format: text

text:
# Chiral Ward identities and pion propagation at finite temperature in the linear sigma model

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, a considerable effort has been devoted to the production and detection of the so called quark-gluon plasma –the state of matter where the basic QCD degrees of freedom are not confined to a single hadron– in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The disentanglement of the signals to discern between different outcomes of the collision, requires the understanding of the evolution of the hadronic state from production to freeze out. Since pions are the most copiously produced particles in this kind of collisions, a proper understanding of their propagation properties within a dense a hot environment represents a key ingredient for the understanding of the system’s physical properties as a whole.

In general, the hadronic degrees of freedom are accounted for by means of effective chiral theories whose basic ingredient is the fact that pions are the Goldston bosons coming from the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry. Chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) is one of such theories that has been employed to show a number of properties exhibited by pions at finite temperature, at leading  and next to leading  orders. A striking result obtained from the second order calculations is that the shift in the temperature dependence of the pion mass is opposite in sign and about three times larger in magnitude than the first order shift, already at temperatures of order of $`150`$ MeV. This result might signal either the breakdown of the perturbative scheme at such temperatures or the need to compute beyond next to leading order in ChPT, given the large relative corrections found.

Nevertheless, the simplest realization of chiral symmetry is still provided by the much studied linear sigma model . This is a renormalizable field theory at zero  and (consequently) at finite temperature . The model has been the subject of a renewed interest in view of recent theoretical results  and analyses of data  that seem to confirm the existence of a broad scalar resonance, with a mass in the vicinity of 600 MeV, that can be identified with the $`\sigma `$-meson. If confirmed, this last feature could place the linear sigma model above the status of a toy model to study QCD below the deconfinement scale. It thus becomes important to check that the results obtained by means of other theories such as ChPT can be reproduced by the linear sigma model when working in a given kinematical regime.

Here we show that the linear sigma model reproduces the leading order modification to the pion mass in a thermal pion medium obtained in ChPT at leading order, when use is made of a systematic expansion in the ratio $`m_\pi ^2/m_\sigma ^2`$ at zeroth order –with $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\pi `$ the vacuum sigma and pion masses, respectively– and when treating the momentum and temperature as small quantities of order $`m_\pi `$. In this regime, the effective expansion parameter becomes $`m_\pi ^2/4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2`$, with $`f_\pi `$ the pion decay constant. Such parameter allows for a controlled loop expansion of the pion self-energy from where we can study both, the modification to the pion mass at next to leading order and pion damping in the elastic and inelastic channels. This is accomplished by constructing one-loop effective vertices and propagators satisfying the chiral Ward identities and thus respecting chiral symmetry. Details of the calculation as well as a more extended discussion on its implications can be found in Refs. .

## 2 Effective vertices and chiral Ward identities

The Lagrangian for the linear sigma model, including only the meson degrees of freedom and after the explicit inclusion of the chiral symmetry breaking term, can be written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\pi )^2+(\sigma )^2m_\pi ^2\pi ^2m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2\right]`$ (1)
$``$ $`\lambda ^2f_\pi \sigma (\sigma ^2+\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4}}(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)^2,`$
where $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ are the pion and sigma fields, respectively, and the coupling $`\lambda ^2`$ is given by

$`\lambda ^2={\displaystyle \frac{m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}.`$ (2)
From Eq. (1), we can obtain the Green’s functions and Feynman rules to use in perturbative calculations. In particular, the bare pion and sigma propagators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (P)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (Q)`$ and the bare one-sigma two-pion and four-pion vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{ij}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{04}^{ijkl}`$ are given by (hereafter, capital Roman letters are used to denote four momenta)

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (P)\delta ^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{P^2m_\pi ^2}}\delta ^{ij}`$
$`i\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{Q^2m_\sigma ^2}}`$
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\lambda ^2f_\pi \delta ^{ij}`$
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{04}^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\lambda ^2(\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{kl}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\delta ^{ik}\delta ^{jl}+\delta ^{il}\delta ^{jk}).`$
These are sufficient to obtain the modification to the pion propagator, both at zero and finite temperature, at any given perturbative order.

Alternatively, we can exploit the relations that chiral symmetry imposes among different n-point Green’s functions. These relations, known as chiral Ward identities (ChWIs), are a direct consequence of the fact that the divergence of the axial current may be used as an interpolating field for the pion . Thus, one could construct the modification to one of the above Green’s functions at a given perturbative order and from there, build up the induced modification to other Green’s functions related to the former by a ChWI. For example, two of the ChWIs satisfied –order by order in perturbation theory– by the functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (P)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (Q)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{04}^{ijkl}`$ are

$`f_\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{04}^{ijkl}(;0,P_1,P_2,P_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{kl}(P_1;P_2,P_3)\delta ^{ij}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{lj}(P_2;P_3,P_1)\delta ^{ik}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{jk}(P_3;P_1,P_2)\delta ^{il}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{ij}(Q;0,P)=f_\pi ^1[\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^1(Q)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi ^1(P)]\delta ^{ij},`$
where momentum conservation at the vertices is implied, that is $`P_1+P_2+P_3=0`$ and $`Q+P=0`$.

At one loop and after renormalization, we recall that the sigma propagator is modified by finite terms. At zero temperature this modification is purely imaginary and its physical origin is that a sigma particle, with a mass larger than twice the mass of the pion, is unstable and has a (large) non-vanishing width coming from its decay channel into two pions. At finite temperature the modification results in real and imaginary parts. The real part modifies the sigma dispersion curve whereas the imaginary part represents a temperature dependent contribution to the sigma width.

In an expansion in the parameter $`m_\pi ^2/m_\sigma ^2`$, the leading contribution to the sigma self-energy comes from the sigma polarization bubble where the intermediate particles are pions. Working in the imaginary-time formalism of Thermal Field Theory, this is given as $`6\lambda ^4f_\pi ^2I(\omega ,q)`$ where the function $`I`$ is defined by

$`I(\omega ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\omega _n^2+k^2+m_\pi ^2}}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _n\omega )^2+(𝐤𝐪)^2+m_\pi ^2}}.`$
Here $`\omega =2m\pi T`$ and $`\omega _n=2n\pi T`$ ($`m`$, $`n`$ integers) are discrete boson frequencies and $`q=|𝐪|`$. From Eq. (5) we obtain the time-ordered version $`I^t`$ of the function $`I`$, after analytical continuation to Minkowski space. The imaginary part of $`I^t`$ is given by

$`\text{I}\text{m}I^t(q_0,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (q_o)}{2i}}[I(i\omega q_o+iϵ,q)`$ (6)
$``$ $`I(i\omega q_oiϵ,q)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}\{a(Q^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2T}{q}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{\omega _+(q_0,q)/T}}{1e^{\omega _{}(q_0,q)/T}}}\right)\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(Q^24m_\pi ^2),`$
where $`Q^2=q_0^2q^2`$, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are the sign and step functions, respectively, and the functions $`a`$ and $`\omega _\pm `$ are given by

$`a(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{Q^2}}}`$
$`\omega _\pm (q_0,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|q_0|\pm a(Q^2)q}{2}},`$ (7)
whereas the real part of $`I^t`$ at $`Q=0`$ is given by

$`\text{R}\text{e}I^t(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{E_k}}\left[1+2f(E_k)\right],`$ (8)
where $`E_k=\sqrt{k^2+m_\pi ^2}`$ and the function $`f`$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution

$`f(E_k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{E_k/T}1}}.`$ (9)
Therefore, the one-loop effective sigma propagator becomes

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^{}(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{Q^2m_\sigma ^2+6\lambda ^4f_\pi ^2I^t(Q)}}.`$ (10)
The temperature-independent infinities are absorbed into the redefinition of the physical masses and coupling constants by the introduction of suitable counterterms in the usual manner.

In order to preserve the ChWIs expressed in Eq. (LABEL:Ward), the corresponding one-loop effective one-sigma two-pion and four-pion vertices are

$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{ij}(Q;P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2i\lambda ^2f_\pi \delta ^{ij}`$
$`\left[13\lambda ^2I^t(Q)\right],`$
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{04}^{ijkl}(;P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4)`$ $`=`$ $`2i\lambda ^2\times `$
$`\{[1`$ $`3`$ $`\lambda ^2I^t(P_1+P_2)]\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{kl}`$
$`+[1`$ $`3`$ $`\lambda ^2I^t(P_1+P_3)]\delta ^{ik}\delta ^{jl}`$
$`+[1`$ $`3`$ $`\lambda ^2I^t(P_1+P_4)]\delta ^{il}\delta ^{jk}\}.`$
The functions in Eq. (LABEL:newvertices) arise from considering all of the possible one-loop contributions to the one-sigma two-pion and four-pion vertices, when maintaining only the zeroth order terms in a systematic expansion in the parameter $`m_\pi ^2/m_\sigma ^2`$.

## 3 Dispersion relation

We now use the above effective vertices and propagator to construct the one-loop modification to the pion self-energy. Keeping only the leading order contribution when considering $`m_\pi `$, $`T`$ and $`P`$ as small compared to $`m_\sigma `$ and to zeroth order in $`m_\pi ^2/m_\sigma ^2`$ for which

$`\lambda ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda ^2f_\pi ^2}{m_\sigma ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}},`$ (12)
the pion self-energy can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(P)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}\right)T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{K^2+m_\pi ^2}}`$
$`\{`$ $`5+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{P^2+K^2}{m_\pi ^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}\right)[9I^t(0)+6I^t(P+K)]\},`$
with $`K=(\omega _n,𝐤)`$ and $`P=(\omega ,𝐩)`$. The pion dispersion relation is thus obtained from the solution to

$`P^2+m_\pi ^2+\text{R}\text{e}\mathrm{\Pi }(P)=0,`$ (14)
after the analytical continuation $`i\omega p_0+iϵ`$. The temperature dependent infinities contained in Eq. (LABEL:self) are exactly canceled by the contribution from the terms necessary to introduce at one loop to carry the (vacuum) renormalization procedure .

Let us first look at the dispersion relation at leading order, this results from

$`p_0^2=p^2+m_\pi ^2\left[1+\xi g(T/m_\pi )\right],`$ (15)
where $`\xi =m_\pi ^2/4\pi ^2f_\pi ^21`$ and the function $`g`$ is given by

$`g(T/m_\pi )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dxx^2}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}}f\left(m_\pi \sqrt{1+x^2}\right).`$
(16)
This coincides with the result obtained in Ref.  by means of ChPT.

We now look at the next to leading order terms in Eq. (LABEL:self). The first of these is purely real and represents a constant, second order shift to the pion mass squared. The remaining second order term shows a non-trivial dependence on $`P`$. It involves the function $`S`$ defined by

$`S(P)T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{I^t(P+K)}{K^2+m_\pi ^2}}.`$ (17)
The integration in Eq. (17) can only be performed numerically. Including all the terms, the dispersion relation up to next to leading order, for $`Tm_\pi `$ and in the small momentum region is obtained as the solution to

$`p_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`p^2+\{1+\xi g(T/m_\pi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{2}}g(T/m_\pi )`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`[9h(T/m_\pi )4g(T/m_\pi )]\}m_\pi ^2`$
$`+`$ $`\xi ^2\stackrel{~}{S}(p_0,p).`$
where the function $`h`$ is given by

$`h(T/m_\pi ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{E_k}}f(E_k).`$ (19)
and $`\stackrel{~}{S}(p_0,p)=(24\pi ^4)\text{Re}S^r(p_0,p)`$. Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of $`m_\pi `$ obtained as the solution to Eq. (18) in the limit when $`p`$ goes to zero. Notice that the second order correction in the parameter $`\xi `$ has the same sign as the first order correction. This result is opposite to the temperature behavior of the pion mass found in Refs. .

## 4 Damping

Damping is due to two possible kinds of processes: formation of resonances and pion elastic scattering. At temperatures on the order of the pion mass, pion elastic scattering is subdominant since scattering among pions nearly disappears as the relative momentum approaches zero. In the linear sigma model, this feature is explicitly realized, for the kinematical regime discussed here, by the description of pion elastic scattering as a second order process in the small parameter $`\xi `$. We start by first looking at resonance formation. This process is the inverse of the one describing sigma decay (except that the former does not happen at T=0). The relevant diagram to compute resonance formation is the sunset pion self energy with an intermediate sigma line and its explicit expression is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(P)=4\lambda ^4f_\pi ^2I(P;m_\pi ,m_\sigma ),`$ (20)
where $`I`$ is the function defined in Eq. (5) that we rewrite here in terms of the quantities $`E_\pi =\sqrt{k^2+m_\pi ^2}`$ and $`E_\sigma =\sqrt{(𝐤𝐩)^2+m_\sigma ^2}`$ as

$`I(P;m_\pi ,m_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\omega _n^2+E_\pi ^2}}`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _n\omega )^2+E_\sigma ^2}}.`$
The decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^>`$ is given in terms of $`\text{I}\text{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^>(p)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{p_0/T}}{(e^{p_0/T}1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{I}\text{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p_0,p)}{p_0}}.`$ (22)
where $`p_0=\sqrt{p^2+m_\pi ^2}`$. $`\text{I}\text{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ contains both creation and decay rates and the factor

$`e^{p_0/T}/(e^{p_0/T}1)`$
in Eq. (22) eliminates the piece describing pion creation. We can now compute the mean free path $`\lambda `$ for a pion traveling in the medium before forming a sigma resonance. This is given in terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^>`$ by

$`\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^>(p)}}={\displaystyle \frac{(e^{p_0/T}1)}{e^{p_0/T}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\text{I}\text{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p_0,p)}},`$ (23)
where $`v=p/p_0`$ is the magnitude of the pion’s velocity. Figure 2 shows plots of $`\lambda `$ for three different temperatures and a value of $`m_\sigma =600`$ MeV as a function of the pion momentum. $`\lambda `$ reaches a maximum for $`p0.4m_\pi `$. Notice that the position of the maximum is approximately independent of $`T`$. Except for the location of the maximum, the behavior of the curves is both in qualitative and quantitative agreement with the corresponding result obtained in ChPT .

The pion elastic scattering rate is given in terms of the imaginary part of the two-loop pion self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ given in Eq. (LABEL:self)

$`\text{I}\text{m}\mathrm{\Pi }(p_0,p)`$ $`=`$ $`24\pi ^4\xi ^2\text{I}\text{m}𝒮^r(p_0,p)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p_0,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0}}\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(p_0,p)`$ (24)
and as anticipated, this rate turns out to be about two orders of magnitude smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, given that it is proportional to $`\xi ^2`$ .

## 5 Conclusions

In conclusion, working in the linear sigma model at finite temperature, we have found effective one-loop sigma propagator and one-sigma two-pion and four-pion vertices satisfying the ChWIs when maintaining only the zeroth order terms in an expansion in the parameter $`m_\pi ^2/m_\sigma ^2`$. We have used these objects to compute the two-loop order correction to the pion propagator in a pion medium for small momentum and for $`Tm_\pi `$ and showed that the linear sigma model yields the same result as ChPT at leading order in the parameter $`\xi =m_\pi ^2/4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2`$. We have shown that, contrary to the result in Refs. , the two-loop order correction to the pion mass is proportional to $`\xi ^2`$ and that this correction is of the same sign as the one-loop correction. The shape of the dispersion curve is not significantly altered in the kinematical regime considered. The results for pion damping are also in quantitative agreement with ChPT when using a value for $`m_\sigma =600`$ MeV.

###### Acknowledgments.

Partial support for this work has been received by CONACyT México under grant number 32279-E.


text:
# Distillation of vacuum entanglement to EPR pairs

## Abstract

It is shown that by means of local interactions between a quantized relativistic field and a pair of non-entangled atoms, entanglement can be extracted from the vacuum and delivered to the atoms. The resulting mixed state of the atoms can be further distilled to EPR pairs. Therefore, in principle, teleportation and other entanglement assisted quantum communication tasks can rely on the vacuum alone as a resource for entanglement.

The correlations between observables measured separately on a pair of entangled systems can be “stronger” compared to the correlations predicted by local “realistic” models . Hence quantum mechanics manifests a non-local behavior which is nevertheless not in conflict with macroscopic causality. In accordance with this non-locality, entanglement cannot be produced locally: a pair of separated systems which may communicate only via a classical channel, cannot become entangled as a result of local quantum operations done separately on each system. Nevertheless, when entanglement already exists, it may be locally redistributed or delivered from one subsystem to another. For instance, a sample of pairs of spins, described by a non-maximally entangled pure state, or an inseparable mixed state, can be “distilled” (purified) , to singlets (EPR pairs) and remnants of non-entangled states.

In this Letter I introduce another process of entanglement manipulation which takes place between a relativistic quantum field, such the electro-magnetic field, in its ground state (vacuum) and a pair of initially non-entangled atoms. In this process, each atom interacts locally for a finite duration with the field, and as a consequence the atoms evolve to an inseparable, and hence entangled, mixed state. Since the process takes place in two space-like separated spacetime regions, and since entanglement cannot be produced locally, this demonstrates that: a) entanglement exists in the vacuum between space-like separated regions , and that b) vacuum entanglement can be extracted and delivered into a space-like separated pair of atoms.

A sample of entangled pairs, generated in this fashion, may be further distilled to a smaller sample of maximally entangled EPR pairs (E-bits), and subsequently used for quantum communication tasks. Hence, I conclude that in principle, teleportation , dense coding , or other entanglement assisted communication tasks, can rely on the vacuum alone as a resource of entanglement, without having to deal with local preparation of E-bits and the subsequent physical delivery via a quantum channel.

It is known that field observables in vacuum at space-like separated points are correlated. For massless fields these correlations decay with the distance, $`L`$, between two points as $`1/L^2`$ (or as $`e^{mL}`$ for massive fields of mass $`m`$). These correlations by themselves do not necessitate the existence of quantum entanglement, because they can in principle arise as classical correlations. However, a number of studies provide clear evidence that the vacuum is indeed entangled, and that these correlations are related to vacuum entanglement . Using the Rindler modes quantization, one can span the Hilbert space of a free field by direct product of Rindler particle number states $`|n,1`$ and $`|n,2`$ in the two complementary space-like separated wedges $`x<|t|`$ and $`x>t`$, respectively. It then turns out  that the ordinary (Minkowski) vacuum state can be expressed as an EPR-like state $`_n\alpha ^n|n,1|n,2`$ for each frequency. The resulting correlations in the number operators can be observed by a pair of opposite accelerated detectors, one in each such wedge. In a somewhat different framework, of algebraic quantum field theory, it has been shown  that local field observables in two space-like separated regions violate Bell’s inequalities and hence must be entangled. Here I make one step further, and show that for a properly chosen fixed interaction between a pair of atoms and the vacuum, the atoms evolve to a mixed entangled state.

To motivate our approach, let us first examine qualitatively a simple problem of emission and absorption for a pair of time-like separated atoms. Suppose that initially atom $`A`$ is in its first excited state, denoted by $`|_A`$, and atom $`B`$ is in its ground state $`|_B`$. After some time, atom $`A`$ emits a photon, which may be captured by atom B. The system evolves to

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(|_A_B+\alpha |_A_B)|0+\beta |_A_B|\gamma $$
(1)
The second term proportional to $`\alpha `$, is generated by an “exchange” process wherein a photon is emitted by $`A`$ absorbed by $`B`$, and the field is left in its original vacuum state $`|0`$. The last term, corresponds to emission, hence the field’s final state, $`|\gamma `$, contains one photon. Note that if later one observes that no photon was emitted, the last term is elliminated, and leaves $`A`$ and $`B`$ in a pure entangled state $`|_A_B+\alpha |_A_B`$. Otherwise, without observing the field, the atoms remain entangled to the field. Nevertheless, it can be verified (see below) that the reduced density matrix of the atoms is inseparable, and hence entangled. This comes to us as no surprise, because in the above process a single photon (qubit), has been causally exchanged between the atoms.

However what happens if the atoms are coupled to the field for a short enough time keeping the atoms causally disconnected? To examine this case in more detail, let us consider for simplicity a free massless relativistic scalar field $`\varphi (x,t)`$ and couple it to a pair of two-level systems, with an energy gap $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, via the interaction Hamiltonian

$`H_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`H_A+H_B`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_A(t)(e^{+i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\sigma _A^++e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\sigma _A^{})\varphi (x_A,t)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_B(t)(e^{+i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\sigma _B^++e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\sigma _B^{})\varphi (x_B,t)`$ (4)
Here $`\sigma ^\pm `$ are the atom energy-levels raising and lowering operators, the window functions $`ϵ_A(t)`$ and $`ϵ_B(t)`$ are non-zero only for a duration $`T`$ such that $`T<x_Bx_A`$ ($`c=1`$), and $`x_A=L/2`$ and $`x_B=L/2`$ are fixed locations.

Since the interaction takes place in two causally disconnected spacetime regions, the field operators in $`H_A`$ and $`H_B`$ commute, and $`[H_A,H_B]=0`$. Therefore, the evolution operator $`U`$ for the whole system may be written (in the interaction representation) as a product

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle H_A(t)𝑑t}i{\scriptscriptstyle H_B(t^{})𝑑t^{}}}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle H_A(t)𝑑t}}\times e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle H_B(t^{})𝑑t^{}}}`$ (6)
This ensures that $`U`$ does not change the net entanglement between the two wedges, it can only redistribute it between the local observables within each wedge.

Consider now the initial state where the atoms and the field are in their ground state: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i=|_A|_B|0`$. To see how $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ evolves, I will assume that the coupling functions $`ϵ_i(t)`$ ($`i=A,B`$) are small, and expand $`U`$ to second order. Using the notation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\pm =𝑑tϵ_i(t)e^{\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\varphi (x_i,t)$$
(7)
the final states is

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`[(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+)|\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|`$ (8)
$``$ $`i\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{𝟏}_B|i\mathrm{𝟏}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|]|0+O(\mathrm{\Phi }^3)`$ (9)
where $`T`$ denotes time ordering. In the first term above the state of the atoms is unchanged. In the second term, both atoms are excited, and the field remains in the state $`|X_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|0`$. Since $`|X_{AB}`$ contains either two or zero photons, it describes either an emission of two photons, or an exchange of a single “off-shell” photon between the atoms (Fig. 2). Finally, the last two terms describe an emission of one photons either by atom $`A`$ or $`B`$. In this case the final state of the field is $`|E_A\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+|0`$, or $`|E_B\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|0`$, respectively.

Tracing over the field degrees of freedom, and using the basis $`\{|i,|j\}=\{,,,\}`$, and the notation $`|X_{AB}|^2=X_{AB}|X_{AB}`$, I find that to the lowest order the atoms (reduced) density matrix

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& X_{AB}|0& 0& 0\\ 0|X_{AB}& |X_{AB}|^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& |E_A|^2& E_B|E_A\\ 0& 0& E_A|E_B& |E_B|^2\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
Note two types of off-diagonal matrix elements. In the upper block, the amplitude $`0|X_{AB}`$ acts as to maintain coherence between the $`|_A_B`$ and the $`|_A_B`$ states. In the lower block, $`E_A|E_B`$ acts to maintain coherence between $`|_A_B`$ and $`|_A_B`$. The relative magnitude of these off-diagonal terms, compared to the diagonal (decoherence) terms determines if the density matrix is separable.

A sufficient condition  for inseparability is that the matrix obtained by taking the partial transpose of $`\rho `$, is non-positive. (For a $`2\times 2`$ system this is also a necessary condition ). I find that (10) is inseparable if either of the following inequalities is satisfied

$$|0|X_{AB}|^2>|E_A|^2|E_B|^2$$
(11)
or

$$|E_B|E_A|^2>|X_{AB}|^2$$
(12)
The first inequality, (11), amounts for the requirement that the single virtual photon exchange process, is more probable than an emission of one photon by each atom. Inseparability is then induced by states like $`|_A_B+\alpha |_A_B`$. Considering the second inequality (12), note that $`E_A|E_B`$ measures the overlap of a photons emitted by atom $`A`$ and $`B`$. Hence it demands that this overlap is larger than $`|X_{AB}|^2`$. When the second condition is met, the main contribution to the entanglement arises from states like $`|_A_B+\beta |_A_B`$.

So far I have considered only one possible initial state of the atoms. What happens if we start with $`|_A,_B`$ or $`|_A,_B`$? Repeating the calculation, and using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality on the left-hand side of (11), I get a necessary condition for inseparability: $`0|\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^+|0>0|\mathrm{\Phi }_i^+\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}|0`$, where $`i`$ corresponds to the atom which is initially excited. But this demands that the excitation probability is larger then the de-excitation probability: $`P(|0)>P(|0)`$, which cannot be satisfied in vacuum. Hence eq. (11) can be satisfied only if both atoms are initially in their ground state; otherwise, decoherence effects due to single photon emissions dominates over the exchange process. (Similar conclusions can be reached for (12). Here one has to choose initial states like $`|_A_B`$).

In the following I will focus on the first inequality (11), which is simpler to evaluate. Specializing to the case $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i=|_A_B|0`$, substituting $`\varphi (x,t)`$, and integrating over time eq. (11) can be re-expressed as

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{L}\mathrm{sin}(\omega L)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })>_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega 𝑑\omega |\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega )|^2$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of $`ϵ(t)=ϵ_i(t)`$.

The right hand side in the above inequality is independent of $`L`$ and tends to zero as $`\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{}`$. The left hand side, depends on both $`T`$ and $`L`$ and decays like $`1/L^2`$ for $`L>T`$. However for $`\mathrm{\Omega }L`$ not too big, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })`$ has a sharp peak near $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which enhances the exchange amplitude. This suggests that there may exist a finite window of frequencies around some $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1TL`$, where (11) can be satisfied.

The following plots exhibit the ratio $`X_{AB}/E_A`$, for the window function (with $`T=1`$)

$$ϵ(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi t),& \mathrm{for}|t|1/2\\ 0,& \mathrm{for}|t|>1/2\end{array}\right\}$$
(14)
as a function of the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the separation $`L`$ between the atoms.

It follows from Fig. 3. that eq. (11) is satisfied for $`8<\mathrm{\Omega }<11`$. For a different distance $`L`$, one has to employ atoms with appropriate $`\mathrm{\Omega }=O(1/L)`$. It follows from Fig. 4. that the spatial region where entanglement persists, extends up to $`L/T<1.1`$. This implies that the maximal space-like separation between the pair of spacetime regions that affect the atoms can be extended up to $`LT0.1L`$. These regions are generally much larger than the latter maximal space-like separation, hence the atoms may be viewed as contained in the space-like range of a single coherent vacuum fluctuation. Pictorially, the interaction with this single vacuum fluctuation, in some sense, “ties” the atoms together to an entangled state.

So far I have considered stationary atoms. However, it turns out, that the problem becomes simpler to handle when the pair of atoms are uniformally accelerating along two “mirror” hyperbolic trajectories. A detailed description of this case will be given elsewhere . Here I will use this set-up to provide an exact demonstration that the inequality eq. (11) can be satisfied.

Let the atoms A and B follow the trajectories

$`x_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _A}{L}},x_B={\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _B}{L}}`$ (15)
$`t_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _A}{L}},t_B={\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _B}{L}}`$ (16)
and $`y_A=y_B`$, $`z_A=z_B`$. As can be seen, the trajectories of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are confined to the two complementary space-like wedges $`x<|t|`$ and $`x>t`$, respectively. The acceleration along each trajectory is $`a=2/L`$, and the proper times $`\tau _A`$ and $`\tau _B`$ in the rest frames of $`A`$ and $`B`$ have been used to parameterize the trajectories.

To adapt the interaction Hamiltonian (2) to the present case, one has to replace the time parameter by the proper times of each atom, hence send $`t_i\tau _i`$ and $`\varphi \varphi (x(\tau ),t(\tau ))`$. The emission term then reads

$$|E_A|^2=𝑑\tau _A𝑑\tau _A^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _A^{}\tau _A)}D^+(A^{},A)$$
(17)
and the exchange term

$$0|X_{AB}=𝑑\tau _A𝑑\tau _Be^{i\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _A+\tau _B)}D^+(A,B)$$
(18)
where $`D^+(x^{},x)=0|\varphi (x^{},t^{})\varphi (x,t))|0=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}((t^{}tiϵ)^2(\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x})^2)`$ is the Wightman function. Substituting $`x(\tau )`$ and $`t(\tau )`$ one gets

$$D^+(A^{},A)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{sinh}^2[(\tau _A^{}\tau _Aiϵ)/L]}$$
(19)
and when the points are on different trajectories

$$D^+(B,A)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{cosh}^2[(\tau _B+\tau _Aiϵ)/L]}$$
(20)
The integral (17), for the emission probability, can be performed by complexifying $`\tau _A^{}\tau _A`$ to a plane and closing the contour in the lower complex plane. This picks up the poles $`\tau _A\tau _A^{}=iϵ+i\pi nL`$ with $`n=1,2\mathrm{}`$ On the other hand, the contour for the exchange integral (18) should be closed on the upper half plane. This picks up the contributions at $`(\tau _A+\tau _B)=iϵ+i\pi (n+\frac{1}{2})L`$ with $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ The ratio between the two terms is then

$$\frac{|0|X_{AB}|}{|E_A|^2}=\frac{e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\pi n\mathrm{\Omega }L}}{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}e^{\pi n\mathrm{\Omega }L}}=e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L/2}$$
(21)
Therefore (11) is always satisfied. Unlike the previous stationary case, this ratio can become arbitrary large, while $`X_{AB}`$ and $`E_A`$ becoming exponentially small. The reason for that is that for the hyperbolic trajectories we can have $`\tau \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ while keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }L`$ finite. By increasing $`L`$, the emission probability decreases like $`|E_A|^2e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L}`$. However $`0|X_{AB}e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L/2}`$ decreases slower, hence the ratio (21) increases exponentially.

I have so far discussed methods for extracting vacuum entanglement into a pair of atoms. However, can one further distill identically prepared pairs to a maximally entangled state? It turns out, that for our case, of a $`2\times 2`$ system, the answer is positive for any inseparable mixed state . Hence, two observers can preset a definite procedure, (e.g. fix $`ϵ_i`$ and $`L`$), so that the resulting mixed state is known to both. After generating a sample of entangled pairs they will employ classical communication and local quantum operations to distill a certain number of E-bits. The maximal number of E-bits which can be distilled, per given space-like separated regions, constitutes a lower bound for the “density” of vacuum entanglement. This number is bounded; once too many atoms are used, mutual disturbances will presumably destroy the pairwise inseparability.

In conclusion, I have shown that by means of local interactions between a quantized massless field and a pair of atoms, entanglement can be extracted from the vacuum and delivered to the atoms. This applies for any separation $`L`$ provided that one sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }1/L`$. (For massive fields the exponential decay of the correlations demands $`L1/m`$.) This process may be interpreted either as an exchange of a (superluminal) off-shell virtual photon, or as an interaction with a single vacuum fluctuation whose coherence extends over space-like regions. The question of how the net amount of entanglement is conserved in this processes is still open. By turning off and on the interaction, energy (and photons) are fed into the vacuum. This, presumably, acts as to lower the entanglement in the field. A detailed study of this “balance” of entanglement may provide new insights into the question of “entanglement thermodynamics” .

I would like to thank Y. Aharonov, A. Casher, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, and L. Vaidman, for discussions. I acknowledge the Support from grant 471/98 of the Israel Science Foundation, established by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.