text:
# DAMTP-2002-137 Polyhedral Scattering of Fundamental Monopoles

## 1 Introduction

The dynamics of slowly moving BPS monopoles can be approximated by geodesic motion on the moduli space of static solutions, with the metric determined by the kinetic part of the Lagrangian . For two centred $`SU(2)`$ monopoles the moduli space is the Atiyah-Hitchin manifold and the simplest geodesic corresponds to the $`90^{}`$ scattering of two monopoles in a head-on collision . Unfortunately for more than two $`SU(2)`$ monopoles the moduli space metric is not known explicitly, except in the region where all the monopoles are well separated . Despite this fact some geodesics are known . They are obtained by the imposition of appropriate spatial symmetries to yield a one-dimensional manifold of static solutions, which is then automaticaly a geodesic, since the fixed point set of a group action is always a totally geodesic submanifold.

For BPS monopoles with gauge group $`SU(n+1)`$ and maximal symmetry breaking there are $`n`$ topological charges and correspondingly $`n`$ types of fundamental monopole, each of which carries a single unit of one of these charges . If there is precisely one fundamental monopole of each type then the moduli space is $`4n`$-dimensional and equiped with the hyperkähler Lee-Weinberg-Yi metric , which is known explicitly. The explicit form of the metric allows the possibility of computing some geodesics and hence $`n`$-monopole scattering processes for any value of $`n.`$ In this paper we apply a variational method to construct some scaling geodesics on this manifold. The approach is to look for central configurations in which the time dependence is only in the form of an overall scaling of the monopole positions. The resulting algebraic equations can then be written as the critical points of a certain energy function , which we minimize using numerical methods. As examples, we find minimal energy configurations, and hence geodesics, for all $`n20.`$ The symmetries of these configurations are analyzed and suggest the existence of icosahedral minima at $`n=32`$ and $`n=72,`$ which are also constructed. In all cases the associated geodesics describe the scattering of $`n`$ monopoles which lie on the vertices of a bouncing polyhedron, in the following sense. The polyhedron first contracts from infinity to a point, which in the moduli space represents the spherically symmetric $`n`$-monopole. The evolution then reverses with the monopoles located on the vertices of the same polyhedron, but which is now expanding back out to infinity.

For different monopole masses the above solutions generalize to form bouncing nested polyhedra. Our solutions also provide geodesics of the Gibbons-Manton metric , and hence describe the scattering of $`SU(2)`$ $`n`$-monopoles, valid in the region where the monopoles are well-separated. This reveals a connection with some geodesics obtained earlier using symmetry arguments.

## 2 Polyhedral Scattering

The $`4n`$-dimensional hyperkähler Lee-Weinberg-Yi manifold is a $`T^n`$ bundle over a $`3n`$-dimensional base space. For $`i=1,..,n`$ let $`\theta _iS^1`$ be the fibre coordinates and $`𝐱_i\text{}^3`$ be local coordinates in the base, which may be thought of as the positions in $`\text{}^3`$ of each of the $`n`$ monopoles. The purely kinetic Lagrangian associated with the metric has the form

$$L=g_{ij}\dot{𝐱}_i\dot{𝐱}_j+g_{ij}^1(\dot{\theta }_i+𝐖_{ik}\dot{𝐱}_k)(\dot{\theta }_j+𝐖_{jl}\dot{𝐱}_l),$$
(2.1)
where we have used the Einstein summation convention, though this is not to be used in the rest of the paper unless explicitly stated. The quantities appearing in the above are given by

$`g_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`m_i+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱_i𝐱_j|}},`$ (2.2)
$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱_i𝐱_j|}},ij`$ (2.3)
$`𝐖_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}𝐰_{ij},`$ (2.4)
$`𝐖_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_{ij},ij`$ (2.5)
and $`𝐰_{ij}`$ is the value at $`𝐱_i`$ of the Dirac potential due to the monopole at $`𝐱_j`$, that is

$$\mathbf{}_j\times 𝐰_{ji}=\frac{𝐱_i𝐱_j}{|𝐱_i𝐱_j|^3}.$$
(2.6)
In the above we have scaled out the magnetic charge of a monopole and the positive constants $`m_i`$ are related to the monopole masses.

The $`T^n`$ isometry of the metric yields the $`n`$ conserved charges (here we use the summation convention once more)

$$Q_i=g_{ij}^1(\dot{\theta }_j+𝐖_{jk}\dot{𝐱}_k),$$
(2.7)
so that the fibre coordinates are non-dynamical degrees of freedom. In this paper we shall be concerned with monopoles with no electric charge, so we set $`Q_i=0`$, for all $`i=1,..,n.`$ In this case the Lagrangian describing the motion in the base space is simply

$$L=\underset{i}{}\left(m_i+\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{x_{ij}}\right)\dot{𝐱}_i^2\underset{i}{}\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{x_{ij}}\dot{𝐱}_i\dot{𝐱}_j.$$
(2.8)
where we have defined $`𝐱_{ij}=𝐱_i𝐱_j,`$ and $`x_{ij}=|𝐱_{ij}|.`$ The geodesic equations which follow from (2.8) are

$$m_k\ddot{𝐱}_k=\underset{jk}{}\left(\frac{\ddot{𝐱}_{jk}}{x_{jk}}+\frac{𝐱_{jk}|\dot{𝐱}_{jk}|^2}{2x_{jk}^3}\frac{\dot{𝐱}_{jk}\dot{x}_{jk}}{x_{jk}^2}\right),$$
(2.9)
As suggested in  we now look for time-dependent homothetic solutions of these equations, that is, solutions of the form $`𝐱_k(t)=\alpha (t)𝐲_k,`$ with constant $`𝐲_k.`$ Clearly, such solutions describe monopoles in a fixed configuration, but with the overall scale of the configuration evolving dynamically. Substituting this ansatz into (2.9) yields the equations

$$m_k𝐲_k+C\underset{jk}{}\frac{𝐲_{jk}}{y_{jk}}=0,$$
(2.10)
where $`C`$ is defined to be the quantity

$$C=\frac{\dot{\alpha }^2}{2\ddot{\alpha }\alpha ^2}\frac{1}{\alpha }.$$
(2.11)
Obviously, for a non-trivial solution of (2.10) to exist the quantity $`C`$ must be a constant, and it turns out that only a positive constant produces a physically acceptable solution. By a rescaling of the time variable we may, without loss of generality, set $`C=1.`$ The two constants which appear in the general solution of (2.11) may be absorbed by a linear transformation of $`t,`$ and the solution we require is given implicitly by

$$t=\sqrt{\alpha +\alpha ^2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(1+2\alpha +2\sqrt{\alpha +\alpha ^2}),$$
(2.12)
for $`t0.`$ It is clear from (2.12), that the scale $`\alpha (t)`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`t,`$ which for small $`t`$ has the expansion $`\alpha =t^2/4+\mathrm{}`$ and for large $`t`$ has the asymptotic form $`\alpha t.`$

Note that equations (2.9) are invariant under time-reversal $`tt`$ and also spatial inversion of all the points $`𝐱_k𝐱_k.`$ So far we have only addressed the second part of the geodesic motion, when $`t0`$ and the monopoles are moving away from each other, but the first part with $`t<0`$ is simply obtained by time-reversal in equation (2.12), so that the monopoles approach the origin from spatial infinity. Thus the monopoles bounce back off each other, rather than passing through each other, which would have been the result if the time inversion was accompanied by the spatial inversion $`𝐱_k𝐱_k.`$ The fact that the first of these scenarios is the correct one can be seen by studying the Lee-Weinberg-Yi manifold in the neighbourhood of the origin $`𝐱_k=0,`$ for all $`k.`$ Although the metric appears to be singular at the origin, this is merely a coordinate singularity, and if new coordinates are chosen appropriately (these are essentially polar coordinates but with the radial variables related to the monopole positions by $`r_k=\sqrt{|𝐱_k|}`$) the metric is seen to be flat in these new coordinates. The fact that the squares of the monopole positions are related to the flat coordinates is the reason that fundamental monopoles of different types bounce back upon collision; had the metric been flat around the origin in the coordinates $`𝐱_k`$ then the monopoles would have passed through each other.

The problem of finding scaling geodesics has now been reduced to the algebraic problem of finding sets of $`n`$ points $`𝐲_k,`$ which satisfy (2.10) with $`C=1.`$ Our method is to use a variational approach, based on the fact that (2.10) are the equations for critical points of the energy function

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}m_i|𝐲_i|^2\underset{i}{}\underset{j<i}{}y_{ij}.$$
(2.13)
In this formulation the problem has obvious similarities with the classical problem of finding central configurations  (which arise in a similar way when a time-dependent homothetic ansatz is used in Newton’s equations of motion for gravitating point particles) or equivalently solutions of the One Component Plasma (OCP) model . The OCP model describes point charges immersed in a uniform background of charge with the opposite sign. Hence there are two competing forces, the first is an attraction towards the origin, represented by exactly the same expression as the first term in (2.13), and repulsion between the points, which in the OCP case is described by the Coulomb energy. The second term in (2.13) plays a similar role in our problem as the Coulomb energy does in the OCP model. The contribution of this non-positive term produces two-body particle repulsions which can balance the attractive central force, producing stable minimal energy configurations with finite non-zero separations.

In the remainder of this section we shall restrict to the case when all the monopole masses are equal. By rescaling the positions $`𝐲_k`$ by the inverse of this common mass we obtain the situation in which all monopole masses are equal to unity, so for the rest of this section we set $`m_i=1`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

Although any critical point of the energy (2.13) will provide us with a geodesic on the Lee-Weinberg-Yi manifold we shall concentrate only on local minima, since these are the easiest to find numerically, and ignore any saddle point solutions. Presumably Leech’s symmetric configurations , which are sets of particles on a sphere in equilibrium under any force law between pairs of particles, will also yield critical points of (2.13) if the particles are allowed to move off the sphere, but are required to maintain all symmetries of the spherical configuration. Leech’s configurations consist of an infinite family of polygons and bipyramids and a finite family with Platonic symmetry.

The numerical scheme employed is a multi-start gradient flow algorithm with randomly distributed initial conditions. The energy function (2.13) has the obvious $`SO(3)`$ invariance associated with a spatial rotation of all $`n`$ points, and also reflection symmetries which change the sign of any one of the three Cartesian components of all the points. Up to the action of these symmetry groups, all the minimal energy solutions we find are unique.

The case $`n=1`$ is trivial; the minimal energy solution is a single point at the origin, with $`E=0,`$ and hence the scaling solution is time-independent, so no geodesic is obtained. For two points the minimal energy is $`E=1`$ which occurs if $`𝐲_1=𝐲_2=(0,0,1),`$ or any spatial rotation of this configuration. In other words, the two monopoles are at antipodal points on the unit sphere. The associated geodesic describes the head-on collision of two monopoles, in which the spherically symmetric 2-monopole is formed, after which the monopoles bounce back off each other. This scattering process was first described by Connell , who discovered that the metric on the centred moduli space of two different fundamental $`SU(3)`$ monopoles is Taub-NUT with a positive mass parameter.

In Table 1 we present, for $`2n20`$, the energy $`E`$ of the minimizing configuration, its symmetry group $`G,`$ the distance from the origin of the closest point $`r_{\mathrm{min}},`$ and the distance from the origin of the furthest point $`r_{\mathrm{max}}.`$

In the examples in Table 1 where $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is equal to $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ to the accuracy presented they are in fact precisely equal, indicating that all the points lie on the surface of a sphere of radius $`r_{\mathrm{min}}=r_{\mathrm{max}}.`$ For all the other cases it can be seen that $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are very close in value, showing that all $`n`$ points lie close to, but not exactly on, a sphere. As we shall see later, this feature appears to persist for arbitrarily large values of $`n,`$ which contrasts sharply with traditional central configurations with a Coulomb interaction, where this property exists only for $`n<13`$ and beyond this value there are multiple shells . It is interesting to note that a scale invariant geometric energy function exists which also yields minimal energy configurations on a single shell for all numbers of points . It would be interesting to try and classify the properties of interaction potentials which produce only a single shell.

In fig. 1 we present, for $`3n20`$, the minimal energy configurations of $`n`$ points by plotting spheres around each of the points and in fig. 2 we plot their energy as a function of $`n`$, for $`n20.`$ In each case the diameter of the spheres is equal to the minimal separation between points, to emphasize the sphere packing behaviour. As seen from Table 1, the size of the configuration (as measured by $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$) grows with $`n,`$ so for clarity we do not display the configurations to scale. Three points lie on the vertices of an equilateral triangle, with edge length equal to $`3.`$ For $`n>3`$ the points may be considered as forming the vertices of a polyhedron, which generically is a deltahedron, that is, all faces are triangular. For example, four points lie on the vertices of a tetrahedron with edge length equal to $`4.`$ For $`n=4,6,8,12`$ all points lie exactly on the surface of a sphere, and in fact on the vertices of a tetrahedron, octahedron, square antiprism and icosahedron, respectively.

As can be seen from Table 1 and fig. 1 the points are often arranged symmetrically, though the case $`n=7`$ is rather anomalous. There is an obvious $`D_{5h}`$ symmetric candidate for the minimal energy $`n=7`$ configuration, in which 5 points lie on the vertices of a regular pentagon and the two remaining points lie on the 5-fold symmetry axis equidistant from the origin. This regular bipyramid is the obvious generalization of the minimal $`n=5`$ configuration, which is a bipyramid with a triangular base. However, the minimal energy solution for $`n=7`$ is a symmetry breaking perturbation of the bipyramid. There are points at the north and south poles of a sphere of radius 4.5635, and the remaining five points lie in a roughly pentagonal distribution, but all with slightly different heights above or below the equatorial plane and different distances from the origin, which range from 4.4782 to 4.4825. Clearly this prohibits any exact symmetry, even reflection symmetries, so we label the symmetry group as $`C_1,`$ indicating no point symmetries. As a check it is possible to minimize within the family of $`D_{5h}`$ symmetric configurations, yielding an energy of $`E=71.0156,`$ which is indeed slightly higher than the asymmetric minimum with $`E=71.0162.`$

To gain insight into minimizing the energy function (2.13) (with $`m_k=1`$) it is useful to consider the restricted problem in which all the points are constrained to lie on a sphere of a given radius $`\rho .`$ The energy of this restricted problem is given by

$$E_\rho =\frac{1}{2}\rho ^2n+\rho U,$$
(2.14)
where

$$U=\underset{i}{}\underset{j<i}{}|𝐘_𝐢𝐘_𝐣|,$$
(2.15)
for $`n`$ points $`𝐘_𝐤=𝐲_k/\rho `$ restricted to lie on the surface of the unit sphere. Minimization of the function $`U`$ for points on the unit sphere is a problem in discrete geometry which was first posed almost fifty years ago by Fejes Tóth ; though it is usually phrased in terms of maximizing the sum of the mutual separations $`U.`$ There are a number of theorems proved about the extrema of this energy function and in particular there is the lower bound

$$U>\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}n^2.$$
(2.16)
Using this result in (2.14) we obtain a lower bound for $`E_\rho `$ which we can then minimize over the radius $`\rho ,`$ finding a minimum value at

$$\rho =\frac{2n}{3}\frac{1}{2n},$$
(2.17)
to obtain the lower bound

$$E_{\mathrm{sphere}}>\left(\frac{2}{9}n^3\frac{1}{3}n+\frac{1}{8}\right),$$
(2.18)
where $`E_{\mathrm{sphere}}`$ denotes the energy (2.13) (with $`m_k=1`$) under the restriction that all points lie at the same distance from the origin. Clearly when we drop this restriction we have no rigorous lower bound for the unrestricted energy (2.13) which is our main concern, but since our numerical results suggest that in all the minimal energy configurations the points lie very close to the surface of a sphere then we expect that the quantity in (2.18) will be a good estimate of the minimal energy value, though it will tend to be slightly lower. In fig. 2 we plot this estimate as the curved line. Clearly the above expectations appear to be realized, in that the estimate is close to the true value, but bounds it from below.

In fig. 3 we compare the estimate (2.17) (curve) for the size of the configuration with the numerical values as measured by $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (circles). Again it can be seen that the estimate is quite accurate.

The above discussion suggests that our minimal energy solutions are closely related to those which maximize the sum of the mutual separations for points on a sphere. For $`n=2,3,4,8,12`$ it is proved that the extremal configurations for this sphere problem are the dipole, triangle, tetrahedron, octahedron and icosahedron respectively (see  and references therein), which agrees with our results. For $`n10`$ this problem was investigated numerically by Berman and Hanes  and more recently a comprehensive numerical investigation has been performed by Rakhmanov, Saff and Zhou , who studied all $`n200`$ and obtained the symmetry groups of the extremal configurations. A comparison of the symmetry groups in Table 1 with those that appear in  reveals that the groups agree 111In  the symmetry group for 18 points should read $`D_{4d}`$ not $`D_{4h}.`$ for all cases except $`n=7.`$ In  the symmetry group for $`n=7`$ is given as $`C_2`$ and in  the configuration is described as two almost antipodal points with the remaining five points sprinkled around an equatorial band. Our configuration for $`n=7`$ is therefore consistent with a small deformation of the spherical extremal solution, which itself has little symmetry.

For all $`1n20`$ we found only one local minimum of the energy for each value of $`n`$, except for $`n=16.`$ For $`n=16`$ the global minimum with $`E=892.7338`$ has tetrahedral symmetry $`T,`$ but we also found a local minimum with energy $`E=892.7256`$ and symmetry $`D_{4h}.`$ Once again this mirrors the situation in studying extremal problems for points on a sphere .

In order to further investigate the similarites between our solutions and points on the sphere which maximize the sum of the mutual separations we turn our attention to configurations with icosahedral symmetry. For the sphere problem extremal configurations with icosahedral symmetry occur for a sequence of points  which begins $`n=12,32,72,..`$. As we have seen, for $`n=12`$ our solution has icosahedral symmetry, with the points lying on the vertices of an icosahedron, so it is interesting to compute the minimal energy solutions for $`n=32`$ and $`n=72,`$ to see if they are icosahedrally symmetric.

In fig. 4 we display the minimal energy configurations for $`n=32`$ and $`n=72,`$ using the same method as in fig. 1. Both configurations contain a single shell and have icosahedral symmetry, as predicted by analogy with the sphere problem. For $`n=32`$ there are 12 points on the vertices of an icosahedron at a distance of $`21.2516`$ from the origin and a further 20 points at a distance of $`21.2680`$ from the origin. The associated polyhedron is the dual of a truncated icosahedron and the energy is $`E=7233.0539.`$ For $`n=72`$ the energy is $`E=82780.0335.`$ There are 12 points at a distance of $`47.9338`$ and 60 points at a distance of $`47.9563.`$

## 3 Distinct masses and $`SU(2)`$ monopoles

In this section we mention two extensions of the study we have described so far. The first is the obvious generalization to monopoles which are not all of equal mass. As stated earlier, if all monopoles have the same mass then varying this mass produces the same configuration but scaled by the inverse common mass. Thus, the expectation for sets of distinct masses is that multiple shells will arise, with monopoles grouped into shells according to their mass, so that the heaviest monopoles sit closest to the origin, and with each set of monopoles in a given shell being arranged on the vertices of the polyhedron which arises in the minimization of the relevant number of equal mass monopoles. This nested polyhedron picture is consistent with the numerical results we have obtained. For example, in the case of two distinct masses and four monopoles of each mass, we set $`m_i=1,`$ for $`i=1,..,4`$ and $`m_i=2,`$ for $`i=5,..,8`$ the resulting configuration is that the four heavy monopoles sit on the vertices of a tetrahedron at a distance 1.5940 from the origin and the four light monopoles sit on the vertices of the dual tetrahedron scaled so that they are at a distance 6.3543 from the origin. As another example, with twelve light monopoles (with mass one) and six heavy monopoles (with mass two) the nested polyhedra are an octahedron and an icosahedron with scales 2.6954 and 13.8057 respectively, and oriented so as to preserve their common tetrahedral subgroups. Clearly the relative orientations of sets of nested polyhedra, together with their deformation as very distinct monopole masses are varied towards equality are interesting problems which are likely to need substantial investigation in each specific case.

The second extension we consider is to relate our results to the dynamics of well separated $`SU(2)`$ monopoles. Although, for $`n>2`$, the moduli space metric for $`n`$ $`SU(2)`$ monopoles is not known explicitly, the asymptotic metric is known, which is valid in the region where all the monopoles are well separated . This is the Gibbons-Manton metric and it is related to the Lee-Weinberg-Yi metric through some sign changes. Explicitly, the Gibbons-Manton metric is obtained by replacing equations (2.2)-(2.5) by the equations

$`g_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`m_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱_i𝐱_j|}}`$ (3.1)
$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱_i𝐱_j|}},ij`$ (3.2)
$`𝐖_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}𝐰_{ij}`$ (3.3)
$`𝐖_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_{ij},ij`$ (3.4)
If the approach of the previous section is now applied to this metric to find time-dependent homothetic solutions then, due to the sign changes, the upshot is that equation (2.10) is once again obtained, but with the replacement $`CC.`$ In this case the physically acceptable solution is therefore to choose $`C=1.`$ With this choice both the function $`\alpha (t)`$ and the positions $`𝐲_k`$ that we have found to provide geodesics for the Lee-Weinberg-Yi metric carry over unchanged to produce geodesics of the Gibbons-Manton metric. The difference now is that these geodesics are only valid in the region where all the monopole are well separated, so the solutions break down before they can describe the collision of the monopoles.

For example, for $`n=4,`$ the scaling geodesic describes the scattering of four monopoles on the vertices of a contracting tetrahedron. In fact, by using symmetry arguments, the full geodesic, to which this is a good approximation in the well separated regime, has been found and shows that as the monopoles approach they pass through a monopole solution with cubic symmetry and emerge on the vertices of an expanding tetrahedron which is dual to the incoming one . For this example, even the metric is known exactly in terms of elliptic integrals .

It might be amusing to attempt to identify the outcomes of the various $`SU(2)`$ monopole scatterings that begin as the contracting polyhedra that we have identified, particularly those with high symmetry. However, a note of caution must be applied in this situation. The Gibbons-Manton metric possesses an $`n`$-torus isometry which the true monopole metric does not have for any finite separation. This means that the symmetry of a contracting polyhedron may only be realized in the true $`SU(2)`$ monopole solution at the limit of infinite separation. As an example of this situation consider the case $`n=6,`$ where the contracting polyhedron is an octahedron. Using the one-to-one correspondence  between $`SU(2)`$ $`n`$-monopoles and (an equivalence class of) rational maps between Riemann spheres of degree $`n`$ we may determine the dimension of the moduli space of octahedrally symmetric $`SU(2)`$ monopoles of charge six. Degree six polynomials form the carrier space for the 7-dimensional irreducible representation of $`SU(2)`$ and when this representation is restricted to the octahedral group it decomposes into irreducible representations of the octahedral group of dimensions one, three and three. Since two polynomials are required to form a rational map this shows that there are no octahedrally symmetric rational maps of degree six, and hence no octahedrally symmetric charge six monopoles. Thus six $`SU(2)`$ monopoles placed on the vertices of an octahedron break the octahedral symmetry for any finite value of the separation, no matter how large. This contrasts with the above mentioned case of $`n=4`$ with tetrahedral symmetry. The 5-dimensional irreducible representation of $`SU(2)`$ when restricted to the tetrahedral group decomposes into two 1-dimensional representations and a 3-dimensional representation. The basis polynomials for the two 1-dimensional representations yield a 1-parameter family of tetrahedrally symmetric degree three rational maps, which corresponds to the geodesic describing the tetrahedral scattering of four monopoles . Thus, in some cases the symmetry of the scaling geodesics of the Gibbons-Manton metric may be true symmetries of related geodesics in the true moduli space and in others they may not.

## 4 Conclusion

The scattering of $`n`$ distinct fundamental monopoles can be approximated by geodesic motion on the Lee-Weinberg-Yi manifold. We have described a variational method to construct some geodesics on this manifold for arbitrary values of $`n,`$ and applied it to obtain a number of examples. The energy function used in this approach has features similar to that which arises in the classic problem of determining central configurations, but in contrast to central configurations it yields points which lie on a single shell for arbitrary values of $`n.`$ The geodesics constructed by our method describe the scattering of monopoles on the vertices of a contracting, and then expanding, polyhedron, which generically is a deltahedron. We have found, and exploited, similarities between the deltahedra obtained here and those which arise in the problem of maximizing the sum of the mutual separations for points on a sphere.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Ed Saff and Nikolay Andreev for useful correspondence and acknowledge advanced fellowships from PPARC (RAB) and EPSRC (PMS).


format: text

text:
# Geometric measure of entanglement for multipartite quantum states

(December 4, 2002)

## Abstract

The degree to which a pure quantum state is entangled can be characterized by the distance or angle to the nearest unentangled state. This geometric measure of entanglement, already present in a number of settings \[A. Shimony, Ann. NY. Acad. Sci. 755, p.675 (1995) and H. Barnum and N. Linden, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, p.6787 (2001)\], is explored for bipartite and multipartite pure and mixed states. It is determined for arbitrary two-qubit mixed states and for generalized Werner and isotropic states, and is also applied to certain multipartite mixed states.

Introduction: Only recently, after more than half a century of existence, has the notion of entanglement become recognized as central to quantum information processings NielsenChuang00 . As a result, the task of characterizing and quantifying entanglement has emerged as one of the prominent themes of quantum information theory. There have been many achievements in this direction, primarily in the setting of bipartite systems Horodecki01 . Among these, one highlight is Wootters’ formula Wootters98  for the entanglement of formation for two-qubit mixed states; others include corresponding results for highly symmetrical states of higher-dimensional systems VollbrechtWerner01 ; TerhalVollbrecht00 . The issue of entanglement for multipartite states poses an even greater challenge, and there have been correspondingly fewer achievements: notable examples include applications of the relative entropy VedralPlenio98 , negativity ZyczkowskiWerner , and Schmidt measure EisertBriegel01 .

In this Letter, we present an attempt to face this challenge by developing and investigating a certain geometric measure of entanglement, first introduced by Shimony Shimony95  in the setting of bipartite pure states and generalized to the multipartite setting (via projection operators of various ranks) by Barnum and Linden BarnumLinden01 . We begin by examining this geometric measure in pure-state settings, and then extend it to mixed states, showing that it satisfies certain criteria for good entanglement measures. We demonstrate that this measure is no harder to compute than the entanglement of formation $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, and exemplify this fact by giving formulas corresponding to $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ for (i) arbitrary two-qubit mixed, (ii) generalized Werner, and (iii) isotropic states. We conclude by applying the geometric entanglement measure to certain families of multipartite mixed states, for which we provide a practical method for computing entanglement, and illustrate this method via two examples.

It is not our aim to cast aspersions on exisiting approaches to entanglement; rather we simply wish to add one further aspect to the discussion.

Basic geometric ideas; application to pure states: We begin with an examination of entangled pure states, and how one might quantify their entanglement by making use of simple ideas of Hilbert space geometry. Let us start by developing a quite general formulation, appropriate for multipartite systems comprising $`n`$ parts, each of which can have a distinct Hilbert space. Consider a general $`n`$-partite pure state $`|\psi =_{p_1\mathrm{}p_n}\chi _{p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n}|e_{p_1}^{(1)}e_{p_2}^{(2)}\mathrm{}e_{p_n}^{(n)}`$. One can envisage a geometric definition of its entanglement content via the distance $`d=\mathrm{min}_{|\varphi }|\psi |\varphi `$ between $`|\psi `$ and the nearest separable state $`|\varphi `$ (or equivalently the angle between them). Here, $`|\varphi _{i=1}^n|\varphi ^{(i)}`$ is an arbitrary separable (i.e., Hartree) $`n`$-partite pure state, the index $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$ labels the parts, and $`|\varphi ^{(i)}_{p_i}c_{p_i}^{(i)}|e_{p_i}^{(i)}`$. Naturally, the more entangled a state is, the further away it will be from its best unentangled approximant and the wider will be the angle between them.

To actually find the nearest separable state, it is convenient to minimize, instead of $`d`$, the quantity $`|\psi |\varphi ^2`$, subject to the constraint $`\varphi |\varphi =1`$. In fact, in solving the resulting stationarity condition one may restrict one’s attention to the subset of solutions $`|\varphi `$ that obey the further condition that for each factor $`|\varphi ^{(i)}`$ one has $`\varphi ^{(i)}|\varphi ^{(i)}=1`$. Thus, one arrives at the nonlinear eigenproblem for the stationary $`|\varphi `$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p_1\mathrm{}\widehat{p_i}\mathrm{}p_n}{}}\chi _{p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n}^{}c_{p_1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}\widehat{c_{p_i}^{(i)}}\mathrm{}c_{p_n}^{(n)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }c_{p_i}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (1a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p_1\mathrm{}\widehat{p_i}\mathrm{}p_n}{}}\chi _{p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n}c_{p_1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{c_{p_i}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}}\mathrm{}c_{p_n}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }c_{p_i}^{(i)},`$ (1b)
where the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is associated with the Lagrange multiplier enforcing the constraint $`\varphi |\varphi =1`$, and $`\widehat{}`$ denotes exclusion. In basis-independent form, Eqs. (1) read

$`\psi |\left(\underset{j(i)}{\overset{n}{}}|\varphi ^{(j)}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ^{(i)}|,\left(\underset{j(i)}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi ^{(j)}|\right)|\psi =\mathrm{\Lambda }|\varphi ^{(i)}.`$ (2)
From Eqs. (1) or (2) one readily sees that the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are real, in $`[1,1]`$, and independent of the choice of the local basis $`\left\{|e_{p_i}^{(i)}\right\}`$. Hence, the spectrum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be interpreted as the cosine of the angle between $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$; the largest, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$, which we call the entanglement eigenvalue, corresponds to the closest separable state.

Although, in determining the closest separable state, we have used the squared distance between the states, there are alternative (basis-independent) candidates for entanglement measures: the distance, the sine, or the sine squared of the angle $`\theta `$ between them (with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{Re}\psi |\varphi `$). We shall adopt $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ as our entanglement measure because, as we shall see, when generalizing $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ to mixed states we have been able to show that it satisfies a set of criteria for entanglement measures. We remark that determining the entanglement of $`|\psi `$ is equivalent to finding the Hartree approximation to the ground-state of the auxiliary Hamiltonian $`|\psi \psi |`$ ref:Mohit .

In bipartite applications, the eigenproblem (1) is in fact linear, and solving it is actually equivalent to finding the Schmidt decomposition Shimony95 . Moreover, the entanglement eigenvalue is equal to the square of the maximal Schmidt coefficient. By constrast, for the case of three or more parts, the eigenproblem is a nonlinear one, for which one can, in general, only address the problem directly, i.e., by determining the eigenvalues and eigenvectors simultaneously, presumably numerically. Yet, as we shall illustrate shortly, there do exist certain types of states whose entanglement eigenvalues can be determined analytically.

Illustrative examples: Suppose we are already in possession of the Schmidt decompostion of some two-qubit pure state: $`|\psi =\sqrt{p}|00+\sqrt{1p}|11`$. Then we can read off the entanglement eigenvalue: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}\{\sqrt{p},\sqrt{1p}\}`$. Now, recall Wootters98  that the concurrence $`C`$ for this state is $`2\sqrt{p(1p)}`$. Hence, one has

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1C^2}\right),`$ (3)
which holds for arbitrary two-qubit pure states.

The possession of symmetry by a state can alleviate the difficulty associated with solving the nonlinear eigenproblem. To see this, consider a state $`|\psi =_{p_1\mathrm{}p_n}\chi _{p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n}|e_{p_1}^{(1)}e_{p_2}^{(2)}\mathrm{}e_{p_n}^{(n)}`$ that obeys the symmetry that the nonzero amplitudes $`\chi `$ are invariant under permutations. What we mean by this is that, regardless of the dimensions of the factor Hilbert spaces, the amplitudes are only nonzero when the indices take on the first $`\nu `$ values (or can be arranged to do so by appropriate relabeling of the basis in each factor) and, moreover, that these amplitudes are invariant under permutations of the parties, i.e., $`\chi _{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _n}=\chi _{p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n}`$, where the $`\sigma `$’s are any permutation of the $`p`$’s. (This symmetry may be obscured by arbitrary local unitary transformations.) For such states, it seems reasonable to anticipate that the closest Hartree approximant retains this permutation symmetry. Assuming this to be the case—and numerical experiments of ours support this assumption—in the task of determining the entanglement eigenvalue one can start with the Ansatz that the closest separable state has the form $`|\varphi _{i=1}^n(_jc_j|e_j^{(i)})`$, i.e., is expressed in terms of copies of a single factor state, for which $`c_j^{(i)}=c_j`$. To obtain the entanglement eigenvalue it is thus only necessary to maximize $`\mathrm{Re}\varphi |\psi `$ with respect to $`\{c_j\}_{j=1}^\nu `$, a simpler task than maximization over the $`_{i=1}^nd_i`$ amplitudes of a generic product state.

To illustrate this, we consider several examples involving permutation-invariant states, restricting attention to $`\nu =2`$. The most natural realizations are $`n`$-qubit systems. One can classify these symmetric states, as follows:

$$|S(n,k)\sqrt{\frac{k!(nk)!}{n!}}\underset{\mathrm{permutations}}{}|\underset{k}{\underset{}{0\mathrm{}0}}\underset{nk}{\underset{}{1\mathrm{}1}}.$$
(4)
As the amplitudes are all positive, one can assume that the closest Hartree state is of the form $`|\varphi =\left(\sqrt{p}|0+\sqrt{1p}|1\right)^n`$, for which the maximal overlap (w.r.t. $`p`$) gives the entanglement eigenvalue for $`|\mathrm{S}(n,k)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}(n,k)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{k!(nk)!}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}}\right)^{\frac{k}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk}{n}}\right)^{\frac{nk}{2}}.`$ (5)
For fixed $`n`$, the minimum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (and hence the maximum entanglement) among the $`|\mathrm{S}(n,k)`$’s occurs for $`k=n/2`$ (for $`n`$ even) and $`k=(n\pm 1)/2`$ (for $`n`$ odd). In fact, for fixed $`n`$ the general permutation-invariant state can be expressed as $`_k\alpha _k|\mathrm{S}(n,k)`$ with $`_k|\alpha _k|^2=1`$. The entanglement of such states can be addressed via the strategy that we have been discussing, i.e., via the maximization of a function of (at most) three real parameters. The simplest example is provided by the $`n`$GHZ state: $`|n\mathrm{GHZ}\left(|\mathrm{S}(n,0)+|\mathrm{S}(n,n)\right)/\sqrt{2}`$. It is easy to show that (for all $`n`$) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}(n\mathrm{GHZ})=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}=1/2`$.

We now focus our attention on three-qubit settings. Of these, the states $`|S(3,0)=|000`$ and $`|S(3,3)=|111`$ are not entangled and are, respectively, the components of the the 3-GHZ state: $`|\mathrm{GHZ}(|000+|111)/\sqrt{2}`$. The states $`|\mathrm{S}(3,2)`$ and $`|\mathrm{S}(3,1)`$, denoted $`|\mathrm{W}|\mathrm{S}(3,2)=\left(|001+|010+|100\right)/\sqrt{3}`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}|\mathrm{S}(3,1)=\left(|110+|101+|011\right)/\sqrt{3}`$, are equally entangled, having $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}=2/3`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}=5/9`$.

Next, consider a superposition of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}`$ states: $`|\mathrm{W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}(s,\varphi )\sqrt{s}|\mathrm{W}+\sqrt{1s}\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}`$. It is easy to see that its entanglement is independent of $`\varphi `$: the transformation $`\{|0,|1\}\{|0,\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }|1\}`$ induces $`|\mathrm{W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}(s,\varphi )\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }|\mathrm{W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}(s,0)`$. To calculate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$, assume that the separable state is $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta |0+\mathrm{sin}\theta |1)^3`$, and maximize its overlap with $`|\mathrm{W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}(s,0)`$. Then we find that the tangent $`t\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ is the particular root of the polynomial $`\sqrt{1s}t^3+2\sqrt{s}t^22\sqrt{1s}t\sqrt{s}=0`$ that lies in the range $`t[\sqrt{1/2},\sqrt{2}]`$. Via $`\theta (s)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (and $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}=1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$) can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{s}\mathrm{cos}\theta (s)+\sqrt{1s}\mathrm{sin}\theta (s)\right)\mathrm{sin}2\theta (s).`$ (6)
In Fig. 1, we show $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}\left(|\mathrm{W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}(s,\varphi )\right)`$ vs. $`s`$. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the more general superposition

$`|\mathrm{SS}_{n;k_1k_2}(r,\varphi )\sqrt{r}|\mathrm{S}(n,k_1)+\sqrt{1r}\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }|\mathrm{S}(n,k_2)`$ (7)
($`k_1k_2`$) turns out to be independent of $`\varphi `$, as in the case of $`|\mathrm{W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}(s,\varphi )`$, and can be computed in the same way. We note that although the curve in Fig. 1 is convex, convexity does not hold uniformly over $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$.

For our last pure-state example, we consider superpositions of W and GHZ states: $`|\mathrm{WG}(s,\varphi )\sqrt{s}|\mathrm{W}+\sqrt{1s}\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }|\mathrm{GHZ}`$. For these, the phase $`\varphi `$ cannot be “gauged” away and, hence, $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ depends on $`\varphi `$.

In Fig. 2 we show $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ vs. $`s`$ at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi `$ (bounding curves), as well as $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ for randomly generated values of $`s[0,1]`$ and $`\varphi [0,2\pi ]`$ (dots). It is interesting to observe that the ‘$`\pi `$’ state has higher entanglement than the ‘$`0`$’ does. As the numerical results suggest, the ($`\varphi `$-parametrized) $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ vs. $`s`$ curves of the states $`|\mathrm{WG}(s,\varphi )`$ lie between the ‘$`\pi `$’ and ‘$`0`$’ curves.

Extension to mixed states: The extension to mixed states $`\rho `$ can be made via the use of the convex roof (or hull) construction \[indicated by “co”\], as was done for the entanglement of formation (see, e.g., Ref. Wootters98 ). The essence is a minimization over all decompositions $`\rho =_ip_i|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ into pure states, i.e.,

$`E(\rho )(\mathrm{co}E_{\mathrm{pure}})(\rho )\underset{\{p_i,\psi _i\}}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle _i}p_iE_{\mathrm{pure}}(|\psi _i).`$ (8)
Now, any good entanglement measure $`E`$ should, at least, satisfy the following criteria (c.f. Refs. VedralPlenio98 ; Horodecki300 ; Vidal00 ):
C1. (a) $`E(\rho )0`$; (b) $`E(\rho )=0`$ if $`\rho `$ is not entangled.
C2. Local unitary transformations do not change $`E`$.
C3. Local operations and classical communication (LOCC) (as well as post-selection, if one wishes) do not increase the expectation value of $`E`$.
C4. Entanglement is convex under the discarding of information, i.e., $`_ip_iE(\rho _i)E(_ip_i\rho _i)`$.
The issue of the desirability of additional features, such as continuity and additivity, requires further investigation, but C1-C4 are regarded as the minimal set, if one is to guarantee that one has an entanglement monotone Vidal00 .

Does the geometric measure of entanglement obey C1-4? From the definition (8) it is evident that C1 and C2 are satisfied provided that $`E_{\mathrm{pure}}`$ satisfies them, as it does for $`E_{\mathrm{pure}}`$ being any function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ consistent with C1. It is straightforward to check that C4 holds, by the convex hull construction. The consideration of C3 seems to be more delicate. The reason is that our analysis of whether or not it holds depends on the explicit form of $`E_{\mathrm{pure}}`$. For C3 to hold, it is sufficient to show that the average entanglement is nonincreasing under any trace-preserving, unilocal operation: $`\rho _kV_k\rho V_k^{}`$, where the Kraus operator has the form $`V_k=𝟙\mathrm{}𝟙𝕍_𝕜^{(𝕚)}𝟙\mathrm{}𝟙`$ and $`_kV_k^{}V_k=𝟙`$. Furthermore, it suffices to show that C3 holds for the case of a pure initial state, i.e., $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$. We now prove that for the particular (and by no means unnatural) choice $`E_{\mathrm{pure}}=E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$, C3 holds. To be precise, for any quantum operation on a pure initial state, i.e., $`|\psi \psi |_kV_k|\psi \psi |V_k^{}`$, we aim to show that $`_kp_kE_{\mathrm{sin}^2}\left(V_k|\psi /\sqrt{p_k}\right)E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}(|\psi )`$, where $`p_k\mathrm{Tr}V_k|\psi \psi |V_k^{}=\psi |V_k^{}V_k|\psi `$, regardless of whether the operation $`\{V_k\}`$ is state-to-state or state-to-ensemble. Let us respectively denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ the entanglement eigenvalues corresponding to $`|\psi `$ and the (normalized) pure state $`V_k|\psi /\sqrt{p_k}`$. Then our task is to show that $`_kp_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, of which the left hand side is, by the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$, equivalent to $`_kp_k\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{max}}{\xi _kD_s}\xi _k|V_k|\psi /\sqrt{p_k}^2=_k\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{max}}{\xi _kD_s}\xi _k|V_k|\psi ^2`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that it is the first party who performs the operation. Recall that the condition (2) for the closest separable state $`|\varphi |\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1|\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{2\mathrm{}n}`$ can be recast as $`{}_{2\mathrm{}n}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }|\psi _{1\mathrm{}n}^{}`$$`=`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1`$. Then, by making the specific choice $`\xi _k|=(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|V_k^{(1)}/\sqrt{q_k})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }|`$, where $`q_k\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|V_k^{(1)}V_k^{(1)}|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, we have the sought result $`_kp_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2=`$ $`_k\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{max}}{\xi _kD_s}\xi _k|V_k|\psi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_k(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|V_k^{(1)}V_k^{(1)}|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\sqrt{q_k})^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. We note that a different approach to establishing this result has been used by Barnum and Linden BarnumLinden01 .

Before moving on to the terra incognita of mixed multipartite entanglement, we test the geometric approach in the setting of mixed bipartite states, by computing $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ for three classes of states for which $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is known.

Arbitrary two-qubit mixed states: For these we show that

$`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}(\rho )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\sqrt{1C(\rho )^2}\right),`$ (9)
where $`C(\rho )`$ is the Wootters concurrence of the state $`\rho `$. Recall that in his proof of the formula for $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, Wootters showed that there exists an optimal decomposition $`\rho =_ip_i|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ in which every $`|\psi _i`$ has the concurrence of $`\rho `$ itself. (More explicitly, every $`|\psi _i`$ has the identical concurrence, that concurrence being the infimum over all decompositions.) By using Eq. (3) one can, via Eq. (9), relate $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ to $`C`$ for any two-qubit pure states. As $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`C[0,1]`$, the optimal decomposition for $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ is identical to that for the entanglement of formation $`E_\mathrm{F}`$. Thus, we see that Eq. (9) holds for any two-qubit mixed state. The fact that $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ is related to $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ via the concurrence $`C`$ is inevitable for two-qubit systems, as both are determined by the one independent Schmidt coefficient.

Generalized Werner states: Any state $`\rho _\mathrm{W}`$ of a $`C^dC^d`$ system is called a generalized Werner state if it is invariant under $`𝐏_1:\rho 𝑑U(UU)\rho (U^{}U^{})`$, where $`U`$ is any element of the unitary group $`𝒰(d)`$ and $`dU`$ is the corresponding normalized Haar measure. Such states can be expressed as a linear combination of two operators: the identity $`\widehat{𝟙}`$, and the swap $`\widehat{\mathrm{F}}_{ij}|ijji|`$, i.e., $`\rho _\mathrm{W}a\widehat{𝟙}+b\widehat{\mathrm{F}}`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are real parameters related via the constraint $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho _\mathrm{W}=1`$. This one-parameter family of states can be conveniently expressed in terms of the single parameter $`f\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _\mathrm{W}\widehat{\mathrm{F}})`$. By employing the technique by developed by Vollbrecht and Werner VollbrechtWerner01  \[as applied to $`E_\mathrm{F}(\rho _\mathrm{W})`$\] to $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$, one arrives at the geometric entanglement function for Werner states:

$`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}\left(\rho _\mathrm{W}(f)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\sqrt{1f^2}\right)\mathrm{for}f0,`$ (10)
and zero otherwise.

Isotropic states: These are states invariant under $`𝐏_2:\rho 𝑑U(UU^{})\rho (U^{}U_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$, and can be expressed as

$`\rho _{\mathrm{iso}}(F){\displaystyle \frac{1F}{d^21}}\left(\widehat{𝟙}|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|\right)+F|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|,`$ (11)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}_{i=1}^d|ii`$ and $`F[0,1]`$. For $`F[0,1/d]`$, this state is known to be separable Horodecki299 . By using the Vollbrecht-Werner technique and following arguments similar to those of Terhal and Vollbrecht TerhalVollbrecht00  applied to $`E_\mathrm{F}(\rho _{\mathrm{iso}})`$, one arrives (for $`F1/d`$) at

$`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}\left(\rho _{\mathrm{iso}}(F)\right)=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left(\sqrt{F}+\sqrt{(1F)(d1)}\right)^2.`$ (12)
Mixtures of multipartite symmetric states: As a final example we consider mixed states of the form ($`k_1k_2`$)

$$\rho _{n;k_1k_2}(r)r|\mathrm{S}(n,k_1)\mathrm{S}(n,k_1)|+(1r)|\mathrm{S}(n,k_2)\mathrm{S}(n,k_2)|.$$

From the independence of $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}\left(|\mathrm{SS}_{n;k_1k_2}(r,\varphi )\right)`$ on $`\varphi `$, one can show that $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}\left(\rho _{n;k_1k_2}(r)\right)`$ vs. $`r`$ can be constructed from the convex hull of the entanglement function of $`|\mathrm{SS}_{n;k_1k_2}(r,0)`$ vs. $`r`$. An example is shown in Fig. 3. If the dependence of $`E_{\mathrm{sin}^2}`$ on $`r`$ is already convex for the pure state, its mixed-state counterpart has precisely the same dependence. Figure 1, for which $`(n,k_1,k_2)=(3,1,2)`$, exemplifies such behavior.

Concluding remarks: We have considered a general, geometrically motivated measure of entanglement, applicable to pure and mixed quantum states involving arbitrary numbers and structures of parties. We have illustrated this measure via several examples. In bipartite settings, this approach provides an—in general, inequivalent—alternative to the entanglement of formation; it is, moreover, naturally extendable to multipartite settings.

Acknowledgments: We thank J. Eisert, P. Kwiat, D. Leung, S. Mukhopadhyay, M. Randeria and especially W. J. Munro for discussions. PMG acknowledges the hospitality of the Unversity of Colorado–Boulder and the Aspen Center for Physics. This work was supported by NSF EIA01-21568 and DOE DEFG02-91ER45439. TCW acknowledges a Mavis Memorial Fund Scholarship.


text:
# The Missing Link in Star Cluster Evolution

## 1 The Cluster Luminosity Function

For old globular cluster systems, with ages in excess of $`10^{10}`$ yr, the shape of the cluster luminosity function (CLF) is well-established: it is roughly Gaussian, with an apparently universal peak luminosity, $`M_V^07.4`$ mag, and a Gaussian FWHM $`3`$ mag (e.g., Whitmore et al. 1995, Harris 1996, 2001, Ashman & Zepf 1998, Harris et al. 1998). On the other hand, the well-studied young, $`2`$ Gyr-old star cluster population in the Large Magellanic Cloud displays a power-law CLF of the form $`N(L)\mathrm{d}LL^\alpha \mathrm{d}L`$, where $`L`$ is the cluster luminosity and $`2.0\alpha 1.5`$ (e.g., Elson & Fall 1985, Elmegreen & Efremov 1997).

Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations are continuing to provide an increasing number of luminosity distributions for additional samples of young and intermediate-age compact star clusters in more distant galaxies (e.g., Whitmore & Schweizer 1995, Schweizer et al. 1996, Miller et al. 1997, Zepf et al. 1999, de Grijs, O’Connell & Gallagher 2001, Whitmore et al. 2002). Although a large number of studies have attempted to detect a turn-over in young or intermediate-age CLFs, the shapes of such young and intermediate-age CLFs have thus far been consistent with power laws down to the observational completeness thresholds.

Based on the observational evidence discussed above, the currently most popular globular cluster formation models suggest that the distribution of the initial cluster luminosities and, therefore, the corresponding distribution of their initial masses is closely approximated by a power law (Harris & Pudritz 1994, McLaughlin & Pudritz 1996, Elmegreen & Efremov 1997, Ashman & Zepf 2001) of the form d$`N(M)\mathrm{d}MM^\alpha \mathrm{d}M`$, where $`2.0\alpha 1.5`$. Several processes are proposed for the transformation of the CLF of young star cluster systems into the Gaussian or log-normal distributions characteristic of old globular cluster-type distributions. These include the preferential depletion of low-mass clusters both by evaporation due to two-body relaxation and by tidal interactions with the gravitational field of their host galaxy, and the preferential disruption of high-mass clusters by dynamical friction. However, the relative importance of these disruption processes is still controversial (see, e.g., Vesperini , and Bromm & Clarke  for models that do not implicitly assume a power-law initial mass distribution). If the age range within a given cluster system is a significant fraction of the system’s mean age, fading due to aging of the non-coeval cluster population also severely affects the shape of its CLF: the observed CLF will de dominated by the younger clusters, because a fraction of the older clusters in the system will have faded to below the observational detection limit, thus introducing further incompleteness effects.

The detection of a characteristic turn-over luminosity in young or intermediate-age CLFs would lend strong support to the popular (but thus far only speculative) scenario that the young star clusters observed in mergers are the analogues to the ubiquitous old globular clusters at younger ages.

## 2 The intermediate-age star cluster system in M82

We now consider the intermediate-age star cluster system in the disturbed, late-type galaxy M82 in this context. M82, the nearest and best-studied starburst galaxy, has undergone multiple starburst episodes over the past $`12`$ Gyr. These were likely triggered by tidal interactions with M81 and/or other members of the M81/M82/NGC 3077 group (O’Connell & Mangano 1978, Telesco 1988, Rieke et al. 1993, Yun, Ho & Lo 1994, O’Connell et al. 1995, de Grijs et al. 2001, 2003).

In a recent study in which we focused on the fossil starburst site near the center of M82, region B, we found a population of $`110`$ gravitationally bound evolved compact star clusters (de Grijs et al. 2001). Their properties appear to be consistent with the conclusion that they are evolved counterparts of the young compact star clusters detected in the galaxy’s active core (O’Connell et al. 1995). We estimated ages for the M82 B cluster population from $`30`$ Myr to over 10 Gyr, with a peak at 1.0 Gyr (de Grijs et al. 2001, 2003), based on a comparison of broad-band optical and near-infrared HST colors with the Bruzual & Charlot (2000; BC00) stellar evolutionary synthesis models.

These results suggest steady, continuing cluster formation in M82 B at a very modest rate at early times ($`>2`$ Gyr ago) followed by a concentrated formation episode lasting from 500–1500 Myr ago and a subsequent suppression or decline of cluster formation (de Grijs et al. 2001, 2003, Parmentier, de Grijs & Gilmore 2003). This finite burst of cluster formation makes the star cluster system in M82 B a good candidate to address the evolution of the CLF, because it provides a large sample of approximately coeval clusters (see Fig. 1a). Moreover, because of the proximity of M82, we have been able to probe the intermediate-age cluster population in M82 B to fainter absolute magnitudes, and thus lower masses, than has been possible before in other, more distant galaxies.

Figure 1a shows the star cluster formation rate in M82 B (de Grijs et al. 2003). We have highlighted the enhanced cluster formation episode, $`8.4\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{Age}/\mathrm{yr})9.4`$. Uncertainties in the age determinations may have broadened the peak, so that the actual duration of the burst of cluster formation may have been shorter (de Grijs et al. 2001, 2003).

For the proper interpretation of the M82 B CLF, we need to correct the individual cluster luminosities for their range in ages (Meurer 1995, Fritze–v. Alvensleben 1999, de Grijs et al. 2001, 2003). Using the BC00 models, we have corrected the present-day absolute magnitudes of the clusters formed in the burst of cluster formation to those at a common, fiducial age of 1.0 Gyr. The results are shown in Fig. 1b for both the subsample of 42 clusters with well-defined ages (de Grijs et al. 2003), and for the full sample of 58 clusters formed in the burst (open histogram). The corresponding mass distributions, obtained from the application of the BC00 mass–luminosity relation to the cluster luminosities, are shown in Fig. 1c. In both Figs. 1b and c, we have also indicated our conservative detection limit at $`V=22.5`$ mag (for which we are confident to have an almost fully complete sample; see de Grijs et al. , their Fig. 7), or $`M_V=5.3`$ mag (in case of no extinction), at an age of 1.0 Gyr, assuming a distance to M82 of $`mM=27.8`$ (de Grijs et al. 2001). Since all sources in our sample are resolved, the sample is not contaminated by bright stars (see de Grijs et al.  for a full discussion). We have shown that if we do not restrict ourselves to the limited age range of the burst, the age and mass distributions obtained for the subsample with well-determined ages and those for the full sample of M82 B clusters are internally fully consistent (de Grijs et al. 2003). However, if we impose age limits on our analysis in order to restrict our study to a coeval cluster population at $`1`$ Gyr, the large uncertainties in the age determinations for the subset of the full sample with less well-determined ages lead us to conclude that the results for the full sample should be given less weight and be treated with caution. Those clusters that are not well fit (e.g., having less well-constrained ages and masses) are generally fainter and as such are artificialy skewed towards younger ages due to the well-known age-extinction degeneracy, which is more important for these clusters owing to their lower signal-to-noise ratios (see de Grijs et al. 2003 for more details).

In Fig. 2 we show the distribution of the M82 B clusters in the age vs. mass plane. The various (solid, dashed and dotted) lines overplotted on the figure show the expected effect of normal evolutionary fading of a synthetic single stellar population of an instantaneously formed cluster at our limiting magnitude. For ages $`10^9`$ yr, we show the unreddened fading line for various choices for the IMF, predicted by the Starburst99 (SB99) models (Leitherer et al. 1999). For older ages ($`t10^9`$ yr), we show its extension predicted by the BC00 models. These predicted lower limits agree well with our data points, which therefore shows that we understand our selection effects to sufficient accuracy.

## 3 Detection of a turn-over in an intermediate-age CLF

Both the M82 B burst CLF and the corresponding mass distribution show a clear turn-over at about 2 magnitudes brighter, and an order of magnitude more massive, than our detection limit, respectively. This is the first time that a turn-over has been detected for a coeval star cluster system as young as $`1`$ Gyr.

The characteristic turn-over mass of the M82 B clusters formed in the burst of cluster formation, $`M_{\mathrm{TO}}1.2\times 10^5M_{}`$ (de Grijs et al. 2003), is approximately half that of the old Galactic globular cluster system (Harris 1996). However, if we assume a power-law or Schechter-type initial cluster mass distribution in a Milky Way-type gravitational potential with strongly radially dependent radial anisotropy (Fall & Zhang 2001), the peak of the mass distribution will change over time towards higher masses due to the effects of cluster disruption, which will preferentially deplete the lower-mass clusters. Furthermore, these models by Fall & Zhang (2001) suggest that the turn-over of the cluster mass distribution will move towards higher masses by approximately $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{cl}}/M_{})+0.9`$ by the time the cluster population reaches an age of 12 Gyr, similar to the median age of the Galactic globular cluster system. This implies that the star cluster system in M82 B will be dominated by higher masses than the Galactic globular cluster system when it reaches a similar age, and most of the present-day clusters will be depleted. This is most likely due to the fact that M82 B is characterized by the shortest known cluster disruption time-scale for any disk region of a galaxy, $`30`$ Myr for $`10^4M_{}`$ clusters (de Grijs et al. 2003, using the method described in Boutloukos & Lamers 2002).

This very short disruption time-scale suggests a significantly different gravitational potential, however, so that our estimate of the amount that the turn-over mass will move towards higher masses is, in fact, a lower limit. Additional support for this conclusion is given by the observation that the current turn-over mass is already $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{cl}}/M_{})+0.5`$ more massive than the turn-over mass for a young star cluster system in a Galactic gravitational potential at a similar age, corresponding to $`M_{\mathrm{TO},\mathrm{young}}7\times 10^4M_{}`$ (Fall & Zhang 2001).111We note, however, that a significant contributor to this apparent difference may be hidden in our choice for the IMF, which we have assumed to be roughly Salpeter-like. Despite a growing body of evidence for a universal IMF independent of the environment (see Gilmore  for a review), significant departures from a Salpeter-type IMF (e.g., Smith & Gallagher 2001) may give rise to larger-than-expected uncertainties in the derived mass distribution. In addition, the width of the mass distribution in Fig. 1c is significantly smaller than that of the Galactic globular cluster mass function (Harris 1996), which again emphasizes the significant effects of the very short cluster disruption time-scale and the significantly different (and time-varying) gravitational potential governing the M82 system.

If the Fall & Zhang (2001) models would apply to the M82 B cluster system, which we assume for the sake of the current discussion, the peak luminosity and width of the CLF will remain virtually unchanged for a Hubble time from its current age of $`1`$ Gyr (S.M. Fall, priv. comm.), due to the combination of evolutionary fading and continuing disruption processes (Whitmore et al. 2002). In that case, we can directly compare the intermediate-age M82 B clusters to the old Galactic globular cluster population. The CLF of the M82 B cluster system is characterized by a turn-over luminosity of $`M_V^0=7.3\pm 0.1`$ mag, and (within the Poissonian observational uncertainties) a Gaussian FWHM of $`3.1`$ mag. The M82 B CLF of clusters formed in the burst of cluster formation is therefore nearly identical to the Galactic globular CLF, although the old Galactic globular clusters are significantly more metal-poor than the roughly solar-abundance M82 B clusters (Parmentier et al. 2003). This difference in metallicity will, however, only affect the peak luminosity slightly, by less than $`0.3`$ mag (Whitmore et al. 2002).

Finally, we note that the key ingredient of the Fall & Zhang (2001) models is the radial anisotropy, which is a strong function of galactocentric distance. The net result of this assumption is that all of the Galactic globular clusters in their models have effectively the same pericenter. While this does not have to apply to the cluster system of M82 as a whole, we emphasize that the cluster system discussed in this letter is confined to a relatively small spatially confined region in the disk of M82, at the end of the central bar (cf. de Grijs 2001). These clusters have, therefore, very similar pericenters indeed.

## 4 Summary and Implications

Thus, here we have presented the first conclusive evidence for a clear turn-over in the CLF of a 1 Gyr-old, roughly coeval cluster population. The CLF shape and characteristic luminosity is nearly identical to that of the apparently universal CLFs of the old globular cluster systems in the Galaxy, M31, M87, and old elliptical galaxies (e.g., Whitmore et al. 1995, Harris 1996, 2001, Ashman & Zepf 1998, Harris et al. 1998). This is likely to remain virtually unchanged for a Hubble time. We have also shown that with the very short characteristic cluster disruption time-scale governing M82 B, its cluster mass distribution will evolve towards a higher characteristic mass scale than for the Galactic globular clusters by the time it reaches a similar age. We argue, therefore, that this evidence, combined with the similar cluster sizes (de Grijs et al. 2001), lends strong support to a scenario in which the current M82 B cluster population will eventually evolve into a significantly depleted old Milky Way-type globular cluster system dominated by a small number of high-mass clusters. This implies that globular clusters, which were once thought to be the oldest building blocks of galaxies, are still forming today in galaxy interactions and mergers. However, they will likely be more metal-rich than the present-day old globular cluster systems.

This connection between young or intermediate-age star cluster systems and old globular clusters lends support to the hierarchical galaxy formation scenario. Old globular clusters were once thought to have been formed at the time of, or before, galaxy formation, i.e., during the first galaxy mergers. However, here we have shown that the evolved CLF of the compact star clusters in M82 B most likely to survive for a Hubble time will probably resemble the high-mass wing of the “universal” old globular cluster systems in the local Universe. Proto-globular cluster formation thus appears to be continuing until the present.

In order to better constrain the future evolution of the M82 B star cluster system it is important to consider a range of models, characterized by fewer or perhaps different orbital restrictions (e.g., Baumgardt 1998, Vesperini 2000, 2001). This is, however, beyond the scope of the current letter and will be done in a subsequent paper (de Grijs et al., in prep.).

### Acknowledgements

\- We acknowledge useful and interesting discussions with R.W. O’Connell and S.M. Fall. We also thank A. Helmi for a critical reading of the manuscript, and the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions. RdeG acknowledges support from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) and from The British Council under the UK–Netherlands Partnership Programme in Science.