format: text

text:
# Remote generalized measurements (POVMs) require non-maximal entanglement

## Abstract

We show that non-maximal entangled states can be used for implementing, with unit probability, remote generalized measurements (POVMs). We show how any n-qubit POVM can be applied remotely and derive its entanglement cost. The later turns out to be equal to the entanglement capability for a class of POVMs. This suggests a one-to-one relation between sub-sets of POVM operations and entanglement.

Although quantum entanglement has been a major research topic for the last decades, the nature of the relation between entanglement non-locality and the properties of physical interactions is a fairly new subject. During the recent years it was realized that entanglement can be used as a resource for implementing various types of remote interactions and operations \[1-11\]. Optimal ways for generating entanglement using a given interaction have been searched \[12-14\]. In particularly in ref.  an interesting qualitative general conjecture has been raised, while  pointed out a detailed connection between entanglement and operations. Nevertheless, the fundamental question mentioned above still seems to be open. In this letter we address this question.

Most known implementations of non-local operations, either require maximal-entangled states, or become probabilistic when non-maximal states are used. Nevertheless in exceptional cases non-local operations can be performed with unit probability and non-maximal entanglement .

The main purpose of this letter is to show that non-maximal entangled states can in-fact be used for implementing, with unit probability, a remote generalized measurement, usually referred to as a POVM (positive operator valued measure) . We show that any n-qubit POVM can be measured remotely with certainty by using local operation and classical communication (LOCC), and single non-maximal entangled state. We also provide a general relation between an n-qbit POVM and the required amount of entanglement, which turns out to be equal to the entanglement capability of the POVM. We can hence classify the space of POVM operations into sub-sets, each having a definite entanglement measure. This suggests a one-to-one non-asymptotic relation between sub-sets of POVM operations and entanglement.

It will be helpful to begin with a concrete example. Suppose that one bit is encoded by two non-orthogonal states

$$|\psi _\pm =\alpha |0\pm \beta |1.$$
(1)
This bit cannot be retrieved back with certainty, however a generalized measurement, allows us to distinguish (sometimes) with certainty between $`|\psi _\pm `$.

Suppose we hand Bob the qubit, and informs $`only`$ Alice (that is located remotely), what are the possible states $`|\psi _\pm `$. How can Alice and Bob measure the POVM? Surely, Bob can teleport  his state to Alice which then proceeds to perform the POVM. We show however that the POVM can be applied with optimal efficiency with less than one ebit of entanglement. (i.e. without teleportation).

Let us consider first a POVM that allows to distinguish (sometimes) between $`|\psi _\pm `$ with certainty. A generalized measurement can always be described as a unitary operation acting on the system and an ancilla, followed by a projective measurement of the ancilla. In the present case we can use another qubit as the ancilla and operate on both the unitary $`U`$ such that

$$U|0|\psi _\pm =|0M_0|\psi _\pm +|1M_1|\psi _\pm ,$$
(2)
where

$`M_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }})\sigma _z,`$ (3)
$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\beta ^2\alpha ^2}}{2\beta }}(1\sigma _z),`$ (4)
are non-unitary operators and $`M_0^{}M_0+M_1^{}M_1=1`$. $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$ are usually referred to as Kraus operators . After measuring the ancilla, we find whether $`M_0`$ or $`M_1`$ have been generated. $`M_0`$ acts to rotate the non-orthogonal states $`|\psi _\pm `$ to $`|0+|1`$ or $`|0|1`$, in which case we can distinguish with certainty between $`|\psi _\pm `$ by measuring $`\sigma _x`$ of the system. If the ancilla is observed to be in the state $`|1`$, $`M_1`$ maps both states into $`|1`$, and the encoded information is completely lost. In this example the POVMs are $`F_i=M_i^{}M_i`$.

Let us now see how Alice can assist Bob remotely to perform this POVM (Fig. 1). While in the usual procedure the ancilla is at the hands of Bob, here we will have the ancilla with Alice. We start with a shared entangled state

$$\mathrm{cos}\varphi |0_A|0_b+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |1_A|1_b,$$
(5)
where the angle $`\varphi `$ will be fixed in the sequel. Bob performs a controlled-NOT in the $`\sigma _z`$ direction, with the qubit $`b`$ as the control, and $`|\psi _\pm _B`$ the target. He next measures $`b`$ in the $`\sigma _x`$ direction, and sends one bit to inform Alice the outcome. Alice uses this information and by performing a $`\pi `$ (or zero) rotation along the $`z`$-direction obtains the state

$$(\mathrm{cos}\varphi |0_A+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |1_A\sigma _z)|\psi _\pm _B,$$
(6)
where we ignored the state of $`b`$ that factors out.

Next Alice applies a rotation that maps

$`|0_A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi |0_A\mathrm{sin}\varphi |1_A,`$ (7)
$`|1_A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi |0_A+\mathrm{cos}\varphi |1_A,`$ (8)
with the angle $`\varphi `$ determined from:

$`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}).`$ (10)
This transformation maps the entangled state of the ancilla and Bobs system to the desired form in the right hand side of equation (2). To completes the process Alice and Bob measure their systems and Alice sends one bit according to her result to Bob.

The main point is that by using only shared entanglement and LOCC, we reached an entangled state of same form as in the right hand side of eq. (2). The success probability, $`\psi _\pm |F_0|\psi _\pm `$, is identical to that in an ordinary, local, POVM.

The entanglement consumed in the process

$$E_{POVM}=\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ,$$
(11)
is generally less than one ebit. It goes to zero for $`\psi _+|\psi _{}0`$, and tends to $`E_{POVM}1`$ when $`\psi _+|\psi _{}1`$. The classical communication cost is two bits one in each direction.

Clearly, in this example, the POVM dictates the amount of entanglement needed. Have we used instead a maximally entangled state, we could still generate $`M_0`$ remotely, but with a smaller probability of success. We can still make use of a maximally entangled state. Alice first dilutes to a non-maximal state, which she can do with unit probability , and then applies the above procedure. In passing we remark that the one bit sent from Bob to Alice is random. On the other hand the bit sent from Alice to Bob is biased according to the success probability of the POVM. Hence over many trails Bob can gain information on the inner product $`\psi _+|\psi _{}`$.

We next consider the problem in more general terms. Every POVM on system $`B`$ may be realized by letting $`B`$ first interact with an ancillary system $`A`$ in a standard initial state, and then observe $`A`$.

$$U_{AB}|0_A|\psi _B=\underset{\mu }{}|\mu _AM_\mu |\psi _B,$$
(12)
where the Kraus operators, $`M_\mu ={}_{A}{}^{}\mu |U_{AB}|0_{A}^{}`$, satisfy $`M_\mu ^{}M_\mu =1`$. The corresponding POVM, $`F_\mu =M_\mu ^{}M_\mu `$, appears with the probability distribution $`\mathrm{Prob}(\mu )={}_{B}{}^{}\psi |F_\mu |\psi _{B}^{}`$.

The measurement of the ancilla $`A`$ realizes a particular (non-unitary) transformation on the system. On the other hand if we measure the ancilla in a different basis, or equivalently first apply a unitary $`U_A`$ we obtain

$$U_A\underset{\mu }{}|\mu _AM_\mu =\underset{\eta ,\mu }{}|\eta _AU_{\eta \mu }M_\mu =\underset{\mu }{}|\mu _AN_\mu ,$$
(13)
where

$$N_\mu =\underset{\rho }{}U_{\mu \rho }M_\rho .$$
(14)
Therefore, a unitary transformation on the ancilla gives rise to a new set of Kraus operators.

Before we proceed it is instructive to compare our problem with the superoperator picture. If we do not observe the ancilla, the effect of $`U_{AB}`$ on the subsystem $`B`$ is described by a superoperator $`\$_B\rho _B=M_\mu \rho _BM_\mu ^{}`$. Two unitary related sets, such as $`M_\mu `$ and $`N_\mu `$ above, then represent the same $`\$_B`$. Nevertheless, when we do observe the ancilla, as in our case, we learn which Kraus operator has been realized on the system. Hence, two unitarily related Kraus sets generally give rise to inequivalent POVMs.

The realization of the POVM requires an interaction $`U_{AB}`$ between the ancilla and the system. Our main goel is to find how to construct this transformation, using entanglement and LOCC, when the ancilla is located remotely with Alice. To this end we start with some preliminary steps.

Definition 1.: A a set of Kraus operators will be defined as an orthogonal set if

$$(M_\mu ,M_\eta )\frac{1}{N_B}\mathrm{Trace}M_\mu ^{}M_\eta =c_\mu \delta _{\mu \eta }$$
(15)
where $`N_B`$ is the dimension of Bob’s system. For example, $`M_\mu =\alpha _\mu \sigma _\mu `$, $`\mu =0,\mathrm{}3`$, where $`\sigma _k`$ $`k=1,2,3`$ are Pauli matrices and $`\sigma _0=1`$, constitute an orthogonal set.

Notice that the unitary transformation (14) generally does not preserve the inner produce (15). Clearly, if $`N_\eta =_\mu U_{\eta \mu }\alpha _\mu \sigma _\mu `$, $`\mathrm{Trace}(N_\mu ^{}N_\eta )c_\mu \delta _{\mu \eta }`$, unless all $`\alpha _\mu `$ are equal. Therefore, in certain cases, by applying the unitary transformation (14) we may obtain from a non-orthogonal an orthogonal one.

Definition 2.: A set of Kraus operators $`M_\mu `$ will be said to admit an orthogonal equivalent set, or shortly OE, if it is unitarily related to an orthogonal set.

Of importance to us are OE sets that are up to a multiplicative constant proportional to a unitary. As we readily show, such orthogonal sets can be generated by local operations and entanglement. To see this, let us consider for simplicity a one-qubit POVM. Suppose Alice wishes to apply $`U_{AB}`$ that leads to the orthogonal Kraus set $`M_\mu =\alpha _\mu \sigma _\mu `$. To do that, Alice and Bob need the entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ab}=\underset{\mu }{}\alpha _\mu |\mu _A|\mu _b.$$
(16)
Bob starts by performing a local unitary transformation between his system and his part ($`b`$) of the entangled state

$$U_{bB}=\underset{\mu }{}|\mu _{bb}\mu |\sigma _\mu ,$$
(17)
and measures $`b`$ in a complementary basis $`|\eta _b`$ with equal probability to get $`\eta `$. This leads to

$$\underset{\mu }{}\pm \alpha _\mu |\mu _A\sigma _\mu ,$$
(18)
where the $`\pm `$ signs in front of each term is determined according to Bob’s outcomes for $`\eta _b`$. Alice then can correct them all to be $`+`$, according to the 2-bit message she received from Bob, by applying an appropriate rotation on the ancilla. Now we recall that a unitary acting on $`A`$ induces a unitary acting on $`M_\mu `$. Therefore, any Kraus set that is OE to the above orthogonal $`M_\mu `$ can be generated by Alice by means of an appropriate local unitary followed by a measurement which records to result of the POVM.

More generally, in order to find what are the POVMs that can be applied remotely, we need to check which Kraus sets are OE.

Theorem: Any n-qubits POVM can be represented by an OE Kraus operator set.

Let us start with a one qubit POVM. Since $`\sigma _\mu `$ forms a basis, we can expand $`M_\mu =c_{\mu \eta }\sigma _\eta `$, where $`c_{\mu \eta }=(\sigma _\eta ,M_\mu )`$. Lemma: $`M_\mu `$ is OE iff $`c^{}c`$ is diagonal. Proof: If $`c^{}c`$ is diagonal, the columns of the matrix $`c`$ are orthogonal vectors. Hence $`c`$ may be expressed as a product of a unitary and a diagonal matrix: $`c_{\mu \nu }=_\eta U_{\mu \eta }\delta _{\eta \nu }\alpha _\nu `$. The reverse direction of the lemma is immediate.

Consider the conditions on the matrix $`c`$. From $`M_\mu ^{}M_\mu =1`$ we obtain $`_{\mu \eta }|c_{\mu \eta }|^2=1`$ and

$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}c_{\mu 0}^{}c_{\mu k}=0,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}c_{\mu n}^{}c_{\mu m}=0,`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the real and imaginary parts respectively, and roman letters only run over $`1,2,3`$. These conditions are not enough to force every $`M_\mu `$ to be OE. A general Kraus sum representation does not admit a unitary equivalent orthogonal representation. (e.g. $`M_0|_z_x|`$, $`M_1|_x_x|`$).

Consider however a general one-qubit POVM $`F_\mu `$. Since $`F_\mu `$ are a semi-positive hermitian operators, they can be described by (at most) four hermitian Kraus operators $`M_\mu =\sqrt{F_\mu }`$ and consequently the matrix $`c`$ is real. Eq. (19) than implies that the 0’th and $`k`$’th columns of $`c`$ are orthogonal. Next suppose that after applying $`U_{AB}`$ in (12), Bob applies a local $`\sigma _1`$ rotation. Hence $`U_{AB}\sigma _1U_{AB}`$. This induces another Kraus set obtained by $`c_{\mu 0}c_{\mu 1}`$, $`c_{\mu 1}c_{\mu 0}`$, $`c_{\mu 2}ic_{\mu 3}`$, $`c_{\mu 3}ic_{\mu 2}`$. But now, because columns 2 and 3 are purely imaginary, we deduce from eq. (20) that the 1’st column must be orthogonal to the second and third columns. Similarly we obtain that all columns are orthogonal. Hence $`\sqrt{F_\mu }`$ is OE. It is straightforward to generalize the above considerations to an n-qubit POVM. This then concludes the proof.

As a corollary we conclude that: Any n-qubit POVM can by generated remotely by the present method.

Next let us quantify the entanglement resources needed to apply a POVM. The coefficients $`\alpha _\mu `$ fix the schmidt coefficients of the needed shared entangled state. This is readily found be noticing that $`c^{}c`$ given by a diagonal matrix of the form $`\alpha _\mu ^2\delta _{\mu \lambda }`$. Therefore,

$$(\alpha _\lambda )^2=\underset{\mu }{}(\sigma _\lambda ,\sqrt{F_\mu })^2.$$
(21)
The above expression can be extended to n-qubit POVM by replacing $`\sigma _\mu `$ with the basis $`\sigma _\mu ^1\sigma _\lambda ^2\mathrm{}\sigma _\eta ^n`$. The entanglement consumed for generating all POVMs which are unitary related to $`\sqrt{F_\mu }`$ is therefore

$$E_{POVM}=\underset{\lambda }{}\alpha _\lambda ^2\mathrm{ln}\alpha _\lambda ^2.$$
(22)
The classical communication cost is determined by the number $`n`$ of qubits on which we apply the POVM. It is at most given by $`n`$ bits.

We remark that in this approach Alice has full control on the POVM and obtains the result of the measurement. For other purposes it may be useful to ”share” between the job of performing the POVM between Alice and Bob. The first example we gave (Fig. 1) is indeed of that type. The entanglement needed for applying a ”shared” POVM is obviously smaller.

To summarize: we showed that any n-qubit POVM (that may be also viewed as a set of generally non-unitary operations) can be implemented remotely. To this end, for each class of unitary related OE POVMs Alice and Bob need a particular entangled state which is determined by the POVM. For the special case of a remote projective (von-Neumann) measurement of $`n`$ qubits we have $`E_{POVM}=n`$. After coupling the entangled particle to his system Bob performs a measurement and transmits the result to Alice. She transforms this state to the standard form of an orthogonal POVM. To apply the POVM she applies the unitary

$$U_{\mu \nu }=\underset{\eta }{}(\sigma _\eta ,M_\nu )\delta _{\eta \mu }\frac{1}{\alpha _\eta }$$
(23)
on her entangled ancilla and finally measures the ancilla. The efficiency of the process is optimal: i.e. the information gained is identical to a locally performed POVM.

Is the measure given in (21,22) unique?. Does it determine the minimal entanglement needed to perform the POVM? Let us show that if the action of the POVM on the system is given as in our case, by the semi-positive hermitian root $`\sqrt{F_\mu }`$, that is indeed true.

Consider the entanglement capability of the remote POVM defined by $`E_{capability}=\mathrm{max}_{\psi _B}E(\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})`$. I.e. we maximize the entanglement generated by the POVM between the ancilla of Alice and Bob’s system. Next, let $`E_{cost}`$ be the minimal entanglement needed to generate remotely the POVM. By the principle of entanglement non-increase under LOCC, we must have

$$E_{capability}E_{cost}.$$
(24)
We have seen that the POVM can be performed using the entanglement $`E_{POVM}`$ defined in (22). Since our method may not be optimal it can be that $`E_{cost}E_{POVM}`$. Now consider the entanglement capability. Since our POVM is OE it can be transformed locally to the form $`|\mu _A\alpha _\mu \sigma _\mu |\psi _B`$. Suppose that Bob’s particle entangled with another local particle in an EPR state. In this special case the entanglement capability of the POVM is precisely $`E_{POVM}`$. Therefore we arrive to the inequality

$$E_{capability}E_{cost},$$
(25)
which when combined with (24) leads to the desired conclusion

$$E_{cost}=E_{capability}=E_{POVM}.$$
(26)
Our POVM construction therefore leads to a unique one-to-one relations between POVMs and entanglement. The entanglement $`E_{POVM}`$ constitutes a lower bound on the entanglement cost and an upper bound on the entanglement capability.

I would like to thank Berry Groisman and Sandu Popescu for very helpful discussions. The research was supported in part by grant 62/01-1 of the Israel Science Foundation, established by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and by the Israel MOD Research and Technology Unit.


text:
# Fermionizing a small gas of ultracold bosons

## I Introduction

Ultra cold atomic gases have been shown to be ideal candidates to observe several intrinsically quantum phenomena, since they can be easily controlled and manipulated by electromagnetic fields. What type of quantum phenomena we can observe depends dramatically on the strength of the atomic interaction, going from one particle phenomena to highly entangled quantum states.

The first experimental highlight with these systems was the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation of weakly interacting atomic gases BEC . This success motivated a lot of experimental and theoretical work with cold bosons in the limit of weak interactions. In this regime atoms essentially occupy the same single particle state, and the physics of the system is perfectly understood via a Gross-Pitaievski equation for the macroscopic wave function. Many interesting phenomena have been studied in this regime and there still exist certain open questions Stringari .

On the other hand, it seems clear that going in the direction of strongly correlated atoms, and exploring what happens beyond the validity of mean field theory, promises to open a new path to the observation of novel physical phenomena. Strong correlations between particles have been shown to lead to unusual fascinating effects in condensed matter systems. In the same way, if an atomic system is driven into the strongly interacting regime, similar interesting phenomena may be observed. Moreover, since atomic gases can be well controlled and manipulated, they may provide us with new scenarios for the observation of these phenomena and, perhaps, new ones that have not been accessible so far in solid state environments. The difficulty here is, however, how to drive an atomic system into a strongly interacting regime. In order to enter this regime one should make the typical interaction energy larger than any other (single particle) energy scale in the problem. Naively speaking, it may seem that the easiest way to do this would be just to increase the interaction strength, either by increasing the scattering length or the atomic density. However, though the scattering length can be effectively enlarged by using Feshbach resonances Feshbach , and the atoms squeezed to increase the density, both methods may lead to undesirable instabilities in the system.

Alternatively, in order to make interactions to dominate, one can decrease the single particle energies by creating degeneracies. Here, one possibility is to use internal levels, as in the recent proposal to entangle atomic beams by generation of spin-squeezed states Sorensen . Degeneracies can also be induced by using a periodic external potential, since single particle states corresponding to different wells will have the same energy. In the limit in which the amplitude of tunneling between wells is small compared to the typical interaction energy, the system has been predicted to undergo a transition from a superfluid phase to a Mott insulator phase Dieter , which is highly correlated. This quantum phase transition has been recently achieved experimentally in an optical lattice Bloch . Another way of achieving a quasi-degeneracy in the atomic motional states is to rotate the trap that confines the atoms. When the frequency of rotation is small compared to the frequency of the trap, the system forms a vortex condensate, with a number of vortices that increases as the rotation becomes faster vortices . This vortex condensate is a non–correlated state, in which all the atoms occupy the same single particle quantum state. However, when the rotation frequency is close to the harmonic trap frequency the system has been predicted to enter a fractional quantum Hall regime, in which the atoms are strongly correlated otros ; Belen . The ground state is a $`\frac{1}{2}`$–Laughlin state, a highly entangled liquid with nearly uniform density. This atomic liquid offers the fascinating possibility of creating and manipulating anyons with $`\frac{1}{2}`$–fractional–statistics Belen . By piercing the system with off resonant localized lasers, $`\frac{1}{2}`$–Laughlin quasiholes may be created and manipulated to probe directly their fractional statistics. For the fractional quantum Hall regime to be experimentally achieved in current rotating traps one would need bosonic gases consisting of a small number of atoms, a limit that has remained practically unexplored. A particularly interesting exception is a recent experiment with an optical lattice Bloch , that has achieved a regime in which a few number of atoms are confined in each well of the lattice. Since the two-dimensional rotating realization of this lattice may be accessible in near future experiments, further theoretical investigation in the physics of small rotating bosonic gases is highly motivated.

In this paper we extend the results of our previous work Belen  on a rapidly rotating gas of bosonic atoms, to the case in which the atoms have an internal degree of freedom. We will show that the addition of internal levels introduces new aspects of the problem, and novel exotic correlated phases come out.

The problem of strongly interacting bosons with spin in a rapidly rotating trap is, in principle, very difficult to tackle; in particular it is not easy to guess what type of ground states and excitations appear. In this work we present a formalism, what we call fermionization of the bosonic system, within which the problem takes a very simple form. We will show that in the limit of rapid rotation and small temperatures, the problem of interacting bosons maps exactly onto a problem of non-interacting fermions. The ground state corresponds to a Fermi sea in which the fermions fill up the single particle states in order of increasing energy. Furthermore, the lowest energy excitations consist of fermion-hole excitations in the vicinity of the Fermi level. The spectrum of the real bosonic system is identical to the one of the effective non-interacting fermions, with the same eigenvalues and the same density of states.

The fermionization scheme is valid for any number of particles $`N`$ and any number of internal states $`n`$, provided that the atomic interaction does not depend on the internal states of the atoms. Perhaps the most interesting states appear whenever the ratio $`N/n`$ is an integer number. The effective fermions then form an integer quantum Hall state with filling factor $`\nu =n`$ QHE . The corresponding bosonic state is a fractional quantum Hall liquid with filling factor $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$. This fractional liquid is a multicomponent state made out of $`n`$ copies of a $`\frac{1}{1+n}`$–Laughlin–liquid Laughlin , one for each internal state. Thus, by increasing the number of internal states we can go beyond $`\nu =1/2`$, and lead the system into new fractions in the sequence $`\nu =1/2,2/3,3/4,\mathrm{}`$. All type of anyons anyons  with statistics $`p/q`$, $`p<q`$ can now be created by choosing the adequate spin degeneracy and inserting lasers with a polarization and frequencies which couple to a given atomic internal state (spin component).

An exotic situation appears when the number of internal states equals the number of atoms in the trap. The effective fermions form in this case a pure spinor state with no spatial dependence. The corresponding bosonic state is then the product of a completely antisymmetric spin state and a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state, which is fully antisymmetric too. This means that as long as the spin degrees of freedom are not excited the behaviour of the system will be fermionic. We will show that the elementary excitations of the systems are true fermions with fermionic statistics, though the real components of the system are bosons.

The formalism of fermionization that we present in this work can be also applied to explore several interesting possibilities. A very attractive one consists of inducing pairing in the effective fermions, so that they form a superconducting state. We will show that this is in fact possible when the atomic interaction depends on the internal state. We will consider the case of atoms with two internal levels when the interaction between atoms in the same spin state is much stronger than the one between atoms in a different spin state. We will see that the effective fermions configurate in pairs, forming a paired state identical to the BCS state of electrons with spin triplet p–wave pairing. The corresponding bosonic state, a Pfaffian state, is very well known in the context of the quantum Hall effect Read .

This paper is organized as follows. In section II we develop the fermionization scheme that maps the problem of interacting bosons in a rapid rotating trap onto one of non-interacting fermions. Using this formalism we show in section III that, when the ratio $`N/n`$ is an integer number, the ground state of the system is a $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ fractional quantum Hall liquid. Starting with these correlated liquids, we show how to create anyons with $`p/(1+n)`$ fractional statistics, with $`1pn`$. We also discuss a possible experiment to reveal directly the statistics of anyons in a Ramsey-type interferometer. In section IV we study the special situation in which $`N=n`$. In section V we illustrate the results of the preceeding sections with some numerical exact diagonalizations for $`N=4,6,8`$ particles. The experimental conditions required to observe the fractional quantum Hall states and the anyons described in this work are analyzed in section VI. As an example of the interesting possibilities of the fermionization scheme we show in section VII how pairing in the effective fermions can be induced in a system of atoms with two internal levels. Finally, in section VIII we summarize the results of this work, and discuss a possible scenario to observe the fractional quantum Hall states and the anyons.

## II The fermionization

We consider a set of $`N`$ bosonic atoms confined in a potential which rotates in the $`xy`$ plane at a frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The atoms have an internal degree of freedom, that we will call spin, which can take $`n=2s+1`$ values. We will assume that the confinement in the $`z`$ direction is sufficiently strong so that we can ignore the excitations in that direction, and we will consider that the resulting potential in two dimensions is isotropic and harmonic. The Hamiltonian describing this situation in a frame rotating with the trap is:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(_i^2+r_i^22\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }L_{iz}\right)+g\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (𝐫_𝐢𝐫_𝐣),$$
(1)
with $`L_{iz}`$ being the $`z`$ component of the angular momentum of the $`i`$–th atom, and where we have used the trap energy, $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, as the unit of energy, and $`\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}/m\omega )^{1/2}`$ as the unit of length. The atoms are interacting via an effective contact potential, with an interacting coupling constant $`g`$ related to the $`s`$–wave scattering length, $`a`$, and to the localization length in the $`z`$ direction, $`\mathrm{}_z`$, by $`g=\sqrt{2/\pi }a/\mathrm{}_z`$. In most parts of this paper we will also assume that the interaction between the atoms is spin independent.

Following our previous work Belen  we begin by writing the Hamiltonian (1) in the following form:

$$H=H_B+H_L+V.$$
(2)
Here, $`H_B=_{i=1}^N_i^2/2+r_i^2/2L_{iz}`$ is the quantum Hall single particle Hamiltonian, whose single particle energy levels are the Landau levels equally spaced by the cyclotron energy $`2\mathrm{}\omega `$. The Hamiltonian $`H_L=(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )L_z`$ is proportional to the $`z`$ component of the total angular momentum, $`L_z=_{i=1}^NL_{iz}`$, and $`V`$ is the interaction term.

From now on we consider the rapid rotation limit, in which the energy scales characterizing Hamiltonians $`H_B`$ and $`V`$ are much larger than the one corresponding to $`H_L`$. In this limit the ground state and elementary excitations of the system must lie on the subspace $``$ of common zero energy eigenstates of $`H_B`$ and $`V`$.

We will show that, projected to the subspace $``$, the bosonic problem described above exactly maps onto a problem of non-interacting fermions with $`n`$ internal levels. We will first show that any wave function in $``$ is the product of a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state and a completely antisymmetric wave function in the lowest Landau level. We will then see that this antisymmetric wave function describes an effective system of non-interacting fermions.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be a wave function in $``$. In order to be an eigenstate of $`H_B`$ with eigenvalue zero, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must lie within the subspace spanned by tensor products of single particle states in the lowest Landau level QHE . In the symmetric gauge these single particle states are labeled by the third component of the angular momentum $`m`$ and the spin $`\sigma `$, and have the following form:

$$\phi _{m\sigma }(\xi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi 2^{m+1}}}z^me^{|z|^2/4}u^\sigma ,$$
(3)
where $`\xi =(z,u)`$, $`z=x+iy`$, and $`u^\sigma `$ is a $`s`$–spinor with components $`u^\sigma (\beta )=\delta _{\sigma \beta }`$, for $`\sigma ,\beta =s,\mathrm{},s`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must have the form:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\xi ]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1,\mathrm{},m_N}{}_{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _N}}\alpha _{m_1,\mathrm{},m_N}z_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}z_N^{m_N}u_1^{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}u_N^{\sigma _N},`$ (4)
with $`m_i=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$, $`\sigma _i=s,\mathrm{},s`$, and where for simplicity we have omitted the global exponential factor $`_ke^{|z_k|^2/4}`$111 For the sake of short notation, in most part of this paper we omit the exponential factor $`_ke^{|z_k|^2/4}`$, as well as the normalization factors..

The wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must be an eigenstate of $`V`$ with eigenvalue zero as well. We will show that the function $`_{i<j}(z_iz_j)`$ is a factor of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Let’s choose any pair of particles $`i`$ and $`j`$. The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on $`z_i`$ and $`z_j`$ can be reexpressed in terms of the relative and center mass coordinates, $`z_{ij}`$, $`Z_{ij}`$, so that we can expand $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\xi ]=_mz_{ij}^mF_m`$, where $`F_m`$ depends on $`Z_{ij}`$, $`u_i`$, $`u_j`$, and on the positions and spinors of all the other particles. In order for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be annihilated by the hard-core interaction $`V`$, $`F_0`$ must be identically zero. It follows that $`i,j`$, $`z_{ij}`$ is a factor of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, so that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[\xi ]=\mathrm{\Phi }[\xi ]\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j),$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }[\xi ]`$ is an analytic function of $`z_i`$ for all $`i`$, and therefore it lies in the lowest Landau level.

The factor $`\mathrm{\Pi }[z]=_{i<j}(z_iz_j)`$ is proportional, up to a normalization constant, to the $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin wave function. Since this factor is fully antisymmetric, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be completely antisymmetric too, for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be a bosonic wave function. The factorization (5) thus states that any bosonic wave function lying within the subspace $``$ is completely specified by a fermionic wave function in the lowest Landau level.

We will derive now an effective Hamiltonian for the fermionic wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, in the sense that the spectrum of this effective Hamiltonian will be identical to the one of Hamiltonian (2), projected onto the subspace $``$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be an eigenstate of Hamiltonian (2) with eigenvalue $`E_n`$. This state satisfies

$$H\mathrm{\Psi }_n=H_L\mathrm{\Psi }_n=E_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n.$$
(6)
Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is an eigenfunction of $`H_L`$ with eigenvalue $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )N(N1)/2`$, we can write the above expression in the form:

$`E_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_L\mathrm{\Phi }_n\right)\mathrm{\Pi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_n\left(H_L\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )[\left(L_z+N(N1)/2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_n]\mathrm{\Pi }.`$ (8)
We have then proved that if $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ is an eigenstate of Hamiltonian (2) the corresponding fermionic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is an eigenstate of the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{eff}=(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )\left[L_z+N(N1)/2\right],$$
(9)
with the same eigenvalue. This means that our problem of $`N`$ interacting bosons projected to the subspace $``$ reduces to an effective problem of $`N`$ free fermions in the lowest landau level, governed by the Hamiltonian (9). The spectrum of the real bosonic system is identical to the one of the effective free fermions, with the same eigenvalues and the same density of states. The fermionic eigenstates are connected to the bosonic ones by the transformation (5). Note that this transformation is not unitary, and therefore an orthonormal set of fermionic states will be transform into a set of bosonic states that will not be, in general, orthonormal.

The problem of free fermions in the lowest Landau level with Hamiltonian (9) can be easily solved. The ground state is a Fermi sea, in which the effective fermions fill up the single particle states $`\phi _{m\sigma }`$ in order of increasing angular momentum $`m`$. Note that for each angular momentum $`m`$ we have $`n`$ single particle degenerate states. For a given number of particles $`N`$ we can write $`N=kn+r`$, with $`0r<n`$. This means that we will have the first $`k`$ single particle levels completely occupied and the $`k+1`$ level partially occupied with $`r`$ fermions. The ground state will have degeneracy $`\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ r\end{array}\right)`$, corresponding to the different choices for the internal states of the last $`r`$ fermions.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{FS}`$ is the wave function corresponding to the Fermi sea, the bosonic ground state is then just:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[\xi ]=\mathrm{\Phi }_{FS}[\xi ]\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j).$$
(10)
Within this effective fermionic picture it is also very simple to find the low-lying excitations of the system. They are fermion-like excitations in which an effective fermion crosses the Fermi level, leaving a fermionic–hole in the Fermi sea.

## III Multicomponent atomic fractional quantum Hall liquids and their anyons

In this section we will study the case in which the ratio $`N/n`$ is an integer number $`k`$, so that we have a non-degenerate ground state with $`k`$ completely occupied fermionic levels. We will show that the effective fermions form integer quantum Hall states at filling factor $`\nu =n`$. The corresponding bosonic states are $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ fractional quantum Hall liquids with $`1/n`$–anyons.

### III.1 The $`\nu =1/2`$ Laughlin liquid

We start out with the trivial case in which $`n=1`$ so that there is no spin degeneracy. The effective fermions will in this case occupy the single particle states with angular momentum $`m=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. The Slater determinant corresponding to this situation has the simple form:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1[z]=\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(z_iz_j).$$
(11)
This state is the $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state, the same as for electrons in the quantum Hall effect. The density of this state is nearly uniform, with one fermion on average per unit area. The corresponding bosonic state,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[z]=\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(z_iz_j)^2,$$
(12)
is the $`\nu =1/2`$ Laughlin liquid that we studied in our previous work Belen . Starting from this liquid one can create $`1/2`$–atomic–quasihole excitations with $`1/2`$–fractional statistics. The fractional statistical phase of these quasiholes may be revealed directly in a Ramsey-type interferometer Belen .

### III.2 The $`\nu =2/3`$ liquid

Before considering the general case of any number of internal states, it is illuminating to study the case of two internal states (and an even number of atoms). We will use the spin language, and say that we have atoms with spin $`s=1/2`$ that can be either up ($``$) or down ($``$).

The effective fermions will fill up the single particle states with angular momentum $`m=0,\mathrm{},N/21`$ and both spin states $`\sigma =,`$. We will have $`N/2`$ fermions with spin up and $`N/2`$ fermions with spin down, and each group will form a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state. The wave function corresponding to this situation is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[\xi ]=`$ $`𝒜`$ $`\{\varphi _1^{}(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{N/2})\times `$ (13)
$`\varphi _1^{}(\xi _{N/2+1},\mathrm{},\xi _N)\},`$
where

$$\varphi _1^\sigma [\xi ]=\underset{i<j}{\overset{N/2}{}}(z_iz_j)u_i^\sigma u_j^\sigma ,\sigma =,,$$
(14)
is a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state of $`N/2`$ fermions in the spin state $`\sigma `$, and the operator $`𝒜`$ antisymmetrizes over all possible ways of distributing the fermions in two groups of $`N/2`$ fermions. The state (13) is a $`\nu =2`$ quantum Hall state, made out of two $`\nu =1`$ states, one with spin up and the other with spin down. The density profile of this state is nearly flat in the bulk, with two fermions per unit area on average, one with spin up and the other with spin down.

The corresponding bosonic state is obtained from the wave function (13) multiplying by the factor $`^N(z_iz_j)`$. To gain insight about the properties of this bosonic state it is very convenient to use the language of the quantum Hall effect, that relates angular momenta, filling factors and densities QHE . In general, given an incompressible liquid in the lowest Landau level, its filling factor $`\nu `$ is related to its total angular momentum by $`LN^2/2\nu `$. Furthermore, the liquid has a uniform density in the bulk, with $`\nu `$ particles per unit area on the average.

Multiplication by the factor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ increases the total angular momentum $`L_F`$ of the original fermionic state, so that the resulting bosonic state has a total angular momentum

$$L=L_F+\frac{N(N1)}{2}.$$
(15)
This means that the new bosonic state will have a filling factor

$$\nu =\frac{\nu _F}{1+\nu _F}.$$
(16)
As $`\nu _F=2`$ we have that the bosonic state is a $`\nu =2/3`$ fractional Hall liquid. This fractional liquid is made out of two $`\nu =1/3`$ liquids, one with spin up and the other with spin down. The average density in this state is of $`2/3`$ atoms per unit area, $`1/3`$ with spin up, and $`1/3`$ with spin down. Roughly speaking, we can say that one bosonic atom is made out of three effective fermions, or that one fermion corresponds to $`1/3`$ atom. This counting will be very useful to study the anyonic excitations in the fermionic picture.

### III.3 The $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ multispinor liquids

After the above discussion the generalization to any number of internal states is straightforward. The effective fermions will fill up the single particle states with angular momenta $`m=0,\mathrm{},N/n1`$, and spin $`\sigma =s,\mathrm{},s`$. We will have $`n`$ groups of $`N/n`$ fermions, one for each spin state, and each group will form a $`\nu =1`$ polarized liquid of the form

$$\varphi _1^\sigma [\xi ]=\underset{i<j}{\overset{N/n}{}}(z_iz_j)u_i^\sigma u_j^\sigma .$$
(17)
The fermionic ground state is the product of the wave functions of the different groups, antisymmetrized over all possible ways of distributing $`N`$ particles in groups of $`N/n`$ particles:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[\xi ]=𝒜\left\{\underset{\sigma }{}\varphi _1^\sigma [\xi ]\right\}$$
(18)
The state (18) is a $`\nu =n`$ quantum Hall state, consisting of $`n`$ polarized $`\nu =1`$ liquids, one for each possible spin state. In this state we have $`n`$ fermions per unit area, one in each of the spin states.

The relation $`(\text{16})`$ tells us that the corresponding bosonic state will be a fractional state with filling factor $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$. This liquid is made out of $`n`$ polarized $`\nu _\sigma =1/(1+n)`$ fractional liquids, one for each spin state $`\sigma `$. We will have $`n/(1+n)`$ atoms per unit area, $`1/(1+n)`$ per each spin state.

By increasing the spin degeneracy $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, one can drive the atomic system into fractional quantum Hall states in the sequence $`\nu =1/2,2/3,3/4,\mathrm{}`$.

### III.4 Anyons

We will show now how to create anyons starting from the fractional atomic quantum liquids presented in the preceeding subsection. Following the ideas of our previous work Belen  we insert a laser localized (within an area $`\mathrm{}^2`$) at some position $`\eta `$. We require $`|\eta |`$ to be much smaller than the size of the quantum Hall state $`(\nu ^1\sqrt{N1})`$, so that the border effects are negligible. We will also assume that the laser only couples to atoms with spin $`\sigma _0`$. The presence of the laser can be described by a localized repulsive potential, so that the new Hamiltonian for the bosonic atoms can be approximated by:

$$H^{\eta \sigma _0}=H+V_0\underset{i}{}\delta (z_i\eta )P_i^{\sigma _0},$$
(19)
where the operator $`P_i^{\sigma _0}`$ projects the spinor of the $`i`$–th particle on the state with spinor $`u_i^{\sigma _0}`$. In the same way as we did in the previous section we can project Hamiltonian (19) onto the subspace $``$ of wave functions of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{i<j}(z_iz_j)`$, and derive an effective Hamiltonian for the fermionic wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which has now the form 222Strictly speaking one obtains the Hamiltonian (20) by defining a new scalar product in the fermionic Hilbert space of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2=𝑑\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, where $`d\mu ^2=_{i<j}|z_iz_j|^2dxdy`$.:

$$H_{eff}^{\eta \sigma _0}=H_{eff}+V_0\underset{i}{}\delta (z_i\eta )P_i^{\sigma _0}.$$
(20)
We will find the ground state of the fermionic Hamiltonian (20) and show that the corresponding bosonic state is a fractional quasihole state localized at position $`\eta `$. We consider the limit in which the intensity of the laser is much larger that the energy scale characterizing Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$. In this limit the new ground state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \sigma _0}`$ must be a zero eigenstate of the potential created by the laser. It follows that, whenever the $`i`$–th particle is in the spin state $`\sigma _0`$, $`(z_i\eta )`$ must be a factor of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \sigma _0}`$.

All groups with $`\sigma \sigma _0`$ will remain in a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state with wave function $`\varphi ^\sigma [z]`$. But the group with $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ will form the quasihole state

$$\varphi _\eta ^{\sigma _0}[\xi ]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N/s}{}}(z_i\eta )\varphi ^{\sigma _0}[\xi ].$$
(21)
The resulting state is a $`\nu _F=n`$ fermionic liquid in which one fermion with spin $`\sigma _0`$ has been removed at position $`\eta `$. As each boson is made out of $`n+1`$ fermions, the corresponding bosonic state will be a $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ liquid in which a fraction $`1/(1+n)`$ of an atom is missing in the component with spin $`\sigma _0`$. As it follows from the theory of fractional quantum Hall effect, these atomic fractional quasiholes are anyons with $`1/(1+n)`$ fractional statistics.

In the analysis above we have considered a situation in which the laser only couples to atoms in a particular internal state $`\sigma _0`$. But we can also imagine situations in which the laser coupling affects different internal states. By selecting the number of internal states coupled to the laser we can create anyons with any fractional statistics of the form $`p/(1+n)`$, with $`1pn`$.

The fractional statistics of the anyons we have described may be directly proved in an experiment similar to the one we proposed for detecting $`\frac{1}{2}`$–anyons Belen . Suppose that we want to detect $`\frac{1}{3}`$–anyons. Then we will first prepare a system of bosons with $`2`$ internal states, up and down, in a $`\nu =2/3`$ state. We focus then a laser, that only couples to atoms with spin up (or down), at position $`\eta _1`$, and increase its intensity until a single $`\frac{1}{3}`$–quasihole is created. Keeping constant the intensity of this laser we then adiabatically insert another laser at position $`\eta _2`$, far enough from $`\eta _1`$, affecting also only atoms with spin up (or down). The system then evolves from the one–quasihole state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}`$, to a two–quasihole state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$. The crucial point is that at a certain point of the evolution the system reaches a superposition state $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$. This is the superposition we need to test the statistical angle. If we adiabatically move the laser at position $`\eta _1`$ along a path enclosing position $`\eta _2`$, the evolved state at the end of the process will be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}+e^{i2\pi /3}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2},$$
(22)
where the relative phase, $`e^{i2\pi /3}`$, reflects the statistical phase. This phase may be detected in a Ramsey-type interferometer in which the evolution of the initial superposition state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, is split in three different ways, in which the laser at $`\eta _1`$ performs respectively, one, two, and three loops enclosing $`\eta _2`$. If after performing the loops we continue the evolution of the system, one can check that the system will only evolve to the two-quasihole state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$, in the case in which $`3`$ loops were performed. This $`3`$ reflects the $`\frac{1}{3}`$–statistics of the quasiparticles.

## IV The fermionic bosons

In this section we give a special attention to the case in which the degeneracy of spin equals the number of atoms in the system. Such a situation is a realistic possibility with a system of small number of atoms. In this case the effective fermions will occupy the single particle states with $`m=0`$ and spin $`\sigma =1,\mathrm{},N`$. The corresponding Slater determinant is a pure spinor function, with no spatial dependence

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[\xi ]=\chi [u]=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_N}{}ϵ_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_N}u_{i_1}^1\mathrm{}u_{i_N}^N,$$
(23)
so that the bosonic ground state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[\xi ]=\chi [u]\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)$$
(24)
is the product of a completely antisymmetric spin state and a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state. We note that in the above wave function the spin and orbital degrees of freedom are completely decoupled . The orbital wave function is antisymmetric, so that as long as the spin degrees of freedom are not excited the behaviour of the system will be fermionic. Any property concerning orbital degrees of freedom that were experimentally measured would behave as if we would have fermions in the system, even though our system is composed of bosons.

Suppose, for example, that we insert a laser localized at a certain position $`\eta `$, and that the laser couples to all atoms, no matter the internal state. As the intensity of the laser is increased the system will evolve from state (24) to the quasihole state:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\eta [\xi ]=\chi [u]\underset{i}{}(z_i\eta )\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j).$$
(25)
This quasihole state is a $`\nu =1`$ state in which one particle has been removed at position $`\eta `$, therefore, the relation between filling factors and fractional statistics states that we have created an anyon with statistics $`1`$; that is, a fermion.

## V Numerical simulations

In this section we illustrate the results presented in the previous sections with some numerical exact diagonalizations for $`N=4,6,`$ and $`8`$ bosons. In our calculations we restrict ourselves to single-particle states in the lowest Landau level. This approximation is valid in the limit in which the energy separation between Landau levels, $`2\omega `$, is much larger than all the energies avaliable.

We note that Hamiltonian (2) is invariant under rotations around the $`z`$ axis, and also under global spin rotations. These symmetries allow us to diagonalize it within subspaces of fixed $`z`$ component of the total angular momentum, $`L`$, fixed total spin, $`S`$, and fixed $`z`$ component of the spin, $`S_z`$.

Figure 1 shows the eigenvalues of Hamiltonian $`(\text{2})`$ for a system of $`N=6`$ bosons with two internal levels, in the rapid rotation limit. We see that there is a branch of states well separated by a gap from the rest of the spectrum. As long as the temperature is smaller than this gap, the system will remain within this subspace. All the states in this subspace lie within the lowest Landau level and have zero interaction energy. They form what we have called subspace $``$.

In order to check the fermionization scheme we have diagonalized the effective Hamiltonian (9) for a system of $`N=6`$ fermions with spin $`s=1/2`$. Figure 2 shows that the bosonic spectrum projected to the subspace $``$ is identical to that of the free fermions, except for a shift in the angular momentum of the eigenstates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=N(N1)/2`$. This is precisely the angular momentum of the $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state, that connects fermionic and bosonic states. For a given angular momentum, there are many degenerate states within the subspace $``$. This density of states is exactly reproduced by the system of non-interacting fermions (Figure 3), exept again, for the shift in angular momentum.

We have studied the ground state properties of a system of $`N=4,6,8`$ bosons, and $`n`$ internal states, for the cases in which $`N/n`$ is an integer number. We find (Figure 4) that the total angular momentum $`L_0`$ of the ground state is always equal to the one of the Fermi sea formed by the fermions, plus the angular momentum of the $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state:

$$L_0=N(N/n1)+N(N1)/2.$$
(26)
We have checked that the effective fermions form integer quantum Hall states at filling factor $`\nu =n`$. The density profile of these states is nearly flat in the bulk, with $`n`$ fermions per unit of area (Figure 5). The corresponding bosonic states are fractional quantum Hall liquids at filling factor $`\nu =n/(n+1)`$. The density profile of these states is also nearly flat in the bulk, with $`n/(1+n)`$ bosons per unit area (Figure 6).

We have also checked that, starting from these fractional liquids, anyons with $`p/(1+n)`$ statistics may be created. We consider first the following Hamiltonian,

$$H_0=H+V_1\underset{i}{}\delta (z_i\eta _1)P_i^{\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _p},$$
(27)
which includes the presence of a laser localized at position $`\eta _1`$, affecting $`p`$ different spin states. We have diagonalized Hamiltonian (27) within the subspace $``$ for $`N=6`$ bosons, $`n=1,2,3,6`$, and $`1pn`$. When the laser power is sufficiently large we find that the ground state is a one-quasihole state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}`$, in which a certain amount of atoms is missing in the components with spin states $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _p`$. We have also diagonalized a Hamiltonian describing the system in the presence of two lasers localized at positions $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$, coupled to the same $`p`$ internal states. The resulting ground state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$, consists of two identical quasiholes located at positions $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$. Having the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$ we can check very easily what is the statistics of the quasiholes we have created. Suppose that we adiabatically drive the laser at position $`\eta _1`$ along a path enclosing position $`\eta _2`$. At the end of the process the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$ will pick up Berry phases given, respectively, by,

$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _A}𝑑x𝑑y|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}|^2`$
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _A}𝑑x𝑑y|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}|^2,`$ (28)
where the integrals are performed over the area $`A`$ enclosed by the path described by the laser. The equations (28) for the Berry phases can be easily derived, taking into account that the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _1,\eta _2}`$ are made out of fractional Laughlin quasihole states anyons . The difference between the Berry phases $`\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ will reflect the extra phase that the quasihole at $`\eta _1`$ picks up because of the presence of the other quasihole at $`\eta _2`$. Since the closed loop we have performed is equivalent to two consecutive interchanges of the quasiholes we have that the statistics of the quasiparticles is given by the angle

$$\theta =\frac{\gamma _2\gamma _1}{2}.$$
(29)
We have calculated expression (29) for quasihole states corresponding to $`N=6`$ bosons and different numbers of internal states $`n=1,2,3,6`$. The statistical phases we obtain (Figure 7) are in excellent agreement with the fractions $`p/(1+n)`$, even though the finite size of the system.

## VI Experimental conditions

In this section we discuss the set of conditions that a system of bosonic atoms must fulfill in order to observe the fractional quantum Hall liquids and the anyons we have described in the preceeding sections.

First of all we need a system with degenerate internal levels, such that the interaction between the atoms does not depend on the internal state. We have also made a two-dimensional approximation, so that the atoms must be confined in a trap with $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_z`$. For the ground state to be a fractional quantum Hall liquid the system must be in the rapid rotation regime. From the numerical diagonalizations we can calculate the critical frequency of rotation at which the system will be driven to a correlated quantum Hall liquid. For a system of $`N=6`$ particles we find that the ground state of the system becomes a $`\nu =1/2,2/3,3/4`$ liquid for a frequency of rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 0.80,0.62,0.38`$, respectively. These data show how the critical frequency of rotation decreases as the number of internal states is increased, so that the observation of the fractional states $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ requires less faster rotating traps, as we approximate $`\nu =1`$. For an arbitrary number of particles $`N`$ we can estimate what is the condition that the frequency of rotation must fulfill in order for the a state $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ to be the ground state. The state $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$ has a total angular momentum $`L\nu ^1N(N1)`$ (decreasing as $`\nu 1`$), and thus an angular momentum energy per particle $`e_L\nu ^1(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )(N1)`$. In order to be in the rapid rotation regime we need $`e_L`$ to be much smaller than both the trap energy and the typical interaction energy, so that the conditions $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )(N1)\nu ,\nu g/4\pi `$ must be fulfill.

For creating the anyons the conditions required are much more demanding. We have first to focus the lasers within a distance $`\mathrm{}`$. For a localization length $`\mathrm{}1\mu m`$ this implies an upper limit for the trap frequency of $`1kHz`$. As well, the frequency of rotation needed to create the anyonic excitations is larger that the critical frequency to observe the fractional quantum Hall liquids, since the total angular momentum of the quasihole states is $`2N`$ units of angular momentum larger. For a system with $`N=6`$ particles anyons with $`1/2,1/3,1/4`$–statistics may be created for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 0.91,0.81,0.68`$, respectively.

Finally , the most restrictive condition to observe the fractional quantum Hall states and their anyons is the temperature. In order to freeze out the excitations we need $`kT/\mathrm{}\omega (1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )`$. For a system of $`N=6`$ particles the observation of the states $`\nu =1/2,3/4,3/4`$ requires temperatures $`kT/\mathrm{}\omega 0.20,0.38,0.62`$.

## VII The paired superconducting states

In this section we study a situation in which the ground state of the atomic system is a paired state of effective fermions. We consider a system with and even number of atoms and $`n=2`$ internal levels, up ($``$), and down ($``$), and we assume that the interaction between atoms in the same spin state is much larger than the interaction between atoms with different spin states. In this case the interaction term in Hamiltonian (2) can be approximated by

$$V^{}=g\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (z_iz_j)\left(P_{ij}^{}+P_{ij}^{}\right),$$
(30)
where the operator $`P_{ij}^{\sigma \sigma }`$ projects the spin state of the pair of particles $`ij`$ on the state $`\sigma \sigma `$.

We will show that, in the limit of rapid rotation, the ground state of the system is the product of a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state and a completely antisymmetric wave function. This antisymmetric wave function has the structure of a BCS state of fermions with p-wave pairing.

From the results of section II it follows that in the rapid rotation limit the ground state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, of the system must be both an analytic function of the $`z_i`$’s and an eigenstate of the interaction (30) with eigenvalue $`0`$. Let’s choose any pair of particles $`i`$ and $`j`$. For $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be annihilated by the interaction (30) we have two possibilities. Either the particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ are in a different spin state, or the relative angular momentum of the pair is larger than $`0`$. It follows that either the spin triplet $`(_i_j+_i_j)`$ or the factor $`(z_iz_j)`$ is a factor of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. How many factors of the form $`(z_iz_j)`$ and how many spin triplets we will have in the ground state will be the choice that costs the minimal amount of angular momentum energy, thus, we will have as many triplet states as possible. Note that the maximum number of pairs that we can arrange in triplets is precisely $`N/2`$, corresponding to a certain pairing of the particles. It follows that the ground state has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=Pf\left(\frac{_i_j+_i_j}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j),$$
(31)
where the Pfaffian $`Pf`$ is defined by

$$Pf(M_{ij})=𝒜(M_{12}M_{34}\mathrm{}M_{N1,N}),$$
(32)
where $`M_{ij}`$ are the elements of an antisymmetric matrix and $`𝒜`$ denotes the operation of antisymmetrization, normalized such that each distinct term appears one with coefficient 1.

The state (31) is the product of a $`\nu =1`$ Laughlin state, in which the factor $`(z_iz_j)`$ appears for all pairs of particles $`ij`$, and a Pfaffian factor. The Pfaffian factor acts in the following way. It chooses a pairing of the particles, and for all pairs $`ij`$ within the pairing it removes the factor $`(z_iz_j)`$ and substitutes it by a triplet state ($`_i_j+_i_j`$). In this way the system minimizes its total angular momentum, remaining in the subspace of zero interaction eigenstates.

Since the Pfaffian factor is completely antisymmetric we can interpret it as the wave function of a system of $`N`$ effective fermions, in the same way that we did in section II. In this case, however, the fermionic wave function is not an analytic function of the $`z_i`$’s, and, therefore it does not lie within the lowest Landau level. Such a Pfaffian state has been shown to be the ground state solution of a BCS theory for fermions with p-wave triplet pairing Read . With this result we can say that the state (31) is a superconducting state of effective fermions. It would very interesting to derive an effective Hamiltonian for the fermionic wave function, in a similar way as we did in section II. This effective Hamiltonian should describe in this case fermions with attractive interactions between particles with different spin states. Derivation of this Hamiltonian will be discussed elsewhere.

## VIII Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown how by rapidly rotating a gas of ultra cold bosonic atoms, we can drive the system into a strong interacting regime in which novel correlated ground states and excitations appear.

We have developed a theory that exactly maps the problem of interacting bosons in the rapid rotation regime to a problem of non–interacting fermions. This fermionization scheme allows us to find the exact ground state and low-lying excitations of the system. For the case of a system with no internal levels we recover the results of our previous work, with a $`\frac{1}{2}`$–Laughlin liquid as the ground state, and $`1/2`$ anyonic excitations. In the presence of $`n`$ internal levels and when the ratio $`N/n`$ is an integer number, the ground state of the effective fermions is a $`\nu =n`$ integer quantum Hall state. The corresponding bosonic ground state is a fractional multicomponent quantum Hall liquid with filling factor $`\nu =n/(1+n)`$. This fractional liquid is a highly correlated state made out of $`n`$ copies of a $`1/(1+n)`$–Laughlin liquid, one for each internal state. Starting from these liquids we have shown how to create $`p/(1+n)`$–anyons, by focusing lasers at the desired positions, coupled to $`p`$ different spin states. The fractional statistics of these anyons may be directly tested in a Ramsey-type interferometer similar to the one we proposed to detect $`1/2`$ anyons.

The experimental observation of the fractional quantum Hall liquids and the anyons described in this work requires small temperatures, small number of atoms, and very fast rotating traps. The conditions required are relaxed as the number of internal levels increases. A possible scenario for the observation of these entangled states is a two–dimensional rotating optical lattice. As already shown in the recent experiment with a one-dimensional optical lattice it is possible to reach a regime in which a small fixed number of atoms is confined in each well of the lattice. Furthermore, since one has many identical copies of the system, the experimental signals are highly magnified.

## Acknowledgments

We thank I. Bloch and M. Greiner for discussions. B. P. is supported by grant HPMF-CT-2000-01045 (Marie Curie fellowship) of the European Community.


text:
# Irrversibility of entanglement manipulations: Vagueness of the entanglement of cost and entanglement of distillation

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are very grateful to Prof. Hiroshi Imai and Japan Science and Technology Corporation for financial supports. We are also very grateful to Dr. G. Vidal for discussions.