text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The exact renormalization group (ERG), which is the broadly accepted name for the continuous version of Wilson’s renormalization group , is a quite powerful tool for studies in quantum field theory (see, for example, refs ). It possesses some important features which motivate the work devoted to both further developments of the ERG formalism and to practical computations by this method. One of the advantageous features it offers is that it allows non-perturbative (though approximate in practice) studies and calculations. Another is that within the ERG approach almost all approximations preserve a crucial property of quantum field theory, namely the existence of the continuum limit. It also gives rise to the possibility of studying (at least within some approximation) the full parameter space of non-perturbative quantum field theories, its fixed points, continuum limits, etc. The challenge is to understand the low energy limit of QCD within the ERG approach (for some preliminary work on this see, for example, ).

The main ingredient of the ERG approach is an ERG equation. It determines the effective action (running action), $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as a function of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which also plays the rôle of the effective momentum cutoff. Let us consider a scalar theory in $`D`$ dimensions for simplicity. The effective action can be written as the sum of an (effective) action of interaction, $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}[\varphi ]`$, and the kinetic term, $`\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\varphi ]`$:

$$S_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\varphi ]=\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\varphi ]+S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}[\varphi ].$$

To regularise the theory we modify the propagator in the momentum space, $`1/p^2`$, to $`c(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)/p^2`$, where $`c(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ is a (smooth) ultraviolet cutoff profile satisfying $`c(0)=1`$ so that low energies are unaltered, and $`c(z)0`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$ sufficiently fast so that all Feynman diagrams are ultraviolet regulated.
Introducing the shorthand

$$fWg:=d^Dxf(x)W\left(\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)g(x),$$
(1)
we write the regularised kinetic term as

$$\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi c^1^\mu \varphi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\varphi (p)p^2c^1\left(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\varphi (p).$$
(2)
Polchinski’s version of the ERG equation  is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}}{\delta \varphi }c^{}\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}}{\delta \varphi }+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }c^{}\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}}{\delta \varphi }.$$
(3)
Being supplied with the initial condition

$$S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{int}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=\stackrel{~}{S}^{int},$$

it determines the renormalization group flow of the effective action which corresponds to (effectively) integrating out higher momentum modes . For the scalar case the initial value for the action is usually taken to be $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{int}=\frac{1}{4!}\lambda d^Dx\varphi ^4(x)`$.

To see the physical meaning of Polchinski’s equation it is convenient to re-write it in terms of the total effective action $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\varphi ]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=S_\mathrm{\Lambda }2\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One gets

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\delta \varphi }c^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{\delta \varphi }+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }c^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{\delta \varphi }.$$
(4)
It can be checked that the kinetic term (2) is the Gaussian fixed point of this equation. Eq. (4) can also be put into the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }c^{}\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{\delta \varphi }e^{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right),$$
(5)
which shows that the partition function $`𝒵=𝒟\varphi e^{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ remains unchanged along the renormalization group flow. Indeed, from (5) it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒵\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒟\varphi e^{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.$$

A number of versions of the ERG equation for the scalar theory have been known for more than 20 years . A Polchinski-type ERG equation for fermions was derived and studied in ref. . In previous ERG approaches to gauge theory the authors kept the gauge fixed and allowed the effective momentum cutoff to break the gauge invariance. Then they sought to recover it in the limit when the cutoff is removed (see, for example, refs ). In ref.  one of us proposed a manifestly gauge invariant formulation of the ERG approach for pure Yang-Mills theories (see also refs ). An important element of the formalism is an appropriate gauge invariant regularisation scheme. As it was realised later in ref. , it amounts to the $`SU(N|N)`$ super-gauge extension of the original theory, with covariant higher derivatives, but spontaneously broken in the fermionic directions, the resulting massive fields being Pauli-Villars regulating fields.

The aim of the present contribution is to give a complete formulation of this extended theory and show that it is indeed free of ultraviolet divergences and is consistent in the continuum limit i.e. when the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. The article is organized as follows. In sec. 2 we explain the main idea of the regularisation scheme and describe in detail the structure of the $`SU(N|N)`$ super-gauge extension of the initial Yang-Mills theory. In sec. 3 we discuss the finiteness of the regularised theory. The full demonstration is quite long; in the present article we explain only basic points and present examples. Sec. 4 is devoted to the discussion of some potential problems arising due to the presence of a wrong sign massless vector field (loss of unitarity). We argue that in the continuum limit all the non-physical fields decouple and unitarity in the physical sector is restored. A summary of results is presented in sec. 5.

## 2 $`SU(N|N)`$ extension of $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory

Consider the $`D`$-dimensional pure gauge theory with the gauge group $`G`$ and the action

$$S_{YM}=\frac{1}{2}d^Dx\mathrm{tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(6)
Similar to the scalar case, as the first step of the construction of the regularised theory we modify the action by introducing the covariantised regulating function as follows:

$$\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\{c^1\}F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(7)
For a given kernel $`W`$ and two functions $`u(x)`$ and $`v(x)`$ this covariantisation (“wine” ) $`u\{W\}v`$ is defined by

$`u\{W\}v:=\mathrm{tr}{\displaystyle d^Dxu(x)W\left(\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)v(x)},`$
$`_\mu =_\mu igA_\mu ,`$
where the dot means that $``$ acts via commutation.

We would like to mention that the equation for the full effective action of the manifestly gauge invariant formulation of the ERG approach of ref.  is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\delta A_\mu }\{c^{}\}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_g}{\delta A_\mu }+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }\{c^{}\}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_g}{\delta A_\mu },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g=g^2S_\mathrm{\Lambda }2\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The $`c(^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ regulator implements the higher covariant derivative regularisation proposed and developed in refs , . As it is known, however, some one-loop diagrams remain unregularised. A solution, proposed in ref. , is to supplement the scheme by Pauli-Villars regulating fields.

From now on we will consider the case of the gauge group $`G=SU(N)`$. Introducing bosonic and fermionic Pauli-Villars fields to cancel the one-loop ultraviolet divergences, one arrives at a certain system of regulating and physical fields. As discovered in ref. , for the purpose of regularisation it is enough and convenient to take the set of fields of the $`SU(N|N)`$ gauge theory. In order to generate the masses of the super-gauge fields without destroying the gauge invariance we add a scalar Higgs field. This allows masses to be generated via the Higgs mechanism, with the resulting heavy fields behaving precisely as Pauli-Villars fields. As we will explain below, the unphysical fields decouple when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, i.e. when the regularisation is removed.

To describe the $`SU(N|N)`$ extension of the theory (7) with the Higgs field let us consider first the graded Lie algebra of $`SU(N|M)`$ (see ref. ). Its elements are given by Hermitian $`(N+M)\times (N+M)`$ matrices

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_1& \theta \\ \theta ^{}& H_2\end{array}\right),$$

where $`H_N`$ ($`H_M`$) is an $`N\times N`$ ($`M\times M`$) Hermitian matrix with complex bosonic elements, $`\theta `$ is an $`N\times M`$ matrix composed of complex Grassmann numbers, and the matrices $``$ are required to be supertraceless:

$$\mathrm{str}():=\mathrm{tr}(H_1)\mathrm{tr}(H_2)=0.$$

It is easy to see that the bosonic sector of the $`SU(N|M)`$ algebra forms the $`SU(N)\times SU(M)\times U(1)`$ subalgebra.

We are interested in the case when $`N=M`$. In this case the $`2N\times 2N`$ identity matrix, $`\text{ 1l}_{2N}`$, is supertraceless and, therefore, is an element of the algebra. An arbitrary element $``$ of $`SU(N|N)`$ can be written as

$$=^0\text{ 1l}_{2N}+^AT_A,$$
(8)
where $`T_A`$ are the other generators of $`SU(N|N)`$. They can be chosen both traceless and supertraceless: $`\mathrm{str}(T_A)=\mathrm{tr}(T_A)=0`$. The index $`A`$ runs over $`2(N^21)`$ bosonic and $`2N^2`$ fermionic indices, and the Killing super-metric in the $`T_A`$ subspace,

$$g_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}\left(T_AT_B\right),$$

is symmetric when both indices $`A`$ and $`B`$ are bosonic, antisymmetric when both are fermionic and is zero when one is bosonic and another is fermionic.

Let us turn to the description of the $`SU(N|N)`$ gauge theory. The super-gauge field takes values in the graded Lie algebra of $`SU(N|N)`$ and, in accordance with eq. (8), can be written as

$$𝒜=𝒜_\mu ^0\text{ 1l}_{2N}+\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_\mu ,$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_\mu ^1& B_\mu \\ \overline{B}_\mu & A_\mu ^2\end{array}\right)=𝒜_\mu ^AT_A.$$

The bosonic matrix $`A_\mu ^1`$ is the physical field, i.e. the field $`A_\mu `$ of the initial $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. The fermionic field $`B_\mu `$ and the $`SU(N)`$ gauge field $`A_\mu ^2`$ are part of the regulating structure. The pure Yang-Mills part of the action of the extended theory is equal to

$$S_{YM}=\frac{1}{2}_{\mu \nu }\{c^1\}^{\mu \nu },$$
(9)
where now the covariantisation is defined with the supertrace:

$$u\{W\}v:=\mathrm{str}d^Dxu(x)W\left(\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)v(x)$$
(10)
and

$`_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu ig𝒜_\mu ,`$
$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu ig[𝒜_\mu ,𝒜_\nu ],`$
and the regulating function $`c^1`$ is chosen to be a polynomial in $`(^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ of rank $`n`$.

To generate masses for the fermionic Pauli-Villars fields via the Higgs mechanism we add a scalar sector. The super-scalar field is given by the super-matrix

$$𝒞=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^1& D\\ \overline{D}& C^2\end{array}\right),$$

and we take the action of the scalar sector to be

$$𝒮_𝒞=_\mu 𝒞\{\stackrel{~}{c}^1\}^\mu 𝒞+\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{str}d^Dx(𝒞^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^2,$$
(11)
where the regulator $`\stackrel{~}{c}^1`$ is a polynomial of rank $`m`$. The field $`𝒞`$ is not assumed to be supertraceless. Moreover, it acquires an expectation value which may be taken to be $`<𝒞>=\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma _3`$, where

$$\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ 1l}_N& 0\\ 0& \text{ 1l}_N\end{array}\right).$$

Expanding the super-scalar field around the stationary point of the potential in (11), i.e. substituting $`𝒞\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma _3+𝒞`$, one obtains the following expression for the action of the scalar sector:

$`𝒮_𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[𝒜_\mu ,\sigma _3]\{\stackrel{~}{c}^1\}[𝒜_\mu ,\sigma _3]2ig\mathrm{\Lambda }[𝒜_\mu ,\sigma _3]\{\stackrel{~}{c}^1\}^\mu 𝒞`$
$`+`$ $`_\mu 𝒞\{\stackrel{~}{c}^1\}^\mu 𝒞+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\mathrm{str}{\displaystyle d^Dx\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\sigma _3,𝒞\}_++𝒞^2\right)^2}.`$
It is easy to see that the fields $`B_\mu `$, $`C^1`$ and $`C^2`$ acquire a mass of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Following ’t Hooft’s lead we choose the gauge fixing condition to be

$$_\mu 𝒜^\mu +ig\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{c}^1\widehat{c}[\sigma _3,𝒞]=0,$$

where $`\widehat{c}^1(^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ is a polynomial of rank $`s`$. Note that it is not covariantised. The gauge fixing part of the action is equal to

$`𝒮_{GF}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _\mu 𝒜^\mu \widehat{c}^1_\nu 𝒜^\nu +2ig\mathrm{\Lambda }(_\mu 𝒜^\mu )\stackrel{~}{c}^1[\sigma _3,𝒞]`$ (13)
$``$ $`g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\chi }}[\sigma _3,𝒞]\stackrel{~}{c}^2\widehat{c}[\sigma _3,𝒞],`$
where $`uWv`$ is defined as the supertrace analogue of eq. (1). One can check that the last term in the action (13) gives a mass of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the fermionic part of $`𝒞`$.

The Faddeev-Popov ghost super-fields are defined as

$$\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta ^1& \varphi \\ \psi & \eta ^2\end{array}\right),$$

where the diagonal elements are fermionic while the off-diagonal ones are bosonic. The action of the ghost sector is given by

$`𝒮_{ghost}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\eta }\widehat{c}^1\stackrel{~}{c}_\mu ^\mu \eta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{str}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\chi }[\sigma _3,\overline{\eta }]\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }[\sigma _3,\eta ]+[𝒞,\eta ]\right)\right\}}.`$
## 3 Finiteness of the regularised theory

In the rest of the article we consider the case $`D=4`$.

The complete set of Feynman rules will be given in ref. . To analyse the ultraviolet divergences in the theory we first calculate the superficial degree of divergence, $`𝒟_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of a one-particle-irreducible diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined in the standard way. One can easily check that it is possible to choose the numbers $`n`$, $`m`$ and $`s`$, defining the ranks of the regulators, such that all diagrams with two and more loops can be made finite. Among one-loop diagrams only those with $`E_𝒜4`$, where $`E_𝒜`$ denotes the number of external $`𝒜`$-lines, remain unregularised by this mechanism. However, they are finite due to the cancellation of the ultraviolet divergences between the contributions of the bosonic and fermionic propagators corresponding to internal lines. This cancellation will be referred to as the supertrace mechanism.

To illustrate it, let us sketch the calculation of the one-loop diagram with two external $`𝒜`$-lines and two internal $`𝒜`$-lines. The terms of the perturbation theory expansion which generate this type of diagram, schematically omitting the Lorentz indices111Beware that the commutators do not vanish once these are taken into account! involve the product of two vertices:

$$\mathrm{str}\left([𝒜(x),𝒜(x)]𝒜(x)\right)\mathrm{str}\left(𝒜(y)[𝒜(y),𝒜(y)]\right),$$
(15)
where $`𝒜`$ stands for the gauge field or its derivative. The leading part of the propagator between the $`𝒜^A`$ and $`𝒜^B`$ fields in the momentum representation is proportional to $`g^{AB}`$. Using the completeness relation for the generators $`T_A`$ it is easy to show that by Wick pairing

$$\mathrm{str}(𝒳𝒜(x))\mathrm{str}(𝒜(y)𝒴)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}(𝒳𝒴)\frac{1}{4N}(\mathrm{tr}𝒳\mathrm{str}𝒴+\mathrm{str}𝒳\mathrm{tr}𝒴)]\times \mathrm{\Delta }(xy),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)`$ is a spacetime dependent factor coming from the propagator. Applying this formula to eq. (15) one can see that after the first pairing it reduces to

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}\left([𝒜(x),𝒜(x)][𝒜(y),𝒜(y)]\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(xy).$$
(16)
Here we have used the cyclicity property of the supertrace, $`\mathrm{str}(𝒳𝒴)=\mathrm{str}(𝒴𝒳)`$, which implies that $`\mathrm{str}([𝒳,𝒴])=0`$. For the next step we use the identity

$$\mathrm{str}\left(𝒳T_A𝒴T^A\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}(𝒳)\mathrm{str}(𝒴)\frac{1}{4N}\left[\mathrm{str}(𝒳\sigma _3𝒴)+str(𝒳𝒴\sigma _3)\right],$$
(17)
valid for any super-matrices $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$, which follows from the already mentioned completeness relation. Using this identity we calculate the second $`𝒜(x)`$-$`𝒜(y)`$ pairing in eq. (16) and find that the $`\sigma _3`$ terms generated by (17) all cancel, as they must – to preserve the $`SU(N|N)`$ invariance, leaving only terms of the form $`\mathrm{str}𝒜\mathrm{str}𝒜`$ or $`\mathrm{str}𝒜\mathrm{str}\text{ 1l}`$, both of which vanish because $`\mathrm{str}𝒜=\mathrm{str}\text{ 1l}=0`$. This is a demonstration of the supertrace mechanism at work.

One can check by direct calculation that the supertrace mechanism ensures the finiteness of all the diagrams with two and three external $`𝒜`$-lines. For the diagrams with 4 external $`𝒜`$-lines the supertrace mechanism is not sufficient (at finite $`N`$). However, these are already finite. This follows because gauge invariant effective vertices containing less than four $`𝒜`$s have already been shown to be finite but gauge invariant effective vertices with a minimum of four $`𝒜`$s are already finite by power counting and Ward identities for the $`SU(N|N)`$ gauge theory; this derivation is given in ref. .

The rest of the one-loop diagrams and all the diagrams with more than one loop are finite by the higher covariant derivative regularisation. To show this we first analyse the superficial degree of divergence of the one-loop diagrams with $`E_𝒜>4`$ and other types of external lines, as well as the two-loop vacuum diagrams. It can be shown that they are finite if and only if the ranks of the regulating functions $`c^1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}^1`$ and $`\widehat{c}^1`$ satisfy the inequalities

$`s>n>m>0,`$
$`n>2,m>1,nm>1.`$ (18)
Then we show that these conditions are sufficient for the superficial degree of divergence $`𝒟_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the rest of the one-particle-irreducible diagrams to be

$$𝒟_\mathrm{\Gamma }<0.$$

This concludes the proof that all one-particle-irreducible diagrams in the $`SU(N|N)`$ theory with covariant higher derivatives whose action is given by eqs (9), (2), (13) and (2) are ultraviolet finite.

## 4 Discussion of the unphysical sector

The quadratic part of the action of the gauge sector of the $`SU(N|N)`$ theory is given by

$$𝒮_{YM}=d^Dx\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \nu }^1)^2\mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \nu }^2)^22\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}(_\mu \overline{B}_\nu _\nu \overline{B}_\mu )(_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu )+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(19)
The appearance of the term with negative sign could potentially be a problem. At first glance it seems to be a signal of an instability. However, it is rather a sign of the loss of unitarity. This can already be seen in the example of $`U(1|1)`$ quantum mechanics that we discuss now.

Consider the Lagrangian of a simple harmonic potential:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}\dot{𝒳}^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}𝒳^2,$$

where the Hermitian super-position $`𝒳`$ is given by the super-matrix

$$𝒳=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1& \psi \\ \overline{\psi }& x_2\end{array}\right).$$

The conjugate momenta are equal to

$`p_{x_1}=\dot{x}_1,p_{x_2}=\dot{x}_2,[x_j,p_{x_j}]=i,`$
$`p_\psi =\dot{\overline{\psi }},p_{\overline{\psi }}=\dot{\psi }.`$
Let us define the bosonic operators $`a_j=(x_j+ip_{x_j})/\sqrt{2}`$, $`a_j^{}=(x_jip_{x_j})/\sqrt{2}`$. They satisfy the commutation relations $`[a_i,a_j]=0`$, $`[a_1^{},a_j^{}]=0`$, $`[a_i,a_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}`$. The Hamiltonian of the system is equal to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(a_1^{}a_1+a_1a_1^{})\frac{1}{2}(a_2^{}a_2+a_2a_2^{})+\text{(fermionic part)}.$$

We proceed by introducing a complete set of states which includes the vacuum states $`|0>_1`$ and $`|0>_2`$ such that

$$a_1|0>_1=0,a_2^{}|0>_2=0,$$

and $`n`$-particle states

$`|n>_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}}(a_1^{})^n|0>_1,`$
$`|n>_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}}(a_2)^n|0>_2.`$
One can see that with these definitions $`a_2`$ plays the rôle of the creation operator of the particle of the second type. With these definitions the Hamiltonian is bounded from below. In particular

$$H|n>_2=+n|n>_2.$$

Furthermore, it can be shown that it is these definitions that ensure that the vacuum preserves the $`U(1|1)`$ symmetry. However, the states $`|n>_2`$ with odd $`n`$ possess negative norms:

$${}_{2}{}^{}<n|n>_2=\frac{1}{n!}{}_{2}{}^{}<0|(a_2^{})^n(a_2)^n|0>_2=(1)^n{}_{2}{}^{}<0|0>_2.$$

This can be regarded as a violation of unitarity (negative probability). It may be mentioned that the appearance of negative norm states as a consequence of a wrong sign in part of the action is not that unusual. The Gupta-Bleuler quantization procedure relies on a modification of the Lagrangian which results in a wrong sign appearing in the $`A^0`$ part of the action.222Of course, in the present case there is no analogue of the Gupta-Bleuler condition.

Transitions between the $`A_\mu ^1`$-sector and $`A_\mu ^2`$-sector are possible only via exchanges of fields with masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is finite such transitions are possible, thus leading to a violation of unitarity in the $`SU(N|N)`$ gauge theory. In the continuum limit, i.e. in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, all amplitudes for such transitions vanish. For example, the lowest order $`A^1A^2`$ amplitude appears from the term

$$\mathrm{str}(𝒜𝒜)\mathrm{str}(𝒜𝒜)\times (\text{UV and IR finite coefficient}).$$
(20)
The requirement of gauge symmetry and dimensional considerations imply that (20) is in fact proportional to

$$d^4x\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}\mathrm{str}()\mathrm{str}()$$

and, therefore, vanishes as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Summary of the results

In this article we have discussed $`SU(N|N)`$ gauge theory with higher covariant derivative regulators, $`c\left(^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)`$, and the Higgs field viewed as a regularised extension of the $`SU(N)`$ pure Yang-Mills theory. Its structure is determined by the requirement that it can be used in the ERG equation presented in refs  \- .

The extension includes the physical Yang-Mills field $`A_\mu ^1A_\mu `$ of the initial theory and the regulating fields: the bosonic gauge field $`A_\mu ^2`$, the fermionic Pauli-Villars field $`B_\mu `$ and the scalar Pauli-Villars fields $`C^i`$. We described the field content of the $`SU(N|N)`$ gauge theory and wrote down its action (see eqs (9), (2), (13) and (2)). All the regulator fields except $`A_\mu ^2`$ acquire masses proportional to the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via the Higgs mechanism. The presence of the unphysical regulator fields lead to a source of unitarity violation in the theory with finite cutoff.

We showed that in the four-dimensional case the one-loop one-particle-irreducible diagrams with two, three or four external $`𝒜`$-lines are finite due to the supertrace mechanism. The rest of the one-loop one-particle-irreducible diagrams and all one-particle-irreducible diagrams with the number of loops $`L2`$ can be made finite by the proper choice of the regulating functions $`c^1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}^1`$ and $`\widehat{c}^1`$. The necessary and sufficient conditions on the parameters of these functions are given in (18).

When the regularisation is removed, i.e. in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the massive fields $`B_\mu `$ and $`C^j`$ become infinitely heavy and decouple. As a consequence the physical sector, which is the original $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory, becomes decoupled from the unphysical sector of the field $`A_\mu ^2`$. In this way the unitarity of the theory is restored in the continuum limit, i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

We expect the use of the $`SU(N|N)`$ regularised extension of the $`SU(N)`$ pure Yang-Mills theory to open up new possibilities of non-perturbative and gauge-invariant treatment of Yang-Mills theories in the framework of the ERG approach.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank M.Z. Iofa and J.I. Latorre for discussions and valuable comments. T.R.M. and Yu.K. acknowledge financial support from the PPARC grant PPA/V/S/1998/00907, and Yu.K. acknowledges financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 00-02-17679). T.R.M. and S.A. acknowledge support from PPARC SPG PPA/G/S/1998/00527. J.F.T. thanks PPARC for support through a studentship.


format: text

text:
# Bell’s theorem for general N-qubit states

## Abstract

We derive a single general Bell inequality which is a necessary and sufficient condition for the correlation function for N particles to be describable in a local and realistic picture, for the case in which measurements on each particle can be chosen between two arbitrary dichotomic observables. We also derive a necessary and sufficient condition for an arbitrary N-qubit mixed state to violate this inequality. This condition is a generalization and reformulation of the Horodeccy family condition for two qubits.

Local realism imposes constraints on statistical correlations of measurements on multiparticle systems. They are in the form of Bell-type inequalities bell ; chsh ; ghz ; mermin ; ardehali ; belinskii ; PERESBELL ; svozil . In a realistic theory the measurement results are determined by ”hidden” properties the particles carry prior to and independent of observation. In a local realistic theory the results obtained at one location are independent of any measurements, or actions, performed at space-like separation. Quantum mechanics predicts violation of these constraints. This is known as Bell’s theorem bell  .

However the problems a) what are the most general constraints on correlations imposed by local realism, and b) which quantum states violate these constraints, are still open. The latter has been solved in general only in the case of two particles in pure states gisin ; gisinperes  and for two-qubit mixed states 3horodecki . Only recently bounds for local realistic description of a higher-dimensional system have been found in some simple cases kaszlikowski ; kaszlikowski1 ; collins .

Here the answer to the two long-standing questions (a) and (b) is presented for the case of a standard Bell type experiment on N qubits. By a standard Bell experiment we mean, one in which each local observer is given a choice between two dichotomic observables. We first derive a single general Bell inequality that summarizes all possible local realistic constraints on the correlation functions for a N-particle system. From this inequality one obtains as corollaries the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality chsh  for two-particle systems and the Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko (MABK) inequalities for N particles mermin ; ardehali ; belinskii . We show that the correlation functions in a standard Bell experiment can be described by a local realistic model if and only if the general Bell inequality is satisfied. Therefore the general Bell inequality is a sufficient and necessary condition for correlation functions, in such an experiment, to be describable within a local realistic model. We also find a necessary and sufficient condition for correlation functions for N qubits in an arbitrary (mixed) quantum state to violate the general Bell inequality in direct measurements. This condition is generalization and reformulation of the one given by the Horodeccy family 3horodecki  for two qubits.

These results are not only of importance from the fundamental point of view, but also as a research towards identifying ultimate resources for quantum information processing. Recently it was shown ScaraniPRL , that there is a direct link between the security of the quantum communication protocols, and the violation of Bell inequalities.

We shall now derive the general Bell inequality. Consider N observers and allow each of them to choose between two dichotomic observables, determined by some local parameters denoted here $`\stackrel{}{n}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_2`$. We choose such a notation of the parameters for brevity; of course each observer can choose independently two arbitrary directions. The assumption of local realism implies existence of two numbers $`A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)`$ and $`A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_2)`$ each taking values +1 or -1, which describe the predetermined result of a measurement by the $`j`$-th observer of the observable defined by $`\stackrel{}{n}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_2`$, respectively (we do not discuss stochastic hidden variable models, as they always can be constructed from underlying deterministic ones). In a specific run of the experiment the correlations between all $`N`$ observations can be represented by the product $`_{j=1}^NA_j(\stackrel{}{n}_{k_j})`$, with $`k_j=1,2`$. The correlation function, in the case of a local realistic theory, is then the average over many runs of the experiment

$$E(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_{k_j})_{avg}.$$
(1)
The following algebraic identity holds for the predetermined results:

$$\underset{s_1,..,s_N=\pm 1}{}S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}[A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)+s_jA_j(\stackrel{}{n}_2)]=\pm 2^N,$$
(2)
where $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)`$ stands for an arbitrary function of the summation indices $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_N\{1,1\}`$, such that its values are only $`\pm 1`$, i.e. $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)=\pm 1`$. To prove this identity, note, that, since $`A_j(\stackrel{}{n})=\pm 1`$, for each observer $`j`$ one has either $`|A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)+A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_2)|=0`$ and $`|A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_2)|=2`$, or the other way around. Therefore, for all sign sequences of $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_N`$ the product $`_{j=1}^N[A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)+s_jA_j(\stackrel{}{n}_2)]`$ vanishes except for just one sign sequence, for which it is $`\pm 2^N`$. If one adds up all such $`2^N`$ products, with an arbitrary sign in front of each of them, the sum is always equal to the value of the only non-vanishing term, i.e., it is $`\pm 2^N`$.

After averaging the expression (2) over the ensemble of the runs of the experiment (compare Eq. (1)) one obtains the following set of Bell inequalities

$$|\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_1,\mathrm{},s_N}{=1,1}}{}S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1,\mathrm{},k_N}{=1,2}}{}s_1^{k_11}..s_N^{k_N1}E(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)|2^N.$$
(3)
Since there are $`2^{2^N}`$ different functions $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)`$, the inequalities (3) represent a set of $`2^{2^N}`$ Bell inequalities for the correlation functions. Many of these inequalities are trivial. E.g., when the choice for the function is $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)=1`$ for all arguments, we get the condition $`E(1,1,\mathrm{}1)1`$. Specific other choices give non-trivial inequalities. For example, for $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi }{4}+(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_NN)\frac{\pi }{4})`$ one recovers the MABK inequalities, in the form derived by Belinskii and Klyshko belinskii . Specifically, for $`N=2`$, the well known CHSH inequality chsh  follows. For $`N=3`$, one obtains the inequality

$$|E(1,2,2)+E(2,1,2)+E(2,2,1)E(1,1,1)|2.$$
(4)
Inequalities, like the one above, with the minus sign at a different location, and/or measurements $`1`$ and $`2`$ permuted, form together an equivalence class.

The full set of all $`2^{2^N}`$ inequalities (3) is equivalent to the single general Bell inequality weinfurter ; zukowskibrukner ; werner

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_1,\mathrm{},s_N}{=1,1}}{}|\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1,\mathrm{},k_N}{=1,2}}{}s_1^{k_11}\mathrm{}s_N^{k_N1}\text{ }E(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)|2^N.$$
(5)
The equivalence of (5) and (3) is evident, once one recalls that, for real numbers one has $`|a+b|c`$ and $`|ab|c`$ if and only if $`|a|+|b|c`$, and writes down a generalization of this property to sequences of an arbitrary length.

Thus far we have shown that when a local realistic model exists, the general Bell inequality (5) follows. The converse is also true: whenever inequality (5) holds one can construct a local realistic model for the correlation function, in the case of a standard Bell experiment. This establishes the general Bell inequality (5) presented above as a necessary and sufficient condition for local realistic description of $`N`$ particle correlation functions in standard Bell-type experiments. This is why one can claim that the set of Bell inequalities (3) is complete.

The proof of the sufficiency of condition (5) will be done in a constructive way. A local realistic theory must ascribe certain probabilities to every possible set of predetermined local results. Just like if the local measuring stations were receiving instructions, what should be the measurement results for (here) two possible settings of the local apparatus.

One can ascribe to the set of predetermined local results, which satisfy the following conditions $`A_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)=s_jA_j(\stackrel{}{n}_2)`$, the hidden probability

$$p(s_1,..,s_N)=\frac{1}{2^N}|\underset{k_1,..,k_N}{}s_1^{k_11}..s_N^{k_N1}E(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)|,$$
(6)
and one can demand that the product $`_{j=1}^NA_j(\stackrel{}{n}_1)`$ has the same sign as that of the expression inside of the modulus defining the $`p(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)`$. In this way every definite set of local realistic values is ascribed a unique global hidden probability. However, if the inequality (5) is not saturated the probabilities add up to less than 1. In such a case, the ”missing” probability is ascribed to an arbitrary model of local realistic noise (e.g., for which all possible products of local results enter with equal weights). The overall contribution of such a noise term to the correlation function is nil. In this way we obtain a local realistic model of a certain correlation function.

However, one should check whether this construction indeed produces the model for the correlation function for the set of settings that enter inequality (5), that is for $`E(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)`$. For simplicity take $`N=2`$. One can build a “vector” $`(E(1,1),E(1,2),E(2,1),E(2,2))`$ out of the values of the correlation function. The expansion coefficients of this “vector” in terms of the four orthogonal basis vectors $`(1,s_1,s_2,s_1s_2)`$ (recall, that $`s_1,s_2\{1,1\}`$) are equal to the expressions within the moduli entering inequality (5). By the construction shown above the local realistic model for $`N=2`$ gives the following “vector”

$`(E_{LR}(1,1),E_{LR}(1,2),E_{LR}(2,1),E_{LR}(2,2))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}s_1^{k_11}s_2^{k_21}E(k_1,k_2)\right](1,s_1,s_2,s_1s_2).`$
Since the vector built out of the correlation function values and its local realistic counterpart have the same expansion coefficients in the basis, they are equal. Thus, the sufficiency of (5) as a condition for the existence of a local realistic model is proven. The generalization to an arbitrary $`N`$ is obvious.

Quantum mechanical predictions can violate the inequality (5). Simply, if a MABK inequality is violated, then the general inequality, which also includes the MABK inequalities, is violated too. However, the converse statement is not always true. The new inequality is more restrictive. In the problem of identifying quantum states of highly nonclassical traits, it is important to find the class of quantum states, which are not describable by local realistic models. We will now derive the necessary and sufficient condition for an arbitrary (pure or mixed) quantum state to violate the general Bell inequality (5).

An arbitrary mixed state of $`N`$ qubits can be written down as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2^N}\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N=0}{\overset{3}{}}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}\text{ }\sigma _{x_1}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{x_N}^N,$$
(8)
where $`\sigma _0^j`$ is the identity operator in the Hilbert space of qubit $`j`$, and $`\sigma _{x_j}^j`$ are the Pauli operators for three orthogonal directions $`x_j=1,2,3`$. The set of real coefficients $`T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}`$, with $`x_j=1,2,3`$ forms the so-called correlation tensor $`\widehat{T}`$. The correlation tensor fully defines the N-qubit correlation function:

$`E_{QM}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[\rho \text{ }(\stackrel{}{n}_{k_1}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{n}_{k_N}\stackrel{}{\sigma })]`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=1}{\overset{3}{}}}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}(\stackrel{}{n}_{k_1})_{x_1}\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{n}_{k_N})_{x_N},`$ (10)
where $`(\stackrel{}{n}_{k_j})_{x_j}`$ are the three Cartesian components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_{k_j}`$. For convenience we shall write down the last expression (10) in a more compact way as $`\widehat{T},\stackrel{}{n}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{n}_{k_N}`$, where $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ denotes the scalar product in $`R^{3N}`$.

We now insert the quantum correlation function $`E_{QM}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N)`$ into the Bell inequality (5), and obtain

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_1,\mathrm{},s_N}{=1,1}}{}|\widehat{T},\underset{k_1=1}{\overset{2}{}}s_1^{k_11}\stackrel{}{n}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\underset{k_N=1}{\overset{2}{}}s_N^{k_N1}\stackrel{}{n}_{k_N}|2^N.$$
(11)
This inequality can be simplified. For each observer there always exist two mutually orthogonal unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_1^j`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}_2^j`$ and the angle $`\alpha _j`$ such that $`_{k_j=1}^2\stackrel{}{n}_{k_j}=2\stackrel{}{a}_1^j\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _j+\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`_{k_j=1}^2(1)^{k_j}\stackrel{}{n}_{k_j}=2\stackrel{}{a}_2^j\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _j+\pi )`$. Using the notation $`c_{x_j}^j=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _j+x_j\frac{\pi }{2})`$, one can write the inequality (11) as

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N=1}{\overset{2}{}}|c_{x_1}^1\mathrm{}c_{x_N}^N\widehat{T},\stackrel{}{a}_{x_1}^1\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{a}_{x_N}^N|1.$$
(12)
One can transform this inequality into

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N=1}{\overset{2}{}}c_{x_1}^1\mathrm{}c_{x_N}^N|T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}|1$$
(13)
where $`T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}`$ is now a component of the tensor $`\widehat{T}`$ in a new set of local coordinate systems, which among their basis vectors have $`\stackrel{}{a}_1^j`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}_2^j`$. The two vectors serve as the unit vectors which define, say, the local directions $`x`$ and $`y`$. The values of $`c_{x_j}^j`$ enter (13) directly, not as moduli, because without this constraint the maximal value of the left hand side does not change.

We conclude from the above reasoning that the necessary and sufficient condition for an arbitrary N-qubit state to satisfy the general Bell inequality (5) can be put in the following way. The correlations between the measurements on $`N`$ qubits satisfy inequality (5) if and only if in any set of local coordinate system of N observers, and for any set of unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{c}^j=(c_1^j,c_2^j)`$ one has

$$T_{c_1\mathrm{}c_N}^{mod}\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N=1}{\overset{2}{}}c_{x_1}^1\mathrm{}c_{x_N}^N\text{ }|T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}|1.$$
(14)
Let us give a geometric interpretation of (14). Suppose one replaces the components of the correlation tensor $`T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}`$ by their moduli $`|T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}|`$, and builds of such moduli a new tensor $`\widehat{T}^{mod}`$. Suppose moreover one transforms this modified tensor into a new set of local coordinate systems, each of which is obtained from the old one by a rotation within the plane spanned by axes 1 and 2 of the initial coordinates. If this new tensor satisfies constraint (14) for an arbitrary choice of the initial set of local coordinate systems, then, and only then, a local realistic description of correlation function is possible, in the case of any standard Bell experiment.

In other words, $`T_{c_1\mathrm{}c_N}^{mod}`$ is a component of $`T^{mod}`$ along directions defined by the unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{c}^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. If the condition (14) holds, then the transformed components $`\widehat{T}_{c_1,\mathrm{}c_N}^{mod}`$ do not have values larger than 1. Only then, they can describe products of local results, which are only of the values $`\pm 1`$, like is for any correlation tensor. One therefore can express the condition (14) as follows: within local realistic description $`\widehat{T}^{mod}`$ is also a possible correlation tensor. This bears a similarity with the Peres peressep  necessary condition for separability (a partially transposed density matrix is a possible density matrix). Note that (14) could also be put in yet another way: arbitrary changes of the signs of some of the coordinates of $`\widehat{T}`$ still leave it as a possible correlation tensor.

By applying the Cauchy inequality to the middle term of expression (14) one obtains directly the following useful and simple sufficient condition for local realistic description of the correlation functions for $`N`$ qubits. If in any set of local coordinate systems of $`N`$ observers

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N=1}{\overset{2}{}}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}^21,$$
(15)
then the correlations between the measurements on $`N`$ qubits satisfy the general inequality (5).

By performing rotations in the planes defined by directions $`1`$ and $`2`$ of each of the $`N`$ observers one can vary the values of the elements of the correlation tensor, but these variations do not change the left-hand side of inequality (15). In this way, one can find local coordinate systems for which some of the correlation tensor elements vanish. Thus the criterion (15) can involve a smaller number of them (compare the three qubit case in Ref. scarani ).

There are special situations for which (15) turns out to be both the necessary and sufficient condition for correlation functions to satisfy the general Bell inequality (5). Formally this arises whenever the two ”vectors” $`(c_1^1\mathrm{}c_1^N,\mathrm{},c_2^1\mathrm{}c_2^N)`$ and $`(|T_{11\mathrm{}1}|,\mathrm{},|T_{22\mathrm{}2}|)`$ in (13) are parallel. Only then, since the first vector has a unit norm, the expression on the left hand side of (13) reaches the one on the left hand side of (15) and thus the conditions (13) and (15) are equivalent ones.

Let us consider two examples of application of our results. We first study an arbitrary two-qubit state to recover the Horodeccy condition 3horodecki . In this case, since the two ”vectors” $`(|T_{11}|,|T_{12}|,|T_{21}|,|T_{22}|)`$ and $`(c_1^1c_1^2,c_1^1c_2^2,c_2^1c_1^2,c_2^1c_2^2)`$ in (13) can be made parallel by a suitable choice of free parameters, (15) is the necessary and sufficient condition for the violation of local realism. Two of the parameters come from the arbitrariness in selecting the two local coordinate systems (i.e. they come from arbitrary transformation of the correlation tensor by rotations within $`1`$-$`2`$ planes of each of the two local coordinate systems). Two more parameters are the two angles $`\alpha _j`$ which define the second “vector”. Therefore the condition reads $`T_{11}^2+T_{12}^2+T_{21}^2+T_{22}^21`$. In addition one can always find local coordinate systems such that $`T_{12}=T_{21}=0`$ and our condition transforms into $`T_{11}^2+T_{22}^21`$. This is equivalent to the Horodeccy condition 3horodecki , as $`T_{11}^2`$ and $`T_{22}^2`$ for the diagonalized correlation tensor are equal to two eigenvalues of the matrix $`\widehat{T}^T\widehat{T}`$, where $`\widehat{T}^T`$ is the transposed $`\widehat{T}`$.

As another example, we consider the Werner states. Such states have the form $`\rho _W=V|\psi _{GHZ}\psi _{GHZ}|+(1V)\rho _{noise},`$ where $`|\psi _{GHZ}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_1\mathrm{}|0_N+|1_1\mathrm{}|1_N)`$ is the maximally entangled (GHZ) state ghz  and $`\rho _{noise}=I/2^N`$ is the completely mixed state. Here the weight $`V`$ of the GHZ-state can operationally be interpreted as the interferometric contrast observed in a multi-particle correlation experiment. The nonvanishing components of the correlation tensor in the $`xy`$ planes for the Werner state are: the components which contain an even number of $`y`$’s and $`T_{xx\mathrm{}x}`$. There are alltogether $`2^{N1}`$ of them. Their values are either $`+V`$ or $`V`$. Since again the two “vectors” in (13) can be made parallel, (15) is the necessary and sufficient condition for the violation of local realism. Indeed, if one rotates all but one local coordinate systems by $`45^o`$, then all $`2^N`$ components of the “vector” $`(|T_{11\mathrm{}1}|,\mathrm{},|T_{22\mathrm{}2}|)`$ become equal to $`V/\sqrt{2}`$. Furthermore, if one chooses all $`\alpha _j`$ equal to $`\pi /4`$, the unit “vector” $`(c_1^1\mathrm{}c_1^N,\mathrm{},c_2^1\mathrm{}c_2^N)`$ has all its components equal to $`1/\sqrt{2^N}`$. Therefore, the two “vectors” are parallel. Thus, using criterion (15) we conclude that the correlation functions for the Werner state definitely cannot be described by local realism if and only if $`V>1/\sqrt{2^{N1}}`$.

More applications of the formalism, leading to some unexpected results, are given in marek+ . There a family of pure entangled states is found, which do not violate any Bell inequality for correlation functions, for the standard Bell experiment.

It will be interesting to see generalizations of the criteria for violation of local realism to the cases of higher-dimensional systems than qubits and to more measurement choices for each observer than two. One can expect in such cases even stronger restrictions for the local realistic description zukowski .

M.Ż. acknowledges KBN grant No. 5 P03B 088 20. Č.B. is supported by the Austrian FWF project F1506, and by the QIPC program of the EU. The work is a part of the Austrian-Polish program Quantum Communication and Quantum Information. Both authors acknowledge discussions with Anton Zeilinger.


text:
# Novel Mechanism for Single Bubble Sonoluminescence

## Abstract

Careful re-examination of typical experimental data made it possible to show that the UV continua observed in multi-bubble (MBSL) and single-bubble (SBSL) sonoluminescence spectra have the same physical nature - radiative dissociation of electronically excited H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$($`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) molecules \[and probably hydrides of heavy rare gases like ArH($`A^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$)\] due to spontaneous transitions between bound and repulsive electronic states. The proposed mechanism is able to explain all available spectroscopic observations without any exotic hypothesis but in terms usual for plasma spectroscopy.

Sonoluminescence (SL) is one of most exciting features of acoustic cavitation \- the formation and non-linear oscillation of gas bubbles generated in liquids by ultrasound . Bubble collapses lead to enormous local pressures (about 1000 atm and more) and temperatures, erosion of hard materials, chemical reactions and light emission (SL). Discovered in early 1930s the SL observed in cavitation clouds is called multi-bubble sonoluminescence. MBSL spectra consist of a continuum of unknown origin, atomic lines and molecular bands of species connected with host liquids . Atomic and molecular emissions give effective temperatures $``$3000–5000 K .

Suddenly the situation in this traditional branch of non-linear acoustics has been changed dramatically after the discovery  of single bubble sonoluminescence - light emission of a single, stable, oscillating bubble trapped by acoustic levitation inside an ultrasound resonator . Such eccentric change in the performance of SL experiment provided unique opportunity to study the dynamics of oscillating bubble, obviously masked in MBSL. It was shown  that every cycle consists of: 1) relatively slow growth of bubble radius up to $``$50 $`\mu `$m, 2) extremely fast implosive collapse to $``$0.5 $`\mu `$m, 3) damping and waiting for the expansion phase of sound wave in so-called “dead mode” with constant radius $``$$`\mu `$m, corresponding to atmospheric pressure. SL appears as light flashes at the moment of the collapse. Further studies (see bibl. in ) have shown: 1) water being friendliest liquid for SBSL; 2) clockwise regularity of the flashes with $``$50 ps stability; 3) abnormally short pulse duration ($``$50–350 ps); 4) featureless spectrum with the intensity increasing to UV (see Fig. 1), which was fitted as a “tail of a blackbody spectrum” with abnormally high temperatures $`T=25000100000`$ K ; 5) absence of characteristic emissions associated with host liquid; 6) stimulating influence of Ar. Those peculiarities are often presented and discussed as mysteries and unknowns of SBSL (see i.e. ) not only in respected scientific journals, but also in popular ones and newspapers as well.

Spectra of MBSL and SBSL measured “under similar experimental conditions”  are shown in Fig. 2 (actually the conditions are sufficiently different, see below). Such observations are often interpreted as evidence that “these two phenomena are fundamentally different” (“sonochemistry” and “sonophysics”) . Unbelievably high temperatures “observed” in SBSL experiments were so exciting that the mechanism of highly spherical imploding shock wave in SBSL was even considered as “the key to reaching temperatures and densities sufficient to realize the fusion of these hydrogen nuclei to yield helium and neutrons” . The stir stimulated tremendous growth of speculations about the nature of SBSL. Many mechanisms have been proposed so far from traditional ones (quasi-adiabatic heating, chemiluminescence, electric breakdown, shock wave and others) up to such exotic as Schwinger’s Dynamical Casimir Effect. Although most popular hypothesis is the Bremsstrahlung radiation of electrons in dense plasma (see i.e. ), the real nature of SBSL is still an open question .

The main goal of the present work is to propose and consider electronically excited H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$($`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) molecules \[and possibly hydrides of rare gases like ArH($`A^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$)\] as light emitters responsible for continua observed in both MBSL and SBSL experiments with hydrogen-containing liquids. This provides new sight on the well known “mysteries and unknowns” of the SBSL phenomenon.

Perhaps the most simple and natural explanation of the continuum radiation observed in SL spectra (never even considered previously) is spontaneous emission of hydrogen dissociation continuum appearing due to the $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+,v,Jb^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^+`$ transitions ($`v,J`$ \- vibrational and rotational quantum numbers) between lowest triplet bound (upper) and repulsive (lower) states (Fig. 3). It is a well-known spectral feature of hydrogen-containing plasmas widely used in UV spectroscopy (see bibl. in ). The shape of the continuum is determined by the distribution of population density among vibro-rotational levels of the upper $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$ electronic state . It is not directly connected with any translational temperature but is determined by a dynamic balance between excitation and deactivation of the $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+,v,J`$ levels.

In low-pressure gas discharges, the spectral intensity distribution of the continuum may be calculated not only in relative , but even in absolute scale  being in rather good accordance with experimental data. In the H2+Ar mixtures the Ar(4s) $``$ H2($`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) excitation transfer from long living (metastable and resonant) levels of Ar  may play important role as well as the formation of excited ArH excimer molecules and $`A^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $``$ $`X^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ spontaneous emission due to bound-repulsive transitions . The ArH continuum overlaps that of H2 being located in the same wavelength range. The energy of He and Ne metastables is too high to participate in an excitation transfer leading to populating of the $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$ state. However, Kr and Xe can do the job in three-body collisions with two 1S hydrogen atoms.

Correct calculation of the continuum shape in plasma with temperature higher than 1000 K is impossible just because the transition probabilities are available only for rotation-less molecule . On the other hand, it needs development of certain model of microscopic excitation-deactivation processes and certain values of plasma parameters determined by macroscopic dynamics of collapsing bubble. Two main de-populating processes are for sure: spontaneous emission and radiationless collisional quenching . But there is a great variety of competitive volume and surface processes responsible for the generation of H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ ($`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) excited molecules (electron impact, electron-ion and ion-ion recombination, associative three-body collisions, photo and/or collision-induced fragmentation of water, etc.). Nevertheless, very rough estimations can be made by neglecting the rotational structure of $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+,v`$ levels in two simple cases: 1) thermodynamic equilibrium (TDE) populations of $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+,v`$ levels relative to ground $`X^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+,v`$=0 vibronic state; 2) direct electron impact excitation and spontaneous decay of the levels . The results are shown in Fig. 4. One may see that calculated spectra are in accordance with experimental observations at least qualitatively. They have “featureless structure” with the intensity rising to UV cutoff $`\lambda 250`$ nm. In the range of observation, they may be fitted as “blackbody spectrum” with “enormous temperatures”.

Experimental data are also not free from criticism:

1) Intensity calibration should take into account re-absorption in plasma and transparency of plasma-liquid boundary neglected in .

2) Determination of the background level is not so simple, because light scattered inside a flask and a spectrometer overlaps dark signal of a detector. The huge difference between backgrounds of SBSL and MBSL curves is caused by use of two different optical systems in . The emission of MBSL was focused on the entrance slit of the spectrometer by a lens. In the case of SBSL, no collection lens was used. The entrance slit was placed close to the side of the levitation cell being 2.25 cm from the bubble. It means that all light coming from within $`2\pi `$ solid angle (much bigger than the instrumental aperture and that for radiation directly coming from the bubble) was able to enter the spectrograph and partly be detected as a background.

3) The separation of the continuum intensity from the total signal of a detector is also a rather delicate and ambiguous deal. For example the peculiarities on the SBSL curve of Fig. 2 may be interpreted as some additional emissions at $`\lambda 310360`$ nm (OH bands) and $`\lambda 400500`$ nm (NaH bands or H2 continuum in the second order of the grating), or as absorptions at $`\lambda <320`$ nm (OH) and $`\lambda 350420`$ nm (NaH).

4) Proper normalization of experimental curves is necessary for a comparison of their shapes.

Experimental data of  have been treated taking into account what is written above. Results of such recalculations are presented in Fig. 4 & 5. One may see that the results of two independent SBSL experiments  are in good agreement as well as intensity distributions obtained by MBSL  and SBSL .

Taking into account experimental errors and the uncertainties in the data processing we have to come to the following conclusion. After proper treating the experimental data show: 1) The continua emitted by SBSL and MBSL (Fig. 5) have identical spectral intensity distribution, therefore they may have the same nature; 2) Measured spectral intensity distributions and those roughly calculated for the $`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+,v,Jb^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^+`$ spontaneous emission of H2 molecule (Fig. 4) are in semi-quantitative agreement good enough to propose H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$($`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) molecules to be responsible for the continuum emission. “Enormous temperatures” of SBSL reported so far have no physical meaning being the result of incorrect fitting (un-proper treated experimental data were approximated by un-proper analytical expression – Planck formula).

There is actually a great difference between MBSL and SBSL experiments even if they are carried out with the same chemical solutions: 1) The amplitude of sound wave in MBSL (10 atm) is about one order of magnitude bigger than that used in SBSL ($``$1.3 atm). Therefore in MBSL the action of ultrasound should be much more powerful and destructive for bubbles. The widely distributed opinion that SBSL is a stronger phenomenon is based only on the “observation” of “enormous temperatures”, not more. 2) MBSL experiments are made with 100% air saturation of a solution, while SBSL experiments are performed with degassed water.

Thus, the bubbles have qualitatively different gas contents in those two types of SL experiments. MBSL bubbles are mainly air-filled with small amount of water vapor. Dissociation of N2, O2, H2O during the collapse leads to formation of very aggressive species (like HN3, HNO3, N2O2, N2O3, etc.) which disappear by chemical reactions with water boundary. In the expansion phase a bubble (if it would be able to survive!) is again filled with air due to 100% air saturation. New bubbles are definitely generated as air-filled.

An absolutely other situation should occur in the case of SBSL when the action of acoustic waves is much more gentle and water is degassed. The SBSL bubble can accumulate not only Ar (1% in air) , but molecular hydrogen as well. The hydrogen molecule in its ground state has almost the same electronic structure as that of He atom - its united atom analogue (two 1s electrons with anti-parallel spins). Thus, H2 itself has low chemical activity in great contrast with hydrogen atom. The solubility of H2 in water is much smaller than that of radicals made from N, O and H atoms. Therefore, a stable-oscillating bubble in SBSL mode actually consists of a H2+Ar gas mixture with periodically changing amount of water vapor (increasing during the expansion and decreasing in the collapse). These additional H2O molecules disappear in the collapse and serve as an engine (and fuel) for the transformation of the translational energy of collapsing liquid-gas boundary into the energy of light emission. This mechanism explains: 1) Why the light flash appears only at the first collapse but not at the second one in the series of damping oscillations in spite of almost the same compression ; 2) Why the average radius of a bubble generally increasing with a rise in acoustic amplitude suddenly shrinks when the onset of SL is reached ; 3) Great rise of SBSL with a decrease of water temperature .

Clockwise regularity of SBSL flashes should not be so surprising and does not need unusual mechanisms because the experimental setup used in SBSL experiments is essentially a resonant system. The stability of this regularity means that after each collapse in the “dead mode” the bubble contents returns to the initial one - 98% of (H2+Ar) mixture and 2% of H2O.

The abnormally short duration of SBSL light flashes may be explained by extremely high rise of both the rate of excitation and the rate of collisional quenching of excited states. Thus the conditions suitable for spontaneous emission may be realized only in rather limited period of time. The situation is obviously different for different excited species. For some of them the favorable conditions could not be achieved at all (this explains also the existence of upper threshold of SBSL). The quenching may lead to a dissociation of molecules and to emission of vacuum UV radiation being out of the range of observation. The dim luminosity cloud surrounding a hot spot most probably is the fluorescence induced by Lα atomic line and/or Lyman and Werner bands of H2. The estimation of the characteristic time of H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$($`a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) collisional quenching with cross sections from  gives $``$1 ps.

The positive influence of heavy inert gases Ar, Kr, Xe (in contrast to He, Ne ) may be connected with the excitation transfer from their metastables and with formation of excited hydrides like ArH($`A^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). Absence of characteristic emissions of Na and OH in SBSL is caused by better evacuation and/or quenching of upper states in hydrogen-dominated contents of the bubble.

It is common practice in plasma spectroscopy that an investigator should find proper answers for three questions: 1) Who is the emitter of the emission? 2) What are main processes of excitation and deactivation of the upper state of the transition? 3) How the population density of the upper level(s) can be related to plasma parameters? Only when all three are answered the emission may be used for plasma diagnostics (spectroscopic determination of temperatures, particle densities etc.). From such point of view any speculations around abnormally high temperatures “observed” in SBSL and “the opportunity” to make one more “cold fusion” are meaningless.

###### Acknowledgements.

My gratitude to M. Käning for useful advices and help.


text:
# Decoherence of Atomic Gases in Largely Detuned Laser Fields

## Abstract

We study theoretically the decoherence of a gas of bosonic atoms induced by the interaction with a largely detuned laser beam. It is shown that for a standing laser beam decoherence coincides with the single-particle result. For a running laser beam many-particle effects lead to significant modifications.

32.80.-t, 03.65.Yz, 03.75.Fi

In experiments with atomic Bose-Einstein condensates  the trap which is used to isolate the atoms from the environment plays an important role for the physical behaviour of the system. In a magnetic trap usually only atoms with a specific magnetic hyperfine quantum number are stored. An optical trap  can be used to confine atoms in all Zeeman sublevels. However, in order to preserve the atomic coherence spontaneous emission of photons must be avoided. A large detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the laser beams providing the trap field reduces the excitation probability for atoms and thus reduces the number of spontaneously emitted photons. At the same time, a relatively strong intensity of the laser beams, and correspondingly a large Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)`$, ensures that the laser beams’ effect is still large enough to produce a strong potential for the atoms.

The aim of this paper is to examine light-induced decoherence of a gas of ultracold atoms in an optical trap and to deduce the influence of atomic many-particle properties on this decoherence. To do so we study solutions to a master equation for reduced Heisenberg operators describing a quantum field of bosonic two-level atoms interacting with a detuned laser beam and the vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The technique of reduced Heisenberg operators has previously been employed by Nemoto and Shibata  and allows an elegant description of decoherence in a many-particle context. After the derivation of the master equation we will adiabatically eliminate the excited state to get an effective master equation for the atomic internal ground state. The main result of the paper is that many-particle effects lead to a nonlocal modification of light-induced decoherence that vanishes for laser fields with spatially homogeneous phase (e.g., a standing laser wave) but makes substantial contributions for a running laser wave.

Derivation of the master equation: We consider a general system that is described by the direct product of two Hilbert spaces $`_S`$ and $`_R`$, where $`_S`$ describes the open system that we are interested in, and $`_R`$ describes the reservoir to which the system is coupled. It is our aim to find a master equation describing the evolution of reduced Heisenberg operators for the system only. We define a reduced Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{R}_S`$ by the relation

$$\widehat{R}_S(t):=\text{Tr}_R\{\widehat{\rho }_R\widehat{R}(t)\},$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{R}(t)`$ is the original Heisenberg operator which acts on $`_S_R`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_R`$ is the density matrix describing the state of the reservoir. It is thereby assumed that the (time-independent) density matrix can be written in the form $`\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\rho }_S\widehat{\rho }_R`$ so that there are initially no correlations between the system and the reservoir. The physical significance of the reduced Heisenberg operator is that it allows to describe accurately any measurement involving the system only, i.e.,

$$\text{Tr}_{SR}\{\widehat{\rho }\widehat{F}_S\widehat{R}(t)\widehat{F}_S^{}\}=\text{Tr}_S\{\widehat{\rho }_S\widehat{F}_S\widehat{R}_S(t)\widehat{F}_S^{}\}$$
(2)
for any two operators $`\widehat{F}_S`$ and $`\widehat{F}_S^{}`$ acting on $`_S`$ only.

To derive a master equation for $`\widehat{R}_S(t)`$ we employ Zwanzig’s method by using that $`𝒫\widehat{R}:=\text{Tr}_R\{\widehat{\rho }_R\widehat{R}\}\mathrm{𝟏}_R`$ is a projection superoperator fulfilling $`𝒫^2=𝒫`$. We start from the Heisenberg equation-of-motion

$$i\mathrm{}_t\widehat{R}(t)=[\widehat{R}(t),\widehat{H}]=:\widehat{R}(t),$$
(3)
where $``$ is the Liouville superoperator. The Hamiltonian in Heisenberg picture is explicitely time-independent if it is written in terms of Schrödinger picture operators. Introducing $`𝒬:=1𝒫`$ and following the lines of Ref.  one can derive the master equation for the reduced Heisenberg operator,

$`i\mathrm{}_t\widehat{R}_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫𝒫\widehat{R}_S(t)`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}𝒫{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}U_{QQ}(t^{})𝒬𝒫\widehat{R}_S(tt^{}).`$
In the derivation it was assumed that the inital Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{R}(0)`$ acts on the system only so that $`𝒬\widehat{R}(0)=0`$. The superoperator $`U_{QQ}(t^{}):=\mathrm{exp}\{it^{}𝒬𝒬/\mathrm{}\}`$ describes the unitary evolution in $`𝒬`$-subspace.

This expression can be further simplified if the Liouvillean is written in the form $`=_S+_R+_{\text{int}}`$, where $`_S`$ and $`_R`$ act solely on the system and the reservoir, respectively, and $`_{\text{int}}`$ describes the interaction. It is then easy to show that $`𝒬𝒫=𝒬_{\text{int}}𝒫`$ and, if the reservoir is in a stationary state ($`[\widehat{H}_R,\widehat{\rho }_R]=0`$), $`𝒫𝒬=𝒫_{\text{int}}𝒬`$. Expanding Eq. (5) to second order in $`_{\text{int}}`$ we can replace $`U_{QQ}(t^{})`$ by $`\mathrm{exp}\{it^{}(_S+_R)/\mathrm{}\}`$. Performing a Markov approximation ($`\widehat{R}_S(tt^{})U_{PP}^1(t^{})\widehat{R}_S(t)`$ under the integral) then results in the final form of the master Equation in Heisenberg picture,

$$i\mathrm{}_t\widehat{R}_S(t)_S\widehat{R}_S(t)\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒫_{\text{int}}𝒬_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}_{\text{int}}(t^{})\widehat{R}_S(t),$$
(6)
with $`_{\text{int}}(t^{})\widehat{R}_S=[\widehat{R}_S,\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}(t^{})]`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}(t^{}):=\mathrm{exp}\{it^{}(_S+_R)/\mathrm{}\}\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}`$.

Decoherence of the atomic field operator: The formalism of the previous section will now be applied to the problem of spontaneous emission in a system of bosonic two-level atoms. In this case the degrees-of-freedom of the electromagnetic field play the role of a reservoir to which the atoms are coupled. Since it is known that usually the center-of-mass motion of the atoms has only a small influence on the spontaneous emission rate  we neglect it alltogether and use the atomic Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_S=d^3x\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_e^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{}\omega _0\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_e(𝐱),$$
(7)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the resonance frequency and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(𝐱)`$ are the quantum field operators for excited ($`i=e`$) and ground-state ($`i=g`$) atoms, respectively. The Hamiltonian of the reservoir is given by

$$\widehat{H}_R=\frac{\epsilon _0}{2}d^3x\{\widehat{𝐄}^2+c^2\widehat{𝐁}^2\},$$
(8)
and the coupling between the system of two-level atoms and the reservoir is described by the electic-dipole coupling in rotating-wave approximation,

$`\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}(t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x\{\widehat{𝐄}^{(+)}(𝐱,t^{})\widehat{𝐏}^{()}(𝐱)e^{i\omega _0t^{}}+`$ (10)
$`\widehat{𝐄}^{()}(𝐱,t^{})\widehat{𝐏}^{(+)}(𝐱)e^{i\omega _0t^{}}\},`$
with $`\widehat{𝐄}^{(+)}(𝐱,t^{})`$ being the positive-frequency part of the electric field in interaction picture and $`\widehat{𝐏}^{(+)}(𝐱):=𝐝\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_e(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g^{}(𝐱)`$ is the positive-frequency part of the polarization operator.

Under the assumption that the initial state of the electromagnetic field is the vacuum $`|0`$ we can insert the various Hamiltonians into Eq. (6) to derive

$$i\mathrm{}_t\widehat{R}_S(t)=[\widehat{R}_S(t),\widehat{H}_S]i\mathrm{}_D\widehat{R}_S(t),$$
(11)
with the decoherence Liouvillean

$`_D\widehat{R}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3x^{}\{[\widehat{R},P_i^{()}(𝐱)]P_j^{(+)}(𝐱^{})T_{ij}(𝐱,𝐱^{})+`$ (13)
$`P_i^{()}(𝐱)[P_j^{(+)}(𝐱^{}),\widehat{R}]T_{ij}^{}(𝐱,𝐱^{})\}.`$
The quantity $`T_{ij}`$ can be calculated by standard methods (see, e.g., Refs. ) and is given by

$`T_{ij}(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}0|E_i^{(+)}(𝐱,t^{})E_i^{()}(𝐱^{},0)|0`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega \omega ^3}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}\epsilon _0c^3}}(\pi \delta (\omega \omega _0)i{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\omega \omega _0}})\times `$ (17)
$`[\delta _{ij}(j_0({\displaystyle \frac{\omega r}{c}}){\displaystyle \frac{j_1(\frac{\omega r}{c})}{\frac{\omega r}{c}}})+`$
$`\widehat{𝐫}_i\widehat{𝐫}_j({\displaystyle \frac{3j_1(\frac{\omega r}{c})}{\frac{\omega r}{c}}}j_0({\displaystyle \frac{\omega r}{c}}))].`$
In the last expression we have defined $`r:=|𝐱𝐱^{}|`$ and $`\widehat{𝐫}:=(𝐱𝐱^{})/r`$.

It is not hard to see that the imaginary part of $`T_{ij}`$ leads only to a (non-local) modification of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_S`$ and therefore does not lead to decoherence effects. Since it is the latter which we are interested in we will omit the imaginary part. Doing so and inserting the definition of the polarization operator into Eq. (13) results in

$`_D\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma _0}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3x^{}\{[\widehat{R},\mathrm{\Psi }_e^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_g(𝐱)]\mathrm{\Psi }_g^{}(𝐱^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_e(𝐱^{})+`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_e^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_g(𝐱)[\mathrm{\Psi }_g^{}(𝐱^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_e(𝐱^{}),\widehat{R}]\}J(r,\theta ).`$
Here $`\gamma _0:=|𝐝|^2\omega _0^3/(3\pi \mathrm{}\epsilon _0c^3)`$ is the single-atom spontaneous emission rate and the function $`J(r,\theta )`$ is defined as

$$J(r,\theta ):=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )j_0(\frac{\omega _0r}{c})+\frac{j_1(\frac{\omega _0r}{c})}{\frac{\omega _0r}{c}}\left(3\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )1\right),$$
(20)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐝`$ and $`\widehat{𝐫}`$. In the context of master equations for reduced density matrices the decoherence term (19) is well known  and has recently been applied to study loading  and condensation  of a condensate in laser light.

Eq. (19) will be the starting point of our investigation on light-induced decoherence in many-atom systems. Before doing so we point out that the master equations Eq. (19) and (13) are very similar to corresponding equations for the reduced density matrix in Schrödinger picture. However, there is a striking difference: For the reduced density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_S`$ the Liouvillean for spontaneous emission includes terms in which the operators $`\widehat{𝐏}^{(+)}(𝐱)`$ and $`\widehat{𝐏}^{()}(𝐱)`$ appear to the left and to the right of the density matrix, respectively. This ordering is important as such a term describes the incoherent de-excitation of an atom, while the opposite ordering $`\widehat{𝐏}^{(+)}(𝐱)\widehat{\rho }_S\widehat{𝐏}^{()}(𝐱)`$ would describe an incoherent excitation of an atom. But it is exactly the latter type of ordering which appears in Eq. (13). The reason is that Eq. (13) does not describe the evolution of the density matrix in Schrödinger picture but that of an operator in the Heisenberg picture. When applied to a Heisenberg operator the “wrong” ordering gives indeed the correct time evolution.

A gas of atoms in largely detuned laser light: To study the decoherence of atoms in a largely detuned laser beam we adiabatically eliminate the excited state by means of (see, e.g., Ref. )

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_e(𝐱)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱).$$
(21)
Inserting this into Eq. (19) leads to a Liouvillean

$`_g\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma _0}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱^{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}J(r,\theta )\times `$ (23)
$`\left\{[\widehat{R},\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱)]\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱^{})\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱)[\widehat{R},\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱^{})]\right\}`$
with $`\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱):=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)`$.

Eq. (23) describes the decoherence of any Heisenberg operator acting on the ground state of the atoms in the presence of a laser beam. Its physical interpretation is that the laser beam excites an atom at position $`𝐱^{}`$ to a virtual state. The atom then spontaneously emits a photon which is absorbed by another atom at position $`𝐱`$. Finally, this atom makes an induced emission of a photon into the mode of the laser beam. A simple application of Eq. (23) is the demonstration of lack of decoherence for the number density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱)`$. Since $`[\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱),\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱^{})]=0`$ one can immediately infer that

$$_g\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱)=0,$$
(24)
i.e., there will be no decoherence of the number density at a point $`𝐱`$. This is a reasonable result since spontaneous emission should not change the population density if the atomic center-of-mass motion is neglected.

To study the phase decoherence we consider the time evolution of the field operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)`$ itself. Introducing the operator

$$\widehat{Q}(𝐱):=\frac{3\gamma _0}{4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}d^3x^{}J(r,\theta )\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\rho }_g(𝐱^{})$$
(25)
one can show that $`(_g)^n\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)=(_Q)^n\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)`$ with

$$_Q\widehat{R}:=\widehat{Q}^{}(𝐱)\widehat{R}\widehat{R}\widehat{Q}(𝐱).$$
(26)
We therefore can replace $`_g`$ by $`_Q`$ for the special case of the field operator. The solution of the equation of motion $`_t\widehat{R}=_Q\widehat{R}`$ with the initial condition $`\widehat{R}(t=0)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)`$ then can be written as

$$\widehat{R}(t)=e^{t\widehat{Q}^{}(𝐱)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)e^{t\widehat{Q}(𝐱)}$$
(27)
This expression can be further reduced by writing it in the form $`\widehat{R}(t)=\mathrm{exp}[t(\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}^{})]\mathrm{exp}[t\widehat{Q}]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}[t\widehat{Q}]`$. The first exponential corresponds to a unitary operator. The other two exponentials represent a non-untitary transformation of the field operator. It is easy to prove  that this non-unitary transformation can be reduced to

$$e^{t\widehat{Q}(𝐱)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)e^{t\widehat{Q}(𝐱)}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\gamma _0t}{2}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g(𝐱)$$
(28)
This result just corresponds to the single-particle decoherence-effect of spontaneous emission: at point $`𝐱`$ the probability for the atoms to become excited is, within the adiabatic approximation, given by $`|\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)|^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The excited atoms then do spontaneously (i.e., incoherently) decay at a rate $`\gamma _0`$. The rate $`\gamma _0|\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)|^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ therefore determines the time scale of light-induced decoherence at point $`𝐱`$.

It is surprising that the transformation (28) does not describe the full decoherence of the field operator but that one also has to take into account the unitary operator $`U_Q:=\mathrm{exp}[t(\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}^{})]`$. If $`\widehat{Q}`$ is Hermitean the unitary operator becomes trivial and the total effect of decoherence reduces to that described by Eq. (28). This happens whenever the phase of the laser beam is homogeneous, for instance in a standing-wave laser field with fixed polarization. The reason is the cancellation between the contributions of counterpropagating light waves. In a running wave, however, $`\widehat{Q}`$ is not Hermitean and many-particle effects do appear.

To analyse the effect of the unitary operator $`U_Q`$ it is convenient to consider a fully coherent ensemble of atoms, e.g., a Bose-Einstein condensate at temperature $`T=0`$. In the mean-field description the condensate can be described (see, e.g., Ref. ) by a coherent state $`|\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(|\alpha |^2/2)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \widehat{a}_0^{})|0`$, where $`\widehat{a}_0^{}=d^3x\phi _0(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g^{}(𝐱)`$ is the creation operator for atoms in the condensate mode $`\phi _0(𝐱)`$. The number $`|\alpha |^2`$ is the number of atoms in the condensate. Our task is then to calculate the expectation value $`\alpha |\widehat{R}(t)|\alpha `$ which, after some elementary algebra, can be cast into the form

$`\alpha |\widehat{R}(t)|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \phi _0(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0t}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}]\times `$ (30)
$`e^{|\alpha |^2}0|e^{\alpha ^{}a_0}e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{a}_0^{}(t)}|0,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_0^{}(t)`$ is defined as $`U_Q\widehat{a}_0^{}U_Q^{}`$. With techniques similar to that used to derive Eq. (28) one can prove that $`\stackrel{~}{a}_0^{}(t)`$ is in fact the creation operator for another mode, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_0^{}(t)=d^3x\stackrel{~}{\phi }_0(𝐱,t)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_g^{}(𝐱)`$, whose mode function is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_0(𝐱^{},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _0(𝐱^{})\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}i\gamma _0tJ(𝐱𝐱^{})\times `$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝐱^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)}{i\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}].`$
Inserting this expression into Eq. (30) leads to the final result for the light-induced decoherence of a condensate at position $`𝐱`$,

$`\alpha |\widehat{R}(t)|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \phi _0(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0t}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}]\times `$ (34)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[|\alpha |^2\left({\displaystyle d^3x^{}\phi _0^{}(𝐱^{})\stackrel{~}{\phi }_0(𝐱^{},t)}1\right)\right].`$
Eq. (34) is the main result of this paper and describes the total effect of light-induced decoherence on a Bose-Einstein condensate of two-level atoms. It demonstrates that there are non-local contributions to the atomic decoherence. To estimate the order-of-magnitude of these non-local terms we assume for simplicity a Gaussian condensate wave function of width $`w`$, i.e., $`\phi _0(𝐱)=\mathrm{exp}[𝐱^2/(2w^2)]/(w^{3/2}\pi ^{3/4})`$. In addition we consider a running-wave laser field of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)=b\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{exp}(ikz)`$. The analysis of Eq. (34) is then reduced to a numerical evaluation of a complicated integral. To gain more physical insight we expand the exponent appearing in Eq. (32) to second order in $`t`$. Introducing the decoherence rate $`\gamma _D:=\gamma _0|\mathrm{\Omega }_0|^2/(2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ we then can write the result (34) as

$`\alpha |\widehat{R}(t)|\alpha `$ $``$ $`\alpha \phi _0(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}[\gamma _Dt(1+3iN_\lambda A(z,w,k_L))`$ (36)
$`(3\gamma _Dt)^2N_\lambda B(z,w,k_L)].`$
Here $`N_\lambda :=|\alpha \phi _0(0)|^2\lambda _0^3`$ is the number of condensed atoms in a cube of dimension $`\lambda _0^3`$ at the center of the condensate. $`\lambda _0`$ is the wavelength of resonant light. The functions $`A(z,w,k_L)`$ and $`B(z,w,k_L)`$ depend on the position $`𝐱=z𝐞_z`$ at which the decoherence is observed, the width $`w`$ of the condensate, and on the wavevector $`k_L`$ of the running laser wave. For $`w=100c/\omega _0`$ and a detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ GHz they are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. $`A`$ only has a strong dependence on $`k_L`$ for extreme detunings above 1 THz while $`B`$ is rather insensitive to the detuning.

Eq. (36) demonstrates that the additional unitary operator $`U_Q`$ does not lead to an additional exponential decay of the coherences since to first order its effect is only a position-dependent phase shift which is proportional to $`A`$. For longer times ($`t1/\gamma _D`$) the many-particle decoherence effect can become even larger than the single-particle contribution. Since in the example given above the function $`B`$ is roughly proportional to the condensate density one arrives at the convincing result that the many-particle decoherence grows with the atomic density.

In conclusion, we have shown that the decoherence of a gas of ultracold atoms in a detuned laser beams is spatially varying and depends on whether the phase of the laser beam is spatially homogeneous. If this is not the case the one-particle spontaneous emission process will be accompagnied by a significant many-particle contribution with a non-exponential decay rate. This additional effect corresponds to the expectation value of the unitary operator $`U_Q`$.

Acknowledgement: I thank Jürgen Audretsch and Konstantin Krutitsky for many valuable discussions. This project has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (Forschergruppe Quantengase) and the Optik Zentrum Konstanz.