format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Ever since the discovery of the first excited nucleon state , the baryon resonances have played a major role in particle and nuclear physics and have contributed crucially to the search of the fundamental building blocks of nature. We perceive them now as the low energy manifestation of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with three quark degrees of freedom. However, low energy QCD is still not well understood and very often one is left with models. The status of the resonances can differ from case to case as can their parameters extracted from different experiments. The $`N^{}`$ programs at Jefferson Lab  and the forthcoming Japan Hadron Facility  have both revived the area. The various theoretical studies \[4-7\] and the hope to find exotic hadrons , make the area once again an exciting field of physics. It is then justified to look at the baryon resonances from a yet different perspective and to analyze the existing data in a novel albeit well established way, while waiting for new experimental results. Specifically, we refer to the time delay method which was introduced into scattering theory and especially resonance physics by Eisenbud and Wigner . In view of the considerable number of standard textbooks \[12-17\] and numerous papers \[9-11,18-39\] published since the seminal paper by Wigner , we provide only a short introduction. Time delay is a measure of the collision time in a scattering reaction which can be calculated directly from the phase shift or the $`T`$ matrix. Obviously, such a concept has a close connection to the appearance of an unstable intermediate state (resonance), which, due to its finite lifetime, “delays” the reaction. Though the interest in time delay ever since the first papers was unabated, it is only recently that it has been used in practice in quantum scattering theory (in chaotic scattering , hadron resonances \[33,37-39\] and heavy ion collisions ) and tunneling phenomena , with success. The present work is simply a logical extension of this program carried over to baryon resonances, partly done already in .

To identify the baryon resonances, one performs a partial wave analysis of the meson baryon scattering data and obtains the energy dependent amplitude (or $`T`$-matrix) by fitting cross section data. Resonances are then determined by locating the poles of the $`T`$-matrix on the unphysical sheet and studying the Argand diagrams of the complex $`T`$-matrix. Due to model dependence in the analyses of the energy-dependent amplitudes, there are differences in the resonance parameters quoted by different groups . The resonance receiving confirmation from several analyses is considered to be well established. Though we do not dispute the usefulness of the pole of the $`S`$-matrix, we note that there exist several views in literature, regarding the definition of a resonance. In a review article , Dalitz discussed various criteria for the existence of a resonance elaborately, with the conclusion that for the case of a pole in the $`S`$-matrix, $`S(E)`$, in the unphysical E-plane lying sufficiently close to the physical E axis, there is no ambiguity in the conclusion of the existence of a resonance. However, the authors in  constructed examples in such a way that a sharp resonance was produced without an accompanying pole in the unphysical sheet. They noted that even the inverse correspondence, namely, (pole of the $`S`$-matrix on the unphysical sheet) $``$ (unstable particle) may be questioned. In , it was pointed out that a peak in the cross section cannot be conclusive evidence of a resonance. In , in addition to time delay, the exponential decay law was required as a signal of a genuine resonance (this may be in view of the existence of double poles, which would lead to a non-exponential decay ). Cautious remarks on the use of Argand diagrams can be found in . The many different opinions reflect only the fact that the issue is not yet satisfactorily settled. Indeed, unstable particles remained to be problematic even until now . We make use of the requirement stated in literature and text books \[9-39\], namely, the formation of a resonance should introduce a large positive time delay in the scattering of particles. We try to extract resonance parameters from the energy distribution of time delay by locating the position of the local maximum and reading off the width as advocated e.g. in . Though the non-resonant background can deform the positive resonant structure in the vicinity of a resonance, we do expect some positive region around the resonance point, with perhaps a less dominant peak. This is confirmed by our study.

Starting with the definition of time delay in terms of the $`S`$-matrix, we obtain its relation with the $`T`$-matrix and scattering phase shifts. We shall first demonstrate the usefulness of the method with examples of well-known $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances. Later on we proceed to the analysis of time delay in various partial waves of $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering, using the available single energy values as well as some energy-dependent forms of the $`T`$-matrix. Before we move on to the discussion of time delay, it is important to note that the time delay plots of the present work are not the same as speed plots  which have been sometimes referred to as time delay plots in literature. Speed plots are positive definite by definition. Time delay plots can also assume negative values and only a positive peak signals a resonance. In the elastic region, the speed is equal to time delay up to a constant factor, but once the inelastic channels open up, this is no longer true .

Considering the fact that the time delay method has so far not been applied to baryon resonances (but has been successfully applied to meson resonances ), our study is a practical test of time delay when applied directly to data. When applied to theoretical $`T`$ matrix solutions, we could say that indeed the model is being tested, if we consider the resonances to be well established.

In passing, we note that time delay is also related to the so called arrival time in quantum mechanics  and has also been used to obtain the density of resonances .

## 2 Time delay in resonant scattering

We shall now discuss the expressions which quantify time delay and can hence be used to characterize resonances.

### 2.1 Relation to phase shifts

In the early fifties, using a wave packet analysis, Bohm , Eisenbud  and Wigner , obtained an expression for the time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in binary collisions. In the case of elastic scattering, they derived $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in terms of the energy derivative of the scattering phase shift as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=2\mathrm{}\frac{d\delta }{dE}.$$
(1)
The formation of a resonance in a scattering process, introduces a positive time delay between the arrival of the incident wave packet and its departure from the collision region. From the above relation, one expects the phase shift to increase rapidly in the vicinity of a resonance.

The wave packet analysis of time delay was extended by Eisenbud to inelastic collisions . He defined the delay time matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, such that an element $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}`$ of this matrix, corresponded to the time interval between the outgoing wave in channel $`j`$ and the ingoing wave in channel $`i`$. This time delay, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}`$, is related to the $`S`$-matrix as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}=Re\left[i\mathrm{}(S_{ij})^1\frac{dS_{ij}}{dE}\right].$$
(2)
Before we proceed further, we note that the phase shifts, in principle, depend on the orbital angular momenta, $`l`$, $`l^{}`$, of the initial and final states respectively and on the total angular momentum $`J`$. However, we have suppressed this dependence in the expressions whenever not relevant. In the present work, we consider $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering, which is the scattering of a spin zero and spin one half particle. Since the total spin in the final and initial state is $`S=S^{}=1/2`$ and conservation of parity gives $`l=l^{}`$, the total angular momentum $`J`$ takes the values $`l1/2`$ and $`l+1/2`$. The $`S`$-matrix is diagonal in $`l`$ and its elements are related to phase shifts as $`S_{ll}^J=exp(2i\delta ^J)`$, for the elastic case in the absence of inelasticities.

We see that in the case of purely elastic scattering ($`j=i`$), and using a phase shift formulation for the $`S`$-matrix where $`S=e^{2i\delta }`$, we get,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}=2\mathrm{}\frac{d\delta }{dE},$$
(3)
which is the same as Eq. (1). These $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}`$ are related to the lifetimes of metastable states or resonances in elastic scattering (see ). At high energies, where apart from elastic scattering, the possibility of scattering into inelastic channels also opens up, the elastic $`S`$-matrix element is defined as $`S=\eta e^{2i\delta }`$, where $`\eta `$ is the inelasticity parameter defined such that $`0<\eta 1`$. Substituting the modified $`S`$ (i.e. $`S=\eta e^{2i\delta }`$) in Eq. (2), gives,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[i\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{dE}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{dE}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}\right)\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{dE}}.`$ (4)
The above equation is the same as Eqs (1) and (3). Thus it can be seen that the expression for the time delay, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}`$, for elastic scattering is the same, irrespective of the presence of inelastic channels.

It is clear from the above expressions that time delay can also take negative values resulting from phase shifts which decrease as a function of energy. However, the negative delay times cannot assume arbitrarily large values. In the case of elastic scattering (for the case of $`l=0`$ and $`1`$) it was shown by Wigner , that the causality condition puts a constraint on the lower value of the phase shift derivative (related in an obvious way to time delay), which in case of high momenta, i.e. for large $`k`$ is given as, $`d\delta _l/dk>a`$. $`a`$ can be interpreted as the range of the interaction potential. We do observe some regions of large negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ which will be discussed in Section 3.

### 2.2 Relation to $`T`$-matrix

Instead of using the phase shift formulation of the $`S`$-matrix, we now start by defining the $`S`$-matrix in terms of the $`T`$-matrix, i.e.,

$$S=1+2iT,$$
(5)
as is usually done in partial wave analyses of resonances . The matrix $`T`$ contains the entire information of the resonant and non-resonant scattering and is complex ($`T=T^R+iT^I`$). Substituting from Eq. (5) into the expression for time delay in (2), the time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}`$, in terms of the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude $`T`$ is given as,

$$S_{ii}^{}S_{ii}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}=2\mathrm{}\left[\frac{dT_{ii}^R}{dE}+2T_{ii}^R\frac{dT_{ii}^I}{dE}2T_{ii}^I\frac{dT_{ii}^R}{dE}\right],$$
(6)
where $`S_{ii}^{}S_{ii}`$ can be evaluated using Eq. (5). In the present work, we have evaluated the time delay in $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering and hence, $`i`$ corresponds to $`\pi N`$ in the above equation.

Although a simple Breit-Wigner (BW) is not always a good choice to describe a broad hadronic resonance, it is instructive to see the results we get for time delay, starting from a BW matrix element. If we insert one such commonly used form of the $`T`$-matrix  in resonance regions, namely,

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}{E_REi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2},$$
(7)
in (6), we obtain,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t(E)_{BW}=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(E_RE)^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}$$
(8)
and the time delay at the resonance energy $`E_R`$ (within the assumption that the widths are not energy dependent) is,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t(E_R)_{BW}=\frac{4\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(9)
A simple BW $`T`$-matrix, however, can be misleading, especially while discussing time delay. The reason among others is that it lacks certain usually expected properties (threshold behaviour being one of them). We shall come to this point in greater detail in section 4.

Before ending this section, we note the dependence of time delay on wave packets. It is well-known that the survival probability and lifetime of an unstable quantum state depend on its preparation. Explicit formulae including wave packets can be found for unstable neutral kaons in . We expect a similar dependence to be present in the expressions for time delay. Indeed, as given in ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t(E)=8\pi ^2\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{}|A(E^{},E)|^22\frac{d\delta }{dE^{}},$$
(10)
where $`A(E^{})`$ is the initial wave packet in momentum space. If the wave packet is sharply centered around an energy $`E`$, we recover Eq. (1). In scattering processes where one measures the cross sections and distributions, the wave packets are indeed narrow, i.e., the energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see the second and last reference in  for a discussion of this issue). Hence we can use Eqs (1-4) to calculate time delay.

In the next section, we shall evaluate the time delay in several partial waves of $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering. We have checked that the values of time delay, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ii}`$, obtained either using the derivative of the real phase shifts as in Eq. (3) or the $`T`$-matrix as in Eq. (6) are the same. Since both the methods are equivalent, one can in fact use fits to the single energy values 111 The values of phase shifts in different partial waves obtained by fitting the cross section data at the available energies are known as single energy (SE) values of phase shifts. The error bars on these phase shifts naturally depend on the errors in the measured cross sections. The elastic $`T`$-matrix element is related to the phase shift and inelasticity parameter, $`\eta _l`$, as: $`T_l=(\eta _le^{2i\delta _l}1)/2i`$. Thus, one can also obtain SE values of the $`T`$-matrix. of phase shifts to extract resonance parameters.

## 3 Time delay plots of resonances in $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering

We now analyze the existing $`\pi N`$ scattering data using time delay plots. To demonstrate the usefulness of the method, we plot time delay in the energy regions where two well-known baryon resonances occur. In Fig. 1 are shown the real and imaginary parts of the complex $`T`$-matrices, the phase shifts and the corresponding time delay in the $`P_{33}`$ and $`D_{13}`$ partial waves in $`\pi N`$ scattering, evaluated using the $`T`$-matrices (solid lines) which fit the single energy values of $`T`$ very well. The filled circles in Fig. 1 are the single energy values of phase shifts extracted from the cross section data on $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering . The widths of the $`P_{33}`$ and $`D_{13}`$ peaks at half

maximum can be read from Fig. 1 to be around 116 and 50 MeV respectively. The peaks in the energy distributions occur at 1216 and 1512 MeV respectively. The average values of Breit-Wigner masses (widths) given in the Summary Table (ST) of the Particle Data Group  for these $`P_{33}`$ and $`D_{13}`$ resonances are 1232 (120) and 1520 (120) MeV respectively. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) decays almost 100% to the $`\pi N`$ channel and hence the time delay width seems to be in good agreement with the above value listed in the ST. The $`D_{13}`$ has a branching ratio of 50 to 60% to the $`\pi N`$ channel and the width of the time delay distribution is consistent with the partial width listed in the ST. Thus we see that in the case of purely elastic scattering as well as in the case of elastic scattering in the presence of inelastic channels, the method is quite useful. The peak position and width of the time delay distribution give the mass and elastic partial width of the resonance, respectively.

Interestingly, the $`P_{33}`$ phase shift of the only $`\pi N`$ resonance ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$) in the elastic region, remains positive and shows the characteristic resonant jump in this region. Hence, in this case, the speed defined in  is the same as time delay up to a constant factor.

### 3.1 New resonances from single energy values of phase shifts

We shall now evaluate time delay from fits to single energy (SE) values of phase shifts. Since the results depend crucially on the quality of the data, we chose data sets with small error bars and made separate $`n^{th}`$ order polynomial fits to different energy regions of the phase shift. It would be more appropriate to consider error bars and perform a $`\chi ^2`$ fit, with a certain function. However, such a procedure would not be able to pick up the small structures and would amount to giving results similar to the energy dependent ones. We also chose to fit SE values of phase shifts rather than the SE values of real and imaginary parts of the $`T`$-matrix, simply as a matter of convenience. The time delay evaluated using fits to phase shifts or $`T`$-matrices is actually the same. The advantage of calculating time delay from such fits is that the results are directly related to data. The disadvantage is that they are sensitive to the quality of the data and hence to the fit. There also exists the well known continuum ambiguity problem with the SE values of phase shifts . However, the present work does not aim at finding solutions to the problems related to the extraction of SE values. Hence, we use the values as available in literature and check if we still get some useful results for time delay.

We perform this analysis for the $`I=1/2`$ partial waves, $`P_{11}`$, $`P_{13}`$, $`D_{13}`$, $`S_{11}`$ and $`F_{15}`$ in $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering. We note that in spite of the above mentioned problems, we get strikingly similar peak positions and widths as compared to the Summary Table resonance parameters.

The results in Figs 2 and 3 reveal that time delay has the following main characteristics: (i) it locates well established resonances (ii) the positive peaks are more prominent than in the case where we calculated the same quantity for the energy-dependent solutions (see section 3.2 below), (iii) there exist regions of negative time delay in addition to the positive peaks (iv) the new feature here is that we find additional resonant peaks. At present, given the quality of the data, it is not clear if these new structures are artifacts of the fit to the data or genuine indications of (new) resonances. For example, in the $`P_{11}`$ and $`S_{11}`$ cases, we have hints for new resonances in the higher energy regions where the quality of data is worse. On the other hand, some one-star resonances like $`P_{11}(2100)`$ and $`S_{11}(2090)`$ are not excluded. We find evidence for the 3-star resonances $`F_{15}(2000)`$ and $`P_{13}(1900)`$, with some indication that the latter consists actually of two nearby resonances. In the $`D_{13}`$ partial wave, we observe distinct peaks at 1512, 1695 and 1940 MeV, which could be associated with the 4-, 3- and 2-star resonances $`N(1520)`$, $`N(1700)`$ and $`N(2080)`$ respectively. Note however that the existence of the two small peaks in this case depends crucially on two data points, and hence on the fit. These two points are sufficiently above continuum to justify the peaks (more so as they can be associated with known resonances). There seems to be more structure in the $`14001700`$ MeV region of $`S_{11}`$. A fit made to this detailed structure reveals the possibility of four resonances around $`1650`$ MeV. Indeed, there is some support for this structure from recent works in literature , where the existence of new resonances at 1.6 and 1.7 GeV is predicted within quark models.

With the availability of more precise data on cross sections which would enable a better extraction of the

SE values of phase shifts, one could locate the resonances from time delay plots more accurately. We limit the discussion in this section only to the 5 partial waves shown in Figs 2 and 3, since a detailed analysis with all partial waves would make sense only when the SE values of phase shifts would be better known. We list our findings in Table 1.

### 3.2 Time delay from energy-dependent amplitudes

One of the standard methods of characterizing resonances involves locating the poles of an energy dependent $`T`$-matrix on the unphysical sheet. If these poles correspond to resonances, a positive maximum in time delay at the energies where the poles occur is expected. However, none of the existing analyses are constrained by this necessary condition. In what follows, we use the energy-dependent solutions obtained from the SAID program  as an example of such analyses, to evaluate time delay. We start with the $`I=1/2`$ partial waves in $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering. In Fig. 4a, we plot the SAID solution FA02 of the complex amplitudes. The corresponding time delay, using these $`T`$-matrices and those from an earlier analysis (SM95 solutions) by the same group, is plotted in Fig. 4b. The two solutions give rise to similar values of time delay in all except the $`P_{11}`$ and $`P_{13}`$ partial waves, where the peak positions differ. The FA02 solutions which are in better agreement with the SE values as compared to SM95 were obtained  using a much bigger database. The $`P_{11}(2000)`$ peak obtained using SM95 is not seen with FA02. Indeed it was noted in , that the most significant shifts in the pole values occur in the P-waves ($`P_{11}`$ and $`P_{13}`$). We observe the resonant peaks in the $`P_{11}`$, $`S_{11}`$, $`D_{13}`$, $`D_{15}`$, $`F_{15}`$ and $`P_{13}`$ partial waves close to the pole positions predicted by the $`T`$-matrices. However, small peaks in the $`G_{17}`$ and $`H_{19}`$ partial waves appear at much lower values than the poles. The shifts in the time delay peaks as compared to the pole values could be due to the presence of a non-resonant background in these partial waves. Yet another explanation is offered in section 4. We give a more detailed discussion of the resonances in various partial waves now.

$`\mathrm{P}_{11}`$-resonances: The SM95 solution gives a broad peak around $`14001500`$ MeV and a prominent peak at $`2050`$ MeV which could be attributed to the $`P_{11}(1440)`$ and the less established $`P_{11}(2100)`$ respectively. With the FA02, the two peaks at $`1370`$ MeV and $`1745`$ MeV are a clear signal of $`P_{11}(1440)`$ and $`P_{11}(1710)`$ listed in the ST. The FA02 $`T`$-matrix has two closely located poles at 1357 and 1386 MeV. The broad time delay peak around 1370 could actually be due to two closely overlapping resonances. The observation of the time delay peak at 1370 MeV which is much lower than the ST value of 1440 MeV is similar to the finding of Ref. . In fact, most of the time delay peaks being close to the pole positions, occur at lower values than the parameters of the ST. The prominent peak at 2050 MeV with SM95 is not present in FA02 anymore.

We also note that $`P_{11}`$ resonances at 1500 and 1700 MeV were found in  from fits to the energy dependence of the amplitude obtained from an older VPI single energy analysis.

$`\mathrm{P}_{13}`$-resonances: We see peaks at $`1585`$ and $`1600`$ MeV corresponding to the FA02 and SM95 solutions respectively. There exists a pole of the SM95 solution at $`1717`$ MeV which is close to the resonance $`P_{13}(1720)`$. However the FA02 pole occurs at a much lower value of $`1584`$ MeV. Though the pole values of the two solutions differ a lot, the time delay peaks with the two solutions are quite close.

$`\mathrm{S}_{11}`$-resonances: We observe a positive peak around $`1494`$ MeV, which can be attributed to $`S_{11}(1535)`$, again as in the case of $`P_{11}(1440)`$ at a considerably lower value. The positive peak at $`1650`$ MeV is a nice manifestation of $`S_{11}(1650)`$. We note another phenomenon which commonly occurs in time delay plots now. The small peak at 1494 MeV is followed by a large negative region (which, as emphasized before, cannot be associated with resonance formation). The negative time delay is associated with the opening up of new channels in $`\pi N`$ scattering and in fact, the minimum in the dip occurs at the energy corresponding to maximum inelasticity. The energy derivative of the phase shift (and hence time delay) is related through the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula to the change in density of states in the presence of interaction . The negative time delay corresponds to situations where due to the interaction, the density of states is less than in the absence of interaction. This is exactly what happens when the inelastic channels open up and there is a loss of flux from the elastic channel, thus reducing the density of states due to interaction. A detailed discussion on this issue can be found in . A repulsive non-resonant background could make an additional contribution to the negative time delay.

$`\mathrm{D}_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_{15}`$-resonances: Time delay reveals the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_{15}(1680)`$ resonances. The three- and two-star resonances $`D_{13}(1700)`$ and $`F_{15}(2000)`$ respectively, do not appear in the time delay evaluated with the SM95 or FA02 solutions. This is consistent with the fact that the same solutions do not locate the corresponding poles. However, these two resonances do appear in the time delay plots obtained from fits to the single energy values of the $`T`$-matrix.

$`\mathrm{D}_{15}`$ resonance: Though the peak is not prominent, its position and width are close to the pole values.

$`\mathrm{G}_{17}`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_{19}`$-resonances: The peak positions in time delay are at much lower values as compared to the poles and much broader than the partial widths corresponding to the poles. It is not clear if such a large shift in these 2 cases should be attributed to the non-resonant background, since most of the other resonances were shifted from the pole values by only few tens of MeV at the most. Although a remote possibility, it could be that the shifted peaks represent resonances without corresponding poles and the poles at higher values do not correspond to resonances. These cases could be realistic examples similar to the constructed ones in , where the authors doubt the one-to-one correspondence between an unstable state and $`S`$-matrix pole. A good knowledge of the non-resonant background would clarify the situation. An alternative explanation will be given in section 4.

A comparison of the time delay peaks (evaluated using the FA02 solution) with the ST values and pole positions of FA02 and Speed Plots is given in Table 2. The branching fractions of the various resonances to the $`\pi N`$ decay channel are also listed. The widths in time delay are the partial widths corresponding to the $`\pi N`$ decay mode. Widths listed in the second and third columns are full widths. It can be seen that we get distinct resonance signals even for resonances with a branching fraction as small as 10-20 % to the $`\pi N`$ channel.

Next, we move on to the analysis of the $`I=3/2`$ partial waves in $`\pi N`$ scattering (Fig. 5). Many conventional pole positions of the energy-dependent $`T`$-matrices occur in regions of negative time delay. However, the time delay plots made from fits to the single energy values of the amplitude do show small peaks due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances with a small branching fraction to the $`\pi N`$ decay mode . With the exception of $`P_{31}`$ where we do not find any positive region, the overall picture is similar to the case of the $`I=1/2`$ resonances. It is however fair to say that in the cases of $`D_{33}`$, $`F_{35}`$ and $`F_{37}`$ partial waves, the positive peaks are really too tiny to be conclusive. A comparison of the time delay peaks in the $`I=3/2`$ partial waves (evaluated using the FA02 solution) with the Summary Table values and pole positions of FA02 and Speed Plots is given in Table 3.

## 4 Time delay and Breit-Wigner amplitudes

In 2.2, we evaluated the time delay from a simple Breit-Wigner (BW) amplitude, assuming that the branching ratio for the elastic channel under consideration is $`1`$. We discuss this topic at this point again as we wish to interpret the results of our time delay analysis using $`T`$-matrix solutions which involve BW-like functions.

Generalizing the case of the BW amplitude by considering an elastic channel $`i`$ with a branching ratio, $`Br\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, smaller than one, we have

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/2}{E_REi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}$$
(11)
from which, after taking into account that the $`S`$-matrix is $`S=1+2iT=\eta e^{2i\delta }`$, the phase shift $`\delta `$ can be calculated to be

$$\delta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E_RE)}{(E_RE)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}\right].$$
(12)
The derivative of the phase shift taken at $`E=E_R`$ is,

$$\frac{d\delta }{dE}|_{E=E_R}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{Br}{(Br1/2)}.$$
(13)
From Eq. 13, we see that if $`Br<1/2`$, time delay at resonance is negative. The negative region around $`E_R`$ is a local negative minimum accompanied on two sides by local positive maxima. We refer to this phenomenon as ‘two-horn’ structure. We can either say that the time delay concept loses its meaning in resonance physics in channels with a branching ratio less than $`1/2`$, or, the simple Breit-Wigner is not an adequate description for a resonant amplitude; although for many purposes other than time delay, a reasonable approximation. Indeed, Eq. (11) lacks the threshold factor and energy dependent widths. The threshold should at least be implemented correctly by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i[q(E)/q(E_R)]^{2l+1}`$ (see e.g.  and references therein), where $`q`$ is the momentum of one of the initial particles in the CM frame. This $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is not unique and can be modified . Moreover, as noted in  the rest of the energy dependence can take many different forms (see  for the latest collection of such resonant amplitudes). Hence, any argument in connection with time delay relating the latter with a Breit-Wigner should not be based on (11). This is exactly what we have done by computing the time delay from $`T`$-matrix solutions which are based on a more sophisticated BW form . Certainly in some cases, an almost ‘two-horn’ structure is visible and is reminiscent of a BW. However, not always should this fact be considered as a drawback for the time delay concept. Indeed, in spite of an almost ‘two-horn’ structure for $`P_{13}`$, we find a mass of $`1585`$ MeV as compared to the pole value of $`1584`$ MeV. The $`S_{11}`$ partial wave, in spite of the almost ‘two-horn’ structure, displays two bona fide resonances at their expected values. This shows that a more sophisticated BW can indeed account for resonances in the time delay. The $`D_{15}`$, $`S_{31}`$ and $`D_{35}`$ resonances are in agreement with the values found in . We do find the $`P_{11}(1710)`$ in spite of a branching ratio of $`1020\%`$. Hence, this again demonstrates that arguments based on (11) are not at all stringent.

There are certainly problematic cases such as the $`D_{33}`$, $`F_{37}`$ and $`F_{35}`$. Dismissing the concept of time delay on account of these cases would amount to the same as dismissing the solutions of  which also fail to find several important resonances quoted in PDG (in addition to the fact that the resonance parameters do not always agree with the mean PDG value). This is clearly unacceptable as it is rather the rule than exception that different analyses in hadronic resonances yield different results. The fact that time delay is indecisive in certain cases could be due to the BW used in the parametrization of the $`T`$-matrix solutions. Although much better than (11) (as already proved by the time delay method itself), it might still not be the most general and suitable form for broad resonances . In the $`ij`$ channel, the numerator of the BW amplitude gets replaced by $`c_ic_j`$ with $`c_i=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. It was noted in  in connection with $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, that in order to obtain the correct $`S`$-matrix, the $`c_i`$’s should be complex. This should apply equally well to the baryon resonances (a similar argument can be found in ). It is worth noting that in our time delay analysis of meson-meson scattering , in all cases with $`Br1/2`$ for the elastic channel we found positive peaks (and no ‘two-horn’ structures). These cases are not isolated as there are six of them. Hence in contrast to the simple theoretical example of an oversimplified BW, in reality (at least for the meson-meson case) time delay works. We therefore suspect that an improvement on the BW in the baryon case will also lead to an improvement of the corresponding time delay results.

Finally, we also examine the influence of the non-resonant background using the BW parametrization for coupled channels as in . Assuming a diagonal background, the $`S`$-matrix for elastic scattering ($`i=j`$) is given as,

$$S=e^{2i\eta _i}\left[12i\frac{E_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)}{E^2E_R^2+iE_R\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}\right]$$
(14)
where $`\eta _i`$ is the background phase. In this case,

$$\frac{d\delta }{dE}|_{E=E_R}=\frac{Br}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_R)(Br1/2)}+\frac{d\eta _i}{dE}|_{E=E_R}$$
(15)
which generalizes Eq. (13).

## 5 Summary

Though the resonances in $`\pi N`$ scattering belong to one of the oldest topics of particle and nuclear physics, their study is far from being complete. This can be seen alone from their classification into four-, three-, two-, and one-star resonances according to the status of being well or less established. Disagreements in the extractions of resonance parameters are often encountered and theoretical model calculations sometimes predict new resonances.

Motivated by statements in literature that a positive time delay is a necessary condition to confirm a resonance, in the present work we have put the time delay method to test and have presented a systematic survey of time delay plots for the $`\pi N`$ resonances. In case of a clear signal, the resonance parameters could be extracted from the time delay plots. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }t(E)`$ was calculated from the $`T`$-matrix solutions, we did not always find resonances at the energies corresponding to the poles of the $`T`$-matrix. This might be due to the model dependence of the $`T`$-matrix solutions or the non-resonant background in them. The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t(E)`$ directly from data via phase shifts also characterized several established resonances. The results indicate that in some cases a known resonance could actually be a mixture of two neighbouring resonances. Detailed fits to the structure in the data revealed new resonances. For example, in the much talked about $`S_{11}`$ partial wave  we found some new resonances with some of them in agreement with the predictions in literature . We believe that given more precise data, the time delay approach to resonances would be a very useful tool to characterize resonances.

APPENDIX

We briefly discuss two concepts related to time delay. These were not used in the present work, but we include them to avoid confusion among different concepts.

Time delay is closely related to the lifetime matrix Q, defined by Smith . This Q is related to the scattering matrix S as, $`𝐐=i\mathrm{}𝐒d𝐒^{}/dE.`$ The average time delay can be defined as a weighted average of the delay times $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}`$ and is the same as $`Q_{ii}`$. Since the particle has probability $`|S_{ij}|^2`$ of emerging in the $`j^{th}`$ channel, the average time delay for a particle injected in the $`i^{th}`$ channel is given as,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_i_{av}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}S_{ij}^{}S_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}=Re[i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}S_{ij}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{dS_{ij}}{dE}}]=Q_{ii}.`$
Strictly speaking, equations (1), (6) and (10) represent a time “delay” due to interaction. One can also derive an expression  (quoted here for $`J=0`$):

$$T(a)=8\pi ^2\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{}|A(E^{},E)|^2\left\{2\frac{d\delta }{dE^{}}+2a\frac{\mathrm{sin}[2(\delta +k^{}a)]}{k^{}}\right\},$$

which is interpreted as the time spent within the spherical interaction region of radius $`a`$ in the presence of interaction. Since the above equation can be rewritten as an integral over a probability, $`T(a)`$ is always positive definite in contrast to (1), (6) and (10).

We also note that yet another discussion of time delay in classical and quantum scattering theory can be found in .

Acknowledgements:  The authors wish to thank R. A. Arndt for useful discussions and I. Strakovsky for providing the pole values of their $`T`$-matrix solutions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The main goal of string theory nowadays is to prove itself capable of coping with experimental evidences. On the other hand, recently, it has been made almost evident from supernova observations  as well as from the data supplied by the COBE satelite , that we live in a flat world with a kind of special matter, or possibly a positive cosmological constant, i.e., de Sitter space-time . It is thus annoying that several results in string theory are obtained only in Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, namely a space with a negative cosmological constant, especially the celebrated correspondence between the bulk AdS space and the Conformal Field Theory (CFT) at the border . It is even deceiving, in view of the above observations, that de Sitter space poses serious questions for the formulation of string theory . It is our aim here to contribute to the extension of the bulk to border correspondence to the case where the bulk cosmological constant is positive, that is, to investigate whether the de Sitter space in the bulk has any relationship with a purported CFT at its border.

In fact, a holographic duality relating quantum gravity on $`D`$-dimensional de Sitter space ($`dS_D`$) to a CFT residing on the past boundary ($`I^{}`$) of $`dS_D`$ has recently been proposed by Strominger in , what has motivated several works discussing the setup of this duality (see, for instance, ). Moreover, as shown by Gibbons and Hawking  the de Sitter space cosmological event horizon is endowed with entropy and temperature, in analogy with a black hole event horizon. Thus, quantum gravity, as a natural description of black holes, has to be extended to the whole universe .

We have already analysed the question raised above in the case of three-dimensional de Sitter space, where both, perturbations of $`dS_3`$ solution in the bulk, as well as the two-dimensional CFT propagator spectrum at the border, are explicitly computable . There we obtained both spectra, and they turned out to coincide exactly. Indeed, the solution of the Klein-Gordon equation in the bulk of the de Sitter space leads to a hypergeometric equation, which, upon employing the boundary condition imposing the vanishing of the field at the event horizon, leads to a four-fould set of quasi-normal modes. Inspection of the propagator of the CFT at the boundary space, for the physically realizable boundary conditions of the fields, shows a spectrum that exactly coincides with the previously described one.

Nevertheless, three-dimensional de Sitter space-time is far simpler than real systems and the actual problem remains basically unsolved. Furthermore, three-dimensional de Sitter space does not admit a black hole event horizon (there is no black hole solution), but only a cosmological horizon. On the other hand, four-dimensional Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution displays a very peculiar spectrum of perturbations. There are quasi-normal modes at short times, followed by a power law decay typical of the asymptotically flat Schwarzschild solution, and finally by an exponential tail . Our suspicion is that only this exponential tail is reflected in the CFT at the boundary. For the moment the problem is too complex, and we remain for the time being on perturbations of the empty dS space, which is exactly computable, comparing with the corresponding CFT results at the border. The conclusions should apply for small black holes, in view of the above peculiar spectrum of perturbations.

In summary, a qualitative correspondence between quasi-normal modes in AdS spaces and the decay of perturbations in the dual CFT has been obtained . In the case of an AdS space-time as described by the BTZ black hole  a precise agreement between quasi-normal mode frequencies and the location of the poles in the retarded correlation function of the corresponding perturbations in the dual CFT has been obtained in , whereas in  a similar correspondence was found for three-dimensional dS space. The investigation of the validity of this agreement for four-dimensional dS space, as well as its extension for higher dimensions, is thus an important question. Therefore, our aim is to generalize the previously obtained three-dimensional results, as well as reconfirming the many indications of such a holographic duality for de Sitter space.

## 2 The Geometry of the de Sitter Space-Time

The $`D`$-dimensional de Sitter space-time, $`dS_D`$, can be visualized as the hyperboloid

$$\eta _{AB}X^AX^B(X^0)^2+(X^1)^2+\mathrm{}+(X^D)^2=a^2,$$
(1)
embedded in $`(D+1)`$-dimensional Minkowski space-time with metric

$$ds^2=\eta _{AB}dX^AdX^B,$$
(2)
where $`\eta _{AB}=diag(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ and $`A,B=0,1,\mathrm{},D`$. The parameter $`a`$ is the de Sitter radius.

The $`dS_D`$ metric is induced from the flat metric (2) on the hypersurface (1). It is a solution of the Einstein field equations with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, related to $`a`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(D2)(D1)/2a^2`$ .

Several coordinate systems used to describe the structure of $`dS_D`$ are discussed in . Among these, the static coordinates are particularly useful, since they make the existence of a (cosmological) event horizon manifest in space-time, being more suitable for the purpose of this work.

As in , we fix

$$(X^0)^2(X^D)^2=a^2V(r),$$
(3)
where

$$V(r)=1\frac{r^2}{a^2}.$$
(4)
Then, we use (1) to arrive at the constraint

$$(X^1)^2+\mathrm{}+(X^{D1})^2=r^2,$$
(5)
so that the coordinates $`X^1,\mathrm{},X^{D1}`$ range over a $`(D2)`$sphere, $`S^{D2}`$, of radius $`r`$. By parametrizing the hyperbola (3) by

$$X^0=\sqrt{r^2a^2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{t}{a},$$
(6)
$$X^D=\sqrt{r^2a^2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{a},$$
(7)
the induced metric on the hypersurface (1) is given by

$$ds^2=V(r)dt^2+V^1(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2,$$
(8)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2`$ is the metric of the unit sphere $`S^{D2}`$. This is the form of the $`dS_D`$ metric in static coordinates. From (8) it is easy to see that an observable at $`r=0`$ is surrounded by an event horizon at $`r=a`$. The static coordinates do not cover the whole space-time, but only the interior region of the cosmological horizon, which corresponds to the left triangle in the Penrose-Carter diagram shown below. The past ($`I^{}`$) and future ($`I^+`$) event horizons correspond to $`r=\mathrm{}`$ .

In view of the computation of the de Sitter invariant Hadamard two-point function it is convenient to define an invariant $`P(X,X^{})`$ associated to two points $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ in de Sitter space. We define

$$a^2P(X,X^{})=\eta _{AB}X^AX^B,$$
(9)
which is related to the geodesic distance $`d(X,X^{})`$ between two points by $`P=\mathrm{cos}(d/a)`$. In static coordinates, we can easily express $`P(X,X^{})`$ as

$$a^2P(X,X^{})=\sqrt{r^2a^2}\sqrt{r^2a^2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{tt^{}}{a}+rr^{}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ denotes the geodesic distance between two points on the unit sphere $`S^{D2}`$. Later we will restrict our results to the case $`D=4`$, where

$$\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi ^{})+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}$$
(11)
holds, as can easily be obtained in terms of the usual polar and azimuthal angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$.

## 3 Scalar Perturbations of the $`dS_D`$ Space

Scalar perturbations of the $`dS_D`$ space-time are described by the Klein-Gordon wave equation

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(12)
where $`\mu `$ is the mass of the perturbing scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the $`dS_D`$ metric,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=diagonal(V(r),V^1(r),r^2\widehat{1}_{D2}),$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{1}_{D2}`$ is the identity matrix on $`S^{D2}`$. Therefore, $`\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{det(g_{\alpha \beta })}=r^{(D2)}\mathrm{sin}^{D3}\theta _1,\mathrm{sin}^{D4}\theta _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D3}`$ and from (12) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{D2}}}_t\left(r^{D2}(V^1(r))_t\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\mathrm{\Omega })\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{D2}}}_r\left(r^{D2}V(r)_r\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\mathrm{\Omega })\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}_{_{D2}}^2\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\mathrm{\Omega })\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\mathrm{\Omega })=0,`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the set of angular variables, and $`_{_{D2}}^2`$ corresponds to the angular derivatives, that is, the Laplacian on the unit sphere $`S^{D2}`$.

The above equation is separable, with the Ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\mathrm{\Omega })=e^{i\omega t}R_{\mathrm{}}(r)Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(15)
where $`Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are the (hyper-)spherical harmonics on $`S^{D2}`$, which obey

$$_{_{D2}}^2Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+D3)Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(16)
In $`Y_{\mathrm{}}^m`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ is a positive integer and $`m`$ is a collective index ($`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_{D3}`$) .

Therefore, we have for the radial dependence in $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$,

$$\frac{V(r)}{r^{D2}}\frac{d}{dr}\left(V(r)r^{D2}\frac{dR(r)}{dr}\right)+\left[\omega ^2V(r)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+D3)}{r^2}+\mu ^2\right)\right]R(r)=0,$$
(17)
where we have omitted the index $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`R(r)`$.

Defining

$$z=\frac{r^2}{a^2},$$
(18)
equation (17) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{a^2}}z(z1)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2R(z)}{dz^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2}}(z1)[z(D+1)(D1)]{\displaystyle \frac{dR(z)}{dz}}+`$
$`+\left[\omega ^2(1z)\left({\displaystyle \frac{l(l+D3)}{a^2z}}+\mu ^2\right)\right]R(z)=0.`$ (19)
Now, by setting the Ansatz

$$R=z^\alpha (1z)^\beta F(z),$$
(20)
equation (19) can be transformed into

$`z(z1){\displaystyle \frac{d^2F(z)}{dz^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(4\alpha +4\beta +D+1)z(4\alpha +D1)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dF(z)}{dz}}+`$
$`+\left((\alpha +\beta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}(\alpha +\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2a^2}{4}}\right)F(z)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(4\beta ^2+\omega ^2a^2)z(4\alpha ^2+2\alpha (D3)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+D3))(z1)}{4z(z1)}}F(z)=0,`$
(21)
which is a hypergeometric equation, that is,

$$z(z1)\frac{dF(z)}{dz}+\left[(1+A+B)zC\right]\frac{dF(z)}{dz}+ABF(z)=0,$$
(22)
provided we choose the arbitrary constants $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as

$`4\alpha ^2+2\alpha (D3)l(l+D3)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`4\beta ^2+\omega ^2a^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
whose solutions are

$`(\mathrm{i})`$ $`:`$ $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{ia\omega }{2}};`$
$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ $`:`$ $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{ia\omega }{2}};`$
$`(\mathrm{iii})`$ $`:`$ $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{l+D3}{2}},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{ia\omega }{2}};`$
$`(\mathrm{iv})`$ $`:`$ $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{l+D3}{2}},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{ia\omega }{2}}.`$
For case (i), the constants $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ are given by the set

$$A_{}=B_\pm =\frac{l+ia\omega }{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left[D1\pm \sqrt{(D1)^24\mu ^2a^2}\right],$$
(23)
$$C=\mathrm{}+\frac{D1}{2}.$$
(24)
Therefore we have the two solutions for $`R(z)`$, that is

$$R(z)=z^{l/2}(1z)^{ia\omega /2}F(\frac{l+ia\omega +h_{}}{2},\frac{l+ia\omega +h_+}{2},l+\frac{D1}{2},z)$$
(25)
and

$$R(z)=z^{l/2}(1z)^{ia\omega /2}F(\frac{l+ia\omega +h_+}{2},\frac{l+ia\omega +h_{}}{2},l+\frac{D1}{2},z),$$
(26)
where $`F`$ is the usual hypergeometric function  and

$$h_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[D1\pm \sqrt{(D1)^24\mu ^2a^2}\right].$$
(27)
The corresponding quasi-normal modes are solutions of the equations

$$CA=n,CB=n,$$
(28)
i.e.,

$`l+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l+ia\omega +h_{}}{2}}+n`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`l+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l+ia\omega +h_\pm }{2}}+n`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
The corresponding quasi-normal frequencies are then given by

$`ia\omega `$ $`=`$ $`2n+l+D1h_\pm `$ (29)
$`=`$ $`2n+l+h_{}.`$ (30)
This means that we have the two sets of solutions

$`\pm ia\omega _R`$ $`=`$ $`2n+l+h_+,\pm ia\omega _L=2n+l+h_{},`$ (31)
where we have included the complex conjugated solutions.

The case (ii) is obtained from the case (i) by complex conjugation and the quasi-normal frequencies are solutions implying case (ii) as a solution. Further quasi-normal modes are obtained from the symmetry $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+D3)`$ , which implies cases (iii) and (iv) above, or the set

$`\pm ia\omega _R=2n(l+D3)+h_+,\pm ia\omega _L=2n(l+D3)+h_{}.`$ (32)
## 4 Two-Point Correlator for CFT Operators at the Boundary

We define a de Sitter invariant Hadamard two-point function as

$$G(X,X^{})=const<0|\mathrm{\Phi }(X),\mathrm{\Phi }(X^{})|0>,$$
(33)
which obeys

$$(__X^2\mu ^2)G(X,X^{})=0,$$
(34)
where $`__X^2`$ is the Laplacian on $`dS_D`$. The Green function $`G(X,X^{})`$ depends on $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ only through the invariant $`P(X,X^{})`$, the distance between the points points $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, given by eq.(9). We can write $`G(X,X^{})=G(P(X,X^{}))`$, and from (34) we obtain

$$(1P^2)\frac{d^2G}{dP^2}DP\frac{dG}{dz}\mu ^2a^2G(P)=0,$$
(35)
which, by means of the change of variable $`z=(1+P)/2`$ becomes a hypergeometric equation

$$z(1z)\frac{d^2G}{dz^2}+\left(\frac{D}{2}Dz\right)\frac{dG}{dz}\mu ^2a^2G(z)=0.$$
(36)
The solution is the hypergeometric function $`F`$,

$$G(z)=ReF(h_+,h_{},\frac{D}{2};z),$$
(37)
i.e.,

$$G(P)=ReF(h_+,h_{},\frac{D}{2};\frac{1+P}{2}),$$
(38)
where $`h_\pm `$ is given by (27).

In order to explicitly calculate the two-point correlator for an operator coupled to the bulk field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we restrict now our considerations to the four-dimensional case ($`D=4`$). The results can be naturally extended for any dimension. The two-point correlator can be obtained analogously to  from

$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _I^{}}dtd\theta d\varphi dt^{}d\theta ^{}d\varphi ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(rr^{})^2}{a^2}}\times `$
$`\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )_r_{}G(t,r,\theta ,\varphi ;t^{},r^{},\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})_r_{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(t^{},r^{},\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})\right]_{r=r^{}},`$ (39)
where $`dr_{}=(V(r))^{1/2}dr`$.

The asymptotic behaviour of $`G(X,X^{})`$ at the conformal boundary, in static coordinates, is given by (see equation (B.9) of )

$$\underset{r,r^{}\mathrm{}}{lim}G(t,r,\theta ,\varphi ;t^{},r^{},\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})=c_+(rr^{})^{h_+}[\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{tt^{}}{a})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }]^{h_+}+(h_+h_{}),$$
(40)
where $`c_+`$ is a constant and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is given by (11) in four dimensions.

As in  we also impose the following boundary condition for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at the boundary $`I^{}`$

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )=r^h_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(t,\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(41)
However, as stressed by Strominger  the boundary condition (41) is not mandatory, and we may also choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )=r^{h_+}\mathrm{\Phi }_+(t,\theta ,\varphi )`$ at infinity. This leads to similar correlators, obtained by the change $`h_+h_{}`$. Thus, from this point onwards we simply use $`h`$, and at the end we shall obtain the full set of solutions chosing either value of $`h`$.

The use of (40) and (41) in (39) leads to

$`D(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ $``$ $`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle }dtd\theta d\varphi dt^{}d\theta ^{}d\varphi ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(rr^{})^2}{a^2}}\times `$ (42)
$`\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(x)_r_{}G(x,x^{})_r_{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{})\right]_{r=r^{}}=`$
$$=𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi 𝑑t^{}𝑑\theta ^{}𝑑\varphi ^{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(t,\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(t^{},\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})}{[\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{tt^{}}{a})(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi ^{})+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})]^h}.$$
(43)
Now we substitute above the Ansatz $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(t,\theta ,\varphi )=e^{i\omega t}Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. We note that up to this point there is a priori no relationship here between the parameter $`\omega `$ in this Ansatz and that denoting the quasi-normal modes from the bulk perturbations. It follows that

$$D_{\omega \omega ^{}}=𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi 𝑑t^{}𝑑\theta ^{}𝑑\varphi ^{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\theta ,\varphi )Y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^m^{}(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})e^{i\omega t}e^{i\omega ^{}t^{}}}{[\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{tt^{}}{a})(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi ^{})+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})]^h},$$
(44)
which can be suitably written in the form (up to a constant factor, $`C`$, coming from the normalization of the spherical harmonics)

$`D_{\omega \omega ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C\delta _{mm^{}}\delta (\omega \omega ^{}){\displaystyle }d\tau d\theta d\theta ^{}d\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}P_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})\times `$ (45)
$`e^{im\phi }e^{i\omega \tau }\left[\mathrm{cosh}({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{a}})(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})\right]^h,`$
where $`\phi =\varphi \varphi ^{}`$ and $`\tau =tt^{}`$.

It is our aim here to display the spectrum of perturbations, that is, the poles of (45) in $`\omega `$. This is not too difficult, since each pole is caracterized by the asymptotic behaviour of the integrand for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. Indeed, a pole $`1/(\omega ^2\omega _0^2)`$ corresponds to an asymptotic behaviour $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0\tau )`$. Thus, by expanding (45) in powers of

$$ϵ=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\tau }{a})}(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}),$$
(46)
we have

$`D_{\omega \omega ^{}}=C\delta _{mm^{}}\delta (\omega \omega ^{}){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau e^{i\omega \tau }}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\tau }{a})^h}}[a_0+a_1{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\tau }{a})}}+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{h(h+1)}{2!\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{\tau }{a})}}+`$
$`+a_3{\displaystyle \frac{h(h+1)(h+2)}{3!\mathrm{cosh}^3(\frac{\tau }{a})}}+\mathrm{}],`$ (47)
where

$`a_0={\displaystyle 𝑑\theta 𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}P_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})𝑑\phi e^{im\phi }},`$ (48)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\theta d\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}P_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}){\displaystyle }d\phi e^{im\phi }\times `$ (49)
$`\left[\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\right];\mathrm{}`$
$`a_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\theta d\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}P_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}){\displaystyle }d\phi e^{im\phi }\times `$ (50)
$`\left[\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\right]^N\mathrm{}.`$
It is simple to solve the integrals in $`\phi `$ by means of the orthogonality relation of $`exp(im\phi )`$. This will fix the value of $`m`$ at each term in the expansion. The integrals in $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ are a little more involved, but they can be handled by using standard integrals (as, e.g., in ) involving the $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m(\theta )`$’s themselves and contributions of sines and cossines. For example, up to the second-order term in the $`ϵ`$-expasion we find integrals of the type

$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^0(x^{}){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x),`$ (51)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \delta _{m,1}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^1(x^{})(1x^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^1(x)(1x^2)^{1/2}+`$ (52)
$`2\pi \delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^0(x^{})x^{}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)x,`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta _{m,2}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^2(x^{})(1x^2){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)(1x^2)+`$ (53)
$`2\pi \delta _{m,1}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^1(x^{})x^{}(1x^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^1(x)x(1x^2)^{1/2}+`$
$`2\pi \delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^0(x^{})x^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)x^2+`$
$`\pi \delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^0(x^{})(1x^2){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)(1x^2)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta _{m,2}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^2(x^{})(1x^2){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)(1x^2),`$
where $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$.

The computation of the above integrals fixes the values of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ that leads to a non-vanishing contribution for the coefficients $`a_0,a_1`$, and $`a_2`$ . This can be easily done using the orthogonality of the $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m(\theta )`$’s, for some integrals, and resorting to a table for others. Almost all the integrals appearing in $`a_0,a_1`$, and $`a_2`$ can be expressed as a product of $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m`$’s with the same index $`m`$. This allow us to obtain for those integrals

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\mathrm{}+1}}\delta _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}},`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^1(x)(1x^2)^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{}+1)!}{(2\mathrm{}+1)(\mathrm{}1)!}}\delta _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}},`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\mathrm{}+1}}\delta _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}},`$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)(1x^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{}+2)!}{3(2\mathrm{}+1)(\mathrm{}2)!}}\delta _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^1(x)x(1x^2)^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{}+1)!}{3(2\mathrm{}+1)(\mathrm{}1)!}}\delta _{\mathrm{},2}`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)x^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3(2\mathrm{}+1)}}\delta _{\mathrm{},2}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3(2\mathrm{}+1)}}\delta _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}},`$ (59)
from where we see that only $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}=0;1;1;2;2;(0;2)`$ contribute for the above integrals, respectively. The integrals containing $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m`$ can be solved by means of the relation $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m=(1)^m\frac{(\mathrm{}m)!}{(\mathrm{}+m)!}P_{\mathrm{}}^m`$.

It remains the integral $`_1^1𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)(1x^2)`$, that appears in $`a_2`$, which cannot be written as a product of the $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m`$’s with the same $`m`$. In this case, we use  to obtain

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x^{}P_{\mathrm{}^{}}^0(x^{})(1x^2){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xP_{\mathrm{}}^0(x)(1x^2)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\frac{\mathrm{}^{}}{2}+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\frac{\mathrm{}^{}}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\mathrm{}^{}}{2}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\mathrm{}^{}}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}}\times (\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}).`$ (60)
We conclude that only $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}=0,2`$ contribute with a non-vanishing value for the integrals in (60).

It is easy to verify that the non-vanishing contributions for the integrals in each higher-order term in the expansion (47) are similar to those shown above. In fact, for the third-order term, we have the contributions $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}=1,3`$, and as the inspection of a generic term $`a_N`$ in the expansion shows, the contributions of $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}`$ will be of the type $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}=N,N2,N4,\mathrm{}`$. This allows us to write (47) as

$$D_{\omega \omega ^{}}=\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\underset{N=0}{}c_N𝑑\tau e^{i\omega \tau }\left[\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\tau }{a}\right]^{(h+l+2N)}.$$
(61)
This integral has poles at

$$\omega =\pm \frac{i}{a}(h_\pm +l+2n),$$
(62)
in view of the behaviour of the integrand for large values of $`\tau `$.

The spectrum (62) coincides exactly with the quasi-normal frequencies (31) obtained in perturbations of the bulk of the de Sitter space-time, except only for the values $`\pm \xi \pm 1/2`$, where $`\xi =\sqrt{94\mu ^2a^2}`$. This can be easily verified by inspection of the bulk spectrum, given by (31-32).

## 5 Concluding remarks

We have shown that the quasi-normal modes arising from a scalar perturbation of the de Sitter space are, with exception of only four of them, contained in the spectrum of two-point function of the corresponding three-dimensional conformal field theory at the boundary.

Although the computation of the two-point correlator has been performed in four-dimensional de Sitter space, the results can be generalized to $`D`$ dimensions, where presumably the quasi-normal modes obtained in bulk de Sitter space are, with the exception of a small number of them, contained in the spectrum of the corresponding $`(D1)`$-dimensional CFT at the boundary. In fact, this seems to occur, since the form of the two-point correlator as given by (44) can be directly generalized to $`D`$ dimensions. In this case, we will have to handle with hyperspherical harmonics and the denominator of (44) takes the form $`[\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\tau }{a}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }]^h`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ is the geodesic distance between two points on the unit sphere $`S^{D2}`$.

Our results give directions to build foundations of an extension of the celebrated AdS/CFT correspondence to the de Sitter space. We do not know the interpretation of the small number of states left out of the CFT spectrum, but for extensive magnitudes, such as entropy, they presumably do not matter.

At last, we stress the fact, already well signalized, for example, by Strominger , that the whole de Sitter space-time cannot be probed by a single observer, and describing the whole de Sitter space-time corresponds to describing both sides of a black hole’s event horizon. In spite of the discussion involving a region smaller than the full de Sitter space, we have shown a striking evidence that a CFT describes well the holographic projection of the bulk space, thus providing strong support for a dS/CFT correspondence, since bulk eigenmodes are fully described in the region of space probed by a single observer.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank CNPq-Brazil (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) and FAPESP-Brazil (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa no Estado de São Paulo) for financial support.


text:
# Mediated Entanglement And Correlations In A Star Network Of Interacting Spins

## Abstract

We investigate analytically a star network of spins, in which all spins interact exclusively with a central spin through Heisenberg XX couplings of equal strength. We find that the central spin correlates and entangles the other spins at zero temperature to a degree that depends on the total number of spins. Surprisingly, the entanglement depends on the evenness or oddness of this number and some correlations are substantial even for an infinite collection of spins. We show how symmetric multi-party states for optimal sharing and splitting of entanglement can be obtained in this system using a magnetic field.

For a long time spin correlations in 1D chains and higher dimensional lattices of interacting spins have been a subject of extensive interest . Recently, the same systems have been studied from the point of view of truly quantum correlations or entanglement . However, lattices of various dimensions are not the only physical systems whose fabrication is possible with current technology. In particular, with the advent of quantum computation, various technologies have evolved which can make any member of an array of qubits (systems isomorphic to spin-1/2) controllably interact with any other member . It thus becomes possible to visualize structures of interacting spins which do not fall into the category of lattices in various dimensions. One very simple structure that one can imagine, is a spin-star, as opposed to the extensively studied spin-chains. In such a spin star, there is a preferred spin, which we call the central spin which interacts with all the other spins. All the non-central spins (which we will call the outer spins), on the other hand, do not directly interact among themselves. The structure is clearly depicted in Fig.1. $`0`$ depicts the central spin. The spins $`15`$ interact only with the central spin and not with each other. The architecture is analogous to the star distribution networks used in communications. To our knowledge, not just entanglement and correlations, but also the statistical mechanics of such a structure remains unexplored.

The star configuration with couplings of equal strength has many symmetry properties due to its invariance under the exchange of any two outer spins and we solve it exactly in the case of an Heisenberg XX interaction. The XX model was intensively investigated for spin chains by Lieb, Schultz and Mattis , has been realized in recent years as an effective Hamiltonian in some systems . We find that the central spin mediates correlations and entanglement between the outer spins at zero temperature to a degree that depends on the total number of spins in the spin-star. As expected, the entanglement goes down on average with the increase of the total number of spins. But it shows curious oscillations with the evenness or oddness of this number. This is surprising, because in a star network, addition of an extra outer spin in the network is only expected to make it harder for the central spin to mediate entanglement. For the same reason, it is also surprising that we find that irrespective of the number of the outer spins, the solitary central spin is capable of imposing substantial spin ordering (correlation function $`1/2`$) in the X and Y directions. We also show that we can apply a magnetic field to our system to obtain multi-party states for optimal symmetric splitting  and optimal symmetric sharing  of entanglement as the ground state and as a simple derivative of the ground state respectively.

The Hamiltonian which describes our system is given by

$$H=𝒥\left(\sigma _{0x}\underset{\text{outer}}{}\sigma _{ix}+\sigma _{0y}\underset{\text{outer}}{}\sigma _{iy}\right)$$
(1)
where the summation over ’outer’ refers to the outer spins, $`\sigma _{ix}`$ and $`\sigma _{iy}`$ denote the $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ Pauli operators for the $`i`$th outer spin and $`\sigma _{0x}`$ and $`\sigma _{0y}`$ denote the $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ Pauli operators for the central spin. It can be shown that $`J_x=(1/2)_{\text{outer}}\sigma _{ix}`$,$`J_y=(1/2)_{\text{outer}}\sigma _{iy}`$ and $`J_z=(1/2)_{\text{ring}}\sigma _{iz}`$ obey the standard angular momentum commutation relations (we have taken $`\mathrm{}=1`$). This implies that the outer spins collectively behave as a single spin with spin operator $`𝐉=\widehat{i}J_x+\widehat{j}J_y+\widehat{k}J_z`$. It can be shown that $`J^2=J_x^2+J_y^2+J_z^2`$ commutes with $`H`$. It will also help to define the total angular momentum operator $`𝐅=(\mathrm{𝟏}/\mathrm{𝟐})\sigma _\mathrm{𝟎}+𝐉`$, where $`\sigma _\mathrm{𝟎}=\widehat{𝐢}\sigma _{\mathrm{𝟎}𝐱}+\widehat{𝐣}\sigma _{\mathrm{𝟎}𝐲}+\widehat{𝐤}\sigma _{\mathrm{𝟎}𝐳}`$ and it can be shown that the z-component, $`F_z`$ obeys $`[H,F_z]=0,[J^2,F_z]=0`$. Therefore simultaneous eigenstates of $`H`$, $`J^2`$ and $`F_z`$ can be constructed.

It is convenient to recast the Hamiltonian in Eq.1 using the raising and lowering operators $`\sigma _\pm =(\sigma _x\pm i\sigma _y)`$ and $`J_\pm =(1/2)_{\text{outer}}\sigma _\pm `$ as

$$H=𝒥\left(\sigma _{0+}J_{}+\sigma _0J_+\right)$$
(2)
The above Hamiltonian thus represents a resonant interaction between a spin-$`(1/2)`$ and a higher spin (with operator $`𝐉`$) system. Inspired by the above form of $`H`$ (in particular, its similarities with the Jaynes-Cummings model of quantum optics ), we conjecture the following state as the general form of its eigenstates

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|j,m\pm |1|j,m1\right)$$
(3)
where the first ket in each term denotes the central spin ($`|0`$ and $`|1`$ stand for the $`|1/2`$ and $`|1/2`$ spin states of the central spin), and the second ket is an eigenstate of $`J^2`$. $`j`$ is the quantum number associated with eigenstates of $`J^2`$ (eigenvalue of $`J^2`$ is $`j(j+1)`$), and $`m`$ is the quantum number for $`J_z`$. The way $`|j,m`$ is paired with central spin state $`|0`$ and $`|j,m1`$ with $`|1`$ in Eq.(3) means that the state is an eigenstate of $`F_z`$ with eigenvalue $`m1/2`$. Eq.3 is valid for $`m=j`$ to $`m=j+1`$. There are also two additional states where only one of the terms exist: $`|1|j,j`$, because $`|0|j,j+1`$ does not exist, and similarly $`|0|j,j`$.

We now seek to prove that states of the form in Eq.(3) are indeed eigenstates by applying the Hamiltonian in Eq.2 to them. Applying $`H`$ gives

$`𝒥(1/\sqrt{2})\left(|1J_{}|j,m\pm |0J_+|j,m1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`𝒥(1/\sqrt{2})\left(\right|1\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}|j,m1`$
$`\pm |0\sqrt{(j(m1))(j+(m1)+1)}|j,m)`$
$`=`$ $`\pm 𝒥\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}`$
$`\times (1/\sqrt{2})\left(|0|j,m\pm |1|j,m1\right),`$
where the standard relations for $`J_\pm |j,m`$ have been used in the second step. This confirms that states in Eq.3 are eigenstates, with energy eigenvalues

$$E=\pm 𝒥\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}$$
(4)
Next we prove that these states account for all possible eigenstates, so that we have found a complete eigen-basis for $`H`$.

The total number of eigenstates of the form Eq.3 is $`4j`$ for a given value of $`j`$ (as $`m`$ runs from $`j`$ to $`j+1`$ and there are two states for each $`m`$ due to the $`\pm `$ in Eq.3). In addition, there are the two states where one of the terms in Eq.3 was missing. In total therefore, for a given value of $`j`$, there are $`4j+2`$ possible eigenstates. If we can now enumerate the possible values of $`j`$ (which is the label for the total angular momentum of the outer spins), we can find out the number of eigenstates we have been able to account for.

Suppose there are $`N`$ outer spins. Let us first consider the different ways of generating different $`m`$ values. Then there are $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{0}^{}=1`$ ways of having all these spins aligned in the same direction, giving $`m=N/2`$. If all the outer spins but one are aligned, then $`m=(N1)/21/2`$, and there will be $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{1}^{}`$ ways of getting this value of $`m`$. For the general case of $`Nr`$ spins aligned and $`r`$ spins anti-aligned to them, then $`m=(Nr)/2r/2`$ and there are $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{r}^{}`$ ways of getting this value of $`m`$.

We now have to group the above $`m`$ values under suitable $`j`$ values. Consider the case where $`m=N/2`$. As there is only one arrangement of spins giving rise to this, there should be only one value of $`j=N/2`$ to account for this. In other words, if there was more than one allowed $`j=N/2`$ value for the collection of spins, there would be more than one $`m=N/2`$, which we know, is not the case. Next consider $`m=(N2).\frac{1}{2}`$. There are $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{1}^{}`$ such ways of obtaining this value of $`m`$. One of these ways will arise from when $`j=N.\frac{1}{2}`$, which means there must be $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{1}^{}^NC_0`$ of $`j=(N2).\frac{1}{2}`$ to account for the remaining ways of getting this value of $`m`$. This procedure for determining possible $`j`$ continues until all $`m`$ are accounted for. In general, there are $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{r}^{}^NC_{r1}`$ ways of obtaining $`j=(N2r).\frac{1}{2}`$, with allowed values of r ranging from $`r=0`$ to $`r=N/2`$ if $`N`$ is even, or $`r=(N1)/2`$ if $`N`$ is odd.

Given these values and $`j`$, and that each value of $`j`$ can produce $`4j+2`$ eigenstates, then a summation expressing the total number of states we have accounted for is

$$\underset{r=0}{\overset{x}{}}\left({}_{}{}^{N}C_{r}^{}^NC_{r1}\right)\times (4[(N2r).\frac{1}{2}]+2)$$
(5)
where $`x=N/2`$ if $`N`$ is even, or $`(N1)/2`$ if $`N`$ is odd. The result of the summation is determined by observing that successive terms in summation cancel out some of the preceding terms. The result is independent of whether $`N`$ is even or odd, and is $`2^{N+1}`$. This means the total number of eigenstates of the type we identified in Eq.3 is $`2^{N+1}`$, which is equal to the dimension of the Hilbert space of all the $`N`$ outer spins plus the central spin. Therefore the states in Eq.3 (when combined with states of the type $`|1|j,j`$ and $`|0|j,j`$) describe *all* the eigenstates of $`H`$.

The ground state is the state with the lowest energy. To identify it we will first have to assume a sign of $`𝒥`$, which we take to be positive. All our results about entanglement and correlations will be exactly the same for negative $`𝒥`$. In Eq.4 the lowest energy is obtained when $`j`$ has its maximum possible value and $`m`$ has its minimum possible value. For the case $`N`$ odd, the lowest energy is when $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ i.e. the eigenstate

$$(1/\sqrt{2})\left(|0|N/2,1/2|1|N/2,1/2\right)$$
(6)
and if $`N`$ is even, then in fact the ground state is degenerate because there are two states with the lowest possible energy, when $`m=0`$ or $`m=1`$. These are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|0|N/2,0|1|N/2,1\right)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|0|N/2,1|1|N/2,0\right)`$ (8)
The reason for the above difference between $`N`$ even and $`N`$ odd is that the two cases lead to an integral and half integral value of $`j`$ respectively. When $`j`$ is half integral, $`m=\pm 1/2`$ is allowed and gives an unique ground state. For $`j`$ integral, the $`0,1`$ and $`1,0`$ form two distinct $`j,m`$ pairs to combine with the central spin-$`1/2`$ particle to give two degenerate ground states.

To compute entanglement and correlations, it is useful to have expressions in terms of the states of the individual outer spins for these ground states. Let $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ stand for the $`|1/2`$ and $`|1/2`$ spin states of any outer spin. For $`N`$ odd, the state $`|N/2,1/2`$ is an equal superposition of all states with $`(N+1)/2`$ ones and $`(N1)/2`$ zeros with no relative phase between them. The state $`|N/2,1/2`$ is the same type of state with $`(N1)/2`$ ones and $`(N+1)/2`$ zeros. For example, for $`N=3`$,

$`|3/2,1/2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left[|011+|101+|110\right]`$ (9)
$`|3/2,1/2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left[|100+|010+|001\right]`$ (10)
There are similar expressions for the ground state for $`N`$ even. The $`|N/2,0`$ state is an equal superposition of all states with an equal number of zeros and ones, with no relative phase between the superposed states. $`|N/2,\pm 1`$ is the same type of state with $`N/2\pm 1`$ ones and rest zeros.

Given the ground state, we are able to calculate the entanglement between any two outer spins in this state (i.e. at zero temperature). The symmetry of the problem implies that the entanglement will be the same between *any* two outer spins. Since $`H`$ and $`F_z`$ commute, the form of the reduced density matrix for any two spins is

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& w& z& 0\\ 0& \overline{z}& x& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& y\end{array}\right)`$

in the standard basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$. For such density matrices, a measure of entanglement called the concurrence  is given by

$`C=2\mathrm{max}\{|z|\sqrt{vy},0\}`$

For $`N`$ odd, the concurrence comes out as

$`C=2\mathrm{max}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}},0\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}`$

For the case of $`N`$ even, where there are two ground states, a similar procedure is followed, except that the reduced density matrix is now described as an equal mixture of the two states. This gives the concurrence as

$`C=2\mathrm{max}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N(N1)}},0\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(N1)}}`$

Thus the entanglement goes to zero as $`N\mathrm{}`$, which is expected, as the entanglement is mediated by the central spin. The total entangling capability (and thereby mediating capability) of the central spin is divided among a larger and larger number of outer spins as $`N`$ becomes larger. However, on going from an even $`N`$ to an odd $`N+1`$ number of outer spins, the concurrence rises from $`1/N1/(N^2N)`$ to $`1/(N+1)`$. Thus on increasing $`N`$ there are curious oscillations in concurrence of amplitude $`2/\{N(N1)(N+1)\}`$. These oscillations, due to the different expressions for concurrence in the cases of even and odd $`N`$, is due to mixedness of the zero temperature density matrix for even $`N`$. On application of a magnetic field in the $`+Z`$ direction, the state $`\left(|0|N/2,0|1|N/2,1\right)`$ becomes the non-degenerate ground state for even $`N`$ and the oscillations in entanglement disappear.

There are also interesting results to be noted for correlation functions in the star network. The $`\sigma _{1z}\sigma _{2z}`$ correlations follow the same pattern as the entanglement, but

$`\sigma _{1x}\sigma _{2x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}\text{ for odd }N`$
$`\sigma _{1x}\sigma _{2x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N(N1)}}\text{ for even }N.`$
What is particularly surprising above, is the non-vanishing nature of the correlations in the large $`N`$ limit. The solitary central spin is capable to imposing spin order in the $`X`$ direction (so that $`\sigma _{1x}\sigma _{2x}=1/2`$), even when there are an infinite number of outer spins to order. The same result holds for $`\sigma _{1y}\sigma _{2y}`$. Thus our system provides an effective way of imposing order simultaneously in the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ directions for an infinite collection of spins. This result also highlights a crucial difference between entanglement and correlations: while a finite dimensional quantum system cannot be individually entangled to each member of an infinite collection of systems, it can indeed be correlated individually to each of them.

We now show that the application of a magnetic field allows us to change the ground state to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|N/2,N/2+1|1|N/2,N/2\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0\{|000\mathrm{}1\}|1|000\mathrm{}0\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where $`\{|000\mathrm{}1\}`$ is a normalized state that is an equal superposition of all states with only one $`|1`$ with no relative phase between the superposed components. This state has the special significance that the concurrence between the central spin and each of the outer spins is $`1/\sqrt{N}`$, which is the maximum consistent with symmetric splitting of the total entanglement of one qubit with a collection of $`N`$ qubits among the $`N`$ qubits . To our knowledge, this is the first identification of the canonical state $`|\alpha `$ as the ground state of an interacting spin system. Once the ground state $`|\alpha `$ is generated, if the central spin is measured and found to be in the state $`|0`$, the rest of the spins are projected onto the state $`\{|000\mathrm{}1\}`$. The central spin can now be removed to make the state dynamically steady (except for decoherence and spontaneous decay effects). This state has the property that the concurrence between any two spins is $`2/N`$, which is the maximum possible entanglement in a collection of $`N`$ spins in which all pairs of spins are equally entangled . While in Ref., it was only conjectured that a state of the type $`\{|000\mathrm{}1\}`$ could be made the ground state of the isotropic closed Heisenberg chain using a magnetic field, here we will rigorously prove the preparation of $`|\alpha `$ and thereby $`\{|000\mathrm{}1\}`$.

To show that it is possible to make $`|\alpha `$ the ground state, we consider the energy eigenvalues in a uniform magnetic field $`B`$ in the $`+Z`$ direction (in which the eigenstates remain unchanged)

$$E=\pm 𝒥\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}+(m\frac{1}{2})B$$
(12)
When $`B`$ becomes so high that the second term in $`E`$ dominates, the relative ordering of the energy levels will be determined purely by $`m`$, with the ground state being state with $`m=\frac{N}{2}`$, i.e. $`|\beta =|0|000\mathrm{}0`$. It is straightforward to show that $`|\beta `$ has an energy lower than $`|\alpha `$ for $`B>𝒥\sqrt{N}`$. Before $`|\beta `$ becomes the ground state, there is a range of $`B`$ in which $`|\alpha `$ is the ground state. To prove this, we will have to show that the energy of $`|\alpha `$ will be less than that of all other states in a certain range. The value of $`B`$ for which $`|\alpha `$ has the same energy as a general state described by $`j`$ and $`m`$ is given by

$$B=\frac{𝒥\left(\sqrt{N}\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}\right)}{(\frac{N}{2}1)m}$$
(13)
$`B`$ attains its largest value, when $`j`$ is a maximum and $`m`$ has it’s most negative value. This happens when $`j=\frac{N}{2}`$ and $`m=\frac{N}{2}+2`$ for which $`B=𝒥\sqrt{N}\left(\sqrt{2(11/N)}1\right)<𝒥\sqrt{N}`$. Therefore, for a magnetic field with a range of $`𝒥\sqrt{N}\left(\sqrt{2(11/N)}1\right)<B<𝒥\sqrt{N}`$, the state $`|\alpha `$ is the ground state.

In this letter we have introduced and solved a spin-star, an architecture of interacting spins which cannot be classified as a lattice in any dimension. It is physically realizable in various arrays of qubits designed for quantum computation. Testing for the entanglement and correlations predicted here would serve as a benchmark test for the functioning of arrays of qubits. If spin-spin interactions can be extended to long distances, the spin-star could be used for distribution of entanglement through the multiparty states for optimal symmetric sharing and splitting of entanglement. Exploration of the full statistical mechanics of a spin-star, would be interesting future work.

AH thanks the UK EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) for financial support.