text:
# Untitled Document

PLANCK’S SCALE DISSIPATIVE EFFECTS

IN ATOM INTERFEROMETRY

F. Benatti

Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Università di Trieste

Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy

and

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Trieste

R. Floreanini

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Trieste

Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Università di Trieste

Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy

Abstract

Atom interferometers can be used to study phenomena leading to irreversibility and dissipation, induced by the dynamics of fundamental objects (strings and branes) at a large mass scale. Using an effective, but physically consistent description in terms of a master equation of Lindblad form, the modifications of the interferometric pattern induced by the new phenomena are analyzed in detail. We find that present experimental devices can in principle provide stringent bounds on the new effects.

1. INTRODUCTION

The evolution in time of a system $`𝒮`$ immersed in a large environment $``$ can be obtained from the dynamics of the total system $`𝒮+`$ by eliminating (i.e. integrating over) the degrees of freedom of $``$. Since $`𝒮+`$ is closed, the total dynamics is unitary; this is no longer true for the evolution of the subsystem $`𝒮`$ alone, which in general turns out to be very involved, developing non-linearities and memory effects. However, when the interaction between subsystem and environment is weak and there are no initial correlations between $`𝒮`$ and $``$, the time evolution of $`𝒮`$ can still be realized through linear maps on the states of $`𝒮`$, satisfying basic physical requirements, like forward in time composition law (semigroup property), entropy increase (irreversibility) and complete positivity (that guarantees the physical consistency of the evolution in all situations). These one-parameter (=time) family of maps form a so called quantum dynamical semigroup \[1-4\] and are generated by a master equation of Lindblad form .

This description of the time-evolution of open systems is very general; it was originally developed in the framework of quantum optics \[6-8\], and subsequently used to model very different physical situations, from the study of various statistical systems \[1-3\], to the analysis of the interaction of a microsystem with a macroscopic measuring apparatus \[9-11\], to the description of the emergence of the classical world  and of the so called dynamical reduction .

Master equation of Lindblad form can also be used to describe phenomena leading to irreversibility and dissipation at low energy generated by the dynamics of fundamental objects at a large scale, typically the Planck mass . Indeed, the dynamics of extended objects, strings and branes, gives rise at low energies to a weakly coupled heat bath, and as a consequence to decoherence phenomena . From a more phenomenological point of view, similar effects have also been described in the framework of quantum gravity : due to the quantum fluctuations of the gravitational field and the possible generation of virtual black holes, spacetime should become “foamy” at scales comparable to the Planck length, leading to loss of quantum coherence \[18-23\]. Furthermore, dissipation and decoherence are also the natural outcome of the general dynamics in theories with large extra dimensions : indeed, the possible energy leakage from the boundary of spacetime (our four-dimensional brane universe) into the bulk due to gravity effects would inevitably inject noise into the boundary, thus inducing irreversibility and dissipation at low energy.

Our present knowledge of string theory does not allow precise estimates of the magnitude of these non-standard effects. Nevertheless, dimensional arguments suggest that they must be very small, being suppressed by at least one inverse power of a large fundamental mass. Despite of this, they can be in the reach of various interferometric devices. Indeed, detailed investigations involving different elementary particle systems (neutral mesons , neutrons , photons , and neutrinos ) have shown that present and future experiments might soon reach the sensitivity required to detect the new, non-standard phenomena.

Another physical situation in which phenomena leading to irreversibility and dissipation can be studied is provided by atom interferometers, where a beam of nearly monoenergetic atoms is coherently split into two components that are recombined at the exit of the apparatus \[30-33\]. The interferometric pattern observed at the end of the devise is influenced by the action of external phenomena, produced e.g. by an external electric or magnetic field, or by earth gravity. The sophistication of present interferometric apparata is so high that the theoretically predicted changements in the interferometric figure for some of these phenomena have been confirmed with high accuracy \[30-32\].

Irreversibility and dissipation also affect the propagation of the atoms in the interferometer; this leads to a deformation of the corresponding interferometric pattern at the exit of the apparatus. It turns out that these modifications are very distinctive of the dissipative phenomena, and can not be mimicked by other physical effects, as the ones mentioned before.

In the following, we shall analyze in detail these modifications under the hypothesis that the generalized dynamics of the atoms inside the interferometer be generated by a master equation of Lindblad form. For sake of definiteness, we shall limit our discussion to three-grating atom interferometers in the Bragg regime, where the split and the recombination of the incident beam is realized by material gratings or laser standing waves. The approach has points in common with the one adopted in  to study similar effects in neutron interferometry . The perturbative treatment adopted there is however inapplicable in the present case: this fact, together with the operational differences in the actual functioning of an atom interferometer require a completely different and independent analysis. As discussed in the final section, the outcome of our investigations is that atom interferometry experiments could provide the most accurate estimate of the non-standard, dissipative effects that can be induced by a fundamental dynamics at Planck’s scale.

2. MASTER EQUATION

The evolution of the atoms inside the interferometer can be analyzed using an abstract, two-dimensional Hilbert space. The states corresponding to the two split beams in the apparatus can be taken to be the basis states in this space. More in general, the quantum state of an atom travelling inside the interferometer will be a statistical mixture of the basis states, and therefore described by a density matrix $`\rho `$, i.e. by a hermitian, positive defined operator with unit trace. For earlier works on the use of the formalism of density matrices in atom interferometry, see \[35-37, 33\] and references therein. With respect to the chosen basis, one can then write:

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _1& \rho _3\\ \rho _4& \rho _2\end{array}\right),\rho _4=\rho _3^{},\rho _1+\rho _2=1,$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $``$ signifies complex conjugation.

As explained in the introductory remarks, the starting point of our analysis is the assumption that the dynamics of the atoms inside the interferometer be generated by a master equation of Lindblad form An equation of this type has also been used to study decoherence effects in position space induced by the scattering of photons on the atoms inside the interferometer . Instead, the evolution equation (2.2) is written in “polarization” space, and, as explained below, represents the most general master equation compatible with basic physical requirements. \[1-5\]:

$$\frac{}{t}\rho (t)=i[H,\rho (t)]+D[\rho (t)].$$
$`(2.2)`$
The first term in the r.h.s. represents the standard hamiltonian contribution. In the chosen basis, the effective hamiltonian can be written as:

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E+\omega & 0\\ 0& E\omega \end{array}\right),$$
$`(2.3)`$
where $`E`$ is the energy of the atoms in the incident beam. On the other hand the splitting in energy $`2\omega `$ among the two internal beams is usually induced by the action of laboratory controlled effects, typically the presence of external fields. For open system though, even in absence of external fields, the quantity $`\omega `$ is in general nonvanishing. Indeed, one can show that the weak interaction of the system with the external environment induces in general a hamiltonian contribution, giving rise to the “Lamb shift” term $`\omega `$ in (2.3) \[1-3, 16, 29\].

Nevertheless, it is the additional piece $`D[\rho ]`$ in (2.2) that describes true mixing enhancing phenomena: in absence of it, the evolution of $`\rho `$ would be unitary and reversible. It can be represented by a trace-preserving linear map acting on the three independent components of the density matrix in (2.1). Decomposing for convenience $`\rho _3`$ in its real and imaginary parts,

$$\rho _3=\rho ^1i\rho ^2,$$
$`(2.4a)`$
and introducing the combination

$$\rho _1\rho _2=2\rho ^3,$$
$`(2.4b)`$
one can then write $`D[\rho ]`$ as a $`3\times 3`$ real, symmetric matrix $`𝒟`$, acting on the real vector $`|\rho `$ of components $`(\rho ^1,\rho ^2,\rho ^3)`$:

$$𝒟=2\left[\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& c\\ b& \alpha & \beta \\ c& \beta & \gamma \end{array}\right].$$
$`(2.5)`$
The six parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, with $`a`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ non negative, are not all independent; physical consistency of the full time evolution (i.e. the request of complete positivity, see  for details) further imposes the following inequalities:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 2R\alpha +\gamma a0,\hfill \\ & 2Sa+\gamma \alpha 0,\hfill \\ & 2Ta+\alpha \gamma 0,\hfill \\ & RST2bc\beta +R\beta ^2+Sc^2+Tb^2.\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& RSb^2,\hfill \\ & RTc^2,\hfill \\ & ST\beta ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.6)`$
If one includes also the hamiltonian contribution and further recalls that $`\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (t)]=1`$, the evolution equation (2.2) can be rewritten as a diffusion equation for the 3-vector $`|\rho (t)`$:

$$\frac{}{t}|\rho (t)=2|\rho (t),=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}a& b+\omega & c\\ b\omega & \alpha & \beta \\ c& \beta & \gamma \end{array}\right].$$
$`(2.7)`$
Its solution involves the exponentiation of the matrix $``$:

$$|\rho (t)=(t)|\rho (0),(t)=e^{2t},$$
$`(2.8)`$
where $`|\rho (0)`$ represents the initial state of the atoms entering the interferometer. It coincides with one of the following density matrices

$$\rho ^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),\rho ^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$
$`(2.9)`$
corresponding to the possible choices of orientation of the incident atomic beam with respect to the first diffracting grating. Both choices lead to the same final results; for definiteness, in the following we shall work with $`\rho ^{(1)}`$, so that $`|\rho (0)=(1/2,0,0)`$.

3. OBSERVABLES

In the language of density matrices, physical observables are represented by suitable hermitian operators, whose mean values can be obtained by taking their trace with $`\rho (t)`$. In particular, the intensity pattern observed at the end of the interferometer is given by the mean value of the following projector operators :

$$𝒪_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{i\theta }\\ e^{i\theta }& 1\end{array}\right),𝒪_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{i(\theta +\pi )}\\ e^{i(\theta +\pi )}& 1\end{array}\right),$$
$`(3.1)`$
that correspond to the two possible exit beams in which an atom can be found while exiting the apparatus. In the standard situation, it is the phase $`\theta `$ that gives the modulation of the interferometric pattern. This is usually obtained by moving the transverse position of one of the gratings (or laser standing waves) responsible for the diffraction of the atom beam. Indeed, in an idealized situation one finds \[30-32\]:

$$\theta =\kappa (x_12x_2+x_3),$$
$`(3.2)`$
where $`x_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, represents the position, transverse with respect to the incident beam, of the $`i`$-th grating, while $`\kappa `$ is the wave vector of the diffracting lattice.

The intensity $`_\pm `$ of the interference figure detected at the two possible exits is then given by:

$$_\pm (t)=𝒪_\pm \mathrm{Tr}[𝒪_\pm \rho (t)]=\frac{1}{2}+𝒪_\pm ^1\rho ^1(t)+𝒪_\pm ^2\rho ^2(t)+𝒪_\pm ^3\rho ^3(t),$$
$`(3.3)`$
where definitions similar to the ones in (2.4) have been introduced also for the entries of the two matrices $`𝒪_\pm `$. Using (3.1), one finds:

$$_\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\pm 2\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \rho ^1(t)+\mathrm{sin}\theta \rho ^2(t)\right]\right\}.$$
$`(3.4)`$
Since an atom exiting the interferometer can only be found in one of the two exit beams, particle conservation requires $`_+(t)+_{}(t)=1`$, which is clearly satisfied by (3.4).

The intensity curves in (3.4) can be compared with the experiment, provided explicit expressions for the entries of the matrix $`(t)`$ in (2.8) are given. Formally, this can be obtained by studying the eigenvalue problem for the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $``$ in (2.7):

$$|v_k=\lambda _k|v_k,k=1,2,3.$$
$`(3.5)`$
The three eigenvalues $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, $`\lambda _3`$ satisfy a cubic equation,

$$\lambda ^3+r\lambda ^2+s\lambda +w=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
$`(3.6)`$
with real coefficients: $`r=(a+\alpha +\gamma )`$, $`s=a\alpha +a\gamma +\alpha \gamma b^2c^2\beta ^2+\omega ^2`$, $`w=\mathrm{det}`$. It then follows that $`\lambda _k`$ are either all real, or one is real and the remaining two are complex conjugate; further, in both situations, one can show that in presence of dissipation the three eigenvalues have always positive real parts .

Using the fact that the matrix $``$ itself obeys the equation (3.6), one finds:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}\{1\pm \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{e^{2\lambda _kt}}{3\lambda _k^2+2r\lambda _k+s}[(\lambda _k^2(\alpha +\gamma )\lambda _k+\alpha \gamma \beta ^2)& \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \\ \hfill +\left((\omega b)(\lambda _k\gamma )\beta c\right)& \mathrm{sin}\theta ]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.7)`$
From this general expression, one sees that in presence of complex eigenvalues, a further harmonic modulation in time of the interference figures occurs, while exponential damping terms always prevail for long enough times. Further, note that in absence of dissipation, $`a=b=c=\alpha =\beta =\gamma =\omega =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, and thus $`\lambda _k=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, the expressions of $`_\pm `$ in (3.7) reduce to their standard, time-independent ones \[30-32\]:

$$_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta \right\};$$
$`(3.8)`$
any deviation from this formula as described by (3.7) clearly signals the presence of dissipative phenomena in atom interferometry.

Although explicit expressions for the eigenvalues $`\lambda _k`$ can always be found via Cardano’s formula , the form (3.7) of the intensities $`_\pm `$ is rather involved, and of limited use in practice. Having in mind possible comparison with experimental data, the study of suitable approximations of (3.7) might result appropriate.

In this respect, a useful working assumption is to take $`\gamma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$; There are essentially two known ways of implementing the condition of weak interaction between subsystem and environment \[1-3\]: the singular coupling limit (in which the time-correlations in the environment are assumed to be much smaller than the typical time scale of the subsystem) and the weak coupling limit (in which it is the subsystem characteristic time scale that becomes large). One can check that the second situation leads precisely to the condition $`\gamma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ . in this case, the inequalities (2.6) further impose $`b=c=\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`a=\alpha `$. In this simplified situation, the formula in (3.7) reduces to:

$$_\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\pm e^{2\alpha t}\mathrm{cos}\left(\theta 2\omega t\right)\right\}.$$
$`(3.9)`$
This is surely the most simple expression that the intensity probabilities $`_\pm (t)`$ take in presence of dissipative effects. It differs from the standard expression in (3.8) by the presence of an exponential damping factor and of an additional harmonic phase that accumulates in time.

A different approximation of the general formula (3.7) can be obtained when the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are small with respect of $`\omega `$. This could happen when the interferometer is immersed in a strong external field, so that its contribution to the energy shift $`\omega `$ due to its interaction with the atom beams largely overrides the one coming from the effects of a weakly coupled environment. In this respect, it should be noted that even in absence of any external field, a hierarchy between $`\omega `$ and the other dissipative parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ could be nevertheless generated by the interaction with the environment. For details, see  and the Appendix in . In this case, the additional piece $`D[\rho ]`$ in the evolution equation (2.2) can be treated as a perturbation. Using the solution of this equation expanded up to second order in the small parameters, from (3.4) one obtains:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}\{1\pm e^{(a+\alpha )t}[(\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }t& +\frac{\alpha a}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Omega }t\frac{2\beta ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t)\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \\ & +(\frac{b\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Omega }t\frac{c\beta }{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }t)\mathrm{sin}\theta ]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.10)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[\omega ^2b^2c^2\beta ^2(\alpha a)^2/4]^{1/2}`$. In writing (3.10) we have reconstructed the exponential factor by putting together the terms linear and quadratic in $`t`$; a similar treatment has allowed writing all harmonic pieces in terms of the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is worth noting that for $`c=\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ the formula (3.10) gives the exact expression for the intensities $`_\pm `$: no approximation is involved. This is a consequence of the fact that for $`c=\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ the matrix $``$ in (2.7) becomes block diagonal, so that explicit, manageable expressions for its exponential $`(t)`$, and therefore for $`_\pm `$, can be given. From this point of view, the validity of (3.10) goes beyond the second order approximation in which it has been derived: it can be considered as the expansion of the full expression (3.7) for $`_\pm `$ up to second order in $`c`$ and $`\beta `$.

4. INTERFERENCE PATTERN

The behaviour of the general expression (3.7) for $`_\pm `$ and of its special cases (3.9) and (3.10) crucially depend on the dissipative parameters: at least in principle, they can be used to obtain informations on their values from fits with the experimental data. The magnitude of $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\omega `$ are nevertheless expected to be very small. In fact, for subsystems in interactions with large environments, the effects leading to dissipation and decoherence can be roughly estimated to be proportional to the typical energy of the system, while suppressed by inverse powers of the characteristic energy scale of the environment \[1-3\]. In the case of non-standard phenomena induced by the dynamics of fundamental objects (strings, branes) at Planck’s mass $`M_P`$, an upper bound on the magnitude of the dissipative parameters can be roughly evaluated to be of order $`M_A^2/M_P`$, where $`M_A`$ is the mass of the atoms used in the interferometer ; in typical real situations, this ratio takes values between $`10^{18}`$ and $`10^{15}`$ GeV (or equivalently, between $`10^3`$ and $`10^6`$ KHz).

A further difficulty in comparing the theoretically predicted interference figures with the experimental data arises from the fact that the previously derived expressions for $`_\pm `$ hold in the case of an idealized interferometer, with perfectly monoenergetic atomic incident beams. In practice, the values of the atom momenta spread over a finite distribution. This fact, together with the inevitable imperfections in the construction of the actual interferometric apparatus, produce attenuation in the intensity of the signal.

One can take into account these spurious effects by modifying the previously derived intensity spectra with the introduction of suitable unknown parameters. To keep the discussion as simple as possible, we shall concentrate on the expression (3.9) for $`_\pm `$; similar arguments apply to the other formulas. By denoting with $`𝒩_\pm `$ the atom countings at the two exit beams of the interferometer, one generalizes the spectra in (3.9) as:

$$𝒩_\pm (t)=𝒩_\pm ^{(0)}\left\{1\pm 𝒞_\pm e^{2\alpha t}\mathrm{cos}\left(\theta 2\omega t\right)\right\}.$$
$`(4.1)`$
The constants $`𝒞_\pm `$ are the fringe contrast and parametrize the intensity attenuation, while $`𝒩_\pm ^{(0)}`$ are suitable normalization factors; In absence of dissipative effects, a theoretical estimate of $`𝒞_\pm `$ has been obtained using atom optics . note that particle conservation now requires: $`𝒩_+^{(0)}𝒞_+=𝒩_{}^{(0)}𝒞_{}`$. Clearly, the higher the fringe contrast, the more accurate the determination of the dissipative parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ from the experiment will be.

In order to fit actual experimental data with the expression (4.1), further elaborations are however needed. As mentioned before, the intensity spectra are reconstructed by counting the atoms at one of the exit beams as a function of the transverse position $`x`$ of the final grating (or standing laser wave), with respect to a reference, initial situation. This means that the geometry of the two paths followed by the atoms inside the interferometer slightly changes as $`x`$ varies; The situation is completely different in a neutron interferometer : made of a silicon crystal, its geometry can not be varied. In this case, the interferometric spectra are obtained through a thin slab of material inserted transversally to the two beams inside the interferometer; a slight rotation of it produces a phase difference $`\omega `$ between the two “optical” paths. as a consequence, also the total evolution time $`t`$, the time spent by the atoms inside the interferometer, changes with $`x`$. Since the two path inside the apparatus are very close to each other (their actual separation is at most 100 $`\mu `$m), for small $`x`$ one finds:

$$t=t_0+\frac{\vartheta _1}{v}x,$$
$`(4.2)`$
where $`v`$ is the average velocity of the atoms in the incident beam, while $`\vartheta _1`$ is the first order Bragg diffraction angle (typically of order $`10^4`$ rad). On the other hand $`t_0`$ is the fixed time of flight of the atoms inside the interferometer when it is in its initial, reference status; it can be determined with high accuracy from the geometric specifications of the actual apparatus and can be modified only by changing the energy of the primary atom beam, or by modifying the longitudinal dimension of the interferometer.

The outcome of this discussion is that it should be possible to estimate the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ from the behaviour in $`x`$ of the expression in (4.1), and therefore from a fit with experimental data. Unfortunately, in the experimental set-ups so far constructed the dependence of $`t`$ on $`x`$ can hardly be seen: one finds that while $`t_0`$ is at most $`10^3`$ sec, the quantity $`\vartheta _1x/v`$ results at least ten orders of magnitude smaller, even for maximal values of the displacement $`x`$ (a few hundreds nm).

Therefore, as a good approximation one can safely take $`tt_0`$, and rewrite the interference pattern (4.1) as

$$𝒩_\pm (x)=𝒩_\pm ^{(0)}\left\{1\pm \left[𝒫_\pm \mathrm{cos}(\theta _0+\kappa x)+𝒬_\pm \mathrm{sin}(\theta _0+\kappa x)\right]\right\},$$
$`(4.3)`$
where

$$𝒫_\pm =𝒞_\pm e^{2\alpha t_0}\mathrm{cos}2\omega t_0,𝒬_\pm =𝒞_\pm e^{2\alpha t_0}\mathrm{sin}2\omega t_0,$$
$`(4.4)`$
while $`\theta _0`$ is a fixed phase that is characteristic of each interferometer. A fit of (4.3) with experimental data will allow to determine the parameters $`𝒩_\pm ^{(0)}`$, $`𝒫_\pm `$, $`𝒬_\pm `$ and $`\theta _0`$, and therefore to obtain informations on the dissipative parameters.

5. DISCUSSION

We shall now briefly report on the results of a $`\chi ^2`$ fit of the formula (4.3) with recently published data from two experiments . The analysis that follows is of limited quantitative meaning: direct access to the data and a careful study of systematic errors are needed in order to obtain precise determination of the dissipative effects; nevertheless, it will provide a rough estimate about the sensitivity of present atom interferometers to the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$.

The atom interferometers used in the two experiments are particularly sensitive devices, reaching a very high fringe contrast; this is obtained by using neon, respectively lithium, atoms as “matter waves” and laser standing light as diffracting device. Both in  and , only data from one of the two exit beams are reported, the ones corresponding to the lower sign in (4.3). Since as mentioned before $`t_0`$ is known with high precision, from the ratio $`𝒫_{}/𝒬_{}`$ one can immediately obtain an estimate for the parameter $`\omega `$. Using the data from the first experiment, from our fit we find $`\omega =(0.7\pm 0.2)\times 10^{21}\mathrm{GeV}`$, where the quoted error is only statistical.

On the other hand, the determination of $`\alpha `$ is subordinated to the estimate of the fringe contrast $`𝒞_{}`$. This would not be necessary if the parameters $`𝒫_{}`$ and $`𝒬_{}`$ can be measured for two different values of the flight time $`t_0`$. As mentioned before, this can be obtained either by changing the average velocity of the incoming atoms, or by varying the dimensions of the interferometer. In lacking of this extra information, we shall obtain an estimate for $`𝒞_{}`$ using directly the data.

In absence of dissipative effects, $`\alpha =\omega =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, the constant $`𝒞_{}`$ can be obtained from the maximum, $`𝒩^{(\mathrm{max})}`$, and the minimum, $`𝒩^{(\mathrm{min})}`$, atom counts in the experimental interference figure: $`𝒞_{}=(𝒩^{(\mathrm{max})}𝒩^{(\mathrm{min})})/(𝒩^{(\mathrm{max})}+𝒩^{(\mathrm{min})})`$. Although this formula is only approximately valid for nonvanishing $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$, in practice the systematic error that one makes in adopting it can be estimated to be at the end much smaller than the pure experimental uncertainty. Using the rough experimental data, one then deduces: $`𝒞_{}62\%`$. With this value, one finally gets: $`\alpha =(0.1\pm 0.1)\times 10^{22}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is compatible with zero.

The accuracy in the determination of $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ improves using the data from the most recent experiment, thanks to the higher fringe contrast (of about $`74\%`$) and the increase in the number of experimental points. In fact, the same procedure adopted before now gives the following estimates: $`\alpha =(0.3\pm 0.1)\times 10^{23}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\omega =(0.20\pm 0.01)\times 10^{21}\mathrm{GeV}`$ We remark that as before the quoted errors are purely statistical; a thorough analysis of the full experimental data, that takes into account also the systematics, would likely worsen the estimated errors, in particular that on $`\omega `$. Note that these values are perfectly compatible with the ones previously determined in the case of the neon interferometer. As explained before, the values of the dissipative parameters should be proportional to the square of the mass of the atoms in the incident beams. Therefore, the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ determined with the data from the lithium beam should result smaller than those obtained from the first experiment.

In conclusion, the results of our discussion show that atom interferometers are potentially very sensitive to the presence of phenomena leading to dissipation and decoherence. Although the performed error analysis has been limited to statistical uncertainties, the derived estimates seem to indicate nonvanishing values for $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$, of magnitude compatible with an origin from a fundamental dynamics at a very large mass scale. As already remarked, direct access to the rough experimental data and more complete $`\chi ^2`$ fits are needed in order to claim the presence of dissipative effects. We nevertheless hope that our preliminary analysis will stimulate further, more accurate investigations.

REFERENCES

1. R. Alicki and K. Lendi, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications, Lect. Notes Phys. 286, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987)

2. V. Gorini, A. Frigerio, M. Verri, A. Kossakowski and E.C.G. Surdarshan, Rep. Math. Phys. 13, 149 (1978)

3. H. Spohn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 569 (1980)

4. A. Royer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3272 (1996)

5. G. Lindblad, Comm. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

6. W.H. Louisell, Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation, (Wiley, New York, 1973)

7. M.O. Scully and M.S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

8. C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise, 2nd. ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

9. L. Fonda, G.C. Ghirardi and A. Rimini, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 587 (1978)

10. H. Nakazato, M. Namiki and S. Pascazio, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B10, 247 (1996)

11. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Lett. B428, 149 (1998)

12. D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.-O. Stamatescu and H.D. Zeh, Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996)

13. S. Sinha, Phys. Lett. A228 (1997) 1

14. G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986)

15. J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B293, 37 (1992); Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11, 1489 (1996)

16. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Ann. of Phys. 273, 58 (1999)

17. S. Hawking, Comm. Math. Phys. 87, 395 (1983); Phys. Rev. D 37, 904 (1988); Phys. Rev. D 53, 3099 (1996); S. Hawking and C. Hunter, Phys. Rev. D 59, 044025 (1999)

18. J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B241, 381 (1984)

19. S. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B307, 867 (1988)

20. S.B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B307, 854 (1988)

21. M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B410, 143 (1993)

22. W.G. Unruh and R.M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2176 (1995)

23. L.J. Garay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2508 (1998); Phys. Rev. D 58, 124015 (1998)

24. For a presentation of these models, see: V.A. Rubakov, Russian J. Phys. 44, 871 (2001)

25. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Nucl. Phys. B488, 335 (1997)

26. F. Benatti, R. Floreanini and R. Romano, Nucl. Phys. B602, 541 (2001)

27. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Lett. B451, 422 (1999)

28. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. D 62, 125009 (2000)

29. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. D 64, 085015 (2001)

30. Atom Interferometry, P.R. Berman, ed., (Academic Press, New York, 1997)

31. J. Baudon, R. Mathevet and J. Robert, J. Phys. B 32, R173 (1999)

32. R.M. Godun, M.B. D’Arcy, G.S. Summy and K. Burnett, Contemp. Phys. 42, 77 (2001)

33. P. Meystre, Atom Optics, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001)

34. H. Rauch and S.A. Werner, Neutron Interferometry (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000)

35. B.-G. Englert, C. Miniatura and J. Baudon, J. Phys. II France 4, 2043 (1994)

36. R.A. Rubenstein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2018 (1999)

37. D.A. Kokorowski, A.D. Cronin, T.D. Roberts and D.E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2191 (2001)

38. V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski and E.C.G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

39. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Mod. Phys. Lett. A12, 1465 (1997); Phys. Lett. B468, 287 (1999)

40. K. Lendi, J. Phys. A 20, 13 (1987)

41. M. Artin, Algebra, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1991)

42. C. Champenois, M. Büchner and J. Vigué, Eur. Phys. J. D 5 (1999) 363

43. R. Delhuille et al., Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris, Series IV 2, 587 (2001)

44. D.M. Giltner, R.W. McGowan and S. Au Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2638 (1995)

45. R. Delhuille, C. Champenois, M. Büchner L. Jozefowski, C. Rizzo, G. Trénec and J. Vigué, High contrast Mach-Zender lithium atom interferometer in the Bragg regime, quant-ph/0111052, 2001


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Considerable interest has been shown recently in compactifications of M-theory on manifolds which have holonomy group $`G_2`$. This is primarily because the compactified theory exhibits a realistic amount of supersymmetry in four dimensions . However, it has been known for some time that for compactifications of eleven-dimensional supergravity on smooth $`G_2`$ manifolds the four-dimensional effective theory does not have charged particles. Recently charged particles have been introduced by considering compactifications on singular $`G_2`$ manifolds , , . This has led to renewed interest in the properties of $`G_2`$ compactifications. This has also motivated the investigation of $`G_2`$ singularities and has led to the construction of several new non-compact $`G_2`$ manifolds , and  and references within.

In this paper we shall re-derive the Kähler potential of the N=1 four-dimensional supergravity action obtained from the compactification of eleven-dimensional supergravity on a smooth $`G_2`$ manifold. Geometrically this gives a Kähler metric on the tangent space of the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures. This Kähler potential has been obtained previously in , ,  and . This was done by computing first the terms quadratic in the 4-form field strength obtained on making a Kaluza-Klein ansatz. Then $`N=1`$ supersymmetry together with the results of  were used to determine the Kähler metric. In this paper we explicitly derive an expression for the Kähler potential of the four-dimensional supergravity action from the eleven-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term, using some results of . This new derivation is similar in spirit to the calculation of the moduli metric of supersymmetric multi-black hole solutions; see for example , , . One of the advantages of this new approach is that the Kähler structure on the tangent bundle of the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures is obtained directly without making an explicit use of supersymmetry in four dimensions. Our computation will be used to compare a normalization factor in the definition of the Kähler potential.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section two we present the computation of the Kähler potential of the four-dimensional theory obtained on compactification by making use of various symmetries of the $`G_2`$ manifold. In section three we examine some black hole and domain wall solutions of the resulting four dimensional effective theory. Some useful $`G_2`$ identities are presented in the Appendix.

## 2 Compactifications of Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity

The bosonic part of the eleven-dimensional supergravity Lagrangian is

$$=\sqrt{h}R\frac{1}{2}F{}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{1}{6}CFF,$$
(2.1)
where $`h`$ is the eleven dimensional spacetime metric, $`R`$ is the eleven dimensional Ricci scalar, $`C`$ is a 3-form gauge potential with associated field strength $`F=dC`$. The compactification ansatz that we shall consider is

$$ds^2=ds^2(\text{}^{1,3})+ds_N^2,$$
(2.2)
with $`F=0`$, where $`N`$ is a compact smooth 7-manifold with $`G_2`$ holonomy. In particular, $`N`$ is Ricci-flat, and there exists a covariantly constant 3-form $`\varphi `$ on $`N`$. Some algebraic properties of this 3-form are presented in the Appendix. The dimension of the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures of the manifold $`N`$ is $`b_3(N)`$. The solution (2.2) preserves $`\frac{1}{8}`$ of the 32 supersymmetries of eleven-dimensional supergravity. Hence, we expect that the low energy four-dimensional theory is a $`N=1`$, four-dimensional supergravity.

In order to probe the low energy dynamics of this solution, we shall allow the moduli $`s^i`$ to depend on the spacetime co-ordinates $`x^M`$ as $`s^is^i(x^M)`$. Specifically, we shall take the perturbed spacetime metric to be

$$ds^2=g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N+g_{ab}dy^ady^b,$$
(2.3)
where we have split the spacetime co-ordinates in a 4+7 manner according to $`x^\mu =\{x^M,y^a\}`$ for $`M,N=0,\mathrm{},3`$ and $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},7`$; and $`g_{ab}=g_{ab}(y,s^i(x^M))`$, $`g_{MN}=g_{MN}(x^L)`$. Here $`g_{ab}`$ depends on $`x^M`$ only via the moduli $`s^i`$, so that at fixed $`x^M`$, $`g_{ab}dy^ady^b`$ is a metric with $`G_2`$ holonomy. We shall assume that all components of the metric vary slowly with regard to $`x^M`$, and we shall refer to quantities being of first or second order with respect to derivatives of $`x^M`$.

To proceed, it is necessary to solve the field equations up to first order, and to determine the effective action up to second order. Solving the field equations up to first order ensures that the back reaction of the geometry to the varying moduli is taken into account. In what follows, we shall concentrate on the Einstein equations. We remark that perturbing the moduli in the 3-form potential $`C`$ produces a first order 4-form field strength, and hence, in order to solve the first order Einstein equations, it suffices to solve the Ricci-flatness condition

$$R_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(2.4)
up to first order. The only first order terms contributing to the Ricci tensor arise in the $`R_{aM}`$ components. This implies that

$$_dW_M{}_{}{}^{d}{}_{a}{}^{}_aW_M{}_{}{}^{d}{}_{d}{}^{}=0$$
(2.5)
where $`_a`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the (perturbed) metric $`g_{ab}`$ on $`N`$ and

$$W_{Mab}=_{\frac{}{x^M}}g_{ab};$$
(2.6)
$``$ is the Lie derivative.

To investigate the consequences of (2.5), it is convenient to express $`W_{Mab}`$ in terms of the 3-forms $`\psi _M=_{\frac{}{x^M}}\varphi `$ and $`\chi _M=_M\varphi `$, where here $`_M`$ denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the (perturbed) eleven-dimensional metric. Note that up to first order, the only non-vanishing components of $`\psi _M`$ and $`\chi _M`$ are $`\psi _{Mabc}`$ and $`\chi _{Mabc}`$. Next, taking the Lie derivative of (a.4) in the appendix, we find that

$$W_{Mab}=\frac{1}{6}\psi _{Macd}\varphi _b{}_{}{}^{cd}+\frac{1}{6}\varphi _a{}_{}{}^{cd}\psi _{Mbcd}^{}+\frac{1}{3}_Mg^{cf}\varphi _{acd}\varphi _{bf}{}_{}{}^{d}.$$
(2.7)
For use later observe that contracting (2.7) with $`g^{ab}`$, one obtains

$$_M\mathrm{log}detg_7=\frac{1}{9}\psi _{Mdef}\varphi ^{def}.$$
(2.8)
Furthermore, using (a.7), the last term in (2.7) can be rewritten as

$$_Mg^{cf}\varphi _{acd}\varphi _{bf}{}_{}{}^{d}=W_{Mab}g_{ab}_M\mathrm{log}detg_7.$$
(2.9)
Substituting this expression back into (2.7), one obtains

$$W_{Mab}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\psi _{Macd}\varphi _b{}_{}{}^{cd}+\varphi _a{}_{}{}^{cd}\psi _{Mbcd}^{}\right)\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}_M\mathrm{log}detg_7.$$
(2.10)
It follows that

$$^bW_{Mab}_aW_M{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{b}{}^{}=\frac{1}{4}^b(\varphi _a{}_{}{}^{cd}\psi _{Mbcd}^{}\psi _{Macd}\varphi _b{}_{}{}^{cd}).$$
(2.11)
Using the relation

$$\chi _{Mabc}=\frac{1}{4}\psi _{Mabc}\frac{1}{24}\varphi _{abc}\psi _{Mdeh}\varphi ^{deh}\frac{3}{8}\psi _{Mde[a}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{bc]}^{}^{de}$$
(2.12)
between $`\chi _{Mabc}`$ and $`\psi _{Mabc}`$, the condition (2.5) can be written as

$${}_{}{}^{}\varphi \delta \chi _M=0,$$
(2.13)
where $`\delta `$ is the adjoint of $`d`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(N)`$.

To continue, recall that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\text{}^7)`$ decomposes into two irreducible $`G_2`$ representations, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\text{}^7)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2{}_{7}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_{14}`$. The seven-dimensional representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_7`$ arises by contracting a two-form with the parallel three-form $`\varphi `$ to yield a vector. Then the condition (2.13) implies that $`\pi _7\delta \chi _M=0`$, where $`\pi _7`$ is the projection onto $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_7`$.

Now we shall show that the field equations (2.5) are solved if $`\psi _M`$ is harmonic. For this we choose the gauge fixing condition $`\pi _7\delta \psi _M=0`$. This is a good gauge fixing condition because it can be shown that it is equivalent to requiring that $`_{\frac{}{x^M}}\varphi `$ is $`L^2`$-orthogonal to $`_{\frac{}{y^a}}\varphi `$, ie the deformations along the moduli directions are orthogonal to the deformations induced by the diffeomorphisms of $`N`$. It turns out that the closure of $`\psi _M`$ together with the condition $`\pi _7\delta \psi _M=0`$ imply that $`\psi _M`$ is harmonic. In particular $`\psi _M`$ is coclosed and so the first term in the right-hand-side of (2.11) vanishes. Using the fact that $`\psi _M`$ is harmonic, it can be shown that $`\psi _{Mabc}\varphi ^{abc}`$ is independent of $`y^a`$ and so the second term in the right-hand-side of (2.11) vanishes as well.

It remains to compute the second order effective action from (2.1) . We shall concentrate on the Einstein-Hilbert part of the action, as this is sufficient to determine the Kähler potential of the four-dimensional $`N=1`$ theory. The zeroth and first order parts in four-dimensional spacetime derivatives of the eleven-dimensional action vanish. The second order part simplifies to

$`S_{EH}={\displaystyle }d^{11}x\sqrt{detg_4}\sqrt{detg_7}[R^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{MN}(W_M{}_{}{}^{ab}W_{Nab}^{}W_M{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{a}{}^{}W_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{b}{}^{})].`$ (2.14)
Using the expression for $`W_{Mab}`$ in terms of $`\psi _M`$ in (2.10), we find that the eleven-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term of the action can be written as

$`S_{EH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{11}x\sqrt{detg_4}\sqrt{detg_7}[R^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}g^{MN}\psi _{Mabc}\psi _N^{abc}`$ (2.15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}g^{MN}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{cdeh}\psi _{Macd}\psi _N{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{eh}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{864}}g^{MN}\left(\varphi ^{abc}\psi _{Mabc}\right)\left(\varphi ^{deh}\psi _{Ndeh}\right)].`$
This expression simplifies even further when we recall that the 3-forms on $`N`$ decompose into three $`G_2`$ irreducibles: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(N)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{}_{7}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3_{27}`$ and the harmonic 3-forms decompose as $`H^3(N,\text{})=H^3{}_{1}{}^{}(N,\text{})H^3{}_{27}{}^{}(N,\text{})`$. From this it follows that $`\pi _7\psi _M=0`$, which implies that $`\varphi \psi _M=0`$. Hence we obtain

$`S_{EH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{11}x\sqrt{detg_4}\sqrt{detg_7}[R^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g^{MN}\psi _{Mabc}\psi _N^{abc}`$ (2.16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{216}}g^{MN}\left(\varphi ^{abc}\psi _{Mabc}\right)\left(\varphi ^{deh}\psi _{Ndeh}\right)].`$
To continue, it is convenient to define $`\mathrm{\Theta }=d^7y\sqrt{detg_7}`$, so that

$$\psi _{Mabc}\varphi ^{abc}=18\mathrm{\Theta }^1_M\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(2.17)
To put the four-dimensional action into the Einstein frame, we make the conformal re-scaling

$$\widehat{g}_{MN}=\mathrm{\Theta }g_{MN}$$
(2.18)
of the four-dimensional metric. Then the Einstein-Hilbert action is written as

$$S_{EH}=d^4x\sqrt{detg_4}\left[R^{(4)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^1g^{MN}(\psi _M,\psi _N)\right],$$
(2.19)
where we have dropped the $`\widehat{}`$ and

$$(\tau ,\kappa )\frac{1}{6}d^7y\sqrt{detg_7}\tau _{abc}\kappa ^{abc}$$
(2.20)
for 3-forms $`\tau ,\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^3(N)`$. After a calculation similar to the one presented in  and , we obtain the Kähler potential

$$K=3\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(2.21)
of the sigma model matter in the effective $`N=1`$, four-dimensional supergravity theory. In fact (2.21) should be thought of as the Kähler potential on the tangent bundle of the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures on the compact manifold $`N`$. Note that the normalization factor of the Kähler potential is that of  and it differs from that of  by a factor of seven.

The remaining couplings of the four-dimensional effective supergravity have been described extensively in the literature . The bosonic fields are $`b_3(N)`$ complex scalars $`z^i=\frac{1}{2}(s^iip^i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},b_3(N)`$ and $`b_2(N)`$ Maxwell fields $`F^a=dA^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},b_2(N)`$, where the real scalars $`p^i`$ and the Maxwell fields arise from the Kaluza-Klein reduction of the three-form gauge potential of eleven-dimensional supergravity given by

$$C=p^i\varphi _i+A^a\omega _a$$
(2.22)
where $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ is a basis for $`H^3(N,\text{})`$ and $`\{\omega _a\}`$ is a basis for $`H^2(N,\text{})`$. The total effective action obtained via this reduction combined with the calculation given above is then embedded within the $`N=1`$ four-dimensional supergravity as

$$S_{G_2}=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R2\gamma _{i\overline{j}}_Mz^i^M\overline{z}^j\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}h_{ab}F^a{}_{MN}{}^{}F_{}^{bMN}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Im}h_{ab}F^a{}_{MN}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{bMN}\right]$$
(2.23)
where $`\gamma _{i\overline{j}}=\frac{^2K}{z^i\overline{z}^j}`$ and $`h_{ab}=h_{ab}(z^i)`$ is holomorphic in $`z^i`$. In particular, from the Kaluza-Klein reduction of the term $`\frac{1}{2}FF`$ in the eleven-dimensional supergravity action we obtain the following four-dimensional terms

$$d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^1g^{MN}_Mp^i_Np^j(\varphi _i,\varphi _j)\frac{1}{4}s^iC_{iab}F^a{}_{MN}{}^{}F_{}^{bMN}\right]$$
(2.24)
where $`C_{iab}`$ are real topological intersection numbers given by

$$C_{iab}=_N\varphi _i\omega _a\omega _b,$$
(2.25)
and we have made use of the identity $`\omega _a{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{b}^{}=\omega _a\omega _b\varphi `$ which follows from (a.10). From the eleven dimensional term $`\frac{1}{6}FFC`$ we obtain the four-dimensional term

$$d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{4}p^iC_{iab}F^a{}_{MN}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{bMN}\right].$$
(2.26)
Hence, comparing (2.24) and (2.26) with (2.23) we find that $`\mathrm{Re}h_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}s^iC_{iab}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}h_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}p^iC_{iab}`$; and so $`h_{ab}=z^iC_{iab}`$ where $`z^i=\frac{1}{2}(s^iip^i)`$.

We remark that a potential term of the form

$$S_{pot}=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(e^K\left[\gamma ^{i\overline{j}}D_ifD_{\overline{j}}\overline{f}3|f|^2\right]+\frac{1}{2}D_aD^a\right)$$
(2.27)
may in principle be added to the $`G_2`$ action given in (2.23), where $`f=f(z^i)`$ is a holomorphic superpotential, $`D_if=fK_i+\frac{f}{z^i}`$, $`K_i=\frac{K}{z^i}`$; $`D_a`$ is a Fayet-Iliopoulos term and $`D^a=\mathrm{Re}h^{ab}D_b`$ where $`\mathrm{Re}h^{ab}`$ is the inverse of $`\mathrm{Re}h_{ab}`$. The action given by $`S_{G_2}+S_{pot}`$ possesses $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions; however, it is not generically possible to obtain the potential term given above through the $`G_2`$ compactification described here.

## 3 Solutions of the Effective Theory

### 3.1 Dilatonic Black Holes

The simplest possible black-hole type of solution with active scalars is that for which the only non-vanishing modulus field is the volume of the compact space. The ansatz for such a black hole have been given in . In particular one takes $`ds^2=A^2dt^2+B^2(dr^2+r^2ds^2(S^2))`$, $`s^i=sc^i`$ with $`c^i`$ constant; $`p^i=0`$ and $`A^a=C^adt`$. The potential term is set to vanish. The solution can be found by a direct substitution into the field equations of the truncated action

$$S_{G_2}^{}=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R2\gamma _{i\overline{j}}_Mz^i^M\overline{z}^j\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}h_{ab}F^a{}_{MN}{}^{}F_{}^{bMN}\right],$$
(3.28)
where the $`pFF`$ terms have been truncated. The spacetime metric, gauge field strengths and scalars are given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`L^{\frac{7}{4}}Fdt^2+L^{\frac{7}{4}}[F^1dr^2+r^2ds^2(S^2)]`$
$`F^a`$ $`=`$ $`H^adLdt`$
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`\rho L^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ (3.29)
where $`H^a`$ and $`\rho `$ are constants, and

$`L^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa ^2\mu }{r}}`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu }{r}},`$ (3.30)
for constant $`\mu `$, $`\kappa `$. It is also convenient to define the constants $`_{ab}=c^iC_{iab}`$, and set $`K_i=s^1\lambda _i`$ where $`\lambda _i`$ are constants such that $`c^i\lambda _i=7`$, as a consequence of the homogeneity properties of the volume of the $`G_2`$ manifold. It is straightforward to show that in order for the scalar equations to be satisfied, the $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ must be constrained as

$$C_{\mathrm{}ab}H^aH^b=\frac{(\kappa ^2+1)}{2\rho \kappa ^2}\lambda _{\mathrm{}},$$
(3.31)
and given this constraint, the Einstein equations are also satisfied. Note that $`\mu `$ is the non-extremality parameter of the black hole. Taking the limit $`\mu 0`$ with $`4\kappa ^2\mu =Q`$ finite, the resulting solution is an extremal black hole. In fact it is one of the dilatonic black holes found in . To see this, observe that a consistent truncation of the four-dimensional action (3.28) associated with this ansatz, after an appropriate rescaling of the Maxwell field, is

$$S_{G_2}^{}=d^4x\sqrt{detg_4}\left[R^{(4)}\frac{7}{2}s^2|s|^2sF^2\right],$$
(3.32)
where $`F=dA`$ is the 2-form Maxwell field strength. This action is equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell action for dilatonic black holes given in

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{detg_4}\left[R^{(4)}2|\sigma |^2e^{2a\sigma }F^2\right],$$
(3.33)
on setting $`s=e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{7}}\sigma }`$ together with $`a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}`$. The multi-black hole extreme solutions of (3.32) are given as

$$ds_4{}_{}{}^{2}=H^{\frac{7}{4}}dt^2+H^{\frac{7}{4}}d𝐱^2$$
(3.34)
together with $`s=H^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ and $`A=\sqrt{\frac{7}{8}}H^1dt`$ where

$$H=1+\underset{A=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mu _A}{|𝐱𝐳_A|}$$
(3.35)
is a harmonic function111The power of the harmonic function in these solutions differs from that given in  because of the change of normalization of the Kähler potential.. Note that the volume of the $`G_2`$ manifold blows up at the poles of $`H`$, which are curvature singularities of the four-dimensional spacetime solution.

There are also magnetic black holes associated with $`G_2`$ compactifications and their relation to wrapped branes has been described in . The metric for these black holes is the same as that of the electric black holes above, but the modulus scalar for the magnetic black holes is the inverse of the electric black hole modulus scalar. Both the electrically and magnetically charged black holes break all of the $`N=1`$ four-dimensional supersymmetry.

### 3.2 Supersymmetric Domain Walls

In order to find domain wall solutions preserving half of the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry, it is necessary to introduce a potential term into the action . Although such a term cannot be obtained from the classical compactification described here, one way of obtaining this potential is to add additional fluxes to the $`G_2`$ manifold . However, it has been argued that this is inconsistent with the assumption that the $`G_2`$ manifold is compact . Alternatively, one may include quantum corrections which arise from the wrapping of Euclidean M2-brane instantons on associative cycles , . A superpotential for this configuration has been conjectured in  which is of the form

$$f=\mu \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k^2}e^{k\lambda _iz^i}$$
(3.36)
for constants $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda _i`$.

To describe domain wall type solutions we set the gauge fields and the Fayet-Iliopoulos terms to vanish, and take the spacetime metric to be

$$ds^2=B(y)^2\left[ds^2(\text{}^{1,2})+dy^2\right]$$
(3.37)
with $`z^i=z^i(y)`$. The generic constraint equations for such a solution which preserves half of the supersymmetry have been given in in ; they are

$`_yB`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi }B^2e^{\frac{K}{2}}\overline{f}`$
$`_yz^i`$ $`=`$ $`B^1_yB\overline{f}^1\gamma ^{i\overline{j}}D_{\overline{j}}\overline{f}`$
$`_y\left[2\mathrm{\Psi }+iK\right]`$ $`=`$ $`2iK_i_yz^i,`$ (3.38)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an angular variable obtained from solving the Killing spinor equations. To solve these equations we shall set $`p^i=0`$. The third equation in (3.38) implies that $`_y\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. Hence it is convenient to rescale $`f=e^{i\mathrm{\Psi }_0}F`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{const}`$. Then (3.38) simplifies to

$`_yB`$ $`=`$ $`B^2e^{\frac{K}{2}}\overline{F}`$
$`_yz^i`$ $`=`$ $`Be^{\frac{K}{2}}\gamma ^{i\overline{j}}D_{\overline{j}}\overline{F}`$ (3.39)
To proceed we set $`s^i=s(y)c^i`$ for constant $`c^i`$. As a consequence of the homogeneity of the $`G_2`$ volume, we also have $`K_i=\lambda _is^1`$ for constant $`\lambda _i`$, where $`c^i\lambda _i=7`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mu s^{\frac{7}{3}}`$ for constant $`\mu >0`$. If we set $`F=F(\frac{2}{7}z^i\lambda _i)`$, so that $`F|_{p^i=0,s^i=sc^i}=P(s)`$ then (3.39) simplifies to

$`_yB^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^{\frac{3}{2}}s^{\frac{7}{2}}P`$
$`_ys`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}\mu ^{\frac{3}{2}}s^2(s^{\frac{7}{2}}P)^{}`$ (3.40)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{d}{ds}`$. Hence, defining $`W=s^{\frac{7}{2}}P`$, we note that we can write $`B`$ in terms of $`s`$ as

$$B=e^{\frac{7}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{W}{s^2W^{}}}𝑑s}}$$
(3.41)
and given such a solution, the behaviour of $`s`$ is determined by the equation

$$_yB^1=\mu ^{\frac{3}{2}}W.$$
(3.42)
We note that just as for the case of the black holes, the power of the exponential in (3.41) is altered due to the change of normalization of the Kähler potential.

We have proposed a new method to compute the Kähler potential of scalars of four-dimensional effective theory associated with D=11 supergravity compactifications on compact smooth $`G_2`$ manifolds. This method may be proved useful to compute the Kähler potential of the effective theory when the underlying $`G_2`$ manifold in not compact.

Acknowledgements: J. G. is supported by an EPSRC postdoctoral grant. G.P. is supported by a University Research Fellowship from the Royal Society. This work is partially supported by SPG grant PPA/G/S/1998/00613.

## Appendix : Some Useful $`G_2`$ Identities

If $`N`$ is an integrable $`G_2`$ manifold, then there exists a covariantly constant 3-form $`\varphi `$, which, in an appropriate orthonormal frame $`\{e^a:a=1,\mathrm{},7\}`$ may be written as

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`e^1e^2e^3+e^1\left(e^4e^5e^6e^7\right)+e^2\left(e^4e^6+e^5e^7\right)`$ (a.1)
$`+`$ $`e^3\left(e^4e^7e^5e^6\right),`$
and the dual 4-form is

$`{}_{}{}^{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`e^4e^5e^6e^7+e^2e^3\left(e^6e^7e^4e^5\right)+e^1e^3\left(e^4e^6+e^5e^7\right)`$ (a.2)
$`+`$ $`e^1e^2\left(e^5e^6e^4e^7\right),`$
where  is the Hodge dual defined with respect to $`g_7`$ and we fix $`ϵ^{1234567}=+1`$. The $`G_2`$ metric is obtained from the 3-form $`\varphi `$ via the non-linear relation

$$g_{ab}=\frac{1}{24}\varphi _{acd}\varphi _{bef}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{cdef}.$$
(a.3)
In addition, we have

$$g_{ab}=\frac{1}{6}\varphi _{acd}\varphi _b{}_{}{}^{cd}.$$
(a.4)
Another useful identity is

$$\varphi _{acd}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{a}{}_{bhf}{}^{}=[g_{cb}\varphi _{dhf}+g_{ch}\varphi _{dfb}+g_{cf}\varphi _{dbh}g_{db}\varphi _{chf}g_{dh}\varphi _{cfb}g_{df}\varphi _{cbh}],$$
(a.5)
which implies

$$\varphi _{acd}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{ac}{}_{hf}{}^{}=4\varphi _{dhf}.$$
(a.6)
We also have the identity

$$\varphi _{dab}\varphi ^d{}_{cf}{}^{}=g_{ac}g_{bf}g_{af}g_{bc}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{abcf}^{},$$
(a.7)
and for any 3-form $`\theta `$,

$$\frac{1}{3}\varphi _{abc}\theta _{deh}\varphi ^{deh}2\theta _{de[a}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{bc]}^{}{}_{}{}^{de}+\theta _{deh}\varphi ^{eh}{}_{[a}{}^{}\varphi _{bc]}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}=0.$$
(a.8)
Note also that if $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(N)`$ is a 2-form with $`\pi _7\omega =0`$ then the constraint

$$\varphi _a{}_{}{}^{bc}\omega _{bc}^{}=0,$$
(a.9)
which is satisfied if $`\omega `$ is harmonic, is equivalent to

$$\omega _{ab}=\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}\omega _{cd}^{}$$
(a.10)
as a consequence of (a.7).


text:
# Remarks on the Cross Norm Criterion for Separability

## 1 Introduction

Entanglement as the most non classical features of quantum mechanics has been attracted much attention in the past decade. Though, non local characters of quantum mechanics is singled out in many decades ago , but it has recently received considerable attention in connection with theory of quantum information . Entanglement is usually arise from quantum correlations between separated subsystems which can not be created by local actions on each subsystems. By definition, a bipartite mixed state $`\rho `$ is said to be separable if it can be expressed as

$$\rho =\underset{i}{}w_i\rho _i^{(1)}\rho _i^{(2)},w_i0,\underset{i}{}w_i=1,$$
(1-1)
where $`\rho _i^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _i^{(2)}`$ denote density matrices of subsystems 1 and 2, respectively. Otherwise the state is entangled.

The central tasks of quantum information theory is to characterize and quantify entangled states. A first attempt in characterization of entangled states has been made by Peres and Horodecki family . It was shown that a necessary condition for separability of a two partite system is that its partial transpose be positive. Horodecki family show that this condition is sufficient for separability of composite systems only for dimensions $`22`$ and $`23`$.

A new criterion for separability and also an entanglement measure for two partite systems based on greatest cross norm are introduced by Rudolph . In an interesting paper  he obtained the values of greatest cross norm for some states such as Werner states and isotropic states. In  Rudolph also introduced a computational criterion for separability of mixed states induced by greatest cross norm and he could obtain the separability conditions for some states such as Werner states, isotropic states and 2-qubit Bell diagonal states. He showed that the new criterion completely characterizes separability properties of pure states, Bell decomposable states and isotropic states in arbitrary dimension. He conjectured that new criterion is neither weaker nor stronger than positive partial transpose (PPT) criterion introduced by Peres and Horodeckis in .

In this paper we introduce Bell decomposable states of $`23`$ systems and we show that there is state in this category that is entangled in the sense of PPT criterion but it is separable in the sense of new criterion introduced in , that is the new criterion is weaker than PPT criterion.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly review greatest cross norm criterion for separability of two partite systems. The criterion induced by greatest cross norm is also reviewed. Bell decomposable states in $`23`$ systems are introduced in section 3 and also PPT conditions for separability of these states is obtained. Finally we show that there exist state that is entangled in the sense of PPT criterion but satisfy new criterion for separability proposed by Rudolph.

## 2 Trace class norm criterion for separability and associated induced separability criterion

In this section we briefly review greatest cross norm for separability of two partite systems introduced by Rudolph in  and also the induced criterion introduced in .

Let us consider Hilbert spaces $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ associated with particles 1 and 2, respectively. One can show that the spaces $`T(H_1)`$ and $`T(H_2)`$ of trace class operators on $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are Banach spaces once they equipped with the trace class norm $`._1^{(1)}`$ and $`._1^{(2)}`$, respectively. The algebraic tensor product $`T(H_1)_{alg}T(H_2)`$ of $`T(H_1)`$ and $`T(H_2)`$ is defined as the set of all finite sums $`_{i=1}^nu_iv_i`$ where $`u_iT(H_1)`$ and $`v_iT(H_2)`$ for all $`i`$.

A cross norm on $`T(H_1)_{alg}T(H_2)`$ is defined by (see  and references therein)

$$t_\gamma :=inf\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_i_1v_i_1t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_iv_i\},$$
(2-2)
where $`tT(H_1)_{alg}T(H_2)`$ and the infimum is taken over all finite decompositions of $`t`$ into elementary tensors. The norm majorizes any subcross on $`T(H_1)_{alg}T(H_2)`$ (a norm on $`T(H_1)_{alg}T(H_2)`$ is subcross norm if $`t_1t_2|t_1_1t_2_1`$ for all $`t_1T(H_1)`$ and $`t_2T(H_2)`$ and it is cross norm if saturates the inequality for all $`t_1T(H_1)`$ and $`t_2T(H_2)`$) is called greatest cross norm.

The greatest cross norm criterion proposed by Rudolph is defined as follows . Let $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and $`\rho `$ be a density operator on $`H_1H_2`$. The density matrix $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if $`\rho _\gamma =1`$. Rudolph in  determines greatest cross norm for some states such as Werner states and isotropic states. In addition in the second part of Ref. , Rudolph introduced a new necessary separability criterion for bipartite systems induced by the greatest cross norm on Hilbert-Schmidt space.

In the Hilbert-Schmidt space $`HS(H_1H_2)`$, the operators of the Hilbert space $`H_1H_2`$ are regarded as vectors. This space is equipped with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product defined by $`T|T^{}=tr(T^{}T^{})`$, where $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ are two operators acting on space $`H_1H_2`$. Let $`HS(H_1)`$ and $`HS(H_2)`$ denote Hilbert-Schmidt spaces corresponding to Hilbert spaces $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, respectively. It has been shown in  that there exist a one-to-one correspondence between Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`THS(H_1H_2)`$ and Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`𝒰(T):HS(H_1)HS(H_1)`$. Alternatively we can define the trace class norm of $`𝒰(T)`$ denoted by $`𝒯(𝒰(T))`$.

Every state $`THS(H_1H_2)`$ in the Hilbert-Schmidt space can be written as

$$T=\underset{i}{}\lambda _iE_iF_i$$
(2-3)
where $`\{\lambda _i\}_i`$ are non-negative real numbers and $`\{E_i\}_i`$ and $`\{F_i\}_i`$ are orthonormal bases of $`HS(H_1)`$ and $`HS(H_2)`$ respectively . Also the trace class norm of $`𝒰(T)`$ is equal to $`𝒯(𝒰(T))=_i\lambda _i`$.

Rudolph in  proposed its new criterion for separability in a proposition which is quoted below:

###### Proposition 1

 Let $`H`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space and $`\rho T(HH)`$ be a density operator. If $`\rho `$ is separable then

$$𝒯(𝒰(\rho ))1.$$
(2-4)
Based on the above criterion, Rodulph obtained separability conditions of some states such as Werner states, isotropic states and 2-qubit Bell diagonal states. He conjectured that the new criterion is neither weaker nor stronger than the Peres-Horodeckies PPT criterion for separability. In the next section we present state that violates positive partial transpose criterion but satisfy the separability criterion given in Eq. (2-4).

## 3 Bell decomposable states of $`23`$ quantum systems

In this section we review Bell decomposable states of $`23`$ quantum systems. A Bell decomposable density matrix acting on $`23`$ Hibert state can be defined by

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}p_i|\psi _i\psi _i|,0p_i1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}p_i=1,$$
(3-5)
where $`|\psi _i`$ are Bell states in $`H^2H^3H^6`$ Hibert space , defined by:

$$|\psi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11+|22),|\psi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11|22),$$

$$|\psi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|12+|23),|\psi _4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|12|23),$$
(3-6)
$$|\psi _5=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|13+|21),|\psi _6=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|13|21).$$

It is quite easy to see that the above states are orthogonal and thus span the Hilbert space of $`23`$ systems.

A necessary condition for separability is presented by Peres . He show that the matrix obtained from from partial transpose of separable state must be positive. Horodeckies  have shown that Peres criterion provides sufficient condition for separability only for composite quantum systems of dimension $`22`$ and $`23`$. This implies that the state given in Eq. (3-5) is separable if and only if the following inequalities satisfy

$`(p_1+p_2)(p_3+p_4)(p_5p_6)^2,`$ (3-7)
$`(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)(p_1p_2)^2,`$ (3-8)
$`(p_5+p_6)(p_1+p_2)(p_3p_4)^2.`$ (3-9)
On the other hand expanding Eq. (3-5) in terms of canonical base $`|i|j`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho =& \frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2)|1111\left|+(p_1p_2)\right|1122\left|+(p_1p_2)\right|2211|\hfill \\ \hfill +& (p_1+p_2)|2222\left|+(p_3+p_4)\right|1212\left|+(p_3p_4)\right|1223|\hfill \\ \hfill +& (p_3p_4)|2312\left|+(p_3+p_4)\right|2323\left|+(p_5+p_6)\right|1313|\hfill \\ \hfill +& (p_5p_6)|1321\left|+(p_5p_6)\right|2113\left|+(p_5+p_6)\right|2121|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3-10)
Alternatively if $`|E_{ij}|ij|`$ denotes corresponding bases in the Hilbert-Schmidt space then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒰(\rho )=& \frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2)|E_{11}E_{11}\left|+(p_1p_2)\right|E_{12}E_{12}\left|+(p_1p_2)\right|E_{21}E_{21}|\hfill \\ \hfill +& (p_1+p_2)|E_{22}E_{22}\left|+(p_3+p_4)\right|E_{11}E_{22}\left|+(p_3p_4)\right|E_{12}E_{23}|\hfill \\ \hfill +& (p_3p_4)|E_{21}E_{32}\left|+(p_3+p_4)\right|E_{22}E_{33}\left|+(p_5+p_6)\right|E_{11}E_{22}|\hfill \\ \hfill +& (p_5p_6)|E_{12}E_{31}\left|+(p_5p_6)\right|E_{21}E_{13}\left|+(p_5+p_6)\right|E_{22}E_{11}|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3-11)
where $`|E_{ij}`$ is used to denote $`E_{ij}`$. Now we can easily evaluate the eigenvalues of $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`𝒰(\rho )𝒰^{}(\rho )`$ which yields

$$\lambda _1=\lambda _2=A,\lambda _3=B+C,\lambda _4=BC,$$
(3-12)
where

$$A=\frac{1}{4}\left((p_1p_2)^2+(p_3p_4)^2+(p_5p_6)^2\right),$$

$$B=\frac{1}{4}\left((p_1+p_2)^2+(p_3+p_4)^2+(p_5+p_6)^2\right),$$
(3-13)
$$C=\frac{1}{4}\left((p_1+p_2)(p_3+p_4)+(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)+(p_5+p_6)(p_1+p_2)\right).$$

It is easy to see that all eigenvalues are non-negative. Now we can easily determine the separability criterion given in Eq. (2-4) as

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _i}=2\sqrt{A}+\sqrt{B+C}+\sqrt{BC}1.$$
(3-14)
In the rest of this section we shall present a counterexample to the claim that the criterion given in Eq. (2-4) is not weaker than PPT criterion for separability. Let us consider a Bell decomposable state given by

$$p_1=0.3,p_2=0,p_3=0.2,p_4=0.1,p_5=0.4,p_6=0.$$
(3-15)
It is quite easy to see that the state given by Eq. (3-15) violates PPT criterion given in Eq. (3-7), so it is entangled state. On the other hand, it is separable in the sense of criterion given in Eq. (2-4). This implies that the new criterion induced by the greatest cross norm is weaker than the PPT criterion for separability.

## 4 Conclusion

We have provided a counterexample to show that the newly proposed criterion of separability (induced by greatest cross norm) is proposed by Rudolph is weaker than the positive partial transpose criterion, therefore, we have still a long way ahead to solve the long standing separability criterion in mixed quantum states.