text:
# Qubits from number states and Bell inequalities for number measurements

## I Introduction

The Bell inequality Bell (1964) and its descendants (see e.g., Ref. Clauser et al. (1969)) are the main tools used when studying the question whether a bipartite system can be described by a local realist model or not. In such a model, the properties of the system exist independently of measurement, and measurements on one subsystem do not influence the other subsystem. For a proper statement of the exact properties of a local realist model, see conditions (i)–(iii) below. Under the assumption of local realism, a bound on the statistics from a bipartite system can be derived, a Bell inequality, e.g., (10) below. A bipartite *quantum* system is not described by such a model, and indeed, the mentioned statistical bound is violated by statistics obtained from the singlet spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum state. Thus, that system *cannot* be described by a local realist model.

The two parts of a bipartite spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system each have a quantum description that is (complex) two-dimensional, and this is appropriate for a violation of the inequalities in Refs. Bell (1964); Clauser et al. (1969). There are a number of treatments of higher-dimensional systems, e.g., Refs. Kaszlikowski et al. (2000); Collins et al. (2002), but here an attempt will be made to look at an infinite-dimensional system and its number operator. Some problems that emerge will be discussed and inequalities suitable for the situation will be derived. These inequalities are violated by the state produced in the nondegenerate optical parametric amplifier (NOPA).

The interest in these questions stems from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox Einstein et al. (1935). Perhaps one should comment on the relation between the continuous-variable, infinite-dimensional quantum system used in the original EPR paradox, where position ($`x`$) and momentum ($`p`$) are used, and the finite-dimensional spin-based approach of Bohm Bohm (1951). Bell Bell (1986) has presented a local realist model for position and momentum measurements on the original EPR state, constructed using the Wigner function representation of the EPR state as a joint probability of the measurement results. The Wigner function generally has all the properties of a probability measure except one: it can be negative (a proper probability measure is always positive). However, in this particular case the Wigner function is positive, so it can be used as a proper probability measure. One could be led to think that this implies that the EPR state can be described by a local realist model, but this is not the case: the important thing to note is the statement *“for position and momentum measurements.”* That is, nothing is said about *other* measurements; the quantum state contains more than just information about position and/or momentum. In fact, if one instead uses measurements of parity, one can interpret the Wigner function as a correlation function for these parity measurements, and then regularized EPR states *are* nonlocal Banaszek and Wódkiewicz (1998).

Furthermore, in Ref. Chen et al. (2002), pseudo-spin operators based on parity are introduced, and from them a violation of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality Clauser et al. (1969) is derived using the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state. The steps will be briefly reiterated here as they will be important in what follows. The pseudo-spin operators are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_z& =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n|nn|,\hfill \\ \hfill s_+& =(s_{})^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|2n2n+1|,\hfill \\ \hfill s_x& =s_++s_{},s_y=i(s_+s_{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
and these satisfy the usual commutation relations

$$[s_z,s_\pm ]=\pm 2s_\pm ,[s_+,s_{}]=s_z.$$
(2)
Please observe the change of sign convention in Eq. (1) from that of Ref. Chen et al. (2002). Now, the pseudo-spin operator $`\widehat{𝐬}=(s_x,s_y,s_z)`$ in a sense corresponds to the spin operator $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ for a normal spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system. In the general case, a measurement of pseudospin can be made along a certain “direction” $`𝐚`$ by using the operator $`𝐚\widehat{𝐬}`$, but for our purposes, planar variation is sufficient, so let us use the notation

$$s_\theta =\mathrm{cos}(\theta )s_z+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )s_x.$$
(3)
The two parts of our bipartite system can be subjected to individual measurements of the above type, and we will use the shorthand notation $`s_\alpha s_\beta ^{}`$ to denote $`s_\alpha s_\beta `$ below.

In our bipartite system we will use the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state as our entangled state

$$|\text{NOPA}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}r}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^nr|n|n.$$
(4)
The parameter $`r`$ is usually referred to as the *squeezing parameter*, and is a measure of the amount of squeezing in the system. This state is sometimes referred to as a *regularized* EPR state, and at infinite squeezing ($`r\mathrm{}`$), the state approaches the idealized state used in the original EPR paper Einstein et al. (1935). A simple calculation yields Chen et al. (2002)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{NOPA}|s_zs_z^{}|\text{NOPA}& =1,\hfill \\ \hfill \text{NOPA}|s_xs_x^{}|\text{NOPA}& =\mathrm{tanh}2r=:K.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
$`K`$ is a (strictly increasing) function of $`r`$, $`K=0`$ when $`r=0`$ and $`K1`$ when $`r\mathrm{}`$; consequently $`K`$ can equally well be used as a measure of the amount of squeezing in this state. Finally, we have

$$\text{NOPA}|s_\alpha s_\beta ^{}|\text{NOPA}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta +K\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta .$$
(6)
The results of the individual measurements $`s_\alpha I`$ and $`Is_\beta `$ will be denoted by $`S_\alpha `$ and $`S_\beta ^{}`$. That is, these are the classical $`\pm 1`$ values registered from measurement, e.g., written down on a piece of paper or similar. The question is now if these results can be described under the assumption of local realism:

1. *Realism,* There is a classical probabilistic model where the results depend on a “hidden variable” $`\lambda `$, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_\alpha & =S_\alpha (\lambda ),\hfill \\ \hfill S_\beta ^{}& =S_\beta ^{}(\lambda ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
2. *Locality,* The model is local, such that measurement settings at one subsystem does not affect the other subsystem, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_\alpha (\lambda )& \text{ is independent of }\beta ,\hfill \\ \hfill S_\beta ^{}(\lambda )& \text{ is independent of }\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
3. *Result restriction.* The measurement results are restricted in size,

$$|S_\alpha (\lambda )|1,|S_\beta ^{}(\lambda )|1.$$
(9)

When this is the case, we have the CHSH inequality Clauser et al. (1969)

$$\left|E(S_\alpha S_\gamma ^{})+E(S_\alpha S_\delta ^{})\right|+\left|E(S_\beta S_\gamma ^{})E(S_\beta S_\delta ^{})\right|2.$$
(10)
However, using the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state (in shorthand notation), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|s_0s_\gamma ^{}+s_0s_\gamma ^{}\right|+\left|s_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{}}s_\gamma ^{}s_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{}}s_\gamma ^{}\right|\hfill \\ & =2(\left|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \right|+K\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|).\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
With e.g., $`\gamma =\mathrm{arctan}K`$, the maximum of the right-hand side is obtained at $`2\sqrt{1+K^2}>2`$. The conclusion is that (i) or (ii) (or both) must fail, since (iii) always holds in this setting.

In the ideal case, there is a violation at any nonzero squeezing, but in a noisy setting the violation will be lowered by the noise, so that a certain lowest squeezing will be required. Note that when $`K=1`$, the violation will be as large as that generated by the singlet state in the original setting. This corresponds to an infinite squeezing parameter $`r`$, i.e., the original EPR state Einstein et al. (1935), but unfortunately infinite squeezing cannot be achieved in practice. Note that the angle $`\gamma `$, at which there is maximum violation, depends on the squeezing.

The detector-efficiency problem Larsson (1998) is less of an issue here than in the usual Bell inequality because e.g., lost photons in an optical implementation will not imply that experimental runs are dropped from the statistics. Instead such losses will change the measured parity, introducing noise in the statistics and leading to a situation similar to that of the ion-trap experiment of Rowe *et al.* Rowe et al. (2001), where also “dark” events lead to increased noise in the experimental data. Thus, we do not need to use auxiliary assumptions such as the no-enhancement assumption Clauser and Horne (1974). One of the motivations of Refs. Banaszek and Wódkiewicz (1998); Chen et al. (2002) and the present paper is to derive a violation of local realism from continuous-variable systems using only the assumptions (i)–(iii) above. A different philosophy is used in some previous proposals for continuous-variable Bell inequalities, where additional assumptions are necessary and in some cases built into the formalism (see e.g., Refs. Grangier et al. (1988); Tan et al. (1991); Santos (1992); Munro and Reid (1993); Yurke and Stoler (1997); Ralph et al. (2000); Huntington and Ralph (2002)). It should be noted that usage of these assumptions usually lead to simpler experimental implementations than is expected from the present treatment.

## II An infinite commuting hierarchy

To extend this, let us use a different assignment of parity than the usual one. As an example, group the number states two-by-two, assign “even” parity to the number states in the first group and “odd” parity to the next group, and so on. Above, we had

$$s_z=+|00||11|+|22||33|+\mathrm{},$$
(12)
but now, a similar expression would be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_{z,2}=& +\left(|00|+|11|\right)\left(|22|+|33|\right)\hfill \\ & +\left(|44|+|55|\right)\left(|66|+|77|\right)+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Adjusting the expressions for $`s_\pm `$ in eq. (1) for this case, we obtain

$`s_{z,2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\left(|2n2n|+|2n+12n+1|\right)`$
$`s_{+,2}`$ $`=(s_{,2})^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[|4n4n+2|+|4n+14n+3|\right],`$
$`s_{x,2}`$ $`=s_{+,2}+s_{,2},s_{y,2}=i(s_{+,2}s_{,2}).`$ (14)
Also in this case, it is easy to check that there is a correspondence to a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system.

Extending this to arbitrary $`d`$-by-$`d`$ grouping is equally simple,

$`s_{z,d}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}|dn+kdn+k|,`$
$`s_{+,d}`$ $`=(s_{,d})^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}|2dn+k2dn+k+d|,`$
$`s_{x,d}`$ $`=s_{+,d}+s_{,d},s_{y,d}=i(s_{+,d}s_{,d}).`$ (15)
For example,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_{z,3}=& +\left(|00|+|11|+|22|\right)\hfill \\ & \left(|33|+|44|+|55|\right)\hfill \\ & +\left(|66|+|77|+|88|\right)+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
while the $`d=3`$ spin step would be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_{+,3}& =|03|+|14|+|25|\hfill \\ & +|69|+|710|+|811|+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
Another simple calculation yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{NOPA}|s_{z,d}s_{z,d}^{}|\text{NOPA}& =1,\hfill \\ \hfill \text{NOPA}|s_{x,d}s_{x,d}^{}|\text{NOPA}& =\frac{2\mathrm{tanh}^dr}{1+\mathrm{tanh}^{2d}r}=:K_d.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Note that if $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$, $`K_d`$ decreases when $`d`$ increases. In a similar fashion as before,

$$\text{NOPA}|s_{\alpha ,d}s_{\beta ,d}^{}|\text{NOPA}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta +K_d\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta .$$
(19)
With the same notational conventions as above, we have under local realism ((i)–(iii)), that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|E(S_{\alpha ,d}S_{\gamma ,d}^{})+E(S_{\alpha ,d}S_{\delta ,d}^{})\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|E(S_{\beta ,d}S_{\gamma ,d}^{})E(S_{\beta ,d}S_{\delta ,d}^{})\right|2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
and similarly to Eq. (11),

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|s_{0,d}s_{\gamma ,d}^{}+s_{0,d}s_{\gamma ,d}^{}\right|+\left|s_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}s_{\gamma ,d}^{}s_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}s_{\gamma ,d}^{}\right|\hfill \\ & =2(\left|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \right|+K_d\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|).\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Again for nonzero squeezing a violation of Ineq. (20) is obtained at any positive $`d`$, but it decreases as $`d`$ grows. Here, maximum-violation $`\gamma `$ depends both on the squeezing and on $`d`$.

It is not generally true that the pseudospin operators commute for different $`d`$. For example, the operators for $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ do not commute; while it is true that $`[s_{z,2},s_{z,3}]=0`$, we have $`[s_{x,2},s_{x,3}]0`$. However, an important case when they *do* commute is when the $`d`$’s are related by multiplication by an even number. This is easily verified by inspection in the relation between $`d=1`$ as in Eq. (1) and $`d^{}=2`$ as in Eq. (II), and can also be extended to any situation where $`d^{}=2^kd`$; the spin operators $`s_{\pm ,d}`$ then only exchange number states entirely within the groups defined by $`s_{z,d^{}}`$ and $`s_{\pm ,d^{}}`$, and $`s_{z,d}`$ performs the same sign change within each such group. We obtain an infinite commuting hierarchy of spin systems,

$$\{s_{z,2^k},s_{,2^k}=(s_{+,2^k})^{}\}_k.$$
(22)
Using the bipartite $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state, there is a simultaneous, separate violation of a Bell inequality within each spin system in this hierarchy.

## III New number operators?

Interestingly, the $`s_{z,2^k}`$ operator corresponds to measurement of the *bits in the binary representation of $`n`$*, mapping a bit-value 0 into the parity value $`+1`$ and a bit-value 1 into parity $`1`$. This is readily seen in Eqs. (12) and (13) and can be shown generally using Eq. (II). The correspondence is

$$s_{z,2^k}=12b_k,$$
(23)
wherein $`b_k`$ is the $`k`$th bit of $`n`$. Obtaining number from parity is also possible,

$$n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^kb_k=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^k\frac{1s_{z,2^k}}{2}.$$
(24)
Here, it is *very important* that the different $`s_{z,2^k}`$ commute. The above construction is, more or less, the observation that the bits of the number representation are qubits in the usual sense of the word, and we can see above that in the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state, there is indeed entanglement of the qubits in the number representation.

The bit correspondence of the $`s_{z,2^k}`$ operator to the number operator $`n`$ (henceforth referred to as $`n_z`$) hints at similar constructions of number operators $`n_x`$ and $`n_y`$ corresponding to $`s_{x,2^k}`$ and $`s_{y,2^k}`$, for example,

$$n_x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^k\frac{1s_{x,2^k}}{2}.$$
(25)
Unfortunately, this construction is problematic, for example, the eigenstates of $`n_x`$ and $`n_y`$ will not be normal states; let us determine $`|0_x`$. All the $`n_x`$ bits are zero which corresponds to the eigenvalue $`+1`$ of all $`s_{x,2^k}`$. From Eq. (1) an eigenstate $`|\psi `$ of $`s_{x,1}`$ with the eigenvalue $`+1`$ will have the property

$$0_z|\psi =1_z|\psi ,$$
(26)
and similarly, from Eq. (II) an eigenstate $`|\phi `$ of $`s_{x,2}`$ with the eigenvalue $`+1`$ will follow

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0_z|\phi & =2_z|\phi ,\hfill \\ \hfill 1_z|\phi & =3_z|\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
Continuing (infinitely), a simultaneous eigenstate of $`s_{x,2^k}`$ with the eigenvalue $`+1`$ for all $`k`$’s will have all coefficients equal in the $`n_z`$ basis, i.e., of the form

$$C\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|n_z.$$
(28)
This is not a normal state; it has infinite energy. Nevertheless, it has a bit value of 0 at all positions when measuring $`n_x`$, so choosing $`|0_x`$ so that $`0_z|0_x=1`$, we have (with a certain abuse of notation 111In a situation like this, one should really deal with states in the form of functionals on operators and weak-\* convergence, but perhaps this would lead us astray in our search for a Bell inequality.)

$$|0_x=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|n_z.$$
(29)
More generally, eigenstates to the eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ of the spin operator $`s_{x,d}`$ (see Eq. (II)) have the properties

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0_z|\phi & =\pm d_z|\phi ,\hfill \\ \hfill 1_z|\phi & =\pm (d+1)_z|\phi ,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill (d1)_z|\phi & =\pm (2d1)_z|\phi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
where the eigenvalue in question decides what sign the right-hand sides have. The vector $`|m_x`$ is a simultaneous eigenvector to all $`s_{x,2^k}`$, and by choosing it so that

$$0_z|m_x=1,$$
(31)
we obtain \[put $`d=2^k`$ in Eq. (30)\]

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (2^k)_z|m_x& =\pm 1,\hfill \\ \hfill (2^k+1)_z|m_x& =(2^k)_z|m_x1_z|m_x,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill (2^{k+1}1)_z|m_x& =(2^k)_z|m_x(2^k1)_z|m_x.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
To determine the sign above, first note that

$$1_z|m_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1,\hfill & m\text{ even}\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & m\text{ odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
This is because $`|m_x`$ is an eigenvector to $`s_{x,1}`$ with eigenvalue $`+1`$ if the lowest bit of $`m`$ is zero ($`m`$ is even), and with eigenvalue $`1`$ if the lowest bit of $`m`$ is one ($`m`$ is odd). In other words, $`1_z|m_x=(1)^{m1}`$, where $``$ denotes the bitwise andoperation on the two numbers. Continuing, we have

$$(2^k)_z|m_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1,\hfill & m2^k=0\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & m2^k=2^k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
And finally, expanding $`n`$ binary,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& n_z|m_x=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}b_k2^k\right)_z|m_x\hfill \\ & =(b_K2^K)_z|m_x\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{K1}{}}b_k2^k\right)_z|m_x\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}(b_k2^k)_z|m_x.\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
In the right-hand side above, there will be a $`1`$ factor each time $`mb_k2^k`$ is nonzero. By simply counting the number of bits that are set in $`mn`$ \[and denoting the result $`𝒩(mn)`$\], we arrive at

$$|m_x=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{𝒩(mn)}|n_z.$$
(36)
In the same manner, one can deduce

$$|m_y=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{𝒩(mn)}i^{𝒩(n)}|n_z.$$
(37)
The connection between the eigenstates of $`n_x`$ and $`n_y`$ is more problematic since all of these are non-normal, and this relation will not be reproduced here endnote21.

Unfortunately, the non-normal eigenstates of $`n_x`$ implies that when measuring $`n_x`$ the state would be projected onto a non-normal state (for a finite measurement result, using von Neumann measurement theory). Such a measurement would generate an infinite-energy output quantum state, which seems to be a serious deficit in this approach.

Conversely, consider a measurement of $`n_x`$ on the vacuum. The state $`|0_z`$ (the vacuum) is an eigenstate to the original number operator $`n_z`$ that has zeros at all bit values, corresponding to the eigenvalue $`+1`$ of $`s_{z,2^k}`$ for all $`k`$’s. The properties of a spin system tell us that it is to be expected that a measurement of any $`s_{x,2^k}`$ will yield equally probable results $`\pm 1`$. Thus, the bits of $`n_x`$ will be evenly distributed, and the probability of getting a finite result from a measurement of $`n_x`$ on the vacuum is zero.

This is actually true for any finite-energy state $`|\psi `$: as $`k`$ grows in $`s_{z,2^k}`$, we are looking at higher and higher bits of $`n_z`$. Since the state has finite energy, the probability of a bit being set will tend to zero as $`k`$ grows, and equivalently the probability of the result $`+1`$ when measuring $`s_{z,2^k}`$ will tend to zero as $`k`$ grows. This in turn means that the probability of the result $`+1`$ when measuring $`s_{x,2^k}`$ will tend to $`\frac{1}{2}`$, and equivalently that the probability of bit $`k`$ being unset in a measurement of $`n_x`$ will tend to $`\frac{1}{2}`$. The probability may never reach $`\frac{1}{2}`$, but we know that whenever $`k`$ exceeds some (large) $`K`$, this probability will be less than $`\frac{2}{3}`$. Now, the probability of getting a result bounded by $`2^k`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi |\chi _{n_x2^k}|\psi <\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{k+L}{}}\psi |\chi _{n_x2^l=0}|\psi <\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^L0,& \\ \hfill L\mathrm{},& \end{array}$$
(38)
Here, $`\chi _A`$ denotes the projector onto the subspace where the property $`A`$ holds. Ineq. (38) is valid for any $`k`$ (larger than $`K`$) and thus, for any finite-energy state, measurement of $`n_x`$ (almost) never yields a finite result.

The above-mentioned problems are two sides of the same coin: if a measurement of $`n_x`$ yields a finite value, the output state from the measurement process has infinite energy; conversely, if a finite-energy state is input into a measurement of $`n_x`$, the result is always infinite. It does seem very problematic to construct a Bell inequality for this type of number measurements. In fact, the original number operator itself is an unbounded operator and we want to derive a statistical bound for it (our desired Bell inequality). One way around these problems is to truncate the operators at the $`d`$th bit, and we will use, e.g.,

$$n_{z,d}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^k\frac{1s_{z,2^k}}{2}.$$
(39)
These operators all yield finite measurement results and finite-energy output states (with a finite-energy input state), and enables the construction of a Bell inequality.

## IV A Bell inequality for number measurements

We have now constructed an infinite commuting hierarchy of pseudospin systems, each violating a Bell inequality. We have also established that the $`s_{z,2^k}`$ operator of each pseudospin system corresponds to one of the bits of the number operator $`n`$($`=n_z`$), and more interestingly, each such bit is a qubit in the standard sense of the word. Measurement results can now be represented equally well in the language of spin ($`\pm 1`$) as in the language of bits \[$`\frac{1}{2}(\pm \frac{1}{2})`$\], and we should be able to rewrite our Bell inequalities (10) and (20) in the language of bits rather than spin.

To complete this rewrite, one question remains: we multiply spin-measurement results ($`SS^{}`$) in our Bell inequalities but what function $`f(B,B^{})`$ does this correspond to in the bit language? Listing classical bit values, the corresponding pseudospin values, their product, and the final corresponding bit value in a table, we get

| $`B`$ | $`B^{}`$ | $`S`$ | $`S^{}`$ | $`SS^{}`$ | $`f(B,B^{})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0 | $`+1`$ | $`+1`$ | $`+1`$ | 0. |
| 0 | 1 | $`+1`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | 1. |
| 1 | 0 | $`1`$ | $`+1`$ | $`1`$ | 1. |
| 1 | 1 | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`+1`$ | 0. |

Interestingly, $`f`$ proves to be exclusive-or (xor, $`\overline{}`$; our sign convention was useful here). This is natural, since the multiplication of our spin values is conveniently interpreted as a test whether the spin values are equal or not; in bit language, such a test is provided by xor. Moreover,

$$SS^{}=(12B)(12B^{})=12B\overline{}B^{}.$$
(40)
Under conditions (i)–(iii) of local realism, and using

$$B_{\theta ,k}=\frac{1}{2}(1S_{\theta ,2^k})$$
(41)
we obtain the following directly from Eq. (20):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|E(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{})+E(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{})1\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|E(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{})E(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{})\right|\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\left|E(S_{\alpha ,2^k}S_{\gamma ,2^k}^{})+E(S_{\alpha ,2^k}S_{\delta ,2^k}^{})\right|\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}\left|E(S_{\beta ,2^k}S_{\gamma ,2^k}^{})E(S_{\beta ,2^k}S_{\delta ,2^k}^{})\right|1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
A corollary is the more familiar-looking inequality,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|E(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{})+E(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{})\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|E(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{})E(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{})\right|2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
but Eq. (42) is tighter and will be used below.

We would now like to check for a violation of the above inequality from quantum mechanics, preferably from the previously mentioned $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state. The multiplication of pseudospin *operators* (quantum-mechanical) translates into a “quantum xor

$$ss^{}=(12b)(12b^{})=12b\overline{}b^{},$$
(44)
so that

$$b\overline{}b^{}=b+b^{}2bb^{}.$$
(45)
This has all the properties expected from an xoroperation, and is a noncommutative operation, e.g.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_x\overline{}b_zb_z\overline{}b_x& =\frac{1s_xs_z}{2}\frac{1s_zs_x}{2}=\frac{[s_z,s_x]}{2}\hfill \\ & =is_y=i(12b_y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Using the above, it is easy to check that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|b_{0,d}\overline{}b_{\gamma ,d}^{}+b_{0,d}\overline{}b_{\gamma ,d}^{}1\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|b_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}\overline{}b_{\gamma ,d}^{}b_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}\overline{}b_{\gamma ,d}^{}\right|\hfill \\ & =\left|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \right|+K_d\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
We again have a violation, although both the bound and the violation are a factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ less than in Ineqs. (20) and (21). This makes the absolute quantum-mechanical violation of Ineq. (42) less than that of Ineq. (20), but the sensitivity to experimental problems is the same; we have simply represented the data differently.

Until now we have treated the pseudospin systems as individual systems, measuring and comparing them one-by-one. Let us now do a joint treatment of the first $`d`$ bits by using the measurement results $`N_{z,d}`$ and so on, written in binary form, for example,

$$N_{z,d}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^kB_{z,k}.$$
(48)
The truncation to $`d`$ bits is useful to avoid the aforementioned problems of the number operators, but will also be necessary to give a useful bound below. We now perform a comparison of the individual bits in each (truncated) number by using bitwise xor,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{}& =(\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^kB_{\alpha ,k})\overline{}(\underset{l=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^lB_{\gamma ,l}^{})\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^k(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
For each individual bit, we have the Bell inequality (42) violated by the quantum-mechanical expression (47), and joining these together, we have

$`\left|E\left(N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{}\right)+E\left(N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\delta ,d}^{}\right)\left(2^d1\right)\right|+\left|E\left(N_{\beta ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{}\right)E\left(N_{\beta ,d}\overline{}N_{\delta ,d}^{}\right)\right|`$
$`=\left|E\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k\left(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{}\right)\right)+E\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k\left(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{}\right)\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k\right|+\left|E\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k\left(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{}\right)\right)E\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k\left(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{}\right)\right)\right|`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k\left[\left|E\left(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{}\right)+E\left(B_{\alpha ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{}\right)1\right|+\left|E\left(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\gamma ,k}^{}\right)E\left(B_{\beta ,k}\overline{}B_{\delta ,k}^{}\right)\right|\right]{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}2^k=2^d1.`$ (50)
Again we have a more familiar-looking corollary

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|E(N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{})+E(N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\delta ,d}^{})\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|E(N_{\beta ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{})E(N_{\beta ,d}\overline{}N_{\delta ,d}^{})\right|2(2^d1),\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
and again the tighter inequality (50) will be retained; it is our desired Bell inequality for number measurements.

A violation of Ineq. (50) is obtained using the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state, for which

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|n_{0,d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{}+n_{0,d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{}(2^d1)\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|n_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{}n_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{}\right|\hfill \\ & =(2^d1)\left|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \right|+\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^kK_{2^k}\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
and with $`\gamma `$ chosen properly, the maximum violation is obtained as

$$\sqrt{(2^d1)^2+\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2^kK_{2^k}\right)^2}>2^d1.$$
(53)
At infinite squeezing ($`K_{2^k}=1`$ for all $`k`$) we have $`\sqrt{2}(2^d1)`$, which gives the largest possible violation of Ineq. (50) 222A technical note is that the first inequality of Eq. (50) cannot be violated by quantum mechanics; while the triangle inequality is used there too (it is also the basis of the Bell inequality), it is used to split *commuting* measurements rather than noncommuting ones..

One reason for using a bitwise operation here instead of the usual multiplication is the above-mentioned correspondence to multiplication of pseudospins, but there is another, perhaps less evident reason. It is clear that for the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state, the result of a measurement of $`n_z`$ is the same as that of $`n_z^{}`$ in the ideal case. This implies that the measurement results of the bits $`b_k`$ and $`b_k^{}`$ are also the same. In a noisy environment, the correlation would be high. However, different bits are not correlated in the same manner, e.g., measurement results from $`b_k`$ and $`b_{k+1}^{}`$ do not enjoy the same degree of correlation. In fact, even measuring on one part of the bipartite $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state, knowledge of the value of one of the bits (of $`n_z`$, say) gives no statistical information on the value of another. When calculating a product, e.g.,

$$N_{z,2}N_{z,2}^{}=B_0B_0^{}+4B_1B_1^{}+2(B_0B_1^{}+B_1B_0^{}),$$
(54)
it is easy to see that there are terms that mix *different* bits of the two numbers. It is of course possible to derive a Bell inequality for this expression as well, and the first two terms correspond to a weighted bitwise and, similar to the bitwise xorused in this paper. Unfortunately, the parenthesis at the end performs a bitwise andon different bits of the two numbers. Thus, the last parenthesis yields no usable information, but only additional noise. It would be possible to get around the noise addition by using a state in which knowledge of one bit implies knowledge of another, but this will in effect reduce the available dimensionality of the system; we would, in bit notation, want to use a state close to $`|00|00+|11|11`$. We can conclude that the bitwise xorused here is a better choice of “multiplication” in this setting.

Above we used one natural weighting of the bits, while in information-theoretic considerations often another is natural, namely equal weighting of the bits for which we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|E\left(𝒩(N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{})\right)+E\left(𝒩(N_{\alpha ,d}\overline{}N_{\delta ,d}^{})\right)d\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|E\left(𝒩(N_{\beta ,d}\overline{}N_{\gamma ,d}^{})\right)E\left(𝒩(N_{\beta ,d}\overline{}N_{\delta ,d}^{})\right)\right|d,\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
where $`𝒩(N\overline{}N^{})`$ is the number of bits set in the bitwise xorof $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$. Again, using the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|𝒩(n_{0,d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{})+𝒩(n_{0,d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{})d\right|\hfill \\ & +\left|𝒩(n_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{})𝒩(n_{{}_{}{}^{\pi }/_{2}^{},d}\overline{}n_{\gamma ,d}^{})\right|\hfill \\ & =d\left|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \right|+\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}K_{2^k}\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
and the maximum is obtained as

$$\sqrt{d^2+\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}K_{2^k}\right)^2}>d.$$
(57)
At infinite squeezing, the largest possible violation is obtained at $`\sqrt{2}d`$.

## V Conclusions

The present paper provides Bell inequalities for number measurements via the observation that the bits of the number operator are true and proper qubits. It extends Chen et al. (2002) wherein the authors use the parity pseudospin system corresponding to the lowest qubit of the number operator; here we use a commuting hierarchy of similar systems corresponding to all qubits of $`n`$. One benefit of this is that the the available entanglement in the $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state is better used. Furthermore, by this construction, continuous-variable systems can be used to violate the Bell inequality via number measurements. Also, via the mentioned qubits, continuous-variable systems are possible to use for quantum-computational tasks.

Unfortunately, on the experimental side, no good method of measuring parity is known, much less the extended parity operators $`s_{x,d}`$, $`s_{y,d}`$, and $`s_{z,d}`$, or the new (truncated) number operators $`n_{x,d}`$ and $`n_{y,d}`$ introduced here. There is an experimentally challenging proposal in Ref. Chen et al. (2002) which has not yet been realized. Nevertheless, perhaps Refs. Banaszek and Wódkiewicz (1998); Chen et al. (2002) and this paper will provide motivation to search for a good measurement procedure.

Another use of this formalism is to extract distinguishable bipartite entangled spin systems (or rather, pseudospin systems) out of a bipartite entangled system where each part consists of undistinguishable pieces Julsgaard et al. (2001). Measuring the *number* of pieces (atoms or whatnot) that have a certain property instead of identifying *exactly which* pieces (atoms) that have the property does seem simpler to achieve. But there are still the experimental challenges noted above, of course. And it takes $`2^k`$ undistinguishable pieces of each part of the system to establish $`k`$ distinguishable spin systems, which can make the procedure comparatively costly.

Inequalities (10), (20), (42), (50), and (55) are all examples of choices of different weighting of the bits (or, equivalently, the parity pseudo-spins). In fact, any weighting one finds reasonable can be used, for example to adapt for the case where the lowest bits are not really accessible, as may happen in the experimental setup of Ref. Julsgaard et al. (2001). This is one way of deriving more inequalities from the above approach, and another is to allow the angles to differ for different bits. We would then obtain a larger violation from a finitely squeezed $`|\text{NOPA}`$ state than the one shown above, because the best angles vary from one $`d`$ to another in the Bell inequality (20). A third extension is to use qutrits (spin-1 correspondence) instead of qubits in the approach, or indeed so-called qu$`N`$its (spin-$`(N1)/2`$ correspondence) for arbitrary $`N`$, together with an inequality more suited to such a situation Kaszlikowski et al. (2000); Collins et al. (2002).

As to noise sensitivity and other experimental problems, previous results are of course usable in a bitwise analysis as indicated above. But since an error may affect several bits in the number-measurement approach, a more detailed analysis is necessary. Further analysis is perhaps of limited value until a good proposal for measuring $`n_x`$ and $`n_y`$ is available, wherein the properties of possible experimental problems are better visible.

Finally, this is certainly not the only approach to obtain Bell inequalities for continuous-variable systems, even when taking into account the possible extensions mentioned above. But the present treatment is a step towards understanding the difficult and interesting issues at hand.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank E. Polzik and K. Mølmer for valuable discussions. This work has been supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. MaPhySto, The Centre for Mathematical Physics and Stochastics, is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Classical Dynamics in Deformed Spaces

## 1 Introduction

The set-up of a problem in quantum mechanics usually consists of specifying (a) the structure of the algebra of the observables and (b) the Hamiltonian of the problem. If the commutation relations in the algebra of the observables are deformations of the usual commutation relations between the coordinates and the momenta, the situation is often referred to as ”dynamics in a quantized space”. Schrödinger was apparently the first to consider such a situation: in  he calculated the energy levels for the Coulomb potential on a 3-sphere. For this problem the term ”quantized space” is rather appropriate as the spectrum of the distance operator on a 3-sphere is discrete even in the absence of any field.

One can obtain ”classical dynamics in a quantized space” by setting

$$lim\frac{i}{h}[A,B]=\{A,B\}\text{as}h0,$$

where $`\{,\}`$ are the Poisson brackets of classical dynamics. We prefer to speak about ”classical dynamics in deformed spaces” (keeping in mind that it is not just the space but the whole dynamics being deformed).

In fact, one does not need a reference to the quantum theory in order to construct a deformation of the functional algebra of classical observables. However, we are specifically interested in the classical version of the 3-parametric family of deformations considered in  in the context of quantum mechanics.

This family arises naturally if one considers deformations of the commutation relations involving the four space-time coordinates, ten generators of the Poincare algebra (that is, infinitesimal translations and proper Lorentz transformations) and the unity element, with the property that the resulting algebra contains the Lorentz algebra as a subalgebra.

In what follows we will consider only three-dimensional non-relativistic problems. The usual commutation relations between the dynamic variables are replaced by the following set of brackets satisfying the Jacobi identity:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{p_i,x_j\}=\delta _{ij}I\frac{ϵ_{ijk}l_k}{S},\hfill & \{l_i,x_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}x_k,\hfill & \{I,x_i\}=\frac{x_i}{S}\frac{p_i}{M^2},\hfill \\ \{x_i,x_j\}=\frac{ϵ_{ijk}l_k}{M^2},\hfill & \{l_i,p_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}p_k,\hfill & \{I,p_i\}=\frac{x_i}{L^2}\frac{p_i}{S},\hfill \\ \{p_i,p_j\}=\frac{ϵ_{ijk}l_k}{L^2},\hfill & \{l_i,l_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}l_k,\hfill & \{I,l_i\}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
Here $`x_i`$ are the coordinates and $`p_i`$ and $`l_i`$ are the components of the momentum and angular momentum respectively; the function $`I`$ is a deformation of the unity function. The three parameters $`L^2`$, $`M^2`$ and $`S`$ have the dimensions of area, square of the momentum and action respectively.

In general, these parameters may depend on rotation-invariant functions of the dynamic variables such as $`x^2,l^2,\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ etc. In this case in the resulting non-linear functional algebra the Jacobi identities are still satisfied. Here, however, we only consider the case of $`L^2,M^2`$ and $`S`$ being constants. It should be stressed that we do not require the signs of $`L^2`$ and $`M^2`$ to be positive.

In order to obtain the flat space with the usual dynamics on the scale of the Solar system one has to assume that the values of $`L^2`$, $`M^2`$ and $`S`$ are huge. In fact, taking $`M^2`$ and $`S`$ to be infinite, we get the dynamics in the space of constant curvature equal to $`1/L^2`$, so $`L`$ is on the scale of the size of the Universe.

An important feature of the relations (1) is their non-invariance with respect to the time reversal. Namely, changing the signs of $`𝒑`$, $`𝒍`$ and of the brackets simultaneously one obtains relations of the same form but with the sign of the parameter $`S`$ reversed.

Various particular cases of the above commutation relations are studied in the literature. The case of the space of constant curvature (that is, $`M^2,S=\mathrm{}`$) has received most attention. The first work related to this case is due to Schrödinger  (who assumed the curvature to be positive, for the case of negative curvature see ). Many other works on the subject have appeared since; we only mention  which contains a discussion of the classical mechanics (and, in particular, the Kepler problem) in the space of constant curvature.

The case $`S=\mathrm{}`$ is due to Yang . The general case of the above commutation relations was introduced in , see also . The quantum energy levels for the Kepler-Coulomb potential and the harmonic oscillator for this general case are calculated in .

Other approaches to deformed spaces exist: see, for example, .

About the notation: we use bold italic letters for vectors. The scalar and vector products of vectors $`𝒂`$ and $`𝒃`$ will be denoted by $`\mathbf{(}𝒂𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{[}𝒂𝒃\mathbf{]}`$ respectively, the absolute value of $`𝒂`$ is denoted by $`|𝒂|`$ and its square - by $`a^2`$.

For simplicity, we always assume the particles to be of unit mass.

## 2 The canonical coordinates

### 2.1 The canonical coordinates

Depending on the signs of the constants $`L^2`$, $`M^2`$ and $`L^2M^2S^2`$, the functional algebra (1) is equivalent as a Lie algebra to one of the algebras $`o(5)`$, $`o(1,4)`$ or $`o(2,3)`$ (). According to the Darboux theorem these algebras can be resolved in terms of four pairs of independent canonically conjugate coordinates and momenta and two cyclic variables constructed from the elements of (1). In the algebraic language, the cyclic variables are the Casimir operators of the corresponding algebra.

The Casimir operators of the algebra under consideration are as follows:

$$K_2=I^2+\frac{x^2}{L^2}+\frac{p^2}{M^2}\frac{2\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}}{S}l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)$$

and

$$K_4=(I𝒍\mathbf{[}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝒑\mathbf{]})^2\frac{\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{)}^2}{M^2}+\frac{2\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{)}}{S}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{)}^2}{L^2}.$$

The Poisson brackets of $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ with any function vanish and their values can be fixed. In order to get a correct limit in the usual (that is, nondeformed) case we shall set $`K_2=1`$. As for the value of $`K_4`$, we will only consider the scalar representation of the algebra of the observables, that is, set

$$I𝒍=\mathbf{[}𝒙𝒑\mathbf{]}.$$
(2)
This implies that $`\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{)}=\mathbf{(}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{)}=0`$ and, hence, that $`K_4=0`$. The relation (2) generalises the definition of the angular momentum as a function of other variables to the case of the deformed space.

Imposing the relation (2) we reduce the number of Darboux pairs by one. An explicit resolution of the algebra (1) in terms of three angular variables can be found in the Appendix.

The equality $`K_2=1`$ (with $`l^2`$ expressed via $`𝒑`$, $`𝒙`$ and $`I`$) can be thought of as the equation defining the phase space of our dynamical system. In particular, if $`M^2,S=\mathrm{}`$ and $`L^2>0`$ this is the equation of $`S^3\times 𝐑^3`$ in $`𝐑^7`$ and the relations $`(\text{1})`$ describe the dynamics on the 3-sphere of radius $`L`$. In fact, the phase space is a manifold whenever $`S^2=L^2M^2`$. In general, however, it is not smooth: if $`S^2L^2M^2`$ there is a singularity at $`I=0`$.

### 2.2 Problems with spherical symmetry

For problems with spherical symmetry (such as the Kepler problem considered below) it may be of use considering the algebra of observables invariant under rotations. Namely, consider the algebra generated by the 5 spherically invariant variables: $`r^2x^2+\frac{l^2}{M^2}`$, $`p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p^2+\frac{l^2}{L^2}`$, $`D\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}+\frac{l^2}{S}`$, $`I`$, $`l^2`$. The commutation relations of the nonlinear algebra generated by these 5 variables follow directly from (1):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{I,p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\}=2\left(\frac{D}{L^2}\frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{S}\right),\hfill & \{I,r^2\}=\left(\frac{D}{M^2}\frac{r^2}{S}\right),\hfill & \{I,D\}=\frac{r^2}{L^2}\frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M^2}\hfill \\ \{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},r^2\}=4DI,\hfill & \{D,p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\}=2p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}I,\hfill & \{D,r^2\}=2r^2I\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The nonlinear functional algebra (3) is generated by 5 elements and has three cyclic variables: two of them, namely $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$, come from the initial algebra. The third cyclic variable is $`l^2`$ which commutes with all the generators of (3). Thus, by the Darboux theorem, this algebra can be resolved in terms of one coordinate and one momentum. We choose $`r`$ as the coordinate. (In the non-deformed case this is just the radial variable.)

The values of $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ being fixed, the quantities $`D`$, $`p^{}`$ and $`I`$ depend only on $`r`$, the corresponding canonically conjugate momentum which we denote by $`\rho `$, and $`l^2`$. Taking the squares of the vectors on both sides of (2) and using the fact that $`K_2=1`$ after some manipulations we obtain

$$p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{r^2}\left(D^2+l^2\right).$$
(4)
From the last equality of (3) we get that

$$I=\frac{1}{r}D_\rho $$

Substituting this expression together with (4) into the equality $`K_2=1`$ we obtain an equation on $`D`$

$$1=\frac{D_\rho ^2}{r^2}+\frac{D^2+l^2}{M^2r^2}+\frac{r^2}{L^2}\frac{2D}{S}+l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)$$

with the general solution

$$D=\frac{M^2r^2}{S}\sqrt{\left(1+r^2M^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\right)(M^2r^2l^2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\rho }{M}.$$
(5)
As a corollary we have

$$I=\sqrt{\left(1+r^2M^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\right)\left(1\frac{l^2}{M^2r^2}\right)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\rho }{M}$$
(6)
Thus all elements of the nonlinear functional algebra given by (3) are expressed in terms of the canonically conjugate pair $`(r,\rho )`$ and the square of the angular momentum $`l^2`$.

## 3 Free motion

The Hamiltonian of the free motion is chosen so as to commute with infinitesimal translations and rotations, that is, with $`𝒑`$ and $`𝒍`$. The simplest such expression which gives the correct limit as the parameters tend to infinity is

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+\frac{l^2}{L^2}\right).$$

It follows immediately from the commutation relations that the vectors $`𝒑`$ and $`𝒍`$ are constant. Also,

$$\stackrel{}{𝒙}=I𝒑\frac{\mathbf{[}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{]}}{L^2}+\frac{\mathbf{[}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{]}}{S}$$

and

$$\stackrel{}{I}=\frac{p^2}{S}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}}{L^2}.$$

From this

$$\stackrel{}{I}+\frac{2E}{L^2}I=0$$

and, hence,

$$I=I_0\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2E}}{L}(tt_0)\right).$$

Now, taking the vector product of (2) with $`𝒑`$ one has

$$\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒑p^2𝒙=I\mathbf{[}𝒍𝒑\mathbf{]}$$

from where

$$𝒙=\left(\frac{L^2}{S}+\frac{I_0}{p^2}L\sqrt{2E}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2E}}{L}(tt_0)\right)\right)𝒑\frac{I_0}{p^2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2E}}{L}(tt_0)\right)\mathbf{[}𝒍𝒑\mathbf{]}.$$
(7)
The value of $`I_0`$ can be found from the condition $`K_2=1`$:

$$I_0=\frac{p}{\sqrt{2E}}\sqrt{1+2E\left(\frac{L^2}{S^2}\frac{1}{M^2}\right)}.$$

In the case $`L^2=\mathrm{}`$ the expression for $`𝒙`$ should be modified to read

$$𝒙=𝒙_0+\left(I_0𝒑+\frac{\mathbf{[}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{]}}{S}\right)t+\frac{p^2}{2S}𝒑t^2$$

with

$$I_0=\sqrt{1\frac{p^2}{M^2}+\frac{l^2}{S^2}+\frac{2\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{S}}.$$

The orbits of the free motion are elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic according to whether $`L^2`$ is positive, zero, or negative. This should not be surprising given that $`L^2`$ can be interpreted as the curvature of the space. For example, set $`M^2,S=\mathrm{}`$ and take $`L^2>0`$. Then the elliptic orbits (7) can be obtained from the geodesics on the 3-sphere

$$1=I^2+\frac{x^2}{L^2}$$

by projecting them orthogonally on a Euclidean 3-space. In particular, the farthest distance from the origin reached by a freely moving particle is the same for all orbits and equals to $`L`$.

## 4 The Kepler problem

### 4.1 The equation of the orbit

The Hamiltonian for the Kepler problem is chosen (as in ) so as to commute with the Rünge-Lenz vector $`𝑨`$ defined as

$$𝑨=\mathbf{[}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{]}+\frac{\alpha 𝒙}{r}=\frac{1}{I}\left(p^2𝒙\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒑\right)+\frac{\alpha 𝒙}{r}$$
(8)
where $`r`$ is given by $`r^2=x^2+\frac{l^2}{M^2}`$.

The commutation relations for the components of $`𝑨`$ are as follows:

$$\{A_i,A_j\}=2(E\frac{l^2}{L^2})ϵ_{ijk}l_k,$$

where $`E`$ stands for the expression

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+\frac{l^2}{L^2}+\frac{2\alpha I}{r}\frac{\alpha ^2}{M^2r^2}\right).$$
(9)
Also,

$$\{l_i,A_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}A_k$$

and, hence,

$$\{l^2,A_j\}=2ϵ_{ijk}l_jA_k.$$

To see that $`E`$ commutes with all of the components of $`𝑨`$ first notice that

$$A^2=\alpha ^2+l^2(2E\frac{l^2}{L^2}).$$
(10)
Now,

$$2\{E,A_i\}=\{\frac{A^2}{l^2},A_i\}\alpha ^2\{\frac{1}{l^2},A_i\}+\frac{1}{L^2}\{l^2,A_i\}=0.$$

Thus $`E`$ can be chosen to be the Hamiltonian for the Kepler problem.

The three vectors $`𝒙`$, $`𝒑`$ and $`𝑨`$ lie in the plane orthogonal to the vector of angular momentum. Let us choose the polar coordinates $`(|𝒙|,\varphi )`$ in this plane with the direction $`\varphi =0`$ being given by the Rünge-Lenz vector. (If $`𝑨=0`$ we take $`\varphi =0`$ to be an arbitrary ray passing through the origin.)

Taking the scalar product of (8) with $`𝒙`$ one has

$$\frac{A|𝒙|\mathrm{cos}\varphi \alpha r}{l^2}=I\frac{\alpha }{M^2r}$$
(11)
Taking the vector product of $`𝑨`$ and $`𝒍`$ we have

$$\mathbf{[}𝑨𝒍\mathbf{]}=l^2𝒑+\frac{\alpha }{r}\mathbf{[}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{]}.$$
(12)
The scalar product of (12) with $`𝒙`$ gives

$$\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}=\frac{1}{l^2}(\mathbf{[}𝑨𝒍\mathbf{]},𝒙)=\frac{A|𝒙|\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{l}.$$
(13)
Now the orbits can be found as follows. In the expression $`K_2=1`$ one can substitute $`\mathbf{(}𝒑𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ from (13), $`I`$ — from (11) and $`p^2`$ — from (9) and (10). The resulting equation of the orbit is as follows:

$$1+\frac{2A|𝒙|\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{lS}=\frac{(A|𝒙|\mathrm{cos}\varphi \alpha r)^2}{l^4}+\frac{r^2}{L^2}+\frac{A^2\alpha ^2}{l^2M^2}\frac{l^2}{S^2}.$$
(14)
In the Cartesian coordinates $`(x,y)=(|𝒙|\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,|𝒙|\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ the equation (14) takes the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}x^2\left(\frac{A^2+\alpha ^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\right)+y^2\left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\right)\frac{2Ay}{lS}+\frac{A^2}{l^2M^2}l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)1\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{2\alpha A}{l^4}x\sqrt{x^2+y^2+\frac{l^2}{M^2}}.\end{array}$$
(15)
This equation defines a branch of a plane quartic. The other branch of this quartic describes the orbit with the same values of $`A`$ and $`𝒍`$ but with the opposite value of $`\alpha `$. Notice that changing $`𝒍`$ for $`\mathbf{}𝒍`$ we obtain, generally, a different orbit. (Recall that the commutation relations (1) are not invariant under time reversal.)

Interestingly, it was Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625–1712) who first suggested that the trajectories of planets are quartic curves. Now these curves are known as Cassinian ovals. A Cassinian oval is defined as the locus of points with the product of their distances from two fixed points equal to a fixed constant.

### 4.2 The parametric form for the orbit

From now on we will assume for simplicity that $`L^2`$ is positive. Taking into the account the fact that $`K_2=1`$, this implies, in particular, that all orbits are closed.

The curve (15) can be parametrised as follows. The condition $`L^2>0`$ means that we can choose $`a,b`$ so that

$$a^2+b^2=\frac{\alpha ^2+A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}$$

and

$$ab=\frac{A\alpha }{l^4}.$$

Explicitly,

$$a^2,b^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2+A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{\alpha ^2+A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\right)^2\frac{4A^2\alpha ^2}{l^8}}\right)$$

and we take $`a^2>b^2`$.

The equation (15) can be written as

$$(axbr)^2+\left(\nu y\frac{A}{lS\nu }\right)^2=\gamma ^2.$$

Here

$$\nu ^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{\alpha ^2+A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\right)^2\frac{4A^2\alpha ^2}{l^4}}\right)$$

and

$$\gamma ^2=1+l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\frac{a^2}{\nu ^2}.$$

In the non-deformed limit $`\gamma =1`$ and

$$\nu ^2=\frac{\alpha ^2A^2}{l^4}=\frac{2E}{l^2}$$

for $`E<0`$ and $`\nu ^2=0`$ otherwise.

We can set

$`axbr`$ $`=\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`\nu y{\displaystyle \frac{A}{lS\nu }}`$ $`=\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta .`$
so that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r& =\frac{1}{a^2b^2}\left(b\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta +|a|\sqrt{\gamma ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +(a^2b^2)\left(\left(\frac{\gamma }{\nu }\mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{A}{lS\nu ^2}\right)^2+\frac{l^2}{M^2}\right)}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill x& =\frac{1}{a^2b^2}\left(a\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta +b\frac{|a|}{a}\sqrt{\gamma ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +(a^2b^2)\left(\left(\frac{\gamma }{\nu }\mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{A}{lS\nu ^2}\right)^2+\frac{l^2}{M^2}\right)}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill y& =\frac{\gamma }{\nu }\mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{A}{lS\nu ^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
In the classical limit the above parametrisation gives the usual trigonometric parametrisation of the elliptic trajectory. There exists also a generalisation of the hyperbolic parametrisation. Write (15) as

$$(bxar)^2\left(\mu y+\frac{A}{lS\mu }\right)^2=\delta ^2$$

with

$$\mu ^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\sqrt{\left(\frac{\alpha ^2+A^2}{l^4}+\frac{1}{L^2}\right)^2\frac{4A^2\alpha ^2}{l^4}}\right)$$
(17)
and

$$\delta ^2=1l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\frac{b^2}{\mu ^2}.$$

Assume that $`\delta ^2>0`$. Then setting

$`bxar`$ $`=\delta \mathrm{cosh}\theta ,`$
$`\mu y+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{lS\mu }}`$ $`=\delta \mathrm{sinh}\theta .`$
we obtain the hyperbolic parametrisation of the orbit. (The case $`\delta ^2<0`$ is entirely similar.)

Notice that $`\mu ^2\nu ^2=\frac{A^2}{l^4L^2}`$ so in the non-deformed limit only one of the parametrisations is meaningful for the given values of $`\alpha `$ and $`A`$, the other just giving the equation of the orbit. In the deformed case both parametrisations can be meaningful for the same closed orbit. In this case the hyperbolic parametrisation is two-valued and the parameter $`\theta `$ belongs to a closed interval.

In the non-deformed limit the hyperbolic parametrisation remains two-valued with the parameter $`\theta `$ varying over all real numbers. The two branches correspond to the two possible values of $`I=\pm 1`$. One branch gives the usual parametrisation of a hyperbolic trajectory. The second branch parametrises a trajectory with the same value of $`A`$ and $`l`$ but with the opposite sign of $`\alpha `$.

### 4.3 Dependence on time

Taking the Poisson bracket of $`𝒙`$ with the Hamiltonian we obtain the equations of motion:

$$\stackrel{}{𝒙}=I𝒑\frac{\mathbf{[}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{]}}{L^2}+\frac{\mathbf{[}𝒑𝒍\mathbf{]}}{S}+\frac{\alpha 𝒙}{Sr}\frac{\alpha 𝒑}{M^2r}.$$

Substituting $`I`$ and $`𝒑`$ from (11) and (12) respectively, we get

$$\stackrel{}{𝒙}=\frac{1}{l^4}(Ax\alpha r)(\frac{\alpha }{r}\mathbf{[}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{]}\mathbf{[}𝑨𝒍\mathbf{]})\frac{\mathbf{[}𝒙𝒍\mathbf{]}}{L^2}+\frac{𝑨}{S}.$$

In particular, for the coordinate $`y`$ we have:

$$\stackrel{}{y}=\frac{1}{l^3}((A^2+\alpha ^2+\frac{l^4}{L^2})x\alpha A(\frac{x^2}{r}+r)),$$

or, equivalently,

$$\stackrel{}{y}=\frac{l}{r}(axbr)(bxar).$$

It follows from (16) that

$$\frac{r}{bxar}=\frac{|a|}{a}\left(\frac{b\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+|a|\right)\frac{1}{a^2b^2}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the expression under the square root in (16). Thus

$$\frac{|a|}{a}l\nu (a^2b^2)dt=d\theta \left(|a|+\frac{b\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right).$$
(18)
The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ only depends on $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ so the period of the motion can be found without integrating (18):

$$T=\frac{2\pi |a|}{l\nu (a^2b^2)}.$$

Notice that for $`A,l`$ and $`\alpha `$ fixed, the period only depends on $`L^2`$ and not on $`M^2`$ and $`S`$.

One can re-write (18) as

$$\frac{|a|}{a}(a^2b^2)ldt=\frac{|a|}{\nu }d\theta +\frac{b}{\mu }\frac{dq}{\sqrt{q^2+1l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)(\nu ^2L^21)}}$$

where

$$q=\frac{\mu }{\nu }\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{(a^2b^2)lL}{\nu S}$$

and $`\mu `$ is defined as in (17) so that $`\mu ^2+\nu ^2=a^2b^2`$. Integrating, one gets the following parametrisation of the time $`t`$ by $`\theta `$:

$$\frac{|a|}{a}(tt_0)(a^2b^2)l=\frac{|a|}{\nu }\theta +\frac{b}{\mu }\mathrm{sinh}^1\left(\frac{\frac{\mu }{\nu }\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{(a^2b^2)lL}{\nu S}}{\sqrt{1+l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)(1\nu ^2L^2)}}\right).$$
(19)
(The above answer is valid if

$$1+l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)(1\nu ^2L^2)>0;$$

obviuos modifications are needed otherwise in (19).)

The standard trigonometric parametrisation of $`t`$ by $`\theta `$ in the non-deformed Kepler problem can be obtained from (19) by setting first $`S`$ and $`M^2`$ to be infinite and then taking the limit as $`L^2`$ tends to infinity. (Note that as $`L^2`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$, the parameter $`\mu `$ tends to 0, as $`\mu =\frac{A}{\nu lL}`$.)

## 5 The Hamilton-Jacobi equation

The spherically symmetric part of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is obtained by substituting (4), (5) and (6) into the explicit expression for the Hamiltonian function

$$2E=\frac{1}{r^2}(D^2+l^2)+\frac{2\alpha }{r}I\frac{\alpha ^2}{M^2r^2}.$$

Namely, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill 2Er^2l^2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{M^2}=\left(\frac{M^2r^2}{S}\sqrt{\left(1+r^2M^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\right)(M^2r^2l^2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{W_r}{M}\right)^2\\ \hfill +\frac{2\alpha }{M}\sqrt{\left(1+r^2M^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\right)(M^2r^2l^2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{W_r}{M}\end{array}$$

where $`W`$ is the radial part of the action function. One arrives to the same expression considering the quasi-classical limit for the Schrödinger equation in a deformed (quantized) space.

We do not know a direct method of solving this (rather unusual at the first sight) equation. In fact, one only needs to know the the second derivative $`W_{rE}`$ in order to describe $`r`$ as a function of time: $`r(t)`$ can be found from the equality

$$tt_0=𝑑rW_{rE}.$$

Below we obtain an algebraic equation for the second derivative $`W_{rE}`$ of the radial part of the action.

Let us introduce the following notation:

$$u=\frac{M^2r^2}{S}\sqrt{\left(1+r^2M^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\right)(M^2r^2l^2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{W_r}{M}$$

$$v=\sqrt{\left(1+r^2M^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}\right)\right)(M^2r^2l^2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{W_r}{M}\frac{\alpha }{M}$$

In this notation the Hamilton-Jacobi equation becomes

$$u^2+\frac{2\alpha }{M}v=2Er^2l^2\frac{\alpha ^2}{M^2}\theta .$$
(20)
Taking the derivative of both sides with respect to $`E`$ we have

$$uv=Mr^2\left(\frac{1}{W_{rE}}\frac{\alpha }{S}\right)F$$
(21)
Finally, taking into the account that $`\mathrm{sin}^2x+\mathrm{cos}^2x=1`$ we obtain

$$v^2\frac{2M^2r^2}{S}u=M^2r^2\left(1\frac{2E}{M^2}\frac{r^2}{L^2}l^2\left(\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{M^2L^2}\right)\right)\overline{\theta }$$
(22)
The condition of self-consistensy of the three equations above with respect to only two functions $`u,v`$ leads to an equation for the function $`F`$ in the form

$$(\overline{F}^2\theta \overline{\theta })^2=\overline{F}(\overline{F}^23\theta \overline{\theta })+(s^2\overline{\theta }^3+w^2\theta ^3)\overline{F}$$

where $`s=\frac{\alpha }{M}`$, $`w=\frac{M^2r^2}{S}`$ and $`\overline{F}F+4sw`$.

## 6 Conclusion

The main result of the present paper is a parametric solution of the Kepler problem in a deformed space whose construction involves three parameters with dimensions of length, momentum and action respectively.

The orbits of particles in this version of the Kepler problem turn out to be (branches of) quartic curves. This should be compared with the analysis of Higgs  who studies the orbits in the case where there is only one non-trivial deformation parameter, namely the length $`L`$. In Higgs’ picture the orbits are elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic just as in the nondeformed case. This, however, is due to a special choice of coordinates used in . These coordinates, though well-suited to the geometry of the problem, have no physical significance. The coordinates we use are distinguished among all possible coordinate systems as ”the physical coordinates”. The transformation between Higgs’ coordinates and the physical coordinates is very simple: in our notations, Higgs’ coordinates can be written as $`x_i/I`$.

The fact that the Kepler problem can be solved in the deformed space gives some hope that other problems (for example, construction of field theories) could also have reasonable solutions in deformed spaces. The discussion of this subject is, however, beyond the scope of the present article.

## Appendix: Structure of the algebra (1).

Throughout the section we assume that $`M^2>0`$ and

$$\frac{1}{S^2}\frac{1}{L^2M^2}>0.$$

Take the spherical coordinates with the angles $`(\varphi ,\theta ,\chi )`$ in $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$. Let $`(𝒖,u_4)`$ be the unit vector

$$(𝒖,u_4)=(\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,sin\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\chi )$$

and set

$$p_\chi =\frac{}{\chi },p_\theta =\frac{}{\theta },p_\varphi =\frac{}{\varphi }.$$

Define the vectors $`𝑭`$ and $`𝑳`$ by

$$\begin{array}{c}F_1=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{}{\chi }+\mathrm{cot}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{}{\theta }+\mathrm{cot}\chi \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\varphi },\hfill \\ F_2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{}{\chi }+\mathrm{cot}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{}{\theta }\mathrm{cot}\chi \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\varphi },\hfill \\ F_3=\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{}{\chi }+\mathrm{cot}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{}{\theta }\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}L_1=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{}{\theta }+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cot}\theta \frac{}{\varphi },\hfill \\ L_2=\mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{}{\theta }\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cot}\theta \frac{}{\varphi },\hfill \\ L_3=\frac{}{\varphi }.\hfill \end{array}$$

respectively.

Now,

$`I=\mathbf{(}𝒖𝑭\mathbf{)}+u_4\rho ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(𝒑{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{S}}𝒙)=\rho 𝒖+\mathbf{[}𝑳𝒖\mathbf{]}u_4𝑭,`$
$`𝒙M\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2M^2}}}=𝑭,`$
$`𝒍\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2M^2}}}=𝑳.`$
## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Carlos Villegas-Blas for useful advice. The second author was supported by the grant J-33616E awarded by CONACyT.

A.Leznov: andrey@buzon.uaem.mx
J.Mostovoy: jacob@matcuer.unam.mx