text:
# Phenomena of spin rotation and oscillation of particles (atoms, molecules) containing in a trap blowing on by wind of high energy particles in storage ring.

## Abstract

Spin rotation and oscillation phenomena of particles captured in a gas target through which beam of high energy particles passes is discussed. Such experiment arrangement make it realizable for storage ring and allows to study zero-angle scattering amplitude at highest possible energies.

Investigation of spin-dependent interactions of elementary particles at high energies is a very important part of program of scientific research has been preparing for carry out at storage rings (RHIC, CERN, COSY). There are several experimental possibilities for the indirect measurement of the real part of the forward scattering amplitude . Since no scattering experiment is possible in the forward direction, the determination of the real part of the forward amplitudes has always consisted in the measurement of well chosen elastic scattering observables at small angles and then in the extrapolation of these observables towards zero angle .

It has been shown in \[2-4\] that there is an unambiguous method which makes the direct measurement of the real part of the spin-dependent forward scattering amplitude. This technique is based on the effect of proton (deuteron) beam spin rotation in a polarized (nonpolarized) nuclear target. This technique uses the measurement of angle of spin rotation of high energy proton (neutron) in conditions of transmission experiment - the so-called spin rotation experiment .

In the present paper it is shown that we can reverse experiment arrangement to study spin rotation and oscillation of particles of gas target through which beam of high energy particles passes. Such experiment arrangement make it realizable for storage ring and allows to study zero-angle scattering amplitude at highest possible energies.

As a result of numerous studies (see, for example, ), a close connection between the coherent elastic scattering amplitude $`f(0)`$ and the refraction index of a medium $`N`$ has been established:

$$N^2=1+\frac{4\pi \rho }{k^2}f\left(0\right)$$

where $`\rho `$ is the number of particles per $`cm^3`$, $`k`$ is the wave number of a particle incident on a target.

Let us consider refraction on the vacuum-medium boundary. Wave number of a particle in vacuum is denoted $`k`$, $`k^{}=kN`$ is the wave number of particle in medium. The kinetic energy of a particle in vacuum $`E=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}`$ is not equal to that in medium $`E^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2N^2}{2m}`$. We immediately obtain from the energy conservation condition the necessity to suppose that a particle in a medium possesses effective potential energy. This energy can be found easily from evident equality

$$E=E^{}+U\text{i.e.}U=EE^{}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho f(0).$$
(1)
In 1964 it was shown  that while slow neutrons are propagating through the target with polarized nuclei a new effect of nucleon spin precession occurred. It is stipulated by the fact that neutrons in a polarized target possesses two refraction indices: ($`N_{}`$ for neutrons with the spin parallel to the target polarization vector and $`N_{}`$ for neutrons with the opposite spin orientation , $`N_{}N_{})`$.

From (1) it follows that effective potential energy of particle $`U_{}(U_{})`$ with spin parallel (antiparallel) to $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ in polarized medium is

$$U_{}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho f_{},U_{}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho f_{}.$$
(2)
The frequency of nucleon spin precession around polarization vector is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{Re(U_{}U_{})}{\mathrm{}}`$ and the angle of rotation can be expressed as

$$\vartheta =\mathrm{\Omega }T=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{m}\rho Re\left(f_{}f_{}\right)T$$
(3)
where $`T`$ is the time of particle being in polarized media.

According to , neutron spin precession implies that in the target with polarized nuclei a nuclear pseudomagnetic field exists and the interaction of an incident neutron with this field results in neutron spin rotation. The results obtained in , initiated experiments which proved the existence of this effect \[8-10\].

Suppose that gas cell contains nucleons and the beam of polarized proton (deuterons) passes through it. In this case particle beam is considered as moving polarized target and $`T`$ makes sense of time of beam action on an atom in trap. Validity of this statement can be easy verified in beam coordinate frame, in which we have routine arrangement - target rests while particles captured in a trap move in target. Therefore we can conclude that spin of nucleons (atoms) captured in a cell rotates in polarized medium formed by particle beam moving in a storage ring and angle of rotation is determined by (3).

Potential energy of interaction of deuteron with a particle beam passing through a gas trap and external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ can be expressed as follows:

$$\widehat{U}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho \widehat{f}\left(0\right)\stackrel{}{\mu _d}\stackrel{}{B}$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{}{\mu _d}`$ is the operator of deuteron magnetic moment. It should be mentioned that if deuteron in a trap exists as deuteron atom then (4) can be written as

$$\widehat{U}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho \widehat{f}_d\left(0\right)\stackrel{}{\mu _d}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\mu _e}\stackrel{}{B}$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{f}_d`$ is the scattering amplitude of high energy particle or deuteron atom (it depends both on spin of high energy particle (deuteron) spin and spin of atom electron). In this case, to find the angle of atom spin rotation, we should consider Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_A=\widehat{H}_d+\widehat{U}`$, where $`\widehat{H}_d`$ is the spin Hamiltonian, describing hyperfine interaction in deuteron atom.

The explicit expression for the amplitude $`\widehat{f}\left(0\right)`$ for particles with arbitrary spin $`S`$ has been obtained in . Using this amplitude we can explicitly express $`\widehat{U}`$ and find the behavior of spin wave function and other spin characteristics of a particle (atom)in any given time moment with the help of Shrödinger equation.

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=(\widehat{H}_A+\widehat{U})\psi .$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{H}_d`$ is the spin Hamiltonian of atom in the ground state, describing hyperfine interaction of electron and nucleus in deuteron atom. Let us consider the simplest case when beam of nonpolarized particles passes through a trap containing deuterons in the absence of external magnetic field. In this case $`\widehat{f}(0)`$ is a function of deuteron spin operator $`\widehat{S}`$ and can be written as

$$\widehat{f}\left(0\right)=d+d_1S_z^2$$
(7)
The quantization axis $`z`$ is directed along $`\stackrel{}{n}=\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{k}`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the relative momentum of particles. Consider a specific case of strong interactions invariant under space and time reflections. For this reason, the terms containing odd powers of $`S`$ are neglected. As a result,

$$\widehat{U}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho \left(d+d_1S_z^2\right)$$
(8)
Suppose $`m`$ denotes magnetic quantum number, then for a particle in a state that is an eigenstate of the spin projection operator $`S_z`$, one can express $`U`$ as

$$U\left(m\right)=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\rho \left(d+d_1m^2\right)$$
(9)
According to eq. (9), the particle states with quantum numbers $`m`$ and $`m`$ have the same $`U`$. As we see the picture of deuteron energy levels splitting in a medium, coincides with that of splitting of atom energy levels in electric field due to Stark effect. Thus we can guess that a deuteron in a medium undergoes the action of some effective quasielectric nuclear field, caused by nuclear interactions of deuteron with proton (nucleus).

The spin wave function of deuteron captured to the trap at the time moment $`T=0`$ can be represented as a superposition of basis spin wave functions $`\chi _m`$, which are eigenfunctions of the operators $`\widehat{S}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_z,`$ $`\widehat{S}_z\chi _m=m\chi _m`$:

$$\psi =\underset{m=\pm 1,0}{}a^m\chi _m.$$
(10)
Wave function of the particle at time moment $`T`$ can be expressed as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left\{\begin{array}{c}a^1\\ a^0\\ a^1\end{array}\right\}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}ae^{i\delta _1}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}U_1T}\\ be^{i\delta _0}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}U_0T}\\ ce^{i\delta _1}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}U_1T}\end{array}\right\}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}ae^{i\delta _1}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}U_1T}\\ be^{i\delta _0}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}U_0T}\\ ce^{i\delta _1}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}U_1T}\end{array}\right\}$$
(11)
It should be reminded that $`U_1=U_1`$

Let us choose coordinate system in which plane $`\left(xz\right)`$ coincides with that formed by vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ (

$`<\stackrel{}{S}>=\frac{<\psi |\stackrel{}{S}|\psi >}{\psi ^2})`$ in time moment $`T=0`$. In this case $`\delta _1\delta _0=\delta _1\delta _0=0`$ and components of vector at $`T=0`$ $`S_x0,S_y=0.`$

As a result we obtain:

$`<`$ $`S_x>=\sqrt{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (\sigma _0+\sigma _1)cT}b(a+c)\mathrm{cos}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\rho }{m}}Red_1T]/|\psi |^2,`$
$`<`$ $`S_y>=\sqrt{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (\sigma _0+\sigma _1)cT}b(ac)\mathrm{sin}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\rho }{m}}Red_1T]/|\psi |^2,`$
$`<`$ $`S_z>=e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}(a^2c^2)/|\psi |^2,`$
Particle with spin 1 also possesses tensor polarization i.e. tensor of rank two $`\widehat{Q}_{ij}=3/2(\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j+\widehat{S}_j\widehat{S}_i4/3\delta _{ij})`$ for it we can obtain

$`<`$ $`Q_{xx}>=\left\{\left[a^2+c^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}+b^2e^{\rho \sigma _0cT}+3e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}ac\mathrm{cos}\left[\delta _1\delta _1\right]\right\}/|\psi |^2`$
$`<`$ $`Q_{yy}>=\left\{\left[a^2+c^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}+b^2e^{\rho \sigma _0cT}3e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}ac\mathrm{cos}\left[\delta _1\delta _1\right]\right\}/|\psi |^2`$
$`<`$ $`Q_{zz}>=\left\{\left[a^2+c^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}2b^2e^{\rho \sigma _0cT}\right\}/|\psi |^2,`$
$`<`$ $`Q_{xy}>=3e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}ac\mathrm{sin}\left[\delta _1\delta _1\right]/|\psi |^2,`$
$`<`$ $`Q_{xz}>={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (\sigma _0+\sigma _1)cT}b(ac)\mathrm{cos}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\rho }{m}}Red_1T]/|\psi |^2,`$
$`<`$ $`Q_{yz}>={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (\sigma _0+\sigma _1)cT}b(a+c)\mathrm{sin}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\rho }{m}}Red_1T]/|\psi |^2,`$
where $`|\psi |^2=2(a^2+c^2)e^{\rho \sigma _1cT}+b^2e^{\rho \sigma _0cT}`$.

According to (Phenomena of spin rotation and oscillation of particles (atoms, molecules) containing in a trap blowing on by wind of high energy particles in storage ring.,Phenomena of spin rotation and oscillation of particles (atoms, molecules) containing in a trap blowing on by wind of high energy particles in storage ring.) rotation appears if the angle between polarization vector and momentum of a particle differs from $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. At this for acute angle between polarization vector and momentum the sign of rotation is opposite than that for obtuse angles.

If spin is orthogonal to momentum then $`(a=c)`$ particle spin (tensor of quadrupolarization) oscillate (do not rotate).

Let us evaluate phase of oscillation

$$\phi =\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\rho T}{m}Red_1.$$
(14)
Density of particle beam passing through a trap can be estimated from the following discourse. Suppose $`N_c`$ is the number of particles in storage ring, they are distributed over the volume $`V=SL`$, where $`S`$ is the cross section of a beam rotating in storage ring and $`L`$ is the length of closed orbit. Thus, $`\rho _c=\frac{N_c}{SL}`$. For rotation frequency $`\nu `$ density of particle increases $`\nu `$ times $`\rho =\rho _c\nu =\frac{N_c\nu }{SL}`$.

For $`N_c=10^{11}`$, $`\nu =1.610^6`$ (for example, for COSY), $`S=1`$ $`cm^2`$, $`L210^4cm`$ it is easy to calculate that $`\rho 10^{13}`$. Considering that for deuteron scattering by hydrogen $`Red_110^{13}`$ $`cm`$ phase of oscillation (14) can be written as $`\phi 310^3T`$. One can estimate that for $`T=10^3sec`$ the angle $`\phi =3`$ $`rad`$.

So, the effect is considerable.

Attention should be drawn to the fact that hydrogen atom in triplet state has spin 1. Therefore, all the above is relevant for a cell containing hydrogen atoms in triplet state, too. According to  study of deuteron spin-dependent scattering amplitude allows, among other things, to investigate real part of nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitude. If a cell contains hydrogen atoms, then studying spin oscillation and rotation of hydrogen atom blowing by a flow of nonpolarized protons one can reconstruct real part of proton-proton scattering amplitude.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

QUANTUM DISCORD AND MAXWELL’S DEMONS

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

Theory Division, T-6, MS B288, LANL, Los Alamos, NM87545

Abstract

Quantum discord was proposed as an information theoretic measure of the “quantumness” of correlations. I show that discord determines the difference between the efficiency of quantum and classical Maxwell’s demons in extracting work from collections of correlated quantum systems.

Information has an energetic value: It can be converted into work. Maxwell’s demon1 was introduced into thermodynamics to explore the role of information and, more generally, to investigate the place of “intelligent observers” in physics. In modern discussions of the subject2 “intelligence” is often regarded as predicated upon or even synonymous with the information processing ability – with computing. Thus, Maxwell’s demon is frequently modelled by a universal Turing machine – a classical computer – endowed with the ability to measure and act depending on the outcome. The role of such a demon is then to implement an appropriate conditional dynamics – to react to the state of the system as revealed through its correlation with the state of the apparatus. It is now known that quantum logic – i.e., logic employed by quantum computers – is in some applications more powerful than its classical counterpart. It is therefore intriguing to enquire whether a quantum demon – an entity that can measure non-local states and implement quantum conditional operations – could be more powerful than a classical one. I show that quantum demons can typically extract more work than classical demons from correlations between quantum systems, and that the difference is given by a variant of the quantum discord, recently introduced3-5 measure of the “quantumness” of correlations.

Quantum discord3-5 is the difference between the two classically identical formulae that measure the information content of a pair of quantum systems. Several closely related variants can be obtained starting from the original definition3 given in terms of the mutual information6. Mutual information is a measure of the strength of correlations between, say, the apparatus $`𝒜`$ and the system $`𝒮`$:

$$I(𝒮:𝒜)=H(𝒮)+H(𝒜)H(𝒮,𝒜)$$
$`(1)`$
It measures the difference between the missing information about two objects when they are taken separately, $`H(𝒮)+H(𝒜)`$, and jointly, $`H(𝒮,𝒜)`$. In the extreme case $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒜`$ are identical – e.g., two copies of the same book, or a state of the apparatus pointer $`𝒜`$ after a perfect but as yet unread measurement of $`𝒮`$. Then the joint entropy $`H(𝒮,𝒜)`$ is equal to $`H(𝒜)=H(𝒮)`$, so $`I(𝒮:𝒜)=H(𝒜)`$. By contrast, when the two objects are not correlated, $`H(𝒮,𝒜)=H(𝒮)+H(𝒜)`$, and $`I(𝒮:𝒜)=0`$.

The other formula for mutual information employs classical identity for joint entropy6:

$$H(𝒮,𝒜)=H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)=H(𝒮)+H(𝒜|𝒮)$$
$`(2)`$
Above $`H(𝒮|𝒜)`$ is the conditional entropy – measure of the lack of knowledge about the system given the state of the apparatus. Substituting this in Eq. (1) leads to an asymmetric looking formula for mutual information:

$$J(𝒮:𝒜)=H(𝒮)+H(𝒜)[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)]$$
$`(3)`$
We have refrained from carrying out the obvious cancellation above that would have yielded $`J(𝒮:𝒜)=H(𝒮)H(𝒮|𝒜)`$ for a reason that will become apparent very soon.

Discord is defined as:

$$\delta (𝒮|𝒜)=I(𝒮:𝒜)J(𝒮:𝒜)=[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)]H(𝒮,𝒜)$$
$`(4)`$
Classically, of course, discord disappears as a consequence of Eq. (2). In quantum theory the situation is no longer this simple: In order to properly define the conditional entropy one must specify how the apparatus is “interrogated” about $`𝒮`$: Measurements modify the state of the pair. After a measurement of the observable with eigenstates $`\{|A_k\}`$ observer’s own description of the pair is the conditional density matrix:

$$\rho _{𝒮𝒜|A_k}=\rho _{𝒮|A_k}|A_kA_k|$$
$`(5)`$
He will attribute to the system $`\rho _{𝒮|A_k}`$ with the probability $`p_𝒜(k)=TrA_k|\rho _{𝒮𝒜}|A_k`$. The post measurement density matrix $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}^{}`$ differs form the pre-measurement $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ even for a bystander who has not yet found out the outcome. This point of view of the bystander differs from the viewpoint of the observer (or a demon) who made the measurement: Demon knows that the apparatus is in the state $`|A_k`$. Bystander obtains his post-measurement $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}^{}`$ by averaging over the outcomes.

$$\rho _{𝒮𝒜}=\underset{k}{}p_𝒜(k)\rho _{𝒮|A_k}|A_kA_k|$$
$`(6)`$
His description of the pair is unaffected by the measurement only when the measured observable commutes with $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$. We shall find this bystander viewpoint very useful because it represents a statistical ensemble of all possible outcomes.

In quantum physics one possible definition of joint entropy is inspired by Eq. (3):

$$H_𝒜(𝒮,𝒜_{\{|A_k\}})=[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)]_{\{|A_k\}}$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\{|A_k\}`$ is the eigenbasis of the to-be-measured observable of the apparatus. Another acceptable and completely quantum definition would be to simply compute the von Neumann entropy of the density matrix $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ describing the joint state. Then:

$$H(𝒮,𝒜)=Tr\rho _{𝒮𝒜}\mathrm{lg}\rho _{𝒮,𝒜}=\underset{l}{}p_{𝒮𝒜}(l)\mathrm{lg}p_{𝒮𝒜}(l)$$
$`(8)`$
where $`p_{𝒮𝒜}(l)`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ – the probabilities of the density matrix that jointly describes the correlated pair. These eigenvalues always exist, but in general correspond to entangled quantum states in the joint Hilbert space of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒜`$. Such states cannot be found out through sequences of local measurements starting with just one subsystem of the pair – say, $`𝒜`$. This is a fundamental difference between the quantum and the classical realm (where such “piecewise” investigation is always possible and need not disturb the state of the pair). It is responsible for non-zero discord.

A simple example of this situation is a perfectly entangled state:

$$|\psi _{𝒮𝒜}=(|00+|11)/\sqrt{2}$$
$`(9a)`$
Above, the first entry refers to $`𝒮`$ while the second corresponds to $`𝒜`$. Clearly, $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}=|\psi _{𝒮𝒜}\psi _{𝒮𝒜}|`$ is pure – the pair is with certainty in the state $`|\psi _{𝒮𝒜}`$. Hence, $`H(𝒮,𝒜)=0`$. On the other hand, $`\rho _{𝒜(𝒮)}=\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝒜(𝒮)}/2`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit matrix in the appropriate Hilbert space, so that $`H(𝒜)=H(𝒮)=1`$. Consequently, $`I(𝒮:𝒜)=2`$, but the asymmetric mutual information is $`J(𝒮:𝒜)=1`$. This is because the joint information $`H_𝒜(𝒮,𝒜_{\{|A_k\}})`$ defined with reference to any measurement on a $`𝒜`$, Eq. (5), is a sum of $`H(𝒜)=1`$ and $`H(𝒮|𝒜)=0`$, with both of these quantities independent of the basis because of the symmtery of Bell states.

Readers are invited to verify that a classical correlation in:

$$\rho _{𝒮𝒜}=(|0000|+|1111|)/2$$
$`(9b)`$
results in zero discord, but only when the preferred basis $`\{|A_k\}=\{|0,|1\}`$ is employed. The entangled state of Eq. (9a) could be converted into the mixture of Eq. (9b) through decoherence in the preferred (pointer) basis4,8-11 or – and this is why decoherence can be regarded as monitoring by the environment – through a measurement with an undisclosed outcome carried out in the same pointer basis $`\{|A_k\}=\{|0,|1\}`$.

In general, the ignorance of the bystander cannot decrease (but may increase) as a result of a measurement of a known observable if he does not know the outcome12. Hence, $`H_𝒜(𝒮,𝒜_{\{|A_k\}})H(𝒮,𝒜)0`$, and

$$\delta (𝒮|𝒜_{\{|A_k\}})0$$
$`(10)`$
Equality occurrs only when $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ remains uneffected by a partial measurement of $`\{|A_k\}`$ on the $`𝒜`$ end of the pair.

The relevance of the discord for the performance of Maxwell’s demon can be now appreciated. Demons use the acquired information to extract work from their surroundings. The traditional scenario starts with an interaction establishing initial correlation between the system and the apparatus. The demon then reads off the state of $`𝒜`$, and uses so acquired information about $`𝒮`$ to extract work by letting $`𝒮`$ expand throughout the available phase (or Hilbert) space of volume (dimension) $`d_𝒮`$ while in contact with the thermal reservoir at temperature $`T`$. This yields:

$$W^+=k_{B_2}T(\mathrm{lg}d_𝒮H(𝒮|𝒜))$$
$`(11)`$
of work obtained at a price:

$$W^{}=k_{B_2}TH(𝒜)$$
$`(12)`$
Above, $`k_{B_2}`$ is the Boltzmann constant adapted to deal with the entropy expressed in bits and $`T`$ is the temperature of the heat bath. The net gain is then:

$$W=k_{B_2}T(\mathrm{lg}d_𝒮[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)])$$
$`(13a)`$
The price $`W^{}`$ is the cost of restoring the apparatus to the initial ready-to-measure state. The significance of this “cost of erasure” for the second law was pointed out in the seminal paper of Szilard13, but its relevance in the context of information processing was elucidated and codified by Landauer14.

It is now accepted that neither classical15-17 nor quantum18-21 demons can violate the second law because of the cost of erasure. However, a demon with a supply of empty memory (used to store measurement outcomes) can extract, on the average, $`W^+`$ of work per step from a thermal reservoir. This strategy works, because, in effect, demon is using its memory as a reservoir with low entropy. However, a new block of empty memory of size $`d_𝒜`$ is used up with each new measurement. This is wasteful, and only fradulent accounting (uncovered by Szilard and Landauer) which ignores the thermodynamic value of empty memory can create an appearance of the violation of the second law.

To optimize performance demon should use memory of $`𝒜`$ more efficiently. The obvious strategy here is to compress the bits of the outcomes after a sequence of measurements, freeing up an unused block of length $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$. The data can be compressed to the size given by their algorithmic complexity17. The savings are:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mathrm{lg}d_𝒜K(A_k)$$

Where $`K(A_k)`$ is the algorithmic randomness (Kolmogorov complexity) per step. Moreover, one can show that for long sequences of data the approximate equality:

$$K(A_k)H(𝒜)$$

becomes exact, so that the saved up memory is on the average:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mathrm{lg}d_𝒜H(𝒜)$$

Maxwell’s demon can attain net work gain per step of:

$$W=k_{B_2}T(\mathrm{lg}d_𝒮d_𝒜[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)])$$
$`(13b)`$
When $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒜`$ are classically correlated so that Eq. (2) applies, this can be written as:

$$W=k_{B_2}T(\mathrm{lg}d_𝒮d_𝒜H(𝒮,𝒜))$$
$`(13c)`$
We note that the efficiency is ultimately determined by the joint entropy of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒜`$ accessible to the demon, and that the same equation would have followed if we simply regarded the $`𝒮𝒜`$ pair as a composite system, and the demon used it all up as a fuel.

The efficiency of demons is then determined by what they know about the pair $`𝒮𝒜`$ – its joint entropy – and we have already seen that in quantum physics joint entropy depends on how the information about the pair can be acquired. A classical demon is local – it operates one-system-at-a-time on the correlated a quantum pair $`𝒮𝒜`$. In this case the above sketch of the “standard operating procedure” applies with one obvious caveat: It needs to be completed by the specification of the basis demon measures in $`𝒜`$. The cost of erasure is still given by Eq. (12), also for classical demons extracting work from quantum systems11-13. Thus:

$$W^C/k_{B_2}T=\mathrm{lg}d_{𝒮𝒜}[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)]_{\{|A_k\}}$$
$`(14)`$
The only difference between the classical Eq. (10) and the quantum Eq. (11) is the obvious dependence on the basis $`\{|A_k\}`$ demon selects to measure. The expression in the square brackets is the measure of the remaining (conditional) ignorance and of the cost of erasure. We shall be interested in the $`\{|A_k\}`$ that maximize $`W^C`$.

A quantum demon can typically extract more work – get away with lower costs of erasure – because its measurement can be carried out in a basis that avoids increase of entropy associated with measurements and decoherence4,8-11,23: It can always select a global basis in the combined Hilbert space of $`𝒮𝒜`$ that commutes with the initial $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$. The work that can be extracted after the apparatus gets reset to its initial ready-to-measure pure state is:

$$W^Q/k_{B_2}T=\mathrm{lg}d_{𝒮𝒜}H(𝒮,𝒜)$$
$`(15)`$
The other straightforward way to arrive at Eq. (15) is to use quantum demon in its capacity of a universal quantum computer, which, by definition, can transform any state in the Hilbert space into any other state. This will, in particular, allow the demon to evolve entangled eigenstates of an arbitrary known $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ into product states. The resulting density matrix can be measured in a local basis that does not perturb its eigenstates, and, hence, as viewed by the bystander, it will not suffer any additional increase of entropy. The work extracted by the optimal quantum demon is limited simply by the basis-independent joint entropy of the initial $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$.

The difference between the efficiency of the quantum and classical demons can be now immediately computed:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W/k_{B_2}T=[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)]_{\{|A_k\}}H(𝒮,𝒜)$$
$`(16)`$
or:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=k_{B_2}T\delta _𝒜(𝒮|𝒜_{\{|A_k\}})$$
$`(17)`$
Equation (17) relating the extra work $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ to discord defined as the difference of the accessibe joint entropy of classical (local) and quantum (global) demons is the principal result of our paper. It answers an interesting physics question while simultaneously providing an operational interpretation of the discord.

To gain further insight into implications of the above discussion, let us first note that discord is in general obviously basis dependent. Discord disappears iff the density matrix has the “post-decoherence” (or “post-measurement”) form, Eq. (6), already before the measurement. Given the ability of classical demons to match the quantum performance standard in this case, basis $`\{|A_k\}`$ that allowes for the disappearance of discord in the presence of non-trivial correlation can be justifiably deemed classical. We note that the $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ of the locally diagonal form presented above may emerge as a consequence of the coupling of $`𝒜`$ with the environment8-11. The preferred pointer basis emerges as a result of einselection.

A typical $`\rho _{𝒮𝒜}`$ does not have the form of Eq. (5), however. In that case discord does not completely disappear for any basis, and is usually basis-dependent. It is therefore of interest to enquire about the basis that yields the least discord, $`\widehat{\delta }(𝒮|𝒜)`$. This leads us back to the ambiguity in the definition of the discord: we could adopt either:

$$\widehat{\delta }(𝒮|𝒜)=min_{\{|A_k\}}[H(𝒜)+H(𝒮|𝒜)]_{\{|A_k\}}H(𝒮𝒜)$$
$`(18)`$
or

$$\widehat{}(𝒮|𝒜)=H(𝒜)+min_{\{|A_k\}}H(𝒮|𝒜)_{\{|A_k\}}H(𝒮𝒜)$$
$`(19)`$
The difference between them is obvious, and $`\widehat{\delta }(𝒮|𝒜)(𝒮|𝒜)`$.

Discord is not symmteric between the two ends of the correlation: In general,

$$\widehat{\delta }(𝒮𝒜)\widehat{\delta }(𝒮𝒜)$$
$`(20)`$
In particular, for density matrices that emerge from $`\widehat{\delta }(𝒮|𝒜)`$ may vanish but $`\widehat{\delta }(𝒜|𝒮)`$ may may remain finite. Such correlations are one-way classically accessible. They are characterised by a preferred direction – from $`𝒜`$ to $`𝒮`$ – in which more information about the joint state can be acquired. Thus, a local demon that can choose between the two “ends” of the $`𝒮𝒜`$ pair may be in some cases more efficient than a one-way demon. Indeed, one could define a polarization

$$\varpi (𝒮|𝒜)=\widehat{\delta }(𝒮|𝒜)\widehat{\delta }(𝒜|𝒮)$$
$`(21)`$
to quantify this directionality.

One can generalise discord to situations involving collections of correlated systems. The obvious strategy is to define it as a difference between the joint entropy corresponding to a particular sequence of (possibly conditional) measurements – that is, the obvious generalisation of Eq. (7) – and the joint von Neumann entropy of the unmeasured density matrix. One could define a minimal discord of a collection of systems as a minimum over all possible sequences of measurements. This corresponds to the demon having a choice of the end of the pair it can measure first.

First hints of the quantum underpinnings of the Universe emerged over a century ago in a thermodynamic setting involving black body radiation. We have studied here implications of quantum physics – and, in particular, of the quantum aspects of correlations – for classical and quantum Maxwell’s demons. We have seen that discord is a measure of the advantage afforded by the quantum conditional dynamics, and shown that this advantage is eliminated in presence of decoherence and the ensuing einselection. Our discussion sheds a new light on the problem of transition between quantum and classical: It leads to an operational measure of the quantum aspect of correlations. As was already pointed out4, the aspect of quantumness captured by discord is not the entanglement. Rather, it is related to the degree to which quantum superpositions are implicated in a state of a pair or of a collection of quantum systems. We expect it to be relevant in questions involving quantum theory and thermodynamics (see e.g. Ref. 24), but discord may be also of use in characterising multiply correlated states that find applications in quantum computation.

References

1. Maxwell, J. C. Theory of Heat, 4th ed., pp. 328-329 (Longman’s, Green, & Co., London 1985).

2. Leff H. S. and Rex, A. F. Maxwell’s Demon: Entropy, Information, Computing, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990).

3 Zurek, W. H. Annalen der Physik 9, 855 (2000).

4 Zurek, W. H. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origin of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. (in the press), quant-ph 0105127 (2001)

5 Ollivier, H. and Zurek, W. H. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2002).

6 Cover, T. M. and Thomas, J. A. Elements of Information Theory (Wiley, New York, 1991).

7 Fuchs, C. and Peres, A. Physics Today 53, 70 (2000).

8 Zurek, W. H., Pointer basis of a quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wavepacket collapse? Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516-1524 (1981).

9 Zurek, W. H., Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical Physics Today 44, 36-46 (1991).

10 Giulini, D., Joos, E., Kiefer, C., Kupsch, J., Stamatescu, I.-O., and Zeh, H. D., Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, (Springer, Berlin, 1996).

11 Paz, J. P., and Zurek, W. H., Environment-induced decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, Les Houches Lectures (2000).

12 Klein, O. Z. Phys. 72, 767-775 (1931).

13 Szilard, L. Z. Phys. 53 840 (1929). English translation in Behav. Sci. 9, 301 (1964), reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983); Reprinted in Ref. 2.

14 Landauer, R. IBM J. Res. Dev. 3, 183 (1961).

15 Bennett, C. H. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 905 (1982).

16 Bennett, C. H. Sci. Am. 255 (11), 108 (1987).

17 Zurek, W. H. Nature 347, 119-124 (1989); Phys. Rev. A40, 4731-4751 (1989).

18 Zurek, W. H. Maxwell’s demon, Szilard’s engine, and quantum measurements, pp. 151-161 in Frontiers of Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics, G. T. Moore and M. O. Scully, eds., (Plenum Press, New York, 1986); reprinted in Ref. 2.

19 Lloyd, S. Quantum-mechanical Maxwell’s demon Phys. Rev. A56, 3374-3382 (1997).

20 Nielsen, M. A., Caves, C. M., Schumacher, B., and Barnum, H. Information theoretic approach to quantum error correction and reversible measurement, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A454, 277-304 (1998).

21 Zurek, W. H., Algorithmic randomness, physical entropy, measurements, and the demon of choice, pp 393-410 in Feynman and Computation, A. J. G. Hey, ed., (Perseus Books, Reading, 1999).

22 Li, M. and Vitanyi, P. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications (Springer, Berlin, 1993).

23 Zurek, W. H. Information transfer in quantum measurements, pp. 87-116 in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and the Measurement Theory, P. Meystre and M. O. Scully, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1983).

24 Horodecki, R., Horodecki, M., and Horodecki, P. Phys. Rev. A63 022310 (2001).


text:
# A causally connected superluminal Warp Drive spacetimeThis work was made possible by through the Advanced Theoretical Propulsion Group (ATPG) Collaboration; current URL: http://www.geocities.com/halgravity/atpg.html

## 1 Introduction

One of the many obstacles posed by rightfully skeptical physicists against the warp drive is the appearance of horizons when a ship travels at superluminal velocities (see figure 2). This is a problem, to control the speed of the ship because if the bubble becomes causally disconnected from the ship then observers in the ship frame cannot turn off the bubble so the ship cannot reduce its velocity. If the ship becomes causally disconnected from the bubble then possible voyages to Messier–42 Orion nebula at 1500 light-years from Earth or Messier–1 at 6000 light years from Earth would be impossible because the ship being causally disconnected from the bubble cannot turn off the bubble and cannot reach its destination. If a ship is causally disconnected from the bubble then the warp drive must be turned off from outside the ship’s frame and we don’t know if there is “someone out there” at Orion or Crab to turn off the run away warp bubble. In this work we show that while part of the warped region becomes causally disconnected from a ship when the ship is luminal or superluminal the behaviour of that part does not depend on the ship speed and can be engineered while the ship is still subluminal. Also it shown the control region of the ship’s velocity remains in the portion of the warped region that is still casually connected to the ship (see figure 3).

## 2 two-dimensional warp drive

In order to explore the superluminal control problem of the warp drive we now set up the mathematics which define the physical horizons (the red region of figure 2). In order to do so it will be necessary to write a two dimensional ESAA metric  written in the Alcubierre formalism:

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2+[dxv_sf(r_s)dt]^2$$
(1)
where

$$dx=dx^{}+v_sdt$$

$$v_s=\frac{dx_s}{dt}$$

requiring that

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2+[dx^{}+v_sdtv_sf(r_s)dt]^2$$
(2)
where we can replace with

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2+[dx^{}+v_sdt(1f(r_s))]^2$$
(3)
for simplicity we write

$$1f(r_s)=𝒮(r_s).$$

So that we arrive at:

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2+dx^2+2v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dt+(v_s𝒮(r_s))^2dt^2$$
(4)
which leads to

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2(v_s𝒮(r_s))^2dt^22v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dtdx^2$$
(5)
or

$$ds^2=[A^2(v_s𝒮(r_s))^2]dt^22v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dtdx^2$$
(6)
thereby arriving at a two-dimensional ESAA spacetime necessary to discuss the mathematics behind the ‘horizon problem,’ and how to overcome it.

### 2.1 Two-dimensional ESAA Hiscock Horizons

In order to discuss the ‘horizon problem’ we will be improving upon the paradigm set forth by Hiscock . Such that an ESAA-Hiscock ship frame metric can be written from:

$$ds^2=H(r_s)dT^2+\frac{A^2(r_s)dx^2}{H(r_s)}$$
(7)
with

$$dT=dt\frac{v_s𝒮(r_s)}{H(r_s)}dx^{}$$
(8)
such that we can receive

$`ds^2=`$ $`H(r_s)dt^22v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dt/H(r_s)`$ (9)
$`+(v_s𝒮(r_s)/H(r_s))^2dx^2+A^2(r_s)dx^2/H(r_s)`$
by choosing

$$H(r_s)=A^2(v_s𝒮(r_s))^2$$
(10)
we have a horizon function. We can thus have the corresponding line element

$`ds^2=`$ $`H(r_s)dt^2+2v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dtA^2dx^2/H(r_s)`$ (11)
$`+H(r_s)dx^2/H(r_s)+A^2dx^2/H(r_s)`$
which reduces to

$$ds^2=H(r_s)dt^2+2v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dt+dx^2$$
(12)
or

$$ds^2=[A^2(v_s𝒮(r_s))^2]dt^2+2v_s𝒮(r_s)dx^{}dt+dx^2$$
(13)
## 3 Pfenning piecewise function in terms of A

Starting with an arbitrary two-dimensional horizon (10) we can now begin to define the value of $`A`$. In the Pfenning integration limits $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ and $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ , whereby we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2/\sigma `$ and $`\sigma =14`$ from the Alcubierre top hat function

$$f(r_s)=\frac{\mathrm{tanh}[\sigma (r_s+R)]\mathrm{tanh}[\sigma (r_sR)]}{2\mathrm{tanh}(\sigma R)}.$$

By the Pfenning limits the values for the lapse function becomes

$$A(r_s)=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}1& r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \kappa _L& R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(14)
Where $`\kappa _L`$ is a large constant, we also note that A *can not* be a function of the speed. We now wish to introduce the values of the Pfenning Piecewise function $`f(r_s)`$.

$$f(r_s)=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}1& r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1(1/A)r_sR& R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(15)
and now the ESAA ship frame Piecewise function $`𝒮(r_s)`$

$$𝒮(r_s)=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ (1/A)r_s+R& R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(16)
The Pfenning Piecewise and ESAA Piecewise functions are defined in function of the term A. This will have some advantages that will be shown in the work -we will study now the behaviour of the ESAA-Hiscock Horizon function in three situations:

* 1-ship subluminal ($`v<1`$)
* 2-ship luminal ($`v=1`$)
* 3-ship superluminal ($`v>1`$)

We do so by defining the ESAA-Hiscock horizon (10) with the following function

$$H(r_s)=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}1& r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& H(r_s)>0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ A^2(v_s/A)^2& r_s=R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& H(r_s)>0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ A^2& r_s=R& H(r_s)>0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ A^2(v_s/A)^2& r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& H(r_s)>0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ A^2(v_s/A)(r_sR)^2& R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)<r_s<R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(17)
### 3.1 subluminal ship velocities

It is clear why there are no horizons for the proposed spacetime (13) with the functions (14,15,16,17). Since in this case one is left with the general definition $`H(r_s)>0`$. Since A is large from the above expressions it can be seen that the ESAA-Hiscock Horizon function *never* drops to zero. It is also noted that A is not function of the speed and A is included in the definition of the Piecewise continuous functions that warrants for large A the ship will be *always* connected to the region from $`r_s=0`$ (ship location) to $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ (upper Pfenning limit). Since we have $`A=1`$ and $`𝒮(r_s)=1`$ for $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ we obtain

$$H(r_s)=1v_s^2H(r_s)>0$$

telling us that subluminal warp shells are causally connected to the ship. In this region A must drop back from a large value at $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ to $`A=1`$ at $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ then part of the warped region is beyond $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ since we need exotic matter to force the A back to 1. Furthermore since A is not function of the speed if the ship changes its speed the behaviour of A will not be affected. Since $`H(r_s)>0`$ the ship is causally connected to this region and is therefore subluminal.

### 3.2 luminal ship velocities

From the functions (14,16,17) we can now again set up the general definition $`H(r_s)>0`$. Since $`A`$ is large from the above expressions it can be seen that the ESAA-Hiscock Horizon function *never* drops to zero. Again $`A`$ is not a function of the speed and $`A`$ is included in the definition of the Piecewise functions that warrants for large A the ship will be *always* connected to the region from $`r_s=0`$ (ship location) to $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ (upper Pfenning limit). $`H(r_s)=0`$ since $`A=1`$ and $`𝒮(r_s)=1`$ and $`v_s=1`$, $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$, thus from eq. (7), we see that a horizon will appear at luminal speeds the ship becomes causally disconnected from the region beyond $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. Since A is large at $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ and must drop back to 1 when $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ we still need exotic matter beyond $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ to drop the value of A back to 1 and this warped region is causally disconnected from the ship, the ship remains causal until $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. Providing that A is not function of the speed then A is not affected when the horizon appears in front of the ship when the ship gets luminal, the behaviour of A was engineered when the ship was subluminal. And the part of the speed control still lies in the region between $`_{R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}^{R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}r_s`$ so the ship can change the speed and go back to subluminal if needed.

### 3.3 superluminal ship velocities

Finally the for the superluminal warp drive we again have the following definition $`H(r_s)>0`$. Since A is large from the above expressions it can be seen that the ESAA-Hiscock Horizon function *never* drops to zero A is not function of the speed and A is included in the definition of the Piecewise functions that warrants for large A the ship will be *always* connected to the region from $`r_s=0`$ (ship location) to $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ (upper Pfenning limit). $`H(r_s)<0`$ since $`A=1`$ and $`𝒮(r_s)=1`$ and $`v_s>1`$ $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$, again from eq. (7) we see that a horizon will appear. At superluminal speeds the ship becomes causally disconnected from the region beyond $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. Assuming a continuous spacetime (Alcubierre) $`H(r_s)>0`$ at $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ but $`H(r_s)<`$ 0 at $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$, somewhere between $`H(r_s)=0`$ and then we have the horizon. Since A is large at $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ and must reduce to 1 when $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ we still need exotic matter beyond $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ to lower the value of A back to 1 and this warped region is causally disconnected from the ship which remains causal until $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. Providing that A is not function of the speed then A is not affected when the Horizon appears in front of the ship when the ship goes superluminal. The behaviour of A was engineered when the ship was subluminal and the part of the speed control still lies in the region between $`_{R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}^{R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}r_s`$ so the ship can change the speed and go back to subluminal if needed.

## 4 energy momentum tensor

Consider now the following stress energy momentum tensor for a ship frame ESAA-warp metric

$$T^{00}=\frac{v_s^2}{4}\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(\frac{d𝒮(r_s)}{dr_s}\right)^2\left(\frac{\sigma }{r_s}\right)^2\frac{1}{A^4}$$
(18)
defining $`d𝒮(r_s)/dr_s=1/A`$, implies that

$$T^{00}=\frac{v_s^2}{4}\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(\frac{\sigma }{r_s}\right)^2\frac{1}{A^6}$$
(19)
which has the capacity to lower the negative energy densities of a warp drive spacetime even further.888It is also noted that large extreme values for A can affect the curvature of the spacetime in question, thereby reducing velocity unless the Pfenning warped regions $`R\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ are enlarged.

## 5 on colliding warp shells

The remote frame ESAA warp drive metric is given by:

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2+[dxv_sf(r_s)dt]^2$$
(20)
with $`A=1`$ inside and outside the ship frame and in the warped region comes to some large value $`k_l`$. The function $`f(r_s)`$ has the ordinary values for top hat functions except at:

$$f(r_s)=1(1/A)(r_sR)R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)$$

for calculating horizons we are concerned with the region $`g_{00}=[A^2(v_sf(r_s))^2]`$, so we will examine the behaviour of $`g_{00}`$ with $`v_sr_s<R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$

$$g_{00}=1v_s^2v_s<1$$
(21)
this is causally connected to the remote frame, while $`v_s1`$ is disconnected from the remote frame, only with the conditions $`v_s<1g_{00}>0`$ do horizons fail appear. Another way to remove the horizons is to modify the space such that

$$g_{00}=A^2(v_s[1(1/A)(r_s+R)])^2$$
(22)
thus providing a large constant value for A, $`g_{00}>0`$ thus this region becomes causally connected to the remote frame.

As seen from remote observer in flat spacetime $`g_{00}=1`$, thus when the ship is superluminal the horizon lies at $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. From the ship frame this forms the ship horizon, the ship is causally connected from the region $`r_s=0`$ to $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ When the ship is superluminal the horizon lies at $`r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ for a remote frame observer, this is the remote frame horizon. The remote frame is causally connected from $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ at a great distance and remains connected until $`r_s=R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ the ship frame cannot send signals to $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ the remote frame cannot send signals to $`r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ but the region between $`_{R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}^{R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}r_s`$ remains connected to both observers if an astronaut changes the speed the outer parts of the bubble will react although the astronaut cannot communicate with the outer parts of the bubble, thus if the region between $`_{R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}^{R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}r_s`$ is common to both observers the bubble will not collapse.

### 5.1 Preprogrammed A

Although we set up to define A by ”pre-programmed exotic matter” which does not change when the ship pass from subluminal to superluminal velocity (see figure 3), we have not defined $`k_l`$. For a Pfenning Piecewise behaviour of A in the upper Pfenning limit $`R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$, $`A`$ still have a large value to keep this part causally connected to the ship according to ESAA-Hiscock function (10) by making $`H(r_s)>0`$ even when $`v_s>1`$. Then we have the following values for $`A`$ according to $`r_s`$ (already seen from eq. (17)). Providing that $`A`$ is not function of the speed the ship will be disconnected after $`r_s>R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ but this does not affect the behaviour of $`A`$. The Pfenning piecewise function is an approximation used first by Pfenning to simplify calculations and we are adopting Pfenning techniques here. We know that the continuous form of the top hat $`f(r_s)`$ is 1 in the ship and 0 far from it, there exists a open interval $`_0^1f(r_s)`$ when the function $`f(r_s)`$ starts to decrease from 1 to 0. It is in that region where the exotic matter resides which is the continuous equivalent of the Pfenning warped region.

If we define

$$A=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\mathrm{tanh}[\sigma (r_sR)^2]\right)^N$$
(23)
where $`N`$ is an arbitrary exponent999However from a dimensional point of view $`N=R/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, such that N becomes a measure of shell thickness. designed to reduce stress-energy requirements. We will have a continuous form of $`A`$ defined in function of the continuous Alcubierre top hat $`f(r_s)`$ and $`A`$ is function of $`r_s,R,\sigma `$ and $`N`$. This expression can make $`A`$ be 1 in the ship and far from it while being large in the warped region…the region where $`f(r_s)`$ starts to decrease from 1 to 0.

Below there are numerical evaluations (see table 1) showing the behaviour of $`A`$ reducing to 1 after the warped region *even if the ship is disconnected* due to function of distance $`r_s`$. And therefore “pushing” the ESAA-Hisccock horizon to the outermost layers of the warped region making the speed controllable by the ship because the major part of the warped region is connected to the ship so the ship can reduce to subluminal velocities.

### 5.2 remote frame

We now introduce a Hiscock horizon function for the remote frame

$$I(r_s)=A^2(v_sf(r_s))^2$$
(24)
therefore the line element of remote frame observer is

$$ds^2=I(r_s)dT^2+\frac{A^2}{I(r_s)}dx^2$$
(25)
lending

$$dT^2=dt^2+\frac{2v_sf(r_s)dxdt}{I(r_s)}+\left(\frac{v_sf(r_s)}{I(r_s)}\right)^2dx^2$$
(26)
recalling that $`(v_sf(r_s))^2=A^2I(r_s)`$ yields

$$dT^2=dt^2+\frac{2v_sf(r_s)dxdt}{I(r_s)}+\frac{A^2I(r_s)}{I(r_s)^2}dx^2$$
(27)
which reduces to

$$ds^2=I(rs)dt^2+2v_sf(r_s)dxdtdx^2$$
(28)
from the definition $`I(r_s)=A^2(v_sf(r_s))^2`$ we have the following spacetime:

$$ds^2=[A^2(v_sf(r_s))^2]dt^2+2v_sf(r_s)dxdtdx^2$$
(29)
then we recovered the ESAA remote frame metric from a equivalent ESAA Hiscock Horizon function for the remote frame. Thus a remote frame observer would be given from

$$ds^2=I(r_s)dT^2+\frac{A^2}{I(r_s)}dx^2$$
(30)
If $`v_s<1I(r_s)>0`$ then the region is causally connected to ship and remote frame. However if $`v_s=1I(r_s)=0`$ the horizon appears for the remote frame, this region while connected to the ship frame becomes causally disconnected from the remote frame, if $`v_s>1I(r_s)<0`$ and assuming a continuous spacetime $`I(r_s)<0`$ at $`r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ between $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)I(r_s)>0`$ then somewhere between $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ and $`r_s<R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ a horizon appears which is causally disconnected from the remote frame while connected to the ship frame.

If we utilize the top hat function (15) for the warped region $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ then one has

$$I(r_s)=A^2v(𝒲)$$
(31)
with

$$v(𝒲)=\sqrt{1\frac{v_s^2(r_sR)^2}{A(ct,r_s)^2}}$$
(32)
and providing a large $`A^2>>v_sf(r_s)^2`$ then $`I(r_s)>0`$ and this region will be causally connected to the remote frame. The remote frame “sees” the Pfenning warped region (the part of the warped region responsible for the speed), thus the remote frame is causally connected to this region. If an astronaut changes the speed because the astronaut is causally connected to this region then the remote frame will “see” the changing speed. For $`I(r_s)=1`$ this part of the warped region is always connected to the remote frame as this part of the warped region must make A drop back to 1 again this region is connected to the remote frame observer and is disconnected from the ship frame while luminal or superluminal.

Thus a signal sent by the ship can go to $`r_s=R+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ and a signal sent by remote observer can go to $`r_s=R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. Therefore the region between $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)r_sR+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ is “seen” by both observers ship and remote frame. Since the ship “sees” $`H(r_s)`$ the remote ”sees” $`I(r_s)`$ therefore an astronaut can change the ship speed because this region is connected to the ship the remote frame ”sees” the speed being changed because this region is connected to the remote frame.

So the outer part of the bubble “suffers” when the speed is changed although the astronaut cannot communicate with the outer parts of the bubble and the remote observer cannot communicate with the inner part of the bubble, thus the bubble remains stable for these regions.

## 6 Conclusion

In this work it was demonstrated how an $`A`$ defined as a Pfenning-Piecewise like style function can resolve the superluminal control problem of the warp drive. It is assumed that A do not change its behaviour when the ship passes from subluminal to superluminal, although we do not provide a source for the nature of A this will done in a future work. Although if we use the original continuous expression for A the geometry of the ESAA warp drive would be the following. First make the calculations obey the following format first giving $`(1+\mathrm{tanh}[\sigma (r_sR)]^2/2)^N`$ in the exponent labeled A and the final form of a is given by Final Form of Coefficient $`A=1/A`$ to produce the following expression

$$A=\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{tanh}[\sigma (r_sR)]^2}{2}\right)^{R/\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(33)
## Acknowledgements

The Authors of this work would like to express the most profound and sincere gratitude to Miguel Alcubierre for his time and patience (especially this one) during all the phases of development of this work.


text:
# Dynamical Correlations among Vicious Random Walkers

## Abstract

Nonintersecting motion of Brownian particles in one dimension is studied. The system is constructed as the diffusion scaling limit of Fisher’s vicious random walk. $`N`$ particles start from the origin at time $`t=0`$ and then undergo mutually avoiding Brownian motion until a finite time $`t=T`$. In the short time limit $`tT`$, the particle distribution is asymptotically described by Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (GUE) of random matrices. At the end time $`t=T`$, it is identical to that of Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE). The Brownian motion is generally described by the dynamical correlations among particles at many times $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_M`$ between $`t=0`$ and $`t=T`$. We show that the most general dynamical correlations among arbitrary number of particles at arbitrary number of times are written in the forms of quaternion determinants. Asymptotic forms of the correlations in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ are evaluated and a discontinuous transition of the universality class from GUE to GOE is observed.

The vicious walk model in which many walkers randomly move without intersecting with others was introduced by Fisher and applied to wetting and melting phenomena. Recently it has attained a renewed interest, since intimate relations to other research fields, such as the theory of Young tableaux in combinatorics, asymmetric exclusion process (ASEP) in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, polynuclear growth (PNG) model of surface physics and the theory of random matrices, have been revealed one after another and brought progress in the study of these topics.

One of the reigning concepts of these new applications, the universality class, comes from the theory of random matrices. Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE) and Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (GUE) universality classes originate in the real symmetric and complex hermitian structures of random matrices. They also appear in the new applications in quite natural ways, despite the absence of underlying matrix structure. In the theory of Young tableaux, number permutation and involution correspond to GUE and GOE, respectively. In ASEP, the initial and boundary conditions demarcate the universality classes of the current fluctuation. The height fluctuation of surface growth on a flat substrate belongs to the GOE class and a droplet growth is described by GUE.

How the universality classes appear in the vicious walk model? The GOE universality class is realized when walkers take $`t`$ steps under the nonintersecting condition. One possibility to observe the GUE class is to impose an additional condition that the nonintersecting walkers come back to the original position after $`2t`$ steps. In analyzing the diffusion scaling limit of the vicious walk model, Katori and Tanemura recently noticed another possibility. The walker distribution depends not only on the observation time (the number of steps) $`t`$ but also on the time interval $`T`$ in which the nonintersecting condition is imposed. Suppose that all the walkers start from the origin at time $`t=0`$. While the ratio of the time $`t`$ and the nonintersection time interval $`T`$, $`t/T`$, is small, the walker distribution is asymptotically described by GUE. When the end of the nonintersection time interval arrives, namely at $`t/T=1`$, the distribution becomes identical to that of GOE. This means that, while walkers randomly move in the time interval between $`t=0`$ and $`t=T`$, a transition from GUE to GOE takes place.

In this Letter we analyze the dynamical correlations among the vicious walkers in the transition region. Utilizing the equivalence to a multimatrix model in quantum field theory, we evaluate the dynamical correlation functions among arbitrary number of walkers at arbitrary number of times. The asymptotic limit of the large number of walkers will be evaluated and we will find that the transition becomes discontinuous.

Let us consider $`N`$ independent symmetric simple random walks on $`𝐙=\{\mathrm{},2,1,0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ started from $`N`$ distinct positions $`2s_1<2s_2<\mathrm{}<2s_N,s_j𝐙`$. The position of the $`j`$-th random walker at time $`k0`$ is denoted by $`R_k^{s_j}`$ and we impose the nonintersecting condition

$$R_k^{s_1}<R_k^{s_2}<\mathrm{}<R_k^{s_N},1kK.$$
(1)
If a possible random walk satisfies the condition (1), then it is called a vicious walk. Let $`V(R_K^{s_j}=e_j)`$ be the realization probability of the vicious walks, in which the $`N`$ walkers arrive at the positions $`2e_1<2e_2<\mathrm{}<2e_N,e_j𝐙`$, at time $`K`$.

A simplification is obtained in the diffusion scaling limit: we set $`K=Lt,s_j=\sqrt{L}x_j/2,e_j=\sqrt{L}y_j/2`$ and take the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. In Ref., it is clarified that $`lim_L\mathrm{}(\sqrt{L}/2)^NV(R_{Lt}^{\sqrt{L}x_j/2}=\sqrt{L}y_j/2)=f(t;\{y_j\}\{x_j\})`$, where

$$f(t;\{y_j\}\{x_j\})=\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{N/2}}det[e^{(x_jy_k)^2/2t}]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},N}.$$
(2)
This function shows how the nonintersecting probability of the Brownian particles on the rescaled lattice $`𝐙/(\sqrt{L}/2)`$ up to time $`t`$ depends on the initial and final positions. Therefore, for the nonintersecting Brownian motions in the time interval $`[0,T]`$, the transition density from the configuration $`\{x_j\}`$ at time $`s`$ to $`\{y_j\}`$ at time $`t`$ is given by

$$\phi ^T(s,\{x_j\};t,\{y_j\})=\frac{f(ts;\{y_j\}\{x_j\})𝒩(Tt;\{y_j\})}{𝒩(Ts;\{x_j\})},$$
(3)
where $`𝒩(t;\{x_j\})=_{y_1<\mathrm{}<y_N}_{j=1}^Ndy_jf(t;\{y_j\}\{x_j\})`$. Note that there is an obvious temporal inhomogeneity since RHS depends not only $`ts`$ but also $`Ts`$ and $`Tt`$.

The dynamics of the Brownian particles is described by the dynamical correlation functions. Let us denote the positions of the Brownian particles at a time $`t_j`$ by $`x_1^j,x_2^j,\mathrm{},x_N^j`$. Then the dynamical correlation functions among the particles at times $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_M`$ are defined as

$`\rho (x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_{n_1}^1;\mathrm{};x_1^M,\mathrm{},x_{n_M}^M)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_j^0\underset{j=n_1+1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_j^1\mathrm{}\underset{j=n_M+1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_j^M}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`p_0(\{x_j^0\}){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}\phi ^T(t_m,\{x_j^m\};t_{m+1},\{x_j^{m+1}\}).`$ (6)
Here $`p_0(\{x_j^0\})`$ is the initial distribution at $`t_0=0`$. Let us now suppose that all the particles start at the origin. Namely, we set $`p_0(\{x_j^0\})=_j\delta (x_j^0)`$ and obtain

$`\rho (x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_{n_1}^1;\mathrm{};x_1^M,\mathrm{},x_{n_M}^M)`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=n_1+1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_j^1\mathrm{}\underset{j=n_M+1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_j^M\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_j^{M+1}}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{\overset{N}{}}}(x_j^1x_k^1){\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{sgn}(x_j^{M+1}x_k^{M+1})`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}det[g^m(x_j^m,x_k^{m+1})]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},N}.`$ (10)
Here ($`t_{M+1}T`$)

$`g^1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{x^2/(2t_1)}e^{(xy)^2/(2(t_2t_1))}}{\sqrt{2\pi t_1}\sqrt{2\pi (t_2t_1)}}},`$ (11)
$`g^m(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(xy)^2/(2(t_{m+1}t_m))}}{\sqrt{2\pi (t_{m+1}t_m)}}},2mM.`$ (12)
At this stage we notice a direct correspondence between our problem and the multimatrix models in quantum field theory. Itzykson and Zuber firstly analyzed a two matrix model in which two hermitian random matrices were combined. Mehta and Pandey then coupled a real-symmetric and a hermitian random matrices to devise a $`(1+1)`$ matrix model, as a mathematical interpolation of GOE and GUE. After it had been realized that multimatrix models were useful in the quantum field theory on random surfaces, Eynard and Mehta invented a method to evaluate the correlation functions among the eigenvalues of combined $`M`$ hermitian matrices. As a further generalization, Nagao proposed an $`(M+1)`$ matrix model in which one real symmetric and $`M`$ hermitian matrices were combined and showed that the correlation functions were generally written in the forms of quaternion determinants. We can readily see that the above dynamical correlation functions among vicious walkers have the same forms as the eigenvalue correlation functions of the $`(M+1)`$ matrix model.

For simplicity we set $`N`$ even and summarize the quaternion determinant formulas in the following. In terms of ($`x_mx,x_ny`$)

$`G^{mn}(x,y)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\delta (xy),m=n,\hfill \\ g^m(x,y),m=n1,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \underset{j=m+1}{\overset{n1}{}}dx_j\underset{l=m}{\overset{n1}{}}g^l(x_l,x_{l+1})},m<n1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (17)
we firstly define

$`F^{mn}(x,y)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dz^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^z^{}}dz\{G^{mM+1}(x,z)G^{nM+1}(y,z^{})`$ (19)
$``$ $`G^{nM+1}(y,z)G^{mM+1}(x,z^{})\}.`$ (20)
Let us introduce an antisymmetric inner product

$`f(x),g(y)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑yF^{11}(y,x)[f(y)g(x)f(x)g(y)]}`$ (22)
and construct monic polynomials $`R_k^1(x)=x^k+\mathrm{}`$ of degrees $`k`$ so that they satisfy the skew orthogonality relations:

$`R_{2j}^1(x),R_{2l+1}^1(y)=R_{2l+1}^1(x),R_{2j}^1(y)=r_j\delta _{jl},`$ (23)
$`R_{2j}^1(x),R_{2l}^1(y)=0,R_{2j+1}^1(x),R_{2l+1}^1(y)=0.`$ (24)
We then define functions $`R_k^m(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^m(x)`$, $`m=2,3,\mathrm{},M+1`$, as

$`R_k^m(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yR_k^1(y)G^{1m}(y,x)},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^m(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yR_k^m(y)F^{mm}(y,x)}.`$ (26)
Now matrices $`D^{mn}`$, $`I^{mn}`$ and $`S^{mn}`$ are introduced as

$$D_{jl}^{mn}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{(N/2)1}{}}\frac{R_{2k}^m(x_j^m)R_{2k+1}^n(x_l^n)R_{2k+1}^m(x_j^m)R_{2k}^n(x_l^n)}{r_k},$$

$$I_{jl}^{mn}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{(N/2)1}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{2k+1}^m(x_j^m)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2k}^n(x_l^n)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2k}^m(x_j^m)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2k+1}^n(x_l^n)}{r_k},$$

and

$$S_{jl}^{mn}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{(N/2)1}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{2k}^m(x_j^m)R_{2k+1}^n(x_l^n)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2k+1}^m(x_j^m)R_{2k}^n(x_l^n)}{r_k}.$$

Further we define

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{jl}^{mn}=\{\begin{array}{c}S_{jl}^{mn},mn,\hfill \\ S_{jl}^{mn}G^{mn}(x_j^m,x_l^n),m<n\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{jl}^{mn}=I_{jl}^{mn}+F^{mn}(x_j^m,x_l^n).$$

For a self dual $`N\times N`$ quaternion matrix $`Q=[q_{jk}]`$, a determinant $`\mathrm{Tdet}Q`$, originally introduced into random matrix theory by Dyson, is defined as

$$\mathrm{Tdet}Q=\underset{P}{}(1)^{Nl}\underset{1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{tr}(q_{ab}q_{bc}\mathrm{}q_{da}),$$
(27)
where $`P`$ denotes any permutation of the indices $`(1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ consisting of $`l`$ exclusive cycles of the form $`(abc\mathrm{}da)`$ and $`(1)^{Nl}`$ is the parity of $`P`$. Note that $`\mathrm{tr}q`$ is equal to a half of the trace of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation of $`q`$.

Let us suppose that the elements of quaternion matrices $`B^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},M`$, have the following $`2\times 2`$ representations:

$$B_{jl}^{\mu \nu }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{S}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }& \stackrel{~}{I}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }\\ D_{jl}^{\mu \nu }& \stackrel{~}{S}_{lj}^{\nu \mu }\end{array}\right],j,l=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(28)
Then Nagao’s result asserts that

$`\rho (x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_{n_1}^1;\mathrm{};x_1^M,\mathrm{},x_{n_M}^M)`$ (29)
$``$ $`\mathrm{Tdet}[B^{\mu \nu }(n_\mu ,n_\nu )],\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},M,`$ (30)
where each block $`B^{\mu \nu }(n_\mu ,n_\nu )`$ is obtained by removing the $`n_\mu +1,n_\mu +2,\mathrm{},N`$-th rows and $`n_\nu +1,n_\nu +2,\mathrm{},N`$-th columns from $`B^{\mu \nu }`$.

Let us examine the consequences of the quaternion determinant formula. Now we remark that the skew orthogonal polynomials $`R_k^1(x)`$ are explicitly written as

$$R_k^1(x)=\xi ^{k/2}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _{kj}H_j\left(\frac{x}{c_1}\right)\xi ^{j/2},$$
(31)
where $`\xi =t_1/(2Tt_1)`$,

$$c_n=\sqrt{t_n(2Tt_n)/T},$$

$`\alpha _{2kj}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{2k}c_1^{2k}\delta _{2kj},`$ (32)
$`\alpha _{2k+1j}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{2k1}c_1^{2k+1}(\delta _{2k+1j}4k\delta _{2k1j})`$ (33)
and $`H_j(x)`$ are the Hermite polynomials.

We begin with the simplest case $`M=1`$ and $`n_1=1`$. Putting the explicit formula of $`R_k^1(x)`$ into the quaternion determinant expression and utilizing the asymptotic formula for the Hermite polynomials, we can readily obtain

$$\rho (x_1^1)\frac{1}{\pi c_1}\sqrt{2N(x_1^1/c_1)^2},x_1^1<\sqrt{2N}c_1$$
(34)
in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Thus the walker density always has a semicircle shape (Wigner’s semicircle law), while the width of the semicircle is dependent on time and scaled by $`c_1`$. This result suggests that, after introducing a new rescaled variables $`\lambda _j^m=x_j^m/c_m`$, the vicious walk model in the diffusion scaling limit becomes equivalent to the matrix Brownian motion model which is normalized so that the width of the semicircle is a constant.

The asymptotic forms of the dynamical correlation functions of matrix Brownian motion models were evaluated by Forrester, Nagao and Honner. In particular, in the edge region of the semicircle, dynamical asymptotic correlations are described by the Airy function $`\mathrm{Ai}(x)`$. We can directly reinterpret Forrester, Nagao and Honner’s result in the context of vicious walk model. Let us introduce rescaled temporal and spatial variables $`\tau _m`$ and $`X_j^m`$ as

$`t_m`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _m}{N^{1/3}}}\right)T,`$ (35)
$`x_j^m`$ $`=`$ $`c_m\left(\sqrt{2N}+{\displaystyle \frac{X_j^m}{2^{1/2}N^{1/6}}}\right)`$ (36)
and take the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. With an appropriate normalization, the dynamical correlation functions asymptotically have the same forms as in eq. (30) except that the quaternion matrices $`B_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$ are replaced by

$$_{jl}^{\mu \nu }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }& \stackrel{~}{}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }\\ 𝒟_{jl}^{\mu \nu }& \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{lj}^{\nu \mu }\end{array}\right],j,l=1,2,\mathrm{},N,$$
(37)
where

$`𝒟_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dse^{\tau _\mu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu +s){\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\{e^{\tau _\nu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu +s)\}`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dse^{\tau _\nu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu +s){\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\{e^{\tau _\mu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu +s)\}],`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{\tau _\nu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu s){\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ve^{\tau _\mu v}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu v)`$ (40)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{\tau _\mu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu s){\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ve^{\tau _\nu v}\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu v)`$ (41)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }=\{\begin{array}{c}𝒮_{jl}^{\mu \nu },\mu \nu ,\hfill \\ 𝒮_{jl}^{\mu \nu }𝒢_{jl}^{\mu \nu },\mu <\nu \hfill \end{array}$$

with

$`𝒮_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{(\tau _\mu \tau _\nu )s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu +s)\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu +s)`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{\tau _\mu s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu s),`$ (43)
$$𝒢_{jl}^{\mu \nu }=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑se^{(\tau _\mu \tau _\nu )s}\mathrm{Ai}(X_j^\mu +s)\mathrm{Ai}(X_l^\nu +s).$$

From the above asymptotic result we can extract information on limiting behavior. Let us firstly take the limit $`\tau _\mu \mathrm{}`$ with the time differences $`\tau _\mu \tau _\nu `$ fixed. It can be readily seen that this limiting procedure is equivalent to set $`𝒟_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$ and the second term of $`𝒮_{jl}^{\mu \nu }`$ zeros. Then the quaternion determinant is reduced to an ordinary determinant and the asymptotic correlation functions become temporally homogeneous. We find that they are the dynamical correlation functions within the universality class of GUE. The equal time correlation functions are described by the Airy kernel in the temporally homogeneous region. Because of the rescaling (36), it can be seen that the GUE universality class survives until time $`t`$ very close to $`T`$: only when $`TtO(N^{1/3})`$, the transition to GOE class occurs. Therefore we can conclude that the transition from GUE to GOE class is discontinuous in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

The second interesting case is $`X_j^\mu \mathrm{}`$ with the position differences $`X_j^\mu X_l^\nu `$ fixed. This reproduces the asymptotic dynamical correlation functions in the bulk region. They are spatially homogeneous and the equal time correlations are equivalent to Pandey and Mehta’s asymptotic result. In this bulk region we can also observe the discontinuous transition from GUE to GOE.

In summary, nonintersecting Brownian motion of $`N`$ particles in finite time interval $`0tT`$ was studied in one dimension. Dynamical correlation functions among many particles at many times were written in the forms of quaternion determinants. The asymptotic forms of the dynamical correlation functions in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ were evaluated and the universality class transition from GUE to GOE was found to be discontinuous. The compact asymptotic formula was derived above only after taking the diffusion scaling limit in which much information contained in the original lattice model was suppressed. In order to fully understand the lattice vicious walk model, we need to study other scaling limits as well. Further studies in this direction should be made in future works.