text:
# Beyond "Σ∼"₁² Absoluteness

## 1. Absoluteness and strong logics

There have been many generalizations of Shoenfield’s Theorem on the absoluteness of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^1`$ sentences between uncountable transitive models of $`\mathrm{ZFC}`$. Absoluteness theorems are meta-mathematically interesting since they identify levels of complexity where the technique of forcing cannot be used to establish independence.

A sentence, $`\varphi `$, is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$-sentence if for some $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$-formula, $`\psi (x)`$, $`\varphi `$ is provably equivalent in $`\mathrm{ZFC}`$, Zermelo Frankel set theory with the Axiom of Choice, to the assertion that $`\psi []`$ holds. While this is not the standard definition, for the purposes of this article it is equivalent.

Theorem 1.1 Suppose that $`\varphi `$ is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ sentence, there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals and that $`\mathrm{CH}`$ holds. Suppose $``$ is a partial order and that $`V^{}\mathrm{CH}`$. Then $`V\varphi `$ if and only if $`V^{}\varphi `$ $``$

This is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ generic absoluteness conditioned on $`\mathrm{CH}`$. Because $`\mathrm{CH}`$ is itself a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ sentence, this conditional form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ generic absoluteness is the best one can hope for. The meta-mathematical significance of this kind of absoluteness result is simply this. If a problem is expressible as a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ sentence, and there are many such examples from analysis, then it is likely settled by $`\mathrm{CH}`$ (augmented by modest large cardinal hypotheses). The technique of forcing cannot be used to demonstrate otherwise.

Absoluteness theorems can be naturally reformulated using strong logics. For generic absoluteness the relevant logic is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$-logic.

Definition 1.2($`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$-logic) Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that $`\varphi `$ is a sentence. Then

$$\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\varphi $$

if for all ordinals $`\alpha `$ and for all partial orders $``$ if $`V_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ZFC}`$, then $`V_\alpha ^{}\varphi `$. $``$

The theorem on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$-absoluteness and $`\mathrm{CH}`$ can be reformulated as follows.

Theorem 1.3 Suppose there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals. Then for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\varphi `$; or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\neg \varphi )`$. $``$

But there is another natural strong logic; $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic, the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic involves universally Baire sets of reals.

Definition 1.4  A set $`A^n`$ is universally Baire if for any continuous function, $`F:\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a compact Hausdorff space, the preimage of $`A`$,

$$\{pXF(p)A\},$$

has the property of Baire in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; i. e. is open in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ modulo a meager set. $``$

Every borel set $`A^n`$ is universally Baire. More generally the universally Baire sets form a $`\sigma `$-algebra closed under preimages by borel functions

$$f:^n^m.$$

The universally Baire sets have the classical regularity properties of the borel sets, for example they are Lebesgue measurable and have the property of Baire. If there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals then the universally Baire sets are closed under projection and every universally Baire set is determined.

Suppose that $`A`$ in universally Baire and that $`V[G]`$ is a set generic extension of $`V`$. Then the set $`A`$ has canonical interpretation as a set

$$A_G^{V[G]}.$$

The set $`A_G`$ is defined as

$$A_G=\{\text{range}(\pi _G)\pi V,\text{range}(\pi )=A\};$$

here $`\pi `$ is a function, $`\pi :\lambda ^\omega `$, which satisfies the uniform continuity requirement that for $`fg`$;

$$|\pi (f)\pi (g)|<1/(n+1)$$

where $`n<\omega `$ is least such that $`f(n)g(n)`$. If there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals then

$$H(\omega _1),A,H(\omega _1)^{V[G]},A_G,.$$

Definition 1.5 Suppose that $`A`$ is universally Baire and that $`M`$ is a transitive set such that $`M\mathrm{ZFC}`$. Then $`M`$ is $`A`$-closed if for each partial order $`M`$, if $`G`$ is $`V`$-generic then in $`V[G]`$: $`A_GM[G]M[G]`$. $``$

Definition 1.6($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ logic) Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that $`\varphi `$ is a sentence. Then $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$ if there exists a universally Baire set $`A`$ such that if $`M`$ is any countable transitive set such that $`M\mathrm{ZFC}`$ and such that $`M`$ is $`A`$-closed, then $`M\varphi `$. $``$

Both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$-logic are definable and generically invariant.

A natural question, given the theorem on generic absoluteness for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ is the following question:

> Suppose there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals. Does it follow that for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi ;`$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )\mathrm{?}`$

The answer is yes if “iterable” models with measurable Woodin cardinals exist.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Conjecture:

> Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that $`\varphi `$ is a $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ sentence. Then $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\varphi `$ if and only if $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$.

It is immediate from the definitions and Theorem 1.1, that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Conjecture settles the question above affimatively. But the consequences of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-Conjecture are far more reaching. If the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Conjecture is true, then generic absoluteness is equivalent to absoluteness in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic and this in turn has significant metamathematical implications.

We fix some conventions. A formula, $`\varphi (x)`$, is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$-formula if for some $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$-formula, $`\psi (x)`$, the formula $`\varphi (x)`$ is provably equivalent in $`\mathrm{ZFC}`$ to the formula

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}xH(c^+)\text{ and }H(c^+),\psi [x]\mathrm{"}.$$

Finally $`\varphi (x)`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2(_{_{\mathrm{NS}}})`$-formula if for some $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$-formula, $`\psi (x)`$, the formula $`\varphi (x)`$ is provably equivalent in $`\mathrm{ZFC}`$ to the formula

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}xH(c^+)\text{ and }H(c^+),_{_{\mathrm{NS}}},\psi [x]\mathrm{"}.$$

where $`_{_{\mathrm{NS}}}`$ denotes the nonstationary ideal on $`\omega _1`$.

There is a limit to the possible extent of absoluteness in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic. One version is given by the following theorem.

Theorem 1.7 Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin cardinals, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a sentence and that for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2(_{_{\mathrm{NS}}})`$ sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$, or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )`$. Then $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-inconsistent.  $``$

In short:

> $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2(_{_{\mathrm{NS}}})`$ absoluteness is not possible in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic. If the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Conjecture holds then generic absoluteness for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2(_{_{\mathrm{NS}}})`$ sentences is not possible.

So for absoluteness in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-logic the most one can hope for is that there exist a sentence $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$, or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )`$. In particular if the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Conjecture holds then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ generic absoluteness is the most one can hope for.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a sentence such that for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$, or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )`$. Then $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }2^\mathrm{}_0<2^\mathrm{}_1`$. A natural conjecture is that in fact $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{CH}`$.

In any case from this point on we shall consider absoluteness just in the context of $`\mathrm{CH}`$.

Generic absoluteness is closely related to determinacy. The statement of a theorem which illustrates one aspect of this requires the following definition.

Definition 1.8 Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. A set $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$-recursive if there exists a formula $`\varphi (x)`$ such that:

1. $`A=\{r\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\varphi [r]\}`$;
2. For all partial orders, $``$, if $`G`$ is $`V`$-generic then for each $`r^{V[G]}`$, either

$$V[G]\text{}\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\varphi [r]\text{},$$

or $`V[G]\text{}\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\neg \varphi )[r]\text{}`$. $``$

Theorem 1.9 Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$-recursive. Then $`A`$ is determined. $``$

On the other hand there are many examples where suitable determinacy assumptions imply generic absoluteness. Our main results deal with generalizations of these connections to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ in the context of $`\mathrm{CH}`$.

## 2. Absoluteness and determinacy

We fix a reasonable coding of elements of $`H(\omega _1)`$ by reals. This is simply a surjection

$$\pi :\mathrm{dom}(\pi )H(\omega _1)$$

where $`\mathrm{dom}(\pi )`$. All we require of $`\pi `$ is that $`\pi L()`$; the natural choice for $`\pi `$ is definable in $`H(\omega _1)`$. For each set $`XH(\omega _1)`$ let

$$X^{}=\{x\pi (x)X\}.$$

Suppose $`X\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$. Associated to $`X`$ is a game of length $`\omega _1`$. The convention is that Player I plays first at limit stages. Strategies are functions:

$$\tau :\{0,1\}^{<\omega _1}\{0,1\}.$$

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒫()`$. Then $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-clopen if there exist sets $`YH(\omega _1)`$ and $`ZH(\omega _1)`$ such that

1. $`YZ=\mathrm{}`$,
2. for all $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ there exists $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ such that either $`a|\alpha Y`$ or $`a|\alpha Z`$,
3. $`X`$ is the set of $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ such that there exists $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ such that $`a|\alpha Y`$ and such that $`a|\beta Z`$ for all $`\beta <\alpha `$,
4. $`Y^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The first result on the determinacy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-clopen sets is due to Itay Neeman. One version is the following.

Theorem 2.1  Suppose that there exists a Woodin cardinal which is a limit of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that $`X\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ and $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^1`$-clopen.

Then $`X`$ is determined. $``$

The proof of Neeman’s theorem combined with techniques from the fine structure theory associated to $`\mathrm{AD}^+`$ yields the following generalization which we shall need.

Theorem 2.2 Suppose that there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals which are limits of Woodin cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire and suppose that $`X\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ is such that $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$-clopen.

Then $`X`$ is determined. $``$

Suppose $`X\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒫()`$. Then $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-open if there exist sets $`YH(\omega _1)`$ such that

1. $`X`$ is the set of $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ such that there exists $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ such that $`a|\alpha Y`$ .
2. $`Y^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

John Steel has proved that under fairly general conditions, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒫()`$ is such that all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-open sets are determined then for each $`X\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$, if $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-open and if Player I wins the game given by $`X`$, then there is a winning strategy for Player I which is (suitably) definable from parameters in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; . The following is a straightforward corollary:

Corollary 2.3 Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire and suppose that for each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, ZFCΩ“ All

Σ

(A)11-open games
are determined”\mathrm{ZFC}\vdash_{\Omega}\mbox{\rm`` All
${\vtop{\hbox{$\Sigma$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}{}^{1}_{1}(A)$-open games
are determined''}.

Then for each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$-formula $`\varphi (x)`$; either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi [A]`$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )[A]`$. $``$

Using the theorem on the determinacy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$-clopen games one obtains the converse.

Theorem 2.4 Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals which are limits of Woodin cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire. Then the following are equivalent.

1. For each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, ZFCΩ“ All

Σ

(A)11-open games
are determined”\mathrm{ZFC}\vdash_{\Omega}\mbox{\rm`` All
${\vtop{\hbox{$\Sigma$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}{}^{1}_{1}(A)$-open games
are determined''}.
2. For each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$-formula $`\varphi (x)`$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi [A]`$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )[A]`$. $``$

A set $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-recursive if there exists a formula $`\varphi (x)`$ such that for all $`k`$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi [k]`$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )[k]`$; and such that

$$A=\{k\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi [k]\}.$$

The question of whether there exists a sentence $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$, or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )`$, and such that $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-consistent; can be reformulated as:

> Suppose there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that $`\mathrm{CH}`$ holds. Let $`T`$ be the set of all $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$-sentences, $`\varphi `$, such that
>
> $$V\varphi .$$
>
> Can $`T`$ be $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-recursive?

Theorem 2.5 Suppose that there exists a proper class of inaccessible limits of Woodin cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire and suppose that all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$-open games are determined. Let $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ be the set of all $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentences $`\varphi `$ such that $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+\varphi `$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-consistent.

Then $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-consistent. $``$

The following conjecture can be proved from rather technical assumptions on the exsitence of an inner model theory for the large cardinal hypothesis: $`\kappa `$ is $`\delta `$ supercompact where $`\delta >\kappa `$ and $`\delta `$ is a Woodin cardinal. The conjecture is:

> Suppose that there exists a proper class of supercompact cardinals. Let $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ be the set of all $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentences $`\varphi `$ such that $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+\varphi `$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-consistent. Then $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-recursive.

While the plausibility of this conjecture is some evidence that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ absoluteness is possible, it does not connect $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ absoluteness with any determinacy hypothesis.

From inner model theory considerations any such determinacy hypothesis must be beyond the reach of superstrong cardinals. In fact, Itay Neeman has defined a family of games whose (provable) determinacy is arguably beyond the reach of superstrong cardinals; .

## 3. Neeman games

For each formula $`\varphi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, let $`X_\varphi `$ be the set of all $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ such that there exists a closed, unbounded set $`C\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha _1<\mathrm{}<\alpha _n`$ in $`C`$,

$$H(\omega _1),a,\varphi [\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n].$$

The game given by $`X_\varphi `$ is a Neeman game. Are Neeman games determined?

Surprisingly the consistency strength of the determinacy of all Neeman games is relatively weak.

Lemma 3.1 Suppose that all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1`$-clopen games are determined. Then there exists $`A\omega _1`$ such that in $`L[A]`$ if $`X\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ is definable an $`\omega `$-sequence of ordinals, then $`X`$ is determined. $``$

One can easily introduce additional predicates for sets of reals.

For each formula, $`\varphi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, and for each set $`A`$ let $`X_{(\varphi ,A)}`$ be the set of all $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ such that there exists a closed, unbounded set $`C\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha _1<\mathrm{}<\alpha _n`$ in $`C`$, $`H(\omega _1),a,A,\varphi [\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n]`$. The game given by $`X_{(\varphi ,A)}`$ is an $`A`$-Neeman game.

Definition 3.2 $`_\text{G}`$: For each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentence, $`\varphi `$, $`V\varphi `$ if and only if $`V^{\mathrm{Coll}(\omega _1,)}\varphi `$. $``$

The principle, $`_\text{G}`$, is a generic form of $``$. The next theorem gives a connection between versions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ absoluteness and determinancy specifically the determinacy of Neeman games. In this theorem it is the principle, $`_\text{G}`$, which plays the role of $`\mathrm{CH}`$ in the theorem on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2`$ absoluteness.

Theorem 3.3 Suppose that there exists a proper class of supercompact cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire. Then the following are equivalent.

1. For each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\text{G}_\mathrm{\Omega }\text{“ All }A\text{-Neeman games are determined”}`$.
2. For each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$-formula $`\varphi (x)`$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\text{G}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi [A]`$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\text{G}_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )[A]`$. $``$

We note the following trivial lemma which simply connects the results here with the earlier “evidence” that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ absoluteness is possible; cf. the discussion after Theorem 2.5.

Lemma 3.4 Suppose that there exists a proper class of inaccessible limits of Woodin cardinals and suppose that for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$-sentence $`\varphi `$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\text{G}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\text{G}_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )`$. Then for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ sentence $`\varphi `$ the following are equivalent:

1. $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\text{G}_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$;
2. $`\mathrm{ZFC}+\mathrm{CH}+\varphi `$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-consistent.  $``$

The next theorem suggests that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ absoluteness conditioned simply on $``$ might actually follow from some large cardinal hypothesis. Such a theorem would certainly be a striking generalization of Theorem 1.1 and its proof might well yield fundamental new insights into the combinatorics of subsets of $`\omega _1`$.

Theorem 3.5 Suppose that there exists a proper class of supercompact cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire and suppose that for each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\text{“ All }A\text{-Neeman games are determined”}`$. Then for each $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, for each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$-formula $`\varphi (x)`$, either $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi [A]`$ or $`\mathrm{ZFC}+_\mathrm{\Omega }(\neg \varphi )[A]`$. $``$

Given Theorem 3.5, the natural conjecture is that Theorem 3.3 holds with $`_\text{G}`$ replaced by $``$. The missing ingredient in proving such a conjecture seems to be a lack of information on the nature of definable winning strategies for Neeman games and more fundamentally on the lack of any genuine determinacy proofs whatsoever for Neeman games.

In an exploration of the combinatorial aspects of Neeman games it is useful to consider a wider class of games. This class we now define.

For each formula, $`\varphi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, and for each stationary set $`S\omega _1`$ let $`Y_\varphi `$ be the set of all $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ such that there exists a stationary set $`S\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha _1<\mathrm{}<\alpha _n`$ in $`S`$, $`H(\omega _1),a,\varphi [\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n]`$. The game given by $`Y_\varphi `$ is a stationary Neeman game.

Can some large cardinal hypothesis imply that all stationary Neeman games are determined? Given the impossibility of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2(_{_{\mathrm{NS}}})`$-absoluteness, modulo failure of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Conjecture one would naturally conjecture that the answer is “no”. This is simply because there is no apparent candidate for an absoluteness theorem which would correspond to the (provable) determinacy of all stationary Neeman games.

We define two games of length $`\omega _1`$. The first is a Neeman game and the second is a stationary Neeman game. Rather than have the moves be from $`\{0,1\}`$ it is more convenient to have the moves be from $`H(\omega _1)`$.

The canonical function game: Player I plays $`<a_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ and Player II plays $`<b_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ subject to the rules: $`a_{\alpha +1}\alpha \times \alpha `$ and $`b_\alpha `$ is a countable ordinal.

Player I wins if there exists a set $`A\omega _1\times \omega _1`$ such that $`A`$ is a wellordering of $`\omega _1`$ and such that there exists a closed unbounded set $`C\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha C`$: $`a_{\alpha +1}=A(\alpha \times \alpha )`$ and $`b_\alpha <\text{rank}(a_{\alpha +1})`$.

The stationary canonical function game: Player I plays $`<a_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ and Player II plays $`<b_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ subject to the rules: $`a_{\alpha +1}\alpha \times \alpha `$ and $`b_\alpha `$ is a countable ordinal.

Player I wins if there exists a set $`A\omega _1\times \omega _1`$ such that $`A`$ is a wellordering of $`\omega _1`$ and such that there exists a statationary set $`S\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha S`$: $`a_{\alpha +1}=A(\alpha \times \alpha )`$ and $`b_\alpha <\text{rank}(a_{\alpha +1})`$.

In models where $`L`$-like condensation principles hold these games are easily seen to be determined.

Lemma 3.6 Suppose $``$ holds. Then Player II has a winning strategy in the canonical function game. $``$

Lemma 3.7 Suppose $`^+`$ holds. Then Player II has a winning strategy in the stationary canonical function game. $``$

In contrast to the previous lemma, the following theorem shows that it is consistent that Player I has a winning strategy in the stationary canonical function game, at least if fairly strong large cardinal hypotheses are assumed to be consistent.

Theorem 3.8 Suppose there is a huge cardinal. Then there is a partial order, $``$, such that in $`V^{}`$, Player I has a winning strategy in the stationary canonical function game. $``$

These two results strongly suggest that no large cardinal hypothesis can imply that the stationary canonical function game is determined. In fact from consistency of a relatively weak large cardinal hypothesis, one does obtain the consistency that the stationary canonical function game is not determined. Note that if the stationary canonical function game is not determined then every function, $`f:\omega _1\omega _1`$, is bounded by a canonical function on a stationary set and so the consistency of some large cardinal hypothesis is necessary.

Theorem 3.9  Suppose there is a measurable cardinal. Then there is a partial order, $``$, such that in $`V^{}`$ the stationary canonical function game is not determined. $``$

There are many open problems about the canonical function games. Here are several.

1. Is it consistent that Player I has a winning strategy in the canonical function game?
2. Is it consistent that Player II does not have a winning strategy in the canonical function game?
3. Is it consistent that Player I has a winning strategy in the stationary canonical function game on each stationary set?
4. How strong is the assertion that Player I has a winning strategy in the stationary canonical function game?

For each formula, $`\varphi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, for each sequence

$$𝒮=S_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1$$

of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of $`\omega _1`$ and that $`A`$, let $`Y_{(\varphi ,A)}^𝒮`$ be the set of all $`a\{0,1\}^{\omega _1}`$ such that there exists a stationary set $`S\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha _1<\mathrm{}<\alpha _n`$ in $`S`$,

$$H(\omega _1),a,A,\varphi [\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n],$$

and such that $`SS_\alpha `$ is stationary for all $`\alpha <\omega _1`$.

Theorem 3.10 Suppose that there exists a proper class of supercompact cardinals. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all $`A`$ such that $`A`$ is universally Baire.

Suppose that $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\varphi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is a formula and that

$$\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\text{“ The Neeman game }X_{(\varphi ,A)}\text{ is determined”.}$$

Then either:

1. $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\text{“ I wins the game }X_{(\varphi ,A)}\text{}`$, or;
2. $`\mathrm{ZFC}_\mathrm{\Omega }\text{“ For all }𝒮\text{, II wins the game }Y_{(\varphi ,A)}^𝒮\text{}`$.  $``$

The determinacy hypothesis: All Neeman games are determined; is relatively weak in consistency strength (the consistency strength is at most that of the existence of a Woodin cardinal which is a limit of Woodin cardinals). However the determinacy hypothesis:

> For each formula $`\varphi `$, either Player I wins the game $`X_\varphi `$, or for each sequence,
>
> $$𝒮=S_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1,$$
>
> of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of $`\omega _1`$, Player II wins $`Y_{(\varphi ,\mathrm{})}^𝒮`$;

seems plausibly very strong.


format: text

text:
# Symmetrization and Entanglement of Arbitrary States of Qubits

## I Introduction

Entanglement epr ; sch  is a quantum mechanical resource that can be used for many computational and communication purposes. During the past few years many experimental efforts have been reported for creating entanglement exp  along with theoretical scenarios zanardi ; dur ; cirac ; krauscirac ; bhe ; vers  for generating as much entanglement as possible. A remarkable scenario has been put forward by Buzek and Hillery in bhe  which stems from the most apparent property of entangled states, that is, their symmetry property. Consider two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ which can not be decomposed into a product of state vectors of the two parts. Such a state is called entangled and has a value of entanglement according to various measures of entanglement, defined for measuring this property. A symmetric state of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=N(|\psi _A|\varphi _B+|\varphi _A|\psi _B)`$ is a prototype of a pure state having this property.
The scenario of bhe  is thus based on the following natural question: Given two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively in pure states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ ,is it possible to construct a quantum machine $`M`$ which takes these two states as input and produces with exact fidelity, a symmetric and hence entangled output state? An even simpler task for this machine is to symmetrize an unknown state $`|\psi `$ of $`A`$ with a fixed reference state $`|\varphi `$ of $`B`$, that is

$$|\psi _A|\varphi _B|v_0_M(|\psi _A|\varphi _B+|\varphi _A|\psi _B)|v_\psi _M$$
(1)
where $`|v_0`$ and $`|v_\psi `$ are the initial and final states of the machine. The authors of bhe  show by a simple argument that linearity and unitarity of quantum mechanics do not allow such machines to exist. Remarkably however, they succeed to construct an optimal machine which produces an output mixed state $`\rho _{AB}^{\mathrm{out}}`$ which has a universal (input-independent) fidelity equal to $`\frac{9+3\sqrt{2}}{14}=0.946`$, with the ideal symmetric state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=N(|\psi _A|\varphi _B+|\varphi _A|\psi _B)`$. Here $`N`$ is a normalization constant. They then proceed to show that the output impure state $`\rho _{AB}^{\mathrm{out}}`$ is indeed quantum mechanically entangled or inseparable by using the Peres-Horodecki’s criterion peres ; horo  and showing that for all input states the partially transposed matrix $`(\rho _{AB})^{T_A}`$ has one negative eigenvalue. The negativity of this eigenvalue however depends on the input state.
We should also mention another related scheme for optimal entangling, the one proposed by Alber alber  who considers anti-symmetrization of an arbitrary input state with a reference state yielding the result that the output is a maximally disordered mixture of anti-symmetric Bell states. For the case of qubits however, there is only one anti-symmetric Bell state, namely $`|\varphi ^{}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01|10)`$ so that the output carries no information about the input states.

In this paper we want to study another scenario for entangling states. Our scenario is based on the idea that optimal entanglement need not necessarily be obtained by symmetrization. By looking at symmetrization and entanglement as two different tasks we propose different methods for their production. Our scenario may not be optimal in the class of all conceivable operations, however it is simple both theoretically and experimentally. Moreover it clarifies to some extent the relation between symmetrization and entanglement. By discussing it we hope at least to raise some questions for further study.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we propose a simple method for entangling qubits based on maximization of the entanglement of formation of a mixed state for which we have a closed formula as given by Wootters wootters . In Sec. III, we consider the problem of symmetrization separately and show that given two arbitrary states $`|\varphi `$ and $`|\psi `$ no quantum operation can produce a state of the form

$$N(|\varphi |\psi +e^{i\theta }|\psi |\varphi ),$$
(2)
unless $`\theta =\pm \frac{\pi }{2}.`$ Thus the only machine which can produce with exact fidelity, linear combinations of the above form for arbitrary states, is the one found in Sec. II for optimal entanglement. In this same section we propose a probabilistic method for producing generalized symmetric states of two arbitrary states, i.e. states of the form given in (2), where $`N`$ is a normalization constant and $`e^{i\theta }`$ is any predetermined phase.

## II Production of maximal entanglement

Suppose that we have two qubits $`A`$ and $`B`$ in arbitrary pure states $`|\psi _A`$ and $`|\varphi _B`$. When we want to produce entangled states of the form similar to the one discussed in the introduction (i.e. symmetric or anti-symmetric states), by passing these qubits from a quantum machine $`M`$, it is rather natural to think that an obstacle is that at the output the two parts are entangled with the machine itself in the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}:=|\psi _A|\varphi _B|X_M+|\varphi _A|\psi _B|Y_M.$$
(3)
where $`|X`$ and $`|Y`$ are states of the machine. It is easy to see that such an operation is linear and unitary provided that the machine states be two fixed input-independent states satisfying the following relations

$`X|X+Y|Y=1X|Y+Y|X=0`$ (4)
A convenient parametrization of these inner products is

$`X|X={\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{2}},Y|Y={\displaystyle \frac{1\xi }{2}},X|Y=i\eta `$ (5)
where $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are real parameters. We now ask under what condition, the output density matrix $`\rho _{AB}^{\mathrm{out}}`$ of the two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ has the maximum value of entanglement.
For two qubits in a mixed state $`\rho `$, we have a well established measure of entanglement given by a closed formula. It has been introduced by Wootters and Hill in woottershill ; wootters  and is directly related to the entanglement of formation of such a mixed state. It is called concurrence and is denoted by $`C`$ and is given by

$`C=\text{max}(0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4)`$ (6)
where $`\lambda _1`$ to $`\lambda _4`$ are the eigenvalues of the following matrix in decreasing order:

$$R=\sqrt{\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(7)
Here

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _2\sigma _2)\rho ^{}(\sigma _2\sigma _2),$$
(8)
$`\sigma _2`$ is the second Pauli matrix and $`\rho ^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\rho `$ in the computational basis. Equivalently $`\lambda _i`$’s can be taken to be the square root of eigenvalues of the matrix $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$.
Here and in what follows we designate the density matrix of the two qubits simply by $`\rho `$ instead of $`\rho _{AB}`$. For the calculation of eigenvalues we can take without loss of generality, $`|\psi =a|0+b|1`$ and $`|\varphi =|0`$ to obtain

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}a|X+a|Y\\ b|Y\\ b|X\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
from which we obtain $`\rho ^{\mathrm{out}}`$ by taking the trace of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}|`$ over the machine states. The result is

$`\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}|a|^2& a\overline{b}(i\eta +\frac{1\xi }{2})& a\overline{b}(i\eta +\frac{1+\xi }{2})& 0\\ \overline{a}b(i\eta +\frac{1\xi }{2})& |b|^2(\frac{1\xi }{2})& i|b|^2\eta & 0\\ \overline{a}b(i\eta +\frac{1+\xi }{2})& i|b|^2\eta & |b|^2(\frac{1+\xi }{2})& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
where we have used the relations in (4).
Using (8) we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& |b|^2(\frac{1+\xi }{2})& i|b|^2\eta & a\overline{b}(i\eta +\frac{1+\xi }{2})\\ 0& i|b|^2\eta & |b|^2(\frac{1\xi }{2})& a\overline{b}(i\eta +\frac{1\xi }{2})\\ 0& \overline{a}b(i\eta +\frac{1+\xi }{2})& \overline{a}b(i\eta +\frac{1\xi }{2})& |a|^2\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
Finally the matrix $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is found to be

$$\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& a\overline{b}|b|^2m_{}& a\overline{b}|b|^2m_+& 2(a\overline{b})^2(\eta ^2+\frac{1\xi ^2}{4}i\eta \xi )\\ 0& |b|^4(\eta ^2+\frac{1\xi ^2}{4})& i|b|^4\eta (1\xi )& a\overline{b}|b|^2m_+\\ 0& i|b|^4\eta (1+\xi )& |b|^4(\eta ^2+\frac{1\xi ^2}{4})& a\overline{b}|b|^2m_{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
where $`m_\pm :=(\eta ^2+\frac{1\xi ^2}{4}\pm i\eta (1\xi ))`$.

The eigenvalues of this matrix are easily determined, it has obviously two zero eigenvalues, the other two being the eigenvalues of the central 2 by 2 sub-matrix. The square root of its eigenvalues which are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`R`$ are in decreasing order

$`\lambda _1=|b|^2({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\xi ^2}}{2}}+\eta )`$ $`\lambda _2=|b|^2({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\xi ^2}}{2}}\eta )\lambda _3=0\lambda _4=0.`$ (21)
where in taking the square roots we have used the Chauchy Schwartz inequality for the inner products in (5) which implies that $`\eta \frac{\sqrt{1\xi ^2}}{2}`$.
Putting all this together with equation (6), leads to the following value for the concurrence

$`C=2|b|^2\eta .`$ (22)
To obtain maximum concurrence we have to take $`\eta =\frac{1}{2}`$ which according to the Cauchy Schwartz inequality forces us to choose $`\xi =0`$. This then means that the vectors $`|X`$ and $`|Y`$ are the same modulo a crucial phase, that is

$`|X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|e|Y={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}|e,`$ (23)
where $`|e`$ is a normalized state. Interestingly the output state now turns out to be disentangled from the machine, so that the machine produces a pure entangled state:

$$|\psi _A|\varphi _B|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{\mathrm{out}}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi _A|\varphi _B+i|\varphi _A|\psi _B)$$
(24)
Having determined the optimal choice of $`\eta `$ by taking the state $`|\varphi `$ in the basis state $`|0`$, we can now calculate the concurrence produced for any two arbitrary input states. Since the output state is pure, its concurrence can be calculated from an alternative formula for any two input pure states

$`C=|\mathrm{\Psi }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|`$ (25)
where we have abbreviated $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{\mathrm{out}}`$ to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and

$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=(\sigma _2\sigma _2)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_Bi|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_A|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_B).`$ (26)
Inserting this in (25) and using the fact that for every qubit state $`|\psi `$, $`\psi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }=0`$, we obtain

$`C=\psi |\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ (27)
If the two initial states are two spin states in definite directions on the Bloch sphere, that is if $`|\psi =|\widehat{𝐧}`$ and $`|\varphi =|\widehat{𝐦}`$ we find after straightforward calculations that

$`C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\widehat{𝐧}\widehat{𝐦}).`$ (28)
The details of this calculation is given in the appendix. The average of this concurrence over all input states is $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Thus this transformation produces on the average, an entanglement which as measured by concurrence is $`1/2`$. Equation (28) also shows that maximal entanglement is produced by intertwining two anti-parallel spin states on the Bloch sphere.
Up to now we have shown the possibility of the desirable entangling transformation. In view of (24) the actual form of the transformation is given by

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(I+iP)=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}P}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{8}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{8}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }}`$ (29)
where $`P`$ is the permutation operator (i.e. $`P|\alpha ,\beta =|\beta ,\alpha `$ ) which for two dimensional spaces is related to the Pauli matrices as $`P=\frac{1}{2}(I+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. The above argument and the combination of the last two formulas also tell us how to produce states with a definite amount of entanglement or concurrence, when we have partial information about the input states. Let us fix the spin state $`|\varphi =|\widehat{𝐦}`$ in the direction $`z`$. We then need only take a spin state $`|\psi =|\widehat{𝐧}`$ with $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ making an angle $`\theta `$ with the $`z`$ axis (this still leaves the angle $`\varphi `$ undetermined) and apply the spin spin interaction (29) to produce a concurrence of $`C=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. In this way by just adjusting the initial value of $`\theta `$ we can produce entangled states with any desired value of entanglement, ranging from the minimum value of $`C=0`$ for $`\theta =0`$ to the maximum value of $`C=1`$ for $`\theta =\pi `$.
Moreover the output density matrix also retain some information about the input states, since it is easily verified from (24) that

$`\rho _A^{(\mathrm{out})}=tr_B(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}|)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|\psi _A\psi |+|\varphi _A\varphi |),`$ (30)
with an identical formula for $`\rho _B^{\mathrm{out}}`$. Thus the fidelity of reduced one particle density matrices of the output with any of the states $`|\psi `$ or $`|\varphi `$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$.
If we are interested in determining how much the output state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi |\varphi +i|\varphi |\psi )`$ is close to a symmetric state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{sym}}=N(|\psi |\varphi +|\varphi |\psi )`$, then we can find the overlap of these two states. Knowing that $`2N^2(1+|\psi |\varphi |^2)=1`$, we find:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mathrm{out})}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{sym}}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+|\psi |\varphi |^2).`$ (31)
When averaged over all the input states this will give an overlap of $`\frac{3}{4}=0.75`$.

## III Symmetrization

By separating the issue of symmetrization from that of entanglement we will have more freedom in constructing states exhibiting each of these properties. Concerning symmetrization problem, we can now ask a more general question than the one considered in bhe .
Is it possible to have a quantum machine which takes two input states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ and produces generalized symmetric state as follows?

$$|\psi _A|\varphi _B|v_M(|\psi |\varphi +e^{i\theta }|\varphi |\psi )_{AB}|v^{}_M.$$
(32)
where $`\theta `$ is a predetermined phase. Note that for simplicity we have suppressed all the $``$ signs. Here $`|v`$ is the initial normalized state of the machine and $`|v^{}`$ is the state of the machine after operation and it certainly depends on the initial states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$.
We will see that such a machine exists only when $`e^{i\theta }=i`$. To see this we note that if such a machine exists, it has to act as follows

$`|0|0|v`$ $``$ $`|0|0|v_0`$ (33)
$`|1|0|v`$ $``$ $`(|1|0+e^{i\theta }|0|1)|v_1.`$ (34)
where $`|v_0`$ and $`|v_1`$ are two of the machine states. Unitarity then demands the following relations among these machine states

$`v_0|v_0=1v_1|v_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (35)
We now consider an input state like $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)|0`$ which according to (32) should be transformed to

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{id}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|0+|1|0+e^{i\theta }(|0|0+|0|1)\right)|v_2$$
(36)
where $`|v_2`$ is another state of the machine. On the other hand linearity of quantum mechanics requires that in view of (33), this input state be transformed to the state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|0|0|v_0+(|1|0+e^{i\theta }|0|1)|v_1\right).`$ (37)
Comparing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{id}}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}`$, we find $`|v_0=(1+e^{i\theta })|v_2`$ and $`|v_2=|v_1`$, which are compatible with the norm condition (35) only if $`e^{i\theta }=i`$. This proves the negative part of the theorem. The positive part has been demonstrated already in section 2, where we have shown that the operator $`U=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}P}`$ intertwines any two arbitrary states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi |\varphi +i|\varphi |\psi `$.
The interesting point is that from two different starting points we have arrived at the above form of states, one from requiring maximum entanglement production in section 2 and the other from requiring universal symmetrization. Note that while the arguments and the results for entanglement production are specific to qubits, those for symmetrization are valid in any dimension. This raises the question as to whether this coincidence holds true also in other dimensions. That is if the states of the form $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi |\varphi +i|\varphi |\psi `$ are good candidates for highly entangled states in higher dimensions? We will touch upon this question in the conclusion of the paper.
Although we do not have a quantum machine which can put two arbitrary states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ into a combination with a general relative phase $`e^{i\theta }i`$ , we can achieve this probabilistically by using Fredkin gates which do controlled swap operations. The circuit shown in Fig. 1 which is a generalization of the one given in barenco  for producing symmetric and antisymmetric superposition of input states, performs such an operation. Note that no three body interaction is needed for implementing the Fredkin gate and such a gate can be constructed by a combination of two body operations exactly wilcek . In fact such a circuit develops the state $`|\psi |\varphi |0`$ to the state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{out}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|\varphi |\psi +e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|\psi \varphi )_{AB}|0_M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|\psi \varphi e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|\varphi \psi )_{AB}|1_M`$ (38)
Before measurement of the control qubit the output state of $`A`$ and $`B`$ is a separable and hence disentangled mixed state given by the density matrix

$`\rho _{AB}^{(\mathrm{out})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|\psi \psi ||\varphi \varphi |+|\varphi \varphi ||\psi \psi |\right).`$ (39)
Once the control qubit (the state of the machine) is measured in the basis $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, the two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ will be projected onto one of the normalized states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_+}}(|\varphi \psi +e^{i\theta }|\psi \varphi )`$ (40)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{}}}(|\varphi \psi e^{i\theta }|\psi \varphi )`$ (41)
where $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ are normalization factors. The result of the measurement of the control bit will declare which one of these two states have been produced. These states are produced with probabilities $`P_+=\frac{N_+^2}{4}`$ and $`P_{}=\frac{N_{}^2}{4}`$. These states have now quantum entanglement as measured by their concurrence given by

$`C_+`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }_+}|={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_+^2}}\varphi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }\psi |\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ (42)
$`C_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}}|={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_{}^2}}\varphi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }\psi |\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ (43)
The average concurrence of the states produced will be given by

$$\overline{C}=P_+C_++P_{}C_{}=\varphi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }\psi |\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(44)
which is equal to the concurrence we obtain for the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\varphi |\psi +i|\psi |\varphi )`$.
However as far as entanglement production is concerned, this machine has no advantage over the simple deterministic machine proposed in section II, since with that transformation we could exactly produce every desirable value including the maximum value of entanglement.

## IV Discussion

We have shown that there is no quantum mechanical process which can change a product state $`|\psi |\varphi `$ into a state $`N(|\psi |\varphi +e^{i\theta }|\varphi |\psi )`$ with perfect fidelity unless $`e^{i\theta }=\pm i`$. This result is true in any dimension. In two dimensions where we are dealing with qubits and have a closed formula for the entanglement of formation of a mixed state wootters ; woottershill , we have shown that these states are also the ones which have the maximum value of entanglement, when $`|\varphi `$ and $`|\psi `$ are two initially fixed states. An interesting question is whether this correspondence exists also in higher dimensions or not. If this correspondence holds also in higher dimension then we can conjecture that the states of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi |\varphi +i|\varphi |\psi )`$ rather the symmetric or anti-symmetric ones are the states which have the maximum entanglement when averaged over all the input product states. A hint already comes from calculating the I-concurrence of these states as given in runga . The I-concurrence of a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ of two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ is defined to be

$$C=\sqrt{12tr(\rho _A)^2}=\sqrt{12tr(\rho _B)^2}$$
(45)
where $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$ are the reduced density matrices of the subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. If the two systems are in a pure state as above (i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi |\varphi +i|\varphi |\psi )_{AB}`$) we find that

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}(|\varphi \varphi |+|\psi \psi |+i\varphi |\psi |\varphi \psi |i\psi |\varphi |\psi \varphi |),$$
(46)
where $`\rho `$ stands for the density matrix of any of the two subsystems. A simple calculation shows that

$$C=1|\varphi |\psi |^2$$
(47)
This concurrence reduces to (28) for qubits calculated from Wootters formula. Moreover for orthogonal states it gives the maximum value $`1`$ and when averaged over all product states it gives the value $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

## V Appendix

In this section we present in detail the calculation leading to equation (28). For two qubits $`|\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)`$ and $`|\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ d\end{array}\right)`$, we have according to (27), $`C=|adbc|^2`$. Let the qubit states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ correspond to unit vectors $`𝐧=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`𝐦=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{},\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{},\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})`$ respectively. Then we will have

$$|\psi |𝐧=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}}\end{array}\right)|\varphi |𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta ^{}}{2}e^{i\frac{\varphi ^{}}{2}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta ^{}}{2}e^{i\frac{\varphi ^{}}{2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(48)
from which we find

$$C=|\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta ^{}}{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\frac{\varphi \varphi ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta ^{}}{2}e^{i\frac{\varphi \varphi ^{}}{2}}|^2.$$
(49)
Simplifying this expression leads to

$$C=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi ^{}))$$
(50)
which is nothing but the expression $`C=\frac{1}{2}(1𝐦𝐧)`$ written in components.


text:
# Untitled Document

THE HIDDEN SU(2) SUBSTRUCTURE OF QUARKS

AND THE KOBAIASHI-MASKAWA MATRIX

Mário Everaldo de Souza

Department of Physics, Universidade Federal de Sergipe,

Campus Universitário, 49100-000 São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil

Abstract. - It is proposed that each quark is composed of two prequarks, called primons. This composition generates a new hypercharge and a new kind of color called supercolor. Such quark composition explains the Kobaiashi-Maskawa matrix elements in terms of selection rules based on the new hypercharge. It is also shown that there should exist three Higgs bosons involved in the generation of quark masses.

Introduction

In recent years there have been attempts to go beyond the standard model in particle physics. Going beyond the standard model means breaking up quarks and/or leptons. Since the mass of the electron is already too small for a particle with a very small radius which is smaller than 0.01 F, we can consider it as being an elementary particle. Thus, in this article we propose that leptons are elementary and that quarks are composite. Actually, quark composition is an old idea(1,2,3,4). In order to distinguish the quark composition proposed in this work from other models of the literature we will name these prequarks with a different name. We call them primons, a word derived from the Latin word primus which means first. Some preliminary ideas on this subject have lately been published by the author(5,6,7,8).

The Number of Quarks and Primons, and the Supercolors

Let us develop some preliminary ideas which will help us towards the understanding of quark composition. Since a baryon is composed of three quarks it is reasonable to consider that a quark is composed of two primons. The new interaction between them exists by means of the exchange of new bosons to be found.

In order to reproduce the spectrum of 6 quarks and their colors we need 4 primons in 3 supercolor states. Each color is formed by the two supercolors of two different primons that form a particular quark. Therefore, the symmetry group associated to the supercolor filed is SU(2). As to the electric charge, one has charge (+5/6)e and any other one has charge (-1/6)e.

Taking into account the above considerations on colors and electric charges of quarks we have the following tables for primons (Tables 1, 2, and 3). According to Table 1 the maximum number of quarks is six. There should exist similar tables for the corresponding antiparticles.

|  |  |  |  | $`\alpha `$ |  |  | $`\beta `$ |  |  | $`\gamma `$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\alpha `$ |  |  |  |  |  | blue |  |  | green |  |
|  | $`\beta `$ |  |  | blue |  |  |  |  |  | red |  |
|  | $`\gamma `$ |  |  | green |  |  | red |  |  |  |  |

Table 1. Generation of colors from supercolors

|  | superflavor |  |  | charge |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`p_1`$ |  |  | $`+\frac{5}{6}`$ |  |
|  | $`p_2`$ |  |  | $`\frac{1}{6}`$ |  |
|  | $`p_3`$ |  |  | $`\frac{1}{6}`$ |  |
|  | $`p_4`$ |  |  | $`\frac{1}{6}`$ |  |

Table 2. Electric charges of primons

|  |  |  |  | $`p_1`$ |  |  | $`p_2`$ |  |  | $`p_3`$ |  |  | $`p_4`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`p_1`$ |  |  |  |  |  | u |  |  | c |  |  | t |  |
|  | $`p_2`$ |  |  | u |  |  |  |  |  | d |  |  | s |  |
|  | $`p_3`$ |  |  | c |  |  | d |  |  |  |  |  | b |  |
|  | $`p_4`$ |  |  | t |  |  | s |  |  | b |  |  |  |  |

Table 3. Composition of quark flavors

The New Hypercharge and the new SU(2)

In order to find the new hypercharge let us recall the relation between electric charge and baryon number in quarks. Quark charges $`2/3`$ and $`1/3`$ are symmetric about $`1/6`$ (Figure1) and, since $`2/3(1/3)=1=2\times (1/2)`$, we have

$$Q=\frac{B}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}$$
(1)
because $`1/6=(1/2)`$ $`\times (1/3)=B/2`$. Equation $`(1)`$ is in line with the formula

$$Q=I_3+\frac{1}{2}\left(B+S+C+B^{}+T\right)$$
(2)
where $`I_3`$ is the isospin component of the isospin, $`B=1/3`$ is the baryon number and $`S,C,B^{},T`$ denote the quark numbers for the quarks $`s,c,b`$ and $`t`$, respectively. $`C`$ and $`T`$ are equal to $`1`$ and $`S`$ and $`B^{}`$ are equal to $`1`$. The above formula (Eq. $`(2)`$) can also be written as

$$Q=I_3+\frac{Y}{2}$$
(3)
which is the Gell-Mann–Nishijima relation where $`Y`$ is the strong hypercharge.

Since for primons each $`B=1/6`$ Eq. $`(1)`$ is not valid. Instead of it we should have

$$Q=2B\pm \frac{1}{2}$$
(4)
because electric charges are symmetric about $`1/3`$ (Figure 1) since $`1/3=2\times 1/6=2B`$. This implies that for a system of primons

$$Q=2B+\frac{1}{2}\left(P_1+P_2+P_3+P_4\right)$$
(5)
where $`B`$ is the total baryon number, and $`P_1=1`$, $`P_2=P_3=P_4=1`$. From this we note that we may divide primons into two distinct categories and we should search for a new quantum number to caracterize such distinction. Therefore, we have

$$\frac{2}{3}=2\times \left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{6}\right)+\frac{1}{2}(11)foru,c,t$$

and

$$\frac{1}{3}=2\times \left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{6}\right)+\frac{1}{2}(11)ford,s,b.$$

Because quarks $`u`$ and $`d`$ have isospin equal to $`1/2`$ and $`1/2`$, respectively, we are forced to make $`I_3=\pm 1/4`$ for primons $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. We will see in detail below how $`I_3`$ can be assigned to them. And we will be able then to find that the other primons also have $`I_3=\pm 1/4`$.

Let us try to write a simple expression for the charge of primons like the one that is used for nucleons. Following the footsteps of the strong hypercharge we can try to make

$$Q=I_3+\frac{Y}{2}$$
(6)
where $`Y`$ is the new hypercharge and is given by

$$Y=B+\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a new quantum number to be found. Thus the formula becomes

$$Q=I_3+\frac{1}{2}\left(B+\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\right)$$
(8)
which is quite similar to the Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula used for quarks

$$Q=I_3+\frac{1}{2}\left(B+S\right).$$

From now on instead of dealing with the new hypercharge $`Y=B+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we will deal directly with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. As was discussed above we should try $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=+1`$ for $`p_1`$

and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=1`$ for $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$, $`p_4`$. Therefore,

$$\frac{5}{6}=\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{6}+1\right)forp_1$$

and

$$\frac{1}{6}=\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{6}1\right)for\text{ }p_2,p_3,p_4\text{.}$$

As we will shortly see $`p_2,p_3,p_4`$ can also have $`I_3=1/4`$. In this case we have

$$\frac{1}{6}=\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{6}+0\right)forp_2,p_3,p_4\text{.}$$

This means thus that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ can assume the values $`1`$, $`0`$, and $`+1`$ and, thus, they can be considered as the projections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$. Of course $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=0`$ can also be the projection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$. Putting all together in a table one has Table 4 below.

|  | $`I_3`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`p_1`$ | $`+\frac{1}{4}`$ | $`+1`$ |
| $`p_j`$ | $`+\frac{1}{4}`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`(j=2,3,4)`$ |  |  |
|  | $`\frac{1}{4}`$ | $`0`$ |

Let us now find the values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for quarks. The results are quite impressive because they are directly linked to the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and to the quark doublets

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ s\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right)$$

As was seen above $`p_1`$ can only have $`I_3=1/4`$, and $`p_2,p_3,p_4`$ can have $`I_3=\pm 1/4`$. In the case of the $`u`$ quark $`p_1`$ has $`I_3=1/4`$ and $`p_2`$ has $`I_3=1/4`$ because the $`I_3`$ of the $`u`$ quark is $`1/2,`$ and the total value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ is $`+1+(1)=0`$. For the $`d`$ quark $`p_2`$ has $`I_3=1/4`$ and $`p_3`$ has $`I_3=1/4`$ because the $`I_3`$ of the $`d`$ quark is $`1/2`$, and the total $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ is thus $`0+0=0`$. In the case of $`c`$ and $`t`$ quarks, since $`p_1`$ has $`I_3=1/4`$, $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ should have $`I_3=1/4`$ because the $`I_3`$ of both quarks is equal to $`0`$. In both cases the total $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ is equal to $`+1`$. For quarks $`s`$ and $`b`$, their primons have to have opposite $`I_3`$ ’s because the $`I_3`$ of both of them is equal to $`0`$. And thus in both cases the total $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ is equal to $`1`$. Hence a system of two primons (that is, a quark) has four possible states $`|\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }_3>`$:

| $`|1,1>=c,t`$ |  |
| --- | --- |
| $`|1,0>=d`$ | $`|0,0>=u`$ |
| $`|1,1>=s,b`$ |  |

The choice $`|1,0>=d`$, $`|0,0>=u`$ was made considering that the $`u`$ quark is the end product of the decays of quarks which means that it should be singled out. Making a table with the results we obtain Table 5

|  | $`I_3`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`c,t`$ | $`0`$ | $`+1`$ |
| $`u`$ | $`+\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`s,b`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |

Making a diagram with this table we obtain Figure 2

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}|0,0>\\ |1,0>\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}|1,1>\\ |1,1>\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}|1,1>\\ |1,1>\end{array}\right)$$

which should be compared to

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ s\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right)$$

Comparing Figure 2 (or Table 5) with the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix9,10 we note that the elements of the matrix $`|U_{cs}|`$ and $`|U_{tb}|`$ (which are the largest ones are almost equal to $`1`$) satisfy the selection rule $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, and the other large element $`|U_{ud}|`$ (which is also close to $`1`$) satisfies the selection rule, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=0`$. The second largest elements $`|U_{cd}|`$ ($`=0.24`$) and $`|U_{us}|`$ ($`=0.23`$) obey, respectively, the selection rules $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=+1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ . The null elements (or almost null) $`|U_{ts}|`$ and $`|U_{cb}|`$ can also be understood according to the above scheme if we also take into account the three quark doublets. According to the scheme flavor changing neutral currents are forbidden because in such a case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=0`$. Taking a glance at the above diagram we can understand why $`|U_{cs}||U_{tb}|`$ and why $`|U_{td}|`$ $`|U_{ub}|`$. Another very important conclusion is that the $`c`$ and $`t`$ quarks are heavier versions of the $`s`$ and $`b`$ quarks, respectively. Thus, we can say that the general rule behind the weak decay of quarks is: a quark decays to diminish either its $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or its $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$. When $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ one way is to go from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=+1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=1,0`$, and another way is to go from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=0`$ (but between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$), and when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=0`$ the only way left is to go from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$. If we represent the values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ by arrows as we do with spin we find a complete similarity with the case of $`S=1`$ for two $`1/2`$ spin particles or with $`I=1`$)(isospin) of the nucleon-nucleon system. That is,

$$\begin{array}{c}c=p_1p_3;t=p_1p_4;|1,1>\\ d=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p_2p_3+p_2p_3);|1,0>\\ s=p_2p_4;b=p_3p_4;|1,1>\end{array}$$

and

$$u=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p_1p_2p_1p_2);|0,0>$$

and thus there is an $`SU(2)`$ related to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This means that the variation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should be related to the variation of weak isospin. One clearly notices that both $`t`$ and $`c`$ have $`p_1`$, and thus, the mass difference between them is directly linked to how $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ interact with $`p_1`$ because $`t`$ and $`c`$ have the same $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the same $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$. The same happens between quarks $`s`$ and $`b`$ which have $`p_4`$ in common. Since a given primon takes part in heavy and in light quarks as well ($`p_1`$, for example), primons probably have the same mass which should be a light mass. More on this we will see below. Another important point to consider is that by means of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ we can understand why there are quark weak decays that conserve strong isospin ($`tb`$, $`cs`$).

This new $`SU(2)`$ is in complete agreement with weak isospin and, thus the Weinberg-Salam model (applied to quarks) does not need any deep modification since the symmetry continues to be the same. But by means of the new $`SU(2)`$ we can begin to understand what is behind the Kobaiashi-Maskawa matrix: the composition of quarks.

Towards a New Chromodynamics (Superchromodynamics(SQCD))

As we saw in the sections above we need four primons and three supercolors to generate quarks in the three colors. This means that in terms of flavors primons can be represented by the Dirac spinors

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_4=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).$$

As to supercolors we may represent them by the three-element columns

$$sc_\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),sc_\beta =\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),sc_\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).$$

The supercolor generators are the three-dimensional generators of SU(2)

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Theta }^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Theta }^3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

which are three of the eight generators of $`SU(3)`$, and obey the relations

$$[\mathrm{\Theta }^j,\mathrm{\Theta }^k]=i\epsilon ^{jkl}\mathrm{\Theta }^l.$$
(9)
Let us call them supergluons. Such as gluons supergluons are vectorial ($`S=1`$) and also massless. According to the ideas above developed the combinations of equal supercolors do not produce a color. That is exactly what we have:

$$sc_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }{}_{}{}^{j}sc_\alpha =sc_\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^jsc_\beta =sc_\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^jsc_\gamma =0,$$

where $`j=1,2,3`$. With different supercolors we have the sums:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}sc_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^jsc_\beta =i,\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}sc_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^jsc_\gamma =i,\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}sc_\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^jsc_\gamma =i.$$

Therefore, the substructure of $`SU(3)`$(color) is $`SU(2)`$(supercolor).

The Lagrangian of Quantum Superchromodynamics

Following the footsteps of QCD we can propose that the free Lagrangian for primons is

$$L=i\mathrm{}c\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }mc^2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(10)
in which $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the column

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \\ \mathrm{\Psi }\gamma \end{array}\right)$$
(11)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ is a four-component Dirac spinor. In the same way as is done in QCD we can construct the gauge invariant (under supercolor SU(2)) QSCD Lagrangian

$$L=i\mathrm{}c\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }mc^2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{16\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }g_{sc}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }A_\mu $$
(12)
in which $`g_{sc}`$ is the supercolor coupling constant, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$ are the supergluon fields. The above Lagrangian should hold for each primon because there are four different mass terms. That is, there are four different Lagrangians.

Since primons are almost massless the Lagrangian (for each primon) can be written as

$$L=i\mathrm{}c\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{16\pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }g_{sc}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }A_\mu .$$
(13)
The last two Lagrangians above are invariant under local SU(2) gauge transformations and describe the interaction of each primon (that is, each flavor) with the three massless vector fields (supergluons). The Dirac fields make the three supercolor currents

$$I^\zeta =cg_{sc}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\zeta \mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(14)
which are the sources of the supercolor fields.

The Masses of Primons

The magnetic moments of primons should be given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu _1=\frac{5}{6}\frac{e}{2m_1}forp_1\\ \mu _2=\frac{1}{6}\frac{e}{2m_2}forp_2,p_3,p_4\end{array}$$

and hence

$$\mu _2=\frac{5m_2}{m_1}\mu _1$$

and

$$\mu _3=\frac{m_2}{m_3}\mu _2.$$

Considering that the spin content of quarks should be the same we have

$$\frac{\mu _u}{\mu _d}=\frac{\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mu _2+\mu _3}$$

and since $`\mu _u/\mu _d=2`$ and using the above relations we obtain

$$2=\frac{5m_2}{m_1}\left(\frac{1\frac{m_1}{5m_2}}{1+\frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right).$$

Making $`m_3=fm_2`$ and solving for the ratio $`m_1/m_2`$ we arrive at

$$\frac{m_1}{m_2}=\frac{5}{3+\frac{2}{f}}$$

and since the mass of $`u(p_1p_2)`$ and $`d(p_2p_3)`$ are about the same it is reasonable to suppose that $`m_3m_1`$ and thus

$$f\frac{5}{3+\frac{2}{f}}$$

which yields $`f1`$ and hence $`m_3m_2`$. Then it is reasonable to assume that primons have about the same mass.

The Origin of Quark Mass

In order to have very light primons we can consider that every pair of primons of a quark are bound by means of a very strong spring. Thus the mass of each quark should be equal to

$$m_qc^2\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{k}{\mu _p}}$$
(15)
in which $`\mu _p`$ is the reduced mass of the pair of primons and $`k`$ is the effective constant of the spring between them. It is worth mentioning that a quite similar idea is used for explaining quark confinement and based on it a term $`Kr`$ is introduced in the effective potential. For the $`u`$ quark, for example, we have $`m_uc^20.3`$GeV. On the other hand if we consider a harmonic potential we have

$$m_qc^2\frac{1}{2}k_u(R_q)^2$$
(16)
where $`R_q`$ is the size of the quark $`q`$. For $`u`$ we obtain $`k_u10^{20}J/m^22GeV/fm^2.`$ Using this figure above we obtain $`\mu _p10^{28}kg`$ which is about the proton mass. Therefore, in order to have light primons the effective well has to have a larger dependence with the distance between the two primons. Considering that the potential is symmetrical about the equilibrium position we may try to use the potential

$$V(x)=\alpha _ux^4.$$
(17)
The energy levels of the potential $`V(x)=\alpha x^\upsilon `$ are given by24

$$E_n=\left[\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2\mu }}\nu \mathrm{}a^{1/\nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{\nu })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{\nu })}\right]^{2\nu /(2+\nu )}(n+\frac{1}{2})^{2\nu /(2+\nu )}.$$
(18)
Thus, for $`\nu =4`$ and $`n=0`$ we have

$$E_0=\left[\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2\mu _p}}4\mathrm{}a_u^{1/4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})}\right]^{4/3}(0+\frac{1}{2})^{4/3}$$
(19)
and then we obtain (making $`E_0=m_qc^2`$)

$$\mu _p0.25\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{\frac{a_u}{(m_qc^2)^3}}$$
(20)
which can be extremely light depending on the value of $`a_u.`$ The above figure should be taken with caution because it is a result of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics but it does not change the fact that primons may have a very small mass.

Thus, if primons interact via a very strong potential such as $`V(x)=\alpha _ux^4`$ they can be extremely light fermions. We can then propose a more general effective potential of the form $`V(x)=\frac{1}{4}\alpha _ux^4\frac{1}{2}k_ux^2`$ where the last term is chosen negative. Generalizing the coordinate $`x`$ we can consider the “potential energy ”

$$V_0(\varphi )=\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^2\varphi ^4\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi ^2$$
(21)
where $`\varphi `$ is a field related to the presence of the two primons (or of other primons of the same baryon) and is the scalar interaction between them, and $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are real constants. Hence we can propose the Lagrangian

$$_0=\frac{1}{2}(_\nu \varphi )(^\nu \varphi )+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi ^2\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^2\varphi ^4$$
(22)
between the two primons of a quark. Since a quark only exists by means of the combination of the two primons we may consider that its initial mass is very small. The above Lagrangian is symmetric in $`\varphi `$ but let us recall that primons can interact by other means, electromagnetically, for example. Therefore, we can make the transformation $`\varphi \varphi +\eta _{ev}`$ where $`\eta _{ev}`$ is a deviation caused by the electromagnetic field and vacuum. The new potential energy up to second power in $`\eta _{ev}`$ is

$$V(\varphi ,\eta _{ev})=V_0\mu ^2\varphi \eta _{ev}\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\eta _{ev}^2+\lambda ^2\varphi ^3\eta _{ev}+\frac{3}{2}\lambda ^2\varphi ^2\eta _{ev}^2.$$
(23)
$`V(\varphi ,\eta _{ev})`$ has a minimum at

$$\eta _{ev}(\varphi )=\frac{\mu ^2\varphi +\lambda ^2\varphi ^3}{\mu ^23\lambda ^2\varphi ^2}.$$
(24)
Since $`\eta _{ev}`$ is small let us make $`\mu ^2\varphi \lambda ^2\varphi ^3=\delta `$ (a small quantity). Then we can make $`\varphi \pm \frac{\mu }{\lambda }+ϵ`$ and obtain $`ϵ\frac{\delta }{2\mu ^2}`$ and thus

$$\varphi \pm \frac{\mu }{\lambda }\frac{\delta }{2\mu ^2}$$
(25)
and the symmetry has disappeared. But it is not spontaneously broken, it is broken by the perturbation $`\eta _{ev}`$ which may be linked to charge. Substituting the above value of $`\varphi `$ into Eq 20 we have

$$U(\eta _{ev})=V(\varphi ,\eta _{ev})V_0\mu ^2\eta _{ev}^2$$
(26)
and the approximate Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_\nu \eta _{ev})(^\nu \eta _{ev})\mu ^2\eta _{ev}^2$$
(27)
which is a Klein-Gordon Lagrangian with mass

$$m=\sqrt{2}\mu \mathrm{}/c$$
(28)
which may be an effective mass. Taking a look at Table 3 we observe that we need three scalar bosons, $`\eta _{ev}^+`$, $`\eta _{ev}^{}`$ and $`\eta _{ev}^0`$. The first and second particles are exchanged between the primons of the quarks $`p_1p_2(u)`$, $`p_1p_3(c)`$, and $`p_1p_4(t)`$, and the neutral boson is exchanged between the primons of the quarks $`p_2p_3(d)`$, $`p_2p_4(s)`$, and $`p_3p_4(b)`$. Therefore, three Higgs bosons produce the masses of quarks.

It is quite interesting that we should have a triplet of scalar bosons. And we notice immediately a very important trend: The charged bosons produce masses larger than those produced by the neutral boson, considering the quark generations

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ s\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right).`$

Therefore, the origin of mass in quarks is also linked to the values of their charges.

This is summarized below in Table 6.

|  | Quark |  |  | Mass(GeV) |  |  | Charge |  |  | Mass Generator |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | (Higgs Bosons) |  |
|  | $`u(p_1p_2)`$ |  |  | $`0.3`$ |  |  | $`+\frac{2}{3}`$ |  |  | $`\eta _{ev}^+`$, $`\eta _{ev}^{}`$ |  |
|  | $`c(p_1p_3)`$ |  |  | $`1.5`$ |  |  | $`+\frac{2}{3}`$ |  |  | $`\eta _{ev}^+`$, $`\eta _{ev}^{}`$ |  |
|  | $`t(p_1p_4)`$ |  |  | $`170`$ |  |  | $`+\frac{2}{3}`$ |  |  | $`\eta _{ev}^+`$, $`\eta _{ev}^{}`$ |  |
|  | $`d(p_2p_3)`$ |  |  | $`0.3`$ |  |  | $`\frac{1}{3}`$ |  |  | $`\eta _{ev}^0`$ |  |
|  | $`s(p_2p_4)`$ |  |  | $`0.5`$ |  |  | $`\frac{1}{3}`$ |  |  | $`\eta _{ev}^0`$ |  |
|  | $`b(p_3p_4)`$ |  |  | $`4.5`$ |  |  | $`\frac{1}{3}`$ |  |  | $`\eta _{ev}^0`$ |  |

Table 6. The masses of quarks and their generators. As is known the mass of the $`d`$ quark is slightly larger than that of the $`u`$ quark. There is a clear division between the three first quarks and the other three quarks. The quarks generated by the charged bosons have larger masses and larger charges and those generated by $`\eta _{ev}^0`$ have smaller masses and smaller charges

.

The Arrangement of Primons in Baryons

A possible way for the arrangement of primons in baryons is discussed in references 5, 6, 7 and 8. Such arrangement agrees well with the electric charge distribution of the nucleons, with the nucleon dipole moments, with the stability of the alpha particle and of the deuteron, with the absence of nuclides with A=5, and with the enormous instability of $`Be^8`$.

The Spin of Primons (and Confinement)

The spin of primons is a great puzzle in the same way as the spin of a quark is too since as is well known only half of the spins of quarks contribute to the total spin of a baryon as found by the experiments. Actually, the spin puzzle of baryons may be linked to the spin of primons. Since they are elementary fermions we expect them to be half spin fermions. And thus it is not an easy task to divise a way of making two spin half fermions to compose another spin half fermion since the space of spin is not the normal three-dimensional space. That is why the scheme divised in references 6 and 7 is not very good and may be wrong. When we make the addition of two different angular momenta we use the commutation relation

$$[\stackrel{}{S_1},\stackrel{}{S_2}]=0$$
(29)
which means that their degrees of freedom are independent. Maybe in the case of primons they are not independent since each set of primons is a baryon, that is, in the case of spin the problem to be solved is the problem of composing the total spin of a set of six particles subject to the rigid condition of obtaining a baryon in the end. This means that primons only exist forming baryons (and mesons) and thus free primons are not possible. Therefore, they are always confined.

This article intends to be just a preliminary work on quark composition. It appears to me that such composition is firmly established (indirectly) by the Kobaiashi-Maskawa matrix. Much more work should be and will be developed on this subject.

References

1. E.J. Eichten, K.D. Lane, and M.E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 811 (1983).
2. K. Hagiwara, S. Komamiya, and D. Zeppenfeld, Z. Phys. C29, 115 (1985).
3. N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, and Y. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. 139, 459 (1984).
4. H. Fritzsch, in Proceedings of the twenty-second Course of the International School of Subnuclear Physics, 1984, ed. by A. Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1988).
5. M. E. de Souza, in Proceedings of the XII Brazilian National Meeting of the Physics of Particles and Fields, Caxambu, Minas Gerais, Brazil, September 18-22, 1991.
6. M.E. de Souza, in The Six Fundamental Forces of Nature, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil, February 1994.
7. M.E. de Souza, in The General Structure of Matter, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil, July 2001.
8. M.E. de Souza, hep/ph 0207301.

9. F. Halzen and A.D. Martin, in Quarks & Leptons: An Introductory Course in Modern Particle Physics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984, p. 286.

10. P. Renton, in Electroweak Interactions, An Introduction to the Physics of Quarks & Leptons, Cmbridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 428,429.


text:
# Hidden Markov and State Space Models Asymptotic Analysis of Exact and Approximate Methods for Prediction, Filtering, Smoothing and Statistical Inference

## Abstract

State space and hidden Markov models can both be subsumed under the same mathematical structure. On a suitable probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,P)`$ are defined $`(X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2,\mathrm{},X_n,Y_n,\mathrm{})`$ a sequence of random “variables” taking values in a product space $`_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒳_j\times 𝒴_j)`$ with an appropriate sigma field. The joint behavior under $`P`$ is that the $`X_j`$ are stationary Markovian and that given $`(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{})`$ the $`Y_j`$ are independent and further that $`Y_j`$ is independent of all $`X_i:ij`$ given $`X_j`$. If $``$ is finite these are referred to as Hidden Markov models. The general case though focussing on $`𝒳`$ Euclidean is referred to as state space models. Essentially we observe only the $`Y`$’s and want to infer statistical properties of the $`X`$’s given the $`Y`$’s. The fundamental problems of filtering, smoothing prediction are to give algorithms for computing exactly or approximately the conditional distribution of $`X_t`$ given $`(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_t)`$ (Filtering), the conditional distribution of $`X_t`$ given $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_T`$, $`T>t`$ (Smoothing) and the conditional distribution of $`X_{t+1},\mathrm{},X_T`$ given $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_t`$ (Prediction). If as is usually the case $`P`$ is unknown and is assumed to belong to a smooth parametric family of probabilities $`\{P_\theta :\theta R^d\}`$ ,we face the further problem of efficiently estimating $`\theta `$ using $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_T`$ (computation of the likelihood, and maximum likelihood estimation, etc.).

State space models have long played an important role in signal processing. The Gaussian case can be treated algorithmically using the famous Kalman filter . Similarly since the 1970s there has been extensive application of Hidden Markov models in speech recognition with prediction being the most important goal. The basic theoretical work here, in the case $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ finite (small) providing both algorithms and asymptotic analysis for inference is that of Baum and colleagues . During the last 30-40 years these general models have proved of great value in applications ranging from genomics to finance—see for example .

Unless the $`X,Y`$ are jointly Gaussian or $`𝒳`$ is finite and small the problem of calculating the distributions discussed and the likelihood exactly are numerically intractable and if $`𝒴`$ is not finite asymptotic analysis becomes much more difficult. Some new developments have been the construction of so-called “particle filters” (Monte Carlo type) methods for approximate calculation of these distributions (see Doucet et al. ) for instance and general asymptotic methods for analysis of statistical methods in HMM  and other authors.

We will discuss these methods and results in the light of exponential mixing properties of the conditional (posterior) distribution of $`(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{})`$ given $`(Y_1,Y_2,\mathrm{})`$ already noted by Baum and Petrie  and recent work of the authors Bickel, Ritov and Ryden , Del Moral and Jacod in , Douc and Matias .

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 60, 62.