text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since Belinski-Kalatnikov-Lifshitz (BKL) derived the oscillatory regime which characterizes the behaviour of the Bianchi type VIII and IX cosmological models  \-  (the so-called Mixmaster universe ) near a physical singularity, a wide literature faced over the years this subject in order to provide the best possible understanding of the resulting chaotic dynamics.

The research activity developed overall in two different, but related, directions: on one hand the dynamical analysis was devoted to remove the limits of the BKL approach due to its discrete nature (by analytical treatments - and numerical simulations -), on the other one to get a better characterization of the Mixmaster chaos (especially in view of its properties of covariance -).

The first line of investigation provided satisfactory representations of the Mixmaster dynamics in terms of continuous variables (leading to the construction of an invariant measure for the system , ), as well as detailed numerical descriptions (allowing to make precise validity tests on the obtained analytical results) .

The efforts to develop a precise characterization of the chaoticity observed in the Mixmaster dynamics found non-trivial difficulties due to the impossibility, or in the best cases the ambiguity, to apply the standard chaos indicators to relativistic systems. In particular, the puzzle consisting of numerical simulations which were providing, zero  and non-zero  Lyapunov exponents by using different time variables, has been solved by realizing the non-covariant nature of these indicators and their inapplicability to hyperbolic manifolds . The existence of these difficulties prevented, up to now, to say a definitive word about the covariance of the Mixmaster chaos, with particular reference to the possibility of removing the observed chaotic features by a suitable choice of the time variable (apart from the indication provided by ).

Indeed a valuable framework of analysis of the Mixmaster evolution, able to join together the two considered points of view, relies on an Hamiltonian treatment of the dynamics in terms of Misner-Chitré-like variables . This formulation allows to individualize the existence of an asymptotic (energy-like) constant of motion when performed an ADM reduction. By this result the stochasticity of the Mixmaster can be treated either in terms of the statistical mechanics (by the microcanonical ensemble), either by its characterization as isomorphic to a billiard on the two-dimensional Lobachevsky space .

The aim of this work is to show how the representation of the Mixmaster dynamics as a “stochastic scattering” isomorphic to a billiard on the Lobachevsky space can be constructed independently of the choice of a time variable, simply providing very general Misner-Chitré-like coordinates. Up to the limit of the adopted approximation on the form of the potential term, our analysis shows, without any ambiguity, that the Mixmaster stochasticity can not be removed by any redefinition of the time variable.

More precisely in Section $`2`$ we construct the Hamiltonian formulation of the Mixmaster dynamics, which in Section $`3`$, by a standard Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) reduction and the study of the asymptotic form of the potential, allows to individualize an appropriate energy-like constant of motion (nothing more then the ADM kinetic energy) in any temporal gauge. In Section $`4`$ the reduced Hamiltonian principle is rewritten in terms of a geodesic one on the induced Jacobi metric. Finally in Section $`5`$ we derive the statistical implications due to the properties of geodesic flow and provide brief concluding remarks.

## 2 The Hamiltonian Formulation

The geometrical structure of the Bianchi type VIII and IX spacetimes, i.e. of the so-called Mixmaster Universe models, is summarized by the line element

$$ds^2=N(\eta )^2d\eta ^2+e^{2\alpha }\left(e^{2\beta }\right)_{ij}\sigma ^i\sigma ^j$$
(1)
where $`N(\eta )`$ denotes the lapse function, $`\sigma ^i`$ are the dual 1-forms associated with the anholonomic basis 111 The dual 1-forms of the considered models are given by:
(Bianchi VIII): $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma ^1=\mathrm{sinh}\psi \mathrm{sinh}\theta d\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}\psi d\theta \hfill & & \\ \sigma ^2=\mathrm{cosh}\psi \mathrm{sinh}\theta d\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}\psi d\theta \hfill & & \\ \sigma ^3=\mathrm{cosh}\theta d\varphi +d\psi \hfill & & \end{array}`$
(Bianchi IX): $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma ^1=\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta \hfill & & \\ \sigma ^2=\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta \hfill & & \\ \sigma ^3=\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi +d\psi \hfill & & \end{array}`$  and $`\beta _{ij}`$ is a traceless $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(\beta _{11},\beta _{22},\beta _{33})`$; $`\alpha `$, $`N`$, $`\beta _{ij}`$ are functions of $`\eta `$ only. Parameterizing the matrix $`\beta _{ij}`$ by the usual Misner variables

$`\beta _{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}`$
$`\beta _{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}`$ (2)
$`\beta _{33}`$ $`=`$ $`2\beta _+`$
the dynamics of the Mixmaster model is described by a canonical variational principle

$$\delta I=\delta L𝑑\eta =0,$$
(3)
with Lagrangian $`L`$

$$L=\frac{6D}{N}\left[\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\beta _{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]\frac{N}{D}V(\alpha ,\beta _+,\beta _{}).$$
(4)
Here $`()^{}=\frac{d}{d\eta }`$, $`Ddete^{\alpha +\beta _{ij}}=e^{3\alpha }`$ and the potential $`V(\alpha ,\beta _+,\beta _{})`$ reads

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\left(D^{4H_1}+D^{4H_2}+D^{4H_3}\right)D^{2H_1+2H_2}\pm D^{2H_2+2H_3}\pm D^{2H_3+2H_1},$$
(5)
where $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ refers respectively to Bianchi type VIII and IX, and the anisotropy parameters $`H_i(i=1,2,3)`$ denote the functions

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}}{3\alpha }}`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}}{3\alpha }}`$ (6)
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _+}{3\alpha }}.`$
In the limit $`D0`$ the second three terms of the above potential turn out to be negligible with respect to the first one. Let’s introduce the new (Misner-Chitré-like) variables

$`\alpha =`$ $`e^{f\left(\tau \right)}\xi `$
$`\beta _+=`$ $`e^{f\left(\tau \right)}\sqrt{\xi ^21}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`\beta _{}=`$ $`e^{f\left(\tau \right)}\sqrt{\xi ^21}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
with $`f`$ denoting a generic functional form of $`\tau `$, $`1\xi <\mathrm{}`$ and $`0\theta <2\pi `$. Then the Lagrangian (4) reads

$$L=\frac{6D}{N}\left[\frac{\left(e^f\xi ^{}\right)^2}{\xi ^21}+\left(e^f\theta ^{}\right)^2\left(\xi ^21\right)\left(e^f\right)_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]\frac{N}{D}V(f\left(\tau \right),\xi ,\theta ).$$
(8)
In terms of $`f\left(\tau \right)`$, $`\xi `$ and $`\theta `$ we have

$$D=exp\left\{3\xi e^{f\left(\tau \right)}\right\}$$
(9)
and since $`D0`$ toward the singularity, independently of its particular form, in this limit $`f`$ must approach infinity. The Lagrangian (4) leads to the conjugate momenta

$`p_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\tau ^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{12D}{N}}\left(e^f{\displaystyle \frac{df}{d\tau }}\right)^2\tau ^{}`$
$`p_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\xi ^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{12D}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2f}}{\xi ^21}}\xi ^{}`$ (10)
$`p_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\theta ^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{12D}{N}}e^{2f}\left(\xi ^21\right)\theta ^{}`$
which by a Legendre transformation make the variational principle (3) assume the Hamiltonian form

$$\delta \left(p_\xi \xi ^{}+p_\theta \theta ^{}+p_\tau \tau ^{}\frac{Ne^{2f}}{24D}\right)𝑑\eta =0,$$
(11)
being

$$=\frac{p_{\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\left(\frac{df}{d\tau }\right)^2}+p_{\xi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(\xi ^21\right)+\frac{p_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\xi ^21}+24Ve^{2f}.$$
(12)
## 3 Reduced Variational Principle

By variating (11) with respect to $`N`$ we get the constraint $`=0`$, which solved provides

$$p_\tau \frac{df}{d\tau }_{ADM}=\frac{df}{d\tau }\sqrt{\epsilon ^2+24Ve^{2f}}$$
(13)
where

$$\epsilon ^2=\left(\xi ^21\right)p_{\xi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{p_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\xi ^21}$$
(14)
in terms of which the variational principle (11) reduces to

$$\delta \left(p_\xi \xi ^{}+p_\theta \theta ^{}f^{}_{ADM}\right)𝑑\eta =0.$$
(15)
Since the equation for the temporal gauge actually reads

$$N\left(\eta \right)=\frac{12D}{_{ADM}}e^{2f}\frac{df}{d\tau }\tau ^{},$$
(16)
our analysis remains fully independent of the choice of the time variable until the form of $`f`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ is not fixed.

The variational principle (15) provides the Hamiltonian equations for $`\xi ^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ 222In this study the corresponding equations for $`p_\xi ^{}`$ and $`p_\theta ^{}`$ are not relevant.

$`\xi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{_{ADM}}}\left(\xi ^21\right)p_\xi `$
$`\theta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{_{ADM}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\theta }{\left(\xi ^21\right)}}.`$ (17)
Furthermore can be straightforward derived the important relation

$$\frac{d\left(_{ADM}f^{}\right)}{d\eta }=\frac{\left(_{ADM}f^{}\right)}{\eta }\frac{d\left(_{ADM}f^{}\right)}{df}=\frac{\left(_{ADM}f^{}\right)}{f},$$
(18)
i.e. explicitly

$$\frac{_{ADM}}{f}=\frac{e^{2f}}{2_{ADM}}24\left(2V+\frac{V}{f}\right).$$
(19)
In this reduced Hamiltonian formulation, the functional $`f\left(\eta \right)`$ plays simply the role of a parametric function of time and actually the anisotropy parameters $`H_i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are functions of the variables $`\xi ,\theta `$ only

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\xi ^21}}{3\xi }}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\xi ^21}}{3\xi }}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)`$ (20)
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\xi ^21}}{3\xi }}\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$
Finally, toward the singularity ($`D0`$ i.e. $`f\mathrm{}`$) by the expressions (5, 9, 3), we see that 333By $`O()`$ we mean terms of the same order of the inclosed ones.

$$\frac{V}{f}=O\left(e^fV\right).$$
(21)
Since in the domain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$, where all the $`H_i`$ are simultaneously greater than 0, the potential term $`Ue^{2f}V`$ can be modeled by the potential walls

$`U_{\mathrm{}}=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}\left(H_1(\xi ,\theta )\right)+\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}\left(H_2(\xi ,\theta )\right)+\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}\left(H_3(\xi ,\theta )\right)`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}\left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}+\mathrm{}\hfill & if\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & if\hfill & x>0\hfill \end{array}`$ (25)
therefore in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ the ADM Hamiltonian becomes (asymptotically) an integral of motion

$$\{\xi ,\theta \}\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\{\begin{array}{ccc}_{ADM}=\sqrt{\epsilon ^2+24U}\epsilon =E=const.\hfill & & \\ \frac{_{ADM}}{f}=\frac{E}{f}=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(26)
The key point for the use of the Misner-Chitré-like variables relies on the independence of the time variable for the anisotropy parameters $`H_i`$.

## 4 The Jacobi Metric and the Billiard Representation

Since above we have shown that asymptotically to the singularity ($`f\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$) $`d_{ADM}/df=0`$ i.e. $`_{ADM}=ϵ=E=const.`$, the variational principle (15) reduces to

$$\delta \left(p_\xi d\xi +p_\theta d\theta Edf\right)=\delta \left(p_\xi d\xi +p_\theta d\theta \right)=0,$$
(27)
where we dropped the third term in the left hand side since it behaves as an exact differential.

By following the standard Jacobi procedure  to reduce our variational principle to a geodesic one, we set $`x_{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}g^{ab}p_b`$, and by the Hamiltonian equation (17) we obtain the metric

$`g^{\xi \xi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{E}}\left(\xi ^21\right)`$
$`g^{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^21}}.`$ (28)
By these and by the fundamental constraint relation

$$\left(\xi ^21\right)p_{\xi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{p_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\xi ^21}=E^2,$$
(29)
we get

$$g_{ab}x_{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}x_{}^{b}{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{f^{}}{E}\left\{\left(\xi ^21\right)p_{\xi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{p_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\xi ^21}\right\}=f^{}E.$$
(30)
By the definition $`x_{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{dx^a}{ds}\frac{ds}{d\eta }u^a\frac{ds}{d\eta }`$, the (30) rewrites

$$g_{ab}u^au^b\left(\frac{ds}{d\eta }\right)^2=f^{}E,$$
(31)
which leads to the key relation

$$d\eta =\sqrt{\frac{g_{ab}u^au^b}{f^{}E}}ds.$$
(32)
Indeed the expression (32) together with $`p_\xi \xi ^{}+p_\theta \theta ^{}=Ef^{}`$ allows us to put the variational principle (27) in the geodesic form:

$$\delta f^{}E𝑑\eta =\delta \sqrt{g_{ab}u^au^bf^{}E}𝑑s=\delta \sqrt{G_{ab}u^au^b}𝑑s=0$$
(33)
where the metric $`G_{ab}f^{}Eg_{ab}`$ satisfies the normalization condition $`G_{ab}u^au^b=1`$ and therefore 444We take the positive root since we require that the curvilinear coordinate $`s`$ increases monotonically with increasing value of $`f`$, i.e. approaching the initial cosmological singularity.

$$\frac{ds}{d\eta }=Ef^{}\frac{ds}{df}=E.$$
(34)
Summarizing, in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ the considered dynamical problem reduces to a geodesic flow on a two dimensional Riemannian manifold described by the line element

$$ds^2=E^2\left[\frac{d\xi ^2}{\xi ^21}+\left(\xi ^21\right)d\theta ^2\right].$$
(35)
Now it is easy to check that the above metric has negative curvature, since the associated curvature scalar reads $`R=\frac{2}{E^2}`$; therefore the point-universe moves over a negatively curved bidimensional space on which the potential wall (5) cuts the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$. By a way completely independent of the temporal gauge we provided a satisfactory representation of the system as isomorphic to a billiard on a Lobachevsky plane .

## 5 Invariant Lyapunov Exponent

In order to characterize the dynamical instability of the billiard in terms of an invariant treatment (with respect to the choice of the coordinates $`\xi `$, $`\theta `$), let us introduce the following (orthonormal) tetradic basis

$`v^i`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\xi ^21}}{E}},0)`$
$`w^i`$ $`=`$ $`(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E\sqrt{\xi ^21}}}).`$ (36)
Indeed the vector $`v^i`$ is nothing else than the geodesic field, i.e.

$$\frac{Dv^i}{ds}=\frac{dv^i}{ds}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^iv^kv^l=0,$$
(37)
while the vector $`w^i`$ is parallely transported along the geodesic, according to the equation

$$\frac{Dw^i}{ds}=\frac{dw^i}{ds}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^iv^kw^l=0,$$
(38)
where by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^i`$ we denoted the Christoffel symbols constructed by the metric (35). Projecting the geodesic deviation equation along the vector $`w^i`$ (its component along the geodesic field $`v^i`$ does not provide any physical information about the system instability), the corresponding connecting vector (tetradic) component $`Z`$ satisfies the following equivalent equation

$$\frac{d^2Z}{ds^2}=\frac{Z}{E^2}.$$
(39)
This expression, as a projection on the tetradic basis, is a scalar one and therefore completely independent of the choice of the variables. Its general solution reads

$$Z\left(s\right)=c_1e^{\frac{s}{E}}+c_2e^{\frac{s}{E}},c_{1,2}=const.,$$
(40)
and the invariant Lyapunov exponent defined as

$$\lambda _v=sup\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{}n\left(Z^2+\left(\frac{dZ}{ds}\right)^2\right)}{2s},$$
(41)
in terms of the form (40) takes the value

$$\lambda _v=\frac{1}{E}>0.$$
(42)
When the point-universe bounces against the potential walls, it is reflected from a geodesic to another one thus making each of them unstable. Though up to the limit of our potential wall approximation, this result shows without any ambiguity that, independently of the choice of the temporal gauge, the Mixmaster dynamics is isomorphic to a well described chaotic system. Equivalently, in terms of the BKL representation, the free geodesic motion corresponds to the evolution during a Kasner epoch and the bounces against the potential walls to the transition between two of them. By itself, the positive Lyapunov number (42) is not enough to ensure the system chaoticity, since its derivation remains valid for any Bianchi type model; the crucial point is that for the Mixmaster (type VIII and IX) the potential walls reduce the configuration space to a compact region ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$), ensuring that the positivity of $`\lambda _v`$ implies a real chaotic behaviour (i.e. the geodesic motion fills the entire configuration space).

Summarizing, our analysis shows that for any choice of the time variable, we are able to give the above stochastic representation of the Mixmaster model, provided the factorized coordinate transformation in the configuration space

$`\alpha `$ $`=e^{f\left(\tau \right)}a(\theta ,\xi )`$
$`\beta _+`$ $`=e^{f\left(\tau \right)}b_+(\theta ,\xi )`$
$`\beta _{}`$ $`=e^{f\left(\tau \right)}b_{}(\theta ,\xi ),`$
where $`f,a,b_\pm `$ denote generic functional forms of the variables $`\tau ,\theta ,\xi `$.

It is worth noting that the success of our analysis, in showing the time gauge independence of the Mixmaster chaos, relies on the use of a standard ADM reduction of the variational principle (which reduces the system by one degree of freedom) and overall because, adopting Misner-Chitré-like variables, the asymptotic potential walls are fixed in time. The difference between our approach and the one presented in  (see also for a critical analysis ) consists effectively in these features, though in those works is even faced the problem of the Mixmaster chaos covariance with respect to the choice of generic configuration variables.

We are very grateful to Remo Ruffini for his valuable comments on this subject.


format: text

text:
# Remotely prepared entanglement: a quantum web page

## 1 Introduction

Much of the recent progress in quantum information theory has stemmed from the idea of using quantum entanglement as a resource for carrying out operations on quantum states. In particular, shared entanglement between two parties can be used to teleport an unknown quantum state using only local operations (measurements and unitary transformations) and classical communication (LOCC) ; it can also enable two classical bits to be transmitted by a single quantum bit (q-bit) via superdense coding .

The accepted unit of quantum entanglement (at least for pure states) is the maximally-entangled (EPR) pair, or e-bit. Any such pair is equivalent under local unitary transformations to the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=(|00+|11)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(1)
The entanglement of any bipartite pure state can be measured in e-bits, and in the asymptotic limit (i.e., where the two parties have many copies of a state) any two states with the same entanglement can be reversibly interconverted .

By contrast, the case with more than two parties is far from clear. No single number suffices to describe the entanglement of multipartite states, even asymptotically; nor is it known how many numbers are needed, or even if the number is finite; nor are general algorithms known for reversibly interconverting states . In the face of these limits, it seems reasonable both to try to generalize bipartite results to multipartite systems, and to relate multipartite entanglement to the bipartite measure.

## 2 The quantum web page

Let us briefly review the teleportation protocol between two parties, usually known as Alice and Bob. It is assumed that they share a maximally entangled pair of q-bits (one e-bit). In addition, Alice has another q-bit in an unknown state $`|\chi `$. She jointly measures this q-bit together with her half of the entangled pair in the Bell basis,

$$|\varphi ^\pm =(|00\pm |11)/\sqrt{2},|\psi ^\pm =(|01\pm |10)/\sqrt{2},$$
(2)
and transmits the result of her measurement (2 classical bits) to Bob. This measurement of course destroys Alice’s copy of the state she wishes to send. By performing one of four unitary transformations on his half of the entangled pair, Bob can reconstruct the state $`|\chi `$ .

The problem I consider is a simple generalization of teleportation to $`N`$ parties. Suppose that these $`N`$ parties (Alice, Bob, Cara, David…, Nancy) share an $`N`$ q-bit pure state. One of them, say Alice, is given another q-bit in an unknown state. She wishes to combine this state with the shared state in such a way that any of the other $`N1`$ parties can retrieve it using only LOCC. If we make an analogy between ordinary teleportation and an email, this procedure would be more like a quantum web page: making a state available to anyone in a given network.

Suppose that one party, say Bob, decides to retrieve the state. He clearly will only be able to do so with the cooperation of the other $`N2`$ parties. If these parties do not assist, he will at best share an entangled mixed state with Alice, which is insufficient for reliable teleportation to be carried out. An easy way to see this is to note that if Bob could retrieve the state without the assistance of the others, so could Cara or any other party; and the state would have been copied, which is forbidden by the no-cloning theorem .

If the other parties cooperate the procedure can indeed be carried out. Suppose that they share an $`N`$ party GHZ state,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}=(|0\mathrm{}0+|1\mathrm{}1)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(3)
These states are often considered to be maximally entangled, though in the absence of a measure of multipartite entanglement it is not clear that this makes sense . Let the parties C…N measure their q-bits in the basis

$$|0^{}=(|0|1)/\sqrt{2},|1^{}=(|0+|1)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(4)
After the first party measures his or her q-bit, the remaining $`N1`$ parties will share an $`N1`$ party GHZ state. This becomes an $`N2`$ party GHZ with the next measurement, and so on, until Alice and Bob are left with the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=(|00+(1)^{p(s)}|11)/\sqrt{2},$$
(5)
where $`s`$ denotes the sequence of $`N2`$ measurement results, and $`p(s)`$ is the parity of the sequence $`s`$. This is a maximally entangled pair, and can be used to teleport the unknown state from Alice to Bob.

Since the order in which these operations are performed doesn’t matter, Alice can carry out her part of the teleportation protocol before any of the other measurements are carried out, even before it has been decided which of the $`N1`$ parties will retrieve the state. She jointly measures in the Bell basis the q-bit whose state she wishes to make available, together with her part of the $`N`$ bit state, and broadcasts the measurement result to the other parties. At that point, any of them can retrieve the state with the cooperation of the others, with no further action on the part of Alice; indeed, Alice no longer shares entanglement with the other parties.

We have seen how this can be done using an $`N`$ party GHZ state, but is this the only state which will work? Any state which allows a maximally-entangled pair to be prepared between Alice and any other party, using only LOCC, could be used instead. I will call all such states web states, and call the basis in which each party measures his or her bit the preparation basis. For now, I restrict myself to the case where the choice of this basis does not depend on which two parties are to share the pair, nor on the outcome of measurements by other parties. I will call this case context-free.

If we rewrite the GHZ in terms of the preparation bases of all the parties, it takes the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{N1}}}\underset{\mathrm{even}s}{}|s,$$
(6)
where $`s`$ is a sequence of $`N`$ 0’s and 1’s, and the sum is restricted only to those with an even number of 1’s. In this form it is easy to see that any measurement of $`N2`$ of the bits in their preparation bases will leave the other two in a maximally-entangled state.

Are all such context-free web states equivalent to the $`N`$ party GHZ? No, they are not. Consider the following state:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{N1}}}\underset{\mathrm{even}s}{}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta (s))|s,$$
(7)
where the $`\theta (s)`$ are $`2^{N1}`$ arbitrary phases. Just as with the GHZ, measuring any $`N2`$ of the bits in this basis will leave the other two in a maximally entangled state, so this state can be used for a quantum web page. But a state of this form cannot, in general, be transformed into a GHZ by LOCC. There are $`2^{N1}`$ phases; at most $`N+1`$ of these can be eliminated by local unitary transformations. Thus, such states can only be transformed into the GHZ in general for $`N=3`$.

In the next section, I will prove that all web states with context-free preparation bases are equivalent to a state of the form (7) under local unitary transformations. I will also prove that if a state allows a maximally entangled pair to be prepared between one particular party (say Alice) and any of the others, then it allows a maximally entangled pair to be prepared between any two parties, and hence can be put in the form (7).

## 3 $`N`$ q-bit web states

Suppose we select two parties (Alice and Bob) for whom we wish to prepare an EPR pair. The other $`N2`$ parties measure their bits in the correct preparation basis, producing a measurement results $`s`$ (where $`s`$ denotes a sequence of $`N2`$ 0’s and 1’s). For any outcome $`s`$, Alice and Bob must be left with a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(s)`$ which is maximally entangled. So the full state can be written

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}=\underset{s}{}c_s|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(s)|s,$$
(8)
where the $`c_s`$ are real, positive coefficients with normalization

$$\underset{s}{}c_s^2=1.$$
(9)
The most general form of a maximally entangled pair is

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha \left(\mathrm{e}^{i\theta }|00+\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }|11\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (10)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \left(\mathrm{e}^{i\omega }|01\mathrm{e}^{i(\theta +\varphi \omega )}|10\right)/\sqrt{2},`$
where $`0\alpha \pi /2`$ and $`\theta ,\varphi ,\omega `$ are arbitrary phases. One can derive this form straightforwardly, by writing down an arbitrary two-bit pure state and imposing the restriction that $`\mathrm{Tr}_B\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}|\}=\widehat{1}/2`$; this lets one eliminate three degrees of freedom, yielding (10). We assume without loss of generality that q-bit B is also written in its preparation basis. We can now write the state (8) in the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}c_s[\mathrm{cos}\alpha _s(\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _s}|00+\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _s}|11)`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _s(\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _s}|01\mathrm{e}^{i(\theta _s+\varphi _s\omega _s)}|10)]|s.`$
For this to be a web state, we must be able to exchange Bob’s q-bit with that of any other party and recover a state of form (11). Suppose we wish to exchange Bob’s bit with that of the $`M`$th party. Let us group all sequences $`s`$ into pairs $`(s_0,s_1)`$ which are identical except at the $`M`$th bit, which is 0 for $`s_0`$ and 1 for $`s_1`$. If we exchange Bob’s q-bit with the $`M`$th q-bit, the state becomes

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(s_0,s_1)}{}}[(c_{s_0}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_0}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _{s_0}}|00c_{s_0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_0}\mathrm{e}^{i(\theta _{s_0}+\varphi _{s_0}\omega _{s_0})}|10`$ (12)
$`+c_{s_1}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_1}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _{s_1}}|01c_{s_1}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_1}\mathrm{e}^{i(\theta _{s_1}+\varphi _{s_1}\omega _{s_1})}|11)|s_0`$
$`+(c_{s_0}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_0}\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _{s_0}}|10+c_{s_0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_0}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _{s_0}}|00`$
$`+c_{s_1}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_1}\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _{s_1}}|11+c_{s_1}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_1}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _{s_1}}|01)|s_1].`$
For this to be a web state, there must be new parameters $`c_s^{},\alpha _s^{},\theta _s^{},\varphi _s^{},\omega _s^{}`$ which put (12) in form (11).

Comparing (12) and (11) term by term, we immediately see that we must have

$`c_{s_0}^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_0}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{s_0}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_0}=c_{s_1}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_1},`$
$`c_{s_0}^{}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_0}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{s_0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_0}=c_{s_1}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_1},`$
$`c_{s_1}^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{s_0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_0}=c_{s_1}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_1},`$
$`c_{s_1}^{}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{s_0}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{s_0}=c_{s_1}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{s_1}.`$ (13)
This must hold for every pair $`(s_0,s_1)`$, and for every choice of $`M`$, which implies that

$$c_s=1/\sqrt{2^{N2}}s,$$
(14)
and that

$$\alpha _s=\alpha _{p(s)}s,\alpha _1=\pi /2\alpha _0,$$
(15)
where $`p(s)`$ is the parity of the string $`s`$, with $`p(s)=0`$ for even strings, $`p(s)=1`$ for odd strings. This just means that $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0=\mathrm{cos}\alpha _1`$.

In a similar way we can examine the phases of (12). It is only possible to preserve the form of (11) if

$$\mathrm{exp}i(\varphi _{s_1}\omega _{s_1})=\mathrm{exp}i(\varphi _{s_0}\omega _{s_0}).$$
(16)
Again, this must hold for any pair $`(s_0,s_1)`$, and for any choice of $`M`$, which gives us the requirement

$$\omega _s=\varphi _s+\gamma +p(s)\pi ,$$
(17)
where $`\gamma `$ is a constant phase, and $`p(s)`$ is once again the parity of the string $`s`$. We can eliminate the phase $`\gamma `$ by a local unitary transformation

$`|0_A|0_A,`$ $`|0_B|0_B,`$
$`|1_A\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma }|1_A,`$ $`|1_B\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma }|1_B,`$ (18)
which leaves the physical preparation basis of $`B`$ unchanged.

With these restrictions, we now see that any context-free web state can be written in the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{N1}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}[\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{p(s)}(\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _s}|00+\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _s}|11)`$ (19)
$`+(1)^{p(s)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{p(s)}(\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _s}|01\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _s}|10)]|s.`$
But is this the simplest form possible? Let us perform a local unitary transformation on q-bit A:

$`|0_A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0|0_A+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0|1_A,`$
$`|1_A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0|0_A+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0|1_A.`$ (20)
This must still be a web state, since a local unitary on A will leave any maximally entangled pair still maximally entangled. We can easily check that the state (19) now takes the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{N1}}}\underset{s}{}\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{exp}(i\theta (s))|00+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (s))|11}{\mathrm{exp}(i\theta (s))|10\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (s))|01}\right\}|s,$$
(21)
where the upper (lower) line is used for even (odd) strings $`s`$. This expression is exactly equivalent to the form (7) given in section 2. So we see that any context-free web state can be put in form (7), and any state which allows context-free preparation of an EPR between one party and any of the others must allow preparation of an EPR between any two parties.

## 4 Generalizations

### 4.1 Contextual web states

The most obvious generalization we might consider is to states which are not context-free, i.e., where the choice of measurement basis depends on which two parties are to have an EPR pair prepared. Logically this should be a much larger class of states than that of context-free web states.

I have not derived a general prescription for all contextual web states, but some obvious general characteristics suggest themselves. Any web state must give a reduced density matrix proportional to the identity for all q-bits:

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{N1}\left\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}|\right\}=\rho =\widehat{1}/2.$$
(22)
Also, any pair of q-bits A and M must have a reduced density matrix $`\rho _{AM}`$ with entanglement of assistance (or hidden entanglement) equal to 1 . These are necessary but probably not sufficient conditions. For $`N=3`$, these requirements are enough to prove that all web states are equivalent to the GHZ under local unitary transformations, and hence are context-free.

For $`N=4`$ we can find examples which are not equivalent to context-free states, and hence cannot be written in the form (7). For instance, the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ABCD}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(|00+|11\right)|00+\left(|00|11\right)|11\right],$$
(23)
allows an EPR to be prepared between A and B or between C and D by measuring the other two bits in the given basis. However, by measuring in that basis it is impossible to prepare an EPR between any other pair.

We could instead measure two bits in the basis

$`|0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0+|1\right)/\sqrt{2},`$
$`|1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|0|1\right)/\sqrt{2}.`$ (24)
A maximally-entangled state can be prepared between A and C, B and C, A and D or B and D by measuring the other two bits in the basis (24), but not between A and B or C and D. This state (23) is thus a web state, but a contextual one.

An even more general possibility would be to allow the measurement bases of some bits to depend on measurement outcomes for others; or to allow general positive-operator valued measurements (POVMs); or both. Characterizing this large class of operations, though, is not easy ; no simple form is known for a general LOCC procedure.

### 4.2 Preparing other states

We might also ask about preparing shared states other than EPR pairs. Because an EPR pair can be reliably transformed into any two q-bit state by LOCC , the web states we have considered can also produce any such state between any two parties.

For multipartite states the situation is less clear, but some results follow easily. Note that if one party carries out a measurement on an $`N`$ party context-free web state in his or her preparation basis, the other $`N1`$ parties are left with an $`N1`$ party context-free web state. For $`N=3`$, all such states are equivalent to the 3 party GHZ. So for $`N>3`$, any state of form (7) also allows the preparation of a GHZ among any three parties.

For more general cases, a procedure like that of section 3 might be carried out to find all $`N`$ party states which allow some particular $`M<N`$ party state to be reliably prepared among any $`M`$ participants. But there seems no guarantee that the results will in general be as simple as those for the EPR pair.

### 4.3 The noncooperative problem and cloning

This quantum web page algorithm requires that all the parties cooperate in enabling the selected party (say Bob) to retrieve the state $`|\chi `$ that Alice has made available. Without this cooperation, at best Bob will retrieve a mixed state.

However, we can imagine a version of this problem in which the parties do not cooperate, and ask what state should be used to maximize the fidelity of Bob’s state $`\rho _B`$ with the state $`|\chi `$ he is attempting to retrieve. Let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$ be the shared initial state, and $`|\chi `$ be the state that Alice is trying to make available. After Alice carries out her part of the procedure (which is just like her part of the cooperative procedure), the other $`N1`$ parties are left with a new joint state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{B\mathrm{}N}^{}`$. The reduced state of Bob’s subsystem is

$$\rho _B=\mathrm{Tr}_{C\mathrm{}N}\left\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{B\mathrm{}N}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{B\mathrm{}N}^{}|\right\},$$
(25)
and we wish to maximize the fidelity

$$F=\chi |\rho _B|\chi .$$
(26)
This fidelity should be the same for any party and for any state $`|\chi `$, so we see that this is the same as $`N1`$ party symmetric cloning . The maximum fidelity achievable by symmetric cloning to $`N1`$ q-bits is $`F=(2N1)/(3(N1))`$. The class of states which are used in the noncooperative case is quite different from the class of web states; examples which achieve this maximum fidelity have been discovered, e.g., by Dür  and Koashi et al. . A related problem has also been considered by Dür and Cirac .

Note that one must not confuse the cloning fidelity $`F`$ given by (26) with the singlet fraction $`F_s`$ of the $`N`$-partite state. If we trace out parties C…N of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$ to get the bipartite density matrix $`\rho _{AB}`$, the singlet fraction is

$$F_s=\underset{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}|\rho _{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB},$$
(27)
where the maximum is over all maximally entangled states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$. The maximum of $`F_s`$ is considerably lower than $`F`$, and is bounded by $`F_sN/2(N1)`$. This distinction is brought out in .

### 4.4 Multipartite entanglement

The problem of characterizing multipartite entanglement remains largely unsolved, especially in the asymptotic limit . The idea behind these web states suggests a set of possibly useful quantities that can be calculated from a multipartite pure state.

The entropy of entanglement for an entangled pair is

$$(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})=\mathrm{Tr}_A\{\rho _A\mathrm{log}_2\rho _A\},$$
(28)
where $`\rho _A`$ is the reduced density matrix of q-bit A,

$$\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}|\}.$$
(29)
Suppose we perform some LOCC procedure (e.g., a measurement) on an $`N`$-partite system which is initially in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$; denote this procedure by $`O`$, with outcomes $`o_i`$ occurring with probability $`p_i`$, and assume that it leaves the pair of subsystems A and B in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(o_i)`$. (That is, there is no entanglement left with C…N.) Then we can define the average preparation entanglement of A and B under $`O`$:

$$\overline{}_{AB}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N},O)=\underset{i}{}p_i(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(o_i)).$$
(30)
This quantity will vary enormously depending on the choice of $`O`$. We can, however, look for the maximum, and use that to define the entanglement of preparation

$$_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N})\underset{O}{\mathrm{max}}\overline{}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N},O).$$
(31)
For an $`N`$-partite system, we can define the entanglement of preparation between any two parties. This quantity is similar to the entanglement of assistance (or hidden entanglement) $`^a(\rho _{AB})`$ ; however, in general it will be lower, $`_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N})^a(\rho _{AB})`$, since the measurements yielding the entanglement of preparation must respect the division of C…N into local subsystems, while the entanglement of assistance has no such constraint. By definition, any web state must have entanglement of preparation 1 between q-bit A and any other q-bit.

Note that we can relax the restriction on $`O`$ (to operations which leave A and B in a pure state) by replacing the entropy of entanglement in (30) with the entanglement of formation $`^f(\rho _{AB}(o_i))`$ . With this change, the maximum in (31) becomes a maximum over all LOCC procedures $`O`$. It is not hard to see that the value of $`_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N})`$ is unchanged by this alteration; the maximum will always be achieved by an operation $`O`$ which does leave A and B in a pure state, for which the entropy of entanglement and the entanglement of formation give equal values.

An important point is that, by construction, $`_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N})`$ is an entanglement monotone. That is, the value of $`_{AB}^p`$ cannot increase on average if one performs some LOCC procedure on the state $`|\psi _{A\mathrm{}N}`$. Clearly, if it could increase, then the operation $`O`$ would not be the maximum. Such monotones are important in trying to understand the entanglement properties of multipartite states. In a similar way, any numerical function of the state can be used to define an entanglement monotone; one simply takes the average value of the function under the action of some LOCC procedure $`O`$, and maximizes over all $`O`$. Of course, $`_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N})`$ may be difficult to calculate exactly for a general state; however, one may still be able to derive useful bounds on it.

Finally, the entanglement of preparation is a superadditive quantity. Suppose that the parties A…N share two systems with $`N`$ subsystems each, the two systems being in pure states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$, respectively. We can consider these jointly as a single $`N`$-partite system in state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A\mathrm{}N}`$. Then the entanglement of preparation for this joint state must satisfy

$$_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A\mathrm{}N})_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A\mathrm{}N})+_{AB}^p(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A\mathrm{}N}).$$
(32)
This is similar to the class of entanglement monotones derived in .

## 5 Conclusions

It is possible to produce a quantum analogue of a web page: a procedure by which a quantum state is made available by one party to any of a group of others, using only a shared initial state, local operations and classical communication. Unlike the classical case, however, retrieving the quantum state requires cooperation among the $`N1`$ possible recipients, and only one can actually retrieve it.

I have presented a large class of $`N`$ q-bit pure states which can be used for the quantum web page, of which the $`N`$ party GHZ is an example, and argued that an even larger class is potentially available. This problem suggests a set of quantities, the entanglements of preparation of the various pairs, which may prove useful in the ongoing attempt to characterize multipartite entanglement, especially since these quantities are entanglement monotones. This problem could be generalized in many ways; but for the present, these related problems remain unsolved.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Oliver Cohen and Bob Griffiths for their feedback on this problem, and for looking over the manuscript; and Michele Mosca and Alain Tapp for inviting my contribution to this special issue of Algorithmica.

After this work was completed I became aware of a paper by Briegel and Raussendorf , which includes a definition of maximal connectedness which is the same as my web page property; they also give a particular set of states which have that property. In particular, their state $`|\varphi _4`$ is equivalent to the contextual web state (23) in this paper.

This work was supported by DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-90ER40542.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the introduction of stochastic quantization for gauge theories in , its interest has been vindicated in a number of publications (see  for a review). In recent works , the basic ideas of stochastic quantization have been elaborated in a systematic approach, called bulk quantization. It gives a central role to the introduction of a symmetry of topological character. The inclusion of fermionic fields becomes possible. Perturbatively, bulk quantization and the usual quantization methods are equivalent because the observables satisfy the same Schwinger-Dyson equations in both approaches . The interest of bulk quantization is certainly at the non perturbative level.

These recent developments make the application of bulk quantization to supersymmetric field theories promising. In this letter, we present the simplest $`N=1`$ theory in four dimensions, the Wess–Zumino model of interactions of chiral supermultiplets.

Using previous works , we define an action on a space with an additional non compact dimension $`t`$ that describes the bulk time. The correlation functions for equal $`t`$ define the correlations in the physical theory. The additional dimension does not take part in the Poincaré group of symmetries. Spinor fields and the algebra of supersymmetry are thus the usual four-dimensional ones. It follows that one can use the superfield formalism to efficiently describe the different supermultiplets and obtain an invariant action. The supersymmetry is linearly realized and the algebra closes off-shell, so that we do not have to worry on the preservation of the supersymmetry by dynamical processes. As a side effect, this formalism puts the auxiliary field of the supermultiplet on the same level as the other components, with its own dynamic.

The nice point in this construction is that the requirement of supersymmetry, obtained through the superspace formalism, naturally introduces the kernels acting on the equations of motion of the four-dimensional theory, guaranteeing that each component has the proper behavior. As it is the case in any field theory with fermions, the difficulty of giving to all equations a stochastic interpretation justifies to directly postulate the topological field theory construction of the bulk theory.

We conclude this note by a short account of the extension to the case of gauge invariant models: the gauge symmetry must be enlarged in a superspace formalism and we point to the difficulties in which would run too naive an approach. A full account of supersymmetric gauge theories will be given in a forthcoming publication .

## 2 Wess–Zumino model

In this model, the fields are grouped in supermultiplets which are easily described by chiral superfields. In view of our general principles, these fields will depend on the space coordinates $`x`$, the anticommuting superspace coordinates $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ and the ghost time $`t`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,x,\theta ,\overline{\theta }),\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(1)
The model is then characterized by the superpotential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, which is at most trilinear for renormalizable interactions. The equation of motions for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and its antichiral conjugate $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ are expressed in superfields as:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+m\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}g\mathrm{\Phi }^2,`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`D^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V^{}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}).`$ (2)
Formally, these equations are very similar to the Dirac equations, with $`D^2`$ and $`\overline{D}^2`$ playing the role of the chiral components of the Dirac operator.

According to the principles of bulk quantization, we introduce three fields to complete the quartet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\chi `$, $`B`$. A nilpotent BRST operator is defined by $`s\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`s\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, $`s\chi =B`$ and $`sB=0`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ have the same canonical dimension 1. $`\chi `$ and $`B`$ have dimension 2. This can be deduced from the fact that $`B`$ will appear in combination with the equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a field

$`H=B+\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }).`$ (3)
With the additional knowledge that the ghost time $`t`$ has dimension $`2`$ and that chiral superfields must be integrated on $`d^2\theta `$, which adds one to the canonical dimension and general superfields must be integrated on $`d^4\theta `$, which adds two, we define the following $`s`$-invariant and supersymmetric action of ghost number zero with only positive dimension coupling constants:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\theta s(\chi _t\mathrm{\Phi })}+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\overline{\theta }s(\overline{\chi }_t\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^4\theta s(\overline{\chi }H+\chi \overline{H})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\theta Ms(\chi H)}+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\overline{\theta }Ms(\overline{\chi }\overline{H})}.`$ (4)
$`M`$ is an additional mass parameter introduced by bulk quantization. Physical quantities will not depend on $`M`$, because the $`M`$-dependence will appear through a kernel.

We will shortly justify that the field $`\varphi `$ only appears through $`_t\varphi `$ and $`H`$ in eq. (2) by the invariance under bulk time reversal. The ghost independent part of this action is:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\theta B_t\mathrm{\Phi }}+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\overline{\theta }\overline{B}_t\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^4\theta \left(2B\overline{B}+B(\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }))+\overline{B}(D^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V^{}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}))\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\theta M\left(B^2+B(\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }))\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑td^4xd^2\overline{\theta }M\left(\overline{B}^2+\overline{B}(D^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V^{}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}))\right)}.`$ (5)
Variation with respect to the superfields $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ gives the following matrix equation:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}_t\mathrm{\Phi }\\ _t\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& \overline{D}^2\\ D^2& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })+2B\\ D^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V^{}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+2\overline{B}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
These equations look like stochastic equations for the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with driving noises $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$, but this interpretation (that would hold true for a genuine scalar field theory) does not stand out. In particular, $`B`$ mixes with the physical field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The action (2) is quadratic in the field $`B`$, but as in the fermionic case, the quadratic term $`B\overline{B}`$ contains space derivatives. The propagator is a matrix with $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`B\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagations.

From the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, three fields can be defined by taking the $`\theta =\overline{\theta }=0`$ value (denoted by the symbol $`|`$) of the fermionic derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$`A(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })|,\phi _\alpha (x,t)=D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(x,t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })|,`$
$`F(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`D^2\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })|.`$ (7)
The equivalent fields for the $`B`$ superfield are simply marked by a subscripted $`B`$. The detailed structure of eq. (6) in components fields is:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}_tA\\ _t\overline{F}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& 1\\ \mathrm{}& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{F}+V^{}(A)+2A_B\\ \mathrm{}A+V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{A})\overline{F}+g\overline{\phi }\overline{\phi }+2\overline{F}_B\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}_t\phi _\alpha \\ _t\overline{\phi }^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\\ ^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(\overline{)}\overline{\phi })_\alpha +V^{}(A)\phi _\alpha +2(\phi _B)_\alpha \\ (\overline{)}\phi )^{\dot{\alpha }}+V^{}(\overline{A})\overline{\phi }^{\dot{\alpha }}+2\overline{(}\phi _B)^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right).`$ (9)
Eq. (8) must be completed by its complex conjugate to give the evolution of $`\overline{A}`$ and $`F`$. This set of equations is by construction invariant under supersymmetry. Notice that it turns the field $`F`$, which is just an auxiliary field in the usual approach, into a propagating field. Therefore, if one keeps the auxiliary field to maintain supersymmetry in a linear realization, the bulk formulation implies its propagation.

In the heuristic language of stochastic quantization, the $`t`$ evolution of $`A`$, $`F`$ and $`\phi `$ is driven by the four-dimensional equations of motion and $`F_B`$, $`A_B`$ and $`\phi _B`$, their respective noises. The form of the kernels that multiply the combination of equations of motion and noises is dictated by the requirement that the $`t`$ evolution is compatible with supersymmetry and the respective dimensions of the fields and their equations of motion. We believe that eqs. (8,9) open a way toward a non-perturbative definition of supersymmetric theories.

The ghost completion of eq. (2) is very easy to derive from eq. (2). It is such that the full action is BRS-invariant. For correlators at equal time $`t`$ of fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`B`$ only, which are sufficient to determine the $`S`$-matrix of the model, the ghosts can be integrated out without destroying supersymmetry. It is useful to write the ghost equations of motion:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}_t\mathrm{\Psi }\\ _t\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& \overline{D}^2\\ D^2& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{D}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}+V^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Psi }\\ D^2\mathrm{\Psi }+V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}_t\chi \\ _t\overline{\chi }\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& \overline{D}^2\\ D^2& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{D}^2\overline{\chi }+V^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Phi })\chi \\ D^2\chi +V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\overline{\chi }\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
We must now precise the symmetry with respect to the reversal of the bulk time $`t`$, which implies that the $`s`$-invariant action is really of the form (2). Moreover this symmetry implies the stability of the theory under radiative corrections. It reads as follows:

$`t`$ $``$ $`t,\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ $``$ $`\chi (x,t),\chi (x,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t),`$ (12)
$`B(x,t)`$ $``$ $`H(x,t).`$
This discrete symmetry explicitly depends on the dynamics, due to the appearance of the classical equations of motion in $`H`$. Notice that the renormalization of vertices with only external lines of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`B`$ fields does not involve the ghosts, since the latter have retarded propagators and do not contribute to closed loops. This symmetry completely justifies the expression (2) of the action. We also see that the equations of motion (6) are invariant under the symmetry (2).

## 3 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

For theories with a gauge symmetry, quantization with a ghost time involves an additional subtlety. The topological symmetry in five dimension must be disentangled from the gauge symmetry. This problem has been recently solved by introducing a second BRST symmetry $`w`$ which anticommutes with $`s`$. The theory is then defined as being invariant under both $`s`$ and $`w`$. Due to the topological character of the $`s`$-symmetry, the cohomology of $`s`$ is empty. The observables are defined from the cohomology of $`w`$. The full complement of fields necessary to realize both symmetries is described in  for the Yang–Mills theory.

This general construction should work also in the supersymmetric case. Technical difficulties however arise and the subject deserves a separate publication . In the following, we restrict ourselves to present the basic features in the simpler SQED case and sketch the basic problems.

The supersymmetric Maxwell field is described by a real superfield $`V`$ of dimension 0, with a chiral gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ acting by $`VV+i(\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$. The gauge invariant field strength is the chiral superfield $`W_\alpha =\overline{D}^2D_\alpha V`$ and its complex conjugate $`\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$. The equation of motion is $`D^\alpha W_\alpha =0`$, which is equivalent to $`D^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}=0`$ by the Bianchi identity and is of dimension 2. But we cannot simply combine the study of gauge theories of  with a superspace formalism. In superspace, the gauge parameter becomes a full multiplet, which gives algebraic gauge variations to some components of the superfield $`V`$. It is therefore necessary to verify that all the components of the superfield $`V`$, either physical fields or pure gauges, have well-defined propagators.

The topological BRST symmetry is similar to the one for the Wess-Zumino model, but with additional terms that account for the gauge symmetry in superspace. A chiral superfield $`X`$ must be introduced. It is the supersymmetric generalization of the gauge field component $`A_5`$ that plays a key role for the bulk quantization of the genuine Yang–Mills theory . We introduce chiral superfields $`C`$ and $`\varphi `$ as additional ghost companions to $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$:

$`sV`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V+i(C\overline{C}),s\mathrm{\Psi }_V=i(\varphi \overline{\varphi }),`$
$`sC`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ,s\varphi =0,`$
$`sX`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X+_tC,s\mathrm{\Psi }_X=_t\varphi .`$ (13)
We have the antighosts $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the corresponding Lagrange multipliers $`B_V`$ and $`\eta `$:

$$s\mathrm{\Psi }_V^{\mathrm{}}=B_V,sB_V=0,s\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}=\eta ,s\eta =0.$$
(14)
We suppose that the full $`w`$ and $`s`$ BRS-like symmetries will require additional fields, as they had to be introduced in the Yang–Mills case , but we do not go in these details now.

The Lagrangian will be written with the combination of the equations of motion and noise $`B_V+D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha V`$. We expect to obtain the following $`t`$-evolution of the superfield $`V`$:

$$_tV=B_V+D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha V+i(X\overline{X}).$$
(15)
The last term is necessary to determines the $`t`$ evolution over the supersymmetric generalization of gauge orbits and justifies the introduction of the superfield $`X`$.

Now comes the difficulty. The later equation must be derived from a Lagrangian that is built from the $`s`$-variation of the integral in superspace of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V^{\mathrm{}}`$ times the desired variation of $`V`$ given in eq. (15),

$$𝑑td^4xd^4\theta s\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_V^{\mathrm{}}(_tVD^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha V+B_Vi(X\overline{X}))\right).$$
(16)
Variation with respect to an unconstrained $`B_V`$ yields equation (15), but for them to have the correct physical interpretation, we need the linear constraint on $`B_V`$, $`D^2B_V=0`$ and $`\overline{D}^2B_V=0`$. Without such a constraint, the auxiliary $`D`$-field would eventually appear as a propagating scalar, since its equation of motion from eq. (15) is of the type $`_tD=\mathrm{}D+B_D`$, where $`B_D`$ is the scalar auxiliary component in $`B_V`$. In the constrained linear multiplet, this higher component of the field is equal to the Laplacian acting on the scalar field of the multiplet. Similarly, the equation of motion of the photino would be $`_t\lambda =\mathrm{}\lambda +B_\lambda `$. The constraint on $`B_V`$ insures that $`B_\lambda `$ is equal to the Dirac operator acting on the fermionic component of the supermultiplet, which yields the correct interpretation. However, variation with respect to a constrained field would not produce eq. (15), but some superspace derivative of it. In this case, the equation would act only on the field strength $`W_\alpha `$, letting the gauge variant part of the field $`V`$ without a definite evolution.

These difficulties seem to be related to the fact that the detailed balance of degrees of freedom between fields of different types is not so simple to obtain as in the Wess–Zumino model. The effective number of degrees of freedom of the gauge field $`V`$ is reduced by the gauge symmetry, but this mechanism is not available for the antighost and noise. In fact, these are quite similar to the canonical momenta in Hamiltonian gauge field theory, which are constrained by Gauß’ law. The equivalent superfield constraint is satisfied by the field equations and defines a linear superfield. (Let us recall that a a linear superfield $`l`$ is a real superfield satisfying $`D^2l=0`$ and $`\overline{D}^2l=0`$; its independent components are a scalar, a Majorana spinor and a divergenceless vector field.) As in the quantization of the Hamiltonian gauge field theory, one would wish to express this constraint as the equation obtained from the variation of the time component of the connection. In superspace, the connection is not an ordinary vector and what play the role of the time-like component of the connection is a chiral superfield, which transforms as the time derivative of the chiral superfield gauge parameter.

## 4 Conclusion

In this letter, we have shown that the quantization with an additional time can be defined while maintaining supersymmetry on the example of the Wess–Zumino model. Since this method of quantization is expected to be more profound from a non perturbative point of view, this is a progress in view of further tests for supersymmetry. In a separate publication, we will explain how our result can be extended to the case of supersymmetric gauge theories.

Acknowledgements: We thank Luis Alvarez-Gaumé for very useful discussions concerning this work. The research of Laurent Baulieu was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40959.


text:
# New mechanism for the enhancement of 𝑠𝑑 dominance in interacting boson models

## Abstract

We introduce an exactly solvable model for interacting bosons that extend up to high spin and interact through a repulsive pairing force. The model exhibits a phase transition to a state with almost complete $`sd`$ dominance. The repulsive pairing interaction that underlies the model has a natural microscopic origin in the Pauli exclusion principle between contituent nucleons. As such, repulsive pairing between bosons seems to provide a new mechanism for the enhancement of $`sd`$ dominance, giving further support for the validity of the $`sd`$ Interacting Boson Model.

PACS numbers: 21.60.Fw, 21.60.Ev

The Interacting Boson Model (IBM) has been highly successful in describing and correlating the collective properties of medium mass and heavy nuclei throughout the periodic table. The model, though phenomenological in application, is deeply linked to the underlying nuclear shell model. The $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons of the model represent the lowest pair degrees of freedom of identical nucleons. The model has a $`U(6)`$ group structure and three posssible dynamical symmetry limits:

$$U(6)\{\begin{array}{c}U(5)O(5)O(3)\hfill \\ SU(3)O(3)\hfill \\ O(6)O(5)O(3)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
In each of the three limits, all of which have been realized to good approximation in nuclei, the hamiltonian can be expressed as a linear combination of the Casimir operators from the associated group chain. Most nuclei do not live at the symmetry limits, however. For a general nucleus, the hamiltonian can be expressed as a linear combination of the Casimir operators of all three group chains and the nucleus can be represented as a point inside a triangle with the three symmetry limits at the vertices .

The $`U(5)`$ chain was initially proposed to describe phenomenologically vibrational nuclei. Soon after it was provided a microscopic interpretation using a mapping procedure based on the Generalized Seniority approximation. The other two chains, describing axially deformed ($`SU(3)`$) and gamma-soft ($`O(6))`$ nuclei, are less well understood from a microscopic point of view.

As noted earlier, the $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons represent the lowest pair degrees of freedom of identical nucleons. There are of course other pairs as well, but they typically lie higher in energy. The key assumption of the IBM is that these other pair degrees of freedom can be ignored, except for their renormalized effects on operators in the $`sd`$ subspace. On the other hand, there has been no convincing microscopic demonstration of this effective decoupling except in vibrational nuclei.

In this letter, we point out a new mechanism for producing $`sd`$ dominance in boson models of nuclei. The mechanism has at its heart the interaction between alike bosons. We will show, by considering a new class of exactly-solvable boson models, that the effects of higher-spin bosons are suppressed because of the repulsion at short range of the boson-boson interaction. Furthermore, we claim that a short-range repulsive boson-boson interaction is ubiquitous as it is a direct reflection of the Pauli principle at the underlying nucleon level.

The models we consider involve even angular momentum bosons extending up to fairly high spin and interacting via a repulsive boson pairing interaction. As we will demonstrate, they can be solved exactly using a method introduced by Richardson in the 1960s and recently generalized to confined boson systems. The models are closely related to an exactly solvable model proposed to describe the transition between the $`O(6)`$ and $`U(5)`$ symmetry limits of the IBM. The primary difference is that the model of Ref. 6 was restricted to $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons, whereas ours accomodate higher-spin bosons as well.

The models we study are based on an $`SU(1,1)`$ group algebra, for which the generators are

$`K_l^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\left(a_{lm}^{}a_{lm}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{n}_l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_l,`$

$$K_l^+=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m}{}()^{lm}a_{lm}^{}a_{lm}^{}=\frac{1}{2}A_l^{},$$
(2)
where the operator $`a_{lm}^{}\left(a_{lm}\right)`$ creates (destroys) a boson with angular momentum $`lm`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l=2l+1`$. We have also defined operators $`\widehat{n}_l`$ and $`A_l^{}`$ which can be used instead of the generators $`K`$.

In terms of the $`SU(1,1)`$ generators (2), the most general hermitian one- and two-body operator that preserves the number of bosons (commutes with the number operator) can be written as

$`R_l=K_l^0+2g{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{X_{ll^{}}}{2}}[K_l^+K_l^{}^{}+K_l^{}K_l^{}^+]`$ (4)
$`Y_{ll^{}}K_l^0K_l^{}^0\},`$
where the matrices $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are at this point arbitrary.

We will consider the dynamics of an $`N`$ boson system in a Hilbert space that is classified by the product group space

$$SU(1,1)_s\times SU(1,1)_d\times \mathrm{}SU(1,1)_L,$$
(5)
where $`L`$ is the maximum (even) angular momentum permitted. In this space a model is fully integrable if the set of $`P=L/2+1`$ global operators $`R`$ commute with one another, viz.

$$[R_l,R_l^{}]=0.$$
(6)
We will concentrate in this work on a specific class of integrable models. These models correspond to the solution of (6) for which $`X_{ll^{}}=Y_{ll^{}}=\frac{1}{\eta _l\eta _l^{}}`$, where the $`\eta ^{}s`$ are a set of $`P`$ arbitrary real numbers. The $`R`$ operators of the models can be expressed more compactly as

$$R_l(g,\eta )=K_l^0+2g\underset{l^{}l}{}\frac{K_lK_l^{}}{\eta _l\eta _l^{}}.$$
(7)
It is straightforward to show that the specific linear combination $`H_{PM}=2_l\epsilon _lR_l(g,\epsilon )`$ of the $`R`$ operators (7) is precisely the standard pairing model (PM) hamiltonian

$$H_{PM}=\underset{l}{}\epsilon _l\widehat{n}_l+\frac{g}{2}\underset{ll^{}}{}A_l^{}A_l^{}+c,$$
(8)
where $`c`$ is a constant.

We now return to the set of $`R`$ operators (7) and search for their mutual eigenvectors. To do this, we follow the procedure introduced by Richardson for the pairing model hamiltonian (8). Namely, we consider the ansatz

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}B_\alpha ^{}|\nu ,B_\alpha ^{}=\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{2\eta _le_\alpha }K_l^+,$$
(9)
where $`M=(N\nu )/2`$ is the number of boson pairs coupled to zero angular momentum, and $`|\nu |\nu _s,\nu _d,\mathrm{},\nu _L`$ is a state with $`\nu _l`$ unpaired bosons with angular momentum $`l`$, defined by

$`K_l^0|\nu =k_l|\nu ,K_l^{}|\nu =0,`$

with $`k_l=\nu _l/2+\mathrm{\Omega }_l/4`$ and $`\nu =_l\nu _l`$.

Acting with the $`R`$ operators on the state (9) and considering the conditions that must be satisfied to fulfill the eigenvalue equation $`R_l|\mathrm{\Psi }=r_l|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we obtain a set of coupled equations for the unknown pair energies $`e_\alpha `$,

$$1+4g\underset{l}{}\frac{k_l}{2\eta _le_\nu }+4g\underset{\mu \nu }{}\frac{1}{e_\mu e_\nu }=0.$$
(10)
This set of equations was first derived by Richardson  when considering the eigenstates of the standard pairing model hamiltonian ($`\eta _l=\epsilon _l`$). He showed that there are as many solutions as states in the Hilbert space. Thus, the equations (10) define a complete set of eigenstates of the form (9).

The pair energies $`e_\mu `$ are always real for boson systems. The different states are classified by their configuration in the (weak-coupling) limit in which the pair energies $`e_\mu `$ tend to their unperturbed values $`2\eta _l`$. In particular, the ground state (GS) corresponds to all pair energies in the interval $`2\eta _s<e_\mu <2\eta _d`$. Excited states can be obtained either by breaking pairs or by promoting pairs to higher-energy intervals. As an example, the first excited state with the same seniority (i.e., the same $`\nu `$) as the GS will have $`M1`$ pair energies in the interval $`2\eta _s<e_\mu <2\eta _d`$ and one pair energy in the interval $`2\eta _d<e_\mu <2\eta _g`$. Coming back to the set of equations (10), we now see that it is a general condition for the common eigenstates of the mutually-commuting $`R`$ operators. Thus, it can be used for finding the eigenstates of any linear combination of the $`R`$ operators, not just the linear combination that corresponds to the pure pairing hamiltonian. Once we have solved (10) for the pair energies, we can readily obtain the eigenvalues of the corresponding $`R`$ operators from

$`r_l=k_l\left[14g{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _le_\nu }}2g{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}\left(l\right)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_l^{}}{\eta _l\eta _l^{}}}\right].`$

A general pairing hamiltonian can be expressed as a linear combination of the $`R`$ operators as

$$H=2\underset{l}{}\epsilon _lR_l(g,\eta ).$$
(11)
Replacing the $`K_l`$ operators in the $`R_l`$ operators appearing in (11) by the pair operators $`A_l`$ and the number operators $`\widehat{n}_l,`$ and adding and substracting the $`S(1,1)_l`$ Casimir operator, we obtain

$$H=A+\underset{l}{}ϵ_l\widehat{n}_l+\underset{ll^{}}{}V_{ll^{}}\left[A_l^{}A_l^{}\widehat{n}_l\widehat{n}_l^{}\right],$$
(12)
where

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}ϵ_l\mathrm{\Omega }_l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}V_{ll}\mathrm{\Omega }_l^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ll^{}}{}}V_{ll^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_l\mathrm{\Omega }_l^{},`$

$`ϵ_l=\epsilon _l+2V_{ll}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}V_{ll^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_l^{},V_{ll^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _l\epsilon _l^{}}{\eta _l\eta _l^{}}}.`$

As noted earlier, for $`\epsilon _l=\eta _l`$, we recover the standard PM hamiltonian (8). Restricting (12) to $`l=0`$ and $`2`$ bosons only, we obtain a hamiltonian very similar to that of Ref. 6, the only difference being that our hamiltonain has an additional monopole-monopole interaction term that can be traced to the term involving $`Y_{ll^{}}`$ in (4).

An important feature of our exactly solvable and integrable hamiltonian (12) is that it is not restricted to an $`sd`$ subspace but also permits higher angular momentum bosons. We will now make use of this property to study the effect of the inclusion of high-spin bosons on the $`sd`$ subspace dynamics.

Since there is virtually no information available on the coupling of the usual IBM space to higher-spin bosons, we will consider two sample scenarios. In the first (denoted I), we assume a constant pairing interaction, as arises for $`\eta _l=\epsilon _l`$. We also assume linear single-boson energies ($`\epsilon _l=l`$).

As is well known, a pure pairing interaction produces enhanced pair scattering to high-spin states. This is presumably a consequence of the extreme short-range nature of a pairing force, and is reflected in the fact that the effective pairing matrix element that connects a level with angular momentum $`l`$ to one with angular momentum $`l^{}`$ is $`V_{ll^{}}^{eff}=V_{ll^{}}\sqrt{(2l+1)(2l^{}+1)}.`$ This anomalous feature of a boson pairing force bears some similarity to the well-known pathology of a delta interaction in fermion theories. There, the unphysical behavior is typically overcome by introducing a cutoff in energy. In our boson context, we can likewise modify the interaction to get rid of its undesirable high-$`l`$ behavior. In particular, if we select the $`\eta ^{}s`$ according to $`\eta _l=l^2`$, the effective pairing matrix elements would scale as

$`V_{ll^{}}^{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{g\sqrt{\left(2l+1\right)\left(2l^{}+1\right)}}{2\left(l+l^{}\right)}}1,`$

and not produce enhanced scattering to high-spin pairs. In the second scenario (denoted II), we will make this assumption for the $`\eta `$’s and again assume linear single-boson energies ($`\epsilon _l=l`$). While we feel that model II is more realistic than model I, we will for completeness present results for both.

For both models I and II, as well as for any other general pairing model, the occupation probabilities can be readily obtained from the $`R`$ operators according to

$`\widehat{n}_l={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_l}{2}}+2R_l2g{\displaystyle \frac{R_l}{g}}.`$

Using the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, we can replace the $`R`$ operators by their eigenvalues to obtain an equation for the occupation numbers in terms of the derivatives of the pair energies with respect to the pairing strength $`g`$. Furthermore, taking the derivative of the Richardson equations (10) with respect to $`g`$ leads to a set of linear equations for the pair energy derivatives. In Fig. 1, we show the occupation probabilities for the GS of a system of $`10`$ bosons and an angular momentum cutoff of $`L=12`$ as a function of $`g`$. In the lower part of the figure we show the occupation probabilities for $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons, while in the upper part we show the summed occupation probabilities of those bosons with $`l>2`$, which we call the depletion of the IBM space. In both parts of the figure, the dashed line refers to model I and the solid line to model II.

It is apparent from the figure that the class of models we have considered displays a quantum phase transition from an $`s`$boson condensate (spherical) to a mixed state of $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons (“deformed”). The transition is softened by the finite number of bosons so that there is still some occupation probability of high-spin bosons. Two important features should be noted in these results. One is that the depletion increases in the spherical phase up to the phase transition and then stays almost constant in the deformed phase. The other is related to the choice of the model interaction. In the first scenario with the PM hamiltonian and linear single-boson energies the depletion is small but non-negligible; in the more physical second scenario the depletion is negligible and $`sd`$ dominance is almost complete.

The fact that these models all lead to a very small non-$`sd`$ content in their ground states is the key conclusion of this paper. It suggests that repulsive pairing is indeed a robust mechanism for reinforcing $`sd`$ dominance in boson models of nuclei.

The above analysis was for a system of 10 bosons. An important issue not addressed by those results concerns the dependence on the number of bosons. How many bosons are needed for the repulsive pairing interaction to be effective in suppressing the high-spin content of the low-lying states?

This question is addressed in Fig. 2, where we show the $`s`$ and $`d`$ occupations and the IBM depletion for the GS as a function of the number of boson pairs $`M`$ for the specific value of $`g=0.5`$. As is evident from Fig. 1, this choice of the pairing strength places the system within the deformed phase, where there is mixing of different bosons in the ground state.

The first point to note is that for small enough boson number, the depletion from the $`sd`$ subspace actually increases with increasing boson number. What is important, however, is that for both hamiltonians a critical boson number is soon reached after which the depletion decreases and $`sd`$ dominance gradually becomes better and better. The precise number of bosons required for this critical behavior to set in depends on the hamiltonian. It is 12 for the standard pairing interaction and 6 for the more realistic modified pairing interaction.

It is interesting to ask why in the presence of a repulsive pairing interaction there is a phase transition to a state of essentially pure $`sd`$ content.

As mentioned before, the GS solution of (10) for repulsive pairing corresponds to all pair energies in the interval $`2\eta _s<e_\mu <2\eta _d`$. This means that the pair operators in the Richardson ansatz (9) have one phase for $`s`$ boson pairs and the opposite phase for all other boson pairs. It is only when this set of phase relations is satisfied that the system can gain in energy from a repulsive pairing interaction. On the other hand, for two given boson degrees of freedom, the only way they can take advantage of a repulsive pairing force is by having opposite phases. Putting these two facts together, we see that only one of the non-$`s`$ boson degrees of freedom can correlate with the $`s`$ boson and produce a gain in energy in the presence of a repulsive pairing interaction. Clearly, this will be the $`d`$ boson since it has the lowest energy. The picture that emerges is that the $`d`$ boson mixes with the $`s`$ boson once the pairing interaction is strong enough to overcome the difference in single-boson energies, thus explaining the phase transition from $`SU(5)`$ to $`O(6)`$ in the IBM as a function of the pairing strength. Higher-spin bosons do not lead to significant further correlations, since they cannot have opposite phases to both the $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons that make up the $`O(6)`$ wave function.

At this point it is worth expanding briefly on the comment made earlier that a short-range repulsive interaction between composite objects is a natural consequence of the Pauli principle at the constituent level. That this is the case is well known both in molecular physics, where the short-range repulsion between the two hydrogen atoms in an $`H_2`$ molecule is the result of electron exchange, and in nuclear physics, where the nuclear force has a strong short-range repulsion due to quark exchange. It also arises naturally when boson mapping methods are applied to systems with spatial two-body correlations.

In this work, we have discussed a class of boson models involving a generalized repulsive pairing interaction for bosons with arbitrary even angular momenta. We have shown that these models are exactly solvable using a method originally developed by Richardson for more traditional pairing hamiltonians. We have applied this method to a system in which the boson degrees of freedom extend to a cutoff angular momentum significantly larger than 2. Nevertheless, we find that the ground state of the system is almost completely dominated by $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons, the effect of higher-spin bosons being strongly suppressed by the repulsive pairing interaction. Considering that a repulsive pairing interaction between bosons is a natural consequence of the Pauli principle at the nucleon level, these results provide further microscopic support for the validity of the interacting boson model in nuclear structure.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant # PHY-9970749, by the Spanish DGI under grant BFM2000-1320-C02-02, and by NATO under grant PST.CLG.977000.


text:
# Almost disjoint pure subgroups of the Baer-Specker group

## Abstract.

We prove in ZFC that the Baer-Specker group $`𝐙^\omega `$ has $`2^\mathrm{}_1`$ non-free pure subgroups of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$ which are almost disjoint: there is no non-free subgroup embeddable in any pair.

We thank the referee for constructive comments.  This research was partially supported by the German-Israel Foundation for Science; publication number 683.

In this short paper we prove the following result.

###### Theorem 1.

There exists a family $`𝐆=\{G_\alpha :\alpha <2^\mathrm{}_1\}`$ of non-isomorphic non-free pure subgroups of the Baer-Specker group $`𝐙^\omega `$ such that: (1.1) each $`G_\alpha `$ has cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$; (1.2) if $`\alpha <\beta `$, then $`G_\alpha `$ and $`G_\beta `$ are almost disjoint: if $`H`$ is isomorphic to subgroups of $`G_\alpha `$ and $`G_\beta `$, then $`H`$ is free. In particular, $`G_\alpha G_\beta `$ is free.

Recall that the Baer-Specker group $`𝐙^\omega `$ is the abelian group of functions from the natural numbers into the integers (see  and ). It contains the canonical pure free subgroup $`𝐙_\omega =_{n<\omega }𝐙`$. The group $`𝐙^\omega `$ is not $`\kappa `$-free for any cardinal $`\kappa >\mathrm{}_1`$, but it is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free, so the groups $`G_\alpha `$ in Theorem 1 are almost free.

Theorem 1 answers a question of the first author, and has its place in the line of recent research dealing with the lattice structure of the pure subgroups of $`𝐙^\omega `$ (see , , and ). For example, Irwin asked whether there is a subgroup of $`𝐙^\omega `$ with uncountable dual but no free summands of infinite rank. This problem was resolved recently by Corner and Goebel  who proved the following stronger fact.

###### Theorem 2.

 The Baer-Specker group $`𝐙^\omega `$ contains a pure subgroup $`G`$ whose endomorphism ring splits as End$`(G)=𝐙`$Fin$`(G)`$, with $`|G^{}|=2^\mathrm{}_0`$, where $`𝐙`$ is the scalar multiplication by integers and Fin$`(G)`$ is the ideal of all endomorphisms of $`G`$ of finite rank.

Quotient-equivalent and almost disjoint abelian groups have been studied by Eklof, Mekler and Shelah in , who showed that under various set-theoretic hypotheses, there exist families of maximal possible size of almost free abelian groups which are pairwise almost disjoint. Following , we say that two groups A and B are almost disjoint if whenever H is embeddable as a subgroup in both A and B, then H is free. Clearly if A and B are non-free and almost disjoint, then they are non-isomorphic in a very strong way. On the other hand, the intersection of two almost disjoint groups of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ need not necessarily be countable, so group-theoretic almost disjointness differs from its set-theoretic homonym. Theorem 1 establishes in ZFC that the Baer-Specker group contains large families of almost disjoint almost free non-free pure uncountable subgroups.

Our group and set-theoretic notation is standard and can be found in  and . For example, $`{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2`$ is the set of partial functions from $`\omega _1`$ into $`\{0,1\}`$ whose domains are at most countable; $`{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$ is the set of all functions from $`\omega _1`$ into $`\{0,1\}`$; for a regular cardinal $`\chi ,H(\chi )`$ is the family of all sets of hereditary cardinality less than $`\chi `$.

For a set $`AH(\chi )`$ for $`\chi `$ large enough, we write dcl$`{}_{(H(\chi ),,<)}{}^{}[A]`$ for the Skolem closure (Skolem hull) of $`A`$ in the structure $`(H(\chi ),,<)`$, where $`<`$ is a well-ordering of $`H(\chi )`$ (for details, see , 400-402, or , 165-170).

In proving Theorem 1, we shall appeal to the well-known Engelking-Karłowicz theorem from set-theoretic topology:

###### Theorem 3.

 If $`|Y|=\mu =\mu ^{<\sigma }<\lambda =|X|2^\mu `$, then there are functions $`h_\alpha :XY`$ for $`\alpha <\mu `$ such that for every partial function $`f`$ from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ of cardinality less than $`\sigma `$, for some $`\alpha <\mu ,fh_\alpha `$.

A self-contained short proof can be found in , 422-423. We shall need just the case when $`\mu =\sigma =\mathrm{}_0`$, and $`\lambda =2^\mu `$. Since it may be less familiar to algebraists, for convenience we deduce the fact to which we appeal later on (although it also appears as Corollary 3.17 in ).

###### Lemma 4.

There exists a family $`\{f_\eta :\eta ^{\omega _1>}2\}`$ such that $`f_\eta :\omega 𝐙`$, and whenever $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k`$ are distinct and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k𝐙`$, then $`\{i<\omega :(lk)(f_{\eta _l}(i)=a_l)\}`$ is infinite.

###### Proof.

Take $`\mu =\sigma =\mathrm{}_0,\lambda =2^\mu ,X={}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2`$ and $`Y=𝐙`$ in the Engelking-Karłowicz theorem. Since $`|^{\omega _1>}2|=2^\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`|𝐙|=\mathrm{}_0`$, we know that there exist functions $`h_n:{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2𝐙`$ for $`n<\omega `$ such that for every partial function $`f`$ from $`{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2`$ to $`𝐙`$ whose domain is finite, there is some $`m<\omega `$ such that $`fh_m`$. Let $`\{g_i:i<\omega \}`$ be an enumeration with infinitely many repetitions of each $`h_n`$ for $`n<\omega `$.

For each $`\eta ^{\omega _1>}2`$, define $`f_\eta :\omega 𝐙`$ by $`f_\eta (i)=g_i(\eta )`$. The family $`\{f_\eta :\eta ^{\omega _1>}2\}`$ is as required: for if $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k`$ are distinct and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k𝐙`$ are given, then the set $`f=(\eta _1,a_1),\mathrm{},(\eta _k,a_k)`$ is a finite function, so there is some $`m`$ such that $`fh_m`$ and it is now easy to see that $`\{i<\omega :(lk)(f_{\eta _l}(i)=a_l)\}`$ is infinite. ∎

A well-known algebraic fact will also be useful:

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`C`$ be a closed unbounded subset of the regular uncountable cardinal $`\kappa `$. Suppose that $`H`$ is an abelian group of cardinality $`\kappa `$, and $`H_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa `$ is a $`\kappa `$-filtration of $`H`$ (a continuous increasing chain of subgroups $`H_\alpha ,|H_\alpha |<\kappa `$, whose union is $`H`$). Let $`S=\{\alpha C:H/H_\alpha `$ is not $`\kappa `$-free$`\}`$. Then $`H`$ is free if and only if $`S`$ is non-stationary in $`\kappa `$.

###### Proof.

Well-known: see Proposition IV.1.7 in . ∎

We refer the reader to  for the definitions of the characteristic $`\chi (g)`$ and the type $`\tau (g)`$ of an element $`g`$ in a group.

Now we prove Theorem 1.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝐏`$ be the set of prime numbers, and let $`\{P_\eta :\eta ^{\omega _1>}2\}`$ be a family of almost disjoint (infinite) subsets of $`𝐏`$: $`\eta \nu ^{\omega _1>}2|P_\eta P_\nu |<\mathrm{}_0`$. By Lemma 4, there exists $`\{f_\eta :\eta ^{\omega _1>}2\}`$ such that $`f_\eta :\omega 𝐙`$, and if $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k`$ are distinct and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k𝐙`$, then $`\{i<\omega :(lk)(f_{\eta _l}(i)=a_l)\}`$ is infinite.

Define functions $`x_\eta `$ and $`x_{\eta ,j}`$ in $`𝐙^\omega `$ as follows. Let $`x_\eta =\pi _{\eta ,i}f_\eta (i):i<\omega `$ where $`\pi _{\eta ,i}=\mathrm{\Pi }\{pP_\eta :p<i\}`$, and let $`x_{\eta ,j}=\pi _{\eta ,i}^jf_\eta (i):i<\omega `$ where $`\pi _{\eta ,i}^j=\mathrm{\Pi }\{pP_\eta :jp<i\}`$ (=0 if $`ij`$). Note that $`x_\eta =x_{\eta ,0}`$.

For $`\eta ^{\omega _1}2`$, let $`G_\eta `$ be the subgroup of $`𝐙^\omega `$ generated by $`𝐙_\omega \{x_{\eta |\alpha ,j}:\alpha <\omega _1,0j<\omega \}`$.

We show that the family $`𝐆=\{G_\eta :\eta ^{\omega _1}2\}`$ satisfies the conclusions of Theorem 1. Claim 1: $`G_\eta `$ is pure in $`𝐙^\omega `$. Proof of Claim 1: Suppose that $`rx=g`$ for some $`x𝐙^\omega ,r𝐍`$, and $`gG_\eta `$. Say $`g=y+n_1x_{\eta |\alpha _1,j_1}+\mathrm{}+n_mx_{\eta |\alpha _m,j_m},n_l0`$, with $`y𝐙_\omega `$. Without loss of generality (adding more elements from $`𝐙_\omega `$ to the RHS if necessary), $`(lm)(j_l=j)`$ for some $`j<\omega ,j>r,y(i)=0(i>j)`$, and $`x(i)=0(ij)`$. Relabelling (if necessary), we may assume that $`\alpha _1<\mathrm{}<\alpha _m<\omega _1`$, and because $`x_{\eta |\alpha _l,j}(i)=0`$ if $`ij`$, we may write

$$rx=ry^{}+n_1x_{\eta |\alpha _1,j}+\mathrm{}+n_mx_{\eta |\alpha _m,j},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}y^{}𝐙_\omega .$$

Fix $`k\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Since $`\eta |\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\eta |\alpha _m`$ are distinct $`(\alpha _1<\mathrm{}<\alpha _m)`$, letting $`a_l=\delta _{kl}`$ (Kronecker delta), we know that the set $`N_k=\{i<\omega :(lk)(f_{\eta _l}(i)=0,f_{\eta _k}(i)=1)\}`$ is infinite. For large enough $`i`$ in this set (e.g. $`i>\mathrm{max}_{1lm}[\mathrm{min}(P_{\eta |\alpha _l}\backslash \{0,\mathrm{},j\})]),x_{\eta |\alpha _l,j}(i)`$ is zero if and only if $`lk`$. So for infinitely many $`i<\omega `$, for $`lk,x_{\eta |\alpha _l,j}(i)=0`$, and $`x_{\eta |\alpha _k,j}(i)0`$.

Unfix $`k`$. For each $`km`$, for infinitely many $`i(j,\omega )N_k,rx(i)=n_kx_{\eta |\alpha _k,j}(i)=n_k\mathrm{\Pi }\{pP_{\eta |\alpha _k}:jp<i\}`$. Since $`r<j`$, we must have $`rs_k=n_k`$ for some $`s_k`$ in $`𝐙`$, and therefore $`x=y^{}+s_1x_{\eta |\alpha _1,j}+\mathrm{}+s_mx_{\eta |\alpha _m,j}G_\eta (G_\eta `$ is torsion-free). Hence $`G_\eta `$ is pure in $`𝐙^\omega `$, which establishes Claim 1. Claim 2: $`G_\eta `$ has cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$, so (1.1) holds. Proof of Claim 2: If $`\xi \zeta ^{\omega _1>}2`$, then for some $`j<\omega ,P_\xi P_\zeta j`$. Pick $`p,q>j`$ with $`pP_\xi `$ and $`qP_\zeta `$; so the set $`B=\{i<\omega :f_\xi (i)=p`$ and $`f_\zeta (i)=q\}`$ is infinite, and if $`iB`$ is bigger than max$`\{j,p,q\}`$, then $`x_{\xi ,j}(i)x_{\zeta ,j}(i)`$, since $`x_{\xi ,j}(i)`$ is non-zero and divisible by $`p^2`$ but by no prime in $`P_\zeta `$, and $`x_{\zeta ,j}(i)`$ is non-zero and divisible by $`q^2`$ but by no prime in $`P_\xi `$. It follows that $`G_\eta `$ has cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$. After this observation, a second’s reflection on the element types of $`G_\eta `$ and $`G_\nu `$ (for $`\eta \nu `$) should convince the reader that the groups are neither isomorphic nor free. Claim 3: (1.2) holds: if $`\eta _1\eta _2^{\omega _1}2`$, then $`G_{\eta _1}`$ and $`G_{\eta _2}`$ are almost disjoint. Proof of Claim 3: Suppose (towards a contradiction) that for some $`\eta _1\eta _2^{\omega _1}2`$, for some non-free abelian group $`H`$, there exist isomorphisms $`\phi _l:H`$ range$`(\phi _l)G_{\eta _l},l=1,2`$. Since $`G_{\eta _l}`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free, $`H`$ must have cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Let $`H_i:i<\omega _1`$ be an $`\omega _1`$-filtration of $`H`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that each $`H_i`$ is pure in $`H`$, so that $`H/H_i`$ is torsion-free.

Let $`G_{\eta ,i}=𝐙_\omega \{x_{\eta |\beta ,j}:j<\omega ,\beta <i\}`$ for $`i<\omega _1`$ and $`\eta \{\eta _1,\eta _2\}`$.

Note that $`G_{\eta ,i}:i<\omega _1`$ is a $`\omega _1`$-filtration of $`G_\eta `$, since it is increasing and continuous with union $`G_\eta `$, and each $`G_{\eta ,i}`$ is countable. For large enough $`\chi `$, the set $`C`$ defined by $`\{\delta <\omega _1:\mathrm{dcl}_{(H(\chi ),,<)}[\delta \{G_{\eta _1},G_{\eta _2},\{x_\nu ,f_\nu :\nu ^{\omega _1>}2\},\eta _1,\eta _2,\phi _1,\phi _2,\{H_i:i<\omega _1\}\}]\omega _1=\delta \}`$ is a club of $`\omega _1`$ (well-known, or see , 401). Note that if $`\delta C`$, then $`\phi _l`$ maps $`H_\delta `$ into $`G_{\eta _l,\delta }`$. Since $`H`$ is not free, it follows by Lemma 5 that $`S=\{\delta C:H/H_\delta `$ is not $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free$`\}`$ is stationary. By Pontryagin’s Criterion, for each $`\delta S,H/H_\delta `$ has a non-free (torsion-free) subgroup $`K_\delta /H_\delta `$ of finite rank $`n_\delta +1`$ such that every subgroup of $`K_\delta /H_\delta `$ of rank less than $`n_\delta +1`$ is free. Let $`H_\delta ^+/H_\delta `$ be a pure subgroup of $`K_\delta /H_\delta `$ of rank $`n_\delta `$. Then $`H_\delta ^+/H_\delta `$ is free with basis $`y_0+H_\delta ,\mathrm{},y_{n_\delta 1}+H_\delta `$ say. So $`K_\delta /H_\delta ^+(K_\delta /H_\delta )/(H_\delta ^+/H_\delta )`$ is a torsion-free rank-1 group which is not free, and hence there is a non-zero element $`y_{n_\delta }+H_\delta ^+`$ which is divisible in $`K_\delta /H_\delta ^+`$ by infinitely many natural numbers. Call this set of natural numbers $`A`$.

For $`l=1,2`$, for large enough $`j_l()<\omega `$, and $`\beta _{0}^l<\mathrm{}<\beta _{k_l}^l<\omega _1,\phi _l(y_m)`$ is an element of the subgroup of $`G_{\eta _l}`$ generated by $`G_{\eta _l,\delta }\{x_{\eta _l|\beta _{0}^l,j_l()},\mathrm{},x_{\eta _l|\beta _{k_l}^l,j_l()}\}`$ for all $`mn_\delta `$.

Taking large enough $`\delta S`$, we may assume that min$`\{\alpha :\eta _1|\alpha \eta _2|\alpha \}<\beta _{0}^l,l=1,2`$. Since $`\delta C`$, we can show the following claims: $`()_1`$: The set $`A`$ does not contain infinitely many powers of one prime. $`()_2`$: The set $`Q=(𝐏A)P_{\eta _l|\beta _{0}^l}\mathrm{}P_{\eta _l|\beta _{k_l}^l}`$.

Now $`()_1`$ is true because non-zero sums of elements in $`G_{\eta _l,\delta }\{x_{\eta _l|\beta _{0}^l,j_l()},\mathrm{},x_{\eta _l|\beta _{k_l}^l,j_l()}\}`$ are divisible by at most finitely many powers of any given prime (by the definition of the elements $`x_{\eta _l|\beta ,j})`$. Note that $`\chi (y_{n_\delta }+H_\delta ^+)=_{\{yy_{n_\delta }+H_\delta ^+\}}\chi (y)cup_{\{yy_{n_\delta }+H_\delta ^+\}}\chi (\phi _l(y))`$, where the characteristics are taken relative to $`K_\delta /H_\delta ^+`$, $`K_\delta `$ and $`G_{\eta _l,\delta }\{x_{\eta _l|\beta _{0}^l,j_l()},\mathrm{},x_{\eta _l|\beta _{k_l}^l,j_l()}\}`$ respectively. Hence $`()_1`$ holds. By $`()_1`$, since $`A`$ is infinite, the set $`Q=𝐏A`$ is infinite.

Also, the same characteristic inequality implies that $`QP_{\eta _l|\beta _{0}^l}\mathrm{}P_{\eta _l|\beta _{k_l}^l}`$. So $`()_2`$ is true. Hence, $`Q_{l=1,2}(_{kk_l}P_{\eta _l|\beta _k^l})`$ which is finite (since the family $`\{P_\eta :\eta ^{\omega _1>}2\}`$ is almost disjoint). This is a contradiction, and so Claim 3 follows, completing the proof of Theorem 1. ∎

###### Corollary 6.

Every non-slender $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free abelian group $`G`$ has a family $`\{G_\alpha :\alpha <2^\mathrm{}_1\}`$ of non-free subgroups such that: 1. each $`G_\alpha `$ is almost free of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$; 2. if $`\alpha <\beta `$, then $`G_\alpha `$ and $`G_\beta `$ are almost disjoint.

###### Proof.

By Nunke’s characterisation of slender groups (see Corollary IX.2.5 in  for example), $`G`$ must contain a copy of the Baer-Specker group. ∎

Remark: For the same reason, the corollary is true for any non-slender cotorsion-free abelian group.