text:
# References

Separability of rank two quantum states on multiple quantum spaces

Shao-Ming Fei1, 2, Xiu-Hong Gao1, Xiao-Hong Wang1, Zhi-Xi Wang1, and Ke Wu1

1 Department of Mathematics, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.
2 Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn Germany

Abstract Explicit sufficient and necessary conditions for separability of $`N`$-dimensional rank two multiparty quantum mixed states are presented. A nonseparability inequality is also given, for the case where one of the eigenvectors corresponding to nonzero eigenvalues of the density matrix is maximally entangled.

PACS: 03.65.Bz;89.70.+c

Quantum entanglement is playing an essential role in quantum information processing (cf. ). The separability of pure states for bipartite systems is quite well understood (cf. ). For mixed states, some progress has been achieved in understanding the separability and entanglement problem for bipartite systems (cf. ), e.g., the proper definition of separable and entangled states formulated by Werner , the Peres  criterion that all separable states necessarily have a positive partial transpose, which is further shown to be also a sufficient condition for separability in $`2\times 2`$ and $`2\times 3`$ systems .

The multiparty entangled states have been investigated recently . These states are also of importance in quantum information processing, for instance, three party entanglement of the GHZ type can allow for interesting applications such as quantum secret sharing , and many experimental groups have tried to generate such states . However less is known about how to characterize multiparty entanglements completely. The maximum connectedness, persistency  and Schmidt measure  have been used in partly describing entanglements of pure multiparty states. There exists no general criterion that allows one to distinguish whether a general mixed state is separable or not. In  the separability and entanglement in $`2\times 2\times N`$ composite quantum systems have been studied.

In this paper, we study sufficient and necessary conditions for separability of higher-dimensional quantum systems on $`HH\mathrm{}H`$, which generalize the results in . In particular, we consider density matrices with rank two. The separability condition for these kind of mixed states in arbitrary dimensions is explicitly given. In addition, we present a nonseparability inequality valid in the case where one of the eigenvectors corresponding to nonzero eigenvalues of a density matrix is maximally entangled.

We first consider the case of three $`N`$-dimensional quantum spaces. Let $`H`$ be an $`N`$-dimensional complex Hilbert space, with $`e_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, an orthonormal basis. A general pure state on $`HHH`$ is of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ijk}e_ie_je_k,a_{ijk}C$$
(1)
with the normalization $`_{i,j,k=1}^Na_{ijk}a_{ijk}^{}=1`$ (\* denoting complex conjugation).

Let $`U`$ denote a unitary transformation on the Hilbert space $`H`$, such that

$$Ue_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_{ij}e_j,b_{ij}C$$

and $`_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}b_{kj}^{}=\delta _{ik}`$ (with $`\delta _{ik}`$ the usual Kronecker’s symbol ). We call a quantity an invariant associated with the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ if it is invariant under all local unitary transformations of $`U_1U_2U_3`$. By generalizing the results of analysis on invariants for qubits , the following quantities are invariants  under local unitary transformations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}I_0=\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ijk}a_{ijk}^{},\hfill & I_1=\underset{i,j,k,p,q,m=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ijk}a_{ijm}^{}a_{pqm}a_{pqk}^{},\hfill \\ I_2=\underset{i,j,k,p,q,m=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ikj}a_{imj}^{}a_{pmq}a_{pkq}^{},\hfill & I_3=\underset{i,j,k,p,q,m=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{kij}a_{mij}^{}a_{mpq}a_{kpq}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

A generalized concurrence is defined by ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_N^3& \hfill =& \sqrt{\frac{N}{3(N1)}(3I_0^2I_1I_2I_3)}\hfill \\ & \hfill =& \sqrt{\frac{N}{6(N1)}(|a_{ijk}a_{pqm}a_{ijm}a_{pqk}|^2+|a_{ijk}a_{pqm}a_{iqk}a_{pjm}|^2+|a_{ijk}a_{pqm}a_{pjk}a_{iqm}|^2)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
First, we prove the following result:

Lemma 1. $`C_N^3=0`$ if and only if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is separable.

Proof. It is clear that $`C_N^3=0`$ when $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is factorizable, i.e., when

$$a_{ijk}=a_ib_jc_k,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}a_i,b_j,c_kC.$$

Conversely, because $`|\mathrm{\Psi }0`$, there exists $`p_0,q_0,m_0`$ such that $`a_{p_0q_0m_0}0`$. Hence from $`|a_{ijk}a_{pqm}a_{ijm}a_{pqk}|=0`$ we have $`a_{ijk}=a_{ij}b_k`$, for some $`a_{ij},b_kC`$. Further we get $`a_{ijk}=a_i^{}b_j^{}c_k^{},a_i^{},b_j^{},c_k^{}C`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\rho `$ be a rank two state on $`HHH`$, with $`|E_1,|E_2`$ being its two orthonormal eigenvectors corresponding to the two nonzero eigenvalues:

$$\rho =p|E_1E_1|+q|E_2E_2|,$$
(3)
where $`q=1p(0,1)`$. Generally

$$|E_{s_1}=\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ijk}^{s_1}e_ie_je_k,a_{ijk}^{s_1}C,$$

with normalization $`_{i,j,k=1}^Na_{ijk}^{s_1}(a_{ijk}^{s_1})^{}=1,s_1=1,2`$.

Using Lemma 1, we have that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{i,j,k=1}^Na_{ijk}e_ie_je_k`$ is separable if and only if $`C_N^3=0`$, i.e.,

$$a_{ijk}a_{pqm}=a_{ijm}a_{pqk},a_{ijk}a_{pqm}=a_{iqk}a_{pjm},a_{ijk}a_{pqm}=a_{pjk}a_{iqm},i,j,k,p,q,m.$$
(4)
We adopt the notation

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1^I=a_{ijk}^2a_{pqm}^2a_{ijm}^2a_{pqk}^2,\alpha _2^I=a_{ijk}^2a_{pqm}^2a_{iqk}^2a_{pjm}^2,\alpha _3^I=a_{ijk}^2a_{pqm}^2a_{pjk}^2a_{iqm}^2,\hfill \\ \beta _1^I=a_{ijk}^2a_{pqm}^1+a_{ijk}^1a_{pqm}^2a_{ijm}^2a_{pqk}^1a_{ijm}^1a_{pqk}^2,\hfill \\ \beta _2^I=a_{ijk}^2a_{pqm}^1+a_{ijk}^1a_{pqm}^2a_{iqk}^2a_{pjm}^1a_{iqk}^1a_{pjm}^2,\hfill \\ \beta _3^I=a_{ijk}^2a_{pqm}^1+a_{ijk}^1a_{pqm}^2a_{pjk}^2a_{iqm}^1a_{pjk}^1a_{iqm}^2,\hfill \\ \gamma _1^I=a_{ijk}^1a_{pqm}^1a_{ijm}^1a_{pqk}^1,\gamma _2^I=a_{ijk}^1a_{pqm}^1a_{iqk}^1a_{pjm}^1,\gamma _3^I=a_{ijk}^1a_{pqm}^1a_{pjk}^1a_{iqm}^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`I=\{i,j,k,p,q,m\},i,j,k,p,q,m\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

A vector of the form $`|E_1+\lambda |E_2,\lambda C`$, is separable if and only if $`\lambda `$ is a common root of the following equation set $`Eq_s^I:`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _s^I\lambda ^2+\beta _s^I\lambda +\gamma _s^I=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`s=1,2,3`$, and $`I=\{i,j,k,p,q,m\},i,j,k,p,q,m\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

Lemma 2. If $`|E_2`$ is not separable, then $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if (6) have two distinct roots.

Proof. Suppose that $`\rho =_{t=1}^lp_t^{}|U_tU_t|`$, with $`l`$ some positive integer and $`0<p_t^{}<1,p_t^{}=1,|U_t`$ being separable, $`t`$. We can write them as linear combinations of the two eigenvectors$`|E_1`$ and$`|E_2`$ which span the range of $`\rho :|U_t=c_1^t|E_1+c_2^t|E_2`$ (for some $`c_1^t,c_2^tC`$). As $`|U_t0,c_1^t,c_2^t`$ can not be all 0. Without losing generality, let $`c_1^t0`$. $`|U_t`$ is then of the form $`|E_1+\lambda _t|E_2,\lambda _t=c_2^t/c_1^t`$. From Lemma 1 $`|U_t`$ is separable if and only if the parameter $`\lambda _t`$ is a common root of the corresponding equation set (6), $`\alpha _s^I\lambda _t^2+\beta _s^I\lambda _t+\gamma _s^I=0`$.

Because $`|E_2`$ is not separable, not all $`\lambda _t^{}s`$ can be equal, otherwise all the $`U_t^{}s`$ would be constant multiples of a fixed vector, and $`\rho `$ would be rank 1. On the other hand, as $`|E_2`$ is not separable, then $`C_N^3`$ is not zero. Hence there is some $`I_0,s_0`$ such that $`\alpha _{s_0}^{I_0}0`$, i.e., the relation $`Eq_s^I`$ is indeed a quadratic equation. It must have exactly two roots, and so there are two values that are the only possible choices for the $`\lambda _t^{}s`$. But in order that there is not only one possible choice, the above two roots must be different. And all the relations $`Eq_s^I`$ have these two different roots.

Let $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ be two distinct roots, which are common to all of the equations $`Eq_s^I`$. Each vector $`|U_t`$ is either of the form $`|E_1^{}=(|E_1+\mu _1|E_2)/\sqrt{1+|\mu _1|^2}`$, or of the form $`|E_2^{}=(|E_1+\mu _2|E_2)/\sqrt{1+|\mu _2|^2}`$.

Therefore we can write $`\rho `$ as $`\rho =p^{}|E_1^{}E_1^{}|+(1p^{})|E_2^{}E_2^{}|`$ with $`0<p^{}<1`$. Comparing the coefficients of $`|E_kE_l|,k,l=1,2`$, with the ones in the expression (3), we get that the following two relations:

$$\frac{p^{}}{1+|\mu _1|^2}+\frac{1p^{}}{1+|\mu _2|^2}=p$$
(7)
$$\frac{\mu _1p^{}}{1+|\mu _1|^2}+\frac{\mu _2(1p^{})}{1+|\mu _2|^2}=0$$
(8)
Solving for $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ we get

$$p=(1\mu _1\mu _2\frac{\overline{z}}{z})^1,p^{}=\frac{\mu _2(1+|\mu _1|^2)}{z\mu _1\mu _2\overline{z}},\mathrm{where}z=\mu _2\mu _1.$$
(9)
Conversely, let $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ be two distinct roots, which are common to all of the equations $`Eq_s^I`$. From above discussion we have $`\rho =p^{}|E_1^{}E_1^{}|+(1p^{})|E_2^{}E_2^{}|`$, i.e., $`\rho `$ is separable. $`\mathrm{}`$

We first deal with the case where $`a_{ijk}^{s_1}`$ are all real. The following conclusion is easily verified.

Lemma 3. For a quadratic equation $`ax^2+bx+c=0`$ with $`a,b,cR,a0`$, and roots $`\alpha ,\beta `$ with $`\alpha \beta `$, $`\gamma =(\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta })/(\alpha \beta )`$ is either $`1`$ or $`1`$.

Theorem 1. If all $`a_{ijk}^{s_1}`$ are real, $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if one of the following quantities($`\mathrm{}_1`$ or $`\mathrm{}_2`$) is zero:

$$\mathrm{}_1=|\gamma _s^I(1p^1)\alpha _s^I|^2+|\beta _s^I\alpha _s^{}^I^{}\alpha _s^I\beta _s^{}^I^{}|^2,$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{}_2=|\gamma _s^I+(1p^1)\alpha _s^I|^2+|\beta _s^I|^2,$$
(11)
or, equivalently, one of the following two sets of relations (12) or (13) hold:

$$\gamma _s^I=(1p^1)\alpha _s^I,\beta _s^I\alpha _s^{}^I^{}=\alpha _s^I\beta _s^{}^I^{}$$
(12)
$$\gamma _s^I=(1p^1)\alpha _s^I,\beta _s^I=0$$
(13)
where $`s,s^{}=1,2,3`$, and $`I,I^{}=\{i,j,k,p,q,m\},i,j,k,p,q,m\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

Proof. We prove the necessity part of the theorem in two cases:

Case 1. $`a).`$ $`|E_2`$ is not separable. We get that (6) have two distinct roots from Lemma 2. These two roots are the solutions to all the relations $`Eq_s^I`$. Consider for any $`s=1,2,3,I=\{i,j,k,p,q,m\},i,j,k,p,q,m\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$,

1) if $`\alpha _s^I0`$, the corresponding relation (6) is not an identity. All the quadratic equations in the set $`Eq_s^I`$ have the same two distinct roots. From the standard theory of quadratic equations, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta _s^I\alpha _{s_0}^{I_0}=\beta _{s_0}^{I_0}\alpha _s^I,\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _s^I\alpha _{s_0}^{I_0}=\gamma _{s_0}^{I_0}\alpha _s^I.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
2) if $`\alpha _s^I=0`$, then the equations $`Eq_s^I`$ become identities, i.e., $`\beta _s^I`$ and $`\gamma _s^I`$ must be $`0`$ too, because otherwise at least one of the relations $`Eq_s^I`$ would be a linear equation, and there would be no two distinct roots. Thus in this case (12), (13) also hold.

$`b).`$ Because all $`a_{ijk}^{s_1}`$ are real number, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are roots of a quadratic equation with real coefficients. From Lemma 3, $`\mu _1\mu _2=1p^1`$ or $`(1p^1)`$. Since $`\mu _1\mu _2`$ is real, the solution for $`p^{}`$ in (9) implies that $`\mu _2/(\mu _2\mu _1)`$ is real, which is possible if and only if either the roots are both real or the roots are both purely imaginary. In the first case, let $`\mu _2>\mu _1`$, we have $`\mu _1\mu _2=1p^1`$. From (9), we get the condition that $`p^{}[0,1]`$, which is equivalent to $`\mu _2>0,\mu _1<0`$. In the second case, we have $`\mu _1\mu _2=(1p^1)`$. The condition for having purely imaginary roots of quadratic equations gives that $`\beta _s^I=0,I,s`$.

$`c).`$ Finally, we observe that $`\mu _1\mu _2`$ is nothing but the ratio $`\gamma _{s_0}^{I_0}/\alpha _{s_0}^{I_0}`$, which is either $`1p^1`$ or $`(1p^1)`$. Therefore we conclude that either $`\gamma _s^I=(1p^1)\alpha _s^I`$ or $`\gamma _s^I=(1p^1)\alpha _s^I`$ for any $`I`$ and $`s=1,2,3`$. Relation (10) is verified.

Case 2. $`|E_2`$ is separable. In this case from (4), we have $`\alpha _s^I=0,I,s`$. Since not all of the $`|U_t`$ can be multiples of $`|E_2`$, we must have at least one choice of $`\lambda `$ such that $`|E_1+\lambda |E_2`$ is separable. This must be a common root to all equations $`Eq_s^I`$ as before. All these equations are now linear ones. When all $`\beta _s^I=\gamma _s^I=0`$, it is easy to see that $`|E_1`$ is separable. Excluding this case, we see that there is only one possible choice of $`\lambda `$. Then $`\rho `$ can be expressed as

$$\rho =p^{\prime \prime }|E_2E_2|+(1p^{\prime \prime })\frac{|E_1+\lambda E_2E_1+\lambda E_2|}{1+|\lambda |^2}.$$

That is $`p^{\prime \prime }=1`$, which is a contradiction. Thus, if $`|E_2`$ is separable, $`|E_1`$ must be separable too. It is clear that in this case (10) and (11) hold.

Now we prove the sufficiency part for the theorem. If (10) or (11) holds, it is clear the equations $`Eq_s^I`$ have common roots. If $`|E_2`$ is not separable, then not all of these equations are identities. And there are at most two common roots. If (10) holds, the product of the two roots must be $`1p^1<0`$, so that the two roots are real and unequal. If (11) holds, the two roots must be purely imaginary. So in these two cases, we get that $`\rho `$ is separable in terms of Lemma 2. If $`|E_2`$ is separable, from (10) or (11) we know $`|E_1`$ is separable too and $`\rho `$ is separable. $`\mathrm{}`$

Generalizing the results in Theorem 1, we have, for the complex $`a_{ijk}^{s_1}`$,

Theorem 2. $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if there is $`\theta R`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _s^I=e^{i\theta }(1p^1)\alpha _s^I,\beta _s^I\alpha _s^{}^I^{}=\alpha _s^I\beta _s^{}^I^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`s,s^{}=1,2,3`$, and $`I,I^{}=\{i,j,k,p,q,m\},i,j,k,p,q,m\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$, and

$$\frac{\mu _2(1+|\mu _1|^2)}{z\mu _1\mu _2\overline{z}}[0,1],$$
(17)
where $`z=e^{i\theta }\overline{z},z=\mu _2\mu _10`$, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are the roots of the equation $`\alpha _s^I\lambda ^2+\beta _s^I\lambda +\gamma _s^I=0`$ for some $`I`$ and $`s`$ such that $`\alpha _s^I0`$.

Proof. The proof of necessity is similar to the proof of the corresponding part in Theorem 1. One only needs to note that since $`z/\overline{z}`$ is of modulus 1, a phase factor $`e^{i\theta }`$ appears in this case.

Now if (14) holds, it is clear that the equations $`Eq_s^I`$ have common roots. If $`|E_2`$ is not separable, then some of the $`\alpha _s^I`$ are nonzero. The corresponding equations $`Eq_s^I`$ have exactly two roots which are different by condition (15). Therefore $`\rho `$ is separable from Lemma 2. If $`|E_2`$ is separable, by (14) we know that all $`\gamma _s^I`$ are $`0`$. Hence both $`|E_2`$ and $`|E_1`$ are separable, and so is $`\rho `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary. Let $`|E_2`$ be the maximally entangled vector given by $`|E_2=(1/\sqrt{N})_{i=1}^Ne_ie_ie_i`$. For any vector $`|E_1`$ which is orthogonal to $`|E_2`$, $`\rho =p|E_1E_1|+(1p)|E_2E_2|`$ is not separable for $`0<p<1/2`$.

Proof. Let

$$C_{(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{N}{6(N1)}\underset{I,s}{}|\gamma _s^I|^2}\mathrm{and}C_{(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{N}{6(N1)}\underset{I,s}{}|\alpha _s^I|^2}$$

be the generalized concurrences associated with the states $`|E_1`$ and $`|E_2`$, respectively, where $`s=1,2,3,I=\{i,j,k,p,q,m\},i,j,k,p,q,m\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

Suppose $`\rho `$ is separable. From the necessary condition for separability, $`\gamma _s^I=e^{i\theta }(1p^1)\alpha _s^I`$, we get $`C_{(1)}=\frac{1p}{p}C_{(2)}`$. As $`|E_2`$ is maximally entangled, $`C_{(2)}0`$, and $`C_{(1)}/C_{(2)}=\frac{1p}{p}1`$, so we have $`p1/2`$, which is a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above approach can be extended to the case of multiquantum systems. We consider now the separability of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ on $`MN`$-dimensional quantum systems, where

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_M=\underset{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_M=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}e_{i_1}e_{i_2}\mathrm{}e_{i_M},a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}C$$
(18)
with $`a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{}=1`$. We have a quadratic $`I_0=a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{}`$ and $`d=2^{M1}1`$ biquadratic invariants:

$$I_{TS}=a_{TS}a_{TS^{}}^{}a_{T^{}S^{}}a_{T^{}S}^{}$$

where $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ are all possible nontrivial subset of $`I=\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_M\},I^{}=\{\stackrel{~}{i_1},\stackrel{~}{i_2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{i_M}\}`$, respectively, $`i_k,\stackrel{~}{i_k}=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ (i.e., $`T\varphi `$ and $`TI`$), $`S=I\backslash T,S^{}=I^{}\backslash T^{}`$.

$`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ are subindices of $`a`$, associated with the same position. A generalized concurrence can be defined by

$$C_N^M=\sqrt{\frac{N}{d(N1)}(dI_0^2I_1I_2\mathrm{}I_d)}=\sqrt{\frac{N}{4d(N1)}\underset{p}{}|a_{TS}a_{T^{}S^{}}a_{TS^{}}a_{T^{}S}|^2}$$
(19)
where $`_p`$ stands for the summation over all possible combination of the indices of $`T`$ and $`S`$. Similar to Lemma 1, one can prove:

Lemma 4. $`C_N^M=0`$ if and only if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is separable.

Let $`\rho `$ be a rank two state on $`HH\mathrm{}H`$, with $`|E_1,|E_2`$ being its two orthonormal eigenvectors corresponding to the two nonzero eigenvalues:

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho =p|E_1E_1|+q|E_2E_2|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`q=1p(0,1)`$. Generally

$$|E_{s_1}=\underset{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{s_1}e_{i_1}e_{i_2}\mathrm{}e_{i_M},a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{s_1}C,$$

with normalization $`a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{s_1}(a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{s_1})^{}=1,s_1=1,2.`$

Using Lemma 4, we have $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is separable if and only if

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{TS}a_{T^{}S^{}}=a_{TS^{}}a_{T^{}S},\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
where $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ are all possible nontrivial subset of $`I=\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_M\},I^{}=\{\stackrel{~}{i_1},\stackrel{~}{i_2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{i_M}\}`$, respectively, $`i_k,\stackrel{~}{i_k}=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ (i.e., $`T\varphi `$ and $`TI`$), $`S=I\backslash T,S^{}=I^{}\backslash T^{}`$.

With the notations:

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=a_{TS}^2a_{T^{}S^{}}^2a_{TS^{}}^2a_{T^{}S}^2,\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=a_{TS}^1a_{T^{}S^{}}^1a_{TS^{}}^1a_{T^{}S}^1,\hfill \\ \beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=a_{TS}^2a_{T^{}S^{}}^1+a_{TS}^1a_{T^{}S^{}}^2a_{TS^{}}^2a_{T^{}S}^1a_{TS^{}}^1a_{T^{}S}^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

we have that a vector of the form $`|E_1+\lambda |E_2,\lambda C`$, is separable if and only if $`\lambda `$ is a common root of the following equation set:

$$\begin{array}{c}Eq_{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}:\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\lambda ^2+\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\lambda +\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Similar to the case $`M=3`$, one has:

Lemma 5. $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if (20) have two distinct roots.

From Lemma 4 and Lemma 5 it is straightforward to prove the following conclusion:

Theorem 3. If all $`a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{s_1}`$ are real, $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if one of the following quantities ($`\mathrm{}_1`$ or $`\mathrm{}_2`$) is zero:

$$\mathrm{}_1=|\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}(1p^1)\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}|^2+|\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\alpha _{T_1S_1}^{T_1^{}S_1^{}}\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\beta _{T_1S_1}^{T_1^{}S_1^{}}|^2,$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{}_2=|\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}+(1p^1)\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}|^2+|\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}|^2,$$
(24)
or, equivalently, one of the following two sets of relations (23) or (24) hold:

$$\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=(1p^1)\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}},\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\alpha _{T_1S_1}^{T_1^{}S_1^{}}=\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\beta _{T_1S_1}^{T_1^{}S_1^{}}$$
(25)
$$\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=(1p^1)\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}},\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=0$$
(26)
where $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ are all possible nontrivial subset of $`I=\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_M\},I^{}=\{\stackrel{~}{i_1},\stackrel{~}{i_2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{i_M}\}`$, respectively, $`i_k,\stackrel{~}{i_k}=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ (i.e., $`T\varphi `$ and $`TI`$), $`S=I\backslash T,S^{}=I^{}\backslash T^{}`$, $`T_1`$ and $`T_1^{}`$ are all possible nontrivial subset of $`J=\{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_M\},J^{}=\{\stackrel{~}{j_1},\stackrel{~}{j_2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{j_M}\}`$, respectively, $`j_k,\stackrel{~}{j_k}=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ (i.e., $`T_1\varphi `$ and $`T_1J`$), $`S_1=J\backslash T_1,S_1^{}=J_1^{}\backslash T_1^{}`$.

Extending Theorem 3 to general complex coefficients $`a_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_M}^{s_1}`$, we have

Theorem 4. $`\rho `$ is separable if and only if there is $`\theta R`$ such that

$$\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=e^{i\theta }(1p^1)\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}},\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\alpha _{T_1S_1}^{T_1^{}S_1^{}}=\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\beta _{T_1S_1}^{T_1^{}S_1^{}}$$
(27)
$$\frac{\mu _2(1+|\mu _1|^2)}{z\mu _1\mu _2\overline{z}}[0,1].$$
(28)
where $`T,T^{},S,S^{},T_1,T_1^{},S_1,S_1^{}`$ are defined as in Theorem 3, $`z=e^{i\theta }\overline{z},z=\mu _2\mu _10`$, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are the roots of the equation $`\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\lambda ^2+\beta _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}\lambda +\gamma _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}=0`$ for some $`T,S,T^{},S^{}`$ such that $`\alpha _{TS}^{T^{}S^{}}0`$.

For a given rank two density matrix on $`HH\mathrm{}H`$, to find its separability one only needs to calculate the two eigenvectors $`|E_1,|E_2`$ corresponding to the two nonzero eigenvalues and check if formula (25) is satisfied or not.

Corollary. Let $`|E_2`$ be the maximally entangled vector given by $`|E_2=(1/\sqrt{N})_{i=1}^Ne_ie_i\mathrm{}e_i`$. For any vector $`|E_1`$ which is orthogonal to $`|E_2`$, $`\rho =p|E_1E_1|+(1p)|E_2E_2|`$ is not separable for $`0<p<1/2`$.

We have studied the sufficient and necessary conditions for separability of rank two mixed states in higher-dimensional quantum systems on $`HH\mathrm{}H`$. The separability condition for these kind of mixed states in arbitrary dimensions is explicitly given. A nonseparability inequality is also given for the case where one of the eigenvectors corresponding to nonzero eigenvalues of a density matrix is maximally entangled. The results can be generalized to the case of rank two mixed states on $`H_1H_2\mathrm{}H_M`$, where $`H_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$, may have different dimensions.

Acknowledgement The work is supported by the NSF of China (No.19975061) and the National Key Project for Basic Research of China (G1998030601).


format: text

text:
# Potential flows in a core-dipole-shell system: numerical results

## I Introduction

In a recent work  we study the streamlines and density contours of a stationary fluid in the presence of either a rigid sphere or a black hole both with a distant shell of matter modeled by a dipolar field. To fix ideas see Fig. 1 where this situation is depicted. The substitution of a halo or shell of matter by a fixed axisymmetric field is an old and common method in astrophysics, for example to simulate galaxy halos . Numerical experiments confirm that this is usually a good approximation . This method can be used in other physical situations where a core and a distant shell of matter are present.

In  we used for the fluid the stiff equation of state, i.e., a polytropic, $`p=Kn^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =2`$. This stiff equation of state over simplifies the partial differential equation for the velocity potential field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (it becomes linear). In this case the sound velocity in the fluid is equal to the speed of light. Therefore the stiff equation of state represents a limit situation not easily encountered in usual physical situations. Abrahams and Shapiro  studied the more realistic situation, a fluid with polytropic equation of state with $`1<\gamma <2`$ in the presence of either a rigid sphere or a black hole. The sound velocity in this case is less than the speed of light and the partial differential equation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ turns to be nonlinear.

In the present work, following Abrahams and Shapiro , we study a more realistic situation than the one examined in . Now we compute the streamlines and baryon density contours for a fluid with polytropic equation of state with $`1<\gamma <2`$ in the presence of either a rigid sphere or a black hole both with dipolar halos. In other words, now we consider the same situation as before, but for a general polytropic fluid. We consider also the accretion rate of particles into the black hole at its dependence with $`\gamma `$. Furthermore, we complete the work of Abrahams and Shapiro  by examining the black hole case with $`1<\gamma <2`$ and asymptotic constant velocity (case not studied in the quoted work). In particular, we study streamlines, density contours and accretion rate.

In section II we present the basic equations that describe potential flows and the nonlinear equation for the velocity potential for a polytropic equation of state of the form $`p=Kn^\gamma `$. Section III is divided in three sub-sections. In sub-section III-A we introduce the metric that represents a central core with a distant dipolar shell of matter. This field is the first approximation to represent distant matter, like halos and rings. In sub-section III-B we present the numerical method used to solve the nonlinear partial differential equation presented in section II. In sub-section III-C we show some results and study the behavior of the streamlines and density contours of the fluid in the presence of either a rigid sphere or a black hole both with a dipolar halo. Also we compute the accretion rate of particles falling into a black hole with and without dipolar halo. Finally, in section IV we summarize our results.

## II Basic Equations

The solution for potential flow of the equation of motion derived from the energy-momentum tensor for an ideal fluid, $`T_{\mu \nu }=(p+\rho )U_\mu U_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu }`$, is

$$hU_\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\alpha },$$
(1)
where $`h=(\rho +p)/n`$ denotes the enthalpy per baryon, $`n`$ the baryon density, $`p`$ the pressure of the fluid, $`\rho =\rho _0+ϵ`$ the total energy density, $`\rho _0`$ the rest mass energy density, $`ϵ`$ the internal energy density, $`U^\mu `$ represents the fluid four-velocity, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the scalar potential. Our conventions are $`G=c=1`$, metric with signature +2. Partial and covariant derivatives are denoted by commas and semicolons, respectively.

We recall that, by definition, an ideal fluid is adiabatic , i.e. the entropy is constant along the world line of each fluid element. If in an instant $`t`$ the entropy is constant throughout the volume of the fluid (isentropic case) then, for all time and any subsequent motion of the fluid, it retains everywhere the same constant value. In that case we find the solution for potential flows (1). Hence, only isentropic flows can have potential flows .

From Eq. (1) and the baryon number density conservation equation,

$$(nU^\mu )_{;\mu }=0,$$
(2)
we obtain the differential equation for the velocity potential,

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }+[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n}{h}\right)]_{,\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }^{,\alpha }=0,$$
(3)
where, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=[\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }]_{,\nu }/\sqrt{g}`$. This equation is in general nonlinear and depends on the fluid equation of state. If we consider a polytropic equation of state $`p=Kn^\gamma `$ and use the first law of thermodynamics for isentropic flows, $`\mathrm{d}(\rho /n)+p\mathrm{d}(1/n)=T\mathrm{d}s`$, ($`s`$ is the entropy per baryon and $`T`$ the temperature), we find

$$\rho =\rho _0+\frac{Kn^\gamma }{\gamma 1}.$$
(4)
Now, assuming that the flow is relativistic we can neglect the rest mass energy density $`\rho _0`$ with respect to the internal energy density $`Kn^\gamma /(\gamma 1)`$, i.e. the flow satisfies a barotropic equation of state, $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$. In this case, the baryon number density can be written in terms of the enthalpy as

$$n=\kappa h^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}},$$
(5)
where $`\kappa =\left(\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma K}\right)^{1/(\gamma 1)}`$. Then, equation (3) can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma 1}[\mathrm{ln}h(\mathrm{\Phi })]_{,\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }^{,\alpha }=0,$$
(6)
The simplest case is found when $`\gamma =2`$, Eq. (3) reduces to a linear equation. In this case the barotropic sound speed, defined as $`\mathrm{d}P/\mathrm{d}\rho c_s^2`$, is equal to the speed of light, i.e. we have a stiff equation of state. In the general case ($`1<\gamma <2`$), the differential equation is nonlinear and the barotropic sound speed is $`c_s^2=(\gamma 1)`$ is less than the speed of light.

The normalization condition, $`U_\alpha U^\alpha =1`$, gives us a relation between the enthalpy and the scalar field,

$$h=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi },_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^{,\alpha }}.$$
(7)
This relation will be also useful to determine the baryon number density.

In this section we have followed the work of Moncrief  which is in accord with Tabensky and Taub  that consider a constant barotropic sound speed, $`c_s^2=(\gamma 1)`$. We note that Abrahams and Shapiro  consider a variable polytropic sound speed.

## III Potential flows in black holes and rigid spheres with dipolar halos

### A The metric

To incorporate a dipolar field in the Schwarzschild metric we consider the solution found in  where authors model the intermediate vacuum between a core and a distant shell of matter. This core-shell system was found solving the vacuum Einstein equations for a general static axially symmetric metric (Weyl solution ). One of these equations can be solved in terms of Legendre polynomials increasing with the distance. These shell-like structures can be used to model many situations of interest in astrophysics, such as: supernovas, nebulae, and galaxy halos that have a core and an exterior shell of matter. As a first approximation we will consider only the first term in the expansion, the dipolar term that in Newtonian gravity corresponds to a constant force. By letting in the solution presented in  the quadrupole and octopole moments equal zero, we obtain

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{u1}{u+1}}\right)e^{2𝒟uv}dt^2+m^2(u+1)^2e^{2𝒟v(2u)𝒟^2[u^2(1v^2)+v^2]}[{\displaystyle \frac{du^2}{u^21}}`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{dv^2}{1v^2}}]+(u+1)^2(1v^2)e^{2𝒟uv}d\phi ^2,`$
with

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left[\sqrt{\rho ^2+(z+m)^2}+\sqrt{\rho ^2+(zm)^2}\right],`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{m}}1,u1,`$ (11)
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left[\sqrt{\rho ^2+(z+m)^2}\sqrt{\rho ^2+(zm)^2}\right],`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ,1v1,`$ (13)
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi ,`$ (14)
where ($`r,\theta ,\phi `$), ($`u,v,\phi `$) and $`(\rho ,z,\phi `$) are spherical, prolate spherical, and cylindrical coordinates, respectively. The metric (9) represents a monopolar core in the presence of an external dipolar field ($`𝒟`$) that is associated to a distant shell or halo of matter. As we said before, this field can be seen as the first approximation to model an external concentration of matter like halos and rings.

### B Numerical method

To solve equation (6) in the space-time with metric (9) we assume: a) That fluid is stationary, i.e., the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends on time only through the addition of $`at`$, where $`a`$ is a constant related to the zeroth component of the velocity. b) That due to the axial symmetry of the metric the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not depend on the variable $`\phi `$, and c) That the fluid is a test fluid, i.e. the metric does not evolve and it is given a priori. Also we put $`m=1.`$

First we notice that due to the acceleration of the fluid produced by the dipole, the stationary condition leads to a region of instability away from the core (black hole or hard sphere). So we have a region of stability $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that is depicted in Fig. 1. The size of this region is very sensitive to the values of the dipolar field ($`𝒟`$)  that accelerates the fluid. The stationary criteria is checked using the fact that baryon density (5) is a positive defined quantity . With the above mentioned assumptions Eq. (6) reduces to an elliptical differential equation with an inner boundary conditions near the black hole or rigid sphere and an external boundary condition (asymptotic condition).

To solve Eq. (6) we use a computational code based on a marching method with a second order precision, five point, finite difference. The numerical grid is evenly spaced in $`r`$ and in $`\theta `$. The marching method is the Stabilized Error Vector Propagation (SEVP) which is very efficient in solving separable and non-separable elliptic equations. The main ingredient of the method is a clever superposition of a particular solution of the elliptic equation with and a homogeneous solution. For a detailed discussion of the method, see for instance .

In the case of a rigid sphere, for the inner boundary condition, the usual condition of zero normal velocity in the surface of the sphere is employed. In general, the fluid velocity must be equal to the corresponding component of the velocity of the surface. Since usual stars have gaseous surfaces (not hard), this condition does not describe a typical flow around a star. In special astrophysical situations, like relativistic flows around a neutron star, this condition can be valid. For a black hole we use the condition that the fluid number density particle must remain finite on the black hole horizon . This leads to the numerical condition  that near $`u=1`$ (the black hole horizon),

$$\frac{}{r^{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,t}}{u1}\right]=0,$$
(15)
where $`r^{}=(u+1)+2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u1}{2}\right)`$ is the tortoise radial coordinate . With the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,t}=a<0`$ the condition (15) can also be satisfied in our case and it will be taken as the inner boundary condition. For numerical applications of this condition see .

For the outer boundary condition, with help of the geodesic equation for the metric (9), we can find a characteristic value for the scalar field potential ,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\frac{u+1}{u1}\right)e^{2𝒟v(1u)\frac{𝒟^2}{2}[u^2(1v^2)+v^2]}\sqrt{\left(\frac{u1}{u+1}\right)e^{2𝒟uv}+k^2}𝑑u,$$
(16)
where the integration is performed along the lines of constant $`v`$, usually between the surface of the sphere (or black hole horizon) and 60 Schwarzschild radius. Later, with the results obtained for the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we check the stationary condition to see the value of the radius in which the system becomes non-stationary. The constant $`k`$ is the fluid particle energy function.

To solve the non-linear equation (6) we first put the non-linear term equal to zero and calculate the linear part of the equation to find $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This solution is used as an initial guess for the non-linear problem. Then, from (7) we compute the fluid enthalpy. Finally, with this information we compute the non-linear term that is introduced in the non-linear equation to find new values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The process is repeated until the sum of the fractional change in the enthalpy for all interior points of the grid in one iteration is less than a certain error $`ϵ`$. Usually less than 10 iterations were required to reach an error of $`ϵ10^6`$. Obviously, for the linear case we need only one iteration. The number of iterations depends on the value of $`\gamma `$. For $`\gamma 1`$ the nonlinear factor tends to infinity and the program diverge. When $`\gamma =1`$ the fluid is pressureless (dust) and the fluid flow is geodesic, i.e., no longer obeys (6).

The code was tested for the case $`\gamma =2`$ using the analytical results for the steady flow of a fluid in the presence of either a hard sphere  or a black hole . In this case the numerical solution agreed with the exact solution within an error better than 1.5% for the radial velocity and 1% for the angular velocity. Since we are interested in qualitative aspects of the fluid behavior this accuracy is sufficient for our purposes.

Another aspect of the fluid dynamics is the accretion rate of matter into a black hole. This accretion rate can be computed from (1) and (5), we find

$$\dot{N}=_SnU^i\sqrt{g}𝑑S_i=_S\kappa h^{\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma 1}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,u}g^{uu}\sqrt{g}𝑑u𝑑v,$$
(17)
where the integration is performed in a two-surface sphere centered on the black hole. The exact form of (17), for $`\gamma =2`$, is known . It is $`\dot{N}=16\pi M^2n_{\mathrm{}}U_{\mathrm{}}^0`$, where $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`U_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ are the asymptotic density and zeroth component of the 4-velocity, respectively. $`M`$ is the black hole mass. We test our code to compute the accretion rate with this exact solution. We found an error less than 1%.

### C Numerical results

In Figs. 2 and 3, for the case of a rigid sphere with a dipolar halo, we show the numerical results for the streamlines and density contour lines of the baryon number density. The constants are: radius of the sphere 2.5 (Schwarzschild radius 2), dipolar strength $`𝒟=0.001`$, $`\gamma =1.75`$ and $`k=a=1.25`$, the outer boundary condition was set to 60 Schwarzschild radius. We see that the streamlines do not differ much from the linear case  and that the contour lines have the same qualitative behavior as in the linear case, $`(\gamma =2)`$. The numerical values for the baryon density are not the same due to the exponent $`1/(\gamma 1)`$ presented in the relation between the enthalpy and the baryon density. To ensure a physical result, in solving (6), we require that enthalpy be positive in every iteration of our code. The baryon number density is a positive quantity. We can have a negative enthalpy solution of $`n=\kappa h^{1/(\gamma 1)}`$, but in this case we have a negative baryon density.

For the same values of the constants, in Figs. 4 and 5 we show the numerical results for the streamlines and density contours for the case of a black hole with a dipolar halo. Again we see little difference compared to the linear case. These results tell us that the contribution of the non-linear term does not affect in a significant way the qualitative behavior of the fluid.

For the case of a black hole without dipole ($`𝒟=0`$) we also found that, for a constant asymptotic velocity, that the streamlines and density contours do not distinguish between the linear and non linear case. The scaled accretion rate for the black hole ($`\dot{N}/\kappa `$) increases when $`\gamma `$ decreases, e.g., for $`\gamma =1.9,1.8,1.7,`$ the scaled accretion rate increases in $`6\%,13\%,24\%`$, respectively, the value of the asymptotic velocity used in this case is $`v_{\mathrm{}}=0.6`$, the same as in .

For $`\gamma =2`$, the linear case, we find that the value of the scaled accretion rate with or without dipolar halo differs by $`1\%`$. We also find in this case, for the same values of Fig. 2, that the scaled accretion rate increases when $`\gamma `$ decreases. e.g., for $`\gamma =1.9,1.8,1.7,`$ the scaled accretion rate increases in $`8\%,18\%,33\%`$, respectively. In the dipole case the growth of the scaled accretion rate when $`\gamma `$ decreases is greater than in the case without dipole. In both cases the growth of the scaled accretion rate is due to the factor involving the enthalpy \[cf. Eq. (17)\].

As mentioned before, for an accelerated fluid it is difficult to have stationary flow. For the cases studied along the paper we found that for $`𝒟0.01`$ we can have a region of reasonable size (a ball greater than $`45`$ Schwarzschild radius) where we have laminar flow. For $`𝒟=0.03`$ the radius of this ball shrinks to $`5`$, and for $`𝒟=0.05`$ stationary flow does not exist. In summary, we believe that our results are representative of a generic situation when $`𝒟0.01.`$

Finally, we want to point out that the variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the systems black hole and rigid sphere with or without dipole for the linear and nonlinear cases is, in almost every interior point of the grid, less than 5%.

## IV  Conclusions

We have solved numerically the streamlines and the density contours for the baryon number density of an ideal fluid in the presence of either a rigid sphere or a black hole both with dipolar halo. The fluid has barotropic equation of state, $`p=(\gamma 1)`$ with $`1<\gamma <2`$, that represents a more realistic physical situation than the linear case studied in . We see that the nonlinear term does not affect qualitative the form of the streamlines and density contours when compared to the linear case, this is due to the low variation of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ between the linear and nonlinear cases. When compared with other situations studied in the literature this fact appears to be generic. Another interesting result is that the accretion rate of the cases studied increases when the constant $`\gamma `$ decreases. In the presence of the dipolar field this growth is bigger compared with the case without dipole.

The cases of a rotating black hole and rigid sphere with halos modeled by multipole moments beyond the dipole is under active consideration by the authors.

## Acknowledgments

We want to thank FAPESP and CNPq for financial support.