format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The structure of the QCD phase diagram as a function of temperature and density has been studied extensively throughout the last years, on theoretical as well as on experimantal grounds. For a long time the discussion has been restricted to two phases: the hadronic phase and the quark-gluon-plasma. This has dramatically changed after the discovery that, already for densities present in the interior of neutron stars, color superconducting phases might exist with energy gaps of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }100`$ MeV .

At these moderate densities QCD cannot be treated perturbatively and therefore one has to rely on model calculations. In general local two-quark interactions are chosen which are motivated, e.g., from instanton interactions. Most interactions favor a condensation in the scalar color-$`\overline{3}`$ channel:

$$s_{AA^{}}=\psi ^TC\gamma _5\tau _A\lambda _A^{}\psi .$$
(1)
Here both, $`\tau _A`$ and $`\lambda _A^{}`$ are the antisymmetric generators of $`SU(3)`$, i.e., the antisymmetric Gell-Mann matrices ($`A,A^{}\{2,5,7\}`$), acting in flavor and color space, respectively.

Let us first discuss two limiting cases: Assuming the mass of the strange quark to be infinite, we can neglect pairing between strange and lighter quarks and the flavor index in Eq. (1) is restricted to $`A=2`$. The three condensates $`s_{2A^{}}`$ form a vector in color space, which always can be rotated into the $`A^{}=2`$-direction. Hence the two-flavor superconducting state (2SC) state can be characterized by $`s_{22}0`$ and $`s_{AA^{}}=0`$ if $`(A,A^{})(2,2)`$. In this state color $`SU(3)`$ is spontaneously broken down to $`SU(2)`$. For massless $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks the 2SC state is invariant under chiral $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ transformations.

The second limiting case is to assume three degenerate quark flavors. Then dense matter is expected to form a so-called color-flavor locked (CFL) state , characterized by the situation $`s_{22}=s_{55}=s_{77}0`$ and $`s_{AA^{}}=0`$ if $`AA^{}`$ . In this state $`SU(3)_{color}\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ and the $`U(1)`$-symmetry related to baryon-number conservation are broken down to a common $`SU(3)_{color+V}`$ subgroup where color and flavor rotations are locked.

Both situations discussed above are idealizations of the real world. For sufficiently large quark chemical potentials $`\mu M_s`$, the $`s`$ quark mass becomes of course almost negligible against $`\mu `$ and matter is expected to be in the CFL phase. It is not clear, however, whether this CFL phase is directly connected to the hadronic phase at low-densities, or whether an intermediate 2SC phase exist, where only up and down quarks are paired. It is obvious that the answer to this question depends on the strange quark mass which is in general $`T`$\- and $`\mu `$-dependent. Moreover, it could depend on the presence of quark-antiquark and diquark condensates. This means, not only the phase structure depends on the quark mass, but also the quark mass depends on the phase.

To study these interdependencies we will use an NJL-type model, where the masses are closely related to the ($`T`$\- and $`\mu `$-dependent) $`\overline{q}q`$ condensates

$$\varphi _u=\overline{u}u=\overline{d}d\text{and}\varphi _s=\overline{s}s.$$
(2)
This work is largely based on Ref. . In addition we will discuss the effects of a flavor mixing interaction, which has not been included in that reference.

## 2 Model

We consider the effective Lagrangian

$$_{eff}=\overline{\psi }(i/\widehat{m})\psi +_{q\overline{q}}+_{qq},$$
(3)
where $`\psi `$ denotes a quark field with three flavors and three colors. The mass matrix $`\widehat{m}`$ has the form $`\widehat{m}=diag(m_u,m_d,m_s)`$ in flavor space. Throughout this article we assume isospin symmetry, $`m_u=m_d`$.

To study the interplay between the color-superconducting diquark condensates $`s_{AA^{}}`$ and the quark-antiquark condensates $`\varphi _u`$ and $`\varphi _s`$ we consider an NJL-type interaction with a quark-quark part

$$_{qq}=H\underset{A=2,5,7}{}\underset{A^{}=2,5,7}{}(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\tau _A\lambda _A^{}C\overline{\psi }^T)(\psi ^TCi\gamma _5\tau _A\lambda _A^{}\psi ).$$
(4)
and a quark-antiquark part

$`_{q\overline{q}}=G`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\left[(\overline{\psi }\tau _a\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\tau _a\psi )^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\psi )^2\right]\right\}`$
$`K`$ $`\left[\mathrm{det}_f\left(\overline{\psi }(1+\gamma _5)\psi \right)+\mathrm{det}_f\left(\overline{\psi }(1\gamma _5)\psi \right)\right].`$ (5)
The latter consists of a $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$-symmetric 4-point interaction and a ’t Hooft-type 6-point interaction which breaks the the $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry.

Starting from this Lagrangian we calculate the mean-field thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at temperature $`T`$ and quark chemical potential $`\mu `$ and determine the selfconsistent solutions for the expectation values $`\varphi _u=\varphi _d`$, $`\varphi _s`$, $`s_{22}`$, and $`s_{55}=s_{77}`$ by minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to these expectation values. In this context it is convenient to introduce the effective quark masses $`M_i=m_i4G\varphi _i+2K\varphi _j\varphi _k`$, ($`(i,j,k)=`$ cyclic permutations of $`(u,d,s)`$) and the diquark gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=2Hs_{ii}`$.

## 3 Numerical results

To determine the values of the various condensates we first have to specify the parameters of the interaction. As a starting point we take the parameter values obtained in Ref.  by fitting vacuum masses and decay constants of pseudoscalar mesons. It is, however, certainly worthwhile to study in detail the dependence of the results on the strength of the ’t Hooft-type interaction which mixes different flavors and thus affects $`M_s`$ even in regimes, where no strange quark states are populated. To that end we vary the coupling constant $`K`$ and readjust $`G`$ and $`m_s`$ such that the vacuum masses stay unchanged. Since the quark-quark part of the interaction does not influence any vacuum properties the coupling constant $`H`$ has to be determined in a different way. For $`K=0`$ we take $`H=3/4G`$ which corresponds to the ratio of $`G`$ and $`H`$ obtained from a four-fermion interaction with the quantum numbers of a single-gluon exchange . The resulting value for $`H`$ is then kept constant for all values of $`K`$. As in Ref. , all quark loops are regularized by a sharp 3-momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We begin with the discussion of the results at $`T=0`$. The behavior of the constituent quark masses and the diquark gaps as functions of $`\mu `$ is displayed in Fig. 1. The left panel corresponds to $`K=0`$, the right panel to $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=20`$. One can clearly distinguish three phases. At low $`\mu `$, the diquark gaps vanish and the constituent quark masses stay at their vacuum values. Hence, in a very schematic sense, this phase can be identified with the “hadronic phase”.

At a critical chemical potential $`\mu =\mu _1`$ a first-order phase transition to the 2SC phase takes place: The diquark gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ has now a non-vanishing value, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ remains zero. At the same time the mass of the light quarks drops from the vacuum value to about 50 MeV and the baryon number density jumps from zero to about 2.5 nuclear matter density. This behavior, including the value of $`\mu _1`$, is rather independent of $`K`$. Obviously this is not the case for $`M_s`$: For $`K=0`$ the strange quarks are completely unaffected, whereas a nonzero value of $`K`$ leads to a considerably lower strange quark mass in the 2SC phase. This favors the population of strange quark states already in the 2SC phase and indeed we observe a nonzero density of strange quarks above $`\mu 415`$ MeV. This is the reason for the accelerated decrease of $`M_s`$ which can be observed in Fig. 1.

At $`\mu =\mu _2`$ the system undergoes a second first-order phase transition, this time from the 2SC phase into the CFL phase, which is characterized by a non-vanishing diquark gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ (together with a non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$). The flavor-mixing interaction accelerates the transition to the CFL phase: The value of $`\mu _2`$ for $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=20`$ is about 50 MeV lower than for $`K=0`$. On the other hand, the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ for a given value of $`\mu `$ depend only weakly on $`K`$, as long as the CFL solution is stable. Since in both cases there still is a metastable CFL solution below $`\mu _2`$, the main effect of the flavor mixing interaction is to render the CFL solution stable for lower values of $`\mu `$.

We now extend our analysis to non-vanishing temperatures. The resulting phase diagrams in the $`\mu `$-$`T`$ plane are shown in Fig. 2. The left panel corresponds to the results of Ref. , obtained with a slightly different parameter set with $`K=0`$. We can distinguish four different regimes: At low temperatures we find (with increasing $`\mu `$) the “hadronic phase”, the 2SC phase, and the CFL phase. Similar to zero temperature these three phases are well separated by first-order phase transitions. The high temperature regime is governed by the QGP phase, which is characterized by vanishing diquark condensates and small values of $`\varphi _u`$ and (for large enough $`\mu `$) $`\varphi _s`$. There we find smooth crossovers with respect to $`\varphi _u`$ and $`\varphi _s`$ instead of the first-order phase transitions, which therefore end in second order endpoints. The transition from the 2SC phase to the QGP phase is of second order and the critical temperature is in almost perfect agreement with the well-known BCS relation $`T_c=0.57\mathrm{\Delta }_2(T=0)`$.

Since the diquark gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ vanishes at a somewhat lower temperature than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, there is an intermediate 2SC phase “above” the CFL phase. It has been argued  that this color-flavor-unlocking transition has to be first order because pairing between light and strange quarks can only occur if the gap is of the same order as the mismatch between the Fermi surfaces. Hence the value of the gap must be discontineous at the phase transition. Moreover, the phase transition corresponds to a finite temperature chiral restoration phase transition in a three-flavor theory, and therefore the universality arguments of Ref.  should apply . At low temperatures our results are in agreement with these predictions. However, above a critical point we find a second order unlocking transition. In fact, the above arguments are not as stringent as they seem to be on a first sight: First of all the Fermi surfaces are smeared out due to thermal effects and secondly the universality argument is not rigourously applicable because the 2SC phase is not a three-flavor chirally restored phase, but only $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetric. Note that even $`SU(3)_V`$ is broken explicitly and spontaneously.

On the r.h.s. of Fig. 2 we show first results on the variation of the phase diagram with $`K`$. We find that the ’t Hooft interaction mainly influences the unlocking transition at low $`T`$. The other boundaries remain almost unchanged.

## 4 Conclusions

We studied the “cold dense” region of strongly interacting matter within the framework of an NJL-type quark model. Our main intention was to examine the effect of selfconsistently determined realistic quark masses, in particular of the strange quark mass. Our results indicate that the 2SC state is the most favored one up to rather high densities. The color-flavor unlocking transition is mostly triggered by a discontinous change of the strange quark mass. Including a flavor mixing interaction, which lowers the strange quark mass within the 2SC phase, the CFL phase becomes favored for smaller $`\mu `$. With increasing temperature the values of the diquark condensates decrease and vanish at some critical value $`T_c`$ which is lower for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ than for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. This color-flavor unlocking transition becomes second order above a critical point.

For simplicity, we restricted our studies to a common baryon chemical potential for all flavors. However, for many applications, like quark cores of neutron stars, it would be interesting to consider $`\beta `$-equilibrated quark matter, where the chemical potential for $`u`$ quarks is in general different from that of $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks. Moreover, since the effective interaction at the densities of interest is rather unknown, a more systematic examination of the sensitivity of the results on the choice of the interaction should be performed to sort out some common features.


text:
# Exhibition of the periodicity of Quantum Fourier Transformation in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

## Abstract

The remarkable capability of quantum Fourier transformation (QFT) to extract the periodicity of a given periodic function has been exhibited by using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques. Two separate sets of experiments were performed. In a full QFT, the periodicity were validated with state tomography and fidelity measurements. For a simplified QFT, the three-qubit pseudo-pure state was created by introducting an additional observer spin, and the spectra recorded on the observer spin showed intuitively the power of QFT to find the periodicity. Experimentally realizing the QFT provides a critical step to implement the renowned Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm and many other algorithms. Moveover, it can be applied to the study of quantum chaos and other quantum information processing.

The most striking discovery in quantum computation is that quantum computers can efficiently perform some tasks which are not feasible on a classical computer. For example, the most famous of the current quantum algorithms — Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm, can factor a number exponentially faster than the best known classical algorithms, which leads to the cracking the RSA encryption system. However, the key to Shor’s algorithm rests in an essential way on the application of a suitable quantum Fourier transform to efficiently determine the periodicity of a given periodic function. The QFT is the key ingredient for not only Shor’s algorithm but also many other interesting quantum algorithms, including Simon’s algorithm (Simon 1994), Kitaev’s algorithm, the estimating arbitrary phase algorithm and the ordering-finding algorithm etc.. Moveover, the scheme of exploiting quantum computation to study quantum chaos proposed by Schack, Brun and Schack, are also based on the QFT.

For an arbitrary positive integer $`x`$, the QFT can be defined by a unitary transformation

$$QFT:|x\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{y=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2\pi ixy/N}|y,for\text{ }x\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},2^n1\},$$
(1)
where $`N=2^n,`$ with $`n`$ being the qubit number. Recently the QFT have been realized on a three bit NMR quantum computer. However, the implementation of the QFT was performed on the thermal equilibrium state so that the striking power of the extraction of a periodicity wasn’t exhibited from the experimental results.

Imagine an oracle that computes a function $`f:Z_nZ_m`$ that has an unknown period $`r`$ $`(1r2^n)`$:

$$f(x+mr)=f(x),$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is any integer such that $`x`$ and $`x+mr`$ lie in $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},2^n1\}.`$ The goal is to find the period $`r`$ of $`f(x)`$. Classically, this problem is hard, requiring $`O\left(2^n\right)`$ queries to hit two equal values with high probability. But a quantum algorithm described as follows can find $`r`$ in time poly$`(n)`$.

Define a unitary transform $`U`$:

$$U|x|y|x|yf(x),$$
(3)
where $``$ denotes addition modulo 2. One first initialize two registers to $`|0|0,`$ then create an equal superposition $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}_x|x`$ in the first register (easily prepared by applying $`H^{\left(n\right)}).`$ Owing to quantum parallelism, querying the oracle and applying $`U`$ prepare the state

$$|f=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|x|f\left(x\right).$$
(4)
By measuring the second register, the result $`|f\left(x_0\right)`$ for some $`0x_0r1`$ is obtained .In the meantime, the first register is collapsed into the state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{K1}{}}|x_0+jr,$$
(5)
where $`Nrx_0+(K1)rN.`$ The periodicity $`r`$ is not explicitly exhibited due to the offset $`x_0.`$

Applying QFT to the state $`|\psi ,`$ one gets

$$F|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{r1}{}}e^{2\pi i\frac{x_0j}{r}}|j\frac{N}{r}.$$
(6)
A value $`c`$ is supposed to be obtained by measuring the register, where $`c`$ is necessarily a multiple of $`N/r`$, i.e., $`c/N=\lambda /r,(0\lambda <r).`$ If $`\lambda `$ is fortuitously coprime to $`r`$, $`r`$ can be determined by cancelling $`c/N`$ down to an irreducible fraction. According to the prime number theorem, the probability that $`\lambda `$ is coprime to $`r`$ is at least $`1/logr`$ which exceeds $`1/logN`$. Hence repeating the above procedure $`O(logN)`$ times one can succeed in determining $`r`$ with any prescribed probability $`1ϵ`$ as close to $`1`$ as desired.

Another way of analyzing the distribution of outcomes obtained is to calculate the reduced density matrix for the first register and calculate the measurement statistics. As the NMR quantum computer is ensemble quantum computation, we can achieve the statistical results of the probability distribution of the final state. It can be seen from Eq. (5) and (6) that, the QFT transforms the input state with the period $`r`$ into the output state with the period $`k=N/r`$ containing $`r`$ items due to the displacement invariance of the QFT. For example, if the 3-qubit state $`|\psi `$ in Eq. (5) input to QFT is of the form

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{2}(|0+|2+|4+|6)$$
(7)
or

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{2}(|1+|3+|5+|7),$$
(8)
the state periodicity should be $`r=2`$. Applying the QFT, one gets

$$QFT:|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|4)$$
(9)
or

$$QFT:|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|4).$$
(10)
From the state periodicity after the QFT $`k=4`$ one can infer the state periodicity before the QFT $`r=N/k=2`$, which is consistent with the state Eq. (7) or (8). Contrarily, if $`|\psi `$ has the form of Eq. (9) or (10), the state periodicity after the QFT $`k=2`$ so that $`r=N/k=4`$.

We have demonstrated these effects by liquid-state NMR using the carbon-13 labeled alanine $`NH_3^+C^\alpha H(C^\beta H_2)C^{^{}}O_2^{}`$ dissolved in $`D_2O.`$ All NMR experiments were performed on a Bruker ARX500 spectrometer with respect to transmitter frequencies of 500.13 MHz ($`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$) and 125.77 MHz ($`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$). The measured NMR parameters are listed in Table 1. We can see from above that, the second register is only used to prepare the periodic state in the first register. Thus, in actual experiments, we just used the first register for determining the periodicity. In addition, owing to the nature of NMR ensemble, the display of the final state were performed by two different methods, tomography and ”spectral implementation”.

The logic network for the QFT is shown in Fig. 1, consisting of a one-qubit gate

$$H_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(11)
acting on qubit $`j`$ and a controlled-$`R_d`$ gate

$$R_d=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{i\pi /2^d}\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
acting on qubit $`j`$ conditional on qubit $`k`$ being in the $`|1`$ state with $`d=jk.`$ Here the $`H_j`$ gate can be realized by the NMR pulse sequence $`X_j(\pi )Y_j\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$ or $`Y_j\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)X_j(\pi ),`$ and the controlled-$`R_j`$ gate, by the pulse sequence $`Z_j(\frac{\pi }{2})Z_k\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)J_{jk}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$. By carefully choosing the expressions for the Hadamard and $`Z`$ gates and exploiting the commutation relations to eliminate as many unnecessary operations as possible, the complete pulse for the QFT can be reduced as:

$`X_1({\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{8}})Y_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)J_{21}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)J_{31}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)X_2({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})Y_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)`$ (13)
$`X_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)Y_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)J_{32}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)Y_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)X_3({\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{8}})`$ (14)
(applied from the left to the right). Finally a swap operation $`S_{13}`$ are used to reverse the order of qubits to obtain the desired output from the QFT. We could just as easily relabel qubits 1, 2 and 3 in place of the Swap gate. Thus, we need not perform an actual physical swap gate here; a mental relabeling of the qubits is sufficient.

We preformed two separate sets of experiments. In the first set, the full QFT was executed on a three-qubit quantum computer. Three $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nuclei were chosen as three qubits and protons were decoupled during the whole experiments by using a standard heteronuclear decoupling technique. All $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nuclei were taken 0.7ms for selective $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses of a Gaussian shape. At the beginning of the experiment, we labeled $`C^{},`$ $`C^\alpha `$ and $`C^\beta `$ as spin 1, 2 and 3, respectively. After the QFT, we identify spin 1 with $`C^\beta `$ spin 3 with $`C^{^{}}.`$

The pseudo-pure state was prepared from the thermal equilibrium state by the procedure summarized in Table 2, in which the magnetic field gradients (denoted by $`G_z`$ ) to dephase off-diagonal elements of the density matrix at strategic points along the way were used. Owing to the difference of the relaxation times between nuclei, we used a $`\pi `$ rf pulse and a spell (the reversal recovery) to balance the effect of the different relaxation. Meanwhile step (1) in Table 2 was replaced by the spell. By adjusting carefully the spell, the experimental spectra for a pseudo-pure state $`\rho _{000}=I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ ($`I_i^\alpha =|00|=\frac{1}{2}+I_{iz})`$ were finally recorded (shown in Fig. 2b) through reading-out pulses on the spectrometer. The normalized deviation density matrix $`\rho _{000}`$ was confirmed by full tomography shown in Fig. 3a.

The state in Eq. (7) and Eq. (9) can be prepared by the Hadamard gates $`H_1H_2`$ and $`H_1`$ from the pseudo-pure state, respectively. Applying the sequence (13), the experimental spectra were shown in Fig. 2 (c) and (d). The density matrices were reconstructed from the obtained experimental spectra. The real parts of these matrices are shown in Fig. 3 (b) and (c), respectively. The fidelity of the QFT were calculated using the measure, called the attenuated correlation

$$c(\widehat{\rho }^{\mathrm{exp}})=\frac{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^{th}\widehat{\rho }^{\mathrm{exp}})}{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^{th}\widehat{\rho }^{th})}.$$
(15)
Here, $`\widehat{\rho }^{th}`$ is defined as a theoretical output state, transformed by the ideal transformation on a computer for the measured pseudo-pure state $`\widehat{\rho }_{000}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$, and an experimentally implemented control sequence for the same transformation on the spectrometer to get $`\widehat{\rho }^{\mathrm{exp}}.`$ The values of the correlation for each of the three tomographic readouts were $`c(\widehat{\rho }_{000}^{\mathrm{exp}})=1`$ (by definition), $`c(\widehat{\rho }_{qft1}^{\mathrm{exp}})=0.92`$ and $`c(\widehat{\rho }_{qft2}^{\mathrm{exp}})=0.84.`$ The measure reflects the imperfections of the experiments, including inhomogeneity of RF fields and static magnetic fields and imperfect calibration of rotations, gradient pulses and relaxation.

In the second set of experiments, we prepared a pseudo-pure state with introduction of an observer spin and employed a further simplification of the QFT proposed by Preskill, in which no two-qubit gates are needed at all and only $`n`$ Hadamard gates and $`n1`$ single-qubit rotations are applied. Its key thoughts is the symmetry of the controlled-$`R_d`$ gate on the two qubits, and to measure a single qubit first and then apply the controlled-$`R_d`$ gate to the next qubit, conditioned on the outcome of the measurement of the qubit, instead of applying controlled-$`R_d`$ and then measuring. Of course, it is only suitable for a special state, for example, the computational basis state $`|x_3|x_2|x_1,`$ ($`x_i=0`$ or $`1`$) and the state in Eq. (7) and (9).

The pseudo-pure state $`I_{0z}I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ with introduction of an observer spin $`I_0`$ were prepared by a spatial averaging method proposed by Sakaguchi et al., the procedure shown in Table 3. We chose $`C^\alpha `$ as the obssever spin $`I_0`$ due to resolved scalar $`J`$ couplings to all other spins and $`C^{},`$ $`C^\beta `$ and $`H`$ being joined directly with $`C^\alpha `$ as Spin 1 ($`I_1`$), 2 ($`I_2`$) and 3 ($`I_3`$), respectively. The methylic hydrogen nuclei were decoupled using the continuous wave (CW) mode.

The results of the second set of experiment were shown in Fig. 4. The transitions that connect the $`I_0^\alpha `$ and $`I_0^\beta `$ manifolds of the observer spin $`I_0`$ are assigned to the computational basis states of the other spins. The readout on the observer spin $`I_0`$ can tell us which states the computational spins $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ were in. As exhibited in Fig. 4b, only one line corresponding to the $`I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ state indicated the computational spins $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ was in the $`|000`$ state. It can been seen from Fig. 4c that, after swapping Spin 1 and Spin 3, $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ was in $`|000+|100=|0+|4,`$ thus the state periodicity $`k=4`$ and the state periodicity before the QFT $`r=N/k=2`$ was deduced; From Fig. 4d, $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$, $`I_3`$ was in $`|000+|010+|100+|110,`$ hence, $`k=2`$ and deduced $`r=4`$. This simple readout method can make one quicker and more intuitive to get the results and is suitable for any number of qubits. Compared with the tomography used in the first set of experiments, which is practically feasible for no more than three qubits, it is simpler and more efficient. However, its signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is not very good and it is more demanding for the sample.

In conclusion, using the NMR techniques, the periodicity of the state can be extracted from the output state after applying the QFT, which exhibits the remarkable power of the QFT to determine the periodicity. Though the experimental imperfections cause the reduction of the fidelity, the powerful ability of quantum computers have been displayed. The QFT can be applied to many quantum algorithms and other quantum dynamics study. Recently, it has been used to implement the ordering-finding algorithm and Shor’s algorithm in NMR.

We thank Hanzheng Yuan, and Xu Zhang for help in the course of experiments.

Table 1. Measured NMR parameters for alanine dissolved in $`D_2O`$ on a Bruker ARX500 spectrometer.

| nuclei | $`\nu /Hz`$ | $`J_C^{^{}}/Hz`$ | $`J_{C^^\alpha }/Hz`$ | $`J_{C^\beta }/Hz`$ | $`J_H/Hz`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`C^{}`$ | $`4320`$ |  | $`34.94`$ | $`1.2`$ | $`5.5`$ |
| $`C^\alpha `$ | $`0`$ | $`34.94`$ |  | $`53.81`$ | $`143.21`$ |
| $`C^\beta `$ | $`15793`$ | $`1.2`$ | $`53.81`$ |  | $`5.1`$ |
| $`H`$ | $`1550`$ | $`5.5`$ | $`143.21`$ | $`5.5`$ |  |

Table 2. The pulse sequence used to obtain the pseudo-pure state $`\rho _{000}=I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ from the thermal state, $`\rho _{eq}=I_{1z}+I_{2z}+I_{3z}.`$ The refocusing $`\pi `$ pulses were omitted during the evolution $`\frac{1}{2J_{12}}`$ due to $`J_{13}<<J_{12}.`$

| Pulse Sequence for $`I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ |  |
| --- | --- |
| (1) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{3}\right]_y^2\left[\frac{5\pi }{12}\right]_y^3G_z`$ |  |
| (2) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\right]_x^1\frac{1}{2J_{12}}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\right]_y^1G_z`$ |  |
| (3) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_x^2\frac{1}{4J_{23}}\left[\pi \right]_x^1\frac{1}{4J_{23}}\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_y^2G_z`$ |  |
| (4) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_x^1\frac{1}{2J_{12}}\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_y^1G_z`$ |  |

Table 3 The pulse sequence for creating the labeled pseudo-pure state $`\rho _{000}=I_{0z}I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ from the thermal state, $`\rho _{eq}=I_{0z}+I_{1z}+I_{2z}+I_{3z}.`$ The refocusing $`\pi `$ pulses were omitted.

| Pluse Sequence for $`I_{0z}I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ |  |
| --- | --- |
| (1) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\right]_y^1\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\right]_y^2\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\right]_y^3G_z`$ |  |
| (2) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_y^0\frac{1}{2J_{01}}\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_x^0G_z`$ |  |
| (3) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_y^0\frac{1}{2J_{02}}\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_x^0G_z`$ |  |
| (4) $`\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_y^0\frac{1}{2J_{03}}\left[\frac{\pi }{4}\right]_x^0G_z`$ |  |

Figure Captions

Fig.1 Efficient circuit for three qubit quantum Fourier transform. $`H`$ represents the Hadamard gate and conditionality on a spin being in the $`|1`$ state is represented by a filled circle on its time line. The final symbol inside the box represents the swap $`S_{13}.`$

Fig.2 Experimental NMR spectra at different stages in the computation. (a) Experimentally measured thermal equilibrium spectra, acquired after a read-out pulse $`\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)_y^i`$ on spin i. (b) Experimental spectra for the pseudo-pure state $`I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha .`$ As desired, only one line is retained in each multiplet. (c) and (d) Output spectra of the QFT for the initial state $`|\psi =|0+|2+|4+|6`$ and $`|0+|4,`$ respectively. The positive (negative) lines correspond to a spin in $`|0`$ $`\left(|1\right)`$ before the readout pulse. The positive and negative lines counteract each other due to a spin in both $`|0`$ and $`|1,`$ so that no line is retained on the spin. (c) and (d) have been magnified by a factor of two for clarity.

Fig.3 Experimental deviation density matrices: (a) for the pseudo-pure state $`|000,`$ and for the states obtained after applying the QFT to the initial state $`|\psi `$ of, (b) $`|0+|2+|4+|6,`$ and (c) $`|0+|4,`$ respectively. The rows are enumerated in the standard computational basis. The left and right columns denote the real and imaginary components (in arbitrary units), respectively.

Fig.4 Experimental NMR spectra for the labeling spin $`I_0`$ at different stages during the computation. All spectra were recorded by a readout pulse $`\pi /2`$ on $`I_0.`$ (a) Experimentally measured thermal equilibrium spectra. (b) Experimental spectra for the pseudo-pure state $`I_{0z}I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$. Only the transition $`I_{0x}I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha `$ was presented, corresponding to the pure state $`I_1^\alpha I_2^\alpha I_3^\alpha .`$ (c) and (d) Output spectra of the simplified QFT for the initial state $`|\psi =|0+|2+|4+|6`$ and $`|0+|4,`$ respectively. The spectra of (b), (c) and (d) were added up 8 times by phase cycling, (c) and (d) were magnified by a factor of two and four for clarity, respectively.


text:
# Uniqueness Theorem for Static Dilaton 𝑈(1)^𝑁 Black Holes

## I Introduction

Nowadays, much effort is being devoted to the study of mathematical topics related to the black hole equilibrium states. The pioneering investigations in the subject was begun by Israel’s researches . It follows that Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström (RN) solutions are only Einstein or Einstein-Maxwell (EM) (non-extreme) solutions that satisfy the conditions of being static black hole metrics. Then, Müller zum Hagen et al.  and Robinson  presented the generalization of Israel’s theorems.

Different approach was proposed by Bunting and Masood-ul-Alam  who looked for conformal transformations on a spacelike hypersurface. Next, the positive mass theorem  enables them to draw conclusions that the considered hypersurface is conformally flat. Ruback  and Masood-ul-Alam  extended this method to EM system, while Heusler  comprised the magnetically charged RN solution. Chruściel  has finished the classification of static vacuum black holes. He removed the condition of non-degeneracy of the event horizon and showed that Schwarzschild black hole exhausted the family of all appropriately regular black hole spacetimes. He also revealed  that RN solution comprised the family of regular black hole spacetimes under the restrictive condition that all degenerate components of black hole horizon carried a charge of the same sign.

The turning point for establishing the uniqueness of stationary and axisymmetric black hole spacetimes being the solution of vacuum Einstein equations were achieved by Carter , Robinson  and Wald . The systematic way of obtaining the desire results in electromagnetic case was conceived by Mazur  and Bunting . In Mazur’s approach the key observation was that the Ernst equations depicted a sigma model on a symmetric space, while Bunting’s approach was based on using a general class of harmonic mapping between Riemaniann manifolds.
Considering $`(n1)`$ Abelian gauge charged Kerr black hole Gürses  found that it was a unique stationary black hole solution of Einstein-Abelian gauge field equations. For a review of the uniqueness of black hole solutions story see, for example  and .

Nowadays, there has been an active period of constructing black hole solutions in the string theories (see  and references therein). In  Masood-ul-Alam strengthened the method used in  to the case of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) black holes. Using a sigma model formulation of equations of motion for static dilaton black hole Gürses et al.  presented an alternative proof of the uniqueness of a static charged dilaton black holes. Uniqueness theorems for black holes are closely related to the problem of staticity. In the low-energy limit of the heterotic string theory it was studied in . In  uniqueness theorem for static dilaton $`U(1)^2`$ black holes being the solution of $`N=4,d=4`$ supergravity was presented. Black hole solutions were considered both in $`SU(4)`$ and $`SO(4)`$ versions of the underlying theory. Recently, Mars et al. , using the conformal positive mass theorem  were able to extend the uniqueness proof of dilaton black holes. The extension was valid for non-vanishing magnetic and electric charge, when the coupling constant was $`\alpha =1`$, or for arbitrary coupling constant but either vanishing magnetic or electric charge.

Our paper is organized as follows. In section II we consider static axially symmetric solution of EMD gravity with $`N`$-gauge Abelian fields. Each of the gauge potential one-form is in the direction of time and in the azimuthal angle. By means of the introduced pseudopotentials we arranged equations of motion in two complex Ernst-like relations. Using the way of proving uniqueness of solutions for non-linear sigma-models devised by Mazur  we established that two solutions of the boundary value problem were equal if they were subject to the same set of boundary and regularity conditions. As an example we showed the uniqueness of Einstein-Maxwell-axion-dilaton (EMAD) gravity black holes with axion fields being trivial. In section III we concluded our results.

## II Uniqueness Theorem

We shall consider the effective action of the low-energy string theory, Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton gravity which contains scalar field (dilaton) $`\varphi `$, Abelian gauge fields $`A_\mu ^{(i)}`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. For the sake of generality we shall prefer to leave the arbitrary number of vector fields (see, e.g., ). The action is of the form

$$I=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R2(\varphi )^2e^{2\varphi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}F_{\alpha \beta _(i)}F^{\alpha \beta (i)}\right],$$
(1)
where the strength of the $`ith`$ gauge field is described by $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}=2_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}^{(i)}`$. The resulting equations of motion, derived from the variational principle yield

$`R_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(2F_{\mu \rho (i)}F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho (i)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }F^{(i)2}\right)+2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi ,`$ (2)
$`_\mu ^\mu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}F^{(i)2}=0,`$ (3)
$`_\mu \left(e^{2\varphi }F^{\mu \nu (i)}\right)=0.`$ (4)
We introduce the static axially symmetric line element expressed as

$$ds^2=e^{2\psi }dt^2+e^{2\psi }\left[e^{2\gamma }\left(dr^2+dz^2\right)+r^2d\varphi ^2\right],$$
(5)
where $`\psi `$ and $`\gamma `$ depended only on $`r`$ and $`z`$ coordinates. The components of each gauge potential one-form $`A^{(i)}`$ will be in the direction of time and in the azimuthal angle, namely

$$A^{(i)}=A_0^{(i)}dt+A_\varphi ^{(i)}d\varphi .$$
(6)
They were also assumed to depend only on $`r`$ and $`z`$ coordinates. The resulting Eqs. of motion imply

$$^2\psi e^{2\psi 2\varphi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(A_{0,r}^{(i)2}+A_{0,z}^{(i)2}\right)\frac{e^{2\psi 2\varphi }}{r^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(A_{\varphi ,r}^{(i)2}+A_{\varphi ,z}^{(i)2}\right)=0,$$
(7)
$$^2\varphi e^{2\psi 2\varphi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(A_{0,r}^{(i)2}+A_{0,z}^{(i)2}\right)+\frac{e^{2\psi 2\varphi }}{r^2}\left(A_{\varphi ,r}^{(i)2}+A_{\varphi ,z}^{(i)2}\right)=0,$$
(8)
$$_r\left(re^{2\psi 2\varphi }A_{0,r}^{(i)}\right)+_z\left(re^{2\psi 2\varphi }A_{0,z}^{(i)}\right)=0.$$
(9)
$$_r\left(\frac{e^{2\psi 2\varphi }}{r}A_{\varphi ,r}^{(i)}\right)+_z\left(\frac{e^{2\psi 2\varphi }}{r}A_{\varphi ,z}^{(i)}\right)=0.$$
(10)
$$\frac{\gamma _{,z}}{r}2\psi _{,r}\psi _{,z}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(2e^{2\psi 2\varphi }A_{0,r}^{(i)}A_{(i)0,z}+\frac{2}{r^2}e^{2\psi 2\varphi }A_{(i)\varphi ,r}A_{\varphi ,z}^{(i)}\right)+2\varphi _{,r}\varphi _{,z},$$
(11)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(e^{2\psi 2\varphi }\left(A_{0,r}^{(i)2}A_{0,z}^{(i)2}\right)+\frac{1}{r^2}e^{2\psi 2\varphi }\left(A_{\varphi ,r}^{(i)2}A_{\varphi ,z}^{(i)2}\right)\right)+\left(\varphi _{,z}^2\varphi _{,r}^2\right)=\psi _{,r}^2\psi _{,z}^2\frac{\gamma _{,r}}{r},$$
(12)
Because of the fact that $`\gamma `$ may be determined if we know $`\psi ,\varphi ,A_0^{(i)}`$ and $`A_\varphi ^{(i)}`$, the essential part of the above system consists of equations (7-10). Let us define the quantities

$$E=\varphi \psi ,B+\mathrm{ln}r=\psi \varphi ,$$
(13)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_0^{(i)}=\sqrt{2}A_0^{(i)},\stackrel{~}{A}_\varphi ^{(i)}=\sqrt{2}A_\varphi ^{(i)}.$$
(14)
Having in mind (13) and (14) we can combine relations (7) and (8) as follows:

$$^2E+e^{2E}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_0^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{A}_0^{(i)}=0,$$
(15)
$$^2Be^{2B}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\varphi ^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{A}_\varphi ^{(i)}=0,$$
(16)
Inspection of (9) enables us to define a pseudopotential $`\omega _{(i)}`$ in the form

$$\omega _{(i)r}=re^{2E}\stackrel{~}{A}_{0,z}^{(i)},\omega _{(i)z}=re^{2E}\stackrel{~}{A}_{0,r}^{(i)}.$$
(17)
Our main aim is to rewrite relations (15-16) in the forms similar to the Ernst’s equations. In order to do so we introduce the complex functions defined as:

$$ϵ_{1(i)}=(re^E)_{(i)}+i\sqrt{N}\omega _{(i)},$$
(18)
and

$$ϵ_{2(i)}=(e^B)_{(i)}+i\sqrt{N}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi (i)}.$$
(19)
Now equations (15)-(16) and (9)-(10) can be arranged into two complex, Ernst like relations

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(ϵ_{1(i)}+\overline{ϵ}_{1(i)}\right)^2ϵ_1^{(i)}=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ_{1(i)}ϵ_1^{(i)},$$
(20)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(ϵ_{2(i)}+\overline{ϵ}_{2(i)}\right)^2ϵ_2^{(i)}=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ_{2(i)}ϵ_2^{(i)}.$$
(21)
Equations (20) and (21) can be obtained by the variation of the Lagrangian density

$$_m=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{ϵ_{m(i)}\overline{ϵ}_m^{(i)}}{\left(ϵ_{m(i)}+\overline{ϵ}_{m(i)}\right)^2},$$
(22)
where $`m=1,2`$. We can change the formulation of the system by the homographic change of the variables we should have in mind that everything what will follow will be valid for both $`ϵ_{1(i)}`$ and $`ϵ_{2(i)}`$. Therefore from this stage on for the simplicity of notation we shall drop the index $`1`$ and $`2`$. Consistently with this remark, we have

$$ϵ_{(i)}=\frac{\xi _i1}{\xi _i+1},$$
(23)
where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The Lagrangian density can be expressed as

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i}{\left(\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i1\right)^2}.$$
(24)
The requirement of the positivity of $`\left(ϵ_{(i)}+\overline{ϵ}_{(i)}\right)^2`$ implies that $`\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i1>0`$, and the Lagrangian density defines the Bergmann metric $`g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ on the bounded symmetric domain in $`C^N`$. The metric becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\left(1z_\alpha \overline{z}^{\overline{\alpha }}\right)^2}dz_\alpha d\overline{z}^{\overline{\alpha }},$$
(25)
where $`z_\alpha =\xi _\alpha `$. Defining new variables $`\xi _a=v_a/v_0`$, where $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$ we can easily rewrite $``$ in the following form:

$$=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(v_a)v_0(v_0)v_a^2}{\left(v_a\overline{v}^av_0\overline{v}^0\right)^2}$$
(26)
The above Lagrangian density takes the manifestly $`SU(N,1)`$ invariant form described as follows:

$$=\frac{\left[\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha (\overline{v}^\beta v_\beta )\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha (\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha )\right]}{\left(\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha \right)^2},$$
(27)
where $`\alpha =0,1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=diag(1,\mathrm{},1)`$. A complex vector $`v_\alpha `$ determines the projector

$$P_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{v_\alpha \overline{v}^\beta }{\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha },$$
(28)
possessing the following properties:

$$TrP=\mathrm{𝟏},P^2=P,\left(\eta _{\alpha \beta }P^{\alpha \beta }\right)^{}=\eta _{\alpha \beta }P^{\alpha \beta },$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit matrix. Definition of $`P_\alpha ^\beta `$ enables one to prove the identity

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(P_{\alpha \beta }P^{\alpha \beta }\right)=\frac{1}{(\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha )^2}\left[\overline{v}^\alpha v_\alpha \overline{v}^\gamma v_\gamma \overline{v}^\delta v_\delta \overline{v}^\beta v_\beta \right].$$
(30)
Let us introduce next a matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{𝟏}2P`$. One can verify the following relation:

$$\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^1\right)=2Tr(PP).$$
(31)
The matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive and hermitian. Defining the quantity $`j_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ one can see that the Lagrangian density may be written as $`=1/8j_\mu j^\mu `$. The Eqs. of motion for sigma-model are of the form

$$_\mu j^\mu =0.$$
(32)
Using the definition of $`\xi _\alpha `$ one can write $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ in the Ernst’s parameterization as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{2\xi _\alpha \overline{\xi }_\beta }{\overline{\xi }^\alpha \xi _\alpha }.$$
(33)
In particular for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i& 2\overline{\xi }_1& 2\overline{\xi }_2& \mathrm{}& 2\overline{\xi }_N\\ 2\xi _1& 1+\xi _1\overline{\xi }_1\underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i& 2\xi _1\overline{\xi }_2& \mathrm{}& 2\xi _1\overline{\xi }_N\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 2\xi _N& 2\xi _N\overline{\xi }_1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\xi _i\overline{\xi }^i+\xi _N\overline{\xi }^N\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
The most difficult part in proving the uniqueness theorem is to show that two solutions of the boundary value problem are equal if they are subject to the same set of boundary and regularity conditions. We shall follow the method used for the first time in  to prove the above. To establish the uniqueness of solutions of the Ernst equations (20) and (21) we have to calculate the exact form of $`Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2{}_{}{}^{1})`$ in terms of $`E_{1,2},\omega _{(i)1,2}`$ and $`B_{1,2},\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi (i)1,2}`$. After a straightforward calculations one finds, respectively,

$`q(E,\omega _{(i)})`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }(E,\omega )_1\mathrm{\Phi }(E,\omega )_2{}_{}{}^{1})=\eta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2e^{E_1+E_2}}}[(\omega _{(i)1}\omega _{(i)2})(\omega _1^{(i)}\omega _2^{(i)})+r^2(e^{E_1}e^{E_2})^2],`$ (35)
$`q(B,\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi (i)})`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }(B,\stackrel{~}{A}_\varphi )_1\mathrm{\Phi }(B,\stackrel{~}{A}_\varphi )_2{}_{}{}^{1})=`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\eta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{(B_1+B_2)}}}[(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi (i)1}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi (i)2})(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi 1}^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\varphi 2}^{(i)})+(e^{B_1}e^{B_2})^2].`$ (37)
Let us now proceed to the uniqueness proof.
To prove the uniqueness let us consider two solutions to the $`\sigma `$-model equations, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ being subject to the same boundary conditions. Next, define $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^1`$ and evaluate the Laplacian, and take the trace of this relation. One obtains a relation of the form

$`Tr\left(_\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)+Tr[\mathrm{\Phi }(_\mu (j^{\mu (2)})_\mu (j^{\mu (1)})]=`$ (38)
$`Tr\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\left(j_\alpha ^{(1)}j^{\alpha (1)}+j_\alpha ^{(2)}j^{\alpha (2)}2j_\alpha ^{(2)}j^{\alpha (1)}\right)\right],`$ (39)
where $`j_\alpha ^{(i)}=_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)1}`$. Having in mind the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Hermitian positive definite matrix we can decompose $`\mathrm{\Phi }=gg^{}`$, where $`gSU(N,1)`$, one can find that the right-hand side of (38) can be rearrange in the form $`RHS=Tr(AA^{})0`$, where $`A=g_2^1(j^{(1)}j^{(2)})g_1`$ .

Applying Stoke’s theorem to Eq.(38) one obtains

$$_S𝑑STr\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\left(_\mu j^{\mu (2)}_\mu j^{\mu (1)}\right)\right]+_S𝑑S^\mu _\mu \left(Tr\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=_S𝑑STr\left(A_\mu A^\mu \right)0,$$
(40)
where $`dS^\mu `$ denotes the components of the metric normal surface element.
The above identity serves to complete the proof of uniqueness theorem. The first term on the left-hand side of (40) vanishes identically because of fulfilling equations of motion on the boundary $`S`$. The second term vanishes if the boundary conditions are taken into account. On the other hand, the right-hand side integral is non-negative. Since the left-hand side integral over the region $`S`$ vanishes, then the right-hand side of relation (40) must vanish identically on the solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. Thus vanishing of the right-hand side implies that $`Tr\mathrm{\Phi }=const`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. In our case from (35) and (37) $`const=\eta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }=N`$. We arrive at the result:
Theorem:
Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ be the solution of sigma model equations on $`SU(N,1)/S(U(N)\times U(1))`$ with two-dimensional base manifold satisfying the equations of motion for sigma model $`_\mu j^\mu =0`$. Moreover, let $`_\mu (Tr\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^1`$ on the boundary $`S`$ of the region $`S`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ in all region $`S`$ provided that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(p)=\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p)`$ for at least one point $`pS`$.

In  we considered black hole solutions in which each gauge field has either electric or magnetic charge. The above proof enables us to generalize the uniqueness of black solutions to solutions in which both gauge fields have electric and magnetic charge (this is $`N=2`$ case in the present derivation). As an example one can consider black holes appearing in the doubly charged electro-magnetic solution of EMAD gravity with axion field being trivial . The effective action for this theory is as follows:

$`I_{EMAD}={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[R2(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{4\varphi }(a)^2`$ $``$ $`e^{2\varphi }\left(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }+G_{\alpha \beta }G^{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`a(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu })],`$ (42)
where $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ are two $`U(1)`$ fields and the dual of an antisymmetric tensor is defined as $`F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$ for $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ and in the same manner for $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ .
Equations of motion yield

$`^2\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{4\varphi }(a)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }\left(F^2+G^2\right)=0,`$ (43)
$`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0,_\mu G^{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (44)
$`_\mu \left(e^{2\varphi }F^{\mu \nu }+aF^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,`$ (45)
$`_\mu \left(e^{2\varphi }G^{\mu \nu }+aG^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,`$ (46)
$`_\mu \left(e^{4\varphi }^\mu a\right)\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,`$ (47)
$`R_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\varphi }[\left(2F_{\mu \rho }F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }F^2\right)+\left(2G_{\mu \rho }G_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }G^2\right)]+2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{4\varphi }_\mu a_\nu a.`$ (48)
Having in mind equations of motion derived from (41) we see that this is the case of two gauge one-form potentials $`A^{(1)}`$ and $`A^{(2)}`$ corresponds to the case when axion field is equal to zero. We remark that our proof comprises also the case studied by Ortin , when axion field is trivial (being constant). But in this case the auxiliary condition appears, namely $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

## III Conclusions

In our work we have studied EMD gravity with $`N`$ gauge fields, being the generalization of the simple EMD gravity with one gauge field widely studied in literature. We were interested in uniqueness theorem for black hole solutions in the considered theory. It was assumed that the gauge potential one-form $`A^{(i)}`$ has two components, in the direction of time and the azimuthal angle. Finding the adequate pseudopotentials we managed to assemble the equations of motion in two Ernst’s like relations. Using the idea of Mazur  that these equations described a non-linear sigma model on the symmetric space we established the uniqueness of black hole solutions.

In  we considered black hole solutions where the gauge fields have either electric or magnetic charge. A natural generalization of these solution is to consider the case when the gauge fields have both electric and magnetic charges. The present proof enables one to treat this case and to find the uniqueness of such solutions .

On the other hand, when we consider the doubly charged black hole solutions in EMAD gravity with axion field being trivial , one should fulfill the auxiliary condition of the form $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }=0`$. Then, for $`N=2`$ one has the uniqueness of the black hole solution in this theory. Of course, the challenge is to prove the uniqueness theorem when axion fields are arbitrary. We hope to return to this problem elsewhere.

Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank the unknown referees for useful comments.
MR was supported in part by KBN grant 5 P03B 009 21.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the conventional approach to quantum mechanics, that is the wave function description , the peculiarities of the quantum behaviour of a system of identical particles are encoded in the symmetry properties of the wave functions. The description in terms of density operators  also implies, for the density matrices associated to the states of identical particles, definite symmetry properties. Nevertheless both the descriptions are very different from the approach of classical statistical mechanics in terms of probability distributions defined on the phase space of the system. The wish to render the quantum picture closer to the classical one gave rise to hidden variables theories  and to the introduction of the Wigner quasi-distribution function on phase space  obeying to the Moyal equation . The same aim of describing quantum states in terms of a classical distribution of probability determined then the introduction of another class of quasi-distributions for the quantum states . In 1969 Cahill and Glauber  considered a set of s-ordered quasi-distribution functions that further generalized the quasi-probability distribution functions previously introduced by Wigner, Husimi, Glauber and Sudarshan. They also showed that for each quantum state one can find some probability distribution which is determined by the density operator of the given state. But it was not clear whether or not such probability distribution determined uniquely the density operator, that is, whether or not the map was invertible. Only recently it was realized that quantum mechanics could be described completely in terms of this kind of probability distributions suitably defined for a random variable . In  a consistent scheme has been proposed, the so-called probability representation, that results completely equivalent, in the sense of invertibility, to the ordinary formulation of quantum mechanics: the quantum states are described by a tomographic distribution of probability, or tomogram, also known as marginal distribution function (MDF), and the evolution of the system is described by an integro-differential equation for the MDF of generalized Fokker-Planck type. The probability representation of quantum mechanics uses as a mathematical tool the symplectic tomography map  of density operators onto quadrature probability distributions. For a general approach to tomograms and quasi-distributions of quantum states see also  and, with the inclusion of spin, .

In the case of identical particles it is well known that they obey either Bose or Fermi statistics. As a result the wave function describing the system must be symmetrized or antisymmetrized respectively. Because the states of a physical system belong to a vector space and are, consequently, linearly superposable, it results quite easy to implement the two types of statistics in the ordinary quantum mechanics considering, for example, the wave functions of the system as a basis for a representation of the permutation group. On the other hand, in the probability representation of quantum states one needs to know what is the behaviour of the tomographic probability distributions for systems of identical particles. The aim of our article is the formulation of the symmetry properties of the tomograms for systems of identical particles.

In the following we use the relation between the MDF and the density matrix to construct the action of the permutation group on the marginal distribution functions. Because the set of the MDFs is not a vector space (see for example  where a superposition principle was formulated for both the sets of density matrices and tomograms) we obtain a realization, and not a representation, of the permutation group on the MDFs. In this way we can introduce the completely symmetrized and antisymmetrized marginal distribution function.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review the realization of the permutation group on the set of density matrices and in section 3 we derive the corresponding realization on the set of MDFs. For the sake of clarity we work explicitly on the case of two identical particles and then we extend the results to $`n`$ particles in section 4. In section 5 we describe a simple application and finally the concluding remarks.

## 2 The permutation group of the density matrix

Identical particles obey either Bose or Fermi statistics. This property implies two specific behaviours of the wave function of two identical particles: it must be symmetric in the case of Bose-particles, antisymmetric for Fermi-particles. These properties are more precisely described by means of the permutation group representation theory. To have a model let us concentrate on the system of two one dimensional particles whose positions are $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ respectively. The corresponding wave function, $`\psi (x_1,x_2)`$, can be decomposed into the sum of a symmetric and an antisymmetric function:

$`\psi (x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\psi (x_1,x_2)+\psi (x_2,x_1))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\psi (x_1,x_2)\psi (x_2,x_1))=`$
$`\psi _+(x_1,x_2)+\psi _{}(x_1,x_2)`$ (2.1)
This decomposition may be related to the irreducible representation of the permutation group $`G=(\widehat{E},\widehat{p}_{12})`$, where $`\widehat{E}`$ is the identity of the group and $`\widehat{p}_{12}`$ represents the operation of permutation of the coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ i.e.

$`\widehat{E}\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_1,x_2);`$
$`\widehat{p}_{12}\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x_2,x_1).`$ (2.2)
The table of characters of the representations of the permutation group of two elements has the form

$`\widehat{E}`$ $`\widehat{p}_{12}`$
$`1`$ $`1`$ (2.3)
$`1`$ $`1`$
It means that the decomposition (2.1) is connected with the irreducible representations (2.2) through the following formulas:

$`\widehat{E}\psi _\pm (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`+1\psi _+(x_1,x_2)`$
$`\widehat{p}_{12}\psi _\pm (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 1\psi _+(x_1,x_2).`$ (2.4)
Thus the two functions $`\psi _+`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ realize a basis of the one-dimensional representation of the permutation group. We say that identical particles with symmetric wave function are described by means of the symmetric representation of $`G`$, while identical particles with antisymmetric wave function by means of the antisymmetric one.

The density matrix $`\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ of a pure state of two particles with wave function $`\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ has the form

$$\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})=\psi (x_1,x_2)\psi ^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})$$
(2.5)
thus we can extend the action of the permutation group to the set of density matrices because the coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$ and $`x_1^{},x_2^{}`$ can be permuted independently. This means that the group $`\stackrel{~}{G}=GG`$ which is the direct product of the permutation groups of two elements is the one related to the symmetry properties of the density matrix. $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ contains four elements:

$$\widehat{I}=\widehat{E}\widehat{E},\widehat{P}_{12}=\widehat{p}_{12}\widehat{E},\widehat{P^{}}_{12}=\widehat{E}\widehat{p}_{12},\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}=\widehat{p}_{12}\widehat{p}_{12}.$$
(2.6)
The action of the four elements on the density matrix (2.5) is defined as follows:

$`\widehat{I}\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ (2.7)
$`\widehat{P}_{12}\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (x_2,x_1,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ (2.8)
$`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (x_1,x_2,x_2^{},x_1^{})`$ (2.9)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (x_2,x_1,x_2^{},x_1^{}).`$ (2.10)
Using the multiplication table of the group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$:

|  | $`\widehat{I}`$ | $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\widehat{I}`$ | $`\widehat{I}`$ | $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ |
| $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{I}`$ | $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ |
| $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{I}`$ | $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ |
| $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{I}`$ |

we may construct a realization through the action of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ on the following distributions:

$`\rho _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{I}\rho +\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho +\widehat{P}_{12}\rho +\widehat{P^{}}_{12}\rho \right)`$ (2.11)
$`\rho _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{I}\rho +\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho \widehat{P}_{12}\rho \widehat{P^{}}_{12}\rho \right)`$ (2.12)
$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{I}\rho \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho +\widehat{P}_{12}\rho \widehat{P^{}}_{12}\rho \right)`$ (2.13)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{I}\rho \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho \widehat{P}_{12}\rho +\widehat{P^{}}_{12}\rho \right).`$ (2.14)
It is easy to see that such an action is given by:

|  | $`\widehat{I}`$ | $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{P^{}}_{12}`$ | $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{12}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\rho _+`$ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| $`\rho _{}`$ | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
| $`\rho _1`$ | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| $`\rho _2`$ | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 . |

Incidentally we note that $`\rho _+`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ are also obtained as:

$`\rho _+(x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})=\psi _+(x_1,x_2)\psi _+^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})=`$ (2.15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[(\psi (x_1,x_2)\psi ^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})+\psi (x_2,x_1)\psi ^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})+\psi (x_1,x_2)\psi ^{}(x_2^{},x_1^{})+\psi (x_2,x_1)\psi ^{}(x_2^{},x_1^{})],`$
and

$`\rho _{}(x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})=\psi _{}(x_1,x_2)\psi _{}^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})=`$ (2.16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\psi (x_1,x_2)\psi ^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})\psi (x_2,x_1)\psi ^{}(x_1^{},x_2^{})\psi (x_1,x_2)\psi ^{}(x_2^{},x_1^{})+\psi (x_2,x_1)\psi ^{}(x_2^{},x_1^{})\right]`$
that is $`\rho _+`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ are the usual density matrices respectively associated to the usual symmetric and antisymmetric wave functions. (Here and in the whole paper everything is obtained for pure states but because of the linearity of the mixtures of pure states we can easily generalise to the density matrices of arbitrary mixed states of two particles.)

Thus, what we have done so far is to extend the action of the permutation group (which we know for the space of the wave functions) to the space of density matrices (Eqs. (2.7)-(2.10)) by means of Eq. (2.5) which links in a simple way the density matrices to the wave functions. The natural generalization of this procedure, that is the definition of the action of the permutation group on the space of tomograms through the expression of tomograms in terms of density matrices, is not so simple since such a relation is an integral transform. This implies that the density matrices and the MDFs depend on different variables and, as we will see in the next section, it is not clear what is the action of the permutation group on the new variables. We follow then a different approach which we illustrate preliminarly for the space of the density matrices. What we are looking for is an expression of the symmetrized and antisymmetrized density matrices in integral form and, more precisely, we search for a realization of the permutation group in terms of integral kernels. Starting from Eqs. (2.7), (2.10) it is easy to realize that

$`\rho _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{\rho (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{})+\rho (x_1,x_2,x_2^{},x_1^{})\pm \left[\rho (x_2,x_1,x_1^{},x_2^{})+\rho (x_1,x_2,x_2^{},x_1^{})\right]\right\}`$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }dy_1dy_2dy_1^{}dy_2^{}\{\delta _{y_1,x_1}\delta _{y_2,x_2}\delta _{y_1^{},x_1^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_2^{}}+\delta _{y_1,x_2}\delta _{y_2,x_1}\delta _{y_1^{},x_2^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_1^{}}+`$
$`\pm `$ $`[\delta _{y_1,x_2}\delta _{y_2,x_1}\delta _{y_1^{},x_1^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_2^{}}+\delta _{y_1,x_1}\delta _{y_2,x_2}\delta _{y_1^{},x_2^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_1^{}}]\}\rho (y_1,y_2,y_1^{},y_2^{}),`$
with $`\delta _{y_i,x_j}=\delta (y_ix_j)`$, that is

$$\rho _\pm (x_1,x_2;x_1^{},x_2^{})=K_\pm (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{};y_1,y_2,y_1^{},y_2^{})\rho (y_1,y_2;y_1^{},y_2^{})𝑑y_1𝑑y_2𝑑y_1^{}𝑑y_2^{},$$
(2.18)
with the kernel

$`K_\pm (x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{};y_1,y_2,y_1^{},y_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{\delta _{y_1,x_1}\delta _{y_2,x_2}\delta _{y_1^{},x_1^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_2^{}}+\delta _{y_1,x_2}\delta _{y_2,x_1}\delta _{y_1^{},x_2^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_1^{}}\pm `$ (2.19)
$`[\delta _{y_1,x_2}\delta _{y_2,x_1}\delta _{y_1^{},x_1^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_2^{}}+\delta _{y_1,x_1}\delta _{y_2,x_2}\delta _{y_1^{},x_2^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_1^{}}]\}.`$
Defining the permutation operator as

$$P_{j_1,j_2\mathrm{},j_n}f(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=f(x_{j_1},x_{j_2},\mathrm{},x_{j_n})$$
(2.20)
we can write the kernel as:

$$K_\pm (x,x^{}|y,y^{})_2=\frac{1}{(2!)^2}(I\pm P_{12})(I\pm P_{12}^{})\delta _{y_1,x_1}\delta _{y_2,x_2}\delta _{y_1^{},x_1^{}}\delta _{y_2^{},x_2^{}}$$
(2.21)
where $`(x,x^{}|y,y^{})_2(x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{};y_1,y_2,y_1^{},y_2^{})`$ and we assume that $`P,P^{}`$ act on $`x`$, $`x^{}`$ respectively. Analogously we may define the kernels $`K_1,K_2`$ associated to the density matrices $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$. In this way we obtain a realization of the permutation group in terms of integral kernels. This approach is absolutely equivalent to the one previously described but it is the one we need to implement the symmetry properties in the MDF framework.

## 3 The permutation group of the MDF

We are now in the position to extend the previous procedure to the tomographic probability distribution, but we first need a brief review of the theory.

The MDF of a random variable $`X`$ is defined in  as the Fourier transform of the quantum characteristic function $`\chi (k)=<e^{ik\widehat{X}}>`$:

$$w(X,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑ke^{ikX}<e^{ik\widehat{X}}>$$
(3.1)
where $`\widehat{X}`$ is the operator associated to $`X`$, and, for each observable $`\widehat{O},<\widehat{O}>=Tr(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{O})`$ with $`\widehat{\rho }`$ the time-dependent density operator. The MDF so defined is positive and normalized to unity, provided $`\widehat{X}`$ is an observable .

In Ref.  it is shown that by taking

$$X=\mu q+\nu p,$$
(3.2)
with $`q`$ and $`p`$ two conjugate variables and $`\mu ,\nu `$ real parameters labelling different reference frames in phase space, $`w(X,\mu ,\nu ,t)`$ is normalized with respect to the $`X`$ variable and there exists an invertible relation among the MDF and the density matrix. The variable $`X`$ represents the position coordinate taking values in an ensemble of reference frames. Equation (3.1) may be rewritten in the more convenient form

$$w(X,\mu ,\nu ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi |\nu |\mathrm{}}\rho (Z^{},Z^{\prime \prime },t)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{Z^{}Z^{\prime \prime }}{\nu \mathrm{}}\left(X\mu \frac{Z^{}+Z^{\prime \prime }}{2}\right)\right]𝑑Z^{}𝑑Z^{\prime \prime }$$
(3.3)
and its inverse is represented by

$$\rho (X,X^{},t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }w(Y,\mu ,XX^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(Y\mu \frac{X+X^{}}{2}\right)\right]𝑑\mu 𝑑Y$$
(3.4)
It is important to note that, for (3.3) to be invertible, it is necessary that $`X`$ be a coordinate variable taking values in an ensemble of phase spaces; in other words, the specific choice $`\mu =1,\nu =0`$ or any other fixing of the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ would not allow to reconstruct the density matrix. Hence, the MDF contains the same amount of information on a quantum state as the density matrix, only if Eq. (3.2) is assumed.

For Hamiltonians of the form

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(q)$$
(3.5)
an evolution equation governing the time dependence of the MDF is available (see ref.  for a simple derivation)

$`_tw(X,\mu ,\nu ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[V((_X)^1_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i\nu \mathrm{}}{2}}_X)`$ (3.6)
$``$ $`V((_X)^1_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i\nu \mathrm{}}{2}}_X)]\}w(X,\mu ,\nu ,t)`$
where the inverse derivative is defined as

$$(_X)^1f(Z)e^{g(Z)X}𝑑Z=\frac{f(Z)}{g(Z)}e^{g(Z)X}𝑑Z.$$
(3.7)
The evolution equation, of generalized Fokker-Plank type, plays the rôle of the Schrödinger equation in the alternative scheme we are outlining. Its classical limit is easily seen to be

$$\dot{w}(X,\mu ,\nu ,t)=\left\{\frac{\mu }{m}\frac{}{\nu }+\nu V^{}\left(\left(\frac{}{X}\right)^1\frac{}{\mu }\right)\frac{}{X}\right\}w(X,\mu ,\nu ,t),$$
(3.8)
where $`V^{}`$ is the derivative of the potential with respect to the argument. Equation (3.8) may be checked to be equivalent to Boltzmann equation for a classical distribution of probability $`f(q,p,t)`$ ,

$$\frac{f}{t}+\frac{p}{m}\frac{f}{q}\frac{V}{q}\frac{f}{p}=0,$$
(3.9)
after performing the change of variables

$$w(X,\mu ,\nu ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }f(q,p,t)e^{ik(X\mu q\nu p)}𝑑k𝑑q𝑑p;$$
(3.10)
Hence, the classical and quantum evolution equations only differ by terms of higher order in $`\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, for potentials quadratic in $`\widehat{q}`$, higher order terms cancel out and the quantum evolution equation coincides with the classical one. This leads to the remarkable result that there is no difference between the evolution of the distributions of probability for quantum and classical observables, when the system is described by a Hamiltonian quadratic in positions and momenta. The generalization to $`N`$ particles and eventually to field theory is straightforward and may be found in ref. .

The scheme just outlined is selfconsistent and doesn’t require at any step external structures such as the wave function or the density matrix. In this sense the probability description of quantum mechanics in terms of tomograms, once completely formulated, has to furnish a perfectly equivalent scheme to conventional ones . Thus, it appears quite natural to investigate the symmetry properties of the MDF of identical particles with respect to permutations. To this regard we discuss for simplicity the case of two particles, while a generalization will be exhibited in the next section.

From eq. (3.3) the MDF of two identical particles is represented by:

$$w(\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1;\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2)=k_2D_2(z;z^{})\times e^{i[\alpha _1+\alpha _2]}\rho (z_1,z_2;z_1^{},z_2^{};t)$$
(3.11)
where we have defined

* $`\alpha _i=\frac{z_iz_i^{}}{|\nu _i|\mathrm{}}\left[\xi _i\mu _i\frac{z_i+z_i^{}}{2}\right]`$,
* $`D_n(z;z^{};x;\mathrm{};y)=(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^ndz_i)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^ndz_i^{})(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^ndx_i)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^ndy_i)`$,
* $`k_n\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}|\nu _i|}`$;

and the time-dependence has been omitted. We note that because

$$\rho (z_1,z_2;z_1^{},z_2^{})=\rho _1(z_1,z_1^{})\rho _2(z_2,z_2^{})$$
(3.12)
the tomogram of a system of two particles factorizes as:

$$w(\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1;\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2)=w_1(\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1)w_2(\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2)$$
(3.13)
with

$$w_i(\xi _i,\mu _i,\nu _i)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}|\nu _i|}𝑑z_i𝑑z_i^{}e^{i\alpha _i}\rho _i(z_i,z_i^{}).$$
(3.14)
Therefore it seems natural to identify the MDF relative to symmetrized and antisymmetrized states as

$$w_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2:=k_2D_2(z;z^{})e^{i[\alpha _1+\alpha _2]}\rho _\pm (z|z^{})_2$$
(3.15)
with $`(\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_n(\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1;\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2;\mathrm{}\xi _n,\mu _n,\nu _n)`$ (in the same way we may define $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ as the tomograms associated to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$.

From (2.18), which represents $`\rho _\pm `$ in terms of the integral kernel, we can write (3.15) in the form

$$w_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2=k_2D_2(z,y;z^{},y^{})K_\pm (y,y^{}|z,z^{})_2e^{i[\alpha _1+\alpha _2]}\rho (y|y^{})_2,$$
(3.16)
then, using the inverse formula (3.4) for the case of two particles

$$\rho (y|y^{})_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}D_2(m,x)e^{i[\beta _1+\beta _2]}w(x,m,yy^{})_2$$
(3.17)
with $`\beta _i=x_im_i\frac{y_i+y_i^{}}{2}`$ we obtain

$`w_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2={\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle D_2(y,y^{},z,z^{},x,m,n)\delta _{n_1,y_1y_1^{}}\delta _{n_2,y_2y_2^{}}}`$
$`e^{i[\alpha _1+\alpha _2]}e^{i[\beta _1+\beta _2]}K_\pm (y,y;z,z^{})_2w(x,m,n)_2`$
$`={\displaystyle }D_2(x,m,n)\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }D_2(y,y^{},z,z^{})\delta _{n_1,y_1y_1^{}}\delta _{n_2,y_2y_2^{}}`$
$`e^{i[\alpha _1+\alpha _2]}e^{i[\beta _1+\beta _2]}K_\pm (y,y^{};z,z^{})_2\}w(x,m,n)_2.`$ (3.18)
Thus the tomographic probability distribution corresponding to a symmetric or antisymmetric state of two particles may be finally written as

$$w_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2=D_2(x,m,n)\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu |x,m,n)_2w(x,m,n)_2$$
(3.19)
with the kernel $`\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm `$ given by

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu |x,m,n)_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle D_2(y,y^{};z,z^{})\delta _{n_1,y_1y_1^{}}\delta _{n_2,y_2y_2^{}}}`$ (3.20)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)+i(\beta _1+\beta _2)]K_\pm (y,y^{}|z,z^{})_2.`$
Also in this case it is straightforward but not particularly illuminating to derive the integral kernels $`\stackrel{~}{K}_1,\stackrel{~}{K}_2`$, associated to $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$, which complete the realization of the permutation group on the space of tomograms.

## 4 Generalization to $`N`$ particles

The generalization to N particles is now straightforward: we define the kernel $`K_\pm (y,y^{};z,z^{})_n`$ as the following:

$`K_\pm (y,y^{};z,z^{})_n`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n!)^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}ϵ_PP_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{P^{}}{}}ϵ_P^{}P_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{}\right)`$ (4.1)
$`\times `$ $`\delta _{y_1,x_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{y_n,x_n}\delta _{y_1^{},x_1^{}}\delta _{y_n^{},x_n^{}}`$
where $`ϵ_P`$ and $`ϵ_P^{}`$ are equal to 1 in the symmetric case, while representing, in the antysymmetric case, the sign of the permutations $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ respectively. Therefore we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_n=\frac{k_n}{(2\pi )^n}D_n(y,y^{},z,z^{})\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^n\delta _{n_j,y_jy_j^{}}e^{i\alpha _j}e^{i\beta _j}\right]K_\pm (y,y^{};z,,z^{})_n$$
(4.2)
so that we find

$$w_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_n=D_n(t,m,n)\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu |t,m,n)_nw(x,m,n)_n.$$
(4.3)
We may introduce a sort of generalized Slater determinant  to obtain $`K_\pm `$, and, by means of (4.2), $`\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm `$. We define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (y|x)_n=\frac{1}{n!}\begin{array}{cccc}\delta _{y_1,x_1}& \delta _{y_1,x_2}& \mathrm{}& \delta _{y_1,x_n}\\ \delta _{y_2,x_1}& \delta _{y_2,x_2}& \mathrm{}& \delta _{y_2,x_n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \delta _{y_n,x_1}& \delta _{y_n,x_2}& \mathrm{}& \delta _{y_n,x_n}\end{array}$$
(4.4)
with the convention that for the symmetric case we take always the plus sign in computing the determinant. In this way we can write the kernel $`K_\pm (y,y^{}|z,z^{})`$ in a more conventional manner as:

$$K_\pm (y,y^{};z,z^{})_n:=\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (y|z)_n\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (y^{}|z^{})_n.$$
(4.5)
Summarizing, we have succeeded in realizing the symmetric and antisymmetric tomographic probability distribution associated to a system of $`N`$ identical particles, eq. (4.3), in terms of the integral kernel (4.2). This result fits into the selfconsistent scheme outlined at the beginning of this section in the sense of yielding a realization of the permutation group on the space of tomograms which doesn’t require additional structures to be defined. In the forthcoming section we will see in concrete how it works on an example and we will check the invertibility retriwing the well known expressions for the symmetric and antysimmetric density matrices associated to a system of oscillators.

## 5 Application

Let us consider as an example the case of two independent harmonic oscillators. For this system the time-evolution equation (3.6) has been solved in ref.  and the solutions have the following expression:

$$w_{nm}(x,\mu ,\nu )_2=\frac{e^{y_1^2y_2^2}}{\pi |r_1r_2|n!m!2^{n+m}}H_n^2(y_1)H_m^2(y_2)$$
(5.1)
where $`r_j=e^{it}(\mu _j+i\nu _j)`$, $`y_j=x_j/|r_j|,j=1,2`$ and $`H_n(y)`$ and $`H_m(y)`$ are the Hermite polynomials of order $`n`$ and $`m`$ respectively.

For the two-dimensional case the kernel may be obtained in a closed form by integrating Eq. (3.20) over the $`z,z^{}`$ and the $`y,y^{}`$ variables. After some lengthy calculation we are able to write

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm (\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2`$ $`=`$ $`f(\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1;\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2)+f(\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2;\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1)`$ (5.2)
$`\pm `$ $`\left[g(\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1;\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2)+g(\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2;\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1)\right]`$
with

* $`f(\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2;\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1)=\frac{k_2}{4}\delta \left(m_1\frac{\mu _1n_1}{\nu _1}\right)\delta \left(m_2\frac{\mu _2n_2}{\nu _2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(x_1+x_2\frac{n_1}{\nu _1}\xi _1\frac{n_2}{\nu _2}\xi _2\right)\right\}`$;
* $`g(\xi _2,\mu _2,\nu _2;\xi _1,\mu _1,\nu _1)=\frac{k_2}{2\pi }\frac{\nu _1\nu _2}{|\mu _2\nu _1\mu _1\nu _2|}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}v^TAv+Bv+i(x_1+x_2)\right\}`$;
* $`v=\{m_1,n_1,m_2,n_2\}`$;
* $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i\frac{\nu _1\nu _2}{(\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1)}& i\frac{\mu _2\nu _1+\mu _1\nu _2}{2(\mu _2\nu _1\mu _1\nu _2)}& 0& 0\\ i\frac{\mu _2\nu _1+\mu _1\nu _2}{2(\mu _2\nu _1\mu _1\nu _2)}& i\frac{\mu _1\mu _2}{(\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\frac{\nu _1\nu _2}{(\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1)}& i\frac{\mu _2\nu _1+\mu _1\nu _2}{2(\mu _2\nu _1\mu _1\nu _2)}\\ 0& 0& i\frac{\mu _2\nu _1+\mu _1\nu _2}{2(\mu _2\nu _1\mu _1\nu _2)}& i\frac{\mu _1\mu _2}{(\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1)}\end{array}\right)`$;
* $`B=\{i\frac{\nu _1\xi _2\nu _2\xi _1}{\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1},i\frac{\mu _2\xi _1\mu _1\xi _2}{\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1},i\frac{\nu _1\xi _2\nu _2\xi _1}{\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1},i\frac{\mu _2\xi _1\mu _1\xi _2}{\mu _1\nu _2\mu _2\nu _1}\}`$

where $`v^T`$ denotes the transposed vector and $``$ is the usual matrix product, rows by columns. This is all what we need to obtain the symmetrized and antisymmetrized MDF corresponding to all the states of the two oscillators, although Eq. (3.19) is in general not easy to integrate.

For the first non trivial case, i.e. the first excited state, $`w_\pm ^{01}(\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2`$, we obtain, substituting Eq. (5.2) and Eq. (5.1) for $`w^{01}`$ into Eq. (3.19)

$`w_\pm ^{01}(\xi ,\mu ,\nu )_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D_2(x,m,n)\stackrel{~}{K}_\pm (x,\mu ,\nu |x,m,n)_2\frac{e^{y_1^2y_2^2}}{\pi |r_1r_2|n!m!2^{n+m}}H_0^2(y_1)H_1^2(y_2)}`$ (5.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\xi _1^2}{\mu _1^2+\nu _1^2}\frac{\xi _2^2}{\mu _2^2+\nu _2^2}}}{\pi \sqrt{(\mu _1^2+\nu _1^2)(\mu _2^2+\nu _2^2)}}}[\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _2}{\sqrt{\mu _2^2+\nu _2^2}}}\right)^2+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _1}{\sqrt{\mu _1^2+\nu _1^2}}}\right)^2`$
$`\pm `$ $`2\xi _1\xi _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1\mu _2+\nu _1\nu _2}{(\mu _1^2+\nu _1^2)(\mu _2^2+\nu _2^2)}}\right)].`$
As we can see, only the first two terms of the sum are probability distributions, whereas the last one is an interference term.

For our edification we can check, using the inverse formula (3.17), that we obtain the correct expression for the symmetrized and antisymmetrized density matrices associated to a system of two harmonic oscillators, that is

$$\rho _\pm ^{01}(x,x^{})_2=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right\}\left[4x_2x_2^{}+4x_1x_1^{}\pm (4x_1x_2^{}+4x_2x_1^{})\right].$$
(5.4)
## 6 Conclusions

In summary, we have studied the permutational symmetry of tomograms of quantum states for systems of identical particles of bosonic and fermionic nature. We showed that the tomographic probability distributions of identical particles in the probability representation of quantum mechanics are associated to the realization of the action of $`GG`$, where $`G`$ is the permutation group and $``$ denotes the direct product. It is demonstrated that the tomographic probability distribution, that is the MDF is a sum of terms, some of them directly recognizable as tomograms, some others which are interference terms, that is not associated to a probability distribution by themselves, but only in the given combination. The main results of our analysis are summarized by Eqs. (4.2), (4.3), where tomograms of identical particles are explicitely derived in terms of an integral kernel.

## 7 Acknowledgments

V. I. Man’ko thanks the University of Naples and INFN Sezione di Napoli for kind hospitality and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research for partial support under project n. 01-02-17745.