text:
# The magnetic dipole interaction in Einstein-Maxwell theory

## 1 Introduction

The resemblance of spin-spin interaction in general relativity and the interaction between magnetic dipoles in Maxwell’s theory was pointed out by Wald . Wald based his theory of the spin-spin interaction on the equations of motion for spinning test particles, and took for the magnetic interaction expressions well known in classical electromagnetism. In gr-qc/0201094, I gave an exact solution of Einstein’s equations exhibiting the spin-spin interaction; here I obtain the corresponding static solution of Einstein-Maxwell theory for two magnetic dipoles and exhibit the similarity between the two solutions. Secondly, I use another solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations to show how two massless spinning magnetic dipoles can balance. The spacetime is throughout assumed to be axially symmetric, i.e. the axes of two magnets are collinear and may be parallel or antiparallel.

In section 2 I derive the exact static solution for two magnetic dipoles, and in section 3 I write down the exact solution for two balancing spinning magnetic dipoles. Section 4 discusses the physical interpretation of the solutions, and there is a concluding section 5.

## 2 Exact solution for two magnetic dipoles

The field equations are those of Einstein-Maxwell theory:

$`R_k^i`$ $`=`$ $`2F^{ia}F_{ka}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _k^iF^{ab}F_{ab},`$ (1)
$`F_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{i,k}A_{k,i},`$ (2)
$`F_{;k}^{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
where $`R_k^i`$ is the Ricci tensor, $`F_{ik}`$ the electromagnetic field tensor, and $`A_i`$ the vector potential; a comma denotes partial differentiation and a semi-colon covariant differentiation.

The metric may be taken in Weyl static form

$$ds^2=F^1[e^\mu (dz^2+dr^2)+r^2d\theta ^2]+Fdt^2,$$
(4)
where $`F`$ and $`\mu `$ are functions of $`z`$ and $`r`$. The coordinates will be numbered

$$x^1=z,x^2=r,x^3=\theta ,x^4=t,$$

where

$$\mathrm{}>z>\mathrm{},r>0,2\pi \theta 0,\mathrm{}>t>\mathrm{},$$

$`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =2\pi `$ being identified. The vector potential takes the form

$$A_i=(0,0,\psi ,0)$$
(5)
where $`\psi `$ is a function of $`z`$ and $`r`$.

The field equations (1)-(3) may be written in the form

$`R_{11}+R_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{11}+\mu _{22}F^1^2F+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}F^2(F_1^2+F_2^2)=0,`$ (6)
$`R_{11}R_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`r^1\mu _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2(F_1^2F_2^2)=2r^2F(\psi _2^2\psi _1^2),`$ (7)
$`2R_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`r^1\mu _1+F^2F_1F_2=4r^2F\psi _1\psi _2,`$ (8)
$`R_4^4R_3^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^\mu [^2F+F^1(F_1^2+F_2^2)]=2r^2e^\mu F^2(\psi _1^2+\psi _2^2),`$ (9)
$`^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`F^1(F_1\psi _1+F_2\psi _2),`$ (10)
where suffices 1 and 2 on the right mean differentiation with respect to $`z`$ and $`r`$ respectively, and

$`^2X`$ $`=`$ $`X_{11}+X_{22}+r^1X_2,`$
$`^2X`$ $`=`$ $`X_{11}+X_{22}r^1X_2.`$
Eqns (6)-(10) bear a close resemblance to (2)-(6) of , and from any solution of the latter set one may generate a solution of the former set by substituting

$$fF^{1/2},wi\psi ,\nu \frac{1}{4}\mu ,$$
(11)
as one may verify by direct calculation. 111This generation procedure was first used by me in , though I did not describe it explicitly. An account of it was given by Kinnersley , and it was generalised by Fisher in .

Applying this transformation to the Papapetrou solution (8)-(12) of  we generate a magnetic spacetime with the following metric coefficients:

$`F^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi _1,`$ (12)
$`i\psi `$ $`=`$ $`r\xi _2,`$ (13)
$`\mu _1`$ $`=`$ $`4r\xi _{11}\xi _{12},`$ (14)
$`\mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`2r[(\xi _{12})^2(\xi _{11})^2],`$ (15)
$`^2\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (16)
To get a real solution of our problem we choose an imaginary solution of (16):

$$\xi =i\left(\frac{M_1}{R_1}+\frac{M_2}{R_2}\right),$$
(17)
where $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are moments of magnets placed on the $`z`$-axis at $`z=\pm b,b>0`$ and pointing in the + or - $`z`$-direction, and $`R_1=[(zb)^2+r^2]^{1/2},R_2=[(z+b)^2+r^2]^{1/2}`$.

Substituting (17) into (12)-(15) we obtain

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sec}^2Y,`$ (18)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{R_1^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{R_2^3}}\right),`$ (19)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2r^2(9r^28R_i^2)}{2R_i^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2[3(r^2+z^2b^2)^3+2b^2r^2(9r^2+9z^2b^2)]}{2b^4R_1^3R_2^3}}`$
$`+C,`$ (20)
where $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant, and where $`Y`$ is given by

$$Y=\frac{M_1(zb)}{R_1^3}+\frac{M_2(z+b)}{R_2^3}.$$
(21)
The physical meaning of this solution will be discussed in section 4, but I note here its resemblance to the solution for spinning particles, (15)-(17) of .

## 3 Exact solution for spinning magnetic dipoles in balance

This solution can be obtained from the Perjes-Israel-Walker (PIW) class  , which describes the stationary field of sources bearing mass, charge, magnetic moment and angular momentum. The field equations are (1)-(3). The PIW solutions are free from conical singularities, but, in general they contain another singularity in the neighbourhood of the rotation axis which I have recently  called a torsion singularity.

A PIW solution for two particles was examined in , and I use it here (with a slightly different notation). To rid the solution of electric charge (which is not under consideration in this paper) one must put the parameters $`m_1,m_2`$ equal to zero; this has the effect of abolishing the masses of the particles and the torsion singularity. The result is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^1(dz^2+dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2)+f(wd\theta dt)^2,`$ (22)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`ϵf,\mathrm{\Psi }=ϵYf,`$ (23)
where

$`f^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+Y^2,`$ (24)
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`2r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{R_1^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{R_2^3}}\right),`$ (25)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 1,`$ (26)
where $`Y`$ is as in (21). Here $`\varphi `$ is the electric potential $`A_4`$, but $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the magnetic scalar potential. This solution will be explained in the next section.

## 4 Physical interpretation

In this section I discuss the exact solutions in the previous two sections, starting with the one in section 2.

We first notice that although $`F`$ tends to unity and the metric becomes asymptotically flat as $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ tend to infinity, $`F`$ becomes infinite when

$$Y:=\frac{M_1(zb)}{R_1^3}+\frac{M_2(z+b)}{R_2^3}=\pm \frac{\pi }{2},$$
(27)
and one must regard this as the locus of a singularity surrounding the magnets. Our main interest in this paper is in the portion of the $`z`$-axis $`b<z<b`$ where a conical singularity will enable us to deduce the force of interaction between the magnets. It is easy to see that if $`M_i/b^3,i=1,2`$ are sufficiently small there is always a part of the $`z`$-axis between the particles which is outside the singular surface (27), and the latter bifurcates into two surfaces, one around each magnet. I shall henceforth suppose this condition satisfied, and confine attention to that part of $`b<z<b,r=0`$ which is outside (27).

Using (4) and (18) we have

$$g_{44}=1+Y^2+O(R^8),$$

where $`R^2=z^2+r^2.`$ This contains no term of order $`R^1`$, so there is no term representing mass: the magnets must be considered massless. ¿From (19) we see that the magnetic vector potential has at infinity the form expected for two magnets, parallel or anti-parallel, at $`z=\pm b,r=0.`$ The expression for $`\mu `$ can be dealt with as was $`\nu `$ in . It represents a conical singularity either between the magnets, or outside them, according to the choice of $`C`$. Choosing the former alternative we can, as before, regard the conical singularity as a cosmic string and calculate the force which it represents. It turns out to be

$$p=\frac{3M_1M_2}{8b^4},$$
(28)
plus higher terms of order $`M_1^2M_2^2/b^8`$. Comparing this with (23) of  we see that the force between magnets is similar to the force between spinning particles, but opposite in sign. This agrees with Wald . It is the same as that found in elementary magnetism . This, incidentally, gives credibility to the cosmic string calculation of the force, which was put forward tentatively in .

This concludes the interpretation of the exact solution in section 3, and I turn now to the one in section 4. From the metric (22), in particular from the $`d\theta dt`$ term, we see that the solution refers to two particles spinning with angular momenta $`M_1,M_2`$ on the axis of symmetry at $`z=\pm b`$, and from (21),(23) and (24) it follows that the particles carry magnetic dipoles $`M_1,M_2`$, i.e. numerically the same as the angular momenta in relativistic units. The absence of conical singularities shows that the spin-spin and the magnetic forces balance, as expected from the above discussion of the solution in section 2. Once again the particles are massless, as one sees by examining $`g_{44}`$ at infinity.

## 5 Conclusion

I have argued that the force between two collinear parallel or anti-parallel magnets in Einstein-Maxwell theory is given approximately by (28), which is the same as the corresponding form in classical magnetism. Of course, in the E-M case some ambiguity attaches to $`b`$ because of the conical singularity between the particles.

The magnetic force has the same form as the spin-spin force found in , but opposite sign. This is compatible with the interpretation of the solution in section 3, in which the magnetic moments and the angular momenta are equal (in relativistic units). It also agrees with the more general approximate result of  in which it was shown that, in the second approximation, the forces balance if $`h_1h_2=M_1M_2`$, $`h_1,h_2`$ being the angular momenta.

In this paper and also in  I have had to treat the particles as massless because appropriate exact solutions with massive particles are unknown. This means that, although spin-spin and magnetic dipole forces can be treated by analysing conical singularities, the torsion singularity , which arises through the coupling of mass and angular momentum, does not appear.

## References

 Wald R 1972 Phys. Rev. D6 406
 Bonnor W B 2002 Class. Quantum Grav. (submitted)
 Bonnor W B 1966 Z. für Physik 190 444
 Kinnersley W 1974 in General Relativity and Gravitation ed. Shaviv G and Rosen J (Tel Aviv)
 Fisher E 1979 J. Math. Phys. 20 2547
 Perjes Z 1971 Phys. Rev. Lett. 27 1668
 Israel W and Wilson G A 1972 J. Math. Phys. 13 865
 Bonnor W B 2001 Class. Quantum Grav. 18 2853
 Bonnor W B and Ward J P 1973 Comm. Math. Physics 28 323
Ferraro V C A 1962 Electromagnetic Theory (London: Athlone Press) page 242


format: text

text:
# 𝑁-particle 𝑁-level Singlet States: Some Properties and Applications

## Abstract

Three apparently unrelated problems which have no solution using classical tools are described: the “$`N`$-strangers,” “secret sharing,” and “liar detection” problems. A solution for each of them is proposed. Common to all three solutions is the use of quantum states of total spin zero of $`N`$ spin-$`(N1)/2`$ particles.

Not long ago, during a meeting on quantum information, a speaker asked the participants to make a list of “interesting” quantum states, namely, those which have potential applications (particularly tasks which were impossible using classical physics) or illustrate fundamental issues of quantum mechanics Cirac00 . The final list was rather short: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm-Bell states of two particles EPR35 ; Bohm51 ; Bell64 , Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states of three or more qubits GHZ89 , Werner (mixed) states Werner89 , Hardy states (pure nonmaximally entangled states of two particles) Hardy , Horodecki “bound” states (entangled mixed states from which no pure entanglement can be distilled) HHH98 , and $`W`$ states of three qubits DVC00 . Curiously, most of them were first introduced in connection with Bell’s theorem, and some appeared in the course of the classification of entanglement. Surprisingly, none of them was originally introduced as the answer to a practical problem without classical solution (although most of them have later found numerous applications Ekert91 ; BW92 ; BBCJPW93 ; CB97 ; ZZHW98 ; HBB99 ; KKI99 ; LK00 ; Cabello00 ; XLG01 ).

Here we shall introduce three apparently unrelated problems without classical solution and then propose a solution for all of them, using quantum mechanics. Common to all these solutions is the use of a family of quantum states.

(1) The $`N`$ strangers problem.—The scenario for this problem is an extension to a high number $`N`$ of players of the situation described in Patricia Highsmith’s novel and Alfred Hitchcock’s movie Strangers on a Train HH50 : $`N`$ complete strangers $`A_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$), meet on a train. $`A_i`$ wants $`B_i`$ dead. During small talk, one suggests that an “exchange” murder between $`N`$ complete strangers would be unsolvable. After all, how could the police find the murderer when he/she is a total and complete stranger with absolutely no connection whatsoever to the victim? $`A_i`$ could kill $`B_k`$, etc. commmurder . However, such a plan suffers from an important problem: if all the players know who the murderer of each victim is, then the whole plan is vulnerable to individual denunciations. Alternatively, if the distribution of victims is the result of a secret lottery, how could the murderers be assured that the lottery was not rigged and that nobody had contrived the result or could ascertain it?

The problem is then how to distribute the victims $`\{B_i\}_1^N`$ among the murderers $`\{A_i\}_1^N`$, which share no previous secret information nor any secure classical channel, in a way that guarantees that each murderer $`A_i`$ knows only the identity of his/her victim and that nobody else (besides the murderers) knows anything about the assignment of the victims.

(2) The secret sharing problem.—This problem was already described, for $`N=3`$, in HBB99 . It could arise in the following context: $`A_1`$ wants to have a secret action taken on her behalf at a distant location. There she has $`N1`$ agents, $`A_2`$, $`A_3`$, …, $`A_N`$ who carry it out for her. $`A_1`$ knows that some of them are dishonest, but she does not know which one it is. She cannot simply send a secure message to all of them, because the dishonest ones will try to sabotage the action, but it is assumed (as in HBB99 ) that if all of them carry it out together, the honest ones will keep the dishonest ones from doing any damage.

The problem is then that $`A_1`$ wishes to convey a cryptographic key to $`A_2`$, $`A_3`$, …, $`A_N`$ in such a way that none of them can read it on their own, only if all the $`A_i`$ ($`i=2,3,\mathrm{},N`$) collaborate. In addition, they wish to prevent any eavesdropper from acquiring information without being detected. It is assumed that $`A_1`$ shares no previous secret information nor any secure classical channel with her agents.

Different quantum solutions to this problem for $`N=3`$ has been proposed using either GHZ ZZHW98 ; HBB99  or Bell states KKI99 . Below we shall propose a different solution for any $`N`$ which exhibits some additional advantages.

(3) The liar detection problem.—Let us consider the following scenario: three parties $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ are connected by secure pairwise classical channels. Let us suppose that $`A`$ sends a message $`m`$ to $`B`$ and $`C`$, and $`B`$ sends the same message to $`C`$. If both $`A`$ and $`B`$ are honest, then $`C`$ should receive the same $`m`$ from $`A`$ and $`B`$. However, $`A`$ could be dishonest and send different messages to $`B`$ and $`C`$, $`m_{AB}m_{AC}`$ (Fig. 1, left), or, alternatively, $`B`$ could be dishonest and send a message which is different to the one he receives, $`m_{BC}m_{AB}`$ (Fig. 1, right). For $`C`$ the problem is to ascertain without any doubt who is being dishonest. This problem is interesting for classical information distribution in pairwise connected networks. The message could be a database and the dishonest behavior a consequence of an error during the copying or distribution process. This problem has no solution by classical means. It is at the heart of a slightly more complicated problem in distributed computing called the Byzantine agreement problem LSP82 , a version of which has been recently solved using quantum means by Fitzi, Gisin, and Maurer FGM02 . Indeed, the solution for our liar detection problem is based on theirs.

The next step is to show that all of these problems can be solved if each of the $`N`$ participants are in possession of a sequence of numbers with the following properties: (i) It is random (i.e., generated by an intrinsically unrepeatable method which gives each possible number with the same probability of occurrence). (ii) The possible numbers are integers from $`0`$ to $`N1`$. (iii) If a number $`i`$ is at position $`j`$ of the sequence of party $`k`$, $`i`$ is not at position $`j`$ in the sequence of a different party. (iv) Each party knows only his/her own sequence. (v) Nobody else (besides the parties) knows the sequences. Properties (iv) and (v) are difficult to accomplish using classical tools due to the fact that information transmitted in classical form can be examined and copied without altering it in any detectable way. However, as quantum key distribution protocols show BB84 ; Ekert91 , quantum information does not suffer from such a drawback.

Assuming we have a reliable method to generate sequences of numbers with properties (i) to (v) among $`N`$ distant parties, a method that will be presented below, then the solutions to the above problems are as follows.

Solution to the $`N`$ strangers problem.—Each victim $`B_i`$ is assigned a label, taken from $`0`$ to $`N1`$. If murderer $`A_i`$’s sequence starts with $`j`$, then $`A_i`$ must kill $`B_j`$, etc. The remaining entries of the sequence can be used for subsequent rounds. The result tells every murderer who his/her victim is in such a way that prevents any murderer (or even a small group of them) from denouncing or blackmailing another. The only way to ascertain with certainty who murdered $`B_j`$ is that all the other murderers confess commown .

Solution to the secret sharing problem.—The key is defined as $`A_1`$’s sequence. The only way to reveal it is to make the remaining $`N1`$ parties share their respective sequences; the key is then composed by the missing results. If a dishonest party $`D`$ declares a result which is different to his/her actual result, then there is a probability $`1/(r1)`$, where $`r`$ is the number of honest parties which have not yet declared their results, that other honest party $`H`$ has obtained that result. Then $`H`$ would stop the process, so Alice’s key (and thus Alice’s action) would remain safe (dishonest parties cannot sabotage Alice’s action if they do not know what it is). The order in which the agents declare their respective results must change from round to round to avoid any dishonest party being always the last to declare.

Solution to the liar detection problem.—Let us suppose that the message $`m`$ is a trit value $`0`$, $`1`$, or $`2`$. The three parties agree to use the following protocol: (I) If the transmitted message is $`m_{ij}`$, then the sender $`i`$ must also send $`j`$ the list $`l_{ij}^{(m_{ij})}`$ of positions in his/her sequence in which the number $`m_{ij}`$ appears. Note that if the sequences are random and long enough then any $`l_{ij}^{(m_{ij})}`$ must contain about one third of the total length $`L`$ of the sequences. (II) The receiver $`j`$ would not accept any message if the intersection between the received list $`l_{ij}^{(m_{ij})}`$ and his/her list $`l_j^{(m_{ij})}`$ is not null nor if $`l_{ij}^{(m_{ij})}L/3`$ elements. We will assume that requirements (I) and (II) force the dishonest one to send correct but perhaps incomplete lists. Otherwise, if $`i`$ sends a list containing $`n`$ erroneous data, then the probability that $`j`$ does not accept the message $`m_{ij}`$ would be $`(2^n1)/2^n`$. In addition, (III) $`B`$ must send $`C`$ the list $`l_{BC}^{(m_{AB})}`$ containing the sequence he has (supposedly) received from $`A`$. Therefore, when $`C`$ finds that $`m_{AC}m_{BC}`$, she has received three lists to help her to find out whether it is $`A`$ or $`B`$ who is being dishonest.

According to rules (I) to (III), if $`B`$ wants to be dishonest $`l_{BC}^{(m_{BC})}l_{BC}^{(m_{AB})}`$ must necessarily be a subset of $`l_B^{(m_{BC})}`$, because $`B`$ does not know $`l_A^{(m_{BC})}`$. However, the length of $`l_B^{(m_{BC})}`$ is about $`L/3`$, while $`C`$ is expecting $`B`$ to send her two lists with a total length of $`2L/3`$; then $`C`$ would conclude that $`B`$ was being dishonest. Alternatively, if it is $`A`$ who is being dishonest, the lengths of the two lists that $`C`$ received from $`B`$ would total about $`2L/3`$; then $`C`$ would conclude that $`A`$ was being dishonest.

The next step is to present a method to generate among $`N`$ distant parties sequences of numbers with properties (i) to (iv). A possible quantum solution, probably not the only one, but maybe the most natural, is by distributing among all $`N`$ parties an $`N`$-particle $`N`$-level singlet state of total spin zero. For arbitrary $`N`$ these states can be expressed as

$$|𝒮_N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}\underset{\stackrel{\mathrm{permutations}}{\mathrm{of}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}01}\mathrm{}\left(N1\right)}}{}(1)^t|ij\mathrm{}n$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the number of transpositions of pairs of elements that must be composed to place the elements in canonical order (i.e., $`0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$) and $`|01\mathrm{}(N1)`$ denotes the tensor product state $`|0|1\mathrm{}|N1`$. Particular examples of $`|𝒮_N`$ are as follows:

$`|𝒮_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|01|10\right),`$ (2)
$`|𝒮_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(|012|021|102+|120+`$ (3)
$`|201|210),`$
$`|𝒮_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}}(|0123|0132|0213+|0231+`$ (4)
$`|0312|0321\mathrm{}+|3210).`$
If we identify subsystems with spin-$`(N1)/2`$ particles and associate the state $`|s`$ with the eigenvalue $`s(N1)/2`$ of the spin observable in some fixed direction, then $`|𝒮_N`$ is the only state of $`N`$ particles of spin-$`(N1)/2`$ which has total spin zero.

The described solutions assume that the $`N`$ parties share a large collection of $`N`$-level systems in the $`|𝒮_N`$ state. This requires a protocol to distribute and test these states between the $`N`$ parties such that at the end of the protocol either all parties agree that they share a $`|𝒮_N`$ state (and then they can reliably apply the described solutions), or all of them conclude that something went wrong (and then abort any subsequent action). For $`N=3`$ such a distribute-and-test protocol is explicitly described in FGM02  and can be easily be generalized to any $`N>3`$. The test requires that the parties compare a sufficiently large subset of their particles which are subsequently discarded.

For our purposes, some interesting properties of the states $`|𝒮_N`$ are:

(a) They provide correlated results. As can be easily seen in Eq. (1), whenever the $`N`$ parties measure the spin of the $`N`$ separated particles along the direction used in Eq. (1), each of them finds a different result in the set $`\{0,\mathrm{},N1\}`$; thus such results satisfy requirements (ii) and (iii).

(b) Moreover, $`|𝒮_N`$ are $`N`$-lateral rotationally invariant. This means that if we act on any of them with the tensor product of the $`N`$ rotation operators referring to all the particles for any arbitrary rotation, the result will be to reproduce the same state (within a possible phase factor). Therefore, whenever the $`N`$ parties measure the spin of the $`N`$ separated particles along any direction (but it must be the same direction for everyone), each of them finds a different result in the set $`\{0,\mathrm{},N1\}`$; thus such results satisfy requirements (ii) and (iii). Therefore, the direction of measurement could be randomly chosen and publicly announced (once the particles have been distributed among the parties) before any set of measurements.

(c) In order to accomplish (i), (iv), and (v), an essential property is nonseparability, that is, the quantum predictions for the states $`|𝒮_N`$ cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variables model in which the results of the spin measurements are somehow determined before the measurement. To show the nonseparability of $`|𝒮_N`$ we have to study whether they violate Bell’s inequalities derived from the assumptions of local realism. Most Bell’s inequalities require two alternative local dichotomic (taking values $`1`$ or $`1`$) observables $`A_j`$ and $`B_j`$ on each particle $`j`$. To test nonseparability, we will use the dichotomic local observables proposed by Peres in Peres92 . A Peres’ observable $`A_k`$ can be operationally defined as follows: to measure $`A_k`$, first measure the spin component of particle $`k`$ along direction $`A`$, $`S_A^{(k)}`$. If particle $`k`$ is a spin-$`s`$ particle, then measuring $`S_A^{(k)}`$ could give $`2s+1`$ different results. Then assign value $`1`$ to results $`s`$, $`s2`$, etc., and value $`1`$ to results $`s1`$, $`s3`$, etc. The operator representing observable $`A_k`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{A}_k=\underset{m=s}{\overset{s}{}}(1)^{sm}|S_A^{(k)}=mS_A^{(k)}=m|,$$
(5)
where $`|S_A^{(k)}=m`$ is the eigenstate of the spin component along direction $`A`$ of particle $`k`$.

Probably the simplest way to show the nonseparability comnonsep  of the $`|𝒮_N`$ states is by considering the following scenario: $`N`$ distant observers share $`N`$ $`N`$-level particles in the $`|𝒮_N`$ state; the $`Nm`$ observers can choose between measuring $`A_j=A`$ and $`B_j=a`$; the remaining $`m`$ observers can choose between measuring $`A_k=B`$ and $`B_k=b`$. Then nonseparability can be tested by means of the following Bell’s inequality, which generalizes to $`N`$ particles the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality CHSH69

$`|E_N(A,\mathrm{},A,B,\mathrm{},B)+E_N(A,\mathrm{},A,b,\mathrm{},b)+`$
$`E_N(a,\mathrm{},a,B,\mathrm{},B)E_N(a,\mathrm{},a,b,\mathrm{},b)|2.`$ (6)
Note that this inequality uses only a subset of all possible correlation functions (for instance, it does not use $`E_N(A,a,\mathrm{},a,B,\mathrm{},B)`$). Restricting our attention to Peres’ observables, for the states $`|𝒮_N`$, the correlation function $`E_N^{(m)}(A,\mathrm{},A,B,\mathrm{},B)`$, which represents the expectation value of this product of the results of measuring, for instance, $`Nm`$ observables $`A`$, and $`m`$ observables $`B`$ is given by

$`E_N^{(N1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{f(N/2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(N\theta _{AB})}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{AB}}},`$ (7)
$`E_N^{(N2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{f(N/2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N+2}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[(N+1)\theta _{AB}]}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{AB}}}\right\},`$ (8)
where $`\theta _{AB}`$ is the angle between directions $`A`$ and $`B`$ and $`f(x)`$ gives the greatest integer less than or equal to $`x`$. In case of $`m=1`$, that is, using correlation functions of the $`E_N^{(N1)}`$ type, we have found that states $`|𝒮_n`$ violate inequality (6) for any $`N`$. The maximum violation for $`N=2`$ is $`2\sqrt{2}`$, for $`N=3`$ is $`2.552`$, and for $`N\mathrm{}`$ tends to $`2.481`$. In case of $`m=2`$, that is, using correlation functions of the $`E_N^{(N2)}`$ type, we have found that the states $`|𝒮_n`$ violate inequality (6) for any $`N`$. The maximum violation for $`N=4`$ is $`2.418`$, for $`N=5`$ is $`2.424`$ and for $`N\mathrm{}`$ tends to $`2.481`$.

(d) Nonseparability is robust against the loss of any number of parties if they can publicly announce the results of their measurements. For instance, let us suppose that $`N2`$ observers measure the spin along the same direction $`A`$ and publicly announce their results. Then, if the missing results are $`j`$ and $`k`$, the state shared by the remaining two observers is

$$|\sigma _N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|S_A=j,S_A=k_N|S_A=k,S_A=j_N\right).$$
(9)
Note that $`|\sigma _N`$ is formally similar to the singlet state of two qubits. However, it belongs to the $`N^2`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`_N_N`$ and not to $`_2_2`$, and therefore does not exhibit rotational symmetry. For Peres’ observables, the corresponding correlation function is

$$E_N^\sigma (A,B)=(1)^N\mathrm{cos}^{N1}\theta _{AB}.$$
(10)
The states $`|\sigma _N`$ violate the CHSH inequality. For $`N=2`$ the maximum violation is $`2\sqrt{2}`$, for $`N=3`$ the maximum violation is $`2.414`$, and for $`N\mathrm{}`$ tends to $`2.324`$.

A similar situation occurs when any number $`p`$ of observers (not necessarily two) measure the same spin component and publicly announce their results. Then, the state shared by the remaining $`Np`$ observers is formally similar to $`|𝒮_{Np}`$, but belongs to a $`N^2`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`_N_N`$. Therefore, in the secret sharing scenario, if some of the parties get caught by the enemy, and they are nevertheless able to publicly announce their results, the remaining parties still share pseudo $`|𝒮_{Np}`$ states and could still use them for secret sharing.

Only very recently has it been possible to prepare optical analogs to the singlet states of two $`N`$-level systems for every $`N`$ LHB01  and to test Bell inequalities for two qutrits HLB01 . So far, of the states $`|𝒮_N`$, only the simplest one, the singlet state of two qubits, has been created in a laboratory. Preparing these states for $`N3`$ is a formidable physical challenge. The aim of this Letter has been to point out some potential applications of these states in order to stimulate the interest in that challenge.

The author thanks N. David Mermin for stimulating conversations, the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología Grant No. BFM2001-3943, the Junta de Andalucía Grant No. FQM-239 for support.


text:
# Cold atoms in optical lattices: a Hamiltonian ratchet

## Abstract

We investigate a new type of quantum ratchet which may be realised by cold atoms in a double-well optical lattice which is pulsed with unequal periods. The classical dynamics is chaotic and we find the classical diffusion rate $`D`$ is asymmetric in momentum up to a finite time $`t_r`$. The quantum behaviour produces a corresponding asymmetry in the momentum distribution which is ‘frozen-in’ by Dynamical Localization provided the break-time $`t^{}t_r`$. We conclude that the cold atom ratchets require $`Db/\mathrm{}1`$ where $`b`$ is a small deviation from period-one pulses.

preprint: not yet sub

Cold atoms in optical lattices provide an excellent experimental demonstration of the phenomenon of Dynamical Localization Casati . Dynamical Localization (DL) has been described as the so-called ‘quantum suppression of classical chaos’. More precisely, in the usual realizations, a periodically-driven or kicked system is associated with classically chaotic dynamics for sufficiently strong perturbation. Its average energy grows diffusively and without limit, whereas for the corresponding quantum system the diffusion is suppressed after an $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent timescale, the ‘break-time’ $`t^{}`$. The final quantum momentum distribution is localized with a characteristic exponential profile. The formal analogy established with Anderson Localization Fish  forms a key analysis of this phenomenon.

A series of recent experiments on Cesium atoms Raizen  gave a classic demonstration of this effect for atoms in driven or pulsed lattices of sinusoidal form. The possibility of experiments with asymmetric lattices, in particular with asymmetric double wells Lucas ; Meacher , leads us to investigate the possibility of constructing a ‘clean’ atomic ratchet, where the transport results purely from the chaotic Hamiltonian dynamics, with no Brownian or dissipative ingredients.

There is already an extensive body of work on Brownian ratchets Brown , driven by the need to understand biophysical systems such as molecular motors and certain mesoscopic systems. Some of this work encompasses the quantum dynamics Reimann . However, to date there has been very little work on Hamiltonian ratchets. One notable exception is the work by Flach et al Flach  where the general form of the spatial and temporal desymmetrization required to generate transport was investigated. To our knowledge, the only substantial study of quantum Hamiltonian ratchets to date, however, is the work of Dittrich et al Ditt  which concluded that transport occurs in mixed phase-spaces. They demonstrated that overall transport (in their system with periodic boundary conditions) is zero if starting conditions cover all regions of phase-space (including stable islands and chaotic regions) uniformly. A key result was a sum rule which exploited the fact that transport in the chaotic manifold is balanced by transport in the adjoining regular manifolds (stable islands/tori). Very recenty Cheon , it was shown that a kicked map with a ‘rocking’ linear potential leads to confinement in the chaotic region between a pair of tori which are not symmetrically located about $`p=0`$.

Here we propose a new type of Hamiltonian quantum ratchet which, classically, is completely chaotic. This ratchet is consistent with the rules established by Dittrich et al , but relies on a different mechanism: the transport is due to a non-uniform momentum distribution within a completely chaotic phase-space. To our knowledge, this is the only example of a clean, non-dissipative ratchet which does not rely on specific dynamical features such as a particular set of islands/tori.

The basic mechanism is as follows: for a repeating cycle of kicks, of strength $`K_{eff}`$, perturbed from period-one by a small parameter $`b`$, we find that the classical diffusion rates for positive and negative momenta ($`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$ respectively) are different up to a finite time. Up to this time, an asymmetry in the classical momentum distribution $`N_{cl}(p)`$ accumulates with kick number. Beyond this ‘ratchet’ time, $`t_r`$, the rates equalize, we have $`D^+D^{}D`$ (where $`DK_{eff}^2/`$ is the total diffusion rate), no more asymmetry accumulates and the net classical momentum $`<p_{cl}>`$ becomes constant. But $`<p_{cl}^2>`$, of course, continues to grow with time as $`Dt`$. We find that the corresponding quantum current depends on $`t^{}/t_r`$ : if the break time is too short no asymmetry in the quantum $`N_{qm}(p)`$ accumulates and there is no quantum transport. If $`t^{}>>t_r`$ the localization length $`L`$ becomes large and the effective quantum momentum asymmetry $`<p_{qm}>/L`$ decreases. We find that $`t_r\frac{1}{b^2D}`$. A quantum ratchet will have the clearest experimental signature if $`t^{}t_r`$. Since $`t^{}D/\mathrm{}^2`$ , our main conclusion is that optimal cold atom ratchets need $`Db/\mathrm{}1`$ with small $`b<0.2`$.

Here we consider a system with a Hamiltonian given by $`H=\frac{p^2}{2}+KV(x)_{n,i}\delta (tnT_i)`$. We model the double-well ratchet potential as $`V(x)=\{\mathrm{sin}x+a\mathrm{sin}(2x+\mathrm{\Phi })\}`$. In the usual realization of DL, the Quantum Kicked Rotor (QKR), the pulses or kicks are equally spaced. For the ratchet, we introduce a repeating cycle of $`N`$ unequally spaced kicks, ie $`T_1,T_2..T_N`$.

The time-evolution operator for the $`ith`$ kick of the $`nth`$ cycle factorises into a free and a ’kick’ part $`U_i=U_i^{free}U^{kick}`$.

In the usual plane wave basis, for a given quasi-momentum $`q`$, the matrix elements of $`U_i`$ can be shown to take the form:

$$U_{ml}^{(i)}(q)=e^{i\frac{\mathrm{}T_i(l+q)^2}{2}}\underset{s}{}e^{is\mathrm{\Phi }}J_{lm2s}(\frac{K}{\mathrm{}})J_s(\frac{aK}{\mathrm{}})$$
(1)
where the $`J`$ are ordinary Bessel functions. The time evolution operator for one period $`U(T=_iT_i)=_{i=1}^{i=N}U_i`$. In the experiments, an important parameter is an effective $`\mathrm{}_{eff}=8\omega _rT`$ where $`\omega _r`$ is the recoil frequency. In Raizen , $`\mathrm{}_{eff}1`$, so here we have considered the range $`\mathrm{}=11/10`$. We can use a re-scaled time such that, without loss of generality, we take the average over the periods in each cycle to unity $`<T_i>=1`$. We define our ‘chirped’ kicks to mean that we have a repeating cycle of kicks separated by time intervals $`1+nb,1+(n1)b\mathrm{},1(n1)b,1nb`$ where $`n>0`$ is an integer and $`b`$ is a small time increment. $`N=2n+1`$ for $`N`$ odd and $`N=2n`$ for $`N`$ even. In particular, our $`N=3`$ cycle corresponds to a repeating set of kick spacings $`T_1=1+b,T_2=1,T_3=1b`$ while an $`N=2`$ cycle corresponds to $`T_1=1+b,T_2=1b`$ and so forth.

In Fig.1 we compared the evolution of a quantum wavepacket with equal kick times ($`T_i=1`$) with a corresponding unequal-kick case with $`N=3,b=0.1`$. Since $`V(x)`$ in general represents a double well potential, we refer to it as the dw-QKR to distinguish it from the standard map case with $`V=K\mathrm{sin}x`$. For convenience and by analogy with optical terminology, we refer to the unequal-kick case as the ‘chirped’ or cdw-QKR. $`N=3`$ is the minimum number needed to break time-reversal invariance: $`N=2`$ in this system gives no transport. Larger numbers ($`N>3`$) do give transport but have the effect of increasing break-times, which, as discussed below, we wish to keep small.

The upper graph in Fig.1 shows that, in both cases, the average energy of a classical ensemble of particles grows linearly with time t , ie $`<p^2>Dt`$. Neglecting all correlations, it is approximated by $`DD_0K_{eff}^2/2`$ where $`K_{eff}=K\sqrt{(1+4a^2)}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ dependence appears in neglected correlations which in this case appear as products of Bessel functions Hutch . For the standard QKR the corrections appear as oscillations in $`D(K)`$, with the maxima corresponding to the $`K^{}s`$ for which accelerator modes are important . They were observed experimentally in Raizacc . We find that these corrections are unimportant for the cdw-QKR : the lowest order approximation gives a good fit from quite low values of $`K`$. The equal-kick case, the dw-QKR does need substantial corrections. In fact, since for the cdw-QKR phase-space periodicity in momentum is largely destroyed and indeed we find no evidence of accelerator modes; the dw-QKR is periodic in $`p`$ and we find strong effects due to accelerator modes.

The quantum energy follows the classical trend but then saturates to a constant energy when $`<p^2>L^2`$, where $`L`$ is the localization length, after the break-time $`t^{}`$. The break-time is substantially longer however (typically $`3`$ times) in the chirped case relative to the dw-QKR. We find that $`t^{}`$ grows as $`N`$. The figure shows that there is no net momentum in the $`T=1`$ case and, asymptotically, $`<p>0`$. However, for the chirped case, for $`t>t^{}`$, in general we have $`<p>cst`$. A meaningful way to quantify the asymmetry is a re-scaled momentum $`p_L=<p>/L`$ which also tends to a constant for $`t>t^{}`$ (eg $`p_L1/8`$ in Fig. 1b for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.) Taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi `$ reverses the symmetry of $`V(x)`$ and the direction of motion relative to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. Intermediate values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ typically give $`<p>`$ within these extremes. The experiments in Raizen  measured the momentum distribution of a cloud of atoms and observed the hallmark of DL : a triangular form of the logarithm of the momentum distribution $`N(p)`$. Fig 1(c) (upper) shows this is also the case for the dw-QKR. However, for the chirped case, the corresponding distribution is evidently asymmetric.

The form for the first moment of $`N(|p|)`$ shows most clearly the source of the non-zero average of $`p`$. The dw-QKR is symmetric. The cdw-QKR distribution, shows a substantial asymmetry. These asymptotic ‘frozen’ distributions are insensitive to changes in the starting position in $`x`$. We have investigated this effect for a range of different $`K,\mathrm{}`$ and $`a`$.

In Figs. 2a and 2b we show both quantum and classical net momenta $`<p>`$ increase in magnitude, then saturate to a constant value after a finite time $`t^{}`$ in the quantum case or a ‘classical ratchet’ timescale $`t_r`$ in the classical case. But they show other very interesting and surprising features. The quantum dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$ is shown in Fig. 2a. The $`<p_{qm}>`$ are negligible for $`\mathrm{}>1`$ but increase rapidly with decreasing $`\mathrm{}`$, up to $`\mathrm{}0.25`$. This is important for any experiment : for these parameters, ($`D2.5,b=0.1`$) an experiment with $`\mathrm{}_{eff}0.8`$ would show little asymmetry, but just halving $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ to $`0.4`$ would show substantial asymmetry. Beyond $`\mathrm{}0.4`$, $`<p_{qm}>`$ is comparable to the saturated classical value. But since the most experimentally ’detectable’ ratchet is one which maximizes the asymmetry in Fig.1(d), this means maximizing a re-scaled momentum $`p_L=<p_{qm}>/L`$, so there is no advantage in reducing $`\mathrm{}`$ much below $`0.4`$ since $`L\mathrm{}^1`$.

Fig 2b shows that, for a given $`b`$ ($`b=0.05`$ in this graph), the classical saturation time falls with increasing $`D`$. The fact that $`<p_{cl}>`$ saturates at all is surprising: after all, the ensemble of classical trajectories is continually expanding and exploring new phase-space regions corresponding to higher momenta. Hence specific dynamical features such as partial barriers (cantori) do not account for this ratchet effect, though we find ‘scars’ of cantori do affect the detail of $`N(p)`$.

We solve the classical dynamics of the dw-QKR with the usual map , $`x_{i+1}=x_i+P_i;P_{i+1}=P_iV^{}(x_{i+1})`$ for the $`ith`$ kick. For the chirped case, however, we have a 3-kick map ( we consider $`N=3`$ here but the analysis for $`N>3`$ is qualitatively similar). We consider the first kick of the $`nth`$ cycle:

$$x_{n1}=x_{n0}+P_{n0}(1+b)$$
(2)
$$P_{n1}=P_{n0}V^{}(x_{n0}+P_{n0}(1+b))$$
(3)
The effect of the chirping is to allow the free evolution to proceed for an additional distance $`\delta _1=P_{n0}b`$. The second kick has corresponding $`\delta _2=0`$ and the third kick has $`\delta _3=P_{n2}b`$. Since $`b`$ is a small number, this represents a small perturbation at the start of the evolution of the cloud and to first order, for the first kick,

$$P_{n1}=P_{n0}(V^{}(x_{n0}+P_{n0})+P_{n0}bV^{\prime \prime }(x_{n0}+P_{n0}))$$
(4)
In general, if we work out the change in $`<p^2>`$ for successive kicks in the standard map we obtain a diffusion rate $`D`$ which is the same (after the first few kicks) whether we average the momentum from $`0\mathrm{}`$ or from $`0\mathrm{}`$. Both the zero-th order contribution $`K^2/2`$ as well as higher corrections (such as those, for example, involving correlations between the $`ith`$ kick and the $`(i+2)th`$ kick) are even in $`p`$ and insensitive to the sign of $`p`$. However, in the cdw-QKR case, if we can make the perturbative expansion above, we now have correlations which depend on the sign of $`p`$ and which scale with $`b`$.

For our classical ratchets, we calculated -separately- $`<p^2>^{()}`$ for those particles with $`p<0`$ and $`<p^2>^{(+)}`$ for those with $`p>0`$. The results are shown in Fig. 2c for $`D_02.5`$ and different $`b`$. They are quite striking : $`<p^2>^{()}`$ and $`<p^2>^{(+)}`$ separate gradually, more or less symmetrically, about the line $`2.5t`$, but beyond a certain time they run parallel to each other and their slopes become equal with $`D^{(+)}D^{()}2.5`$. In the lower part of Fig. 2c we plot the actual difference $`<p^2>^{()}<p^2>^{(+)}`$ for each $`b`$ since this shows the saturation effect more clearly.

The saturation time $`t_r`$ is very important since then the classical ratchet speed reaches its maximum and for $`t>t_r`$, $`<p_{cl}>cst`$. We identify it as a point far enough from where we can make the small angle perturbative approximation above. This will happen when $`b\sqrt{<p^2>^{(+)}}\pi `$ for the positive component and $`b\sqrt{<p^2>^{()}}\pi `$ for the negative component. For an order of magnitude estimate of the mean timescale involved, we take $`b\sqrt{Dt}\pi `$. Hence we obtain $`t_r\frac{\pi ^2}{Db^2}`$.

Numerically, we estimate $`t_r\frac{5}{Db^2}`$ which is not inconsistent with the above. This explains the counter-intuitive behaviour that the larger deviation from period-one kicking (ie the larger $`b`$), give a smaller ratchet effect. Though the perturbation scales as $`b`$, the time for which it is important scales as $`b^2`$. So Fig. 2c shows that $`b=0.4`$, which saturates at $`10`$ kicks, gives $`<p>0`$ while $`b=0.02`$, which saturates at $`5000`$ kicks, gives a very large asymmetry.

For the standard map/QKR there is a well-known relation between the quantum localization length and the classical diffusion constant: $`L\frac{\alpha D}{\mathrm{}}`$, where the constant $`\alpha `$ was found to be $`1/2`$ Shep . The $`N=3,b=0.1`$ cdw-QKR takes a modified proportionality constant, ie $`L\frac{3.5D}{\mathrm{}}`$. We have found this by fitting DL forms to a set of quantum distributions $`N(p)`$ corresponding to different $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. For large $`p`$, the distribution is well approximated by the DL exponentially localized profile.

In Fig. 3a we plot a set of calculated $`L`$ (which range from $`L1080`$) against $`D`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1/2`$ together with the line corresponding to $`L=\frac{3.5D}{\mathrm{}}`$. The agreement is excellent. From $`L^2Dt^{}`$ we obtain $`t^{}12D/\mathrm{}^2`$.

In Fig. 3b, for the quantum distributions in Fig 3a, we have also plotted the net momenta as a functions of $`D`$, together with their classical equivalents, obtained from an ensemble of 500,000 classical particles. We see that the classical $`<p>`$ fall monotonically with $`D`$, apart from fine structure which we attribute to cantori. The quantum results however, for low $`D`$, are much smaller than the classical values but increase in magnitude until there is a ‘cross-over’ point at $`D3`$, after which they are much closer to the classical values.

We do not expect perfect agreement with the classical results for $`\mathrm{}=1/2`$; a cleaner comparison might be obtained for smaller $`\mathrm{}`$, but this might be harder to achieve in an experiment. We estimate the quantum break-time at the cross-over $`t^{}12D/\mathrm{}^2150`$ kicks. The ratchet time $`t_r5/(Db^2)160`$ kicks. Such good agreement is somewhat fortuitous, since there are larger uncertainties in the timescales. Nevertheless it does provide us with a useful guide for the best parameters for an experiment.

So one of our key results is that the requirement $`t^{}t_r`$ implies that we need $`Db/\mathrm{}1`$. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition to ensure the best cold-atom ratchet. Clearly the $`L`$ values should be experimentally plausible $`L10100`$, so this places a constraint on $`D/\mathrm{}`$. Equally, for a good classical ratchet, $`b`$ should be small ie $`b<0.2`$.

Although the values of $`D`$ considered may be small compared with those of the standard map, we find the chirped dw-QKR is much more chaotic at a given value of $`D`$. There are no remaining stable islands visible on an SOS at the parameters corresponding to Figs 1-3.

In conclusion, we have found a mechanism for a generic, completely chaotic Hamiltonian ratchet. But much remains to be done, such as considering the effect of the partial loss of coherence in the experiment or the effect of the finite duration of the experimental kicks. Though transport appears as a general sign-dependent correction to the classical diffusion rate , the role of specific dynamical effects such as desymmetrization of Levy flights Flach  must be investigated.

We thank Prof. S Fishman for helpful advice. N.H and M.I acknowledge EPSRC studentships.The work was supported by EPSRC grant GR/N19519.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Twenty-two years ago, at the Supergravity workshop in Stony Brook 1979 , I gave one of my very first talks in front of an international audience. A few minutes into that talk the chairman had to break up a heated discussion between some members of the audience, using the phrase “Gentlemen, gentlemen, duels will have to wait until after the talk. Pistols will be provided at the back of the room”. A nerve-racking first encounter with the supergravity community.

So what was I talking about and why did it stir up the emotions? The title of my talk was“Use of dimensional reduction in the search for supergravity invariants”, and it was concerned with finding on-shell invariants that might serve as counter terms in a quantization of supergravity. The reason that this was a “hot” subject, you recall, was that supergravity, or at least its maximally extended version, was believed to be finite. If one could prove the absence of counterterms that would be a very important result.

At the time, three loop counterterms had been shown to exist in supergravity at the linearized level  ($`N=1`$), ($`N=2`$), and at the full non-linear level   ($`N=1`$). I was hoping to adress the all-important $`N=8`$ case by studying the $`N=1`$ theory in $`11`$ dimensions and dimensionally reduce to four. As a warm-up I had looked at six-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with action

$`{\displaystyle d^6x[\frac{1}{4}F_{mn}F^{mn}+i\overline{\lambda }\partial ̸\lambda ]},`$ (1)
and constructed the following on-shell higher order invariant :

$$d^6x[𝒯_{mn}𝒯^{mn}+𝒟_{mn}𝒟^{mn}+\frac{i}{2}\overline{𝒥}_m\partial ̸𝒥^m\frac{3}{4}𝒞_m^2𝒞^m],$$
(2)
where the stress energy tensor $`𝒯_{mn}`$, the supercurrent $`𝒥_m`$, and the spin density $`𝒞_m`$ are the currents expected from knowledge of the fourdimensional invariant. $`𝒟_{mn}`$ however contains a new identically conserved two-form $`{}_{}{}^{}(FF)`$. This was a first sign of a feature that arises abundantly when trying to construct on-shell invariants in $`11`$ dimensional supergravity. This complicates the calculations a lot, and one needs a good way of organizing the calculation, i.e., one should go to superspace.

## 2 Supergravity Counterterms

At the Stony Brook conference I met Paul Howe who, with Lars Brink, had just constructed the $`N=8`$ on-shell superspace supergravity in four dimensions . We gradually began looking at the problem of constructing higher order invariants and presented the results at the first Nuffield meeting the following summer (1980) . Here is a brief summary of our results :R

Extended supergravity in superspace is described by a superfield $`W`$, which is a scalar for $`N4`$ and has spin $`2N/2`$ for $`N<4`$. The superspace tangent space group is $`SL(2,\text{})G`$, where $`G`$ is (a subgroup of) $`U(N)`$. The superfield $`W`$ also carries internal indices corresponding to $`G`$, and may further transform in a representation of some global symmetry group $`G^{}`$ (=$`E_7`$ for $`N=8`$). This description is on-shell.

The linearized form of the n-loop counterterm Lagrangians we consider is

$$^{(n)}=\kappa ^{2(n1)}\{R^{n+1}+susycompletion\},$$
(3)
where $`R^{n+1}`$ is shorthand for a $`n`$-fold product of the Riemann tensor with suitably contracted indices. In superspace this corresponds to

$$S^{(n)}=d^4xd^{4N}\theta ^{(n)}(z),$$
(4)
where we restrict ourselves to full superspace integrals (over all $`z=x,\theta `$). For $`N3`$, there is a full non-linear $`3`$-loop counterterm respecting all symmetries333At the linearized level, this term had been constructed for $`N=1`$ . The corresponding non-linear off-shell $`N=1`$ term was only recently constructed .:

$$^{(3)}(z)=\kappa ^4EW^2\overline{W}^2,$$
(5)
with $`E`$ the super-determinant of the super-vielbein and summation of indices is supressed. At the linearized level Renata Kallosh constucted a $`3`$-loop counterterm also for $`N=8`$, although neither the supersymmetry nor the $`SU(8)`$ is manifest . Its manifest version was given in superspace in , and in harmonic superspace in .

For $`N4`$ there are $`N1`$ loop invariants simililar to (4), constructed from products of the fundamental superfield to the appropriate power, but they do not respect the global $`G^{}`$ invariance of the field equations. To find fully invariant actions we had to go to $`N`$-loops. The Lagrangian is

$$^{(N)}=\kappa ^{2(N1)}Eϵ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\chi _{\alpha abc}\chi _{\beta def}\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{abc}\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\beta }}^{def},$$
(6)
where the torsion444An underlined index denotes a pair of tangent space indices, e.g., $`\underset{¯}{\gamma }(c,\gamma `$). This notation is use only here, and in later sections underlining will denote ambient space time indices. $`T_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{\gamma }}}=2ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\chi }^{abc\dot{\gamma }}`$, and $`\chi `$ occurs as first spinor derivative of the fundamental superfield ($`a,b,..`$ are $`G`$-indices). At the linearized level, the spin-two content of (6) is a D’Alembertian to the $`N3`$ power sandwiched between the square of the Weyl spinor and the square of its complex conjugate.

In particular our results show that there are possible counterterms even in the maximally extended supergravity, and point towards the rebirth of string theory and the modern interpretation of supergravity as an effective theory.

## 3 String Theory Effective Actions

In string theory, supergravities have their role as effective theories for describing the massless sector of the field theory limit to lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, as well as, in $`11`$ dimensions, the low energy limit of $``$-theory. As effective theories, the supergravity actions are expected to receive higher order derivative corrections. In the $``$-theory context in particular, there is very active research aimed at finding the correct modification of supergravity .

Further, the lowest order dynamics of $`D`$-branes in such a background is given by an effective action which is a sum of the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action and a Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) action $`𝒮=𝒮_{DBI}+𝒮_{WZW}`$. The higher order corrections to these actions are partly known. E.g., the WZW action, which describes the coupling of $`Dp`$-branes to the bulk Ramond-Ramond fields555Here $`C=C^{(0)}+C^{(1)+\mathrm{}+C^{(9)}}`$ is a formal sum of the Ramond $`n`$-forms, odd forms contributing in the IIA and even in the IIB theory., is ;

$$𝒮_{WZW}=T_p_{M^{p+1}}Ctr_N\left(e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}F}\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{𝒜}(4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}R_T)}{\widehat{𝒜}(4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}R_N)}\right)^{1/2},$$
(7)
where $`T_p`$ is the tension of the $`Dp`$-brane and the trace is in the fundamental representation. The square root of the Dirac ‘roof’ genus has an expansion in even powers of the curvature two-form,

$$\sqrt{\widehat{𝒜}}=1\frac{1}{48}p_1(R)+\frac{1}{2560}p_1^2(R)\frac{1}{2880}p_2(R)+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
with $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ the first two Pontryagin classes. The tangential and normal curvatures that occur in (7) are given by the Gauss-Codazzi relations according to

$`(R_T)_{mnrs}=R_{mnrs}+\delta _{p^{}t^{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^(p^{})_{m[r}\mathrm{\Omega }_{s]n}^t^{})`$ (9)
$`(R_N)_{mn}^{p^{}t^{}}=R_{mn}^{p^{}t^{}}+g^{rs}(\mathrm{\Omega }^(p^{})_{r[m}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n]s}^t^{}),`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the second fundamental form, unprimed indices are worldvolume indices and primed indices refer to the normal bundle.

Similarily, higher order corrections to the DBI action,

$$𝒮_{DBI}=T_pd^{p+1}xe^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det[(G_{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}}+B_{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}})_mX^{\underset{¯}{m}}_nX^{\underset{¯}{n}}+F_{mn}]},$$
(11)
have been calulated. (Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the dilaton and $`B_{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}}`$ the antisymmetric NS-NS field, and underlined indices refer to the ambient spece-time.)

To second order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, $`F`$-corrections were calculated in , and higher order such corrections were computed for the combined DBI-WZW action666In a constant background. in .

The higher $`^2X`$ derivative corrections were treated to to second order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ in . In a background where the $`B`$ and $`F`$ fields vanish, the corrections are given by

$`𝒮_{DBI}^{(2)}=cT_p{\displaystyle }d^{p+1}xe^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{g}(\alpha ^{})^2[(R_T)_{mnrs}(R_T)^{mnrs}2(R_T)_{mn}(R_T)^{mn}`$ (12)
$`(R_N)_{mnp^{}t^{}}(R_N)^{mnp^{}t^{}}+2\overline{R}_{p^{}t^{}}\overline{R}^{p^{}t^{}}],`$ (13)
where $`g`$ is the determinant of the induced metric, $`c`$ is a numerical constant and $`\overline{R}`$ is obtained by contracting tangent indices only on the curvature tensor and adding a term quadratic in the second fundamental form. The result in (13) is unique up to an ambiguity involving the trace of the second fundamental form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{p^{}m}`$.

Now, all the higher order terms for the $`Dp`$-branes described above concern the purely bosonic theory. At the lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ and in an arbitrary supergravity background, a particular combination $`𝒮=𝒮_{DBI}+𝒮_{WZW}`$ is needed for $`\kappa `$ symmetry of the corresponding Green-Schwarz (GS) action . It is thus important for consistency to understand how the above results can be extended in a $`\kappa `$-symmetric way.

As seen from (10), (7) and (13), this entails finding $`\kappa `$-symmetric brane actions with terms that involve the second fundamental form. Such terms are often (sloppily) referred to as “extrinsic curvature terms” or “rigidity” terms, and we are thus led to re-open the quest for $`\kappa `$-symmetric brane actions with rigidity terms.

## 4 Rigid Branes

Partly motivated by Polyakov’s suggestion that the QCD string should be viewed as a string with extrinsic curvature terms , ”rigid” strings and $`p`$-branes were quite extensively studied in the 80’s,  and early 90’s . The string action that was suggested in  is

$$𝒮_R=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2x\sqrt{g}[1+\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^2],$$
(14)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{p^{}m}\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{p^{}n}\eta _{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}}_m^mX^{\underset{¯}{m}}_n^nX^{\underset{¯}{n}},$$
(15)
and $`\mu `$ is a dimensionful coupling constant. In attempts to include this action, or its generalization, in the bosonic sector of a GS action for a $`p`$-brane, one has to consider $`\kappa `$ symmetry, i.e., the generalization to $`p`$-branes of Siegel’s symmetry for the superparticle . In the simple setting of a flat space background, the action for a the 1-brane (string) reads

$$𝒮_{GS}=T_pd^2x[\sqrt{g}+ϵ^{mn}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Pi ̸}_m_n\theta ],$$
(16)
where $`g_{mn}`$ is the globally supersymmetrized induced metric

$`g_{mn}\eta _{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^{\underset{¯}{m}}\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{\underset{¯}{n}}`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_m^{\underset{¯}{m}}_mX^{\underset{¯}{m}}i\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{m}}_m\theta .`$ (18)
The action (16) is invariant under the following symmetry with a local parameter $`\kappa `$:

$$\delta \theta =\kappa \delta X^{\underset{¯}{m}}=i\overline{\kappa }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{m}}\theta .$$
(19)
(Apart from $`\kappa `$ being local, the only formal difference from the global supersymmetry is a sign-change in $`\delta X`$). The parameter $`\kappa `$ satisfies a projection relation

$$\kappa =P\kappa ,$$
(20)
where $`P^2=P`$.

The outcome of the attempts to construct rigid $`p`$-branes may be summarized as follows: A $`\kappa `$-symmetric GS type ”rigid” string was proposed in , and a generalization to higher $`p`$ was suggested in . The $`\kappa `$-symmetry was only shown (for the string) to second order in the spinorial target space coordinate $`\theta `$, however, and a fully $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation was only found for the ”rigid” superparticle , , . (For the 2-brane, spinning, i.e., locally worldvolume supersymmetric, formulations with extrinsic curvature terms were found ).

It is interesting to note that the most complete result, the $`\kappa `$-symmetric description of the ”rigid” superparticle, is based on a description where $`\kappa `$-symmetry is embedded in a local worldline superconformal symmetry, a fact which points to the way we understand $`\kappa `$-symmetry today, namely as defined in terms of the local supersymmetry of the worldsurface in the superembedding approach to $`p`$-branes. This formalism is thus a natural starting point for a renewed attempt at finding a rigid $`\kappa `$-symmetric $`p`$-brane.

## 5 Superembeddings

The superembedding formalism was first used in the context of superparticles , and has been applied to various other branes, for a review see 777 is an earlier attempt to use source and target superspaces.. In  the formalism is extended to include branes with gauge fields on the world volume and the $`M5`$ brane dynamics derived. Below follows a brief description of the formalism.

We consider an embedding of one superspace $`M`$ into another $`\underset{¯}{M}`$, given in terms of the coordinates as $`X^{\underset{¯}{M}}(X^M)`$. As above, underlined indices refer to the ambient (super-)space and the bare indices to the world volume. Tangent space indices are from the beginning of the alphabet and world indices from the middle. Lower case latin letters denote bosoe and lower case Greek letters denote fermi indices. Hence, e.g., the ambient superspace has tangent space indices $`\underset{¯}{A}=(\underset{¯}{a},\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$. Indices for the normal bundle are denoted by primes, as in, e.g., $`(a^{},\alpha ^{})`$.

The embedding matrix is defined as follows

$$E_A^{\underset{¯}{A}}E_A^M_MX^{\underset{¯}{M}}E_{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\underset{¯}{A}}.$$
(21)
The basic geometric embedding condition which ensures that the odd tangen space of the world volume is a subspace of the odd tangent space of the target superspace is:

$$E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0.$$
(22)
To explore the consequences of the embedding condition (22) one specifies the geometry of $`\underset{¯}{M}`$, parametrizes the embedding and studies the following torison equation:

$$2_{[A}E_{B]}^{\underset{¯}{C}}+T_{AB}^CE_C^{\underset{¯}{C}}=()^{A(B+\underset{¯}{B})}E_B^{\underset{¯}{B}}E_A^{\underset{¯}{A}}T_{\underset{¯}{A}\underset{¯}{B}}^{\underset{¯}{C}}.$$
(23)
This relation is the pull-back of the equation defining the target space torsion two-form. (The covariant derivative acts on all types of tensor indices.) The analysis of (22) and (23) yields the induced supergeometry on the embedded brane in terms of multiplets which are typically on-shell for large number of supersymmetries. For $`N16`$ it can also be off-shell. the equations of the component or GS formalism can be obtained by taking the leading ($`\theta ^\mu =0`$) components of the equations that decribe the brane multiplet. These equations are guaranteed to be $`\kappa `$-symmetric. We summarize the argument:

Let $`v^M`$ be a worldvolume vector field generating infinitesimal diffeomorphisms. Then

$$\delta X^{\underset{¯}{M}}=v^M_MX^{\underset{¯}{M}},$$
(24)
or

$$\delta X^{\underset{¯}{A}}\delta X^{\underset{¯}{M}}E_{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\underset{¯}{A}}=v^AE_{\underset{¯}{A}}.$$
(25)
For the special case when $`v^a=0`$, this gives, using (22),

$`\delta X^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0`$ (26)
$`\delta X^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=v^\alpha E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}.`$ (27)
We recover the usual $`\kappa `$-symmetry relations by defining

$$\kappa ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}v^\alpha E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},$$
(28)
and noting that it has to lie in the worldvolume subspace of the odd tangent space of the target space. The latter condition means that there is a projection operator $`P`$ such that $`\kappa `$ satisfies (c.f. (20)):

$$\kappa ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\kappa ^{\underset{¯}{}\beta }P_{\underset{¯}{}\beta }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}.$$
(29)
The fact that the embedding formalism yields $`\kappa `$-invariant results makes it eminently suitable when looking for a $`\kappa `$-symmetric rigid $`p`$-brane, provided there is an off-shell description of the embedding.

## 6 A $`\kappa `$-symmetic Rigid Membrane

The simplest example of the kind of models we are looking for is found in the superembedding of a membrane in flat four-dimensional superspace. In this section we highlight a few of its features, a full description may be found in .

For the embedding matrix we can take,

$`E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (30)
$`E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`u_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+i\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}hu_\beta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},`$ (31)
where both $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are $`d=3`$ spinor indices taking two values. We also have

$`E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=u_a^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ (32)
$`T_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{c}=i(\gamma ^c)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (33)
$`E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=(1+h^2)u_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}};`$ (34)
where

$$\mathrm{Spin}(1,3)u=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\hfill \\ u_\alpha ^{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(35)
and where the corresponding element of $`SO(1,3)`$ is made up by $`u_a^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ and a normal component $`u_3^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$. The geometry allows us to complement the dimension zero worldvolume torsion in (34) with the rest of the standard off-shell $`N=1,d=3`$ supergravity torsion constraints

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}T_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma & =& 0& T_{\alpha b}^c& =& 0\\ & & & & & \\ T_{ab}^c& =& 0& T_{a\beta }^\gamma & =& i(\gamma _a)_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma }S.\end{array}$$
(36)
The field $`S`$ is later determined in terms of the worldvolume multiplet so that the geometry is indeed induced.

From this starting point, we may systematically analyze the consequences of (23), order by order in (mass) dimension. Below only those definitions needded to interpret our final result for the action are given.

One of the fields that enter, $`h`$, has already been introduced above. Another, $`X_{ab3}`$, is one of the components of the $`\text{s}\text{p}\text{i}\text{n}(1,3)`$ valued one-form $`X=duu^1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a{}_{}{}^{\alpha }u_{\alpha }^{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$, fianlly is defined by

$$E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_a{}_{}{}^{\alpha }u_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+\psi _a{}_{}{}^{\alpha ^{}}u_{\alpha ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}.$$
(37)
A systematic procedure for constructing actions in the superembedding formalsim is presented in . There it was used to rederive the GS action for the our membrane in the form

$$𝒮_{GS}^0=T_2d^3x[\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1h^2}{1+h^2}\right)\frac{1}{6}ϵ^{mnp}C_{mnp}]|,$$
(38)
where $`|`$ denotes taking the lowest component of the superfield. Since we want to find an extension of Polyakov’s action (14), the action (38) provides an already $`\kappa `$-symmetric starting point, but we have to provide the higher order terms. From the second term in (14), we see that the higher order Lagrangian has to have dimension $`1`$. Such terms may be found by constructing terms quadratic in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^\alpha `$ multiplied by arbitrary functions of $`h`$ (since $`h`$ has dimension zero).

There are two possible quadratic terms one can construct from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$L^{(1)}=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{a\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{a\alpha }$$
(39)
and

$$L^{(2)}=\frac{i}{2}(\gamma ^{ab})^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{a\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b\beta }.$$
(40)
The contributions to the GS action from these terms are (neglecting fermions)

$`i^\alpha _\alpha L^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_{ab3}X^{ab3}+{\displaystyle \frac{h^2(2+9h^2)}{2(1+3h^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+2h^2+3h^4)}{f^2}}(h)^2`$ (41)
$`i^\alpha _\alpha L^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_{ab3}X^{ab3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h^2(2+9h^2)}{(1+3h^2)^2}}\right)X_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4h^2(2+3h^2)}{f^2}}(h)^2`$ (42)
A general linear combination of these two terms with $`h`$-dependent coefficients will lead to a rather complicated bosonic Lagrangian. Using the freedom to multiply by arbirtary fuctions of $`h`$, one may ensure that the $`h`$-equation remains algebraic (as in (38)) above). It would be very complicated in general, though. A second possibility is to take the linear combination $`L^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}L^{(2)}`$. In this case there are still derivative $`h`$ terms but all the coefficient functions simplify dramatically. We find

$$L_o^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}L_o^{(2)}=\frac{3}{4}\widehat{X}_{ab3}\widehat{X}^{ab3}\frac{2}{f^2}(h)^2$$
(43)
where $`\widehat{X}_{ab3}:=X_{ab3}1/3\eta _{ab}X_3`$ is traceless. Lagrangian for the sum of the GS and higher derivative Lagrangian:

$$L(x)=\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}\left(\frac{1h^2}{1+h^2}+\frac{\beta }{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2\frac{4\beta }{3f^2}(h)^2\right)$$
(44)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{mn}{}_{}{}^{3}=(_m_nx^{\underset{¯}{c}})(u^1)_{\underset{¯}{c}}{}_{}{}^{3}$$

with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ being the corresponding traceless tensor. The metric here is

$$g_{mn}=_mx^{\underset{¯}{a}}_nx_{\underset{¯}{a}}$$
(45)
i.e. the standard induced metric for the associated bosonic embedding. The tensor $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{mn}^3`$ is then the traceless second fundamental form for this embedding.

If we now set $`h=\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ the Lagrangian becomes

$$L(x)=\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}(\frac{\beta }{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2\frac{4\beta }{3}(\varphi )^2+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )$$
(46)
Hence the equation of motion for the auxiliary field in this case is simply the sine-Gordon equation,

$$^2\varphi \frac{3}{4\beta }\mathrm{sin}2\varphi =0$$
(47)
## 7 Summary

Higher derivative supergravity terms were studied earlier as counter terms for the quantum theory. In that context, the superspace eight-loop counterterm (6) remains the only example of an higher order invariant in $`N=8`$ supergravity which respects all the symmetries of that theory. There have been arguments put forward for the existence of a five-loop counterterm, though , .

Nowadays higher derivative supergravity terms arise, e.g., in string theory low energy effective actions. Investigations of corrections to $`D`$-brane actions yield “extrinsic curvature” terms in the bosonic sector of the higher order Lagrangians. The full GS actions must thus contain $`\kappa `$-symmetric completions of these terms. When so-called “rigid” strings and branes were studied previously such a $`\kappa `$-symmetrization proved notoriously difficult. With the advent of the superembedding formalism we now have a systematic way of constructing such models, at least for the cases where the multiplets governing the embeddings are off-shell. A membrane in flat four-dimensional superspace is such a case and has been worked out in detail.

An open question is if it is possible to extend the results to $`D`$-branes and verify that the known bosonic sectors may be $`\kappa `$-symmetrized. Perhaps the superembedding formalism needs to be modified to allow off-shell descriptions of the relevant embeddings.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the organizers of “Supergravity at 25” for providing such a convincing argument for the vitality of the subject. I am also grateful to Paul Howe and Bengt Nilsson for valuable comments.


text:
# Test of Information Theory on the Boltzmann Equation

## I Introduction

The behaviors of gases in nonequilibrium states have received considerable attention from the standpoint of understanding the characteristics of nonequilibrium phenomena. The Boltzmann equation is widely accepted as one of the most reliable models for describing gases in nonequilibrium phenomena, so that various attempts have been conducted on solving the Boltzmann equation.chapman ; mac ; resi ; kogan ; hand ; kaper ; cercignani1  Recently, we have derived the explicit velocity distribution function of the steady-state Boltzmann equation for hard-core molecules to second order in density and temperature gradients by the Chapman-Enskog method.kim

On the other hand, in the early 1960s, Zubarevzubarev ; zubarev1  has developed nonequilibrium statistical mechanics and obtained the general form of a nonequilibrium velocity distribution function with the aid of the maximum entropy principle. Thereafter the nonequilibrium velocity distribution function to first order has been derived by expanding the Zubarev form for the nonequilibrium velocity distribution function under some constraints.katz

Jou and his coworkers have derived the nonequilibrium velocity distribution function to second order by expanding the Zubarev form for the nonequilibrium velocity distribution function to second order under the some constraints, which is called information theory.jou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4  Information theory has attracted interest in the development of a general framework for nonlinear nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. There is even a text book on information theory.jou  Jou et al. have applied the velocity distribution function from information theory to nonequilibrium dilute gases.jou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4 ; fort1 ; fort  There are also several applications of information theory to other microscopic theories, such as radiationjou5 ; jou6 ; jou7 ; jou8 ; fort3 , nonviscous gasesstella ; stella1  and chemically reacting gasesfort2 . Nettleton claimed that information theory provides a statistical mechanical basis of irreversible processes and of extended thermodynamics which is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.net0  He has developed the maximum entropy formalism and applied it to a dilute gas system.net ; net1 ; net2 ; net3 ; eu  However, in the actual applications, it is not easy to examine the validity of information theory. In order to demonstrate the invalidity of information theory, it is necessary to find qualitative differences between information theory and the microscopic theories in the applications. In fact, though we have recently compared the effect of heat flux on the rate of chemical reaction calculated from information theory with those which we have calculated from kinetic theories, we have found no qualitative differences among them.kim1  We find no reports which conclude that information theory is not an appropriate theory to describe nonequilibrium phenomena.

However, as was mentioned in refs. 13 and 19, more examinations of information theory should be carried out from the microscopic viewpoint to confirm whether there exists universality in nonlinear nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. In the present paper, we check the validity of information theory from a kinetic view point: we examine whether information theory coincides with the steady-state Boltzmann equation, at least qualitatively, in a nonequilibrium steady state.

Suppose a dilute gas system subject to a temperature gradient along the $`x`$-axis in a steady state whose velocity distribution function is expressed as $`f=f(x,𝐯)`$. We introduce five conserved quantities and a heat flux playing important roles in both information theory and the steady-state Boltzmann equation. We define the density:

$$n(x)f𝑑𝐯,$$
(1)
and the temperature:

$$\frac{3n(x)\kappa T(x)}{2}\frac{m𝐯^2}{2}f𝑑𝐯,$$
(2)
with $`m`$ the mass of a molecule and $`\kappa `$ the Boltzmann constant. We assume no mean flow:

$$m𝐯f𝑑𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ denotes the zero vector. Furthermore, we define the heat flux:

$$J_x\frac{m𝐯^2}{2}v_xf𝑑𝐯.$$
(4)
It should be emphasized that the heat flux $`J_x`$ calculated from eq.(4) must be uniform in a steady state. Actually, in the case for the steady-state Boltzmann equation, its solubility conditions lead to the heat flux $`J_x`$ being constant to second order.kim

The organization of this paper is as follows. We will introduce information theory in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ II. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ III, we will introduce the velocity distribution functions of the steady-state Boltzmann equation for both hard-core and Maxwell molecules to second order by the Chapman-Enskog method. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ IV, we will apply the velocity distribution functions to a nonequilibrium steady-state system under steady heat conduction, and compare the results of thermodynamic quantities from information theory with those from the steady-state Boltzmann equation. Our discussion and conclusion are written in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ V.

## II Information Theory

Let us introduce information theory proposed by Jou et al.jou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4 . The Zubarev form for the nonequilibrium velocity distribution function under a heat flux can be obtained by maximizing the nonequilibrium entropy, defined as

$$S(x)\kappa f\mathrm{log}fd𝐯,$$
(5)
under the constraints of the density (1), the temperature (2), no mean flow (3) and the heat flux (4) which is now assumed to be uniform as well as $`n\kappa T`$ by contrast with the case for the steady-state Boltzmann equation.kim  Jou et al. have finally obtained the nonequilibrium velocity distribution function to second order in the heat flux $`J_x`$ by expanding the Zubarev’s nonequilibrium velocity distribution function to second order as

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m𝐯^2}{2}}\right)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{4J_x}{5n\kappa T}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\kappa T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}c_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2\beta \kappa T}}𝐜^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4mJ_x^2}{25n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}c_x^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2\beta \kappa T}}𝐜^2\right)^2\right],`$
(6)
with the scaled velocity $`𝐜(m/2\kappa T)^{1/2}𝐯`$. Here $`Z`$ is given by

$$Z=\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\beta m}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(1+\frac{mJ_x^2}{5n^2\kappa ^3T^3}\right),$$
(7)
in order to normalize $`f`$. The parameter $`\beta `$ is found to be

$$\beta =\frac{1}{\kappa T}\left(1+\frac{2mJ_x^2}{5n^2\kappa ^3T^3}\right)\frac{1}{\kappa \theta },$$
(8)
and has been used by Jou et al. to introduce $`\theta `$ as a nonequilibrium temperature. From eq.(8) it is clear that the nonequilibrium temperature $`\theta `$ is not identical with the temperature $`T`$ defined in eq.(2), and $`\theta `$ is lower than $`T`$.jou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4 ; fort1 ; jou7 ; jou8

By expanding the velocity distribution function (6) to second order in $`J_x`$, we obtain the expression for the modified velocity distribution function:

$`f=f^{(0)}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{3J_x}{2n\kappa T}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi m}{2\kappa T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}c_xS_{\frac{3}{2}}^1(𝐜^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2mJ_x^2}{5n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}(1𝐜^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{mJ_x^2}{5n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}c_x^2[3\sqrt{\pi }S_{\frac{1}{2}}^2(𝐜^2)+2]\right\},`$
(9)
with the local Maxwellian distribution function $`f^{(0)}=n(m/2\pi \kappa T)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(𝐜^2)`$. Here $`n`$ and $`T`$ have been identified in eqs.(1) and (2). This modified velocity distribution function has been also obtained and used by Fort and Cukrowskifort1 . Note that $`S_k^p(X)`$ is the Sonine polynomial. (see, e.g. ref. 8) We have confirmed that the modified velocity distribution function still satisfies constraints (3) and (4), while the corrections appearing in eqs.(7) and (8) no longer appear in the density (1) and the temperature (2) with the modified velocity distribution function expressed in eq.(9). We adopt this modified velocity distribution function instead of the velocity distribution function shown in eq.(6) to calculate macroscopic quantities in this paper. This adoption is based on the fact that the corrections in eqs.(7) and (8) are not significant, although Jou et al.jou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4 ; fort1  believe that the correction appearing in eq.(8) has important physical meaning. (see also $`\mathrm{\S }`$ V)

## III Kinetic Theory: the Steady-State Boltzmann Equation

We introduce the velocity distribution function of the steady-state Boltzmann equation for hard-core molecules which we have derived in ref. 8 valid to second order in density and the temperature gradient. In a nonequilibrium steady-state system under the temperature gradient along $`x`$-axis, it can be written as

$`f=f^{(0)}\{1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4J_x}{5b_{11}n\kappa T}}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\kappa T}})^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r1}{}}r!b_{1r}c_x\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})S_{\frac{3}{2}}^r(𝐜^2)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4096mJ_x^2}{5625b_{11}^2n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}[{\displaystyle \underset{r2}{}}r!b_{0r}\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})S_{\frac{1}{2}}^r(𝐜^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r0}{}}r!b_{2r}(2c_x^2c_y^2c_z^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}})S_{\frac{5}{2}}^r(𝐜^2)]\},`$
where the specific values for $`b_{1r}`$, $`b_{0r}`$ and $`b_{2r}`$ are found in Table 1. Note that we show only the values for $`7`$th Sonine approximation.kim

For our calculation of the macroscopic quantities, we also adopt the precise velocity distribution function of the steady-state Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules to second order derived by Schambergmaxwell . It becomes

$`f=f^{(0)}\{1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4J_x}{5n\kappa T}}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\kappa T}})^{\frac{1}{2}}c_x\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}})S_{\frac{3}{2}}^1(𝐜^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4096mJ_x^2}{5625n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}[{\displaystyle \underset{r=2,3}{}}r!b_{0r}\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})S_{\frac{1}{2}}^r(𝐜^2)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1,2}{}}r!b_{2r}(2c_x^2c_y^2c_z^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}})S_{\frac{5}{2}}^r(𝐜^2)]\},`$
where the precise values for $`b_{0r}`$ and $`b_{2r}`$ are written in Table 2. It should be mentioned that the first-order velocity distribution function in eq.(11) is identical with that for information theory shown in eq.(9), while the second-order velocity distribution functions are different from each other.

## IV Test of Information Theory

Now the velocity distribution functions to second order given in eqs.(9), (10) and (11) shall be applied to the nonequilibrium steady-state system. Note that all the definitions of physical quantities in this paper are the same as those in ref. 8.

To begin with, the pressure tensor in the nonequilibrium steady state $`P_{ij}`$ becomes

$`P_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`n\kappa T\left(\delta _{ij}+\lambda _P^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{mJ_x^2}{n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}\right),`$ (12)
with the unit tensor $`\delta _{ij}`$ and the numerical tensor components $`\lambda _P^{ij}`$ shown in Table 3. Note that the off-diagonal components of $`\lambda _P^{ij}`$ are zero and that $`\lambda _P^{yy}=\lambda _P^{zz}`$ is satisfied. We have found that $`\lambda _P^{ij}`$ for information theory is qualitatively different from those for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for both hard-core and Maxwell molecules: $`P_{xx}`$ becomes larger than $`P_{yy}`$ and $`P_{zz}`$ for information theoryjou9 ; jou2 , while $`P_{xx}`$ becomes smaller than $`P_{yy}`$ and $`P_{zz}`$ for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for hard-core molecules, and no second-order corrections appear in $`P_{ij}`$ for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules.

Each component of the kinetic temperature in the nonequilibrium steady state, i.e. $`T_\mathrm{i}`$ for $`\mathrm{i}=x,y`$ and $`z`$ is also calculated as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n\kappa T_\mathrm{i}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n\kappa T}{2}}\left(1+\lambda _{T_\mathrm{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{mJ_x^2}{n^2\kappa ^3T^3}}\right),`$ (13)
for $`\mathrm{i}=x,y`$ and $`z`$. Numerical values for the constants $`\lambda _{T_\mathrm{i}}`$ for $`\mathrm{i}=x,y`$ and $`z`$ are given in Table 3. Note that $`\lambda _{T_y}=\lambda _{T_z}`$. We find that $`\lambda _{T_\mathrm{i}}`$ for information theory is qualitatively different from those for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for both hard-core and Maxwell molecules: $`T_x`$ becomes larger than $`T_y`$ and $`T_z`$ for information theory, while $`T_x`$ becomes smaller than $`T_y`$ and $`T_z`$ for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for hard-core molecules, and no corrections appear in $`T_\mathrm{i}`$ for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules.

The Shannon entropy in the nonequilibrium steady state becomes

$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`n\kappa \mathrm{log}\left[n\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi \kappa T}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n\kappa +\lambda _S{\displaystyle \frac{mJ_x^2}{n\kappa ^2T^3}},`$ (14)
to second order with the numerical constant $`\lambda _S`$ written in Table 3. It is found that $`\lambda _S`$ for information theory is identical to that obtained from the steady-state Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules, while it is slightly different from $`\lambda _S`$ calculated from the steady-state Boltzmann equation for hard-core molecules. This is because the correction term for the Shannon entropy is determined only by the first-order velocity distribution function, as was indicated in ref. 12.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

It is seen that the first-order velocity distribution functions for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for both hard-core and Maxwell molecules, i.e. the first-order terms in eqs.(10) and (11), are consistent with that derived by expanding Zubarev’s velocity distribution functionzubarev ; zubarev1 ; katz . This consistency is attributed to the fact that a nonequilibrium correction in the nonequilibrium entropy should appear to even order of a nonequilibrium flux, e.g. $`\delta SJ_x^2`$, in order that the nonequilibrium entropy has a maximum at $`J_x=0`$, and that a thermodynamic force $`F=\delta S/J_x`$ which drives a nonequilibrium system towards the state of equilibrium is proportional to the nonequilibrium flux.onsager  This fact leads to a conclusion that the nonequilibrium entropy is not modified from the local equilibrium entropy to first order, and that the Shannon-type entropy is appropriate as the nonequilibrium entropy to first order.

On the other hand, we have confirmed that both forms (10) and (11) of the second-order velocity distribution functions differ from that suggested by information theoryjou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4 . Although Jou et al. have applied information theory to nonequilibrium dilute gasesjou ; jou1 ; jou9 ; jou2 ; jou3 ; jou4 ; fort1 ; fort , we have found that information theory contradicts the steady-state Boltzmann equation: all the macroscopic quantities for information theory except for the Shannon entropy $`S`$ in eq.(14) are qualitatively different from those for the steady-state Boltzmann equation for both hard-core and Maxwell molecules. These qualitative differences between information theory and the steady-state Boltzmann equation still appear no matter which boundary condition is adopted. It is conjectured that the entropy defined in eq.(5) is not appropriate as the nonequilibrium entropy to second order, though the Shannon-type entropy has been widely used as the nonequilibrium entropy to any order.zubarev ; zubarev1 ; katz ; jou ; jou1 ; net0 ; net ; net1 ; net2 ; net3 ; eu ; onsager  We emphasize that it is probably the first time to find qualitative differences between information theory and nonequilibrium microscopic theories and demonstrate that information theory is inconsistent with the nonequilibrium microscopic theories. We can conclude that, though quite a few statistical physicists have believed the existence of a universal velocity distribution function in the nonequilibrium steady state by maximizing the Shannon-type entropyzubarev ; zubarev1 ; katz ; jou ; jou1 ; net0 ; net ; net1 ; net2 ; net3 ; eu , the universal velocity distribution function does not exist in the nonequilibrium steady state. It is also worth mentioning that, although information theory based on the Tsallis entropy has been also developedtsallis ; tsallis1 , the general form of the velocity distribution function for information theory based on the Tsallis entropytsallis ; tsallis1  cannot be expanded even to first order because the expanded velocity distribution function diverges.

We have also confirmed that, in all the macroscopic quantities calculated in the present paper, there are no differences between the results from the modified velocity distribution function given in eq.(9) and those from Jou’s velocity distribution function shown in eq.(6) so long as the same boundary condition is adopted. This suggests that the nonequilibrium temperature $`\theta `$ has no physical significance. We emphasize that the identifications of the density, the temperature and the mean flow ( see eqs.(11), (12) and (13) in ref. 8) do not affect the physical properties of the velocity distribution function for the steady-state Boltzmann equationkim , and that those identifications must be satisfied for the conservation laws in the case for the steady-state Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook(BGK) equation.santos ; santos1

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to H. Tasaki who made us aware of the significance of understanding nonequilibrium steady-state phenomena. This research was essentially inspired by him. We are grateful to S. Sasa who has always had crucial, interesting and cheerful discussions with us and has encouraged us to carry out these calculations. The authors also appreciate Ooshida T., A. Yoshimori, M. Sano, J. Wakou, K. Sato, H. Kuninaka, T. Mizuguti, T. Chawanya, S. Takesue and H. Tomita for fruitful discussions and useful comments. This study has been supported partially by the Hosokawa Powder Technology Foundation, the Inamori Foundation and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 13308021).