format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has a long history how to define the total energy in the gravitational theory. Because of the invariance under the general coordinate transformation, it becomes ambiguous how to define the time variable. Then the Hamiltonian, which is conjugate to time variable, becomes ambiguous. Especially there are many ways how to define the energy of the gravitational field. The purpose of this paper give the prescription to calculate the total energy of the system with local singularity. It is known that (i) $`E_{\mathrm{total}}=(\mathrm{finite})`$ for the asymptotically flat space-time and (ii) $`E_{\mathrm{total}}=0`$ for the closed universe. The contribution to the total energy comes only from the singularity, so we can calculate the total energy by evaluating the contribution around the singularity.

## 2 Energy of Gravitational Field \- Review -

### 2.1 Action and the Einstein’s Equation

The Hilbert-Einstein action is given by

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}R}+{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}_{\mathrm{matter}}},`$ (1)
where $`\kappa =8\pi G`$. Taking the variation with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, we have the Einstein’s equation $`\delta I_{\mathrm{HE}}/\delta g_{\mu \nu }=0`$, which gives

$`R^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Rg^{\mu \nu }=\kappa T^{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
with the boundary condition

$`{\displaystyle d^4x_\mu ^\mu }=0,`$ (3)
$`^\mu =\sqrt{g}\left\{g^{\mu \nu }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\delta )g^{\nu \lambda }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu )\right\}.`$ (4)
Notice that the boundary term $`^\mu `$ contains not only the variation of the metric $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ but also the variation of the first derivatives of the metric $`\delta g_{\mu \nu ,\lambda }`$ through the affine connection.

### 2.2 Einstein prescription

In the naive approach, the boundary term $`^\mu `$ contains not only the variation of the metric but also the variation of the first derivatives of the metric, which makes difficult to find the classical solution compatible with boundary condition. There are various approaches to avoid this problem.

First we review the primitive expression of energy conservations derived by Einstein  in order to avoid the appearance of the variation of the derivative of the metric in the boundary. Using the identity

$`\sqrt{g}R`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}G+_\mu 𝒟^\mu ,`$ (5)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \lambda }^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\rho \},`$ (6)
$`𝒟^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\{g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\lambda g^{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\mu \},`$ (7)
and the action is taken in the following form

$`I^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}G}+{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}_{\mathrm{matter}}}.`$ (8)
After taking the variation of $`I^{}`$ with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the same Einstein’s equation Eq.(2) is obtained with new boundary condition

$`{\displaystyle d^4x_\mu ^\mu }=0,`$ (9)
$`^\mu =\sqrt{g}\left\{\delta (\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\delta \delta (\sqrt{g}g^{\nu \lambda })\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu \right\}.`$ (10)
In this expression, the boundary term $`^\mu `$ contains only the variation of the metric as expected. Putting $`_\mathrm{G}^{}=\sqrt{g}G/(2\kappa )`$, the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field is given by

$`u_\nu ^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{G}^{}}{g_{,\mu }^{\rho \sigma }}}g_{,\mu }^{\rho \sigma }\delta _\nu ^\mu _\mathrm{G}^{}.`$ (11)
Then the conservation law of energy-momentum is expressed as

$`_\mu (u_\nu ^\mu +T_\nu ^\mu )=0,`$ (12)
where $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ denotes the energy-momentum tensor density of matter. However the separation of the dynamical metric from the auxiliary metric is not clear in this method.

### 2.3 ADM canonical formalism

In order to clarify the physical meaning of the metrics, we often use the ADM formalism  where we decompose the 4-dimensional space-time metric into (3+1) dimensional space and time metric. We consider the Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ parametrized by a global function of time $`t`$. Let $`n^a`$ be the unit normal vector to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. The metrics are decomposed into the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`N^2dt^2+h_{ab}(dx^a+N^a)(dx^b+N^b),`$ (13)
$`g_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}N^2+N^aN_b,N_a& \\ N_a,h_{ab}& \end{array}\right),`$ (16)
where $`N`$ is the lapse function, $`N^a`$ is the shift operator and $`h_{ab}`$ is the spatial metric. In this expression, the determinant of the metrics is $`g=Nh`$.

First we proceed the Lagrangian formulation under the ADM (3+1) decomposition. Defining the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$

$`K_{ab}=h_a^c_cn_b(=N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^0)`$ (17)
and its mean value $`K=K_a^a`$, the gravitational action is taken in the form

$`I_\mathrm{G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}({\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}R}+{\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{h}2K}),`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^4xN\sqrt{h}(K_{ab}K^{ab}K^2+^{(3)}R)}.`$ (19)
The notation $`(3)`$ in the left upper indices denotes the corresponding three dimensional quantities. Taking the variation of $`I_\mathrm{G}`$ we have the Einstein’s equation with the boundary condition, which contains only the variation of the first time derivatives of metrics. The surface term $`𝑑x^4_tK/\kappa `$ plays the role to make the action well defined in the Euclidean section .

Next we proceed to the Hamiltonian formulation. The canonical momentum and the Hamiltonian density are expressed as

$`\pi ^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{G}}{\dot{h}_{ab}}}=\sqrt{h}(K^{ab}Kh^{ab}),`$ (20)
$`_\mathrm{G}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{ab}\dot{h}_{ab}_\mathrm{G}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`NH+N^aP_a+2D_a(h^{1/2}N_b\pi ^{ab}).`$
In the above expression, the last term contribute only to an unimportant boundary term and will be dropped in the following. The Hamiltonian function and momentum function are given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}(\pi ^{ab}\pi _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2)\sqrt{h}^{(3)}R,`$ (22)
$`P_a`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{h}(D_ah^{1/2}\pi ^{ab}).`$ (23)
Because the time derivatives of $`N`$ and $`N^a`$ do not appear in the Lagrangian, they are auxiliary variables. Then we must put the Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints as

$`H0,`$ (24)
$`P_a0.`$ (25)
The dynamical equations, which are derived by the canonical formalism, are given by

$`\dot{h}_{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta H_\mathrm{G}}{\delta \pi ^{ab}}}A_{ab},`$ (26)
$`\dot{\pi }^{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta H_\mathrm{G}}{\delta h_{ab}}}B_{ab},`$ (27)
where

$`H_\mathrm{G}={\displaystyle d^3x(NH+N^aP_a)}.`$ (28)
While, if we directly take the variation of this ADM Hamiltonian

$`\delta H_\mathrm{G}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x(A_{ab}\delta \pi ^{ab}+B^{ab}\delta h_{ab})}\delta C,`$ (29)
we obtain an extra surface contribution $`\delta C`$. So the dynamical equation derived by the canonical formalism and the dynamical equation derived by the Lagrangian formalism give the different boundary condition.

In order to avoid the additional surface term $`\delta C`$, Regge-Teitelboim  modify the total Hamiltonian in such a way as the dynamical equation, derived by the canonical formalism, is equivalent to the equation derived by the variation of the total Hamiltonian. The explicit form of $`\delta C`$ is

$`\delta C=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2S_lG^{ijkl}(N\delta h_{ij,k}N_{,k}\delta h_{ij})}`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle d^2S_l\{2N_k\delta \pi ^{kl}+(2N^k\pi ^{jl}N^l\pi ^{jk})\delta h_{jk}\}},`$
where

$`G^{ijkl}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{1/2}(h^{ik}h^{jl}+h^{il}h^{jk}2h^{ij}h^{kl}).`$ (31)
If this surface term would vanish, $`H_\mathrm{G}`$ would be the correct Hamiltonian. However for the stationary asymptotically flat space-time $`(h_{ij}\delta _{ij}1/r)`$, the first surface term is different from zero, that is

$`{\displaystyle d^2S_lG^{ijkl}(N\delta h_{ij,k}N_{,k}\delta h_{ij})}\delta {\displaystyle d^2S_l(h_{il,i}h_{ii,l})}.`$ (32)
A new gravitational Hamiltonian is defined by

$`H_\mathrm{G}^{}=H_\mathrm{G}+E[h_{ij}],`$ (33)
where additional contribution comes from the surface term by

$`E[h_{ij}]={\displaystyle d^2S_lG^{ijkl}h_{ij,k}}.`$ (34)
This is called ADM energy for the stationary asymptotically flat space-time. We get for the variation in this new gravitational Hamiltonian

$`\delta H_\mathrm{G}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x(A_{ab}\delta \pi ^{ab}+B^{ab}\delta h_{ab})},`$ (35)
and the correct equations of motion Eq.(26)-Eq.(27) are recovered.

The value of the energy becomes in the following. First, one has $`H_\mathrm{G}=0`$ because of the constraint equations Eq.(22)-Eq.(23). For the surface contribution one has $`E[h_{ij}]=0`$ for the closed universe, because there is no boundary, and $`E[h_{ij}]=(\mathrm{finite})`$ for the asymptotically flat space-time. For example, for the Schwarzschild metric,

$`ds^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2Gm}{r}})dt^2+(\delta _{ij}+2Gm{\displaystyle \frac{x^ix^j}{r^3}})dx^idx^j,`$
one has well known result $`E[h_{ij}]=m`$ .

### 2.4 Comment on the surface term

The surface terms in Eq.(18) and Eq.(34) are important for the Lagragian formalism and the Hamiltonian formalism. Here we comment these surface terms are related to the surface term appeared in the identity Eq.(5)-Eq.(7).
A. The surface term, which is the mean value of the scalar curvature in Eq.(18), plays a similar role to the time component of the surface term Eq.(7) in Einstein’s prescription in order to avoid the time derivative contribution in the surface term;

$`h^{1/2}2K𝒟^t.`$
B. Using the three dimensional version of the identity Eq.(5) -Eq.(7)

$`\sqrt{h}^{(3)}R`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{h}^{(3)}G+_l{}_{}{}^{(3)}𝒟_{}^{l},`$ (36)
$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}𝒟_{}^{l}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{h}\{h^{li(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^j+h^{ij(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^l\}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}G_{}^{ijkl}h_{ij,k},`$
where

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}G_{}^{ijkl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{1/2}\{h^{ik}h^{jl}+h^{il}h^{jk}2h^{ij}h^{kl}\},`$ (38)
the additional energy Eq.(34) contributed from the surface term is simply expressed as

$`E[h_{ij}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^3x_l{}_{}{}^{(3)}𝒟_{}^{l}}.`$ (39)
From the above observation the contribution to the total energy is interpreted in the following way. The term $`\sqrt{g}R`$ includes the singular terms coming from second derivative terms, and $`\sqrt{g}G`$ contains the less singular terms including only first derivative terms and the term $`_\mu 𝒟^\mu `$ picks up the singular part as surface terms.

Next we study the cases of neither closed space nor asymptotically flat space-time.

## 3 Energy of System with Conical Singularity

### 3.1 (2+1) dimensional conical singularity

We consider the system of the point particle with mass $`m_0`$ . Static spherically symmetric metric is given by

$`ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{\sigma (𝒓)}(dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2).`$ (40)
Einstein equation becomes

$`\mathrm{}\sigma (𝒓)=m_0\delta (𝒓).`$
Then the solution is given as

$`ds^2=dt^2+r^{8Gm_0}(dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2),`$ (41)
where the ranges of variables are $`0r<\mathrm{}`$ and $`0\varphi 2\pi `$. After making the change of variables

$`\overline{r}=r^{14Gm_0}/(14Gm_0),\overline{\varphi }=(14Gm_0)\varphi .`$ (42)
we get the flat metric

$`ds^2=dt^2+d\overline{r}^2+\overline{r}^2d\varphi ^2,`$ (43)
$`0\overline{r}<\mathrm{},0\overline{\varphi }2\pi \mathrm{\Delta },`$ (44)
where the deficit angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }=8\pi Gm_0`$ appears in the range of variable $`\varphi `$. This metric is not asymptotically flat and the total energy formula Eq.(33) cannot apply. Here we define the total energy of this system as

$`E_{\mathrm{total}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^3xH},`$ (45)
where $`H`$ is defined in Eq.(22). Note that the minus sign, three dimensional integration and lack of the lapse function $`N`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{total}}`$ of Eq.(45). Using the explicit expression for $`H`$in Eq.(22), the correct value of total energy is obtained

$`E_{\mathrm{total}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{h}^{(2)}R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle 𝑑S_l^l\sigma (x)}=m_0.`$ (46)
Next we explore the gravitational energy for the case with a singularity in the closed universe.

### 3.2 Closed and expanding de Sitter universe with conical singularity in (2+1) dimension

We consider the system of closed and expanding de Sitter universe with conical singularity. The classical solution is given by

$`ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{r}^2}{1\overline{r}^2}}+(18Gm)\overline{r}^2d\varphi ^2\right).`$ (47)
Here the scale factor of the universe $`a(t)`$ is determined by the equation $`\dot{a}^2/a^2=1/a^2+\lambda `$ , and the solution is given by $`a(t)=\mathrm{cosh}(\sqrt{\lambda }t)/\sqrt{\lambda }`$. After making the change of variable $`\overline{\varphi }=(1b)\varphi `$, the metrics in Eq.(47) shows the appearance of the deficit angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi b8\pi Gm`$, where the parameter $`b=1\sqrt{18Gm}`$ is introduced. In order to evaluate the total energy of the system we make the change of variables

$`\overline{r}=r^{1b}/(1b),`$
and we get the metric in the form

$`ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2r^{2b}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1r^{22b}/(1b)^2}}+r^2d\varphi ^2\right).`$ (48)
The total gravitational energy is defined as the same form in Eq.(45). Almost all region in the integration vanish due to the constraint Eq.(24) and only contribution comes from the singular part around $`r=0`$. Therefore the integration is performed small region $`ϵ`$ around $`r=0`$ and the total gravitational energy is obtained as

$`E_{\mathrm{total}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}(\pi ^{ab}\pi _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2)\sqrt{h}^{(2)}(^{(2)}R2\lambda )`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle _0^ϵ}𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(\sqrt{h}h^{rr}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\sqrt{h_{\varphi \varphi }}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2m,`$
where $`\lambda `$ is the cosmological constant. Note that the value of the total energy for the closed expanding de Sitter solution with conical singularity in Eq.(49) is twice for the simple conical singular solution in Eq.(46).

The gravitational energy in asymptotically de Sitter spaces is examined by Abbott and Deser . The three dimensional cosmological gravity is studied by Deser and Jackiw and found static many-body solutions . Mass in static asymptotically de Sitter spaces was studied by V. Balasubramanian et al. .

## 4 Summary and Discussion

We first review the derivation of the total gravitational energy, i)Einstein prescription, ii) ADM canonical formalism using Regge-Teitelboim derivation.

In section 3, we explicitly calculate the total gravitational energy for neither closed space nor stationary asymptotically flat space-time. Examples are the following (2+1) dimensional systems, i) system with conical singularity, ii) closed and expanding de Sitter universe with conical singularity.

In general, we find that the contribution to the total energy comes only from the singularity. Then we can calculate the total energy by evaluating the contribution around the singularity. We will show the complete proof for our statement near future.


text:
# Non-marginally bound inhomogeneous dust collapse in higher dimensional space-time

## I Introduction

The Cosmic Censorship conjecture (CCC) of Penrose rp  states that in generic situation all singularities arising from regular initial data are clothed by event horizon and hence invisible to distant observers. According to strong version of the conjecture, such singularities are invisible to all observers, i.e., there occur no naked singularities for any observer. The conjecture plays a fundamental role in the theory of black holes. Despite the flurry of activity over years, the validity of this conjecture is still an open question (see, e.g., r1  for reviews on conjecture). However, there exist many exact solutions of Einstein equations where naked singularities do arise, e.g., naked singularities occur in Tolman-Bondi space-times where they are extensively studied es ; rn ; lz ; jl ; dj ; jd1 ; djd

Comparatively, much less is known about singularity formation in higher dimensions (HD) that are being currently considered very important in view of recent developments in string theory and other field theories. In string and M-theory, which may provide a route towards quantum gravity, gravity is truly higher dimensional interaction, which becomes effective four dimensional (4D) at low energies. This provoked great interest among theoretical physicist in studying physics in HD hd . It would be, therefore, highly desirable to understand the final fate of gravitational collapse in HD space-times. To understand the general collapse problem as well as nature of singularities, one would like to analyze exact solutions, preferably in close form, of HD Einstein equations. However the non-linearity of field equations makes them difficult, even in spherical symmetry.

A model in which analytical treatment appears feasible is that of 5D Tolman-Model that describes gravitational collapse of spherically symmetric inhomogeneous dust in a 5D space-time, since in this case the general exact solutions, for both marginally bound ($`f=0`$) and non-marginally bound ($`f0`$), are known in close form bc . This is unlike the 4D case, where the cooresponding solution is available in parametric form only. Hence, we shall restrict ourselves to the 5D non-marginally bound collapse. Further, the 5D space-time is particularly more relevant because both 10D and 11D supergravity theories yield solutions where a 5D space-time results after dimensional reduction js .

The objective of this paper is to analyze the collapse of an inhomogeneous dust cloud in a 5D self-similar space-time and extend the earlier results gb ; bsc  beyond marginally bound case. We also access the curvature strength of central shell focusing singularities. We find that gravitational collapse of a self-similar 5D space-time gives rise to a strong-curvature shell focusing naked singularity, providing an explicit counter-example to the CCC.

We have used units which fix the speed of light and the gravitational constant via $`8\pi G=c=1`$.

## II Higher Dimensional Tolman-Bondi Models

We start with a brief summary of the 5D spherical symmetric inhomogeneous dust models. The metric for the 5D case, in comoving coordinates, assumes the form:

$$ds^2=e^{\nu (t,r)}dt^2+e^{\lambda (t,r)}dr^2+R^2(t,r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta _1^2+sin^2\theta _1(d\theta _2^2+sin^2\theta _2d\theta _3^2)`$ is the metric of a $`3`$ sphere, $`r`$ is the comoving radial coordinate, $`t`$ is the proper time of freely falling shells, $`R`$ is a function of $`t`$ and $`r`$ with $`R0`$ (equality holds at the origin) bsc . Here

$`e^\nu =1`$ (2)
$`e^\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{R_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}}{1+f(r)}}`$ (3)
where the prime denotes a partial derivative with respect to $`r`$, $`f(r)`$ is an arbitrary function satisfying

$$f(r)>1$$
(4)
and $`R^{}`$ is assumed to be positive, in order to avoid situation where negative mass shells are present ms . The function $`R(t,r)`$ is the solution of

$$\dot{R}^2=\frac{F(r)}{R^2}+f(r)$$
(5)
where the over-dot denotes the partial derivative t. Since in the present discussion we are concerned with collapse, we require that $`\dot{R}(t,r)<0`$. The functions $`F(r)`$ is another arbitrary function and like $`f(r)`$, it also results from the integration of the field equations. The function $`F`$ must be positive, because $`F<0`$ implies the existence of negative mass. This can be seen from the mass function $`m(t,r)`$ ms , which in the 5D Tolman-Bondi case is given by

$$m(t,r)=R^2(1g^{ab}R,_aR,_b)$$
(6)
Using Eqs. (1) and (5), this implies that

$$m(r)=F(r)$$
(7)
Equation (5) has three types of solutions, namely, hyperbolic, parabolic and elliptic solutions, depending on whether $`f(r)>0`$, $`f(r)=0`$ or $`f(r)<0`$, respectively. We note that $`F^{}`$ (as well as F) must be positive because mass-energy density $`ϵ(t,r)`$, which is given by

$$ϵ(t,r)=\frac{3F^{}}{2R^3R^{}}$$
(8)
must be non-negative, and since we have assumed $`R^{}>0`$, it follows that $`F^{}>0`$.

Integration Eq. (5) shows that the evolution of the shell is given by

$$R^2=\left[f[t_c(r)t]^2+2\sqrt{F}[t_c(r)t]\right]$$
(9)
and where $`t_c(r)`$ is a function of integration which represents the time taken by the shell with coordinate $`r`$ to collapse to the center. This is a new exact solution of 5D spherical collapse found, recently, by Banerjee and Chatterjee bc . The solution (9) is not unique. In an earlier paper bsc  a different solution was given. But, main problem with that solution is that one cannot smoothly pass over to marginally bound case when $`f=0`$. The solution (9) has no such disadvantage. Hence we have chosen the solution (9) to study nature of singularities for all cases: $`f>0`$, $`f=0`$ as well as $`f<0`$. The Eq. (5) is also interesting in the sense that in the analogous 4D case the solutions can’t be obtain in close form rn ; dj . The three arbitrary functions $`F(r)`$, $`f(r)`$ and $`t_c(r)`$ completely specify the behavior of shell of radius $`r`$.

It is possible to make an arbitrary relabelling of spherical dust shells by $`rg(r)`$, without loss of generality, we fix the labelling by requiring that, on the hypersurface $`t=0`$, $`r`$ coincides with the radius

$$R(0,r)=r$$
(10)
This corresponds to the following choice of $`t_c(r)`$

$$t_c(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sqrt{F}\sqrt{F+fr^2}}{f},\hfill & f0,\hfill \\ +\frac{r^2}{2\sqrt{F}}\hfill & f=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The time coordinate and radial coordinate are respectively in the ranges $`\mathrm{}<t<t_c(r)`$ and $`0r<\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`\rho (r)`$ be the function given by

$$\rho (r)ϵ(0,r)=\frac{3F^{}}{2r^3}F(r)=\frac{2}{3}\rho (r)r^3𝑑r$$
(12)
Given a regular initial surface, the time for the occurrence of the central shell-focusing singularity for the collapse developing from that surface is reduced as compared to the 5D case for the marginally bound collapse. The reason for this stems from the form of the mass function in Eq. (12). In a ball of radius $`0`$ to $`r`$, for any given initial density profile $`\rho (r)`$, the total mass contained in the ball is greater than in the corresponding 5D case. In the 5D case, the mass function $`F(r)`$ involves the integral $`\rho (r)r^2𝑑r`$ r1 , as compared to the factor $`r^3`$ in the 5D case. Hence, there is relatively more mass-energy collapsing in the space-time as compared to the 5D case, because of the assumed overall positivity of mass-energy (energy condition). This explains why the collapse is faster in the 5D case.

In order to study the collapse of a finite spherical body, we have to match the solution along the time-like surface at some $`r=r_c`$ to the 5D Schwarzschild exterior. The 5D metric (1) can be matched to 5D Schwarzschild metric

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{m_s}{r_s^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{m_s}{r_s^2}\right)^1dr_s^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(13)
on a spherical hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the junction conditions yield $`F=m_s`$ bc . Here $`r_s=R(t,r_c)`$ and $`m_s`$ is the total mass enclosed within the coordinate radius $`r_c`$.

Further, 5D Friedmann solutions corresponds to $`t_c(r)=0`$, and with a suitable coordinate choice for r one can set $`f(r)=kr^2`$, $`R(t,r)=rS(t)`$ and $`F(r)=Ar^4`$ bc . Here $`k`$ and $`A`$ are constants, and $`S(t)`$ is the scale factor.

## III Existence and structure of naked singularities

It has been shown rn  that Shell-crossing singularities (characterized by $`R^{}=0`$ and $`R>0`$) are gravitationally weak and hence such singularities cannot be considered seriously. Hence, we shall confine our discussion to the central shell focusing singularity. The Kretschmann scalar ($`K=R_{abcd}R^{abcd}`$, $`R_{abcd}`$ the Riemann tensor). For the metric (1), it reduces to

$$K=7\frac{F_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}}{R^6R_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}}36\frac{FF^{}}{R^7R^{}}+72\frac{F^2}{R^8}$$
(14)
The Kretschmann scalar and energy density both diverge at $`t=t_c(r)`$ indicating the presence of a scalar polynomial curvature singularity he . It is known that, depending upon the inhomogeneity factor, the 5D Tolman-Bondi solutions admits a central shell focusing naked singularity in the sense that outgoing geodesics emanate from the singularity. Here we wish to investigate the similar situation in our 5D space-time.

The self-similar solutions have attracted considerable attraction in recent decades and they play a crucial role in many cosmological and astrophysical contexts bj . Spherically symmetric self-similar solutions of Einstein equations are characterized by the fact that the space-time possess a homothetic killing vector. This means the solution is unchanged by transformation $`tat`$, $`rar`$ for any constant $`a`$. Thus the self-similarity demands that

$`F(r)=\zeta ^2r^2`$ (15)
$`f(r)=\text{Const.}`$ (16)
$`t_c(r)=Br`$ (17)
The parameter $`B`$ gives the inhomogeneity of the collapse. For $`B=0`$ all shells collapse at the same time. For higher $`B`$ the outer shells collapse much later than the central shell. From Eqs. (11) and (17), we obtain an interesting relation

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{1B^2f}{2B}}`$ (18)
This expression reduces to $`\zeta =1/2B`$ bsc ; gb  when $`f=0`$. We notice that $`\zeta >0`$, and so $`B^2f<1`$. We are interested in the causal structure of the space-time when the central shell collapses to the center ($`R=0`$).

From Eqs. (12) and (15), the energy density at the singularity

$$\rho =\frac{3\zeta ^2}{r^2}$$
(19)
and the equation of general density becomes

$`ϵ=3\zeta ^2y/[t^2[f(By1)^2+2\zeta y(By1)]`$
$`\times [fB(By1)+\zeta (2By1)]]={\displaystyle \frac{C(y)}{t^2}}`$ (20)
where $`y=t/r`$ is usual similarity variable. Note that $`ϵ`$ is singular at $`t=Br`$. The nature (a naked singularity or a black hole) of the singularity can be characterized by the existence of radial null geodesics emerging from the singularity. The singularity is at least locally naked if there exist such geodesics, and if no such geodesics exist, it is a black hole. The critical direction is the Cauchy horizon. This is the first outgoing null geodesic emanating from $`r=t=0`$. The Cauchy horizon of the self-similar space-time has $`y=r/t`$ = const lz ; jl . The equation for outgoing null geodesics is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dr}}={\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{\sqrt{1+f}}}`$ (21)
Hence along the Cauchy horizon, we have

$`y^2R{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1+f`$ (22)
and using Eqs. (22) and (9), with our choice of the scale, we obtain the following algebraic equation:

$`(1+f)\left[f(By1)^2+2\zeta y(By1)\right]`$
$`y^2\left[fB(By1)+\zeta (2By1)\right]^2=0`$ (23)
This algebraic equation governs the behavior of the tangent vector near the singular point. The central shell focusing singularity is at least locally naked, if Eq. (23) admits one or more positive real roots. Hence in the absence of positive real roots, the collapse will always lead to a black hole. Thus, the occurrence of positive real roots implies that the strong CCC is violated, though not necessarily the weak CCC. If Eq. (23) has only one positive root, a single radial null geodesic would escape from the singularity, which amounts to a single wave front being emitted from the singularity and hence singularity would appear to be naked only, for an instant, to an asymptotic observer. A naked singularity forming in gravitational collapse could be physically significant if it is visible for a finite period of time, to an asymptotic observer, i.e., a family of geodesics must escape from the singularity. This happens only when Eq. (23) admits at least two positive real roots r1 . In this paper we are concerned only with such singularities. Hence we shall look for conditions for which Eq. (23) admits at least two positive real roots.

We start from the marginally bound case, which has been analyzed earlier bsc ; gb . We already know what happens and we refer the reader to these papers for details. Setting $`f=0`$, Eq. (23) simplifies to

$$y\zeta ^2(2By1)^2=2\zeta (By1)$$
(24)
To facilitate comparison with the work of Ghosh and Beesham gb , we introduce a new variable $`y=1/X`$ and use the value of $`\zeta `$ and after some rearrangement, Eq. (24) takes the same form as in gb :

$$X^2\left[1\frac{X}{B}\right]=\left[1\frac{1}{2B}X\right]^2$$
(25)
It can be shown that Eq. (25) has two positive roots if $`B>B_c=1.6651`$. This is slightly higher than the analogous value, $`B_c^4=1.56736`$, in 5D. The corresponding Cauchy horizon evolves as $`y=0.78611`$. Thus in 5D one needs higher inhomogeneity to produce naked singularity. For $`B>B_c`$, two solutions exist, the largest $`y`$ gives the Cauchy horizon. Other solution is termed as self-similar horizon jl  (see Table I).

It is seen that Eq. (23) admit two positive roots for $`y`$ when $`\zeta =\zeta _c0.30028`$ and hence referring to our above discussion singularities are naked for $`\zeta (0,\zeta _c`$ and black holes form otherwise. Thus $`\zeta _c`$ is the value of $`\zeta `$ where a transition from naked singularities to black holes occur. The quantity $`\zeta _c`$ is called critical parameter. It is interesting to see that the value of $`\zeta _c`$ decreases in 5D and hence one can say that naked singularity spectrum, of the 4D dust collapse, gets partially covered in 5D. Our results are in agreement with earlier results. A similar situation also occur in higher dimensional radiation collapse ns .

Next we compare the behavior found in the marginally bound ($`f=0`$) case with that found in non-marginally bound case. In order to investigate the changes introduced, at least qualitatively in the above picture when $`f0`$, we have solved (23) numerically and summarize the results in table II. For negative values of $`f`$, there is critical value, $`B_c`$, such that for $`BB_c`$ collapse always leads to a visible singularity and covered otherwise. The numerical results show that for larger (smaller) positive curvature, i.e., for larger(smaller) magnitude of $`f`$ one needs a collapse with higher (lower) inhomogeneity to produce a naked singularity.

Stars are bound objects but an unbound state can occur, e.g., if there is collision of two stars. If $`f>0`$, we observe that collapse lead to a visible singularity for $`B_cBB_u`$, where $`B_u`$ is some upper bound for $`B`$. In this case, there are three solutions (see Table II). Further, it is interesting to note that $`\zeta `$ and $`B_C`$ decreases as we increase the value of $`f`$. Thus for larger (smaller) negative curvature one needs a collapse with lower (higher) inhomogeneity to produce a naked singularity.

Finally, the apparent horizon is formed when the boundary of trapped three spheres are formed. The apparent horizon is the solution of

$$g^{ab}R_{,a}R_{,b}=\dot{R}^2\frac{R_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}}{e^\lambda }$$
(26)
Considering Eqs. (3) and (5), we have the apparent horizon in the interior dust ball lies at $`R^2=F`$. The corresponding time $`t_{\text{ah}}(r)`$ is given by

$$t_{\text{ah}}(r)=t_c(r)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{F}$$
(27)
and because of Eqs. (17), (11) and (27): $`t_{\text{ah}}(r)t_{\text{Cauchy}}(r)<0`$. Thus apparent horizon always appear before the Cauchy horizon has formed and singularity is globally naked. The global nakedness of the singularity can then be seen by making a junction onto 5D Schwarzschild space-time lz ; jl .

### III.1 Strength of Naked Singularity

An important aspect of a singularity is its gravitational strength ft1 . There have been attempts to relate it to stability djd . A singularity is gravitationally strong or simply strong if it destroys by crushing or stretching any object which fall into it. It is widely believed that a space-time does not admit an extension through a singularity if it is a strong curvature singularity in the sense of Tipler ft . Clarke and Królak ck  have shown that a sufficient condition for a strong curvature singularity as defined by Tipler ft  is that for at least one non-space like geodesic with affine parameter $`k`$, in the limiting approach to the singularity, we must have

$$\underset{k0}{lim}k^2\psi =\underset{k0}{lim}k^2R_{ab}K^aK^b>0$$
(28)
where $`R_{ab}`$ is the Ricci tensor. Our purpose here is to investigate the above condition along future directed radial null geodesics, which emanate from the naked singularity. Now $`k^2\psi `$, with the help of Einstein equations and Eq. (20) can be expressed as

$$k^2\psi =C\left[\frac{k}{t}\frac{dt}{dk}\right]^2$$
(29)
Clearly the null geodesic equations for Cauchy horizon give $`t=k^\alpha `$ lz . We find that

$$\underset{k0}{lim}k^2\psi =C_0\alpha ^2>0$$
(30)
where $`limC=C_0`$. Thus, along Cauchy horizon, the strong curvature condition is satisfied.

## IV Concluding remarks

The Tolman-Bondi metric has been widely used, in 4D case, to understand the final fate of gravitational collapse. It has been found that both naked singularities and black holes form depending upon the choice of initial data. Indeed, one can safely assert that end state of 4D Tolman-Bondi collapse is now completely known in dependence of choice of initial data. In the absence of the proof of either version of CCC, it was used as tool to get insights in to more general gravitational collapse situations. In this paper we have investigated the influence of extra dimensions on Tolman-Bondi dust collapse. The occurrence and curvature strength of a shell focusing naked singularity in a 5D self-similar spherically symmetric collapse of a dust cloud has been investigated. We found that the scenario changes in many ways. The extra dimensions is a shrinkage of the naked singularity initial data space, or an enlargement of the black hole initial data space of 4D Tolman-Bondi collapse. We found that naked singularities in our case develop for a slightly higher value of the inhomogeneity parameter in comparison to the analogous situation in the 4D case. Thus the presence of an extra dimension does alter the established picture of 4D Tolman-Bondi collapse, but cannot completely cover the naked singularities. Further, Along the null ray emanating from the naked singularity, the strong curvature condition (28) is satisfied. The formation of these naked singularities violates the CCC.

The crucial issue associated with naked singularities is the question of their stability. The main point is that if naked singularities are not stable or generic in some suitable sense, then they may not be physically realizable. However, the problem is that we do not have well defined criteria of stability. Under such circumstances, one can consider a perturbation of currently available collapse scenarios and examine if the singularity still persists or gets covered. It is worth noting that, by introduction of extra dimensions, there exist a set of nonzero measure of values of $`\zeta `$ for which strong curvature naked singularities develop, and the CCC is violated. Thus presence of extra dimensions do not remove naked singularity of 4D Tolman-Bondi collapse. As a result, one can say that the naked singularity of 4D Tolman-Bondi collapse is stable to the introduction extra dimension.

The exact analysis discussed, for non-marginally bound case, is specialized for the 5D Tolman-Bondi models and can’t be done even in analogous 4D case.

In conclusion, we have studied the development of a strong curvature naked singularity in 5D Tolman-Bondi collapse that violates the strong CCC. The Kretschmann scalar diverges in the approach to the singularity. Thus the naked singularity in 5D Tolman-Bondi collapse could be considered as a physically significant curvature singularity.

###### Acknowledgements.

Authors would like to thank IUCAA, Pune for a visit under a ssociate-ship programme where this work was done.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative spacetimes are studied for various reasons, one of them being the Gedankenexperiment that Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation along with the laws of classical gravity leads to a restriction as to the best possible localization of an event in spacetime. The idea is that the simultaneous measurement of two or more spacetime directions with an arbitrarily high precision would require an arbitrarily high energy which in the end would result in forming a horizon, cf. for instance . Another motiviation is based on string theory .

The mathematical model on which our analysis is founded was defined in , where continuous spacetime is replaced by a noncommutative \*-algebra $``$ generated111To be exact, I should mention that the noncommutative coordinates are merely affiliated to the noncommutative algebra in the sense of Woronowicz, but in this talk I shall skip all technical details. See . by Hermitean noncommutative coordinate-operators $`q_0,\mathrm{},q_3`$ with $`[q^\mu ,q^\nu ]=iQ^{\mu \nu }`$ subject to “quantum conditions”,

$$Q_{\mu \nu }Q^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\left(\frac{1}{4}Q_{\mu \nu }Q_{\rho \sigma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\right)^2=\lambda _P^8I,[q_\rho ,Q_{\mu \nu }]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _P`$ is the Planck length. The quantum conditions are Poincaré invariant, and entail that for any state $`\omega `$ in the domain of the $`[q_\mu ,q_\nu ]`$, the uncertainties $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega q_\mu =\sqrt{\omega \left(q_\mu ^2\right)\omega \left(q_\mu \right)^2}`$ fulfill the following space-time uncertainty relations ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q_0\left(\mathrm{\Delta }q_1+\mathrm{\Delta }q_2+\mathrm{\Delta }q_3\right)\lambda _P^2,\mathrm{\Delta }q_1\mathrm{\Delta }q_2+\mathrm{\Delta }q_1\mathrm{\Delta }q_3+\mathrm{\Delta }q_2\mathrm{\Delta }q_3\lambda _P^2$$
(2)
Note that while it is obvious that for spacelike noncommutativity the first of the above uncertainty relations is trivial, it is not clear whether for lightlike noncommutativity , where $`Q_{\mu \nu }Q^{\mu \nu }=Q_{\mu \nu }Q_{\rho \sigma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, such uncertainty relations hold at all, since in the above framework both right hand sides would be zero, cf. \[2, p.199\].

The regular realizations of the quantum conditions lead to the Weyl-Wigner calculus of ordinary quantum mechanics. In particular, the product in $``$ is given by the twisted convolution,

$$f\left(q\right)g\left(q\right)=d^4kd^4l\stackrel{ˇ}{f}\left(k\right)\stackrel{ˇ}{g}\left(l\right)e^{\frac{i}{2}kQl}e^{i\left(k_\mu +l_\mu \right)q^\mu }=d^4ke^{ik_\mu q^\mu }\left(fg\right)\stackrel{ˇ}{}\left(k\right)$$
(3)
with $`fL^1\left(^4\right)`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}=^1f`$, where $``$ is the ordinary Fouriertransform, and

$$fg\left(x\right)=𝑑x_1𝑑x_2e^{2i\left(xx_1\right)Q^1\left(x_2x\right)}f\left(x_1\right)g\left(x_2\right)$$
(4)
In the literature (3) is often thought of as being defined by the inverse Fourier transform of the Moyal star product instead of the product (4).

It should also be stressed that in the approach followed here, $`Q`$ is not a fixed matrix, but that by the quantum conditions, the joint spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the operators $`Q_{\mu \nu }`$ is homeomorphic to the non-compact manifold $`TS^2\times \{1,1\}`$ and that $``$ is a trivial bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The full Poincaré group acts as automorphisms on $``$, and derivatives may be defined as the infinitesimal generators of translations. Note also that the evaluation in a point $`f\left(q\right)f\left(a\right)`$ is not a positive functional on $``$. For all details see .

## 2 Perturbation Theory

In  the free field on $``$ was formally defined as

$$\varphi \left(q\right):=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{2k_0}\left(a\left(k\right)e^{ikq}+a^{}\left(k\right)e^{ikq}\right)|_{k_0=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2}}=d^4k\stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }\left(k\right)e^{ikq}$$
(5)
where $`\varphi \left(q+x\right):=U\left(x\right)\varphi \left(q\right)U\left(x\right)^1`$ is to be understood as an operator valued distribution, $`f𝑑xf\left(x\right)\varphi \left(q+x\right)`$. From (3) we deduce that products of fields are nonlocal, rendering the perturbative definition of an interacting quantum field theory difficult, since it is for instance far from obvious how the time ordering or time-zero fields should be defined. Moreover, no equivalent of Osterwalder-Schrader-positivity has yet been proved, and it is unclear how a Euclidean version of the theory could be related to a quantum field theory in the Minkowski regime.222In fact, since I gave this talk, we have found that the Euclidean approach and the one on Minkowski space cannot be easily related as certain tadpoles which are finite in the Euclidean regime cease to be so on Minkowski space. Let us now consider the so-called modified Feynman rules  as one possible approach to treating interactions on noncommutative spacetimes.

### 2.1 Modified Feynman rules

Starting point of this approach is the action functional

$$S\left[\varphi \right]=d^4q\left(_0\left(q\right)+\lambda \varphi \left(q\right)^n\right)=d^4x\left(_0\left(x\right)+\lambda \underset{n}{\underset{}{\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi }}\left(x\right)\right)$$
(6)
where $`d^4q`$ is the trace on $``$. In the literature, the twisted convolution (or the Moyal star product) is often taken at a particular point $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and thereby Lorentz invariance is broken explicitely.

Since $`d^4qf\left(q\right)g\left(q\right)=d^4xfg\left(x\right)`$, the free action is the same as in ordinary quantum field theory, whereas the interaction is nonlocal, and given by

$$\lambda d^4k_1\mathrm{}d^4k_n\widehat{\varphi }\left(k_1\right)\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }\left(k_n\right)e^{\frac{i}{2}\underset{i<j}{}k_i\sigma k_j}\delta ^{\left(4\right)}\left(k_i\right)$$
(7)
It is therefore tempting to assume that the ordinary perturbative setup can be used, where Feynman propagators serve as internal lines. The nonlocality of the interaction is then taken into account by simply adding adequate twisting factors $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}_{i<j}k_i\sigma k_j\right)`$ at the vertices.

Unfortunately, as was shown in , this setup leads to a violation of unitarity, since in $`\varphi ^3`$-selfinteracting theory at second order perturbation theory the optical theorem does not hold, i.e. $`2`$ Im  $``$ $`|`$  $`|^2`$, unless spacelike or lightlike noncommutativity is assumed.

In  we have linked this phenomenon to the definition of time-ordering by comparing the modified Feynman rules with two alternative approaches which independently of the chosen quantum conditions do not entail a violation of unitarity.

### 2.2 Hamiltonian approach

The first of these approaches was already given in  and is based on the introduction of a Hamiltonian,

$$H\left(t\right)=\underset{q_0=t}{}d^3\stackrel{}{q}\left(q\right)=\underset{x_0=t}{}d^3\stackrel{}{x}\left(_0\left(x\right)+_I\left(x\right)\right)$$
(8)
where $`_{q_0=t}d^3\stackrel{}{q}`$ is defined as a positive weight on $``$, $`_0\left(x\right)`$ is the ordinary free Hamiltonian and the interaction Hamiltonian is given in terms of the twisted convolution, $`_I\left(x\right)=\lambda :\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi \left(x\right):`$. As in ordinary field theory, the corresponding $`S`$-Matrix is then defined as a formal power series in the coupling constant,

$$S=I+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(i\right)^r}{r!}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_r\text{T}H\left(t_1\right)\mathrm{}H\left(t_r\right)$$
(9)
where the time ordering $`\text{T}H\left(t_1\right)\mathrm{}H\left(t_r\right)`$ is defined with respect to the parameter times $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_r`$, and therefore separated from the nonlocal products. Since the Hamiltonian is symmetric, i.e. $`H\left(t\right)^{}=H\left(t\right)`$, the $`S`$-matrix is obviously unitary (up to possible violations arising in the renormalization procedure).

The explicit difference between this approach and the modified Feynman rules was sketched in . For instance, at second order in $`\varphi ^3`$-interaction, the Hamiltonian approach would yield the following contribution to the $`S`$-matrix,

$`{\displaystyle }dt_1dt_2\theta (t_1t_2){\displaystyle \underset{x_0=t_1}{}}d^3\stackrel{}{x}{\displaystyle \underset{y_0=t_2}{}}d^3\stackrel{}{y}:\varphi \left(x\right)^3::\varphi \left(y\right)^3:`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }dt_1dt_2\theta (t_2t_1){\displaystyle \underset{y_0=t_2}{}}d^3\stackrel{}{y}{\displaystyle \underset{x_0=t_1}{}}d^3\stackrel{}{x}:\varphi \left(y\right)^3::\varphi \left(x\right)^3:`$ (11)
with the Heaviside function $`\theta `$. In order to calculate expectation values of the above explicitely, we apply the Wick theorem and pick up all possible contractions, using ordinary formulas such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }\left(k_1\right)\stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }\left(k_2\right)\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(2\pi \right)^4\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+\left(k_2\right)\delta \left(k_1+k_2\right)`$. One immediately finds that some contractions will involve only pointwise products, while some will involve twisted convolutions. The former are referred to as planar contributions while the latter are called nonplanar.

The important observation then is that contrary to the assumption made in the context of the modified Feynman rules we do not have Feynman propagators in terms which involve twistings. For instance, we find the following nonplanar contribution to the fish graph: $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_+\mathrm{\Delta }_++\left(1\theta \right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ where the symbol $``$ is used instead of $``$ to indicate that the twisted convolution is to be taken with respect to $`2Q`$. While the corresponding planar graph $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_+^2+\left(1\theta \right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2`$ indeed yields the square of the Feynman propagator, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F^2`$, this is not the case for the nonplanar contribution,

$$\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_+\mathrm{\Delta }_++\left(1\theta \right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_F\mathrm{\Delta }_F$$
(12)
unless the Heaviside function $`\theta `$ may pass the twisted convolution, in the sense that $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm \theta \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$. This is not generally true, but may be done only in the case of spacelike or lightlike noncommutativity. In these cases, the assumption that Feynman propagators serve as internal lines is compatible with the requirement that the theory be unitary . For additional explicit calculations in this framework see .

### 2.3 Yang Feldman equation

A covariant approach to perturbation theory on the noncommutative Minkowski space was given in . It is based on the field equation and results in a direct perturbative definition of the interacting field . As early as 1952 this approach was already used in the analysis of nonlocal field theories . The idea is to solve the field equation

$$\left(\mathrm{}+m^2\right)\varphi \left(q\right)=\lambda \varphi \left(q\right)^{n1}$$
(13)
perturbatively by

$$\varphi \left(q\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^k\varphi _k\left(q\right)$$
(14)
Identifying $`\varphi _0\left(q\right)`$ with the incoming field $`\varphi _{in}\left(q\right)`$, we have at $`k`$-th order

$$\varphi _k\left(q\right)=𝑑y\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(y\right)\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}k_{n1}=k1}{}\varphi _{k_1}\left(qy\right)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_{n1}}\left(qy\right)$$
(15)
with ordinary retarded propagators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}`$. As in the Hamiltonian approach, the time ordering is thus separated from the nonlocal products. The graph theory of the above construction is given by rooted trees with $`n1`$ branches at each vertex and with retarded propagators connecting different vertices. Unitarity in this context means that the interacting field must be Hermitean, which it obviously is if we assume that the incoming field is Hermitean.

As an explicit example let us again consider $`\varphi ^3`$-theory, where we have only 2 branches at each vertex, such that at first order, the interacting field is

$$\varphi _1\left(q\right)=𝑑y\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(y\right)\varphi _0\left(qy\right)\varphi _0\left(qy\right)\text{}$$
(16)
and at second order,

$`\varphi _2\left(q\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(y\right)\left(\varphi _0\left(qy\right)\varphi _1\left(qy\right)+\varphi _1\left(qy\right)\varphi _0\left(qy\right)\right)}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dy\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(y\right){\displaystyle }dz\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(z\right)(\varphi _0(qy)\varphi _0(qyz)\varphi _0(qyz)`$ (19)
$`+\varphi _0(qyz)\varphi _0(qyz)\varphi _0(qy))`$
$`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}`$ (20)
Again, loop graphs appear when products of fields are Wick-ordered. On the ordinary Minkowski spacetime, these graphs are known as Dyson’s double graphs, since they involve both retarded propagators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}`$ as well as propagators $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\left(1\right)}:=\mathrm{\Delta }_++\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. On a noncommutative spacetime they cease to be equivalent to Feynman graphs. As an example consider again the fish graph which may in terms of the twisted convolution be written as

$`{\displaystyle }d^4ke^{ikq}{\displaystyle }d^4xe^{ikx}`$ (22)
$`({\displaystyle }dy\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(y\right){\displaystyle }dz(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(z\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\mathrm{\Delta }_+\left(z\right))\varphi _0(xyz)`$
$`+{\displaystyle }dy\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(y\right){\displaystyle }dz(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(z\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\mathrm{\Delta }_+\left(z\right))\varphi _0(xyz))`$
$`=`$ $`\text{}\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$ (23)
Thus we have again found a planar and a nonplanar contribution. And while in the planar contribution the time ordering from the retarded propagator may be absorbed into a Feynman propagator,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_++\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)=i\mathrm{\Delta }_F^2+i\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2$$
(24)
this is not the case for the nonplanar contribution, where an additional product of retarded and advanced propagators appears,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\mathrm{\Delta }_++\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Delta }_F\mathrm{\Delta }_F+i\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_{ret}\mathrm{\Delta }_{av}`$ (25)
Precisely this term, which is not present in the context of the modified Feynman rules, is needed to render the theory unitary . It is absent if spacelike or lightlike noncommutativity is assumed, since then $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\theta \right)\mathrm{\Delta }=\theta \left(1\theta \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. We may thus conclude again that only in these special cases, unitarity is compatible with the assumption that the time ordering may be absorbed in Feynman propagators alone, while the Yang-Feldman approach always renders a unitary theory.

## 3 Outlook

In the above discussion I have not stated what the correct definition of the Wick product of fields should be. But since some tadpoles remain finite on noncommutative spacetimes , we should expect them to be different from those appearing in the ordinary case.

As an example let us consider a $`3`$-fold product of fields. In ordinary quantum field theory, all tadpoles would be infinite, and the Wick product defined as

$`:\varphi \left(x_1\right)\varphi \left(x_2\right)\varphi \left(x_3\right):`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \left(x_1\right)\varphi \left(x_2\right)\varphi \left(x_3\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_+\left(x_1x_2\right)\varphi \left(x_3\right)`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+\left(x_1x_3\right)\varphi \left(x_2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_+\left(x_2x_3\right)\varphi \left(x_1\right)`$
would be well-defined at coinciding points. However, on a noncommutative spacetime, where we are interested in products such as

$$\varphi \left(q+x_1\right)\varphi \left(q+x_2\right)\varphi \left(q+x_3\right)$$
(28)
the subtraction corresponding to the first term in (27) yields the following nonplanar expression,

$$𝑑k\mathrm{\Delta }_+\left(x_1x_3Qk\right)\stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }\left(k\right)e^{ik\left(q+x_2\right)}$$
(29)
which remains well-defined at coinciding points $`x_i=x`$ and therefore does not need to be subtracted. Moreover, it is nonlocal in the sense that it cannot be written as a product of a distribution and a field, and therefore, it should not be subtracted. The precise definition of Wick products where only infinite, and (in the sense suggested above) local terms are subtracted, as well as the proof of the adequate Wick theorem are part of our current research. We hope to be able to shortly produce our results on these questions as well as comment on the surprising consequences for the so-called ultraviolet/infrared mixing problem .


text:
# EUV excess in the inner Virgo cluster

## 1 Introduction

Observations with the EUVE satellite (Bowyer & Malina euve (1991)) have provided evidence that a number of clusters of galaxies produce intense EUV emission, substantially in excess of the low-energy tail expected from the X-ray emission by the hot, diffuse ICM at temperature of a few keV. EUV excesses have been reported for Virgo (Lieu et al. 1996a ), Coma (Lieu et al. 1996b ), A1795 (Mittaz, Lieu & Lockman a1795 (1998)), A2199 galaxy clusters (Lieu, Bonamente & Mittaz a2199 (1999)), A4038 (Bowyer, Lieu & Mittaz blm98 (1998)) and A4059 (Durret et al. dsldb (2002)). However, although there is no doubt about the detection of the EUV excess emission for Virgo and Coma clusters, considerable controversy still exists for the other clusters since EUVE results are affected by the variation of the telescope sensitivity over the field of view and depend also on subtraction of background signals that do not come from the cluster (see Berghöfer & Bowyer bb2002 (2002) and Durret et al. dsldb (2002)).

The initial explanation for the EUV excess emission was that it is produced by a warm ($`T10^6`$ K) gas component of the ICM (Lieu et al. 1996b ). For Virgo and Coma clusters, Bonamente, Lieu & Mittaz (blm2001 (2001)) have proposed that HI cold clouds might have, at least in part, been released in the intergalactic space by ram pressure stripping. In this framework, warm gas can be generated at the interface between the cold phase (HI clouds) and the hot ICM, e.g. by the mixing layer mechanism (Fabian f97 (1997)). The resulting scenario is then a three phase gas model, where the hot and warm gas components are responsible for the bulk of X-ray emission and the soft excess emission, respectively, while the cold component accounts for X-ray absorption (Buote b2001 (2001)).

Models invoking the presence in galaxy clusters of the warm gas component have problems since they refer to unrelaxed or turbulent gas conditions: the longevity of such multiphase gas would then require the presence of a heat source to carefully balance the radiative cooling, but no obvious heating mechanisms have been found (Fabian f96 (1996)). Indeed, it is difficult for a warm intracluster gas to remain for a long time at $`10^6`$K since at this temperature the cooling function for a gas with solar chemical composition has a value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }2\times 10^{22}`$ erg cm3 s-1 (Saito & Shigeyama ss (1999)) implying for the M87 galaxy warm gas component with metallicity $`Z0.20.3Z_{}`$ (Gastaldello & Molendi molendi (2002)) and mean number density $`n10^3`$ cm-3 (Bonamente, Lieu & Mittaz blm2001 (2001)) a cooling time of about 150 Myr.

Although strong evidence for cooling flows has been found in low-resolution X-ray imaging and spectra, high-resolution observations with the Reflection Grating Spectrometer on the XMM-Newton satellite show inconsistencies with the simple cooling flow models. The main problem is the lack of the emission lines expected from gas cooling below $`12`$ keV 111Several solutions to this problem have been investigated, such as heating, mixing, differential absorption and inhomogeneous metallicity (Fabianet al. fmnp2001 (2001)), but each of these hypotheses still remain under debate (Molendi & Pizzolato mp2001 (2001)). In particular, in the case of the Virgo cluster, a multiphase gas model gives a better description of the available data than a single temperature model only if it is not characterized by a broad temperature distribution, but by a narrow one (Molendi & Pizzolato mp2001 (2001)). In the Virgo core (up to a radius $`10^{}`$), the gas temperature ranges between 1 keV and 2 keV, so that the gas is not cold enough to justify the observed EUV emission.. Indeed, observations with both the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (Dixon, Hurwitz & Ferguson dhf96 (1996)) and FUSE (Dixonet al. 2001a ; 2001b ) found no significant far-UV line emission from gas at $`10^6`$ K. 222For the M87 galaxy Dixon, Hurwitz & Ferguson (dhf96 (1996)) found upper limits to far-UV dereddened line emission of $`4.84\times 10^6`$ erg cm-2 s-1 sr-1 for the $`O_{VI}`$ line and $`3.64\times 10^6`$ erg cm-2 s-1 sr-1 for the $`C_{IV}`$ line. The absence of a significant far-UV line emission, which is expected from a warm gas component, is also confirmed by FUSE observations not only for Virgo but also for the Coma cluster (Dixon et al. 2001b ). Also the observation of a large number of clusters by the XMM-Newton satellite (Tamura et al. tamura2001 (2001, 2002)) detected no warm gas component. All these pieces of evidence seem overwhelming in the sense that a thermal mechanism for the EUV excess can be ruled out.

Therefore, other mechanisms must be investigated as the source of the EUV excess emission in clusters of galaxies. Indeed, Inverse Compton (IC) scattering of Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) photons by relativistic electrons present in the ICM was proposed to explain the EUV excess in the case of the Coma Cluster (Hwang hwang (1997), Ensslin & Biermann biermann98 (1998), Ensslin, Lieu & Biermann elb99 (1999)).

Here, we will examine in detail the case of Virgo cluster, referring in particular to the results of a re-analysis of archival EUVE data for the central region of the cluster performed by Berghöfer, Bowyer & Korpela (2000a ).

In Fig. 2 of the above cited paper, the azimuthally averaged radial intensity profile of the background-subtracted EUV emission in the central region of the Virgo cluster (centered in the M87 galaxy) is given, as well as the contribution of the low-energy tail of the X-ray emitting hot ICM. Comparison between the two curves shows the presence of a diffuse EUV excess which extends up to a radius of $`13^{}`$ (corresponding to $`65`$ kpc, for an assumed M87 distance $`D=17`$ Mpc), in the M87 halo region 333 The initial analysis of the same data claimed to have detected EUV excess emission up to a distance of $`20^{}`$ (Lieu et al. 1996a )..

The aim of the present paper is to show that IC scattering of CBR and starlight photons by a population (hereafter denoted as Population I) of mildly relativistic electrons with energy up to a few hundred MeV is able to account for the EUV excess emission observed from the central region of the Virgo cluster, centered in M87 galaxy. As we will see in Section 2, Population I electrons have to be described by a power law energy spectrum with an energy cut-off at $`E_c250`$ MeV (or slightly above) in order to avoid both a hard, non thermal, X-ray excess (due to IC scattering of CBR photons) with respect to the upper limit of $`4\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the 2-10 keV energy band, set by observations (Reynolds et al. rhfb (1999)) and over-production of radio waves by synchrotron emission (Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000)).

The existence in the M87 galaxy of a highly relativistic electron population (which we refer to as Population II) is well demonstrated by the observations of large-scale radio emission in the 10 MHz - 100 GHz band (Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000)). This radio emission is generally interpreted as synchrotron radiation produced by relativistic electrons interacting with the halo magnetic field. To b exact, taking a value $`B2.5\mu `$G as typical for the M87 halo magnetic field, one gets an electron energy range $`1170`$ GeV. Population II electrons have to be described with a power law energy spectrum with slope $`\alpha _e=2.68`$ in order to fit the observed radio power law spectrum $`\alpha _R=0.84`$. Electrons belonging to the same Population II, but with energy in the range $`0.71.7`$ GeV, also could give rise to a hard, non thermal X-ray emission in the 2 - 10 keV region (through IC scattering of CBR photons), but the resulting power is always negligible with respect to the upper limit quoted by Reynolds et al. (rhfb (1999)).

Regarding the origin of Population I and II electrons, it is well known that the main source of non-thermal energy in the M87 galaxy is the active nucleus and jet. The current bolometric luminosity of the inner active region is $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1 \- mainly emitted in the radio band (Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000)) - although the kinetic power in the jet (which matches with the nuclear power for accretion at the Bondi rate) is $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1 (Di Matteo et al. dimatteo (2002)). This is believed to be a lower limit for the total power available for particle acceleration, since the central engine would have had a cyclic activity with time scale of the order of 100-200 Myr and today be in a quiescent phase (Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000); Corbin, O’Neil & Rieke cor (2002)). Therefore, simple lifetime considerations indicate that the available current energy content is at least $`10^{60}`$ erg. On the other hand, in the past, the M87 galaxy could have undergone a merging which would have made available a further energy budget (as suggested for the Coma cluster by Blasi blasi (2000)). This energy budget could be stored by accelerated protons that, being long-lived in the intergalactic medium (with lifetimes of the order of a Hubble time) could be confined in the galaxy and then released part of their energy to electrons by Coulomb and/or hadronic interactions (see e.g. Ensslin ensslin2002 (2002)) or by shock waves in plasma turbulence.

The observed radio luminosity requires that the power emitted by Population II electrons is $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1. Since the cooling time of these electrons is dominated by synchrotron losses with a time scale of $`10^{15}`$ s, one gets a Population II energy budget of $`10^{57}`$ erg, much less than the current available energy content. This implies that most of the total energy made available by the M87 nucleus could be stored in Population I electrons. If these electrons are responsible for the EUV excess emission by IC scattering of CBR and starlight photons, their power is about $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1, which multiplied by the IC cooling time $`10^{17}`$ s, gives a Population I energy content close to that available.

As far as the electron acceleration mechanism is concerned, it is expected that Population II electrons have been directly accelerated in the active nucleus and jet with high Lorentz factors. Indeed, the two lobes in the observed radio map trace on a large-scale the jet injection, keeping initially the direction of collimated outflows from the core. Further diffusion by magnetic field inhomogeneities may give rise to a diffuse Population II component responsible for the overall radio emission. It is also known that the active nucleus and jet in the M87 inner region are responsible for inflating bubbles of accelerated cosmic rays which rise through the cooling gas at roughly half the sound speed (Churazov et al. cbkbf (2001)). Shock acceleration at the bubble boundaries could give rise to Population I electrons.

Finally we note that the existence for Population I electrons of an energy cutoff at $`E_c`$ 250 MeV may be justified by considering that a time evolution for power-law spectrum injected electrons is expected as a consequence of transport, diffusion and cooling effects (see Petrosian petrosian (2001) for a detailed analysis for the Coma cluster).

In Section 2 we calculate the EUV source function for the IC scattering by relativistic electrons on CBR and starlight photons and the expected EUV excess radial profile towards the M87 galaxy. In Section 3 we present our model results and address some conclusions.

## 2 Inverse Compton Scattering

As stated in the Introduction, we assume that Population I electrons account for the large-scale EUV excess in M87 galaxy through IC scattering of CBR and starlight photons. As far as the electron spatial distribution is concerned, despite evidence of granularity in the EUV excess map of M87 (Fig. 5 in Berghöfer, Bowyer & Korpela 2000a ), here we adopt for simplicity a continuous radial profile as representative of an azimuthally averaged radial distribution of the observed structures. Therefore, the electron density distribution $`n_e(E_e,r)`$ as a function of the electron energy $`E_e`$ and the radial coordinate $`r`$, in units of $`\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{eV}^1`$, is

$$n_e(E_e,r)=\frac{K_I}{\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_e}}\right)^2\right]^{3\beta /2}}g(E_e),$$
(1)
where

$$g(E_e)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\frac{E_e}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{\alpha _e}\mathrm{for}E_e<E_c\hfill & \\ & \\ \left(\frac{E_e}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{\alpha _e}e^{(E_eE_c)/E_s}\mathrm{for}E_e>E_c,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
so that the integral number density in the energy band $`E_1E_2`$ can be calculated as

$$N_e(r)=_{E_1}^{E_2}n_e(E_e,r)𝑑E_e.$$
(3)
Free parameters in eqs. (1) and (2) are the constant $`K_I`$, the core radius $`r_e`$, the exponent $`\beta `$ of the radial dependence, the electron spectral index $`\alpha _e`$, the energy cutoff ($`E_c`$) and scale ($`E_s`$) parameters which, in order to avoid over production of hard X-rays and radio waves, turn out to be $`E_c250`$ MeV and $`E_s125`$ MeV, respectively. The remaining parameters have to be determined in order to fit the observed EUV excess radial profile in the energy band $`50200`$ eV. To this end we make use of the well-known relation giving the IC scattered photon energy (see e. g. Lang lang (1974))

$$E_\gamma =\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{E_e}{mc^2}\right)^2<E_{ph}>$$
(4)
in terms of the average energy $`<E_{ph}>8/3`$KTph of target photons when a black body spectral distribution (at temperature $`T_{ph}`$) is assumed.

In our model the target photons are supplied by the CBR and Starlight (S) photons, with temperature $`T_{CBR}2.7`$ K and $`T_S4400`$ K, 444 The temperature $`T_S`$ associated with the starlight black body component can be directly obtained from the photometry observations (see e.g. Marcum et al. mof (2001)) towards the M87 galaxy. From these observations we derive that the absolute magnitudes in the B and V bands are $`M_B=21.15\pm 0.07`$ and $`M_V=22.08\pm 0.05`$, respectively. Consequently, the starlight black body temperature turns out to be
$$T_S=\frac{7200\mathrm{K}}{C_{BV}+0.68}$$
(5)  where $`C_{BV}=M_BM_V=0.94\pm 0.09`$ is the M87 color index.  respectively. According to eq. (4), Population I electrons in the energy bands $`125250`$ MeV and $`310`$ MeV are involved in order to scatter the CBR and starlight photons, respectively, into the EUV energy range $`50200`$ eV.

The source function for EUV photon production through IC scattering is given by (Lang lang (1974)), in units of $`\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{eV}^1`$, as

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q_{IC}(E_\gamma ,r)=\frac{c\sigma _T}{2}\left(\frac{mc^2}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{1\alpha _e}\left(\frac{4}{3}\frac{<E_{ph}>}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _e1}{2}}\times \hfill & \\ & \\ N_{ph}(r)\frac{K_I}{\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_e}\right)^2\right]^{3\beta /2}}\times \left(\frac{E_\gamma }{\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _e+1}{2}},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`N_{ph}(r)`$ is the target photon number density profile, indicated as $`N_{CBR}`$ and $`N_S(r)`$ for CBR and starlight photons, respectively. Note that for $`E_\gamma <200`$ eV (corresponding to $`E_e<E_c`$) the source function $`Q_{IC}(E_\gamma ,r)`$ shows a power law spectrum with slope $`\alpha _{EUV}=(\alpha _e+1)/2`$.

As far as the average background photon density $`N_{ph}(r)`$ in eq. (6) is concerned, in the case of CBR photons it is clearly constant ($`N_{CBR}400`$ cm-3) within the M87 galaxy, whereas for starlight photons it is obtained by the relation

$$N_S(r)=\frac{J_S(r)}{<E_S>c},$$
(7)
in which the starlight energy flux $`J_S(r)`$, in units of $`\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$, is obtained from the integration of the local emissivity $`_S(r^{})`$ on the M87 volume

$$J_S(r)=_V𝑑V\frac{_S(r^{})}{4\pi |rr^{}|^2}.$$
(8)
We describe the local emissivity by the law (Binney and Tremaine bt (1987))

$$_S(r)=\frac{_S(0)}{[1+(r/r_S)^2]^{3/2}},$$
(9)
which implies that the M87 starlight luminosity profile at impact parameter $`b`$ is given by the modified Hubble profile

$$I_S(b)=\frac{I_S(0)}{[1+(b/r_S)^2]}.$$
(10)
In the previous two equations the relation $`_S(0)=I_S(0)/(2r_S)`$ holds; moreover $`I_S(0)`$ is connected to the total luminosity through the relation

$$I_S(0)=\frac{L_S}{\pi r_S^2\mathrm{log}[1+(R_{M87}/r_S)^2]}.$$
(11)
Therefore, the whole photon density profile $`N_S(r)`$ due to starlight is specified once the total luminosity $`L_S`$ and the optical core radius $`r_S`$ are given. According to Tenjes, Einasto & Haud (teh (1991)) and Zeilinger, Møller & Stiavelli (zms93 (1993)), we take $`L_S=1.07\times 10^{11}L_{}`$ and $`r_S566`$ pc, respectively. For definiteness we have taken the M87 galaxy size to be $`R_{M87}100`$ kpc, although our model results depend weakly on the chosen value.

At this point we are ready to estimate the expected EUV excess radial profile in the M87 galaxy. By integrating the source function given in eq. (6) along the line of sight at impact parameter $`b`$ (neglecting internal absorption in M87), we get the surface brightness profile (in units of $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{eV}^1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{IC}(E_\gamma ,b)=2_0^{\sqrt{R_{M87}^2b^2}}\frac{Q_{IC}(E_\gamma ,r)r}{\sqrt{r^2b^2}}𝑑r.$$
(12)
Correspondingly, the total power emitted in the energy band $`E_1E_2`$ reads

$$L_{IC}=2\pi _0^{R_{M87}}𝑑bb_{E_1}^{E_2}𝑑E_\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }_{IC}(E_\gamma ,b)E_\gamma .$$
(13)
The photon number count, in units of $`\mathrm{arcmin}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, expected to be measured by the Deep Survey telescope aboard the EUVE satellite as a function of the angular radius $`\theta b/D`$ results to be

$$𝒩_{EUV}(\theta )=_{E_1}^{E_2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{IC}(E_\gamma ,\theta D)e^{\tau (E_\gamma )}A_e(E_\gamma )𝑑E_\gamma ,$$
(14)
where $`[E_1E_2][50200]`$ eV is the sensibility energy range of the DS instrument and $`A_e(E_\gamma )`$ its effective area given in Bowyer et al. (aeff (1994)). In eq. (14) we also take into account the galactic absorption through the optical depth $`\tau (E_\gamma )=N_H\sigma (E_\gamma )`$, $`N_H=1.7\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 being the Milky Way column density towards M87 (Hartman & Burton hb97 (1997)) and $`\sigma (E_\gamma )=[11\sigma _{\gamma H}(E_\gamma )+\sigma _{\gamma He}(E_\gamma )]/12`$ is accounting for both the cross section of $`\gamma H`$ and $`\gamma He`$ interaction, as parameterized by Morrison & McCammon (mmc83 (1983)) and Yan, Sadeghpour & Dalgarno (ysd98 (1998)), respectively.

## 3 Results and conclusions

Following the formalism discussed in Section 2, we fit the available EUV excess data towards the M87 galaxy. For this purpose, experimental points (given with the respective error bars in Fig. 1) are derived from those given in Fig. 2 in Berghöfer, Bowyer & Korpela (2000a ), by subtracting the contribution of the low-energy tail due to the X-ray emitting ICM.

Preliminarily, we have fitted the M87 observed EUV excess by considering only the IC scattering of Population I electrons on CBR photons (Model I, with 11 d.o.f.). In this way, we obtain a poor fit with $`\chi ^2=2.3`$ by considering all the 15 observed points (see the dotted line in Fig. 1). 555The $`\chi ^2`$ value gets reduced to $`\chi ^20.7`$ if we do not include the first observed point at $`1^{}`$. Indeed, a substantial fraction of the observed number count at $`1^{}`$ may be the result of the core and jet activity (Berghöfer, Bowyer & Korpela 2000a ).

Consideration of the IC scattering by the same electron population also on starlight photons, distributed accordingly to eqs. (7) - (11), (Model II, with 9 d.o.f.), allows us to substantially increase the expected photon number counts from the innermost part of the galaxy, therefore obtaining a much better confidence level $`\chi ^20.5`$, considering all the 15 points (see solid line in Fig. 1). This represents a significant improvement of the fit to all the observed points since the outcome of the F-test implies that Model II has to be preferred over Model I within a $`3\%`$ confidence level (the F-test value is 3.9).

Selected models with $`\chi ^2<1`$ give a range of values for $`r_e`$ and $`\beta `$ given by $`r_e=5\pm 1`$ kpc and $`\beta =0.5\pm 0.1`$. As far as the remaining two parameters $`\alpha _e`$ and $`K_I`$ \- which are actually related by eq. (3) - our acceptable $`\chi ^2<1`$ fits give $`2<\alpha _e<3`$ and, correspondingly, $`10^4\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}K_I\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^8`$ eV-1 cm-3. The obtained relative ratio between the EUV luminosity from IC scattering on starlight and CBR photons is in the range of $`2\%6\%`$. The parameter $`\alpha _e`$ cannot be further constrained by EUV excess data due to the absence of spectral measurements.

Recent experimental results (Reynolds et al. rhfb (1999)) set an upper limit of $`4\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 for the hard, non-thermal X-ray flux in the 2-10 keV energy band from the M87 galaxy. Moreover, radio observations in the 10 MHz - 100 GHz band give a total luminosity $`L_R5\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1 (Herbig & Readhead herbig (1992), Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000)). If we do not introduce an energy cutoff for Population I electrons (see eq. (2)), we would find both a hard, non-thermal X-ray excess emission (in the 2-10 keV energy band, due to IC scattering of CBR photons) and radio wave excess by synchrotron mechanism, above the upper bound allowed by observations.

In the following, as stated in the Introduction, we assume that the radio emission is accounted for by Population II electrons described by the same distribution law as in eq. (1) for Population I electrons, but with different parameter values for $`K_{II}`$, $`r_e`$, $`\beta `$, $`\alpha _e`$ and without energy cutoff. 666Indeed, Population I and II electrons are expected to have different spatial distributions although the radio map of the M87 halo shows some similar features with respect to the observed distribution of the outer EUV excess (see Berghöfer, Bowyer & Korpela (2000a ), Andernach, Baker, van Kap-herr & Wielebinski (abkw (1979)) and Churazov et al. (cbkbf (2001))). Here we recall that the characteristic frequency and the differential luminosity of the ultrarelativistic synchrotron radiation are given by (see e. g. Lang lang (1974))

$$\nu =\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{eB}{mc}\left(\frac{E_e}{mc^2}\right)^2$$
(15)
and

$$L_R(\nu )=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3C_RF_e}{8\pi mc^2}\left(\frac{3e}{4\pi m^3c^5}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _e1}{2}}B^{\frac{\alpha _e+1}{2}}\nu ^{\frac{\alpha _e1}{2}},$$
(16)
where $`C_R(1.602\times 10^{12}\mathrm{erg})^{\alpha _e}`$ and

$$F_e=_0^{R_{M87}}\frac{K_{II}}{\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_e}\right)^2\right]^{3\beta /2}}4\pi r^2𝑑r.$$
(17)
If we take $`\alpha _e2.68`$, so that the predicted radio power law spectrum $`\alpha _R=(\alpha _e1)/20.84`$ is in agreement with the observed value, and a value $`B2.5\mu `$G for the magnetic field strength in the M87 halo (Dennison d80 (1980)), there exists a set of acceptable values for the free parameters in eq. (17) for which the obtained diffuse radio emission from the M87 galaxy in the band 10 MHz – 100 GHz is $`L_R5\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1, consistent with the observed value (Herbig & Readhead herbig (1992), Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000)).

It is remarkable that the same set of values for Population II electron parameters that fit radio observations give a hard, non-thermal X-ray flux by IC scattering of CBR photons (by electrons in the energy range 0.7 - 1. 7 GeV) in accordance with the upper bounds given by Reynolds et al. (rhfb (1999)) for the M87 galaxy. 777Of course, this estimate is obtained by using the same formalism described in Section 2 for the EUV excess by Population I electrons, but using in eq. (6) the appropriate Population II electron parameter values. More recently, the XMM-Newton observatory has been pointed towards M87 galaxy with the aim of investigating if non-thermal IC emission is present in the arms regions and if it is linked to the power emitted by the radio jet. The upper limit to the non-thermal X-ray emission has been found to be $`4\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the $`0.58`$ keV band, representing less than $`1\%`$ of the flux from the thermal components (Belsole et al. belsole (2001)). Our model results give a hard non-thermal X-ray flux from the inner $`5^{}`$ region of M87 galaxy close to the above upper bound. Clearly, our model results depend on the chosen parameters for population II electrons which are not, at present, tightly determined by radio observations. For example, by increasing the Population II electron core radius (or decreasing the value of $`\beta `$) we can dilute the X-ray excess (and also the radio emission) within a wider region, leaving the same total power.

A few comments about the energy budget involved for the two electron Populations are in order. Observations show that the current bolometric luminosity of the M87 inner active region is $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1 \- mainly emitted in the radio band (Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000)) - although the kinetic power in the jet is $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1 (Di Matteo et al. dimatteo (2002)). Simple lifetime considerations then indicate that the available electron energy content is at least $`10^{60}`$ erg. However, the total power available for particle acceleration may be larger since the central engine could have had a cyclic activity with a time scale of the order of 100-200 Myr and today be in a quiescent phase (Owen, Eilek & Kassim owen (2000); Corbin, O’Neil & Rieke cor (2002)). Moreover, in the past the M87 galaxy could have undergone a merging phenomenon which would have made available a further energy budget, initially stored by relativistic protons and later released (partially) to electrons by Coulomb and/or hadronic interactions or by shock waves in plasma turbulence (Ensslin ensslin2002 (2002)).

Coming back again to our model results, we find that the energy budget associated with the two electron Populations is about $`10^{60}`$ erg (mostly in Population I electrons), which is always less or approximately equal to the total energy associated with thermal electrons. 888The energy associated with thermal electrons is estimated by assuming that the hot, virialized, X-ray emitting gas has a solar metallicity composition and is distributed following a $`\beta `$-model with $`\beta 0.5`$, core radius $`1.6`$ kpc and temperature $`T_g2.5`$ keV (Fabricant and Gorenstein fg (1983)). Moreover, the gas central number density is taken to be $`3\times 10^1`$ cm-3 so that the total X-ray luminosity in the energy bands 0.2 - 4 keV and 2 - 10 keV turns out to be $`2.7\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 and $`3\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1, in accordance with the observed values (Forman and Jones fj (1982)). This result represents an indication that the M87 galaxy is not today in a quiescent (relaxed) phase.

However, further more accurate spectroscopic observations in both the EUV and X-ray bands (especially towards the external region of the M87 galaxy) are necessary in order to confirm the presence of the two electron Populations invoked in the present paper. Moreover, observations towards the other galaxy clusters for which the EUV emission is still uncertain may establish whether the existence of these two electron Populations is a common feature in galaxy clusters or if it is particular to the central, massive, cD galaxies like M87.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the anonymous Referee for pointing out some important issues.


text:
# Cloning of Qubits of a Quantum Computer

## Abstract

A system of unitary transformations providing two optimal copies of an arbitrary input cubit is obtained. An algorithm based on classical Boolean algebra and allowing one to find any unitary transformation realized by the quantum CNOT operators is proposed.

It is known that an arbitrary quantum state

$$|\psi _0=\alpha |0_0+\beta |1_0,$$
(1)
cannot be copied exactly (cloned). The no-cloning theorem was proved in . However, Buzek and Hillery  found a unitary transformation entangling two qubits $`|\psi _{12}=|00_{12}`$ with the input qubit $`|\psi _0`$ so that the output state has the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{out}=|\mathrm{\Phi }_0_{01}|0_2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_1_{01}|1_2,$$
(2)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\left(2\alpha |00+\beta |01+\beta |10\right),\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\left(2\beta |11+\alpha |01+\alpha |10\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The reduced qubit density operators $`\rho _0^{out}`$, $`\rho _1^{out}`$ and $`\rho _2^{out}`$ at the output are related to the input density operator $`\rho ^{in}`$ in as

$$\rho _{0,1}^{out}=\frac{5}{6}\rho ^{in}+\frac{1}{6}\rho _{}^{in},$$

$$\rho _2^{out}=\frac{2}{3}\rho ^{in}+\frac{1}{3}\rho _{}^{in}.$$

Here $`\rho _{}^{in}=|\psi _{}_0\psi _{}|`$, where $`|\psi _{}_0=\alpha |1_0\beta |0_0`$ is the state orthogonal to the input state, $`\alpha =e^{i\phi }sin\left(\vartheta /2\right)`$, and $`\beta =cos\left(\vartheta /2\right)`$. The quality of obtained copies is specified by the cloning accuracy F, which is determined by the overlap of the input and output states

$$F=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\psi ^{in}\left|\rho ^{out}\right|\psi ^{in}sin\vartheta 𝑑\vartheta .$$

Thus, the output qubits $`\rho _0^{out}`$ and $`\rho _1^{out}`$ consist of $`\frac{5}{6}`$ fraction of the input qubit $`\rho ^{in}`$ in and $`\frac{1}{6}`$ fraction of an admixture. The qubit $`|\psi _2`$ is auxiliary and called cloning. Gisin and Massar  proved analytically that representation (3) of the output qubits is optimal, i.e., maximizes the average accuracy of the correspondence between the input and output qubits.

The sequence of actions for cloning qubits is represented in the form of a universal quantum cloning machine. For its operation, it is necessary to prepare preliminary the entangled state of two qubits

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{prep}=C_1|00+C_2|01+C_3|10+C_4|11$$
(4)
by applying unitary operators to zeroth qubits:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{prep}=R_1\left(\theta _3\right)P_{21}R_2\left(\theta _2\right)P_{12}R_1\left(\theta _1\right)|00_{12}.$$

Here,

$$R\left(\theta \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)$$

is the turning operator of a qubit and

$$P_{12}|x,y=|x,xy$$
(5)
is the CNOT operator, where $``$ is the modulus-2 summation. The resulting set of equations

$$\begin{array}{c}cos\theta _1cos\theta _2cos\theta _3+sin\theta _1sin\theta _2sin\theta _3=C_1\hfill \\ sin\theta _1cos\theta _2cos\theta _3cos\theta _1sin\theta _2sin\theta _3=C_2\hfill \\ cos\theta _1cos\theta _2sin\theta _3sin\theta _1sin\theta _2cos\theta _3=C_3\hfill \\ cos\theta _1sin\theta _2cos\theta _3+sin\theta _1cos\theta _2sin\theta _3=C_4\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
has the solution

$$cos^2\theta _1=\frac{C_2^2C_3^2}{12C_3^22C_4^2}+cos^2\theta _3\frac{12C_2^22C_4^2}{12C_3^22C_4^2},$$

$$cos^2\theta _2=\frac{C_3^2+C_4^2cos^2\theta _3}{12cos^2\theta _3},$$
(7)
$$cos^2\theta _3=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \frac{12C_3^22C_4^2}{14\left(C_1^2C_4^2+C_2^2C_3^2\right)}\sqrt{14\left(C_1^2C_4^2+C_2^2C_3^2\right)+8C_1C_2C_3C_4}\right).$$

Table 1.

| N | $`(C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4)`$ | cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{1}^{}`$ | cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{2}^{}`$ | cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{3}^{}`$ | sign$`(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,\mathrm{sin}\theta _i)`$ | $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{out}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2,1,1,0)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(,+++)\\ (+++,++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{21}P_{02}P_{10}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{12}P_{20}P_{01}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 2 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2,1,0,1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(+++,+)\\ (+++,+++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{21}P_{10}P_{02}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{10}P_{20}P_{02}P_{01}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 3 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2,0,1,1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(+++,+)\\ (+++,+++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{12}P_{01}P_{20}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{01}P_{02}P_{20}P_{10}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 4 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(1,2,1,0)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(,+++)\\ (+++,++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{20}P_{10}P_{01}P_{0\overline{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{21}P_{10}P_{0\overline{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 5 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(1,2,0,1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(+++,+)\\ (+++,+++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{12}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{01}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{21}P_{0\overline{2}}P_{10}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 6 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(1,1,2,0)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(,+++)\\ (+++,++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{01}P_{02}P_{20}P_{\overline{1}0}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{12}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{20}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 7 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(1,1,0,2)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(+++,+)\\ (+++,+++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{12}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{\overline{2}0}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{01}P_{02}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{\overline{1}0}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 8 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(1,0,2,1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(+++,+)\\ (+++,+++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{21}P_{02}P_{\overline{1}0}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{12}P_{20}P_{0\overline{1}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 9 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(1,0,1,2)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(+++,+)\\ (+++,+++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{21}P_{\overline{1}0}P_{0\overline{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{20}P_{10}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{0\overline{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 10 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(0,1,1,2)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(,+++)\\ (+++,++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{21}P_{0\overline{2}}P_{\overline{1}0}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{12}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{0\overline{1}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 11 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(0,1,2,1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(,+++)\\ (+++,++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{21}P_{\overline{1}0}P_{02}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{20}P_{10}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{02}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |
| 12 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(0,2,1,1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}(,+++)\\ (+++,++)\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}P_{12}P_{01}P_{\overline{2}0}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\\ P_{01}P_{02}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{10}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}\end{array}`$ |

At the second stage, the quantum cloning machine mixes input qubit (1) with prepared state (4):

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}=|\psi _0|\mathrm{\Psi }^{prep}=\alpha \left(C_1|000+C_2|001+C_3|010+C_4|011\right)+\beta \left(C_1|100+C_2|101+C_3|110+C_4|111\right),$$
(8)
so as to obtain optimal state (2) at the output

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{out}=|\mathrm{\Phi }_0_{01}|0_2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_1_{01}|1_2=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\left(2\alpha |000+\beta |010+\beta |100+2\beta |111+\alpha |011+\alpha |101\right)$$
(9)
Comparing Eqs. (3) and (9), we obtain only 12 different combinations of admissible parameters $`C_1,C_2,C_3,`$ and $`C_4`$, for which solution (7) gives the angles for operators $`R_1\left(\theta _1\right)`$, $`R_2\left(\theta _2\right)`$, $`R_1\left(\theta _3\right)`$ (see columns 2–5 in Table 1). The sixth column of Table 1 shows the signs of the rotation angles of $`R\left(\theta \right)`$.

Now, we obtain transformations converting input state (8) (with known $`C_1,C_2,C_3,`$ and $`C_4`$) to output state (9) only in terms of CNOT operators (5). We represent the total transformation operator as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{out}_{xyz}=P(x,y,z)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}_{xyz}=|p_1(x,y,z),p_2(x,y,z),p_3(x,y,z)$$

where $`p_i(x,y,z)`$ are the logical functions of three Boolean variables.

Let us find this function for the first row of Table 1.

Table 1. Truth table for functions $`p_i`$

| $`x`$ | $`y`$ | $`z`$ | $`p_1`$ | $`p_2`$ | $`p_3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | * | * | * |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | * | * | * |

Here, asterisks mean arbitrary values.

Since the CNOT operator can realize only linear Boolean functions, only two of eight different combinations are suitable. For one of them, we represent the set of disjunctive normal forms in terms of the Zhegalkin polynomials:

$$\begin{array}{c}p_1=\overline{x}\&y\&\overline{z}\overline{x}\&y\&zx\&\overline{y}\&\overline{z}x\&\overline{y}\&z=xy,\hfill \\ p_2=\overline{x}\&\overline{y}\&z\overline{x}\&y\&zx\&\overline{y}\&\overline{z}x\&y\&\overline{z}=xz,\hfill \\ p_3=\overline{x}\&\overline{y}\&z\overline{x}\&y\&\overline{z}x\&\overline{y}\&\overline{z}x\&y\&z=xyz.\hfill \end{array}.$$
(10)
Then,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{out}_{xyz}=|p_1,p_2,p_3=|xy,xz,xyz=P_{21}P_{02}P_{10}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{in}_{xyz}.$$

The other rows in Table 1 are filled similarly. To describe the CNOT operator with inversion, we introduce the notation

$$P_{1\overline{2}}|x,y=P_{12}|x,\overline{y}=|x,x\overline{y}=P_{12}R_2\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)|x,y,$$

where $`R\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ is the NOT operation.

The lower half of row 2 in Table 1 describes the operation of the Buzek–Hillery quantum cloning machine , whereas the upper half of row 2, describes its optimized variant. It is seen that the output state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{out}`$ can be obtained by three CNOT transformations, only two of which involve the input qubit (see figure). The equatorial qubits of the first row were studied in  without discussing the method of their production.

In summary, we obtained the set of unitary transformations producing two copies of an arbitrary input qubit. This transformation is optimal, because it maximizes the average accuracy of correspondence between the input and output qubits. The algorithm allowing one to find any unitary transformation realized by the quantum CNOT operators is proposed on the basis of classical Boolean algebra.

REFERENCES

1. W. K. Wooters and W. H. Zuker, Nature 299, 802 (1982).

2. V. Buzek and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1844 (1996).

3. R. F. Werner, quant-ph/9804001.

4. N. Gisin and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2153 (1997).

5. V. Buzek, S. L. Braunstein, M. Hillery, and D. Bru, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3446 (1997).

6. Heng Fan, Keiji Matsumoto, and Xiang-Bin Wang, quant-ph/0101101.

Translated by R. Tyapaev