`$, is the same along the sample, the CDW current $`I_{CDW}`$ in the NR region must be larger than in the rest of the sample (Fig. 3b). At the same time as illustrated in Fig. 3a, one sees that the force on the CDW is larger in the NR region because the gradient of the electric potential $`E=d\mathrm{\Phi }/dx`$ is larger here. Finally, one should keep in mind that the difference ($`U\mathrm{\Phi }`$) defines shifts of the chemical potential ($`\mu `$) with respect to the midgap position. These shifts are related to CDW phase deformations, i.e., $`\mu =(U\mathrm{\Phi })d\phi /dx`$ , where $`\phi `$ is the CDW phase.

We now concentrate on the physical conditions that lead to the potential and current distributions shown in Fig. 3. If we assume that $`K`$ in the relation $`I_{CDW}=K\dot{\phi }`$ is the same along the sample, then the jump in $`I_{CDW}`$ (see Fig. 3b) corresponds to a larger CDW phase velocity $`\dot{\phi }`$ in the NR region. Such a variation of $`\dot{\phi }`$ must be provided by phase slip, but the corresponding CDW deformations in Fig. 3a have the wrong sign . This contradiction means that NR results from a variation of $`KI_{CDW}/\dot{\phi }`$ rather than from a variation of the CDW velocity only.

As $`\dot{\phi }`$ has to be the same along the sample, we assume that $`I_{CDW}=(1+\alpha )K\dot{\phi }`$ in the NR region (the origin of $`\alpha `$ will be discussed later), and that $`I_{CDW}=K\dot{\phi }`$ for the rest of the sample. Since the total current along the sample is constant, one has $`K\dot{\phi }+I_q=(1+\alpha )K\dot{\phi }+V/R_0`$. The voltage drop in NR region is then given by:

$$V=R_0\left(I_q\alpha I_{CDW}\right),$$
(1)
where $`R_0=l/\sigma _q`$ with $`l`$ the length of the NR region. It is obvious from Eq. 1 that for $`I_{CDW}>I_q/\alpha `$ the sign of $`V`$ is negative. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=\alpha R_0I_{CDW}`$ is the deviation from the regular $`IV`$ curve introduced earlier.

There is, however, a limitation for the CDW to keep the same phase velocity $`\dot{\phi }`$ through an NR region. Phase slippage is expected to set in as soon as the CDW deformation reaches its limiting value: $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}=V_{ps}/2e`$, where $`V_{ps}`$ is the phase-slip voltage . Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, is limited by the phase-slip voltage and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{max}}=(I_{CDW}/I)V_{ps}`$. Thus, NR cannot be observed in segments having $`l>l_{\mathrm{max}}\alpha V_{ps}/E_T`$, and for total currents $`I>V_{ps}\sigma _q/l\alpha `$. For typical values ($`V_{ps}1`$ mV, $`\alpha 0.1`$ and $`E_T1`$ V/cm) one gets $`l_{\mathrm{max}}1`$ $`\mu `$m, in good agreement with the experimental data.

A variation of $`K=(2e/\pi )N_c(1b)`$  and thus a nonzero $`\alpha `$ can be related to a change in the number of the conducting chains in the sample’s cross section ($`N_c`$), or to a change in the parameter $`b`$. Here, $`b`$ describes the reduction of “condensed” electrons with increasing temperature and contains the so-called “back-flow current” which depends on the scattering times. A plausible explanation might therefore be that increased scattering in a NR region -due to for example a macroscopic defect, e.g. a line dislocation- leads to a quasi-particle current that flows in a direction opposite to that in the rest of the sample. Hall measurements on K0.30MoO3 have shown  that back flow currents produce typical $`\alpha `$-values of $`0.10.2`$, in good agreement with our high-temperature data.

Theoretical estimates based on a microscopic approach  indicate that the contribution of $`b`$ is too small to account for the observed low-temperature $`\alpha `$-values of $`1`$. However, at low temperatures the experimentally obtained values are likely to be overestimated. The measured values of $`\alpha `$ are very sensitive to a correct determination of $`R_0`$. Furthermore, in TaS3 at $`T<100`$ K, $`R_0`$ greatly depends on the CDW deformations which undoubtedly occur near defects. In that case $`R_0`$ is smaller than expected from the simple Arrhenius law, $`R_0\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Peierls gap .

More detailed calculations on the local CDW dynamics are needed to explain all experimental details. These should also address the asymmetry of the $`IV`$ curves in the NR region. It is most likely caused by the absence of symmetry between electron-like and hole-like excitations and the built-in CDW deformations that shift the chemical potential.

We thank Robert Thorne for providing the NbSe3 and o-TaS3 crystals. We further acknowledge discussions with Nina Marković, Yuri Latyshev and Yuli Nazarov. This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), by the Netherlands Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 01-02-17771) and the Russian program on physics of nanostructures (project 97-1052). HSJvdZ was supported by the Dutch Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).


format: text

text:
# Local and global properties of conformally flat initial data for black hole collisions

## I Introduction

The problem of initial conditions (initial Cauchy data) for the integration of the evolution of colliding black holes is an important problem of the numerical general relativity and has attracted attention of many researchers. For a recent review see . One of the approaches to the problem is a conformal-imaging method proposed in , ,  and developed in , . Another is the conformal-puncture method . It is known that initial black hole data constructed using both these methods contains some non-vanishing dynamical component , an unphysical, junk gravitational field. Without the integration of the initial data in time it is impossible to make exact conclusions about the character and the amount of this unphysical field. Still it is possible to make some conclusions about the junk field using only the initial data. For example, one can numerically calculate global characteristics of the initial data such as total energy, and then compare it with known analytical or approximate solutions ,,.

In our previous paper we developed adaptive mesh refinement approach to the construction of initial data for black hole collisions on high resolution Cartesian meshes . The method allows us to compute initial data with high accuracy both near and very far away the from black holes. The goal of this paper is to use this method to systematically analyze the physical properties of black hole initial data for a wide range of colliding black hole configurations. To analyze the junk fields present in the data, we will use two different approaches. First, we calculate and compare global characteristics of the configurations. In addition, we use a new approach which consists of calculating and comparing four local scalar invariants of the gravitational field (, section 92) . These scalar invariants completely determine local properties (tidal forces) of a gravitational field.

In the next section II we briefly describe our adaptive mesh refinement method of calculating initial black hole data. We start our discussion of local and global characterization of the solutions in section III. Results for single black hole configurations with angular or linear momenta are presented in section IV. For these black holes we can compare numerical initial date with exact analytical solutions. In section V we present results for two-black hole configurations with different orientations of linear and angular momenta and with different separations between the black holes. All calculations are performed using both conformal-imaging and conformal-puncture methods, and the results are compared. Conclusions are presented in section VI.

## II Constraint equations and the method of solution

The ADM or 3+1 formulation of the equations of general relativity works with the metric $`g_{ij}^{ph}`$ and extrinsic curvature $`K_{ij}^{ph}`$ of three-dimensional spacelike hypersurfaces embedded in the four-dimensional space-time, where $`i,j=1,2,3`$, and the superscript $`ph`$ denotes the physical space. On the initial hypersurface, $`g_{ij}^{ph}`$ and $`K_{ij}^{ph}`$ must satisfy the constraint equations . The conformal approach assumes that the metric is conformally flat,

$$g_{ij}^{ph}=\varphi ^4g_{ij},$$
(1)
where $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric of a background flat space. This conformal transformation induces the corresponding transformation of the extrinsic curvature

$$K_{ij}^{ph}=\varphi ^2K_{ij}.$$
(2)
With the additional assumption of

$$trK=0,$$
(3)
the energy and momentum constraints are

$$^2\varphi +\frac{1}{8}\varphi ^7K_{ij}K^{ij}=0,$$
(4)
and

$$D_jK^{ij}=0,$$
(5)
respectively, where $`^2`$ and $`D_j`$ are the Laplacian and covariant derivative in flat space.

A solution to (4) and (5) for two black holes can be specified by six parameters (three parameters per black hole). These are the mass parameter $`M_\delta `$, linear momentum parameter $`\stackrel{}{P}_\delta `$ and angular momentum parameters $`\stackrel{}{S}_\delta `$, where $`\delta =1,2`$ is the index of a black hole. In terms of these parameters, the solution to the momentum constraint for two black holes is

$$K_{ij}(𝐫)=K_{ij}^{lin}(𝐫)+K_{ij}^{ang}(𝐫),$$
(6)
where

$$K_{ij}^{lin}(𝐫)=\frac{3}{2}\underset{\delta =1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{1}{R_\delta ^2}\left(P_{\delta ,i}n_{\delta ,j}+P_{\delta ,j}n_{\delta ,i}\left(g_{ij}n_{\delta ,i}n_{\delta ,j}\right)P_{\delta ,k}n_\delta ^k\right)$$
(7)
and

$$K_{ij}^{ang}(𝐫)=3\underset{\delta =1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\frac{1}{R_\delta ^3}\left(ϵ_{kil}S_\delta ^ln_\delta ^kn_{\delta ,j}+ϵ_{kjl}S_\delta ^ln_\delta ^kn_{\delta ,i}\right)\right).$$
(8)
In (6) and (7) the comma separates the index of black hole from the coordinate component indices, $`R_\delta =M_\delta /2`$ is the black hole throat radius, and $`𝐧_\delta =(𝐫𝐫_\delta )/|𝐫𝐫_\delta |`$ is the unit vector directed from the center of the $`\delta `$-th black hole $`𝐫_\delta `$ to the point $`𝐫`$. We work in units where $`G=1,c=1`$ which means that $`\stackrel{}{P}_\delta `$ is in mass units and $`\stackrel{}{S}_\delta `$ is in mass2 units.

In the conformal-imaging method, we obtain an inversion-symmetric solution to (5) by applying an infinite series of mirror operators to (6), as described in . Note, that before applying the mirror operators to $`K_{ij}^{ang}`$, this term must be divided by 2 since the image operators will double its value. The series converges rapidly, and in practice only a few terms are taken. After the isometric solution for $`K_{ij}`$ is found, (4) must be solved subject to the isometry boundary condition at the black hole throats

$$n_\delta ^iD_i\varphi =\frac{\varphi }{2R_\delta }.$$
(9)
In the conformal-puncture method, expression (6) is used without mirror imaging, and the energy constraint is solved on $`R^3`$ with a puncture at the center of each hole. Brandt and Br$`\ddot{u}`$gmann  proved that it suffices to solve the energy constraint everywhere on $`R^3`$ without any points cut out. Thus, this method avoids inner boundaries.

The outer boundary condition in both cases is $`\varphi 1`$ at infinity. This boundary condition is represented by

$$\frac{\varphi }{r}=\frac{1\varphi }{r},$$
(10)
where $`r`$ is the distance from the center of the computational domain to the boundary.

As described in , (4) and (5) are solved on an adaptive Cartesian mesh. The mesh is refined on the level of individual cells using a fully threaded tree structure . Computational cells can be characterized by the level of cells $`l`$ in the tree. A cell size $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ is related to the cell level as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l=L/2^l`$, where $`L`$ is the size of the computational domain. In this paper, $`L=1024`$ and the minimum and maximum levels of refinement is $`l_{min}=5`$ and $`l_{max}=16`$, respectively. That is, the coarsest cells had a size $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{min}=32`$ and the finest cell size was $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{max}=1/64`$. The unit of length is the throat radius $`R_\delta =M_\delta /2`$ of the holes (in this paper, all holes have the same mass $`M_\delta =2`$ and thus the same throat radius). The equivalent uniform grid resolution thus corresponded to that of a $`65536^3`$ uniform grid. Mesh was refined at $`l_{min}<l<l_{max}`$ according to the following refinement criterium (see  for details)

$$\eta =\mathrm{max}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\varphi ^4}(\left(\frac{\varphi ^4}{x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\varphi ^4}{y}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\varphi ^4}{z}\right)^2)^{1/2},|K_{ij}).$$
(11)
Mesh was refined at levels $`l=5,6`$ if $`\eta <ϵ=0.03`$ and at $`l>6`$ if $`\eta <ϵ=0.07`$. In our previous paper it was demonstrated that our mesh refinement approach gives a quadratic convergence of solutions with increasing numerical resolution. In this paper we additionally checked the accuracy of numerical solutions by varying $`ϵ`$, $`l_{max}`$ and $`l_{min}`$. The accuracy of the results is discussed further in sections IV and V.

## III Global and local characteristics of initial data

Global physical properties of a system are its total mass $`M_{tot}`$, linear, $`𝐏_{tot}`$, and angular, $`𝐒_{tot}`$, momentum . For conformally flat solutions

$$M_{tot}=\frac{1}{2\pi }_r\mathrm{}(\frac{\varphi }{x^j})𝑑\sigma ^j,$$
(12)
$$P_{i,tot}=\frac{1}{8\pi }_r\mathrm{}K_{ij}𝑑\sigma ^j,$$
(13)
$$S_{i,tot}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\epsilon _{kij}_r\mathrm{}(x^iK^{jk}x^jK^{ik})𝑑\sigma _k,$$
(14)
where integration is performed over the surface at infinity. For our case of two black holes, the total linear and angular momenta are equal to

$$𝐏_{tot}=𝐏_1+𝐏_2,$$
(15)
and

$$𝐒_{tot}=𝐒_1+𝐒_2+(𝐂_1𝐎)\times 𝐏_1+(𝐂_2𝐎)\times 𝐏_2,$$
(16)
where $`𝐂_1,𝐂_2`$ are centers of black hole throats or punctures and $`𝐎`$ is the center of mass of the system (see ). Note, that $`𝐏_1,𝐏_2,𝐒_1,𝐒_2`$ do not have direct physical meaning but $`𝐏_{tot}`$ and $`𝐒_{tot}`$ do.

In addition to global characteristics of a system, we can also consider local invariants. In general case, there are four such invariants (, section 92)

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ (17)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ (18)
$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\gamma \delta \mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }`$ (19)
$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\gamma \delta \mu \nu }\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }`$ (20)
where $`\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R_{\gamma \delta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ is a fully antisymmetric unit tensor in curved coordinates. At every point, in a specially selected tetrad, the Riemann tensor can be expressed in terms of these invariants (except of special degenerate cases ). Since Riemann tensor uniquely determines tidal forces, these invariants fully characterize physical properties of the field at every point. The tidal force is $`I_1^{1/2}`$ by the order of magnitude. For a Schwarzschild black hole, for example, the tidal force is exactly $`M/c^2r^3=\sqrt{I_1}`$ .

In order to calculate the Riemann tensor, we need to know the space and time derivatives of the four-dimensional metric at each point on the initial slice. This data can be obtained from the time-evolution part of the Einstein equations. Since the scalars do not depend on the choice of a coordinate system, we can select zero shift and unit lapse to simplify calculations, and to write the derivatives as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{ij}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`2K_{ij},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2g_{ij}}{tx^k}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{K_{ij}}{x^k}},`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2g_{ij}}{t^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2(^{(3)}R_{ij}+trKK_{ij}2K_{ik}K_j^k).`$ (23)
Here both $`g_{ij},K_{ij}`$ are the physical metric and extrinsic curvature, and not their counterparts in flat space, and $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}`$ is the Ricci tensor of 3-dimensional space which depends only on the spatial metric and it’s spatial derivatives.

## IV Single black holes

### A Rotating single black hole

We consider a single black hole with a non-zero angular momentum $`𝐒0`$ and zero linear momentum $`𝐏=0`$, and compare numerical conformal solutions with the known analytical solution for a Kerr black hole. The Kerr metric is

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M_{tot}r}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)dt^2\frac{4M_{tot}ra\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}dtd\varphi +\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}dr^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }d\theta ^2+\frac{A\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}d\varphi ^2,$$
(24)
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`r^22M_{tot}ra^2,`$ (26)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(r^2+a^2)^2a^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (27)
The analytical solution (19),(20) is described by two parameters, the total mass of the hole $`M_{tot}`$ measured at infinity, and the specific angular momentum $`a=S/M_{tot}`$ such that $`aM_{tot}`$. The irreducible mass of a Kerr black hole, i.e., the mass of the event horizon of the hole is given by

$$M_{irr}=\sqrt{\frac{M_{tot}}{2}\left(M_{tot}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{S}{M_{tot}}\right)^2+M_{tot}^2}\right)}.$$
(28)
We have calculated datasets with single rotating black holes using both the imaging and puncture method. In each case, we vary the $`S`$ parameter, but hold the mass parameter of the black hole, $`M=2`$, constant. We have checked the accuracy of the solutions by varying $`l_{max}`$, $`l_{min}`$ and $`ϵ`$ in (11). For each dataset we computed $`M_{tot}`$ and $`S_{tot}`$ by evaluating (12) and (14) over at sphere with radius $`rL/2500`$. We found that the values of $`M_{tot}`$, $`S_i^{tot}`$ calculated at this radius were third digit accurate. The integration in (12) and (14) is supposed to be over at surface at infinity, and we determined $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ and $`S_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ from the corresponding values at finite radii by extrapolation in $`1/r`$ to $`1/r=0`$.

Figure 1 shows the extrapolation procedure for a rotating black hole with $`S=40`$ calculated with the imaging method. $`M_{tot}`$ and $`S_{tot}`$ have been calculated by integrating over spheres with increasing radii, $`r`$. We find a least square fit of the data to a second order polynomial and evaluate that polynomial at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ to obtain $`S_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ and $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$. For rotating black hole, the values of $`M_{tot}`$ are practically not changing with $`r`$, whereas the values of $`S_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ are slightly larger than the values at finite $`r`$. For a case $`S=40`$, the extrapolated value $`S_{tot}(\mathrm{})40S`$, as it should be. The asymptotic value of $`M_{tot}`$ is in a good agreement with that obtained in . Figure 2 shows $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ as a function of $`S`$.

In the conformal-imaging approach, the location of an apparent horizon for a single rotating black hole coincides with the throat . Thus, in this case it is possible to investigate the properties of the apparent horizon. We have computed the area of the horizon $`A_{ah}`$, the mass, $`M_{ah}=\sqrt{A_{ah}/16\pi }`$ and the polar and equatorial circumference, $`C_p`$ and $`C_e`$. The values of $`M_{ah}`$ agree within three digits with the corresponding values in  for $`S=10`$. Figure 3 shows calculated $`M_{tot}`$ and $`M_{ah}`$ as a function of $`S`$ for a rotating black hole with $`M=2`$. Also shown is the irreducible mass $`M_{irr}`$ calculated for a Kerr black hole with the corresponding $`S`$ and $`M_{tot}`$. Figure 4 shows the calculated ratio of the polar and equatorial circumferences $`C_p/C_e`$ as a function of $`S`$ and compares it with the corresponding ratio for a Kerr black hole .

Figure 3 shows that for the same total mass of the configuration $`M_{tot}`$ and the same angular momentum $`S`$, the mass of the apparent horizon in the numerical data, $`M_{ah}`$, is less than the irreducible mass of the black hole. This is expected since in the conformal approach there is an additional energy/mass related to a junk field outside of the black hole. Figure 4 shows that $`C_p/C_e`$ is close to unity for conformal imaging solutions whereas for Kerr black hole it is less than one. This means that the shape of the apparent horizon is substantially closer to spherical symmetry in the conformal-imaging solutions than for a Kerr black hole.

We have also compared the scalar invariants (17) of our numerical solutions with the corresponding analytical values. The difference between the values of these invariants of the numerical and and analytical solutions characterize the junk gravitational field. We have chosen to compare the value of the invariant in the points that are the same physical distance from the apparent horizon along the equatorial axis of the black hole, because this gives us a correspondence between the Boyer-Lindquist radial coordinate $`r`$ of the Kerr metric and the isotropic radial coordinate $`x`$ of the numerical solution. In the numerical solution the apparent horizon coincides with the throat, and in the Kerr solution the apparent horizon coincides with the event horizon. To find the Boyer-Lindquist radial coordinate $`r`$ that corresponds to a given isotropic coordinate $`x`$ we find the physical distance:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R_{ph}(x)=_R^x\mathrm{\Psi }^2𝑑x,$$
(29)
where $`x`$ is the distance to the center of the black hole throat in the background flat space and $`R`$ is the throat radius. The integration is performed numerically using cubic spline quadrature. We normalize this distance:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l_{ph}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }R_{ph}\frac{R}{M_{tot}}$$
(30)
and we write down the following implicit equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l_{ph}(x)M_{tot}=_{M_{tot}+\sqrt{M_{tot}^2a^2}}^r\sqrt{g_{rr}}𝑑r$$
(31)
and solve it with respect to $`r`$ using Van Wijngaarden-Dekker-Brent’s method. $`M_{tot}`$ is the total mass of the numerical black hole with mass parameter $`M=2R`$, as well as the total mass of the Kerr black hole that we are comparing to. Finally we compute the value of the invariants for the Kerr black hole (which are known analytically) at $`r(x)`$.

Figure (5) shows that increasing value of $`S`$ leads to the decrease of $`I_1`$ at the black hole horizon for Kerr black holes. This is a well understood effect: from (3) we know that the total mass of a black hole and its apparent horizon grow with $`S`$ and we know that in the Kerr solution tidal forces at the event horizon of a Kerr black hole decrease with the increase of the mass. We can see that the same tendency holds for conformal black holes (Figure 5 a,b). Figure 5 c shows the difference in $`I_1`$ for the conformal and Kerr solutions. At the boundary of the black hole the absolute value of the difference initially decreases with increasing $`S`$. However, for large $`S`$ it begins to decrease due to the decrease of tidal forces. Figure 5d shows the relative difference in $`I_1`$. The absolute value of the relative difference at the black hole boundary increases with increasing $`S`$ monotonically. Far away from the black hole, the absolute value of the difference is also monotonically increases with $`S`$, and for large values of $`S`$ it is significantly larger than that at the black hole boundary. Figure 3 thus shows that there exists a junk gravitational field in the conformal solutions, and that the relative amount of this junk field increases outside of the black hole with increasing $`S`$. Figure 6 shows the relative difference of $`I_1`$ at large distances. The relative difference is remains large even at very large $`r500`$.

### B Moving single black hole

Now consider a single black hole with a non-zero linear momentum $`𝐏0`$ and zero angular momentum $`𝐒=0`$. Similar to rotating black holes, we compute numerical conformal solutions with $`M=2`$ and various $`P`$, calculate $`M_{tot}`$ and $`P_{tot}`$ for these solutions by integrating (12) and (13) over spherical surfaces of different radii $`r`$, and then extrapolate these values to infinity. Figure 7 illustrates the extrapolation procedure for the case $`M=2`$ and $`P=40`$. In the case of a boosted black hole, both $`M_{tot}`$ and $`P_{tot}`$ vary noticeably with $`r`$. The extrapolated value of $`P_{tot}(\mathrm{})40P`$, as it should be. We compare our numerical solutions with known analytical solutions for a boosted Schwarzschild black hole with the same $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ and $`P_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$.

The spatial metric of a boosted Schwarzschild black hole can be found by performing a Lorenz transformation

$`\overline{t}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t+vx),`$ (32)
$`\overline{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x+vt)`$ (33)
of a Schwarzschild metric, where $`\gamma =(1v^2)^{1/2}`$. This gives the following spacetime metric

$$ds^2=\alpha \sqrt{\frac{1}{\gamma ^2\left(1v^2\frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }^4}\right)}}d\overline{t}^2+\gamma ^2\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^4\alpha ^2v^2\right)\left(d\overline{x}v\frac{1\frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }^4}}{1v^2\frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }^4}}d\overline{t}\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }^4\left(d\overline{y}^2+d\overline{z}^2\right)$$
(35)
with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(1+\frac{M}{2R}\right),\alpha =\frac{1\frac{M}{2R}}{1+\frac{M}{2R}},R=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}.$$
(36)
The analytical solution (35) is described by the two parameters, the mass of the Schwarzschild black hole $`M`$ and the velocity of the hole $`v`$ as measured by an observer at infinity. The total mass and velocity of a boosted Schwarzschild black hole are

$$M_{tot}=\sqrt{M^2+P^2},v=\sqrt{\frac{P^2}{M^2+P^2}}=\frac{P}{M_{tot}}.$$
(37)
At the horizon, the metric is exactly the same as for a Schwarzschild black hole (this can be seen from the fact that $`\alpha =0`$ at the horizon). Thus, the horizon properties are the same as for a Schwarzschild black hole. Also, since we have only performed a coordinate transformation, $`I_1`$ for a boosted Schwarzschild black hole is the same as $`I_1`$ for a Schwarzschild black hole.

In the conformal-imaging approach, the location of an apparent horizon for a moving black hole coincides with the throat  and for a Schwarschild black hole the apparent horizon coincides with the event horizon. We have computed the area of the horizon $`A_{ah}`$, the mass, $`M_{ah}=\sqrt{A_{ah}/16\pi }`$ and the polar and equatorial circumference, $`C_p`$ and $`C_e`$. Figure 8 shows calculated $`M_{tot}`$ and $`M_{ah}`$ as a function of $`P`$ for a moving black hole with $`M=2`$. Also shown is the analytical horizon mass $`M_{boosted}=\sqrt{M_{tot}^2P^2}`$. Figure 8 shows that for the same total mass of the configuration $`M_{tot}`$ and the same linear momentum $`P`$, the mass of the calculated apparent horizon $`M_{ah}`$ is less than the analytical one. This is expected since in the conformal approach there is an additional energy related to a junk field outside of the black hole. The polar and equatorial circumferences for a moving black hole are practically the same, i.e. the symmetry of the horizon is close to spherical symmetry.

We have compared the scalar invariants (17) of our numerical solutions with the corresponding analytical values. We have chosen to compare the value of the invariant in the points that are the same physical distance from the apparent horizon along the axis of motion (the x-axis). This physical distance can be expressed as a function of the isotropic coordinate distance $`x`$ from the black hole center along the axis of motion to the point where we make the comparison. Figure 9 compares $`I_1`$ as a function of $`x`$ for various values of $`P`$. We see that the increase of the total mass with increasing $`P`$ leads to a decrease in the value of $`I_1`$ at the black hole horizon (Figure 9 a,b). Figure 9c shows the difference in $`I_1`$ for numerical and analytical solutions. At the black hole boundary, the absolute value of the difference initially decreases with increasing $`P`$. However for large $`P`$ it begins to decrease due to the decrease of tidal forces. Figure 9d shows the relative difference in $`I_1`$. The absolute value of the relative difference at the black hole boundary first increases with increasing $`P`$ but than starts do decrease. Far away from the black hole, values of $`I_1`$ for boosted black holes are much larger than $`I_1`$ for conformal black hole solutions (Figure 10). Similar to the rotating black hole case, Figure 9 show that conformal solutions contain a junk gravitational field. The amount of the junk field increases outside of the black hole with increasing $`P`$.

## V Binary black holes

There is an infinite number of possibilities for choosing the parameters that characterize the initial data for two black holes. The problem can be parameterized by

$$(r_2,r_1,d=\frac{C_1^iC_2^i}{2r_1},P_1^i,S_1^i,P_2^i,S_2^i)$$
(38)
where $`r_\delta =\frac{M_\delta }{2}`$ and $`M_\delta `$ is the mass parameter of the $`\delta `$’th black hole. $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are the coordinates of the center of the throats and punctures respectively. We chose to call the distance $`d=\frac{C_1^iC_2^i}{2r_1}`$ the separation of the hole. Since the holes are placed at equal distance from the center of the computational domain, $`d`$ is the coordinate distance from the center of each hole to the center of the domain. The rest of the parameters are the linear/angular momentum parameters.

We restrict ourselves to some specific case. We consider configurations with equal mass black holes, $`M_1=M_2=M=2`$, i.e. $`R_1=R_2=1`$. The line connecting the centers of the holes coincides with the x-axis. We only investigate configurations where the holes have either linear momenta or angular momenta, but not both. The configurations considered are shown schematically on Figure 11. Arrows on this figure show the direction of either linear or angular momenta. In all cases when momenta of both black holes are not zero, they have equal absolute values except when explicitly stated otherwise.

First we mention the following general property of our initial data. Let the linear momentum parameters of the problem are $`𝐏_1`$ and $`𝐏_2`$, and the angular momentum parameters for both holes are zero. Then the metric that is a solution to the constraint equations, (4) and (5) with these parameters is the same as the metric of that is the solution to the constraint equations where the linear momentum parameters are $`𝐏_1`$ and $`𝐏_2`$, i.e. the problem where the sign of all components of the linear momentum parameters has been reversed. The proof can be found in appendix A. It is also possible to prove that a solution where the parameters $`𝐏_1,𝐏_2=0`$ and $`𝐒_1`$ and $`𝐒_2`$ has some non-zero values will have the same metric as a solution with parameters $`𝐒_1`$ and $`𝐒_2`$. Therefore, configurations E and F (figure 11), will have the same total mass $`M_{tot}`$. The same holds for configurations B and C.

For configurations with linear momenta, we will compare numerical results for $`M_{tot}`$ with the predictions of special theory of relativity,

$$M_{tot}^{STR}=\sqrt{M_1^2+P_1^2}+\sqrt{M_2^2+P_2^2}.$$
(39)
Equation (39) ignores gravitational interaction between the holes. We also can compare $`M_{tot}`$ of a two black hole configuration $`(M,P_1,P_2)`$ with the sum $`M_{tot}^{}`$ of numerical $`M_{tot}`$ of individual black holes with parameters $`(M,P_1)`$ and $`(M,P_2)`$,

$$M_{tot}^{}=M_{tot}(M,P_1)+M_{tot}(M,P_2).$$
(40)
Again, $`M_{tot}^{}`$ ignores mutual gravitational interaction of the black holes.

For configurations with angular momenta, we can compare numerical $`M_{tot}`$ with

$$M_{tot}^{}=M_{tot}(M,S_1)+M_{tot}(M,S_2).$$
(41)
similar to the linear momentum case.

Now we discuss configurations without linear or angular momentum and configurations with linear momentum $`P=5`$ and with varying separation $`d`$ between the holes. For these configurations, we found that the difference between $`M_{tot}`$ extrapolated to $`r=\mathrm{}`$ and $`M_{tot}`$ evaluated at $`r=512`$ is of the order of 1%. In what follows, we present values of $`M_{tot}`$ evaluated at $`r=512`$.

### A Two black holes with zero momenta

Figure 12 shows $`M_{tot}`$ as a function of $`d`$ for Case A, the configuration of two black holes without linear or angular momentum. The exact solution for this case can be found with the semi-analytic method described in . As one can see, the total mass converges to 4.0 when the distance between the holes increases. This is expected, because the gravitational attraction between the holes (which also contributes to the total mass) becomes negligible as the distance between the holes gets larger, and the holes can be regarded as point particles. However, the gravitational attraction should decrease the total mass, but we see that $`M_{tot}`$ increases or is constant with decreasing $`d`$. This behavior clearly shows the presence of an extra gravitational field that artificially cancels the effects of gravity on the total mass (in the puncture data) or adds even more energy that the amount required to cancel out the effect on the total mass (in the imaging data). The puncture solutions contain less junk that the imaging solutions.

### B Two black holes with linear momenta

Figures 13 and 14 show $`M_{tot}`$ for cases B, C and D which contain one black hole with linear momentum $`P=5`$ another with $`P=0`$. The figures show that, in both conformal-imaging and puncture methods, $`M_{tot}`$ is practically independent of orientation of $`𝐏`$ with respect to the line passing through the black hole centers. At large separations, $`M_{tot}`$ for both methods does not tend to the special relativity limit $`M_{tot}^{STR}`$. Instead $`M_{tot}`$ tends to $`M_{tot}^{}`$ (Equation (28)). This shows that even at larger separations, the solutions contain a junk gravitational field. This junk field is associated with the junk fields of individual solution for black hole with $`P=5`$. From the comparison at small separations we see that puncture solutions contain less junk than conformal imaging solutions.

Figures 15 and 16 show $`M_{tot}`$ for cases where both black holes have linear momentum $`P=5`$ but with different relative orientations. We see that $`M_{tot}`$ for these cases depend on relative orientation of $`𝐏`$. When $`𝐏_1`$ and $`𝐏_2`$ are antiparallel, $`M_{tot}`$ is practically the same, independent of orientation of $`𝐏`$ (compare cases E, F and J). These configurations also have minimal masses compared to other cases at the same separations. Configuration G with parallel momenta gives the largest $`M_{tot}`$ which is almost independent of $`d`$. Configurations H and I with perpendicular momenta are intermediate between parallel and antiparallel cases. At large separations, $`M_{tot}`$ seems to tend to $`M_{tot}^{}`$ taking into account that $`M_{tot}`$ computed at $`r=512`$ is slightly less than $`M_{tot}`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$. Again, we conclude from figures 15 and 16 that both conformal-imaging and puncture solutions contain junk fields. The amount of junk appears to be less in the puncture method.

Figures 17 and 18 show $`M_{tot}`$ as a function of $`P`$ for black hole configuration B with only one black hole having non-zero $`P=5`$ and for configurations E and G with anti-parallel and parallel linear momenta $`P=5`$ for the separation $`d=128`$ between the black holes. We see that $`M_{tot}`$ is somewhat larger for black holes with parallel momenta than for black holes with anti-parallel momenta. This is the same tendency which we already saw on figures 15 and 16. We found that the values of $`M_{tot}`$ for cases E and G are somewhat smaller that the sum of $`M_{tot}`$ of single black hole with the same values of $`P`$. For case B, $`M_{tot}`$ is very close to the sum of $`M_{tot}`$ a Schwarzschild black hole with $`P=0`$ and a boosted black hole with linear momentum $`P=5`$.

### C Two black holes with angular momenta

Figure 19 shows $`M_{tot}`$ as a function of separation $`d`$ for configurations with two black holes where one black hole has $`S=0`$ and the other one has $`S=5`$, calculated by both conformal-imaging and puncture methods. First, Figure 19 shows that $`M_{tot}`$ does not depend on the relative orientation of $`𝐒`$ with respect to the line connecting the black hole throats or punctures. At large separations $`M_{tot}`$ tends to the sum of the numerical $`M_{tot}`$ of two single black holes with $`M=2`$ and the same $`S=0`$ and $`S=5`$, respectively. As it was for similar configurations with linear momenta (see figures 13 and 14), the amount of junk is greater in conformal-imaging solutions.

Figure 20 shows $`M_{tot}`$ as a function of separation $`d`$ for two black hole configurations with both black holes having non-zero angular momentum $`S=5`$, calculated by both conformal-imaging and puncture methods. Again, $`M_{tot}`$ does not depend on relative orientation of angular momenta. At large $`d`$, $`M_{tot}`$ tends to the sum of $`M_{tot}`$ for two individual rotating black hole with $`S=5`$. Again, the amount of junk is greater in conformal-imaging solution.

Figure 21 shows $`M_{tot}`$ as a function of $`S`$ for all two-black hole configuration with angular momenta (Figure 11) and separation $`d=128`$, computed by both imaging and puncture methods. We found that at this separation, $`M_{tot}`$ for all of these configurations practically coincide with the sum of $`M_{tot}`$ of two individual black holes with the corresponding momenta.

## VI Conclusions

We calculated conformal initial value data for single and binary black hole configurations on a high-resolution, adaptively refined Cartesian mesh using both conformal-imaging and conformal-puncture methods. Adaptive mesh refinement approach allowed us to obtain accurate three-dimensional numerical solutions both near and far away from black hole for a wide range of black hole configurations with various linear and angular momenta and various black hole separations. The equivalent uniform-grid resolution obtained in the calculations was $`65536^3`$.

Determination of the total mass $`M_{tot}`$ of configurations required an integration over a surface at infinity (12). Using numerical values of $`M_{tot}`$ obtained by integration over a sphere at large finite radii $`r500r_g`$, where $`r_g=2M/c^2`$ allowed us to obtain $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ by extrapolation. For configurations with large linear momenta, the difference between $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$ and $`M_{tot}(500r_g)`$ was as large as $`0.1M_{tot}`$. The difference was substantially smaller for configurations with large angular momenta. Comparison with known analytic solutions was then performed using asymptotic values of $`M_{tot}(\mathrm{})`$.

For a single rotating black hole, the mass of the calculated apparent horizon $`M_{ah}`$ is less than the irreducible mass of a Kerr black hole with the same $`M_{tot}`$. For a single boosted black hole, the calculated $`M_{ah}`$ is less than that of the corresponding boosted Schwarzschild black hole. This shows that the junk field is present in the conformal solutions. Comparison of the spatial distribution of local invariants for both rotating and boosted black hole shows that junk field is present at large distances from the holes. For a rotating black hole, the shape of the numerical apparent horizon is much more spherical than that of a Kerr black hole. It appears the conformal approach generates more spherically-symmetric solutions.

For two-black hole configurations, with increasing separation $`d`$ between the black holes the value of $`M_{tot}(d)`$ tends to the sum of $`M_{tot}`$ of two individual single-black holes numerical solutions containing their corresponding junk fields. If only one of the black holes has a non-zero linear or angular momentum, the value of $`M_{tot}`$ is practically independent of the orientation of the momentum. For black holed both having non-zero angular momentum, $`M_{tot}`$ is also practically independent of the orientation of the momenta. For black hole both having non-zero linear momenta, the value of $`M_{tot}`$ is maximal for parallel momenta and minimal for anti-parallel momenta. In general, the conformal-puncture method appears to generate less junk gravitational field than the conformal-imaging method.

This work confirms that conformal initial conditions are not suitable as initial conditions for astrophysical black hole collisions since they contain junk gravitational field. They are useful as initial conditions for testing time-integration schemes for black hole collisions because black holes can be places at small initial separation. Our adaptive mesh refinement approach allows to construct these initial data on a Cartesian mesh with a high accuracy. We plane to use similar adaptive mesh refinement for the integration of these initial data in time.

## VII Acknowledgments

We thank Kip Thorne and members of his relativity group for useful discussions. N. Jansen thanks the numerical relativity group at the Max Planck Institut f$`\ddot{u}`$r Gravitationsphysik, Albert Einstein Institut for useful discussions. I. Novikov thanks the NRL for hospitality during his stay. The work was supported in part by the NASA Space Astrophysics grant SPA-00-067, Office of Naval Research, Danish Natural Science Research Council grant No.9401635, and by Danmarks Grundforskningsfond through its support for the establishment of the Theoretical Astrophysics Center.

## A Appendix: Proof

Proposition: Let a configuration of two black holes be given. Suppose that the linear momentum parameters of the problem are $`P1`$ and $`P2`$, and that the angular momentum parameters for both holes are the null-vector. Then the metric that is a solution to the constraint equations with these parameters is the same as the metric of that is the solution to the constraint equations where the linear momentum parameters are $`P1`$ and $`P2`$, i.e. the problem where the sign of all components of the linear momentum parameters has been reversed.

Proof: The energy constraint is given by:

$$^2\varphi +\frac{1}{8}\varphi ^7K_{ij}K^{ij}=0,$$
(A1)
As we can see, the extrinsic curvature enters only as $`K_{ij}K^{ij}`$. Thus, to prove the proposition, we need to prove that this term does not depend on the sign of the linear momentum vectors. In the puncture formulation the extrinsic curvature tensor of the configuration $`P1,P2`$ is given by:

$`K^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r1}}\left(P1^in1^j+P1^jn1^i\left(f^{ij}n1^in1^j\right)P1^ln1_l\right)+`$ (A2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r2}}\left(P2^in2^j+P2^jn2^i\left(f^{ij}n2^in2^j\right)P2^ln2_l\right)`$ (A3)
Trivial manipulations give that:

$`K_{ij}K^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r1^4}}(n1_in1^jP1_jP1^i+n1_in1^iP1_jP1^j2n1_cn1^iP1_iP1^c`$
$`+n1_in1_cn1^in1^jP1_jP1^c2n1_in1_cP1^iP1^c+3(n1_c)^2(P1^c)^2`$
$`2n1_i(n1_c)^2n1^i(P1^c)^2+n1_jn1^iP1^j\left(P1_i+n1_in1_cP1^c\right)+`$
$`n1_jn1^j(P1_i+n1_in1_cP1^c)(P1^i+n1_cn1^iP1^c))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r1^2r2^2}}(n1^jn2_jP1^iP2_i+n1^in2_jP1^jP2_i+n1_cn1^in1^jn2_jP1^cP2_i`$
$`2n1_cn2^iP1^cP2_i+n1^jn2_iP1^iP2_j+n1^in2_iP1^jP2_j+`$
$`n1_cn1^in1^jn2_iP1^cP2_j+n1_in2^jP1_jP2^i2n1_cn2_iP1^cP2^i+`$
$`n1_jn2^j\left(P1_i+n1_in1_cP1^c\right)P2^i+n1_in2^iP1_jP2^j+`$
$`n1_jn2^i\left(P1_i+n1_in1_cP1^c\right)P2^j2n1^in2_cP1_iP2^c+n1_in2_cn2^in2^jP1_jP2^c`$
$`2n1_in2_cP1^iP2^c+n1^jn2_in2_jn2_cP1^iP2^c+n1^in2_in2_jn2_cP1^jP2^c`$
$`+6n1_cn2_cP1^cP2^c2n1_in1_cn1^in2_cP1^cP2^c+n1_cn1^in1^jn2_in2_jn2_cP1^cP2^c`$
$`2n1_cn2_in2_cn2^iP1^cP2^c+n1_jn2_cn2^in2^j(P1_i+n1_in1_cP1^c)P2^c)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r1^4}}(n2_jn2^jP2_iP2^i+n2_in2^jP2_jP2^i+n2_jn2^iP2_iP2^j+n2_in2^iP2_jP2^j`$
$`2n2_cn2^iP2_iP2^c+n2_jn2_cn2^in2^jP2_iP2^c+n2_in2_cn2^in2^jP2_jP2^c`$
$`2n2_in2_cP2^iP2^c+n2_in2_jn2_cn2^jP2^iP2^c+n2_in2_jn2_cn2^iP2^jP2^c+`$
$`3(n2_c)^2(P2^c)^22n2_i(n2_c)^2n2^i(P2^c)^2+n2_in2_j(n2_c)^2n2^in2^j(P2^c)^2))`$
What’s interesting about this equation is that each term have the product of two components of the momentum parameter vectors. Thus, if we change the sign on all components of the momentum parameter vectors, it will not change anything in the value of the $`K_{ij}K^{ij}`$ term, and thus the metric is conserved under such a sign change, at least in the puncture formulation. In the Cook formulation, there are more terms in the expression for $`K_{ij}`$ and $`K^{ij}`$ but each of these terms is a product of some factor that depends on the position where we wish to find $`K_{ij}`$ and of the extrinsic curvature tensor, evaluated at some different position. This means, that we multiply two terms where the normal-vector and the the radius that enters in the expression for the extrinsic curvature tensor are different, but the parameters P1 and P2 does not change. Thus each term in the product $`K_{ij}K^{ij}`$ will contain a product of two terms of the momentum vector parameters, and thus the whole expression is conserved under the sign change of $`P_1,P_2`$. QED.


text:
# Nonlocal variables with product states eigenstates

## 1 Introduction

A nonlocal variable is a property of a compound quantum system which cannot be measured using measurements of local properties only. Aharonov and his collaborators performed an extensive analysis of nonlocal variables  motivated by the question: to which extent quantum states and quantum variables have “physical reality”? Here “real” corresponds to “measurable”. For this analysis, it was crucial that the measurements of local properties were performed simultaneously (in some Lorentz frame). The resources were not constrained: measuring devices included, in particular, entangled quantum systems. It was found that there are nonlocal variables which are measurable using only local interactions and prior entanglement. In particular, the Bell operator, the eigenstates of which are four maximally entangled states, is measurable. On the other hand, it was proven that there are unmeasurable variables too.

Today, nonlocal variables became an important concept for practical applications in the field of quantum communication. The constraint of simultaneity of local measurements is, usually, not relevant for these considerations, but instead, there are constraints on resources. The standard question is: What can be measured with local measurements and unlimited classical communication? It is assumed that the measuring devices do not include entangled systems, otherwise, the quantum states of the parts of the composite systems could be all teleported  to one place and then the “nonlocal” variable becomes effectively local. The analysis of the locality of variables according to this definition was recently performed by Bennett et al and they found that there are variables with product states eigenstates which are unmeasurable.

In the present work we suggest an alternative, more simple proof of the main result of Bennett et al. We apply our method first to a similar problem in which only one-way classical communication is allowed, and at the end, to a generalization of the result of Bennett et alwhich they suggested as a conjecture.

## 2 One-way classical communication constraint

We are looking for a variable of a composite system consisting of two parts $`A`$ and $`B`$ which has product-state eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i=|\varphi _i_a|\psi _i_b`$ and which is not measurable via local interactions and one-way communication from $`A`$ to $`B`$. We take a minimal definition of “measurable”: the measurement has to tell with certainty if the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measured variable. There is no requirement that the measurement is ideal, i.e., that the eigenstates are not changed in the process of measurement: it might be a demolition measurement. Given that it identifies all the eigenstates, the linearity of quantum theory ensures that if the initial state is a superposition of the eigenstates, then the measurement will yield the outcomes with the probabilities governed by the quantum theory.

It turns out that there is a very simple example of such a variable. The nondegenerate eigenstates of this variable are:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=`$ $`|0_a`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=`$ $`|1_a`$ $`|0_b,`$ (1)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_a`$ $`+|1_a)`$ $`|1_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_a`$ $`|1_a)`$ $`|1_b,`$
where $`|0_a`$, $`|1_a`$ is the basis at $`A`$ and $`|0_b`$, $`|1_b`$ is the basis at $`B`$. Let us formulate the problem again. The system is prepared by an external party in one of the four mutually orthogonal product states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$. The prepared state is unknown to Alice who is located at $`A`$ and to Bob who is located at $`B`$. The aim of the measurement is to find out in which initial state the system has been prepared. The one-way communication channel is from Alice to Bob. Bob cannot transmit any information to Alice and cannot act on Alice’s state, therefore, Alice has to start first. Alice performs sequence of measurements and local operations on her part of the system and gets a particular outcome $`k`$. She can also perform her operations step by step, but there is no principal difference between one step and many steps strategy; “$`k`$” signifies the final outcome after Alice completed all her measurements. Alice reports outcome $`k`$ to Bob.

Alice’s quantum measurement can be described by two stages: at the first stage the evolution of the quantum state is unitary, at the second stage a collapse of the quantum state (real or effective) occurs. It is enough to consider only the first stage. The unitary evolution on the Alice’s part can be described as:

$$|\varphi _i_a|A\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\alpha _{ik}|w_{ik}_a,$$
(2)
where $`|A`$ is the initial quantum state of Alice’s measuring devices, $`|w_{ik}_a`$ is the quantum state of the particle and Alice’s measurement devices corresponding to a particular outcome $`k`$, and the summation is over all possible outcomes.

There are following relations between possible initial states in the site of Alice:

$`|\varphi _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\varphi _1+|\varphi _2),`$
$`|\varphi _4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\varphi _1|\varphi _2).`$ (3)
The unitary evolution (2) keeps these relations:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{3k}|w_{3k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{2k}|w_{2k}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{4k}|w_{4k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{2k}|w_{2k}).`$ (4)
We choose amplitudes $`\alpha _{ik}`$ to be real and nonnegative. This is always possible because the phase can be included in the definition of $`|w_{ik}`$. Quantum states $`|w_{ik}`$ and $`|w_{jk^{}}`$ with different $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ are orthogonal because they correspond to different outcomes of the measuring devices (which by definition are macroscopic). Therefore, the relations (2) hold for each $`k`$ separately:

$`\alpha _{3k}|w_{3k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}+\alpha _{2k}|w_{2k}),`$
$`\alpha _{4k}|w_{4k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}\alpha _{2k}|w_{2k}).`$ (5)
Initially, the states in Alice’s site are mutually orthogonal in each pair: $`\varphi _1|\varphi _2_a=0`$ and $`\varphi _3|\varphi _4_a=0`$. Thus, Alice is able to distinguish between the states in each pair. It is important because Bob’s corresponding local states are identical, so he cannot distinguish between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$. Therefore, whatever Alice does, she must retain distinguishability between the states in each pair. This means, that if a particular outcome $`k`$ might come out for both initial states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ (or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$), then, at every stage, the corresponding quantum states at Alice’s site must be orthogonal. This can be formulated in the following equations:

$`\alpha _{1k}\alpha _{2k}w_{1k}|w_{2k}=0,`$
$`\alpha _{3k}\alpha _{4k}w_{3k}|w_{4k}=0.`$ (6)
From (2) after some manipulation we obtain:

$`\alpha _{1k}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha _{3k}^2+\alpha _{4k}^2+2\alpha _{3k}\alpha _{4k}w_{3k}|w_{4k}),`$
$`\alpha _{2k}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha _{3k}^2+\alpha _{4k}^22\alpha _{3k}\alpha _{4k}w_{3k}|w_{4k}),`$ (7)
$`\alpha _{3k}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha _{1k}^2+\alpha _{2k}^2+2\alpha _{1k}\alpha _{2k}w_{1k}|w_{2k}),`$
$`\alpha _{4k}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha _{1k}^2+\alpha _{2k}^22\alpha _{1k}\alpha _{2k}w_{1k}|w_{2k}).`$
Substituting (2) in (2), we obtain four equations for $`\alpha _{ik}`$ which result in the equality

$$\alpha _{1k}=\alpha _{2k}=\alpha _{3k}=\alpha _{4k}.$$
(8)
Therefore, if $`k`$ is a possible outcome for one initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, i.e., the corresponding coefficient $`\alpha _{ik}`$ does not vanish, then $`k`$ is a possible outcome for all initial states. From (2) it follows that for all such outcomes $`k`$, the orthogonality condition holds:

$$w_{1k}|w_{2k}=0.$$
(9)
Substituting (8) into (2) we obtain, for each possible outcome $`k`$, the following relations

$`|w_{3k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|w_{1k}+|w_{2k}),`$
$`|w_{4k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|w_{1k}|w_{2k}).`$ (10)
Thus, the evolutions for different initial states of the quantum state of the system and Alice’s measuring devices which ended with the outcome $`k`$ are:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|A`$ $`|w_{1k}_a`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|A`$ $`|w_{2k}_a`$ $`|0_b,`$ (11)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|w_{1k}_a+|w_{2k}_a)`$ $`|1_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|w_{1k}_a|w_{2k}_a)`$ $`|1_b,`$
Taking into account (9), we see that this structure is isomorphic with the initial structure (with the correspondence $`|0_a|A|w_{1k}_a`$, $`|1_a|A|w_{2k}_a`$). Therefore, we have shown that if there is a constraint on Alice’s actions such that she cannot lead to a situation in which it is impossible in principle to distinguish with certainty between different initial states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, then she cannot make any progress towards distinguishing the states. Thus, Alice cannot give Bob any useful information. Bob can perform operations on his local part, but he obviously cannot distinguish between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$. This completes the proof of unmeasurability of the variable with nondegenerate eigenstates (2).

Note that this proof is easily generalized for the variable with the nondegenerate eigenstates

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=`$ $`|0_a`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=`$ $`|1_a`$ $`|0_b.`$ (12)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta |0_a+\mathrm{sin}\theta |1_a)`$ $`|1_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta |0_a\mathrm{cos}\theta |1_a)`$ $`|1_b,`$
where $`0<\theta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$.

## 3 The two-way classical communication constraint

In this section we will reproduce the result of Bennett et al using the method of the previous section. We will prove that certain variables with product-state eigenstates cannot be measured (even in the above, demolition way) using local operations and unlimited classical two-way communication.

The variable which Bennett et alfound has the following nondegenerate eigenstates:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|0_a`$ $`(|0_b+|1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|0_a`$ $`(|0_b|1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|2_a`$ $`(|1_b+|2_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|2_a`$ $`(|1_b|2_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_5={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|0_a+|1_a)`$ $`|2_b,`$ (13)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_6={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|0_a|1_a)`$ $`|2_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_7={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|1_a+|2_a)`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_8={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|1_a|2_a)`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_9=`$ $`|1_a`$ $`|1_b,`$
where $`|0`$, $`|1`$, and $`|2`$ are local bases in Alice’s and Bob’s sites.

In our approach, in contrast with the original proof, we will show that if we impose the constraint of not allowing for any probability to fail in the measurement, i.e. of reaching a state in which it is in principle impossible to distinguish with certainty between different initial states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, then Alice and Bob cannot make any progress towards completing the measurement. We note that even if the two-way communication is allowed, one party has to start. Since they have only classical channel, a measurement which ends up with a particular outcome has to be performed in one of the sites. Thus, constructing the proof similar to that of the previous section, but for the variable with the eigenstates (3), is enough.

Since the eigenstates (3) have a symmetry between $`A`$ and $`B`$, we can assume without loosing generality that the first step is performed by Alice who performs the measurement with possible outcomes $`k`$. The unitary evolution on the Alice’s part can be described as:

$$|\varphi _i_a|A\underset{k}{}\alpha _{ik}|w_{ik}_a.$$
(14)
From $`|\varphi _1=|\varphi _2`$ and $`|\varphi _3=|\varphi _4`$, we immediately obtain:

$`\alpha _{1k}=\alpha _{2k},\alpha _{3k}=\alpha _{4k},`$
$`|w_{1k}=|w_{2k},|w_{3k}=|w_{4k}.`$ (15)
The evolution (14) should keep the relations between initial states, and since all states $`|w_{ik}_a`$ with different $`k`$ must be orthogonal, the same relations hold for each individual possible $`k`$:

$`\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{5k}|w_{5k}+\alpha _{6k}|w_{6k}),`$
$`\alpha _{3k}|w_{3k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{7k}|w_{7k}\alpha _{8k}|w_{8k}),`$
$`\alpha _{5k}|w_{5k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}+\alpha _{9k}|w_{9k}),`$
$`\alpha _{6k}|w_{6k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{1k}|w_{1k}\alpha _{9k}|w_{9k}),`$ (16)
$`\alpha _{7k}|w_{7k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{9k}|w_{9k}+\alpha _{3k}|w_{3k}),`$
$`\alpha _{8k}|w_{8k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _{9k}|w_{9k}\alpha _{3k}|w_{3k}).`$
Bob, obviously, cannot distinguish between states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_5`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_6`$ and between states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_7`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_8`$. He also might fail to distinguish between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_9`$ and between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_9`$ because the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ are nonorthogonal to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_9`$ on Bob’s side. Therefore, Alice should be able to distinguish between these pairs, i.e., for all possible outcomes $`k`$ the following conditions must be kept at Alice’s site:

$`\alpha _{5k}\alpha _{6k}w_{5k}|w_{6k}=0,`$
$`\alpha _{7k}\alpha _{8k}w_{7k}|w_{8k}=0,`$
$`\alpha _{1k}\alpha _{9k}w_{1k}|w_{9k}=0,`$ (17)
$`\alpha _{3k}\alpha _{9k}w_{3k}|w_{9k}=0.`$
After some straightforward algebraic manipulations, (3) and (3) yield that all nine coefficients $`\alpha _{ik}`$ are equal, and that $`|w_{1k}_a`$, $`|w_{3k}_a`$, and $`|w_{9k}_a`$ are mutually orthogonal. Therefore, the evolutions for different initial states of the quantum state of the system and Alice’s measuring devices ended with the outcome $`k`$ is:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|w_{1k}_a`$ $`(|0_b+|1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|w_{1k}_a`$ $`(|0_b|1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|w_{3k}_a`$ $`(|1_b+|2_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`|w_{3k}_a`$ $`(|1_b|2_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_5|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|w_{1k}_a+|w_{9k}_a)`$ $`|2_b,`$ (18)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_6|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|w_{1k}_a|w_{9k}_a)`$ $`|2_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_7|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|w_{9k}_a+|w_{3k}_a)`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_8|A{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|w_{9k}_a|w_{3k}_a)`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_9|A`$ $`|w_{9k}_a`$ $`|1_b.`$
This structure is isomorphic with the structure of the initial state (with the correspondence $`|0_a|A|w_{1k}_a,|1_a|A|w_{9k}_a`$, and $`|2_a|A|w_{3k}_a`$). Therefore, we have shown that if there is a constraint on Alice’s actions such that she cannot lead to a situation in which it is impossible in principle to distinguish with certainty between different initial states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, then she cannot make any progress towards distinguishing the states. Thus, Alice cannot give Bob any useful information. If Alice’s operation (the first round) yields no progress towards the solution of the problem, then all following rounds cannot change the situation too.

We can apply this method to prove unmeasurability of a more general variable suggested in the Bennett’s paper as a conjecture. The set of nondegenerate eigenstates of this variable is:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=`$ $`|0_a`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\eta |0_b+\mathrm{sin}\eta |1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=`$ $`|0_a`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\eta |0_b\mathrm{cos}\eta |1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=`$ $`|2_a`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\xi |1_b+\mathrm{sin}\xi |2_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4=`$ $`|2_a`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\xi |1_b\mathrm{cos}\xi |1_b),`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_5=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta |0_a+\mathrm{sin}\theta |1_a)`$ $`|2_b,`$ (19)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_6=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta |0_a\mathrm{cos}\theta |1_a)`$ $`|2_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_7=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\gamma |1_a+\mathrm{sin}\gamma |2_a)`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_8=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\gamma |1_a\mathrm{cos}\gamma |2_a)`$ $`|0_b,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_9=`$ $`|1_a`$ $`|1_b,`$
where all angles $`\eta ,\xi ,\theta ,\gamma `$ are strictly inside the interval $`(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$. Indeed, considering Alice to make the first step and following the arguments above, we obtain again relations (3) and also the following relations:

$`\alpha _{1k}^2\alpha _{9k}^2=\mathrm{cos}2\theta (\alpha _{5k}^2\alpha _{6k}^2),`$
$`\alpha _{5k}^2\alpha _{6k}^2=\mathrm{cos}2\theta (\alpha _{1k}^2\alpha _{9k}^2),`$
$`\alpha _{9k}^2\alpha _{3k}^2=\mathrm{cos}2\gamma (\alpha _{7k}^2\alpha _{8k}^2),`$ (20)
$`\alpha _{7k}^2\alpha _{8k}^2=\mathrm{cos}2\gamma (\alpha _{9k}^2\alpha _{3k}^2).`$
The only solution of these equations is that all coefficients $`\alpha _{ik}`$ are equal, i.e., that Alice cannot make any progress if she makes the first step. Similar equations are obtained if Bob is to make the first step, so he cannot make any progress either.

## 4 Optimal local estimation measurements: the case of one-way communication

In the previous sections we proved that 100% reliable measurements of certain variables are impossible. Let us show now, for the case of the one-way communication, that not just the ideal case is impossible but also that it is impossible to get close to it. To show this we will relax both the requirement of 100% success and the requirement of 100% reliability, and will ask the following question: What is the optimal measurement which can get the best guess of the prepared state? The “best” means that on average we obtain maximal probability for the correct guess. If the maximal probability does not approach 1, it means that it is impossible to construct a protocol in which success and reliability will approach 100%.

We consider again the situation after Alice completes the measurements at her site. The equations (2-2,2) still hold, but the orthogonality conditions (2,9) are not imposed. Alice has to distinguish between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$. For each $`k`$ she makes her guess according to the maximal coefficient $`\alpha _{ik}`$ in each pair $`\alpha _{1k},\alpha _{2k}`$ and $`\alpha _{3k},\alpha _{4k}`$. Bob distinguishes between the pairs with 100% efficiency, therefore, for a given $`k`$, on average according to the initial state, the probability for the correct guess is

$$p=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{max}\{\alpha _{1k}^2,\alpha _{2k}^2\}}{\alpha _{1k}^2+\alpha _{2k}^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{max}\{\alpha _{3k}^2,\alpha _{4k}^2\}}{\alpha _{3k}^2+\alpha _{4k}^2}.$$
(21)
Our task is to find the strategy for Alice such that, on average on all outcomes $`k`$, the probability $`p`$ will become maximal. As before, since the constraints are separate for each $`k`$, we just have to look for a maximum for a particular $`k`$. From (2) we obtain:

$$\alpha _{1k}^2+\alpha _{2k}^2=\alpha _{3k}^2+\alpha _{4k}^2.$$
(22)
Without loosing generality we can assume that $`\alpha _{1k}>\alpha _{2k}`$ and $`\alpha _{3k}>\alpha _{4k}`$. Let us define parameters $`\gamma `$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$:

$`\alpha _{1k}^2=\gamma (1+ϵ),`$
$`\alpha _{2k}^2=\gamma (1ϵ),`$
$`\alpha _{3k}^2=\gamma (1+\delta ),`$ (23)
$`\alpha _{4k}^2=\gamma (1\delta ).`$
Then $`p`$, the probability we have to maximize, becomes

$$p=\frac{2+ϵ+\delta }{4}.$$
(24)
From (2) and (4) we obtain

$$p=\frac{1}{4}(2+ϵ+\sqrt{1ϵ^2}w_{1k}|w_{2k}).$$
(25)
The maximum value of $`p`$ is obtained when $`w_{1k}|w_{2k}=1`$. Then, the optimization on different values of $`ϵ`$ yields maximum for $`ϵ=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, and thus, the probability for the correct guess of the prepared state is not more than

$$p_{max}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}.$$
(26)
This bound is, in fact, tight, since it can be realized via the measurement in the basis

$`|\chi _1_a=\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}})|0_a+\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}})|1_a,`$
$`|\chi _2_a=\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}})|0_a\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}})|1_a.`$ (27)
If the state $`|\chi _1`$ is obtained, then the team announces that its guess is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$, according to the results of Bob, $`|0_b`$ or $`|1_b`$. If the state $`|\chi _2`$ is obtained, then the team announces $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ according to the results of Bob. It can be seen from a straightforward trigonometric manipulations that the probability for the correct result is indeed $`p_{max}`$:

$$|\varphi _2|\chi _1|^2=|\varphi _3|\chi _1|^2=|\varphi _1|\chi _2|^2=|\varphi _4|\chi _2|^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}.$$
(28)
Note that the probability of the successful guess is the same for all initial states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed measurability of variables of a composite system consisting of two separated parts. The variables we have considered have nondegenerate product-state eigenstates. We have shown that assuming one-way classical communication and local interactions, there is a simple example of unmeasurable variable of this kind with eigenstates given by (2). We have simplified the proof and made certain generalization of the results by Bennett et alregarding measurability of such variables when the two-way classical communication is allowed.

It was shown before  that the variable with product-states eigenstates (2) is unmeasurable. However, this proof was under different assumptions. The main difference is that the proof was only for unmeasurability of ideal (nondemolition) measurements. In this case it was easy to show that measurability leads to superluminal signaling and this was the proof that it is impossible. The current work considers more difficult question of possibility of “demolition” measurements in which it is not required that the eigenstates are unchanged during the measurement. Under certain constraints regarding allowed operations, it has been shown that a variable with an entangled (but not maximally entangled) eigenstate cannot be measured even in a demolition way . When the constraints were removed , the unmeasurability was not true anymore, but it was shown that measurement of such a variable invariably erases relevant local information. It seems that more results can be obtained in this framework. In particular, a recently developed formalism of semicausal operations seems very promising as it already led to useful results in quantum communication .

Just before the completion of this work, an actual experiment with the eigenstates (3) has been proposed by Carollo et al. An experiment with nine eigenstates (3) is significantly more difficult than an experiment with four states (2). The impossibility to distinguish the states (2) with local measurements and the one-way classical communication represents the same basic feature as the impossibility to distinguish the states (3) with the two-way communication channel. Thus, we suggest to modify this experimental proposal for the case of four states and to start with this easier experiment.

Carollo et alalso proved that even if the nine eigenstates are available locally, they cannot be discriminated using linear optical elements. It means that even the existence of prior entanglement does not allow reliable discrimination of the nine bipartite states (3) with linear elements, and not just because the teleportation cannot be performed . The question of reliable discrimination of the four bipartite states (2) with linear optics, one-way communication, and prior entanglement remains open.

It is a pleasure to thank Noam Erez, Christopher Fuchs, Lior Goldenberg, Tal Mor, Christoph Simon, Stephen Wiesner, and Nadav Yoran for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by grant 471/98 of the Basic Research Foundation (administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities) and the EPSRC grant GR/N33058.

## References