text:
# Entangling atoms in bad cavities

## I Introduction

To obtain a large coherent coupling of individual quantum systems while at the same time maintaining a low decoherence rate is the main challenge in the experimental exploration of entanglement. An example of this is cavity QED which was one of the first proposals for the construction of a quantum computer and creation of entanglement of atoms pellizari ; domokos , but where the experimental progress has been hampered by decoherence caused by cavity decay and spontaneous emission from the atoms. To overcome these problems experiments have resorted to very small optical cavities where the small cavity volume increases the interaction strength kimble ; rempe , or Rydberg atoms in superconducting microwave cavities, where the decoherence rates are low haroche ; walther .

Most cavity QED schemes which have been proposed so far require the cavity to be in a strong coupling regime $`g^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, where $`g`$ is the atom cavity coupling strength, $`\kappa `$ is the cavity decay rate, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the decay rate of the atoms, and this limit is very hard to achieve experimentally. In this paper we propose a scheme where the created entanglement depends on the parameter $`Ng^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`N`$ is the number of atoms. With this scheme it is in principle possible to produce entanglement in any cavity, but in practise the entanglement becomes unmeasurable if $`Ng^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. On the other hand, if $`Ng^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ a measurable entanglement is produced. Compared to the requirement $`g^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ the present approach thus allows a substantially reduction in the requirements for the cavity if a large number of atoms is used. We note that the requirement $`Ng^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ is equivalent to the criterion for optical bistability and squeezing in cavity QED as studied experimentally in Refs. rempe91 ; raizen ; grangier .

We propose to produce so-called spin squeezed states ueda . The collective properties of $`N`$ two level atoms are conveniently described by pseudo angular momentum operators defined by $`J_z=_k(|a_ka||b_kb|)/2`$ and $`J_+=_k|a_kb|`$, where the sum is over the individual atoms, and where $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ are the two internal states of the atoms. The state where all atoms are in the $`a`$ state is an eigenstate of the $`J_z`$ operator with eigenvalue $`N/2`$. If the $`J_x`$ operator is measured in this state, the result will fluctuate around the mean value of zero with a variance $`N/4`$. By entangling the atoms it is possible to maintain a large value of the mean spin $`J_zN/2`$ while considerably reducing the noise in a spin component $`J_\theta =\mathrm{cos}(\theta )J_x+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )J_y`$ perpendicular to the mean spin. A state with this property is called a spin squeezed state.

The experimental generation of spin squeezed states has potential applications in high precision spectroscopy and atomic clocks. For spectroscopy on a collection of two-level atoms Wineland et al. wineland  have shown that the possible gain in precision by using a spin squeezed state is given by the quantity

$$\xi ^2=\underset{𝜃}{\mathrm{min}}\left(\frac{NJ_\theta ^2}{J_z^2}\right).$$
(1)
It has also been shown that $`\xi ^2<1`$ indicates that the atom are in an entangled state condensate ; extreme , and here we shall use $`\xi ^2`$ to characterize the entanglement of the atoms.

Several schemes for the production of spin squeezed states have been proposed, and recently the first weakly squeezed states have been produced experimentally by absorption of squeezed light hald , by QND-detection kuzmich , and by collisional interaction kasevich . The possibility to produce spin squeezed states by having a large number of atoms in a bad cavity was already proposed in Ref. vernac , but the method proposed here is more efficient; with the same cavity parameters our proposal enables a stronger squeezing of the spin. During the preparation of this work we became aware that a scheme very similar to ours has recently been proposed lukin . Compared to that work we apply a simpler level scheme in a different regime, but the fundamental ideas and the results are very similar. Also the results reached in Ref. thomsen  are similar to ours, but the mechanism employed in that paper is very different from what we propose here.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present our scheme in the ideal case where no dissipation takes place. In Sec. III we analyse the scheme in the more realistic situation where cavity decay and decay of the excited atomic states affect the preparation of the entangled state. In Sec. IV we summarize our proposal, and we discuss how some states are more robust than others against dissipation and loss. The derivation of the evolution in the presence of dissipation uses the standard method of adiabatic elimination and produces quite complicated equations. These expressions are not essential for the understanding of the functioning of the proposal and we have put the technical derivation in the Appendix.

## II Ideal case

The energy levels of the atoms and the laser couplings are depicted in Fig. 1 (a). We consider a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ type three level atom with two stable ground states $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ with an energy difference $`\omega _{ab}`$ and an excited state $`|e`$ with energy difference $`\omega _{ae}`$ to the ground states $`|a`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$). The state $`|a`$ is coupled to the excited state $`|e`$ by a laser with a resonant Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and a frequency $`\omega _1`$ which is detuned from the excited state. Similarly the state $`|b`$ is also coupled to the excited state by another detuned laser with resonant Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and frequency $`\omega _2`$. The two frequencies of the lasers are chosen such that their difference is exactly twice the energy splitting between the two ground states $`\omega _1\omega _2=2\omega _{ab}`$. With this choice of frequencies all transitions involving only a single atom are off-resonant, but a transition which transfers pairs of atoms from state $`|a`$ to $`|b`$ is resonant. A similar choice of resonance conditions has also been proposed for trapped ions ion1 ; ion2 , and recently this scheme has allowed the first experimental production of four particle entangled states sackett . To produce the pairwise excitations of the atoms, it is not sufficient that the process is resonant; it is also necessary that there exists a physical mechanism which enables an interaction between the atoms. In ion1 ; ion2  this was done by the Coulomb interaction between the ions. Here we assume that the quantized field in an optical cavity couples both the states $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ to the excited state $`|e`$ with coupling constants $`g_a`$ and $`g_b`$ respectively. With this coupling to the cavity there exists a transition path for the pairwise transition, as shown in Fig. 1 (b), and the matrix element for the transition becomes non-zero. In the remainder of this section we show that this coupling leads to a spin squeezed state if we apply the coupling to a state where all atoms are initially in the $`a`$ state.

If we assume all fields to be propagating in the same direction, the experimental situation is described by the Hamiltonian

$$\begin{array}{cc}& H=\omega _0\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _{ae}|e_ke|+\omega _{ab}|b_kb|+H_{\mathrm{int},k}\hfill \\ & \begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_{\mathrm{int},k}=& \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _1t}+g_a\widehat{c}\right)|e_ka|\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{2}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _2t}+g_b\widehat{c}\right)|e_kb|+H.C.,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{c}`$ and $`\omega _0`$ denote the annihilation operator and frequency of the relevant cavity mode.

If we are in a regime where the laser power is sufficiently weak that we do not transfer any population to the excited atomic state we may adiabatically eliminate this state and obtain an effective Hamiltonian for the coupled state of the ground states and the cavity james . Assuming further that the lasers are also sufficiently weak that we do not create a significant photon excitation in the cavity we may also adiabatically eliminate the cavity field and we are left with an effective Hamiltonian for the atoms james

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H=\frac{1}{\delta }\mathbf{(}& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2|g_b|^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2}J_+J_{}+\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2|g_a|^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2}J_{}J_+\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}g_bg_a^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2}J_+J_++\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}g_ag_b^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2}J_{}J_{}\mathbf{)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where we have omitted some unimportant energy shifts, and we have introduced the detunings from the excited state $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\omega _{ae}\omega _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\omega _{ae}\omega _{ab}\omega _2=\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\omega _{ab}`$, and the detuning from the cavity mode $`\delta =\omega _1\omega _{ab}\omega _0=\omega _2+\omega _{ab}\omega _0`$. These detunings are also defined in Fig. 1. The angular momentum operators are defined as the angular momentum operators in Sec. I. The origin of each of the terms in this Hamiltonian can be understood from processes like the one shown in Fig. 1 (b) which gives the term with $`J_+J_+`$, i.e., a double Raman process which takes two atoms from $`|a`$ to $`|b`$ by absorption by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, emission into the cavity by $`g_b`$, reabsorption of the cavity photon by $`g_a`$, and emission by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$.

If we choose the strength of the two Raman processes to be identical $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }g^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, Eq. (3) reduces to the simpler form $`H_{\mathrm{ideal}}=\chi J_x^2`$, where $`\chi =|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2|g|^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2\delta `$. The squeezing arising from this Hamiltonian can be calculated analytically ueda . Starting from an initial state where all atoms are in the $`a`$ state and propagating with this Hamiltonian, squeezing by a factor of $`\xi ^2N^{2/3}`$ is produced (in the limit $`N1`$), and this is a significant noise reduction if a large number of atoms is present. In the following section we show that a significant squeezing is produced even in the presence of dissipation.

The time it takes to produce a spin squeezed state of many atoms is very short. To squeeze the spin by a constant factor, a constant number of atoms has to be transfered into the $`b`$ state. With increasing $`N`$ a decreasing fraction of the atoms has to be transfered, and thus a shorter time (scaling as $`1/N`$) is necessary to make the squeezing. The different decoherence mechanisms therefore have less time to affect the preparation of the squeezed states, and as we show below, this reduces the experimental requirement for the production of squeezed states.

## III Analysis including dissipation and noise

The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that it is possible to use a cavity to entangle atoms even in situations where substantial dissipation is present. In this section we analyse the performance of our proposal in the presence of the two main decoherence mechanisms: spontaneous emission and cavity decay.

Before making a quantitative analysis of the effect of dissipation we first make a few simple estimates of the decoherence. For simplicity we shall here assume that the lasers have approximately the same Rabi frequencies ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_l\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and detunings ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_l\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and also that the cavity couplings are similar $`g_lg`$. The number of spontaneously emitted photons is estimated to be approximately $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }N\mathrm{\Gamma }t|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the total decay rate. The time required to produce squeezing by a constant factor is given by $`t\mathrm{\Delta }^2\delta /(Ng^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$, and by inserting this expression we find that the total number of decayed atoms is

$$N_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta }{g^2}.$$
(4)
The number of photons decaying out of the cavity during the same time is estimated to be $`N_\kappa N\kappa t\mathrm{\Omega }^2g^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\delta ^2)`$ which reduces to

$$N_\kappa \frac{\kappa }{\delta }$$
(5)
when the expression for the time is inserted.

Because the spin squeezed state are only weakly entangled they are quite insensitive to the spontaneous emission of the atoms. If we assume that we are near the initial state where $`J_zN/2`$, $`J_x`$ and $`J_y`$ may be replaced by the canonical conjugate position $`x=J_x\sqrt{2/N}`$ and momentum $`p=J_y\sqrt{2/N}`$ operators of a harmonic oscillator. The relaxation rate for the harmonic oscillator is then the same as the relaxation rate for a single atom, and from the well known properties of squeezing of harmonic oscillators we find that the squeezing is not completely degraded as long as the number of decayed atoms is much less than the total number of atoms. The decay of photons out of the cavity is more severe than the decay of a single atom. Because the cavity couples to a collective degree of freedom, the decoherence of the cavity will also affect the collective degree of freedom. If $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b|/\mathrm{\Delta }_1=|\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a|/\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ we estimate that the first decay of a photon out of the cavity increases the variance in all directions perpendicular to the mean spin by a factor of three. To obtain a large squeezing we therefore require that at most a few photons are scattered out of the cavity. From the expression in Eqs. (4) and (5) we see that we can fulfill both $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }N`$ and $`N_\kappa 1`$ if the cavity parameters fulfill $`Ng^2\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and we thus expect to be able to produce substantial squeezing in this regime. This is confirmed by our more accurate treatment of dissipation below.

Dissipation is described by the master equation for the density matrix $`\rho `$

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho =i[H,\rho ]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{m}{}\left(2\widehat{d}_m\rho \widehat{d}_m^{}\widehat{d}_m^{}\widehat{d}_m\rho \rho \widehat{d}_m^{}\widehat{d}_m\right),$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{d}_m`$ are relaxation operators. We assume that the separation of the atoms in the cavity is much larger than the wavelength of the spontaneously emitted photons. In this limit the decay of the atoms is uncorrelated and can be described by independent relaxation operators for each atom. The excited state $`|e`$ is assumed to have three independent decay channels: it may decay to the two lower states in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ with decay rates $`\gamma _a`$ and $`\gamma _b`$ respectively, and it may decay to some other state $`|o`$ with a decay rate $`\gamma _o`$. The total effect of the spontaneous emission is described by $`3N`$ relaxation operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{d}_{a,k}& =\sqrt{\gamma _a}|a_ke|\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{d}_{b,k}& =\sqrt{\gamma _b}|b_ke|\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{d}_{o,k}& =\sqrt{\gamma _o}|o_ke|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$. To describe the decay of the cavity with a rate $`\kappa `$ we introduce a relaxation operator

$$\widehat{d}_c=\sqrt{\kappa }\widehat{c}.$$
(8)
To derive the evolution of the spin squeezing we first adiabatically eliminate the excited state assuming

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_l|^2}{4}& \mathrm{\Delta }_l^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta ,\kappa ^{}& \omega _{ab}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`l=1,2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the total decay rate of the excited state $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _a+\gamma _b+\gamma _c`$. $`\kappa ^{}`$ is an effective decay rate of the cavity, which is slightly larger than $`\kappa `$ due to the scattering of cavity photons by the atoms, cf. Eq. (15). We then adiabatically eliminate the cavity from the equations assuming

$$N\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b|^2}{4}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)\left(\delta ^2+\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}\right).$$
(10)
The equations resulting from the adiabatic elimination are quite complicated and we leave the derivation to Appendix A. If we assume that the initial state is almost unaffected by the interaction so that $`J_zN/2`$, the matrix elements which are quadratic in the angular momentum operators do not couple to higher order terms and we obtain closed equations for the expectation values

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\begin{array}{c}J_z\\ \widehat{N}_a+\widehat{N}_b\\ J_+J_+\\ J_{}J_{}\\ J_+J_{}\\ J_{}J_+\end{array}\right]=M\left[\begin{array}{c}J_z\\ \widehat{N}_a+\widehat{N}_b\\ J_+J_+\\ J_{}J_{}\\ J_+J_{}\\ J_{}J_+\end{array}\right],$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{N}_l`$ is the number operator for atoms of type $`l=a,b`$ ($`\widehat{N}_a+\widehat{N}_b`$ is not a conserved quantity because of the decay to the state $`|o`$). The precise form of the matrix $`M`$ is given by the expressions in Eqs. (16-20).

Due to the complicated structure of the matrix $`M`$ it is difficult to describe the evolution of the squeezing analytically, but it is straightforward to find the evolution numerically, where the solution at a given time $`t`$ may by found by taking the exponential of the matrix $`Mt`$. In Fig. 2 we show the evolution of squeezing in a situation where $`g^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa 1`$ but $`Ng^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa 1`$. With the realistic parameters used in the figure we are able to produce squeezing by approximately an order of magnitude after a very short interaction time. The time required to make the squeezing in the figure is less than $`1\mu `$s if we chose a realistic cavity coupling parameter $`g=(2\pi )100`$kHz.

In principle the proposed scheme can be used to produce entanglement in any cavity. The field $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ only couples to the ground state $`|b`$ that is initially unpopulated, so that a large value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ increases the rate of the coherent transfer of atoms from state $`a`$ to $`b`$ but does not affect the initial decoherence rate. The amount of squeezing, however, depends on the cavity parameters. To investigate the obtainable squeezing we have performed a numerical optimization of the coupling strengths and detunings for a number of different cavity parameters. With fixed values of the dissipation rates and energy difference $`\omega _{ab}`$, we vary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2/\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, $`\delta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and search for the values which give the minimal $`\xi ^2`$ (because all terms in $`M`$ involve the square of the field strength, the minimum only depends on the ratio between the two fields). In the limit $`N1`$ and for fixed ratios between the decay rates $`\gamma _l`$ ($`l=a,b,o`$) the results of the optimization indicate that the optimal squeezing parameter $`\xi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ is only a function of the parameter $`Ng^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa `$. In Fig. 3 we show $`\xi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ for different cavity parameters. As expected from our simple estimates, the figure confirms that strong squeezing can be produced in the limit $`Ng^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa 1`$. In the calculations we have assumed $`g_a=g_b=g`$ and $`\gamma _a=\gamma _b=\gamma _o=\mathrm{\Gamma }/3`$, and with these values the optimal squeezing is approximately given by $`\xi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=0.7/\sqrt{Ng^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa }`$ for $`Ng^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa 1`$. This is indicated by the dashed line in the figure. The same behaviour but with a slightly different constant has also been found in lukin . The obtained results only change slightly if we vary the ratio between the coupling constants or between the decay rates.

The results of the numerical simulations agree very well with the behaviour expected from the simple estimates. Our assumptions of weak excitation of the atoms and of the cavity field mode imply the necessary condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It turns out, however, that the detuning $`\delta `$ from the intermediate state in Fig.1 (b) with one cavity photon excited, does not need to be large. If only the coupling is weak enough $`\sqrt{N}|\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b/\mathrm{\Delta }_1|\kappa `$, and if the process that absorbs cavity photons is stronger than the one producing them, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a|/(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4)>|\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b|/(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4)`$, the photon excited state can be eliminated, and we find good squeezing for all values of $`\delta `$. The minimum value of $`\xi ^2`$ is found for $`\delta =0`$.

Finally, lets us briefly comment on a few experimental aspect of our proposal. The analysis above shows that our proposal is robust against the spontaneous emission caused by the laser coupling and the decay of photons out of the cavity. The coupling of the lasers, however, introduces other possible decoherence mechanisms if we are not able to control the lasers with a high enough accuracy. In the treatment so far we have ignored the AC-Stark shifts caused by the lasers because they can be compensated by a small change in the frequencies. But the magnitude of the AC-Stark depends on the power of the lasers so that fluctuations in the power has a detrimental effect on the squeezing. To suppress this effect we propose to adjust the relative strengths of the two fields so that $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1/(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4)=|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2/(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4)`$. With this choice the AC-Stark shifts of the two ground states become identical and have no effect on the internal state preparation. The problem of stabilizing the power can thus be reduced to the problem of stabilizing the relative frequency and intensity of the two fields which is much easier experimentally if the two fields are derived from the same source.

The efforts to entangle atoms through cavity QED have so far concentrated on the strong coupling regime $`g^2/\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. To achieve this limit it has been desirable to use very small standing wave cavities where the coupling constant varies sinusoidally along the cavity axis with a period of half the optical wavelength. A controlled evolution in these cavities therefore requires that the atoms are localized in regions smaller than the optical wavelength. Since our proposal puts much less stringent requirement on the cavity parameters it should not be necessary to use such small cavities and it could for instance be implemented with a ring cavity. Then, the magnitude of the coupling constant does not depend on the position of the atom along the cavity axis, and if the classical fields are co-propagating with the cavity field it is no longer necessary to localize the atoms within a wavelength. The atoms only need to be confined within the waist of the cavity mode, and this can be done with cold atoms trapped in a far detuned optical dipole trap or optical lattice, or even with atoms in a glass cell at room temperature.

## IV conclusion

We have shown that it is possible to observe significant spin squeezing of atoms coupled to the field mode in a lossy cavity. The loss of quantum correlations between the particles which is caused by atomic decay and cavity loss is balanced by the strong non-linear coupling achievable in the limit of very many atoms. It has been shown that spin squeezing implies entanglement, i.e., a separable state cannot lead to values of $`\xi ^2`$ smaller than unity. We have thus created entangled states which are fairly robust against dissipation and loss.

There is no precise quantitative measure for the entanglement of a large collection of particles, but a natural qualitative measure is to consider the possible gain, e.g., in spectroscopic resolution, that the entangled states offers with respect to a disentangled state. By binding the $`N`$ atoms together in $`N/P`$ maximally entangled $`P`$-particle states $`(|aaa\mathrm{}a+|bbb\mathrm{}b)/\sqrt{2}`$, one obtains a spectroscopic resolution corresponding to a state with $`\xi ^2=1/P`$ bollinger . Hence in terms of spectroscopic resolution the spin squeezed states are as powerful as if the atoms had been divided into groups of maximally entangled states of $`1/\xi ^2`$ particles.

From a practical perspective, however, the squeezed states offer a significant advantage compared to a collection of highly entangled states. In spin squeezed states the relevant observables are collective operators involving all the atoms. There is no need to address the atoms individually, and the manipulation and detection of the squeezing can therefore be achieved by lasers addressing all atoms collectively. Furthermore the spin squeezed states are also easier to produce: In an ideal spin squeezed state the one-particle density matrix $`\rho _1`$ is very close to the initial pure state projection operator $`\rho _1=|aa|+O(1/N)`$, and the state of each atom is thus almost disentangled from the state of the other atoms. This means that we only need to perturb the initial state slightly to turn it into a squeezed state. This is a significant advantage in any experimental attempt to produce entanglement because (a) the states are more robust against decoherence than more highly entangled states and (b) the interaction time required to make the desired state is much shorter than for the highly entangled states. The large number of atoms increases the decoherence rates, i.e., more photons are scattered, but our calculations show that the two advantages (a) and (b) outweigh the increased decoherence rate and enable the construction of entangled states in situations where the experimental capabilities do not permit the construction of entangled states of a few atoms.

In a broader context our proposal fits into the field of ensemble quantum information processing, where the quantum information is encoded into the collective degrees of freedom of a collection of atoms. A number of papers duanprl ; lukinensemble ; duannature  have proposed schemes for the processing of information encoded in such a way and the first experimental implementation of these concept has recently been reported brian . By combining these ideas with the present work one may for example imagine a quantum computer with several separate and individually addressable atomic clouds which communicate in a controlled manner via cavity modes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Michael Drewsen and Eugene Polzik for useful discussions about possible experimental realizations of the scheme. This work was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation through QUANTOP, the Danish Quantum Optics Center, and by CAUAC (contract no. HPRN-CT-2000-00165).

## Appendix A Deriving the equations of motion

In this section we derive the equations describing the time evolution of squeezing in the presence of dissipation. We first consider only the Hamiltonian describing a single atom and we adiabatically eliminate the excited state of the atom by assuming that the population of that state is negligible. In this approximation the equations for the ground state density matrix elements are equivalent to the evolution by a Hamiltonian

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H=& \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2}{4\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2|g_a|^2\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\right)|aa|\hfill \\ & \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}{4\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1|g_b|^2\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\right)|bb|\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b^{}}{2}|ba|\widehat{c}^{}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}g_b}{2}|ab|\widehat{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}g_a}{2}|ba|\widehat{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a^{}}{2}|ab|\widehat{c}^{}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
and six relaxation operators $`\widehat{d}_{k,l}`$ ($`k=a,b,o`$ and $`l=1,2`$) describing the combined excitation with a detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ and decay to a state $`|k`$, e.g.,

$$\widehat{d}_{a,1}=\frac{\sqrt{\gamma _a}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{2}|aa|+g_b|ab|\widehat{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t}\right).$$
(13)
To derive these result we have assumed that $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, and we have used the second relation in Eq. (9) to neglect processes which creates photons without a change in the atomic state.

The first two lines in Eq. (12) represent AC-Stark shifts of the ground states. The first part of the shifts containing the classical fields $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ can be compensated if we make a change in the frequency of the fields. The second part containing the quantum field $`\widehat{c}`$ is much smaller than the first and by inserting the approximate time and Eq. (14) below, we find that this term gives a negligible phase shift if $`g^2/\delta \mathrm{\Delta }1`$ and we shall neglect these terms.

We then adiabatically eliminate the cavity in the Heisenberg picture. Setting $`d(\widehat{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t})/dt=0`$ we obtain

$$\widehat{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta t}=\frac{1}{\delta +i\frac{\kappa ^{}}{2}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1g_b^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}J_{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}J_+\right)+\mathrm{noise},$$
(14)
where the noise ensures the commutation relation of the operator. Here we have introduced an effective decay rate for the cavity

$$\kappa ^{}=\kappa +\frac{N\mathrm{\Gamma }|g_a|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}$$
(15)
which takes into account that the cavity photons may be scattered by the atoms. In Eq. (15) we have assumed that essentially all atoms remain in the $`a`$ state.

The adiabatic elimination of the cavity requires that the atoms are disentangled from the cavity, i.e., that $`\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}1`$. At $`t=0`$ this reduces to Eq. (10), and at later times our numerical simulation indicate that $`\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}`$ typically changes slowly, so that the condition is fulfilled if it is fulfilled at $`t=0`$.

Finally, we insert Eq. (14) into the time derivatives of the angular momentum operators, and by assuming that the initial state only changes slightly so that $`J_zN/2`$, we obtain the following expressions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}J_z=& \frac{\gamma _b+\gamma _0/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2}{4}\widehat{N}_a+\frac{\gamma _a+\gamma _0/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}{4}\widehat{N}_b\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{\delta ^2+\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}\mathbf{[}\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2|g_b|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1(2\gamma _b+\gamma _o)+\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma _a\gamma _b)}{4}\right)J_+J_{}\hfill \\ & +\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2|g_a|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_2(2\gamma _a+\gamma _o)\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma _a\gamma _b)}{4}\right)J_{}J_+\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}g_ag_b^{}}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathbf{(}& 2i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2i\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\gamma _a+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})}{2}i\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\gamma _b+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})}{2}\hfill \\ & \delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1(\gamma _b+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})+\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_2(\gamma _a+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma _a\gamma _b)}{4}\mathbf{)}J_{}J_{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a^{}g_b}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathbf{(}& 2i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+i\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\gamma _a+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})}{2}+i\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\gamma _b+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})}{2}\hfill \\ & \delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1(\gamma _b+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})+\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_2(\gamma _a+\frac{\gamma _o}{2})+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma _a\gamma _b)}{4}\mathbf{)}J_+J_+\mathbf{]},\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}(\widehat{N}_a+\widehat{N}_b)=& \frac{\gamma _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2}{4}\widehat{N}_a\frac{\gamma _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}{4}\widehat{N}_b\hfill \\ & +\frac{\gamma _o}{\delta ^2+\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}\mathbf{[}\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2|g_b|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\right)J_+J_{}+\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2|g_a|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_2+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\right)J_{}J_+\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}g_ag_b^{}}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2)+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}i\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2)\kappa ^{}}{2}\right)J_{}J_{}\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a^{}g_b}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}(\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2)+\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}+i\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2)\kappa ^{}}{2})J_+J_+\mathbf{]},\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}J_+J_+=& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2}{4}J_+J_+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}{4}J_+J_+\hfill \\ & \frac{2iN}{\delta ^2+\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}\mathbf{[}\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2|g_b|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)\left(\delta +i\frac{\kappa ^{}}{2}\right)J_+J_++\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2|g_a|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\right)^2\left(\delta i\frac{\kappa ^{}}{2}\right)J_+J_+\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}g_ag_b^{}}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\mathbf{(}\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\right)\left(\delta +i\frac{\kappa ^{}}{2}\right)J_{}J_+\hfill \\ & +(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2})(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2})(\delta i\frac{\kappa ^{}}{2})J_+J_{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]},\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}J_+J_{}=& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(\gamma _a\widehat{N}_a\mathrm{\Gamma }J_+J_{}\right)+\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(\gamma _a\widehat{N}_b+\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{N}_a\mathrm{\Gamma }J_+J_{}\right)\frac{N}{\delta ^2+\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}A\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{d}{dt}J_{}J_+=& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(\gamma _b\widehat{N}_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{N}_b\mathrm{\Gamma }J_{}J_+\right)+\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(\gamma _b\widehat{N}_b\mathrm{\Gamma }J_{}J_+\right)\frac{N}{\delta ^2+\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}A,\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A=& \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2|g_b|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(\kappa ^{}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)J_+J_{}+\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2|g_a|^2}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2\kappa ^{}2\mathrm{\Delta }_2\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)J_{}J_+\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}g_ag_b^{}}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(2i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }+i\mathrm{\Delta }_1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa ^{}}{2}\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)J_{}J_{}\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_a^{}g_b}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4})}\left(2i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }i\mathrm{\Delta }_1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa ^{}}{2}\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right)J_+J_+.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)


format: text

text:
# The 𝑍→{𝛾𝛾,𝑔𝑔} Decays in the Noncommutative Standard Model

## Abstract

On noncommutative spacetime, the Standard Model (SM) allows new, usually SM forbidden, triple gauge boson interactions. In this letter we propose the SM strictly forbidden $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ and $`Zgg`$ decay modes coming from the gauge sector of the Noncommutative Standard Model (NCSM) as a place where noncommutativity could be experimentally discovered.

In this article we consider strictly SM forbidden decays coming from the gauge sector of the NCSM which could be probed in high energy collider experiments. This sector is particularly interesting from the theoretical point of view. It is the place where different models show the greatest differences. In particular there are models that do not require any new triple gauge boson interactions. This depends on a choice of representation. It is, however, important to emphasize that generically one should expect triple boson interactions. We will in particular argue that a model that does have new triple gauge boson interactions is natural as an effective theory of noncommutativity. Our main results are summarized in equations (17) to (19).

The idea that coordinates may not commute can be traced back to Heisenberg. A simple way to introduce a noncommutative structure into spacetime is to promote the usual spacetime coordinates $`x`$ to noncommutative (NC) coordinates $`\widehat{x}`$ with sny

$$[\widehat{x}^\mu ,\widehat{x}^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },[\theta ^{\mu \nu },\widehat{x}^\rho ]=0,$$
(1)
were $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant, real, antisymmetric matrix. The noncommutativity scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ is fixed by choosing dimensionlfess matrix elements $`c^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}^2\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ of order one. The original motivation to study such a scenario was the hope that the introduction of a fundamental scale could deal with the infinities of quantum field theory in a natural way. The simple commutation relation (1) with constant $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ fails to provide a complete regularization Filk , but more complicated noncommutative structures can indeed introduce spacetime lattice structures into the theory that are compatible with a deformation of *continuous* spacetime symmetries (see, e.g., Cerchiai ). This is in contrast to the situation in ordinary lattice field theory, where only discrete translation symmetries survive. Aside from these technical merits, the possibility of a noncommutative structure of spacetime is of interest in its own right and its experimental discovery would be a result of fundamental importance.

Noncommutative gauge theory has become a focus of interest in string theory and M-theory with the work given in Ref.CDS . Noncommutativity of spacetime is very natural in string theory and can be understood as an effect of the interplay of closed and open strings. The commutation relation (1) enters in string theory through the Moyal-Weyl star product

$$fg=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\theta ^{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}\theta ^{\mu _n\nu _n}}{(2i)^nn!}_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n}f_{\nu _1}\mathrm{}_{\nu _n}g.$$
(2)
For coordinates: $`x^\mu x^\nu x^\nu x^\mu =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. The tensor $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is determined by a NS $`B^{\mu \nu }`$-field and the open string metric $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ DH , which both depend on a given closed string background. The effective physics on D-branes is most naturally captured by noncommutative $`U(N)`$ gauge theory, but it can also be described by ordinary gauge theory. Both descriptions are related by the Seiberg-Witten (SW) map SW , which expresses noncommutative gauge fields in terms of fields with ordinary “commutative” gauge transformation properties.

Quantum field theory on non-commutative space-time can be studied also independently of string theory. There are two major approaches. The original one based on actions that resembles that of Yang-Mills theory with matrix multiplication replaced by the Moyal-Weyl star product and a more recent one that utilizes the so-called Seiberg-Witten map to express non-commutative fields in terms of physical (commutative) fields. Both have their advantages and limitations. In the original approach unusual non-perturbative effects like UV/IR mixing UVIR  can be studied, but gauge theories are limited to the gauge group $`U(N)`$ in the fundamental representation. There are also indications of more fundamental problems in the rigorous definition of the $`S`$-matrix. The second approach treats non-commutativity strictly perturbatively via Seiberg-Witten map expansion in terms of $`\theta `$. A major advantage of the second approach is that models with any gauge group – including the one of the standard model – and any particle content can be constructed. Further problems that are solved in this approach include the charge quantization problem of NC Abelian gauge theories and the construction of covariant Yukawa couplings. The action is manifestly gauge invariant. It is written in terms of physical fields and their derivatives and should be understood as an effective model describing non-commutative effects in particle physics, see WESS ; Zumino ; WESS1 ; Martin  and references therein.

Experimental signatures of noncommutativity have been discussed from the point of view of collider physics AY ; HPR ; HK ; MPR  as well as low-energy non-accelerator experiments MPR ; ABDG ; CCL . Two widely disparate sets of bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ can be found in the literature: bounds of order $`10^{11}`$ $`GeV`$ ABDG  or higher MPR , and bounds of a few TeV’s from colliders AY ; HPR ; HK . All these limits rest on one or more of the following assumptions which may have to be modified: (1) $`\theta `$ is constant across distances that are very large compared with the NC scale; (2) unrealistic gauge groups; (3) noncommutativity down to low energy scales. The decay of the $`Z`$-boson into two photons was previously considered in MPR , where the authors rely on a noncommutative $`U(1)`$ model, i.e., not yet a bonafide noncommutative model of the electroweak sector or the standard model.

There are two essential points in which NC gauge theories differ from standard gauge theories. The first point is the breakdown of Lorentz invariance with respect to a fixed non-zero $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ background (which obviously fixes preferred directions) and the other is the appearance of new interactions (three-photon coupling, for example) and the modification of standard ones. Both properties have a common origin and appear in a number of phenomena.

The action of NC gauge theory resembles that of ordinary Yang-Mills theory, but with star products in addition to ordinary matrix multiplication. The general form of the gauge-invariant action for gauge fields is WESS1

$$S_{gauge}=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}\frac{1}{𝐆^2}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(3)
Here $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}`$ is a trace and $`𝐆`$ is an operator that encodes the coupling constants of the theory. Both will be discussed in detail below. The NC field strength is

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{V}_\nu _\nu \widehat{V}_\mu i[\widehat{V}_\mu \stackrel{}{,}\widehat{V}_\nu ]$$
(4)
and $`\widehat{V}_\mu `$ is the NC analog of the gauge vector potential. The Seiberg-Witten maps are used to express the noncommutative fields and parameters as functions of ordinary fields and parameters and their derivatives. This automatically ensures a restriction to the correct degrees of freedom. For the NC vector potential the SW map yields

$$\widehat{V}_\xi =V_\xi +\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\{V_\nu ,(_\mu V_\xi +F_{\mu \xi })\}+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right),$$
(5)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu V_\nu _\nu V_\mu i[V_\mu ,V_\nu ]`$ is the ordinary field strength and $`V_\mu `$ is the whole gauge potential for the gauge group $`G_{SM}SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$

$$V_\mu =g^{}𝒜_\mu (x)Y+g\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}B_{\mu ,a}(x)T_L^a+g_s\underset{b=1}{\overset{8}{}}G_{\mu ,b}(x)T_S^b.$$
(6)
It is important to realize that the choice of the representation in the definition of the trace $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}`$ has a strong influence on the theory in the noncommutative case. The reason for this is, that owing to the Seiberg-Witten map, terms of higher than quadratic order in the Lie algebra generators will appear in the trace. The choice of the trace corresponds to a choice of the representation of the gauge group. The adjoint representation would not lead to new triple gauge boson interactions and, in particular, show no triple-photon vertices WESS1 ; ASCH . This, however, would be an ad hoc choice (unless we are discussing a GUT scenario.) Let us emphasize again that the action that we present here should be understood as an effective theory. From this point of view, all representations of gauge fields that appear in the SM have to be considered in the definition of the trace. Consequently, according to WESS1 , we choose a trace over all particles with different quantum numbers in the model that have covariant derivatives acting on them. In the SM, these are, for each generation, five multiplets of fermions and one Higgs multiplet. The operator $`𝐆`$, which determines the coupling constants of the theory, must commute with all generators $`(Y,T_L^a,T_S^b)`$ of the gauge group, so that it does not spoil the trace property of $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}`$. This implies that $`𝐆`$ takes on constant values $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_6`$ on the six multiplets (Table 1 in Ref. WESS1 ). The operator $`𝐆`$ is in general a function of $`Y`$ and the casimirs of $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. However, because of the special assignment of hypercharges in the SM it is possible to express $`𝐆`$ solely in terms of $`Y`$.

The action up to linear order in $`\theta `$ allows new triple gauge boson interactions that are forbidden in the SM and has the following form

$`S_{gauge}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xf_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }\right)}`$
$`+g_s\theta ^{\rho \tau }{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}G_{\rho \tau }G_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \rho }G_{\nu \tau }\right)G^{\mu \nu }}`$
$`+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\kappa _1\theta ^{\rho \tau }{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}f_{\rho \tau }f_{\mu \nu }f_{\mu \rho }f_{\nu \tau }\right)f^{\mu \nu }}`$
$`+g^{}g^2\kappa _2\theta ^{\rho \tau }{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\rho \tau }F_{\mu \nu }^af_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \tau }^a)F^{\mu \nu ,a}+c.p.]`$
$`+g^{}g_s^2\kappa _3\theta ^{\rho \tau }{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\rho \tau }G_{\mu \nu }^bf_{\mu \rho }G_{\nu \tau }^b)G^{\mu \nu ,b}+c.p.],`$
where $`c.p.`$ means cyclic permutations in $`f`$. Here $`f_{\mu \nu }`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$, and $`G_{\mu \nu }^b`$ are the physical field strengths corresponding to the groups $`U(1)_Y`$, $`SU(2)_L`$, and $`SU(3)_C`$, respectively. The constants $`\kappa _1`$, $`\kappa _2`$, and $`\kappa _3`$ are parameters of the model. They are functions of $`1/g_i^2,(i=1,\mathrm{}6)`$ and have the following form:

$`\kappa _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_2^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9g_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9g_4^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_6^2}},`$
$`\kappa _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_2^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_6^2}},`$
$`\kappa _3`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3g_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6g_4^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6g_5^2}}.`$ (8)
In order to match the SM action at zeroth order in $`\theta `$, three consistency conditions have been imposed in (The $`Z\gamma \gamma ,gg`$ Decays in the Noncommutative Standard Model):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{g_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_2^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3g_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3g_4^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_6^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_2^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_6^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_4^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{g_5^2}}.`$ (9)
These three conditions together with the requirement that $`1/g_i^2>0`$, define a three-dimensional simplex in the six-dimensional moduli space spanned by $`1/g_1^2,\mathrm{},1/g_6^2`$ 111In terms of the couplings $`g_i`$ these are complicated equations describing a family of hyper ellipsoids, however, in terms of $`1/g_i^2`$ they form a set of linear equations..

From the action (The $`Z\gamma \gamma ,gg`$ Decays in the Noncommutative Standard Model) we extract the neutral triple-gauge boson terms which are not present in the SM Lagrangian. In terms of physical fields ($`A,Z,G`$) they are

$`_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }\theta ^{\rho \tau }A^{\mu \nu }\left(A_{\mu \nu }A_{\rho \tau }4A_{\mu \rho }A_{\nu \tau }\right),`$
$`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gg^{}(\kappa _1+3\kappa _2);`$ (10)
$`_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }\theta ^{\rho \tau }[2Z^{\mu \nu }(2A_{\mu \rho }A_{\nu \tau }A_{\mu \nu }A_{\rho \tau })`$
$`+8Z_{\mu \rho }A^{\mu \nu }A_{\nu \tau }Z_{\rho \tau }A_{\mu \nu }A^{\mu \nu }],`$
$`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa _1+\left(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2g^2\right)\kappa _2\right];`$ (11)
$`_{ZZ\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`_{Z\gamma \gamma }(AZ),`$
$`\mathrm{K}_{ZZ\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2gg^{}}}\left[g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\kappa _1+g^2\left(g^22g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\kappa _2\right];`$ (12)
$`_{ZZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }(AZ),`$
$`\mathrm{K}_{ZZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left[g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\kappa _1+3g^4\kappa _2\right];`$ (13)
$`_{Zgg}`$ $`=`$ $`_{Z\gamma \gamma }(AG^b),`$
$`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{2}}\left[1+({\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{g}})^2\right]\kappa _3;`$ (14)
$`_{\gamma gg}`$ $`=`$ $`_{Zgg}(ZA),`$
$`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma gg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{g}}\right]\kappa _3,`$ (15)
where $`A_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, ect.

Fig.(1) shows the three-dimensional simplex that bounds allowed values for the dimensionless coupling constants $`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$. For any choosen point within simplex in Fig.(1) the remaining three coupling constants (12,13,15), i.e. $`\mathrm{K}_{ZZ\gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{K}_{ZZZ}`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma gg}`$ respectively, are uniquely fixed by the NCSM. This is true for any combination of three coupling constants from equations (10) to (15).

Experimental evidence for noncommutativity coming from the gauge sector, should be searched for in processes which involve the above vertices. The simplest and most natural choice are the $`Z\gamma \gamma ,gg`$ decays, allowed for real (on-shell) particles. All other simple processes, such as $`\gamma \gamma \gamma ,gg`$, and $`ZZ\gamma ,ZZ`$, are on-shell forbidden by kinematics. The $`Z\gamma \gamma ,gg`$ decays are strictly forbidden in the SM by angular momentum conservation and Bose statistics (Yang Theorem) Yang ; Hagi , therefore they both could serve as a clear signal for the existence of spacetime noncommutativity 222$`Z`$ and $`\gamma `$ self-couplings vanish identically in the SM if all particle are on-shell. They can, however, appear if one of the photons is considered an off-shell particle in the $`s`$-channel Hagi ..

The $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ process has a tiny SM background from the rare $`Z\pi ^0\gamma ,\eta \gamma `$ decays. At high energies, the two photons from the $`\pi ^0`$ or $`\eta `$ decay are too close to be separated and they are seen in the electromagnetic calorimeter as a single high-energy photon EXP . The SM branching ratios for these rare decays are of order $`10^{11}`$ to $`10^{10}`$ ALT . This is much smaller than the experimental upper bounds which are of order $`10^5`$ for the all three branching ratios ($`Z\gamma \gamma ,\pi ^0\gamma ,\eta \gamma `$) rpp . The experimental upper bound, obtained from the $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ annihilation, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ is $`<1.3\times 10^4GeV`$ rpp .

The $`Zgg`$ decay mode should be observed in $`Z2\mathrm{jets}`$ processes. However, it could be smothered by the strong $`Zq\overline{q}`$ background, i.e. by hadronization, which also contains NC contributions. Since the hadronic width of the $`Z`$ is in good agreement with the QCD corrected SM, the $`Zgg`$ can at most be a few percent. Taking into account the discrepancy between the experimentally observed hadronic width for the $`Z`$-boson and the theoretical estimate based on the radiatively corrected SM, we estimate the upper bound for any new hadronic mode, like $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Zgg}`$, to be $`10^3GeV`$ rpp .

We now derive the partial widths for the $`Z(p)\gamma (k)\gamma (k^{})`$ decay. Care has to be taken when one tries to compute matrix elements in NCGFT. In our model, the *in* and *out* states can be taken to be ordinary *commutative* particles. Quantization is straightforward to the order in $`\theta `$ that we have considered; Feynman rules can be obtained either via the Hamiltonian formulation or directly from the Lagrangian; a rather convenient property of the action, relevant to computations, is its symmetry under ordinary gauge transformations in addition to noncommutative ones. From the Lagrangian $`_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$, it is easy to write the gauge-invariant amplitude $`_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ in momentum space. Since we are dealing with a SM forbidden process, this is essentially done using distorted wave Born approximation. It gives:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{spins}}{}}|_{Z\gamma \gamma }|^2=\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{M_Z^2}}(p\theta ^2p){\displaystyle \frac{16}{M_Z^4}}(k\theta k^{})^2.`$ (16)
From above equation and in the $`Z`$-boson rest frame, the partial width of the $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ decay is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma \gamma }=\frac{\alpha }{12}M_Z^5\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }^2\left[\frac{7}{3}(\stackrel{}{\theta }_T)^2+(\stackrel{}{\theta }_S)^2\right],$$
(17)
where $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_T=\{\theta ^{01},\theta ^{02},\theta ^{03}\}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_S=\{\theta ^{23},\theta ^{13},\theta ^{12}\}`$, are responsible for time-space and space-space noncommutativity, respectively. This result differs essentially from that given in MPR  where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ partial width depends only on time-space noncommutativity.

For the $`Z`$-boson at rest and polarized in the direction of the $`3`$-axis, we find that the *polarized* partial width is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z^3\gamma \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4}}M_Z^5\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }^2`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\left((\theta ^{01})^2+(\theta ^{02})^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{15}}(\theta ^{03})^2+(\theta ^{12})^2\right].`$ (18)
In the absence of time-space noncommutativity a sophisticated, sensibly arranged polarization experiment could in principal determine the vector of $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_S`$. A NC structure of spacetime may depend on the matter that is present. In our case it is conceivable that the direction of $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_{T,S}`$ may be influenced by the polarization of the $`Z`$ particle. In this case, our result for the *polarized* partial width is particularly relevant.

Due to the same Lorentz structure of the Lagrangians $`_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`_{Zgg}`$ we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Zgg}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma \gamma }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z^3gg}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z^3\gamma \gamma }}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}^2}{\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }^2}}.`$ (19)
The factor of eight in the above ratios is due to color.

In order to estimate the NC parameter from upper bounds $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma \gamma }^{exp}<1.3\times 10^4GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Zgg}^{exp}<1\times 10^3GeV`$ rpp  it is necessary to determine the range of couplings $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$.

The allowed region for coupling constants $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$ is given in Fig.(2). Since $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$ could be zero simultaneously it is not possible to extract an upper bound on $`\theta `$ only from the above experimental upper bounds alone.

We need to consider an extra interaction from the NCSM gauge sector, namly the triple photon vertex, to estimate $`\theta `$.

The important point is that the triplet of coupling constants $`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$, as well as the pair of couplings $`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ can never vanish simultaneously due to the constraint set by the value of the SM coupling constants at the weak interaction scale. This can be seen from the simplex in Fig.(1). In conclusion, it is possible to estimate $`\theta `$ from the NCSM gauge sector through a combination of various types of processes containing the $`\gamma \gamma \gamma `$ and $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ vertices. These are processes of the type $`22`$, such as $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$, $`e\gamma e\gamma `$, and $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ in leading order. The analysis has to be carried out in the same way as in Ref.HPR . Theoreticaly consistent modifications of relevent vertices are, however, necessary.

Finally, we present the allowed region for pair of couplings $`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$ in Fig.(4). Note, that Figs.(2) to (4) represent projections of pairs of coupling constants from the three dimensional simplex spanned by the constants $`\mathrm{K}_{\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{K}_{Z\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{Zgg}`$.

The structure of our main results (16) to (19) remains the same for $`SU(5)`$ and $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ GUT’s that embed the NCSM that is based on the SW map Desh ; ASCH ; only the coupling constants change. Note, in the particular case of $`SO(10)`$ GUT there is no triple gauge boson coupling ASCH .

In this article we have propose two SM strictly forbidden decay modes, namely, $`Z\gamma \gamma ,gg`$, as a possible signature of the NCSM. An experimental discovery of $`Z\gamma \gamma ,gg`$ decays would certainly indicate a violation of the presently accepted SM and definitive apperance of new physics.

In conclusion, the gauge sector of the nonminimal NCSM is an excellent place to discover spacetime noncommutativity experimentally LEPEWWG ; L3 ; DELPHI ; OPAL ; muller , but not the best place to find bounds that exclude it. We hope that the importance of a possible discovery of noncommutativity of spacetime will convince experimentalists to look for SM forbidden decays in the gauge sector. A good reason for this is that the sensitivity to the noncommutative parameter $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ could be in a range of the next generation of linear colliders with a c.m.e. around a few TeV’s.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank P. Aschieri, B. Jurčo and H. Štefančić for helpful discussions. One of us (NGD) would like to thank the University of Hawaii Theory Group for hospitality. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002, and by the US Department of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG06-85ER 40224.


text:
# Static, Self-Gravitating Elastic Bodies

## 1 Introduction

Most solutions of the Einstein field equations — whether known explicitly or given by existence theorems — describing static isolated bodies are spherically symmetric. The reason for this is the choice of matter model which usually is that of a perfect fluid - and such models are necessarily spherically symmetric. This latter statement has been proved by Lichtenstein  in the Newtonian theory and - in the same generality - is still a conjecture in General Relativity.(For the best results available, see , ). The only nonspherical solutions known to us are the axially symmetric ones constructed by Rein for Vlasov Matter . In the present work we pursue another way to describe nonspherical gravitational fields by choosing as our matter model elastic bodies, coupled to the static Einstein equations. In the spherically symmetric case this has been done by Park . In the nonspherical case nothing is known in the Einstein theory nor — to the best of our knowledge — in the Newtonian theory. Thus, as a first step, in the present paper we prove an existence theorem, purely in the Newtonian theory, for static self-gravitating bodies composed of elastic material. The theorem allows these bodies to have arbitrary shape.

The main limitation of the present work is that we restrict ourselves to solutions close to the natural state of the body, which, in physical terms, means that we require the body to be “sufficiently small”. The main technical tool, then, is the implicit function theorem near that natural state. For “pure traction problems” such as the one studied here, there often occur phenonema of non-uniqueness beyond the trivial one stemming from invariance under Euclidean motions. These phenomena, which have been thoroughly studied (see Chillingworth et al ) do not happen in the problem at hand. The reason is that traction problems require, e.g. in the case of vanishing traction, certain compatibility conditions (“equilibration conditions”) on the load, namely that the total force and total torque it exerts on the body be zero. In our case, where the load is given by the pull of the body’s own gravitational field, these quantities are a priori zero.

We also point out that we are not able to make statements on the global problem, i.e. what happens far away from the natural state. For this one would invoke variational techniques, in particular the powerful methods introduced into the subject by Ball (see e.g. ).

Let $`𝐁`$ be an open, bounded, connected subset of $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ with smooth boundary. The domain $`𝐁`$ (“body”) is our reference configuration. We also consider 1-1 maps $`\varphi :𝐁𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (“physical space”), $`x_i=\varphi _i(X_A)`$. Let $`𝐁^\varphi 𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ be the image of $`𝐁`$ under $`\varphi `$. Then the basic field equations are as follows:

$$div_xT^\varphi =\rho grad_xU\text{in}𝐁^\varphi $$
(1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xU=4\pi G\rho \text{in}𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}$$
(2)
Here $`G`$ is the Newton constant, $`U`$ is the gravitational potential, $`T^\varphi `$ is the symmetric Cauchy stress tensor, the mass density $`\rho `$ satisfies $`\rho =n\rho _0`$ with $`\rho _0`$ a positive constant in $`𝐁^\varphi `$ and $`\rho _00`$ in $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}𝐁^\varphi `$. Finally, the number density $`n:𝐁^\varphi 𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is given by $`n(x)=detf(x)`$, where $`f`$ is the inverse map of $`\varphi `$. We assume $`n>0`$ in $`\overline{𝐁^\varphi }`$. Let us remark that Equ.(1) and Equ.(2) also describe perfect fluids, namely if it is assumed that $`T^\varphi =pI`$, where the pressure $`p`$ is a function just of $`n`$ and $`I_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$.

We first make some observations on the equations (1) and (2) separately. The divergence structure of (1) implies that its right-hand side, say $`b`$, satisfies a compatibility condition, as follows: Let $`\xi _i(x)`$ be a Killing vector of $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, considered as flat Euclidean space, i.e. of the form

$$\xi _i(x)=c_i+\omega _{ij}x_j_i\xi _j+_j\xi _i=0,$$
(3)
where $`c_i`$ and $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _{[ij]}`$ are constants. Then, upon scalar multiplication of (1) with $`\xi `$ and integrating over $`𝐁^\varphi `$, we easily find that

$$_{𝐁^\varphi }b\xi +_{𝐁^\varphi }t^\varphi \xi =0,$$
(4)
where $`t_i^\varphi =T_{ij}^\varphi \nu _j^\varphi `$ with $`\nu ^\varphi `$ the outward unit-normal of $`𝐁^\varphi `$.

On the other hand the “load” $`b`$ inserted on the r.h.side of (1) has the property that it gives no contribution to Equ.(4). This is seen as follows. Define a symmetric 2-tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{1}{4\pi G}(grad_xUgrad_xU\frac{1}{2}Igrad_xUgrad_xU).$$
(5)
Then Equ. (2) implies

$$div_x\mathrm{\Theta }=\rho grad_xU$$
(6)
Suppose, in addition, that $`U`$ satisfies

$$U=O(\frac{1}{|x|})\text{on}𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}𝐁^\varphi $$
(7)
Operating with $`\xi `$ on (6) as before on (1), but with integration over $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, we find that the load $`b`$ used in Equ.(1) is “automatically equilibrated” in the above sense. Put differently, choosing for $`\xi `$ the three translation Killing vectors, this statement amounts to saying that the force exerted on the body by its own gravitational field is zero. Similarly, using three rotational Killing vectors, implies the vanishing of the gravitational self-torque.

We want to solve the coupled system (1) and (2) subject to no-traction boundary conditions, namely that $`t_i^\varphi `$ be zero on $`𝐁^\varphi `$, which is a free boundary. To make the problem tractable it is thus important to write the above equations as PDE’s on $`𝐁`$, rather than $`𝐁^\varphi `$, using the Piola transform. With the definition $`T_{iA}=n^1f_{A,j}T_{ij}^\varphi `$, one finds (see e.g. ) that

$$div_XT=\rho _0grad_xU.$$
(8)
If $`T_{ij}^\varphi `$ is solely a function of $`f_{A,i}`$, $`T_{iA}`$ can be viewed as a function of $`(\varphi )_{i,A}=F_{i,A}`$. This follows from the chain rule for differentiation. The potential $`U(x)`$, satisfying (2) and (7), is given in physical space by

$$U(x)=G\rho _0_{𝐁^\varphi }\frac{n(x^{})}{|xx^{}|}d^3x^{}.$$
(9)
Consequently (8) takes the form

$$_AT_{iA}=G\rho _0_𝐁\frac{\varphi _i(X)\varphi _i(X^{})}{|\varphi (X)\varphi (X^{})|^3}d^3X^{}$$
(10)
and the compatibility conditions (4), using (3), result in

$$_𝐁t=0$$
(11)
$$_𝐁t\varphi (x)=0,$$
(12)
where $`t_i=T_{iA}\nu _A`$. Our aim is to solve (10) for $`\varphi `$, subject to the boundary conditions

$$t|_𝐁=0.$$
(13)
We assume that

* $`T_{iA}(\varphi )=0`$, when $`\varphi =I`$
* The linearization-at-($`\varphi =id`$) of the operator $`div_XT`$ is strongly elliptic, in other words, $`a_{iAjB}=\frac{T_{iA}(F)}{F_{jB}}`$ satisfies $`a_{iAjB}=a_{jBiA}`$ and $`a_{iAjB}|_{F=I}v_iv_jV_AV_B0`$

The physical meaning of condition (A2) is as follows: The natural state is usually supposed to be such that $`a_{iAjB}|_{F=I}=\mu (\delta _{ij}\delta _{AB}+\delta _{Aj}\delta _{iB})+\lambda \delta _{iA}\delta _{jB}`$ for constants $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$, the Lamé moduli. The ellipticity condition (A2) is then equivalent to the inequalities $`\mu >0,2\mu +\lambda >0`$. A different interpretation of (A2) would be by saying that plane waves propagating according to the linearized-at-$`F=I`$ time dependent equations have real frequency.

We note that (at least) condition (A2) rules out fluids. And, indeed, the theorem of the next section stating the existence of bodies of arbitrary shape, can not possibly apply to perfect fluids, as noted in the Introduction.

## 2 The Main Theorem

We now state our precise assumptions. As configuration space $`𝒞`$ we take maps $`\varphi :𝐁𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ with $`\varphi _iW^{2,p}(𝐁)^3,p>3`$, and in it $`𝒞_ϵ𝒞`$ of maps $`\varphi _i=X_i+h_i`$ with $`h_{2,p}<ϵ`$. For $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small, $`\varphi `$ is $`C^1`$ \- map close to the identity with $`C^1`$ \- inverse (see Appendix). For the stress tensor $`T_{iA}(\varphi )`$ we assume that it is in $`C^2(𝐑^\mathrm{𝟗},𝐑^\mathrm{𝟗})`$ and that it satifies conditions $`(A1,2)`$ of section 1, wherefrom it follows  that the operator $`\varphi T(\varphi )`$ is a $`C^1`$ \- mapping from $`W^{2,p}(𝐁)^3`$ to $`W^{1,p}(𝐁)^9`$. Our main result is

Theorem: For sufficiently small $`G`$ there is a solution $`\varphi 𝒞_ϵ`$ of (10) subject to (13). This solution is unique provided

$$h_i(\stackrel{}{0})=0,_{[i}h_{j]}(\stackrel{}{0})=0.$$
(14)
(We assume that $`\stackrel{}{0}𝐁`$.)

We remark that the smallness-condition for $`G`$ can of course, by scaling, be rephrased by $`G\rho _0\frac{|T|}{L^2}`$, where $`L`$ is a typical length scale of $`𝐁`$ and $`|T|`$ an upper bound for the stress tensor. Our method of proof follows the geometrical treatment of the Stoppelli theorem  due to LeDret .

Proof: Consider the map $`E:𝒞𝒴=\{(b,t)W^p(𝐁)^3\times W^{11/p,p}(𝐁)^3,p>3\}`$, the operator of nonlinear elasticity given by

$$\varphi (div_XT(\varphi ),T(\varphi )\nu )$$
(15)
The operator $`E`$ is well-defined and $`C^1`$ (see ). Now recall from the discussion of Section 1 that elements $`(b,t)𝒴`$ lying in $`E(\varphi )`$ satisfy the compatibility (“equilibration”) conditions, namely

$$_𝐁b+_𝐁t=0$$
(16)
$$_𝐁b\varphi (X)+_𝐁t\varphi (X)=0$$
(17)
The set $`𝒴_\varphi `$ of pairs $`(b,t)𝒴`$ satisfying (16) and (17), for given $`\varphi `$, is a vector subspace of $`𝒴`$ of codimension 6, when $`\varphi 𝒞_ϵ`$. (More precisely, it follows from the results of LeDret, and is easy to check, that the only elements $`\varphi 𝒞`$, at which $`𝒴_\varphi `$ fails to have codimension 6, are those for which the image $`\varphi (𝐁)`$ is parallel to a fixed direction $`v𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ \- which is impossible if $`\varphi 𝒞_ϵ`$.) Let us choose some complement $`S`$ of $`L_e𝒴_e`$, where $`L_e=𝒴_{id}`$ and define a projection $`P:𝒴_\varphi L_e`$. The linear maps $`P:𝒴_\varphi L_e`$ are isomorphisms and $`C^1`$ (see , proof of Proposition 1.4). Next consider the (“live”) load afforded by the gravitational force, i.e. $`b=G\overline{U}(\varphi )`$ with $`G\overline{U}_i(\varphi )`$ given by the right-hand side of (10). By explicit calculation, or from the discussion of section1, it follows that $`\overline{U}(\varphi )𝒴_\varphi `$. Note that this requires $`𝐁`$ to be connected. If $`𝐁`$ had several connected components, $`\overline{U}(\varphi )`$ would be automatically equilibrated only with respect to the whole of $`𝐁`$, whereas (16) and (17) would for the operator $`E`$ be required to hold separately for each connected component of $`𝐁`$. It is thus important that we have only one body.

We want to solve the equation

$$E(\varphi )=G\overline{U}(\varphi )\text{on}𝐁,t_i=0\text{on}𝐁$$
(18)
for small $`G`$. We know from A1 that $`\varphi =id`$ is a solution for $`G=0`$. We write

$$F(G,\varphi )=E(\varphi )G\overline{U}(\varphi ),$$
(19)
with $`F`$ viewed as a function $`𝐑\times 𝒞_ϵ𝒴`$. In the Appendix we show that $`\overline{U}`$, whence $`F`$, maps $`𝒞_ϵ`$ into $`𝒴`$ in a $`C^1`$ \- fashion. If we now compute the linearization of $`F`$ at $`\varphi =id`$ for $`G=0`$, we find that this is a map from $`𝒞`$ to $`𝒴`$ which is not surjective, due to the presence of the equilibration conditions. To get round this difficulty, consider the modified operator

$$F^{}(G,\varphi )=P(E(\varphi ))GP(\overline{U}(\varphi ),$$
(20)
with $`F^{}`$ viewed as a map $`𝐑\times 𝒞_ϵL_e`$. Clearly every solution of $`F^{}=0`$ is also a solution of $`F=0`$. If, in addition, we eliminate the translational and rotational freedom by replacing $`𝒞`$ by $`𝒞_{sym}`$, consisting of all elements $`\varphi _i=X_i+h_i`$ in $`𝒞`$ for which $`u_i(\stackrel{}{0})=0`$ and $`_{[i}u_{j]}(\stackrel{}{0})=0`$, it follows from standard linear theory (see , Lemma 3.17 of Chap.7), that the linearization-at-($`\varphi =id)`$ of $`F^{}`$ at $`G=0`$ is an isomorphism $`𝒞_{sym}L_e`$. Hence our claim follows from the implicit function theorem.

## 3 Appendix

The Poisson integral used in the body of the paper is given by

$$(\overline{U}_i[\varphi ])(X)=_𝐁\frac{\varphi _i(X)\varphi _i(X^{})}{|\varphi (X)\varphi (X^{})|^3}d^3X^{}$$
(21)
Here $`𝐁𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is bounded, not empty, open and connected with $`𝐁`$ smooth and $`\varphi _iW^{2,p}(𝐁)^3`$, $`p>3`$. Furthermore $`\varphi _i(X)=X_i+h_i(X)`$, and we assume that $`h_{2,p}<ϵ`$, $`ϵ`$ small. It follows from Sobolev embedding that $`_jh_i`$ is small , in particular bounded in $`\overline{𝐁}`$. By the mean–value theorem we infer that

$$|h(X)h(X^{})|<C^{}|XX^{}|$$
(22)
This is immediate for $`𝐁`$ convex, otherwise see , p. 224. Making $`ϵ`$ smaller, if necessary, we have that

$$|h(X)|<\frac{1}{2}$$
(23)
Consequently, there exist positive constants $`E,E^{}`$ such that

$$E|XX^{}||\varphi (X)\varphi (X^{})|E^{}|XX^{}|$$
(24)
It immediately follows that $`\overline{U}_i[\varphi ]C^0(\overline{𝐁})^3`$. Thus $`\overline{U}_i`$ is a bounded map of $`𝒰_ϵ(id_𝐁)W^{2,p}(𝐁)^3C^0(\overline{𝐁})^3`$, whence to to $`W^{0,p}(𝐁)^3`$. Here $`𝒰_ϵ(id_𝐁)`$ denotes the set of $`\varphi `$’s in the $`ϵ`$–ball centered at the identity map. We want to show $`\overline{U}_i`$ is actually $`C^1`$. We first compute the Gateaux–derivative (directional derivative) of $`\overline{U}_i`$, namely

$$\left[\frac{d}{dt}\overline{U}_i[\varphi ^t]\right]_{t=0}=D\overline{U}_i[\varphi ^0]v$$
(25)
where $`\varphi _i^t(X)=X_i+tv_i(X),v_iW^{2,p}(𝐁)^3`$. First observe that the expression

$$\frac{1}{t}\left\{\frac{\varphi _i^t(X)\varphi _i^t(X^{})}{|\varphi ^t(X)\varphi ^t(X^{})|^3}\frac{\varphi _i^0(X)\varphi _i^0(X^{})}{|\varphi ^0(X)\varphi ^0(X^{})|^3}\right\}$$
(26)
for $`XX^{}`$, converges pointwise for $`t0`$ to

$$\frac{v_i(X)v_i(X^{})}{|\varphi ^0(X)\varphi ^0(X^{})|^3}\frac{3(\varphi _i^0(X)\varphi _i^0(X^{}))(\varphi _j^0(X)\varphi _i^0(X^{}))(v_j(X)v_j(X^{}))}{|\varphi ^0(X)\varphi ^0(X^{})|^5}$$
(27)
Next note the following chain of elementary inequalities: $`b_1,b_0`$ vectors $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (or $`𝐑^𝐧)`$

$$\frac{1}{|b_1|}\frac{1}{|b_0|}\frac{|b_1b_0|}{|b_1||b_0|}$$
(28)
$$\frac{1}{|b_1|^2}\frac{1}{|b_0|^2}\left(\frac{1}{|b_1|^2|b_0|}+\frac{1}{|b_0|^2|b_1|}\right)|b_1b_0|$$
(29)
$$\frac{1}{|b_1|^3}\frac{1}{|b_0|^3}\left(\frac{1}{|b_1|^3|b_0|}+\frac{1}{|b_1|^2|b_0|^2}+\frac{1}{|b_1||b_0|^3}\right)|b_1b_0|$$
(30)
$`a_1,b_1,a_0,a_1`$ vectors $`𝐑^𝐧`$

$$\left|\frac{a_1}{|b_1|^3}\frac{a_0}{|b_0|^3}\right|\left(\frac{1}{|b_1|^3|b_0|}+\frac{1}{|b_1|^2|b_0|^2}+\frac{1}{|b_1||b_0|^3}\right)|a_1||b_1b_0|$$
(31)
$$+\frac{|a_1a_0|}{|b_0|^3}$$
(32)
setting

$$a_1=b_1=\varphi ^t(X)\varphi ^t(X^{})$$
(33)
$$a_0=b_0=\varphi ^0(X)\varphi ^0(X^{})$$
(34)
we find

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i^t(X)\varphi _i^t(X^{})}{|\varphi ^t(X)\varphi ^t(X^{})|^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i^0(X)\varphi _i^0(X^{})}{|\varphi ^0(X)\varphi ^0(X^{})|^3}}\right|`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{|\varphi ^0(X)\varphi ^0(X^{})|^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\varphi ^t(X)\varphi ^t(X^{})|^2|\varphi ^0(X^{})\varphi ^0(X)|}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\varphi ^t(X^{})\varphi ^t(X)||\varphi ^0(X^{})\varphi ^0(X)|^2}})t|v(X^{})v(X)|`$
It follows, using (24), that the sequence in (26) is bounded by a positive, $`t`$–independent function, whose integral over $`X^{}𝐁`$ is a bounded function of $`X`$ in $`\overline{𝐁}`$. So, by dominated convergence, the previous limit, whence the Gateaux derivative actually exists. But the linear operator defined by the directional derivative $`vW^{2,p}(𝐁)^3W^{0,p}(𝐁)^3`$, is clearly bounded. So, by a standard theorem (see e.g. , Corollary 2.4.10), $`\overline{U}(\varphi )`$ is a $`C^1`$–functional.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Horst Beyer and Alan Rendall for useful discussions.