text:
# Quantum Liouville-space trajectories for dissipative systems

## Abstract

In this paper we present a new quantum-trajectory based treatment of quantum dynamics suitable for dissipative systems. Starting from a de Broglie/Bohm-like representation of the quantum density matrix, we derive and define quantum equations-of-motion for Liouville-space trajectories for a generalized system coupled to a dissipative environment. Our theory includes a vector potential which mixes forward and backwards propagating components and non-local quantum potential which continuously produces coherences in the system. These trajectories are then used to propagate an adaptive Lagrangian grid which carries the density matrix, $`\rho (x,y)`$, and the action, $`A(x,y)`$, thereby providing a complete hydrodynamic-like description of the dynamics.

preprint: Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett., Jan 11, 2001

The causal or hydrodynamic trajectory model of quantum mechanics provides a useful glimpse into the dynamics underlying the quantum wavefunction.QTM  Starting from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, one can derive quantum trajectory equations by casting the wavefunction in polar form, $`\psi =R\mathrm{exp}(iS/\mathrm{})`$ and subsequently separating $`\dot{\psi }`$ into real and imaginary components. The resulting equations are a continuity equation for the quantum density, $`\rho =R^2`$, and “Newtonian” equations for trajectories. The distinguishing feature of these quantum equations-of-motion is the presence of the non-local quantum potential, $`Q`$, which both introduces non-local coupling between the trajectories and represents a differential geometric constraint between the extrinsic curvature invariants of a surface generated by $`z=C\mathrm{ln}R`$ and the action per unit volume of a trajectory element. This prescription introduced independently by de BroglieBroglie26  and MadelungMadelung26 , and later developed by BohmBohm52  has been used primarily as an interpretive tool where one first solves the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the wavefunction, $`\psi (x,t)`$, and then uses $`\psi `$ as an ancillary field to drive an ensemble of quantum trajectories. From this construction one can develop interpretive models of barrier tunneling, arrival times, and various other quantum effects based upon these trajectories. QTM  Furthermore, there has been a recent surge of activity to use this approach to develop new adaptive-grid based methods for performing quantum dynamical calculations. Such ab initio approaches construct $`\psi `$ directly from the dynamical information obtained in computing the trajectories. ref1 ; ref2 ; ref3 ; ref4 ; ref5  While it is unclear at this time whether such approaches offer considerable computational advantages over more standard finite-basis set or fixed grid approaches, the appeal is that by moving to a particle-based description, computational effort required scales almost linearly with the number of trajectories introduced.

In this letter we derive a causial-trajectory approach for the quantum density matrix under dissipative conditions. So far as we know, this is the first presentation of such an approach and certainly is the first ab initio application. The formal construction presented here is similar in spirit to the Wigner phase-space representation which is widely used for quantum dissipative dynamics in both the quantum and semi-classical regimes; however, our approach does not require the definition of a quantum phase space and retains all of the physical properties associated with the quantum density matrix. Secondly, we describe an ab initio approach for computing the trajectories based upon a finite-element/least squares proceedure. This provides a highly efficient and adaptive scheme which can be applied to a wide variety of systems. Moreover, the computational effort scales almost linearly with number of finite-elements/trajectories. In this letter we focus upon the construction of the underlying theory with application towards the relaxation of a tagged oscillator in contact with an environment.

The theory is initiated by writing the density matrix as $`\rho (x,y)=\psi (x)\psi ^{}(y)`$. If $`\rho `$ represents the entire system+bath ensemble, its evolution is given by the Liouville-von Neumann equation, $`\dot{\rho }=L\rho `$, where $`L`$ is the full Liouville operator which we decompose into system and bath components: $`L=L_s+L_b+L_{sb}`$. If we take the bath as an ensemble of harmonic oscillators with masses, $`m_n`$, and frequencies, $`\omega _n`$, which is at thermal equilibrium at $`t=0`$ coupled to the system coordinate, $`x`$, via a linear combination $`x=_nc_nq_n`$, then the response of the bath to this coupling is encoded in the correlation functions $`\mathrm{}(\nu (t)+i\eta (t))=x(t)x(0)/_T`$ where $`\mathrm{}_T`$ denotes the expectation value taken in the thermal equilibrium state of the bath. The real and imaginary parts of this correlation function are the noise and dissipation kernels. This procedure is starting point of many quantum statistical mechanical treatments and the result is either a master equation for $`\dot{\rho }_s`$, or a path-integral treatment for propagator. Various forms of the master equation have been presented in the literature by a number of groups including Caldeira and LeggettCL , Unruh and ZurekUZ , and by Hu and co-workersHu . Each of these is slightly different in final form due to the various approximations made over the course of the derivation. Consequently, each posses certain regions of validity. Without loss of generality, we will focus our attention here on the Caldeira-LeggettCL  (CL) model whereby the noise and dissipation terms take the form $`\nu (t)=\gamma \mathrm{}/\lambda ^2\delta (t)`$ and $`\eta (t)=\gamma m\delta ^{}(t)`$. This model is strictly valid in the high-temperature regime where the thermal excitations in the bath dominate and fluctuations of the vacuum can be ignored. Here, the master equation for the reduced density matrix is given by

$`_t\rho =\stackrel{~}{L}_s\rho \gamma (xy)(_x\rho _y\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2\lambda ^2}}(xy)^2\rho .`$ (1)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{L}_s`$ denotes the system Liouvillian where the potential energy term has been renormalized due to the interaction with the bath. For a harmonic system, the renormalized oscillator frequency is related to the bare frequency, $`\omega `$, by $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2=\omega ^22\gamma \omega /\pi `$. The last two terms are related to interaction between the system and the bath. The second being responsible for population relaxation and the third for coherence relaxation. Finally $`\lambda =\mathrm{}/\sqrt{2mkT}`$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength and $`\gamma `$ is the coupling strength.

To make the connection to a quantum trajectory scheme, we write the density matrix in complex polar form, $`\rho _s(x,y)=\mathrm{exp}(g(x,y)+iA(x,y)/\mathrm{})`$, and insert this into the master equation for $`\dot{\rho }_s(x,y)`$. In what follows, we shall take $`x`$ as the coordinate associated with $`\psi (x)`$ and $`y`$ as the coordinate associated with the complex conjugate, $`\psi ^{}(y)`$. Our Liouville space is then the two-dimensional configuration space $`\{x,y\}`$ with phase-space defined as $`\{x,p_x,y,p_y\}`$ where $`p_x=_xA`$ and $`p_y=_yA`$. The $``$ sign in the definition of the canonical momentum in $`y`$ reflects the time-reversed dynamics in the $`y`$ direction. In a geometric-optical construction, the wavefront for the density matrix is given by contours of constant $`S(x)+S(y)=c`$ with velocities and momenta are both normal to these curves. For non-dissipative dynamics, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the action $`A(x,y)`$ is separable into forward (in $`x`$) and backward (in $`y`$) propagating components:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(p_x^2p_y^2\right)`$ $``$ $`𝒱𝒬,`$ (2)
where $`𝒱=V(x)V(y)`$ and $`𝒬=Q(x)Q(y)`$. The quantum potential, $`Q(x)=\mathrm{}^2(_x^2g+_xg_xg)/2m`$, introduces non-local interactions between the trajectories but does not couple motion in $`x`$ and $`y`$. The resulting equations of motion take the form, $`mv_\mu =p_\mu `$, where upon taking the time derivative yields Bohm’s quantum equations of motion in $`x`$ and $`y`$: $`m\ddot{x}_\mu =\pm _\mu (V+Q)`$ ($``$ for $`x`$ and $`+`$ for $`y`$). We also have the continuity equation for $`g`$: $`2\dot{g}=_\mu v^\mu `$.

Taking the CL equation and using the substitution $`\mathrm{log}\rho =g+iA/\mathrm{}`$ as before again yields a Hamilton-Jacobi equation for $`A(x,y)`$:

$`_tA`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(p_x^2p_y^2)\gamma (xy)(p_xp_y)+𝒱+𝒬=0.`$
However, this equation now sports an explicit coupling between the forward and backward propagating paths. This dissipative coupling term involving $`\gamma (xy)`$ can be cast as a vector potential,$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\pm \gamma (xy)`$ where $``$ is for $`x`$ and $`+`$ is for $`y`$. Using this we define the components of the material velocities as $`m\dot{x}_\mu =p_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ which describe the velocities of the particles in the presence of dissipation.

At this point we find it easier to work in the rotated coordinate frame given by $`\xi =(x+y)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\eta =(yx)/\sqrt{2}`$. In this frame, the quantum Lagrangian is

$`=m\dot{\xi }\dot{\eta }+2m\gamma \eta \dot{\xi }𝒬𝒱.`$ (3)
Here the quantum potential is given by

$`𝒬={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}(_\xi _\eta g+_\xi g_\eta g),`$ (4)
and $`𝒱=V(x)V(y)`$. In this new frame, the canonical momenta are given by $`p_\xi =/\dot{\eta }`$ and $`p_\eta =/\dot{\xi }`$. This modified relation between the canonical momenta and the Lagrangian is again due to the time-reversed dynamics in $`y`$. The resulting material velocities are then

$`\dot{\eta }=p_\eta /m+2\gamma \eta \mathrm{and}\dot{\xi }=p_\xi /m.`$ (5)
Finally, the continuity equation for $`g`$ is given in the rotated frame as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[_\xi \dot{\xi }+_\eta \dot{\eta }\right]+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{\lambda ^2}}\eta ^2.`$ (6)
This equation includes a term proportional to $`\eta ^2`$ which dampens components of the density matrix which are far from the diagonal axis leaving the elements along the $`\xi `$-axis unchanged. This is the process of decoherence, i.e. the dynamical diagonalization of the density matrix due to the interaction with the environment. footnote

We take as an example problem the case of harmonic oscillator embedded in a dissipative bath. Such a system could easily represent a vibrational coordinate of a molecule that has been displaced from its equilibrium position by some action at $`t=0`$. Our computational methodology. is based upon the moving weighted least-squares (MWLS) method reported by Lopreore and Wyatt and reader is referred to Ref.ref1  for details of this approach and to Ref. ref2  for our implementation as applied to quantum wavepacket dynamics. code

Taking $`k`$ as the renormalized force constant and $`\omega ^2=k/m`$, the quantum Lagrangian is

$`=m\dot{\xi }\dot{\eta }+2m\gamma \dot{\xi }\eta +k\xi \eta Q.`$ (7)
Using the Euler-Lagrange equations, we can derive equations of motion for the Liouville space quantum trajectories:

$`\ddot{\xi }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}Q_\eta 2\gamma \dot{\xi }`$ (8)
$`\ddot{\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}Q_\xi +2\gamma \dot{\eta }.`$ (9)
Defining the semi-classical limit as $`\mathrm{}0`$ so that $`Q`$ vanishes, the equations of motion are trivial to solve. For motion in $`\xi `$ we have damped harmonic motion which is easy to understand in terms of pure populational relaxation. However, in $`\eta `$, the trajectories diverge towards $`\pm \mathrm{}`$.

This introduces a small problem in our computational scheme, namely, all of the non-diagonal grid points are swept away as the calculation progresses. To circumvent this, we re-meshed the grid periodically by discarding the off-diagonal trajectories and re-initiating $`\rho `$, $`g`$, and $`A`$ at the new points via least-squares interpolation. We also took advantage of the parity of these functions under $`\eta \eta `$ by explicitly propagating only the upper triangle of each and selecting polynomial bases which carried the appropriate symmetry. To whit: $`g(\xi ,\eta )=g(\xi ,\eta )`$, $`A(\xi ,\eta )=A(\xi ,\eta )`$, $`Q(\xi ,\eta )=Q(\xi ,\eta )`$, $`v_\xi (\xi ,\eta )=v_\xi (\xi ,\eta )`$, $`v_\eta (\xi ,\eta )=v_\eta (\xi ,\eta )`$. These symmetries were enforced throughout the calculation.

As an initial example, we consider the relaxation of a density matrix corresponding to the ground state displaced from equilibrium by a shift in $`x`$.

$`g(0)=g_o{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sigma _o^2}}((\xi \xi _o)^2+\eta ^2)`$ (10)
In the plots shown here, we scaled the time units in terms of the oscillator period $`\tau =2\pi /\omega `$ and lengths by the initial width of the gaussian density matrix, $`\sigma _o^2=\mathrm{}/m\omega `$.

In the Fig. 1, we show an ensemble of quantum trajectories corresponding to diagonal element of the density matrix (i.e. $`\eta =0`$) at $`kT=2.5\mathrm{}\omega `$ in the underdamped $`(\gamma /\omega =0.25)`$ and critically damped $`(\gamma /\omega =1)`$ regimes. The superimposed dashed line is the semi-classical trajectory obtained by solving Eq.8 in the limit of $`\mathrm{}0`$. As one expects, the the semi-classical result follows the peak of the gaussian. Furthermore, the diagonal trajectories are not allowed to cross one another. This is a directly analogous to the non-crossing rule for ordinary quantum trajectories. Each diagonal element carries a unique population trajectory which must remain single-valued. As time progresses the trajectories become stationary corresponding to thermal equilibrium.

In Fig. 2 we show the time evolution of the gaussian coefficients $`\sigma _\xi `$ and $`\sigma _\eta `$ for various temperatures and coupling constants. At thermal equilibrium, these quantities should become stationary and can be computed from equilibrium statistical mechanics,

$`\sigma _{\xi ,eq}^2=\sigma _o^2\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{}\omega \beta /2)`$ (11)
$`\sigma _{\eta ,eq}^2=\sigma _o^2\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{}\omega \beta /2).`$ (12)
For the critically damped case, we see exponential relaxation back to equilibrium. For $`\sigma _\xi `$, the relaxation is largely independent of temperature and each case reaches the equilibrium value at $`t/\tau =1`$. The relaxation of the coherence width, $`\sigma _\eta `$, shows a strong temperature dependence, relaxing faster at higher temperatures. Moreover, the time-scale for coherence relaxation is considerably shorter than in $`\sigma _\xi `$. This is due to the fact that the thermal de Broglie wavelength, $`\lambda `$, sets both a length and time-scale for decoherence.zurek  As temperature increases, this length decreases and the relaxation rate increases. The underdamped case shows rather interesting dynamics by relaxing through a series of intermediate plateaus. Finally, the overdamped case relaxes slower than the critically damped without the plateaus seen in the underdamped case.

The picture we are lead to is that the dissipative coupling to the environment causes a net flux of trajectory elements (representing population coherence information) towards $`\eta \pm \mathrm{}`$ and causes the populations along the $`\eta =0`$ axis to relax to some lowest energy configuration. At $`T=0`$ this would be the quantum ground state of the system. At finite temperature the system becomes stretched in $`\xi `$ reflecting a thermal distribution of energy states. Furthermore, the coherence length as set by the de Broglie wavelength, becomes more and more short ranged as $`T`$ increases causing the system to become localized in $`\eta `$, effectively diagonalizing the density matrix. In the equations-of-motion, both the quantum potential and the vector potential, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, force particles to stream outwards in $`\eta `$ away from the diagonal. Consequently, even when the system becomes stationary (i.e. $`\dot{g}=0`$) the trajectories themselves remain in constant motion reflecting the continuous influx and efflux of energy between the system and the bath and the continuous streaming of coherence from the system into the bath degrees of freedom. This continual “production” of coherence is ultimately traced to the non-local nature of the quantum potential, $`𝒬`$.

We present here a novel extension of the de Brogile/Bohm quantum theory of motion into Liouville space and use this to propagate quantum trajectories for the density matrix of a system in contact with a thermal bath. This approach opens a clear avenue to a number of new semi-classical and quantum-classical approximations for the quantum density matrix. Furthermore, the formalism itself offers an interesting dynamical twist to interpreting decoherence and population relaxation.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, the Robert Welch Foundation, and by the State of Texas Advanced Research Program. We thank Prof. R. E. Wyatt (U. Texas) for many discussions over the course of this work.


format: text

text:
# Almost Kähler deformation quantization

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(M,\{,\})`$ be a Poisson manifold. Denote by $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$ the space of formal series in $`\nu `$ with coefficients from $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. Deformation quantization on $`(M,\{,\})`$, as defined in , is an associative algebra structure on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$ with the $`\nu `$-linear and $`\nu `$-adically continuous product $``$ (named a star-product) given on $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ by the formula

(1.1)
$$fg=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\nu ^rC_r(f,g),$$

where $`C_r,r0`$, are bilinear operators on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, $`C_0(f,g)=fg`$, and $`C_1(f,g)C_1(g,f)=i\{f,g\}`$. A star product $``$ is called differential if all the operators $`C_r,r0,`$ are bidifferential.

Two differential star products $``$ and $`^{}`$ are called equivalent if there exists an isomorphism of algebras $`B:(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]],)(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]],^{})`$, where $`B=Id+\nu B_1+\nu ^2B_2+\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_r,r1,`$ are differential operators on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

If $`(M,\omega )`$ is a symplectic (and therefore a Poisson) manifold then to each differential star-product $``$ on $`M`$ one can relate its characteristic class $`cl()(1/i\nu )[\omega ]+H^2(M,)[[\nu ]]`$ (see ,,,). The equivalence classes of differential star-products on $`(M,\omega )`$ are bijectively parameterized by the elements of the affine vector space $`(1/i\nu )[\omega ]+H^2(M,)[[\nu ]]`$ via the mapping $`cl()`$.

The existence proofs and description of equivalence classes of star-products on symplectic manifolds were given by a number of people (see ,, for existence proofs and ,,, for the classification). The questions of existence and classification on general Poisson manifolds were solved by Kontsevich in .

Historically the first examples of star products (Moyal-Weyl and Wick star-products) were obtained from asymptotic expansions of related symbol products w.r.t. a numerical parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ (the ‘Planck constant’), as $`\mathrm{}0`$. Later a number of star-products on Kähler manifolds were obtained from the asymptotic expansion in $`\mathrm{}`$ of the symbol product of Berezin’s covariant symbols (see ,,,,,). These star-products on Kähler manifolds are differential and have the property of ‘separation of variables’: the corresponding bidifferential operators $`C_r`$ differentiate their first argument only in antiholomorphic directions and the second argument only in holomorphic ones. The deformation quantizations with separation of variables on an arbitrary Kähler manifold where completely described and parameterized by geometric objects, the formal deformations of the Kähler (1,1)-form (see ). The star-products obtained from the product of Berezin’s covariant symbols on coadjoint orbits of compact semisimple Lie groups where identified in  (that is, the corresponding formal (1,1)-form was calculated).

Another interesting case where star-products are obtained from symbol constructions is the so called Berezin-Toeplitz quantization on arbitrary compact Kähler manifolds ,,. In this quantization scheme Berezin’s contravariant symbols are used (see ), which, in general, do not have a well defined symbol product. The semiclassical properties of Berezin-Toeplitz quantization in  were proved with the use of generalized Toeplitz structures developed by Guillemin and Boutet de Monvel in . With the same technique for compact Kähler manifolds an associated deformation quantization, the Berezin-Toeplitz deformation quantization, was constructed ,. However, this construction is very implicit and it is a daunting task to calculate with its use the operators $`C_r`$ even for small values of $`r`$. In  the Berezin-Toeplitz deformation quantization was shown to be a differentiable deformation quantization with separation of variables and its classifying (1,1)-form was explicitly calculated. Thus the operators $`C_r`$ of the Berezin-Toeplitz deformation quantization can be calculated recursively by the simple algorithm from .

It was shown by Guillemin in  that, using generalized Toeplitz structures, it is even possible to construct a star-product on an arbitrary compact symplectic manifold. Later Borthwick and Uribe  introduced a natural ‘almost-Kähler quantization’ on an arbitrary compact almost-Kähler manifold by defining an operator quantization of Berezin-Toeplitz type. From results by Guillemin and Uribe  it follows that the generalized Toeplitz structure associated to these operators exists and the correct semi-classical limit in the almost Kähler case follows like in . Therefore there should exist the corresponding natural deformation quantization on an arbitrary compact almost-Kähler manifold. It would be interesting to describe this deformation quantization directly.

The goal of this Letter is to show that one can construct a natural deformation quantization on an arbitrary almost-Kähler manifold using Fedosov’s machinery. To this end we use the natural affine connection introduced by Yano , which respects the almost-Kähler structure. This connection necessarily has a nontrivial torsion whenever the almost complex structure is non-integrable. We generalize Fedosov’s construction to the case of affine connections with torsion and obtain a star-product on an arbitrary almost-Kähler manifold. In the Kähler case this star-product coincides with the star-product with separation of variables (or of Wick type) constructed in . Our considerations were very much motivated by the paper , where the calculations concerning the star-product from  were made in arbitrary local coordinates (rather than in holomorphic coordinates as in ).

It follows from the results obtained in  and  that the characteristic class of the star-product from  is $`(1/i\nu )[\omega ](1/2i)\epsilon `$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the canonical class of the underlying Kähler manifold. The canonical class is, however, defined for any almost-complex manifold.

We calculate the crucial part of the characteristic class $`cl`$ of the star-product $``$ which we have constructed on an arbitrary almost-Kähler manifold, it’s coefficient $`c_0`$ at the zeroth degree of $`\nu `$. As in the Kähler case, $`c_0()=(1/2i)\epsilon `$.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank B. Fedosov and S. Lyakhovich for stimulating discussions, and the Referee for useful comments. A.K. also thanks the DFG for financial support and the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science of the University of Mannheim, Germany, for their warm hospitality.

## 2. A connection preserving an almost-Kähler structure

In this sections we recall some elementary properties of the Nijenhujs tensor and reproduce the construction from  of a natural affine connection on an arbitrary almost-Kähler manifold, which respects the almost-Kähler structure.

Let $`(M,J,\omega )`$ be an almost-Kähler manifold, i.e., a manifold $`M`$ endowed with an almost-complex structure $`J`$ and a symplectic form $`\omega `$ which are compatible in the following sense, $`\omega (JX,JY)=\omega (X,Y)`$ for any vector fields $`X,Y`$ on $`M`$, and $`g(X,Y)=\omega (JX,Y)`$ is a Riemannian metric. Actually, in what follows we only require the metric $`g`$ to be nondegenerate, but not necessarily positive definite. It is known that on any symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ one can choose a compatible almost complex structure to make it to an almost-Kähler manifold.

In local coordinates $`\{x^k\}`$ on a chart $`UM`$ set

$$_j=/x^j,J(_j)=J_j^k_k,\omega _{jk}=\omega (_j,_k),g_{jk}=g(_j,_k).$$

Then

(2.1)
$$J_j^k=g_{j\alpha }\omega ^{\alpha k}=g^{k\alpha }\omega _{\alpha j},$$

where $`(g^{jk})`$ and $`(\omega ^{jk})`$ are inverse matrices for $`(g_{kl})`$ and $`(\omega _{kl})`$ respectively. Here, as well as in the sequel, we use the tensor rule of summation over repeated indices.

The Nijenhuis tensor for the complex structure $`J`$ is given by the following formula:

(2.2)
$$N(X,Y):=[X,Y]+J[JX,Y]+J[X,JY][JX,JY],$$

where $`X,Y`$ are vector fields on $`M`$. In local coordinates set $`N(_j,_k)=N_{jk}^l_l`$. Formula (2.2) takes the form

(2.3)
$$N_{jk}^l=(_\alpha J_j^l)J_k^\alpha (_\alpha J_k^l)J_j^\alpha +(_jJ_k^\beta _kJ_j^\beta )J_\beta ^l.$$

Let $`X`$ be a vector field of type (1,0) with respect to the almost-complex structure $`J`$. Then it follows from formula (2.2) that

$$N(X,Y)=(1+iJ)([X,Y]+J[X,JY]).$$

Therefore $`N(X,Y)`$ is of type (0,1). The latter is also true if $`Y`$ is of type (1,0) instead. Similarly, if $`X`$ or $`Y`$ is of type (0,1) then $`N(X,Y)`$ is of type (1,0). In particular, if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are of types (1,0) and (0,1) respectively, then $`N(X,Y)=0`$. Therefore, $`(1\pm iJ)N((1\pm iJ)_j,_k)=0`$ and $`N((1\pm iJ)_j,(1iJ)_k)=0`$, from whence we obtain the two following formulas:

(2.4)
$$N_{jk}^l=J_j^\alpha N_{\alpha k}^\beta J_\beta ^l\text{ and }N_{jk}^l=J_j^\alpha N_{\alpha \beta }^lJ_k^\beta .$$

Let $``$ be an arbitrary affine connection on $`M`$. In local coordinates let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^l`$ be its Christoffel symbols and $`T_{jk}^l=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kj}^l`$ the torsion tensor.

In the sequel we shall need the formula

(2.5)
$$_j\omega _{kl}+_k\omega _{lj}+_l\omega _{jk}=(T_{jk}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha l}+T_{kl}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha j}+T_{lj}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha k}),$$

which easily follows from the closedness of $`\omega `$. Here $`_i:=__i`$.

By a direct calculation we get from formula (2.3) that

(2.6)
$$N_{jk}^l=(_\alpha J_j^l)J_k^\alpha (_\alpha J_k^l)J_j^\alpha +(_jJ_k^\beta _kJ_j^\beta )J_\beta ^lS_{jk}^l,$$

where

(2.7)
$$S_{jk}^l=T_{jk}^lJ_j^\alpha T_{\alpha \beta }^lJ_k^\beta +J_j^\alpha T_{\alpha k}^\beta J_\beta ^lJ_k^\alpha T_{\alpha j}^\beta J_\beta ^l.$$

Assume that the connection $``$ respects the almost-complex structure $`J`$. Then formula (2.6) reduces to

(2.8)
$$N_{jk}^l=S_{jk}^l.$$

Thus (2.8) is a necessary condition for $``$ to respect the almost-complex structure $`J`$.

One can check directly with the use of formulas (2.4) and (2.7) that if

(2.9)
$$T_{jk}^l=(1/4)N_{jk}^l$$

then condition (2.8) is always satisfied.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $``$ be the unique affine connection which respects the metric $`g`$ and has the torsion given by formula (2.9). Then $``$ also respects the symplectic form $`\omega `$ and therefore the complex structure $`J`$.

This result is due to Yano . For the convenience of the reader we provide here a proof of the statement.

###### Proof.

Denote $`Z_{jkl}=T_{jk}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha l}+T_{kl}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha j}+T_{lj}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha k}=(1/4)(N_{jk}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha l}+N_{kl}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha j}+N_{lj}^\alpha \omega _{\alpha k}).`$ Clearly, $`Z_{jkl}`$ is a totally antisymmetric tensor. It follows from (2.5) that

(2.10)
$$_j\omega _{kl}+_k\omega _{lj}+_l\omega _{jk}=Z_{jkl}.$$

First we show that

(2.11)
$$J_j^\alpha Z_{\alpha kl}=J_k^\alpha Z_{\alpha lj}=J_l^\alpha Z_{\alpha jk}.$$

One has

(2.12)
$$J_j^\alpha Z_{\alpha kl}=(1/4)(J_j^\alpha N_{\alpha k}^\beta \omega _{\beta l}+J_j^\alpha N_{l\alpha }^\beta \omega _{\beta k}+J_j^\alpha N_{kl}^\beta \omega _{\beta \alpha }).$$

Using (2.4) and (2.1) one obtains $`J_j^\alpha N_{\alpha k}^\beta \omega _{\beta l}=N_{jk}^\alpha J_\alpha ^\beta \omega _{\beta l}=N_{jk}^\alpha g_{\alpha l}`$. Similarly, $`J_j^\alpha N_{l\alpha }^\beta \omega _{\beta k}=N_{lj}^\alpha g_{\alpha k}.`$ Finally, $`J_j^\alpha N_{kl}^\beta \omega _{\beta \alpha }=N_{kl}^\alpha g_{\alpha j}.`$ Therefore

$$J_j^\alpha Z_{\alpha kl}=(1/4)(N_{jk}^\alpha g_{\alpha l}+N_{lj}^\alpha g_{\alpha k}+N_{kl}^\alpha g_{\alpha j}),$$

from whence (2.11) follows.

Formula (2.6) takes the form

(2.13)
$$(_\alpha J_j^l)J_k^\alpha (_\alpha J_k^l)J_j^\alpha +(_jJ_k^\beta _kJ_j^\beta )J_\beta ^l=0,$$

due to the fact that (2.8) is now satisfied. Using (2.1) and the condition that $``$ respects the metric $`g`$ we rewrite (2.13) as follows:

(2.14)
$$g^{l\beta }(_\alpha \omega _{\beta j})J_k^\alpha g^{l\beta }(_\alpha \omega _{\beta k})J_j^\alpha +g^{\alpha \beta }(_j\omega _{\alpha k}_k\omega _{\alpha j})J_\beta ^l=0.$$

Using (2.1) once more, we get $`g^{\alpha \beta }J_\beta ^l=\omega ^{\alpha l}=g^{l\beta }J_\beta ^\alpha `$ and rewrite (2.14) in the form

(2.15)
$$(_\alpha \omega _{\beta j})J_k^\alpha (_\alpha \omega _{\beta k})J_j^\alpha (_j\omega _{\alpha k}_k\omega _{\alpha j})J_\beta ^\alpha =0.$$

It follows from formula (2.10) that $`_j\omega _{\alpha k}_k\omega _{\alpha j}=_\alpha \omega _{jk}+Z_{\alpha jk}`$. Therefore one gets from (2.15) that

(2.16)
$$(_\alpha \omega _{\beta j})J_k^\alpha +(_\alpha \omega _{k\beta })J_j^\alpha (_\alpha \omega _{jk})J_\beta ^\alpha =J_\beta ^\alpha Z_{\alpha jk}.$$

Cyclicly permuting the indices $`\beta jk\beta `$ in (2.16) and adding the resulting equation to (2.16) one obtains

(2.17)
$$2(_\alpha \omega _{\beta j})J_k^\alpha =J_\beta ^\alpha Z_{\alpha jk}+J_j^\alpha Z_{\alpha k\beta }=2J_k^\alpha Z_{\alpha \beta j}.$$

The last equality in (2.17) follows from (2.11). Thus

(2.18)
$$_\alpha \omega _{\beta j}=Z_{\alpha \beta j}.$$

Summing up (2.18) over all the cyclic permutations of indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,j`$, one gets from (2.10) that $`Z_{\alpha \beta j}=3Z_{\alpha \beta j}`$. Therefore $`Z_{\alpha \beta j}=0`$. Now the statement of the proposition follows from (2.18) and (2.1). ∎

Notice that if $`(M,J,\omega )`$ is a Kähler manifold then the connection $``$ from Proposition 2.1 is just the Kähler connection.

## 3. A modification of Fedosov’s construction

In this section we shall slightly modify Fedosov’s construction to obtain a deformation quantization on an almost-Kähler manifold $`(M,J,\omega )`$ endowed with a fixed affine connection $``$ which respects the almost-Kähler structure and has a nontrivial torsion. The existence of such a connection was shown in the previous section.

As in Section 2, we shall work in local coordinates $`\{x^k\}`$ on a coordinate chart $`UM`$ and use the same notation. Following Fedosov, denote by $`\{y^k\}`$ the fibre coordinates on the tangent bundle w.r.t. the frame $`\{_k\}`$.

We introduce a tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{jk}:=\omega ^{jk}ig^{jk}`$ on $`M`$ and define the formal Wick algebra $`W_x`$ for $`xM`$ associated with the tangent space $`T_xM`$, whose elements are formal series

$$a(\nu ,y)=\underset{r0,|\alpha |0}{}\nu ^ra_{r,\alpha }y^\alpha ,$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a multi-index and the standard multi-index notation is used. The formal Wick product on $`W_x`$ is given by the formula

(3.1)
$$ab(y):=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\nu }{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{jk}\frac{^2}{y^jz^k}\right)a(y)b(z)|_{z=y}.$$

Taking a union of algebras $`W_x`$ we obtain a bundle $`W`$ of formal Wick algebras. Denote by $`𝒲`$ the sheaf of its smooth sections. The fibre product (3.1) can be extended to the space $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`W`$-valued differential forms by means of the usual exterior product of the scalar forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We introduce gradings $`deg_\nu ,deg_s,deg_a`$ on $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defined on homogeneous elements $`\nu ,y^k,dx^k`$ as follows:

$$deg_\nu (\nu )=1,deg_s(y^k)=1,deg_a(dx^k)=1.$$

All other gradings of the elements $`\nu ,y^k,dx^k`$ are set to zero. The grading $`deg_a`$ is induced from the standard grading on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The product $``$ on $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is bigraded w.r.t. the grading $`Deg=2deg_\nu +deg_s`$ and the grading $`deg_a`$.

The connection $``$ can be extended to an operator on $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that for $`a𝒲`$ and a scalar differential form $`\lambda `$

(3.2)
$$(a\lambda ):=\left(\frac{a}{x^j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^ly^k\frac{a}{y^l}\right)(dx^j\lambda )+ad\lambda .$$

Using formulas (3.1) and (3.2) one can show that $``$ is a $`deg_a`$-graded derivation of the algebra $`(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$.

We introduce Fedosov’s operators $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^1`$ on $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as follows. Assume $`a𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is homogeneous w.r.t. the gradings $`deg_s`$ and $`deg_a`$ with $`deg_s(a)=p,deg_a(a)=q`$. Set

$$\delta (a)=dx^j\frac{a}{y^j}\text{ and }\delta ^1a=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{p+q}y^ji\left(\frac{}{x^j}\right)a\hfill & \text{if }p+q>0\text{,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }p=q=0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then for $`a𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one has

(3.3)
$$a=\delta \delta ^1a+\delta ^1\delta a+\sigma (a),$$

where $`a\sigma (a)`$ is the projection on the $`(deg_s,deg_a)`$-bihomogeneous part of $`a`$ of bidegree zero ($`deg_s(a)=deg_a(a)=0`$). It is easy to check that the operator $`\delta `$ is also a $`deg_a`$-graded derivation of the algebra $`(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$.

Define the elements

$$T:=\frac{1}{2}\omega _{s\alpha }T_{kl}^\alpha y^sdx^kdx^l\text{ and }R:=\frac{1}{4}\omega _{s\alpha }R_{tkl}^\alpha y^sy^tdx^kdx^l$$

of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where

$$R_{tkl}^s:=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lt}^s}{x^k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kt}^s}{x^l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\alpha }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lt}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{l\alpha }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kt}^\alpha $$

is the curvature tensor of the connection $``$. Then the formulas

(3.4)
$$[,\delta ]=\frac{i}{\nu }ad_{Wick}(T),^2=\frac{i}{\nu }ad_{Wick}(R)$$

can be obtained by a direct calculation using (3.1), (3.2) and the identity

(3.5)
$$\omega _{s\alpha }R_{tkl}^\alpha =\omega _{t\alpha }R_{skl}^\alpha $$

proved in  (the proof is valid also for connections with torsion). In (3.4) $`[,]`$ is the $`deg_a`$-graded commutator of endomorphisms of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`ad_{Wick}`$ is defined via the $`deg_a`$-graded commutator in $`(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$.

The following two theorems are minor modifications of the standard statements of Fedosov’s theory adapted to the case of affine connections with torsion. We shall denote the $`Deg`$-homogeneous component of degree $`k`$ of an element $`a𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`a^{(k)}`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

There exists a unique element $`r𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`r^{(0)}=r^{(1)}=0,deg_a(r)=1,\delta ^1r=0`$, satisfying the equation

$$\delta r=T+R+r\frac{i}{\nu }rr.$$

It can be calculated recursively with respect to the total degree $`Deg`$ as follows:

$$r^{(2)}=\delta ^1T,$$

$$r^{(3)}=\delta ^1\left(R+r^{(2)}\frac{i}{\nu }r^{(2)}r^{(2)}\right),$$

$$r^{(k+3)}=\delta ^1\left(r^{(k+2)}\frac{i}{\nu }\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}r^{(l+2)}r^{(kl+2)}\right),k1.$$

Then the Fedosov connection $`D:=\delta +\frac{i}{\nu }ad_{Wick}(r)`$ is flat, i.e., $`D^2=0`$.

The proof of the theorem is by induction, with the use of the identities

$$\delta T=0\text{ and }\delta R=T.$$

The identity $`\delta T=0`$ follows from (2.5) and the fact that the connection $``$ respects the form $`\omega `$. The identity $`\delta R=T`$ can be proved by a direct calculation with the use of (3.5).

The Fedosov connection $`D`$ is a $`deg_a`$-graded derivation of the algebra $`(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$. Therefore $`𝒲_D:=\mathrm{ker}D𝒲`$ is a subalgebra of $`(𝒲,)`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

The projection $`\sigma :𝒲_DC^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$ onto the part of $`deg_s`$-degree zero is a bijection. The inverse mapping $`\tau :C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]𝒲_D`$ for a function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ can be calculated recursively w.r.t. the total degree $`Deg`$ as follows:

$$\tau (f)^{(0)}=f,$$

$$\tau (f)^{(k+1)}=\delta ^1\left(\tau (f)^{(k)}\frac{i}{\nu }\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}ad_{Wick}\left(r^{(l+2)}\right)\left(\tau (f)^{(kl)}\right)\right),k0.$$

The product $``$ on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$ defined by the formula

$$fg:=\sigma (\tau (f)\tau (g)),$$

is a star-product on $`(M,J,\omega )`$.

Assume that the connection $``$ in Theorem 3.1 is as in Proposition 2.1. Then in the case when $`(M,J,\omega )`$ is a Kähler manifold the star-product given by Theorem 3.2 coincides with the star-product of Wick type constructed in .

## 4. Calculation of the class $`c_0`$

It is well known that to each star-product $``$ on a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ a formal cohomology class $`cl()(1/i\nu )[\omega ]+H^2(M,)[[\nu ]]`$ is related (see, e.g., ). This class (named the characteristic class of deformation quantization) determines the star-product up to equivalence. Denote by $`c_0()`$ the coefficient of $`cl()`$ at zeroth degree of the formal parameter $`\nu `$. The class $`c_0`$ is, in some sense, the most intriguing part of the characteristic class $`cl`$. Only the coefficient $`c_0()`$ of the class $`cl()=(1/i\nu )[\omega ]+c_0()+\mathrm{}`$ can not be recovered from Deligne’s intrinsic class. Also the cohomology class of the formal Kähler form parameterizing a quantization with separation of variables on a Kähler manifold differs from the characteristic class of this quantization only in the coefficient $`c_0`$ (see ).

In this section we shall calculate the class $`c_0`$ of the deformation quantization obtained in Theorem 3.2. First we recall the definition of the class $`c_0`$ of a star-product (1.1) (see, e.g., ). For a function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ on a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ denote by $`\xi _f`$ the corresponding Hamiltonian vector field. For a bilinear operator $`C=C(f,g)`$ denote by $`C^{}`$ its antisymmetric part, $`C^{}(f,g):=(1/2)(C(f,g)C(g,f))`$. A star-product $``$ given by (1.1) is called normalized if $`C_1(f,g)=(i/2)\{f,g\}`$. For a normalized star-product $``$ the bilinear operator $`C_2^{}`$ is a de Rham – Chevalley 2-cocycle. There exists a unique closed 2-form $`\varkappa `$ such that for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ one obtains $`C_2^{}(f,g)=(1/2)\varkappa (\xi _f,\xi _g)`$. The class $`c_0`$ of a normalized star-product $``$ is defined as $`c_0():=[\varkappa ]`$.

It is well known that each star-product on a symplectic manifold is equivalent to a normalized one. One defines the class $`c_0()`$ of a star-product $``$ as the cohomology class $`c_0(^{})`$ of an equivalent normalized star-product $`^{}`$. In order to calculate the class $`c_0()`$ of the star-product $``$ from Theorem 3.2 we shall first construct an equivalent normalized star-product $`^{}`$.

We introduce the fibrewise equivalence operator on $`𝒲`$ defined by the formula

(4.1)
$$G:=\mathrm{exp}\left(\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given in local coordinates as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{4}g^{jk}\frac{^2}{y^jy^k}.$$

It is well known that the fibrewise star-product $`^{}`$ defined on $`𝒲`$ as follows, $`a^{}b:=G(G^1G^1b)`$, is the Weyl star-product:

(4.2)
$$a^{}b(y)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\nu }{2}\omega ^{jk}\frac{^2}{y^jz^k}\right)a(y)b(z)|_{z=y}.$$

The following formulas

(4.3)
$$[,\mathrm{\Delta }]=[,G]=0\text{ and }[\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta }]=[\delta ,G]=0$$

can be checked directly.

Pushing forward the Fedosov connection $`D`$ obtained in Theorem 3.1 via $`G`$ and taking into account formulas (4.3) we obtain a connection

$$D^{}=GDG^1=\delta +\frac{i}{\nu }ad_{Weyl}(r^{}),$$

where $`r^{}=Gr`$ and $`ad_{Weyl}`$ is calculated with respect to the $`^{}`$-commutator.

Denote by $`𝒲_D^{}:=\mathrm{ker}D^{}𝒲`$ the Fedosov subalgebra of the algebra $`(𝒲,^{})`$. Clearly, $`𝒲_D^{}=GW_D`$. One can show just as in Theorem 3.2 that the restriction of the projection $`\sigma `$ to $`𝒲_D^{},\sigma :𝒲_D^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$, is a bijection. Denote its inverse by $`\tau ^{}`$. Then $`f^{}g:=\sigma (\tau ^{}(f)^{}\tau ^{}(g))`$ is a star-product on $`(M,\omega )`$ which is equivalent to the star-product $``$. The operator $`B:(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]],)(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]],^{})`$ given by the formula $`Bf=\sigma \left(G\tau (f)\right)`$ establishes this equivalence.

From now on let $`C_r,r1,`$ denote the bidifferential operators defining the star-product $`^{}`$. We have to show that $`C_1(f,g)=(i/2)\{f,g\}`$ and calculate $`C_2^{}`$ in order to determine the class $`c_0():=c_0(^{})`$.

For $`a𝒲`$ we prefer to write $`a|_{y=0}`$ instead of $`\sigma (a)`$. For $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ set

$$\tau ^{}(f)=t_0(f)+\nu t_1(f)+\nu ^2t_2(f)+\mathrm{}.$$

Since $`\sigma (\tau ^{}(f))=\tau ^{}(f)|_{y=0}=f`$ we have $`t_0(f)|_{y=0}=f`$ and $`t_r(f)|_{y=0}=0`$ for $`r1`$. It follows from (4.2) that for $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}f^{}g=\left(\tau ^{}(f)^{}\tau ^{}(g)\right)|_{y=0}=(t_0(f)t_0(g)+\hfill \\ \hfill \nu (t_0(f)t_1(g)+t_1(f)t_0(g)+\frac{i}{2}\omega ^{pq}\left(\frac{t_0(f)}{y^p}\frac{t_0(g)}{y^q}\right))+\mathrm{})|_{y=0}=\\ \hfill fg+\frac{i\nu }{2}\omega ^{pq}\left(\frac{t_0(f)}{y^p}\frac{t_0(g)}{y^q}\right)|_{y=0}+\mathrm{},\end{array}$$

from whence

(4.4)
$$C_1(f,g)=\frac{i}{2}\omega ^{pq}\left(\frac{t_0(f)}{y^p}\frac{t_0(g)}{y^q}\right)|_{y=0}.$$

Similarly one obtains that

(4.5)
$$C_2^{}(f,g)=\frac{i}{2}\omega ^{pq}\left(\frac{t_0(f)}{y^p}\frac{t_1(g)}{y^q}+\frac{t_1(f)}{y^p}\frac{t_0(g)}{y^q}\right)|_{y=0}.$$

For an element $`a^{(d)}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`Deg`$-degree $`d`$ denote by $`a_s^{(d)}`$ its homogeneous component of $`deg_s`$-degree $`s`$. We have to calculate $`\tau ^{}(f)^{(1)}`$ and the component $`\tau ^{}(f)_1^{(3)}`$ of $`\tau ^{}(f)^{(3)}`$. It follows from the condition $`D^{}\tau ^{}(f)=0`$ that

(4.6)
$$\tau ^{}(f)^{(k+1)}=\delta ^1\left(\tau ^{}(f)^{(k)}\frac{i}{\nu }\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}ad_{Weyl}\left((r^{})^{(l+2)}\right)\left(\tau ^{}(f)^{(kl)}\right)\right),k0.$$

Since $`\tau ^{}(f)^{(0)}=f`$, we get from (4.6) for $`k=0`$ that $`\tau ^{}(f)^{(1)}=(f/x^p)y^p`$. Therefore $`(t_0(f)/y^p)|_{y=0}=f/x^p`$. Now (4.4) implies that $`C_1(f,g)=(i/2)\{f,g\}`$, i.e., that the star-product $`^{}`$ is normalized.

Taking into account that $`\tau ^{}(f)^{(2)}`$ is of $`deg_s`$-degree 2, we obtain from (4.6) for $`k=2`$ that

(4.7)
$$\tau ^{}(f)_1^{(3)}=\frac{i}{\nu }\delta ^1\left(ad_{Weyl}\left((r^{})_1^{(3)}\right)\left(\tau ^{}(f)^{(1)}\right)\right)=\delta ^1\left(\omega ^{pq}\frac{\left((r^{})_1^{(3)}\right)}{y^p}\frac{f}{x^q}\right).$$

Before calculating $`(r^{})_1^{(3)}`$ one can directly derive from (4.5) and (4.7) the following formula:

(4.8)
$$\varkappa =\frac{i}{\nu }\delta \left((r^{})_1^{(3)}\right).$$

Denote by $`[,]_{}`$ the commutator with respect to the Wick multiplication $``$. We shall need the following technical lemma which can be proved by a straightforward calculation.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`a=a_2^{(2)},b=b_2^{(2)}`$ be two homogeneous elements of $`𝒲`$, $`(1/\nu )[a,b]_{}=c^{(2)}=c_0^{(2)}+c_2^{(2)}`$, then $`c_0^{(2)}=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\left(c_2^{(2)}\right)`$.

Using the fact that the operator $`G`$ respects the total grading $`Deg`$ and $`\delta `$ lowers both $`Deg`$\- and $`deg_s`$-gradings by 1, one can obtain from formula (4.3), and the formula $`r^{}=Gr`$ that

(4.9)
$$\delta \left((r^{})_1^{(3)}\right)=\delta r_1^{(3)}\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\left(\delta r_3^{(3)}\right).$$

We get from Theorem 3.1 that

(4.10)
$$\delta r^{(3)}=R+r^{(2)}\frac{i}{\nu }r^{(2)}r^{(2)},$$

where

$$r^{(2)}=\delta ^1T=\frac{1}{3}\omega _{s\alpha }T_{tl}^\alpha y^sy^tdx^l.$$

Since the element $`r^{(2)}`$ is of $`deg_a`$-degree 1, we have

(4.11)
$$\frac{i}{\nu }r^{(2)}r^{(2)}=\frac{i}{2\nu }[r^{(2)},r^{(2)}]_{}=c^{(2)}=c_0^{(2)}+c_2^{(2)}.$$

We obtain from (4.10) and (4.11) that

(4.12)
$$\delta r_1^{(3)}=c_0^{(2)}\text{ and }\delta r_3^{(3)}=R+r^{(2)}c_2^{(2)}.$$

It follows from (4.8), (4.9), (4.12), and Lemma 4.1 that

(4.13)
$$\varkappa =i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(R+r^{(2)}\right)=\frac{i}{8}J_s^tR_{tkl}^sdx^kdx^li\lambda ,$$

where $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Delta }\left(r^{(2)}\right)`$. Introduce a global differential one-form $`\mu =(1/6)J_s^tT_{tl}^sdx^l`$ on $`M`$. A direct calculation shows that $`\lambda =d\mu `$, therefore the form $`\lambda `$ is exact.

Recall the definition of the canonical class $`\epsilon `$ of an almost complex manifold $`(M,J)`$. The class $`\epsilon `$ is the first Chern class of the subbundle $`T_{}^{}M`$ of vectors of type (1,0) of the complexified tangent bundle $`T_{}M`$. To calculate the canonical class of the almost-Kähler manifold $`(M,J,\omega )`$ take the same affine connection $``$ on $`M`$ as that used in the construction of the star-product $``$. Denote by $`\widehat{R}=(1/2)R_{tkl}^sdx^kdx^l`$ the curvature matrix of the connection $``$ and by $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(1/2)(IdiJ)`$ the projection operator onto the (1,0)-subspace. It follows immediately from (3.5) that $`R_{tkl}^t=0`$ (see ), i.e., $`Tr\widehat{R}=0`$. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }\widehat{R}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the curvature matrix of the restriction of the connection $``$ to $`T_{}^{}M`$. The Chern-Weyl form

$$\gamma =(1/i)Tr(\mathrm{\Pi }\widehat{R}\mathrm{\Pi })=(1/i)Tr(\mathrm{\Pi }\widehat{R})=(1/4)J_s^tR_{tkl}^sdx^kdx^l$$

is closed. The canonical class is, by definition, $`\epsilon :=[\gamma ]`$. Now it is clear from (4.13) that

(4.14)
$$c_0()=[\varkappa ]=(1/2i)\epsilon .$$


text:
# Observation of superconductivity in Y2PdGe3, structurally same as MgB2

## Abstract

The results of electrical resistance (1.4 - 300 K), magnetization (2-300 K) and heat-capacity (2 - 50 K) measurements in Y2PdGe3, found to crystallize in a AlB2-derived hexagonal structure, are reported***The report of superconductivity in Y2PdGe3 has been communicated by us to Physical Review B about few months back . The results establish that this compound is superconducting below 3 K. This obervation is interesting considering that this compound is the first superconductor among the ternary members derived from the hexagonal AlB2 structure. With superconductivity being uncommon even among binary alloys derived from AlB2 structure and with recent excitement on the observation of high temperature superconductivity in Mg$`B_2`$, this finding gains importance.

Recent observation of superconductivity with Tc close to 40 K in MgB2 has caused considerable excitement among condensed matter physicists. This compound crystallizes in the hexagonal AlB2-type structure, which is made up of alternating of hexagonal layers of Al and graphite-like honeycomb layers of B atoms. This observation of superconductivity is further fascinating, particularly when one notes that this structure is generally unfavorable for superconductivity. Thus, for instance, among the rare-earth disilides and germanides having the same electron concentration (YSi2, YGe2, LaSi2 and LaGe2), only those with the $`\alpha `$-ThSi2 structure (YGe2, LaSi2 and LaGe2, structurally slightly different from that of AlB2) have been found to be superconducting; even for ThSi2, the $`\alpha `$-tetragonal form exhibits a higher Tc (3.16 K) than the $`\beta `$-form which is of AlB2-type (2.4 K). Thus, it is of interest to search for superconductors among compounds crystallizing in the AlB2-type structure, particularly to look for the ones not containing B in view of a proposal that B, being a light atom, plays a vital role to favor superconductivity in this structure.

During last few years, we have been actively involved in synthesizing new compounds of the type R2XY3, with crystal structures derived from that of AlB2 (Ref. 9). Though we noticed several interesting magnetic anomalies, in particular relevant to the fields of Kondo lattices and heavy-fermions, non-Fermi-liquids, colossal magnetoresistance, magnetic refrigeration and possibly low-dimensional magnetism, it is to be noted that none of the present family of compounds has been found (or earlier reported) to be superconducting. Here, we report the formation of the compound, Y2PdGe3, in the AlB2-derived structure and find it to be the first superconductor among this family of ternary compounds (that is, with 2:1:3 stoichiometry) with a superconducting transition temperature (Tc) of 3 K.

The samples were prepared by arc melting stoichiometric amounts of constituent elements in an inert atmosphere. The ingots were homogenised in an evacuated, sealed quartz tube at 850 C. X-ray diffraction patterns were obtained employing Cu Kα radiation and the patterns confirm that the compounds crystallize in an AlB2-derived hexagonal structure. There is an additional weak line (about 5%), which we believe is due to a parasitic phase with the stoichiometry 1:2:2. We do not find any superstructure line in the X-ray diffraction patterns within the detection limit and hence we believe that there is no doubling of unit-cell parameters (a= 4.192 Åand c= 4.000 Å) unlike in some other isostructural compounds. The electrical resistivity ($`\rho `$) measurements (T= 1.4-300 K) were performed by a conventional four-probe method employing a silver paint for making electrical contacts. The field-cooled (FC) and the zero-field-cooled (ZFC) magnetic susceptibility ($`\chi `$) behavior (H= 25 Oe) below 10 K, and the heat-capacity (C) data (2.5-30 K) by semi-adiabatic heat-pulse method were also obtained.

With respect to the high temperature $`\rho `$ behavior, there is a normal metallic behavior of $`\rho `$ with the variation of T. However, at 3 K, there is a sharp drop of $`\rho `$ (Fig. 1) to zero (within the accuracy of nanovoltmeter employed to measure the voltage drop across the leads) as T is lowered, as if this compound is superconducting below (Tc=) 3 K. To support this finding, the $`\chi `$ has also been measured at low fields (25 Oe) and we find that there is an onset of strong diamagnetism below 3 K and the divergence of ZFC and FC $`\chi `$ is typical of that expected for type-II superconductors. A comparison of the magnitude of the value of ZFC-$`\chi `$ at 2 K with that of other known standard superconductors like Pb establishes bulk nature of superconductivity. The plot of M versus H (see Fig. 1, inset) at 1.7 K is typical of that of type-II superconductors with a value of lower critical field of about 400 Oe. In order to render further support to the bulk nature of superconductivity, C was also measured down to 2.5 K and the upturn observed in the data obtained below 3 K (see Fig. 1, bottom inset) is sufficient to establish bulk superconductivity; the broadened signal around the transition could possibly due to inhomogeneities. The values of the Debye temperature and the electronic term ($`\gamma `$) inferred from the data in the range 5 - 15 K turn to be about 130 K and 2.5mJ/mol K2 respectively. If one employs this value of $`\gamma `$, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/$`\gamma `$Tc turns to be close to 3, which is far away from the weak coupling value of 1.35.

To conclude, we report the formation of a new compound, Y2PdGe3, in the hexagonal AlB2-structure and studied its physical characteristics. This compound has been identified to be the lone superconductor till date in this family of ternary rare-earth compounds. We hope that the observation of superconductivity in a AlB2-type compound, not containing B, may be helpful for overall theoretical understanding of high Tc in MgB2.Finally we would like to state that a weak superconducting signal around 7 K has been obtained even in the composition Y2PdSi3.

$``$ E-mail address: sampath@tifr.res.in


text:
# Teleportation of a state in view of the quantum theory of measurement

## I Introduction

In 1993, Bennett et al.  introduced the novel idea of teleporting a state of a quantum system from Alice to Bob using an auxiliary system shared by Alice and Bob. The first experimental implementations of this idea were reported by Boschi et al. , Bouwmeester et al. , and Furusawa et al. . In all of these papers the justification of teleportation is based on three very different assumptions: the existence of EPR states, the collapse of the wave function after the measurement and the exchange of classical information from Alice to Bob.

The existence of EPR states follows directly form the linearity of quantum mechanics; it was verified in the last two decades by many experiments, see for example  and . The collapse of the wave function after a measurement is not a consequence of quantum mechanics, it is an extra assumption that gives rise to many conceptual problems, for a review see  or the recent paper . The exchange of classical information is a well-known phenomenon in everyday life, nevertheless, if quantum mechanics is a general description of the world, as we believe, one has to be able to explain the teleportation using only a quantum language.

In this Letter we show that teleportation can be achieved by means of two suitable unitary transformations $`U`$ and $`W`$ acting on the states. The first, $`U`$, represents a Bell-state premeasurement, carried out by Alice on her pair of particles 1 and 2, which produces a superposition of four orthogonal entangled (EPR) states. The second operation, $`W`$, represents a measurement that allows Bob to change the state of his particle 3 into an identical copy of the (unknown) input state of particle 1. In the experiment of Furusawa et al. , the system is a single mode of an electromagnetic field, $`U`$ is realized by a measurement of the quadratures performed by Alice and $`W`$ by a linear displacement of the quadratures performed by Bob according to the result of the Alice measurement. Our analysis proves that this experiment constitutes evidence of teleportation without the need of any extra assumption. In the other two experiments cited above the system is the polarization degree of freedom of a light beam, only the first transformation is performed while the second is omitted. This leaves the total system in an entangled state, with Bob’s photon potentially being in one of four states with equal probability. Hence one may be tempted to conclude that ”…teleportation is successfully achieved, albeit only in a quarter of the cases”, ,. However, this conclusion rests on the problematic projection postulate in that the mixed state of Bob’s photon is interpreted as a classical mixture. As we will show, there is no evidence of successful teleportation if the projection postulate is not assumed.

The use of the collapse postulate in the teleportation scheme was already criticized by Motoyashi et al. . These authors proposed a teleportation scheme based on a conservation law -type of an explanation of the nonlocal EPR correlations. In view of the difficulties with the so-called common cause explanations of the EPR problem, see  for details, we do not follow here the ideas presented in .

To simplify the exposition, we consider two level systems, such as spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ systems, as already discussed by Bennett et al. . In the next section we give a description of teleportation using unitary transformations.

## II Teleportation

We consider three spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ systems $`𝒮_1`$, $`𝒮_2`$, and $`𝒮_3`$, with the associated Hilbert spaces $`_1=_2=_3=^2`$. Fix the unit vectors $`|+=(1,0)`$ and $`|=(0,1)`$ in $`^2`$; we write $`|\pm _i_i`$ whenever we wish to emphasize that the vectors in question are elements of the Hilbert space $`_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. The Bell basis of $`^2^2`$ is defined as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|\pm ||+),\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|+\pm ||),`$

where the tensor product of vectors is simply written as $`\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The system $`𝒮_1`$ is initially in a vector state $`\varphi =a|+_1+b|_1`$ (with $`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$), which is to be teleported to the system $`𝒮_3`$. To achieve this, $`𝒮_2`$ and $`𝒮_3`$ are prepared initially in the entangled state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{23}^{}`$. Then $`𝒮_1+𝒮_2+𝒮_3`$ is initially in the product state $`\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_{23}^{}`$.

To teleport the state $`\varphi `$ of $`𝒮_1`$ to $`𝒮_3`$, the Bennett et al.  protocol requires performing a Bell state measurement on $`𝒮_1+𝒮_2`$, that is, a measurement of an observable $`A_{12}`$ with its simple eigenvectors given by the Bell basis $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}^\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}^\pm `$.

In our analyis of the interaction between the system and the measuring probe in the context of quantum mechanics we use the notion of premeasurement . Let $`_0`$ be the Hilbert space of the measuring probe $`𝒮_0`$. Since the probe must have four orthogonal indicator states corresponding to the eigenvectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}^\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}^\pm `$, one can assume that $`_0=^4`$. Let $`\eta `$ be the initial vector state of the probe, and let $`\{\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3,\eta _4\}`$ be a fixed basis of $`_0`$. One can prove  that the most general measurement interaction between $`𝒮_1+𝒮_2`$ and the probe is given by a unitary operator $`U:_0_1_2_0_1_2`$ of the form

$`U(\eta \mathrm{\Psi }^+)=\eta _1\chi _1`$ $`U(\eta \mathrm{\Psi }^{})=\eta _2\chi _2`$
$`U(\eta \mathrm{\Phi }^+)=\eta _3\chi _3`$ $`U(\eta \mathrm{\Phi }^{})=\eta _4\chi _4,`$
where $`\chi _i`$ are four unit vectors in $`_1_2`$. The choice $`\chi _1=\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$, $`\chi _2=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, $`\chi _3=\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$, $`\chi _4=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ corresponds to a von Neumann-Lüders measurement.

Adopting this description, the state of the system and the probe after the measurement is

$`(U`$ $``$ $`I_3)(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_{23}^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _1\chi _1\varphi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _2\chi _2(\varphi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _3\chi _3\varphi _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _4\chi _4\varphi _4,`$
where we have used the notations

$`\varphi _1`$ $`:=`$ $`a|++b|,\varphi _2:=\varphi ,`$
$`\varphi _3`$ $`:=`$ $`a|b|+,\varphi _4:=a|+b|+.`$
Since the vector state $`(UI_3)(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_{23}^{})`$ is entangled, the (reduced) states of the systems $`𝒮_i`$ are not vector states but mixed states represented by the following density operators:

$`T_0^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\eta _1]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\eta _2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\eta _3]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\eta _4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_0,`$
$`T_3^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\varphi _1]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\varphi ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\varphi _3]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\varphi _4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_3,`$
$`T_{12}^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _1]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _3]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _4],`$
$`T_{012}^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\varphi _i,\varphi _j|\eta _i\chi _i\eta _j\chi _j|`$
$`T_{123}^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _1\varphi _1]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _2\varphi ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _3\varphi _3]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\chi _4\varphi _4],`$
where $`P[\xi ]`$ denotes the projection on the one dimensional space generated by the unit vector $`\xi `$. We note that the mixed states $`T_0^f`$ and $`T_3^f`$ are completely unpolarized.

It is important to realize that it is inconsistent to interpret the state $`T_3^f`$ as a classical mixture of its component vector states $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2=\varphi `$, $`\varphi _3`$, $`\varphi _4`$. Such an ignorance interpretation is incompatible with the pure nature of the entangled total state $`(UI_3)(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_{23}^{})`$ of system plus probe. Although this crucial point has been known for many years, see, e.g., the classic analysis of d’Espagnat , it is frequently ignored in the discussion of experiments involving entanglement (for a notable recent exception in the context of teleportation, see ). In fact the EPR experiment itself can be taken as a demonstration of the inadmissability of the ignorance interpretation for the reduced mixed states, cf., e.g., . Formally, this phenomenon is reflected in the fact that the decomposition of a mixed state into vector (or pure) states is never unique (for a full analysis, see e.g. ).

The same remarks apply to the reduced state $`T_0^f`$ of the probe, leading to the objectification problem, that is, the impossibility of explaining within quantum mechanics the occurrence of definite outcomes as a result of the measurement, represented by the appearance of one of the possible indicator states $`\eta _i`$. As is generally acknowledged, this problem constitutes a serious challenge to the view of quantum mechanics as a consistent and universal theory. The commonly accepted, pragmatic way of dealing with it is the application of the collapse postulate. While this seems good for (almost) all practical purposes in the discussion of most experiments, we hope the above remarks serve as a reminder of the fundamental inconsistency of such an approach.

It follows that after the premeasurement $`U`$ the state of $`𝒮_3`$ is $`T_3^f`$, and this state yields no evidence of quantum teleportation as can be seen by computing the fidelity,

$`\mathrm{tr}\left(P[\varphi ]T_3^f\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$

It is only when the collapse is postulated that one can conclude that “teleportation is successfully achieved … in a quarter of the cases.”

However, if the Bell state premeasurement $`U`$ is followed by another unitary operation $`W`$, which models the classical communication and ensuing manipulation of $`𝒮_3`$, then the collapse postulate can be avoided, thus bypassing the objectification problem.

This final step consists of a rotation of the state of system $`𝒮_3`$ depending on the result of the previous measurement. Since the probe is itself a quantum system, we can model this conditional manipulation based on a classical information transfer as another premeasurement performed on the system $`𝒮_0+𝒮_3`$ by means of a unitary operator $`W:_0_3_0_3`$,

$`W(\eta _1|+)=\eta _1|+`$ $`W(\eta _1|)=\eta _1|`$
$`W(\eta _2|+)=\eta _2|+`$ $`W(\eta _2|)=\eta _2|`$
$`W(\eta _3|+)=\eta _3|`$ $`W(\eta _3|)=\eta _3|+`$
$`W(\eta _4|+)=\eta _4|`$ $`W(\eta _4|)=\eta _4|+`$
In doing so, there is no need to account for the actual occurrence of a result, and the objectification problem is circumvented. Regarding $`W`$ as a linear transformation on $`_0_1_2_3`$ in a natural way, one obtains the final state

$$W\left(U(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }^{})\right)=\frac{1}{2}(\eta _1\chi _1+\eta _2\chi _2+\eta _3\chi _3+\eta _4\chi _4)\varphi .$$

The (reduced) state of the system $`𝒮_3`$ is now the vector state $`\varphi `$, which has been teleported with 100$`\%`$ efficiency from the system $`𝒮_1`$ to $`𝒮_3`$.

We note that since $`U`$ and $`W`$ are unitary operators, they can be realized (at least theoretically) by suitable quantum Hamiltonians.

In order to highlight the difference between our approach and the ones based on the projection postulate, we modify slightly the form of $`W`$. We define a unitary transformation $`W_\theta `$ (with $`\theta [0,2\pi )`$) in such a way that it is equal to $`W`$ save that

$`W_\theta (\eta _2|+)=e^{i\theta }\eta _2|+.`$

A simple calculation shows that

$`W_\theta \left(U(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }^{})\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _1\chi _1+\eta _3\chi _3+\eta _4\chi _4)\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _2\chi _2\varphi _\theta ,`$
$`\varphi _\theta `$ $`=`$ $`(e^{i\theta }a|++b|),`$
and the final reduced state of $`𝒮_3`$ is now

$`T_3^f(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}P[\varphi ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P[\varphi _\theta ],`$

If $`\theta 0`$, $`a0`$, and $`b0`$, then $`T_3^f(\theta )`$ is a mixed state different from the pure state $`P[\varphi ]`$, so that, without the collapse assumption or ignorance interpretation, there is no teleportation. Nevertheless, in the limit $`\theta 0`$, we have $`\varphi _\theta \varphi `$, and so $`T_3^f(\theta )`$ continuously approaches $`P[\varphi ]`$, thus leading to perfect teleportation upon reaching $`\theta =0`$. By contrast, if one accepts the projection postulate, one could say that the probe collapses into one of the four states $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _4`$, each of them corresponding to a definite value of the measurement, and, performing a coincidence detection, one could say that $`𝒮_3`$ is found in the exact target state $`\varphi `$ in $`75\%`$ of the cases. In doing so one has to face the fact that, in the limit $`\theta 0`$, the rate of correct target states \[successful perfect teleportations\] jumps from $`75\%`$ to $`100\%`$; this fact contrasts with the common understanding that Nature is continuous with respect the variation of parameters such as $`\theta `$. It is interesting to observe that the teleportation fidelity, being a statistical measure, cannot distinguish between the two interpretations of $`T_3^f(\theta )`$ (a) as a quantum mixed state – in which case one can speak of approximate teleportation as $`\theta 0`$, and (b) as a classical mixture – in which case there is perfect teleportation in 75$`\%`$ of the cases. In either case, the fidelity is $`\mathrm{tr}\left(P[\varphi ]T_3^f(\theta )\right)`$. Nevertheless this does not justify the conclusion that the two approaches are physically equivalent.

Finally we note that, in our approach, the coincidence detection can be simply interpreted as a measurement of the observable (with possible outcomes $`0`$ and $`1`$) on $`_0_3`$

$`A=P[\eta _1\varphi ]+P[\eta _3\varphi ]+P[\eta _4\varphi ].`$

Indeed, if we regard $`A`$ in a natural way as operator on $`_0_1_2_3`$, we have that

$`W_\theta \left(U(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }^{})\right)|A|W_\theta \left(U(\eta \varphi \mathrm{\Psi }^{})\right)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}.`$

## III Conclusion

We have given a measurement theoretical description of the teleportation of an unknown quantum state which takes into account the action of the measuring device and manifestly avoids any reference to the state vector collapse postulate. The teleportation process can be described as a measurement whose outcome is certain; equivalently the process is realized by the action of a unitary map. In other words, teleportation can be carried out as a deterministic process and hence does not require stochastic (or quantum) jumps in the sense expressed by the collapse postulate.