text:
# References

Quantum bit commitment in a noisy channel

S.N.Molotkov and S.S.Nazin

Institute of Solid State Physics of Russian Academy of Sciences

Chernogolovka, Moscow District, 142432, Russia

## Abstract

Under rather general assumptions about the properties of a noisy quantum channel, a first quantum protocol is proposed which allows to implement the secret bit commitment with the probability arbitrarily close to unity.

PACS numbers: 89.70.+c, 03.65.-w

The idea that quantum physics can provide more secure communication between two distant parties than the classical one was first put forward by Wiesner . Later, after the works , a lot of papers devoted to secret key distribution (quantum cryptography) have been published. Apart from the key distribution protocol, there exist other cryptographic protocols which are both important for applications and interesting in themselves. These are the so-called Bit Commitment (BC) and Coin Tossing (CT) protocols . Quantum versions of these protocols were first proposed by Bennett and Brassard .

BC is the information exchange protocol allowing two distant users A and B which do not trust each other to implement the following scheme. User A sends some (part of) information on his secret bit $`b`$ ($`b=0`$ or 1, commitment stage) to user B in such a way that user B cannot recover the secret bit chosen by A on the basis of information supplied alone. However, this information should be sufficient to prevent cheating by user A, i.e., later (at the disclosure stage) when user B asks user A to send him the rest information on the chosen secret bit, user A should be unable to change his mind and modify the value of his secret bit. The CT protocol is the scheme allowing two distant users which do not trust each other to implement the procedure of drawing an honest lot.

Classical versions of these protocols are based on unproved computational complexity of some trap-door functions which require exponentially large resources to calculate their inverse on the classical computer .

Some time ago it was generally assumed that the quantum protocols based on the fundamental restriction imposed by the laws of quantum mechanics rather than on the computational complexity are unconditionally secure . However, it was later shown by Mayers, Lo and Chau  that the non-relativistic quantum BC protocol is not actually secure. User A can cheat user B without being detected by the latter employing the so-called EPR-attack (EPR stands for Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen ). The possibility of successful EPR-attack is actually based on the result of paper by Hougston, Josza, and Wotters on the measurements performed over the quantum ensembles of composite systems .

All the above mentioned non-relativistic quantum protocols are only based on the properties of the quantum states in the Hilbert space and do not explicitly contain the effects of state propagation between the two distant users. However, actually the information transfer occurs in the Minkowski space-time. Explicit accounting for this circumstance extends the possibilities for development of new relativistic quantum protocols  and substantially simplifies the proof of their security . Restrictions imposed by the special relativity on the measurements performed on quantum states allow to realize the secure BC and CT protocols in the ideal channel . Failure of the EPR-attack in the relativistic case is related to the impossibility of an instant modification of an extended quantum state. In addition, it is even impossible to instantly and reliably distinguish between two orthogonal states. Restrictions imposed by the special relativity on the measurement of quantum states were first discussed by Landau and Peierls .

In the present paper we propose the first relativistic BC protocol in a quantum noisy channel. Intuitively, the idea behind the protocol is very simple. User A prepares (turns on the source) one of the two orthogonal states corresponding to 0 or 1 which are sent with the maximum possible speed (the speed of light $`c`$; further on we assume $`c=1`$) into the communication channel as they are being formed. As long as the states are not fully accessible to user B, he cannot reliably determine the value of the secret bit. User A cannot influence (again because of the existence of the maximum propagation velocity) the part of the state which has already left his laboratory and propagates through the communication channel (the commitment stage). When the state becomes fully accessible to user B he can reliably determine the secret bit value (because of the orthogonality of the states) and compare it with that declared by user A through the classical channel at the disclosure stage. Restrictions imposed by the special relativity on quantum measurements allow to explicitly realize the original idea of the Bit Commitment protocol on providing only a part of information on the secret bit to the other party while spatial restriction of the state accessibility automatically results in the restriction of accessible part of the Hilbert state space even for “internal” degrees of freedom of the quantum system (e.g., spin or polarization) since they do not exist separately from the spatial degrees of freedom.

The protocol employs a pair of single-photon states with orthogonal polarizations and the spatial amplitude of a special form corresponding to 0 and 1:

$$|\psi _{0,1}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k)a^+(k)|0|e_{0,1}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k)|k|e_{0,1}=||e_{0,1},$$
(1)
where $`a^+(k)`$ is the creation operator for the state with momentum (energy) $`k>0`$, $`(k)`$ is the amplitude in $`k`$-representation, $`|e_{0,1}`$ is the polarization state, and

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dk|(k)|^2=1,[a(k),a^+(k^{})]=\delta (kk^{}),e_i|e_j=\delta _{ij},i,j=0,1,k(0.\mathrm{}).$$
(2)
In the spatio-temporal $`\tau `$-representation the states are written as

$$|\psi _{0,1}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau (\tau )|\tau |e_{0,1},(\tau )=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k)\text{e}^{ik\tau },k|\tau =\frac{\text{e}^{ik\tau }}{\sqrt{2\pi }},\tau =tx,\tau (\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),$$
(3)
where $`(\tau )`$ is the amplitude in $`\tau `$-representation reflecting the intuitive picture of a packet propagating in the positive direction of $`x`$-axis with the speed of light and having the spatio-temporal shape $`(\tau )`$. The normalization condition in the $`\tau `$-representation has the form

$$\psi _{0,1}|\psi _{0,1}=|=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}(\tau )^{}(\tau ^{})[\frac{1}{2}\delta (\tau \tau ^{})+\frac{i}{\pi }\frac{1}{\tau \tau ^{}}]=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|(\tau )|^2𝑑\tau ,$$
(4)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{ik\tau }\frac{1}{\tau +a}=i\pi \text{ }\text{sgn}(k)\text{e}^{ika}.$$

Important for the proposed protocol are the following two circumstances: 1) There exists a maximum state propagation speed; 2) Orthogonal states cannot be reliably distinguished when they are not fully accessible (even if they remain orthogonal when restricted to the domain accessible to measurements). The classical bit values of 0 and 1 correspond to two orthogonal polarization states $`|e_0`$ and $`|e_1`$. Since the polarization does not exist separately from the spatial degrees of freedom $`(\tau )`$, the reliable (with probability 1) distinguishability requires the access to the entire spatial domain where the amplitude $`(\tau )`$ is different from zero. To be more precise, any measurement in a finite domain $`\tau `$ necessarily involves a non-zero error probability in the state distinguishability. Generally, any measurement is described by an identity resolution in $``$ \[19–22,25\], and when only a finite domain $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )`$ being the complement to the entire space $`\tau (\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$) is accessible to measurement the identity resolution has the form

$$I=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau |\tau \tau |I_{C^2}=_{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )}𝑑\tau |\tau \tau |(𝒫_0+𝒫_1)+_{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )}𝑑\tau |\tau \tau |I_{C^2},𝒫_{0,1}=|e_{0,1}e_{0,1}|,$$
(5)
where $`𝒫_{0,1}`$ are the projectors to the polarization states $`|e_{0,1}`$. If the measurement outcome occurs in the accessible domain $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )`$, the probabilities of outcomes in the two orthogonal channels $`𝒫_0`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ are

$$\text{Tr}\{\rho (0,1)(I(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))𝒫_{0,1})\}=_{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )}𝑑\tau |(\tau )|^2=N(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )),\text{Tr}\{\rho (0,1)(I(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))𝒫_{1,0})\}0,$$
(6)
where $`\rho (0,1)=|\psi _{0,1}\psi _{0,1}|`$, and $`N(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))`$ is the fraction of outcomes in the accessible domain. The probability of error in that case is zero because of the orthogonality of the channels $`p_e(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))=0`$. However, if the outcome is not obtained in the domain accessible to the measurement, the error probability is $`p_e(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ))=1/2`$, and the fraction of these outcomes is

$$\text{Tr}\{\rho (0,1)\left(I(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ))I_{C^2}\right)\}=_{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )}𝑑\tau |(\tau )|^2=N(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )).$$
(7)
The total error probability is

$$P_e=p_e(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))N(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))+p_e(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ))N(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ))=0N(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ))+\frac{1}{2}N(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ))=\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )}𝑑\tau |(\tau )|^20.$$
(8)
The protocol employs the states with a special spatio-temporal amplitude corresponding to a state consisting of two strongly localized and separated by an interval $`\tau _0`$ “halves”

$$(\tau )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[f(\tau )+f(\tau \tau _0)],_{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }𝑑\tau |f(\tau )|^2=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\tau _0}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\tau _0}𝑑\tau |f(\tau \tau _0)|^2=1\delta ,\delta 1,\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \tau _0,$$
(9)
where $`\delta `$ can be chosen arbitrarily small. The amplitude $`f(\tau )`$ cannot possess a finite support , although it can be arbitrarily strongly localized and can have a decay rate arbitrarily close to the exponential one . In the following we shall for brevity omit the parameter $`\delta `$ bearing in mind that it can be safely made the smallest parameter in the problem. The latter means that if the accessible domain of the space-time $`\tau `$ covers the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau <\tau <\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\tau _0`$, the error probability (8) is $`P_e=0`$. On the contrary, if only one half of the state is accessible, the error probability (8) is $`P_e=1/4`$. In other words, this means that reliable distinguishability of a pair of states (9) requires access to the spatio-temporal domain of size $`\tau _0`$ which, because of the existence of the limiting propagation speed, cannot be achieved faster than $`\tau _0`$.

The input states sent by user A into the quantum communication channel are $`\rho _{in}(0,1)=(|e_{0,1}|)(|e_{0,1}|)`$. Description of the quantum communication channel actually reduces to specifying the instrument (sometimes also called “superoperator”) \[19–22,25\] mapping the input density matrices into the output ones (not necessarily normalized). Any quantum communication channel defines an affine mapping of the set of input density matrices into the set of output density matrices. Any mapping of that kind reduces to specifying the instrument $`𝓣`$,

$$\rho _{out}(0,1)=𝓣[\rho _{in}(0,1)]=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\rho _{out}(\tau ,\tau ^{})|\tau \tau ^{}|\rho (e_0,e_1)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i(|e_{i,0,1}|u_i)(u_i|e_{i,0,1}|),$$
(10)
where $`|u_i=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau u_i(\tau )|\tau `$ are the eigenvectors of the output density matrix operator (kernel $`\rho _{out}(\tau ,\tau ^{})`$). Taking into account Eq. (4) one has

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau ^{}\rho _{out}(\tau ,\tau ^{})u_i(\tau ^{})=\lambda _iu_i(\tau ),_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau u_i(\tau )u_j^{}(\tau )=\delta _{ij},\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i1.$$
(11)
The output polarization vectors are $`|e_{i,0,1}=\alpha _{i,0,1}|e_0+\beta _{i,0,1}|e_1`$ ($`|\alpha _{i,0,1}|^2+|\beta _{i,0,1}|^2=1`$). Any instrument can be presented in the form $`𝓣[\rho ]=_iV_i\rho V_i^+`$, with $`_iV_iV_i^+I`$ \[19–22\] (it is sufficient here to restrict ourselves to the discrete outcome space $`i`$). In our case this representation can be written in the form

$$𝓣[\mathrm{}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i(|e_{i,0,1}|u_i)(e_{0,1}||)[\mathrm{}](||e_{0,1})(u_i|e_{i,0,1}|)+𝓣_{}[\mathrm{}],$$
(12)
where $`𝓣_{}[\mathrm{}]`$ is the part of the instrument yielding identical zero on the subspace spanned by the vectors $`||e_{0,1}`$.

Writing the instrument in the form of Eq. (10) we assumed that the decoherence of both basic polarization states occurs in the same way which is true if the medium does not possess gyrotropic properties. The latter condition is normally satisfied for optical fiber communication channels. However, if the decoherence of the states with different polarizations occur in different ways and depends on the spatial degrees of freedom, the following analysis can easily be extended to that case.

Since the time of preserving the secret bit is determined by the state extent ($`\tau _0`$) the channel length can be arbitrary; therefore, we shall set it equal to zero without loss of generality. Actually, the specification of the instrument is the description of the quantum communication channel just as in the classical case where the probability distributions on the output alphabet is specified for each symbol of the input alphabet. At the intuitive level this mapping can be understood (with some reservation) as the transformation of an input state $`|\psi _{0,1}`$ with the shape $`(\tau )`$ and polarization $`e_{0,1}`$ into one of the output states with the shape $`u_i(\tau )`$ and polarization $`e_{i,0,1}`$ occurring with the probability $`\lambda _i`$. The fact that the sum of probabilities does not exceed unit, $`_i\lambda _i1`$, can be interpreted in our case as the disappearance (absorption) of a photon in the channel. The channel properties are determined by the functions $`u_i(\tau )`$ and probabilities $`\lambda _i`$ which are assumed to be known from the a priori considerations (and can be found from the channel calibration procedure). If it is possible to choose a new interval of the state halves localization at the output $`D\tau `$ such that

$$\text{ }i=1,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}_{D\tau }^{D\tau }𝑑\tau |u_i(\tau )|^2=\frac{1}{2}\delta ,\frac{1}{2}_{D\tau +\tau _0}^{D\tau +\tau _0}𝑑\tau |u_i(\tau )|^2=\frac{1}{2}\delta ,D\tau \tau _0,$$
(13)
where $`\delta `$, just as previously (9), is arbitrarily small, the channel is suitable to the realization of the proposed protocol. In other words, the channel has the property that the strongly localized states at the input still remain strongly localized at the output to within $`D\tau \tau _0`$ and $`D\tau >\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ (fig.1), although they can change their shape and polarization. The quantity $`D\tau `$ then determines the accuracy with which user B can detect the delay of choice of secret bit by user A (delay of sending the state in the communication channel). The probability of detecting a state at the output by user B in the spatio-temporal window $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )`$ covering only one of the halves $`u_i(\tau )`$ independently of the outcome in the channels $`𝒫_{0,1}`$ is

$$\text{Pr}\{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )\}=\text{Tr}\{𝓣[\rho _{in}(0,1)](I(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )I_{C^2})\}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i_{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )}d\tau |u_i(\tau )|^2(\frac{1}{2}\delta )\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i\frac{1}{2}\delta \frac{1}{2},$$
(14)
and can be made arbitrarily close (with the exponential accuracy by suitably choosing $`D\tau `$ and $`\tau _0`$) to 1/2. In this case, the probability of correct identification of the state when only one half of the state is accessible (i.e. during time interval $`\tau _0`$) does not exceed $`1/21/2=1/4`$ (8).

Now we shall calculate the probability of error for the case when the states become fully accessible (after the time $`D\tau +\tau _0\tau _0`$ elapses; for the ideal communication channel the distinguishability error is zero). If the state is fully accessible (after time $`\tau _0`$ since the protocol was started) the probability of an outcome in one of the channels $`𝒫_{0,1}`$ is

$$\text{Pr}\{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )\}=\text{Tr}\{𝓣[\rho _{in}(0,1)](I(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )I_{C^2})\}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i1.$$
(15)
The fact that $`\text{Pr}\{\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )\}1`$ means that not all states reach the channel output, i.e. the states are absorbed in the channel with the probability $`1_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _i`$ (formally, this is the probability for a state to never become accessible for user B). In that case, where the measuring apparatus employed by user B did not fire at all, he can only guess which state was actually sent, the contribution to the error probability from these events being $`1/2(1_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _i)`$. Let us now calculate the contribution to the error probability from the events when the measuring apparatus employed by user B produced some outcome. The measurement minimizing the polarization distinguishability error for the two “honest” input states sent by A is given by the following identity resolution (for detail, see e.g. Ref.):

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒫_i(E_0+E_1)+𝒫_{}I_{C^2}=II_{C^2},𝒫_i=|u_iu_i|,𝒫_{}=I\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒫_i,$$
(16)
$$E_0+E_1=I_{C^2},E_0=|\stackrel{~}{e}_0\stackrel{~}{e}_0|,I_{C^2}=|e_0e_0|+|e_1e_1|,$$
(17)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{e}_0`$ are the eigenvectors of the operator

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _{00}|e_0e_0|+\gamma _{01}|e_0e_1|+\gamma _{10}|e_1e_0|+\gamma _{11}|e_1e_1|,$$
(18)
$$\gamma _{00}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i(|\alpha _{i,1}|^2|\alpha _{i,0}|^2),\gamma _{11}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i(|\beta _{i,1}|^2|\beta _{i,0}|^2),$$

$$\gamma _{01}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i(\alpha _{i,1}\beta _{i,0}^{}\alpha _{i,0}\beta _{i,1}^{}),\gamma _{10}=\gamma _{01}^{}.$$
(19)
Taking into account Eq. (18) and bearing in mind that the states 0 and 1 are chosen by user A with equal a priori probabilities of 1/2, the total error for distinguishing between the polarizations of the two “honest” input states when they are fully accessible can be represented as

$$P_e=\frac{1}{2}(1\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _i)+\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\{𝓣[\rho _{in}(0)]((\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒫_i)E_1)\}+\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\{𝓣[\rho _{in}(1)]((\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒫_i)E_0)\}=\frac{1}{2}|\gamma _2|<\frac{1}{2},$$
(20)
where $`\gamma _2`$ is the negative eigenvalue of the operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Eq. (18),

$$\gamma _2=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{00}+\gamma _{11})\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\gamma _{00}\gamma _{11})^2+4|\gamma _{01}|^2}.$$
(21)
If the polarizations $`|e_0`$ are $`|e_1`$ disturbed in the channel in the same way, one has $`\gamma _2=|\gamma _{01}|`$. For the ideal channel Eqs. (18–20) yield $`P_e=0`$.

The protocol consist of the following steps. 1) The users control only their local neighbourhoods. They agree in advance on the time when the protocol is started, the states ($`(\tau )`$) employed, and the adopted polarization basis $`|e_{0,1}`$) for 0 and 1. 2) User A encodes the secret bit $`b`$ (0 or 1) as the parity bit of $`N`$ states $`\stackrel{~}{0}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{1}`$ consisting of the blocks each containing $`k`$ bits ($`b=_{j=1}^Na[i,j]`$, $`i=1..k`$; all $`a[i,j]`$ belonging to the same block are identical) and sends $`kN`$ states randomly distributed among $`kN`$ quantum communication channels. User B performs measurements described by Eq. (16). 3) At the disclosure stage, at any time $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau <\tau <\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\tau _0`$, user B can ask user A to announce through a classical communication channel what he actually sent to user B. 4) After the protocol duration time elapses, user B compares the outcomes of his measurements with the data obtained from user A through the classical communication channel. 5) If all the tests are successful, the protocol is completed; otherwise it is aborted.

Before the protocol duration time elapses completely, the probability of correct secret bit identification by user B exceeds 1/2 (i.e. the probability of simple guessing) by only an exponentially small amount. Indeed, if the block representation of 0 and 1 is adopted, the number of binary strings of length $`kN`$ is (see Ref. for the details of summation)

$$N_{odd}=N_{even}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}C_{Nk}^{mk}=\frac{2^{Nk}}{2k}\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{cos}^{Nk}(\frac{l\pi }{k})\mathrm{cos}(lN\pi )\frac{1}{2k}2^{Nk},$$
(22)
which practically coincides with the total number of binary strings of length $`Nk`$. The Shannonn information \[28–30\] of the set of block strings is (to within the rounding) the number of binary digits required to identify the string parity,

$$I=\text{log}_2\left(\frac{2^{Nk}}{2k}\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{cos}^{Nk}(\frac{l\pi }{k})\mathrm{cos}(lN\pi )\right)\eta \text{ }Nk,\eta 1,$$
(23)
i.e. one should know almost all bits in the string. However, if only one half of the state is accessible ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau <\tau <\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\tau _0`$), the error probability for determination of any particular bit in the string is not less than 1/4 even in a noiseless channel (see Eq. (8)). Therefore, the probability for user B to learn the parity bit before the protocol duration time completely elapses does not exceed

$$P(parity)=\frac{1}{2}+2^{\frac{\eta }{2}Nk}.$$
(24)
We shall now calculate the probability of correct identification of the parity bit after the protocol duration time fully elapsed. The block representation with $`k`$ bits is stable (the errors are corrected by majority voting), if the number of errors in each block does not exceed $`k/21`$. The probability of wrong identification of a block-wise $`\stackrel{~}{0}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{1}`$ is

$$P_e(k)=\underset{i=k/2}{\overset{k}{}}C_k^iP_e^i(1P_e)^{ki}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi k}}[2\sqrt{P_e(1P_e)}]^k,$$
(25)
which can be made arbitrarily small by appropriate choice of $`k`$. The total error in the parity bit identification is (we assume $`N`$ to be even)

$$P_e(parity)=\underset{i=odd}{\overset{N1}{}}C_N^iP_e^i(k)(1P_e(k))^{Ni},$$
(26)
where summation is performed over the odd subscripts $`i`$ only since the error in the calculated parity bit arises when an odd number of blocks are wrongly identified. Making use of

$$\frac{1}{2}[(x+y)^N(xy)^N]=\underset{i=odd}{\overset{N1}{}}C_N^ix^iy^{Ni},$$
(27)
and substituting $`x=P_e(k)`$ and $`y=1P_e(k)`$ ($`x+y=1`$), one obtains

$$P_e(parity)=\frac{1}{2}[1(12P_e(k))^N].$$
(28)
By appropriate choice of $`k`$, for a specified quantum communication channel the probability $`P_e(k)`$ can be made arbitrarily small such that the quantity $`NP_e(k)1`$ is exponentially small. Under these conditions the probability of wrong parity bit identification after the protocol duration time elapses is also arbitrarily small so that the probability of correct is arbitrarily close to 1.

Let us now discuss the protocol stability against cheating by user A. Since the minimal Hemming distance between the two block-wise strings with different parities is $`k`$ (minimal number of non-coinciding bits), alteration of the string parity requires modification of at least $`k`$ bits. Since the probability of correct identification of each block-wise $`\stackrel{~}{0}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{1}`$ is not worse than $`1P_e(k)1`$ (see Eq. (25), $`P_e(k)`$ is exponentially small), the probability of undetectable cheating by user A does not exceed this quantity.

The protocol is also stable against the delay of choice of secret bit by user A. Note that for the “honest” non-delayed input states the probability of the outcome in the channel $``$, $`𝒫_{}=I_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒫_i`$ is zero:

$$\text{Pr}(\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau )+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ))=\text{Tr}\left\{(𝓣[\rho _{in}(0,1)]+𝓣_{}[\rho _{in}(0,1)])(𝒫_{}I_{C^2})\right\}=$$
(29)
$$\text{Tr}\{((\underset{i}{}\lambda _i|\alpha _{i,0,1}|^2𝒫_i)|e_0e_0|+\left(\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\alpha _{i,0,1}\beta _{i,0,1}^{}𝒫_i\right)|e_0e_1|+$$

$$\left(\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\beta _{i,0,1}\alpha _{i,0,1}^{}𝒫_i\right)|e_1e_0|+(\underset{i}{}\lambda _i|\beta _{i,0,1}|^2𝒫_i)|e_1e_1|)(I\underset{j}{}𝒫_j)I_{C^2}\}=0,$$

since $`|\alpha _{i,0,1}|^2+|\beta _{i,0,1}|^2=1`$ and $`𝒫_i𝒫_j=\delta _{ij}𝒫_i`$.

Any delay of the input state for more than $`D\tau `$ can be detected with the probability arbitrarily close for 1. To prove this statement, we shall need the requirements imposed on the instrument (12) by the special relativity (to be more precise, by the existence of the maximum propagation speed). If a strongly localized state (in the sense that its amplitude $`\mu (\tau )`$ satisfies the equation $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }𝑑\tau |\mu (\tau )|^2=1\delta `$, $`\delta `$ being exponentially small, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$) is prepared at the input of an arbitrary quantum communication channel, then this state cannot be detected at the output of the channel in time less than $`t=L/c`$ (to be more precise, the detection will take place within the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +L/ct\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +L/c`$ with probability arbitrarily close to 1, where $`L`$ is the channel length). In our case the instrument (12) should map the states prepared at the channel input at later times into the states that arise at the output also at later times. The delay of the state amplitude leading front at the output cannot be less than its delay at the input.

Any delayed input state can be written as (we omit the polarization degrees of freedom for brevity)

$$\rho _{delay}=\underset{l}{}\mu _l|\mu _l\mu _l|,\underset{l}{}\mu _l=1,|\mu _l=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \mu _l(\tau )|\tau ,$$
(30)
where $`|\mu _l`$ are the density matrix eigenvectors and the supports of functions $`\mu _l(\tau )`$ do not overlap in the interval $`D\tau `$ with the support of the leading halves of the functions $`u_i(\tau )`$ arising at the channel output from the non-delayed states. At the channel output $`\rho _{delay}`$ will be transformed into the density matrix whose eigenstates $`|\eta _k`$ have the supports which also do not overlap with the front half of $`u_i(\tau )`$ in the interval $`D\tau `$:

$$(𝓣+𝓣_{})[\rho _{delay}]=\underset{k}{}\eta _k|\eta _k\eta _k|,\underset{k}{}\eta _k1,|\eta _k=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \eta _k(\tau )|\tau .$$
(31)
This implies that $`|\eta _k|u_i|^21/2`$ since $`\eta _k(\tau )`$ does not cover the front half of $`u_i(\tau )`$ where half of the norm (i.e., 1/2) of the state $`u_i(\tau )`$ is localized.

For the delayed states the probability of the outcome in the channel $`_i𝒫_i<I`$ is

$$\text{Tr}\left\{\left(\underset{k}{}\eta _k|\eta _k\eta _k|\right)\left(\underset{i}{}𝒫_i\right)\right\}<1,$$
(32)
while for the non-delayed states this probability is 1. Similarly, the probability of the outcome in the channel $`𝒫_{}=I_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒫_i`$ (note that for “honest” states this probability is zero) is

$$\text{Tr}\left\{\left(\underset{k}{}\eta _k|\eta _k\eta _k|\right)\left(I\underset{i}{}𝒫_i\right)\right\}=p_{}0.$$
(33)
The sum of probabilities for both channels is 1 if all states reach the channel output (are not absorbed, i.e. $`_k\eta _k=1`$).

Possible delay in the choice of the secret bit (delay of the state) is detected through the appearance of outcomes in the channel $`𝒫_{}`$ with the probability $`p_{}`$. To change the parity bit, it is sufficient to delay the states in only one block containing $`k`$ bits. The probability for user A to delay $`k`$ states and remain undetected is equal to the probability of an event when all $`k`$ delayed states do not give a single outcome in the channel $`𝒫_{}`$ thus imitating the measurements statistics for “honest” states. We have

$$P_{cheat}=(1p_{})^k1,$$
(34)
which can be achieved for any specified $`p_{}`$ by choosing a sufficiently large $`k`$.

Thus, the protocol allows to realize the honest bit commitment protocol with the probability arbitrarily close to 1.

This work was supported by the Russian Fund for Basic Research (grant N 99-02-18127), the project “Physical foundations of quantum computer” and the program “Advanced technologies and devices of micro- and nanoelectronics” (project N 02.04.5.2.40.T.50).


format: text

text:
# Theory of the Nucleon Spin-Polarizabilities II

## Abstract

I discuss a generalization of the concept of nucleon spin-polarizabilities and present an overview of the available theoretical predictions up to now for these elusive but interesting structure parameters of the nucleon.

The concept of nucleon spin-polarizabilities has been discussed in full detail in the plenary talk contribution by Ulf Meißner . In this brief contribution I want to point out that an interpretation of the 4 so called Ragusa spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i`$  in terms of multipole excitations and de-excitations can be given, if one resorts to a different basis $`R_i`$ for the excitation part of the 6 structure functions $`A_i`$ of nucleon Compton scattering discussed in Meißner’s talk. For example , choosing the following linear combinations of the $`\gamma _i`$

$`\gamma _{E1}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1\gamma _3\left(E1E1\right)`$ (1)
$`\gamma _{M1}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _4\left(M1M1\right)`$ (2)
$`\gamma _{E2}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2+\gamma _4\left(M1E2\right)`$ (3)
$`\gamma _{M2}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _3\left(E1M2\right),`$ (4)
the resulting spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _{E1(M1)}`$ can be interpreted as the nucleon’s spin response to an electric (magnetic) dipole excitation via the incoming Compton photon and a successive dipole de-excitation through the outgoing Compton photon. Likewise, the other 2 linear combinations $`\gamma _{E2(M2)}`$ describe the response to an electric (magnetic) dipole excitation and a successive magnetic (electric) quadrupole de-excitation. The 4 Ragusa spin-polarizabilities can therefore be expressed in a basis where their physical meaning becomes clear—these polarizabilities are just parameterizing the leading spin response of the nucleon for dipole excitations in (spin-dependent) Compton scattering. As discussed by Meißner , none of these (dipole) spin-polarizabilities has been measured directly up to know—results of future polarized Compton scattering experiments on the proton are eagerly awaited. In chiral perturbation theory the dipole spin-polarizabilities have now been calculated to next-to-leading order, the results and a comparison with recent dispersion theoretical calculations are given in table 1.

After realizing the possibility of such a multipole interpretation for the Ragusa spin-polarizabilities, one of course does not have to stop classifying the nucleon’s spin-dependent response in external electromagnetic fields at the level of electric or magnetic dipole excitations. Recently, Holstein et al.  have generalized such an analysis to classify spin structure responses related to low energy quadrupole excitations of the nucleon. A straightforward derivation of these higher order spin-polarizabilities can be given via a multipole expansion of the 6 Compton structure amplitudes $`R_i(\omega ,\theta ),i=1\mathrm{}6`$, where $`\omega `$ corresponds to the photon energy in the center-of-mass system and $`\theta `$ denotes the cms scattering angle. For example, for $`i=6`$ one finds :

$`R_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l1}{}}\{[f_{MM}^{l+}f_{MM}^l](lP_l^{\prime \prime }+P_{l1}^{\prime \prime \prime })[f_{EE}^{l+}f_{EE}^l]P_l^{\prime \prime \prime }`$
$`\left[f_{EE}^{l+}f_{EE}^l\right]P_l^{\prime \prime \prime }+f_{ME}^{l+}\left[\left(3l+1\right)P_l^{\prime \prime }+2P_{l1}^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]`$
$`2f_{EM}^{l+}[(l+1)P_{l+1}^{\prime \prime }+2P_l^{\prime \prime \prime }]\}`$
where the $`P_i^a(z)`$ denote the $`a`$th derivative of Legendre-Polynomial $`P_i`$ and $`f_{XY}^l(\omega )`$ are the energy-dependent expansion parameters of the multipole series. If one now maps the one-particle-irreducible or excitation part of $`R_6`$ onto the corresponding $`A_6`$ structure amplitude discussed by Meißner  and stops the multipole series at $`l=1`$, one obtains

$`A_6^{1PI}`$ $`=`$ $`cR_6^{1PI}=+c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}f_{EM}^{1+}+(l2)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _3\omega ^3+\mathrm{},`$
where $`c`$ corresponds to an amplitude normalization constant and $`\gamma _3`$ denotes one of the spin-polarizabilities discussed by Meißner. We can therefore make the identification

$`\gamma _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3cf_{EM}^{1+}(\omega )}{\omega ^3\pi }}|_{\omega 0}\gamma _{M2}\left(E1M2\right),`$
which reproduces Eq.(4). Generalizing this analysis to $`l=2`$ one obtains a set of 12 spin-polarizabilities defined via the expansion parameters $`f_{XY}^l(\omega )`$ introduced above:

$`4\pi \omega ^3\left(\gamma _{E1}+\omega ^2\gamma _{E1,\nu }\right)=`$ $`f_{EE}^{1+}(\omega )f_{EE}^1(\omega )`$ $`(E1E1)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^3\left(\gamma _{M1}+\omega ^2\gamma _{M1,\nu }\right)=`$ $`f_{MM}^{1+}(\omega )f_{MM}^1(\omega )`$ $`(M1M1)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^3\left(\gamma _{E2}+\omega ^2\gamma _{E2,\nu }\right)=`$ $`6f_{ME}^{1+}(\omega )`$ $`(M1E2)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^3\left(\gamma _{M2}+\omega ^2\gamma _{M2,\nu }\right)=`$ $`6f_{EM}^{1+}(\omega )`$ $`(E1M2)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^5\gamma _{ET}=`$ $`3\left[f_{EE}^{2+}(\omega )f_{EE}^2(\omega )\right]`$ $`(E2E2)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^5\gamma _{MT}=`$ $`3\left[f_{MM}^{2+}(\omega )f_{MM}^2(\omega )\right]`$ $`(M2M2)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^5\gamma _{E3}=`$ $`15f_{ME}^{2+}(\omega )`$ $`(M2E3)`$
$`4\pi \omega ^5\gamma _{M3}=`$ $`15f_{EM}^{2+}(\omega )`$ $`(E2M3).`$
The 4 dipole spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _{E1},\gamma _{M1},\gamma _{E2},\gamma _{M2}`$ have already been discussed in Eqs.(1-4). When extending the multipole series to $`l=2`$, one in addition also picks up the 4 slopes $`\gamma _{E1,\nu },\gamma _{M1,\nu },\gamma _{E2,\nu },\gamma _{M2,\nu }`$ of their energy-dependence, which are usually called dispersion spin-polarizabilities. Finally, there are 4 proper higher order spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _{ET},\gamma _{MT},\gamma _{E3},\gamma _{M3}`$, which correspond to quadrupole excitations and successive quadrupole oder even octupole de-excitations. Results of recent predictions for these essentially unknown higher order spin structure parameters of the nucleon obtained in chiral effective field theories and via dispersion analyses are given in table 2. It is interesting to note that all predictions agree that the dispersive effects of the dipole spin-polarizabilities should give the dominant effect among the $`l=2`$ spin-polarizabilities—quadrupole and octupole de-excitation only seems to play a minor role. This is another manifestation of the rather rigid behavior of the nucleon under deformation forces as in the case of the small quadrupole $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transition moment or the rather small electric (magnetic) polarizabilities $`\overline{\alpha }_E,(\overline{\beta }_M)`$. Furthermore, the next-to-leading order chiral perturbation theory calculation gives the first indication that as in the case of the dipole spin-polarizabilities (table 1) also for the higher order spin-polarizabilities the isoscalar components clearly dominate over the isovector part (table 2), making proton and neutron rather similar objects as far as their spin-structure at low energies is concerned.

I would like to thank the organizer of GDH2000 for the opportunity to present these new results and I am grateful for their financial support.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, the asymmetric exclusion process and the problems related to it, including for example the bipolymerization , dynamical models of interface growth , traffic models , the noisy Burgers equation , and the study of shocks , have been extensively investigated. The dynamical properties of this model have been studied in \[6–8\]. As the results obtained by approaches like mean field are not reliable in one dimension, it is useful to introduce solvable models and analytic methods to extract exact physical results. Among these methods is the coordinate Bethe–ansatz, which was used in  to solve the asymmetric simple exclusion process on a one–dimensional lattice. In , a similar technique was used to solve the drop–push model , and a generalized one–parameter model interpolating between the asymmetric simple exclusion model and the drop–push model. In , this family was further generalized to a family of processes with arbitrary left- and right- diffusion rates. All of these models were lattice models. Finally, the behaviour of latter model on continuum was investigated in . The continuum models of this kind are also investigated in . In  a generalization of such processes was studied which contained annihilation of particles as well.

In all of these, people have been mainly concerned with the so–called single–species processes, in which only one kind of particles exist and move on the lattice (or the continuum). Another interesting problem is the study of multi–species systems in them several kinds of particles move and interact on a lattice. In , single–species systems have been characterized for them the equations governing the evolution of the $`N`$–point functions contain $`N`$\- or less- point functions. This has been done for multi–species systems in . In , two–species reaction–diffusion systems have been introduced that are solvable in the sense that the $`S`$ matrix corresponding to them is factorizable into the two–particle $`S`$ matrices. It is found there that the the criterion for this is that the interactions (which are of the nearest–neighbor type) are to be so that the $`S`$ matrix satisfy a kind of spectral Yang–Baxter equation.

We follow the same line. That is, we investigate interactions which can be written as boundary conditions for the probability functions. These interactions preserve the total number of particles, so that if one begins with $`N`$ particles, knowing the $`N`$–point probabilities is enough to know everything about the system. Using the coordinate Bethe–ansatz, it is found that for this ansatz to be consistent, the $`S`$ matrix should satisfy a kind of spectral Yang–Baxter equation . However, the $`S`$ matrix is of a special form containing the boundary conditions (or interactions), and not every solutions of the spectral Yang–Baxter equation can be used to construct such a solvable model. We investigate the spectral equation the $`S`$ matrix should satisfy and show that this is equivalent to a non–spectral equation for the boundary conditions. This is independent of the number of species.

The scheme of the paper is the following. In section 2, the it is shown that the prescription of investigating multi–species reaction–diffusion systems in terms of diffusion systems equipped with suitable boundary conditions is studied. In section 3, the Bethe–ansatz solution for such (solvable) systems is obtained and its large–time behavior is investigated. In section 4, the solvability criterion is obtained and it is shown that this criterion is a nonspectral matrix equation. In section 5, some general properties of the solutions of the solvability criterion is studied. Finally, in section 6 some special solutions of the solvability equation are studied.

## 2 Multi–species reaction–diffusion systems and the boundary conditions

Consider a system consisting of $`N`$ particles on a lattice, drifting to the right with unit rate if the right neighboring site is empty, and interacting with each other only if two of them are adjacent. Suppose that there are $`n`$ kinds (or species) of particles and the interaction between the particles is just in the form that if two particles $`A^\alpha `$ and $`A^\beta `$ are adjacent to each other, they may change to $`A^\gamma `$ and $`A^\delta `$ with the rate $`b_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta }`$. That is, the allowed processes are

$`A^\alpha \mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{}A^\alpha ,`$ $`\text{with rate }1`$
$`A^\alpha A^\beta `$ $`A^\gamma A^\delta ,`$ $`\text{with rate }b_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta }`$ (1)
These processes result in the master equation

$`\dot{P}^{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N;t)=`$ $`P^{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}(x_11,\mathrm{},x_N;t)+\mathrm{}`$
$`+P^{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N1;t)`$
$`NP^{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N;t),`$ (2)
if $`x_i<x_{i+1}1`$. The symbol $`P^{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N;t)`$ denotes the probability of finding a particle of type $`\alpha _1`$ in $`x_1`$, a particle of type $`\alpha _2`$ in $`x_2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ at the time $`t`$. The so–called physical region consists of the points satisfying $`x_i<x_{i+1}`$. If $`x_i=x_{i+1}1`$, the interactions change the equation. For clarity, let’s write the evolution equation for the two–particle sector:

$`\dot{P}^{\alpha \beta }(x,x+1)=`$ $`P^{\alpha \beta }(x1,x+1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{(\gamma \delta )(\alpha \beta )}{}}b_{\gamma \delta }^{\alpha \beta }P^{\gamma \delta }(x,x+1)B^{\alpha \beta }P^{\alpha \beta }(x,x+1)`$
$`P^{\alpha \beta }(x,x+1),`$ (3)
where

$$B^{\alpha \beta }:=\underset{(\gamma \delta )(\alpha \beta )}{}b_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta }$$
(4)
Defining the diagonal elements of $`b`$ as

$$b_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }:=1\underset{(\gamma \delta )(\alpha \beta )}{}b_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta },$$
(5)
it is seen that (2) can be written as

$$\dot{P}^{\alpha \beta }(x,x+1)=P^{\alpha \beta }(x1,x+1)+b_{\gamma \delta }^{\alpha \beta }P^{\gamma \delta }(x,x+1)2P^{\alpha \beta }(x,x+1),$$
(6)
where summation is implied on repeated indices. Comparing this with (2), it is seen that it can be written as (2) provided one introduces the boundary condition

$$P^{\alpha \beta }(x,x)=b_{\gamma \delta }^{\alpha \beta }P^{\gamma \delta }(x,x+1),$$
(7)
or, in a more compact form,

$$|P(x,x)=b|P(x,x+1).$$
(8)
The matrix $`b`$ should satisfy two criteria. First, its non–diagonal elements should be nonnegative (since they are rates). Second, the sum of the elements of each of its columns should be one. This can be written in a compact form as

$$s|s|b=s|s|,$$
(9)
where

$$s_\alpha :=1.$$
(10)
Note that if the number of species is one, the asymmetric simple exclusion process  is obtained.

## 3 The Bethe–ansatz solution

As in , one can write a Bethe–ansatz solution for (2) with the boundary condition

$$|P(\mathrm{},x_k=x,x_{k+1}=x,\mathrm{})=b_{k,k+1}|P(\mathrm{},x_k=x,x_{k+1}=x+1,\mathrm{}),$$
(11)
where

$$b_{k,k+1}:=1\mathrm{}1\underset{k,k+1}{\underset{}{b}}1\mathrm{}1.$$
(12)
We take the ansatz

$$|P(𝐱;t)=e^{Et}|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱),$$
(13)
and it is seen that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)`$ should satisfy

$`E|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_11,\mathrm{},x_N)+\mathrm{}`$
$`+|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N1)N|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N),`$ (14)
and

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{},x_k=x,x_{k+1}=x,\mathrm{})=b_{k,k+1}|\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{},x_k=x,x_{k+1}=x+1,\mathrm{}).$$
(15)
The Bethe–ansatz is that, one takes the following form for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)`$.

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)=\underset{\sigma }{}A_\sigma e^{i\sigma (𝐩)𝐱}|\psi ,$$
(16)
where $`|\psi `$ is an arbitrary vector and the summation runs over the elements of the permutation group. Plugging this in (3) results in

$$E=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(e^{ip_k}1\right).$$
(17)
The boundary condition (15) yields

$$\left[1e^{i\sigma (p_{k+1})}b_{k,k+1}\right]A_\sigma +\left[1e^{i\sigma (p_k)}b_{k,k+1}\right]A_{\sigma \sigma _k}=0.$$
(18)
Here $`\sigma `$ is that element of the permutation group which only interchanges $`p_k`$ and $`p_{k+1}`$. From this, one obtains

$$A_{\sigma \sigma _k}=S_{k,k+1}[\sigma (p_k),\sigma (p_{k+1})]A_\sigma ,$$
(19)
where the matrix $`S`$ is defined through

$$S(p_1,p_2):=(1z_1b)^1(1z_2b),$$
(20)
and the definition of $`S_{k,k+1}`$ is similar to that of $`b_{k,k+1}`$ in (12). we have also used the definition

$$z_j:=e^{ip_j}.$$
(21)
This shows that one can construct $`A_\sigma `$’s from $`A_1`$ by writing $`\sigma `$ as a product of $`\sigma _k`$’s. But these elements of the permutation group satisfy

$$\sigma _k\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k=\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k\sigma _{k+1}.$$
(22)
This means that

$$A_{\sigma _k\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k}=A_{\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k\sigma _{k+1}},$$
(23)
or

$`S_{k,k+1}(p_{k+1},p_{k+2})S_{k+1,k+2}(p_k,p_{k+2})S_{k,k+1}(p_k,p_{k+1})`$
$`=`$ $`S_{k+1,k+2}(p_k,p_{k+1})S_{k,k+1}(p_k,p_{k+2})S_{k+1,k+2}(p_{k+1},p_{k+2}).`$ (24)
This can be written as

$`[S(p_2,p_3)1][1S(p_1,p_3)][S(p_1,p_2)1]=`$ $`[1S(p_1,p_2)][S(p_1,p_3)1]`$
$`\times [1S(p_2,p_3)].`$ (25)
Writing the $`S`$ matrix as the the product of the permutation matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and an $`R`$ matrix:

$$S_{k,k+1}=:\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+1}R_{k,k+1},$$
(26)
(3) is transformed to

$$R_{23}(p_2,p_3)R_{13}(p_1,p_3)R_{12}(p_1,p_2)=R_{12}(p_1,p_2)R_{13}(p_1,p_3)R_{23}(p_2,p_3).$$
(27)
This is the spectral Yang–Baxter equation.

Provided this condition is satisfied, it is easy to see that the conditional probability (the propagator) is

$$U(𝐱;t|𝐲;0)=\frac{d^Np}{(2\pi )^N}e^{i𝐩𝐲}\underset{\sigma }{}A_\sigma e^{i\sigma (𝐩)𝐱}e^{tE(𝐩)},$$
(28)
where the integration region for each $`p_i`$ is from $`[0,2\pi ]`$, and we have taken $`A_e=1`$. ($`e`$ is the identity of the permutation group.) Note that (9), and the condition of nonnegativity of the nondiagonal elements of $`b`$ ensure that the absolute values of the eigenvalues of $`b`$ don’t exceed $`1`$. So there is no singularity in $`S(p_1,p_2)`$ except at $`p_1=0`$, and this is removed by setting $`p_jp_j+iϵ`$, where one should consider the limit $`ϵ0^+`$. This is the same as what has been done in  and , for example. Using this propagator, one can of course write the probability at the time $`t`$ in terms of the initial value of the probability:

$$|P(𝐱;t)=\underset{𝐲}{}U(𝐱;t|𝐲;0)|P(𝐲;0)$$
(29)
For the two–particle sector, it is not difficult to obtain $`U`$. In fact, as there is only one matrix ($`b`$) in the expression for $`U`$, one can treat it as a $`c`$–number and the problem is reduced to that of , with $`\lambda `$ replaced by $`b`$. So,

$`U(𝐱;t|𝐲;0)=`$ $`e^{2t}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_1y_1}}{(x_1y_1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_2y_2}}{(x_2y_2)!}}`$
$`+e^{2t}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{l+x_2y_1}}{(l+x_2y_1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_1y_2}}{(x_1y_2)!}}b^l\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{tb}{x_1y_2+1}}\right).`$ (30)
One can decompose the vector space on which $`b`$ acts into a subspace on which $`b=1`$ (eigenspace of $`b`$ corresponding to eigenvalue $`1`$) and another invariant subspace. This is done by decomposing the unit matrix into two projectors:

$$1=Q+R,$$
(31)
where $`Q`$ and $`R`$ are projections satisfying

$$QR=RQ=0.$$
(32)
$`Q`$ is projection on the eigenspace of $`b`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`1`$, and $`R`$ is projection on the other invariant subspace of $`b`$. Using this, one can write $`U`$ as

$`U(𝐱;t|𝐲;0)=`$ $`[e^{2t}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_1y_1}}{(x_1y_1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_2y_2}}{(x_2y_2)!}}`$
$`+e^{2t}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{l+x_2y_1}}{(l+x_2y_1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_1y_2}}{(x_1y_2)!}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{x_1y_2+1}})]Q`$
$`+[e^{2t}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_1y_1}}{(x_1y_1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_2y_2}}{(x_2y_2)!}}`$
$`+e^{2t}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{l+x_2y_1}}{(l+x_2y_1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{x_1y_2}}{(x_1y_2)!}}b^l(1+{\displaystyle \frac{tb}{x_1y_2+1}})]R.`$ (33)
Here we have used

$$b=b(Q+R)=Q+bR.$$
(34)
As the eigenvalues of $`b`$, other than $`1`$, are assumed to have moduli less than one, the second term in (3) is the same as (33) in , that is, a term obtained from the boundary condition corresponding to annihilation ($`\lambda <1`$ in ). The first term corresponds to an asymmetric simple exclusion process . The large–time behavior of these two terms are also simply obtained. The large–time behavior of the first was obtained in , and that of the second in . At large times, the second term is found to be independent of $`b`$ (or $`\lambda `$) and vanishing faster than $`1/t`$. Also, the summation of this term vanishes as $`t`$ tends to infinity. In fact, using  it is seen that

$`\text{the second term}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi t}}\{e^{[(x_1y_1t)^2+(x_2y_2t)^2]/(2t)}`$
$`e^{[(x_1y_1t)^2+(x_2y_2t)^2]/(2t)}\},t\mathrm{}.`$ (35)
So at large times only the first term of (3) survives. This means that at large times, the propagator is proportional to the projection on the eigenspace of $`b`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue 1 (the projection on the equilibrium subspace of $`b`$) and the proportionality constant is simply the propagator of the asymmetric simple exclusion process.

To conclude, for large times the two–particle conditional probability is that of an asymmetric simple exclusion process projected on the eigenspace of $`b`$ corresponding to its unit eigenvalue.

## 4 Solvability criteria for the boundary conditions

From (20), it is seen that $`S(p_1,p_2)`$ is a binomial of degree one with respect to $`z_2:=e^{ip_2}`$. Putting this in (3), one arrives at a quadratic expression with respect to $`z_3`$. The coefficients of this expression are, of course, matrices depending on $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. It is easy to find the roots of this expression for $`z_3`$. In fact, putting $`z_3=z_1`$ in (3), one arrives at the identity

$$[S(p_2,p_1)1][S(p_1,p_2)1][1S(p_1,p_2)][1S(p_2,p_1)].$$
(36)
(We note that $`S(p_1,p_2)S(p_2,p_1)1`$.) Also, putting $`z_3=z_2`$, another identity is obtained:

$$[1S(p_1,p_2)][S(p_1,p_2)1][1S(p_1,p_2)][S(p_1,p_2)1].$$
(37)
These two identities show that the roots of the quadratic expression for $`z_3`$ are $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. That is, one can write that expression as

$$(z_3z_1)(z_3z_2)Q(z_1,z_2)=0.$$
(38)
So, (3) is equivalent to $`Q=0`$, which itself is obtained by putting $`z_3=0`$ in (3):

$`[(1z_2b)^11][1(1z_1b)^1][(1z_1b)^1(1z_2b)1]`$
$`=`$ $`[1(1z_1b)^1(1z_2b)][(1z_1b)^11][1(1z_2b)^1].`$ (39)
Inverting both sides, one arrives at

$`[(1z_2b)^1(1z_1b)1][1(1z_1b)][(1z_2b)1]`$
$`=`$ $`[1(1z_2b)][(1z_1b)1][1(1z_2b)^1(1z_1b)].`$ (40)
This is a quadratic expression in terms of $`z_1`$. For $`z_1=0`$, (4) gives the identity

$$[(1z_2b)^11][(1z_2b)1][1(1z_2b)][1(1z_2b)^1],$$
(41)
while for $`z_1=z_2`$, the identity

$$[1(1z_2b)][(1z_2b)1][1(1z_2b)][(1z_2b)1]$$
(42)
is obtained. So, the quadratic expression corresponding to (4) is equivalent to

$$z_1(z_1z_2)\stackrel{~}{Q}(z_2)=0,$$
(43)
and to find $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, one simply uses the coefficient of $`z_1^2`$ in (4). This is

$$(1z_2b_{12})^1b_{12}b_{23}(1z_2b_{12})=(1z_2b_{23})b_{12}b_{23}(1z_2b_{23})^1,$$
(44)
or

$$b_{12}b_{23}(1z_2b_{12})(1z_2b_{23})=(1z_2b_{12})(1z_2b_{23})b_{12}b_{23}.$$
(45)
This is a quadratic expression in $`z_2`$. But the coefficients of $`z_2^0`$ and $`z_2^2`$ are identities. So the only remaining equation is

$$b_{12}b_{23}(b_{12}+b_{23})=(b_{12}+b_{23})b_{12}b_{23},$$
(46)
or

$$b_{12}[b_{12},b_{23}]=[b_{12},b_{23}]b_{23}.$$
(47)
(47) is equivalent to (3). But it is seen that (47) is non–spectral, whereas (3) is spectral. So it is far simpler to seek the solutions to (47) than to seek those of (3).

To summarize, a matrix $`b`$, or the reactions (2), correspond to an exactly solvable reaction diffusion system on a one–dimensional lattice, provided $`b`$ satisfies (47) and (5) (or (9), equivalently), and the non–diagonal elements of $`b`$ are nonnegative.

## 5 General properties of the solutions to the solvability criteria

Solutions to (47) enjoy two general properties. First, if $`b`$ is a solution, then

$$b^{}:=\alpha b+\beta ,$$
(48)
is another solution for constant $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. If $`b`$ satisfies 9, then

$$s|s|b^{}=(\alpha +\beta )s|s|.$$
(49)
So, putting $`\beta :=1\alpha `$, ensures that $`b^{}`$ satisfies (9). If $`\alpha >0`$, then the nondiagonal elements of $`b^{}`$ are nonnegative provided the nondiagonal elements of $`b`$ are nonnegative. So

$$b^{}:=\alpha b+(1\alpha )$$
(50)
corresponds to a solvable system (for $`\alpha >0`$) if $`b`$ does. It is easy to see that the meaning of this transformation is simply to multiply the reaction rates by $`\alpha `$.

Second, if $`b`$ is a solution to (47), then

$$b^{}:=uubu^1u^1$$
(51)
satisfies (47) as well. Here $`u`$ is an arbitrary (nonsingular) matrix. This transformation, however, does not necessarily respects the conditions (9) and nonnegativity of the rates. So, another problem arises. Suppose $`b`$ is a solution to (47), and we want to obtain a solvable system using the transformation (51). We must have

$$s|s|uub=s|s|uu.$$
(52)
This means that $`u`$ must change $`s|`$ to some $`s^{}|`$ so that $`s^{}|s^{}|`$ is a left eigenvector of $`b`$ corresponding to a unit eigenvalue. One may search in the eigenvectors of $`b`$ to find whether there is an eigenvector of the form $`s^{}|s^{}|`$. If there is such an eigenvector, then any matrix $`u`$ which changes $`s|`$ to $`s^{}|`$ can be used to obtain $`b^{}`$ according to (51). This $`b^{}`$ satisfies (47) and (9). But its diagonal elements may be nonnegative or not; this should be checked separately. If non of the eigenvalues of $`b`$ are of the form $`s^{}|s^{}|`$, then this method cannot be used to obtain a solvable system. This method resembles very much to that used in .

## 6 some special cases

case I: $`b^2=\alpha +\beta b`$ ($`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are numbers). In this case, one can define

$$b^{}:=b+\gamma ,$$
(53)
with $`\gamma `$ satisfying

$$\gamma ^2+\beta \gamma \alpha =0,$$
(54)
to obtain

$$b^2=(\beta +2\gamma )b^{}.$$
(55)
Putting this $`b^{}`$ in (47), one obtains the braid equation for $`b^{}`$:

$$b_{12}^{}b_{23}^{}b_{12}^{}=b_{23}^{}b_{12}^{}b_{23}^{}.$$
(56)
From (55), it is seen that $`b^{}`$ either can be scaled to a projection ($`b^2=b^{}`$), or is nilpotent. One concludes then that any nilpotent or projection solution to the (nonspectral) braid equation is a solution to (47). One can then use any linear combination of this solution with the unit matrix as another solution to that equation. Note, however, that these solutions of (47) do not necessarily satisfy other criteria of the solvable system, that is nonnegativity of the nondiagonal elements and (9). An inspection of the solutions obtained in  shows that solutions 1—15, and 17 are of this type. As mentioned in the previous section, one can of course take a linear combination of each solution with the unit matrix to obtain another solution.

case II: $`b=uv`$. Here 47 takes the form

$$u^2v[v,u]v=u[v,u]uv^2.$$
(57)
A simple way to satisfy this is to set

$$[u,v]=0.$$
(58)
So, using any two commuting matrices $`u`$ and $`v`$ one can construct a solution to (47). If the elements of one of these matrices are nonnegative, and the nondiagonal elements of the other are also nonnegative, then the nondiagonal elements of $`b`$ are nonnegative. If

$$s|u=s|v=s|,$$
(59)
then $`b`$ satisfies (9) as well. Of course, having found a solution of this type one can use a linear combination of it with the unit matrix as another solution. Solutions 1, 4, 7, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 28 of  are of this kind.

It is possible to have other solutions to (57). In this case, let’s also use (9). This shows that one may rescale $`u`$ and $`v`$ so that (59) is satisfied. One then arrives at

$`u^2`$ $`=u`$
$`v^2`$ $`=v`$
$`vuv`$ $`=uvu,`$ (60)
if $`[u,v]0`$. From these, it is seen that $`u`$, $`v`$, $`1u`$, and $`uvu`$ are projections. Moreover,

$$(1u)uvu=uvu(1u)=0.$$
(61)
This shows that $`1u`$ and $`uvu`$ can be simultaneously diagonalized. The diagonal form of them will be

$`1u`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`uvu`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (62)
Here the elements of the above matrices are matrices themselves, and 1 is the unit matrix of the appropriate dimension. Writing an ansatz for $`v`$:

$$v=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v_{11}& v_{12}& v_{13}\\ v_{21}& v_{22}& v_{23}\\ v_{31}& v_{32}& v_{33}\end{array}\right)$$
(63)
and putting it in (6), one finally arrives at the following forms for $`u`$ and $`v`$.

$`u`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`v`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& w& 0\\ 0& w^{}& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (64)
where all of the entries in the above matrices are matrices, and $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ should satisfy

$$ww^{}=w^{}w=0.$$
(65)
Each of the diagonal blocks of these matrices may be zero dimensional, except the first. It should, at least, be one dimensional. The reason is that $`u`$ and $`v`$ have at least one common left eigenvector, $`s|`$, corresponding to the unit eigenvalue. Also the dimension of each block of $`u`$ is equal to that of the corresponding block in $`v`$. Also note that if the dimension of $`u`$ and $`v`$ is 2 (there are two kinds of particles) then ther will no space left for $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$, and $`u`$ and $`v`$ must be commuting.

The final result is that in two dimension no new solution exists ($`u`$ and $`v`$ must be commuting), and in more than two dimensions, $`u`$ and $`v`$ must be of the form (6). Of course any similarity transformation on (6) gives another solution to (47). In fact, one has to use a similarity transformation to make $`s|`$ a left eigenvector of $`u`$ and $`v`$ with unit eigenvalue.

Two very simple subcases are $`b=1v`$ and $`b=u1`$. These describe reactions

$$A^\alpha A^\beta A^\alpha A^\delta ,\text{with rate }v_\beta ^\delta ,$$
(66)
and

$$A^\alpha A^\beta A^\gamma A^\beta ,\text{with rate }u_\alpha ^\gamma ,$$
(67)
respectively. That is, in each case only one of the particles change, and the rate of change is independent of the type of the other particle.


text:
# Law of Malus and Photon-Photon Correlations: A Quasi-Deterministic Analyzer Model

## I INTRODUCTION

Macroscopic electromagnetic field theory leads directly to the law of Malus for light polarization measurements. For experiments where the distributions are accumulated from in-sequence photon counting, does the law of Malus still hold, and if so, what gives rise to it? Measurements using a thin polarizing film have supported the Malus formula for in sequence photon counting . In these experiments where photons are counted individually in detectors, it is difficult to justify the Malus distribution from macroscopic field arguments. Past efforts to explain the law of Malus for in-sequence photon counting experiments, as well as photon-photon correlations, with hidden variable models have been unsuccessful . These models involve a strong probability component.

Could we successfully explain the law of Malus and measured correlations by replacing the probability feature by a deterministic decision process, accumulating the distributions one particle, or particle pair at a time? The affirmative answer to this question is the focus of this paper. A deterministic trajectory model  has been previously used to explain ”ghost diffraction” patterns . Here, we introduce a quasi-deterministic model of the analyser process. This model involves an independent stochastic variable in each analyzer, and a deterministic criterion for selecting the polarization eigenchannel in the analyzer. In this model, photons are viewed as field wave packets and trajectory calculations are not involved.

We use this model in detailed calculations to explain the law of Malus for in-sequence photon counting. We then use this same model to successfully explain some well known photon-photon correlations measurements of . In  we use this quasi-deterministic analyzer model to sucessfully explain the proton-proton correlations of , as well as the four-angle photon-photon correlations of Aspect et al. . This model makes use of causal polarization coupling between photons in a pair and local stochastic variables.

## II STOKES REPRESENTATION OF THE EIGENVALUE PROBLEM

For crystal beam splitters, beam separation is based on eiegenstates, and in particular, the eigenvalues of the refractive index matrix . Because of the difference in the eigenvalues for the e and o eigenstates, it is possible to separate these states. Because of the dependence on the eigenvalues, we call this type of splitter an eigenvalue splitter. The quasi-deterministic model described in detail below is based on eigenchannel selection. Stern-Gerlach type analyzers for spinors are likewise eigenvalue splitters. In the model described here, we introduce a particular stochastic variable in the refractive index matrix. Changing this particular variable does not affect the eigenvalues, so that the usual beam separation arguments are unaffected.

Polarization is conveniently represented by Stokes variables and rotations on the Poincare’ sphere. Stokes representations for both spinors and vectors are similar and well developed . To formulate this eigenstate transition model, we first rewrite certain relations contained in the generic two-component eigenvalue equation in terms of a convenient Stokes variable representation. All analysis here involves a two dimensional complex representation for the field.

Consider a Hermitian matrix with elements $`h_{11}=a`$, $`h_{22}=d`$, $`h_{12}=h\mathrm{exp}(ı\varphi )`$, and $`h_{21}=h\mathrm{exp}(ı\varphi )`$, where $`a`$, $`d`$, $`h`$, and $`\varphi `$ are real. With $`\mathrm{\Psi }^T=[\mathrm{\Psi }_x,\mathrm{\Psi }_y]`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_x=A\mathrm{cos}(\beta )\mathrm{exp}(ı\alpha _x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_y=A\mathrm{sin}(\beta )\mathrm{exp}(ı(\alpha _x+\delta )`$, we write the matrix eigenvalue equation $`h\mathrm{\Psi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }`$ in component form as follows.

$$(a\lambda )\mathrm{cos}(\beta )+h\mathrm{exp}(ı(\delta \varphi ))\mathrm{sin}(\beta )=0$$
(1)
$$h\mathrm{exp}(ı(\delta \varphi ))cos(\beta )+(d\lambda )\mathrm{sin}(\beta )=0$$
(2)
In terms of the above variables, the two eigenvalues are given by the following formula.

$$\lambda _\pm =(a+d\pm \sqrt{(ad)^2+4h^2})/2$$
(3)
We employ two Stokes sets $`S`$ and $`P`$ that represent the field and matrix respectively. In terms of the field variables above, the components of $`S`$ have the familiar  form $`S_0=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`S_1=S_0\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$, $`S_2=S_0\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\delta )`$, and $`S_3=S_0\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\delta )`$. The components of $`P`$ are given by $`P_0=\sqrt{(ad)^2+4h^2}`$, $`P_1=P_0\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )`$, $`P_2=P_0\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ and $`P_3=P_0\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}(2\alpha )=2h/(ad)`$. In terms of these components of $`S`$ and $`P`$, we can extract from equations (1), (2), and (3) the following relations.

$$\text{P}\text{S}=\pm P_0S_0$$
(4)
$$S_3P_2S_2P_3=0$$
(5)
$$S_1P_1=\pm (P_1)^2S_0/P_0$$
(6)
Equation (5) means $`\mathrm{sin}(\delta \varphi )=0`$ and follows directly from the imaginary component of (1) and (2).

The vectors S and P represent points on two Poincare’ polarization spheres with common centers but with different radii. The radius of the $`S`$ sphere is given by $`S_0=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=A^2`$. The radius of the $`P`$ sphere is given by $`P_0=\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$. The Stokes variables rotate with twice the rotation angle of the field components. If the space coordinates are rotated by $`\theta `$ say, the Stokes variables for a spinor field are rotated by $`\theta `$ also, whereas the Stokes variables for a vector field are rotated by $`2\theta `$.

In this model, an incident field makes a transition to an eigenstate described by equations (4), (5), and (6). From (6) we see that the eigenvalue sign choice in (3) is related to the sign of the product $`S_1P_1`$. We will make use of this relation in the deterministic transition criteria discussed below.

## III STOCHASTIC ANALYZER VARIABLE

The traditional e and o rays of classical macroscopic electro-optics correspond to two points on opposite sides of the Poincare’ sphere indicated by $`S_1=\pm S_0`$ where in the diagonal frame we have $`P_1=P_0`$ for one crystal type. The two eigenvalues, on which the separation decision is made, determine the $`P`$ sphere radius via $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}=P_0`$, but not the direction of P. For a fixed relative phase $`\varphi `$, this gives one free variable for the matrix Stokes vector.

The point of view here is that the classical matrix Stokes vector used for a macroscopic field of many photons does not necessarily represent the matrix Stokes vector experienced by individual photons. The first assumption of this model (The distributive assumption) is that the P vectors experienced by individual incident pulses are distributed in the one free variable, at least for the surface transition region. For a given incident pulse, we randomly select this degree of freedom of P from a distribution described below.

There are two questions related to the depth $`(z)`$ dependence in this model. First, are the residual deviations of $`P_1(z)`$ from the macroscopic field value only surface effects, rapidly decreasing with depth into the crystal, or, do they extend throughout the crystal? Both cases give the same correlations, and both cases give rise to the law of Malus. To correctly describe the correlations, or the law of Malus, it is only necessary with the transition criterion described below, that the surface value $`P_1(0)`$ is selected from a distribution described below. For a macroscopic field of many photons, one would not expect to have a distributive P vector because of averaging. It is therefore doubtful that we can obtain information about this distribution question with experiments using a macroscopic field of many photons.

Second, at what depth into the crystal does the incident field change so that equations (4), (5), and (6) are satisfied? This transition-depth problem in general has been the subject of debated over many years . Unfortunately, the analysis here provides no answer to these questions. The presence of a local stochastic variable should have some observable affect. Indeed, it does. Within this model, this stochastic variable makes it possible to correctly describe features of both the law of Malus and photon-photon correlations. With the distribution selected, the average of $`P_1(0)`$ is the classical macroscopic matrix stokes variable.

## IV STOCHASTIC VARIABLE SAMPLING

For a frame attached to the crystal analyzer (say aligned with the e and o rays), we can partition the matrix Poincare’ sphere with hemispheres indicated by the sign of $`P_1`$. However, viewed from a frame attached to one analyzer, this partition for the other analyzer is rotated. With respect to an analyzers attached frame, we choose P by choosing $`2\alpha `$ via $`2\alpha =arg`$ where $`arg=\mathrm{arccos}(u)\pi /2`$ and $`u`$ is selected uniformly from the interval $`[1,1]`$. For our linear polarizer, we have $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )=\pm 1`$ in the crystal frame. Viewed from a frame fixed to the first analyzer, the $`\text{P}^{}`$ hemisphere axis for the second analyzer is rotated from the first by $`q=\theta `$ for spinors and $`q=2\theta `$ for vectors. In this fixed reference frame, sampling for the second analyzer is made using $`2\alpha ^{}=arg(u^{})\pm q`$ where $`u^{}`$ is selected uniformly from the interval $`[1,1]`$, but independent of $`u`$. The independence of the selection of $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ represents a local stochastic element of this theory, and is the reason why we call this a quasi-deterministic model.

One should ask if the above sampling distribution is the only distribution that can successfully described the data. There are many distributions with which one can exceed the Bell limits in this model. The above distribution and a Gaussian distribution with approximately the same width are the only two distributions that the author has found to date that correctly describe the data for both the law of Malus and the photon-photon correlations.

## V DETERMINISTIC TRANSITION CRITERION

The second assumption of this model (The deterministic assumption) is that the incident pulse makes a transition to one eigen-channel or the other, and that the choice is made with a deterministic criteria based on initial conditions of the incident pulse at the analyzer and the randomly selected P. From (5) we see that the sign of $`S_1P_1`$ indicates the eigen-channel choice. We indicate this product as a function of the depth $`(z)`$ into the crystal, as follows.

$$T(z)=S_1(z)P_1(z)$$
(7)
The deterministic criteria on which the calculations here are based is that the sign of $`T(z)`$ after the transition is the same as, and determined by the sign of $`T(0)`$. For a given value for $`S_1(0)`$ and $`P_1(0)`$ we make the eigen-channel decision by testing the sign of $`T(0)`$. In these calculations, we only use one of the three equations (4), (5), and (6). Modeling transition criteria using all three equation is a subject of ongoing study by the author.

## VI LAW OF MALUS

In the study here, we use two deterministic analyzers in sequence, with the second rotated at an angle $`\theta `$ relative to the first. We view the second analyzer in the reference frame of the first. The calculations are made one photon at a time. We use the same incident number of photons at each relative angle. The notation $`(+,)`$ indicates the configuration for photons that exit the $`(+)`$ channel of the first analyzers and the $`()`$ channel of the second. To illustrate the statistical nature of the distributions, we make calculations for both a small ($`100`$), and a large ($`40000`$) number of incident photons. For the small number case, the accumulated photon counts at each angle for the $`(+,+)`$ configuration are indicated by the solid circles in Fig. 1. The fluctuations represent the approximate Poisson statistics of the sampling. The output for the large number case for the $`(+,+)`$ configuration is indicated by the solid circles in Fig. 2. The solid line represents the scaled Malus formula $`N\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )`$ where $`N`$ is half the incident photons. The solid squares in Fig. 2 represent the accumulated distribution for the $`(,+)`$ case. The dashed line represents the formula $`N\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )`$. From these results, it is clear that this quasi-deterministic hidden variable model clearly gives rise to the law of Malus for in-sequence photon counting.

## VII PHOTON-PHOTON CORRELATIONS

To make calculations for photon-photon coincidence measurements, we use two deterministic analyzer models to represent the two receiving analyzers. Pair counts are accumulated via deterministic calculations, one photon pair at a time. The parameters $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ for the two analyzers are sampled as indicated above, but independently of each other. Pair counts for the four different coincidence combinations are represented here by $`N_{++}`$ ,$`N_+`$ , $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ . For instance $`N_+`$ is the count for the number of pairs with a $`(+)`$ for the first analyzer an $`()`$ for the second analyzer. The correlations are calculated using the function $`\gamma (\theta )=(N_{++}+N_{}N_+N_+)/N`$ , where $`N=N_{++}+N_{}+N_++N_+`$ is the total number of pairs counted. For the causal coupling, we used $`S_1^{}(0)=S_1(0)`$ where the parameter $`2\beta `$ was chosen randomly from the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$. In the correlation calculations here, the deciding information is in the common sign of the first factors in the transition functions (7) for each analyzer. It is only necessary that $`S_1(0)`$ and $`S_1^{}(0)`$ have the same sign. In Fig. 3 the solid circles represents $`2N_{++}/N`$. This curve follows the $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )`$ formula, and agrees well with the coincidence measurements of , as well as the results reported in  for the coincidence data obtained using a narrow spectral bandwidth and a thin crystal for the down-conversion process.

The solid circles in Fig. 4 represent the calculated correlation function . The four pair-counts were accumulated, one photon pair at a time. Calculations are made using about $`10000`$ photon pairs at each angle. The solid line in Fig. 4 represents the formula of quantum mechanics. The two curves show excellent agreement with each other and with the measurements of . We emphasize that all contributions to $`\gamma (\theta )`$ were calculated using the four pair counts only so there is no chance that an accidental scale factor can be included.

## VIII EXCEEDING BELL’S LIMITS

The causal polarization link between the two photons in a pair produces an angular correlation link even with the presence of the local stochastic variables in the analyzers. This angular dependent link is why the usual inequality Bell’s theorem  doesn’t apply to this quasi-deterministic analyzer model.

To explain this angular dependence in more detail, consider the transition function $`T(0)=S_1(0)P_1(0)=S_0P_0\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(arg(u))`$ for the first analyzer and $`T^{}(0)=S_1(0)P_1^{}(0)=S_0P_0\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(arg(u^{})+2\theta )`$ for the second. Both expressions have the same first factor which arises because of the causal coupling between the photons. If we don’t use this causal coupling, (e.g. choose the angles in the first two factors completely independent of each other), the correlations vanish. The independent parameters $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ represents local stochastic variables of this theory. Within the distribution range, and depending on the angle $`2\theta `$, there are certain values of $`u^{}`$ for which the second factor in $`T^{}(0)`$ can be negative, and certain values for which this factor is positive. Because of these stochastic variables, we cannot know which pair count combination (such as $`(+)`$) we have until after the coincident count is made. However, we still have distribution information. The number of times the second factor in $`T^{}(0)`$ is positive depends on the angle $`2\theta `$. As a consequence, we have correlations in the distributions which depend on the relative angle. The presence of the local stochastic variables, a necessary part of this theory, does not destroy all causal correlation information. We emphasize that this is a causal non-local effect, and should not be confused with instantaneous action at a distance effects. The correlations do not depend on the distance between the analyzers, as long as the causal polarization link between the photons remains intact until the photons reach the analyzers.

In comparison with the results here, it is worth commenting on ”Bell’s theorem without inequalities” type arguments that have appeared . In studies leading to this work, the author has calculated correlations with many different hidden variable probability models, and not found one, no matter what sampling distribution used, that agrees with the deterministic model and quantum mechanics. This finding seems to be consistent with the studies of hidden variable probability models by previous authors . Replacing the deterministic transition criterion at the analyzers with probability amounts to throwing away much of the detailed correlations information.

## IX CONCLUSIONS

We have introduced a quasi-deterministic analyzer model, and have demonstrated with detailed calculations, that the law of Malus and photon-photon correlations can be explained with a causal hidden variable theory, via accumulation, one photon or photon pair at a time. If we omit the causal coupling, the correlations are lost. If we don’t use a stochastic variable in the analyzer we can’t explain the data for the law of Malus nor the correlations. If we replace the local deterministic decision process in the analyzers with one based on probability, the correlations are reduced. In simple terms, if we throw away the information, we can’t explain the data. Calculations to successfully explain some other quantum measurements have been completed and will be reported on elsewhere .

In this paper, we have only considered polarization correlations. The essential features of this model are a causal link variable, local analyzer variables, and a deterministic decision criterion. Studies using a model with these features to describe energy-time photon correlations  are underway.