text:
# Inertial forces in the Casimir effect with two moving plates

## I Introduction

The Casimir force on moving plates has nontrivial properties, which have been studied in recent years. It provides for dissipation of the plate’s mechanical energy, an effect closely related to the emission of photon pairs  . This coupling also gives rise to decoherence of the plate’s motion . As far as the photon emission effect is concerned, it is interesting to assume that the plate oscillates with a frequency close to a resonance frequency of a cavity resonator, because the effect is greatly enhanced in this case . However, to achieve such unusually high mechanical frequencies is a challenge not yet undertaken. More generally, dissipative effects involve field modes with frequencies of the order of the mechanical frequency, and are very small when the latter is well below the lowest cavity frequency.

On the other hand, dispersive effects result from the contribution of the entire field spectrum, and hence are less sensitive to the variation of the mechanical frequency. In this paper, we consider the Casimir forces on two parallel moving plates, in the nonrelativistic and long-wavelength approximations. Photon production rates for this geometry have been derived in this limiting case . Here we focus on the dispersive force, and take an additional approximation: we assume the motion to be slow in the time scale associated to the time-of-flight of light between the plates. In this limit, the main nontrivial corrections to the static Casimir force are inertial forces, i.e., contributions proportional to the accelerations of the two plates. This effect was analyzed in detail by Jaekel and Reynaud  in the case of a one-dimensional space. Here we consider $`D`$ spatial dimensions, and use dimensional regularization, as in the formalism employed by Ambjorn and Wolfram for the static Casimir effect .

The Casimir force and photon emission rates for a moving dielectric semi-infinite half-space (single interface) in $`D`$ dimensions were also computed . Generalizing the result of a previous work , Ref.  obtained cut–off dependent mass corrections for the moving interface, which renormalize the bare mass. The corrections and the bare mass are both infinite (in the no cut-off limit), and when considered separately, unaccessible to measurements, only the total mass possessing a physical meaning. The mass corrections we shall derive here have a different interpretation. Rather than mass renormalization, they represent a measurable physical effect, not present in the case of a single plane interface (or plate) considered in . The corrections are finite, and depend on the distance between the plates. As required for consistency, they vanish at the limit of large distance, leaving the place for the unperturbed free-space masses of each plate. The free-space mass eventually also incorporates the vacuum radiation pressure coupling through a renormalization of a bare mass, in the line of Refs.  and . Here we skip this important problem to focus on the effect brought about by the presence of the second plate, and start from the experimentally known free-space masses . The mass of a single plate may also be modified when its surface is corrugated. Mass corrections for one and two parallel corrugated plates were computed in the case of lateral motion .

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we derive most of the formal results (leaving technical aspects to three appendices), and some physical implications are discussed in section 3. Additional comments and conclusion are presented in section 4.

## II Inertial Forces

We consider a massless scalar field $`\varphi `$ in $`D`$dimensional space. The field obeys Dirichlet boundary conditions at the moving plates $`x_1=\delta q_1(t)`$ and $`x_1=a+\delta q_2(t):`$

$`\varphi (\delta q_1(t),x_2,\mathrm{},x_D,t)=0=\varphi (a+\delta q_2(t),x_2,\mathrm{},x_D,t)`$

Hence $`\delta q_1(t)`$ and $`\delta q_2(t)`$ represent the time-dependent deviations of the positions of the plates from their unperturbed values, which correspond to a $`D`$-dimensional static cavity of length $`a.`$

The vacuum radiation pressure force on plate $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2`$ are the labels for the two boundaries) is written as $`\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}+\delta \widehat{f}_\alpha (t),`$ where $`\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ is the static Casimir force operator for the unperturbed cavity length $`a.`$ We use hats to distinguish between the force operators and their average values. For instance, the static average forces satisfy $`f_2^{(0)}\widehat{f}_2^{(0)}=f_1^{(0)},`$ but no such simple relation holds for the force operators themselves. We compute $`\delta f_\alpha (t)`$ up to first order in $`\delta q_1(t)`$ and $`\delta q_2(t)`$ and their time derivatives, from the fluctuations of the force in the unperturbed case, with the help of linear response theory. In the frequency domain (we employ capital letters to denote the Fourier transforms), we have

$$\delta F_\alpha (\omega )=\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )\delta Q_\beta (\omega ),$$
(1)
with the Fourier transform defined as:

$`\delta F_\alpha (\omega )={\displaystyle 𝑑t\delta f_\alpha (t)e^{i\omega t}}.`$

The susceptibility $`\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ may be computed with the help of linear response theory. In this approach, the response is derived from the fluctuations of the force in the static (unperturbed) case . The imaginary part of the susceptibility, which accounts for dissipation, is given by

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(C_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )C_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )\right),$$
(2)
where $`C_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of the correlation function of the force:

$`c_{\alpha \beta }(t)=\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}(t)\widehat{f}_\beta ^{(0)}(0)f_\alpha ^{(0)}f_\beta ^{(0)}.`$

The average is taken over the vacuum state, and for the unperturbed configuration corresponding to the stationary cavity of length $`a.`$ The force is computed from the stress tensor (we take $`c=1`$ in this section)

$$S_{ij}=_i\varphi _j\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ij}\left[\underset{k=1}{\overset{D}{}}(_k\varphi )^2(_t\varphi )^2\right],$$
(3)
with $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},D.`$

When considering the fluctuations of $`\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ we replace $`\varphi `$ by the unperturbed field $`\varphi _0,`$ which corresponds to the stationary configuration, and hence vanishes at $`x_1=0`$ and $`x_1=a:`$

$$\varphi _0(x_1,\mathrm{},x_D,t)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\{n_k\}}{}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\omega _{l,\{n_k\}}aL^{D1}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{l\pi x_1}{a}\right)\mathrm{exp}(ik_{\{n_k\}}x_{})a_{l,\{n_k\}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _{l,\{n_k\}}t)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(4)
where $`x_{}=(x_2,\mathrm{},x_D),`$ and $`\{n_k\}=\{n_2,\mathrm{},n_D\}`$ is a list of integer numbers (we have taken periodic conditions at the boundaries of a cell of measure $`L^{D1}`$ on the hyper-planes at $`x_1=0`$ and $`x_1=a;`$ as usual the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is assumed), and the corresponding sum is over all integer values. Each list $`\{n_k\}`$ corresponds to a wavevector $`k_{\{n_k\}}=2\pi (n_2,\mathrm{},n_D)/L`$ parallel to the hyper-planes. Hence a given field mode corresponds to an integer $`l`$ and a list $`\{n_k\},`$ and its associated frequency is $`\omega _{l,\{n_k\}}=\sqrt{(l\pi /a)^2+k_{\{n_k\}}^2}.`$

The force on the boundary at $`x_1=0`$ is given by

$$\widehat{f}_1^{(0)}(t)=_{x_1=0}d^{D1}x_{}S_{1,1}(0^+,x_{})=\frac{1}{2}_{x_1=0}d^{D1}x_{}\left(_{x_1}\varphi _0(0^+,x_{},t)\right)^2,$$
(5)
whereas the force on the second boundary is

$$\widehat{f}_2^{(0)}(t)=\frac{1}{2}_{x_1=a}d^{D1}x_{}\left(_{x_1}\varphi _0(a^{},x_{},t)\right)^2,$$
(6)
the integrals taken over the quantization cell. The spectra of force fluctuations are computed in Appendix A, yielding, with the help of (2), the imaginary parts of the four susceptibilities. They satisfy the symmetry relations $`\chi _{11}(\omega )=\chi _{22}(\omega ),`$ $`\chi _{12}(\omega )=\chi _{21}(\omega ).`$ We find

$`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^5\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{2a^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}s_{\alpha \beta }(l_1,l_2)(l_1l_2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^{D1}k_{}}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{1}{\omega _{l_1}\omega _{l_2}}}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`[\delta (\omega (\omega _{l_1}+\omega _{l_2}))\delta (\omega +(\omega _{l_1}+\omega _{l_2}))],`$ (8)
where $`s_{11}(l_1,l_2)=1,`$ $`s_{12}(l_1,l_2)=(1)^{l_1+l_2},`$ and

$$\omega _l=\sqrt{(l\pi /a)^2+k_{}^2}.$$
(9)
According to Eq. (7), for a given mechanical frequency $`\omega ,`$ dissipation comes from contributions of cavity modes satisfying the resonance condition associated with the emission of photon pairs: $`\omega _{l_1}+\omega _{l_2}=\omega .`$ In fact, the mechanical power dissipated by the force equals the total radiated power, as expected by energy conservation .

On the other hand, the real part of the susceptibility, which accounts for the dispersive component of the force, is computed from the dispersion relation  ($`\mathrm{P}`$ denotes Cauchy’s principal value)

$$\mathrm{Re}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{P}𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{}\omega },$$
(10)
and hence originates from contributions of the entire field spectrum. Usually, mechanical frequencies are much smaller than the resonance frequencies of the cavity: $`\omega \pi /L.`$ In this limit, the motion is slow in the time scale corresponding to the time-of-flight of the photon between the plates. In this quasi static limit, the susceptibility may be replaced by the first terms of the expansion in powers of $`\omega `$ (we follow the notation of Ref. ):

$$\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=\kappa _{\alpha \beta }+i\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\omega +\mu _{\alpha \beta }\omega ^2+𝒪(\omega ^3)$$
(11)
The meaning of the coefficients in Eq. (11) is best understood in the time domain:

$$\delta f_\alpha (t)=\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}\left[\kappa _{\alpha \beta }\delta q_\beta (t)+\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\delta \dot{q}_\beta (t)+\mu _{\alpha \beta }\delta \ddot{q}_\beta (t)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(12)
The coefficients $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ represent the viscous dissipative force in vacuum, in the low-frequency limit. They vanish for any value of $`D,`$ because there are no cavity modes available at low frequencies to contribute to $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ as given by the r.-h.-s. of Eq. (7).

In contrast to the dissipative component of the force, the dispersive component is the combined effect of all cavity modes even at such low mechanical frequencies. It corresponds to the coefficients $`\kappa _{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }`$ in (11) and (12), which may be calculated from the low frequency expansion of (10). The coefficients $`\kappa _{\alpha \beta }=\chi _{\alpha \beta }(0)`$ provide the linear correction to the static Casimir force, when the distance between the plates is changed from $`a`$ to its instantaneous value $`a\delta q_1(t)+\delta q_2(t).`$ Hence they do not contain any new nontrivial information, and are given by

$`\kappa _{11}=\kappa _{12}={\displaystyle \frac{f_1^{(0)}}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2E_0}{a^2}}`$

where

$$E_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left((D+1)/2\right)\zeta (D+1)}{(4\pi )^{(D+1)/2}}\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D}$$
(13)
is the (static) Casimir energy for a cavity length $`a`$  ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\zeta `$ denote the gamma and Riemann zeta functions ). Note that in the static case, only the relative position between the plates matters, so that $`\chi _{11}(0)=\chi _{12}(0).`$ However, as we show below, this relation does not hold for arbitrary values of frequency.

Finally, $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }`$ are the coefficients of the inertial forces coupling the dynamics of the two plates. Replacing Eq. (7) into (10), we find

$$\mu _{\alpha \beta }=\pi ^4\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^6}\underset{l_1,l_2}{}s_{\alpha \beta }(l_1,l_2)(l_1l_2)^2\frac{d^{D1}k_{}}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{1}{\omega _{l_1}\omega _{l_2}(\omega _{l_1}+\omega _{l_2})^3}.$$
(14)
We calculate the r.-h.-s. of (14) in Appendix B, with the help of dimensional regularization. We find

$$\mu _{11}=\frac{1}{6\pi ^2}\frac{\pi ^{D/2}}{2^D}\left[\frac{(D3)(D1)}{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{D}{2}\right)\zeta (2D)+\pi ^{3/2D}(D+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D+1}{2}\right)\zeta (D+1)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D},$$
(15)
and

$$\mu _{12}=\frac{1}{6\pi ^2}\frac{\pi ^{D/2}}{2^D}\left[\frac{(D3)(D1)}{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{D}{2}\right)\zeta (2D)+\frac{\pi ^{3/2D}}{2}(D+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D+1}{2}\right)\zeta (D+1)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D}.$$
(16)
Despite of the poles of the Gamma function, the first term in r.-h.-s. of (15) and (16) has a finite limit at positive even values of $`D`$ larger than $`2,`$ because of the zeros of the zeta function. Those values may be obtained more easily from the representation given by (B6) in Appendix B. Moreover, this term has a removable singularity at $`D=1,`$ this time due to the pole of the zeta function, but again the limit is finite. The Casimir energy $`E_0,`$ as well as the two inertial coefficients have negative values for any $`D>0,`$ and in Fig. 1, we plot their absolute values per unit of ‘area’ as functions of $`D,`$ and taking $`\mathrm{}=1,`$ $`a=1.`$ They have minima between $`D=22.8`$ ($`\mu _{12}`$) and $`D=25.2`$ ($`E_0`$), and then increase exponentially for larger values of $`D.`$

In Table 1, we show the explicit expressions for $`D=1,`$ $`2`$ and $`3.`$ The results for $`D=1`$ were already derived in Ref. , as the linear and low-frequency limit of the exact result obtained by Fulling and Davies , and also as the perfect-reflecting limit of the linear result for mirrors with frequency-dependent reflection coefficients. For $`D=1`$ and $`D=3,`$ we have also performed an independent calculation using an alternative regularization prescription, based on the introduction of a high-frequency cut-off, in order to check the results.

Since $`\mu _{11}\mu _{12},`$ the dynamical Casimir forces are not functions of the relative motion only, and the effect takes place also in the case of rigid motion of the cavity. This fact leads to a global mass correction, which is directly connected to the Casimir energy $`E_0`$ as we discuss in the next section.

## III Global inertial correction and its connection with the Casimir energy.

The inertial forces given by Eq. (12) leads to coupled equations of motion for the two plates:

$$m_\alpha \delta \ddot{q}_\alpha (t)=\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}\mu _{\alpha \beta }\delta \ddot{q}_\beta (t)+F_\alpha ,$$
(17)
where $`F_\alpha `$ represents the sum of all forces acting on plate $`\alpha ,`$ excluding the inertial force itself. The coefficients $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }`$ go to zero as $`a^D`$ when the plates are set apart, hence $`m_\alpha `$ is the free-space mass of plate $`\alpha .`$ Remarkably, the inertial force on a given plate also depends on the acceleration of the other plate. Even in the absence of external forces, in general these equations cannot be reduced to uncoupled equations for center of mass and relative motion, unless $`m_1=m_2=m,`$ and in this case the effective mass for relative motion is $`(m+\mu _{11}\mu _{12})/2.`$

In the case of global, rigid motion of the ‘cavity’ system, $`\delta q_1=\delta q_2\delta q,`$ we find, by adding the equations of motion for the two plates, $`M\delta q^{\prime \prime }=F_{\mathrm{ext}},`$ where $`F_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the sum of all external forces (the static Casimir components cancel, as well as the external stresses which enforce the rigidity by compensating the Casimir attraction), and

$$M=m_1+m_2+2(\mu _{11}+\mu _{12}).$$
(18)
Note that $`\mu _{11}+\mu _{12}`$ is not a mass correction of a given plate taken separately, since $`\mu _{12}`$ is associated to a coupling between the plates as shown by Eq. (17). However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=2(\mu _{11}+\mu _{12})`$ is in fact a global inertial mass correction introduced by the Casimir effect, and from Eqs. (13), (15) and (16) we find (now re-introducing the speed of light $`c`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=(D+1)\frac{E_0}{c^2}.$$
(19)
This relation between the inertial mass correction and the Casimir energy is in agreement with the law of inertia of energy for a stressed rigid body. In fact, for a plane cavity (length $`a`$) moving along the normal direction, the general mass-energy relation reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=(E+aF)/c^2,$$
(20)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the system contained within the cavity, and $`F`$ the corresponding force, with $`F>0`$ denoting outward force . Here $`E=E_0`$ is the unperturbed Casimir energy, and $`F=f_2^{(0)}=f_1^{(0)}`$ is the static Casimir force. From the power law as given by Eq. (13) we find

$$f_2^{(0)}=\frac{dE_0}{da}=DE_0/a,$$

which combined with (20) verifies Eq. (19).

In view of recent measurements of the Casimir force , we evaluate the order of magnitude of the inertial correction, taking $`D=3`$ and assuming that (19) also holds for the electromagnetic case. Then the global mass correction per unit area is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{L^2}=\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}}{180ca^3}.$$

For a plate separation $`a=100\mathrm{n}\mathrm{m},`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }M/L^2=2.0\times 10^{24}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2,`$ a very small correction.

## IV Conclusion

We have calculated the dynamical Casimir force for two moving plates in a D-dimensional space. We have employed linear response theory, which allows us to compute the dynamical force from the spectrum of fluctuations of the force for the static configuration. In this approach, the motion is taken to be a small perturbation, and terms of second or higher order in the displacements of the plates (and their time derivatives) are neglected. Moreover, we have taken the quasi static approximation, expanding the linear susceptibility in powers of frequency.

In this limit, the dominant dynamical contributions are inertial forces. They have been derived from dispersion relations, and with the help of dimensional regularization. The inertial force on a given plate has two contributions: one proportional to its own acceleration (coefficient $`\mu _{11}`$), and one proportional to the acceleration of the companion plate (coefficient $`\mu _{12}`$). For $`D=3,`$ we have $`\mu _{11}=2\mu _{12},`$ but for larger dimensions the cross-acceleration force dominates over the self-acceleration force, as shown in Fig. 1. The two effects jointly contribute to the global mass correction, which in its turn is related to the Casimir energy as predicted by the law of inertia of energy for stressed rigid bodies.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to C. Farina, A. Lambrecht and S. Reynaud for discussions, and to CNPq, PRONEX and FAPERJ for partial financial support.

## A Dissipative component of the force

In this appendix, we compute the spectrum of fluctuations of the force, $`C_{\alpha \beta }(\omega ),`$ which is directly connected by linear response theory to $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\alpha \beta }(\omega ),`$ as shown by Eq. (2).

According to Eq. (5), the force operators are quadratic in the field operators. Hence, the force correlation function may be computed from two photon matrix elements as follows :

$$c_{\alpha \beta }(t)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ϵ,ϵ^{}}{}0|\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}(t)|ϵ,ϵ^{}ϵ,ϵ^{}|\widehat{f}_\beta ^{(0)}(0)|0,$$
(A1)
where $`|ϵ,ϵ^{}`$ is a two-photon state, the label $`ϵ=l,n_2,\mathrm{},n_D`$ representing a given field mode. The time dependence in Eq. (A1) is of the form

$$0|\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}(t)|ϵ,ϵ^{}=\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _ϵ+\omega _ϵ^{})t]0|\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}(0)|ϵ,ϵ^{}$$

for only annihilation operators contribute in this matrix element. Thus, the spectrum of fluctuations is given by

$$C_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=\pi \underset{ϵ,ϵ^{}}{}0|\widehat{f}_\alpha ^{(0)}(0)|ϵ,ϵ^{}ϵ,ϵ^{}|\widehat{f}_\beta ^{(0)}(0)|0\delta (\omega \omega _ϵ\omega _ϵ^{}).$$
(A2)
The matrix elements are computed from the normal mode expansion as given by Eq. (4):

$$0|\widehat{f}_1^{(0)}(0)|ϵ,ϵ^{}=\pi ^2\frac{\mathrm{}}{a^3}\frac{ll^{}}{\sqrt{\omega _ϵ\omega _ϵ^{}}}\delta _{n_2,n_2^{}}\mathrm{}\delta _{n_D,n_D^{}},$$
(A3)
$$0|\widehat{f}_2^{(0)}(0)|ϵ,ϵ^{}=\pi ^2\frac{\mathrm{}}{a^3}\frac{ll^{}}{\sqrt{\omega _ϵ\omega _ϵ^{}}}(1)^{l+l^{}}\delta _{n_2,n_2^{}}\mathrm{}\delta _{n_D,n_D^{}}.$$
(A4)
We combine Eqs. (2), (A2), (A3) and replace

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{n_k\}}{}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\pi }}\right)^{D1}{\displaystyle d^{D1}k}.`$

to derive the result for $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{11}(\omega )`$ as given by (7). The result for $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{12}(\omega )`$ is very similar, except for the additional factor $`(1)^{l+l^{}}`$ present in (A4) and not in (A3).

## B Derivation of the mass corrections

In this appendix, we compute the series and integral in the r.-h.-s. of (14), which give the results for the mass coefficients $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }.`$ Since the integrand depends on $`𝐤_{}`$ only through its modulus, we may replace the multiple integral by an integral over $`k_{}=|𝐤_{}|,`$ with

$`d^{D1}k_{}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{(D1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(D1)}{2})}}k_{}^{D2}dk_{}.`$

The terms with $`l_1=l_2`$ are simpler, and may be solved directly in terms of the Euler Beta function :

$$\mu _{11}[l_1=l_2]=\frac{\pi ^{(D3)/2}}{2^{D+2}}\frac{B((D1)/2,D/2+3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((D1)/2)}\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}l^{D2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D},$$
(B1)
and $`\mu _{12}[l_1=l_2]=\mu _{11}[l_1=l_2].`$ The series in the r.-h.-s. of (B1) converges when $`D<1`$ to the value $`\zeta (2D);`$ outside this range the regularized result is obtained by analytic continuation in $`D,`$ with the help of the well-known analytic extension of the zeta function. The terms with $`l_1l_2`$ are computed in the following way: we first replace into (14) the result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _{l_1}+\omega _{l_2})^3}}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{l_1}^3\omega _{l_2}^33\omega _{l_1}^2\omega _{l_2}+3\omega _{l_1}\omega _{l_2}^2}{\left[(\frac{\pi l_1}{a})^2(\frac{\pi l_2}{a})^2\right]^3}},`$

which follows from (9), and then the resulting integrals may also be computed in terms of the Beta function:

$$\mu _{\alpha \beta }[l_1l_2]=\frac{\pi ^{(D3)/2}}{2^{D2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((D1)/2)}\times \underset{l_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{l_2}{\overset{}{}}\{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3s_{\alpha \beta }(l_1,l_2)$$
(B2)
$`\times [B({\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}},1{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}})l_1^4l_2^D+B({\displaystyle \frac{D+1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}})l_1^2l_2^{D+2}3B({\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}})l_1^{D+2}l_2^2]\}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D}},`$

where $`^{}`$ runs over all positive values of $`l_2,`$ except $`l_2=l_1.`$ In Appendix C, we regularize the sums in Eq. (B2) once more with the help of the analytic extension of the zeta function. The complete result reads

$$\mu _{11}=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\frac{\pi ^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}{2^D}\left[(D3)(D2)(D1)\zeta (2D)+4\pi ^2(D+1)\zeta (D)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D},$$
(B3)
and

$$\mu _{12}=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\frac{\pi ^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}{2^D}\left[(D3)(D2)(D1)\zeta (2D)+2\pi ^2(D+1)\zeta (D)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D}.$$
(B4)
Due to the poles of the Gamma function, these results are at first-sight ill-defined for even positive values of $`D.`$ However, these poles are compensated by the zeros of the expression within brackets, and more useful representations may be derived with the help of the result

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\zeta (s)=\pi ^{s1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1s}{2}\right)\zeta (1s).$$
(B5)
We employ (B5) for the second term within brackets in (B3), whereas for the first term we employ the recurrence relation for the gamma function and then use (B5) with $`s=2D.`$ We find

$$\mu _{11}=\frac{1}{12}\frac{\pi ^{(D+1)/2}}{2^D}\left[\frac{(D3)(D2)(D1)}{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D1}{2}\right)\zeta (D1)+2(D+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D+1}{2}\right)\zeta (D+1)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}L^{D1}}{a^D},$$
(B6)
and a similar representation for $`\mu _{12}.`$ However, this representation is still undefined for $`D=2,`$ because of the pole of the zeta function. Hence a third representation is necessary to compute this particular case. Rather than using (B5) for the first term, we employ the recurrence relation twice to derive, again from Eq. (B3), the representation given by (15).

## C Series for the evaluation of $`\mu _{11}`$ and $`\mu _{12}`$

In this appendix, we compute the series appearing in Eq. (B2). Our starting point is the result

$$\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{l^2}{(l^2x^2)^3}=\frac{\pi }{8x^3}\left[\frac{\pi x}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi x)}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}(\pi x)}\left(1\frac{2\pi ^2x^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi x)}\right)\right].$$
(C1)
We evaluate the Laurent series expansions of the r.-h.-s. of (C1) in powers of $`xn,`$ with $`n`$ integer, and from the lowest order terms derive the result

$$\underset{l_2=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{l_2^2}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}=\frac{1}{32l_1^4}\frac{\pi ^2}{48l_1^2},$$
(C2)
where the star denotes that the sum is taken from 1 to infinity, the value $`l_2=l_1`$ excluded. In a similar way we derive

$$\underset{l_2=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{l_2^4}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}=\frac{1}{32l_1^4}\frac{5\pi ^2}{48}.$$
(C3)
For the derivation of $`\mu _{12},`$ we need

$$\underset{l_2=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{(1)^{l_2}l_2^2}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}=2\underset{l_2=2,4,..}{\overset{}{}}\frac{l_2^2}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}\underset{l_2=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{l_2^2}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}.$$
(C4)
For the first term we change the variable of sum to $`k=l_2/2`$ to find

$$\underset{l_2=2,4,..}{\overset{}{}}\frac{l_2^2}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}=\frac{1}{16}\underset{k=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{k^2}{((l_1/2)^2k^2)^3}.$$
(C5)
For even values of $`l_1`$ this sum is given by the r.-h.-s. of (C2) (where we replace $`l_1`$ by $`l_1/2`$), whereas for odd values the result may be obtained directly from (C1), replacing $`x`$ by $`l_1/2`$ (in this case, the function in its r.-h.-s. is finite at this value, and the sum in (C5) runs over all positive integers). The final result reads

$$\underset{l_2=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{(1)^{l_2}l_2^2}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}=(1)^{l_1}\left(\frac{1}{32l_1^4}+\frac{\pi ^2}{96l_1^2}\right).$$
(C6)
Following the same approach, we compute

$$\underset{l_2=1}{\overset{}{}}\frac{(1)^{l_2}l_2^4}{(l_1^2l_2^2)^3}=(1)^{l_1}\left(\frac{1}{32l_1^2}+\frac{5\pi ^2}{96}\right).$$
(C7)
After replacing these results in the r.-h.-s. of Eq. (B2), we still have sums over $`l_1`$ to compute. The sums are divergent for the values of $`D`$ of physical interest, but regularized expressions are obtained by taking the analytic extension of the zeta function.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction and Motivation

## 1
Introduction and Motivation

In quantum theory the Born probability rule is regarded as a fundamental law of Nature: a system with wavefunction $`\psi `$ has an associated probability distribution $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$. However, there are reasons to believe that this distribution is not fundamental, but merely corresponds to a special ‘equilibrium’ state, analogous to thermal equilibrium \[1–7\]. For there seems to be a ‘conspiracy’ in the known laws of physics: long-distance quantum correlations suggest that our universe is fundamentally nonlocal, and yet the nonlocality cannot be used for practical instantaneous signalling. This apparent conspiracy may be explained if one supposes that signal-locality is merely a property of the special state $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$, in which nonlocality happens to be hidden by quantum noise; while for a general distribution $`\rho |\psi |^2`$, nonlocality would be directly visible. While $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$ to high accuracy now (for all systems probed so far), perhaps $`\rho |\psi |^2`$ in the early universe, the relaxation $`\rho |\psi |^2`$ having taken place soon after the big bang. Thus our experience happens to be restricted to an equilibrium state $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$ in which locality and uncertainty appear to be fundamental.

A heuristic analogy may be drawn with physics in a universe that has reached a state of thermal ‘heat death’, in which all systems have the same temperature . In such a universe there is a universal probability distribution given by the Boltzmann rule $`\rho =e^{E/kT}/Z`$, analogous to our universal Born rule $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$; all systems are subject to a universal thermal noise, analogous to our universal uncertainty noise; and it is impossible to convert thermal energy into useful work, just as it is impossible in our universe to convert quantum nonlocality into a useful instantaneous signal.

A precise model of this scenario is obtained in deterministic hidden-variables theories such as the pilot-wave theory of de Broglie and Bohm \[1–14\]. These nonlocal theories allow one to discuss the properties of hypothetical nonequilibrium distributions $`\rho |\psi |^2`$, for which it may be shown that there are instantaneous signals at the statistical level . Thus in these theories it may be asserted that quantum theory is just the theory of a special state $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$ in which nonlocality happens to be hidden by statistical noise. And in pilot-wave theory at least, the relaxation $`\rho |\psi |^2`$ may be accounted for by an H-theorem , much as in classical statistical mechanics, so that $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$ is indeed merely an equilibrium state.555Other authors tend to consider pilot-wave theory in equilibrium alone. This is like considering classical mechanics only in thermal equilibrium.

Here we shall work with the pilot-wave model. The details of that model may or may not be correct: but it has qualitative features, such as nonlocality, that are known to be properties of all hidden-variables theories; and it is helpful to work with a specific, well-defined theory. In this model, a system with wavefunction $`\psi (x,t)`$ has a configuration $`x(t)`$ whose velocity is determined by $`\dot{x}(t)=j(x,t)/|\psi (x,t)|^2`$, where $`j`$ is the quantum probability current. Quantum theory is recovered if one assumes that an ensemble of systems with wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)`$ begins with a ‘quantum equilibrium’ distribution of configurations $`\rho _0(x)=|\psi _0(x)|^2`$ at $`t=0`$ (guaranteeing $`\rho (x,t)=|\psi (x,t)|^2`$ for all $`t`$). In effect, the Born rule is assumed as an initial condition. But the theory also allows one to consider arbitrary ‘nonequilibrium’ initial distributions $`\rho _0(x)|\psi _0(x)|^2`$, which violate quantum theory \[1–7\], and whose evolution is given by the continuity equation

$$\frac{\rho (x,t)}{t}+(\dot{x}(t)\rho (x,t))=0$$

(the same equation that is satisfied by $`|\psi (x,t)|^2`$).

Our working hypothesis, then, is that $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$ is an equilibrium state, analogous to thermal equilibrium in classical mechanics. This state has special properties – in particular locality and uncertainty – which are not fundamental. It then becomes clear that a lot of new physics must be hidden behind quantum noise, physics that is unavailable to us only because we happen to be trapped in an equilibrium state.

This new physics might be accessible if the universe began in nonequilibrium $`\rho |\psi |^2`$. First, in theories of cosmological inflation, early corrections to quantum fluctuations would change the spectrum of primordial density perturbations imprinted on the cosmic microwave background . Second, relic cosmological particles that decoupled at sufficiently early times might still be in quantum nonequilibrium today, violating quantum mechanics \[3–7\].

The second possibility is particularly relevant here. If relic nonequilibrium matter from the early universe was discovered, what could we do with it? Thermal and chemical nonequilibrium have myriad technological applications; we expect that quantum nonequilibrium would be just as useful.

## 2 Detection and Use of Quantum Nonequilibrium

First we need to consider how a nonequilibrium distribution $`\rho |\psi |^2`$ might be deduced by statistical analysis of a random sample of relic matter .

Consider the unrealistic but simple example of a large number $`N`$ of Hydrogen atoms in the ground state $`\psi _{100}(r)`$. Assume they make up a cloud of gas somewhere in space. Because the phase of $`\psi _{100}`$ has zero gradient, the de Broglie-Bohm velocity field vanishes, and pilot-wave theory predicts that each electron is at rest relative to its nucleus. We then have a static distribution $`\rho (r)`$, which may or may not equal the quantum equilibrium distribution $`\rho _{eq}(r)=\left|\psi _{100}(r)\right|^2e^{2r/a_0}`$. To test this, one could draw a random sample of $`N\stackrel{´}{}`$ atoms ($`N\stackrel{´}{}<<N`$) and measure the electron positions. The sample $`r_1,r_2,r_3,\mathrm{}..,r_{N\stackrel{´}{}}`$ may be used to make statistical inferences about the parent distribution $`\rho (r)`$. In particular, one may estimate the likelihood that $`\rho (r)=\rho _{eq}(r)`$. Should one deduce that, almost certainly, the cloud as a whole has a nonequilibrium distribution $`\rho (r)\rho _{eq}(r)`$, the rest of the cloud may then be used as a resource for new physics.

For example, one could test $`\rho (r)`$ via the sample mean $`\overline{r}`$. If $`\rho (r)`$ has mean $`\mu `$ and variance $`\sigma ^2`$, the central limit theorem tells us that for large $`N\stackrel{´}{}`$ the random variable $`\overline{r}`$ has an approximately normal distribution with mean $`\mu `$ and variance $`\sigma ^2/N\stackrel{´}{}`$. We can then calculate the probability that $`\overline{r}`$ differs from $`\mu `$, and we can test the hypothesis that $`\rho (r)=\rho _{eq}(r)`$ with $`\mu =\mu _{eq}=\frac{3}{2}a_0`$. A standard technique is to compare the probability $`P(\overline{r}|\rho _{eq})`$ of obtaining $`\overline{r}`$ from a distribution $`\rho _{eq}`$ with the probability $`P(\overline{r}|\rho _{noneq})`$ of obtaining $`\overline{r}`$ from some nonequilibrium distribution $`\rho _{noneq}`$. One usually refers to $`P(\overline{r}|\rho _{eq})`$ and $`P(\overline{r}|\rho _{noneq})`$ as the ‘likelihoods’ of $`\rho _{eq}`$ and $`\rho _{noneq}`$ respectively, given the sample mean $`\overline{r}`$. If $`P(\overline{r}|\rho _{eq})<<P(\overline{r}|\rho _{noneq})`$, one concludes that nonequilibrium is much more likely. Similarly, using standard techniques such as the chi-square test, one may deduce the most likely form of the parent distribution $`\rho (r)`$, which almost certainly applies to the rest of the cloud.666The same reasoning applies if the parent distribution is time-dependent: if the sampling is done at time $`t_0`$, and statistical analysis favours a distribution $`\rho (r,t_0)`$ at $`t_0`$, then the most likely distribution at later times may be calculated by integrating the continuity equation.

In what follows, then, we assume that at $`t=0`$ we have a large number of particles with the same known wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)`$, and with positions $`x`$ that have a known nonequilibrium distribution $`\rho _0(x)\left|\psi _0(x)\right|^2`$.

## 3 Instantaneous Signalling

The most obvious application of such ‘non-quantum’ matter would be for instantaneous signalling across space .

Suppose we take pairs of nonequilibrium particles and prepare each pair in an entangled state $`\psi (x_A,x_B,t_0)`$ at time $`t_0`$ (by briefly switching on an interaction). Given the details of the preparation, we may use the Schrödinger equation to calculate the evolution of the wavefunction of each pair, from $`\psi (x_A,x_B,0)=\psi _0(x_A)\psi _0(x_B)`$ at $`t=0`$ to $`\psi (x_A,x_B,t_0)`$ at $`t=t_0`$. We then know the de Broglie-Bohm velocity field throughout $`(0,t_0)`$, and so we may use the continuity equation to calculate the evolution of the joint distribution for the pairs from $`\rho (x_A,x_B,0)=\rho _0(x_A)\rho _0(x_B)`$ at $`t=0`$ to $`\rho (x_A,x_B,t_0)\left|\psi (x_A,x_B,t_0)\right|^2`$ at $`t=t_0`$.777If the velocity field does not vary too rapidly in configuration space and the time interval $`(0,t_0)`$ is not inordinately long, relaxation to equilibrium will not be significant. We then have the situation discussed in detail elsewhere . The marginal distribution $`\rho _A(x_A,t_0)𝑑x_B\rho (x_A,x_B,t_0)`$ at $`A`$ is known, and its subsequent evolution will depend instantaneously on perturbations applied at $`B`$, however remote $`B`$ may be from $`A`$. Thus instantaneous signals may be sent from $`B`$ to $`A`$.

It might be thought that superluminal signals would necessarily lead to causal paradoxes. However, it could well be that at the nonlocal hidden-variable level there is a preferred slicing of spacetime, labelled by a time parameter that defines a fundamental causal sequence .888Instantaneous signals would define (operationally) an absolute simultaneity; ‘backwards-in-time’ effects generated by Lorentz transformations would be fictitious, moving clocks being incorrectly synchronised if one assumes isotropy of the speed of light in all frames .

## 4 Subquantum Measurement

Let us now consider how our nonequilibrium particles could be used to perform novel measurements on ordinary, equilibrium systems .

Assume once again that we have an ensemble of what we shall now call ‘apparatus’ particles with known wavefunction $`g_0(y)`$ and known nonequilibrium distribution $`\pi _0(y)\left|g_0(y)\right|^2`$. (The position $`y`$ may be regarded as a ‘pointer’ position.) And let us now use them to measure the positions of ordinary ‘system’ particles with known wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)`$ and known equilibrium distribution $`\rho _0(x)=\left|\psi _0(x)\right|^2`$. We shall see that, if the apparatus distribution $`\pi _0(y)`$ were arbitrarily narrow, we could measure the system position $`x_0`$ without disturbing the system wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)`$, to arbitrary accuracy, in complete violation of the uncertainty principle.

We shall illustrate the idea with an exactly-solvable model. At $`t=0`$, we take a system particle and an apparatus particle and switch on an interaction between them described by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=a\widehat{x}\widehat{p}_y`$, where $`a`$ is a coupling constant and $`p_y`$ is the momentum canonically conjugate to $`y`$. (This is the standard interaction Hamiltonian for an ideal quantum measurement of $`x`$ using the pointer $`y`$.) For simplicity, we neglect the Hamiltonians of $`x`$ and $`y`$ themselves.999This might be justified by assuming $`a`$ to be relatively large; or, one can just accept the above Hamiltonian as a simple illustrative model. For $`t>0`$ the joint wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)}{t}=ax\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)}{y}$$

while $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\right|^2`$ obeys the continuity equation

$$\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\right|^2}{t}+ax\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\right|^2}{y}=0$$

The hidden-variable velocity fields $`\dot{x}`$ and $`\dot{y}`$ must satisfy

$$\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\right|^2}{t}+\frac{\left(\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\right|^2\dot{x}\right)}{x}+\frac{\left(\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\right|^2\dot{y}\right)}{y}=0$$

from which we deduce the (non-standard) guidance equations101010For standard Hamiltonians, $`\dot{x}=j/\left|\psi \right|^2`$ usually reads $`\dot{x}=(\mathrm{}/m)Im(\psi /\psi )`$. Here the velocity field is unusual because the Hamiltonian is. $`\dot{x}=0,\dot{y}=ax`$ and the de Broglie-Bohm trajectories $`x(t)=x_0,y(t)=y_0+ax_0t`$.

Now the initial product wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x,y)=\psi _0(x)g_0(y)`$ evolves into the entangled wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)=\psi _0(x)g_0(yaxt)`$. In the limit $`at0`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)\psi _0(x)g_0(y)`$ and the system wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)`$ is undisturbed. Yet, no matter how small $`at`$ may be, at the hidden-variable level the ‘pointer’ position $`y(t)=y_0+ax_0t`$ contains information about the value of $`x_0`$ (and of $`x(t)=x_0`$). And this ‘subquantum’ information about $`x`$ will be visible to us if the initial pointer distribution $`\pi _0(y)`$ is sufficiently narrow.

For consider an ensemble of similar experiments, where $`x`$ and $`y`$ have the initial joint distribution $`P_0(x,y)=\left|\psi _0(x)\right|^2\pi _0(y)`$ (equilibrium for $`x`$ and nonequilibrium for $`y`$). The continuity equation

$$\frac{P(x,y,t)}{t}+ax\frac{P(x,y,t)}{y}=0$$

implies that at later times $`P(x,y,t)=\left|\psi _0(x)\right|^2\pi _0(yaxt)`$. If $`\pi _0(y)`$ is localised – say $`\pi _0(y)0`$ for $`\left|y\right|>w/2`$ – then from a standard measurement of $`y`$ we may deduce that $`x`$ lies in the interval $`(y/atw/2at,y/at+w/2at)`$ (so that $`P(x,y,t)0`$), where the error margin $`w/2at0`$ as the width $`w0`$.

Thus, if the nonequilibrium ‘apparatus’ distribution $`\pi _0(y)`$ has an arbitrarily small width $`w`$, then to arbitrary accuracy we may measure the position $`x`$ of each equilibrium particle without disturbing the wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)`$.111111For finite $`w<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the width of $`\left|g_0(y)\right|^2`$, we may make probabilistic statements about the value of $`x`$ that convey more information than quantum theory allows; while if $`w>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the measurements will be less accurate than those of quantum theory .

We have for simplicity considered an exactly-solvable system with an unusual total Hamiltonian. Similar conclusions hold for more standard systems: if the interaction between $`x`$ and $`y`$ is sufficiently weak, then while $`\psi _0(x)`$ is hardly disturbed, at the hidden-variable level $`y`$ generally contains information about $`x`$ – information that is visible if $`y`$ has a sufficiently narrow distribution.

Generalising, if $`w`$ is arbitrarily small, then by a sequence of such measurements, it is clear that for a system particle with arbitrary wavefunction $`\psi (x,t)`$ we can determine the hidden trajectory $`x(t)`$ without disturbing $`\psi (x,t)`$, to arbitrary accuracy.

## 5 Distinguishing Non-Orthogonal Quantum States

In quantum mechanics, non-orthogonal states $`|\psi _1`$, $`|\psi _2`$ (with $`\psi _1|\psi _20`$) cannot be distinguished without disturbing them . This theorem breaks down in the presence of nonequilibrium matter .

For example, if $`|\psi _1`$, $`|\psi _2`$ are distinct initial states of a single spinless particle, then in de Broglie-Bohm theory the velocity fields $`j_1(x,t)/\left|\psi _1(x,t)\right|^2`$, $`j_2(x,t)/\left|\psi _2(x,t)\right|^2`$ generated by the wavefunctions $`\psi _1(x,t)`$, $`\psi _2(x,t)`$ will in general be different, even if $`\psi _1|\psi _2=𝑑x\psi _1^{}(x,0)\psi _2(x,0)0`$. The hidden-variable trajectories $`x_1(t)`$ and $`x_2(t)`$ – associated with $`\psi _1(x,t)`$ and $`\psi _2(x,t)`$ respectively – will generally differ if $`\psi _1(x,0)\psi _2(x,0)`$ (even if $`x_1(0)=x_2(0)`$). Thus, a subquantum measurement of the particle trajectory (even over a short time) would generally enable us to distinguish the quantum states $`|\psi _1`$ and $`|\psi _2`$ without disturbing them, to arbitrary accuracy.

## 6 Eavesdropping on Quantum Key Distribution

Alice and Bob want to share a secret sequence of bits that will be used as a key for cryptography. During distribution of the key between them, they must be able to detect any eavesdropping by Eve. Three protocols for quantum key distribution – BB84 , B92 , and E91 (or EPR)  – are known to be secure against classical or quantum attacks (that is, against eavesdropping based on classical or quantum physics) . But these protocols are not secure against a ‘subquantum’ attack .

Both BB84 and B92 rely on the impossibility of distinguishing non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them. In BB84 Alice sends Bob a random sequence of spin-1/2 states $`|+z,|z,|+x,|x`$, while in B92 she sends a random sequence of arbitrary non-orthogonal states $`|u_0,|u_1`$ (the states being subjected to appropriate random measurements by Bob). In each case the sequence is chosen by Alice. But if Eve possesses non-quantum matter with an arbitrarily narrow nonequilibrium distribution, she may identify the states sent by Alice without disturbing them, to arbitrary accuracy, and so read the supposedly secret key. (For B92, $`|u_0,`$ $`|u_1`$ could be states of a spinless particle with wavefunctions $`\psi _0(x,t),`$ $`\psi _1(x,t)`$, which Eve may distinguish by monitoring the hidden-variable trajectories. Similarly for BB84 – though for spin-1/2 states one must consider pilot-wave theory for two-component wavefunctions .)

E91 is particularly interesting for it relies on the completeness of quantum theory – that is, on the assumption that there are no hidden ‘elements of reality’. Pairs of spin-1/2 particles in the singlet state are shared by Alice and Bob, who perform spin measurements along random axes. For coincident axes the same bit sequence is generated at each wing, by apparently random quantum outcomes. ‘The eavesdropper cannot elicit any information from the particles while in transit ….. because there is no information encoded there’ . But our Eve has access to information outside the domain of quantum theory. She can measure the particle positions while in transit, without disturbing the wavefunction, and so predict the outcomes of spin measurements at the two wings (for the publicly-announced axes).121212In Bell’s pilot-wave theory of spin-1/2 , particle positions within the wavepacket determine the outcomes of Stern-Gerlach measurements. Thus Eve is able to predict the key shared by Alice and Bob.

## 7 Outpacing Quantum Computation

Quantum theory allows parallel Turing-type computations to occur in different branches of the state vector for a single computer . However, owing to the effective collapse that occurs under measurement, an experimenter is able to access only one result; the outputs of the other computations are lost. Of course, by clever use of entanglement and interference, one can make quantum computation remarkably efficient for certain special problems. But in general, what at first sight seems to be a massive increase in computational power is not, in fact, realised in practice.

All the results of a parallel quantum computation could be read, however, if we had access to nonequilibrium matter with a very narrow distribution .

For each result could be encoded in an integer $`n`$, and stored as an energy eigenvalue $`E_n`$ for a single spinless particle (a component of the computer). At the end of the computation the particle wavefunction will be a superposition

$$\psi (x,t)=\underset{nS}{}\varphi _n(x)e^{iE_nt}$$

of $`N`$ energy eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n(x)`$, where $`S`$ is an unknown set of $`N`$ quantum numbers. (We assume a Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{p}^2/2+V(\widehat{x})`$, where the mass $`m=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1`$.) In standard quantum theory an energy measurement for the particle yields just one value $`E_n`$. To find out what other eigenvalues are present, one would have to run the whole computation many times – to produce an ensemble of copies of the same wavefunction – and repeat the energy measurement for each. And so one may as well just run many computations on a single classical computer, one after the other.

But the hidden-variable particle trajectory $`x(t)`$ – determined by $`\dot{x}(t)=j/\left|\psi \right|^2`$ or $`\dot{x}=Im\left(\psi /\psi \right)`$ – contains information about all the modes in the superposition (provided the $`\varphi _n(x)`$ overlap in space). If we had a sample of nonequilibrium matter with a very narrow distribution, we could use it to measure $`x(t)`$ without disturbing $`\psi (x,t)`$. We could then read the set $`S`$ of quantum numbers: having measured the values of $`x(t),\dot{x}(t)`$ at $`N`$ times $`t=t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}.,t_N`$, the equation $`\dot{x}=Im\left(\psi /\psi \right)`$ may be solved for the $`N`$ quantum numbers $`n`$.131313We are assuming that $`\varphi _n(x),E_n`$ are known functions of $`x,n`$ – obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem $`\widehat{H}\varphi _n(x)=E_n\varphi _n(x)`$. The $`N`$ pairs of values $`x(t_i),\dot{x}(t_i)`$ might be obtained by subquantum measurements of $`x(t)`$ at $`2N`$ times $`t=t_1,t_1+ϵ,t_2,t_2+ϵ,\mathrm{}.,t_N,`$ $`t_N+ϵ`$, with $`ϵ`$ very small. Thus we could read the results of all $`N`$ arbitrarily long parallel computations (at the price of solving $`N`$ simultaneous equations), even though the computer has been run only once.

By combining subquantum measurements with quantum algorithms, we could solve $`NP`$-complete problems in polynomial time, and so outpace all known quantum (or classical) algorithms .

To see this, consider the computational enhancement noted by Abrams and Lloyd in nonlinear quantum mechanics . Let a quantum (equilibrium) computer begin with $`n+1`$ qubits in the state $`|00\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ and apply the Hadamard gate $`H`$ (which maps $`|0(|0+|1)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|1(|0|1)/\sqrt{2}`$) to each of the first $`n`$ qubits to produce $`(1/\sqrt{2^n})_x|x,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$, where the $`n`$-bit ‘input’ $`x`$ ranges from $`00\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ to $`11\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ (or from $`0`$ to $`2^n1`$). Then use an ‘oracle’ or ‘black box’ to calculate – in parallel – a function $`f(x)=0`$ or $`1`$, whose value is stored in the last qubit, producing $`(1/\sqrt{2^n})_x|x,f(x)`$. Applying $`H`$ again to each of the first $`n`$ qubits produces a state containing the term $`(1/2^n)_x|00\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}0},f(x)`$. If upon quantum measurement of the first $`n`$ qubits we obtain $`|00\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}0}`$, the total effective state becomes $`|00\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}0}|\psi `$ where $`|\psi |0(2^ns)/2^n+|1s/2^n`$ and $`s`$ is the number of inputs $`x`$ such that $`f(x)=1`$ (the total number of inputs being $`2^n`$).141414The quantum equilibrium probability of obtaining $`|00\mathrm{}\mathrm{..\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ is at least 1/4 . As Abrams and Lloyd point out, we could solve $`NP`$-complete problems if we could distinguish between $`s=0`$ and $`s>0`$ for the state $`|\psi `$ of the last qubit. This could be accomplished by nonlinear evolution, in which non-orthogonal states evolve into (distinguishable) orthogonal ones . But equally, non-orthogonal qubits could be distinguished using our nonequilibrium matter. Here, the de Broglie-Bohm trajectory $`x(t)`$ of an equilibrium particle guided by $`\psi (x,t)=x|\psi (t)`$ will in general be sensitive to the value of $`s`$, which may therefore be read by a subquantum measurement of $`x(t)`$ .

## 8 Conclusion

We have argued that immense physical resources are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that we will be unable to access those resources only for as long as we are trapped in the ‘quantum heat death’ – a state in which all systems are subject to the noise associated with the Born probability distribution $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$.

It is clear that hidden-variables theories offer a radically different perspective on quantum information theory. In such theories, a huge amount of ‘subquantum information’ is hidden from us simply because we happen to live in a time and place where the hidden variables have a certain ‘equilibrium’ distribution. As we have mentioned, nonequilibrium instantaneous signals occur not only in pilot-wave theory but in any deterministic hidden-variables theory . And in pilot-wave theory at least, we have shown that the security of quantum cryptography depends on our being trapped in quantum equilibrium; and, that nonequilibrium would unleash computational resources far more powerful than those of quantum computers.

Some might prefer to regard this work as showing how the principles of quantum information theory depend on a particular axiom of quantum theory – the Born rule $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$. (One might also consider the role of the axiom of linear evolution .)

But if one takes hidden-variables theories seriously as physical theories of Nature, one can hardly escape the conclusion that we just happen to be confined to a particular state in which our powers are limited by an all-pervading statistical noise. It then seems important to search for violations $`\rho |\psi |^2`$ of the Born rule \[3–7\].

Acknowledgement. This work was supported by the Jesse Phillips Foundation.

REFERENCES

 A. Valentini, Phys. Lett. A 156, 5 (1991).

 A. Valentini, Phys. Lett. A 158, 1 (1991).

 A. Valentini, PhD thesis, International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste, Italy (1992).

 A. Valentini, in Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: an Appraisal, eds. J. T. Cushing et al. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996).

 A. Valentini, in Chance in Physics: Foundations and Perspectives, eds. J. Bricmont et al. (Springer, Berlin, 2001) \[quant-ph/0104067\].

 A. Valentini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (forthcoming).

 A. Valentini, Pilot-Wave Theory of Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming).

 L. de Broglie, in Électrons et Photons: Rapports et Discussions du Cinquième Conseil de Physique, ed. J. Bordet (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1928). \[English translation: G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini, Electrons and Photons: The Proceedings of the Fifth Solvay Congress (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming).\]

 D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 166; 180 (1952).

 J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

 P. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion: an Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).

 D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory (Routledge, London, 1993).

 J. T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).

 Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: an Appraisal, eds. J. T. Cushing et al. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996).

 A. Valentini, Phys. Lett. A (in press) \[quant-ph/0106098\].

 A. Valentini, in Modality, Probability, and Bell’s Theorems, eds. T. Placek and J. Butterfield (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002) \[quant-ph/0112151\].

 D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, Found. Phys. 14, 255 (1984).

 A. Valentini, Phys. Lett. A 228, 215 (1997).

 M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).

 C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India (IEEE, New York, 1984).

 C. H. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121 (1992).

 A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).

 N. Gisin et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. (forthcoming) \[quant-ph/0101098\].

 D. Deutsch, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 400, 975 (1985).

 D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3992 (1998).

 A. Valentini, Phys. Rev. A 42, 639 (1990).


text:
# Structure and texture of the quark mass matrix

## 1 Introduction

The known observables in the Yukawa sector of the Standard Model (SM) are six quark mass eigenvalues plus the four parameters of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix. These parameters are related to the quark mixing matrices through the diagonalization procedure. The two quark mass matrices with three generations depend on 36 parameters in general (18 each). There are many possibilities in the literature that propose different structures for these matrices. In particular, there are studies considering the mass matrix as hermitian, symmetric  or non-hermitian . To reduce the number of parameters, zeros are introduced in the mass matrices leading to the terminology of texture . Depending on the particular texture it is possible to find relations among masses and mixing angles. It would be of interest to explore what is the texture at which the present data is pointing.

In this work we obtain a set of exact equations relating the mass matrix parameters and the known observables. We perform a numerical analysis with those algebraic equations, using the available data, and we find the structure of the quark mass matrices. We do this analysis for different energy scales using the renormalization group equation to find the evolution of the known observables. In the next section we obtain the exact set of equations from which we observe the relation among the measured quantities and the quark mass matrix elements, including the phases of the latter. In section III, we find the evolution of these matrix elements. From this analysis we find their hierarchy. Finally, in section IV we sumarize our results.

## 2 Expressions for the mass matrix elements

We start from the terms of the mass and the weak charged-current of the standard model Lagrangian which are important to us,

$$_{mass}=\overline{u}_L^{}𝐦_uu_R^{}+\overline{d}_L^{}𝐦_dd_R^{}+g_L\overline{u}_L^{}𝐖_L^{}d_L^{}+c.h.,$$
(1)
where the quark mass matrices are general complex matrices whose size depends on the number of generations. We can rotate the weak states to get a diagonal mass matrix by making the usual transformations ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{mass}\hfill & =\hfill & \overline{u}_L^{}𝐑_L^u(𝐑_L^u)^{}𝐦_u(𝐒_R^u)^{}𝐒_R^uu_R^{}+\overline{d}_L^{}𝐑_L^d(𝐑_L^d)^{}𝐦_d(𝐒_R^d)^{}𝐒_R^dd_R^{}\hfill \\ & & +g_L\overline{u}_L(𝐑_L^u)^{}𝐖_L^{}𝐑_L^dd_L+c.h.\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \overline{u}_L𝐌_uu_R+\overline{d}_L𝐌_dd_R+g_L\overline{u}_L𝐖_L^{}𝐕_{CKM}d_L+c.h.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where the unitary matrices $`𝐑_L^{u,d}`$ and $`𝐒_R^{u,d}`$ rotate the weak basis to the mass eigenstates,

$$\begin{array}{cc}u_L^{}=𝐑_L^uu_L,& d_L^{}=𝐑_L^dd_L\\ u_R^{}=𝐒_R^uu_R,& d_R^{}=𝐒_R^dd_R.\end{array}$$
(3)
In this way we obtain the biunitary transformations which transform the mass matrices $`𝐦_u`$ and $`𝐦_d`$ to their diagonal form,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐌_u=(𝐑_L^u)^{}𝐦_u𝐒_R^u,\\ 𝐌_d=(𝐑_L^d)^{}𝐦_d𝐒_R^d.\end{array}$$
(4)
The CKM mixing matrix  is then given by

$$𝐕_{CKM}^L=(𝐑_L^u)^{}𝐑_L^d.$$
(5)
In the case of having a charged right-handed current of the type $`g_R\overline{u}_R^{}𝐖_R^{}d_R^{}`$ in the Lagrangian  (neglecting the possible mixing between the gauge bosons), we would have

$$𝐕_{CKM}^R=(𝐒_R^u)^{}𝐒_R^d.$$
(6)
Without any loss of generality we can have one of the mass matrices diagonal . Assume first that

$$𝐦_u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_u& 0& 0\\ 0& m_c& 0\\ 0& 0& m_t\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
then the matrices $`𝐑_L^u`$ and $`𝐒_R^u`$ are equal to the unit matrix. From equations (5) and (6) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐕_{CKM}^L=𝐑_L^d,\\ 𝐕_{CKM}^R=𝐒_R^d.\end{array}$$
(8)
In this case the diagonal mass matrix $`d`$ is given by,

$$𝐌_d=(𝐕_{CKM}^L)^{}𝐦_d𝐕_{CKM}^R.$$
(9)
One can make $`𝐕_{CKM}^R`$ equal to $`𝐕_{CKM}^L`$  and $`g_L`$ equal to $`g_R`$ assuming manifiest left-right symmetry in the flavor sector, and then one can see that we need only to consider a single mixing matrix which is responsible of the diagonalization,

$$𝐌_d=(𝐕_{CKM})^{}𝐦_d𝐕_{CKM}.$$
(10)
This is equivalent to assuming that $`𝐦_d`$ is hermitian. Now we can express the mixing angles in terms of the mass eigenvalues $`m_i`$ and the mass matrix elements $`m_{ij}`$. To this end we take an hermitian mass matrix and choose the standard form for $`𝐕_{CKM}`$,

$$𝐕_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
so we have

$$𝐕_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}m_{11}\hfill & & m_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}\hfill & & m_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}\hfill \\ m_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}\hfill & & m_{22}\hfill & & m_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}\hfill \\ m_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}\hfill & & m_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}\hfill & & m_{33}\hfill \end{array}\right)𝐕_{CKM}.$$
(12)
Considering the magnitudes of the elements (2,3), (1,3) and (1,2) on both sides of this equation we get the mixing angles in exact form ,

$$\frac{s_{23}}{c_{23}}=\frac{(m_3m_{11})m_{23}+m_{13}m_{12}}{(m_3m_{22})(m_3m_{11})m_{12}^2}$$
(13)
$$\frac{s_{13}}{c_{13}}=\frac{m_{12}s_{23}+m_{13}c_{23}}{m_3m_{11}}$$
(14)
$$\frac{s_{12}}{c_{12}}=\frac{m_{12}c_{23}m_{13}s_{23}}{(m_2m_{11})c_{13}+(m_{12}s_{23}+m_{13}c_{23})s_{13}}$$
(15)
where $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$. To obtain the quark masses as functions of the matrix elements we use the fact that $`𝐦_d`$ satisfies the following characteristic equation,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill det(𝐦_dm\mathrm{𝟏})=& m^3+(m_{11}+m_{22}+m_{33})m^2(m_{11}m_{22}+m_{11}m_{33}\hfill \\ & +m_{22}m_{33}m_{23}^2m_{13}^2m_{12}^2)m+m_{11}(m_{22}m_{33}m_{23}^2)\hfill \\ & m_{12}(m_{12}m_{33}m_{13}m_{23})+m_{13}(m_{12}m_{23}m_{13}m_{22})\hfill \\ \hfill =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The eigenvalues $`m_i`$ also satisfy the equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (m_1m)(m_2m)(m_3m)=& m^3+(m_1+m_2+m_3)m^2\hfill \\ & (m_1m_2+m_1m_3+m_2m_3)m+m_1m_2m_3\hfill \\ \hfill =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
After equating the coefficients with the same power of $`m`$ in (16) and (17) we get,

$$m_1+m_2+m_3=m_{11}+m_{22}+m_{33}$$
(18)
$$m_1m_2+m_1m_3+m_2m_3=m_{11}m_{22}+m_{11}m_{33}+m_{22}m_{33}m_{23}^2m_{13}^2m_{12}^2$$
(19)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}m_1m_2m_3\hfill & =\hfill & m_{11}(m_{22}m_{33}m_{23}^2)m_{12}(m_{12}m_{33}m_{13}m_{23})\hfill \\ & & +m_{13}(m_{12}m_{23}m_{13}m_{22}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Going back to eq. (12), we compare the phases of elements (1,2), (1,3) and (2,3) on both sides of the equation to get the relations,

$$\mathrm{tan}(\delta _{12})=\frac{(m_3s_{12}^2m_2m_1)s_{13}s_{23}\mathrm{sin}\delta }{(m_2m_1)s_{12}+(m_3s_{12}^2m_2m_1)s_{13}s_{23}\mathrm{cos}\delta }$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{tan}(\delta _{13})=\frac{(m_3s_{12}^2m_2m_1)s_{13}\mathrm{sin}\delta }{(m_2m_1)s_{12}s_{23}(m_3s_{12}^2m_2m_1)s_{13}\mathrm{cos}\delta }$$
(22)
$$\mathrm{tan}(\delta _{23})=\frac{(m_2m_1)(1+s_{23}^2)s_{12}s_{13}\mathrm{sin}\delta }{[m_3(s_{12}^2s_{13}^2)m_1(1s_{12}^2s_{13}^2)m_2]s_{23}(m_2m_1)(1s_{23}^2)s_{12}s_{13}\mathrm{cos}\delta }.$$
(23)
We observe that the phases $`\delta _{ij}`$ are given in terms of known observables and that they are independent of the $`m_{ij}`$. We consider important to remark that the set of equations (13-15), (18-20) and (21-23) are exact relations among quark mass matrix elements and known observables.

## 3 Structure and evolution of the mass matrix elements

The structure and evolution of the mass matrix can be found by numerically solving the set of equations obtained in the previous section. To this end we give in the following the quark mass eigenvalues, the mixing angles and the $`\delta `$-phase at different scales. For the quark mass eigenvalues we use the quantities shown in Table 1 .

We use the following values for the mixing angles at low energy scales (1 $`GeV`$ to $`m_t`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=0.2225\pm 0.0021\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}=0.04\pm 0.0018\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=0.0035\pm 0.0009\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
and for the CP-phase we take ,

$$\delta =(66.5\pm 30.5)^{}.$$
(25)
To calculate the mixing angles at $`10^9`$ $`GeV`$ and $`M_X`$, where $`M_X`$ is the unification scale of SUSY ($`M_X=2\times 10^{16}`$ $`GeV`$), we use the formalism in ref. . In this work Kielanowski et al., find the energy dependence of the $`|V_{ij}|`$. Recalling that from eq. (11), the mixing angles are related to the magnitudes of the $`V_{ij}`$ matrix elements. In particular we are interested in the magnitudes of $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$. The evolution of these magnitudes are found to be given by,

$$|V_{ub}|^2=\frac{|V_{ub}^0|^2}{|V_{tb}^0|^2[h(t)^21]+1}$$
(26)
$$|V_{cb}|^2=\frac{|V_{cb}^0|^2}{|V_{tb}^0|^2[h(t)^21]+1}$$
(27)
where $`|V_{ij}^0|`$ are the initial values of the CKM matrix elements and $`h(t)`$ is expressed as

$$h(t)=\left(\frac{1}{1\frac{3(b+2)}{(4\pi )^2}m_t^2(t_0)_{t_o}^tr_g(\tau )𝑑\tau }\right)^{\frac{c}{2(b+2)}}$$

with

$$r_g(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2}{(4\pi )^2}_{t_0}^t\alpha _1^u(\tau )𝑑\tau \right).$$

In the SM we have,

$$\alpha _1^u(t)=\left(\frac{17}{20}g_1^2+\frac{9}{4}g_2^2+8g_3^2\right).$$

with

$$g_i(t)=\frac{g_i(t_0)}{\sqrt{1\frac{2b_ig_i^2(t_0)(tt_0)}{(4\pi )^2}}},$$

and $`t=\mathrm{ln}(E/m_t)`$. $`|V_{us}|`$ is obtained from unitarity. We evaluate at $`t_1=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{10^9}{171})15.5816`$ and $`t_2=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{2\times 10^{16}}{171})32.3928`$. We assume there is no running for the $`\delta `$ phase . We can collect all the numerical results in Table 2.

If we consider $`m_d`$ to be diagonal, instead of $`m_u`$, a similar analysis determines the structure of the quark mass matrix $`m_u`$. The result of this analysis is shown in Table 3.

From these numerical expressions for the mass matrices, one can see that no element is consistent with zero at $`3\sigma `$, for any given scale. We notice the following hierarchy among the magnitudes of the mass matrix elements,

$$m_{11}m_{13}<m_{12}<m_{22}<m_{23}m_{33}.$$
(28)
This hierarchy is similar to the one obtained by Fritzsch : $`m_{11},m_{12},m_{13}m_{23},m_{22}m_{33}`$. We also have a hierarchy among the phases

$$\delta _{23}\delta _{12}\delta _{13}$$
(29)
at low energy scales. At SUSY scales this hierarchy is no longer valid and we have instead $`\delta _{23}\delta _{12}\delta _{13}`$.

## 4 Conclusions

To summarize, starting with the weak basis, for which one of the quark mass matrices is diagonal, we find exact relations that are analysed numerically. We obtain numerical expressions at different scales, using the mixing angles and quark masses as input data. From this analysis we conclude that no texture is from $`1`$ $`GeV`$ up to $`2\times 10^{16}`$ $`GeV`$ at $`3\sigma `$. We also find the explicit dependence of $`\delta _{ij}`$ in terms of the quark masses and the CKM mixing angles. Numerical evaluation shows that we have $`\delta _{23}\delta _{12}\delta _{13}`$ at low scales and $`\delta _{23}\delta _{12}\delta _{13}`$ at SUSY scales. We expect in the near future better measurements for the known observables in the Yukawa sector of the SM. When the measurements of these observables becomes more precise, we will be able to draw more definitive conclusions about the existence of a particular texture in the quark mass matrices.

We would like to thank useful conversations with A. Bouzas, B. Desai, E. Ma, G. Sanchez-Colón and J. Wudka. One of us (RH) wants to thank the hospitality of the Department of Physics at UCR, where part of this work was done. This work was partially supported by Conacyt (México).


text:
# References

## Abstract

In three dimensions, there are two distinct mass-generating mechanisms for gauge fields: adding the usual Proca/Pauli-Fierz, or the more esoteric Chern-Simons (CS), terms. Here, we analyze the three-term models where both types are present, and their various limits. Surprisingly, in the tensor case, these seemingly innocuous systems are physically unacceptable. If the sign of the Einstein term is “wrong”, as is in fact required in the CS theory, then the excitation masses are always complex; with the usual sign, there is a (known) region of the two mass parameters where reality is restored, but instead we show that a ghost problem arises, while, for the “pure mass ” two-term system without an Einstein action, complex masses are unavoidable. This contrasts with the smooth behavior of the corresponding vector models. Separately, we show that the “partial masslessness” exhibited by (plain) massive spin-2 models in de Sitter backgrounds is shared by the three-term system: it also enjoys a reduced local gauge invariance when this mass parameter is tuned to the cosmological constant.

BRX-TH-499

Massive, Topologically Massive, Models
S. Deser and Bayram Tekin 111e-mail: deser, tekin@brandeis.edu
Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454, USA

Topologically massive tensor (TMG) gauge theories in $`D=3`$ are well-understood models, whose linearized versions describe single massive but gauge-invariant excitations . We analyze here the augmented, 3-term, system (MTMG) that breaks the invariance through an explicit mass term; the vector analogs are briefly reviewed for contrast.

We are motivated by two quite separate developments: In the first, it was shown from the propagator’s poles that the mass eigenvalues of a particular class of MTMG systems are solutions of a cubic equation, two of whose roots become complex in a range of the underlying two “mass” parameter space . In contrast, the vector system’s masses solve a quadratic equation with everywhere real, positive roots . We will analyze the excitations and mass counts for generic signs and values of these parameters and for both permitted sign choices of the Einstein action, as well as in its absence. We will uncover not only the objectionable complex masses, but also exhibit the unavoidable presence of ghosts and tachyon excitations in the underlying two-term models.

Our second topic is the study of MTMG in a constant curvature, rather than flat, background. Here we follow recent results which discuss the “partial masslessness” of ordinary massive gravity at a value of the mass tuned to the cosmological constant, where a residual gauge invariance eliminates the helicity zero mode but also leads to non-unitary regions in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane . It is natural to ask whether this phenomenon persists for MTMG ( it has no vector analog), given the common gauge covariance of the two systems’ kinetic terms, and we will see that it does.

The action we consider here is the sum of Einstein, (third derivative order) Chern-Simons, and standard Pauli-Fierz mass, terms.

$`I={\displaystyle _M}d^3x\left\{a\sqrt{g}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}ϵ^{\lambda \mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \sigma }^\rho (_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \beta }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}(h_{\mu \nu }h^{\mu \nu }h^2)\right\},`$ (1)
at quadratic order in $`h_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`h\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }`$; our signature is $`(,+,+)`$. Here the sign of $`\mu `$ is arbitrary but effectively irrelevant, that of $`m^2`$ is a priori free, while $`a`$ allows for choosing the Einstein term’s sign ($`a=+1`$ is the usual one ) or even removing it, so this is the most general such model. All operations are with respect to the flat background $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Note that $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ represents massive gravity with 2 excitations (massive spin 2 in $`3D`$ has as many modes as massless spin 2 in $`4D`$); $`m=0`$ is TMG with 1 mode. Pure Einstein theory, $`\mu ^1=m^2=0`$, has no excitations in D=3.

At this point, one can already see one insurmountable discontinuity latent in (1): As was shown in , the sign of the Einstein term in pure TMG must be $`a=1`$, opposite to that in the usual Einstein gravity, in order for the energy to be positive, independent of the sign of $`\mu `$. However since the usual massive spin-2 system does have excitations, both the relative and overall signs of the Einstein and mass terms are forced to be the usual Einstein and $`m^2`$ signs to avoid ghosts and tachyons: there is an unavoidable conflict in the choice of Einstein action sign $`a`$ in the two cases.

For comparison, we first describe the generic vector case with a Proca mass term added to the TME action,

$`I={\displaystyle d^3x\left\{\frac{a}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\kappa }{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu _\nu A_\rho \frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu \right\}}.`$ (2)
To begin with, one may set $`a=+1`$ as it must be positive both in the Proca ($`\kappa =0`$ ) and TME ($`m=0`$) limits; $`a=1`$ would also introduce tachyons. \[ As was noted long ago , setting $`a=0`$ yields just another version of TME and hence it is equivalent to setting $`m^2=0`$; this also becomes clear in our canonical analysis of the theory.\] Making a “2+1” decomposition of the conjugate variables,

$`F_{0i}=ϵ^{ij}\widehat{}_j\omega +\widehat{}_if,A_i=ϵ^{ij}\widehat{}_j\chi +\widehat{}_i\phi ,\widehat{}_i{\displaystyle \frac{_i}{\sqrt{^2}}},`$ (3)
reduces (2) to

$`I={\displaystyle }d^3x\{(\omega `$ $`+`$ $`\kappa \phi )\dot{\chi }+f\dot{\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\chi (m^2^2)\chi +\omega ^2+f^2+m^2\phi ^2]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}A_0^2+A_0\sqrt{^2}(\kappa \chi f)\},`$
which, after eliminating $`A_0`$, can be diagonalized to represent two massive degrees of freedom with masses $`m_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left\{\sqrt{\kappa ^2+4m^2}\pm |\kappa |\right\}`$ in agreement with those found in the propagator poles . It is easily seen that the actions of various limiting theories are smoothly reached, including the equivalence of the $`a=0`$ and the “self-dual” model of .

To analyze MTMG for generic values of ($`\mu ,m`$), and the sign factor $`a`$ in (1), we first decompose $`h_{\mu \nu }`$,

$`h_{ij}=(\delta _{ij}+\widehat{}_i\widehat{}_j)\varphi \widehat{}_i\widehat{}_j\chi +(ϵ_{ik}\widehat{}_k\widehat{}_j+ϵ_{jk}\widehat{}_k\widehat{}_i)\xi ,h_{0i}=ϵ_{ij}_j\eta +_iN_L,h_{00}N.`$ (5)
The various components of (1) are

$`I_E={\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left\{\varphi \ddot{\chi }+\varphi ^2(N+2\dot{N_L})+(^2\eta +\dot{\xi })^2\right\}},`$ (6)
$`I_{CS}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle d^3x\left\{(^2\eta +\dot{\xi })[^2(N+2\dot{N}_L)+\ddot{\chi }+\mathrm{}\varphi ]\right\}},`$ (7)
$`I_{PF}={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left\{[N_L^2N_L+\eta ^2\eta +\xi ^2\varphi \chi +N(\varphi +\chi )]\right\}}.`$ (8)
Unlike the vector model, this generically represents three (rather than two) massive excitations: three of the six $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ can be eliminated by constraints. We can determine the mass spectrum without having to diagonalize the fields, by forming the (cubic) eigenvalue equation,

$`(\mathrm{}^3\mu ^2a^2\mathrm{}^2+2am^2\mu ^2\mathrm{}\mu ^2m^4)=0.`$ (9)
This equation, for $`a=1`$, was obtained from the pole of the propagator in , where it was also noted that the roots are complex unless the mass parameter ratio $`\mu ^2/m^2\lambda 27/4`$. The explicit form of the three roots is not particularly illuminating, but we note, for example, that at $`\lambda =27/4`$ (for $`a=1`$) hitherto complex roots coalesce and the masses are simply

$`m_1=m_2=2m_3={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu =m\sqrt{3}`$ (10)
The limit $`a=0`$, corresponds to keeping only the CS and mass terms, while dropping the Einstein part. Here the eigenvalue equation says that the 3 roots are just $`(|\mu |m^2)^{1/3}`$ times the cube roots of unity, whose two imaginary values are unavoidable: this model is never viable. \[ There is no tensor analog of “self-dual”-TME equivalence.\]

The analysis so far has dealt with $`a=+1`$. However, the viability of the theory requires two correct signs: the first one to avoid tachyons ,the second to avoid ghosts, i.e. one needs both the relative sign in $`(\mathrm{}m^2)`$ as well as the overall sign in the action, +$`\varphi (\mathrm{}m^2)\varphi `$. In , it was shown that TMG required $`a=1`$ for ghost-freedom ( no tachyons arise for either sign choice.) Thus we conclude that at least the small $`m^2`$ limit to a two-term theory is unphysical, despite having a real mass $`\mu `$ ( the seemingly massless other two modes are non-propagating). \[We have not pursued in detail the diagonalization required to check the finite region for ghost signs.\] Indeed, for $`a=1`$, there are two complex mass roots of (9) for any finite $`\mu ^2/m^2`$ value. In summary, for our three-term models, $`a=+1`$ has acceptable mass ranges but faces ghost problems, and both $`a=1`$ and $`a=0`$ are always forbidden. None of these obstacles are present in the vector models, thanks to their lower derivative order and quadratic mass roots.

Consider now the different issue of the behavior of our models in de Sitter ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) backgrounds. In any dimension, massive gravity (or any other higher spin ) acquires gauge invariance at a non-zero mass parameter tuned to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . The existence, in $`D=3`$, of the gauge invariant Cotton tensor, which gives mass to spin-2 fields while keeping gauge invariance, warrants a separate discussion of MTMG in a cosmological background $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The latter is defined by

$`R_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \sigma }g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }),R_{\mu \nu }=2\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },R=6\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (11)
The linearized Ricci tensor in this background reads

$`R_{\mu \nu }^L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu h+^\sigma _\nu h_{\sigma \mu }+^\sigma _\mu h_{\sigma \nu }\right\}.`$ (12)
The unique, conserved, “Einstein” tensor is

$`G_{\mu \nu }^LR_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R_L2\mathrm{\Lambda }(h_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }h),_\mu G_L^{\mu \nu }0.`$ (13)
Let us recall  that massive gravity,

$`G_{\mu \nu }^L+m^2(h_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }h)=0,`$ (14)
together with the Bianchi identities, leads (at $`D=3`$) to the on-shell restriction

$`m^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2m^2)h=0.`$ (15)
For arbitrary $`m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, this just constrains the massive field to be traceless. For $`m^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$, a “partial masslessness” arises from the novel scalar gauge invariance at this point.

The unique linearized version of the Cotton tensor of TMG

$`C_L^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }g_{\beta \sigma }_\alpha \left\{R_L^{\sigma \nu }2\mathrm{\Lambda }h^{\sigma \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\sigma \nu }(R_L2\mathrm{\Lambda }h)\right\},`$ (16)
is still symmetric, traceless and conserved with respect to the background,

$`ϵ^{\sigma \mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }^L=0,g^{\mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }^L=0,_\mu C^{L\mu \nu }=0.`$ (17)
Hence MTMG in de Sitter space reads

$`G_{\mu \nu }^L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}C_{\mu \nu }^L+m^2(h_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }h)=0.`$ (18)
Since it is traceless, the presence of $`C_{\mu \nu }^L`$ does not affect the the condition (15); it merely adds one degree of freedom to those of the massive theory. The $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane is divided into two regions by the same ($`\mu `$-independent ) $`m^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ line for both { MTMG ,MG}. In the $`m^2>\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ region there are respectively $`\{3,2\}`$ excitations. On the line, the helicity zero one vanishes leaving $`\{2,1\}`$ excitations. The $`m^2<\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ region is non-unitary due to the return of the helicity zero excitation with a non-unitary sign. Finally at $`m^2=0`$, we recover the full linearized diffeomorphism invariance and therefore there are $`\{1,0\}`$ modes: this is just the {TMG , free Einstein } point.

We thank A. Waldron for discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant PHY99-73935.


text:
# Electron spin coherence in semiconductors: Considerations for a spin-based solid state quantum computer architecture

\[

## Abstract

We theoretically consider coherence times for spins in two quantum computer architectures, where the qubit is the spin of an electron bound to a P donor impurity in Si or within a GaAs quantum dot. We show that low temperature decoherence is dominated by spin-spin interactions, through spectral diffusion and dipolar flip-flop mechanisms. These contributions lead to $`1100`$ $`\mu `$s calculated spin coherence times for a wide range of parameters, much higher than former estimates based on $`T_2^{}`$ measurements.

\]

Solid state quantum computation based on the intrinsic two level dynamics of electron spin in semiconductors has attracted widespread attention because the enormous resources of conventional electronics can in principle be applied to develop a scalable quantum computer (QC). In this context, solid state spins in an applied magnetic field are attractive qubit candidates since they comprise perfect two-level systems with potentially long coherence times. Nuclear spins of phosphorus impurities in silicon are potential qubits because they are well isolated from other degrees of freedom. But for such a quantum computer to work, precise electronic control of single nuclear spins must be achieved, a rather daunting task. Electron spins are much easier to control. In that respect, electrons bound to phosphorus impurities in silicon and gallium arsenide quantum dots are promising qubit candidates. However, for quantum computation to be fault-tolerant these electron spins must be coherent for at least $`10^4`$ elementary quantum operations, which imposes a severe constraint since very long spin coherence times would be needed. In this letter we address the important question of principle involving the fundamental upper bound on electron spin coherence time in proposed semiconductor QC architectures. Since such a device can only work at low temperatures ($`k_BTE_Z`$, where $`E_Z`$ is the Zeeman splitting of the spins in an applied magnetic field B), we show that the dominant decoherence contribution comes from the unavoidable spin-spin interactions with nuclei and other electrons. This leads to an unsurmountable upper bound on spin coherence, but our calculations indicate that the fault-tolerance criterion can still be satisfied for a wide range of parameters (e.g. quantum dot Fock-Darwin radius $`l_0`$, concentration of 29Si isotopes $`f`$, etc) defining the QC architecture.

An essential property of electrons in Si:P and GaAs is that their electron spin resonance (ESR) line is inhomogeneously broadened by the hyperfine interaction with nuclear spins. This effect leads to a drastic difference between the precessing magnetization of an ensemble of spins as compared to a single spin or a group of them with the same Larmor frequency. The former decays in a time scale $`T_2^{}`$ which is dominated by the dephasing effect of the inhomogeneous field distribution. The latter magnetization decays in a time $`T_2`$ which is usually many orders of magnitude longer. To extract the single spin coherence time $`T_2`$ from an ESR experiment one has to perform a $`\pi /2\pi `$ spin echo sequence, that forces the spins to refocus eliminating the dephasing effect. This leads to a convenient definition for spin coherence: Simply the time it takes for a spin echo envelope to decay to 1/$`e`$ of its initial value. Since spin echoes usually decay in a quite different fashion from the simple exponential predicted by the Bloch equations, we denote its decay time by $`T_M`$ using a notation consistent with existing literature. Spin echo experiments have been performed in dilute Si:P, but never in GaAs. For the latter material, claims of “long coherence times” have been based on $`T_2^{}`$ measurements only, which do not reveal the ultimate limit on spin coherence set by $`T_M`$, that can in principle be many orders of magnitude longer than $`T_2^{}`$. Certainly inhomogeneous broadening imposes severe tuning constraints on one-qubit gates. But fortunately one can still have an universal QC built only with two-qubit gates. Our former work shows that the spread of Zeeman frequencies will only weakly affect two-qubit gates, since the exchange interaction is fairly insensitive to inhomogeneous fields. Therefore we emphasize that the relevant spin coherence time for QC architectures is, in fact, $`T_M`$ (not $`T_2^{}`$), and our theoretical finding of truly large values of $`T_M`$ ($`\mu `$s) compared with the measured $`T_2^{}`$ ($``$ ns) values is quite significant.

Due to extreme sensitivity requirements, ESR in GaAs is usually measured indirectly, for example from the changes in magneto-resistivity in a 2DEG or from photoluminescence. In these experiments one probes ensemble spin properties of moving electrons or recombination pairs respectively, meaning that one should be careful in extrapolating those results to a single localized spin in a quantum computer environment. Alternative methods to ESR include Faraday rotation, but again to study single spin coherence it would be necessary to perform an echo sequence, that is yet to be done using optical methods. Measuring single spin coherence time in semiconductors is a dauntingly difficult task, and therefore the need for theoretical estimates of $`T_M`$ becomes acutely necessary. Here we present the first realistic calculation of $`T_M`$ for a GaAs quantum dot (QD) based QC architecture (and also for Si:P QC architecture). Our values exceed former coherence estimates based on $`T_2^{}`$ by three orders of magnitude, and establish quite definitively that fault tolerant quantum computation should be possible in semiconductor QC at low temperatures.

First we discuss the spin-flip rate $`T_1^1`$ with corresponding energy transfer to the lattice. Any spin-flip process contributes to exponential decay of the spin echo signal. But bound electrons at low temperatures quite generally have extremely long $`T_1`$ ($`T_M`$), since for the spin to flip, a virtual transition to an excited orbital state must take place, quite different from the conduction electron case where any momentum relaxation event may flip the spin through spin-orbit coupling. The direct phonon emission rate for bound-electrons becomes $`T_1^1[n(E_Z)+1]B^5`$, where $`n(E_Z)=[\mathrm{exp}(E_Z/k_BT)1]^1`$ is the Bose occupation number for the emitted phonon wave-vector. Feher and Gere measured $`T_1^14\times 10^4`$ s-1 for Si:P at $`B=0.32`$ T and $`T=1.25`$ K. For GaAs dots with Fock-Darwin radius $`l_0=30`$ nm and B=1 T one obtains $`T_1^1200`$ s-1. These spin-flip rates when compared to other decoherence mechanisms considered below give negligible contributions, with the possible exception of very large dots ($`l_0>100`$ nm), due to the fact that $`T_1^1l_0^8`$, a case we do not consider here since reasonable semiconductor QC architectures are limited by an inter-dot distance of 50 nm, necessary for exchange gate operations to work.

We now describe the spin decoherence mechanisms of importance to QC architectures. Two electron spins may flip-flop due to their dipolar interaction. But this event is limited by inhomogeneous broadening, because only spins with the same Zeeman splitting can satisfy energy conservation in this process. The rate is given by

$$\frac{1}{T_f}\pi f(\omega _0)\times \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2}{9}0.33\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )_I}.$$
(1)
Here $`f(\omega _0)`$ is the inhomogeneously broadened Gaussian line-shape, which plays the role of the density of states per unit frequency, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )_I`$ the inhomogeneous line-width, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2/9`$ is the flip-flop contribution to the second moment, which is of the order of the transition matrix element squared. It is important to mention that the qubit-qubit dipolar interaction can in principle be included in the Hamiltonian responsible for the quantum algorithm, and also may be eliminated using magnetic resonance techniques. But here we have two reasons to include it in our calculation: First we do not expect forthcoming $`T_M`$ measurements to be free from these effects. Second, since correcting dipolar coupling implies additional overhead in QC design, it is interesting to access the amount of error involved by ignoring its presence. Another spin-spin mechanism is spectral diffusion, that happens when the electron spins that generate the echo pulse are subject to fluctuating dipolar or hyperfine fields generated by nuclear spins. A stochastic theory of this effect can be formulated by treating the electron spin Larmor frequency $`\omega `$ as a random variable, and calculating the echo envelope amplitude $`M(2\tau )`$ using an ensemble average. The result is

$$M(2\tau )M(0)\mathrm{exp}\left[(R\delta _A^2/12)(2\tau )^3\right],$$
(2)
where $`\tau `$ is the time interval between the $`\pi /2`$ and $`\pi `$ pulses, and $`R`$ the local field relaxation to a Gaussian probability distribution with width $`\delta _A`$. Hence the spectral diffusion (SD) rate is given by $`T_{SD}^1=(R\delta _A^2/12)^{1/3}`$. The decoherence rate follows from all the above contributions by solving the cubic equation for $`T_M^1`$: $`(T_1^1+T_f^1)T_M+(T_{SD}^1T_M)^3=1`$, and often one finds it to be dominated by a single mechanism. (We give our calculated values for $`T_M`$ in Si:P and GaAs quantum dot system in Table 1, where the dominant decoherence mechanism in each case is also listed.)

Now we estimate $`T_M`$ for Si:P. For the dipolar mechanism, assuming a qubit separation $`d=10`$ nm we get $`T_f^1=1\times 10^3`$ s-1 and $`2\times 10^3`$ s-1 when the qubits are arranged in 1D and 2D lattices respectively. This is the case for 29Si natural abundance ($`f=4.67`$%) that leads to an experimental line-width of 2.5 G. However, for isotopically pure 28Si (which has zero spin), we expect no inhomogeneous broadening \[$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )_I\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2}`$ in Eq. (1)\]. In that case, $`T_f^1`$ will be much higher: $`T_f^1=(2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2/\pi )^{1/2}=3\times 10^5`$ s-1, $`4\times 10^5`$ s-1, dominated by qubit dipolar coupling. The SD rate was measured for natural silicon by Chiba and Hirai. By assuming that fluctuating dipolar fields of 29Si nuclear spins caused Gaussian spectral diffusion they formulated a theory to calculate the coefficient $`R\delta _A^2`$ in (2), which agreed within order of magnitude with the measured $`T_M`$ (note that since their P concentration was low $`T_f^1`$ was negligible). Therefore we assume their experimental value of $`T_{SD}^1=3.3\times 10^3`$ s-1 as a reliable estimate for the SD rate for a single P spin in a Si matrix, and by adding the dipolar flip-flop rate we are able to get a phenomenological estimate for the decoherence rate when the P spins are arranged in a quantum computer geometry, as opposed to a dilute randomly doped sample. Hence we get $`T_M^14\times 10^3`$ s-1 in both 1D and 2D geometries, noting that here both spin-spin mechanisms contribute with the same order of magnitude. An interesting consequence of the interplay of these two mechanisms is that $`T_M^1`$ displays a minimum as a function of the 29Si fraction $`f`$, an effect not yet noted in the literature (Fig. 1). The $`T_{SD}^1`$ contribution is proportional to $`f^{2/3}`$, since the probability of finding a pair of 29Si \[analogous to $`p_{ij}`$ in (10) below\] is proportional to $`f^2`$, and then we take a cubic root due to the non-exponential decay in (2). However, the dipolar flip-flop rate is decreased when we increase $`f`$: $`T_f^1(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )_I^1f^{1/2}`$. This happens because the 29Si is the source of hyperfine broadening and the mean square deviation of the hyperfine field is proportional to $`f`$. It would be interesting to fit these results to measurements on isotopically purified samples; to date there is only one measurement, with $`f=0.12`$%, in which $`T_M^1`$ decreased by a factor of 2 (the P concentration was the same as in Fig. 1, $`c=4\times 10^{16}`$ cm-3). This is consistent with our result. For the case of a 2D Si:P QC we find that $`T_M^1`$ will attain a minimum when $`f2`$%, suggesting that natural silicon is a good choice for QC architectures.

Turning to the GaAs-QD, we note that inhomogeneous broadening should be much stronger: We estimate a line-width of at least 50 G due to hyperfine interactions, since all nuclei have spin $`3/2`$ (S impurities in GaAs have 500 G of broadening). This together with the fact that the qubits will be much further apart ($`d=50`$ nm) leads to $`T_f^1<10^3`$ s-1 ($`T_f^1d^6`$). We now calculate the SD rate for these spins. NMR in GaAs reveals a composition of 75As (50%), 69Ga (30.2%), and 71Ga (19.8%). The homogeneous line-width of the 75As system (fcc lattice with $`a_0=5.65`$ Å) is $`\delta _B=5.56\times 10^3`$ s-1, indicating that these nuclei are flip-flopping every 300 $`\mu `$s. Since the hyperfine interaction depends on the position of each nucleus, the electron feels a different field if a pair of nuclei is up-down as opposed to down-up (here we will neglect the contribution of nuclei outside the QD wave function; they would produce a dipolar field which shifts the electron frequency by at most $`\delta \omega \gamma _e\gamma _n\mathrm{}/z_0^320`$ s$`{}_{}{}^{1}\delta _r=T_1^1200`$ s-1, the intrinsic line-width due to QD spin relaxation mentioned above; this is certainly not the case in Si:P, where the nuclei outside the donor wave function give the dominant contribution). To calculate the spectral diffusion rate we consider a three spin Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$, where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _iI_{iz}S_z+\mathrm{}\omega _jI_{jz}S_z,`$ (3)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}b_{ij}(I_{i+}I_j+I_iI_{j+})4\mathrm{}b_{ij}I_{iz}I_{jz},`$ (4)
$`b_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _n^2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{ij}}{R_{ij}^3}},`$ (5)
$`\omega _i`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _h\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i^2+Y_i^2}{l_0^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{Z_i}{z_0}}\right).`$ (6)
Here $`H_0`$ is the diagonal part of the hyperfine interaction (the off-diagonal component can be neglected since electron-nucleus flip-flop is forbidden by energy conservation), while $`V`$ is the dipolar coupling between two nuclei. $`𝐈_i`$ is the spin operator for the nucleus located at $`𝐑_i=(X_i,Y_i,Z_i)`$, $`\gamma _n=4.58\times 10^3`$ (s G)-1 the gyro-magnetic ratio for 75As, $`R_{ij}`$ the distance between the two flip-flopping nuclei and $`\theta _{ij}`$ the angle between this vector and the magnetic field. The hyperfine frequency is given by

$$\omega _h=\frac{8\pi }{3}\gamma _e\gamma _n\mathrm{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)\right|^2=\frac{16}{3}\frac{\gamma _e\gamma _n\mathrm{}a_0^3}{z_0l_0^2}d(As),$$
(7)
where $`d(As)=|u^{}(0)|^2`$ is the electronic density on the nuclei and $`l_0`$ the Fock-Darwin length. The electron frequency change due to a nuclear flip-flop is then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=\omega _i\omega _j`$, while the energy changes by $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}/2`$ in this process. Since $`|b_{ij}||\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}|`$ we can apply perturbation theory, and the rate becomes

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi b_{ij}^2g_B(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}/2),`$ (8)
$`g_B(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\delta _B}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2\delta _B^2}}\right).`$ (9)
The line-width $`\delta _B`$ of the nuclear system enters to guarantee energy conservation: the change in the Zeeman energy of the electron is compensated by the spin-spin interaction of the nuclear system. The SD rate can now be estimated by summing over all pairs $`ij`$, as long as they can flip-flop:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}R\delta _A^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{f_A(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij})}{f_A(0)}}\right]p_{ij}(T),`$ (10)
$`f_A(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\delta _r}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2\delta _r^2}}\right).`$ (11)
Assuming the nuclei are in thermal equilibrium we get

$$p_{ij}(T)=\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{cosh}3x}{2\mathrm{cosh}2x+3\mathrm{cosh}x+2}\right)^1,$$
(12)
with $`x=\mathrm{}\gamma _nB/k_BT`$. For $`B=1`$ T and $`T1`$ mK we assume the high $`T`$ limit $`p_{ij}7/8`$. By performing the sum (10) numerically, we estimate $`T_{SD}^110^4`$ s-1, that shows for QD’s with $`l_0100`$ nm spectral diffusion due to hyperfine field fluctuation dominates. This rate depends on B field intensity (Fig. 2), since $`l_0`$ decreases when $`B`$ is increased, and also varies by about a factor of 2 when the tilting angle with $`z`$ direction is changed \[see Eq. (5)\].

Finally, we wish to comment on the validity of the approximations employed here. The SD decay given by Eq. (2) is only valid for $`R\tau 1`$, and also Eq. (10) assumes a generalization of this two parameter model to several parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$. Certainly a more rigorous theory of SD due to nuclear spins needs to be developed if one wants to go beyond the order of magnitude estimates given here. In particular, a rigorous theory for the nuclear flip-flop rate \[Eq. (8)\] is mandatory for a precise description of this phenomena. Our estimated coherence times, summarized in Table 1, should be compared with the longest gating time in the corresponding QC architecture. For the parameters chosen here, the exchange time will be $`\tau _J\mathrm{}/0.1`$ meV $`1`$ ps, with a typical exchange coupling of 0.1 meV. A single qubit rotation (Rabi flop) can be done with an ESR field 20 times smaller than the applied field, that leads to a $`\pi /2`$ rotation time $`\tau _R20/\gamma B0.1`$ ns, $`0.5`$ ns at $`B=1`$ T for Si:P, GaAs-QD respectively. These time scales lead to a quality factor $`T_M/\tau _R>10^4`$ for both architectures. Also, $`T_M/\tau _J10^610^8`$ (since $`\tau _J1`$ ps and $`T_M1100`$ $`\mu `$s), which implies a large number ($`10^4`$) of coherent gate operations allowing convenient fault tolerant computation well within the currently estimated ($`10^4`$) error correction scheme. Hence the electron spin in semiconductors is confirmed as a competitive qubit candidate, with the effective low temperature upper bound on the coherence time given by $`1100`$ $`\mu `$s under quite general conditions. The authors acknowledge discussions with J. Fabian, X. Hu, A. Kaminski, B. Koiller, and I. Žutić. This work is supported by ARDA, LPS, US-ONR, and NSF.