text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For last decades the investigations of quantum chaos have been extensively carried out but this field remains under hot discussions. One part of researchers believe that quantum chaos doesn’t exist and at best should be studied in the semiclassical approximation. It is obvious from correspondence principle that quantum counterpart of classical system should have properties reflecting regularity or chaoticity of classical trajectories. The law of level spacing distribution is considered to be one of such properties. It is believed that the quantum analogue of the chaotic classical obeys Wigner level spacing law, while Poissonian law holds for regular systems. However many authors (including us ), pointed out the incompleteness and crudeness of this criterion of quantum chaoticity.

In this paper we continue to develop our approach \[2-4\] to the chaotic properties of the quantum Hamiltonian systems. Our main point is connection between the symmetry properties of a system and its regularity or chaoticity. We show that the earlier suggested chaoticity criterion characterizes the initial symmetry breaking and destruction of the corresponding integrals of motion in a perturbed system, which leads to chaotisation. We compare our approach with known criterion of existence of the approximate quantum numbers by Hose and Taylor  which is based on the analysis of effective Hamiltonians.

One may ask if the new integrals of motion might appear in the perturbed system and how can they influence the system’s dynamics. The problem of construction of the approximate integrals of motion has always attracted great attention due to its practical and philosophical importance. In classical mechanics we have KAM-theory which guarantees existence of invariant tori under perturbation; as to quantum mechanics the situation is somewhat tangled . The normal form method  is well known for construction of the new approximate integrals of motion and integrable approximations to Hamiltonian. Its generalization on quantum systems was done in refs. \[9-11\]. After analyzing the reasons of divergence in the normal form method we propose a rather simple way for construction of approximate quantum numbers based on the unitary transformation of the basis integrals of motion.

In the final part of the paper we discuss the possibility of the exact integrals existence in the perturbed system and formulate the hypothesis of formal integrability in stationary quantum mechanics. We define formal integrability as the existence (in mathematical sense) of complete set of independent mutually commuting operators which have some characteristic differences from the usual first integrals of motion. It is impossible to write such operators in closed form (they have extremely complicated structure) and we can’t find them before the solution of Schrödinger equation is obtained; these integrals don’t correspond to known symmetry groups and are non-separable. We discuss why such a formal (mathematical) integrability doesn’t contradict the system’s quantum chaoticity. The conception of chaos means that the system has algorithmic complexity (it is very difficult to solve equations with high accuracy) and statistical hypothesis works well in the system. The existence of non-separable integrals of motion with very complicated structure can’t help us to solve equations and doesn’t influence the validity of statistical hypothesis.

## 2 Destruction of quantum numbers and the chaoticity criterion

Presently we consider stationary quantum system with Hamiltonian $`H`$ as a sum of Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ of an integrable system and perturbation $`\lambda V`$:

$$H=H_0+\lambda V.$$
(1)
Eigenfunctions $`\{\varphi _\alpha \}`$ of the unperturbed integrable Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ are common for some complete set of independent mutually commuting operators $`\{J_\rho \}_{\rho =1}^N`$ ($`N`$ \- the number of degrees of freedom of the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$). Eigenstates $`\psi _i`$ of the full Hamiltonian may be expanded in eigenfunctions $`\varphi _\alpha `$ of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$:

$$\psi _i=\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi _\alpha ^{}\psi _i\varphi _\alpha =\underset{\alpha }{}c_i^\alpha \varphi _\alpha .$$
(2)
Let us consider the probability $`P_\alpha (E_i)`$ to find the basis state $`\varphi _\alpha `$ in the state $`\psi _i`$ with energy $`E_i`$, which is equal to the squared absolute value of the corresponding coefficient in (2) and define the energy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha `$ of $`P_\alpha (E_i)`$ distribution: the minimal energy interval for which the sum of probabilities $`P_\alpha (E_i)`$ is larger or equal to $`0.5`$. Thus defined $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha `$ is the energy spreading width of basis state $`\varphi _\alpha `$. The spectrum of $`H_0`$ may be degenerate and then the irreducible representations of symmetry group of $`H_0`$ consist of several basis functions which belong to one energy level (shell). We want to find a parameter characterizing the measure of initial symmetry breaking of $`H_0`$ under the influence of the perturbation $`V`$. It’s clear that such symmetry breaking results only due to significant mixing between functions from different irreducible representations. The mixing of states within one shell doesn’t change their symmetry. Unless the spreading width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha `$ is smaller then the distance $`D_0`$ between the neighboring levels in the spectrum of $`H_0`$ we can distinguish ”localization domain” (in energy) of one set of basis states from ”localization domain” of another one. When the spreading width exceeds $`D_0`$ we start loosing the ”signatures” of basis functions in the spectrum of $`H`$ and can’t even approximately compare states $`\psi _i`$ with irreducible representation of symmetry group $`H_0`$. Thus parameter

$$\ae ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha /D_0$$
(3)
is the natural measure of symmetry breaking. When the parameter $`\ae ^\alpha `$ exceeds unity the symmetry of the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ disappears. Such a value of perturbation is accompanied by disappearance of the initial selection rules, the levels are distributed approximately uniformly (level repulsion) and the level spacing distribution approaches Wigner’s law. One can say that the transition from regularity to chaoticity has taken place in quantum system and $`\ae ^\alpha `$ may be considered as the parameter of chaoticity.

The spreading width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha `$ depends on the number $`\alpha `$ of basis state of Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, i.e. on its quantum numbers. The classical analogy to this is the dependence of the invariant torus stability on the corresponding values of integrals of motion. It is clear that in order to obtain the global chaoticity characteristic in quantum case it is necessary to average $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha `$ over the basis states $`\varphi \alpha `$ belonging to the same irreducible representation (shell). The averaged chaoticity parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}`$ unlike local $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha `$ has an important feature of invariance with respect to the choice of the basis for integrable Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ . From the theoretical point of view the above chaoticity parameter has one more useful property. As it was shown in , in the semiclassical limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}^\alpha /\mathrm{}`$ transforms into Lyapunov’s exponent of the corresponding classical motion.

Thus we see that criterion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}`$ ”measures” destruction (fragmentation) of the irreducible representations of the basis and, hence of the Casimir operator (the main quantum number), which is the approximate integral of motion for small perturbations. The other quantum numbers of the basis states suffer destruction in general under a smaller perturbation due to the strong mixing within one shell. To define directly the degree of destruction of approximate integrals of motion one may use an ordinary mean-square-root deviation from the mean value. This deviation of some operator $`A`$ in the state $`\psi _\alpha `$ is calculated as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=\sqrt{\psi _\alpha ^{}(A\psi _\alpha ^{}A\psi _\alpha )^2\psi _\alpha }.$$
(4)
The operator $`A`$ is the approximate integral of motion if the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ to the difference between its neighboring eigenvalues is less then $`1`$.

Another way to study and construct the approximate integrals of motion is the well known method of effective Hamiltonians. In the series of works Hose and Taylor  suggested the criterion of existence of the effective Hamiltonian and of connected with it integrals of motion. According to this criterion we may build the convergent sequence of approximations to the effective Hamiltonian under the condition that projection of perturbed Hamiltonian wave function to the model space is greater then 0.5. Thus if projection of some states $`\psi _\alpha `$ of Hamiltonian $`H`$ to the shell space exceeds 0.5, then the main quantum number has to be the approximate integral of motion for these states. It is obvious that this criterion practically coincides with our spreading width one.

In order to compare the above criteria of destruction of the integrals of motion we have analysed the quantum Henon-Heiles system:

$$H(q,p)=\frac{1}{2}(p_1^2+q_1^2)+\frac{1}{2}(p_2^2+q_2^2)+\lambda (q_1^2q_2q_2^3/3)$$
(5)
The eigenfunctions were obtained using the oscillator basis of $`496`$ states ($`30`$ shells). Fig.1 shows the dependence on the perturbation intensity (energy $`E`$) of the parameter $`\kappa `$, the averaged spreading width of operator $`N=n_x+n_y`$ (see 4) and of the averaged projection ($`P_s`$) of the exact wave functions to the shell. For the sake of easier comparison with other quantities in Fig.1 we plotted the value $`Pr=2(1P_s)`$. We see that destruction of the initial $`SU(2)`$-symmetry according to all these three criteria takes place approximately at $`E=0.10`$.

Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}`$ measures the degree of mixing between the irreducible representations and the destruction of the corresponding Cazimir operators. The question arises if some new integrals of motion might appear instead of the destroyed basis integrals.

The method of normal forms is the most known way to construct the approximate integrals and the integrable approximations to Hamiltonian in classical mechanics . It has been generalized on quantum systems in refs. \[9-11\]. In this method the perturbed wave functions are constructed as certain superposition of the basis functions belonging to a single irreducible representation. Therefore the symmetry of the wave functions is not changed and perturbation $`V`$ with lower symmetry leads only to the splitting of the degenerated level.

This approach gives rather good results when the perturbation is small. However Siegel (1941) proved the divergence of classical normal forms in the case of nonintegrable initial system. In quantum mechanics the question about convergence hasn’t got a final solution, though the authors  stress the asymptotic character of the series arising and confirm it by numerical calculations.

Two reasons for the divergence in the method of normal forms may be pointed out. The first one is well known — it is the non-analyticity of solutions at the point $`\lambda =0`$ (the replacement $`\lambda \lambda `$ in Hamiltonian may lead to significant changes of spectrum properties) and, as a consequence, to the divergence of the expansion into the powers of $`\lambda `$. The second reason is as follows. In the quantum Birkgoff-Gustavson method the integrable approximations are constructed in the form of power series of operators which mix basis states only inside one irreducible representation of the basis symmetry group (one shell). If the interaction effectively mixes states from different irreducible representations the Birkgoff-Gustavson method obviously can’t generate good integrable approximations and convergent integrals in principle. This is why the quantum numbers given by normal form might be good only when mixing between the different shells is weak ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{spr}<1`$).

The difficulties described doesn’t mean the principal absence of approximate integrals of motion in the perturbed system, they only reveal the shortcomings of the methods. To get a convergent method of constructing the integrals one should use combinations of operators which mix states in any given finite-dimensional subspace. In this case we can improve the integrable approximation to $`H`$ (in the sense of operator norm) by simply increasing the dimensions of this subspace. In the next section we’ll describe the convergent procedure allowing to construct approximate integrals in a rather trivial way.

## 3 The convergent method for integrals of motion

Performing a unitary transformation $`U`$ of some basis with a set of quantum numbers we can always easily find a new set of mutually commuting operators for which a transformed basis functions are eigenfunctions. One can see that $`J_\rho ^{}=UJ_\rho U^{}`$ ($`J_\rho `$ – operators of initial basis) are the desirable operators and such bases are equivalent in the sense of the quantity of quantum numbers. If we assume the completeness of eigenstates $`\psi _\alpha `$ of Hamiltonian $`H`$ in the Hilbert space $``$ then $`\psi _\alpha =U\varphi _\alpha `$ ($`\varphi _\alpha `$ is the eigenfunction of $`H_0`$), because any two complete orthonormal bases are connected via some unitary transformation $`U`$. Operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ commute with $`H`$ in the full Hilbert space $``$. Actually, for any function from complete basis $`\psi _\alpha `$

$$[H,J_\rho ^{}]\psi _\alpha =HUJ_\rho U^{}\psi _\alpha UJ_\rho U^{}H\psi _\alpha =HUJ_\rho \varphi _\alpha E_\alpha UJ_\rho \varphi _\alpha =$$

$$j_{\rho \alpha }HU\varphi _\alpha E_\alpha j_{\rho \alpha }U\varphi _\alpha =j_{\rho \alpha }E_\alpha \psi _\alpha E_\alpha j_{\rho \alpha }\psi _\alpha =0.$$

$`J_\rho ^{}`$ are derived from $`J_\rho `$ with the aid of unitary transformation, hence they also form a complete set of independent commuting operators and their eigenvalues $`j_{\rho \alpha }`$ uniquely define every eigenstate $`\psi _\alpha `$ of Hamiltonian $`H`$. Therefore $`H`$ is a function depending on operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$: $`H=H(J_\rho ^{})`$, and $`E_\alpha =H(j_{\rho \alpha })`$. Having determined the approximate wave functions of perturbed Hamiltonian we can construct the unitary transformation $`U`$ and the approximate integrals of motion $`J_\rho ^{}`$. The question about convergence of the procedure suggested is reduced to investigating whether the corresponding method for solving of Schrödinger equation converges or not. For example it has been proved that Ritz’s method converges (with increasing basis) in the case of Hermitian operators with lower-bounded discrete spectrum .

The introduced operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ seem to be formal unless we construct them explicitly as functions of dynamic variables $`(q,p)`$. This, however is not difficult to do with the help of methods taken from the theory of continuous groups’ representations. In the remaining part of this section the realization of this method is described in details and properties of the integrals obtained are discussed.

Let us consider Schrödinger equation $`H\psi =E\psi `$ with discrete spectrum $`E_\alpha `$ and $`\psi _\alpha `$ and write the Hamiltonian $`H`$ in the form of spectral decomposition

$$H=\underset{\alpha }{}E_\alpha \psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha ^{}.$$
(6)
We represent the complete Hilbert space $``$ as a sum of the finite-dimensional model space $`𝒫`$ and its orthogonal adjunct $`𝒬`$: $`=𝒫+𝒬`$. It is convenient to construct the space $`𝒫`$ of eigenfunctions $`\{\varphi _\mu \}_{\mu =1}^{dim𝒫}`$ by using some complete set of mutually commuting operators $`\{J_\rho \}_{\rho =1}^N`$ ($`N`$ \- the number of degrees of freedom $`H`$). We’ll find the approximate wave functions of $`H`$ in the $`𝒫`$-space as a combination of basis states $`\varphi _\mu `$ (as, for example, in Ritz’s variational method or in different versions of perturbation theory)

$$\psi _{p\alpha }=\underset{\mu 𝒫}{}c_\alpha ^\mu \varphi _\mu .$$
(7)
Orthonormal states $`\psi _{p\alpha }`$ are derived from minimum condition for the energy functional in the $`𝒫`$-space and they form a subspace in the $`𝒫`$-space (obviously, only a small number of combinations (7) will satisfy Schrödinger equation with sufficient accuracy). We’ll denote this subspace of solutions by $`𝒮`$ and the energy of states by $`E_{p\alpha }`$. The rest $`dim𝒫dim𝒮`$ of the basis functions in the $`𝒫`$-space may be chosen arbitrarily, and we denote the new basis in the $`𝒫`$-space $`\{\varphi _\mu ^{}\}_{\mu =1}^{dim𝒫}(\varphi _\mu ^{}=\psi _{p\mu },\mu =1,\mathrm{},dim𝒮)`$. Let us show that the operator

$$H_s=\underset{\alpha 𝒮}{}E_{p\alpha }\psi _{p\alpha }\psi _{p\alpha }^{}$$
(8)
(i) commutes with operators forming a complete set in the full Hilbert space $``$, i.e. it is integrable, (ii) $`H_s`$ is approximating $`H`$ in the sense of operator norm in the $`𝒮`$-space, (iii) $`H_s`$ may be expressed in terms of dynamic variables $`(q,p)`$ as well as the initial Hamiltonian $`H`$.

By calculation of wave functions $`\psi _{p\alpha }`$ we constructed simultaneously the unitary transformation $`\varphi _\mu ^{}=U\varphi _\mu `$ of space $``$, which is defined by coefficients $`c_\alpha ^\mu `$ in the $`𝒫`$-space and is the identical transformation in the $`𝒬`$-space. Operators $`J_\rho ^{}=UJ_\rho U^{}`$ are known to form the complete set with the same quantum numbers $`j_{\rho \alpha }`$ and eigenfunctions $`\varphi _\mu ^{}`$. As far as eigenfunctions of operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ and $`H_s`$ in the $`𝒮`$-space coincide, the operators commute in this space. Outside the $`𝒮`$-space $`H_s0`$ and hence it also commute with $`J_\rho ^{}`$. Therefore $`[H_s,J_\rho ^{}]=0`$ in the full space $``$.

Now we are going to check that Hamiltonian $`H_s`$ is close to $`H`$ in the sense of the operator norm in $``$, i. . $`HH_s_𝒮<ϵ`$, under the condition that the residual of the approximate solutions $`(HE_{p\alpha })\psi _{p\alpha }=\delta \psi _\alpha `$ doesn’t exceed $`ϵ`$: $`\delta \psi _\alpha <ϵ`$. Really, for an arbitrary function $`\chi =a^\delta \psi _{p\delta },\chi =1,\chi 𝒮`$

$$H\chi H_s\chi =(\underset{\alpha }{}E_\alpha \psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha ^{}\underset{\alpha 𝒮}{}E_{p\alpha }\psi _{p\alpha }\psi _{p\alpha }^{})\underset{\delta 𝒮}{}a^\delta \psi _{p\delta }=$$

$$\underset{\delta 𝒮}{}a^\delta (\underset{\alpha }{}E_\alpha \psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _{p\delta }E_{p\delta }\psi _{p\delta })ϵ\underset{\delta 𝒮}{}|a^\delta |ϵ\sqrt{dim𝒮}.$$

In the last estimate we used the fact that $`|a^\delta |`$ under the condition $`|a^\delta |^2=1`$ reaches its maximum value when all $`a_\delta `$ are identical and equal to $`1/\sqrt{dim𝒮}`$. The accuracy $`ϵ`$ depends on dimensionality of $`𝒫`$-space; we may fix $`dim𝒮`$ and decrease $`ϵ`$ in such way that the norm $`HH_s_𝒮`$ should be as small as we need.

The introduced operators $`H_s`$, $`U`$ and $`J_\rho ^{}`$ seem to be formal unless we construct them explicitly as functions of dynamic variables $`(q,p)`$. Writing operator $`\psi _{p\alpha }\psi _{p\alpha }^{}`$ in terms of expansion (7) we have:

$$H_s=\underset{\mu ,\nu 𝒫}{}\{\underset{\alpha 𝒮}{}E_{p\alpha }c_\alpha ^\mu c_{\alpha }^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{}\}\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}.$$
(9)
The operator $`U`$ may be also represented as a combination of basis operators $`\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}`$:

$$U=1+\underset{\alpha \beta 𝒫}{}U_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _\beta \varphi _\alpha ^{}+\underset{\gamma 𝒫}{}(U_{\gamma \gamma }1)\varphi _\gamma \varphi _\gamma ^{}.$$
(10)
The first $`dim𝒮`$ rows of the unitary matrix $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ coincide with matrix $`c_\alpha ^\beta `$, the rest $`dim𝒫dim𝒮`$ may be chosen in arbitrary way. It is easy to verify that components $`\chi `$ don’t change outside $`𝒫`$ when $`U`$ acts on arbitrary state $`\chi =a^\delta \varphi _\delta `$, while inside $`𝒫`$ they are transformed by unitary matrix:

$$U\chi =\underset{\delta 𝒫}{}a^\delta \varphi _\delta +\underset{\alpha 𝒫}{}\left(\underset{\beta 𝒫}{}U_{\beta \alpha }a^\beta \right)\varphi _\alpha .$$

Now we’ll construct the basis operators $`\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}`$ as ordinary operators in the form of combinations depending on variables $`(q,p)`$ and acting on states of Hilbert space in co-ordinate representation. If $`𝒢`$ is the group of transformations corresponding to the complete operator set $`J_\rho (q,p)`$, then $`𝒫`$-space is in general a direct sum of irreducible representations $`𝒯_s`$ of the group $`𝒢`$:

$$𝒫=\underset{s}{}𝒯_s.$$

Operator $`\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}`$ transforms the function $`\varphi _\nu `$ into $`\varphi _\mu `$. If the group $`𝒢`$ is Abelian one, the irreducible representations $`𝒯_s`$ are one-dimensional and consist of the function $`\varphi _s`$. For non-Abelian group $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _\nu `$ may belong to one irreducible representation. Our aim is to write the operators which generate all possible transitions between different $`𝒯_s`$ and within some $`𝒯_s`$ as well. It’s not difficult to solve this problem by methods of group theory and actually the problem is equivalent to the realization of the basis $`\varphi _\mu `$.

To perform transformations inside the irreducible representations $`𝒯_s`$ it’s sufficient to use combinations of generators of the basis symmetry group; to connect different $`𝒯_s`$ we need generators of special non-invariance group of basis. Its infinite-dimensional irreducible representation is spanned on our basis. We know non-invariance groups and corresponding algebras for various bases, for example, $`so(4,2)`$ — for Coulomb’s basis and $`so(3,2)`$— for isotropic two-dimensional oscillator basis . After realization of operators of non-invariance algebra $`A_\alpha `$ in the form of combinations of dynamic variables $`(q,p)`$ we look for vacuum state $`\varphi _0`$ for which the decreasing operators from the set $`A_\alpha (q,p)`$ give zero. The vacuum state forms one-dimensional irreducible representation of symmetry group $`𝒢`$, and we shall naturally obtain states from other irreducible representations $`𝒢`$ acting on it with creation operators from the set $`A_\alpha `$. Notation $`S_\mu ^{}(A_\alpha )`$ defines the operator composed of generators $`A_\alpha `$ which produces basis function $`\varphi _\mu `$: $`\varphi _\mu =S_\mu ^{}\varphi _0`$ $`S_\mu \varphi _\mu =\varphi _0`$. We don’t present the general formula for $`S_\mu ^{}=S_\mu ^{}(A_\alpha )`$ because it is not difficult to do it in any specific case (see section 4); usually $`S_\mu ^{}`$ are polynomials composed of generators $`A_\alpha `$ the power of which increases with state’s number $`\mu `$. Then operator $`\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}`$ on the Hilbert space $``$ may be written as follows:

$$\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}=S_\mu ^{}S_\nu P_\nu ,$$
(11)
where $`P_\nu `$ is the projector on the state $`\varphi _\nu `$. The projector $`P_\nu `$ may also be expressed in terms of dynamic variables $`(q,p)`$ in the following way. Let $`T(x)`$ be the operators of unitary representation $`𝒢`$ in Hilbert space, $`D_{\alpha \beta }^s(x)`$ — matrix elements of irreducible representation $`𝒯_s`$, $`dx`$ — invariant Haar’s measure on $`G`$. Then the projector $`P_\nu `$ on the basis state $`\varphi _\nu 𝒯_s`$ may be presented as :

$$P_\nu =dim𝒯_s_G𝑑xD_{\nu \nu }^s(x)T(x).$$
(12)
Operators (12) are bounded, and since $`T(x)`$ is the exponent to the power of generators $`𝒢`$ which form sub-algebra with respect to operator algebra $`A_\alpha (q,p)`$, we have achieved our goal — expressed the basis operators $`\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}`$, $`H_s`$ (9), $`U`$ (10) and integrals $`J_\rho ^{}`$, in terms of variables $`(q,p)`$.

Thus constructed integrable approximations $`H_s(q,p)`$ and integrals of motion $`J_\rho ^{}(q,p)`$, apart from their approximate character (the commutators with $`H`$ are not exactly equal to zero) are local. The Hamiltonian $`H_s`$ is close to $`H`$ in the sense of operator norm only in the finite-dimensional subspace $`𝒮`$, while the operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ are good invariants also only in the $`𝒮`$-space ( outside the $`𝒫`$-space they coincide with the old operators $`J_\rho `$). In the following section we shall demonstrate how the method works in Henon-Heiles problem and then continue to discuss the properties of the integrals obtained.

## 4 Approximate integrals in Henon-Heiles problem

Here we apply the method of the integral construction developed in the previous sections to the well known Henon-Heiles problem with Hamiltonian (5). Introducing operators of creation and annihilation $`a_k^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(q_k+ip_k),a_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(q_kip_k),k=1,2`$ we construct, as usual, the Cartesian oscillator basis

$$\varphi _\mu =\varphi _{n_1n_2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_1!n_2!}}(a_1^{})^{n_1}(a_2^{})^{n_2}\varphi _0$$
(13)
We present the projector $`P_{n_1n_2}`$ on the state $`\varphi _{n_1n_2}(q_1,q_2)=\varphi _{n_1}(q_1)\varphi _{n_2}(q_2)`$ as a product of projectors on the states $`\varphi _{n_1}(q_1)`$ and $`\varphi _{n_2}(q_2)`$ of the corresponding one-dimensional oscillator. For one-dimensional oscillator $`𝒢=U(1),T(x)=e^{ia^{}ax},x[0,2\pi ],D_{\nu \nu }^s=e^{i\nu x}`$, where the number of state $`\nu `$ equals the number of quanta in this state. Then according to (12)

$$P_n=_0^{2\pi }\frac{dx}{2\pi }e^{inx}e^{ia^{}ax}=\frac{i}{2\pi }(a^{}an)^1\{e^{2\pi i(a^{}an)}1\}=$$

$$\frac{1}{\pi }(a^{}an)^1e^{i\pi (a^{}an)}\mathrm{sin}\pi (a^{}an)=\frac{1}{\pi }(a^{}an)^1\mathrm{sin}\pi (a^{}an).$$

We neglect the phase in the last expression because it does not affect the action of $`P_n`$. It’s easy to check that $`P_n`$ acts in the necessary way due to its slightly exotic form:

$$P_n\varphi _\mu =\delta _{n\mu }\varphi _\mu .$$

The total projector $`P_{n_1n_2}`$ takes the form

$$P_{n_1n_2}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}(a_1^{}a_1n_1)^1(a_2^{}a_2n_2)^1\mathrm{sin}\pi (a_1^{}a_1n_1)\mathrm{sin}\pi (a_2^{}a_2n_2).$$
(14)
As a result the formulae (11) together with (13) gives us the operator $`\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}`$:

$$\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu ^{}=\frac{(a_1^{})^{n_1(\mu )}(a_2^{})^{n_2(\mu )}}{\sqrt{n_1(\mu )!n_2(\mu )!}}\frac{(a_1)^{n_1(\nu )}(a_2)^{n_2(\nu )}}{\sqrt{n_1(\nu )!n_2(\nu )!}}P_{n_1(\nu )n_2(\nu )},$$
(15)
where $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are the quantum numbers of states. Using (8), (10) and determining coefficients $`c_\alpha ^\mu `$ and $`E_{p\alpha }`$ we get integrable approximation $`H_s`$ and approximate integrals $`J_\rho ^{}=UJ_\rho U^{}`$. We may take $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ or $`n_1`$ and $`n=n_1+n_2`$ as independent integrals $`J_\rho (\rho =1,2)`$. The coefficients of expansion $`c_\alpha ^\mu `$ and the energies $`E_{p\alpha }`$ were calculated by Ritz’s method with the aid of diagonalization of matrix $`H`$ on the basis (13). We shan’t write explicit expressions for $`J_\rho ^{}`$ for they are very cumbersome: if $`D`$ is the basis dimensionality, then operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ consist of $`D^4`$ terms of the type (15). To determine the degree of destruction of approximate integrals of motion $`J_\rho ^{}`$ in the states $`\psi _\alpha `$ we calculate the mean-square-root deviation $`J_\rho ^{}`$ with the help of (4). The solutions obtained with the basis of $`496`$ states ($`30`$ shells) were considered to be true wave functions. Fig.2 shows the dependence of averaged measure of destruction (4) of operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ ($`J_1=l`$ $`J_2=n`$) on the perturbation intensity (energy $`E`$) in the subspaces with different symmetries. Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian has a symmetry $`C_{3v}`$. Therefore the eigenfunctions’ space can be divided into 4 subspaces $`A,B,C,D`$ (the states belonging to $`C`$ and $`D`$ subspaces have the same energy and thus produce the sequences of degenerate levels). The approximate integrals $`J_\rho ^{}`$ were calculated for the $`𝒫`$-space of different dimensionalities (1, 10, 15 and 20 shells). One can see that increasing of $`𝒫`$-space dimensionality is accompanied by the decrease of fragmentation of the approximate integrals in the $`𝒮`$-space; outside the $`𝒮`$-space operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ loose their advantages in comparison with $`J_\rho `$.

This example shows that the approximate integrals $`J_\rho ^{}`$ really have smaller spreading (fragmentation) in the $`𝒮`$-space then the basis integrals of motion $`J_\rho `$. We may get very small values $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_\rho ^{}0`$ for the bounded states by increasing of $`dim𝒫`$. As a result the analytical structure of $`J_\rho ^{}`$ becomes very complicated.

## 5 Are integrability and chaos compatible?

Now we consider the question about the convergence of the suggested procedure and the question about existence of exact integrals of motion of Hamiltonian $`H`$ in the full Hilbert space (integrability of $`H`$). With the help of Ritz’s method we can find in principle any finite number of states with any finite accuracy and thus construct integrable approximation $`H_s`$ to $`H`$ and integrals $`J_\rho ^{}`$ in any finite subspace with any desirable accuracy. The question is: can we obtain the full infinite spectrum of $`H`$ by tending $`𝒫`$, because there is an effect of systematic ”delay” of $`𝒮`$-space dimensionality with respect to dimensionality of the model $`𝒫`$-space (only states far from the boundary of the approximate spectrum are reasonably accurate in diagonalization). In other words, does the sequence of Hamiltonians $`PHP`$ converge to the initial Hamiltonian: $`PHPH`$ while $`P1`$. Physically it seems to be so but we are in a difficulty to give rigorous mathematical proof, because the sequence $`PHP`$ is not Caushy’s sequence in the sense of operator norm in $``$.

We can formulate the following hypothesis about integrability of $`H`$. If there exist a good (in mathematical sense) unitary operator $`U`$ connecting two complete orthonormal bases: the initial $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and the basis of eigenstates $`\psi _\alpha `$, then the Hamiltonian $`H`$, as we have seen above, commutes with the complete set of independent operators $`J_\rho ^{}`$ and it may be expressed in terms of only these variables $`H=H(J_\rho ^{})`$. (Moreover, according to Dirac  any functions of arbitrary complete orthonormal basis are eigenfunctons of some complete set of commuting observables. This allows to extend our conclusions for any observable, including the case of continuum spectra). Therefore the Hamiltonian $`H`$ seems to be formally integrable. However, in the above considered example (the Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian) the system is chaotic according to all the criteria of Section 2. Moreover, we know for sure that in the classical limit this system is one of the textbook examples of chaoticity. The problem is how to remove the contradiction between the seeming formal integrability and the chaoticity of the system.

One possible answer is connected with the properties of the new integrals $`J_\rho ^{}`$. These integrals of motion are independent and global (provided the convergence of $`PHP`$ discussed above would be proved). However they have extremely complicated structure and can’t be expressed in closed form. Therefore they are useless to separate variables (non-separable) and to solve a problem. We restore them after the approximate numerical solution has been found. These integrals don’t give selection rules for transitions between levels. Therefore they are definitely not the quantum analogs of the classical first (isolating) integrals, which define the classical regular integrable system.

## 6 Conclusions

The problem of existing and constructing of integrals of motion in stationary quantum mechanics and its connection with notion of quantum chaoticity has been investigated. It has been shown that the previously suggested quantum chaoticity criterion characterises destruction of initial symmetry of regular system and basis integrals of motion under the influence of perturbation. Our approach conforms with known probability criterion of Hose and Taylor \[5-6\] and direct estimate of fragmentation (4).

We use variational Ritz’s method for explicit construction of approximate integrals of motion in the form of combinations depending on operators $`(q,p)`$ though in principle another method for solving Schrödinger equation may be used. As a result we obtained finite large-dimensional sums consisting of non-invariance algebra operators in various powers and projectors nontrivially expressed in terms of invariance algebra generators. The quality of approximate integrals of motion is simply controlled by dimensionality of model space in use.

These integrals of motion are independent and global (provided the convergence of $`PHPH`$ discussed above would be proved). However they have extremely complicated structure but have extremely complicated structure and can’t be expressed in closed form, therefore they are useless to separate variables (nonseparable). This also explains why the existence of these integrals doesn’t create obstacles to statistical description of quantum system. That’s why such formal integrability (even if we’ll prove the existence of global integrals rigorously) doesn’t make system to be regular in the sense of absence of chaotical properties. Therefore they are definitely not the quantum analogs of the classical first (isolating) integrals, which define the classical regular integrable system.

One of the authors (IBI) is indebted to Prof.Zikiki and to the Organizing Committee of V.Gribov’s Foundation for their support.


format: text

text:
# PRIMORDIAL BLACK HOLES AND HOT MATTER

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-87ER40328.


text:
# References

Talk on ACAT2000 Workshop
Fermilab, October 16-20, 2000

Optimization of symbolic evaluation of helicity amplitudes

P.S. Cherzor, V.A. Ilyin and A.E. Pukhov

Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University
Moscow 119899, Russia

## Abstract

We present a method for symbolic evaluation of Feynman amplitudes. We construct special polarization basis for spinor particles which produces compact expressions for tensor products of basis spinors.

Quantum amplitudes corresponded to Feynman diagrams depend on momenta of particles and their polarizations. Polarizations of bosons are described by some Lorentz vectors. Thus, in case, when only boson particles are involved, the amplitudes may be presented via dot-products and Levi-Civita tensors. However fermion polarizations are described by vectors in the spinor space, so the amplitude is expressed as a product of Dirac $`\gamma `$-matrices ended by two spinors (hereafter fermion string). Such an expression looks like not complete evaluated — on the step of numerical evaluation one has to perform summations over spinor and Lorentz indices. During last years effective algorithms for these summations were developed, e.g. , and corresponding programs were created for automatic computation of Feynman amplitudes, e.g. 111see also talks by T. Ohl and C. Papadopoulos in these Proceedings ..

Further progress one can get, we believe, if indices summation is performed before numerical calculations. We refer on our experience with the CompHEP package , where the squared diagram technique is used. For processes with four particles in final state the number of squared diagrams becomes very large comparing with the amplitude, and corresponding symbolic answers are cumbersome. Nevertheless, CompHEP works effectively because it prepares analytical expression for each squared diagram in terms of dot-products, and, then, factorizes them. Also, analytical answers for diagrams can be used to resolve explicitely the cancellations between diagrams, important for gauge theories.

An idea of the fermion string symbolic evaluation is known long time ago . Although a spinor can not be expressed in terms of Lorentz vectors, such a possibility exists for pairs of spinors:

$$w\overline{w}^{}w^i(p_1,\lambda _1)\overline{w}_j^{}(p_2,\lambda _2),$$
(1)
where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are particle momenta, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are their polarizations. This matrix can be expressed through the Dirac $`\gamma `$-matrices convoluted with vectors $`p_i`$, $`\lambda _i`$ and some auxiliary vectors. Thus, the contribution of a fermion string, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, to the Feynman amplitude can be rewritten through the trace:

$$\overline{w}(p_2,\lambda _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }w^{}(p_1,\lambda _1)=tr(\mathrm{\Gamma }w\overline{w}^{}),$$
(2)
where this string, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is some product of $`\gamma `$-matrices.

There are different approaches to the construction of tensor products like (1), see e.g. . Here we propose a new method with the following advantages:

1. it produces most compact symbolic expressions for (1);
2. it gives formulae uniformly applicable in massive and massless cases, for Dirac and Majorana fermions;
3. it may be applied to interactions with the fermion number violation;
4. all phases of fermion states are fixed completely, so one can choose spinor pairs by different ways.

Spinors, corresponded to fermion external legs of the diagram, can be one of the following variants, $`w\{u,v,u^c,v^c\}`$ and $`\overline{w}^{}\{\overline{u},\overline{v},\overline{u^c},\overline{v^c}\}`$. Here $`(^c)`$ denotes the operation of C-conjugation, the corresponding fermion strings appear, for example, in the case of interaction with fermion number violation . Spinors $`u`$ and $`v`$ are defined as

$`<0|\psi (x)|\mathrm{\Omega }_+(p,\lambda )>`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}u(p,\lambda ),`$ (3)
$`<0|\overline{\psi }(x)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(p,\lambda )>`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}\overline{v}(p,\lambda ),`$ (4)
where $`|0>`$ is vacuum state, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$) is one-particle fermion (anti-fermion) state. The fermion states depend on the choice of the polarization axises and their complex phases are not fixed.

The characteristic property of spinors $`u`$ and $`v`$ is the completeness:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda u(p,\lambda )\overline{u}(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{p}+m`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda v(p,\lambda )\overline{v}(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{p}m`$ (6)
where $`m=\sqrt{p^2}`$. One can say that any spinors, $`u(p,\lambda )`$ and $`v(p,\lambda )`$, satisfied these relations correspond to some polarization states $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$.

By definition, for Majorana fermion one has $`\psi (x)=\psi (x)^c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+(p,\lambda )=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(p,\lambda )`$. If substitute these identities into (3,4) one gets

$$u(p,\lambda )=C\overline{v}(p,\lambda )^T=v(p,\lambda )^c.$$
(7)
Thus, we conclude that spinor basis should satisfy relation (7) in order to construct an algorithm for evaluation of fermion strings with Majorana fermions. Hereafter we assume that spinors $`u`$ and $`v`$ satisfy this relation.

Following to  we construct $`u`$ and $`v`$ spinors in arbitrary point of the momentum space as a projection of spinors defined at some auxiliary point $`p_0`$:

$`u(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`N(m+\widehat{p})u(p_0,\lambda ),`$ (8)
$`v(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`N(m\widehat{p})v(p_0,\lambda ),`$ (9)
where $`N=1/\sqrt{2[(p_0p)+m_0m]}`$. It is easy to check that this procedure agrees with the completeness (5, 6) at any point $`p`$ if it is satisfied at the point $`p_0`$. Also, it is enough to satisfy (7) at $`p_0`$ to get this relation at any point.

Let $`p_0`$ is massless vector, in this case expressions appeared are simplified. In particular, equations (5) and (6) become to be identical, and, thus, (massless) $`u`$ and $`v`$ spinors are basis vectors in the same spinor subspace. It is well known, that left-handed and right-handed spinors, $`\xi _{}=\gamma _5\xi _{}`$ and $`\xi _+=\gamma _5\xi _+`$, may be chosen as an elements of this basis, and completeness reads as $`\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_{}+\xi _+\overline{\xi }_+=\widehat{p}_0`$. Note that chiral spinors, $`\xi _\pm `$, are defined by these relations up to phases. Let us fix these phases.

At first, let us connect chiral spinors with massless $`v`$ spinor of different polarizations taken at the point $`p_0`$:

$$\xi _+=v(p_0,+1),\xi _{}=v(p_0,1).$$

Then, from (7) one gets

$$u(p_0,+1)=\xi _+^c,u(p_0,1)=\xi _{}^c.$$

Note, then, that C-conjugation transforms the subspace of $`u`$-spinors to the subspace of $`v`$-spinors. For massless $`p_0`$ these subspaces are identical and, thus, invariant under the C-conjugation. From other side C-conjugation transforms left-handed spinor to right-handed spinor. So, sum of the phases of $`\xi _\pm `$ can be fixed by the relation

$$\xi _{}=\xi _+^c.$$
(10)
As a result of our construction the following expressions for $`u`$ and $`v`$ spinors can be derived:

$$u(p,\pm 1)=v(p,\pm 1)^c=N(m+\widehat{p})\xi _{},$$
(11)
$$v(p,\pm 1)=u(p,\pm 1)^c=N(m\widehat{p})\xi _\pm ,$$
(12)
where $`N=1/\sqrt{2(p_0p)}`$.

By means of Dirac conjugation one immediately gets

$$\overline{u}(p,\pm 1)=\overline{v(p,\pm 1)^c}=N\overline{\xi }_{}(m+\widehat{p}),$$
(13)
$$\overline{v}(p,\pm 1)=\overline{u(p,\pm 1)^c}=N\overline{\xi }_\pm (m\widehat{p}).$$
(14)
Expressions (11 \- 14) reduce the problem of evaluation of matrices $`w\overline{w}^{}`$ to the evaluation of $`\xi _+\overline{\xi }_+`$, $`\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_{}`$, $`\xi _+\overline{\xi }_{}`$ and $`\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_+`$. The first two products can be derived directly from the definition of chiral spinors:

$`\xi _+\overline{\xi }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}}\widehat{p}_0,`$ (15)
$`\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}}\widehat{p}_0.`$ (16)
However, expressions for last two products, $`\xi _+\overline{\xi }_{}`$ and $`\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_+`$, can not be derived yet, because they are sensitive to the multiplication of $`\xi _\pm `$ by opposite phase factors. Note that rotation of 3-dimension coordinate system around the space component of $`p_0`$, will produce the multiplication of $`\xi _\pm `$ by opposite phase factors. Thus, one needs to introduce addition auxiliary vectors to fix the reference frame, and (as a result) to fix phases, and (finally) to get a representation for $`\xi _+\overline{\xi }_{}`$ and $`\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_+`$. Let $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ are space-like vectors orthogonal to $`p_0`$:

$$\eta _1.\eta _2=0,\eta _i.p_0=0,\eta _i.\eta _i=1.$$
(17)
Three vectors ($`p_0`$, $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$) may be completed to the basis in Minkowsky space 222say, by vector $`q_0`$, such that $`q_0.p_0=1`$ and $`q_0.\eta _i=0`$.. Now we need that this basis is right-handed oriented. It can be done by fixing the sign of the convolution of Levi-Civita tensor with basis vectors. We fix the basis orientation by the relation

$$\widehat{p}_0=i\gamma _5\widehat{\eta }_1\widehat{\eta }_2\widehat{p}_0.$$
(18)
If one constructs complex vectors $`\eta (\eta _1+i\eta _2)/2`$ and $`\eta ^{}(\eta _1i\eta _2)/2`$, then (18) can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{\eta }\widehat{p}_0=\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}\widehat{p}_0.$$
(19)
Using this equation one can check that

$$\xi _{}=\widehat{\eta }^{}\xi _+.$$
(20)
Note that (16) defines $`\xi _{}`$ uniquely up to a phase. Thus (20) fixes the difference of phases between $`\xi _{}`$ and $`\xi _+`$ (whereas (10) fixes their sum). Now one can derive from (20) the second pair of products:

$$\xi _{}\overline{\xi }_+=\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{p}_0,\xi _+\overline{\xi }_{}=\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}\widehat{\eta }\widehat{p}_0.$$

Note that these relations are some variant of the Bouchiat-Michel equations .

Now we can write down the complete set of expressions for tensor products $`w\overline{w}^{}`$:

$`u(p,\lambda )\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`N(m+\widehat{p})\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\gamma _5& (1\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }^{}\\ (1+\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }& 1+\gamma _5\end{array}\right)\widehat{p}_0(m^{}+\widehat{p}^{});`$ (23)
$`u(p,\lambda )\overline{v}(p^{},\lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`N(m+\widehat{p})\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }^{}& 1\gamma _5\\ 1+\gamma _5& (1+\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }\end{array}\right)\widehat{p}_0(m^{}\widehat{p}^{});`$ (26)
$`v(p,\lambda )\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`N(m\widehat{p})\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1+\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }& 1+\gamma _5\\ 1\gamma _5& (1\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }^{}\end{array}\right)\widehat{p}_0(m^{}+\widehat{p}^{});`$ (29)
$`v(p,\lambda )\overline{v}(p^{},\lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`N(m\widehat{p})\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\gamma _5& (1+\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }\\ (1\gamma _5)\widehat{\eta }^{}& 1\gamma _5\end{array}\right)\widehat{p}_0(m^{}\widehat{p}^{}).`$ (32)
Here $`N=1/[4\sqrt{(pp_0)(p^{}p_0)}]`$, $`m=\sqrt{p^2}`$, $`m^{}=\sqrt{p^2}`$, and dependence on the polarizations follows the rule: $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}++& +\\ +& \end{array}\right)`$.  The products $`w\overline{w}^{}`$ with C-conjugation may be derived now by means of relation (7).

Note, that for $`m0`$ the spinors $`u`$ and $`v`$ have spin directed along the axis $`n=\frac{1}{m}p\frac{m}{(pp_0)}p_0`$. In massless case spinors $`u(p,+1)`$ and $`v(p,1)`$ are right-handed, whereas $`u(p,1)`$ and $`v(p,+1)`$ are left-handed.

At this step one can conclude that in the proposed method the same set of auxiliary vectors ($`p_0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$) is introduced for arbitrary number of fermion strings in the amplitudes. Moreover, only one set can be used for all diagrams to fix relative phases of spinors for interference diagrams. One can compare with other methods where number of sets of auxiliary vectors depend on the number of fermion strings (see, e.g., corresponding discussion in ).

One can find further optimizations in the proposed technique. Indeed, vectors $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ in (23-32) are accompanied always by the $`p_0`$ vector. Let us define antisymmetric tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\eta ^\alpha p_0^\beta `$. Then one can check that $`\widehat{\eta }\widehat{p}_0=\frac{1}{2}G_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu `$ and $`\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{p}_0=\frac{1}{2}G_{\mu \nu }^{}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu `$. By substituting these relations in (2) one can hide the dependence on $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ inside the $`G`$ tensor.

The $`G`$ tensor has some properties allowed one to perform the indices convolutions:

$$G_{\mu \nu }p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=0,G_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }=0,G_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }G_{\nu \mu ^{}}^{}=2p_{0}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}p_{0}^{}{}_{\mu ^{}}{}^{},$$

$$g^{\mu \mu ^{}}G_{\mu \nu }ϵ_{\mu ^{}\alpha \beta \gamma }=4i(g_{\nu \alpha }G_{\beta \gamma }g_{\nu \beta }G_{\alpha \gamma }+g_{\nu \gamma }G_{\alpha \beta }).$$

As a result, one can get symbolic answer for the amplitude expressed via scalar products of particle momenta and auxiliary vector $`p_0`$, their convolutions with the Levi-Civita tensor, and particle momenta convolved with the $`G`$ tensor. The use of $`G`$ tensor optimizes the final expressions — if expand $`G`$ tensor via scalar products two terms appear.

Then, one can expect that amplitude contains both $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ tensors. However, the product of these tensors, $`G(q_1,p_1)G^{}(q_2,p_2)`$, can be expressed via the dot-products and Levi-Civita tensors. So, one can connects fermion legs of the diagram in such a way that amplitudes will be presented via either $`G`$ or $`G^{}`$ tensors, but never both together.

This work was done in the framework of the CPP Collaboration , and supported by grants INTAS-CERN 99-0377 and INTAS 96-842. A.E.P. was supported also by the Programme ”University of Russia” (grant 990588).


text:
# A “ quantum public key ” based cryptographic scheme for continuous variables

## Abstract

By analogy to classical cryptography, we develop a ”quantum public key” based cryptographic scheme in which the two public and private keys consist in each of two entangled beams of squeezed light. An analog message is encrypted by modulating the phase of the beam sent in public. The knowledge of the degree of non classical correlation between the beam quadratures measured in private and in public allows only the receiver to decrypt the message. Finally, in a view towards absolute security, we formally prove that any external intervention of an eavesdropper makes him vulnerable to any subsequent detection.

Quantum correlations (entanglement) between light beams is a subject of considerable activity leading to novel applications such as quantum cryptography, quantum computation and quantum teleportation. As an alternative to classical cryptography, quantum cryptography methods based on correlation of a single photon pair Brassard  have been widely studied over the past years. They have lead to protocoles permitting to transmit confidential messages safely Bennett ; Lo ; Lutkenhaus . On the other hand, few results have been presented for systems with a large number of photons such as correlated quadratures Reid ; Ralph ; Hillery . The use of intense photons beams could present numerous technological avantages in comparison to the use of single photons pulses. Photon counting detectors are much more efficient to detect squeezed light Reid  and its transmission through an optical fiber can be done over a much longer distance Hillery .

In particular, Pereira et al. Pereira  have proposed a scheme in which a coherent light beam containing the message is transmitted through an adequate superimposition with two entangled beams of squeezed light. Since each of the two entangled beams is a noisy channel, they need to be recombined in order to decrypt the message. In this approach, the noise is used to hide the message which becomes thus unreadable during the transmission.

Based on similar considerations, we aim at developping a “quantum public key” based cryptographic scheme. The public key method Brassard ; Publickey  is widely used nowadays in classical cryptography. It consists in two keys. The first key is public and known to everybody i.e. to the sender (Alice) and the receiver (Bob) of the message and a possible undesirable third party. On the contrary, the second key is private and known only by the receiver of the message. The procedure is the following: Bob sends the public key to Alice who uses it to encrypt the message; then Alice sends back the encrypted information to Bob who is the only one able to decrypt it thanks to the private key. In this scheme, the essential idea is that the encryption is public in the sense that anyone, including a third party, can encrypt a message but any decryption process must require necessarily the knowledge of the second key. In this manner, messages are transmitted through public channel with strict confidentiality.

In this letter, we investigate theoretically a quantum public key scheme similar to the classical one. We device a scheme in which the “q-private” and “q-public” keys consist in each of the two entangled photon beams respectively. We analyse a process to encrypt an analog message using the “q-public” light beam. The confidentiality of the message is guaranteed since the second “q-private” light beam is needed for the decryption process. The prefix “q-” has been added to remind the quantum character of the signal produced which, to the contrary of a classical signal, cannot be necessarily reproduced. The non-cloning theorem indeed prevents making an exact copy of an unknown quantum signal. Thus, the q-public beam is accessible only to any first user including a third party.

The non-cloning theorem is also the basic idea from which one can prove that the transmission is secure against an eavesdropper (Eve) Bennett ; Lo ; Lutkenhaus . The impossibility of reproduction prevents Eve from having access to any quantum state without modifying it. Such a modification makes her vulnerable to any subsequent detection by the sender and/or the receiver. As far as security is concerned, we formally prove for the first time, to our knowledge, the vulnerability of an eavesdropper to any external intervention during a communication process using continuous variables. However, we point out that this result does not imply the absolute security of the transmission since the vulnerability of Eve does not mean that she will be necessarily detected. An appropriated protocol of communication is required to detect that eavesdropping has occured. This essential issue is not completely discussed in this letter and remains still open in the case of continuous variables.

Let us start with the description of the quantum public key based scheme. Suppose that Alice wishes to send a message to Bob. To this purpose, Bob produces an EPR state consisting of two entangled beams characterized by the photon annihilation operators $`\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_2`$ epr . Written in occupation photon number representation, this state has the form:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}(r\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}r\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)|0_1|0_2={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_n|n_1|n_2`$ (1)
where $`c_n=(\mathrm{tanh}r)^n/\mathrm{cosh}r`$ and $`r`$ is the squeezing real parameter. Bob then sends beam 1 to Alice and keeps beam 2 in his laboratory. Since Bob has access to the beam 2, he is the only one able to carry out any measurement on the total wave function (1). Alice or Eve, however, is restricted to carry out a measurement of any observable concerning the subsystem of the beam 1. All the information available to them is extracted only from the diagonal density matrix resulting from the partial trace of the total wave function over the unknown beam 2:

$`\widehat{\rho }_1=Tr_2(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|c_n|^2|n_1_1n|`$ (2)
With the “q-public” beam received from Bob, Alice encrypts the secret message by making a unitary transformation $`\widehat{M}`$ which modifies the total wave function but not the density matrix. Consequently, $`\widehat{M}`$ should verify the following criteria:

$`\widehat{M}|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (3)
$`\widehat{M}\widehat{\rho }_1\widehat{M}^{}=\widehat{\rho }_1`$ (4)
Then Alice sends the beam 1 back to Bob which, thanks to the second “q-private” beam is the only one to decrypt the message. Another alternative is that Alice carries out some measurement herself on the beam 1 and sends the results to Bob through a public classical channel. The use of such a classical public channel avoids the blockability of the system by Eve and thus is secure against a split-universe attack Blow . Since the density matrix has not been alterated in the encryption process, one does not observe the presence of the message in the signal received by Bob.

Among the many existing possibilities, the phase transformation:

$`\widehat{M}=\mathrm{exp}\left(if(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1)\right)`$ (5)
satisfies both criteria (3) and (4). $`f(x)`$ could be any real function. For convenience, we choose a simple linear function $`f(x)=\theta x`$ which transforms the coefficients $`c_n\mathrm{exp}(i\theta n)c_n`$. The constant $`\theta `$ is the analog quantity containing the message that Alice encrypts. In comparison with Pereira , in our encryption process, the message is really “invisible” in the signal and thus cannot be distinguished from the noise.

After the phase transformation, the field operator associated to the first beam becomes $`\widehat{a}_1^{}=\widehat{M}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{M}^{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\widehat{a}_1`$. An efficient way to decrypt the information is to measure observables for which the EPR state is an eigenstate. Because of the difficulty to get access to some of them in experiment, one uses rather the quadrature components operators:

$`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_1^{}e^{i\varphi _A}+\widehat{a}_1^{}^{}e^{i\varphi _A}=e^{i\theta _A}\widehat{a}_1+e^{i\theta _A}\widehat{a}_1^{}`$ (6)
$`\widehat{Z}_2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta _B}\widehat{a}_2+e^{i\theta _B}\widehat{a}_2^{},`$ (7)
where $`\theta _A=\varphi _A+\theta `$. $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\theta _B`$ are the phases of the local oscillators used by Alice and Bob, respectively, in their homodyne measurements and determine which quadrature they select for their measurements. $`\theta _B`$ must remain private to Bob whereas $`\varphi _A`$ must be communicated in public to Bob at some stage of the protocol.

Although the EPR state is not an eigenstate of these operators, the uncertainty in the quadrature difference $`\widehat{Z}_{}=\widehat{Z}_1^{}\widehat{Z}_2`$ is close to zero as the squeezing parameter $`r`$ becomes large and $`\theta _A+\theta _B=0`$. We notice indeed from the expression (1) that:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }|\delta ^2\widehat{Z}_{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\mathrm{cosh}2r\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A+\theta _B)\mathrm{sinh}2r\right]`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{r>>1}{}`$ $`4\mathrm{sinh}2r\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\theta _A+\theta _B)}{2}}`$ (9)
On the other hand, the introduction of non opposite phases $`\theta _A+\theta _B0`$ generates for large $`r`$ a quantum uncertainty which appears under the form of fluctuations during the measurement of the quadrature difference. In this manner, the message is obtained by determining the intensity of the noise resulting from these fluctuations epr .

Fig.1 depicts a possible setup. The two EPR “q-private” and “q-public” beams are generated through a nondegenerate parametric down conversion process. They result from the fluorescence of a pump beam passing through a type II crystal acting also as an optical parametric amplifier (OPA) Pereira ; Kimble ; Yariv ; epr . The quadratures components are measured in a homodyne detection with the help of local oscillators fields (LO). The pump field, which generates the two EPR beams via parametric down conversion, is obtained by one intermediate second harmonic (SHG) step as usually. While Bob carries out the homodyne detection of one quadrature of beam 2 for phase $`\theta _B`$, Alice encrypts the message $`\theta `$ by modulating the beam 1 phase (e.g. by means of an electro-optical modulator), before carrying out the measurement of the quadrature $`\varphi _A`$. Finally, Alice sends back to Bob the results of her measurement through a public classical channel.

Let us now discuss the matter of the vulnerability of Eve to any subsequent detection by Alice and/or Bob. Let $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$ and $`\widehat{Z}_2`$ be the observables measured by Alice and Bob respectively. Suppose that Eve tries to have access to the “q-public” beam 1 and thus modifies it by means of an unitary transformation:

$`\widehat{a}_{1E}=\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{U}`$ (10)
The unitary operator $`\widehat{U}`$ could depend on other external degrees of freedom (observables) introduced by Eve. For example, Eve could use another photon beam or other modes of the same beam but taken at a different time or even a detector in view of a measurement on the beam 1. We denote by $`|\nu `$ a basis of the Hilbert space characterizing these external degrees of freedom and assume that $`|0`$ is the initial state before the modification. Then the state after the unitary transformation is $`\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }|0`$. Let us define the probability distribution to find the system with the values $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ of the quadrature component observables $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$ and $`\widehat{Z}_2`$:

$`P(z_1^{},z_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }|\delta (z_1^{}\widehat{Z}_1^{})\delta (z_2\widehat{Z}_2)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (11)
After Eve’s action the probability distribution becomes:

$$P_E(z_1^{},z_2)=0|\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{U}^{}\delta (z_1^{}\widehat{Z}_1^{})\delta (z_2\widehat{Z}_2)\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }|0$$
(12)
To avoid that Eve presence is revealed, both probability distributions must be equal for the particular values of $`\theta _A`$ and $`\theta _B`$ chosen by Alice and Bob. On the other hand, Eve is vulnerable to detection, whenever there exist possible choices of $`\theta _A,\theta _B`$ (possible homodyne measurements made by Bob or Alice) for which the probability distribution of the measurement outcomes is changed by Eve’s action.

THEOREM : If Alice measures only one quadrature $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$, Eve attack is not vulnerable to a successive detection by Bob if and only if $`\nu |\widehat{U}|0`$ is a function only of the quadrature operator $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$.

PROOF: When $`\nu |\widehat{U}|0`$ commutes with $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$ then the $`\widehat{U}`$’s cancel each other in (12) and trivially:

$`P_E(z_1^{},z_2)=P(z_1^{},z_2)`$ (13)
On the contrary, let us examine the consequence of requiring (13) for all possible choices of the quadrature $`\widehat{Z}_2`$ measured by Bob but only for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ given by (1). Taking the Fourier transform on $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, the equation (13) becomes:

$$0|\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{U}^{}e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}e^{i\widehat{Z}_2s_2}\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }|0=\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}e^{i\widehat{Z}_2s_2}|\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(14)
This equality should be satisfied for any value of the real parameters $`s_1`$, $`s_2`$, $`\theta _B`$. The last two can be replaced by the more global complex parameter $`\xi =\xi _X+i\xi _Y=e^{i\theta _B}s_2`$, in such a way that $`\widehat{Z}_2s_2=\xi \widehat{a}_2^{}+\xi ^{}\widehat{a}_2`$. Let us introduce:

$`T_{n,n^{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})=_2n^{}|e^{i\left(\xi \widehat{a}_2^{}+\xi ^{}\widehat{a}_2\right)}|n_2`$ (15)
A calculation shows that for all occupation number $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ of the beam 2:

$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\xi }{\pi }}T_{n,n^{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})e^{i\left(\xi \widehat{a}_2^{}+\xi ^{}\widehat{a}_2\right)}=|n_2_2n^{}|`$ (16)
Applying this transformation to (14) and using the property of entanglement of (1), we eliminate the states describing the second beam since $`\widehat{U}`$ does not affect beam 2. We obtain for all occupation numbers $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ for beam 1:

$`0|_1n^{}|\widehat{U}^{}e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}\widehat{U}|n_1|0=_1n^{}|e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}|n_1`$ (17)
Operating the inverse transformation of the matrix element in the right hand side, we get:

$`0|_1n^{}|\widehat{U}^{}e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}\widehat{U}e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}|n_1|0=\delta _{n^{},n}`$ (18)
Without loss of generality we can write the explicit dependance of $`\widehat{U}`$ on the observables associated to the first beam as $`\widehat{U}=\widehat{U}(\widehat{Z}_1^{},\widehat{Q}_1^{})`$, where $`\widehat{Q}_1^{}=(\widehat{a}_1e^{i\theta _A}\widehat{a}_1^{}e^{i\theta _A})/i`$ is the observable canonically conjugated to $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$. Noticing that the exponential operator is the generator of translations i.e. $`e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}\widehat{Q}_1^{}e^{i\widehat{Z}_1^{}s_1}=\widehat{Q}_1^{}2s_1`$, Eq.(18) becomes:

$$0|_1n^{}|\widehat{U}^{}(\widehat{Z}_1^{},\widehat{Q}_1^{})\widehat{U}(\widehat{Z}_1^{},\widehat{Q}_1^{}2s_1)|n_1|0=\delta _{n^{},n}$$
(19)
Because two normalized states with unity scalar product are necessarily equal, we infer that for all $`n`$:

$`\widehat{U}(\widehat{Z}_1^{},\widehat{Q}_1^{})|n_1|0=\widehat{U}(\widehat{Z}_1^{},\widehat{Q}_1^{}2s_1)|n_1|0`$ (20)
We conclude that, for any state $`|\nu `$, $`\nu |\widehat{U}(\widehat{Z}_1^{},\widehat{Q}_1^{})|0`$ does not depend on $`\widehat{Q}_1^{}`$ or equivalently it depends only on the quadrature operator $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$ measured by Alice.

COROLLARY: If Alice chooses to measure between at least two distinct and non opposite quadratures, Eve attack is not vulnerable if and only if $`\widehat{U}`$ does not interact with the beam 1 and acts only onto the state $`|0`$ i.e.:

$`\nu |_1n^{}|\widehat{U}|n_1|0=\delta _{n^{},n}u_\nu `$ (21)
where $`u_\nu `$ does not depend on $`n`$.

PROOF: From the theorem, we deduce that for each non opposite quadrature we must have the dependance $`\widehat{U}(\widehat{Z}_1^{})`$. Since the quadratures are independent, the only possibility is that $`\widehat{U}`$ is independent of any observable relative to the beam 1 or is of the form (21).

One direct consequence of the theorem and its corollary is that if there is any element of randomness in the choice of the quadrature $`\widehat{Z}_1^{}`$ made by Alice, then Eve cannot safely extract any information about beam 1 and therefore about the message. This element of randomness can be introduced as a random choice between two distinct and non opposite values $`\varphi _A`$. Alternatively the message itself can be a random sequence of phase shifts $`\theta `$, chosen at least between two distinct and non opposite values. Thus, Eve is also vulnerable in the case of a digital transmission in which for example, Alice restricts her measurement to two orthogonal quadratures.

The facts that the probability distributions must be equal for any value of $`\theta _B`$, that the second beam has been kept private and that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the entangled form (1) permits to achieve the proofs. If the value of $`\theta _B`$ remains fixed, the linear transformation cannot be carried out since the integration in (16) must be done over all $`\xi `$. If Eve has access to the second beam, then the unitary operator depends also on $`\widehat{a}_2`$ and $`\widehat{a}_2^{}`$ and the passage from (14) to (17) is not necessarily valid. Finally, if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is different and for example is a disentangled state, then the beam 1 might be cloned by Eve and therefore she can obtain information without being detected.

The vulnerability of Eve does not mean that she will be necessarily detected by Bob. When Bob receives a message, how can he know a priori that eavesdropping has occured? For example, Eve can block Bob’s public beam and can replace it with a public beam of her own. Alice proceeds as planned and sends the results of her measurement to both Bob and to Eve. Eve decrypts the correct message but Bob gets the wrong message. To avoid this situation, Bob must be able to check that some expected correlations are recovered. One possibility is the introduction of some redundancies in the message which can help him to detect the presence of the third party. For example, Alice sends twice portions of the message. Any external intervention is detected if two identical portions are not recovered. Therefore, a strategy of communication or protocol is needed in order to guarantee the absolute security of the transmission. The study of such protocols requires further investigation and is beyond the scope of this letter.

In summary, we developed a “quantum public key” scheme for encrypting a message by means of quantum correlated beams. This scheme is based on the principle that any decryption of the message requires both measurements of a “q-private” key signal and an encrypted “q-public” key signal. Directions for a future research work include, in addition to the study of secure protocols, the imperfection in the photon counting of the detector and the possibility of loss in the transmission which degrades the correlations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors warmly thank S. M. Barnett for useful remarks and criticisms. This work was supported by the network QSTRUCT of the TMR programme of the EU.