text:
# Testing Theoretical Models for the Higher-Order Moments of Dark Halo Distribution

## 1 Introduction

In the standard scenario of galaxy formation, it is assumed that galaxies form by the cooling and condensation of gas within dark haloes (e.g. White & Rees 1978; White & Frenk 1991). The problem of galaxy clustering in space can then be approached by understanding the spatial distribution of dark haloes and galaxy formation in individual dark haloes. This approach is very useful for the following two reasons: (i) the formation and clustering properties of dark haloes can be modelled relatively reliably because of the simple physics involved (gravity only), (ii) realistic models of galaxy formation in dark haloes can now be constructed using either semi-analytic models (e.g. Kauffmann et al. 1999; Cole et al. 2000; Somerville & Primack 1999) or hydrodynamical simulations (e.g. Benson et al. 2001). Indeed, attempts have been made to use theoretical models of halo clustering to understand clustering properties of galaxies (e.g. Mo et al. 1997; Jing et al. 1998; Ma & Fry 2000; Scoccimarro et al. 2001; Peacock & Smith 2000; Seljak 2000). Most of these investigations use the theoretical models presented in Mo & White (1996) and in Mo et al. (1997) (hereafter MJW) to calculate the second-order and higher-order correlations of dark haloes. These models are based on the Press-Schechter formalism (Press & Schechter 1974) and its extensions (Lacey & Cole 1994).

The model prediction for the second moment, or the two-point correlation function, has been tested quite extensively by numerical simulations (Mo & White 1996; Mo et al. 1996; Jing 1998; Sheth & Tormen 1999; Governato et al. 1999; Colberg et al. 2000). The results show that the model proposed by Mo & White works reasonably well over a large range of halo masses. However, significant discrepancy between model and simulations results was found for low-mass haloes (Jing 1998; Sheth & Tormen 1999). Sheth et al. (2001) (hereafter SMT) suggested that the discrepancy at the low-mass end may be due to the fact that the model considered by Mo and White assumes spherical collapse for the halo formation while the collapse in a realistic cosmological density field may be better approximated by an ellipsoidal model. Indeed, SMT found that, if an ellipsoidal model is used, better agreement between the model and simulations results can be achieved in both the halo mass function and the two-point correlation function for low-mass haloes.

The performance of the MJW model for the higher-order moments of the halo distribution has been tested in their original paper using scale-free N-body simulations with relatively low resolution. Although their results show that the theoretical model matches the simulations results, the limited dynamical range in the simulations used by them does not allow one to test the model for a large range of halo masses. Furthermore, although the MJW model has been extended to include ellipsoidal dynamics (Sheth et al. 2001), this extension has not yet been tested by simulations results.

In this paper we use two sets of high-resolution simulations to test the MJW model and its extension. One set has a very large simulation box (and thus low mass resolution) which is used to control the finite-volume effect usually found in the analysis of higher-order moments of the galaxy distribution (Colombi et al. 1994). The other set has smaller simulation boxes but much higher mass resolutions which allows us to test the models for low-mass haloes.

The paper is organized as follows: The procedure to obtain the high order moments from counts-in-Cells is presented in section 2 along with theoretical models of these moments for dark haloes. Analysis of the simulations data and the comparison of the theory with the simulations results are presented in section 3. An application of the theoretical models to the higher-order moments of the Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) is done in section 4. Because LBGs are highly biased (Adelberger et al. 1998), the skewness and kurtosis coefficients ($`S_3`$ and $`s_4`$) of LBGs and their descendants are significantly lower than those of the mass.

Finally, section 5 contains a summary of our results.

## 2 Higher-Order Moments of Counts-in-Cells

### 2.1 Definitions

The calculation of the counts-in-cells moments of a particle distribution and the relation of such moments to the corresponding moments of the underlying continuous density field are described in detail in Peebles (1980). We summarize the relevant formulae in the following.

The $`j^{th}`$ central moment of counts in cells (we will use spherical cells whose radius will be denoted by $`R`$) of a point distribution is defined as

$$m_j(R)=\frac{1}{M}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}(N_i\overline{N})^j,$$
(1)
where $`N_i`$ is the number of particles counted in the $`i^{th}`$ sphere (cell), $`\overline{N}`$ is the mean number of counts: $`\overline{N}(R)=\frac{1}{M}_{i=1}^MN_i(R)`$, and the summation is over the $`M`$ sampling spheres. Notice that $`\overline{N}`$ is obtained directly from the counts.

The connected moments, $`\mu _i`$, are defined through the central moments as

$`\mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2,`$ (2)
$`\mu _3`$ $`=`$ $`m_3,`$ (3)
$`\mu _4`$ $`=`$ $`m_43m_2^2.`$ (4)
These relations are written up to the 4th order because to this order they are relevant to our subsequent discussion. For a point process, the shot noise also contributes to the quantities $`\mu _j`$. These contributions become significant for small radius where the mean count $`\overline{N}`$ is small and should be properly subtracted. If the particle distribution is a Poisson sampling of the underlying density distribution, we can make the following subtractions to get the corrected connected moments:

$$k_2=\mu _2\overline{N},$$
(5)
$$k_3=\mu _33\mu _2+2\overline{N},$$
(6)
$$k_4=\mu _46\mu _3+11\mu _26\overline{N}.$$
(7)
These quantities are related to the volume-averaged correlation functions by

$$\overline{N}^j\overline{\xi }_j=k_j,$$
(8)
where

$$\overline{\xi }_j=V_W^j𝑑r_1\mathrm{}𝑑r_jW(r_1)\mathrm{}W(r_j)\xi _j(r_1,\mathrm{},r_j),$$
(9)
and $`W(r)`$ is a top-hat spherical window with volume $`V_W`$.

### 2.2 Theoretical Model for the Higher-Order Moments of Dark Halos

Mo et al. (1997) (MJW) have developed an analytical model for the hierarchical correlation amplitudes \[$`S_{j,h}(R)=\overline{\xi }_{j,h}/\overline{\xi }_{2,h}^{j1}`$\] for $`j=3,4,5`$ in the quasi-linear regime, where the subscript $`h`$ stands for quantities of dark haloes. In this model the statistical distribution of dark haloes within the initial density field, which is assumed to be Gaussian, is determined by an extension of the Press-Schechter formalism and the modifications of the distribution due to gravitationally induced motions are treated by means of a spherical collapse model (Mo & White 1996). The main results from this model, which are relevant for our analysis, are summarized as follows.

For the skewness and kurtosis ($`j=3,4`$), following the same notation as in MJW, one has:

$$S_{3,h}=b^1(S_3+3c_2),$$
(10)
$$S_{4,h}=b^2(S_4+12c_2S_3+4c_3+12c_2^2),$$
(11)
where $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ are the skewness and kurtosis of the underlying mass density field, $`c_k=b_k/b`$, $`b=b_1`$, and the constants $`b_k`$ are the coefficients in the expansion of the bias relation:

$$\delta _h=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{b_k}{k!}\delta ^k,$$
(12)
where $`\delta _h`$ is the overdensity of haloes smoothed in a given window and $`\delta `$ is the corresponding overdensity of mass. The coefficients $`b_k`$ for a halo with mass $`M_1`$ corresponding to a linear overdensity $`\delta _1`$, which collapses at redshift $`z_1=\delta _1/\delta _c1`$ (with the critical overdensity for spherical collapse being $`\delta _c=1.686`$), are given by:

$$b_1=1+\frac{\nu _1^21}{\delta _1},$$
(13)
$$b_2=2(1+a_2)\frac{\nu _1^21}{\delta _1}+\left(\frac{\nu _1}{\delta _1}\right)^2(\nu _1^23),$$
(14)
$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`6(a_2+a_3){\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1^21}{\delta _1}}+3(1+2a_2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1}{\delta _1}}\right)^2(\nu _1^23)`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1}{\delta _1}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1^46\nu _1^2+3}{\delta _1}},`$
where $`\nu _1\delta _1/\sigma (M_1)`$ \[with $`\sigma (M_1)`$ being the rms of the density fluctuation given by the density spectrum linearly extrapolated to the present time\], $`a_2=\frac{17}{21}`$ and $`a_3=\frac{341}{567}`$ are coefficients in the expansion of $`\delta _0(\delta )`$, the relation between the real mass overdensity $`\delta `$ and the corresponding quantity obtained using linear theory (see equation A4 in MJW). The above bias coefficients are for the present-day descendants (at redshift $`z_0=0`$) of haloes identified at redshift $`z_1`$. It can be easily extended to the case where $`z_1>z_0>0`$. In this case, we replace $`\delta _1`$ by $`\delta _1D(z_0)/D(0)`$ (where $`D(z)`$ is the linear growth rate evaluated at redshift $`z`$) while keeping $`\nu _1`$ unchanged.

If an ellipsoidal model is used to define collapsed haloes, the coefficients $`b_k`$ take the following forms (Scoccimarro et al. 2001):

$$b_1=1+ϵ_1+E_1,$$
(16)
$$b_2=2(1+a_2)(ϵ_1+E_1)+ϵ_2+E_2,$$
(17)
$$b_3=6(a_2+a_3)(ϵ_1+E_1)+3(1+2a_2)(ϵ_2+E_2)+ϵ_3+E_3,$$
(18)
where

$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \nu ^21}{\delta _1}},`$
$`ϵ_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \nu ^2}{\delta _1^2}}(\alpha \nu ^23),`$ (19)
$`ϵ_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \nu ^2}{\delta _1^3}}(\alpha ^2\nu ^46\alpha \nu ^2+3),`$
$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p/\delta _1}{1+(\alpha \nu ^2)^p}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{E_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+2p}{\delta _1}}+2ϵ_1,`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_3}{E_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`4(p^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{6p\alpha \nu ^2}{\delta _1^2}}+3ϵ_1^2,`$ (22)
and $`\alpha =0.707`$, $`p=0.3`$. These formulae reduce to the original MJW model for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`p=0`$.

Inserting the expressions for $`b_k`$ in equations (10) and (11) and taking $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ in these equations as the skewness and kurtosis of the mass distribution measured directly from the N-Body simulations, we can calculate the skewness and kurtosis for the distribution of dark haloes as predicted by the MJW model and its SMT extension (i.e. the model with ellipsoidal collapse).

## 3 Skewness and Kurtosis of Dark Haloes in N-body Simulations

### 3.1 Simulations

In the present analysis we use two sets of cosmological N-body simulations, which have been obtained as part of the VIRGO (Jenkins et al. 1998) and the GIF (Kauffmann et al. 1999) projects. These two sets of simulations differ in the size of the simulation boxes and in the mass resolution, with the VIRGO simulations having larger simulation boxes and lower mass resolutions than the GIF ones. From the VIRGO simulations we have analyzed the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model in order to test the MJW model in a volume large enough so that the effects due to the finite sampling volume may be negligible (see below). We compare the results with those obtained from the GIF simulations to see how comparisons between models and simulations can be made for simulations with relatively small volume. For the GIF simulations, we focus on the $`\tau `$CDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models. The parameters characterizing the simulations are summarized in table 1. Further details can be found in Kauffmann et al. (1999) and Jenkins et al. (1998).

For each simulation there are several output files corresponding to different evolutionary times (redshifts) and for each of these output times there is a halo catalog containing information about haloes identified using the friends-of-friends group-finder algorithm with a linking length 0.2 times the mean interparticle separation. Only haloes containing 10 or more particles are included in the halo catalogues. In the case of the GIF simulations at redshift zero, which are used to compare the predictions of the models for haloes with low masses, unbound objects are excluded from the catalogues (see section 3.2 for details). The physical quantities available from each of these halo catalogues are: the index of the most-bound particle in the halo, which corresponds to the position of the halo as well as the central ‘galaxy’ within it; the virial radius $`(R_{vir})`$, defined as the radius (from the central particle) within which the overdensity of dark matter is 200 times the critical density; the virial mass $`(M_{vir})`$, which is the mass (or, equivalently, the total number) of dark matter particles within the virial radius; the circular velocity \[$`V_c=(GM_{vir}/R_{vir})^{1/2}`$\].

We have also generated several catalogues of the present-day positions of the central objects corresponding to the most-bound particles in haloes identified at an earlier epoch. This catalogues might be interpreted as ‘galaxy catalogues’ if we assume that the positions of galaxies at the present epoch correspond to those of the central particles within virialized objects identified at high redshifts. This concept is related to the assumption in models of galaxy formation that galaxies form by the cooling and condensation of gas within dark matter haloes (White & Frenk 1991). However, this interpretation does not take into account subsequent galaxy mergers.

We apply the counts-in-cells analysis described in the last section to the mass distributions and halo catalogues. To do this, we place spheres in a regular mesh of $`30^3`$ centers and count the number of objects at each center over a set of concentric spheres which allows us to compute the desired statistical quantities at different radii.

### 3.2 Results

Following the procedure given in section 2.1 we have obtained the volume-averaged correlation functions up to the fourth order from the mass distribution and from the various halo samples. Analyses have been performed for two different cases. In the first, the higher-order moments are calculated at the same time when the dark haloes are identified. In the second, haloes are identified at some high redshift while the calculations of the higher-order moments are performed for their descendants at a later time. In all cases, the redshift at which halo identification is made is denoted by $`z_1`$, while the redshift at which the higher-order moments are calculated is denoted by $`z_0`$.

In Figures 1 and 2 we show the third- and fourth- order moments from the VIRGO $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation, together with model predictions. For haloes identified and analyzed at a given epoch (Figure 1) both models work remarkably good for scales larger than $`r_0`$ \[$`\overline{\xi }_2=1`$\], which are the validity scales of the models, and in particular for haloes with intermediate masses. Both models are less accurate for very low mass haloes and for very massive haloes. On the other hand, in the case of present epoch descendants of haloes identified at an earlier epoch, both models work remarkably good in the validity scales of the models, as shown in Figure 2.

In these two figures we also plot the prediction of the MJW model with $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ given by perturbation theory (see Bernardeau 1994). The fact that this prediction also matches the simulations results suggests that the moments obtained from the VIRGO simulations are not affected significantly by the finite-volume effect and that the MJW model is a good approximation to the higher-order moments for haloes that are not much smaller than $`M_{}`$ \[defined by $`\sigma (M_{})=1.68`$\].

With their high mass resolutions, GIF simulations allow us to test the theoretical models for haloes with mass $`MM_{}`$. Since the GIF simulations have relatively small simulation boxes, the higher-order moments are expected to be affected significantly by the finite-volume effect (Colombi et al. 1994). However, this effect in each simulation is expected to be similar for both the mass distribution and the halo distribution. Thus, to test the bias model given in (10) and (11) by a numerical simulation we should use the value of $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ obtained directly from mass distribution in the simulations, because it is the simulated power spectrum (not the theoretical one) that is responsible for the clustering in the simulations. Figures 3 and 4 show the results obtained for the GIF simulations, along with the predictions from the models, for present epoch descendants of haloes identified at earlier epochs. It can be noticed that the predictions from both models, MJW and SMT, are in good agreement with the simulations results.

As we want to test and compare the performance of the models for low mass haloes at a given redshift, we have estimated the moments of counts–in–cells, as well as the moments predicted by the models, for several populations of sub–$`M_{}`$ haloes. It is well known that many of the low–mass haloes identified using a simple friends–of–friends halo finding algorithm have positive total energy (i.e., are unbound groups) and that these unbound haloes are expected to have a significant effect on higher–order statistics (Benson et al. 2001). For this reason we have revised our GIF halo catalogues for possible unbound haloes. The total energy for each halo in the catalog is computed, if it is positive the least bound particle in the group is removed and the total energy is computed again. This process is repeated for each halo until the total energy becomes negative or until there are remaining less than 10 particles in the group. If the last condition is reached, the halo is removed from the catalog. We found that $`10\%`$ of the haloes in the original catalog have to be removed form it, in agreement with Benson et al. (2001).

Figures 5 and 6 show the results for present epoch haloes less massive than $`M_{}`$ in the revised GIF halo catalogues, along with the predictions from the models. For haloes with masses much smaller than $`M_{}`$, the SMT extension overestimates the skewness and kurtosis, while the MJW model gives a better fit to the simulations results. Thus, although the SMT extension improves the models for the mass function and the second order model of dark haloes, it seems to be unable to improve the models for the higher–order moments. It is not clear why this happens, it might be a fluke or it might also mean that the simple model for the higher–order moments, either spherical or ellipsoidal, does not work accurately.

From a comparison between the VIRGO and GIF results, it is evident that both the skewness and kurtosis are strongly affected by the finite-volume effect. However, if the loss of clustering power due to the finite volume is taken into account, the model predictions are in good agreement with the numerical results, suggesting that the bias relations given by (10) and (11), with the coefficients given by the extended Press-Schechter formalism, are good approximations to the skewness and kurtosis of dark haloes in the quasi-linear regime.

To see more clearly the difference between the MJW model and the SMT extension, we show in Figure 7 the amplitudes of the halo skewness and kurtosis at a fixed radius ($`R=10h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) as a function of the linear bias parameter $`b=b_1`$ \[see equations (13) and (16)\]. The curves correspond to the predictions from the models for the present-day descendants of haloes at three values of $`z_1`$ (3.0, 1.0 and 0.0). From the figure we see that in all cases the values of $`S_{j,h}`$ are lower than those for the mass unless $`b`$ is comparable to or smaller than 1. This result was obtained in MJW based on the spherical model. We see that this is also true even if the SMT extension is used, although the amplitudes of $`S_{j,h}`$ given by the elliptical model are higher than those given by the spherical model for a given $`b`$. These features in $`S_{3,h}`$ and $`S_{4,h}`$ have been used in MJW to constrain the bias parameter $`b`$ for galaxies.

## 4 Discussion

From the results shown in Figure 7 we see that for present time descendants of haloes already formed at a given redshift ($`z>0`$), the values of the skewness and kurtosis depend only weakly on the object mass if the bias parameter $`b`$ is larger than or near to one . On the other hand, in the same range of $`b`$ it is clear that the high order moments depend on the identification redshift, which is associated with the redshift of formation of the objects, with the corresponding values increasing as the formation redshift increases. Therefore the values of the skewness and kurtosis of old objects, like elliptical galaxies, are expected to be higher than the corresponding moments of more recently formed objects, such as spiral galaxies. This feature can be useful in studying different galaxy populations.

We have used the models to analyze the predicted values of the high order moments for high redshift objects, like the Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs), which are commonly assumed to form in the center of the most massive haloes at redshift $`3`$ (Mo & Fukugita 1996; Adelberger et al. 1998; Jing & Suto 1998; Mo et al. 1999). Under this assumption and supposing that only a negligible fraction of those haloes host a secondary observable galaxy the observed LBGs correspond to the most massive haloes at $`z3`$. We have estimated the predicted values for the skewness and kurtosis at a fixed scale $`R=10h^1Mpc`$ of the LBGs ($`z=3`$) and their descendants at a given redshift $`z`$. We chose this value of $`R`$ because the mass density in the universe is still in the quasi-linear regime and the high order moments of galaxy distributions are more difficult to measure on much larger scales.

For our estimates we have used the coefficients as given by equations (13)-(15), where the $`S_q`$ (q = 3,4) for the mass distribution are obtained from linear perturbation theory (Bernardeau 1994), and the weighted average needed to get the effective $`b_k`$’s is derived either by means of the mass function from the Press-Schechter formalism, for the predictions from the MJW model, or by means of the mass function predicted by the SMT model, for the predictions from the SMT model . The main parameter for the estimation of the $`b_k`$’s for the LBGs corresponds to the observed abundance of LBGs, namely the number density given by (Adelberger et al. 1998). This number is $`N_{lbg}8\times 10^3h^3Mpc^3`$ at $`z3`$ for an Einstein-de Sitter universe, and is similar to the present abundance of $`L_{}`$ galaxies. The corresponding number for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe is estimated by multiplying this number by the comoving volume per unit redshift at $`z3`$ for an Einstein-de Sitter universe divided by the corresponding value for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe.

In Figure 8 we show the values of the skewness, the kurtosis and the linear bias at $`R=10h^1Mpc`$ of the LBGs, as a function of the redshift, in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and $`\tau `$CDM models. From the curves we see that, although the linear bias parameter is quite different in both CDM models, the values obtained for the moments are quite similar and so these statistics do not provide stringent constraints on cosmological parameters. Note that because LBGs are highly biased relative to the mass (Adelberger et al. 1998), the skewness and kurtosis parameters of their haloes and descendants are significantly lower than those for the mass. Thus, observations on these quantities may give additional evidence that these objects are highly biased.

Finally in Figure (9) we show the higher-order moments from the spatial distribution of model galaxies in the GIF $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulations at redshifts ($`z=0,1`$ and $`3`$), along with the corresponding quantities of the distribution of haloes hosting the galaxies and with the same quantities of the distribution of haloes weighted by the number of galaxies hosted by each halo. The catalogues are limited to model galaxies with stellar masses greater than $`2\times 10^{10}h^1M_{}`$ (i.e., haloes more massive than $`10^{12}h^1M_{}`$). For further details about these catalogues and the galaxy formation models used in their construction see Kauffmann et al. (1999).

From the plots it can be seen that the skewness and kurtosis of model galaxies at redshift 1 and 3 is similar to the corresponding quantities of the dark matter halo population hosting the model galaxies ($`M_h>10^{12}h^1M_{}`$). The difference between the moments of the model galaxies and dark matter haloes are still appreciable since there are haloes hosting more than one galaxy and this have strong effects on clustering quantities like the higher–order moments. Nevertheless, the similarities shown in the plots suggest that, indeed, one may assume that the distribution of galaxies may be approximated by the distribution of dark matter haloes. Indeed from the plot it can be seen that the moments of the distribution of model galaxies are very similar to the moments of the distribution of dark matter haloes weighted by the number of galaxies hosted by each halo. At small scales the moments of the weighted halo distribution are larger than the moments of the model galaxies distribution because we neglect any structure information in a halo containing several model galaxies.

Thus, one might be able to describe the higher-order moments of galaxies by combining the theoretical models for the higher-order moments of dark matter haloes with models for the number, stellar mass and position of individual galaxies that can be hosted by a single dark matter halo with mass $`M`$ at a given epoch. Furthermore, many of the semi–analytic model galaxies at redshift 3 would be included in current LBGs samples and thus are close to a subset of the LBGs population, which is highly biased respect to the mass. From the figure we see that $`S_32`$ and $`S_45`$ at $`R=10`$ Mpc/h, which is nearly consistent with the model predictions shown in Figure 8.

## 5 Summary

We have tested the MJW model and its SMT extension using two sets of high-resolution N-body simulations with different simulation boxes and mass resolution. From the set with the very large simulation box, which allows us to control the finite volume effect, we found that the models work remarkably good for CDM universes. The good performance of the models when the moments from the mass distribution are estimated using the linear perturbation theory, shows that the moments from this set (VIRGO) are practically unaffected by the finite volume effect. The other set of simulations, having much higher mass resolution, has been used to test the model for low-mass haloes, showing that the model based on spherical collapse (MJW) works better than the model based on ellipsoidal collapse (SMT) in describing the higher–order moments of haloes less massive than $`M^{}`$. For massive haloes both models work remarkably good.

We use the theoretical models to predict the higher-order moments at a fixed scale of the Lyman break galaxies observed at $`z=3`$ and their descendants at lower redshifts. We found that, although the linear bias parameter $`b`$ depends strongly on the cosmology adopted, the values of the higher-order moments are practically the same in both CDM models and therefore the higher-order moments from the spatial distribution of these objects cannot be used to constrain cosmological parameters.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the GIF group and the VIRGO consortium for the public release of their N-body simulations data (www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/Virgo/data\_download.html). R. Casas-Miranda acknowledges financial support from the “Francisco José de Caldas Institute for the Development of Science and Technology (COLCIENCIAS)” under its scholarships program. We thank our referee for useful comments and suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IHES-P/02/13 ITEP-TH-14/02 hep-th/0203112

Milne Universe, Tachyons, and Quantum Group

Nikita A. Nekrasov1 On leave of absence from Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 117259 Moscow, Russia

Institute des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, Bures-sur-Yvette, F-91440 France

e-mail: nikita@ihes.fr

We analyze the spectrum of the bosonic and superstring on the orbifold of the space-time by a boost, leading to the cosmological singularity. We show that the modular invariance leads to the spectrum where the twisted sector tachyon, together with all other twisted sector fields, present in the Euclidean version of the orbifold, is absent. This makes impossible to resolve the singularity by a marginal deformation of the worldsheet CFT. We also establish a relation between the resolution of rotational orbifolds in Euclidean and Lorentzian setups, and quantum groups. The analysis confirms the impossibility of resolving the cosmological orbifold singularity.

The article is based on two talks, given at “Workshop on ekpyrotic universe”, Annecy, 12/01, and at the XXX ITEP Winter school, Moscow, 02/01.

1. The model: Minkowskian orbifold

It was proposed in  to model the transition between a contracting and expanding phases of the Universe by an M-theory background of the form $`𝐑^9\times `$, where $``$ is the so-called two dimensional Milne universe, the space with conical singularity:

$$ds^2=dt^2+\lambda ^2t^2dw^2$$
$`(1.1)`$
where $`w`$ lives on a circle of the circumference $`2\pi `$ and $`\lambda >0`$ is a parameter. If we interpret $`w`$ as the eleventh dimensional circle, then from the ten dimensional perspective we have a Universe with the line element:

$$ds_{10}^2=a^2(t)\left(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right),a(t)|t|^{\frac{1}{8}}$$
$`(1.2)`$
and the dilaton

$$\varphi (t)=\varphi (1)\pm \sqrt{\frac{29}{8}}\mathrm{log}|t|$$
$`(1.3)`$
which passes through a zero string coupling point for the $`+1`$ choice of sign at $`t=0`$. However the coupling is strong far away from the cosmic singularity. To study this configuration using string theory one is naturally led to compactifying one of the flat nine dimensions, then to do the nine-ten flip and interpret the same background as the strong coupling limit of the type IIA string propagating on the space-time of the form $`\times 𝐑^8`$. The problem with the space $``$ is that the curvature has a delta-function singularity at $`t=0`$. Therefore it fails to define a worldsheet conformal theory. Nevertheless, the manifold $``$ is an orbifold . Take the Minkowski space $`𝐑^{1,1}`$, with the light-cone coordinates $`x^\pm `$:

$$x^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x^0\pm x^9\right)$$
$`(1.4)`$
The manifold $``$ is the quotient of the interior of the past- and future- light-cones $`x^+x^{}>0`$ by the action of the group $`𝐙`$ generated by a boost:

$$x^\pm e^{\pm 2\pi \lambda }x^\pm $$
$`(1.5)`$
together with the point $`x^\pm =0`$. It is not easy to confine the string to propagate in the interiour of the light-cone, so instead we consider the orbifold of $`𝐑^{1,1}`$ by the same action $`𝐙`$. The resulting space is non-Hausdorff (because of the light-cone) but the string propagation on it should be fine. Notice that the quotient $`M`$ contains four cones, from the regions where $`x^\pm `$ have some definite signs. In particular the domains with $`x^+x^{}<0`$ give rise to the space $`^{}`$ with the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2\lambda ^2t^2dw^2$$
$`(1.6)`$
which contains closed time-like loops.

1.1. Particle in the orbifolded universe

Before studying the properties of a string, let us start with considering a relativistic particle of mass $`m`$ propagating in $`𝐑^{1,1}/𝐙`$. The wavefunction of this particle must be a $`𝐙`$-invariant solution of Klein-Gordon equation on $`𝐑^{1,1}`$. Choose any on-shell momentum $`p=(p^+,p^{})`$ on the covering space: $`2p^+p^{}=m^2`$. The function:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)_{p;l}=_𝐑dwe^{i\left(p^+x^{}e^{\lambda w}+p^{}x^+e^{\lambda w}+lw\right)},l𝐙$$
$`(1.7)`$
is clearly a $`𝐙`$-invariant on-shell function. Moreover, changing $`(p^+,p^{})`$ to $`(zp^+,z^1p^{})`$, for $`z>0`$, simply multiplies (1.7) by an irrelevant phase. By this transformation one can bring $`p`$ to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(m,m)`$ where $`m`$ can be positive or negative. Let us introduce the appropriately normalized functions:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,l}(x)=\sqrt{2|m|}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(m,m);l}(x)$$
$`(1.8)`$
The functions (1.8) are orthonormal:

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,l},\mathrm{\Phi }_{m^{},l^{}})=_{𝐑^{1,1}/𝐙}dx^+dx^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,l}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_{m^{},l^{}}(x)=\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta (mm^{})$$
$`(1.9)`$
It is instructive to look at the behaviour of the wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,l}`$ in the “bad” space-time region, i.e. for $`x^+x^{}<0`$. We claim that the motion of the massive particle in this region is finite. Indeed, for sufficiently large negative $`x^+x^{}`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,l}(x)`$ is exponentially decaying:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,l}\mathrm{exp}(|m|\sqrt{2x^+x^{}}),x^+x^{}\frac{l^2}{2\lambda m^2}$$
$`(1.10)`$
1.2. Bosonic string

We proceed with consideration of the bosonic string propagating on $`M\times 𝐑^{24}`$. The orbifold with respect to the group (1.5) contains twisted sectors, labeled by an integer $`M`$:

$$X^\pm (\sigma +\pi )=e^{\pm 2\pi M\lambda }X^\pm (\sigma )$$
$`(1.11)`$
We start with the $`M=1`$ sector. The subsequent formulae are easily generalized to the general $`M`$ case, by the substitution: $`\lambda \lambda M`$. The mode expansion of the $`X^\pm `$ coordinates in the twisted sector is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& X_L^\pm =\underset{n}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\pm }{2(\pm \lambda in)}e^{2(\pm \lambda in)(t+\sigma )}\hfill \\ & X_R^\pm =\underset{n}{}\frac{\alpha _n^\pm }{2(\pm \lambda +in)}e^{2(\pm \lambda +in)(t\sigma )}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.12)`$
Straightforward quantization leads to the commutation relations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& [\alpha _n^+,\alpha _m^{}]=\delta _{m+n}(m+i\lambda )\hfill \\ & [\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^+,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^{}]=\delta _{m+n}(mi\lambda )\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.13)`$
Note that the oscillators with $`n=m=0`$ form a Heisenberg algebra. The Virasoro generators $`L_n`$ are calculated from the classical stress-energy tensor and then normal ordered with the result:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& L_m=\underset{n}{}\alpha _n^+\alpha _{mn}^{}+\underset{n}{}\alpha _n^i\alpha _{mn}^i,m0\hfill \\ & L_0=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha _0^+\alpha _0^{}+\alpha _0^{}\alpha _0^+\right)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{p}^2+\underset{n>0}{}\stackrel{}{\alpha }_n\stackrel{}{\alpha }_n\alpha _n^+\alpha _n^{}\alpha _n^{}\alpha _n^+\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.14)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_n`$ are the transverse oscillators. The generators (1.14) form the standard algebra

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+\frac{26}{12}(n^3n)\delta _{n+m}$$

The ground state is annihilated by the positive frequency oscillators:

$$\alpha _n^\mu |0_R=0,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu |0_L=0,n>0$$
$`(1.15)`$
The zero modes $`\alpha _0^\pm `$ have to be quantized with some care.

1.3. One-loop partition function

In this section we shall find that the correct way to quantize the zero modes $`\alpha _0^\pm `$ is by analytic continuation of the ordinary creation-annihilation operators of the harmonic oscillator to the case of imaginary frequency (just as in the open string case ) .

Consider the one-loop string measure. It splits as a sum over all winding sectors, which we shall label by two integers $`(L_1,L_2)`$. In the $`(L_1,L_2)`$ sector the boundary conditions on the worldsheet field $`X^\pm `$ are:

$$X^\pm (z+m+n\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\pm 2\pi \lambda \left(L_1m+L_2n\right)X^\pm (z)$$
$`(1.16)`$
where we work on the Euclidean torus with the complex structure specified by the modular parameter $`\tau =\tau _1+i\tau _2`$. We might also have to use the Lorentzian tori, for which $`\tau `$ and $`\overline{\tau }`$ are both real and $`\tau \overline{\tau }>0`$. In each case the metric on the torus is given by:

$$ds^2=(dx+\tau dy)(dx+\overline{\tau }dy)$$
$`(1.17)`$
where $`(x,y)(x+m,y+n)`$, $`m,n𝐙`$. There are several ways of computing $`𝒵_{(L_1,L_2)}(\tau )`$. One can directly calculate the regularized determinant of the Laplace operator, or one can calculate $`𝒵_{(0,L)}`$ and then use modular group to generate the rest. The full partition function

$$𝒵(\tau ,\overline{\tau })=\underset{(L_1,L_2)𝐙^2}{}𝒵_{(L_1,L_2)}$$
$`(1.18)`$
should be modular invariant. It is clear that $`(L_1,L_2)`$ transforms as a doublet of $`SL_2(𝐙)`$. We expect that

$$𝒵_{(aL_1cL_2,bL_1+dL_2)}\left(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d}\right)=𝒵_{(L_1,L_2)}(\tau )$$
$`(1.19)`$
for $`adbc=1`$. We can split the sum over $`(L_1,L_2)`$ as a sum over the $`N=gcd(L_1,L_2)`$ and then for fixed $`N0`$ the sum over the mutually prime integers $`(p,q)`$, s.t. $`L_1=Np,L_2Nq)`$. The latter sum is the sum over the coset space $`SL_2(𝐙)/𝐙`$. In the subsequent integration over the modular domain

$$_{_{1,1}}\frac{d\tau d\overline{\tau }}{\tau _2^2}𝒵(\tau ,\overline{\tau })$$
$`(1.20)`$
this summation unfolds the moduli space $`_{1,1}`$ and makes it into a strip $`|\tau _1|\frac{1}{2},\tau _2>0`$.

For $`N=0`$ the boundary conditions are periodic and one gets the same answer as in the ordinary bosonic string case:

$$𝒵_{(0,0)}(\tau )=\mathrm{Vol}(\times 𝐑^{24})\frac{1}{\tau _2^{12}|\eta (\tau )|^{48}}$$
$`(1.21)`$
with the only difference being the reduction of the volume of the target space. For $`N0`$ the partition function may or may not contain the divergent factor coming from the zero modes, which are always present for $`N=0`$. The $`24`$ transverse coordinates will of course contribute the factor of $`\mathrm{Vol}(𝐑^{24})`$ independently of $`N,\lambda `$.

Let us now analyze the conditions on the zero modes coming from the $`𝐑^{1,1}/𝐙`$ part. The eigenvalues of the Laplace operator on the functions obeying (1.16), for the metric (1.17), are:

$$\lambda _{m,n}=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\tau _2}\right)^2(w+m+n\tau )(\overline{w}+m+n\overline{\tau }),w=i\lambda (L_1\tau L_2)$$
$`(1.22)`$
It is clear that the modular group $`SL_2(𝐙)`$ permutes the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{m,n}`$ belonging to the different winding sectors. Now, we see that if the modular parameter $`\tau `$ is an $`SL_2(𝐙)`$ transform of $`i\lambda \frac{p}{q}`$, for $`p,q𝐙_+`$,

$$\tau =\frac{a\tau _0+b}{c\tau _0+d}$$

then among the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{m,n}`$ there will be a zero, for the winding sector $`(L_1,L_2)=(ap,cp)`$. Conversely, for fixed $`N=gcd(L_1,L_2)`$ there will be a finite number of points $`\tau _0`$ in the fundamental domain $`|\tau |1,|\tau _1|\frac{1}{2}`$ of $`SL_2(𝐙)`$ such that the Laplacian will have a zero mode obeying (1.16)2 Notice that for the Euclidean orbifold, by the rotation $`X^+=\overline{X^{}}e^{2\pi i\lambda }X^+`$, the analogous phenomenon occurs only for rational $`\lambda `$, where for $`N`$ which is divisible by the denominator of $`\lambda `$ the Laplacian will have zero modes. However in that case $`(L_1,L_2)`$ should be defined modulo this denominator as the twisting phases entering (1.16) are periodic in $`L_1,L_2`$.

If $`\tau `$ is generic then the spectrum of the Laplacian does not contain zero. The regularized determinant is given by the standard formula:

$$\mathrm{Det}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{exp}\zeta ^{}(0),\zeta (s)=\underset{m,n}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _{m,n}^s}$$
$`(1.23)`$
It is easily computed to be

$$\mathrm{Det}(\mathrm{\Delta })^1=\left|\frac{\eta (\tau )}{\vartheta _1(w|\tau )}\right|^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi w_1^2}{\tau _2}\right)$$
$`(1.24)`$
$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Full}\mathrm{partition}\mathrm{function}}`$ We can now assemble all the pieces to write down the partition function for fixed $`N`$:

$$𝒵_N(\tau ,\overline{\tau })=\underset{gcd(p,q)=1}{}\frac{d\tau d\overline{\tau }}{\tau _2^{13}|\eta (\tau )|^{42}}e^{G(Nw_{p,q}|\tau )}$$
$`(1.25)`$
where

$$G(z,\tau )=\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{\vartheta _1(z|\tau )}{\vartheta _1^{}(0|\tau )}\right|^2+2\pi \frac{z_1^2}{\tau _2}$$
$`(1.26)`$
is the bosonic Green’s function on the torus.

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{CFT}\mathrm{interpretation}}`$ Now let us go back to the $`𝐑^{1,1}/𝐙`$ contribution, of a fixed $`(M,L)`$ winding sector:

$$Z_{M,L}(\tau ,\overline{\tau })=\left|\frac{\eta (\tau )}{\vartheta _1(i\lambda (M\tau L)|\tau )}\right|^2e^{2\pi \lambda ^2M^2\tau _2}$$
$`(1.27)`$
It is easy to check the following modular properties of (1.27):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Z_{M,L}(\frac{1}{\tau },\frac{1}{\overline{\tau }})=Z_{L,M}(\tau ,\overline{\tau })\hfill \\ & Z_{M,L}(\tau +1,\overline{\tau }+1)=Z_{M,LM}(\tau ,\overline{\tau })\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.28)`$
We would like now to perform a check of our analysis of the old covariant quantization. Consider the (pre)Hilbert space $`_M`$ obtained by quantization in the $`M`$-th winding sector. Let $`g`$ be the generator of the orbifold group $`𝐙`$ acting in $`_M`$. We expect:

$$\mathrm{Tr}__Mg^Lq^{L_0\frac{c}{24}}\overline{q}^{\overline{L}_0\frac{c}{24}}=^\mathrm{?}Z_{M,L}(\tau ,\overline{\tau })$$
$`(1.29)`$
Let us represent the Hilbert space as a tensor product of the left and right-moving spaces. We see from (1.27) that the spectrum of $`L_0`$ and $`\overline{L}_0`$ is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& L_0=\frac{(\lambda M)^2}{2}+(N_0+\frac{1}{2})i\lambda M+\underset{n>0}{}N_n^+(n+i\lambda M)+N_n^{}(ni\lambda M)\hfill \\ & \overline{L}_0=\frac{(\lambda M)^2}{2}+(\overline{N}_0+\frac{1}{2})i\lambda M+\underset{n>0}{}\overline{N}_n^+(ni\lambda M)+\overline{N}_n^{}(n+i\lambda M)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.30)`$
The range of $`N_0`$ and $`\overline{N}_0`$ is slightly ambiguous: one can take $`N_00`$ or $`N_0<0`$ and similarly for $`\overline{N}_0`$. It actually depends on $`L`$ what branch to choose (it has to do with the spectral flow).

1.4. Absence of the tachyon

The major consequence of this analysis is that the twisted sector contains no physical states. Indeed, the spectrum of $`L_0`$ and $`\overline{L}_0`$ is never real (the imaginary part is $`\lambda `$ times half-integer), therefore the Virasoro constraints $`L_0=\overline{L}_0=1`$ will have no solutions. In the analogous case of Euclidean rotational orbifold $`𝐑^2/e^{2\pi i\lambda }`$, the Virasoro generators differ from (1.14) by $`\lambda i\lambda `$ and one finds a physical spectrum, which turns out to contain a tachyon (even in the case of superstring).

This conclusion about the absence of the physical states remains correct in the case of superstring. Indeed, consider the NSR string on this orbifold background and perform the old covariant quantization . The tachyon can only come from the NS sector. The twisted sector now in addition to the bosonic fields obeying (1.11) contains the left and right-moving fermions $`\psi _{L,R}`$ obeying:

$$\psi _{L,R}^\pm (\sigma +\pi )=e^{\pm 2\pi M\lambda }\psi _{L,R}^\pm (\sigma )$$
$`(1.31)`$
which amounts to the mode expansion (we set $`M=1`$ for simplicity):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _L^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\underset{r𝐙+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}{}\stackrel{~}{b}_r^\pm e^{2(\pm \lambda ir)(\tau +\sigma )}\hfill \\ & \psi _R^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\underset{r𝐙+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}{}b_r^\pm e^{2(\pm \lambda +ir)(\tau \sigma )}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.32)`$
The components $`b_r,\stackrel{~}{b}_r`$ have the following reality constraints:

$$(b_r^\pm )^{}=b_r^\pm ,(\stackrel{~}{b}_r^\pm )^{}=\stackrel{~}{b}_r^\pm $$
$`(1.33)`$
and the canonical anti-commutation relations:

$$\{b_r^+,b_s^{}\}=\delta _{r+s},\{\stackrel{~}{b}_r^+,\stackrel{~}{b}_s^{}\}=\delta _{r+s}$$
$`(1.34)`$
The $`\lambda ^2`$ shift in the $`L_0`$ generator of Virasoro algebra now cancels between bosons and fermions. However the imaginary part of $`L_0`$ is not cancelled:

$$L_0=L_0^{bos}\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}+\underset{r{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}{}(r+i\lambda )b_r^{}b_r^+(r+i\lambda )b_r^+b_r^{}+r\stackrel{}{b}_r\stackrel{}{b}_r$$
$`(1.35)`$
$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{One}\mathrm{loop}\mathrm{superstring}\mathrm{measure}}`$ The type IIA GSO projected one-loop measure is given by (after unfolding):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A=\underset{L=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Z(i\lambda L)\hfill \\ & Z(u)=\frac{d^2\tau }{\tau _2^5}\frac{|\vartheta _{00}(u)\vartheta _{00}^3(0)\vartheta _{01}(u)\vartheta _{01}^3(0)\vartheta _{10}(u)\vartheta _{10}^3(0)|^2}{|\vartheta _{11}(u)\eta ^9(\tau )|^2}=\hfill \\ & \frac{d^2\tau }{\tau _2^5}\left|\frac{\vartheta _{11}^4(u/2)}{\vartheta _{11}(u)\vartheta _{11}^3(0)}\right|^2\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.36)`$
It has poles at $`\tau _{w,r,L}=\frac{i\lambda Lr}{w}`$ where either $`w`$ or $`r`$ is not even (otherwise the pole from the denominator is cancelled by the zero of the numerator). To derive (1.36) it is recommended to consult p. 33, vol. 2 of , and to use some Riemann identities.

1.5. Stability

It seems that the absence of the tachyon implies the stability of the background. However one should keep in mind the example of the open string in the electric field, where the absence of physical states coexists with Schwinger instability having to do with the creation of the charged open strings. The signal of this instability – the poles in the one-loop measure — is currently under investigation .

2. Orbifolds and quantum group

In this section we discuss probing the orbifold geometry by D-branes. This topic is rather well-studied, however we believe that our observation is new. We shall consider specifically two-dimensional orbifolds.

First, let us look at the Euclidean orbifold: $`𝐑^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete subgroup of the rotation group $`SO(2)`$. We shall assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by the rotation by an angle $`2\pi \lambda `$. If $`\lambda `$ is rational then the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finite and the quotient is a cone. Let $`q=e^{2\pi i\lambda }`$.

Now consider placing a D-particle on this quotient (times otherwise flat space-time $`𝐑^{1,7}`$). As usual, it lifts to a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit on the covering space. The gauge theory supported by the D-particle worldvolume is a truncation of the maximally supersymmetric $`U\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\right)`$. We should be thinking of $`=𝐂^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ – the space of functions on the orbit, as of the Chan-Paton space. The operation of permuting the pre-images of the D-particle according to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action leads to the unitary representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $``$ which is the regular representation. We shall consider only regular branes. For these branes the truncation is simple. Namely, the adjoint scalars $`Z,Z^{}`$ corresponding to the motion along the two-dimensional space we are taking quotient of, and the adjoints $`X^i`$ corresponding to the rest of the space, must obey:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& U^1ZU=qZ\hfill \\ & U^1Z^{}U=q^1Z^{}\hfill \\ & U^1X^iU=X^i\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`U`$ is some unitary operator, representing the action of the rotation by $`2\pi \lambda `$ in the Chan-Paton space. These conditions imply that the spectrum of $`Z,Z^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant. The gauge group is the subgroup of $`U(|\mathrm{\Gamma }|)`$ which commutes with $`U`$.

The gauge theory action contains a potential $`[Z,Z^{}]^2`$. In the vacuum $`[Z,Z^{}]=0`$ (technically speaking we should be taking Dp-branes with $`p>1`$ to speak about well-localized vacua — we shall keep this point in mind but will be speaking about D-particles for simplicity). Thus, the vacua are the representations of the following algebra:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& U^1ZU=qZ\hfill \\ & U^1Z^{}U=q^1Z^{}\hfill \\ & [Z,Z^{}]=0\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.2)`$
It is obvious that the irreducible representations are labelled by the points on the quotient space. Indeed, as $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ commute, they can be diagonalized simultaneously. Let $`z`$ be the eigenvalue of $`Z`$. Then $`qz,q^2z,\mathrm{}`$ are also eigen-values of $`Z`$.Hence in the irreducible representation the spectrum of $`Z`$ coincides with an orbit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, replacing $`z`$ by $`q^lz`$ can be undone by a gauge transformation with $`U^l`$. Hence the irreps up to an isomorphism are labelled by the orbits.

We can even calculate the metric on the quotient space in terms of the representation theory of the algebra (2.2). Let us write down the kinetic term of the D-particle Lagrangian:

$$\mathrm{Tr}ZZ^{},$$

where $`Z=\dot{Z}+[A_0,Z]`$, and integrate out $`A_0`$. We shall get the kinetic term

$$g_{z\overline{z}}\dot{z}\dot{\overline{z}}$$

where $`(z,\overline{z})`$ are some coordinates on the moduli space of irreps of (2.2), i.e. on the quotient space, and $`g_{z\overline{z}}`$ is the metric on the quotient.

Now let us give vev to some of the twisted sector fields. As we discussed in the previous section there are physical states in the twisted sector. As was shown in  the leading effect (coming from the disk amplitude with one insertion of the twisted sector field at the center and two open string vertex operators at the boundary) of the NSNS sector twisted states is to replace the potential $`[Z,Z^{}]^2`$ by $`\left([Z,Z^{}]_l\mu _lU^l\right)^2`$. Here $`\mu _l`$ is the vev of the tachyon in the $`l`$’th twisted sector (corresponding to the rotation by $`2\pi l\lambda `$). In this sum one can in principle add the $`l=0`$ term. This term corresponds to turning on the constant $`B`$-field along the $`Z`$ plane, and does not come from the twisted sector. For simplicity we shall assume that $`\mu _0=0`$. The vacua of the D-particle gauge theory now get deformed to:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& U^1ZU=qZ\hfill \\ & U^1Z^{}U=q^1Z^{}\hfill \\ & [Z,Z^{}]=\underset{l}{}\mu _lU^l\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.3)`$
Let us denote the algebra defined by (2.3) by $`𝒜_{q,\mu }`$. The irreps of (2.3) are still labelled by points of a two-dimensional manifold. And the same kinetic term technique gives a metric on this manifold. This metric now depends on $`\mu `$ and is generically smooth. Here is a quick way of calculating it. Let us work in the basis in $``$ where $`U`$ is diagonal. Let $`e^{i\theta }`$ be the eigenvalue of $`U`$. Of course, it is easy to show that $`\theta =2\pi \lambda l`$, $`l𝐙`$ but we shall not use this. It follows from (2.3) that

$$Z=e^{\pi \lambda _\theta }z(\theta )e^{\pi \lambda _\theta },Z^{}=e^{\pi \lambda _\theta }\overline{z}(\theta )e^{\pi \lambda _\theta }$$
$`(2.4)`$
and that:

$$z(\theta +\pi \lambda )\overline{z}(\theta +\pi \lambda )z(\theta \pi \lambda )\overline{z}(\theta \pi \lambda )=\underset{l}{}\mu _le^{il\theta }$$
$`(2.5)`$
The product $`g(\theta )=z(\theta )\overline{z}(\theta )`$ is gauge invariant. From (2.5) we find:

$$g(\theta )=g+r(\theta ),r(\theta )=\underset{l}{}\frac{\mu _l}{q^{l/2}q^{l/2}}e^{il\theta }$$

By the gauge transformation commuting with $`U`$ we can bring $`Z,Z^{}`$ to the form (2.4) with $`z(\theta )=\sqrt{g(\theta }e^{i\phi },\overline{z}(\theta )=\sqrt{g(\theta )}e^{i\phi }`$. Then the metric on the moduli space, parametrized by $`g,\phi `$ is calculated to be

$$\frac{dg^2}{4g_{eff}}+g_{eff}d\phi ^2,\frac{1}{g_{eff}}=\underset{\theta }{}\frac{1}{g(\theta )}$$
$`(2.6)`$
If $`\lambda =\frac{1}{N}`$ then $`\theta =\frac{k}{N},k=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. At the orbifold point, $`\mu _l=0`$, $`g_{eff}=\frac{g}{N}`$, and the metric (2.6) has $`𝐙_N`$ singularity at $`g=0`$. If $`\mu _l`$ are generic then $`g_{eff}0`$ at $`g0`$, namely at $`g=g_0=\mathrm{min}_\theta r(\theta )`$, and locally the metric (2.6) will look like

$$\frac{dg^2}{4(gg_0)}+(gg_0)d\phi ^2=dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2$$

for $`r^2=gg_0`$. If there are several $`\theta `$ for which $`r(\theta )`$ reaches minimum then the singularity will be of $`𝐙_N^{}`$ type where $`N^{}`$ is the multiplicity of the minimum. The main conclusion here is that turning on $`\mu `$’s one smoothes out the singularity. This conclusion is confirmed by other analysis .

Notice, that for a specific choice of $`\mu `$ one can get a famous algebra as the algebra of functions on the resolved quotient. Namely, let us take

$$\mu _l=\mu \frac{\delta _{l,1}\delta _{l,1}}{qq^1},\mu 𝐑_+$$

Introduce an operator $`H`$, such that $`U=q^H`$, and the operators $`E`$ and $`F`$, by the formulae: $`E=Z/\sqrt{\mu }`$, $`F=Z^{}/\sqrt{\mu }`$. Then the commutation relations (2.3) become that of the quantum group $`U_qsl_2`$ ! Moreover the reality conditions are those of the quantum $`SU_q(2)`$. For finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we need $`q`$ to be the root of unity. This is the famous special case of the quantum group representation theory.

One can ask at this point, what about $`SL(2)`$? In that case the reality conditions would require $`E`$ and $`F`$ to be self-adjoint, and to have unitary representations one would need $`q`$ to be real. But this is exactly the setup for the Lorentzian orbifold we started with!

Now, let us assume for a moment that the Lorentzian orbifold twisted sector had physical states3 This would have been the case had the zero modes $`\alpha _0^\pm `$ been quantized in a unitary manner, i.e. $`\alpha _0^{}x,\alpha _0^+i\lambda _x`$. In this case for the type IIA string one finds a physical spectrum in the sector with any winding number. Let us also assume for a moment that the slowly moving D-particle in the time-dependent background such as (1.1) is described by the Lorentzian version of the IKKT model. Then instead of static vacua we can talk about the solutions to the matrix equations of motion describing the (noncommutative) algebra of functions on the D-brane worldvolume (as opposed to the usually considered algebra of functions on its space-like section). We can now look at the Lorentzian version of (2.3) and investigate the metric on the moduli space.

One new feature compared to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐙_N`$ case is that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐙`$ and the spectrum of $`\theta `$ is continuous, in fact $`\theta 𝐑/2\pi 𝐙`$. The formula (2.6) for the metric is now changed to:

$$\frac{dg^2}{4g_{eff}}g_{eff}d\phi ^2$$
$`(2.7)`$
where now:

$$\frac{1}{g_{eff}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }d\theta \frac{1}{g(\theta )},g(\theta )=g+\underset{l}{}\frac{m_l}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi l\lambda )}e^{il\theta }$$

Now for $`g`$ near the minimum of $`r(\theta )`$ the behaviour of $`g_{eff}`$ is different:

$$g_{eff}\sqrt{gg_0}$$

and the metric (2.7) looks more singular then the original orbifold metric!

It would have been a very bizarre situation if by turning on the twisted sector fields one made the singularity worse then it was before! Luckily there are no twisted sector fields to turn on, and no contradiction.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank G. Moore, N. Seiberg for their interest and discussions, C. Bachas for collaboration in , and A. Gorsky, I. Kogan, A. Losev, A. Morozov, and B. Pioline for useful discussions.

I would like to thank the organizers of the December 2001 workshop at Annecy and the organizers of ITEP winter school for warm hospitality and for invitation to present some of the results above. I am also grateful to the New High Energy Theory Center at Rutgers University for its kind invitation in October 2001 which helped me to perform this study. I am especially grateful to my family for its support and understanding.

Research was partially supported by RFFI under grant 00-02-16530 and under the grant 00-15-96557 for scientific schools, and by Clay Mathematical Institute.

Note added. After this paper has been completed we have received the manuscripts  which address somewhat related issues. In particular, the paper  also analyzes the bosonic string one-loop partition function in the Lorentzian orbifold background.

References

relax J. Khoury, B. Ovrut, N. Seiberg, P. Steinhart, N. Turok, “From Big Crunch to Big Bang”, hep-th/0108187 relax G. Horowitz, A. Steif, Phys. Lett. 258B (1991) 91 relax C. Bachas, M. Porrati, “Pair creation of open strings in an electric field”, hep-th/9209032, Phys. Lett. 296B (1992) 77-84 relax M. Green, J. Schwarz, E. Witten, “Superstring theory”, Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1987 relax J. Polchinski, “String Theory”, Cambridge University Press, 1998 relax C. Bachas, N. Nekrasov, to appear relax M. Douglas, G. Moore, “D-branes, Quivers, and ALE Instantons”, hep-th/9603167 relax A. Adams, J. Polchinski, E. Silverstein, “Don’t Panic! Closed String Tachyons in ALE Spacetimes”, hep-th/0108075, JHEP 0110(2001) 029 relax C. Vafa, hep-th/0111051; J. Harvey, D. Kutasov, E. Martinec, G. Moore, hep-th/0111154; A. Dabholkar, C. Vafa, hep-th/0111155 relax L. Cornalba, M. Costa, hep-th/0203031 relax V. Balasubramanian, S. F. Hassan, E. Keski-Vakkuri, A. Naqvi, hep-th/0202187 relax M. Gutperle, A. Strominger, hep-th/0202210


text:
# Measuring the mean value of vibrational observables in trapped ion systems

## I Introduction

The question of how measuring the probability distribution of the eigenvalues of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$ in a given quantum state often exhibits, at least, a high level of practical complexity. Sometimes, however, all what we want to know about the physical quantity under scrutiny is just its expectation value. To extract this information is of course possible if the probability for each eigenvalue of $`\widehat{A}`$ in the given state is known, even if, in principle, such a detailed knowledge goes beyond the specific need.

In the last few years advancements in ionic trapping and cooling techniques have provided the possibility of carefully controlling the dynamics of a two-level object coupled to a bosonic system. In a Paul microtrap, for example, a suitable configuration of inhomogeneous and alternating electromagnetic fields force the centre of mass of a confined two-level ion to behave as a quantum harmonic oscillator. When appropriate laser beams act upon the system, a vibronic coupling is switched on. Thus one may efficiently manipulate the trapped ion quantum state in order to realise, for example, applications in the quantum logic context and non-classical states.

Proposals of measurement processes aimed at revealing the quantum dynamics of such systems have been reported.

In 1997 L.G.Lutterbach and L.Davidovich have presented a proposal to extract all possible information about the vibrational quantum state of a trapped ion centre of mass. Such a knowledge is reached via the reconstruction of the Wigner distribution, $`W(\alpha )`$, relative to the ion centre of mass degrees of freedom ($`\alpha =x+ip`$, $`x`$ and $`p`$ being the *dimensionless* harmonic oscillator position and momentum respectively). It is well known that the value of the Wigner function in the phase space origin coincides with the mean value of the parity operator in the relative quantum state. Moreover, subjecting the system to some suitable external forces whose action may be described by displacements operators, one may induce a phase space translation of the physical system and hence a phase space translation of the Wigner distribution, passing from $`W(\alpha )`$ to $`\overline{W}(\alpha ):\overline{W}(\alpha \alpha _0)=W(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha _0`$ being related to the external action. Exploiting the two features just recalled one has, in principle, a recipe to measure $`W(\alpha )`$ at any point. Indeed the mean value of the parity operator evaluated in the system Wigner function translated by $`\alpha _0`$, is just the value of the original Wigner function in the point $`\alpha _0`$.

If the interest is pointed in the individuation of the vibrational quantum energy probability distribution only, one can turn to quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements as already proposed in two-level trapped ion systems both in one-dimensional and two-dimensional contexts. Generally speaking, in QND measurements a *signal* observable is indirectly measured observing a *meter* quantity which has been suitably modified via an appropriate *signal-meter interaction*. If the signal is conserved both by the free hamiltonian and by the signal-meter interaction, then the signal observable may be repeatedly measured getting rid of disturbances due to the “free time evolution”(between two measurements) or to the “back-action”(during the signal-meter interaction).

In the trapped ion context, QND schemes have been applied taking the vibrational energy as the signal and the atomic populations as the meter. The method is based upon the ability of implementing a suitable vibrational energy conserving vibronic coupling that resonantly drives weak atomic transitions of the atom beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit (signal-meter interaction), and upon the possibility of monitoring such transitions (meter observations). For example in ref it has been proposed a quantum nondemolition measurement scheme of the vibrational population of a trapped ion, by means of Raman pulses inducing resonant electronic transitions. The fundamental point of this method is the dependence of the Rabi oscillations between the two electronic levels on the energy quantum number.

The two protocols just recalled allow to realise measurements of quantum observables or even reconstructions of the entire dynamical configuration of the system, but both are generally very complicated to be executed. On the other hand, in many cases the knowledge of the mean value of some suitable observable is enough to reveal the phenomena we are interested in.

In this paper we present a new general approach to the measurement of the mean value of a vibrational dynamical variable in the trapped ion context. The method, its reliability and its feasibility are described in detail in the second section. In the subsequent section some possible applications are described bringing to light the effectiveness and the wide potentiality of our proposal.

## II The idea and the method

The physical system on which we focus consists in a two-level ion confined into a three-dimensional Paul trap. In such a trap the motion of the ion centre of mass is confined in an effective harmonic potential which, under appropriate conditions, may be rendered isotropic, so that the free dynamics of our system is governed by the free hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_0=\mathrm{}\omega _T\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_j+\mathrm{}\omega _A\widehat{\sigma }_z$$
(1)
Here $`\omega _T`$ is the frequency of the trap, $`\widehat{a}_i(\widehat{a}_i^{})`$ with $`i=x,y,z`$ are the annihilation (creation) operators of the centre of mass oscillatory motion, $`\omega _A`$ is the atomic transition frequency and $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ the $`z`$ component of the pseudospin operator $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\widehat{\sigma }_x,\widehat{\sigma }_y,\widehat{\sigma }_z)`$ associated to the internal ionic dynamics. Here $`\widehat{\sigma }_x=|+|+|+|`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_y=i(|+||+|)`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_z=|++|||`$ and $`|\pm `$ are the two effective atomic levels such that $`\widehat{\sigma }_z|\pm =\pm |\pm `$.

In the experiments currently performed on trapped ion systems, the probability of finding the ion in its *ground* ($`|`$) or *excited* ($`|+`$) electronic state may be measured using quantum jumps techniques with almost $`100\%`$ efficiency. The measurement of bosonic dynamical variables of interest is in practice systematically traced back to atomic population observations.

In this paper we sketch an experimental scheme that, in principle, allows to measure the mean value of vibrational dynamical variables. The key idea of our proposal relies on the ability of implementing an appropriate vibronic coupling by which we succeed in making the atomic populations after the interaction dependent on the mean value of the vibrational observable in the initial state, that is before the interaction. In other words, starting from a dynamical configuration, we induce a time evolution able to correlate electronic populations to the mean value of the observable in the initial vibrational state.

Let $`\widehat{A}`$ be the *dimensionless* vibrational (or bosonic) observable under scrutiny, given in the Schrödinger picture, and assume it is time independent. Suppose now to subject the system to a suitable laser configuration responsible for realising a vibronic coupling of strength $`\gamma `$ that, in the interaction picture relative to $`\widehat{H}_0`$, has the form

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\mathrm{}\gamma \widehat{A}\widehat{\sigma }_x$$
(2)
We will show that the hamiltonian given in eq.(2) is responsible for inducing atomic transitions *modulated* by the mean value of $`\widehat{A}`$, $`<\widehat{A}>`$, evaluated in the initial state.

In the simple case of a trapped ion prepared in the state

$$|\psi (0)=|\alpha |$$
(3)
with $`|\alpha `$ such that $`\widehat{A}|\alpha =\alpha |\alpha `$, the interaction picture quantum dynamics under the action of the hamiltonian given in eq.(2) is

$$|\psi ^{(I)}(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \alpha t)|\alpha |i\mathrm{sin}(\gamma \alpha t)|\alpha |+$$
(4)
Looking at this time evolution we note that the Rabi oscillation frequency is proportional to $`\alpha `$. Hence, as given in advance, the flipping rate from $`|`$ to $`|+`$ is just proportional to the mean value of $`\widehat{A}`$ in the initial vibrational state: $`\psi (0)\left|\widehat{A}\right|\psi (0)\psi _{vibr}\left|\widehat{A}\right|\psi _{vibr}=\alpha `$.

Obviously in the more general case of an arbitrary bosonic initial state

$$|\psi (0)=|\psi _{vibr}|$$
(5)
the analysis is not so simple. Nevertheless it is always possible to establish a correlation between electronic transitions and the initial mean value of $`\widehat{A}`$. To this purpose, subject the ion to a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse relative to the interaction of the form $`\mathrm{}\delta \sigma _x`$ ($`\delta `$ being a real number representing the strength of the interaction), easy to implement with a laser tuned on the electronic transition frequency ($`\omega _A`$). The effect on the system is the passage to the state

$$|\overline{\psi }(0)=|\psi _{vibr}|_y$$
(6)
where $`|_y`$ is an eigenstate of the operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_y`$ and $`|\psi _{vibr}`$ is the same generic vibrational state appearing in eq.(5).

Calculate now the time evolution of the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ mean value under the action of the hamiltonian in eq.(2). Since $`[\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{\sigma }_z]=0`$ the interaction picture operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(I)}`$ coincides with the Schrödinger picture operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$, and hence

$`\widehat{\sigma }_z(t)`$ $``$ $`\psi ^{(I)}(t)\left|\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(I)}\right|\psi ^{(I)}(t)=\psi ^{(I)}(t)\left|\widehat{\sigma }_z\right|\psi ^{(I)}(t)=`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(0)\left|\widehat{U}_A^{}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z\widehat{U}_A(t)\right|\overline{\psi }(0)`$ (8)
with

$$\widehat{U}_A(t)=e^{i\frac{\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}}{\mathrm{}}t}$$
(9)
the interaction picture time evolution operator.

Moreover, being

$$\widehat{U}_A^{}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z\widehat{U}_A(t)=\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)\widehat{\sigma }_z+\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)\widehat{\sigma }_y$$
(10)
one immediately obtains, for the state in eq.(6),

$`\widehat{\sigma }_z(t)=\psi _{vibr}\left|\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)\right|\psi _{vibr}`$ (11)
For the sake of completeness, consider the case of an operator having a non-degenerate spectrum being partly continuous and partly discrete. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=\{\alpha _n\}`$ be the set of all the discrete eigenvalues and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$ the set corresponding to the continuous spectrum of $`\widehat{A}`$.

The vibrational state $`|\psi _{vibr}`$ can be expanded in terms of the states $`|\alpha `$ as follows:

$`|\psi _{vibr}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{}}\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|\alpha d\alpha +`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle _{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_C}}\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|\alpha 𝑑\alpha `$ (13)
Starting from this expansion, the mean value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)`$ appearing in eq.(11), may be cast in the form

$`\psi _{vibr}\left|\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)\right|\psi _{vibr}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)d\alpha +`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle _{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_C}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)𝑑\alpha `$ (15)
In many physical situations of interest, it is reasonable to assume that $`|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2`$ may be neglected when $`\alpha `$ is outside the interval $`[\alpha _{max},\alpha _{max}]`$, $`\alpha _{max}`$ being an appropriate positive real number (we shall refer to this assumption as *finite effective spectrum hypothesis*). At this point we wish to emphasise that the possibility of such an assumption is not necessarily related to an a priori knowledge of $`|\psi _{vibr}`$. Consider for example the case of $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{X}`$ ($`\widehat{X}`$ being the $`x`$-component of the ion centre of mass position operator given in the Schrödinger picture). For such an operator it results $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C=\text{R}\text{I}\text{ }`$. Nevertheless, due to the ion confinement, one may be confident in the fact that all the effectively involved values of the observable $`\widehat{X}`$ must be compatible with the trap dimensions.

As another example consider the bosonic excitation number operator $`\widehat{n}_i`$ (with $`i=x,y,z`$). One has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C=\mathrm{}`$ and, in principle, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=\text{N}\text{I}\text{ }`$. Nevertheless, again because of the confinement, the probability of finding the charged trapped particle with $`n_i`$ beyond an appropriate maximum value, may be reasonably assumed as being negligible.

It is worth noting that the $`z`$ component of the orbital angular momentum $`\widehat{L}_z`$, is canonically equivalent to the operator $`\widehat{n}_x\widehat{n}_y`$. Thus, bearing in mind the previous considerations regarding $`\widehat{n}_i`$, we legitimately claim that also $`\widehat{L}_z`$ satisfies the finite spectrum hypothesis in the experimental situation under scrutiny. We remark that this property holds for any component of the orbital angular momentum due to the spherical symmetry of the problem. Analogous considerations are applicable to the correlation operators as, for example, $`\widehat{C}_{xy}(\widehat{a}_x^{}\widehat{a}_y+\widehat{a}_y^{}\widehat{a}_x)`$, reaching the same conclusions. Indeed, like $`\widehat{L}_z`$, also the operator $`\widehat{C}_{xy}`$ is canonically equivalent to $`\widehat{n}_x\widehat{n}_y`$, being $`e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}\widehat{L}_z}\widehat{C}_{xy}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}\widehat{L}_z}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}\widehat{C}_{xy}}\widehat{L}_ze^{i\frac{\pi }{4}\widehat{C}_{xy}}=\widehat{n}_x\widehat{n}_y`$.

Under the *finite spectrum hypothesis* we may control both the coupling parameter $`\gamma `$ and the interaction duration $`t`$ in such a way that $`\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)2\gamma \alpha t`$ for any $`\alpha `$ inside $`[\alpha _{max},\alpha _{max}]`$. (In the following we shall refer to the interval of real values for which $`\mathrm{sin}xx`$ as the *linearisability zone*.)

Such an assumption makes it legitimate linearising the mean value of the operator $`\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)`$, which means, reducing it to the mean value of $`2\gamma \widehat{A}t`$. Indeed, since the only relevant contributions to the mean value calculations are the ones relative to $`\alpha `$ belonging to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_C[\alpha _{max},\alpha _{max}]`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_D[\alpha _{max},\alpha _{max}]`$, one deduces

$`\psi _{vibr}\left|\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)\right|\psi _{vibr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)d\alpha `$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_C}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)𝑑\alpha `$ (17)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{}}{}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)d\alpha +`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_C^{}}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \alpha t)𝑑\alpha `$ (19)
Since the calculation is developed in the linearizability zone, it is possible to linearise the sinusoidal function before coming back to the original dominion of the variable $`\alpha `$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$. Hence it follows that

$`\psi _{vibr}\left|\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)\right|\psi _{vibr}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{}}{}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^22\gamma \alpha td\alpha +`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_C^{}}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^22\gamma \alpha t𝑑\alpha `$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^22\gamma \alpha td\alpha +`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_C}}|\alpha |\psi _{vibr}|^22\gamma \alpha t𝑑\alpha `$ (23)
$``$ $`\psi _{vibr}\left|2\gamma \widehat{A}t\right|\psi _{vibr}`$ (24)
After such a discussion we are ready to deduce the main result of this paper. Assuming that $`\widehat{A}`$ has an appropriately bounded spectrum and accordingly controlling the pulse area $`\gamma t`$, we may take advantage of eq.(20) into eq.(11) obtaining

$$\widehat{A}(t=0)\psi _{vibr}\left|\widehat{A}\right|\psi _{vibr}\frac{1}{2\gamma t}\widehat{\sigma }_z(t)$$
(25)
Eq.(25) relates in a transparent way the mean value of the vibrational observable $`\widehat{A}`$ before the interaction in eq.(2) (that is in the initial vibrational state), with the mean value of the $`z`$-pseudospin component, $`\widehat{\sigma }_z(t)`$, measured immediately after this interaction.

We again emphasise that the applicability of eq.(25) requires, among other conditions, the narrowness of the interval containing the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{A}`$ appearing in the expansion of the initial vibrational condition. The importance of this point may be fully appreciated considering that the identification of the mean value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)`$ with the mean value of $`2\gamma \widehat{A}t`$ amounts at neglecting the mean values of all the nonlinear terms appearing in the series defining the operator $`\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma \widehat{A}t)`$, that is at assuming

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\widehat{A}^{2k+1}\left(2\gamma t\right)^{2k+1}}{(2k+1)!}<<2\gamma t\widehat{A}$$
(26)
Indeed, the finite spectrum hypothesis allows to claim that $`|\widehat{A}^n|\alpha _{max}^n`$ legitimating relation (26) when $`\gamma \alpha _{max}t<<1`$.

For the sake of clarity we summarise the steps of the process we propose for measuring the mean value of vibrational observables in the state $`|\psi _{vibr}`$:

a) Estimate an upper limit, $`\alpha _{max}`$, for the modulus of the bosonic eigenvalues of $`\widehat{A}`$ involved in $`|\psi _{vibr}`$. As previously stressed, such an estimation does not require the a priori knowledge of $`|\psi _{vibr}`$.

b) Convert the initial condition given by eq.(5) into the state $`|\psi =|\psi _{vibr}|_y`$ by the action of a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse relative to the interaction $`\mathrm{}\delta \widehat{\sigma }_x`$.

c) Subject the system to a pulse related to the interaction $`\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\gamma \widehat{A}\widehat{\sigma }_x`$. The intensity and the duration of the pulse must be chosen in such a way that $`2\gamma \alpha _{max}t`$ lies in the *linearizability zone*.

d) Measure the atomic populations, calculate $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ and hence deduce $`\psi _{vibr}\left|\widehat{A}\right|\psi _{vibr}`$ from eq.(25).

We conclude this section giving some orders of magnitude for the parameters involved in the measurement process. To this end we consider for example $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{n}_i`$. According to ref., $`n_i=20`$ is surely a good estimation for a maximum value of the bosonic excitations, in the sense that the experiments up to now performed generally involve just few phonons.

About the coupling strength $`\gamma `$, we may refer both to the Innsbruck group experiments (with $`Ca^+`$ ions), where typical $`\gamma `$ values are of the order of magnitude of $`10KHz`$, or to Boulder group experiments (with $`Be^+`$ ions), where typical $`\gamma `$ values are of hundreds of $`KHz`$. Although the latter values are higher than the former ones, we guess it should be possible to obtain smaller values even with $`Be^+`$ ion experiments just decreasing the laser intensities.

Assuming therefore $`\gamma 10KHz`$ and $`[0.4,0.4]`$ as the linearizability zone, in the case of $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{n}_i`$, one estimates an interaction time $`t1\mu s`$ which is in the grasp of experimentalists. Indeed we emphasise that the brief duration of the vibronic interaction is compatible with the laser “turning-on”-“turning-off”and also makes our method reasonably immune from decoherence effects.

## III Applications and conclusive remarks

A fundamental underlying requirement of the method presented in the previous section is the implementation of the hamiltonian given by eq.(2) relative to the specific bosonic observable one wishes to measure. Fortunately the trapped ion context allows to tailor practically at will vibronic couplings possessing a desired form. By changing indeed the lasers configuration and parameters, a huge class of effective Hamiltonian operators may be engineered.

In this section we focus our attention on some vibrational observable variable of physical interest bringing to light the effectiveness and the wide potentiality of our method. In particular we shall concentrate our attention on those vibrational operators of clear physical meaning, for which the possibility of applying the hypothesis of finite spectrum has already been discussed in the previous section. Taking in mind the conclusions reached in section II, we now therefore limit ourselves to show the feasibility of the coupling mechanisms required in order to apply our measurement procedure.

a) First of all let’s consider the bosonic excitation number $`\widehat{n}_i`$. In order to measure the mean value of such an operator exploiting the method presented in this paper, the effective Hamiltonian model

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\mathrm{}\gamma \widehat{n}_i\widehat{\sigma }_x$$
(27)
has to be implemented. In ref it is shown how this model can be realised in laboratory.

b) Another important quantity to measure is the angular momentum of the centre of mass of the confined particle. In ref., in connection with other purposes, it has been implemented the interaction hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\mathrm{}\gamma \widehat{L}_i\widehat{\sigma }_x$$
(28)
where $`\widehat{L}_i`$ is the component of the orbital angular momentum along the direction $`i=x,y,z`$. Such an interaction is useful to reach our goal with respect to the angular momentum operator.

We remark that, at the best of our knowledge, our proposal provides for the first time a method exploitable for measuring this observable in trapped ion systems.

c) The next operator which we wish to apply our measurement protocol to, is a space-correlation operator defined as

$$\widehat{C}_{ij}\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_j^{}+\widehat{a}_j\widehat{a}_i^{}=\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{Q}_j+\widehat{P}_i\widehat{P}_jij$$
(29)
with $`i,j=x,y,z`$ and where $`\widehat{Q}_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}_k+\widehat{a}_k^{})`$ and $`\widehat{P}_k=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{a}_k)`$ are the *dimensionless* ion center of mass position and momentum operators respectively.

The interaction hamiltonian model of the form (2) corresponding to $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{C}_{ij}`$ may be easily implemented. Consider for example two Raman schemes  responsible for two couplings realised via two effective lasers directed along the axis $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$, rotated by $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$ with respect to $`x`$ and $`y`$ axis. Suppose that the two effective lasers relative to each Raman scheme are tuned on the *carrier* frequency $`\omega _A`$, are $`\pi `$ out of phase and finally have wave vectors of equal moduli. Under these hypotheses the total interaction hamiltonian takes the form

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[f(\eta ,\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_+)f(\eta ,\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_{})\right]\widehat{\sigma }_x$$
(30)
where $`\widehat{a_\pm }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\widehat{a}_x\pm \widehat{a}_y\right)`$, $`\eta `$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter and $`f`$ an assigned function giving rise to non-linearity effects stemming from the non vanishing gradient of the electric field.

If we restrict our analysis to the Lamb-Dicke limit (that is assuming $`\eta <<1`$), up to terms of order $`\eta ^2`$, we just obtain

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\mathrm{}\gamma \widehat{C}_{xy}\widehat{\sigma }_x$$
(31)
with $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\eta ^2`$.

Measuring the operator $`\widehat{C}_{xy}`$ is interesting, because, for example, it provides a simple way for revealing the so called “Parity effect” predicted the first time in the context of bimodal cavity QED and then in the context of two-dimensional trapped ions. In ref. it has been proved that a trapped ion, prepared in a $`SU(2)`$ coherent state and subjected to the action of a suitable set of lasers whose effects are described by a *bimodal and two-boson Jaynes-Cummings model*, $`\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\mathrm{}\gamma \left(\widehat{a}_xa_y\right|+|+h.c.)`$, exhibits a nonclassical behaviour that may be brought to light measuring the mean value of $`\widehat{C}_{xy}`$. This operator, indeed, distinguishes in a *macroscopic* way between two *just microscopically* distinguishable initial states.

More in detail, it has been analytically predicted that, if $`N_0`$ is the total number of bosonic excitations in the initial state then, at particular time instants $`t_p^{}`$ and $`t_c^{}`$, it results

$`\widehat{C}_{xy}(t_p^{})=\{\begin{array}{c}+N_0ifN_0odd\hfill \\ N_0ifN_0even\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
$$\widehat{C}_{xy}^2(t_c^{})=\{\begin{array}{c}+N_0^2ifN_0odd\hfill \\ N_0^2ifN_0even\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
respectively.

The possibility of measuring the correlation $`\widehat{C}_{xy}`$ and the operator $`\widehat{C}_{xy}^2`$ is then useful to observe the “Parity” discrimination.

d) As last example we consider the *dimensionless* position operator $`\widehat{Q}_x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}_x+\widehat{a}_x^{})\widehat{X}`$. Implementing the hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\gamma (\widehat{a}_x+\widehat{a}_x^{})\widehat{\sigma }_x$$
(36)
is very simple. Indeed it requires the use of two effective lasers both directed along $`x`$ and suitably tuned. One of the lasers must be first red sideband tuned and the other one must be tuned on the first blue sideband. With such a laser configuration one obtains

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(I)}=\gamma _1(\widehat{a}_x|+|+\widehat{a}_x^{}|+|)+\gamma _2(\widehat{a}_x^{}|+|+\widehat{a}_x|+|)$$
(37)
Adjusting the lasers intensities to have $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma `$, the interaction hamiltonian model coincides with the one expressed by eq.(36).

Summarising, in this paper we have discussed a simple method aimed at measuring the mean value of vibrational observables. The key idea of our proposal is the possibility of transferring information about the expectation value of a vibrational operator to the atomic populations, with the help of a suitable vibronic coupling. Applications discussed in this section highlight the relevance of the present procedure to a wide variety of situations. Apart from some specific applications here considered, we emphasise that our method is also compatible with non-spherical traps. The reason is that our proposal rests upon the implementation of the interaction in eq.(2), which does not depend on the trap isotropy.

Concluding we wish again to stress that, when we want to know only the expectation value of a physical quantity in an assigned vibrational state, the method presented in this paper might be easier to realise with respect to the others already quoted in the introduction.

## Acknowledgements

One of the authors (A. N.) acknowledges financial support from Finanziamento Progetto Giovani Ricercatori anno 1998, Comitato 02.