text:
# Phase-Conjugated Inputs Quantum Cloning Machines

## Abstract

A quantum cloning machine is introduced that yields $`M`$ identical optimal clones from $`N`$ replicas of a coherent state and $`N^{}`$ replicas of its phase conjugate. It also optimally produces $`M^{}=M+N^{}N`$ phase-conjugated clones at no cost. For well chosen input asymmetries $`N^{}/(N+N^{})`$, this machine is shown to provide better cloning fidelities than the standard $`(N+N^{})M`$ cloner. The special cases of the optimal balanced cloner ($`N=N^{}`$) and the optimal measurement ($`M=\mathrm{}`$) are investigated.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Bz, 03.67.-a, 89.70.+c

The concept of cloning plays a central role in quantum information theory. It is for example crucial in quantum cryptography, as the optimal duplication of a quantum state directly determines the security of a cryptosystem, or in quantum estimation theory, as cloning provides a constructive way to achieve a generalised measurement (POVM) . The optimal $`N`$-to-$`M`$ cloning transformations, which produce $`M`$ clones from $`N`$ originals, have been found for both quantum bits and continuous variables. Interestingly, producing infinitely many clones from $`N`$ identical replicas of a quantum state is equivalent to performing an optimal measurement, which reflects the existence of a close link between cloning and measurement theories. In the context of measurement, recent work has revealed that pairs of antiparallel qubits are intrinsically more informative than pairs of parallel qubits , a result that has later been extended to continuous variables: more information can be encoded in a pair of phase-conjugated coherent states $`|\psi |\psi ^{}`$ than in two identical replicas $`|\psi |\psi `$ . This property suggests that cloning machines with antiparallel input qubits (or phase-conjugated input modes) might yield better fidelities than standard $`NM`$ cloning machines, thereby opening a new avenue in the investigation of quantum cloning.

In this Letter, we will focus on quantum information carried by continuous variables, and seek for a cloning transformation that, taking as inputs $`N`$ replicas of a coherent state $`|\psi `$ and $`N^{}`$ replicas of its complex conjugate $`|\psi ^{}`$, produces $`M`$ optimal clones of $`|\psi `$. The resulting concept of phase-conjugated inputs (PCI) cloning machines will turn out to be closely connected to that of the amplification of light, just as for standard cloning . As a matter of fact, it can be decomposed as a sequence of beam-splitters, a single non-linear medium, and another sequence of beam-splitters, which is consistent with the Bloch-Messiah reduction theorem . We will start by deriving the optimal canonical transformation that acts on two modes in a coherent state with respective mean values $`\alpha \psi `$ and $`\beta \psi ^{}`$ (where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are real while $`\psi `$ is a c-number), and generates a mode whose mean value is $`\gamma \psi `$, where $`\gamma `$ is real. Remarkably, this transformation will be shown to have a structure similar to that of a conventional phase-insensitive phase-preserving amplifier as defined in , where both the signal and idle modes are used as inputs. After having derived this transformation, we will apply it to the case of integer $`\alpha ^2`$, $`\beta ^2`$, and $`\gamma ^2`$, and see how it can be supplemented with beam-splitters to provide a PCI cloning machine for continuous variables. This machine will be shown to produce $`M^{}=M+N^{}N`$ additional phase-conjugated clones (or anticlones). The quality of the clones and anticlones will be discussed in the case of a balanced cloner ($`N=N^{}`$), as well as for arbitrary input asymmetries $`N^{}/(N+N^{})`$. The related question of the optimal measurement ($`M=\mathrm{}`$) will also be treated. To our knowledge, the PCI cloner is the first example of a new quantum information-theoretic process for continuous variables, for which no discrete-variable analogue has been found yet.

Let $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`\{b_i\}`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}3`$) respectively denote the input and output modes annihilation operators of the cloning transformation. The indices $`i=1,2`$ respectively refer to the input and phase-conjugated input modes, while $`i=3`$ refers to an auxillary mode. In full generality, we are seeking for a linear canonical transformation

$$b_i=M_{ij}a_j+L_{ij}a_j^{}(i,j=1\mathrm{}3),$$
(1)
that meets the three following requirements (the sum over repeated indices being implicit). Firstly, starting with modes $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ with mean values $`a_1=\alpha \psi `$ and $`a_2=\beta \psi ^{}`$, we require $`b_1=\gamma \psi `$. We will only consider the case $`|\gamma ||\alpha |`$, since, otherwise, the problem becomes trivial: one would just have to attenuate the input coherent state $`|\alpha \psi `$ with an unbalanced beam-splitter, yielding a coherent state of amplitude $`\gamma \psi `$. To simplify the problem, we may assume that $`\beta =1`$, which amounts to susbtitute $`\psi `$ for $`\beta \psi `$. Then, we have:

$`\alpha M_{11}+L_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ,`$ (2)
$`M_{12}+\alpha L_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3)
Secondly, this transformation must obey the commutation rules $`[b_i,b_k]=0`$ and $`[b_i,b_k^{}]=\delta _{ik}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$), that is

$`M_{ij}L_{kj}L_{ij}M_{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`M_{ij}M_{kj}^{}L_{ij}L_{kj}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ik}.`$ (5)
Thirdly, the noise of the output mode $`b_1`$ of this transformation should be minimum.

Before sketching our calculation, let us note that a further simplification comes from the fact the the annihilation operators are defined up to an arbitrary phase, so that a transformation $`a_ie^{i\mu _i}a_i`$ and $`b_1e^{i\nu }b_1`$ allows us to take $`M_{1j}`$ and $`L_{1j}`$ as real and positive. Since we focus on phase-insensitive transformation, minimizing the noise amounts to minimizing the sole quantity $`(\mathrm{\Delta }b_1)^2=\frac{1}{2}b_1b_1^{}+b_1^{}b_1b_1b_1^{}`$ . Thus, using the fact that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }a_i)^2=1/2`$ for a mode $`a_i`$ in a coherent state, we need to minimize

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }b_1)^2=\frac{1}{2}(M_{1j}M_{1j}+L_{1j}L_{1j}),$$
(6)
under the constraints Eqs. (2) and (4). Rather than solving this full problem, we use here a common trick in constrained extremization problems that consists in solving a simpler problem with weaker constraints (bearing in mind that taking weaker constraints can only yield better solutions) and then checking that the solution of this simpler problem is one of the full problem. Specifically, we minimize $`(\mathrm{\Delta }b_1)^2`$ taking into account the only condition $`M_{1j}M_{1j}L_{1j}L_{1j}=1`$. Taking Eq. (2) into account and introducing a Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$, we minimize the quantity $`M_{11}^2+(\gamma \alpha M_{11})^2+(1+\alpha ^2)L_{11}^2+M_{13}^2+L_{13}^2+\lambda \left(M_{11}^2(\gamma \alpha M_{11})^2(1\alpha ^2)L_{11}^2+M_{13}^2L_{13}^21\right)`$, with respect to $`M_{11},L_{11},M_{13}`$ and $`L_{13}`$. Some algebra shows that this problem admits only one solution $`M_{13}=L_{13}=L_{11}=M_{12}=0`$, that is, the auxillary mode is unnecessary. The optimal transformation has then the same structure as that of a phase-insensitive amplifier of gain $`G`$. Restoring $`\beta `$, we get

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{G}a_1+\sqrt{G1}a_2^{},`$ (7)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{G1}a_1^{}+\sqrt{G}a_2,`$ (8)
with

$$\sqrt{G}=\frac{\alpha \gamma +\beta \sqrt{\gamma ^2\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}{\beta ^2\alpha ^2},$$
(9)
It can easily be checked that, for $`\beta =0`$ (or $`\alpha =0`$), Eq. (7) reduces to a phase-insensitive phase-preserving (or phase-conjugating) amplifier as defined in , and can be used to carry out the $`NM`$ cloning (or phase-conjugating) transformation described in  (or ).

Let us now turn to the special case where $`\alpha ^2,\beta ^2`$ and $`\gamma ^2`$ are integers (which we will denote respectively as $`N,N^{},M`$). The transformation Eq. (7) can be used as the central element of a PCI cloning machine, which is covariant for translations and rotations in phase space (see Fig. 1). Indeed, the following procedure can be used to produce $`M`$ optimal clones of a coherent state $`|\psi `$ from $`|\psi ^N|\psi ^{}^N^{}`$:

(i) Concentrate the $`N`$ replicas of $`|\psi `$ stored in the $`N`$ modes $`\{c_l\}`$ ($`l=0\mathrm{}N1`$) into a single mode $`a_1`$, this results in a coherent state of amplitude $`\sqrt{N}\psi `$. This operation can be performed with a network of beam-splitters achieving a $`N`$-mode Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), which yields the mode

$$a_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}c_l,$$
(10)
and $`N1`$ vacuum modes. Similarly, concentrate the $`N^{}`$ replicas of $`|\psi ^{}`$ stored in the $`N^{}`$ modes $`\{d_l\}`$ $`(l=0\mathrm{}N^{}1)`$, into a single mode $`a_2`$ in a coherent state of amplitude $`\sqrt{N^{}}\psi ^{}`$, with the help of a $`N^{}`$-mode DFT:

$$a_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{N^{}1}{}}d_l.$$
(11)
(ii) Process the modes $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ into a “phase-conjugated inputs” amplifier (PCIA), resulting in modes $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ as defined in Eqs. (7) and (9).

(iii) Distribute the output $`b_1`$ into $`M`$ clones $`\{c_l^{}\}`$ $`(l=0\mathrm{}M1)`$ with a $`M`$-mode DFT:

$$c_l^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}(b_1+e^{i\pi kl/M}v_k),$$
(12)
where $`\{v_k\}`$ $`(k=1\mathrm{}M1)`$ denote $`M1`$ vacuum modes. It is readily verified that this procedure yields $`M`$ clones of $`|\psi `$.

Interestingly, the amplitude $`b_2`$ of the other output of the PCIA has a mean value $`\sqrt{M^{}}\psi ^{}`$, with

$$NN^{}=MM^{}.$$
(13)
Therfore, it can be used to produce $`M^{}`$ phase-conjugated clones (or anticlones) of $`|\psi `$, $`\{d_l^{}\}`$ $`(l=0\mathrm{}M^{}1)`$, using a $`M^{}`$-mode DFT:

$$d_l^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M^{}}}(b_2+e^{i\pi kl/M}w_k)$$
(14)
where $`\{w_k\}`$ $`(k=1\mathrm{}M^{}1)`$ denote $`M^{}1`$ vacuum modes. Clearly, this procedure is optimal to produce $`M`$ clones since its central element, the PCIA, is optimal, and the beam-splitters are passive elements. In addition, the $`M^{}`$ anticlones that are produced at no cost are also optimal. Indeed, our transformation produces $`M`$ optimal clones and $`MN`$, and is symmetric with respect to the interchange of labels $`1`$ and $`2`$. So, if our initial problem was to produce $`M^{}`$ optimal anticlones with $`M^{}N^{}`$, we would find the same solution. Noting that that $`MNM^{}N^{}`$ \[see Eq. (13)\], it therefore is clear that our transformation yields both optimal clones and optimal anticlones. Furthermore, since the PCIA is linear and phase-insensitive, the resulting PCI cloner is covariant with respect to translations and rotations of the state to be copied: all coherent states are copied equally well, and the cloning-induced noise is the same for all quadrature components.

Using Eqs. (7)-(12) and (14), the noise of the clones and anticlones can be written as

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }c_l^{})^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{G1}{M},(\mathrm{\Delta }d_l^{})^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{G1}{M^{}},$$
(15)
where the gain can be reexpressed as a function of the number of inputs and outputs,

$$\sqrt{G}=\frac{\sqrt{N^{}M^{}}\sqrt{NM}}{N^{}N}$$
(16)
As expected, the variance of the output clones exceeds $`1/2`$, implying that the clones are not exactly in the coherent state $`|\psi `$. Instead, they suffer from a thermal noise with a mean number of photons given by $`n_{th}=(G1)/M`$. In other words, their $`P`$-function  is a Gaussian distribution

$$P(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\frac{1}{\pi n_{th}}e^{|\xi \psi |^2/n_{th}}.$$
(17)
rather than a Dirac distribution $`P(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \psi )`$.

Consider now the balanced case ($`N=N^{}`$, $`M=M^{}`$), for which simple analytical expressions of the noise variances can be obtained. Taking the limit $`\alpha \beta `$ in Eq. (9) and replacing $`\alpha ^2`$ by $`N`$ and $`\gamma ^2`$ by $`M`$ yields $`G=(M+N)^2/4MN`$, so that the error variances of the clones and anticlones are

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }c_l^{})^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }d_l^{})^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{(MN)^2}{4M^2N}.$$
(18)
Note that this balanced cloner is optimal among all PCI cloners in the sense that it minimizes $`n_{th}`$ for fixed $`N+N^{}`$ and $`M+M^{}`$. It is convenient to characterize the quality of cloning in terms of the fidelity $`f_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N}\right)M}=\psi |\rho _c|\psi /|\psi |\psi |^2`$ where $`\rho _c`$ denotes the state of the clones. Using Eq. (17), we get

$$f_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N}\right)M}=\frac{1}{1+n_{th}}=\frac{4M^2N}{4M^2N+(MN)^2}.$$
(19)
Let us now compare the production of $`M`$ clones from $`N`$ replicas and $`N`$ antireplicas to the production of $`M`$ clones from $`2N`$ identical replicas. The variance and fidelity of the clones $`k_i`$ obtained by standard cloning are given by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }k_i^{})^2=\frac{1}{2}+\left(\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{M}\right),$$
(20)
and

$$f_{2NM}=\frac{2MN}{2MN+M2N}.$$
(21)
Of course, in the trivial case where $`M=2N`$, standard cloning can be achieved perfectly, while the balanced PCI cloner yields an additional variance $`n_{th}=1/(16N)`$. However, whenever $`M2N+1`$, the $`({}_{N}{}^{N})M`$ balanced cloner always yields a lower variance (hence a higher fidelity) than the $`2NM`$ cloning machine. The balanced PCI cloner is also better for the anticlones: more anticlones are produced at no cost, and they have a better fidelity. Indeed, a standard $`2NM`$ cloning machine produces $`M2N`$ anticlones of fidelity $`2N/2N+1`$, which actually is the fidelity of an optimal measurement of $`2N`$ replicas of $`|\psi `$. In contrast, a PCI cloner produces $`M`$ anticlones with a higher fidelity, as given by Eq. (19). In particular, for a measurement ($`M=\mathrm{}`$), we see from Eqs. (18) and (20) that the additional noise induced by a PCI cloner is $`1/4N`$, that is, one half of the noise induced by a standard $`2N\mathrm{}`$ cloner ($`1/2N`$). This reflects that *more information is encoded in $`N`$ pairs of phase-conjugated replicas of a coherent state than in $`2N`$ identical replicas*, a result which was proven for $`N=1`$ in . More generally, in the unbalanced case ($`NN^{}`$), it can be shown that the optimal measurement results in a noise that is equal to that obtained by measuring $`(\sqrt{N}+\sqrt{N^{}})^2`$ identical replicas of the input, in the absence of phase-conjugated inputs.

We have shown that the balanced PCI cloner results in better cloning fidelities than a standard cloner. More generally, we may ask the following question: *If we want to produce $`M`$ clones of a coherent state $`|\psi `$ from a fixed total number $`n`$ of input modes, $`N`$ of which being in the coherent state $`|\psi `$ and $`N^{}`$ of which being in the phase-conjugated state $`|\psi ^{}`$, what is the asymmetry $`a=N^{}/n`$ that minimizes the error variances of the clones?*

From Eq. (7), we see that for fixed values of the total number of inputs $`n`$ and number of outputs $`M`$, the gain $`G`$ (and thus the thermal noise of the clones $`n_{th}`$) depends only on $`a`$, and varies as

$$G(a)=\left(\frac{\sqrt{a}\sqrt{\frac{M}{n}+(2a1)}\sqrt{\frac{M}{n}}\sqrt{1a}}{2ra}\right)^2$$
(22)
In Fig. (2), we have plotted $`\sqrt{n_{th}}`$ as a function of $`a`$ for $`n=8`$ and different values of $`Mn`$. (Of course, only rational values of $`a`$ are relevant here, but the whole curve has been plotted for simplicity.) In the trivial case where $`M=n=8`$, the minimum additional variance is of course zero, and is obtained for $`a=0`$. The cloning transformation is then just the identity. However, when $`Mn+1`$ , using phase-conjugated input modes yields lower variances than standard cloning if $`a`$ is correctly chosen (the lowest variance is attained for $`a0`$). Remarkably, the value of $`a`$ achieving the minimum variance is not equal to $`1/2`$ for finite $`M`$, that is the optimal input partition contains more replicas than antireplicas. In the limit of large $`M`$, however, the number of antireplicas achieving the lowest variances tends to $`n/2`$, and the curve $`G(a)`$ tends to a symmetric curve around $`a=1/2`$. This symmetry is not surprising, since $`M=\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to a measurement  and we expect that measuring the value of $`\psi `$ from $`N`$ replicas of $`|\psi `$ and $`N^{}`$ replicas of $`|\psi ^{}`$ is equivalent to starting from $`N^{}`$ replicas of $`|\psi `$ and $`N`$ replicas of $`|\psi ^{}`$. So, we have found that the optimal measurement is achieved with balanced inputs ($`N=N^{}`$). Finally, in the case where $`a=1`$, the transformation consists in producing $`M`$ clones of $`|\psi `$ from $`n`$ replicas of $`|\psi ^{}`$. This is just phase-conjugation, for which we know that the best strategy is to perform a measurement. The additional variance is therefore given by $`1/n`$, which does not depend on $`M`$. This explains why the curves converge all to the same point at $`a=1`$.

In summary, we have derived a continuous-variable cloning transformation using phase-conjugated inputs. This transformation has been shown to be decomposable in a sequence of beam-splitters, a central amplification stage, and another sequence of beam-splitters. A possible way to implement this central stage would be to use four-wave mixing. Two weak fields entering the $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ medium would then play the role of the phase-conjugated inputs, and energy would be brought to the system by two external modes in a large coherent state (see  for details). We have shown evidence that PCI cloning transformations outperform standard cloning transformations (taking only identical inputs) if the goal is to produce clones and anticlones of a state or to get knowledge about a state through measurement. The special case of the balanced cloner, which produces $`M`$ pairs of phase-conjugated clones from $`N`$ pairs of phase-conjugated replicas, has been analyzed and was shown to be optimal. As far as we know, no qubit analogue of our transformation has been proposed yet, though it is very plausible that a cloning machine that produces $`M`$ clones from $`N`$ qubits in an arbitrary state and $`N^{}`$ qubits in its orthogonal state can be defined. Another possible extension of this work would be to study the case where the number of anticlones is a free parameter (in the PCI cloner derived here, it is constrained by $`N`$, $`N^{}`$, and $`M`$). Also, an interesting generalization would be to investigate fully asymmetric PCI cloning transformations, that is, transformations whose output clones have all different fidelities. Finally, our work raises the question of why can a better cloning be achieved when phase-conjugated inputs are available, rather than identical inputs. It is known that, in standard cloning, the spontaneous emission occuring during the amplification stage is the physical mechanism that hinders perfect cloning. Thus, an open question left by our work is to understand why things happen as if comparatively less spontaneous emission occured in a PCI cloning machine.

N. J. C. is grateful to S. L. Braunstein and M. Hillery for very useful discussions at the Budmerice workshop on Quantum Information in October 2000, which have led to the present paper. S. I. acknowledges support from the Belgian FRIA foundation.


format: text

text:
# Radio Pulses from Cosmic Ray Air Showers

## I Background

It is a great honor to be asked to give the opening talk at this, the first workshop on the radio emission from high energy particles. I should stress that my involvement with the field was ephemeral and that although I was the first one to actually see evidence of radio emission from high energy particles, I have made no contribution to the field for 34 years. This invitation motivated me to open my Ph.D. dissertation, probably for the first time since its completion weekes66 , and to realize how lucky I was to be involved, albeit in a junior capacity, with some outstanding physicists in a classic experiment in radiation physics. Since I am now struck by how different the methods used in this simple experiment are from those used by the contemporary student I will belabor the experimental method and stress the historical background as best as I remember it.

Experimental physics in the fifties was still very much conducted in the shadow of post-war politics, economics and experience. The positive contribution of physicists to the war effort ensured that physics research received some support even in those austere times. Still, ingenuity and creative solutions were necessary to accomplish anything meaningful. As a graduate student in the Experimental Physics Department of University College, Dublin, I was fortunate to join Neil Porter’s Cosmic Ray group (in 1962) which was building a very high energy gamma-ray astronomy experiment. In those days graduate students really did build experiments, perhaps because little time was spent at computer terminals. Porter had recently returned to Dublin after a stint at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE), Harwell in England and continued to collaborate with John Jelley at AERE on these cosmic ray studies. It was a measure of the times that our gamma-ray telescope consisted of ex-World War II searchlight mirrors mounted on an old British-naval gun mounting and that major support for the experiment came via a grant from the U.S. Air Force. These were exciting times in high energy astrophysics (as the field came to be called) with the first X-ray sources yet to be discovered and pulsars and quasars still over the horizon. The post-Sputnik explosion in physics research was still in its infancy and its effects had not yet really reached the British Isles.

The discovery of cosmic ray particle cascades, the so-called Extensive Air Showers (EAS) auger38  opened a new era of cosmic ray studies with most interest centering on using them to explore the highest energy cosmic rays. The sharply falling spectrum meant that the events of greatest interest were detected infrequently by conventional means (arrays of spaced particle detectors). In the wake of World War II and the availability of radio equipment and expertise, Blackett and Lovell blackett41  were moved to attempt to detect EAS using radar techniques to detect the ionizing trail left in the wake of the shower. These experiments were unsuccessful (the lifetime of the ions was overestimated) and the technique was not pursued. The feasibility of using simple optical radiation telescopes to detect EAS was demonstrated by Galbraith and Jelley galbraith53  following the suggestion by Blackett blackett5\*  that the combined Cherenkov emission from all secondary cosmic rays in the atmosphere might constitute 0.01% of the night-sky light background. Since the Cherenkov radiation was concentrated in the forward direction with a lateral spread similar to that of secondary particles, this technique did not offer too much for the detection of very large EAS, particularly since it was limited to clear dark nights giving duty cycles of $`<`$ 10%; it did however lead to the development of an effective technique for very high energy gamma-ray astronomy weekes00 . Jelley jelley58a  proposed that Cherenkov radio emission at radio wavelengths might be detectable but at the microwave frequencies necessary to prevent destructive interference; the predicted signal was small although potentially detectable jelley58b . The possibility that EAS might be detectable by the fluorescent emission that they caused in the atmosphere was explored, without success, by Greisen greisen6\* ; it was later to be revived with great success by the University of Utah group utah7\* .

In 1962 G. Askaryan published a short paper in Russian in which he suggested that the particle cascade resulting from the interaction of a high energy particle in a dense medium would not be electrically neutral since the resulting positrons could decay in flight; also the cascade would accumulate delta-rays and Compton scattered electrons askaryan62 . Cherenkov radio emission could then occur at longer wavelengths where there would be coherent emission from the net negative charge. Askaryan was primarily concerned with the emission of radiation from the particle cascade that would result from the interaction of a cosmic particle in a dense medium like rock, e.g., on the moon. Since this dielectric material is essentially transparent to radio waves, it can provide a large target mass for such elusive particles as neutrinos. Askaryan also pointed out that geomagnetic effects might also contribute to separation of the charged components in the shower and this dipole might provide an additional emission mechanism. He estimated the negative excess, $`ϵ`$ in rock to be about 10%. If N = the number of particles in the shower, then instead of incoherent emission from N particles, we must consider coherent radiation from ($`ϵ`$N)2. If N=106 and $`ϵ`$=0.1, then the coherence factor is 104, a huge gain. The coherence condition would require that the dimensions of the shower-emitting region should be comparable with the wavelength. The Cherenkov emission is proportional to $`\nu .d\nu `$, so that the reduced Cherenkov emission at, say, 50 MHz compared with 5 GHz would be more than compensated for by the increased coherence factor.

The Askaryan paper appears to have gone unnoticed by experimentalists until a follow-up paper by Alikanyan alikanyan63 , on the emission of radio emission by high energy particles, was noted by Neil Porter who was asked to write an abstract for its publication in English. The paper referenced the earlier Askaryan paper but it was not available in Ireland. Knowing that Jelley had been interested in such phenomena, Porter sent a copy of the Alikanyan paper to Jelley with a note to the effect that it did not seem a very feasible technique (Porter, private communication). Jelley acquired the English version of the Askaryan paper and realized that the negative excess offered new possibilities for the radio detection of air showers. After an exchange of letters Jelley and Porter agreed to attempt a simple experiment. Since neither of them had access to radio telescopes they decided to enlist the help of the extensive post-war British radio astronomy community. F. Graham Smith, then at the Cambridge Radio Observatory, offered to assist; as he was about to take up a position of Deputy Director at the Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory, it was agreed that the experiment should be done there.

## II The Experiment

The experiment was to consist of a large area, broad band, medium wavelength, wide angle radio telescope coupled to an adjacent air shower array which would trigger the recording of the predicted radio analog signal from high energy showers at a reasonable rate. A radio telescope with these parameters is best matched by a simple dipole array. It was proposed to use the frequency reserved for the new BBC video signal at 44 MHz where a relatively noise-free bandwidth of 2.75 MHz could be achieved when the BBC transmitter was turned off. This was approximately from 00.00 to 9.00 AM (no late night talk shows!) so this was to be a night experiment with limited running time. I do not recall whose idea it was to use this band but, in retrospect, it was key to the successful outcome of the experiment. With the increased use of the radio bands for communication it would not be possible to do this today.

As the junior graduate student in the Dublin group I was assigned the task of designing and building the EAS trigger that would be used to signal the arrival of a large EAS. The design was based on calculations using analytical models of shower particle distributions. I believe these simple calculations (on our state- of-the-art IBM 1620 computer) constituted the only involvement of a computer in the experiment; computers were not involved in data taking or data analysis.

The construction of the air shower array entailed a number of trips to AERE where the array would be built and tested. AERE, as a large British government research laboratory with seemingly limitless resources, was a wonderland to a young Irish student. It was possible to put together a somewhat primitive but functional array of Geiger counters in a matter of weeks. Geiger counters were chosen because they were cheap and easily available. The simple design called for three trays of Geiger counters at the corners of an equilateral triangle of side 50 m; a trigger required a signal from each tray within 0.5 microseconds. In each of the three trays we had counters of various sizes so we could get a rough determination of the particle density and hence the shower size and its proximity. Geiger counters are slow and noisy and precautions had to be taken to ensure that the radio system was not susceptible to pickup from the shower trigger. To achieve this we planned to run the complete shower array from one battery supply, the radio detectors from another. In June 1964 the array was operated for a week at AERE (beside the Tandem Generator Building) where the trigger rate was about 2.5 events per hour, roughly corresponding to an EAS threshold of 1016 eV.

In July, 1964, the array was moved to the pastoral setting of Jodrell Bank, some 20 miles from Manchester. There, under Graham Smith’s direction, a dipole array was being assembled, primarily by Bob Porter, a University of Manchester graduate student.

With John Jelley and senior Harwell technician, John Fruin, I assembled the small air shower array adjacent to the dipole array and in the shadow of a 15 m radio telescope whose instrument shack we commandeered. As with any new experiment in the field it was an exciting time. Within a week we had the array up and running and the Harwell pair left me to operate it for a couple of months.

The putative shower radio signal was delayed by passing it through one kilometer of coaxial cable in a rack enclosed in a Faraday cage with amplifiers distributed along the line to compensate for cable attenuation. The output of the radio detector was to be displayed on the 20 microsecond time-base of one channel of a two channel oscilloscope; a time signal was displayed on the other. The scope was triggered by the air shower array with the radio pulse expected between 5.0 and 6.0 microseconds from the beginning of the trace (there was considerable jitter in the array trigger) (Figure 1). This long time-base gave a display of the radio background noise both before and after the shower and was important in establishing that any detected bandwidth-limited pulses were really associated with the shower. The oscilloscope display was recorded on 35 mm film by a Shackman camera; a small lens also brought into focus a clock and hodoscope indicating which of the smaller Geiger counters had been struck.

We quickly learned that radio pulse investigations operate in a quite different environment from that seen by conventional radio astronomy. The long integrations used by radio astronomers smoothed out the man-made pulsed radio background which we soon discovered to be dominated by such things as the nearby electric trains, the typewriters in the administration building and the erratic ignition systems of old cars driven by senior faculty. These problems were to be rediscovered by the radio astronomers who within a few years would discover the radio pulsars with very similar equipment.

Sadly I find I have no photographs of the dipole array which did not lend itself to photography (no more than the air shower array of Geiger counters did!). In contrast I have a detailed written log of those days; I was scheduled to get married in September and out of guilt at leaving all the marriage arrangements to my future wife, I wrote to her every day; romantic soul that I was, I filled my letters with day-to-day accounts of the progress of the experiment! The Geiger array ran pretty much without problems (apart from the inevitable eating of the high voltage cables by rabbits). The trays and cables were 0.5 m above ground level and kept air tight; even when the grassy area in which they were located was partially flooded they continued to operate!

The success of the experiment was in no small way due to the choice of frequency and bandwidth and relative radio quietness at that time. A chart recorder that recorded the integrated radio brightness demonstrated the nightly passage of the Milky Way and confirmed that we were indeed galactic noise-limited; the sky-brightness temperature varied from 6,000 to 20, 000. The receiver noise temperature was 450. No form of automatic gain control was used. By phasing the dipole array we were able to observe the transit of Cassiopeia A and thus determine our beamwidth (10 FWHM). This was my first experience of real astronomy using non-visible wavelengths!

## III The Results

On August 19, 1964 all was ready for the first night of data taking. John Jelley was a meticulous experimentalist and had left a check list for the night operator to complete. Radio observatories are often lonely places at night and it was a little eerie setting up an experiment in a remote location to begin operation after midnight. All was now ready to test the hypothesis that air showers produced detectable radio emission. I confess to some anticipation and excitement as I set the system to operate that first night. These emotions were balanced by my discovery the next morning that after the first event the camera had jammed and no data was taken! The next night I was more careful: I double checked the Jelley list and waited for an hour to be certain that data was being recorded.

It was Sunday morning when I unloaded the camera, checked that the various housekeeping chart recorders showed nothing unusual and developed the long roll of film in the observatory dark room. In the dark room lights I made a quick check on the film and was delighted to see on the fifth image recorded exactly what we had been looking for, evidence for a very large radio pulse at precisely the right point on the time-base. Later that day I examined the full roll of film and noted no other evidence for emission but no background events either.

This was my first experience of a scientific discovery and young that I was, I assumed this was the norm of scientific research and that I should expect such happenings on a regular basis! Little did I realize that (a) I would wait another twenty years for a comparable happening (b) that this was the largest pulse we would record and (c) there would be no other evidence for emission in the remainder of the eight days of the run. Wisely I decided I should celebrate immediately; I did not have access to a telephone on site, there was no e-mail or other way to communicate with my supervisors, so I mounted my trusty government-issue bicycle and repaired to the nearest village some miles away where I downed some good English bitter.

The next week was a disappointment. All systems seemed to run perfectly but no radio pulses were evident. We were running with just one quarter of the dipole array completed. At the end of the week we were faced with the big decision; did our preliminary run justify the effort and expense of completing the array? I opted for completing the array which was an easy decision on my part since I was leaving for a few months and the cost, which was minimal, would be borne by Jodrell Bank.

In a month the array was completed and the experiment was run on almost every night until March 1965 (I did another stint of operation in December, 1964). To my immense relief more pulses appeared but only one off-scale pulse. In some 4,500 air shower triggered events, there were eleven with clearly discernible pulses in the right delay window. There were no comparable pulses anywhere else on the event times-bases or on time-bases triggered by a clock every half-hour. Some of these events are reproduced in Figure 2.

We also performed an analysis on the traces that did not show an obvious large pulse. This analysis was done in Dublin and consisted of recording the position of the maximum ”noise” fluctuation on each oscilloscope trace. A clear peak was seen in the distribution in the anticipated interval (and none in the clock triggered events) providing independent evidence for the detection of radio emission. This data was folded with the distribution of measured pulse sizes in the large events to give the size spectrum shown in Figure 3.

## IV Interpretation

The observed rate of detected radio pulses was consistent with emission from cosmic ray air showers initiated by primaries of energy 5x1016 eV. The energy in the received radio pulse was about 1 eV. The air shower array did not give any information about the shower arrival direction and the small counter triggers did not allow a precise definition of either the size of the shower or the position of its axis. A series of follow-up experiments involved (a) use of an optical air shower to trigger on smaller showers with known arrival directions (b) operation in coincidence with the 15 m radio telescope fitted with a radio receiver at 150 MHz (c) a short run with one section of the dipole array rotated in orientation to favor North-South polarization. After 1966 (when I left UCD) the Dublin group extended the observed radio pulse frequencies into the UHF band and detected radio pulses that were probably radiated incoherently fegan70 . None of these experiments gave conclusive results on the nature of the emission but all were consistent with the hypothesis that the radio emission originated in large air showers.

Alternative radiation hypotheses were also considered including: (a) nuclear field bremsstrahlung; (b) transition radiation; (c) induction effects; (d) cosmic rays striking receivers; (e) reflection of TV signal; (f) molecular emission. Preliminary estimates eliminated all these as possible explanations of the observed radio emission jelley65a weekes66 .

In the original Askaryan paper the possibility that radio emission might also result from geomagnetic effects on the shower particles were mentioned. This concept was developed by Porter in Dublin as we built the experiment. Two mechanisms were recognized in addition to the Cherenkov radiation from the negative excess: i) the separation of the positive and negative charges as they traversed the earth’s magnetic field would create a dipole and give rise to radio emission; ii) as shower develops in the atmosphere, electrons are being moved to one side, positrons to the other by the magnetic field; the result is that the shower constitutes a current element which will also radiate radio waves. The full treatment of these processes was done eventually by Kahn and Lerche at Manchester University kahn66  and Colgate colgate67  at Los Alamos. A good summary of all aspects of these early experiments can be found in a review article by Allen allen71 . Remarkably all three processes seemed to give signals of comparable magnitude (but with the detection of polarization and the measured distribution of radio signal with frequency, the consensus now seems to be that the current element is the dominant emission mechanism).

## V Conclusions

The results from the initial experiment were published in a Letter to Nature jelley65a  and in a Nuovo Cimento paper jelley66 . They were also reported at the 9th International Conference on Cosmic Rays (ICRC) in London in 1965 jelley65b . By that time the phenomenon had been independently confirmed by an experiment performed by the UCD group in the Dublin mountains, using a helical antenna with a receiver at 70 MHz with bandwidth 20 MHz and a plastic Cherenkov detector shower trigger porter65 . These early results were given some prominence in the report of the ICRC EAS Highlight speaker, K. Greisen greisen65 , from whose paper the following is quoted: ”The technique is barely in its infancy, and too little is known about it to justify elaborate predictions. However, we feel confident that this achievement is a significant breakthrough, and that further study will reveal ways of obtaining types of information about the showers that were not available by other means. The signal will not, of course, be sensitive to fine details like the structure of the shower core; nor does the method seem adaptable to surveying at the same time all directions in which showers may arrive. However, it appears that the method may offer new orders of angular resolution; and it may complement particle detectors by being sensitive to the conditions of showers far above ground level. Also it will be able to detect showers in steeply inclined directions, in which the particles are absorbed before reaching the ground. Time will probably reveal other possibilities that are not apparent at this early stage.” Sir Bernard Lovell was to note that this experiment fulfilled the original purpose of the first telescope constructed at Jodrell Bank in 1941 lovell8\* .

This optimistic assessment led to a spate of experimental activity which was mostly aimed at an exploration of the radiation mechanisms. Interest in the field can be assessed in the numbers of papers presented on the technique in subsequent ICRCs (Figure 4). Early interest in the potential of the technique seems to have waned as it was recognized that the emission was directed and thus not suited to distant shower detection and that the man-made pulse radio background was noisy and becoming more so. Thus the early hope that radio detectors might be used in stand alone systems to detect distant very large air showers was not realized. The recent interest in the detection of showers of energy $`>`$ 1020 eV has renewed interest in the radio detection technique.

I am grateful to Peter Gorham and David Salzberg for allowing me to indulge in this reminiscence of the early work and to Neil Porter and David Fegan for jogging my memory on important details.


text:
# Qantum mechanics on non-commutative plane

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, the method of non-commutative geometry (NCG) was developed  and applied to various physical situations . By the results of string theory arguments  the non-commutative plane has been studied extensively.
Two dimensional non-commutative quantum mechanics (NCQM) is based on a simple modification of commutation relations between the self-adjoint position operators ($`\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}}`$) and the self-adjoint momentum operators ($`\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}`$) which satisfy

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[\widehat{x}_a,\widehat{x}_b]& =& i\theta _{ab},\\ [\widehat{p}_a,\widehat{p}_b]& =& 0,\\ [\widehat{x}_a,\widehat{p}_b]& =& i\mathrm{}\delta _{ab},\end{array}a,b,\mathrm{}\{1,2\},$$
(1)
where $`\theta _{ab}`$ is real and antisymmetric, i.e. $`\theta _{ab}=\theta ϵ_{ab}`$ ( $`ϵ_{ab}`$ is the completely antisymmetric tensor with $`ϵ_{12}=1`$). The spatial non-commutative parameter $`\theta `$ is of dimension of $`(length)^2`$, so $`\sqrt{\theta }`$ may be considered as the fundamental length (Planck length?). If $`\theta `$ goes to zero we obtain the standard Heisenberg algebra commutation relations.
Suitable realization of commutation relations between the position operators (the first of eqs. (1)) is given by the $``$-product (Moyal product)  defined as follows

$$(fg)(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\theta _{ab}_{x_a}_{y_b}\right]f(x)g(y)|_{x=y}.$$
(2)
The wave functions are taken as $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ and the operators $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}}`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}`$ are realized as follows

$$\widehat{x}_a\psi (\stackrel{}{x})=x_a\psi (\stackrel{}{x}),\widehat{p}_a\psi (\stackrel{}{x})=i\mathrm{}_a\psi (\stackrel{}{x}).$$

Let us remark that $`|\psi (\stackrel{}{x})|^2`$ can not be interpreted as the probability density to find the system in the configuration $`(x_1,x_2)`$. That follows from the first relation in the eq. (1).
The quantization procedure is the same as in the standard quantum mechanics. We replace the classical observables - the functions on the phase space - $`A(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{x})`$ by the self-adjoint operators $`\widehat{A}=A(\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}},\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})`$ which act on suitable Hilbert space. The ordering problem is like that in the standard quantum theory. The Hilbert space can be conistently taken to be the same as the Hilbert space of the corresponding commuting system, for example $`L^2(^2)`$: squared integrable functions on the plane with the standard Lebesgue measure. The time evolution is given by the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}_t|\psi =\widehat{H}|\psi ,$$

where $`\widehat{H}=H(\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}},\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})`$ is the Hamiltonian. The only nontrivial part of such a formulation is to give the Hamiltonian. In what follows we shall consider two dimensional hydrogen-like atom, isotropic linear harmonic oscillator and potential scattering.

## 2 Hydrogen-like atom

Two dimensional hydrogen-like atom in NCQM is defined by the following Hamiltonian (the Einsten’s summation convention in latin indeces is used.)

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}_a\widehat{p}_a+U_0\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_a}}{r_0}\right)\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}_a\widehat{p}_a+U(\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}}),$$
(3)
where $`U_0`$ and $`r_0`$ are the positive constants. We define the new operators $`\stackrel{~}{x}_a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{x}_a& =& \widehat{x}_a+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\theta _{ab}\widehat{p}_b,\\ \stackrel{~}{p}_a& =& \widehat{p}_a,\end{array}$$
(4)
which satisfy the usual canonical commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[\stackrel{~}{x}_a,\stackrel{~}{x}_b]& =& 0,\\ [\stackrel{~}{p}_a,\stackrel{~}{p}_b]& =& 0,\\ [\stackrel{~}{x}_a,\stackrel{~}{p}_b]& =& i\mathrm{}\delta _{ab}.\end{array}$$
(5)
The representation of the above commutation relations in the $`L^2(^2)`$ is well known:

$$(\stackrel{~}{x}_af)(\stackrel{}{x})=x_af(\stackrel{}{x}),(\stackrel{~}{p}_af)(\stackrel{}{x})=i\mathrm{}_af(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(6)
If we replace hat operators by tilde operators in the Hamiltonian (3) (to simplify calculations we shall use the system of units in which the mass of electron and Planck constant are equal to one) and expand the potential to the Taylor series, we obtain the first $`\theta `$ \- order time independent Schrödinger equation in polar coordinates $`(r,\varphi )`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =2\left[U_0\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)ϵ+\theta \frac{iU_0}{2r^2}_\varphi \right]\psi ,$$
(7)
where $`ϵ`$ is the Hamiltonian’s eigenvalue. We note that $`i_\varphi `$ is the $`z`$ component ($`L_z`$) of the angular momentum operator. Standard separation of variables $`\psi (r,\varphi )=R(r)\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi )`$ leads to the radial Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{1}{r}(rR^{})^{}+\left[2(ϵU(r))\frac{m^2mU_0\theta }{r^2}\right]R=0,$$
(8)
where $`m`$ (orbital quantum number) is an arbitrary integer.
In the case of $`\theta =0`$ we obtain radial equation for two-dimensional hydrogen-like atom in commutative quantum mechanics. It is an important fact that the structure of equation (8) does not change. So we can state that if

$$ϵ^C=ϵ^C(n,m^2),$$
(9)
is the spectrum of Hamiltonian in the commutative case then in NC quantum mechanics the spectrum is given by

$$ϵ(n,m^2)=ϵ^C(n,m^2mU_0\theta ),$$
(10)
where $`n`$ is the principial quantum number. We have derived the approximative formulae for the commutative spectrum (see Appendix). The results are
(i.) For the states with $`|m|n`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$ϵ(n,m^2)=\frac{U_0}{2}\left\{1+\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{m^2mU_0\theta 1/4}{r_0^2U_0}\right]+\sqrt{2}\frac{n1/2}{\sqrt{m^2mU_0\theta 1/4}}\right\}.$$
(11)
(ii.) For high excited ($`n1`$) states with zero orbital momentum ($`m=0`$)

$$ϵ(n,m^2=0)=\frac{U_0}{2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{2\pi }{U_0r_0^2}\right]+2\mathrm{ln}(n1/2)\right\}.$$
(12)
### Linear Stark effect

In the commutative theory the potential energy of an electron in an external electrostatic field oriented along the $`x_1`$ axis is given by $`\delta \widehat{H}=eEx_1`$, where $`e`$ is the electric charge of the electron and $`E`$ is the intensity of the electric field. In the non-commutative theory it holds

$$\delta \widehat{H}=eE\widehat{x}_1=eE(x_1+i\frac{\theta }{2}_{x_2}).$$
(13)
$`\delta \widehat{H}`$ is considered as the small perturbation to the Hamiltonian (3). Linear Stark effect is the change in the hydrogen-like atom energy levels due to the perturbation shift of (13) computed within the first order of the perturbation theory. It contains two contributions, the commutative one: $`\delta ϵ_{nm}^C=nm|eEx|nm`$ and the noncommutative one: $`\delta ϵ_{nm}^{NC}=nm|eEi\frac{\theta }{2}_{x_2}|nm`$. They both are equal to zero. It follows from the fact that the eigenstates $`|nm`$ of the unperturbated Hamiltonian (3) are not degenerated - this fact allows us to write the energetical changes as we have done above. Indeed, the states $`|nm`$ are of the form $`f_{nm}(r)e^{im\varphi }`$, so we have

$$\delta ϵ_{nm}^C_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{dx}_1_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{dx}_2\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{nm}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{im}\varphi }\mathrm{x}_1\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{nm}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{im}\varphi }=0,$$

and

$$\delta ϵ_{nm}^{NC}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{dx}_1_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{dx}_2\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{nm}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{im}\varphi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{x}_2}{\mathrm{r}}\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{nm}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{im}\varphi }+\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{nm}}\mathrm{ime}^{\mathrm{im}\varphi }\frac{\mathrm{x}_1}{\mathrm{r}^2}\right)=0.$$

## 3 Linear harmonic oscillator

Now, let us consider a slight generalization of the commutation relations (1) between the canonically conjugated positions and momenta

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[\widehat{x}_a,\widehat{x}_b]& =& i\theta _{ab},\\ [\widehat{p}_a,\widehat{p}_b]& =& i\kappa _{ab},\\ [\widehat{x}_a,\widehat{p}_b]& =& i\mathrm{}\left(1+\frac{\theta \kappa }{4\mathrm{}^2}\right)\delta _{ab}.\end{array}$$
(14)
The role of $`\kappa _{ab}=\kappa ϵ_{ab}`$ is similar that of $`\theta _{ab}`$ with the difference between the two quantities that $`\kappa `$ is of dimension of $`(momentum)^2`$ and $`\sqrt{\kappa }`$ plays the role of fundamental momentum. We stress that the eq. (14) with $`\theta _{ab}=0`$ is valid for a particle moving in a magnetic field in the standard quantum mechanics, but in this case the momenta are not conjugated to coordinates as it is the case here.
We would like to find some linear transformation $`(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{x}},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{p}})(\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}},\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})`$ so that tilde operators satisfy canonical commutation relations (5). In other words, we would like to transform the canonical form defined by (5) to the form defined by (14). It is possible only if $`4\mathrm{}^2\kappa \theta `$, because in this case the form defined by (14) is singular. The transformation ($`T`$) in question is of the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{x}_a& =& \stackrel{~}{x}_a\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}ϵ_{ab}\stackrel{~}{p}_b,\\ \widehat{p}_a& =& \stackrel{~}{p}_a+\frac{\kappa }{2\mathrm{}}ϵ_{ab}\stackrel{~}{x}_b.\end{array}$$
(15)
Any other transformation $`T^{}`$ of the tilde operators to the hat operators can be written as $`T^{}=TU`$, where $`U`$ is from the group of transformations which preserve the form defined by (5), i.e. $`USp(2,)`$ (for more informations about the symplectic groups and their use in physics see for example ). The operator realization of tilde operators in $`L^2(^2)`$ is the standard one given by (6).
Let us consider the isotropic linear harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian in the NC quantum mechanics

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2M}\widehat{p}_a\widehat{p}_a+\frac{M}{2}\omega ^2\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_a.$$
(16)
We express the hat operators in the LHO Hamiltonian in terms of the tilde operators using the formulae (15). We get

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a\stackrel{~}{p}_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{4\mathrm{}^2}}\right)+\stackrel{~}{x}_a\stackrel{~}{x}_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4\mathrm{}^2}}\right)`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{p}_aϵ_{ab}\stackrel{~}{x}_b\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\mathrm{}}}\right).`$
The last term in the Hamiltonian is proportional to the $`z`$ component of the angular momentum ($`L_z=ϵ_{ab}\stackrel{~}{x}_a\stackrel{~}{p}_p`$). The spectrum $`ϵ_{n_1n_2}`$ of this type of Hamiltonian is well known, so we shall write down the result

$`ϵ_{n_1n_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \theta }{4\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{M}}\theta M\omega ^2\right)^2}(n_1+n_2+1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{M}}+\theta M\omega ^2\right)^2(n_1n_2),`$
where $`n_1,n_2=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$.
If $`\kappa `$ and $`\theta `$ aprroach zero we recover the standard spectrum for the two-dimensional LHO.

## 4 Potential scattering on NC - plane

The theory of the best-known quantum systems - linear harmonic oscillator and hydrogen-like atom is formulated in the two previous sections of this work. It is natural that the next step will be the formulation of the potential scattering on non-commutative plane. Our goal is to give the NC correction to the commutative cross-section.
In the first step we remind the computation of the differential cross-section in two-dimensional commutative quantum mechanics. Let $`V(\stackrel{}{r}),\stackrel{}{r}^2`$ be the potential energy vanishing at infinity. We consider the particle of the mass $`M`$ incident (coming from the infinity) with the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, say $`\stackrel{}{k}=(k,0)`$. We expect the out-state (at $`r\mathrm{}`$) will be of the form

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})e^{ikx}+f(\varphi )\frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{r}},$$
(19)
where $`r=|\stackrel{}{r}|`$ and a function $`f`$ depends on a variable $`\varphi [0,2\pi )`$ \- the polar angle. The differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ is expressed in terms of $`f`$ as follows

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\varphi }=|f(\varphi )|^2.$$
(20)
We have to solve the following integral equation

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=e^{ikx}+\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}\mathrm{G}_\mathrm{k}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}},\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{})\mathrm{U}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{})\psi (\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}),$$
(21)
where $`U=\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}V`$ and $`G_k`$ is the Green’s function of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}+k^2`$ obeying the boundary condition (19) 333$`G`$ is given by the formula $`G(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})=G(|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|)=\frac{1}{4i}H_0^{(1)}(k|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|)`$, where $`H_0^{(1)}`$ is the Hankel’s function.. The solution to the eq. (21) in the Born approximation is given by

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=e^{ikx}+\frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{r}}\frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{i\sqrt{8\pi k}}\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{k}}^{}.\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}}\mathrm{U}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{k}}.\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}},$$
(22)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}=k\frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{r}\text{and}\stackrel{}{k}=(k,0)`$. We identify the function $`f`$ from the above equation and the eq. (19), and we get

$$f(\varphi )=\frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{i\sqrt{8\pi k}}\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{k}}^{}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}}\mathrm{U}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{k}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi /4}}{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{8\pi \mathrm{k}}}\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}.\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}}\mathrm{U}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}),$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$. The right-hand side of the eq. (23) depends on the scattering angle $`\varphi `$ via $`q`$, because $`q=2k\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)`$.
In the case of a radial symetric function $`V`$ we have

$`f(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{i\sqrt{8\pi k}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{dr}^{}\mathrm{r}^{}\mathrm{U}(\mathrm{r}^{}){\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{iqr}^{}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^{i\pi /4}}{i\sqrt{8\pi k}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{dr}^{}\mathrm{r}^{}\mathrm{U}(\mathrm{r}^{})\mathrm{J}_0(\mathrm{qr}^{}),`$
where $`J_0`$ is the Bessel’s function of the first kind444We shall use this Bessel’s function in what follows, so we remind that for any complex $`x`$ the value of $`J_0(x)`$ is
$$J_0(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{(k!)^2}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^2=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }d\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{ix}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )}.$$
.
The noncommutativity of the plane according to the eqs. (1) can be implemented to the scattering problem in the same way as it has been done in the introduction and the second section. We start from the Schrödinger equation $`H\psi =E\psi `$, where $`H=\widehat{p}_a\widehat{p}_a/(2M)+V(\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}})=\stackrel{~}{p}_a\stackrel{~}{p}_a/(2M)+V(\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}})`$. Then we replace the hat operators in $`V`$ by the tilde operators according to the transformations (4) and we perform the expansion of the function $`V`$ into the Taylor series in powers of $`\theta `$. In the special case of the radial symetric potential $`V`$ we have

$$V(\sqrt{\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_a})=V(r)\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{r}\frac{\mathrm{dV}(\mathrm{r})}{\mathrm{dr}}ϵ_{ab}\stackrel{~}{x}_a\stackrel{~}{p}_b+O(\theta ^2).$$
(25)
So, we can state, that the first NC correction to the $`f`$ function is given by the following formula

$$f^{NC}(\varphi )f(\varphi )=\frac{\theta }{2}\frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{8\pi k}}\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}.\stackrel{}{\mathrm{r}}^{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{r}^{}}\frac{\mathrm{dU}(\mathrm{r}^{})}{\mathrm{dr}^{}}ϵ_{\mathrm{ab}}\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{a}^{}\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{b}.$$
(26)
After some rearrargements we get the final formula

$$f^{NC}(\varphi )f(\varphi )=\frac{\theta }{2}\frac{i\pi e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{8\pi }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\mathrm{cot}(\frac{\varphi }{2})_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{dr}^{}\mathrm{r}^{}\frac{\mathrm{dU}(\mathrm{r}^{})}{\mathrm{dr}^{}}\frac{\mathrm{dJ}_0(\mathrm{qr}^{})}{\mathrm{dr}^{}}.$$
(27)
Note that for the potential proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(r)`$ the scattering states do not exist, so there is no analogue of the Rutherford formula within the two-dimensional quantum mechanics. But one can investigate the scattering of the charged particle (electron) on the neutral atom and obtain the NC correrction.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have presented the results on the two-dimensional systems within non-commutative quantum mechanics for the hydrogen-like atom, the isotropic LHO and the potential scattering problem. We have obtained the corrections depending on the parameter of the space noncommutativity to the classical (commutative) spectra of related Hamiltonians and cross-section. We note that two-dimensional hydrogen-like atom has the analogy in three-dimensional motion of a charged particle around the homogenous charged straight line. Some others interesting results in NC quantum theory can be found in ,-.
The main goal of the NC quantum mechanics is to find a measurable effect. Unfortunately, we cannot hope that our corrections to the energy levels of the systems in question could be experimentally verified because of its dimensionality (LHO) and experimental complications with the realization of the three-dimensional analogy of the hydrogen-like atom. In  the modification of the energy levels and Lamb shift for three-dimensional hydrogen-like atom due to the presence of the non-commutative plane in $`^3`$ were presented as "measurable". But, this type of space non-commutativity is not applicable if we insist on the isotropy of the space. In spite of this it would be desirable to use three-dimensional space non-commutativity which preserves rotational symmetry of the hydrogen-like atom problem.
The starting point of our treatment to the NC quantum mechanics are the nontrivial commutation relations between the position operators. The violation of the space parity is explicitly shown in the formulae (11), (3) and (27). It is well-known that the parity is violated if one considers the external magnetic field as well as that the CP is preserved in this case. In our two noncommutative cases (commutative/noncommutative momenta) the space parity as well as the CP are violated. The reason of the CP violation is that $`\theta `$ (and $`\kappa `$ too) are not related to the electric charge as the magnetic field. In addition, we have found an analogue to the relativistic quantum mechanics in the (perturbative) formula (11): one obtains nonzero imaginary part of the energy for very large values of $`U_0\theta `$ and properly small $`m`$. This effect is well-known from the theories of Klein-Gordon and Dirac hydrogen-like atom.
Acknowledgement. We are grateful to P. Prešnajder and P. Ševera for useful discussions. We are especially thankful to V. Balek for his help with two-dimensional hydrogen-like atom.

## Appendix

In this section we briefly describe how to find the formulae (11) and (12). Let us start with the equation (8), whose structure does not change when we put $`\theta =0`$ (the commutative case).
Let us first analyze the case of $`m0`$. If we introduce into eq. (8) a new function $`\chi (r)=\sqrt{r}R(r)`$, we get

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }+[2ϵ2U_{eff}]\chi =0,\chi L^2(R^+),$$
(28)
where the effective potential $`U_{eff}`$ is given by

$$U_{eff}=U+\frac{m^21/4}{2r^2}.$$

We expand $`U_{eff}`$ into the powers of $`(rr_k)`$, where $`r_k=[(m^21/4)/U_0]^{1/2}`$ is the point at which $`U_{eff}`$ is minimal. Harmonic approximation gives

$$U_{eff}^h(r)=U_{eff}(r_k)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(rr_k)^2,\mathrm{\Omega }^2=2\frac{U_0^2}{m^21/4}.$$
(29)
It can be easily shown that the harmonic approximation is valid only if the following inequality is fulfilled

$$\frac{U_{eff}U_{eff}^h}{U_{eff}^h}\frac{5}{3}\frac{(2n+1)^{1/2}}{(2m^21/2)^{1/4}}1,$$
(30)
where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the principal quantum number. For the LHO with the effective potential (27) one obtains eq.(11) with $`\theta =0`$.
In the second step we analyze the high excited states with zero angular momentum $`m`$. Substitution

$$v=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)\frac{ϵ}{U_0},vR,$$

in (8) leads to

$$\widehat{R}^{\prime \prime }(v)\left[\mathrm{\Xi }ve^{2v}\right]\widehat{R}(v)=0,\mathrm{\Xi }(ϵ)=2U_0r_0^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2ϵ}{U_0}\right).$$
(31)
Now, we shall investigate the asymtotic solutions to the above boundary problem. In the case of $`v\mathrm{}`$ the only acceptable solution is

$$\widehat{R}(v)_{}=const.$$
(32)
In the other extreme case of $`v+\mathrm{}`$ we have the WKB  solution

$$\widehat{R}(v)_+V_0^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}(V_0^{1/2}),V_0=\mathrm{\Xi }ve^{2v}.$$
(33)
It is important that the WKB limit is applicable for $`v>v_m`$, where $`v_m`$ is determined by the standard WKB condition

$$\frac{1}{2V_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{V}_0)^{1/2}}{\mathrm{dv}}1.$$
(34)
For high excited states with $`\mathrm{\Xi }1`$ $`v_m`$ can be approximated by

$$|v_m|\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Xi })\text{and}v_m<0.$$
(35)
The full WKB function $`\widehat{R}^{WKB}`$ is then of the form

$$\widehat{R}(v)^{WKB}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}C_0p^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\left(_v^0p^{}\mathrm{dv}^{}+\pi /4\right)& ;& v_m<v<0,\\ & & \\ \frac{1}{2}C_0q^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^vq^{}\mathrm{dv}^{}\right)& ;& v>0,\end{array}$$
(36)
where $`p=(V_0)^{1/2}`$ and $`q=(V_0)^{1/2}`$. The continuity condition of the wave function in $`v_m`$ leads to the following analogy of the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rule

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{\mathrm{}}^0|v|^{1/2}e^v\mathrm{dv}=\pi (\mathrm{n}1/2),$$
(37)
from which we, using (29), obtain instantly the spectrum formula (12).


text:
# Revisiting the calculation of inflationary perturbations.1

## 1 Introduction

Inflationary cosmology  is facing exciting times due to a new generation of ground and satellite based experiments to be carried out (e.g., the SDSS, MAP and Planck experiments ). Upcoming observations will allow us to determine the values of cosmological parameters with high confidence. To measure the values of these parameters it is necessary to make assumptions on the initial conditions of the density fluctuations that evolved into the observed large scale structure and CMB anisotropies.

In the simplest inflationary scenario a single scalar field $`\varphi `$ drives the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Cosmological perturbations are generated by quantum fluctuations of this scalar field and of space-time. Perturbations are adiabatic and gaussian and are characterized by their power spectra. Usually these spectra are described in terms of an amplitude at a pivot scale and the spectral index at this scale. For general models, these quantities are difficult to compute exactly. The state-of-the-art in such calculations are the approximated expressions due to Stewart and Lyth , which are obtained up to next-to-leading order in terms of an expansion of the so-called slow-roll parameters. This expansion allows to approximate the solutions to the equations of motion by means of Bessel functions. A recent analysis of Wang et al.  shows that the Bessel function approximation cannot be further improved. We will show below that this result depends critically on the assumptions that are made on the relative order of the various slow-roll parameters and that there are two regions in the slow-roll parameter space, where higher accuracy results may be obtained.

To reliably compare analytical predictions with measurements, an error in the theoretical calculations of some percents below the threshold confidence of observations is required. In Ref.  it was shown that amplitudes of next-to-leading order power spectra can match the current level of observational precision. However, the error in the spectral index and the resulting net error in the multipole moments of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies might be large due to a long lever arm for wave numbers far away from the pivot scale . A clever choice of the pivot point is essential  for todays and future precision measurements. The slow-roll expressions as calculated in  are not precise enough for the Planck experiment . Recently, Stewart and Gong  presented a new method, also based on the slow-roll expansion, that allows to obtain analytical expressions at higher orders in the slow-roll parameters.

In this paper we show that the Bessel function approximation can be improved to higher orders, without being in conflict with the general argument of . We calculate the amplitudes and indices of the scalar and tensorial perturbations up to higher orders for two specific classes of inflationary models. The first class contains all models that are ‘close’ to power-law inflation, one example is chaotic inflation with $`V\varphi ^\alpha `$. Our second class of models is characterized by extremely slow rolling, an example is inflation near a maximum.

## 2 The standard formulas

Let us quickly review the derivation and results of the Bessel function approximation. The slow-roll parameters are defined as, ,

$$ϵ(\varphi )\frac{2}{\kappa }\left[\frac{H^{}}{H}\right]^2,\eta (\varphi )\frac{2}{\kappa }\frac{H^{\prime \prime }}{H},\xi (\varphi )\frac{2}{\kappa }\left(\frac{H^{}H^{\prime \prime \prime }}{H^2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(1)
with the equations of motion

$$\frac{\dot{ϵ}}{H}=2ϵ(ϵ\eta ),\frac{\dot{\eta }}{H}=ϵ\eta \xi ^2.$$
(2)
$`H`$ is the Hubble rate, dot and prime denote derivatives with respect to cosmic time and $`\varphi `$, $`\kappa =8\pi /m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$, and $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass. By definition $`ϵ0`$ and it has to be less than unity for inflation to proceed.

### 2.1 Amplitudes of inflationary perturbations

We call standard those formulas which are considered to be the state-of-the-art in the analytical calculation of perturbations spectra, i.e, those obtained by Stewart and Lyth .

The general expression for the spectrum of the curvature perturbations is

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k)=\sqrt{\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}}\left|\frac{u_k}{z}\right|.$$
(3)
$`u_k(\tau )`$ are solutions of the mode equation

$$\frac{d^2u_k}{d\tau ^2}+\left(k^2\frac{1}{z}\frac{d^2z}{d\tau ^2}\right)u_k=0,$$
(4)
where $`\tau `$ is the conformal time and $`z`$ is defined as $`za\dot{\varphi }/H`$. The potential of the mode equation (4) reads

$$\frac{1}{z}\frac{d^2z}{d\tau ^2}=2a^2H^2\left(1+ϵ\frac{3}{2}\eta +ϵ^22ϵ\eta +\frac{1}{2}\eta ^2+\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2\right).$$
(5)
Despite its appearance as an expansion in slow-roll parameters, Eq. (5) is an exact expression.

The crucial point in the Stewart and Lyth calculations is to use the solution for power-law inflation (where the slow-roll parameters are constant and equal each other) as a pivot expression to look for a general solution in terms of a slow-roll expansion. An answer to whether the slow-roll parameters can be regarded as constants that differ from each other is found it looking at the exact equations of motion (2).

The standard procedure is to consider the slow-roll parameters so small that second order terms in any expression can be neglected. Now $`aH`$ in (5) can be replaced with help of $`(aH)^1\tau (1ϵ)`$. Then, according with Eq. (2) the slow-roll parameters can be fairly regarded as constants and Eq. (4) becomes a Bessel equation readily solved. From that solution the scalar amplitudes are written as

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k)=2^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2})}(1ϵ)^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{m_{Pl}^2}\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH},$$
(6)
where $`\nu `$ is given by

$$\nu =\frac{1+ϵ\eta }{1ϵ}+\frac{1}{2},$$
(7)
and $`k`$ is the wavenumber corresponding to the scale matching the Hubble radius. Expanding solution (6) with $`\nu `$ given by $`\nu =3/2+2ϵ\eta `$ and truncating the results to first order in $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ the standard general expression for the scalar spectrum is obtained,

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\left[1(2C+1)ϵ+C\eta \right]\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH},$$
(8)
where $`C=2+\mathrm{ln}2+\gamma 0.73`$ is a numerical constant, and $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant that arises when expanding the Gamma function. Eq. (8) is called the next-to-leading order expression for the spectrum amplitudes of scalar perturbations, and from it the leading order is recovered by neglecting first order terms for $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$.

The corresponding equation of motion for the tensorial modes is

$$\frac{d^2v_k}{d\tau ^2}+\left(k^2\frac{1}{a}\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}\right)v_k=0,$$
(9)
where,

$$\frac{1}{a}\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}=2a^2H^2\left(1\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right).$$
(10)
Neglecting any order of $`ϵ`$ higher than the first one, Eq. (10) can be written as

$$\frac{1}{a}\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}=\frac{1}{\tau ^2}\left(\mu ^2\frac{1}{4}\right),$$
(11)
where,

$$\mu =\frac{1}{1ϵ}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}+ϵ.$$
(12)
This way, Eq. (9) can be also approximated as a Bessel equation with solution,

$$𝒫_g^{1/2}(k)=2^{\nu \frac{3}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2})}(1ϵ)^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa }}{\pi }H|_{k=aH}.$$
(13)
Substituting $`\mu `$ given by Eq. (12) in Eq. (13), expanding on $`ϵ`$ and truncating to first order, the Stewart-Lyth next-to-leading order result is obtained

$$𝒫_g^{1/2}=\left[1(C+1)ϵ\right]\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa }}{\pi }H|_{k=aH}.$$
(14)
The leading order equation is recovered by neglecting $`ϵ`$.

### 2.2 The spectral indices

To derive the expressions for the spectral indices we introduce here a variation of the standard procedure that has the advantage to allow a careful bookkeeping of the order of slow-roll expressions.

First, let us assume the following ansatz for the power spectrum of general inflationary models,

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}=h(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )f(ϵ,\eta ,\xi ),$$
(15)
where $`f(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )`$ may be written as a Taylor expansion while $`h(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )`$ is a general function which may be singular or discontinuous at $`ϵ=0`$. Note that any function can be decomposed into this form. We must also consider the following function of the slow-roll parameters:

$$\frac{\kappa }{2}\frac{H}{H^{}}\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{1}{1ϵ}g(ϵ,\eta ,\xi ).$$
(16)
In this expression all of the parameters are to be evaluated at values of $`\varphi `$ corresponding to $`k=aH`$. The functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ can be expanded in Taylor series,

$`f(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`a_{00}+a_{10}ϵ+a_{20}\eta +a_{30}\xi `$ (17)
$`+`$ $`a_{11}ϵ^2+a_{12}ϵ\eta +a_{13}ϵ\xi +a_{22}\eta ^2+a_{23}\eta \xi +a_{33}\xi ^2\mathrm{},`$
$`g(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`(1+ϵ+ϵ^2+\mathrm{}).`$ (18)
We proceed with the derivation of the equations for the scalar spectral index

$$n_S(k)1\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_R}{d\mathrm{ln}k}.$$
(19)
From Eq. (15) we obtain

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}}{d\varphi }=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}h(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )}{d\varphi }+\frac{d}{d\varphi }\left[P(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )\frac{P^2(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )}{2}+\frac{P^3(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )}{3}\mathrm{}\right],$$

where

$$P(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )=\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}ϵ+\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}\eta +\stackrel{~}{a}_{30}\xi +\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}ϵ^2+\stackrel{~}{a}_{12}ϵ\eta +\stackrel{~}{a}_{13}ϵ\xi +\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}\eta ^2+\stackrel{~}{a}_{23}\eta \xi +\stackrel{~}{a}_{33}\xi ^2+\mathrm{},$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}a_{ij}/a_{00}`$. After differentiation,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}}{d\varphi }=\frac{1}{h}\frac{dh}{d\varphi }+\left(1P(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )+P^2(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )\mathrm{}\right)P^{}(ϵ,\eta ,\xi ,ϵ^{},\eta ^{},\xi ^{}),$$
(20)
where,

$$P^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}ϵ^{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}\eta ^{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_{30}\xi ^{}+2\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}ϵϵ^{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_{12}\left(ϵ\eta \right)^{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_{13}\left(ϵ\xi \right)^{}+2\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}\eta \eta ^{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_{23}\left(\eta \xi \right)^{}+2\stackrel{~}{a}_{33}\xi \xi ^{}$$

plus higher order derivatives. Using Eqs. (16) and (18), and the definitions of the slow-roll parameters (1) we obtain that

$$\frac{n_S1}{2}=\left[\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa }}\sqrt{ϵ}\frac{h^{}}{h}+\left(1P+P^2\mathrm{}\right)P^{}\right](1+ϵ+ϵ^2+ϵ^3+\mathrm{}),$$
(21)
where $`P^{}`$ is written now as,

$$P^{}=2\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}ϵ(ϵ\eta )+\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}(ϵ\eta \xi ^2)+\stackrel{~}{a}_{30}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa }ϵ}\xi ^{}+4\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}ϵ^2(ϵ\eta )+\mathrm{}+2\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}\eta (ϵ\eta \xi ^2)\mathrm{}.$$
(22)
Expression (21) can be used to any order whenever information on the function $`h`$ and the coefficients of the expansion (17) is available. The standard result of Stewart and Lyth, Eq. (8), has been tested as a reliable approximation for the scalar spectrum of general inflationary models . Then, it is reasonable to assume

$`h(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}}|_{k=aH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\sqrt{ϵ}}},`$ (23)
$`a_{00}=1,a_{10}=(2C+1),a_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`C.`$ (24)
With these assumptions, and ignoring the assumptions (constant slow-roll parameters) used to obtain Eq. (8), it is obtained that

$$\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa }}\sqrt{ϵ}\frac{h^{}}{h}=2ϵ+\eta ,$$
(25)
and to second order (the order for which information on the coefficients for (22) is available from Eq. (8)), expression (21) reduces to

$$n_S1=4ϵ+2\eta 8(C+1)ϵ^2+2(5C+3)ϵ\eta 2C\xi ^2,$$
(26)
which is the standard result for the scalar spectral index.

The equation of the tensorial index can be derived in a similar way. By definition

$$n_T(k)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_g}{d\mathrm{ln}k}.$$
(27)
The standard equation for tensorial modes is given by Eq. (14). If we now use expression (21) substituting $`n_S1`$ by $`n_T`$ and

$`h(ϵ,\eta ,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\kappa }}{\pi }}H,`$ (28)
$`a_{00}=1,a_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`(C+1),`$ (29)
then we obtain

$$\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa }}\sqrt{ϵ}\frac{h^{}}{h}=ϵ,$$
(30)
and the standard expression,

$$n_T=2ϵ2(2C+3)ϵ^2+4(C+1)ϵ\eta .$$
(31)
## 3 Generalizing the Bessel approximation

As can be observed from Eq. (2), the standard assumption used to approximate the slow-roll parameters as constants can not be used beyond the linear term in the slow-roll expansion. Hence, from this point of view, the feasibility of using the Bessel equation to calculate the power spectra is limited to this order. Nevertheless, what it is actually needed is the right hand sides of Eqs. (2) being negligible. That can also be achieved if $`\left|\upsilon \right|\left|ϵ\eta \right|ϵ`$ (we shall call this the power-law approximation) or if $`ϵ\left|\upsilon \right|`$ (we call this the extreme slow-roll approximation). In both cases we require $`\left|\dot{\upsilon }H^1\right|=\left|\xi ^2ϵ^2+3ϵ\upsilon \right|\mathrm{min}(ϵ,\left|\upsilon \right|)`$. No discrepancy arises with the conclusions in Ref. , where

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(ϵ)}{dN}=2\upsilon ϵ$$

is assumed, $`N`$ being the number of e-foldings. As explained above, this condition is not fulfilled in neither of our approximations.

### 3.1 Power-law approximation

Power-law inflation is the model which gives rise to the commonly used power-law shape of the primordial spectra, although not always properly implemented . The assumption of a power-law shape of the spectrum has been successful in describing large scale structure from the scales probed by the cosmic microwave background to the scales probed by redshift surveys. It is reasonable to expect that the actual model behind the inflationary perturbations has a strong similarity with power-law inflation. For this class of potentials the precision of the power spectra calculation can be increased while still using the Bessel approximation. If we have a model with $`\upsilon ϵ^n`$, then, according with Eq. (2), the first slow-roll parameter can be considered as constant if terms like $`ϵ^{n+1}`$ and with higher orders are neglected. These considerations, plus the condition $`ϵ^2\xi ^2`$, imply the right hand side of the second equation in (2) to be also negligible and, this way, $`\eta `$ can be regarded as a constant too. The higher the order in the slow-roll parameters, the smaller should be the difference between them, finally leading, for infinite order in the parameters, to the case of power-law inflation. That means that this approach to the problem of calculating the spectra for more general inflationary models is in fact an expansion around the power-law solution. An example is given by chaotic inflation with the potential $`V\varphi ^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha >2`$. In this case the slow-roll parameters are given by $`ϵ\alpha /(4N)`$ and $`\upsilon 1/(2N)`$ , i.e., $`ϵ>\upsilon `$. $`N`$ denotes the number of e-folds of inflation.

Let us proceed with the calculations. In fact all that has to be done is to repeat the calculations of the previous sections keeping the desired order in the slow-roll expansions and neglecting all the terms similar to the right hand sides of Eqs. (2). For example, the next-to-next-to-leading order expression for the scalar power spectrum will be obtained from solution (6) but now with $`\nu `$ given by $`\nu =3/2+ϵ+\upsilon +ϵ^2`$. Expanding and keeping terms up to second order, the final expression is

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k)=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\left[1(C+1)ϵC\upsilon +(B1)ϵ^2\right]\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH},$$
(32)
where $`B=2+C^2/2+\pi ^2/40.73`$. This result is consistent with the result obtained in Ref. . Eq. (8) can be readily recovered from Eq. (32) by neglecting second order terms. For the corresponding expression of the tensorial power spectrum, $`\mu `$ must be $`\mu =3/2+ϵ+ϵ^2`$ and,

$$𝒫_g^{1/2}=\left[1(C+1)ϵ+(B1)ϵ^2\right]\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa }}{\pi }H|_{k=aH}.$$
(33)
Equation (14) is obtained from Eq. (33) by neglecting second order terms of $`ϵ`$.

### 3.2 Extreme slow-roll approximation

There is no reason to reject the possibility of an inflationary model with $`|\upsilon |ϵ`$. As we shall see later, some important models belong to this class. For these cases, the accuracy of the calculations of the amplitudes can also be increased. We shall focus on the next-to-next-to-leading order. With regards of conditions (2), we neglect terms like $`ϵ^2`$, $`ϵ\upsilon `$ and $`\xi ^2ϵ^2`$ but we keep $`\upsilon ^2`$ terms. Repeating the calculations under this set of assumptions we obtain for the amplitudes of the scalar spectrum:

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\left[1(C+1)ϵC\upsilon +B\upsilon ^2\right]\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH}.$$
(34)
which again agrees with the result from  in the appropriate limit. For tensorial perturbations we note that the Bessel function index (12) does not depend on $`\upsilon `$ hence, no term like $`\upsilon ^2`$ will arise at any moment of the calculations. This way, the expression for the tensorial amplitudes is given by Eq. (14).

### 3.3 The spectral indices

In general, if the approximation neglecting the right hand sides of Eqs. (2) is consistently taken into account, expressions for the spectral indices at any order $`n`$ are easy to be derived noting that in these cases expression (22) always vanishes and,

$$\frac{n_i}{2}=\left[\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa }}\sqrt{ϵ}\frac{h_i^{}}{h_i}\right](1+ϵ+ϵ^2+\mathrm{}+ϵ^n),$$
(35)
where, $`n_i`$ is $`n_S1`$ or $`n_T`$ and $`h_i`$ is correspondingly given by Eqs.(23) and (28). This way it is obtained

$`n_S(k)1`$ $`=`$ $`(4ϵ+2\eta )(1+ϵ+ϵ^2+\mathrm{}+ϵ^n)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`2\upsilon 2ϵ(1+ϵ+ϵ^2+\mathrm{}+ϵ^n),`$
$`n_T(k)`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ(1+ϵ+ϵ^2+\mathrm{}+ϵ^n).`$ (37)
#### 3.3.1 Relaxing the assumptions

In the same way as the spectral indices (26) and (31) have been derived up to second order in the slow-roll parameters, we can now relax our assumptions on the slow-roll parameters and include higher orders beyond those already included in (36) and (37).

Let us first consider the case of the power-law approximation. The amplitudes are given by Eqs. (32) and (33). We now drop the assumption that $`ϵ,\upsilon `$, and $`ϵ^2`$ are constant and keep all the contributions from the derivatives of these terms, i.e., $`ϵ\upsilon ,\dot{\upsilon }/H,ϵ^2\upsilon `$. However, we have to make sure that no derivatives of terms that have been neglected in the amplitude show up, thus we have to neglect the derivatives of $`ϵ\upsilon ,\upsilon ^2`$, and $`\dot{\upsilon }/H`$, which gives rise to the conditions $`ϵ\upsilon ^2=ϵ\dot{\upsilon }/(2H),\upsilon \dot{\upsilon }/H=0`$, and $`[\mathrm{d}(\dot{\upsilon }/H)/\mathrm{d}t]/H=0`$. This means that we are allowed to keep the terms $`ϵ^3,ϵ^2\upsilon `$, and $`ϵ\dot{\upsilon }/H`$ beyond the standard expression for the spectral indices.

Consistently with our approach, we must write the expressions for $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ in terms of our basic parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\upsilon `$. These expressions are,

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}ϵ+\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}\upsilon +\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}ϵ^2+\stackrel{~}{a}_{12}ϵ\upsilon +\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}\upsilon ^2+\mathrm{},`$ (38)
$`P^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}ϵ\upsilon +\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}\dot{\upsilon }/H`$ (39)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}ϵ^2\upsilon +\stackrel{~}{a}_{12}ϵ(2\upsilon ^2+\dot{\upsilon }/H)+2\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}\upsilon \dot{\upsilon }/H+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\sqrt{2ϵ/\kappa }\upsilon ^{}=\dot{\upsilon }/H=2ϵ^23ϵ\eta +\xi ^2`$. For the scalar contribution in the power-law approximation

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}=(C+1),\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}=C,\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}=B1.$$
(40)
Using Eqs. (38) and (39), and taking into account the relaxed approximations discussed above, expression (21) reduces to

$`n_S1`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ2\upsilon 2ϵ^22(2C+3)ϵ\upsilon 2C\dot{\upsilon }/H`$ (41)
$`2ϵ^32(6C+17\pi ^2)ϵ^2\upsilon 2Cϵ\dot{\upsilon }/H.`$
Correspondingly, for the tensorial index

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}=(C+1),\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}=B1,$$
(42)
and

$`n_T`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ2ϵ^24(C+1)ϵ\upsilon 2ϵ^32(6C+16\pi ^2)ϵ^2\upsilon .`$ (43)
In a similar manner we can derive spectral indices for the extreme slow-roll approximation. Now we have to make use of the conditions $`ϵ^2\upsilon =0,ϵ\dot{\upsilon }/H=2ϵ\upsilon ^2`$, and $`[\mathrm{d}(\dot{\upsilon }/H)/\mathrm{d}t]/H=0`$. We have now for the scalars

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_{10}=(C+1),\stackrel{~}{a}_{20}=C,\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}=B,$$
(44)
and the spectral index reads,

$`n_S1`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ2\upsilon 2ϵ^22(2C+3)ϵ\upsilon 2C\dot{\upsilon }/H`$ (45)
$`2ϵ^3+4Cϵ\upsilon ^2(8\pi ^2)\upsilon \dot{\upsilon }/H,`$
while the tensorial index is identical to the standard second order slow-roll result,

$`n_T`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ2ϵ^24(C+1)ϵ\upsilon .`$ (46)
To conclude this section let us not that our expressions for the spectral indices are in full agreement with the results of Stewart and Gong , taking the corresponding approximations into account. This is a quite nontrivial test of our results and of the results of Ref. .

## 4 Testing the expressions

To test all the expressions presented in this paper, we will use the well known exact results for amplitudes and indices calculations in the cases of power-law and natural inflation.

Power-law inflation  is an inflationary scenario where,

$$a(t)t^p,H(\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{2p}}\varphi \right),V(\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa }{p}}\varphi \right),$$
(47)
with $`p`$ being a positive constant. It follows from (1) that in this case the slow-roll parameters are constant and equal each other,

$$ϵ=\eta =\xi =1/p.$$
(48)
Thus, this is the limit case of the power-law approximation. Note that condition $`ϵ<1`$ implies $`p>1`$.

For this model, the power spectrum of scalar perturbations is given by

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k)=\frac{2^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}}{m_{Pl}^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2})}\left(1\frac{1}{p}\right)^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH},$$
(49)
with

$$\nu \frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{p1}.$$

Expanding up to second order for $`p1`$ it is obtained that

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k)=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\left[1(C+1)\frac{1}{p}+(B1)\frac{1}{p^2}\right]\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH},$$
(50)
in full correspondence with Eq. (32) when relations (48) are taken into account. Testing the tensorial amplitudes can be easily done by checking that Eqs. (32) and (33) indeed satisfy the relation between amplitudes characteristic of power-law inflation, i.e.,

$$𝒫_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k)=\frac{4}{\sqrt{p}}𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(k).$$
(51)
For the spectral indices one can see that substitution of relations (48) in Eqs. (36) and (37), as well as in Eqs. (41) and (43), yield

$$\frac{n_S1}{2}=\frac{n_T}{2}=\frac{1}{p}\left(1+\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p^2}+\mathrm{}\right)=\frac{1}{1p},$$
(52)
the corresponding relation between indices in power-law inflation.

Another inflationary scenario where precise predictions for the spectra amplitudes and indices can be done is natural inflation . In this case, the potential is given by,

$$V=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left[1\pm \mathrm{cos}(\frac{\varphi }{f})\right],$$
(53)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`f`$ are mass scales. For simplicity we choose the plus sign in the remaining calculations. The point here is to analyze inflation near the origin so that the small-angle approximation applies, i.e., $`\varphi f`$. In this case the slow-roll parameters are,

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\kappa \left(\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa f^2}}}1\right)\varphi ^20,`$ (54)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa f^2}}}1\right),`$ (55)
$`\xi ^2`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (56)
$`\upsilon `$ $``$ $`\eta .`$ (57)
As it can be observed, in this approximation natural inflation belongs to the class of models that fulfill the conditions of the extreme slow-roll approximation. With the values of the parameters given above, Eq. (6) can be used with the corresponding $`\nu =3/2+\upsilon `$. After expanding and truncating at the proper order

$$𝒫_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\left[1C\upsilon +B\upsilon ^2\right]\frac{H^2}{\left|H^{}\right|}|_{k=aH}$$
(58)
is obtained, consistent with Eq. (34). With this same set of assumptions, Eq. (36) and (45) are reduced to

$$n_S1=2\eta ,$$
(59)
the well known result for natural inflation.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we introduced a simple procedure which allows to improve the precision of the predictions of inflationary perturbations for two specific classes of inflationary models. The method is based on neglecting the evolution in time of the slow-roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\upsilon =ϵ\eta `$. All monomials of the slow-roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\upsilon `$ that are larger than $`\mathrm{max}(\dot{ϵ}/H,\dot{\upsilon }/H)`$ can be taken into account, the rest is dropped consistently. Two cases arise. In the first one, $`ϵ`$ is greater than $`\upsilon `$. We called this approach power-law approximation. In the opposite case, the value of $`ϵ`$ is smaller than $`\upsilon `$ (extreme slow-roll approximation). These approximations plus the standard approximation cover a large space of inflationary models.

We briefly discussed the standard approach to the derivation of the spectral indices. It was noted that the information contained in the expressions for the power spectra amplitudes obtained within the Bessel formalism is used as an approximation to derive the spectral indices for more general models. The obtained expressions have been tested against the exact results for power-law and natural inflation.

## Acknowledgement

We want to thank Andrew Liddle for helpful discussions. D.J.S. thanks Jérôme Martin for collaborations on closely related issues. The work of C.A.T-E and A.A.G. is supported in part by the CONACyT grant 32138–E and the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI). D.J.S. would like to thank the Austrian Academy of Sciences for financial support.