text:
# Dimensional Reduction Formulas for Branched Polymer Correlation Functions

## 1 Introduction and Main Results

We define the generating function for branched polymers (mod translations) to be

$$Z_{\mathrm{BP}}(\mathrm{z})=\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^N}{N!}\underset{T}{}_{^{(D+2)(N1)}}𝑑y_2\mathrm{}𝑑y_N\underset{ijT}{}[2U^{}(|y_iy_j|^2)]\underset{ijT}{}U(|y_iy_j|^2).$$
(1.1)
Here $`y_1=0`$, $`y_2,\mathrm{},y_N`$ are the positions of the monomers, and we sum over all tree graphs $`T`$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. We assume that $`U(t)`$ is a positive weight function which tends to 1 as $`t\mathrm{}`$, and that $`U^{}(|y|^2)`$ is a positive, integrable function of $`y^{D+2}`$. By taking limits, we may take $`U(t)=\theta (t1)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step function. In this case, $`2U^{}(|y_iy_j|^2)=\delta (|y_iy_j|1)`$, and we obtain our standard model of hard spheres such that spheres $`i`$ and $`j`$ are required to touch if $`ijT`$.

The above definition is a direct translation to the continuum of the familiar model of lattice branched polymers. On the lattice $`^{D+2}`$, a branched polymer is a finite connected set of nearest-neighbor bonds with no cycles \[Sla99\]. An $`N`$-vertex branched polymer is a subset $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_N\}`$ of $`^{D+2}`$, together with a tree graph on $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_N\}`$ such that for every $`\{y_i,y_j\}T`$, $`|y_iy_j|=1`$. One defines $`c_N`$ to be the number of $`N`$-vertex branched polymers mod translations. Then, as in \[Frö86\], the generating function $`Z_{\mathrm{BP}}(\mathrm{z})=_N\mathrm{z}^Nc_N`$ can be written as

$$Z_{\mathrm{BP}}(\mathrm{z})=\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^N}{N!}\underset{T}{}\underset{y_2,\mathrm{},y_N}{}\underset{ijT}{}[2U_{ij}^{}]\underset{ijT}{}U_{ij},$$
(1.2)
where $`2U_{ij}^{}=\delta _{|y_iy_j|,1}`$ and $`U_{ij}=1\delta _{y_i,y_j}`$ enforce the adjacency and loop-free conditions, respectively. For example, $`c_3=6`$ in $`^2`$, which is correctly accounted for in (1.2) as there are 3 trees, 4 possibilities for $`y_2`$, and then 3 for $`y_3`$. For more details, see \[BI01\].

Returning to the continuum, we define the partition function for the repulsive gas in a box $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^D`$:

$$Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^N}{N!}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^N}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_N\underset{1i<jN}{}U(|x_ix_j|^2).$$
(1.3)
The main result of \[BI01\] is that the identity

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^D}{lim}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\mathrm{log}Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})=2\pi Z_{\mathrm{BP}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi }\right)$$
(1.4)
holds for all $`\mathrm{z}`$ such that the right-hand side converges absolutely. The left-hand side of (1.4) is $`1/(kT)`$ times the pressure of the repulsive gas. Evidently, its leading singularity $`(\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c)^{2\alpha _{\mathrm{HC}}}`$ is identical to the leading singularity $`(\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c)^{2\gamma _{\mathrm{BP}}}`$ of $`Z_{\mathrm{BP}}`$, where $`\mathrm{z}_c`$ is the closest singularity to the origin. Hence

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{HC}}(D)=\gamma _{\mathrm{BP}}(D+2).$$
(1.5)
If one can define $`\theta `$ from the asymptotic form $`c_N\mathrm{z}_c^NN^\theta `$, then $`\theta =3\gamma _{\mathrm{HC}}`$ by an Abelian theorem. Furthermore, one expects that $`\sigma `$, the Yang-Lee edge exponent, is equal to $`1\alpha _{\mathrm{HC}}`$ \[PF99, eqn. 7\], which with (1.5) leads to the Parisi-Sourlas relation \[PS81\]

$$\theta (D+2)=\sigma (D)+2.$$
(1.6)
One can also see that the exponents $`\nu _{\mathrm{BP}}`$, $`\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ are equal to their hard-core counterparts in two fewer dimensions (see Section 3).

If one takes

$$U(|x_ix_j|^2)=e^{w(x_ix_j)},$$
(1.7)
with $`\widehat{w}(k)>0`$, then by the sine-Gordon transformation, (1.3) can be written as

$$Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})=\mathrm{exp}\left(_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑x\widehat{\mathrm{z}}e^{i\phi (x)}\right)𝑑\mu _w(\phi ),$$
(1.8)
where $`d\mu _w`$ is the Gaussian measure with covariance $`w`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{z}}=\mathrm{z}e^{w(0)/2}`$. Thus certain branched polymer models can be written as $`\widehat{\mathrm{z}}e^{i\phi }`$ field theories in two fewer dimensions. Taking into account an effective mass term $`\phi (x)^2`$ from $`d\mu _w`$, one finds a critical value for $`\phi `$ on the imaginary axis, and at the critical $`\mathrm{z}`$ the interaction is $`i\phi ^3+`$ higher order. Thus one expects that these theories are in the same universality class as the Yang-Lee edge $`(i\phi ^3)`$ theory \[Fis78\] (see \[LF95, PF99\] for a more complete investigation of the hypothesis that the repulsive-core singularity is in the Yang-Lee class). We note that Shapir \[Sha83, Sha85\] has given a field theory representation for lattice branched polymers which reduces to the supersymmetric Yang-Lee model of \[PS81\] when presumably irrelevant terms are dropped.

Cardy has argued recently \[Car01\] (see also his contribution to this issue) that the crossover from area-weighted self-avoiding loops to ordinary self-avoiding loops in two dimensions is governed by a scaling function related to the Airy function. Part of his argument is the reduction of two-dimensional branched polymers to zero-dimensional $`i\phi ^3`$ theory. This is, in essence, the content of equations (1.4) and (1.8).

Correlation Functions

We define first the basic $`n`$-point density correlations for branched polymers and for repulsive gases. Let

$$\rho (\stackrel{~}{x})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (\stackrel{~}{x}x_i),\rho (\stackrel{~}{y})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (\stackrel{~}{y}y_i),$$
(1.9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{x},x_i^D`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y},y_i^{D+2}`$. Then we put

$`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{y}_n;\mathrm{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{z}^N}{N!}}{\displaystyle \underset{T}{}}{\displaystyle _{^{(D+2)N}}}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}𝑑y_N{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\rho (\stackrel{~}{y}_i){\displaystyle \underset{ijT}{}}[2U_{ij}^{}]{\displaystyle \underset{ijT}{}}U_{ij}`$
$`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_n;\mathrm{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^D}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\rho (\stackrel{~}{x}_i)_{\mathrm{HC},\mathrm{\Lambda }}.`$ (1.10)
Here $`U_{ij}^{}:=U^{}(|y_iy_j|^2)`$, $`U_{ij}:=U(|y_iy_j|^2)`$, and $`_{\mathrm{HC},\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the expectation in the measure for which $`Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})`$ is the normalizing constant. We also write $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n),\mathrm{T}}`$ for the corresponding truncated expectation.

If $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n`$ are distinct points, then we have

$$G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(y_1,\mathrm{},y_n;\mathrm{z})=\underset{M=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^M}{M!}\underset{T\mathrm{on}\{1,\mathrm{},n+M\}}{}𝑑y_{n+1}\mathrm{}𝑑y_{n+M}\underset{ijT}{}[2U_{ij}^{}]\underset{ijT}{}U_{ij}.$$
(1.11)
Thus, for distinct points $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ is a sum/integral over branched polymers whose vertices include $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n`$. When points are not distinct, $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ are understood by smearing each $`\rho (\stackrel{~}{y})`$ or $`\rho (\stackrel{~}{x})`$ by test functions. Thus in general, $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ are distributions which contain $`\delta `$-function singularities at coinciding points. In addition, if $`U_{ij}^{}`$ is not smooth (for example in the hard sphere case $`U(t)=\theta (t1)`$), then $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ will inherit singularities from $`U_{ij}^{}`$.

The density correlations $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ arise naturally when taking an order $`n`$ variational derivative of $`Z_{\mathrm{HC}}`$ with respect to an external field. However, we will need a different set of Green’s functions for the repulsive gas. Stripping $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ of its singularities at coinciding points, we write

$$g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;\mathrm{z})=Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})^1\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^{n+m}}{m!}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^m}𝑑x_{n+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{n+m}\underset{1i<jn+m}{}U_{ij}.$$
(1.12)
Here $`n`$ particles are forced to be at $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, and if these are distinct points, then $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}=G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$. In general, $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ is a sum of terms, each with some $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(j)}`$, $`jn`$ multiplied by $`\delta `$-functions in some of the $`x_i`$’s. For example,

$$G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)=g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)+g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(1)}(x_1)\delta (x_1x_2).$$
(1.13)
We shall see that $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ can be related to a certain $`n`$-tree branched polymer correlation function:

$$g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(y_1,\mathrm{},y_n;\mathrm{z})=\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^{p+n}}{p!}\underset{F^{(n)}}{}_{^{(D+2)p}}𝑑y_{n+1}\mathrm{}𝑑y_{n+p}\underset{ijF^{(n)}}{}[2U_{ij}^{}]\underset{ijF^{(n)}}{}U_{ij}.$$
(1.14)
Here $`F^{(n)}`$ is a loop-free graph or forest on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n+p\}`$ which consists of $`n`$ connected components or trees, each of which contains one of $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

If $`\mathrm{z}`$ is in the interior of the domain of convergence at $`Z_{\mathrm{BP}}`$, then in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^D`$,

$$g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;\mathrm{z})=(2\pi )^ng_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi }),$$
(1.15)
and

$$G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n),\mathrm{T}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;\mathrm{z})=(2\pi )_{^{n1}}𝑑z_2\mathrm{}𝑑z_nG_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(x_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n;\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi }).$$
(1.16)
Here $`x_i^D`$ and $`y_i=(x_i,z_i)^{D+2}`$.

The relation (1.16) was proven in \[BI01\] by differentiating (1.4) with respect to sources. We prove (1.15) in Section 2. As $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ agree at non-coinciding points, (1.15) and (1.16) combine to give relations between $`g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$. In particular, we show that the two-point functions obey a Ward identity

$$\frac{d}{d(r^2)}g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)},$$
(1.17)
where by rotation and translation invariance $`g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}`$ can be thought of as functions of $`r^2=|y_1y_2|^2`$ only.

In an appendix, we generalize the above results to repulsive gases and branched polymers with more than one species of particle/monomer and species-dependent interactions. Examples include the Widom-Rowlinson model of penetrable hard spheres \[WR70\]. As with the models discussed above, dimensional reduction is actually a consequence of an underlying supersymmetry of the branched polymer model. This requires that the attractive interaction between neighboring monomers be related to the repulsive interaction.

In Section 3 we focus on the case $`D=1`$ and derive a number of results for the standard hard-core gas using the method of Laplace transforms. We give fairly explicit formulas for $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2),\mathrm{T}}`$ and derive the values $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HC}}=\frac{3}{2}`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{HC}}=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\eta _{\mathrm{HC}}=1`$, thereby obtaining the same values for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{BP}}`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{BP}}`$, $`\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ in three dimensions. (Note that for $`D=0`$, $`\mathrm{log}Z_{\mathrm{HC}}=\mathrm{log}(1+z)`$, so that the two-dimensional $`Z_{\mathrm{BP}}(\mathrm{z})`$ has a logarithmic singularity at $`\mathrm{z}=2\pi `$, which implies that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{BP}}=\alpha _{\mathrm{HC}}=2`$. Unfortunately, dimensional reduction gives no information on $`\nu _{\mathrm{BP}}`$, $`\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ in this case.) We derive the scaling form of the two-point function near $`\mathrm{z}_c=e^1`$:

$$G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(0,x;\mathrm{z})|x|^{(D2+\eta _{\mathrm{HC}})}K_{\mathrm{HC}}(x/\xi ),$$
(1.18)
with

$$K_{\mathrm{HC}}(\widehat{x})=\frac{4}{\widehat{x}^2}e^{\widehat{x}},$$
(1.19)
which implies

$$G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(0,y;\mathrm{z})|x|^{d2+\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}}K_{\mathrm{BP}}(x/\xi ),$$
(1.20)
with

$$K_{\mathrm{BP}}(\widehat{x})=\frac{1}{\pi ^2\widehat{x}}e^{\widehat{x}}.$$
(1.21)
The form of $`K_{\mathrm{HC}}(\widehat{x})`$ is the same as that of the one-dimensional Ising model near the Yang-Lee edge \[Fis80\]. The form of $`K_{\mathrm{BP}}(\widehat{x})`$ agrees with the prediction of Miller \[Mil91\].

## 2 The Forest-Root Formula and Dimensional Reduction

We wish to derive relationships between the hard-core Green’s functions in $`D`$ dimensions and the branched polymer Green’s functions in $`D+2`$ dimensions. The key is the Forest-Root formula, proven in \[BI01\]. Let $`f(𝐭)`$ be any smooth function of variables

$$t_{ij}=|z_iz_j|^2,1i<jN\text{ and }t_i=|z_i|^2,1iN,$$

where each $`\mathrm{z}_i`$. Assume that $`f`$, when regarded as a function of $`\mathrm{z}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{z}_N`$, has compact support. Any subset of the bonds $`\{ij|1i<jN\}`$ forms a graph on the vertices $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. A subset $`R`$ of vertices is called a set of roots. A forest $`F`$ is a graph that has no loops. The connected components of a forest are trees. We are declaring that a graph with no bonds and just one vertex is also a tree. See Fig. 1.

###### Theorem 2.1.

(Forest-Root Formula)

$$f(\mathrm{𝟎})=\underset{(F,R)}{}_^Nf^{(F,R)}(𝐭)\left(\frac{d^2z}{\pi }\right)^N,$$
(2.1)
where $`f^{(F,R)}(𝐭)`$ denotes the derivative with respect to the variables $`t_{ij}`$ with $`ijF`$ and $`t_i`$ with $`iR`$. The sum is over all forests $`F`$ and all sets $`R`$ of roots with the property that each tree in $`F`$ contains exactly one root from $`R`$, and $`d^2z=dudv`$, where $`z=u+iv`$.

*Proof of Theorem 1.1 (1.15).* In order to examine $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$, we set $`N=n+m`$ and put

$$f(𝐭)=\underset{1i<jN}{}U(|x_{ij}|^2+t_{ij})\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}g(ϵt_i)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}g(t_j/ϵ),$$
(2.2)
where $`x_{ij}=x_ix_j`$, $`ϵ>0`$, and where $`g`$ is a smooth, decreasing function with compact support such that $`g(0)=1`$. Working in a finite box $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we write

$$g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^{m+n}}{m!}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^n}𝑑x_{n+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{n+m}f(\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(2.3)
and insert (2.1). With $`y_i=(x_i,z_i)`$, this becomes

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^{m+n}}{m!}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^n}𝑑x_{n+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{n+m}\underset{(F,R)}{}_^N\left(\frac{d^2z}{\pi }\right)\underset{ijF}{}U_{ij}^{}\underset{ijF}{}U_{ij}\underset{iR}{}\frac{dg}{dt_i}\underset{iR}{}g.$$
(2.4)
The forest $`F`$ may be divided into $`F^{(n)}`$ (which consists of all the trees containing any of the vertices $`1,\mathrm{},n`$), and the rest, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. If any of the vertices $`1,\mathrm{},n`$ are not roots, then the corresponding factor $`g(t/ϵ)`$ is not differentiated, and so lacks a factor $`ϵ^1`$ to compensate for the $`O(ϵ)`$ integration volume. Therefore, neglecting $`O(ϵ)`$ terms, $`F^{(n)}=T_1\mathrm{}T_n`$ with $`x_iT_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ , and $`T_i`$ disjoint. Let $`m=p+M`$, where $`M`$ is the number of vertices in $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$, and rewrite (2.4) as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{p+n}}{p!}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^p}}𝑑x_{n+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{n+p}{\displaystyle \underset{F^{(n)}}{}}{\displaystyle _^p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2z}{\pi }}\right)^p{\displaystyle \underset{ijF^{(n)}}{}}U_{ij}^{}`$ (2.5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{z}^M}{M!}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^M}}𝑑x_{n+p+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{n+p+M}{\displaystyle \underset{(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{R})}{}}{\displaystyle _^M}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2z}{\pi }}\right)^M{\displaystyle \underset{ij\stackrel{~}{F}}{}}U_{ij}^{}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i\stackrel{~}{R}}{}}[ϵg^{}(ϵt_i)]{\displaystyle \underset{iR}{}}g(ϵt_i){\displaystyle \underset{ijF}{}}U_{ij}+o(1),`$
where $`o(1)`$ denotes a quantity which tends to zero with $`ϵ`$. Here $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is a subset of $`\{n+p+1,\mathrm{},n+p+M\}`$ and as before, each tree of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ has exactly one root from $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$. We have eliminated the integrals over $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ because $`(\pi ϵ)^1g^{}(t_i/ϵ)`$ tends to $`\delta (z_i)`$. The factors $`g(ϵt_i)`$ with $`n+1in+p`$ can be replaced with 1 because the decrease of $`U^{}`$ in essence forces the corresponding $`z_i`$’s to remain bounded. Any errors from these approximations are $`o(1)`$.

The only barrier to writing (2.5) as a product is the presence of interactions $`U_{ij}`$ linking $`F^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. However, for small $`ϵ`$ the trees in $`F`$ are rarely close to each other or to the trees of $`F^{(n)}`$. Using again the decrease of $`U^{}`$ we see that all the vertices of a tree are in a bounded cluster and that $`g(ϵt_i)`$ can be replaced with $`g(ϵt_r)`$, where $`r`$ is the root of the tree. Then the sum over roots leads to a factor $`N(T)`$, the number of vertices in $`T`$. Observe that $`(ϵ/\pi )N(T)g(ϵt_r)^{N(T)1}g^{}(ϵt_r)d^2z_r`$ is a probability measure which becomes very wide as $`ϵ0`$. Thus with high probability, the interactions $`U_{ij}`$ between $`F^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ can be replaced with 1, with an additional contribution to the $`o(1)`$ error. As a result, (2.5) can be rewritten as

$$\left[\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^{p+n}}{p!}_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\times )^p}\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{n+p}{}}\frac{d^{D+2}y_i}{\pi }\underset{F^{(n)}}{}\underset{ijF^{(n)}}{}U_{ij}^{}\underset{ijF^{(n)}}{}U_{ij}\right]Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})+o(1).$$
(2.6)
Taking the limit as $`ϵ0`$, we obtain a relation for finite $`D`$-dimensional volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;\mathrm{z})=g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi })(2\pi )^n.$$
(2.7)
The limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^D`$ exists for each term in the sum over $`p`$, by monotone convergence. By dominated convergence, the sum on $`p`$ may be interchanged with the infinite volume limit, and we obtain the first part of Theorem 1.1.

*Proof of (1.4).* A similar factorization occurs in $`Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})`$, so that all the terms with $`k`$ trees can be written as $`1/k!`$ times the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ power of

$$\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^N}{N!}\underset{T}{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑x_1_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\times )^{N1}}\underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{dy_i}{\pi }\underset{ijT}{}U_{ij}^{}\underset{ijT}{}U_{ij},$$
(2.8)
so that, as argued in \[BI01\],

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^D}{lim}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\mathrm{log}Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z})=2\pi Z_{\mathrm{BP}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi }\right).$$
(2.9)
*Proof of Theorem 1.1 (1.16).* The relation between $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ may be derived by differentiating (2.9) with respect to sources. Then, as explained in \[BI01\],

$$G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}(x_1\mathrm{}x_n;\mathrm{z})=(2\pi )_{^{n1}}\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}d^2z_iG_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}(x_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n;\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi }),$$
(2.10)
which is (1.16). In momentum space, then, $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n),\mathrm{T}}`$ may be obtained from $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$ by setting the components of momenta in the two extra dimensions to zero. This contrasts with the relation (2.7) between $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(n)}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(n)}`$, in which the spatial components in the two extra dimensions are set to 0.

*Proof of (1.17).* Relations between $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{BP}}`$ may be derived by combining (2.7) and (2.10). For example, consider the 2-point functions, which by rotation invariance can be expressed as functions of the squared-distance $`t`$:

$`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}(t;\mathrm{z})`$ $`:=`$ $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}(x_1,x_2;\mathrm{z}),\text{ where }|x_1x_2|^2=t,`$
$`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(t;\mathrm{z})`$ $`:=`$ $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(y_1,y_2;\mathrm{z}),\text{ where }|y_1y_2|^2=t,`$ (2.11)
and similarly for $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}`$. Since $`g_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}`$ agrees with $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2)}`$ at non-coinciding points, (2.7) and (2.10) imply that

$$g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(t;\mathrm{z})=(2\pi )^1_t^{\mathrm{}}\pi 𝑑t^{}G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(t^{},\mathrm{z}),t0.$$
(2.12)
Differentiation yields

$$\frac{d}{dt}g_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(t;\mathrm{z})=\frac{1}{2}G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(t;\mathrm{z}).$$
(2.13)
This may be thought of as a Ward identity for the supersymmetry of our model of branched polymers.

## 3 Green’s Function for the Hard-Core Gas in One Dimension

Laplace transforms can be used to give fairly explicit formulas for the Green’s function for one-dimensional gases with only nearest neighbor interactions. We follow \[FW69\] in deriving the relevant expressions for the basic hard-core gas with no interactions other than a minimum separation of 1 between particles.

Let us write the grand canonical partition function in the following way (we omit the subscript $`\mathrm{HC}`$ in most of this section):

$$Z(L)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{z}^N_{x_11}𝑑x_1_{x_2x_1+1}𝑑x_2\mathrm{}_{L1x_Nx_{N1}+1}𝑑x_N.$$
(3.1)
The particles are restricted to the interval $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=[1,L1]`$, as if external particles had been placed at 0 and $`L`$. We assume $`L>1`$ and put $`Z(L)=1`$ for $`1<L2`$. The Laplace transform can be evaluated explicitly:

$`\widehat{Z}(s)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Le^{sL}Z(L)`$ (3.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{z}^NJ(s)^{N+1},`$
where

$$J(s)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{sx}=\frac{1}{s}e^s.$$
(3.3)
Using analytic continuation as necessary to define $`\widehat{Z}(s)`$, we have

$$\widehat{Z}(s)=\frac{J(s)}{1\mathrm{z}J(s)}=\frac{1}{se^s\mathrm{z}}.$$
(3.4)
We obtain $`Z(L)`$ by inverse transform:

$$Z(L)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{se^s\mathrm{z}}e^{sL}𝑑s.$$
(3.5)
This leads to a residue formula

$$Z(L)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{s_n(L1)}}{s_n+1},$$
(3.6)
where $`\{s_n\}`$ are the solutions to $`se^s=\mathrm{z}`$, arranged in order of decreasing real part. These solutions are the branches of the Lambert $`W`$-function \[CGHJK\].

We will make use of some properties of the $`s_n`$. For $`\mathrm{z}>0`$, there is one real solution, and for $`e^1<\mathrm{z}<0`$, there are two real solutions (see Fig. 2). The complex solutions come in conjugate pairs, and all have real parts which are less than the real solutions. (This can be seen by writing $`s=x+iy`$ and letting $`x(y)`$ solve the modulus equation $`(x^2+y^2)e^{2x}=|\mathrm{z}|^2`$. Then $`\frac{dx}{dy^2}=1/[2(x+x^2+y^2)]<c<0`$ with $`c`$ independent of $`x,y`$ in any bounded region not intersecting $`\{(x,y)|x(1,0)\}`$. This shows, in fact, that the upper gap $`\text{Re}(s_1s_2)>B>0`$ with $`B`$ independent of $`\mathrm{z}`$ in any interval $`[1,\mathrm{z}_0]`$ with $`\mathrm{z}_0<0`$.) If we put $`s_n=x_n+iy_n`$, then $`|y_nn\pi |`$ const \[CGHJK, Fig. 4\]. In addition, $`x_n\mathrm{log}|y_n/\mathrm{z}|\mathrm{log}|n/\mathrm{z}|`$ for large $`n`$, from the modulus equation. Hence the sum in (3.6) converges for all $`L>1`$.

The density, or one-point function, $`G^{(1)}(x)=G^{(1)}`$, is the expectation of $`\rho (x)=_{j=1}^N\delta (xx_j)`$ in the limit as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. If we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=[\frac{L}{2}+1,\frac{L}{2}1]`$, then

$$G^{(1)}=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{Z\left(\frac{L}{2}+x\right)\mathrm{z}Z\left(\frac{L}{2}x\right)}{Z(L)}.$$
(3.7)
Only the $`n=0`$ term of (3.6) survives the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit. Thus we have

$$G^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{z}e^{s_0}}{s_0+1}=\frac{s_0}{s_0+1},$$
(3.8)
where we have used the relation $`\mathrm{z}=s_0e^{s_0}`$. If we identify $`G^{(1)}`$ with the density $`\overline{\rho }`$ and solve for the pressure $`p=s_0kT`$, we obtain the equation of state for hard rods of unit length \[Ton36\]:

$$p=\frac{\overline{\rho }kT}{1\overline{\rho }}.$$
(3.9)
The density-density correlation, or two-point function $`G^{(2)}(0,x)=G^{(2)}(x)`$, is the expectation of $`\rho (0)\rho (x)`$. For $`x>1`$, this can be written as

$`G^{(2)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Z\left(\frac{L}{2}\right)\mathrm{z}Z(x)\mathrm{z}Z\left(\frac{L}{2}x\right)}{Z(L)}}`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{s_0+1}}e^{s_0x}\mathrm{z}Z(x).`$
One can insert the formula

$$Z(x)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{z}^N}{N!}(xN1)^N\theta (xN1)$$
(3.11)
to obtain the long-known expression for $`G^{(2)}`$ (see, for example, \[SZK53, eqn. 32\]) which is useful if $`x`$ is not too large. Alternatively, one can insert (3.6) to obtain

$$G^{(2)}(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{s_0}{s_0+1}\frac{s_n}{s_n+1}e^{(s_ns_0)x},$$
(3.12)
and after subtracting $`G^{(1)2}`$, we obtain an expression for the truncated Green’s function

$$G^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(x)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{s_0}{s_0+1}\frac{s_n}{s_n+1}e^{(s_ns_0)x},$$
(3.13)
which is convergent for $`x>1`$. It is apparent from (3.11) that $`\left(\frac{d}{dx}\right)^NG^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(x)`$ is continuous, except for a jump at $`x=N+1`$. This is reflected in the divergence of the series (3.13) at $`x=N+1`$, when differentiated $`N`$ times. For $`|x|<1`$, $`G^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(x)=0`$ except for a $`\delta `$-function at 0 with coefficient $`G^{(1)}`$.

Scaling Form of the Green’s Function

As $`\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c=e^1`$, the two real solutions to $`se^s=\mathrm{z}`$ approach the value $`1`$. The correlation length is given by

$$\xi :=\left[\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|x|}\mathrm{log}G^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(x)\right]^1=(s_0s_1)^1.$$
(3.14)
It is clear from Fig. 2 that $`s_0s_1(\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Hence, as $`\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c`$, $`\xi `$ diverges as $`(\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c)^\nu `$ with a correlation exponent $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$.

If we let $`\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c`$ and $`x\mathrm{}`$ while keeping $`\widehat{x}=x/\xi `$ fixed, then the asymptotic form of $`G^{(2),\mathrm{T}}`$ is described by a scaling function

$$K(\widehat{x})=\underset{x\mathrm{},\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c}{lim}x^{D2+\eta }G^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(x).$$
(3.15)
Here $`D=1`$, and we take the anomalous dimension $`\eta =1`$ in order to get a nontrivial limit. From (3.13), and the uniform gap between $`s_1`$ and the other solutions, we have

$$K(\widehat{x})=\underset{x\mathrm{},\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c}{lim}\frac{s_0}{s_0+1}\frac{s_1}{s_1+1}\frac{1}{x^2}e^{x/\xi }.$$
(3.16)
A short calculation shows that $`\frac{s_0}{s_0+1}\frac{s_1}{s_1+1}=\frac{4}{(s_0s_1)^2}(1+O(\mathrm{z}\mathrm{z}_c))`$, and hence

$$K(\widehat{x})=\frac{4}{\widehat{x}^2}e^{\widehat{x}}.$$
(3.17)
We may also define a scaling function for branched polymers:

$$K_{\mathrm{BP}}(\widehat{x})=\underset{x\mathrm{},\mathrm{z}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{z}}_c}{lim}x^{d2+\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}}G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(0,x).$$
(3.18)
Here $`\widehat{x}=x/\xi _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ with

$$\xi _{\mathrm{BP}}:=\left[\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|x|}\mathrm{log}G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(0,x)\right]^1,$$
(3.19)
and $`\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ is chosen so as to obtain a nontrivial limit for $`K_{\mathrm{BP}}`$. As explained in \[BI01\], we have the relation (2.10) between $`G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2),\mathrm{T}}`$, which when differentiated yields

$$G_{\mathrm{BP}}^{(2)}(t;\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi })=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{d}{dt}G_{\mathrm{HC}}^{(2),\mathrm{T}}(t,\mathrm{z}).$$
(3.20)
Hence, the critical activity $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{z}}_c`$ for branched polymers is equal to $`2\pi \mathrm{z}_c=2\pi e`$, $`\xi _{\mathrm{BP}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{z}}{2\pi }\right)=\xi _{\mathrm{HC}}(\mathrm{z}),\eta _{\mathrm{BP}}=\eta _{\mathrm{HC}}`$, and

$`K_{\mathrm{BP}}(\widehat{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}[\widehat{x}K_{\mathrm{HC}}^{}(\widehat{x})(D2+\eta _{\mathrm{HC}})K_{\mathrm{HC}}(\widehat{x})]`$ (3.21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2\widehat{x}}}e^{\widehat{x}}.`$
Of course, the exponent $`\nu _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ governing the divergence of $`\xi _{\mathrm{BP}}`$ as $`\mathrm{z}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{z}}_c`$ must equal $`\nu _{\mathrm{HC}}`$ ($`=\frac{1}{2}`$ if $`d=D+2=3`$).

## Appendix: Multispecies Examples

We can generate the arguments of Section 2 to multispecies examples. Define a repulsive gas partition function in $`D`$ dimensions:

$$Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(𝐳)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{N!}\underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{z}_\alpha _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^N}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_N\underset{ij}{}U^{\alpha _i\alpha _j}(|x_ix_j|^2),$$
(A.1)
where each $`\alpha _i`$ is summed over the set of species of the problem, $`\mathrm{z}_\alpha `$ is the activity of species $`\alpha `$, and $`U^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a repulsive interaction between species $`\alpha `$ and species $`\beta `$. The corresponding multispecies branched polymer generating function is

$$Z_{\mathrm{BP}}(𝐳)=\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{N!}\underset{T}{}\underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{z}_\alpha _{(^{D+2})^{N1}}𝑑y_2\mathrm{}𝑑y_N\underset{ijT}{}[2U_{ij}^{}]\underset{ijT}{}U_{ij},$$
(A.2)
where

$$U_{ij}=U^{\alpha _i\alpha _j}(|x_ix_j|^2),$$
(A.3)
and $`U_{ij}^{}`$ is its derivative. In particular, for the hard-core model with minimum separation $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ between species $`\alpha `$ and species $`\beta `$, we would have $`U^{\alpha \beta }(t)=\theta (tR_{\alpha \beta }^2)`$ and

$$2U^{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{}(|x_ix_j|^2)=\frac{1}{R_{\alpha \beta }}\delta (|x_ix_j|R_{\alpha \beta }).$$
(A.4)
Assume that $`U^{\alpha \beta }`$ satisfies the usual conditions ($`U^{\alpha \beta },U^{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ positive, $`U^{\alpha \beta }1`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$, $`U^{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ integrable in $`^{D+2}`$). Then, provided $`Z_{\mathrm{BP}}(𝐳)`$ is absolutely convergent, we obtain a reduction formula

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^D}{lim}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\mathrm{log}Z_{\mathrm{HC}}(𝐳)=2\pi Z_{\mathrm{BP}}\left(\frac{𝐳}{2\pi }\right).$$
(A.5)
We also obtain results as in Theorem 1.1 for correlation functions.

Acknowledgement

We thank Yonathan Shapir and Joel Lebowitz for useful suggestions which improved the paper.


format: text

text:
# The reduction of the closest disentangled states

## Abstract

We study the closest disentangled state to a given entangled state in any system (multi-party with any dimension). We obtain the set of equations the closest disentangled state must satisfy, and show that its reduction is strongly related to the extremal condition of the local filtering on each party. Although the equations we obtain are not still tractable, we find some sufficient conditions for which the closest disentangled state has the same reduction as the given entangled state. Further, we suggest a prescription to obtain a tight upper bound of the relative entropy of entanglement in two-qubit systems.

Quantum entanglement is the most striking feature of quantum mechanics. Intensive challenges to harness the power of the entanglement as one of the physical resources have been continued. In order to quantify the resource of the entanglement, several measures such as the entanglement of formation  (or entanglement cost), entanglement of distillation , relative entropy of entanglement , have been proposed.

The relative entropy of entanglement is defined as the distance to the disentangled state closest to the given entangled state under the measure of the relative entropy. This implies that the closest disentangled state plays an important role to quantify the quantum entanglement. In addition, the closest disentangled state itself answers the following question: What is the state when the quantum correlation is completely but minimally (maintaining the classical correlation as long as possible ) washed out? Therefore, it will be important to clarify the properties of the closest disentangled state itself to understand the characteristics of the quantum entanglement.

Further, the analytical formula of the relative entropy of entanglement have been strongly desired to clarify the relations between the entanglement and the performance of many applications of quantum information . However, deriving the analytical formula has been known to be a hard problem even in the simplest two-qubit system. Mathematically, the difficulty lies in searching for the closest disentangled state on the complicated boundary surface of the set of disentangled states in the Hilbert space. Therefore, to investigate the closest disentangled state might be also important in a sense that it might give some hints for solving the hard problem.

In this paper, we consider the physical operation of the local filtering in order to investigate the properties of the closest disentangled states. This physical operation ensures that the state after the operation is disentangled if the state before operation is disentangled. As a result, we can obtain some equations the closest disentangled state must satisfy, in spite that the geometry of the entangled-disentangled boundary is quite complicated. In particular, we show that the reduction of the closest disentangled state is strongly related to the extremal condition of the local filtering on each party. Although the equations we obtain are not still tractable, we find some sufficient conditions for which the closest disentangled state has the same reduction as the given entangled state. Further, in the case of two qubits, we suggest a prescription to obtain an upper bound of the relative entropy of entanglement, which is tight for the already solved examples in two qubits. This bound also becomes an upper bound of the distillable entanglement, since it has been shown that the relative entropy of entanglement is an upper bound of the distillable entanglement .

For a given entangled state $`\varrho `$, its relative entropy of entanglement  is defined as

$$E_R(\varrho )=\underset{\sigma 𝒟}{\mathrm{min}}S(\varrho ||\sigma )=\underset{\sigma 𝒟}{\mathrm{min}}[\text{Tr}\varrho \mathrm{log}\varrho \text{Tr}\varrho \mathrm{log}\sigma ],$$
(1)
where the minimization is performed over all density matrices in the set of disentangled states $`𝒟`$. The state $`\sigma `$ in the set of $`𝒟`$ can be written as the convex sum of the product states, and hence

$$\sigma =\underset{i}{}p_i|i_Ai_A||i_Bi_B||i_Ci_C|\mathrm{},$$
(2)
with $`p_i0`$ and $`_ip_i=1`$. Let us assume that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is the closest disentangled state which minimizes $`S(\varrho ||\sigma )`$, and hence

$$S(\varrho ||\sigma )S(\varrho ||\sigma ^{})$$
(3)
for any $`\sigma 𝒟`$. Among those disentangled states, we consider the state $`\sigma ^{}`$ which is obtained from $`\sigma ^{}`$ by local filtering operations. It is obvious from Eq. (2) that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is also disentangled.

It should be noted that, in the definition of the relative entropy of entanglement, the set of $`𝒟`$ is sometimes taken for the positive partial transposed (PPT) states , and the state $`\sigma ^{}`$ achieving the minimum should be called as the closest PPT state. Even in this case, $`\sigma ^{}`$ obtained from $`\sigma ^{}`$ by local filtering is also PPT, since the PPT property is invariant under the local filtering operations. Therefore, all the results for the closest disentangled states shown below also hold for the closest PPT states.

Hereafter, we first restrict ourselves to the case of two qubits in order to simplify the discussion. Let us consider Bob’s local filtering operation as follows:

$$\sigma ^{}=\frac{(Ie^{t\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2})\sigma ^{}(Ie^{t\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2}),}{\text{Tr}[(Ie^{t\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2})\sigma ^{}(Ie^{t\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2})]},$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$ is the vector of Pauli matrices, $`|\stackrel{}{n}|=1`$ (not required though), and $`t`$ is any real parameter. Using $`\mathrm{log}A=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{xA1}{A+x}\frac{dx}{1+x^2}`$, the polynomial expansion of $`\mathrm{log}(e^{tB}Ae^{tB})`$ with respect to $`t`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{log}(e^{tB}Ae^{tB})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}A+t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A+x}}\{A,B\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A+x}}𝑑x`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`𝒪(t^2),`$ (6)
where $`\{A,B\}AB+BA`$, and therefore,

$`\text{Tr}\varrho \mathrm{log}\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\varrho \mathrm{log}\sigma ^{}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`t[\text{Tr}\varrho {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{\sigma ^{},(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}}dx`$ (9)
$`\text{Tr}[(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\sigma ^{}]]+𝒪(t^2).`$
If the linear coefficient of $`t`$ is not zero, there always exists $`\sigma ^{}`$ satisfying $`S(\varrho ||\sigma ^{})<S(\varrho ||\sigma ^{})`$ for a small enough $`|t|`$ ($`\sigma ^{}`$ is obviously non-singular at $`t=0`$), but this contradicts Eq. (3). Therefore the linear coefficient must be zero for any direction of $`\stackrel{}{n}`$. When Bob’s reduction of $`\sigma ^{}`$ is written as

$$\sigma _B^{}=\text{Tr}_A\sigma ^{}=\frac{1}{2}[I+\stackrel{}{s}_B\stackrel{}{\sigma }],$$
(10)
then $`\sigma ^{}`$ must satisfy

$$\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{s}_B=\text{Tr}\varrho _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}\frac{\{\sigma ^{},(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\}}{2}\frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}𝑑x.$$
(11)
Let $`|i`$ be eigenstates of $`\sigma ^{}`$, and $`\sigma ^{}=_i\lambda _i|ii|`$. Then

$`\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{s}_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\lambda _i+\lambda _j}{2}}{(\lambda _i+x)(\lambda _j+x)}}𝑑xi|(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })|jj|\varrho |i`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}i|(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })|jj|\varrho |i`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}i|(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })|jj|\varrho |ig_{ij}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{r}_B+\text{Tr}(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\varrho g.`$ (15)
Here, $`\stackrel{}{r}_B`$ is the Bloch vector of Bob’s reduction of $`\varrho `$:

$$\varrho _B=\text{Tr}_A\varrho =\frac{1}{2}[I+\stackrel{}{r}_B\stackrel{}{\sigma }],$$
(16)
the matrix $`g`$ is given by

$$g_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda _i+\lambda _j}{2}\frac{\mathrm{log}\lambda _i\mathrm{log}\lambda _j}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}1\hfill & \text{for }\lambda _i\lambda _j\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }\lambda _i=\lambda _j\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
and $`AB`$ is the Hadamard product defined as

$$[AB]_{ij}=A_{ij}B_{ij}.$$
(18)
Since $`g`$ is real symmetric, $`\varrho g`$ is hermitian and the reduction of $`\varrho g`$ can be written as

$$(\varrho g)_B=\text{Tr}_A(\varrho g)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{g}_B\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$
(19)
where $`g_B`$ is a real vector and $`\text{Tr}(\varrho g)=0`$ was taken into account. Then, since $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is any, the reduction of $`\sigma ^{}`$ must satisfy

$$\stackrel{}{s}_B=\stackrel{}{r}_B+\stackrel{}{g}_B.$$
(20)
In this way, it can be seen that the local property of the closest disentangled state is strongly related to the extremal condition with respect to the local filtering.

It should be noted here that, since $`\sigma ^{}`$ minimizes $`S(\varrho ||\sigma )`$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ lies on the boundary between the set of disentangled states and entangled states . In the case of two qubits, the change of the concurrence  due to the local filtering has been obtained in Refs. . According to Theorem 1 in Ref. , if the operator describing the local filtering is full rank (that is our case for any finite $`t`$), the state obtained by local filtering from the boundary state also lies on the boundary. Therefore, when $`t`$ is varied, $`\sigma ^{}`$ moves on the boundary surface. Whether the same property holds in any system or not is still an open question, but the crucial fact we have used in this paper is that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is always disentangled (and PPT) for any $`t`$. That is obviously kept in any system.

Therefore, the above discussion can be extended to any system in a very straightforward manner. For the multi-party system, the local filtering of the type $`I\mathrm{}e^{t\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2}\mathrm{}I`$ can be applied to obtain the same result. For the party with $`d`$-dimension, the set of Pauli matrices is replaced with the set of $`d^21`$ Hermitian generators $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ of SU($`d`$) , and we can obtain the condition for which the $`d^21`$ dimensional generalized Bloch vector of the closest disentangled state must satisfy. Then the following theorem is proved.

Theorem. Let $`\varrho `$ be an entangled state in any multi-party system with any dimension. The reduction of the closest disentangled (and PPT) state $`\sigma ^{}`$ with respect to the party $`X`$ must satisfy $`\stackrel{}{s}_X=\stackrel{}{r}_X+\stackrel{}{g}_X`$, where $`\stackrel{}{s}_X`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_X`$ are the generalized Bloch vector of $`\sigma _X^{}`$ and $`\varrho _X`$, respectively, and $`(\varrho g)_X=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{g}_X\stackrel{}{J}`$.

It has been proved in Ref. , if $`E_R(\varrho )=\mathrm{max}\{S(\varrho _A)S(\varrho ),S(\varrho _B)S(\varrho )\}`$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ must have the same reduction as $`\varrho `$. According to the above Theorem, the condition for which the reductions are the same to each other is given by the following corollary:

Corollary 1. The closest disentangled (and PPT) state $`\sigma ^{}`$ has the same reduction as $`\varrho `$ with respect to the party $`X`$ ($`\sigma _X^{}=\varrho _X`$), if and only if $`(\varrho g)_X=0`$.

Further, if $`\sigma ^{}`$ commutes with $`\varrho `$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ is diagonalized in the same basis as $`\varrho `$. Since all the diagonal elements of $`g`$ in this basis are always zero, $`\varrho g=0`$ in this case, and hence $`(\varrho g)_X=0`$ for every party $`X`$. Then the following corollary is proved.

Corollary 2. Let $`\varrho `$ be an entangled state in any multi-party system with any dimension. The closest disentangled (and PPT) state $`\sigma ^{}`$ must have the same reduction as $`\varrho `$ with respect to every parties, if $`\sigma ^{}`$ commutes with $`\varrho `$.

Now it is worth to check how the condition of the above Theorem ($`\stackrel{}{s}_X=\stackrel{}{r}_X+\stackrel{}{g}_X`$) is satisfied in analytically solved examples of the relative entropy of entanglement. In all of the already solved examples, it can be seen that $`\stackrel{}{g}_X=0`$ and the reductions are the same to each other as shown below. Does $`\sigma ^{}`$ commute with $`\varrho `$ in all examples? The answer is no. In fact, for the pure entangled state in two qubits

$$|\psi =\sqrt{p}|00+\sqrt{1p}|11,$$
(21)
the closest disentangled state is

$$\sigma ^{}=p|0000|+(1p)|1111|,$$
(22)
which does not commute with $`\varrho =|\psi \psi |`$. Instead, we found that all examples satisfy a condition weaker than $`[\varrho ,\sigma ^{}]=0`$, that is

$$(|jj|[\varrho ,\sigma ^{}]|ii|)_A=(|jj|[\varrho ,\sigma ^{}]|ii|)_B=0$$
(23)
for any $`i`$ and $`j`$. Here, $`[A,B]ABBA`$, and $`|i`$’s are the eigenstates of $`\sigma ^{}`$. This condition is also sufficient for $`(\varrho g)_A=(\varrho g)_B=0`$, since Eq. (23) is equivalent to

$$\lambda _i=\lambda _j\text{ or }(|ji|)_A\varrho _{ji}=(|ji|)_B\varrho _{ji}=0,$$
(24)
and hence

$$(\varrho g)_A=\underset{ij}{}(|ji|)_A\varrho _{ji}g_{ji}=0.$$
(25)
Further, depending on how to satisfy the condition, the examples are mainly classified in the following two categories:

* $`[\varrho ,\sigma ^{}]=0`$ and Eq. (23) is satisfied (corresponding to Corollary 1). The Bell diagonal states in two qubits , maximally entangled mixed states in two qubits , and isotropic state with any dimension  belong to this category.
* In the support space of $`\varrho `$, $`(|ji|)_A=(|ji|)_B=0`$ for all $`ij`$, and Eq. (23) is satisfied. The maximally correlated states (including pure states)  and the state proposed in Ref.  belong to this category.

It is interesting to note that, if we wash out the classical correlations as well as the quantum correlations, the closest “uncorrelated” state is $`\sigma _u=\varrho _A\varrho _B\varrho _C\mathrm{}`$ , where the reductions of $`\sigma _u`$ are always the same as $`\varrho `$. In the case of the closest disentangled state, although there is no guarantee that the reductions are the same, $`(\varrho g)_X=0`$ is rather widely satisfied and reductions are the same in many cases as shown above. This fact might be originating from the properties of the relative entropy. In fact, if we adopt the Bures metric

$$B(\varrho ||\sigma )=22\text{Tr}\sqrt{\sigma }\varrho \sqrt{\sigma }$$
(26)
as the distant measure, using $`\sqrt{A}=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{A}{A+x}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x}}`$, we obtain

$`(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{s}_B)(\text{Tr}\sqrt{\sigma ^{}}\varrho \sqrt{\sigma ^{}})`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{\sigma ^{},(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}}\{\varrho ,\sqrt{\sigma ^{}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\pi }}𝑑x.`$ (28)
From the above, it seems to be unlikely that $`\stackrel{}{s}_B=\stackrel{}{r}_B`$ in many cases.

Let us return to the problem minimizing the relative entropy. Instead of the local filtering, we can consider the local unitary transformation as follows:

$$\sigma ^{}=(Ie^{it\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2})\sigma ^{}(Ie^{it\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2}),$$
(29)
which also ensures that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is disentangled (and PPT) for any $`t`$. Expanding the right hand side of the above equation with respect to $`t`$, and the same discussion as in the local filtering case gives

$`\text{Tr}\varrho {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\sigma ^{},(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })]}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^{}+x}}𝑑x`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}i|(I\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })|jj|\varrho |i(\mathrm{log}\lambda _j\mathrm{log}\lambda _i)=0,`$ (31)
and hence

$$([\varrho ,\mathrm{log}\sigma ^{}])_B=\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{h}_B\stackrel{}{\sigma }=0,$$
(32)
with $`\stackrel{}{h}_B`$ being a real vector.

Therefore, the closest disentangled (and PPT) state must satisfy both Eq. (20) and Eq. (32) and Alice’s counterparts. It is interesting to note that, even though $`S(\varrho ||\sigma ^{})S(\varrho ||\sigma _{PPT}^{})`$ where $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{PPT}^{}`$ is the closest disentangled and PPT state of $`\varrho `$, respectively, both $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{PPT}^{}`$ satisfy the same equations of (20) and (32) (and Alice’s counterparts). The total number of these equations in the $`dd`$ bipartite system is $`4(d^21)`$. Therefore, in principal, $`d^41`$ independent parameters in $`\sigma ^{}`$ can be reduced to $`d^44d^2+3`$ by solving those equations. In the case of the simplest $`22`$ systems, the number of the remaining parameters is only three. Unfortunately, however, both Eq. (20) and Eq. (32) are not still tractable. In order to determine $`g`$, for example, the eigenvectors $`|i`$’s and eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$’s of $`\sigma ^{}`$ are needed, in spite that the purpose is to search for $`\sigma ^{}`$.

However, one of the important facts about the relative entropy of entanglement is that $`E_R(\varrho )`$ gives an upper bound of the distillable entanglement of $`\varrho `$ . Since the analytical calculation of $`E_R(\varrho )`$ is a hard problem, it might be also worth to suggest a prescription for obtaining an upper bound of $`E_R(\varrho )`$, which is also an upper bound of the distillable entanglement. For this purpose, we induce some constraints to the minimization problem of $`S(\varrho ||\sigma )`$. The constraints we induce are

$$\stackrel{}{s}_A=\stackrel{}{r}_A,\text{ }\stackrel{}{s}_B=\stackrel{}{r}_B,$$
(33)
and

$$([\varrho ,\sigma ^{}])_A=([\varrho ,\sigma ^{}])_B=0.$$
(34)
The advantage adopting Eq. (33) and Eq. (34) is that, since these relations are satisfied in all of the analytically solved examples as shown before \[Eq. (34) was obtained by summing up $`i`$ and $`j`$ in Eq. (23), and thus Eq. (34) is weaker than Eq. (23)\], the obtained upper bound exactly agrees with $`E_R(\varrho )`$ for those states. Therefore, this upper bound is expected to be good for the other states. Further, if the obtained $`\sigma ^{}`$ happen to satisfy Eq. (23), the extremal conditions of both local filtering and local unitary operation are ensured, although these extremal conditions are not generally satisfied in this approximate method.

Let us restrict ourselves to the $`22`$ systems, and a Hilbert-Schmidt representation of $`\varrho `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ be

$`\varrho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(II+\stackrel{}{r}_A\stackrel{}{\sigma }I+I\stackrel{}{r}_B\stackrel{}{\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\widehat{t}_{nn}\sigma _n\sigma _n),`$ (35)
$`\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(II+\stackrel{}{r}_A\stackrel{}{\sigma }I+I\stackrel{}{r}_B\stackrel{}{\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\widehat{\tau }_{nm}\sigma _n\sigma _m),`$ (36)
where $`\varrho `$ was chosen to be a canonical form ($`T`$-matrix $`\widehat{t}`$ is diagonalized by a suitable local unitary transformation ) and we adopted Eq. (33). Then, simple calculations show that Eq. (34) is equivalent to

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{t}_{ii}\widehat{\tau }_{ij}\widehat{t}_{jj}\widehat{\tau }_{ji}=0\\ \widehat{\tau }_{ij}\widehat{t}_{jj}\widehat{\tau }_{ji}\widehat{t}_{ii}=0\end{array}`$ (40)
This implies that, $`\widehat{\tau }_{ij}=\widehat{\tau }_{ji}`$ for $`\widehat{t}_{ii}=\widehat{t}_{jj}`$, and $`\widehat{\tau }_{ij}=0`$ for $`\widehat{t}_{ii}\widehat{t}_{jj}`$. Therefore, $`\widehat{\tau }`$ must be real symmetric and if $`t_{ii}`$’s are not degenerate at all, all the off diagonal elements of $`\widehat{\tau }`$ must vanish. Further, since the off diagonal element (say $`\widehat{\tau }_{xy}`$) is non-vanishing only when $`\widehat{t}_{xx}=\widehat{t}_{yy}`$, a suitable local unitary transformation simultaneously applied to $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\varrho `$, which rotates $`x`$-$`y`$ space of $`T`$-matrix, makes it possible to simultaneously diagonalize $`\widehat{t}`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }`$ (the state $`(U_AU_B)\sigma ^{}(U_A^{}U_B^{})`$ is minimum for $`(U_AU_B)\varrho (U_A^{}U_B^{})`$ by the property of the relative entropy). This implies that $`\sigma ^{}`$ of all of the analytically solved examples in two qubits shown before can be written in a canonical Hilbert-Schmidt form, when $`\varrho `$ is chosen to be a canonical form by selecting a suitable local unitary transformation.

Since the Bloch vector of the each reduction of $`\sigma ^{}`$ is the same as $`\varrho `$, the number of undetermined parameters are three: $`\widehat{\tau }_{11}`$, $`\widehat{\tau }_{22}`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }_{33}`$. Obviously, we have not explicitly used the condition that $`\sigma ^{}`$ must be disentangled, yet. According to Proposition 2 in Ref. , $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=(\widehat{\tau }_{11},\widehat{\tau }_{22},\widehat{\tau }_{33})`$ must belong to Horodecki’s octahedron $``$. Although this separability condition is sufficient for $`\stackrel{}{r}_A=\stackrel{}{r}_B=0`$ , the geometry of the boundary in $`T`$-space is not simple in general . Therefore, although the difficulty of the complicated structure of the entangled-disentangled boundary is not still avoided even in this approximate method, a reasonably good upper bound of $`E_R(\varrho )`$ can be obtained by minimizing only three parameters in $`T`$-space.

It should be noted briefly about the possibility of the extension of this approximate method to higher dimensional systems. The total number of equations of Eq. (33) and Eq. (34) in the $`dd`$ bipartite system is $`4(d^21)`$, which is the same as the number of extremal conditions of local filtering and local unitary. As a result, $`d^44d^2+3`$ parameters remain undetermined. Since the dimension of $`T`$-matrix in the $`dd`$ system is $`d^21`$, some off-diagonal elements as well as the diagonal elements in $`T`$-matrix necessarily remain undetermined for $`d3`$.

To conclude, we study the extremal condition with respect to the local filtering. We obtained the set of equations both the closest disentangled and PPT state must satisfy, and showed that the local property of the closest disentangled (and PPT) state is strongly related to the extremal condition of the local filtering. Further, we obtained the sufficient condition for which the closest disentangled state has the same reduction as the given entangled state, and showed that the condition has been rather widely satisfied. Further, in the case of two qubits, we suggest a prescription to obtain an upper bound of the relative entropy of entanglement, which is tight for the analytically already solved examples in two qubits.

The author would like to thank Dr. T. Hiroshima for helpful discussions. The author also would like to thank Dr. F. Verstraete for valuable comments.


text:
# Time-reversal violating rotation of polarization plane of light in gas placed in electric field

## I INTRODUCTION

Violation of time reversal symmetry was observed in $`K_0`$ meson  and $`B_0`$ meson decay  and remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in the elementary particle physics. A lot of attempts have been undertaken to observe time-reversal violating phenomena in different processes experimentally. However, those experiments have not been successful. Among them there are, for example, measurements of electric dipole moment (EDM) of neutrons , atoms and molecules . No EDM was found but these experiments impose strong restrictions on the theory. At EDM of heavy atoms search, in particular, tight limits for parameters of electron-nucleon $`P`$-, $`T`$\- violating interactions and value of electron EDM  are set.

It is well known that essential progress in measurements of $`P`$-odd interaction constants was achieved at study of the optical activity of atomic gases. High precision of optical measurements allow us to expect that investigation of time reversal invariance in photon interactions with atoms will provide new limits for constants of $`T`$-noninvariant weak interaction.

As it was shown in  $`T`$ noninvariant interactions induce several new optical phenomena. They are: $`T`$ noninvariant rotation of polarization plane of light in electric field, $`T`$ noninvariant birefringence and $`T`$ noninvariant rotation of light polarization plane in diffraction grating with non-centrosymmetrical elementary cell.

To observe the rotation of polarization plane of light in electric field experiments  are under preparation now. Therefore, it is important to attract attention to the fact that two effects can contribute to $`T`$-noninvariant rotation of polarization plane of light. They are:

1. Light polarization plane rotation caused by the pseudo-Zeeman splitting of atomic levels in atoms with nonzero EDM in electric field .
2. Light polarization plane rotation due to interference of $`P`$\- , $`T`$ \- odd and Stark-induced transition amplitudes .

The present paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the general theory describing $`PT`$ noninvariant rotation of polarization plane of light in atomic gas is examined. Polarization plane rotation caused by interference of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- odd and Stark-induced transitions is considered in details in Sec. III. Polarization plane rotation caused by nonzero atomic EDM is considered in Sec. IV. Estimates of effects magnitude for different kinds of transitions are given in Sec. V. Sec. VI examines possible sources of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- violating interactions in atom and Sec VII gives estimates of angle of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- odd polarization plane rotation for $`6S_{1/2}7S_{1/2}`$ transition in cesium. Section VIII briefly discusses possibilities to observe this phenomenon experimentally and summarizes general conclusions.

## II PT - odd rotation of polarization plane of light

To illustrate the mechanism of polarization plane rotation due to interference of $`PT`$ \- odd and Stark-induced transition amplitudes we consider a simple model at first. Let us take an atom in the $`s_{1/2}`$ state and place it to an electric field. Taking into account the admixture of the nearest $`p_{1/2}`$ state due to $`P`$\- and $`T`$ \- odd interactions and interaction with electric field one can represent the wave function of an atom in the form:

$`|\stackrel{~}{s}_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}(R_0(r)R_1(r)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n})\eta `$ (2)
$`R_1(r)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{E})\delta )|\chi _{1/2}`$
Here $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{r}/r`$ is the unit vector along $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is the electric field strength, $`R_0`$ and $`R_1`$ are radial parts of $`s_{1/2}`$ and $`p_{1/2}`$ wave functions respectively, $`|\chi _{1/2}`$ is the spin part of wave function, $`\eta `$ and $`\delta `$ are the mixing coefficients describing $`P`$ and $`T`$ noninvariant interactions and electric field respectively, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is the electric field strength.

Interference of Stark and $`PT`$ \- odd terms changes electron spin direction as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{s}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \delta }{8\pi }}R_1^2(r)\chi _{1/2}|(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n})\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{E})`$ (4)
$`+(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{E})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n})\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n})|\chi _{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \delta R_1^2(r)}{8\pi }}\left(4\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{E})2\stackrel{}{E}\right)`$ (5)
Vector field $`4\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{E})2\stackrel{}{E}`$ is shown in Fig. 1. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{s}`$ does not depend on initial direction of atomic spin, this spin structure appears even in nonpolarized atom. Spin vector averaged over spatial variables differs from zero and is directed along $`\stackrel{}{E}`$. Photons with angular moment parallel and antiparallel to $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ differently interact with such gas. It causes rotation of polarization plane of photons.

Let us also note that according to  magnetization of gas in electric field induces magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}_{ind}(E)`$. This magnetic field interacts with magnetic moment of an atom giving additional contribution to rotation of polarization plane of light .

The refraction index of gas is given by

$$n=1+\frac{2\pi N}{k^2}f(0)$$
(6)
where $`N`$ is the number of atoms per $`cm^3`$, $`k`$ is the photon wave number, $`f(0)=f_{ik}e_i^{^{}}e_k`$ is the amplitude of elastic coherent forward scattering of photons by atoms. Here $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}^{}`$ are the polarization vectors of initial and scattered photons respectively. Repeated indices imply summation. In dipole approximation

$$f_{ik}=\omega ^2\alpha _{ik}/c^2$$
(7)
where $`\alpha _{ik}`$ is the tensor of dynamical polarizability of an atom, $`\omega `$ is the frequency of incident light. According to  the amplitude of light scattering by nonpolarized atomic gas in electric field is expressed by

$`f_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ik}^{ev}`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{c^2}}(i\beta _s^Pϵ_{ikl}n_{\gamma l}+i\beta _E^{PT}ϵ_{ikl}n_{El}+\beta _{sE}^T(\stackrel{}{n}_\gamma \stackrel{}{n}_E)\delta _{ik})`$
Here $`f_{ik}^{ev}`$ is the $`P`$\- and $`T`$\- invariant part of scattering amplitude, $`\beta _s^P`$ is the $`P`$-odd but $`T`$-even scalar atomic polarizability , $`\beta _E^{PT}`$ is the $`P`$\- and $`T`$\- odd scalar polarizability of an atom , $`\beta _{sE}^T`$ is the $`P`$-even but $`T`$\- odd atomic polarizability , $`\stackrel{}{n}_\gamma =\stackrel{}{k}/k`$ is the unit vector along the direction of photon propagation, $`\stackrel{}{n}_E=\stackrel{}{E}/E`$ is the unit vector along the direction of electric field, $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the third-rank antisymmetric tensor.

Angle of rotation of polarization plane is

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}k\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(n_+n_{})l$$
(10)
where $`n_+`$ and $`n_{}`$ are the refraction indices for left and right circularly polarized photons. Vectors $`\stackrel{}{e}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}_{}`$ describe left and right circularly polarized photons respectively, $`\stackrel{}{e}_\pm =(\stackrel{}{e}_x\pm i\stackrel{}{e}_y)/\sqrt{2}`$. Using (9) and (6) we can express polarization plane rotation as follows

$$\varphi =\frac{2\pi N\omega }{c}(\beta _s^P+\beta _E^{PT}(\stackrel{}{n}_E\stackrel{}{n}_\gamma ))l$$
(11)
Term proportional to $`\beta _s^P`$ describes the well known phenomenon of $`P`$-odd but $`T`$-even rotation of polarization plane of light. Term proportional to $`\beta _E^{PT}`$ corresponds to $`P`$\- and $`T`$\- noninvariant light polarization plane rotation about the direction of electric field .

In contrast to $`P`$-odd, $`T`$-even rotation the reversion of electric field direction changes the sign of $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd rotation of light polarization plane. This allows to distinguish $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd effects from the other possible effects of polarization plane rotation.

According to  tensor of dynamical polarizability of an atom (molecule) in the ground state $`|\stackrel{~}{g}_n`$ has the form

$`\alpha _{ik}^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_i|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_k|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{E_{em}E_{gn}\mathrm{}\omega }}`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_k|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_i|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{E_{em}E_{gn}+\mathrm{}\omega }}\}`$
where $`|\stackrel{~}{g}_n`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{e}_m`$ are the wave functions of an atom in the ground and excited states perturbed by electric field and $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant interactions, $`d`$ is the operator of dipole transition, $`E_{em}`$ and $`E_{gn}`$ are the energies of atom states $`|\stackrel{~}{g}_n`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{e}_m`$, respectively.

In general case atoms are distributed over the magnetic sub-levels of ground state $`g_n`$ with the probability $`P(n)`$. Therefore $`\alpha _{ik}^n`$ should be averaged over all states $`n`$. As a result, the polarizability can be written as

$$\alpha _{ik}=\underset{n}{}P(n)\alpha _{ik}^n$$
(14)
In the present paper we discuss the nonpolarized atomic gas. In this case $`P(n)=1/(2j_g+1)`$ where $`j_g`$ is the total moment of atom in the ground state $`g`$.

Tensor $`\alpha _{ik}`$ can be decomposed into irreducible parts as

$$\alpha _{ik}=\alpha _0\delta _{ik}+\alpha _{ik}^s+\alpha _{ik}^a.$$
(15)
Here $`\alpha _0=\frac{1}{3}_i\alpha _{ii}`$ is the scalar, $`\alpha _{ik}^s=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _{ik}+\alpha _{ki})\alpha _0\delta _{ik}`$ is the symmetric tensor of rank two, $`\alpha _{ik}^a=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{ki})`$ is the antisymmetric tensor of rank two:

$`\alpha _{ik}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{(2j_g+1)\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}`$ (17)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_i|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_k|\stackrel{~}{g}_n\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_k|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_i|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}^2\omega ^2}}\right\}`$
where $`\omega _{em,gn}=(E_{em}E_{gn})/\mathrm{}`$.

If atoms are nonpolarized then in the absence of $`P`$\- and $`T`$-odd interactions the antisymmetric part of polarizability is equal to zero. Therefore comparison of (9) and (7) yields

$$\alpha _{ik}^a=iϵ_{ikl}(\beta _s^Pn_{\gamma l}+\beta _E^{PT}n_{El}).$$
(18)
According to  correct consideration of $`P`$-odd but $`T`$-even interactions requires to take into account both $`E1`$ and $`M1`$ transition amplitudes. If only $`E1`$ transition operators are considered in (13) the $`P`$\- odd but $`T`$\- even polarizability $`\beta _s^P`$ becomes equal to zero.

Evaluation of expression (18) for left (or right) circular polarization of incident light at $`\stackrel{}{n}_E\stackrel{}{n}_\gamma `$ yields $`\alpha _{ik}^ae_i^{(\pm )}e_k^{(\pm )}=\beta _E^{PT}`$. As a result we can represent $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd scalar polarizability of an atom as follows:

$`\beta _E^{PT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{(2j_g+1)\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_{}|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_+|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}^2\omega ^2}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_+|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_{}|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}^2\omega ^2}}\}`$
where $`d_\pm =(d_x\pm id_y)/\sqrt{2}`$.

For further analysis more detailed expressions for wave functions of an atom are necessary. Since constants of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant interactions are very small we can use perturbation theory. Let $`|\overline{g}`$ and $`|\overline{e}`$ be the wave functions of ground and excited states of atom (molecule) in electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ in the absence of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- odd interactions. Switch on $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant interaction $`(H_T0)`$. According to the perturbation theory the wave functions $`|\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{e}`$ take the form

$`|\stackrel{~}{g}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{g}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|n{\displaystyle \frac{n|H_T|\overline{g}}{E_gE_n}}`$ (21)
$`|\stackrel{~}{e}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{e}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|n{\displaystyle \frac{n|H_T|\overline{e}}{E_eE_n}}`$ (22)
where $`H_T`$ is Hamiltonian of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant interactions.

It should be reminded that denominator of (20) contains shifts caused both by interaction of electric dipole moment of an atom with electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and magnetic moment of an atom with $`T`$-odd induced magnetic field $`H_{ind}(\stackrel{}{E})`$ . If $`H_T`$ is small, one can represent total polarizability $`\beta _E^{PT}`$ as the sum of two terms

$$\beta _E^{PT}=\beta _{mix}+\beta _{split}.$$
(23)
Here

$`\beta _{mix}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{(2j_g+1)\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_{}|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_+|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}^2\omega ^2}}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_+|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_{}|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}^2\omega ^2}}\}`$
where $`\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}`$ does not include $`P`$-, $`T`$-noninvariant shift of atomic levels, and

$`\beta _{split}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{(2j_g+1)\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_n|d_{}|\overline{e}_m\overline{e}_m|d_+|\overline{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}^2\omega ^2}}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_n|d_+|\overline{e}_m\overline{e}_m|d_{}|\overline{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}^2\omega ^2}}\}`$
$`\omega _{em,gn}=(E_{em}(\stackrel{}{E})E_{gn}(\stackrel{}{E}))/\mathrm{}`$

where energy levels $`E_{e,m}(\stackrel{}{E})`$ and $`E_{g,n}(\stackrel{}{E})`$ contain shifts caused by interaction of electric dipole moment of an atom with electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and magnetic moment of an atom with $`T`$-odd induced magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}_{ind}(\stackrel{}{E})`$.

Below we consider small detuning of radiation frequency from resonance frequency of atomic transition. Therefore (25) and (27) can be written as follows

$`\beta _{mix}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}(2j_g+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_{}|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_+|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}\omega }}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_n|d_+|\stackrel{~}{e}_m\stackrel{~}{e}_m|d_{}|\stackrel{~}{g}_n}{\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}\omega }}\}`$
$`\beta _{split}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}(2j_g+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_n|d_{}|\overline{e}_m\overline{e}_m|d_+|\overline{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}\omega }}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_n|d_+|\overline{e}_m\overline{e}_m|d_{}|\overline{g}_n}{\omega _{em,gn}\omega }}\}`$
## III Interference of PT - odd and Stark induced amplitudes

In this section we consider effects associated with $`\beta _{mix}`$. Rotation associated with $`\beta _{split}`$ is studied in Section IV.

Let us assume that electric field is small enough. For atoms in the ground state the energy of Stark interactions is usually less than the difference of energies of levels mixed by electric field. In this case we can use first order of perturbation theory. Perturbed states $`|\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{e}`$ have the form

$`|\stackrel{~}{g}=|g`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|n{\displaystyle \frac{n|H_T|g}{E_gE_n}}`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|m{\displaystyle \frac{m|\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{E}|g}{E_gE_m}}`$ (33)
$`|\stackrel{~}{e}=|e`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|n{\displaystyle \frac{n|H_T|e}{E_eE_n}}`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|m{\displaystyle \frac{m|\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{E}|e}{E_eE_m}}.`$ (35)
Here $`H_T`$ is the Hamiltonian of $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant interactions, $`|g`$ and $`|e`$ are the unperturbed ground and excited states of an atom, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is the external electric field. We assume that electric field is directed along $`z`$ axis.

Using (35) we can rewrite $`\beta _{mix}`$ as follows:

$`\beta _{mix}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}(2j_g+1)}}\mathrm{Re}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_g,m_e}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g|d_+^{PT}|ee|d_{}^{St}|gg|d_{}^{PT}|ee|d_+^{St}|g}{\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}\omega }},`$
where

$$g|d_\pm ^{PT}|e=\underset{m}{}\frac{g|H_T|mm|d_\pm |e}{E_mE_g}+\frac{g|d_\pm |mm|H_T|e}{E_mE_e}$$
(38)
and

$$g|\stackrel{}{d}^{St}\stackrel{}{e}|e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ik}e_iE_k,$$
(39)
is the Stark-induced amplitude of transition between states $`g`$ and $`e`$ in the constant electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ is the polarization vector of photon.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ik}=\underset{n}{}\frac{g|d_k|nn|d_i|e}{E_nE_g}+\frac{g|d_i|nn|d_k|e}{E_nE_e}.$$
(40)
Representation of the second-rank tensors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ik}`$ and $`e_iE_k`$ in terms of their irreducible spherical components yields :

$`e|\stackrel{}{d}^{St}\stackrel{}{e}|g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q,q^{}}{}}(1)^{q+q^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q,q^{}}E_qe_q^{}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K,Q}{}}(1)^Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^K(Ee)_Q^K,`$ (42)
where subscripts $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ refer to the spherical vector components, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^K`$ and $`(Ee)_Q^K`$ are the components of irreducible spherical tensors.

Using Wigner - Ekhard theorem we can represent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^K`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^K=(1)^{j_em_e}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_e& K& j_g\\ m_e& Q& m_g\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^K.$$
(43)
Reduced matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^K`$ ($`K=0,1,2`$) are proportional to the scalar, vector and tensor transition polarizability respectively. Substituting (42), (43) into (37), representing the matrix element of $`PT`$ \- odd $`E1`$ transition (38) in terms of reduced matrix element $`ed^{PT}g`$ and performing summation over $`m_g`$, $`m_e`$ one obtains the following expression for $`\beta _{mix}`$

$$\beta _{mix}=\frac{2}{3\mathrm{}(2j_g+1)}\frac{\mathrm{Re}ed^{PT}g\mathrm{\Lambda }^1E}{\sqrt{2}(\omega _{\overline{e}m,\overline{g}n}\omega )}$$
(44)
We assume here that electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is parallel to the direction of light propagation and use the expression $`(\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{e}_\pm )_\pm ^1=E/\sqrt{2}`$. Due to orthogonality of $`3j`$-symbols only terms proportional to the vector part of transition polarizability remains in (44) after summation over magnetic sub-levels.

Equations (44) and (11) give the angle of polarization plane rotation without considering of the Doppler broadening in gas. Because of Doppler shift the resonance frequency of transition for a single atom depends on atom velocity. In order to obtain expression for angle of polarization plane rotation in this case we should average (44) over Maxwell distribution of atom velocity.

If nucleus has a nonzero spin we should take into account the hyperfine structure. After routine calculations the angle of $`P`$\- ,$`T`$-odd rotation of polarization plane can be expressed as:

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`4\pi N_Fl{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{}c\mathrm{\Delta }_D}}g(u,v){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(2F_g+1)}}K^2`$ (46)
$`\times \mathrm{Re}(gd^{PT}e\mathrm{\Lambda }^1E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}).`$
For completeness we give here the expression for absorption length of light in atomic gas

$`L^1`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi N_F{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{}c\mathrm{\Delta }_D}}f(u,v){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(2F_g+1)}}K^2`$ (48)
$`\times |g||A||e|^2`$
Here $`F_g`$, $`F_e`$ are the total angular moments of an atom in ground and exited states respectively, $`j_g`$ and $`j_e`$ are the total electron moments in these states, $`i`$ is the nuclear spin.

$`N_F=N{\displaystyle \frac{2F_g+1}{(2i+1)(2j_g+1)}}`$

is the density of atoms with total moment $`F_g`$,

$`K^2=(2F_g+1)(2F_e+1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_g& F_g\\ 1& F_e& J_e\end{array}\right\}`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_D=\omega _0\sqrt{2kT/Mc^2}`$ is the Doppler line width,

$$\begin{array}{c}g(u,v)\hfill \\ f(u,v)\hfill \end{array}\}=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Im}\hfill \\ \mathrm{Re}\hfill \end{array}\}\sqrt{\pi }e^{w^2}\left(1\mathrm{\Phi }(iw)\right),$$
(49)
where $`w=u+iv`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^z𝑑te^{t^2}`$, $`u=(\omega \omega _0)/\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, $`v=\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the recoil line width, $`gAe`$ is the reduced matrix element of dipole transition between states $`|e`$ and $`|g`$.

## IV Rotation of polarization plane due to atomic EDM

Presence of EDM in ground or excited state of atom also causes rotation of polarization plane of light. We can derive the expression for the angle of polarization plane rotation performing the calculations similar to those described in Sec. III, but using $`\beta _{split}`$ instead of $`\beta _{mix}`$. But in this case the calculations can be appreciably simplified if we note that $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant rotation caused by atomic EDM is similar to Faraday rotation of photon polarization plane in a weak magnetic field. Indeed, according to  a weak magnetic field affects the refractive index of atomic gas in two ways: through the change of the magnetic sub-levels energies and through the mixing of hyperfine states.

If we consider only terms proportional to the magnetic field strength $`H`$ and neglect the terms of higher orders then the level shift is :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_i=Hi|\mu _z|i`$

The magnetic field $`H`$ mixes states of the same $`F_z`$ but different $`F`$, so the state $`|j`$ becomes

$`|\overline{j}=|j{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{}}H_z{\displaystyle \frac{|kk|\mu _z|j}{E_kE_j}}`$

If atom has an EDM then electric field similarly affects the refraction index (see (27)) and leads to atomic levels shift:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_i=Ei|d_z|i`$

It also mixes the hyperfine states of atom with the same $`F_z`$ but different $`F`$

$`|\overline{j}=|j{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{}}E_z{\displaystyle \frac{|kk|d_z|j}{E_kE_j}}`$

As a result we can use the expression for rotation of polarization plane of light in a weak magnetic field  for calculations of effect of polarization plane rotation in electric field. For this we must substitute $`HE`$, $`\mu _gd_g`$, $`\mu _ed_e`$ where $`d_e`$, $`d_g`$ are EDM of atom in ground and excited states, $`\mu _i`$ is the magnetic moment of state $`i`$.

If we neglect quadrupole transition amplitudes (it is possible for example for $`6S_{1/2}7S_{1/2}`$ transition in cesium), then the angle of polarization plane rotation has the form

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi Nl}{(2i+1)(2j_g+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }_D\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_z}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_D}}|g||A||e|^2`$ (51)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{g(u,v)}{u}}\delta _1+2g(u,v)\gamma _1\right).`$
The expressions for parameters $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\delta _1`$ are given below

$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2F_g+1)(2F_e+1)}{\sqrt{6}}}(1)^i\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_g& F_g\\ 1& F_e& j_e\end{array}\right\}[d_e(1)^{j_e+F_g}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(j_e+1)(2j_e+1)}{j_e}}}`$ (55)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{hf}(F_e,F_e1)}}(2F_e1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_g& F_g\\ 1& F_e1& j_e\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_e& F_e\\ 1& F_e1& j_e\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}F_g& 1& F_e\\ 1& F_e1& 1\end{array}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{hf}(F_e,F_e+1)}}(2F_e+3)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_g& F_g\\ 1& F_e+1& j_e\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_e& F_e\\ 1& F_e+1& j_e\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}F_g& 1& F_e\\ 1& F_e+1& 1\end{array}\right\})`$
$`(j_ej_g,F_eF_g,d_ed_g,)]`$
and

$`\delta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2F_g+1)(2F_e+1)}{\sqrt{6}}}(1)^i\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_g& F_g\\ 1& F_e& j_e\end{array}\right\}^2[d_e(1)^{j_e+F_g}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(j_e+1)(2j_e+1)}{j_e}}}`$ (57)
$`(2F_e+1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& j_e& F_e\\ 1& F_e& j_e\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}F_g& F_e& 1\\ 1& 1& F_e\end{array}\right\}+(j_ej_g,F_eF_g,d_ed_g,)]`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{hf}`$ is the hyperfine level splitting. First term in (51) arises from the level splitting in electric field. It describes effect similar to Macaluso - Corbino rotation of photon polarization plane in magnetic field. Second term is caused by mixing of hyperfine levels with the different total moment $`F`$ but the same $`F_z`$ in electric field. It describes the $`T`$ noninvariant analog of polarization plane rotation due to Van-Vleck mechanism.

## V Estimates

Let us compare the angle of $`P,T`$-odd polarization plane rotation for different kinds of transitions. Angle of rotation of polarization plane per absorption length due to interference of $`P,T`$-odd and Stark - induced transition amplitudes according to (46) is expressed by

$$\varphi (L_{abs})=\frac{g(u,v)}{f(u,v)}\frac{\mathrm{Re}gd^{PT}e\mathrm{\Lambda }^1E}{\sqrt{2}|g||A||e|^2}$$
(58)
If detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ then $`gf1`$.

The value of transition matrix element depends on kind of transition. For allowed $`E1`$ transition $`gAedea_0`$, for allowed $`M1`$ transition $`gAe\mu \alpha d`$. For strongly forbidden $`M1`$ transition in electric field dominant contribution to the angle of rotation gives the Stark-induced $`E1`$ transition. Its amplitude can be estimated as $`gAed^2E_z/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the typical difference between the opposite parity levels in atom. For transition $`6S_{1/2}7S_{1/2}`$ in $`Cs`$ and experimentally accessible strength of electric field $`E10^310^4`$ V/cm, value of $`dE_z/\mathrm{\Delta }E10^310^4`$. Here $`E_z`$ is the electric field strength, $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius, $`\mathrm{\Delta }ERy`$ is the typical difference between the energy levels of the opposite parity states, $`Ry=13.6\mathrm{eV}`$ is the Rydberg energy constant, $`\alpha 1/137`$ is the fine structure constant.

The numerator of (58) has the same order of magnitude for all kinds of transitions considered above: $`gd^{PT}e\mathrm{\Lambda }^1Ed^2H_TdE_z/(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2`$. Now we can estimate the angle of polarization plane rotation per absorption length.

For allowed $`E1`$ transition

$$\varphi (L_{abs})\frac{H_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{dE_z}{\mathrm{\Delta }E},$$
(59)
where $`H_T`$ is the typical value of matrix element of $`PT`$ \- odd Hamiltonian.

The angle of rotation per absorption length near allowed $`M1`$ transition is larger than in $`E1`$ case

$$\varphi (L_{abs})\frac{H_T}{\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{dE_z}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}.$$
(60)
The largest value of angle of rotation per absorption length can be observed near strongly forbidden $`M1`$ transition because the absorption of light is the lowest in this case

$$\varphi (L_{abs})\frac{H_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{dE_z}.$$
(61)
It is interesting to compare these estimates with angle of rotation of polarization plane caused by nonzero EDM of atom. In the absence of hyperfine structure the angle of rotation per absorption length can be estimated using (46) and (51) as follows

$`\varphi _{EDM}(L_{abs})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2j_g+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_z\delta }{f\mathrm{\Delta }_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{u}}`$ (62)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{at}E_z}{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE_z}{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}},`$ (63)
where $`d_{at}dH_T/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the EDM of atom, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D(10^510^6)\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the Doppler line width. The value $`\varphi (L_{abs})`$ here does not depend on transition amplitude $`gAe`$ and has the same order of magnitude for all kinds of transition considered above.

For allowed $`E1`$ transition $`\varphi (L_{abs})/\varphi _{EDM}(L_{abs})\mathrm{\Delta }_D/\mathrm{\Delta }E<<1`$ and dominant contribution to the angle of $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd polarization plane rotation gives the level splitting caused by atomic EDM.

Near allowed $`M1`$ transition $`\varphi (L_{abs})/\varphi _{EDM}(L_{abs})\mathrm{\Delta }_D/\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }E1`$ and both mechanisms contribute comparably.

Near the strongly forbidden $`M1`$ transition $`\varphi (L_{abs})/\varphi _{EDM}(L_{abs})\mathrm{\Delta }_D\mathrm{\Delta }E/(dE_z)^2>>1`$ and the interference of $`P,T`$-odd and Stark-induced transition contributes the most to the angle of polarization plane rotation.

## VI P and T - odd interactions in atom

Several mechanisms can induce the violation of $`P`$\- and $`T`$\- invariance in atom. According to  they are: $`P`$-, $`T`$\- odd weak interactions of electron and nucleon, interaction of electric dipole moment of electron with electric field inside atom, interaction of electrons with electric dipole and magnetic quadrupole moments of nucleus and $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd electron-electron interaction.

We consider effects that according to  give the dominant contribution in our case: $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd electron-nucleon interaction and interaction of electron EDM with electric field inside atom.

According to  Hamiltonian of $`T`$-violating interaction between electron and hadron has the form:

$$H_T=C_s\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{e}i\gamma _5e)(\overline{n}n)+C_t\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{e}i\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }e)(\overline{n}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }n)$$
(64)
where $`G=1.05510^5m_p^2`$ is the Fermi constant, $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`e`$ and $`n`$ are the electron and hadron field operators respectively, $`C_s`$ and $`C_t`$ are the dimensionless constants characterizing the strength of $`T`$-violating interactions relatively to $`T`$-conserving weak interaction. The first term in (64) describes scalar hadronic current coupling with pseudoscalar electronic current, and the second one describes tensor hadronic current coupling with the pseudotensor electronic current.

Matrix element of $`T`$ \- odd Hamiltonian according to  is equal to

$$s_{1/2}H_Tp_{1/2}=\frac{Gm_e^2\alpha ^2Z^2R}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }\frac{\mathrm{𝐑𝐲}}{\sqrt{\nu _s\nu _p}^3}2\gamma C_sA$$
(65)
where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, $`\nu _i`$ is the effective principal quantum number of state $`i`$, $`A`$ is the atomic number, $`\gamma =\sqrt{(j+1/2)^2Z^2\alpha ^2}`$ and $`j`$ is the total angular moment of atom. The “relativistic enhancement factor” $`R`$ is given by

$`R=4{\displaystyle \frac{(a_0/2Zr_0)^{22\gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2\gamma +1)}}.`$

Here $`r_0=A^{1/3}1.210^{13}\mathrm{cm}`$ is the approximate nuclear radius. For cesium $`R=2.8`$. We neglect tensor part of interaction for simplicity.

Hamiltonian of interaction of electron EDM and electric field inside atom that mix opposite parity atomic states has the form

$$H_d=\underset{k}{}(\gamma _{0k}1)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k\stackrel{}{E}_k$$
(66)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=\gamma _5\gamma _0\gamma _k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _k& 0\\ 0& \sigma _k\end{array}\right),$$
(67)
$`\sigma _k`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`E_k`$ is the electric field strength acting upon electron $`k`$. If summation in (66) is performed over one valence electron and electric field strength near the nucleus approximately equals $`\stackrel{}{E}=Z\alpha \stackrel{}{r}/r^3`$, matrix element of operator $`H_d`$ can be written as follows

$`j,l=j+1/2||`$ $`H_d`$ $`||j,l^{}=j1/2`$ (69)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4(Z\alpha )^3}{\gamma (4\gamma ^21)(\nu _l\nu _l^{})^{3/2}a_0^2}}`$
where $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$ are the orbital angular moments.

## VII Estimates for $`6s_{1/2}7s_{1/2}`$ cesium transition

Let us estimate $`P`$-, $`T`$-odd rotation of polarization plane for highly forbidden $`M1`$ transition $`6s_{1/2}7s_{1/2}`$ in cesium. The scheme of cesium energy levels is shown in Fig. 2.

### A Rotation of polarization plane of light due to electron nucleon interactions

The $`P`$ and $`T`$ odd electron nucleon interactions mix $`s`$ and $`p`$ states of cesium. Since the $`E1`$ transition amplitudes $`6snp`$ and $`7sn^{}p`$ are negligibly small when $`n>6`$ and $`n^{}>7`$  we should take into account only admixture of $`6p_{1/2}`$ and $`7p_{1/2}`$ states. Using Eq. (22) and matrix element (65) one can represent the wave functions perturbed by $`P`$ and $`T`$ noninvariant electron-nucleon interaction as follows:

$`|\stackrel{~}{6s_{1/2}}=|6s_{1/2}`$ $`+`$ $`10^{11}\left(2\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{A}{N}}C_s\right)`$ (71)
$`\times (1.17|6p_{1/2}+0.34|7p_{1/2})`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{7s_{1/2}}=|7s_{1/2}`$ $`+`$ $`10^{11}\left(2\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{A}{N}}C_s\right)`$ (73)
$`\times (0.87|6p_{1/2}1.33|7p_{1/2}),`$
Where $`N`$ is the number of neutrons in atomic nucleus. Using Eq. (22) and values of radial integrals  $`\rho (6s_{1/2},6p_{1/2})=5.535`$, $`\rho (7s_{1/2},6p_{1/2})=5.45`$, $`\rho (7s_{1/2},7p_{1/2})=12.30`$ we obtain reduced matrix element of $`PT`$ \- odd $`E1`$ transition

$$6s_{1/2}d^{PT}7s_{1/2}=1.2710^{10}|e|a_0C_s$$
(74)
The matrix element of Stark-induced $`6s_{1/2}7s_{1/2}`$ transition in cesium is usually written as :

$`6s_{1/2},m^{}|d_i^{St}|7s_{1/2},m=\alpha E_i\delta _{mm^{}}+i\beta ϵ_{ijk}E_jm^{}|\sigma _k|m`$

where $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are the magnetic quantum numbers of ground and excited states of cesium, $`E_i`$ is the electric field strength, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the scalar and vector transition polarizability (see also (42)). The value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ introduced in (46) can be expressed for cesium via the vector transition polarizability as follows: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=2\sqrt{3}\beta E`$. Value of $`\beta `$ is well known from theoretical calculations  as well as from experiment . According to  it is equal to $`\beta =27.0a_0^3`$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=1.8110^8|e|a_0E(V/cm)$$
(75)
Suppose temperature is $`T=750K`$. Then pressure of $`Cs`$ vapor is $`p=10`$ kPa , concentration of atoms is $`N=10^{18}cm^3`$ and Doppler line width is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D/\omega _0=10^6`$.

For transition between hyperfine levels $`F_g=4F_e=4`$ coefficient $`K^2`$ in formula (46) is maximal ($`K^2=15/8`$).

Suppose detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, then $`v=\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Delta }_D0.1`$ and $`f1`$, $`g0.7`$. Absorption length in longitudinal electric field $`E=10^4\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ is equal to $`L_{abs}=7\mathrm{m}`$.

As a result angle of $`PT`$ noninvariant rotation of polarization plane is

$`|\varphi |=1.010^{13}C_slE.`$

The optimal signal to noise ratio is achieved when $`l=2L_{abs}`$ . The best limit on the parameters of electron-nucleon interaction $`C_s<410^7`$ was set in . Corresponding limit to the angle of rotation of polarization plane is $`|\varphi |<0.510^{12}\mathrm{rad}.`$

### B Rotation of polarization plane of light due to cesium EDM

Using wave functions (73) we can obtain EDM in $`6s_{1/2}`$ and $`7s_{1/2}`$ states of $`Cs`$

$`d_{6s_{1/2}}=1.3510^{10}C_s|e|a_0`$

$`d_{7s_{1/2}}=4.3910^{10}C_s|e|a_0.`$

As a result, expression (51) yields the angle of polarization plane rotation due to level splitting in electric field

$`|\varphi _1|=1.410^{24}lC_sE_z^3(\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm})<810^{16}`$

and the angle of rotation due to hyperfine levels mixing

$`|\varphi _2|=2.110^{24}lC_sE_z^3(\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm})<1.210^{15}.`$

(We assume here that for detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ functions $`g(u,v)0.7`$, $`g(u,v)/u1.1`$). These angles are three orders of magnitude lower than angle of polarization plane rotation arising from interference of Stark-induced and $`P`$-, $`T`$\- noninvariant transition amplitudes.

### C Rotation of polarization plane of light due to electron EDM

If the $`PT`$ noninvariant interaction in atom is induced by interaction of electron EDM with the electric field of nucleus then using (22) and (69) one can represent the wave functions of $`6s`$ and $`7s`$ states of cesium as follows

$`|\stackrel{~}{6}s_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`|6s_{1/2}`$ (77)
$`(35|6p_{1/2}+10.5|7p_{1/2})d_e/(ea_0)`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{7}s_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`|7s_{1/2}`$ (79)
$`+(27.7|6p_{1/2}36.2|7p_{1/2}d_e/(ea_0)`$
Using Eq. (79) we can obtain reduced matrix element of electric dipole transitions between $`\stackrel{~}{6}s_{1/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{7}s_{1/2}`$ states

$$6s_{1/2}d^{PT}7s_{1/2}=72d_e$$
(80)
and electric dipole moment of cesium in ground state $`d_{6s_{1/2}}`$ and excited state $`d_{7s_{1/2}}`$

$`d_{6s_{1/2}}`$ $`=`$ $`131d_e`$ (81)
$`d_{7s_{1/2}}`$ $`=`$ $`400d_e,`$ (82)
where $`d_e`$ is the electron EDM.

As we mentioned before, two effects induce $`T`$ \- noninvariant rotation of polarization plane in electric field. The first of them is the interference of $`PT`$ \- odd and Stark induced transition amplitudes and the second is the interaction of atomic EDM with electric field. After substitution of (80) to (46) one can obtain the angle of rotation arising from interference of amplitudes $`|\varphi |<0.610^{12}`$ in the same experimental conditions as before.

Rotation caused by atomic EDM is a sum of two contributions. Using the first term in (51) and (82) one can obtain the angle of rotation induced by splitting of magnetic sub-levels in electric field $`|\varphi _1|<1.310^{15}`$. The mix of hyperfine components (second term in Eq. (51)) gives the contribution $`|\varphi _2|<210^{15}`$.

For estimates we use experimental limit on electron EDM from  $`|d_e|<410^{27}|e|\mathrm{cm}`$. We should note that estimates of rotation angle for electron-nucleon $`T`$ noninvariant weak interactions and electron EDM give close values.

## VIII Conclusion

In the present article we have considered phenomenon of rotation of polarization plane of light in gas placed in electric field. Calculations of angle of polarization plane rotation are performed for $`6S_{1/2}7S_{1/2}`$ transition in atomic cesium. Two mechanisms of effect are considered. They are:

1. Light polarization plane rotation caused by the pseudo-Zeeman splitting of atomic levels in atoms with nonzero EDM in electric field .
2. Light polarization plane rotation due to interference of $`PT`$ \- odd and Stark-induced transition amplitudes .

Both of them can be induced by $`PT`$ noninvariant interaction between electrons and atomic nucleus and by interaction of electron EDM with electric field inside atom.

For the highly forbidden $`M1`$ transition $`6S_{1/2}7S_{1/2}`$ in cesium we can expect the angle of polarization plane rotation per absorption length due to $`PT`$ \- odd atomic polarizability $`\beta _{mix}^{PT}`$ about $`|\varphi |<10^{12}`$. The rotation induced by atomic EDM for this transition is three orders of magnitude smaller.

Angle of polarization plane rotation can be significantly greater for other atoms, for example, for rare-earth elements, where additional amplification arises from close levels of opposite parity.

The simplest experimental scheme to observe pseudo-Faraday rotation of polarization plane of light in electric field includes a cell with atomic gas placed in the electric field and sensitive polarimeter. In case of large absorption length one can place this cell in resonator or delay line optical cavity to reduce the size of experimental setup (see e. q. ).

Several schemes are proposed to increase the sensitivity of measurements. One of them is based on the nonlinear magneto-optic effect (NMOE) . Since the change of rotation angle with the change of applied field in this case is several orders of magnitude larger than in the traditional scheme, sensitivity of this kind of experiment can be very high. The authors of  expect to achieve the sensitivity for the cesium EDM $`|d_{Cs}|<10^{26}|e|`$ cm. The corresponding limit for the electron EDM is $`|d_e|<10^{28}|e|`$ cm.

The method of measurement of polarization plane rotation proposed in  probably can provide even higher sensitivity. This method is based on observation of evolution of polarization of light in a a cell with atomic vapor and amplifying media placed in a resonator. According to  the compensation of absorption of light in a cell allows to increase the observed angle of polarization plane rotation and, according to estimates , allows to increase the sensitivity for electron EDM up to $`|d_e|<10^{30}|e|`$ cm.

Therefore we can hope that experimental measurement of described phenomenon can provide sensitivity for parameters of $`P,T`$ noninvariant interactions between electron and nucleus and electron EDM, comparable or even higher than current atomic EDM experiments.