format: text

text:
# A Parametrization of Bipartite Systems Based on 𝑆𝑈(4) Euler Angles

## I Introduction

In quantum mechanics the appropriate description of mixed states is by density matrices. For example, their compact notation makes them useful for describing entanglement and decoherence properties of multi-particle quantum systems. In particular, two two-state density matrices, also known as two qubit density matrices, are important for their role in explaining quantum teleportation, dense coding, computation theorems, and other issues pertinent to quantum information theory.

Although the ideas behind extending classical computation and communication theories into the quantum realm have been around for some decades now, the first reference to calling any generic two-state system a qubit comes from Schumacher Schumacher  in 1995. By calling a two-state system a qubit, he quantified the relationship between classical and quantum information theory: a qubit can behave like a classical bit, but because of the quantum properties of superposition and entanglement, it has a much larger information storage capacity. It is this capacity to invoke quantum effects to increase information storage and processing, that gives qubits such a central role in quantum information theory.

Now, a qubit is just a state in a two-dimensional Hilbert space Preskill . If $`^2`$ in the vector space, the unit vectors

$$|\psi =a|0+b|1$$
(1)
with a and b being complex numbers satisfying

$$\left|a\right|^2+\left|b\right|^2=1$$
(2)
define, up to a phase, the pure quantum states. In quantum information theory, the orthonormal basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ is used to represent the bit states 0 (off) and 1 (on). As pointed out by Brown Brown  the physical representation of these two bit states depends on the “hardware” being discussed; the basis states may be polarization states of light, atomic or electronic spin states, or the ground and first excited state of a quantum dot.

If the qubit represents a mixed state, which is quite often the case, one should use a two-dimensional density matrix, which was introduced independently by Landau and von Neumann in the 1920’s (see for example the discussion in Davydov ), for its representation. The formalism of density matrices allows one to exploit simple matrix algebra mechanisms to evaluate the expectation value of any physical quantity of the system. More recently, it has been pointed out by several people (see Preskill ; MByrd4All ; MByrd3Slater1 ; NielsonChuang ,and references within) that the density matrix representation of quantum states is also a very natural representation to use with regards to quantum information calculations.

Following this lead we therefore express one qubit as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{l}_2+𝝈𝒏),$$
(3)
i.e. as a general 2 by 2 hermitian matrix with unit trace and the positivity condition $`Tr[\rho ]0`$ implying $`𝒏𝒏1`$ or $`\rho ^2\rho `$. Therefore, these density matrices are the disk $`D^3`$, whose boundary $`D^3=S^2=P^1`$ represents the pure states ($`\rho ^2=\rho `$, or $`𝒏𝒏=1`$), and which can be thus characterized by the two angles $`0\theta \pi `$ (the latitude) and $`0\varphi 2\pi `$ (the longitude) of the sphere $`S^2`$.

Now, two-state density matrices live in a 3 by 3 hermitian-matrix space, with $`P^2=SU(3)/U(2)`$ as a subspace of pure states. Much is already known about these two- and three- state density matrices, especially when one uses, for example, Euler angle parametrizations (see MByrd3Slater1  for more information). But what is not as well known is how the density matrices of larger dimensional Hilbert spaces, and thus of multiple qubits, looks under such a parametrization. This paper will make a great deal of progress in remedying this situation by giving an explicit parametrization of the density matrix of two qubits that is not redundant in the representation of the corresponding four-dimensional Hilbert space, and at the same time offers up the natural (Bures) volume measure on the set of all two qubit density matrices. This will be achieved by starting with a diagonal density matrix $`\rho _d`$, which represents our two qubit system in some particular basis, and then performing a unitary ($`U^1=U^{}`$), unimodular ($`\text{Det}[U]=1`$) transformation

$$\rho _dU\rho _dU^{}$$
(4)
for some $`USU(4)`$, thus describing $`\rho `$ in an arbitrary basis MByrd3Slater1 ; MByrd1 ; MByrdp1 ; MByrd2 . We should point out that progress in this direction has also been made in a recent publication by Schlienz and Mahler Sclienz:95 .

## II Euler Angle Parametrization for $`SU(4)`$

We begin by giving the Euler angle parametrization for $`SU(4)`$. Define $`USU(4)`$. Using the Gell-Mann basis for the elements of the algebra (found in Appendix A), the Euler angle parametrization is then given by

$`U=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}.`$ (5)
The derivation of this result is as follows. We begin by following the work of Biedenharn Biedenharn  and Hermann Hermann  in order to generate a Cartan decomposition of $`SU(4)`$. First, we look at the 4 by 4, hermitian, traceless, Gell-Mann matrices $`\lambda _i`$. This set is linearly independent and is the lowest dimensional faithful representation of the $`SU(4)`$ Lie algebra. From these matrices we can then calculate their commutation relations, and by observation of the corresponding structure constants $`f_{ijk}`$ we can see the relationship in the algebra that can help generate the Cartan decomposition of $`SU(4)`$ (shown in detail in Appendix A).

We now establish two subspaces of the $`SU(4)`$ group manifold hereafter known as $`K`$ and $`P`$. From these subspaces, there corresponds two subsets of the Lie algebra of $`SU(4)`$, $`L(K)`$ and $`L(P)`$, such that for $`k_1,k_2L(K)`$ and $`p_1,p_2L(P)`$,

$`[k_1,k_2]`$ $`L(K),`$
$`[p_1,p_2]`$ $`L(K),`$
$`[k_1,p_2]`$ $`L(P).`$ (6)
For $`SU(4)`$, $`L(K)=\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8,\lambda _{15}\}`$ and $`L(P)=\{\lambda _9,\mathrm{},\lambda _{14}\}`$. Given that we can decompose the $`SU(4)`$ algebra into a semi-direct sum Herstein

$$L(SU(4))=L(K)L(P),$$
(7)
we therefore have a decomposition of the group,

$$U=KP.$$
(8)
From Sattinger  we know that $`L(K)`$ contains the generators of the $`SU(3)`$ subalgebra of $`SU(4)`$, thus $`K`$ will be the $`U(3)`$ subgroup obtained by exponentiating the subalgebra, $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8\}`$ combined with $`\lambda _{15}`$ and thus can be written as (see MByrd1 ; MByrdp1  for details)

$$K=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha }e^{i\lambda _2\beta }e^{i\lambda _3\gamma }e^{i\lambda _5\theta }e^{i\lambda _3a}e^{i\lambda _2b}e^{i\lambda _3c}e^{i\lambda _8\chi }e^{i\lambda _{15}\varphi }.$$
(9)
Now, as for $`P`$, of the six elements in $`L(P)`$ we chose the $`\lambda _2`$ analogue, $`\lambda _{10}`$, for $`SU(4)`$ and write any element of $`P`$ as

$$P=K^{}e^{i\lambda _{10}\psi }K^{\prime \prime }$$
(10)
where $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{\prime \prime }`$ are copies of $`K`$.

Unfortunately, at this point in our derivation, we have a $`U`$ with 28 elements, not the requisite 15

$$U=KK^{}e^{i\lambda _{10}\psi }K^{\prime \prime }.$$
(11)
But, if we recall that $`U`$ is a product of operators in $`SU(4)`$, we can “remove the redundancies,” i.e. the first $`K^{}`$ component as well as the three Cartan subalgebra elements of $`SU(4)`$ in the original $`K`$ component, to arrive at the following product MByrd1 ; MByrdp1

$`U=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _2\eta }e^{i\lambda _{10}\psi }e^{i\lambda _3\alpha }e^{i\lambda _2\beta }e^{i\lambda _3\gamma }e^{i\lambda _5\theta }e^{i\lambda _3a}e^{i\lambda _2b}e^{i\lambda _3c}e^{i\lambda _8\chi }e^{i\lambda _{15}\varphi }.`$ (12)
By insisting that our parametrization must truthfully reproduce known vector and tensor transformations under $`SU(4)`$, we can remove the last “redundancy,” $`e^{i\lambda _2\eta }`$, and, after rewriting the parameters, generate equation (5)

$`U=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}.`$ (13)
For our purposes it is enough to note that this parametrization is special unitary by construction and can be shown to cover the group by modifying the ranges that follow and substituting them into the whole group matrix, or into the parametrization of the characters Gibbons .

## III Derivation of the Haar Measure and Calculation of the Group Volume for $`SU(4)`$

Taking the Euler angle parametrization given by equation (5) we now wish to develop the differential volume element, also known as the Haar measure, for the group $`SU(4)`$. We initially proceed by extending the method used in MByrd1 ; MByrdp1  for the calculation of the Haar measure for $`SU(3)`$; take a generic $`USU(4)`$ and find the matrix

$$U^1dU=U^1\frac{U}{\alpha _k}d\alpha _k$$
(14)
of left invariant one-forms, then wedge the 15 linearly independent forms together.111Similarly one can wedge together the 15 right invariant one-forms which also yields the Haar measure in question. This is due to the fact that a compact simply-connected real Lie group has a bi-invariant measure, unique up to a constant factor. Such a group is usually referred to as ‘unimodular’ Sattinger . But due to the 15 independent parameters needed for $`SU(4)`$, this method is unfortunately quite time consuming and thus prohibitive. An easier way, initially given in Murnaghan , is to calculate the 4 by 4 matrices, $`U/\alpha _k`$ (for $`k=\{1\mathrm{}15\}`$), and take the determinant of the coefficient matrix generated by their subsequent expansion in terms of the Gell-Mann basis.

To begin, we take the transpose of equation (5) to generate

$`u=U^T`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _{15}^T\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8^T\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _2^T\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _5^T\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _2^T\alpha _8}`$ (15)
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _{10}^T\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _5^T\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _2^T\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _1}.`$
An observation of the components of our Lie algebra sub-set $`(\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _5,\lambda _8,\lambda _{10},\lambda _{15})`$ shows that the transpose operation is equivalent to making the following substitutions

$`\lambda _2^T\lambda _2`$ , $`\lambda _3^T\lambda _3,`$
$`\lambda _5^T\lambda _5`$ , $`\lambda _8^T\lambda _8,`$
$`\lambda _{10}^T\lambda _{10}`$ , $`\lambda _{15}^T\lambda _{15}`$ (16)
in equation (15) generating

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}`$ (17)
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}.`$
Whichever form is used though, we then take the partial derivative of $`u`$ with respect to each of the 15 parameters. In general, the differentiation will have the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\alpha _k}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _{15}^T\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8^T\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _2^T\alpha _{12}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _m^T\alpha _{k+1}}i\lambda _n^Te^{i\lambda _n^T\alpha _k}e^{i\lambda _p^T\alpha _{k1}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _1}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _{15}^T\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8^T\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _2^T\alpha _{12}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _m^T\alpha _{k+1}}i\lambda _n^Te^{i\lambda _m^T\alpha _{k+1}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _2^T\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3^T\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _8^T\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _{15}^T\alpha _{15}}u`$
which, if we make the following definitions,

$$C(\alpha _k)i\{\lambda _2^T,\lambda _3^T,\lambda _5^T,\lambda _8^T,\lambda _{10}^T,\lambda _{15}^T\},$$
(19)
and

$`E^L=`$ $`e^{C(\alpha _{15})\alpha _{15}}\mathrm{}e^{C(\alpha _{k+1})\alpha _{k+1}},`$
$`E^L=`$ $`e^{C(\alpha _{k+1})\alpha _{k+1}}\mathrm{}e^{C(\alpha _{15})\alpha _{15}}`$ (20)
can be expressed, in a “shorthanded” notation as

$$\frac{u}{\alpha _k}=E^LC(\alpha _k)E^Lu.$$
(21)
By using these equations and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff relation,

$$e^XYe^X=Y+[X,Y]+\frac{1}{2}[X,[X,Y]]+\mathrm{},$$
(22)
we are able to consecutively solve equation (18) for $`k=\{15,\mathrm{},1\}`$, giving us a set of 4 by 4 matrices which can be expanded in terms of the 15 transposed elements of the $`SU(4)`$ Lie algebra with expansion coefficients given by trigonometric functions of the group parameters $`\alpha _i`$:

$$M_k\frac{u}{\alpha _k}u^1=E^LC(\alpha _k)E^L=\underset{15j1}{}c_{kj}\lambda _j^T.$$
(23)
At this stage, we should illustrate the connection between the $`M_k`$’s and the 15 left invariant one-forms that we could have used. To begin we note that

$$duu^1=d(U^T)(U^T)^1=(dU)^T(U^1)^T=(U^1dU)^T.$$
(24)
Thus the following relationship between equation (14) and (23) holds:
$$\left(\frac{u}{\alpha _k}d\alpha _k\right)u^1=\underset{15j1}{}c_{kj}\lambda _j^Td\alpha _k=(U^1\frac{U}{\alpha _k}d\alpha _k)^T.$$
(25)
Therefore we can conclude
$$U^1\frac{U}{\alpha _k}d\alpha _k=\underset{1j15}{}c_{kj}\lambda _jd\alpha _k,$$
(26)
for $`k=\{1,\mathrm{},15\}`$. So even though we are calculating the right invariant one-forms for $`u`$, we are really calculating the left invariant one-forms for $`U`$. The important thing to note is that the $`c_{kj}`$’s do not change.222The transpose operation on the Gell-Mann matrices only gives an overall sign difference to some of the matrices
$$\{\lambda _1^T,\lambda _2^T,\lambda _3^T,\lambda _4^T,\lambda _5^T,\lambda _6^T,\lambda _7^T,\lambda _8^T,\lambda _9^T,\lambda _{10}^T,\lambda _{11}^T,\lambda _{12}^T,\lambda _{13}^T,\lambda _{14}^T,\lambda _{15}^T\}$$

$$\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4,\lambda _5,\lambda _6,\lambda _7,\lambda _8,\lambda _9,\lambda _{10},\lambda _{11},\lambda _{12},\lambda _{13},\lambda _{14},\lambda _{15}\}$$
but these sign changes are augmented by the inversion in the sum over k and therefore cancel out in the final construction of the determinant that we need. The transpose operation on equation (5) is done only to simplify the initial evaluation of the expansion coefficients $`c_{kj}`$.

Now, the expansion coefficients $`c_{kj}`$ are the elements of the determinant in question. They are found in the following manner

$$c_{kj}=\frac{i}{2}Tr[\lambda _j^TM_k]$$
(27)
where the trace is done over all 15 transposed Gell-Mann matrices Greiner . The index $`k`$ corresponds to the specific $`\alpha `$ parameter and the $`j`$ corresponds to the specific element of the algebra. Both the $`k`$ and $`j`$ indices run from 15 to 1. The determinant of this 15 by 15 matrix yields the differential volume element, also known as the Haar measure for the group, $`dV_{SU(4)}`$ that, when integrated over the correct values for the ranges of the parameters and multiplied by a derivable normalization constant, yields the volume for the group.

The full 15 by 15 determinant $`\text{Det}[c_{kj}]`$, $`k,j\{15,\mathrm{},1\}`$, can be done, or one can notice that the determinant can be written as

$$C_{SU(4)}=\begin{array}{ccccc}c_{15,14}& c_{15,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{15,1}& c_{15,15}\\ c_{14,14}& c_{14,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{14,1}& c_{14,15}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ c_{1,14}& c_{1,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{1,1}& c_{1,15}\end{array}$$
(28)
which differs only by an overall sign from $`\text{Det}[c_{kj}]`$ above, but which also yields a quasi-block form that generates

$$C_{SU(4)}=\begin{array}{cc}O& D\\ A& B\end{array},$$
(29)
where $`D`$ corresponds to the 9 by 9 matrix whose determinant is equivalent to $`dV_{SU(3)}d\alpha _{15}`$ MByrd1 , $`B`$ is a complicated 6 by 9 matrix, and $`O`$ is a 9 by 6 matrix whose elements are all zero.

Now the interchange of two columns of a $`N`$ by $`N`$ matrix yields a change in sign of the corresponding determinant, but by moving six columns at once the sign of the determinant does not change and one may therefore generate a new matrix

$$C_{SU(4)}^{}=\begin{array}{ccccccccc}c_{15,8}& c_{15,7}& \mathrm{}& c_{15,1}& c_{15,15}& c_{15,14}& c_{15,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{15,9}\\ c_{14,8}& c_{14,7}& \mathrm{}& c_{14,1}& c_{14,15}& c_{14,14}& c_{14,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{14,9}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ c_{1,8}& c_{1,7}& \mathrm{}& c_{1,1}& c_{1,15}& c_{1,14}& c_{1,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{1,9}\end{array},$$
(30)
which is now block diagonal

$$C_{SU(4)}^{}=\begin{array}{cc}D& O\\ B& A\end{array},$$
(31)
and which yields the same determinant as $`C_{SU(4)}`$. Thus, with this new form, the full determinant is just equal to the determinant of the diagonal blocks, one of which is already known.333The general determinant formula for this type of block matrix is given, without proof, by Robert Tucci in eprint quant-ph$`\backslash `$0103040. So only the determinant of the 6 by 6 sub-matrix $`A`$ which is equal to

$$A=\begin{array}{ccccc}c_{6,14}& c_{6,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{6,10}& c_{6,9}\\ c_{5,14}& c_{5,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{5,10}& c_{5,9}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ c_{1,14}& c_{1,13}& \mathrm{}& c_{1,10}& c_{1,9}\end{array}$$
(32)
is needed. Therefore the differential volume element for $`SU(4)`$ is nothing more than

$`dV_{SU(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Det}[c_{kj}]`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`\text{Det}[A]\text{Det}[D]d\alpha _{15}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Det}[A]dV_{SU(3)}d\alpha _{15}d\alpha _6\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$
which when calculated yields the Haar measure

$`dV_{SU(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)^3\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _6)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{10})\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _2)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)^5\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _8)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{10})^3\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _{12})d\alpha _{15}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1.`$ (34)
This is determined up to normalization (explained in detail in Appendix B). Integration over the 15 parameter space gives the group volume

$`{\displaystyle \underset{V}{\int \cdots \int }}𝑑V_{SU(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`(192){\displaystyle \underset{V^{}}{\int \cdots \int }}𝑑V_{SU(4)}`$
$`V_{SU(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ^9}{3}},`$ (35)
which is in agreement with the volume obtained by Marinov Marinov2 .

## IV Two Qubit Density Matrix Parametrization

Using this Euler angle parametrization, any two qubit density matrix can now be represented by following the convention derived in Boya et. al. MByrd4All . As stated in Boya et. al., any $`N`$-dimensional pure state can be written as a diagonal matrix with one element equal to 1 and the rest zero. Different classes of pure states have a different ordering of the zero and non-zero diagonal elements. Therefore, if one wants to write down a mixture of these different pure states, one must take the following convex sum

$$\rho _d=\underset{i}{}a^i\rho _i,$$
(36)
where $`\rho _d`$ is now the mixed state, $`\rho _i`$ ($`i`$ running from 1 to $`N`$) are the pure state matrices satisfying $`Tr[\rho _i\rho _j]=2\delta _{ij}`$, and the $`a^i`$ are constants that satisfy $`_ia^i=1`$ and $`0a^i1`$ MByrd4All . Now the $`a^i`$ are just the eigenvalues of the density matrix $`\rho _d`$ and can thus be parameterized by the squared components within the ($`N1`$) sphere, $`S^{N1}`$. If we now want the most general mixed state density matrix in some arbitrary basis, one only has to perform a unitary, unimodular transformation upon $`\rho _d`$; a transformation that will be an element of $`SU(N)`$. So for our two qubit density matrix $`\rho `$ we write

$$\rho =U\rho _dU^{},$$
(37)
where $`\rho _d`$ is the diagonalized density matrix which corresponds to the eigenvalues of the 3-sphere, $`S^3`$ MByrd4All ; MByrd3Slater1 ; MByrd2

$$\rho _d=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _1)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _3)\end{array}\right)$$
(38)
and $`U`$, now an element of $`SU(4)`$, is from equation (5).

It is instructive to rewrite equation (38) as the exponentiated product of generators of the Cartan subalgebra that we are using in our parametrization of $`SU(4)`$; $`e^{\lambda _3a},e^{\lambda _8b},\text{ and }e^{\lambda _{15}c}`$. Unfortunately, indeterminacies with the logarithm of the elements of $`\rho _d`$ does not allow for such a rewrite so $`\rho _d`$ will be expressed in terms of the following sum

$$\underset{1j15}{}w_j\lambda _j+w_01\mathrm{l}_4.$$
(39)
We begin by redefining $`\rho _d`$ in the following way

$$\rho _d=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}w^2x^2y^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& (1w^2)x^2y^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (1x^2)y^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1y^2\end{array}\right),$$
(40)
where $`w^2=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1)`$, $`x^2=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2)`$, and $`y^2=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3)`$. Now we calculate the decomposition of equation (40) in terms of the elements of the full Lie algebra. This is accomplished by taking the trace of $`\frac{1}{2}\rho _d\lambda _j`$ over all 15 Gell-Mann matrices. Evaluation of these 15 trace operations yields the following decomposition of equation (40)

$`\rho _d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}1\mathrm{l}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2w^2)x^2y^2\lambda _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(2+3x^2)y^2\lambda _8+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}}(3+4y^2)\lambda _{15},`$ (41)
where the one-quarter $`1\mathrm{l}_4`$ keeps the trace of $`\rho _d`$ in this form still unity.

With equations (37) and (41) we can write down $`\rho `$ completely in terms of the Lie algebra sub-set of the parametrization. First, $`U^{}`$, the transpose of the conjugate of equation (5), is expressed as

$`U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}`$ (42)
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}.`$
Thus equation (37) is equal to

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}`$ (43)
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}1\mathrm{l}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2w^2)x^2y^2\lambda _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(2+3x^2)y^2\lambda _8+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}}(3+4y^2)\lambda _{15})`$
$`\times e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}`$
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1},`$
which, because $`1\mathrm{l}_4`$, $`\lambda _3`$, $`\lambda _8`$, and $`\lambda _{15}`$ all commute with each other, has the following simplification

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}1\mathrm{l}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2w^2)x^2y^2\lambda _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(2+3x^2)y^2\lambda _8+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}}(3+4y^2)\lambda _{15})`$
$`\times e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{13}}\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}1\mathrm{l}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2w^2)x^2y^2\lambda _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(2+3x^2)y^2\lambda _8+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}}(3+4y^2)\lambda _{15})\mathrm{}`$
Therefore, all density matrices in $`SU(4)`$ have the following form444One should be able to write only 12 matrices in the parametrization of $`U`$ since the little group of $`\rho _d`$ is generated by $`\lambda _3,\lambda _8,\text{ and }\lambda _{15}`$.

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}`$ (45)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}1\mathrm{l}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2w^2)x^2y^2\lambda _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(2+3x^2)y^2\lambda _8+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}}(3+4y^2)\lambda _{15})`$
$`\times e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _{12}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{11}}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1},`$
where

$`w^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1),`$
$`x^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2),`$
$`y^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3),`$ (46)
with the ranges for the 12 $`\alpha `$ parameters and the three $`\theta `$ parameters given by

$$0\alpha _1,\alpha _3,\alpha _5,\alpha _7,\alpha _9,\alpha _{11}\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _2,\alpha _4,\alpha _6,\alpha _8,\alpha _{10},\alpha _{12}\frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\pi }{4}\theta _1\frac{\pi }{2},& \mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}})\theta _2\frac{\pi }{2},\hfill & \hfill \frac{\pi }{3}\theta _3\frac{\pi }{2}.\end{array}$$
(47)
where the $`\alpha `$’s are determined from calculating the volume for the group (explained in Appendix B) and the $`\theta `$’s from generalizing the work contained in MByrd3Slater1 .

In this manner all two-particle bipartite systems can be described by a $`\rho `$ that is parameterized using 12 Euler angles, and three spatial rotations, and which by HornJohnson , majorizes all other density matrices of $`SU(4)`$.555The eigenvalues of the given $`\rho `$ always satisfy $`\nu _1(\nu _2,\nu _3,\nu _4)`$ with additional ordering between the $`\nu _2,\nu _3`$ and $`\nu _4`$ eigenvalues. Therefore one can always find an ordering of the $`\nu _i`$ that satisfies the majorization condition. Exploitations of this property, related to Birkhoff’s theorem concerning doubly stochastic matrices and convex sets HornJohnson , allows us to use this parametrization to find the subset of ranges that generate entangled density matrices and thus parameterize the convex polygon that describes the set of entangled two qubit systems in terms of Euler angles and spatial rotations. In order to do this, we need to look at the partial transpose of equation (45).666It is worth noting that Englert and Metwally Englert1 ; Englert2  have shown that for certain purposes, 9 parameters extracted from the density matrix are enough to describe certain important characteristics of the local and nonlocal properties of the density matrix. In such cases, one should use the density matrix representation discussed in section VI which more clearly expresses their ideas.

## V Reformulated Partial Transpose Condition

To begin, one could say that a particular operation provides some entanglement if the following condition holds. Let $`\rho `$ be a density matrix composed of two pure separable qubit states. Then the following matrix will represent the two qubit subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$,

$$\rho =\rho _A\rho _B.$$
(48)
Let $`USU(4)`$ be a matrix transformation on two qubits. Therefore, if

$$\rho ^{}=U\rho U^{}$$
(49)
is an entangled state, then the operation is capable of producing entanglement Zanardi00:1 ; Zanardi01:1 . One way in which we can tell that the matrix $`\rho ^{}`$ is entangled, is to take the partial transpose of the matrix and see if it is positive (this is the Peres-Horodecki criterion Peres ; Horodeckietal ). In other words we wish to see if

$$(\rho ^{})^{T_A}0,\text{or}(\rho ^{})^{T_B}0.$$
(50)
These relations imply each of the partial transposes, $`T_A\text{ and }T_B`$, leaves $`\rho `$ non-negative. If either of these conditions are met, then there is entanglement.

As an example of this we look at the situation where $`\rho _d=\rho `$ and $`U`$ is given by equation (5). By taking the partial transpose of $`\rho ^{}`$ and finding the subset of the given ranges of $`\rho _d`$ and $`U`$ such that $`\rho ^{}`$ satisfies the above conditions for entanglement we will be able to derive the set of all matrices which describes the entanglement of two qubits. To do this, we look at the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $`\rho ^{}`$.

Using the Euler angle parametrization previously given, a numerical calculation of the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $`\rho ^{}`$ has been attempted. Under the standard Peres-Horodecki criterion, if any of the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $`\rho ^{}`$ are negative, then we have an entangled $`\rho ^{}`$ otherwise the state $`\rho ^{}`$ is separable. As we have mentioned, we would like to derive a subset of the ranges of the Euler angle parameters involved that would yield such a situation, thus dividing the 15 parameter space into entangled and separable subsets. Unfortunately, due to the complicated nature of the parametrization, both numerical and symbolic calculations of the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $`\rho ^{}`$ have become computationally intractable using standard mathematical software. Therefore, only a limited number of searches over the 15 parameter space of those parameter values that satisfy the Peres-Horodecki criterion have been attempted. These initial calculations, though, have shown that all possible combinations of the minimum and maximum values for the 12 $`\alpha `$ and three $`\theta `$ parameters do not yield entangled density matrices. Numerical work has also shown that with this parametrization, one, and only one, eigenvalue will be negative when the values of the parameters give entangled density matrices. This is a verification of Sanpera et. al. and Verstraete et. al. who have shown that the partial transpose of an entangled two-qubit state is always of full rank and has at most one negative eigenvalue Sanpera ; Verstraete . This result is important, for it allows us to move away from using the standard Peres-Horodecki criterion and substitute it with an expression that only depends on the sign of a determinant.

To begin, the eigenvalue equation for a 4 by 4 matrix is of the form

$$(\lambda \mu _1)(\lambda \mu _2)(\lambda \mu _3)(\lambda \mu _4),$$
(51)
which generates

$$\lambda ^4+a\lambda ^3+b\lambda ^2+c\lambda +d=0,$$
(52)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`(\mu _1+\mu _2+\mu _3+\mu _4),`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1\mu _2+\mu _1\mu _3+\mu _1\mu _4+\mu _2\mu _3+\mu _2\mu _4+\mu _3\mu _4,`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`(\mu _1\mu _2(\mu _3+\mu _4)+(\mu _1+\mu _2)\mu _3\mu _4),`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4.`$ (53)
Now, since the $`\mu _i`$ are eigenvalues, there sum must equal 1. Thus, coefficient a in equation (52) is -1. Therefore the characteristic equation we must solve is given by

$$\lambda ^4\lambda ^3+b\lambda ^2+c\lambda +d=0$$
(54)
which can be simplified by making the substitution $`\tau =\lambda 1/4`$ which yields

$`\tau ^4+p\tau ^2+q\tau +r`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`b{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}},`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},`$
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{4}}+d{\displaystyle \frac{3}{256}}.`$ (55)
The behavior of the solutions of this equation depends on the cubic resolvent

$$\gamma ^3+2p\gamma ^2+(p^24r)\gamma q^2=0,$$
(56)
which has $`\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3=q^2`$ HoM . Recalling that the solution of a cubic equation can be obtained by using Cardano’s formula HoM  we can immediately write down the roots for equation (56)

$`\gamma _1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{1}{3}}(p^212r)}{3(2p^3+27q^272pr+\sqrt{4(p^212r)^3+(2p^3+27q^272pr)^2})^{\frac{1}{3}}}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2p^3+27q^272pr+\sqrt{4(p^212r)^3+(2p^3+27q^272pr)^2})^{\frac{1}{3}}}{32^{\frac{1}{3}}}},`$
$`\gamma _2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+i\sqrt{3})(p^212r)}{32^{\frac{2}{3}}(2p^3+27q^272pr+\sqrt{4(p^212r)^3+(2p^3+27q^272pr)^2})^{\frac{1}{3}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1i\sqrt{3})(2p^3+27q^272pr+\sqrt{4(p^212r)^3+(2p^3+27q^272pr)^2})^{\frac{1}{3}}}{62^{\frac{1}{3}}}},`$
$`\gamma _3=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1i\sqrt{3})(p^212r)}{32^{\frac{2}{3}}(2p^3+27q^272pr+\sqrt{4(p^212r)^3+(2p^3+27q^272pr)^2})^{\frac{1}{3}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+i\sqrt{3})(2p^3+27q^272pr+\sqrt{4(p^212r)^3+(2p^3+27q^272pr)^2})^{\frac{1}{3}}}{62^{\frac{1}{3}}}}.`$ (57)
In terms of our original parameters $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$, we have for equation (56)

$$\gamma ^3+2(\frac{3}{8}b)\gamma ^2+(\frac{3}{16}b+b^2+c4d)\gamma \frac{1}{64}(14b+8c)^2,$$
(58)
and therefore for its roots

$`\gamma _1=`$ $`12(1+8b)(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)+[54(18b)^2(14b+8c)^2+6\sqrt{3}`$
$`\times \sqrt{27(18b)^4(14b+8c)^4+16(1+8b)^3(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)^3}]^{\frac{2}{3}}`$
$`\times (12(1+8b)[54(18b)^2(14b+8c)^2+6\sqrt{3}`$
$`\times \sqrt{27(18b)^4(14b+8c)^4+16(1+8b)^3(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)^3}]^{\frac{1}{3}})^1,`$
$`\gamma _2=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}(1+i\sqrt{3})(1+8b)(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)+(3)^{\frac{2}{3}}[18(18b)^2(14b+8c)^2+2\sqrt{3}`$
$`\times \sqrt{27(18b)^4(14b+8c)^4+16(1+8b)^3(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)^3}]^{\frac{2}{3}}`$
$`\times (12(1+8b)[54(18b)^2(14b+8c)^2+6\sqrt{3}`$
$`\times \sqrt{27(18b)^4(14b+8c)^4+16(1+8b)^3(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)^3}]^{\frac{1}{3}})^1,`$
$`\gamma _3=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}12}(1i\sqrt{3})(1+8b)(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)3^{\frac{1}{6}}(3i+\sqrt{3})[18(18b)^2(14b+8c)^2+2\sqrt{3}`$
$`\times \sqrt{27(18b)^4(14b+8c)^4+16(1+8b)^3(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)^3}]^{\frac{2}{3}}`$
$`\times (24(1+8b)[54(18b)^2(14b+8c)^2+6\sqrt{3}`$
$`\times \sqrt{27(18b)^4(14b+8c)^4+16(1+8b)^3(3+16b(1+b)16c+64d)^3}]^{\frac{1}{3}})^1.`$ (59)
Now, if all three $`\gamma `$ solutions are real and positive, the quartic equation (V) has the following solutions

$`\tau _1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1}+\sqrt{\gamma _2}+\sqrt{\gamma _3}}{2}},`$ $`\tau _2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1}\sqrt{\gamma _2}\sqrt{\gamma _3}}{2}},`$
$`\tau _3={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1}+\sqrt{\gamma _2}\sqrt{\gamma _3}}{2}},`$ $`\tau _4={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1}\sqrt{\gamma _2}+\sqrt{\gamma _3}}{2}}.`$ (60)
Substitution of the $`\gamma `$ values given in equation (59) into equation (V) creates the four eigenvalue equations that the standard Peres-Horodecki criterion would force us to evaluate. These are quite difficult and time consuming, especially when $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ are written in terms of the twelve $`\alpha `$ and three $`\theta `$ parameters, and can become computationally intractable even for modern mathematical software. But, from the previous discussion, it is obvious that with only one eigenvalue that changes sign, the only parameter that needs to be analyzed is $`d`$. Therefore, instead of looking at solutions of (V) one may instead look at when $`d`$ from equation (V) changes sign.777A. Wang has proposed a general solution the eigenvalue problem for the partial transpose of two qubits (see for example Wang  eq. (22)) in which he states that only one equation need be evaluated to determine entanglement. Unfortunately, in order to evaluate that one equation (Wang  eq. (22)), six other equations must first be evaluated (Wang  eqs. (23$``$28)). In terms of the 15 parameters needed to represent the Hilbert space of a two qubit density matrix, it is far easier to evaluate the zeroth order $`\lambda `$ coefficient $`d`$ given in equation (54) than it is to evaluate seven total equations. Even if one where to substitute and simplify, achieving one equation, its representation in terms of the 15 parameters needed to accurate describe the most general density matrix would still be more complicated to numerically and symbolic evaluate than the $`d`$ parameter.

Now, the $`d`$ parameter is the zeroth order $`\lambda `$ coefficient from the following equation

$$\text{Det}(\rho ^{pt}1\mathrm{l}_4\lambda )$$
(61)
where $`\rho ^{pt}`$ is the partial transpose of equation (45). This is just the standard characteristic equation that yields the fourth-order polynomial from which the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of equation (45) are to be evaluated, and which equations (52) and (V) are generated from. Computationally, from the standpoint of our parametrization, it is easier to take this determinant than it is to explicitly solve for the roots of a fourth-order polynomial (as we have given above). The solution of equation (61) yields an expression for $`d`$ in terms of the 12 $`\alpha `$ and three $`\theta `$ parameters that can be numerically evaluated by standard mathematical software packages with much greater efficiency than the full Peres-Horodecki criterion.888This greater efficiency is based on the observation that the kernel of the mathematical software package Mathematica ver. 4.0 rel. 3, running on an optimized 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 Linux box with 1 gigabyte of 333MHz DDR, was unable to express equation (V) in terms of the 12 $`\alpha `$ and three $`\theta `$ parameters in a format suitable for encoding into a C++ program. On the other hand, it was quite easy to obtain all the coefficients of equation (54) in terms of our Euler parameters, simplify them, and encoded them into a C++ program for numerical evaluation. Also, since only one eigenvalue ever goes negative, we have reduced the number of equations to solve from 4 to 1 which is a definite improvement in calculatory efficiency.

## VI Conclusions

The aim of this paper has been to show an explicit Euler angle parametrization for the Hilbert space of all two qubit density matrices. As we have stated, such a parametrization should be very useful for many calculations, especially numerical, concerning entanglement. This parametrization also allows for an in-depth analysis of the convex sets, sub-sets, and overall set boundaries of separable and entangled two qubit systems without having to make any initial restrictions as to the type of parametrization and density matrix in question. We have also been able to use this parametrization as an independent verification to Marinov’s $`SU(4)`$ volume calculation. The role of the parametrization in simplifying the Peres-Horodecki criteria for two qubit systems has also be indicated.

Although one may generate or use other parametrizations of $`SU(4)`$ and two qubit density matrices (see for example Marinov ; Glasser ; Zyczkowski1 ; VK ) our parametrization does have the advantage of not naively overcounting the group, as well as generating an the easily integrable Haar measure and having a form suited for generalization. Such a parametrization should also assist in providing a Bures distance for the space of two-qubits. Also, although previous work has been done on evaluating the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the two qubit density matrix (for example the work done by Wang in Wang ), our representation allows the user to effect both a reduction in the number of equations to be analyzed for entanglement onset from 4 to 1 while still retaining the ability to analyze the little group and orbit space of the density matrix as well (see for example the work contained in MByrd4All ). We also believe that this research yields the following possibilities:

1. The partial transpose condition could be used to find the set of separable and entangled states by finding the ranges of the angles for which the density matrix is positive semi-definite.
2. The $`SU(4)`$ parametrization enables the calculation of the distance measure between density matrices and then use the minimum distance to a completely separable matrix as a measure of separability. Applications to other measures of entanglement Vedral/Plenio/Rippin/Knight  are straight-forward.
3. One could use ranges of the angles that correspond to entangled states to find the ranges of the parameters in the parametrization in terms of the Pauli basis states by using the following parametrization for the density matrix

$$\rho =\frac{1}{4}(1\mathrm{l}_4+a_i\sigma _i1\mathrm{l}_2+1\mathrm{l}_2b_j\tau _j+c_{kl}\sigma _k\tau _l).$$
(62)
For more on this parametrization see Englert1 ; Englert2  and references within.
4. Related to this last question is the question of the boundary between the convex set of entangled and separable states of the density matrices. For example one could use the explicit parametrization to calculate specific measures of entanglement like the entanglement of formation for different density matrices in different regions of the set of density matrices and see which regions of the convex set correspond to the greatest entanglement of formation. Another possibility is that given the boundary in the $`\sigma ,\tau `$ form, we could recreate it in terms of the Euler angles.

There are obviously more, but for now, it is these areas that we believe offer the most interest to those wishing to develop a deeper understanding of bipartite entanglement. Also, since the methods here are quite general and rely primarily on the group theoretical techniques developed here, we anticipate generalizations to higher dimensional state spaces will be, in principle, straight-forward.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (T.T.) would like to thank A. M. Kuah for his insights into the group dynamics of this parametrization. We would also like to thank Dr. Gibbons and Dr. Verstraete for their input on the $`SU(4)`$ covering ranges and the Peres-Horodecki eigenvalue conditions. Special thanks to Dr. Slater for his input on the two qubit density matrix parametrization and to Dr. Luis Boya for his editorial assistance and calculations.

## Appendix A Commutation Relations for $`SU(4)`$

We first note that the Gell-Mann type basis for the Lie algebra of $`SU(4)`$ is given by the following set of matrices Greiner :

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda _1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),& \hfill \lambda _2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill i& 0& \hfill 0\\ i& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \lambda _3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \\ \lambda _4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0\hfill & 1& \hfill 0\\ 0& 0\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\\ 1& 0\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& 0\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \hfill \lambda _5=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& i& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ i& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \lambda _6=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 1& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \\ \lambda _7=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& i& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill i& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \hfill \lambda _8=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 2& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \lambda _9=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 1\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 1& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \\ \lambda _{10}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill i\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ i& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \hfill \lambda _{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 1\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \lambda _{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill i\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill i& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \\ \lambda _{13}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 1\\ 0& \hfill 0& 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \hfill \lambda _{14}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill i\\ 0& \hfill 0& i& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& \lambda _{15}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1& 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 1& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 3\end{array}\right).& \end{array}$$
(63)
In order to develop the Cartan decomposition of $`SU(4)`$ it is helpful to look at the commutator relationships between the 15 elements of its Lie algebra. In the following tables we list the commutator solutions of the corresponding ith row and jth column Gell-Mann matrices corresponding to the following definitions

$`[\lambda _i,\lambda _j]=`$ $`2if_{ijk}\lambda _k,`$
$`f_{ijk}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}Tr[[\lambda _i,\lambda _j]\lambda _k].`$
Table 1 : $`[k_1,k_2]L(K)`$
(on the following page) This table corresponds to the $`L(K)`$ subset of $`SU(4)`$, $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8,\lambda _{15}\}`$ and shows that for $`k_1,k_2L(K)`$, $`[k_1,k_2]L(K)`$.
Table 2 : $`[p_1,p_2]L(K)`$
(on the second page) This table corresponds to the $`L(P)`$ subset of $`SU(4)`$, $`\{\lambda _9,\mathrm{},\lambda _{14}\}`$ and shows that for $`p_1,p_2L(P)`$, $`[p_1,p_2]L(K)`$.
Table 3 : $`[k_1,p_2]L(P)`$
(on the third page) This table corresponds to the commutator solutions for the situation when $`k_1L(K)`$ and $`p_2L(P)`$, $`[k_1,p_2]L(P)`$.

## Appendix B Invariant Volume Element Normalization Calculations

Before integrating $`dV_{SU(4)}`$ we need some group theory. We begin with a digression concerning the center of a group Artin ; Scott . If $`S`$ is a subset of a group $`G`$, then the centralizer, $`C_G(S)`$ of $`S`$ in $`G`$ is defined by

$$C(S)C_G(S)=\{xG\text{ if }sS\text{ then }xs=sx\}.$$
(64)
For example, if $`S=\{y\}`$, $`C(y)`$ will be used instead of $`C(\{y\})`$. Next, the centralizer of $`G`$ in $`G`$ is called the center of $`G`$ and is denoted by $`Z(G)`$ or $`Z`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z(G)Z& =\{zGzx=xz\text{ for all }xG\}\hfill \\ & =C_G(G).\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
Another way of writing this is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z(G)& =\{C(x)xG\}\hfill \\ & =\{z\text{if }xG\text{ then }zC(x)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
In other words, the center is the set of all elements $`z`$ that commutes with all other elements in the group. Finally, the commutator $`[x,y]`$ of two elements $`x`$ and $`y`$ of a group $`G`$ is given by the equation

$$[x,y]=x^1y^1xy.$$
(67)
Now what we want to find is the number of elements in the center of $`SU(N)`$ for $`N=2,3`$, and $`4`$. Begin by defining the following

$$Z_n=\text{ cyclic group of order n }_nZ(SU(N)).$$
(68)
Therefore, the set of all matrices which comprise the center of $`SU(N)`$, $`Z(SU(N))`$, is congruent to $`Z_N`$ since we know that if $`G`$ is a finite linear group over a field F, then the set of matrices of the form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }c_gg`$, where $`gG`$ and $`c_gF`$, forms an algebra (in fact, a ring) Scott ; Sattinger . For example, for $`SU(2)`$ we would have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z_2=& \{xSU(2)[x,y]Z_1\text{ for all }ySU(2)\},\hfill \\ \hfill [x,y]=& \omega 1\mathrm{l}_2,\hfill \\ \hfill Z_1=& \{1\mathrm{l}_2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(69)
This would be the set of all 2 by 2 matrix elements such that the commutator relationship would yield the identity matrix multiplied by some non-zero coefficient. In general this can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z_N=& \{xSU(N)[x,y]Z_1\text{ for all }ySU(N)\},\hfill \\ \hfill Z_1=& \{1\mathrm{l}_N\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
This is similar to the result from Artin , that shows that the center of the general linear group of real matrices, $`GL_N(\mathrm{})`$, is the group of scalar matrices, that is, those of the from $`\omega 𝕀`$, where $`𝕀`$ is the identity element of the group and $`\omega `$ is some multiplicative constant. For $`SU(N)`$, $`\omega 𝕀`$ is an $`N^{th}`$ root of unity.

To begin our actual search for the normalization constant for our invariant volume element, we first again look at the group $`SU(2)`$. For this group, every element can be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ \overline{b}& \overline{a}\end{array}\right)$$
(71)
where $`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$. Again, following Artin  we can make the following parametrization

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a& =y_1iy_2,\hfill \\ \hfill b& =y_3iy_4,\hfill \\ \hfill 1& =y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2+y_4^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(72)
The elements $`(1,0,0,0)`$ and $`(1,0,0,0)`$ are anti-podal points, or polar points if one pictures the group as a three-dimensional unit sphere in a 4-dimensional space parameterized by y, and thus comprise the elements for the center group of $`SU(2)`$ (i.e. $`\pm 1\mathrm{l}_2`$). Therefore, the center for $`SU(2)`$ is comprised of two elements.

In our parametrization, the general $`SU(2)`$ elements are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D(\mu ,\nu ,\xi )& =e^{i\lambda _3\mu }e^{i\lambda _2\nu }e^{i\lambda _3\xi },\hfill \\ \hfill dV_{SU(2)}& =\mathrm{sin}(2\nu )d\mu d\nu d\xi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
with corresponding ranges

$$0\mu ,\xi \pi ,$$
(74)
$$0\nu \frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(75)
Integrating over the volume element $`dV_{SU(2)}`$ with the above ranges yields the volume of the group $`SU(2)/Z_2`$. In other words, the $`SU(2)`$ group with its two center elements identified. In order to get the full volume of the $`SU(2)`$ group, all ones need to do is multiply the volume of $`SU(2)/Z_2`$ by the number of removed center elements; in this case 2.

This process can be extended to the $`SU(3)`$ and $`SU(4)`$ parametrizations. For $`SU(3)`$ MByrd3Slater1 ; MByrd1 ; MByrdp1 ; MByrd2  (here recast as a component of the $`SU(4)`$ parametrization)

$$SU(3)=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}D(\alpha _{11},\alpha _{12},\alpha _{13})e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}.$$
(76)
Now, we get an initial factor of two from the $`D(\alpha _{11},\alpha _{12},\alpha _{13})`$ component. We shall now proves that we get another factor of two from the $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}`$ component as well.

From the commutation relations of the elements of the Lie algebra of $`SU(3)`$ (see MByrd1  for details) we see that $`\{\lambda _3,\lambda _4,\lambda _5,\lambda _8\}`$ form a closed subalgebra $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$.999Georgi Georgi  has stated that $`\lambda _2,\lambda _5,\text{ and }\lambda _7`$ generate an $`SU(2)`$ subalgebra of $`SU(3)`$. This fact can be seen in the commutator relationships between these three $`\lambda `$ matrices contained in MByrd1  or in Appendix A.

$`[\lambda _3,\lambda _4]=`$ $`i\lambda _5,`$
$`[\lambda _3,\lambda _5]=`$ $`i\lambda _4,`$
$`[\lambda _3,\lambda _8]=`$ $`0,`$
$`[\lambda _4,\lambda _5]=`$ $`i(\lambda _3+\sqrt{3}\lambda _8),`$
$`[\lambda _4,\lambda _8]=`$ $`i\sqrt{3}\lambda _5,`$
$`[\lambda _5,\lambda _8]=`$ $`i\sqrt{3}\lambda _4.`$ (77)
Observation of the four $`\lambda `$ matrices with respect to the Pauli spin matrices of $`SU(2)`$ shows that $`\lambda _4`$ is the $`SU(3)`$ analogue of $`\sigma _1`$, $`\lambda _5`$ is the $`SU(3)`$ analogue of $`\sigma _2`$ and both $`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _8`$ are the $`SU(3)`$ analogues of $`\sigma _3`$

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\lambda _4=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (78)
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)\lambda _5=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\lambda _3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\lambda _8={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right).`$
Thus one may use either $`\{\lambda _3,\lambda _5\}`$ or $`\{\lambda _3,\lambda _5,\lambda _8\}`$ to generate an $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(3)`$. The volume of this $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(3)`$ must be equal to the volume of the general $`SU(2)`$ group; $`2\pi ^2`$. If we demand that any element of the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(3)`$ have similar ranges as its $`SU(2)`$ analogue101010This requires a normalization factor of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}`$ on the maximal range of $`\lambda _8`$ that is explained by the removal of the $`Z_3`$ elements of $`SU(3)`$., then a multiplicative factor of 2 is required for the $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}`$ component.111111When calculating this volume element, it is important to remember that the closed subalgebra being used is $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and therefore the integrated kernel, be it derived either from $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha }e^{i\lambda _5\beta }e^{i\lambda _3\gamma }`$ or $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha }e^{i\lambda _5\beta }e^{i\lambda _8\gamma }`$, will require contributions from both the $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ elements.

Finally, $`SU(3)`$ has a $`Z_3`$ whose elements have the generic form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\eta _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \eta _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \eta _1^1\eta _2^1\end{array}\right),$$
(79)
where

$$\eta _1^3=\eta _2^3=1.$$
(80)
Solving for $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ yields the following elements for $`Z_3`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1)^{\frac{1}{3}}& 0& 0\\ 0& (1)^{\frac{1}{3}}& 0\\ 0& 0& (1)^{\frac{1}{3}}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1)^{\frac{2}{3}}& 0& 0\\ 0& (1)^{\frac{2}{3}}& 0\\ 0& 0& (1)^{\frac{2}{3}}\end{array}\right)& \end{array}$$
(81)
which are the three cube roots of unity. Combining these $`SU(3)`$ center elements, a total of three, with the 2 factors of 2 from the previous discussion, yields a total multiplication factor of 12. The volume of $`SU(3)`$ is then

$`V_{SU(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`223V(SU(3)/Z_3)`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}\pi ^5`$
using the ranges given above for the general $`SU(2)`$ elements, combined with $`0\alpha _{14}\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}`$. Explicitly:

$$0\alpha _7,\alpha _9,\alpha _{11},\alpha _{13}\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _8,\alpha _{10},\alpha _{12}\frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$0\alpha _{14}\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}.$$
(83)
These are modifications of MByrd3Slater1 ; MByrd1 ; MByrdp1 ; MByrd2 ; MByrdp2  and take into account the updated Marinov group volume values Marinov2 .

For $`SU(4)`$ the process is similar to that used for $`SU(3)`$, but now with two $`SU(2)`$ subgroups to worry about. For $`SU(4)`$,

$$U=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}[SU(3)]e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}.$$
(84)
Here, the two $`SU(2)`$ subalgebras in $`SU(4)`$ that we are concerned with are $`\{\lambda _3,\lambda _4,\lambda _5,\lambda _8,\lambda _{15}\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _3,\lambda _9,\lambda _{10},\lambda _8,\lambda _{15}\}`$. Both of these $`SU(2)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$ subalgebras are represented in the parametrization of $`SU(4)`$ as $`SU(2)`$ subgroup elements, $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}`$ and $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}`$. We can see that $`\lambda _{10}`$ is the $`SU(4)`$ analogue of $`\sigma _2`$121212We have already discussed $`\lambda _5`$ in the previous section on $`SU(3)`$. and $`\lambda _{15}`$ is the $`SU(4)`$ analogue to $`\sigma _3`$131313It is the $`SU(4)`$ Cartan subalgebra element.. The demand that all $`SU(2)`$ subgroups of $`SU(4)`$ must have a volume equal to $`2\pi ^2`$ is equivalent to having the parameters of the associated elements of the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup run through similar ranges as their $`SU(2)`$ analogues.141414This requires a normalization factor of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}`$ on the maximal range of $`\lambda _{15}`$ that is explained by the removal of the $`Z_4`$ elements of $`SU(4)`$. As with $`SU(3)`$, this restriction yields an overall multiplicative factor of 4 from these two elements.151515When calculating these volume elements, it is important to remember that the closed subalgebra being used is $`SU(2)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$ and therefore, as in the $`SU(3)`$ case, the integrated kernels will require contributions from appropriate Cartan subalgebra elements. For example, the $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}`$ component is an $`SU(2)`$ sub-element of the parametrization of $`SU(4)`$, but in creating its corresponding $`SU(2)`$ subgroup volume kernel (see the $`SU(3)`$ discussion), one must remember that it is a $`SU(2)SU(3)SU(4)`$ and therefore the kernel only requires contributions from the $`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _8`$ components. On the other hand, the $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}`$ element corresponds to a $`SU(2)SU(4)`$ and therefore, the volume kernel will require contributions from all three Cartan subalgebra elements of $`SU(4)`$. Recalling that the $`SU(3)`$ element yields a multiplicative factor of 12, all that remains is to determine the multiplicative factor equivalent to the identification of the $`SU(4)`$ center, $`Z_4`$.

The elements of the center of $`SU(4)`$ are similar in form to the ones from $`SU(3)`$;

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\eta _1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \eta _2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \eta _3& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \eta _1^1\eta _2^1\eta _3^1\end{array}\right),$$
(85)
where

$$\eta _1^4=\eta _2^4=\eta _3^4=1.$$
(86)
Solving yields the 4 roots of unity: $`\pm 1\mathrm{l}_4\text{ and }\pm i1\mathrm{l}_4,`$ where $`1\mathrm{l}_4`$ is the 4 x 4 identity matrix. So we can see that $`Z_4`$ gives another factor of 4, which, when combined with the factor of 4 from the two $`SU(2)`$ subgroups, and the factor of 12 from the $`SU(3)`$ elements, gives a total multiplicative factor of 192. Integration of the volume element given in equation (34) with the following ranges

$$0\alpha _1,\alpha _3,\alpha _5,\alpha _7,\alpha _9,\alpha _{11},\alpha _{13}\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _2,\alpha _4,\alpha _6,\alpha _8,\alpha _{10},\alpha _{12}\frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$0\alpha _{14}\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}},$$

$$0\alpha _{15}\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{6}},$$
(87)
gives

$`V_{SU(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`222234V(SU(4)/Z_4)`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ^9}{3}}.`$
This calculated volume for $`SU(4)`$ agrees with that from Marinov Marinov2 .

## Appendix C Modified Parameter Ranges for Group Covering

In order to be complete, we list the modifications to the ranges given in Appendix B that affect a covering of $`SU(2)`$, $`SU(3)`$, and $`SU(4)`$ without jeopardizing the calculated group volumes.

To begin, in our parametrization, the general $`SU(2)`$ elements are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D(\mu ,\nu ,\xi )& =e^{i\lambda _3\mu }e^{i\lambda _2\nu }e^{i\lambda _3\xi },\hfill \\ \hfill dV_{SU(2)}& =\mathrm{sin}(2\nu )d\mu d\nu d\xi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(89)
with the corresponding ranges for the volume of $`SU(2)/Z_2`$ given as

$$0\mu ,\xi \pi ,$$

$$0\nu \frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(90)
In order to generate a covering of $`SU(2)`$, the $`\xi `$ parameter must be modified to take into account the uniqueness of the two central group elements, $`\pm 1\mathrm{l}_2`$, under spinor transformations.161616For specific examples of this, see either Biedenharn  or Ryder . This modification is straightforward enough; $`\xi `$’s range is multiplied by the number of central group elements in $`SU(2)`$. The new ranges are thus

$$0\mu \pi ,$$

$$0\nu \frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$0\xi 2\pi .$$
(91)
These ranges yield both a covering of $`SU(2)`$, as well as the correct group volume for $`SU(2)`$.171717One may interchange $`\mu `$ and $`\xi `$’s ranges without altering either the volume calculation, or the final orientation of a two-vector under operation by $`D`$. This interchange is beneficial when looking at Euler parametrizations beyond $`SU(2)`$.

For $`SU(3)`$, here given as a component of the $`SU(4)`$ parametrization, we know we have two $`SU(2)`$ components (from Appendix B),

$$SU(3)=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _8}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _9}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _{10}}D(\alpha _{11},\alpha _{12},\alpha _{13})e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _{14}}.$$
(92)
Therefore the ranges of $`\alpha _9`$ and $`\alpha _{13}`$ should be modified just as $`\xi `$’s was done in the previous discussion for $`SU(2)`$. Remembering the discussion in Appendix B concerning the central group of $`SU(3)`$, we can deduce that $`\alpha _{14}`$’s ranges should be multiplied by a factor of 3. This yields the following, corrected, ranges for $`SU(3)`$181818Earlier representations of these ranges for $`SU(3)`$, for example in MByrd3Slater1 ; MByrd1 ; MByrdp1 ; MByrd2 ; Gibbons ; MByrdp2 , were incorrect in that they failed to take into account the updated $`SU(N)`$ volume formula in Marinov2 .

$$0\alpha _7,\alpha _{11}\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _8,\alpha _{10},\alpha _{12}\frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$0\alpha _9,\alpha _{13}2\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _{14}\sqrt{3}\pi .$$
(93)
These ranges yield both a covering of $`SU(3)`$, as well as the correct group volume for $`SU(3)`$.

For $`SU(4)`$, we have two $`SU(2)`$ subgroup components

$$SU(4)=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _{10}\alpha _6}[SU(3)]e^{i\lambda _{15}\alpha _{15}}.$$
(94)
As with the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup ranges in $`SU(3)`$, the ranges for $`\alpha _3`$ and $`\alpha _5`$ each get multiplied by 2 and $`\alpha _{15}`$’s ranges get multiplied by 4 (the number of $`SU(4)`$ central group elements). The remaining ranges are either held the same, or modified in the case of the $`SU(3)`$ element;

$$0\alpha _1,\alpha _7,\alpha _{11}\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _2,\alpha _4,\alpha _6,\alpha _8,\alpha _{10},\alpha _{12}\frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$0\alpha _3,\alpha _5,\alpha _9,\alpha _{13}2\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _{14}\sqrt{3}\pi ,$$

$$0\alpha _{15}2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\pi .$$
(95)
These ranges yield both a covering of $`SU(4)`$, as well as the correct group volume for $`SU(4)`$.

In general we can see that by looking at $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ not only can we arrive at a parametrization of $`SU(N)`$ with a logically derivable set of ranges that gives the correct group volume, but we can also show how those ranges can be logically modified to cover the entire group as well without any arbitrariness in assigning values to the parameters. It is this work that will be the subject of a future paper.


text:
# Computation of the phase induced by non-newtonian gravitational potentials in atom interferometry

## I Introduction

In this first section we will recall briefly the main lines of the theoretical motivations of this kind of calculations and their interest and the present state-of-the-art of experiments in this field will be summarized. For a more detailed description of both theoretical and experimental point of view the reader is referred to  and . The basics of atom interferometry will be then presented and, after some geometrical considerations, the signal for different kinds of potential will be obtained. Finally, we will derive the limits on the non-newtonian gravitational strength that could be obtained by an ideal experiment and we will compare the results to present limits.

In the attempt to unify the description of all known forces, two types of extensions of newtonian gravity are usually made . First, one can postulate that a new force mediated by massive scalar bosons exists and that it gives rise to a Yukawa potential so that the total gravitational potential between point-like particles of mass $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ separated by a distance $`r`$ reads:

$$V_Y(r)=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}(1+\alpha _Y\mathrm{exp}^{r/\lambda _Y})$$
(1)
In the preceding expression $`G`$ denotes the gravitational constant and the first term is the usual newtonian potential. The correction term is thus characterized by its dimensionless strength $`\alpha _Y`$ and its range $`\lambda _Y`$ which is essentially inversely proportional to the boson mass. A peculiar feature of such Yukawa potential is that the exponential factor saturates when the mutual distance $`r`$ tends to zero: if its strength $`\alpha _Y`$ is small compared to $`1`$ then the Yukawa correction remains always a small correction to newtonian gravity which is itself a very weak interaction compared to the other known forces.

On the other hand, some recent theoretical developments account for such weakness supposing that there exists $`n`$ extra dimensions in which only gravity propagates so that the main part of it is lost for the usual 3D-space . The extra dimensions are compact so that their existence can be felt only to mutual distances smaller to a compactification radius $`\lambda _n`$: for distances much greater than the compactification radius then the reminder of the gravitation interaction in the extra dimensions manifests itself as a Yukawa-like potential with a range of the order of the compactification radius $`\lambda _n`$ and a strength $`\alpha _n`$ of a few units. It thus quickly decreases leaving just the weak long range usual inverse square law interaction. On the contrary, at short mutual distances, it follows from Gauss theorem in $`3+n`$ spatial dimensions that the gravitational interaction $`V_n(r)`$ behaves as $`r^{(1+n)}`$ so that it conveniently reads:

$$V_n(r)=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}\alpha _n\left(\frac{\lambda _n}{r}\right)^nforr\lambda _n$$
(2)
It should be noticed that this potential does not saturates as the Yukawa potential at zero distances and ”produces dramatic deviation from newtonian gravity” . The model  predict a compactification radius $`\lambda _210^410^3m`$ which make it a matter of an experimental test.

Up to now, there is experimental evidence that the inverse square law for gravitational interactions is well tested for separations $`r`$ between $`10^2m`$ and $`10^{15}m`$ where $`\alpha `$ is known to be smaller than $`10^4`$. A detailed description of the experimental works can be found in reference . The best limits on $`\alpha `$ in the region around $`\lambda 10^4m`$ have been very recently provided by the experiment described in reference . This experiment relies on a torque pendulum, the motion of which would be perturbed in a specific way by non-newtonian potentials from a test mass. Separation between $`200\mu m`$ and $`10mm`$ have been achieved with a null result. The present day constraint, therefore, for $`\lambda 10^4m`$ is $`\alpha 100`$ .

Up to now all the performed experiments share common features from technical constraints and scaling considerations. In particular, they are macroscopic in the sense that both the probe and test masses dimensions are in the centimeter range.

In the following, we will show that atom interferometry, that uses a microscopic probe, could explore different geometries and distances ranges. So let us now turn to the basics of atom interferometry.

## II atom interferometry

Atom interferometry aims at making interferences with de Broglie waves associated to the external motion of massive particles. It was born in the late 80’s when mechanical effects of light were extensively studied which lead the principal contributor, W. D. Philips, S. Chu and C. Cohen Tannoudji to Nobel price in 1997. The main difference with optical interferometry lies in the fact that the particle used (atoms or molecules) possess internal degree of freedom and mass. That make the interferometer sensitive to external fields and inertial effects we are concerned with. For an introductory review the reader is referred to  and for more details to . As we want to probe distance dependent potential we will concentrate on an idealized separated arms interferometer as outlined in Fig. 1. An atom beam is emitted from a source $`S`$ and passes through a three identical beam splitters $`G_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}`$ separated by a distance $`L`$. At each beam splitter, each incoming beam is coherently divided in two parts separated by an angle $`\theta `$ (labels $`A,O,O^{},B`$ on Fig. 1). Only one of the closed paths is shown on Fig. 1 at the end of which the interference pattern is recorded on a detector $`D`$. The detection scheme obviously depends on the particles used such as alkaline ($`Li`$, $`Na`$, $`Rb`$, $`Cs`$) atoms or molecules, earth-alkaline metastable atoms ($`Mg^{}`$, $`Ca^{}`$), metastable rare gas atoms ($`He^{}`$, $`Ar^{}`$, $`Ne^{}`$), molecules ($`I_2`$, $`Na_2`$, $`C_{60}`$).

In the same way, the actual shape of the interferometer depends on the very technique used to construct the beam splitters. The example chosen above corresponds to grating interferometers: atoms, whose de Broglie wavelength is $`\lambda _{dB}`$, interacting with a modulated perturbation of period $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are diffracted at a typical diffraction angle $`\theta \frac{\lambda _{dB}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Such a perturbation can be for example a material grating or a laser standing wave.

In ideal conditions, the signal recorded by the detector is then $`I(\delta \varphi )=I_0\mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi `$ where $`I_0`$ equals to the atom flux times the interaction time and $`\delta \varphi `$ is the phase difference between the two arms.

In the following, to evaluate the phase difference induced by gravitational interactions, we will consider a semi-classical situation in which the atom velocity $`v`$ and mass $`M`$ are high enough so that its de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _{dB}=\frac{h}{Mv}`$ is small compared to any relevant length characterizing the potential $`V(𝐫,t)`$ existing in between the beam splitters. This potential will also be considered as a perturbation of the free motion of the particles which thus fly in straight line between the source, beam splitters and detector. Then, the phase shift accumulated by the particle with respect to the unperturbed case can be written as ,:

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cl.}}\frac{dr}{v}V(𝐫,t(𝐫))$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cl.}`$ is the classical unperturbed path of the particle. The phase difference simply reads:

$$\delta \varphi =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{AO^{}B}{}\frac{dr}{v}V(𝐫,t(𝐫))\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{AOB}{}\frac{dr}{v}V(𝐫,t(𝐫))=\underset{AO^{}BOA}{}\frac{dr}{v}V(𝐫,t(𝐫))$$
(4)
To effectively compute this phase difference and thus the expected signal one has specify the geometry of the test mass to evaluate the generated gravitation potential.

## III geometry considerations and phase calculations

As explained in reference , one should use small size test mass to get as near as possible and thus increase the relative sensitivity to non-newtonian potentials. Nevertheless, as we investigate a totally different experimental technique, new possibilities are opened. Obviously, a linear ($`1D`$) test mass parallel to the atomic trajectory is preferable to a point-like ($`0D`$) one as it increases the interacting time with the probe. One the other hand the use of a plane ($`2D`$) test mass is unfavourable for two reasons . First, as the potentials of interest are of short range, only a stripe of width $`\lambda `$ parallel to the atomic trajectory will contribute significantly to the interactions so that the $`1D`$ case give a reasonable approximation. Second, an atom near a surface is subjected to the Van der Waals potential that will screen the other ones. On the contrary, one might expect that the electrostatic image of the atom by a 1D-wire is weaker than by a 2D-plane leading to a smaller Van der Waals interaction that thus will be neglected in the following. To be exhaustive, one should go into the higher dimensions cases. The $`3D`$ case of typical size $`R`$ is also unfavourable because only a volume $`R\lambda ^2`$ has to be taken into account. However, as suggested in Eq. 3, the use of time-dependent potentials (e.g. an oscillating test mass) open the way to fruitful phase sensitive detection techniques.

We thus chose for the calculations an idealized wire test mass of linear density $`\mu `$, of length $`L`$, located between the two first beam splitters at a distance $`d`$ from the lower partial beam and parallel to it (see Fig. 1). Let us take $`G_2`$ as the $`x`$-axis of a reference frame and its intersection with the $`z`$-axis as the origin. Assuming a Yukawa extra interaction, the potential at the position $`(x,z)`$ is:

$$V_Y^{1D}(x,z)=_{Lz}^z\frac{\alpha _YGM}{\sqrt{(d+x)^2+u^2}}\mu du\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\lambda _Y}\sqrt{(d+x)^2+u^2})$$
(5)
In the preceding expression, $`|d+x|`$ is of the order of $`\lambda _Y`$, thus in the sub-millimeter range, whereas $`L`$ is the length of the test mass which is related to the length of the apparatus which is commonly in the meter range. So, except for negligible fringe effects, the limits of the integral may be rejected to infinity as the exponential term to be integrated quickly decreases. Then, with the variable changes $`v=\frac{u}{|d+x|}`$ and $`v=\mathrm{sinh}w`$:

$$V_Y^{1D}(x,z)\alpha _YGM\mu _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑w\mathrm{exp}(\frac{|d+x|}{\lambda _Y}\mathrm{cosh}w)=\alpha _YGM\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}K_0(\frac{|d+x|}{\lambda _Y})$$
(6)
where $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function of first kind .

Between the two first gratings ($`z<0`$), the two partial beams can be parameterized as $`x_2(z)=0`$ and $`x_1(z)=e(1+\frac{z}{L})`$. So the phase delay accumulated along the lower path simply reads $`\varphi _2=\frac{GMm}{\mathrm{}v}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _YK_0(\frac{d}{\lambda _Y})`$, where $`m=L\mu `$ is simply the test mass. The phase delay accumulated on the upper path $`\varphi _1`$ contains the mean value of the $`K_0`$ function which has a rather complicated analytical expression involving hypergeometric and other Bessel functions. For sake of simplicity, we will consider only the limiting case where the beam separation $`e`$ is much greater than the interaction range $`\lambda `$. Then the potential is practically negligible everywhere along the upper path and so for $`\varphi _1`$. The phase difference is then simply $`\delta \varphi =\varphi _20`$:

$$\delta \varphi _Y^{1D}=\frac{GMm}{\mathrm{}v}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _YK_0(\frac{d}{\lambda _Y})ife\lambda _Y$$
(7)
¿From Ref.  we get the following expansions: $`\delta \varphi _Y^{1D}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda }{d}}e^{\frac{d}{\lambda }}`$ as $`\frac{\lambda }{d}1`$ and $`\delta \varphi _Y^{1D}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda }{d}`$ as $`\frac{\lambda }{d}1`$

The same kind of calculations can be done for the case of extra dimensions. Some difficulties arise because the law we have (Eq. 2) is valid only for distances shorter than the compactification radius $`\lambda _n`$. For longer distances, the potential decreases exponentially fast in a Yukawa fashion  and should give a negligible contribution. Let’s make the assumption that $`d\lambda _n`$. As done before we will suppose that $`e\lambda `$ to neglect the contribution of the upper path. We will get an estimate of the effect on the lower path restricting the integration range to a distance $`\lambda _n`$ around the position of the particle. Under these assumptions, and neglecting fringe effects, the potential arising from $`n>0`$ extra dimensions reads:

$`V_n^{1D}(x,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _n}{\overset{+\lambda _n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _nGM}{\sqrt{(d+x)^2+u^2}}}\mu du({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{\sqrt{(d+x)^2+u^2}}})^n`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\alpha _nGM\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{|d+x|}})^n{\displaystyle \underset{\frac{\lambda _n}{|d+x|}}{\overset{+\frac{\lambda _n}{|d+x|}}{}}}𝑑v(1+v^2)^{\frac{1+n}{2}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`2\alpha _nGM\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{|d+x|}})^(n+1)_2F_1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{d+x}})^2)`$ (10)
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ denotes the hypergeometric function .

The phase difference then reads:

$$\delta \varphi _n^{1D}=\frac{GMm}{\mathrm{}v}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _n(\frac{\lambda _n}{d})^{n+1}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1+n}{2},\frac{3}{2},(\frac{\lambda _n}{d})^2)ife\lambda _nandn>0$$
(11)
and, in particular,

$$\delta \varphi _2^{1D}=\frac{GMm}{\mathrm{}v}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _2(\frac{\lambda _2}{d})^3\left(1+(\frac{\lambda _n}{d})^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(12)
One can show that, assuming that $`m`$ is a constant, in the region $`d\lambda `$ were the model holds that $`\delta \varphi _n^{1D}\left(\frac{\lambda }{d}\right)^n`$ when $`d\lambda `$.

Nevertheless, the newtonian potential $`n=0`$ has infinite range and thus must be treated separately. As the distance between the particle and the wire is much smaller than its length, one can take the infinite length of the wire limit . So, from Gauss theorem, the gravitational field is $`𝐠(𝐫)=2G\mu \frac{𝐫}{r^2}=\left(2G\mu \mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{d}\right)`$ so that the potential is null on the lower path. The potential energy is then:

$$V_{newton}^{1D}(x)=2GM\mu \mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{x}{d})$$
(13)
The newtonian phase difference is then:

$$\varphi _{newton}^{1D}=\frac{GMm}{\mathrm{}v}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e}{d})$$
(14)
With all these quantitative expressions for the different phases we can now turn to numerical estimates for a reference atom interferometer.

## IV Numerical results

In all cases, the phase difference is $`\frac{GMm}{\mathrm{}v}`$ times a numerical factor which can be inferred from dimensional considerations. The numerical factor depends on the particular geometry used and the presumed force law. It should be noticed that this numerical factor involves dimensionless ratios as $`\alpha `$, $`\frac{\lambda }{d}`$ that can be great. Anyway, let us first give a numerical estimate of the pre-factor, taking a slowed cesium beam $`v=10m.s^1,M=\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}10}^{25}kg`$, and a wire $`1m\times 100\mu m\times 100\mu m`$ of density equal to $`20`$ (gold) so that $`m=\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}10}^4kg`$. The pre-factor then amounts to some $`10^6`$. The detection limit $`\delta \varphi _{min}=10^3rad`$ is commonly accepted for atom interferometry (see different contributions in ). It first confirms the known fact that the metrology on the regular newtonian gravity (i.e. a measurement of $`G`$) is practically impossible as even with $`d=10\mu m`$, $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e}{d})`$ will amount to some units so $`\varphi _{newton}^{1D}`$ (Eq.14) will be to small to be detected.

One can anyway evaluate the upper bounds on the strength of the non-newtonian interaction in the case of a hypothetical null experiment based on our calculation. The results are shown in Fig. 2 together with limits taken from Ref. . They were obtained assuming that the actual wire diameter equals the distance from the wire to the atoms $`d`$ so that the $`1D`$ model is at the limit of acceptability. The upper part corresponds to $`d=100\mu m`$ so that, for $`\lambda <d`$, the wire is beyond the compactification radius for the models with extra dimensions. The curves have then been extrapolated the curve given by the Yukawa potential. $`d=10\mu m`$ is shown in the lower part for which such a problem do not arise since we have chosen the same parameters range as in Ref.  for sake of comparison. In the same way, the beam separation $`e10^3m`$ with the chosen parameter set. The limits are thus overestimated in the somehow low interest region $`\lambda >10^3m`$.

While a real experiment based on this computation looks very difficult for several reason, the figure clearly shows that there is an interest in further studies of the methodology we described. For short ranges, $`\lambda <10^4m`$, the method appear particularly efficient even if one uses a less sophisticated atomic source such as a supersonic beam for which $`v10^3m.s^1`$. In the end, the main free parameter in the simulations is $`d`$ and has to be chosen with respect to the potential model of interest and its suspected range. When $`d`$ decreases the different potentials increase but the test mass scales typically as $`d^2`$ and vice versa. For the Yukawa case, an optimum is numerically, and not surprisingly, found for $`d\lambda `$ for the typical parameters ranges we are concerned with. On the contrary for n extra dimensions the overall phase scales as $`d^2\left(\frac{\lambda }{d}\right)^nd^{2n}`$. The case $`n=2`$ thus exhibits a weak dependency on the choice of the wire diameter whereas one should use as small as possible a wire if $`n3`$. On the contrary, if the $`n=1`$ case is under investigation, one should use the largest acceptable wire that is $`d\lambda `$. These behaviors can be checked on the figure where the limits for $`n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ get worse, remain roughly unchanged or improve from $`d=100\mu m`$ (upper graph) to $`d=10\mu m`$ (lower graph).

## V Conclusions

The results presented here concerning non-newtonian gravitation are based on a completely different method than the existing ones that use macroscopic probes. Our computation show that atom interferometry could provide limits on the strength $`\alpha `$ of several extra potentials comparable with the existing ones in a reasonable integration time, especially if they are of short range $`\lambda <10^4m`$. More, it can be easily extended to test a composition dependent interaction (”fifth-force”) using, for example, as test masses two wires of different materials or two isotopes such as $`{}_{}{}^{6}Li`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ for the probe atom. Using polarized beams spin dependent potentials could be also taken into account.

A detailed study of an actual experimental set-up is far beyond the scope of such a letter; a rapid realization of such an experiment looks anyway difficult because of some experimental critical points. In particular the short range interaction implies high collimated beams which results in low count rates and moreover to increase sensitivity challenging beam slowing techniques are necessary.

We are anyway confident that, being atom optics a fast developing field, in the near future most of the experimental difficult points will be clarified and atom interferometry will contribute to the tests of non-newtonian gravitation.

## VI acknowledgements

We kindly thank J.Vigué for encouragement and many fruitful discussions.