text:
# 1 Introduction and motivation

## 1 Introduction and motivation

The problem of tachyon condensation is an old subject in the context of the string theory . Recently it has been conjectured that the tachyonic vacuum in open string theory on the D-brane describes the closed string vacuum without D-branes and that various soliton solutions of the theory describe D-branes of lower dimension . This conjecture has been supported by number calculations within the first and second quantized string theory.

One can get some insight into the problem by considering the world-volume effective action  which describes the D-brane around the tachyonic vacuum. Recently there has been some effort directed towards identifying of string-like classical solutions whose tension matches that of fundamental string . In fact the D-brane action at the tachyonic vacuum is equivalent to the zero tension limit of the D-brane action. The zero tension limit was with a different motivation studied previously in  and a string picture was obtained there as well.

In this short note we would like to revise and clarify certain arguments from  in light of the new motivation. Unlike  we do not start from the gauge fixed model. The ultimate goal is to relate two different theories (zero tension D-brane theory and string theory) to each other. These two theories have different gauge symmetries and are unrelated a priori. We study the algebra of constraints of D-brane theory at the tachyonic vacuum in detail. It turns out that fundamental string-like Hamiltonian constraints generate a subalgebra (in fact an ideal) of the full algebra of the model at the tachyonic vacuum and that there is natural embedding of this subalgebra provided by the “electric flux”. We hope that the present analysis will clarify the general situation and as well as explore the relation between the static gauge results  and the general situation. Our formalism is Poincaré covariant, i.e., we avoid the gauge fixing which breaks the Poincaré invariance (i.e, static gauge).

In addition we study the Lagrangian which describes the dynamics of D-brane at the tachyonic vacuum. In the set of solutions of the classical equations of the gauge fixed model we identify the subset of solutions that correspond to string theory solutions in conformal gauge. We argue that the model might be consistently quantized if we regard the electric and magnetic fields as a type of background fields.

At the tachyonic vacuum the RR background fields decouple completely from the dynamics since the Wess-Zumino couplings are proportional to the derivative of the tachyon field. This is natural since one expects that the tachyonic vacuum is equivalent to the closed string vacuum without D-branes. However the fluctuations around the vacuum should describe the D-branes of lower dimension. Therefore it is natural to study these fluctuation within the present framework. At the end of the paper we thus briefly discuss small fluctuation around the tachyonic vacuum.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we study the algebra of constraints within the Hamiltonian formalism. Section 3 is devoted to the Lagrangian treatment of the model and to the classical solutions of the gauge fixed theory. In the Section 4 the role of the background antisymmetric tensor fields and small fluctuations around the vacuum are discussed. In the last Section we summarize the results and propose some future research.

## 2 Hamiltonian treatment of BI theory

In this section we study the algebra of constraints in detail and find that the string-like constraints generate an ideal inside the full algebra.

Let us start by considering the effective D-brane action  with constant tachyon field $`T`$

$$S=T_pV(T)d^{p+1}x\sqrt{det(\gamma _{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta })}$$
(2.1)
where $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the pullback of the space-time metric, $`F_{\alpha \beta }=_{[\alpha }A_{\beta ]}`$ is the field strength for the $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`A_\alpha `$ and $`V(T)`$ is a tachyon potential. For the moment we ignore the antisymmetric background tensor fields (NS two-form and RR forms). In what follows we assume that the D-brane is closed (i.e., that the appropriate periodicity conditions on the fields are imposed) or that there is appropriate fall off of the field at the spatial infinity. This assumption is needed to avoid possible boundary terms.

Since (2.1) is a generally covariant system the naive Hamiltonian vanishes. The constraints can be straightforwardly derived from the action (2.1)

$`_a`$ $`=`$ $`P_\mu _aX^\mu +\pi ^bF_{ab},`$ (2.2)
$``$ $`=`$ $`P_\mu G^{\mu \nu }P_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}}\pi ^a\gamma _{ab}\pi ^b+T_p^2(V(T))^2det(\gamma _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}),`$ (2.3)
$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`_a\pi ^a,\pi _0=0.`$ (2.4)
where we use lower case Latin letters for the spatial indices. There are $`(p+3)`$ constraints as there should be corresponding to the $`(p+1)`$ diffeomorphisms and $`U(1)`$ symmetries. It is convenient to smear the constraints with test functions

$$_a[N^a]=d^pxN^a(x)_a(x),[M]=d^pxM(x)(x)$$

$$𝒢[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=d^px\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)𝒢(x)$$
(2.5)
where $`N^a`$ is a p-dimensional vector, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is scalar and $`M`$ is scalar density of weight minus one. $`M`$ has this weight because the constraint (2.3) transforms as a scalar density of weight two and we would like to write the Hamiltonian as a sum of the constraints smeared by test functions. In analogy with general relativity we call $`N^a`$ and $`M`$ shift vector and lapse function, respectively. As usual for gauge theories we can identify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the zero component of the gauge vector potential. The constraints obey an algebra whose non-zero brackets are

$`\{_a[N^a],_b[M^b]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_a[_\stackrel{}{N}M^a]+𝒢[N^aM^bF_{ba}],`$ (2.6)
$`\{_a[N^a],[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`[_\stackrel{}{N}M]+𝒢[2M\pi ^a\gamma _{ab}N^b],`$ (2.7)
$`\{[N],[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_a[4(\pi ^a\pi ^b+A^{(ab)})(N_bMM_bN)],`$ (2.8)
with the following notation

$$A^{ab}=T_p^2V(T)^2\frac{1}{(p1)!}ϵ^{aa_1\mathrm{}a_{p1}}ϵ^{bb_1\mathrm{}b_{p1}}(\gamma _{a_1b_1}+F_{a_1b_1})\mathrm{}(\gamma _{a_{p1}b_{p1}}+F_{a_{p1}b_{p1}})$$
(2.9)
and $`A^{(ab)}=\frac{1}{2}(A^{ab}+A^{ba})`$. For the time being we drop a factor $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})`$ to avoid cluttering the formulae. This factor can be easily restored in the final expressions. The full Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=_a[N^a]+[M]+𝒢[\mathrm{\Lambda }],$$
(2.10)
and provides the time evolution of the fields. The algebra (2.6)-(2.8) is not closed and has field dependent structure constants. As far as the authors are aware the classical BRST charge for this system has not been constructed. By analogy to the p-brane case  one may expect that the BRST charge will have quite a high rank (maybe $`p`$ as for $`p`$-branes ). Therefore it seems difficult to quantize this model from first principles333Even though we call the BI theory the effective theory it is still an unsettled question what is more fundamental, strings or D-branes. Thus a possible consistent quantization of the BI theory is an important issue..

If the tachyon field is frozen at its minimum $`T=T_0`$ ($`V(T_0)=0`$) the constraints are reduced to the following set

$$_a=P_\mu _aX^\mu +\pi ^bF_{ab},$$
(2.11)
and

$$=P_\mu G^{\mu \nu }P_\nu +\frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}\pi ^a\gamma _{ab}\pi ^b,$$
(2.12)
together with Gauss’ law $`_a\pi ^a=0`$ and $`\pi _0=0`$. The constraints (2.11)-(2.12) obey the following algebra

$`\{_a[N^a],_b[M^b]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_a[_\stackrel{}{N}M^a]+𝒢[N^aM^bF_{ba}],`$ (2.13)
$`\{_a[N^a],[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`[_\stackrel{}{N}M]+𝒢[2M\pi ^a\gamma _{ab}N^b],`$ (2.14)
$`\{[N],[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_a[4\pi ^a\pi ^b(N_bMM_bN)].`$ (2.15)
The algebra (2.13)-(2.15) is similar to that of the full theory (2.6)-(2.8). In fact at the tachyonic vacuum the system has the gauge symmetries of the full theory444This is not the case in the $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}`$ limit, where the gauge algebra has a different form.. For the usual p-branes (i.e., with the gauge field in (2.1) equal to zero) this is not the case. The zero tension algebra for a p-brane has a completely different form from that of the full algebra.

There is one important difference in the field dependent structure constants of (2.15) and (2.8) which plays a key role in finding the string like subalgebra (2.21)-(2.23). Explicitly the right hand side of (2.15) is

$$_a[4\pi ^a\pi ^b(N_bMM_bN)]=d^px\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi ^a\pi ^b(N_bMM_bN)(P_\mu _aX^\mu +\pi ^cF_{ac}),$$
(2.16)
where the last term vanishes identically because of the antisymmetry of $`F_{ab}`$. Thus the right hand side of (2.16) leads to $`P_\mu \pi ^a_aX^\mu =0`$ showing that $`\pi ^a_aX^\mu =0`$ is a “preferred” direction on the world-volume.

As a direct result of (2.11)-(2.12) there is not much dynamics for the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom. For instance, the momenta $`\pi ^a`$ satisfy the following equations

$$_a\pi ^a=0,\dot{\pi }^a=_\stackrel{}{N}\pi ^a,$$
(2.17)
and thus $`\pi ^a`$ completely decouples from the other fields, except from the Lagrangian multiplier, $`\stackrel{}{N}`$, (the shift vector). Because of (2.16) one may decompose the constraints (2.11)-(2.12) in the following fashion

$$_\pi =P_\mu \pi ^a_aX^\mu ,=P_\mu G^{\mu \nu }P_\nu +\frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}\pi ^a\gamma _{ab}\pi ^b,$$
(2.18)
the other $`(p1)`$ generators being

$$_a^{}[\stackrel{~}{N}^a]=d^px\stackrel{~}{N}^a(P_\mu _aX^\mu +\pi ^bF_{ab}),$$
(2.19)
which generate the general coordinate transformations with parameter $`\stackrel{~}{N}^a`$ (see appendix). The decomposition (2.18)-(2.19) may be thought of as a decomposition of the shift vector $`N^a`$ along directions “parallel” and “orthogonal” to $`\pi ^a`$

$$N^a=N\pi ^a+\stackrel{~}{N}^a,$$
(2.20)
where $`N`$ transforms as density of weight minus one. To really implement the concept “parallel” and “orthogonal” involves a metric, e.g., (the spatial part of) the induced metric, and leads to unwanted additional constraints. All we need is for $`N\pi ^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}^a`$ to be linearly independent. The details of this decomposition are not essential in what follows, however. The appropriate decomposition of the constraint $`_a`$ can always be done locally. At the global level (2.20) may imply restrictions on the topology of the D-brane world-volume. In the following discussion we will disregard this potential complication.

For the given $`\pi ^a`$ we decompose the full set constrains as in (2.18)-(2.19). The algebra of (2.18) is given by

$`\{_\pi [N],_\pi [M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_\pi [\pi ^a(N_aMM_aN)],`$ (2.21)
$`\{_\pi [N],[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`[4\pi ^a(N_aMM_aN)+NM(_a\pi ^a)],`$ (2.22)
$`\{[N],[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_\pi [4\pi ^a(N_aMM_aN)].`$ (2.23)
This subalgebra closely resembles the algebra of constraints of the Nambu-Goto string. We have thus found a non trivial embedding of one algebra into another with field dependent structure constants.

Guided by this we introduce the following constraints

$$Q^\pm [N]=[N]\pm 2_\pi [N]=d^pxN(P_\mu \pm G_{\mu \sigma }\pi ^a_aX^\sigma )G^{\mu \nu }(P_\nu \pm G_{\nu \rho }\pi ^b_bX^\sigma ),$$
(2.24)
which are analogs of Virasoro constraints. In terms of the new constraints the algebra (2.13)-(2.15) becomes

$`\{Q^+[N],Q^+[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^+[8\pi ^a(N_aMM_aN)],`$ (2.25)
$`\{Q^{}[N],Q^{}[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^{}[8\pi ^a(N_aMM_aN)],`$ (2.26)
$`\{Q^+[N],Q^{}[M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^+[NM_a\pi ^a]+Q^{}[NM_a\pi ^a],`$ (2.27)
$`\{_a^{}[\stackrel{~}{N}^a],Q^\pm [M]\}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^\pm [_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{N}}}M]+𝒢[2\stackrel{~}{N}^a\pi ^bM\gamma _{ab}],`$ (2.28)
$`\{_a^{}[\stackrel{~}{N}^a],_b^{}[\stackrel{~}{M}^b]\}`$ $`=`$ $`_a^{}[_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{N}}}\stackrel{~}{M}^a]+𝒢[\stackrel{~}{N}^a\stackrel{~}{M}^bF_{ba}].`$ (2.29)
This algebra is thus exactly the same as (2.13)-(2.15) but written in a different form. The relation (2.27) can also be written as

$$\{Q^+[N],Q^{}[M]\}=𝒢[2NM(P_\mu G^{\mu \nu }P_\nu +\pi ^a\gamma _{ab}\pi ^b)].$$
(2.30)
The algebra (2.25)-(2.29) follows straightforwardly from the previous calculations. The only relation which needs checking is

$$\{_a[N^a],_\pi [M]\}=_\pi [_\stackrel{}{N}M],$$
(2.31)
where there are no restrictions on $`N^a`$. The algebra (2.25)-(2.29) contains the Virasoro like generators $`Q^\pm `$ which together with Gauss law $`𝒢`$ generate an ideal of the full algebra. We know of no other nontrivial ideal of a gravity algebra with field dependent structure constants. It is unclear how this ideal is manifested in the BRST charge and other gauge theory quantities, but the existence of a nontrivial ideal may perhaps throw some light on the relation between theories with different gauge symmetries. We hope to return to this question elsewhere.

The algebra (2.25)-(2.29) is not closed and has field dependent structure constants. However since $`\pi ^a`$ decouples (see (2.17)) it is tempting to assume that Gauss’ law holds strongly; $`_a\pi ^a=0`$. Thus one may regard it as an “background field”. Thus, considering a definite field configuration $`\pi ^a`$ with $`_a\pi ^a=0`$ we may study the behavior of the system with this given “electric flux” $`\pi ^a`$. Introducing a mode expansion for $`\pi ^a`$ and a mode expansion of the constraints $`Q^\pm `$, $`_a^{}`$

$$\pi ^a=\underset{\stackrel{}{N}}{}\pi _\stackrel{}{N}^ae^{i\stackrel{}{N}\stackrel{}{x}},L_\stackrel{}{M}^\pm =Q^\pm [\frac{1}{8}e^{i\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{x}}],H_{a,\stackrel{}{N}}=_a^{}[e^{i\stackrel{}{N}\stackrel{}{x}}]$$
(2.32)
we get the following classical algebra

$`\{L_\stackrel{}{N}^+,L_\stackrel{}{M}^+\}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{S}}{}}\pi _\stackrel{}{S}^a(N_aM_a)L_{\stackrel{}{N}+\stackrel{}{M}+\stackrel{}{S}}^+,`$ (2.33)
$`\{L_\stackrel{}{N}^{},L_\stackrel{}{M}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{S}}{}}\pi _\stackrel{}{S}^a(N_aM_a)L_{\stackrel{}{N}+\stackrel{}{M}+\stackrel{}{S}}^{},`$ (2.34)
$`\{L_\stackrel{}{N}^+,L_\stackrel{}{M}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.35)
$`\{H_{a,\stackrel{}{N}},L_\stackrel{}{M}^\pm \}`$ $`=`$ $`i(N_aM_a)L_{\stackrel{}{N}+\stackrel{}{M}}^\pm ,`$ (2.36)
$`\{H_{a,\stackrel{}{N}},H_{b,\stackrel{}{M}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`iN_bH_{a,\stackrel{}{N}+\stackrel{}{M}}iM_aH_{b,\stackrel{}{N}+\stackrel{}{M}}.`$ (2.37)
We see that the subalgebra generated by $`L_\stackrel{}{N}^+`$ and $`L_\stackrel{}{N}^{}`$ is an ideal of the whole gauge algebra.

The subalgebra (2.33) (as well as (2.34)) can be thought of as generalizations of the Virasoro algebra. To illustrate this let us choose $`\pi ^a`$ to be constant and thus the subalgebra (2.33) to be

$$\{L_\stackrel{}{N}^+,L_\stackrel{}{M}^+\}=i\pi ^a(N_aM_a)L_{\stackrel{}{N}+\stackrel{}{M}}^+.$$
(2.38)
Generically this algebra contains $`p`$ copies of the standard Virasoro algebra

$$\{L_{(n,0,0,\mathrm{},0)}^+,L_{(m,0,0,\mathrm{},0)}^+\}=i\pi ^1(nm)L_{(n+m,0,0,\mathrm{},0)}^+,$$

$$\{L_{(0,n,0,\mathrm{},0)}^+,L_{(0,m,0,\mathrm{},0)}^+\}=i\pi ^2(nm)L_{(0,n+m,0,\mathrm{},0)}^+,$$
(2.39)
$$\mathrm{}.$$

$`\pi `$ can be absorbed into a redefinition of the generators to bring these to the standard Virasoro algebra form. The embedding of the Virasoro algebras depends on the relative orientation of $`\pi ^a`$ in $`R^p`$. Thus at the level of the classical gauge algebra we see that there is a string sector of the D-brane at the tachyonic vacuum.

In the quantum theory the algebra (2.33)-(2.37) would have a central extension which should be related to the “electric flux” $`\pi ^a`$. Thus a consistent quantization of the system may impose restrictions on the allowed “electric fluxes”. Since (2.33)-(2.37) is a standard Lie algebra the classical BRST charge can be constructed and it will have rank one. Therefore in principle one may quantize the system. However, the relation of the BRST charge for (2.33)-(2.37) to the full BRST charge of the system (2.25)-(2.29) remains to be determined. In the next section we propose another way of quantizing the system where an algebra similar to (2.33)-(2.37) appears as the algebra of residual symmetries of the model, after a partial gauge-fixing.

## 3 Lagrangian analysis

In this section we would like to review the problem from the Lagrangian point of view. We learn that all, as is usually the case, results can be obtained from the Lagrangian approach without any direct reference to Hamiltonian analysis.

The Lagrangian (2.1) is not suited for freezing the tachyon field to its minimum (or taking the zero tension limit). Thus the natural approach is to rewrite the Lagrangian (2.1) in a different but classically equivalent form which is appropriate for the limit in. Following calculation in  one constructs the following equivalent action for the model

$$S=d^px[(E_1^\alpha E_1^\beta E_2^\alpha E_2^\beta )\gamma _{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}E_{[2}^\alpha E_{1]}^\beta F_{\alpha \beta }$$

$$\frac{1}{(2E_1^0)^2}T_p^2(V(T))^2det(\gamma _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})].$$
(3.40)
Eliminating $`E_1^\alpha `$ and $`E_2^\alpha `$ gives back the “classical” BI action (2.1). To study a D-brane at the tachyonic vacuum we drop the last term in (3.40)

$$S=d^px[(E_1^\alpha E_1^\beta E_2^\alpha E_2^\beta )\gamma _{\alpha \beta }+4\pi \alpha ^{}_\alpha (E_{[1}^\alpha E_{2]}^\beta )A_\beta ].$$
(3.41)
This action corresponds to the Hamiltonian constraints (2.11)-(2.12) (and may be derived from them).

The action (3.41) gives rise the following equations of motion

$`_\alpha (E_{[1}^\alpha E_{2]}^\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.42)
$`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }E_1^\beta 2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta }E_2^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.43)
$`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }E_2^\beta 2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta }E_1^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.44)
$`_\alpha [(E_1^\alpha E_1^\beta E_2^\alpha E_2^\beta )_\beta X^\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.45)
where for the sake of simplicity we use a flat space-time metric $`G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ (The generalization to a general metric is straightforward). In the gauge $`E_1^\alpha =\delta _0^\alpha `$ equation (3.42) reduces to

$$_aE_2^a=0,_0E_2^a=0.$$
(3.46)
From the action (3.41), the canonical momentum $`\pi ^a`$ conjugated to $`A_a`$ is $`2\pi \alpha ^{}E_2^a`$ and therefore there is a constraint $`E_2^0=0`$. In the present gauge the $`2p`$ equations (3.43)-(3.44) reduce to $`p`$ independent equations555Modulo the linear dependent equations and $`F_{0a}`$. (constraints)

$$\gamma _{0a}2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}E_2^b=0,\gamma _{00}+E_2^a\gamma _{ab}E_2^b=0.$$
(3.47)
These constraints correspond to residual symmetries left after gauge fixing. Also from the action (3.41) the canonical momentum conjugated to $`A_a`$ is $`2\pi \alpha ^{}E_2^a`$ (i.e. $`\pi ^a`$) and that the canonical momentum conjugated to $`X^\mu `$ is $`\dot{X}^\mu `$ (i.e. $`P_\mu `$). Thus the constraints (3.47) coincide with those we have discussed previously (up to factor a $`2\pi \alpha ^{}`$). The equation (3.45) becomes

$$_0^2X^\mu E_2^a_aE_2^b_bX^\mu =0.$$
(3.48)
Now we can analyze the solutions of the equations of motion in the given gauge. We see that there are no dynamical equations of motion for the “electric” $`E_2^a`$ and magnetic $`F_{ab}`$ fields. There are only a Gauss’ law for $`E_2^a`$ and Bianchi identities for $`F_{ab}`$. As a first example, let us take $`E_2^a=(E,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ with $`E`$ constant and $`F_{ab}=0`$ and make the following ansätz for the solution $`X^\mu (x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)=Y^\mu (x_0,x_1)f(x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)`$. Because of (3.47) and (3.48) we see that $`Y^\mu `$’s satisfy the following equations

$$\dot{Y}^\mu Y_\mu ^{}=0,\dot{Y}^\mu \dot{Y}_\mu +E^2Y^\mu Y_\mu ^{}=0,(_0E_1)(_0+E_1)Y^\mu =0,$$
(3.49)
where $`\dot{Y}^\mu _0Y^\mu `$ and $`Y^\mu _1Y^\mu `$. The function $`f`$ should satisfy the following $`(p1)`$ equations

$$(\dot{Y}^\mu Y_\mu )(f_af)=0,a=2,\mathrm{},p.$$
(3.50)
As a result of (3.49) $`Y^\mu `$ can be interpreted as a string solution in the conformal gauge, with tension $`|E|`$. The equations (3.50) are solved by requiring $`f=const`$. Thus the string solutions are completely delocalized in the world-volume coordinates $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)`$. In other words, the solution corresponds to a set of strings distributed uniformly in the “transverse directions” $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)`$.

If we now take the same “electric” field $`E_2^a`$ as before but a magnetic field $`F_{ab}`$ different from zero, then the equation (3.49) stays the same while equation (3.50) gets modified to

$$(\dot{Y}^\mu Y_\mu )(f_af)=2\pi \alpha ^{}EF_{a1},a=2,\mathrm{},p.$$
(3.51)
This equation is equivalent to

$$_a(f^2)=\frac{4\alpha ^{}E}{rv}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑x_1F_{a1},$$
(3.52)
where we assume that $`x_1[0,\pi ]`$ and $`r^2\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑x_1Y^\mu Y_\mu `$, $`v\dot{r}`$. Writing $`F_{a1}=_{[a}A_{1]}`$ one may solve this equation explicitly. The solution $`f`$ of this equation will define how the string world-sheets are distributed in the directions $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)`$.

So far we have discussed solutions which have an interpretation as a collection of strings filling the world-volume of the brane. One can also construct solutions which correspond to a single string world-sheet which is completely localized in the transverse directions (e.g., $`f=\delta (x_2)\mathrm{}\delta (x_p)`$ in the previous example). However these solutions are singular and require highly singular electric or magnetic configurations which may be problematic from a computational point of view. These solutions are limiting cases of regular solutions of the theory (in contemporary parlance, they correspond to the boundary points of the moduli space of solutions.).

The analysis can be extended along similar lines for other configurations of $`E_1^a`$ and $`F_{ab}`$. As result one sees that any classical solution of string theory (Polyakov’s action) in conformal gauge can be naturally embedded into the present theory in the given gauge. The details of the embedding are governed by $`E_2^a`$ and $`F_{ab}`$. In a different setup (static gauge) similar results were obtained by Sen . However not all solutions of the classical equations of motions are string-like excitations. For instance, assuming that $`X^\mu `$ is independent of $`x_1`$ (for the case $`E_2^a=(E,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ and $`F_{ab}=0`$) we find a gauge fixed tensionless $`(p1)`$-brane solution, other ansätzes give point particle solutions etc.

In quantizing the system one may adopt the same approach as in the previous classical consideration, i.e. treat the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom as background fields. Thus one may choose specific configurations of $`E_2^a`$ and $`F_{ab}`$ satisfying Gauss’ law and the Bianchi identities and then quantize the system considering only the $`X^\mu `$ as quantum excitations. Within this semiclassical treatment the positive modes of the $`(p+1)`$ constraints (3.47) should be imposed on the physical states. These constraints generate a closed algebra similar to (2.33)-(2.37) but not the same (special care is needed for (2.36)). The algebra is different because $`E_2^a`$ and $`A_a`$ are not regarded as a quantum canonical pair of operators, they are just fixed classical background fields. It is not to be expected that this way of quantizing is reliable in all regimes of the theory. However it might give a first insight into the theory and technically it is straightforward to carry out since the algebra of constraints is a Lie algebra. The case of $`E_2^a=0`$, $`F_{ab}=0`$ corresponds to a tensionless $`p`$-brane and using the BRST approach this has been quantized previously  (no restrictions such as critical dimensions were found). The next natural generalization is the case of a non-zero electric field $`E_a^2`$ and zero magnetic field $`F_{ab}`$. This case should be non-trivial since the Virasoro algebra is contained in the full algebra of constraints.

## 4 Background fields

In this section we would like to consider two related questions: the vacuum fluctuations and the effects of antisymmetric background fields.

Let us begin with a comment on the role of the $`B`$-field in the tachyonic vacuum. The effect of the $`B`$-field comes from the replacement of $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`_{\alpha \beta }=_{[\alpha }A_{\beta ]}+_aX^\mu B_{\mu \nu }_\beta X^\nu `$ in (2.1). In the Hamiltonian formalism this results in a redefinition of the momenta $`P_\mu `$

$$P_\mu P_\mu B_{\mu \nu }\pi ^a_aX^\nu .$$
(4.53)
With this replacement all expressions in Section 2 are still correct. The new string-like constraints $`Q^\pm `$ correspond to string constraints in a non-trivial $`B`$-field background. Thus the effect of the $`B`$-field is rather trivial.

Now let us turn to the RR fields. When the tachyon is frozen at the vacuum all RR background field decouple completely from the theory. In general the tachyon $`T`$ is a world-volume degree of freedom and has a corresponding kinetic term. Proposals for the effective action including a tachyon kinetic term have been put forward in . However in the present discussion (and as is often the practice) we ignore the dynamics of the tachyon field itself and consider $`T`$ as a background field. Hence the action has the form

$$S=T_pd^{p+1}xV(T)\sqrt{det(\gamma _{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta })}+$$

$$+\mu _pCdTe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}F}+O((T)^2)$$
(4.54)
where $`C`$ is the sum of RR forms. Assuming the expansion666The expansion (4.55) is not always valid, for instance not for $`V(T)=(T+1)e^T`$ around $`T=\mathrm{}`$. However in this case the argument still goes through, since as a result of (3.40) the correction to the expansion (4.56) is $`O((T)^2,(V(T))^2)`$ (i.e., exponentially small around $`T=\mathrm{}`$). of the tachyon potential around the vacuum

$$V(T)=V(T_0)+\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }(T_0)(TT_0)^2+O(T^3)$$
(4.55)
we rewrite the action as

$$S=d^px[(E_1^\alpha E_1^\beta E_2^\alpha E_2^\beta )\gamma _{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}E_{[2}^\alpha E_{1]}^\beta F_{\alpha \beta }]+$$

$$+\mu _pCdTe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}F}+O((T)^2,T^2).$$
(4.56)
We may regard $`T`$ as a static configuration interpolating from one vacuum to another, like a kink or a vertex. The point is that the energy density of these configurations is localized in some of the spatial world-volume coordinates. In an extreme situation $`dT`$ is a $`\delta `$-function along those directions. Thus in the approximation used the effect of the Wess-Zumino term is to insert $`\delta `$ sources on the right hand side of (3.42) and (3.45). In the gauge $`E_2^\alpha =\delta _0^\alpha `$ the equation (3.47) stays the same (thus the Virasoro subalgebra is still present). Apart from those sources all the discussion in the previous section goes through. The presence of $`\delta `$-source on the right hand side of (3.46) will allow string-like solutions to end where the $`\delta `$-source sits (since it is a source for the flux $`_aE_2^a=j_a`$). There are thus open strings which can end on “planes” localized in some of the spatial world-volume coordinates, i.e. on lower dimensional D-branes.

It is far from obvious that one can drop terms of order $`O((T)^2,T^2)`$ when discussing fluctuations around the vacuum. Most likely that one cannot freely do so. Nevertheless the above qualitative picture is quite reasonable and agrees with expectations. To study the fluctuations around the vacuum more carefully the tachyon field should be treated as dynamical.

## 5 Discussion

In the present note we have analyzed the classical effective theory of D-branes at the tachyonic vacuum. We have established the following two facts: the string gauge algebra (the Virasoro algebra) is a subalgebra of the D-brane theory at the tachyonic vacuum and the classical string solutions is a subset of the D-brane solutions in this regime. Thus the Nambu-Goto strings can be embedded into D-branes at the tachyonic vacuum. However, it is not clear to what extent the string picture suffices to describe the D-branes in this regime. In the similar situation when $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}`$ in the fundamental string the quantum theory describes (collection of) massless particles . By analogy one might expect the quantum theory here to describe (a collection of) strings. In fact, the analogy goes even further than indicated, since constraint algebra of tensionless string also contains an ideal ($`P_\mu G^{\mu \nu }P_\nu =0`$).

We have emphasized that there are problems with quantizing (3.41), but the study of the gauge algebra leads to a suggestion for quantizing the system treating the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom as background degrees of freedom.

Acknowledgement: MZ is grateful to Gary Gibbons for valuable discussion. We thank Inegemar Bengtsson for the comments on the manuscript. The work of UL was supported in part by NFR grant 650-1998368 and by EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-0122.

## Appendix A Appendix

The Lie derivative of arbitrary tensor density of weight $`n`$ in the direction of the field $`N^a`$, is defined as

$$_\stackrel{}{N}T_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_k}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_l}=N^c_cT_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_k}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_l}+_{a_1}N^cT_{ca_2\mathrm{}a_k}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_l}+\mathrm{}$$

$$_cN^{j_1}T_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_k}^{cb_2\mathrm{}b_l}\mathrm{}+n_cN^cT_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_k}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_l}$$
(A.57)
We are using the following basic Poisson brackets

$$\{A_a(x),\pi ^b(y)\}=\delta _a^b\delta ^{(p)}(xy),\{X^\mu (x),P_\nu (y)\}=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta ^{(p)}(xy).$$
(A.58)
There is the following action of momentum constraint on the fields

$$\{X^\mu ,_a[N^a]\}=_\stackrel{}{N}X^\mu ,\{P_\mu ,_a[N^a]\}=_\stackrel{}{N}P_\mu ,$$
(A.59)
$$\{F_{ab},_c[N^c]\}=_\stackrel{}{N}F_{ab},\{\pi ^a,_c[N^c]\}=_\stackrel{}{N}\pi ^aN^a_c\pi ^c$$
(A.60)


format: text

text:
# Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity

## Abstract

Electroweak baryogenesis proceeds via changes in the non-Abelian Chern-Simons number. It is argued that these changes generate a primordial magnetic field with left-handed helicity. The helicity density of the primordial magnetic field today is then estimated to be given by $`10^2n_b`$ where $`n_b10^6`$ /cm3 is the present cosmological baryon number density. With certain assumptions about the inverse cascade we find that the field strength at recombination is $`10^{13}`$ G on a comoving coherence scale $`0.1`$ pc.

The helicity of a primordial magnetic field is of crucial importance in determining its subsequent evolution and in assessing whether the observed magnetic fields can be generated by amplification of the seed field by a galactic dynamo . The average helicity density of a magnetic field, B, in a chosen volume $`V`$ is defined as:

$$=\frac{1}{V}_Vd^3x𝐀𝐁$$
(1)
where $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$.

The connection between the helicity of primordial magnetic fields and baryon number is arrived at by considering the process of electroweak baryogenesis occurring at the time of the electroweak phase transition . The genesis of baryons requires changes in the Chern-Simons number

$`CS={\displaystyle \frac{N_F}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^3xϵ_{ijk}[g^2(W_{ij}^aW^{ak}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}W^{ai}W^{bj}W^{ck})`$ (2)
$``$ $`g^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y_{}^{ij}Y^k].`$ (3)
where, $`N_F`$ is the number of particle families, $`W^{\mu a}`$, $`Y^\mu `$ are the SU(2) and U(1) hypercharge gauge fields, $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ are SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings, and $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$. Changes in $`CS`$ are achieved via the production and dissipation of non-perturbative field configurations such as the electroweak sphaleron , or linked loops of electroweak string, or other equivalent configurations (for a review of electroweak strings see ). In the cosmological setting, it is believed that such configurations would be produced in the false vacuum phase due to the detailed dynamics of the electroweak phase transition, and would then decay in the true vacuum phase. Once they decay, the baryon number so produced cannot be washed out by the subsequent production and dissipation of more sphalerons or equivalent configurations.

A feature of the baryon number producing intermediary field configurations is that they carry fluxes of non-Abelian magnetic fields that are twisted or linked. The simplest configuration to analyze is that of two linked electroweak strings (Fig. 1). Here the loops carry Z-magnetic flux and the Z magnetic lines are linked with each other.

Now consider the decay of the linked Z-string configuration. One path to decay is by the breaking of the loops of string. This occurs by the creation of monopole-antimonopole pairs. The segments of string then collapse. If the loops are very large, the whole process would be embedded in the highly conductive cosmological plasma in which the electromagnetic magnetic fields are frozen-in. Then the electromagnetic magnetic (B) field lines remain linked and the final helicity of the B field is related to that of the original Z-strings.

Other decay channels of the strings seem possible. For example, the loops could collapse before the strings break. In general we expect that the strings will collapse and decay into modes of B – since this is the only massless gauge field in the theory – and that these modes will retain some of the original helicity of the Z field. For an order of magnitude estimation of the helicity, it is sufficient to assume that the decay channel described above is not exceedingly improbable***Numerical simulations of electroweak strings do show finite segments of strings that evolve by the motion of the monopoles at the ends . Also, for Abelian fields in vacuum, an initially helical state asymptotically evolves to a configuration with half the initial helicity ..

An electroweak sphaleron may also be interpreted as a segment of string terminating on a monopole and an antimonopole . The helicity is non-vanishing because the Z-string has a twist. The sphaleron is unstable to the untwisting of the monopole with respect to the antimonopole. This will transfer helicity from the twisted Z-string to the B field lines going from the monopole to the antimonopole as the sphaleron decays.

Having established a connection between the genesis of baryons and the helicity of magnetic fields, it is straight-forward to relate one to the other. The de-linking process shown in Fig. 1 leads to a change in the baryon number by $`N_F\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _w)`$, where $`\theta _w`$ is the weak mixing angle (see ), if the initial Z-string configuration has linkage $`1`$. The B field flux of an electroweak monopole is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A=(4\pi /e)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$, where $`e`$ is the electromagnetic coupling (see ). The helicity of the final configuration in Fig. 1 is $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_A^2`$. Hence, every baryon that is produced, causes a change in electromagnetic helicity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=2\left(\frac{4\pi }{e}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta _w)}{N_F\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _w)}100$$
(4)
where we have used $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w=0.23`$, $`N_F=3`$, and $`e^2/4\pi \alpha =1/137`$. Note that only changes in baryon number are related to changes in helicity. We further assume that the initial helicity density is negligible and this allows us to estimate the final helicity as $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$. (We are assuming that there are no sources besides electroweak baryogenesis for generating magnetic helicity in the very early universe.) The observed number density of baryons is $`10^6`$/cm3 . Therefore the average helicity of the primordial magnetic field is estimated to be $`10^4`$/cm3 This is precisely the value of the magnetic helicity assumed in .. In astrophysical units this is $`(10^{21}\mathrm{G})^2`$-kpc. Note that this is not a root-mean-squared value for the magnetic helicity density but a mean local value. This is because our universe is observed to be made of matter and essentially no antimatter – supposedly due to the CP violation present in particle physics.

Once a helical magnetic field is produced there are a number of circumstances under which its helicity is conserved. In the MHD approximation, the magnetic field in Minkowski spacetime obeys the equation

$$\frac{𝐁}{t}=\times (𝐯\times 𝐁)+\frac{1}{4\pi \sigma _c}^2𝐁$$
(5)
where $`𝐯`$ is the fluid velocity and $`\sigma _c`$ is the electrical conductivity of the plasma. First, if $`\sigma _c`$ is infinite, dissipation can be ignored and the evolution of the magnetic field only depends on the first term on the right-hand side of eq. (5). In this case, even the local helicity – defined by restricting $`V`$ in the integral in eq. (1) to volumes bounded by field lines  – is conserved. In a cosmological setting, the dissipation term can be ignored as compared to the effects of Hubble expansion on length scales above a certain critical scale called the “frozen-in” scale: $`L_f\sqrt{t/4\pi \sigma _c}`$, where $`t`$ is the cosmic time. Magnetic fields that are coherent on scales larger than $`L_f`$ are said to be frozen-in and their helicity is conserved both locally and globally.

If the fluid velocities are small, it is possible that the first term on the right-hand side in eq. (5) can be ignored and only the dissipation term is relevant. In this case the field dies out exponentially fast and helicity is not conserved. However, if the fluid velocity is not negligible, the evolution of the field depends on both terms. In this situation, Taylor  has argued that the local helicity of the field changes due to reconnections of the field lines and hence is not conserved; however, the global helicity which is a sum over a lot of random local changes is still conserved. While there is no proof of Taylor’s conjecture, it leads to a successful explanation of the “reversed field pinch”. We shall assume that Taylor’s conjecture is true. The criterion for deciding if global helicity is conserved is that the magnetic Reynolds number $`_M=4\pi \sigma _cLv`$ for magnetic fields on a length scale $`L`$ and characteristic fluid velocity $`v`$, should be large. With $`\sigma _cT/\alpha \mathrm{ln}(1/\alpha )T/e^2`$  and $`L1/e^2T`$, the length scale characteristic of gauge field configurations such as the sphaleron, the condition $`_M>>1`$ gives $`v>>e^4/4\pi `$. Whether this condition is met depends on the fluid dynamics during baryogenesis. Successful electroweak baryogenesis requires significant departures from thermal equilibrium which is likely to be accompanied by large fluid velocities. Therefore we will assume that the fluid velocities are large enough for $`_M>>1`$. As discussed above, under these circumstances, the field will evolve while conserving global magnetic helicity even though the field is not frozen-in.

The evolution of the field after production is a central problem in MHD. There are several features that are expected on theoretical grounds  and on the basis of numerical simulations . The first feature is that the magnetic field tangle is expected to evolve towards a configuration with $`\times 𝐁=\beta 𝐁`$ for some constant $`\beta `$. Provided the field is characterized by a single length scale, this state is one of “maximal helicity” – a state in which the energy is minimum subject to the constraint of fixed global helicity. This expectation is supported by Taylor’s analysis of the reversed field pinch. The second feature is that helical magnetic fields are expected to “inverse cascade” – that is, energy will be transferred from small length scales to large length scales  (though also see ). If $`L(t)`$ is the coherence scale of the field, the existing studies at large $`_M`$ in Minkowski spacetime find

$$L(t)=L_{}\left(\frac{t}{t_{}}\right)^\xi $$
(6)
where the exponent $`\xi `$ has been determined to be $`1/2`$ in numerical studies , and $`2/3`$ in analytical studies under various approximations. The factor $`L_{}`$ is the initial coherence scale of the magnetic field and $`t_{}`$ is the time scale associated with the turbulence. We will take $`t_{}=L_{}/v_{}`$ where $`v_{}`$ is the typical fluid velocity. The third feature, as decribed earlier, is that the evolution is expected to conserve global helicity.

A little care is needed in applying eq. (6) to cosmology. The reason is that the origin of $`t`$ in eq. (6) is the time at the start of the simulation ($`t=0`$) while in cosmology the magnetic field is produced at the electroweak epoch. Furthermore, in cosmology, the flat (non-expanding) MHD equations can be used provided the time used is the conformal time . In a radiation dominated universe, the conformal time $`\tau `$ is related to the cosmic time $`t`$ by: $`\tau =2t_{ew}^{1/2}(t^{1/2}t_{ew}^{1/2})`$. The factors of $`t_{ew}`$ have been chosen to give $`\tau =0`$ at $`t=t_{ew}`$ and $`a(t_{ew})=1`$ where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmological scale factor. Hence, in cosmology, the factor $`(t/t_{})^\xi `$ in eq. (6) should be replaced by $`(\tau /t_{})^\xi `$. It is more transparent and approximately equivalent to directly use eq. (6) for the first Hubble time – during which the expansion of the universe is irrelevant to the evolution of the magnetic field – and then use eq. (6) with $`\xi `$ replaced by $`\xi /2`$, together with a comoving factor, for further evolution in the radiation dominated epoch.

We can now evolve the magnetic field from the electroweak phase transition to the present epoch. We focus on the coherence scale of the field since the field strength can then be estimated quite easily using the conservation of helicity. At the electroweak scale we have seen that the magnetic Reynolds number is large and hence the coherence length will grow as in eq. (6) with $`t_{}=L_{}/v_{}`$ and $`L_{}1/e^2T_{ew}`$. We find that in one Hubble time,

$$L(t_{ew})\frac{1}{T_{ew}}(v_{}t_{ew}T_{ew})^\xi \frac{1}{T_{ew}}\left(\frac{T_P}{T_{ew}}\right)^\xi $$

where $`T_P=10^{19}`$ GeV is the Planck energy and we have assumed fluid velocities: $`v_{}1`$. For the slower estimate of the inverse cascade ($`\xi =1/2`$) this gives $`L_{ew}10^8/T_{ew}10^8t_{ew}`$ which is greater than the frozen-in scale ($`10^7/T_{ew}`$). For the faster inverse cascade ($`\xi =2/3`$), the result is $`L_{ew}10^{11}/T_{ew}`$. Hence the magnetic field becomes coherent on a scale larger than the frozen-in scale within one Hubble expansion after production at the electroweak epoch. In this period we also expect the field to evolve towards maximal helicity with the dissipation of the non-helical component . Once the field is maximally helical, further dissipation does not occur because such fields are force-free .

Further evolution of the magnetic field is a combination of Hubble expansion and inverse cascade. In a radiation dominated universe, this gives  $`L(t)=L(t_{ew})(T_{ew}/T)^{1+\xi }`$ We also check that the frozen-in scale $`L_f`$ grows as $`(T_{ew}/T)^{3/2}`$. Hence the coherence scale remains greater than the frozen-in scale for both values of $`\xi `$ and the helicity of the field continues to be conserved.

The next significant event occurs at the epoch of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at $`T0.1`$ MeV since the electrical conductivity of the plasma drops very suddenly. The electrical conductivity prior to the epoch is given by $`\sigma _cT/e^2`$  while after this epoch it is given by $`\sigma _c10^{10}m_e/e^2`$. This corresponds to a drop in conductivity by a factor of $`10^9`$ and an increase of the frozen-in scale by $`10^4`$. The coherence scale just prior to $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is:

$$L(t_{ee})=L_f(t_{ee})\frac{L(t_{ew})}{L_f(t_{ew})}\left(\frac{T_{ew}}{T_{ee}}\right)^{\xi 1/2}$$
(7)
where we have denoted quantities at $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation by the subscript $`ee`$ and $`t_{ee}`$ denotes the time just prior to annihilation. Inserting numbers gives $`L(t_{ee})=10L_f(t_{ee})`$ for $`\xi =1/2`$ and $`L(t_{ee})=10^4L_f(t_{ee})`$ for $`\xi =2/3`$. Furthermore, at this stage the Reynolds number is $`_M=4\pi \sigma _cLv=(L/L_f)^2>>1`$ where we have made use of the definition of $`L_f`$ and have estimated the fluid velocity as due to cosmological expansion at the scale $`L`$: $`vL/t`$. After $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, however, $`L/L_f10^3`$ if $`\xi =1/2`$ and $`L/L_f1`$ if $`\xi =2/3`$. In the first case, the magnetic Reynolds number is small and the fields are coherent on scales smaller than the frozen-in scale. Therefore with $`\xi =1/2`$ we expect the field to get dissipated. Only the Fourier modes of the magnetic field larger than the frozen-in scale can survive. In the second case, the magnetic Reynolds number may or may not be significantly larger than one and the coherence length of the field is comparable to the frozen-in scale. Therefore the coherence scale of the field will grow with the Hubble expansion and there may or may not be further inverse cascade. From now on we will only consider the value $`\xi =2/3`$ and give estimates of the coherence scale of the field both with and without inverse cascade in the post $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation universe.

The coherence scale at the recombination epoch can now be estimated as the scale at the electroweak epoch multiplied by the corresponding Hubble expansion factor and the inverse cascade factor:

$$L_{rec}=L_{ew}\left(\frac{T_{ew}}{T_{eq}}\right)^{1+\xi }\left(\frac{T_{eq}}{T_{rec}}\right)^{1+\xi /2}$$

where $`L_{ew}10^5`$ cms, $`\xi =0`$ without inverse cascade and $`\xi =2/3`$ with inverse cascade, and the last factor takes into account the evolution in the matter-dominated era from the epoch of matter-radiation equality ($`T_{eq}1`$ eV) to the epoch of recombination ($`T_{rec}0.1`$ eV). This gives $`L_{rec}10^7`$ cms without inverse cascade and $`L_{rec}10^{14}`$ cms with inverse cascade.

The strength of the field can be estimated by using the conservation of helicity. At recombination the magnitude of helicity density is given by $`10^2n_{b,rec}10^5`$/cm3 or $`(10^{13}\mathrm{G})^2`$-($`10^{14}`$ cms). (The baryon density at recombination is $`z_{rec}^3`$ higher than that today where $`z_{rec}10^3`$ is the cosmological redshift at recombination.) So the maximally helical, primordial magnetic field with comoving coherence scale $`0.1`$ pc has a field strength $`10^{13}`$ G at recombination.

The present scenario also allows us to estimate the net helicity of the galactic magnetic field. Both magnetic helicity and baryon number are conserved during galaxy formation when the protogalactic cloud collapses. During this collapse, the helicity and baryon densities increase due to the decrease in the cloud volume ($`V`$ in eq. (1)) but the ratio of the helicity density to the baryon density remains unchanged. Hence the helicity density of the galactic magnetic field can be estimated to be $`10^2n_{b,gal}10`$/cm3 which is $`(10^{19}\mathrm{G})^2`$-kpc. Subsequent evolution of the magnetic field during galaxy formation, including the amplification by a turbulent dynamo, does not significantly change the global helicity  and we expect this estimate to hold even today. Furthermore, we have earlier noted that the magnetic helicity density has the same sign everywhere and is negative. Hence the magnetic field in all the different galaxies should be left-handedThis simple prediction is complicated by galactic processes that might generate local helicity while conserving net helicity. Since then it is possible that one sign of the helicity may preferentially be transferred down to unobservably small scales.. The left-handedness of the magnetic field could also lead to a CP violating signature in the cosmic microwave background radiation .

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Sean Carroll, Arnab Rai Choudhuri, Mark Hindmarsh, Phil Kronberg, Kandu Subramanian and Alex Vilenkin for very useful comments. This work was supported by the DoE.


text:
# Constructing Qubits in Physical Systems

## 1 Introduction

Quantum bits (qubits) are the elementary units of information that are used to represent quantum data . Thus, the idea of a qubit underlies all investigations in the rapidly growing science of quantum information – including quantum information theory, quantum communication, quantum computation, quantum complexity, and quantum game theory . In particular, qubits are the basic building blocks for defining the standard model of quantum computation as introduced by Deutsch , which has so far provided the appropriate representation for identifying and understanding efficient ways of processing information using quantum mechanics. Its investigation resulted in feasible algorithms for factoring large integers  and for simulating many-particle quantum systems , two problems not known to be efficiently solvable with classical computers.

A qubit can be thought of as the extension of a classical bit obtained by applying the superposition principle. When quantum superposition states of many qubits are constructed in the tensor product state space that quantum mechanics prescribes for a composite system, quantum entanglement arises as an additional information resource with no classical counterpart. However, qubits share with classical bits the fundamental property of being a fungible information resource : While both classical and quantum information is intended, in fact required, to be physically realized, it is abstractly defined and therefore independent of the details of the underlying physical realization.

The fungibility property is essential to quantum information in two respects. First, by defining quantum information independent of the details of specific physical devices and their complex physics, it has been possible to study qubit properties at the abstract level and thus to obtain a deeper understanding of the distinctive features that qubits inherit from their intrinsic quantum-mechanical nature. Examples of fundamental results following from the basic properties of superpositions and of the randomness associated with quantum measurements include the fact that qubits in an unknown quantum state cannot be perfectly copied (no-cloning theorem ) and they cannot be broadcast (no-broadcasting theorem ). On the other hand they can be reliably communicated by means of the quantum teleportation protocol , an extremely useful protocol with many applications . Second, from a practical standpoint, the arbitrariness of the physical realization implied by fungibility allows for greater flexibility in the identification and design of quantum information processors. This is reflected in the amazing variety of representations of qubits that have appeared in recent proposals for physical realizations of quantum computers . While such variety greatly increases the number of physical systems with the potential for quantum information processing, it can be intimidating when considering a new prospective system for implementing qubits. As recently observed by DiVincenzo , “recognizing a qubit can be trickier than one might think”. Thus to determine the suitability of a physical system for quantum information processing we need to answer the following basic questions: What is a qubit, and how do we look for them?

In this paper, we identify essential criteria to be met by a system to contain physical embodiments of qubits. Our primary goal is to develop the intuition needed for “distilling” qubits from physical systems, in the hope that such intuition will serve as a guide for exploring the full range of possibilities available for physical implementation. We do so by revisiting a few prototypical examples to obtain a general operational characterization of qubits. The examples are examined in detail in Section 2. The first example shows how the state space of a collection of bosonic modes can be exploited for representing qubits based on the requirement of obtaining realizable control over the qubit observables. The second and third example are essentially motivated by reconsidering the notion of what a qubit is in the light of our knowledge from quantum error-correcting methods. In particular, we analyze two situations where a qubit can be embedded into the larger state space of three physical two-state systems in a way which makes it robust against noise to first-order in time and to arbitrary orders in time, respectively. As the level of abstraction required for constructing our example qubits grows, the qubit states are less easily related to states of the underlying physical degrees of freedom, and more powerful mathematical tools are required to describe the qubits. The emerging qubit criteria are summarized in Section 3. Our analysis points to the crucial role played by control resources in determining a preferred qubit realization, and to an operator picture in terms of quantum observables, rather than states, as the appropriate framework for capturing the idea of a qubit in full generality.

## 2 The fungibility of qubits

The first proposals for quantum computers implemented qubits literally by exploiting explicit two level systems. Examples of qubits in these proposals include the two levels corresponding to absence and presence of a photon in a mode , spin $`1/2`$ nuclear spins , and the ground and one of the excited states of ions . The proposals have in common the goal of implementing qubits at the fundamental level of a physical system. The recognition of how fragile these qubits’ states are led to the development of quantum error correction, which necessarily involves maintaining the information by distributing it in a controlled way over a potentially large number of physical systems. As a result we reconsidered the notion of a qubit.

To illustrate the different facets of the notion of a qubit we determine how an entity equivalent to an abstractly defined qubit can be constructed in three prototypical situations. An abstractly defined qubit can be identified with an ideal two-state quantum system Q whose associated state space is a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space $`_𝗊^2`$. An orthonormal basis $`\{|0_𝗊,|1_𝗊\}`$ (computational basis) is fixed in $`_𝗊`$ and we make the identification $`|0_𝗊(1,0)`$, $`|1_𝗊(0,1)`$ with vectors in $`^2`$. Operations on states are conveniently expressed in terms of the Pauli operators $`\sigma _𝗑,\sigma _𝗒,\sigma _𝗓`$, which obey commutation and anti-commutation relationships of the form

$`[\sigma _\alpha ,\sigma _\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }\sigma _\gamma ,`$ (1)
$`\{\sigma _\alpha ,\sigma _\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\text{1}\text{1},`$ (2)
with $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \{𝗑,𝗒,𝗓\}`$, and $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ and 11 being the completely antisymmetric symbol and the identity on $`_𝗊`$, respectively. To simplify notations, we define $`X:=\sigma _𝗑,Y:=\sigma _𝗒,Z:=\sigma _𝗓`$.

As we will see, the abstract state space of a qubit is not necessarily directly related to the state space of the physical systems. However, the operators are naturally embedded in the operator algebras associated with the physical observables.

### 2.1 The bosonic qubit

Bosonic qubits are the basic building blocks in a recent proposal for linear optics quantum computation (loqc) . The relevant physical system is a collection of $`2n`$ distinguishable modes which describe the elementary excitations of the quantized electro-magnetic field . Each mode is characterized by annihilation and creation operators $`𝐚_k,𝐚_k^{}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},2n`$, which satisfy bosonic commutation rules $`[𝐚_k,𝐚_k^{}]=[𝐚_k^{},𝐚_k^{}^{}]=0`$, $`[𝐚_k^{},𝐚_k^{}]=\delta _{kk^{}}`$. In particular, number states of mode $`k`$ are defined as eigenstates of the number operator $`𝐧_k=𝐚_k^{}𝐚_k`$ for mode $`k`$, $`𝐧_k|n_k_k=n_k|n_k_k`$. Number states constitute a basis for the state space of a given mode i.e., $`_k=\text{span}\{|n_k_k|n_k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ (Fock representation). Accordingly,

$$𝒮_1_2\mathrm{}_{2n}$$
(3)
is the overall state space in which we have to look for qubits. We use the abbreviation $`|n_1_1\mathrm{}|n_{2n}_{2n}=|n_1\mathrm{}n_{2n}`$ for product number states in $`𝒮`$.

Clearly, a variety of (inequivalent) prescriptions are conceivable for representing qubits in $`𝒮`$. In loqc, an encoding based on two modes and one boson is adopted via the mapping

$`|0_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$ $``$ $`|0_k|1_k^{},`$
$`|1_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$ $``$ $`|1_k|0_k^{},`$ (4)
for a qubit supported by modes $`(k,k^{})`$. This choice is motivated by the potential for easy implementations of single qubit transformations via passive linear optical elements. It is worth pointing out that encodings similar to the above, where the degree of freedom carrying quantum information is identified with the presence of a quasi-particle in one of two modes or sites, or the presence/absence of a quasi-particle in a single mode or site, can make sense for quantum statistics other than the bosonic one. Thus, the present discussion is relevant to situations where information is stored in anyonic  or fermionic  qubits. A different scheme for embedding a generic finite-dimensional quantum system (or qudit) in the state space of bosonic degrees of freedom was recently proposed in .

According to (4), the state space of the bosonic qubit, $`_{𝗊(k,k^{})}=\text{span}\{|0_{𝗊(k,k^{})},|1_{𝗊(k,k^{})}\}`$, is identified with the one-excitation sector of the two-mode Hilbert space $`_{(k,k^{})}=_k_k^{}`$. By letting $`n_{k,k^{}}`$ denote the eigenvalue of the joint number operator $`𝐧_{k,k^{}}=𝐧_k+𝐧_k^{}`$, one has formally

$$_{(k,k^{})}=_k_k^{}\underset{n_{k,k^{}}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{(n_{k,k^{}})}_{𝗊(k,k^{})}\stackrel{~}{}_k,$$
(5)
where $`^{(n_{k,k^{}})}`$ is the subspace of states in $`_{(k,k^{})}`$ with $`n_{k,k^{}}`$ bosons, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_k=_{\{n_{k,k^{}}1\}}^{(n_{k,k^{}})}`$. The state space of $`n`$ bosonic qubits, which is obtained via an effective tensor-product construction of one-qubit spaces, likewise relates to the overall state space $`𝒮`$ in a non-trivial way. Assuming a pairing between modes of the form $`(k,k^{})=(k,k+1)`$ for the $`i`$’th encoded qubit, $`i=(k+1)/2=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we obtain

$`(_1_2)\mathrm{}(_{2n1}_{2n})=_{(1,2)}_{(3,4)}\mathrm{}_{(2n1,2n)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,3,\mathrm{},2n1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n_{k,k+1}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}^{(n_{k,k+1})}\right]\left[_{𝗊_1}_{𝗊_2}\mathrm{}_{𝗊_n}\right]\stackrel{~}{},`$ (6)
where for each two-mode state space $`_{(k,k+1)}`$ a decomposition similar to (5) has been used, $`_{𝗊_i}=_{𝗊(2i1,2i)}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ collects all the contributions with excitation different from one in at least one of the pairs of modes.

Several remarks on the above state space structure are in order. In the one-qubit case, the presence of the summand $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$ in (5) causes the bosonic qubit to be effectively embedded into a larger state space where infinitely many “non-qubit” levels are present. One can formally rewrite this separation so that the additional levels form part of an effective environment . The formal state space of the two resulting interacting subsystems is written as

$$_{\mathrm{𝗊𝖾}}=(_{𝗊(k,k^{})}|v_𝗊)(\stackrel{~}{}_k|v_𝖾),$$
(7)
where $`|v_𝗊`$ and $`|v_𝖾`$ are adjoined “vacuum” states, and we make the identification $`_{𝗊(k,k^{})}_{𝗊(k,k^{})}|v_𝖾`$. The idea generalizes to $`n`$ qubits, in which case the role of the effective “non-qubit” environment is assumed by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in (6).

Whenever a non-zero amplitude is found in the space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, one or more qubits have “leaked-out” from the intended logical space $`_L=_i_{𝗊_i}`$ so that the state no longer maps to a state of qubits. To guarantee that the state belongs to the qubits for all times $`t`$ means restricting the overall evolution operator $`𝒰(t)`$ to the sub-manifold of unitary operators $`U(_L)U(\stackrel{~}{})U(𝒮)`$. It is essential to realize that such a requirement is in general unnecessary as well as overly restrictive. While care should be taken to ensure that no leakage allows the qubits to stray away from the logical space at the beginning and at the end of every quantum gate, one should not insist on retaining a mapping into qubits at every intermediate time. In other words, qubits need only exist stroboscopically in time.

In the loqc proposal, relaxing the constraint of well-defined qubit states at intermediate steps is indispensable for achieving the required two-bit conditional dynamics. For example, in , the most basic conditional sign-flip gate c-$`\sigma _𝗓`$ on two bosonic qubits, say $`𝗊_1=𝗊(1,2)`$ and $`𝗊_2=𝗊(3,4)`$, is decomposed into a sequence of operations

$$\text{c-}\sigma _𝗓^{(𝗊_1,𝗊_2)}=U_{\text{bs}}^{(1,3)}U_{\text{ns}_1}U_{\text{ns}_3}U_{\text{bs}}^{(1,3)}U(_{𝗊_1}_{𝗊_2})U(\stackrel{~}{}),$$
(8)
where both the beam-splitter gate $`U_{\text{bs}}^{(1,3)}`$ and the non-deterministic gate $`U_{\text{ns}_j}`$ on mode $`j=1,3`$ cause a temporary departure from the one-excitation space of each qubit. This implementation is also non-deterministic, meaning that it requires post-selection, with a known success probability. In , the non-determinism can be removed by exploiting the quantum teleportation protocol .

In spite of the complicated underlying state space structure, a bosonic qubit $`𝗊(k,k^{})`$ can be straightforwardly characterized in terms of its generating observables. On the $`2n`$-mode state space $`𝒮`$, define the operator

$$P_{k,k^{}}:=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi e^{i(𝐧_k+𝐧_k^{}1)\phi }$$
(9)
on $`_{(k,k^{})}`$, and 11 elsewhere. $`P_{k,k^{}}`$ satisfies $`P_{k,k^{}}=P_{k,k^{}}^{}=P_{k,k^{}}^2`$, and

$$P_{k,k^{}}|n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{2n}=\delta _{n_k+n_k^{},1}|n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{2n}.$$
(10)
Hence, the restriction $`\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}`$ of $`P_{k,k^{}}`$ to $`_{(k,k^{})}`$, $`\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}:_{(k,k^{})}_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$, and the product $`𝒫`$ := $`P_{1,2}P_{3,4}\mathrm{}P_{2n1,2n}`$, $`𝒫:𝒮_{𝗊_1}\mathrm{}_{𝗊_n}`$, are the projectors onto the one-qubit and the $`n`$-qubit space, respectively. Clearly, the action of $`\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}`$ is the identity operation when further restricted to the qubit space, i.e. $`\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}=_𝗊\text{1}\text{1}_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$, where $`=_𝗊`$ means equality over $`_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$. For fixed $`k,k^{}`$, one finds that

$$\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}(𝐧_k+𝐧_k^{})\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}=\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}(𝐧_k+𝐧_k^{})=(𝐧_k+𝐧_k^{})\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}}.$$
(11)
From this one can readily check that the following operators act as encoded generating observables for the bosonic qubit $`𝗊(k,k^{})`$, with $`k^{}=k+1`$:

$`Z_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐧_k^{}𝐧_k)\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}},`$
$`X_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐚_k^{}𝐚_k^{}+𝐚_k𝐚_k^{}^{})\widehat{P}_{k,k^{}},`$ (12)
and $`Y_{𝗊(k,k^{})}=[Z_{𝗊(k,k^{})},X_{𝗊(k,k^{})}]/2i=iZ_{𝗊(k,k^{})}X_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$. These observables obey commutation/anti-commutation rules identical to (1)-(2). Evolutions generated by the Hamiltonians given in (12) can be readily constructed from the action of optical phase shifters and beam splitters respectively, which allows for an easy implementation of arbitrary one qubit ($`U(2)`$) gates via passive linear optics.

The final ingredients that are required to make the bosonic qubit useful include the ability to initialize the qubit in the intended logical space $`_{𝗊(k,k^{})}`$, and the ability to read-out the qubit observables. In loqc, the state preparation of qubit $`𝗊(k,k^{})`$ can be accomplished by using a single-photon source to prepare mode $`k`$ in $`|0_k`$ and mode $`k^{}`$ in $`|1_k^{}`$. To measure the bosonic qubit it suffices to use a photo-detector on the mode $`k`$, which destructively determines whether one or more photons were present in the mode. Further details are in .

### 2.2 The three bit encoded qubit

Our second example comes from quantum error correction using stabilizer codes. Consider the simplest possible situation, where we wish to protect one quantum bit against single bit-flip errors by encoding it into three physical qubits. A quantum code can be specified by a two-dimensional subspace of the overall state space $`𝒮`$, $`𝒞=\text{span}\{|0_L,|1_L\}𝒮`$. To protect against single bit-flip errors, a repetition code $`𝒞`$ can be defined by the encoding

$$(c_0|0+c_1|1)|00c_0|0_L+c_1|1_L=c_0|000+c_1|111.$$
(13)
It is easily checked that $`𝒞`$ satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions for error-recovery with respect to the error set $`𝖤=\{E_0=\text{1}\text{1},E_1=X_1,E_2=X_2,E_3=X_3\}`$ . Note that $`E_a=E_a^{}=E_a^1`$ for errors in $`𝖤`$. Let $`𝒱^i`$ denote the subspace spanned by $`𝖤|i_L`$, for $`i=0,1`$, and let us choose as orthonormal bases in the $`𝒱^i`$’s the result of applying the errors to the logical states (13), i.e.

$`𝒱^0`$ $`=`$ $`\text{span}\{|000,|100,|010,|001\}=\text{span}\{|v_a^0\},`$
$`𝒱^1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{span}\{|111,|011,|101,|110\}=\text{span}\{|v_a^1\},`$ (14)
with $`|v_a^i=E_a|i_L`$, $`i=0,1`$, $`a=0,\mathrm{},3`$. Then $`𝒮𝒱^0𝒱^1`$ and a recovery super-operator can be explicitly constructed by defining, for each error $`E_a𝖤`$,

$$R_a=E_a\underset{i=0,1}{}|v_a^iv_a^i|.$$
(15)
The fact that the quantum operation $`=\{R_a\}`$ defined by $`:\rho _aR_a\rho R_a^{}`$ for density operators $`\rho `$ actually restores the state of the encoded qubit after an error in $`𝖤`$ happens is due to the property that every combination $`R_aX_b`$ is a multiple of the identity operation on $`𝒞`$. Thus, the basic idea for using this code is to apply $``$ after the errors happened. While this procedure successfully protects our bit of quantum information, it is conceptually dissatisfying, because it would appear that after the errors happened, but before application of $``$, the information is corrupted by noise. Is there a representation that clearly separates errors and information in such a way that it is clear that the quantum information is never affected? In other words, where does the protected qubit reside both before and after errors occurred?

The basic insight is to regard the error-correcting code as an appropriate subsystem . This is possible by establishing the mapping

$$|v_a^i|i_𝗊|v_a^0_{},$$
(16)
for the basis vectors of the $`𝒱^i`$’s (hence $`𝒮`$) introduced before. In the right hand-side of (16), the $`|i_𝗊`$ vectors, $`i=0,1`$, are taken as basis states of a two-dimensional complex space that will serve as the protected qubit state space, while the $`|v_a^0_{}`$ store the bit string that uniquely identifies the error syndrome. Essentially, the state $`|v_a^0_{}`$ is meant to fully encode the effect of the noise on the code. The correspondence (16) is a prescription for decomposing the physical coding space $`𝒮`$ into the tensor product of a qubit space $`𝒬`$ and a syndrome space $``$:

$$𝒮𝒬^2^4.$$
(17)
If we choose to represent the syndrome corresponding to $`E_0`$ (no error) by $`|00_{}`$, then clearly $`𝒞𝒬|00_{}`$. In the representation (17), it is straightforward to visualize the errors’ effect on the code. For an arbitrary encoded state $`|\psi =c_0|0_L+c_1|1_L𝒞`$, we find

$`E_a|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`c_0|v_a^0+c_1|v_a^1c_0|0_𝗊|v_a^0_{}+c_1|1_𝗊|v_a^0_{}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`[c_0|0_𝗊+c_1|1_𝗊]|v_a^0_{}=|\psi _𝒬|v_a^0_{},`$
where in the last equality the mapping (17) is made explicit. By construction, the vector $`|v_a^0_{}`$ depends on $`E_a`$ alone. Thus, information in $`𝒬`$ is completely unaffected by errors in $`𝖤`$: the factor $`𝒬`$ in (17) is the qubit subsystem where the protected quantum information resides.

It is worth comparing this picture with the familiar description of the error-correcting code based on the stabilizer formalism . In the stabilizer language, the code $`𝒞`$ is characterized by its stabilizer group,

$$𝖲=\{\text{1}\text{1},Z_1Z_2,Z_2Z_3,Z_1Z_3\}.$$
(19)
S is generated by $`M_1=Z_1Z_2`$ and $`M_2=Z_2Z_3`$, and the code $`𝒞`$ is a joint eigenspace of the two stabilizer generators. The commutation pattern between each error $`E_a`$ and the stabilizer generators $`M_j`$ diagnoses the error syndrome completely. In our case, it simply reads $`E_000`$, $`E_110`$, $`E_211`$, $`E_301`$, where $`0,1`$ encodes whether the error commutes or anti-commutes with the corresponding generator, respectively.

A basis of the state space of the three qubits can be built from joint eigenvectors of a sufficiently large (maximal) set of commuting operators. Such a set can be obtained by adding to $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ the operator $`L=Z_1`$ (for example). The corresponding joint eigenvectors may be labeled $`|l,m_1,m_2`$, where, for convenience, we denote by $`l,m_1,m_2`$ not the $`\pm 1`$ eigenvalues of the corresponding operators $`L,M_1,M_2`$, but the eigenvalues of the projectors onto the $`1`$ subspace e.g., the label $`l=0`$ ($`l=1`$) corresponds to a $`+1`$ ($`1`$) eigenvalue of the operator $`L`$. The code $`𝒞`$ is then spanned by the vectors $`|0,0,0`$ and $`|1,0,0`$. The quantum number $`l\{0,1\}`$ can be thought of as labeling a two-state degree of freedom. This also translates into a prescription for decomposing the overall coding space,

$$𝒮𝒬^{}^{}^2^4,$$
(20)
via a correspondence of the form

$$|l,m_1,m_2|l_𝗊^{}|m_1,m_2_{^{}}.$$
(21)
Note that this prescription is not unique, as it depends on the choice of phase of the different eigenvectors. (It can be made unique by considering $`L`$ and the global flip $`X_1X_2X_3`$ as generators for the algebra of observables for the degree of freedom carried by $`𝗊^{}`$.) The difference between the representations (21) and (16) accounts for the different views of error-correcting codes that comes from the subsystem idea. The difference can be explicitly appreciated by looking at the correspondences between the states in the two factorizations. We have, for instance,

$`|v_0^0=|000|0_𝗊|00_{}`$ $``$ $`|0_𝗊^{}|00_{^{}}`$
$`|v_0^1=|111|1_𝗊|00_{}`$ $``$ $`|1_𝗊^{}|00_{^{}},`$ (22)
but

$`|v_1^1=|011|1_𝗊|10_{}`$ $``$ $`|0_𝗊^{}|10_{^{}}`$
$`|v_1^0=|100|0_𝗊|10_{}`$ $``$ $`|1_𝗊^{}|10_{^{}},`$ (23)
meaning that the degree of freedom $`𝗊^{}`$ has its values flipped by some error combination and is therefore not explicitly protected. Specifically, $`E_1[|c_0|0_L+c_1|1_L][|c_0|1_𝗊^{}+c_1|0_𝗊^{}]|10_{^{}}`$. The error can be undone by a flip of $`𝗊^{}`$ conditional on the state of $`^{}`$. Thus, while in this picture error detection and error recovery necessarily appear as two separate steps, the earlier factorization (16) makes sure that the need for an explicit error correction step is removed once information is properly stored: to first order in time, the effect of the noise is only to “heat” the ancillary degrees of freedom carried by the syndrome subsystem $``$, and all that is required to recover from errors is to “reset” the latter subsystem to the state $`|00_{}`$. This is exactly what the recovery quantum operation $``$ accomplishes, as is clear by representing every operator $`R_a`$ in (15) using the mapping (16), i.e.

$$R_a\text{1}\text{1}^{(𝒬)}|v_0^0v_a^0|^{()}.$$
(24)
The best method for characterizing the protected qubit living in $`𝒬`$ is in terms of its observables. This is easily done by starting with the obvious observables restricted to the code subspace: $`Z_𝒞=|0_L0_L||1_L1_L|`$, $`X_𝒞=|0_L1_L|+|1_L0_L|`$. The $`Z`$ and $`X`$ observables for the subsystem associated with $`𝒬`$ can then be obtained by applying the errors in the following way:

$`Z_𝗊`$ $`=`$ $`Z_𝒞+E_1Z_𝒞E_1+E_2Z_𝒞E_2+E_3Z_𝒞E_3,`$
$`X_𝗊`$ $`=`$ $`X_𝒞+E_1X_𝒞E_1+E_2X_𝒞E_2+E_3X_𝒞E_3.`$ (25)
Note that the required behavior of $`Z_𝗊`$, $`X_𝗊`$ on the subsystem $`𝒬`$ follows from the property that each operator $`E_a𝒪_𝒞E_a`$ in (25), $`𝒪_𝒞=Z_𝒞`$ or $`X_𝒞`$, has the intended action on states of the form $`E_a|i_L`$, $`i=0,1`$. The relevant commutation and anti-commutation rules (1)-(2) are readily verified. In addition to belonging to the set of operators commuting with the stabilizer group (the so-called normalizer $`𝖭(𝖲)`$ ), the above qubit observables have the property that they also commute with every operator that is a repeated combination of a reset operator followed by an error, e.g. $`\mathrm{}E_b^{}R_a^{}E_bR_a`$. This sheds light on the algebraic nature of our three-bit subsystem, which is characterized as a noiseless subsystem of the multiplicative algebra $`𝒜`$ constructed from recovery operators followed by errors<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The multiplicative (or associative) algebra $`𝒥`$ generated by a linear set of operators $`𝒥_1=\text{span}\{\text{1}\text{1},J_1,J_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ contains all the linear complex combinations of products of operators in $`𝒥_1`$.. The fact that every quantum error-correcting code can be pictured as a noiseless subsystem of a suitable operator algebra is established in .

### 2.3 The three spin-$`1/2`$ symmetric qubit

Consider a system $`S`$ composed by three physical, distinguishable spin $`1/2`$ particles. Suppose that the interaction with the environment $`B`$ results in a particularly simple form of noise, collective noise, where $`B`$ couples in a symmetric way to each spin . A relevant example of this situation occurs when the spins couple identically to a fluctuating magnetic field. Our task is to devise a scheme for embedding in $`S`$ a qubit that is protected to noise.

For collective noise, the interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{SB}`$ can we written as

$$H_{SB}=\underset{\alpha =𝗑,𝗒,𝗓}{}S_\alpha B_\alpha ,$$
(26)
where $`S_\alpha =_i\sigma _\alpha ^{(i)}/2`$, $`\alpha =𝗑,𝗒,𝗓`$, are the components of the total spin angular momentum and the $`B_\alpha `$’s are linearly independent environment operators. Note that the operators $`S_\alpha `$ are the generators of a Lie group $`SU(2)`$ which corresponds to global spatial rotations of the spins, and can be identified with the familiar $`SU(2)`$ of angular momentum theory . Suppose that the self-Hamiltonian of the spins can also be expressed in terms of the $`\{S_\alpha \}`$. One possibility for constructing a protected qubit is to look for a pair of simultaneous degenerate eigenstates of the $`S_\alpha `$’s  i.e.,

$$S_\alpha |\psi _l=c_\alpha |\psi _l,\alpha =𝗑,𝗒,𝗓,l=1,2.$$
(27)
Since the eigenvalues $`c_\alpha `$ do not depend on $`l`$, the two eigenstates cannot be distinguished by the environment. Thus, if they can be found, they define a basis of a protected qubit’s state space. In our case, one finds that (27) can be only satisfied with $`c_\alpha =0`$<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Technically, this follows from the fact that the operators $`S_\alpha `$ span a semi-simple Lie algebra $`su(2)`$ ., meaning that the states $`|\psi _l`$ belong to the so-called $`S^2=0`$ singlet representation of $`su(2)`$ i.e. they are invariant under $`SU(2)`$ rotations. Unfortunately, no state of three spin $`1/2`$ particles obeys this invariance condition, and a minimum number of four physical spin $`1/2`$ particles is required for the singlet representation to occur with degeneracy at least two . In spite of this impossibility to find a subspace of the three-spin state space $`𝒮`$ which is immune against noise, it turns out that we are still able to construct a noiseless subsystem of $`𝒮`$  by considering observables commuting with the $`S_\alpha `$’s. The idea, which we describe next, is to identify in $`𝒮`$ a protected degree of freedom.

Since the Hamiltonians $`S_\alpha `$ generate the spatial rotation group acting symmetrically on the three spins, it is natural to decompose the state space $`𝒮`$ of the spins according to the total angular momentum $`S^2=_\alpha S_\alpha ^2`$:

$$𝒮=_{3/2}_{1/2},$$
(28)
where the subspaces $`_S`$ are the eigenspaces of $`S^2`$ corresponding to angular momentum $`S=3/2,1/2`$, with $`S^2=S(S+1)`$. They have dimension dim$`(_{3/2})=(23/2+1)=4`$, dim$`(_{1/2})=2(21/2+1)=4`$, respectively. Let us focus on the $`S=1/2`$ component. The fact that $`_{1/2}`$ has dimension four implies that the two-dimensional spin-$`1/2`$ representation of the rotation group occurs twice, meaning that physically there are two distinct, equivalent routes for generating angular momentum $`S=1/2`$<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3In representation-theoretical terms, the appropriate decomposition of the state space is obtained as the Clebsch-Gordan sum of irreducible representations of $`su(2)`$ which, for our three-spin system, reads $`𝒮𝒟_{3/2}𝒟_{1/2}𝒟_{1/2}`$ .. A basis of states for $`_{1/2}`$ is constructed by considering joint $`S^2`$, $`S_z`$-eigenvectors, $`\{|\lambda ,s_z_{1/2}|\lambda =0,1;s_z=\pm 1/2\}`$, where $`s_z`$ is the $`S_z`$-eigenvalue and the quantum number $`\lambda `$ identifies which of the distinct routes the corresponding eigenvector belongs to. Because angular momentum operators $`S_\alpha `$ are confined to act non-trivially and equivalently within each route, the $`S_\alpha `$ have an identical, diagonal action on the degree of freedom supported by the quantum number $`\lambda `$. This degenerate behavior of noise operators with respect to $`\lambda `$ is exactly the two-fold degeneracy we are looking for.

A better grasp of the protected structure which is emerging in $`_{1/2}`$ is obtained by establishing the mapping

$$|\lambda ,s_z_{1/2}|\lambda _𝗊|s_z_{1/2},$$
(29)
where now $`\{|\lambda _𝗊\}`$ is an orthonormal basis in $`^2`$ and $`|s_z_{1/2}`$ is the $`S_z`$-eigenvector with eigenvalue $`s_z`$. Under such an identification, the subspace $`_{1/2}`$ can be represented as

$$_{1/2}_𝗊𝒟_{1/2}^2^2.$$
(30)
The actions of the noise operators $`S_\alpha `$ on $`_{1/2}`$ take a correspondingly simple form,

$$S_\alpha \text{1}\text{1}^{(_𝗊)}\sigma (\alpha ),$$
(31)
where $`\sigma (\alpha )`$ is a unit linear combination of Pauli operators which depends on the choice of basis states in $`_𝗊`$. These algebraic identities provide the starting point for identifying $`_{1/2}`$ as the state space of an effective bi-partite system, and for associating an abstract subsystem to each factor in the tensor product (30). In particular, by virtue of the identity action of noise operators in (31), the left factor $`_𝗊`$ provides a noiseless subsystem where a qubit can safely reside, protected from noise for (ideally) arbitrarily long times.

Because the $`^2`$-basis vectors $`|\lambda _𝗊`$ are left arbitrary in (30), various realizations are possible as basis states of our three-spin noiseless qubit. Two convenient choices are listed below:

$`|\stackrel{~}{0}_𝗊|+1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01|10)|0,`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{1}_𝗊|+1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2|001|010|100),`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{0}_𝗊|1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|10|01)|1,`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{1}_𝗊|1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2|110|101|011),`$ (32)
which can be easily built up from singlet/triplet states of spins 1 and 2 , or

$`|0_𝗊|+1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|001+\omega |010+\omega ^2|100),`$
$`|1_𝗊|+1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|001+\omega ^2|010+\omega |100),`$
$`|0_𝗊|1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|110+\omega |101+\omega ^2|011),`$
$`|1_𝗊|1/2_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|110+\omega ^2|101+\omega |011),`$ (33)
with $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/3}`$, which connects directly with standard basis states for the two-dimensional irreducible representation D<sup>(1)</sup> of the permutation group $`𝖲_3`$ acting on the spins . In (32)-33), the notations $`\{|\stackrel{~}{0}_𝗊,|\stackrel{~}{1}_𝗊\}`$ and $`\{|0_𝗊,|1_𝗊\}`$ have been used to account for the different choices of the basis states $`\{|\lambda _𝗊\}`$ in $`_𝗊`$. It is important to realize that a possibly mixed state of $`𝒮`$ of the form $`\rho =|\psi \psi |\rho _{1/2}`$, where $`|\psi =c_0|0_𝗊+c_1|1_𝗊`$ and $`\rho _{1/2}`$ is an arbitrary density operator on $`𝒟_{1/2}`$, is a pure state of the qubit living in $`_𝗊`$.

The bases given above establish an equivalence between the state spaces of a pair of two-state systems and the subspace $`_{1/2}`$ of the three spins’ state space $`𝒮`$. The method can be systematized and the introduction of a different state space can be avoided by directly considering the set of physical observables available for the three spins. Observables that are not affected by the interaction operators $`S_\alpha `$ are the scalars under spatial rotations, which are given by

$`s_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)}=X_1X_2+Y_1Y_2+Z_1Z_2,`$
$`s_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(3)}=X_2X_3+Y_2Y_3+Z_2Z_3,`$
$`s_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(3)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}=X_3X_1+Y_3Y_1+Z_3Z_1.`$ (34)
Since these scalars commute with the interactions, their expectations are protected from noise. If we can combine them so that their expectations define states of a qubit, a noiseless qubit has been found. It is sufficient to form combinations that algebraically behave like the Pauli operators. Let $`P_𝗊:𝒮_𝗊`$ denote the projector over $`_𝗊`$,

$$P_𝗊=\frac{\text{1}\text{1}}{2}\frac{1}{6}(s_{12}+s_{23}+s_{31}),$$
(35)
11 denoting the identity operator over $`𝒮`$ and $`P_𝗊`$ satisfying $`P_𝗊=_𝗊\text{1}\text{1}_𝗊`$ when restricted to $`_𝗊`$. Then the following choice of observables works and corresponds to the $`\omega `$-basis introduced above:

$`X_𝗊`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(2s_{12}s_{23}s_{31})P_𝗊=E_{12}P_𝗊,`$
$`Y_𝗊`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}}(s_{23}s_{31})P_𝗊,`$ (36)
where $`E_{12}=(\text{1}\text{1}+\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)})/2`$ is the unitary operator swapping the first two spins. $`Z_𝗊`$ is given explicitly as $`Z_𝗊=[X_𝗊,Y_𝗊]/2i=\sqrt{3}/6\tau _{123}`$, $`\tau _{123}`$ being the totally antisymmetric operator $`\tau _{123}=_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }\sigma _\alpha ^{(1)}\sigma _\beta ^{(2)}\sigma _\gamma ^{(3)}`$, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \{𝗑,𝗒,𝗓\}`$. Similar expressions hold for the singlet-triplet basis (32), e.g. $`X_𝗊=\sqrt{3}(s_{23}s_{31})P_𝗊/6`$, and $`Z_𝗊=E_{12}P_𝗊`$. Since the commutation and anti-commutation rules obeyed by the observables are identical to (1)-(2), the operator algebra they generate by multiplication and Hermitian conjugation is the algebra of a two-state quantum system.

An important simplification to the above discussion is worth mentioning. This occurs when not only $`S^2`$ but also $`S_z`$ are good (i.e. conserved) quantum numbers for the dynamics of the three physical spins. In this case, using appropriate encoded states rather than the physical three-spin states is motivated by the possibility of achieving universal control by means of purely angular momentum preserving quantum gates. Note that three is the minimal number of physical qubits allowing for simultaneous eigenvectors of $`S^2,S_z`$ with degeneracy at least equal to two. The resulting qubits are the basic ingredients in a recent proposal for universal quantum computation via exchange interactions . The mathematical description of these qubits is simpler than the one of the noiseless three-spin case, as the full subsystem structure (30) is not required. The relevant observation is that if no mixing between the sets of states in $`_{1/2}`$ corresponding to $`s_z=\pm 1/2`$ occurs, a further decomposition applies within the $`_{1/2}`$ subspace:

$$_{1/2}^2𝒟_{1/2}^2\left(𝒟_{1/2}^{(+)}𝒟_{1/2}^{()}\right)^2()^2^2.$$
(37)
This means that the two subspaces spanned by $`\{|\lambda ,+1/2_{1/2}\}`$ and $`\{|\lambda ,1/2_{1/2}\}`$, $`\lambda =0,1`$ (the first and second pair of states in either (32) or (33)) are individually capable of encoding a qubit. Of course, none of these qubits will retain the robust behavior against all collective noise. Over each $`^2`$-summand of (37), the relevant qubit observables are still given by the combinations of scalars determined above. Note that, once a fixed angular momentum component is chosen, say $`s_z=+1/2`$, states belonging to $`^2𝒟_{1/2}^{()}`$ as well as to $`_{3/2}`$ behave as “non-qubit” levels similarly to what we encountered in the case of the bosonic qubit. In particular, this results in a many-qubit state space structure analogous to (6), with a non-trivial summand $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ accounting for all the possible “non-qubit” configurations.

Explicit prescriptions are mentioned in  for both initializing the logical qubit to the $`|\stackrel{~}{0}_𝗊`$ state, and for implementing the final qubit measurement. Initialization may be achieved by relying on the natural equilibration processes of the physical spins in the presence of a polarizing magnetic field, while measurement of the qubit in the $`\{|\stackrel{~}{0}_𝗊,|\stackrel{~}{1}_𝗊\}`$ basis ($`s_z=+1/2`$) may be accomplished by determining the singlet vs. triplet state of spins 1, 2.

## 3 Criteria for a qubit

So what is a qubit? From the mathematical point of view, the main lesson that emerges from the above examples, and from the many others that can be analyzed along similar lines, is that the algebraic notion of a subsystem provides the most general framework for capturing the variety of ways in which qubits may be constructed. Subsystems, intended as factors (in the tensor product sense) of subspaces of a possibly larger state space, are the structures where we have identified qubits throughout our analysis. Because the information-carrying qubits can be far removed from the “natural” physical systems that a device is based on, states of qubit subsystems often look complicated when expressed in a basis associated with the physical degrees of freedom, making it difficult to recognize their properties and dynamical behavior. The situation is much simpler, and the description more compact, if the qubit is realized in an operator sense through its observables.

The idea of describing quantum systems in terms of operators forming a complex associative algebra, whose Hermitian elements provide the system’s observables, underlies the operator approach to quantum and quantum-statistical mechanics . Similarly, the general definition of a subsystem is motivated  by a fundamental representation theorem for finite dimensional associative operator algebras closed under Hermitian conjugation, stating that for any such algebra $`𝒜`$ a direct sum representation of the overall state space $`𝒮`$ exists,

$$𝒮\underset{i}{}𝒞_i𝒟_i,$$
(38)
in such a way that $`𝒜`$ has identity action over each of the factors $`𝒞_i`$’s, $`𝒜_i\text{1}\text{1}^{(𝒞_i)}\text{End}(𝒟_i)`$. Thus, if $`𝒜`$ is the algebra constructed from noise operators (interaction algebra ), a noiseless factor (subsystem) $`𝒞_i`$ is naturally characterized by an irreducible representation of the so-called commutant $`𝒜^{}`$, which is formed from the operators commuting with everything in $`𝒜`$.

Motivated by this general perspective, a necessary condition for having a qubit is that it is a subsystem whose associative operator algebra is identical with (isomorphic to) the “right” operator algebra of a two-state quantum system, i.e. one whose generators satisfy the set of composition rules specified in (1)-(2). Notice that this requirement is stronger than the one based on the $`su(2)`$ commutation rules (1) alone. While the latter are crucial in determining the appropriate Lie-algebraic structure (thereby obtaining the correct symmetry properties) of our qubit, (1) and (2) together are necessary (and sufficient) for ensuring the correct associative structure of the relevant algebra. In particular, the condition $`𝒪_𝗊^2=\text{1}\text{1}_𝗊`$ should hold for the generating observables $`𝒪_𝗊`$ to ensure that the appropriate representation in terms of an abstract spin-1/2 particle is realized.

How sensible is this definition from a physical standpoint? Looking back at our examples once more, one observes that identifying the correct algebraic structure does not guarantee by itself the ability of using the associated subsystem as a qubit. In a sense, this is only the first step toward constructing a qubit. Suppose, however, that we did actually succeed at determining a set of observables which generate the correct operator algebra, and suppose, in addition, that we have the capabilities for implementing the following manipulations:

* Unitary control$``$ Apply the observables as Hamiltonians to effect universal control operations on the subsystem.
* Initialization$``$ Apply suitable non-unitary control, i.e. a quantum operation, so as to leave the subsystem in a state whose expectation on the observables matches that of $`|0`$ for some choice of the observable $`|00|`$.
* Read-out$``$ Strong version: Perform von Neumann projective measurements of the subsystem observables, which together with unitary control implies the ability to initialize. Weak version: Perform weak ensemble measurements of the subsystem observables.

Then what we have constructed is, for all practical purposes, a qubit.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

We have provided an operational guideline for constructing qubits in physical systems. Our analysis emphasizes the role of operator algebras and observables as the most powerful and comprehensive language to be used for defining qubits in full generality. One obvious implication is that a qubit ends up being a much more versatile and general object than one might at first conceive of. In a broader context, it was recently argued by Steane  that a picture in terms of operators rather than state vectors could provide a more insightful perspective for understanding various aspects of quantum information processing, including the origin of the apparent improvements in efficiency over classical information processing. In a sense, a definition of the qubit in general operator terms can then be regarded as the first necessary step of this program.

This work was supported by the NSA and by the DOE under contract W-7405-ENG-36.

## References